Sunday, April 7, 2013

SEE HOW THE ACTIVISTS HAVE CONDEMNED THESE DOGS, THEY DON'T CARE

UPDATE: Julie Hall, a reporter with Inside Bainbridge news has written a piece where she personally visited this facility. Still, after reading it, there is no comfort for this person. When animals are still being euthanized for space, is this the best use of space? I only am publishing this in the interest of fairness.

http://www.insidebainbridge.com/2013/04/16/steve-markwell-and-his-death-row-dogs-in-crisis-are-they-worth-rescuing-2/


This is sickening. To know that these dogs were pulled from Devore, shipped in crates for a thousand miles, and this is how they end up. This is the face of the Devore TERRORISTS.

Olympic Animal Sanctuary is a facility for "dangerous dogs". A dog's life at the sanctuary is portrayed as wonderful, with the dogs residing there being well cared for, yet there are no regular paid staff or volunteers caring for the dogs.

There are approximately 160 dogs living in a 5,000+ sq. ft. facility (with unfinished addition) located on 3/4 acre. There are only three fenced yards, and generally they have a dog/s living in them. The facility is located in Forks, Washington.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=396198177153864&set=pb.396180077155674.-2207520000.1365382518&type=3&theater

"OCTOBER 2012 - DEVORE SHEPHERDS AND OTHERS IN AN UPSTAIRS ROOM. ONLY ACCESS IS THROUGH AN OCCUPIED KENNEL AND THROUGH A SMALL MAZE OF KENNEL AND CRATED DOGS."

Even a Facebook Page to save these Devore dogs that were "saved" by the Devore activists. https://www.facebook.com/SavingTheDdiDevoreShepherds

Look at the pictures carefully, I can't post any here because they are propriety. According to one comment, there should be 11 Devore shepherds at this horrible place. Then the question: WHERE ARE OUR DDI (DOGS DAY INN) DOGS THAT PEOPLE FOUGHT AND TRIED SO HARD TO SAVE?

So I assume that saving a dog only means pulling it from the shelter. Doesn't mean a home check, research or a personal visit, just means ship them off in a damn UHaul to places like this. Then pat yourself on the back for being such a good Savior. Yes, I'm mad. 






18 comments:


  1. Being required to release animals to any 501c3 animal "rescue" is totally unacceptable.

    The Hayden Bill allows animal suffering and neglect.

    Amend the horrible Hayden Bill now.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Cease all release of animals to any rescue group unless the "rescue" has been approved by shelter management.

    Approved means a monthly, unannounced inspection of all foster homes and/or the facility; a list of all physical addresses (not a P.O. Box); a list of those people who adopted (the adopting party would acknowledge and agree that a condition of adopting a shelter animal from a rescue would be that their information would be turned in to the shelter.)

    Since the rescues get the animals for free, and since they sell them from $150 - $300, part of the conditions of "rescuing" animals from the shelter would be to pay a monthly fee which would help cover the expense of monthly inspections.

    Those in positions of authority now know the truth. Do not sit idly by, knowing the Hayden Bill allows cruelty and neglect of innocent animals. You have the power to create positive change.

    ReplyDelete


  3. Animals come to the shelter.

    Rescue groups "rescue" animals from the shelter so the animals will not be euthanized.

    Some rescue groups hoard animals and keep them in filthy conditions where the animals become sick, suffer, and die.

    But...
    they were not euthanized....

    Something is wrong with this picture.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Who is the rescue/transporter/broker who dumped these dogs in Washington?

    Under whose 501c3 were they pulled? All shelters need to know and the rescue/transporter's privileges for pulling/exporting animals should be revoked.

    Who is the rescue/transporter/broker that could pull these animals and then have them dumped and not care or be concerned about their safety.


    ReplyDelete



  5. This is truly making money off the suffering of animals: the transporter gets paid $35 - $50 a dog; OAS and any rescue get money from chip-ins.

