|
|||||
 
Search
Recent Comments
Useful Links
Man's Only Friends
MIXED BAG
MSM
Login
|
Saturday, April 11
HALDIMAND RELEASES NAMES OF 'PIT BULL' OWNERS TO OPP
by
Selma
on Sat 11 Apr 2009 11:30 PM EDT
The target is different, the outcome may be different, but I'm definitely spotting a pattern here, and have been for some time. more »
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.
THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'
by
Selma
on Wed 08 Apr 2009 08:52 PM EDT
It sure looks that way. Dog owners in Missouri stood up and voted out several candidates who think banning and killing dogs is where it's at.
Brent has the details. I wonder if we'll have more luck here in 2011 than we did in 2007 trying to get people to oust McGuinty? Surely by then even the lowest of the low-information voters will have realized that the Ontario Liberals are anything but - and not only because of their draconian, antiquated approach to dog ownership. They treat everybody as if they need Old Nanny McGuinty looking over their shoulders, telling them what to buy, what to eat, how to garden...you name it, Old McGuinty will ban it or tax the hell out of it. The rest he just mismanages. Today, I wish I were from Missouri, too.
EASTER WEEKEND - ALL ABOUT PETS SHOW
by
Selma
on Wed 08 Apr 2009 08:39 PM EDT
This weekend we will be manning the DLCC booth at the All About Pets show.
The show is huge, and apparently very busy, so if you're in Toronto area and attending, please drop by our booth, number 536. I attach the floor plan. We are almost in the centre near the big rectangular area with the red dot on its left side. If you view the plan at 150%, you'll see where we are. Unfortunately, I can't save it as a rotated version because I'm too cheap frugal to buy Adobe software, so you'll have to turn your monitor 90 degrees, or your head, whichever is easier. Information about what's happening and directions are on the All About Pets website. We'll be beside our friends from Southern Ontario Animal Rescue so if you're visiting them, you'll see us. Now, back to working on my display for our booth. I never do things ahead of time since half the fun is staying up late with clenched teeth working to a harsh deadline. Isn't it?  1 AttachmentsSaturday, April 4
Friday, April 3
OW! LUIS THE 'PIT BULL', LIVE AT THE CAVEAT COMEDY CLUB
by
Selma
on Fri 03 Apr 2009 10:38 PM EDT
That went well.... more »
HSUS: MAKING UP NUMBERS TO CARRY THE DAY?
by
Selma
on Fri 03 Apr 2009 01:49 PM EDT
  Update at the end. Well, well, well. Who'da thunk it. 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'. 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.) |
||||
|
|||||
