Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 3, "The Professionals"

Pitbull Has Neighbors Worried

Before delving into the "professionals" and their evaluations/opinions of GRACIE, a few issues need to be addressed.

First, WAGMAN exaggerated the qualifications of the professionals who evaluated GRACIE in his brief and in the news story. Not a single one of the "professionals" that evaluated GRACIE qualify as BEHAVIORISTS. To qualify as an animal behaviorist requires an advanced degree; masters, doctorate or doctor of veterinary medicine. You can view the very short list of behaviorists in the U.S. HERE.

A Note About Animal Behaviorists: Many persons employed in the dog training field use the title "behaviorist" incorrectly. A Behaviorist is someone who has a doctorate level graduate degree. A Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist is a Behaviorist who is certified through the The Animal Behavior Society. Persons who do not meet these qualifications should not be using the term "behaviorist" to describe themselves - in this case, the terms behavior consultant, behavior counselor or behavior specialist are acceptable.

Second, Dogs tend to shut down when housed in the shelter. Can any useful data about a dog's temperament be acquired from an evaluation that has been performed on a dog that has been housed in a strange and stressful kennel for 2 weeks?

Third, Who hired and foot the bill for the King and Filson evaluations? And should opinions of friends and employees of the owner be admissible as professional in a legal proceeding?

Fourth, It is not possible to test a dog's reaction to every conceivable stimulus that it might encounter. A dog might interact well with 50 unfamiliar people or animals during an evaluation or during the course of its life, but that does not mean it will be okay with every person or animal that it encounters. Behavioral evaluations can not predict how a dog will behave in every scenario. That's why TRISH KING explicitly states on her evaluation that she can not guarantee a dog's behavior and she is not liable for future aggression.

Fifth, It is absurd to extrapolate the data collected testing a dog in an artificially controlled environment with a confident experienced handler to the real world where unforeseen variables are left to chance with people who are not well versed in dog behavior. I believe these tests performed by KING and FILSON are essentially worthless. GRACIE failed the only test that matters. Her real world temperament test. Once on her own and outside the reach and supervision of the artificial and controlled environments - the shelter, the "behaviorists", her home, her owner - all bets are off and as we know from DULCE REYES, GRACIE is a "bit off" when she is estranged from her loving TOMTOM.

TRISH KING CPDT (Certified Pet Dog Trainer), CDBC (Certified Dog Behavior Consultant)
KING is the only one in this lineup of "professionals" who even comes close to resembling a "behaviorist". I was so outraged by her report, that I entered all three pages. My comments are in italics.
Trish King, CPDT CDBC

Evaluation of Gracie Jorgensen

Gracie is a young Pit Bull Terrier, evaluated following the killing of a neighborhood cat.

During the evaluation, I evaluated Gracie for human sociability, handling, impulse control and arousal issues, and predatory instinct The evaluation was conducted in an outside yard, next to a chicken coop, and close to wildlife, including a feral cat that walked outside the yard.

During this test, the dog is allowed to roam in an enclosed area; the number and quality of interactions is analyzed. Gracie was moderately social, engaging with me when l initiated play.
Handling: During this test, the dog is handled extensively, from feet and head to a full hug. Grade tested out as extremely tolerant to handling, allowing me to manipulate any part of her body for extended periods of time (up to 2 minutes)
Note the use of adjectives "tolerant" for later commentary.
Impulse Control/ Arousal: During this test, the handler actively engages the dog in play, checking to see whether the dog tends to go out of control, to behave roughly, or engages in mouthy behavior. Grade's energy appears to be generally calm and relaxed. She engaged in play at a fairly high level of excitement, but calmed quickly when I stopped playing.
Note the use of adjectives "calm" and "relaxed" for later commentary.
Predatory instinct: During this test, the dog is exposed to other animals that commonly arouse the predatory drive. In this case, the animals included chickens and a cat. Gracie tested out as moderately predatory. Her attention was attracted by the animals, but she did not have a strong lock and was relatively easily distracted with obedience commands.
Exposure to chickens and cats in the presence of an experienced dog trainer vs a dog with a taste of freedom and away from her owner are simply apples and oranges.

Gracie was somewhat distracted during the sociability portion of the evaluation, and tolerated rather than sought handling. There appeared to be an element of owner searching" in her behavior. This is a behavior fairly common in shelter dogs recently separated from their owners. They tend to approach strange people and investigate them. Their body language changes from excitedly anticipatory to dejected when they discover they don't know the human. At no time did she appear to offer any threat, and was very friendly when a volunteer who had apparently interacted with her appeared.
Note the use of adjectives "anticipatory" and "dejected" and "friendly" for later commentary.

With regard to impulse control/arousal, Gracie scored very high. Her energy level was moderate, which is very unusual in a dog housed in a shelter environment Most dogs become highly energized, and are often out of control. The fact that Gracie was not was excellent.

Gracie's predatory drive would appear to be moderate. However, if she were to remember the location of a particular small animal. it would likely escalate with each sighting, much as a dog remembers other dogs in particular locations. This escalation could increase the predatory instinct.

It is very important to note that dogs are predators, and may tend to kill small animals, unless they are raised with them, much as cats will kill animals smaller than themselves. Humans should understand that these instincts are very strong, as they are connected with survival, and must be monitored.
First, dogs are SCAVENGERS and second, this dog lives right next door to small dogs. Pit bulls can live amicably for years with dogs and cats that they were raised with and then one day, the owner comes home to a blood bath. Survival in this case is the self rewarding flexing of her DNA.

Management: Gracie needs to be managed around small animals, particularly cats. She would benefit from a well fenced in yard, as well as walks that are always on leash. Obedience courses, wherein she learns to follow the instructions of her owner, would be invaluable.
Managed around cats? duh! Gracie already has 3 years of obedience training and a well fenced yard! The problem is not so much that she does not follow the instructions of her owner, the problem is she can not be safely contained.

