So on Saturday morning shelter manager Gil Moreno personally chose numerous dogs to go on that morning’s kill list. Why is the Carson shelter killing prior to opening on a Saturday you ask? No idea. But it literally appears as if Gil just looked at a numerically ordered list of ID#s, highlighted a section of digits, and killed all of the dogs that that string of numbers represented. That’s Gil’s managerial style. This is his definition of an “evaluation,” what honestly amounts to nothing more than pin the tail on the donkey. Here is 3 of his casualties from that morning… They appear numerically in a row, but I’m sure that that’s simply a coincidence and that I’m a conspiracy theorist.

1st dog, Annie: #A4600004, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.
2nd dog: #A4600005, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.
3rd dog: #A4600006, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.

More known deaths…
1st dog, Reece: Came in as a stray on 7/1, was made available on 7/6 and killed the morning of 7/8.
2nd dog, Molly Mae: Came in as an owner surrender on 7/1, was made available on 7/6 and killed the morning of 7/8.
3rd dog: Came in on 6/29 and killed as soon as she became available.
4th dog: Came in on 6/28 and killed days after he became available.
5th dog: Came in on 7/2 and killed as soon as she became available.

Every pictured dog was friendly. I spent a decent amount of time with every dog pictured here except the 2 below Annie. They were both in quarantine so access was limited. One was a 10-year-old owner surrender and the other was a 3-year-old Mastiff-mix. They should have been given a chance, they weren’t. None of them were.

Annie was a wonderful dog. She was my favorite. She was super scared and shy. She was so scared that Dianne had to physically carry her from her kennel. She was taken to the play yard and Annie got to see how nice people treated her. She was wonderful. She laid close to me and Dianne and gave us love and affection. After 15 minutes or so in the play yard she was grinning widely and had a noticeable pep in her step. She brilliantly walked all the way back to her kennel on the leash. She was happy and smiling, and the above photo was taken right as she was being put back into her kennel for the day. She was 1 year old.

Reece was a little munchkin. Another shy and scared dog. She laid, frozen, by the coiled up water hose. Her body sank into the concrete, as to give off the impression that she was silently wishing that this was all just a bad dream. She was also eventually brought to the play yard and trusted us explicitly. She just liked to be held. I next saw Reece 5 days later and she came right up to me at the cage. This was the total opposite response of what anyone got on the day that she was impounded. She embraced my rubs and licked my hands. Someone organizing a rescue-based program saw her video and wanted to put her on television on Wednesday. They emailed Gil twice, once on Friday and another (specifically asking for Reece) on Sunday. They got no response either time. Reece was killed on Monday morning. She was 6 months old.

Molly Mae was a chubby checker. She was like the female version of Dianne’s dog, Falcor, who she found on the freeway in 2011. Molly Mae immediately came into the play yard and plopped on her back, rolling and grunting as her belly was rubbed. She was a total ham, much like Lancelot was. She literally stayed on her back the majority of the time that she was in the yard. Most of the pictures that I took of her were of her laying upside down, eyes closed and probably thinking of something other than this shelter. Glad we could give her that. Her prior owner dumped her here. They got to leave her, out of sight and out of mind. She was not seen by the staff for the highly adoptable dog that she was. She was simply seen as cage space and murdered less than 48 hours after she became available. She was 5 years old.

The 3 below them? 10 months old, 2 years old and 1 year old. All super sweet. Beautiful, amazing and loving dogs. People deserved to know them, and they deserved to make someone really happy.

Instead, all of these pictured dogs (and many more) are dead. Dead, while kennels sit empty and emails go unanswered and volunteers get micro-managed and members of the public get fear-mongered. Dead, while life-saving programs cease to exist. Dead, while dogs go unevaluated and others sit illegally held and others sit unable to be taken out because of breed discrimination “policies” and others await their exit that hasn’t come yet because certain staff members frown upon doing actual work. Dead, and everyone else non-affiliated with the actual person or persons that dumped the dog or allowed it to get loose is to blame, everyone except the shelter power players that decided to kill them. You will continue to be called out. Not everyone is asleep at the wheel.

So tonight Councilman Glenn Green actually pulled his proposed ordinance because he had “no support” from the community or from his fellow Council members. It was BSL and people don’t like BSL, nor agree that it works. As I, and others, tried to say many weeks back: There was no need to “compromise” on anything. BSL is an absolute INJUSTICE, in any form. Fortunately the people and the rest of this Council gave the stink face to any proposed ban and then again to the infamous “compromise” and its proposed restrictions… Councilman Green was then basically forced to pull his bill so that he could avoid a resounding defeat. And further, look at Ken Foster’s book on the table. Thank you Ken and The Sula Foundation, for fighting this nonsense on the ground in Louisiana and understanding the issue while you fought it.

I want to start off by saying that this story had a happy ending. Gatsby was adopted by a great couple and he is likely being spoiled while adjusting to his new home. But had it not been for a handful of people, people that do not work for the shelter, this would have never happened.

This is what we’ve learned by staying engaged in Gatsby’s stay at the Carson shelter: Gatsby came in as a stray on 6/3. Since he was a stray he’s not automatically made available to the public, and he’s given the “available” date of 6/8 instead. This is done so that the shelter can see if a dog has a microchip and then attempt to contact any owner that the dog may have. This date also doubles as a “due out” date, meaning that the first day that any stray dog becomes available to the public is also the first day that it could hypothetically be killed. Gatsby is given the ID# A4586493 upon intake. A microchip is found at some point, the date of when it was found is unclear. Gatsby receives a CTA (commitment to adopt) on 6/15 by an individual that saw him at the shelter. Gatsby is placed on the glamour shot list by a volunteer on 6/16. Glamour shots are when a photographer comes in and photographs select dogs for a better profile picture. This is done for networking purposes and essentially buys the dog a 10-day networking hold from the date that the picture is taken. In order to be kept on the glamour shot list any added dog must first pass a temperament test. Between 6/16 and 6/21 Gatsby is given his temperament test, which he passes with an “A.” The shelter sends out a letter to Gatsby’s owner (noted from the microchip) on 6/21. Glamour shots are then given on 6/22, and Gatsby is included, thus buying him 10 more days and making his new “due out” date 7/2. It’s learned that a “property inspection” was done regarding Gatsby’s actual owner, thus implying that his owner wanted him back. The property inspection is then “failed,” meaning that the shelter decided that Gatsby is not allowed to return to his previous owner. On 6/26 volunteers and concerned individuals take it upon themselves to upload Gatsby’s glamour photo onto the websites ShelterMe.com and RescueMe.org. On 6/28 the shelter staff finally calls the CTA, which was placed on 6/15. Nobody answers. Gatsby is then placed on the euthanasia evaluation list for the morning of 6/29 because his “due out” date is still showing in the computer as being 6/8, his original “due out” date. His actual “due out” date is now 7/2, but apparently nobody updated it in the system. This was only found out because miraculously an interested couple saw Gatsby’s photograph on the website RescueMe.org and ended up calling into the shelter the night of 6/28 to place an IP (interested party) on him. Gatsby is neutered on the morning of 7/1 and is picked up that afternoon.

I know that that was a frustrating paragraph to read. The 5-day intake window for strays is put there precisely for this reason: To locate a microchip and follow-up with any owner. Yet, the Carson shelter didn’t contact Gatsby’s prior owner until they sent a letter out on 6/21, 18 days after Gatsby came into the shelter and 13 days after he hypothetically could have been killed. They then scheduled a “property inspection,” which I personally find absolutely absurd (and had no clue that they actually do this), and then failed the person to boot, thus blocking Gatsby’s reunion with his legitimate owner.

