Last week I read a piece in the L.A. Times that really bothered me. It was entitled “Hounding a homeless man into giving up his dogs” and was written by Gale Holland. There were a few local animal rescuers quoted within the article (Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith) and their way of dealing with this situation was both ugly and embarrassing.

The article centered around Gerrick Miller, a man living on the street, and his dog Sugar, who had just had a litter of 10 puppies. Shortly after they were born a rescuer (Smith) began videotaping the puppies and prodding others to drop by and photograph Sugar. Los Angeles Animal Services then began receiving email blasts accusing Miller of “operating a puppy mill for profit.” That accusation is just patently ridiculous. Further, the “rescuers” demanded that the department confiscate Sugar and her 10 puppies. Brenda Barnette, head of LAAS, replied that the dogs could not just be seized without cause, which is absolutely correct.

Just think… Do we really need a group of self-righteous animal rescuers deciding who should be able to have dogs and who shouldn’t? How subjective and outrageously draconian would that process quickly become?

Meanwhile, Smith continued videotaping Miller and his dogs, as well as different interactions that he had with a bicycle officer. Her video was then sent to Pryor and used as evidence showing the city’s “inaction.” Mind you, there’s no evidence of the dogs being treated poorly or being abused, and there’s no evidence to show that Sugar didn’t absolutely love Mr. Miller. Regardless, Jennifer Pryor let it be known that she was outraged that Barnette didn’t cite Miller for “breeding without a permit” or for “breaking the city’s spay and neuter law.” Wait, you mean the law that isn’t even enforced across the board? Why should a homeless person be targeted by a law that no one else in the city is targeted with? Where in the hell is your empathy?

Here’s an idea… How about promoting the concept that the city start policing their own ranks before harassing the most vulnerable members of Los Angeles? For example: How many animal rescuers are blatantly violating the pet limit within the city, but then turning around and calling other people hoarders? Any? I know that this number isn’t zero. How many animal rescuers are publicly condemning the concept of breeding but then privately breeding toy dogs on the side for profit? Any? I know that this number isn’t zero. Shouldn’t the department be focusing on them foremost? If a law, any law, is going to be enforced then it damn well better be enforced equally and consistently. Meaning, it damn well better affect everyone and not just target certain classes or types of people. That way we can all have a stake in seeing if it’s a decent law or a terrible one, and then have an honest go at communicating about it.

Jennifer Pryor is quoted in Holland’s article as saying “the homeless have become a serious problem of abuse and contributing to pet overpopulation.” Shame on you, Jennifer Pryor. That is a total misrepresentation steeped in exaggeration and completely barren of specifics. Whitney Smith chimes in that “if people are struggling, homeless and have addictions, another responsibility is not appropriate,” and that “it’s very easy to give a sob story for homeless, but the endgame for the animals isn’t pretty.” One of them also claimed that “homeless people breed Pit Bulls to sell as fighting dogs.” Ugh, total nonsense.

Below is a man that my girlfriend met when she happened to be carrying 1 of my cameras in her car. He would usually be very near to where she would exit for work, and he absolutely cherished his dog.

Dianne gave him a new leash, and he gladly accepted it and used it immediately. As you can see in the top photograph, he was using a pretty large chain. Should he be demonized for having a chain? Absolutely not. Offer him something to use instead. Dianne was very touched by the connection that this man had with his dog, and he was so proud of his pet. I could cite many more interactions like this and my point is that you just have to treat people like you want to be treated…

Just last week we drove up to San Francisco and made multiple stays throughout Big Sur. It was here where we’d see a woman walking alongside Hwy. 1 with her recyclables attached to her bicycle and her 2 dogs (below). We had to see her about 5 different times in the span of a few days. On our way down we pulled off to talk with her and then met her again at the general store where she was pulled off to get cleaned up. She was making her way to Carmel because she had been offered a job on a farm. Her name was Lisa and she had a little scruffy dog named Sandy and a Pit Bull named Baby. They were both adorable and loved their momma very much.

