Monday, August 31, 2009

Vets Are Supposed to Care About Animals, So What Is the Deal with the AVMA?

All of us that use vets assume, and wrongly it seems, that vets care about animals. I have said for a long time that the AVMA doesn't give a damn about animals and here's why. They fight legislation that helps animals, particularly agribusiness. You see the commercials on TV about the California "Happy Cows". Well, I am here to tell you that it is anything but happy when you see the conditions the California cows are in. I gave up drinking milk or eating beef because of seeing this. They stand in pens up to their knees in what appears to be mud but is actually feces and urine. They aren't out roaming the grass fields, far from it. It makes you think how clean can this animal's meat be in those conditions. And then to see the downer cows being pushed by bulldozers, you don't know why those cows are down. Are they putting tainted meat on the market? I am going to put up part of Wayne Pacelle's recent blog post about the AVMA. The HSUS is now taking them on and I think their time is limited. And if you check the recent Board of the AVMA you will see the connections the Board members have with agribusiness. They can't be trusted because money talks and care for animals walk.

"We’ve known for a long time about the AVMA’s push to legalize the slaughter of horses for human consumption. This week, the AVMA issued a report attacking the prestigious Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which had expressed support for a variety of important reforms in the realm of industrial agriculture, including federal legislation to end the widespread, routine use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics on factory farms. This misuse of antibiotics has been proven to increase the risk of antibiotic resistance in human medicine. It is estimated that 70 percent of all antimicrobials used are fed to animals on factory farms."

Ted Kennedy took on the subject of antibiotics for animals for food. I wonder who will take up that cause now. Connect the dots. We are having bacterial strains immune to conventional medicine. It means that the public is in danger when our medicines no longer work effectively because we have been fed so much of the antibiotics in what we eat every day. What will it take to see this is wrong, an epidemic?

"At the AVMA, we’ve seen time and again how the livestock veterinarians, such as the swine and poultry veterinarians, control the thinking of the organization. These vets typically work for agribusiness and they embrace the mindset of the industry, including the view that animals are just production units. And unfortunately, it’s standard for the AVMA to stand in the way of sensible reforms in the realm of industrial agriculture. "

So what can we do? We can see if our personal vets are members of the AVMA. I have already left a vet because he was and saw nothing wrong. And if they are, do something. Either tell your vet to drop his membership or you drop the vet. We want vets that uphold their oaths to help animals, not uphold agribusiness pocketbooks. Your life and those that you love could be hanging in the balance. If you care about your health, then do what you can do to tell the AVMA that you won't do business with their members.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Scumbag Bill Hemby and His "Rebuttal"

This man is shameless. He is denying that he had anything to do with the indictment charges by the California Attorney General. Yeah, like the AG has nothing better to do than make up false charges against this liar. Crook needs to be his middle name. He was involved with the agency under indictment during the time it was taking advantage of people's goodness. That's has already been established. As far as his past as a police officer, he used it to educated himself to take people's money illegally. Sorry bud, but the gig is up, you've been caught. And SB 250 is on it's way to the floor where it will probably pass. And no, there is no conspiracy between Judie and the AG, this was all your doing. I'll post his rebuttal here.

Judie Mancuso, co-author of Senate Bill 250 requiring mandatory sterilization for dogs and cats in California, has been attacking PetPAC Chairman Bill Hemby and accusing him of spreading ‘the worse type of deceitful information about spay and neuter legislation”. Mancuso claims Hemby, a decorated retired police officer is deceitful by pointing to a civil lawsuit involving a charity called LEAP which Mr. Hemby worked for years ago.
Allegations have been filed against the telemarketing operations of many police and firefighter groups, including the Law Enforcement Apprenticeship Program (LEAP) a group that Bill Hemby used to do work for, which involved educational training for disadvantaged youth. Mr. Hemby had no involvement with the telemarketing operations cited by Ms. Mancuso and has fully cooperated with the Attorney General’s office. No judgment of wrongdoing has been rendered against Mr. Hemby. In fact, Mr. Hemby’s actions have been and continue to be of the highest ethics and integrity of the laws in which he took an oath to uphold. He has received numerous awards for service to his community, including the highest award for merit from law enforcement for his life saving actions while putting his own life at risk in the line of duty.

Furthermore, PetPAC has NEVER been accused of any wrong doing by any government agency. Any attempt to imply otherwise is slanderous and libelous.

Judie Mancuso wishes to change the debate on the merits of Senate Bill 250 into personal attacks because she can’t tell the truth about the facts on SB 250. According to the State of California Department of Finance Analysis, SB 250 won’t work because “Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level”. They also say more pets are likely to be killed (30% increase) in shelters if this passes. Finally, SB 250 will drain millions from the General Fund resulting in higher taxes.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Robin Starr - A New Way to Go No Kill

UPDATE: There will be no charges because there was no "willful intent". Change that fucking law. This woman killed her dog and needs to pay for it. At the very least she should be kicked out of her position. But I'm sure her Board is full of "No Kill'ers" and "No Kill'ers" don't give a shit when an animal dies. Just look at how they treated animals in the Philly shelter and others, warehousing til disease kills them. Lied, NV where the staff was quoted in the paper that they didn't know the animals were sick and over a thousand animals were suffering to the point they had to be euthanized. This movement according to the latest in Animal People magazine has set us back to the dark ages. It has to end.
Just leave the damn dog in a hot car and "forget" about it. An "accident" is when you drop the beer bottle in a drunken stupor, not leaving your 16 year old deaf and blind dog in a car. So what that she has "dedicated" herself to "saving" animals? She promotes the program that doesn't exactly save animals but rather warehouses them. She promotes the program that says there is no reason to stop breeding, just breed all you can because there is no pet overpopulation problem. She promotes the program that says to adopt out pits just because they are "friendly", forget temperament testing (doesn't work on those damn beasts anyway). She promotes a program that destroyed the Philly and Rancho Cucamonga shelters.

