Friday, February 7, 2014

anti-BSL stealth bombs









UPDATE
more anti-BSL bills on the horizon.

Aurora, Colorado attorney GEORGE BROWN is spearheading a citizen initiative to try and make Colorado the first no kill state. ballot initiatives are those public vote thingees that BRENT TOELLNER spoke out against last weekend. and no surprise, there is anti-BSL language in it. i bet TOELLNER is not against this one.

NO DOG SHALL BE DEEMED IRREDEEMABLY HOSTILE OR AGGRESSIVE BASED ON BREED OR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.  page 2, paragraph 3.  (5)(B)
BROWN feels that we are "executing" shelter animals and there has to be a better way. yes, there is. it is called MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER! hmmm..i wonder if BROWN has given any thought to the "execution" of the millions of farm animals to feed dogs and cats or the thousands of animals mutilated and "executed" by gripping dogs. but there is hope in the the form of opposition to the initiative. the president of the president of the Colorado Federation of Animal Welfare Agencies, Lisa Pederson questions the initiative's practicality citing among other things, “The amendment will also hinder a shelter’s ability to protect the public from dangerous dogs. That’s a primary part of our function in the community."
WHOA! someone involved in animal welfare is actually expressing concern for the safety of the public. public safety? that's a novel idea!


on january 31st, Vermont democrat David Potter introduced H 775. this bill prohibits local municipalities from banning certain breeds of dogs.

on february 4, Utah democrat Brian S. King introduced HB 97 to prohibit a municipality from enacting or enforcing a breed specific rule, regulation, policy or ordinance about dogs.

Georgia Republicans Knight, Roberts, Burns, Ehrhart and Shaw have introduced HB 409 to prohibit local governments from adopting certain regulations pertaining to animals; limit authority of local governments to establish dog control regulations; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
NO local authority will be able to:
1) require spay and neuter
2)  require higher licensing fees for "animals" not spayed or neutered
3) prevent the ownership, breeding, transfer, purchase, tethering, training or transportation of dogs used for the lawful pursuit of game, field trials, shows or disability services
4) ban the sale or ownership of any specific breed of dog or cat

Maryland HB 422 prohibits the discrimination of dogs based on breed, type or heritage

South Dakota SB 75 prevents BSL at the local government level (cute photo of a yorkie at this this link)


anti-BSL initiatives are stealthily being introduced in missouri and washington.

in december 2013 Rep Ron Hicks filed HB 1116. it has slowly and quietly gained support but a hearing has not yet been scheduled. the entire bill can be read here.

a few days later Rep Sherry Appleton (dem) filed HB 2117. to date, three other democrats have jumped on the band wagon. the entire bill can be read here. it is scheduled for a hearing @ 8 am on thursday, the 16th. i sure do hope that good Samaritan Ranger Rob plans to attend. Ranger Rob, please snag LEDY'S autograph for me. mucho gracias!

unable to attend?

no problemo!

you will be able to join in the fun and watch the excitement live.

on another interesting note, Rep Sherry Appleton is also working to restrict lethal force self defense laws. i think these two laws compliment each other, don't you?



167 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update. I never got a response from the chairs on when the hearing was (idjits). Probably won't make it due to work, so what do you suggest would be teh best way to feedback to members? Should I just let my own reps know where I stand on this, or is there a better way?

scorched earth said...

Send your thoughts to all members of the committee and then to all members of the Legislature. Contact your own lawmakers and be very clear about your thoughts on surrendering your community's home rule rights to regulate a dangerous product to a very narrow special interest group. You can be very sure that Best Friends Animal Society is behind this and bankrolling it as well. Remind them that you are an actual constituent and Best Friends Animal Society is a PAC located in Utah.

dawn james said...

legislation is not my forte but scorched earth's advice looks good to me.

Anonymous said...

If Sherry Appleton has her way, Washington will be renamed North California.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why they have to be specific about not being specific about a breed?

If they're trying to save responsible owners from undue hardships, because they choose to have dogs predisposed to violence, why not error on the side of caution? Why do they always want to give the benefit of the doubt to dog owners, instead of the general public?

Why is it unfair for dog owners of certain breeds to have to live up to higher standards? Following a few extra guidelines weeds out the potential few "irresponsible" owners. To turn a blind eye to that facet, is not punishing supposed responsible owners. It's protecting the general public from devastating attacks BEFORE THEY HAPPEN.

It sounds more like they're protecting the entitled interests of certain dog owners, than citizens as a whole. It's not like everyone owns a pit bull, and everyone is being unfairly persecuted. If the costs to manage a pit bull were compared to the cost of a pit bull attack, I'm sure the attack would far outweigh any hardship a "responsible" pit bull owner would ever have to endure.

Opalina said...

Anon 8:00, I am copying your comment for posterity. May I quote you in the future? So well said! You really get to the heart of the hypocrisy of the nutter brigade.

dawn james said...

"Why is it unfair for dog owners of certain breeds to have to live up to higher standards?"

especially when they themselves claim pit bulls require higher standard owners to begin with.

Anonymous said...


"Why is it unfair for dog owners of certain breeds to have to live up to higher standards?"

Because they can't. That's why they are game changers. Their whole MO is changing the game. Game, Game, Game, they are all about the game.

Dayna Hamilton said...

I was never much of a gun advocate, until I started reading about all the pit attacks, how hard they are to stop, and seeing the pits overrun the neighborhood. For pits and this alone I think everyone who can and wants to, should be able to carry a firearm.

Anonymous said...

Opalina, I'm the anon that you want to quote, and I'd be honored.

Anonymous said...

HB 2117 starts around 1:05. Rep Sherry Appleton is a dingbat. What a surprise!

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014010056

Rhea Luna said...

As far as pitbulls and anti bsl....look how that worked in Ohio. My dad thinks only bad neighborhoods or poverty stricken areas have pitbulls when in fact any neighborhood in Northeast Ohio that I have been in is ridden with pitbulls. Rich or poor.
And I live in the middle. ..not rich not poor.
We have on my block alone 8 pitbulls. 2 of which have been loose in the past.
And one block away 9 were loose and I wrote dawn about the dogfight in the street. All pits! I didn't have my camera but all 9 were loose fighting.
Another time I lost a tire to a loose cane corso.
And as I have mentioned a few times I blinded a loose pitbull with a serious amount of wasp spray and then the dog went to the pound. Death row for dumbass. She was 8 months old and tried to maul my 5 year old.

These dogs are everywhere in Northeast Ohio and most people have no insurance on their dogs.
And I used to work in insurance for a company that when people would call in with severe dog bite claims (pit & pit mixes) the system would push us to the end of a call and give us a thorough script for the victim. The person would inevitably end up in tears or begging to speak to someone because this wasn't their dog etc. Working insurance some of the more heart breaking claims (failed claims) would come from victims of pitbull attacks. We HAD to ask breed and choose the breed in the drop down. If pitbull was mentioned even as a mix (no mix options on drop down but as soon as pitbull comes out thats the selection) we got that message.
I dont know what the victims are able to do about improperly insured dogs. So sad. Get a gun!

Demiandogs said...

I`m supportive of this,I`m not a fan of breed bans despite the Pit bulls on my lawn.

Genetics you never really know what you'll get. More pointing to another post that said you cant train a dog like a Border collie to use a spring pole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_j-r8U0XOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nV3WEF5ce8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOXRgBgIgE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDvq5prud5Q

dawn james said...

nothing spectacular about the rott video. the rope was low enough that he did almost no actual suspension. he had far too much heft to swing for even 10 seconds like the others.

the first malinois video wasn't too surprising. it lasted less than 10 seconds. the second malinois video where he was suspended for over a minute was slightly surprising. i have read on molosserdogs.com that some malinois breeders are "enriching" their bloodlines with pit bulls. i've not read that anywhere else and i've only come across one actual breeder on line who admits to doing this.

that border collie looks more like a kelpie. another aussie breed - a border collie x dingo. and that's not too surprising that it could hang from a rope for short bursts.

but it is fascinating how nutters will not question an obviously misidentified non-pit to try and make a point.

dawn james said...

i could see a very thing cattledog doing short bursts on the spring pole too. in addition to dingo, they have bull terrier in the mix.

staceyjw said...

That pic of the gripper with a cute little collar is SO disgusting. It is akin to putting a smily face shirt on Jeffery Dahmer, while trying to get others to love him. I cringe whenever I see this.

Pits are FIGHTING dogs. Not little babies to cuddle and have tea with. If you want a dog to dress up sweetly, get a pomeranian (and hope a pit doesn't kill it in front of you). I cannot imagine old time dog men, or even todays fighters, doing such things. Nope, this is a new thing that only idiots that push dangerous killers as pets do.

While I loathe pit on pit fighting (because it often harms non pits), I hate it a bit less than I hate those that dress the wolves in sheeps clothing, fooling people, pushing them onto families with kids. I notice most of the human deaths are NOT from fighting grippers and their owners, but from "sweet family" grippers…..

Anonymous said...

Sherry Appleton is doing favors for the dog fighters and the tax cheat breeders.

She'll keep on colluding with the crooks until someone calls her out on it

She is just helping criminals steal from the children, the poor, the elderly.

What a fraud

Anonymous said...

The AKC is also into this. Old Sherry is hooking up with mutsants from the AKC at work on this too.

Mom in Eugene said...

Restrict lethal force? What, until you have lost an arm, or does someone need to die first?

No way. As someone that's been unfortunate enough to need to use lethal force not once, but twice, this is absurd. I am not willing to lose a limb, or a pet, to save a.mauler.Besides, if you leave a vicious dog alive after an attack, its possible they will simply be sent home, or to another shelter or rescue to be adopted out, endangering more people.

We do have natural allies here, and we must use them. Many groups fight state control vs local control, fight limiting using lethal force, and fight for personal responsibility.

We need to do more- I need to do more, and I will.

Anonymous said...

I LOVE that put bulls need legislation to prevent them from being discriminated against. Yet pit bulls don't discriminate when they attack a living being.

Are humans really fighting for pit bull rights? Why is it so easy to pass Bills into existence to protect pit bulls, when what we really need is protection from pit bulls?

Packhorse said...

Dog "heritage"?

Ooookayyyyy....

"dawn james" said...

gripping heritage

Anonymous said...

So how the hell do we organize against this shit?

This isn't a matter of property rights, it's a matter of public safety?

How much worse does it need to get?

"dawn james" said...

apparently much MUCH worse.

so much for the media hype and ruining the mutant's reputation.

snack sized dog said...

I think "heritage" is meant to include specific lines - ie fighting lines picked up at dogfight busts - saying you cannot even stipulate that fight bust dogs can't move in next door. She wants us all killed. And appleton does too. WTF?

Anonymous said...

By "stealth bombs" I suppose you mean that these initiatives are publicly available bills proposed and supported by nearly every expert in the field of canine management and similar to bills that have been passed in 4 other states in the last 18 months?!

What this is is governments listening to experts to fight against ineffective and resource-wasting laws.

That's not "stealth". That's practical.

"dawn james" said...

how sad that you are unaware that "experts" are not always true to science and fall prey to special interests. how sad that you believe that "nearly every expert in the field of canine management" is behind this. rhode island passed their bill despite the strong opposition from statewide organized animal control. believing that "nearly all experts" buy into this based on a few loud "experts" is incorrect. the nutters have effectively beaten them into silence with threats and intimidation. how do i know that? many of them have contacted me and expressed their opinion privately. but many of them have spoken openly.

by stealth, i meant surreptitious, the bill in massachusetts was done very quietly, like the attempt in washington, maryland and missouri. ohio, rhode island and south dakota don't fall under this category but i put all of the anti BSL machinations in one place.

the only honest way to push the nutter agenda is by putting it to a public vote, like they did in miami dade last year. but that's not "practical" for ledy's agenda. and honesty goes against the grain of pit bull owners and advocates.

