This is a comment that I recently received under one of my Facebook posts:

I don’t like it either but the real blame lies with those who don’t spay/neuter, and then when their dogs do get pregnant they abandon them. Don’t shoot the messenger. I AM NOT CONDONING PUTTING DOWN ANY DOG, but if you look at what is happening it is the irresponsible behavior of the general public who continues to breed without conscious and repercussions, and those who continue to help them make it happen by buying those pups.

A: That reality doesn’t justify solely shifting the blame off of the shelters. A lot of the stuff that you said, to me, is very valid and (sadly) represents things that happen everywhere. With that being said, when people ultimately choose to abandon their animals they then pay the repercussions of that decision and whatever karmic situation unfolds for them in the future. Yes, many people are to blame for dumping dogs, irresponsibly breeding, not treating their animals as members of the family that are worth protecting, taking the easy way out in many different scenarios, etc. But they have to live with that, and that responsibility shifts the minute they give up on/dump/walk away from that animal and leave it with a shelter.

It’s a shelters job to be a shelter, to transition these dogs into a better situation and work hard to find them a good/better home. That’s their job. That’s what they are coincidentally paid to do. That’s the impression, even though we know that 75% of these shelters don’t do that even remotely to the best of their abilities. Why does this get lost with people? Quit giving pounds justifications for continuing to endlessly kill while at the same time not recognizing the (in many cases) laundry lists of things that these pounds are NOT doing in order to make themselves a more efficient and dedicated facility that really does aim to “shelter.”

You may say, well, that’s not what you’re doing–but in this case that’s exactly what you’re doing. These 5 dogs existed at the Carson shelter and were given 2 days and then killed. That is inexplicable and isn’t justified in any way no matter what the prior “owner” did. That’s not me “shooting the messenger” either, I’m not trying to argue or anything. But I do disagree with your ultimate point of just placing all of the blame in 1 direction. There’s 5 or 10 different directions that probably deserve some of that blame, and the prior owner and the shelter that impounded and ultimately killed the animal are at the top of that list. In my mind they go hand in hand. 2 wrongs are 2 wrongs. We can’t erase history and say, well, “that doesn’t count” because that dog was dumped by a person and so “the shelter had no other choice” but to kill it upon receiving that dog. They do have choices, they have options. It’s their job to create choices, to make options. Their job isn’t just to accept people’s discards and then make them disappear… And if that is the legitimate job description then the sheltering system needs to lay off the PR spin and propaganda and just embrace the fact that that’s what they are paid to do. Which they don’t, they fight that assertion tooth and nail. And there’s a major problem and discord there between a public that either doesn’t know or constantly lets them off the hook with statements like you made, which only allows them to continue to kill and not put any effort forth that is based or birthed out of trying to do something (many things) different.

So this was reported on Monday in Norco, and after reading all kinds of different versions of the same story, there’s numerous things about it that seem kind of “off.”

The first deception comes right out of the gate when the article claims, “toddler survives attack by the family Pit Bull in her home”… As you can see by the video stills below, “Diamond” is a CHAINED dog who, by any decent ownership measures, wouldn’t then be considered a “family” dog. Going beyond the psychological aspect of a dog lacking interaction and love and inclusion, chained dogs can potentially become territorial, and they can also become more defensive in the moment, due to not being able to flee. The video also reveals an outside doghouse, which probably means that the dog actually lived and slept outside. I obviously don’t know that for sure, but signs point in that direction. Furthermore, the “attack” didn’t happen IN THE HOME, it allegedly happened IN THE YARD. Funny how Leticia Juarez plays subtle games with reality…

Now this is the same story, just coming from a different outlet. Clearly the quotes don’t jive with the picture being painted by the initial ABC article. As you can see below, fire officials claim that the girl “avoided major bite wounds.” The sheriff’s officials then confirmed that she “suffered no puncture wounds or major bites.” Hmm… If this was an actual attack then how in the hell were there no bite or puncture wounds? Especially if we are to believe the first article when it states numerous times that the dog was clamped down, locked in, would not let go, was pulling at the girl, dragging and flinging her around the yard, required its jaws be pried open, etc. What really happened?

