So on Monday, as expected, the Pasadena City Council voted to pass a mandatory spay and neuter law for all dogs and cats. The vote came down much like prior votes on the subject, passing 5-2 with dissenting voter John Kennedy being absent.

At 3:14 of the above video Pasadena Humane Society President Steve McNall goes up to the podium and angrily attempts to dispute a few things that public commenter Marla Tauscher said during her 1 minute of speaking time. What follows is a string of condescending statements, misrepresentations and outright lies from McNall. Thankfully (for him), no member of the public then had the opportunity to challenge his crap, as the public session was now closed. Convenient.

He begins…

One individual said that they looked at our 990s, our tax returns. Obviously they do not know how to read the 990s. Last year alone we have put well over a quarter of a million dollars into a spay and neuter program. As you know, she’s talking about the assets of the property at $10 million and we just completed a $20 million project, of which $5 million was dedicated towards a spay and neuter hospital, for the public, at a reduced rate and low income. So, that’s all I have to say.

What a deflective jerk. When Tauscher gave her public comment she quite openly mentioned that she was referencing the 990 from 2012, as the 2013 return isn’t available online yet. Much like the 2012 return, I inspected their 2011 return, found much of the same, and then wrote about it 3 weeks ago. So everything regarding the 990s that was said, both by Marla Tauscher and myself, was correct. McNall can call us liars but the documents are publicly available. I mean, what in the hell?

2011:

2012:

McNall openly lies about their annual budget and tries to imply that it was $10 million because Tauscher “confused” that number and added the assets, which included a new building, instead. No. He didn’t listen. Tauscher spoke of the 2012 return, which was prior to their new building. The PHS budget, according to both the 2011 and 2012 tax returns, is quite clearly around $10 million per year. If you want to focus on the assets then the 990s show assets of $20.8 million (2011) and $26.6 million (2012), respectively. He is blatantly lying.

Further, they may have just completed this huge new building (which is undoubtedly going to make their assets rise again for 2013 and beyond), with a $5 million hospital meant for spay and neuter surgeries, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s being used to full, or even half, capacity. You can build the nicest buildings in the world, all great. What it doesn’t do is guarantee that you are engaging the community and creating accessible opportunities to voluntarily spay and neuter. The building could sit empty for all that we know. How many do they do per day, week, month? Marla Tauscher tried to get this baseline information by doing a public records request but the Humane Society declined answering, saying that they weren’t subject to the California Public Records Act. Wrong!

Also, why in the world are the 2011 and 2012 tax returns so irrelevant to McNall? Doesn’t it provide precedent and a clear track record for what they are and are not doing? Because from what I’ve saw, whenever they (McNall and Campo) speak before the Council they make it sound as if they’ve been doing this outreach and voluntary sterilization work for many years, if not decades. So I’d think that looking back at your last few tax returns (and many more) is the dutiful and automatic thing to do. McNall finds this threatening. Why?

Continuing…

If 1 litter is allowed to go in this city and be euthanized because we don’t have space in our shelter to keep it, that’s wrong. And that’s why this ordinance was drafted and I applaud you for doing this. The State Humane Association of California applauds you for doing this. The California Animal Control Directors Association applauds you for doing this. And thank you very much.

First of all, that wasn’t why this ordinance was drafted. This ordinance was drafted after/because Councilman Madison’s breed-discriminatory policy was rebuffed by both the Council and the community. McNall knows this. Misrepresentation. Secondly, neither the State Humane Association of California nor the California Animal Control Directors Association support mandatory spay and neuter laws. Lies. As far as killing litters, or any dog or cat, notice how the current practices of the Pasadena Humane Society never comes under any kind of inspection, in relation to his verbal alarm ringing. Killing is mostly a choice. Space? I’ve been in that shelter. They have an entire section of empty runs that aren’t even used, sitting empty for a future construction project.

Last, let’s dive further into what is actually available. Based on the 2011 return, I stated that McNall made almost 3x ($152,336) what the PHS spent on sterilization efforts for that entire year and more than 39x what they spent on educational outreach. Well, for 2012 McNall apparently received a $12,000 raise! Yet their expenses for education and outreach decreased 47% from $3,829 to $2,031. Ouch. So his raise for 2012 was almost 6x what they spent on educational outreach for 2012. That’s outrageous. PHS did spend $12,825 more on their spay and neuter program from 2011 ($50,307) to 2012 ($63,132). In 2012 McNall still made more than 2.5x what they spent on spay and neuter efforts for the same year. Their 2012 budget was 164x bigger than what they spent on their spay and neuter program, amounting to far less than 1%. Don’t take my word for it, do the math yourself.

