My Google Hangout ID is swayloveorg@gmail, ADD ME, LET ME KNOW CRAVEN. While you’re at it, try to prompt Jeff Borchardt into doing the same thing. All I’ve heard is silence, as I’ve put myself out there 100% and you guys continue to yap through text but evade any medium that would require an actual human interaction. I’m also sorry that our video of Clifton has upset so many people, but at least he had the courage to stand there and dialogue with people. I did send him the debate proposal that he wanted and I haven’t heard anything about it. William Johnson has put my request off until potentially 2016, due to a pending lawsuit that he states he is involved in. So honestly, the only trends that I’m seeing is that I’m putting myself out there repeatedly, and that no one is actually willing to step up and have any kind of a public conversation on the issues. Also, Colleen Lynn, consider this another public challenge to fire up your webcam. If your information is so amazing, if it’s so honest and genuine, then why would everyone run from the opportunity to make a fool out of me? And further, if you think that I’m some kind of a loose cannon or something then wouldn’t that make you want to take me up on my offer even faster? You could show how unintelligent and unhinged I am, right?

So last Friday I had the opportunity to attend the Animal Rights 2014 National Conference where Merritt Clifton, former editor of Animal People and current editor of Animals 24-7, was set to co-present on a panel entitled “Moving away from shelter killing.” I know… It seems contradictory to have such a person speaking on such a panel, considering Clifton is a pusher of BSL and the concept of eliminating all Pit Bulls. Anyways, after the panel wrapped up numerous people (including Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent director Jeff Theman and Kim Wolf from Beyond Breed) had an opportunity to engage Clifton on some of the questionable claims that his “statistics” aim to support.

During a downtime in the panel Kim interjected to ask him a question about his statistics and why they haven’t been peer-reviewed in scientific journals, to which Merritt said that he has “more than 100 peer-reviewed publications.” That’s a dubious claim, at best. Being quoted in a printed or online publication by a source unaware of your lack of credentials doesn’t exactly count. Clifton then claimed that the JAVMA publications, which is a scientific journal that is peer-reviewed, are authored by “paid, professional Pit Bull advocates,” who he claims he’d be happy to debate at any time in a public forum. Um, okay. I’m certainly not a “paid” advocate but I chimed in from the crowd that we’d be attempting to hold him to that. He asked me what my name was, and I told him, and then he called me a heckler who hollers anonymously from the back of the crowd. I repeated my name again, so I don’t know, apparently we have different definitions of the word anonymous.

After the panel wrapped up I approached him and apologized for being a “heckler,” introducing myself and asking him what his deal was against our dogs. He claimed that “you’re not going to reduce the shelter killing of Pit Bulls unless you have breed-specific legislation.” Holy crap. That’s not true. To his point about “needing” BSL, Merritt gave no acknowledgement to the perpetuation of harsh, negative, inflammatory and untrue stereotypes that his cherry-picked (and often unverified) data tries to promote. He paid no attention to the lack of housing, renter restrictions, insurance restrictions, and so on that that stuff constantly feeds. He gave no acknowledgement to how these laws are often actually used as end-arounds to human being profiling. And he paid no attention to the shelter system structure, many of which practice (off the books) in-house BSL, which obviously feeds the shelter killing of Pit Bulls. All of these quite necessary elements were conveniently left out of his explanation as to “why” we need BSL. Not very genuine, to say the least.

At 1:48 Merritt says “when you consider that there are around 150 recognized breeds, for any 1 breed to make up more than 1% is actually significant.” Wow, well that’s odd. Because when dog-banners talk about Pit Bulls they always say that “Pit Bulls ONLY make up 4-6% of the total dog population.” Key word: Only. First of all, that claim is totally untrue and most definitely dwarfed by reality. But even if it was true, Merritt just said that it’s significant for any breed to be over 1% of the dog population, right? But then that rhetoric is conveniently flipped when it needs to serve another purpose, and in an effort to try to claim that there’s not a lot of Pit Bulls that exist in the country. See, if dog-banners admit that there’s a lot of Pit Bulls in existence then they ultimately have to admit that there’s a lot of Pit Bulls that have never harmed anyone. That’s the reality, to the 99.99999 percentile, and no matter the numbers that you want to work with.

At 3:44 he says “very often, a breeder, if a certain dog becomes dog of the year, they’ll just change which dogs mate, so they’ll turn out Goldens 1 year and Chocolate Labs the next, and out of the same mother.” See the dilution of breeds taking place in just that example? I bet if you saw those dogs most people wouldn’t even be able to tell. Just think about that for a second, and how dogs are clearly dogs. Yet Golden Retrievers are held up on their own, and Labradors on their own, and so on and so forth. But what if a Golden Retriever or a Labrador is mixed with a mixed dog, or is mixed with a random dog that someone considers to be a Pit Bull? Is it now a Pit Bull? At what point does it become a Pit Bull? Dogs are dogs folks.

At 4:38 Clifton starts to talk about high-volume, low-cost spay and neuter programs in a way that implies that it was being tried and done in all of these states (he gives both Ohio and New York as examples), but that nobody seemed to want to take advantage of it. This is just fundamentally not true! Kim Wolf, who resides in Brooklyn, intervened to state that in NYC people actually line up at 5am for the clinics but that 2/3rds of those people are normally turned away due to the demand not being able to be met. Her point is that it was incredibly difficult to access these things, and these are the people with the means to access them! Much more pertinent are the lower income folks who may not have the appropriate information or the transportation to get to such an event. Kim’s point aligns pretty well with what I’ve come to understand and see when talking with different communities from California who are being focused on by animal control without being given access to proper resources that would make voluntary compliance far more likely to happen. For instance, in the city of Indio a 2013 spay and neuter clinic which had 40 spots available saw over 500 residents come out in an effort to get their pets sterilized.

