Wednesday, August 15, 2012

another pit bull seizure moment...



liveleak

i'd like to see the feds grow a pair and restrict pit bulls from people who suffer from ANY kind of disability. this pit nutter puts everyone around him at risk.

video can be viewed at
gothamist
nydailynews

93 comments:

DubV said...

Obviously, the cops had no choice and the screamers feel that cops should sacrifice their safety for that of a dog are fools.

Other than that, I'm a bit torn. I feel sorry for the pit here. Granted, it is probably a menace usually, but I can imagine some non-pit dogs that are usually placid freaking out and acting aggressively if their owner was incapacitated. I have no idea what my dog would do if I passed out while I had him on a walk and then strangers attempt to help me. I hope he would act as he usually does.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Idiots asking, "Why are you shooting the dog?" Even though it's really obvious. It had just went after a pedestrian then immediately goes for the officer.

Pit nutters ask the stupidest questions.

Jake said...

Better snag a copy of this before it's taken down...

Illinois Pitbull Attacks said...

I feel bad for the pit, too. It should never be put in that situation. Homeless people shouldn't have pit bulls. period. But the cop was totally justified. Why is it so few people can hold both those thoughts at the same time?

And the woman the pit lunged at was the only person who showed any interest at all in the homeless guy - who knows if it was compassionate interest, but the only one.

DubV said...

"Why is it so few people can hold both those thoughts at the same time?"

Yes, that is odd. Because a dog has been victimized, it should be allowed to victimize others. Madness. I would offer that in more rural settings people understand that animals that attack humans and can inflict sufficient harm should be stopped by any means necessary. The folks in NYC haven't seen an earth worm in a few years, so I'm sure they often have odd ideas. You can't even own a small locking blade knife in NYC, at least to carry. People outside larger cities seem to understand that the planet's surface is not a safe place and you should act accordingly.

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

Good shooting, both in principal and practice. It would be interesting to hear what the 5 unarmed London cops who took a pit mauling might think of this. I don't see anyone from NYPD screaming while they get dragged and shaken - just a really clean 1 second interval to draw and fire on the threat. Nice work NYPD!

Dayna Hamilton said...

So that guy was homeless? I was just astounded at the interest and outcry about the stupid dog, yet that man just laid on the sidewalk the whole time that guy with the video was able to view him. I didn't think seizures lasted that long. And no one even came over to take a look at him. Just the wailing and screaming about the dog.
The woman at the end was just incredible. She was going to contact the media because the dog, regardless if it was trying to attack everyone, was just doing it's job, unlike the evil cop who she apparently thinks has nothing better to do than target practice on sweet little dogs. Unreal.

snarky said...

quess shit-bulls are good for seizing , but no good for seizures. u need a seizure alert dog , dont go to a pittiephile shelter cuz they think pitties are all service dogs , theyre that smart.

snarky said...


OBTW: pit-bulls are for the mentally challenged ....not the physically challenged . lol.

sorry , im not making fun of the mentally challenged, unless u like mutants .

snarky said...

yup , its definitely high time to legalize the one blood sport degenerates and psychos have left , dog -fighting . legalize and televise and bring it into the nations living rooms where it should be . the hoax would then be up and we could all see the true gore and horror of dogs mauling each other . bones cracking , teeth gnashing , an occasion eye ball gouged out or popped . good stuff and it would quickly establish what pitties are really meant to do.

snack sized dog said...

Snarky, after reading some comments in news stories about the Miami Dade, I kind of think you're right. One idiot denied that pit bulls hold and rip flesh off. Another used the fact that there had been few serious maulings in the county as proof that that the ban didn't work and should be rescinded.

I'm thinking we need to go Clockwork Orange on them to get them on the same fucking page

snack sized dog said...

Dude, I thought about the London mauling, too. WTF. They were in the midst of forcefully entering a known criminal's residence with NO GUNS. not on them, not in the vicinity. I knew street police wore no guns, I didn't know that they forcefully entered criminal residences with no arms anywhere close. bizarre.

dawn james said...

and speaking of no maulings as PROOF that bans don't work, FFYR has this on his blog:

"The only dogs restricted in Boston and other areas of Massachusetts are those identified as ”pit bulls.” However, there is no documented case of a fatal attack by a pit bull or pit bull type dog in the state of Massachusetts over the past 44 years (since at least 1965)."

maulings are proof that bans don't work and no maulings are proof that bans don't work. it's funny that they don't realize how stupid they look to everyone else.

vintage said...

It's funny how they chant "BSL Doesn't Work" when there has been over 100 Pit DBRFs in the BSL Prohibitive States of Fl, TX and CA.

That being said, Police Officers have a duty to themselves, their families and the tax payer to stay off the disability rolls because an idiot had to own a Pit Bull.

The Occupy Maulstreeters are trying to make a Pit Mauling a routine "Dog Bite"


Effem!

DubV said...

Liveleak comment sections are way more realistic than youtube ones. Pit nutters haven't figured out how to incorporate liveleak into their facebook strategy sessions it appears.

Garnet said...

From the liveleak comments, it sounds like the dog is dangerous and the owner is a drug addict who passes out frequently. Someone was probably going to eventually be mauled by this dog.

I can't really blame the police officer for shooting, as the dog was likely to bite him, or any paramedics who arrived. It's screwed up that people would rather see a person be mauled by a pit bull than the pit bull be shot.

It's too bad that the man had to lose his dog, but human safety has to come first.

skeptifem said...

The dog was running into the fucking street as well, as if that was going to end well. I am not sure what they expected the cops to do, they don't have the equipment or training of animal control officers and the dog could not be allowed to run wild lunging at people and obstructing traffic. They also needed to help the guy that was passed out and the dog was preventing them from rendering aid. Its not pleasant to see a dog shot but really, wtf was the alternative here?

snarky said...


snack
lol , wondered how clockwork orange could tie in with watching pit-fights on t.v. ...guess pitters would never leave the house.
actually, now u bring it up , i think the whole world has gone CLOCKWORK ORANGE . sad

bbb45d38-dbe5-11e1-85ce-000bcdca4d7a said...

As an ex-vet worker, when she screams "Why are you shooting the dog?" I hear "I'm ignorant, but I care more about animals than you do and that makes me a better person!" It's like that moron who screamed something about animal abuse when the great jumping horse Hickstead died of a heart attack. There was no abuse, there was simply a tragedy.

coyotecrowe said...

(same commentor as above) I had a commenting ID here once (coyotecrowe), but I wear trifocals and I can't read the frickin capchas anymore.

Amber Harrison said...

An absolutely justified shooting by the police. As it would have been with any other dog.

There are many cases of unjustified (as determined by departmental inquiry) dog shootings, many of them what you would call "normal dogs," and many of them what you would call "mutants." It is unfortunate that given the current climate of fear, even police agencies feel the need for immediate use of deadly force against animals who are behaving like... Animals. That includes humans. Having just retired from law enforcement, I also know that our job descriptions don't include "chew toy." It's a tough call, but not in this case.