Before the majority of the Pasadena City Council (Madison, Gordo, Masuda, McAustin, Bogaard) plows forward on a mandatory spay and neuter law for all dogs and cats, they should look at the miniscule amounts of money that the Pasadena Humane Society are spending (or not spending) on “spay and neuter programs” and “education” up to this point. Because they routinely end up with a budget that is more than $10 million per year and carry assets that amount to over $26 million. For example, in 2011 their 990 shows that they only spent $50,307 on spay and neuter programs and another $3,829 on educational programs.

Uh oh. Well gee, if you’d attended any of the City Council meetings and listened to PHS representatives Steve McNall or Elizabeth Campo speak then you would have came away with the assumption that they are doing everything that they possibly can to lower shelter killing, provide affordable and accessible sterilization surgeries, and educate the public. Unfortunately, the realities go pretty much against that narrative and thus against what the City Council are being told and/or led to believe… Those figures amounted to spending less than 0.006% of their yearly $10 million on spay and neuter and 0.0003% on education.

In 2011 President Steve McNall alone made almost 3x ($152,336) what the PHS spent on sterilization efforts for that entire year. That’s more than 39x what they spent on educational outreach! Another point, the “revenue” that is being brought in by spending those allocated amounts on spay/neuter and education is routinely TRIPLE what they put into the programs… So they are making money by voluntarily spaying and neutering, and by doing the little amount of educating that they are doing. Why wouldn’t they be doing it more, and allocating more efforts and funds into those directions? Their return from 2012 shows much of the same proportionally.

Now I’m not suggesting here that McNall should take a pay cut, or anyone else, but rather that they should be putting far more money into accessible sterilization efforts as well as educational efforts. That’s not too much to ask. Especially when they are so quick to trot out the multiple sob stories about how much they are already doing, the lack of funding that they may run into when asked to do more, and the overwhelming need for this law in order to curb alleged overpopulation. What need? The Council was not talking about this law. They shot this same piece of legislation down less than a year ago. This is only now being reinserted as to allow Councilman Steve Madison an opportunity to save face, after his desire to scapegoat all Pit Bulls was resoundingly rebuffed by the community. Councilwoman Margaret McAustin, as told to me by an attendee at the last meeting, stated privately that she “just wants something” to be done. Nice. So whether it’s BSL or BSL-MSN or MSN, what’s clear is that most on this Council have no desire to simply hold individual owners accountable for the actions of their individual dogs.

Last week I read a piece in the L.A. Times that really bothered me. It was entitled “Hounding a homeless man into giving up his dogs” and was written by Gale Holland. There were a few local animal rescuers quoted within the article (Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith) and their way of dealing with this situation was both ugly and embarrassing.

The article centered around Gerrick Miller, a man living on the street, and his dog Sugar, who had just had a litter of 10 puppies. Shortly after they were born a rescuer (Smith) began videotaping the puppies and prodding others to drop by and photograph Sugar. Los Angeles Animal Services then began receiving email blasts accusing Miller of “operating a puppy mill for profit.” That accusation is just patently ridiculous. Further, the “rescuers” demanded that the department confiscate Sugar and her 10 puppies. Brenda Barnette, head of LAAS, replied that the dogs could not just be seized without cause, which is absolutely correct.

Just think… Do we really need a group of self-righteous animal rescuers deciding who should be able to have dogs and who shouldn’t? How subjective and outrageously draconian would that process quickly become?

Meanwhile, Smith continued videotaping Miller and his dogs, as well as different interactions that he had with a bicycle officer. Her video was then sent to Pryor and used as evidence showing the city’s “inaction.” Mind you, there’s no evidence of the dogs being treated poorly or being abused, and there’s no evidence to show that Sugar didn’t absolutely love Mr. Miller. Regardless, Jennifer Pryor let it be known that she was outraged that Barnette didn’t cite Miller for “breeding without a permit” or for “breaking the city’s spay and neuter law.” Wait, you mean the law that isn’t even enforced across the board? Why should a homeless person be targeted by a law that no one else in the city is targeted with? Where in the hell is your empathy?

Here’s an idea… How about promoting the concept that the city start policing their own ranks before harassing the most vulnerable members of Los Angeles? For example: How many animal rescuers are blatantly violating the pet limit within the city, but then turning around and calling other people hoarders? Any? I know that this number isn’t zero. How many animal rescuers are publicly condemning the concept of breeding but then privately breeding toy dogs on the side for profit? Any? I know that this number isn’t zero. Shouldn’t the department be focusing on them foremost? If a law, any law, is going to be enforced then it damn well better be enforced equally and consistently. Meaning, it damn well better affect everyone and not just target certain classes or types of people. That way we can all have a stake in seeing if it’s a decent law or a terrible one, and then have an honest go at communicating about it.

