To San Bernardino City shelter and ABC 7 news: Stop with the collective blaming of an unseen mass of people just because 1 or 2 jackass individuals may have decided to send “death threats” to a specific shelter staff. Media needs to move away from these types of dumbed down tactics. Quit using people’s programming for soundbytes against them in order to shift narratives of a story. The cowardly behavior from whomever sent the threat does not excuse anything another person did or didn’t do. Whomever sent a death threat does not speak for the next person, they speak for themselves.

To so-called “animal advocates”: If you send another human being a death threat, or wish death upon another person, you are nothing but an advocate for death. You are doing nothing positive for animals. Go away.

Last Wednesday animal networker Maria Sanchez, who constantly visits the San Bernardino City shelter in order to help their impounded animals find homes and rescue, was arrested by the cops who actually run the shelter. Her crime? Coming back to the shelter prior to the 72-hour “cooling off” period that was given to her after she was kicked off of the property days prior by Adam Affrunti. Why was she kicked off? Because she was repeatedly trying to bring attention to the poor health of a dog named Sue (#A462498) who was battling pneumonia and going untreated by the shelter. Maria asked numerous times that the dog be treated, was told that it was going to be, and then came to find out days later that it still hadn’t been. Sue is shown on video curled up on the concrete floor because her bed with a blanket on it was all wet after being placed directly under a leaking roof. Maria was begging them to treat Sue. That’s it. That was her initial crime. Then returning within the 72-hour window was her second crime. That’s it.

The code that the shelter staff/police used to kick Maria out of the facility was 9.12.030, subsections A and B. That is unfortunately the law in the city of San Bernardino. Is it an unconstitutional law? Of course it is! But the law does exist so they can clearly try to use it in order to harass and fluster visitors as they see fit. It reads “whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that such person has willfully disrupted conduct of activities.” Nice.

Some online have been hyper-critical of Maria and I’d like to add my 2 cents in her defense. Was she possibly mouthy in the moments of heightened contention? Yeah, probably. Was she resisting arrest? Yeah, technically. But what I saw while viewing the main video was a cop who repeatedly put their hands on her and then immediately went to handcuff her when she pulled away. After they took her phone she was trying to maintain her physical position inside of the facility in order to get her phone back, or be able to view that it was going to be given to her friend instead of kept.

Going way further, let’s take many, many steps back. I can relate to Maria Sanchez because she does similar things in relation to trying to advocate on behalf of a certain shelter’s impounded dogs. She’s there, day after day, to help the dogs gain exposure that will hopefully lead to their safety, as well as to shed light on the system that would much rather kill them. She knows the dogs. She cares for the dogs. She’s invested physically, mentally and emotionally. She sees what she has the power to do for them, and should, by any stretch of the imagination, be viewed as an asset to the shelter. They instead choose to view her as the enemy.

So, in the midst of something completely absurd and ridiculous such as this happening, along with the suffering of Sue, who she was holding and trying to get help for, she was definitely agitated and emotionally distraught. Can you blame her? I wasn’t there, and had that been happening to me there’s no telling how I would have reacted. Also, some people just aren’t going to systematically roll over to a police officer who is on a power trip, and clearly the officer who was standing alongside Affrunti was on a power trip. Not to mention how they were contorting her arms and dragging her, holding her against walls. I also understand how others could say that Maria should have just left, waited the 3 days and then came back. But she didn’t, she made a different choice and I respect her for it.

In the days following Maria’s arrest the shelter has retaliated in the form of killing groups of different dogs that were being networked, and while they’ve had upwards of 30-40 kennels sitting empty. Their oppressive tactics against Maria and others have been mentioned on my website before. They are now trying to say that Maria “assaulted a peace officer,” after the cop tripped over her feet while dragging her outside. This is the type of cowardice bull that’s trying to rewrite the history of what happened. And all of this complete nonsense is because a woman goes to the shelter to photograph their dogs, hoping to save their lives.

The above video shows some of the public comments from Monday’s San Bernardino City Council meeting. Steve Miller, you brought me to tears when talking about the dogs. Thank you for saying what you said, man. It is incredibly important. Marla Tauscher’s comment was also hugely powerful and posed questions and scenarios that absolutely need to be addressed. I wish I could have been there. The community standing up for themselves is always a good thing, no matter what the issue is. Keep doing it. At the end you will see that the Mayor says something to the affect of “we’ve heard enough about the animal stuff,” as he is attempting to shut down public comments. His microphone was still live and it was picked up on the video feed. Below are 2 television reports, from KCAL and KTLA respectively, that attempt to bring further attention to the happenings.

