Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Subject: A Wish for Animals
To: Diane Reagan
Dear Diane Reagan:
This email is in response to Patricia Learned’s January 27, 2009 response to PR019. Regarding A Wish For Animals and Toni Eakes, the letter stated, “We have no records relating to the Acton address; the Laguna Niguel location is not in our jurisdiction; and we have no records regarding this individual.”
In an email dated July 3, 2008, Marcia Mayeda stated, “I made an unannounced visit to A Wish For Animals this morning. . . . The reasons for delays in the permitting for this facility have to do with the processes required by Regional Planning and Building and Safety.” If Marcia visited the AWFA on July 3rd, why was there no report regarding their visit produced responsive to my Public Records Act request? Was this visit as real as the Department’s multi-year department improvement program established in 2001? Furthermore, if Toni Eakes was in the process of obtaining a permit, why were there no records responsive to my request such as a kennel license application?
The Department of Animal Care and Control knowingly allowed Toni Eakes to act in violation of County Code §§ 10.20.030, 10.20.370(A), 10.28.020, 10.28.060(A), and 10.40.100. How are you going to hold the Department accountable for doing so?
The rescue community is blind copied on this email so that they can blast and cross-post the Department’s incompetence in dealing with AWFA in violation of County Code. I have also openly copied everyone copied on Marcia Mayeda’s July 3, 2008 email.
County Code Legend
· § 10.08.120 defines a dog as “any dog of any age, including female as well as male.”
· § 10.08.130 defines a dog kennel as “any lot, building, structure, enclosure or premises whereupon or wherein four or more dogs, over four months of age, are kept or maintained for any purpose, including places where dogs are boarded, kept for sale, or kept for hire.”
· § 10.20.030 requires “every person owning or having custody or control of any dog . . . over the age of four months in the unincorporated territory of the county of Los Angeles . . . [to] obtain a license from the director for each of such dogs . . . and shall pay the fees for such licenses as set forth in Section 10.90.010.”
· § 10.20.370(A) requires that “an owner or custodian who offers any unaltered dog for sale, trade, or adoption must include a valid unaltered dog license number with the offer of sale, trade or adoption, or otherwise state and establish compliance with Section 10.20.350.”
· § 10.28.020 requires “every person desiring a license to operate an animal facility . . . [to] file an application with the department upon a form to be provided by the department, and at such time pay the required fee and any applicable penalty as set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.” Furthermore, § 10.28.020 states that “[a] person . . . who operated an animal facility without the required license, shall pay the penalty set forth in Section 10.90.010.VII.C.4., in addition to the license fee.”
· § 10.28.060(A) states that “any person, including a new owner of an existing organization or business shall not conduct or operate any animal facility listed in Section 10.90.010.VII. . . . without first obtaining a license from the department.”
· § 10.40.100 requires “[e]ach holder of a kennel or pet shop license within the authority of Los Angeles County . . . to provide the department of animal care and control with a regular listing of all animals sold, including the name and address of the owner, according to the procedure and form as provided by the director.”
2 comments:
I just received a text message that A Wish For Animals is shutting down and not being allowed to trasfer their animals to other rescue groups. They will be euthanizing 101 dogs. Is this true?
There are a number of wonderfully caring and perfectly respectable dog rescue organizations out there, but unfortunately "A Wish For ANimals is not one of them. Toni Eakes is not what she seems.
In fact her "non-profit" business has (3) complaints in the last year from The Better Business Bureau, and a "F" rating.
The newest scam is for supposed rescuers to search shelters, Craigslist, The Penny Saver, etc., to locate dogs which are in high demand and easy to sell. These con-artists will then obtain the dog, often seeking out purebred or family dogs, and then sell them. They will refer to this charge as an adoption or rehoming fee, and will turn around and make a pretty serious profit.
The scammers will tell you that included in your re-homing fee is spay/neuter and shots, while in reality the animals had received these services from where ever the alleged ‘rescuer’ got the dog. They may even go on to tell you that they have to recover the costs of rescuing the dog and caring for the dog, but if this trully is the case, then they should be considered a dog kennel, in which case strict rules and regulations would apply that they most likely do not meet. Some of these people actually con the shelters into waving or reducing fees, taking money away from the shelter and putting it right into their own pocket.
So, in a nutshell, these people, under the guise of being a friend to animals, make a $200-$400 profit for each dog they obtain from the shelter or other adoption means – CL, local classifieds, etc. Do that a couple times a week and you can give up your day job!
Be aware that non profits are not allowed to charge fees, but they may ask for voluntary donations. Ask for a discount, if the person is in it for the money you can often tell by the tone of their voice when you ask for a discount. If they reply with, “I have laid out so money to save the dog and want to recover my expenses” ask for receipts and proof before continuing with the adoption.
I have heard of flipping houses, but flipping dogs? It is just inhumane any way you look at it. I think selling dogs should be prohibited, even if it’s called rehoming fee or not, it all just comes down to semantics in the end;
.
Post a Comment