Anonymous said...

"What this is is governments listening to experts to fight against ineffective and resource-wasting laws."

What resources are you talking about? Is animal control too worried about doing their jobs if we discriminate against pit bulls BEFORE attacks?

I'm curious, because I keep reading about people seeing pit bulls running free, calling animal control, and nothing happens until after an attack.

Those resources, right?

kcdogblog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Most laws are not put up for public vote. That's why we have law making bodies that are to represent the best interests of society.

Your list of experts is comical -- as you seem very adept at pulling the quotes out of context. Nice of you to hold Donaldson, Stillwell, Milan, Crosby, Lockwood, Jessup etc as experts -- all of them disagree with your position on pit bulls and breed specific laws. A mild inconvenience for you no doubt.

And Beck and Clifton as "experts"? LOL

Anonymous said...

"What resources are you talking about? Is animal control too worried about doing their jobs if we discriminate against pit bulls BEFORE attacks?

I'm curious, because I keep reading about people seeing pit bulls running free, calling animal control, and nothing happens until after an attack."

First of all, passing breed specific laws are going to be useless if animal control is too under-funded or too incompetent to round up free-roaming dogs under a city's leash law (which almost every community has at this point). That would be a fantastic place to start -- enforcing leash laws. I don't care if the dog is a German Shepherd, a mastiff, a pit bull, a lab, whatever, it shouldn't be a nuisance running at large.

Secondly, which would you rather the under-resource Animal Control officers spend their time on: trying to determine if the family pet owned by one neighbor that has never been aggressive, or roaming at large is a pit bull? Or focusing energy on the chained dog that is showing all kinds of signs of aggression but is "just an Akita" so not worth the focus?

There are a lot of ways to focus laws based on the behavior of the dog, not the breed. You won't read about those from "Dawn James" or Colleen Lynn, but they exist. And it's why we should listen to experts on how to write and enforce such laws. People deserve to be safe from dogs -- regardless of breed. And using resources to target specific dogs because of their breed even though they aren't aggressive is not the solution: regardless of what "dawn james" tries to persuade you into.

tropical storms said...

It is good advice. Put it out all over the place media wise. In some venues just focus on restriction of use of deadly force self defense. You can bury the legislature under an avalanche of hate mail.

tropical storms said...

I'd suggest requiring the owners of all molosser breeds carry 500k insurance if sterilized and 1m for intact. Dogs of any breed/mix should have differential licensing and any dog over 30lbs. should be required to carry insurance against bite injury.

Anonymous said...

Two things:

#1) Pit bulls are not molasser breeds. Again, this is why you get info from real experts, and not Merrit Clifton.

#2) The problem with your solution is that by the very act of singling out certain breeds you make it infinitely harder for people to get insurance.

Most people who have home owner's insurance have insurance from dog bites....so figuring out how to tag it onto renter's insurance and how to get all insurance companies to quit singling out certain breeds provides the most protection for victims. Instead, Colleen and "Dawn" actually advocate for the opposite.

scorched earth said...

Anon, you are just the most recent in a long line of pit bull advocates making excuses.

You want reactive laws that essentially say "oops" after the fact. "Oops" is cold comfort for the victim who suffers the injuries and pays the bills to boot. Pit bulls are rarely insured. The insurance industry uses their own numbers, how much have they paid out on bite cases by breed to make decisions on what dogs to insure and what dogs not to insure. Victims do not single out the breeds, the history of the breed singles it out. This is actuarial risk. Insurance companies deal in fact, not fuzzy headed thinking. Do you have insurance to cover the losses of anyone injured by your pit bulls?

You are aware that your list of "experts" is a bit light? Stillwell is a reality show actress with a certification in animal behavior from an online school that is part of the Petco pet food store chain. Milan? No real qualifications other than he looks good on television. Crosby? Lost his job because he is incompetent. Lockwood switched sides, the money was better on the pro pit side. Jessup was once part of the AFF family but there was a falling out when her Law Dogs program failed miserably. Nobody wanted the dogs even for free. Donaldson? She has sold out to the highest bidder but as much as she talks the talk, she does not walk the walk. Pit bulls at her place? Nope.

In 2013 thirty three Americans were killed by dogs. Pit bulls killed 29 of them. So far this year four Americans have been killed by dogs, pit bulls killed two of them. A great many of these dogs reportedly showed no aggression until they killed someone. This is a breed/type problem and requires a breed/type solution. Even if you are willing to roll the dice with your own life, it is wildly irresponsible to do so with the lives of your children, parents, the neighbors, the neighbor's pets and livestock.

Proactive law has proven to save lives.

"dawn james" said...

people think they know my position and what i advocate. guess i will have to set the record straight, again.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 4:41 -

sigh... another idiot who thinks they know it all. Mastiffs are Molossers, bulldogs are therefore also Molossers, and your pit fighting bulldogs are descended from the livestock torturer bulldogs of the old UK. The lineage couldn't be any clearer.

Did you really suppose that adding a bit of terrier to create a smaller mauler somehow negates the Molosser ancestry?

That said, Molosser breeds aren't all bad. For instance, pugs are Molossers, and AFAIK there have been zero human fatalities from a pug mauling. Neither have I ever heard of anyone's beloved animal companion being murdered by a pug.

As for Merritt Clifton, his education and experience more than qualify him to speak to the issues - but that doesn't stop any run of the mill, high school dropout pit freak from calling him "unqualified". You idiots may not like the news, but that doesn't make him unqualified. Instead of attacking the messenger, how cool would it be if you actually did something about the problem...

scorched earth said...

Correction to my comment made yesterday evening. Three, not four Americans have been killed by dogs so far in 2014. Pit bulls killed two of them. What was I thinking?

No other breed requires the level of advocacy that we see for pit bulls. Ever wonder why that is?

Anonymous said...

Scorched Earth. If you read one of my other comments note that I'm pushing for proactive laws that protect people regardless of breed. Breed specific laws are both under-inclusive and over-inclusive by not targeting all aggressive dogs in a community and by targeting dogs in a community that aren't aggressive. It's illogical, inefficient and ineffective.

"Dick" -- Merritt Clifton is a self-employed writer. As a self employed writer, with absolutely zero credentials, he has the built in expertise of a random blogger. That alone doesn't make him wrong, but his inaccurate "facts" and opinions certainly do...

Anonymous said...

Okay. Read your shit. Your "experts" are funded by the pet breeding industry, the pet rescue industry, pet 'training' industry, etc.

Anyone with a brain in their head should be highly skeptical when the "experts" start spreading "facts" that benefit their bottom line.

You know, kind of like studies funded by big Pharma promoting the next great drug or big Ag telling congress that their factory farms are really quite humane?

Oh, OH! I once heard that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer . That was from the "experts" in the industry.

Hmm, what did the 'experts' say about Love Canal? All safe? No toxins?

It's too early in the morning and I haven't had enough caffeine to start listing the citizen whistle blowers who have over and over again challenged the 'facts' and righted the wrongs of the 'experts'.

april 29 said...

Anon,

For a law to be proactive it must prevent attacks. By not regulating the breed that kills at a rate wildly out of proportion to their actual numbers in our society your suggestion only impacts after a victim has been created. Breed neutral laws are a failure. Look at Denver and Miami-Dade, no fatalities since their bans were passed. Interestingly, in the state of Florida there have been 18 pit bull fatalities since Miami-Dade's pit bull ban was passed. Again, please note that Miami-Dade has not had a fatality. Mandatory neuter and spay programs for pit bulls drastically cut the numbers of pit bulls in shelters and euthanization numbers. What is wrong with preventing suffering, both the suffering of potential victims and of the dogs themselves?

You have fallen into pit bull double speak with your comment that breed specific laws are both over inclusive and under inclusive. This is very much like "pit bulls were nanny dogs" until a pit bull kills a child then it is "never leave any dog alone with a child." I always love "my dog is such a sweetheart she will just lick you to death." This pairs nicely with "my dog will never start a fight but he will absolutely finish it." Another favorite is "nobody can identify a pit bull" but millions of dollars are spent on breed specific programs. When the AFF, Best Friends Animal Society, or Petsmart Charities set up a breed specific adoption program pit bull owners line right up to get the dogs that no one can identify.
"Punish the deed not the breed" is a hoot. After a public mauling the pit bull owners frequently tells reporters "my dog is too gentle to have done this" and legal challenges are filed to save the dog's life. Frequently the pit bull owner promises to send the dog to another community where potential victims will have no idea of the danger, the move has wiped the pit bull's record clean. What happened to "punish the deed?"

BSL is the best thing that ever happened to the breed. Mandatory neuter and spay prevents the birth of dogs destined to suffer and are humanely euthanized in shelters after they are surrendered by owners, if they are lucky. If they are not lucky they suffer and die painfully on the streets. It is not public safety advocates that cause this suffering, it is the sole responsibility of those who claim to love them but breed irresponsibly, cranking out litters of pups that will sell for the price of a couple of cartons of cigarettes. Until pit bull advocacy comes to grips with their own responsibility efforts to regulate the dogs will continue.

Granted pit bull advocacy is well organized and well funded. It is very difficult for legislators to walk away from lobbyists with carpet bags full of money and a slick set of talking points but survivors will continue to tell their stories and these stories are damning.

Anonymous said...

Okay, let's talk about what it would take to write breed-non-specific laws that would PROACTIVELY protect the public against ALL BREEDS, shall we?

So we need to talk containment and control, right?

Well, I once rescued a pit bull from highway traffic. When I got her home, I discovered immediately that she was going to chew her way out of my plastic/metal crates. Couldn't tie her, not only was her neck so huge I thought she'd slip a collar (didn't have one on, btw), but she was young and female and I had my suspicions.

So I stuffed her in a bit metal box, that would be my horse trailer. The thing has solid walls that run 6' high with a 6" ventilation gap above that and then the roof.

By the time I placed my "Found your damned pit bull" add on CL and returned to check on her, the bitch had managed to shinny up the wall and squeeze through the 6" gap and disappear.

Surprisingly, I did get a response from the owner the next day. "Oh yeah", she said, "she escapes all the time". Followed by, "Yeah, I know she's in heat. She's probably pregnant again".

I have no hope the owner ever figured out how to contain that animal.

Here's my suggestion.

All dog owners must contain their animals behind a 6' chain link fence with a minimum of two strands of functioning hotwire 12" and 18" from teh base. The fence must be erected upon a 6" X 1 foot concrete base placed underground to prevent digging out.

How's that? That should keep any 80 year old's yorkie from running out and amputating a jogger's leg, don't ya think? MIGHT have even kept those two pits from killing that poor woman in Spanaway, WA last month. Maybe.

Okay, okay, now we have to deal with containment and control off property. Right, so we'll start with "All dogs on leash when off property", but we can't end there, can we? How many of us have seen THAT GUY struggle down the road with his pit bull straining on the leash, barely under control, or the kiddie with teh BIG DOG on a flexi-leash because the parents think it's cute and the BIG DOG would never take off and attack anything, like the Akita did in BC last fall.

So, let's first get rid of those damned flexi-leashes. And then we have to make sure that the person on the end of the leash is big enough and fit enough to control the dog...

Uh, I have no clue how to do that.

Anyway, accidents DO happen and doggie does slip its collar, or the septuagenarian might fall down, so.. muzzle 'em. All of 'em.

Good luck finding a muzzle to fit a 2l b yorkie.

