BRENDA BARNETTE - WHY ARE YOU KEEPING OWNERS FROM THEIR BELOVED PETS?

UPDATE:  Ivana has been returned!! You must read what this owner has been through and the horrible group that kept him from his beloved cat. Ivana reveals the name of this group and how they held her captive for a $2000 ranson. http://letmykittygo.com/blog/?p=12


 First we had poor Dexter, the dog. While his owner was seriously searching for him, he had been stolen from her back yard, LAAS knew where he was, knew he had a microchip, and knew his owner was looking for him, they scheduled him for transport to another state.





http://www.opposingviews.com/i/are-l-a-s-transported-dogs-stolen-or-rescued  Fortunately this story had a happy ending, Dexter was returned to his owner, BUT THE MICROCHIP HAD BEEN REMOVED! We all know that the shelters are able to change microchipped animals with the microchip company if the pet is adopted by different owners so WHY WAS THIS MICROCHIP REMOVED? To cover up a crime, if not a crime by law, a crime by morality, that's why. 

This story doesn't have a happy ending, at least not yet. I was so taken aback by this one because it involves an older pet, a 15 year old cat, and her 63-year-old owner. A pampered, indoor-only Persian, descended from Grand Champion show cat lines, Ivana had accidently slipped outside one day.  Panicked upon realizing that she was missing, her owner posted fliers and knocked on doors all over his development, seeking any leads that might bring about her return.  Weeks passed, and the owner grieved, concluding that local coyotes had run off with his beloved Persian mother cat.

Then came later a glimmer hope:  A new neighbor, having seen one of the owner’s fliers, contacted him and reported that she had seen Ivana on the day she got out and had taken her to the shelter in Van Nuys. (See, works better than postcards http://www.opposingviews.com/i/search-or-scam-l-a-animal-services-lost-pet-postcards

http://letmykittygo.com/

The owner immediately contacted the shelter, only to hit a brick bureaucratic wall.  Seems one of the "New Hope" partner-rescues had pulled Ivana from the shelter, but shelter officials, citing some amorphous confidentiality policy, refused to disclose the identity of the rescue that had custody of the cat. HEY FOLKS, WE ARE TRYING TO RE-UNITE AN OWNER WITH A BELOVED PET. IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE STALKING A HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS!!

As things stand now, the rescue has yet to allow the owner to get his cat back, despite pleas from Ivana’s vet and the owner’s cat sitter, a church pastor. How heartless is that?  This "rescue" needs to do the right thing and live up to the title of "New Hope". They should be proud to be able to return this cat, could rake in donations.

In addition, the Shelter initially listed Ivana as 8 YEARS OLD, so they thought that this was an abused breeder cat she looked poorly. Fact is she was extremely well cared for but was indeed FIFTEEN years old, not EIGHT, and they couldn't tell the difference.

Despite the owner ‘s attempts to alert the shelter and the rescue to Ivana’s actual age and special health, medication and dietary needs, somehow the package of materials he provided, including detailed veterinary records, never made it from the shelter to the actual location where the rescue had been keeping Ivana. The Shelter said all the docs were sent, later disclosures by the rescue who was keeping Ivana said they never recieved anything whatsoever from the shelter. This neglect can be life threatening to Ivana.

A sympathetic local cat rescuer sought to mediate on behalf of the owner to gain Ivana’s return.  Problem solved, right?  Not when you’re dealing with the likes of Brenda Barnette.  In response to the kind rescuer’s plea, the New Hope rescue coordinator at the shelter expressed outright contempt towards the owner and advised the rescuer-mediator to tell the owner to forget about Ivana and “move on.” MOVE ON??? MOST OF US WOULD LIE DOWN AND DIE FOR OUR PETS, MOVE ON????

This heartless coordinator further stated that Ivana’s poor condition in the shelter was proof of her owner’s abusiveness – never mind the fact that the cat was actually twice as old as the shelter vet’s estimate or that by the time of rescue, Ivana had already spent two weeks in the stressful environment of the shelter, without her medicine or special diet, or the comfort of her loving owner and familiarity of her home of 12 years. IF THIS ISN'T AN ABUSE OF A LOVING OWNER AND HIS ELDERLY 15 YEAR OLD PERSIAN CAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

Of course, when the intake records were retrieved, they FAILED to show that the conditions the coordinator complained of existed at time of intake -- only respiratory and mouth conditions which were pre-existing and were already under treatment, according to the cat's lifelong medical records. Her intake picture shows her looking like she just needed some serious brushing -- standard with any Persian, a well-known high-maintenance breed. 

So whatever new medical conditions Ivana had contracted had come from being at the Shelter, where they thought she was an eight year old cat.

While the captain of the shelter and Brenda Barnette advised the owner that they were sympathetic with his and Ivana’s plight, they advised him that they could neither disclose the New Hope partner rescue that had Ivana, nor could they require that rescue to return her to the shelter.  They claimed that the law prevented them from disclosing the New Hope partner rescue’s name, even though they never were able to site the actual law with such a requirement.

And it didn’t matter that the owner was willing to apply to adopt Ivana, like any other member of the public, AND to reimburse the rescue for all its expenses relating to it custody of and any treatment or care they had provided for his cat. I ASK YOU IS THIS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, KEEPING A PET FROM SOMEONE???