Conclusion: I do not believe that Gracie is a threat to humans. Although people tend to think of dogs as "aggressive" or "not aggressive," that is no truer of them than it is of humans. Dogs may behave aggressively or not. In any case, predatory behavior is not true aggression - there are no emotions associated with the behavior. It is an instinct, and not one that transfers from one type of animal to a human being.
Well, we finally agree on something. Aggression is INSTINCTUAL with pit bulls!
Trish A King, CPDT, CDBC

Okay, remember when I told you that the perversity of this case would get better? Well, here it is.
After TRISH KING finished whitewashing GRACIEPOO'S evaluation, either on her own initiative or at the request of "the Shyster", she "evaluated" a witness statement! Yes, that's right. A former news reporter turned DOG TRAINER, not only assesses GRACIE'S aggression towards a human nearly one month after "the Incident", TRISH KING evaluates the witness via her written statement to AC!

Dear Bruce: (ooh they are on first name basis, this ought to be good!)

I reviewed the statement from Kellie Meyers regarding Gracie Jorgensen. I am very sorry Ms. Meyers was frightened, and can understand why the sight of a stray dog in her immediate vicinity might have made her think the worst. However, there was nothing remotely like the "raging pit bull" in the dog that I evaluated. Gracie allowed me handle her extensively and intrusively, and showed no signs of any aggression at any time during the session.

Gracie's behavior on Nov. 14 as described by Ms Meyers appears to have been more excited and curious than threatening and angry. The rather hasty and hysterical behavior of Ms Meyers would likely make the dog even more excited. From a behavioral point of view, a hunting dog does not behave in the way Ms. Meyers described - rather, the dog would be focused and quiet. Nothing Ms. Meyers describes would be interpreted as aggressive or threatening to humans. It would appear that Ms. Meyers was anthropomorphizing - that is, attributing motives to a dog based on human emotions.

In addition, it is extremely important to realize that dog behavior is actually relatively consistent. Aggression does not jump from species to species, and predatory behavior is aimed at prey, and not random human beings. Gracie's prey drive that day was focused solely on the cat, as evidenced by the fact that she did not bother any of the people at the she went to. I am sure Gracie would not have attacked Ms. Meyers or her mother in this situation.

~Trish (aka Carnac the Magnificent)

The fact that this evaluation was addressed to "the Shyster" answers one of my questions, Who paid for these evaluations. Btw, defense attorneys ONLY hire "experts" that will support their client's case. But I digress... let's take this second evaluation apart.

1) Anyone who sees a loose pit bull and doesn't "think the worst" and prepare for it, is an idiot.

2) KING states GRACIE is "Nothing remotely like a raging pit bull", yet TRISH KING recommends "a well fenced yard" and EVEN MORE obedience training for GRACIE who has been in a perpetual state of obedience training for the last 3 years.

3) Why is Ms. Meyers anthropomorphizing when she described "the Mutant" as aggressive and trying to get into her home but TRISH KING is not anthropomorphizing when she uses words like calm, relaxed, anticipatory, tolerant, dejected, and friendly to describe "the Mutant"?

3) TRISH KING blames Ms. Meyers for creating a potentially dangerous situation or at least escalating it by referring to Meyers' behavior as "hasty" and "hysterical". Part of the problem with these lion tamers is they expect everyone to not only love all dogs, but trust all dogs and be an expert at reading their behavior. But the issue here is that any attempt for any so called "professional" to explain or assess the behavior of GRACIE or Ms Meyers at 2:00 pm on Nov. 14th is PURE SPECULATION and should not be admissible in any legal proceeding.

4) Aggression is not consistent. Pit Bulls are just fine right up until the moment that they aren't. And often after "the Incident" when AC or the police arrive, pit bulls are once again "just fine". How many times have the owners of attacking pit bulls expressed their shock and horror with "they've never shown any aggression before."

5) Aggression does jump from species to species. Often after a devastating pit bull attack, the investigation reveals that the pit bull previously killed another animal. Prior to the family pit bulls killing Jacob Bisbee, they killed a chihuahua, an akita and a parrot.

6) Pit bulls regularly prey on random human beings. Kelly Caldwell was randomly killed by 3 pit bulls as she walked to the store. One of those pit bulls was touted by the owner as being a loving nanny dog. I could go on, but this blog post is already running long.

6) Just because GRACIE was solely focused on the cat at the time of the mauling, does not mean she wasn't solely focused on Ms. Meyers or her home at the time she was menacing her and attempting to get inside.

7) "Nationally recognized behaviorist" TRISH KING misinterpreted and criticized Ms Meyers eye witness description of GRACIE'S quiet frenzied behavior. Apparently KING is not familiar with dog behavior in fox hunting or hog hunting or deer hunting. That's not too surprising. KING is not familiar with the content of the witnesses' statement either which has NO mention of barking or growling. TRISH KING, the only "heavy weight" in this sham is a FUCKING JOKE. Her ignorance and arrogance are truly astonishing.

And I just LOVE the disclaimer at the bottom of KING'S official evaluation.
The analysis and recommendations contained herein were made based on a verbal history and brief observation of the dog, and in no way should be construed as a guarantee of future behavior.  The client will not hold Trish King or her associates liable for any behavior which occurs prior to, during, or following any training, tutoring or consultation. The dog owner assumes all responsibility for the behavior of their dog.
Well, I guess Ms King, the Clairvoyant Diva is NOT so sure that Gracie would not have attacked Ms Meyers or her mother after all.

The pro-Gracie camp is targeting Ms Meyers because she puts another ugly blemish on the "the Mutant's" fictitious impeccable record. They have attacked Meyers at every opportunity and they have   completely ignored the fact that Ms Meyers was not alone that day and her witness corroborated her statement. "...at about 1:50pm I witnessed a dog (Pit Bull) pacing along the front of the house from one end to the other, over and over again. The dog was lunging and jumping at the front door and the kitchen and bedroom windows, clearly looking for a way into the house. When I got out of my truck I yelled "Hey" at the dog several times trying to get its attention. At one point the dog actually circled the whole house, jumping/lunging at every window and door along the way. After 20+ minutes of yelling and trying to distract the dog, it left the Meyers residence and went to the neighbor's house. Immediately after the dog left it attached and killed the neighbor's cat. The noise/screaming from the attack (the dog, cat and cats owner) was unbelievable and something I surely will not forget. In 33 years of going to people's houses to provide estimates I have NEVER witnessed anything like this before. I have encountered my fair share of scared and/or mean dogs (and owners), but I have never seen a dog so obsessed with getting into a house.
In my opinion this dog is clearly vicious and needs to be dealt with accordingly."