I think that's a nice start.

What do you got? What's gonna proactively protect folks from dogs capable of killing adult men, who "go off" occasionally without warning, provocation or previous signs of aggression?

DubV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DubV said...

Anonymous,

I get your point, but to expand on it.

Chain link wouldn't work.

They chew right through it.

I saw (well the aftermath of) a frightened golden retriever mutt chew through 1/4" welded bars when she was so scared by a storm that she was willing to hurt herself to get out.

For a pit, a chain link fence might as well be made of pretzel sticks.

DubV said...

How she did it was to bite so hard that she broke the weld points between the bars and then bent the bars inward until she made a hole she could squeeze through.

Anonymous said...

DubV, I am, unfortunately, aware of certain breed's anti-chainlink abilities. That's why I added hotwire.

A properly constructed hotwire can hold in just about anything, they use it in zoos and wild animal parks for even large predators, though it has to be constructed right and functioning. The chainlink serves to slow the dog down enough to get shocked, and it's great for grounding the dog for better effect.

Perhaps we need to add that the fence needs to be installed by a licensed animal containment expert and frequently inspected.

That'd pretty much put the cost of just CONTAINING a yorkie beyond the budget of just about every middle class family, but it would be effective non-BSL legislation, don't you think? Keep us all safe an secure?



Anonymous said...

Wait, wait! I made a mistake. That hotwire's too high for a yorkie. Damned thing will just duck right under.

Let's see, if this needs to be non-BSL, how ARE we going to legislate proper containment? I mean, height is a factor of breed or "heritage" as one proposed law

Maybe electrifying the whole chainlink?

That ought to be popular with the neighbors.

DubV said...

I saw where Brent Toellner posted here and then deleted his comment.

I'm thinking he is likely behind some of the anonymous comments that came afterward.

I love how these folks just point to the opinions of experts as if this stuff is all so hard that us plebs just can't get it.

They think what we are doing amounts to disagreeing with Stephen Hawking about the nature of black holes.

The bottom line: most of your experts are either ideologically driven, dumb as nails, or their positions can be deconstructed. Plus, why should dog behaviorists have the final word on a problem where dogs intersect with humans and other animals?

"dawn james" said...

oh my. brent toellner. well, that changes everything.

hey lisa camuso, karen batchelor and brian christ, look what your expert is doing. lol. he's hiding his identity. why?

Anonymous said...

Whoever he/she is, I'm really curious to see what they would propose and effective PROACTIVE non-BSL legislation that would address the growing public safety issue of dog attacks.

DubV said...

Brent Toellner,

Dog breeds are so diverse in form and function, that some can almost be considered separate species in a sense. (yeah, don't lecture me on the species concept, my point should be clear even to you)

Among mammals, domestic dogs have some of the greatest diversity, if not the most, within a single species.

What you'd like is equivalent to regulating all things within a class called "chemicals" in a similar manner. Yep, benzene, baking soda, and sodium cyanide. All chemicals. So, let's come up with a way to keep us all safe from chemicals, shall we?

Now, that sounds super easy and efficient as far as resources, right?

DubV said...

"Most laws are not put up for public vote. That's why we have law making bodies that are to represent the best interests of society."

Brent, please give us your detailed philosophical position against direct democracy?

Have you ever been unable to get something passed and then appealed to public opinion in your argument or wanted a referendum?

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/26/3676116/euthanasia-rate-is-down-but-crowding.html

"Sharp said the real answer for both the animals and the public is a new animal shelter. He’s pushing for a $10 million bond issue on the November ballot, an idea that he’s floated in the past, gaining little traction with the rest of the council.

“The city needs to consider giving the voters of Kansas City a chance to see if they will approve a small bond issue,” he said, “to build a modern, humane animal shelter that isn’t an embarrassment.”"

So, when a popular vote gives your group $10 million to build a new shelter, are you going to turn it down, fool?

Anonymous said...

Contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a direct democracy. It's a Republic. Where people vote for other people to make the laws. As US Citizens, we almost never directly vote on laws unless they're written directly into state constitutions.

There is a good reason for this. Because in a direct democracy, the will of the majority can often put every minority group at major risk. I shudder to think where we'd be as a nation on a civil rights front if we functioned as a direct democracy.

Fortunately, politicians are generally able to navigate through reliable and unreliable sources better than the folks in this blog and not fall into the ridiculous notion that the AVMA, NACA, Dog Training groups et al are successful because of some dogfighting lobby - which is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.

Anonymous said...

"Interestingly, in the state of Florida there have been 18 pit bull fatalities since Miami-Dade's pit bull ban was passed. Again, please note that Miami-Dade has not had a fatality."

Wow. That's compelling. Except that there are 410 cities and towns in Florida. So that means if all 18 fatalities happened in different cities, then there are 391 cities without breed bans that have also not had a fatality. Miami, or Denver not having a fatality isn't because of their law, it's because statistically every city in the country is unlikely to have had one in the past 25 years.

This site is failing at statistics and High School Civics.

"dawn james" said...

hey brent, for your records.

washington
south dakota
missouri

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/

"dawn james" said...

"What you'd like is equivalent to regulating all things within a class called "chemicals" in a similar manner. Yep, benzene, baking soda, and sodium cyanide. All chemicals. So, let's come up with a way to keep us all safe from chemicals, shall we?"

i love it when mr science shows up. if i was a nutter, i'd be banning him in 3...2...1 :-)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving my point.

According to that amazing summary, in the 3 states listed, not a single one of them has passed a law by direct vote of the general population in the past 13 years.

But all of them have had major law changes in the past 12 months based on the vote of representatives that we elect to make laws for us.

DubV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DubV said...

"Contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a direct democracy. It's a Republic. "

Haha....you think I don't know this Brent?

We obviously have a mix and there are times when we are a direct democracy.

If you get your $10 million check, as a result of a direct vote, then will you turn it down?

There has to be an answer to that type of question.

And the idea that elected politicians are elites that can wade through arguments and come to a great decision is wishful thinking at best in these days.

Brent, you're probably as smart as the average politician, and that's scary as hell to the rest of us.

Oh, and most politicians are about like advertising agents, like yourself, as far as what keeping their job requires them to do on a daily basis.

DubV said...

Brent, I've told you this over and over. Just stop, you aren't smart, k?

"Miami-Dade County (commonly called Miami, Miami-Dade, Dade County, Dade, Metro-Dade or Greater Miami) is a county located in the southeastern part of the state of Florida. As of the 2010 census, the county had a population of 2,496,435,[1] making it the most populous county in Florida and the seventh-most populous county in the United States."

1. Miami-Dade is a county
2. it is the most populous county in FL and one of the most populous in the US
3. you would obviously normalize rates by population and not simply by city/town number (even then you'd be wrong according to point 1 I made)

"dawn james" said...

haha! DubV you just made my day with this link.

what a surprise! toellner is a hypocrite and is directly involved with another no kill facility on the verge of failure.

“We’ve worked really hard to make this a nice place for people to come visit,” Toellner said.

you're all about image toellner, that' why you chose the profession you did. you're priorities are all wrong. i could give a shit if human visitors are comfortable with the facility. this should first and foremost be a healthy and comfortable environment FOR THE ANIMALS stuck under the care of the no kill freaks.

i'll be back later to check on the debate. it is in very good hands.

"dawn james" said...

"Thanks for proving my point. "

omg omg you are a fucking idiot! the website hasn't been updated. or haven't you heard, the PEOPLE of washington state just passed recreational marijuana use.

DubV said...

I think these no-kill folks believe in the The Secret and other mumbo jumbo. They at least seem to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book)

Just act as reality is as you'd like and then the resources will come in as a result of your wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, we have cats in Brent's shelter living in filth, but he said they were just having a bad day!

I hope Brent isn't anyone's medical power of attorney. We're talking ventilator and feeding tube for like 20 years. He'd likely justify it by comparing his own brain scan to that of the afflicted though.

Anonymous said...

Hey, dufus anon attempting to give us a civics lesson, what's your proposal to PROACTIVELY protect the public from the growing numbers of severe dog attacks?


Oh and, ain't Miami-Dade a wee bit larger in population then them other municipalities you allude to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Dade_County,_Florida

The wheels is fallin' off your logic wagon, bud.

"dawn james" said...

how could not be aware of this issue given that washington and colorado BOTH just passed this law last fall. i don't even like football but that's all they are talking about.

seriously the only other explanations than just plain fucking stupid: you fell off of the turnip truck, you just awoke from a coma or you are an alien from mars.

"dawn james" said...

"I hope Brent isn't anyone's medical power of attorney. We're talking ventilator and feeding tube for like 20 years. He'd likely justify it by comparing his own brain scan to that of the afflicted though."

you're the best DubV. but seriously, i gotta run. later!

Anonymous said...

So you post an old link (one that apparently hasn't been updated in over a decade) and are arguing that the US is a direct democracy and not a Republic and I'm the idiot?

Ok.

Do you really think that most laws in this country are voted on as a direct democracy?

Anonymous said...

BTW, this sort of shatters your POV on Miami-Dade doesn't it DubV?

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/07/2006-fatality-56-year-old-pablo-rudolfo.html

Or are people just less dead if they're killed by a Boxer and not a pit bull?

Just curious.

So, apparently people in Miami aren't safer with their breed ban. Like all the experts have said all along.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, Anon giving the civics lesson, I've been reading along and I didn't see anyone claim anything of the sort

AND

Your point appears to be that "Politicians smart, people dumb"

AND

"Lobbyists make Politicians smart, bloggers make people dumb"

SO

I conclude you've been sleeping under a rock since at least the Powell Memo, or your birth, however long you've been asleep.

Anonymous said...

GAWD, that's like saying that because a person is killed in a car accident with their seat belt on, we should repeal seat belt laws.

Anonymous said...

I think you misread.

My point: This is a Republic. Not a Direct Democracy. At 11:20 DubV asked what was the opposition to Direct Democracy. And it's simply that we don't live in one and that's not how the vast majority of all laws in this country are made. That's a fact, and yet "DubV" and "Dawn" have both argued against that. I don't know why it's so hard to grasp.

Anonymous said...

"GAWD, that's like saying that because a person is killed in a car accident with their seat belt on, we should repeal seat belt laws."

When the person's only supporting point for the success of Miami's pit bull ban was that no one had died since the law was enacted proves to be an incorrect statement, it seems relevant to point out, don't you think?

Bans are an ineffective solution. They have proven repeatedly to be ineffective. And making up statements to support your position doesn't change that...

Anonymous said...

No, they have not, but I'm sure they'll be back to assist you with your reading comprehension.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree with your assessment of BSL, civics edumacating dude, stats prove it.

However, I'm more interested in getting your answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.

How do you propose to PROACTIVELY protect the public from the increase in severe dog attacks?

Come on, if it's really that good, we can pass your law and ALL be happy.

Don't you want us ALL to be happy?

Anonymous said...

The short answer is this:

Create a breed-neutral, behavior-based law. In the law, you clearly define the behavior of a "potentially dangerous" dog.

Think of it like this: You live next door to a dog that you think is aggressive because it's lunching at the chain, or fence, or whatever. You can call Animal Control and they can come evaluate the dog, based on its behavior, for aggression. If the dog is found to be "potentially dangerous", owners will then have to provide secure fencing, attend dog ownership training classes and potentially sterilization -- this at the owner's expense.

There would also be an appeals process set up for dog owners to protect them as well.

As a member of the public, I'd much rather have animal control focus limited resources on dogs (and owners) that based on their BEHAVIOR need to have more time spent with them than knocking on doors trying to determine if someone's non-aggressive dog is a pit bull or not. I'd also like them to show up if I am scared of my neighbor's Great Dane or German Shepherd and not just if I say it's a pit bull.

It seems like a proactive way to get at potentially aggressive dogs BEFORE they bite someone -- without wasting resources on dogs that aren't aggressive. And it's worked very well in communities where I've seen it implemented without the ridiculous breed ID lawsuits, etc. This is what most professional are pushing for now, and yet face opposition and name calling from sites like this.

"dawn james" said...

just a quick on the excitement here at craven.

"Brent, I've told you this over and over. Just stop, you aren't smart, k?"

well said DubV, it needs repeating.


no brent, i have not argued that we do not live in a republic. i simply PROVED that we pass a lot of laws by direct vote of the people. the difference between me and most nutters, they will express an opinion with absolutely no evidence to support it and hope for the best. i will express an opinion and back it up. if i had the time, i would look at all of the initiatives that were passed in the last 13 years since that california organization stopped tracking them just to rub your nose in it further.

but i have successfully argued that you are not smart.

later.

Anonymous said...

Well, I had a look at the Kansas City Pet Project. Guess what breed of dog is most common there?

Well over half of the dogs available for adoption are pit bulls. Mandatory spay-neuter for pit bulls would dramatically reduce the load on that shelter but pit bull advocates won't have any of that.

I don't think that pit bull advocates like Brent Toellner really even care about dogs. They promote a breed that was created to violently destroy other dogs, and even though pit bulls are by far the most common dog in shelters, they will not consider the one thing that would reduce their numbers.

It's not people who don't want to own pit bulls who have caused all the problems associated with this breed. It's 100% the owners and breeders. Until pit bull fanatics own up to that fact, pit bulls are going to continue to clog shelters and kill at a rate that dramatically exceeds that of all other breeds combined.

Garnet

Anonymous said...

Patrick Burns has had a lot of fun with Toellner too. Brent Toellner is a sad little man.

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/12/pit-bulls-as-cash-cows-and-cause.html

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/12/pit-bulls-in-river.html

scorched earth said...

Brent,

Nobody ever said that only pit bulls kill, you miss the point. Actually you miss a lot of points.

Consider if you will, Ohio. You did a great deal of fist pumping over the change in Ohio to a breed neutral law with provisions for " an appeals process set up for dog owners to protect them as well."

FOI documents clearly proved that the law was written by Ledy Vankavage's staff at Best Friends Animal Society. Please note that Best Friends is an out-of-state PAC. Furthermore, FOI documents indicate that this was not Best Friend's first attempt to write Ohio law. Ledy Vankavage presented Barbara Sears with an earlier version in 2009.

Now lets look at fatalities in Ohio. In 1987 Dr. William Eckman was mauled to death by pit bulls. In the same year two year old Shannon Tucker was killed by a pit bull and a Rottweiler. These two deaths prompted the law that regulated pit bulls in Ohio, you could have them but you had to contain them and insure them. Not outrageous conditions.

In 1992 Angela Kaplan was killed by her boyfriend's pit bull. This was murder by pit bull and the boyfriend is still serving time.

In 2000 there was a mauling death in Ohio, a child was killed by her grandmother's wold hybrid.

In 2005 Ernie Assad was killed by a pit bull and an Ambull.

In 2010 Michael Winters was killed by his own pack of dogs, 5 Bull mastiff mixes, 3 pit mixes and 1 Rottie mix.

So we have a mauling death in 1992, one in 2000, one in 2005, and one in 2010. See a pattern here. A death with an 8 year time lapse, another death with a 5 year time lapse, another death with a 5 year time lapse.

Please note that nobody ever said that dogs other than pit bulls kill but these attacks are not common.

Now in 2012 Best Friends writes new law that was sold to legislators as "finally, the bill gives dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs."

In the first year after passage of
this law four Ohio residents were killed by dogs. A three day old baby was killed by her grandmother's pit bull. A 40 year old man was killed by his own designer dog pit bull mix. An adult woman was killed by her own Cane Corsos. Another adult woman was killed by her own German Shepherd. In 2013 an infant was killed by the family Shiba Inus

Does it sound like Ohio is safer since HB 14 was passed? Not to me, four deaths in the first year and another the next year looks like a huge fail. If this law gave dog wardens the "tools to finally deal with dangerous dogs" somebody failed to notice.

It is also worthwhile to note that the appeals process procedures set up to protect dog owners are so outrageously skewed and difficult that we are not seeing charges filed by dog wardens, it is simply too much trouble.

As Garnet stated "It's not people who don't want to own pit bulls who have caused all the problems associated with this breed. It's 100% the owners and breeders. Until pit bull fanatics own up to that fact, pit bulls are going to continue to clog shelters and kill at a rate that dramatically exceeds that of all other breeds combined."

"dawn james" said...

i think no kill and pit bull advocates also share in the blame. not all pit bull advocates own or breed pit bulls.

Anonymous said...

"Well, I had a look at the Kansas City Pet Project. Guess what breed of dog is most common there?

Well over half of the dogs available for adoption are pit bulls. Mandatory spay-neuter for pit bulls would dramatically reduce the load on that shelter but pit bull advocates won't have any of that."

Interestingly, Kansas City mandated the sterilization of pit bulls in 2006. Maybe if you paid more attention you'd realize why advocates oppose the law.

"dawn james" said...

and the prosecutor declines to charge the spanaway wa nutter despite the fact the neighbors claim the mutants exhibited aggression.

pit nutters win again!

Anonymous said...

In the first year after passage of
this law four Ohio residents were killed by dogs. A three day old baby was killed by her grandmother's pit bull. A 40 year old man was killed by his own designer dog pit bull mix. An adult woman was killed by her own Cane Corsos. Another adult woman was killed by her own German Shepherd. In 2013 an infant was killed by the family Shiba Inus

Does it sound like Ohio is safer since HB 14 was passed? Not to me,"

Well obviously if they'd kept their law targeting pit bulls people would have been kept safe from the Shibu Inus, German Shepherds and Cane Corsos.


scorched earth said...

Brent,

Again you miss the point. Death by dog was rare in Ohio until Best Friends wrote a bill that deregulated pit bulls AND made the process of charging the owners of violent dogs nearly impossible.

This is universal to bills written by Best Friends, the law no longer protects peaceful citizens it protects violent dogs and their owners. Four people died in the first year after the bill was passed. The bill was sold as a means to give dog wardens the "tools to deal with dangerous dogs." It has not worked out that way, the state is far more dangerous. A death every five to eight years versus four deaths in one year, this should be simple to understand.

Please try to keep up. This is why your blog is only read by pitters, they are the only ones that are willing to suspend rational thought.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it does not mandate sterilization. One can get a permit to breed pit bulls for $100. That's pathetic. No one needs to be breeding pit bulls. Even putting aside the issue of how often they kill people, it's damn clear there are too many of them.

Also, I am going to emphasize this point again - people who do not like or want pit bulls are not breeding them, nor are they dumping them in shelters. It's pit bull owners. If pit bull fanatics actually give a shit about dogs, they need to go after the people who are producing all of those unwanted pit bulls - the pit bull breeders. Not legislators, not dogsbite.org, not animal control - the pit bull breeders.

I also see Toellner got his ass handed to him by terrierman on this issue. Hah!

I really would like to see so-called pit bull lovers go after the real cause of the problem - breeders. But they won't because they're too damn cowardly.

It's easy to blame BSL, but shelters would not have any pit bulls if people didn't f*cking breed so many of them.

Garnet

Anonymous said...

Oh. You're right Garnet. I'm sure the shelter in KC is full of pit bulls that were bred by people who paid for the $100 breeding license.

Is there no end to the ridiculous making-up-of-information that will go on here?

Anonymous said...

The fact that there's a loophole indicates that the city isn't terribly serious about reducing the number of pit bulls around. It's clearly doing a shit job of making sure that pit bulls end up sterilized, or else people are getting pit bulls from elsewhere, and the breeding bans need to be enacted in neighbouring counties. If free spay/neuter needs to be offered to people to get them to comply, then that should be done.

No matter what, shelters are full of pit bulls that did not need to be bred, but feel free to ignore that aspect of the problem! Just pretend there's no problems in the pit bull community, and pit bulls can continue to suffer in shelters and be
euthanized in large numbers.

Garnet

DubV said...

"Interestingly, Kansas City mandated the sterilization of pit bulls in 2006. Maybe if you paid more attention you'd realize why advocates oppose the law."

Brent crowed about this on his blog.

What he said was that after the mandatory S/N came in that all the poor as dirt pit nutters dropped their dogs off at the pound.

There was a big uptick in pit bull surrenders and Brent said that it was just awful.

I'm betting that mandatory S/N of golden retrievers wouldn't cause this issue.

But this is interesting.

No kill freaks like Brent would have us believe that there are enough homes for dogs and that there are resources to get dogs S/N.

If not, then what do they actually believe? And why do they try to force places to become no kill when they know (from the system being flooded) that the system can't handle what no kill would actually entail?


Well, when something comes to pass that pushes that point, his house of cards falls.

I think they want it to be called no kill (and to get to wear the t shirt) while they try not to remember what is going on around them.

It turns out that pit bull owners either can't afford a dog or don't care enough to get it S/N. And the KC dog community can't handle it either.

Brent just wants a slow suffering he doesn't see with periodic bake sales where someone tells him what a great job he is doing and he gets a photo op with a pit mix.

I could dig up that blog post of Brent's but after I told him that you could determine mathematically how many fewer dogs would live brutal lives even if many more were surrendered now (i.e. mandatory S/N is like ripping the band aid off, and after that you would not have a pit bull problem)...and he predictably said he wouldn't even want to entertain the idea...and then he cited some emotional reasons sprinkled with what seemed like logic or something.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing to read people spout opinions about things they know nothing about.

Today I've learned that we should put laws up for public vote, even though that's not how most laws are done in this country.

I've learned that because Miami hasn't had a fatal dog attack in 25 years, it proves that breed bans work. Except they have had a fatality, but now that doesn't matter.

I've found out that Best Friends getting rid of breed specific laws in Ohio is the reason why people died from German Shepherd, Cane Corso and Shibu Inu attacks.

And I've also found out that Kansas City would apparently have fewer pit bulls in their shelter if they enacted mandatory spay/neuter of pit bull legislation that they already apparently have.

I also learned that if you get to become no kill, you get a t-shirt.

I then posted a proactive alternative that maximized animal control resources focusing them on proactively on dogs based on their behavior instead of on dogs based on how they look, and that was completely ignored.

It's been a VERY entertaining day.

Sputnik2009 said...

Brent Toellner @ 3:21 pm
: "You can call Animal Control and they can come evaluate the dog, based on its behavior, for aggression."

Ah, he means the same accurate 'behavior evaluations' that have many times determined, after a pit bull had mauled or killed, that the pit bull that killed a human yesterday wasn't aggressive. Hahaha, not today, but maybe tomorrow again (just like when it killed yesterday).

He means the kind of 'behavior evaluation' that even academic pit freaks Horowitz and Reisner admit will NOT be able to test aggression directed at family members, impulsive aggression, rage syndrome aggression, etc.

You can't fix stupid. You can't fix obsessively self-adoring either. The man is in fact completely indifferent to the fate of pit bulls (and normal dogs, and children, and...). He's just found a vehicle that can get everyone to watch him publicly masturbate and discuss his technique in that with him.

Sputnik2009 said...

Afterthoughts...

Toellner also seems to believe that paper (not genes) make the dog. You know, anything some KC writes down upon being paid to do so suddenly proves something.

The Cane Corso is a pit bull type dog -- a gripping bulldog -- no less than any of the others he'd like to exclude (eg, Am Bull, Dogo, Presa, and so on). Ha, but when it comes time to choose 'do we euthanize this harmless small mutt or the Cane Corso that just came in', you can bet your panties that Toellner knows the CC is a gripping bulldog and will kill the innocent dog instead.

Re Miami-Dade Toellner is showing the kind of moral terpitude that most pit freaks possess: If we can't prevent all deaths by dog, then why bother to prevent the many more that we can prevent?

Gads, look at me -- I couldn't resist discussing his public masturbation technique after all. Sorry guys.

Anonymous said...

"Re Miami-Dade Toellner is showing the kind of moral terpitude that most pit freaks possess: If we can't prevent all deaths by dog, then why bother to prevent the many more that we can prevent?"

It was simply in response to your person believing pit bull bans worked based on inaccurate information from Miami Dade. But then, when given correct information, now it no longer matters because the opinion is still same. That says a lot about the decision-making process around here: creating beliefs on made up or false information and then holding to those beliefs even in light of new evidence. Sad really.

And no, we'll never prevent all dog-related deaths unless we get rid of all dogs. I'm not the one trying to do that -- that's you guys -- and even then, you're going about it the wrong way.

The good news is that politicians are listening to the experts out in the field and not the inane, anonymous blogging community.

april 29 said...

Brent,

They are not "experts", they are professional pit bull advocates.

Politicians listen to the money. They have a very difficult time walking away from lobbyists with carpetbags full of cash.

Anonymous said...

LOL. I'm sure all the vets at the AVMA, and all of the professional dog training groups and all of the shelter workers who handle dogs daily are wondering where their big paychecks are.

Anonymous said...

"It was simply in response to your person believing pit bull bans worked based on inaccurate information from Miami Dade. But then, when given correct information, now it no longer matters because the opinion is still same. That says a lot about the decision-making process around here: creating beliefs on made up or false information and then holding to those beliefs even in light of new evidence. Sad really."

There is a difference between opinion and fact. There have been NO DEATHS in Miami Dade County, where BSL exists.

What fact did you provide that dispelled reality? The fact that would change all of the "opinions?"

Focus, I want an answer.

Anonymous said...

OT but I wonder who is behind this and why. http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/dog-bite-victim-dog-bites-New-investigation-dog/story-20538457-detail/story.html

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Miami-Dade pit dog ban. I'm not understanding you.

Anonymous @Feb 3, 2014 at 5:09 AM

"It was simply in response to your person believing pit bull bans worked based on inaccurate information from Miami Dade. But then, when given correct information, now it no longer matters because the opinion is still same. That says a lot about the decision-making process around here: creating beliefs on made up or false information and then holding to those beliefs even in light of new evidence. Sad really."

I have some questions:

"pit bull bans worked based on inaccurate information from Miami Dade" - What inaccurate information?

"when given correct information" - What correct infomation?

"creating beliefs on made up or false information" - What false infomation?

"then holding to those beliefs even in light of new evidence." - What new evidence?

Unless you can be more specific you've said a lot of nothing.

scorched earth said...

Brent,

Terrierman was correct, you do not read. The conversation was clearly about pit bull mauling deaths. You have gone off on a tangent and done a victory dance but you did not actually read anything and again, you have missed the point.

Here is the actual quote "Interestingly, in the state of Florida there have been 18 pit bull fatalities since Miami-Dade's pit bull ban was passed. Again, please note that Miami-Dade has not had a fatality. Mandatory neuter and spay programs for pit bulls drastically cut the numbers of pit bulls in shelters and euthanization numbers. What is wrong with preventing suffering, both the suffering of potential victims and of the dogs themselves?

When the term "pit bull fatalities" has been used in the previous sentence, one does not feel that it needs to be again stated in following sentence. Most people have the attention span to allow them to remember from one sentence to the next.

Rhea Luna said...

wow this guy is so dumb my dumbass could debate him and come out sounding smart
the first thing I noticed is he says a dog should show aggression before they can be labeled as dangerous

someone tell that to the countless victims whose pitbulls worked quietly and killed and attacked the victim without the slightest warning or previous sign of aggression. do I have to pull up the newspaper articles to show this idiot exactly how stupid & pathetic he really is?

Rhea Luna said...

I love how this simpleton reasons in a child like manner that the shelter pitbulls are not the same ones coming from dime a dozen pitbull breeders. Just from reading his comments I can assume he thinks $100 is a lot of money because he has proven he thinks like a child by his drivel. Children often think $100 is a lot of money and thereby hard to obtain. So in his mind only high class type people with educational backgrounds are obtaining licensing to breed pitbulls and are most likely selecting new owners for the dogs with scrutiny because the cost of breeding. He does not know that any dumbass in America with at the very least a minimum wage job can afford $100 and where I come from you can breed pitbulls easy. Each dog sells for $50-150 each. Backyard breeding is so common among pitbull breeders.
And just where does he think the shelter pits come from? the anti-pitbull fairy? they come from somewhere genius. The breeders obtaining the very inexpensive license to breed are putting out the dogs to every tom, Dick& harry and every fur mombie with the cash to take the dog home. these people arent known for breeding the dogs in nice kennels and taking time to do home visits and interviews with potential buyers. they are about profiting while its hot because pitbulls are pushed on American families as "docile house pets" as soon as the puppyhood wears off: guess where that sog goes? not back to the trashy breeder.....to the pound and shelters.

how the hell else do you surmise the dogs come about? what sorcery do you suppose is in play here? mindless pitiot

DubV said...

"I also learned that if you get to become no kill, you get a t-shirt."

This may or may not be Brent Toellner.

The anonymous user is saying idiotic things like Brent. So, it is possible.

Brent can't stand not having the ability to go back and delete all the comments from someone in order to shape reality.

I like how out of all I wrote, he picked up a joke and then acted as if I were serious in the above quotation.

I'm still wondering why Brent trusts the word of dog people on how to keep non-dogs safe from dogs. It's crazy that he can't see why someone might question that type of experts framing of things and loyalties.

"dawn james" said...

wonderful. another anonymous self report questionnaire on the hows and whys of dog bites will be paraded by TOELLNER as sound science. scientific discovery is once again in the hands of pit bull advocates.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

"Debbie has launched a new investigation into dog attacks and the real causes behind them. Via an anonymous questionnaire, the owners of dogs who have bitten people and dog bite victims will be asked a series of questions designed to take a forensic style look at the whole scenario surrounding why these bite attacks happen."

Sounds like a waste of time unless pit nutters are digging for more excuses other then the violent history of the pit bull fighting dog. I will post what I posted on another article only 5 minutes ago.

---

"It's a pit bull it's gonna fight."

I put the above statement in quotes because a long time ago, I have heard those exact words spoken by a pit bull owner. HAHA!

---

Dawn, at the very beginning of the article the author states:

"Debbie Connolly of SafePets UK is the Training and Behaviour consultant for the Pet Education Trust whose goal is to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC"

That is pit propaganda for sure.

He/she does lightly touch the subject of genetics:

"concerned about the impact that bad breeding"

That is all and I really couldn't say if the author is referring to behavior.

Unbeknownst to that dumb bitch, there are studies well under way that look to identify breed specific behaviors and aggression as related to working dog's GENETICS. It's actually a study from the Human Genome Project, but they use dogs as a reference because pure breed working dogs are a great place to start since they were selectively bred for specific behaviors. Pointers, retrievers, herders, livestock guardians, etc.

scorched earth said...

Pit bull advocacy has been using the "educate the public" scam for 30 years. The "education" has proven to be of zero value because there isn't any. The bodies keep piling up.

As Vintage says "hose the blood off the sidewalk and pump out another litter."

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Scorched,

Yep, pit nutters look to educate the people who don't own pit bulls. Like somehow we're doing something wrong. Walking wrong, looking at the pit dog, jogging, getting mail, sleeping, breathing...

That is truly narcissistic and moronic behavior. A true waste of time and effort.

Every time a pit nutter tries to do something like that, the pit nutter should be kicked in the face and their pit bull sent to a third world country to nourish people less fortunate.

Anonymous said...

"When the term "pit bull fatalities" has been used in the previous sentence, one does not feel that it needs to be again stated in following sentence."

I see. I didn't realize we no longer cared when people died from dog attacks by other breeds and that somehow those no longer mattered. I'm sure the family will be comforted that at least it wasn't a death by a pit bull.

Anonymous said...

"someone tell that to the countless victims whose pitbulls worked quietly and killed and attacked the victim without the slightest warning or previous sign of aggression. do I have to pull up the newspaper articles to show this idiot exactly how stupid & pathetic he really is?"

If your measure of accurate information about how or why dogs bite and attacks comes from newspaper articles and not from experience handling dogs or from people with experience handling dogs, then you're not really basing your idea of how dogs bite on real knowledge in the slightest. Dogs never bite unprovoked or without warning. Just because many people don't have any idea how to recognize warning signs, or are trying to avoid a liability case, doesn't make their claim of a dog never showing aggression before true. Please repeat after me NEWSPAPER REPORTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. It doesn't replace knowledge, or science. Sorry to disappoint.

Anonymous said...

Rhea -- Before you comment that you think all the pit bulls at the Kansas City shelter are from people with breeder licenses you might want to see if they've even sold any breeding licenses. You clearly haven't, but are basing your opinion on the idea that the law works and that the dogs are coming from licensed breeders based on zero evidence to that point. That's just being purposefully ignorant.

Anonymous said...

"I'm still wondering why Brent trusts the word of dog people on how to keep non-dogs safe from dogs. It's crazy that he can't see why someone might question that type of experts framing of things and loyalties."

I can't speak for Brent, but I think most people on the experts side trust the side of the experts because is also mirrors their own experience. Experience with handling dogs is a very powerful thing. As best I can tell, you position is supported by a web developer, a two lawyers (no agenda there) and self-employed "journalist". I can't imagine why anyone would side with the experts here, especially when it matches their own experience.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Anon @1:57PM, "I didn't realize we no longer cared when people died from dog attacks by other breeds and that somehow those no longer mattered."

They all matter. The problem is pit bulls dominate fatalities by dog. After all, they are blood sport dogs.

For 2013, pit bulls again, kill more than all other breeds combined. I believe pit dogs were responsible for 80-90% of the fatalities in 2013. The pit bull problem has only gotten worse and we can attribute that to people like yourself.

For the other breeds, it could be considered a freak occurrance.


Anon @2:01PM, "If your measure of accurate information about how or why dogs bite and attacks comes from newspaper articles..."

If you actually read this article, the title, "anti-BSL stealth bombs", "Genetics - any questions?"

Do you people even read before you post?


Anon, most of the people who post here have experience with dogs. I'd say they have much more experience than yourself.


Your statement, "Dogs never bite unprovoked or without warning." is misleading.

For pit bulls, the attacks that appear "unprovoked" are actually "self-provoked" by the pit bull dog. It is a breed specific behavior which is internally motivated and internally rewarded. There is no real need for someone to "provoke" a pit bull dog, only that the pit dog's behavior is "triggered".

Consider a pointer's behavior to point at something of interest. That is a breed specific behavior of pointer breeds which has been selectively bred for and passed down for generations. There is no need to train a pointer to point, it is internally motivated and internally rewarded.

Consider a Border Collie's herding instinct. The crouch and stalk behavior is a modification of the prey drive passed down for generations. If a BC doesn't act like a BC, it may still be a BC but a poor representitive of the breed.


For your information Anon, news is based on facts. Sure, there's some room to play but when someone is attacked or killed by a pit bull and it ends up in the news, you can bet your ass it happened.