Only with an abundance of pleas from purebred rescues, pastors, and vets, was the owner able to track down the "rescue" that had his cat. With the help of an attorney, the owner managed to locate the "rescue" that was holding the cat. The owner had submitted to the shelter many documents to prove the cat was his, including the fact that the cat had to have a special diet or it would die. Although the shelter advised the owner that the documents had been forwarded to the New Hope partner rescue, somehow the documents never reached the individual or facility that actually had custody of Ivana.

Although Barnette supposedly called the New Hope partner "rescue" and asked them to return the cat, and they refused, why isn't she taking more steps to retrieve this cat? Did she threaten this group with expulsion from the New Hope list? Did she bring the city attorney in on it? If she has taken any other steps, she ain't telling this owner.  He's having to ask for donations in order to pay an animal law attorney to negotiate with the New Hope partner rescue to get his beloved cat back.


BARNETTE, YOU ARE A PET OWNERS WORST NIGHTMARE!! You can do something about this situation. YOU GET THIS CAT BACK TO WHERE IT BELONGS NOW!!

MARK ROBISON - A PROFILE IN BS, WIPED BY THE TOILET PAPER OF NATHAN WINOGRAD

I stopped reading this jerk's blog on the Reno Gazette Journal quite awhile back but he recently issued a post that I just have to comment on. For those unfamiliar with Robison (aren't you lucky) he is stumbling down, passing out drunk from drinking that koolaid of Nathan Winograd. 


http://www.rgj.com/article/20110719/NEWS/110719006/Fact-checker-What-s-scary-about-pit-bulls-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Local%20News|s is the most pathetic piece of BS I have read in a long time. 


Dig this, first he is talking about fatalities and then suddenly switches to talking about bites, a move designed to throw the reader off track. 
"Another common source about pit bull dangers is Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People newspaper. His latest report claims that there have been 173 fatalities from dog attacks over the past 28 years and 47 percent involved pit bulls or pit mixes.


But Clifton’s research covers less than 2 percent of dog bites requiring hospitalization and relies only on reports in the media, which have been shown to emphasize pit bull attacks over those by other breeds."


Taking those lessons taught by the Whino is a specialty of Mark Robison, compare apples to oranges in hopes the reader doesn't catch it. 


Then he goes on to try to deceive us by saying there is no way to determine how many pits are in Washoe County. Excuse me, but don't you have license requirements there? All you have to do, Jerk, is check those to get an idea of the percentage of pit bulls in Washoe County. Instead he plays that numbers game which always uses the impound numbers rather than the factual numbers like licensed pits compared to other breeds. 


"Looking at just dog bites, pit bull types accounted for 18.6 percent of reports.
Next, it needs to be determined how many pit bulls live here. If they’re the most popular breed, then having the most bite reports is to be expected. Unfortunately, there is no dog breed census. (It is called licenses, Jerk.)"


"If impound data is reflective of general population (a big if), this seems to show pits are a bit more dangerous than their population would predict."


But, and that is a big but, if you compare their bite ratio to how many are licensed, then the figures come out completely different. Can't do that, that would undermine the creative bookkeeping taught by his puppetmaster, the Whino.


So once again, creative bookkeeping, dodging those true numbers, has struck. Robison, I challenge you to prove that pits are not dangerous. I challenge you to show the severity of those pit bull attacks in Washoe. Just because someone hasn't died yet doesn't mean they aren't left with life altering injuries. Downplaying what a pit is only means more people and their beloved pets have to die. 


So now the other side of this story. Robison did what he could to discredit the Animal People News editor, Merritt Clifton. Clifton has issued his response on http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/07/animal-people-editor-responds-to-fact.html


One prominent source used to criticize pit bulls is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on dog bites from 2000 that looked at 238 dog-related fatalities over 24 years. It found that 32 percent involved pit bulls or pit mixes.

The CDC report actually covered the years 1979-1998, a 20-year time frame which is now 13 years behind us. But it is a reasonable starting point.

What is not reasonable is to represent the conclusions from 13 years ago as appropriate in the present context, in view that fatal and disfiguring dog attacks have exponentially increased in the interim, primarily involving the breed category that the CDC found to be most often involved.

Noted Robison:
But the CDC adds a disclaimer warning the study does not - and there currently is no accurate way to - identify which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.


That's me. But Robison made no effort -- none -- to contact me to find out what my latest data shows. Instead, he cited a version which appears to have been at least two years old, apparently obtained second-hand. The current version would list 204 fatalities and 1,076 disfigurements by pit bulls and pit bull mixes.Robison's next statement takes my data set completely out of context:  (Typical of those lessons taught by the Whino) 
But Clifton's research covers less than 2 percent of dog bites requiring hospitalization


First of all, the subject of my data compilation over the past 30 years is not "dog bites," nor "dog bites requiring hospitalization."
As the headline clearly states, the subject is "Dog attack deaths & maiming."
As the preface explains further, "Over the duration of the data collection, the severity of the logged attacks appears to be at approximately the 1-bite-in-10,000 level."
In other words, what I am studying is by definition the worst of the worst, which is most likely to be reported in depth & detail.  (We aren't talking dog bites here when it comes to pits, we talk about death and maiming.)


Would Robison be condemning himself when he stated:
Robison then adds:and relies only on reports in the media and goes further to state:
have been shown to emphasize pit bull attacks over those by other breeds.


Wonder how his editor feels with his condemning the media like that, what about his co-workers?


Clifton responds with this diddy:
As purportedly a member of the working media, Robison should know that media reports include police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. They are, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source.


Robison's next argument is shot to hell by Clifton.