Anybody advocating to take these dogs from their people are authoritarian monsters who should be a million miles away from crafting any kind of policy.

Is there a homeless person out there somewhere in America that is being abusive or sending a dog to a dog fighter? I don’t know, I’m sure there might be. But does that represent 99+% of the people living on the streets with pets? Hell no! So instead of all of that bad energy, where’s the offered resources? Where’s the helping hand? Homeless people are people without a home, but they are still people. How about you give them something else to remember you by other than condemnation and judgment?

Also, when does the collective blaming stop? People do it to different breeds of dogs all the time. People do it to low-income communities all the time. People do it to folks out living on the street and right here is a grand example of it. And these are all just issues linked to a dog issue. Sadly, my fear is that in reading the condescending statements from Pryor and Smith, many uninvolved readers might now move to typecast all “animal rescuers” or “activists” as control freaks or bullies towards the poor. See the perpetuated cycle when people group-blame? It promotes and greases the skids for further group-blame. Obviously they should stop the selective enforcement and move whatever mountain to end that load of hypocrisy. But until that environment manifests itself homeless folks should be the last people Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith should be out targeting. Yet they are always the first because they are the easiest to target and least likely to have any recourse to defend themselves. Most importantly of all, the vast majority of these people very deeply love their pets. That love is being reciprocated. So many of these pets were homeless themselves prior to striking up a bond with whatever person. In comparison to you, think about how much more time and attention goes into keeping a pet with you 24/7. To downplay these connections, to look down upon this reality, to take away this possibility is just utterly outrageous and offensive.

Thankfully the article does include a few voices of reason. First, from Genevieve Frederick from Pets of the Homeless…

A quarter of the nation’s 600,000 homeless people keep pets. Shunned by many, ignored by most, homeless people live lives of piercing loneliness. These pets provide them with something they need to feel human: unconditional love, loyalty.

And then from Claudia Perez, a skid row rescuer…

The problem is they stereotype all homeless people. Gerrick loved his dogs.

Notice how in Holland’s article it’s revealed that Perez is actually the person that convinced Miller to relinquish the dogs. She told him that they’d all be fixed and vaccinated, and that the shelter would hold them as his. She drove him to the shelter to see how they were doing. None of that access is by coincidence, as he trusted Perez and that’s directly due to Perez NOT judging him or treating him like a 2nd class citizen. Jennifer Pryor and Wendy Smith act in the opposite ways, and make up the “they” that Perez is referring to in the above quote.

The article ends by stating that Gerrick Miller was oddly arrested a few days after surrendering his dogs and is now serving a 1 year sentence in a drug rehabilitation program. Sugar’s puppies will very likely be adopted or rescued. Sugar’s future is unknown but she is most likely still at a city shelter. If you happen to have her ID# please email it to me on Facebook.

It’s recently been brought to my attention that Riverside County is selectively enforcing their breed-specific sterilization law, which we all knew would happen but just didn’t have the hard evidence, and demanding outrageous amounts of money through fines without offering the free or low-cost resources that would allow many folks to complete the desired tasks. This, of course, is resulting in dogs being surrendered to (or being impounded by) animal control, who will then eventually end up dead.

The workings of this legislation also renders low-income people “in violation” of such a law, prior to giving them a truly free or low-cost option to take care of the problem before being in violation. So to cut to the chase, the passing of this legislation in Riverside County (followed by Riverside City) immediately made all of their relevant residents criminals in the eyes of this law. Then the uniforms come knocking (when selectively enforcing it) with this type of an insinuation, treating people as if they are egregious lawbreakers. That, instead of educating the community and giving them legitimate options that they can afford, coupled with the means to take advantage of such options, helps no one.

