At SwayLove my #1 goal is to oppose breed-discriminatory legislation and prejudice against any dog breed or type. It is the supreme evil that perpetuates all of the many wrongs that so many of us are up against. Over the past year this very issue (MSN-BSL) has been pushed in numerous jurisdictions around California. Many of us have been working very hard at spreading the word in regards to the true intent behind such a move. You will often hear me say some version of what this post title claims, that the mandatory sterilization of dogs deemed by whomever to be Pit Bulls is a dog banner’s 2nd option. I’ve taken a fair share of criticism from well-meaning people that just don’t get it. I’ve watched certain Pit Bull owners, advocates and rescues stand on the sidelines and not get involved with such legislative attempts. I can’t assume to know their motivation, but I can take note when they do nothing to spread the word or show up in opposition.

Here is the latest example of such intent, from Jurupa Valley City Councilman Micheal Goodland (who is bringing forth the legislation):

It’s like owning a wildcat, a tiger. A Pit Bull is a wild animal. I wouldn’t ever trust them, and that’s because of what I’ve seen. I’ve seen severe injuries to people’s limbs. Children being mauled. I’d like to see them banned altogether.

This comes on the eve of Jurupa Valley’s Thursday City Council meeting where they will pitch the idea of passing a Pit Bull sterilization law. This is the following of a plan by Riverside County and it’s spreading from city to city within the county, just as they intended it to.

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, from 10/8/2013:

Our goal after we pass the ordinance today is to pass it on to our 28 cities, so that we uniformly have some type of ordinance in place for the entire county. These dogs are being bred to be dangerous, to fight, to kill, and as a result we’ve seen a lot of terrible incidents, so it’s been a significant public safety problem for our residents.

Stone is the same Supervisor that back in October also compared Pit Bulls to tigers, calling them vicious and killers. He also pompously talked as if he was a geneticist, which he definitely is not, while an actual geneticist was sitting in the audience and gave a public comment that directly refuted his asinine claims. The Board of Supervisors ignored this man’s testimony outright. If it couldn’t get any worse, Jeff Stone is also the same guy that gets his “statistics” from the nefarious DogsBite.org (common amongst BSL-pushers), which is nothing more than an anti-Pit Bull hate group. Stone’s fellow Supervisors had many of the same erroneous and inflammatory things to say while proudly and broadly indicting millions of dogs who simply look a certain way.

Pasadena Councilman Steve Madison, another Pit Bull-obsessive ban-happy bureaucrat of the highest order, desires to see them banned but knows that he cannot currently propose such move. He, like Riverside County and Riverside City before him, went the route of presenting the “dog banner’s 2nd option.”

From 7/8/2013:

I don’t think this ordinance is as effective as what I had hoped, which was a ban, but I think we have to do what we can.

From 10/8/2013:

There’s no sound policy reason why a community like Pasadena shouldn’t be allowed to ban such dangerous animals.

From 10/9/2013:

So the spay and neuter ordinance is a tepid response to an urgent problem. At present, it’s all we can do, supposedly. We should change this state law and then immediately ban Pit Bulls from Pasadena before we have another attack that might cause death or severe injury to a kid or a senior.

Madison has went on to compare Pit Bulls to rocket launchers, machine guns and time bombs, saying that they are a “clear and present danger.” Hell, he might as well claim that they are members of Al-Qaeda or that Osama bin Laden has magically sewn himself up into all of their bodies. The fearmongering rhetoric is apparent, and it couldn’t be more false or sensationalistic.

Back to the October article where Jeff Stone lays out Riverside County’s plan if I may. Check out this quote…

People are raising them and finding out they are dangerous, they are sticking them in our pounds and our K-9 centers, and we are euthanizing them and we want to reduce the euthanasia in our dog kennels.

^This is misinformation at its finest. Dangerous? That’s a convenient cop-out term, scapegoating them in mass without even knowing the first clue about any of their individual owners or the reasons behind their relinquishment. First of all, most of the dogs that end up in kill shelters end up there precisely because of the perpetuation of negative stereotypes that exist throughout society when it comes to Pit Bulls. These things manifest themselves through lack of housing or renting opportunities, breed restrictions, insurance requirements, draconian animal control taking advantage of low-income communities, etc. These stereotypes are further inflamed by the sweeping and sensationalistic rhetoric coming from people like Stone and Madison and Goodland, who have relied upon these tactics in order to force their legislation through without challenge. This plays 100% into fear. Fear is what kills these dogs.

Second, the Riverside County “pound and K-9 centers” that Stone is referencing above are run by the massively disingenuous Robert Miller, who stockpiles the majority of his dogs deemed by the shelter to be Pit Bulls into 3 different buildings that are locked down and inaccessible to the public. What other end comes out of that continuous action, other than a bunch of dogs who have no chance at adoption/networking and who will eventually end up dead? You tell me.

So when the duplicitous Robert Miller and his political shills from Riverside County cry “low adoptions,” when they make the unjust claim that these dogs are all “unwanted,” it’s a big fat lie. It is insincerity on steroids. It is the shifting of his actual employment duty as a shelter manager onto the public. He can just kill in secret, without lifting a finger, and then blame the public and the dead dogs, as justification to alienate and kill more dogs.

We know how to improve public safety. It is improved by genuinely educating the public, embracing the community instead of vilifying them or their dogs, offering low-cost or free (and accessible) resources, and by actually enforcing the already existing breed-neutral laws that are on the books. Further, there are 3 overriding circumstances that universally fit most instances where a dog of any breed or type is found to have killed a human. Those are: Roaming and loose dogs, chained and tethered (resident yard, non-family) dogs, and unsupervised children. Many times these tragic incidents involve more than 1 of these circumstances in combination. This is a matter of human recklessness and little else. In a country full of more than 75 million dogs and 300 million people, the evidence of deference shades any attempt to paint dogs as blanketly vicious or dangerous. It’s simply not scientific or true.