Twenty-seven dogs are registered as dangerous in Washoe County; three are pit bulls.
If pit bulls are 3.3% of all dogs, but 11% of the registered dangerous dogs, that alone signifies elevated risk.


Then the old trick of "identifying a pit bull". I mean, Robison, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Each picture posted was one of a "gripping" dog, the bully breeds.Even the most uneducated, retarded people in the world know these dogs are on the same level as a pit as far as being dangerous.


When you finished reading the excellent article at http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/07/animal-people-editor-responds-to-fact.html,  then try on http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/2011/07/battle-over-statsitics.html  


All in all, Mark Robison is a disgrace, a shameless puppet of "No Kill". Lying to people only means more attacks, more fatalities, and more families destroyed. "No Kill" doesn't care, just as long as the cult members are picking the program.

BRENDA BARNETTE - ABOUT TIME YOU MENTIONED SPAY/NEUTER

As my readers know, I have been blogging over and over again that Breeder Brenda Barnette never mentions spay/neuter in her "press releases". As we all know, breeders don't believe in spay/neuter and BB is staying true to her roots. She just ignores the free ink of this vital subject, concentrating instead on making herself look cute by singing the blues. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/05/brenda-barnette-singing-blues-but-again.html


FINALLY, BB has released a public information that does mention spay/neuter. She starts by mentioning that citizens are blowing the whistle on backyard breeding. Well, Miss BB, we have always been doing that. I do a reverse lookup on telephone numbers advertising puppies, I call it in to agencies serving that area to ask for a license check or a breeder permit. So far, about 90% of those resulted in NO dog license, much less a breeder permit. I know another person that does the same. So this is nothing new, BB.


"Recently, Angelenos expressed their concern that Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) still puts animals to death for lack of space.  They took action for positive change and reported neighbors and people advertising puppies online to LAAS."


Guess BB doesn't realize that this is more a sign of her incompetence in enforcing the ordinances of LA than anything else. Enforce the laws of LA City, don't sit and expect the citizens to do your job.


I'm curious as to how many citations have been issued under the reign of Brenda Barnette. I can tell you, not nearly enough.

AUSTIN, STAYING TRUE TO LEARNING THEIR LESSON THE HARD WAY

This is the second article talking about the overcrowded situation in Austin. Really, now? Miss Abigail talks about reducing intake, well her version is to turn owners away in order to do this. What will that accomplish? 
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-07-29/the-unintended-consequences-of-no-kills-success/


"So, the question is: Has it turned out that skeptics were right all along in arguing that the attempt to make Austin a no-kill city was bound to result in an animal shelter operating constantly over capacity, with animals living in every available space and staffers overwhelmed by a never-ending flood of new arrivals? The answer, Smith says, is yes and no."


"So yes, part of the reason the shelter is constantly at capacity these days is because of the city's no-kill status. But Smith says the shelter's consistently bulging population has not and will not result in increased euthanasia rates. The city's implementation plan may allow for euthanasia when no cage space is available, but Smith believes that has "nothing to do with what no-kill authentically is.""


Smith may be so drunk that she believes that but I will tell you what it actually means. It will mean more animals running the streets in Austin. It will mean more animals lying by the side of the road dying a long and painful death. It will mean more feral cats to deal with. It means disaster is awaiting right around the corner.


I am receiving messages that the staff at TLAC is overworked and tired. Does that mean that overtime is being paid? Money that could best be used for other programs. When staff is overworked, that means the animals suffer. Volunteers, most often, are more trouble than they are worth. Volunteers aren't reliable and if you depend on volunteers, then you are up the creek without a paddle. What happens if those volunteers don't show? Staff has to make up the difference. You don't put dependence on volunteers in an open door shelter or any shelter for that matter. To do so is a kiss of death.


Miss Abigail is overworking staff, stacking and crating them, and denying that there is a problem. Ah, that koolaid blinds Miss Abigail to the obvious, but not the rest of us.

BRENDA BARNETTE - WELL, WELL, WELL, AS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT!!

Remember a few weeks ago an article came out in http://www.opposingviews.com/ about a poor doggie who was microchipped and his owner was looking for him. Well, when his owner finally did get him back, the microchip had been surgically removed and the dog was scheduled for one of those "transports"  up north. These are nothing more than the Highway to Hell that I have posted about many times on this blog. 


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/are-l-a-s-transported-dogs-stolen-or-rescued
By Phyllis M Daugherty on Jun 15, 2011


You'll just have to read it all, explaining about this poor dog and the nightmare of every responsible owner out there who has their pet microchipped.


I blogged this on June 4th, 2011.


http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/06/omg-brenda-barnette-stolen-dogs-whats.html


JUST IN TODAY, dig this article in a LA Newspaper, the LAist, http://ht.ly/5JnGR

In a letter to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Greuel points to the dominant reasons that precipitated the audit:

 "[T]he Department of Animal Services is currently undergoing many management challenges as a result of compromised internal policies and procedures. These challenges include issues with personnel oversight, the health and well-being of the shelter animals, as well as challenges with staffing as they relate to all of the City's animal shelters."

No matter what they find, the bottomline is that Villaraigosa and his stooge Jim Bickhart picked Barnette and all the last Bozo LA Animal Services GM's, so where does the buck stop, Antonio?  

BRENDA BARNETTE: WHAT IS THE REAL REASON BEHIND YOUR GETTING RID OF ASSISTANT GM KATHY DAVIS?