At 10:08 Merritt claims that “media reports are the most accurate.” In comparison to what? I then try to ask him why breed remains the primary focus in the face of reckless circumstances like loose dogs, chained yard dogs and unsupervised children. Based on those “media reports” that he claims are the most accurate, 26 of 31 dog-bite related fatalities from 2013 and at least 15 of the 21 from 2014 have involved 1 or more of those 3 reckless (human controlled) circumstances. I tell him that he chooses to focus on breed, which “can’t even be determined.” Obviously I meant that it can’t be successfully determined simply by a media report mention. He says this is not the case. I try to explain that there’s not even a specific or consistent definition of what a “Pit Bull” is, to which he asks me if I can identify Santa Claus… This brings to mind Riverside County’s veterinarian Dr. Allan Drusys and his comparing Pit Bull breed identification to watching pornography, meaning that “you know it when you see it.” Total insanity. Numerous scientific studies reject this notion, including a 2012 study completed by Dr. Victoria Voith. Geneticist Kristopher Irizarry tried to explain this to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors back in October, and they, already having their minds made up prior to even entering the meeting, totally ignored his information.

At 12:00 Clifton makes it seem as if certain dogs come out of the womb pointing, retrieving, fighting. Dog men have stated openly how difficult it is to find a true fighting dog, no matter how they are bred, but Merritt Clifton wants you to believe that every Pit Bull that is born is basically a “fighting” dog. This is a massive load of crap. At 13:22 Jeff directly asks him if he is stating that these dogs were specifically bred for fighting and fighting only. Merritt’s answer? “Basically fighting and baiting.” This, while 99.99999% of all dogs neither fight nor bait in their actual lives. Should I start calling all Latin people reflections of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, just because they may look alike or have the same physical characteristics? Or are people individuals with their own track records and behaviors? This same premise applies to dogs. Dogs are not objects coming off of an assembly line. They are individual dogs!

At 14:31 I ask him if he believes that dogs are individuals, just as a basic principle… Clifton doesn’t really answer, opting to say that “dogs have extremely strong breed-specific characteristics that have been bred into them for years” instead. He then says that people don’t, which makes us all “mutts and mongrels.” He then says that “characteristics and behavior go together,” to which I’d immediately say, well, how do you then account for the actual positive behaviors of the many millions of Pit Bull-type dogs that exist in the country today? He can’t talk out of both sides of his mouth.

At 15:19 he states that he’s been talking to a geneticist that believes that she’s identified the gene that carries the trait for “idiopathic rage,” which they’re now going to try and pin on all Pit Bulls. Clifton states that it “occurs in roughly 1% of the dog population at large, but that it occurs in over 90% of Pit Bulls.” Wait, what? Alert the math police! First of all, based on Merritt’s own 2014 report, Pit Bulls and their mixes make up 6.7% of the dog population. This can in no way be proven, and in reality is likely triple or quadruple that, especially when taking into account how the mainstream media identifies dogs… But anyways, based on Merritt’s 6.7% and a dog population of 70 million, that produces 4.69 million “Pit Bulls.” 5.025 million based on a dog population of 75 million and 5.36 million based on a dog population of 80 million! Now look at their “idiopathic rage” claim again… 1% of a dog population of 70 million dogs is 700,000 dogs (750,000 out of 75 million, 800,000 out of 80 million). Based on Merritt’s own research there’s 4.7 million Pit Bulls in that same 70 million population group. Yet they are trying to pin “idiopathic rage” on Pit Bulls, and stating that it occurs in 90% of Pit Bulls, while at the same time stating that it only occurs in 1% of the total dog population. Using Merritt’s population claim: 90% of Pit Bulls in a total population of 70 million dogs would equal 4.22 million Pit Bulls. 1% of that same dog population equals a total of 700,000 dogs. Their math is ludicrously flawed. Even if every single dog from the “idiopathic rage” group was a “Pit Bull,” that still leaves 3.99 million Pit Bulls! It’s junk science. It’s crap. It’s lies. Just for fun, if we quadrupled Merritt’s estimated amount of “Pit Bulls” from a dog population of 70 million dogs (which is probably far more genuine and honest), that equals 18.76 million Pit Bulls. Now run that number through the same formulation from ^above. You get the point.

At 16:10 Jeff references a behaviorist that appears in his film, and how he states that “we have a lot of genes in our hand, but does it make my hand ball up into a fist and hit you?” Merritt says “if you were better qualified than someone else to be successful, as a behavioral strategy, to ball up your fist and hit somebody, uh, that could evolve the ability to do that successfully, which could evolve into a successful trait.” Keep in mind that Merritt’s claims are based in his belief that all Pit Bulls are dog fighting dogs… Now he’s trying to say that if you were “better qualified” to punch somebody in the face, that that could evolve into a successful gene or trait? I know a lot of people that are “better qualified” to be able to knock someone’s block off if they were to get into a physical fight! Does that mean that they are a fighter? Does that mean that they are a vicious person? Does that mean that they are a detriment to public safety? I mean, where does this type of crap lead? Think about The Rock, think about Jon “Bones” Jones, think about Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao, think about Karl Malone or Ray Lewis, think about any professional athlete, think about any athlete at any level whatsoever! What about anyone over 6’5″, or anyone over 225 pounds? Where does the profiling end? This is all profiling pseudoscience!

