Luka was placed on the temperament test list on 7/29. This list basically requests that he be given a temperament test. The Carson shelter never gave him a temperament test. Luka was also being primed by a few volunteers to go to the offsite adoption event on 8/10. The request was verbalized. The Carson shelter killed Luka yesterday with no regard for any of it.

Doesn’t a salary of over $100,000 a year require that this manager find the time to make sure that the dogs that his facility is “sheltering” get temperament tested? Is that too much to ask? What a disgrace. Everything that I wrote about Norman, just yesterday, could be applied to Luka as well. WHERE WAS THE PERSONALITY EVALUATION? My video evidence exists if certain staff members are too lazy to want to get to know their own dogs. Just kick back at your desk and watch my YouTube videos. Maybe you will learn something about a dog’s temperament, since you can’t be bothered to give a damn. Or are my videos and my girlfriend’s onsite avocation for specific dogs actually getting them killed? Hmm? Is it ineptness or retaliation, or a little bit of both?

And oh yeah, Hope was killed yesterday as well. Everything applies to her just the same. Everything applies to so many of them that you never knew…

Friendly Norman was murdered by the Carson shelter yesterday morning, one day after he became “available” to the public. Why was he chosen? No one knows. There is no good or just answer for that question. The shelter claimed that he was “injured.” We had him out the day before he was killed, he was not injured. Was a personality assessment done to determine who was to be euthanized and who was to continue to live? Was this assessment given to Norman? Of course it wasn’t. If they dare claim that it was then they royally suck at that job. Was Norman given a temperament-test? Nope. So how did they ultimately make this determination? Someone specifically chose Norman to be killed, and if they didn’t, his number fell within a group of numbers that a staff member just randomly chose to euthanize. Personality played no role. Those are the only 2 legitimately realistic options. One or the other happened. To say otherwise is to lie.

It’s my guess that the mass majority of people who have animals have no idea about what I’m about to type. I didn’t know either, until I started getting curious and looking into it myself. I never would have even thought to ponder this issue if it weren’t for being exposed to the many microchip-related mishaps that can happen at the kill shelters.

Look at your dog. Pull his or her microchip number up and I want you to do an exercise with me, as I’ve already done with my own dog’s microchips.

Here are the databases that I want you to actually search, using your own dog’s unique number. Each is considered to be a “universal” database that covers any number of different microchips…

Pet Microchip Lookup
Free Pet Chip Registry
Petlink
RFID-USA Microchip Registry or here
Petkey
EIDAP
InfoPET
PETMAXX

Now I don’t know about you, but the only database that my 2 dogs came up in was the first one (Pet Microchip Lookup)… And this was only because I took the extra step of manually entering them into the FoundAnimals free database awhile back. So even though both of my dogs have registered chips with Avid, they didn’t come up in this database through Avid, and they didn’t come up in any of the other ones at all. Regarding the 1 that did list them, they came up linked to the secondary FoundAnimals database instead. So had I not taken the initiative to do that, my registered dogs would have went 0 for 8 in these databases masquerading publicly as “universal” databases. Most people aren’t told to cross-register your pets like this, so they never even think to. The only reason that I did it was because it was free. After researching I found that the 2nd database is free as well. I’ve since signed up for that one too.

The other 6 actually charge you to list your animals… Petlink charges you a 1-time fee of $19.99 per pet. RFID-USA charges you a 1-time fee of $19.95 per pet. Petkey charges you a yearly fee of $14.99 per pet. EIDAP charges you a 1-time fee of $11.00 per pet. InfoPET charges you a 1-time fee of $25.00 and an additional $10.00 per added pet. PETMAXX links with Petlink, so if they aren’t listed in Petlink they have no chance of showing in PETMAXX.

Is all of this not totally ridiculous? Why isn’t there a truly universal database that umbrellas over every single one of these poser databases? If you pay once with a microchip manufacturer then the information should be shared with every other database, should it not? And why so many damn databases to begin with? The majority of which also operate exclusively from all the others. So it begs the question: Does this industry care about returning lost animals to their owners or only about charging numerous fees at the further expense of thoroughly confusing people?

Unfortunately these organizations are not required to speak to each other. That means that they are not sharing owner information. Making matters worse, the available online databases rarely catalog tangible results. Instead of working together for the intended advertised purpose, this whole idea really shows itself to be a diluted mess.

