Friday, December 31, 2010

Happy New Year!!!

Together we can put an end to the ridiculous "No Kill" movement by continuing to supply the truth.

Wishing you and your furry friends"Happy New Year" and an end to Nathan Winograd's lies and deceit. Let's all lift a glass to the end of his "No Kill Nation" and a prayer for the reality of spay/neuter stopping all this madness.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

The World is Coming to an End!!!!!!

Occasionally I drop in on the Whino's blog and was shocked today to see this in his "Happy Holidays" post.

"Together, we will put an end to overpopulation… of ineffective shelter directors mired in the failed philosophies of the past."

What??? Do my ears and eyes deceive me or has the Whino just admitted there is an overpopulation?? Is the world coming to an end and he wants to make peace with his maker?

Hey, Whino, according to everything you have preached before, there is no overpopulation. What has changed your take on it? Couldn't be the increase in impounds or euthanasia while all along you are insisting there are plenty of homes? Couldn't be because many are now finding you to be too radical to listen to anymore? Sounds like you are dancing to a different tune now.

UPDATE: Oops. Looks like he means ending ineffective shelter directors, not the PET overpopulation. Just wishful thinking on my part. So he still wants to end anything but the pet overpopulation problem. He and Brent Toellner, two people in complete and total denial, not to mention out of touch with reality. Oh well.

KCDogPoop Stinking It Up Again!! Part 2

I came across this article this morning and found it interesting because KCDogPoop is really spending all his time commenting on it.

Seems Mariel's pitbull was randomly attacking people and pets. Where was the provocation for that attack? Toellner put a list of reasons for pit attacks on the above article and I would like to ask him where this one falls.

And the stupid bitch actually wants this pit back. She's a slow learner it looks like, just hope she has lots of insurance.

Brent Toellner has no shame. He doesn't realize that is because of him and others like him that their beloved pits are being euthanized in record numbers or that they are setting the record for fatalities. He is one disgusting human being.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Are the Rescues Behind Brenda Barnette?

UPDATE: This is really sad but this is what happens when the public hears "No Kill".
One would assume that if the rescue community were in support of Brenda Barnette that they would come running to take all those animals out of the shelters and make her look good. Let's take a closer look at the first five months of Brenda Barnette's tenur with the City of Los Angeles.

My previous post has some numbers that BB released right before Xmas although the total stats have not been posted on the website as of the writing of this post.

To first address the question of the support of the rescue community, looks like the answer is no. In July, New Hope Placements were 676, August 616, September 614, October 577, and November 397!! What happened? Doesn't Barnette's philosophy of "No Kill" stress it takes a community? Where's the community here? Instead of promoting a relationship with this community, Barnette is instead promoting her relationship with the breeding community with her push for upping the pet household limits. The rescue community sees this and is withdrawing their support in the only way that will be recognized, don't take the animals from the shelters.

In October the return to owner was 434 but the bottom fell out in November with only 292 pets reclaimed. Easy to abandon pets when you think in terms of "No Kill". The intakes are the highest since 05 with the "No Kill'ers" yelling it is the result of MSN. No it is the result of a lack of reality based leadership.

How LA could have hired Barnette with her baggage is beyond me. She is chasing her breeder friends around because she's not stupid. She knows they make political contributions and she is an appointee of the political system. She can ride the waves behind her boss if she brings in the moola. Why isn't she concentrating on things she can make happen like shoring up licensing? Or doing something to get more pets back to their owners like microchipping, etc. Why isn't she helping the rescue community to have exempts for their fosters rather than chasing the raising of pet limits? Because it has nothing to do with helping the shelter animals.

She's doing a lousy job, people, and she has nothing in her bag of tricks that will make anything good happen.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Fudging Doesn't Change the Truth, BB

Seems BB did a press release today praising herself to high heaven. The stats for November still aren't on the website but this press release seems to paint a rosy picture, but not when you compare to the last stats posted for October.

2,105 Companion Animals Went Home in December
(now, does that include the November stats?) Before the Holidays
Thanks to you, this December 2,105 companion animals
(or does it mean in ONE day she had this many? See how she is trying to confuse.) from Los Angeles City shelters are in homes of their own.

“We are grateful to 1,264 adopters
(compared to 1844 for Oct. 10 for just cats and dogs) , our fabulous New Hope rescue partners who took 397 deserving animals from our shelters (compared to 624 New Hope Placements of cats and dogs in Oct. 10), our dedicated partners who transferred 152 dogs to communities where adopters were waiting to meet them (and were these already altered by the LA Taxpayer with any kind of reimbursement from those "communities"?) and 292 caring families (compared to 492 for cats and dogs in Oct. 10)
who came to our shelters to be reunited with their pets who had gotten lost”, reported Brenda Barnette, General Manager, Los Angeles Animal Services.

Los Angeles City Shelters will be open December 24th and December 26th. If you are spending some quality time at home during this Holiday Season, this could just be the puurrrrfect time to add a furry family member to your life!
(yeah, just the right setting to bring in a new pet, chaos, people, yelling, running, children, you name it, great time to acclimate a new pet!!)If you have room (or a garage or a bathroom) in your heart and home to add a new best friend, please visit one of our six locations and choose to adopt!


Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Brenda Barnette-Your Desperation is Showing!! & More "Hot" Stuff From LA

Well, folks, I had to take a little break but I’m back and rarin’ to share, so here goes.

Has anybody noticed that BB is sending out "News Releases" every few days,begging people to adopt, foster....anything,( just please get these animal out because my stats are in the toilet!!) Well, that's certainly the way it's looking.

She is in waaaay over her head. People aren't rushing in to get those ten year old pit bulls and the word’s out that the LAAS shelters are getting overcrowded. Today she sent a big news item entitled "The Weather Outside is Frightening" and I thought, wow, she's actually telling people to get their pets out of the torrential rain--but NO--it was telling you to adopt a cat for Christmas. (Holidays, with all the parties, strangers and chaos are a perfect time to bring in a new pet, she says.)

Here’s the string of “Desperation messages” she’s put out just this month—all saying about the same thing. Does she think this is PR? You can see them on I’d say she’s getting close to panic and some others think so too and have e-mailed me. What do you think? Maybe her best buddies (besides breeders) Ed Muzika and the ADL-LA can give us a little inside scoop on their idol. Is she already falling apart? Why aren’t they singing her praises for Christmas. Has she toppled off her pedestal?

Adopt a Cat Holiday Promotion - December 20, 2010

Adoption Discount Days for December - December 16, 2010

Holidy Shoping for Pet Lovers - December 13, 2010

Holiday Pet Safety Guide - December 10, 2010

Home Before the Holidays - December 8, 2010

Talk around town is also that no enforcement is being done on breeders (why doesn’t that surprise us?) or anything else. Of course, what do you expect when you hire a Field Operations Director with no field operations management experience? Yes, folks , Brenda Barnette bypassed LAAS officers with lots of experience to hire, Mark Salazar, someone she can bully and who wouldn’t know what she’s REALLY doing. (More on that later.)

You can’t make this stuff up, folks! Miss BB is right back at it again, making it up as she goes along. But it looks like LA may be smarter than (she thinks) she is.

A biggie is the the motion to increase household pet limits in LA City was assigned to Planning, according to the file. This is rational. They’ll be looking at facts and what it does to people and animals to jam them into small houses and yards in a city like LA that’s already overpopulated with people and animals. It will also bring in the opinions of people who have millions of dollars invested in L.A. real estate and may not like turning their entire neighborhood or the whole city into an overcrowded animal shelter so that Brenda Barnette and her buddies Rosendahl and Koretz can pay a favor back to their supporters in the breeding industry.

Here’s another one BB thought she could pull off but got exposed. This is a biggie! Read this---do you think any veterinarian in the SCVMA is going to risk looking like a fool by using Ms.B’s name again?

