So a few months ago I did a phone interview with a journalist about all things related to my Pit Bull advocacy. Having known beforehand that she was also going to be asking me about the Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA) that ultimately took Sway’s life, I set out to videotape my side of the interview so that I could then create an accessible testimony for the many other people currently going through what we went through. That video, which is almost 30 minutes in length, will be available within the next few days. Please stay tuned…

The videos below are some of the other questions that I was asked.

“What was the instance that acted as a catalyst in becoming an advocate for Pit Bulls?”

“What stereotypes did you experience while having Sway?”

“What are your thoughts on BSL (Breed-specific legislation)?”

“Where does the negative stigma and its perpetuation come from?”

Talking about the breed-targeting dynamic and the challenges of engaging all people… “Why does the Pit Bull stereotype still persist?”

“Can you talk about your relationship with the kill shelters that you photograph at?”

The former executive director of the City of Los Angeles’ shelter system and current director of the Yavapai Humane Society, Ed Boks, has been recently blogging about breed-specific legislation in the form of mandatory spay and neuter for Pit Bulls. As far as I can tell, he has not given a statement in regards to where he personally stands, but the implication in his writing is thick and he continues to source the types of things that are par for the course when making the argument.

Of most peculiar note is his sourcing of anti-Pit Bull bigot Merritt Clifton of “Animal People.” Sigh. Never fear… Brent Toellner of the KC Dog Blog breaks Cliffton’s nonsense down nicely. And again.

The below quote blocks are taken from Boks’ back-to-back posts on the subject…

Nation-wide, pit-bulls represent 60 percent of all dogs euthanized; 22 percent of all dogs abused or neglected; 46 percent of all dogs that injure humans; 51 percent of all dogs that attack other animals; and virtually all dogs impounded in dog-fighting cases.

^Where in the world are these figures coming from? There is no count whatsoever in the form of a breed-tallied breakdown of the dogs “that injure humans.” That doesn’t exist. We do know that there are roughly 4.5 million dog bites reported per year, according to the CDC, 20% of which result in the need for medical attention. Yet none of these tallies are done by breed or type. No one can claim that they are, because they aren’t. Those reports do not exist. So not sure where Ed Boks is pulling that figure from. And how exactly is he determining that 51% of all dogs that “attack other animals” are Pit Bulls? Again, no tally of that exists and no genuine ability to tally such a thing exists. That’s not even acknowledging the mess that you step in when you try to say “what is” and “what isn’t” a Pit Bull. But yet he has all of these fancy numbers to splash around.

These facts are all the more startling when you consider pit-bulls and all pit-bull mixes combined represent only about 4 percent of the total dog population.

…According to Merritt Clifton.

Although pit bulls account for only 3.3 percent of the U.S. dog population, according to a 2011 Animal People survey, they represent 29 percent of all dogs surrendered nationally to shelters or impounded by animal control.

…Again, according to Merritt Clifton.

I very much disagree that only 3.3-4% of the United States dog population is considered to be Pit Bulls. I’d have a sneaking suspicion that that number is a tad, if not much, higher.

Also, as loosely as this notion that any “attacking” dog is considered to be a Pit Bull by media, or by exploitative hatemongers on the internet, that “loose” attempt at defining them clinches right up when they need to have it the other way. When they need to make graphs comparing yearly deaths “caused by Pit Bulls” to the “percent of the dog population that Pit Bulls make up,” then that population number is promoted as being as low as possible. But as soon as there is another “attack” that they can exploit, they immediately call every linked dog under the sun a “Pit Bull.” It’s clear that their philosophy doesn’t stay consistent when tallying the total number of Pit Bulls. They thrive on having it both ways. If you are hypothetically going to call 3 “attacking” Boxers “Pit Bulls” then you best include all Boxers under the category of “Pit Bull” during your bogus study. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency of message. It’s dishonorable and pathetic, not to mention unscientific, at its core.

Further, whether ultimately 3% or 5% or 10% of the overall dog population, the clear and obvious truth is that 99.9% of all existing Pit Bulls (no matter the population claim) haven’t ever been involved in any sensationalistic version of the stories that you randomly see on television used to perpetuate their negative stigma. I don’t see any news organizations banging down my doors to come cover the dispositions of my 3 Pit Bull-type dogs. Please let me know if they’d ever want to. Yet Merritt Clifton, the creature that Boks chose to source, routinely exploits Pit Bulls as being programmed killers that exist everywhere with the intentions of eventually murdering your mother.

Three U.S. communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Miami each enacted breed-specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls within city limits. The latter seems onerous, if not unconstitutional; the former, however, may be a humane solution worthy of consideration.

Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40 percent fewer dogs of any breed than the U.S. national average. A comparison of San Francisco and Ontario, Canada is especially interesting. Ontario banned all pit bulls at the same time San Francisco mandated sterilization. Seven years later, the reduction in pit bulls is almost identical.

So in 1 paragraph he can say that the banning of Pit Bulls seems “onerous, if not unconstitutional,” and then in the very next paragraph he can acknowledge that the banning vs. mandated sterilization amounted to the exact same results. All this at the behest of promoting the latter, and criticizing the former. As if they aren’t meant to achieve the same goal, even though he admits that they achieve the same goal.