These are some of the most well known microchip manufacturers, many who then have their own databases…

24PetWatch, 1-866-597-2424, uses their own database.
AKC, 1-800-252-7894, uses their own database.
Avid, 1-800-336-2843, uses their own database.
Datamars, 1-877-738-5465, uses the Petlink database.
FoundAnimals, uses their own database.
HomeAgain, 1-888-466-3242, uses their own database.
resQ, 1-877-738-5465, uses the Petlink database.
*resQ was created by Bayer and I can’t tell if it’s now in some way affiliated with Datamars. This and this should be required reading for everyone.

Then you get into which scanners actually read which chips… The word “universal” is again readily thrown around, yet many scanners claiming to be universal only read certain microchips. Sometimes this is done on purpose. Avid chips read out at 9 digits. HomeAgain, AKC and other chips read out at 10 digits. FoundAnimals, Datamars and resQ are ISO chips and read out at 15 digits. Some HomeAgain and AKC chips are now ISO and 15 digits. ISO microchips are what most of the non-U.S. world are currently using. It has been said that many of the scanners being used in the United States seldom successfully scan for ISO microchips. Who knows, but pretty worrisome regardless. The 3 different types of chips run on 3 different frequencies: 125 kHz, 128 kHz, and 134.2 kHz. So unless your microchip scanner picks up all 3 frequencies it is NOT universal.

Some shelters and vets assume that if their scanner picks up three different brands of microchips, it is universal. However some brands are on the same chip frequency, and some make several different types of microchip. So unless the scanner picks up all three frequencies (the 125, 128, and 134.2), it is NOT universal. And unfortunately, many organizations are unknowingly still using non-universal scanners, which means they are missing chips and therefore unable to reunite lost pets with their families.

A couple different scenarios for you… Let’s assume that the scanner actually finds a chip on a stray dog. What if a staff member from a vet’s office or a shelter opted to pull up one of these database websites instead of calling a specific manufacturer directly? What if they tried to call, got put on a lengthy hold, and since they’re busy themselves opted to hang up and use one of these websites instead? Yikes. The mere existence of all of these different databases is troubling, because a single search bringing back no results basically implies that the pet has no owner. I’m not saying that this happens a lot, but if it happens at all then it’s a total shame. The absence of a result in any of these random databases could potentially cause an owned animal to die. That’s real. Best case, they wouldn’t be found but eventually saved and adopted out to someone else. No one knows how careful or thorough people are. Just as many vets and shelters likely have detailed protocol in order to deal with this, many probably don’t. That’s scary.

Please be aware of these missteps and take matters into your own hands to make sure that your pet’s microchip is best represented. If you’ve ever adopted a pet from the shelter it is imperative that you personally register your microchip with the microchip manufacturer. You may assume that the shelter does this for you. They do not. I’d also advise registering your pet’s microchip with the free secondary backup websites, FoundAnimals Microchip Registry and Free Pet Chip Registry. Going further, next time you are at your vet I’d have them scan for a microchip just to see if they get a worthwhile result. Lastly, I’d challenge animal shelters to setup test scenarios with dogs known to have specific chips, just to see if their owned scanners are truly up to snuff. Because I have no doubt that many aren’t, and that basically means more dead dogs.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone, offended with my specific criticism of a shelter, say things like:
“You have no idea how hard it is for shelter staff to put animals to sleep.”
“How dare you criticize a shelter from behind a keyboard.”
“You don’t know what it’s like to be on the ground.”
“Why don’t you do something instead of just attacking those who work tirelessly in the animal sheltering industry?”
You get the picture.

I guess many of these people don’t know that I actually spend a lot of time at shelters. To them I’d like to say this…