Barnette claimed and wrote in her report to the LAAS Commission for their October 12 meeting that the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association and all its 1,500 members are in support of raising the limits in LA to five dogs AND five cats. There seems to have been a “slight misunderstanding” according to an anonymous e-mail I received that had a copy of the SCVMA Nov. PULSE magazine article attached. It seems that only 55% of the SCVMA members who responded to the survey think it is OK to increase the number of TOTAL pets in households in Los Angeles to FIVE.

Seems during that official meeting BB had with four of the top vets of the organization (including John Hamil, a Laguna Beach dog breeder/vet who even made TV commercials for Pedigree with his dogs. See the link below for his take on SB 250—the CA S/N Bill and on an AKC panel), Ms. Barnette forgot one small detail. Some of the best veterinary minds in Los Angeles were not told or didn’t grasp that Los Angeles already allows three dogs and three cats, totaling six, and that BB, Rosie and PK want that to go up to TEN. I’ll bet the head of the SCVMA was not happy at being embarrassed and misquoted by BB! Get used to it LA. It’s all about HER so don’t get your panties in a bunch if she “fudges” a little, here and there—it’s for her cause—the BREEDERS and the AKC!!

And, speaking of veterinarians who breed…I couldn’t resist searching for Bill Rosendahl’s WLA
veterinary friend who supposedly started the whole increased-limits thing and I looked around until I found a vet that had a post called, “Looking for Love.” Voila! It was him, but OMG—the next episode of StoryTime with Dr.B. is called “Hot Fessie.” It’s too X-rated for this blog, but there it was—written by the vet who wants more animals in Los Angeles and describing his female dog’s heat in graphic detail! Get ready to feel a little sick if you are a rescuer and think these people are your friends! You can just Google that name for yourself. Like I said, folks, you can’t make this stuff up!

Here’s another example of this depraved crowd.

Take a look at the "Stud Service Agreement" of Barnette’s best breeder buddy, Cathie Turner, who is President of the breeding organization that sued against the L.A. S/N Ordiinance, (CDOC). It says she'll impregnate your "bitch" anyway you want it--natural methods (as long as her stud can provide the necessary service). She'll do it by artificial insemination, so your "bitch" doesn't have a choice. Or she offers "frozen sperm"---in case things don't "warm up" enough for the real thing! Can you imagine her and Barnette (who is/was a breeder) enjoying these activities on Christmas morning? Or maybe that's what they do at their holiday parties--everybody has a few drinks and stands around and watches the live doggie porn! (Oh, almost forgot, it was also reported that Cathie Turner says she doesn’t have an LA breeder permit because she doesn’t breed in the city. Where in her detailed contract does it say she can take that bitch to another location? Somebody should check and see if BB made sure there is a breeders’ permit for CT and her Sunbeam Farm Golden Retrievers.)

Question: Has it occurred to anybody else that “breeding a bitch” the way the Sunbeam Farm Kennel Contract describes it, is literally “rape.” The female has NO choice. They choose the stud and she gets pregnant or else they do it again till she does. Is there anything more unnatural than a female (of any species) not getting to choose who she wants to mate with? The natural way of any species is that the female does chose her mate, she choses the most healthy, the strongest, etc. Is this any different from the "rape rack" used by the pit bull nutters? Why isn't this considered cruelty?

But when she puts on her Sunday-go-to-meeting suit, Cathie Turner is after the goodwill of the Animal Services Commission by dangling "sponsorship" of shelters by breeders and breed clubs. So while the breeders in the club rake in thousands from their puppies, they will provide a stack of old newspapers and used blankets for the shelter animals? What a deal!.

How about proving they are paying their fair share of taxes and not lying on how many litters and puppies per litter they are having and selling? What a deal for them and what an insult to the Commission and to the animals and overflow being killed in the shelters who are the second, third, fourth generation from their purebreds (it only takes a couple of years, folks) of the "purebreds" the breeders sell all over the city for big bucks. But, of course, those are not show champions so what do they care.

What matters to breeders is exactly what BB is giving them--or trying to give them: NO LIMITS, NO S/ N LAW (Cathie Turner already said she may refile against it), NO REAL LICENSING (on-line only so the breeders won't be bothered by some pesky canvasser or officer knocking on their door and seeing all their crated bitches and studs--remember, the puppies don't "count" so they don’t have to hide them.)

Where's the ADL-LA and Muzika and all the others that pummeled Boks like a woman with a scarlet letter??? Barnette admitted that the impounds went up after she came. Where are the stats on her "foster" program? Boks was FORCED to disclose EVERYTHING immediately. Why isn't anybody even asking? Have they realized Barnette came here for only one purpose--to make Los Angeles the BREEDING CAPITAL CITY of the nation? Worse, yet, are the ADL-LA and Ed Muzika accepting it or ARE THEY PART OF IT??? Maybe so…they all follow the Whino around like whimpering puppies, hanging on the words “No Kill” like they are saving their own lives and Nathan Winograd, he has already proven to be in bed with the breeders. Do we need a calculator to figure this one out?

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Nathan Winograd Doesn't Care About Animals

We'll start all these posts off with a bang. Nathan J. Winograd, protector of breeders, has been exposed, as if he hasn't been already. While with Tompkins County, the Whiney actually protected a breeder, delaying this breeder's charges of cruelty.
""In February 2003, the Groton kennel relinquished 59 dogs to Tompkins County SPCA. The SPCA maintained there were signs of neglect and long-term medical problems. Records showed that the kennel had never been cited for conditions in the nine years it had operated. The SPCA, the American Kennel Club and the State of New York had all inspected the kennel. After an initial license inspection, the New York Dept. of Agriculture and Markets contacted Mr. Winograd to inform him of the conditions in the Groton kennel. Winograd admitted he had known about the Groton kennel conditions since he began as director of Tompkins County SPCA. His goal was to “gradually” reduce the number of animals at the kennel. An Ithaca Journal op ed at the time argued that Winograd and the SPCA dropped the ball on the abusive kennel by failing to follow through with appropriate action.

Since the SPCA routinely facilitates the prosecution of animal abuse, it is puzzling that this organization recently went out of its way to claim serious incidents of neglect at a dog breeding facility without following through with charges. In other instances of alleged violations of state animal welfare laws, the SPCA quickly handed the cases over to law enforcement authorities for prosecution. Why not now?""

What in the hell does Winograd mean, gradually reduce the number of animals at the kennel? I'll tell you what it means, animals were left to suffer while the Whiney was bragging to the world he has discovered how to stop euthanasia. See how this man thinks!!! You don't play around with a cruelty case, you take the animals and run. Not Winograd, oh no, he didn't give a damn about those animals, he only cared about his numbers and how it would affect those.

And least we forget how Winograd walked away from "cruelty" during his consultations only to refer to it on paper. He didn't point these things out to staff, just allowed them to continue, leaving the animals to suffer so he could use it in his reports. And where is he with those horrible shelters he speaks of on his website? What's he doing to stop these shelters? Anything other than lip service, does he go there and organize protests or whatever, anything? These are not the actions of anyone who truly cares about animals.

The "man", and I use that term loosely, doesn't care about animals and the more than comes out shows this plainly. Listening, ADL-LA?? Stay tuned, more to come on the Whiney's and his loonie tunes followers to come on this station.

Pat Dunaway


Almost too much and will be more than one post. You just can't make this stuff up, folks, unbelievable.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Stupidity Follows Nathan Winograd the Loser

Here's another article on the subject. I originally took it down because it contained too much info but since IndyBay doesn't want to take it down, I'll post it too.

The City of Los Angeles was sued by six environment groups because the City was doing TNR (trap, neuter, return of cats to outdoor colonies) without first doing the necessary environmental review. The City lost the case. After the City lost Nathan tried to intervene. Nathan lost his motion to intervene because he didn't file timely. He appealed that decision and just lost again for the same reason. What's it called when you do the same thing over and over again expecting different results? Insanity. In June 2008 The Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy sued the City of Los Angeles. They sued the City to stop them from continuing to implement TNR colonies without first doing the necessary environment reviews. Though the City denied they were implementing TNR, evidence showed and the court ruled that they had been operating such a program. In January 2010 the court issued a final judgment and an injunction prohibiting the City from operating a TNR program without first doing the necessary review.

