Monday, April 12, 2010

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 And yes, I have taken your advice in unpublished comments and now he is banned from this blog.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.

http://www.everettindependent.com/2010/03/31/vicious-dogs-should-be-banned/

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.

52 comments:

Brent said...

You are so clever in your name calling.

Out of curiosity, when have I ever proposed keeping animals in situations where they are cruelly treated, abused or neglected? Point it out. Back it up with something.

Yes, I think most pet limits are way too strict. In my area, most cities have a pet limit of 3 or 4 pets. The idea that owning two dogs and two cats is illegal is pretty crazy.

If someone is not taking care of their animals, then cruelty/neglect laws should be used. I'm 100% in favor.

As for the fencing requirement, I live in a city. And as such, a large percentage of the population lives in condos/townhomes where fencing isn't an option. They want an indoor dog that they plan to take for walks 4 times a day. Sounds like a perfect home.

But with arbitrary fencing requirements, a rescue denies this home -forcing them to go out and buy a dog from a breeder.

I know there aren't plenty of homes...that's why I'm not a fan of creating arbitrary reasons for excluding animals from going into homes.

Most people don't give up their animals to shelters. Most keep their animals forever.

No one is pushing for animals to be in abusive homes. No one. But you are so blinded by rage that you have failed to see it.

So if you want to have a real conversation on the topic of helping animals, let's do it. Let's have a real conversation. But if you just want to throw "clever" nicknames and lies, then you're welcome to live in your hate-filled world.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have animal lives to save.

HonestyHelps said...

Get off the holier than thou shit, Brent. Just the mere fact of what you stand for tells any rational thinking person that you overlook the cruelty, that's just part of "No Kill". Look at Lied, NV where the staff was quoted as saying they didn't know the animals were sick. Look at Philly with their "No Kill" program and the sickness and death they bestowed on those animals. Look at some of my postings on no kill shelters and their cruelty. No Kill blinds people to cruelty and neglect and you are no different. If you support "No Kill" you support it.

Plus to support "No Kill" means giving breeders credibility, aka puppy mills. Since "No Kill" says there are plenty of homes, why should the breeders police themselves or cooperate with reducing the pet overpopulation, which you say doesn't exist.

Your response on the fencing makes no sense whatsoever. No response needed there.

You need to study humans a little more because you are giving more credit to humans than they deserve. That's one of the main problems of "No Kill".

I don't care to have a conversation with you at all. You think I am full of hate, I am full of anger. I have seen the effects of "No Kill", I have seen the faces of pit bull victims, YOU DAMN RIGHT I AM FULL OF HATE AND ANGER. Anyone who has seen the same would be the same way. You and your kind have set us back, not moved us ahead and I have no fucking use for you, understand??

When dog fighters and breeders use your link to support their arguments, it means you are no better than they are. Plus I hear you hang with a well know dog fighter. You need to work on a better selection of friends.

Brent said...

Here's the thing.

The vast majority of all people out there are good pet owners. There are approximately 70 million pet owners in the US that own about 154 million pets.

And the vast majority of them will never see a shelter or be a problem owner.

So yeah, I give way more credit to humans than you do.

Are there pieces of crap out there who cruely treat animals? Who hoard them? Who abuse them? Who fight them? Sure. And yeah, I get really angry about them too. But they represent the smallest minority of pet owners and people in the US.

And you've let hate and bitterness blind you to that reality. Most people really do care about pets.

And it saddens me that we have many people like you who run shelters who would rather kill animals than adopt them into homes because you hate people and give them no credit for their ability to care for pets. Then, you blame everthing else for the overpopulation problem.

HonestyHelps said...

That's your thing, not mine. You still can't grasp the significance of your stances. Just the mere facts of the numbers in the shelters says you are full of it. Those strays didn't come from good pet owners, those relinquished didn't come from good pet owners, those DOA's didn't come from good pet owners. Add up the numbers across the country and they are an indication that a goodly percentage of people are not good pet owners, enough so we need to pay attention. Good pet owners don't mind legislation that can help the pets, they want it. Only when those who have a vested interest in preserving their "product" fight legislation.

And you with your attitude that the shelters want to kill animals makes you the problem. The shelters care more about the animals than you do. You and your kind condemn shelters to the public, thus driving them away and thus more animals have to die.

No man is going to take his kids to a shelter where he thinks they will see barrels of dead animals or cruelty. You drive these people into the waiting arms of outside rescues who don't necessarily take animals from the shelters, they get enough calls from owners to fill them up. That's another thing, we have no real idea of the true numbers of abandoned pets because the rescues don't report all those they take in that never are counted. The problem is much worse than the numbers from animal control agencies show. You are driving people away from shelters, they don't come running to save the pets there, they run the other way, right into the arms of outside rescues.

It's always been curious to me that if "No Kill" could be achieved, why isn't it happening? There would be nothing to talk about this subject if those "No Kill'er's" were capable of doing what they claim. It shows me that they truly don't care about the animals because they aren't making it happen. I liken it to blackmail actually. Look at Brenda Barnette in Seattle, importing dogs rather than working to get homes for the shelter dogs. Cherry picking other shelters in other states rather than pushing the animals under her nose. A deliberate attempt to keep the shelter's euthanasia numbers stay high by taking away homes with her importation products. Then to use the excuse that if she doesn't cater to the public that they will buy from breeders, bullshit. Those who buy from breeders are going to do so, no matter what. That is just a flimsy excuse to cover up this conspiracy in the "No Kill" world of making the shelters look worse so the Messiah is assured a job.