Secondly, when Gatsby received a CTA on 6/15 this should have prompted both a temperament test and the dog’s sterilization, if necessary. In Gatsby’s case it was. A commitment to adopt is a commitment to adopt, and that should be of the utmost importance to any shelter staff. Well, Gatsby’s neuter wasn’t done until 7/1 (at the behest of a secondary request), and the individual who placed the CTA on 6/15 wasn’t even called back until 6/28! God only knows how many times this person may have tried to contact the shelter… Shelter phones routinely park you on hold for upwards of an hour or more, no matter the time that you call, and this is the case almost exclusively. When you do finally get through it’s almost a guarantee that you will be told 1 thing by 1 person, and could then be told a totally different thing by another person, even on the same day. This could have happened with them, as I’ve experienced this phenomenon many times. All I know is that Gatsby’s temperament test was given at some point between 6/16 and 6/21, which he passed with an “A.” It’s unclear whether it was done for the first CTA or for the glamour shot clearance. But why was the individual who placed the original CTA not called until 6/28? And why, based on 1 non-answer, does Gatsby immediately go on the next morning’s kill-list? Nice.

The non-updating of Gatsby’s “due out” date, from 6/8 to 7/2, could have also gotten Gatsby killed at any time, and almost did. This “oversight” nonsense has gotten countless dogs, including Ruby, killed in the past. We will sadly never know the true scale of such incompetence.

And ultimately, the placing of his picture (by someone not affiliated with the shelter) onto a website (not affiliated with the shelter) is what got him seen and then saved by a secondary interested person. Had it not been for that act, Gatsby would have almost certainly been killed on the morning of 6/29 (as the “due out” mistake would have never been realized), and best case scenario the morning of 7/2 (assuming the update was placed correctly, which it wasn’t).

I want people to understand that the reason I have so much information about this specific dog is because there were lots of people working together to make sure he had a happy ending. Unfortunately most dogs do not have this. The most important takeaway from this writeup should be the question that you are hopefully already asking: How many dogs does this happen to? How many dogs end up dying simply due to miscommunication, or stagnation, or inaction on the part of the shelter?

So many dogs most likely suffer the fate that Gatsby almost suffered. Even with all of ^those details, all that could be deemed positive momentum, all that should have been done correctly, or better, or faster… Gatsby almost died, and no one would have known. It all would have been flushed down the memory hole. Gatsby was just fortunate enough to have a volunteer that honed in on him for whatever reason, who then got 3rd party rescue folks and networkers involved, and even through all the shelter’s incompetence he was still salvaged. Thank God. Most dogs die silently when up against this. This is not an anomaly, more likely a normality. How many dogs have died when they quite easily could have been and should have been saved?

Did you know that your local, self-proclaimed “progressive” shelter out in Wildomar, CA is actually a house of racism and killing? It has a cute name, “Animal Friends of the Valleys,” and through its name recognition actually comes off as more of a rescue than an actual shelter. Well, it’s a shelter, and they kill a lot, and they really make it near impossible for the Pit Bulls. Check out this “Pit Bull adoption policy.”

So anyone interested in a dog that this shelter deems to be in any way a Pit Bull must first be interviewed by the executive director of the shelter, they must then have a home check done, they must introduce their entire family to the shelter representative, they must have liability insurance, they must sign a “release of liability” form (okay, whatever), the dog cannot go into a home where any other animal resides and the dog cannot go into a home where any child under the age of 12 resides. Wow. You guys are unfair as hell.

I took a screen capture of all of the available dogs that are being displayed on their website at the time that I wrote this piece, therefore giving you a visual representation of how this policy plays itself out…

I don’t know about y’all, but just off of this image alone I notice numerous anomalies. Anomalies that don’t bode well when being viewed under a rational and ethical lens. I see dogs that are labeled as Pit Bull-mixes that might not be. I see dogs that are labeled as something else when they might be part Pit Bull. I see dogs looking nearly identical, where 1 is labeled as a Pit Bull-mix and the other is not. I see Rottweilers and Dobermans and German Shepherds and American Bulldogs and big Labradors that have no restrictions on their adoptions, while anything that is called a Pit Bull has tons. I’m certainly not advocating for those other dogs to have restrictions too, but instead for all dogs to be treated fairly and without this prejudicial profiling.