Two months after the City lost the case Nathan Winograd, through his No Kill Advocacy Center, and Stray Cat Alliance filed an ex parte motion to intervene. The court denied the motion as untimely. These motions should be filed before a judgment is entered. Even though Nathan et al. knew about this case since the inception, he did not intervene earlier. In court documents they falsely stated they only heard about the lawsuit after the City lost. Even then they still did not file timely.

Immediately after losing this motion they appealed it to a higher court. That court denied their second motion to intervene. From the court, "The trial court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely. Manifestly, there was no miscarriage of justice in denying appellants' ex parte application, made after entry of judgment, to hijack this lawsuit so as to reroute it into a controversy over issues the actual parties never had any interest in litigating."

What's interesting here is that the City did not even want Nathan Winograd to intervene on their behalf. As per court documents "The City contends that intervention at this point could impose additional litigation costs and further delay implementation of a City feral cat management program and the lifting of the injunction." By filing the motion to intervene Nathan knowingly delayed the implementation of a TNR program. How many cats may have died because of his actions?

Not only did the motion to intervene have no merit but it was not filed in a proper manner. The court noted that lead attorney Orly Degani never moved to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663. The court stated that the cases which Degani cited to support her motion had nothing to do with a motion to vacate judgment.

Keep in mind that Nathan Winograd is not only a "nokill guru" but also an attorney who was licensed to practice in California. He can't claim legal ignorance in this matter. Winograd et al. did not file in a timely or proper manner. They tried to argue TNR when the real issue was the ability to intervene. I'm starting to think that Winograd used this lawsuit as a soapbox for himself to try to sell copies of his book or to raise donations. I see no other reason why an intelligent sane individual would file a doomed legal motion.

I've been told that Orly Degani is an intelligent and experienced lawyer. I find it hard to believe she would sign on to a case doomed to failure based on its merits. I also find it hard to believe she could have made such a big mistake as not filing properly. I've been told she is a true cat lover who generally tears up while talking about her cats. Witnesses at the last court hearing stated that steam was coming out of Orly's ears and she was visibly flustered. Perhaps Degani was too emotionally close to the issue to act competently.

Now that Winograd has lost twice, will he file again? The result will not be different. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Let's see how Nathan defines himself.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

ADL-LA - Soft on Brenda Barnette and Mark Salazar OR HAVE THEY SOLD OUT ON THEIR "VALUES"?

UPDATE: Here's an article that is out with more information about this situation in LA.
Hollywood cannot come up with this storyline, folks. Seems the ADL-LA is getting sloppy in their support and "investigations" of Barnette and the latest hire, MARK SALAZAR as one of two new Directors of Field Operations. Boks came with less baggage, and look how the ADL-LA handled that. Has the ADL-LA sold out on their own values or are they too cowardly to admit they've made a big mistake about Brenda Barnette? I’D RECOMMEND CUTTING YOUR LOSSES. NOBODY’S EVEN BOTHERS TO READ YOUR DRIBBLE ANY MORE IN THE COUNCIL OFFICES, OR HAVEN’T YOU HEARD? Now here’s the REAL deal!!

Let's reminisce for a moment. Does anyone remember Brad Crauer? He was the vet at Seattle Humane while Brenda Barnette was the CEO. This vet prescribed medication for himself in the name of his dead dog. This is a matter of public record.
There are a few more of Brenda Barnette's "associates" that we won't mention in this post, but they are mentioned in several older posts. The point being that BB seems to surround herself with those of "questionable" character.

It seems like the ADL-LA, which called for IMMEDIATE stopthekiiling for every GM of LAAS is willing to shove the animals in L.A. city shelters into the hands of a new Director of Field Operations who has an 80% kill rate where he now heads a humane society in North East TX.
"Sadly each year, due to neglect and pet overpopulation, we intake nearly 10,000 animals and serve the unfortunate and necessary burden to humanely euthanize approximately 80% of that number because they are either too young, old, sick, injured or there is no longer enough space for them at the Humane Society."

How about the fact that Salazar has so very little experience in animal control? At best he only has about a year and a half. His law enforcement and humane investigations experience is extremely limited. That explains why Barnette wants him, with no experience he will bow down and kiss her feet, anything she wants he will do. He can't argue with her, he doesn't know enough to argue and he needs a job. With his record, who else would hire him?

Here's the ADL-LA alert that was sent out speaking of Mark Salazar and
no mention of the 80% euthanasia rate:

"The tone set by and the way the Director of Field Operations runs the department under the General Manager makes an enormous amount of difference in the success of the entire shelter system and is directly responsible for saving the lives of thousands of homeless animals. (This guy's gonna save thousands? He didn't do it in Longview)

The humane community should e-mail Barnette thanking her and her panel for having the courage to choose Mark Salazar (instead of a less competent LAAS employee to keep the 'status quo' happy.)
(I'd say it is more appropriate that they email Barnette to ask for a good reason to hire him.) They chose an outsider, which is virtually unheard of at LAAS, because he was apparently (apparently??? When was the last time the ADL-LA accepted "apparently")the best fit for the animals and the job. (ADL-LA does not know the names of the panel members who chose Salazar, but one of our sources in the LAAS admin office told us they were very bright animal people and we believe him.)
(How about buying that bridge in Brooklyn if that's all it takes.)

The ADL-LA’s description of Salazar’s “stellar” career performance (including a lawsuit for sexual harassment) made me curious, so I did a little “research” on my own. Salazar was originally from Riverside and seems he was involved in a, well, this one says he lifted up a female employee’s blouse and made an inappropriate comment about her body.
And this one talks about inappropriate touching, so while no one should pass judgment who wasn’t there, it certainly doesn’t hurt to have the LAAS female employees aware of this, so we don’t have repeat of the Boks’ situation.
And we all know that the best way to get rid of a bad government employee is to give them a good recommendation, Riverside was eager to have him move along. Ever heard the saying, where's there's smoke, there's fire??

Five people have filed charges against Salazar in Riverside. Has this happened before...or since...? (I haven't finished my investigation.) Does this sound like someone acceptable to the ADL-LA? What's happening here?

C'mon ADL-LA do you seriously think that the "made up Texan accents" employees are real, they are just a figment of your imagination. And since most of the "press here" buttons on the HS menu take you no where, are you "sure" you really spoke to a real person? These "people" are talking about an 80% euthanization rate!!! Are we sure he’s leaving TX just because he wants to come back to L.A.? Or could it be because after only 9 months on the job he’s already in a little trouble?

"Humane Society board Vice President Mary Joe Murphrey said Tuesday she thought Salazar was resigning to pursue other career opportunities and wasn’t aware he already had another job.

She said board members were aware of the lawsuits brought against Salazar and his former employer — the city of Riverside, Calif., — by five former city workers on allegations of sexual harassment, age discrimination, retaliation and not making allowances for their physical disabilities."

There has to be fire here, not as innocent as the ADL-LA makes him to be. One employee in Riverside sued because he was fired. Well, he is back on the job and with back pay since 2007. Was this a "dismissal" or a "settlement"? There's a big difference. Are we re-visiting Boks again?

Here’s where Salazar refused last month to allow an audit of the finances of the humane society he’s managing. There's been questions from the community of the high euthanasia rate.

