Wednesday, February 20, 2013


In the past few days, this particular story is going viral on the internet. Some think it is a warm, fuzzy story. You can decide what you think once you hear the WHOLE story.

This was posted on Facebook.

Maria Sanchez advocate for animals and photographer who assists one of the highest kill shelters in the Country with saving countless lives by photographing stray and abandoned animals so they could be adopted or rescued, witnessed a man weeping next to his dog on February 16, 2013 at the San Bernardino (CITY) Animal Shelter. With a wholesome heart and intrigued by the passion he had for his beloved pet, she sat observing the weeping man. Petting the beloved pit bull terrier’s head with tears flowing, she overheard a conversation with how the dog ended up in the shelter.
It appeared the man, now known by the first name of
Christopher (this is not his real name as it turns out) had a few outstanding speeding tickets (a few? plus a citation for letting his dog run loose and theft of recycled goods which is against municipal code in SB)  and had been arrested by Officer Martinez. Desolate and homeless (remember this, he is homeless according to what he told the arresting officer) the arresting officer confiscated the dog and took him to the San Bernardino animal shelter reporting that he was a stray. (knowing that he already had charges for an unlicensed dog and for running loose, I would venture to say he himself said it was a stray to avoid further charges. He was just trying to help it.) The officer clearly knew the owner of the dog was ‘Christopher’, (fake name, the officer isn't a mind reader) so why take the dog to a high-kill shelter? Leaving his best-friend for only a little bit of time; he went to the front counter asking how he could save his dog. They explained that in order for him to get his dog back it would cost approximately $ 290.00. (And that would include his license which he failed to get previously) Christopher (fake name) pulled $ 6.00 from his pocket and asked if that could be applied toward his deposit, cordially the young woman at the counter told him to keep the money and he had until the 20th to pay 50% of the dog’s bill. Eyes red from tears and a broken heart, he told her he would be back on the 20th for his dog. Helpless he went back to his best friend who is currently behind bars, talking to him and the dog could not understand why his owner had to leave him there. Walking over to the gentleman, Maria handed him a handful treats for his dog, took additional pictures of additional stray animals and then had to go back to work so she could end her day. Haunted by the man and his dog, she posted it on Facebook and the out pour of love and compassion for the stranger and his dog began to go viral. (But not "haunted" enough to have paid the fees or pulled the dog if she is a rescue) In a matter of twenty-four hours, pledges exceeded the necessary means to get the dog out of the shelter. Covering his companion’s neuter, shots, antibiotics, leash, collar and dog food. Christopher (fake name) and his best friend have been offered a place to lay their head, job and he also has gotten a marriage proposal (now this really shows the ridiculousness of these activists). ID#441782 at San Bernardino Animal Shelter has an owner (who gave a fake name) and he belongs to a man who had a heart to cry and the courage to fight for his dog. Christopher (fake name) will be returning to San Bernardino Animal Shelter on February 20, 2013. The police department has also agreed to provide the shelter with Christopher’s (fake name) information so he can be reunited with his dog. Relentlessly Maria drove around for hours searching and asking about Christopher (boy did she waste her time, fake name), hanging flyers and spreading the word that he will be able to get his dog back. What we do know is Christopher (fake name) promised to be back on February 20th and many are left to wonder if that is what he had been whispering in his dog’s ear.
Now doesn't that just break your heart? First of all, the man is David Vincent Thomas, not Christopher. Could he prove per California law that is he the owner? How when he is giving a fake name to the officer? How can the officer say the dog is owned when Thomas is giving a fake name, has nothing in the way of paperwork (license) to show he is the owner. 

Superior court records show that Mr. Thomas evidently doesn't have a drivers license, he gave a fake name to the shelter too. California law requires you prove ownership. He had no license records, no shot records, no driver license, so how is he to prove ownership. For all anyone knows, the dog was indeed a stray.

Superior court records show that Mr. Thomas has been convicted before of having an illegal substance. This arrest also involved drugs. Court records show a pattern of irresponsibility when it comes to vehicles with many active cases pending.

The San Bernardino Sun ran an article of how this went viral and how $2000 was collected in a short period of time.

Police said they followed protocol in having animal control officers take the dog to the shelter because Thomas and a woman he was with were both arrested and no one was available to take the animal.
Police Lt. Paul Williams said Thomas was suspected of possessing drugs for sale. Thomas claims he was arrested because he failed to show up to court for speeding tickets.
"He wasn't arrested for speeding tickets," Williams said. "He was arrested for a felony crime."
Thomas said he had marijuana when he was arrested, but he showed reporters paperwork on Tuesday indicating he's a medical marijuana patient.