And then there’s the obvious questions, like… Is it the best choice to, under these circumstances, have chosen someone who is deaf to babysit? The babysitter isn’t the mom, and by the sounds of the article, may have just recently met the family. I know that she was speaking as if she knew the history of the dog, but the article claims that the family just recently moved into the area. That’s a huge gray spot for me. I’m in no way trying to insinuate that deaf people (or others with disabilities) can’t be wonderful parents, they certainly can. But this babysitter wasn’t the parent, and isn’t going to just get my benefit of the doubt that she had the over-careful characteristics that any mother or father usually instinctively has with their own children. Secondly, if all of these insinuations about the dog are even remotely true, how in the world was that toddler ever put in a position to be able to make her way into the backyard unsupervised? That’s clearly the fault of an irresponsible babysitter. Making things murkier is the fact that this babysitter was deaf, so she couldn’t have heard any potential noises or cries. Had this been a “vicious” attack, like the news often claims (and does here), any bigger dog (of any breed) would have likely disfigured (or worse) a child that small in a short amount of time. For a deaf person, not having that key sense could really cause you to miss that small window of correcting a huge mistake like, say, allowing a toddler to randomly waltz into a yard with a chained (and possibly unsocialized or territorial) dog. Oh, but that’s just me trying to be responsible, and yet, I don’t even have kids… I do have 2 really great Pit Bulls though, but you know, Pit Bull owners aren’t supposed to ever be “responsible,” right? Right. I guess I just busted that notion up. Anyways, onto some of the comments…

^You don’t say?

^Yup, just a dose of the broad-brushing hatefulness.

^Well, the first person in the world to ever undergo a partial face transplant was because of her Labrador chewing off the lower part of her face. It’s been claimed by some that the Lab may have just been frantically trying to wake her up after she took loads of pills and passed out, and that may or may not be true… But Lord knows a Pit Bull would never get the benefit of that angle, even if it was genuinely plausible. Point is, hate to break it to ya but there’s aggressive examples that you can pull from each and every breed or type of dog. That’s just the way it is, and it usually stems from both treatment and circumstances surrounding its environment. Here’s a Labrador that attacked a 9-year-old boy, requiring hundreds of stitches to his head. Here’s a Labrador that attacked 3 children in Virginia after they reached for his collar.

Finally, I came across this totally separate article tonight regarding an incident that just happened in Bakersfield, CA. It’s title references “2” attacks, the 2nd being the one from Norco (from above) that I already wrote about…

^This Bakersfield portion of the article is IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED because there is NO SUCH THING as a “125 pound Pit Bull.” Those don’t exist. Sorry. The photo provided with the article isn’t the actual dog either, rather a stock photo that these kinds of journalists will commonly include instead. All in all it’s just another disservice to Pit Bulls everywhere, by having their name and image inappropriately slandered all over this particular story. That’s a complete shame. Regardless–whatever kind of dog was actually involved, you still see the common traits (for an incident) here as well… 3-year-old child left alone, dog unneutered, etc. People and their irresponsibilities, they have far-reaching effects and can be devastating to humans and dogs alike.

I was made part of a thread on Facebook yesterday that really started delving into a topic that has been on my mind for awhile now. I shared some thoughts there, and I’d like to echo those thoughts here. With that, I’d like to also point to one of my first posts that I’d ever made on this website, which is very relevant to what I’m about to write.

The question that some people might need to ask is the question that’s at the top of this post. I’ve personally heard of so many different things in the short amount of time that I’ve been photographing shelter dogs, advocating for them, that I’ve found myself kicking that very question around on numerous different occasions. Do people intend to do well? I’m sure they (most of us) universally do. Do they have the means to do well? That’s a different question entirely. Then, next, what defines “well”? I have my own philosophy of what a “rescue” looks like… Regardless of the dog, regardless of the person–I believe that if you pull a dog, you are responsible for that dog’s well being, and you should see that rescue through, until its appropriate forever home is found. This process could take weeks, it could take months, it could take over a year. There are many facets of this that get quite detailed, and yet they all revolve around doing your absolute due-diligence, and doing it on the animal’s behalf.

That short synopsis aside–I’ve seen many rescues (both 501c3’s and not), as well as “independent” rescuers, fail to live up to their responsibilities. This comes with many different examples, but one of the most troubling things that I’ve personally seen is when a legitimate 501c3 rescue/rescuer has a “pull list” that has been compromised, either with or without their knowledge. The people on this list then act as liaisons who freely give their access to other people–who many times are never checked out or ever followed up with. This has irresponsibility written all over it, and yet it’s justified for a laundry list of reasons that I won’t bother getting into at this time.

For those of you that aren’t totally clear: A “pull list” is a collection of people who are officially able to pull an animal from a shelter, under a specific rescue’s 501c3 status, and on that rescue’s behalf. That animal would then legally become the responsibility of that rescue. If you are on this list, you are deemed appropriate to represent that rescue in these matters, and it’s common knowledge that everyone on the pull list ultimately reports to the rescue. The problematic part is when you see people who are “officially” on a rescue’s pull list, then pulling and handing off animals to 3rd or 4th party individuals (they themselves (many times) acknowledged as “rescuers”), and then just trusting that everything goes well, never to follow up again. This happens way more than it should.

