Sunday, June 28, 2009

Not A Bad Week After All

On a couple of fronts here. The vote of the Washoe County council to not adopt "No Kill" was quite nice. Seems there's a lot of movement over using the term "no kill" anyway. It has always been a deceptive term and that is the main complaint.

When Rancho Cucamonga City opened their doors after the adoption of the NKE by Winograd, within three months they had dogs and cats in crates and carriers in the hallways so bad you couldn't get through. They had a ringworm outbreak. Now ringworm is fairly easy to spot and I checked with five other shelters in the area and none had ever had an outbreak of ringworm. Course anything is possible. The first year there were two newspaper articles where the Director proclaimed they were NOT "no kill" with the reason being to stem the tide or rather, flood, of surrendered animals. This one city took in more "public" surrenders than the entire county of San Bernardino. San Bernardino just happens to be the largest county in the country at almost 22,000 square miles. Public surrenders are those good people who stop, take a stray off the streets, and bring it to the shelter. So these public surrenders had to be actually owner surrenders. Rancho was turning owners away, they denied it but the other shelters in the area got those turned away. So the term "no kill" gave people an out, a way to "get rid of" their pet without the guilt. That coupled with the hateful statement by the Whino that there is no pet overpopulation and the public is not responsible for the "killing", dooms shelters. Yet his pit buller buddies claim that pits attack because of irresponsible owners, how does that figure together. I think the Whino has given some lame excuse to answer that one, like I never said there weren't irresponsible owners. Well, yes you do when you say the public is not responsible for the killing. What the fuck are the shelters supposed to do, give all them out to hoarders? Oh no, we "adopt" ourselves out of it, with which highly paid advertising agency does the shelter pay to overcome the constant criticism you continue to blast? Telling a man he will bring his family to see barrels of dead animals and cruelty at the shelter will not help adoptions, will it? This man will end up at Petsmart instead and another shelter animal will die as a direct cause of this man's criticism. Can't he grasp what he is doing to the shelter animals? Or because it sells books?
Also, according to a letter in the Daily Bulletin from one of the activists who brought Winograd to Rancho, the died in kennel rate had soared to 600%.Seems the BAD RAP of pit bulls is a good rap for this program, throw some dogs in with the pits and you don't have to euthanize, let the pits do it for you. Now you understand why the Whino pushes pit bulls, they keep his euthanasia numbers lower.

And speaking of pits, more cities adopted bans or regulations against these dogs this week. Not soon enough for a 10 year old and 3 year old who were killed by pits within the last week. We won't mention the plain old attacks that happened this week from the pits and bullies. Several other cities are considering either a ban or regulation. These dogs just keep it up, digging their own graves. I just wish they would take their crazed owners with them. I don't know who is worse, the dogs or the sub-humans that own then.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

This is a Hoot!!!

There's a relatively new blog that I love, The Tailwaggers Times. It is usually light and I can't for the life of me see where he gets these stories from sometimes.

I want to refer you to his latest run-in with a pit nutter, a reporter who wrote a glowing story about Patron, the pit that attacked the Steelers' ball player's family. The blogger's handling of this reporter is beautiful and funny. Please take the time to visit and read his posts about this confrontation.

What? But Who Will Whino Brag About Now.

It's official, Reno has voted to NOT adopt the Whino's "No Kill" program. Pop that cork, dance, be jolly.

I would venture to say that something has spurred this decision. Probably, knowing "No Kill" the way I do, the Washoe County Commission had received enough complaints that they thought twice about making "No Kill" official.

Here's the link to the story.

And it made my day that Mitch Schneider turned against the Whino. Schneider was the traitor who accepted a speaking engagement with the "No Kill" conference. Makes you wonder what really has happened.

So, now the Whino is down to one, Charlottesville. That time is coming.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Forgive Me

Been a little slack on the posting lately. Staying busy busting asses over the pit bull issue. I feel strongly that the pit bull issue will be the one to break the back of no kill. There is a situation in Indy right now that requires attention.

I can't say enough about and the information that is gathered on that site. It is invaluable. Looking at the news feeds daily has shown me that 1. Pit bulls are dangerous and 2. they do need to be banned. DogsBite just released a report compiled from news stories showing that on average pits are killing people at the rate of one every 21 days. This is unacceptable.

Pits in the shelters have no history. The pit nutters lay blame on how these dogs have treated, abused, etc. as to the reasons why they attack. Even with that argument, doesn't not knowing these shelter pits histories make them too dangerous to adopt out?

With regulations or bans in place, where would "No Kill" be in regards to open door shelters? What about Loudoun, VA? They don't adopt pits from their shelter, it was challenged in court, and withstood. Fat chance of making Loudoun into a "No Kill" shelter. So to address the pit issue is addressing "No Kill", let's try to kill two birds with one stone.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Where's The Report????

Seems some more propaganda has come out from Best Fiends. This time they are trying to tell us that BSL costs too much money. I won't provide the link because it pisses me off too much. Seems all you can get is a "calculator" for each state. My question is where is the report??

I want to see where this John Dunham got his information from. I did a bio search on him and seems he has connections with the tobacco industry and not in a pretty way. This a case in 2004.

Dunham, John. (US Fact Witness): Mr. Dunham was employed by Philip Morris
Management Corporation for five years managing fiscal issues. As the manager of the Fiscal
Issues department, Mr. Dunham was involved in economic research, and he prepared critical
analyses of tobacco-related articles written by economists. These analyses were then used to
formulate talking points and summaries that were provided to Philip Morris lobbyists and
communications department employees at Philip Morris USA. Prior to coming to Philip Morris,
Mr. Dunham worked for the Philadelphia Port Authority. After leaving Philip Morris in 2001,
Mr. Dunham has continued his relationship with the company as an outside consultant on
economic issues. His positions at Philip Morris include the following:
• 1996-2001: Manager, Fiscal Issues, Philip Morris Management Corporation
His positions outside of PM include the following:
• 2001-2002: Consultant, American Economics Group
• 2002-present: Founder, John Dunham and Associates

And here is a press release confirming his connection to the tobacco industry. Seems this is a hired gun whose "economic" results are always in favor of those who pay him.

We accept that the tobacco companies lie and this is their economist, the one who puts the studies together to deceive the public. Now he has put together something for Best Fiends saying that BSL will cost too much. WHERE'S THE FUCKING REPORT? Don't take bits and pieces from it, I want to see how this jerk arrived at his conclusions.