So who gives a damn what she has done in the past? I do because she has shown she is an idiot, can be lead around like she has a ring in her nose, and she will probably not be prosecuted because of the misguided perception that she cares about animals. I say she doesn't give a shit about animals and the fact that she left that poor old dog in the car shows me I am right.

YOU JUST DON'T "FORGET" YOUR OLD DOG THAT'S DYING IN THE CAR IN THE HEAT OF THE DAY!!!! That is no accident, that is cruelty. Unfortunately Virginia probably has no law on the books about leaving animals in a hot car like California and other states do. I'm not sure on that but haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.

PROSECUTE THE BITCH!!!!! SHE'S EARNED IT. She earned it when she became a Whinonette.

Pit Nutters Are So Ridiculous

Just looked at a blog on "Dog Attacks You Never Hear About". These people really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these "other" attacks. Plus most of them are not even in this country but these fools will try to compare anyway, hoping most people are too stupid to know the difference.

"Yes all of these stories were reported by the media, but definitely NOT on the same scale as a Pit Bull attack would be. Most of these attacks were only reported on one news station or newspaper, whereas Pit Bull attacks make headlines across the U.S."

Already this fool is lying because her attacks are not all from the US. I suspect that if we went to other countries, the majority of attacks would be from pits as well. And again here comes that worldwide conspiracy to "get the Pits".

"The dog bite epidemic does not discriminate. It involves any breed of dog that is abused, not trained, undersocialized, neglected, showing parental instinct, guarding, and many other factors."

Shades of Karen DePiss. Maybe that applies to other breeds but not to the pits. They can be leading the life of Riley and still attack. They don't have to be any of the above, just having a bad day.

"As you know, Pit Bull attacks are reported on a much higher scale than other breeds, so most other breed attacks go unreported."

DUH!?! What an absolutely stupid, ignorant remark. News is news no matter what the dog is. If the injuries are severe, then the media reports on it. This conspiracy thing is being driven into the ground by these pit nutters. When will they realize that the media is reporting on the attack, not the fucking breed. Just so happens that the breed is almost always a pit or pit type. This fool thinks that Mastiffs don't fall into that catagory.

It makes me ashame that I have to call this person part of the human race. This nutter makes us all look bad.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Bill Hemby, Slut Breeder Along with His Slut Brothers

Just in, a piece about this slut. He is just like all his buddies, they are all cut from the same cloth. Evil, thy name is one or the other, Breeder or Nathan Winograd.

A local dog breeder and vocal opponent of spay-neuter legislation has been named in a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. as part of a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities.

William Hemby, who raises Borzois and silken windhounds in Grass Valley, is under scrutiny for his involvement with Law Enforcement Apprenticeship Program Foundation (LEAP), for which he allegedly worked from 2004 to the present. He also is heavily involved in another organization facing a suit, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS), for which he serves as legislative director.

Contacted at home, Hemby said his attorney had advised him not to comment, as “this is a legal issue,” but he added LEAP has been inactive since 2006.

Hemby founded political action committee PetPac in 2007 to oppose spay-and-neuter legislation, raising more than $400,000 that year to defeat AB 1634. He drew attention with what his opponents charged were questionable lobbying tactics — printing posters opposing the bill as a “Pet Extinction Act” and alleging on television that the proposed spay rules were part of a campaign by PETA and other “extremist groups” to “eliminate all dogs and cats in California.”

He serves as PetPac's director and lobbyist and has been working to defeat SB 250, the Pet Responsibility Act. Proponents of SB 250 have been quick to publicize Hemby's recent legal woes, sending out a newsletter Aug. 16 that detailed his alleged shady financial dealings and the state lawsuits.

In May, Brown filed eight lawsuits against telemarketers and charities that allegedly “shamelessly exploited” people's generosity and squandered millions of dollars of donations intended to help police, firefighters and veterans.

The organizations raised millions of dollars, based on allegedly false claims that donors' contributions would benefit police, firefighters and veterans organizations, the lawsuits state.

But in most cases, 85 percent to 90 percent of donations are used to pay the fees of for-profit telemarketing firms.

The Law Enforcement Apprenticeship Program, its directors and its for-profit fundraiser, Rambret Inc., are being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for falsely promising contributors that their donations would be used to operate an apprenticeship program for at-risk youth.

The program never was operated and no students ever were enrolled in it, the suit alleges.

Instead, donations allegedly were used to pay for fundraising expenses, the personal expenses of the charity's directors and the purchase of a 30-foot sailboat.

The suit alleges in 2003, Law Enforcement Apprenticeship Program raised $529,863, but $31,501 — or 6 percent — was spent on its program services. In 2004, the organizations raised $372,623, but spent only $5,615 — 1.5 percent — on program services.

Hemby is listed in the lawsuit as a director of LEAP from 2004 to present, and the group is listed as operating out of Nevada County. He is named as a defendant in a charge of filing and distributing false and incomplete records, failing to disclose expenditures and preparing false returns.

He also is named as a defendant in charges that funds were illegally distributed, for failing to provide services, and failing to maintain adequate books and records.

“The suit is trying to dissolve the charity, which is a significant step taken in very rare instances,” said Scott Gerber of the state Attorney General's' Office. “It's also forward-looking — it's trying to prevent the directors from operating charities in future. It's also trying to prevent the telemarketer from soliciting funds until they comply with state law.”

Hemby ‘fully cooperated'

Though Hemby would not discuss the lawsuit, he pointed to a response on his PetPac Web site.

The Web page says the proponents of spay-and-neuter legislation have been attacking Hemby and calling him deceitful. The Web page goes on to allege that LEAP is a program that Hemby “used to do work for” that involved educational training for disadvantaged youth.

“Mr. Hemby had no involvement with the telemarketing operations ... and has fully cooperated with the Attorney General's office,” the page reads. “No judgment of wrongdoing has been rendered against Mr. Hemby. In fact, Mr. Hemby's actions have been and continue to be of the highest ethics.”

When questioned Tuesday about his involvement with LEAP, Hemby said he had been executive director of the organization for about two years.

“LEAP has been dormant since 2006,” he said. “We're trying to shut it down, actually, because there is no funding — we've had no funding for two years.”

Deputy Attorney General Tania Ibanez dismissed Hemby's claims.

“The bottom line is, he was involved from 2004 to 2006,” she said.

Ibanez confirmed Hemby has tried to dissolve LEAP in 2007, but explained that the group already was being investigated at that time.

“A lot of charities try to shut down pending investigation,” she said. “If you're under investigation, you can't dissolve the charity.”

San Bernardino-based California Organization of Police and Sheriffs is being sued in San Bernardino Superior Court for falsely representing that donations would be used to benefit law enforcement officers and that 100 percent of each donation would be received by the charity.

Donors allegedly were told that their contributions would be used to purchase bullet-proof vests, make grants to families of officers killed or injured in the line of duty, provide veterinary treatment for service animals injured in the line of duty and mentoring for at-risk youths.

Out of the $30 million raised from 2005 to 2007, more than $25 million was spent on fundraising. The suit alleges no money was spent on bullet-proof vests, no grants were made to families of officers, $6,600 was spent on veterinary treatment for service animals, and $16,500 was spent on mentoring.

According to the COPS Web site, Hemby has served as its legislative advocate for 23 years.

He is not specifically named as a defendant in the lawsuit, although the suit lists “Does,” or defendants who might be named later in an amended complaint.

“We're not going to comment on whether he will be a Doe,” Gerber said.

“I think we got the people we wanted,” Ibanez added. “But it's a possibility.”

To contact Staff Writer Liz Kellar, e-mail or call 477-4229.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Stop the Breeding of Pits So That We Don't Have To Kill Them

As any of my regular readers know, I HATE BREEDERS/GREEDERS. Stupid people who can't understand that we have a pet overpopulation despite what Nathan Winograd says. My favorite blog,, has just released a tell all report on how many pits are being euthanized in shelters. I just had to post some of this here because it shows how miserable a failure is of "No Kill".

2009 U.S. Shelter Data Shows that Pit Bulls Account for 58% of Dogs Euthanized
Animal People July/August 2009 - The latest issue of Animal People News, which projects 2009 shelter killings based on 2006-2008 data1, reports that a decade of "adoption focus" has failed to reduce these deaths, with the decade's average at 4.5, right where it was in 1999. The data shows that campaigns designed to reduce shelter killing chiefly by increasing adoption, instead of preventing the births of cats and dogs most likely to enter shelters and be killed, have been ineffective.

Among the unadoptables in 2009, based on the 2006-2008 figures, will be about 1.8 million cats, believed to be mostly feral, and as many as 967,300 pit bulls. Of the 1,663,167 shelter dogs projected to be euthanized in 2009, pit bulls account for 58%. The increased pit bull killing rate, it was 50% in 2007, exists despite the fact that pit bulls are not more than 5% of the total U.S. dog population, according to the article, and that serious efforts have been taken to reduce this rate.

Pit Bulls Killed at Similar Rate as Steers
"Of the total U.S. pit bull population of circa 3.5 million, about a third arrive at a shelter in any given year, at an average age of about 18 months. This is the same average age and rate, relative to their number on farms, at which steers go to slaughter.
Two-thirds to 80% of the pit bulls entering shelters are surrendered by their keepers. Most of the rest are impounded, either for behavior or as victims of abuse and neglect." ANIMAL PEOPLE July/August 2009
Cities with Pit Bull Laws (BSL) Kill Fewer

Page 10 of the article shows a regional breakdown of shelter killing during the 3-year period. A side bar chart titled, "The Effect of Breed-Specific ByLaws on City Pit Bull Terrier Killing Rates" is also included. As seen in the chart, the City of Denver, which bans new pit bulls, also euthanizes the fewest pit bulls. While the national average of pit bulls euthanized per 1,000 human residents is 3.15, the rate in Denver is only .14. Of the city's total shelter killing, pit bulls accounted for 3%.

The City of Cincinnati, which also bans new pit bulls, shows a pit bull euthanization rate that is less than half of the national average 1.34. As noted in the article, pit bulls made up a much smaller part of total shelter killing in Cincinnati (10%) than in Milwaukee (18%) or Indianapolis (17%), two cities of similar demographic profile. Lastly, the chart includes San Francisco data pre-BSL (43%) and post-BSL (29%), a 14% drop after the 2006 enactment of a pit bull sterilization law.

1The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection of regional and national shelter killing tolls each year is based on compiling the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the three most recent fiscal years is used.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Animal "Pounds" - The Conspiracy

I hate to hear an animal shelter referred to as a "pound". I hate to hear Animal Control Officers referred to as "dog catchers". Just like I hate the deceitful term "no kill". And let's not forget the best one of all, "high kill shelter". Let me give you my take on this. Here are the players.

We have the humane community, aka "rescues". What defines that term in the ears of the general public? The public's perception is people taking animals off the euthanasia table at the shelters or putting themselves at risk to "rescue" a drowning dog in a storm drain. Yes, there are some "rescues" that do take the high euthanization risk pets from the shelters. Yes, there are some that take the sick, injured, and old pets from the shelters. And there are some that do put resources and take risk to "rescue". These rescues have earned the use of the term "rescue" and I do applaud them. I don't hesitate to call them rescuers because they truly are.