KELLEY A FILSON CPDT (Certified Pet Dog Trainer)
Another artificial test in an artificially controlled environment conducted by a biased hired gun to rubber stamp a dog that should have been euthanized for failing her Nov 14th real world temperament test.
FILSON evaluated GRACIE at the animal shelter on Nov 30th, 16 days into her quarantine. FILSON leashed GRACIE in the kennel, walked her through the shelter and out into the yard. yadda yadda yadda... But I will give FILSON credit for conducting the most absurd test ever. "I requested a towel from a cat cage and presented it to GRACIE. GRACIE sniffed it briefly, but showed no interest." At least we know that GRACIE is not mentally retarded, as she knows the difference between animate and inanimate objects. Seriously, how do these people get away with this shit? Oh, wait, BILODEAU, never mind I answered my own question.

ERIC DORFMAN (no titles but claims he has certificates in dog behavior counseling and dog aggression)
"My name is ERIC J. DORFMAN of Dorfman Canine. I am a canine behaviorist and trainer who specializes in problem behavior. I am Certified in Dog Aggression towards both humans and other animals." Woops, there's that incorrect usage of the behaviorist title again. ERIC DORFMAN was GRACIE'S first trainer. DORFMAN stated that he met JORGENSEN in October 2009, approximately one month after he adopted GRACIE. JORGENSEN wanted to make sure GRACIE was carefully evaluated for a safe, smooth transition into her new environment which included a pug. Hmmm, JORGENSEN already had GRACIE for one month, shouldn't that that kind of extensive evaluation occur BEFORE you bring a new dog into the home? And GRACIE'S previous owner had a pug. Smells fishy."The initial meeting consisted of an overall evaluation including: temperament, disposition, separation anxiety, reaction to human hand, resource guarding, territorial behavior, reactivity to noise, quick movements, sight stimuli and other dogs." My gut tells me that GRACIE was exhibiting behaviors that caused JORGENSEN concern. Why else would you take your dog to someone who is certified in dog aggression and specializes in problem behavior???

This bio has just left me dumbfounded. Can someone please help me to understand how a young woman in her mid 20's graduated as a dog trainer in the spring of 2011, currently has 400+ hours towards her certification as a dog trainer, has worked for over a decade with pets and has met "thousands" of dogs, (is it appropriate to include dogs you have met during your tumultuous teen years with all of those raging hormones? can we trust the judgement of a 15 yr old who states two of her interests are "crying" and "fighting"? and is a young woman who leaves a 7 yr old tantrum on a public forum to shame her drunkard mother capable of critical thinking skills?) PLUS, CHU admits that she is friends with JORGENSEN and "the Mutant", how can she be considered a PROFESSIONAL in this very serious legal proceeding? How is it that not only JORGENSEN'S bottom feeder lawyer saw fit to include her in his line-up but BILODEAU didn't immediately kick her ass to the curb? I did a little digging and found STERLING TURNER CHU sitting on her ass with a video camera at a dog day care center giggling. On her video uploads, she occasionally types out a description of dog behavior to impress her viewers, for example, "extreme piloerection".

"I met THOMAS JORGENSEN at the end of 2009. He had rescued GRACIE from Montery County, and we began working together training GRACIE. Tom wanted ongoing instruction to further his knowledge of basic dog obedience training and his understanding of intra dog play and socialization." First, JORGENSEN AND GRACIE had just supposedly successfully completed a 6 week BASIC OBEDIENCE class with ERIC DORFMAN, the aggression/problem behavior expert. There are really only two explanations here. GRACIE already forgot everything that she had literally just learned in her first basic obedience class OR she shouldn't have graduated (or possibly didn't). Second, JORGENSEN did NOT rescue GRACIE from the shelter, his good friend SUSAN ACKERMAN (the pug owner) adopted her in August 2009 and quickly realized that GRACIE was too much for her so she pawned her off on TOMTOM. Third, my translation of CHU'S double speak sounds more like obedience classes with DORFMAN did not address the subtle and dangerous body language of pit bulls that JORGENSEN needed to master in order to be a responsible pit bull owner.

CHU worked with JORGENSEN from 2010 - 2012, trying to channel GRACIE'S energy and prey drive. I suspect CHU does not offer money back guarantees for her pit bull clients as GRACIE failed her real world temperament test on November 14, 2012. "GRACIE was moved to a secluded, big, empty space with hardwood floors, (oh my god, did CHU just identify a new pit trigger - flooring?) far different from her comfortable petite carpet condo with bustling people and friends, dog and human. He no longer lived on the 3rd story up the elevator and down the long hallway. Now outside their door call nature and the Hillsborough neighborhood full of critters like deer, skunk, squirrels, and outdoor cats. All of which would appeal to a dog's natural predatory drive. Tom consulted with me after moving, and he installed the deep and high fence completely around the back yard to ensure her enclosure when off leash. Tom took extra effort in working on GRACIE'S recall in this new environment (often dogs needs to relearn under new context), making sure she could leave the new and exciting distractions the world has to offer when called." It is stunning, the number of references to GRACIE'S prey drive from the pro-GRACIE camp and yet BILODEAU ignores them. This letter of reference is a joke. STERLING TURNER CHU tries to play the pity card with a big empty house with hardwood floors and nature provoking her. Poor, poor GRACIE, taunted by wicked squirrels and spooky cats. What's a frankenmauler to do?!

