A Message From My Heart

I want to be really clear about something: I never wanted to fight with the county or the shelter. I don’t see them as the enemy, and I don’t believe I’m the only person who cares about the dogs. There are good people on every side of this, people who show up every day because they want to help.

My only belief the one thing I’ve stood on from the beginning is that no dog deserves to be sitting in a shelter. Not mine, not anyone’s. Not when there are homes, fosters, and people willing to step up. That’s the part that hurts the most, because the dogs are the ones who pay the price when systems break down or communication fails. I’m not here to point fingers or create more conflict. I’m here because I care deeply about these animals and I want to be part of a solution that actually helps them. I want to work with people, not against them. I want to build something better, safer, and more sustainable so no dog ends up stuck in a place they don’t belong.

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing: for the dogs to be safe, cared for, and loved. That’s the only thing that matters to me, and that’s where I’ll keep putting my energy.

Accountability Doesn’t End When a Contract Ends

What happened; in Clearlake with North Bay Animal Services is did not happen overnight, nor is it an isolated event. What we are seeing in Sonoma County with animal welfare is a result of a systematic failure that every city and town in the county are responsible for

As more cities begin to distance themselves from North Bay Animal Services, one message needs to be absolutely clear:
walking away from a contract does not erase what happened to the animals who suffered under their care.

Ending a contract is not accountability.
It is not justice.
It is not transparency.

It is simply the first step in acknowledging that something went very, very wrong.


Why Accountability Still Matters

When animals are harmed, neglected, denied care, or placed in dangerous conditions, the responsibility does not disappear because a city chooses a new contractor. Every agency, official, and individual who played a role in those decisions or who ignored the warning signs remains accountable for what happened.

Animal welfare is not a “clean slate” industry.
Lives were lost.
Families were impacted.
Rescues were targeted.
Whistleblowers were retaliated against.

Those actions have consequences.


Cities Cannot Pretend They Didn’t Know

For years, concerns were raised about:

  • lack of transparency
  • denial of veterinary care
  • retaliation against rescues and advocates
  • unsafe transfers and euthanasia decisions
  • failures to provide legally required emergency services

These issues were documented, reported, and brought forward by multiple people not just one rescue, not just one voice.

Cities had a duty to investigate, to intervene, and to protect the animals in their jurisdiction. Contract termination does not absolve them of that duty.


The Animals Deserve More Than Silence

The animals who suffered under this system cannot speak for themselves.
They cannot file complaints.
They cannot demand answers.

That responsibility falls on us the public, the rescuers, the fosters, the adopters, and every person who believes in ethical, humane animal welfare.

Accountability means:

  • acknowledging the harm
  • identifying who allowed it
  • preventing it from ever happening again
  • ensuring transparency moving forward

Anything less is just damage control.


This Is About More Than One Organization

This is about the entire structure that allowed these failures to continue unchecked.

It is about:

  • oversight
  • enforcement
  • public safety
  • humane treatment
  • truth

If we don’t hold every responsible party accountable from the agency to the cities that empowered them then the same patterns will repeat somewhere else, under a different name, with different animals paying the price.

Structural Limits: Why NBAS Can Only Do So Much

It’s also important to understand that North Bay Animal Services operates strictly within the limits of the municipal contracts it holds. Their authority isn’t self‑determined it’s defined by the cities they serve. That means local ordinances, town codes, enforcement priorities, and the scope of their service agreements ultimately dictate what NBAS can and cannot do.

In many situations, the real issue isn’t a lack of willingness from NBAS staff. It’s the structural constraints built into the system itself. I genuinely believe NBAS has good intentions and wants to help animals and the community, but they often find themselves with their hands tied by the very policies, directives, and enforcement structures they’re required to follow.

This is why accountability cannot stop at the shelter door. When a contracted agency is limited by the rules written by the town, then the town its ordinances, its code enforcement practices, and its leadership must also be part of the conversation. If the system is flawed, under‑resourced, or inconsistently enforced, then even the most well‑intentioned contractor will struggle to meet community expectations.

The public deserves transparency not only from NBAS, but from the municipalities that create, approve, and enforce the frameworks NBAS is obligated to operate within. Contracts end, but accountability doesn’t.


We Owe It to the Animals to Demand Better

Contract changes are not justice.
Silence is not accountability.
And pretending the past didn’t happen is not protection.

We must continue to speak up, document, and demand transparency not just for the animals who were harmed, but for every animal who will rely on these systems in the future.

The animals deserved better then.
They deserve better now.
And they deserve a community that refuses to look away.


 Community Responsibility: We Cannot Outsource Compassion

One of the hardest truths we have to face is this:
animal welfare is not something we can pay an organization to “handle” for us.
A contract does not replace a community’s responsibility. A shelter cannot fix what a town refuses to address. And sending animals out of sight is not a solution — it’s a cop‑out.

1. A Healthy Community Doesn’t Hide Its Animals It Protects Them

When a town believes that writing a check to a contractor absolves them of responsibility, animals suffer. Real safety comes from:

  • engaged residents
  • informed neighbors
  • humane policies
  • transparent enforcement
  • community‑driven solutions

Not from pushing animals into a building and pretending the problem is solved.

2. Paying an Organization Doesn’t Erase Our Duty to Speak Up

A contract can fund services, but it cannot replace:

  • compassion
  • vigilance
  • accountability
  • community oversight

When people assume “the shelter will handle it,” they stop reporting cruelty, stop checking on neighbors’ animals, and stop demanding humane policies. That silence is exactly what allows suffering to continue.

3. “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” Is How Animals Get Hurt

When towns rely on a contractor to make animals disappear whether through transfers, quiet euthanasia, or simply removing them from public view the community loses visibility into:

  • how many animals are suffering
  • how many are being surrendered
  • how many are being seized
  • how many are being euthanized
  • how many are being failed by the system

Hiding the problem doesn’t solve it. It protects the system, not the animals.

4. Municipalities Cannot Buy Their Way Out of Responsibility

A town cannot:

  • underfund animal services
  • enforce harmful ordinances
  • misuse code enforcement
  • ignore community needs
  • avoid transparency

…and then claim they’ve “done their part” because they hired a contractor.

Animal welfare is a public responsibility, not a line item.

5. Real Safety Comes from Community, Not Contracts

A humane community is built on:

  • neighbors checking on neighbors
  • residents reporting cruelty
  • volunteers supporting rescues
  • towns updating outdated ordinances
  • shelters working with the public, not in isolation
  • transparency at every level

When the community is involved, animals are safer. When the community is shut out, animals disappear literally and figuratively.

6. Outsourcing Compassion Is How Towns Avoid Accountability

When a town says, “We pay NBAS to handle that,” what they’re really saying is:

  • “We don’t want to deal with it.”
  • “We don’t want to change our policies.”
  • “We don’t want to face the public.”
  • “We don’t want to take responsibility.”

But animals belong to the community, not the contractor.
Their safety is our collective duty.

7. The Community Must Stay Involved Because Animals Can’t Speak for Themselves

If we want real change, we must:

  • stay informed
  • stay vocal
  • stay engaged
  • demand humane ordinances
  • demand transparent enforcement
  • demand accountability from the town, not just the shelter

Because at the end of the day, the animals are ours not the town’s, not the contractor’s, not the systems.
And if we don’t protect them, no contract ever will.

No comments on Accountability Doesn’t End When a Contract Ends

Leave a comment

Former Clearlake animal shelter operator responds to criticism over crisis conditions

North Bay Animal Services, the former operator of the Clearlake animal shelter, says overcrowding was caused by a recent large influx of dogs and inadequate shelter facilities.

Source: Former Clearlake animal shelter operator responds to criticism over crisis conditions

The situation involving the Clearlake animal shelter and North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) reached a critical point in February 2026, following years of documented concerns over animal neglect and overcrowding. On February 23, 2026, The Press Democrat reported that the former operator, Mark Scott of NBAS, defended his organization after the city of Clearlake terminated their contract and a new group, the Clearlake Animal Association, took over.
The Crisis at Clearlake Shelter
When the new operators took control on February 7, 2026, they reported finding “heartbreaking” conditions. Reports from the transition team and the Humane Society of Sonoma County described:
Extreme Overcrowding: The shelter, designed for 50–65 dogs, held 114 at the time of the handover.
Neglect and Filth: Dogs were found living in crates and kennels filled with their own excrement and urine.
Medical Emergencies: Many animals were emaciated and suffering from untreated conditions, including parvovirus and giardia.
Distraction Tactics and “GCS Advocacy”
Critics and advocacy groups, including GCS Advocacy and Rescue Corporation, have alleged that NBAS and its leadership attempted to deflect blame for these conditions by targeting whistleblowers. According to these advocates, NBAS sought to distract the public by attacking GCS and other rescue organizations, making false claims about the safety and conditions of the dogs under the advocates’ care.
The motive for this targeted campaign, as described by supporters of GCS, was to silence the organization’s founder, who had been actively working to expose the systemic failures within NBAS. Advocates point to a 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury report that flagged “significant failures” at NBAS—including delayed medical care and lack of oversight—as proof that the concerns raised by rescuers were well-founded.
The Current Fallout
In his defense, Mark Scott claimed the shelter was “overwhelmed” by a spike in population due to law enforcement activity and that he had repeatedly warned city officials. However, the discovery of starving and sick animals has led several North Bay cities, including Windsor and Sebastopol, to re-evaluate their own contracts with NBAS. Meanwhile, the Clearlake Animal Association continues to work in “crisis mode” to rehabilitate the remaining dogs and move them into foster care.
Report on Clearlake animal shelter neglect
This news segment covers legal threats and allegations of neglect at Northern California animal shelters, reflecting the broader regional crisis in animal welfare oversight.

 

instead of taking responsibility for their wrongs they attacked me for speaking out against them and in doing so they ripped 28 souls who were loved out of their safe rescue where they were loved. they did everything to stop us they blocked vet care we went outside of the area to get it they lied to the public and made me sound like a monster all while they were hiding evil secrets the truth cant be hidden forever see for yourself what life looked like for these babies before and after nbas

Leave a comment

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(California Code of Civil Procedure §1085)

Petitioner:
Christina Urrutia Ureña

Respondents:
Town of Windsor, Windsor Police Department, and North Bay Animal Services (NBAS)

Subject of Petition:
Return of 28 dogs seized on December 9, 2025


I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Christina Urrutia Ureña respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to perform their mandatory legal duties under California law by returning the 28 dogs unlawfully seized from her foster‑based rescue operation on December 9, 2025 in Windsor, California.

Respondents failed to comply with statutory requirements governing animal seizure, notice, documentation, due process, and post‑seizure procedures. As a result, Petitioner has been deprived of her property without lawful cause, without required notice, and without an opportunity to be heard, in violation of state law and constitutional protections.

A writ is necessary because Respondents have refused to return the animals, refused to provide required records, and continue to act outside the scope of their legal authority.


II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure §1085, which authorizes writs compelling government agencies and contracted entities to perform mandatory duties.

Venue is proper in this Court because the seizure occurred in Windsor, Sonoma County, and Respondents operate within this jurisdiction.


III. PARTIES

Petitioner

Petitioner Christina Urrutia Ureña is the founder and director of a foster‑based animal rescue operating in Sonoma County. At all relevant times, she lawfully possessed and cared for the 28 dogs seized by Respondents.

Respondents

  1. Town of Windsor – the municipal authority responsible for oversight of animal control operations.
  2. Windsor Police Department – the agency that participated in or authorized the seizure.
  3. North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) – a private contractor performing animal control and sheltering services on behalf of the Town of Windsor.

Each Respondent is legally obligated to comply with California seizure statutes, due process requirements, and mandatory post‑seizure procedures.


IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  1. On December 9, 2025, Respondents seized 28 dogs from Petitioner’s rescue operation.
  2. Respondents did not provide legally required written notice, including the reason for seizure, statutory authority, or instructions for reclaiming the animals.
  3. Respondents did not provide an itemized list of animals taken, their condition, or any supporting documentation.
  4. Petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the seizure, request a hearing, or present evidence as required by California law.
  5. Respondents have refused to return the animals, despite Petitioner’s repeated requests and despite the absence of any lawful order transferring ownership.
  6. Respondents have withheld records, provided inconsistent explanations, and failed to comply with mandatory timelines and procedures.
  7. The seizure and continued withholding of the animals constitute an unlawful deprivation of property and a violation of Petitioner’s due process rights.

V. LEGAL BASIS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

A writ of mandamus is appropriate when:

  1. A public agency has a mandatory duty to act;
  2. The petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance of that duty; and
  3. No other adequate remedy exists.

Respondents violated mandatory duties under:

  • California Food & Agricultural Code §§ 31108, 31752, 31753, 597.1
  • California Penal Code §597.1
  • California Constitution, Article I, §7 (due process)
  • Contractual obligations between the Town of Windsor and NBAS

Respondents failed to:

  • Provide required written notice
  • Provide a hearing opportunity
  • Provide documentation of the animals seized
  • Follow statutory timelines
  • Return the animals when no lawful basis existed to retain them

These failures make mandamus relief appropriate and necessary.


VI. HARM SUFFERED

Petitioner has suffered:

  • Loss of possession of 28 animals
  • Damage to her rescue operations
  • Reputational harm
  • Emotional distress
  • Interference with her ability to relocate her rescue and continue operations
  • Ongoing deprivation of property without due process

No adequate legal remedy exists other than issuance of a writ.


VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

  1. Issue a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to immediately return the 28 dogs seized on December 9, 2025.
  2. Order Respondents to produce all records, reports, photographs, and documentation related to the seizure.
  3. Declare that Respondents violated mandatory statutory and constitutional duties.
  4. Award costs and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

VIII. VERIFICATION

I, Christina Urrutia Ureña, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the facts stated in this petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on ____________, 2026





SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SONOMA

CHRISTINA URRUTIA UREÑA,
Petitioner,

v.

TOWN OF WINDSOR,
WINDSOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
NORTH BAY ANIMAL SERVICES,
Respondents.


PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(California Code of Civil Procedure §1085)


Petitioner:
Christina Urrutia Ureña


PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner Christina Urrutia Ureña alleges as follows:


I. INTRODUCTION

  1. Petitioner respectfully seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to perform their mandatory legal duties under California law by returning the 28 dogs unlawfully seized from her rescue operation on December 9, 2025 in Windsor, California.
  2. Respondents failed to comply with statutory requirements governing animal seizure, notice, documentation, due process, and post‑seizure procedures. As a result, Petitioner has been deprived of her property without lawful cause, without required notice, and without an opportunity to be heard.
  3. A writ is necessary because Respondents have refused to return the animals, refused to provide required records, and continue to act outside the scope of their legal authority.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This Court has jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure §1085, which authorizes writs compelling government agencies and contracted entities to perform mandatory duties.
  2. Venue is proper in Sonoma County because the seizure occurred in Windsor, and Respondents operate within this jurisdiction.

III. PARTIES

A. Petitioner

  1. Petitioner Christina Urrutia Ureña is the founder and director of a foster‑based animal rescue operating in Sonoma County. At all relevant times, she lawfully possessed and cared for the 28 dogs seized by Respondents.

B. Respondents

  1. Town of Windsor is the municipal authority responsible for oversight of animal control operations.
  2. Windsor Police Department participated in or authorized the seizure.
  3. North Bay Animal Services (NBAS) is a private contractor performing animal control and sheltering services on behalf of the Town of Windsor.
  4. Each Respondent is legally obligated to comply with California seizure statutes, due process requirements, and mandatory post‑seizure procedures.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  1. On December 9, 2025, Respondents seized 28 dogs from Petitioner’s rescue operation.
  2. Respondents did not provide legally required written notice, including the reason for seizure, statutory authority, or instructions for reclaiming the animals.
  3. Respondents did not provide an itemized list of animals taken, their condition, or any supporting documentation.
  4. Petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the seizure, request a hearing, or present evidence as required by California law.
  5. Respondents have refused to return the animals despite repeated requests and despite the absence of any lawful order transferring ownership.
  6. Respondents have withheld records, provided inconsistent explanations, and failed to comply with mandatory timelines and procedures.
  7. The seizure and continued withholding of the animals constitute an unlawful deprivation of property and a violation of Petitioner’s due process rights.

V. LEGAL BASIS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

  1. A writ of mandamus is appropriate when:
    a. A public agency has a mandatory duty to act;
    b. The petitioner has a clear and beneficial right to performance of that duty; and
    c. No other adequate remedy exists.
  2. Respondents violated mandatory duties under:
  • California Food & Agricultural Code §§31108, 31752, 31753, 597.1
  • California Penal Code §597.1
  • California Constitution, Article I, §7
  • Contractual obligations between the Town of Windsor and NBAS
  1. Respondents failed to:
  • Provide required written notice
  • Provide a hearing opportunity
  • Provide documentation of the animals seized
  • Follow statutory timelines
  • Return the animals when no lawful basis existed to retain them
  1. These failures make mandamus relief appropriate and necessary.

VI. HARM SUFFERED

  1. Petitioner has suffered:
  • Loss of possession of 28 animals
  • Damage to her rescue operations
  • Reputational harm
  • Emotional distress
  • Interference with relocation and ongoing operations
  • Continued deprivation of property without due process
  1. No adequate legal remedy exists other than issuance of a writ.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

  1. Issue a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to immediately return the 28 dogs seized on December 9, 2025.
  2. Order Respondents to produce all records, reports, photographs, and documentation related to the seizure.
  3. Declare that Respondents violated mandatory statutory and constitutional duties.
  4. Award costs and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

VIII. VERIFICATION

I, Christina Urrutia Ureña, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the facts stated in this petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.


When the Shoe is on the Other Foot

recently it came to light that North Bay Animal Services not only lost control of the clear lake shelter but the public was shown what nbas left behind.

animals were found to have been left in small crates some sleeping in laundry baskets others were given the tops of plastic crates to use as beds. dogs were found in warehouses and the conditions most of the dogs were in is heartbreaking to say the least.

yet still the sonoma county goons offer nothing but excuses and even go as far to say ” don’t jump to conclusions, wait to get all the information” a completely different tone then just a few weeks ago when our rescue and myself the founder was made to look like some horrible hoarding environment.

no one offered to hear me out no one cared what I had to say they just took what nbas and the the windsor pd said and ran with it.

time and time again both north bay animal services and windsor police department which is a branch of the sonoma county sheriffs department have been found to do things they are not supposed to do to act in ways that harms not only animals but the people who call sonoma county home.

I have given much thought to the why then do people still act like no wrong has been done why do people make excuses for those in government to do whatever they want hurt lives and get away with it? I figure they must believe that if they kiss enough ass they will be able to enjoy protection or some kind of benefit and that causes an equal amount of worry.

north bay animal services, sonoma county animal services, the town of windsor, mark scott, brian whipple all continue to say that there is no rescue and I want to know why.

every dog we have ever had has come from shelters where they were going to die! and we were able to get the dogs because we were rescue partners! there is a process to become a rescue partner everything needs to be verified so how we were able to be cleared after checking with the irs the secretary of state and the department of justice but not be a rescue is beyond me. this is just one of the shelters we worked with and like they did with every shelter that we formed partnerships with they scared them off they told the shelters that they were investigating us for concerns of abuse but then turned around and told me and the town that it was because the other shelters reached out to sonoma county to report concerns sonoma county is nothing but lies and greed and they are power hungry. and because they are allowed to get away with it dogs ended up dying anyways but yet the blame is still not placed where it belongs.

PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 something deeply concerning is happening in Sonoma County something that strikes at the heart of public trust, accountability, and the integrity of our justice system

We stand by Christina Urrutia because Christina Urrutia, is a respected rescue founder and community advocate, and is being prosecuted for crimes she did not commit. And because the actions taken against her contradict the very principles the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office has publicly declared in other cases.

The DA has said:

  • “Strong beliefs do not excuse fabricated conclusions.”
  • “No one is above the law.”
  • “The court system exists to uphold justice – not to serve as a stage for self‑promotion or lawless behavior.”

We agree with every one of those statements.

But today, we must ask: Why are these principles not being applied consistently?

Why are fabricated conclusions being used against Christina?
Why are local agencies being shielded from scrutiny?
Why is a community advocate being turned into a scapegoat to distract from institutional failures?

Christina’s work has exposed serious issues in local shelters and law‑enforcement practices. Instead of investigating those issues, the system appears to be punishing the person who brought them to light.

This is not justice.
This is retaliation.

And it sends a chilling message to every advocate, whistleblower, and community member who dares to speak the truth.

We are calling on the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office to:

  • Conduct a fair, evidence‑based review of the charges
  • Apply its own stated standards consistently
  • Investigate institutional misconduct rather than punishing those who expose it
  • Restore public trust by demonstrating transparency and integrity

Christina has stood up for the vulnerable.
Now the community stands up for her.

We will not allow truth‑tellers to be targeted.
We will not allow scapegoats to be created.
And we will not allow the justice system to be used as a shield for institutional wrongdoing.

Thank you.

Written by Allen Smite

💛 FUNDRAISING APPEAL FOR LEGAL DEFENSE & RESCUE OPERATIONS

Dear friends, supporters, and fellow advocates,

Right now, our rescue and our founder, Christina Urrutia are facing one of the most difficult challenges we have ever encountered. Christina is being prosecuted for crimes she did not commit, in a case that appears designed to silence her advocacy and distract from the failures of local agencies.

Christina has spent years protecting vulnerable animals, supporting families in crisis, and exposing systemic issues that others were too afraid to confront. She has done this work with compassion, courage, and unwavering integrity.

Now she needs us.

The legal battle ahead is not just about clearing Christina’s name it is about defending the truth, protecting our rescue, and ensuring that advocates are not punished for speaking out. The cost of legal defense is significant, and the rescue must continue operating every single day, no matter what challenges we face.

Your support today will help us:

  • Fund Christina’s legal defense
  • Keep our rescue operations running
  • Provide care, food, and medical treatment for the animals who depend on us
  • Continue advocating for transparency, accountability, and humane treatment

Every contribution no matter the size strengthens our ability to fight back against injustice and protect the animals and people who rely on this rescue.

Christina has always shown up for the vulnerable.
Now we are asking you to show up for her.

If you believe in fairness, truth, and the importance of protecting those who protect others, please consider making a donation today.

Together, we can ensure that justice prevails and that our rescue continues its mission without fear, intimidation, or retaliation.

With gratitude, All of Us at G&CS Advocay and Rescue Corporation

paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/5300421http://paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/5300421