Obviously today there was a horrible tragedy in Boston, Massachusetts involving numerous detonated bombs that went off during the yearly marathon. This killed people, injured countless others and was an all around cowardly act of terrorism from some section of the shadowy political stratosphere. What you see below was stated today by political commentator Erik Rush in response to news that a Saudi Arabian man was possibly arrested for this bombing. Now I have no idea if the Saudi guy had anything to do with this bomb, and even if he did, that isn’t even relevant in regards to the kind of flagrant comment that you will see below. And I’m personally not a Republican or a Democrat, so there is no partisanship going on on this website to blanketly target either side. I say all of this first because delving into national politics is so incredibly divisive and ultimately there are huge distractions around every corner. The goal is to avoid having the focus shift from this simple point in any way. All of that now aside, the below picture and the response by Mr. Rush is deadly relevant when talking about BSL/BDL and the kinds of vague and all-encompassing responses that Pit Bulls seem to garner from blatant hatemongers calling for their eradication by any means necessary…
^That’s 1.6 billion people that Mr. Rush is promoting that we kill in response to what happened at the Boston Marathon today. This kind of a response is no different than what Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org has routinely stated in regards to Pit Bulls. Take any name (or fake name) solely known for this kind of sensationalistic demonization… The responses are plentiful and always the same: “Let’s kill all of the “Pit Bulls.” “Let’s get rid of them all.” “The only good Pit Bull is a dead Pit Bull.” “Let’s euthanize the Pit Bulls and their owners, too.” It goes on and on and on. Ugliness. Here it is. This is what it looks like in another realm. There is absolutely no difference between what Erik Rush said here in regard to Muslims, and what Colleen Lynn or Dawn James have consistently said about Pit Bulls. None. It’s vague hate, that is all.
I’ve been randomly talking about this very thing for most of 2013. It’s something that I’ve noticed and continue to notice. And it’s showed through yet again while watching Colleen Lynn (founder of the anti-Pit Bull website, DogsBite.org) on The Huffington Post’s video panel that they put together last week to discuss Pit Bulls. If you haven’t seen this video, please go there and watch it. Don Cleary from the National Canine Research Council does an amazing job on the panel, btw. Lynn, on the other hand, should show her face more often because she comes off about as likeable as a kidney stone. To those unfamiliar with Collen Lynn, she’s called for an eradication of Pit Bulls and supports their ban and killing anywhere (and in any way) that it’s suggested.
But anyways, here is the point: Colleen Lynn (like the rest of anti-Pit Bull hatemongers infamous on the internet) is now shifting her attention towards MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER OF PIT BULLS. This is what I’ve been trying to point out for some time now, see here & here & here. Breed or type-specific mandatory spay and neuter laws are being proposed all over the place as a counter to bans, because it poses to do a good thing and still aims to seek the same objective as a ban would: breed or type elimination. Many cities, like those in California for instance, cannot get away with banning entire types of dogs because it is against state law. So they’ll settle for a breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter law as the 2nd best option to achieving the ban. It’s also easier to push to a gullible public because it purports to do a good thing, like spaying and neutering, while the true and much darker agendas can attempt to be suppressed. Well, that’s not going to happen because I can see through it and so can many of you.
Much of this is happening because politicians, disengaged from the actual issues and not trying to genuinely become involved, look for easy answers and quick fixes. People like Colleen Lynn are now attempting to shift their entire tones in order to match these kinds of efforts. This is all very likely being done because most all people found their initial tactics and general statements about mass killing and vague eradication of dogs as extremely reprehensible. They’ve obviously noticed that the breed-specific forced sterilization talking points have gained far more traction and in response are acting accordingly. Still, vile persons like Lynn and Dawn James can’t help themselves and hate literally radiates off of almost everything that they say or type anyways. This point still needs made, because others are better at hiding their contempt. I will not link to either of their many websites because they are many of the most exploitatively nasty on the entire internet. But that’s what Google is for.