Dog bite injuries are very common, and the preponderance of them are perpetrated by what you would call "normal dogs." This is why I don't believe that breed banning is a workable solution. Yes, larger dogs have the ability to cause much more significant injury than smaller dogs, that is not in contention. But a "human aggressive" dog is a human-aggressive dog, no matter the size or breed, nor what type of injury it is able to cause. I support legislature that holds dog owners liable for the actions of their dog regardless of the type of injury, either personal or property. I would support legislature which specifically addresses dog bite incidents regardless of the severity of injury to determine the safety of a dog in the community. During my career, I was bitten by dogs several times - all with superficial-to-moderate injury - but not once by a bulldog breed. And no, I didn't shoot the dogs. In order to properly address the risk of "dangerous dogs," I believe any law must be universal to all breeds and all damages.

Rhea said...

The moron in the back screaming "why are you shooting the dog" made me have to stop the video at 1:40 because I couldn't stand her shrill screaming anymore.
Dumbass the officer shot the dog because it was attacking pedestrians and trying to attack the officer...
DERP Seizure dogs do not ACT like this.

dawn james said...

yep the liveleak audience has their shit together, don't they? one possible explanation, you have to pay to upload videos there. the judgement proof nutters naturally gravitate to youtube.

regarding the pit nutter, according to the news stories i saw on line and the comments made by the spectators in the video, he was a homeless man and he was having a seizure. also according to the news stories, many of the spectators were upset that the police didn't kill the dog to end his suffering. i didn't hear that but those were probably the more reasonable on lookers who were being drown out by the squealing hysterical dog nutters. i think that people should be charged with interfering with an officer and creating a dangerous situation in times like these. it's fucking crazy how quickly the public turns on the police. i am surprised anyone wants to do this job.

the bullshit about the dog only doing its job can be easily turned around on any THINKING person. the cop was only doing HIS job. i personally like to see them end their shifts in one piece and i suspect that the TAX PAYERS of new york city would rather not spend $100K plus to patch him up and then pay him to sit at home until he can return to work while paying other cops time and half to cover his shifts.

i thought they should have finished the mutant off too. now the city will be stuck paying for the vet bill for a homeless man and this judgement proof moron will be free to have another seizure in public and start the cycle again. plus yeah, end it's suffering.

after cussing the nutters for an hour, i think i have come up with an explanation to their "WHY YOU SHOOT THE DOG!?" bullshit. i will blog it soon. hopefully tonight.

coyotecrow, send me an email. i think i can help you.
crvndesires@gmail.com

Amber Harrison said...

Dear Dawn,
In many cases, people that act in a similar fashion ARE charged with obstruction. It's a good charge, but doesn't carry much weight by itself.

DubV said...

Amber,

Your anecdotal experiences are interesting but not convincing.

We have our own anecdotes that cancel yours.

You are not addressing a few things: 1. attacks per dog of each breed so as to compare relative risks of various breeds, 2. level of attack on humans that are the most concerning which are fatal and non-fatal but life-altering, and 3. attacks on other animals by pit bulls.

The evidence is quite clear that breeds created to fight other dogs to the death are more dangerous than other dogs of similar size.

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

Amber Harrison: "I would support legislature which specifically addresses dog bite incidents regardless of the severity of injury to determine the safety of a dog in the community."

Why wouldn't you want the severity of the injury considered? Is the bruise from a retriever's bite the same as a pit bull's mauling? Other than being a nutter, what could possibly be the motivation and rationale to want the level of injury disregarded?

I support "legislation" that reduces the risk of death and severe injury by specifically restricting fighting breeds.

DubV said...

I missed where Amber wrote that. Yeah, total nutter talk. A chihuahua that nips and a pit bull that mauls, yep address them with the same process.

Of course, Amber has a pit bull in her profile pic.

Also, I did a modicum of digging and I believe Amber was a senior probation officer. Am I wrong about that? I mention it only because it is common for people to be purposefully vague about their expertise. A probation officer would have less exposure to dangerous dogs than a police officer that patrols. In fact, if she was a probation officer, and she had led with that, then most people would've afforded that no extra credibility on the subject. This is similar to vet techs or Petsmart dog trainers discussing their vocation in a way that makes them seem like a top vet or a published animal behaviorist.

april 29 said...

Law enforcement would know the difference between "legislation" and the "legislature."

Amber Harrison said...

My first response wasn't accepted due to length. Guess I can't comprehensively address anyone's concerns.

Dude: "Why wouldn't you want the severity of the injury considered? Is the bruise from a retriever's bite the same as a pit bull's mauling? Other than being a nutter, what could possibly be the motivation and rationale to want the level of injury disregarded?" I didn't say the severity of injury should be disregarded. I said that biting behavior in general should be used to determine the safety of a dog in the community. A bruise left by a retriever's bite is still an injury from a biting dog. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I AGREE with regulation. I am not advocating for any specific type of dog. I AGREE that some specialized breeds have a higher risk for destructive potential with regard to life and property.

My original comment was meant to address DubV's response regarding my "anecdotal experience." It was respectful, thorough, and chock-full of real life experience. I am not going to take the time to recreate it, especially after the follow-up comment.

That's not a pit bull in my profile pic. You're welcome to try again if you like. And congratulations, DubV, on your outstanding internet research. You successfully uncovered the position I recently retired from, which represents approximately 1/3 of my 30-year career. Well done!

Amber Harrison said...

Hi, april 29...

Yes. Apparently my "smartphone" doesn't. Thank you for the correction.

Amber Harrison said...

One more thing: What's with the personal attacks? I came to this blog (along with many others) to be more informed about people's fears, concerns, and proposed solutions to what is considered a problem in our communities. I hope that my attention to these things will help me be a better foster and trainer.

I have been respectful toward the purpose of this page and the opinions expressed herein. I am not hiding behind any "internet anonymity," nor am I here to disseminate propaganda or hate messages.

I don't agree with the full agenda of "pro pit" people or organizations. I don't agree with the full agenda of "no pit" people or organizations. I do agree that dog ownership, especially ownership of specialized breeds, is a great responsibility and a 24/7 commitment.

I don't support breed banning because, well, I like dogs. And I think that all breeds have merit, whether I'm a particular fan of them or not. I am, however, in favor of strict regulation of breeding and ownership, and punishment/liabiliity for owners who fail to adhere to existing or future laws. Dog bite injuries/fatalities are horrific and have broad effects. In so many cases, the negligence (or ignorance) of the owners is either THE causative factor or one of the predominant causative factors of the incident. I am incensed that many dog owners do not take the commitment seriously, and do not take the precautions necessary to ensure, as far as possible, the safety of their dogs and the safety of their community. The fact that, quite often, people are not held liable for the damage caused by their pets is inconceivable to me. To hear that people want their dogs back after they have grievously injured or killed someone sickens me. I don't think breed banning is the answer. But I do think that stricter regulatory action might be. As I've said, I'm here because I want to do what I'm doing better, and I want to do it with people's concerns and fears in mind.

I don't see random personal attacks, name-calling, finger-pointing, or topic deflection as productive contributions to what we all (seem to) agree is a significant problem. That said, I thank you all for your time, and will go back to "lurking."

Garnet said...

"all breeds have merit."

OK, what positive traits do fighting dogs have that cannot be found in other breeds? Don't say "gameness" because that's just a short way of saying "unbridled, pointless aggression combined with a lack of self-preservation instinct."