I’ve been saying for as long as this website has existed that mandating Pit Bull sterilization is a coward’s ban, a politician’s ban… They are being disingenuous with the public, using language that’s meant to take advantage of the many people that genuinely want to help, and twisting it to not only achieve their bans but to also cover their graveyard of prior failures. Education be damned, following the numerous already existing laws be damned. It’s an epic failure all around.

Boks also tries to make the case that “San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40 percent fewer dogs than the U.S. national average.” Well, no kidding. Because they’ve eliminated Pit Bulls. And the ones that do continue to come in, they are now being hidden from their “official” numbers because they are ALL (due to the bans) deemed “unadoptable” and thus able to be disassociated from the released kill numbers. This is a shell game and these cities are untransparent frauds that, oh by the way, are being “onerous” and “unconstitutional.”

Further reading on this issue…
KC Dog Blog: Understanding cause and effect when it comes to mandatory spay/neuter laws
Nathan Winograd: Ed Boks’ e-mails reveal mandatory spay/neuter law failures, which includes this doozy…

During his tenure as General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS), Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a failed California mandatory sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?” To which Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.” The bill was defeated.

Answer this question: Is any law or piece of legislation that targets and singles out a specific breed or type of dog considered “breed-specific legislation”? Yes or no? If you answer “yes” then we have nothing more to talk about. If you answer “no” then I’d pray that you please look into what BSL really is, and do it fast.

Nothing changes the fact that Tia Torres or someone with the access to speak on behalf of Villalobos came out and stated that they were “in support of what Councilman Green is proposing.” Those are her (or the page’s words). Everyone continues ignoring the fact that that actually happened. And what Glenn Green has proposed is out in the open. I simply pointed it out and I’m immediately villainized. Tia could have easily taken it back, said she didn’t fully understand what BSL was, anything from that realm of a response… Yet nothing like that has ever come. Over the last week I’ve been treated as if I’m enemy #1 for simply daring to ask them a question. This thing has snowballed repeatedly, and gotten more childish and personal with each post that Villalobos makes. You’ve seen absolutely NONE of that with me.

Villalobos keeps doubling down, and they want it both ways. They continue claiming that a “compromise” on what Green wanted, which was a ban, is still not breed-specific legislation. Yet, the sheer definition of BSL is any bill or law that targets a specific breed or type of dog, in any way. The mentioned “compromise” still targets breeds or types in a plethora of ways. Yet they refuse this reality, and then want to repeatedly belittle me for simply trying to force the true definition out there. There’s been this massive unleashing of her support onto me, and with it, the further bastardizing of the BSL debate. People are completely losing sight of this simple question in a fit of rage meant to put me down. This is about BSL, that’s it. Look no further than the fact that Colleen Lynn is actually able to come out and disingenuously praise you. Lynn, a despicable person, is the same demon that has made it her life’s work to see to it that each and every last Pit Bull be killed. You don’t need to look any further than that, Villalobos. Even last night (until Tia or the page admin deleted it) VRC posted yet again, and I quote… “Villalobos DOES NOT support the banning of Pit Bulls (for those that don’t know what BSL means).”

The “banning of Pit Bulls” is not the only thing that represents BSL. Clearly Tia and Villalobos are the ones that don’t know what BSL means… That quote, and that wording, was just another way to deflect and confuse people. The pridefulness on display from Villalobos–at the expense of myself and others, and far bigger and more importantly, at the expense of the BSL issue in general–is astonishing.

I personally don’t think that Tia was promoting BSL or backs it in theory, I said so myself on the radio. I just think that it’s pretty clear that she either doesn’t understand the issue, or has genuinely thought that compromising on BSL is the necessary move. If either of those are the case, come out and state as much. It’s got to be one or the other, or a combination of both. What she hasn’t done is come out and admit that she didn’t understand what BSL really was. Okay. So if that’s not it then it’s got to be the other. She’s admitted to “compromising,” but with that, has refused the notion that what she has compromised on was and still is BSL. She flat out refuses it. So she either doesn’t understand what BSL is, or she does and has just chosen to compromise on it. With that, she’s dodging the admittance of what she’s done. And trying to scapegoat me in the process.

I think everyone is asking for some accountability here… Either admit that you didn’t originally grasp what BSL is, or admit that you’ve compromised and accepted a “lesser” version of BSL. Those are the 2 choices. Yet she acknowledges neither. Instead it’s easier to spin the issue and lay the blame on me… While calling me a “nut job” who wants to “close them down” and capture his “15 seconds of fame.” It’s all so degrading, and disappointing and embarrassing. All while I’m publicly getting blamed by a massive group of people, many literally resembling zombies at this point, for not “working together.” I’m getting blamed for being “divisive,” divisive for simply asking a question.

And watch… Defenders and avoiders will zone in on the fact that I used the phrase “zombies” as a way to describe certain folks that continue flooding my page with hateful jargon. I’ll then be blamed for being “disrespectful.” As they ignore their own repeated disrespect towards me for simply posing a question to someone that so many people idolize. They’ll see that 1 word and flip the script as a way to deflect all of the substance that I just presented here. Do you not think I went out of my way to do that on purpose? I did. Just to call out the reaction before it happens.

The BSL debate is a hugely important issue and it’s not to be discarded and dismissed. It’s not something that you need to become irrational about simply because I used the words “hell” and “Villalobos” in a blog post title. I’m not here to blanketly kiss anyone’s ass. Read what I wrote. Read what I wrote. This is not wasted time. This is not me ranting. This is BSL, the most prominent issue that affects the lives of the dogs that we all love. Again, the dogs THAT WE ALL LOVE. It should be everyone’s duty to hold this anti-BSL principle up at all times, and if someone as powerful as Tia Torres doesn’t understand it, it’s the job of everyone to make sure that she does. If I have to be the “bad man” that starts this dialogue, so be it. I’m glad to be demonized up 1 side and down the other so long as Villalobos’ position merges into the appropriate one. I’m done responding to anyone representing Villalobos in any capacity, and especially their fan base that continues spilling all over this page (and my Facebook page), until ^the above question is answered. I will just keep copying and pasting the question, over and over again. I propose that everyone do the same.

Here’s video from the Monday morning protest on 5/20/13. There was a great turnout. I also was surprised to find out that one of the ladies who attended actually ended up adopting a dog (from the Carson shelter) after she saw her in one of my photos and a video that was posted on my Facebook page. The dog, Chloe, was also there and is now a certified therapy dog! You can see her numerous times in the below video. She’s the white Pit Bull that I am squatting next to…

Chants of “No BSL” directly outside of the office of L.A. County Mayor Michael Antonovich.

Shorty Rossi addressing the media in regards to why breed-specific legislation is a terrible and unfair idea.

L.A. County Mayor Michael Antonovich and his spokesman, Tony Bell, refuse a meeting with Shorty Rossi over his desire to discuss why owner responsibility and breed-neutral laws are far more appropriate than BSL (breed-specific legislation), which ends up unfairly targeting dogs and dog owners in mass.

What I’ve learned, more than anything else over the last week, is that so many people don’t seem to truly understand what breed-specific legislation even is. That’s a problem, a problem for all of us.

I’ve re-read my article plenty of times. Maybe I missed something. I thought that, due to the backlash that I’m currently getting, maybe I was honestly unfair or harsh. I’ve gotta say, upon reading it back numerous times, I feel more strongly than ever that I wrote the appropriate article and that I did what made sense to me. It continues to make sense to me. When addressing Villalobos directly, which was only a small portion of the article, what I wrote was not harsh. If anything, I went out of my way to praise them, while laying out what the published dynamics of this legislation aims to do, and then asking them to reconsider their support for it. That’s basically it. The “harsh” sections were reserved for Councilman Glenn Green and the legislation itself. Those stating otherwise must not have read it, because it’s still online and you can see it for yourself.

Literally no one is disputing anything specific about what I wrote. I’ve been dealing with this for a solid 6-8 hours now, since waking up, and no one is attempting to point out irregularities or inaccuracies. The vast majority of those disagreeing with what I wrote are basically attacking me as a person, calling me names, cursing at me, comparing our “popularity,” and so on and so forth. Can I get some kind of a thoughtful discourse? The lack of that is usually proof enough that I made a valid point.

^Do you not see this? They keep saying that that doesn’t mean that they support everything that’s in the bill. Okay, fine. But it’s in the proposed bill. So if the bill passes, it happens. They support the bill. They are supporting what Councilman Green is proposing. Yet, I’m called the “liar” for simply pointing this out and then trying to break down what’s being proposed, and then asking Villalobos to reconsider their support for it. It’s being said by many that that apparently amounts to an “attack” on Villalobos. Not at all.

So I’m simply going to state a few things that I’ve also stated on my Facebook page…

This backlash that I’m getting for my statement on Villalobos’ position on the BSL in Westwego thing, as if I’m “jealous” or “uninformed” or “not reading,” or “not understanding,” or being a “hypocrite,” is totally off the charts insane. It’s really sad that some people can actually read something that was pretty darn clear, and still come to the vapid opinion that I’m somehow throwing rocks at the throne. It’s really sad that some people can read something that was fully sourced and essentially a response to information that is OUT IN THE OPEN, and then try to imply that I’m basically an “uninformed hater” that knows nothing about nothing. Where is the disconnect?

A hater? Of Tia and Villalobos? How?? I respect the hell out of both. I’m a hater for pointing out the obvious? I’m a hater for noticing that they are supporting some egregious compromise on BSL, and then trying to tell their hundreds of thousands of fans that this legislation actually is not BSL and that I’m somehow lying or misrepresenting their position? How? Why? For what? Wow. Humanity never ceases to let you down.

What’s most stunning is how so many people are just piling on me for reasons that don’t even make sense, as if they didn’t read a single word of what I wrote, and then calling me the hypocrite for “not reading.” A lot of this type of stuff seems to be coming from people who would rather follow someone because of “who” they are, instead of respond back to what I wrote with any kind of substance at all. What didn’t I read? How is what is being proposed in Westwego and supported by Villalobos not BSL? Can someone explain this to me? Can someone retort anything that I said, instead of just attacking the messenger? Someone even went so far as to actually compare me to Colleen Lynn!! You actually have to laugh at this stuff to keep from crying.

This world seems to be more and more awash in celebrity worship and so many people actually live their lives as if that kind of stuff somehow trumps any and everything. I love what Tia does, but she isn’t above criticism and neither am I. Criticize away at me, but please base it in something. I went out of my way to write the most thorough piece that I could, and to make it clear that I love what VRC does, but to also lay out my case for why I think that what they’ve chosen to do in Westwego is extremely damaging. I explained why, and thoroughly. I then simply asked them to reconsider their stance. That’s it. It wasn’t an “attack,” it wasn’t me “slamming” Tia, as so many people are now saying. My goodness. I’m in no way “jealous” of her fame, rather the opposite, and extremely happy that she has the platform that she has in order to show the true and wonderful nature of these dogs. I think that’s like the 50th time that I’ve said this now! Yet so many people are trying to boil the genuine stuff that I said down to “he’s just hating.” Really? I mean, really?

You can kill me all you want. Whomever wants to say whatever, go for it. I just wish that it was actually based in something, or in an effort to substantially retort something that I said. Instead, it seems to be the opposite. I’m just “bad” because I dared make a statement against a position that is clearly discriminatory and clearly meant to demonize Pit Bulls as a whole. I’m not saying that that’s what Tia wants, I’m saying that by her supporting the legislation that’s what she plays a role in basically allowing to have happen. It’s not my fault that Villalobos is supporting Councilman Green’s legislation, and backing a “compromise” that is totally wrongheaded and tyrannical on numerous levels. Yet, so many people have completely lost sight of that, simply based out of who this person is. It’s Tia, so we can’t dare question it. Um, why? Things shouldn’t work like that, where substance and principles go flying out the window, context out the window. Your dogs are going to be the ones affected! I’m all about compromise, and working together with people in all facets of my life. But I’m not up for “compromising” when it comes to people (like Green) who are hellbent on scapegoating Pit Bulls, demonizing them, perpetuating stereotypes, flaunting open discrimination and then passing unjust laws that usher all of that stuff in. I’m not for compromising with that.

In closing… What’s being lost here, and what’s most discouraging to me personally, is the clear disconnect between what is truly BSL and what many people actually do consider BSL vs. what they do not consider BSL. It’s beyond depressing that this definition is actually being fractured and that thousands of people don’t even seem to understand the basic nature of the legislation. For that, Tia should be ashamed. Because she is currently perpetuating that, and now doubling down on it by coming after me and attempting to turn my comments into something that they were not. Too many people will just listen to her, and take it as scripture, instead of even attempting to understand what is being discussed. That’s sad.

Thanks to those that actually know the difference.

Villalobos then came out with a statement, and then a 2nd statement, which was especially dramatic and pretty much out of bounds.

In the 1st one they tell me to “read before I write” and that I’m “spreading rumors,” while doubling down on this fearmongerish line of thought that had they not “compromised” then there would have been a total ban. That’s untrue, but okay. Telling me that I should read before I write is degrading and disingenuous. You bet I read before I wrote, why wouldn’t I have? This kind of a dismissive response is insulting everyone’s intelligence, their own supporters included, by taking petty shots at me while they ignore the actual statements and positions that their own organization made and took in regards to the legislation that is being discussed here.

The 2nd statement was far more over the top, where they imply that I’ve somehow ruined the day for their adorable Puma, who was just adopted. This ignores the fact that Villalobos’ own post was what linked these 2 events together, by posting a picture of Puma and then ranting about me for 5 paragraphs. That was their choice. They took the focus off of Puma, not me. They then accuse me of actually wanting them shut down, blame me for their donations drying up and then attempt to blame me for losing future adopters. If that wasn’t enough, they then claim that due to my blog post they “will no longer be commenting, discussing, talking, posting about BSL.” So it’s now become MY FAULT for their failure to use their massive platform to positively counter BSL around the country. Then comes the accusations of me wanting attention at their expense, and that I was getting my “15 seconds of fame.” Nice. They even source an article that they recently re-posted of mine from 2 years ago, calling it “one of the best reads ever” in regards to BSL and California. Less than a week later my rather consistent opposition to BSL is no longer legitimate for that praise…

Regarding this notion that I’m “wanting them shut down.” This is a totally absurdist statement. Just for the record: I HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE VILLALOBOS SHUT DOWN, NOR DID I MAKE MY STATEMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO CAUSE THEM TO “LOSE SUPPORT.” My statements were made because I am against breed-discriminatory legislation. That’s it. Read what I wrote. It’s totally out there and available for people to read. Not only what I wrote, but what they wrote, and what Councilman Green is pushing for. For the 958th time: I SUPPORT VILLALOBOS and resent these accusations that I want them shut down, or that I’m trying to garner “fame” off of their reputation. Anyone that knows me knows that I don’t give a rat’s ass about fame. I don’t do what I do for “fame.” It’s total and utter bologna. If 5,000 people want to unlike my page in mass, that’s okay. People can be as nasty as they want to be with me, call me names, tell me all kinds of things that I can’t exactly repeat here… But it sucks that Villalobos are actually using reverse psychology and will probably succeed in turning massive amounts of people against me, people that don’t even know or care to even read what I actually wrote. Ultimately, people can make up their own minds on my reputation and my motivations. What I wrote is out there, I stand by it. I’m against BSL, not Tia, not Villalobos. I’m against “compromising” with people who are hellbent on scapegoating Pit Bulls for the individual incidents that irresponsible people repeatedly cause. This Council would never succeed in achieving a ban. We (Pit Bull people, Villalobos, myself, you) are in the right. BSL is totally backwards and wrong, and giving in at any ratio is extremely harmful. But again, saying that I want to see VRC shut down is an absolute falsehood. That’s the last thing that I’d ever want. They also can’t have it both ways, calling me a “nobody” that is “piggybacking on your fame,” while at the same time blaming me for “tons of donations lost” and the potential “closure” of your hugely massive and amazing rescue. If I’m a “nobody” then how in the world would I even remotely be able to accomplish that? Again, I have no desire in the world to see Villalobos close, or have their donations dry up. People can continue to put words in my mouth but I’ve been beyond clear and pretty darn consistent in the face of all of this.

Here’s my responses to basically the only criticisms that I’ve received, and they are constant and almost always the same:

That I should “go away” or “shut up,” coming from random people…

Folks, I’m here as a PIT BULL ADVOCATE that is stringently anti-BSL, in all forms. This is my page. I also run a website. I’m an American, which means the Constitution applies to me. You can’t tell me to “be gone” from my own page. I’m allowed to have my own opinion, I’m allowed to critically think, I’m allowed to discuss Pit Bull-related issues. Clearly I’ve made valid points, or this wouldn’t even be an issue. How do you think this has become an issue, on any level, if I didn’t make valid points? If you think rock-solid people from the Pit Bull community don’t stand behind what I wrote, which was much more anti-BSL and didn’t even address VRC until the end, then you’re sadly mistaken.

That I’m “seeking attention,” or “fame” by saying what I’m saying, coming from random people and also from Villalobos…
That Villalobos has done “way more than me,” and “more than I’ll ever be able to do,” coming from random people…

I’ve kind of already addressed this one numerous times above, but someone actually said to me that I’m saying all of this “to get a few readers.” Uh, not quite. My page has received around 100 likes since they shared my 2-year-old article this past week. I’ve actually earned my support, thanks. Same as them. Further, for every person that chooses to no longer support me, there’s likely 2 or 3 that have now chosen to support me. That goes for taking on any position of difficulty. Some people actually don’t like puff pieces. Also, like I said above, it doesn’t matter to me if I lose thousands of followers over my blog post regarding Villalobos. That isn’t what this is about. This is about BSL, not me, or Tia or Villalobos. I absolutely do not care, AT ALL, about having “followers.” The entire premise of that phrase is derogatory. I’d much rather have 1,000 critical thinking, compassionate and rational supporters than have 500,000 people that don’t even understand me or get where I’m coming from. This isn’t a popularity contest, or a dick-measuring contest, despite all of these people constantly throwing that vapid and empty stuff in my face. I do not care about your perception of fame. I care about opposing breed-discriminatory legislation in all of its forms. I support Villalobos, just not their position on this issue. Read what I wrote.

That I should stop “spreading lies,” because Tia is all of a sudden “wanting to make this breed-neutral,” coming from random people…

Councilman Green’s legislation is NOT breed-neutral. This is a total misrepresentation of the current truth. Villalobos stated quite clearly that “we are actually in support of what Councilman Green is proposing.” Those are her words, not mine. So whether it eventually becomes breed-neutral, and whether Villalobos eventually supports all of these discussed things for all dogs in Westwego, that doesn’t change the fact that they first supported his initial proposal that was and still is breed-specific. Stop rewriting history.

That these laws “won’t even be enforced anyways,” so it’s “not to worry about,” and that Tia is being “tactical,” coming from random people…

Did you get that? The implication that the eventually passed law will not be enforced, therefore it’s not a big deal and people are making a big deal out of nothing. So why the law in the first place then? That’s a pointless situation, a dog and pony show. If any of that is even remotely true then Villalobos’ stance should be that this law is pointless because it’s unenforceable and does nothing good besides villainize Pit Bulls and Pit Bull owners. Yet that’s not their stance.

That I need to “apologize,” and that I’m clearly in the wrong based around the “backlash” that I’ve gotten, coming from random people…

This isn’t about me, or them. I am not perfect, neither are they. Nobody is and nothing will ever be. But there will absolutely be no apology from me, as I did nothing wrong. I talked about the proposed legislation at length, and simply asked Villalobos to change their STATED position on it. Okay? And just because there’s a “backlash” doesn’t mean that that’s the majority of people. It just means that I’ve gotten backlash. Big deal. I don’t choose what to do based on how much backlash or how little backlash I’m going to get.

And that I’m “attacking” Villalobos/Tia, being “negative,” or “infighting,” coming from random people…

Since when has trying to have a genuine discourse become “attacking”? How is talking about the injustice of breed-discriminatory laws, and the hedging against those principles, a “negative” thing? And when did “infighting” all of a sudden become the go-to response for every single person that never wants to have a public opinion or give their own thoughts on anything?

