As many of you know, I will take a random day and go down to the shelter with the intention of photographing every single Pit Bull or mix that that specific shelter houses at that time. I’ll then upload that group of photos with the intention of initiating a massive networking blitz for these dogs. I depend on all of you to help me, and hopefully from that we make a big difference in a few of these dogs’ lives. I follow each dog that I photograph, and make public whatever information I learn concerning whether the dog was adopted/rescued/redeemed/killed, etc.

Well, on 9/17/2011 I was at the Carson shelter, and these numbers don’t lie…

50 Pit Bulls/mixes were photographed.
Of those 50, 37 were killed.
Of the 13 that were saved, 2 were redeemed by their owners, and 7 were directly saved through networking efforts that originated on my picture threads.
I say that not to toot my own horn–because I usually play a marginal role once the pictures go live–but more to underscore how big of a difference a simple photograph can potentially make for an innocent shelter dogs life. If you want to volunteer your time, please do that, as these dogs would definitely enjoy the company of any loving and genuine person.

But let’s be clear… What I do should be WELCOMED by Carson, as it HELPS their dogs reach a public audience. My intention is to HELP get the dogs adopted, rescued, saved. You’d think that any shelter would embrace that kind of an organic effort. Unfortunately, politics and a bullying need for an iron curtain rules supreme inside many of these facilities. Their own fear of their “public image” being squandered prohibits them from even allowing genuine people to offer assistance in any kind of a collaborative fashion. They need control of information at all times, and they don’t want any negative press coming from any direction–even if it’s simply just someone telling the truth, aka stating facts, aka bringing light to a situation. They then fear double the public blowback that may come when this information is given to an open public. This is one of this shelter’s many problems, the shrinking from transparency, not unlike Government… The giving the illusion of caring, while they continue to plunder in the shadows–again, not unlike Government. What Carson specifically doesn’t realize is that blowback’s coming when you act like that. People aren’t stupid. Many can see through that charade from the minute it’s trotted out. So why push a willing participant away when he wants to help you adopt out your Pit Bulls, wants to help you lower your kill numbers, etc.? This isn’t a question for me, it’s for them, and unfortunately I’ve been left asking it from the very second that I walked out of Gil Moreno’s office many, many months ago.

But see, even with the (unwanted) networking assistance, their kill-rate was still 74% of all of the Pit Bulls existing on the property on that day in September. That is disgraceful.
You then take the 7 dogs out of the equation that had their rescue’s spring from the Facebook threads, and that kill-rate all of a sudden jumps to 88%!
I mean, what in the hell is going on at Carson? These numbers simply cannot be ignored.

To Carson and the LA County DACC: Since you continue (for now) evading my public records requests, I’ll just simply begin publishing the fractions of numbers that I know to be factual. You got a problem with it? Then either stop this public relations facade & embrace the fact that you actually KILL DOGS, or just stop killing so many dogs! I know that would require putting some kind of effort forth, but that’s your job… Is that that horrible? In my view you need to formulate some alternatives, take long/hard looks at internal policies, do some adoption events, reengage your staff and a certain portion of your volunteers, and drop whatever lazy weight still exists–amongst other things. But start. Do something. Try. Care. Please!

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend a conference on “shelter litigation,” put on by the UCLA Animal Law program. One of the guest speakers for the night was Sheldon Eisenberg, the attorney who successfully sued the L.A. County DACC (Department of Animal Care and Control), on behalf of Cathy Nguyen and Rebecca Arvizu.

I wanted to write an article not only detailing what I learned, but to reinforce what I already knew–and to make unequivocally clear to the shelters (Carson) who troll my website and who fear-monger their own staff and volunteers, that what they are doing is wrong and illegal. They already know this, as they have been sued and were resoundingly defeated in a court of law. But based on their own actions, it seems as though they care not what the results of this lawsuit was, and that they would instead rather carry on the same way as before, as to insinuate that they think no one else will stand up and sue again.

Let it be stated clearly: Section 1983 (42 U.S.C § 1983) applies to anyone who is acting as authority under state law–be it Government, municipalities, police, and certainly city & county animal shelters.

