Friday, September 30, 2011


ROCKWALL, TEXAS. Last week or so, the Whino and his Whinonettes were bragging about the City of Rockwall passing "mandatory" "No Kill". First of all, there is no mandate, never was. Rockwall is talking the talk of a policy of "No Kill", it isn't a policy yet.

But in the "news",,  it is reported that Rockwall had a 97% live release rate in August. NOW IN SEPTEMBER ROCKWALL SHELTER HAS A DISTEMPER OUTBREAK!!!! I wonder why.

So famous last words from a "No Kill'er", No Kill News, of:
I’m looking forward to being able to move Rockwall from “No-Kill In Progress” to “No-Kill Achieved” at the end of the year.  Which translates into animals having to suffer more than necessary so a bunch of "volunteers" can have their ego trip. Do you think that No Kill News will report on the disease outbreak, thus causing a cease in adoptions while the idiot volunteers want to send exposed dogs into foster care? Do they not think of exposing their own pets and if one of those exposed dogs escapes from the foster, exposing their neighborhoods? No, of course not, they can't see any further than the nose on their faces, if they could see further they would not be Whinonettes.

This is a  write-up from Cornell University about distemper and vaccinations.  There has always been a strong argument to NOT vaccinate animals coming into a short term holding facility (shelter) from homeless background because, even if you do vaccinate upon arrival, it generally takes 10 - 14 days to reach some reasonable level of immunity.  I haven't researched any of these recently but I believe that this is still reasonably accurate information.

The Rockwall volunteers want to vaccinate incoming and put them into foster homes, like the incoming doesn't get exposed to distemper. Again, I don't want a foster in my home until the vaccinations are effective, would you?

And their minds won't let them accept what they have done, instead, just like their puppetmaster, they blame someone else. Of course they are blaming a vet, saying that a vet didn't even examine the dogs before pronouncing a diagnosis of distemper. Although the facebook pages are calling for confirmation of this, none has been offered.

Sad news over at the Rockwall Shelter. There has been an out break of distemper. 9 dogs have been put down and there are even reports of the vet that diagnosed it didn't even do an exam! Please read the Rockwall Pets wall for details! Please keep them in your thoughts or prayers.

I'll say a prayer all right. A prayer that lightning strikes and wakes up these fools to what they are doing.

UPDATE: That "No Kill News" seems to be a little slow. There was an update on that blog about what is happening at that shelter but, of course, no admittance as to what the real reason is that caused the outbreak, overcrowding due to the volunteers and their version of "No Kill". This is a comment to that blog's update and it reads very interesting.

"My family visited the Rockwall Animal Shelter on Tuesday, in search of a new dog. We found a sweet pyraneese mix, and after playing with him, we decided to take him home. I was notified that he was heartworm positive, but that his treatment would be paid for. I went through with the adoption, and was planning on giving this dog a second chance, we contacted the vet who would be giving him his treatment, to learn that they didn’t even know when they would have the serum for this rather large dog. It could be months, before they received his medication, due to a shortage of the treatment. I was heartbroken, that I may have to watch this poor dog suffer from heartworms, so my husband contacted the animal shelter, who then informed us of the mysterious respiratory illness that was going around the shelter. We then had to bring the dog back to the animal shelter, so that we did not expose this potential mystery disease to our animals. After reading that they had sick animals on Monday, and we adopted this dog on Tuesday, I am rather upset, that the sick and healthy animals were not already seperated, and being watched carefully, instead of being adopted out!! Now poor innocent animals, are being euthanized due to negligence on the shelter’s part. My concern then was for my other adopted dog, which we have had for a year, whom we had vaccinated, apparantely a dog needs to have a series of 3 shots before they are 100% immune to the disease!! I do not know this dogs past, so I am praying he will be ok, and we are boostering all of our dogs currently for precaution! We are just pretty upset, because we were never contacted by the animal shelter about the potential threat of this deadly disease!! Pray that these animals who are not showing signs, are not euthanized, and instead watched carefully before finding new homes!"

Rancho Cucamonga had an outbreak when they went "No Kill" and they also failed to tell people. The shelter notified the local vets but still parents were wondering how their child came down with ringworm. This is unethical but since when could you call "No Kill" ethical?

Tuesday, September 27, 2011


There's no joy here, no celebrating, there's no good thing. Any time that a shelter has to learn the lesson of Nathan Winograd is a bad thing because the losers are the animals.