Worst of all, you see a pair of dogs that were surrendered together (row 7, image 1 & 2) where 1 is labeled a Pit Bull and the other is not… Going off of the AFV “Pit Bull adoption policy” alone it shows that there is no way that these 2 dogs could ever be saved from this shelter together, as the shelter’s policy clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes where other animals reside.” This pays no mind to the shelter’s own notes which say that both dogs (Bourbon and Brandie) are “kind” and “excellent” with each other and with kids.

Speaking of kids, this shelter’s policy also clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes with children under 12 years of age,” and yet many of their listed Pit Bulls at the time of this writing have notes saying how good they are with kids. So unfair.

The Animal Friends of the Valleys shelter is clearly neck-deep in unscientific, inconsistent profiling. And this act alone probably gets the majority of these innocent dogs killed. That’s an injustice and I’d argue that this shelter is openly violating state law and the statute that says you cannot discriminate by a breed or type of dog.

So while sitting in the parking lot of the Carson shelter on 7/1 I noticed a few things that I really take issue with.

The first being that a few guys rolled up about 10 minutes after the shelter had officially closed for the day. The shelter’s closing is only relevant for public admittance and outgoing shelter business. Incoming dogs can be dropped off or impounded 24 hours a day. So these guys drive up in an old-style Chevrolet car with an open-air back. In the back they have 3 adult dogs that are clearly visible, 2 large dogs and 1 smaller dog. These dogs are tied to the back of the bumper with braided rope that is around their necks at the other end. The tailgate is shut on the rope, thus creating a barrier for the dogs between the back of the car and the street below. As I’m sitting there I overhear that there’s actually 6 puppies in the back as well. The guys claim that the dogs are not theirs, and that they found them in a neighbor’s backyard. I call bullshit, but whatever. So they are here to drop off these dogs. A few staff members from the shelter come out, and after a minute or two these guys are told that they cannot drop the dogs off at this shelter because the area in which the dogs were found falls outside of the established area that Carson covers. The guys are clearly agitated and they are told again that they must go to another shelter. They are directed to go to Downey, another L.A. County shelter.

Now, I realize that this is likely proper “protocol” per say, because the shelter impound system is normally based on the location of an animal’s prior home or where it is “found” or “caught” as a stray. But at some point you might need to evaluate what you are dealing with, and make a call that sometimes puts that aside if you ultimately feel that the safety of the animal may be in jeopardy. That’s my personal opinion at least. And as I’m watching this play out I’m having that exact feeling, so you’d think that staff would be as well.

Why? 1) These guys are not too thrilled with this news. 2) Based on that, you then don’t know if they will actually follow through and take them to Downey, or maybe opt to dump them somewhere more convenient instead. 3) See that the dogs are actually tied up with a rope that could easily hang them alive if they jumped or fell out of the back of the car. 4) Know that you are sending them out to get on multiple highways. To get from the Carson shelter to the Downey shelter you are either going to take the 91 to the 710 or you are going to take the 110 to the 105. What if a dog fell out the back of that car and hung itself on the freeway, unbeknownst to the driver? I know that I had that visual in my mind almost immediately. Yet off they were sent…

You mean to tell me that the shelter couldn’t hold those dogs, who’d probably need 1 or 2 spaces max (anywhere, general population, medical, clinic, wherever), overnight and then do the transfer the next day in one of their shiny new animal control trucks? I’m pretty sure that shelters do location-related transfers like this all the time.

