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!
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!
7 comments:
PART 1
These sleazy Federation type show breeders, their DIRECT business with the puppy mills they "claim" to oppose, and why they want and need the puppy mills, why they oppose puppy mill regulation, why they push people like Barnette to raise limits and oppose laws to makwe it easier for the puppy mills to operate.
Puppy mills and AKC show breeders go together.
http://journals
.democratic
underground.
com/
Neecy/3
"He came from a breeder who said that he was a reluctant breeder and she had no use for him. His name was (name deleted)* but he didn't answer to it so we named him Guido."
I thought - how odd, that a six year old dog wouldn't know his own name. I knew he was a puppy mill rescue but even that's kind of extreme.
I looked at the name of the miller on his AKC papers and did a quick google search and she has a website, and there is a large photo of my dog - ears back, eyes glazed, looking terrified - with a photo of one of his broods. She presented him and the dam as loving family pets, when I know for a fact they lived their lives in cages in a barn. This is a common scam with millers to give the impression that their breeding stock is socialized and living normal, healthy lives so I expected that particular outrage. This woman hawks 11 different breeds of dogs - typical - and openly says that they do it for the money to keep their 'modest home' on the farm.
PART II
"What I was more interested in was where she got her breeding stock to begin with - I have my Pomeranian's pedigree, and he has many, many champion bloodlines. What reputable breeder sells breeding stock to a puppy mill?
So, I went back to my handy AKC registration and googled the name of my dog's breeder - and lo and behold, I came up with an elegant website of a breeder/handler complete with photos of her champion Pomeranians at their latest dog shows. This woman presents, without question, as a 'reputable' breeder of Pomeranians and even provides a lecture on what it means to improve the breed, tells us that she only sells to 'approved' homes, and goes on to say that she doesn't sell to puppy mills, brokers, or anyone selling commercially to a third party. What lies! She lives in the same small community as the miller, so there's no doubt whatsoever that she knows exactly what happened to the dog she sold her - my dog. This 'approved' home abused him and eventually gave him away because he was of 'no use' as a profit center.
I'm wondering if this isn't a common thing, an ugly secret among some 'reputable' breeders to sell quality breeding stock at (I'm sure) top dollar to a miller. How else can a miller offer pedigreed AKC dogs? Who's selling to them to begin with?
Perhaps the problem doesn't begin with the puppy millers - it begins with people who are accepted within the dog community as 'reputable'. It would be an interesting project to begin tracking puppy mill stock to the source. Maybe putting pressure on the 'reputable' breeders will do some good.
Sorry for the long post, but if you knew this wonderful little dog you'd be furious at the cruel life he led for six years. There has to be more than one method to shut these terrible operations down, and depriving them of their breeding stock might be a place to start."
Wow, this was CRAZY!
Best Friends has millions and millions of dollars in the bank. They get rated low by charity watchdogs because they have so much money and they don't use it on the animals, they use it on high paid management, providing homes for management and founders (upkeep too) and lots of perks like first class air fare to fly management around to fundraise and do pr, usually a bunch of lies to get more money.
Best Friends is continually reducing the numbers of animals at their sanctuary, turning away animals too, and the caretakers are constantly begging for money for even basic care for the animals. Rich management tells them "no, no money."
Best Friends is doing less and less except for hiring more and more Lady VanKavage management types making a bundle in salaries and perks.
The merchandise they sell is owned by a private company owned by the founders. The money does not go to the animals.
Best Friends could have taken ALL these shelter pets and cared for them, no problem, not a dent in their bank accounts. They could have paid for every expense!
But the taxpayers and rescuers had to pay, and now Best Friends is fundraising off the work and expense of other people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have been researching creepy puppy miller kathy jo bauck this evening and she has ties to another creepy puppy miller named ROBERT YARNELL in pennsylvania and that is exactly what he did. he purchased champion dogs from breeders and them bred the hell out of them. the word on the doberman forum was the breeders stopped selling to him when they realized what he was doing. there are SOME ethical breeders out there.
"the word on the doberman forum was the breeders stopped selling to him when they realized what he was doing. there are SOME ethical breeders out there"
The problem is that for every one there is, there are about 5 who aren't, the Patti Strand types.
Also they didn't care that Dobermans in general were being abused and puppy milled. They only cared that "show" Dobermans were being abused and puppy milled.
A suffering dog is a suffering dog, whether it came from some show breeder or not.
If they were really ethical, they would support a crackdowns on the mills. They oppose that. The mill money pays for their activity.
craven desires, Bauck's name rang a bell. Then I remembered where I had read news stories related to her
http://www.
thebostonchannel
.com/news
/17932078
/detail.
html
Do a Google search for "bauck selling to massachusetts" and there are others and video
A cat was mauled by a pit and a bull dog on the morning of Feb. 8, 2011. These two dogs had also just mauled a West Highland Terrier, it's owner and her friend in our neighborhood. I've watched reports over and over of pit bull attacks and I'm just sick of how the law protects the owners of these dangerous breeds. What really ticks me off is the repeated irresponsibility of the owners of these dogs. I'm on the bandwagon against pits. Attached is the news video on the attacks.
http://www.justnews.com/video/26796654/index.html
Post a Comment