On Tuesday night the Lake Elsinore City Council ushered in breed-discriminatory legislation against Pit Bulls by a vote to 4-1. I’ll write about this more in depth in the coming days, but for now I wanted to focus some further examination on their local shelter Animal Friends of the Valleys. Representatives from the shelter, including manager Willa Bagwell, were also in attendance and in support of the prejudicial moves made by the Council.

Surprisingly, or not, they also employ an in-house anti-Pit Bull policy that pretty much amounts to violations of the California state law. This was first brought to my attention last year, where I detailed 7 regulations that they readily enforce against dogs that they themselves deem to fit the visual characteristics of being “Pit Bulls.” In other words, STOPPING PUBLIC ADOPTIONS AND RESCUES. The flaws in this process were further examined, and all which garnered me page visits from Bagwell herself, where she threatened another commenter with a lawsuit and then accused me of “bashing” their shelter.

This was followed by other defenders of the shelter, who didn’t come to specifically address any point that I was actually trying to raise, but instead came to just blindly defend AFV against someone who would dare criticize them in any way. How dare I do such a thing!?

One commenter, accusing me of “attacking” the shelter, insisted that I “get out from behind” my keyboard, and not only once but twice in 1 paragraph. This same person then implied that I do no educational work, called all owners “idiots,” and then told me that I should “help find homes for homeless pets.” Apparently she has no idea about how much I at least try to help those homeless pets. The same homeless pets that this shelter is actually discouraging folks from adopting. Wouldn’t me going to lengths to point out this absolute fact be considered “helping” homeless pets? At least those who have been made to seem less-than by a shelter policy that discourages their adoptions. But I guess that doesn’t count, right?

Then a former employee of the shelter came on to further defend AFV, asking me if maybe this policy is done for the animal’s own good… So we should just stifle the adoption potential for this large group of animals and ultimately kill them to hypothetically protect them from any potential abuse? Um, isn’t that what PETA says and does? She then tries to blame this policy on the “negative media attention,” not giving any thought to the fact that policies such as these perpetuate said media attention, perpetuate low adoptions numbers, and further, perpetuate the passing of laws (BSL) like the one that was just passed on Tuesday (and with the support of this shelter). This law, of course, further perpetuates that pesky “negative media attention” that this former employee tried to blame everything on back in July of last year. Awesome. By the way, my question about them having the same concern for all of the non-Pit Bulls “falling into the wrong hands” has still went unanswered…

Well, nothing new under the sun apparently. My Facebook event for Tuesday’s City Council meeting again brought out shelter manager Will Bagwell, where she again accused people of “bashing” her shelter, and for simply pointing out that AFV employs a policy of in-house breed discrimination.

Well Willa, your shenanigans are up, and they will continue to be talked about publicly. The in-house breed prejudice that you’ve put into practice at AFV is pretty much public knowledge to anyone that’s been paying attention. So how exactly is telling the damned truth about your unlawful regulations considered “bashing” your shelter? And regarding the keyboard thing, I was actually there on Tuesday night and said what I said about your shelter to your face. So, as many of us do use that damned internet contraption in the year of 2014 (including you, imagine that), we also SHOW UP AND OPPOSE YOU TO YOUR FACE. We are not just some faceless entity, a lot of times not even a real person, that trolls from behind a computer screen.

I can only speak for myself, but I’m a pretty dedicated (on the ground) advocate for both Pit Bulls and shelter reform. I don’t have to work at AFV to know that a policy not only exists but is also being used to squash potential adoptions. It’s on your website, and further, I have your shelter policies and procedures manual. I also have personal insight into the fact that you use Merritt Clifton’s unscientific and disingenuous “study” from Animal People, a study that derives their attack numbers from media accounts (and without proper breed identification), in order to justify your private positioning (that you won’t even acknowledge) against Pit Bull adoption. Not to mention the fact that Clifton is a popular hack for DogsBite.org, an anti-Pit Bull hate group hellbent on lobbying for their extermination. Nice touch.

So no, you will not be succeeding in demonizing the dogs in full, or any other tool, like a computer, in full, just because you are too pathetic to account for an actual reality that is both on your website and in your policy manual.