Jennifer Pryor is quoted in Holland’s article as saying “the homeless have become a serious problem of abuse and contributing to pet overpopulation.” Shame on you, Jennifer Pryor. That is a total misrepresentation steeped in exaggeration and completely barren of specifics. Whitney Smith chimes in that “if people are struggling, homeless and have addictions, another responsibility is not appropriate,” and that “it’s very easy to give a sob story for homeless, but the endgame for the animals isn’t pretty.” One of them also claimed that “homeless people breed Pit Bulls to sell as fighting dogs.” Ugh, total nonsense.

Below is a man that my girlfriend met when she happened to be carrying 1 of my cameras in her car. He would usually be very near to where she would exit for work, and he absolutely cherished his dog.

Dianne gave him a new leash, and he gladly accepted it and used it immediately. As you can see in the top photograph, he was using a pretty large chain. Should he be demonized for having a chain? Absolutely not. Offer him something to use instead. Dianne was very touched by the connection that this man had with his dog, and he was so proud of his pet. I could cite many more interactions like this and my point is that you just have to treat people like you want to be treated…

Just last week we drove up to San Francisco and made multiple stays throughout Big Sur. It was here where we’d see a woman walking alongside Hwy. 1 with her recyclables attached to her bicycle and her 2 dogs (below). We had to see her about 5 different times in the span of a few days. On our way down we pulled off to talk with her and then met her again at the general store where she was pulled off to get cleaned up. She was making her way to Carmel because she had been offered a job on a farm. Her name was Lisa and she had a little scruffy dog named Sandy and a Pit Bull named Baby. They were both adorable and loved their momma very much.

Anybody advocating to take these dogs from their people are authoritarian monsters who should be a million miles away from crafting any kind of policy.

Is there a homeless person out there somewhere in America that is being abusive or sending a dog to a dog fighter? I don’t know, I’m sure there might be. But does that represent 99+% of the people living on the streets with pets? Hell no! So instead of all of that bad energy, where’s the offered resources? Where’s the helping hand? Homeless people are people without a home, but they are still people. How about you give them something else to remember you by other than condemnation and judgment?

Also, when does the collective blaming stop? People do it to different breeds of dogs all the time. People do it to low-income communities all the time. People do it to folks out living on the street and right here is a grand example of it. And these are all just issues linked to a dog issue. Sadly, my fear is that in reading the condescending statements from Pryor and Smith, many uninvolved readers might now move to typecast all “animal rescuers” or “activists” as control freaks or bullies towards the poor. See the perpetuated cycle when people group-blame? It promotes and greases the skids for further group-blame. Obviously they should stop the selective enforcement and move whatever mountain to end that load of hypocrisy. But until that environment manifests itself homeless folks should be the last people Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith should be out targeting. Yet they are always the first because they are the easiest to target and least likely to have any recourse to defend themselves. Most importantly of all, the vast majority of these people very deeply love their pets. That love is being reciprocated. So many of these pets were homeless themselves prior to striking up a bond with whatever person. In comparison to you, think about how much more time and attention goes into keeping a pet with you 24/7. To downplay these connections, to look down upon this reality, to take away this possibility is just utterly outrageous and offensive.

Thankfully the article does include a few voices of reason. First, from Genevieve Frederick from Pets of the Homeless…

A quarter of the nation’s 600,000 homeless people keep pets. Shunned by many, ignored by most, homeless people live lives of piercing loneliness. These pets provide them with something they need to feel human: unconditional love, loyalty.

And then from Claudia Perez, a skid row rescuer…

The problem is they stereotype all homeless people. Gerrick loved his dogs.

Notice how in Holland’s article it’s revealed that Perez is actually the person that convinced Miller to relinquish the dogs. She told him that they’d all be fixed and vaccinated, and that the shelter would hold them as his. She drove him to the shelter to see how they were doing. None of that access is by coincidence, as he trusted Perez and that’s directly due to Perez NOT judging him or treating him like a 2nd class citizen. Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith act in the opposite ways, and make up the “they” that Perez is referring to in the above quote.

The article ends by stating that Gerrick Miller was oddly arrested a few days after surrendering his dogs and is now serving a 1 year sentence in a drug rehabilitation program. Sugar’s puppies will very likely be adopted or rescued. Sugar’s future is unknown but she is most likely still at a city shelter. If you happen to have her ID# please email it to me on Facebook.