What’s hard is having an open heart.
What’s hard is witnessing first-hand the relinquishment of a pet.
What’s hard is talking to its owner, and telling them that they will kill your dog, and have it not faze them.
What’s hard is having the same scenario play out, and have it break them down, but still see them leave their dog because they’ve come to the conclusion that they have no other option.
What’s hard is genuinely sitting with a shelter dog and looking into its eyes.
What’s hard is bonding with them, petting them, rubbing their bellies, feeding them treats.
What’s hard is watching them try to squeeze so hard up against the bars, just to get another centimeter closer to you, and they can’t.
What’s hard is watching them play bow, and wiggle back and forth, and you not be able to reciprocate the fun or fully engage them back.
What’s hard is seeing them come to recognize you, and then get excited when you approach.
What’s hard is having to eventually get up and move on to the next cage.
What’s hard is seeing how beautiful and loving they are, how forgiving and optimistic they are, and then seeing them locked in a cage.
What’s hard is telling the dogs that they are a “good boy” or a “good girl,” and knowing that so many times they’ve likely sat at those bars and watched countless people pass without a care in the world.
What’s hard is telling the dogs to “be strong,” knowing where they are and what they are up against.
What’s hard is running with them in the play yard, and seeing them free, and then having to put them back.
What’s hard is potentially confusing them.
What’s hard is having to get in your car and drive away to go back home.
What’s hard is knowing every dog by face and name, and not knowing if they are going to be alive the next day.
What’s hard is sitting on the telephone, awaiting to be told a dog’s fate.
What’s hard is knowing how many services I could actually offer the shelter, offering those services, and then not being given the opportunity to provide those services.
What’s hard is loving every single animal inside of a specific shelter, and knowing that the manager and certain members of a staff actually view you as an enemy.
What’s hard is living in America and feeling like the use of one’s freedom of speech and expression is a crime.
What’s hard is seeing a shelter staff worry more about their public perception than the fate of the countless dogs and cats that they are supposed to be sheltering.
What’s hard is knowing that there is definitely a better way than just endlessly killing.
What’s hard is having that way routinely ignored, never attempted and constantly misrepresented by the people that are actually in a position to attempt it.
What’s hard is seeing all of the Pit Bulls be discriminated against in numerous different ways.
What’s hard is learning that a dog was killed because it was deemed “unadoptable” or “aggressive,” and knowing that this is a blatant lie.
What’s hard is seeing shelter workers get desensitized.
What’s hard is seeing wonderful volunteers and members of the public erroneously fear-mongered.
What’s hard is seeing a shelter manager lack compassion and empathy.
What’s hard is having the vindictiveness of certain shelter managers thrown in your face routinely.
What’s hard is not being able to properly network a dog’s photo on your own Facebook page out of fear that that shelter’s manager will see it and kill the dog in retaliation.
What’s hard is knowing that that’s already happened many times.
What’s hard is seeing a dog come in and then be killed as soon as it’s available to be killed.
What’s hard is knowing more about a dog’s personality than the staff allocated to decide whether it should be killed or not.
What’s hard is seeing shelters constantly hide behind liability.
What’s hard is seeing shelters excuse their lack of innovation for lack of resources.
What’s hard is having to deal with hypocrisy, inconsistencies and technicalities on a daily basis.
What’s hard is having to stay focused, and continue putting the effort forth in the face of mass killing and sadness.
What’s hard is having to take time away from visiting with the dogs in order to actually get good photographs.
What’s hard is doing something for 5 hours that realistically should take 2.
What’s hard is coming home and spending the next 15 hours straight editing photographs and/or video.
What’s hard is seeing the overwhelming nature of all of the pictures as a whole render the few people that want to help helpless.
What’s hard is putting pictures up and not having them get the support and networking power that you’d hope they would get.
What’s hard is having to try again.
What’s hard is doing an endless amount of work and not being paid for it.
What’s hard is seeing my girlfriend, who is now a volunteer, cry every single night.
What’s hard is sitting in the dark in front of my computer, editing pictures, and wondering how the dog who is in front of me is doing.
What’s hard is sitting in silence, and having their faces fill my thoughts.
What’s hard is knowing how much of the population simply isn’t even aware that shelters kill.
What’s hard is knowing how much good we could all do if we could simply be honest with one another.
What’s hard is being told that I am a jerk for opposing killing, and that I should feel bad for the people that actually have and make the choice to kill.
What’s hard is having to deal with the shelter apologists that have long sold their principles down the river.
What’s hard is constantly writing about all of the things that Pit Bulls are up against in this world.
What’s hard is dealing with the ignorance.
What’s hard is dealing with the hate.
What’s hard is continuing to go.
What’s hard is continuing to have an open heart.

So don’t talk to me about what is hard.

At the same time, everything that I’ve listed as “hard” is also easy, because I love doing it for these dogs in the hopes that it makes a difference. I love these dogs. That is also hard and that is also easy. There is absolutely nothing in the world more rewarding than when it makes a difference for 1 of them.

So yesterday morning I went to a Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners’ meeting that was regarding a proposal to due away with late-term abortions happening in city shelters. There is many other facets to this, including created plans on how L.A. City intends to try and make this work. Much of that has been semi-detailed in documents first released by Brenda Barnette (that were available at this meeting, can’t find them online), and also reviewed by other publications that are available online.

Every single person in attendance (30 or so), except for me and 1 other person, were against this proposal and thus for late-term abortions. I personally understood much of what these many folks had to say. I agreed with a lot of the criticism. I most definitely do not trust Brenda Barnette and called her disingenuous to her face in my public comment. I do not agree with L.A. City and what can only be viewed as their hypocritical attempt to create a monopoly on breeding. I do not agree with L.A. City with how this late-term abortion debate is being viewed solely as a way to “generate more revenue.” I find it really disheartening that the ethical principle of it all falls by the wayside when compared to the idea of revenue generation. Some of the details of what Barnette has in mind are shady at best, and trusting her to be genuine and transparent on this issue is not something that I’d personally put much stock in.

