Tuesday, April 20, 2010

What Kind of "People" Are Attracted to "No Kill?

This story got my attention very quickly. I passed it along to that incredible blog, http://www.cravendesires.blogspot.com/ and guess what they came up with, incredible. Along with the vet in Seattle who was prescribing medication for himself in the name of his dead dog and campaigning for Nathan Winograd's "No Kill Equation", this is another example of those types who are attracted to the illogical "No Kill" scam. Go to the Craven blog to get the whole story, it's worth a good read.

JAMES SOARING EAGLE VONDA a.k.a. JAMES HERBERT (Subject of the above article)

VONDA/HERBERT has quite a long list of scams. and according to the many pissed off victims, his crimes range from New York to Missouri to Texas and beyond.

on Vonda's linkedin page, he claims to have earned a PhD at the London School of Economics yet his writing ability, spelling and grammar barely meet that of a high school graduate.

(note that most of the links in these sites do not work)
www.medicinewheelusa.com (this is VONDA'S wildlife preservation scam)
safe harbor ranch (a safe place to sleep, work and live as a tribe)
safe harbor foundation (moving victims from crisis to confidence and bondage)
the SOARING EAGLE claims to run some kind of a safe house for victims of domestic violence and drug abuse but I suspect this is nothing more than a way to expand his harem of slaves.

axiom commercial funding filed bankruptcy june 1, 2008, citing the "staggering fraud" perpetrated by both brokers and borrowers. yet, I found a mortgage website (www.vondafamilytrust.com) that was last updated TODAY, 4-20-10. The RipOffReport has documented his antics. there is an interesting chat about JAMES VONDA on the mortgage grapevine, and VONDA shows up to defend himself. the BBB gives him an F. the pissed consumer has a lot to say about this trickster.

But nothing will bring in the bucks like animal rescue/No Kill which is why VONDA has now turned to NO KILL as his next con. cities across the US need to be aware of him. memorize his photo because I'm sure that another name change is in his future.

domestic animal rescue emergency shelter services D.A.R.E.S.S

what does the noble Indian want to do with all of this philanthropic moolah?

I believe that all of these different cons are simply a way for JAMES SOARING EAGLE VONDA to create his polyamorous wiccan BDS&M empire. I thought I was finished researching this old, ugly, bloated psychopath, when I stumbled on this little gem. it appears that VONDA/HERBERT is trying to carve out a little BDS&M empire for himself and his diseases riddled concubines. if SOARING EAGLE gets his way, and scams enough poor unsuspecting dupes, his legacy could be a BDS&M hotel, shops, jewelry and more. any time you see the words VONDA, SAFE HARBOR or WHITE WOLF, caveat emptor!

Hey, this scam expert knows a good scam when he sees one, thus "No Kill".

Monday, April 19, 2010

Nathan Winograd's Logic (Or Rather Lack Of)

See if any of this makes sense to you 'cause it sure doesn't to me.

Domestic dogs are directly related to wild wolves and coyotes. They belong in the wild. Let's release all dogs into the wild city streets. Let's repeal the leash laws while we're at it. And those fencing requirements, KCDogPoop. You ever see a wild wolf wearing a leash?

If the "wild" dogs we set free kill cats, mutilate children, eat old ladies, that's okay. It's just survival of the fittest and natural selection. Darwin would be proud.

Dogs are healthier in the wild city streets, especially long haired dachshunds and the hairless chinese crested living in snow country or the desert. If they were indoors, they'd just watch Oprah, get fat and die.

You just have to give a dog one rabies shot for life. If the new wild packs of dogs start spreading rabies and we all die, that's just natural selection again. Team rabies wins!

Feral cats have the right to live. Birds, wildlife and humans of course do not.

Feral cats have the right to live, even if they are suffering without food, water, shelter, medical care, neutering or protection from cars, dogs, coyotes or the neighborhood punks who love to skin them alive.

A suffering, outdoor, injured, ill, emaciated, dehydrated, dying cat is better than a humanely euthanized cat any day. Especially those friendly, tame ones that are left outside by "caregivers" who don't give a shit as long as they are alive!!!!

Speciesism is wrong. We should not value birds over cats, but it's okay to value cats over birds, wildlife, humans, common sense and basic logic.

Anyone who prefers one species over another is a Nazi. Since the Whino prefers cats over birds, wildlife and humans, he fits his own definition. Heil kitty! Heil Whino!

Outdoor feral cats don't harm the environment. They just eat birds, wildlife, leave contaminated feces, urine, spread disease and can contaminate the water. What does the Whino care that innocent children are catching diseases from cats or going to the hospital with their allergies to cats?

All the research and scientists are wrong, the Whino has spoken. All heil the Messiah.

Cats eat birds and that's okay. It's survival of the fittest. Chinese people eat cats. Kill the Chinese!

What planet does this man live on?

Tom Skeldon to Toledo: MISS ME YET????

Three pit bull attacks in three days. The new animal control director has her hands full and Ben Konop is jacking off.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Thank You !!!!

Since I have the comments turned off on my pitattacks blog, I have receive many not-for- publication comments on Honesty's blog complimenting the pitattacks blog. I just want to say thank you for the comments.

There are times when I can't update daily because I get depressed reading the constant barrage of maulings and fatalities. Each time I open a news article about a child killed by pit bulls, it is emotional. I just have to walk away and save it for another day.

Yes, I know the pit nutters of the world fear this site, they depend on people staying in their own little worlds and staying ignorant of what is happening elsewhere. They depend on people thinking "Oh well, we've only had an attack or two here, what is the big deal?" This way people can see just how epidemic the maulings and fatalities are. I have comments saying "I just didn't realize" almost daily.

The Internet is a wonderful thing in that it opens up the world to all of us that care to look. Some others want to remain in their own little sequestered world and let them. The pitattack blog is considerable work but well worth the results. My hits are showing several state agencies, universities, local governments and insurance companies are using the blog, spending hours on it in total. This is my sign that I am reaching those we want to reach.

Thank you again for your compliments. If you feel I have missed a story, please send the link to this blog and mark not-for-publication or for the other blog. I couldn't do it without your support. Together we will make our grassroots movement a power, we will defeat the "bad rap" presented by the Whino and show the powers that be there is a definite reason to legislate BSL.

I will say this, I think the nutters themselves do more to bring about bans or BSL than we do. Examples like Shorty and Tia Torres do more harm than good and maybe we should encourage more of those disgusting examples of pit bull advocates/nutters. I get sick just thinking that a woman would sell another woman's body to feed an addiction to pit bulls and I don't think I am alone in that assumption. We are still a Christian nation and that is not acceptable. So more power to them, they are helping us, not the pits.

Do we want to maintain the breed, no. We want to change the breed. And the nutters should be encouraging this rather than staying in denial about what this breed was bred to do, the only thing it was bred to do - KILL. Hang in there, this is a war and we shall prevail.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

And You Think KCDogPoop is Nuts, Look at This!!


Nathan Winograd talks birds, cats and Nazis
by Squiggly the cat
Wednesday Apr 14th, 2010 6:47 PM
April 13, 2010 Nathan Winograd a so called "NoKill" guru gave a talk at the LA County Bar Association about birds, cats and TNR (trap, neuter, return of cats to outdoor feral colonies). As an animal law student and cat lover I thought I would learn about the issues, get some CE credit and eat some Vegan food. Instead I was forced to listen to two hours of Winograd rabble rousing and spewing hate speech about environment groups such as Audubon. He insisted that they were just kitten killing Nazis. Besides that the food was 45 minutes late and there were no forks.

The audience consisted of maybe five lawyers there to get CE credit and 60 older cat ladies. They treated Winograd as if he were the messiah coming to save kittens. They hissed and boo'd every time he mentioned the "enemy." They giggled and mewed in delight when he talked about the "TNR revolution" that will save all the cats in the world. I felt like I was in a Baptist church where the priest has a constant back and forth with the church goers.

Winograd's talk and power point presentation started off by calling the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and all animal shelters "killers." His believer's hissed and boo'd at the enemy on cue. He then started throwing out false and unreferenced statements to "prove" his points. He stated that "cats don't hurt the environment. TNR actually solves all the problems that the bird people say it creates. Even the health department endorses TNR. The only TNR hold-outs are the environment and bird groups." More hissing and growling from the crowd of angry cat ladies.

The talk was supposed to be about a case entitled Urban Wildlands et al vs the City of Los Angeles. It was supposed to deal with the legal implications of doing city-wide and endorsed TNR without a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review. Urban Wildlands had sued the City of LA because they were doing TNR without doing the study. They stated feral cat colonies harm the environment. The environment groups won the lawsuit. Nathan Winograd here is now trying to intervene in the lawsuit to try to change the verdict. He lost his first round in court but of course he doesn't mention that at the meeting. I had to look it up online after class. He does state that his case is weak because local TNR people did not intervene sooner. He said if he loses, it will be on their heads. If he wins, he deserves all the glory as the one true god of cats.

Instead of talking about the lawsuit he spent the first hour and a half attacking everyone who does not agree with him. HSUS is the devil. LA Animal Services are murderers. The environment groups eat newborn kittens alive. Okay, I added that last part but I bet he had to bite his tongue to keep from saying that. He was on a roll.

He didn't let facts or common sense stand in his way. Out of one side of his mouth he said "domestic feral cats are identical to African wild cats. They are supposed to be in the wild." Yes, in AFRICA, not in the US in parks, shopping mall parking lots and wildlife sanctuaries eating endangered bird eggs. His minions didn't seem to mind or care that he contradicted himself. They meowed in unison "you're right!"

He went on to say that "cats belong outdoors. It's better for them. Indoor cats get fat, get diabetes and die." He followed it up by saying "if you live next to a freeway of course, don't let your cat out." No one seemed to notice the hypocrisy of his statements. I'd rather have my cat alive and indoors then killed by a dog or run over by a truck outdoors. I'm sure my cat Squiggly would agree. And FTR he's not fat.

The environment groups' main concerns are feral cats killing birds and other wildlife. Winograd said that birds make up "only 5% of a cat's diet. Cats actually weed out over populated birds. They are assisting Darwin with evolution." I don't think the birds feel the same way about it. The bird groups definitely do not. If my neighbor's dog's diet was "only" made up of 5% kittens, I would have a problem with that.

There have been many independent peer reviewed research studies which show that TNR colony cats eat birds and wildlife, negatively affect bird populations, spread disease and contaminate water supplies. TNR was supposed to be a way in which the population of feral cat colonies would go to zero within one generation or about seven years. Instead the colonies have grown as people continue to dump cats and not all cats get neutered. Despite this Everest sized mountain of research Winograd said ALL of the researchers are just lying. "They have an agenda. They are intellectually dishonest. They are masquerading as science." He cites nothing to support his theory of mass lying among many researchers in many different countries. The cat ladies didn't care. They mewed in agreement. I think I even heard some purring.

His next argument made me hold back the chuckles. He said "some birds are killed when they fly into windows. Should we outlaw windows? Should we remove all windows?" Um, Winograd, death by windows is not the issue. Death by cats is the issue. Using Winograd-logic, some cats fall off cliffs. Should we level the earth? Some cats are hit by cars. Should we get rid of all cars? His lack of logic didn't matter as the cat ladies meowed "you're right!"

To show how "unfair" the bird groups were being he said "what about worms and caterpillars? Shouldn't we save them from birds?" I felt like I was at a debate for three year olds. He continued with "cats are just the scapegoats for the damage caused by man." Let me get this right. A man went into his backyard, killed and ate a bird, stuffed the feather's in a cat's mouth then posted that photo on his Facebook page with the word "murderer" under it?