I hope that many of you will take numerous things away from this filmed conversation between Myself, Tino Sanchez from Peace Love & Pit Bulls, Dana Keithly from THAT Group, Kim Wolf from Beyond Breed and Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent director Jeff Theman…

Issues discussed include BSL, anti-dog policy, housing, insurance, judgment, lack of resources, community engagement and outreach, condemnation, poverty, messaging, media, shelters and shelter politics, mandatory spay and neuter, mandatory training, enforcement, animal abuse registries, Michael Vick, dog fighting, owner vs. guardian termanology, rescue rejection, using tools, dog bite-related human fatalities, responding to hit-pieces, protest, verbal delivery, infighting, amongst other things.

Help Josh get the word out about his willingness to fill the newly vacated position of running the Carson shelter in Gardena, California.

Who to email?
mmayeda@animalcare.lacounty.gov, areyes@animalcare.lacounty.gov, info@lacountyanimals.org, plearned@animalcare.lacounty.gov, dreagan@animalcare.lacounty.gov, molina@bos.lacounty.gov, markridley-thomas@bos.lacounty.gov, seconddistrict@bos.lacounty.gov, zev@bos.lacounty.gov, don@bos.lacounty.gov, fifthdistrict@lacbos.org, info@lacounty.gov, njenkins@bos.lacounty.gov, djordan@bos.lacounty.gov, lrichardson@bos.lacounty.gov, brobinson@bos.lacounty.gov, amjohnson@bos.lacounty.gov, kkatona@bos.lacounty.gov.

Where to call?
213-974-1311 or 213-974-2222.

You can also sign a petition HERE.

Some of the rhetoric coming out of the Israel/Palestine conflict is so disparaging and reminds me of how hateful individual people can talk so terribly about entire groups. It’s a poisoning of the well.

I’m specifically talking about a Facebook post that was made by Israeli politician Ayelet Shaked on 6/30 of this year, 1 day prior to the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a Palestinian boy named Muhammad Abu Khudair. It’s claimed that his death was a random revenge killing that came in response to the murder of 3 Israeli teenagers. Within this post by Shaked, which cites an article by Benjamin Netanyahu’s former advisor Uri Elitzur, she promotes the idea of eviscerating the Palestinian people in a move of mass genocide. This post declares that “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy,” that “in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure,” and refers to Palestinian children as “little snakes,” while attempting to justify the universal destruction of their homes, or else “more little snakes will be raised there.” Terrible sentiments to be sure.

Just to be clear, I’m not implying that Shaked is ultimately to blame for any awful action that was committed by someone else. But the promoting of open genocide and hatred needs acknowledged, and surely adds to whatever energy that’s out there that’s incrementally moving some of us backwards. How this may play out in the public domain, especially when there’s further “support” for the hateful ideas (this particular comment was “liked” over 5,000 times at the time of me writing this), tends to then lead to the misrepresentation by some of pitting 1 group against the other, sweeping everyone up in a bitter and false feud of having to represent a side. This is a continuous perpetuation of divisiveness. Promoting that idea. Leading to that end.

In reality, we are all people, and also individuals in our own right. The horrendous actions of select Palestinian individuals do not represent the entire population of Palestine. They simply represent the person(s) who committed the act. To the same point, the horrendous actions of select Israeli individuals do not represent the entire population of Israel. They simply represent the person(s) who committed the act! Further, those horrendous actions do not represent every person who practices a specific religion, or any other conceptual separator. In a rush to blame, or react, people should not promote these evil ideas of collectively punishing entire groups for the actions of specific people. That is tyranny and the brazen incitement of hatred. It emboldens the draconian ideas of death and destruction. It pushes others to enter a primal state of me vs. you, and at whatever cost, and by using whatever means. As a matter of fact, collective punishment for the acts of a few is a war crime according to the protocols and treaties that came out of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Having this mentality, in any realm, leads to the worst possible ends. This is not what life is all about. 12 million people live amongst these 2 countries. 12 million people.

To relate my thoughts to Pit Bulls: In reality, dogs are all dogs, and also individuals in their own right. Except there’s a certain faction of folks out there who exist only to push collective blame, vilify breeds/types/groups, and promote extermination by any means possible. These are not the same concepts? You explain to me how.

People should try to love each other. We are all that we have. Don’t let evil elements who deal in darkness affect your individual heart and your state of mind. Let’s love the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. Let’s not add to the divisive fervor, turning our backs on the uninvolved (innocent) from both sides in the process. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

This past week I was fortunate enough to sit in on a Town Hall meeting about poverty that was hosted by Tavis Smiley. He brought in 5 different panelists and there was some really interesting information shared all around. Smiley is someone who comes at issues in a very genuine way and can take part in a dialogue at any time, no matter the party affiliation or differences in opinion of those that he may be talking with. That’s a great quality. In my eyes we seem to learn the most when there is a kind of friction of ideas, and the working through of those ideas, instead of just some lauded person being surrounded by his or her yes-men.

