BRENDA BARNETTE: "DON'T ASK/DON'T TELL" ANIMAL TRANSPORT PROGRAM

"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is commonly used to describe someone willfully turning a blind eye to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.

My readers know that I have a problem with the importing of dogs when the local shelters are still euthanizing. Brenda Barnette, while in Seattle, was doing this importation, illegally I might add, and at the same time was working with Claire Davis and Kim Sgro to "create" instability in the King County shelters for Barnette's advantage. Note that Claire Davis used the term "create" in a letter to Dow Constantine when he turned against this mutant clan. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/06/terrorist-or-idiots-you-decide.html Can't chalk it off to a slip of the tongue since Davis is an attorney and well aware of the English language usage. I feel this importation scheme is not to save pets in as much as it is being used to keep the "rescues" in business while it puts the pressure on shelters to go "No Kill". Taking homes from shelter animals is immoral and these "rescues" doing the importation are more guilty of shelter pets dying than the shelter ever could be.

In conjunction with this stance, there is an excellent article in Opposing Views about a recent exportation of LA City dogs to Canada. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/l-a-shelter-dogs-transported-to-canada-rescue-or-ruse This article points out some of the problems with these exportations, like a lack of proper followup. One YouTube video shows what has happened on another exportation by those foolish LA rescue groups who believe that they are saving pets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFf0_fFkU5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDb2pGIquDY&feature=related

Also of note is Barnette's feeble attempt to offset her lack of responsibility in this matter. She has given orders to these "rescues" that they must qualify the receiving rescue and the only qualification is that they be "No Kill". YET BARNETTE IS AWARE OF HER FRIEND, KIM SGRO, WHO SENT KATRINA DOGS TO A "NO KILL". ALTHOUGH SGRO WAS TOLD THIS "NO KILL" WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A HOARDER, SHE THREATENED PEOPLE WITH A LAWSUIT RATHER THAN CHECKING IT OUT. THEY FOUND THE KATRINA DOGS STILL IN THE SAME CRATES, SOME DEAD, MONTHS LATER. http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4167541.html

http://www.inhumane.org/data/T&WHanson.htm Do you have any idea how much the term "no kill" is used by non profits and they turn out to be abusers and hoarders? It is almost commonplace now to hear about these "No Kill" abusers. Just like using the term "Humane Society", "No Kill" is now a generic term that anyone can use, doesn't make it so however.

This isn't about saving lives, this is about making money, brokering dogs and trying to cram "No Kill" down our throats. One pitiful blog in LA has a video of this last transport, only thing is that the video is not of this last transport, maybe another one, but not the last one. The last transport was done with an individual and not a very nice one either. I ask you if this one person was able to take all these dogs on walks or if he allowed them to sit in their poop and urine for about a day. This blogger is a real nut case who supported Boks, then didn't support Boks, hated the ADL-LA, and now is in bed with the ADL-LA, just can't make up his mind. I doubt he has one really. Now he is kissing up to Barnette just like he kissed up to Boks, refusing to see the evidence in front of his nose.

Use your heads people. These "rescues" expect us to believe that there are places that have no problems with a pet overpopulation. Course isn't that the philosophy of "No Kill" no pet overpopulation? None of these "rescues" have investigated whether the local shelters where these imported dogs are going are still euthanizing. As long as those local shelters are euthanizing for time and space, it is morally wrong to send more dogs into the area. They aren't saving lives, they are taking lives. And most of them are non profits. Do their donors understand what they are doing, much less agree with it. We donate locally because we want to see the benefits locally. It's a scam, plain and simple, a devious plot to force more killing of shelter animals so these cultists can push Nathan Winograd's program. There's many more effective ways to save shelter animals, but this ain't one of them.

The "Adoption Event" That Brenda Barnette Walked Away From

http://network.bestfriends.org/golocal/losangeles/16597/news.aspx

"Fifteen dogs, four puppies, two cats and four kittens (which included two 3 month olds) were adopted out and two dogs were placed in foster homes for potential adoption. In addition, 19 small dogs are headed for the Oregon Humane Society through Best Friends’ Pup My Ride program — all helping bring about a time of No More Homeless Pets."