Let’s bust a myth right quick: When being given genuine access to these resources people do actually take advantage of them, and voluntarily. Check out this video from July where over 500 people showed up for 40 free spay and neuter spots. And where? In the Coachella Valley! Those telling you that folks aren’t taking or won’t take advantage of these resources are lying to you. Speaking of the Coachella Valley…

Pictured below is a citation for 2 “Pit Bulls” who weren’t licensed, vaccinated, sterilized or microchipped, and all at a cost of $100 per infraction, per dog, totaling a fine of $819. These violations are “correctable” if showing proof of corrections within 20 days of the citation.

This one is for 2 Pugs, a Boxer and a Cocker Spaniel who weren’t licensed, vaccinated, sterilized or microchipped, and all at a cost of $100 per infraction, per dog, totaling a fine of $1,619. These violations are “correctable” if showing proof of corrections within 20 days of the citation.

And this one is for a Chihuahua and 2 “small” white/black dogs who weren’t licensed, vaccinated, sterilized or microchipped, and all at a cost of $100 per infraction, per dog, totaling a fine of $1,219. Again, these violations are “correctable” if showing proof of corrections within 20 days of the citation.

Putting aside the fact that these citations amount to extortion, did anyone else notice how none of them were in Spanish? I visited the Riverside County Department of Animal Services website, which you have to use in order to even attempt to comply, and there’s no Spanish option or translation component available online. The entire website is in English. This is all preposterous, considering many of those being cited have Spanish-speaking head of households! To be more specific, each of the citations pictured above were written by Riverside County’s animal control, to residents of the city of Indio. This city just so happens to be around 70% Hispanic, and many of these folks live in poverty. Yet no Spanish option? Really?

Making matters worse, it’s alleged by someone in contact with myself that since Indio closed its shelter in August of 2013, the City Council has “jumped into a contract with Riverside County without being fully aware of the terms and provisions of the contract.” This has obviously caused confusion with Indio’s residents, as the majority don’t even know that the shelter is closed. The city simply padlocked the building… With that, they posted no closing sign, left no notifications, and they posted no referral information for those showing up at any given time, some of which may have been trying to comply. A concerned resident printed up a document and went and posted it on the outside of the location, but it was blown away by the wind within a few days. After 6 months the building was knocked down in January without a single posting being visible at the location. As far as the transference of laws/contracts is concerned (more below), if their own City Council doesn’t know what they’ve found themselves in the midst of, how can the residents be expected to?

This, even as Indio is not an unincorporated city of Riverside County. It’s within my current understanding that Indio would need to pass either a mandatory sterilization law for all dogs or a breed-specific mandatory sterilization law before either could be enforced within the city. Yet Riverside County is treating Indio residents as if both already exist. Along with that, Indio residents are now being forced to pay double what every other city in the Coachella Valley apparently pays when it comes to licensing fees.

As you can see, 2 of the 3 citations that were sent to me included dogs who aren’t even listed as being Pit Bulls. Regarding the 1 that does list them as Pit Bulls: Even before enforcing a Riverside County-duplicated breed-specific law that the county passed in October, the city of Indio would have to separately vote such a piece of legislation into law first. They are an incorporated city of Riverside County, just as Lake Elsinore and Jurupa Valley are, cities that have both recently declined approving such a law. Well, guess what? Indio actually declined moving forth with such a law on 4/2/2014. So why in the hell is Riverside County enforcing a law that doesn’t even exist in this city? Dogs are being confiscated and killed, and these laws don’t even exist in Indio!

This is all apparently due to a shadowy alignment of animal ordinances, where Indio voted to take on Riverside County’s laws back on 6/19/2013.

Sadly, attorney Marla Tauscher also informed me that in actuality Riverside County has had a mandatory sterilization law for all dogs in place since 2009. Had I known this back in October it would have been the first thing out of my mouth when giving my public comment in opposition to the Riverside County Board of Supervisor’s desiring to target Pit Bulls with the same law. Trust me, I researched their code but must have only found outdated policies online. Sure enough, Section 6.08.120 of their current county code states that “no person may own, keep, or harbor an unaltered and unspayed dog or cat in violation of this section.” So not only was their breed-neutral dangerous dog law not being enforced, but this all-dog spay/neuter mandate was already in existence prior to their October vote on breed-specific spay/neuter.

These developments bring up many questions… With that law already on the books in Riverside County (for close to 5 years), what was the need for a breed-specific mandatory sterilization law? Pit Bulls are dogs, they would obviously fall under the already existing language. Why did shelter director Robert Miller and head veterinarian Allan Drusys both fail to mention this to the Board of Supervisors, both in their presentation on that day and in their public/private communications leading up to that day? Why did the Board of Supervisors not know, or fail to mention the existence of this all-dog law? If a mandatory sterilization law for all dogs went unenforced and/or did not result in the publicly stated responsibility-aligned outcomes that they desired then and desire now, how will the breed-specific law not have the same outcome?

And now questions relevant to Indio… How have they just retroactively adopted all of Riverside County’s animal codes when they are instead an incorporated city unto themselves? Is that legal, and especially without specific votes on such individual matters (and the opportunity for the public to debate them)? If the mass ordinance transference took place in June, but then Riverside County voted BSL into law in October, does that mean Indio now has BSL? And if so, why did the City Council then bring it up for a vote (which was canned) in April of 2014? Hmm… It was actually canned when a member of the public, while giving a comment prior to the Council’s deliberation, informed them that they already had a mandatory sterilization law for all dogs, the ordinance that was apparently adopted in June from the transference with Riverside County. The City Council literally had no idea. They have no idea what they are doing! So how is the public being informed on any of this? They aren’t.

We all deserve answers to every question that was just asked!

More broadly (relevant to both Indio and Riverside County), the majority of people now receiving these citations from Riverside County’s animal control are low-income folks, senior citizens, and homeless people. In a sarcastic twist, gated communities are not being targeted by such practices. Most affected residents are being intimidated by the threatened infractions and do not even have the means to access the website, know the requirements, or have transportation to the Coachella shelter in Thousand Palms. These people are being left with “green tags with yellow citations” that are placed on doors when there are dogs on the property. Most citations are “left without any contact with the pet owners” because animal control’s hours are the same as when most people are working. As you can also see on the citations, they are threatened with being taken to collections for non-payment of the fines as well as being reported to the tax board and/or the DMV. And again, it’s all strictly in English when many of them speak Spanish.

Going further…

Residents have complained that animal control is looking over their fences and banging on their windows and doors. Many Hispanics feel as if they are being racially profiled by the county. People walking their dogs (on a leash) are being stopped and asked for proof of the dog’s license, and when the owner can’t provide it the dog gets confiscated.

^What?!?! Not cited, but taken. This is means for a legal battle if I’ve ever seen one, especially to those in the city of Indio, where these laws don’t even exist, or at best, have come into fruition under some questionable premise.

Watch this KMIR investigation, which further details all sorts of accusations being made against the tactics of Riverside County’s animal control. The worst, stating that an animal control officer said that they were coming back the next day to search a woman’s house room to room. Of course they’d have no warrant to do such a thing, yet is violating the 4th Amendment even a concern for this department?

Continuing…

The timeline once a citation has been issued is unfair and unjust. 20 days is not enough time to find a solution to the citation. You also can’t comply within 20 days because there’s no open appointments! It is very difficult to find a low-cost spay clinic, especially for the female dogs. Most of the residents being targeted are bringing home $1,000-$1,500 per month. Any excessive cost is a hardship on the family. The cost of spaying/neutering, microchipping and shots can run a resident up to $500. Many residents have multiple dogs, so 20 days places an extreme stress on the owner. Their options are to ‘dump’ their dogs. Numerous places in Indio are now hot spots for dumping, especially schools and parks. Many owners are relinquishing their pets to the county and are being told that for $50 they will try and adopt them out and for $25 they will kill them. After 4 days the animals being relinquished are killed.