Speaking of the Messiah, how much business does he get these days? Not a lot. Look at his 990's and see that he is not that popular. If he had the answer, don't you think that more would be jumping on the bandwagon?

Follow that false Messiah, it is not only your funeral but the funerals of millions of animals. It is so easy to see why you are so beloved by the dogmen and breeders.

Brent said...

154 million owned pets in the US.

4 million killed in the shelter (about 25% of which are feral cats, so not owned). So about 2% of the owned pets end up dead in the shelter. If you count those that end up in the shelter and are adopted out, you get to 5% of all owned pets ending up at the shelter.

That's a very small percentage.

I'm not driving people away from the shelter. I like people. I actually trust most of them. The people getting driven from the shelter are the people who are dealing with people who hate them, who don't trust them. That's you, not me.

And yes, no kill IS happening in many parts of North America. It IS being done -- and the reason it's not happening more often is because there are still people who think it can't be done, shelters run by peopole who hate people, who would rather kill animals than adopt them out. And would rather make excuses and blame others for why it can't happen vs making it happen.

The truth is, there will always be a reason for shelters to exist. There will always be homes that don't work out, and irresponsible owners who let their animals get free and that sort of thing. That's exactly why shelters exist.

There are many things we can do to minimize the number of animals making their ways into shelters -- promoting spay/neuter, providing low cost spay/neuter, providing owner-retention programs that help people do basic training with their dog (especially if they have newborn children), working with apartment landlords for less strict pet rules, etc that can help keep animals in their homes.

But some will always find their way into shelters. It is then the shelter's responsibility to find a new home for that animal. Which easier to do if you don't hate everyone that comes in to adopt and try to help.

I don't pretend to speak for Winograd. We share many of the same viewpoints...we disagree on some. But I will say this, the man has sold millions of books. He has a conference this summer that will have 600 people attend -- and it sold out in about a month.

There are a lot of people who believe no kill can happen -- and many who have seen it happen in their own communities. Seems like his bandwagon is pretty full.

HonestyHelps said...

You are so full of yourself, Brent.

I'm not the one condemning shelters to the public, you are. I'm the one encouraging people to adopt from shelters, while you tell them that they will see animal killers and horrible things.

Are there shelters that can be no kill? I've already said there are but many can't do that, examples are usually the larger ones. We've already seen the damages in Philly and LA. New York ain't much better off either. I actually know of shelters who have less than a 5% euthanization rate but they are in areas where the people are isolated from the bigger world.

Don't you think you are a little hypocritical when you throw in spay/neuter yet you can't see how mandatory spay/neuter will work? Go ahead, throw out your lies about MSN and I will ream you a new one.

The Whino has given away more books than he has sold. And you pimp him every chance you get. I remember the days when people thought this was a good thing, they have since changed their minds. All those who worked so hard for spay/neuter and followed the Whino, had their dreams dashed when he joined forces with the likes of PetPac, the CCF, and the NAIA to fight MSN. I would venture to say that he now has more enemies than followers. And those left? Kooks, hoarders, breeders and the dogmen are what is left. Which one of those are you?

Brent said...

Ok. So we agree that shelters and communities CAN be no kill.

This is what I've been saying all along and you have been condemning.

So what are the things that these communities have in common with each other that we can model for success?

It's not mandatory spay/neuter.
It's not pit bull bans.
It's not hating the public and refusing to adopt to them.

So let's quit promoting unsuccessful legislation, get rid of that way of thinking and actually model sucessful programs.

It doesn't mean that every community will get there over night -- although some will. But it will make steps in the right direction.

HonestyHelps said...

Oh no, Brent we don't agree. These shelters are so small, it is of no consequence actually. Counties with a population of 40,000 have a little more control over their population. These were in retirement communities where they could take advantage of retired senior citizens with lots of time on their hands. Communities where everyone knows everyone's business, not metropolitan areas. Areas not known for breeding either. Areas without any kind of pit population or very few pits. And of those shelters, I found it interesting that they haven't even heard of the Whino and they don't refer to themselves as no kill either.

And several handle as few animals as Tompkins County and have a higher "live release rate" than Tompkins. These areas don't have access to low cost spay/neuter services yet their pet population isn't growing. It is the type of people inhabiting these areas that make the difference.

And there you go again, accusing people in the shelters of not wanting to solve the problem. Whenever I ask people in animal control what would they consider as being a success, their answer is success means I no longer have a job. They want to be put out of business, they don't want to do this nasty work that the public bestows on them. They are actually on our side and only fools say differently.

You want the key to success? Work with animal control, support them, stop putting the blame on them and put the blame where it belongs, on the ones controlling the purse strings. Stop putting expectations on those who have no control. Stop calling them animal killers, stop thinking they are the ones making the decisions. Those decisions are made because of the money. They do the best they can with what they are given to do with.

Number one to success is to stop thinking in terms of saving what is already here and think in terms of the future and stopping the influx. Can't kill 'em if they ain't there. Take away the business from animal control with the law forcing people to do the right thing. You're too far out in left field with your stances and you will never be part of the solution. It's easy to take the blame off yourself with "No Kill" and some people just can't handle the truth. Such is how I see you, Brent.

cravendesires said...

a couple of thoughts on this discussion.