Seriously, pit bulls were selected to display unrelenting, brutal aggression in a dog-fighting pit. Dog aggression IS NOT a trait that should be selected for in pets, and dog fighting is sadistic and illegal.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Amber,

Someone getting bruised from a dog bite and someone losing an arm from a pit bull, well there's a big difference.

You're one of the "all dogs bite" pit nutter crowd and it's absurd to compare a Lab's bite to a pit bull's.

I don't like to be around dogs who were bred to tear apart other dogs. It makes no sense to me, so I avoid pit bulls when I can.

Unless someone wants to:

1. Fight dogs
2. Create an atmosphere where dogs will fight.
3. Tame a pit bull and prove they can make great pets while dismissing the genetic traits which make it a fighting dog and hope it doesn't "snap".
4. Kill your neighbor's dog or child.
5. Guard your drugs.
6. Intimidate people.
7. Be "different" or "special".

There are many other breeds and mixes to choose from who will make a great companion and you won't have to worry about it turning on you or tearing apart another dog.

You claim to be calm but I suspect you will or have already "snapped". Even if you truly are a sensible "fighting breed" owner. I use the term sensible very loosely; for every 1 of you, there are 50 other pit nutters shouting, screaming, threatening, and crying about how pit bulls are "misunderstood". They are an aggressive and violent crowd that becomes easily agitated and "snaps" often. And then justifies it because they "love animals".

DubV said...

On second look, it could be a boxer or boxer mix. The muzzle is a bit elongated for a pure boxer and the jowls are not as pronounced as usual. If it is an american bulldog mix, then I consider that a pit mix.

I'm confident that it has molosser ancestry.

DubV said...

Amber,

What regulations would you have in mind? Are they only retrospective? If so, they require a victim. Are they based upon people accurately judging the liability of certain dogs and so choosing not to own them or own them differently? If so, it requires the irresponsible to do something they aren't good at. I'm open to hearing your regulation ideas. They might be novel.

DubV said...

"all breeds have merit."

It is entirely possible for selective breeding to create a breed of dog with in-built negatives that vastly outweigh the positives. Their net merit would be negative. We created breeds. We can choose to stop producing them as well. Unborn pit bulls don't care.

DubV said...

"In so many cases, the negligence (or ignorance) of the owners is either THE causative factor or one of the predominant causative factors of the incident."

Why aren't labs being owned as negligently? And/or why are labs not responding like pits to their negligent ownership?

As is often pointed out here, it is often both: the owner and the dog they choose to own.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

DubV,

Yeah, pit nutters argument for that is Lab attacks don't get reported. I wouldn't call a bruise or scratch newsworthy. A kennel employee losing an arm, that's newsworthy regardless of breed.

Amber Harrison said...

DubV,
Good job on the "molosser ancestry." It is the full frontal view, with no ears or body for perspective that is throwing you off. He is (was) a Great Dane.

Garnet,
I believe that all dogs have positive traits. You don't have to. Dog fighting, along with bull-baiting and bear-baiting, were poor and sadistic excuses to breed dogs. Nevertheless, here they are.

Rumpelstiltskin,
I already acknowledged there is a difference. What there isn't a difference in is the behavior of a biting dog. This has context only in proposed regulations, and since you have already ignored what I *have* written and lumped me in with "pit nutters," then there is likely no point in answering your questions. Many people avoid pit/bull dogs. It is your choice and I respect it.

DubV, again,
I doubt my ideas for regulations are novel. Quantitative data collection regarding aggressive dog behavior would have to be retrospective, in order to document an animal as a "dangerous dog" without a "critical incident." We hear many stories about dogs inflicting serious or fatal injuries who have displayed human-focused aggression prior, or several times prior, to that incident. It would also require people, including owners, to report all biting, aggressive, or threatening behavior. As you have mentioned, we cannot count on people to do the right thing, even in the most grievous circumstances. Though I would very much like to see regulation of dog behavior focused on actual behavior, I realize that it is not practical.

It is unfortunate that the criminal element will do what they do regardless of laws. Any new regulation(s), including breed banning, will not eradicate backyard breeders, negligent or abusive owners, or crowded shelters full of abandoned, surrendered, and otherwise unwanted dogs. Nothing will prevent some people from lying. Nothing will prevent some people from making a commitment not fully knowing if they can actually keep it or even fully knowing what the commitment entails. How do we spend taxpayer money for community safety and get the most "bang for our buck" with regard to "dangerous dogs?"

Ideas, which are just ideas:
- Obviously, stricter supervision and licensing of breeders. Expansion of animal control departments for inspection and supervision. This would also rely on citizens for reporting in many cases.
-Purchase of specific specialized breeds from licensed breeders would require the same regulatory activity as shelter adoptions.
- Adoption of ANY shelter animal would necessitate a home inspection, proof of homeowner's insurance and/or and umbrella policy, and conformity to basic safety and security for the proposed adoptee. For specialized breeds, abused or seized animals, or animals being re-homed after trauma, in addition to the home inspection and insurance policy, applicant would agree that children under the age of 14 or other animals will not be in the home unsupervised at any time, nor will the dog be left outside unsupervised (or tethered/chained) at any time. Applicant will also be required to show proof of completion of a basic obedience training course within 90 days or the animal will be confiscated without refund.
- Applicant or purchaser must show proof of employment for at least four years and be able to demonstrate a household budget that includes room for care of the dog, including routine veterinary care and savings for emergency care if needed. Proof of Veterinary insurance required within 30 days.
- Of course, specialized breeds, safety and security requirements, etc., would be actually individually specified.
- Owers are held personally and financially liable for any damages, whether to persons or property (including pets), incurred by their dog(s). Criminal charges may also apply if the owner is shown to be negligent or otherwise outside of the aforementioned regulations.

Just ideas.

snarky said...

wasnt tia some kind of probation officer ? it always amazes me how consistently nutty are nutters and rescue dingbats . they are like a breed of human , bred to trol the internet and repeat catch phrases and idiotic ideas and justifications.

snarky said...

the old "you cant identify my mutant ploy ", how original !! lol

also , a variation on the tired "carefull what u ask for cuz your dog could be next" snot comment.

yup , another know-it-all , vaguely threatnening and definitely beligerant DINGBAT encounter . lol

Sharon Yildiz said...

Amber, if that was a Great Dane and not a pit bull or American bulldog, I'll eat my hat. I've been competing in dog sports since 1977, and have yet to see a Great Dane with a head shape anything like the dog in your photo.... front on or any other way. Maybe you got a pit bull from a rescue and they lied, as 99% of rescues do, and made up some other more palatable breed for him. Or maybe you're just jerking us around. Count me as "unconvinced."

Regarding a bite being a bite...

You and other pit nutters look at it from the dog's point of view. Dog A (a pit bull) bites somebody. dog B (a Lab) bites somebody. Both dogs bit, therefore both merit the same consideration. From your point of view, they probably both deserve compassionate rehabilitation by a top-notch behaviorist, followed by placement with a new family.

I love dogs, as do most others on this blog, but when I look at bites, I do it from the victim's point of view. I see it as Dog A (the pit bull) bit somebody and tore off their lips and one ear. Dog B (the Lab) bit somebody and left a tiny puncture wound on their arm. These are NOT the same case if you look at it from the victim's point of view.

