|
|||||
|
Saturday, June 13
by
Selma
on Sat 13 Jun 2009 01:56 PM EDT
Phase One is over for Banned Aid more »
Wednesday, April 1
by
Selma
on Wed 01 Apr 2009 09:21 PM EDT
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? 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.) Wednesday, March 18
by
Selma
on Wed 18 Mar 2009 03:40 PM EDT
Congratulations
To Illinois And
Chicago Dog Owners
Dedication Stopped HSUS Freight TrainBut Watch Out For Senators Cutting Deals by JOHN YATES American Sporting Dog Alliance http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org 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. Wednesday, February 25
by
Selma
on Wed 25 Feb 2009 10:41 PM EST
FrogDog has a tale which is unfortunately all-too-typical of London, Ontario, where persecution of dog owners is the order of the day. Of course, it is the home of replacement Attorney General Chris Bentley, who believes that Bullmastiffs and Dogues de Bordeaux are 'pit bulls', so maybe orders are seeping down from the top. Actually, those breeds may as well be 'pit bulls' since there's no such thing, as everybody who didn't just fall off the turnip truck (including the Attorney General's own lawyer who defends the ban in court) knows full well.
This time, the crack dog identification team at London Animal Services got a Code Red when somebody applied for a dog tag for their - I kid you not - French Bulldog. The grismal details are available over at Froggy's place.
by
Selma
on Wed 25 Feb 2009 05:25 PM EST
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. Florez had introduced an AB1634 copycat Bill, SB250. Florez introduces spay-neuter billSen. 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.
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. Sunday, February 22
Wednesday, February 11
by
Selma
on Wed 11 Feb 2009 03:17 PM EST
Pit Bull NM has an alert today about impending death and destruction for 'pit bulls' (whatever they are) and 'rottweilers' (any dog that is black and tan seems to be the rule).
We all know that Albuquerque's pet bylaw is one of the worst in the country. Not content to stop there, brainwashed officials seem determined to continue down the wrong road, staggering and mumbling incoherently every misstep of the way. Details are available here. Tuesday, February 3
by
Selma
on Tue 03 Feb 2009 07:04 PM EST
![]() Update: Great editorial in the Mississauga News today. [...] Oddly enough, Bowser’s master, 21-year-old Danny Truong, finds himself
trying to prove the impossible – that his dog is not something that,
technically, doesn’t exist. Confused? So are many residents when asked about the law that prohibits ownership of pitbulls, a slang term for a number of cross-bred animals that carry some of the traits and genetic lineage of dogs such as those of the Molosser canine family. The legistlation refers to bull terrier breeds and dogs that have “an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to those breeds. Both the legislation and its definitions are vague, about as clear as mud, leaving residents and law enforcers alike to wrestle with its application and to prove the unprovable. [...] Update: Danny's got a Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7406&post=26375&uid=61941358224#/group.php?gid=61941358224 Remember I said I was in court last Friday? The Mississauga News came down to cover the story. I was a bit crabby about that (sorry Julia) because I hoped that the City would see the light before the screaming started. Oh well, it's their party and they can cry if they want to. Another innocent dog owner has been tagged by the Mississauga Christmas 'Pit Bull' Program. This time, a bargain-basement neutering-only clinic took it upon themselves to: a) Try to determine the ancestry of a mutt; b) Call Mississauga Animal Control to rat out the owner because of an alleged illegal 'pit bull'. Seriously, does the term 'prohibited dog' bother anybody else, or is it just me? It is of some concern that almost every person charged in Ontario has belonged to an ethnic minority or has lived with a member of an ethnic minority. Danny never thought his dog was a 'pit bull'. None of his friends at the dog park, where he's been a regular since Bowser was little, ever said they thought he looked like a banned dog. They're all furious and are writing testimonials for him. His regular vet never mentioned it. He's been all over the place, his dog is trained, socialized to play with other dogs, and is friendly with people. He walks him every day. Most of all, he loves him. Bowser is the first dog Danny's ever owned. People have a right to know whether or not they are breaking a law, in other words, to understand a law. I defy anyone to accomplish that to any degree of certainty with DOLA. This law is not based on behaviour, it's based on appearance alone. It's all guesswork and vagueness and the subjective opinions of unaccredited people based on unmeasurable qualities - which is why this law is completely rigged against a dog owner right out of the gate. The government could never, ever win any other way. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only owners of short-haired dogs who are safe in Ontario are the owners of the extremely rare banned purebreds. They are the only ones who know exactly where they stand. The rest are easy meat for any wannabe gunslinger or ignoramus on the street who thinks he knows his stuff. Welcome to the Formerly Democratic Republic of Ontaristan, where we say one thing and do the opposite. Of course, bilge trickles down and it doesn't get much more rancid than the effluent that oozes from Queen's Park these days. Public safety, my ass. What about our safety? Danny's safety? Oh, I forgot, dog owners are second-class citizens in this place now, especially if their dogs are mutts - like 90% of the dogs in Ontario. They still have time to come to their senses in Mississippi Mississauga and face the fact that Bowser is not a 'pit bull' within the meaning of the law - enforcement of which is entirely optional, anyway. If not, this case will go to court to prove that. I guess Mississippi Mississauga will blow, oh I don't know, fifty grand or so of the taxpayers' hard-earned money trying to take a good dog away from a good owner who loves him because he might vaguely resemble another mutt in another part of the province that had an irresponsible owner many years ago. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I didn't vote for McGuilty the first time, let alone the second time he ran for office, even though I am extremely liberal in outlook. In case nobody's noticed, these guys are not liberal in any sense of the word, despite their name. I didn't trust McGuinty. If I were still in St Paul's I would not have voted for Bryant - didn't trust him either. Yet both were elected and worse, re-elected. Now everybody is whining about the nannying and the secrecy and the fiscal mismanagement and the overall failure. Hey, where have you been? They started at pathetic and have descended into abysmal. Unless you're a fan of discrimination - then they're world-class. Sunday, February 1
by
Selma
on Sun 01 Feb 2009 05:41 PM EST
(Updates at the end)
I was just over reading KC's excellent Weekly Roundup when it occurred to me that there's something supernatural about 'pit bulls'. Those l'il devil dogs are masters of disguise, shape-shifters no less. How else can we explain these pictures? It couldn't be misidentification of dog types by media and others, could it? This is a 'pit bull' in Jackson, Tennessee: ![]() ![]() ![]() This is a western 'pit bull' from Oregon - he weighs over 100 lbs: This Toronto 'pit bull' was killed by the Ontario government (poor pic, sorry) last year: ![]() In KCMO, Nikko was a 'pit bull' who spent almost a year in jail: ![]() Who could forget those two 'pit bulls' in Virginia that were involved in a child's death in 2005: ![]() ![]() This 'pit bull' puppy was threatened with death by Mississauga Animal Control - he was lucky, his owners had papers (Mum was a purebred Boxer, Dad a purebred Bullmastiff): ![]() Is it any wonder that there are so many news reports about 'pit bulls'? What was that Brytler said? I think it went like this: " If it looks like a 'pit bull' and it walks like a 'pit bull' and it wags its tail like a 'pit bull' then it's a 'pit bull' Psnorzle...Honk...Kaweet....Urrrrp....Fap" I think it would be more accurate to say that on a slow news day if you run a dog story make sure it's about a 'pit bull' or nobody will bother reading it. Don't worry about accuracy, they're just dogs, man. It won't be a big deal if you get it wrong. UPDATE: Brent's got a good one - a whole pack o' breeds are implicated in one dog-on-dog attack that made it all the way to Oz, where they dug up a file photo to add some punch. The inimitable Luisa over at Lassie, Get Help joins in. Check out that scary 'pit bull' - hide your kids, they could be next! Vladimir Putin, you're not, kiddo - you're more like the Scarlet Pimpernel to me. I like this game. I forgot about Faith, the big, bad, 'pit bull' in London, Ontario who was shipped to Montreal so she didn't have to be killed. It's a sad but typical story around here. Here she is, the pit-bulliest of 'pit bulls': ![]() Friday, January 30
by
Selma
on Fri 30 Jan 2009 05:25 PM EST
I was in court in Mississauga today with yet another innocent person who has been turned into a criminal for no reason. We were there to set a date to set a date. The wheels of pseudo-justice grind slowly indeed.
The JP said, only about this case and no others "These are very serious charges". That's right. Owning a dog you got as an 8-week-old puppy as a gift from a relative, training him, socializing him, caring for him and taking him to be neutered at about the right age is a serious crime in the Formerly Democratic Republic of Ontaristan. I'm ashamed of what this place has become and I'm sure my Empire Loyalist ancestors are screaming in their graves. Not to mention my gang-bangin', mutha-humpin' lowlife forbears who were Irish back when that meant you were automatically a second-class citizen. You listening, McGuinty? More later. Thursday, January 22
Sunday, January 18
Tuesday, January 13
Friday, December 19
by
Selma
on Fri 19 Dec 2008 05:32 PM EST
Well, I guess maybe those of us who have been saying for a long time that breed-based programs are just back-door racism aren't as crazy as everybody thought.