The Carson shelter has preposterously taken 23 days to complete 1 simple temperament test. This was made official on 3/12, after someone working for this shelter finally brought themselves to take an initiative and do their job. Yes, this test was requested on 2/18. All the while this amazingly sweet boy named Freckles had been waiting to pass, so that he can then be let out of his kennel for a walk or some interaction in the play yard.

See, at the Carson shelter they state that any dog they themselves deem to be a “Pit Bull” is not allowed to leave its kennel, under any circumstances, until it receives and passes a temperament evaluation. This is their in-house BSL at work. This pays no mind to the fact that temperament tests are not automatically given to dogs, and when they are requested it routinely takes the staff over a week (or more, such as this case demonstrated) to do them. What happens to the Pit Bulls, amounting to most all of them, who never get a temperament test? They just never get out of their kennel until they are taken out to be killed.

Many times after the temperament test has finally been completed it’s the shelter manager’s next move to then give that dog 24 hours to find rescue, or it’s potentially targeted to be killed. This manager’s name is Gil Moreno and he’s about the last person that should be managing a shelter. The 23-day wait for the temperament test to be done is apparently being explained away because they are “under staffed,” yet they fire incredible volunteers (like Dianne), decline other volunteer applicants (like myself) and do a whopping 1 training class per year. I’m also just posting this story now, now that I know that Freckles is officially safe, because this shelter has been known to retaliate against dogs that I promote and kill them out of spite. Yes, this is the culture that we traverse.

Lastly, they graded submissive Freckles a “C” after he started playing with the rubber hand on the stick that they try and incite the dogs with, which they point into their food while they are eating. Really fair, huh?

Here’s a video that I shot on the morning of 3/7, again, just posted now because I didn’t want it floating around online and have them retaliate against me and kill Freckles in response.

The Riverside County “breed-specific” mandatory sterilization ordinance against Pit Bulls is being peddled and copied all throughout the state of California. First it was Riverside County, then onto the city of Riverside, then to Pasadena, and most recently it was duplicated in Lake Elsinore. An aspect most concerning to me is the loose way in which the breed identification portion of the ordinance is being patently accepted as indisputable obviousness.

What this means is that people like Allan Drusys (chief veterinarian with Riverside County), with their unscientific and ignorantly subjective opinions, are sometimes in the positions to make the ultimate breed identification decisions. This is a horrifying reality considering Drusys thinks that identifying a Pit Bull is as easy as recognizing pornography. First off, who said that pornography was easy to identify? The Supreme Court says otherwise. But this notion in regards to visual dog breed identification is asinine on numerous fronts, and yet Drusys’ arrogant claims are quite literally being entrusted as “expert testimony” when in front of any number of elected officials.

Worse, he is claiming a “consensus” when reality utterly refutes that claim in full. Mr. Drusys willfully contradicts a peer-reviewed breed identification study done by Dr. Victoria Voith, part of which was done at the very shelter that Drusys works at. This past Tuesday he was in Lake Elsinore doing this very thing, using the pornography claim to lobby on behalf of the anti-Pit Bull ordinance which is a copy of the one that he helped get rubber-stamped in Riverside County while using the same claims. This is happening now.

On Tuesday night the Lake Elsinore City Council ushered in breed-discriminatory legislation against Pit Bulls by a vote to 4-1. I’ll write about this more in depth in the coming days, but for now I wanted to focus some further examination on their local shelter Animal Friends of the Valleys. Representatives from the shelter, including manager Willa Bagwell, were also in attendance and in support of the prejudicial moves made by the Council.

Surprisingly, or not, they also employ an in-house anti-Pit Bull policy that pretty much amounts to violations of the California state law. This was first brought to my attention last year, where I detailed 7 regulations that they readily enforce against dogs that they themselves deem to fit the visual characteristics of being “Pit Bulls.” In other words, STOPPING PUBLIC ADOPTIONS AND RESCUES. The flaws in this process were further examined, and all which garnered me page visits from Bagwell herself, where she threatened another commenter with a lawsuit and then accused me of “bashing” their shelter.

This was followed by other defenders of the shelter, who didn’t come to specifically address any point that I was actually trying to raise, but instead came to just blindly defend AFV against someone who would dare criticize them in any way. How dare I do such a thing!?

One commenter, accusing me of “attacking” the shelter, insisted that I “get out from behind” my keyboard, and not only once but twice in 1 paragraph. This same person then implied that I do no educational work, called all owners “idiots,” and then told me that I should “help find homes for homeless pets.” Apparently she has no idea about how much I at least try to help those homeless pets. The same homeless pets that this shelter is actually discouraging folks from adopting. Wouldn’t me going to lengths to point out this absolute fact be considered “helping” homeless pets? At least those who have been made to seem less-than by a shelter policy that discourages their adoptions. But I guess that doesn’t count, right?

Then a former employee of the shelter came on to further defend AFV, asking me if maybe this policy is done for the animal’s own good… So we should just stifle the adoption potential for this large group of animals and ultimately kill them to hypothetically protect them from any potential abuse? Um, isn’t that what PETA says and does? She then tries to blame this policy on the “negative media attention,” not giving any thought to the fact that policies such as these perpetuate said media attention, perpetuate low adoptions numbers, and further, perpetuate the passing of laws (BSL) like the one that was just passed on Tuesday (and with the support of this shelter). This law, of course, further perpetuates that pesky “negative media attention” that this former employee tried to blame everything on back in July of last year. Awesome. By the way, my question about them having the same concern for all of the non-Pit Bulls “falling into the wrong hands” has still went unanswered…

Well, nothing new under the sun apparently. My Facebook event for Tuesday’s City Council meeting again brought out shelter manager Will Bagwell, where she again accused people of “bashing” her shelter, and for simply pointing out that AFV employs a policy of in-house breed discrimination.

Well Willa, your shenanigans are up, and they will continue to be talked about publicly. The in-house breed prejudice that you’ve put into practice at AFV is pretty much public knowledge to anyone that’s been paying attention. So how exactly is telling the damned truth about your unlawful regulations considered “bashing” your shelter? And regarding the keyboard thing, I was actually there on Tuesday night and said what I said about your shelter to your face. So, as many of us do use that damned internet contraption in the year of 2014 (including you, imagine that), we also SHOW UP AND OPPOSE YOU TO YOUR FACE. We are not just some faceless entity, a lot of times not even a real person, that trolls from behind a computer screen.

I can only speak for myself, but I’m a pretty dedicated (on the ground) advocate for both Pit Bulls and shelter reform. I don’t have to work at AFV to know that a policy not only exists but is also being used to squash potential adoptions. It’s on your website, and further, I have your shelter policies and procedures manual. I also have personal insight into the fact that you use Merritt Clifton’s unscientific and disingenuous “study” from Animal People, a study that derives their attack numbers from media accounts (and without proper breed identification), in order to justify your private positioning (that you won’t even acknowledge) against Pit Bull adoption. Not to mention the fact that Clifton is a popular hack for DogsBite.org, an anti-Pit Bull hate group hellbent on lobbying for their extermination. Nice touch.

So no, you will not be succeeding in demonizing the dogs in full, or any other tool, like a computer, in full, just because you are too pathetic to account for an actual reality that is both on your website and in your policy manual.

Without further ado, direct from their shelter manual:

Call me crazy, but this pretty much shows a control freak micromanaging the adoptions of certain groups of animals while also trying to indoctrinate volunteers by having them, well, as stated, go out of their way to “discourage” Pit Bull adoptions.

Yesterday the Orange County Board of Supervisors wanted to amend their dangerous dog ordinance to not only ensure that any dog taken from a suspected fighting environment, bait dogs and puppies amongst them, would be deemed “vicious” and thus destroyed, but also to further evade due process with sweeping language that would put strikes on a dog or group of dogs suspected of harming any animal (bunny, lizard) in its/their own yard!

Public comments and relayed community opposition to such moves:

I compared the dog confiscation stuff to authorities busting up a child kidnapping and sex operation, and then subsequently deeming all of the victims to be “deviants, prostitutes and sex offenders.” I also wanted to point to the lack of due process with all of it, but especially the labeling of a group of family pets who could get vaguely accused of harming a squirrel (for example) on their own property and then deemed “dangerous” by the county. Many times with shelters and animal control they are able to get away with outright ignoring due process, and simply because many people don’t have the information or the resources to be able to stand up for themselves. I see the Carson shelter do this type of stuff all the time. But that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

Here you see shelter director Ryan Drabek say some pretty suspect things about following the law. I was sitting next to an attorney and she was squirming in her chair. Then you see Supervisor Nelson give a condescending speech from his perch, attempting to needle the people who had come out to oppose his plan. Then his plan fell flat and didn’t even get a single motion, needing 2 motions to even garner a vote. Death to his desires, and then he huffs and puffs.

In the end we had Boss the surfing Pit Bull and local supporter Keebo spreading love after the meeting.