Then we have the "adoption" groups who call themselves "rescues". These are the ones who, if they even go to a shelter, cherry pick for purebreds or cute, cuddly that in their minds are the adoptable ones. This also leads to the double standard in the entire industry of what is adoptable. Shelters are given one definition for adoptable and these adoption groups have their own definition. When the shelter can't adopt their "adoptable" ones, these adoption groups complain and call them "kill shelters".

Adoption groups get the best of the best anyway. They are called by owners wanting to "get rid of" their pets and their phones don't stop. Many owners do try to place their pets with a "no kill" "rescue" group first. So a few questions later and a request for a donation, the adoption group decides whether they want the pet. If they don't want it, what happens for the owner then, what choice does the owner have? Either dump the pet or take it to the public shelter, the "kill" shelter. Hard choice, huh? So we end up with strays because the adoption groups want to continue to give the public a bad impression of the shelters by calling them "kill" shelters.

Here's where the conspiracy part comes in. All these negative terms used against animal control shelters only lead to more euthanasia because it is driving away potential homes. Who wants to go somewhere that "kills" animals? But would it be different if the public were told that some animals are "put to sleep" or euthanized? This has a different meaning to the public than using the term "kill". And criticism only drives the public away.

And where does the public end up? At the "rescues", of course. The "rescues" have actually given their competition a bad name and they are the beneficiaries. Much nicer to go to Petsmart than to a shelter. Don't have to worry about seeing cruelty, hateful staff, and barrels of dead animals. These"rescues" are the problem, a big problem. Rather these adoption groups, because like I said at the beginning there are groups that earn the title, are deliberately condemning the shelters for their own personal agendas.

The shelters end up with these adoption groups' rejects is what it comes down to. And these adoption groups are shameless with their complaints about euthanizing when the dead are those they turned away under the guise of the term "no kill". The blood of the shelter animals actually lies on their hands, not the poor employees that have to do their dirty work.

I get really pissed off at this subject. It's one thing to undermine your competition if you are in the restaurant business but this quite another when lives are lost. The use of all these terms is a conspiracy to further personal agendas, the Savior complex usually, and drive people away from the shelters and into their hands. Not all shelters are the same but those who deserve respect should have it.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Part 3 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

We learned only last night that one of the "Scum" is in deep shit with the California Attorney General - Bill Hemby. I had heard for the last couple of years that he was being investigated but now it is official.\



Part 2 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

To answer some of the lies of the previous scum that I mentioned in Part 1, Judie's husband posted on a blog (previous post with link). This information is also very useful for all of us to know.

Judie's email made some folks mad
Hi everybody

I run a software company, my wife Judie Mancuso is a full time volunteer working on legislation to improve the lives of pets in California. My interaction with the animal community is as a sometime TNR volunteer, and as someone who tries to keep up with the bevy of animals swarming through my home. When Judie started on this path a few years ago, I had no idea about the number of people illegally breeding animals in California. I also had no idea about how mean some of them are!

Usually I don't have much time to participate in this stuff, but things have gotten so nutty that I started a blog to be able to vent. Since Judie started her work, there has been a group of breeders who constantly post insults and questions about her motives on their websites and blogs. Always present in the group has been someone named Gina Spadafori. For years, although we have never written to her or about her, she has regularly passed on bogus arguments about spay and neuter legislation, while her blog readers follow up with nasty personal comments about Judie.

Judie (for the first time) mentioned Gina in a recent email (you can see it here), describing her as a writer for the AKC, and quoting her directly as writing "realize that we’re all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction".

Now, I have no idea who Gina is, other than if you Google her you find lots of stuff about her books, her AKC associations and her work against puppy mills.

Anyway here is part of Gina's post from yesterday:

"Judie Mancuso, the spittle-spewing hater behind forced spay-neuter, sent a fund-raising pitch out to her e-mail list while I was gone, quoting me out of context and claiming that I was a regular contributor to AKC publications.

Uh, no. Haven’t taken an assignment from any AKC publication since the ’80s. But hey, why start with the truth now? Mancuso continues to insist that Santa Cruz was a success and that forced spay-neuter works, even though it hasn’t worked anywhere, and everywhere it kills more pets than it saves."

Oh, man... all these years, tricked into thinking I was living with a caring animal rescuer, now this eloquent author informs me that in reality my wife is a spittle spewing hater! As I said, this pet stuff is not my main thing, but I have reviewed the state statistics and have worked with shelter folks enough to know what's up. So, here are some responses to that posting.

First, Santa Cruz truly is a success story. I can provide contact details to Gina if needed and she can talk directly to the folks who run the shelters over there. Or if readers want to get details about the program directly from the Santa Cruz SPCA, you can visit their website here. Opponents like Gina may feel that the SCPA is just lying, of course, but they are not... shelters around the state are indeed shipping animals to Santa Cruz today, because they have extra space. New York City also has a similar law in place, you can read about their success here.

Second, regarding the 2008 LA statistics, the Los Angeles ordinance only began enforcement in late 2008. No one would expect it to produce large results in a few months. The truth is that today in LA, the previously underutilized free and low cost spay and neuter programs are now FULL, with waiting lists, thanks to the new ordinance, and several other markers are moving in a positive direction.

Here are some details about that bogus claim cited by breeders across the Internet, that LA euthanasia rose 177% in one year (2008).

First of all, the LA ordinance did not even begin enforcement until Oct 2008. As far as the 177% increase claim, here is what's actually going on. The Los Angeles dog euthanasia numbers reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) are as follows:

2004 37,078 dogs euthanized
2005 33,723 dogs euthanized
2006 30,250 dogs euthanized
2007 12,118 dogs euthanized*
2008 33,601 dogs euthanized

The CDPH has a note next to the 2007 number that states " * Report was not received from entire jurisdiction".

The opponents of SB 250 are taking the incomplete 2007 number, comparing it to the actual 2008 number, and concluding that dog euthanasia went up 177% in one year (12,118 to 33,601). But clearly the 2007 number is just incomplete data.

The 2008 number did actually rise 11% since 2006, primarily because of the thousands of people relinquishing their animals due to financial troubles. How do we know? Look at the total number of "surrendered" dogs in Los Angeles:

2006 43,559 dogs surrendered
2008 60,712 dogs surrendered

That's a 39% increase in surrendered dogs, primarily due to the terrible financial crisis today.

The Dept of Health fixed their error within a week, but the folks on the wrong side of this issue kept the old data that allows them to claim the sky is falling in LA based on 2008 data.

Third, readers should take issue with anyone who claims that spay and neuter laws kill more pets that they save. The data that supposedly supports this argument comes only from sources with a vested interest in stopping these laws; sometimes the data is distorted to make a point, other times it's just outright fabrications. One sheet from an opposition group purported to show a bunch of different communities where spay and neuter laws did not work. SCIL spent two days calling the principles in those communities to find the truth, and it turned out the entire sheet was pure fiction. The amount of made-up stuff out there about these laws is incredible, and the amount of personal attacks about Judie (questions about her motives, insults, etc.) is hard to keep up with.

In any event... Gina also is upset because she says Judie is lying about her (she's not). But I can sympathize - my last name is Wicklund, and there is an animal activist in the middle of the country with the same last name. So guess what? There are posts all over the net claiming that we are brothers, that we plot together on devious anti-pet schemes, etc. Nutty stuff.

Anyway, there are plenty of sites out there that refer to Gina as an AKC contributor. But as a correction, the website has been changed to list her as "author, columnist, former contributor to AKC publications".

Besides that, it is difficult to identify what else is supposed to be a lie or out of context. Gina does indeed make the claim "we're all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction". There is nothing to take out of context in that statement; like other breeders, she is pushing the fantasy world of pet extinction, while claiming that her views represent pet-owners as a whole.

So, Gina, I can request a correction on the website on either point if that statement you wrote doesn't actually represent your views. You can write me at, just let me know which thing (1 or 2) was misunderstood:

1) If you don't actually buy into the ridiculous concept of pet extinction, deep apologies & I'll request a correction on the site for you.

2) If you understand that the majority of pet owners are in favor of spay and neuter legislation, and that virtually all the opposition is linked to breeders or animal industries, apologies & I'll request a correction on the site for you. Readers who need information on this can visit this page, it is an overview of a 2008 Zogby poll showing support for laws like SB 250 to be high among voters.

One more comment, Gina's blog post states that she supports ethical breeders, a claim frequently repeated on other breeder friendly blogs. I wonder if they include adherence to the law as part of their definition of ethics, as I would. Readers may know, or some may not believe, that the majority of people breeding and selling animals in California do not have the required seller's permit, and / or do not comply with local & state business and animal welfare laws.

In fact we have several recent written examples of breeders telling one another how to avoid complying with local laws, avoid animal control when they want to enforce those laws, and avoid tax law. Many of these guys and gals are openly hostile to the idea of complying with local and state laws. Gina may be an ethical person, and her work against puppy mills is admirable, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking that most people breeding pets for money share that enthusiasm for the law.

John Wicklund


As I was writing this, a comment from someone representing the anti-legislation group "Save Our Dogs" was posted, complaining about Judie's email, and personally attacking Judie in the same way that Gina does. They point out that the SOD website is based in California; Judie had stated that the site was registered out of state (correct). I requested a change to the website to list the site as "created and maintained by a California couple", which I believe is also correct.

Readers may be interested to know that the main bar chart distributed by Save Our Dogs, supposedly showing that the Santa Cruz program is a failure, is a misrepresentation. SCIL took their same bar chart and extended the values over time. The result is a graph showing that the Santa Cruz values dropped dramatically over time compared to the other communities on the graph, the exact opposite of what the original snapshot (showing only one point in time) purports to illustrate. It is a lesson in data manipulation that extends to much of what the opponents of spay and neuter legislation do in their attempt to stop progress for pets in California.

Part 1 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

So little time, so much to blog. I've been wanting to do a post on hoarding, Indy, pits, "No Kill" but feel this particular issue/subject needs more attention. I think it has far reaching effects even though it is really a local issue in California. My hero, Judie Mancuso, has been fighting a real battle in Sacramento. She comes face to face with people that we all despise such as Bill Hemby of PetPac. Judie is lucky in one regard in that she has never come face to face with Nathan Winograd aka the Whino but he has had his nose stuck in there. The AB 1634 effort for mandatory spay/neuter was, unfortunately, watered down but it did pass. So Judie took another route to get the job accomplished with SB 250 and AB 241.

SB 250 is the Pet Responsibility Act requiring that a dog must be altered to get a license and roaming cats must be altered.

AB 241 is the Responsible Breeder Act that limits owners and breeders to a 50 maximum for unaltered pets. This is aimed at puppy mills.

Who could be against this legislation?

The answer is: the vast majority of opposition to animal friendly legislation comes from one group - underground animal breeders who fear that new legislation will affect their unscrupulous businesses.

These backyard breeders are joined by hunting groups, fur farmers and other people who make their living off the backs of our animal friends.

The leaders of these groups rely on the most outrageous arguments and claims. They do this in order to rile up animal breeders and animal profiteers, compelling them to call, fax and visit legislators to complain against the bills.

Here are the two primary arguments used by opponents:

Spay and neuter legislation is actually designed to eliminate dogs and cats forever. The supporters of spay and neuter legislation are radicals who do not want anyone to own pets.

Pet overpopulation is a myth. Dogs and cats killed in shelters are unadoptable, and therefore cannot find homes anyway. And, the reason pets are killed in shelters is not overpopulation... it is actually the fault of uncaring shelter directors, shelter workers and rescue groups who just don't try hard enough.

In Their Own Words

Here are some of the most vocal opponents of spay and neuter laws, and some others opposed to animal laws in general, in their own words.

William Hemby, founder of PetPAC, describing who he thinks is behind SCIL legislation:

"...across the United States you have some of these animal rights extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front... it started years and years ago, if you remember, about throwing the blood on fur coats and all that jazz....

Well now... these people want to eliminate all dogs and cats in California, and so they want everybody else to conform to their society."

As far as I can tell, it was PetPAC's Mr. Hemby who first coined the phrase "Pet Extinction Act" to describe spay and neuter laws. The term has inflamed breeders and presumably increased donations to PetPAC.

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council), on pet overpopulation:

The claims of pet overpopulation are "without sound basis" and "intended to alarm the public about an overpopulation problem that does not even exist".

Regarding the enormous number of pets euthanized in shelters "it is unclear where the evidence for such statements comes from, or whether it even exists".

A quick note... PIJAC is the primary lobby group representing pet stores in California, and these quotes are taken from a letter submitted by JK Pedrotti, a Government relations firm representing PIJAC.

Clearly, it is in pet stores best interest to pretend there is no overpopulation problem. If PIJAC will not believe the shelter admission and euthanasia numbers submitted to the State by the shelters themselves, then they will never believe that we have a problem, no matter how many pets we kill each year.

We the People for Pets, an anti-pet legislation group:

Animal rights is a "staircase leading to pet extinction and total loss of pet owner rights", and spay and neuter laws are being pushed with tactics "used by the Nazi party to dehumanize their targets".

I can't really find words to address this lunatic fringe stuff...

Nathan Winograd, author and shelter consultant, on pet overpopulation:

"Shelter killing is not the result of pet overpopulation; it is the result of shelter managers who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it."

Nathan states that shelter workers are "content to kill animals" while "hiding behind the myth of pet overpopulation".

I must take a moment to comment on this. I have spent much of the last four years meeting with shelter workers across California. I have seen their tears as they explain their anguish at having to put down healthy animals every day. I have seen the emotional toll, and I have seen their pain as they come to grips with the horrible task they are faced with every day, thanks to careless pregnancies and reckless overbreeding. You can watch interviews with many of these shelter workers at

The claim that it is the shelter workers who are to blame for the number of pets flowing into our shelters, rather than the irresponsible pet owners and breeders who fill those shelters with their careless actions, is callous, shallow thinking.

Nathan is now selling books directly to breeders via a book tour with PetPAC, who advertise "Tour Dates" for him on the PetPAC website. And incredibly, he is now involved with radical underground breeder publications like The Animal Herald, a newsletter based partially on the idea that spay and neuter laws are "akin to genocide of dogs". The founder of this publication, cat breeder Diane Amble, appears to devote a lot of time trying to find ways to use the term "terrorist" in conjunction with the term "animal rights". This image is a capture from the latest edition of The Animal Herald... you can see a cartoon of Senator Florez, Assemblymember Nava and myself, dressed as "angels of death" for trying to pass animal protection laws. Nathan Winograd's contribution to this classy publication begins directly under the cartoon.

Ironically, or conveniently, pet breeders have become the biggest cheerleaders for Mr. Winograd, and they are often seen at the Capitol with a copy of Nathan's book clutched as their bible. Nathan has given backyard breeders an 'out' for a problem they directly contribute to, while blaming those who have to clean up the mess.

Gina Spadafori, (former) regular contributor to AKC (American Kennel Club) Publications:

Pet breeders must "realize that we’re all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction".

Gina is a columnist and author of pet books. Shame on her for constantly pushing the bogus claim that pet owners are against spay and neuter legislation. The truth is that tens of thousands of pet owners have written and called in support of the bills. Those "pet owners" who come out against these bills consistently turn out to be people only looking out for their own self-interest (the "Me Me Me" crowd).

In fact, according to a 2008 poll by the well respected firm Zogby International, "California voters are strongly in support of a law that would enforce the spaying and neutering of pets." The Zogby poll found that 66% of California voters supported spay and neuter laws, and that after learning more about the laws, a full 80% of the voters supported them. The Zogby poll conclusion? Pet owners overwhelmingly support spay and neuter laws to reduce shelter euthanasia.

From the scarier side of the breeder community... some breeders refer to violence as a possible answer to what they perceive as an intrusive government in league with animal rights "wackos":

Walt Hutchens, Timbreblue Whippets breeder in southwestern Virginia:

"We need to win as rapidly as possible, hopefully before there is any significant violence. The effect of violence on our chances of victory cannot be predicted." In general Mr. Hutchens seems to oppose violence, but he also slyly notes "By making the AR wars 'interesting,' it will lead to much more media interest".

Joe Overlease, Cocker Spaniel breeder from Missouri who ships dogs nationwide:

"Every Breeder I know is armed to the teeth as well, hot lead is a good motivator even for the most sincere AR wacko... Welcome to Fort Cocker".

Walt Hutchens' writings appear on the website, which is devoted to keeping exotic animal ownership legal and unregulated.

California Farm Bureau Federation writing about SB 250:

"Not all counties have provisions for intact [differential] licenses, and the amendments do not seem to allow dog owners to obtain an intact license if their cities or counties do not have them. This would force... dog owners residing in these counties to sterilize their dogs."

This statement from the Farm Bureau is completely wrong, and is one of the many scare tactics being used by opponents of animal legislation. In fact, statewide law for differential licenses have been in existence since 1973 (Food and Ag code 30804.5).

"Farm Bureau is also concerned about the potential for... actions taken against our members who may leave their dogs in the back of a pickup truck."

This is another example of outlandish hyperbole meant to scare Legislators. There is no provision in SB 250 that would allow animal control to seize a dog, and in the several California communities where similar laws are already in place, these hypothetical events do not occur.

Save Our Dogs, an anti-spay and neuter legislation group:

"...are the supporters trying hide the fact that the real goal of the bill is to eliminate all cats and dogs?"

The Save Our Dogs website, registered to someone in Oregon, also provides misleading graphs for download. The site consistently tries to influence opinion by presenting only part of the available data. In my opinion, this group was formed solely to provide misinformation about spay and neuter laws.

John Yates, American Sporting Dog Alliance (in Pennsylvania), on spay and neuter laws:

"Such is the murderous intent of [this]... movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason."

Unbelievable. The delusions held by some of these people are downright ridiculous.

Last, but not least.

No overview of spay and neuter law opponents would be complete without mentioning the Oregon group National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA). This group is front and center when it comes to opposing legislation that helps any type of animal, whether it is spay & neuter laws, curbs on puppy mills, or restrictions on animal cruelty.

Who are they? According to SourceWatch, who featured NAIA in their “FRONT GROUPS” project, “The NAIA is a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce and agriculture based in Portland, Oregon. Agendas include financial interests, legislation and public perception related to farm animal agribusiness, commercial breeding, hunting, fishing, trapping, fur ranching, animal testing, horse slaughter, rodeos, circuses and entertainment.”

All these people coming out against one woman who could be blown away with a wisp of wind. Judie has balls, really big balls, no neutering for this woman.

Last week Judie sent out an email with this information on it and she has been catching hell ever since. But she not only can dish it out, she can take it.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Happy Days Are Here Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got up this morning think it would be another uneventful day. Little did I know that this would end up being the day that the Whino will regret. I had been telling you that something was about to happen. Well, it is here.

Doug Rae has been placed on probation. According to the Whino Rae is the best shelter director ever. He can't say enough good things about Rae. Well, Whino, this is your boy in all his glory.

Animal Care and Control Director Douglas Rae took over the city shelter determined to save the lives of more Indianapolis dogs and cats.
Seven months later, city officials are worried that he is jeopardizing the safety of people.

Rae said he did not believe the removal of the two officers affected response times. But city officials and animal advocates find that hard to believe. Some critics even wondered whether Rae was purposely leaving strays on the street to drive up the percentage of adopted animals at the shelter.

Anything to save those "numbers". That is all the Whino's program is, a numbers game. Well, Whino, your game is up and it is long overdue.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Go Get 'Em Judie!!!!

You gotta read this one

Looks like we got a little war going on here. Do these fools think that we are going to take their shit quietly? Not hardly. Judie is coming out swinging and I welcome her.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Judie Mancuso is My Hero

I receive regular updates from Judie on her efforts in Sacramento for spay/neuter and regulating breeders. This woman works tirelessly to push through legislation designed to stop the influx of pets into our shelters so that we can stop euthanizing them. She is my hero. Her latest update takes on the Whino and his Whinonettes and I applaud her for it. Not only does she take on the Whino but all his buddies in this link.

Nathan Winograd, author and shelter consultant, on pet overpopulation:

"Shelter killing is not the result of pet overpopulation; it is the result of shelter managers who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it."

Nathan states that shelter workers are "content to kill animals" while "hiding behind the myth of pet overpopulation".

I must take a moment to comment on this. I have spent much of the last four years meeting with shelter workers across California. I have seen their tears as they explain their anguish at having to put down healthy animals every day. I have seen the emotional toll, and I have seen their pain as they come to grips with the horrible task they are faced with every day, thanks to careless pregnancies and reckless overbreeding. You can watch interviews with many of these shelter workers at

The claim that it is the shelter workers who are to blame for the number of pets flowing into our shelters, rather than the irresponsible pet owners and breeders who fill those shelters with their careless actions, is callous, shallow thinking.

Nathan is now selling books directly to breeders via a book tour with PetPAC, who advertise "Tour Dates" for him on the PetPAC website. And incredibly, he is now involved with radical underground breeder publications like The Animal Herald, a newsletter based partially on the idea that spay and neuter laws are "akin to genocide of dogs". The founder of this publication, cat breeder Diane Amble, appears to devote a lot of time trying to find ways to use the term "terrorist" in conjunction with the term "animal rights". This image is a capture from the latest edition of The Animal Herald... you can see a cartoon of Senator Florez, Assemblymember Nava and myself, dressed as "angels of death" for trying to pass animal protection laws. Nathan Winograd's contribution to this classy publication begins directly under the cartoon.

Ironically, or conveniently, pet breeders have become the biggest cheerleaders for Mr. Winograd, and they are often seen at the Capitol with a copy of Nathan's book clutched as their bible. Nathan has given backyard breeders an 'out' for a problem they directly contribute to, while blaming those who have to clean up the mess.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Boycott Rachael Ray

I love the Food Network but Rachael Ray is another story. Although I feel she is working from sheer ignorance, I also feel she has an obligation to educate herself as a role model.

I was watching one older show where she spoke of her first dog, a pit. Seems the vet gave her a lecture on feeding the dog, she actually admitted she was ignorant of what and how to feed dogs. Her dog was on the heavy side when the vet admonished her.