For the absolute last time: I have no ill will towards Villalobos, or Tia Torres. I respect the hell out of what they do, and their rescue in general. I have no desire for them to be shut down (asinine). I have no desire to see their donations dry up. None. People should continue supporting Villalobos! But people should also be against BSL and BDL. If those things cross then people need to figure it out for themselves. I asked questions. I then asked Villalobos to reconsider their position on Green’s proposed legislation. That’s all. All of this misinformation is out of control. Everything I’ve written is publicly available. In closing, I’m most definitely not the type to cower to intimidation from a lynch mob. If that’s what comes then I’ll just get more and more outspoken about it. I support Villalobos and continue hoping that they will eventually oppose Councilman Green’s pathetic demonization efforts.

So all kinds of stuff has recently hit the fan in response to a horrendous attack on a Westwego woman that was sharing a tiny home with a “Pit Bull” breeding operation, live litter and all. Since this horrible incident, the Westwego City Council have moved to amend their city ordinance in an effort to make it far tougher on Pit Bull owners as a whole…

Under the proposed changes Pit Bull owners must be at least 21 years of age and carry $100,000 in liability insurance, follow specific confinement regulations (both in and out of the home), keep the dogs muzzled when leaving the home (perpetuating stereotypes), display warning signs on the premises (perpetuating stereotypes), mandatorily spay and/or neuter their dog as well as implant a mandatory microchip. Going further, this will also require that unlicensed Pit Bulls be killed, that the city’s code inspectors be able to visit people’s private homes to “determine compliance,” and that DNA-testing be done at the expense of the pet owner. Back quickly to the dogs being killed if they are “unlicensed”–what then happens to the strays that are impounded at the shelter? I’m assuming they’d all be unethically killed.

“Those responsible Pit Bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

Ugh, actually we do. I’m responsible, and I have a big problem with it. Why? Because requiring that all “Pit Bull” owners get liability insurance in order to have or keep their family dog is BSL through and through. Folks, please remember that breed-specific legislation is not just simply a “ban” of a certain type of dog. It’s any legislation crafted that targets “specific” types of dogs. I put specific in quotations because there’s nothing ever specific about these policies, nor is there anything specific about how they are going to go about identifying whether your dog is or is not a Pit Bull. And notice how the Mayor says that “we do not want to take your dog away.” Um, okay. But you do want to create such a negative stigma around the dogs, as well as put hurdle after hurdle up in front of those already having the dogs, that they might voluntarily give their dogs up or be in violation of some law, thus being forced to give their dogs up. Not to mention the blowback that always follows a law that mandates liability insurance, allowing more landlords and insurance companies to move to over-protect themselves and avoid the dogs altogether. This is definitely an excuse for those folks to be more discriminatory in that regard. So no, all of this may not amount to Mr. Shaddinger actually coming to your home to personally “take your dog,” but it absolutely will amount to dogs being taken, given up, situational upheaval and the continuation of broad and sweepingly vile discrimination.

Green said the city needs the harsher guidelines because of Henry’s ordeal, and because he hears too many troubling stories about Pit Bull attacks. He doesn’t blame the animals, but he does blame pet owners who don’t properly care for them.

Ahem… Doublespeak alert!! Councilman Glenn Green “doesn’t blame the animals,” but yet what he’s doing is fundamentally making all of the animals guilty until proven innocent. He’s also admitting that “too many troubling stories” played a role, and goes on to admit that Mrs. Henry’s boyfriend didn’t “properly care for” his dogs. WOW. What a quote. So if he actually believes ^his last sentence then why aren’t his efforts based around responsible dog ownership and not the blatant targeting of an entire type of dog? Also, they already have a Pit Bull ordinance that went unenforced, and now they are “strengthening it,” even though the original ordinance did nothing to stop the attack that is prompting the doubling down on a new law. Again, how about targeting responsible pet ownership instead?

Now, onto Villalobos Rescue Center and Tia Torres, who I genuinely respect and think that they do great work with bringing public awareness to the true and very positive nature of these dogs. Up and to this point my only concern with them, in any area, has been that some of their merchandise is so abrasively Pit Bull-exclusive that it puts all other dogs down in the process (i.e. “If it ain’t pit, it ain’t shit”). Minor. Just me being observational and having an opinion. And I doubt they care. But anyways, to my surprise they are actually SUPPORTING this legislation! What the hell? See for yourself.

In this photo they then relay people to Einhorn Insurance, implying that they will be fine once they call them. I guess so, if local carriers are still available. I’m told that there are currently options, and Einhorn can assist in detailing those for folks when and if this becomes necessary. Most Louisiana homeowner’s insurance companies continue to flat out exclude Pit Bulls. That’s just another challenge that remains, and one that is not going to be getting any better in light of what has happened in Westwego. All of this is kind of besides the point though, as not everyone can afford liability insurance for their dog. Far more important than that, it’s wrong to have to be forced to get it when no one else does. That’s exclusionary. That’s punishing responsible people for committing no crime. That’s punishing the dogs.