His next argument had me scratching my balding head. He said "natural selection is survival of the fittest.That is what cats are doing. They are better suited to survive in these areas than the native wildlife. It's wrong to label them 'alien.' It's inhumane to get rid of them, and it doesn't work."

So if I were to buy some bears, release them in a local park, Winograd would not have a problem if they killed and ate everyone. He thinks that would just be "natural selection." Of course if a bear ate a kitten, he would call the bear a "murderer" and send his cat ladies to claw it to death.

One last little illogical bit of Winograd speak. He said the environment groups state that cats could give people rabies. Winograd says that is not the case. Based on Winograd logic and total lack of evidence, he said "cats should actually worry about getting rabies from us." More giddy kitty laughter from the forum.

His next comment was very irksome. I'm sure the people whom he labeled will not be pleased. As a Jew whose grandparents were in the Nazi concentration camps, these words were way below the belt. He said "environmental groups want to protect one species over another. Doesn't that remind you of the Germans in WW II who wanted to protect their own and exterminate the others?" He basically called the environmental groups Nazi's. The cat ladies of course all loudly growled, "They're Nazi's! Nazi's!"

I was actually hoping to learn a little bit about CEQA and animal law but unfortunately he talked about kitties and Nazi's so much that there wasn't any time left. You could tell who were just lawyers there for some CE credit and food. They had uncomfortably puzzled looks on their faces as they quickly exited the room. Some even left during his class. They came to get some CE credit and instead were forced to listen to the ranting of a lunatic and hate speech. I really hope the LA County Bar Association vets their speakers better in the future.

Signed, Squiggly the cat (I hear Winograd likes to threaten to sue anyone who doesn't agree with him so I had my cat type this out for me)

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Food for Thought

If pits are so easily misidentified, then one would have to look at the other side of the coin. How many pits are misidentified as labs? It's a two way street.

The pit nutters like to say that pits are abused and that is why they attack. So can we say that hounds will only hunt if they are abused or border collies will only herd if they are abused? Or that hounds can only hunt if they are trained to do so, etc? It's like saying that breeds can only do what they were designed to do if they are trained. Dogs are a clean slate when they are born? No instincts, nothing? If that is the case, then why have breeds at all? If dogs can be trained, then why not train a chihuahua to herd?

Monday, April 12, 2010

More Bans in Store


The Danish government wants to ban 13 dog breeds.

The government has produced a list of 13 dog breeds that it wants to ban, following a series of events in the summer of 2009 involving so-called fighting dogs, according to TV2.

The 13 breeds concerned are: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerbel, Kangal, Central Asian Ovtcharka, Caucasian Ovtcharka, Southern Russian Ovtcharka, Tornjak and Sarplaninac.

The government bill, which has the support of the Danish People’s Party and thus a majority, is expected to be presented in Parliament soon.

If passed, the law will ban the procurement of these 13 breeds in Denmark. Dogs of these breeds that are already in Denmark will have to be held on a leash and muzzled.
Support BSL or this will continue. You pit lovers are putting your own pets in danger by staying in denial and this is the result.

Another Successful Ban in Place


Ellisville’s pit bull ban working, says mayor

ELLISVILLE — Ellisville Mayor Tim Waldrup said Friday that a 2007 ordinance governing animals within the city has effectively helped to reduce the number of strays. However, in addition to those regulations, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen also voted to ban pit bulls.

The animal control ordinance impoundment fees for any animal not properly kept under restraint, is a public nuisance, has rabies or does not have a valid rabies tag.

The impoundment fee for the first impoundment is $25 with second and subsequent impoundments within 12 months increasing to $30.A daily board fee is also charged, which was of the ordinance, was $5 per day.

Other charges include those for rabies vaccinations. Impounded animals not redeemed by their owner within five works days are also placed for adoption or humanely euthanized.

A second ordinance bans pit bulldogs, described in the ordinance as having a “brick-like head, eyes round with erect ears set high on the skull.”

If the city determines that the dog is a pit bulldog or pit bulldog mix, one week notice will be given to the owner for a hearing. If governing authorities confirm that the dog is a pit bulldog or pit bulldog mix, the owner will then be given seven days to remove the dog or be fined up to $100 per day.

“If the dog is not removed within 14 days from the date of the hearing, the dog will be deemed an animal running at large within the municipality and it shall be destroyed,” the ordinance states.

Waldrup said the latter ordinance was introduced because breeds such as pit bull and rottweiler are used in dog fighting.

“We just felt like some of those dogs shouldn’t be loose around a lot of people,” he said. “We’ve utilized that ordinance on several occasions.”

This is what happens when people fight BSL. Seems those who care about pits would work for BSL rather than taking the chance of a ban. The pit nutters have no one to blame but themselves when bans come.

The Scoop on KCDogPoop

UPDATE: For those of use who use this blog as a tool for your elected officials, be sure and show them this particular posting and the comments from KCDogPoop. And you get two for one with this one. He shows the mentality of both "No Kill" and the pit nutters. And yes, I have taken your advice in unpublished comments and now he is banned from this blog. Not to say, that he won't try as an Anon but he is no longer allowed under his name. Many of you have expressed to not allow these kooks to comment, I may think about that. I do feel that their comments are what will do them in. Plus I do so enjoy reaming them a new one. Thoughts anyone? And per your request I have fixed the other blog so it is easier to look up the postings for individual states.

Someone sent me this link and I cracked up. As most of you know I love to make up names. When I saw this KCDogPoop I just knew I had to post.


For those unfamiliar with this blowhard, he is a Whinonette of the first degree. And as we say back home, he ain't got the sense to come in outta a shower of rain. He parrots the Whino with his support of doing away with household limits. Hell, people can't and don't take care of the ones they have now, so let's make it so they can have more?????