Hinze came from a noted "No Kill" in Chicago, but a private one. Keep that in mind as you read. Two months, folks, that's all it took.

Victory, in this case, is bittersweet.



The feelings I have right now are mixed. Nathie Boy's latest rant just had to make mention of Pat Dunaway, along with a few more who dare to speak against this self proclaimed Savior of Shelters. But more than that, much more than that, is seeing him as such a negative, obsessive, fanatical with a Savior complex. So that solicits the feeling of pity, of wanting to reach out and help this lost soul. 

I get accused of being a hateful person on this blog. That is intentional. This blog was meant for us to express our frustrations in whatever manner we feel like. To express frustrations is helpful in keeping focus and that's what I want people to do when they are trying to fight this man.

You can find this on his blog, I suppose. I can't stand to look at him so I avoid it, but someone sent it to me. Here are some excerpts.

He begins with this: “When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.” Question, then why does he attack so many others, because they don't have a message? There's always two sides. This is the Savior complex, "I am persecuted" when he is so guilty of being the one doing the persecuting. 

Winograd accuses Michigan Humane Society of not being transparent yet remember that Charlottesville ain't that transparent either, neither is Nevada Humane in Reno. Just try to get information from them, public request info, and get a nice little letter from their attorney.

The question is who sets these arbitrary numbers, these arbitrary definitions of treatable, adoptable, untreatable, unadoptable? Where does all this come from? The same is happening to Palm Springs, CA

A lawsuit filed today by an animal rights group accuses the Palm Springs Animal Shelter of euthanizing animals too quickly and of lax record keeping.  The suit filed at the Larson Justice Center by the Animal Legal Defense Fund names four Riverside County residents who volunteered at the shelter as plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the shelter violated the Palm Springs municipal code by euthanising animals before the required five-day holding period.  "There is a holding period required by law that says animals must be held for a certain amount of time so that somebody can come in and find them and adopt them," said Michelle Lee, an attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund. "These animals are not given that chance."

A city representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the suit.  But Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat, a member of the Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, called the allegations in the lawsuit "ludicrous."

"We never, ever euthanise adoptable animals," she told The Desert Sun.  She said the shelter only euthanises animals that are vicious or very ill, deeming them "not adoptable."

The complaint alleges that, between August and December 2009, 40 cats were killed in violation of the five-day waiting period. That number jumped to 64 between July and November 2010, according to the ALDF.  During both of those periods, 40 cats total were euthanised in less than 72 hours, Lee alleged.  The shelter has an unusually high euthanisation rate, according to the ALDF, which claims that records it uncovered show more than 80 percent of unclaimed cats and 50 percent of unclaimed dogs were euthanised over certain time periods.

"The municipal shelter bills itself as a no-kill shelter, but it has a pretty significant euthanasia rate," Lee said.  The complaint also alleges that the shelter has violated a state law requiring shelters to provide prompt veterinary care and adequate nutrition, water and shelter and to maintain proper records for each animal impounded.

According to the ALDF, about 25 cats and 15 dogs were found dead in their kennels in 2009, without any indication those animals received proper veterinary treatment. Between July and November 2010, about 25 cats and four dogs were found dead without any record of treatment, according to the lawsuit.  The complaint states that, between July and November of last year, 15 cats and 11 kittens were euthanised before the fifth day of impoundment, with the shelter citing medical reasons in each case.  However, "the majority of the impound records related to those animals gave no further details on specific medical conditions or veterinary treatment rendered," the lawsuit says. "(The Defendants) did not provide any indication that the animals were not treatable or were irremediably suffering."

The lawsuit names as defendants the city of Palm Springs -- which operates the shelter, the Palm Springs Police Department -- which is responsible for animal control -- and the Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter.  The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to force the shelter to comply with state and local laws, as well as unspecified monetary damages to the four individual plaintiffs who claim they suffered emotional harm.

"Filing suit is our last resort to help this city's desperate homeless animals," said Marla Tauscher, another attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

A hearing on the request for an injunction has been scheduled for May 25 at the Larson Justice Center, according to court records.

These "No Kill'ers" are turning on their own. Yes, we need something in court to define what is happening. Who says that South LA Animal Shelter should have a 90% save rate to be called "No Kill"? Go look at the dogs in that shelter and tell me that they can do this. Not Winograd's way, focusing on adoptions, adoptions, adoptions. Save them all ain't working, period.

