Saturday, February 22, 2014

Community Protection Act


On May 20, 1989, a 7 year old boy was raped, stabbed, sexually mutilated and left for dead in a park in Tacoma, Washington. The next day, police arrested Earl Kenneth Shriner, a violent sex offender who was well known to the authorities for violent sex crimes dating back 24 years.

What was so unusual about this particular crime and this predator that they earned a mention on this blog? Shriner openly talked about his deranged fantasies of rape and torture. The authorities were well aware of the extreme danger Shriner posed to the community and they were frustrated that there was nothing they could do about it.

Not surprisingly, when those details were made public in the days after Shriner's arrest, there was massive public outrage. This outrage was channeled into a victim advocacy group. They called themselves The Tennis Shoe Brigade and they demanded that lawmakers pass laws making communities safer. And they got it.

In 1990, Washington State legislators unanimously passed the first sexual predator law that allowed the state to lock someone up indefinitely in an effort to protect the community from future crimes they MIGHT commit.

Over the next 25 years, nineteen states passed similar laws and of course legal challenges claiming the laws were unconstitutional were close behind. Funny, each time the laws were challenged, the courts upheld the right of the state to protect the community from violent predators.

The tragic story of the 7 year old Tacoma boy and Earl Shriner seems out of place here, yet there is a ring of eerie familiarity.

Hardly a day goes by where I do not read or hear about situations where people complain to the authorities about loose and menacing dogs but the response from law enforcement and animal control is "Sorry, we can't do anything until after the dog bites." And of course, everyone's favorite, "Sorry but we have to witness the violation."

It is hard to imagine an incident more horrific or more preventable than the brutality Earl Shriner inflicted on that 7 year old Tacoma boy in 1989. Yet an even more egregious example of the unnecessarily tragic limitations of our laws has been playing out in Dayton, Ohio since February 7, 2014. Enter the story of Klonda Richey.

For the last couple of years Klonda Richey did not feel safe on her own property. The complaints to her violent felon neighbor ANDREW NASON about his vicious dogs were not only ignored by NASON but also ignored by the Montgomery County Dog Warden when the violations were not witnessed by acos. Klonda's paper trail of well documented complaints seemed to only escalate the tension with NASON and his vicious killer dogs. Threats and intimidation by NASON were captured on video surveillance. The police advised Klonda to seek a protection order and the magistrate, for whatever insane or political reason, denied her request. As a result, Dayton has a dead woman it needs to explain.

The $64,000 questions is: Why do dangerous dogs have more rights than dangerous humans?

If we as a society can lock human beings up indefinitely to prevent future crimes they might commit, why on earth can't we take similar actions against dangerous DOGS? Why are dogs afforded this ridiculously excessive burden of proof?

The murder of Klonda Richey should be a wake up call. I hope the good people of Ohio can channel their outrage into something as productive as The Tennis Shoe Brigade and just maybe, we will see the rest of the states fall like dominoes.

Klonda Richey - Scorched Earth

Klonda Richey - DBO

Klonda Rickey - craven desires

Klonda Richey home video surveillance

More surveillance video

The Spokesman Review May 23, 1989

Earl Kenneth Shriner wikipedia

Community Protection Act of 1990

New York Times March 3, 2007

ATSA Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators


Mom in Eugene said...

This is an excellent point. Its made even more egregious by the fact that this is an animal, a "pet" we are talking about, not a human. We own these animals, they are property, they do not have rights.

People might say that the owners have rights, and can own any "dog" they choose, but dog ownership is NOT a right it is a privilege. We are so obsessed with dogs we forget this.

While I don't want a return to the days where anjmals were treated poorly, and ethical treatment didn't exist, I would like to return to common sense rules about dogs- ones that bite ought to be PTS and fighting breeds that kill a lot ought to be banned. Period.