According to the National Council on Pet Population study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Science, the ten reasons why people relinquish their pets are as follows:

1. Moving - 7%
2. Landlord not allowing pets - 6%
3. Too many animals in household - 4%
4. Cost of pet maintenance - 5%
5. Owner having personal problems - 4%
6. Inadequate facilities - 4%
7. No homes available for litter mates - 3%
8. Having no time for pets - 4%
9. Pet illness - 4%
10. Biting - 3%
So KCDogPoop says give them MORE animals, yep, that's his solution.
1. Moving will go soooo much more easy if you just add another pet.
2. Landlord says no to your wonderful pet, well let that landlord look at the face of not one but several more and he would just have to change his mind.
3. And what is one more when you already have a house full and overrunning with feces? Just another pile, you won't know the difference.
4. If you can't afford to feed what you have, add more and go dumpster diving. Always lots of food in there.
5. Personal problem got you down? Lose your job and move back in with MaMa. Nothing like adding another responsibility to perk you up.
6. So what that you don't have a roof over your head, go get another pet, they can keep you warm as you sleep under that bridge by the LA River.
7. What do you mean no homes? There are plenty of homes, there's no pet overpopulation.
8. No time for your pet? You can walk multiple dogs at the same time so no problem and you can always leave the gate open and let them take care of themselves.
9. And when your pet gets sick, go get another one to keep it company. Quit your job and be a stay at home pet care provider.
10. Your dog just bit the neighbor? Get another dog to keep it company and it won't get into trouble, hell get two more.
On top of doing away with household restrictions, KCDogPoop also says that having fencing is a "ridiculous restriction". So just imagine with no household limits, the hoarder next door with 200 dogs and no containment. Lovely thought, huh? I guess it is ridiculous to this idiot to keep pets safe as well.

"No Kill relies on having un-restrictive animal control laws. Pet limit laws decrease the number of foster homes that are available. Mandatory spay/neuter laws, Breed Specific Laws, and many tethering laws only encourage animal control officers to confiscate animals from homes — increasing the number of animals that need to be found homes. The first option should always be to keep an animal in the home it is already in and improve its life there vs confiscation.
Hopefully that helps clear up any confusion out there."

Sounds like you are a little more than confused, KCDogPoop. Love the part about keeping an animal in the home, in other words, living a life at the end of a chain is fine by this guy, living in filth is okay with this guy, living in animal hell is okay with this guy. He ain't seen the things I have seen or he would singing a different tune. Can't you see why the dogmen and breeders love this guy?

This dickhead thinks there are plenty of homes based on a "formula" drawn up by his "puppetmaster", the Whino. I suppose that when you count all the people who have allergies to pets, renters who can't have pets, people who don't want a pet, people who are scared of dogs, people whose lifestyle means traveling all the time, people who own pets now and shouldn't, and those who already are over household limits with pets, yeah, it makes sense that there are plenty of homes.

So those of us who prefer and fight for a pet's QUALITY of life and believe that there are far worse things than euthanasia in the shelter are labeled as animal killers. We are killing animals in greater numbers than before the Whino's evil program took the last decade of taking the focus off spay/neuter and putting it on adoptions. People are greedy, selfish, and what is happening is disturbing but what is more so is the above ground pet cemeteries called "No Kill shelters", filthy conditions, living in their feces, stack 'em and crate 'em. And then the ones that are turned away by the "No Kill" shelters to be dumped in the streets, abandoned to take care of themselves, or given to the mentally ill hoarders in order to save their euthanasia numbers. And when we try to pass laws that can help these things, we hear that we are intruding on constitutional rights because these animals are property.

This is one sick puppy, this KCDogPoop, Brent Toellner. Only if you are a dogman or breeder does he make any sense. When the good Lord yelled out that he was giving away common sense, Brent thought he said something else and he ran the other way because he definitely got left out.

Doesn't it remind you of Frankstein and his monster? All Frankie cared about was that the monster was alive but what kind of life? We have an obligation to strive for a quality of life for animals, not a quantity of life in hell.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

I'm Issuing a Challenge

I keep showing how pits are at the top of the list of biters but I want to know if any of you nutters/"No Kill'ers" can show me somewhere that pits aren't the number uno biter, a place without regulation or a ban. C'mon, this is your chance to kick me in the butt. Anyone out there game for this challenge?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

More on Pit Bull Violence, Part Two

I had a radical pit nutter/"No Kill'er" who mentioned that Toledo had an increase in dog bites and, of course, blames the Dog Warden of the Year, Tom Skeldon for it. My reasoning is that the dogs are fighting back because Skeldon was being raked over the coals and didn't deserve it. So I will pass this along. From Toledo on the Move, December 09.

"TOLEDO -- The latest statistics on dog bites for Lucas County, once again show
that Pit Bulls are in the lead for the number of bites and for most serious attacks

on humans. One source is the Toledo Lucas County Health Department which
tracks all bites in the county and through November 8th, their data shows that there were 380 dog bites reported and of those bites, 65 of them were the result of Pit Bull attacks. That accounts for about 17 percent of all bites, with Pit Bull breeds accounting for less than 5 percent of the county's dog population. The second most common breed for dog bites was the Lab and Lab mix, which accounted for about 36 bites, but their numbers are much higher than the Pit Bull breeds. The dog bite numbers also suggest that there is at least one dog bite per day in Lucas County. Some more serious than others, but the health department keeps records of all. The Lucas County Dog Warden's office keeps track of the more serious bites and they show that in the county so far this year, there have been about 150 more serious dog bite cases. Once again, the pit bull breeds and mixes were at the top of the list of biters, accounting for 42 of the bites. In 18 of the cases, the victims were under 18 years of age. Children are traditionally the most frequent victims of dog bites and those bites often involve the face and head area. Toledo attorney, Charles Boyk, who specializes in dog bites litigation says recent efforts by some groups to allow the dog warden to adopt out Pit Bulls or their puppies is "foolish". Boyk likens Pit Bulls to loaded guns that can go off an anytime. He says his experience as an attorney handling these cases, convinces him that Pit Bulls are far too dangerous to be around children and says" who would want to have a neighbor who has a pit bull" He says most people who have children would be terrified is their neighbors had pit bulls. Boyk's contention runs counter to the growing chorus of Pit Bull defenders who saythat their breed is unfairly getting a bad reputation and that how a dog behaves is more a case of how it is trained as opposed to its breed. "

