“Ginger’s Pet Rescue is a volunteer-based 501(c)3 non-profit organization that relies on donations to fund rescue efforts. We are a volunteer based network of fosters support the rescue of homeless dogs. We couldn’t function without the support of our donors. There are no salaries, as we are all volunteer.” – Ginger’s Pet Rescue website

My research shows this statement from Ginger’s Pet Rescue is FALSE. Ginger’s Pet Rescue has had paid staff for the last several years.

In January 2022, I wrote an article showing that Ginger’s Pet Rescue paid founder Ginger Luke over $300,000 in 2019 and 2020 (Ginger’s Pet Rescue Paid Founder Over $300k in 2019 & 2020).

These payments were significantly higher than the rescue previously paid Ms. Luke. Here’s how much the rescue paid Ms. Luke from 2015 – 2020:

2015 $5200
2016 $35,600
2017 $18,900
2018 $19,200
2019 $138,312
2020 $163,801

From 2018 to 2019, her salary increased by 620%. It went up more than 18% the following year.

Ms. Luke’s average salary for 2019-2020 represented more than 15% of the rescue’s average revenue during the same period. That’s a significantly higher percentage than any of the major Seattle area rescues I examined.

Homeward Pet Adoption Center had the next highest percentage of average CEO salary to average organizational revenue at only 4.5%.

And although Seattle Humane Society’s average revenue was more than 12 times higher than that of Ginger’s Pet Rescue ($12.4 million vs. $970,933), Ms. Luke’s average salary was almost the same as that of Seattle Humane’s CEO ($151,057 vs. $162,197).

In addition, Ms. Luke’s salary was 15.7% of the rescue’s average revenue. Seattle Humane’s CEO made $162,297, which was only 1.3% of its average revenue.

I don’t have a problem if people who run large, multifaceted animal rescues make a reasonable salary. But the fact that Ms. Luke, whose organization’s revenue averaged less than $1 million, made almost as much at the CEO of the Seattle Humane Society, which averaged over $12 million in revenue, is ethically questionable.

Although Ms. Luke passed away in September of 2021, the rescue continued to pay what I believe are exorbitant, inappropriate salaries for a charity of its size.

Ms. Luke was head of the rescue’s Board of Directors until 2020. After that, a woman named Sian Bond, who previously wasn’t on the board, is listed as its Chair. I assume that means she is now head of the organization although the group’s website mentions nothing about this transition.

As you can see above, in 2021 Ginger Pet Rescue reported on its IRS Form 990 that it paid Ms. Bond $98,900. The IRS Form 990 below shows that in 2022 the rescue reported that it paid Ms. Bond $81,250 and a woman named Amber Journeaux $60,000. Ms. Journeaux is listed as Secretary of the board in 2021 although she didn’t get any compensation that year.

To make a fair assessment these payments I Iooked at the salaries for the CEOs at the Seattle Humane Society in Bellevue, Homeward Pet Adoption Center in Woodinville, The NOAH Center in Stanwood, and the Humane Society for Tacoma/Pierce County in Tacoma from 2015-2022.

I then checked the groups’ revenue to get an idea of the size of the organizations. I also looked at the percentage of average revenue their CEOs’ salaries represented.

This information came from the groups’ 990s, which are financial statements they must to submit to the IRS annually. Some of the groups hadn’t turned in their 990s for 2022 to the IRS yet so I didn’t have their information for that year.

This chart does not include the $60,000 payment to Ms. Journeaux in 2022 since her role in the organization is unclear.

You can find the detail behind this data at the end of this post.

Even without factoring in Ms. Journeaux’s salary, Ginger’s Pet Rescue continues to pay its CEO a huge percentage of its total income (13.2%) compared to what larger rescues pay their CEOs.

The Seattle Humane Society only pays its CEO 1.4% of its total income despite the fact that its income is more than 9 times larger than Ginger’s Pet Rescue.

As I noted in my previous post, the IRS is the federal agency that determines whether or not an organization can be classified as a 501(c)(3) charity. Charitable organizations are exempt from paying taxes and contributions to them are tax deductible. 

The IRS has no specific rules regarding how much a charity can pay its staff; however, its Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities states that:

“A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations. This restriction is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.”

The guide goes on to say specifically that no part of an organization’s net earnings “may inure to the benefit of an insider.” It defines an insider as “a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director, or a key employee.”

The IRS notes that an example of a prohibited inurement includes “payment of unreasonable compensation to an insider.”

So according to the IRS, Ms. Bond and Ms. Journeaux were insiders at the time of their excessive salary payments because both of them were officers, a directors, and key employees.

Because of Ms. Bond’s excessive salary in 2021 and 2022 and the $60,000 payment to Ms. Jopurneaux, and because the percentage of their salaries compared to the rescue’s revenue was approximately 3-9 times higher than that of other CEOs of much larger rescues in the region, I believe their salaries during that period were prohibited inurements as defined by the IRS.

In addition to paying excessive salaries, Ginger’s Pet Rescue charges astronomical adoption fees.

This isn’t new news. In the recent past, Ginger’s charged up to $800 to adopt a dog, which was already significantly higher than other local rescues charge.

But while researching this story I found that the rescue is now charging up to $2500 to adopt a dog. That’s more than many breeders charge for their puppies!

When I saw Ginger’s raised its already high prices to adopt a dog, I looked at how much the rescue charged for each dog on its website.

On September 17th I viewed all the dogs available for adoption that Ginger’s had its website. I found a total of 56 dogs with prices ranging from $595 to $2500.

The average price Ginger’s charged for these dogs was $1451! Compare that to the adoption fees of other major rescues around Seattle:

Seattle Human Society: $285-$460
Homeward Pet: $75-$375
The NOAH Center: $125-$425
Humane Society for Tacoma/Pierce County: $80-$500

The lowest prices are usually for senior dogs and the highest prices for puppies.

According to these prices, the lowest price Ginger’s Pet Rescue charges is more than the highest prices these rescue charge. And out of the 56 dogs I saw on Ginger’s website that day, only 9 of them had a fee of less than $1000. That means 84% of them would have cost you more than $1000.

I’ve asked people at the rescue (including Ginger Luke when she was alive) why their adoption fees are so high. The only answer I’ve gotten is that bringing dogs here from Korea is expensive.

However, Ginger’s adoption fees are also higher than some other groups that rescue dogs from the Korean dog meat industry for adoption:

Korean Paws Rescue charges $250-$650
Free Korean Dogs charges $280-$780
KOCA Dog Rescue charges up to $1000

Furthermore, the total amount of salaries Ginger’s paid in 2022 ($158,900) was almost as much it says it paid on overseas dog rescue ($171,520). How many more dogs could the rescue have saved if it didn’t pay employees such outrageous salaries?

As I’ve said before, organizations designated as charities by the IRS don’t have to pay state or federal income taxes so they have more money available to use for the charitable purposes for which they were created. Also, it’s easier for them to raise money because donor contributions are tax deductible.

In return for these entitlements, none of their earnings may provide an excessive benefit to any employee or board member. They must also explain to the IRS their processes for determining these payments.

This ensures that resources aren’t diverted from an organization’s charitable purposes and into the pocket of an individual for their own benefit. 

In my opinion, Ginger’s Pet Rescue’s own filings with the IRS shows excessive payments that provide a private benefit to its staff.

These payments, along with astronomical adoption fees, raise red flags that I believe should be investigated by the IRS. In addition, I believe the Washington Attorney General should determine the legality of the rescue’s statement that “There are no salaries, as we are all volunteers.”

I also hope that anyone in the Seattle area planning to adopt a dog knows that they don’t have to pay $2000 or more to get one. They can adopt one from several reputable local rescue groups for much less.

Here is all the data I collected regarding CEO Salary, Yearly Revenue, and CEO Salary % of Income for the largest pet rescue groups in the Seattle area from 2015-2022:

Share This!

The post Ginger’s Pet Rescue Paid Over $140k to Staff, Charged Average of $1400+ for Dog Adoption in 2022 appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Multiple Complaints Against Backyard Breeder

Grays Harbor County could finally take action against a backyard breeder who has been the subject of multiple complaints for several years.

Gail Oaksmith has been breeding and selling dogs and since 2007. She primarily sells mixed breeds, some of which are “designer breeds” like labradoodles (labrador/poodle), chiweenies (dachshund/chihuahua), and puggles (pug/beagle).

Here are just some of the complaints about Ms. Oaksmith people sent to Grays Harbor County Animal Control since 2015:

“REQ CALL REF HORRIBLE LIVING CONDITIONS AT A “PUPPY FARM” AT LOC. OWNER’S NAME IS GAIL 360 273 4499 – URINE AND FECES EVERYWHERE, NO FOOD AND WATER VISIBLE.” (March, 2017)

“REQ CALL REF NEIGHBOR/GALE UNK LAST – 4 OF HER DOGS (A GREAT DANE, 2 RED IRISH SETTERS AND A SMALL BLK DOG) KILLED HER CAT ON HER PROPERTY PAST HOUR. ONGOING PROBLEM W/ THEM COMING ONTO HER PROPERTY. GALE HAS MANY DOGS.” (April, 2017)

“We purchased our dachshund mix puppy from Gail on 6/10/2018 and brought her in for a vet exam on 6/13. The attached results show positive test results for giardia and tapeworm.” (June, 2018)

“REQ CALL REF RP RESPONDED TO AD ON CRAIGSLIST FOR GOLDEN RETRIEVER PUPPIES A FEW DAYS PAST, SHE HAD MULT DIFF BREED DOGS IN TENTS OUTSIDE, PUPPIES DID NOT HAVE CLEAN WATER, HAD NO FOOD, RP TOOK 2 DOGS DUE TO FEELING BAD AND THEY HAD FLEA INFESTATIONS, EAR INFECTIONS, UNDERWEIGHT.” (September, 2018)

“The floors of the pen were soaked in mud from the rain and fecal matter everywhere, all the puppies completely covered, and loose chicken wire was in their cages which have left scars on their bellies from running over the top of it. Gail stated that she had not fed the dogs yet today. Then to the left of the pen we noticed a small Pomeranian with most of its hair missing and one eye missing. Gail informed us that she could not let it out of its pen because it had lost its eye, the dog was extremely lethargic.” (September, 2018)

“Driving back to gig harbor we immediately noticed the state the puppies we collected were in. Both dogs were covered in fleas from head to toe, both were extremely skinny with swollen sickly bellies.” (September, 2018)

“After arriving to our home, we directly went to bathe and remove fleas from both pups. We had to completely renew the water in the tub 4 times because it was repeatedly black with mud from the puppies. We combed out hundreds of fleas and larvae from the puppy’s bodies.” (September, 2018)

“both puppies had contracted every parasite that known in the state of Washington and that these were the most elaborate samples that they had seen.” (September, 2018)

“40-60 DOGS AT LOC IN POOR HEALTH AND LIVING IN BAD COND, APPEARS SOME HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THERE WAS 1 W/ OPEN WOUNDS ON FACE.” (November, 2018)

“We paid 200 for one of the puppies, and were giving an incomplete shot record. Many of the dogs were generally in poor health and many had missing legs or eyes.” (December 2018)

“REQ CALL REF GAIL OAKSMITH WHO LIVES AT LOC, RP WENT THERE TO PURCHASE A PUPPY ON SATURDAY AND THERE WERE MORE DOGS THEN SHE WAS ABLE TO COUNT. MULT DIFF BREEDS IN DIFFERENT PLACES ON THE PROPERTY. THE SMALLER BREED DOGS ARE IN THE HOUSE, USING THE BATHROOM, VERY UNSANITARY CONDITIONS – RP STILL PURCHASED A PUPPY, DOG SMELLED OF URINE AND FECES.” (September, 2022)

The most common complaints were that Ms. Oaksmith had too many dogs on the property and that the puppies people bought had giardia and/or several types of worms.

Nicole Pollard is the Animal Control Officer for Grays Harbor County. I asked her, given the number of complaints filed against Ms. Oasksmith, how this puppy mill has been allowed to continue operating operating and why she never recommended that charges should be filed against Ms. Oaksmith. Here are her explanations.

Too Many Dogs on Property

The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states that “A person may not own, possess, control, or otherwise have charge or custody of more than fifty dogs with intact sexual organs over the age of six months at any time.” (RCW 16.52.310(1))

In other words, as long as a breeder doesn’t have 50+ dogs over 6 months of age with intact sexual organs, there is no limit to the number of dogs breeders can have on their property.

In a memo from 2018, Officer Pollard noted that Ms. Oaksmith “has a large number of adult dogs and their offspring on her property. Most of the time she is right around the maximum number of unaltered adult dogs that are over the age of six months (50). The number of young offspring varies. It is not uncommon to find a total of 80-100 dogs on her property.”

This is a huge loophole that backyard breeders can exploit. There should be some limit to the number of dogs a breeder can have on their property regardless of how many of them have sexually intact organs.

By all accounts, Ms. Oaksmith runs a disorganized system with dogs haphazardly scattered around the property.

Some are in fenced areas, some are in her house, others run free on the property. If she had close to the maximum of intact dogs over six months old on her property I can’t see how she could monitor/control their breeding.

Allowing a backyard breeder like Ms. Oaksmith to have so many dogs on her property is ridiculous.

Multiple Puppies Infested with Parasites

Washington has 2 laws regarding animal health and parasites – RCW 16.36 (Animal Health) and RCW 16.70 (Control of pet animals infected with diseases communicable to humans).

I believe the rule most applicable to Ms. Oaksmith is RCW 16.36.082 which states:

(1) It is unlawful for any person to sell, exchange, or give away any animal that he or she knows:
(a) Is infected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease;
(b) Has been exposed to any contagious, communicable, or infectious disease within the previous thirty days; or
(c) Has been treated for any condition within the previous thirty days;

Ms. Oaksmith knows that she sold multiple puppies diagnosed with giardia and other parasites, primarily worms. She claims a vet told her she couldn’t do anything about it giardia because “it was everywhere in the ground and water. Oaksmith advised that she just warns people when they purchase a puppy/dog that she has had giardia on the property.”

WSDA Oversees Animal Health, Parasite Regulations

When I asked Officer Pollard why she didn’t cite Ms. Oaksmith for violating RCW 16.36.082, she told me something I didn’t know: The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and/or its local agents are responsible for enforcing regulations regarding animal health and parasites.

Officer Pollard forwarded the reports of giardia and other parasites in the puppies she sold to the WSDA and Jeff Nelson, the Environmental Health Director for Grays Harbor County; both Mr. Nelson and John Price from the WSDA declined to take action against Ms. Oaksmith because “the risk (of transmission) to the public and other animals was very low.”

WSDA Concerned How Parasites Effect Humans, Not Dogs

I asked Mr. Nelson to clarify the RCW because it doesn’t appear to give any leeway with regard to enforcement. Specifically, according to the wording of RCW 16.36.082, the law applies regardless of how low the risk of transmission may be.

However, Mr. Nelson noted that the WSDA and its local agents cannot cite a breeder for selling puppies full of parasites unless there’s a threat to the public health of humans.

In other words, because the parasites in the puppies purchased from Ms. Oaksmith didn’t threaten public health, he had no legal justification to cite her for violating RCW 16.36.082.

So if you report a backyard breeder who sells dogs full of parasites, the WSDA will do nothing. And since animal control agencies don’t have the legal authority cite breeders for selling dogs full of parasites, unscrupulous breeders like Ms. Oaksmith can sell them with no concern about being held accountable.

Animal Control: No Evidence of Unhealthy Dogs/Puppies

On one of the reports that Officer Pollard submitted about Ms. Oaksmith in early 2018, Dave Pimentel, the former Deputy Sheriff of Grays Harbor County wrote a note to Officer Pollard that said, “Stay on top of this and let’s fix this problem. We will end up on the news before long with this.”

Yet Officer Pollard said that she had been to Ms. Oasksmith’s property multiple times but didn’t see any evidence of unhealthy dogs/puppies.

Officer Pollard also said she never saw puppies covered in filth and living in urine/feces as some people noted in their complaints.

Because Officer Pollard that Ms. Oaksmith had more dogs than the law allows, didn’t have the authority to enforce animal health regulations, and never found subpar living conditions for the dogs on Ms. Oaksmith’s property, she never recommended that the county take action against her.

She said she never told Ms. Oaksmith when she was going to inspect her property unless she made a “surprise” visit and Ms. Oaksmith wasn’t there.

Given the number and similarity of complaints for years regarding Ms. Oaksmith’s treatment of her dogs, I just don’t understand how Officer Pollard found no evidence of abuse or unhealthy animals.

In my opinion, either Ms. Oaksmith had advanced notice of pending inspections so she had time to clean up before officers arrived, or officers didn’t conduct a thorough inspection of her property.

New Complaint Shows Multiple Cases of Abuse by Backyard Breeder

Alyssa Mount is a dog groomer in Bonney Lake. She first became aware of Ms. Oaksmith’s breeding operation last September when a client told her about the puppy a friend bought from Ms. Oaksmith.

He said the breeder had a dog that was “in horrible condition that needed a groom asap.”

Here’s how Alyssa described the dog her client brought in:

“When he arrived, his new owner mentioned that he did not move at all and I noticed his nose and up his snout was all black which was odd for a golden colored dog. As soon as I got him into the tub and starting running the water on him, the black on his snout started to move around I quickly realized he was infested with fleas. As I ran the water more along his back and body, the water that was running off was bloody and I could see hundreds and hundreds of fleas crawling all over him.”

The client told Alyssa that Ms. Oaksmith still had two of the puppy’s littermates. Assuming they were also in terrible condition, she decided to go with 2 friends to Ms. Oaksmith’s property to see the dogs there for herself.

Backyard Breeder’s Property Covered with Fleas and Feces

Here’s what Alyssa told me they saw when the arrived at Ms. Oaksmith’s property:

“When we arrived, we noticed a cream poodle tied to a pole to the left while approx. 20 other adult dogs ran around us and the car and the property. While we were still in the car, I saw poodles, golden retrievers, basset hounds, golden doodles and a boston terrier running up to the car. The moment that we got out of the car, I noticed fleas jumping all over us (I was wearing open toed shoes) from the ground and the dogs that were greeting us…..She took us to the puppies on her back deck that had poop all over and broken chicken wire.

Some of the dogs were “Boston terrier pug mixes and French bulldogs that had chunks of hair missing.” Ms. Oaksmith then showed her a Pomeranian that had “extremely thin hair and said that she once had beautiful Pomeranian hair but she too had ripped her own hair out.”

Most of the puppies were covered in feces and fleas.

Alyssa bought 7 dogs of the worst looking dogs from Ms. Oaksmith that day – 5 doodle mixes and 2 standard poodles. The doodles were 17 weeks old and the poodles were 7 months old.

Flea-infested Dogs, Bloody Bath Water

After Alyssa and her friends arrived at her home with the dogs, they began the arduous process of cleaning them up. Alyssa said the dogs’ fur was so matted she had to shave all of them.

She then had to bathe them 4 times to get rid of all the fleas. The dog had so many fleas, the bath water turned bloody.

One of the dogs also “had an ear infection, anemia, parasites, and an infected hind end wound that needed antibiotics.”

While she was at the property, she also saw a black poodle that was “extremely skinny.” When Alyssa asked if she could buy him, Ms. Oaksmith told her that she couldn’t sell him because he was “extremely sick and she is treating him for parasites.”

Ms. Oaksmith also told her that she didn’t want Alyssa to sue her “if he dies after we take him home.” She did agree to sell Alyssa his 2 littermates.

Another Trip to Rescue Starving Dog

Although she had her hand full with the 7 dogs she bought/saved, Alyssa couldn’t get the image of the skinny, listless black poodle that Ms. Oaksmith refused to sell out of her mind, so she called to see if she could buy him.

“I called Gail every day to ask if I could have Oliver (sick black poodle) and she said that she didn’t want to get sued so she’s not going to sell him. She finally said that I could have a black 2 year old female that she has and I could take Oliver if I bought her for $400 but I had to sign a paper that said I wouldn’t sue her and that I know he is sick and may die.”

Alyssa and a friend then went back to the property to pick up the two dogs. Alyssa said the female she agreed to buy in order to save Oliver “smelled like gas. And Oliver was “covered in fleas and urine.”

While walking back to the car her friend saw a dog that Gail said was “the ugliest dog on her property.” She told me that she didn’t adopt Dolly out because she had entropion in both eyes and that she didn’t want to spend $700 on surgery and that her eyes fixed themselves and by then she was too old for anyone to want her.”

She and Alyssa ended up taking Dolly as well.

Oliver “Should Not Be Alive”

Like the other dogs Alyssa rescued, these three dogs were filthy and covered in fleas. But as she shaved Oliver’s hair in order to bathe him, Alyssa realized he was in much worse condition than she originally thought.

After shaving and bathing Oliver, Alyssa said she could see “every bone in his body.”

As she washing him, she also noticed an untreated wound on his hind leg.

You can see from the pictures and videos that Oliver didn’t just suffer from neglect. He endured unimaginable cruelty that in my opinion was nothing short of torture.

Both ER vets who treated Oliver said “he should not be alive.”

Alyssa bought a total of 12 dogs from Ms. Oaksmith and spent over $10,000 on their medical bills. She ended up adopting Oliver and found homes for all the other dogs.

Statements About Condition of Other Dogs

Here are statements from two people who adopted dogs that Alyssa rescued:

“Birdie has & continues to be fearful of humans. She also takes time to warm up to any other animal. One vet described her as depressed. Her diet has gotten better but at the beginning she would not eat anything other than chicken. Birdie has had fleas since I adopted her.

She was given IV fluids along with other treatments through IV @ her first visit with Sumner Veterinary Clinic. She has been taking oral medication for fleas along with eye & ear treatments.

Her temperament has been hard to watch because she’s scared of everything. Anytime I need to take her somewhere I must physically pick her up & carry her because she’s scared to go anywhere with me. It’s been 15 days & she’s still scared of me & humans in general. I will reach out to Sumner Veterinary & Edgewood Veterinary & ask them to please speak with officer Pollard because these animals don’t deserve what they’ve been through.

I helped with grooming each of the dogs bought from the puppy mill and also took one of the goldendoodles in. It was heartbreaking to see the condition each of the dogs were in.

They were all crawling in fleas and terrified. They all seemed too skinny for their age and were vomiting. Their stools had newspaper and puppy pads in them. You can tell they came from very rough conditions.“

“Taking care of my dog, Gracie, she was very scared of humans. She would cower each time we walked into the room. She had little to not appetite and would throw up after she did eat anything. Luckily I already have another dog that she has become attached to and he has taught her a lot. She can now go up and down stairs. Will eat a meal and then some and has come to trust us. It took about 2 weeks for her to finally feel safe and able to run around the back yard like a regular puppy. I was able to care for my dog for a week before I could get her seen by a vet. She had infections in her ears and a hernia on her belly. Had I been able to take her in sooner I think her blood test results would’ve read worse.”

Possible Animal Cruelty Charges?

Alyssa filed her complaint about the condition of the dogs she rescued to Officer Pollard at the end of September. Officer Pollard told me that after conducting an investigation into the complaint she submitted a report recommending charges against Ms. Oaksmith for animal cruelty.

Officer Pollard said that she submitted the report “through (her) chain of command.” If approved, her report will then go to the Grays County Prosecutor Norma Tillotson. She will determine whether or not to file criminal charged against Ms. Oaksmith.

Grays Harbor Prosecutor Last Hope for Prosecuting Breeder

Sadly, Ms. Tillotson is the last hope for the abused dogs on Ms. Oaksmith’s property.

The WSDA and the County Health Officer won’t take action because their focus is on human health; they don’t care if Ms. Oaksmith is selling unhealthy puppies full of parasites because it doesn’t threaten human public health.

Animal Control can’t cite Ms. Oaksmith for having too many dogs because Washington’s weak breeder regulations allow her to have as many dogs as she wants as long as she has 50 or fewer dogs with intact sexual organs.

Animal Control Officer Pollard says that despite the number of complaints about Ms. Oaksmith she has found no evidence to charge her with animal cruelty until Alyssa filed her complaint last fall.

Due to Washington’s lax enforcement of its already weak animal cruelty and breeder laws, unscrupulous backyard breeders have operated with virtual impunity for years.

However, no one can look at the pictures/videos of Oliver and not believe he suffered terrible abuse.
And the fact that Ms. Oaksmith had people sign statements that they wouldn’t sue her if the dogs died proves she knew dogs were in distress and desperately needed medical care.

Ms. Oaksmith’s abuse of these dogs was no aberration or one time occurrence. It was consistent, systematic and cruel. She chose to deny these dogs medical care and chose to let them suffer.

I’ll say it again: SHE CHOSE TO LET THEM SUFFER.

I urge Ms. Tillotson to hold Ms. Oaksmith accountable for her horrific abuse of these dogs, charge her with animal cruelty, and prohibit her from selling/owning dogs anymore.

If Ms. Oaksmith gets yet another pass for her abuse of dogs, it will show, for all intents and purposes, that Washington’s laws to protect dogs from backyard breeders are worthless.

Share This!

The post Will Grays Harbor County Finally Take Action Against Backyard Breeder? appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Successful Spay/Neuter Policies Create High Demand for Rescue Dogs in Washington

Over the last couple of decades, the number of rescues sending dogs from Southern states to the Pacific Northwest has increased significantly.

The reason for this phenomenon is simple. Municipal shelters and private rescues in the NW developed stricter spay/neuter policies and devoted resources to educate people about the importance of spaying/neutering their pets. As a result, shelters and rescues have fewer dogs available for adoption.

For example, in the Seattle area:

• King County (KCC 11.04.400) stipulates that, with a few exceptions, “No person shall own or harbor any cat or dog over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered.”
• The Seattle Animal Shelter spays/neuters dogs before they are put up for adoption. It also offers low cost spay/neuter surgeries to the public.
• Private rescues like The NOAH Center, Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Seattle Humane Society, and the Humane Society for Tacoma and Pierce County also offer low cost spay/neuter surgeries to the public.

Increased focus on spaying/neutering have been so successful in reducing the stray dog population that shelters in the PNW often don’t have enough dogs to meet the public demand for rescue dogs.

To meet this demand, a number of rescues began transporting dogs from overcrowded shelters (primarily in southern states) to PNW shelters. They also import dogs from countries like Mexico that have few spay/neuter laws and huge populations of stay dogs roaming the streets.

That’s why the Washington State Department of Agriculture labeled Washington a “magnet state” for rescue dogs from other states and countries.

I don’t have a problem with rescues bringing dogs from other areas to Washington for adoption as long as they follow state and federal rules designed to protect the dogs’ health and prevent the spread of disease.

Rescue Groups Cannot Bring Puppies Under 6 Months Old in to US

Casa Dog, a rescue based in Puyallup, is one of the groups that bring dogs into Washington for adoption. Its website says it brings dogs here from California and Mexico.

Recently, someone alerted me that Casa Dog is violating federal law by importing dogs under 6 months of age from Mexico to the US.

The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that “establishes requirements concerning the transportation, sale, and handling of certain animals and includes restrictions on the importation of live dogs for purposes of resale, prohibitions on animal fighting ventures, and provisions intended to prevent the theft of personal pets.”

Here are the elements of the Animal Welfare Act that rescues must follow when they bring dogs to sell into the US from other countries:

Majority of Puppies from Mexico Listed by Casa Dog are Underage

Currently, Casa Dog’s Petfinder page lists 60 puppies available for adoption: 39 of them are from Mexico and under 6 months old. It lists several underage puppies on its Facebook page as well.

I sent a couple of emails to Casa Dog asking how the rescue can bring puppies that young into the US and whether or not it has some special arrangement with the USDA to import them. The rescue never responded.

Without a response from Casa Dog I can only speculate how the rescue brought so many puppies across the border in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.

One possibility is that the federal officials tasked with overseeing the importation of animals aren’t checking the ages of the puppies at the border because they are inept, indifferent, or overworked.

Another possibility is that Casa Dog has people bringing the puppies across the border who mislead border agents by claiming the puppies are their personal pets.

Some rescues do this because the requirements for bringing personal dogs into the US are much less stringent than those for dogs brought into the US by rescue for rescue.

All you have to do to bring a personal dog into the US from Mexico is a health certificate signed by a certified Mexican vet stating the dog is healthy. The dog doesn’t even need to have a rabies vaccination if the “owner” provides an oral or written declaration that it “has lived in Mexico for the last 6 months, or since birth.”

Puppy Import Rules Less Stringent for Dog Owners Than Dog Rescues

Given the numerous requirements that rescues must meet before they can bring dogs into the US from Mexico for resale, it’s easy to understand why some unscrupulous rescues have people claim puppies are their own personal pets at the border.

It can also be extremely profitable.

Rescue puppies are always in high demand by potential adopters. People adopt them much more quickly than adults, so they generate cash faster than older dogs. And because they get adopted quickly, rescues don’t have to spend as much on their food and medical care.

As I said, I can only speculate why/how Casa Dog is bringing underage puppies across the Mexican border to sell in Washington since no one responded to my emails. But based on the ages of multiple puppies from Mexico it appears the rescue is violating the Animal Welfare Act.

Furthermore, by avoiding the more stringent rules for vaccinating dogs brought into the US from Mexico for resell, Casa Dog could be importing puppies that could either spread diseases or be more susceptible to them.

If you want to adopt a puppy from Mexico or other countries, please remember that unless it’s at least 6 months old, the rescue selling it may have brought it into the US illegally.

And if you know of a rescue that is selling underage puppies from Mexico, fill out and send this form to the US Department of Agriculture.

Share This!

The post Puyallup Dog Rescue Importing Underage Puppies from Mexico appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

DOG Could Spur Demand for Belgian Malinois

Don’t do it.

Don’t go the movie DOG and allow yourself to be so enamored of the Belgian Malinois that stars in it that you rush out and impulsively buy one.

If you haven’t heard of this movie, which opens on today, here’s the plot summary from Movie Insider:

“DOG is a buddy comedy that follows the misadventures of two former Army Rangers paired against their will on the road trip of a lifetime. Army Ranger Briggs (Channing Tatum) and Lulu (a Belgian Malinois dog) buckle into a 1984 Ford Bronco and race down the Pacific Coast in hopes of making it to a fellow soldier’s funeral on time. Along the way, they’ll drive each other completely crazy, break a small handful of law/s, narrowly evade death, and learn to let down their guards in order to have a fighting chance of finding happiness.”

Not the most original plot in the world, but really, almost any movie with a cute dog (is there any other kind?) that leads its human(s) into wacky, funny, unexpected situations is virtually guaranteed to attract large audiences and make lots of money.

Whenever a purebred dog stars in a popular movie, people become so enamored with the breed they immediately want one for themselves.

Unfortunately, they often think that when they adopt one of these dogs it will instinctively exhibit the same cute, funny, and engaging behavior they see on screen.

What they don’t realize is that someone spent months, or even years patiently training the dog to learn that cute, funny and engaging behavior.

Dog Movies Create Demand for Breeds

Here’s what usually happens when a movie features a dog breed:

1. People want a dog like the one they saw in a movie
2. Demand for the breed skyrockets
3. Backyard breeders meet the demand by producing as many puppies as possible as quickly as possible
4.
People snap up the puppies without understanding the breed’s behavior or the time commitment it will take train their dog properly
5. People unprepared to handle the breed dump the dogs in shelters
6. Shelters fill up with the breed
7. Dogs dumped at shelters are euthanized or end up with other people who aren’t equipped to handle the breed

A good example of this cycle is the increase in demand for Dalmatians created by the movie 101 Dalmatians.

When Disney re-released in 1985 and 1991, demand for the breed increased exoponentially.

During that timeframe, “the annual number of Dalmatian puppies registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) skyrocketed from only 8,170 animals to a staggering 42,816.”

But when the people who adopted these puppies realized how difficult it is to train Dalmatians and how much exercise they required, they dumped them in shelters in droves.

And a year after the movie’s live action release in 1995, a shelter in Boulder, CO experienced “a 301% increase in their Dalmatian population, and another in Tampa Bay, Florida, had an alarming surge of 762%.”

In addition, the shelters said that, due to improper care dogs’ temperament was “aggressive, stubborn, and high-strung with little hope for improving their behavior.” Shelters usually consider dogs with these traits unadoptable and often euthanize them.

Also, because backyard breeders just care about money and not maintaining the integrity of a breed, many of the dogs they mass produce have physical problems and/or exhibit atypical, dangerous behavior.

Belgian Malinois Too Much for Average Person to Handle

Belgian Malinois are driven, focused, loyal, intense and highly intelligent working dogs. Originally bred as herding dogs, these dogs are often used by the police and the military due to their intense focus and work ethic.

This breed takes its role as guardian/protector extremely seriously.

Consequently, these dogs require a significant amount of training and socialization “to ensure that they understand appropriate behaviors and don’t become overly wary of and a danger towards people they don’t know.”

Furthermore, their playfulness and strong prey drive “can make them an inadvertent risk to young children or small pets.”

The level of training these dogs require to harness their energy and protective instincts is far beyond the ability of the average dog owner. They also need a significant amount of daily exercise and mental stimulation.

That’s why anyone that adopts a Belgian Malinois must either have extensive experience training the breed or work closely with an experienced trainer.

A poorly trained Labrador Retriever may excitedly jump on a visitor or counter surf for food when your back is turned.

An untrained, unsocialized, and unfocused Belgian Malinois can be aggressive and destructive. They also have a tendancy to bite “if they are scared, bored, restless, or don’t have any job to do.”

And a bored Belgian Malinois without a job will make one for themselves. Like tearing your house apart or destroy your furniture.

This video shows what these high energy, intelligent dogs can do when properly trained. After you watch you’ll understand the difficulty an average dog owner will have when he/she tries to train one.

When they do bite, Belgian Malinois can cause extensive damage due to their strong jaws and a tendency to bite and hold.

It’s no coincidence that their nickname is Maligator.

Just Don’t Do It

A properly trained and socialized Belgian Malinois can make an excellent family pet; HOWEVER, you should not get one if:

• you’re looking for a laid back couch potato you can leave at home unattended for hours every day.
• you don’t have experience training this breed and don’t want to work for hours with an experienced trainer.
• you are unable/unwilling to spend many hours training, socializing, and providing it with mental stimulation.

If you do go see the movie, the three Belgian Malinois that play Lulu will impress and entertain you. But when you’re on the way home and the thought of buying one inevitably creeps into your mind,

DON’T DO IT.

This video shows some of the challenges of working with Belgian Malinois on the set of DOG.

Share This!

The post Do NOT Adopt a Belgian Malinois After Watching DOG appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Note: Ginger Luke, the Founder of Ginger’s Pet Rescue, passed away on September 22, 2021. Our condolences go out to her friends and family.

Massive Salary Increase

Recently I discovered that Ginger’s Pet Rescue in Seattle paid its founder Ginger Luke $138,312 in 2019 and $163,801 in 2020. The payments were astronomically higher than her salary for the previous few years.

I found this information on the publicly available tax forms the rescue submits to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Here’s how much the rescue paid Ms. Luke from 2015 – 2020:

2015 $5200
2016 $35,600
2017 $18,900
2018 $19,200
2019 $138,312
2020 $163,801

From 2018 to 2019, her salary increased by 620%. It went up more than 18% the following year.

That’s quite an increase.

I don’t think we should expect people take a vow of poverty to run a charity, regardless of whether or not it saves animals, protects the environment, or helps impoverished families.

But their CEO salaries shouldn’t be excessive. They should be based on what similarly sized charities in the region doing the same work pay their CEOs.

And because charities are public organizations, the process for determining how much they pay their top employees should be transparent. In fact, as I note later, the IRS insists on it.

Salary Out of Line With Other Seattle Area Animal Rescues

To make a fair assessment of the increase in Ms. Luke’s salary, I Iooked at the salaries for the top executives at the Seattle Humane Society in Bellevue, Homeward Pet Adoption Center in Woodinville, The NOAH Center in Stanwood, and the Humane Society for Tacoma/Pierce County in Tacoma from 2015-2020.

I then checked the groups’ revenue to get an idea of the size of the organizations. I also looked at the percentage of average revenue their CEOs’ salaries represented.

This information came from the groups’ 990s, which are financial statements they must to submit to the IRS annually. Some of the groups hadn’t turned in their 990s for 2020 to the IRS yet so I didn’t have their information for that year.

Since her salary for 2019 and 2020 was such an outlier compared to 2015-2018, I averaged the data for those 2 years and compared it to the averages of the other groups for 2015-2019/2020.*

Ms. Luke’s average salary for 2019-2020 represented more than 15% of the rescue’s average revenue during the same period. That’s a significantly higher percentage than any of the major Seattle area rescues I examined.

Homeward Pet Adoption Center had the next highest percentage of average CEO salary to average organizational revenue at only 4.5%.

Ginger’s Pet Rescue paid Ms. Luke more than 3 times that percentage even though Homeward Pets averaged more than twice as much revenue.

Even more astonishing is the percentage of revenue Ginger’s Pet Rescue paid Ms. Luke compared to the percentage the Seattle Humane Society paid its CEO.

Ms. Luke made $151,057, which was 15.7% of the rescue’s average revenue. Seattle Humane’s CEO made $162,297, which was only 1.3% of its average revenue.

Another way to look at it is that for every dollar in revenue contributed to Ginger’s Pet Rescue, more than 15 cents went to Ms. Luke’s salary; only about a penny of each dollar raised by the Seattle Humane Society went to its CEO’s salary.

And although Seattle Humane’s average revenue was more than 12 times higher than that of Ginger’s Pet Rescue ($12.4 million vs. $970,933), Ms. Luke’s average salary was almost the same as that of Seattle Humane’s CEO ($151,057 vs. $162,197).

Any way you compare the numbers, Ginger’s Pet Rescue paid its CEO a significantly higher percentage of its average revenue in 2019-2020 compared to much larger pet rescues in the Seattle area.

Incomplete Tax Forms

The IRS is the federal agency that determines whether or not an organization can be classified as a 501(c)(3) charity. Charitable organizations are exempt from paying taxes and contributions to them are tax deductible.

The IRS has no specific rules regarding how much a charity can pay its CEO; however, its Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities states that:

“A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations. This restriction is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.”

The guide goes on to say specifically that no part of an organization’s net earnings “may inure to the benefit of an insider.” It defines an insider as “a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director, or a key employee.”

So according to the IRS, Ms. Luke was an insider at the time of the excess salary payments because she was an officer, a director, and a key employee.

The IRS notes that an example of a prohibited inurement includes “payment of unreasonable compensation to an insider.”

Because of the dramatic increase in Ms. Luke’s salary in 2019 and 2020, and because the percentage of her salary compared to the rescue’s revenue was 3-12 times higher than that of other CEOs who ran organizations much larger than Ginger’s Pet Rescue, I believe Ms. Luke’s salary during that period was a prohibited inurement as defined by the IRS.

No Explanation for Salary Increase

In addition to paying unreasonable compensation to an insider, Ginger’s Pet Rescue failed to acknowledge paying that compensation to Ms. Luke on its Form 990s sent to the IRS.

The instructions for Part VI, Section B, Line 15 of the IRS Form 990 state that if an organization “didn’t compensate its CEO, executive director, or top management official during the tax year, answer “No” to line 15a.”

On its tax forms for 2019 and 2020, the rescue checked the “no” box. This told the IRS that it didn’t compensate Ginger Luke even though it noted in another section of the forms that it paid her over $300,000 during that period.

The IRS requires charities that do pay their CEO, Executive Director, or top management official provide documentation showing that “the process for determining compensation…that included the following elements”:

• Review and approval by a governing body or compensation committee, provided that persons with a conflict of interest regarding the compensation arrangement at issue weren’t involved.

• Use of data as to comparable compensation for similarly qualified persons in functionally comparable positions at similarly situated organizations.

• Contemporaneous documentation and recordkeeping for deliberations and decisions regarding the compensation arrangement.

The rescue’s tax forms indicated it had no process for determining and approving Ginger Luke’s compensation during that time period.

The IRS wants charities to show how they determine CEO’s salaries to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one.

If a charity provides an excessive private benefit, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.

Paying a CEO an excessive salary does not serve the public interest because it takes money away whatever an organization does to serve the public.

Ginger’s Pet Rescue’s stated mission is “to give homeless animals with no hope the life they deserve through rescue, foster, and adoption.”

The excessive salary the rescue paid Ginger Luke meant it had fewer funds to achieve this mission.

The Seattle Humane Society’s tax forms show how charities should report and justify their CEO’s salary.

Ginger’s Pet Rescue Won’t Answer My Question About Salary Increase

Ginger’s Pet Rescue’s lack of transparency regarding the money it paid to Ms. Luke isn’t just limited to the tax forms it sent to the IRS.

When I first noticed the huge salary increases the organization paid to Ms. Luke I asked why it paid her so much in 2019 and 2020. I also asked who took her place and how much they made.

Here’s the entire conversation I had with someone from the rescue on Facebook:

11/11/21, 7:58 am

You sent

Hi – This is Robert Pregulman from Seattle DogSpot. First, I’m so sorry that Ginger passed away earlier this year. Please accept my condolences for your loss.

You sent

I’m contacting you because I noticed on your 990s that you sent to the IRS that Ginger was paid $138,312 in salary for 2019 and $163,801 in 2020. That was significantly higher than she was paid in past years. It’s also much higher than the salary of directors of much larger animal rescues. Can you please tell me why you paid her so much during 2019 and 2020? Also, can you tell me who took her place and how much they make? Thank you.

11/11/21, 5:55 pm

Ginger’s Pet Rescue

I’m not sure why this concerns you ?

Ginger’s Pet Rescue

It’s also much lower than lots of animal rescues . I’m not sure why it’s a problem who gets paid what ? Do you have any idea the commitment level and how many hours and days a week it takes to run GPR and also the sacrifices rescuers make

11/12/21, 7:16 am

You sent

I do understand the level of commitment it take to run a rescue but I think it’s fair question to ask what prompted the decision to raise her salary by over $100k. And her salary is more than director’s at other rescues that raise more money. Also, no other rescue pays their directors a salary that is such a large percentage of their budget.

You sent

Can you tell me what prompter the organization to give her such a large salary increase?

You sent

prompted

11/16/21, 9:54 am

You sent

Could someone from the board contact me to explain the dramatic salary increase for Ginger for the last years?

11/19/21, 10:04 am

You sent

Just wanted to check again to see if someone from the board could contact me about the salary increase.

Whomever responded to my questions basically told me the reason for the massive salary increase was none of my business. He/she wouldn’t tell me who replaced Ginger and how much they made either.

I repeated my request 3 more times over the next few days but received no other response.

Charities Must Be Transparent to IRS and the Public

Ginger’s Pet Rescue may have had a perfectly justifiable and defendable reason for Ms. Luke’s large salary increase. But its dismissive response to my question and lack of transparency on its tax forms doesn’t engender confidence in the process (if there was one) it used to approve the increase.

Organizations designated as charities by the IRS don’t have to pay taxes so they have more money available to use for the charitable purposes for which they were created. Also, it’s easier for them to raise money because donor contributions are tax deductible.

In return for these entitlements, none of their earnings may provide an excessive benefit to any employee or board member. They must also explain to the IRS their processes for determining these payments.

This ensures that resources aren’t diverted from an organization’s charitable purposes and into the pocket of an individual.

I’m not saying Ginger’s Pet Rescue did anything illegal by significantly increasing Ms. Luke’s salary. But the rescue does have an obligation to provide documentation to the IRS showing the process it used to justify the increase to ensure it wasn’t a substantial accrual of a private benefit or an unreasonable payment to Ms. Luke.

I will continue to investigate the reason for Ms. Luke’s salary increase and will let you know if I ever get an explanation for it.

Here is all the data I collected regarding CEO Salary, Yearly Revenue, and CEO Salary % of Income for the largest pet rescue groups in the Seattle area.

Share This!

The post Ginger’s Pet Rescue Paid Founder Over $300,000 in 2019 & 2020 appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Have you seen those crowdfunding websites for animal rescues that have proliferated on social media? Every day I see a couple of dozen fundraising requests from rescues that need money for unanticipated emergencies like a dog that needs immediate life-saving surgery or expensive treatments for viruses like parvo and distemper.

These crowdfunding sites are an incredibly valuable tool for smaller rescues that don’t have tons of money. It allows them to quickly collect contributions from hundreds of donors to save dogs in emergency situations.

Unfortunately, some rescues post funding requests that are at best misleading and at worst fraudulent.

Washington Animal Rescue Falsely Claims It’s in California

Recently someone alerted me to a questionable fundraising request for $4000 by Horn Creek Rescue in Fiddletown, CA on Cuddly, a crowdfunding site for animal rescues.

The funding appeal appeared on Cuddly on August 20. It said the rescue needed to evacuate and find temporary boarding for its animals from the rapidly spreading Caldor wildfire.

The rescue said it had “multiple animals in their care; not just cats and dogs but pigs, hogs, chickens, goats, and birds.” 

That sounds legit, right?

But upon further investigation, I found a small problem with this fundraising appeal – there is no Horn Creek Rescue in Fiddletown, CA.

Horn Creek Rescue does exist, but not in California. The website opencorporates shows that the organization was incorporated in February 2019. It’s located at 35413 37th Avenue S in Roy, WA, not Fiddletown, CA.

Two Animal Rescues Registered at Same Washington Address

Coincidentally, another animal rescue is incorporated at that exact address: Purrsons United for the Rescue, Rehabilitation, and Relocation of Animals (PURRR).

I’ve written about PURRR several times over the last few years.

I first heard about PURRR and its owner Diana VanDusen in an article in the Tacoma News Tribune in early 2015 entitled, “The dog rescuer: Lakewood woman faces criticism for adopting out dangerous animals.”

Here are some of my posts about PURRR:

Dog Adopted from PURRR Rescue Mauled 6-Year-Old in 2013 (January 2015)

Why is PURRR Rescue keeping 20+ dogs outside in tents during Washington’s rainy winter? (February 2015)

Another Dog Adopted from PURRR Rescue Kills a Cat (March 2015)

Dogs from PURRR Rescue Still Live Outside in Kennels (December 2017)

Horn Animal Rescue isn’t just located at Diana VanDusen’s address. She is also on the group’s Board of Directors.

Animals in Fundraising Pictures Are From Different Rescue

Horn Creek’s fundraising appeal has several pictures of farm animals that apparently had been evacuated or needed to be evacuated to escape the fire. You’ll find no pictures of these animals on Horn Creek Rescue’s Facebook page. In fact, you won’t find ANY pictures of farm animals there.

So whose animals are in the pictures on Horn Creek Rescue’s fundraising appeal?

Eventually I found the pictures on the Facebook page of an animal sanctuary in Volcano, CA called Kevin Petunia and Friends Hog Heaven. Volcano is about 10 miles from Fiddletown. I can’t give you the link because the page blocked me soon after I “liked” it on Facebook.

I posted more pictures from Horn Creek’s Cuddly fundraiser with corresponding pictures from Kevin Petunia and Friends at the end of this post.

Horn Creek Rescue and Animal Sanctuary Connected

Kevin Petunia and Friends doesn’t appear to have any active presence on social media other than a Facebook page. It doesn’t have a website, it isn’t registered in California, and it isn’t recognized as a 501c3 charity by the IRS.

A woman named Dawna Scheda is the connection between Horn Creek Rescue and Kevin Petunia and Friends Hog Heaven. Along with Diana VanDusen, she is on the Board of Directors for Horn Creek Rescue.

Also, some of the fundraising appeals for Kevin Petunia and Friends listed Ms. Scheda’s email as a contact. And bills for medical treatment and supplies on the group’s Facebook page show Ms. Scheda as the contact for the group.

The most obvious connection between Ms. Scheda and Kevin Petunia and Friends are the pictures of her husband Steve on the group’s Facebook page. He clearly does a lot of work on behalf of the rescue, so it’s reasonable to assume that both he and Ms. Scheda run it.

Both Ms. Scheda and Diana VanDusen personally solicited donations to Horn Creek Rescue on Facebook.

In case you’re confused trying to follow what I’ve detailed, here’s a summary:

1. In late August Horn Creek Rescue posted a fundraising appeal on Cuddly for $4000 to help move animals out of the path of a California wildfire.
2. The appeal claimed Horn Creek Rescue is based in Fiddletown, CA, but it’s actually located in Roy, WA at the same address as the animal rescue PURRR.
3. Diane VanDusen, who runs PURRR, is on the Board of Horn Creek Rescue.
4. The pictures of the animals on Horn Creek Rescue’s fundraising appeal were actually taken at a place called Kevin Petunia and Friends Hog Heaven.
5. Horn Creek Rescue’s Facebook page has no pictures of animals other than dogs and cats. I found no records showing that it saves farm animals.
6. Dawna Scheda is also on the Board of Horn Creek Rescue. Posts on Facebook list her as a fundraising contact for Kevin Petunia and Friends, and the groups vet/supplies bills list her as a contact as well.
7. It appears Ms. Scheda and her husband Steve run Kevin Petunia and Friends.

Fraudulent Fundraising Appeal?

Based on the evidence I’ve found, I think Horn Creek Rescue posted a fraudulent fundraising appeal on Cuddly.

Horn Creek has no facility in California, it used pictures from animals at another organization (Kevin Petunia and Friends) in its funding request, and at least one of its board members is closely connected that group.

At this point I still have several unanswered questions:

Why would Diana Van Dusen create another rescue (Horn Creek) based at the same address of her other rescue (PURRR) that has virtually the same mission?

Why did the funding appeal on Cuddly claim Horn Creek had to evacuate animals from a nonexistent facility in Fiddletown, CA?

Did Horn Creek Rescue give the money from the funding appeal to Kevin Petunia and Friends? If not, where did it go?

Why did the funding appeal for Horn Creek contain pictures of animals from Kevin Petunia and Friends Hog Heaven?

I hope Cuddly investigates this funding appeal.

I have no reason to doubt that Cuddly is a legitimate funding platform that provides critical financial resources for small animal rescues; but the organization should take quick action to ban rescues that try to raise money using demonstrably false information.

Here are more pictures from Horn Creek Rescue’s fundraising appeal on Cuddly paired with the identical pictures on Kevin Petunia and Friends Hog Heaven Facebook page. The pictures on the fundraiser are obviously misleading because Horn Creek Rescue has no facility in California.

Horn Creek misled potential donors by using pictures of animals from another rescue to claim it needed money to move the animals away from the fire.

Share This!

The post Washington Animal Rescue Posts Questionable Fundraising Request appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

UPDATE: HOURS AFTER THIS POST WENT ONLINE YESTERDAY MIRIAM KELLY REPAID THE $632 DISCOUNT SHE GOT FROM A LOCAL ANIMAL HOSPITAL BY FALSELY PORTRAYING DESIDERATA RESCUE AS A CHARITY.

IRS Revoked Desiderata Rescue’s Charity Status in 2019

Last month, Miriam Kelly of Desiderata Rescue fraudulently claimed the rescue was a charity in order to get a discount of more than $600 for services provided by a Seattle area animal hospital.

The IRS determines whether or not a nonprofit can be classified as a legitimate 501(c)(3) charity. Once the IRS designates an organization as a charity, it does not have to pay federal income tax. Donors can also make tax deductible donations to it.

Charities must file annual tax returns with the IRS. Some must also file state returns. In addition, they must make their last 3 tax returns available to the public.

As I wrote earlier this year, the IRS designated Desiderata Rescue as a 501(c)(3) charity in 2016.

But the IRS revoked its 501(c)(3) status in 2019 for failing to provide tax returns for 3 years.

I also noted that Miriam Kelly fraudulently promoted Desiderata Rescue as a charity after the IRS revoked its 501(c)(3) status.

Seattle Area Veterinarian Taken for $632

Many dog rescues run on shoestring budgets, so some veterinarians and pet stores discount their bills to help them out.

To get this discount, they often require rescues to provide a copy of their 501(c)(3) designation letter from the IRS.

Recently someone from a local animal hospital sent me an email saying Miriam Kelly provided a letter from the IRS designating Desiderata Rescue as a 501(c)(3) charity in order to get a $632 discount on the services it provided for one of the rescue’s dogs.

Later this person discovered that the letter was invalid because the IRS revoked Desiderata Rescue’s charity status in 2019.

Here’s the email they sent:

“I work at a small animal emergency clinic. We recently had Miriam as a client and after arguing about the bill for one of her fostered puppies, gave her a 20% discount provided she showed us a copy of her 501c3, which was dated 2016. This is a $632 discount that we are now out of.”

Operating Illegally is Nothing New for Desiderata Rescue

Miriam Kelly has illegally operated her rescue for years. In addition to fraudulently claiming Desiderata Rescue was a 501(c)(3) charity, she posted fundraisers in Washington without registering with the Secretary of State’s Charity program or meeting Washington’s disclosure requirements for fundraising appeals.

And last July, after moving her unauthorized rescue to Seminole, OK, she sent sick puppies and kittens to Washington adopters.

She also continues to illegally sell dogs and cats in Washington without registering with state.

To the best of my knowledge, Desiderata Rescue isn’t registered to operate Oklahoma either.

Earlier this year, Adopt-a-Pet kicked Desiderata Rescue off its website after Seattle DogSpot reported the rescue for violating its terms of service,

Desiderata Rescue Doesn’t Exist

Legally, Desiderata Rescue doesn’t exist. Ms. Kelly hasn’t registered it to operate or sell animals anywhere.

Adopting a pet from Miriam Kelly is no different than buying one from someone who sells them on the side of a road. She’s just an individual that sells pets for hundreds of dollars.

And because she never submitted annual reports, no one knows how much money the rescue makes or where that money goes.

I plan to report Miriam Kelly’s fraudulent activities to the IRS. It doesn’t look kindly on organizations that falsely present themselves as charities.

Still, despite a few bad actors, responsible people run the vast majority of dog rescues. They operate within the law and ensure their dogs are healthy before anyone can adopt them.

Ms. Kelly’s antics shouldn’t prevent anyone from adopting a dog from a rescue. Just be sure to do your research to ensure it’s a responsible rescue that follows the law.

Share This!

The post Desiderata Rescue Rips Off Seattle Area Animal Hospital appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

The pet adoption website Adopt-a-Pet removed Desiderata Rescue from its listings this week “due to non-compliance with state regulations.”

Adopt-a-Pet opened the investigation into Desiderata Rescue after Seattle DogSpot sent a letter documenting how the rescue violated the site’s rules.

Desiderata Rescue founder Miriam Kelly used to live in Tacoma and import dogs from primarily from Texas to Washington.

Rescues classified as charities that sell dogs and fundraise in Washington must register with the Secretary of State’s office. But despite receiving notices that she needed to register Desiderata Rescue to raise money and sell dogs in Washington, Ms. Kelly continued to illegally import dogs and ask for money in Washington.

Last fall she moved to Seminole, OK where she continues to send and sell dogs here illegally.

Recently, Ms. Kelly sent sick puppies and kittens here. At least two died.

She also fraudulently claimed that Desiderata Rescue was a 501(c)(3) charity months after the IRS revoked the its charity status for not sending tax information for 3 consecutive years.

Desiderata Rescue Violated Adopt-a-Pet’s Rules

As you’ll see in the email below that I sent to Adopt-a-Pet, Desiderata Rescue violates or has violated several of the organization’s rules that rescues/shelters must follow in order to be listed on the site.

My Email to Adopt-a-Pet About Desiderata Rescue

Here’s the email I sent to Adopt-a-Pet executive director David Meyer on June 19:

“I hope you’ve been well. I’m writing about another animal rescue in WA that shouldn’t be on your site.

The name of the rescue is Desiderata Rescue. It is an illegal rescue that is selling sick puppies and kittens in Washington State. Miriam Kelly started it in 2016 in Texas to rescue dogs there and bring them to WA for adoption. Ms. Kelly, lived in Tacoma and found homes for the dogs when they arrived in WA. 

I contacted the Washington Secretary of State’s office to find out Ms. Kelly should register the group in WA since she sold dogs here.

A representative from that office told me that although Ms. Kelly registered Desiderata Rescue in TX, she had to also register in WA if they were selling dogs here:

Ms. Kelly ignored messages from the Secretary of State’s office and continued to operate in WA.

Furthermore, last year the IRS revoked Desiderata Rescue’s 501c3 status because the group provided no tax reports for 3 consecutive years.

Despite the revocation, Ms. Kelly fraudulently continued to claim the rescue was a 501c3 charity. I took this screenshot of her site a few weeks ago. She has since taken the site down:

I emailed Miriam Kelly to find out whether or not the IRS still considers Desiderata Rescue a 501c3 charity. Here’s our email exchange:
Seattle DogSpot: “Could you please tell me if Desiderata Rescue is still registered as a 501c3 charity? Both the IRS and the WA Attorney General websites show that the group’s tax exempt status has been revoked so I wanted to check with you to see if that information is accurate. And if it is accurate, is the rescue registered under another name?”

Miriam Kelly: “Out of fodder for your lousy blog, huh? Do not harass me again.”

Seattle DogSpot: “This isn’t harassment. Just trying to determine if you’re operating legally in Washington. If you can’t/won’t provide anything showing the rescue is properly registered I’ll just go with the information I have.”

Miriam Kelly: “I have repeatedly asked you to not email me so yes this is harassment. I don’t care what information you want. You are a blogger who thinks you have some sort of authority. But you are just a slimy weasel. If you wanted to be a real journalist, you would expose (redacted) for the fraud she is but you are too busy sucking her dick. Now, do NOT email me again. Ever.” 

Not long after the IRS revoked the rescue’s 501c3 status, Ms. Kelly moved to OK. Now she’s doing the same thing – taking dogs and cats from TX, and now OK, and selling them in WA. The group is still not registered in WA and is therefore sending these animals here illegally.

She doesn’t just sell animals here illegally. In at least 2 instances, she brought in sick animals, some of which died.

Desiderate Rescue sent a puppy named Leo to Washington a few weeks ago. He contracted Parvo on the transport and the adopter had to spend thousands of dollars on treatment.

This is from Leo’s owner confirming the puppy had Parvo and that a puppy from the litter it was transported with died.

This post from last Tuesday is from a woman who adopted kittens from Desiderata Rescue that she found advertised on your website. Within 24 hours of arriving the kittens fell sick and one is now dead. The rescue said the kittens were six weeks old, which is still too young for them to leave their mother, but the vet said they weren’t that old. So far the woman spent over $2000 on vet bills. 

Desiderata Rescue doesn’t just sell pets illegally in Washington. It also sends sick animals.

The information in this email unequivocally proves Desiderata Rescue is breaking several of your Rules of Service:

“We don’t require 501 (c) (3) non-profit status of organizations that list pets with us. However, you must be a legitimate rescue organization and not engaging in activities counter-productive to the cause of animal rescue such as using Adopt-a-Pet.com to list puppies acquired from auctions or breeders. You must be in possession of any local or state-required permits necessary for your operations. You must not have any pending or confirmed animal control or criminal citations or violations.”

“We kindly ask you to treat members of the public, especially those who find you through Adopt-a-Pet.com, in a courteous fashion.”

“You must be honest in your pet postings about breeds, ages, and all other information, and, when dealing with adopters, you must disclose any known health or behavior issues.”

“Grounds for removal of your shelter or rescue from the site include violating any of the terms above, defrauding a potential adopter financially or otherwise, making dishonest claims, conviction of animal cruelty, neglect, or related crimes, and violating the terms of any adoption contract you provide an adopter. We reserve the right to remove accounts for other serious reasons at our sole discretion, including a lack of following through on any of the above-listed terms of use.”

Adopt-a-Pet Takes Action

After receiving Seattle DogSpot’s email, Adopt-a-Pet opened an investigation to determine if Desiderata Rescue violated its rules.

Last week it determined the rescue did violate its rules and removed it from the site.

Desiderata Rescue is the third sketchy dog rescue from Washington that Seattle DogSpot asked Adopt-a-Pet to remove from its site.

It previously removed Furever Homes Rescue and Rising Phoenix Mastiff Rescue.

To the best of my knowledge, Adopt-a-Pet was the ONLY pet adoption site that listed Desiderata Rescue.

I don’t fault Adopt-a-Pet for listing fake rescues. It can’t thoroughly investigate and monitor the more than 21,000 organizations on its site.

People looking to adopt a rescue dog often start their searches on sites like Adopt-a-Pet. Most assume all the dog rescues listed on these sites are legitimate, and the vast majority are.

However, some fake dog rescues will slip through the cracks and get a listing. That’s why people who find a fake dog rescue on Adopt-a-Pet’s site should report it immediately.

Many thanks to Adopt-a-Pet for looking at the evidence and removing this fake rescue from its site.

Share This!

The post Adopt-a-Pet Boots Desiderata Rescue from its Website appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Paying for a Puppy They Don’t Have Anymore

Last Thursday, KIRO-TV ran a story about a family that leased a Husky puppy from Puppyland in Puyallup.

Alyssa Carter told the KIRO reporter that she and her husband “fell in love” with the puppy. But they couldn’t afford the $3200 price tag.

That’s when someone from Puppyland told them that they “had options” and could finance the payments for “as low as $100.”

But the payments weren’t even close to $100 a month. They ended up being almost $250 a month.

As I wrote in my previous post about puppy leasing (Washington Pet Stores Are Leasing Puppies, 2/15/19), the Carter’s realized after they signed the contract that they would end up paying over $7200 for the puppy.

And even when they made all the payments, they wouldn’t own the puppy unless they paid an additional $487.50.

To make matters worse, the family soon realized that a Husky “wasn’t the best breed for them.”

They asked Puppyland to help them find another home for the puppy and ended up selling him for $950.

Carter’s husband told KIRO, “I’m paying for something I don’t even have.”

Puppyland’s Misleading Responses

I believe Puppyland’s response to the reporter’s questions about puppy leasing were at best misleading and at worst, deceitful.

Puppyland co-owner Kayla Kerr told KIRO they “deter customers as much as possible” when they offered “the leasing option.”

She also said they would tell customers who wanted to sign a lease “to go home and sleep on it so they don’t make a rushed decision.”

Ms. Carter told the reporter no one tried to deter them from signing a lease for the puppy or told them to sleep on it.

The puppy leasing model depends on customers making an emotional decision instead of a financial one because the desire for getting a cute puppy can cloud the judgement of a potential lessee.

As the founder of a company that finances puppy purchases noted, “We like niches where we’re dealing with emotional borrowers.”

Ms. Kerr made a couple of other claims that I think aren’t accurate.

Financing Option? What Financing Option?

Ms. Kerr told KIRO that Puppyland only offered a leasing option to customers with bad credit.

The customers with good credit are “given the option of financing” that gives them an interest rate that is “significantly lower than the fees they would be paying for a lease.”

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that Puppyland customers have both a financing and leasing option.

Puppyland’s website only mentions puppy financing.

I’ve never seen the word “leasing” anywhere on its site even though two of its financing companies for Puppyland, Credova and Mypetfunding.com, have made it clear they offer leasing, not financing.

Credova has this statement at the bottom of its website (I added the CAPS and bolding) :

“CREDOVA IS NOT A LENDER. Credova provides a software platform for retailers to access third-party providers for LEASE-TO-OWN financing and other lending products based on a consumer’s credit profile.”

The website for Mypetfunding.com, the company that leased the puppy to the Carters, says it offers closed end consumer leases, not financing.

It even clarifies the difference between financing and leasing: “A loan is the borrowing of money while a lease is a term rental agreement for the use of specific property.”

Nothing I’ve seen on Puppyland’s site, Credova’s site, or mypetfunding.com indicate customers could get 2 different interest rates depending on if they signed a lease or a financing agreement.

Did Puppyland Really Stop Offering Pet Leases?

Ms. Kerr also told the reporter that “they still do pet financing, but recently stopped offering pet leases.”

But as I just noted, both Credova and mypetfunding.com unequivocally state they do NOT offer financing for puppy purchases.

If Puppyland no longer offers puppy leasing, why does it have a link to Credova’s site on its puppy payment page?

Ms. Kerr made another misleading statement when she told the reporter that Puppyland “doesn’t benefit from customers financing pets.”

When someone signs a lease agreement, the leasing company buys the puppy from Puppyland and retains ownership of it until the customer makes all the monthly payments.

Since the customer couldn’t afford to buy the puppy outright, financing/leasing allows Puppyland to make the sale to a customer who otherwise couldn’t have bought it.

Isn’t making a sale a benefit to Puppyland?

Also, without financing leasing, Puppyland would also have to continue paying for food and other expenses for the puppy.

In other words, the less time Puppyland has the puppy, the more money it makes on a sale.

Clearly, Puppyland benefits from customers financing/leasing pets.

If it didn’t, why would it offer customers the option to do it?

I Still Don’t Like Pet Leasing

As I wrote in my earlier post, I think it’s perfectly fine to lease inanimate objects like cars or appliances.

But leasing puppies, in my opinion, is wrong.

Even the American Kennel Club, the leading proponent for breeders like the one that supplies Farmland with puppies, opposes pet leasing. Its Canine Legislation Position Statement says: “AKC supports a ban on predatory pet leasing schemes that victimize potential owners, undermine a lifetime commitment to a pet, and do not confer the rights and responsibilities associated with legal ownership of a pet.”

Ms. Kerr’s misleading responses to KIRO’s reporter only reinforced my beliefs about the puppy leasing industry.

Share This!

The post Family That Leased Puppy Stuck with a $7200 Bill. And No Puppy. appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.

Yesterday sources alerted me that the worst dog rescue in Washington recently changed its name and phone number in an attempt to prevent potential dog adopters from discovering its sketchy past.

Sharon Gold’s Furever Homes Rescue is now operating as Heavenly Friends and claims to be located in Olympia (Gold ran Furever Homes out of her house in Tumwater).

How do I know this?

The phone number listed on its Petfinder site is for CruZin Auto Sales which is the former used car business for Gold’s husband Justin Cruz.

This is Heavenly Friends listing on Petfinder.com. Note that the phone number is the same one listed for CruZin Auto Sales, the former business of Sharon Gold’s husband Justin Cruz.

Here are some examples that show why Gold doesn’t want potential dog adopters to discover Furever Homes’ past.

Dog Rescue Has a Sordid History

You don’t have to look far to understand why Sharon Gold changed the name of Furever Homes Rescue.

Two years ago I wrote that Furever Homes rescue had over 100 incident reports on file with Joint Animal Services in Lacey from 2010.

Here are just a few of them:

1/15/2013 – Gold brought in a 2-year-old German Shepherd named Chance that she took back from a recent adopter because of excessive chewing. Gold said Chance “LOVES other dogs, good with cats, housebroken and good with kids.” However, a note on the intake form by JAS staff said the dog was “unpredictable, aggressive without warning” and “not…safe” for adoption,” so JAS had to euthanize him.

The officer also noted that Gold “put down false info on the paperwork.” It appears she gave a false name when she brought in the dog because the officer crossed out the name on the form and wrote in Gold’s name.

This is an old ad for the former business of Sharon Gold’s husband. The phone number is identical to the one listed for Heavenly Friends rescue.

5/22/13 – Someone found an injured dachshund in the middle of the road. It was dead by the time animal control officers arrived. JAS determined it was one of Sharon Gold’s dogs. 

11/14/2015 – Claiming a male pit bull was a stray she didn’t want, Gold surrendered it to animal control. She signed a form saying she didn’t own the dog and didn’t know the owner.

But a note on the report dated 11/20 says, “left vm for Sharon regarding her lying about the dog being stray.”

The dog’s profile on adoptapet.com and messages from Gold on screenshots show unequivocally that Forever Homes brought him up from Tijuana at least a month earlier.

3/1/16 – A woman brought a dog to JAS that she adopted from Gold about a month earlier. She said the dog had kennel cough when she adopted it.

JAS had to euthanize the dog because it had distemper. JAS also reported that the dog had a staph infection and herpes.

The officer who took the dog noted in the report that she was “concerned about the health of the animal in this rescue and worried that diseases are being brought up from Mexico.”

This is just a small sample of the confrontations between Sharon Gold/Furever Rescue and Joint Animal Services. Gold used the agency as a dumping ground for her sick dogs and dogs with behavior problems that she couldn’t adopt out.

Sharon Gold Threatens Animal Control Officer

Gold’s hostile relationship with Joint Animal Services culminated in May 2017 confrontation in which Gold and a minor who was with her threatened to kill Animal Control Officer Erika Johnson last year.

Joint Animal Services subsequently banned Gold and the minor from the property.

In addition, after the mom of the military family reported Gold to the police, Gold harassed her to the point where a Thurston County judge approved a restraining order to keep Gold away from her.

Sharon Gold Makes Big Money Selling Dogs

In the last year Seattle DogSpot reported Furever Homes to pet adoption websites Adopt-a-Pet and Petfinder which Gold used to sell dogs and cats.

Sharon Gold dumped dogs she didn’t want at Joint Animal Services.  JAS picked up this stray dog and traced it to Sharon Gold. An officer called her about the dog and said it exhibited “frantic, unstable behavior.” She told JAS to euthanize it.

Both companies subsequently removed Furever Homes from their websites.

With no effective outlets to sell her dogs and cats, Gold created a new rescue with her husband’s phone number. 

Creating Heavenly Friends allowed her to mislead Petfinder and get a listing on its site.

This gave Gold an aura of legitimacy that enabled her to start selling a high volume of dogs again (she sells cats, too).

And selling high volumes of animal is critical for Gold because it’s a huge cash cow for her.

In 2015 Gold told the Olympian that she adopts out 20-40 dogs a month.

She charges about $350 to adopt a dog, so Furever Homes makes about $84,000 – $168,000 a year.

Get The Word Out: Heavenly Friends is Not a Legitimate Dog Rescue

If you know anyone who plans to adopt a dog from a rescue, please warn them that, like Furever Homes, Heavenly Friends is run by Sharon Gold and is not a legitimate animal rescue group.

Not only is it more of a cash generating business than a real animal rescue group, I haven’t found any evidence that it is even registered to do business in Washington state.

Here are articles I’ve written about Sharon Gold and Furever Homes. They clearly show why no one should adopt dogs from Sharon Gold or any rescue groups connected to her:

• Furever Homes rescue illegally brought puppies from Mexico into Washington (2/6/16)
• Furever Homes Rescue Illegally Brought Puppies from Mexico into Washington (2/8/16)
• Furever Homes rescue is operating in violation of Thurston County codes (2/12/16)
• Thurston County dog rescue turns military family’s fostering experience into a nightmare (2/20/16)
• Thurston County cracks down on Furever Homes Dog Rescue (2/27/16)
• Judge issues restraining order against Furever Homes rescue director Sharon Gold (3/9/16)
• After 3+ months, Furever Homes dog rescue still has too many dogs (6/14/16)
• Furever Homes Dog Rescue: 100+ cases with Thurston County Animal Control since 2010 (7/29/16)
• Fire Kills 18 Dogs at Furever Homes Dog Rescue Near Tumwater (1/6/17)
• Furever Homes Dog Rescue Continued to Lose Dogs in 2016 (2/17/17)
• Furever Homes Founder Banned from Joint Animal Services After Threats Against Staff (3/20/17)
• Adopt-a-Pet Boots Furever Homes Rescue from Its Website (8/20/18)

Many thanks to the people who alerted me about Furever Homes’ name change. I could not have reported it without their help.

Share This!

The post Worst Dog Rescue in Washington Changes Name to Hide Its Past appeared first on Seattle DogSpot.