Let's reminisce for a moment. Does anyone remember Brad Crauer? He was the vet at Seattle Humane while Brenda Barnette was the CEO. This vet prescribed medication for himself in the name of his dead dog. This is a matter of public record.
There are a few more of Brenda Barnette's "associates" that we won't mention in this post, but they are mentioned in several older posts. The point being that BB seems to surround herself with those of "questionable" character.
It seems like the ADL-LA, which called for IMMEDIATE stopthekiiling for every GM of LAAS is willing to shove the animals in L.A. city shelters into the hands of a new Director of Field Operations who has an 80% kill rate where he now heads a humane society in North East TX. http://hsntx.org/
"Sadly each year, due to neglect and pet overpopulation, we intake nearly 10,000 animals and serve the unfortunate and necessary burden to humanely euthanize approximately 80% of that number because they are either too young, old, sick, injured or there is no longer enough space for them at the Humane Society."
How about the fact that Salazar has so very little experience in animal control? At best he only has about a year and a half. His law enforcement and humane investigations experience is extremely limited. That explains why Barnette wants him, with no experience he will bow down and kiss her feet, anything she wants he will do. He can't argue with her, he doesn't know enough to argue and he needs a job. With his record, who else would hire him?
Here's the ADL-LA alert that was sent out speaking of Mark Salazar and no mention of the 80% euthanasia rate:
"The tone set by and the way the Director of Field Operations runs the department under the General Manager makes an enormous amount of difference in the success of the entire shelter system and is directly responsible for saving the lives of thousands of homeless animals. (This guy's gonna save thousands? He didn't do it in Longview)
The humane community should e-mail Barnette thanking her and her panel for having the courage to choose Mark Salazar (instead of a less competent LAAS employee to keep the 'status quo' happy.) (I'd say it is more appropriate that they email Barnette to ask for a good reason to hire him.) They chose an outsider, which is virtually unheard of at LAAS, because he was apparently (apparently??? When was the last time the ADL-LA accepted "apparently")the best fit for the animals and the job. (ADL-LA does not know the names of the panel members who chose Salazar, but one of our sources in the LAAS admin office told us they were very bright animal people and we believe him.) (How about buying that bridge in Brooklyn if that's all it takes.)
The ADL-LA’s description of Salazar’s “stellar” career performance (including a lawsuit for sexual harassment) made me curious, so I did a little “research” on my own. Salazar was originally from Riverside and seems he was involved in a, well, this one says he lifted up a female employee’s blouse and made an inappropriate comment about her body. http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_W_wlawsuit07.31e5802.html
And this one talks about inappropriate touching, so while no one should pass judgment who wasn’t there, it certainly doesn’t hurt to have the LAAS female employees aware of this, so we don’t have repeat of the Boks’ situation. http://www.pe.com/localnews/riverside/stories/PE_News_Local_D_rcode20.413b5ea.html
And we all know that the best way to get rid of a bad government employee is to give them a good recommendation, Riverside was eager to have him move along. Ever heard the saying, where's there's smoke, there's fire??
Five people have filed charges against Salazar in Riverside. Has this happened before...or since...? (I haven't finished my investigation.) Does this sound like someone acceptable to the ADL-LA? What's happening here?
C'mon ADL-LA do you seriously think that the "made up Texan accents" employees are real, they are just a figment of your imagination. And since most of the "press here" buttons on the HS menu take you no where, are you "sure" you really spoke to a real person? These "people" are talking about an 80% euthanization rate!!! Are we sure he’s leaving TX just because he wants to come back to L.A.? Or could it be because after only 9 months on the job he’s already in a little trouble? http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/article_cdc6e80a-91cf-519d-a82c-01141fe63eb9.html
"Humane Society board Vice President Mary Joe Murphrey said Tuesday she thought Salazar was resigning to pursue other career opportunities and wasn’t aware he already had another job.
She said board members were aware of the lawsuits brought against Salazar and his former employer — the city of Riverside, Calif., — by five former city workers on allegations of sexual harassment, age discrimination, retaliation and not making allowances for their physical disabilities."
There has to be fire here, not as innocent as the ADL-LA makes him to be. One employee in Riverside sued because he was fired. Well, he is back on the job and with back pay since 2007. Was this a "dismissal" or a "settlement"? There's a big difference. Are we re-visiting Boks again?
Here’s where Salazar refused last month to allow an audit of the finances of the humane society he’s managing. http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/article_01e93dfb-59cc-5d34-9005d9a8130ddeed.html There's been questions from the community of the high euthanasia rate.
The City of L.A.—before Brenda Barnette came—actually had one of the lowest kill rates in the state but now stray, impounds and euthanasias are on their way up, as I talked about earlier: http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/11/build-it-and-they-will-come-not-part-2.html
Is it possible Barnette hired this guy with an 80% kill rate just to have somebody to blame her failure on as her rates continue to climb? She’s out of her league. Winograd knows it and already dropped her like a hot potato. The breeders are getting pretty shaky after being exposed by their own e-mails on the City Clerk’s website (below and more to come shortly). Barnette is so unsure of her ability to bring home the bacon to the AKC and get the animal-limits raised (eventually to “no limits”) that may this is the reason she wants Salazar. Seems there is a close relationship between the Longview Humane Society/Salazar, and breeders (Longview Kennel Club) http://hsntx.org/whatsnew.php?command=displayFullRelease&ID=201
"The Longview Kennel Club and the HSNTx have enjoyed a very long, supportive relationship. The HSNTx Board of Directors runs the admissions booth for the LKC Dog Show each July, and the LKC donates a portion of the proceeds to the Humane Society. From the Humane Society of Northeast Texas Staff and Board of Directors, THANK YOU to the Longview Kennel Club!" Sounds like a bunch of breeders to me doing their usual things...dropping a few crumbs for the HS to pick up so they can say they are "actively involved in rescues and shelters. Like Cathie Turner, representing breeders who make thousands of dollars per dog. offered to get their club to donate old newspapers to the SLA shelter. Big deal!!!
And, BTW, those Town Hall meeting Barnette held where all the breeders seemed so poised and confident of their lines, here’s why—the AKC wrote their script. Here’s the alert Cathie Turner announced in her e-mail where she, Krokover, Koretz, Rosendahl and Barnette got their you-know- what’s caught in the City Clerk’s wringer:
Los Angeles, CA – The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department has held two town hall meetings to discuss a possible increase of the city’s current animal limit from 3 dogs or cats to 5 dogs or cats. AKC GR staff alerted local club members and breeders in Los Angeles County and provided them with talking points that laud the proposed changes, but also discuss the ineffectiveness of limit laws.
The ADL-LA, are you listening, did that sound familiar? Why are you supporting this? Yes, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, but if you don't come out against Barnette, it is the animals that will be damned. I challenge you to show why you are supporting Nathan Winograd at this point when he is so closely associated with Rick Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman who represents agricultural cruelty and animal research, the very things you claim to be against? Why are you accepting Winograd's lame excuses for his association with the likes of Rick Berman and Patti Strand? Why, ADL-LA, are you supporting a known breeder who supports the AKC who in turns supports the cruelty of puppy mills, it is their biggest money maker? Take your lick, ADL-LA, now because it is only getting much more involved, Barnette has too much dirt on her and you've made the biggest mistake you've ever made. Or maybe you have sold out, maybe you now frequent the local McDonald's? Might as well with the company you are now chosing.