At 18:25 Jeff talks about how his dog Preston loves to retrieve (my dog Neola also loves to retrieve). He asks Merritt “is my dog a retriever because he displays that trait, or is he now a Pit Bull because he looks like something?” Based on the road that we’ve been going down, this leaves Clifton kind of flustered. We then get back into his data, which he says comes from “classified ads,” but he leaves out the part about it never being made available to be publicly vetted in any way. I ask him how many dogs are not fatally wounding or mauling someone? He knows that the answer is 99.99999% of them, and no matter the breed or type, but I don’t get that answer. He instead claims that 1 out of every 107 Pit Bulls kills another animal each year. I ask him where that data comes from. He tells me to go to his website. How in the world can anyone even attempt to claim that they know this to be true? There’s literally no possible way to know such a stat, and for numerous reasons. None.

At 20:28 a lady who had been standing around the entire time that we were talking to Merritt chimes in and implies that I don’t want to protect these dogs. Protect them by passing BSL and/or phasing them out/killing them? Very PETA-ish of her. I try to explain how breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter is always rhetorically pitched. She doesn’t care. She says that I “agree with breeding,” and in a way that’s surely meant to make me seem as if I’m anti-spay and neuter. I’m not anti-spay and neuter! I just don’t think it should be mandated upon people (especially in a breed-specific fashion), and for a lot of different reasons that go well beyond a soundbyte or a statement that I could just flippantly toss out. I actually believe in voluntary spay and neuter, and making resources available and accessible, and educating people about those resources. My own dogs are sterilized. So put your simplistic breeder-related stuff back in the drawer. I’m not a breeder. I again try to explain how breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter is rhetorically pitched, which is the main reason why I don’t support it. It’s not to get at shelter killing, it’s not to get at overpopulation. It’s to criminalize the dogs as a whole and phase them out by circumventing state law. Look at California for the finest example. Somehow she doesn’t find any of this relevant. She claims “that’s not a good reason to fight it.” I’d strongly disagree! She says that we should be focused on stopping them from being killed. I’m trying to tell her that they are being killed mainly because of the perpetuated stereotype that continues to exist. At 21:45 Clifton tries to claim that the Pit Bulls coming into shelters are coming in because they’ve “had some kind of an incident.” There he goes again, speaking on behalf of countless individual dogs without having a damn clue about any of them. Unreal. We then get into landlord/tenant issues that are far more complicated than Merritt leads on, but that’s another discussion for another day. Merritt totally misses my point about renting and insurance blockades.

At 22:36 I ask him about a debate for a 2nd time. I’m certainly not a “paid” advocate, like he alluded to earlier, but I’ve publicly (and respectfully) debated in the past. I can’t get him to commit to anything. I offer to fly to Washington. He tells me to send him a “proposal,” but won’t just commit to the premise of at some point doing it. The other lady then interjects and makes a point about why a law is needed, while at the same time admitting that the BSL from the town in which she lives isn’t even enforced. Kim points out that if they won’t enforce that then why/how do you think they’d enforce a mandatory sterilization law?

At 26:15 Clifton basically admits that MSN-BSL and bans are both used for the same purpose, stating that “I don’t see any reason at all to breed Pit Bulls, or any other dog who is inclined or produced to kill or injure other animals.” There he goes again, condemning a massive group of dogs for things that the vast majority of them haven’t done. I try to explain this to both Merritt and the lady, but they state that if it isn’t born then you aren’t condemning it. Um, but you’re not having it be born precisely for the reason that it’s a condemned dog in your own mind! Hello!

This then delves into a side conversation between myself and the lady over dog fighting. She believes that if Pit Bulls cease to exist then the concept of dog fighting would cease to exist. That basically equates to blaming the dogs and ignoring the actual human being and their criminal behavior of illegally fighting dogs. I state that they’d probably just do it with another dog. She says “are you telling me that they’re going to fight Beagles?” Sidebar, but have you ever noticed how often this type of a tactic is used by proponents of regulating dog breeds? For example, if we are talking about fatalities, someone might say “well, is a Chihuahua going to kill somebody?” Um, are Chihuahuas (and in this case Beagles) the only other dogs available to make a valid comparison with? It’s funny that someone picks the tiniest dog in an effort to make their counter-point. There’s about 50 breeds of dog that are LARGER in physical size than a Pit Bull and just as (if not more) capable of killing a human being. That’s a fact.

At 29:59 the lady asks me “what are you looking to see in the end?” She, like PETA, views the concept of dogs as human companions as dogs being exploited. She admits that she wants to end dog companionship, and that that’s the “only” animal rights position. Yikes.

At 31:51 Kim asks Clifton if he has any peer-reviewed research that’s been published in the United States. He claims that he does. He states that he has an award from ProMED. He does, and it was given in 2010 regarding the controlling of the rabies virus in Asia. It’s not for anything relating to dog-related human fatalities, breed-specific legislation, or Pit Bulls, which is what she was specifically asking him about. Clifton explains why he doesn’t publish in JAVMA, but that he does provide data to them as a supporting writer, and states that he doesn’t make his living writing for journals. Kim asks him that if his data is so good then why isn’t he trying to get it published in peer-reviewed journals. He doesn’t really answer her directly. He justifies his publishing decisions by stating that he simply wants to reach the most people. But what if what he’s writing about is flat out wrong, unscientific or not able to be proven? Isn’t that relevant? He doesn’t seem to care much about having his information vetted in these ways, just that it reaches who it reaches. Okay, fair enough. But that’s kind of an incredible evasion of Kim’s point.

At 35:17 I again ask him about a future debate, because at this point my battery is about to die. He again tells me to send him a “proposal” (which I’ve since done).

At 36:23 the lady who had been talking with us brings up PETA. She doesn’t believe what Jeff and Kim are trying to tell her so I try to hand her a sheet of 40 sourced PETA quotations since the year 2000 which have been used to promote breed bans, all forms of breed-specific legislation, and the no adoption policy for shelter Pit Bulls that Ingrid Newkirk has lobbied for. She refuses to take, or even look at, the paper.

At this point we are out in the hallway, and the lady who had been engaged in our conversation for the last 30 minutes incredibly asks me if I’d been videotaping her. She knows that I had been, as any time I would address her I would physically turn in her direction and point my open video camera at her, but she strangely starts to play dumb. She then asks me for my name, and I give it to her, and then she runs off to get staff members in an effort to have them strong-arm me into giving up my memory card so that it could be erased/destroyed. I told them that that wasn’t happening, and that she was watching me record the conversation for damn near 40 minutes! She could have left the open room at any time. Also worth note, she opted to join the ongoing conversation that we were already having with Clifton, not the other way around. She goes on and on about them taking my camera, which they don’t try to do. Now this lady comes unglued and threatens to sue me. You’d think that if people were knowingly being recorded, and chose to stay around, that they then wouldn’t try and pull this type of crap after the fact. Stand on your information/pov! What are you afraid of other people hearing? If you’re correct then I/we should be looking like fools on my own video, right?

Lisa Lange from PETA, upon being approached by myself in the hallway of the Pasadena City Council on Monday night, denied that PETA supports Pit Bull bans or any other form of breed/type regulation outside of spay and neuter. She denied that Ingrid Newkirk promotes/encourages/recommends/lobbies for actual shelter policies of not adopting Pit Bulls out to the public. She told me more than once that I was to blame for Pit Bulls being killed. She told me that since I didn’t support BSL-MSN and MSN that I actually supported dogs being chained and abused. She repeated numerous times that Pit Bulls are “the most abused dog in dogdom,” as if to justify their positions, but while not admitting or acknowledging them publicly. She actually told me that I kill dogs, calling me by name and pointing in an animated fashion at my camera. Her PETA affiliated supporters were chiming in but, to be honest, I was tuning them out. Lange then began to walk away and I followed her, asking how she could wear the shirt that she was wearing (this shirt) while at the same time working for an organization that supports any and every form of breed-discriminatory legislation. She told me again that my “shit” gets Pit Bulls killed and that “I should be ashamed of myself.” As they were at the end of the hall and about to turn the corner Lange yelled back at me “have fun with your little YouTube video.” Condescend much? Lol. I said that I would, and asked her if she liked my last one. Still scattering away, she said that she “doesn’t watch my stupid videos.” At this point their group is about 50 feet ahead of me. I shouted that I didn’t really care if she watched them, but that other people do, which is the point. And all of this was on video, until it wasn’t. Apparently when I unplugged my recording camera from the charger to roll out into the hallway it stopped recording, so then when I went to stop the recording it actually started to record. That’s when I knew that my video was fucked. It’s a damn shame, because the fraud that is Lisa Lange was hitting me with doublespeak like it was nobody’s business, and while wearing a t-shirt with a Pit Bull’s face on it! High comedy if it wasn’t so incredibly depressing, sad and terrifying.

Coincidentally I had just watched Lisa speak 3 days prior at the 2014 Animal Rights National Conference in Los Angeles, where I was attending in order to try and get a word in with anti-Pit Bull “statistician” Merritt Clifton. Lange started off the Friday festivities giving a speech about Sea World and their cruel and inhumane practice of containing orcas and dolphins in tiny tanks for entertainment. I clapped through most of her speech, as I obviously support the efforts to end the captivity of these incredible creatures, just as I support PETA in their attempts to end cruel practices like vivisection and factory farming, among other things. Many affiliated persons risk their lives to gather footage of these heinous things, and they also confront different folks and (at times) pull all kinds of extreme stunts in order to garner attention for the different issues. All that aside, Lange wrapped up her speech on Friday saying 2 things that I found pertinent to my attempt at exposing PETA’s utter hypocrisy on the related Pit Bull topics…

1) “The key here as activists is that we just have to look for every possible opportunity where it exists, and even if you think it doesn’t exist, it does exist. You just have to sit and have a think and go out and do what you can.” And 2) “Realize that our theme is to never be silent. No matter where you are, what you’re doing, what you see. Say something, because if you don’t no one will.”

Now kick around both of those quotes for a second. Isn’t that what I’m doing? Yet, it seems that they only respect these things when it’s regarding something that they approve of. On the other hand, if they don’t agree with you then having those concepts actually play out is frowned upon, and in my case, mocked by the very same lady that spoke those words to a conference room full of people 3 days prior to our run-in at City Hall.

Sometimes natural happenings are just too rich to describe with just words… We are less than 2 weeks away from the latest BSL-related Pasadena City Council meeting, which have (up to this point) mainly centered around the Pit Bull targeting desires of authoritarian Steve Madison, and I just happened to notice a rather pertinent quote that was planted directly on the corner of Madison Ave. (anti-Pit Bull discriminator Steve Madison) and Colorado Blvd. (Colorado being the home to the city of Denver, which has the country’s most infamous Pit Bull ban). This is mere blocks away from the Pasadena City Hall…

If we woke up tomorrow to the news that a “Pit Bull” killed a person in Pasadena would that then immediately make Councilman Steve Madison a prophet?

Would it justify the hundreds of thousands of days that have literally went by without a Pasadena death being linked to a dog or a dog bite (actual proof and reality) then being wiped from the history books?

Would this singular incident then justify all of the rhetoric used by Mr. Madison over the span of the last 2 years (much of which has entered the realm of referring to them as “killing machines, extremely dangerous, inherently dangerous, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns and time bombs”) in order to sweepingly indict millions of dogs simply by the way that they look?

Would Steve Madison bother to check the circumstances surrounding the incident, instead of using the “breed” of the offending dog as his talking point and focus?

Would this happening immediately serve to render all of my many points made to counter his bigotry null and void?

Would this incident mean that every other Pit Bull in Pasadena should be viewed as guilty of the same thing?

The answers are 6 very obvious NO’s. But if Councilman Steve Madison were taking this same quiz he would probably offer up a YES for every question instead.

We’ve already saw glimmers of this type of arrogant, grandstanding behavior when Madison gleefully flaunted and exploited the police shooting of 3 loose dogs (identified by them as being Pit Bulls) days after the January City Council meeting. The dogs were alleged to have bitten a man who was walking his bicycle in the wee hours of the morning. Conveniently, Madison payed no attention to the fact that the dogs were out and running loose, amongst other questionable things. Prior to this we’d heard him say on numerous occasions that “it’s only a matter of time” before (insert here) happens in Pasadena. This is the behavior of a fearmonger hellbent on exploiting the sensationalism linked with this topic, and at the expense of flat out ignoring the depth of the issue…

What’s so surprising to me is that Councilman Madison almost relishes an attack, so that he can then proclaim himself “right” in the press and have a specific body to be able to stand upon while continuing to push for his desired agenda. This is shameful behavior from any elected official and his blatant disengagement from reality (and ignoring of public safety) should be far more concerning to residents than any dog.

Please consider coming out to the next Pasadena City Council meeting where this issue will be on the agenda, happening on July 14th.

On June 22 I issued a public invitation to both William Johnson and Jeff Borchardt, anti-Pit Bull folks, to have them join me on the next Bull Horn video podcast that we try to do about once a month. At the time of this writing I’ve heard nothing from either of them. I’d also like to point out that this invitation will continue to stand for any time going forward as well. And beyond them, the same continuous invitation also stands for Colleen Lynn, Damn James, Merritt Clifton, Kory Nelson, Dennis Baker, Anthony Solesky and Kenneth Phillips (or anyone else).

Here’s an update from July 17, after 25 more days of silence from Johnson and Borchardt…

SwayLove is a California based organization that advocates on behalf of Pit Bulls, all shelter dogs, positive shelter reform, community engagement and transparency, and against any form of breed-specific legislation. These efforts include, but are not limited to, photography, journalism, educational video production, attending and speaking at City Council meetings and other functions, and trying to be a positive example as an activist for these causes.

Please click here to purchase the shirt pictured below, it is unisex and comes preshrunk in the color gray.

This shirt attempts to signify some of the many ills that are being promoted when a politician attempts to ban or regulate a breed or “type” of dog on the back of a tragic incident that may occur. “Pit Bulls” are primarily the chief victims of such legislation, which is always brought forth with the intent of sweepingly vilifying a massive group of dogs (millions) that can’t even be properly identified, as there’s never a consistent definition to what is or isn’t a Pit Bull. Further, it implies that your dog is guilty of something that it never did, and simply because of the way that it looks. This legislation and the rhetoric that comes with it perpetuates all types of negative stereotypes that oftentimes ends in broken families. Innocent dogs are scapegoated and honest public safety measures go ignored.

By purchasing this shirt you are not only helping me and showing an appreciation for my cause, but more importantly, standing against the injustice of dog and owner profiling. Every time this shirt is worn it just might give someone you have never met an opportunity to ponder the issue, even for a brief moment. It could plant a seed in their mind, it might lead to a question, but it will always be a tool for publicly standing up for all dogs.

Much like other fundraisers, if the “goal” is reached within the allotted time frame then the shirts will be shipped shortly thereafter. If not, your payment will not be processed and nothing further will happen. If the goal is ultimately reached other people can still continue to order until the campaign closes. I’d obviously like to sell as many shirts as possible and assist in multiplying this message around the United States and elsewhere. Thank you for your time.

Please click here to purchase the shirt pictured above, it is unisex and comes preshrunk in the color gray.

First, it is horrible that KFC kicked out that 3-year-old girl due to people being “scared” of her face, if that’s indeed what actually happened. Other versions say that the child’s mother was actually causing a massive scene inside of the restaurant and that’s what initiated the KFC staff to ask HER to leave, not the child (it’s now been investigated twice and numerous sources state that the incident didn’t happen at all). But regardless, Time writer Charlotte Alter’s focus was clearly on disparaging Pit Bulls. So my focus will be pointing out the many problems in her article…

Problem #1: Alter provided no description of what led to the attack on the little girl, no circumstances (10 dogs, they were all running loose, the little girl was unattended), no details of the environment that the dogs were living in prior and during (9 of the dogs apparently were yard dogs), nothing whatsoever. Kind of relevant and important information if actually wanting to further the concept of public safety.

Problem #2: Alter claims that Pit Bulls “make up only 6% of the dog population,” which she has absolutely no way of knowing or confirming. Why not? Because there’s no accurate way to peg the number of dogs from any breed or “type.” Further, because there’s no specific or consistent definition of what a Pit Bull is or is not, quite the opposite. The reality of labeling Pit Bulls is subjective, ambiguous, vague and all-encompassing in nature, especially by those wanting to exploit a tragedy as a way to further their anti-Pit Bull agenda. That notion then needs to swing both ways when calculating any total number of “Pit Bulls” in existence, meaning: You can’t conveniently overreach in an effort to label every dog involved in anything as a “Pit Bull mix,” and then turn around and not use that same formula when calculating a total number of possible Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes. At least be consistent with your erroneous tactics.

Problem #3: Visual identification is not scientific, wrought with errors and inaccuracies, and these identifications are often made by unqualified people and then printed/reported in the local/national news, which is then used as “facts” for unsubstantiated claims.

Problem #4: Mixed breeds are not a breed at all.

Problem #5: Even if the 6% figure was true (which it’s not even remotely close), in a country of 75 million dogs that would mathematically equate to almost 5 million Pit Bulls. By any count, 99.9% of those dogs have never mauled or killed anyone.

Problem #6: Alter sources Merritt Clifton.

Problem #7: Alter sources alleged percentages coming from Clifton, which aren’t based in reality, evidence or science, and are instead selectively chosen from unsubstantiated media reports. Total bias bullshit, a misrepresentation of the truth, and nothing more than arrogant claims being made when such claims aren’t even possible to ever accurately be made!

Problem #8: Alter tells the audience that the CDC stopped collecting breed-specific information but failed to mention WHY they stopped collecting breed-specific information… I’ll let the CDC explain:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002% of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites.

Problem #9: Alter references the NOT peer-reviewed 2011 Annals of Surgery study titled “Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,” which has been thoroughly discredited. Why? Because it was done by non-animal experts who were looking at photographs of injuries and then concluding, based solely on the photographs and medical records, which breeds of dog caused which injuries. But 1 problem: They never saw any of the offending dogs! So not only did they skip the shoddy visual identification process, but they never laid eyes on the dogs. And yet, they were so arrogant as to breed-label the injuries anyways. Preposterous.

Problem #10: Alter implies that all Pit Bulls and their owners should be collectively blamed for what allegedly happened to the little girl at KFC. Wow, I wasn’t at KFC that day and neither was my dog! If she was treated in such a way then it’s the fault of the person that treated her that way.

Problem #11: Alter mentions the dog from Arizona named Mickey, but again provides no description as to what actually led to that attack, no circumstances, nothing whatsoever. She then proceeds to claim that more people were concerned about the dog than about Kevin Vincente, as if a person couldn’t be simultaneously concerned for both, or as if concern or thoughts about 1 cancelled out concern or thoughts about the other.

Problem #12: Where are Merritt Clifton’s sources supporting his asinine claims about “shelter dogs” that span 151 years going back to 1858? No nod to the obvious difference in technology and communication capabilities from the 1800s/1900s in comparison to today. No nod to anything, just a made up number that is utterly unverified but that’s being presented, both by Clifton and by Alter, as if it’s fact.

Problem #13: Alter sources Colleen Lynn from the anti-Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org.

Problem #14: Colleen Lynn is not a geneticist, nor is she genuinely knowledgeable about dog behavior.

Problem #15: Merritt Clifton states that “not every kind of dog responds to neglect and abuse by killing and injuring people.” Um, just by the way that he phrases this statement he implies 2 utterly wrong concepts: That all Pit Bulls would respond by killing and injuring people and that all non-Pit Bulls wouldn’t respond by killing and injuring people. Way to be a simpleton, Merritt! It’s an obvious fact that dogs are individuals and not objects, sentient beings and not manufactured products that come off of a conveyor belt. Clifton must believe the opposite. 99.9% of all dogs from any breed or type HAVE NOT mauled or killed a person!

Problem #16: Clifton’s proclamations as to what makes a “good” and “bad” Pit Bull is nothing more than a soundbyte meant to blame the dogs and not the people that put them onto the chains he speaks of. Just because a dog is on a chain doesn’t make it a “badass” (vicious, fighter) anymore than Clifton picking up a water hose makes him a firefighter. What chaining your dog does do is isolate it, frustrate it, make it territorial, and take away its option of flight, among other cruel things depending on the circumstances. Some dogs subjected to this type of shit are no less friendly than non-chained ones, as each remains an individual and deserves their right to be properly evaluated. Point being, it all depends. But chaining a dog (any dog) CAN LEAD TO TRAGIC INCIDENTS, especially when involving unsupervised children. What’s also interesting is Clifton claiming there are “good” Pit Bulls, yet he makes his living off of egregiously exploiting them and pushing fabricated statistics onto politicians who then serve up ideas for bans and regulations.

Problem #17: Alter embeds a bar graph from the hate group, spells their website wrong, and then provides no further explanation as to where the numbers come from. I’ll tell you: It’s from Colleen and Merritt, using their tactics of cherry-picking through unverified media reports. Further, what’s the definition of “attack,” or for that matter, “maiming”?

Problem #18: Lynn goes all land shark rhetoric on everyone, threatening that there will be a “disfigured child” in every school. Total fearmongering nonsense. 5? 15? 25 million Pit Bull-type dogs in the country? The definitions become so vague that that latest number is not to be discarded out of hand. What I do know is that reality does show that we have a lot of responsible people and really great dogs out there. Try as you might to ignore this fact, it’s still a fact.

Problem #19: How in the hell does Merritt Clifton assume that 80% of all dogs are sterilized, but then that 80% of all Pit Bulls aren’t sterilized? There is quite literally no way to know this information. Is this silly guy the Oracle? Does he kick it on the weekends with Santa Claus? Does Santa take him down the chimney, notepad in hand? I mean, I’m sorry, but this guy is totally full of shit.

Problem #20: Alter writes as if Colleen Lynn actually cares to prevent having more Pit Bulls euthanized. Haha. Earth to Charlotte Alter: Colleen Lynn wants Pit Bulls ERADICATED by any means necessary. You’ve been played like the neighborhood jukebox. A little something from her Facebook page…

Problem #21: Alter sources PETA, who rules the roost on animal-related doublespeak and lobbies for both Pit Bull bans and “no adoption” policies for the Pit Bulls coming into shelters. They promote the ideology of “killing them to save them from abuse.” This is completely ludicrous and the fact that they are still being given a platform on this issue speaks to how lazily Alter’s piece was slapped together.

Problem #22: Holding Colleen Lynn, Merritt Clifton and PETA up as examples of compassionate advocates for the well-being of Pit Bulls (and bigger dogs in general) is like putting the head of the Ku Klux Klan in charge of African American reproductive systems.

Problem #23: You mean to tell me that no other organization wanted to comment for this article? Alter magically produced the only animal welfare organization in the United States that is pro-BSL, and yet failed to produce more statements from the hundreds that are against BSL? Wow, that’s awful convenient! This is probably to give the illusion that the debate is actually equally split. The opposite is true however, as damn near every professional animal/safety-related organization is openly AGAINST breed-specific legislation.

Problem #24: Pit Bulls are dogs, therefore they ARE like any other dog, no matter what Daphna Nachminovitch/PETA or any other demagogue wants to claim.

Problem #25: Breed-specific sterilization for Pit Bulls is not done for overpopulation purposes or to help shelters kill less animals, although those are 2 obvious ends that might eventually come out of a move to incrementally eliminate 1 of America’s most popular types of dog. The truth? It is done as a secondary move when banning dogs by breed or type is not supported by the community or viewed as being unfair or too extreme. Same rhetoric, same sensationalism, same intent, always. Pay attention.

Shall I keep going? I’ll stop.

Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison needs to own his true desires, learn how to “listen” to differing perspectives, and learn how to deal with a defeat. He should not allow his quite blatant and naked desire to scapegoat all Pit Bulls for crimes not yet committed merge into completely separate issues that no one was calling for prior to his agenda being brought forward to his colleagues.

1) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a task best left to the breed-neutral “dangerous dog” laws that already exist from municipality to municipality.

2) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when sweepingly indicting all dogs deemed to be mixed at some level with “Pit Bull,” a subjective term of slang.

3) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when you mandate the sterilization of all dogs deemed to be mixed at some level with “Pit Bull,” a subjective term of slang, after you’ve sweepingly indicted them all for being “inherently dangerous” without evidence or incident.

4) Dealing with “dangerous” individual dogs is a concept NOT dealt with when you mandate the sterilization of all dogs across the board.

Numbers 2 and 3 are matters of profiling, precrime, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, vilifying and ignorance/hate. Number 4 is a matter of education, “overpopulation,” euthanized animals, shelter practices, transparency, enforcement of existing laws, community outreach and available/accessible programs. If you want to have a conversation based around the proposed idea on the back end of concept number 4 then let’s have that conversation on its own merits, not on the back of further stigmatizing Pit Bulls. Leave the sensationalist rhetoric at home, in your own space, to be spewed to your own tailored audience. Society does not accept these ideologies and philosophies of broad and vague indictment. Madison promoting such rubbish only serves to want to further take the world in the opposite direction.

Can Steve Madison dissociate himself from his own belief for even a moment? Is he able to recognize the reality that millions upon millions of these dogs that he vaguely takes issue with actually exist in the United States? This is an undeniable fact, at any level you’d want to slice it, yet he doesn’t care to acknowledge it or treat its obviousness as actual counter-evidence to his reached conclusions. Madison will point to “evidence” of a reported attack, with a reported breed (which is usually based solely on a media mention), and hold it up as the relevant evidence that surely outweighs the silent and obvious but non-reported evidence that I just spoke of. Keep in mind that, whatever the details, this is a singular incident! Regardless, he will also speak of whatever reported attack while ignoring the many circumstances often cited during or leading up to said attack, circumstances that are genuinely and directly relevant to actual public safety. And yet the breed or type of the alleged offending dog will be his only interested takeaway. If it’s reported as a Pit Bull he will use it, if it’s not then he will discard it.

Mr. Madison can be introduced to, questioned on, or confronted with any and all versions of information that would actually serve to conflict with his existing beliefs, and instead of hearing such information or thinking on such information he would revert to his corner of cognitive dissonance. Critical thinkers would try to deal with the inconsistency of their belief when challenged with countering information. On this issue Steve Madison is not a critical thinker. He will resort to refuting, rejecting, distorting and/or ignoring any dog/Pit Bull-related information that he doesn’t agree with. This is what his current track record actually shows, a belief disconfirmation paradigm stooped in confirmation bias. More directly, he seeks out people like Colleen Lynn from the hate group DogsBite.org in order to “confirm” what he already believes, while at the same time ignoring the wealth of detailed and researched information coming from the AVMA, the CDC, the American Bar Association, and quite literally every single professional animal/safety-related organization that exists in this country today.