Poverty. What does it look like? What manifests out of it? These are extremely crucial elements and to attempt to solve anything you damn well need to attempt to account for these realities. I’m all for personal responsibility but there is also a thin line that surrounds this concept. We really need to be careful not to turn “personal responsibility” into a soundbite that just comes out in the form of a standard defense mechanism. Meaning, we cannot just flippantly condemn poor people for not taking responsibility if they were only given very few options that would ever pass for “responsible” in the first place. Our lives are all not the same. Each of us live very dynamic lives and it would be the kind thing to do if we could empathize with another person prior to moving to criticize them. By any standard I’m financially poor myself, but I also know that I’m better off than certain folks as well… If not in direct funds available then at least in direct support from engaged family and/or friends. I’m a lucky person, regardless of my real financial hardships that I do face. So with all of that, when I’m down I hope that I’m not kicked, and it’s because of that rule that I really try not to kick others.

What we find ourselves in the middle of today is that less than 1% of our country’s population owns over 40% of the nation’s wealth. A little over 400 individual people in America have a totality of wealth that is equivalent to the bottom 150 million people! 150 million people is half of the country. That half of the country is in or near poverty. This is data taken directly from the United States Census Bureau. By “near” they mean a couple of paychecks away… To give further context to this topic, we need to look at how arcane and out of touch the actual poverty level is ($23,000 for a family of 4), when aligned with living in certain areas of today’s United States. That whole thing might need some updating. Yet this debate, if there ever even is a debate, is always framed to seem like this only affects a small portion of us, as if it’s not relatable and thus not worth making a fuss over. That’s not okay.

For instance, Smiley talked about how nearly 30% of the Californians who are officially living in poverty actually live in Los Angeles County. They matter, their pets matter. We should be showing them support and not indifference or condemnation. This was a great quote that I wanted to include…

It used to be that in California what we did in public policy either cast a long shadow or a long sunbeam across the nation. It used to cast a long sunbeam. So much of what we are doing now is casting a long shadow across the country.

Here’s some pertinent statements from Marqueece Harris-Dawson of Community Coalition…

You look at a community like South Los Angeles. The number 1 employer is the school districts, the city, and the county, and in that order. All of those institutions, for the last 10 or 15 years, they’ve hired virtually no one.

So historically we have an income support system called welfare, and then we stopped that and we said now you have to go to work, except at the same time what we’ve done is that we’ve allowed companies to hire workers and then pay them in a way where government still has to subsidize that family.

We have this idea that we’ve let creep into our government that is actually very dangerous: Every work/job has to be worth more than what we are paying the worker. As long as you have that as an ideal, especially as the rate of profit goes down and down and down, you’ll have a situation where people will be working for things hardly called wages.

^Working may no longer be enough to raise certain people out of poverty. That is a problem. The lack of a living wage. Does that explain everybody or everything? Hell no. But if you think that that isn’t a current reality for some folks out there then you are kind of fooling yourself.

This came from Jonathan Fielding, director of the Public Health Department for L.A. County…

Poverty is a universal poison. We think of lead poison as bad in such a way. Poverty is an environmental poison. It’s a poison for everybody, because if you look at the impact of this poison it equates to higher healthcare costs, higher welfare payments, higher unemployment insurance. It’s causing a tax on everybody else, and so you should feel as though you have skin in the game. Why is the average life expectancy 85 in Brentwood and only 72.8 in Watts, which is just 20 minutes across town?

Well, there’s definitely a connection to poverty and poor health, just like there’s a connection to poverty and crime, just like there’s a connection to poverty and incarceration, and just like there’s a connection to poverty and how someone may treat an animal. That’s not to excuse any of it, just to point out that there’s a connection. At what level? I don’t know, but you can’t just pretend that it doesn’t matter. That’s also not to say or imply that people living in extreme poverty are guilty of any of those crimes. Not at all. But with less options and limited choices comes a higher rate of bad decisions. Poverty isn’t just about people being “poor,” and then allowing that characterization to so easily go in 1 ear and out the other. Poverty can permeate all aspects of a person’s life. It can lead to very legitimate suffering in a bevy of different ways. Many times it is a life and death situation, absolutely. Sometimes these issues are so multifaceted that we don’t even know where to start. But the point is that you have to start. We need more people willing to engage within this conversation. This is a “caring” issue. It is not a 1-stop shop, nor does 1 size fit all. Yet most of the really wild judgment that you will see will come directly out of that ideology. It’s important to make fundamental shifts in the rhetoric, because if all you are going to do is speak about groups of people in this negative and broad fashion then all you are going to end up accomplishing is alienating a lot of people that you don’t even know.

I’ve saw animal-related issues and the many purported solutions to some of those issues directly intersect with poverty, lack of education, and lack of access. If you want to solve these problems then you cannot ignore or condescend this issue. As I learn I’ve tried to include what I’ve learned into my writings. Many times I learn by directly seeing it play out in front of my face. When these topics are touched on there is oftentimes a heavy level of judgment that comes out of the woodwork. I think my first dose of being directly thrown into this kind of a fire/backlash was when I tried to partially defend a man who had his home raided by Scotlund Haisley and Animal Rescue Corps. It’s a whole new world when emotions come unhinged. Aside from that, being the moderator of my SwayLove Facebook page (and just being on Facebook in general) I see all kinds of random commentary that falls into this wheelhouse of outrageous judgement, and in December I wrote about it in a way that took on the hypocrisy of being an advocate for a portion of something while you are out possibly being really cruel to another portion of something else. Then there was the online fallout behind the Karma Rescue fiasco, which saw someone’s dog get rehomed after its owner came forward to try and get her dog back. Do you fight BSL (breed-specific legislation)? Well, if you do then you will find these many issues front and center alongside any desire to profile or target certain dogs, because the profiling goes beyond the dogs. And in May a bunch of us met with and witnessed the testimonies of many good-hearted folks who are trying to do the right thing but are coming up against a backwards mechanism that directly feeds off of this problem.

Poverty. Are we all becoming desensitized to this topic due to an utter lack of coverage on this topic? Quite possibly. A recent study from FAIR shows that over a 14-month period (1/2013-2/2014) “an average of just 2.7 seconds per 22-minute nightly news program was devoted to segments where poverty was mentioned.” Yikes. But this isn’t just a recent failure, this is a failure that simply continues to extend into our present lives. Did you know that it had been more than 50 years since a presidential debate had even asked a single question to any of the candidates about poverty? It only became a minimal focus in 2012 because of the leaked Mitt Romney video that showed him making his claim about the 47%. It’s never on any agenda. Very few in the mainstream media ever focus on it or even talk about it at all (and I say “mainstream media” because they’re the ones that formulate the most plastered messaging).

There’s a lot of stigma attached to poverty as well. Many people would probably rather not even admit that they are in it. Can you blame folks for not wanting to self-identify or acknowledge that they’re in dire need of help? Pride is part of the human condition. That, along with the demonization aspect of being called (or treated as if you are) “lazy” or worse. But knowing how much this issue may touch our own lives, and definitely people that we know, it should then be an issue that is ultimately able to galvanize lots of support instead of being something that splinters people and makes them feel ashamed.

More from Marqueece Harris-Dawson…

When people are living in poverty the choices that they end up making are really shaped by the choices that they have. A lot of times it’s not a lack of will or motivation but because of structural barriers that cause lack of opportunity and lack of investment in our neighborhoods and in our young people and their future.

^So very true. Someone’s socioeconomic status is of incredible importance. What kind of education do people have access to? What are their employment options? Will it pay a decent wage? What resources are present in their community? Is it safe? Does it have healthy food? What is the level of social neglect or police surveillance? Is there ample access to parks and playgrounds and churches and hospitals and grocery/drug stores? These are all factors that matter.

What are some more solutions, both in the bigger context of poverty and what we could take for the more focused realm of animal-related issues?

These are 2 differing thoughts from Tavis Smiley…

Wall Street has helped get us into this mess, Wall Street can help get us out. How? It’s very simple. It’s a small tax on every financial transaction that is done. Wall Street doesn’t produce products, they produce deals.

The toughest problem is that what we are trying to solve is that getting the media, getting those of us who control these stories being told, to tell the story that ought to, in fact, be told.

^I think a lot of people could take a very important lesson from that last statement. It’s up to us to advocate on behalf of the taken advantaged of, provide a voice or some kind of support, provide a platform for other people to share their stories, let them talk about what they are seeing, or worse, what they are enduring. Remain rational, represent yourself well, keep the judgment at a minimum, step outside of an already held perception. All of these things go a long way in “telling the story that ought to be told.” To his point about Wall Street, it also needs added that many financial establishments are doing this with fiat money that’s being printed out of thin air. So, how about they stop doing that already? Or tax those transactions. Or both! Towards the end of the forum I also gave a short comment that could easily be a solution to some of the nation’s financial woes… End the wars. Stop the militarism and interventionism, stop the policing of the world. This would immediately save $1 trillion (probably closer to $2 trillion) dollars a year. In turn, imagine what that money could be used for instead…

In summing up the point of this piece, I’m not saying that people should universally be given a pass, NOT AT ALL, but just that they shouldn’t be universally scapegoated or talked down to as if they aren’t actual individuals. That’s all. In my view, if you can at least treat people with respect then you’d be helping and not further perpetuating the many issues that often eat at the core of pet ownership, breed neutrality, and animal rescue.

