I’ve seen people say similar things to what I’m about to write about in many different instances over the last 3 years. Yes, it’s a problem. But how do you go about dealing with it, and what are the consequences of doing nothing? Read on.

This is Amber and she was killed by the Carson shelter on Friday morning, directly after the holiday break. What makes Amber’s death even more heartbreaking is that she was surrendered by the family of her prior owner, after her owner tragically passed away. For me, personally wrapping my mind around that type of a betrayal is pretty difficult. Amber was a good dog.

Today I log into Facebook to see someone posting that “a rescue was working on a plan to get her out.” Further, the person that posted this was completely familiar with the Carson shelter and their incompetent ways of doing business. I say this because if she’s aware of said “rescue” and their “plan,” then she should have made sure that part of their plan included what I’m about to detail below…

My question is: What does “a rescue was working on a plan” mean exactly? Did they let the shelter know? Did they call and place verbal notes on Amber’s account or state to the staff an intent to adopt or rescue her? Did Amber have an IP (interested party) or a CTA (commitment to adopt) that was placed on her account? Was there a temperament test requested? Rescues should know the processes when it comes to this shithole shelter. If none of that was done then the rescue didn’t do much of anything. And if they did those things and the shelter still killed Amber instead then this rescue needs to go public with the details and consider suing the L.A. County DACC. End of story. People need to take action if their rights and their ability to rescue a dog were violated. California state law says that a rescue has the right to pull a dog, any dog, so long as they take the proper steps to do so.

People will vaguely mention these types of things after the fact, aligned with rage against the violating shelter, but yet there is nothing more that is ever done. Whether this actually happened with Amber is unknown to me, as I don’t know the actual steps that were or weren’t taken, but I know for a fact that this scenario has happened many times before (and will happen again).

The hard truth is that this will continue to be a regular occurrence until someone does something when it happens, thus the constant circle of violation and inaction.

In Amber’s case: Who was the rescue? What steps did they take? Was the shelter in violation of killing a dog that this rescue notified them that they wanted? First and foremost there needs to be specific answers to those questions. The rescue just can’t sit in anonymity and silence and then expect it not to happen again. That does nothing but continue to allow this to happen again and again. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, their inaction sets further precedent for it to happen again.