Back in October of 2013 the Pasadena City Council opted against mandating the spaying and neutering of all dogs. Regardless of whether you’d support that idea or not (I would not), it is imperative that some compare and contrast go on here…

So here’s some further lines of thought in regards to the input given by the different Pasadena City Council members as they opposed the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs, but then immediately turned around and desired to see the same law passed which is promoted as only targeting Pit Bulls.

To this I say where is the consistency in opposition? If you oppose 1 on certain grounds, that same thought process should carry over, considering both laws are exactly the same and they have many of the same questionable dynamics.

Councilwoman Margaret McAustin and Councilman Terry Tornek take the same approach, both opposing the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs on the grounds that it is broad, overreaching, intrusive, oppressive, expensive, reduces community participation, gets more dogs killed, and is all around “too much.” They also come to the conclusion that promoting education and letting the community know what they can participate in is the best way to go in comparison to passing such a law. Yet, when it comes to Pit Bulls and a breed-discriminatory law of the exact same type, all of their very legitimate conclusions go completely out the window. What the heck?

Councilman Victor Gordo saw a big problem with the lack of specifics when attempting to define what made for a “reputable breeder.” Fair point. I’d urge him to keep this critical perspective when looking over whatever ordinance Pasadena brings forth, as their definition of “Pit Bull” is bound to be as vague and subjective as humanely possible, as it seems to always be with these kinds of laws.

Councilman Gene Masuda quite literally thinks that all dogs categorized as Pit Bulls should be punished because 1 of his constituent’s leashed dogs was “attacked” in a park by an unleashed dog that was described by him as a “Pit Bull.”

No attention paid to the fact that this was a roaming dog, running at large after escaping its yard. No attention paid to the lack of proper care for this dog, or the desire to contain it in its yard. That’s clearly human recklessness but no one seems to care or point any of this out.

Councilman John Kennedy, who has since came out against breed-discriminatory legislation as well, brings up eugenics while discussing why he’s opposing the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs.

If Kennedy made this connection back in October, then it should more powerfully apply in regards to smaller groups of dogs (Pit Bulls) being targeted because they are deemed “less than” by certain members of his City Council. That is most definitely eugenics, 100%. I’m quite positive that Councilman Kennedy will vote to oppose any attempt at BSL.

Councilwoman Jacque Robinson has consistently been against the targeting of certain dogs, but supports the law for all dogs.

And of course, my personal response to demagogue Steve Madison…

The bottom line is that all breed-discriminatory laws serve to do is further perpetuate misinformation and sensationalistic rhetoric, further ignore public safety, further demonize dogs, further ostracize owners, further squeeze low income persons, further kill Pit Bulls, further make Pit Bulls more appealing to true criminals, and further create precedent for worse pieces of legislation to come.