    Can't the shelter management or supervisors who are over animal control do something about this?

    How awful for the people who work at shelters to have to load up 30,40, 50 animals in a van or U Haul, not knowing what will happen to them.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Can shelter management or supervisors that oversee the shelter make some rules and regulations that would prevent shelter animals ending up with rescues that treat them in such a neglectful manner?

    This is really not right.

    How can this type of situation be prevented from happening again?

    ReplyDelete
  7. this is the northwest version of spindletop. every region or state has at least one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As someone who wants to adopt out-of-state I feel several things are in place for me to prove I am worthy as a private adopter, but perhaps not for rescues/sanctuaries themselves. It seems non-profit status is just something we can all apply for and get without much effort or enforcement/follow-up.

    In private adoption, the rescue AND the transporter should require personal references and one from a vet and vice-versa. While I suppose a person with bad intent could get their personal references from just about anyone, I would hope the vet would provide the best reference (care and vaccination of pets, conditions of other pets etc).

    I like the above comment about inspections...but there is already a problem with not having enough people to carry out animal control duties. So then it falls to taxpayers, rescues etc.

    You know who never seems to have to pay? Breeders. Don't know how to fix that...just something that bothers me. Maybe breeders could be charged a Sanctuary fee. So if your breed ends up in rescues/sanctuaries/shelters then you have to pay a fee on a scale based on breed for the puppies you sell. Maybe that would slow down breeders...but realistically not.

    It seems the costs seem to always end up on the adopter. Paying $300-500 (or more) for pets would be cost prohibitive for me to adopt a dog through a rescue or shelter. While I can't prove it here in the comments section, I am a normal, loving pet owner whose animals receive vet care, vaccinations, and a happy home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with private adoptions out of state if all requirements are met. Include asking the receiving end animal control about someone too. License check for the address, etc.

      Inspections - rethink rescue. Rescues need to work more with shelters not particularly in terms of pulling and adoptions. Volunteers could do inspections, take pictures, let AC see and read the report and make determinations.

      Breeding needs to be regulated as far as permitting. If a particular breed is filling the shelters, then no permits to breed are issued. Permit numbers should be required on all advertising for animals.

      Look at Devore's adoption fees, much less than you quote. And that includes s/n, and all vaccinations except rabies. It's a damn good deal.

      Delete
    2. Forgot the microchip upon adoption too. Even better deal.

      Delete
  9. I really enjoy your blog. I think it is a much needed perspective.

    I was quoting a comment above about rescue fees...about charging rescues to pull dogs or something along those lines. They were talking about charging rescues hundreds in fees. I was thinking these would be passed on to the adopters and then they would jack the price up from rescues even higher. Maybe I misinterpreted what they meant/wrote.

    I think adoption fees in my state are actually a bit more than Devore ($100 in my state depending on the place). I agree the fees I saw for Devore are amazing! That is what makes the euth rate pretty damned depressing.

    My understanding is Devore wasn't/isn't big on volunteers. Is that true? All of my locals shelters (2 shelters and animal control) ask for volunteers for all sorts of roles, including dog training, transport, special events etc. A healthy volunteer program would work wonders.

    I am disturbed by how much "hate" people spew on FB and blogs. If someone abuses a dog, it outrages me, too. But the comments about maiming, torturing, violence toward people are also scary. I know people are venting, but still. Condemning everyone who wants to adopt out of state or all rescues isn't helpful either. (Not that you have, but let's face it, some people are all or nothing).

    It seems we all want what is best for these animals and have good ideas for what would help. I don't mean to be all sappy...but I wish humans could work together toward this end goal...until we do, (and I don't think we ever will) nothing will really change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the compliment. There are two sides to every story always. I find that for the most part the layman doesn't know about how a shelter is required to operate.