Villalobos responds to the few critics of their position by implying that, hey, it was either this or “AN ALL OUT BAN.” Uh, not really. But way to fearmonger people into believing that there is only 2 options. Whatever happened to standing on your principles? I guess that somehow doesn’t apply with this, even though it does, and they are just choosing not to. They then tell people to “pick and choose your battles.” Alrighty.

Well, I’m here to say that what has been described here and elsewhere is pretty much an unofficial ban. Semantical games can be played but this is an egregious squeeze on law-abiding and responsible people, as well as an endless amount of good dogs. Requiring liability insurance in an area where almost all of the insurance companies choose to exclude that “type” of dog is essentially a ban on any dog that looks like that “type” of dog, whatever that means. And you won’t be able to decide, Glenn Green and his people will. Also, requiring that all dogs of a specific breed or type be forever spayed and neutered is an eventual ban, in theory, to boot.

Quite frankly I’m not only stunned by the stand that Villalobos has taken, but I’m also stunned by the amount of praise that they are receiving (and the amount of criticism that they are not receiving) in regards to the position that they’ve taken. My 2 cents is clear. You should be standing on the principle that this is totally wrong. That’s what everything boils down to. We are these dogs’ voice, and that’s a very important role to have and position to be in. And the platform that you have to be those things, I mean, my goodness gracious… Please, Villalobos: Reconsider your position. You don’t hedge on injustice, ever. You are either anti-BSL or you are not. That should be the end of it. Giving an inch to a politician hellbent on discriminating means that he is likely to take multiple miles. And what you’ve “given” here is far more than an inch. Is it worth discarding the soul of the argument, your principles and the truth, in order to appease a grandstanding Councilman who has it backwards? C’mon.

This online publication out of Riverside, CA has been very much on board with the continuous Pit Bull fear-mongering. They are quick to jump and exploit any incident that they claim involves Pit Bulls, and they usually follow that up with vague statements that attempt to shine a piss pour light on not only the dogs (as a whole) but the people that own them (as a whole) as well. This week the condescending Mr. Dan Bernstein took it to a new level, adding his 2 cents in the most overtly stereotypical way possible…

Right. So I’m going to be a tad sarcastic and crude in response to this “journalist” and his holier-than-thou attitude…

He’s basically saying that we should mandatorily sterilize all of the Pit Bulls and every single dog that he and his power-tripping task force think looks even remotely like one, since of course they can’t currently get away with banning them in the state of California. But sterilize them all into eradication, next best thing! You know, because they are all “bad” and that would then somehow fix the problem of roaming, chained and abused dogs from attacking people? Then, you sterilize all of the Pit Bull owners! Because, well, they must be fucking imbeciles to even own a Pit Bull so we wouldn’t want them having any more children and passing along that “imbecile gene,” now would we? Finally, we require that anyone wanting to give a Pit Bull a home have to go through some bureaucratic “background check” that will then tell us if we have the right, in America, to own a specific type of dog that we’d want to give a home to. You know, because there’s nothing better than more intrusion from the nanny state, as they ignore the circumstances that inconveniently follows every single one of their exploited “attacks.” Pay no mind to your dogs or my dogs, pay no mind to the millions of dogs and people that have done nothing. We are all guilty until proven innocent. We are all scum.

Screw you, Dan Bernstein. I’m sick of people like you trying to rule everyone’s lives with your perverse way of thinking and your open and cocky discrimination. You’re a bigot. Screw you.

But not only is this man bias in his way of speaking about the dogs as a whole, he’s also bias in regards to policing his own comment section when it comes to public discourse. I quickly left the below comment, and sure as the sun rises in the morning, out popped “Debbie Bell” and her diarrhetic canvasing of the comment section. Those unfamiliar with Ms. Bell, she’s one of a group of extreme Pit Bull hating fanatics that thinks that if they repeat themselves enough in every public forum that’s in any way related to “Pit Bulls,” that their rubbish will actually sink in and then be regarded as the truth. Not quite, but it’s cute, in the creepiest way possible. Pay no mind to actual reality. Just vaguely talk about everyone as a whole and the new truth will eventually hatch like an ostrich egg. Oh, did I say ostrich egg? My bad, that was in no may meant to imply that hate-mongering psychos actually have their heads in the sand in regards to the 99.9% of us all, people and dogs alike, that are totally innocent in all of this.

^You read that right? I’M actually to blame because a jogger was attacked by 8 phantom roaming dogs. I’M actually to blame because, God forbid, some random person that I don’t even know made an asinine comment on a website. Not their fault, MY fault. Not their fault, YOUR fault. Notice a trend? 1 dog attacks something, millions of dogs are at fault. 1 person lets his unsocialized dog roam free and it attacks something, millions of people are blanketly painted as being irresponsible. 1 person treats his dog like shit and fights it on the side for jollies, millions of Pit Bull owners must be dog fighters who relish being scumbags. And on and on and on it goes. Such a vapid ride it is with these shallow people.

But guess what? Hours after leaving my comment, and then replying back to the lady with the troll badge, my own comments were deleted from the website. That’s not a media bias? So Debbie is allowed to respond to me, and that stays, but then my response back to her goes, it goes the way of the memory hole. Well, not quite, because ^there it is. There they both are, even though they’ve now been scrubbed from the website completely.

