In an email dated June 2nd (and in response to Lancelot being killed) I asked the manager of the Carson shelter, Gil Moreno, many questions… This is just a sampling: “Did anyone even note this dog’s disposition outside of a kennel? Does that ever matter? Does the dog’s personality not matter?” Gil responded, but failed to even acknowledge that I asked those questions. What he did do was essentially blame Dianne (my girlfriend, who is now an official Carson shelter volunteer) for Lancelot falling through the cracks. He writes, “I do have a question for Dianne, why didn’t she inform anyone that she was working with this dog? As a volunteer, she has the privilege to network one animal at a time for 10 days.”

Well… If by “inform” you mean write all over the dog’s kennel card (becomes relevant below) then she most definitely did do that. Not to mention that I put together a video of him being the absolute biggest ham in the history of the universe, a video that heavily features Dianne and is accessible to anyone that wanted to see it. But I guess that didn’t exist. And the reason that she didn’t place a “volunteer networking hold” on Lancelot is because she had already placed one on another dog and was disallowed from doing anymore.

So in response I tried again: “But the bigger and far more relevant question that I had is how was Lancelot’s personality (or any dog’s personality) not notated by the staff that determines who lives and who dies? How is myself and Dianne the only people who noticed this dog’s personality? Do you think we are just incredible dog-whispering people who have the ability to make all Pit Bulls friendly and approachable? All it takes is a little interest. All it takes is a little interaction outside of a run. Why are these dogs not being given the opportunity to show their true personalities, like Lancelot clearly showed on this video? Shouldn’t you (or the other officers that make the decisions, I don’t know the exact process) at least want to know a dog’s personality and have that be a factor prior to deciding whether it should live or die?”

This was Gil’s response: “We actually rely on the volunteers to make appropriate notes on the kennel card. The staff has enough time to rush the dogs in and out to clean their kennels and then feed in the afternoon. We don’t have the staff or time to sit in the play yard like you and Dianne to evaluate every dog.”

I wrote back: “Regarding the kennel card notations by volunteers… So that’s how officers decide who goes and who stays? Dianne wrote on a specific dog’s kennel card 3 different times, and each time she came back a new card had replaced the one that she wrote on. Lancelot, the dog in the video, had very warm and nice notes written on his kennel card. The next morning he was euthanized.”

Gil: “Please have Dianne stop by and see me next time she is here. I can’t explain all this in an email and I don’t want to ignore you. I will explain it to her and she can relay it to you.”

Okay, fine, I thought. I do appreciate the dialogue. Dianne took that meeting and actually met with Gil for almost 90 minutes on Monday, June 10th. It was during this meeting that Gil told Dianne about a transport that was set for that Saturday night, scheduled to have at least 10 Carson dogs going out on it and off to eventual safety. Gil complained about not having any help to load the transport, and Dianne immediately offered to do it. Gil told her, like he told me, how he relied on the volunteers to note the dog’s temperaments and personalities. Dianne made clear to him that she’s been doing that, and will continue to do that. He mentioned that a shelter worker supposedly walks the aisles every morning and looks at the kennel cards, noting if any dog barks at them while they do it. Dianne also let him know that she had placed a new “volunteer networking hold” on a dog named Ruby.

Ruby was another AMAZING dog that had thus far been consistently overlooked. An email was sent for the hold on 6/2, pending the temperament test being given to Ruby first–so that she could then be properly networked and so that Dianne would know the restrictions (if any) that would be placed upon the dog. Ruby had miraculously been at the shelter since the end of April and yet was never once temperament tested by the staff. Lieutenant Real emailed back saying “Your networking hold will begin tomorrow and end on 6/13/13.” There was a problem with that, as Ruby wasn’t even temperament tested yet! Lt. Real said he’d try to have it done on 6/3. It wasn’t. 4 days went by and Ruby still hadn’t been temperament tested. It was finally done on 6/7, after Dianne sent them another email to remind them to please do it. Ruby scored an “A” and was given the notes: “This is a dog that would make a great pet for most people. Highly adoptable for all types of families.” Ruby’s “volunteer networking hold” should have started at this time, and Dianne was under the realization that it had been adjusted. She even asked Gil about Ruby’s networking hold during the meeting on Monday. He told her that it should and would start from the time that she was temperament tested.

After she got home from her shift at the shelter she wrote Gil an email thanking him for taking the meeting and going over some of the other things that she spoke to him about. It was in this email that she reiterated all of these things again… Saying that she’d do “whatever it takes” to make sure that the 6/15 transport happens, providing him detailed notes on the dogs that she’s interacted with (in case he also wanted to note them in the computer system), and reminding him again that she has a “volunteer networking hold” on Ruby that runs through 6/17.

A portion of Gil’s response reads: “The notes below can go on the kennel card but we don’t make them part of their permanent record, unless observed by a staff member.” This directly contradicts a volunteer email that was sent out on 5/2 regarding “new procedures” pertaining to system “socializing notes.” Also, Gil notified Dianne that the transport for Saturday had been cancelled.

All of this becomes relevant, and the details highly important, as Ruby was killed at 8:30am Saturday morning. As in Saturday, June 15th. As in 3 days prior to Dianne’s “volunteer networking hold” coming to an end. We just found out mere hours ago. Dianne is crushed, as she always is, but more-so this time because she did everything (and more) that she was told to do. Making matters worse… Ruby had a foster home aligned and a potential rescue on board and ready to pull her. It would have very likely been done on Monday. Funds were continuing to be raised online and upwards of $550 had already been pledged for her. People were working hard behind the scenes and there is a lot that goes into making sure that a shelter dog doesn’t get pulled from the shelter only to be placed into another kennel (this time at a boarding facility). This is what the networking hold is supposed to represent, a guaranteed window, at least for that specific dog.