GRACIE'S personal vet provided a written statement attesting to her wonderful temperament based on the FIVE times she has seen GRACIE in her practice since March 2010. It is important to note that veterinarians do not possess any expertise in the area of animal behavior by default of their DVM degree and there is nothing that I can find on the internet to indicate that WALSH is any kind of behavioral expert. "She has never once shown any fear of humans or any aggression towards humans or animals in our hospital whatsoever. She has sat in our waiting room with other dogs while awaiting her appointments." I will go out on a limb here and assume that THOMAS JORGENSEN was accompanying GRACIE during these vet visits and therefore GRACIE was on her best behavior, per DULCE REYES. Also notice that WALSH does not specifically mention cats, only humans and dogs. And it probably doesn't hurt that there are separate waiting rooms for dogs and cats. Additionally, any knowledge that WALSH possessed about GRACIE'S behavior in the waiting room would be via the people who work at the front desk, making much of her testimony based on hearsay. "She has allowed us to do full exams, injections, blood collections, rectal exams and radiographs without struggle, resistance or growling..." Neither has my dog but I never needed to ask my vet to testify about my dog's behavior in a legal proceeding but seriously, the only thing missing here is the classic pit bull platitude "pit bulls are great with people because the dogmen needed to be able to handle them in the pit and sew them up afterwards". WALSH wraps up her plea stating that GRACIE was just exhibiting "natural predatory behavior" and she feels that GRACIE should not lose her life over this "one unfortunate" event. (note the sanitized language again - EVENT) Again, according to Hillsborough 6.04.010, "the severe injury or killing of an animal" requires just ONE victim, not a slew of them.
* Cat owning clients of Dr WALSH would be wise to seek veterinary care with a clinic that does not devalue their pet of choice.
QUESTION: WTF was BILODEAU doing during this legal proceeding? A crossword puzzle?

Hillsborough  6.04.010

"Vicious animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which meets any or all of the following criteria:
1. Any animal previously designated as "dangerous," that after investigation by an animal control officer and/or peace officer is found under conditions which constitute a violation of this title or applicable dangerous animal permit and which demonstrates a significant danger to the public health or safety;
2. Any animal seized under Section 599aa of the Penal Code and/or upon the sustaining of a conviction of the owner or caretaker under subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code;
3. Any animal which inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being or another animal;
4. Any animal which has engaged in any aggressive behavior which demonstrates that the animal represents a clear and present substantial danger to the public health and safety and that due to substantial risk to the public health or safety, it is unlikely that the animals could be safely maintained under a dangerous animal permit.

"Dangerous animal" means any animal, except a trained dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties, which because of its disposition, behavior, training or other characteristic, constitutes a danger to persons or property, or which demonstrates any or all of the following behavior:
1. Any attack or other behavior which require a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury or property damage or that results in an injury to a person or property;
2. Any aggressive attack or other behavior that constitutes a substantial threat of bodily harm to a person or animal, where such attack, injury or behavior occurs in a place where such person or animal is conducting himself or herself peaceably and lawfully;
3. An attack on another animal or livestock which occurs off of the property of the owner of the attacking animal;
4. Any animal that has been deemed by another governmental jurisdiction as "potentially dangerous," "dangerous,: "vicious," or any similar designation.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 1, "the Incident" 

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 2, The Appeal

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified:Part 3, "The Professionals"

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 4, The Brief - Lies, Exaggerations, Illogical Conclusions, Inconsistencies and Speculations 

Lifestyles of the Rich and Terrified: Part 5, The miscreants, science whores, dirty hippies, kidults and philanthropic robber barons


april 29 said...

Having lived through the legal nonsense trotted out by shameless lawyers hired to represent the interests of the companies insuring the owners of the pit bull that changed my life, I can identify with this outrage. In our case the lawyers representing the pitters pulled in an "expert" as outrageous as this bunch, and made a final offer of settlement. The shortcomings of this document and of the individual who wrote it were pointed out to the judge. In response to the outing of the "expert there was another "final offer" for settlement and it was fully $10,000 higher than the previous "final offer." I wish Ms. Meyers similar good fortune. Civil Court is the proper place for Ms. Meyers complaint.

Miss Margo said...

"...at about 1:50pm I witnessed a dog (Pit Bull) pacing along the front of the house from one end to the other, over and over again. The dog was lunging and jumping at the front door and the kitchen and bedroom windows, clearly looking for a way into the house. When I got out of my truck I yelled "Hey" at the dog several times trying to get its attention. At one point the dog actually circled the whole house, jumping/lunging at every window and door along the way."

This is some very, very scary shit. Maybe it's just me, or because I'm female, but home invasion is one of the most frightening things I could imagine.

And you know what Gracie wanted to do once she got inside...

If I was Ms. Meyers, I'd be pretty fucking "hysterical" too. Twenty minutes of Gracie lunging at your doors while you freak out, trying to guess where she was going next and hoping none of the windows was left open? It's like a horror movie!

Remember that scene in The Shining when Jack Nicholson's character hacked through the door with an axe and yelled "Heeeere's JOHNNY!"?

Yeah, I think I might need a xanax and a little scotch to get to sleep for a while after that.

And then to have this crew of assholes tell me that, essentially, I was WRONG and didn't really see what I saw...and even if I did see it, well, I misinterpreted it, because I'm a silly goose and scared of dogs!

And Sterling Turner Chu...I needed a laugh after reading the home attack description. I don't think that the little hamster upstairs is running in its wheel very well, if you know what I mean.

Your Quiet Neighbor said...

After reading all of this verbiage, I can only conclude that there are some very sick people out there. Justifying the behavior of dangerous dogs is not done by the sane.

Anonymous said...

I'll go back and read the rest of this when I have more time, but regards to the first evaluator's comments:

1) DOGS DO NOT HAVE LAST NAMES. Yes, I realize that more and more people consider their pets their children, but I honestly think that's part of the reason we're seeing such egregious "pet parent" behavior these days.

2) "racie needs to be managed around small animals, particularly cats. She would benefit from a well fenced in yard, as well as walks that are always on leash. Obedience courses, wherein she learns to follow the instructions of her owner, would be invaluable. " Who the flying fuck paid this woman to advise what would "benefit" this freaking dog? It would BENEFIT the neighbors if that animal WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO BREATHE ANOTHER BREATH, but hey, the dog's got more rights than you. Sorry.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"If I was Ms. Meyers, I'd be pretty fucking "hysterical" too."

unless you are armed with a deadly weapon, normal, intelligent, non-character disordered people are afraid in these situations.

tropical storms said...

I hope Ms. Meyers arms herself with a weapon of lethal force before Gracie's next visit.

orangedog said...

I guess no one thought to get a camera phone and get pics and video. I think the evidence would speak for itself.

Anonymous said...

I posted this on the previous installment, but I thought I'd put it here too, if that is acceptable, because it addresses a lot of what's behind these pseudo professionals and how they get away with thier crimes.

Danya Hamilton, I DO think you have something with the California angle.