The City of L.A.—before Brenda Barnette came—actually had one of the lowest kill rates in the state but now stray, impounds and euthanasias are on their way up, as I talked about earlier:

Is it possible Barnette hired this guy with an 80% kill rate just to have somebody to blame her failure on as her rates continue to climb? She’s out of her league. Winograd knows it and already dropped her like a hot potato. The breeders are getting pretty shaky after being exposed by their own e-mails on the City Clerk’s website (below and more to come shortly). Barnette is so unsure of her ability to bring home the bacon to the AKC and get the animal-limits raised (eventually to “no limits”) that may this is the reason she wants Salazar. Seems there is a close relationship between the Longview Humane Society/Salazar, and breeders (Longview Kennel Club)

"The Longview Kennel Club and the HSNTx have enjoyed a very long, supportive relationship. The HSNTx Board of Directors runs the admissions booth for the LKC Dog Show each July, and the LKC donates a portion of the proceeds to the Humane Society. From the Humane Society of Northeast Texas Staff and Board of Directors, THANK YOU to the Longview Kennel Club!"
Sounds like a bunch of breeders to me doing their usual things...dropping a few crumbs for the HS to pick up so they can say they are "actively involved in rescues and shelters. Like Cathie Turner, representing breeders who make thousands of dollars per dog. offered to get their club to donate old newspapers to the SLA shelter. Big deal!!!

And, BTW, those Town Hall meeting Barnette held where all the breeders seemed so poised and confident of their lines, here’s why—the AKC wrote their script. Here’s the alert Cathie Turner announced in her e-mail where she, Krokover, Koretz, Rosendahl and Barnette got their you-know- what’s caught in the City Clerk’s wringer:

Limit Laws
Los Angeles, CA – The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department has held two town hall meetings to discuss a possible increase of the city’s current animal limit from 3 dogs or cats to 5 dogs or cats. AKC GR staff alerted local club members and breeders in Los Angeles County and provided them with talking points that laud the proposed changes, but also discuss the ineffectiveness of limit laws.

The ADL-LA, are you listening, did that sound familiar? Why are you supporting this? Yes, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, but if you don't come out against Barnette, it is the animals that will be damned. I challenge you to show why you are supporting Nathan Winograd at this point when he is so closely associated with Rick Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman who represents agricultural cruelty and animal research, the very things you claim to be against? Why are you accepting Winograd's lame excuses for his association with the likes of Rick Berman and Patti Strand? Why, ADL-LA, are you supporting a known breeder who supports the AKC who in turns supports the cruelty of puppy mills, it is their biggest money maker? Take your lick, ADL-LA, now because it is only getting much more involved, Barnette has too much dirt on her and you've made the biggest mistake you've ever made. Or maybe you have sold out, maybe you now frequent the local McDonald's? Might as well with the company you are now chosing.

For those not familar with the ADL-LA here is a link that describes them quite well.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010


A little research has undercovered something very interesting. I blogged recently about the letters of support for the increase in household limits for the City of LA and how most of them were from the breeding community. I don't know if this breeder meant to send personal communications along with his letter of support or not, but it is there for all to see. Note that it refers to several calls from LAAS wanting to know why more letters aren't coming in from the breeding community. Now, let's see, just who at LAAS would be soliciting breeders for support. Linda Barth, nah. The ACO's, nah. Shelter workers, nah. Ah, who but a breeder themself, Brenda Barnette. And just why would she be soliciting support from her fellow breeders? Several reasons probably. First her association with breeding, well known although she tries her best to deny it. Second, maybe she wants to take up the "hobby" again and wants to be able to do so legally. Third, her association and support for Rosendahl, a known ?former? breeder who supported her hiring.


CATHIE TURNER, Golden Retriever breeder, claims to speak for over 100 breeders and breed clubs, etc.--all listed on her CONCERNED DOG OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA website. CATHIE TURNER sued the City to stop the 2008 SPAY/NEUTER Ordinance.

Cathie Turner of CDOC writes to Louis Krokover:

“LAAS has written to me several time to find out why no one is supporting this now that it has passed the Animal Commission. (Now just who would be writing from LAAS, wanna take a guess?) It could come up as soon as October 25th. If it is defeated in Public Safety, we are done. AKC is supposed to be sending out a bulletin as well. Cathie”


LOUIS KROKOVER, Tibetan Terrier Breeder and President of the Encino Neighborhood Council-- (which was convinced to vote to support the animal-limits increase—by, guess who? You got it, Louis Krokover.) (Here’s the link to his discussion of his Champion, R.J. , “It can cost as much as $5,000 to purchase and prepare a championship-caliber dog.”)

KROKOVER writes to Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz as President of Newday Development, Inc.
(Aha, a developer—just what Koretz said he would stop if he was elected to Council last year!)

Krokover’s e-mail to Rosendahl and Koretz starts off:

“It is my best understanding within our city and my community that roughly 68% of the residents support the motion. But in fact, are afraid to come forward because of any possible negative actions that could arise if this motion were to fail and they were singled out. (What? Why would a regular citizen have to worry about being singled out? A breeder might have this worry.) This motion MUST PASS to protect our rights as individuals, even if the majority is to afraid to speak up at this time.
(Duh, again, why would a regular pet owner be afraid to speak up?)

“Your good friend and supporter.” /S/ Louis Krokover

(Note: if 68% of the residents support this, then why does Cathie Turner write, “all the letters are in opposition.”
) According to Rosendahl and Koretz, this motion was supposed to save “shelter animals,” so why would the “majority” be afraid to speak up, Mr. Krokover? What “individual rights?” And, who and where is the 68% of the residents who support the motion.)


PAUL KORETZ, the West Los Angeles/Valley Councilman who helped the Mayor select Brenda Barnette
(or had Jim Bickhart and the ADL-LA already made the choice?)

(Koretz’ Deputy, helping the breeders. Read his e-mail below.

Well, they finally drummed up a little support such as this breeder, CAROL ESTERKIN, who wrote, “I have been involved in pure-bred dog activities since 1956, am an American Kennel Club Judge, President of an all-breed kennel club and a member of Concerned Dog Owners of Caliiornia.” (Letter in CF 10-0982 file.)

OLD BREEDING BUDDIES: You can go to “About CDOC” and see all their names as officers and directors. And you can go to and see them organizing to defeat AB 1634 (CA statewide S/N bill) or to , where they talk about “pressuring people [legislators] to change their votes” and defeat SB 250 (the latest CA statewide S/N effort.)

And remember the first time we saw Rosendahl and Cathie Turner working together? ROSENDAHL WAS THE ONLY VOTE AGAINST THE LOS ANGELES S/N ORDINANCE IN 2008!! The AKC website announced, “Last week, the City Council voted 10-1 in favor of the ordinance, with only Councilmember Bill Rosendahl standing up for responsible owners and breeders. “



HERE ARE THE E-MAILS. Judge for yourself:
To: bill,, PauI,,
..-.--.- ..--- ........---~-.......

Sat, Oct 16,2010 at 8:47 AM
Please read my comments below.
It is my best understanding within our city and my community that roughly 68% of the residents support the motion. But in fact, are afraid to come forward because of any possible
negative actions that could arise if this motion were to fail and they were singled out.
This motion MUST PASS to protect our rights as individuals, even if the majority is to afraid to speak up at this time. The claims about more animals running loose on our streets, excessive
noise and health issues are totally unfounded. When you look at other communities across our nation and even in Canada this is not the case. In fact - Less animals on the streets, no increase in noise and no health issues. If it can work for them - Then it can and will work for us.
Thank you for listening to me on this matter.

Your good friend and supporter,


Louis Krokover
Newday Development, Inc
Newday Construction
CSLB # ~601712
5110 Valjean Ave
Encino, Ca 91436~1314
(0) 818~784~9495
(F) 818-783-8924
(e) 818~612~9894

-Original Message---
Sent: Sat, Oct 16, 20108:30 am

Subject: Re: pet limit
Cathie - I did fax to John and also spoke to him briefly. If you are able to attend the ENC Executlve committee meeting this coming Tuesday at 12:30 PM at the Encino Womens Club, you can speak under public comment for the record. Hopefully the general board will discuss and support a motion in favor of this at the general meeting on October 27, 2010.

I have also spoken to many city council members expressing my support as a resident of our community.


Louis Krokover
Newday Development, Inc
Newday Construction
CSLB # -601712
5110 Valjean Ave

Encino, Ca 91436-1314
(0) 818-784-9495
(F) 818-783-8924
(C) 818-612-9894
Web --
Confidential Notice:
Notice of Privileged and Confidential Information may be co

---Original Message--
From: Cathie Turner
Cc: Marion Bradshaw ;
Florence Blecher ;
esterkin ;
Sent: Sat, Oct 16, 20108:23 am

Subject: Re: pet limit
Sharon Shilkoff

Thanks Louis - I have been checking this constantly and the issue is that, other than one communication from Valley Glen NC, all the letters are in opposition.
That is why, as important as your contacts are, you need to write a letter and at a minimum fax it to John White - as do we all. At the end of the day there is no tally of phone calls and emails - it is how many letters did John put into the file. All the contact and fax info is on the first page
of the cdoc website at .

LAAS has written to me several time to find out why no one is supporting
this now that it has passed the Animal Commission.
It could come up as soon as October 25th. If it is defeated in Public Safety, we are done. AKC is supposed to be sending out a bulletin as well.

On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:29 PM, wrote:
This is from my friend at koretz's office. Louis
Sent from my Verizon WIreless BlackBerry

From: Jeffrey Ebenstein
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:12:47 -0700
Subject: pet limit
Just wanted to send you this link for the Counicl File on the pet limit increase issue, it has great
additional documentation as well.

http://cityclerk.lacity. orgllacityclerkconnectlindex. cfm?fa=ccfi.
viewrecord&cfnum ber=10-0982
Jeffrey Ebenstein
Office of Councilmember Paul Koretz
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1020
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 971-3088, Fax: (818) 788-9210
jeffrey. ebenstein@lacity,org
If you would like to sign up to receive the Fifth Council District e-
newsletter, click HERE.

Now we know why Cathie Turner and Brenda Barnette were instant new Best Friends! They already knew each other and it looks like this was all a plan. Could this "happy Breeder family" be why Rosendahl and Koretz rushed in the motion on June 4, AFTER the selection for GM had undoubtedly been made (although no announced until June 17)?

Just to give you a little insight as to why the breeders want this, although I'm sure that you may already know but here are the facts. According to a study by Ralston Purina and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, only 10-20% of pet dogs and cats are obtained via adoption from animal shelters and rescues. The most common way for a pet owner to obtain a pet is from an acquaintance or family member (Breeding) 15-20% are purchased from breeders and only 2-10% are purchased from pet shops.

So Brenda Barnette, Rosendahl, and Koretz are handing a 15-30% increase in business to breeders on a silver platter. Of that 66% increase only about 10% will be taken from the shelter. It also can be translated into more backyard breeding, the oops litters, those where most people get their pets. And it translates into even more animals coming into the shelters. It translates into taxpayers getting rip off even moreso because of the BYB's and the breeders not paying their share of taxes on these sales. A double whammy is the taxpayers also has to pay the additional costs at the shelters. Do the math, see if it adds up to Barnette's math, it won't.

Pets Alive = Pets A-Liar

“No Kill” and hoarding, one in the same. A recent case in West Virginia points out how these “No Kill” groups work, how they protect each other, how they allow suffering.

Pets Alive, a group I have no respect for anyway, primarily because of their connections to Farm Sanctuary along with the Whino, posted this little tiddy. Seems there is a “no kill” shelter, and I use that term loosely, in West Virginia and as usual, it became overcrowded. Pets Alive went there and put this record on their blog.
We were horrified by the pictures and the firsthand accounts of things at this building out in the middle of nowhere without running water, no telephone, not enough food, and too many animals.
It started a debate at Pets Alive and with our partners like Best Friends, and we eventually sought advice from organizations and people in West Virginia. Is Trish Bragg a hoarder and should she be encouraged to stop?

Then Pets Alive had the audacity to try to blame HSUS and PETA and others. I did contact both and found out the truth. HSUS did talk with this hoarder/rescue and told her she had too many animals. They never saw the place and they were contacted in such a way that the only advice they could offer was in relation to soliciting donations. PETA never had any contact with this hoarder/rescuer. PETA said had they had contact, it would have been a much different story and Pets Alive would never have had a reason to show up.

Trish told me that she was reviled by the establishment in both counties for trying to take in dogs. She was visited by HSUS, Peta, the state authorities and even the local sheriff. In all cases they came there with one impression and left with another. The worse she was accused of (this was within the recent ninety days) was overcrowding. Sigh. So why didn’t someone DO what we were doing? Why did they just take a look around, determine that she was struggling and then not offer any solution or advice or anything other than a wave goodbye?

Wait a minute, isn't that exactly what Pets Alive did, wave goodbye?

Now to make a long story short, they went, they saw, they left. They saw the suffering, the disease, the lack of adequate care, grabbed a few dogs and left. If you’ll note throughout they “debated” whether this “no kill” was indeed a shelter or a hoarder. What’s the fucking difference whether it is or isn’t? If it was a hoarder would you call the authorities but if it is a “no kill” you don’t? They titled it “Saving Xena” when the more appropriate title would be “Let’s torture all the others to death”. Pets Alive campaigned along side Winograd for the Oreo’s Bill, they are drinking his koolaid out of the cup handed to them by Farm Sanctuary, another tormentor of animals.

Can you believe that they walked away from those animals with the conditions that they themselves describe all in the name of “No Kill”? And the Whino tries to say that he doesn’t hang with those who torture animals, that he isn’t a tormentor of animals. What else can you call this?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Build It and They Will Come - NOT Part 2

Boy if you thought September didn't look good for Brenda Barnette, October ain't looking good either. C'mon Whinonettes, when will the miracles start happening?

For the month of October 2010 compared with the years since 05 for the same month, the impounds of cats was only topped once, 2081 for 10 and 2179 for 07. Euthanization was topped in once in 5 years with 1270 for 2010 and 1316 in 07. DOA's were 60 the second highest since 05. Only one other year was the number of cats taken by rescues less, with 151 cats in 2010 and in 08 at 97. And adoptions were 515 with only one other year being lower, 05 with 507.

Dogs for the month of October 2010 showed the highest amount of impounds for the past 5 years at 3120. Keep in mind they don't count pit bulls in with the dogs, they are recorded separately. Euthanization was the highest for the past 5 years at 872. DOA's were the highest for the past 5 years at 86. Adoptions were lower at 1159 except for 05. One "bright" note is that the rescues took a few more at 426 and that was the highest in 5 years. Whoopie!

Pits for the month of October 2010 compared to the same month for the past five years shows there were more adoptions at 162 while the impound number was the highest in the past 5 years at 687. Rescues did take more pits than they have done for October for the past 5 years. The number of pits that died in the shelter were the highest they have been for the month of October for the past 5 years at 9. And last but not least, euthanization of pits was the highest it has been in 5 years for October at 373.

When will we start seeing these changes, Barnette, that you talked about? So far your record sucks. And considering that you are more engaged in trying to stick animals in bathrooms and garages or encouraging a 66% increase in household limits, when are you gonna have the time to work these miracles of your "No Kill" philosophy? AND WHAT WOULD BE THE REAL REASON WHY YOU WANT THAT INCREASE WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN HANDLE WHAT'S ON YOUR PLATE NOW?

Pat Dunaway

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Get Me Some Photos/Evidence

There is an underground movement to get people into these "No Kill" shelters to gather evidence in the form of photos, etc. Anyone who has photos of the cruelty of Nathan Winograd's shelters are encouraged to send them to me under the comment sections. My comments are moderated, in other words, no one will see them but myself. Mark them "Not for Publication". Since most people don't want to expose themselves, this way I become the "Reporting Party" (RP) and you will remain anonymous. Or anyone who is willing to testify is welcome too. Winograd depends on people being intimidated into silence. He send his goons after people like Pat Dunaway and that can stop many from coming forward. This way the consequences will fall on my back, not yours. HonestyHelps

Friday, November 12, 2010

I Think I Am In Love

Stark nailed the Whiney again.