Are there ways to appropriately take those types of steps? I’m sure that there sometimes are–and more power to those people who, in times of necessity freelance a bit to achieve a genuine objective. But it’s GOT to be done responsibly, and you should always remain accountable for your decisions. In my opinion, people are out taking advantage of this tactic, and it’s creating a messy landscape, which is sadly becoming more and more commonplace.

Just to be clear: I’m not trying to criticize anyone specifically, as I’m not a rescuer and there’s much that I obviously don’t know… I’m simply observing and trying to create a dialogue on the topic, which might hopefully inspire better practices going forward… At the end of the day it’s just beyond horrendous to hear that animals that were “rescued” from 1 shelter, may many months later end up in another shelter (or worse)–only to then be tracked back to their original rescue puller, who in many instances had no idea that they were even pulled in the first place! That’s inexplicable nonsense.

How does this happen? I suppose a previously thought to be “good” adopter could, down the line, choose to abandon their previously adopted animal without giving the rescue from which it came prior knowledge of their decision. That does likely happen (albeit hopefully not very often), but in which case that rescue should be contacted by the shelter and immediately reclaim the animal. But that’s not what I’m talking about here… So then you ask, are certain rescues knowingly being so irresponsible with their pull rights? Some likely are, many may not be. Many may just have rogue pullers… Either way, it ultimately comes back on the rescue, and should. My main point is that if a rescue/rescuer isn’t keeping good records, ^that scenario is unfortunately the type of crap that may end up happening. How does a rescue honestly not know which dogs they’ve actually had a hand in pulling? If you’re a rescue/rescuer and you can’t produce a record of every dog that you’ve ever pulled, as well as having a noted contact and location as to where that dog is/was physically residing, then you just need to get out of the rescue business. Honestly. And if this stuff was ever done unbeknownst to the core of your actual rescue, then you need to immediately track down whoever was behind that decision and cut that bait.

I know that’s an overall harsh tone to take, but people need to take their organizations and their reputations a little bit more seriously. The sheltering system is a HUGE multifaceted problem and these animals count on efficient rescues to handle their business appropriately, as well as counting on others to actually want and aspire to become good rescues as well, and do it in the right way and for the right reasons… This type of a thing playing out obviously has the opposite effect, that goes without saying. Just as importantly, it then gives tyrannical killing shelters MORE of a reason to limit access to legitimate rescuers who consistently do things the appropriate way. And again, by no means am I insinuating that anyone isn’t a legitimate rescue/rescuer. That’s honestly not a pissing match that I want any part of… But I can speak to illegitimate practices. I’ve seen them happen. If a rescue/rescuer is employing someone (or allowing an employee to “downlow” employ another) who is doing a shit job, then that rescue/rescuer needs to get rid of that person before their entire reputation as an organization/individual is damaged beyond repair. That does nothing good for anyone, animals included.

Lastly, at no time should a genuine rescue/rescuer ever just “leave” a dog with a foster, with little to no follow-up, and an insinuated unwritten responsibility transfer… I’d want to believe that any good rescue/rescuer, if given the foresight of bad circumstances happening, would immediately then swoop in and protect/re-collect those animals that they are ultimately responsible for. Unfortunately, I know that there are many times when this doesn’t happen; and quite the opposite actually ends up happening instead. Please do better. There’s no excuse for this kind of stuff. People can’t get away with an “ignore the problem, focus on a solution” attitude (which is dismissive of the problem, and when ignored, invites it to repeat itself), when those people who are ultimately the problem are still prominently involved and are still out doing what they have done incorrectly in this instance. C’mon!

I honestly hope that this was a fair criticism, and that people will be able to relate to it. I’ve met many great and wonderful people since starting this website. Loving, compassionate people. Many times I’ve personally tried to go an extra mile and help different individuals in an assortment of ways; by networking, fundraising, 1-time “guest pulling” when a rescuer couldn’t get off of work, freely transporting, even fostering. At the end of the day, I chose to offer myself up for the dogs, and as a favor to the individuals that should have been absolutely responsible for the things that they’ve willingly and knowingly signed up for. Fortunately, I’ve witnessed many things go beautifully. By the same token, I’ve witnessed other things hit snags. Things do at times hit snags, and that’s just part of life. Some snags are totally uncontrollable, yet many are actually directly relatable to the lack of due-diligence that these “rescuers” do. The people pulling these dogs need to have a plan, and a backup to that plan, and then the intestinal fortitude to create another, if necessary. The dogs deserve nothing less than that. Admittedly, a portion of the content of this article is solely based on what I have heard, yet much is based on what I have actually seen. There’s no doubt that the things that I’ve stated here will likely ruffle a few feathers, but at the end of the day, so what? I do believe this content to be meaningful and important.