Killing animals upon intake, at an owner’s request, or under any other similar scenario is a violation of the state Hayden Act. I doubt Riverside County cares, as no one is there to have access to their untransparent ways and follow it up with a consistently funded lawsuit.

So to wrap up, as far as I can tell they are being given these choices: 1) Take care of the citations in the allotted time, paying substantial amounts to do so, but which allows them to keep their pets. 2) Miss the deadline, which then forces them to have to pay the massive fines on the citation (plus daily impound fees if an animal was impounded), or they will ultimately lose their pets. 3) Relinquish their pets to Riverside County. But wait… There’s another kicker to all of this: You still have to pay the citation fines, even if you ditch your animal or relinquish it to the pound. Residents are unaware of this and are finding it out after the fact. A Riverside County official has compared this process to the process of a “speeding ticket.” This leads me to the act that some are doing (unbeknownst of what I just said) in an effort to avoid having to pay the citations…

Some owners will take (and have taken) the initiative to get rid of their dogs by other means. This story, also tied to Indio, details how Riverside’s legislation is leading to a further number of dogs left for dead in an area pegged by residents as “dead dog alley.”

Per NoPitBullBans.com…

It’s called ‘dead dog alley’ because dogs are dumped there by owners who, in this case, can no longer affort to keep their dogs thanks to Riverside County’s breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, and abandon them on the desolate dirt road where they frequently get run over.

With this, the Pet Rescue Center of Coachella recently put up signs and cameras to “prevent people from throwing their dogs over the wall.” Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit was “unavailable” for comment. That’s lovely, and convenient. This brings back October memories of Supervisor Jeff Stone saying that “if it’s an issue (cost) call our animal control office and we’ll find a way to get your dog spayed or neutered.” I bet Stone would be unavailable for comment on that as well. He will, however, always take a moment to malign all Pit Bulls in the media through his use of foolish and unsubstantiated rhetoric. A real gem of a man, with a treasure trove of character on any opposite day.

If you are a resident of Riverside County (both unincorporated and incorporated areas) then please consider coming to the community forum that has been arranged by the Animal Lovers of Coachella Valley. It will take place this coming Thursday (5/29, 6:00pm) at the Special Events Center of the Fantasy Springs Casino, located at 84-245 Indio Springs Pkwy., Indio, CA 92203.

Here’s the press release for the event, written by animal law attorney Marla Tauscher:

This email address recently emailed a UCLA law professor last week, coincidentally less than 24 hours after I spoke at her class, with an unsolicited pile of steaming anti-Pit Bull rubbish taken from a string of blogs created to lobby for bans on Pit Bulls and the extermination of dogs deemed to be Pit Bulls.

The email message comes being addressed from a “Humane World” and with a subject line of “The Annotated Cultural Bibliography of Pit Bulls.”

This professor certainly didn’t ask for the email, and no one publicized my speaking at her class, at all. What I did do was create a zip file entitled “UCLA” and put the link to the file onto my Twitter feed, with no explanation as to what it was, so that the students of the class could easily access different documents that I’d potentially be discussing. Hmm… What this leads me to believe is that both my website and social media pages are being staked out by someone with the intent of promoting BSL and demonizing innocent dogs.

After doing a Google search on “7canines@gmail.com” it also was shown to have been sending the same type of materials out to people involved with opposing Pasadena’s attempt at BSL. These emails were also not asked for and people were wondering how this sender even got their email addresses in the first place… Well, the Pasadena City Council publicizes the correspondence (both for and against) that they received to their ordinance. Whomever is behind this 7canines email must have went through and noted everyone speaking out against breed-specific legislation in this instance and collected their email addresses, with the future intent of sending them this canned email blast promoting both hate and fear against all Pit Bulls.

At the top of the body of their email it says this…

SRUV email alerts are currently mailed to over 3800 international humane and animal welfare professionals, scholars of animal law and human-animal studies, ethologists, bioethicists, veterinarians, and journalists with an interest in canines.

So yeah, this type of obsessive behavior is likely being forced upon God only knows who else, any number of people that whomever is doing the spamming would deem potentially influential to their anti-Pit Bull cause. It’s lame, but being a faceless fearmonger is all that these hateful people have left.

This writing would be my personal counter to such trollish behavior. The goal being that next time someone gets an unsolicited email from this email address, simply googling the address will bring up this article.

To whomever you are: Know the source of the misinformation that you receive from 7canines@gmail.com. Know that these persons are oftentimes faceless and not accountable to anyone or anything. Know that their agenda is one of lobbying for breed-discriminatory legislation, bans, and the extermination of any dog even remotely looking like a Pit Bull. Know that they advocate for a philosophy that deems millions of dogs “guilty” or “bad,” and simply based around the way that they look and nothing else. Know that they are actively promoting both hate and fear, appealing to the lowest common denominators of human thought. Finally, know that not even a single dog or human safety expert organization has come out saying that breed-specific legislation is effective. Know that all mainstream and professional animal welfare groups are totally against breed-specific legislation as well. You can click on each organization to read their own words as to why.

A few weeks ago I was standing in a doorway watching a woman cry for her dog. Her frail voice spoke about Pit Bulls and how they are “good dogs” and how “there’s nothing wrong with them.” Truer words have never been spoken. Between those 2 statements tears started rolling down her face, surely coming for her dog who now has an uncertain future. Her tears led to a few of mine as I listened to her from the side of the room. My girlfriend, who’s a tenant’s rights attorney trying to get her a reasonable accommodation, was holding her hand and trying to give her some hope for a better result. Hope in the midst of what is absolutely both physical and mental torment. Medication bottles surrounded her napping position. The dog was missing from the bed. Here’s why…

Susan is a middle-aged woman who is suffering from end-stage endometrial cancer. She is actively undergoing radiation treatment and she works in Pasadena. She has no remaining family, she has no kids. She does have a 12-year-old senior dog named Sadie who’s at some level probably mixed with Pit Bull, amongst other things.

4 months ago she lost her home due to foreclosure. She’d lived there for many years. She now lives in a trailer right outside of South Pasadena where she pays $1,000 a month to rent. On her lease she put that Sadie was a “mix.” This is certainly not a lie. The property manager didn’t show any interest in meeting Sadie. All was fine.

Well, 3 months after moving into the unit the property manager was onsite and saw Sadie laying out sunning in the enclosed yard. This person immediately began verbally accosting Susan and then filed paperwork demanding that the “unapproved Pit Bull” be gone or that Susan was going to be evicted. Nice. They were ready, and are still ready, to put a dying cancer patient on the street to die on the street.

So why do Pit Bulls and their mixes fill so many shelters? Why are so many considered “hard” to adopt out? This is one of the biggest reasons why!

Susan’s had Sadie for almost 12 years. She found her after she had been thrown out of a car on the 110 freeway. She loves this dog and Sadie is all that she has. To immediately try to remedy the situation Susan turned Sadie over to what she thought was a trusted colleague for rehoming. This man then immediately turned Sadie into the kill shelter behind Susan’s back. She got called when the shelter staff scanned for the microchip. This is how Susan found out.

Sadie’s still at the North Central pound and Susan’s now been in the hospital for almost 2 weeks. She’s dying, and she’s worrying, and she’s heartbroken. She’s missing her dog, she’s hoping her dog isn’t killed. Quite literally all that she wants is to see her dog, and when she’s gone, know that her dog is safe.

The point being that breed-targeting is able to be implemented philosophically in all kinds of different ways, and with or without legislation. This happens all over the place. This is not the fault of Pit Bulls. This doesn’t say anything about them, but rather about the individuals opting to implement such unjust and vague practices. But Pit Bulls and others looking like them are the scapegoats who routinely pay with their lives.

If you’d like to help Sadie then please do so. She is impounded in Los Angeles with an ID# of A1453500. You can reach the shelter by calling 213-485-5767. Remember, Sadie is a lovely senior dog who deserves nothing short of a fantastically loving home with a warm bed and a caring hand. The peace of mind that this genuine act of kindness would give Susan would also be beyond measure. Please help me share their story.

The anti-Pit Bull hate group DogsBite.org has recently put out a “call to action” in response to something meant to spread happiness and good will. Surprised? Me neither.

Founder Colleen Lynn wants everyone to go after the United Nations, not for anything that they’ve actually done politically, but for opting to put the smiling face of a Pit Bull-mix on 1 of their 6 stamps that are being created for the 2014 International Day of Happiness. What a crime! Not only will the dog be featured on 1 of the stamps, but that particular stamp was also chosen to be on the cover of the holiday’s promotional brochure… Choices which have caused dog-hating individuals such as Lynn to shit blocks of red ceramic material generally used for mortar construction.

They say this choice “offends” victims of dog mauling incidents and, get this, promotes dog fighting. How? Well, first it’s simply because any dog that even remotely looks like a Pit Bull was chosen. God forbid. Never mind the indisputable fact that millions upon millions of these dogs exist, and that they are all individuals, 99.9% of which have never harmed anyone. But further, apparently the DBO hate group has also taken issue with how the picture has been tinted blue and red, to go along with the dog’s white coat (um, American Pit Bull Terrier = United States = red, white and blue?). Colleen Lynn claims that the placement of the red represents a blood “stained chest” and that the glorification of the dog’s happy face represents the “very emblem of immoral cruelty,” an “obscene” choice.

Honestly, what kind of freak can see ^that image and think that it promotes dog fighting and killing? Colleen Lynn can! That’s who.

So in response Lynn has begun begging her followers to start emailing the UN obscene images of victims, as a way to vilify all dogs deemed, by her, to be Pit Bulls. Verifying what picture represents what doesn’t matter in the slightest, so long as it’s bloody and gruesome. Exploitative much? Incredible. Wait, weren’t we just talking about what was offensive and obscene? Yeah, that’s what I thought. This irony only registers with those who are rational. But okay.

Point is, they want the stamp stopped before it begins to circulate. They want to throw their fit, attempt to dumb everyone down, attempt to ignore public safety, attempt to evasively misrepresent millions of dogs, and attempt to relay their message of “non-obsceneness” by continuing to embrace the bottom of the barrel philosophy of being eternally obscene.

To counter this wicked effort, please contact these same individuals from the UN and let them know how much you appreciate the beautiful choice:

unpanyinquiries@un.org, katzr@un.org, postmaster@paho.org, linnl@paho.org, eberwind@paho.org, maysonia@paho.org

This is the sweetie cake of a dog, her name is Macy. She was a shelter dog that was deemed “not appropriate for adoption” at a kill pound in California. This oftentimes happens to dogs simply because of how they look, or their breed, and having nothing at all to do with their actual temperament.

Macy was thankfully rescued, fostered, and then ultimately adopted by the same person that decided to foster her. Now she happily lives out her life as a lap dog. It’s a great story.

From Macy’s adopter:

I had never considered myself a Pit Bull person, and if I were honest, they scared me a little. However, Macy completely blew my stereotypes and preconceptions out of the water. The thing Macy loves above all else is human interaction and attention. The main takeaway is, please everyone, just give them a chance — pitties and other shelter dogs alike. That’s really all they need.

The inclusion of a rescued shelter dog, Pit Bull or not, to represent a day promoting happiness is a huge honor that is absolutely deserved.

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.

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