Stark failed to mention that Camille Hankins is also the head of WAR. They are an arm of ALF. The co founder Greg Kelly is now running ADL and the local ALF cell along with Pam and Jerry. See how Whiney surrounds himself with the lowest of the low, anyone who has good sense and a clean record won't touch him. Just makes me wonder what is in the background of Brent Toellner, Ryan Clinton, and Mike Fry. Stay tuned.
Pat Dunaway

Austin, You Aren't Telling the Whole Truth

Here are some interesting figures you might want to mull over. Austin isn't quite doing as well as they would like to claim. Let's keep in mind that a tactic used by the Whinonettes is to withhold taking animals from the shelter in order to make the shelter's euthanasia numbers go up, to force the issue of adopting "No Kill". So now these same groups are scrambling to get the animals out in order to make it look good but this can't go on forever. They will become full themselves and will have to stop taking the animals. It's funny how all this fits together when you take off those rose colored "No Kill" glasses. The problem is that the owner surrenders, strays, and DOA's will continue.

Sept. 10 Sept. 09
Owner Surrenders 554 485
Strays 1387 1254
Euthanized 609 641
DOA 113 91
Requested Euth. 17 19

Aug. 10 Aug. 09
Owner Surrenders 626 595
Strays 1267 1182
Euthanized 477 657
DOA 121 108
Requested Euth. 17 32

July 10 July 09
Owner Surrenders 633 534
Strays 1467 1231
Euthanized 706 737
DOA 81 104
Requested Euth. 20 45

June 10 June 09
Owner Surrenders 799 610
Strays 1578 1275
Euthanized 936 843
DOA 50 96
Requested Euth. 24 39

May 10 May 09
Owner Surrenders 669 599
Strays 1488 1445
Euthanized 632 763
DOA 84 62
Requested Euth. 20 30

Now that you have "mulled" over those figures, let me point out some interesting points. Note how since they have gone "No Kill" the owner surrenders have increased. Duh. Their strays have also increased. Duh. For the most part, their DOA's have increased. The strays probably are increasing because the owners were turned away from the shelter and just dumped them on the streets. Out of five months, the DOA's increased in conjunction with the strays increasing.

But their requested euthanization has decreased, in other words, they are turning away those who need their pets euthanized. Usually this means pets that are suffering, so does this mean that Austin believes in letting pets suffer and they are turning them away?

But the most interesting is how owner surrenders increased which is usually the case when a shelter declares that they won't kill them. Then comes in the increase in strays and DOAs. If you take these numbers and work them the right way, Austin was doing a better job BEFORE their taking the "No Kill" road. It's nothing more than a numbers game, folks.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

So You Think "No Kill" Doesn't Support Hoarding?

Thursday November 11, 2010
Deputies rescue scores of dogs from private shelter

"DANVILLE - Nearly 80 dogs have found refuge at the Boone County Fairground horse stables after being rescued from what witnesses are calling "atrocious" conditions at a privately run animal shelter. But contrary to its name, officials said, the shelter was no sanctuary for the animals. "The stench was absolutely foul," he said. The shelter also lacked water, heat and electricity. "It had no utilities at all," Miller said.
Operating a no-kill shelter is no easy task, especially in an economically depressed area like Boone County, she said."

May not make the papers each time but I can almost guarantee if the reporters asked the right questions, it would be apparent.

Here's one case where the hoarder was busted by the very organization giving her animals, the PSPCA. Sue Crosby is a definite Whinonette and that organization is in turmoil with Board resignations, etc.

"She disputed the PSPCA's figures on the number of animals seized from her home, andWilliamson confirmed that Federov had helped foster kittens for the PSPCA.

Federov said she had taken dogs from the former PACCA to save them from being put down."

Now here's another one that shows these "No Kill" shelters and rescues gladly give animals to hoarders, they are their best customers.

"She talked to Nawojski, who told her that the cats were not in bad health and that the reason they'd taken in so many cats was because of all the cat groups pleading with people to adopt.
Nevada Humane Society records show that Nawojski has adopted seven cats from the shelter since 2006. That's the legal limit in congested areas of the county. Stevens said, based on microchip readings, that it appears the seized cats were adopted from a number of different cat rescue groups. She said that if the cats are surrendered, each group will likely take back the ones who came from them. She said there were at least six unaltered male cats and they wouldn't know if any of the females were not spayed until further investigation."

I guess that Nevada Humane or any of the other groups don't do home checks for cats since they continued to adopt cats to these hoarders. A simple home check would have revealed these hoarders and the cats would not have had to suffer the way they did.

The question now is did those unaltered cats come from those "No Kill" cat rescue groups. Like I said, how many more are out there but reporters don't know to ask where the animals came from. "No Kill" attracts hoarders like flies to honey and those groups are glad to have them. Without these hoarders, those groups might not be able to claim their evil status as being "No Kill".

A recent article by AP Reporter, Sue Manning, takes a look at "rescues" who are becoming hoarders.
When Animal Rescuers Become Animal Hoarders: Rescues, shelters make up a quarter of the 6,000 hoarding cases each year

"Rescues and shelters now make up a quarter of the estimated 6,000 new hoarding cases reported in the U.S. each year, said Dr. Randall Lockwood, ASPCA's senior vice president of forensic sciences and anticruelty projects.

"When I first started looking into this 20 years ago, fewer than 5 percent would have fit that description," Lockwood said."
It was about 15-20 years ago that we started hearing the term "no kill". Read the article, it will make you sick at heart. I've said it before and I will repeat it again, this is the legacy of "No Kill". Nathan Winograd would rather this happen than to see animals euthanized in a shelter and he is the ringleader of these hoarding rescues because they all call themselves "no kill".

He truly is what Mike Stark said, torturer, not a Savior.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

"National Animal Shelter Reform Week" - What A Farce

Nathan Winograd, in all his glorious arrogance, has declared this "National Animal Shelter Reform Week. Not that I don't think shelters need some reform, but his method of reform is a sure disaster for shelter animals.

I just love how he throws out all these accusations without any links to back them up. That's standard for the Whino, isn't it? Since when has he confronted poor and neglectful conditions? He puts these conditions in his reports but when he sees them, he walks away not bothering to notify the shelter at the time of his "observations". He "honors" people like the ADL-LA who smoke bomb high rise apartments with innocent people living there. He "honors" people who hoard and lie like Vikki Shore. I particularly like the accusation of the rabbits cannibalizing each other. Since when did rabbits start eating meat?

What this idiot cannot and will not accept is that as long as he condemns shelters the way he does, that he is causing the deaths of the animals in the shelters by pushing away the public who would adopt and take these animals out so they don't have to "experience" this cruelty he describes. He might as well put that needle in the shelter animals himself because of what he does.

He can recognize his cult followers all he wants, still doesn't make them humane. These cult followers are more guilty than any shelter worker is for killing animals. He drives the public right into these inhumane followers arms because many of them called themselves "rescues". He drives the public in the waiting arms of his inhumane puppy millers. I think a more appropriate recognition would be "National No-Kill Cruelty" month in his case. He doesn't care as long as he has his cult followers telling him how great he is. He's a pitiful excuse of a human being and those who follow him are even less.

Abigail Smith Withdraws Application to Austin

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why?

"No Kill" Sacrifices Abuse Cases

Another "No Kill" decides to stop investigating abuse cases. Can't very well accuse others of abuse when you are doing the same.

"Former Washington Area Humane Society board members and employees say that while they worked at the shelter in Eighty Four, abuse investigations have always been done - until recently.
The present humane society board voted in October to suspend the investigations because of overcrowding at the shelter. The no-kill shelter also is not taking in any animals unless they were previously adopted from the shelter or are strays found with a microchip from the shelter.
The board is expected to vote tonight on whether to continue the suspension of investigations as well as on the moratorium on accepting animals.

Paul Volz, a veterinarian and current board member, said a recent Observer-Reporter article about the overcrowding and suspension led to more adoptions. The deteriorating economy led to more animals being taken to the shelter, he said. In October when the vote was taken, the shelter's capacity of 350 animals was 75 percent over what the board has approved."