People shouldn't live in fear of a DOG, that is crazy. People shouldn't have to worry if defending themselves against these free roaming monsters will earn them hate, harassment or cruelty charges. PEOPLE should not have to wait until someone DIES or loses a limb/face to stop these maulers.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to believe that there would be outrage, laws passed and the other states would follow up with similar laws. However, the killer for whom the "Tennis Shoe" law was passed did not have a million supporters to stand up and publicly object on his behalf. We live in a nation where a large portion of the population does not understand accountability and personal responsibility. "Its the poor abused dog, no its the owner." [The eternal dance of shifting the blame from serial killer dogs to sociopathic owners!] So someones gotta answer "WHO KILLED KLONDA RICHEY?"

Animal Uncontrol said...

I think its important to consider, also, that dog-at-large (among other things) is enough of a problem in itself. It is not a high crime, certainly, but its not nothing either.

One thing that frustrates me about all this is it seems as though many paint it as an all or nothing scenario (false choice fallacy) and it isn't. Something as simple as an enforceable (and enforced) leash law would have saved Richey's life.

KaD said...

I agree but it is primarily YOUR responsibility to protect YOURSELF. Don't EXPECT the 'authorities' to do so; particularly when a precious DOG is involved. Be prepared to save your own life.

Small Survivors said...

Brilliant post and Brilliant point!

Look at all those BIG states that have civil commitment laws that have BANS ON BSL. WOW! CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, FLORIDA, MASSACHUSETTS, ILLINOIS, and look at Washington state - now getting a BSL ban pushed down their throats. They need to see this. I wonder if anyone still in the legislature actually voted for the civil commitment laws in Washington.

"I think its important to consider, also, that dog-at-large (among other things) is enough of a problem in itself. It is not a high crime, certainly, but its not nothing either."

This is why AC and police opt to do nothing - historically a loose dog has not been seen as a potentially lethal threat - when pits & dangerous dogs get loose, they pose an immediate threat to anything living in the community.

And yes AU - pit bull advocacy has been very successful in shaping the discussion by creating false choices - owner or dog (doesn't matter, and its both) - BSL or Breed neutral (both work in tandem) - Nature vs nurture (doesn't matter but its the genetics that's the problem)

Animal Uncontrol said...

KaD: Exactly. Regardless of what laws are in effect, you are the first responder to any assault on your person.

However, with that said, it would be a definite convenience if our public servants, you know... served the public!

Animal Uncontrol said...

Snack - true, but "lower" crimes such as vandalism, embezzlement, perjury, etc... are generally not lethal threats either. However, we do take affirmative action against those things.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

shriner's victim survived. sorry i didn't make that clear.

RSM said...

If we can't have BSL, then we need real AC. Or it will be the wild west out there.

AC needs to be updated for the modern times; they do need real legal tools to stop dangerous dogs, more money, and new standards and protocols. Most of all, we need laws that hold all dog owners legally and criminally liable for any damage, any bites or maulings.

No more citations for loose maulers: if your dog is a breed, or mixed with a breed, that is in the top 3 killers nationwide over the past 2 years, your dog is considered a lethal threat and when caught, gets PTS asap. If its not caught out, but there is proof its loose, it will be impounded and a court can decide between PTS or better containment- once. If it happens again, PTS right away. NO waiting for an attack necessary. Other loose non fighting dogs will be impounded, and owners fined.
Also, any dog that bites a human or domestic animal badly enough to require ER care gets PTS right away. These will be reported mandatorily just like gun shot wounds, Hiding a dog that bites lands you in jail until the dog is handed over, plus a $1,000 fine.
Excessive barking will get your dog removed as well.

You don't pay your Ac fines? Have wages garnished, license suspended, or go to jail.

Dog owners must stop being privileged over the rest of us. Pits are the main problem, but TBH, the barking, poop, and loose dogs of other breeds are still a nuisens, just not a lethal threat.

I loved your former post on dog rules.

Anonymous said...

I will say it again- we MUST put nutters on notice that we will not sit by and let them terrorize us. They MUST learn: "Loose pit? Shoot on sight.".

They need to be introduced to the urban version of 3S- shoot, shovel, shut up, which are the 3C's- catch, choke, cremate.

I HATE THIS. I don't wanna harm an animal, even a pit bull. But the owners and zealots leave me no choice. I will not sit and wait while a dangerous dog terrorizes my neighborhood. If it's loose, it's mine.

S.K.Y. said...

