|
|||||
|
Monday, March 30
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
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. Monday, March 23
by
Selma
on Mon 23 Mar 2009 12:40 PM EDT
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. Wednesday, March 18
by
Selma
on Wed 18 Mar 2009 09:51 PM EDT
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.
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. Friday, March 13
Thursday, March 12
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
by
Selma
on Tue 10 Mar 2009 11:04 PM EDT
by
Selma
on Tue 10 Mar 2009 01:16 PM EDT
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
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
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
The process is the same for the
There are estimated to be about 65,000,000 dogs in the
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
There are estimated to be about 9 million 'pit bulls' in the
You can do the 10-year lifespan calculations on an
estimated
'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
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 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. Monday, March 9
by
Selma
on Mon 09 Mar 2009 06:41 PM EDT
I think Mississauga animal control officers have a syndrome of some sort more »
by
Selma
on Mon 09 Mar 2009 10:48 AM EDT
Don't you wish Bob Barker would stay in the land of fruits and nuts? He was lobbying in Chicago last year for mandatory neutering. That proposal was killed and dogs' lives were saved.
However, it appears that behind the scenes lobbying has been ongoing and per usual, councillors are being fed lies by those with an agenda geared toward extinction. John Yates has the details. If you live in Chicago, get busy. Here's the lede: CHICAGO – A City Council joint committee has scheduled a hearing for this coming Thursday on a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate for dogs and cats. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Chicago dog owners to attend this hearing and voice strong opposition to this ordinance. The 10 a.m. hearing will be held on March 12, 2009, in City Council chambers. We
also are asking dog owners to take an active role by contacting the aldermen and
informing them about the issues described in this report, and your own reasons
for opposition. Faxes and letters are best, followed by phone calls and emails.
Here is a link to contact information for each member of City Council: Here is a link to
the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government. Prompt action is urgent and should be the highest priority. Inaction will doom dog ownership in Chicago. And here's the whole thing. |
|||||
|
|||||















