One of dog-killer Skeldon's admirers has written an Op-ed piece in The Blade to stand up for him now that he is under fire from local owners. If I didn't know better, I'd believe Skeldon was an incarnation of the Lone Ranger, based on this column.
He blathers on about off-lead 'pit bulls' (he doesn't bother explaining what he means by 'pit bulls') as somehow evidence that the dogs are a problem.
He spouts a lot of nonsense - that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous, that they have a 'switch' in their heads, blah blah blah.
He brings up the insurance argument - but fails to mention that insurers are reclutant to insure people with media darlings because of dirt bags who try to cash in on the hype - not because of the mutts themselves.
He trots out the old soundly refuted CDC stuff.
He's a lawyer who has handled dog bite cases. Thanks to Barb for sniffing out his website which reveals his - ahem - bias.
I'm surprised he fails to mention locking jaws with a pound-per-square inch bite pressure that exceeds that of any other living animal and most extinct animals, including Tyrannosaurus rex.
Ah well, maybe next time, eh?
Here's the rest of the column and if I may say so, what a load of hooey.
This yapping cur believes that 'pit bulls' are bred to fight dogs, that they are bred to be aggressive, that they are bred to be tenacious and relentless, that they are bred to have a high tolerance to pain, that they are a breed apart. He believes they are born 'dangerous'. He believes they shouldn't live with children. He doesn't qualify it either, uses the generic term 'pit bull' which is basically meaningless these days.
No evidence? So what, this guy doesn't need any, why should he? He probably just lifts his information from blogs and websites.
Note: I have modified this post because it was much too cranky the way I wrote it originally. It just gets tiring, and tiresome, reading this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense day in, day out - and not only in media reports and editorials, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