Are you afraid to have someone on your staff that really knows about animal control and knows why none of your stats add up? Someone who would have fired Mark "Sleazy" Salazar? Was it because Kathy Davis wouldn't carry out your dirty work?

First you got rid of Linda Barth who said "NO" to you. So now you had to move Kathy Davis out. Big mistake, BB!!! You think you've got free rein now. You just got rid of your "lifeline." Kathy Davis and Linda Barth could write. You can't even get through an e-mail without bad spelling and grammar errors. Do you think the Council won't notice that the brains are gone?

You think you can cover up your own screw ups on numbers by pointing the finger at employees but bottom line is that you need these employees. Who is Sleazy going to use to get his work done? There's not going to be anybody to delegate it to and his total impotence, excuse me, incompetence will be hanging out there. (Oops, didn't mean to reference his past record of  sexual harassment claims but it just slipped out.)

You will both be exposed soon.  It's on its way.  You aren't near as clever as you think.  You're in the BIG city now.  You brought the spotlight on YOU and  you can't even get a website right.  So now you may have to come to work.  You can't run a city department from home without Kathy Davis.  Yeah, everybody knows!

YEP, AUSTIN, YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.

I find this especially interesting. Seems Travis County is turning in their pets at a remarkable rate. And the solution is not closing the drop box or counseling with an owner that wants to surrender their pet. To let an owner walk back out the front door with a pet they want to surrender only means that pet will be abandoned or neglected. I don't call that humane but hey, with "No Kill", outta sight, outta mind, and it doesn't care what happens as long as it doesn't have to deal with it.

I compared Travis County with the State of California. California has the Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities. According to their 08 report, 09 is incomplete still, there were a total of 133,682 cats and dogs surrendered by the owner. California has a population in 11 of 37,351,947 people. This means that one in 260 people surrendered their pet to a California shelter.

In Travis County, with a population in 11 of 1,049,873, there were 6419 pets surrendered by their owner. This is a rate of one in 156 people surrendering their pet. 

Does anyone see the problem here?

AUSTIN, YOU'RE LYING. PART TWO: IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG

I will offer an explanation for yesterday and Pet Harbor. Sometimes when there is an upgrade to the system, it will lose info for awhile. That could be the cause of the fiasco yesterday. BUT, and this is a big one, I see that most of the dogs are already altered. Now most shelter alter upon adoption. Reason? Because if they die in the shelter or are never adopted, it is a waste of money. Considering that the Austin taxpayer is already spending much more money housing long term, this is adding insult to injury. The question also is whether these rescues are pulling already altered dogs, altered at taxpayer expense, because that is a good deal for any rescue. Then the rescues don't have to spend their money and they can make more on their adoptions. Many cities have ordinances about giving away city property or making gifts of property/money. Can anyone tell me if TLAC charges the rescues for taking animals out? If they don't, then TLAC is making a "gift" to these rescues and I wonder if that has cleared City Hall.


Also, I am getting word that there is a lot of overtime being used at TLAC. When Austin is having to cut programs, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Put that money to better use on programs to help kids and the elderly. 


UPDATE 2: Pet Harbor is now back up this morning and there are 207 adoptable dogs listed. I also understand that the dogs I have listed below as being long term residents have been rejected by the rescues for behavioral problems. So instead Abigail choses to pimp them off on the unsuspecting and innocent public. Just setting someone up for a pit attack, it seems. I predict that Austin will be the quickest failure of "No Kill". 


UPDATE: Today, I visited pet harbor and there were 27 pages of dogs for adoption. Now there are six pages and no pictures. Is Abigail pulling an Ed Boks on the Chameleon? Something is wrong, very wrong. Either they ain't keeping accurate records or they are trying to mess with the system just like Boks did in LA and New York. I checked my emails and I notified a friend about Pet Harbor at 7:00 Austin time, it was after that that suddenly all those animals disappeared. This would mean that whatever happened was done after hours. Anyone know who was at the shelter at that time?


Forget the numbers, just look at www.petharbor.com if you don't think Austin is screwed.


I guess Miss Abigail thinks that a shelter full of pit bulls is a wonderful thing because the shelter is definitely full of them. Note the absence of small dogs, only a handful. The rescues are taking advantage and cherry picking the best of the best and leaving the shit for Abigail to worry about.


For the public to go to a shelter full of pit bulls means that the public will now turn to the rescues for the cute, fluffy dogs. I can understand that people in the city might adopt a pit bull but people in the country won't. Country folks aren't gonna take a chance on bringing in a breed of dog known for aggression toward other animals. 


And the pleas for help are all over Craigslist. TLAC is having to euthanize for space and I can guarantee that before long, it will worse than ever. The biggest agency, Austin Pets Alive, is begging for foster homes. Great except that they will saturate their market and those in foster will sit there, never finding a "forever" home. That's when the fosters will drop like flies and return their fosters to TLAC.
http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2472980947.html


Every day the Town Lake Animal Center is full to the brim as people continue to bring in unwanted kittens and cats. Babies as young as a few days old, rambunctious weaned kittens, easy-going adults and sweet old ladies, all of them are at risk for being killed because there is no room for them. 