Or how about if Dog A (the pit bull) bites another dog, as does Dog B? The victim of Dog A is dead. The victim of Dog B has a nick in his ear and has lost two drops of blood.

Considering that pit bulls kill several innocent pets daily in America, a true animal lover would be pro-BSL and totally anti-pit bull.

There is absolutely NO justification on earth for bringing new pit bulls into the world when they are statistically so much likelier than other dogs to bite/kill humans, bite/kill other animals, attack their owners and escape confinement so they can do the above.

Unless you're a Mormon, you can't possibly believe that there are a bunch of unborn pit bull puppies in the atmosphere somewhere waiting to be born... and the evil pro-BSL people want to prevent their God-given right to be born!

We need to spay and neuter EVERY pit bull on earth ASAP. The world will be a much better and safer place once all the pit bull (and similar bully breeds) no longer exist.

Is anybody mourning the world's loss of the Cuban Bloodhound? (The dog that filled the pit bull's man-killer position in the mid-1800's).

DubV said...

Amber is in favor of breed specific legislation then but not breed banning. I don't think she is a nutter. I think it is a mistake to class everyone who is not on the exact same page as the regulars here as a nutter.

Sharon Yildiz said...

And I forgot to mention about Amber's avatar:

Wow. A tattoo, a visible bra strap AND a pit bull. How "original"!

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Amber,

Your term "specialized breed", what exactly is that?

Your ideas would require a pit owner to "do something" and other than "educating" everyone except themselves and blaming victims of pit bull attacks, I don't really see a pit bull owner doing much else.

DubV said...

If you remove livestock such as horses and cows that kill (usually accidental) people that choose to be around them for recreation or livelihood, I don't believe there is any other non-human animals in the US that kills more people per year than pit bulls. Sharks? Nope, very rare. Bears? Combine black and brown bears and the fatalities per year are counted on one hand. Cougar? Very rare. Wolves? Very rare. Venomous snakes? Can count the yearly fatalities on one hand. The only thing I can see exceeding pits are venomous insects that cause allergic reactions, and this can be mitigated if one simply carries epinephrine.

Of course, much of this has to do with exposure. I would much rather be locked in a cage with the average pit than the average grizzly. However, given that pits maul so much more often than the they kill and so often they kill people's pets, is it any wonder that people are pissed?

I know of around 10 incidences that occurred to friends, family, or acquaintances where pit bulls either launched red zone attacks where the intent was to kill either them or an animal they owned or the pits terrorized them and forced them to seek cover to avoid an attack. I have personally stopped 2 pit bull attacks on innocent dogs that were heading toward a fatality if left alone. And I'm just a nerdy dude that minds his own business and doesn't look for trouble and hangs out with the mild mannered.

snarky said...

NUTTERS: they come and they go , but they alway delete first , eh dawn?
how long before this sultry nuttress drops her aire of reasonableness and descends into pure abusive attack?

DubV said...

I should add in car accidents caused by deer and other large ungulates. That is significant also. But it is not aggressive, and can mitigated as well since most fatalities are caused by trying to avoid the animal.

DubV said...

http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/human-deaths-in-the-us-caused-by-animals/

DubV said...

If you read Amber's later comments, she is in favor of breed specific legislation and seems to recognize a problem. She didn't come out and say that the obvious though, that fighting breeds are the most dangerous dogs. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm just being a slow learner though.

DubV said...

From....

http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/human-deaths-in-the-us-caused-by-animals/

It appears according to these stats I am wrong. Horses and cattle combined kill about the same as pits each year. It is paltry though considering that people horses and cattle don't get out of a house and maul you. You choose to be around those animals and should know you are taking a risk.

Also, consider that bees and wasps kill many via allergy, but they actually serve several vital purposes (pollination, etc).

DubV said...

http://ridgefield.patch.com/articles/fatal-deer-related-accidents-are-on-the-rise

snarky said...

shes another nutter mole , parasite thingy trying to bore into cravens asshole.

Amber Harrison said...

You asked, I answered. I still don't know why many of you insist on personally attacking a person you don't know, but perhaps that's the way of it on this page. None of you know me, yet I've been called a liar (several times now), a dingbat, a "pit nutter" (which appears to be an all-purpose taunt that, obviously, never gets old for y'all), and "beligerant." It's also been implied that I am an idiot. Apparently so much so that I cannot distinguish a 140lb Dane from a bulldog and was "duped" into fostering him by a very clever minimum-wage shelter employee. I suppose I could upload another photo to "prove" myself... then again, I have nothing to prove.

Sharon, why are you so quick to judge? A chemo-bald head, visible bra strap (holy crap! Cardinal sin!), a now-dead Great Dane, gunshot, stab, AND dogbite scars, a college education, and a 30-year career in public service. That makes me... what? An old lady in a photograph, that's what.

Every response I've gotten has a tone that oozes assurance that this is somehow personal for me. Sorry. It's not. I like dogs. That's all. Most bully breeds are among the dogs I like. If they all disappeared, I would still like dogs. None of you are in a position to tell me what I think, how I look at a situation, how I make judgments, or that I'm somehow fundamentally wrong and you are somehow fundamentally right. I've been honest. I've been respectful. I don't have an agenda other than what I've stated.

I agree: Unborn pit/bull dogs don't care. No, I don't believe that the world would mourn the loss of the APBT. I don't know what other breeds folks here include in "pit bulls." I think the world WOULD mourn the Staffy, however. Just my opinion. DubV, I also understand very well why people are pissed. I am too. The only difference is that I'm a fan of many bully breeds. But I'm a fan of people, too. And I want people to ENJOY dogs.

Rumpelstiltskin: The list of "specialized breeds" would be pretty long, actually. I haven't actually compiled one, but the majority of the widely accepted "bully breeds" would be included, as well as many of the working breeds. As far as I see it, any new law would require action on the part of owners. Owners that clearly will not want to do it and will resent the "limitation of their rights." That is why trying to figure this stuff out is far more important than bickering back and forth about anyone's perception of anyone's agenda.

I wonder how making laws forbidding pit bull breeding will be enforced? I wonder if people will spay and neuter their pit/bull dogs upon order? What's the alternative? Are we going to go around shooting all dogs we suspect have pit/bull dog blood in them? I'm not against BSL. I'm against knee-jerk reactions. Is there a middle ground between "no pit" and "pro pit?" That is all I am suggesting.

DubV said...

Amber,

I'm surprised as former LEO that you take this stance on regulation. It is true that no regulation or law is enforced and followed perfectly. Otherwise, there would be no illegal dumping of chemicals, no drunk driving, and the list goes on and on. The fact that a law or regulation will not be perfect does not mean it will not have a beneficial effect. Imagine for a moment if drunk driving was not illegal simply because assholes drink and drive anyways. The roads would be much more dangerous.

The only time I see the "criminals won't follow the law" argument being effective is when it comes to gun control. I think you are kind of borrowing that sentiment, but consider that it might be misplaced. The reason it works for gun rights somewhat is that it is true that in the safety "game" if criminals disobey a gun law while innocents obey it then it puts the criminal in an instant advantage in any confrontation. That doesn't work with dogs or drunk driving or dumping oil in a creek or most other things.

Amber Harrison said...

