Read this.

1) Look at the title: “Often no warning signs in Pit Bull attacks.” Completely untrue, as there are many signs that are often shown before ANY dog “attacks” anything. Did you see the signs? Do you know what to look for? Those are the appropriate questions, not just being uneducated about dog behavior and then claiming that there wasn’t any warning signs. Yet that’s the title they run with.

2) Notice how the title only says “Pit Bull,” yet the very first paragraph goes on to say that this “no warning signs” problem is something that actually affects all breeds and types. And I quote…

When it comes to dogs attacking people, whether it involves stocky pit bulls or fluffy poodles, there is one main thing fans and foes of the animals seem to agree on: Often there are no warning signs until it’s too late.

3) The San Francisco Chronicle claims that “fans and foes” of animals seem to agree on the notion that no warning signs are ever seen during animal attacks. Totally bogus and untrue. Beyond untrue.

4) Colleen Lynn from DogsBite.org has now taken the headline’s mention of Pit Bulls, and then the absurd paragraph claiming that fans and foes of all animals agree that there is very often no warning signs preempting a dog attack (from any breed), and spun that to say that “both sides agree” that there isn’t any warnings to “Pit Bull attacks.” You stay classy.

5) The next paragraph aims to talk about what cities across the country have done in response. It first mentions San Francisco, and their breed-specific legislation towards Pit Bulls. It then mentions Denver and Miami, and their outright ban on Pit Bulls. Yet there’s no mention or examples of the endless cities that have NO breed-specific legislation. There’s no mention or examples of the endless cities (and states, ex. Ohio) that have DONE AWAY WITH prior breed-specific legislation. There’s no mention or examples of the endless cities (and states, ex. Nevada, Connecticut) that have went the extra mile to pass legislation making sure that there isn’t future breed-specific legislation. Instead, the SF Chronicle’s paragraph simply implies that there’s a few different levels of breed-specific response that cities across the country are tripping over each other in order to put into place. Not quite.

6) The expert quotes are presented in a way that paints Pit Bulls as dogs who “snap.” This “expert” then talks about how Pit Bulls attack humans, and the “characteristic way” in which it’s done, even though human-aggression has repeatedly and purposefully been long ago bred out of Pit Bulls (as a top priority) by even the shadiest of characters (dog fighters). This person then says that it’s “poor policy to allow any child around a Pit Bull.” Such an awful and unfair statement. What he should of said was that it’s poor policy to allow any child to be left unsupervised (key word) around any dog, especially larger dogs. He does point out that the climbing on the dog’s back was unacceptable.

7) Further down Rebecca Katz, Director of the Animal Care and Control for both the City and County of San Francisco, states many obvious things that come with the institution of a breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter law. She states that they’ve “impounded 14 percent fewer Pit Bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer.” Well duh. Pit Bulls being impounded over time are going to likely drop to some degree, post-BSL, as law-abiding citizens will be obliged to follow the law, no matter how misguided it is. If the eventual goal is to end the creation of Pit Bulls (these laws’ goals), of course you will eventually come to see “less impounds.” But why haven’t they seen a complete stop to the impounding of Pit Bulls? Why only a 14% decline and not a 60 or 80% decline? Because certain people, including many blatant criminals, will continue breeding them (and fighting them, and chaining them, and allowing them to roam, etc.), as they don’t acknowledge “laws” in the first place. That goes for the good laws and the bad ones, both of which often go unenforced to boot. They also have no reason to change their ways, as these types of “laws” are always put together in order to publicly scapegoat the dogs instead of focusing on the human behavior that leads to any individual dog acting out in such a negative manner.

8) Katz then sites her dog bite numbers…

Another significant indicator, she said, is that there have been 28 pit bull bites reported in the past three years – and 1,229 bites by other breeds during the same period. In the three-year period before that, there were 45 pit bull bites and 907 incidents involving other breeds.

^Um, does anyone else notice how the dog bites coming “from other breeds” have actually risen? Yet this goes unmentioned as being problematic. The very next sentence uses the word “effective,” as these numbers are praised. Wow.

