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
|
|||||
 
Search
Recent Comments
Useful Links
Man's Only Friends
MIXED BAG
MSM
Login
|
Thursday, August 13
WHY DON'T WE HEAR ABOUT THESE DOG BITES AND ATTACKS?
by
Selma
on Thu 13 Aug 2009 12:18 PM EDT
Wednesday, April 8
HSUS: NEVER GIVE A 'PIT BULL' AN EVEN BREAK
by
Selma
on Wed 08 Apr 2009 10:43 PM EDT
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. Wednesday, April 1
TIME FOR THE HSUS TO HIT THE SHOWERS
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.) Monday, March 30
YOU KNOW YOU'RE WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD IF
by
Selma
on Mon 30 Mar 2009 05:35 PM EDT
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. Friday, March 27
PETA: KEEPING IT REAL
by
Selma
on Fri 27 Mar 2009 08:59 PM EDT
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. Friday, March 13
Thursday, March 12
NEED-TO-KNOW ITEMS ABOUT 'PIT BULLS'
by
Selma
on Thu 12 Mar 2009 07:59 AM EDT
  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. Tuesday, March 10
Wednesday, February 25
OH SWELL, THE GONAD THIEVES ARE AT IT AGAIN
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. Monday, February 23
IS IT NF DAY?
by
Selma
on Mon 23 Feb 2009 10:50 AM EST
It must be National Fatuosity Day because blithering by media has reached an all-time low in terms of relevance. more »
Friday, February 20
NEWSFLASH: THE 'LOCKING JAW' LADY IS BACK!
by
Selma
on Fri 20 Feb 2009 10:39 AM EST
First, she deleted the locking jaws post. Then she started deleting all comments that provided scientific or statistical information in the second post. Then she put up a third post about how good the 'debate' was and deleted a bunch of factual comments from that entry. Then, she decided she liked the mindless troll....I guess birds of a feather is the way it works... more »
Thursday, February 19
THE VICKTORY DOGS WERE KILLING MACHINES - NO, WAIT -
by
Selma
on Thu 19 Feb 2009 01:19 PM EST
 Gee, it's tough to keep track of the self-serving lies changing positions of the Hypocrisy Society of the United States these days. First, the Vicktory dogs were the most dangerous dogs in the country. Then they were just the wimpy pets of a wannabe tough guy. They were so pathetic they couldn't fight their way out of a wet kibble bag. They were nothing compared with all the 8-week-old puppies killed in N. Carolina the other day - now those were some lean, mean fighting machines, I tell you what. The Vicktory dogs needed care and attention which meant an HSUS fundraising drive but at the same time they were better off dead because they were ticking time bombs, unsafe at any leash length. Or something. My head hurts. Yesbiscuit tries to sort it out in her post, Pants on Fire. Wednesday, February 18
Sunday, February 15
MAKING UP FACTS, CONCOCTING STATISTICS
by
Selma
on Sun 15 Feb 2009 11:30 AM EST
There was a dog incident in Oregon but details are scant:
Vale—In the wake of the attack of a 5-year-old boy by a mixed breed dog Jan. 3, one resident is angered and believes actions by sheriff’s deputies regarding pit bulls is not fair. A Malheur County
Sheriff’s Office deputy happened to be on patrol and spotted a
black-colored dog inside an enclosed yard where it held the young boy
by the arm and was dragging him around. The deputy yelled at the dog, which did not respond, and went to a gate and entered the yard to rescue the victim. The dog is described as a 'pit bull', boxer and lab cross. OK. Maybe it's just a Lab/Boxer cross, maybe it's a Lab/hound cross, but we have to get 'pit bull' in there somehow. (Just ask the people in Omaha, where their new insane regulations are working out really, really well. That dog was a shepherd/chow/'pit bull' mix and there have already been several reports about it.) The fun part comes later in the Oregon article. Here's Ledy van Kavage, formerly of the ASPCA, now with Best Friends: VanKavage spoke not about specific breeds of dogs, but of the specific
dog involved in attacks. She said 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal
attacks are not sterilized and 25 percent of fatal dog attacks occur