…But with all that being said, I cannot wrap my head around the abandonment of principle here. Both as just a general animal-lover and advocate, but also as someone who sees what true No Kill is supposed to be (and can be) vs. what L.A. City and NKLA are doing and have been doing under the guise of No Kill.

Much of my public comment pointed this out. I noted that Phyllis Daugherty reported that under Brenda Barnette’s watch existing spay/neuter subsidy money for low-income residents was “not maximized,” and instead had over $200,000 reallocated in order to pay staff salaries. Another $400,000 was reportedly lost “due to it not being spent.” What in the hell? I asked if this was true… The Commissioners couldn’t directly respond back to me so I have no idea. But if true then that’s utterly disgraceful. The maximizing of spay/neuter funds for low-income residents is one of the foundational elements of any legitimate No Kill effort.

I then noted that what NKLA was doing was not following what is advertised by the No Kill Advocacy Center, but rather putting forth what seems to be a marketing ploy that continues fundamental business as usual. I said that all of these “puppy mill” pet stores that are being shut down should be used to promote shelter dogs, and hopefully many adult dogs and Pit Bull-type dogs will be routinely featured there in the future. I think we all want to see this, alongside whatever puppies also exist, and that a balance is able to be struck. Lord knows there’s a lot of these former stores out there…

So I verbalized my confusion as best as I could, which was probably not the most eloquent. These are tough issues. All I know is that the basic premise of the No Kill idea is that you don’t end a life of an animal that is not truly suffering or truly vicious. That notion aligns with L.A. City’s attempted policy change on late-term abortions. But what are their motives? That’s an entirely different discussion. Because very little of what L.A. City has done (and continues to do) aligns with what the No Kill Advocacy Center actually promotes as ways to truly be successful. L.A. City has almost openly shunned the process entirely. They routinely kill countless dogs, every day, while giving this cleaned up impression that Los Angeles is a No Kill city. That bastardizes what has been shown to be successful elsewhere, and it serves to bastardize the idea of No Kill in general. It is a well-poisoner so to speak. So I’m confused. And all I see is disingenuousness from Brenda Barnette and the few (or many) others that are responsible for the direction that NKLA has taken thus far.

I agree with much of what is written right here. What are your thoughts? Ask yourself: Is killing wrong and do you reject it?

A few people commenting yesterday kept saying that when you abort puppies and kittens that are due to essentially be born in mere days, well, it doesn’t matter because “they haven’t experienced life.” Many of these people seem to then want to make it into a tradeoff scenario as a response to anyone that doesn’t fully agree with them. So now will I be told that I support rampant breeding? Will I now be told that I support the continued shelter killing of countless innocent pets? Well, those are clearly straw man arguments that carry very little legitimacy when viewed in proper context. I support the reforming of the animal sheltering system. I support tireless and thoughtful education and communication, and providing the many services that lead to both expansive adoption results and voluntary spay and neuter. I support the idea that human beings can be better than what many of us think that we are. I support the idea that pets should be a part of the family, and that every little bit helps in getting there, but that you also can’t micro-manage the results that you see out of a fear that something will always go wrong. What does that get you? The shelter already does wrong by many of these animals every day.

I sensed a massive wave of defeatist energy from most everyone who probably thought that I was an idiot for going against the grain on this issue. Hell, many of the commenters essentially implied that the Commissioners were lunatics for even giving this topic a platform at all. (One curious thing that a few people noticed was how this specific issue made it all the way to the Commissioners’ meeting at the request of 1 individual. Wow. Someone’s apparently got some pull! I know that there’s many other issues that countless people would love to see discussed. How do we get those things up for an honest debate? But I digress…) Back to the defeatist energy… I sensed it from most of the public commenters, from numerous Commissioners, and I always seem to sense it from Barnette. It showed in the way that many of the commenters talked about the poorest among us, it wasn’t very flattering commentary. The nanny-state stuff, the anti-this or -that vibe that reeks of over-protectiveness can often times be detrimental to what you are trying to ultimately achieve. We are never going to have a system that is absolutely perfect. What is near-perfect to someone may not be near-perfect to the next person. What I do know is that we can be a hell of a lot better that what we are now. Way better. We can be better.

I was joking around with my girlfriend as we were talking about this meeting, and I threw out to her that I’ve heard that Brenda Barnette makes between $220,000 and $240,000 per year. I then said that they could hire me to run L.A. City Animal Services and that I’d do it for $50,000 a year. That may sound preposterous on its face, and many would point to my “inexperience” and all the rest of it, but how could I possibly do that job any worse than it’s being done right now? And that’s not to say that someone couldn’t do it worse, or that Barnette hasn’t done some good things… But I know for a fact that if you simply slid her out and slid me in, that the machine would continue charging down the tracks at at least the current rate it’s going, and that’s the worst-case scenario… I guess that internal parts could potentially revolt, due to certain people not liking me or my ultimate aspirations of reform. Some might act in ways to attempt to discredit me or my ideas, or leave entirely, but that’s a risk I would take and I’d just have to have a bigger faith in humanity as a whole.

Albeit a joke, I do think that I could actually make a positive difference. I do know that I’d talk openly about the process, and how much or how little that bureaucracy got in the way. I do know that I’d be transparent and that I’d use funds to inform people of what a Los Angeles shelter currently is and what it has been for as long as we could look backwards. I’d dovetail that with a request to change it. I do know that I’d ask for help, and that I’d attempt to surround myself with people that I think are capable, and people that maximize the many shortcomings of my own personality. What I do know is that you’d be saving between $170,000 and $190,000 in salary. What I do know is that I wouldn’t have squandered the over $600,000 that was already allotted to low-income spay/neuter programs. Add the saved salary to what was reportedly flushed down the toilet and there’s all of a sudden another $800,000 sitting there for genuine low-cost spay/neuter representation.

Am I bad or nutty because I think that we can be better? Better as people, as communicators, as leaders, as a community, as a city, as a county, as a state? Is what L.A. City and L.A. County are doing okay with you? They are different public mechanisms but the result is far too often the same. Is it not? Is it not?

So on Saturday morning shelter manager Gil Moreno personally chose numerous dogs to go on that morning’s kill list. Why is the Carson shelter killing prior to opening on a Saturday you ask? No idea. But it literally appears as if Gil just looked at a numerically ordered list of ID#s, highlighted a section of digits, and killed all of the dogs that that string of numbers represented. That’s Gil’s managerial style. This is his definition of an “evaluation,” what honestly amounts to nothing more than pin the tail on the donkey. Here is 3 of his casualties from that morning… They appear numerically in a row, but I’m sure that that’s simply a coincidence and that I’m a conspiracy theorist.

1st dog, Annie: #A4600004, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.
2nd dog: #A4600005, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.
3rd dog: #A4600006, came in as a stray on 6/30, was made available on 7/5 and killed the morning of 7/6.

More known deaths…
1st dog, Reece: Came in as a stray on 7/1, was made available on 7/6 and killed the morning of 7/8.
2nd dog, Molly Mae: Came in as an owner surrender on 7/1, was made available on 7/6 and killed the morning of 7/8.
3rd dog: Came in on 6/29 and killed as soon as she became available.
4th dog: Came in on 6/28 and killed days after he became available.
5th dog: Came in on 7/2 and killed as soon as she became available.

Every pictured dog was friendly. I spent a decent amount of time with every dog pictured here except the 2 below Annie. They were both in quarantine so access was limited. One was a 10-year-old owner surrender and the other was a 3-year-old Mastiff-mix. They should have been given a chance, they weren’t. None of them were.

Annie was a wonderful dog. She was my favorite. She was super scared and shy. She was so scared that Dianne had to physically carry her from her kennel. She was taken to the play yard and Annie got to see how nice people treated her. She was wonderful. She laid close to me and Dianne and gave us love and affection. After 15 minutes or so in the play yard she was grinning widely and had a noticeable pep in her step. She brilliantly walked all the way back to her kennel on the leash. She was happy and smiling, and the above photo was taken right as she was being put back into her kennel for the day. She was 1 year old.

Reece was a little munchkin. Another shy and scared dog. She laid, frozen, by the coiled up water hose. Her body sank into the concrete, as to give off the impression that she was silently wishing that this was all just a bad dream. She was also eventually brought to the play yard and trusted us explicitly. She just liked to be held. I next saw Reece 5 days later and she came right up to me at the cage. This was the total opposite response of what anyone got on the day that she was impounded. She embraced my rubs and licked my hands. Someone organizing a rescue-based program saw her video and wanted to put her on television on Wednesday. They emailed Gil twice, once on Friday and another (specifically asking for Reece) on Sunday. They got no response either time. Reece was killed on Monday morning. She was 6 months old.

