Thursday, December 24, 2015


This was a posting on facebook and I thought I would share with you.

I don't understand the outrage over Christmas and New Year's Eve, and the concept of employees having a nice Holiday being somehow offensive to people?
Shelter staff are human beings with feelings.
Why are people asking them, expecting them, to sacrifice their children's Christmas mornings, so that more "rescues" can have access to the dogs?
It's just a manufactured crisis wrapped up in a hoax, this story of evil shelter workers who refuse to work Christmas for the dogs, making it "impossible for rescues to rescue".
I am tired of the myth of rescues beating down the doors, and the shelter shutting them out so they can go celebrate the Holidays.
It's just not so..
I'm sorry that the dogs landed in a high kill shelter.
Shelter workers didn't breed and dump these animals.
You'd think they did, by reading the FB comments on pages that ought to know better by now.
If not for the shelter, these dogs would have nowhere to go.
Shelter cannot say no.
They cannot turn their backs
They never do.
But they do have to euthanize for space, or for behavior, or illness.
It is the RIGHT thing to do for those animals.
The shelter staff sees and deals with things most cannot imagine.
Making them feel horrible for doing their job is a form of insanity and an exercise in futility.
And making them feel horrible for taking Christmas off when the City offers it as a benefit?
Shame on those people who are hating right now.
The shelter employees deserve to have a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year..
I know you understand.
Maybe we can spread the word, combat the hatred, and gently remind people that we are all in the same boat.
Fighting Animal over population together.
Have a Blessed Holiday Season, and thank you all, so much, for caring about the shelter animals after they are pulled.

Monday, December 14, 2015


The 2014 Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities is out and I would like to do a comparison of San Bernardino County as a whole, compared to neighboring counties. 

San Bernardino County 2014 (Incorporates all the individual agencies that have their own jurisdiction.)

Total live admissions for dogs - 39,933
  Reclaimed - 5,402 or 13.5% of intake
  Adopted - 21,322 or 53.4% of intake
  Euthanized - 9,484 or 23.7% of intake

Total live admissions for cats - 30,580
  Reclaimed - 284 or 1% of intake
  Adopted - 9,800 or 32% of intake
  Euthanized - 15,133 or 49.4% of intake

Riverside County 2014

Total live admissions for dogs - 39,037
  Reclaimed - 6,700 or 17.2% of intake
  Adopted - 12,729 or 32.6% of intake
  Euthanized - 11.154 or 28.5%

Total live admissions for cats - 26,978
  Reclaimed - 419 or 1.5% of intake
  Adopted - 6,316 or 23.4% of intake
  Euthanized - 18,126 or 67.2 of intake

Los Angeles County 2014

Total live admissions for dogs - 97,492
  Reclaimed - 15,860 or 16.3% of intake
  Adopted - 45,517 or 47.7% of intake
  Euthanized - 20,068 or 20.5% of intake

Total live admissions for cats - 83,963
  Reclaimed - 1,193 or 1.4% of intake
  Adopted - 20,544 or 24.5% of intake
  Euthanized - 44,092 or 52.5% of intake

Remember the statistics listed above are for all animal control agencies which provided reports in the respective Counties. 

Now I will referenced Fresno. You may remember they contracted out animal control services to a private vendor and recently have now contracted with a “rescue group” to provide animal control and sheltering services.  A newspaper story reflecting what is occurring in Fresno can be found at:  Obviously, their euthanasia rates are high and adoption rates low.

Fresno 2014

Total live admissions for dogs - 21,289
  Reclaimed - 2,414 or 11.3% of intake
  Adopted - 4,947 or 23.2% of intake
  Euthanized - 11.990 or 56.3%

Total live admissions for cats - 11,701
  Reclaimed - 151 or 1.2% of intake
  Adopted - 1,624 or 13.8% of intake
  Euthanized - 9,147 or 78.1% of intake

As for the County of San Bernardino itself and it's owned shelters, the numbers are pretty good if you compare to the above agencies.

San Bernardino County owned shelters only 2014

Total live admissions for dogs - 5,667
  Reclaimed - 631 or 11.1% of intake
  Adopted - 3,985 or 70.3% of intake
  Euthanized - 909 or 16% of intake

Total live admissions of cats - 4,605
  Reclaimed - 37 or .8% of intake
  Adopted - 1,474 or 32% of intake
  Euthanized - 2,925 or 63.5% of intake

Friday, December 11, 2015


Canada loosened their regulations on importing dogs during the Katrina crisis to help us. But the US has taken advantage of that. Canada has now their previous regulations in place. Are the transporters adhering to that? Nope. Scanning facebook posts, one can see that rescues show no concern for these regulations, no concern for bringing in diseased dogs, no concern for the Canada dogs that die from the taking of homes by imports. They even are tagging dogs as emotional support dogs. Lies, more lies, just so certain people can feed their egos. Many of the transported dogs are ending up in shelters in Canada. Many fall off the face of the earth. 

Less than 8 months of age fall going to another rescue is a commercial category. So false paperwork is done listing foster homes as private adopters. Again, scanning facebook posts, this means that contrary to the public relations done by these transporters/rescues that the dogs have homes waiting for them, the dogs are actually up for grabs. 

Demand regulation of these transports. Actually, demand that they stop. We can't continue to dump onto places that are still euthanizing for time and space. It is immoral and very unethical. 

Sunday, December 6, 2015


In a series of three articles, Canadians are exposing the lack of regulations concerning transports of dogs into Canada and what is happening to these dogs.

The stories are heartwarming, saving a thousand dogs at Thanksgiving, flying them all over the country. But is it really that heartwarming? Inhumane transports, dumping with questionable 'rescues' in shopping center parking lots, is this what we want for our shelter pets? The highway to hell is paved with good intentions.

Series of 3 articles

Friday, December 4, 2015


A woman takes a pit bull to a shelter because it has become aggressive and she can't handle it. The shelter turns her away. A shelter's first priority should be the safety of the community, yet this shelter turned away a threat to their community. This is how No Kill works, how No Kill disregards the first priority of shelters and animal control, the first priority of community safety. 

Why did this shelter turn away a vicious pit bull, what did the shelter think this woman would do with that vicious pit bull? What if she had kids at home? 

""Later on Saturday, animal control officers received reports of a roaming pit-bull near Maltby Lake and looked for the animal, but it was too late."

Instead this explanation was offered by a member of law enforcement, of all people. 

“We don’t have the facilities. We don’t have the resources to take all these animals and, especially if someone comes in and says, ‘Hey my dog is vicious.’ That’s not the city’s responsibility to take your dog that was mistrained.” Tamarro said.

Hey, you take the dog and euthanize it. What resources do you need to do that? This is the No Kill mentality. And West Haven Animal Shelter does list itself as No Kill.