I’ll end by saying that this is not about overpopulation. This is not about shelter killings. You don’t even have to read between the lines because the evidence is out and in the open. This is about aiming to sterilize “Pit Bulls” out of whatever area and circumventing state law that says that you cannot ban dogs by breed or type. The sterilization option is the next option. This is a fact. If this was truly about overpopulation then why just Pit Bulls? And further, why do these efforts come aligned with the abhorrent and all-encompassing vilification of Pit Bulls? Please answer either of those questions. If they want to have honest discussions about overpopulation or shelter kill-rates then I’m quite sure that people would be willing to have those debates. That is not what is happening. Attend a meeting. See it for yourself. This is about the demonization of all dogs fitting the subjectively slang term “Pit Bull.”

Sometimes I try giving people a visual illustration of a communication that speaks for itself in regards to relaying a certain perspective. My intention is to inform, and showing a simple back and forth often serves to do this premise the most justice. This is 1 of those times…

So yesterday I was tagged on a post on Facebook that was made by Libra Max in response to a dog that was found in Los Angeles and then taken to 1 of the city shelters by one of PETA’s volunteers. The post came accompanied with 2 images, 1 being of the dog and the other being of the original comment section underneath the dog’s picture.

What prompted her post was that she was upset that PETA’s VP Lisa Lange stated that the thread should be removed upon 1 person suggesting that maybe the kill shelter wasn’t the best option for the found dog. Lange then came onto this new thread and passive-aggressively implied that the person (Libra) who originally suggested that the dog go elsewhere was being “hateful.” You can see it all in the provided links.

I’m not going to get into that debate here, and I wasn’t a part of it online while it was happening either. The truth is that people find dogs all the time and take them to corresponding shelters, hoping that the owner of the dog will come looking for it. I get that. What did draw me to comment on this rescuer’s post was what she ended up writing, sourcing the action taken by Lange as to “why” PETA has “lost credibility.”

As you could probably guess, I stated that “PETA lost credibility because they want all Pit Bulls banned and dead.”

What followed was a PETA supporter (Emily McCoy) responding to me, and then the below back and forth playing out. I’ve also, since this conversation happened yesterday, further gathered evidence of positions, stated positions, stated intent and stated opinion coming from the most publicly recognizable representatives of PETA (in regards to Pit Bulls and breed-specific legislation). You can see all of that RIGHT HERE.

Sadly, Emily McCoy, a former Pit Bull owner, represents the frustrating reality of so many well-intentioned people just not having a clue about what PETA really promotes and pushes (when it comes to Pit Bulls). Granted, what they promote and push is masked in doublespeak and feel-good language. Worse, Emily claims to have seen the evidence and has not deemed it worthy of actual proof. I even provided her with much of it, and she discerned it to be “boiled down soundbytes,” “bent versions of the truth, and “cherry-picked quotes.”

How is PETA saying in their own words (all sourced, able to be read in full) that they support breed-specific legislation, support bans on Pit Bulls (so long as it comes with a grandfather clause), support bans on the breeding of Pit Bulls, support shelter policies requiring the automatic destruction of any impounded Pit Bull, and so on, quantify as a soundbyte or a cherry-picking of the truth? What? If I stated unequivocally that I supported the Miami Heat over the Brooklyn Nets, does that not mean that I support the Miami Heat over the Brooklyn Nets?

Typically, Emily then flipped the script and accused me of fighting, said that I was just there to argue, called me disrespectful, called me condescending, called me presumptuous and unproductive, said that I came in with inflammatory rhetoric, said that I hadn’t done my homework, and said that I didn’t understand.

Mentioned names:
Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President and founder
Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA VP of Cruelty Investigations
Dan Shannon, PETA spokesman
Teresa Lynn Chagrin, PETA Animal Care and Control specialist
Lisa Lange, PETA VP of Communications

People who genuinely care about dogs won’t be affected by a ban on pits. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. ~ Ingrid Newkirk, 2000

Many people are surprised to hear that we are in support of legislation that would ban Pit Bulls. But it’s the only way to protect the dogs. The bottom line is at this point the breed that is the most abused is the Pit Bull. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2001

From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of ‘pits’ they encounter. Here’s another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters’ Pit Bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding Pit Bulls. ~ Ingrid Newkirk, 2005

Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for Pit Bulls are naive. ~ Ingrid Newkirk, 2005

People who genuinely care about dogs won’t be affected by a ban on Pit Bull breeding. ~ Ingrid Newkirk, 2005

People who genuinely care about dogs won’t be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own. ~ Ingrid Newkirk

This morning, PETA sent an urgent letter to Dorchester County Council Chair Larry Hargett and other council members urging them to follow the lead of dozens of other jurisdictions across the country by banning or strictly regulating Pit Bull ownership. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2007

PETA is asking the Dorchester County Council to ban the acquisition of Pit Bulls and strictly regulate grandfathered ownership of Pit Bulls currently living in homes. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2007

More and more communities are realizing that the best way to prevent another tragic death like Brian’s is to enact a ban on acquiring Pit Bulls. We urge Dorchester County to join their ranks by immediately introducing this urgently needed legislation. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2007

These dogs are a ticking time bomb. Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards. It’s widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, referencing the dogs found on Michael Vick’s property (48 out of 49 went on to be rehabilitated), 2007

The cruelty they’ve suffered is such that they can’t lead what anyone who loves dogs would consider a normal life. We feel it’s better that they have their suffering ended once and for all. ~ Dan Shannon, referencing the dogs found on Michael Vick’s property (48 out of 49 went on to be rehabilitated), 2007

Some of the dogs will end up with something resembling a normal life, but the chances are very slim, and it’s not a good risk to take. ~ Dan Shannon, referencing the dogs found on Michael Vick’s property (48 out of 49 went on to be rehabilitated), 2007

Those who seek out this breed are attracted to the macho image of this animal as a living weapon and seek to display it by putting them in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression and leaving them out in all weather to toughen them. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2008