During the Pit Bull video panel you can see Colleen Lynn shift and attempt to constantly grandstand behind “overpopulation,” acting as if her concerns are loving and as if she’s doing it for the good of the dogs and all the rest of it. Anyone that knows her website knows that that’s a complete pile of you know what, and she’s being about as disingenuous as anyone ever has been. You will see her lose her cool when someone asks her if she’d kill all the Pit Bulls. She clearly tries to distance herself from that idea and gets really angry at the suggestion, yet the internet is full of her own ideologies that support exactly those things. Apparently we’re all “crazy.” Then she starts again, acting like she’s doing a “humane” thing for the dogs and attempts to shift the focus back to mandatory spaying and neutering of all Pit Bulls. You can see right through a fraud, and Lynn is a total fraud. She’s one of the most tyrannically backwards and nasty individuals that exist in the “animal community,” and her message (and others’) is shifting. Please take note of what’s been said here…
*So I’ve had tons of computer problems over the last month but am now glad to be back and able to update my website again!
This past Tuesday the Riverside County Board of Supervisors held a meeting to consider an ordinance that would mandate the sterilization of all (and only) Pit Bull-type dogs. Earth to everyone: This is Riverside County trying to ban Pit Bulls, but since that is disallowed in the state of California they are simply attempting to pass (BSL/BDL) and force mandatory spay and neuter for only Pit Bull-type dogs instead. That is what is going on. Take the disingenuous presentation and throw it out the window. The desire for a ban is the reality, they just know that they can’t achieve it so they are attempting to dress it up in response.
Pasadena tried to do exactly the same thing in October of last year, and the people showing up to speak out against it got the issue tabled and the breed/type specific language killed altogether. Councilman Steve Madison openly stated that his desire initially was to ban them, prior to realizing that he couldn’t. The same thing is now going on in Riverside County, don’t be fooled.
Let’s look at a Press-Enterprise article detailing what the objectives are. There’s numerous spots in this article alone where their own talking points get completely crossed up. For example…
Right off the bat they claim that the “breed threatens public safety.” Wow, way to be specific and un-Nazi like. Then there’s this doozy further down, showing that there’s already an appropriate law on the books and realistically no need for another one. Focus on enforcing the existing laws!
Right now, dogs in the county’s jurisdiction can be forced to be sterilized if they are running loose, aren’t vaccinated against rabies or for “violations of the basic tenants of pet ownership,” according to a county staff report.
Of the 3 “attacks” that they continuously cite, ignored characteristics remain the same. On January 17th the dogs involved were ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. On March 5th the dog involved was ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. And on February 8th it is pretty darn inconclusive what actually happened to the 91-year-old artist that was found dead with her son’s dogs in a hotel room (or how long she was dead, for that matter), yet the media claimed the dogs killed her, even while their own sources for the story claim that she could have died from natural causes. These sources go on to explain that it isn’t unusual to have animals repeatedly lick, scratch and even bite someone to try to awaken them if they are perceived by the animal to be in serious trouble. For instance, the woman who received the world’s first ever face transplant was allegedly “mauled” by her own Labrador, yet she claims that the dog was only trying to wake her up after she passed out from medication. What is the truth to either of those scenarios? I have no idea, but neither does the Riverside media. I’ve tried to followup on her autopsy results and they were not made available, yet none of that apparently matters because countless links existed immediately claiming that it was the dogs that killed her.
Here comes more demonization, justified by vague and unscientific “reports from the media.” No specifics, it just is.
The two-page report states Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets. The media is constantly reporting the incidents of human injury and death from attacks by this type of canine.”
Does the media want to come and cover my dogs? Nope, well behaved dogs are no interest to them. Does the media want to cover bites or “attacks” not involving dogs that they themselves deem to be Pit Bulls? Nope, these things are not newsworthy for them. So apparently any individual incident involving a dog that they deem to be a Pit Bull prompts them to be able to vaguely talk about all Pit Bulls as if they “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets.” That’s ignorant, and hardly helps their chances of adoption.
Pit Bulls also make up 20 percent of impounded dogs, and the breed has “historically very low redemption or adoption rates,” the report added.
The report that they keep citing was put together by Robert Miller, the Director of the Riverside County shelters. He’s the same guy that routinely keeps the majority of their impounded Pit Bulls in a separate building away from public view. This gives them no visibility and no chance at adoption, yet he cites “low adoption” statistics as the reason for this legislation. What a fraudster.
“Reducing the fertility of this segment of the dog population is the only effective way to mitigate the negative impacts on the county and its residents.”