And Lord, doesn't he paint a rosy picture of him as a home body? He is spewing propaganda, dangerous propaganda all over the world and he wants us to see him as an innocent person???? Not me, buddy, I don't fall for your shit.

Then to take to threatening, Nathie Boy, how great thou art, is another indication that you need to seek professional help. You ain't what you think you are, far from it. If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be barking. You'd welcome it. 


This Is Pat Dunaway

Friday, September 23, 2011


I don't know who are the slowest learners, South Texas or LA City. 

How much more will it take for Breeder Barnette to be put on the rails and driven out of town? It's bad enough that impounds and euthanasia have increased under Barnette, but adoptions have fallen as well. You may not blame her for the increase in euthanasia but you can certainly blame her for the falling adoptions. 

And why would the local rescues want to work with the shelters now? Barnette has brought in a money machine with Best F(r)iends to take away the donations to our local rescues, didn't even give the local rescues a chance to take the shelter, gave it away to Barnette's choice. She knows she is on short time and she wants to assure herself of a job with Best F(r)iends. She looks like she will make a fine member in their church.

LA Weekly is taking on the issue with the racist banners. In a rather lengthy article, broken into two articles. Rather than post a lengthy article, please read both of them. Other media avenues have also taken on this issue. The honeymoon is over.

In case you have been hiding under a rock lately, this has happened because of the massacre of 14 trees at a shelter. These trees provided shade as part of the eco-system at the shelter plus they provided shade for the lines of people who come to the vaccination clinics. Imagine dogs standing on hot concrete in LA in those lines now that the trees are gone. But there is a happy ending, the trees will be replaced. All this was done to put up banners, banners with Best F(r)iends' logo, advertising for a group that collects donations. I bet several local rescues would have rather had their logos on those banners, not a Satan worshipping group from another state. 

Breeder Barnette should have been up on a ladder herself covering up "South Central" and pasting a picture of people of ALL races and NOT children adopting animals.  Where is the education on the long-term commitment and responsibility of pet ownership when you give the impression you just get a pet for kids?

Plus the children in those areas don't want a pit as a pet, they know it is not wise to bring pits into their neighborhoods. The children know what happens to pits, fighting, abuse. They don't want their pet stolen for fighting or a bait dog. These good kids in those neighborhoods, the ones we want to have a pet, don't want a pit bull, they want a real pet. But to market to the children, rather than to the adults/family, is a disgrace, Barnette. To put the logo on of an outside group so they get donations is a disgrace, Barnette.


Wednesday, September 14, 2011


This came as a comment but I felt it deserved a post of it's own.

You can access this infamous Ms. Shore's "rap" sheet at
 Anonymous said...


A Google search of Vikki Shore brought me to your blog. I am writing to you because of the following comment an anonymous blogger posted on June 28, 2010: 

“Interesting Blog. I happened upon it when I Googled Vikki Shore. Any follow-through with the Real Estate Licensing Authority? Any update from the lessee?
Advice on tax records was good, but ownership was individual to complain to. Real Estate Licensing complaint route was difficult.
I was also an unfortunate lessee. Leasing from Vikki was an experience best chalked up to lessons learned:
1. Don't sign a lease without documenting every cosmetic and functional deficiency in writing...if I lease again, I will hire a professional to conduct and document the inspection (the ~$350 charge to do this would have been a shrewd way of independently documenting the condition)
2. Don't expect items that are in disrepair to be repaired (you would think that an owner/manager would want to keep the property and appliances in good condition)
3. Expect borderline racial discrimination
4. Expect borderline harassment and defamation of character and smear tactics
5. Expect unsubstantiated allegations for not maintaining the property
6. Expect unsubstantiated late fees
7. Don't expect the manager to exhibit professional and courteous interaction via e-mail or telephone, and don't get upset when the manager refuses further telephone conversation
8. Expect a nominal return of security deposits regardless of condition.
I'd expect the disreputable behavior from a slum lord, but not a licensed broker.”

I am an attorney who is involved in litigation with Ms. Shore and her real estate holding entities. In particular, in Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court Case No. CIVRS1002650, I am both defending former tenants of Ms. Shore and suing (by cross-complaint) Ms. Shore and her real estate entities. The June 28, 2010 comment of the anonymous blogger, quoted above, was of particular interest to me because it is entirely consistent with my clients’ claim for unfair business practices against Ms. Shore and her real estate entities.

The cross-complaint I am prosecuting contains a laundry list of unfair/unlawful business practices my clients allege Ms. Shore commits, and to which my clients are seeking an end. I am posting this comment to invite current and past tenants who believe they have suffered unfair, deceptive and/or unlawful practices by Ms. Shore to contact me so that they can provide evidence (testimony) and information helpful to the successful prosecution of my clients’ lawsuit.

My contact information is as follows:

Kevin Tripi
2030 Main St., Suite 1040
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 833-9112

Monday, September 12, 2011


If you haven't read this article yet, you need to do so.

It points to a serious flaw in the marketing of Breeder Brenda Barnette. She shows children in a low income area of LA playing kissy face with a pit bull. Talk about stereotyping, how blatant can you be? Real, normal kids in those areas don't want a pit bull, they know what pits are for. Those nice kids want a real pet, a dog that won't be turned into a fighter. Barnette, you are so racist. Bad enough that you allowed the trees to be cut down, then add insult to injury with racist banners. 

I think the silence of the City Council and Koretz and Rosendhahl, who claim to be environmentalists is appalling and makes us wonder why.  Koretz just asked for an ordinance to ban both plastic and paper bags from markets, yet not one word about cutting down 14 mature trees on City property and keeping animals cool (where's are these great "animal lovers" when the animals really need them but there's no camera around.")  They don't want to admit they hired a "dud."
Same with the Mayor---we have fines of $1,000 for anyone who cuts down or even trims a tree in their own parkway without a City permit and using a City contractor.  This was some jerk who brutally assaulted the trees---much like Bernheimer's movie reviews describe the assaults on the girls in his film.  So, instead of going after him, because Barnette approved it (although she also says she didn't), all the environmental interest is gone. 
Also, not ONE African American member of the City Council (Perry, Parks or Wesson) has said anything about calling it the "South Central" shelter or that African American (and Latino) children are stereotyped with pit bulls. It's not the first time that the Mayor has engaged in stereotyping either. The Mayor's office insisted that the old LAAS website contain 75% black, 20% Mexican and 5% Asian. The Mayor went so far as to say not to have any white people because white people won't complaint if they aren't included but blacks will. The Mayor's office said to mainly put black people because blacks complain the most. 
Are they counting on big campaign contributions from Bernheim?  Barnette said he didn't donate anything to LAAS except the banners which advertise his foundation. A question that needs to be ask is whether Bernheimer is a member of the Church of Best F(r)iends. He sure sounds like their type.


And these two claim they care about animals? Far from it. The latest is that these two stopped animals from being transferred to another shelter in order to make room to help people who have been burned out from the horrible wildfires burning in Texas. Don't kid yourselves, these "No Kill'ers" don't give a rat's ass about animals or they would be driving that bus to Houston themselves.
Here's the story. Abigail Smith, and we all know that I dislike this woman, made a good decision for a change and tried to send some of the Town Lake shelter animals to the Houston SPCA to make room at the shelter for the evacuees of the wildfires. We also know that "No Kill" hates empty kennels, mostly because it fails to understand the reasons to have empty kennels. The wildfires and evacuations are one reason. Anyway, Smith was to send some animals to the HSPCA, until Clinton and Sundermeyer started raising hell about it. Clinton and Sundermeyer came up with their excuses, all of which can't hold water. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY LIED ABOUT THE HSPCA for their own agenda.
Sundermeyer wants to get back in the good graces of her puppet master, the Whino. She failed him by not delivering Houston into his greedy and burger grubbing fat hands. This was her opportunity to "redeem" herself. So she condemns an agency that handles over 100,000 animals a year. The Houston SPCA is known all over the country for being on the frontlines fighting animal cruelty, something that the Whino doesn't do. They are in the trenches day after day helping suffering animals, yet these cultists condemn them. You will ask why and it is obvious if you go into their website. They don't go along with "No Kill", they are realists. And this pisses off the likes of Clinton and Sundermeyer. The Houston SPCA does more for animals in one day than Clinton, Sundermeyer, and Winograd combined for their entire lifetimes. 

The Houston SPCA is an open-door shelter that provides services to more than 100,000 animals a year including dogs, cats, and small mammals like guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits as well as horses, cows, goats, pigs and other farm animals and native wildlife.