Without further ado, direct from their shelter manual:

Call me crazy, but this pretty much shows a control freak micromanaging the adoptions of certain groups of animals while also trying to indoctrinate volunteers by having them, well, as stated, go out of their way to “discourage” Pit Bull adoptions.

Mr. Madison continues on his crusade to scapegoat all Pit Bulls for any speck of mayhem he can pin in their direction. This time it’s a screenshot of this story on his Facebook page, which tells the tale of a Riverside County man being saved from numerous dogs by a Good Samaritan who drove his van through a chain-link fence. The Councilman then “liked” the comment that said “wow, they even turn on their masters.”

I’d like to point out, since Steve didn’t, that this incident occurred in Riverside County. The same Riverside County that just 6 months ago passed a piece of breed-discriminatory legislation against Pit Bulls. Coincidentally the same exact type of legislation that Steve Madison desires to pass in Pasadena (he wants a ban but can’t achieve that, so this is the next best thing). I’d also like to point out that the BSL in Riverside County didn’t stop this attack, just like the Board of Supervisors were told that it wouldn’t. Also worth pointing out is that there were 6 dogs on the property, all resident yard dogs, 2 being puppies. None of the dogs were spayed or neutered. None of the dogs were licensed. Robert Miller and the Riverside County animal control did nothing to assist in bettering this environment, nor would their BSL (breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter) have stopped this. They have it, it still happened, and they were all still unaltered. The attacked man allegedly became involved after trying to break up a fight between 2 unneutered males. Does anyone care to wager on whether there was at least 1 female actively in heat on this property as well? I’d take that bet. One of the roommates, in this video, claimed that the man that was attacked was first swinging on 1 of the dogs after picking up its injured puppy.

Further, the post by Madison comes 10 days after I stayed for multiple hours sitting through the 2/3 City Council meeting so that I could briefly speak to him about going with me to the Pasadena Humane Society. The stated intention would be so that Councilman Madison could meet some of the dogs. He told me that he would. He admitted that he was scared but told me to contact his office to arrange. I emailed him that night, as well as called his office and left a voicemail on 2/6, 7 days prior to him posting this. Still haven’t gotten a response to either attempt. I, along with another person, also invited him to the local shelter during a Facebook exchange on 1/30 that came 14 days prior to him posting this. He’s still yet to respond to either of us through that platform as well. His post also comes 17 days after BSL was “tabled” in Pasadena, when well over 100 people showed up to oppose his desires. It was also on this night where numerous others genuinely invited him to come by and meet their dogs, including trainer Brandon Fouche who invited any of the Council members down to his Los Angeles training facility to see the dogs or talk about aggression.

So all of that needs pointed out, as Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison continues trying to blame every single dog who in any way looks like a “Pit Bull” for any and every singular attack or incident ever recorded.

Yesterday the Orange County Board of Supervisors wanted to amend their dangerous dog ordinance to not only ensure that any dog taken from a suspected fighting environment, bait dogs and puppies amongst them, would be deemed “vicious” and thus destroyed, but also to further evade due process with sweeping language that would put strikes on a dog or group of dogs suspected of harming any animal (bunny, lizard) in its/their own yard!

Public comments and relayed community opposition to such moves:

I compared the dog confiscation stuff to authorities busting up a child kidnapping and sex operation, and then subsequently deeming all of the victims to be “deviants, prostitutes and sex offenders.” I also wanted to point to the lack of due process with all of it, but especially the labeling of a group of family pets who could get vaguely accused of harming a squirrel (for example) on their own property and then deemed “dangerous” by the county. Many times with shelters and animal control they are able to get away with outright ignoring due process, and simply because many people don’t have the information or the resources to be able to stand up for themselves. I see the Carson shelter do this type of stuff all the time. But that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

Here you see shelter director Ryan Drabek say some pretty suspect things about following the law. I was sitting next to an attorney and she was squirming in her chair. Then you see Supervisor Nelson give a condescending speech from his perch, attempting to needle the people who had come out to oppose his plan. Then his plan fell flat and didn’t even get a single motion, needing 2 motions to even garner a vote. Death to his desires, and then he huffs and puffs.

In the end we had Boss the surfing Pit Bull and local supporter Keebo spreading love after the meeting.

This shows yet again, and on the heels of Pasadena, that people having the courage to oppose such unjust laws can actually make a mighty difference.

If this wasn’t evidence enough, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or anything Nathan Winograd constantly details, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this.

Then how about this?

Quoted in the above article is PETA’s VP of communications and Pasadena resident Lisa Lange, the same lady that I confronted back in 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.

Let’s cut the bullshit. This is the guy that is pushing the legislation, thus the man that PETA is supporting…

^Watch the video.

Prior to the below conversation taking place, the Facebook page “Ferdinand & Friends” had shared Steve Madison’s Facebook update from Wednesday about a “Pit Bull attack” that had taken place just 2 hours prior. I wrote about him doing this at length here. Anyways, so the F&F page shared Steve’s status with a commentary of their own, which brought Mr. Madison onto their thread to defend himself. You can see the entire thread here. Madison twice accuses the page of using “personal attacks,” even though all that the F&F page kept saying was that Steve ignores the overwhelming data that doesn’t fit his agenda. Apparently that is an “attack” these days.

The below image represents the comments that have taken place under the original status that was posted by F&F, which you can read in full here.

It’s now been a full day without a response from Madison. Which basically speaks for itself, considering what was said here.

After his massive defeat at Monday’s City Council meeting anti-Pit Bull demagogue Steve Madison is out on his Facebook page this morning promoting an alleged “Pit Bull attack” that happened at 5am in Pasadena.

Leading up to Monday’s meeting I had been attending Pasadena City Council and Commission meetings on a weekly basis and giving public comments. The one thing that was universally present in each of my comments is that any time there is a dog-related human fatality, or other serious dog attack for that matter, there is almost always existing elements of recklessness to blame. These 3 circumstances are roaming and loose dogs, chained/resident yard dogs and unsupervised children, or a combination thereof.

This incident in Pasadena was no different. Yet Madison, grandstanding on the mantle of public safety, failed to point out that this morning’s offending dogs were out roaming loose, and thus, able to do whatever they wanted to do to whomever they wanted to do it to.

Further, Ricky Whitman of the Pasadena Humane Society stated that the dog that was killed by the police “looked like it was in heat.” And even further, if any dog were at first acting in an aggressive manner you can directly correlate the increase of such behavior by the others to a pack-mentality type of response. This also has nothing to do with breed. Many individual dogs with varying personalities could certainly opt not to join, but others most certainly would. This, aligned with the “in heat” element, creates a scenario totally ignored by Mr. Madison.

I find this Councilman shameless to the core, and as disingenuous as they come.

In his Facebook ramblings, and at Monday’s Council meeting, Madison also mentions the 5 dog-related fatalities we had in the state of California in 2013. He quickly attributed them all to Pit Bulls, and then moved on, achieving his hyperbole but ignoring all of the circumstances behind the incidents.

Here’s some very pertinent background regarding each of these situations:

Elsie Grace, a 91-year-old from Hemet, was found dead in a hotel room with her son’s 2 dogs identified by someone as “Pit Bulls.” There was an autopsy done at the time of her death, with unknown results, and it was stated by the impounding officer that her death could have been due to natural causes. Claudia Gallardo, a 38-year-old from Stockton, was killed by a resident yard dog after she jumped into its chained area at night “looking for work.” Pamela Devitt, a 63-year-old from Littlerock, was killed when 4 loose dogs (identified by someone in a car as “Pit Bulls”) ran up on her while she was walking in the desert. The owner of these dogs was arrested and it has since been uncovered that animal control had been called out to his residence numerous times, covering a multitude of dog-related complaints. It should also be noted that her husband went out of his way to say that he doesn’t blame the dogs, or “Pit Bulls,” but the irresponsibility of this specific dog owner. Nephi Selu, a 6-year-old from Union City, was bitten 1x in the head by his uncle’s “Pit Bull” while over at his grandparents’ house. This dog was a resident yard dog who was “never allowed in the house.” Nephi had a past with the dog and was left fairly unsupervised while out in the yard. According to the police Nephi was “riding the dog like a horse.” Nephi was “coherent, conscious and talking for hours” after being bitten. His uncle, the owner of the dog, actually went to work after ending the scuffle, which he thought might have required a “couple of stitches.” Nephi died hours later. And finally, Samuel Zamudio, a 2-year-old from Colton, was killed by anywhere from 7-10 resident yard dogs (some chained) after he climbed out of a screenless window and ended up in the backyard unsupervised. His dead body was found almost an hour after he had died. No one witnessed the attack. 6 of the dogs were referenced as “Pit Bulls,” while interviewed neighbors said that they actually owned 1 Pit Bull and many Lab-mixes.