CORRECTION: The 19 dogs transported to Oregon Humane CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED as rescued. Those 19 dogs transported from LA KILLED 19 DOGS IN THE Multnomah Animal Shelter by taking homes from them. So those are cancelled out.

Is that the best you can do, Jen Woodard? In a city of 4 and a half million people and only 25 pets were adopted in a 2 day event? Hell, I do more than that on a Saturday at Petsmart. I wouldn't be bragging if I were you, I would be looking for the nearest rock to crawl under due to the embarrassment. If that is your best, I would hate to see your worst.

BRENDA BARNETTE CAVORTS WITH BREEDERS WHILE SHELTER ADOPTIONS DWINDLE

Hey, folks, on my January 18 post, I wrote about how Brenda Barnette couldn't wait to leave the $19-million North Valley Mission shelter to cruise over to the "Meet and Greet" the California Federation of Dog Clubs (BREEDERS) was holding in her honor because she is "ONE OF OUR OWN." (If you missed it, read previous post: "Brenda Barnette Hailed by L.A. Breeders as "ONE OF OUR OWN" (below).

Well, from reports, the shelter adoptions didn't go so well - only about 25 animals adopted in what was supposed to be a Gala Adoption Event by Best Friends. Not only were shelter animals held from being adopted by the public at other shelters so that they could be available for this takeover of a public facility (paid for in the $154 million Prop. F bond funding homeowner's are paying in taxes), but at least one adopter informed me they had adopted a "Best Friends" animal, not an LA City Animal at the event.

And, (according to reports), about 20 little dogs were sent to Oregon Human Society by Best Friends to "save" them. Did they pay the adoption fee to the City? Did either Best Friends of Oregon Humane Society the spay/neuter and vaccination costs?

Oregon HS web site shows they charge from about $250 to $400 for a Chihuahua (more for the pup). Assuming LAAS had held out some of its most adoptable little cuties for Best Friends, looks like OHS could have sent back something so that LA Animal Services can keep taking in the animals that have nowhere else to go but the streets of Los Angeles. How about it BB? Did we get back some of those adoption fees to cover our spay/neuter and medical costs?

TAKE A LOOK BELOW FOR WHAT BREEDER BRENDA WAS DOING DURING THE ADOPTION EVENT!

BRENDA BARNETTE HAILED AS "ONE OF US" AT LA DOG BREEDERS' EVENT

A MEET & GREET FOR BRENDA BARNETTE WAS HELD AT GALPIN FORD IN THE VALLEY AND GUESS WHO PUT IT ON? COULD IT BE THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF DOG CLUBS (BREEDERS)? Yeah!!

According to an email dated January 14th from Carol Hamilton of Katiedid.dandies-at-adelphia.net (a breeder) announcing a meet and greet for Brenda Barnette on January 15, at Galpin Ford in the Valley, Brenda Barnette is "ONE OF OUR OWN".

That Saturday was a busy day for BB. The first time a $19 million shelter in the Valley--a City of Los Angeles asset--is used for the public should warrant the General Manager's presence...don't you think? Brenda Barnette dutifully did show up--BUT SHE DIDN'T LET A LITTLE THING LIKE A MAJOR PET ADOPTION EVENT INTERFERE WITH THE RECEPTION HER BREEDER FRIENDS PLANNED IN HER HONOR.

The Mission Shelter adoption event in the NE Valley began at noon. Barnette was outta there around 12:30. It appeared that she had a bigger priority than a lowly pet adoption. Barnette couldn't be late for her four-hour "meet and greet" with the BREEDERS!!! Nice priorities, Brenda! Off she ran, leaving behind her shelter's special event half an hour after it began, to spend four hours (1 to 5 pm) with the "California Federation of Dog Clubs.”

The breeder invitation is for "a Meet & Greet with Brenda Barnette, the city's new director of Animal Control." If there is anyone out there that can remember any other LAAS director being treated to a meet and greet by the breeders, you can let me know, I don't remember one myself.
The cover email included this scintillating tease about Breeder Barnette:

"She's one of us - shows and breeds dogs!" A direct quote, not in the past tense, present tense. The breeders know--once a breeder, always a breeder!