The second thing was that about 20 minutes after closing a family pulled up in a jeep and proceeded to go into the shelter to look at the dogs. No one had flipped the sign on the gates, so they had no idea that the shelter was closed. It was still light out and plenty of people were standing around. This was 2 people who were probably in their mid-30’s and they had a daughter. So they’re walking around and looking at the dogs and after 5 minutes one of the staff members walks out as this family was between buildings, to where she could see them. Instead of politely walking up to them, engaging them about what they were looking for (while informing them that they were closed), telling them that they should definitely come back tomorrow and how critical it is to save a life, thanking them for wanting to potentially do so, any number of things… What does she do? She yells at them from where she was standing, which was about 40 yards away, “Hey, hey, we are closed!!!” After she sees that they’ve acknowledged her shout, she goes on about her business. The couple walks out the gate, gets in their car and leaves. Potential adopter lost.

Carson shelter: You suck.

As a further note to the first story, I did follow up online and match the 3 dogs that I saw with similar-looking dogs that were impounded at Downey on 7/1. Hopefully they (all 9 of them) made it there safely.

In a story that’s straight out of the cellar of hell, the Beijing government has apparently begun the purging of all dogs who are taller than 13.7 inches. SMH. Those dogs found to be standing above than the mandated tape measure are then automatically deemed “large” and “vicious,” taken from their families, and worse, turned over to the local dog meat industry. This order has been in effect since June 13th.

This is nanny-state tyranny run rampant!! Forcing an illegal “order” onto the population. Rounding up and capturing both stray dogs and owned dogs alike, and in the name of “public safety.” Giving dog owners 10 days (from 6/2-6/12) to relocate their dogs outside of the city. Fining individuals and businesses who don’t comply. Capturing dogs around the clock, and not just out on the street but also through confiscation efforts that involve forcing their way into your home. Stating that “all resistance to this enforcement will be severely punished.” Having the police departments encourage the gestapo/TSA-like tactic of “see something, say something.” Essentially demanding that the populace snitch on each other. Actually offering cash rewards for the people who turn in other people’s dogs. Anonymous tip-lines have been set up to accommodate this nonsense. The police have capture-quotas themselves that, if met, would trigger cash bonuses. The media are obediently following orders. Censorship has been unleashed and any criticism against this policy is being memory-holed by those in charge. This is literal Nazi-stinking hell on earth for dog owners.

Just as an exercise, re-read the above paragraph and note how much of what is being done in Beijing reflects the BSL/ban crowd regarding “Pit Bulls.” Ahem, Denver! Unbelievably criminal and immoral at every turn.

In further comparison to the irrationality and downright sensationalistic illegality that’s being done in the name of BSL…

Officials note that rabies last year killed 13 people in Beijing, more than double the number in 2011. Big dogs, the police contend, are incompatible with city living.

Sound familiar?

So there you have it folks. Total bullshit actually happening on a grand scale. Wake up.

If you’d like to support the people of China please follow this Facebook page that was setup in order to update folks on the developments. You can also show your support by signing their petition that’s been addressed to the chairman of China.

So a few months ago I did a phone interview with a journalist about all things related to my Pit Bull advocacy. Having known beforehand that she was also going to be asking me about the Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA) that ultimately took Sway’s life, I set out to videotape my side of the interview so that I could then create an accessible testimony for the many other people currently going through what we went through. That video, which is almost 30 minutes in length, will be available within the next few days. Please stay tuned…

The videos below are some of the other questions that I was asked.

“What was the instance that acted as a catalyst in becoming an advocate for Pit Bulls?”

“What stereotypes did you experience while having Sway?”

“What are your thoughts on BSL (Breed-specific legislation)?”

“Where does the negative stigma and its perpetuation come from?”

Talking about the breed-targeting dynamic and the challenges of engaging all people… “Why does the Pit Bull stereotype still persist?”

“Can you talk about your relationship with the kill shelters that you photograph at?”

Read this.