This post is my response to a guest commentary piece, written by Pam Ashley, that ran in Alabama’s “The Gadsden Times.” Please read the above link first for the full context…

Dear Pam,
First of all, I’m genuinely sorry to hear about what happened to your Weimaraner, Bleu. That is a tragedy, and a senseless act that certainly could have been avoided, albeit not by anything that you did or didn’t do. By the accounts that I’ve read, you and your family did all that you could do to ensure a safe environment for all. It’s beyond unfortunate that your family was located next to a neighbor that was this irresponsible. It’s also beyond unfortunate that these types of irresponsible people even continue to exist at all. I would give anything to have everyone in this world take responsibility for their actions, to treat others (people and animals) with kindness, to consistently use common sense, to show empathy, to have compassion in their heart. I’d also give anything to have everyone that has a companion animal embrace the fact that that animal should be loved and treated as if it were part of the family. My best bet is that these 2 Pit Bulls were not from this type of environment. That’s unfortunate. The “no remorse” shown by your neighbors seems indicative of this fact. I also realize how unsettling it must be to have a sheriff deputy, followed by the local animal control, claim that they can do “nothing” in response to this fatal attack upon your dog. That is ridiculous, all very much ridiculous. But please continue to hear me out…

The statistics you cite, claiming fatal dog attacks (to people), and showing that a certain amount were perpetrated by Pit Bulls… This total number (from all dog types) is just a handful, per year. I say that not to justify any attack, but to attempt to provide a perspective in regards to how often these things actually happen. According to the HSUS, there is approximately 78 million “owned” dogs in the United States alone. That doesn’t account for the millions of shelter animals (4-5 million are killed each year, close to half of the dogs being Pit Bulls), nor the many that are unregistered and etc… I’d say that it’s certainly not a stretch to then say that at least 5 million of those 78 million are Pit Bulls or Staffordshires. To the average person who will vaguely use “Pit Bull-type” as a phrase, that number probably then doubles, due to the fact that the Pit Bull isn’t even an actual breed of dog. And these are all fairly conservative (Pit Bull-related) estimates mind you… So just to continue to be fair: You are essentially saying that x-amount of Pit Bulls (4? 5? 6?) killed a person during whatever specific year you’d want to cite, without then accounting for the x-amount of Pit Bulls that didn’t. Well, that “didn’t” number is going to astronomically dwarf any number that you can possibly find.

For examples sake: Let’s say that there are 5 million Pit Bulls, and then 10 fatal attacks that you can actually thoroughly cite…
That means that 0.000002% of all Pit Bulls actually killed a person that year.
In turn, that means that 99.999998% of all Pit Bulls DID NOT kill a person that year.
So yes, you’re correct, “statistics do not lie.”

Fatal attacks involving “Pit Bulls” from the years 1979 through 1998 total “66.” In that 19 year window it breaks down to 3.47 “fatalities” per year. Not 34, not 347, but 3(point)47.

You also realize that in the extremely rare event that a dog does actually kill a person, the media has been caught countless times just shamelessly calling that dog a Pit Bull, when in numerous instances it’s later found out to not actually be the case. This is done to drive coverage, to sensationalize the broadcast. I’d hope that that would come as no surprise to you.

Also worth noting… Pit Bulls outnumber German Shepherds and Rottweilers and Chows and Dobermans, the other 4 types commonly cited in “bite” statistics, by a 3-4-5 to 1 ratio. Which then means that these other types infract “more.” So are you in favor of banning them as well? I would assume that you are not, since they weren’t the type that killed your dog, nor do they have websites dedicated to peddling misinformation that defies logic, and all in the name of being hateful.

In regards to your claim that “if provoked for whatever reason, a Pit Bull attacks relentlessly until its victim is dead, unless forced off” … Well, that’s just patently false. Millions of Pit Bulls are “provoked” every single day. “Provoked” could mean anything quite frankly… If what you say is actually true, these landsharks would be killing thousands of animals, as well as thousands of people, PER DAY. Because, as your article states, “they cannot be called off the attack once they’ve started.” So that implies that either the Pit Bull dies (due to being “forced” off, shot, etc.), or the animal or person it is “attacking” dies. So, um, why aren’t we hearing about this kind of thing at the rapid fire pace that your outrageous claims imply?

To your claim about Pit Bulls not being used by law enforcement or the military. Well, first, many are…. But more importantly, the reason why they are not IS NOT because of what you state. You claim that they aren’t used because “they cannot be called off once they’ve started.” Nope. In reality, they aren’t used because they aren’t inherently human aggressive. They are not bred for protection, or to bite and hold, like say, a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd is. And that’s not a knock on German or Belgian Shepherds either, as they are wonderful dogs as well. But Pit Bulls specifically have human aggression purposely, and oftentimes brutally, bred OUT of them. This is done, even by the shadiest character, so that they can continue to be used by scum for dog fighting, without then redirecting and “attacking” their human ring handler.