PETA supports legislation that bans the breeding of Pit Bulls. We also support Pit Bull bans, as long as they include a grandfather clause allowing all living dogs who are already in good homes and well cared for to live the remainder of their lives safely and peacefully. ~ Peta.org, “PETA’s position on Pit Bull bans,” 2008

It is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking Pit Bulls. ~ Peta.org, “PETA’s position on Pit Bull bans, 2008

As someone whose work involves rescuing Pit Bulls from abuse, I thank the Ripon Animal Shelter for protecting Pit Bulls by not adopting them out to the public just to keep their euthanasia numbers lower. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2008

As your article indicates, nice families rarely come to shelters seeking a Pit Bull. More often, these dogs are sought by thugs who chain, fight, starve and beat them to turn them into guard dogs or living weapons. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2008

It would be irresponsible for shelters to release these dogs into a world that holds only suffering and painful deaths for so many of them. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2008

The Montana Legislature’s rejection of a bill to regulate Pit Bull ‘ownership’ should disappoint everyone who cares about these dogs. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2009

Pit Bull fanciers should ask themselves whether it’s really the dogs’ best interests they care about, or their own selfish desire to possess a certain type of dog or to make money by breeding and selling them. Anyone who truly cares about Pit Bulls can agree that laws regulating their ownership would help spare the dogs they love so much from tremendous suffering. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2009

They are very determined dogs and when they lock onto their victim it’s hard to let go. Their jaws have to be pried apart. They also shake their victims which can cause a great deal of damage to babies. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2009

If those laws (breed-specific legislation) saved just one animal from suffering a miserable life or a painful death, wouldn’t they be worth it? ~ Peta2.com, 2009

Pit Bulls are the most abused breed of dog, and it is the relentless abuse of these dogs at the hands of cruel people that motivates our efforts to stop people from bringing more Pit Bulls into the world to be hurt and exploited. ~ Peta.org

As much as people appear to be in denial, when Pit Bulls attack they do cause grave, grave damage and sometimes death. There are many reasons to regulate ownership of this breed. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, in support of Gardendale Pit Bull ban, 2010

As someone whose work involves rescuing Pit Bulls from abuse, I urge Livingston County Animal Control to continue protecting Pit Bulls by retaining the agency’s current policy against adopting them out (“Livingston animal shelter extends adoption time, may drop ‘bully breed’ ban,” March 15). We all wish for happy endings, but Pit Bull adoptions often end in tragedy. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2010

Overpopulation is a problem with these pets. They need to be sterilized so they don’t breed because most of these animals will be euthanized. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2010

I thank Spotsylvania Animal Control for protecting Pit Bulls by not releasing them to the public, even though this is surely the hardest thing for the shelter staffers. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2011

Nice families rarely visit shelters in search of Pit Bulls, and Pit Bulls from unknown backgrounds don’t always make good family additions. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2011

Bans on breeding or acquiring new Pit Bulls (provided that such laws grandfather-in registered, well-cared for, spayed and neutered dogs) protect Pit Bulls from horrendous suffering by helping to prevent them from ending up in the hands of cruel people. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2011

Pit Bulls are bred for profit, neglected, fought, and abused based exclusively on their breed. People who have Pit Bulls’ best interests at heart can agree that providing protections to and regulating these dogs based on their breed is not only fair, but essential. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2011

PETA supports banning the further breeding of Pit Bulls. PETA also favors restrictions or a ban on ownership of Pit Bulls that would, however, not affect the status of those Pit Bulls who are already in a good home. ~ Peta2.com, “The straight scoop on PETA and Pit Bulls,” 2012

PETA does not balk at efforts to protect Pit Bulls from breed-specific abuse through the use of breed-specific safeguards. ~ Peta2.com, “The straight scoop on PETA and Pit Bulls,” 2012

PETA does not believe that every Pit Bull should be euthanized; PETA does, however, staunchly advocate a ban on the breeding of Pit Bulls. PETA hopes that support of such laws will stop people from bringing more pits into the world to be fought, mistreated, and exploited. ~ Name withheld, PETA representative, 2012

PETA must consider that people who have good intentions rarely come to a shelter to adopt Pit Bulls; almost without exception, those who want Pit Bulls are attracted to the ‘macho’ image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them outside in all weather extremes in order to ‘toughen’ them. ~ Name withheld, PETA representative, 2012

Bans on breeding or acquiring new Pit Bulls (provided that such laws grandfather-in registered, well-cared for, spayed and neutered dogs) protect Pit Bulls from horrendous suffering by helping to prevent them from ending up in the hands of cruel people. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, op-ed supporting Solesky BSL, 2012

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you our position on the Maryland appeals court decision that holds guardians and landowners accountable when Pit Bull dogs in their care and custody attack, and explain why PETA opposes legislative efforts to overturn the court’s decision. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, Maryland Judicial Proceeding Committee, 2012

Responsible families don’t want a Pit Bull. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2012

Our stand on mandatory spay and neuter legislation for Pit Bulls, and bans that include a grandfather clause allowing well cared for animals to stay in their homes, that’s not taken lightly. ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2012

We advocate a mandatory spay/neuter law for Pit Bulls, and we don’t oppose breed-specific measures to keep them safe (since they are the most common breed in animal shelters today and are undeniably tricky to place), but we have always advocated a grandfather clause for Pit Bulls who are kept inside as part of the family, spayed/neutered, and well cared for. ~ Daphna Nachminovitch, 2013

PETA also recommends a ban on the adoption/release of dangerous dogs and fighting breeds (commonly known as “Pit Bulls”). ~ Teresa Lynn Chagrin, 2013

Confronting PETA on their BSL lies: Josh Liddy questions Lisa Lange, 2013

Doing this for Pit Bulls, the dogs that need the most help from society, is a very good thing and it makes no sense that anyone who cares about dogs at any level would oppose this. ~ Lisa Lange, supporting Pasadena Councilman Steve Madison’s BSL (Madison desires to see them banned), 2014

Upon trying to further research PETA last night I came across a 2001 Daily Press article from Newport News, Virginia that exemplifies the environment at which many of these entrenched players have continued to somehow stay relevant. It reminds me of Los Angeles, it reminds me of lots of places that I read about. Much of this type of a system is broken.

Surry County officials this week put 18 Pit Bulls to sleep, more than 5 months after officials seized them from a Surry County man believed to be involved in dogfighting.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which had been closely watching the case, praised county officials for putting the dogs out of their misery.

‘I’m just relieved that they will never be forced to fight again,’ said Daphna Nachminovitch, a caseworker for the group. ‘It’s finally over.’

The case against Ben Butts, who has faced a variety of felony and misdemeanor charges of training dogs for fighting, came to an end last week with the signing of a pact on February 7th. Commonwealth’s Attorney General Poindexter agreed that the county wouldn’t pursue charges against Butts if he wouldn’t train dogs for sport or show for the next 5 years.

Authorities seized 33 dogs from Butts during a September 6th raid on his home. But 10 dogs impounded in Suffolk animal shelter all died, and 4 housed in Isle of Wight County animal shelter were stolen a few days later.

In December, a General District Court judge dismissed charges against Butts because officers learned about the dogs only after conducting a previous drug raid on the property without a search warrant.

With the agreement, Butts took one dog, Bozo, home, claiming in court that it was a house pet that belonged to his daughter.

Animal Control Officer Derrick Moore put the remaining 18 dogs to sleep Wednesday and Thursday.

So we have a dogfighting bust, where 18 dogs are seized and apparently not given any option of rehabilitation, instead being held for 5 months and eventually killed at the behest of an “animal welfare” group that nefariously lobbies for incrementally phasing out every Pit Bull in the United States. The alleged perpetrator of the fighting mess then signs a pact that states that he’ll stay away from dogs for the next 5 years. Why a pact? Because the department illegally raided his house without a warrant and they needed to cut a deal to save their case. Then 14 of the 33 dogs that were seized either die or go missing under, and all while under the care of 2 separate shelters. No further explanation or investigation follows that. Then they let the pact-signer, who is allegedly a dog fighter, take 1 of the dogs home. Then they kill the rest of the dogs and PETA claims they “hated” advocating for the dogs death, yet that’s what they ultimately chose to do in the face of doing anything else. To top everything off, Gerald Poindexter (Commonwealth’s Attorney General) was the same bumbling cronie that was involved throughout the Michael Vick fiasco of 2007. Gerald fucking Poindexter!!

Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison, who’s known here for his extreme desire to see Pit Bulls banned, recently had some disparaging words for bigoted Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. This, taken from a photo caption showing himself at game 5 of the Clippers and Warriors series…

Wearing black to support the players and to oppose that idiot and his bigotry. 30 years after Al Campanis. It’s outrageous that that mindset still exists. Go Clips!

“That mindset”? Just curious, what mindset do you speak of?

Do you mean placing a preconceived and sweeping opinion upon an entire group of individuals that is not based on reason, evidence or actual experience? That mindset? Do you mean scapegoating an entire group of individuals for crimes that they didn’t commit, and based solely on how they appear? That mindset? Do you mean having an unreasonable attitude that is highly resistant to reality, rational influence, facts or science? That mindset?

Because it’s clear to me that Mr. Madison cannot seem to grasp that his own abhorrent views towards Pit Bulls are highly prejudicial, and are being spewed by him quite consistently after he uses the same process of thought.

These quotes were made available to numerous media outlets in the days following the collapse of his proposed legislation, which was meant to target and vilify all dogs deemed to be Pit Bulls…

Councilman Steve Madison, from 1/27/2014:

I don’t want my kids or parents or anybody in between to have to deal with that risk. People say they have perfectly nice Pit Bulls and I don’t doubt that, but that’s like me saying I have a rocket launcher in my attic but I don’t use it.”

Councilman Steve Madison, from 1/28/2014:

The folks that were there, they have this notion that there is something called discrimination against particular dog breeds, but there really isn’t. Fully automatic machine guns don’t have any right to be discriminated against, they are inherently dangerous and that’s why we forbid them.

Councilman Steve Madison, from 1/29/2014:

This is going to happen, that was the whole point of my work on this issue over the last couple of years. They are just a time bomb. They are killing machines.

Councilman Steve Madison, from 1/29/2014:

I’ve been working on Pit Bulls for years, everybody says ‘let’s just study the issue.’ We don’t need to study this anymore. This is a clear and present danger and we need to act now. I’ll be happy to discuss spay and neutering parakeets and lizards and goldfish and all the rest, but right now those aren’t the threats. The threats are Pit Bulls.

You cannot ban ignorance. It is a describing word. You cannot have a war on ignorance or a war on hate any more than you can have a war on terror, as they are all adjectives. Describing words are subjective labels given to something by somebody. There’s no consistency in defining such a thing.

When you get into legislation meant to police “hate speech,” you leave everything up for an incredible level of interpretation. Another dynamic of this that would be vastly important is who is thus defining something as hate, and what is their potential agenda, as 1 person’s definition of “hate” or “offensive” wouldn’t match the next person’s definition. It’s a subjective topic no matter what, left up to the whim of some random person or a group of people. This is precisely what the 1st Amendment is for, to protect all speech, because if you take certain speech away then you begin to go down a path that just keeps extending itself. This would most certainly lead to the selective enforcement of such a law, one primary example being that it could be used to squash and criminalize political dissent.

On 4/16 such legislation was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (S. 2219) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (H.R. 3878), calling for examining the role that telecommunications plays in encouraging hate crimes. Can someone please define “encouraging”? Of course, there were no specifics made available, and there won’t be. Instead the bill is ripe with open-endedness, as likely intended. So if you say something in the future that another person may deem controversial, you could potentially be swept up and blamed for a physical act that may have been perpetrated by a completely separate individual. These erroneous links could and would be made under such legislation. Do not be naive.

The Boston Herald put it best…

U.S. Senator Ed Markey wants to empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.

Bringing this into the realm of dog-related issues… I would not advocate for dog-hating psychopaths like Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org or Dawn James of Craven Desires to be silenced or erased from the history of the internet. Why? Because I believe in the 1st Amendment and would not want to be silenced myself, or have anyone else silenced by someone who doesn’t agree with them. It is Colleen Lynn’s right to want to see Pit Bulls banned, and to lobby for their bans. It is Colleen Lynn’s right to spread lies and misinformation, fear and irrationality. It is Colleen Lynn’s right to say, both publicly and privately, that she wants to see shelter Pit Bulls dead and have all dogs looking like them euthanized out of existence. As repugnant and evil as those views are, she lives in America and she can have them.

You fight this awfulness by exposing it and by educating people on the opposite ideas. You fight this awfulness by promoting the truth, by showing prejudicial individuals for who they are, by having rational debate, by pointing out the human recklessness that’s almost always involved in incidents that are used after the fact to drive fear, and by delving far deeper into the many issues that so often scapegoat Pit Bulls and/or lead to their death.

Banning things doesn’t fix these problems. Banning dogs surely doesn’t fix them. You may not be able to define what kind of dog it is, but it’s still a dog; and a dog isn’t an adjective, it’s a noun that’s identifiable by categorizing a certain species. How would banning undefinable adjectives fix anything then? That’s an exercise in futility, as you will spend more time arguing over what is and what isn’t, and less time over promoting actual issue-related education and inclusiveness. Slogans don’t educate. Ending “ignorance” and “hate” in regards to dog breeds takes fleshing out the many issues that lead to that ignorance and hate.

One more thing… Ignorance is different than hate. Are you hatefully ignorant and bigoted or are you just uneducated on a specific issue? Because both types of people would technically fall under the phrasing of “ignorant,” would they not? Just know that the “uneducated on a specific issue or indifferent” portion of the population is colossally greater than the “hatefully ignorant and bigoted” portion of the population. So if you denigrate them equally by tossing around the phrasing of “ignorance” with little to no context, you run the risk of alienating the biggest group of genuine society.

To those advocating on behalf of Pit Bulls or any other type of dog, remember this: “The enemy of love is not hate, but fear.” ~ Gene Robinson.

It absolutely would not be a stretch to say that most people who claim to have certain negative feelings about Pit Bulls, that those feelings are actually rooted in fear and not hate. Even if they are adamant about their dislike, it’s usually fear that’s driving their concerns. Fear, lack of exposure, traveled information, populated rhetoric. You can’t ban fear either, or force someone to meet a dog. These concerns need acknowledged, empathized with, attempted to be understood. Go from there. When you respond to fear with anger you have little to no chance of reaching another person.

As some of you know I met Councilman Steve Madison at the Pasadena Humane Society on Saturday March 29th. It’s something I’d been trying to make happen since shortly after the last relevant January Council meeting. My ultimate goal was to just put him in front of some of the dogs that he so eagerly demonizes. Dogs are the best teachers, and they do more for themselves than any person who would be out aiming to advocate on their behalf.

But none of that would matter if Madison wouldn’t be open to the interaction and experience. How many demonizers of Pit Bulls are completely shut down to the idea of interacting with one? How many demonizers of Pit Bulls have had little to no experience with one? I’d say that the answer to both of those questions is the vast majority.

Since the shelter here in Pasadena is obviously open to the public I asked him to meet me there and we could walk through as 2 members of the community. To Madison’s credit he eventually said that he would and told me to call his office to arrange a time. A few days after leaving him a voicemail about my schedule I received an email from his field representative saying that a guided tour of the facility had been arranged with PHS director Elizabeth Campo. Not exactly what I had in mind but you have to roll with these things as they come.

What I honestly envisioned is that we’d both show up, spend a few minutes at each dog’s kennel, have him see me interact with each dog, maybe him take an interest in wanting to meet or pet that dog, maybe even take a few dogs to the play yard, and hopefully talking more in depth along the way.

Unfortunately none of this actually happened. I had since asked dog behaviorist Brandon Fouche to meet us there, as he is a huge wealth of knowledge for anyone wanting to know about dog aggression, and so upon arrival myself and Brandon, as well as Marla Tauscher and Steve Madison got the facility tour by Elizabeth Campo. This was cool, and the facility is huge and really nice, but we were there for about an hour and the tour lasted around 50 minutes. About 15 of those minutes were spent walking through the runs, hardly ever stopping to focus on any of the individual dogs. The rest of the time was spent touring the attached buildings and offset rooms that were affiliated with the Humane Society. We were not allowed to get any of the dogs out. I only got to directly converse with the Councilman for about 60 seconds while the others poked in to observe some kind of training class that was going on. He spoke of the “amount of damage” that is done by the dogs and I spoke about human recklessness and the failures of breed identification.

Councilman Madison then had to run, and I know he is a busy man, but I just thought that it would go so differently. Again, I give him credit for taking the time to come out. I do appreciate that much.

5 days later I saw that he had posted a link onto his Facebook page regarding “Pit Bulls” that had allegedly killed an 85-year-old Texas woman. Along with this link he chimed in that bans on breed-specific legislation “make no sense.” However there was no mention by Madison of how the dogs were kept locked in a back bedroom for months, or of the other 6 that were found on the property who lived their entire lives outside as caged yard dogs. Interviewed neighbors stated how some of them were known to run loose in the neighborhood (7 documented complaints). Many of the dogs visible in the numerous provided videos look nothing like Pit Bulls, but they were repeatedly called Pit Bulls anyways. The pictured dog embedded inside of Madison’s linked article looked pregnant with stretched nipples. According to relatives, the victim’s son apparently breeds the dogs.

Further, several articles claim that police are uncertain on how the woman died. Um, that’s kind of important…

It is unclear whether the dogs were responsible for her death, or if the Kaufman woman died before the animal attack.

Police say that 2 Pit Bulls, yesterday around 5 o’clock, mauled Hamilton. Police don’t know if she died before being attacked or was killed by that mauling.

So much for him not continuing to exploit tragedy in an attempt to achieve his desired legislative objective. What was wonderful though is that one of his fellow Council members, Councilwoman Jacque Robinson, came onto his thread to politely refute his assessment. See below…

He then responded, not to Jacque but to the thread in general, that Pit Bulls are responsible for 90% of the fatal attacks yet only represent 4% of the dog population. Both of these figures are absurd lies and unprovable fallacies promoted by 1 website, the anti-Pit Bull operation DogsBite.org. When one points out the invalidity of the statistics, or the twisted bias of the source (Colleen Lynn), or the fact that said statistics are completely cherry-picked from unverified media mentions, or the non-science and failure involved in breed identification, or the numerous reckless circumstances surrounding whatever incident, well, all of this usually goes ignored by Steve. I’m not sure why, if he’s truly concerned with public safety, but he still ignores it all.

So there is an update on what’s going on in regards to Pasadena and Mr. Madison. I hope to see all of you come out for the next related City Council meeting in July.

The Lake Elsinore City Council seems hellbent on rolling forth with the breed-discriminatory plan that was first passed in October by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors at the behest of Riverside County pound director Robert Miller. Interestingly enough, this peddled ordinance has nothing to do with anything that has actually happened in the city of Lake Elsinore.

It sadly passed its 1st reading on 3/11 by a vote of 4-1. The 2nd reading and vote is currently scheduled for 3/25. If you’d like to attend this meeting I’ve setup a Facebook event that you can join which has all of the pertinent details regarding how to get there. It is this upcoming Tuesday at 7 pm. Here is the agenda, the staff report and the ordinance itself.

Worth pointing out is that this Lake Elsinore effort is taking quite a different public face. Those involved are using tactical doublespeak and political maneuvering to appear less prejudice towards the dogs themselves.

Councilman Brian Tisdale seems to be the main Councilman desiring to see that this legislation is passed. From my eyes and ears he is taking a less rhetorical approach in demonizing the dogs. He makes statements like “I love the breed,” while using disingenuous justifications in order to promote this effort to target them. In essence, he’s a hell of a lot slicker than a Steve Madison from Pasadena or a John Tavaglione or Jeff Stone from Riverside County.

But then again, why do all of that stuff when you have “expert witnesses” attending who are doing so with the sole purpose of publicly shilling for the bill? Riverside County chief veterinarian Allan Drusys, known here for being the guy that compares breed identification to viewing pornorgraphy, and Animal Friends of the Valleys director Willa Bagwell, known here for being the local shelter manager who practices breed regulations in-house, were both in attendance and also both gave testimony as to why Pit Bulls needed to be targeted. Along with them was animal control supervisor Monique Middleton, who is also an employee of AFV.

On the backs of their statements, which each came after the public comments (all of which were opposed), this bill was essentially rubber-stamped with little hesitation by every member of the Council not named Steve Manos. You can watch those deliberations below…

I’d like to examine the statements of Tisdale, Drusys, Bagwell and Middleton, and explain why they just don’t seem to comprehend (at least publicly) why this bill is being opposed by many concerned citizens of both their community and other communities as well.

Above is Councilman Tisdale explaining his “comprehensive plan.” A plan in which he promises to stay vigilant at crafting and expounding upon. I use the word expound sarcastically, as there was no details shared regarding how he plans to go about the processes of spaying and neutering, licensing and microchipping the animals of the community. There was also no focus paid to legitimately reckless owners, or the “dog fighters” that he likes to reference when explaining this ordinance’s need. He says…

It’s unfortunate that the folks that are here, and I guarantee that everyone that spoke who has a Pit Bull, probably has a altered, licensed, vaccinated Pit Bull, or a Pit Bull-mix. Most Likely. Anyone not?

So? What exactly is your point? Not only does that statement attempt to vilify those who haven’t altered, licensed, or microchipped, but it also attempts to paint them as the problem in regards to why the community of Lake Elsinore apparently needs BSL. Let’s make something perfectly clear: The irresponsibility involved in failing (or choosing) to not do those mentioned things is not even remotely the same as the irresponsibility and recklessness involved when someone allows their dog to freely roam all over the place, or chains it 24-7 in its yard, or gives it no attention or socialization, or treats it like dirt, or exploits it by fighting it or using it as a yard deterrent or an alarm system. So let’s make that clear. Yet there’s no context given to these types of statements and it comes off as a pretty lazy way to legislate.

He says “if we don’t do this then people aren’t going to register their animals.” Um, all existing evidence shows the opposite of this to be true. When laws like this are put into place more people actually avoid registering their animals, as to avoid paying the fees aligned with the surgery, and further, any potential fees that become tacked on by them being in violation of said law for whatever period of time. This is not VOLUNTARILY going out to your community and EDUCATING them about the needs for these things, and then making it AFFORDABLE for them to do. No. This is the opposite, and mandating that all of these things be done under the guise that those who have not done them are bad and irresponsible people. Worse, this law attempts to criminalize their chosen dog, simply by the way that it looks, and then enters their dog into a database for another politician to possibly further target at a later date. I talked about this at length in a YouTube video that I made regarding what was happening in Pasadena.

So how does this help dogs or people for that matter?

Tisdale references a Pit Bull attack “in the county area,” one that the newly passed Riverside County breed-discriminatory law did not stop by the way, and jokes about not being able to spay and neuter the owner of the dog instead. Okay, but he literally takes no time to point out the circumstances behind this specific “attack.” Let me do it… It was a property with numerous roaming yard dogs, intact males and a female in heat, and little puppies on the property. What’s been reported is that there was a scuffle between 2 of the dogs, over a puppy, and that someone on the propery came out and picked up the puppy. He was then attacked by 1 of the dogs and a neighbor had to run his van through a chain-link fence in order to scare the attacking dog away. What an actual eyewitness said was that the person came out hollering about the dogs, kicked the dog, and then he was bitten by the dog that he kicked. Regardless, these are all yard dogs who are not being treated as family pets, and they are openly breeding them. None of this goes mentioned by Tisdale. Just that it was a Pit Bull attack.

He then talks about how many unaltered pets he sees while out running and tells a story about his fondness for visiting the shelter. He talks about seeing docile and sweet Pit Bulls, and states that he “loves the breed.” He goes on…

We have to start somewhere. And this is part of 1 plan. This is 1 piece of our plan that we are going to put together to tackle this issue. And again, this issue is not just a Pit Bull issue. $500,000 that can be used for roads and streets and sidewalks folks. We shelter animals. $500,000.

No mention of the state of California already having a dangerous dog law that is truly specific to individual dogs that have shown a propensity to be dangerous. They could use and enforce this. That goes ignored. No mention of the Lake Elsinore leash law that clearly goes unenforced. No mention of both the anti-dog fighting law and the anti-chaining law, either of which could be used and enforced in any number of different scenarios. And he wants to note how much money is being spent “sheltering” animals, while giving no attention to the fact that Willa Bagwell halts the majority of Pit Bull adoptions via her 7 in-house regulations that she’s put in the path of them potentially being adopted. He then says that “no one is taking them.” C’mon, man. Not to mention that their law is a carbon-copy of the Riverside County law, created by a man (Robert Miller) who houses the majority of their impounded Pit Bulls in buildings that are not made accessible to the public. Miller then, like Tisdale and Bagwell and Middleton and Drusys, says that “nobody wants them.” C’mon, man. What about the money that it’s going to take to enforce this type of a law? Or will it be enforced? Or how about the amount of money that you could potentially have to cough up if someone sues the city for violating their due process and property rights? This is apparently of no concern.

After the meeting I briefly spoke with Councilman Tisdale and he told me that I could hop in his truck and within 5 minutes of entering Lakeland Village he could “take me to a dogfight.” That we’d “just have to listen for it.” If he’s so knowledgeable about specific illegal activities such as this going on then why in the hell is he doing nothing about it? I also tried pointing out the problems with demonizing certain breeds or types of dog and he cut me off to say that “they’re already demonized!” That he “didn’t have a choice” because they are already demonized, “that’s what you guys aren’t getting.” He said that “people are scared.” I said that people are scared of a lot of things. That no offense, but some people are scared of black people (Tisdale is black). Some people are scared of white people. That still doesn’t make it right. His response? “Yeah, but this black person won’t bite you.” Clearly he didn’t get my point. But he doesn’t have a choice? See, now that’s where he’s wrong. You always have a choice, and he’s choosing to go down the discredited path of vilifying vague groups of individual dogs in order to basically offer up nothing more than a false sense of security.

Animal Friends of the Valleys director Willa Bagwell says “the Pit Bulls do cause damage.” So what is the implication there, that no other dog doesn’t? Or is it that every dog deemed by you to be a Pit Bull is more capable of causing damage, or more significant damage, than every dog deemed by you not to be a Pit Bull? Some extremely incoherent and all-encompassing language, as it’s unclear what she’s even saying and yet she’s apparently comfortable with talking on behalf of millions of individual dogs as if they are all the same in those ways. The only way in which dogs are all the same is that they are all the same species, meaning any dog being called a Pit Bull is scientifically categorized as being no different than any other breed of dog. They are all dogs. They all originated from the same place. And most dogs are mixed amongst different breeds and types. So if you are going to be so vague in your statements then you should not discriminate with your vagueness. On the contrary, if you are going to go any further than being as vague as humanly possible then you have to acknowledge that each dog is an individual, with its own temperament and experiences, and that they should be judged on their individual merits or not judged at all.

Bagwell tells the Council that she “provided some information, provided pictures” for them, in regards to justifying the damage claim, and based on my further communications with her (and others who have had interactions with her) I’m quite confident in saying that it was very likely numerous images of a senior woman’s arm who is alleged to have been attacked by 2 roaming Pit Bulls in 2011. I say “alleged” not to lessen the reality of the attack that clearly happened, but to point to the fact that none of us ever get to see the actual dogs in question. They were just called “family Pit Bulls” and then that became the evidence. What we do know is that these dogs were definitely out roaming freely. Willa does not know the background of these dogs, she knows what the owner told them after they had attacked a human being. I’m sorry, but how is using 1 set of images from 1 specific incident in any way indicative of what all Pit Bulls (or any type of dog) would do? That’s a crap move and it’s implying to the Council that her vague claim about damage is a factual claim that is somehow backed by evidence. Take dogs out of the equation and use, as an example, any other group of domesticated sentient beings… How in the world would singular evidence such as this be used to scapegoat everyone fitting an appearance-related parameter? This is fear, and fear tactics shouldn’t be used to set public policy. She continues…

In the last 2 months we’ve impounded 50 Pit Bulls, 2 were adopted, 3 were rescued, 8 were returned to the owner. 60 Chihuahuas in 2 months 24 were adopted, 9 were returned to their owner. Most of the shelter is Chihuahuas and Pit Bulls.

So by my math that means 37 Pit Bulls were killed totaling a 75% kill-rate for this period and that 27 Chihuahuas were killed totaling a 45% kill-rate. Can’t we then focus on increasing adoptions of these animals instead of using 7 different regulations to thwart the possibilities of Pit Bulls making it out alive? Being “very careful” in Willa’s words amounts to this in reality, which is not right. And can’t we stop pushing legislation that promotes the idea that Pit Bulls are somehow different from other dogs, further creating a gap between them and potential adopters?

During a phone conversation on 3/14 with Willa Bagwell she outright told me that this law would not be enforced and that the Council members already knew that. She should know, as her department is the department that’s set up to enforce it. Does no one see a problem with this?!? How are they voting on something that they already know they have no intention of enforcing?