You can't overcrowd your shelter and then stop taking in the very animals that need your help, but "No Kill" does. This is not the only one recently that has had to stop their cruelty investigations because of overcrowding. So now the very animals that they should help can't get help. Another legacy of Nathan Winograd and his cruel "No Kill Equation" program.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

CoverUp in Chicago? Is Oprah Behind It?

Back in September a reporter for a TV station in Chicago went undercover at Chicago Animal Care and Control. I didn't post anything at that time, thinking I would shortly. So today I started to research and guess what? Everything has been taken offline but I did manage to find this cached version. I wonder if Oprah had anything to do with it since she jumped in and had the director, Cherie Travis, on her show trying to deny everything. I don't care for Oprah anyway but I did write and give her a piece of my mind.,0,1606541.story+%22cherie+travis%22%2Bwgn%2Bundercover&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us CHICAGO - One of the missions of Chicago's Animal Care and Control, the largest pound in the city, is to assure the humane treatment of animals. There is a strong push from many groups to make that shelter and others in Chicago no-kill. No one's saying that's not a noble idea but is it at the expense of the animals' basic needs?

WGNTV went undercover to find out.
First we received pictures from inside Chicago Animal Care and Control taken over the past few weeks. The complaints were from longtime employees and a rescue worker, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs. There was also a veterinary intern who became overwhelmed by what she saw. They were concerned about the way the animals were being treated.

Earlier this month WGNTV went undercover inside Animal Care and Control.

Dogs were doubled up in cages because of overcrowding. Cats were living in small carriers because there wasn't a cage for them. Shelter workers tell us some stayed on a loading dock for up to 72 hours in sweltering conditions.

Cats were sick with upper respiratory infections. Their eyes were crusted over and they were sneezing.

Animals had open wounds; a dog with a sore on its back, a cat with an eye infection, a dog with the deadly and highly contagious parvo disease. They were all in cages next to healthy cats and dogs.

"Peter," a longtime employee, says he has never seen conditions at the shelter so bad. He says they don't have the staff to care for all the animals.

The director, Cherie Travis, agrees there is a staffing problem.

Travis is an animal rights attorney and an adjunct professor of Animal Law at DePaul and Northwestern Universities. She is the co-founder of CASA, an organization that wants to eliminate the needless euthanasia of Chicago's animals also known as no-kill. On her facebook page, she says her goal is to make Animal Care and Control no kill in 3-5 years. ] Although Travis doesn't really want to talk about it.

WGNTV gave her an opportunity to respond to the story and she chose not to. She called the news director and asked that the story not run.,0,7834928.story+%22cherie+travis%22%2Bwgn%2Bundercover&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"Earlier this week, WGNTV went undercover at Chicago's Animal Care and Control with video showing questionable conditions.

Dogs living in their own feces and urine, cats dead in their own cages were just some of the overcrowded conditions at the city's largest animal shelter. When there aren't enough cages cats are kept in carriers. Insiders say sometimes they're there for up to 72 hours with barely room to move.

Cherie Travis, the commissioner of Animal Care and Control, refused to discuss the conditions at the time.

Thursday, Travis still refused to answer questions but issued this statement through the city's press office.

"While the WGN story presented a case of overcrowding at the facility... This is simply not the case. In fact, during the tour the reporter admittedly stated that examples of overcrowding or poor treatment were not found."

But documents show that there is overcrowding.

The statement also said Animal Care and Control takes the condition of the animals housed at its facility very seriously and that the organization is conducting an investigation regarding the animals in the photos presented during the piece.

Paula Fasseas is the founder of PAWS, the largest no kill facility in the city. PAWS takes 200-3000 animals a year from Animal Care and Control. Employees and volunteers are there daily. She says she supports Cherie Travis and her vision to reduce euthanasia through spay and neuter programs and getting rescue groups to come take animals out for adoption."

This Examiner also confirms that there was a story. Strange how everything has been taken offline regarding this expose by Marcella Raymond.

"One theory behind the overcrowding at the shelter is that the shelter's director, Cherie Travis, wants to eventually make the shelter "no-kill", specifically within 3-5 years. Although this is a compassionate idea, it may not be practical for the volume of animals that are housed within the shelter." Honey, that ain't no theory, that is "No Kill"!!!

This blog says that the story was pulled - WHY?

"Marcella Raymond was supposed to have a news on Animal Care and Control that was to air last night, but it was pulled from the line-up. There may be an explanation, it may air at another time and I hope that is so. But the travesty here is there is only one reporter willing to speak up on the problems at Animal Care and Control.

If cats were dying with regularity at any other shelter, wouldn’t you think the TV stations would be all over the story? If animals were being kept in temporary carriers for days on end, with no room to move around, no room for water or food or elimination…that would be deemed aggravated cruelty anywhere else. Yet nothing is done and nothing is reported."

Oprah is a heavy hitter in Chicago. She wields a lot of money and a lot of influence. Could it be that she has used this influence to put these animals at risk? Judge for yourself.

"Oprah has apparently caught wind of the story and will be doing a show in the near future with the Director of CACC, Cherie Travis, as a guest. This can't happen. There is a real chance that Travis could gain some credibility from the appearance and that could potentially make matters worse for the animals at CACC."

I do know that Oprah is misguided about animals and supports "No Kill". If she did indeed do this, then she has the blood of these animals on her hands.

Build It and They Will Come - NOT

In looking at the latest stats from LA City under Brenda Barnette, it is interesting to note that she ain't doing that good. Oh, people like Ed Muzika and Nathan Winograd bragged over the turnout for her "Meet and Greet" but what they failed to recognize that most of those people there weren't from the humane community, but rather the breeding community, welcoming one of their own.

And please, don't give me that line about how this is early and give her a chance. If she was being supported by the humane community, they would go out of their way to make her look good but they didn't come.

The adoptions for September were the lowest they have been since 2006. Rescues were slightly higher but when you consider the amount of animals served, these numbers are extremely low. Just 614 animals taken by rescues for the month of September with the total impounds being 5,116, pitiful. Here's the kicker, the euthanization is the second highest recorded since 2005 for the month of September.

Euthanization was the highest recorded for dogs since 2005. I can hear them now saying that it is because impounds are up since 2005 which is true. The impounds are the second highest since 2005. And adoptions for dogs were the second lowest for the entire year.

The numbers for dogs doesn't include pit bulls. Strange how they break out the pit numbers from the dog numbers. There were more pits to hit the shelter that since before 2005. The adoptions of pits was the second lowest for the entire year. Rescues only took 31 pits from the shelter whereas the impound number of pits was 582. Again showing that you just can't depend on the rescues to be of much help. Euthanization of pits were the highest they have been since 2005 for the month of September.

Cats didn't fair well either. Rescues only took 186 cats from a total impound number of 2324. Again, since announcing Barnette's arrival, euthanization of cats increased dramatically, the second highest since 2005. These stats don't separate owner surrenders but I bet that number increased because they were touting Barnette's affiliation with "No Kill".

Another interesting observation is that since her appointment was announced, the impounds increasing fairly dramatically. This always happens when you say "No Kill". People just assumed that it is now safe to surrender their pets to a shelter.

Why are the rescues not getting animals out? Their phones never stop ringing from people wanting to surrender pets. They pick the best of the lot and the rest end up in the shelter, their rejects. Why would they go take animals out of the shelter when they had already rejected those same animals plus there's no donation from the shelter. Try to give a rescue a pet and they will always ask for a donation. You just can't compete with that as an open door shelter.

She is pushing for an increase in household limits, a whopping 66% increase. Do you think the rescues are supporting her in this? NO! In fact if you check on the support letters on file at you will see that the majority of those are from the breeders. Not one letter is written on letterhead of any rescue.

So what this shows me is that Barnette does not have the support of the rescues or they would be coming to the shelter to make her look good. And we all know that breeders don't take animals from the shelters. So now let the excuses begin.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Abigail Smith Fleeing Tompkins County SPCA

And I don't blame her, look at the deficit that she is leaving. I don't blame her as much as I blame the program, "NKE", for the deficit.