Molly Mae was a chubby checker. She was like the female version of Dianne’s dog, Falcor, who she found on the freeway in 2011. Molly Mae immediately came into the play yard and plopped on her back, rolling and grunting as her belly was rubbed. She was a total ham, much like Lancelot was. She literally stayed on her back the majority of the time that she was in the yard. Most of the pictures that I took of her were of her laying upside down, eyes closed and probably thinking of something other than this shelter. Glad we could give her that. Her prior owner dumped her here. They got to leave her, out of sight and out of mind. She was not seen by the staff for the highly adoptable dog that she was. She was simply seen as cage space and murdered less than 48 hours after she became available. She was 5 years old.

The 3 below them? 10 months old, 2 years old and 1 year old. All super sweet. Beautiful, amazing and loving dogs. People deserved to know them, and they deserved to make someone really happy.

Instead, all of these pictured dogs (and many more) are dead. Dead, while kennels sit empty and emails go unanswered and volunteers get micro-managed and members of the public get fear-mongered. Dead, while life-saving programs cease to exist. Dead, while dogs go unevaluated and others sit illegally held and others sit unable to be taken out because of breed discrimination “policies” and others await their exit that hasn’t come yet because certain staff members frown upon doing actual work. Dead, and everyone else non-affiliated with the actual person or persons that dumped the dog or allowed it to get loose is to blame, everyone except the shelter power players that decided to kill them. You will continue to be called out. Not everyone is asleep at the wheel.

I want to start off by saying that this story had a happy ending. Gatsby was adopted by a great couple and he is likely being spoiled while adjusting to his new home. But had it not been for a handful of people, people that do not work for the shelter, this would have never happened.

This is what we’ve learned by staying engaged in Gatsby’s stay at the Carson shelter: Gatsby came in as a stray on 6/3. Since he was a stray he’s not automatically made available to the public, and he’s given the “available” date of 6/8 instead. This is done so that the shelter can see if a dog has a microchip and then attempt to contact any owner that the dog may have. This date also doubles as a “due out” date, meaning that the first day that any stray dog becomes available to the public is also the first day that it could hypothetically be killed. Gatsby is given the ID# A4586493 upon intake. A microchip is found at some point, the date of when it was found is unclear. Gatsby receives a CTA (commitment to adopt) on 6/15 by an individual that saw him at the shelter. Gatsby is placed on the glamour shot list by a volunteer on 6/16. Glamour shots are when a photographer comes in and photographs select dogs for a better profile picture. This is done for networking purposes and essentially buys the dog a 10-day networking hold from the date that the picture is taken. In order to be kept on the glamour shot list any added dog must first pass a temperament test. Between 6/16 and 6/21 Gatsby is given his temperament test, which he passes with an “A.” The shelter sends out a letter to Gatsby’s owner (noted from the microchip) on 6/21. Glamour shots are then given on 6/22, and Gatsby is included, thus buying him 10 more days and making his new “due out” date 7/2. It’s learned that a “property inspection” was done regarding Gatsby’s actual owner, thus implying that his owner wanted him back. The property inspection is then “failed,” meaning that the shelter decided that Gatsby is not allowed to return to his previous owner. On 6/26 volunteers and concerned individuals take it upon themselves to upload Gatsby’s glamour photo onto the websites ShelterMe.com and RescueMe.org. On 6/28 the shelter staff finally calls the CTA, which was placed on 6/15. Nobody answers. Gatsby is then placed on the euthanasia evaluation list for the morning of 6/29 because his “due out” date is still showing in the computer as being 6/8, his original “due out” date. His actual “due out” date is now 7/2, but apparently nobody updated it in the system. This was only found out because miraculously an interested couple saw Gatsby’s photograph on the website RescueMe.org and ended up calling into the shelter the night of 6/28 to place an IP (interested party) on him. Gatsby is neutered on the morning of 7/1 and is picked up that afternoon.

I know that that was a frustrating paragraph to read. The 5-day intake window for strays is put there precisely for this reason: To locate a microchip and follow-up with any owner. Yet, the Carson shelter didn’t contact Gatsby’s prior owner until they sent a letter out on 6/21, 18 days after Gatsby came into the shelter and 13 days after he hypothetically could have been killed. They then scheduled a “property inspection,” which I personally find absolutely absurd (and had no clue that they actually do this), and then failed the person to boot, thus blocking Gatsby’s reunion with his legitimate owner.