9) This article actually quotes Kory Nelson, Denver attorney and Pit Bull hatemonger, who is responsible for the murder of God only knows how many innocent dogs. He then goes on to say that since Denver’s outright ban there’s been no “Pit Bull attacks.” Well, if you’ve killed every single dog that (at your discretion) even remotely looks like a Pit Bull, then how can any dog that remotely looks like a Pit Bull ever “attack” anything? Worth noting is the propensity of anyone getting killed by a Pit Bull, or any dog for that matter, is already extremely low. How low? Like multiple times lower than being struck by lightning. That low. And further, that’s in our current climate, where the present laws all-to-often ignore (and thus, fail to curb) the many human elements that lead to an individual dog’s bad behavior. So there it is… Kory Nelson can take an issue that’s already EXTREMELY RARE, and then continually kill all of the dogs that his policy deems fitting of a certain physical description, and still get away with posing as if he’s heroically eliminated this imaginary threat. Really? What a disingenuous chump. This also pays no mind to the absolute unjust and immoral aspect of murdering thousands of innocent family pets and treating them as continued collateral damage.

This is like how if a walled-off group of people eliminated all African Americans from their community, then never had another “black” person caught robbing a community liquor store. Does that stop the robbing of these liquor stores as an act? No. It just virtually guarantees that the next robber won’t be black. You can’t just demand that all black people leave, and then kill them if they don’t, like Denver did in regards to Pit Bull-type dogs. That’s about as unethical of a response as anyone could ever imagine. What you can do is focus on the individual incidents, punish those persons responsible, and oh yeah, not be a racist.

10) Nelson actually gets away with claiming that he was “able to prove there’s a difference between Pit Bulls and other breeds of dogs that make Pit Bulls more dangerous.” False. Incredibly false and just a flat-out lie on every level. Yet it’s right there in this article for the populace to gobble up.

So in Union City a 6-year-old child is out in the yard, unsupervised, with an intact male dog that lives exclusively outside. If he had adults in the yard with him then they must have been not paying that much attention. According to police the child was attempting to ride the dog “like a horse,” climbing on its back. Supervision or no supervision, if a child gets away with doing that then the adult in question is highly irresponsible. Further, was the dog loose in the yard, or was it tied to something? If it was tied then that just adds another element to it, as uncomfortable dogs can either fight or flight. Tied dogs don’t have a “flight” option. Weirder still, as many in the media report it as a “mauling” where the dog essentially tore into the boy, the facts show that it was a single bite on the top of the head. The owner came outside and got the dog, and then later ended up going to work because he thought that his son was going to be okay after a routine hospital visit. From the family’s attorney…

Stern said the boy was coherent, conscious and talking “for hours” after being bitten, and everybody assumed he would be fine “after a couple of stitches.”

It sounds like a far more complicated happening then what most people are repeating. Irresponsibility and misfortune colliding.

This all, while millions of Pit Bulls exist in the country. Literally millions. Dogs who are owned and loved by people. Pit Bull-type dogs (and their owners) who are totally innocent and who shouldn’t have to be constantly dragged through the proverbial mud due to the irresponsibility and circumstance of some individual incident. Godspeed to little Nephi Selu. What happened to him was certainly a huge tragedy. But so is multiplying tragedy by targeting (through bans, through other breed-specific legislation, through demonization campaigns) the haul of all Pit Bull-described dogs in response.

A Bullmastiff kills a child in Arkansas, NBC News rolls out ^this photo caption. What in the shit? To contact the crappy staff writer who is responsible for this nonsense…

Email: alexjohnson@msnbc.com
Twitter: @MAlexJohnson
Facebook: facebook.com/MAlexJohnsonNBC

Here’s virtual hatemonger and Colleen Lynn minion Debbie Bell screaming about getting video or photographic evidence of a dog, in this case a Shar Pei accused of attacking a boy, in order to prove that it wasn’t a Pit Bull instead. Okay… So why then does that not go both ways? Why do we never get visual evidence that it’s a Pit Bull-type dog when it’s reported in the press as being a Pit Bull-type dog? Huh? So she refuses to believe the Shar Pei claim, pending evidence, but yet she repeatedly believes all Pit Bull-related claims, absent that same evidence. Nice.