Dear snarky,
I've endured "pure, abusive attack" since I first commented. Apparently newcomers are the only ones who don't have to "wait."

DubV said...

Your dog might very well have great dane in it. It does appear quite large depending upon how big of a person you are. But from that pic, I'd bet a good bit that it was mixed with something. Sharon is right. I've never seen a dane in person or picture that had a forehead like that. The exact word for those bumps on the head is escaping me, but danes have pretty flat heads. I'm not calling you a liar, but something to ponder. I suppose it doesn't matter at this point.

DubV said...

Amber,

You should spend some time at this set of links

http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/2011/05/frankenmauler-roundup.html

Dawn compiled pit bull attacks on animals every week for quite a while.

You will read about so many attacks on innocent animals by pits that it will make your head spin. You will also read pits doing things that other dog breeds (beside closely related ones like cane corso, etc) simply don't seem capable of. Such things will include being shot and returning to attack again, sustaining an attack while multiple grown men beat the pit with baseball bats, absorbing an entire can of bear spray without a care, and jumping through 2nd story plate glass windows to attack dogs on the street below. And these are just by memory, I'm probably forgetting the craziest ones. You will also see many, many pictures of people either with their hobbled pet or mourning the loss of their pet killed by pit bull.

Amber Harrison said...

DubV,

I didn't mean to posit that as an argument against enacting laws. It's more of a musing... and the musing includes overall cost to taxpayers and infringement upon people's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, either real or perceived. It's not as simple as just making a proclamation of law (which of course you know). But, law is fluid and if at first we don't succeed, then we try, try again.

I do get the feeling that many people feel this should be an easy process, something that can just be voted on, enacted, and then all will be well. What am I missing that I don't feel that way?

snarky said...

amber
sorry, but you do look the type but you sound higher functioning than normal. this makes me suspect you do have an agenda of some kind , perhaps to educate and moderate us poor ignorant haters. i suspect we will instead put a decided twist in your knickers, eventually , and you will delete all your comments and be gone .

DubV said...

Well, places that ban pit bulls observe very quickly a drop in serious dog attacks and a drop in euthanasia rates. Nutters will claim that these bans don't work because sometimes bite rates do not change for the better. This is a sleight of hand though. The dog population is growing. More dogs will equal more bites or the bite rate will remain the same as other dogs replace pits. However, simple bites that require a stitch are not a concern. If serious bites and fatalities drop to near zero, then the law has succeeded. I am not necessarily advocating a sweeping ban across the US, but I am instead showing that something relatively simple ("you can't own these dogs here anymore") can have a positive effect.

Garnet said...

Amber, your list of regulations is ridiculous. Proof of employment for four years straight? So, someone who had been in school for a time (but then graduated and got a good job) would be barred from animal ownership? I had some massive scholarships as an undergraduate and only worked summers. According to your rules, even with a high-paying job on graduation, I'd still have to wait four years to get a dog. That's stupid. I actually got dogs after I got my undergrad, and guess what? Eleven years later and they are fine.


Also, you haven't noted what merits fighting dogs have that other dogs lack. Fighting breeds kill people far more often than any other type of dog, so they ought to have some major beneficial trait that justifies their continued breeding. I'd like to hear it.

If you like dogs, why are dogs bred to kill other dogs your particular favorites? Yes, I've heard the usual things (people-friendly, active, etc.) but they are all traits found in other breeds not known for their mauling and killing skills.

Amber Harrison said...

Garnet,
Thank you for your input. AS mentioned, they are ideas and always open to modification.

I didn't say "fighting dogs" are my "particular favorites." I don't know if you are putting words in my mouth, or just didn't read carefully. And you're right, I didn't note what merits "fighting dogs have that other dogs lack." Good observation.

snarky,
I will likely be gone. I'll leave my comments for your entertainment, though. I was hoping for lively discussion and perhaps more ideas, but have been strong-armed in every attempt at civility. Thanks for the qualified apology, though.

Amber Harrison said...

DubV,
Ok. And the people who own the dogs "here" already? In your scenario, what happens to the existing dogs? Are they confiscated? Grandfathered? Confiscated and euthanised? I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm just wondering how you - or anyone else - has pictured the process?

Miss Margo said...

Ms. Harrison:

I've slogged through your comments twice this evening. I have no idea who you are, so I'll assume you're a nice well-meaning person, but I am fed the fuck up with trying to decode your maddening gibberish.

I tutor undergrads and edit manuscripts for a living. I hate to pick on someone, but for God's sake, could you hire an editor?

" I didn't say the severity of injury should be disregarded. I said that biting behavior in general should be used to determine the safety of a dog in the community." Contradictory and totally useless in drafting policy legislation. Vague wording. "Biting behavior in general?" Really? The lawyers will have fun with that.

"What's with the personal attacks? I came to this blog (along with many others) to be more informed about people's fears, concerns, and proposed solutions to what is considered a problem in our communities. I hope that my attention to these things will help me be a better foster and trainer."

Vague, vague, vague weasel wording. Just cough it out, please--no regular commenter at this blog (that I know of) will penalize you for being honest. Who are "the people" who have "fears and concerns?" What are these fears and concerns? What is the "considered" problem in "our communities?" What problem are we talking about here? Why is the problem only "considered?" Whose communities?

Could you please just cut the horseshit here, and speak frankly and directly?

And I'd wager a hundred bucks that you didn't come here to "inform yourself about people's concerns." Craven Desires is the Wild Wild West of the pit bull war blogs.

"DubV, again,
I doubt my ideas for regulations are novel. Quantitative data collection regarding aggressive dog behavior would have to be retrospective, in order to document an animal as a "dangerous dog" without a "critical incident." We hear many stories about dogs inflicting serious or fatal injuries who have displayed human-focused aggression prior, or several times prior, to that incident. It would also require people, including owners, to report all biting, aggressive, or threatening behavior. As you have mentioned, we cannot count on people to do the right thing, even in the most grievous circumstances. Though I would very much like to see regulation of dog behavior focused on actual behavior, I realize that it is not practical."

This is absurd gibberish. You contradict yourself and this argument has no point (I can deconstruct your argument line by line, but Christ, it's getting late.) I can only conclude that you are trying to obfuscate the issue(s). Your foggy argument is that it is impossible to precisely quantify dog violence "We hear many stories? Threatening behavior? Human-focused aggression?" Vague, weasel words, Amber. These terms must be rigorously defined and legally accepted before they mean ANYTHING. Qualify your assertions. Define your terms. What you are saying now SOUNDS educated, but it has no practical meaning or substance.

Ms. Harrison, I am sorry if I am wrong, but I think you are arguing in bad faith.

I will apologize and retract that statement if you provide evidence to the contrary.

Amber Harrison said...

Evidence? For ideas?

Thank you for feeling my "absurd gibberish" is important enough for the time spent providing input.

Opalina said...

For a multitude of years, we didn't have to worry about all of that red-tape and paperwork, and background checks, and home visits, etc., that Amber proposes in order to address DBRFs and serious maimings and life-altering attacks. No, if a dog attacked, it was put down. Usually by the owner. No outcries to save the poor misunderstood thing, no FB pages to raise money for fancy lawyers, no Doggie Dude Ranches where killer and mutilating dogs could live out a sweet doggie life away from "danger." No, people removed that aggressive pooch right out of the gene pool, no questions asked. But now, in the age of the Nanny Dog, are we really to believe that irresponsible owners are creating frankenmaulers all over the place, and that we should place incredible restrictions on everyone that wants to own a dog? Nonsense. The problem is obvious. Pit bulls should never have been mainstreamed.