Let the suffering begin. It is just down right wrong to keep a dog confined for this length of time. Word has it that one day the dog might be walked and the next day, no walking. Kennel stress will make an adoptable dog unadoptable in a short length of time. 
http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2490865076.html
Emmy Lou is her name and she's as sweet as her name sounds. She's a 6yr Female Boxer Mix and she's a total doll. She's been around other dogs & even CATS and could careless about them. She seems to just want to be around everyone and everything. This sweet girl has been at the shelter for almost 80 days and to top it off the heat is making her miserable. 


http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2482667128.html
I am in kennel 197 and I've been at the Town Lake Animal Center for 106 DAYS!!


http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2497931258.html
The TLAC Shelter took in 16 new cats yesterday with literally 0 cages to put them in. They had to make the tough decision to euthanize a few kitties so that they could make space for all of them. TLAC is bursting at the seems with cats and kittens. Every new cat and/or kitten they intake today = a cat or/kitten that will most likely lose their life unless these kitties are moved out NOW so that some of the cages are freed up!!!


http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2418236485.html
APA!'s bottle baby nursery, mom w/babies program, and ringworm ward are officially filled to capacity.
We can no longer save kittens less than 6wks of age, moms with babies, pregnant moms, or any cats/kittens that have ringworm because of lack of space. This means that any cats/kittens that fall under this category at Town Lake Animal Center are at risk for being put to sleep.  

Plus they offered a $4 adoption fee, $4!!!!! How many of those bargain basement adoptions will ever see the inside of a vet's office? If you can't afford to pay the regular price, how can you maintain a pet? Check the shelters surrounding Austin and see what is happening there. Doug Rae, during his reign of terror in Indy, had a $4 adoption on 4th of July and the surrounding shelters complained to Councilmember Mike Speedy about people wanting to return their adoption to the Indy shelter and were turned away, they ended up at other shelters. Plus several of the dogs adopted during that event ended up biting their new owners. So Austin taxpayers paid for the altering, shots, etc and no return for that money. With Austin cutting other programs like for at-risk kids and the elderly, TLAC is throwing away tax dollars. Not even to mention that with firewords, taking a new pets home is not a good idea anyway. Bad enough for the pet to cope with the strangeness of a new home and then the fireworks.


http://austin.craigslist.org/pet/2477120000.html
TLAC is open TODAY and offering all dogs and cats for a $4.00 adoption fee!!!!


So, Miss Abigail, you have saturated your market, your shelter is full, now what do you do? You either euthanize or you become another example of the horrors of Nathan Winograd's "No Kill Equation" just like Philly. Remember how they bragged about their numbers until they were on the verge of having cruelty charges filed? Austin is heading down that path to hell but the hell is what the animals feel they are in. More to come, lots more.

AUSTIN, YOU'RE LYING. CREATIVE BOOKKEEPING IS THE WORD.

I'll give you just a taste of what is to come. This is a complicated process and I think it has been set up deliberately so no one can figure it out in order to dispute the percentages that Abigail Smith is coming up with. If anyone can offer some insight that I could be wrong, I would welcome it. It can read another way and the report is not clear on which way it is to be read. This is my version until I am corrected. Of course, I always think the worst, after all it is "No Kill".

For the six month period, January 11 through June 11, let's look at the situation of foster homes for cats. During that period of time, there were 3,789 cats placed into foster care. Only 265 cats were adopted out by the foster. That leaves 3,524 cats still left in foster care. I can find no indication that these 3,524 cats have been returned to the shelter. I can find no indication that these 3,524 cats have been adopted period. Austin reports that they have 96 active foster homes for cats. So it appears that each foster home has 37 cats on an average. Can anyone say hoarding?

So the question is, are these 3,524 cats counted as live releases because they really aren't. They don't have their "forever" home yet and are subject to being brought back into the shelter to add to the numbers there. This would sure have an effect on the numbers, it's basically like hiding 3,524 cats and claiming them as a successful outcome.

This info has been compiled from this link. http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/health/pets/downloads/rescuegrps_0111_070111.pdf


Another way to view it is, let's take the month of June. The total number of cats entering the shelter is 777. The number reported in a foster home at the end of June is 176. Again these can't be counted as live releases. I find it strange that for the prior months foster homes only accounted for about an average of 5 adoptions a week. Yet the last week of June there were 97 adoptions in one week by foster homes!!


And now they are trying to stop taking owner surrendered animals as well.



http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/health/pets/downloads/priority_rec_0611.pdf
Owner Relinquishment Policy 
Implement an owner surrender evaluation 
program.  This program would require pet 
owners considering relinquishment of a pet to 
schedule an appointment. On the spot drop off 
of owned pets would no longer be accepted.  
An evaluation of the pet would be conducted 
during the appointment.  This would provide 
the pet owner with definitive feedback 
regarding options available for their pet, if 
relinquished.


We all know what this means, Austin will no longer be a true open door shelter. What if an animal doesn't pass this "evaluation"? People don't make appointments and neither do they accept "options", they will just dump the animal instead. Austin has already done away with their night drop box.



Austin is not making it easy to figure all this out. But I will persist. More to come. And that taste I mentioned above, is turning out to be a sour one.

BRENDA BARNETTE: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES, OR GOING DOWNHILL FAST

Well, Breeder Barnette has been on the job almost a year and what a year. Impounds are up, euthanization is up, investigations are up, you name it.

Just looking at the stats and be sure to read between the lines.  Adoptions are almost 9% less than the best year of the last five, 22,427 for the same months in 08-09 compared to only 19,443 for July through June 10-11. 

Euthanization is the highest it has been in the past five years, 21,756 and compared to pre-Breeder Barnette, for 09-10, 19,442. That means 2,314 more cats and dogs lost their lives under the reign of BB.

