first there was LISA CAMUSO. she swaggered in, shooting her mouth off, hurling insults and challenging everyone to a duel, then she became upset when i used her own words against her.
last week, this dufus caught my eye. i found this idiot commenting on the public forum about SB 75, south dakota's answer to LEDY'S mauling free for all.
that's right. this bozo wants to make sure a mutant already living in the city will be grandfathered in, if south dakota passes a STATE law that PROHIBITS cities from enacting breed bans. seriously, how are we losing to people too stupid to read a fucking headline correctly?
and if that wasn't ridiculous enough, BRENT TOELLNER paid craven a visit.
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.
i responded. an anonymous commenter responded. and TOELLNER responded again. woops! this time he was signed into his blogger account. ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!
TOELLNER copied his comment into the clip board, deleted the original comment and then re-posted the same exact word for word comment, but this time he signed in as anonymous.
too late. TOELLNER doesn't realize that only the pop up comment window deleted his name. his name is still in the blog post and in dashboard comments AND most importantly, in the email alert.
there is a color shift in the text of blogger comments when you copy and paste them. don't know why this happens, it just does.
in the meantime, real pit bulldog expert tropical storms leaves a couple of comments and TOELLNER replies again, anonymously. he thinks he will "educate" tropical storms. lol. by now, my sides hurt from laughing so hard and my throat is raw and i start coughing from all of the laughter. then scorched earth, myself, and other readers respond to KC blowhard. it's a fun read. i will address his comments that were directed to me.
TOELLNER tried to give me a lesson in civics.
"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."true, most laws are not put up for a public vote. most laws are either too mundane for the average person to be bothered with or too esoteric for the average person to fully grasp. i suspect the average person also does not want to be distracted from their video games and prime time tv shows. what percentage go to the public for a vote, i haven't a clue but it is common to take issues directly to the people, especially west of the mississippi. i found a website that keeps track of state initiatives and referendums. please note that this website is not current. for whatever reason, the organization who tracked these, stopped in 2001. you can click on the number and view the initiatives that were introduced. here is a small sample.
16 florida 1976 - 2000
48 south dakota 1908 - 2000
60 massachusetts 1920 - 2000
65 ohio 1913 - 1998
68 missouri 1910 - 2000
136 washington 1914 - 2001
150 arizona 1912- 2000
166 north dakota 1918 - 1998
178 colorado 1912 - 2001
275 california 1912 - 2000
318 oregon 1904 - 2000
these numbers are nothing to sneeze at, especially when you consider the fact that the population of the entire state of south dakota is less than the greater seattle area. glancing over the laws that were introduced by citizens you will find they are usually of a controversial nature, assisted suicide, gay marriage, marijuana, and a lot of animal related issues like declawing, puppy mills, foie gras, factory farming, the banning of steel leg hold traps. there is nothing esoteric about these issues, but they are controversial and ignite passions on both sides. seems to me that the regulation of dogs bred for the savage sport of dog fighting would be right at home in the citizen initiative process.
obviously taking the pit bull issue directly to the voters is not an option in the states that do not allow the initiative process but for those who do, this is the perfect venue to sort out this mess.
"Your list of experts is comical -- as you seem very adept at pulling the quotes out of context."my list of experts crosses party lines. i may not like them all or agree with them completely but that is not the sole criteria for inclusion. please tell me how this comment was taken out of context,
a perversion of everything normal dogs should do. What they've created is a canine psychopath.
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.underfunded? true. and pit bull owners are the biggest scofflaws of licensing which animal control is dependent on to do their job. additionally, pit bulls consume the lion's share of AC resources. incompetent? yeah, i agree somewhat with you here. many ACOs have been "trained" by the likes of LEDY VANKAVAGE and JANE BERKEY. and in my book, that would automatically earn someone a label of incompetent. GSDs, labs running at large? no argument here. no dog should be allowed to run at large regardless of breed.
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?now you're just being an asshole. you've spent too much time reading white papers from hill & knowlton, er, i mean guerrilla economics.
