I'M BACK !!!!!!!!

Looking back, this blog has been neglected for too long. So much has happened in the past year. Between the demise of No Kill, hoarders running all over the country and transporters loadin' 'em up, not a lot of time for the blog. I would like to ask the readers to submit links for stories that you want to see captured here for easy searching. Where do we start?

I think the first place with be with the 'movie' of Nathan Winograd. The man doesn't do one single thing to help animals directly but he has time and money for a movie? C'mon. Whiney Boy criticizes HSUS for not spending their money on shelters, does he realize he is the pot calling the kettle black? He does nothing to contribute other than run his mouth. His actions, or lack thereof, prove he is full of it or rather full of himself. He actually believes he will walk the red carpet at the Oscar's this year. Does his ego know no limits?

Take a look at his version of 'sell out' crowds at his movie. I would say there are more empty seats than attendees. Maybe it was intermission and they all went to potty. I'm quite sure he has some kind of excuse. Here's but three.

UPDATE: ATLANTA'S POOR SHOWING

Poor Valerie, she failed her Messiah, more empty seats. It was so bad she had to resort to showing Whino rolling on the floor with a dog more than showing all those empty seats. No officials, nothing, once again. LOL
 http://cruelcrazybeautifulworld.com/2014/08/22/redemption-atlanta-a-few-photos/#5

Pacific Palisades SLAMS Door on Brenda Barnette And Rosendahl

Pacific Palisades literally cut off Barnette from her presentation on the pet limit increase. This is a major blow to Rosendahl since PP is in his district.

http://pacificpalisades.patch.com/articles/council-poo-poos-more-pets-per-household

""Hot on the heels of Moore’s tip on barking dogs, Animal Services’ Barnette addressed shacking up with dogs and cats. The proposed ordinance to increase the number to pets per household to five dogs and five cats “may increase the public nuisance level and impair the quality of life in Pacific Palisades,” according to the Council. One councilmember warned of “unintended consequences of endangering household pets.

Urine run-off and fecal matter accumulated will be calculated from a scientific POV and then they will render a decision out of the Planning Commission and make a decision.

The Council was not receptive to Barnette’s argument: “The city is trying to cut costs and you’re going to have to police this? This will add millions to the city budget,” said one member.

“That is your opinion but it’s not fact based,” Barnette responded, respectfully.

“What is the purpose of increasing from three to five [animals per home]?" exclaimed a councilmember. "That makes no sense!”

Barnette said, “There’s maybe 10 percent of licensed animals out there…There’s no argument the department is not good at collecting licenses but those are apples and oranges. I agree this needs to be stepped up because we need to increase those revenues.” (Apples and oranges??? The emphasis should be on collecting those 90% of unlicensed dogs, that would surely raise revenue! If LA can't collect on those dogs, then it can't collect on the 66% increase, can it?)

Without allowing Barnette to finish reading her statistics, the Council shut down the conversation pretty swiftly and unanimously voted against the measure.""

Looks like she didn't make any friends in that meeting.

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.