"HONESTY HELPS" CHALLENGES BRENDA BARNETTE TO PROVE WHAT SHE PUBLISHES!!

YOUR LETTER IN THE L.A. DAILY NEWS ON APRIL 22, 2011, BRAGS ABOUT SHIPPING L.A. SHELTER DOGS OUT OF STATE. NAME ONE CITY WHERE YOU HAVE TRANSPORTED DOGS WHOSE OPEN-DOOR, MUNICIPAL SHELTERS ARE NOT EUTHANIZING FOR TIME AND SPACE.

I was so taken aback by this woman's continuation of her lies to an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Daily News, I am now issuing a challenge for her to back up her statements. Anyone with any fraction of common sense will tell you that if you are shipping more dogs into any area while the local open-door city or county shelter is still having to euthanize for time and space, that you are the problem, not the solution. You can't claim your are saving lives when you send dogs in trucks to unknown destinations without any follow up and releasing them to other organizations who are then transporting them and you have no idea where they are going. You've even sent dozens of animals to Canada. Explain to us how you prove those animals arrived safely and didn't either die themselves or cause animals in that area to die because L.A. animals took up homes they might have been adopted to. Are you telling us there are unlimited homes for shelter animals as soon as you get outside Los Angeles? Hardly, this is nothing more than a scam to force "No Kill" down our throats. It has nothing to do with saving lives, it takes the lives of the local shelter animals by taking away their homes for these transported animals. And all the while, these importation groups are yelling about the shelter euthanasia and using it to cram Winograd's program onto officials.

The original op-ed was written in concern over handing over a new shelter to Best Fiends, the cult group from Utah, for $1 a year. Brenda Barnette is closely associated with this group, at one time being an employee. This is no more than her trying to solicit donations for this cultists. If you think for two seconds that Best Fiends is in this for the animals, then you are three seconds too slow. They will collect information, like e-mail address for everyone who attends an adoption event, to solicit donations, donations that aren't going to help the animals as much as to line the pockets of the founders of this cult. Donations that should be on a local level. Best Fiends are well described in this particular blog by "friends" and "ex-friends" of Best Fiends, employees concerned for the lack of proper security even though Best Fiends spends money like crazy to pimp pit bulls and themselves. http://exfriender.wordpress.com/

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_17869504?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com THE Mission animal shelter in the northeast San Fernando Valley must be kept open - but not as a private adoption center. Property owners of Los Angeles are paying more than $19 million in bonded indebtedness and deserve a city animal-care facility for their underserved area.

The wishes of the people are being ignored in proposing that all city services be abandoned and a nonprofit organization, Best Friends Animal Society of Utah, utilize a portion of the building to promote adoption of the most desirable impounds from other city shelters. That would reduce the selection options for many potential adopters and could decrease their willingness to visit other local shelters when seeking a family pet.

Proposition F was sold in 2001 as a $154 million city bond that would end overcrowded shelters, reduce euthanasia and provide badly needed animal control and community care centers in underserved areas. City officials knew the Mission shelter would need staffing.

Los Angeles Animal Services is a core public health and safety responsibility, not an optional benefit that can be downsized merely for convenience. The need for vital animal control services resulted in establishing a successful licensing differential in 2000 and strong spay/neuter campaigns that subsequently decreased shelter impounds by approximately 50 percent.

However, the decision in 2003 to make Los Angeles a "no-kill" city in five years and the current mayor's insistenceupon perpetuating this mythical goal has worked against humane progress. The improvement L.A. was experiencing in attitudes of pet responsibility was mainly prompted by the honesty that not every unwanted pet will find a home. Euthanasia was discussed on TV and the front pages of local newspapers in a bold campaign to make it clear that the decision to get a pet should not be taken lightly nor done on impulse.

Now, assured by publicity that every animal is adoptable if we just keep it long enough, the city's shelters are packed.

The Mission shelter currently houses hundreds of evidence animals (those abused or used in criminal activities, such as, dog fighting) and mothers nursing their litters. These animals must be kept for long periods in separate kennels. Returning them to local shelters reduces space and hastens euthanasia of adoptable pets. Best Friends' high-profile advertising for its events would also affect the adoption rate at other Valley shelters and compete with local rescuers. These are the smaller organizations that consistently take animals from local shelters. (One thing not mentioned would be an evacuation center since LA is quite well known for earthquakes and fires.)

Turning a $19 million city facility over to one nonprofit organization for $1 a year is a major decision that must undergo a formal bidding process, if it is to be done at all. This is especially true when we are considering this gift of use of public property to an organization that reports 2009 income at $51million. City shelters would still provide initial veterinary care and sterilization for impounded animals, and the city retains responsibility for the maintenance and security of its facility. Current shelter employees would merely transfer to other facilities that are already fully staffed. So, where is the cost benefit to the city?

By floating Proposition F, the City Council and mayor made an implied agreement that all these public facilities would be operative. The Mission shelter was a promise that the needs of Valley animals and communities would no longer be ignored. That promise must be kept.

NOW LOOK AT THIS SHORT AND STUPID REPLY. ESPECIALLY THE ONE ABOUT THE TRANSPORT PROGRAM BEING SUCCESSFUL.

http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_17907507 Re "Running Mission shelter is a city responsibility" (Valley Voices, April 18):

Although this article purports to be factual, it is not. The article asserts that there are hundreds of animals housed at the Northeast Valley Mission animal shelter when the number actually hovers between 42 to 52 animals most days. Another misrepresentation is that we have a limited number of adoptable animals in city shelters. In fact, there are so many that we transport some of them out of the area to save their lives. These animals are chosen carefully with regard to the market demand in the part of the country they will be sent as to maximize the chances they'll be adopted, without jeopardizing adoption opportunities for animals already there. The program thus far has been very successful.

I would agree that in a perfect world, Los Angeles Animal Services should have the Mission Hills facility fully operational. But our world currently is far from perfect. Signed from Brenda F. Barnette

So what happens if you do get this shelter for your "fiends"? It means those moms with puppies will be house in a shelter, not the best for them and more than likely all will be euthanized for time and space. Those evidence dogs will be in the shelters, taking up space and causing more euthanization. Obviously BB doesn't care about these moms and puppies dying so her friends can make money. 

In a past post, I mentioned how this transportation program is being used to force the "No  Kill" issue. Connecticut and Maine already have legislation pending to regulate these transports into their states.
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/vets-against-rescues-transporting.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/transporting-dogs-scam-that-kills.html

Providing fellow "No Kill" groups with a product means they don't take dogs from their own shelters, allowing those dogs to die for their cause. Then when euthanasia goes up, these same importer groups will yell about it. IT IS A SCAM AND BARNETTE IS A RING LEADER!! Her background in Seattle backs that up!!

SO, BREEDER BARNETTE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO NAME ONE OF THESE PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN SO VETTED IN YOUR OPINION.