Now I ask you, with that kind of information, wouldn't you expect something to be done? Of course, any rational thinking person would but not these nutters. Now if the dog population of labs and pits were the same, you might be able to point a figure and yell discrimination. It's pretty obvious, again to a rational thinking person, that you do all you can to eliminate the biggest of the problems first. That is why Skeldon adhered to the stance of the State of Ohio and concentrated on the biggest offenders, the pits, first. But Toledo has spoken and now they have to pay the price. Once a few kids are killed by pits adopted from their shelter, you'll see a ban and Konop will be tarred and feather and driven out of town.

In a story in Freeb.com, September 21, 2009, Royal Oak, Michigan reports that they have 5,311 licensed dogs in their city of which pits comprise only 1.7% of those. But those pits have accounted for 35% of their dog bites.

Springdale, Arkansas 4029TV.com in a story on August 12, 2009 reports that over half the bites recorded in the last two years were from pits.

Charlotte, North Carolina WFAE90.7FM in August 2009 that for the fiscal year ending in 2009, pits had 208 bites compared to labs with 152 although labs are considerably more popular and have higher population numbers.

Hamilton, Ohio reported in the Oxford Press that from 2001 to 2009 that pit bulls had 157 bites compared to labs at 65, and again labs are much higher in their population numbers. Rotties, GSDs and boxers combined had 98 bites.

Hillsborough County, Florida Animal Control reports in July 09 that for the prior 18 months, pit bulls accounted for 371 bites while labs were at 151 bites. GSD's and Rotties had 168 bites.

Woonsocket, Rhode Island in a piece done in The Call, dated in June 09 reports that for 08 half the dog bites were delivered by pits.

Lincoln, Nebraska in an article in the 1011Now.com dated in June, o9 reports that of 851 pit and pit mixes licensed, 38 pit bites and labs had 27 with labs being more popular.

Richmond County, Georgia on News12 has their bites from pits at 19% and "is the most out of all dogs" in June, 09.

Ogden, Utah in the Standard-Examiner article of March 09 that 40% of their bites in 07-08 were delivered by pits. An estimate for Ogden is about 16,000 dogs including 3,200 pits or about 20% of the pet population.

Broward County, Florida in a report on Fox8.com in 09 has pits at 39 bites and labs at 11 bites in 2005. For 2006 it shows for 06 pits were at 161 bites compared to labs at 47 bites. 2007 has pits at 183 bites and labs at 51 bites. 2008 the pits had 203 bites compared to 42 bites for labs.

Altoona, Pennsylvania reports in the Altoona Mirror dated March 09 that pits comprise only 3% of their licensed dogs but delivered a whopping 61% of the bite cases.

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on WXIA in June 09 shows that out of a 5 county area the registrations of dangerous dogs were 42 pits, 18 mixed breeds, 9 GSDs, 4 rotties, and 4 Danes.

Marion County, Indiana reports in the Indy Star dated in February 09 that their pit bull bites were three times higher than in 06.

Wichita City reports that in 08 that 55% of dogs deemed dangerous were pit bulls and accounted for 34% of the attacks. The Wichita Police report that the percentage of aggressive pits encountered by the police increased from 66% in 04 to 95% in 08.

Now you might ask why I didn't provide the links, I have my reasons. First, I want to keep this nutter/"No Kill'er" busy trying to find this information. I will make it easy, all of it is contain in hard copy (the original stories and links) on http://www.dogsbite.org/. Unlike Karen Delise with her "reviews", DBO provides the links and you can check it out yourself.

So turn on your computer and get to work, Nutters.

Friday, April 9, 2010

In Remembrance of CAT MOM

The Whinonettes are defeated in Seattle finally. I hope Barnette chokes on it. Her importation of dogs continues, even more than before. The Whino talks about the community, well where does Barnette fit into this community? Instead of taking animals from the shelter there, she is importing from LA and Kern County, CA. Taking homes from the shelter animals and knowing they will be euthanized for it. Yeah, this is a true Whinonette. They preach one thing and do another. See the link on the side here "Fuck the Whinonettes".


REMEMBER "CAT MOM", this is dedicated to you.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Spadaro Update

I see hits everyday searching for Spadaro so finally I have an update for you guys.

The judge granted her another thirty (30) days to remove forty (40) adult dogs from the property. He added the following oral orders to her to be completed by the next hearing date of May 12, 2010:

1) Every dog is to be individually marked;

2) All mandated paperwork such as neutering and vaccinations are to be available;

3) All unspayed females are to be segmented from all unneutered males;

4) There is to be a reduction from the current 159 dogs of 40 adult dogs in the next 30 days before the next hearing.

In the new criminal complaint that was filed in January 2010 with the District Attorney’s Office, Spadaro was arrested on one (1) felony count for failing to provide proper veterinary care to a dog that was housed at the West Paw Kennel. She was arrested on March 25, 2010 on this criminal complaint and spent approximately eight (8) hours in jail before being released.

Also there is an article.

I have heard that Spadaro was hit by a truck a few months ago and is in a wheelchair. Payback is hell, Charlotte. Karma will get you every time.

The Lies Flow Like Water

RECENT UPDATE: This just in and it shows another of the Whino's lies. San Francisco has never been no kill, they have always euthanized pit bulls because the SF SPCA won't take them out of the shelter. Yet, the Whino proclaims it to be, just another of his delusions of grandeur. http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Animal-Rights-Activists-Debate-San-Francisco%C3%83-%C3%82-%C3%82-/6760839 “The public really needs to be aware that this is traditionally not a no-kill city, but it is within our reach to achieve that goal.”

All my readers know that there is no love affair between me and Ed Boks, former director of Animal Control in LA. If you unfamiliar with Ed Boks, then google his name, his charades are too long to put on here.

However, Boks has finally clarified his stance on mandatory spay/neuter that the Whino has used to fight MSN. In typical Whino fashion, he has again spun another tail that is not true.

"Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy."

Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”

(Whino's quote)“Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’

Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."

What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.

Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”

Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.

It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill. "

Boks has the Whino's number for sure. Remember folks, that Patricia J. Ruland also discovered that the Whino misrepresents his credentials and that was in her story in the Austin Chronicle.


" As the current president of the national ASPCA and the architect of a nationwide pet-adoption program known as Mission: Orange, a mystified Sayres told the Chronicle he was the one who hired and then promoted Winograd to "operations director" in San Francisco – a job Sayres said Winograd held just a week and a half before resigning. That tenure makes Winograd's online promotion of his book – Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America – rather misleading. The promotional material describes Winograd as the former "director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA [New York], two of the most successful shelters in the nation.""

And because Ruland asked the "right" questions, the Whino knew exactly what he was in for and actually wrote a letter to her editor PRIOR to the release of the story, didn't even know what she was going to write. He did this because he realized that she was on to him. A reporter in Houston who asked the "right" questions was accused by the Whino of trying to blackmail him.

Nathan J. Winograd has no shame. Those who follow him have no sense.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Nutters and No Kill'ers Aren't the Brightest Ones on The Block

Just ran across another pit nutter blog and seems she doesn't understand why someone who has worked all their lives to stop the euthanasia in shelters for time and space is exposing "No Kill". She gave a link to my blog (not the brightest thing to do considering she doesn't like what I have to say) and I can thank her for that because it brings more people here for a correct education.

Well, let me explain to you. There is a huge difference between stopping euthanasia for time and space and "No Kill". First note the use of capital letters. "No Kill" is a man's personal agenda, an evil program that when adopted means that animals are in jeopardy of even more suffering than normal. Example is the Philly shelter. The Whino bragged on Philly and his hand picked management staff, that is until he got wind of possible cruelty/neglect charges. Then, like the snake he is, he turned on his own people in order to save his ass. If you don't know about Philly, then do a search on this blog for the postings.

"No Kill" and "no kill" are not one in the same. "No Kill" means crate 'em, and stack 'em. In the hallways, in the lobbies of the shelters, in ventilation ducts (i.e. Doug Rae in Indy), in other words, overcrowding. Do I need to explain what that accomplishes? "No Kill" is the darling of hoarders and hoarding is reported to be on the rise, wonder why? Shelters are being forced by this movement into pushing the animals out the door, not into taking the time to do better adoptions, but setting up the adopting family and the adopted pet for failure.

Animal People News is reporting that after a decade of focusing on adoptions (No Kill) that we are going backwards. Euthanasia is going up, impounds are going up. "No Kill" is taking the focus off spay/neuter, contrary to what you may think. Cities and counties are forced by these crazed "No Kill'ers" to spend money instead on medical, expansion, lengthy stays and leaving less money for spay/neuter.

The Hayden Act in California, the worse piece of legislation ever, demands that shelters release animals to anyone who CLAIMS to be a rescue and they don't have to be a 501c3. So when a hoarder wants to take animals out, they invoke the Hayden and out the door they go with the animals. Another point about the Hayden is how it has killed more adoptable animals than before it's passage. Here's how it works. Fluffy is at the end of it's time but Spike comes in and there's no more room. Fluffy loses because his time is up so Spike can move in. Now Spike is a nasty pit bull but can he be put down, no. He's allowed to take up kennel space until his time is up and of course, he ain't adoptable. So now two dogs have lost their lives instead of one. Before the Hayden, Spike would have been put down and Fluffy could enjoy continuing to look for a forever home. Keep in mind that in the vast majority of shelters, they will not kennel another dog with a pit bull. Fluffy had roommates and took less space.

To this misguided blogger, there's a difference between "No Kill" and no kill. No kill is a noble goal that we all strive for. "No Kill" is one small man's quest to be popular. "No Kill" preys on the gullible, relies on people following blindly, relies on intimidation to silence the non profit rescues who would speak against it, and overall, contributes to the suffering of shelter animals. If you rely on donations, you don't need the Whino attacking and calling you an "animal murderer" like he does. Just because a rescue calls itself no kill doesn't mean that they are "No Kill".

Can some shelters be a true no kill? Yes, they can. I have visited some. I know of one that very rarely euthanizes for time and space, a lovely shelter, lots of volunteers, sitting right in town, an attractive building. I could not find one staff nor one volunteer who knew the Whino's name. And what I loved when I got to these small shelters is that no one has ever heard of Winograd, much less follows his program. Why can they be no kill? Several factors. Usually has to do with the spirit of the community and the size of that community. Getting into the larger communties such as LA, Indy, Philly presents quite a different story. There are no close community ties, people are struggling just to survive.

What these smaller shelters in these close communties have shown me is that they are quite capable of figuring out what to do without the Whino's input. I've said all along that the Whino is not bringing anything new to the table. We've known how to be no kill for decades. But you don't just wake up one morning and say "Stop the Killing". It takes work and the "No Kill'ers" are lazy.

The only way that "No Kill" makes sense to me is if I look at it from the prospective of being a breeder. That's why the breeders love this movement. "No Kill" says there is no pet overpopulation thus giving credibility to more breeding. Of course, we know the pit nutters love this program because it says that pit bulls get a "bad rap". Just go to almost any breeding forum or pit fighting forum and see how they push the Whino. Do some research on those organizations that push the Whino, the very people that we fight against the most part. Plus it takes away the guilt from the public about their role in all of this.

Under "No Kill" let's have that litter and when they get big enough to start being a problem, take them to the no kill shelter. You can tell the kids that they won't be killed, they will find homes because there are plenty, and it will be a happy ending. Don't believe it? Check Rancho Cucamonga where their surrenders are higher than the entire county which has a much higher population. They were duped by "No Kill". The Whino told Rancho to build it and they will come, speaking of volunteers. Didn't happen, in fact, their volunteer hours went down. That meant they had to spend more money, taking away from spay/neuter, to hire more staff.

So my remark to this pit nutter/"No Kill"er" is that in my opinion you are the problem, not the solution.

Crooks, Liars, Thieves, Cowards, and Pit Nutters AKA CDC

Oh how the pit nutters love to quote the CDC report. Wonder if they ever took the time to look up the authors of this report to see just what their motives are to oppose BSL. Many decisions have been made based on this biased report. Their names are in red since they have blood on their hands from opposing BSL.

Jeffery Sacks obviously feels that death by dog attacks are no big deal and therefore doesn't need to be considered when it comes to BSL. Tell that to the families that have lost their loved ones to an attack. "A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." Who really gives a damn about a chihuahua attack that requires a couple of stitches? And why doesn't he look at the severity of attacks? This guy is a joke.

Leslie Sinclair, DVM
In 1997, after an article titled, "Playing with pets can be doggone dangerous" appeared in the AAP News (American Academy of Pediatrics),1 Sinclair felt "compelled" to share her veterinary advice with the pediatrics community. In her argument of the old English sheepdog, Sinclair fails to point out that only one fatal sheepdog attack had been recorded in the HSUS registry of fatal attacks prior to 1997, versus 76 recorded fatal pit bull attacks in just a 20-year time span.

"The article was incorrect in asserting that there are "nonaggressive breeds" such as the old English sheepdog. According to the HSUS Dog Bite-Related Fatality Database, even this lovable breed of dog has been implicated in the death of a 7-year-old child."
In 1999, one year before the release of the CDC report, Sinclair is quoted in the article, "The Canine Companion, Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?" Sinclair states: "Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem." She adds the classic, "The Doberman pinscher was the "scary"2 dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s..." Once again, Sinclair neglects to cite the differences in the number of deaths attributed to each breed.

Julie Gilchrist, MD
http://www.cdc.gov/employment/pdf/job_profile_pediatricians.pdf That simple realization brought Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician specializing in sports medicine, to CDC a decade ago.
Since when are dog bites part of sports medicine. Where's her credentials on dog bites? I couldn't find any.

“If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Obviously records from animal control and thousands of media reports aren't considered to be enough to instigate a scientific study. The CDC report did state (I haven't re-read it lately) that they were unable to determine if reproductive status has an impact on dog attacks due to a lack of record keeping. Animal control agencies don't keep information of reproductive status on dogs. So using Gilchrist's logic of no scientific data, where does Karen Delise fit in with her myth? And one also has to question the fact that if the CDC could not find this information, how did Delise come up with it?

Gail Golab
"Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers who don't address the real issue."
"...Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police."

As a seasoned veterinarian and PhD, Golab voices a striking distortion of the truth regarding how dog bites are recorded for statistical purposes. Dog bites are recorded by animal control officials, these same officials determine the breed of the offending dog, not the media, not the person bitten and not lawyers.

Randall Lockwood, PhD
Finally, on the day the CDC report was released, Lockwood calls the fatal dog attack problem a "people problem." Ironically, Lockwood's extensive past research about pit bulls was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. His research addresses the following genetic traits in pit bulls: Non-display of rising level of aggression and “surprise attacks”, higher tolerance to pain, tenacity in attacks, and leakage of human-aggressive pit bulls into the general population.

PG 135 of the Lockwood study:

"In the Lockwood & Lindy survey (1987), 42.7% of the Pit Bull attacks involved animals that were chained, fenced or inside prior to the incident. Another 14% involved the dogs jumping or breaking chains. For bites involving other breeds 26.7% were similiarly restrained but only 1% involved breaking restraint."

This man also likes to tell the story about his being "surprised" that a pit bull tried to attack him.

I don't know about you but I would say these folks are full of shit.

Monday, April 5, 2010

More on Pit Bull Violence

It's time to ramp everything up a notch...More and more cities are tracking dog bite stats by breed and almost everytime Pit Bulls lead in biting incidents by a mile. Normally, these stories just fade of the front page and are forgotten while the pit Bull PR Machine spews lies that their breed is least likely to bite.

Ogden, Utah:

In 2008, pit bulls and pit bull mixes accounted for about 20 percent of the dog population at the city's animal shelter, Geir said. In addition, last year those breeds were responsible for nearly 39 percent of reported dog bites in the city, he said.


Woonsocket, Rhode Island:

In 2006, the pit bulls accounted for 32 percent of all the dog bite cases in Woonsocket,” Paulhus says in the report. “The number increased to 37 percent in 2007. The year 2008 reflected half of all dog bites in the city were attributed to pit bulls. Many were serious.”
The statistics show there were 75 dog bites during the period in question, 15 of which involved humans and the rest other pets. Of the eight dog bites that occurred so far this year, three were caused by pit bulls, the report said.


Ventura County, California:

Pit Bulls are ranked 8th in licensing, but the number one biter producing 117 biting incidents in 2007-2008. Cocker Spaniels, often cited by Pit Bull groups as the leading biter, ranked 6th in registration numbers, but 8th in bite numbers producing only 28 biting incidents. The Pit Bull mauling death of Katie Todesco was characterized as “biting incident”.


Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis)

The active Pit Bull community managed to influence dangerous dog laws producing a 33 percent increase in pit bull biting incidents in 2008 over previous years. Pit Bulls produced 490 biting incidents while Labradors produced 152 biting incidents and Cocker Spaniels only produced 27 incidents.


Broward County, Florida

Broward County has an excellent bite incident database which includes attacks on pets/livestock. Once again pit bulls are the leading biter by a wide margin producing 586 biting incidents during the period from 2005-2008. Over the same period, Labradors produced 151 bites while rage inflicted Cocker Spaniels inflicted a mere 16 bites on the public.


Lincoln, Nebraska:

Lincoln has an excellent database which also includes licensing numbers by breed. In 2008 a licensed population of 858 Pit Bull and mixes produced 60 biting incidents. The citys massive population of Labs and lab mixes totaling 5448 dogs produced 39 biting incidents over the same period. Data shows that 1 out of every 14 pit bulls in Lincoln is a biter, while its takes over 142 Labs to produce a bite.


Seattle, Washington:

As of 2008, Pit Bulls comprise 3.4 percent of Seattle’s registered dog population, yet produce 25 percent of the city’s annual bite total. In comparison, Labrador Retrievers represent 17 percent of the city’s dog population yet produce only 12 percent of the annual biting incidents. As an added bonus to the tax payer, the nearly half the dogs euthanized each year by Seattle’s Animal Control infrastructure are Pit Bulls.


Richmond County, Georgia

"They tend to get the most exposure because unfortunately they do the most damage," said Diane Downs, the director of Richmond County Animal Control.
Animal control has had 139 complaints of animal bites this year, with 26 of them being pit bull cases. That's about 19-percent and is the most out of all dogs.


Saturday, April 3, 2010

Pit Bulls = Gang Violence/Crime

The City of Lancaster, California should be awarded something for figuring all this out. Seems that since they passed BSL, gang violence has dropped dramatically. A good example for having BSL is what it is.


Lancaster's dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime
January 21, 2010 1:56 pm
A Lancaster ordinance imposing stiff penalties on owners of “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs is reaping positive results, and may have even helped to drive down gang crime in the city, officials said.

The law, adopted in January 2009, was primarily aimed at preventing gang members from using dogs, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, to bully people or cause physical harm, officials said.
City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.

“A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals -- namely, gang members -- who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.

“These individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks. Today, more than 1,100 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create. Lancaster is now a great deal safer because of it.”

Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Under the dog ordinance, a hearing officer can deem a dog to be potentially dangerous, for example, if the animal becomes aggressive when unprovoked. The dog can be impounded, and the owner must have it properly licensed, implanted with a microchip and vaccinated at his own cost before the animal’s release.

Dogs deemed to be vicious can be destroyed if they are determined to be a significant threat to public safety, according to the ordinance.

It also requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to ensure proper leashing and muzzling, complete a dog obedience training course, spay or neuter their animals, and pay a fine of up to $500 for each offense.

Owners of dogs deemed to be vicious face fines of up to $1,000 per offense, and they could be prevented from possessing any dog for up to three years.

Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Justice for "No Kill'er"

This does my heart good. To see justice for the animals who were made to suffer needlessly by a tormentor who follows "No Kill".


A noble venture that went bad.

That's how a DuPage County judge described the long saga of a Bloomingdale no-kill animal shelter whose two operators long were accused of hoarding animals and providing improper care.

One of them, Penny Horak, 70, pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor charge of violating her duties while managing Pet Rescue at 151. N. Bloomingdale Road. She was sentenced to two years' court supervision and barred from ever again running another animal facility in Illinois.

Prosecutor Amanda Meindl told DuPage Judge Ronald Sutter that Horak turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the problems.

"Animals were covered in feces," Meindl said, while showing the judge photos. "There was a strong smell of urine. Mucus from sick animals was caked on the walls. There were mice infestations. These were daily conditions."

Horak apologized and said she tried her best. This marked her first arrest. In exchange for her admission of guilt, prosecutors dropped misdemeanor animal cruelty allegations.

Horak could have been sentenced to up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.

"My primary concern was the animals," Sutter said. "It is my understanding that all of the animals have either been adopted out or transferred to other no-kill shelters."

He continued: "What may have started out as a noble venture as an organization to care for homeless animals, after many years, for whatever reason, it went bad. There was never any allegation of beating or intentional cruelty but, on the other hand, I believe the level of neglect has been severe."

Pet Rescue owner Dale Armon faces similar misdemeanors. She opened the shelter in 1973. The 75-year-old woman is fighting the charges. She is due back in court April 27.

Former shelter clients, volunteers and workers have urged village, county and state officials for more than a decade to shut down the facility. They even hired their own attorney to try to intervene and also set up an Internet site with photos of severely ill cats and dogs and the conditions of squalor in which the animals were housed.

After years of legal wrangling, the state revoked Pet Rescue's operating license. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also sued Pet Rescue after accusing Armon of spending the nonprofit shelter's funds for personal use, as well as other alleged infractions. The suit is pending, but assets were frozen. An estimated 200 cats, dogs and other animals were adopted out or transferred to other shelters for care.

Defense attorney Rick Schoenfield denied shelter conditions rose to a level that supports criminal allegations. He said finding sick animals in a no-kill shelter is the same as sick people in a hospital. He noted Horak's age, medical issues, clean criminal record and letters of support from some of those with whom she's worked.

"She never did this for anything other than altruistic reasons and a love of animals," Schoenfield said. "Whatever happened, her motives were always good."

That is the very statement that keeps people from seeing the real "No Kill". Just because someone represents themselves as an "animal rescuer" doesn't mean they are the salt of the earth. Many of these people are in need of professional help. Winograd is aware of these kinds and these are the ones he goes after. More of them need to be serving time, right along side of him.