Obviously today there was a horrible tragedy in Boston, Massachusetts involving numerous detonated bombs that went off during the yearly marathon. This killed people, injured countless others and was an all around cowardly act of terrorism from some section of the shadowy political stratosphere. What you see below was stated today by political commentator Erik Rush in response to news that a Saudi Arabian man was possibly arrested for this bombing. Now I have no idea if the Saudi guy had anything to do with this bomb, and even if he did, that isn’t even relevant in regards to the kind of flagrant comment that you will see below. And I’m personally not a Republican or a Democrat, so there is no partisanship going on on this website to blanketly target either side. I say all of this first because delving into national politics is so incredibly divisive and ultimately there are huge distractions around every corner. The goal is to avoid having the focus shift from this simple point in any way. All of that now aside, the below picture and the response by Mr. Rush is deadly relevant when talking about BSL/BDL and the kinds of vague and all-encompassing responses that Pit Bulls seem to garner from blatant hatemongers calling for their eradication by any means necessary…
^That’s 1.6 billion people that Mr. Rush is promoting that we kill in response to what happened at the Boston Marathon today. This kind of a response is no different than what Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org has routinely stated in regards to Pit Bulls. Take any name (or fake name) solely known for this kind of sensationalistic demonization… The responses are plentiful and always the same: “Let’s kill all of the “Pit Bulls.” “Let’s get rid of them all.” “The only good Pit Bull is a dead Pit Bull.” “Let’s euthanize the Pit Bulls and their owners, too.” It goes on and on and on. Ugliness. Here it is. This is what it looks like in another realm. There is absolutely no difference between what Erik Rush said here in regard to Muslims, and what Colleen Lynn or Dawn James have consistently said about Pit Bulls. None. It’s vague hate, that is all.
I’ve been randomly talking about this very thing for most of 2013. It’s something that I’ve noticed and continue to notice. And it’s showed through yet again while watching Colleen Lynn (founder of the anti-Pit Bull website, DogsBite.org) on The Huffington Post’s video panel that they put together last week to discuss Pit Bulls. If you haven’t seen this video, please go there and watch it. Don Cleary from the National Canine Research Council does an amazing job on the panel, btw. Lynn, on the other hand, should show her face more often because she comes off about as likeable as a kidney stone. To those unfamiliar with Collen Lynn, she’s called for an eradication of Pit Bulls and supports their ban and killing anywhere (and in any way) that it’s suggested.
But anyways, here is the point: Colleen Lynn (like the rest of anti-Pit Bull hatemongers infamous on the internet) is now shifting her attention towards MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER OF PIT BULLS. This is what I’ve been trying to point out for some time now, see here & here & here. Breed or type-specific mandatory spay and neuter laws are being proposed all over the place as a counter to bans, because it poses to do a good thing and still aims to seek the same objective as a ban would: breed or type elimination. Many cities, like those in California for instance, cannot get away with banning entire types of dogs because it is against state law. So they’ll settle for a breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter law as the 2nd best option to achieving the ban. It’s also easier to push to a gullible public because it purports to do a good thing, like spaying and neutering, while the true and much darker agendas can attempt to be suppressed. Well, that’s not going to happen because I can see through it and so can many of you.
Much of this is happening because politicians, disengaged from the actual issues and not trying to genuinely become involved, look for easy answers and quick fixes. People like Colleen Lynn are now attempting to shift their entire tones in order to match these kinds of efforts. This is all very likely being done because most all people found their initial tactics and general statements about mass killing and vague eradication of dogs as extremely reprehensible. They’ve obviously noticed that the breed-specific forced sterilization talking points have gained far more traction and in response are acting accordingly. Still, vile persons like Lynn and Dawn James can’t help themselves and hate literally radiates off of almost everything that they say or type anyways. This point still needs made, because others are better at hiding their contempt. I will not link to either of their many websites because they are many of the most exploitatively nasty on the entire internet. But that’s what Google is for.