My first thought if I was her would be to sell the house--but who would buy a house next to a felon and out-of-control pit bulls? Then, to catch the dogs and take them to a kill shelter in another state--but how do you catch and transport killer dogs on your own, without getting killed and without the felon owner finding out? Once she had filed even one formal complaint, she'd be the first suspect.

I guess that only leaves putting up a tall fence. But there's pretty much no fence that isn't easily thwarted by a pit bull. My 4' tall chainlink with "wire arms" sticking out to inhibit climbing would keep a pit out for maybe 15-20 seconds. Even that cost $7000 and I had to get a 5-year loan for it. I wanted to run hot wires along my fence, but that wasn't allowed by my village, and surely wouldn't be allowed in a city. Pits can chew through wood and scale 12' chainlink. What's left? Nothing but getting killed...

I've complained about loud noise, and the police came and shut down my neighbor's pool parties. Yet the officials in Klonda's city wouldn't respond to threatening dogs that eventually KILLED her? What's up with the idiot police and their priorities?

Anonymous said...

The excuse of "we need to witness the violation" is a lie from animal control that many ac personnel have colluded in using to protect lawbreakers and to avoid doing their job.

In the past, it has been used to protect friends and family of ac, or political connections, like the mayor's cousin or parties like that.

It is now being used to protect fighting dog owners and to advance the no kill agenda.

It is a fabrication. Witness statements are allowed in all enforcement in all government departments, from police to board of health and allowed in courts of law. Anonymous complaints from witnesses are routinely used in child services departments and require investigations.

If you hear this excuse from animal control, please get a lawyer and put your city or town on notice that animal control is lying, refusing to do its job, and will get someone killed. Document every failure, every lie, every threat, everything and use cameras. Then work to get that ac officer fired because they are lying to avoid doing their job.

I wish that Rhonda's lawyer had helped her deal with filing formal complaints against Dayton government, including Mayor who allowed Kumpf to break the law and now is falsely blaming the state. Mayor Nan Whaley helped murder Rhonda. Kumpf was her employee and the buck stopped with the mayor.

Anonymous said...

" historically a loose dog has not been seen as a potentially lethal threat -"

They have.

Loose dogs are involved in majority of bites, cause traffic accidents, and are a public health hazard on many levels including rabies, which is why animal control came into being, as well as attacks on livestock.

Meals on Wheels said...

This is such an excellent point and I hope you send it to the right people as you fight against the pit bull mauling advocacy in your state.

Had Klonda had captured film footage of say, people in the act of graffiti, child abuse, or murder, would have the authorities said, "No, we need to witness it for ourselves"?

This is such bullshit, I am so outraged.

As for REAL Animal control, the Pit Bull lobby already insists that BSL is too expensive...something like $250,000 a year! Imagine one life being reduced to a quarter million, and I'm sure just one survivor's first hospital bill including life flight may be as much. How much would REAL ANIMAL CONTROL cost?

Cities with a blight like mine, need to train the police to deal with after hours calls, or have an all night dog warden ready to go. How much will that cost? I was told by our AC, that people who are out after hours are likely up to no good, and deserve to be mauled. Remember that if you want to take the trash out at midnight or five a.m. before you have to go to work.

And to have pens for the mutants, with panic buttons like the APSCA suggests? How much will that cost? It's just cheaper to shoot them with a gun, but the department may have to deal with death threats for shooting a pibblely wibbley if some pit bull advocate gets footage and wind of it.

What you will see too, is that more dogs will just be shot on site, as was the case in Idaho last week, when a police officer shot an aggressive lab. The police will choose to just shoot the dog at large, regardless what it is. You know, they can't tell if it's a pit bull or not anyway.

What I see, is that as BSL is made illegal, the rates of death and serious maulings caused by specifically pit bulls are rising. What seems to be rising too are so media reports of specifically PIT BULLS being shot by the police AND civilians as well, it's becoming to be about as newsworthy as a paper cut. Actually, the attacks have become so commonplace, I think the majority of people are becoming numb to them. The Klonda Richey story was not covered by my local CA news, but the dog shooting in Idaho was. As the politicians listen to the scary pit bull lobby and relent to lies, and "your breed is next", "ATTS test", and 20 year old studies, they forget about the kind of responsible tax paying voter, who just flips the switch in favor of banning pit bulls completely. I've noticed those comments on the latest pit bull bloodletting....there are at least as many who would write "Ban the monsters", as the teenaged girl who writes "you haters, it's all how you raise 'em".

This is why the pit bull lobby is loud and scary and that there are a million PROTECT THE PIT BULLS FROM BSL to the victims and public safety pages dedicated to this issue.

However, more and more are carrying a gun. That's what society needs, more vigilantes. Remember Zimmerman got a gun to deal with loose pitbulls, and instead shot a teenaged boy in a hoodie. The police had suggested to Zimmerman, to get a gun. This needs to be brought into the discussion on if BSL is too expensive and too hard to enforce. Vote against BSL, and you may have something worse to
deal with.

Keep up the good work. Thank you.

tropical storms said...

Spot on Dawn, this is a stellar piece of work.

Animal Uncontrol said...

RE: Dayton AC doing their jobs, following the law, etc...

I would not bet big money that Kumpf was technically negligent.

Unless you have been *physically* on the front line of the dog wars... and by that I mean not just blogging, reading, etc... then you need to take everything you think you know about AC and throw it out the window. Indeed, Fido has special legal protections in many places that YES make no sense but exist nevertheless.

Anonymous said...

The domination of animal control by special interests is not new, it has just gotten worse and expanded to more areas.

If you have any interaction with the breeder lobby over the years, one of their major bugaboos is animal control. All those AKC crones drone on endlessly whining against animal control and against laws and sitting around figuring out how to shoot down animal control laws, because they are all breaking so many laws (like tax laws, zoning laws, health laws) and animal control regulates their activities. The breeders also have the interests of the puppy mills that pay their way to support.

I can remeber one situation some yars back before the pit bull thing where a rottweiler mauled someone who either eneded up totally disabled or dead, and the head of the animal control department was a rottweiler breeder who shut down all investigations. Probably was a dog they bred

Dog fighters were doing the same thing even way back if they were prevalent in a certain area, especially in the South

Watch a group of breeders in action, and you'll often find them sharing tips on how to hide the numbers of dogs they have, their sales, their other activities like tax evasion to hide from animal control

The historical pattern has been get a breeder on some animal control board claiming they are an expert, or running animal control. They shut down laws or weaken them to nothing. They use the animal control department to protect themselves, the industry.

As time went on, people started to ask questions and got savvier about the ulterior motives and conflicts of interest, so then the breeders had to hide it, thus they latched on to No Kill through servants like Nathan Winograd, who then claim that opposing or getting rid of animal control laws is somehow good for animals, to fool the politicians and the dumber members of the community into turning animal control into nothingness and creating anarchy and thus mauling and death.

The pit bull queeens just latched onto the breeder self dealing and devious control of a public safety department, and added themselves into the mix.

They hide, and let the loser slug who is desperate for attention and to be interviewed and shipped off to speak at seminars as their patsy.

Anonymous said...

That was an AKC rottweiler breeder who did that.

There's lots more doing that, Brenda Barnette in Los Angeles comes to mind

AKC spends a lot of money, millions, on lobbyists and lobbying every year (and getting their people onto state lobbies like the Farm Bureau and advisory groups) to stifle animal control,

and the average joe or josephine just trying to live their lives gets the bill and feels the consequences, like getting their kid mauled and then blamed

Not many people know what is really going on behind the carefully constructed public face of the breeders, who are some of the biggest liars on the planet and have lots of time to obsessively pursue their goals with animal control and other negative things too, like opposing anticruelty laws, while most people have to work and take care of their kids.

Then the breeders will lie to people's faces and claim they support regulation while they are spending plenty of time and money doing everything they can to support lawlessness and death.

Anonymous said...

"The Klonda Richey story was not covered by my local CA news, but the dog shooting in Idaho was."

Because much of the media in many areas in almost entirely made up or controlled by Berkey clones and they have relationships that cross state lines.

There is a reason that Berkey got NPR, as one example, to advertise for her interests and gets them to hide anything that may put her interests in a negative light. All that caring about minorities, they say, but they ignore the suffering of minority children thanks to Berkey's activities.

She knows these people who run NPR. They are all friends or friends of friends, some are even related to some of these pit bull queens.

They are using the media for their own interests. I'm not sure it can even be called the media or journalism anyore, it's just special interests getting free advertising, whether it is for their businesses or pit bull lobbying, whatever.

Best Friends is heavy into media manipulation. Part of the reason it is so bad in LA is that Best Friends is hooked up with the Mayor's girlfriend, who just happens to work for the media, a reporter for some CA tv station or something like that. Best Friends thus influences animal control there, despite the fact that they have years of failure, questionable activities, and lies behind them. Their propaganda floods LA media like the LATimes and they even got handed taxpayer funded properties for free and got their representative (who also works for them as does her daughter) heading animal control thanks to hard work of the media convincing the unknowing public that it was ok. A lot of lies there appearing under the costume of journalism.

A breeder works a pet column for the San Francisco Chronicle and uses it to do the same, propagandize and lie and do pit bull and no kill and breeder lobbying, and her editors lie for her and cover for her

The Sacramento Bee had a breeder working there who did the same

Many more instances too many to list here, all over the country, big and little ways

The media is infected with a very bad disease, and they are sharing the blame for getting people killed

Packhorse said...

Here is the problem--it is very difficult to find anyone who will defend a sexual predator, let alone an entire network of organizations engaging in social lobbying to "rehabilitate" their image. Imagine a "BAD RAP" group whose logo is a child molester with big sad eyes and a halo...

In my area there has been a lot of hand-wringing about a pit bull that was found shot. Apparently it was allowed to roam freely in a rural area. Now there is a donation fund send up to bring the shooter to "justice." Now, it's not difficult to imagine what happened here. Pittie decided to have some fun with somebody's pets or livestock or maybe the neighbors themselves and somebody got fed up. They shot but forgot to shovel. Instead of whining and complaining the local dog people should be castigating the owners for foolishly allowing their dog to roam.

Anonymous said...

I'll argue again against "shovel" any time a dog is legally killed while threatening human or animal. If you know you were within the law, call LE and report the issue?

Why? For a law to be effective, people have to know about it.

In fact, I'd love to see the following etched on the backside of ever dog license issued:

"It is legal to KILL any dog chasing, harassing or killing any domestic animal in the state of ______. Keep your dog under control at all times."

The word has to get out somehow. Too many idiots out there think that Fido is some combination of toddler, stuffed toy and piece of machinery and not an animal with its own prey drive and an effective set of weapons in its mouth.

Then there's the others who will say "Oh, it was just a cat/rabbit/chicken it killed. Fido was just playing and wasn't TRYING to hurt anything".

fuck 'em.

DubV said...

Found this comment to Toellner, which I might store as my standard reply to him.

"Brent Toellner, you're not sad at all. You are playing a shell game; one of distraction. You are taking this most horrible tragedy and making it NOT about the dog, the single most addressable factor in all such tragedies that would have made them all impossible to have happened. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing the Whole truth here: dangerous dogs, propagators and protectors of those dogs, misguided followers, corrupt officials and inadequate law and order. Dangerous dogs are the disease, everything else is the delivery system. To not see that is not just sad, it's criminal. Don't condescend by implying we who see the whole picture are somehow pathetic, inadequate or have less than moral intentions. It's rhetoric like yours that comes from a place of ignorance or outright subterfuge."

Found here

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

brilliant comment!

Brent Toellner, you're not sad at all. You are playing a shell game; one of distraction. You are taking this most horrible tragedy and making it NOT about the dog, the single most addressable factor in all such tragedies that would have made them all impossible to have happened. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing the Whole truth here: dangerous dogs, propagators and protectors of those dogs, misguided followers, corrupt officials and inadequate law and order. Dangerous dogs are the disease, everything else is the delivery system. To not see that is not just sad, it's criminal. Don't condescend by implying we who see the whole picture are somehow pathetic, inadequate or have less than moral intentions. It's rhetoric like yours that comes from a place of ignorance or outright subterfuge.

Tchhht!!! said...

My wife and I were grocery shopping in Fred Meyer a couple of weeks ago when we encountered a man pushing a dog around in one of the grocery carts. We reported this to store staff and were told "the manager doesn't care". We are in process of writing the CEO about this. Dog madness must stop.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen this?

I have some questions about this since he has at least two other pit bulls as shown in the video.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

a wild cat of any size attacking a large dog with another large dog and a human present certainly sounds fishy but a small one just sounds insane. if his story is true, rabies?

Allie said...

Check out this Onion piece that refers to pitbulls:,35239/

Anonymous said...

OMG, I love the Onion

And the name "Tchhht!!!", your name is awesome, lol

PutMeInCharge4OneDay said...

Tccht, am I missing something from your comment?

Was it a pit bull the were pushing around? Or if not a pit bull was the dog being a problem towards people?

Anonymous said...

Hmm, it does seem pretty gross to have a dog sitting in the cart, even if it isn't a sh*t bull. But then shopping carts are so disgusting as it is (like circulating coins), I suppose a little bit more filth won't make much difference.

PutMeInCharge4OneDay said...


Shopping carts are pretty gross.

They did an expose on a local news channel not long ago, and you had women changing their kids poopy diapers in them etc. No sanitation used either before or after handling the diaper.

Quite frankly the dog is the cleanest thing thats been in that cart and would be the last thing I would be worried about.

Packhorse said...

Who wants a laugh?

""For everything we've all heard about children and gun violence," says the program's host Ira Glass, "there are basic things we don't hear so much about. Like what it's like to live in neighborhoods that have to cope with so much bloodshed. This is a school that knows this problem in a way that most of us around the country don't.""

Yes, Ira, let's end the bloodshed.

Anonymous said...

"Quite frankly the dog is the cleanest thing thats been in that cart and would be the last thing I would be worried about."

You're probably right. Still, if it ever becomes normal to see multiple shoppers with dogs (or any other furry animals) in their carts at my local grocery store, I might have to switch to one where it's not. I like dogs, but also agree with Tchhht!!! that it's turning into "dog madness" at this point.

Anonymous said...

Oh Ira! How he's managed to survive this long, I'll never know. Is Piney still living with him?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

packhorse, you find the craziest stuff.

to the anonymous person complaining about your experience in fred meyer, please be sure to share your experience with corp headquarters with me. many years ago, i was witness to a pit bull "service" dog attached to a young punk dirt bag. i stood and watched while it barked growled and lunged at everyone who walked passed it while the young punk dirt bag complained to the assistant manager about some nonsense. i waited until he was finished and then launched an attack on her for not evicting the young punk dirt bag and his "service" mutant. i later did some research on fred meyer and service dogs only to find out they have been sued over the issue and now they are afraid to touch the subject ever since the dingbat with the rottweiler who was evicted from the store successfully put them in their place. my guess is, short of a dog actually biting someone, they will do nothing about your complaint. but i think you should still make it.

fyi, except on the rare occasion when the battery is drained, i haven't been without my little camera since that day.

Anonymous said...

about the bobcat, it looks like he has at least two other pitbulls and it just occurred to me listening to his story if his pits did get into it and he didn't have the money to have them sewn up at the vets, a bobcat story would come in very handy to raise money for the vet bills. I hate to be so suspicious but the porkies of pit bull owners are many, so outrageous, and increasingly involve either wild cats are someone ELSE'S pit bull, it can't help by cross my mind. Who would donate to his vet bills if they knew it was his own pit?

Animal Uncontrol said...

Stuff it PrimateZ! DogZ be in your grocery storeZ! Becuz DogZ is PEEPEL!

BecuZ 14th AMENDMENTZ PrimateZ!

Regarz, FIDO

Animal Uncontrol said...

On a more serious note, anyone with nothing to do on May 3rd may want to consider attending the "One Million Pibble March" on Washington DC.

The posting leaves me a bit confused: It says "Humans only, no dogs"? So, the OWNERS can't go either? Who does show up for this thing?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

so, a better name would be "the million nutter march"?

"This event is happening for two very specific reasons: to end discrimination and abuse"

"specific", an interesting choice of word.

