Wednesday, July 14, 2010

All You Pit Nutters In LA, Brenda Barnette Hates Pit Bulls

Yep, she doesn't like them. Because of the Seattle Humane Society's policy on pits, needless to say that her "high adoption" rate doesn't include them. And neither did she try to save any pits from LA and Kern. The pictures of those dogs were on the Seattle PI blog and all I saw were cute, fluffy dogs and chihuahuas, no old dogs, no black dogs, no large dogs, just the ones that stand a chance of being adopted from any shelter.

Barnette's policy on pits exemplifies a highly restrictive intake into her private shelter, Seattle Humane. This type of intake restriction of less adoptable animals falsely creates the illusion that a high adoption rate has meaning. If LAAS would restrict the intake of Pits and Pit mixes, our adoption rate would shyrocket.

Below is an e mail from Seattle Humane to someone who wanted to relinquish their Pit Bull.

Sent: 6/18/2010 1:15:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Relinquish a dog


With any Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix we place for adoption embassadors to the breed. This means that the dog cannot have any previous history of aggression of any kind. If the dog does not have a history of aggression then the dog will recieve a behavior assessment after it has been surrendered to our shelter. (In other words, an owner can walk away thinking his/her pit will go for adoption and it goes for euthanasia instead. Collect $200 and put the body out in the dead barrel.) During that assessment our behavior program manager and behavior team assess the dog's temperament. (So how does that fit in with the Whino's "No Kill" philosophy? How many times do we have to hear that temperament testing in a shelter is unfair to the dog.) If the dog passes the behavior assessment then we place the dog out for adoption. If the dog does not pass the assessment we will not place the dog up for adoption. There are no rescue organizations that work with us and pit bulls . (Why didn't she develop those rescues if she is so freaking good?) If the dog is not an adoption candidate with us the only option is euthanasia.

We do have a callback option. With a mandatory donation of 200$ at time of surrender we give you the oppportunity to claim your pet if he/she is not an adoption candidate with us. That $200 is not refundable. (Boy what a money maker this is. It says it all, Seattle Humane Society is NOT and never has been an open door shelter. Barnette would rather see the pits dumped on the streets to be shot by the police than try to work with them.)

We would like to speak with you about your dog's temperament and our policies before scheduling an appointment. You may leave us with a phone number where you can be best contacted.

Thank you,

Note that they won't even make an appointment until they talk with a pit owner. Do they say the same thing to a poodle owner? Obviously Barnette thinks pits are a dangerous breed. It would be interesting to see how many adoptions of pits Barnette made while at SHS, wouldn't it? So all you pit nutters in LA, how about them apples? You think it was bad before, this woman has no experience with helping pits and pits are the number one breed euthanized in the LA shelters. Then again, Barnette doesn't feel she is subject to public records, which a non profit isn't, so we'll never know.

Also of note is that Barnette worked for the San Francisco SPCA. Contrary to the lies of the Whino, SF was never no kill. The SPCA refused to take pit bulls from the shelter. In fact, the animal commission DEBATED ALL LAST YEAR TO BECOME "NO KILL". This is a myth perpetuated by the Whino to make himself look good. So Barnette's background shows she hasn't any experience with saving the pits. Course it depends on how you look at it as good or bad. Barnette pays lip service about pits but her background shows differently.


Anonymous said...

Wonder what Barnette will do when she realizes how many pits come through the LA shelters? She has no experience obviously with them so what are her "plans"? She found out in Seattle that rescues don't want them, is she so dumb as to think that the LA rescues are standing in line to take them?

Anonymous said...

There is a reason why the AKC, the puppy mill breeders, the dog fighters, Rick Berman fastened on to the No Kill people to lobby for them.

The No Kill people have to be the most gullible, clueless people I have ever encountered.

They just don't seem to understand the concept of being lied to and used to help the animal profiteers get rich and hurt animals.

AKC had this woman Barnette officially listed as a legislative lobbyist. The pro-abuse dirt cloud literally surrounds Barnette.

No Kill people will believe anything! They are like children. All someone has to do is parrot a few No Kill buzzwords, use a frontman like Winograd to prey emotionally on these gullible people, and the No Killers will start agreeing to any kind of animal abuse agenda.

Felony said...

WOW! What a scam and on so many levels. And WHO gives a pit bull up that is a breed ambassador?! People unload these dogs for GOOD REASONS!

I have never dealt with Seattle Humane. I had NO idea. You don't have to travel very far to find pitless shelters around here. It is definitely worth driving the few extra miles.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of the TV evangelist things that were going on in the 80s, where some people used the guise and front of religion to run scams and steal money from people. Tammy Bakker and all that.

Good, innocent, naive, trusting people bought it all and gave their life savings to scammers, and gave the scammers power, because they didn't look behind the buzzwords to find out what these people were REALLY up to.

At least then all that was lost was money, not animals' lives. Animal torture for profit didn't get enabled because of that scam.

But it's like that with No Kill now, and animals ARE getting hurt and killed. The scammers and the animal profiteers learned that all they had to do was talk some No Kill talk, and pose as No Kill, and the No Kill community would suck it down naively and support them, send them money, give them power.

This is how the worst scams are perpetrated, when the profiteers use people's emotions to get their slavish support.

No Kill has just become an empty shell because the people who supposedly cared about the animals are in denial over their domination and control by these animal profiteer trickers and lobbyists, and the No Kill community is actually helping them hurt animals.

BoardWatch said...