DubV, I fear you are getting soft.

Amber is one of those nutters that claims to be for all dogs, all victims, but she truly has only one breed in mind. Or lots of breeds -- depending on the audience -- all those breeds that you see on the "no one can identify a pit bull" posters. See for yourself:

https://www.facebook.com/banpitbullssavelives/posts/185438938256081

And good job of pulling your snark here on Craven, Amber.

Opalina said...

Here's Amber playing stupid about genetics, and thus, the heritable fighting dog traits:

"Amber Harrison: Scott, you fascinate me. Please explain to me and help me understand what the genetic functions of a dog are? How do the "genetic functions" of one breed of dog differ from other breeds? How do these "genetic functions," as you call them, differ from your own?"

It's snowing!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=347297008685059&set=o.121806314619344&type=1&theater

Amber Harrison said...

None of that is any different than questions and opinions I am asking and stating here. I have no agenda other than deepening my own understanding, and that includes knowing all facets and all aspects of the issue from all contributors. If you find my questions and opinions offensive, my apologies. It is not my intention. I have offered similar questions and opinions to "pro pit" forums and have been met with much the same reactions... Personal attacks, paranoid assertions of some "hidden purpose, " etc. I am trying to find a place where all options and all ideas can be discussed. Does that mean I'm on the fence? Maybe so. I didn't realize being undecided or wary or uneducated in certain details is punishable by a jury of strangers who may or may not be my peers.

As I've said to so many others in so many different forums, don't tell me why I'm wrong. Tell me why you're right, and why. That's what I want to know.

And then I will leave you alone to your "all agreement, all the time" forum.

DubV said...

Grandfathered in but with increased regulation.

dawn james said...

"As I've said, I'm here because I want to do what I'm doing better, and I want to do it with people's concerns and fears in mind."

and what exactly is it that you do?

i grew up with great danes and that is NOT a great dane.

i suspect that it is an amstaff. amber is playing games. in an older blog post, she claimed that amstaffs are not pit bulls. seriously amber, you need to spend some time at game-dog.com or pitbull-chat.com

dubv, probation and parole officers often go out into the public (at least they used to) to check on those under their charge. i would consider them LE.

dawn james said...

snarky, i think tia was a social worker.

amber, these are a good start.
- Obviously, stricter supervision and licensing of breeders. Expansion of animal control departments for inspection and supervision. This would also rely on citizens for reporting in many cases.
-Purchase of specific specialized breeds from licensed breeders would require the same regulatory activity as shelter adoptions.
- Adoption of ANY shelter animal would necessitate a home inspection, proof of homeowner's insurance and/or and umbrella policy, and conformity to basic safety and security for the proposed adoptee. For specialized breeds, abused or seized animals, or animals being re-homed after trauma, in addition to the home inspection and insurance policy, applicant would agree that children under the age of 14 or other animals will not be in the home unsupervised at any time, nor will the dog be left outside unsupervised (or tethered/chained) at any time. Applicant will also be required to show proof of completion of a basic obedience training course within 90 days or the animal will be confiscated without refund.
- Applicant or purchaser must show proof of employment for at least four years and be able to demonstrate a household budget that includes room for care of the dog, including routine veterinary care and savings for emergency care if needed. Proof of Veterinary insurance required within 30 days.
- Of course, specialized breeds, safety and security requirements, etc., would be actually individually specified.
- Owers are held personally and financially liable for any damages, whether to persons or property (including pets), incurred by their dog(s). Criminal charges may also apply if the owner is shown to be negligent or otherwise outside of the aforementioned regulations.

i would add
- banning felons from owning certain dogs.
- a lifetime ban on owning animals with a animal cruelty conviction.
- felony animal cruelty charges against anyone whose dogs attacks another animal.
- a lifetime ban on animals for anyone who's dog seriously injures or kills a human.
- mandatory euthanasia for all dogs that bite unprovoked, none of this, he was only doing his job protecting his owner bullshit. if a dog can not distinguish between a real and a perceived, too bad.
- 5 yr ban on owning animals after three nuisance animal convictions, ie roaming, barking, menacing.
- regulation of these rescue freaks.
- limit the number of animals to 2 dogs or 2 cats or 1 of each.
- MANDATORY LIABILITY INSURANCE for all dogs. let the industry determine the premiums based on actuarial risk, gripping dog aficionados will be fucked.
- restrictions on dog parks. no intact dogs, no grippers, no flock guardians, no guardians.
- lastly, i'd like to see shoot on site laws for any loose gripping dog.

dawn james said...

looking at the photo again, it's head and what little i can see of his chest/shoulders are massive. maybe a boerboel or bullmastiff. i still say that is not a great dane.

dawn james said...

opalina, you did good! you unearthed a brand new fur mommy. i would lay money down that amber just got infected with pit bull fever. she is all gung ho over her first pibble.

amber has been debating scott richer on facebook. he is more brutal than anyone on craven. scott does not hold back. it's a hoot. i saved a pdf for posterity. maybe she came here to get into shape to continue the debate with scott, i dunno. or maybe she's a sado-masochist LOL!

i love this admission of hers
PS- my Staffie is hunting his morning meal right now by leaning quietly on my leg trying to get my attention. LOL!

and this list. she was arguing with me in an older blog post about amstaffs not being "pit bulls" but there she is on facebook tuesday calling amstaffs pit bulls. and here she is saying the opposite.


DubV, care to weigh in on this ridiculous statement:
"Domestication appears to have been a process of natural selection, ..."
bwahahaha

i think scott said it best
Imbecile seems to be a correct assumption cause your comprehension skills are very limited.

snarky, you were right. fucking pitter dingbat.

go away psycho bitch or stick around for more abuse. i really don't care.

Miss Margo said...

Great Danes have more narrow, angular heads. Not like that dog in the photo. Nice jaws there. I bet it could carry around a basketball. And look at the deep cleave in the forehead.

Amber's posts remind me of papers I sometimes get to edit/grade. I read them and re-read them, and though they are literate and there is nothing screamingly wrong with them, they leave me feeling confused. Can't put a finger on it right away.

Then I realize: this shit just doesn't make sense.

Garnet said...

You said "bully breeds" are among the dogs you like. "Bully breeds" include pit bulls, which are fighting dogs.

Scroll on up and read about another fatality involving "bully breeds" (pit bulls and canary dogs).

So, what unique trait do these dogs have that justify their continued breeding?

Amber Harrison said...

Thank you to all for your input. Dawn, I like your ideas. And then, looking at everything that everyone has suggested, it seems that breed eradication would be a natural consequence of the regulations, at least to a point.

I am fostering a Staffy right now. I have fostered APPTs and other dogs. As I said, I became interested in fostering and rehabilitation... And as I've also said, the majority of dogs in shelters in this area are pit/bull dog mixes. It wasn't until I started looking for more information about other people's experiences and successes/failures that I realized how deep and divided the "war on pitbulls" is. And the more I read, the more divided I became. I have never had a problem with any of the pit/bull dogs I have fostered, nor did I ever have a problem with one I encountered while working. But the arguments are so heated, the indecent of attacks so horrifying, and the statistics so compelling that I figured I better learn more.