      San Bernardino County is one of the lowest in income and educational levels, that always makes a difference in shelters. Also, keep in mind that the county which Devore covers is over 22,000 sq. miles, bigger than some 4 states on the East Coast. There are also about 14 other public shelters within the county, not owned by the County. So people have local shelters to adopt from, the only choice is not Devore.

      Volunteers, aw yes, a sore spot. Devore is so small that you have to turn sideways when you meet another person in the hallway. No offices to speak of, just no room for volunteers. Now, the shelter has the prison in back of it, 5 minutes away. The inmates doing the kennels and there is always a full staff. Not like volunteers who can call in sick. Volunteers are welcome to help with the 48 outside adoption events held every year with the adoption transport trailer.

      As stated I have no problems with certain transporting. But it has become an industry that needs regulation. I have not condemned all those out of state, I have condemned the bad decisions made by some.

      Delete
  10. Steve Markwell, they wrote about him on the dogsbite blog I think years ago. He was taking in dogs that had attacked people to avoid getting them listed as dangerous and he couldn't even handle them. One of them broke his arm or bit him badly or something and he had his arm in a sling and was supposed to be caring for the dogs. He didn't even have kennels for these dogs. They were tied up outside. People were remarking it was cruel for the dogs. Oh this guy has history! However he is the No Kill person who discussed visting Best Friends and wrote about how they were reducing the number of dogs at the sanctuary and had disappeared about 500 at least. Even with cajillions of dollars they couldn't handle large numbers of dogs! He said back then, I think someone said, he knew he had too many and that it was a mistake but he has continued to take them. His problems aren't recent problems. Look at how these poor dogs are living! In puppy mill style pens with only a couple of people there who can't even walk them. This is cruelty, and this "advisory board" seems to be willing to just expand this cruelty. What is wrong with these women? This is like the cat lady disease. They can't even see what is wrong with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree---he had no credentials at all....simply told people that he was an expert....and then tied the animals outside.
      (after taking all the fees for each)
      Members of the advisory board are seeing the truth and jumping overboard....

      Delete
  11. The problem with volunteers is that they are here today, gone tomorrow (or show up irregularly), require enormous amounts of supervision and time (or they do things like give the wrong treatment to the wrong dog, or put an aggressive dog in with another dog and attacks happens) carry a liability danger, and can't be counted on to be a strong part of any shelter, especially one that is very busy. At busy animal control shelters, volunteers are a drain away from the animals.

    Winograd touts this volunteer thing, but that is the usual response from people who have never worked a shelter (which other than his brief failed stint at Tompkins county, he never has, never mind the fsact that he's lying for the breeders) and don't understand that volunteers are never more than a sideline and often detract. There are as many negatives to volunteers as plueses, possibly more negatives, and yes, I have extensive experience with many volunteer programs)

    As for the wish that "humans work together" unfortunately as long as breeder and farm financial interests are involved in animal care (like Winograd No Kill and its breeders, or breeders on animal control advisory boards, or the pit bull breeders using shelters and rescue to pimp their product and be protected)) there will never be anything other than war because the business industries have been acting this way for a long time to protect and expand their money concerns. They just use the animals as collateral. Anyone who truly is concerned about animals is their enemy, despite the sweet lies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Imagine.....if 1% of the people on line with an opinion....were to actually offer to help...........how much better it would be than bashing those who are trying to do some good....depite the obstacles............just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  13. Julie Hall has written another article---she is obviously a friend of Markwell's....but even she could not hide the fact that members of the "newly formed" advisory board is already jumping ship!
    http://www.insidebainbridge.com/2013/05/29/part-3-what-now-for-olympic-animal-sanctuarys-unadoptable-dogs/

    ReplyDelete
  14. The advisory board is no longer helping him and quit and severed all ties to him. These were his own supporters who couldn't get him to improve conditions. Heaven help these dogs that are prisoners. All the usual suspects that support abuse still support him, the no kill crazies who have never even been to his place, the breeders. They think this kind of abuse is fine.

    ReplyDelete

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