One of my legitimate rescue friends just posted on how she is often suffering backlash because she (their words) “too often” publicly asks for donations…

My message to those critical people: Anyone saying that is a hypocrite. Those critics are getting paid as we speak for doing something, whatever it is that they do, and that pay comes consistently. No one is putting the spotlight on them. People need to realize that a person advocating on behalf of these dogs and running an amazingly good rescue while she does it, well, that’s HER job! She needs to continue to be able to provide for the dogs, while also continuing to educate the public. That is a job, too. No less important than any of their own jobs. It’s funny that people want to consistently praise others for the work that they do for free, but as soon as that person asks for help with sustaining what they do half of that praise dries up. Then if you draw a comparison, like I’m doing, it causes an issue as well. Why and why? The criticizers EXPECT to be paid for the “services” that they provide in their own lives, and would start a riot if they weren’t. This rescuer is simply asking for people to respect what she does enough to consider donating. That’s her job, that’s part of what’s keeping her able to do what she’s doing.

No one is saying that you need to donate blindly, or without thought. Plenty of people likely misrepresent what they are about in order to siphon funds from unwitting people, but that doesn’t mean punish everyone! That’s simply BSL in yet another form! If you respect an individual or an organization, and know them to be credible, then support them with not only your enthusiasm and your assets, but with your dollars as well. If not, then don’t. But have the foresight enough as to not be so much of an asshat and claim that they can’t ask for donations while you cash weekly checks for doing God knows what. Again, anyone being that nasty is a huge hypocrite.

*One of my readers added this point, and I want to expand on it. She stated that rescuers aren’t asking for donations to “get paid” in order to buy a new purse, and that the donations in actuality go to the funding of the rescue. This then makes those that criticize them look all the more like jerks. I totally agree. But expanding on that point…

No one is itemizing how anyone else spends their money from their own 9-5’s. If the integrity of the rescuer is high then the majority, if not all of the money would likely go right to the dogs in some form or fashion anyways. But the whole notion that non-profits and people who devote a mass amount of their time to a specific cause shouldn’t be paid, simply to be paid, is also bunk and false in my opinion. They are people that need to survive as well. No one wants to donate to someone’s lame new purse; but what about to the food that nourishes them, or a new book that serves to inspire thought, or some new adventure that they may take on a weekend to recharge? I’d gladly donate to the people that I respect and admire (if I had the funds to), in order to support them as human beings. Where do you think the good work that they do ultimately comes from? It comes from them. Helping with their own situations and their own lives, their own well-beings, only serves to trickle down onto the dogs in some way. And that’s the way it should be, right? I don’t see anyone else passing up their own paychecks from bussing tables at the diner, or from the local Kinko’s, or from their management positions, or from their law firms. So people can, if they want to, get into this whole pissing match of “what” job helps “who” and at what rate of frequency, but I’d rather have people see that this comparison is 100% legitimate. Furthermore, I’d hope that more people would realize it instead of being so nasty to each other.

Relevant viewing.

So here’s what we all saw the minute this happened back in April…

^Not only was this saturating the internet, but also the television news coverage. Sadly, once this is out there the majority of the damage is already done. Just look at it.

Here’s an actual comment from the owner of the Golden Retriever… Way to generalize! You stay classy Tim Frawley.

And then here’s the actual truth…

No corrections from the many media outlets that reported that this incident involved Pit Bulls. No “followup” stories on the television or in the newspaper. Many existing online accounts of this incident continue sticking with the Pit Bull narrative, paying no mind to much else. But there you have it…

In my article, “In response to Littlerock dog attack,” I stated that my hope was that the dogs actually involved in the attack would then be DNA-tested for breed lineage, so that THAT could then be a public discussion for the media. We all know that the results would come back showing tons of different mixes, hodgepodges of different dog types that the media could no longer simply pin on “Pit Bulls.”

I want to expand on that statement, and explain it further… I didn’t make it because I hold DNA-testing in any lifted regard. We shouldn’t have to do that, and in a rational world not prone to witch hunts it wouldn’t even need to be an aspect of the debate, because there wouldn’t be such a sensationalistic reaction, thus ending the debate before it starts. I also understand that calling for a DNA-test takes the focus off of where it ultimately should be placed. Breed doesn’t matter. What matters is how the dogs were in the position to attack a person, and the circumstances that led to their behavior disintegrating to such a degree that they’d ever even consider doing so. I get all of that and I totally agree.

The reason that I suggested the DNA portion was so that it would inevitably bring dog owners of other breeds under the spotlight as well, and then maybe they would be moved to actually care about these typical and unjust responses, once their own dog’s type or breed would be targeted as well. Too many times this vague reporting just leaves owners of non-Pit Bull types not worrying about it, as pits will always be the scapegoats for everything.

So that’s why I said what I said… Because the majority of people need to be engaged in the discussion in order to come to the conclusion of what is the right response. The right response is focusing on the individual owners who are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their own dogs. My suggestion was merely for that reason. Not to prop up DNA as a legitimate practice, or to cast a wider net. It’s just that involving other dogs in the witch hunt serves to quicken the pace of exposing the media for being completely nonsensical, as it pisses off more people and opens their eyes to the issues at hand.

I’ll draw a comparison to ending war. You truly want to end these numerous wars that our country continuously finds ourselves involved in? Re-institute the draft. Why? Because then future war immediately touches every single family in the country. You’re no longer sending some shadowy kid that you’ll never know over to die for something that you’d much rather pay no attention to. You want people to be invested? Send their kids. War would end by that weekend.

Responsible dog owners of all breeds and types need to be there for each other, and for the dogs that we all love. Stick together or hang separate.

In light of what happened in Littlerock, California yesterday people should be focusing on the fact that yet again, these were ROAMING DOGS. That is the sign of negligent behavior from whomever owned them. If they were in fact feral dogs the point goes unchanged. They were ROAMING DOGS. They are being ID’d as Pit Bulls on the eye-witness account of 1 individual, from a car, when most Americans can’t even pick the Pit Bull out of a lineup of 20 dogs when the poster is 2 feet from their face. Whether 1 of the 4 or 5 were Pit Bulls, whether 3 or all were, it still doesn’t change the fact that they were ROAMING FREELY out in the desert and able to do whatever they wanted to. Then you add in pack mentality. That’s putting aside any back knowledge on how badly they were treated, or what their circumstances were prior. All of these points should be the primary points of concern.

I obviously feel horrible for the lady that was killed. That is a total tragedy, and my whole heart goes out to her friends and family. It is beyond depressing anytime tragedy strikes, in any manner. But there is always ways to prevent the vast majority of these incidents. That is self evident. This shouldn’t be guilt by association. My dogs shouldn’t have to suffer because the media is repeating “blood thirsty Pit Bulls” all over the television anymore than a Hispanic man should have to suffer because Ariel Castro decided to kidnap and rape 3 girls for 10 years in a Cleveland basement. Imagine if the TV, in response to finding these girls and exposing Castro, started implying that all Hispanic men were “sex-addicted rapists.” Is that okay? Hell no, it’s not.

8 dogs were seized from a house, not even sure if they had anything to do with this or not. Reports openly claim that the actual dogs saw at the scene of the crime ran freely back into the desert. How are authorities planning to properly identify the involved dogs? I guess that remains to be seen. What I’d like to see is to have every single identified dog DNA-tested (for breeds), and then have those results openly discussed on the television. This would unquestionably show that other breeds of dogs were involved, especially when arguing over DNA (another topic entirely), and it would serve to put other owners of other breeds under the spotlight. My hope would be that people would then quickly realize what kind of vague quackery we are dealing with here, especially after their dog breeds or types may be brought into questioning. Dog owners need to stick together and stand up for the millions and millions of dogs, of all breeds and types, that have never done a single thing to anyone or anything. Not pile on Pit Bulls in a general sense, either by outright racist diatribes or by silence. Both actions harm dogs. Silence is an inaction, which is an action by default. 1 makes you look like a dirtbag, the other makes you look like a not-to-be-bothered apathetic. Innocent individuals, be it dogs or people, always will deserve better than this.

*This is not written to villainize all “roaming dogs,” as we know that stray dogs exist all over the place and they should not be treated badly simply because they are strays or running loose. Far, far more times than not a roaming dog is simply minding its own business and essentially looking for someone to help it. But that doesn’t make the human element of all of this any less worthy of debate. I’m simply pointing out that this is a circumstance that potentially leads to violence. I’m simply pointing out that almost without fail, any “attack” that’s ever been chronicled is either involving a roaming or a chained dog(s). I’m simply pointing out that allowing your dog to run loose is against every leash law ever created, and is at its core an irresponsible behavior.

The Carson shelter attends very few offsite adoption events per year. One of the ones that they do seem to partially attend is the annual Best Friends Super Adoption event at the La Brea Tar Pits. This event runs for 3 days, Carson usually attends for 1. This year it took place this past Friday through Sunday. As this blog title states, the Carson shelter routinely disallows any Pit Bull-type dog from attending any offsite adoption event that they attend. It’s clear discrimination and they hide behind technicalities and the general public’s unawareness to achieve this “policy.” This has been going on for at least as long as I’ve been visiting this shelter (over 2 years now), and very likely far longer.

To my surprise a very docile Pit Bull-mix who had already passed her temperament test with an “A” was all set to go to this event on Sunday. This dog was then magically marked as being “sick” on Saturday night and then conveniently left behind come Sunday morning. Knowing this, I visited the shelter on Sunday, not only to document how many of the big dogs were left behind but to also spend some time with the alleged sick dog. As you can clearly see, she was not sick…

I’ll just go ahead and claim that this was an excuse given in order to block this dog from attending while still giving certain volunteers the illusion that the shelter staff were willing to take her, had she only been healthy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

Now fast forward to the event, and how the shelter actually fared. Of course every single dog that they took was actually adopted or rescued. Further, this event specifically aims to have rescue partners from all over come together at the end to make sure that every dog that every attending shelter chooses to bring ends up being rescued. The Carson shelter knows how this event functions, as they’ve attended before. I bring that up because “worst case scenario” for the staff, they allow a few Pit Bull-type dogs to go and they don’t end up being adopted by the public… The adoption event’s rescue setup is always there as a backup. The shelter knows this. So if they view Pit Bulls as “difficult to adopt out” dogs that “take up too much cage space” and are “most routinely killed,” then why not take a few, knowing that they’d at worst be rescued? Logical enough, right? But put all of that aside…

The dog that was supposed to be going would have absolutely been adopted straight out, no need for a rescue. That would have happened had she been allowed to go. Should the shelter have considered a few more? Of course, and I can think of 3 easy adoptions right off of the top of my head that would have been givens to be adopted had they been brought…

Bella, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is happy and healthy and easily adoptable. She isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out. Really? You need to temperament test this dog?

Diamond, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. Again, she isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out.

Luna, a 11-month-old German Shepherd puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. You don’t think she would have been snatched up by one of the many thousands of people that make it a point to visit this huge event?

All 4 of these pictured dogs would have been adopted before Sunday came to a close. No need for rescue. I’m not advocating for these specific dogs taking another dog’s spot, just simply pointing out that 1) Any dog called a “Pit Bull” by staff cannot go, and 2) The Carson shelter could have attended more than 1 day and ultimately saved double or triple the amount of dogs that they did.

So the “sick” dog who got an “A” on her temperament test, and Bella, and Diamond, and Luna; they all still sit inside of the Carson shelter. They each could potentially be killed for space or for some other God forsaken reason. As do all of the big dogs, most of which went unmentioned here and are in some way mixed with “Pit Bull.” They sit, and they wait. And this shelter continues opting not to attend (or create themselves) other offsite opportunities. And the few that they do attend, they themselves ban the Pit Bulls from attending. And then they claim that they can’t ever adopt them out. Well, they can’t do anything when they haven’t put the effort into anything, and when they haven’t ceased at subtly (and blatantly) villainizing the dogs at every turn.

Here’s a video of all of the big dogs that were left behind on Sunday. The majority of which are Pit Bulls and would never be considered for offsite adoption event attendance due to current Carson shelter “policy.”

I guess you could call the below video a greatest hits from the latest Rancho City Council meeting that took place on Wednesday. As you can tell from the tone of my voice, I am angry about this. I should probably dial it back a few notches, but goodness, I can’t get beyond the basic and fundamental wrongness of axing your volunteers. On top of that, how these fired volunteers have shown such persistence in going back and going back and going back, only to have the Council members blankly stare back at them with no action ever deemed necessary. It’s all just wrong. The fired volunteers are all so polite, too. How can this be happening to them? It’s infuriating. I think I take it so hard because I KNOW that this is going on at so many other shelters around this country, and that very little is being done about it. Watching myself back I hope that I’m not hurting their cause, and instead, adding another dynamic to it. Who knows. All I do know is that I’m not good at hiding my disdain for something that seems so calculated, so in lockstep from the shelter management to the City Council. But anyways, these public comments were awesome and Mrs. Fincher should be thoroughly embarrassed.

And then they finally opted to at least acknowledge the fact that this issue isn’t going away, and address it publicly for the first time. John Gillison tap dances around some of the generic questions that he was asked by the Council members, but listen to Councilman William Alexander at 9:25… Someone is listening. It seems that he’s putting the rest of his colleagues on notice that he also believes that something is in fact wrong with all of this.

And here’s the great public comments from mid-April’s City Council meeting…

Yesterday while photographing the dogs at the Carson shelter I personally counted 43 empty kennels onsite. This is out of a total of 144 publicly displayed kennels, 48 runs x 3 buildings. And yet dogs are always dying there! Why? Why are they giving killing a thought with essentially a third of their shelter space free?

This past Saturday beautiful Ginger got a single day out of the Norco shelter, in order to visit an offsite adoption event with Change of Heart Pit Bull Rescue, and ended up getting herself adopted!

This was recorded back in February, but due to a pending issue with those involved I wasn’t able to post it online until now. During the first Rancho Cucamonga City Council meeting that I attended, back on 1/16/2013, there was a shelter employee that gave a public comment that was critical of the shelter director and supportive of the fired volunteers. Well, in a surprise to no one, that person was quickly put on administrative leave mere days after the City Council meeting. Kind of crazy? Yeah. He was then fired a week later. Retaliation? Coincidence? Where do the City Council members stand on this? Silence is a stance.

If you’d like to support “T.H.A.T. Group,” named jokingly because Veronica Fincher would constantly refer to her fired volunteers as “that group,” then please like their Facebook page and stay apprised of future City Council meetings.

We were all once unexposed and ignorant to what happens at our local animal “shelters.” I was, had no idea. Unfortunately I’ve learned that the phrase “shelter” doesn’t make it so. Most are not. While you don’t pay attention, dogs will be dying. While you don’t consider ever adopting from one, dogs will be dying. This is being done, and will continue to be done in all of our names, so long as so much of every community remains so drastically under-informed.