And over 3,175 more impounds, more impounds than in the past five years.

Unweaned kittens didn't fair very well, going from an all time high in 06-07 of 1,018 to a measly 318 with the New Hope groups for 10-11. Under Barnette, more unweaned kittens died die than in the past five years at the rate of 7,068 in 10-11 from 5,512 the previous year before she rode her broom to LA. What is so bad is that in 06-07, euthanasia of unweaned kittens was only 4,711, 07-08 the amount was a low of  3,447. And there were a thousand more unweaned kittens than the previous year.

Unweaned puppies have gone from 888 impounds in 06-07 to 1,357 under Barnette in 10-11, the highest in the past five years. In 08-09 the euthanization of unweaned puppies stood at 157 and then Barnette came along and 293 unweaned puppies were euthanized.

The state of the animals in LA has deteriorated under Barnette without a doubt. Even with all those transports, dumping animals on other places, she hasn't been able to show any improvement. Not even to mention all the other problems she has created, giving away a brand new shelter to a cult group and making the LA taxpayer pay for it. An investigation called for by Councilmember Bernard Parks into her henchman giving away a dog he knew had an owner looking for it. Stolen/missing/clerical error dogs from the same henchman's, Mark Sleazy Salazar, shelter. 

With a friend like Breeder Barnette, the animals don't need any enemies. Get rid of her, LA, before she sinks the entire ship, it already is leaking like crazy.

"NO KILL" CREATES A NEW TYPE OF HOARDING

Because of the perception of the public about "No Kill" shelters, this case has a lot to offer. These women were hoarding, trying to get help from a "No Kill" shelter, and were turned away. They were sleeping in their car with 80 cats and all the while, "No Kill" shelters were turning them away. They were asking for help and were rejected by "No Kill". Just another way that "No Kill" is harming animals and causing animals to suffer and die. 


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/14/Guilty-pleas-in-animal-cruelty-case/UPI-93181310666313/


BENNINGTON, Vt., July 14 (UPI) -- Two New York sisters pleaded guilty to animal cruelty charges for keeping more than 80 cats, 13 of which had to be euthanized, in two cars.

All the cats were in need of medical care and were sent to a Bennington animal hospital and shelter where some had to be euthanized, authorities said.
New York police say they found and seized 50 more cats from Ryan's home in Troy.

The two women were looking for no-kill shelters for the cats, Ryan told the Banner.


Turning away animals because a "No Kill" shelter is full creates these situations. Condemning open door shelters, the mainstay of "No Kill", creates these situations. Had these women had a good perception of their local open door shelter, then these cats would not have had to suffer. "NO KILL" KILLS!!

NATHAN WINOGRAD: HATE MONGER

I managed to not look at his blog for awhile now but today I did. If you look at it, you'll see the same. He hates everyone except, of course, himself. He condemns all the organizations who stand up to cruelty in puppy mills, who stand up against dog fighting, who stand up period. The question one has to ask, what the hell does Winograd do against these evils in our world. The answer is NOT A DAMN THING!! All he does is run his big mouth, no action, and write worthless books. And he teaches his cult followers to hate, only hate, not try to help, just hate. Are they going into shelters and taking animals out - NO. Are they sitting in budget meetings to get animal control/shelters more money so they can do new programs - NO. Are they trying to bring the public into shelters to adopt - DEFINITELY NO!! They push the public away, if anything, so they can set it up to get Whino a consulting job. These are terrorists, people, forcing their philosophy on us.

Sorry to bust your bubble, Whino, but look closely at Austin's numbers, not the bullshit percentages of Abigail Smith and your cronies, No Kill Austin. It ain't that pretty a picture and I am in the midst of blowing Austin's numbers up. Charlottesville is giving away animals, devaluing them even more. If someone is looking for a bargain on a pet, you can bet that pet will never see the inside of a vet's office.

Whino, you are still avoiding the challenge issued by Pat Dunaway to prove what you say about her. You've sent your cult troops into San Bernardino to dig up something and all they are managing to do is make themselves and you look even more foolish than you already are. Stay tuned for more on this situation.

Connecticut Bill to Regulate Animal Transports is Making History

I've blogged about this before I hope this set a precedent for others: http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/vets-against-rescues-transporting.htm



I did see one accusation that it is the breeders and money hungry vets behind it. Vets make a lot of money off these sick transported dogs. Too many times you see in blogs where people spent a lot of money on veterinary bills for dogs that had been transported in. I can believe it. Chihuahuas in Southern California have been so inbred, they have genetic problems start showing up at about a year of age. 

I understand that Maine is considering looking at this issue as well. 

http://mysmartpuppy.com/services/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4877

http://www.federationofrescues.blogspot.com/2011/06/connecticut-launches-broadside-at.html

SO MANY CATS AND DOGS IN SEATTLE ARE GOING FOR FREE WHILE BRENDA BARNETTE CONTINUES TO DUMP MORE ON THEM

IS BRENDA BARNETTE MORALLY CORRUPT??


What is going on here? The Seattle Animal Shelter is so overcrowded that they are giving cats and dogs away and all the while, BRENDA BARNETTE IS SENDING HUNDREDS MORE INTO SEATTLE!!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/07/02/cats-dogs-available-without-adoption-fees-this-weekend/

This weekend might be the perfect time for Seattleites looking for a new pet.