when the dogs are running in packs. I hate to quibble, but talking about dog bite-related fatalities is a red herring as is the intact status meme. It sure sounds like a big number, 97%, doesn't it? The trouble is, nobody has verified this 'fact' and 97% of the average annual DBRF count in the US is 19. Fatalities are so rare that discussing them doesn't add much if you are trying to stop garden-variety bites and more serious attacks such as the one under discussion. It sure gets people riled up, though - it's too bad those who like to throw this 'fact' around don't point out that there are around 72 million dogs in the US to, you know, put things into perspective. Nitwit:We've talked about this before. It's most likely not the intact status of the dog that causes the attack. It's become clear that negligent owners are less likely to socialize and train their dogs and are less likely to take them for routine veterinary care. They are the people who leave their dogs tied out day in, day out, where they are accessible by the public, including unwitting children. Since owners of that calibre are less likely to visit a vet, they are not exposed to the now militant insistence that every dog should be neutered young, regardless of breed, regardless of size, regardless of personality. You have to be tough to resist the pressure these days, trust me. Here's more: She also spoke highly of laws in Illinois, which consider any dog to be
dangerous if it threatens a person or companion animal such as another
dog, cat or horse. If this happens, the dog must be sterilized, which statistically reduces cases of bites, [...] Notice how we jumped from fatalities to bites? What a smooth slide that was. I don't like to contradict Ms Van Kavage, but many studies show that the dogs more likely to bite are neutered females. Others show increased reactivity and territoriality in females and increased activity in males after neutering. Who is compiling these statistics? Heck, nobody is even counting dog bites, let alone verifying the reproductive status of the offending canines. They can't even get the breed right most of the time. Here's the fun part: One magazine editor simplified this classification of dog. “It’s a mongrel basically,” Wash.-based Animal People editor Merritt Clifton said. Are you laughing yet? Usually just seeing Clifton's name is enough to set me off. He actually makes some sense on a couple of points for a change but nobody's all wrong all the time, not even Clifton (I can't believe I just wrote that). Here's Clifton's explanation for why 'pit bulls' are so reactive - pay attention, breed historians, because I'll bet you didn't know this: Though some might label pit bulls as aggressive, Clifton said pit bulls
are often reactive because of the fact they were originally trained to
hunt rats on ships. However, because of their size and their inability
to pull large amounts of cargo from ships, they were not considered apt
for either job and instead began being bred for dogfighting on the
docks. This rat-killing, he said, has made them more reactive. Part I: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html Part II: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/pit-bulls-dog-bite-statistics-and.html Wednesday, February 11
Sunday, February 1
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE SHAPES OF 'PIT BULLS'
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':  Thursday, January 29
Sunday, January 18
Thursday, January 8
"PETA IS A BUNCH OF CRACKPOTS"
by
Selma
on Thu 08 Jan 2009 09:56 PM EST
I know, stating the obvious... more »
THE NEXT TIME SOME MOUTH-BREATHER
by
Selma
on Thu 08 Jan 2009 07:27 PM EST
Threatens you or your dog with harm or death, you might want to use this handy piece of information from the Criminal Code of Canada to shut them up:
Assaults
264.1
(1) Every one commits
an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to
receive a threat (a) to
cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to
burn, destroy or damage real or personal property;
or (c) to
kill, poison or injure an animal
or bird that is the property of any person. (2) Every one
who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is
guilty of (a) an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years; or (b) an
offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding eighteen months. (3) Every one
who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or
(c) (a) is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years; or (b) is
guilty of an offence punishable on summary
conviction. R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16. Monday, December 22
Friday, December 19
OUT IN THE OPEN: BSL = BIGOTRY
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? |
||||
|
|||||