The reason this sort of circus and corruption are more likely to happen in California (and states like NY) is because there are political connections to all of this.

In Los Angeles, two city councilors who are connected to the dog breeding business got the city to hire an AKC lobbyist with no experience to run animal control. She is pushing the breeder industry No Kill scam, and animal control dogs are dying in the shelters of disease and fighting, getting given to hoarders, and vicious and bite cases dogs are getting adopted out or shipped to a shelter maybe near you to adopt out. There also has been a refusal to pick up stray dogs, refusal to enforce animal control laws, refusal to hold vicious dog owners accountable, and the AKC breeder running animal control uses the department to support for the puppy mill breeders and dog fighters, and PIT BULL BREEDERS and owners of pit bulls.

These city councilors use the political system (and the animal control department) to push this dangerous BREEDER BUSINESS agenda. They are connected to Mayor Villaraigosa who gets lots of campaign money from certain political interests to operate for their benefit, and the department is being run for the benefit of the breeder industry.

Also, Villaraigosa's girlfriend is in the media and she has connections to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, now infiltrated by breeder interests to being a sham organization to promote the breeding and sale of pit bulls. They are utterly and completely corrupt, a money making machine for the ones who run it. They got given a taxpayer built shelter rent free, all kinds of things free, to sell pit bulls and fund raise. Most of the public has no idea what is going on, the corruption.

Outside business interests are controlling animal control in LA and in much of CA, and the public suffers.

Look at how many people have been killed by pit bulls in San diego, and Animal control there shills for the breeders, and protects them. He just spews propaganda he gets from the breeder industry. He's a shill and a fraud, using his department to protect dog fighters and pit breeders and he's getting people killed. Most are poor people, minorities, so of course the rich white pit bull and breeder business hides it and ignores it. They are racist as heck.

There are more business/political connections, for example the lawyer who heads Senator Menendez's staff (put there not by her intelligence or hard work, but because she is the daughter of a big money campaign donor, a psychiatry magnate.) She sells pit bulls, and had one of her dogs attack in a public park event. A cop had to tackle the dog as it was trying to kill, and had to shoot the dog. If he didn't, pets and people would have died. But the daughter of the big political campaign donor got one of her and Menendez's connections, a corrupt "reporter" at the Washington Post, to engage in a smear campaign on the cop and lie about the attacking pit bull and hide evidence.

These people are all pals, they all help each other out, they all lie for each other and smear together, and the public doesn't even know that this kind of collusion is going on by people who make and administer laws, or are supposed to be reporting news!

This whole pit bull thing is a political shill, it is business lobbying. Clearly in some states the business lobbying is more able to dominate public interest.

Anonymous said...

The whole Animal Behaviorist sham is exactly that, a complete sham.

There is NO acceptable accreditation for anyone to act as a "professional" behaviorist or dog trainer.

These certification or registration organizations are all paper mills, creating a sham of pseudo-professional qualifications to trick people.

These "behaviorists" don't even agree with each other about any standards. This is totally wild west, opinions run wild. There is absolutely NO standard of quality, no supervision, NOTHING.

Every single one of these fake baviorists were just there to spew their OPINIONS, which are worth less than dirt.

Veterinarians are among the least qualified. They barely handle learning even basic animal health, and many are failures at that. They don't study behavior. It isn't their field. They try to claim it is, and some vet schools may set up sham programs to cash in, but that isn't their field.

The breeders have also gone for the quack accreditation and calling themselves "professional behaviorists" or trainers because they want control of the process. THey exist to protect breeders from liability, responsibility, or regulation. They use the fakery to trick the public and trick public officials.

But the person running this kangaroo "court" let these criminals lie, and that is the real problem- a corrupt town official colluding with a business lobby.

The lawyer is there to lie. THat's why people hire them. You expecxt the lawyer to lie. But the administrator or official running the hearing is supposed to control the lies and not enable them. THat's a criminal act, and that is what this town official did. She colluded with the lawyer and his harem of liars to harm and endanger the public.

Although judges can do the same thing, it is somewhat harder, and that is why these hearings need to be in real courts, where there is some accountability, not in the offices of a hack town official who may be receiving bribes, favors, or has a personal interest in the outcome or connection to the defendant or defendant's lawyer, or is receiving "outside" campaign contributions intended to sawy behavior or works for a department head receiving them.

Anonymous said...

"I guess no one thought to get a camera phone and get pics and video. I think the evidence would speak for itself"

Thats it, exactly.

People need to be vigilant and get pictures and video. Document everything, loose dogs, aggressive behavior.

It's a lot harder for the town administrators or ac to set up a kangaroo court when there is visual evidence.

I hope the neighbors will now be vigilant about documenting every transgression by that dog owner as they head to the next mauling.

They also should be consulting an attorney to deal with the town who let this crime go on in a hearing.

There needs to be a new process. The current one is corrupted.

How will they make sure that all terms of the dangerous dog classification will be met?

I hope if anyone out there is living in a situation like with with the pit bull degenerates that may escalate, please start documenting. Be your own media. Take pictures, video, put security cameras connected to recorders, file formal complaints with everyone in city government when laws are broken or someone is threatened in any way. Don't talk to the dog owners because they don't care and will lie about you. DOCUMENT. Get evidence documented so you won't be spat on by criminals acting as pseudo professionals and dishonest town officials. They'll support where the money is and let the liars get away with lies UNLESS you have good evidence that will hold them to the truth.

Also assume that if you have pit bulls anywhere near you, every pet that is outdoors is a target. You can't let cats outside and you can't just go for walks with your dog or leave your dog in the yard. Those pets have bulls eyes on them, and a corrupt system may not help you after the attack.

Anonymous said...

"Additionally, any knowledge that WALSH possessed about GRACIE'S behavior in the waiting room would be via the people who work at the front desk, making much of her testimony based on hearsay."

That's also true of what goes on in the back rooms, the examination rooms, etc.

Most of the actual work at most vet clinics is done by vet techs, many unlicensed.

The vet charges for the procedures, but vet techs do most of it and handle the animals.

That's why this DVM covered her hinder and said "we."

She may not even have been present when the dog was at the office.

Also many dogs are routinely muzzled for exams and treatments. That is common practice in many vet hospitals, sometimes for all dogs. Usually the owners don't even know it is happening.

None of this vet's testimony in this is worth a cent.

I hope that people are filing formal complaints with licensing boards, because she is going to get someone killed.

Anonymous said...

"we" "our" "we" "us"

See that Walsh DVM NEVER SAYS "I" in her testimony

That's because she likely NEVER HANDLED THE DOG, her staff did.

She is also choosing her words carefully because she is fending off liability for when the dog mauls next, and when she is questioned or she is held accountable, she will say that SHE herself never handled the dog and she didn't testify that she did, her testimony said "we" meaning her office staff! She will throw her office staff to the wolves, or pits

I'm sure her sleazy lawyer coached her on this.

This was a sleazy way to testify without testifying, and none of her words are worth dirt. She just was grandstanding her trade school degree and license in order to step on the law and get superiority to the neighbors and witnesses.

She knows completely that a few visits to a vet clinic don't mean a thing. You can't draw any conclusions from such specialized, infrequent, short, and unusual interactions. A real professional would not even attempt to draw conclusions but SHE DOES.

She shouldn't have a license with this kind of activity. But those neighbors should be contacting the insurance company for her business, because she supports and enables vicious attacks and pet death.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a camera phone and I resent the implication that my eyewitness testimony, which could convict a human, isn't good enough against a dog.

Happened to me with local AC not too long ago. I was told I needed to have a picture to prove that the dog I saw killing my livestock, the dog I'd trapped twice before hand, the dog the owner KNEW had killed my livestock was again on my property.

I told AC that if I'd had time to shoot a pic of the dog, I would have shot a bullet into it instead.

Again, the animal has more rights than a human. If a human came over to someone's yard, ran around and trying to get into their houses, then beat a cat to death in front of witnesses, I guarantee that human would be locked up somewhere. Perhaps on a psych ward, but somewhere.

Unless someone had shot him first for trying to break in.

Anonymous said...

Sterling Turner CHU was hired to fix this dog's KNOWN aggression and dangerous behavior.

She failed.

She is liable.

It was also her responsiblity to report that this dog was displaying aggression and dangerous behavior that could not be remedied, and her failure to identify or report this resulted in death.

When the victim is a child, she will be held accountable and she better not think she can just disappear.

Those other "trainers" better not think they can escape liability either.

Anonymous said...

" don't have a camera phone and I resent the implication that my eyewitness testimony, which could convict a human, isn't good enough against a dog."

You're right. You should resent it, but as you can see by this kangaroo court, if you don't have that evidence, the authorities with their pseudo professionals and subsidized liars will walk all over you, like they did to this victim and her entire neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

"Again, the animal has more rights than a human"


This is an issue about the rights of a vicious dog OWNER and vicious breeds being supported over victims, supported by a business lobby, the breeders and dealers.

I know that farmers and ranchers have been told by their lobbyists to blame the "animal rights" people, but your enemy in this case is your own farm lobby, that lobbies with the AKC and their puppy mill and dog fighter contingent. That is hooked in with the No Kill madness.

You farmers better start going to your lobbyists and getting them to go hands off on the pit bull and dog breeder support because they are screwing you all over.

The breeders and dog fighters are hooked in with the farm and agricultural lobby.

Anonymous said...

bb, I respectfully disagree on some of your points.

Yes, AG is hooked in with breeders is hooked in with fighters, but I have just as much of an argument with the far left "No animal should be killed for food, or ridden, or driven or name any activity other than eat-breathe-shit-die" as with the factory farmer or the feedlot owner.

IMHO, half of our problems come from the $$ side of this equation, the other half comes from the "Good Dog, Bad Owner/Society/Upbinging/Startled-by-a-dustspeck" folks.

And, btw, the dog killing my livestock was a husky. I'm anti-pit because the things can do WAY more damage than even the most efficient husky.

Packhorse said...

A question.

If the neighbor whose home the pit was trying to invade, or the cat owner whose pet was mauled had shot and killed the pit bull, could the pit owner still sue and win?

Anonymous said...

It depends on where you are. Recent stories include, a livestock killing dog whose owners TRIED to sue the person who shot the dog and wound up with at $600 fine instead (YAY!) and a woman who shot a dog for killing one of her rabbits who was sentence TIME IN PRISON for animal cruelty.

The laws are a mess. The judges are worse because they seem to be interpreting the laws however they see fit.

Also, for some insane reason, most laws protecting "Livestock" don't apply to pets. How weird is that? We seem to elevate "Pets" above livestock, except when a "pet" is killed by another "pet".

Anonymous said...

quess it comes down to who is believable . the owners , friends and people hired to defend a dog have a right to voice an opinion but sensible folk should be able to see this for what it is. on the other hand , if i were to testify that a dog was circling my house and trying to get in and peops pooh poohed this, i would surely be a bit miffed. i have seen predatory behavior in loose pitbulls several times and there was no doubt these dogs meant business. as far as pitbulls actually following cats into houses to kill them , it has happened recently in my area, so, as unusual as it is for dog behavior , i know it does happen with pitbulls . it certainly seems that this case involves a pitbull with predatory behavior and/ or other problems and i think the benifit of the doubt should go toward the cat owners , the witnesses and public safety , not those others .

orangedog said...

I don't think saying that it's too bad no one got the mauler on film implies your testimony isn't good enough, but in this case the testimony wasn't due to a corrupt judge. People unfortunately need to be aware that these "slam dunk" cases more often than not are a slam dunk for the vicious dog owner. I carry a tactical knife now because I will kill any fucking dog that launches an attack on me or my dog. I always have a phone with a camera on me at all times too.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"If the neighbor whose home the pit was trying to invade, or the cat owner whose pet was mauled had shot and killed the pit bull, could the pit owner still sue and win? "

i doubt that any judge or jury would find in the nutter's favor provided there was some kind of evidence that the dog was trying to get in the house. regarding the cat killing scenario, it would depend on the state and the sequence of events. some states would rule against you if you killed the dog AFTER it killed the cat, if the cat was still alive, then no.

Also, for some insane reason, most laws protecting "Livestock" don't apply to pets. How weird is that? We seem to elevate "Pets" above livestock, except when a "pet" is killed by another "pet".

this is rooted in our antiquated animal laws.