1) i most definitely favor not killing NON dangerous dogs. (you bite, you die, regardless of breed) i believe no kill is an admirable goal and one that we should strive to achieve. i believe no kill can only be achieved if you stop opposing tough spay/neuter laws, a job you do spectacularly.

2) the "arbitrary fencing requirements" keep people and pets safe. cities should enact this requirement to remove the burden from the shelters that encourage people to buy from breeders.

3) in my experience, "the vast majority" of dog owners are mediocre pet owners. while they might not abuse or neglect their dogs, they don't really understand dogs and meet their needs either.

4) a dog living indefinitely in a cage in hopes of a forever home, is cruel. even your lawdog hero diane jessup, calls these situations above ground cemeteries.

cravendesires said...

"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."

actually it reminds me of the freaky right to life florida republican kooks and terri schiavo.

Brent said...

Ahh, but there fairly large communities that are pulling of no kill. Calgary, Alberta is one. It's a large city, million + population, and they aren't killing anything that is healthy or treatable.

It CAN happen. It IS happening. And the models all, more or less, look the same, regardless of who's running them. They involve not only looking toward the future with the proper spay/neuter education and availability, but also at saving the animals that are there.

And I heep praise on the people who are doing it the right way -- those who are working to save the lives of the animals.

But I also think those who would rather make excuses than do what is right should be called out on it: including those that hate people too much to adopt to them, who would rather call people names than have honest dialogue, favor legislation that would ban particular types of animals because of how they look and not on actual behavior and would rather ignore success stories in favor of models that have never proven themselves to work.

HonestyHelps said...

Craven, not euthanizing for time and space is what we strive for but the path that you take to get there makes the difference.

I really can't fathom someone being against fencing. I consider fencing as something that keeps pets safe and prevents them having to be tethered in order for them to enjoy the outdoors. Can you imagine the problem if people didn't use fences to contain their pets? Owned pets would be strays basically, subject to being picked up and taken to the shelters. Just doesn't make sense to me.

And I agree that a great many pets are just there, yeah, maybe they have a home but do they get what they deserve from those owners? Are they "companion" pets or just the dog outside in the back yard, the "resident" dog? Yes, I know, those terms come from the infamous Delise. I did buy and read her book when it first came out. Once I started trying to check out her sources, etc., did I realize she was full of shit and I actually did burn the book.

Brent said...

One additional note on the fencing requirements.

In cities, many people live in condos and/or lofts that have no ability to have fenced in yards. They have no yards. This would be about 2/3 of the people in New York city.

Yet, the dogs can live in a home, and then go outside for walks in the park with their owners 3 or 4 times a day.

I'd MUCH rather an animal live indoors and go for walks with their owners than spend its entire day outside in a fenced in yard. But mandatory fencing requirements on the part of rescues prevent these people from adopting pets.

I've met several people in my own city that have had to buy dogs because they lived in condos without yards and were denied adoption because they didn't have a fence. Their dogs way more walks and time with their owners than most dogs with fenced yards.

It's all about whether or not the owner can properly care for the needs of the dog....a fence isn't required to do that.

HonestyHelps said...

Do your research on Calgary, it is not the way you want to believe it is. Bill Bruce is the darling of the breeders, doesn't that tell you something is wrong with his program right there? Look at the fact that the truth about the pits there can't be had because the nutters have managed to stop record keeping by breeds in Calgary. All is not the way you think and digging a little deeper can show that. Time will tell on this one.

And your stance on fencing makes no sense to me. My dogs have access to the outside with a doggy door so they can chose when they want to be outside. Without my fence, I couldn't give them that choice. They would have to be inside until I make the decision. You think that any home is better than no home so you should be for fencing. Better to fence and leave the dog outside than to let it end up in the shelter because people don't want the dog inside should be the way you think with your stance. You just don't make sense.

Those people you claim to know that were denied adoptions because they lived in condos without fencing is bullshit, Brent. If they were adopting the right kind of dog for apartment living, they would have a dog right now. It's easy to understand why an adoption is turn down when someone in an apartment wants to adopt a hyper border collie or a bull mastiff. They weren't turned down because of a lack of fencing, they were turned down because of what kind of dog they wanted to live in a small apartment.

Brent said...

The stories aren't BS. There are a large number of shelters and rescues here that have blanket fencing requirements. No fence. No adoption. Period. That's what I'm opposing.

That's literally 10s of thousands of homes that they will not adopt to because of a blanket fencing requirement - and that's what I'm opposed to!

I'm not against fencing. I have a fence on my own yard. But I'm against requiring it for adopting every dog out there in every situation because there are certainly times when people can not have a fence and still be really good owners.

And yes, I agree that condo living wouldn't be ideal for every dog in a shelter - but there are some dogs that would love it. All it takes is helping the owner walk through what is realistic for that situation.

Brent said...

BTW, I've done plenty of research on Calgary, and their success is very well documented. If you're going to accuse something of not being a success, provide at least a little more than "it's not what you think."

And no, I don't care if dog breeders hate someone or love someone. I really don't. I only care about whether a program works at not killing animals and not having them in abusive conditions. If dog breeders support that too.. then so be it.

HonestyHelps said...

Brent, that's bullshit. There's not a rescue out there that won't adopt an appropriate breed into an apartment if the landlords are in agreement. Besides, even if fencing is done away with, why would that change the requirement of those rescues? They can't be forced to change what they feel is right by a change in the law. You're making this up just to support your agenda.