Ms. Lynn from DogsBite.org was also caught prematurely posting this story, when she thought it was a Pit Bull, only to delete all traces of it once it no longer fit her template of exploitation. Frauds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my article, “In response to Littlerock dog attack,” I stated that my hope was that the dogs actually involved in the attack would then be DNA-tested for breed lineage, so that THAT could then be a public discussion for the media. We all know that the results would come back showing tons of different mixes, hodgepodges of different dog types that the media could no longer simply pin on “Pit Bulls.”

I want to expand on that statement, and explain it further… I didn’t make it because I hold DNA-testing in any lifted regard. We shouldn’t have to do that, and in a rational world not prone to witch hunts it wouldn’t even need to be an aspect of the debate, because there wouldn’t be such a sensationalistic reaction, thus ending the debate before it starts. I also understand that calling for a DNA-test takes the focus off of where it ultimately should be placed. Breed doesn’t matter. What matters is how the dogs were in the position to attack a person, and the circumstances that led to their behavior disintegrating to such a degree that they’d ever even consider doing so. I get all of that and I totally agree.

The reason that I suggested the DNA portion was so that it would inevitably bring dog owners of other breeds under the spotlight as well, and then maybe they would be moved to actually care about these typical and unjust responses, once their own dog’s type or breed would be targeted as well. Too many times this vague reporting just leaves owners of non-Pit Bull types not worrying about it, as pits will always be the scapegoats for everything.

So that’s why I said what I said… Because the majority of people need to be engaged in the discussion in order to come to the conclusion of what is the right response. The right response is focusing on the individual owners who are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their own dogs. My suggestion was merely for that reason. Not to prop up DNA as a legitimate practice, or to cast a wider net. It’s just that involving other dogs in the witch hunt serves to quicken the pace of exposing the media for being completely nonsensical, as it pisses off more people and opens their eyes to the issues at hand.

I’ll draw a comparison to ending war. You truly want to end these numerous wars that our country continuously finds ourselves involved in? Re-institute the draft. Why? Because then future war immediately touches every single family in the country. You’re no longer sending some shadowy kid that you’ll never know over to die for something that you’d much rather pay no attention to. You want people to be invested? Send their kids. War would end by that weekend.

Responsible dog owners of all breeds and types need to be there for each other, and for the dogs that we all love. Stick together or hang separate.

In light of what happened in Littlerock, California yesterday people should be focusing on the fact that yet again, these were ROAMING DOGS. That is the sign of negligent behavior from whomever owned them. If they were in fact feral dogs the point goes unchanged. They were ROAMING DOGS. They are being ID’d as Pit Bulls on the eye-witness account of 1 individual, from a car, when most Americans can’t even pick the Pit Bull out of a lineup of 20 dogs when the poster is 2 feet from their face. Whether 1 of the 4 or 5 were Pit Bulls, whether 3 or all were, it still doesn’t change the fact that they were ROAMING FREELY out in the desert and able to do whatever they wanted to. Then you add in pack mentality. That’s putting aside any back knowledge on how badly they were treated, or what their circumstances were prior. All of these points should be the primary points of concern.

I obviously feel horrible for the lady that was killed. That is a total tragedy, and my whole heart goes out to her friends and family. It is beyond depressing anytime tragedy strikes, in any manner. But there is always ways to prevent the vast majority of these incidents. That is self evident. This shouldn’t be guilt by association. My dogs shouldn’t have to suffer because the media is repeating “blood thirsty Pit Bulls” all over the television anymore than a Hispanic man should have to suffer because Ariel Castro decided to kidnap and rape 3 girls for 10 years in a Cleveland basement. Imagine if the TV, in response to finding these girls and exposing Castro, started implying that all Hispanic men were “sex-addicted rapists.” Is that okay? Hell no, it’s not.

8 dogs were seized from a house, not even sure if they had anything to do with this or not. Reports openly claim that the actual dogs saw at the scene of the crime ran freely back into the desert. How are authorities planning to properly identify the involved dogs? I guess that remains to be seen. What I’d like to see is to have every single identified dog DNA-tested (for breeds), and then have those results openly discussed on the television. This would unquestionably show that other breeds of dogs were involved, especially when arguing over DNA (another topic entirely), and it would serve to put other owners of other breeds under the spotlight. My hope would be that people would then quickly realize what kind of vague quackery we are dealing with here, especially after their dog breeds or types may be brought into questioning. Dog owners need to stick together and stand up for the millions and millions of dogs, of all breeds and types, that have never done a single thing to anyone or anything. Not pile on Pit Bulls in a general sense, either by outright racist diatribes or by silence. Both actions harm dogs. Silence is an inaction, which is an action by default. 1 makes you look like a dirtbag, the other makes you look like a not-to-be-bothered apathetic. Innocent individuals, be it dogs or people, always will deserve better than this.

*This is not written to villainize all “roaming dogs,” as we know that stray dogs exist all over the place and they should not be treated badly simply because they are strays or running loose. Far, far more times than not a roaming dog is simply minding its own business and essentially looking for someone to help it. But that doesn’t make the human element of all of this any less worthy of debate. I’m simply pointing out that this is a circumstance that potentially leads to violence. I’m simply pointing out that almost without fail, any “attack” that’s ever been chronicled is either involving a roaming or a chained dog(s). I’m simply pointing out that allowing your dog to run loose is against every leash law ever created, and is at its core an irresponsible behavior.

Michael Moore says, “If you are worried about your safety, get a dog.” This was said to a reporter asking about his stance on gun control. Sigh. Get a dog? Why? To perpetuate taught violence coming from “status” or “guard” dogs? With this stupid statement he’s basically advertising that people should get dogs and purposely make them vicious. And another point: Anyone breaking into your home, any criminal, and even the cops or the feds showing up at your house… They’ll just shoot your dog. With a gun. And kill it. So his argument against guns is not only to exploit dogs, but to pose like dogs will actually protect people from real threats, people that will STILL HAVE GUNS! What a joke.

Is it true that dogs might deter some petty criminals and just certain people in general? Yeah, probably. But dogs wouldn’t deter violent criminals, nor do they deter the cops or would they deter the feds. So if he wants to place dogs in the middle of a gun control debate then those are the scenarios that need the focus. It’s a stupid argument and one that not only aims to justify the use of “guard” dogs, but will also serve to create more idiots that are treating their dogs like shit. The last thing that dogs like Pit Bulls need, the media-made “monsters” of the present time, is to have more people flock to them in an effort to make them vicious or use them as anything other than a family pet. More important for the gun control debate, what Moore is conveniently leaving out is that those dogs (any breed or type) that he is promoting ownership of will quickly be killed by the same guns that he is constantly talking out against. So he’s blatantly attempting to fool the people into trading guns for dogs, knowing full well that the dogs would ultimately be mowed down instantly were anything to happen.

So as a dog-lover you should be appalled by this statement, and as a 2nd amendment supporter you should laugh out loud at his purposeful ignorance. There’s 2 ultimate points here, they couldn’t be more different. You don’t have to agree with both not to have a problem with either point on its own. You can email Michael Moore directly at MMFlint at AOL dot com and let him know what you think about his flippant exploitation of dogs in the face of such an important and turbulent issue.

If you’d like to take and submit your own picture (high resolution) of a kiss fest that you’re having with your own Pit Bull/mix (or with them kissing other people or other dogs) then I’d love to include it in a series of YouTube videos that will carry the text tag line on each image. Please send any pictures to: josh@swaylove.org and be sure to share this request with other friends!

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.

Kelly Ripa, from earlier today: “But the gangster’s dog is uh, I mean if it’s a gangster it would have to be a dangerous, uh, Pit Bull kind of dog, right?”

To view the album I was referring to in the post click HERE.
If you’d like to leave your own comment click HERE.