To close, people might say: “Well, you try to tear down shelters all the time! How hypocritical of you!” No I don’t. When I speak about shelter-related issues it is primarily linking back to the Carson shelter, and in those cases they are pretty specific and detailed/documented statements/criticisms that I put out there. These things are based in actual incidents and not uninformed generalities. When I talk about shelters in the more general sense I mindfully scale back how I speak, and while I at times still have what I’d feel are legitimate criticisms, I never state or imply that all shelters are 1 way or that everyone that works for them are 1 way. I’d challenge anyone to find evidence to the contrary, as I’ve written enough about both topics. There’s a huge difference in speaking about specific incidents and/or examining the way a public shelter is run and typecasting massive groups of anything (whether by race, religion, economic status, place of residence, appearance, etc.) by judging them in the most ignorant of ways. A huge difference.

Watch who you piss off in this town. People will apparently cut you off in an instant for even moving to see another version of the presented reality. That’s what I’ve now learned. And without a word. Good for them. When you need help and ask me, I’ll still give it. Just putting that message out there. I hope that goes both ways. But my questions remain questions. So if I’m to be condemned for seeing someone’s side who is going up against a multifaceted juggernaut, then so be it.

Truth is, it seems that with each week that goes by, almost without fail, another example is provided of how this animal welfare/rescue community is one of the most fractured and vindictive slices of work you could ever get involved in. Sad, but basically true. I hope that me being candid doesn’t serve to make others want to not get involved. Actually, the point of what I’m about to write is meant to inspire exactly the opposite. I want others to get involved, become engaged, speak your truths and try to be as decent as possible. All this is relevant when it’s of popular opinion, and same goes for when it’s not. I don’t claim ownership over all of the facts, nor do I know even remotely close to everything, but I can recognize when something doesn’t make sense and I will state as much.

I actually have to go out of my way to state that “I don’t know all of the facts” and that “I don’t know everything,” because people will actually parrot this back to me as if I’ve ever acted as though either was true. They’re not. I admit that I’m dumb and blind on more than I’m smart and sighted. But I try to pick and choose things that I deem important, and things that I find interesting, and then become as knowledgeable and open to possibility as I can be. That choice makes sense to my own heart and that is really all that matters.

With all that being said, I’ve taken some extreme heat here lately from 2 rather large organizations and their supporters. Much of this comes in public communications from people disagreeing with me, which is totally great and necessary for healthy communication, and I embrace and respect this each and every time as I’m nobody any more important than the next person. But then many times I find myself asking if some of these people actually genuinely disagree with me or are they just defending for the sake of defense? And beyond that, much more is what people don’t see, but what is ultimately being said and done in private, the hidden influence and the gossip, because that’s how most people work.

So, many of you are probably like, “Well, what the heck is this about?” A few days ago I put out a Facebook post questioning the validity of some of the storylines coming from the recent raid in Palm Springs known as “Operation Desert Dogs.” This was done by the Animal Rescue Corps, otherwise known as ARC, on a man that was caring for between 13 and 15 dogs in his home. If you watch the media clips, many which are still available (some that are not), you will hear phrases like these: “Hoarder,” “hoarding situation,” “covered in scars from fighting,” “deplorable conditions,” “animals were not cared for and neglected,” “excessive feces” and “cockroaches coming off of the dogs.” Okay. Sounds really bad. The videos don’t look ^that bad, aligned with all of those statements, even on first view. Now before anyone jumps the gun, I’m not saying that what these videos show isn’t extremely unfortunate, sad, bad, all of it. But I’ve seen “really bad,” and this doesn’t even come close to quantifying as that. Unsafe? Yeah, potentially. Overwhelming? Yeah, for sure. You can clearly see that all of the dogs are of sound weight and are displaying pretty good temperaments during this frenzy. Odd, considering what was stated.