Also worth note is something that I found while researching AFV… Here is the “potentially dangerous dog” list for 6 cities (including Lake Elsinore) from the years of 2010 through 2013. The existence of this list proves that they know the actual process of identifying individual dogs as “potentially dangerous” or “vicious” based on actual things that they may have done. This list details 30 dogs, 29 of which have been declared “potentially dangerous,” 1 who was declared “vicious.”

Here head animal control officer Monique Middleton says about the public commenters: “These are the responsible people, this will not affect them.” I beg to differ! I specifically drove all the way out there because every inch that someone takes towards breed-specific legislation and prejudice against a huge group of dogs absolutely affects my dogs. This then, by extension, affects me. My dogs are my family members, so any bullshit law meant to imply that my dogs are “different” or “dangerous” certainly does affect me and my dogs. It perpetuates stereotypes and scapegoats dogs, that most will never even take the opportunity to meet, for all of society’s ills. I resent Middleton’s flippant statement and way of coddling the audience away from this quite clear reality.

Middleton also echos Tisdale’s statements that “we have to start somewhere.” How about any other spot other than breed vilifying? This is a multifaceted problem (public safety in regards to dogs) which has many solutions. Many things that, if done, add up to a safer community. I repeatedly detail these things in my writings. I’m saying things that many folks have said before me. This entire effort is a pacification of their city’s genuine concerns, if there are legitimate safety concerns being voiced. Demonizing types of dogs is not going to make your community safer. Enforcing actual laws, meant to deal with reckless owners of whatever dog or dogs, do that. Not any of this. Monique Middleton knows this. Willa Bagwell knows this. Brian Tisdale knows this. She goes on to say that “we have to make people responsible for a breed.” How?? By mandating that this or that group be sterilized? How in the hell does that, in any way, deal with those human beings who have already been reckless with their dogs and who will be reckless again in the future? And why will they be reckless again? Because no one dealt with it or held them accountable when it happened in the past, that’s why.

Lastly, Riverside County veterinarian Allan Drusys telling the Council members that identifying Pit Bulls is like watching pornography, and that you “know it when you see it,” is quite literally one of the most asinine things that I’ve ever heard. There is no evidence to support this claim. None. The peer-reviewed evidence that exists on the topic says the exact opposite, and that most shelter workers can’t even properly identify their own impounded dogs.

A Victoria Voith study, which was in part done at the shelter that Allan Drusys works at, showed that 73% of the time animal control officers and shelter workers got it wrong when compared to actual DNA evidence. Allan Drusys knows both Dr. Voith and Dr. Irizarry, who were part of the extensive study, and this information is just discarded. Dr. Irizarry, a geneticist, was actually present at the Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting in October to give a public comment opposing their ordinance. He referenced the study. He explained the genome. Allan Drusys was present. They ignored him. Irizarry also referenced a 2010 study done by Dr. Elaine Ostrander which showed that “the morphological appearance of a dog is controlled by 50 genes, out of the 20,000 genes that make up a dog’s genome. And so when you say a dog looks like a Pit Bull you’re really saying it has 4 or 5 genes that affect its physical shape, its head-shape, its snout, and it has no basis whatsoever on its behavior.” They ignored him. Maddie’s Fund and Dr. Julie Levy did a similar study, and it showed the same types of results.

Going further, 3 different pieces of legal case law exist deeming definitions of “Pit Bull” as unconstitutionally vague… American Dog Owners vs. City of Lynn, MA (1989), American Dog Owners vs. City of Des Moines, IA (1991), and State of Ohio/City of Toledo vs. Smith (2010). The 2010 court case Cardelle vs. Miami-Dade County (2010) found that animal control officers were not qualified to visually identify Pit Bulls. It also found that there is no scientific basis for admitting such an opinion. The Animal Control Association doesn’t even offer a course in breed identification! Yet Monique Middleton, an animal control officer, would confidently suggest otherwise. Mr. Allan Drusys gleefully continues repeating his pornography metaphor. This utter crap is being accepted by the Lake Elsinore City Council as “expert testimony.” It is truly a shame.

There’s nothing comprehensive in Councilman Brian Tisdale’s comprehensive plan, and there’s nothing specific about breed-specific legislation. This is a sham being perpetrated against the Lake Elsinore community, dogs of all kinds, the genuine idea of actual public safety, and the state anti-BSL law. Please oppose this move, and the nasty philosophy behind it, with all of your might.

To email the Lake Elsinore City Council: njohnson@lake-elsinore.org, smanos@lake-elsinore.org, dhickman@lake-elsinore.org, rmagee@lake-elsinore.org, btisdale@lake-elsinore.org.

The Riverside County “breed-specific” mandatory sterilization ordinance against Pit Bulls is being peddled and copied all throughout the state of California. First it was Riverside County, then onto the city of Riverside, then to Pasadena, and most recently it was duplicated in Lake Elsinore. An aspect most concerning to me is the loose way in which the breed identification portion of the ordinance is being patently accepted as indisputable obviousness.

What this means is that people like Allan Drusys (chief veterinarian with Riverside County), with their unscientific and ignorantly subjective opinions, are sometimes in the positions to make the ultimate breed identification decisions. This is a horrifying reality considering Drusys thinks that identifying a Pit Bull is as easy as recognizing pornography. First off, who said that pornography was easy to identify? The Supreme Court says otherwise. But this notion in regards to visual dog breed identification is asinine on numerous fronts, and yet Drusys’ arrogant claims are quite literally being entrusted as “expert testimony” when in front of any number of elected officials.

Worse, he is claiming a “consensus” when reality utterly refutes that claim in full. Mr. Drusys willfully contradicts a peer-reviewed breed identification study done by Dr. Victoria Voith, part of which was done at the very shelter that Drusys works at. This past Tuesday he was in Lake Elsinore doing this very thing, using the pornography claim to lobby on behalf of the anti-Pit Bull ordinance which is a copy of the one that he helped get rubber-stamped in Riverside County while using the same claims. This is happening now.