Tuesday, August 6, 2013


The County of San Bernardino entered into animal shelter agreements with the Town of Apple Valley, Town of Yucca Valley, City of 29 Palms, Barstow Humane, City of Ridgecrest, and Inland Valley Humane. The County is larger than nine (9) states in the U.S. and contracts with shelters in outlining areas of the County to make it easier for pet owners to locate their lost pets.  It is expected that the activists will probably concentrate themselves on these contact shelters rather than on Devore, since they have failed so miserably in their efforts to degrade Devore. 

A recent facebook post shows the same old stories, same old accusations, just a different name. I do have a question, if $315 were already raised, why didn't someone take this dog out? It was more than enough to adopt it. The dog was there 14 days, well beyond the hold time by law. The "rescuers" left the dog there until it was getting sick. Shades of Zephyr in Carson.

And this poster blames "Donna" for the dog being PTS. How does that figure? Where was the rescue after 14 days? Devore held onto this dog well beyond the legal hold time, you would think the rescuer would be grateful for this extra time for her to get it together.

Along with these accusations comes the plea for more donations.

"In his honor, I would like to have anyone that donated (for the one left to be PTS) to put on another dog that we will get out of a shelter (they didn't take the dead one out with $315), in fact a rescue group has said they will take 2 Labs or mixes, in honor of the 4 month Lab from Apple Valley, and now Stanley from Apple Valley."

The shelter is not for private boarding, 14 days is ample time to get a dog out. The rescuer is the one who failed the dogs, not the shelter. Raising money when a pet is still in the shelter seems unethical to me. What do you think?


1 comment:

  1. The activist said they did not want the County to contract with Dogs Day Inn, because those dogs were brought to the Devore Shelter after no owners had shown up to claim them. So the County contracted with the Town of Apple Valley. The activist cheered at their victory. Now they are complaining about Apple Valley.

    What would the activist like? If the County dropped all of sheltering contracts, do you think someone who as lost a dog in Barstow, Apple Valley, Ridgecrest, Yucca Valley, or 29Palms would drive more than 1 time to look for their pet, because they would be coming all the way to Devore? Have the considered the travel distance from those areas of the County to a 'main shelter'? The County has proposed replacing the Devore shelter. Where should the new shelter be located? Apple Valley, Barstow, Ridgecrest, Yucca Valley, 29 Palms? No matter where it would be located, it would not be reasonably located for most of the county residents.

    Having these contract shelter seems to me to make the most sense. If you loose a dog in Apple Valley, you go the Apple Valley shelter find it. If you find a lost dog in Apple Valley, would you really want to drive it all the way to Yucca Valley to a shelter?

    If you look at other like type things, you see they all use a similar concept. Look at the sheriff department. They contract with cities to provide law enforcement. They have a station in that community, that the community pays for. They don't just have one station and send out the deputies from there.

    My point is, if a city or community is already providing a service, it make business sense to contract for that service and utilize what is already in place and working.

    But I keep forgetting, the rescue groups don't look at like a business where you have expenses and profits. For them it is all about the donation and 'look at me' attitude.


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