What’s far more odd is that I was actually contacted privately by someone that I know and trust, someone who is actually in direct contact with the man in question, and there seems to be a ton more to this raid/rescue than what meets the eye. First of all, the shelter apparently adopted out an unaltered male dog to this man, while at the same time telling him he was already fixed (they even provided a neuter certificate). He had an unaltered female at home and wala, nature ran its course and by the time he realized it the deeds had already been done. Also, this man actually reached out to (and was covered by) the news back in August of 2012 after he was cited for having an “illegal kennel.” The man who cited him? The same shelter employee who adopted out the unsterilized male! He openly asked for help then, was given no options by the shelter and even turned away when the new litter came. So the guy raised them himself. They gave him 2 months to find homes for the dogs, those 2 months came and passed, they did nothing. Also, he actively tried to surrender 11 of the dogs to the shelter (due to pressure from outside areas and not getting re-homing help from the rescue community) just a week before this raid happened and they turned him away again. Why? Why? Why? Why? And why?

Why was a dog adopted out from the shelter intact, while at the same time telling the adopter that the dog had already been neutered and providing him with a certificate of the neuter to boot? Why did his media appearance from 8/2012 and subsequent requests for help go ignored by the rescue community? Why did the shelter fail to act upon their threat regarding the “illegal kennel”? Why did the shelter turn away the newborn litter? And why did the shelter turn away 11 of his dogs just a week prior to the planned raid? No one can answer any of these questions.

But oh, I have more… Why was there no feces shown laying anywhere in any of the videos or pictures? The conditions were far from ideal, granted, but the words thrown around the media don’t match the numerous visuals. Why were all of his dogs of sound weight, 2 even residing at his private vet during the raid (and they were also seized), and yet the promoted talking points were that he “didn’t care for his dogs” and “neglected” them? Why was a huge 501c3 welfare organization allowed to act under the color of law, in apparent conjunction with the shelter, animal control and the police department? Has the 4th amendment been eroded so badly that 40+ people of no legal authority can rummage through someone’s home, taking pictures and recording video, all to be used to villainize him in the media later? Why would that ever be done in such a way, and to a man that has asked for help and been both ignored and turned away? Why is this man’s personal dog, Bowser, constantly trotted out in front of the cameras as the prime example of how all of the dogs were constantly fighting? This man will tell you that Bowser was found on the streets over 2 years ago and has had those scars the length of their time together, that they came from being beat up pretty badly by multiple Dobermans. He has the vet bills that show that care was provided. Why does this man refute their constant claims that he willingly gave up all of his dogs? And if they really wanted to rescue the dogs, why didn’t they privately work with this man (at any time) in order to do just that, instead of setting all of this up and absolutely dragging him through the mud?

So I called out character assassination and started defending this man on numerous points. I also said that based on many of the things that I’ve now stated here, that it was my opinion that the shelter refused his dogs because the raid was already in the works and had he been able to surrender 11 of his 15 dogs there would have been no justification for any kind of a raid. You take what you want from that. But it’s hard to dispute, especially with the many questions that have gotten no answers. I called it an unnecessary spectacle. Yup. I stand by that.

ARC supporters started calling me a “conspiracy theorist.” They started questioning what kind of animal advocate I was if I didn’t have any problems with the condition of the home. Putting words in my mouth. Then after trying to beat back some of the more extreme judgments about the condition of this person’s home, they then started saying that I was implying that all poor people lived like hoarders. Putting more words in my mouth. Tim Woodward, COO of Animal Rescue Corps, dismissively stated that I was “not even credible enough to take seriously” and then called the points that I raised “hazy conspiracy theories.” There’s that label again. Okay.

So there’s that. And that coupled with all of the backlash that I’ve taken over the last 2 months regarding what is going on with NKLA and their “No Kill December” stuff. Good God, I’m simply asking questions and pointing out some highly legitimate shit. But no, that apparently quantifies me as a “hater” of NKLA. Really? Let me state this again, and again, and again…

I LOVE BEST FRIENDS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE SHELTER ADOPTIONS AND RESCUES AND TO DECREASE KILLING.

I LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE CORPS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS ANIMALS.

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ME OUT TO BE YOUR ENEMY SIMPLY BECAUSE I ASK SOME DAMN GOOD QUESTIONS AND ATTEMPT TO BRING FORTH SOME GENUINE POINTS, WELL, THAT’S YOUR PREROGATIVE. THAT STILL DOESN’T MAKE ME YOUR ENEMY, THAT JUST MEANS THAT YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF.

SO ONCE AND FOR ALL, I LOVE YOU BOTH AND AM GENUINELY YOUR ALLY IN YOUR NUMEROUS POSITIVE EFFORTS. THANK YOU FOR EXISTING. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT I’M A ROBOT THAT DOESN’T HAVE MY OWN THOUGHTS, NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT I’LL STUMP OFF OF A PREDETERMINED SCRIPT IN ORDER TO BLINDLY DEFEND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO. IF THAT IS OFFENSIVE, OR A THREAT TO YOUR GOALS, WELL, THEN THAT’S JUST REALLY SAD. THAT IS ALL.