Several items on that page attack Leo Grillo and give the County's victorious side of the lawsuits.
Then they post the old, original, now joint, release on the horrible/terrible dangers of free roaming cats.
County is still Middle Ages when it comes to animal welfare. Marcia seems pretty sensitive and vindictive when it comes to DELTA.
Home Page Info: http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/:
13 comments:
I read the documents. He should just get the license. He had one in the past. Why does he keep suing them instead? All the other non-profits got the license. They were inspected. What is he hiding? Sounds to me like he is probably a hoarder hiding something
I was once asked to do a cover story on DELTA and Leo Grillo for The Pet Press. I was very impressed with his setup until they told me he NEVER adopts out any of the animals he rescues... he probably has more than 500 at his rescue. I was told he once adopted one of the dogs out, and later the dog was dumped at a shelter. Since then, they do nothing to find homes for all the animals they take in. It may be a state-of-the-art facility, but in my mind DELTA is nothing but glorified hoarders who are able to collect HUGE DONATIONS because of all the animals he continues to rescue.
Lori Golden, The Pet Press
This is a very complex case and you have to dig deep for all the details. D.E.L.T.A. had a license. I understand they were told by the director in 1997 that they didn't need one any more.
The new director, Mayeda, says they need one now ---- the day after they sued D&D for rendering dead pets into human food chain.
Now it's a NEW license -- not a renewal -- and it will cost well into the six figures to jump through the hoops -- which they are doing now-- and they will problaby not get one by the book -- so they will be in federal court for decades with all these issues. Unless Mayeda leaves and Antonovich lets up.
I understand Leo helped begin the current glut of adoption programs in LA back in the early 80's, and his rescues are from the wilderness and not adoptable if they wanted to -- which they do not. Every home they got, would take one away from the other pets being killed for want of a home.
Muzika, that's not quite true. Why don't you ask Leo to let you visit. You'll see something very different. He takes animals from people who give him a donation. Then he warehouses them. That's why he doesn't let people visit normally.
He had a permit in the past. He let it lapse. I read the documents. Mayeda never said he didn't need one. She just said he was exempt from paying the fee if he's a nonprofit. The info is all here
info here
If he had one in the past, why is it too difficult for him to get one now? Because he's accumulated many more animals. The max allowed is 100 for a rescue. His place hasn't changed, only the number of animals. The requirements are the same. I've seen some rescues in county with 100 animals. They don't look that great and they got a permit.
I have an idea. If each rescue is only allowed 100 animals, why doesn't he just start four more rescues. Then he can have 500.
I don't think it is just a matter of limits.
If someone has a hard on for you, they can find a thousand things wrong, especially building and safety.
It is not safe to speculate on what all the issues are between Leo and County.
Actually, I started reading the documents. It is not so easy as the previous commenter stated. There is a long history here and several Catch-22 surprises D.E.L.T.A. was subject to, including several agencies saying they can't do anything, including inspection, until another agency, like the regional planning commission does something.
A new regulation was passed that limited sanctuaries to 100 or 150 animals, and you could get an exemption to that limit if you had already had a license within the previous 12 months, otherwise, no exemption was possible.
It also seems that the supervisors may be working on legislation to legislate DELTA out of existence. There does appear that a case can be made that this is retaliation by County.
I also understand that Koenig may not be a H.S. graduate, and therefore would not qualify for her County position, if that allegation is true. I think this is a big can of worms and I highly urge everyone to read all the documents.
Here is my take. I never met Leo but have talked to him several times and had lots of email communication.
It sounds like he exceeded zoning over the years and has large building sq. footage, and has run into problems there. But it is a done deal and he is trying to fix it. The judge agreed he was making progress and acting in good faith.
But whose side are you on? Mayeda or a large rescue group?
Let us assume Leo is the second worst person in the world but takes good care of the animals in his care.
In my scenario, who do you think I would put in Olbermann's "Worst person in the world?" Three guesses.
Now Leo has taken on Mayeda over a number of issues, and may begin to take her on in a way that leads to her leaving, namely letting everyone know what a dismal performance her shelters have had over the last 8 or 9 years she has been on the job.
Mayeda's shelters kill more than twice as many animals as LAAS, yet Mayeda has gone untouched.
Leo is no midget in terms of an ability to make waves and make change. yet you want to defend Mayeda and the County after reading these documents?
Anonymous said...
I've been following this for years. Something is very wrong with Leo Grillo. He claims on his own Twitter account that he has 1,500 animals. Leo Grillo Twitter account
Even though he says he has 1,500 animals he is still collecting more. He just picked up 200 more!
If Leo Grillo has problems with county, it's because he caused the problems. Why didn't he maintain his permit? He didn't "think" he didn't have to. What a lame excuse. He knows he has too many. He could easily ask a few rescue groups to say they house their kennels on his property. Then he could have 100 animals per rescue groups. Plus, if he is getting $8.9M in donations a year, he could easily build from scratch totally new kennels...for about $100,000. Something is wrong with the math.
Leo has a bad reputation making and keeping promises. Didn't he offer to help you once? Leo is flakey and a liar
This guy has a sordid history. Beware. Lori is right.
The issue never was the number of animal until recently. DELTA was designated a sanctuary, not a rescue, and that's why it was originally exempted from, at least, fees and inspections--because it was unique.
It is only recently that the issue of numbers came up, even though DELTA is not a rescue.
Read the letters and legal copy. It is a matter of zoning, the planning commission, Building and Safety, and all the powers of the County arrayed against Delta.
So the nut to crack is DELTA giving the animals a good home or not? Is he starving the animals or not giving appropriate medical care?
If he is fine with the animals, I don't care if he is the devil incarnate.
Think! What happens if DELTA is legislated out of existence?
Up to 1,500 animals could be impounded and die.
Whose side are you on?
Now, if he is not taking care of the animals, that is a different story.
For many years many TNR people have been trying to establish cat sanctuaries for ferals. It never, ever happened. Sanctuaries are rescues that adopt rarely because the animals they rescue are feral or hard to adopt.
If 10 TNR groups were able to fund and find a sanctuary for ferals, to make even a dent in lowering shelter killing, it would have to take in 1-2,000 cats a year.
Assuming 80% cannot be socialized in a year, imagine how big an ongoing sanctuary would have to be.
You can see how ridiculous would be a 50 cat and 50 dog kennel limit. It would kill the idea of a sanctuary and turn every TNR into a small rescue, just as now.
And, it is not just the numbers. We are talking about zoning problems, annexing nearby property and expanding without letting the powers that be know, the endangered species area they expanded into, the need for a planning commission ruling. This is complicated.
Who is the enemy? Leo, or the County that kills 50,000 cats and dogs a year?
"...and his rescues are from the wilderness and not adoptable if they wanted to -- which they do not. Every home they got, would take one away from the other pets being killed for want of a home."
Your last sentence is Leo's reasoning for not adopting out any of their animals... but I disagree with the first line. My guess is that a huge number of the animals they rescue were from homes... belonging to people who just can't care for their animals any more, who know the Angeles Forest is a good place to dump them. Hard to understand why ALL of those cats and dogs would not be suitable for adoption. Some, probably.
I repeat - the more animals DELTA takes in, and I'm shocked to hear it's in the thousands - the more of a 'hero' he looks to his supporters, who send him lots and lots of money. I have no doubt all of the animals are well cared for and that his facility is beautiful, but DELTA is no BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SANCTUARY... who holds adoption events all the time to find homes for the animals that end up at their shelter in Utah.
Lori Golden, The Pet Press
I am so tired of people criticizing Leo Grillo.
Humans use stupid excuses all the time as to why they are getting rid of their pets. When things get tough, they just dump them. Adopting an animal is adopting one for life. Would you give away a child if you adopted a child?
I'm not doing that well, but I would never get rid of my pets. If I had to move and found out that a place didn't take pets, I wouldn't move there! If I had a child with allergies that couldn't be around animals then I wouldn't get the animals. People get pets and then when their kid starts wheezing, they dump the pet.
People have to realize that DELTA Rescue rescues animals that have been dumped by humans either in the desert or the forest. People use places like DELTA Rescue as an excuse for a dumping ground. That isn't what DELTA Rescue is about.
I can see why he won't adopt these animals out. People think that animals are expendable and when things get "tough" they just dump them somewhere.
Wake up people!
I visited Leo's Rescue many years ago, with my Daughter & Granddaughter. His Daughter, I would guess was about 4 or 5 years old, running around the shelter happy & laughing. I took photos of the Rescue's animals, their housing & Hospital and myself with my Hero Leo. I am now 83 years old I started donating to Leo's when I was young and Leo was a young man who was an aspiring actor which he gave up to rescue animals. I didn't have much money then & I still don't but I have a permanent donation of $10 taken out ever month from my SS check which is deposited to my checking account. In my small way I have done animal rescue since I was 26 years in NY and here in California with the Feral Cat Coalition for 16 years at 72 I had to retire due to medical reasons. I don't believe in animal adoption because I have seen people coo over cats, dogs, rabbits, and when they tire of them throw them away like dirty tissues. Leo was a kind and gentle man - how mean and petty to disrespect the memory this wonderful human being.
Armida Franceschini
Post a Comment