The 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives each and every citizen the freedom of speech, the right to complain, the right to petition and redress i.e. demand abuses are addressed. This right can in no way be trampled on by anyone, let alone by a bureaucrat within a tax-payer funded animal shelter. If a shelter manager claims otherwise, they are LYING. If a “volunteer agreement contract” makes you state that you “shall not talk,” it has no justification under the law to make such a claim. This is a breach of a person’s most fundamental and important right, and if shelter managers are still parading around as if they hold this power, they just haven’t had their bluff called in a court of law. They have no power or claim over this right, end of story, period.

As far as going about “showing an actual injury” if you are considering filing a lawsuit… The “injury” is the loss of a governmental benefit or privilege. This absolutely WILL hold up in court. The fundamental point is that there shouldn’t be any retaliation going on, not arguing over the semantics of what defines an “injury.” People are entitled to the benefit of being a volunteer.

This is the problem… Good, honest and compassionate people are working as shelter volunteers all across this country. That is a fact! Not only that, but many of them enter as staff with those same exact noble personality traits and with totally genuine intentions. It’s only when they get thrown into the belly of the beast, seeing and experiencing the draconian bureaucracy first hand, that 1 of 2 things normally happens: Either 1.) They (knowingly or unknowingly) allow this daily depressing reality to shift and change them as human beings, extinguishing the good qualities that they once held dear and high. They become disengaged and beaten down, desensitized to the realities and then before they know it they are just passively accepting them. Or 2.) They remain kind and good, honest individuals who try to go above and beyond what their job descriptions demand–but find themselves boxed in or constantly shut down by a superior. This then multiplies in scope, as instances pile up and situations are witnessed–and when a volunteer or staff member wants to, or feels it necessary to speak out, they are forced to weigh the real possibility of losing their job. This is done through obvious insinuation, outright and blatant threats, and most notably the given “illusion” by a manager or superior that they actually hold this ability. These people are then, as staff, faced with losing their source of income–and as volunteers, faced with losing their access to the animals that they love and want to help. They wrestle with this, and 99x out of 100 choose to do nothing, due to the fear of retaliation.

Cathy, on the other hand, didn’t let the fear of retaliation deter her from speaking out and voicing her many concerns. This promptly resulted in Marcia Mayeda, in concert with the Carson shelter and on behalf of the entire L.A. County DACC, revoking her pull rights as a rescue partner. This illegal action was swiftly reversed with a lawsuit… So please, let Cathy serve as an example, and as an inspiration to all others going forward.

The tricky part to all of this involves finding an attorney who will actually take cases like these on, and do them for free, as most of us cannot afford lengthy representation. Under 42 U.S.C § 1988 there is a set precedent for awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, so this will be 1 likely route of repayment for concerned attorneys. Another is California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. Many attorneys will consider doing pro bono work if they are passionate about the cause, it’s just a matter of finding them…

Lastly, Eisenberg went over what litigation can and cannot do…

What litigation can do?
~Address clear violations (ongoing and systematic conduct)
~Generate attention/publicity « Important, as public and media scrutiny puts pressure on officials to actually do their jobs. This may also develop an incentive to correct any problems, as to avoid further scrutiny.

What litigation cannot do?
~Change shelter management
~Implement effective outside supervision (3rd party monitors)*
~Create No Kill shelters
*This comes into question though, as Carson and the L.A. County DAAC have already been sued–and with that, have agreed upon a settlement with conditions. If they are found to be “not complying” with the demanded changes attached to the prior settlement, that then creates a situation where outside supervision could be argued as necessary… All of this remains to be seen.

My final message to the people whose voices are being suppressed, whose concerns are being silenced, and whose intentions are being met with retaliatory threats: You need to know your rights. You need to take the necessary action if it is required. This is the only way that things will change… Come together, talk amongst each other, do not be bullied into going along with something that you know is not right. This is how oppression stays in place, when good people do nothing.

“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Is this a joke? I mean, clearly it’s not, but c’mon. Can the discriminatory media, in this case the New York Post, sink any lower and obscure any farther? I find it stunningly disgraceful that a human being can flat out murder another human being, and then that portion of information comes secondary to the news that the alleged-murderer “owned” a Pit Bull. What does that silently say about the demonization going on here?