You think every pit bull attack in the news is a type of War of the World's hoax?

Any questions?

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Anon @2:11PM "I think most people on the experts side trust the side of the experts because is also mirrors their own experience."

What "experts"? You mean the dog fighters and dog fighting enthusiasts? The "lion tamers"?

Anon, "Experience with handling dogs is a very powerful thing."

I guarantee you, those are the Words of a vet tech. HAHAHA!

"dawn james" said...

i guarantee you those are the words of a slimy advertising dude.

"dawn james" said...

"Consider a Border Collie's herding instinct. The crouch and stalk behavior is a modification of the prey drive passed down for generations. If a BC doesn't act like a BC, it may still be a BC but a poor representitive of the breed."

my friend snarky calls them Duds.

Anonymous said...

"What "experts"? You mean the dog fighters and dog fighting enthusiasts? The "lion tamers"?"

Ahhh, the biggest myth of all. That dog fighters are behind this. I'm sure all of the vets at the AVMA will be thrilled (and surprised) to hear of their affiliation with dog fighters. As will the folks at the ASPCA (I'm sure dog fighters love them). As will the folks at the National Animal Control Association. The idea that all of these groups oppose breed bans because they are affiliated with dog fighting is the best conspiracy theory ever.

Anonymous said...

"There is no need to train a pointer to point, it is internally motivated and internally rewarded."

Haha. You might want to do a little reading up on this. It really is an interesting study on why pointers do this - and it has nothing to do with internal motivation or rewards.

As for Collies. You know, it's interesting you bring them up. For YEARS breeders of Border Collies fought the AKC in making them a recognized breed. They feared that the AKC, which focus on looks, would ruin the breed, which they've been breeding for generations based on function. If you look at real Collies (Huskies are similar), they really have a very varied outward appearance because they were bred based on function, not appearance. And breeders know that if you start breeding for appearance, they'll quickly lose their function.

This is why judging dogs based on appearance is a completely flawed system, because the genes for appearance and the genes determining look are not the same.

And since I know where you are going next, I'll preempt it. There is no indication that the vast majority of pit bulls haven't been bred for dog fighting in decades.

Dog fighting has been illegal in the US since the 1930s. And been a felony almost everywhere since the 1970s. Most pit bulls are now bred for appearance, not function -- and like the Collie, often have very dis-similar characteristics to dog fighting dogs. Having interacted with both, I can tell you, there is a very pronounced difference.

Genetics is a great thing. But you can't just make up what it means and think you're right. And in this case, you're wrong for both breeds of dogs you mention.

april 29 said...

Brent,

Once again you have jumped from one conclusion to another with absolutely no connection between them

This comment was made to you "When the term "pit bull fatalities" has been used in the previous sentence, one does not feel that it needs to be again stated in following sentence."

Your disconnected response "I see. I didn't realize we no longer cared when people died from dog attacks by other breeds and that somehow those no longer mattered. I'm sure the family will be comforted that at least it wasn't a death by a pit bull."

How do you get a lack of compassion in the comment made to you? You are REALLY reaching here. The comment from Scorched was based on sentence structure not sentiment. You miss a great deal by not reading.

" Dogs never bite unprovoked or without warning. Just because many people don't have any idea how to recognize warning signs, or are trying to avoid a liability case, doesn't make their claim of a dog never showing aggression before true. Please repeat after me NEWSPAPER REPORTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. It doesn't replace knowledge, or science. Sorry to disappoint."

As Rumple beautifully stated " For your information Anon, news is based on facts. Sure, there's some room to play but when someone is attacked or killed by a pit bull and it ends up in the news, you can bet your ass it happened.

You think every pit bull attack in the news is a type of War of the World's hoax?"


Newspapers report the news, they do not make it up. If you want fiction you have to read material produced by the NCRC. There is no science to be found there. Pit bull advocacy is following the playbook of big tobacco and the pharmaceutical industry right up to using the exact same terms. "Sound science" and "junk science" came from tobacco industry "research" that showed no connection between smoking and cancer. Believe that? Actually, nobody believes that.

Both terms are used my Ms. Delise in the outrageous document she calls "research" in the JAVMA.

You are speaking to pit bull victims here. We have lived through unprovoked attacks, been there and done that. Your reassurances do not alter our reality.

Anonymous said...

Pit bulls are bred for appearance? Really? They're fugly. Why would anyone breed them for that?

april 29 said...

Holy cow, pass Brent the aluminum foil to line his hat.

Brent said " Most pit bulls are now bred for appearance, not function -- and like the Collie, often have very dis-similar characteristics to dog fighting dogs. Having interacted with both, I can tell you, there is a very pronounced difference."

Pit bulls are bred for profit not appearance.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to add, please back up your statement that pit bulls are bred for appearance with solid facts. Links, experts, etc.

DubV said...

""There is no need to train a pointer to point, it is internally motivated and internally rewarded."

Haha. You might want to do a little reading up on this. It really is an interesting study on why pointers do this - and it has nothing to do with internal motivation or rewards."

This is just playing with words.

I'm not sure if I am responding to Brent because some of these comments seem to bad even for him.

You cannot explain why BC puppies exhibit herding behaviors without any prompting without appealing to the internal state of the animal.

I read on Brent's blog once that most behaviors are caused by non-brain anatomy because their bodies work best for that behavior, or some such tripe. It was some woo woo mind-body dualism that I was shocked could be believed by a thinking person. Dog breeds obviously vary in how their brains are wired up. I thought this was pretty commonly known.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Anon @3:26PM "Ahhh, the biggest myth of all. That dog fighters are behind this."

I'm willing to bet the dog fighters are cheering you on! I'll just call you a dog fighting enthusiast since you aret so in love with pit dogs.

You ever wonder why no other breed has such a widespread propaganda campaign?

I'm very tired of the pit bull propaganda. "The man biters were culled", "Chihuahuas are more aggressive", "Pit bull Nanny dogs", "It's all in how you raise them", "Coconuts kill more people than pit bulls", "There's no such thing as a pit bull", and on and on and on.

The problem with you pit nutters is you all quote the propaganda, then immediately turn around and log into their Facebook pit dog fan pages (but pit bulls don't exist according to pit nutters) and brag about their pit dog being "game".

It takes a special kind of person to be a pit bull advocate, completely devoid of morals and responsibility.


Anon @3:38PM, "Haha. You might want to do a little reading up on this. It really is an interesting study on why pointers do this - and it has nothing to do with internal motivation or rewards."

You might want to refer to the Human Genome Project which looks at the genetics of pure breed working dogs and their breed specific traits. ;)


Anon, "And breeders know that if you start breeding for appearance, they'll quickly lose their function."

That is completely false as there are many pure breed dogs who possess both the form AND function of the breed. They conform to both the AKC standards and their working club standards.

For instance, look at the HGH titled dogs. They look AND behave like herding dogs of their respective breeds.


Anon, "This is why judging dogs based on appearance is a completely flawed system"

You're implying that AKC working dogs like BCs are based solely on appearance? That's laughable.


Anon, "Genetics is a great thing. But you can't just make up what it means and think you're right. And in this case, you're wrong for both breeds of dogs you mention."

You can consult with the US Library of Medicine and the Human Genome Project. There has been a study on pure breed working dogs since around 2009. ;)

OR you can consult with your local dog fighter/breeder and if he's truthful, he'll let you know why he's got the best and gamiest fightin' dawgz. It's not training, it's BREEDING. It's temperament, it's drives, it's the level of those drives, it's the threshold of those drives.

OR you can keep living in your pit bull fantasy world.

You write like a smart vet tech but you fail to acknowledge genetics and science. Interesting.


Anon, "Experience with handling dogs is a very powerful thing."

Is that your quote Anon? It would explain your fantasy, "It's all in how you raise them."


Anon, "Genetics is a great thing. But you can't just make up what it means and think you're right. And in this case, you're wrong for both breeds of dogs you mention."

I don't make these things up. If you had any real experience with working breed dogs, you wouldn't claim breed specific behaviors are not genetically set/influenced.

Sounds like you're selling snake oil or horrible dog dog training advice. HAHA!

Rumpelstiltskin said...

DubV, I'd say this Anon guy is Brent then.

The flaw in his argument, form = function is that if it looks like a pit bull, it will act like a pit bull, but then he turns around and says, "There is no indication that the vast majority of pit bulls haven't been bred for dog fighting in decades."

He is implying that just because a pit bull looks like a pit bull, it will not necessarily act like a pit bull.

Remember form = function.

Sounds to me like he is chasing his own tail.

"dawn james" said...

"Pit bulls are bred for appearance? Really? They're fugly. Why would anyone breed them for that? "

i hate to say it but that is true of a lot breeds. pugs, pekinese, english bulldogs (and many more) should not exist. it is an atrocity that we allow people to continue to create them.

"dawn james" said...

you only have to look as far as the APBT and the AMSTAFF to see the difference between a dog that is strictly bred for form and one that is not. the shape of all amstaffs will look like almost carbon copies, whereas there will be much variation from breeder & bloodline to breeder & bloodline.

"Ahhh, the biggest myth of all. That dog fighters are behind this. I'm sure all of the vets at the AVMA will be thrilled (and surprised) to hear of their affiliation with dog fighters."

i would not say that dog fighters are the driving force behind this but an unholy alliance exists between them the pet bull people. one of your regular commenters karen batchelor is friends with richard stratton and frank rocc. maybe there are others, it's been a while since i checked. one of your regular commenters, rocky alexander is a former breeder and owner of fighting dogs. his pedigrees are on line.

i will say the same defective personalities exist in the two camps.

Anonymous said...

"Dog fighting has been illegal in the US since the 1930s. And been a felony almost everywhere since the 1970s"

God almighty. Yes, and cocaine, heroine, and meth are illegal, so I guess no one uses those drugs.

People still breed pit bulls for fighting. They're not even that hard to find. Just google "game bred pitbulls" and you'll find plenty of breeders who breed fighting dogs and purposely select for dogs from fighting lines.

Right here, you can order a gamebred pit bull puppy that (through some serious inbreeding) would be a near carbon copy of a great fighting dog:

http://tom-garner-kennels.com/

You can even get a volume discount on gamebred fighting dog puppies! Nice!

Where do you even get the idea that most pit bull breeders are selecting for anything in particular? Many purposely select fighting lines, and the rest don't select for anything in particular. You scoff at the idea that any pit bull breeder would even pay a $100 breeding fee, but you think that they're actually selecting for anything? Many pit bull breeders just breed whatever two dogs they happen to have, if they're not actively selecting dogs from fighting lines. Given that some breeders of game bred pitbulls from fighting lines will sell dogs to anyone, plenty of them end up in the general population. And they often kill dogs and sometimes people. I personally cannot take my sweet, gentle dogs to my local dog park anymore, because several dogs have been killed by pit bulls there.

Seriously, look at some pit bull breeder websites. You'll see references to Chinaman, Bolio, Bullyson, Zebo, and Bolio bloodlines. What kind of dogs do you think those are? Weight pulling champs? Agility champs? They're fighting dogs, some of which were aggressive to people and were known for often killing their opponents in the pit.

An example:

http://www.centralcoastkennel.com/en/storia-gr-ch-adams-zebo-7xw-r-o-m/

Look at more sites and you'll see references to Carver, Colby, or Boudreaux bloodlines. Those are fighting lineages.

What makes you so favor dogs bred for killing anyway? When are you going to implore pit bull breeders to stop what they are doing?

Garnet

Anonymous said...

"'Pit bulls are bred for appearance? Really? They're fugly. Why would anyone breed them for that?'

'i hate to say it but that is true of a lot breeds. pugs, pekinese, english bulldogs (and many more) should not exist. it is an atrocity that we allow people to continue to create them.'"

True, so true. I was so blinded by the ugliness of pit bulls, that I failed to remember that there are ugly/uglier dogs out there.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that no one here seems to read anything other than your own BS.

Too much to respond too, but here are a few thoughts:

"Both terms are used my Ms. Delise in the outrageous document she calls "research" in the JAVMA"

Maybe you should review what "peer review" means. Everything in the JAVMA undergoes Peer Review. It's a substantial undertaking.

"Holy cow, pass Brent the aluminum foil to line his hat." --

This coming from the folks who think dog fighters are funding the 'pit bull lobby". There has never been a shred of evidence that this is true, and yet, you still cling to it.

"You're implying that AKC working dogs like BCs are based solely on appearance? That's laughable."

Border Collies just became a recognized breed by the AKC in 2009, so it's too early to know the impact. But it was an issue raised by breeders of BCs (as I noted). Here's Terrierman's overview (you seem to like him here):

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2007/10/akc-by-faith-alone.html

Here's a little detail on pointing behavior and the fact that its a physiological response, not one based in "internal motivation and rewards":

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/genetics.animal.welfare.html

"People still breed pit bulls for fighting. They're not even that hard to find."

Sure. And they obviously should be prosecuted. But very, very few pit bulls out of the scope of the entire breed of dogs are bred for this purpose. The idea that close lines are important is because the traits that make dogs good fighting dogs are lost very quickly outside of those lines. Which is why most pit bulls don't resemble their unfortunate fighting bretheren in the slightest.

"Pit bulls are bred for appearance? Really? They're fugly. Why would anyone breed them for that?"

The same could easily be said of a Chinese Crested? People have different tastes. Given the popularity of pit bulls, your taste seems different from most people.

"I'd like to add, please back up your statement that pit bulls are bred for appearance with solid facts. Links, experts, etc."

Google "Blue" pit bulls. American Bullies. "Tee Cup Pit Bulls". Red Nose pit bulls, Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, etc. All of these are bred specifically for the look, with no concern for function.

"What makes you so favor dogs bred for killing anyway?"

A) they're not bred for that. See above. B) Experience with dogs that goes beyond reading on the internet.

Mom in Eugene said...

I have a few thoughts on this conversation, things no one has touched on. I hope the pro pit bull advocate is still here, and actually reads this.

"Most people don't listen in order to understand, but listen only to reply."

1) BSL and dangerous dog laws are NOT mutually exclusive! You really can have laws that focus on reducing both the fatalities, and shelter crowding related to pit bull types, as well as complementary laws focused on traditionally aggressive dogs.

Pit bulls do have unique needs, and attack in ways other dogs don't, but most critically, they kill and seriously maim in numbers that dwarf the rest of the dog breeds. Whether it's a total ban on new pits, or simply spay and neuter, containment and insurance mandates, its a start.

Other bull related dogs, Rottweilers, as well as wolf hybrids, could also be covered simply because of their potential for unprovoked, or severe maulings/ fatalities. The top 2 killers ought to be dealt with preventatively, though simply focusing on bull breeds would be a great start.

Other dangerous, aggressive dogs, can also be regulated, in a breed nuetral, and complimentary way. This would be for the fence barker, the frequently growling dog that chases kids, the biters (but not maulers), the constant small nipper that makes kids get stitches, the nasty lab, or mean dalmation.

A bite, or other aggressive events (determined by the public) could trigger increased penalties and responsibilities. This ensures victims of other breeds that attack and harm would be able to have protections, and the owners would be held accountable.

If other dogs fill the spot pit bulls took up, they can be added! The argument that pit owners would just make labs or dobies mean ignored genetics, but it's easily fixed anyway.

Laws are not a one time event, they can be amended! They can even include two types of regulation!

Mom in Eugene said...

2) Many people here have handled dogs, own dogs, worked with dogs, and have either been attacked by, or owned, pit bulls. To say we don't know what we are talking about, but you do, is ridiculous hubris. we have seen unprovoked attacks first hand, by family dogs.

I, like many others, have personally been in an attack by my own family pit bull, one that was well bred, well cared for, trained, contained, and loved. He attacked silently, wholly unprovoked, faster than I could even react. Only quick thinking saved our limbs, possibly our lives, though a dog was lost.

I was in another attack where the only provocation was walking with a chihuahua. Thats it. The dog charged us, but I was armed, so he died. I was still mauled! I now look like a burn victim, and that's not even mentioning the pain and terror, plus the infection that never really left (Im now colonized.)

Many of these maulers have no history of aggression. we know from experience. This is why the retroactive laws (if they even work at all) are not helpful- the first event is likely to be severe, even requiring a life flight!

Mom in Eugene said...



3) I do wonder if the pit owners that vehemently deny pits that have attacked *must* have been abused, maltreated, trained to attack, or have a history of aggression, do so because they know they have hidden, or downplayed their own dogs bad behavior?

How often do we hear of pits that have previously killed cats, small dogs, bit people, chased people down, jumped fences to attack? While many fatal attacks and maulings are from formerly sweet and gentle family dogs, the rest are from these types.

4) If the above argument that the only pits that attack were poorly bred, misused, abused, taught to fight, etc, than why are these known dangerous dogs being rescued and shipped elsewhere? why wouldn't pit owners cull these dogs asap? This argument is total BS, and everyone knows it.

5) I do not think dog fighters are behind this push for legislation. They will do what they do, regardless of the law. We can make it easier, or harder, but most don't respect the law anyway.

**No matter- they benefit greatly from these slack laws!** As do thugs that use the dogs to guard drug houses, attack cops and rivals, etc. We give them carte blanche to breed tons of dogs no one wants, fight and abuse. all in the name of "protecting the breed." Its BS, the only ones protected are irresponsible owners!

Mom in eugene said...

7) I personally believe the push comes from true believers in the "No Kill" concept of shelter management. Only people that are philosophically wedded to an idea, see it as the only "right" way, as well as the desire to be a "savior" to the most abused of animals, will be zealous and narrow minded enough to make this type of law happen.

They know they have a problem if they ever expect to implement their dream of no kill facilities: pit bulls, that make up half, or more, of the population. Voluntary spay and neuter will not stop the back yard breeders, so they need to find an outlet for these surplus animals.

So, where do these dogs go, if they can no longer be euthanized? All those dogs, millions each year, that are in shelters? The majority right at the age where they mature and "turn on", becoming hard to manage? They have to go somewhere! They even ship them around the county to open shelters.

The only real solution these people see is increasing the market for these dogs. I'm sure most have had good experiences, as have millions of people, furthering their denial of their dangerousness.

They must know the stats, and likely see them as minimal, and not as important as saving millions of dog lives. These true believers se dogs as equal to people, but less culpable and responsible, which is recipe for disaster. They attribute human emotions to a fighting breed, and identify with their plight.

8) Its possible some veterinarians feel for these dogs too, as they love animals. It only takes a few well placed, zealous, members to ensure an entire organization tows the line. These believers are the ones with the passion to take over an association. We have no idea if the majority of vets support this push for pits as family dogs, and the no kill philosophy that undergirds it. Professional associations can be biased as well as any organization.

9) WHY do people deny the stats, like they don't exist? WHY do they act like its no big deal, and say things like coconuts kill more people? come on, this is absurd! We can avoid coconut trees, we regulate cars, tobacco, alcohol, and all other things they use as examples.

10) WHY do they ignore the BASICS of the breed? The suburban owners and advocates love to blame thugs for every bad thing related to pits, but the thugs do not hide the fact that these dogs are vicious! They celebrate it. They don't go around suggesting families own them. They do cause the overpopulation issue, but the suburban types aid and abet them with lax laws.

That's it for now. Ought to be a blog post!

"dawn james" said...

"Maybe you should review what "peer review" means. Everything in the JAVMA undergoes Peer Review. It's a substantial undertaking."

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. I regularly received letters from authors who were upset that the BMJ rejected their paper and then published what they thought to be a much inferior paper on the same subject. Always they saw something underhand. They found it hard to accept that peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. But it is probably unreasonable to expect it to be objective and consistent. If I ask people to rank painters like Titian, Tintoretto, Bellini, Carpaccio, and Veronese, I would never expect them to come up with the same order. A scientific study submitted to a medical journal may not be as complex a work as a Tintoretto altarpiece, but it is complex. Inevitably people will take different views on its strengths, weaknesses, and importance.

So, the evidence is that if reviewers are asked to give an opinion on whether or not a paper should be published they agree only slightly more than they would be expected to agree by chance. (I am conscious that this evidence conflicts with the study of Stephen Lock showing that he alone and the whole BMJ peer review process tended to reach the same decision on which papers should be published. The explanation may be that being the editor who had designed the BMJ process and appointed the editors and reviewers it was not surprising that they were fashioned in his image and made similar decisions.)


"This coming from the folks who think dog fighters are funding the 'pit bull lobby".

nope. like i said, there is an unholy alliance between the fighters and the pet bull people.

Mom in eugene said...

11) Retroactive, breed neutral laws, based on aggressive events like vicious, sustained, frequent, growling, chasing, etc, the ones anon thinks are proactive have a major flaw- someone has to report the aggression! This type of rule relies on the public to ensure the dog wardens do their job.

Ever had to live next to the type of dog owner (let alone pit or root owners) that doesn't bother to contain their dogs, leaves them out all day and night, and may joke if they escape and chase? Just as bad are the dog lovers that think their dog can do no wrong, and is the sweetest dog on earth?

Do you think any normal neighbor is going to be willing to call and make a fuss, even anonymously! People have been SHOT simply asking for a neighbors to keep their robobarker quiet during the hours they sleep!! let alone trying to get an aggressive dog labelled aggressive. This is a dangerous thing to expect a normal person to do, and puts the responsibility on everyone BUT the owners.

12) WE ARE THE SILENT MAJORITY. Most people do not want these dogs around, know they are more dangerous than others, and rightly fear them. They are the ones held hostage in their homes, afraid to visit the dog parks, in fear for their small dogs lives, even more scared for their kids, and even chased and attacked on walks. We also fear the owners.

Often, people that work with dogs in shelters, rescues, vet clinics, training, are silenced by zealous coworkers, they may have their jobs and careers threatened! Dare to speak out, and you get death threats, threats of them siccing their "sweet pibble" (aka vicious killer) to rip you apart, even threats of rape and dismemberment. It's nuts. Even those that lost children to pits get such abuse.

Is it any wonder why we are silent? But you all are pushing us to the limit, and once that happens, watch out.

These are animal lovers, dog lovers, and in general, law abiding citizens that don't want conflict, and This

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Anon Feb 3, 2014@8:51PM "Border Collies just became a recognized breed by the AKC in 2009, so it's too early to know the impact. But it was an issue raised by breeders of BCs (as I noted). Here's Terrierman's overview (you seem to like him here):"

From the AKC Boder Collie page:

Recognized worldwide as the premier sheepherding dog, known for its obedience, trainability and natural appearance, the Border Collie was given Herding Group designation and became eligible for full recognition status on October 1, 1995.

Also, a Terrierman quote: "As I noted back a few years ago, it's not really that crazy for a "tiger to go tiger" or for a pit bull "to go pit bull" is it?"

Rhea Luna said...

this level of stupidity is so beneath me I dont have the energy to tell this dimwit off
he had no real argument for why so many countless victims are attacked without warnings. normal dogs warn before attacks
what kind of simpleton.....
newspaper articles, victim stories....these are facts.
I dont need to handle a stupid looking dog to see the evidence stacks up against it and your argument.
you are not smart. stop. just stop.
you cannot reason.
I grew up on a greyhound farm. they didnt need any training to run. they loved running. running a certain way was all they trained them in.