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.it is pretty rare to see me talking about laws, not my thing. i'm far too angry and abrasive to play the game of politics successfully. my thing is really about exposing the lies and liars and arming people with lethal weapons and knowledge about pit bulls and their advocates. but i will make an exception and discuss my personal views on dog legislation below. i doubt that you will like them.
#1) Pit bulls are not molasser breeds. Again, this is why you get info from real experts, and not Merrit Clifton.yes. pit bulldogs are a molosser breed. i didn't learn that from Merritt and neither did tropical storms. i spend almost all of my time gathering information from experts like JESSUP and dog fighters. if you actually read JESSUP instead of AFF, BF and badrap, you would never make such an ignorant statement.
#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.i have mixed feelings on this. on the one hand, i feel that insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage without a good reason, ie, actual aggressive behavior (but then again, that good reason should result in a dirt nap) but on the other hand, i am not comfortable with the government telling private businesses they must insure someone. like you, i sometimes have a problem with the government dictating to private businesses. i also have a problem with the beltway dictating to missouri and missouri dictating to st. louis, kansas city and clayton.
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."MOST people" is just not good enough TOELLNER, especially when it comes to the catastrophic injuries that require multiple surgeries and years of rehabilitation that pit bulldogs are oh so famous for. too many people fall through the cracks. they are left with physical, psychological and financial injuries. i have always advocated for compulsory insurance for all dog owners. (btw, that means homeless people can not own dogs at all) doesn't matter if you have a puggle or pibble, everyone pays, just like obamacare but better! of course, the insurance industry will be free to crunch the numbers and determine actuarial risk and thus set premiums. $50K @$5/yr for puggle, $100K @$100/y for labs, $100K @$500/yr for GSD and $500K @$1000/yr for frankenmaulers. seems fair to me.
i strongly favor the "ban stupid owners" approach and what better way than background checks! felons would be prohibited from owning fighting, baiting or guarding dogs. (fyi, you wouldn't have to twist my arm to extend that to ALL dogs). anyone with multiple misdemeanor convictions would also be prohibited from owning fighting, baiting or guarding dogs.
i favor licensing owners and registering dogs, just like we do with guns and cars. anyone caught violating the compulsory licensing, registering, vaccinating and insuring of their dogs would also be slapped with a felony and a lifetime ban on owning dogs.
pretending your dog is a service animal? felony and lifetime ban on owning dogs.
i also favor sterilizing all grippers, so they would eventually go extinct. i don't see this as an either/or issue, either target a specific breed OR implement tougher general dog laws. i think both strategies should be implemented.
off property attacks would result in mandatory depraved indifference charges and a life time ban on owning any dog. in home, intra familial attacks would result in mandatory domestic assault charges. you want these ugly things treated like family? fine. how about charges of elder abuse and child abuse. no exceptions. and of course, a life time ban on owning any dog.
even minor bites from an unvaccinated dog that results in the person having to undergo the series of rabies shots - felony charges and a life time ban on owning any dogs.
your pit bulldog mauls my pointer border collie mutt? felony animal cruelty charges and a life time ban on owning any dog. your GSD mauls my pony? felony animal cruelty charges and a lifetime ban on owning any dog.
the accused dogs would be housed in secure facilities. the owner must post a $10,000 bond to cover the cost of the quarantine and boarding until the trial and to deter from theft. anyone who fails to hand over a dog accused of attacking would be thrown in jail until the dog is surrendered to the authorities and of course charged with another felony.
i liked ohio's law, a lot. they simply said, pit bulls are different and should be treated as such. i thought ohio tried to meet the needs of both parties. but pit bull zealots like LEDY VANKAVAGE are greedy pigs. they wanted it all and they got it.
oh and if you think i am just hard on pit bull owners, think again. we also need tough DWI laws, they are way too lax. if i had my way, they would look very similar to the dog laws i briefly outlined above. americans feel far too entitled. americans regard literally everything as their god given right. i think that needs to change.
Is There An IQ Test You Have To Fail In Order To Adopt a Pit Bull? by Dan Savage of the Seattle Stranger
anti-BSL stealth bombs
a fun link DubV dug up that shows TOELLNER in all of his unskilled and unaware glory :-)
when a quest for logic is out of reach
mortality, mauling and maiming by vicious dogs