This dog had “dried blood on it’s face and snout”? Well yes, I’d assume as much, as someone WAS MURDERED in the apartment in which he lived! But seriously, how does anyone know how the blood got there? The browser subtext reads “City marshals intending to evict Upper East Side tenant find him DOA in pool of blood; dog-owning roommate questioned.” Just as plausible is that the dog could have sniffed, nudged, or licked the murdered individual, or the “pool of blood,” or better yet–the dog could have just walked through a certain area, because again, who knows how much blood was ultimately dispersed from this human-on-human act… They claim bite marks? I’d like to see them. We all know how this sensationalistic garbage is spewed in these short media accounts, just check the story’s headline! And if there was ultimately bites on the body? Well, the 2 persons were physically fighting… This easily could have caused this dog to enter whatever struggle did occur.

With that being said, would ALL Pit Bulls enter a human-on-human fight? No. Many would cower or go as far away from the confrontation as possible. It’s all subjective to the relationship that the dog may have to its owner, the dogs own personality, and other variables–many of which are obviously in play for this specific situation… But just to be clear, from a basic standpoint, it’s not even a “negative” thing if your own dog (whatever breed) would jump in with the intention of standing up and potentially protecting you. This happens all the time, as dogs LOVE their people. Unfortunately this trait can be exploited–as dogs, especially Pit Bulls, live to please their owners, even when they themselves are not being treated well by that same owner. Quickly read through the paragraph detailing Dyer’s “some 20 arrests for crimes that include assault,” and it’s pretty safe to assume that this person was not a very good guy. Chances are he treated his dog, Bones, like shit. I don’t know either way, but my point is that the dog shouldn’t be blamed for…
1.) Having a bad owner.
2.) Being thrown into an environment where 2 people are trying to actually kill each other.
3.) Someone actually being killed by another person.

Oh yes, someone was actually murdered by Shaun Dyer–but yet the Pit Bull is getting the headlines, and worse, being subliminally tied to that act (which he had no part of) through the media’s coverage. That is the America that we live in. This needs changed.

Also, does anyone find it odd that Animal Control officers were able to remove Bones “without any problems”? Afterwards leaving him “tied in front of the building for hours.” Hmm, that’s so curious. For a dog in which YOU, the media, would rather us believe (through implication) was viciously out of control… Further down the article calls Bones a “snarling beast.” And yet he was just left tied to the front of the building for passersby? That doesn’t add up. See what reading does? Those are 2 dissenting pieces of information that probably didn’t make it into the televised sound bite-reality.

Lastly, I’m glad that there are some existing quotes in the piece that are actually sticking up for the dog… I will note them here:

I knew him when he was a good-natured and good dog. I took him for a walk once. The dog takes on the personality of the owner. If the dog is mistreated, he’s going to mistreat others.

And even more damning, coming from someone who sees the dog 4x a week, postal worker Rafael Reveron…

I’ve worked in the area for five years. I’ve seen the dog three to four times a week. The dog does not seem aggressive, it doesn’t even bark.

What will happen to Bones? I hope someone is following his story…
Shaun Dyer is charged for murder, yet his name is nowhere in the headline. “Murder” itself, appears nowhere in the headline. Where is Shaun Dyer’s picture? Not included. On the other hand, “Pit Bull” most definitely appears in the headline, as well as a picture of Bones for full programming effect. This is completely unjust, make no “bones” about that.

Pit Bull lovers: Please honestly think about this scenario… What happens if someone breaks into your home and your dog actually jumps up to protect you? What if this intruder’s intention was to rob, rape, or murder you or your family? And ultimately, does it matter what the intention was? As the person was breaking into your home, so the intention wasn’t good regardless… So what if this intruder is then actually injured by your dog. Is the intended crime and criminal going to lead the news story? Or will your dog injuring the intruder, and its “type,” actually BE the news story? I know that sounds ridiculous… But our media is ridiculous, and this is a legitimate fear!

Fact: At times we find ourselves living in a hateful and ignorant world where it may seem that love and common sense isn’t able to counterbalance the insanity. PLEASE CONTINUE TO LOVE AND THINK LOGICALLY ANYWAYS, AS IT’S ALWAYS WORTH THE EFFORT.