I don’t mean to get short with you in any way, but some of the things that you’ve said, well, I’ve taken GREAT offense to. You are offending millions of people with your broad-brushing. What you are doing is senselessly piling on, and it’s going to indirectly affect someone else, someone innocent. You state “sterilization should also be a requirement so this breed can die off.” Do you hear yourself? That’s an unbelievably cruel thing to say. If you were my mother I’d be completely embarrassed by your assessment. My mother happens to be a registered nurse, just like you. She also happens to have a Pit Bull that she loves and makes part of her family.

Your argument is essentially to “ban the gun” instead of even remotely attempting to focus on the criminal who used that gun to shoot and kill a person. That’s misguided. That’s not to compare a Pit Bull to a gun, it’s just a visual reality that people can comprehend. If you “ban the gun,” then those criminals will just go and get an ax, or a hunting knife, or a baseball bat, and so on and so forth. What you are knowingly (or unknowingly) contributing to is the placing of blame down upon an entire breed/type (we are talking MILLIONS of dogs!), while allowing the person(s) responsible for the heinous crime to go free and infract again. That makes no sense at all.

I’m white… If an African American or a Hispanic person were to murder my entire family tomorrow, I wouldn’t go to my local paper and call for the immediate demonization of all African American or Hispanic people. You wouldn’t see my face on the news, unfairly (and insanely) stating how “dangerous” they are as a whole. I would never state anything as remotely psychotic as that. I wouldn’t think it privately to myself, not for a second. There would be absolutely none of that at all, whatsoever… Yet with you, that’s what you’ve done here. Do you not see how your response is comparable to this hypothetical example? If you don’t then you’re just a total hypocrite.

You asked me (Pit Bull advocates) to ask myself some questions. Here are the answers…

“Why, specifically, do you want a Pit Bull?” Because they’ve been in my life for over 10 years. My best friend in the world just happened to be one, she was with me for over 8 years. She was extraordinarily special. They are extremely loving, smart, affectionate, loyal, hilarious, good-natured animals.

“What about a Pit Bull is more appealing than adopting any other breed of dog?” Well, what made you adopt/buy a Weimaraner? There’s qualities in each dog, as individuals, that we fall in love with. Dogs are individuals and loving people choose how they choose. I can’t speak for someone that wants to fight them, or treat them like garbage, or not socialize them, or not show them love… But please don’t confuse me with such a person. Please don’t confuse the hundreds of thousands of people that have Pit Bulls as family pets, as such a person. Your vagueness doesn’t fly here. Your text smugness doesn’t fly here. Why do I personally like Pit Bulls going forward? Because I know firsthand what amazing dogs they are. I know firsthand how badly they are stereotyped, and how badly they are treated by certain factions of humanity. I know that there are people like you out there who are trying to spread hate, whether you realize it or not. I will fight that until I’m dead and gone.

“Why don’t you believe the evidence that shows Pit Bulls cannot be called off an attack once it starts?” Because that evidence doesn’t exist. Why don’t you believe the mathematical evidence that unequivocally shows that 99.9% of Pit Bulls living in this country have never killed a person?

“Are you willing to view graphic pictures of people and animals mauled by Pit Bulls and then tell those people that there was about a 48% chance they wouldn’t have been attacked, that they were just unlucky?” You’re sarcasm is unnecessary. Yes, I’m willing to view pictures. No, I wouldn’t have a generic rhetorical response to feed them. Each instance should be looked at and treated on its own merits, and that goes for every incident involving dogs of all breeds.

“Can you visualize your child/neighbor/yourself with arms chewed off, face torn off, neck ripped open, and state with assurance that none of this can happen to you or those close to you in the presence of a Pit Bull?” No, I can’t visualize it because my dogs are responsibly cared for. Your stereotypical, ugly way of framing your language is no better than asking me if I “feel safe around a Muslim.”

“Do you defend Pit Bulls because you have a need to have a cause to argue?” No I don’t. Do you blanketly target Pit Bulls because you’re hateful?

Lastly, I implore you to not turn your pain into ignorance. What happened to your dog, Bleu, was terrible. What you are now doing is equally terrible. You are assisting with an ill-sighted witch hunt, and honestly, you should be completely ashamed of yourself. I’d also ask that you visit your local shelter. Physically find it in your heart to actually meet a few of these “types” of dogs. Not your neighbor’s dogs, just random Pit Bulls. Mix it up a little bit. Maybe then your “one side” will turn into something else.

I’ll leave you with this: “No single, neutered/spayed household pet Pit Bull has ever killed anyone.” ~ Karen Delise, Author of “Fatal Dog Attacks”

Thank you for your time and honest consideration,
Josh Liddy

Continue Reading »

I first visited the Carson shelter back in April of 2011. It was at that time that I took pictures of their Pit Bulls and then began networking them online. One of the dogs that I photographed on that first day was an extremely shy and depressed pit-mix named Coffee. Someone online had expressed interest in her, and I began making calls on Coffee’s behalf, relaying that interest to the shelter staff, leaving my number, etc. Days after my initial visit I received a phone call for what I thought was going to be Coffee’s temperament test results. Instead, it was the “rescue” coordinator, who immediately started asking questions about who I was and what my intentions were. There was no hello, no sharing of the results, just confirming that it was actually me who answered and then launching into a full scale investigation. I immediately felt as though I was on trial, nice impression. She essentially attempted to tell me that I wasn’t allowed at their facility to take pictures, and if I wanted to take a picture of a certain dog, that I had to clear it with the office first. Obviously this led to me pushing back, and we continued having quite the lengthy conversation, until she presented the option of voicing my concerns to the shelter manager directly. Yes, please. I wrote up a decent sized email that introduced myself, as well as contained 3 or 4 different concerns that I had and sent it off to him. After waiting around for 3 weeks to hear back, I finally received a reply from Gil. He asked me to come in and meet with him, I did. These are the audio notes that I recorded that day, after the meeting…

Here’s a quick key as to what was being discussed and when…
00:50 ~ Purpose of the meeting
03:33 ~ Pit Bulls
05:40 ~ Coffee
09:15 ~ Phone policy
12:25 ~ Concerns about me
16:50 ~ Dealing with the Pit Bulls
18:50 ~ What was established

Coffee, the dog pictured, was called “extremely human aggressive” by the shelter staff. She received an “F” on her temperament test. She was then deemed “rescue only.” I disputed this assessment, as it was totally the opposite of what I had witnessed myself. Fortunately, a rescue did assist with the interested party and Coffee was pulled. After leaving the shelter she received veterinary care and it was then discovered that she had 2 liters of urine backed up in her system. This was drained, and she was immediately placed into a foster home WITH other dogs. She got along perfectly with everyone. She’s since been adopted by the brother of her foster mom and is currently living on the beach and relishing the fact that she is part of his family. She gets along wonderfully with other dogs, children, you name it and Coffee has happily embraced it. She is extremely lucky. So many “Coffee’s” are labeled and put to death. That’s what this shelter does and her story is just 1 example of it.

Why am I now putting out this video? These audio notes were recorded BEFORE this website was even created. I’ve since went through almost a year of witnessing wrongs that keep on coming at a rapid pace. Many on the staff at Carson have developed very negative opinions of me and my work. That’s now a given. But (back then) my opinion towards them was far more centric in approach, as I genuinely wanted to work “with” these individuals in order to help save these Pit Bulls lives. I had a track record of working “with” OC, working “with” East Valley. We certainly didn’t always agree on how things went down, but I was still speaking my mind and they weren’t necessarily scared of that. The dialogue was open. With Carson, not so much. I hope that this video displays the philosophy that has (imo) always been present there, the way of thinking, the way of operating. That’s why I now want people to hear my insights on that very day, as it preempts all that has since happened, and follows all that had already happened long before I was even doing this or aware of the problems…

Becoming sicker and sicker of Carson’s ways makes me fight harder and harder against their ways. This shelter is going to continue to be talked about, exposed. You think I’ll lose heart and get emotionally caved in? You think my apathy will eventually overrun my desire to want to help? Nope. Gil, you’re wrong. I’m going to keep coming at you my brother. I’m going to keep saying hi, keep visiting your shelter, keep photographing “your” dogs. There’s nothing that you can do to change that. You’re going to keep killing the Pit Bulls, keep stereotyping them, keep justifying the doing of all of these awful things to them. I’m going to keep talking about it. You’re going to keep protecting those who don’t do their job, keep protecting the compassionless, keep handcuffing the ones who give a damn. I’m going to keep talking about it. You’re going to keep doing the same old things and pretending that you’re making a difference, keep sitting on your hands and pretending that you’re making the genuine efforts. I’m going to keep reminding people that you’re not. You cannot shut me up. You will not shut me up. Killing more dogs to get back at me, like a spineless little goblin, isn’t going to make me go away. Targeting specific dogs that you see me network, like a vindictive little coward, isn’t going to make me go away. I’ll just keep talking about it. I see wrong, it’s you. I see wrong, it’s Marcia. This will be stated, over and over again. That is all.