So for those that are counting: 1 incident involved an unknown outcome, 3 incidents involved chained/resident yard dogs, 1 incident involved a roaming pack of loose dogs, and 2 incidents involved unsupervised children. Only 1 of the 5 involved no known reckless circumstances, and that’s the one with the lady from Hemet who quite possibly died of natural causes.

Another element of the “attack” from this morning that’s certainly interesting to me is how it’s being reported vs. certain details that are in the report. For example, the 911 caller stated that the dogs were “dragging” the man down the street, yet the victim of the attack actually “declined medical treatment.”

This is from the police’s own press release:

Mr. Ross tried to position his bicycle between him and the three attacking dogs attempting to bite his legs. At least one dog did make contact with Mr. Ross’s left leg, resulting in minor puncture wounds. Ultimately, Mr. Ross dropped his bicycle and jumped onto the hood of a vehicle parked on Fair Oaks Avenue.

^I see nothing about “dragging,” do you? Also, as far as I know there are no images of the offending dogs available as of yet. The Pasadena Humane Society has declined to identify the dogs as “Pit Bulls.” Regardless of whether they were or not is not the point, as it takes away from any element of genuine public safety and shouldn’t be used to scapegoat any and every dog that looks like a Pit Bull.

Worth keeping in mind is that the Pasadena Humane Society, at a prior meeting, have explained to the Council about the many difficulties in identifying such dogs. The Animal Control Association offers no courses in “breed identification.” 2010 court case Cardelle vs. Miami-Dade County found that animal control officers were “not qualified” to visually identify Pit Bulls. They also found that there is “no scientific basis” for admitting such an opinion, since there is no way to test whether it is accurate. Dr. Victoria Voith, in her 2013 study on visual identification, found that over 900 shelter workers across the country were wrong over 73% of the time when their breed designation was compared with actual DNA evidence of the same impounded dog.

All of this clearly lends to the fact that police officers have no more of an ability to identify a dog than anyone else does. Madison needs to hold his horses and not be so opportunistic in his approach.

In closing: The dogs, whatever breed or type they end up being, were out and running loose. This is the reckless circumstance that deals with public safety. Focusing on the breed, based on a mere mention and no further evidence, just shows that Madison is nothing more than an polical hatchet man.

There’s not many dog or human safety expert organizations that will make the claim that breed-specific legislation is effective. I’m personally not aware of a single one. On top of that, every mainstream and professional animal welfare group is openly against breed-specific legislation, here’s just a partial list.

While all of this has up to this point seemed to fall on deaf ears with most on the City Council, hopefully the ongoing directed public correspondence to their proposed ordinance will not. To my eyes over 95% of which seems to be against breed discrimination.

I’d also like to highlight a few letters… From colleagues Marla Tauscher (animal attorney) and Barbara Telesmanic (registered nurse), as well as my own piece on public safety which was dually published on the Pasadena News Now website.

Marla Tauscher opposition letter to Pasadena BSL by swaylove

Barbara Telesmanic opposition letter to Pasadena BSL by swaylove

Josh Liddy opposition letter to Pasadena BSL by swaylove

In the above image not only is Steve Madison using unverified and bias “statistics” from Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org (the claim of 27 Pit Bulls causing human deaths is totally erroneous, considering 17 incidents didn’t even have images of the offending dogs), but he continues to latch onto, and then promote, all-encompassing language that supports his banning and vilification agenda. Just yesterday he repeated a singular claim about all medical professionals. Do you see the trend here? All Pit Bulls are vicious, bred to kill, dangerous. All doctors and surgeons would never own a Pit Bull. All, all, all. Broad strokes folks!

The man that Madison references, an alleged doctor, apparently went up to speak while we were all out in the hallway during the last Council meeting. I’m not sure how, as public comments for items not on the agenda had been closed, but sure enough he ended up on the microphone anyway. And sure enough, he went ahead and took the liberty of speaking for every medical professional in the country. Madison, as expected, ate it up, and as you can clearly see has been starting to reference this claim as though it is verifiable fact.