The Seattle Animal Shelter, at 2061 15th Ave. W., has so many cats and dogs available for adoption they’re waiving all adoption fees Saturday and Sunday.

“We have so many adult dogs and cats that have been overlooked for several months,” Director Don Jordan said in a statement. “With summer here and the Fourth of July coming up, it is time for them to find their forever families and join in some of the summer fun.”

People still have to pay for a two-year license, required by city law. That runs $37 for a dog and $27 for a cat if they’re spayed or neutered. Jordan said the rest of the adoption package includes initial vaccinations, deworming, leukemia testing for cats, spay or neuter surgery and a microchip that can identify the animal if it gets lost.

Usually the prices range from $130 to $200.

Jordan said the shelter has seen additional animals this year because more owners moving and leaving their animals, or stay pets aren’t making it back home.

The Seattle Animal Shelter is open for adoptions noon to 6 p.m. both weekend days.

THIS IS SHAMEFUL, BARNETTE. DUMPING ANIMALS IN AN AREA THAT HAS MORE THAN THEY CAN HANDLE.

AGAIN I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW THAT THE AREAS YOU ARE DUMPING ON HAVE STOPPED THEIR EUTHANASIA FOR TIME AND SPACE. YOU ARE KILLING ANIMALS, BARNETTE, YOU AND YOUR NON NEW HOPE PARTNERS. KARMA, BB, KARMA.

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/01/brenda-barnette-dont-askdont-tell.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-news-on-highway-to-hell-transports.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-news-on-highway-to-hellanimal.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/04/honesty-helps-challenges-brenda.html

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

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/vets-against-rescues-transporting.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/brenda-barnettes-next-transport-plan.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-contest-whos-biggest-liar-adl-la-or.html

http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/07/barnette-has-so-much-dirt.html

UPDATE:

Seems BB might be making some kind of response here, interesting I'd say, what do you think?. http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/pas/2476912622.html  Date: 2011-07-04, 1:02PM PDT

Report Dog Transport Concerns, Unlicensed Dogs/Breeding or Cruelty (Los Angeles City)

Regarding transports, Los Angeles Animal Services does not transport dogs/pets to Canada, however, some of our New Hope Partners may. We have written agreements with our partners for quality control. We do not routinely monitor every aspect of our New Hope Partners' activities beyond making sure that we are provided copies of spay/neuter certificates if the animals leave our shelters on a medical waiver because they can't be altered for medical reasons and New Hope Partners are suppose to provide us with the name and address of their adopters who live in Los Angeles City within about 5 days of the placement. However, if we have reason for concern, we certainly have the authority and obligation to follow up and investigate the concern. The reason for concern must be details and may not be hearsay. You must provide direct and first hand information based on your own knowledge. Information such as the Avid chip number and then we can determine if the dog came from LAAS or even the name of the transporter.


Thank you for helping us help the animals,


Brenda F. Barnette,
General Manager


LA Animal Services (Los Angeles City ONLY)


I do believe that BB is quoted in this article about the transports to Canada. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/l-a-shelter-dogs-transported-to-canada-rescue-or-ruse


“Vancouver group saves hundreds of California dogs from death.” declares a Vancouver Sun headline on January 14, 2011. The article explains that A Better Life Dog Rescue has brought about 200 dogs into Canada, mainly from Los Angeles shelters, for placement in the Lower Mainland. Los Angeles Animal Services General Manager Brenda Barnette is quoted in the article.


It's things like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFf0_fFkU5s (Check out other videos on the side pertaining to transports) that are disturbing and makes one question what is really going on with these transports. The above links show others expressing concerns about transports, those using and participating with transporting. If they are concerned, why isn't Barnette concerned? Do you think it is unethical to pimp more animals into areas that are still euthanizing for time and space?

CONGRATS TO LOUISVILLE, KY FOR SLAMMING THE DOOR IN THE FACE OF "NO KILL"

Good news for sure is the rejection by the City of Louisville of the efforts of "No Kill Louisville" to take over their shelter.

http://www.fox41.com/story/14986192/city-rejects-bid-to-run-metro-animal-services

""Mayor Greg Fischer said the bid by No Kill Louisville did not meet the city's criteria to operate the agency.

Fischer along with Community Building Director Sadiqa Reynolds said No Kill Louisville lacked the management experience necessary to operate the animal shelter, and that its bid asked for $1 million more than the proposed contract.""

Put Louisville in the "did not drink the koolaid" side and now we move on to the next one.

UPDATE:
Louisville is experiencing a distemper outbreak and need dogs to be adopted ASAP to prevent the spread and give them time to clean. Let's see if "No Kill" answers this call. It should be about the animals, we'll see.
http://www.wlky.com/r/28442144/detail.html

UPDATE 2: Well, it appears that the shelter trying to move out the dogs doesn't meet with "No Kill"'s approval. What did I tell you, "No Kill" would not do their share to help these dogs come out of the shelter so they don't have to die from distemper. With "No Kill", it isn't the animals, it's their egos. http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Some-criticize-Metro-Animal-Services-for-adoption-special-on-heels-of-distemper-deaths-125032039.html


""But Jessica Reid with No Kill, an organization that is opposed to animal euthanization, says holding an adoption on the heels of the recent deaths, doesn't sound honest."" Sounds more honest that what you are pushing, Jessica.

BRENDA BARNETTE LOSES THE SUPPORT OF THE ADL-LA!!

THE QUESTION IS: WHY ISN'T THE ADL-LA COMING AFTER HER NOW LIKE THEY DID ALL THE OTHERS?

THE ANSWER IS: BECAUSE THE ADL-LA IS STILL A PUPPET OF NATHAN WINOGRAD!

On June 29th, the ADL-LA, All Desperate Liars, sent out notification that they are "retiring it's No Kill campaign for the City of Los Angeles. THESE FOOLS ACTUALLY THINK WE WOULD BELIEVE THEY ARE "RETIRING" THEIR CAMPAIGN. Sorry, Pamster, but disappointment, frustration, and a slew of other adjectives would have been a better choice of words for what you actually mean. Even you, Pammie, can't deny the truth and for the first time, it appears, you are admitting defeat. Pammie goes on to say that the reason is "we have accomplished all that we can do". Yeah right, with euthanasia on the rise, impounds on the rise, and you are backing away now? Just because you are gullible doesn't mean the rest of us are. 

""Brenda Barnette has made significant changes in LESS than one year of her appointment by the mayor. But here’s the kicker . . . . . ADL-LA now realizes that there are a handful of peoplewithin the humane community of Los Angeles that we are fully convinced would NOT be happy and would find things to complain about even if Jesus Christ himself were to return and run our city shelters! Phyllis Daugherty is on the top of the list, but there are others within the humane community we are sad to report.""

Translated: Our ass has been whipped. Pammie has lost the handful of followers she had and is out there all alone now. There is an indication in this post that some of her own people have turned against her. Another indication that the ADL-LA is supporting the rising euthanization rate, the rising impound rate, and their members are not happy about it. It goes against everything the ADL-LA stands for. 

"We are deeply saddened by the fact that a few of our former supporters have chosen to try and ruin Ms. Barnette for their own irrational and self centered reasons. One who wanted the job herself but didn’t get it is now along with her friends, on the war path to do anything to try and destroy Barnette; even if it means thousands of animals will die in the process." Wonder who that might be? Any guesses?

The ADL-LA goes on to list Barnette's "accomplishments" and it is laughable. Let's see there is the foster program. Go onto the LAAS website and look at the stats. Barnette has had to cover her tracks on the "stolen/missing" dogs from the North Central Shelter so she has put them in the "foster program". In April there were 86 fosters, in May there were none. In the months prior to April, June through March, there were only a total of 34 animals put in foster care. Anyone in their right mind can see through this except, of course, the ADL-LA.

Pammie talks about the "NEW AND USER FRIENDLY" website. Wrong again, the website is far worse than before and definitely not user friendly. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/04/breeder-barnette-cant-even-get-laas.html

Plus if you are looking for your lost pet, the website has been set up in such a fashion that the first place you go to is the scam of paying up to $1200 to have PetFinders send out postcards. The actual way to look for your lost pet is way down below and most people would get discouraged right off the bat by clicking those useless links regarding making money for Barnette's friends.

Then Pammie brings up the new non profit formed by Barnette in conjunction with her friend from Seattle, Claire Davis. I have posted so much dirt on Davis, just do a search for her name. This includes a letter written to Dow Constantine, the Executive Officer for King County, where Davis states that she tried to deliberately undermine animal control. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/06/adl-la-are-you-listening.html  Does this sound like someone who is a "friend" of animal control? Not hardly.

Pammie talks about personal changes. Okay, how about the hiring of a man, Mark Salazar, who had such a background that he should have never been hired. Plus veterans of animal control were overlooked to bring in this Sleasy Salazar. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/01/brenda-barnettes-latest-flunky-mark.html  Sleasy Salazar had five cases of sexual harassment filed against him in the County of Riverside, he packed his bags and went to TX, where he proved to be a failure there as well.

And Pammie actually thinks that Barnette called in the LAPD to investigate those stolen/missing animals, which by the way the greater number came from the shelter under Sleazy Salazar. Then she covers it up after accusing her employees of stealing those dogs by putting the missing ones in the "foster program". Word has it that LAPD contacted LAAS, not the other way around.

And the volunteer program. Just look at what happened when Barnette gave keys and unlimited access to the kennels to the volunteers. That was when all those animals came up missing. 

Pammie even goes so far as to claim that Barnette stopped a Bully Show in Venice. Daniel Guss of the Stand Foundation announced in this week's council meeting that it was him who was responsible for this cancellation, not Barnette.

This ridiculous post from the ADL-LA goes on to tell people to "shut out the problematic people".  This alone should be enough to keep the ADL-LA going but obviously Pammie is showing her fear. 

.  Shut out the problematic people (including those within the department and within the humane community) – isolate and alienate them so that they do not succeed in snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Pammie, read what you wrote, you are concerned that these problematic people can succeed, again why is the ADL-LA backing off when you admit that these people can succeed.

AND here is Pammie admitting that Barnette is being overwhelmed with negative emails. This shows that others are disturbed by the actions of Barnette. If it is only a "handful" why is Barnette spending an "inordinate" amount of time. Shouldn't take but a minute or two per email and a handful of naysayers could not possibly create an inordinate amount of time.

""Don’t allow these troublemakers to distract Barnette from the big picture.  Our sources say that Brenda Barnette is having to spend an INORDINATE amount of time responding to repetitive e-mails from this handful of naysayers.""

Yep, Pammie, the writing is on the wall and being screamed all over LA. Barnette has to go and the sooner the better. Plus, I'll add this personal message to Barnette, DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON YOUR WAY OUT!!