*So I’ve had tons of computer problems over the last month but am now glad to be back and able to update my website again!
This past Tuesday the Riverside County Board of Supervisors held a meeting to consider an ordinance that would mandate the sterilization of all (and only) Pit Bull-type dogs. Earth to everyone: This is Riverside County trying to ban Pit Bulls, but since that is disallowed in the state of California they are simply attempting to pass (BSL/BDL) and force mandatory spay and neuter for only Pit Bull-type dogs instead. That is what is going on. Take the disingenuous presentation and throw it out the window. The desire for a ban is the reality, they just know that they can’t achieve it so they are attempting to dress it up in response.
Pasadena tried to do exactly the same thing in October of last year, and the people showing up to speak out against it got the issue tabled and the breed/type specific language killed altogether. Councilman Steve Madison openly stated that his desire initially was to ban them, prior to realizing that he couldn’t. The same thing is now going on in Riverside County, don’t be fooled.
Let’s look at a Press-Enterprise article detailing what the objectives are. There’s numerous spots in this article alone where their own talking points get completely crossed up. For example…
Right off the bat they claim that the “breed threatens public safety.” Wow, way to be specific and un-Nazi like. Then there’s this doozy further down, showing that there’s already an appropriate law on the books and realistically no need for another one. Focus on enforcing the existing laws!
Right now, dogs in the county’s jurisdiction can be forced to be sterilized if they are running loose, aren’t vaccinated against rabies or for “violations of the basic tenants of pet ownership,” according to a county staff report.
Of the 3 “attacks” that they continuously cite, ignored characteristics remain the same. On January 17th the dogs involved were ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. On March 5th the dog involved was ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. And on February 8th it is pretty darn inconclusive what actually happened to the 91-year-old artist that was found dead with her son’s dogs in a hotel room (or how long she was dead, for that matter), yet the media claimed the dogs killed her, even while their own sources for the story claim that she could have died from natural causes. These sources go on to explain that it isn’t unusual to have animals repeatedly lick, scratch and even bite someone to try to awaken them if they are perceived by the animal to be in serious trouble. For instance, the woman who received the world’s first ever face transplant was allegedly “mauled” by her own Labrador, yet she claims that the dog was only trying to wake her up after she passed out from medication. What is the truth to either of those scenarios? I have no idea, but neither does the Riverside media. I’ve tried to followup on her autopsy results and they were not made available, yet none of that apparently matters because countless links existed immediately claiming that it was the dogs that killed her.
Here comes more demonization, justified by vague and unscientific “reports from the media.” No specifics, it just is.
The two-page report states Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets. The media is constantly reporting the incidents of human injury and death from attacks by this type of canine.”
Does the media want to come and cover my dogs? Nope, well behaved dogs are no interest to them. Does the media want to cover bites or “attacks” not involving dogs that they themselves deem to be Pit Bulls? Nope, these things are not newsworthy for them. So apparently any individual incident involving a dog that they deem to be a Pit Bull prompts them to be able to vaguely talk about all Pit Bulls as if they “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets.” That’s ignorant, and hardly helps their chances of adoption.
Pit Bulls also make up 20 percent of impounded dogs, and the breed has “historically very low redemption or adoption rates,” the report added.
The report that they keep citing was put together by Robert Miller, the Director of the Riverside County shelters. He’s the same guy that routinely keeps the majority of their impounded Pit Bulls in a separate building away from public view. This gives them no visibility and no chance at adoption, yet he cites “low adoption” statistics as the reason for this legislation. What a fraudster.
“Reducing the fertility of this segment of the dog population is the only effective way to mitigate the negative impacts on the county and its residents.”
Uh, no it’s not. That’s a crock of shit. How about a broad focus on education? How about providing truly low-cost services and engaging the community? How about dealing with bad and/or irresponsible owners? How about enforcing current laws, including leash laws and the one mentioned above? How about discouraging the vague demonization and the continuing perpetuation of discriminatory misinformation? Again, what a fraudster. And worse, they won’t even be able (or willing, just look at their past record) to truly enforce this crappy law, even if it’s passed. This is all just a shell game meant to pacify concerns and give a certain portion of the public a false sense of security. It’s a total failure and a fraud.
“This dog is very agile. It’s very strong. It has a very high prey drive and when it does damage, it does a lot of damage,” he said. “There’s just far too many of them flooding our shelters. They don’t get adopted. Many of them are getting euthanized.” The ordinance’s intent “is essentially to be on the front end of these problematic pet owners, specifically the owners of these Pit Bulls” who allow their dogs to roam free, unlicensed and unvaccinated, Welsh added.
^Where do you start with this nonsensical doubletalk? Again, more sensationalism; then he says that they are flooding the shelters; then he claims that they don’t get adopted; then he brings up euthanasia, almost as a way to sympathize with the Pit Bull’s plight, even though they are the ones choosing not to promote them (or even show them) and kill them at the shelters instead; then he claims that the ordinance is meant to deal with problematic owners, even though it’s not, and even though they continuously fail to charge theses problematic owners. History shows that. It’s all just such rubbish.
