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.
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.
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'.
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.)
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.
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.
What's going on in California? Have they got too much time on their hands, too much money they can't figure out how to waste, or what? I thought the State was going bankrupt, couldn't meet its payroll, was looking for loans. Do they plan to spend their way out of debt?
Why are government officials obsessed with the gonads of dogs and cats and when did being a responsible pet owner start to include neutering, anyway? I know why the animal liberation gang is into it - it's the fast-track to extinction - but why do other people buy into it? They can't all be stupid.
Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has introduced one of the most controversial
ideas from the last legislative session: a bill that would encourage spaying/neutering of most dogs and cats in California.
Florez's SB 250 requires adult animals to be fixed unless the owner
obtains a license to have an "unaltered" animal over six months of age. Owners of unaltered
cats would be required to keep them indoors. The license
could be revoked at any time, and would also need to
be transferred to the new owner if the animal was sold
or given away.
Dubbed "The Pet Responsibility Act," SB 250 was given its number to
denote the $250 million a year spent to house and euthanize stray
dogs and cats. According to the US Census Bureau and
other agencies, a dog born in California today has
a one in four chance of dying in a shelter.
Imagine how much this puppy would cost to enforce, then consider that mandatory neutering laws cause more pets to be killed in shelters, not fewer. Bill Hemby at PetPac is all over it and has a petition to be signed as well (right sidebar).
Do we have any actual statistics to back up the 1 : 4 chance of dying in a shelter? And would that not be the fault of people in shelters who are killing animals?
I don't see the connection between risking your dog's health and possibly negatively affecting his temperament by neutering too early and being a responsible owner. I also don't see how performing life-altering surgery on a pet will change the culture of convenience killing in shelters.
Too many people out there are drinking the Animal Liberation flavour of Kool Aid for my liking.
There's a great piece over at The Opinion Mill that hit a strong note with me. If you substitute 'animal liberationist' for 'creationist' it's right on the money in describing why countering the talking points and myths put forth by the 'pit bull' haters is a waste of time, and why they don't seem to understand that there is no factual or scientific basis for their off-the-wall claims.
Here's a snip:
"...They also understand that for a scientist, getting into a “debate” with
a scientifically illiterate crank has no upside — it is simply a
time-suck that will keep him away from career-advancing research, while
giving the crank a spurious air of authority."
Brent has some pictures of a puppy that spent the weekend with his crew of natural-born killers, one of whom is a refugee from the Oklahoma situation. You can see from the pics that things were pretty tense, alright. For those of us in Ontario, the sight of a bull-and-terrier puppy is something we haven't seen for awhile so it's a nice treat. Hopefully the Ontario law will be struck down so that bully lovers here will again be able to welcome these charming bundles of wiggle-waggle into their lives.
According to K9 officers in Chicago, whose unit uses the traditional German Shepherd Dogs and even has a Bloodhound on staff, 'pit bulls' are a problem for the force.
A pit bull named Elliot Ness
is anything but untouchable. Loving and friendly, these traits keep
most pit bulls from being good police dogs.
"The main problem
we're finding with pit bulls is that they're too darn nice. All they
want to do is just sit at your feet or crawl in your lap. They're very
nice dogs," said Deborah Thedos, Cook County K9 Unit.
Police
officers main contact with pit bulls is when they break up dog fighting
rings. When encountering these dogs they found that they were anything
but vicious.
"We knew from the get-go that these dogs, they aren't made this way," said Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook County.
For Elliot Ness's partner the pit bull is much more than just a dog.
"He's my best friend. He's my friend. He's my baby and he knows it," said Thedos .
"Jennifer
Shryock CDBC, the founder of Dogs & Storks™. Dogs & Storks™ is
a nation-wide network of dog trainers and canine behavior consultants
that work with new and expecting families in
preparing for a life where dogs and children co-exist peacefully. While
the advice here is meant for educational purposes, it is not meant to
be a replacement for good old common sense and the help of a trained
professional in your area"
That line by the late, great Frank Zappa never fails to crack me up.
I wrote to the House Reps in Montana the other day (full list of email addresses is available at No Pit Bull Bans).
It wasn't one of my better missives but I wrote it and sent it, poor phrasing and all.
I didn't cover a lot of the aspects of why BSL is a huge mistake, but I did send along at least some information which the Committee may find helpful.
I got a very speedly reply from Representative Becker, who is opposed to the concept of BSL and understands that it is owners, not dogs, that cause problems when they ignore local regulations.
What I sent in is attached, with some contact info redacted because I don't want to encourage spammers.