1) Look at the title: “Often no warning signs in Pit Bull attacks.” Completely untrue, as there are many signs that are often shown before ANY dog “attacks” anything. Did you see the signs? Do you know what to look for? Those are the appropriate questions, not just being uneducated about dog behavior and then claiming that there wasn’t any warning signs. Yet that’s the title they run with.

2) Notice how the title only says “Pit Bull,” yet the very first paragraph goes on to say that this “no warning signs” problem is something that actually affects all breeds and types. And I quote…

When it comes to dogs attacking people, whether it involves stocky pit bulls or fluffy poodles, there is one main thing fans and foes of the animals seem to agree on: Often there are no warning signs until it’s too late.

3) The San Francisco Chronicle claims that “fans and foes” of animals seem to agree on the notion that no warning signs are ever seen during animal attacks. Totally bogus and untrue. Beyond untrue.

4) Colleen Lynn from DogsBite.org has now taken the headline’s mention of Pit Bulls, and then the absurd paragraph claiming that fans and foes of all animals agree that there is very often no warning signs preempting a dog attack (from any breed), and spun that to say that “both sides agree” that there isn’t any warnings to “Pit Bull attacks.” You stay classy.

5) The next paragraph aims to talk about what cities across the country have done in response. It first mentions San Francisco, and their breed-specific legislation towards Pit Bulls. It then mentions Denver and Miami, and their outright ban on Pit Bulls. Yet there’s no mention or examples of the endless cities that have NO breed-specific legislation. There’s no mention or examples of the endless cities (and states, ex. Ohio) that have DONE AWAY WITH prior breed-specific legislation. There’s no mention or examples of the endless cities (and states, ex. Nevada, Connecticut) that have went the extra mile to pass legislation making sure that there isn’t future breed-specific legislation. Instead, the SF Chronicle’s paragraph simply implies that there’s a few different levels of breed-specific response that cities across the country are tripping over each other in order to put into place. Not quite.

6) The expert quotes are presented in a way that paints Pit Bulls as dogs who “snap.” This “expert” then talks about how Pit Bulls attack humans, and the “characteristic way” in which it’s done, even though human-aggression has repeatedly and purposefully been long ago bred out of Pit Bulls (as a top priority) by even the shadiest of characters (dog fighters). This person then says that it’s “poor policy to allow any child around a Pit Bull.” Such an awful and unfair statement. What he should of said was that it’s poor policy to allow any child to be left unsupervised (key word) around any dog, especially larger dogs. He does point out that the climbing on the dog’s back was unacceptable.

7) Further down Rebecca Katz, Director of the Animal Care and Control for both the City and County of San Francisco, states many obvious things that come with the institution of a breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter law. She states that they’ve “impounded 14 percent fewer Pit Bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer.” Well duh. Pit Bulls being impounded over time are going to likely drop to some degree, post-BSL, as law-abiding citizens will be obliged to follow the law, no matter how misguided it is. If the eventual goal is to end the creation of Pit Bulls (these laws’ goals), of course you will eventually come to see “less impounds.” But why haven’t they seen a complete stop to the impounding of Pit Bulls? Why only a 14% decline and not a 60 or 80% decline? Because certain people, including many blatant criminals, will continue breeding them (and fighting them, and chaining them, and allowing them to roam, etc.), as they don’t acknowledge “laws” in the first place. That goes for the good laws and the bad ones, both of which often go unenforced to boot. They also have no reason to change their ways, as these types of “laws” are always put together in order to publicly scapegoat the dogs instead of focusing on the human behavior that leads to any individual dog acting out in such a negative manner.

8) Katz then sites her dog bite numbers…

Another significant indicator, she said, is that there have been 28 pit bull bites reported in the past three years – and 1,229 bites by other breeds during the same period. In the three-year period before that, there were 45 pit bull bites and 907 incidents involving other breeds.

^Um, does anyone else notice how the dog bites coming “from other breeds” have actually risen? Yet this goes unmentioned as being problematic. The very next sentence uses the word “effective,” as these numbers are praised. Wow.