This shows yet again, and on the heels of Pasadena, that people having the courage to oppose such unjust laws can actually make a mighty difference.

So back on July 16th of 2013 I applied to become an official volunteer with the Carson shelter. Immediately I received a robo-response thanking me for my interest and telling me that orientations take place every 8-12 weeks. Keep in mind that my application (along with many others) was submitted about a month prior to my girlfriend, who was then an active volunteer at Carson, being “suspended” for playing with individual Pit Bulls out in the play yard. This link will give you a good idea as to what that entailed, as it has 17 embedded videos of different dogs having a grand time with Dianne. As you can clearly see, she’s an amazing asset for any shelter to have and pretty darn wonderful with the dogs. And this shelter fired her…

Fast forward to January 14th and I get an email notifying me about the next orientation that will be taking place on 1/25/2014. Keep in mind that this is nearly 28 weeks after I applied, when the auto-response told me that they do orientations “every 8-12 weeks.” Worse, they hadn’t done an orientation for about 8 months prior to me applying either. But that’s for another article. Anyways, this email states that those still interested must RSVP by 1/21/2014. I RSVP on 1/17/2014. I then get an email back today stating that my volunteer application has not been accepted due to my “recent and ongoing conflict with the animal care center.”

After careful consideration, we believe that your recent and ongoing conflict with the animal care center, department staff, and various volunteers would be disruptive to the operations and mission of the program and the department.

I immediately emailed Aaron Reyes, a liason between Carson shelter manager Gil Moreno and L.A. County head honcho Marcia Mayeda, in an effort to let him know that my volunteer application had been denied. About a year prior I had had a meeting with Aaron and it was in that meeting where he suggested to me that I apply to become a volunteer. I jokingly told him that they’d never let me do it, as they’ve viewed me as an enemy from day 1, and he assured me that they would, and if they didn’t, to come to him and he’d resolve it. What was Aaron’s response now?

I’m sorry to hear about the outcome of your volunteer application. I was not aware of this decision, nor am I a part of this decision making process. If you have additional information that may be helpful relative to this decision, please contact our Director of Volunteer Services, Rohmi Reid.

Gee, thanks. Rohmi was the person that informed me of my ineligibility for the program. This entire disaster speaks for itself.

Carson shelter declines my volunteer application by swaylove

Email exchange with Rohmi Reid on 1/23/2014 by swaylove

Hey, guess what? The County of Los Angeles awarded their own shelter system an award for 2013… Amazing. Go to any facility right now and you can see banners hanging from every shelter that say “Top Ten Winner” for “reducing canine euthanasia through partnerships.”

With the accepting of this award the department is actually out claiming that the national euthanasia, scratch that, kill-rate for dogs is about 60%, while the L.A. County DACC came in for 2013 at an “all-time low of 37%.” Um, I call the loudest bullshit humanly possible. Show folks the real numbers, and not the fabricated ones where you can cowardly deem thousands of dogs “unadoptable,” kill them, and then hide them from your paraded around digits.

And through partnerships? What partnerships? With actual human beings? This county fires volunteers that socialize and network their impounded dogs. This county has a massive backlog of new volunteer applications and still not even a word to them about any scheduled “training” so that they can get themselves started. The Carson shelter does like 1 training a year for example. This county also has an in-house breed-discriminatory policy that sentences over 90% of their Pit Bulls to death, most never getting a chance to leave their kennels until the day that they are killed. This county runs a racketeering program, extorting money from families after they’ve illegally seized their dogs and then held them indefinitely for money, or killed them without due process or hearings. This county has managers, like at Carson for example (Gil Moreno), that cancel rescue transports because he claims to “not have” any staff that are willing to come late to load trucks, and then refuses to let the willing volunteers help who would be there immediately if they were simply asked to be. This same guy allows a bigot, authoritarian, micromanaging Nazi to be his head volunteer (Joyce), and runs an onsite snitch operation meant to harass amazing volunteers into “compliance,” apathy, or exhaustive frustration. This county has workers who routinely check people’s Facebook pages, and mine leads that list, and then use screenshots to attempt to bully volunteers and rescuers in private based around something they may have said on the internet. This is done by threatening to yank their access to the animals, and most will roll over to any demand because that’s the ultimate power you can have over someone who is at some level dependent on the system and still actually there for the animals. This county is run by one of the worst shelter directors (Marcia Mayeda) in the nation, quite literally. I could go on forever about this apathetic and murderous operation. But they’ve won an award, just like Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize once.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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