*Update* Bones is now listed as being held at a Manhattan shelter with the notes “attacks people” on his file, his shelter ID# is A913969… What a travesty! Here’s his intake photo from the “Urgent Part 2” Facebook page.

*Update II* Bones is still alive, being kept for “evidence” at a Manhattan shelter facility! What is to become of him after they do the forensic impression of his teeth? This quote comes from a law enforcement source working on the case…

He had a horrible owner, but he’s a wonderful dog. He’s just as happy as can be.

Prior reading: LA County passes draconian “dangerous” dog law amendments

In many shelters across this state, dog cages (primarily those housing Pit Bulls) are being left without having kennel cards attached… My video attempts to illustrate this, by doing a random walk-through where all of the video clips were taken within 1 hour of each other. This specific example was shot at the Carson shelter in Gardena, California.

What this creates is a MUCH more difficult time for the general public, be it networkers or worse, the actual potential adopters. Instead of having all of the relevant information displayed correctly, many dogs have nothing, which then forces people to have to go into the office and wait (sometimes multiple hours when busy) just to ask a question concerning an ID# or anything else that may be of interest. This drastically reduces the already slim chances that a dog has to make it out alive. Also, the phone system is just as bad, so if someone opts to go home and instead call at a later time, they may find themselves on hold for 30+ minutes, or at times FAR longer. This is UNACCEPTABLE.

Apparently some people were actually surprised by yesterday’s outcome. Count me as not one of those people. Does that make me a pessimist? I don’t think so. I just know that for the most part, so many politicians (big and small) are out to serve the private industries, institutions and corporations that so freely give them money for their cooperation. Some of us call that “hush-money.” Show me a politician that doesn’t take the easy way out and I will be glad to sing their praises. Not saying that there aren’t any out there, but the list is small in comparison.

All that aside, I could fully tell within 5 minutes of viewing the online stream of the “hearing” (what a joke) that “Mayor” Antonovich was:
1) Checked out.
2) Rude.
3) Uncompassionate.
4) Inconsiderate.
5) Inappropriate.
And 1 better, he was a complete asshole… At one point (and this is true, see video below) telling one of the public speakers that her deciding not to have any more children was probably a good idea and then laughing about it! I mean, correct me if I’m wrong but those are the types of comments that people in his position get fired resign over.

Anyways–I’d originally intended to physically go there and make a public comment, like many other citizens did and did very well. My dog Neola got hurt the night before and by the time I contemplated an early morning vet visit, then ruled it out, it was already an hour into the meeting. I still drove up but then couldn’t find parking and ended up driving back home for an all around pointless day. Luckily I found out there was an online live stream of the meeting, so I tapped into that and waited for the appropriate item to come up.

When I say that I “waited” it literally means that I waited hours, plural. This thing was definitely a snail-train of carelessness from the point-of-view of our glorious “elected” officials. These individuals sat there twiddling their thumbs as they rattled off issue after issue and ignored public comment after public comment. It was kind of stunning and yet not at the same time… Every issue–no debate, approved, and then on to the next one. Their reaction to the constant flow of public emotion was a silent monotony of foolishness. Not bothering to entertain even a single point, just going through the motions like the bought-and-paid-for schmucks that they probably are. With the dog amendment item specifically there were numerous attorneys who gave public comments, as well as a doctor and a dog behaviorist, but yet ALL concerns fell upon deaf ears.

Now–due to the Board’s utter lack of care or concern for this (as of yesterday) potential change, the definition of “severe injury” has changed and been broadened, the definition of “potentially dangerous dog” has changed and been broadened, and most insanely, animal control officers (who are completely unqualified and bias beyond imagination) now have the right to play judge and jury with these animals lives. It is downright shameful. It is downright tyrannical. It is downright unconstitutional what has happened.