Ray is being used by the pit nutters of the world. She is being used to promote the "nanny" dog misconception by the pit breeders and dog fighters. This must stop. So I have written the Food Network to let them know I will no longer watch her show and will contact her sponsors that I am boycotting them as well. Yeah, I know, what is one person. But I know that one person can make a difference so I try anyway. I ask that those of you who read this blog will take your time and do the same.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Let's Kill More Animals and Nathan Winograd Calls It Wonderful

Importation of pets into areas that are still euthanizing is a disgusting program. Taking homes away from the local shelter animals to provide a "service" of providing cute little fluffy dogs to compete with breeders is immoral. Yet the Whino condones it.

This is nothing more than cherry picking shelters. What does that do? It leaves the big black dogs and the pit bulls, which the public doesn't want, and thus more euthanasia. The animals selected for the "underground railroad" are not the ones that need rescuing, quite the contrary. They are selected to compete with purebreds. The typical excuse for this is that if they don't bring in these dogs then people will turn to the breeders. If the people don't understand why they shouldn't turn to breeders, then education is in order, not providing these people with cheap purebreds. When the public goes to the shelter and isn't seeing a selection of "adoptable" dogs because they have been cherry picked by these rescues, then the public ends up at Petsmart instead. It all leads to one thing, the Whino generates business for rescues and it ends up with the shelters having to euthanize. Then the Whino can complain about it when all along he is creating the euthanization.

Seattle Humane Society is a good example. The pictures of their imported products show the very dogs that get adopted out of shelters, not the ones that will surely be euthanized. Seattle Humane is bringing in dogs from all over and then yelling the loudest about the euthanasia at the King County shelters. Is that not a bunch of bullshit? Seattle Humane is more guilty of killing than the shelter is because they took homes from the shelter animals. And they are doing it quite often. When I called Barnette on it, she responded that it was because the King Shelter had distemper and they didn't want to take animals out. What a liar!! SHS has continued to import dogs even though there is no distemper at the shelter. What is her excuse now?

Winograd supports this unethical practice. So the blood of those animals who lose their lives because of this is on his hands, along with the ones in Philly, Rancho and god only knows where else. Even his buddy Mike Fry has come out against this. Didn't bother to take a stand until they parked a load of dogs on his doorstep. And let's not even talk about bringing in diseases to an area that may not have problems with a particular disease. This did happen when a rescuer I talked with personally in Seattle tried several years ago to do. She said she never considered doing it again after her vet jumped her for bringing in dogs infested with problems not prevalent for Seattle.

I am all for this program only if the area is not euthanizing for time and space. Since all areas are still having to euthanize for time and space, this program disgusts me. Just another bunch of "saviors" following personal agendas that are killing animals just as much as the shelters are having to do.

Tailwagger's Is Back!!!

A particular favorite blog of mine is back up. Link is on the side.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Somewhat of An Update On Spadaro

Things have been happening as a result of my posting about her AWOL. I was contacted by a kennel in the San Fernando Valley and she had "dumped" 25 dogs there. She was to feed and clean, it was not a boarding situation. When the owner contacted me she had not been there for a week and he had taken care of the dogs out of the goodness of his heart. Now it has been almost three weeks since she has shown her face, knowing she is responsible for feeding and watering her dogs. She also "dumped" dogs on a kennel in Lancaster, same thing.

There are actions being taken, although I think it is limited in what they can do presently. Three dogs have died and one case has been confirmed as of yesterday to be parvo. I am waiting for the results of the other two.

Stay tuned for updates as they happen. This woman must be stopped, she has been allowed to torture animals for the last four years while awaiting court. She did show for court yesterday and fired her attorney - again. Another delay. You can access her files at and in the pull down for departments, go to the Superior Court, Case Information. It will direct you. See her numerous offenses other than animal abuse. You can also do the same for her son, Jonathan Spadaro. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Union of Idiots

Have you read the Whino's latest? He is such a disgusting man.

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. – Jonathan Swift from Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting.” – J.K. Toole, The Confederacy of Dunces.

Is how he starts his latest post. Note he refers to himself as a "true genius" and no doubt he believes that. He has stated many times that he is the way, the only way. The one thing I give him credit for is having a definite Messiah complex.

I consider those mentioned by him as the "Confederates" to be the real heros. HSUS is the only one out there fighting cruelty, not the Whino. The Dunaways and Perrys are fighting for the life of their shelters, knowing how cruel the "No Kill Equation" program has shown itself to be. They are in the direct line of fire and have the courage to speak the truth. Judie Mancusco is doing all she can to stop the influx of animals into the shelters. Unlike the Whino who says let them come because we can throw them out the door to anyone, outta sight, outta mind.

This man is in a union of idiots which includes Ed Boks, Michael Mountain, Best Friends, and numerous breeders and dog fighters. He has chose to jump into bed with the ones who make money off the suffering of animals and is the darling of the breeding industry. And someone needs to track down his math teacher to let him/her know what a lousy job they did with this guy. He can't add two and two together successfully much less figure that there are enough homes for all the animals born every day. What an idiot he is. But he thinks he is God and continues to express this. Well, God he ain't. And his Armageddon is coming soon because people are beginning to see that he ain't all there. It won't be soon enough for this person.

One thing he will be infamous for is how much he has set back the humane movement in this country. And I challenge him to prove that he is not getting money from the Center for Consumer Freedom or dog fighters. When they are telling their people to buy his book, what does he think that is? He's making money off them. Hell, the book is only fit to put in the bottom of a bird cage. He has yet to respond to my challenge to show where Dunaway and Perry have condemned him, to verify his accusations against them. He can't. Keep ranting, Whino, you are your own worse enemy.