I've also said that I would not be able to live with myself if a dog under my care hurt anyone. I extend that to Include dogs who were given to me for fostering and training. I'm a fan of the bully breeds that I have come in contact with because I have never seen anything like what you describe on this page personally. I also don't know - and have repeatedly asked - what "pit bull" actually means, if not specific to APBT. No one will do that for me. posting a list of "bully breeds" on FB didn't get anyone to chime in and point out which were "dangerous" and which weren't't. Trying to have conversations with persons on both sides was met with, well, THIS.

I'm trying to get in on the discussion and I don't know enough to do it. First I am ridiculed for what I DO know, then I am ridiculed for trying to know more, then I am ridiculed for trying to get more specific information, then I am ridiculed for trying to get it from more than one place.

I like dogs. That's all. I still don't know which particular breeds you all lump in with "pit bull," because no one will tell me. I suppose at this point I could make a pretty good guess. It does appear, to me, that some kind of significant regulatory action must be taken... And I was totally against breed banning when I started (but pro-BSL), and now am coming to realize that a simpler solution to the multitude of regulations that have been suggested would be eradication of certain breeds. It would have been great to have grown-up discussions focusing on the issue rather than me just pushing through the abuse to have one or two of my questions randomly and back-handedly answered.

Congratulations to all for your investigative wizardry. My purpose has been so sinister and villainous that I chose to use my REAL NAME, which you've been able to find elsewhere on the web because I use my REAL NAME. I had already told you I had tried getting information elsewhere and had been met with the same attack tactics rather than an honest-to-God position statement and why that position seems the best solution. None of this is personal to me. I want to foster but I don't have to. I like the bully breed dogs I've come in contact with, but can't stand the thought of someone getting hurt. I've taken as many precautions as I can think of with these dogs, but they remain DOGS, so when is it ever really enough?

Respect to those who tried to offer information and answer questions. It is obvious I am not able to learn what I want to know from people in either of the polarized camps. The author had suggested twice that I leave, and I will graciously leave her house. She can choose to delete my comments entirely or leave them for posterity. Thank you for your time.

Opalina said...

Amber, Dawn gave you some good advice -- spend some time at game-dog.com or pitbull-chat.com, that is, if you are serious about learning the truth about pit bull dogs. There are also some facebook pages that you can go to for some lively chat about "game dogs.

Here's another insteresting link into the mind of those that know what these dogs were originally created for:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Indian-Bolio-ROM/243028679051718?sk=info

You will notice that dogmen have a reverence for their fighting dogs, and certainly would not feed them gunpowder to make them fight. They didn't have to:

http://www.centralcoastkennel.com/en/category/best-ever/

There are other FB pages for fighting dogs that I have seen via links from Dawn, but I can't find them now. They were similar to the Bolio page, but with lots of interaction going on. Very interesting reading into the world of the pit bull, the original world, not the "pits just need love and socialization and were bred to be nanny dogs" rescue world of mainstream pit lovers.

Dawn, can you help out there with the FB links? I remember commenting on the post with the links, because I stayed up to late and couldn't stop reading. Lots of pit apologists commenting on those FB pages, firmly believing that you can train any dog to grip onto it's victim for 20 solid minutes despite being kicked, stabbed, tased, maced, and shot multiple times. The dogmen laughed at them. You see, Amber, they know the truth, not the modern-day spin. They appreciate the truth. They don't parade their pits around as nanny dogs in public.


dawn james said...

"I'm trying to get in on the discussion and I don't know enough to do it. First I am ridiculed for what I DO know, then I am ridiculed for trying to know more, then I am ridiculed for trying to get more specific information, then I am ridiculed for trying to get it from more than one place."

initially you came across to me as trying to present yourself as knowing more than you do. now you seem to humbled, at least for the moment, tomorrow maybe not so humble. still, i say go to pitbull-chat or game-dog for a proper education. stay away from pitbullforum.com or pitbulltalk or pbsmiles, overwhelmingly, the majority of the members, like the badrap nutters are the problem.

i am not interested in a dialog with you. i have found that you people are waste of my time. you are more likely to accept the truth if it is coming from someone who does not want to eradicate them.

btw, a pit bull is a dog whose origins are rooted in fighting and baiting, even though not every individual may not be bred for those purposes now, they still posses the ability. boxers were once in this category, as were great danes, they are far removed from that form and function now.

dawn james said...

sorry opalina, i can't recall those facebook pages off hand. i have a real aversion to facebook ;)

dawn james said...

here are some of the older posts amber has been reading and commenting on, if you are interested.

seattle dirty tricks

vintage darwin attacks

the last word

pit bulls and cripples

lewis county nutter alert

2012 national dog bite week recap

Branwyne Finch said...

Ok, I will have a go at this.

What is a "pit bull" dog? I think the term pit bull describes a landrace breed of dog that is currently being bred for dog fighting, guarding illegal activities, or as a thug fashion accessory. The term would also include purebred AmStaffs, APBTs, Staffy bulls, and American Bulldogs. The majority of people breeding these dogs are criminals, dog fighters, gang members, drug dealers, and losers looking to make a quick buck. THAT is the real root of the problem.

What type of BSL would improve life for people and dogs? I will repeat my post above. Mandatory s/n for all pet pit bulls, mandatory microchipping, and mandatory insurance resuirements. This does not effect responsible pit bull owners one bit, because ALL responsible dog owners do those things. It reduces the incentive for losers to try and make a few bucks breeding pit bulls, it reduces the ability of animal abusers to engage in dog fighting, since s/n fighting dogs are worthless. It provides some financial recourse for victims in the event something DOES go wrong. It makes pit bulls rarer, and helps insure that the people who own them are a bit more responsible. Everyone wins...fewer homeless pit bulls, fewer victims, (both human and animal)

DubV said...

The eyes are also similar to amstaff eyes in shape. Dane eyes are different.

DubV said...

DubV, care to weigh in on this ridiculous statement:
"Domestication appears to have been a process of natural selection, ..."

Domestication is considered artificial selection. The modifier "artificial" is used because it was done by humans. At first, it might not have been quit purposeful (we were more likely to feed and not kill the common ancestor of wolves and dogs if they were "nice" and we didn't know that this mechanism would soon yield "nice" doggies because we hadn't witnessed this before). Then at some point a light bulb flashed (before we knew about DNA or evolution by natural selection) and we figured out we could breed two dogs to get similar offspring. Then it just radiated outward. So, the way the term is used, natural does not apply, unless you consider the unwitting selection by more ancient humans to be natural while our current selections are artificial. But yeah, I'm not buying it.

DubV said...

If Amber is still reading, and would like a more dispassionate discussion, I suggest she read these:

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/07/pit-bulls-by-gary-wilkes-21st-century.html

(have to download the pdf from the link above)

and

http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/2011/04/experts.html

every thing here (it debunks all of the common pit advocate talking points)

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com

especially this

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2012/07/medical-experts-and-injuries-caused-by.html

Then I would ask Amber to ponder this: why do pit bull advocates want us to believe the AVMA about dog dangers to humans? They are a busy lobby for vets that also do some public service, facilitate research, etc. Shouldn't we instead listen to the people that treat humans that are attacked by dogs and that also have no financial stake in this (other than the money they make reattaching kid's scalps)?

april 29 said...