And you are one of those who make up their minds prior to researching. So all your "researching" efforts go toward finding those things that support what you think. Thus your opinion of Calgary.

I'm not even going to respond to your statement about breeders because that shows where your heart is, protecting their investments. Anyone that truly cares about animals would not think for a New York second that breeders would support a program that is in the best interest of the animals. They only support what is in their money producing interests. You are an even bigger jerk than I thought originally for a statement like that.

Brent said...

I'm not talking about fencing requirement LAWS, I'm talking about fencing requirements that many rescue groups hold onto that keep them from adopting to people who do not have fences. And while you wouldn't THINK that rescues/shelters would have such a requirement, it is really quite common here.

Again, I say, that Calgary is VERY well documented on their success. If you insist they are not, then provide something, anything. You saying it's so does not make it that way.

And again, I repeat, if a system is found that prevents the killing of animals and gets them into good homes, I want EVERYONE to support it. I realize many in the breeding community only support what matters to their pocketbook, but see, I don't care. If the animals are living good lives, and living, not dying. I don't care. Isn't that the whole point?

It almost sounds like you'd rather kill the animals in the shelter than save them if the breeders supported it.

HonestyHelps said...

I don't believe you on the fencing, not at all.

Just one question about Calgary and that should prove my point. Does animal control record bites by breed? Case closed.

And I will repeat there are far worse things that can happen to pets than being euthanized in the shelters. Those things are what I work to change. The direction that is taken to save them can mean additional suffering and that is what the Whino's program has done. I work to stop the suffering because that is more widespread than the euthanasia in the shelters. I work for the future, not saving what is here because that can only mean neglecting the future by taking away the emphasis on the only thing that will save the future, spay/neuter. And if people don't want to cooperate then I want them forced into it. If they relinquish their pets over having to alter them, then the pet had a lousy owner. At least give them a chance for a new home with a better owner and if not, don't force them to live a living hell.

Brent said...

I know, the fencing thing is ridiculous -- and that's why I oppose it.

It doesn't have to be an either or -- you can save lives AND stop cruelty. Killing to stop cruelty just doesn't make sense to me.

And just being unaltered doesn't make an animal's life a living hell.

I feel as if many have lost sight on the end goal -- which is to eventually eliminate abuse and killing.

The primary point of spay/neuter is to lower the population to end the killing. But if we kill them because they aren't spayed or neutered, doesn't that run contrary to the end goal? Doesn't killing to end killing seem wrong?

Brent said...

On Calgary. I don't know if they keep track of bites by breed or not. We were talking about shelter killing here, not dog bites.

But, as far as bites go, their bites per capita are significantly lower than any large city I've ever seen. So they're doing a lot right on that front as well.

HonestyHelps said...

You are completely clueless Brent, completely. The more you talk the more irrational you have become. If you can't understand how all these things come together, you are the problem, not the solution. Can't explain things to those who have no background in the subject. Yep, just another pawn in the Whino's chess game is all you are. He relies on people like you not being to grasp the problem and you play right into his hands. Must be nice to see the world through rose colored glasses, I see the world as it is. I face reality, you run from it. I should feel sorry for you except that you do too much damage for that.

Anonymous said...

Brent, are you that Toellner? You are going to be held accountable in court for warranteeing pit bulls.

You know that you and your dog breeder and dog fighter friends only support No Kill because opposing pet limits mean that your dog breeder friends get to keep on breeding in dog fighting, puppy mills, and all the rest. And not getting breeder licenses. and CHEATING ON THEIR TAXES.

How nice that you've crawled into bed with a lowlife like Patti Strand and are being her bad boy, working like a slave for her and the AKC.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patti_Strand

But when you take the fall, she'll be laughing her way to the bank because saps like you are willing to be the fall guys. Baboons for the AKC.

Even terrierman has a couple of testicles and doesn't let the AKC make a monkey out of him.

Anonymous said...

Brent, do you realize that no one on earth even knows you exist except for some AKC, UKC, and Winograd deviants, and your dog fighter friends?

Meanwhile you bend over for these morons and say "please, may I have another?"

The chumps like you get left holding the bag.

HonestyHelps said...

Anon, those without a mind of their own are those the Whino's preys on. He depends on these types. Any rational thinking person can figure it out. Brent is just another one who was a small fish in a big pond and his following the Whino now makes him a big fish. Not to worry, there's something in the works that will make this blog unnecessary by this time next year.

Anonymous said...

Toellner, STFU.

You're a dope and a liar. You've been caught lying so many times, and just being the puppet of dog fighters and crazy dog breeders.

The crap you write is just Patti Strand crap. You sound like an idiot.


You're lying about No Kill because Winograd sold out to the breeders like AKC Patti Strand and the Consumer Freedom whacks and puppy millers with her, and they got Winograd the desperate deviant to oppose things like breeder licensing.

You don't give a crap about how many animals get euthanized. You just want your breeder friends protected from regulation like breeder licensing so they can keep cheating on their taxes and running dog fighting businesses and puppy mills.

You're just a joke, one of those weird oddball outcast guys that doesn't even have the BALLS to make up new crap. You just get fed lines from Patti Strand.

It's old and tired. You're a legend in your own mind only, and if you weren't such a creepy lonely guy you would actually have a life instead of playing games with the likes of deviants like Strand and Winograd.