The room reserved holds over 100 people. There was a large buffet of fruit, veggies, tortilla chips and dip, ice tea and yummy chocolate chip cookies - enough food to satisfy at least 100 hungry breeders. BUT, fewer than 20 breeders showed up. WOW, guess BB wasn't the draw they expected! Are ya listening, Rosendahl? Where were you since this is obviously your crowd, you missed an opportunity to rub elbows with your kind, which could mean campaign contributions for your future plans.

Here's how the Breeder Barnette "Meet and Greet" was laid out:

When you entered the Breeder Barnette "meet and greet" you were quickly met by a breeder or two asking, "Are you a breeder?" Wonder what would have happened if you said you weren't? Would you have been kicked to the street? Maybe they were paranoid about the BOE or the Franchise Tax Board showing up and taking names to check and see if those in attendance were paying taxes on their breeding activities, and thus the screening.

What did Breeder Barnette do at her priority event for the day? Barnette stood and chatted with a few people. Then she sat and chatted with a few people. Later, she stood and chatted with the same people.

Barnette never gave any presentation. Once, when the keynote breeder was showing a PowerPoint, genius Brenda educated us all that different animals may be impounded in different numbers in different parts of the country. Wonder if she knows about pits in the LA shelters and their population in most major city shelters. Pit bulls are common factor in almost every shelter. Could have mentioned that problem. Or chihuahuas in the LA shelters. Nothing more than a general statement from Barnette. Later when asked if shelter employees are good with breed identification, Brenda said "it varies depending which shelter." The presentation was to "educate" shelter staff as if those with years and years experience don't already know such things. Such intelligence! Such insight! Makes you wonder why she's the GM!

These breeders have their nerve talking about educating. Barnette should be teaching them a thing or two like how their "business" affects everything. Selling unaltered dogs, not paying taxes that could help support the shelters, stopping their fight against legislation to help the situation. Or how they play a role in the cruelty of puppy mills by supporting the AKC. Cooperating would have been the theme she could have used but no, she didn't do that because she is "one of them".

With Breeder Barnette having no prepared comments, the breeders said the "meet and greet" was to get everyone's comments about a draft of a PowerPoint presentation (which they could have emailed to one another for comment). I say that they realized how dumb Barnette really is and she had nothing intelligent to say. This was all for show, folks, so these breeders can stand and say how they "help" the shelters.

The PowerPoint shows AKC dog groups (working, sporting, toy, etc.) and their characteristics, and it shows nine dogs often "mistaken for pit bulls." The most "substantive" comment a breeder offered to the group about the PowerPoint was to modify its background colors. Gee, golly...why didn't I notice that! I just thought it was dull to make Brenda look brighter!! Guess that didn't work out.

What was it really about? The invitation did not mention any PowerPoint. The invitation to the meet and greet with Brenda Barnette put it this way: "It's your chance to get to know her and to let her know your feelings about the mandatory spay-neuter law and any other issues concerning our dogs and our rights as responsible owners." God, I hate seeing that word, "responsible" applied to breeders and to refer to themselves as owners, they ain't just "owners". They are breeders, big difference. Owners give animals homes. Breeders raise a product for sell. Breeders create animals who then become part of the overpopulation problem that fills shelters.

Maybe that is why one breeder wore her "No Mandatory Spay-Neuter" button. Were those private little conversations with Breeder Barnette and the other breeding enthusiasts to discuss trashing the City's spay-neuter law? You can bet your booty that's the case.

There were some revealing comments overheard, spoken by the various breeders who had come to meet and greet Brenda. Get the bucket, these may make you vomit.

° "There is no dog overpopulation." Straight from Barnette's Messiah's lips to the breeders' ears. Gives credibility to breeding, this morbid philosophy.

° "Any excess dogs and cats here are because we are importing them from places like Mexico and Thailand." Translated, these imports are taking money from our greedy pockets.

° "Mandatory spay-neuter will make it so our children cannot find dogs when they are old enough to have one." What? You can't breed dogs for your children!! Besides just meet the requirements for a breeder license and your children can have all the dogs they want. Sounds like they don't want to report their taxes to me.

° "80% of animals enter the shelter already spayed and neutered." Where does that come from? It applies more to those exiting the shelter than entering it. And, if it is true in L.A., how is Brenda really spending all those s/n dollars she claims are used on shelter animals?

° "Spaying and neutering does not lengthen your dog's life." When asked how she knows, she said, "There was a Veterinary School study." When asked which school, the answer was "Davis. I think." I'm surprised this one can even read.

° “The government has no right to tell us to spay and neuter. The next thing you know they will be telling us we can't have longhair dogs." Yeah, yeah, yeah, and the government has no right to pass drunk driving laws or make us pay taxes on our litters.

° "There is a surplus of 'crap dogs'." [No definition given of "crap dogs."] I'll give you my opinion of her definition. Mix breeds, shelter dogs is what she is saying. When will breeders admit that when they sell a pet-quality dog unaltered that they are creating those "crap dogs" via a backyard breeder? Unaltered pet-quality dogs are the fodder that feeds backyard breeding, so that people can "recoup their investment", because they probably overpaid if they got it from a breeder. So this one can thank herself for those "crap dogs", she is the one making them.

° A particularly choice comment from the loud and confident apparent CA Dog Club Breeder Leader, Judythe Coffman, who boasted that she was carrying a concealed pistol: "The reason you don’t see purebred coonhounds in the shelters is that if they don't hunt well, they aren't rescued. They are shot where they stand." Talk about a pistol packing MaMa, (and she looks like one). Wonder if she would have shot anyone at the front door who might have answered the question by saying they were a rescuer. Easy to spot this broad too, she's just a fat Barnette lookalike. Nice comment, wonder if she shoots her Weiners when they don't perform. One can only wonder just how many she has shot.

Hey, Brenda. Are these ladies and two gentlemen your friends? Are they the people who are giving you all those cutting-edge shelter reform ideas, like fostering animals in basements?

One person was overheard questioning Breeder Barnette about the pet limit increase. (Barnette is pushing hard to increase the number of dogs and cats allowed per home in Los Angeles.) Their exchange tells it all about Breeder Barnette:

Breeder Person: About the pet limit increase you want. Would the animals have to be fixed?

Breeder Barnette: Oh, no!

Breeder Person: Why not?

Breeder Barnette: Because I don't think it's right. It would discriminate against responsible breeders.

Who uses the word "responsible" to describe breeders? And how could any "responsible" LA Animal Services GM be pushing for more unaltered animals in the city? Maybe this is exactly why Seattle AKC Legislative Rep BB came here--to open up Los Angeles for her Breeder Buddies by doing away with dog and cat limits, allowing unlimited puppies and kittens, and making sure that spay/neuter is not a requirement. Well, if that's true, it doesn't look like many of them thought she was worth coming out for! Pretty paltry group.

Are Council (other than Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz) and rescuers really dumb enough to do this? We'll see.

Gonna Learn Your Lesson The Hard Way, Austin

There's a saying, be careful what you wish for, it just may be you'll get your worse nightmare. Well, Austin wished for it and now let the nightmare begin.

Abigail Smith, infamous Director of the Tompkins County SPCA, has been hired, why I don't know. There were constant overcrowding problems in Tompkins County under her. She lost contracts and Tompkins County SPCA has a huge deficit as a result.

Plus where does anything get off thinking that handling 3000 animals a year qualifies someone to handle much more than 20,000 animals a year? Looks to me like there are a lot of stupid people in charge in Austin. Kinda reminds me of LA.

Be prepared Austin, to go down in flames. Although this means the animals will pay the price, as in all wars, and believe me it is a war with "No Kill", there are sacrifices, it will pay off in the long run because when it does happen, the world will realize that the "No Kill Equation" is a killing machine that preys on the gullible.

Brent Toellner's Quest for World Domination

Two of my wonderful readers sent me KCDogPoop's summary of the year for pit attacks. He never ceases to amaze me. This guy wouldn't know the truth if it was stuck to his nose. He insists that education is the answer when he is the perfect example of why education won't work, he himself resists any education regarding pit bulls or no kill. I particularly like the posting he made on Omar Martinez referring to the proverty level in Apple Valley.

"Apple Valley is an area that has a poverty level 50% higher than the national average." Now, if you read that one sentence, what would you think? You would get the impression that this family is poor, another of Toellner's lame excuses for pits attacking. That's making an assumption that pits only kill the poor, or that income level makes a difference in whether you are attacked. Bringing up the proverty level, cuppled with the latino heritage of the victim reeks of a racist remark. Well, he didn't bother to look at the "house" that Omar lived in, although a better description would be the estate, where this boy lived. Or maybe he did but chose to distort the fact, deliberately misleading people in order to make his lame excuses credible, after all his day job (advertising) is professional deceit. This estate had beautiful iron fencing all around it, probably the house was 4,000 sq. ft or better, a showplace actually. It also indicates to me that the owner of the frankenmauler had the money to spend on a well bred pit bull, not one from the shelter or a backyard breeder shooting down another of Toellner's lame excuses. The boy and his father were outside playing with the pit indicating that the pit was friendly, a family pet, not abused, again not matching Toellner's excuses. What parent spends 100% of their time with a child? What parent takes the child into the bathroom with them? Again Toellner wants to distort the actual truth by saying this was the fault of bad parenting. At what age would Toellner consider a child to be able to be left alone in the safety of a fenced in back yard for just a moment or two?

And what is this, another break from his beloved Karen Delise, the pit nutters own "expert"?Then he excludes Ethel Horton, trying to make it sound like media bias in reporting it as a dog attack. KC says Ethyl Horton died of a heart attack, with no bites being fatal. Here is what his hero, Delise, has to say about heart attacks as a result of a pit attack, she counts them: • Death from heart attack while being attacked and bitten by a dog. Although the bite itself may not have been injurious enough to cause death, the accompanying stress and trauma at the time of the attack caused immediate heart failure and death.(page 91 of Fatal Dog Attacks The Stories Behind the Statistics)

Now read what the coroner actually said below. This should give you an insight to classic pit bull denial. KC fails to mention that the pit bull - which was in Ethyl Horton's care - was mauling her husband - and Ethyl was in the process of saving his life by beating the pit bull off with a pipe

http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=12093775

Ethel tried to defend her husband using a plastic pipe, but the dog turned on her. Elmore said Horton had an enlarged heart, and the dog attack caused her heart to fail.

Without the dog attack, who is to say how many more years she would have had with her grandchildren. She was only 65 years old.

Anastasia Bingham is another distortion by KCDogPoop by leaving off a few details such as the dog was caught and yes, it was a pit bull. http://www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=12693077

His "new" view about altering pits is in conflict with his buddy, Karen Delise. What is he trying to do by going in this direction? I have a few suggestions as to why he is doing this:

1. World domination by pit bulls. Breed, breed, breed those pits. Breed them so they can continue to kill off all the other dogs and then if people want a pet, they only have one option, a pit bull. He would love that.

2. Could Toellner now be an extremist radical animal rights terrorist, following in the footsteps (as if he hasn't all along) of his mentor and Messiah, Nathan Winograd? These types of animal rights terrorists don't believe in spay/neuter. Winograd stood with PetPac and the AKC AGAINST mandatory spay/neuter, he pays s/n lip service but his actions speak louder. Kinda goes along with Toellner being against fencing for dogs and licensing for dogs. He did complain about his city trying to enforce licensing laws on his blog. He complains about adoption groups requiring adequate fencing when they adopt. Plus look who he hangs with. Good possibility here.

3. He's just plain stupid.

When will Toellner realize that he is the problem, not the solution, to helping his beloved breed? I say never. He's incapable of the truth. After all, look at what he does for a living, advertising. And what is advertising, distortions, plain and simple. That's all he knows to do, distort the facts. In the meantime, pits are being euthanized in record numbers, shot by the police in record numbers and they are mauling and killing in record numbers. Keep it up, KCDogPoop, you're doing a great job at bringing about BSL and bans, we love ya for it.

Brenda Barnette's Latest Flunky - Mark Salazar, How Dumb Can You Be?

Well, it could have been predicted based on his past record. Brenda Barnette’s new flunky, Mark Salazar already screwed up. Now that it’s been confirmed from several reliable sources, obviously everybody knows about it. When you work for a tax-supported government agency, there are no secrets, BB.

Barnette, of course, wants to cover it up but inquiring minds deserve to know. Apparently from reports, on New Year’s Day, Brenda Barnett’s new “ highly qualified” Director of Field Operations Mark Salazar took his teenage son into one of the LAAS animal shelters for a holiday visit when the shelter was closed. That's a No-No!! The kid must share his Pop’s bad judgment so he stuck his hand in a kennel and got bit!

If that was any other City employee, would they still working there? All government shelters, and some private ones, forbid bringing in family members just for the fun of it when they are closed to the public. Salazar knew that. With his checkered work history, he's worked for more than his share. What’s next, Markie? No need to answer, we know what is next in store just from your past history, a leopard doesn't change his spots.

Besides Barnette doesn't care, she is just as dumb as Salazar. She was the one who imported dogs from Kern County, unvaccinated, across two state lines where it is against the law to bring in unvaccinated dogs. When confronted with this by the State of Washington, her response was "I didn't know". Imagine a head of a major shelter not knowing the laws of the State or not caring about bringing in diseases that could be in unvaccinated dogs. She's a real winner, huh, folks? And she wants to surround herself with other "winners". Least we not forget that the vet who served under her in Seattle was disciplined for prescribing medication for himself under his dead dog's name. Yep, Salazar fits right in with Barnette. Dumb, dumber, and the dumbest.

Still Sliding Downhill, Barnette

FINALLY, the stats are posted for LA City and they show it is a downhill slide.

This is for all cats and dogs.

November 09 Adopted 1489
November 10 Adopted 1374

December 09 Adopted 2052
December 10 Adopted 1756

November 09 Euthanized 1259
November 10 Euthanized 1356

December 09 Euthanized 926
December 10 Euthanized 959

November 09 Intake 3622
November 10 Intake 3713

December 09 Intake 3454
December 10 Intake 3727

November 09 Died in Kennel 56
November 10 Died in Kennel 63

December 09 Died in Kennel 41
December 10 Died in Kennel 44

Pits aren't faring too well either under the dictatorship of Barnette.

November 09 Euthanized 268
November 10 Euthanized 268

December 09 Euthanized 238
December 10 Euthanized 303

November 09 Adopted 118
November 10 Adopted 118

December 09 Adopted 193
December 10 Adopted 142

Calgary, Bill Bruce and Bullshit -- Part 2

UPDATE: Looks like Brucey's world is tumbling down on his head. Not only has his nonsensical problem attracted the pit nutter world, particularly the dogmen, but it is creating another problem. According to this article, The number of serious dog bites in 2010 nearly doubled over the previous year and there were more attacks in homes. That's what happens when you fail to record by breed so people can see how dangerous pits are. He's probably pimping pits like crazy. And when you look at how prolific dog fighting is becoming in his Calgary, then you know that most of the pits there were bred for fighting and he is pimping out those dogs without a care. Course he is falling back on the Toellner excuse of educating people. A solution goes much deeper than that.

http://www.globalregina.com/Animal+Services+boss+pushes+mandatory+training+courses/4071649/story.html

Well, it appears that Brucey Baby is having some severe problems in Calgary with the breeding of fighting pits, can anyone say Mecca for pit bull breeders? I have posted about Bruce before because he is gaining popularity with the breeding community. He's gaining popularity primarily because the breeding community is becoming disillusioned with Nathan Winograd. http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2010/05/calgary-bill-bruce-and-bullshit.html

A summary of his "mistakes" are:
NO fencing requirements, and oh, how the pit breeders love that one.
NO anti-tethering laws. This reeks of pit bull breeders.
NO recording of bites by breed. Can anyone say covering the asses of pit bull breeders/owners?
NO pet limit laws and with that the breeders fall to their knees and praise him to high heaven.
NO differential on licensing between altered and unaltered, again the breeders love that one.