Now here it is a man who shows a continuing pattern of irresponsibility, reported as homeless, and obviously no money to adequately sustain himself or his dog. Yet, the No Kill activists want to give him back his dog plus this money. Will he take the money and put it to good use or take the money and buy more drugs? The question to ask is what is in the best interest of this dog. As usual these No Kill activists think any home is better than no home, even those homes where cruelty and neglect abound. This resonates from No Kill each time a major hoarder or cruel sanctuary is discovered. Same in this case, these activists aren't seeking the best for this dog, they are using it as a photo op, a means to condemn the police and the shelter. They need to be condemning this type of "owner". I dare say that this man will probably serve time. What happens to his dog then? Do these activists think in those terms? I feel for this dog, it deserves better.  


  1. This was sent to me as a comment from a facebook page.

    He would have been better off sticking with the stray story and adopted the dog out. Always costs less that way. Sanchez should have informed him of the least costly way of getting the dog out. I have pulled that before for owners. Had he adopted the dog it would have been $55 and that includes microchipping. Plus s/n surgery of $42-80 for males and $54-105 for females. Probably a license fee if he resides in the city of $20. Now when the story first broke the fee to reclaim was at $290 and adding up everyday. I think it is about $15 a day. When he reclaims, if he claims he is a resident, then he has to get the dog altered, plus license. That in addition to his citations he has for no license and running at large, well it starts to add up. That is why Sanchez could have saved him a lot of trouble and money if she had advised him to wait, not claim the dog, but adopt it out instead. Can you see where she took advantage and didn't do the best thing for this man or for the dog? She could have gotten the dog out for at the most well under $200 whereas now with the wait the fees are probably closer to $400 or more. Plus he has to pay full price for altering now.


  2. What happened to people's unused donations?


    2. Oh dear, obviously a friend wants to prove that the funds were used appropriately. Sorry, that doesn't fly here. If there were a non profit involved, they would lose their status over something like this. Why was she buying vaccines, the shelter purchases their own vaccines. It is considered fraud to solicit donations for one thing and then apply it to another. People contributed to one, but then their donation was used for another? Maria is making all those in the humane community look bad to officials and the public. She is totally clueless as to how much harm she is doing with her antics.

  3. He may have been better off to adopt the dog, IF the shelter would have adopted to him. Our shelter won't adopt to anybody without proof of residence.

    1. I do know that Maria and the others have complained about the reclaim fees. Another of them, Sharon Gilbert, started this when she couldn't pay for her six dogs that were impounded when she tried to, again, commit suicide. Sharon Gilbert writes about Devore as an Examiner writer and she is nasty about it. Now this woman had 6 dogs, over the household limit by law, when she did her selfish act, and her beloved dogs ended up in the very shelter she condemned. Talk about love.

      Devore worked with this woman on the fees, reducing all they could. Still she didn't have the money and her dogs took up space for days. Other dogs died as a result of her taking up that space. Then, as nice as Devore was, holding her dogs extra time, working to reduce the fees, this B***H has the nerve to condemn Devore. She should have been condemning herself, she put them there.

      So I know from this incident, the activists have been campaigning about reclaim fees. I think this was part of their drama about it. She didn't want to give him information that would have made it easier for him to get his dog and FOR A LOT LESS MONEY. She deliberately used this as a photo op instead.

    2. These well meaning rescue angels never think of what is good for the long term. The new apartment...did it accept pets, did the landlord want to be responsible for a risky breed of dog, was there a suitable enclosure? Apparently, they think it's quite ok for a homeless man to have a pit bull, or any dog at all. How cruel.

      Then they don't do their homework, as it turns out this man didn't even give his correct name, and has a criminal record for drugs. Turns out, he let his high risk dog run amok and violated the leash law. The City shelter should not be giving any dog to this grifter.

      All of these well meaning people from far away don't have a clue what those who live in San Bernardino have to deal with, the homeless, and the problems are multiplied when homeless people have high risk dogs.

  4. idiots advocating for psychopaths. what a perfect relationship.

    * the high reclaim fees should be higher to not only punish idiots but for an added incentive to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

  5. So the read I am getting from this is that this Maria person stalks the shelter and loiters around, does nothing but seizes upon opportunities to raise money through concocted sob stories?

    And the money goes to the big unknown in her personal accounts?

    Is that what is going on?

    The taxpayers should not be getting used as a private business opportunity and shouldn't police be dealing with this woman?

    This doesn't seem to be about the animals. It seems to be about a personal business.

    Also taxpayers should not be spending money paying the bills for irresponsible, negligent peoople who do things like try to commit suicide and abadon their dogs. It isn't the shleter getting ripped off, but it is the taxpayers.

    Where are the social workers?

  6. Boy, did you get that right!

    The fringe No Kill terrorists stalk the shelters, carrying their signs, video camera, camera and tape recorder, ready to photograph and/or record any opportunity to raise money through concocted sob stories.

    You can read all about them on so many Facebook pages - all collecting money from Chip-ins. What a way to make a living. Wonder how much they get; wonder how much they report to the IRS.

    A personal business? That's transports. The import/export/relocation business.


Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.