Thoughts firing in my head…

1) Gil tells us that the notes written on the kennel cards by volunteers is the main piece of information that the staff, too busy to get to know the dogs themselves, uses when it comes to formulating the euthanasia list. But yet kennel cards with notes are always disappearing, and dogs with wonderful notes are still being killed (my observations). And then days later he says that a staff member has to “observe” the behavior themselves before these kennel notes become legitimate and worthy of placement in the computer system. Um, but I thought the staff was too busy and you were relying on the volunteers to do this service for you? So the implication is that written notes on a kennel card really do not matter, unless the behavior is verified by a staff member that is admittedly too busy to verify them, even though Gil claimed just days earlier that a volunteer’s written notes were of utmost importance, even though they really aren’t. This cannot continue to be something that goes both ways whenever convenient.

2) A hold is created for Ruby, yet a temperament test is never done in correlation to the hold period. 4 days go by, the temperament test is finally done, but the hold period is evidently never adjusted? Not by the Lieutenant, not by Gil. Even though the Lieutenant was asked about it, and Gil was told about it twice. Gil even confirmed to Dianne that the hold starts when the dog is temperament tested, yet it was never done for Ruby.

3) Ruby gets an “A” on that eventual temperament test and is deemed “highly adoptable for all types of families.”

4) Ruby is then chosen for and given a “glamour shot” on 6/9 that should have bought her an additional 10 days of safety. “Glamour shots” are when a photographer affiliated with the shelter comes in and photographs certain (chosen) dogs that have been brought out of their kennels, with the goal of getting really good networking pictures.

5) The transport leaving on 6/15 that would have saved at least 10 Carson shelter dogs gets cancelled by Gil. Dianne’s request to help didn’t matter. I even told Dianne that I could find 10 people myself to come out and assist with this “loading” of animals. That was quickly shot down by Gil, likely for liability reasons and because these persons (myself included) wouldn’t have been officially trained in the ways of being a volunteer. So it’s essentially hiding behind technicalities instead of accepting help from the community. Dianne could have also banded together a few other volunteers, yet she was never given this option. And yet, Gil still found it appropriate to complain to Dianne about the lack of volunteer help, and ended up cancelling Carson’s inclusion on the transport for what was probably his definition of “lack of volunteer help.”

6) Ruby gets killed Saturday morning at 8:30am, an hour and a half before the shelter even opens for the weekend. Who kills on a Saturday morning? My God. This is conveniently the same day that the transport was scheduled to leave on, thus creating numerous empty cages, had Carson participated. Instead those 10 dogs remain and more kennels remain full. And Ruby is now dead. Dead, 6 days after getting a “glamour shot.” Dead, 72 hours before Dianne’s “volunteer networking hold” was supposed to realistically end. Dead, with a foster in waiting. Dead, with rescuers emotionally invested and scrambling to organize the best plan. All under the guise of a network hold that didn’t even hold true.

7) If my assumption holds weight and they, in hindsight, attempt to play dumb on the true and verified ending date of Ruby’s networking hold… Well, it gives even more insight into another chilling dynamic of the killing process. Not only do they not want to get to know the dogs, and make excuses for not getting to know them, and kill the many that never get a chance. But they finally got to know Ruby, have video evidence of her awesomeness, gave her at temperament test (which she passed with flying colors), gave her a “glamour shot” less than a week ago, and still killed her as soon they deemed her hold to have run out. It’s almost as if a buzzer went off and she was then executed. That’s how they’ve treated this situation. Ruby, the beautiful individual, didn’t seem to matter to any decision maker. It’s as if nothing about her mattered to them at all. That is so very wrong, at every level. (Did she fly under the radar, and did the hold finally put her on the shelter’s radar? That could explain why her website photograph lingered in the “lost” section for the entirety of her shelter impoundment.)

I don’t know. In my opinion this is apathy and mismanagement in action. The evidence about how this facility is run is all over my website, and this is just the latest example. Human error? Then that person needs fired. A beautiful dog is dead because someone who has a job to do didn’t do a simple task that is undoubtedly within their job description. A task that amounts to a few keystrokes and a few seconds of their time and energy… A small act, but one of utmost importance, especially if their goal is to indeed save lives. I mean, isn’t this the primary and most foundational aspect of their jobs? I’d think and hope so. Yet it continues to seem like there’s no ownership ever being taken over the decisions made by Gil Moreno or the decisions being made by others in his name. To me there’s no difference in those things, as he is the manager and should know what is going on under his roof. If you just can’t ever be bothered then you are unfit for command and there’s very few other ways to cut it.

How? Why? Is Dianne going to be blamed, yet again? And will she now be retaliated against for, God forbid, talking to her own boyfriend about this?

…Upon finding out that Ruby was killed Dianne sent a frantic email to Gil in search of some answers. Something, anything. The phone operator was offering no information. As you could imagine, it was emotional in tone and written by a genuinely stunned person. Gil actually responded to her within 30 minutes… “Let me get back to you once I look into what happened. I’m having log in issues, so I cant access my desktop from home.” No apology, no feeling of her pain, no acknowledgement of her sadness for Ruby. I mean, there was no humanity in his typed words at all. The desensitization of that moment speaks volumes to me. Not only is it apparent that so many prominent shelter-affiliated people are desensitized to the plight of shelter dogs, but further, they are also desensitized to the emotional connection that some of their best volunteers have to those shelter dogs. This is a massive flaw and not one that any shelter manager (or worker) should ever have.

You mattered. Godspeed Ruby.