Secondly, when Gatsby received a CTA on 6/15 this should have prompted both a temperament test and the dog’s sterilization, if necessary. In Gatsby’s case it was. A commitment to adopt is a commitment to adopt, and that should be of the utmost importance to any shelter staff. Well, Gatsby’s neuter wasn’t done until 7/1 (at the behest of a secondary request), and the individual who placed the CTA on 6/15 wasn’t even called back until 6/28! God only knows how many times this person may have tried to contact the shelter… Shelter phones routinely park you on hold for upwards of an hour or more, no matter the time that you call, and this is the case almost exclusively. When you do finally get through it’s almost a guarantee that you will be told 1 thing by 1 person, and could then be told a totally different thing by another person, even on the same day. This could have happened with them, as I’ve experienced this phenomenon many times. All I know is that Gatsby’s temperament test was given at some point between 6/16 and 6/21, which he passed with an “A.” It’s unclear whether it was done for the first CTA or for the glamour shot clearance. But why was the individual who placed the original CTA not called until 6/28? And why, based on 1 non-answer, does Gatsby immediately go on the next morning’s kill-list? Nice.

The non-updating of Gatsby’s “due out” date, from 6/8 to 7/2, could have also gotten Gatsby killed at any time, and almost did. This “oversight” nonsense has gotten countless dogs, including Ruby, killed in the past. We will sadly never know the true scale of such incompetence.

And ultimately, the placing of his picture (by someone not affiliated with the shelter) onto a website (not affiliated with the shelter) is what got him seen and then saved by a secondary interested person. Had it not been for that act, Gatsby would have almost certainly been killed on the morning of 6/29 (as the “due out” mistake would have never been realized), and best case scenario the morning of 7/2 (assuming the update was placed correctly, which it wasn’t).

I want people to understand that the reason I have so much information about this specific dog is because there were lots of people working together to make sure he had a happy ending. Unfortunately most dogs do not have this. The most important takeaway from this writeup should be the question that you are hopefully already asking: How many dogs does this happen to? How many dogs end up dying simply due to miscommunication, or stagnation, or inaction on the part of the shelter?

So many dogs most likely suffer the fate that Gatsby almost suffered. Even with all of ^those details, all that could be deemed positive momentum, all that should have been done correctly, or better, or faster… Gatsby almost died, and no one would have known. It all would have been flushed down the memory hole. Gatsby was just fortunate enough to have a volunteer that honed in on him for whatever reason, who then got 3rd party rescue folks and networkers involved, and even through all the shelter’s incompetence he was still salvaged. Thank God. Most dogs die silently when up against this. This is not an anomaly, more likely a normality. How many dogs have died when they quite easily could have been and should have been saved?

Did you know that your local, self-proclaimed “progressive” shelter out in Wildomar, CA is actually a house of racism and killing? It has a cute name, “Animal Friends of the Valleys,” and through its name recognition actually comes off as more of a rescue than an actual shelter. Well, it’s a shelter, and they kill a lot, and they really make it near impossible for the Pit Bulls. Check out this “Pit Bull adoption policy.”

So anyone interested in a dog that this shelter deems to be in any way a Pit Bull must first be interviewed by the executive director of the shelter, they must then have a home check done, they must introduce their entire family to the shelter representative, they must have liability insurance, they must sign a “release of liability” form (okay, whatever), the dog cannot go into a home where any other animal resides and the dog cannot go into a home where any child under the age of 12 resides. Wow. You guys are unfair as hell.

I took a screen capture of all of the available dogs that are being displayed on their website at the time that I wrote this piece, therefore giving you a visual representation of how this policy plays itself out…

I don’t know about y’all, but just off of this image alone I notice numerous anomalies. Anomalies that don’t bode well when being viewed under a rational and ethical lens. I see dogs that are labeled as Pit Bull-mixes that might not be. I see dogs that are labeled as something else when they might be part Pit Bull. I see dogs looking nearly identical, where 1 is labeled as a Pit Bull-mix and the other is not. I see Rottweilers and Dobermans and German Shepherds and American Bulldogs and big Labradors that have no restrictions on their adoptions, while anything that is called a Pit Bull has tons. I’m certainly not advocating for those other dogs to have restrictions too, but instead for all dogs to be treated fairly and without this prejudicial profiling.

Worst of all, you see a pair of dogs that were surrendered together (row 7, image 1 & 2) where 1 is labeled a Pit Bull and the other is not… Going off of the AFV “Pit Bull adoption policy” alone it shows that there is no way that these 2 dogs could ever be saved from this shelter together, as the shelter’s policy clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes where other animals reside.” This pays no mind to the shelter’s own notes which say that both dogs (Bourbon and Brandie) are “kind” and “excellent” with each other and with kids.

Speaking of kids, this shelter’s policy also clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes with children under 12 years of age,” and yet many of their listed Pit Bulls at the time of this writing have notes saying how good they are with kids. So unfair.