"quess it comes down to who is believable "

i think it also comes down to who is doing the believable, ie BILODEAU.

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

Here's the law.

If you are walking with your ON-leash dog, and an illegally off-leash dog displays aggression toward you or your dog, you HAVE the legal right to kill that dog.

Your statement to the police is
"I felt my safety or, my dog's safety was threatened".

I always carry a knife and a clean handkerchief.

Anonymous said...

"If you are walking with your ON-leash dog, and an illegally off-leash dog displays aggression toward you or your dog, you HAVE the legal right to kill that dog. "

I would check your state law before following that advice. If I shot the dogs that came up to bark and snarl at my dogs while I was walking them ON LEASH over the years, there'd be a heck of a lot less dogs around.

And then there's the time when TWO neighbor's dogs came onto my property threatening ME, more than 100 yards onto my property. Nearly got into a fight with AC about that one, but this time they were right. I have no right to shot a dog unless it's coming after my LIVESTOCK. Only a full fledged attack would be okay, whereas "Harassment" is good enough for livestock.

I'm okay with being able to protect my livestock, but I'd argue (probably unsuccessfully) that me and my dogs are also LIVEstock.

Small Survivors said...

Wow, this is incredible that you got your hands on all these documents showing what a clusterfuck this is. And great job on piecing all these documents together into a coherent narrative.

I see now why they had to try and show the cat was run over by a car.

If you know the pit already killed a cat, then all of Trish King & co.'s blather proves is that sometimes, in some situations, the pit might not kill animals (or a towel) which is to say it proves nothing. It already failed the real world temperament test.

And I cannot believe she's going with the animal aggression doesn't equal human aggression BS. Trish King herself has said the pits and rotts are different when she was talking about dog social behaviors. She knows they're mutants and she defends them anyway.

Did I miss it or did none of these geniuses do a test with other dogs?

And as for her psychic reading, using the word "hysterical" is a totally loaded word. Fuck her for that. And what a beautiful rebuttal to King's idiocy is that other eye witness account. That is insane being held hostage by a marauding pit circling and testing every door and window for weakness for 20 minutes! Who's hysterical now, Trish?

What good will more training and a higher fence do if you sometimes LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN. That's the issue. This pit cannot be contained in anything less that a zoo enclosure with zoo keeper handling protocols because when this beast gets out it kills and menaces and invades homes.

Nice summation with the actual ordinances that demonstrate that despite Trish King's psychic reading, the pit has already clearly is vicious according to town's code.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

For the reason Dawn states about "the incident", I don't trust pit bull owners.

I was around pit rescue people a few years back and a few of the pits had to be constantly corrected. It was a little startling at times. I'd hear a chain pop as I walk by and look down. Oh hey, there's a pit!

At least the pit rescue people were knowledgeable and quick. Even then, they regurgitated the same shit. I think they hated me, LOL!

And no, some pits that seem show no animal aggression are actually the ambush killers. Those are the ones that "snap".

The common practice of breeding pit bulls for cash over quality makes their temperament very unpredictable. There are some okay pit bulls, who if raised and trained properly, might make good house pets, but there's too many killer pits. It's not worth the risk. Add in the pit bull owner component and you can see why it ain't worth dealing with pit bull people.

tropical storms said...

The only bulldogs I've ever seen that I think would make reasonable pets were genetically cold. They weren't very bright but were completely non aggressive.

vintage said...

Here's another Good One...

Jan 2009, Bakersfield, CA

Pit Bull that has to be choked off 12 year old girl is picked up by local sanctuary and immediately placed with a couple who liked it's picture and fell in love...


These idiots need to be licensed and bonded so they can indemnify their future victims.

* Disclaimer...You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"who liked it's picture and fell in love.."

i hear that happens a lot with serial killers in the media.

what kind of a superficial idiot falls in love with someone from their photo? did i just answer my own question?

Unknown said...

RE This bio has just left me dumbfounded.
By the time she was 15 she was already in a Long-Term Relationship WTF,so she started training mutts at -10 ?And nealy married at 15 lol
Name: Sterling Turner Chu
Age: 15
Grade: 11
Martial Status: Long-Term Relationship

Chu also has a photo of a unleashed pit and some other killer looking dog as a profile photo on fb,I think if its a case about pits and you love them you are Bias and should be chucked out of court,she is a follower of Ian Dunbar as well

Packhorse said...

"The only bulldogs I've ever seen that I think would make reasonable pets were genetically cold."

I think this is the case with "Sharkey," the YouTube pit that nutters love so much because his owner is constantly posing him with ducklings, rabbits, etc. The dog just lays there with a stupefied look as the owner piles small animals on his back.

A dogman would have culled this dog right away, so he is an abnormality, but nutters love linking to "Sharkey" videos as if he is the breed standard.

tropical storms said...

Back in the day when they were breeding pure families they bred with the expectation of some cold pups. The ones they kept they bred with a wide outcross to get battle dogs. The rest were culled or given away as pets which may help explain some of the misperceptions of these dogs as pet material. If they're sterile I don't have a problem with people keeping them. Stupid but harmless.

Small Survivors said...

The idea that all pit bulls are always vicious all the time is just a straw man argument that nutters put out there. If that were the case, there would be no problem. No one would have them.

The central problem is that some pits sometimes act like dogs. The traits dogmen were looking for were so perverse and so contrary to nature - a "game dog" has no sense of self preservation once their switch is flipped - that they were hard to maintain. Part of the problem is that pretty normal acting dogs can suddenly launch a full throttle attack for no discernible reason. There are many parts to the problem - natural love of attacking is another, won't stop attacking until killed is another. The problem is no one knows which one is going to go off, but we do know that if they do go off, the attack will be devastating.

There is variation in all breeds, so you can find aggressive labs and placid pits. It proves nothing. You can find car accidents where only the one guy who didn't wear a seatbelt survived. That doesn't mean seat belts are actually unsafe.

Small Survivors said...

Sharky kills things sometimes, evidently. This is from a video about one of sharky's friends, a guinea pig that was healthy and just suddenly died peacefully one night…huh.