Since the Board of Supervisors and county officials (including entrenched drone Marcia Mayeda) were so set on focusing their energy on rearranging definitions, I was set on giving a public comment based around “other” definitions… Here is what I would have said if given a few minutes:

Allow me to present a few definitions for you guys to knock around in your mind… Starting with the all-encompassing word “potentially” that you place in front of the already vague phrase “dangerous dog,” then defining the words that may appear in the definition of the first word, in an effort to get to the “root” of what these types of words basically mean…

Potentially ~ possibly but not yet actually
Possibly ~ perhaps; maybe
Perhaps ~ maybe; possibly
Maybe ~ perhaps; possibly; a possibility or uncertainty
Uncertainty ~ the state of being uncertain; doubt; indeterminacy; indefiniteness
Doubt ~ to be uncertain about; considered questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe; distrust
Distrust ~ to have no trust in; to have no faith or confidence in

Hmm… That kind of speaks for itself, right?

Now let’s take an individual case of crime, centering around an individual of a certain race (which would be comparable to a “breed” of dog in the below scenario). If this individual, who for examples sake was caucasian, robbed a liquor store with a .45 caliber pistol and ended up shooting the attendant in the neck, fatally injuring him, does that then make HIM “dangerous”? My answer would be YES. Now let’s take the same exact scenario, except the individual doesn’t fire the pistol, but robs the store with the clear verbal intent to fire… Does that then make HIM “potentially dangerous”? My answer would be YES. Notice my emphasis on the phrase “HIM.” That’s me making a distinction based on the individual cases, and I’d think that that is all okay by any rational person. What is not okay is when you take and encompass ALL from any area or group or type, based on a common trait instead of a common action. So taking the above example into account, as well as the fact that I’m also clearly caucasian, does that then make me “potentially dangerous” as well? *Waiting for an answer from the Board* Because this is the standard that is essentially being rubber-stamped.

What kind of pandora’s box is being opened when using this kind of loose/non-specific/vague language? It quickly turns a person (in this case an animal control officer) into a dictator… No court, no jury, no debate–“It just is” because someone says it is.

Pit Bulls specifically have been and will continue to be more victimized by this type of broad-sweeping discrimination than any other type of dog. Animal control officers are the same people that generally, by policies that they themselves instituted, fail Pit Bulls on temperament tests, deeming them unfit for public adoption and literally sticking the needle into their arms in droves. Nice people indeed. And now these same people, who represent the entrenched and failed sheltering system, are now put into a position to legally decide what fits the bill of “potentially dangerous”? Well how about I save them all some time and proclaim that ALL OF US fall under the definition of “potentially,” just by definition alone, as we are all “possibly” capable of taking that gun into the liquor store… It’s an all-encompassing word based around a not yet actual act. Basically like the infamous concept of “precrime” from the Tom Cruise-movie Minority Report.

Fact: Animal control officers are patently unqualified to make these assertions. The phrasings of the definitions themselves, which the “assertions” would be based around are beyond flawed and non-specific. This is a magnificent cluster of criminality and yet it was rubber-stamped by these bozo’s quicker than a toad could pull a fly out of the air. The fact of the matter is that this “Board,” in tandem with our county shelter institution (LA County DACC), are absolutely peddling in a gigantic steaming pile of tyranny.

I’ll end this article with 2 definitions…
1 which this decision is FULL of:
Tyranny ~ unlimited or unrestrained exercise of power, absolute abuse of authority.
and 1 which this decision has NONE of:
Common sense ~ sound practical logic that is independent of specialized training.

Relevant links:
The online petition that was given less than a week to gather signatures prior to this “change” being secretly shoved down our throats at a rapid pace.
The letter created by a group of attorneys and presented to the Board in opposition to the proposed amendments to Title 10.
The press release entitled “Mayor Antonovich hands down death sentence,” based around the result of the “hearing.”

Yesterday I posted this on Facebook:

Here is the applicable statement, taken from an email capture:

Please click the below thumbnail to see the entire screenshot of an internal email between the shelter manager and the head volunteer:

This news is just devastating. There’s no other way to state it, and so I will state it how it needs to be stated… This shelter is quite literally a Pit Bull concentration camp. Yes, I said it. And please know that I will continue to say as much, and there is nothing this shelter can do to intimidate me from relaying this message that I currently believe to be true.

It’s disgusting what they did to this dog. Not only the fact that they murdered her this morning, but just as equally how they suppressed her genuine chances of ever making it out the door safely.