The Animal Friends of the Valleys shelter is clearly neck-deep in unscientific, inconsistent profiling. And this act alone probably gets the majority of these innocent dogs killed. That’s an injustice and I’d argue that this shelter is openly violating state law and the statute that says you cannot discriminate by a breed or type of dog.

So while sitting in the parking lot of the Carson shelter on 7/1 I noticed a few things that I really take issue with.

The first being that a few guys rolled up about 10 minutes after the shelter had officially closed for the day. The shelter’s closing is only relevant for public admittance and outgoing shelter business. Incoming dogs can be dropped off or impounded 24 hours a day. So these guys drive up in an old-style Chevrolet car with an open-air back. In the back they have 3 adult dogs that are clearly visible, 2 large dogs and 1 smaller dog. These dogs are tied to the back of the bumper with braided rope that is around their necks at the other end. The tailgate is shut on the rope, thus creating a barrier for the dogs between the back of the car and the street below. As I’m sitting there I overhear that there’s actually 6 puppies in the back as well. The guys claim that the dogs are not theirs, and that they found them in a neighbor’s backyard. I call bullshit, but whatever. So they are here to drop off these dogs. A few staff members from the shelter come out, and after a minute or two these guys are told that they cannot drop the dogs off at this shelter because the area in which the dogs were found falls outside of the established area that Carson covers. The guys are clearly agitated and they are told again that they must go to another shelter. They are directed to go to Downey, another L.A. County shelter.

Now, I realize that this is likely proper “protocol” per say, because the shelter impound system is normally based on the location of an animal’s prior home or where it is “found” or “caught” as a stray. But at some point you might need to evaluate what you are dealing with, and make a call that sometimes puts that aside if you ultimately feel that the safety of the animal may be in jeopardy. That’s my personal opinion at least. And as I’m watching this play out I’m having that exact feeling, so you’d think that staff would be as well.

Why? 1) These guys are not too thrilled with this news. 2) Based on that, you then don’t know if they will actually follow through and take them to Downey, or maybe opt to dump them somewhere more convenient instead. 3) See that the dogs are actually tied up with a rope that could easily hang them alive if they jumped or fell out of the back of the car. 4) Know that you are sending them out to get on multiple highways. To get from the Carson shelter to the Downey shelter you are either going to take the 91 to the 710 or you are going to take the 110 to the 105. What if a dog fell out the back of that car and hung itself on the freeway, unbeknownst to the driver? I know that I had that visual in my mind almost immediately. Yet off they were sent…

You mean to tell me that the shelter couldn’t hold those dogs, who’d probably need 1 or 2 spaces max (anywhere, general population, medical, clinic, wherever), overnight and then do the transfer the next day in one of their shiny new animal control trucks? I’m pretty sure that shelters do location-related transfers like this all the time.

The second thing was that about 20 minutes after closing a family pulled up in a jeep and proceeded to go into the shelter to look at the dogs. No one had flipped the sign on the gates, so they had no idea that the shelter was closed. It was still light out and plenty of people were standing around. This was 2 people who were probably in their mid-30’s and they had a daughter. So they’re walking around and looking at the dogs and after 5 minutes one of the staff members walks out as this family was between buildings, to where she could see them. Instead of politely walking up to them, engaging them about what they were looking for (while informing them that they were closed), telling them that they should definitely come back tomorrow and how critical it is to save a life, thanking them for wanting to potentially do so, any number of things… What does she do? She yells at them from where she was standing, which was about 40 yards away, “Hey, hey, we are closed!!!” After she sees that they’ve acknowledged her shout, she goes on about her business. The couple walks out the gate, gets in their car and leaves. Potential adopter lost.

Carson shelter: You suck.

As a further note to the first story, I did follow up online and match the 3 dogs that I saw with similar-looking dogs that were impounded at Downey on 7/1. Hopefully they (all 9 of them) made it there safely.

So a few months ago I did a phone interview with a journalist about all things related to my Pit Bull advocacy. Having known beforehand that she was also going to be asking me about the Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA) that ultimately took Sway’s life, I set out to videotape my side of the interview so that I could then create an accessible testimony for the many other people currently going through what we went through. That video, which is almost 30 minutes in length, will be available within the next few days. Please stay tuned…

The videos below are some of the other questions that I was asked.

“What was the instance that acted as a catalyst in becoming an advocate for Pit Bulls?”

“What stereotypes did you experience while having Sway?”

“What are your thoughts on BSL (Breed-specific legislation)?”

“Where does the negative stigma and its perpetuation come from?”

Talking about the breed-targeting dynamic and the challenges of engaging all people… “Why does the Pit Bull stereotype still persist?”

“Can you talk about your relationship with the kill shelters that you photograph at?”