This is of course a complete joke, as countless doctors, nurses, surgeons across the country own Pit Bulls as pets. But since they can’t show up to Pasadena to speak before our beloved god it must not be a fact that he can accept. There’s quite a big difference in stating the obvious, which is that people have differing opinions and differing dogs, and taking the liberty of speaking for everyone and thus holding up this baseless and off-the-cuff opinion as truth.

Below is a letter from Barbara Telesmanic, registered nurse and co-founder of SoCal Pitbull TEAM. She is also the owner of a therapy Pit Bull named “Buddy” that routinely visited the children’s hospital…

Barbara Telesmanic opposition letter to Pasadena BSL by swaylove

But you see, she doesn’t exist, and neither does any other nurse, doctor or surgeon who would state otherwise to his embraced belief. Good grief.

The Pasadena City Council has no idea what it’s done. They were not expecting anyone to care. Most on this Council thought that the minimal opposition that they received to their proposed mandatory spay and neuter law for all dogs (an idea that they tabled, and in part due to the backlash) would outweigh the backlash that they’d receive when targeting breeds or types. Wrong.

What’s clear is that those who voted to create a breed-discriminatory ordinance (6 of them) have literally nothing to say in defense of it. They are getting pelted by emails daily and the silence is deafening. The 2 people who have attempted to respond (Steve Madison, lead anti-Pit Bull demagogue; Bill Bogaard, Mayor lobbying to change state law) are doing so in the laziest and most disingenuous fashion possible…

Not only are they sending out a canned template email, an email that they themselves probably didn’t even write, but with this exercise in repetition they are most definitely trying to avoid and evade what is dually evident… That they want to criminalize and ban Pit Bulls but know that they currently cannot, and that they have given verbal and written testimony proving that they are actively lobbying state legislators for a dismantling of the current prohibiting of breed bans. See here, and here, and here.

They can deny this all that they want, in 100 different ways if they were so creative. It doesn’t change the facts nor does it shift reality. And people are pissed off, and rightfully so.

These bogus email responses are so incredibly disingenuous that they don’t really need a response, but I’m giving one anyways, mostly because I’m so personally offended…

Madison’s auto-response to constituents and California residents:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bull and pit bull cross-breed dogs. We understand and respect your views. The City Council is committed to ensuring public safety, while at the same time establishing preventive health measures for pets that can reduce overpopulation and improve their quality of life.

The proposed ordinance is consistent with California Senate Bill 861 which states that “uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals contributes to pet overpopulation, inhumane treatment of animals, mass euthanasia at local shelters and escalating costs for animal care and control; (while) irresponsible breeding also contributes to the production of defective animals that present a public safety risk.”

Many other cities and counties—including Camarillo and Lancaster, plus Riverside and San Bernardino counties—have implemented the same type of breed-specific ordinance such as the one the City of Pasadena is considering. There is clearly a reasonable basis for this local legislation. Statistics suggest that pit bull breeds are responsible for over half of the fatal dog on human attacks in the United States. No doubt you have followed the cases just here in our region over the last couple of years in which toddlers and seniors have been viciously attacked, and some killed, by pit bull breeds.

Meanwhile, animal shelters—including the Pasadena Humane Society—are overcrowded with unwanted pit bull puppies and thousands are put to sleep in California every year. Our proposed ordinance will directly address these issues.

The proposed City of Pasadena ordinance, which is still under review, would help mitigate the effects of pit bull and pit bull cross-breed overpopulation and help ensure that these pets, their owners and the community remain safe and maintain a high quality of life.

I appreciate your comments and thank you for your community involvement.

Steve Madison, Councilmember for District 6

First off, Steve Madison doesn’t “respect” anyone’s views. The only view that he even remotely pays attention to is a view that directly agrees with his own.

Secondly, the city of Pasadena cannot be “committed to ensuring public safety” while at the same time ignoring the 3 reckless circumstances that are behind almost every dog-related human fatality ever recorded (loose dogs, chained/resident dogs, unsupervised children). They also cannot climb on top of the public safety mantle while at the same time ignoring the already existing leash law, anti-chaining law, and breed-neutral dangerous dog law.

