Councilman Micheal Goodland, who proposed this legislation at the behest of Riverside County, again reiterated what I’ve continued to state is the true motivation behind such a legislative attempt…

I would like to ban them from the city, but we can’t do that.

Also pay attention to this paragraph, which openly states the justification for such a move…

Several jurisdictions, including Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the city of Riverside, have mandated the sterilization of Pit Bulls because of high profile attacks by the dogs in recent years.

But I thought it was about spaying and neutering and relieving the amount of shelter killing that is going on? Or is it because of the attacks and the implication that they are dangerous and/or vicious and a detriment to public safety? But state law specifically says you can’t do that to breeds or types of dogs, and yet they are, and all under a false premise. Many politicians have openly admitted their intentions. I have the video documentation. Read their statements. Watch them speak. If jurisdictions want to have a serious conversation about shelter killings then let’s have those conversations! Those conversations are not happening. Instead, these dogs are just vaguely being vilified in the rhetorical back and forth, and then having this MSN-BSL served up as the only “legal” action that they can take in response to their true concerns, which is the “attacks” and the dog’s perceived “reputation,” not of sterilization or shelter killings. Be real.

Lastly, look at the image they’ve attached with the Press Enterprise article, which doesn’t even show a Pit Bull or a Pit Bull-mix, but instead a papered American Bully (I know this because I was there in October and met the dog), a separate breed unto itself. This dog isn’t technically included under the proposed legislation, but many of them would be swept up in it anyways.