Out of all those finalists, I would still say Austin is screwed. They will learn their lesson the hard way like Philly and Indy did.

UPDATE: Be sure and read the comment regarding the Park family who are generous donors to Tompkins County SPCA. Looks like they aren't in the picture anymore. I would venture to say that Abigail is deserting a sinking ship.

Proposition B Passes, Take that Winograd and Toellner

Well, well, well, Brent Toellner, what happened? And the very area that you live in voted yes. Are you a popular guy or what? Just have to rub it in.

JEFFERSON CITY - The final results are 51% yes and 49% no. Many national groups are among those in support of Proposition B, or the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act". They say now is the time for better animal protection enforcement.

Members from the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States were in St. Louis watching and celebrating the results. The campaign in support of Proposition B was led on the state level by the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs.

Senior Director of the ASPCA's Field Investigations and Response Team, Tim Rickey, said Missouri puppy mills are a national issue because dogs bred in Missouri are sold throughout the United States. Rickey told KOMU that dogs bred in cruel conditions in puppy mills end up having medical and behavioral problems. He said puppy mills are the worst form of animal cruelty.

Many local groups were among those against Proposition B. These groups included many farmers and cattle breeders. The Missouri Farm Bureau and the Alliance for Truth campaign were among those against the proposition. The groups told KOMU how it feared future regulations against cattle owners will follow. A member of the Missouri Dairy Association said he thought animal protection rules were already strict enough.

Only 12 counties plus the city of St. Louis voted yes for Proposition B among Missouri's 114 counties. Those counties in support of the proposition were mostly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Brenda Barnette, Bathrooms, and Breeding.

I've been following this particular situation in LA for awhile. As we all cried about, Brenda Barnette was hired in the City of LA.

and the list goes on, just do a search for Barnette on this very blog and you'll see. I have many postings about her from Seattle/King County as well. Also look under ACO Guild, those postings tell a tale about this woman.

Now I ask you, does this make sense? Barnette is asking for an increase in the household pet limits, a 66% increase if you do the math. Please. You've got over 10 million people in LA. High cost of living and a low income level. It is estimated that only 10% of the dogs are licensed. And Barnette wants to increase limits??? She is being supported by two city council members, Koretz and Rosendahl. Both admit they want to have more animals. Rosendahl has admitted to breeding. And we all know Barnette's background as a breeder, and legislative rep for the AKC. Now what does this sound like to you?

Worse yet, looking at Barnette's report that is posted on line and looking at the motion that was passed by the LAAS Commission, there's something very "fishy" going on. Why is there a small (but very mighty) addition to the motion that isn't in the report and it isn't listed on the agenda item description? HERE IT IS: is. They approved changing the definition of dog and cat kennels to not start until there are six dogs or six cats (has always been four dogs or four cats), but it looks like Barnette added: EXCLUDING ANIMALS IN TEMPORARY FOSTER CARE.

So what the hell does she mean--you can have UNLIMITED temporary foster care animals (no definition of any of those words, of course)? Or does it mean that if you have temporary foster animals, you can only have three and can't increase to five? Based on her big announcement about fostering in bathrooms, basements and garages, doesn't this seem like she believes she's entitled to UNLIMITED ANIMALS if they are just called "temporary fosters"??? Does that apply to all the breeders who don't sell their pups right away? If they are under four months they are puppies, but if they are over four months they are FOSTERS? I read the numerous letters written to the Council from breeders. Of course they want it. What about the rest of us, that don't feel safe walking our dogs down the street as it is?

So okay, here's the punch line. Now she is complaining of the overcrowding of the shelters and begging for 12,000 foster homes. Is this not a hoot? Is there anyone out there that can explain this sort of mentality? It is the "No Kill" mentality and it makes no sense.

Read this shit. If you have an extra bathroom??? No mention of training. Nothing. What is going through this person's head? I'll tell you what, their Messiah, their false prophet, "No Kill". Then if she gets these 12,000 homes, she will make herself look good on paper by counting them in her "live release numbers". This is getting ridiculous.

And of note on this article, a comment was made of her hiring someone who headed a humane society with an 80% euthanization rate. I bet she overlooked experience people right here in LA to do that. Sounds like this new hire was a dumbass and he will bow down to her for saving him. Her vet with the Seattle Humane Society was caught prescribing medication to himself in the name of his dead dog. She is connected with Kim Sgro, that's another one involved in dirt. Barnette surrounds herself with the scum of the humane community. She either does that on purpose or she has very poor judgement. Barnette is a control freak without a doubt. You can read all about her being one on this very blog.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Bragging Rights of Nathan Winograd - Yeah, right!

What is this??? Nathan Winograd, are you kidding me? You brag about a shelter that only handles 4500 animal a year? C'mon.

Cats 2540 Reclaimed 60 Adopted 1611 Transferred 189 Died In Kennel 69 Surrendered by Owner 367 Transferred In 12 Others (I have no idea what that is) 28 Euthanized 225 Miscellaneous (I have no idea what that is either) 18

Dogs 1935 Reclaimed 532 Adopted 1122 Transferred 30 Died In Kennel 11 Surrendered by Owner 390 Transferred In 50 Others 0 Euthanized 159 Miscellaneous 1

Now this link .

Something that stood out to me was the lack of "Transferred within the Community/Coalition". Doesn't the Whino stress that it takes a community? So I do wonder what this means because it appears to me anyway, that nothing is going on within the community or local rescues. Any other suggestions to explain this?

Demographics for Albemarle/Charlottesville show less than 100,000 people with Albemarle being largely a White community where only 17% of the population is non-White. . Albemarle's median houshold income is above the state level at $59,575 and a median family level of $85,223. These figures were the latest ones and that is 06/07. As of August 09, the unemployment rate of Albemarle was only 4.4 compared to the national average of 8.1.
Now the Whino say that demographics don't matter, I say they do.

Demographics for the City of Los Angeles show a 2009 population of 10,409,035 according to the CA Dept. of Finance. With a per capita personal income level of $42,325 and an unemployment rate of 12.5% as of Sept. 10. And white people are in the minority at 46.9%. And according to Winograd, none of this matters. Of course, these demos matter to businesses wanting to relocate, or whoever, but when it comes to the animals, he tosses them. It's pretty obvious to any rational thinking person that demographics make a lot of difference.

Looking at the propaganda on the website for CASPCA, the stated budget is as stated:
In 2008, our operating budget was approximately $2.9 million dollars. Animal care and adoption expenses include costs related to the daily cleaning, feeding and other care provided for 5,000 animals. This includes stray animals waiting to be reclaimed by their owners, animals brought in by animal control officers, animals whose owners could no longer care for them and animals waiting for new adoptive homes. Adoption expenses include evaluation of animals for proper placement and various adoption promotions, outings and events. Other animal care and adoption expenses include certain building costs related to animal care and expenses of our Purrin’ at Pantops offsite adoption center. Clinic spay/neuter expenses include the cost of medications and surgical supplies relating to spaying and neutering approximately 6,000 animals; medications, testing and vaccinations for the 5,000 animals in our care and other clinic expenses such as radiographs, daily treatments and general medical care. Fundraising and Outreach expenses consist of costs related to our mailings, events and other related activities. Rummage expenses include the cost of rent, staffing and other miscellaneous items for our store. Building expenses include interest payments on a $2.8 million dollar building loan and building insurance cost.

LA City has a budget of $20,314,323 and serves 54,191 animals according to the 08 numbers. So it looks like in order to keep up with the Jones that LA City would need about $11-12,000,000 more. Keeping in mind, of course, that administrative costs in LA City would be considerably more higher than the tiny CASPCA, leaving even less for programs and the animals. Then again it costs more to serve a population of 10 million compared to a population of less than a 100 thousand.

Still, the numbers from a small shelter like this one can't compare with the numbers like in LA or Philly, or New York, or most major cities. I know rescue groups that handle that many adoptions a year. Geez, Whino, is this the best you can do? This ain't nothing to brag about really. Small potatoes.

This is Pat Dunaway still waiting for your "evidence".