Uh, no it’s not. That’s a crock of shit. How about a broad focus on education? How about providing truly low-cost services and engaging the community? How about dealing with bad and/or irresponsible owners? How about enforcing current laws, including leash laws and the one mentioned above? How about discouraging the vague demonization and the continuing perpetuation of discriminatory misinformation? Again, what a fraudster. And worse, they won’t even be able (or willing, just look at their past record) to truly enforce this crappy law, even if it’s passed. This is all just a shell game meant to pacify concerns and give a certain portion of the public a false sense of security. It’s a total failure and a fraud.
“This dog is very agile. It’s very strong. It has a very high prey drive and when it does damage, it does a lot of damage,” he said. “There’s just far too many of them flooding our shelters. They don’t get adopted. Many of them are getting euthanized.” The ordinance’s intent “is essentially to be on the front end of these problematic pet owners, specifically the owners of these Pit Bulls” who allow their dogs to roam free, unlicensed and unvaccinated, Welsh added.
^Where do you start with this nonsensical doubletalk? Again, more sensationalism; then he says that they are flooding the shelters; then he claims that they don’t get adopted; then he brings up euthanasia, almost as a way to sympathize with the Pit Bull’s plight, even though they are the ones choosing not to promote them (or even show them) and kill them at the shelters instead; then he claims that the ordinance is meant to deal with problematic owners, even though it’s not, and even though they continuously fail to charge theses problematic owners. History shows that. It’s all just such rubbish.
Then there’s this mashing of 2 totally different quotes, based and given around 2 totally separate issues, yet they are presented on pe.com as if 1 supports the other…
In an emailed statement, the ASPCA said it does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws. However, “based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation,” the statement read.
Everyone supports spaying and neutering. It’s a responsible action for a dog owner to take. It’s suggested by everyone. My own dogs are all sterilized, yet I can still write all of this. The point is that you shouldn’t mandate it as law, ever (it’s pointless, it doesn’t work, when low-cost options don’t exist many can’t afford it, it makes shelter intakes rise, and oh yeah, actual criminals don’t ever follow any law), and especially when only targeting a specific type of dog and dovetailing your ordinance with the utter demonization of that specific type of dog as a whole. And then the writer craftily throws the “overpopulation” quote in there at the end, as if that’s the county’s true agenda. Wait, what? This entire Press-Enterprise article, as well as the Animal Control report, as well as the meeting that took place on Tuesday, were all based around how “vicious” and “unsafe” Pit Bulls were. Read the documents and watch the entire meeting yourself…
^Near the end you will hear the county’s incompetent shelter head, Robert Miller, constantly double down on ridiculous claims of myth and sensationalism. He first asks everyone to close their eyes and to picture what a Pit Bull looks like, and then “estimates that everyone would come up with roughly the same image.” What a crazy comment, considering “Pit Bull” isn’t even a breed and that very few people could even properly pick a Pit Bull out of a lineup of dogs. He goes on to cite the woman that said “these dogs bite like sharks,” he claims that their jaws are different (scientific evidence proves this totally false), he claims that they can all “hang from ropes in a tree for upwards of an hour,” he claims that their biting force (pounds per square inch) is much greater than any other dog (again, scientific evidence proves this totally false and not even able to be properly tracked).
It’s as if they all just love getting up there and telling Paul Bunyon tales, exaggerating details and just openly acting like fools. One Supervisor claimed that his son’s Pit Bull “carried a huge log around like it was a toothpick.” Then Miller actually says that when he was growing up that “Dobermans were the killers out there,” and then in the 90’s that “Rottweilers were a problem.” Good God. Do these people ever speak in specifics? Or just in broad fairy tales and all-encompassing generalities? It’s disgusting and highly ignorant. Another Supervisor claims that “we see more often than not that they are used as attack dogs.” Huh??? What the hell is that guy talking about? Millions of Pit Bulls exist in the United States right this very minute, and 99.99999999999% of them have done nothing to warrant this type of ridiculous villainization. How does that Supervisor even get away with making such an asinine statement? It’s incredible.
Earlier than that, at around 35:14 in the video, Miller makes this statement: “Right now, in this county (Riverside), there are tens of thousands of Pit Bulls, unaltered Pit Bulls, intact Pit Bulls.” Oops! He just totally discredited his own points, as well as the other Supervisor that I just quoted in the prior paragraph. Let’s just take the simple number of 10,000. Do you know how many Pit Bulls that leaves that haven’t ever attacked anyone? They cited a few of these “attacks” in the article. Well, based on Miller’s own estimation that then leaves 99+% of Riverside’s Pit Bulls not fitting their own awful characterization. And the ones that do “fit,” well, they’ve been proven to have either been out and freely roaming or chained up and NOT members of someone’s family… Yet people aren’t the problem? Why are those things consistently never made issues of? Instead, a vast amount of dogs get utterly scapegoated. What a disgraceful sham.
So in closing, I’m obviously for spaying and neutering in general, my own dogs are all altered. But making laws, especially breed-specific laws, is not the answer. And breed-specific laws meant to target only Pit Bulls is done simply to attempt to eliminate them. This isn’t just a “yes” or “no” issue, there’s implications and depth to this issue. The people simply discarding all the details because they are “for” spay and neuter in the general sense are actually part of the problem here. I’d ask that you folks really look into this issue further.
This vote will take place at a future meeting. I’d request that every pittie-loving person consider coming out to the future meeting where they will actually be voting on (and probably passing) this legislation. It is important that, regardless of whether they end up voting for it or not, people do show up and give public comments on behalf of these dogs and based around the backwardness of always targeting types of dogs and the incompetence of local agencies to follow already existing laws. The meeting is not scheduled as of now, but please know that they are always during the work week and are held at 9am in the morning. Super inconvenient on all fronts. It will be located at 4080 Lemon St., Riverside, CA 92501. That all being said, I hope that some of you will keep it in mind so that when this ordinance does get a date for a vote that you can possibly work a half-day or something and be there to speak.
If you’d like to respectfully contact the Supervisors individually…
District 1, Kevin Jeffries: district1@rcbos.org | 951-955-1010
District 2, John Tavaglione: district2@rcbos.org | 951-955-1020
District 3, Jeff Stone: district3@rcbos.org | 951-955-1030
District 4, John Benoit: district4@rcbos.org | 951-955-1040
District 5, Marion Ashley: district5@rcbos.org | 951-955-1050
*In my estimation Kevin Jeffries seemed least likely to support this ordinance. His comments tended to stick to the Constitution and erred on the side of not trampling over people’s rights. That only leads me to believe that he’d also be one that would not stand for the demonization of entire groups of anything.
The irony of the below photograph (from PETA, showing a Pit Bull) is heavy… As they spread this meaningful message–pointing out the “cold” behavior of a person that would chain their dog up outside, while also alluding to the “cold” weather that the dog would be experiencing while being chained up outside–they somehow fail to realize that it is no different than the “cold” freezer that every Pit Bull in this country would actually be stashed in if PETA had their way. True story.
Is this image ultimately a positive message? Absolutely. Is forcing any dog to fight appalling and horrendous behavior? Absolutely. Is forever relegating your dog to any chain, let alone one that looks like it could dock a cruise ship, horrible? Absolutely. Is leaving any dog outside to fend for itself during any and all weather conditions pretty darn uncaring? Absolutely. But none of that changes in any way the fact that PETA wants all Pit Bulls dead. The ad implies nothing like that, does it? All it implies is a very loving tone, using the image of a Pit Bull and exploiting them to a public where 99% of that public has no idea of PETA’s actual stance on Pit Bulls and if they have a right to their own life. PETA says they don’t, and that killing them ultimately serves to “protect them” from potential abuse. Get familiar with who, and what, you actually support.
So based on my last piece regarding AB-1045, a bill that aims to inject doublespeak into shelter law, I’ve since had an email communication with the HSUS’s Jennifer Fearing. She was one of the individuals that I name-dropped in my prior article. She and her organization not only support this language-softening bill, but they were also both supporters of carving out certain sections of the Hayden Act last year–that is until the public revolted–and then they flipped in the 4th quarter and came out against it. So they were for chucking portions of law before they were against chucking portions of law. And it all seemed to stem on the amount of push back that they received from an angry public. So you can’t help but ask yourself, are they principled on their positions of reform or are they something else? Anyways, here is the back and forth that myself and Jennifer Fearing had yesterday, posted with permission…
Dear Josh,
Thanks for sending me your email address.
I have been volunteering to help homeless dogs since 1997, when I found a stray dog and took him to what was then a very poorly run government shelter here in Sacramento. I became a volunteer at that shelter and since then have personally fostered and placed more than 100 dogs – mostly pit bull type puppies and dogs. I also spent several years pushing for reform of local shelters and promoting spay/neuter, including starting No-Kill Sacramento which morphed into the Sacramento Area Animal Coalition – a group that has since provided close to 10,000 affordable spay/neuter surgeries and created a network for the area’s rescue and shelter groups to help save the lives of countless animals over the last decade. I spent a recent Saturday driving more than 200 miles to ensure the adoption of two hounds who were seized in a cruelty case. Whatever my professional priorities have demanded of me – from leading campaigns to protect farm animals from extreme confinement to stopping reckless persecution of wildlife – I have always made time to help homeless dogs because it is my personal passion.
Contrary to your blog’s assertion, I did not start a task force with the intention of “getting rid of the Hayden law.” After years of legislative suspensions of some of the Hayden law’s most critical elements and years of my own and HSUS’ efforts to stave off those suspensions as well as last year’s repeal proposal by the Governor, I reached out to other humane leaders to develop a sustainable plan for achieving California’s policy preference for improving and saving the lives of homeless animals by: (1) evaluating what’s working and what’s not about current practices; (2) developing new approaches; and, (3) identifying reliable and stable funding options that promote life-saving efforts. In particular many people are concerned that current state laws aren’t sufficiently helping stray cats, who continue to wind up at shelters in very high numbers and rarely leave alive.
We share your conviction that animal shelters should be safe havens for animals. We want humane euthanasia decisions, not routine destruction of healthy pets. But with regard to the language changes proposed by AB 1045, I understand your perspective but respectfully disagree with it.
California law uses the term “pound” in twenty-five different places when referring to animal shelters and their operations. This outdated term does not reflect the balance that communities expect to exist between animal control and animal care efforts by government agencies. Communities expect California animal shelters to provide essential life-saving services that the word “pound” does not accurately encompass.
Similarly, California laws referring to euthanasia in cases of dire animal suffering as “destroying” an animal also are outmoded. You’ll note if you read AB 1045 that the proposed changes of the word “destroy” to “euthanize” are limited to situations where animals are found clearly suffering and in distress – not situations in shelters where decisions are made to end the life of a homeless animal. We believe that it’s important that officers and veterinarians given authority under the law to “destroy” an animal understand that the law requires “euthanasia” – to reinforce the state’s commitment to the humane handling and treatment of animals in distress and suffering irremediably.
Another reason we support making these changes to state law is to help empower local agencies to seek – and receive additional voluntary community support to offset significant budget cuts most have endured. Over the past several years, not only did the state not fund the Hayden law requirements to hold animals for additional days, but also most local governments cut their animal services agencies’ budgets – some of them dramatically. When our own laws consider government animal care and control agencies as “pounds,” that doesn’t inspire volunteerism or donations that many agencies now really need to help fund life-saving efforts and veterinary care.
It is our opinion that laws calling shelters “pounds” and suggesting that suffering animals be “destroyed” do not meet society’s current commitment or expectations to homeless animals, nor do they recognize or encourage dedication and caring at the facilities entrusted with them. This point was well-articulated by well-known blogger, pet columnist and no-kill advocate Christie Keith in this column back in 2011: http://www.sfgate.com/pets/yourwholepet/article/The-era-of-the-dogcatcher-is-over-2457583.php.
I hope this email has helped clarify where I’m coming from and why HSUS supports AB 1045. You’re welcome to publish it in its entirety on your blog.
Jennifer,
Everything you stated in your opening paragraph sounds wonderful, amazing, incredible. I love it all and applaud you for it. But if you started a genuine No Kill community in Sacramento that morphed into something very similar to what the No Kill Advocacy Center advocates for, why does the Humane Society of the United States and so many of its promoters and employees actually oppose so many of their ideas and attempts at substantial shelter reform? I realize that’s a huge question, with many elements, but it’s a question that at it’s core has gone unanswered. It makes no sense.
Regarding Hayden, did you not support its repeal which was aligned with Brown’s first attempt at cutting it? Did you also not state that we don’t need the law, and imply that shelter directors would actually follow it, with or without the language in the law? I believe you did support it being repealed, and I believe you did make those statements regarding the language not being necessary. I don’t care about “suspensions” and all of that, they were and still are part of the law. And they shouldn’t be taken out of a law just because the language has been put aside for a time period. You should instead be working to reinstate the existing portions of language now suspended, and even add further teeth to Hayden, as it could obviously be improved. No?
“Pound” is not an outdated term. It’s a realistic term. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what communities “expect” to happen, and then to have that expectation be appeased through language, when what they expect to happen (shelter reform, animals being treated with dignity, life-saving being the priority) isn’t happening! So why change language implying further that it is happening when it is not? Why? And with the killing/euthanasia discussion my point gets amplified x100. Why would you do this? I view this as a massive disservice to animals i.e. why I stated you were “putting blinds on a hellhole” or something to that effect.
In regards to only using euthanasia in alignment with “extreme suffering,” we know that that is already taken advantage of to the highest order. Dogs are killed with that justification put on them, Pit Bulls are routinely killed with the “unadoptable” label put on them. It happens all the time and 9x out of 10 is totally irrelevant and not even remotely justified. What do you say to this?
Your efforts seem to be aimed at softening the realities of what goes on inside of kill shelters in order to bring more money and volunteerism to the actual shelters themselves. Okay. But I see two problems with that… 1) I personally don’t believe in softening any kind of reality for any reason, especially when no one is blunt enough and straight forward enough with the public already in regards to shelters! There’s little to no transparency and they (shelter staff) also move mountains to stamp out dissent and/or any attempt at any kind of expose. This language will just protect that kind of tyrant behavior. And 2) This is to embrace more volunteerism? Volunteers already want to give their time, and under the current realities! And that’s in an environment where staff doesn’t at all embrace the community. I don’t mean to speak vaguely, as all shelters are different, but here in L.A. County volunteers are shunned, targeted, silenced already. That type of stuff serves to alienate them far more than any “legal language” would. It took my own girlfriend 9 months to get a response from a county shelter when she applied to be a volunteer! That’s the reality here.
So to use your own departing words and just changing a few phrases… It is my opinion that the kill shelters themselves do not meet society’s current commitment or expectations to homeless animals, language be damned (and that language would just further hide/embrace that), nor do they recognize or encourage dedication and caring at the majority of these facilities. That’s the problem. Not words. Actions. The lack of actions and real change.
Thanks for the dialogue. I don’t mean to “attack” you for no reason, but I think these moves need talked about very seriously, and as someone who routinely visits these shelters, I’m offended by them. I view what is being done as really dangerous for shelter animals and for public perception, a public perception that is already watered down to the realities of what goes on inside of kill shelters. The realities themselves need changed. That only happens when more people are exposed to the true horrors of what is being done in their name and by people who are being funded by their tax-payer dollars. The public would not be too thrilled. The more that this was exposed, the angrier they’d get. And yet you seem like you’re coming from the totally opposite spectrum of trying to give these actions/people cover, just because in order to engage the community further you need to “inspire” through misrepresentation. So let’s say that you do “inspire” more… What happens when they come to the table and are then silenced, alienated, disenfranchised, or worse, desensitized in the face of the actual realities. How does that stuff serve to change the actual actions of shelters?
Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend and not for what they get done.
More bad legislation is coming down the pipe, this time AB-272, which would lower the age for a dog’s first rabies vaccine from 4 months to 3 months. WHY? This is troublesome for numerous reasons, least of which is that there is absolutely no reason or need to even entertain doing this in the first place. For what? This is supposed to fix a problem that doesn’t even exist? Yeah, pretty pointless. But more damaging: Opponents of this change have pointed out that maternal antibodies oftentimes block this vaccine in young dogs until after 4 months i.e. why 4 months was originally determined to be the appropriate time for such a vaccine. With the earlier push you are subjecting far more dogs to the potential exposure to rabies. How? Because you are rushing the process and an inappropriate immunization that comes too early will create a false sense of security that could end up having serious repercussions down the road. Secondly, the 3 month marker is commonly used for a puppies 2nd round of secondary shots. The rabies vaccine should always be given at least 2 weeks apart from other vaccines, as to avoid any adverse reactions. Now with the forcing of all of these shots to be administered around the same time (and very likely at the exact same time, simply out of ignorance and convenience) you would be greatly increasing the probability that your puppy would suffer from an adverse reaction. This isn’t to be taken lightly. Rabies vaccine reactions are the adverse reactions most often reported, and far and away the most severe if they do happen, both in the short- and the long-term.
Again, please visit this link for a well laid out plan on how to contact the appropriate people in order to drive back this proposed change. The hearing date is this Wednesday, 3/13!
California Legislative Assembly Member and newly elected District 3 City Councilman, Bob Blumenfield, has just recently introduced a bill, AB-1045, that is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and will attempt to do some pretty subtle (but awful) things to the blunt text currently residing all over California’s shelter laws.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions by replacing references to a “pound” with references to an “animal shelter” and by replacing references to destroying an animal with references to humanely euthanizing the animal.
Way to cutesy up the hellholes, Bill! Have you ever been to any of these pounds, err, I mean shelter resorts that you seem to want to grandstand over?
All this is is a move to tell grown adults that “everything will be okay.” That we should just close our little eyes and go back to sleep, because by golly, the animals are being taken care of in California! And so many of us out there actually WANT to be told this. So we can continue pretending that what is happening actually isn’t, and that things are always on the up and up, because you know, we all love animals and don’t want to see them hurt, right? Real bumper sticker shit. The type of crap that makes us feel good about ourselves without doing anything. The good old sticking ones head in thy sand. So many of us are really awesome at that.
This crappy toilet roll of legislation practically begs us to look the other way. This is doublespeak in its finest form. Pound means jail. Shelter implies safety. Shelter still kills. Shelter not safe. Destroying an animal means killing it. Humanely euthanizing an animal implies that we’re giving it that awesome death present that it’s been begging for since last Christmas. Shelter still kills, destroys. Shelter not safe. But we’ll give the illusion that they are anyways, that way we can all congratulate ourselves and go out for drinks later!
Will Jennifer Fearing, HSUS’s California state director, be picking up the tab? She’s the same person that last year put together a “task force” with the intention of getting rid of the Hayden Law. You know, because our trustworthy shelters “don’t need that law to comply.” Yeah, right. That basically means that the minimal protections that California’s shelter animals currently enjoy, well, they definitely don’t need those anymore! You know, it has nothing to do with budget cuts, it’s actually because our shelter managers are sparkling slices of humanity that will always do the “right thing” for the animals. Yeah. This is the time when everyone should come together to unanimously tell Fearing that she’s full of caca.
I’m sorry folks. I can’t even pretend to be civilized with people that do these awful things under the cover of goodness. Jennifer Fearing and the HSUS have oftentimes acted as the literal enemies of true and genuine shelter reform everywhere, and their attempts to dumb down language meant to bury the atrocities that are happening every single day need opposed by all of us with all of our might. What she is trying to do is essentially pose over dead shelter animals while telling us that they were love tapped for their own good. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of Californians never knew that her job description was to submarine actual shelter protections at the behest of a car salesman like Wayne Pacelle… And to Bob Blumenfield: Don’t take the easy road out the gate, sir. Don’t prop up language meant to turn the truth backwards, which will only serve to keep the so many people not yet exposed to the realities of kill shelters further in the dark. Rethink your position here.
You can most easily reach Jennifer Fearing on Twitter: @JenniferFearing. You can also, and hopefully will, email Bob Blumenfield and (more politely than me) ask him to withdraw the bill: assemblymember.blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov.
If you’ve been following this website then you will know that I’ve been claiming this to be true for almost the entirety of my time photographing dogs at the Carson shelter. The first time I ever visited this shelter in 2011 I met a dog that, within the next couple of days, gained online momentum and interest and then was resoundingly “failed” by this shelter’s version of a temperament test. She was called “highly aggressive” and “one of the most vicious dogs they’ve ever encountered” by select members of this shelter’s staff. Don’t let those phrases scare you, as I’m here to say that the millisecond that I heard these descriptions I knew that this shelter was full of you know what. Thankfully that dog’s life was saved, and due in no small part by a committed few that refused to let her down.
Fast forward almost 2 years, and countless events just as I’ve described above routinely playing out silently and unacknowledged by anyone, over and over. I’ve made plenty of noise about it, but through either very specific cases, or general rants, knowing that it’s going on but not having the transparent access I’d need to actually show the patterns in the irrefutable detail. There’s so many dogs that have came through that I’ve just never met. I’m only there a few days out of each month. I can only speak for the ones that I’ve met, and known not to fit the disingenuous description that is hammered onto their heads after they are killed. But I know this happens, over and over again, and that Pit Bull/types are the ones that are falling victim to it.
Thankfully the dogs in the video below did not end up as ultimate victims of this system. But they would have, and almost were even though myself and others were doing everything we could to make sure that they could just get out of there safely. Before you watch this video please know that I first met both dogs on 2/27. The black and white girl was already impounded and had been there since the 25th, the brindle girl was brought in right past me on the 27th, and my video actually captured her first 10 minutes or so in the kennel. They were both absolutely terrified of their predicament, their environment, the sounds, the smells, and that list goes on. The next portion of video was shot 3 days later on 3/2 when I went back to give treats to all of the dogs. You will see that both of these specific dogs have already made strides at coming out of their shells and were actually taking food directly from my hand at the kennel bars. I even shoved my camera under the brindle’s cage door, in an attempt to get a different angle of video, and she did nothing. I came to find out later that the temperament tests for both dogs were administered this same day (3/2), prior to my visit. Both dogs were massively failed with grades of “F” across the board. They were both called “aggressive” and “not safe for placement.” An adopter for the black and white dog who had showed up that morning was actually turned away when he went inside to pay for her freedom. Finally, the last portion of video was shot on 3/5, the day they both left the shelter. Much of the video showing the brindle girl was literally recorded 5 minutes after walking out of the shelter. She rode the entire 45 minute drive laying across my lap. The portion of video that shows the black and white girl was shot about 90 minutes after leaving the shelter, as she rode home with someone else.
Neither of these dogs are “aggressive,” at all. I spent more time with the brindle girl (now Mellow) than the black and white girl (now Willow), and I can state confidently that calling Mellow “aggressive” is a crime against the truth. It’s a disgrace and a failure of the system. Willow was a little more fearful than Mellow, and came out her shell just a tad slower, but the same can be said on her behalf. These dogs are not aggressive. These dogs are not unsafe for placement. That assertion is false and anyone standing behind it is a fraud.
I don’t take what I’ve said here lightly. I feel quite confident in my choice of words so stating that this is an absolute epidemic at this specific shelter would be, in my opinion, quite accurate. Fraudulent temperament tests are being routinely given at the Carson shelter. You can mark it down as fact, and it’s as sure as the sun rises every morning. What this does is serve to “fail” a rather large amount of dogs, many of them being Pit Bull/type dogs. This then marks these dogs as “unadoptable,” per the shelter, and in turn makes them “unavailable” to the general public. After they’re made “unadoptable/unavailable” they will more (way more) times than not be killed, and that status will then be used to justify the shelter’s choice to kill them.
There’s truly few issues any bigger than this that will aim to give you genuine insight into why shelter reform is so very necessary. It shows you how discrimination becomes part of policy, how poorly some of these officers who are administering the tests end up doing their jobs, how that lack of care and concern is actually not only accepted but also protected by their superiors, how the public gets routinely boxed out from adopting amazing dogs, how killing becomes the most embraced option and how they will attempt to then justify that killing. Please spread this message, it’s an essential one to spread regarding the fate of shelter animals.
I leave you with this: Why aren’t volunteers being given the ability to actually perform the temperament tests themselves? Why can’t they contribute with the updating of system notes regarding behavior? Furthermore, why does it take your staff anywhere from 3 to 7 days to actually administer a test that takes (by your own admission) 5 minutes? Why are staff employees telling members of the community that “temperament test requests are clogging the system,” implying that actually requesting one is somehow a negative thing? Again, how can you claim that you don’t have “time, staff, resources” to efficiently do these tests, while at the same time, refusing to pass some of that responsibility onto willing (and capable) volunteers? Tons of shelters have their volunteers give the temperament tests. In my opinion volunteers (by and large) have far better energy and attitudes than the run of the mill officer who seems (in these cases) to just be going through the motions. Finally, dogs are perceptive, so if they see an uncaring uniform carrying a fake hand into their kennel that alone is going to prompt a reaction. This is all common sense.
This dog was brought in by animal control while I was at the Carson shelter yesterday taking video. She is absolutely adorable and absolutely terrified. Beyond terrified. She didn’t have a kennel card so I went into the office to get her ID number (which is #A4547836) and the girl at the front desk was already claiming that she was “aggressive.” She had just came off of the truck and hadn’t even been there an hour. She’s in no way aggressive, more like frightened beyond measure and totally shy. This is a beautiful dog, a far younger dog than the shelter is claiming. They have her listed as being 3 years old, she is definitely younger than 1 year.
*Update* The Carson shelter did one of their shoddy temperament tests and failed this dog with an “F.” Totally and utterly ridiculous. I visited this kiddo again on 3/2 and she was engaging me at the bars and eating out of my hand. Something, like always, doesn’t add up about their assessments. She is thankfully being rescued and should be out of there shortly.