"I had Penelope about 1 year, she was brought to me one Hispanic family who was not able to take care of her anymore. I told them that if Sharky won't kill her - I will keep her. ( Sharky does not like rats and squirrels - so I thought he will think guinea pig is one of them - BUT I was wrong ) Sharky fell in love with her right away... Sharky saved her and I fell in love with her too, I never owned a guinea pig before.
I wanted to thank you all for very nice comments! And no, she was not sick or ill - she just passed away over night peacefully... I don't know still how old she really was, I have read they live 2-6 years old.. some more. I am very happy I have these moments and videos, but it still feels like it was too soon...
I don't think we will get another guinea pig, not too soon..."

I'm sure she wouldn't lie about how the guinea pig died and jeopardize her little promotions gig she's got going…

"berenice acosta 1 week ago
I have a Question.. did they all grow up together ? or did you introduce each other over time? i would really like to have this kind of relationship with my pets when i have my own place.. Please respond ?
Reply ·

texasgirly1979 1 week ago
Max-Arthur the cat is the oldest, he will be 12 in few months. Sharky the pit bull is 7 years old - other pets have been brought to me by my friends etc... Sharky is just very unusual dog to start with he just loves different kind of animals and birds so I really don't have to do anything else other than just to film them and upload more videos to others to see too :)"


It seems that the cast of chicks, ducklings, and baby bunnies keep changing…so what if sharky eats some occasionally? She can just film around that.

tropical storms said...

I couldn't agree more. I simply think they time for all the fighting breeds has past and the dogs should be allowed to pass into history. Someone who has a safely contained well cared for dog that causes no problem and is sterile has my blessing. As long as the rest are put down and no more are being bred the pitbull problem will be solved. As for genetically cold dogs you really have to remain vigilant until they pass their third birthday to say they're a cold dog. Most people get lulled into a false sense of security when the dog hits two with no problems, the dog not being cold but just a slow starter.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"It seems that the cast of chicks, ducklings, and baby bunnies keep changing…so what if sharky eats some occasionally? She can just film around that."

i need the spelling for that sudden and unexpected noise that comes out your nose, it is a cross between a snort and a snicker.

tropical storms said...

Dawn that is called a snocker. Oh yeah I should let everyone know about Sulia. Check it's out, lots of channels, etc. J. Glick seems to be recruiting so join us. We do have fun there.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Snack sized dog, "I see now why they had to try and show the cat was run over by a car."

Yet another pit bull trigger. Cat hit by car is a trigger for the pit bull's killing rampage.

Maybe GRACIE's reason was to humanely euthanize HERCULES the cat and rather unsuccessfully. So the vet had to do it.

Packhorse said...

Good insight into Sharky, thanks.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

reminded me of that fucktard ALONZO NORMAN'Slame excuse for his mutants' rampage against a herd of alpacas. his mutants were drawn to the smell of the blood after the beagles did it!

orangedog said...

The way they keep using the word "hysterical" makes my blood boil. "Don't listen to that silly woman. She's just hysterical and is too stupid to know that pibble just wanted to play."
Assholes. Assholes. Assholes.

Alexandra said...

The whole Animal Behaviorist sham is exactly that, a complete sham. There is NO acceptable accreditation for anyone to act as a "professional" behaviorist or dog trainer. These certification or registration organizations are all paper mills, creating a sham of pseudo-professional qualifications to trick people. ... Every single one of these fake baviorists were just there to spew their OPINIONS, which are worth less than dirt.

Benton, thanks for this. I'd add the note that the sham extends also to the short list Craven linked to, of mostly PhDs certified by the Animal Behavior Society. The Society was established most of all to try to monopolize what was, in the 1960s, emerging as a highly lucrative field (the pet dog), thus their phony claim that only they can bestow the title animal behaviorist.

I don't know all the people on this ABS list. Some I know are honest, but a great many are most of all credentialled pit prostitutes -- and would likely have done the same lying and twisting as these uneducated amateur imbeciles who actually participated in this case.

The ABS people are almost all of them mouthing the crap that pit bulls are just like any other dog. They mouth the crap that you can clicker train a pit bull to be safe, even after it's killed. They mouth the crap that a behavior test under artificial circumstances will tell you more about a dog than that one behavior test that counts (real life). They are what Chomsky once pointed out that PhDs are all about -- trained in conformist thinking and not rocking the academic boat. They peer-review each others pit bull crap, making sure no one contradicts their Pol-Cor, well-BFF-funded PSEUDO-scientific views of pit bulls, then claim this is real science.

It's a sad state of affairs. If you have a normal dog with a behavior problem, you're better off with someone trained in classical and operant conditioning than with some Millan follower or other Leader of the Pack nutcase. But when it comes to pit bulls, even these ABS people are suddenly drooling, pandering idiots (most of them).

The real list of trustworthy experts on animal behavior when it comes to pit bulls is very short. Some are academically trained (eg, Semyonova, Houpt, Ray and Lorna Coppinger), some aren't (eg, Gary Wilkes), but all share the traits of intelligence (which you don't need to get a PhD nowadays), broad experience (more so than any of these PhD desk jockeys), integrity, lack of moronic arrogance.

This note isn't relevant to this GRACIE case, because these real experts would have been thrown out / thrown under the bus just like the real witnesses were. It's just an aside about the sad state of what Berkey's millions have bought.

Meals on Wheels said...

It is always insulting, not only was the woman who owned Hercules reduced to hysterical, but the victim, was never once called by his name either, and as I recall, demoted to "stray", and then basically road kill, his life celebrated with as much reverence as we have for the bugs that become lodged in our windsheild through the course of driving. Meanwhile, the mauler is Gracie with a last name. How much money was spent to save this dog from being declared "dangerous"?

This case really disgusts and disturbs me.

Miss Margo said...

Dawn: I think that the "unexpected noise" you describe is a chortle. At least, that's what I think of it as.

I'm fascinated with language.

I think that there needs to be a word for that emotion you feel when you know done something really stupid by accident, and you know the consequence will be arriving momentarily. That "uh-oh" moment.

Like, one time I took my aquarium heater out of the water to clean it and adjust the temperature settings. I didn't unplug it first. It became very hot, but I wasn't paying attention.

The second I put it back in the water, I though "Uh-oh, it's gonna shatter."

It is a very distinct emotion, that uh-oh emotion....

Anonymous said...

Sterling Turner Chu now uses a different name Sterling Chu: