Debra Boswell of Mississippi Animal Rescue League (MARL, a shelter) just recently opted to kill the 24 “rescued” Pit Bulls from a shoddy situation in Utica, rather than actually rescue them, and this decision was all admittedly based on the lies spread by Colleen Lynn and her anti-Pit Bull website, DogsBite.org.

^This, taken from a statement made by Boswell, clearly embraces the shit sandwich that hatemongers like Colleen Lynn have made a career out of serving. None of the dogs were assessed. Any attempts at any kind of rehabilitation apparently wasn’t considered. They just killed the dogs, and then put out their vaguely damaging diatribe that essentially leaves you wondering what is going to happen to any future Pit Bull-type dog that finds itself in her shelter, especially now after seeing her embrace the misinformation peddled by the likes of Lynn.

^And then there’s this gem, towards the end, that looks like PETA actually wrote it themselves. Debra, no, euthanasia isn’t a “kind” or a “good” death. Euthanasia means kill. Don’t fluff up language. You think that you “saved” the dogs by killing them? I think that you’re misinformed. You killed the dogs. They won’t “suffer again” because you killed them. They’re gone now, dead. That’s why they won’t have the potential to ever suffer again, nor will they have the potential to never suffer again and live and actually be happy with someone who loves them–because you took their lives and you killed them. And now you’re justifying your actions by parading around bullshit statistics from a website that was created solely for the purpose of demonizing any dog that remotely resembles a “Pit Bull.” That’s what you did.

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.

I’ll certainly keep you posted if I hear more…

Caisen Green, teenager, shoots a stray Pit Bull with a crossbow. This unprovoked act of violence ultimately kills the stray Pit Bull. Green then takes a photo of the dead dog, writes a bait-specific message in the caption and then posts the picture to Facebook. This is what hate looks like. Visual hate, right up there. And this pathetic kid is proud of it. People then get wind of this photograph. Picture goes viral. Shock and outrage ensues, and justifiably so. Some folks go off the handle, want to meet violence with violence. An eye for an eye is not condoned here, or by me, as that does nothing good ever. Tough guy kid then goes into hiding. And if things couldn’t get any more pathetically sad… A Facebook page entitled “Caisen Green Is An American Hero,” run by the klan (pun intended) of known Pit Bull haters, immediately springs up. What’s its purpose? To applaud his actions and worship a young psychopath. All decency and empathy out the window so long as it serves to prop up their hatemonger agenda. This is what hate looks like. Visual hate.

Now imagine if this was any other type of dog, or God forbid, another person that fits into a category known to be routinely stereotyped. With that, let’s play a little game of word replacement…

“For all you Chihuahua lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead dog.
“For all you Shepherd lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead dog.
“For all you Rottweiler lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead dog.
“For all you black lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead person.
“For all you Mexican lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead person.
“For all you Jew lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead person.
“For all you gay lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead person.
“For all you handicapped lovers out there. Here’s what happens when one shows up around my house.” Dead person.
Going even further… Now replace “black” with “n*****,” or “Mexican” with “spic,” or gay with “fag,” or “handicapped” with “retard.”

Which, if any, sound cool to you? I thought so. He certainly has a right to SAY whatever he wants, this is America. But be prepared for others to be disgusted with you, and be prepared for others to actually move to let the world know what you actually did, as in kill a stray dog with a crossbow in order to get online attention (and then have a group of known exploiters move to praise him). What he doesn’t have a right to do is torture something, or kill it for his pleasure. And beyond any legal context, and the cases that will ultimately be made either way, why would you ever want to do such a thing? Why do we, as people, actually do this type of crap? Aren’t we capable of better behavior? Godspeed to that poor dog.

*I apologize for the offensive nature of some of the words used in this piece, but they are paramount for illustrating a bigger point.

*To those already familiar with these types of people: Please read my commentary at the bottom, numerous worthy points are discussed…

^You may also notice that the “lady” (quotes will make sense later) that fired back at me actually has a Pit Bull-type dog as her icon. Hmm, I thought. So I clicked on her profile, surprise, I should have known…

There was also this…

And this, right out and on the front…

So wow, this post, which was meant for 1 purpose, is now going to take on 2 topics… The “locking jaw” stuff is pretty fleshed out in the first image. That stands on its own. What is highly disturbing though is that there are actually people out there like Debbie Bell who devote their entire energy towards disingenuously villainizing Pit Bulls. Some of the most vile and cruel blogs on the entire internet exist for this purpose alone. Many of the same people, under different aliases, run them. I’m not claiming Debbie is actually a fake person or profile, but you simply gotta look at the company she keeps and put it on the table…

As you can see with her enlarged profile image, “Harve Morgan” (aka H.P. Morgan) also makes an appearance in the comments. Just go ahead and Google “Harve Morgan, Pit Bull.” Click on any of the links and go directly to the “comments” section, he’ll be all over each without fail. There’s a small group of them, and they all have multiple fake profiles and basically “Catfish” the internet, supporting each other and looking for any incident supposedly involving a Pit Bull… When they find one the script is simple: Troll through the comments and spout their vague and disturbing garbage. They not only insert their own flawed (and all-encompassing, overtly cruel) talking points, but they purposely argue with Pit Bull owners, argue with Pit Bull supporters, deflect any and all questions, ignore points, repeat themselves, stereotype all people who have their own Pit Bulls as “gangbangers” or “criminals” (notice a trend?), refer to anyone not agreeing with them as “nutters,” and so on and so forth.

Now I acknowledge that there’s also people that a 3rd party could define as “Pit Bull supporters” that go onto these things and do many of the same things that I just detailed, irrationally pissing back and forth with a group of known irrational pissers. I grant you that. The difference is that they aren’t supporting the mass murder of an entire anything, nor are they stereotyping groups and moving to unjustly demonize them. What they are doing is not communicating well enough and letting their emotions get the best of them. That’s the difference.

What’s interesting though, and consider yourself warned, is that you can now see some of these Pit Bull-hating individuals actually abandoning their outright and nasty calls for total breed bans (i.e. “All Pit Bulls deserve to die because they are vicious killers”) and moving instead to the softer talking points that PETA actually uses… “Euthanasia for their own good,” “Mercy killings,” “They are victims too and we need to protect them by killing them,” “Let’s kill them all now so none potentially ever have to suffer later,” and so on and so forth. This type of language allows people to pose as compassionate while also wielding an ax and having the blood lust to repeatedly swing it. Both tones have the same goal: Ban and eliminate Pit Bulls. For example, PETA supports breed bans, they just doublespeak while pushing the ban.

And now, as you can see with Debbie above, she openly goes out of her way to state right there on the front of her profile: “Don’t ban the breed, but do ban their breeding.” Wow. Some people aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that these things are actually the same thing. If mandated effectively, one gets rid of all tomorrow and the other gets rid of all within a single life cycle. Same goal, different time frames. She then goes on to state that with discrimination-based mandatory sterilization laws all dogs will win, “especially the tortured Pit Bulls.” Ugh… By being culled and killed? They win? By being con-gamed into disappearing forever? They win?

Just know… To all of you folks that see all of the Pit Bulls in the shelters, see the abhorrent killing that routinely is initiated instead of life-saving programs that are proven to massively decrease killing, see the failures of the human element (neglect, abuse, exploitation) and would then actually move to talk yourself into a breed- or type-specific sterilization law in order to curb it: Just know that you would be aligning your position (albeit unbeknownst to you) with this anti-Pit Bull crowd, the ones that I’ve taken this opportunity to attempt to detail. Please ponder that. This is an essential message and everyone needs to hear it and understand it.

People from all corners of animal avocation may move to say that I “support breeders” then… How? My own dogs are spayed and neutered, Sway was, and it is a consistent recommendation that I make to others. If this is truly about mandating that dogs be sterilized, and that that’s the single answer to “overpopulation” (claimed by many), then bump the “breed-” or “type-specific” part of any proposed law. Make all dogs undergo a mandatory sterilization and we’ll see how happy people are when in 10 years dogs, as a whole, are extinct (PETA would actually love this, as their overall goal is to end the idea of having pets altogether). And when talking about this you must convey a nationwide or worldwide theme, and assume it would be carried out efficiently, even if the law or idea is only being proposed in random spots. As MLK said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That applies. You fight bans in one spot, even if you are unaffected in a far off and different spot. Critics will say that dogs will never be extinct, even if a mandatory spay/neuter law is put forth and flawlessly enforced in 90% of American cities. That isn’t the point, is it? Those critics are missing (or ignoring) the point!

So that’s simply an example meant to get people to think about this stuff. I don’t support a mandatory anything, because it routinely shows that more laws (poorly aimed, poorly enforced) discourage ownership and increase abandonment, which in this current sheltering culture increases killing. Los Angeles is a prime example. But to those people that do: At least be aware that disingenuous and disgusting Pit Bull-haters are moving to mask their message in an effort to blend in with your good intentions. Think on this.

My heart’s broken. Of the 58 dogs that I met at the Carson shelter on 12/14, here’s how things broke down: 5 non-pits were saved, 1 was killed. All 6 Pit Bull puppies (under 3 months) were saved. 3 PIT BULLS ARE STILL THERE AND ALIVE. Of the 43 (non-puppy) Pit Bulls that are no longer at the shelter: 2 were adopted, 1 was rescued, 3 were returned, 37 were killed. Again… Of the 43 Pit Bulls that were not visual infants and who are no longer at the facility, 37 WERE KILLED. That’s an 86% snapshot holiday kill-rate for the Carson adult dogs that were deemed to have Pit Bull in their mix. These murders and the blood running from them are on the hands of Gil Moreno, Aaron Reyes and Marcia Mayeda. It’s a total disgrace what happens here, and yet these individuals continue to retain their positions in the face of enormous and consistent failure. Can someone else please pay attention?

This past Tuesday I attended a Commission meeting at the East Valley shelter where Brenda Barnette (L.A. City General Manager), the Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners and the ASPCA, as well as many members of the public, turned out to debate the issue of temperament testing. Click here to read the agenda and any of the accompanying documents.

For over a decade the L.A. City portion of the sheltering system has “officially” banned the using of so-called temperament tests. This was probably done to seem as if they were avoiding condemning adoptable pets to death, as well as to avoid focusing on specific breeds and so on. Well, as many of the public speakers pointed out, just because something is “officially” not in use doesn’t mean it isn’t already in use. To think that L.A. City wasn’t already temperament testing would be foolish. They were, and they are. Point taken. My thing about going to this meeting was to speak to how giving temperament tests in a shelter environment is already an unfair and unreliable idea, as well as to speak out against how these tests are then in many cases used to routinely put scary labels onto dogs that will then serve to justify their death just days (or hours) later. This is every kill shelters magic trick. For example, L.A. County disgracefully condemns hundreds, if not thousands of Pit Bulls to death every year with this very tactic. And sure, L.A. City does too. After all, they are all kill shelters no matter what kind of advertising campaigns they roll out to state otherwise.

So the question becomes, do you trust the as-is staff to implement these programs and then to use them the way that they are being promoted? Because, on its face, SAFER seems like something that would be helpful. At least the ASPCA wants people to believe so. Well, my answer to that question is no. I don’t trust the majority of staff at any current high-kill shelter to use (or be allowed to use) this program for any other reason than to kill dogs, or to justify the killing that they are already doing. It’s kind of simple for me: Actions count. Not words, not fudged numbers, not new theories being implemented by the same status quo.

Lastly, the most confusing thing about this entire meeting to me was this… SAFER is an ASPCA program. The ASPCA opposes genuine No Kill (ala Nathan Winograd, No Kill Advocacy Center). Yet, L.A. City has this campaign called NKLA which makes the public believe that they are eventually going to somehow get to No Kill (ala Nathan Winograd), albeit by using philosophically opposite actions in comparison to the many things which have already been proven to work elsewhere (ala Nathan Winograd). Following? Because it’s quite the enigma. And this isn’t about the rescues and organizations that make up the “coalition,” this is about Best Friends, as they ultimately have the power and have made the choices regarding what to do and what not to do. Another conundrum is that you can’t even begin to have any sort of a worthwhile discussion about No Kill with someone (this goes for anyone inside or outside of the coalition) who hasn’t even read “Redemption,” it’s that eye-opening of a book. Not simply read a “review,” not heard from a person who actually heard from another person. But actually read the book… I personally have no problem with NKLA’s goals, or striving to lower your kill numbers (duh), or making any genuine attempt to do anything to better the current system of death and destruction. I support you, I support those things, fully. But don’t be disingenuous, don’t mislead, don’t doublespeak. You can’t condemn Nathan Winograd privately and try to discredit what the No Kill Advocacy Center stands for, and without even genuinely having a desire to embrace any of their suggestions, while at the same time giving the public the impression that you are also striving to become No Kill. It’s basically nonsense. And people that are doing that are not to be trusted, in my opinion of course…

This last opinion is bound to get me in hot water with many local acquaintances but I simply need to go with my gut on this one. It’s a very important topic to discuss, and yet I’ve noticed that everyone seems to just want to ignore it for the “betterment of the cause.” Well does it really better the cause if this thing fails due to lack of effort, vision, courage, openness, transparency, honesty, ingenuity? Does it really better the cause if this then unfairly serves to further discredit the actual real No Kill communities that are out making it happen? I could be wrong, we’ll see, but there’s just something fundamentally foul about the complete shunning of actual results and the paths to those results.