9) This article actually quotes Kory Nelson, Denver attorney and Pit Bull hatemonger, who is responsible for the murder of God only knows how many innocent dogs. He then goes on to say that since Denver’s outright ban there’s been no “Pit Bull attacks.” Well, if you’ve killed every single dog that (at your discretion) even remotely looks like a Pit Bull, then how can any dog that remotely looks like a Pit Bull ever “attack” anything? Worth noting is the propensity of anyone getting killed by a Pit Bull, or any dog for that matter, is already extremely low. How low? Like multiple times lower than being struck by lightning. That low. And further, that’s in our current climate, where the present laws all-to-often ignore (and thus, fail to curb) the many human elements that lead to an individual dog’s bad behavior. So there it is… Kory Nelson can take an issue that’s already EXTREMELY RARE, and then continually kill all of the dogs that his policy deems fitting of a certain physical description, and still get away with posing as if he’s heroically eliminated this imaginary threat. Really? What a disingenuous chump. This also pays no mind to the absolute unjust and immoral aspect of murdering thousands of innocent family pets and treating them as continued collateral damage.

This is like how if a walled-off group of people eliminated all African Americans from their community, then never had another “black” person caught robbing a community liquor store. Does that stop the robbing of these liquor stores as an act? No. It just virtually guarantees that the next robber won’t be black. You can’t just demand that all black people leave, and then kill them if they don’t, like Denver did in regards to Pit Bull-type dogs. That’s about as unethical of a response as anyone could ever imagine. What you can do is focus on the individual incidents, punish those persons responsible, and oh yeah, not be a racist.

10) Nelson actually gets away with claiming that he was “able to prove there’s a difference between Pit Bulls and other breeds of dogs that make Pit Bulls more dangerous.” False. Incredibly false and just a flat-out lie on every level. Yet it’s right there in this article for the populace to gobble up.

So in Union City a 6-year-old child is out in the yard, unsupervised, with an intact male dog that lives exclusively outside. If he had adults in the yard with him then they must have been not paying that much attention. According to police the child was attempting to ride the dog “like a horse,” climbing on its back. Supervision or no supervision, if a child gets away with doing that then the adult in question is highly irresponsible. Further, was the dog loose in the yard, or was it tied to something? If it was tied then that just adds another element to it, as uncomfortable dogs can either fight or flight. Tied dogs don’t have a “flight” option. Weirder still, as many in the media report it as a “mauling” where the dog essentially tore into the boy, the facts show that it was a single bite on the top of the head. The owner came outside and got the dog, and then later ended up going to work because he thought that his son was going to be okay after a routine hospital visit. From the family’s attorney…

Stern said the boy was coherent, conscious and talking “for hours” after being bitten, and everybody assumed he would be fine “after a couple of stitches.”

It sounds like a far more complicated happening then what most people are repeating. Irresponsibility and misfortune colliding.

This all, while millions of Pit Bulls exist in the country. Literally millions. Dogs who are owned and loved by people. Pit Bull-type dogs (and their owners) who are totally innocent and who shouldn’t have to be constantly dragged through the proverbial mud due to the irresponsibility and circumstance of some individual incident. Godspeed to little Nephi Selu. What happened to him was certainly a huge tragedy. But so is multiplying tragedy by targeting (through bans, through other breed-specific legislation, through demonization campaigns) the haul of all Pit Bull-described dogs in response.

For today only, 6/21, Spreadshirt is offering free shipping for all of my designed t-shirts. This one is one of many. Just click the image to be taken to the store. The coupon code will be TDAY2013 and you will have to provide it at checkout.