During the Pit Bull video panel you can see Colleen Lynn shift and attempt to constantly grandstand behind “overpopulation,” acting as if her concerns are loving and as if she’s doing it for the good of the dogs and all the rest of it. Anyone that knows her website knows that that’s a complete pile of you know what, and she’s being about as disingenuous as anyone ever has been. You will see her lose her cool when someone asks her if she’d kill all the Pit Bulls. She clearly tries to distance herself from that idea and gets really angry at the suggestion, yet the internet is full of her own ideologies that support exactly those things. Apparently we’re all “crazy.” Then she starts again, acting like she’s doing a “humane” thing for the dogs and attempts to shift the focus back to mandatory spaying and neutering of all Pit Bulls. You can see right through a fraud, and Lynn is a total fraud. She’s one of the most tyrannically backwards and nasty individuals that exist in the “animal community,” and her message (and others’) is shifting. Please take note of what’s been said here…
*So I’ve had tons of computer problems over the last month but am now glad to be back and able to update my website again!
This past Tuesday the Riverside County Board of Supervisors held a meeting to consider an ordinance that would mandate the sterilization of all (and only) Pit Bull-type dogs. Earth to everyone: This is Riverside County trying to ban Pit Bulls, but since that is disallowed in the state of California they are simply attempting to pass (BSL/BDL) and force mandatory spay and neuter for only Pit Bull-type dogs instead. That is what is going on. Take the disingenuous presentation and throw it out the window. The desire for a ban is the reality, they just know that they can’t achieve it so they are attempting to dress it up in response.
Pasadena tried to do exactly the same thing in October of last year, and the people showing up to speak out against it got the issue tabled and the breed/type specific language killed altogether. Councilman Steve Madison openly stated that his desire initially was to ban them, prior to realizing that he couldn’t. The same thing is now going on in Riverside County, don’t be fooled.
Let’s look at a Press-Enterprise article detailing what the objectives are. There’s numerous spots in this article alone where their own talking points get completely crossed up. For example…
Right off the bat they claim that the “breed threatens public safety.” Wow, way to be specific and un-Nazi like. Then there’s this doozy further down, showing that there’s already an appropriate law on the books and realistically no need for another one. Focus on enforcing the existing laws!
Right now, dogs in the county’s jurisdiction can be forced to be sterilized if they are running loose, aren’t vaccinated against rabies or for “violations of the basic tenants of pet ownership,” according to a county staff report.
Of the 3 “attacks” that they continuously cite, ignored characteristics remain the same. On January 17th the dogs involved were ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. On March 5th the dog involved was ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. And on February 8th it is pretty darn inconclusive what actually happened to the 91-year-old artist that was found dead with her son’s dogs in a hotel room (or how long she was dead, for that matter), yet the media claimed the dogs killed her, even while their own sources for the story claim that she could have died from natural causes. These sources go on to explain that it isn’t unusual to have animals repeatedly lick, scratch and even bite someone to try to awaken them if they are perceived by the animal to be in serious trouble. For instance, the woman who received the world’s first ever face transplant was allegedly “mauled” by her own Labrador, yet she claims that the dog was only trying to wake her up after she passed out from medication. What is the truth to either of those scenarios? I have no idea, but neither does the Riverside media. I’ve tried to followup on her autopsy results and they were not made available, yet none of that apparently matters because countless links existed immediately claiming that it was the dogs that killed her.
Here comes more demonization, justified by vague and unscientific “reports from the media.” No specifics, it just is.
The two-page report states Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets. The media is constantly reporting the incidents of human injury and death from attacks by this type of canine.”
Does the media want to come and cover my dogs? Nope, well behaved dogs are no interest to them. Does the media want to cover bites or “attacks” not involving dogs that they themselves deem to be Pit Bulls? Nope, these things are not newsworthy for them. So apparently any individual incident involving a dog that they deem to be a Pit Bull prompts them to be able to vaguely talk about all Pit Bulls as if they “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets.” That’s ignorant, and hardly helps their chances of adoption.
Pit Bulls also make up 20 percent of impounded dogs, and the breed has “historically very low redemption or adoption rates,” the report added.
The report that they keep citing was put together by Robert Miller, the Director of the Riverside County shelters. He’s the same guy that routinely keeps the majority of their impounded Pit Bulls in a separate building away from public view. This gives them no visibility and no chance at adoption, yet he cites “low adoption” statistics as the reason for this legislation. What a fraudster.
“Reducing the fertility of this segment of the dog population is the only effective way to mitigate the negative impacts on the county and its residents.”
Uh, no it’s not. That’s a crock of shit. How about a broad focus on education? How about providing truly low-cost services and engaging the community? How about dealing with bad and/or irresponsible owners? How about enforcing current laws, including leash laws and the one mentioned above? How about discouraging the vague demonization and the continuing perpetuation of discriminatory misinformation? Again, what a fraudster. And worse, they won’t even be able (or willing, just look at their past record) to truly enforce this crappy law, even if it’s passed. This is all just a shell game meant to pacify concerns and give a certain portion of the public a false sense of security. It’s a total failure and a fraud.
“This dog is very agile. It’s very strong. It has a very high prey drive and when it does damage, it does a lot of damage,” he said. “There’s just far too many of them flooding our shelters. They don’t get adopted. Many of them are getting euthanized.” The ordinance’s intent “is essentially to be on the front end of these problematic pet owners, specifically the owners of these Pit Bulls” who allow their dogs to roam free, unlicensed and unvaccinated, Welsh added.
^Where do you start with this nonsensical doubletalk? Again, more sensationalism; then he says that they are flooding the shelters; then he claims that they don’t get adopted; then he brings up euthanasia, almost as a way to sympathize with the Pit Bull’s plight, even though they are the ones choosing not to promote them (or even show them) and kill them at the shelters instead; then he claims that the ordinance is meant to deal with problematic owners, even though it’s not, and even though they continuously fail to charge theses problematic owners. History shows that. It’s all just such rubbish.
Then there’s this mashing of 2 totally different quotes, based and given around 2 totally separate issues, yet they are presented on pe.com as if 1 supports the other…
In an emailed statement, the ASPCA said it does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws. However, “based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation,” the statement read.
Everyone supports spaying and neutering. It’s a responsible action for a dog owner to take. It’s suggested by everyone. My own dogs are all sterilized, yet I can still write all of this. The point is that you shouldn’t mandate it as law, ever (it’s pointless, it doesn’t work, when low-cost options don’t exist many can’t afford it, it makes shelter intakes rise, and oh yeah, actual criminals don’t ever follow any law), and especially when only targeting a specific type of dog and dovetailing your ordinance with the utter demonization of that specific type of dog as a whole. And then the writer craftily throws the “overpopulation” quote in there at the end, as if that’s the county’s true agenda. Wait, what? This entire Press-Enterprise article, as well as the Animal Control report, as well as the meeting that took place on Tuesday, were all based around how “vicious” and “unsafe” Pit Bulls were. Read the documents and watch the entire meeting yourself…
^Near the end you will hear the county’s incompetent shelter head, Robert Miller, constantly double down on ridiculous claims of myth and sensationalism. He first asks everyone to close their eyes and to picture what a Pit Bull looks like, and then “estimates that everyone would come up with roughly the same image.” What a crazy comment, considering “Pit Bull” isn’t even a breed and that very few people could even properly pick a Pit Bull out of a lineup of dogs. He goes on to cite the woman that said “these dogs bite like sharks,” he claims that their jaws are different (scientific evidence proves this totally false), he claims that they can all “hang from ropes in a tree for upwards of an hour,” he claims that their biting force (pounds per square inch) is much greater than any other dog (again, scientific evidence proves this totally false and not even able to be properly tracked).
It’s as if they all just love getting up there and telling Paul Bunyon tales, exaggerating details and just openly acting like fools. One Supervisor claimed that his son’s Pit Bull “carried a huge log around like it was a toothpick.” Then Miller actually says that when he was growing up that “Dobermans were the killers out there,” and then in the 90’s that “Rottweilers were a problem.” Good God. Do these people ever speak in specifics? Or just in broad fairy tales and all-encompassing generalities? It’s disgusting and highly ignorant. Another Supervisor claims that “we see more often than not that they are used as attack dogs.” Huh??? What the hell is that guy talking about? Millions of Pit Bulls exist in the United States right this very minute, and 99.99999999999% of them have done nothing to warrant this type of ridiculous villainization. How does that Supervisor even get away with making such an asinine statement? It’s incredible.
Earlier than that, at around 35:14 in the video, Miller makes this statement: “Right now, in this county (Riverside), there are tens of thousands of Pit Bulls, unaltered Pit Bulls, intact Pit Bulls.” Oops! He just totally discredited his own points, as well as the other Supervisor that I just quoted in the prior paragraph. Let’s just take the simple number of 10,000. Do you know how many Pit Bulls that leaves that haven’t ever attacked anyone? They cited a few of these “attacks” in the article. Well, based on Miller’s own estimation that then leaves 99+% of Riverside’s Pit Bulls not fitting their own awful characterization. And the ones that do “fit,” well, they’ve been proven to have either been out and freely roaming or chained up and NOT members of someone’s family… Yet people aren’t the problem? Why are those things consistently never made issues of? Instead, a vast amount of dogs get utterly scapegoated. What a disgraceful sham.
So in closing, I’m obviously for spaying and neutering in general, my own dogs are all altered. But making laws, especially breed-specific laws, is not the answer. And breed-specific laws meant to target only Pit Bulls is done simply to attempt to eliminate them. This isn’t just a “yes” or “no” issue, there’s implications and depth to this issue. The people simply discarding all the details because they are “for” spay and neuter in the general sense are actually part of the problem here. I’d ask that you folks really look into this issue further.
This vote will take place at a future meeting. I’d request that every pittie-loving person consider coming out to the future meeting where they will actually be voting on (and probably passing) this legislation. It is important that, regardless of whether they end up voting for it or not, people do show up and give public comments on behalf of these dogs and based around the backwardness of always targeting types of dogs and the incompetence of local agencies to follow already existing laws. The meeting is not scheduled as of now, but please know that they are always during the work week and are held at 9am in the morning. Super inconvenient on all fronts. It will be located at 4080 Lemon St., Riverside, CA 92501. That all being said, I hope that some of you will keep it in mind so that when this ordinance does get a date for a vote that you can possibly work a half-day or something and be there to speak.
If you’d like to respectfully contact the Supervisors individually…
District 1, Kevin Jeffries: district1@rcbos.org | 951-955-1010
District 2, John Tavaglione: district2@rcbos.org | 951-955-1020
District 3, Jeff Stone: district3@rcbos.org | 951-955-1030
District 4, John Benoit: district4@rcbos.org | 951-955-1040
District 5, Marion Ashley: district5@rcbos.org | 951-955-1050
*In my estimation Kevin Jeffries seemed least likely to support this ordinance. His comments tended to stick to the Constitution and erred on the side of not trampling over people’s rights. That only leads me to believe that he’d also be one that would not stand for the demonization of entire groups of anything.
The city of Chicago is abuzz with unmitigated panic as select policy officials have recently come out in favor of a public ban on white women. Others, including white women who are actually policy official colleagues working out of the same building, reacted in horror. I spoke with one woman who was adamant about not being named and she wanted it printed that some of her politician coworkers were “f***ing lunatics.” This comes on the heels of the Valentine’s Day “attack” that left one unnamed boyfriend without half of his tongue after an attempt to squash an argument turned violent. The culprit? Elaine Cook, white woman.
Cook went so far as to disguise a makeup kiss as genuine affection, then, without any warning, unleashed a violent clamp down on this man’s tongue, severing it in half.
People on the street were quick to weigh in… Sally Braverman, a local teacher who was visibly shaken for her own safety said, “I’m of white decent and I’ve never hurt anyone.” “I live right down the street and Chicago has been my home now for 12 years. I have a son in the 11th grade. My husband works for a brokerage firm and we have a mortgage that we are in the middle of paying. What does this exactly mean for me?” I couldn’t immediately provide her with an answer. Gracie Stewart, 22 years of age and also white, was far more blunt… “I’ve tongue-slayed my boyfriend many times, never has it ended in a trip to the emergency room.” We had a quick laugh and in the spirit of full disclosure I did give her a high five. She was really cute and very friendly, but still white. Apparently she’s got to go? Hold on… Excuse me, I meant, apparently she’s got to go.
Responding to an inquiry from my website, policy official Billy Duncey quoted stats taken from the “more rational website,” WhiteWomenBite.org. “Over the last calendar year they’ve charted 9 different instances of violent acts against other human beings that are being perpetrated by these vicious white women,” said Duncey. “2 of which have happened right here in our home state of Illinois. What other alternative do we have?” I immediately replied that there are lots of alternatives, hundreds even, and that people should be treated as individuals instead of vaguely grouped and then blanketly labeled “monsters.” I also pointed out that 99+% of the white women residing in Chicago are upstanding citizens who do not have any record of violence. I’ve yet to get a response.
Here I am from yesterday’s meeting speaking specifically to Steve Madison of the Pasadena Public Safety Committee. Madison desires to ban Pit Bulls in the city, and since that’s illegal, wants to enact a breed-discriminatory spay & neuter law that will serve to target them as his next best option. He was dismissive and arrogant, but the other members of the Committee thankfully heard all of the people that showed up. At the end of the video I’ve quoted some of Madison’s most egregious statements and then try to show how they align with actual reality. I was also told that Madison has future sights on running for Mayor of Pasadena…
UNTRUTHS from Steve Madison during the 11/19/2012 meeting…
I had some of my staff do some research as well, and we found some data from 2006-2008. I believe this comes from the American Humane Society. In those 3 calendar years there were 88 fatal dog attacks in the U.S., and that of those 88 Pit Bull-type dogs were responsible for 59 percent of the fatalities, or 52.
FALSE. This “data” that he pulled was from the sensationalistic website, DogsBite.org, NOT the American Humane Society.
That’s actually part of a trend where a number of states have been asked to adopt legislation prohibiting this quote on quote discrimination with breeds. And so, as you pointed out, everybody stopped paying attention to it because of this discrimination argument, which to me is insane.
FALSE. You can’t argue that dog profiling isn’t discriminatory in nature.
This whole debate started because I just got tired of reading articles where Pit Bulls killed kids. So we should first decide if there is a problem here, and I gotta tell ya, to me it looks like there is. And, I mean, we know the reasons why. Pit Bulls were bred over hundreds of years to be fighting dogs, they have the strongest jaw of all dogs.
FALSE and FALSE. Implying a Pit Bulls’ “dog-fighting” history translates into human aggression is totally bogus. Human aggression was specifically bred OUT of them, as to avoid a fighting dog biting its human handler. Secondly, in regards to “jaw power,” there is absolutely NO scientific data in existence that allows for meaningful comparisons of any breed. According to Dr. Brisbin of the University of Georgia: “All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data.”
Some states also ban Pit Bulls. So for example, I believe Florida has a ban on Pit Bulls, and it was like a race to the capital to get that ban.
FALSE. Florida does NOT have a ban on Pit Bulls.
They are inherently dangerous. I would argue that these dogs are just too dangerous. They kill too many people.
There is 4-6 million Pit Bulls in the United States. That is a low estimate. 99.999% of them never hurt a person. Furthermore: No single, neutered household pet Pit Bull has ever killed anyone.
The Pasadena Sun recently reported that the city is mulling over the idea of banning Pit Bulls. City Councilman Steve Madison, at a 10/1 meeting of the council’s Public Safety Committee, had this to say…
Time after time, a Pit Bull chews a kid to death somewhere, and I’m not going to let that happen in Pasadena. I would have no problem saying Pasadena’s a special place: If you want to live here, come, but don’t bring your Pit Bull.
The article then further points out that current California law prevents any city from banning any breed or “type” of dog, but notes a law in San Francisco that requires that all Pit Bulls be spayed or neutered. This is now apparently being discussed by Pasadena officials, as a way around Madison’s desire for a ban.
I sincerely hope that people do understand that any breed-specific legislation, whether an outright ban or an alienated mandatory spay/neuter proposal, should be opposed by any and everyone that truly cares about this type of dog. BSL is BSL. There’s no minimizing it or putting a happy face on it. Mandatory spaying and neutering of just Pit Bull-type dogs is obviously meant to eliminate them over a generation. That’s their cutesy way of getting around the law, while also saving face and posing to do a good service.
But ignore that for a moment, even if Madison already played his hand. You can’t seriously get away with proposing a mandatory sterilize law for a specific breed or type unless you 1) Claim that that breed or type has an “overpopulation” issue, or 2) Imply that that breed or type is dangerous and aggressive, and that the sterilization would then help in that regard. Well, it’s a given fact that a sterilized dog is by and large a less dominant dog. That goes for any breed or type of dog. But implying that Pit Bulls are more aggressive is just false. And implying that any “overpopulation” issue then justifies phasing them out is a flawed (and disturbing) way of thinking.
Let’s be serious for a second… They don’t want to honestly stop any so-called “overpopulation” problem, or they’d genuinely be attempting to address instead the inordinate amount of failure that lingers in almost every single shelter within this state. They’d genuinely be proposing instead some serious shelter reform that could be put into place and aimed at drastically lowering the amount of killing that is currently taking place in almost every shelter in California. They’d genuinely be asking more of shelter staff and the political bureaucrats (themselves) that have appointed aforementioned shelter staff (primarily the manager and the person above them). Because not only did they (in most cases) appoint them, but their inaction consistently protects the shelter higher-ups and allows them to continue dictating their ways, while they also continue to kill and pay no mind to alternative options of addressing the problem that the bureaucrats are now going to pretend to want to address. All this would involve lawmakers, in Pasadena and at any other level, stepping back and critically examining themselves and the people that they’ve appointed, the same people that continue to apply these obviously failing positions. Oh, and not to mention that their idea of wanting to “help” with the spaying and neutering is only mandated upon Pit Bulls and Pit Bulls only. Why then? Because if it was a genuine cry of “overpopulation” then it would be focused on ALL dogs, since dogs of every breed and type are discarded by the smaller, non-caring, irresponsible faction of our society. And if these attempts were in any way meant to not negatively stereotype Pit Bulls as aggressive and unworthy of living, then wouldn’t they want to direct their focus onto the owners of any dog that causes a legitimate problem? And then how do they plan to determine “what is” and “what isn’t” a Pit Bull? You can believe what you want, but I know disingenuousness when I see it. You should too.
Some will say, well, it’s “just” in Pasadena. Please realize that precedent is a dangerous thing. A bad idea gaining precedent, and then being repeatedly carried out, is far more dangerous than any dog. If Pasadena’s attempt to sterilize all Pit Bull-type dogs were to actually happen, and then let’s imagine it were to be repeated in city after city, or worse, statewide or federally… Well, that would mean that after 1 generation there would be no more Pit Bull-type dogs. I know that’s a big jump to make, to believe that a city ordinance would eventually be adopted nationwide, but this isn’t a game and shouldn’t be shrugged off or ignored. So now, let’s imagine that this idea wasn’t Pit Bull-specific, and instead was applied to every dog. I mean, I certainly know many people that continue to harp on “overpopulation” and what not, and continue to use that phrase to consistently excuse abhorrent shelter killing. So do y’all then support the mandatory spaying and neutering of ALL dogs? Because again, if effectively carried out, that would over 1 generation amount to no dogs. Is everyone okay with that? Because if you’re not then you either don’t understand, you’re a hypocrite or you’re bias against Pit Bull-type dogs.
In 2008 Los Angeles City passed a law requiring that ALL dogs and cats be spayed or neutered. They couldn’t get away with making it breed-specific, even though many people originally wanted it that way. But regarding the ordinance that was eventually agreed upon… It’s had pathetic results thus far and not a single person can deny it. Killing increased 30% within the first year alone. Intake and kill numbers rose again in year 2. They both dipped slightly in year 3 and then rose again in year 4. Why? Well, for one, a lot of people can’t afford the procedure. With very few low or no cost options available (L.A. closed many clinics years ago in a flurry of budget cuts) it becomes rather difficult for many people to even comply. This creates more surrenders into the shelter, as well as creates more confiscations from people who have now “broken” the new law. Allow me to also mention that prior to this law passing there was 8 straight years of decreasing kill numbers! So please ask yourself, are these laws actually helping, or are they simply empowering a system that ultimately impounds and kills more animals? After a review of the proposal L.A. City then waved the white flag and announced that they will now rely on “voluntary compliance.” What in the hell does that mean? Isn’t that what we had prior to the passing of the bogus law? So apparently they just swindled the taxpayer and made off with more funding for a failing animal control. A “mandatory” anything doesn’t ever attempt to rely on communication or education, which should in reality be the foundation of everything.
In closing, I resent and am truly offended by anyone that attempts to put a loving face on BSL. Mandatory spay/neuter for only Pit Bulls is BSL. Politicians can’t ban them here (at least not right now) so this is their disguised alternative. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric.
If you’d like to let your voices be heard then please consider going to StopBSL.org’s article, and at the bottom they provide many contact options.
Here’s some audio from when I called into Pit Bulletin Legal News to discuss how breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter laws are just another way to essentially ban a certain type of dog.
Chicago, one of the cities with the strictest and most evasive gun restrictions in the United States, just had 57 murders in the month of August… Just as shocking, more people have been killed by guns in Chicago thus far in 2012 than troops have been killed in Afghanistan over the same time period. For 28 years handguns were outright banned in the city altogether, until the end of 2010 when the measure was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And yes, crime was even higher then!
Since the outright ban was struck down by the high court, the city has remained vigilant in reworking the laws so that it is possible, but extremely expensive and difficult, to obtain a license. Even with the court’s decision, the fact remains that Chicago still has one of the toughest municipal gun laws in the country. This while Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has cut neighborhood targeted anti-violence programs by upwards of $9 million due to budget shortfalls. Yet, at the same time, he’s out grandstanding publicly for even stricter gun laws. So let me get this straight? They do away with the education proponent, do away with the support within the poorest of neighborhoods, while pounding their fists on the table in hopes that another law will be the cure?
What’s the lesson here? That actual criminals don’t stop using something just because it’s “banned.” That actual criminals don’t stop partaking in certain behaviors just because the sources for such behaviors are “banned.” This gun ban doesn’t affect a legitimate criminal. Let’s be honest. It actually serves to embolden them, now knowing that they’re far less likely to ever encounter an armed victim! The ban does affect some people however… It affects the law-abiding citizens who are no longer able to legally protect themselves from the criminals that will opt to carry a gun and murder you regardless.
Just like with the banning of alcohol, drugs, dogs… It serves to create a hyper-vacuum of criminality, a fear-based irrationalism, and an underground market of access, while those causing no harm to anyone are the ones who are consistently punished. First, by the insistence that they cannot “have” or “do” something on its face, but then by the system itself, as it uses the innocent happenings that will inevitably occur (someone having a firearm at home in order to protect their family, drinking a beer, smoking some pot, having a friendly dog of a certain breed or type) as examples and then throws the book at you for the warped publicity. Are the violent criminals ever targeted? Were the organized and bootlegging criminals ever targeted? Are the drug kingpins and pushers of narcotics into cities ever targeted? Are the dog fighters and animal abusers who exploit Pit Bulls and other types ever targeted? Rarely.
Unfortunately the focus is rarely on actions, or on the people who choose to partake in the actions that we’ve all deemed to be abhorrent. It’s far easier to just grandstand and ban things with a magic wand. Violate rights. Ignore root causes. Talk out of your ass. And while letting the real perpetrators of the crimes alone, to continue violating the now “new rules” that have been established, because after all, they don’t follow rules to begin with.
Lennox is a hero for dogs everywhere, especially the pitties and the like, and will forever serve as example #1 as to why BSL is trash and a despicable concept forced upon us by imbeciles who are racist and would rather scapegoat than do honorable and respectable work. I type this right now, hoping for a miracle, praying to God in heaven for a miracle, but also thanking him for creating Lennox, and for allowing his namesake to be reverberated across every city and every country on this planet. Yes, to many there are far more pressing issues. But this all comes back to a golden rule… People, animals, souls are to be judged as individuals, by the content of their character and their actions, and by nothing else. Lennox did nothing, and is a beautiful animal, and that will always be so. If useful idiots want to essentially martyr him in order to prove an empty point, or to be spiteful, or to fill a power-vacuum, or to cover something up, then so be it. God will bring him home, and they can never tarnish what Lennox is, what Lennox was. They are willingly and openly snuffing out innocence, and make no mistake about it, they are being seen by the world and these marks will matter some day. To Lennox: You be strong. You are the definition of strong and loving in the face of adversity, even as they lock you away and treat you as if you were a monster. You are absolutely a hero in my eyes, and you literally have millions of people who are following your plight and sending their love through the atmosphere. Even though you may not see or feel anything in the space that you are currently resigned to, it is unconditionally overflowing from all corners of this world. Your family misses you tremendously, loves you tremendously. You will see them again. If this despicable council takes your life, know that you gave it being the face of love, and exposing something that deserves to be defeated in every single location where it’s being unjustly carried out. It will be defeated. This bridge has the beautiful souls, like you, who will be there and ready to welcome you home. Say hi to Sway for me, she is amazing, just like you. Godspeed.
It’s been thoroughly pointed out how backwards, hypocritical, contradictory, and downright evil PETA’s stances are in regards to any and all things “Pit Bull.” I’ve been meaning to put my overall take on their asinine position out and into the public domain–but people don’t need to hear it from me, as there’s plenty already out there that covers their nonsense in detail. But now with Lennox’s imminent death coming down from the BCC, and the protests and public outcry going on on his behalf, it begs the novice question: Where’s PETA?
Well, here’s your answer…
Unfortunately PETA doesn’t care about Lennox, or any other Pit Bull-type dog for that matter. Their official stance is that ALL Pit Bull-type dogs should be phased out and killed. The reason? I honestly can’t make this type of stuff up, it’s far too Orwellian for any sane or rational person… They want to eliminate the breed/type in order to “save them from abuse,” and before that aforementioned abuse were to even potentially happen. You know, since ALL Pit Bull-type dogs are “abused” and all, and while ignoring the fact that millions are actually living in loving homes right now… So, not only do they want to brand all Pit Bulls as being “abused,” they then want to take the “abused” and kill them. There’s no desire by PETA to focus on who the actual abusers are… No. Why do/support all of that work when you can just scapegoat a vague type of dog, as well as the people who have and love them? Support BSL? They absolutely do. So how could they, in good conscience (or no conscience), come out in support of Lennox, when they, as an organization, support the very laws that got him impounded in the first place? Sorry, the truth hurts. They’d rather separate Pit Bulls from dogs, perpetuating the stereotypes and myths, and pose as their fake saviors by killing them all as an “act of mercy.” How loving of PETA. No, fuck PETA.
This is the equivalent of someone saying that all newborn children should be immediately put into state-run foster care because their actual parents “may” abuse them. This is the equivalent of an organization rounding up all of the newborn elephants on the Serengeti and killing them in order to “save them” from potential poaching. This is the equivalent of a group of power trippers using self-established numbers, like income (for example), and then establishing who is “fit” or “unfit” to do (insert activity here) as a “whole,” or as a “group,” or as a “class,” or as a “race.” Where I come from that’s what racism is. “Killing to save them”??? Besides being totally insane, this is DOUBLESPEAK in its grandest example. Talking to disguise, distort, reverse the meaning of words, so that it sounds pleasant or less horrific… Yes, this is how we go all over the world starting wars in the name of “peace.”
Peace IS NOT a bullet in the head.
Not to get too political, but doublespeak is all around us. In this field–the Pit Bull advocacy community–there is no bigger violator than PETA.