This is the type of stuff that you never want to hear. The good and optimistic side of you struggles with the notion that crap like this actually goes on, but alas, it does. This time at the Rancho Cucamonga shelter and at the behest of their fairly new director, Veronica Fincher…

I first came across this situation back in September when someone sent me a video of a dog named Rosalinda. This video is literally one of the saddest things that you will ever see and serves as a prime example of how the reality for some of these shelter dogs is simply devastating. The uploading of this video onto YouTube apparently really pissed some of the staff there off and since that time they have illegally terminated 4 of their best and most experienced volunteers. Those axed from their freely donated positions for simply speaking out include a “Grand Volunteer of the City” award winner and the former coordinator for their 2011 Pit Bull grant from Best Friends Animal Society. Not that the shelter staff needs reminding, because they absolutely know, but retaliation against volunteers is unconstitutional. I sincerely hope that those affected do indeed take the appropriate legal actions.

I’ve personally spoken to a few of those in the know and they want the public to know about what is going on here. About how the essential programs are being cut and phased out. About how the playgroups are being stopped. About how offered help from volunteers is being ignored. About how volunteers are no longer “allowed” to take pictures or video at the shelter. About how certain dogs are never seeing the adoption floor. About how certain dogs spend over 23+ hours a day in travel crates in the hallway. And about how labels are being used to justify killing and to create false adoption numbers. Please take note! And also look for much more information coming soon…

In the mean time, if you’d like to let the Rancho Cucamonga City Council hear your voices please email: council@cityofrc.us

Godspeed to Rosalinda, Luna, Pam and the many others…

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.

So apparently KTLA Morning News barred Shannon Keith’s friendly rescue Pit Bull, Franklyn, from coming onto their show yesterday morning for a segment promoting adoption. Even though it was cleared prior, once they arrived the producer insisted that Franklyn couldn’t come inside due to their “anti-Pit Bull policy.” Franklyn’s foster lived over an hour away and arrived early for the show. As the producer looked at Franklyn he was actually busy licking someone’s face. Shannon, who’s an attorney, then informed this person that that was against the law and they still wouldn’t change their stance. Nice. Not only that, but they then made them wait outside for 30 minutes in the freezing cold while the producers went inside to discuss this further amongst themselves. So kind. The producers still expected the other dogs to go on the air but were adamant that Franklyn could not. Ha. Shannon left, opting not to support a show that negatively discriminates.

Per Shannon’s Facebook page…

California Food & Ag code Section 31683 states, in relevant part: “Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no program regulating any dog shall be specific as to breed.”

Since Shannon posted publicly what actually occurred the KTLA Morning News Facebook page has been taken offline. Prior to taking their page down they had received thousands of complaints on their main wall. They first attempted to delete each Pit Bull-related comment, but have now just given up and pulled their page completely. It will likely be back very soon, once they deem enough time has passed that most people will have forgot. So the question should be asked: If they are so proud of their policy then why are they afraid of the general public actually finding out that this happened?

If you want to let them know how you feel in regards to their decision then please do so… You can still reach them on Twitter @KTLAMorningNews or you can email their producers directly at nancy.cruz@ktla.com, sarah.grooters@ktla.com. To send the Morning News program an email through their website, click here. The Morning News fax number is 323-460-5404. To reach KTLA’s main office call 323-460-5500. There’s also the option of leaving comments on their main station Facebook page. If they want to keep deleting everything instead of addressing it or admitting it then at least make them work at it. KTLA’s mailing address is 5800 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90028.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: To reach VP/General Manager (and Nancy & Sarah’s boss), Don Corsini, call 323-460-5555. Be both polite and professional. Let him know that his producers, Nancy Cruz and Sarah Grooters, were both unreasonable and discriminatory in nature by denying Franklyn’s participation in the adoption segment. Also ask him why KTLA has an official position that implies that Pit Bulls aren’t worthy of rescue or adoption. And finally, remind him that KTLA’s Facebook response of “deleting comments and blocking people” is an example of cowardly and unprofessional publicity management.

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.