Friday, November 7, 2008
UPDATE 11/07/08: Animal Care Services Director, Jeffrey Hale, has resigned. Hale will step down immediately, but will remain on the city payroll until year's end on administrative leave. Hale was the leading force behind the effort to make San Antonio a "no kill" city by 2012. The "no kill" movement is backed by highly questionable groups -- groups that will adopt out dangerous dogs instead of euthanizing. See comments to learn more.
11/06/08: More Bexar County Problems
San Antonio, TX - In the light of the recent multitude of "Director of Animal Service Departments" with questionable -- if not criminal -- actions (Director of the Hawaii Humane Society, Director of Ventura County Animal Services and the Director of Fulton County Animal Services), it comes as no surprise that the director of the San Antonio Animal Services Department has recently been charged with a crime.
Bexar County, where San Antonio resides, is on the DogsBite.org Watch List due to the fact that the county suffered two dog bite fatalities last year, and since the enactment of Lillian's Law 14 months ago, has only indicted two dog owners. It's been over two months since Denise Rocha was brutally attacked by pit bulls, which forced her to spend 35 days hospitalized and undergo 12 surgeries. Bexar officials have yet to charge the dog owners.
On Wednesday night, The city's Animal Care Services director was arrested on a charge of driving while intoxicated and failing field sobriety tests, according to a police report. Jeffrey L. Hale, 43, was stopped just before 9:30 p.m. at Jackson and West Quincy streets downtown when a police officer watched a silver Volvo drive at a high rate of speed, abruptly change lanes and veer into the shoulder on Interstate 35.
A breath test given at the magistrate's office was over the legal limit, the report said. Di Galvan, a spokeswoman for the city, said she could not comment on personnel matters, but said city officials were aware of the arrest. Hale took over as the director of ACS in 2006 during a tumultuous time when the city was moving toward the goal of creating a no-kill shelter (which might be translated into a "no pit bull kill" shelter).
Commenters, please respond!
11/07/08: Kathy Jenks, Director of Animal Services, Stands Before City Council
10/31/08: Coverage of the Fulton County Animal Shelter - DogsBite.org
10/06/08: "Mixed Breed," a Typical Animal Agency Cover Up for a Pit Bull?
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 11/07/2008 2:07 PM |
The vague concept of No Kill has been around for a long time, pushed by a lot of different people and groups in different ways.
But in recent years (especially as No Kill has had so many notable failures- just look at what is going on with Ed Boks in La. He was another No Kill pusher who was heavily promoted by Best Friends) the No Kill agenda has been taken over and "branded" by the Best Friends/Nathan Winograd element.
This is the most extreme kind of No Kill. Advocating for placing aggressive dogs, opposing bsl, turning out cats outdoors with no caretaker and calling them wild, and opposing animal control laws (especially the ones that the breeder business doesn't like)
This brand of No Kill has gotten involved with the breeder community in recent years, as you can see in everything from the amicus brief filed by Best Friends and their breeder friends for the Vick Dogs, to breeder lobbying groups promoting Nathan Winograd and pushing his agenda for their own interests.
Including pit bull breeder lobbying groups!
This brand of No Kill is trying, in addition to lawsuits and privatizing animal control so their own people can take over, to get those sympathetic with or connected to their activities into leadership roles so that No Kill extremism can affect animal control without even changing laws.
This is why we see some Animal Control directors in this country refusing to issue tickets, hiding biting incidents, refusing to pick up stray dogs, disappearing paperwork, hiding breeds of dogs that have attacked, opposing Dangerous Dog Laws and breed specific legislation, and refusing to enforce the law.
This is the direction that No Kill has taken in too many areas.
And, as the Jere Alexander situation has shown, this is the same operating procedure that the breeders use!
No Kill and the breeders have merged in many ways, and the end result is scary.
Many communities have no idea that they are hiring people connected to either the No Kill extremism or the breeder agenda.
Until the blood starts flowing, and people are dying or injured, and there is a closer look at the agendas these employees are connected to.
| 11/07/2008 2:19 PM |
As we can see by that No Kill conference, there are people affiliated with breeder business lobbying groups that are getting themselves on the boards of local humane societies (they are all different and run by different people. No connection to national groups.) and larger shelters and manipulating these organizations to oppose laws that breeders don't like.
Even if means supporting inhumane treatment of pets!
There are even breeders that have managed to get themselves hired to run shelters and make up policy.
This is why we have some shelters and societies mystifyingly opposing anti-cruelty laws, opposing breeder licensing, opposing mandatory spay neuter (where breeders would have to get licensed), opposing bsl like spay neuter for pit bulls, supporting the right of pit bulls to kill other pets with no repercussions, opposing strong Dangerous Dog Laws,
The No Kill/breeder lobby has infiltrated some of the shelters and societies, as well as Animal Control!
| 11/07/2008 7:17 PM |
"Dog Law" or "pet law" groups are breeders (including, yes, dog fighting breeders in some of them) that lobby against laws that breeders don't like.
They are all over the web, many on Yahooo groups and other places, and they are forums for breeding business people to gather together and blitz legislators, media, and anyone else with propaganda to fight against laws like licensing, bsl, anti-cruelty, anti-chaining, puppy mill regulations
(as well as manipulate polls, and gang up on comunity leaders that dare think about passing laws that breeders don't like)
The breeders want NO laws
Here is one such group (scroll to end) that in particular were working away at Jeff Hale for their financial interests? http://doglaws.meetup.com/10/messages/boards/thread/3628596
So has Jeff Hale been lobbying for the breeders?
| 11/07/2008 7:22 PM |
Jeff Hale resigned
However they are going to look nationally for someone to replace him
Does this mean a Nathan Winograd/Best Friends/breeder extremist? Jere Alexander?
Why can't they hire a competent LOCAL person? Could it be because there are no No Kill extremist locals that are willing to use animal control for their own devices?
| 11/08/2008 7:33 PM |
Another one QUITS?!?!?, must be a pit nutter.
They claim to be big fans of the tenacity of the breed but it appears that they are compensating for their own short comings.
They need to join the cur-dog.com club
| 11/09/2008 2:53 PM |
Some no kill shelters remain that way by ONLY accepting highly adoptable animals...I have been looking to adopt an older cat, and one no-kill shelter I looked at on-line only has young cats and kittens. You cannot simply drop an animal off at this place, they will not accept them.
The other extreme is what is noted by the above poster....taking in dangerous animals and adopting them out, taking in elderly, sick animals, with no chance of placement, and subjecting them to long periods of confinement and stress. No kill is all about people, and their own emotions and egos, and not really about what is best for the animals. There is an element of animal cruelty to no-kill extremism, and my cat search has revealed several instances of unadoptable animals languishing indefinitely in cages or "cat rooms" where the stress is clearly devastating for the animal.