Greenhill Violates the Civil Rights of Bark in the Park Attendees

Yesterday at Greenhill's open to the public held in a public park event, Bark in the Park, a yelling/screaming Greenhill employee, Tuesday Scott prohibited Ellen Kaplan and her registered service dog Marley, entrance.  Ellen was with friends, and her "agenda" was to enjoy the day, and expose her friend's autistic son to the event, and the dogs and the fun.  Ellen's crime?  She was wearing a T-shirt that says No Kill is The Way and Join the No Kill Revolution.    Ellen's service dog Marley was prohibited because he was wearing a t-shirt that says "Because the Life of Every Shelter Animal Matters".  I understand fully, as some do not, why that particular phrase is so offensive to Greenhill.

Ellen was not creating a disturbance, she merely wanted to enjoy the event with her friends, and to wear a t-shirt of her choosing. Ms. Scott didn't politely request that the shirts be covered, in fact, Ms. Scott was anything but polite.  She adamantly refused to allow Ellen entrance just because she didn't like what Ellen's shirt said. She continued to loudly berate Ellen, causing Ellen great embarrassment.  It is apparent from this outrageous display that Greenhill Humane does not think that the Constitutional right to free speech applies. If they don't like you or what your t-shirt says, they think it is appropriate to make a huge scene, and refuse you entrance to their open to the public event, held in a public park.  Ms. Scott's extremely unprofessional behavior and yelling was so over the top, that Ellen's friend had to remove her autistic son from the event.  Bullying at its finest.

Dog t-shirt  "Because the life of every shelter animal matters".
http://www.cafepress.com/nokilllanecounty.845200588

Here is the t-shirt that Greenhill staff found so offensive: 
http://www.cafepress.com/nokilllanecounty.845167928

Greenhill employee, Sasha Elliott physically menaced 64 year old advocate, Marti Black because she did not like the factual Greenhill information Marti was handing out to attendees.  Greenhill Executive Director just looked on and did nothing to stop his employees from making a spectacle of themselves by harassing senior women, one of them disabled with a registered service dog.

I do not believe, and I am confirming, just because Greenhill had a permit to use the public park space, they can refuse entrance to members of the public, or violate their civil rights. They can ask anyone creating a disturbance to leave, however, the disturbance was caused by Greenhill staff screaming and yelling, not by those of us who they were yelling at.  They did not request that those employees causing the disturbance leave the event, as far as I know.

Calderwood Statement from 5/13 AC Meeting

The notes from Monday's (5/13/13) Advisory Committee meeting indicate this statement from committee member, David Calderwood.  "Calderwood says, the crazies with THAT group wanted the contract for 1st Ave.  And that they had an agenda."

In response to this sniping that we are not able to address at the meetings, I'd like to respond for the group of us that David attempted to discredit on Monday by calling us "crazies with an agenda".  An agenda?  I suppose we do have an agenda.  To make sure that our homeless animals are treated better.  A horrible and crazy agenda indeed, we should be ashamed. 

Now, about having "an agenda"; I find this quite frankly hilarious coming from someone who lives and breathes the NAIA/AKC secret agenda.  Our AGENDA, David, unlike yours, is open, honest and based on facts and the truth, and what is best for the animals, not our pocketbooks.

We have a variety of posts legally obtained from a member of the group OR_Petlaw made by Mr. Calderwood, that make clear his secret AGENDA. Not all the posts are referenced here. We have had these for some time now, and I feel that this is the right time to make them public.  These legally obtained postings are from the past couple of years. 

For those that don't know about the NAIA, of which David Calderwood is a member, it is an organization that believes that animals can be treated in any manner for profit.  Their board and membership is filled with vivisection and fur farm supporters, factory farm corporations, and AKC Breeders.   The NAIA likes to label anyone who supports humane treatment of animals as Animal Rights or "AR".   This term is used in a belittling, demeaning manner, and in a way that infers the superiority of non-AR people, which of course is not only preposterous but pretentious.

The NAIA, hand in hand with the AKC, lobby against any and all humane legislation, all over the country, because it might cut into their almighty profits. This includes puppy mill laws.  They lobby against any humane legislation aimed at puppy mills, because those are the cash cows of the AKC.   The AKC also does not monitor, nor shut down, or refuse to register any animals that come out of these hell holes.  You don't have to be "AR" to find this disgusting and unethical.  What kind of person would oppose legislation to protect the animals in these facilities?  Who would support any organization that exploits the suffering of animals for profit?

Just a thought: Perhaps you've never been able to change anyone's opinion because you are wrong.....just sayin'.

David does not agree with "Adopt Don't Shop" as it cuts into breeder and AKC profits.  Why is he sitting on a committee that is expressly for the benefit of shelter animals if he does not support "Adopt Don't Shop"?

David takes credit, or appears to take credit for the No Kill policy of not adopting out aggressive dogs.  This is already a cornerstone of No Kill; (there is no such thing as "Low Kill"), we know that not all animals can be saved.  There are approximately 10% or less who fit the true euthanasia criteria of irredeemably suffering or truly human aggressive/dangerous.   Notice his comment about "go overboard with saving everything".  Thing.  Nice.  I know its very "AR" of me, but sentient beings are not "things".

I don't agree that those of us who support humane treatment of all life, hate humans. 

Actually, David, we can deal with death.  What we oppose, is the unnecessary deaths of animals that are saveable, hence our support for No Kill.

Our elected officials can be bought.  Is this true?

"This madness" is humane policies, procedures and legislation.  How exactly does treating animals more humanely erode anyone's right to own an animal?
 

Perish the thought of filling the committee with people that think humane treatment of animals is important.

Property Rights trump!  ARs are always suspect!

..."banning the slaughter horses are another step to losing our rights of animal ownership".  Complete nonsense!   How about Humane Euthanasia before horses are traumatized by transport, and the smell of death at slaughterhouses?  Just a thought.  (Very AR of me, I know.)

Ever go to lunch and tell a story?

 From my "AR" perspective, it looks like this gentleman was joking about the snake being considerate, not that he actually thinks the snake was being considerate.

"The truth doesn't always work"... so...

"The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself."

~ St. Augustine

Intent to Euthanize Notification Required by County Contract/Greenhill Refuses to Comply

There is a clear line from the contract (item 5.1) to the SAATA recommendations (#1) to the Transparency Recommendation requiring a Red Alert/Intent to Euthanize notification.  Greenhill supplies neither this Alert list nor do they provide full transparency as to the disposition of the animals.

County Contract Item 5.1:

2007 SAATA Recommendation #1:

SAATA Transparency Recommendation: