Caveat
Caveat
Caveat
Search
Alltop. Seriously?! I got in?
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 

Put The Big Red Button on your site
image
Locations of visitors to this page Who links to me?
incivility
Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter
This Month
September 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Year Archive
View Article  SO THAT'S HOW 'BREED' (HA HA) BANS GOT STARTED...
Finally, a video that explains how breed-specific legislation got its start.   Thank you, Ryan O'Meara, for putting this together.

If you have been wondering what sort of person could possibly have thought that discriminating against dogs by shape was an idea with even a molecule of merit, wonder no more.

If you suspected all along that dog-killing laws were born in a dark, damp, foetid place far removed from the light of reason, here's your proof.

Watch the video from K9 Magazine by clicking here.

h/t Social Mange, who has a nice editorial piece about Brytler this week.  Read Navigator's Purple Kool-Aid and Bryant's Legacy of Death. Gee, I guess Soche is a bit pissed off.  Or something :>)

View Article  SUGAR-COATING MICHAEL BRYANT
Is anybody else sick of watching the media wankers as they paint Michael Bryant as the victim in Monday night's tragic incident?

Well, Fred over at One Bark at a Time has had about enough of it.  Lori at Wag the Dog is really annoyed too.

I started to lose it when the smarmy news-readers at CTV, shortly after Bryant was charged, were breathlessly analyzing grainy video footage on the six o'clock news.  The point was that witnesses had reported seeing the Saab driving on the wrong side of Bloor Street on Monday night.  It sounds bad, alright, but guess what, folks?  There was a construction truck parked on the right side of the road, see?  So Bryant had no choice but to go around it - he had to drive on the left!  Phew, that was a close one!

And so the bullshit flows.

Lately, there have been stories in the print media about Bryant's family, about what a swell guy he is, about how many loyal friends he has and so on and so forth.  As if any of that matters.

It's so obvious that the slick PR firm hired by Bryant, Navigator, is behind all this sickly sweet nonsense.  The question is whether the media minions are doing it because orders have come down from on high or because they, too are being cleverly manipulated by Navigator.

They are practically arguing the case on the suppertime news and are painting Bryant as a sterling fellow who was victimized by that nasty cyclist.

The day after the tragic incident, the insufferable snake-oil salesmen at CTV were yammering about all the collisions between cyclists and vehicles - thousands of them, see?   It's a very common thing.  They also ran the leaked resignation letter Bryant sent where he claims to be innocent.  The next day, they were analyzing evidence - the videotape - to show why the wrong side of the road was the right side of the road.  The next day it was all about how Darcy Sheppard, the person who was killed Monday night when he was knocked from Bryant's car, hit a mailbox and then smashed his head on a fire hydrant, had been cautioned by police over a disturbance that afternoon.  The police sent him on his way, yet an unidentified person was commenting about how he was drunk, which doesn't make much sense.

Spin, spin, buzz, buzz.

I've been trying to pretend that Bryant is just a normal person, someone I don't despise, to see if the propaganda is as bad as it seems to be.  I've even pretended that I like the little knob, that he's one of my friends, to see how the whitewash looks.

No matter how I try to spin it in my own head, the relentless coverage and clear bias are so obviously over-the-top that it's an insult to anyone of even average intelligence.  I'm even wondering if they've crossed a line since this is a criminal matter that will be before the courts in October.

Everybody is saying Bryant will get off because of who he is (if anything, he should fry because of who he is as far as I'm concerned).   I don't expect him to get life in prison, only hard-core deviants ever get that.  I do expect him to be tried, convicted and punished, though, and I'm not talking about community service or house arrest.

Through all the fluff pieces and sugar syrup, let's keep something in mind:   A person is dead.

Spin that, Navigator.

*
The Toronto Star is seeing things my way this morning.  They have a good article entitled, Spinning the First Week of Michael Bryant's New LIfe.
View Article  WHEN IS A 'PIT BULL' NOT A 'PIT BULL'?
All the time, silly - there's no such thing as a 'pit bull'.

In Ontario these days, another answer would be duh, when some nimrod in Animal Control wants to pretend he knows a little sumpin' bout dogs.

But I digress.

Check out my PowerPoint presentation (965K).  It's the same as the display board I did for our booth at the All About Pets show this past Easter weekend.

Here's the link.

UPDATE ONE SECOND LATER:  Damn, the link didn't work.  I've tried attaching it as a file instead.  Just click on the paper clip to view it.


1 Attachments
View Article  BRYANT OFFERS CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF VICTIM
The bizarre events continue to unfold here in Ontario.

I watched former Attorney General Michael Bryant's short comment after his release yesterday.  There's a video of the statement at the Toronto Star if you want to watch.

He was offering condolences to the family of Darcy Alan Sheppard, the 33-year-old cyclist who died after an encounter with Bryant on Monday night.  He went on to thank people who were supporting his family.  His comments made it sound as though Bryant thought he was the victim in the case.

I get that the matter is before the courts so he obviously wouldn't comment on any details, but condolences?  A simple 'no comment' would have made more sense.

*

Some U.S. readers have expressed concerns about the 'slap on the wrist' aspect of Bryant's charges in the case.

Dangerous driving is a crminal offense in Canada, it is not a traffic offense.  Here's some info from an Ontario criminal lawyers' site:

A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.

Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, which in Canada is 25 years.  Here's the section from the Criminal Code of Canada.

So Bryant is in serious trouble.




View Article  MICHAEL BRYANT, THE GUY WHO BANNED 'PIT BULLS' IN ONTARIO, CHARGED IN CYCLIST'S DEATH
Former Attorney General of Ontario involved in bizarre incident last night on Toronto's tony Bloor Street.   more »
View Article  WHY DON'T WE HEAR ABOUT THESE DOG BITES AND ATTACKS?
The media 'journalists' use a simple formula for their 'news' items about dog bites these days.  If it can be at all passed off as a 'pit bull', do it - not showing a picture helps.  Otherwise, just bury it somewhere because the fake hysteria over 'pit bulls' we've created might get diluted - and we can't have that, can we?  We need the hits on our websites to generate ad revenue and stay alive.  A poll about the wisdom of banning 'pit bulls' should be run whenever possible as well - it puts audience share through the roof when all the anti-BSL folk hit it to vote.

Here's a neat little blog you might want to check out:

Dog Attacks You Never Hear About

View Article  DENVER: INTERFERING IN OTHER CITIES' AFFAIRS?
I was cleaning out some trivial stuff and deleted a couple of posts by mistake.

I re-attach the letter from Denver's assistant city attorney to places considering revising their animal control policies.


1 Attachments
View Article  THE LAST POST: BANNED AID BEAT OVERWHELMING ODDS
Phase One is over for Banned Aid   more »
View Article  NEWS FROM ANIMAL LIBERATION-LAND
The FBI has added Daniel San Diego to its list of most wanted terrorists.  He shares the honour with Osama bin Laden and others but has the dubious distinction of being the first domestic terrorist added to the list.

Oh, and thanks a lot, ABC. I was using the same title but had to change it after I visited your story.

The FBI put out a press release on April 22 listing various rewards for information in attacks targeting scientific researchers.

A couple of ALF members were indicted in Los Angeles on  April 22, charged with conspiracy, stalking, and other crimes against researchers at UCLA.

A pro-research rally in Los Angeles attracted hundreds of supporters, vastly outnumbering the animal liberaton extremists protesting at the same time.  I guess the animal liberation schtick is finally wearing thin with mainstream groups, which is a good thing indeed.

And then there's Mr Vick (rhymes with...).  A buddy out west gave me the heads-up on this one:

Michael Vick in Talks to Become PETA Spokesman

Jailed NFL Superstar Looks to Rehab Image After Dog-fighting Rap

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Michael Vick is in talks to become the new spokesman for PETA.

Yes, you read that correctly. The disgraced one-time NFL superstar serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring is primed to do public-service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals upon his release later this month. According to three people with knowledge of the matter, the proposed endorsement is part of a comprehensive PR scheme aimed at rehabilitating the quarterback's image and gaining him readmission to the league that banned him from playing.

Well, at least Vick and Peta have something in common - both have used 'pit bulls' to further their own ends, both have shown no respect for animal life and both appear to be greedy and manipulative enough to deserve each other.

What's the difference between bumping off animals you promised to place in new homes then throwing the corpses into a dumpster and bumping off animals you were supposed to care for and burying the bodies in the backyard?  Thirty million bucks a year, I guess.

This guy Vick isn't too bright, is he?  Doesn't he have teh Google?  Somebody should let him know that the worst thing he could do to rehab his image (such as it is) is to join forces with the most hypocritical, self-serving, histrionic group of animal-killing phonies around. 

If Vick thinks people who love dogs are mad at him now, just wait until his goofy mug appears in a Peta commercial.  I hope he goes for it just because I'm nice that way.

Roll 'em!


View Article  HALDIMAND RELEASES NAMES OF 'PIT BULL' OWNERS TO OPP
The target is different, the outcome may be different, but I'm definitely spotting a pattern here, and have been for some time.   more »
View Article  MISFITS AND OUTCASTS AND THREATS - OH MY!
Are 'pit bull' owners perceived as members of the outcast class in the human social order?   more »
View Article  HSUS: NEVER GIVE A 'PIT BULL' AN EVEN BREAK
Nathan Winograd has a couple of good posts up about the meeting of the 'pit bull' profiteers in Las Vegas.

I know that nobody is surprised that the HSUS continues to exhibit what amounts to a corporate sociopathy or by the fact that no progress was made.

The burning question isn't whether 'pit bulls' are just dogs (they are), whether fighting dogs are a product of their environment (they are), whether any thinking human would agree that dogs shouldn't die for our sins (they would) or whether the HSUS will veer away from its set course of animal liberation (it won't - at least not until the current BOD is booted out and some truly humane leaders are voted in).

No, to me, the most important question is this:

What makes these people think that they have the right to speak for 'pit bulls', dogs in general, 'bust dogs' (as they call them)  or for all of us who are out here in the frontlines - in rescue, in the courts, and on the streets? 

I deeply resent the intrusive, self-serving, double-dealing campaign by the HSUS to legislate pet breeding and ownership into oblivion while crying crocodile tears for dogs, cats, horses and chickens.

I'm insulted by the unending stream of contradictory, duplicitous and illogical statements that wouldn't fool a first-grader.

I am galled by their hubris in implying to the rubes ithat they are a government-sanctioned agency - worse, a law enforcement group - rather than a private special interest lobbying outfit which does not represent mainstream views.

Their arrogance in presuming to 'negotiate' repulsive ideas such as breed (ha ha) bans 'down' to breed-specific mandatory neutering (Louisville) and then say it's somehow better than a ban - would be hilarious were it not so deadly to dogs.

Most of all, I get really, really, really pissed off by all these people who make money and promote themselves on the backs of 'pit bulls' - be they incompetent politicians like Old Nanny McGuinty in Ontario, cheese-ass journalists who need a hook because they're too lazy or hung over to write an actual story, rescue groups who post all kinds of nonsense about how weird 'pit bulls' are on their websites, hysterics who get information from personal injury lawyers and white-hooders so they can get a hate on and all the rest of them - fooling themselves into believing that people like me give a damn about what they think or say.

If I want an opinion about 'pit bulls', I'll ask a 'pit bull'.  At least they aren't in it for the money.  Sometimes I think they're the only ones who aren't.


View Article  THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'
It sure looks that way.  Dog owners in Missouri stood up and voted out several candidates who think banning and killing dogs is where it's at.

Brent has the details.

I wonder if we'll have more luck here in 2011 than we did in 2007 trying to get people to oust McGuinty?  Surely by then even the lowest of the low-information voters will have realized that the Ontario Liberals are anything but - and not only because of their draconian, antiquated approach to dog ownership.  They treat everybody as if they need Old Nanny McGuinty looking over their shoulders, telling them what to buy, what to eat, how to garden...you name it, Old McGuinty will ban it or tax the hell out of it.  The rest he just mismanages.

Today, I wish I were from Missouri, too.
View Article  EASTER WEEKEND - ALL ABOUT PETS SHOW
This weekend we will be manning the DLCC booth at the All About Pets show.

The show is huge, and apparently very busy, so if you're in Toronto area and attending, please drop by our booth, number 536.  I attach the floor plan.  We are almost in the centre near the big rectangular area with the red dot on its left side.  If you view the plan at 150%, you'll see where we are.  Unfortunately, I can't save it as a rotated version because I'm too cheap frugal to buy Adobe software, so you'll have to turn your monitor 90 degrees, or your head, whichever is easier.

Information about what's happening and directions are on the All About Pets website.  We'll be beside our friends from Southern Ontario Animal Rescue so if you're visiting them, you'll see us.

Now, back to working on my display for our booth.  I never do things ahead of time since half the fun is staying up late with clenched teeth working to a harsh deadline.  Isn't it?

1 Attachments
View Article  LUIS LIVE IN ASHLAND!
I'm really knocking 'em dead here....   more »
View Article  OW! LUIS THE 'PIT BULL', LIVE AT THE CAVEAT COMEDY CLUB
That went well....   more »
View Article  HSUS: MAKING UP NUMBERS TO CARRY THE DAY?


Update at the end.

Well, well, well.  Who'da thunk it.


Someone using the immensely credible handle, 'Anonymous',  has been posting a comment...

"HSUS got the $190,000 from the amicus brief filed in the Michael Vick case. The brief was signed by ADOA, the Animal Adoption Center, Best Friends, The Cape Fear APBT Club,CHAKO, The Maryland Dog Federation, The National American Pit Bull Terrier Association, The Real Pit Bull Foundation for Advocacy and Rescue, Spindletop Refuge,Villalobos Rescue Center, &Worthy Companions Domestic Animal Rescue"

...here and there, notably at Yesbiscuit! and Blue Dog State, both of whom (along with yours truly) have exposed the Wilkes County involvement of the HSUS using the transcript in the case.

Trouble is, it's a lie.  BDS has been wondering where the $190,000 per dog rehabilitation cost mentioned by Amanda Harrington in court came from - and so have I.

Well, it certainly didn't come from the referenced Amicus curiae brief filed in the Vick case, as the intrepid BDS has discovered:

The amicus brief reads (emphasis aded) . . .

"Amici estimate an average cost of $2,500 per dog for assessment and rehabilitation. To the extent that the Government has calculated an amount in excess of that figure, Amici adopt the amount estimated by the Government."

So, for the 53 Vick dogs, the estimate was $132,500 -- for all 53 dogs.

Not exactly $190,000 per dog, is it?

So, again: where did that $190,000 come from ?

Are we looking at perjury? Extortion? What?

Yeah, are we looking at perjury?  Extortion?  What?  How about libel? Do Anonymous's comments constitute libel, or just a desperate attempt to lie about verifiable facts?

Over to you, Wayne-O.


Update:

It seems we aren't looking at either perjury, extortion or libel but we are still looking at something very fishy -


There's more information in another comment at BDS -

Page 29, Section A
....

Rehabilitation of fighting dogs is a time consuming, labor intensive effort which requires 4 to 6 hours each day per dog. Qualified trainers earn between $50.00-$75.00 per hour. At 5 hours a day, 30 days a month, this $9,70 dollars per month of training. To this, add food and veterinary care, and the price to rehabilitate a fighting dog is a little more than $10,000 per month. If training and rehabilitating a dog takes 18 months, the cost rises to $180,000 plus the run cost of $10,000 or $190,000 per dog.

That's where HSUS got the figure, page 29 of tha amicus in the VICK case that had nothing to do with this case.

Incidentally, this snip is not available in the online version of the brief.

Since none of the signatories to the Amicus curiae brief in the Vick case had ever attempted a rehab op like this one, they had no way of knowing how time-consuming or labor intensive it might be, which is fair enough.

However, to state flatly that it takes 4 - 6 hours of professional training daily for a month and for up to 18 months is not realistic.

First of all, if that's the case, they aren't dealing with pro trainers.

We're talking about an average of 150+ hours per month of individual professional training time.  Taken for the maximum mentioned, 18 months, that amounts to 2,700 hours of training to socialize just one dog from a fighting bust.

You know, if something doesn't sound true, it usually isn't.  Comparing this absurd estimate with the amount of time children spend in primary classes, which is around 100 hours per month for 9 months per year (one month deducted for holidays and PE days), we see that a child spends 900 hours in school each year.

So we are expected to believe that a child can attend school for three years in the amount of time it takes to socialize one dog?.

Was somebody  trying to pad the bill a bit to take advantage of Vick's high profile?  Maybe everybody is fighting over money, who knows?  There's sure gold in them thar 'pit bull' hills these days if you're on the right side.  Which means you're not on our side because that costs money and time in a big way.

However, to be fair, Harrington's testimony regarding rehab costs was reportedly sourced from court documents in the Vick case

I guess we can't blame the HSUS for everything but we can still call them out for insisting that harmless dogs and puppies were better off dead.

They are the Humane Society of the United States, aren't they?

What these silly people are saying about 'fighting dogs' is based on a belief in cultural memory.  The premise is that if a dog's ancestors were trained to perform an activity, then all their descendants can inherit that training, rather than the qualities that made them suitable in the first place.  Of course, the animal liberation scribe Clifton believes this, so I imagine others do as well.  Ah hell, I don't imagine it, I know it - they say it over and over and over again, not realizing how foolish it makes them appear.

So, HSUS, you're off the hook on the supposed source for the $190 K per dog rehab nonsense, but not the rest of it, such as the fact that it had nothing to do with the Faron case, wasn't an estimate in the Faron case and wasn't even awarded in the Vick case.

Why would anybody use a figure like that?  The only reason that I can see is that they want to be sure all rescue efforts around alleged dogfighting busts are scuttled.  That way, they can still kill all the 'pit bulls' and move on to the next 'case'.




View Article  TIME FOR THE HSUS TO HIT THE SHOWERS

Suggested Listening While Reading

Interpret that as you will.


Thanks to the efforts of another blogger, we have seen the testimony in the Wilkes County, North Carolina dog-killing by representatives of the Humane Society of the United States.  The dogs were seized from a Mr Faron, who couldn't afford the ransom to get his dogs back, including puppies that were born in the hoosegow.  He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of dog-fighting, something which was legal in North Carolina until 1997.

A hearing was held to determine the fate of the dogs seized in the case and the puppies born in custody.  The representatives of the HSUS testified on February 16, 2009.

First up was Amanda Harrington, former office manager, anti-tethering activist, and member of an animal welfare advisory board.  She is now the North Carolina State Director for the HSUS and, like most HSUS spokepeople, seems to know very little about dog behaviour or dog breeding.


MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: They [Best Friends] are offering to assist. That is their language that they used. That means it would still be the county's responsibility. And in their own words, it costs about $190,000 per dog to rehabilitate them.

THE COURT: $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's what Best Friends says?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes.

Wow, I guess a lot of people owe me a lot of money for all the dogs I've adopted that needed rehabilitation training.  We all know that 8-week-old puppies need a lot of rehab.  Way to scare the rubes, Amanda, using big numbers like that.  Did they all touch their wallets when you dropped that bombshell?  This kind of begs the question, though:  How much does it cost to rehab somebody from the Dr Phil show, if it costs almost 200 grand to rehab a dog?

 

Then we get into the fun part, where HSUS people, as usual, show that they really know their stuff.

THE COURT: why is this the so-called humane thing to do?

MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: To euthanize?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
       

AARRRGGHHH!!!  I can't take it anymore! Make it stop!  It isn't frickin' euthanasia when you are destroying healthy animals.  It's killing.  Face it HSUS/Peta/Shelter euphemizers, that's what you are doing - in record numbers.


But wait, there's more:


MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: For the dogs themselves, I think, because of the way that they were bred. I think it is an unrealistic expectation for us to ask these dogs that have been bred generations for fighting to become regular pets. And it's an even bigger thing to ask people to take on that responsibility and the county to take on both the financial burden and the liability.

You know, we could be a couple years down the road and one of these dogs could do something, and I think it ultimately could come back on the county of Wilkes.

Ooh, I bet they touched their wallets that time.  The old 'hit 'em with liability' trick, eh?  You know that liability is the one thing that keeps government lackeys up at night, don't you?

There's an HSUS double-whammy here because what this bird is really saying is that nobody should try to place a dog into a new home through a city facility.  Because, you know, a few years might pass and the dog might 'do something' and the city will be left wearing a barrel and suspenders, I tell you what.

Quelle cruche de merde.  Yes, you heard me, merde.  I'm surprised the judge didn't call it as he obviously saw it.  He was probably trying to appear objective while being slimed with a bucketful of vintage HSUS being hurled in his general direction by these witnesses.

Next up is former animal control officer Chris Schindler (oh, the irony) who wants to make it clear that he knows dogs:


THE COURT: Sir, did you want to add something?

MR. CHRIS SCHINDLER: I'm Chris Schindler. I'm the Deputy Manager, Animal Fighting Law Enforcement, Humane Society of the United States.

Swoon -  Not only a Deputy [manager], but a Law Enforcement Deputy [manager].  A regular Dudley Fiddlin' DoRight in the flesh.

There's just a slight problem, though.  The HSUS is not a law enforcement agency, is not a government agency of any kind, has no mandate to represent anyone but its own twisted sistership which, being dazed and confused, supports the animal liberation agenda.

But I digress.  Here's the part that really shows everybody what the HSUS is all about:


Your Honor, basically agree with all the things that everyone else has said. These dogs have been bred for generations upon generations for a single purpose of animal fighting; the puppies included.

They all have been bred to display those traits of gameness and these things that dog fighters look for. People don't come from all over the world to obtain dogs from Ed Faron because, you know, they are just a regular pit bull.

Pick me!  I have some questions, Your Honor!  Pick me!

1. Does Schindler believe that dogs can be bred for animal fighting?
2. Does he believe that young puppies, barely old enough to leave the nest, are dangerous?
3. Does he believe that every dog in every litter displays the same personality traits?
4. Does he know what he means by 'regular 'pit bull''?
5. Does he know that people come from all over the world to buy a lot of purebred dogs from long-time breeders, regardless of whether they are Chihuahuas, Beagles or American Pit Bull terriers?

Answers 1 - 3 are 'yes'.  Answers 4 & 5 are 'no'.

There's more, not as much as I'd hoped, but enough to show that the HSUS people will never change.

They do not believe that each dog is an individual.  They don't understand anything about dogs, breeds or breeding (I know, duh).  They want to kill all the 'pit bulls'.  They think that a dog-aggressive canine is dangerous, when in fact, many dogs don't get along with their own kind and make terrific pets.  I've had a few of those - gasp! adopted from humane societies - and never had any problems.

Oh, and just for Donna and the gang, here's the grand finale from Deputy Chris:


"...I mean, these dogs, they are not on the same level. You know, people speak about the Michael Vick dogs. Those dogs have not even been rehabilitated."

(Brief Pause.)
(Proceeding concluded at 10:52 a.m.)


Yesbiscuit! has more.

View Article  YOU KNOW YOU'RE WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD IF
You believe that there really are 4.7 million dog bites in the US every year.

You believe that somebody is actually counting dog bites.

You think that bites by dogs are always a big deal.

You think that if a dog of a particular breed (or shape) bites someone, then all dogs of that breed (or shape) will bite someone.

You believe there are dangerous breeds, rather than dangerous dogs created by dangerous owners.

You believe there are safe or friendly breeds.

You believe that mutts that look vaguely like a purebred are the same thing as a purebred.

You believe that shelter staff, veterinarians and animal control personnel can accurately identify the breeds in a mutt's ancestry.

You believe that there is a breed named 'pit bull'.

You believe that Golden retrievers and other popular breeds don't bite, attack or kill.

You believe that banning a breed is logical, fair and an effective way to stop dog bites.

You believe that the breeds hyped in news reports bite, attack and kill more often than other breeds do.

You believe that the breed names appearing in news reports are determined by experts who verify purebred identification and registration information before media report (and report, and report, and report) the story.

You think there is a pet overpopulation problem.

You think that legislating the neutering of dogs will stop shelter killing.

You think dogs can be 'bred to fight'.

You think 'fighting dogs' are dangerous as housepets.

You believe that dogfighting (and other cruelty to dogs) is widespread.

You believe that only marginal people own media darlings such as 'pit bulls', 'rottweilers' and 'mastiffs'.

You believe that alleged 'pit bulls' are easily identified by neighbours, bystanders, media reporters and animal control personnel, even though the term applies to 3 - 5 core breeds, over two dozen lookalike breeds and an unknown number of mongrels.

You believe that breed differences are hard-wired and more significant than individual personality differences among dogs.

You believe that so-called 'pit bulls' do more damage when they attack, have superior strength, more powerful jaws than other dogs and are not only unpredictable but also impossible to control if they are intent on doing something.

You believe that 'pit bulls' are in shelters because of overbreeding and overpopulation rather than legislation designed to put them there.

You think the HSUS is a humane society and that Peta cares about animal welfare.

If you believe any or all of these points you have a couple of options.

1.  Get your information from reliable sources - not mass media reports or groups with an agenda geared towards eliminating pet ownership or filling their coffers.
2.  Zip it and let the people who know what's what discuss issues around the problems caused by incompetent dog owners because seriously, you're not f$#%@ing helping.









View Article  PETA: KEEPING IT REAL
Peta is keeping it really creepy.  The 2008 numbers are out and as usual they are grim.

In 2008, Peta killed 95% of adoptable pets that were unfortunate enough to end up (literally) at the cult's headquarters.

I can't wait to hear how Ingrid's lobotomized flying monkeys rationalize this year's numbers.

CCF has the details here.

Tip of the hat to KC Dog Blog; commentary here.

Terrierman rips Peta to shreds here.

Nathan Winograd takes no prisoners in his post, The Butcher of Norfolk.

Gee, I don't turn on my computer for a couple of days and miss the whole thing.

View Article  MIAMI-DADE BAN VOID FOR VAGUENESS
Great news from Miami.  The area's 20-year-old dog ownership ban has been found to be too vague to be enforceable.

It's nice to know that some judges understand that the rationale for breed banning is a result of faulty logic, scapegoating and mental laziness.

KC Dog Blog has the details with a link to Animal Law Coalition.

View Article  ITALY SEES THE LIGHT
Thanks to KC Dog Blog for the story directing us to Save the Pit Bull, Save the World's report on Italy's decision to reject the concept of dangerous dog breeds, which was a complete fiasco.

While the Italians had already reduced the banned or restricted list to a final 17 breeds, it seems that logic has carried the day and they are planning to apply the law to people, not dogs.  This is a great idea, since dogs can't read.

I imagine it won't be long before the UK rescinds its failed legislation as well.  Let's face it, the writing has been on the wall for the DDA for a few years now.

A little closer to home, Vauxhall, Alberta has removed its breed-specific bylaw and will replace it with something that actually works.  Lori at Wag the Dog has the details along with a good quote from the town.  Way to go, Vauxhall!  Welcome to the 21st century.

View Article  ILLINOIS DOG OWNERS DERAIL THE HSUS
Congratulations To Illinois And Chicago Dog Owners

Dedication Stopped HSUS Freight Train

But Watch Out For Senators Cutting Deals

 

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@conline.net

 

This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=30

 

Activism by dog owners stopped the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) freight train in Illinois and the City of Chicago this past week.

 

Congratulations!

 

You did what many people thought was impossible. You stopped HSUS in its tracks in a state that is a must-win battle for the powerful and radical animal rights group, which is pushing two bills that would have a devastating effect on people who raise dogs.

 

Also, in the City of Chicago, where HSUS has political clout at the highest levels, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance stalled during a committee hearing.

 

However, it would be inaccurate to say that you defeated HSUS. You stopped them. You fought them to a stalemate. You have forced them to back down because they didn’t have the votes to win.

 

But you can also expect a bag of political dirty tricks to emerge in the coming days, and the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging you to be prepared to continue this fight with renewed vigilance, energy and dedication.

 

Here’s what happened, and what to expect.

 

In the state Senate, SB 139 and SB 53 did not get enough support to pass in committee. SB 139 would have made tail docking and ear cropping into felony animal cruelty offenses, and SB 53 would have imposed irrational and burdensome restrictions on people who raise dogs.

 

Votes were not taken, but the bills’ sponsors saw the handwriting on the wall and chose not to force the issue in the face of certain defeat. Several senators credited numerous letters in opposition from dog owners as being an important factor in changing their positions. The American Sporting Dog Alliance was at the forefront of this effort.

 

However, the bills’ sponsors did not simply allow the legislation to die. Instead, they turned them into what are called “shell bills.” Shell bills are stripped of all language and sent to the Senate floor as an empty document.

 

The senators have until April 3, 2009, to amend new language into the bills, and this deadline can be extended in some cases. This keeps the bills alive, in case the sponsors can find enough support to pass them. If the empty bills are amended at some point, they would be sent back to their Senate committees for reconsideration.

 

However, dog owners were lied to by the sponsor of the House version of the kennel legislation, HB 198.


Continued here.

View Article  OPRAH'S RESCUED PUPPY DIES OF PARVO
The American Sporting Dog Alliance Scooped EVERYBODY!   more »
View Article  NEED-TO-KNOW ITEMS ABOUT 'PIT BULLS'



I have to give the media curs an E for Effort for their never-say-die campaign to use 'pit bull' and/or 'vicious dog' in as many pointless reports as possible.


In a tale from Ohio, we learn that two people tried to break up a dog scuffle and ended up being bitten on their hands.  This is certainly newsworthy because it's the most common way that people are bitten - they foolishly stick their hands into the business end of a dog fight.  The video isn't loading for me for some reason so I can't see the 'pit bull' in this story.

In Virginia, a kid was bitten on the finger when he was attacked by two 'pit bulls' while riding his bike.  Apparently, there was a domestic dispute call to the owners' address at the time the dogs were running at large.  A deputy shot one dog which was probably more traumatic for the kid than the serious bite to his finger.  The picture above is a screen shot of a still in the accompanying video - that's one sad-looking mutt but I couldn't begin to guess what kind of mix he might be.  It's a poor photo, but I think I see long floppy ears, a narrow head  and pendulous lips which are certainly atypical for a bull and terrier mix.  Just saying.

View Article  NOT TO OVERUSE 'PIT BULL' OR ANYTHING...



In Wichita, they think this dog is a 'pit bull'.  What would you guess if you saw him on the street?


View Article  MORE THAN 99.9% OF ALL DOGS WILL NEVER ATTACK ANYBODY
Marjorie Darby, who ran the wonderful (and now unfortunately defunct) website, Goodpooch.com has one of those brains I like to pick.  She's smart, logical and thorough.  We sure miss her out here and wish she'd resurrect her site, but she's trying to have some fun these days so I'm not bugging about that.  Much :>)

Anyway, somebody emailed me looking for the reasoning behind her statement that 99.9% of all dogs will never attack anybody.  I asked her how she came up with the figure and in her usual gracious way, she responded in some detail.  What follows is the explanation.

I hope you enjoy it and will pass it on.


____________________________

"Research shows over 99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an attack.  Thus, I also like to say, “If any breed were genetically programmed to attack, surely more than 0.1% of them would.”--Marjorie Darby

 

 

Back in 1999 or 2000, researcher Marjorie Darby looked at news stories about dog bites, and separated them into what were reported to be rather simple bites (ie, 'a pit bull looked at me') and those reported as being more serious (ie resulting in more serious injuries - needing stitches, hospitalization, surgery, etc.). 

 

Ms Darby had a good contact at Toronto Humane Society at the time, who moved on to Toronto Animal Services as an enforcement/investigation agent.  When queried about the number of dog bite cases, and the relative number of those that were more serious than a simple bite she confirmed the general ratio (nearly all reports were simple bites with minor injuries, only a tiny number could be called "serious".)  Based on all of this information, it became clear that there were (and are) very few actual serious dog bite cases in Canada.  There were maybe a dozen serious dog bite cases from across Canada in the year studied.

 

To err on the side of caution, Darby decided to assume that the real number of "attack" cases was double, triple or more compared with what she had learned, since she didn't have (and no one has) access to the precise number of incidents.  As Janis Bradley says, nobody is counting dog bites, you have to search hospital records for information - which only represent a portion of all bites.

 

Darby knew that many serious dog bite cases don't end up in the media because of breed bias.  Still, she could only confirm maybe a dozen dog "attack" cases in Canada, nationwide, over a period of about a year.

 

Not having access to every single dog attack case, she tried to come up with a reasonable percentage to use in discussions about dog attacks.  With a dog population somewhere around 5,000,000 in Canada, 0.1% is 5,000.  That would mean that, in any given year, there would be 5,000 serious dog attacks, if just 0.1% of dogs were involved.

 

You can further extrapolate to come up with an even more conservative statistic by theorizing a 10-year lifespan for dogs.  It's not a one-to-one ratio, but a simple way to do that is to simply divide by 10.  That leaves the potential for 500 dog attacks per the entire lifespan of every dog in Canada, if just 0.1% of them were to do so.  And based on what was found concerning the the number of serious dog biting incidents, that is still well within the range of the 0.1% figure (i.e.up to 500 attacks in any given year).  (Keep in mind that she only confirmed maybe a dozen or so serious dog attacks in Canada that year - far fewer than the 500 figure.)

 

The process is the same for the U.S. but we have better estimates about the number of 'pit bulls' there than here in Canada.

 

There are estimated to be about 65,000,000 dogs in the U.S.*  0.1% is 65,000.  Meaning, in any given year, if 0.1% of American dogs "attacked", there'd be 65,000 attacks, or 178 serious dog attacks every, single day of the year.  Not just bites, mind you, but "attacks".

 

Hospital data vary greatly, but 800,000 dog bites treated medically is at the extreme high end, and most of the data around 1999-2000 suggested the figure was more like 300,000 or 400,000.  Still, that doesn't tell us anything about severity, just that medical attention was sought. 

 

Janis Bradley came on board and showed that fewer than 1% of medically-treated dog bites score higher than a "1" (the lowest ranking) in objective hospital injury recording criteria.  Assuming the dog "attacks" make up this 1%, that would mean about 4,000 biting incidents were more serious than a "1", if assuming 400,000 dog bites treated medically that year.  4,000 represents 0.006% of of the 65,000,000 dogs in America.  If you want to do the simple 10-year lifespan conversion, that would be 0.06% of all dogs at any time in an average 10-year lifespan.  That's still well-within the 0.1% generalization.  (It's almost half!)

 

There are estimated to be about 9 million 'pit bulls' in the U.S.  Darby used a very conservative estimate of 5,000,000 to calculate what 0.1% of 'pit bulls' attacking would mean.  It comes out to about 14 serious attacks, every single day of the year.  Every day that went by where there weren't 14 serious 'pit bull' attacks somewhere in the U.S., that would mean that even fewer than 0.1% of all 'pit bulls' were  involved in a serious biting incident.  Given that 'pit bull' incidents are reported by the media at such a high rate, I would be surprised to learn than so many serious 'pit bull' attacks are being ignored by them, if it is to be alleged that more than 0.1% of 'pit bulls' are attacking people.

 

You can do the 10-year lifespan calculations on an estimated U.S. 'pit bull' population anywhere from 5 million to 9 million individuals.  None of the calculations suggest anything other than that 99.9% of dogs, or even 99.9% of all 'pit bulls' will NOT be involved in an attack at any time in their lives.

 

 

'Pit Bull' Fatality Data

 

 

"When it comes to ‘pit bulls’, fewer than 0.1% will ever be involved in an attack at any time in their lives, and even conservative estimates suggest at least 99.99998% of all ‘pit bulls’ have not killed anyone."

 

 

When Darby was conducting this research in 1999-2003, there had been approximately 80 human fatalities attributed to 'pit bull' attacks in the previous 30 years or so in the U.S.  9,000,000 'pit bulls' (assuming a 10 year lifespan) would easily translate into 27,000,000 'pit bulls' that existed during that 30-year period.  80 fatalities out of 27,000,000 is 0.0002%. 

 

While that seems incorrect to Darby, since she recalls at some point, a few years ago confirming it was 4 zeros after the decimal, rather than 3, that's what this calculation concludes.  Nonetheless, we're still talking about, at most, 0.0002% of 'pit bulls' having killed a person in the U.S.  That leaves 99.9998% innocent of the allegation they're all killers. 


When we're talking about such small numbers, Darby would still have no problem saying, "Frankly, I don't know what relevant information is gleaned from the acts of less than 0.0002% of the population.  Whatever it may be, it certainly doesn't conclude anything about the rest.  Again I would also reiterate, if any breed were genetically-programmed to attack, certainly more than 0.1% of them would".  


---


*According to the most recent US census results, there are now an estimated 72 million dogs in the United States.