Then there’s this mashing of 2 totally different quotes, based and given around 2 totally separate issues, yet they are presented on pe.com as if 1 supports the other…
In an emailed statement, the ASPCA said it does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws. However, “based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation,” the statement read.
Everyone supports spaying and neutering. It’s a responsible action for a dog owner to take. It’s suggested by everyone. My own dogs are all sterilized, yet I can still write all of this. The point is that you shouldn’t mandate it as law, ever (it’s pointless, it doesn’t work, when low-cost options don’t exist many can’t afford it, it makes shelter intakes rise, and oh yeah, actual criminals don’t ever follow any law), and especially when only targeting a specific type of dog and dovetailing your ordinance with the utter demonization of that specific type of dog as a whole. And then the writer craftily throws the “overpopulation” quote in there at the end, as if that’s the county’s true agenda. Wait, what? This entire Press-Enterprise article, as well as the Animal Control report, as well as the meeting that took place on Tuesday, were all based around how “vicious” and “unsafe” Pit Bulls were. Read the documents and watch the entire meeting yourself…
^Near the end you will hear the county’s incompetent shelter head, Robert Miller, constantly double down on ridiculous claims of myth and sensationalism. He first asks everyone to close their eyes and to picture what a Pit Bull looks like, and then “estimates that everyone would come up with roughly the same image.” What a crazy comment, considering “Pit Bull” isn’t even a breed and that very few people could even properly pick a Pit Bull out of a lineup of dogs. He goes on to cite the woman that said “these dogs bite like sharks,” he claims that their jaws are different (scientific evidence proves this totally false), he claims that they can all “hang from ropes in a tree for upwards of an hour,” he claims that their biting force (pounds per square inch) is much greater than any other dog (again, scientific evidence proves this totally false and not even able to be properly tracked).
It’s as if they all just love getting up there and telling Paul Bunyon tales, exaggerating details and just openly acting like fools. One Supervisor claimed that his son’s Pit Bull “carried a huge log around like it was a toothpick.” Then Miller actually says that when he was growing up that “Dobermans were the killers out there,” and then in the 90’s that “Rottweilers were a problem.” Good God. Do these people ever speak in specifics? Or just in broad fairy tales and all-encompassing generalities? It’s disgusting and highly ignorant. Another Supervisor claims that “we see more often than not that they are used as attack dogs.” Huh??? What the hell is that guy talking about? Millions of Pit Bulls exist in the United States right this very minute, and 99.99999999999% of them have done nothing to warrant this type of ridiculous villainization. How does that Supervisor even get away with making such an asinine statement? It’s incredible.
Earlier than that, at around 35:14 in the video, Miller makes this statement: “Right now, in this county (Riverside), there are tens of thousands of Pit Bulls, unaltered Pit Bulls, intact Pit Bulls.” Oops! He just totally discredited his own points, as well as the other Supervisor that I just quoted in the prior paragraph. Let’s just take the simple number of 10,000. Do you know how many Pit Bulls that leaves that haven’t ever attacked anyone? They cited a few of these “attacks” in the article. Well, based on Miller’s own estimation that then leaves 99+% of Riverside’s Pit Bulls not fitting their own awful characterization. And the ones that do “fit,” well, they’ve been proven to have either been out and freely roaming or chained up and NOT members of someone’s family… Yet people aren’t the problem? Why are those things consistently never made issues of? Instead, a vast amount of dogs get utterly scapegoated. What a disgraceful sham.
So in closing, I’m obviously for spaying and neutering in general, my own dogs are all altered. But making laws, especially breed-specific laws, is not the answer. And breed-specific laws meant to target only Pit Bulls is done simply to attempt to eliminate them. This isn’t just a “yes” or “no” issue, there’s implications and depth to this issue. The people simply discarding all the details because they are “for” spay and neuter in the general sense are actually part of the problem here. I’d ask that you folks really look into this issue further.
This vote will take place at a future meeting. I’d request that every pittie-loving person consider coming out to the future meeting where they will actually be voting on (and probably passing) this legislation. It is important that, regardless of whether they end up voting for it or not, people do show up and give public comments on behalf of these dogs and based around the backwardness of always targeting types of dogs and the incompetence of local agencies to follow already existing laws. The meeting is not scheduled as of now, but please know that they are always during the work week and are held at 9am in the morning. Super inconvenient on all fronts. It will be located at 4080 Lemon St., Riverside, CA 92501. That all being said, I hope that some of you will keep it in mind so that when this ordinance does get a date for a vote that you can possibly work a half-day or something and be there to speak.
If you’d like to respectfully contact the Supervisors individually…
District 1, Kevin Jeffries: district1@rcbos.org | 951-955-1010
District 2, John Tavaglione: district2@rcbos.org | 951-955-1020
District 3, Jeff Stone: district3@rcbos.org | 951-955-1030
District 4, John Benoit: district4@rcbos.org | 951-955-1040
District 5, Marion Ashley: district5@rcbos.org | 951-955-1050
*In my estimation Kevin Jeffries seemed least likely to support this ordinance. His comments tended to stick to the Constitution and erred on the side of not trampling over people’s rights. That only leads me to believe that he’d also be one that would not stand for the demonization of entire groups of anything.