So to the Press-Enterprise and to Dan Bernstein: You can delete people off of your “news website,” you can pretend as if thousands upon thousands of honest and loving people don’t actually own these dogs, you can pretend all you want about anything that you desire. Keep it up. But that doesn’t make it so. To both Dan and to Debbie: You will never have reality on your side. You will never have justice on your side. At this pace and with this view you will always and forever be wrong. Doubling down on the blaming of an entire class of dogs (and people) because of the actions of the very few is wrong. It’s racism. It’s discrimination, and it always will be. Journalists trying to shape the debate doesn’t actually change what is and what isn’t discrimination. The flooding of every comment section with empty words meant to incite hatred and prejudice towards millions of individuals from a group of “anything” doesn’t actually change what is and what isn’t discrimination. That will always and forever be the case.

If you’d like to contact Dan Bernstein yourself, feel free, I’m sure he’s lovely… 951-368-9439 or dbernstein@PE.com, Facebook, Twitter.

The sadness of this is overwhelming. It’s so unfortunate that much of our society stands idly by while this stuff happens in their name…

Testimony from the good people over at DDA Watch:

When we tell you about dogs coming home everyone rejoices. We have pictures of happy dogs, great footage of reunions sometimes. Happy dogs and happy owners. It’s just great. But now I want to tell you a different story of one dog and her owner.

Roxy and her owner found each other a few months ago. Roxy was being beaten by her previous owners. David saw it and wouldn’t let it lie…and Roxy came to live with him. He took Roxy to the vet who promptly told him they couldn’t treat his dog as she was illegal and frankly scared the life out of her owner. As advised by the vet he called the police as he is a good law abiding person. The police came and took his dog….a ‘dangerous’ pit bull. By the time the vets and police had finished David was convinced his dog was actually nasty and would turn and so when asked, he signed her over to be destroyed.

But it all didn’t quite make sense to David and he came through to DDA Watch. We told David the truth and immediately sorted a revocation of his sign over with his consent. But it didn’t end there. David had a lot of pressure from many directions to let Roxy die. He was stressed and worried, for himself, for his dog and for the public…what if we were wrong? The next blow came when he was told, through no fault his own or Roxy’s that Roxy would not be allowed back home to his current property.

So he had a dog whose life relied on him and now he couldn’t bring her home. With the support of DDA Watch he continued to fight. He refused to sign over. He went to court on his own without a solicitor and no legal aid. The court ordered Roxy to be exempted. Her life had been saved. David carried out all the exemption paperwork and Roxy was registered to him.

She was due to come home on Tuesday but had opened her spay wound so she was not returned until Wednesday.

David and two members of DDA Watch went to pick Roxy up.

But here’s the crunch.

At this moment in time, Roxy cannot go back home to David. She is currently staying with DDA Watch while she receives vet treatment and her future is secured. David had to pick her up yesterday knowing he could not take her home. He couldn’t even play with her due to her being so poorly. He picked up the dog he adores, whose life he saved. A dog who was taken from him a few months ago. He picked her up and then watched as she was taken away from him again.

It’s not all happy endings. It’s not all straightforward. Sometimes, it will simply break your heart.

Roxy has been deemed a “pit bull type” (commonly referred to in the press as a “dangerous” pit bull) and her owner is a young male (commonly referred to in the press as thugs and hoodies.) David, I know you’re reading this. I cannot begin to tell you how proud of you everyone at DDA Watch is. Never question the power you hold in your hands. You, literally, are a life saver.

This is David and this is Roxy and this is how to say hello…and goodbye.

Here’s some videos that I took from Author Ken Foster’s question and answer session while he was out promoting his latest book, “I’m a good dog: Pit Bulls, America’s most beautiful (and misunderstood) pet.” You should really pick up a copy of the book if you haven’t already, as it’s fantastic and full of a proper representation of the dogs that we all know and love. He’s also the author of “Dogs I have met: And the people they found,” as well as “The dogs who found me: What I’ve learned from pets who were left behind.” “The dogs who found me” was actually the first book that I read after Sway had passed away. It’s personalized stories are very endearing and I’d recommend it to anyone. Ken also heads up The Sula Foundation, named after one of his Pit Bulls. Sula also appears on the cover of “The dogs who found me.”

Ken discussing the many ills of breed-specific legislation (BSL).

Ken talking about two unfortunate incidents, Hurricane Katrina and the Michael Vick situation, that ironically led to many new people coming to see Pit Bulls in a different light.

Ken talking about Uba, the former Michael Vick dog who was one of the more prominent faces of the Virginia dog fighting raid. She was commonly misrepresented by the media but is now happily living in her forever home.

Talking about Colleen Lynn and her sensationalistic website DogsBite.org. This website is often sourced by news media, giving much of the audience the impression that it is actually a credible source of information. In reality it’s simply a mega-bias website meant to exploit dog attacks and house rhetoric that blames every living Pit Bull and all of their owners as a group for any mentioned “attack” that they want to run with.

Discussing the backwardness of PETA’s vendetta against Pit Bulls and the crazy actions of their figurehead, Ingrid Newkirk. The story he shares about the email exchange is hilarious!