I give up. you deny breed traits and basic genetics. you deny the proof and evidence. if yiu are that stupid I am holding you personally responsible for every human being killed or mauled by the breed you defend. dumbass

Anonymous said...

" The idea that close lines are important is because the traits that make dogs good fighting dogs are lost very quickly outside of those lines. Which is why most pit bulls don't resemble their unfortunate fighting bretheren in the slightest. "

Like hell they don't. Many pit bulls still resemble fighting dogs.

Ignoring the many breeders who use fighting lines or who actually fight dogs doesn't make them go away. Not a lot of breeders select for temperament, and many pit bull fatalities are due to intact dogs that probably have offspring out there. In one of the latest attacks, a four-year-old was killed by a trio of unaltered pit bulls. Their offspring could be out there for all anyone knows.

Plenty of pit bulls show the explosive aggression towards other dogs that fighting dogs display. And yes, I've handled plenty of dogs in my life.

Finally, when are you going to condemn the breeders who are producing the dogs that are clogging shelters? Or are you too afraid of alienating them?

Garnet

Anonymous said...

Also, what proportion of shelter dogs are actually registered American Staffordshire Terriers? Right now, they are 76th in the AKC rankings and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are 79th. Bull Terriers are at 52nd place. They are not terribly common.

The existence of American Bullies doesn't exactly make the pit bull community look good either, as dogs bred to have legs shaped like than tend to develop joint problems. Also, note that breeders of American Bullies actually changed the name of their dogs to differentiate them from fighting pit bulls.

At any rate, most pit bull breeders are grossly irresponsible people, given the number of them in shelters - most of which aren't any sort of AKC registered breed.

tropical storms said...

Gameness and talent are the traits most easily lost, not aggression or bite grip. Even in lines bred for decades will occasionally produce a very talented deep/dead game bulldogs. I can think of several recent examples.
Aggression and bite hold can't be bred out of these types of dogs as those were from the first known records of baiting/fighting. This is simply what they are because it's what they've always been. Selective breeding enhances and accentuates what is already present.

tropical storms said...

Should specify lines bred as pets/show for decades.

april 29 said...

Brent said "
"Both terms are used my Ms. Delise in the outrageous document she calls "research" in the JAVMA"

Maybe you should review what "peer review" means. Everything in the JAVMA undergoes Peer Review. It's a substantial undertaking."

Here is what David Michaels said in his book "Doubt is Their Product, How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" had to say on the peer review process.

"Money changes everything. Financial conflict of interest inevitably shapes judgement - the funding effect- and this correlation must be factored into the consideration of analysis and opinions of scientists employed by industry. During the late 1900s there was a series of alarming instances in which corporations blocked the publication of research that was detrimental to the companies but important for protecting the public's health. Outraged, the editors of 13 of the world's leading biomedical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, declared in 2001 that they will publish only studies done under contracts in which the investigators are 'free of commercial interest.' The editors would no longer accept papers about studies performed under contracts that allowed the sponsor to control the results."

Legitimate medical journals would not have accepted Delise's "research."

Here is an additional quote from the same book "Richard Smith, former editor of British Medical Journal, has written that "The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. We know it is expensive, slow,prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient."

The "research" created by Delise (vet tech) et al would never have been accepted by a journal other than the JAVMA because of blatant conflict of interest. It is written by those who are employed by, or have known ties to the Animal Farm Foundation (extreme breed specific advocacy) lasting decades. This is an extreme example of the funding effect.

The veterinary profession has sold out to the special interest of breed specific advocacy. Review the point of view shown in the 1991 publication of the AVMA Liability Trust in the "Dos and Don'ts Concerning Violent Dogs" and their current views.

This brings up another example of pit bull double speak. It is standard to see veterinarians representing the AVMA appear in hearings on proposed legislation regarding vicious dogs boldly stating that pit bulls can't be identified and they they personally can't identify pit bulls. This is ludicrous in light of the pit bull talking point that pit bulls may be the most common dogs in America. If a veterinarian admits that he/she is unable to identify common dog breeds that might indicate that the veterinarian should be required to receive additional training, not the adulation and blind acceptance of bold and dangerous foolishness by unthinking legislators.

"dawn james" said...

looks like KC flew the coop.

Sputnik2009 said...

The Economist recently (and in the past) published a series of articles about the problems with the 'peer review' system, which is producing more and more junk science.

Alexandra Semyonova also wrote a discerning analysis of the value of 'peer review' in her book, Myth 99, pp 258 - 265.

There is of course also Thomas Kuhn's landmark work, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1952) in which he explains how science is all too often really all about protecting already built careers from any new guard coming up.

And see what Chomsky had to say:

"Most Schooling Is Training for Stupidity and Conformity"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEgCQyE9qE

Add to all this the last few decades in which 'science' has been more or less completely privatized -- made dependent on private funding by corporations and other interested parties, and you have a situation in which 'science' is deteriorating quickly as anything more than a bought opinion -- at any rate outside of the exact sciences like physics and chemistry.

[DubV, please don't take Chomsky's comments personally...unless you're scared the shoe fits]

Sputnik2009 said...

* Kuhn's book was published in 1962, not 1952 -- typo, sorry 'bout that.

"dawn james" said...

great comment sputnick. after reading the recent berkey funded javma article, my mind kept wandering back to the Sokal Hoax. i thought someone must be having a jolly good time at everyone's expense.

a great companion to Semyonova and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science' by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982.

Anonymous said...

Ah. The Sokal Hoax. I understand now how anything by Vicki Hearne could be published. Thanks, Dawn!

Anonymous said...

I think we all need to send Mark Kumpf a little thank you note for failing to do anything about a pair of dogs with 9 (9!) complaints about them being at large.

They mauled a woman to death in Dayton late last night or early this morning. Were still hanging around her corpse when the police arrived and subsequently they were shot.

But Mark says they are "mastiff mixes" and licensed through Montgomery County as "mastiffs" so of course they are not grippers.

"dawn james" said...

mark kumof is a puppet for best friends.

tropical storms said...

Mastiffs are the original gripping dogs. The earliest depictions were from Egypt, the Romans "improved" them and took them to all points of the known world. Where did someone get the idea that most mastiff breeds weren't gripping breeds? The smooth short coat mastiffs are all descended from the old (extinct) Roman mastiff.

Anonymous said...

shush - only the non existent "pit bull" is a gripping breed and it's all in how you raise those mythical and unidentifiable creatures....

Say.. when Jane Berkey wiggles her fingers do Mark Kumpf's lips move?

Staceyjw said...

Wait, another death, by dogs with 9 complaints?
Maybe Mark can take them home with him instead....

Anonymous said...

Nine complaints? I hope someone sues AC for that one.

Sputnik2009 said...

The veterinary profession has never been about science, animal well-being, or anything but their own bank accounts:

http://animalpeoplenews.org/anp/2013/04/18/editorial-feature-horse-doctoring-the-ethical-evolution-of-veterinarians/

Historical note. Even the Romans were impressed when they got to Britain and saw the grippers the English had developed -- much superior to their home-grown Roman grippers. Here's an on-line source that summarizes the story, naming primary sources everyone can check:

Gratius Falsius an ancient Roman author and historian wrote in the year 8 AD of a large exhibition of dog fights in the ancient Roman amphitheatres between the Pugnaces Britanniae from Britannia and the Molossus from Epirus. The exhibition reflected the wide-mouthed dogs from Britain were far superior to the ancient Greek Molossus.

“ Although the British dogs are distinguished neither by colour nor good anatomy, I could not find any particular faults with them. When grim work must be done, when special pluck is needed when Mars summons us to battle most extreme, then the powerful Molossus will please you less and the Athamanen dog cannot measure up to the skill of the British dog either. ”
Gratius Falsius, 8 AD

The ancient Roman historian Strabo reported in 38 AD of large British dogs, which were bred in their homeland of Britannia to hunt dangerous game and as war dogs.

In 43 AD, the Roman conquest of Britain made Britannia a Roman province. At that time, in Britain there were giant, wide-mouthed dogs, which the Romans called Pugnaces Britanniae, that surpassed their Molossus dogs. A Procurator Cynegii, was stationed in Venta Belgarum and responsible for selecting these dogs, which were exported to Rome for contests in the amphitheatre and for integration into the military of ancient Rome as war dogs.

The 'Pugnaces' dogs of Roman Britain were specifically referred to by the Greek historian Arrian in 130 AD.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/oct2008/war-dogs.html

This is why the British gripping bulldog is the basis for all the gripping / fighting breeds all over the world to this day.

DubV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DubV said...

"The veterinary profession has never been about science, animal well-being, or anything but their own bank accounts"

Are you saying that all veterinarians over all time have been money grubbing and cared nothing for animals and ignored the sciences related to animal health?

Pibble said...

For your viewing pleasure, I present JUSTICE SNAKE:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/new-video-shows-snake-ate-pitbull-whole

"dawn james" said...

shocking that the thought police haven't bombed the hell of out of youtube for allowing such blasphemy.

the nutters must still be feeding on the connecticut fireman.

DubV said...

I feel bad that they killed the snake for doing a good deed.

You have to respect snakes.

They have to be one of the most persecuted animals yet they rarely harm people and are still relatively common, at the family level at least.



Dick Johnson said...

I have got to get some of those snakes for mutant control on my property.

DubV said...

I'm tired of all these mofo ing snakes around my mutants!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A

Anonymous said...

Why don't they just come out and say: we need to keep the dog fighters that give to my reelection campaigns fresh meat?

Anonymous said...

Who is involved in all of this? The corrupt, tax cheating breeders, who already have made the rest of society foot the bill for their greed and bad breeding.

AKC and their friends are right in the thick of it, determined to do harm to all, the dogs, the public, except the ones cashing in.

Anonymous said...

Brent Toellner represents BREEDER INTERESTS. The no kill thing is just a sham to fool the stupid. Breeders use no kill for their own profit seeking interests.

This is propaganda to protect the profits of breeders ,and that's what his job is, propagandize and spread myths so that breeders can keep cashing in.

As usual. the dogs lose too.

Anonymous said...

Brent Toellner also still is not following the law and registering as a lobbyist. If he wants to work for Rick Berman and the nutcase breeders, fine, but follow the damn law and register as a lobbyist.

His biggest problem when he just rewrites and reissues his breeder masters lies is that he isn't smart enough to realize they make no sense until after he's copied them. But he has got to get legal and at least be honest about who he works for.

Anonymous said...

Brent works very hard to help the breeders avoid regulation and things like licensing, because if they got legal and were licensed, their tax cheating and consumer fraud due to bad breeding, selling violent dogs, etc would be exposed

Dog Breeding is one of the most criminal businesses around, at every level.

Other businesses and industries have to follow laws, get licensed, be held responsible, but dog breeding is still corrupt thanks to the paid mouthpieces that continue to lie and batter the public with their insanity and hook up with corrupt politicians thanks to the farm lobby

It is time to REGULATE THE BREEDING INDUSTRY. They have cost everyone too much, including the dogs.

anon said...

So, is this article basically saying people are pushing to give pit bulls straight-up rights? Like, similar to human rights?

I don't even want to join the humongous arguments that have spurred from this.

Anonymous said...

The federal government should not be able to pass things like this. People have to be able to respond to what is happening in their community. The pit bulls are a distraction from the fact that the federal government is over reaching here.

Anonymous said...

This is hilarious. You are all upset because common sense is prevailing and your propaganda has been exposed for what it is; B.S. It's time to take your ball and go home.