They're right out in the open now: In addition to both Spanish and English
newspaper and radio ads, the ASPCA sponsored wall-sized ads with
graffiti-inspired artwork featuring a man and his canine sidekick on
the sides of buildings in Harlem and the Bronx. The "wallscapes" target
low-income black and Latino men, the largest demographic of owners of
pit bulls – the breed that, more than any other, fills shelters and is
euthanized. Although many dog lovers maintain the breed can make
friendly companions, they also can be dangerous when neglected or
raised for aggression – leading overwhelmed owners to give them up. The
ASPCA estimates that eight out of 10 dogs put down in New York City
each year are pit bulls. So the group is trying to reduce the number of
unintended canine pregnancies. Let's fisk this.Who says black and hispanic people are the largest demographic of 'pit bull' owners? Source? Note the use of the word "maintain", as in claim - in other words the truth of this statement is in doubt. Name one other breed that isn't dangerous when neglected or trained to be aggressive - just one. Now, let me get this straight. People are supposedly handing over 'pit bulls' they've made aggressive because they don't want aggressive dogs. Yet, we are concerned about dogs delivering litters of puppies. Does anybody else notice a slight break in the logic chain there? Unless, of course, your real goal is to make it hard for certain people to get dogs, in which case it makes perfect sense. Here's how the excerpted paragraph reads to me: We're using graffiti-inspired artwork to try to break through the hip-hop barrier.. That's because we don't want black and Latino men to own or breed 'pit bulls'. 'Pit bulls' aren't a breed, so we can say that they fill shelters and are put to death by us in large numbers because nobody can prove us wrong. Besides, nobody cares thanks to our propaganda campaign. Dog lovers keep insisting that bully breeds are good pets but we know they are dangerous when black or hispanic people have them. Owners give 'pit bulls' up the most, but not because it's the most common shape of dog in the US - it's because they're aggressive. The
ASPCA estimates - which means you can't hold us to the number - that eight out of 10 dogs put down in New York City
each year are 'pit bulls' - again, easy to say since 'pit bull' isn't a breed. So we figure if we can get all the 'pit bulls' sterilized, there won't be any more of them. This will result in all problems of inexperienced or negligent dog ownership disappearing because only brown people are lousy dog owners. Am I right?Wednesday, December 17
by
Selma
on Wed 17 Dec 2008 09:02 PM EST
Well, I think most of us could answer that question quite easily with a resounding 'No'.
But why listen to us? Here's a paper from the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour by Stephen Collier that presents data and an analysis which reaches the same conclusion. The abstract: After more than a century as an uncontroversial dog (Jessup, 1975), the
American pit bull terrier has developed a notorious reputation as a
dangerous breed since 1980, with consequent restrictions placed upon it
by jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere. Studies in the United
States have indicated that the “pit bull” is responsible for a
significant number of human fatalities resulting from dog attack, but
the data on which such studies are based are flawed by methodological
shortcomings. Using absolute numbers of dog attacks by breed in
Australia, data on attacks on human beings reveal the pit bull terrier
to be exceeded by several other breeds. Regardless, the primary problem
is that reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative
to breed population. Of 19 human fatalities in Australia over the past
two decades, none has involved a dog verified to be an American pit
bull terrier. The evidence does not sustain the view that this is a
uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it
have not been demonstrated by authorities to be justified by its attack
record. The entire paper is available at no cost here.
by
Selma
on Wed 17 Dec 2008 04:26 PM EST
Look no further.
Barb Haywood's groundbreaking e-Book, the Dog Owner's Guide to Breed Specific Legislation is available right here at Caveat! There's a click-through on my left sidebar. For a good review, visit Pet Defense - it explains why every dog owner should buy this book. Saturday, December 6
by
Selma
on Sat 06 Dec 2008 10:34 AM EST
I see that Susan Hunter and Richard Brisbin have made the results of their research into BSL available.
Here's a link to the paper (PDF) some of which is still in draft format (minor typos here and there). http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/BRISBIN/Papers/2007.%20Panic%20Policy%20Making.pdf
And here's an excerpt from the section about Ontario to pique your interest:
Wednesday, December 3
Thursday, November 27
by
Selma
on Thu 27 Nov 2008 03:43 PM EST
I'll say. My guest column in the Mississauga News:
I only had 600 words and they did a bit of creative editing but I sure appreciate the opportunity to get out of the house for a change. I hope you'll visit the site to read the whole thing.
Monday, November 17
by
Selma
on Mon 17 Nov 2008 12:27 PM EST
For one things, both involve removing rights from a minority because of ignorance and fear more »
by
Selma
on Mon 17 Nov 2008 10:17 AM EST
Think good thoughts for the folk who are suing Aurora CO over its panic policy-making. There's a good article in the Denver Post today which presents some facts that prove that 'pit bull' bans are nothing but 'pit bulls**t'. Let's hope the folk in Aurora get a judge who can look past the hyperbole and snake oil to understand the core issue. That's obviously the trick.
Here's the rest. |
|||||
|
|||||





