The Houston SPCA adopts more animals into loving, permanent, responsible homes than all other area shelters combined. 

The Houston SPCA believes that all animals deserve a chance at life in a loving, permanent home and will work tirelessly until there is a home available to every animal in need and euthanasia is necessary only as an escape from suffering, or for the protection of people and other animals.

This is what the Houston SPCA has to say about "no kill" and this is what Clinton objects to.
The Houston SPCA is what is termed an "open door" shelter, meaning that we accept every animal that is brought to us.  We feel that we serve the animals of our community best this way. Although the idea of becoming a no-kill shelter is certainly appealing, current reality in Houston is not that simple. 

Give those folks a hand for telling the truth, unlike the puppets of Winograd.

Clinton also had his panties in a wad because he claims that the Houston SPCA doesn't adopt out pit bulls. Well, DUH, I don't blame them. Many shelters throughout the country don't adopt out pit bulls. Loudoun, VA underwent several lawsuits about their policy and they won each one of those suits. They still don't adopt out pit bulls. Considering pits are committing 2/3rds of the dog bite related fatalities, they are a liability for any shelter. The Houston SPCA has deep pockets and they aren't taking any chances, who can blame them. Clinton, a make believe attorney, should understand something that simple. Clinton's version: 
(1) The Houston SPCA does not share the lifesaving values of Austin's community and City Council; it admittedly engages in breed-discriminatory killing.  Translated: We don't give a rat's ass about the damage that pit bulls are doing, I'm gonna have my picture with one on Facebook.

Another of Clinton's sorry excuses for stopping this life saving transport. (2) The Houston SPCA is not transparent.   Duh, it's a non profit, none of the non profits are transparent, particularly the ones like Charlottesville and Nevada Humane. Those don't bother him, why should HSPCA bother him.]

(3) The Houston SPCA is, in fact, a high-kill shelter.  Clinton uses figures taken from Guidestar but he fails to tell the truth about them. HSPCA is known more for cruelty cases and they do over 14,000 cases a year. When you are involved on that level, you will have more euthanasia. Clinton would rather these animals suffer than have a humane death. HSPCA doesn't take it lightly to euthanize, they try to save lives with their huge vet staff. Clinton puts up some old info about the "save rate" and challenges Smith to prove what she said about HSPCA having a 68% save rate.  I say that Clinton needs to prove he knows math.

(4) There were better offers on the table.  Yes, all were from those who are already overcrowded and having to do free adoptions.

Now here's the one that shows Clinton's grandstanding.
(5)  The attempted transfer has meaningfully harmed Austin's credibility in the animal-welfare community.  It's more like the laughing stock of the country for being so gullible as to adopt a program that has proven itself to harm animals, more than help.

So I guess the honeymoon is over, huh, Clinton? You are showing what you are indeed made of  - shit.

Sunday, September 11, 2011



Saturday, September 10, 2011

Thursday, September 8, 2011


How much more arrogant can this short, fat man get? Cliff Notes, OMG!!!

In my college days, Cliff Notes were for the lazy, stupid people. No self respecting college student would use them and we made fun of those that did. College professors frowned on Cliff Notes and many a student has been kicked outta class for using them rather than doing their regular assignment. So in my opinion, the Whino is telling the world that he attracts only the dumbest of the dumb, those who can't pick up a regular book and read it with comprehension.

Cliff Notes, really Winograd, is that the best you can come up with? Then again, considering the likes of Brent Toellner, Ryan Clinton and Bett Sundermeyer, I can see it, they comprise those cult followers and yes, they are the dumbest of the dumb. Can you say dumb, dumber, and dumbest? His followers can because they are.

Thursday, September 1, 2011


UPDATE: Baton Rouge is now euthanizing because of their overpopulation.

"You either adopt them out, you foster them out and unfortunately, to prevent cruelty and overcrowding, you have to euthanize," says Cole. "This is an open-intake animal shelter that takes in animal everyday."

Those failures are coming fast and furious these days. First we are looking at Austin and their overcrowding issues.

Then comes Baton Rouge with the horrible descriptions of their "No Kill" suffering.

Now number 18 on the list of 28 supposedly open door shelters that the Whino likes to brag about, Porter County, another study in the disaster the Whino's program is causing.
County Council President Dan Whitten, D-at large, turned a few heads at Tuesday’s council meeting where he suggested withdrawing county control over the troubled shelter, feeling the private sector could do a better job caring for the animals.

