In reply to Ed Muzika on Brenda Barnette:

In response to Ed (EDIT: who has now deleted his two lengthy replies to my comment--See below):

There are 5 (sorry--4) non-reporters who have written blogs or other pieces and who are not wholeheartedly supporting this appointment.

They are (that I know of):
Myself
Carole Davis
Marie Atake
Phyllis Daugherty

I include Carole because she has written thoughtfully about this appointment and one must assume correctly that ADL has read her posts. Otherwise, WTF are they talking about? Just Daugherty and Atake? When thinking about who the accused "KOOKS" are, I made list of what I've read. I don't mention Daugherty because her views are personal and--usually--only relate to law enforcement and the "viciousness" of pit bull type dogs.

I have neither spoken nor corresponded with any of these people regarding Barnette, so I don't see how we are "united." Are they talking amongst themselves? I don't know or care. You mention Garcia in another post. I guess that's Jane Garcia. I haven't seen anything by her, but I have normally agreed with her on most things.

I'll ask Barnette my questions when she's at work--not at a party.
You want to see her resume? I'll request it and send you a copy.

The problem with the "92%" is that the claim is said to be at an "open door" shelter which SHS is and was not. She "saved" 92% of the animals she allowed in and deemed "adoptable" by whatever standards (don't know what they are). That's the major qualification the accompanies her name in the ADL email blasts. If it's inconsequential and doesn't mean she can do that here, then why mention it? Why call SHS an open door shelter when it is not?

SHS is not much different from some of our local 501c3 rescues. They ALL have "save" rates in the high 90's or even 100% because they can. They choose their animals and charge adoption fees of $200-$350 JUST LIKE SEATTLE HUMANE. The fact that she had a brick and mortar building and a larger staff makes her more credible? No.

You don't care about breeding? Well, I do. So there. Where do you think these "unwanted" animals come from, Ed? People who allow or choose for their animals to breed and then dump them at the shelter ARE the problem, for the most part. We have laws against breeding without a permit. They don't work. Hve you been to an urban vet's office lately? There are non-permitted bred dogs of every variety lined up to get their shots. Ads on the bulletin boards scream out PUPPIES for sale! The rest of the problem people dumping animals are idiot humans who don't know what it means to be responsible for an animal which you take into your home. If you don't understand why being pro-breeding is an issue, then I can't explain it to you. The AKC and the breeders fought tooth and nail against spay/neuter. You forgot?

I care about transparency and an end to the lies coming out of LAAS. I though you did too.

I haven't counted the number of people ADL has interviewed who are praising Barnette, but I don't think it is "dozens" so who's exaggerating?

Re: the TV quotes. Watch the video, Ed. You have always- ALWAYS since you changed your position on Boks gone for the facts and the proof. You're not doing that in this instance. You're saying "hey, everyone loves her, I love her too." I would expect a Humane Society CEO to advise to look for a pit bull dog in a SHELTER FIRST--NOT A BREEDER's back yard. We take in nearly 7000 thousand a year here. In Seattle, they ship them out to other cities or kill them.

Again, I don't dislike her. I don't even know her. Neither do you. ADL admits they've never spoken to her. My objection ALL along has been to this "she is the saviour" campaign. Why not just welcome her to town,pay her nearly $200,000 and support her and see what she does? That's what I intend to do. I will also ask questions and (I guess) be slammed for doing so. You've already lumped me into a group of "detractors" without bothering to call me or email me to ask what my issues are.

I'm not a detractor. I just want the truth. Starting a job with misrepresentations is no way to start, in my book. Maybe you went to the meet/greet. If so, did she address the room? If so, what did she say? Did anyone ask her anything? At all? Granted, she's not saying these things about herself. Her adoration is coming from ADL, you and --quietly--Nathan Winograd. His rather sane letter to the Mayor has been translated into "The father of NO KILL " says Barnette is the one.

Dan Guss? Has he written something? I have had no contact with him in over a year--by choice. "Concerns" is not a rare word that you should assume is being collectively used by a "united" group. That's what I have- concerns. Use a different word if you like but that aptly describes what I have. "Concerns" is less negative than "doubts." What word should I use that wouldn't lump me in with Dan Guss, who's opinion on this is unknown to me? If you have emails from him, forward them please. I'd like to read them.

I hope she DOES build a great foster program and DOES rejuvenate the horrid volunteer program which fails because volunteers are shunned and harassed by the employees. Some of the employees are a major obstacle to a better department. I haven't heard word one on what she can do about that or what experience she has with City Gov't and unions that is relative...Have you?

You don't get what all the "heat" is about. Well, I don't get what all the "praise" is about nor how her accomplishments at Seattle Humane are relevant to LAAS.

She seems like a nice lady who ran a non-profit, privately funded rescue organization. She ran it well, by all accounts. How does that translate to her new job? Anybody? As I've said before--maybe she'll wring millions out of our local wealthy folks to fund a City Department. Currently a lot of that money goes to private rescues and SPCA-LA.

So yeah..I'll ask her my questions, but she has no reason to answer them? I'm just a guy with a blog and a dog in hell--a known "enemy" of the Department. I'll let you know if she responds and if her "open door to the community" is really open--to everyone.


-Jeff de la Rosa


Ed wrote:

Ask your questions to her face to face at the meet and greet.

92% is not misleading. She has, supposedly a 92% save rate in her shelter. That does not mean she or anyone could have a 92% save in LA. But how is that misleading?

True, the Carole and Carol are not mentioned by ADL. Why did you bring their names up? ADL didn't. You speculate.

How do you know her membership was not on the resume or kept from the selection committee? She me proof, not just your statement.

I really don't know what you make of her alleged statement to check out the breeder. I don't know the context of that statement. That is, the 2 paragraphs before that quoter and the 2 after. Was she talking to someone who was going to a breeder to get a dog?

Now, how are these legitimate concerns?

If, instead, you told me that died in shelter increased by 65% due to poor sanitation and overcrowding as in Boks shelters, that could be a problem.

But if she was able to build a foster program in Seattle with less than a million people population, that was larger than LA's with 4 times as many people, and saved more animals than LA, I'd say that was a significant plus. Does that concern you?

Now why because you voice these "concerns," which is the exact same word that Dan Guss uses, and perhaps Atake--I have not read her article yet--out loud in articles and on this blog, do you think she is obligated to answer in kind of a general way to whomever raises the issue?

That is, is she supposed to write an email response to you, to Dan, to Atake, Heisen, et al, who fling these questions to the general public to raise your concerns as public concerns?

I see these concerns as non-concerns. I don't see how they are relevant to saving animals at LAAS as would her volunteer and foster programs, and public adoption programs.

Who gives a f..k if she were a breeder, breeder sympathizer, etc.? I just don't get what all the heat is about.

As someone said who left a comment, as a hypothetical dog, "I don't care if she bred my grandfather or not, what are my chances of getting adopted?"

You can repeat these united voiced "concerns" over and over, but they are not my concerns.

ADL has found dozens of people who actually worked with Barnette during the transformation of SHS. None of them raised "concerns" about AKA or breeding.

These are the wrong concerns.

My concern is that your unified "common talking point concerns" are like Republican guilt by association talking points used against Obama. Ayers, radical, communist, socialist. His minister, racist. These are not legit questions in my mind so don't repeatedly request me to be dragged into your plot.


[AND MORE]

You mentioned Carol and Carole, not ADL. Why do you say ADL was talking about them and then you defend them?

The "concerns" you raise are like Republican talking points. You all use the word "concerns" as if they were legitimate and that we should all share them.

I don't see how membership in AKA or having shown or bred dogs would make Barnette unfit to be GM, compared, let's say, with Heisen.

If Barnette truly did build a foster system in a city of 800,000 people that saved 3,000 animals, that is important. If she can do the same with a volunteer core, that is important. That she saved 92% of animals may or may not be true, I haven't personally seen the stats, that doesn't mean she can't significantly raise the live save rate in LA in two or three years or less. A big fish in a small pond can still become a big fish in a big pond.

I think ADL rightfully sees through this campaign of oblique attacks using the same talking points by everyone.