Recently I had been a part of an ongoing thread that was meant to network a 9-month-old Pit Bull mix that was dumped by her owner at the Carson shelter. The actual surrender took place on 3/24 and was witnessed by a good Samaritan, who documented everything, with both pictures and words. It was explained how this dog was brought in (connected to a yard chain), and then shoved into the small intake cage by her surrenderer, him slamming the door on her face so inappropriately that a volunteer actually ran out and felt it necessary to say something. This individual then attempted to walk through the shelter runs, presumably to look for another dog. He was stopped by that same volunteer, and it was implied that he should leave.

This dog was extremely shaken by the experience. If any indication is to be had from the callous way in which she was dumped, she was likely neglected in numerous ways throughout the length of her young life. Still, in the face of it all she remained sweet and calm.

Fast forward to 3/29, and the prior owner had apparently called the shelter wanting to reclaim the dog. How was this found out? Because the networking efforts had secured a rescue for her, and the rescuer was actually in the office trying to place a CTA (commitment to adopt) on the dog’s file. This dog had rescue, and Carson disallowed it because the prior owner now wanted her back. Now I’m all for a genuinely remorseful person, realizing their mistake and attempting to make it right. I’ll never personally understand surrendering your dog to a kill shelter, but everyone is different. Point is though that dogs, by and large, love their people, regardless of how they are treated. If there is genuine remorse being shown by a person that was put into a tough situation, then who’s to seriously stop that? Everyone certainly makes mistakes. A dog being redeemed by someone they love, as an alternative to the shelter killing them, is always preferable, obviously. But look at this circumstance specifically… Tough to make that argument. Then you add in the fact that rescue is there, ready and willing. Sadly, for this dog, she was ultimately picked back up by the person that discarded of her just days prior.

This is all leading to my ultimate point…

I asked whether this individual had to pay to reclaim the dog. That was curious to me because I know that in the past, Carson has charged huge sums of money (upwards of $300) for people to redeem their dogs that were LEGITIMATELY LOST and impounded at their facility. We are talking fees that are 2-3x their adoption fees. We are talking fees that are 10x their rescue fees. All for someone who has legitimately lost, misplaced, had their dog stolen, etc. Wouldn’t it be a gigantic hypocrisy if someone who has legitimately lost (and now taken the initiative to find) their dog, then had to pay far more money to redeem that same dog, than the individual who carelessly dumps their dog like trash, only to come back and try to reclaim it 6 days later? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with that?

I called the shelter and tried to get some answers. The phone operator told me that since a “stray” dog breaks a “leash law,” that that is how the higher fine is incurred. It doesn’t matter under what circumstance the dog ever were to get loose. If it were to happen, it automatically classifies the dog as a “stray,” and thus, in violation of the leash law. Whereas, if some rotten person actually dumps their dog on the shelters doorstep, slamming the cage door in its face on the way out for good measure, they don’t incur any fee whatsoever and have actually “done the responsible thing” in the eyes of LA County. They’ve “broken” no law. Yes it’s true, there’s no law on the books for being a heartless scumbag.

The worst part about all of these thoughts firing in my head is this… I was told last year by someone who frequently visits the shelter that they were aware of a family that had legitimately lost their dog, and that it was then impounded by the Carson shelter. The family was contacted by the shelter. They came in, they confirmed and visited, they absolutely wanted to redeem their dog. Just so happens, Carson had tied numerous fees to the eventual release, as well as a per day fee for housing the dog (prior to the owners even being eventually notified). Once the owners were onsite, they made the shelter aware that they couldn’t afford to pay those fees, but that they most definitely wanted their dog back. The shelter knew of these owners, knew of their intentions and that they wanted their dog back. Instead of working with this family, they gave them an ultimatum and would not let them leave with their dog. After a few days, the shelter opted to euthanize their dog. The family found out about it from a phone call.

What this does is it disallows the public from walking in between the 3 kennel buildings. With the runs being half inner and half outer, any given dog can now be missed, or if it’s shy, may just choose to avoid interaction, leaving the person with no other options. If you are taking networking photos this presents another set of challenges. Worse yet, it totally blocks the public from seeing any of the dogs that are present on the right (inner) side of the quarantine section. From the inside of the building, that particular section is always gated and locked off, but at least you can normally walk OUTSIDE and interact with the dogs. With the caution tape out, they sit, totally unbeknownst to the public. This tape has continued to be up for many days in a row. What’s the deal?

The perplexing part of it all is that I was told that the tape is up because “the high winds at night blow shingles and debris off the roofs of the buildings.” Okay. So? Why can’t someone pick all that crap up before they open? They don’t open until noon each day, it’s not that difficult. Even if there was a legitimate excuse for the thorough tape job, why isn’t it being removed once they open their doors to the public? If they have to put it up again each night after they close, so be it. I don’t know why that would be necessary, but I’m not trying to argue with their logic. But for the love of God, at least go out of your way to take some of it down, so it doesn’t continue to give the majority of the public the visual impression that half of the shelter is OFF LIMITS. I can tell you this, there’s no construction going on. The only reason for that tape is if they were laying new concrete, and they aren’t doing that. So what gives? Why does the Carson shelter continue to blatantly do things that just overtly give the impression that they don’t care?

In a recent interview, Brenda Barnette estimated that of the roughly 20,000 dogs killed by LA City in 2011, that around 8,400 of them were “irreparably suffering.”

Last year, in Los Angeles we put approximately 20,000 (out of approximately 56,000) pet animals to death. By most standards, at least 10 – 15 percent of the 20,000 was irreparably suffering (8,400) and could not be saved. So, do the math: 20,000 did not make it out alive and 8,400 were suffering and could not be saved, leaving 11,600 who were unnecessarily put to death for the reason of no space available.

I’m only making this post because I find that estimation to be not only false, but incredibly misleading.

First of all, 15% of 56,000 is 8,400.
15% of 20,000 is 3,000.
56,000 is the total intake amount that she cites, while 20,000 of them were killed.
So when she implies that 15% of those killed (20,000) is 8,400 animals, and that those 8,400 animals were “irreparably suffering,” well, that’s just not true, and for 2 different reasons.
She then subtracts the 8,400 from the 20,000 killed, which gives her the figure (11,600) that represents those “unnecessarily put to death.”
The real way to get to that figure is to subtract 3,000 from 20,000. That will show that around 17,000 animals were killed for space.
Instead, she’s trying to imply that they had to kill almost half of their animals because they were “irreparably suffering.” That claim is absolutely bogus, and here’s why…
1) Let’s assume the 8,400 number is correct. There is no way in hell that that many animals were suffering so bad that they had to be legitimately “put out of their misery.”
2) Many of the rescued dogs ARE the worst medical cases, the ones in the most dire of straits, yet she dumps that whole section into the “eventually killed” column without accounting for the percentage that actually made it out alive.
3) She uses the high end of her estimation (15%) and pulls a completely inaccurate total out of her kill total, leading many people to view the scope of the shelter problem (the current reality) in a much more promising light.

So while I most definitely applaud her actual point–the statement about the term “pet overpopulation” being inaccurate–she knowingly (or unknowingly) fudged the numbers, which drastically lowered the total figure of animals that she claimed were “killed for space.” This is not an honest conversation, nor does it thoroughly portray reality.

LA City is still killing LOTS of dogs for space, just as LA County continues to do (at an even quicker and larger rate). The first dogs being killed, and the most dogs being killed, are Pit Bulls. They are not “irreparably suffering,” they are just killed. Please don’t try and curtain that reality. Please don’t try and dress it up. That’s my only angle. Those continuing to be killed (of all breeds) are by and large healthy and mentally sound, loving animals.

Westminster Dog Show just recently opted to sever ties with Pedigree after 24 years of sponsorship service. This decision was apparently made after an overwhelming amount of people who make up their “primary audience” voiced concerns about the commercials promoting the adoption of shelter dogs.

How sad is that? That people are so apathetic and cowardly that they’d rather not be subjected to a 30 second commercial, showing a betrayed dog behind bars, because of “how it makes them feel.” Screw how many people might see that commercial and feel inspired to visit a shelter and adopt, screw the fact that the commercial is visually accurate in its portrayal of what you would see if you’d visit a shelter, screw the fact that millions of shelter animals are actually killed every single year inside of this country because of a lack of awareness (among many other things). And here we have a short commercial that may help make a dent, may help some of these dogs find homes, may actually inspire or initiate an emotional response… Well, too bad, many Americans are just too cowardly to even watch. They don’t want to pay attention to a reality-based world because they’re too busy living inside of their bubble. Surprised? Out of sight, out of mind. What a disgrace.

You people that would rather remain silent, or turn away, or close yourself off from tragedies, or from information, or from discussion, or from things that may not affect you directly–you people are worthless. You people are the reason this world is so completely fucked up. Because y’all grossly outnumber the people who actually give a shit. And then ignorance reigns. And then oppression reigns. Yes, this is just a commercial. But yes, I just took it there–to a political perspective, to a societal perspective–because at the end of the day, it’s all the same, it’s all relatable. This is the reason that we get what we get. This is the foundational reason why all of the injustice this world serves up consistently continues to happen. Because the people as a majority do not care. They would much rather look away, they’d much rather not be bothered with it. We are better than this.