In L.A., people give their dogs up--pit bull or otherwise for usually the same tired and lame reasons:
1. I'm moving
2. I'm not allowed to have it.
3. It's chewing on things (see#6)
4. It barks (see#6)
5. It won't stay in the yard (even though I don't have a fence)(see#6)
5. I can't afford to feed it anymore. (see#6)
6. I'm too stupid to have a dog and won't take the time to learn to train it or give it proper exercise and appropriate things to do.
7. It pees and/or shits in the house (see#6).
8. I'm not home enough (but you were when you got the dog, right?)(see#6)

I guess you're implying that all of the 6700+ pit bulls/mixes brought into the shelter in a year are "dangerous." Funny, I don't recall 6700 pit bull attacks...

I don't trust the numbers, but LAAS says that only 25% of the animals taken in are "owner surrenders." Really? We have that many "strays?"

What it comes down to is that an "owner surrender" doesn't get the 4 day hold and can be killed after 24 hours (cooling off period). Also, if you deny the dog is yours you get to dump it for free with no ID check.

Until the lies and deceit stop, there will be no changes at LAAS. This new GM has started with a few lies before she's even hit the chair, so I don't expect much transparency from her. That's the luxury of a private org which she will learn PDQ. You don't have to tell the truth about anything to anyone. At LAAS, you can still lie, but it's a bit tougher to get away with it.

HonestyHelps said...

And I guess you think that a person will walk into the shelter and tell them that their dog just killed the neighbor's cat or bit the end of their finger off. Yeah, right, like tell them that and see what kind of trouble you get into. You can be up on charges for the cat and have to pay for quarantine.

Ever look at the service logs if you have questions about the strays? Lots of time going thru service logs so I guess you feel your time is toooo precious to do that.

And yes, every pit bull is dangerous in my book. They were bred in such a fashion that they are dangerous, unpredictable. They don't give off the signals of the normal dog. They don't adhere to the rules of the game. If a dog turns up it's tummy in submission, a pit will rip it open whereas another breed will recognize the submission and walk away. Yes, they are dangerous.

Anonymous said...

People give up pit bulls because they start showing signs of aggression, kill their other pets, show aggression to the mailman, the neighbors are complaining about menacing behavior, the pit bulls are menacing their families, biting their kids, etc and THEY LIE ABOUT IT when they take the dog to the shelter.

If you have ever worked at a shelter, you will quickly realize that many of the reasons that Boardwatch listed are excuses, made up, fabricated, not why they are really giving the dog up.

Particularly with pit bulls, people are lying about the aggression. Either because they just won't take responsibility and want to believe it can be made better, or because they are afraid of getting sued.

Anonymous said...

And lest we forget, the dog men who created the breeds are often quite honest and will flat out say- PIT BULLS ARE NOT PETS.

They don't belong anywhere near kids or other animals, and 99 percent of the adopters out there have no ability to handle these dogs.

That's why the attacks are raging everywhere. Pit bulls are not household pets.

The BREEDERS are saying this. They've spent years selectively breeding these dogs to have just these "problems" in a family environment or around other people/animals. What does that tell you?

HonestyHelps said...

Jeff doesn't do the shelters enough to know that, Anon. Of course, the shelter has to record what the people say when they surrender but you and I know that is bullshit. People tell these lies because they don't want the dog to be classified in such a way that it will be euthanized instead of adopted, that brings about guilt. So they lie, tell the shelter was a good dog it is and make up something that puts all blame on the person. I've even seen them bring a dog in with blood all over it's face and swear that is from something else only to find out the dog just killed the neighbor's cat. Took the dog back to the vet and the vet saw no reason for the blood. Then the owner of the cat just happened to come to the shelter to bring the dead body and happened to see the dog. The owner of the dog said they were moving (which they were forced to move after this) and couldn't take the dog. Made for a nice case.

HonestyHelps said...

And pits are the only breed where rescues and breeders recommend carrying a breakstick in case of "accidents".

Anonymous said...

What people fail to realize with no kill is that if it can work, why aren't the rescues already doing it? Are they deliberately withholding that trying to cram no kill down people's throats? In my area, we tried to go for a Maddie's Fund grant which meant that the rescues had to form a coalition and commit to taking animals from the shelter. Guess what, all those rescues condemning the shelter and yelling no kill, WOULD NOT COMMIT. So the effort to get Maddie's fund was dumped. And these same groups are still yelling.

HonestyHelps said...

Anon, that is exactly what Barnette schemed to do with her importation of dogs rather than taking them from the shelter there. This is how the Whino thinks he will force his morbid philosophy on us. The backbone of his program relies on rescues. I say if no kill is possible it would already be so. If the rescues were able to handle taking shelter dogs, they would already be doing so. Instead they rely on phone calls from owners wanting to surrender their pets, reject the "unadoptable" ones and those end up at the shelters. These rescues know what they do and therefore why bother to even go to the shelters, much less take any out, they know the shelter animals are their own rejects.

Anonymous said...

"Guess what, all those rescues condemning the shelter and yelling no kill, WOULD NOT COMMIT."

I think this No Kill now has NOTHINg to do with the animals and EVERYTHING to do with collecting money and scamming people.

They are lying and telling people that they are using it for the animals. They are using the money for themselves.

This is a big con scheme for cash.

I think there are people living off these scams now.

HonestyHelps said...

I agree Anon, look at James Soaring Eagle as an example.

Anonymous said...

People will bring in their own dog that has bitten someone, or attacked another one of their pets, or been menacing the neighbors or neighbors pets, and they'll actually tell the shelter they found it as a stray

They do it to avoid liability or charges, or child custody issues (where they'll lose custody if it's revealed they had an aggressive dog in the house) and for other similar reasons

That is especially true for pit bulls