Now here's Philly again with Sue Cosby at the helm, a die hard Whinonette, formally with PACCA. We know how PACCA went, and now Sue is doing the same to the PSPCA.

A NORTH PHILADELPHIA woman appears to have been killed by a pack of pit bulls Tuesday, but her son says that the city's animal-control team deserves some of the blame for her violent death.
Carmen Ramos, 50, died from injuries suffered in an attack by the five dogs owned by her husband, Jose Alvarez, 56, according to a preliminary autopsy report, police sources told the Daily News.
But it wasn't the first time this month that the dogs attacked someone on Carey Street near Lawrence.
Neighbors said that the dogs were taken away Aug. 19 by the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals after they attacked two neighborhood residents, but they were returned three days later.

Residents of the block wondered out loud why officials released the dogs after the bite attacks last month. (I DON'T HAVE TO WONDER, IT'S DUE TO SUE CROSBY SUBSCRIBING TO THE DRIBBLE OF THE WHINO THAT PIT BULLS GET A "BAD RAP").



UPDATE: Possible charges for the fiasco about the trees. And Breeder Barnette "feels terrible", yeah right, not for the trees but for another screwup that is adding up to hopefully a dismissal.

Will the Mayor ever learn? His appointed manager of LAAS is making one mistake after another. No surprise to me, of course, she did the same in Seattle. Breeder Brenda Barnette is incapable of running a municipal agency.

There has been a new Assistant Director hired after BB "got rid of" Kathy Davis. And that dismissal of Kathy resulted in LA's rescues being on the losing end.

Now there are two lines of thought here regarding the new Assistant Director, John Chavez. One line is that BB hired someone without animal control experience (are you listening Pam? Wasn't that the problem you had with Stuckey, no experience?) in order for BB to have a yes man. Can't say no when you don't know anything, right? At least Chavez has experience in government, which BB doesn't, and that can help.

The other line of thought is that this may be a plan of succession, in other words, BB's departure. Would be better to have someone like Chavez on board before BB gets booted. However, I don't feel comfortable with a quote from Mr. Chavez which is " “I'm privileged to be part of an organization whose mission is to protect the health, safety and welfare of animals." This leads me to think that Mr. Chavez doesn't really know why we have shelters, not for the animals in as much as for the safety and well being of the community. First and foremost, animal control is to protect the community, not the animals. You'll have to decide for yourself.

Then on to a serious screw-up, one of many by the infamous BB. Trees, those trees around the shelter. We all know that shelters need to be appealing to the public, not some dumpy, ill kept, stark building. Trees help make anything look more acceptable, more homey, more like you want to visit. Plus, it appears, that was more of a purpose to those trees than just to beautify. Yet, Breeder Barnette, with her limited vision chose to take those trees away to put up a 70 foot banner as if people don't already know they can go to a shelter to adopt. Useless waste of advertising. What is even worse is that it is the work of Pamelyn Ferdin, Pammie, a notorious gang leader, not a pet welfare activist. Why is Breeder Barnette in bed with Pammie on this? Anyone in their right mind would run in the other direction when Pammie approaches, but then again since when has BB ever been in a right mind? 

Barnette is now trying to throw some volunteer under the train, something she is known for, throw them all under the train, she is without guilt. Besides, why would she put a volunteer in charge of this alleged tree "trimming"? Why did she fail to notify the shelter manager of this and let the shelter manager know that the trees were only to be trimmed, not chopped down to the ground? Because it would be harder to blame the shelter manager than a little ol' volunteer. Just like her mistake with giving the volunteers keys to the kennels and then dogs came up missing, she strikes out again.

And does anyone have any information as to why the California Department of Justice is researching Breeder Barnette? They have been on this blog and the means in which they got here can only mean one thing, they are looking for info on her. This was not a casual search for Barnette. Care to venture any theories on this?

How much more does the Mayor and the City Council expect us to take from this blowhard breeder? How many more mistakes? Isn't it bad enough that she gave away a shelter to a cult group trying to expand their cult memberships? Mayor, you better pull your head out of Lu Parker's rear end and get to business. Your future political plans are in jeopardy if you continue to allow your appointee to screw the City the way BB has and is doing. Impounds are up, euthanasia is up, adoptions are down, what else does it take to realize that Breeder Brenda Barnette is not the person for the job? Just What Else??