My biggest takeaway from 2013 is that far too many people do not seem to understand what breed discrimination is. There’s numerous facets to this thought, and I view each portion as really problematic. First off, dog discrimination is real. Throw all the empty and off topic attempts to counter this point out the window–that dogs aren’t human, that anthropomorphism shouldn’t be done, that it trivializes race issues–because none of them matter or damage the ultimate point that’s being made here… It’s the line of thought, the conceptual approach, the philosophy and the response that is the exact same to human discrimination, and in any form. There lies the indisputable reality. You cannot blame, or attempt to pigeonhole, or criminalize an entire group of anything based on the actions of 1, or 5, or 25, or 500, or 5,000, etc. That is not only extraordinarily ignorant, but extremely dangerous as well. Dogs are individuals just as humans are. Those rejecting this basic premise are quite literally dense as a box of rocks.

More troubling, to me, is how the principles behind this premise get left behind by some in the “rescue” and “animal welfare” communities. This past year I found myself in 2 very public situations, each of which kind of provide the perfect examples for what I’m trying to convey here now…

Many months back I wrote about what Villalobos stated on their own Facebook page, in regards to supporting a watered down BSL proposition in Westwego, and got immediately lambasted for it by half of the internet. I stand as firmly now as I did then behind what I was trying to get across to people, which is that blatant and unjust discrimination cannot be “compromised” with at any level. When you compromise such a basic belief, to oppose blanket vilification and visual criminalization of mass amounts of (insert here), you then cease to have that belief. What I went through in the month or so that followed this event showed me that lots of people do not even comprehend what breed-specific legislation is, at all. Not only that, but it introduced me to blind allegiance, vitriolic backlash, hatefulness, irrationality in large doses, and an utter backwardness that did nothing but fracture concepts that should remain obvious and strong. I’m not saying the majority of this was even Villalobos’ fault, but it’s kind of a byproduct of critically engaging with such a well-known commodity.

The 2nd situation was involving PETA, and confronting spokeswoman Lisa Lange on their organization’s hypocritical stances of supporting Pit Bull regulations and bans, promoting the idea that shelters not adopt them out, and desiring to seem them phased out of the dog population completely. The discrimination and hypocrisy with PETA is off of the charts, almost to a laughable level. You honestly have to laugh to keep from crying. They are mortally harming these dogs while posing as if they care to protect them, and while running around attempting to protect all other types of animals that apparently deserve protecting far more than any dog deemed to be any part Pit Bull.

I said earlier that I find these facets “more troubling” than those that outright just do not acknowledge dog discrimination in the first place. Why? Because they have the biggest reach to teach! So when they are on the wrong side of history on such an obvious issue like mass criminalization then they are literally adding to the culture that is dumbing people down, and at the expense of the one that could be lifting them up. They are muddying the water, not filtering it or clearing it up. And I’m in no way comparing Villalobos to PETA, because they are night and day organizations when it comes to Pit Bulls. Villalobos does actual great work, PETA does “great work” only if the goal is to further marginalize innocent dogs and get them killed.

Lastly, there are those that claim to understand how discrimination manifests itself, and they find it appalling and wrong, yet clearly choose putting the notion of opposing it on the back burner out of a desire to believe that more dogs will be spayed or neutered by force, thus creating less killing. Evidence often refutes this, but that’s really not the point here. The point is that these people are choosing one issue at the complete expense of the other. And this “other” is the foundational issue of everything, the ignoring of which is what is actively tearing down the dogs that these folks so openly claim to love. I serve you up Riverside County, Riverside City, and Pasadena as prime examples…

What happened to education and open dialogue in regards to spay and neuter? Instead you’re happy to support another unenforceable law while convincing yourself that the many relevant issues and dynamics in play here will all of a sudden work themselves out through its implementation? And even if it would, which it won’t, all of the stereotyping and demonizing is really an acceptable price to pay? Some would actually say yes to that last question. That’s really sad to me. Because there is a heavy stream of collateral damage coming down the pipe because of this, and it is coming no matter how you slice it.

I’ve been criticized a decent amount for saying many of the things that I’ve said here, and I keep saying different versions of it and won’t stop doing so. Been ignored, been tuned out, been belittled and otherwise. And all for opposing absurdist discrimination. All for trying to be consistent with my opposition. And all for trying to communicate to others why that’s imperative to do. So that’s my takeaway for the year. And I know this sounds like a downer post but it’s not, it’s just me reflecting. With all of the not so helpful there’s also been tons of support and understanding as well, and a lot of communication and rational discourse. So thank you for that.