And a result of all of this is that the pit bull breeders have flocked to Calgary, their Mecca. It's become a problem, a severe problem, and what else would you expect, Mr. Bruce? You've written your own epitaph. You've now managed to create even more suffering for pit bulls. You've managed to add to an underground economy that feeds off of pit fighting. Plus these pits being bred in Calgary are being shipped all over the world to cause suffering worldwide. Quite a legacy, Bruce, throw us all under the wagon. But you're popular with speaking engagements sponsored by breeders, raking in that ill gotten money, lining your pockets at the expense of pit bulls.

Two articles show what problems Calgary is having:

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2010/11/02/15916836.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Injuries+online+lead+fighting+fears+Calgary/3779608/story.html
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Online+point+dogfighting+rings+Calgary+area/3780050/story.html#ixzz14O3JO7Xg

Don't act so innocent, Bruce, this is your doing. Maybe Calgary doesn't pay you enough. Pit fighters have a lot of money. With your "program" Bruce, it would be easy to tap into some of that money, wouldn't it? I can't think of any other reason for the insane ideas you have. That and the obvious of how much the breeders adore you, it's beginning to add up.

There you go, Brent Toellner, the results of another of your heroes. You guys are slow learners.

The Conspiracy of Bill Rosendahl and Brenda Barnette

As we all know, "No Kill" swears that MSN doesn't work even with results like in San Francisco for pit bulls. For those of you who don't know, MSN is mandatory spay/neuter--which Los Angeles really doesn't have--but it's close enough to make the AKC and Rosendahl want it gone for good. So why would anyone resist MSN? I'm about to answer that.

Bill Rosendahl was the ONLY Council member who voted AGAINST MSN in the City of LA, the only one out of fifteen members. Rosendahl is an admitted breeder himself and again we all know that the breeders hate MSN. His biggest supporter for raising the pet limits is a breeder who filed suit against MSN and has plans to file another lawsuit against MSN, dooming more shelter animals to die. Can anyone say wasting the taxpayer's money? Rosendahl also is responsible for bringing Brenda Barnette to LA, another known breeder, hell, she was a legislative rep for the AKC, even worse than being just a breeder. Barnette had enough dirt on her, she should have never been hired. She had no public sheltering experience either.

Rosendahl's plan was to team up with a breeder to do away with MSN. If an experienced animal control person had been hired, he wouldn't have stood a chance of defeating MSN. Thus the reason why he would support hiring a breeder, one who would stand with him on stopping MSN in the City of LA.

Raising pet limits has a twofold purpose for Rosendahl, first to give his breeder buddies a 66% increase in their business** and two, to defeat MSN by increasing the number of animals coming into the shelters. He knows only too well that the increases in impounds that have occured are a direct result of the poor economy, not because of MSN but he will distort the truth so it appears MSN is the reason just like Winograd does.

This is a conspiracy, one with underlying undertones of "money talks". Breeders open their pockets for this and Rosendahl has bigger plans for himself-- that requires money. The breeders would love to send Rosendahl to Sacramento. Rosendahl is selling out to his comrades, and selling out the City of LA for his own purposes.

Rosendahl is doing nothing more than trying to raise his campaign contributions from the underground economy known as dog breeding. People like Rosendahl care nothing for the shelter animals, he would rather see them impounded in record numbers, just means more business for his campaign contributors. Barnette is his ace in the hole, she is the key player in his conspiracy to destroy animal control in LA.

It is a truly evil person who cares so little for the shelters and the pets in those shelters. Rosendahl fits perfectly the definition of this evil.

** According to a study by Ralson Purina and the National Council on Pet Population, only 10-20% of animals are acquired from shelters/rescues and 15-30% are acquired from breeders/pet stores. The rest are acquired from backyard breeders and "oops" litters.

What a Way to Start the New Year!!

I rarely stay up til midnight but this was worth losing sleep over. For a year, CravenDesires has been researching this topic and I knew it would be published at the stroke of the New Year. Many of us have been anxiously awaiting Craven's research and now it is done,.

So all you ignorant pit nutters, especially KCDogPoop, who think their sources are infallible and "scientific", read this and weep. If anything it shows that pits are different, the scam of the pit nutters, that pits are indeed aggressive, and the need for heavy regulation.

The Pit Bull Hoax: The ATTS
http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/there-are-three-kinds-of-lies-lies.html