To the contrary, if (for example) a Pit Bull owner (I’ll use myself) is to be confronted with the evidence of a singular incident, they wouldn’t out of hand claim that such an incident isn’t ever possible, but rather simply ask that their dog be judged on its own merits and not on the actions of another dog, no matter what the determined breed of that dog ends up being. This is actually recognizing what has happened in that singular incident, but at the same time refuting the concept of collectively blaming every member of whatever relevant “group” that is being conceptualized. Now will there be anomalies to this point? Of course. There will always be certain “bad apples” or ignorant/vile behavior coming from whatever viewed group that materializes in one’s mind, and no matter the subject matter or issue. But my point is that the non-acknowledgement or avoidance of such select information is not normal, standard or a representation of the next person. Most Pit Bull owners do not have rigid ideologies based on vilifying massive groups. Singular incidents remain singular incidents, and nothing is ever absolutely perfect.

In closing, Madison’s view of Pit Bulls is a false dilemma in which certain solutions go completely ignored for the purpose of fabricating reality for political gain.

This interview with Jeff Borchardt, anti-Pit Bull hatemonger, is a total misrepresentation of actual reality. How many lies can be packed into 45 seconds?

First of all, this piece states that Mr. Borchardt had “no concern” with the dogs being around his baby. This isn’t true, as he’s stated numerous times that the dogs were to remain kenneled in a yard outside and never to be around his son. Yet, he now blames ALL dogs for his son’s death and not the actual babysitter who violated his request… And I’m certainly not saying she needs blamed, but if he’s hellbent on blaming someone in order to process his grief then maybe he should start with focusing on the individuals who were actually involved with Daxton’s death. This babysitter, Susan Iwicki, has now conveniently became as vicious in her sweeping anti-dog ideologies as Borchardt is, which surely comes in handy for the cause of trolling the internet using a multitude of fake profiles to spread hate against all Pit Bulls and all dog owners. Also, in this story Borchardt claims to have not only known and liked the dogs, but talks as if he has all kinds of personal insight into their actual characters. More disingenuous, reconstructed and dressed up nonsense. This is aside from the numerous erroneous factoids he attempts to jam into his last sentence that they air for their piece. Last, it’s claimed that his organization doesn’t seek a ban on Pit Bulls, yet there’s years of his own statements available online that tell otherwise. Represent yourself honestly in public, man!

These tactics of inconsistency are always present when the few DogsBite followers (rarely) come out and present their ideas to the non-controlled public. Colleen Lynn does the exact same thing, ramping down her rhetoric to appear only 75% psychotic instead of a raging 125%. Again, be real. It speaks volumes when you can’t be.

FACTS to counter the rubbish in the video interview from MyFOX Chicago:

^This is taken directly from the DogsBite website, which isn’t to show that it has any credibility, but rather that it’s the Borchardt-approved story that was put out through their own string of websites. A counter to this story, which is based on the actual police report, can be seen here.

Here’s a statement taken directly from the Daxton’s Friends website (many of his cruder statements appear on Facebook and all over internet comment sections), which backs both dog regulations and dog bans…

It’s also stated on this website that 26 different dog breeds are considered (by Borchardt) as “potentially dangerous.” Lol. First off, from his angle (which is to vilify entire breeds and types) this is total bullshit. Secondly, semantically speaking every single dog, as well as any other animal and any other person or object, is “potentially” dangerous. But anyways, his Daxton’s Friends website sweepingly proclaims that all American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, Miniature Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Great Danes, St. Bernards, Rottwilers, Akitas, Boxers, Alaskan Malamutes, Chows, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Shar Peis, Siberian Huskies, Olde English Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, English Mastiffs, Fila Brasileiros, Dogue de Bordeauxs, and Presa Canarios are a detriment to public safety and should be regulated. Nice guy.

When addressing a control freak like Borchardt I oftentimes speak of the concept of collective blame. Instead of being specific and holding the individuals involved accountable, this concept instead scapegoats massive groups of uninvolved individuals and promotes the erroneous philosophy of precrime. Jeff Borchardt displays this way of thinking in absolute spades… Pit Bulls aside, look at this post from September of last year where he blames “pro-Pit Bull organizations,” Best Friends, the National Canine Research Council, Animal Farm Foundation, Bad Rap, Pit Bulletin Legal News Network, the ASPCA, the HSUS, the Center for Disease Control Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical Association, Shorty Rossi and the show “Pit Boss,” Tia Torres and the show “Pit Bulls and Parolees,” Cesar Millan and the show “The Dog Whisperer,” and any parent out there who might dare post a photo of their dog with their children onto Facebook for killing his son Daxton Borchardt. You are all to blame!

Below is Borchardt using the phrase “die out” or “bred out,” which alludes to his softer public stance of mandating sterilization laws onto Pit Bulls instead of outright bans. This is what many from the DogsBite cult will speak of now, which allows them to publicly hide their true intent behind the misnomers of caring about any overpopulation, Pit Bull shelter deaths, or any abuse that any individual dog may suffer at the hands of a person. Much like PETA, they will say that they are doing it for the dog’s “own good and protection.” To the laymen who has no idea either way this presents a picture of a less extreme person who, instead of calling for an eradication roundup, is simply calling for a spay and neuter law with the grandest of intentions. Without any context or background this incredible disingenuousness sometimes goes unaccounted for…

Here is Borchardt (just this week) “liking” a link to a petition that calls for the banning of ownership of Pit Bulls as domesticated pets, and then once clicked through a fuller screenshot of what that petition entails…

And finally, here’s Borchardt saying that he’s going to kill any Pit Bull-type dog that moves into his neighborhood by serving it antifreeze to drink…

I don’t know Jeff Borchardt personally. I certainly have empathy and compassion for him, person to person, in regards to the tragic loss of his son’s life. What he’s went through I wouldn’t wish on anyone, ever. But sadly, with this issue he’s constantly shown himself to be a reprehensible, classless, ignorant and despicable person who’s allowed his grief to literally turn him into a flagrant monster.