She originally came into the shelter on 6/12, and was held as a “confiscate” due to her prior owner being imprisoned. From the very first day I ever saw her, she was being held in the back of their building–fenced off from the public, in their “quarantine” section. Okay, that makes sense at the time–her being “unavailable” while her owner goes through a legal process… What doesn’t make sense however is how the staff made her “available” for public adoption, but then didn’t move her out of the “quarantine” section.

There are numerous problems with this:
01) Visually, the impression that is given is that she is UNAVAILABLE!!
02) The public CANNOT interact with her because there is a big steel fence blocking access to the front of her kennel. (Yes, if you go around the back like I did in the below video you can then play with her, but that still doesn’t discredit any of my points concerning the average shelter-goer)
03) There was never any access to her kennel card (see: fence), which not only re-speaks to point 01) but also creates a scenario where any potential adopter would then need to go into the lobby and pull a number, waiting to be called. During Carson’s “busy” times (which is almost ALWAYS) this wait could take anywhere from 2-4 hours (like was the case when I went to get Lyla and Bart).

This type of shit is UNSPEAKABLE!! It’s just patently absurd to the highest degree. It is no exaggeration that this animal was literally the friendliest dog on the entire property!! Not only that, but she was highly adoptable and would consistently beg for public interaction from anyone within a 10 yard radius…

Please view how submissive she was, and how she would beg for attention:

Now–after watching that video please be aware of ANOTHER HURDLE Carson placed in her way: She scored a “C” on their ridiculous temperament test.
This test was automatically given to her because of her mix which included Pit Bull.
»a “C”!?!?«
Once again, this marks the finest example yet that Pit Bulls/mixes ARE PENALIZED/MARKED DOWN if they are considered “very submissive” or “shy” or “scared.” How is that not a complete travesty? This dog was the definition of an “A” temperament. If I had a huge rooftop to shout this from then I’d be up there right now losing my voice…

It has also been stated by others that there was 3 rescue-related IP’s on this dog’s file. And at least 1 of those individuals WERE NOT called to place a firm CTA on the animal prior to her being killed. If that was the case then this could possibly be in violation of a stipulated order. If you are one of the rescue’s that feel as though this dog was killed without notice to you, I urge you to please CLICK HERE and fill out and submit this stipulated order violation form…

Lastly I will just say: Whomever walked this animal back to the kill room and didn’t say “screw it” and run the other way, or didn’t refuse and beg for more time or didn’t quit right there on the spot is a coward. To the person that willingly stuck the death needle into this animal: You are a coward. To the person that ordered that this animal be killed: You are a coward. It’s a choice that these shelters are making, to not reform/change/adapt etc. Anything that they say otherwise is a deterrent to the truth, and anyone taking side with their shit is an apologist or scared for their current position.

This BEAUTIFUL dog is named Azul and he is currently at the Carson shelter in the 3rd building. His ID# is A4307392 and he is extremely shy and scared from whatever he has been through already in his young life. It takes awhile to gain his trust, but after 3 visits he finally felt comfortable enough to stand in front of me and show me he was no longer scared…

He is ABSOLUTELY NOT aggressive, and if/when Carson decides to get around to temp-testing him, that is probably what they will try to claim… They use “shyness” against dogs, they use “uncertainty” against dogs, they use “being frightened” against dogs, and so on and so forth… It’s a mislabeling fiasco over at this shelter–as many of my prior posts have attempted to illustrate–and hopefully we can continue to bring light to these continuous absurdities…

Please share/network the heck out of Azul’s video, because he has VERY limited time there… I have no doubt that the shelter will QUICKLY use his shyness against him and my fear is that they will be ending his life at the first opportunity that presents itself… This is as URGENT of a plea as a plea can be! Going out for 1 very special soul, and praying to God that they don’t extinguish his little light…

Him ~ “This is what we do for aggressi….., err I mean dominant breed dogs.”
Me ~ Wait, you just said aggressive…
Him ~ “Oh, no I didn’t.”
Me ~ Well, actually you did, you kind of stopped yourself…
Him ~ “Well, if I did I didn’t mean to, I meant dominant breed.”