So the cat is coming out of the bag. I've been saying that this transporting of dogs is not to save lives, it is to kill dogs in a local shelter. Now this little piece confirms that. Bringing dogs into areas that are still having to euthanize in their local shelter is immoral, it is reprehensible, it is sickening. This piece shows the mentality behind these transports.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/no-kill-so-california/why-are-we-helping-the-killers-to-continue-to-kill/191838247521522
These horrid people have laid it out by saying we should not rescue dogs in those "killing" shelters.
"In evaluating this practice, it occurred to me that in doing so, we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Every time we rescue animals from a shelter, we are supporting their methods and reducing their KILL numbers. We are letting them know that even if we do not like what they are doing, we are willing to accept it."
So their solution is to not take animals from a "kill" shelter. I ask does that make sense? How can a shelter ever hope to reduce euthanasia if these types are not taking animals out? Thus comes the transportation scheme. The "rescues" still will have dogs to adopt out if they transport in more dogs. The homes they take for these transported dogs means a dog in their local shelter will die.
Nathan Winograd makes a comment but I don't believe him for one moment. It is because of him that this scheme has come to be. It is a scheme to force his program down the throats of the shelters. By taking away homes from local animals, leaving them to die, the euthanasia goes up and his cultist followers can yell and scream about the euthanasia rate, all the while pimping the Whino's failed program. Of course, he can't publically say he is in favor of this, but we all know where his heart is and it ain't for the animals. He didn't speak out against Barnette in Seattle when she was bringing in boatloads of dogs and pimping his program the whole while. He still isn't saying anything to her about the continuation of this transport to Seattle. Just the fact that he isn't speaking out against it shows that he is guilty.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/no-kill-so-california/why-are-we-helping-the-killers-to-continue-to-kill/191838247521522
These horrid people have laid it out by saying we should not rescue dogs in those "killing" shelters.
"In evaluating this practice, it occurred to me that in doing so, we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Every time we rescue animals from a shelter, we are supporting their methods and reducing their KILL numbers. We are letting them know that even if we do not like what they are doing, we are willing to accept it."
So their solution is to not take animals from a "kill" shelter. I ask does that make sense? How can a shelter ever hope to reduce euthanasia if these types are not taking animals out? Thus comes the transportation scheme. The "rescues" still will have dogs to adopt out if they transport in more dogs. The homes they take for these transported dogs means a dog in their local shelter will die.
Nathan Winograd makes a comment but I don't believe him for one moment. It is because of him that this scheme has come to be. It is a scheme to force his program down the throats of the shelters. By taking away homes from local animals, leaving them to die, the euthanasia goes up and his cultist followers can yell and scream about the euthanasia rate, all the while pimping the Whino's failed program. Of course, he can't publically say he is in favor of this, but we all know where his heart is and it ain't for the animals. He didn't speak out against Barnette in Seattle when she was bringing in boatloads of dogs and pimping his program the whole while. He still isn't saying anything to her about the continuation of this transport to Seattle. Just the fact that he isn't speaking out against it shows that he is guilty.
Would this mean that these "rescues" would stop getting animals out of LA City Shelters? After all, the euthanasia rate is going up with Barnette at the helm so obviously she isn't working to be "No Kill". I have always said that if the rescues could bring about "No Kill", why haven't they done it already? I think they deliberately withhold their "services" again to pimp Winograd's program.
Transporting dogs into areas that are still euthanizing is about Winograd, plain and simple. It is the dirtiest of his deeds. TRANSPORTING ANIMALS KILL ANIMALS!!! You don't put more animals in areas that have too many to begin with.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/l-a-shelter-dogs-transported-to-canada-rescue-or-ruse
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/vets-against-rescues-transporting.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-contest-whos-biggest-liar-adl-la-or.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/01/brenda-barnette-dont-askdont-tell.html
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/l-a-shelter-dogs-transported-to-canada-rescue-or-ruse
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/vets-against-rescues-transporting.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-contest-whos-biggest-liar-adl-la-or.html
http://workingtohelpanimalstodaytomorrow.blogspot.com/2011/01/brenda-barnette-dont-askdont-tell.html
9 comments:
Let's not forget how they are transporting declared dangerous dogs into other areas, changing the name of the dogs as well to cover up. Pawning off a killing pit bull to another area so it can do it again.
I agree Anon. It happens all to often that a dog declared dangerous in one area, is shipped to another area, given a different name and it's just an accident waiting to happen again.
There needs to be a law that "rescues" can't import dogs or cats if the local shelters within a certain radius are still having to euthanize. These transports don't save lives in as much as they take lives.
After one such transport, the rescue that imported them claimed all these dogs were on death row. They weren't even close. I had a report run from the shelter where the imported dogs came from and it clearly showed that rarely do these breeds and size get put down. Just another con to get donations. These dogs are the cream of the crop, not pits, not big black dogs, not the sick, not the old, instead they are the cute, fluffy dogs that the public is wanting. So these transports take these little dogs and the public is left with the ones no one wants. I ask you, IS THAT FUCKING RESCUE? No, it is brokering for dollars.
I would think that any rescue that does not have its 501c3 and transports animals across lines would be in violation of USDA regulations on transporting animals across state lines for the purpose of selling them. If the rescue is not nonprofit, would they not being selling animals rather than providing adoption services?
007
007, they usually do have their 501. The ones in LA are "New Hope" partners. This is a program with the shelters here and they have been checked for such things as their status. I don't call them rescuers, I call them killers.
RE: "I've been saying that this transporting of dogs is not to save lives, it is to kill dogs in a local shelter."
I do not attribute rescue groups' drive to transport dogs to some sinister desire to kill them, but rather to a far more mundane attribute, the profit motive. More charitably, I believe many start in rescue with an honest desire to help individual animals. In time, as donations come in as quid pro quo for adoptions (what I call payment) these funds allow an organization to take on other missions, including advocacy or supporting other organizations that advocate for animal rights causes. Of course, such activities go well beyond helping individual animals and can be seen as a form of mission creep inherent to animal organizations that focus on the individual animal. Eventually the profit motive equals or even exceeds the individual animal oriented humane motive for a significant number of those involved. Perhaps they reason they can do more for animals generally with these new missions, but inevitably the focus on putting pets in homes becomes muddled within a broader spectrum of activities.
Animal rescue has become a political activity.
Underlying all animal rescue activities should be a desire to eventually have no work to do and disband because an un-owned, un-homed animal becomes a rarity. That thought never seems to be on display. Profit and animal political activism are the reasons.
Dr. Arnold L. Goldman
See also, this animation:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11121631/rescue-ruse?listtype=ALL
Doc, it is political now. Let me explain something. When dogs are transported into an area where dogs in the local open door shelter are still being euthanized for time and space, dogs die in those shelters. The transported dogs are taking homes away from the open door shelters.
All the while the transports are causing dogs to die in the open door shelters, these same groups are beating the door down with the officials to install "No Kill". Transport is more of a weapon for this morbid movement than a true life saving effort.
The dangerous dogs MUST be released to rescuers if they want them prior to euthanasia, if the dog was a stray, according to CA law (talk about stupid). The shelters don't really have a choice. But with all the money the rescuers are making on this it's a numbers game. They don't even have to take possession of the dog and take a risk themselves. The dog is just turned loose at its destination. The rescuer has their bucks, the transporters have their bucks, and the dog most likely goes to a dog fighting operation.
Are we really naive enough to think hundreds--or thousands--of pit bulls are finding "forever homes" in OR and WA or Canada? Parts of Oregan and WA are dog fight and meth capitals of the country. It's no accident the dogs are going there. The dog fighters are willing to pay for them. No muss, no fuss, just right into the pit. So everybody makes out--except the dog! He never gets out alive.
Agreed, Anon. The Hayden has done far more harm than good. Unless a reporter asks where an attacking dog comes from, we don't have a way to know how many of these adopted dogs have gone on to maul and kill. There are several attacks that have been traced back to an adopted dog from a "rescue".
I would hesitate to take any pit bull from the LA shelters. They aren't there because they were bred for good temperaments, they are there because these pits, gotten in front of a liquor store as a puppy, these pits are bred for bad temperaments. Take the most frightening of the litter and either sell the rest or give them away to unsuspecting families. That is how the shelters become full of pits. Then to pimp them out into other states who don't know the score in LA is unethical and immoral.
Post a Comment