I was online today and somehow came across a link to your post about the “Animal Care Community Outreach Commission” meeting that was apparently held on Tuesday, and how no one showed up. This led me to check out your actual blog, and then to an acknowledgement of the frequent tone coming from the many blog posts. I soon became aware that you actually sideways referenced me in a post entitled “So what is in a kennel card?” from back in December of last year. This post aimed to belittle my points that I had made days earlier, and talk about how kennel cards were apparently useless things that provided no legitimate value to anyone. You further detail how you’ve “never found it to be an inconvenience” that Devore doesn’t display kennel cards, and that kennel cards “do more harm than good.”

Well, my video actually details why it is an inconvenience to many folks, like myself, photographers and/or networkers and the like, as well as the general public who may be experiencing the shelter system for the first time. I doubt that you even watched my video, due to your asking of the question of why I made it… The video clearly explains why I made it. Listen to it sometime. And to your point about kennel cards doing “more harm than good.” Right. Knowing a dog’s actual ID# and having that information openly accessible to the public is an awful thing. Just horrendous.

Going down your article you then imply that I’m a “No Kill activist,” as to box me up underneath that label. You then say that this is a “tactic” used by these shadowy activists in order to knit pick over “petty” things. Petty? Wanting to know the animal ID#s of the countless impounded dogs is petty? Right. Back to the labels: My name is Josh Liddy and you can email me at swayloveorg at gmail dot com whenever you’d like to speak to me. I have no problem with telling you who I am and how to contact me. I’d of contacted you, but since your website is run anonymously and you “moderate” the comments in order to memory hole “accusations,” well, I don’t have that option. But just so you know: I’m an individual person and not taking marching orders from anyone. I see with my own eyes and think with my own mind and write with my own hands. I generally support true No Kill measures, and support people genuinely embracing any portion of the actual platform that’s been put for by the No Kill Advocacy Center, but I don’t have anything to do with them, nor do I just blindly agree with everything that they say. There is so many people out erroneously fudging what it means to be truly No Kill, that that talking point is almost always as divisive as they come.

You can call me a “complainer,” you can call me “petty,” you can say that I “rant” with no meaningful substance. You can claim that I’m a “No Kill activist” playing from a playbook that’s meant to “frustrate staff.” You can claim that I’m “removing kennel cards and then complaining about a situation I created” (Not sure how, as Devore has no kennel cards). You can claim that people like myself are “causing animals to die.” You can blame me for being the “real culprit” of the shelter killing at Devore and everywhere else. Do what you’ve got to do. But just know that I think you’re full of shit. I think that your entire blog was setup as a PR-stunt on behalf of the actual shelter. Hell, someone working at the shelter probably runs it. You probably spend more time on your blog, while on the clock, than you do promoting your impounded animals. There’s something else that’s awfully prominent… You love to lean on this “unsubstantiated claims” talking point, while at the same time carrying water for one of the most untransparent shelters in the entire state of California. The Devore shelter disallows volunteers for the love of God. Pretty convenient for your bogus repetition.

As for the meeting and “no one showing up.” How many people even knew about it? I certainly didn’t. I saw nothing about it online, nor was it being talked about by anyone that I know. I’m not saying that it wasn’t publicized, just stating my own observation. But where was it promoted? And most importantly, when is the next one?

After typing that last sentence I picked up the phone and called Greg Beck, Program Manager at Devore, and the next meeting will apparently be on Friday, October 4th at 9am. This meeting will be held at the Department of Behavioral Health Auditorium on 850 E. Foothill Blvd. in Rialto, California.

People with a care and concern for what goes on at the Devore shelter: You folks better engage yourself and become aware of the minimal opportunities that you are being given to voice and document your concerns to this “commission.” Make sure that you note this next meeting and please plan to attend. Worth mention is the 4 month gap between meeting #1 and meeting #2. Why? I have no idea. But this commission has already established a dissolution date of June 30th, 2014. Wow. This date was made from the start, even though it took them “well over a year to even name their commissioners.” Wow. And now they’ve had 1 meeting, and the 2nd isn’t until October 4th, a mere 8 months before the commission is done away with for good. Take notice people!