Thirdly, when did this become about “overpopulation”? Wow. Because I have direct video evidence from meeting after meeting showing this clown Steve Madison ramble on about how all Pit Bulls are inherently vicious and have been “bred for thousands of years to be killers.”

Fourth, never have they taken up the issue of why there is “mass euthanasia at local shelters,” nor have they discussed “escalating costs for animal care and control.” Not once.

Fifth, define “reasonable basis”? The “statistics” that Madison repeatedly cites are from quite literally the most unreliable dog-related website on the entire internet, Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org.

Sixth, how dare you cite shelter killing and claim that Pit Bulls are “unwanted,” AS YOU DEMONIZE THEM OPENLY AND IGNORANTLY, AND PERPETUATE SUCH BLATANT AND EGREGIOUS MISINFORMATION, which, by the way, directly leads to why many people do not consider them. How dare you!! You know absolutely nothing about “shelter killing,” nor do you know anything about the typical “sheltering” system, nor do you care how many Pit Bulls are currently being killed in such a system considering your ultimate desire is to see a ban enabled so that you can then have Pasadena customarily kill them all.

Seventh, your doublespeak about Pit Bulls and their owners “remaining safe” and “maintaining a high quality of life” is a massive steaming pile of you know what.

I’ve been on this planet for 32 years, and Steve Madison is one of the biggest assholes I’ve ever been in a room with. I sincerely hope that the other 6 members of this City Council, plus the Mayor, do not follow this crackpot into further profiling, scapegoating, witch-hunting, and all other nasty ideas that have been fundamentally repudiated by any decent human being that has ever walked the planet Earth.

Back in October of 2013 the Pasadena City Council opted against mandating the spaying and neutering of all dogs. Regardless of whether you’d support that idea or not (I would not), it is imperative that some compare and contrast go on here…

So here’s some further lines of thought in regards to the input given by the different Pasadena City Council members as they opposed the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs, but then immediately turned around and desired to see the same law passed which is promoted as only targeting Pit Bulls.

To this I say where is the consistency in opposition? If you oppose 1 on certain grounds, that same thought process should carry over, considering both laws are exactly the same and they have many of the same questionable dynamics.

Councilwoman Margaret McAustin and Councilman Terry Tornek take the same approach, both opposing the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs on the grounds that it is broad, overreaching, intrusive, oppressive, expensive, reduces community participation, gets more dogs killed, and is all around “too much.” They also come to the conclusion that promoting education and letting the community know what they can participate in is the best way to go in comparison to passing such a law. Yet, when it comes to Pit Bulls and a breed-discriminatory law of the exact same type, all of their very legitimate conclusions go completely out the window. What the heck?

Councilman Victor Gordo saw a big problem with the lack of specifics when attempting to define what made for a “reputable breeder.” Fair point. I’d urge him to keep this critical perspective when looking over whatever ordinance Pasadena brings forth, as their definition of “Pit Bull” is bound to be as vague and subjective as humanely possible, as it seems to always be with these kinds of laws.

Councilman Gene Masuda quite literally thinks that all dogs categorized as Pit Bulls should be punished because 1 of his constituent’s leashed dogs was “attacked” in a park by an unleashed dog that was described by him as a “Pit Bull.”

No attention paid to the fact that this was a roaming dog, running at large after escaping its yard. No attention paid to the lack of proper care for this dog, or the desire to contain it in its yard. That’s clearly human recklessness but no one seems to care or point any of this out.

Councilman John Kennedy, who has since came out against breed-discriminatory legislation as well, brings up eugenics while discussing why he’s opposing the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs.

If Kennedy made this connection back in October, then it should more powerfully apply in regards to smaller groups of dogs (Pit Bulls) being targeted because they are deemed “less than” by certain members of his City Council. That is most definitely eugenics, 100%. I’m quite positive that Councilman Kennedy will vote to oppose any attempt at BSL.

Councilwoman Jacque Robinson has consistently been against the targeting of certain dogs, but supports the law for all dogs.

And of course, my personal response to demagogue Steve Madison…

The bottom line is that all breed-discriminatory laws serve to do is further perpetuate misinformation and sensationalistic rhetoric, further ignore public safety, further demonize dogs, further ostracize owners, further squeeze low income persons, further kill Pit Bulls, further make Pit Bulls more appealing to true criminals, and further create precedent for worse pieces of legislation to come.