"If people didn't pick up after their dogs or people brought dogs who aren't good in stressful situations and an incident occurred, it would be detrimental to its entire purpose. There is zero reason to risk that. If a disabled person wants to attend with their service animal, that is their right but no other dogs will be allowed at this event and that will not be changing and it will be strongly enforced."

stressful situations leading to detrimental incidents? i wonder what she could be cryptically referring to? but it would be funny if all of those nutters with "service" mutants showed up.

"I've been told "I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of pit bulls" and I have been made aware that many foundations and groups in the animal community (I will leave them nameless... for now.) are sitting back and waiting to see if this will "fail". "

whenever i see comments like that, i think the speaker is lying.

my pen pal, KAREN BATCHELOR mentioned ELLE the 2013 recipient of the hero award. i wonder KAREN has seen the video of ELLE growling at people in public? i wonder she has seen the criminal record of ELLE'S owner?

i wish i could go to this shin dig.

tropical storms said...

Wherever this event is to take place I hope many from our side turn out with both still and video cameras. It is inevitable that many of the mentally deficient will turn up with dogs in tow. These dogs will in all likelyhood be wearing completely inappropriate tack for bulldogs and the resulting "oops" moments should be preserved.

Alexandra said...

This new bobcat story is about as credible as this older one:

Agents: Couple Blames Cougar For Attack From Own Dog

MILL CREEK, Wash. — A couple who said they were attacked by a mountain lion, were instead attacked by their own pit bull, said Bruce Richards, an agent for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.About a month and a half ago, the couple said they were attacked by a mountain lion near a Puyallup home, Richards said. The couple was so badly hurt that they were in the hospital.
When wildlife agent Richards went to visit the couple in the hospital, he said they were “ripped to pieces.” He said, “We’re talking a major mauling on two people.”
Richards took a tracking dog, Mishka, to the couple's house in an attempt to locate the mountain lion, but no trace was found.
Instead, Mishka led agents back to the couple's house and to the couple's pit bull inside the home. Richards said when he looked in their house he saw a white dog covered in dried blood.
fake cougar attack - pit bull 2
The agents credited their tracking dog, Mishka, with preventing the department from spending hundreds of search hours, thousands of dollars in resources and saving the public a lot of turmoil for a mountain lion that didn’t exist.
The wildlife agents would not say why the couple said they were attacked by a mountain lion.

Karen Batchelor has been blacklisted by the NZ pit bull club:

"Please note our Blacklist - do not purchase or deal with these people in any way, if you are found dealing with these people you will be removed as a member and your dogs de-registered:
Geoffrey Williams - Fraud theft and crulty to animals, all dogs he "owns" have been gained illegally and are being investigated.
*American Pitbull Association's Karen - NZKC Amstaff attempted fraud over Pit Bull Puppies

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

here's a photo of the mountain lion in washington.

thanks for posting the stuff on karen batchelor. i've been trying to decide the best way to serve up my ole pen pal.

Anonymous said...

LOLOL "Million Pibble March", no pibbles allowed! I know this is wrong, but if even one "therapy" pit attacks its owner during the event it will make my day.

Animal Uncontrol said...

One other thing I find interesting about the One Million PinHead march - Its basically a march for nothing - they already have Obama in their hip pocket, so why bother? Maybe its to rub everyone else's nose in it?

Anonymous said...

Because they're bullies and they can?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

maybe they plan to petition washington to replace our eagle symbol with a mutant. maybe they want gripping dogs on our money.

Anonymous said...

There was also the preacher possibly killed by a cougar in the state of Missouri where there are no cougars, or maybe it was somebody else's dogs.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

john reynolds, quite possibly my favorite fucktard of all time.

Anonymous said...

I like the post. I will have to remember the concept. Ironically, the video interview shows, right at the end, two of his pit bull pups start to fight, and he has to break it up.

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, anyone who would take a dog into a grocery store is a douche. I love dogs but more and more I hate all dog owners.

Do you have a link to the video of Elle growling? I did a search but I can't find it.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i will try to find it. it was on facebook.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

elle growling

Don't Scratch Too Deep said...