Amber is part of the bully breed rescue industry. She has said so very clearly. The point of bully breed advocacy is to find a "safe place" for pretty much every special snowflake pit bull. Even dogs with a violent history seem to warrant a candle light vigil, a facebook page, a "save Capone" campaign, a paypal link, a lawyer to fight for the dog's "rights."


As a public safety advocate, I'm interested in finding a a safe place FROM pit bulls, for children, the elderly, peaceful and well loved pets, livestock.

Many communities have neighborhoods where normal life becomes something very abnormal. Children are not able to play in their own yards, neighbors set up a telephone tree to share the knowledge when resident pit bulls are at large...again, fences are constructed, police and animal control are on speed dial, pit bulls jump through second story windows to attack dog walkers. Mail delivery and basic commerce come to a halt. With a known biter running loose, you can't get a pizza delivered or hire a yard service. Sell your house to move to a better neighborhood? Good luck with that. Get bitten by the wandering pit? The victim pays the bills. Do you carry insurance on the dogs you foster?

It is a hard thing to deal with but a million pit bulls a year die in American shelters, God knows how many die on the streets or the pits. Only pit bull advocacy can fix with this problem and the answer is simple and humane. Stop breeding pit bulls. It is far beyond a realistic possibility to adopt or foster your way out of this mess.

Dayna Hamilton said...

"I've also said that I would not be able to live with myself if a dog under my care hurt anyone. I extend that to Include dogs who were given to me for fostering and training. I'm a fan of the bully breeds that I have come in contact with because I have never seen anything like what you describe on this page personally."

Amber, you've obviously read enough to know what these types of dogs are capable of, you claim you would not be able to live with yourself if a dog in your care hurt anyone. What about yourself? Do you not think that they might turn on you? How would you be able to help ANY dog if you are dead or maimed? Do you have a death wish? Seriously! Your comment above makes me think that you either don't believe it could ever happen to you, even though there is so much evidence to the contrary, or you don't care if you die.

Opalina said...

So many intelligent, well-read, and eloquent posters here! Amber, you came to the right place if you were looking for excellent discourse on the truth about pit bulls. I believe, however, that your true reason was to look at how the "other side" thinks so that you can better counter the negatives about the breed you so love. I am sure that you have encountered many people that look at your pit (yes, a staffie is a pit) with fear in their eyes, and you want to know how to turn that fear into love. Not gonna happen. We don't want to love your pittie. We don't want it to give us kisses. We don't want it anywhere near out faces, or any other part of our beings for that matter. What we do want is for pit lovers to quit blasting the bullshit and accept the truths and reject the myths:

1. Truth: Pit bulls and their ilk were NEVER nanny dogs. Never ever. This is the most egregious lie told by pit advocacy.

2. Myth: Pit bulls were once America's dog. Complete BS. Just because they were on a few posters and in the Little Rascals does not mean they were America's dog.

3. Myth: Pit bulls only started attacking when thugs became interested in them "because of their looks." Pits have been kiling innocent people for over 100 years. The difference between now and then is that now the pits have a "lobby" and advocates that are mainstreaming these beasts as family pets, and the carnage is now reaching epic proportions. Back then, people knew what pits were for, and they weren't family pets!

4. Truth: Pit bulls were specifically bred to be the ultimate fighting dogs. Dogmen do not use cockers for a reason.

5. Myth: Only pit bulls trained to fight or abused will attack. See Truth #4.

6. Myth: Pit bulls do not attack unless provoked. You guys have simply got to stop blaming the victims. It makes you look heartless and stupid.

7. Myth: Pit bulls only fight because they are so loyal and will do anything for their masters. Crock. Pit bulls fight because it is what they were bred for -- they can't help but like it once they get going.

8. Myth: the only pits that attack are the ones with irresponsible owners. The only way a pit owner can ensure the safety of everyone, including the owner, is to keep it muzzled except to eat.

9. It's the media's fault. Good lord. Do you really think that the media would ignore a DBRF simply because it was a cocker?

I could go on and on. Some things are blatantly obvious, yet there are always those that will deny the obvious. And they congregate together and deny the obvious en masse.

Your pit may not be aggressive. It may not be vicious. But it is potentially dangerous. So if you insist on having a fighting breed of dog, keep the thing muzzled, lest you end up like Darla Napora. And that reminds me of another nutter myth: Darla fell of a ladder and pittie was just trying to wake her. A person has to be a special kind of deluded to believe that nonsense.

So, if you really want to be a good breed ambassador, focus on the truths, accept them, and keep your pit as far away from me as possible. And for God's sake, don't take it to a doggie park!

Opalina said...

Oh, and thank you for the Kudos, Dawn! I am honored :) And contrary to what Amber might think, I did not "investigate" her. I just recognized the name and overly intellectual writing style from that FB post, which I had stumbled upon earlier in the day. Serendipity!

dawn james said...

good response. hopefully, amber is quietly reading along.

Amber Harrison said...

I was out of town for a couple of weeks, and came back to see if anyone had left less personal comments. Some have, and for that I thank you.

I only had personal experience to go on. I have come in contact with hundreds of pit bull - type dogs in the course of my career and have never had an issue. They are popular dogs there, so the shelters are full of them. I started fostering because I like dogs, I'm retired, I have resources, and the pit bull types are the ones available.

I support BSL, but am on the fence about breed banning because I'm not sure that is the answer (though I have no idea what the answer might be). I would never have more than one of these dogs in my home at one time, because I don't know where they came from and I don't have the resources. All of my children are grown and on their own. I won't take the foster dogs to a dog park, ever, again because I don't know where they came from and I DO (despite popular belief) know what they are capable of. My yard is privacy fenced and no dog is ever left outside unattended. I have an exorbitantly priced insurance policy AND an umbrella policy. I take the dogs for walks properly restrained and at times that encountering other dogs -especially those that are walked unlawfully unleashed - is limited. I have taken foster dogs back to be euthanised because of what I perceived to be an unpredictable or overly aggressive temperament. I don't feel as though any of the dogs I foster have to be "ambassadors," I'm happy if they are responsive to training and appear to be good dogs for a responsible owner. I wish there weren't so many dogs in shelters, and I would be very happy to support laws that lessen both dog bite injury/death and suffering (of humans specificallyand dogs in general). And no, I don't want to die from fostering. But the fact is I'm on borrowed time anyway.

I won't be back. I thank you for the comments and information.

Encarna Sanchez Puche said...

Hey! She wasn't going to attack nobody, she was just protecting her owner. And she's not a mutant, she's a dog like any other. Nowadays, she's almost ready for adoption (her owner can't take care of all the expenses for vets) and she's missing an eye and all of her teeths. If you see any actual picture of her, you will just see LOVE. That's what she's filled with. I live and Spain (very far away) and if I could, I would bring her home and won't stand for a half minute without giving her a great hug. All of you in here are wrong!

Encarna Sanchez Puche said...

Sorry in my comment I meant "in Spain" and not "and Spain".