Anonymous said...

Patti Strand has been pulling the fake "humane interests" crap with NAIA forever, pretending to love doggies and be authoritative, but being nothing more than a money-sucking breeder lobby saying stupid things.

And Brent boy repeats the SAME CRAP, and hides behind the "let's pretend Brent loves doggies" Strand routine.

You're a dope, Brent. You couldn't even come up with your own racket.

And the choo choo money train is getting a lot closer look these days, kapish?

Of course, they are putting a tighter rein on Winograd when he steps out of line with the "commie" interests, and so you better do what you're told.

Anonymous said...

"following the Whino now makes him a big fish."

Brent has never been a big fish, or even a little turd, just like Winograd.

They're both peons. They do what they're told, and when they get out of line, the whip snaps, and they come to attention for their breeders.

Felony said...

Speaking of Terrierman...

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/12/pit-bulls-as-cash-cows-and-cause.html

HonestyHelps said...

Wow, Anon. Somebody out there really doesn't like KCDogPoop. Can't say I blame you, he is very irritating with the same-o, same-o routine. It's like listening to the Whino and that always is irritating.

HonestyHelps said...

Rather than a big fish, it is more appropriate that he thinks he is hot shit when he is nothing more than a cold turd.

HonestyHelps said...

An Terrierman really reamed Brent on his blog, I did so enjoy it.

I've been doing some research on Brent's claim about fencing. I see that fencing is required, as it is every where else by adoption groups but each link I looked at said that exceptions are made for apartment dogs. So I think what is happening is a distortion (again). People complain because they are turned down for an inappropriate dog for apartment living or they are turned down because they don't deserve a dog and use the fencing excuse to make themselves look better.

I always do a home check and if they don't have a fence, they don't get the dog. If that fence is not in good repair, they don't get the dog until it comes up to standards. Only makes sense that you want to protect the dog. Then again when have any Whinonettes had good sense?

HonestyHelps said...

Also, something that bothers me is I see that there is a $5 license. Now their shelter only adopts out altered animals so is there an incentive to alter to the public like a much higher license fee for unaltered?

Anonymous said...

"No Kill relies on having un-restrictive animal control laws."

The problem is that what Brent "Patti Strand" Toellner REALLY means is

"BREEDERS rely on having unrestrictive animal control laws"


That is how breeders cheat on their taxes, run puppy mills, run dogfighting and dogfighting breeding, create health issues, cheat the consumer, dump their unwanteds on the taxpayer and get the taxpayer to spay what the breeders sell unaltered, and about a million other crimes.

Brent is a BREEDER lobbyist. His crap comes straight from the BREEDER lobbies. He barely even moves the words around to try to make it look like his. Then he just takes out the breeder interests, and put in the fakeo No Kill crap as a replacement to try to make it look good. It is still breeder crap for breeders and by breeders. Brent doesn't give a rat's bum about No Kill, or any animals in the shelters. Everyone knows No Kill is a failure and a joke. Anyone who gave a damn about animals saw No Kill torture animals and make things worse. They wised up fast.

But the BREEDER LOBBY bought out some of the No Kill deviants to support their anti-animal control law stance, help the AKC keep those puppy mills humming for the registration fees, help the dog fighters stay in business, help the UKC keep pretending, help the hog doggers keep hogging along, and help EVERY BREEDER keep cheating on their taxes.

Winograd needs the $$ from somewhere. The breeder lobbyists will hand out $$ to their liar advocates.

NAIA and Center for Consumer Freedom came right out and announced their support of Winograd and No Kill! That's like having the tobacco companies announce their support of a public health guru. It ain't free!

Brent is just a more pitiful liar for the breeders who has to sniff Winograd's butt.

Imagine the embarrassment of having to trot along after Winograd stink.

Brent said...

It's funny.

Some anonymous commenters say that no one even knows who I am, but everyone HERE sure has a strong opinion of me (including the person who cared enough to write the blog)-- so maybe that's not true?

I don't want to be a big fish, or even a little fish. All I want is for people to quit killing animals senselessly. If they would quit doing that, I would gladly go away.

I don't know Patti Strand. Never spoken to her, met her or ever communicated with her. I'm familiar with some of her work, and even as much as you hate her, I've never seen her defend killing shelter animals -- which everyone here seems more than willing to do.

You've called me names. You've called me a liar (even though no one's provided a shred of evidence of anything that I've ever said or written as being incorrect). Heck, you even looked up the fencing requirement thing to "prove" that I'm full of shit and then found out I wasn't (and while they occassionally do provide exceptions, far too often they are using it for the reason they are not adopting perfectly good dogs into perfectly good homes for that dog).

You said that Calgary is not a success at being no kill --but when I asked to actual support that, you have nothing.

Let's face it, you hate people. You admit to hating people. Pet owners, people who don't want to kill animals, people who breed animals and then specific people who really get under your skin.

At some point, you quit caring about saving the lives of animals, and became more concerned about "being right', and who agrees with whom. And that's a shame, because animals are dying because of it.

HonestyHelps said...

There you go, Brent, with the holier than thou, you must be an animal killer, blah, blah, blah. The only one that is killing animals here is you with your philosophy. I did find out that you are full of shit on the fencing issue just like I said. They do make exceptions when it is appropriate like for the appropriate dog in an apartment. That is a good thing. You don't put a young border collie in an apartment, that is a bad adoption, a setup for failure for both the dog and the family that adopts.

And because you are so clueless, you can't figure out the one thing I said about Calgary that gives everything away about it. Don't worry, that's for another post. Not recording bites by breed is a sure sign of lying and protecting the interests of the breeders, etc. Because you associate with the breeders, because your Messiah is the darling of breeders, you think nothing of it. Not so with me. If the breeders are for it, then something is wrong and it is not in the best interest of animals. Anyone who wants to save animals would be ashamed to be associated with the breeding industry in any shape, form or fashion. You obviously aren't. Then again, those that follow the Whino have no shame, just like he doesn't.

I don't hate people, I hate people like you. You are doing more harm than any good and have earned my hate.

Anonymous said...

the one glaring thing i notice about brent/winograd and the pit nutters is that they don't hesitate to bring up the position of hsus and others to defend their positions on pit bulls and then turn right around and condemn those same organizations for everything else. just a bunch of hyprocrites in my opinion. pick and chose is what they do, take out of context to support their ill conceived agendas.

Brent said...

For Calgary, we've never talked about bites in the context of this -- we've been talking euthanasia rates.

They're different issues. And you asking one question doesn't change their euthanasia rate. And it's not like you caught them lying on the bite numbers, just not reporting all of them that you'd like to see. Email Bill and have him send the info to you...

You looked up the fencing thing, and found out that I was right and they do have requirements. Now, you say they say they grant exceptions to which I can tell you they very seldom do. Now, we can let the other 4 readers of this blog decide whether you know more about what goes on in my are or whether you do, even though you live 2500 miles away. I'm amazed how much time you've spent on this issue since I don't spend much time on it on my blog...

Like I've said numerous times, I have no shame in supporting successful policies that are god for animals. I support the policies themselves based on their success rate. If others believe in the same thing -- fine. I really don't care. Because the policy is good, I support it. Whether other people support it because of their own personal interests is irrelevant to me. I support it because it's successful.

And by all accounts, it looks like you'd rather support bad policy if it means that you are not on the same side as the breeding community.

And that's too bad.

HonestyHelps said...

Brent, who are you trying to convince, me or yourself, that you care about animals? Because I certainly see it as not caring about the animals. You're the one so blinded by your "No Kill" stance that you can't figure it out.

You can't even figure out something so simple as to how it relates when bite records aren't kept by breed and how that would apply to everything else. As I said, I am working on a posting about Calgary and you'll have your info in that one.

Of course, I research when I hear something so ridiculous as to your claim that fencing is stopping adoptions. It is stopping bad adoptions, which is what we should be doing, not throwing them out the door just to say that "they're alive!!".

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe what you are. I do honestly believe now that you are indeed a front for the breeders and probably for the dogmen too. There's no way that you can be for the shelter animals with your positions, absolutely, positively no way. I was willing to just chaulk you off as another naive, gullible fool following the Whino but no longer.

And I would rather have four caring people reading my blog than being used, like you are, to pimp the agendas of dog fighting and pit bull breeding.

Anonymous said...

Actually, fencing requirements are indeed a good thing. I know of no rescue out there that doesn't require fencing and that is why they do home checks. I have a doggy door and my dogs have access to the outside at all times. This prevents accidents in the house that an owner would get upset about. Think about those people, me being one, that work and are gone for 8-10 hours a day. Is it right for the dog to stay inside and hold their natural processes that long? Studies show that apartment dogs have a higher % of urinary tract infections. This is due to being kept inside all day while the owner is at work and not being able to relieve themselves. So my rescue takes the position and highly encourages installing a doggy door to those who work and have a private back yard available. We have a discount availabe at a local pet store for our adopters to get these doggie doors.

We do turn people away who live in houses and have either no fence or a fence in poor repair. We do a home check and will give the person an opportunity to repair their fence if we consider it not good enough. Having an area that is fenced, where the dog can run loose, means that the dog can get exercise at any time rather than depending on an owner to walk them. They have a saying that a fence makes for good neighbors, we feel it also makes for a good time for the dog.

When it comes to apartments and condos, we do make sure that the dog fits the space. We're not going to adopt a year old border collie into an apartment, that would be cruel to the dog. Being confined all day and then relying on the owner being able to work all this energy off once they have spent all day at work, is an unreasonable expectation. In past experiences we find that an inappropriate breed in that situation develops bad behavior which usually results in a return to us (we do require that the pet be returned at any time, even years). We don't feel that does anyone any good, especially the dog.

I feel that this person doesn't understand the basics of doing good adoptions. I'm not the least interested in just finding a home, I want to find a good home, one where the dog and family are success. That means eliminating as many obstacles as possible to that successful. Bad adoptions mean only one thing, dogs lose homes, they end up back with the rescue or relinquished to the shelter. Isn't that what we want to avoid?

Anonymous said...

Just found this in my favorites column and thought I would pass it along regarding Kansas City.

City passes pit bull ordinance

By KALEY CONNER

kconner@dailynews.net

Emotions ran high at Thursday's Hays City Commission meeting, as commissioners voted 4-0 to pass stricter regulations for pit bull owners.

The new ordinance automatically classifies pit bulls as "dangerous," meaning owners must keep them securely confined at all times, pay an increased registration fee of $50 annually, keep them muzzled in public and provide an identification microchip.

Another provision that would have required owners to obtain public liability insurance in a single incident amount of at least $100,000 was removed by a 3-1 vote. Vice Mayor Chris Channell objected. Commissioner Henry Schwaller IV said he contacted local insurance providers and found policies to cover pit bulls are not readily available.

"Nobody wants to insure a pit bull because ... it's just too risky," Schwaller said. "Insurance companies do not want to touch this."

Channell said the Kansas Supreme Court has declared pit bulls represent a public health hazard not posed by other breeds of dogs.

"And that they possess both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior and physical capabilities in excess of (other breeds)," Channell said. "That's already on record with the state of Kansas."

The ordinance defines pit bulls as any of several dog breeds.

Commissioners also heard from several pit bull owners who urged the commission to reconsider breed-specific legislation. Among them was Mandy Wallgren, who came with her certified service dog Brodie, who is classified as a pit bull. Wallgren said a dog's behavior depends on its upbringing, not breed.

"I propose a different set of solutions, that we react to the behavior and not the appearance of animals," she said. "All dogs, regardless of breed and size, should have consequences if they bite animals or people."

HonestyHelps said...

Anon:15 thank you for that post, it was very informative. Keep in mind that Brent cares nothing about good adoptions, only that they are alive. Besides it is easy to see from his postings that he is nothing more than a front for breeders, this has nothing to do with saving animals.

Anon:34 Looks like they don't listen to him in KC.

Brent said...

That article is from Hays, KS -- which is 200 miles from Kansas City. But hey, glad you have claimed to know so much about the area.

And to "anonymous" 5:15 -- again, the whole point of adoptions is to keep from having to kill animals in the shelter. That's why we adopt them, to keep from killing them.

So sure, we don't want animals to come back into shelters.

So let's take the example where there are 10 people who live in apartments that want to adopt. I trust them, so I adopt dogs to each of them, and you don't because you consider high risk and don't want them coming back to the shelter.

So I adopt my 10. Let's say I get 3 of them back (which would be a higher than usual return rate), I've still adopted out 7 more dogs to homes where people took the time to care for the animals than you did by denying all of those homes. That's 7 fewer dogs I have to kill at my shelter.

Meanwhile, those 10 people that you denied, still wanted dogs, so they went out and badmouthed the shelter to all their friends for denying them, then went out and bought dogs from the breeders you hate and want to run out of business -- creating MORE demand for their product. Meanwhile, let's say 3 of those dogs get turned into the shelter (because that is our percent that wouldn't work out) - now you have 13 dogs in your shelter while I have 3. I have found 7 good homes, and you have driven people to buy dogs that were actually seeking to adopt.

And you say I'm the one supporting breeders and driving them from shelters?

HonestyHelps said...

So Brent, you would roll the dice and take a chance. In others words, you are willing to sacrifice those 3, how do you make the decision which 3? You are really off the wall with this one.

Just goes to show that you care nothing for the quality of life of dogs, nothing. Quantity is all that matters to you. How disgusting you are. If you did good adoptions, probably none would be sacrificed. Do you even bother to check out homes? So in your mind, someone sleeping under a bridge would make a decent home, no fences, so why wouldn't you adopt out to a homeless person?

Frankenstein would love you. He'd have to fight off the breeders, hoarders, abusers, and dogmen to get to you, but he would love you just like they do.

Brent said...

In my scenerio, I get three returned to my shelter which I find new homes for -- you killed 13 -- even though you started with 10. Keep in mind that all of these people want a dog and will get a dog from somewhere - if the shelter denies them, then they'll go to a breeder.

So of course I do homechecks. But less with the intent of using them to deny people (although it does happen), but mostly for education to let them know the "look outs" for that particular dog in the uniqueness of their home.

Of course all dogs should go to good homes. And as a rescue worker, we should all be looking at "how do I make this ok home into a good home" instead of looking for reasons to deny the ok home.

But even an Ok home is better than dead. And you'd rather just kill them. And you think I'm the monster. It's amazing that people can be responsible for killing thousands of animals in a shelter when and then accuse others for being cruel. It just doesn't make any sense.

HonestyHelps said...

No here's the scenario you abide by, KCDogPoop. One dog tied outside because you don't think fencing is a good thing. One dog being neglected because who gives a shit, you didn't. One dog being dragged around by a gang banger. One dog pissing and pooping and getting abused for doing so. One dog being dumped because when they tried to return it, all you do is give them a lecture and send them on their way. One dog living a life of hell because of being locked in an apartment all day and probably all night while it's single, partying owner is out having a good time. One dog might end up with half way good owners.
I believe that adds up to seven.

Why bother with a home check, you're going to leave that dog there anyway.

You are one evil, vile man who is in complete denial about what is the right thing to do. Get that sorry ass of yours out into the field and see the disgusting consequences of your lack of caring about good homes.

I will not subject my readers to this garbage you spew any longer. You aren't an animal lover, not at all. You are an animal hater of the first degree. Your position is the one that sends animals to the shelter to be euthanized. What did animals ever do to you that you hate them so much that you could care less what you put them into? Don't bother to answer, your comments will be deleted without being read from now on. I just wish that you could be deleted as easily. You are indeed a monster, you and your master, the Whino.

Anonymous said...

Brent, do you realize that these AKC women have big mouths, as do some of the others? They cannot keep any secrets. BLAB BLAB BLAB. And they love to email, understand? They love to share. It's all they do all day, and everything gets out.

As for Brent posting, he has served a very helpful purpose.

He shows us all that No Kill (and in particular Nathan Winograd) is about lawlessness, anarchy, and endangering the public by eliminating animal control laws.

No Kill wants puppy mills, stray dogs, illegal breeders, health epidemics, dog maulings, hoarding, animal cruelty, tax cheating, all easily and freely committed by eliminating animal control laws so that the criminal hurts the average person in a community.


That is what No Kill is all about, destroying a community and letting dog breeders and dog fighters hurt the community, steal from everyone, and commit crimes without laws.

And with anarchy and lawlessness, people die.

No Kill supports killing people too, as well as killing animals in torturous ways.

Anonymous said...

"Let's face it, you hate people. You admit to hating people"

MORE quotes from Patti Strand.

Brent is too stupid to even make up his own copy.

Brent just repeats what a PUPPY MILL LOBBYIST like Patti Strand provides.

Yes, the Patti Strand heralded as as a lobbyist for DOG FIGHTERS, Brent. Federal criminals, Brent.

For a little reminder of Patti Strand and what her NAIA represents,

http://
www.sourcewatch
.org/
index.
php?
title=
NAIA_
Trust

http://
www.
sourcewatch.
org/index
.php?title=
National
_Animal_
Interest_
Alliance

Sound familiar?

Brent is just another of the NAIA line of boobs, as is Winograd.

And they will get left holding the bag, because Patti will save her ass no matter what, just like Patti will crack the whip when they step out of line.

These are the kinds of "men" that Patti likes.

Hey, at least Walt didn't let himself put on Patti's collar.

But then Walt didn't really go down the dog fighting and hog dogging road, did he, Brent?

Anonymous said...

"Actually, fencing requirements are indeed a good thing. I know of no rescue out there that doesn't require fencing and that is why they do home checks"

Anonymous, Brent wants his pit bull breeding friends to be able to run their operations using the chaining they always have used. Fencing doesn't work for dogs getting bred to kill each other. And the pit bull breeders don't want to spend their nice tax free cash on proper kenneling and containment like proper fencing.

(Brent's puppy mill friends don't like fencing requirements and that sort of thing either. It's all about maxing out the profits by minimizing the care.)

Brent and his pit bull breeder friends also want to allow their pit bulls to easily and without fencing come onto the sidewalk, parks, your property, and KILL YOU AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN, PETS AND FARM ANIMALS.

Brent's breeder friends think they have that right. They think their financial interests are more important than YOUR LIFE or the life of your family or pet.

They will lie and try to convince the naive that fencing means "homelessness" or euthanasia, or whatever other LIE they come up with to oppose rules that Breeders don't like.

But this No Kill crap is all about protecting and furthering BREEDER FINANCIAL INTERESTS. The No Kill is the plain brown wrapper holding the poop inside the bag that is the breeder interests.

They hope to sell the brown paper bag, and they hope you won't look inside.

No Kill is a front for BREEDERS to get their way, and infiltrate animal control and shelters, and eliminate the laws they don't like (meaning ALL) or weaken them to the point of meaninglessness, and let the breeders abuse animals, and hurt and kill people, for profit without worrying about rules or laws.

Anonymous said...

However, Brent's numbers & statistics fiddling and lying about the homes and placed dogs is humorous, in a sad and sick way.

Unfortunately for Brent, Winograd people and Winograd No Kill got caught handing out dogs to known hoarders and torturers, as has Best Friends.

Also handing out unaltered pit bulls to what their own volunteers felt were dog fighters.

Also giving out aggressive dogs to people who abandoned them to die on the streets or took them to another shelter in another county to euthanize. Or perhaps just shot them.

Also handing out sick animals to spread disease.

Unfortunately for Brent's lies, Winograd NO KILL KILLS ANIMALS BY ADOPTING THEM OUT TO ANIMAL KILLERS AND TORTURERS to falsely keep the euthanasia numbers seemingly low.

And also by giving out dangerous dogs to hurt and kill people.

Or giving out dogs to people who don't have the space for the dog, or whose landlord doesn't allow pets, or virtually to anything.

The adopted-out dogs die, they just die on some other shelter or animal control's numbers, either euthanized, picked up as a dead body from the streets or someone's yard, or disappeared to who knows where. Like in a puppy mill cage, since Winograd No Kills don't feel the need to alter before placement. Or like RESEARCH.

Yes, Winograd No Kill enables research animal dealers (bunchers) to easily collect animals from No Kill shelters to use in medical research getting tortured in the name of bad science.

These bunchers and puppy millers are just some of the reasons that shelters started to have some basic requirements and adoption fees. But Winograd No Kill wants to go back to the old days, when shelter animals were easily obtained by torturers.

However, Patti Strand's NAIA friends are involved in not only puppy mills, but animal research too right Brent? No wonder you and Winograd want to help them out.

Winograd No Kill just means adopted-out animals die uncounted and unseen in bad ways.

HonestyHelps said...

Thanks Anon, couldn't have said it better myself. And yes, he's so stupid that he doesn't even realize that he has been had. One more nail in the Whino's coffin. Use it, that's why I have put up with his nausating shit. You're welcome.

HonestyHelps said...

Brent, I know that you are coming back to this blog and I want you to know that these are my people, people out there that are well informed and are working to stop this disease called "No Kill". And the pit bull issue will be the one thing that stops it. We are connecting the dots for the legislators and elected officials. Your time in this game is limited and the score is in our favor.