Does this creature from DogsBite.org ever not opt to stoop lower and lower?

Yes ladies and gentlemen… Dogs from Boston apparently drive cars now. Lynn wants people to know: Pit Bulls are terrible drivers, yet still legal, so still able to drive these giant moving vehicles and put all of our lives at risk. We must put a stop to this practice immediately!

I mean, in all seriousness… This disingenuous propagandist is one of America’s “sources” on dog bites. LMAO. She has the world’s biggest vendetta against millions of dogs, dogs that she’d love to have sole discretion over determining their fate and then disappearing them from the planet. The tyrant who’d love to be known as queen-bee-visual-ID, memory-holing Pit Bulls since the day that society rolled over and gave into mindlessness. That’s her utopia. Keep dreaming.

Had the driver of the automobile been killed Lynn and her website would have chalked it up to being “mauled by a Pit Bull.” You think that’s a joke. It’s not.

There’s literally NOTHING in this story about the dog attacking anyone. The dog’s crime? Jumping on the driver’s lap. Why? Because the driver had it unrestrained. After the crash? It was understandably terrified and ran away. Yet Colleen Lynn feels it necessary to headline-lead with “Pit Bull causes fiery highway crash.” AND THIS IS WHO YOU GO TO FOR “UNBIAS” DOG BITE INFORMATION!? Jesus Christ. No mention of the dog being unrestrained, thus allowing it to climb into the driver’s lap, and thus hinting at individual irresponsibility. And when people come along that do want to mention this (like Debbie Bell below) they then spin it to make it seem like all Pit Bull owners purposely want to drive recklessly in an effort to kill people. There’s that all-encompassing characteristic that’s meant to demonize everyone broadly. It’s always there to make its presence felt.

The most popular comment on the thread is one that calls all Pit Bull owners “irresponsible” and “antisocial,” then goes further to say that the act of owning a Pit Bull is “confrontational” and “offensive” in and of itself. Awesome. Again, way to demonize millions of dogs and potentially millions of people. But see, that’s the only consistent marking for these positions, and from the people that would hold these positions up. They demonize in the broadest and vaguest ways possible. The proof is always in the pudding.

I believe that society will always come to shun such illegitimacy of thought. That’s my 2 cents, but I’m still going to be around to point it out anyways.

But here you go… Here’s hatemonger Debbie Bell and her wonderful logic in its full glory…

Here’s just a sampling…

See what 5 minutes of searching gets me? Copy and paste. Copy and paste. Copy and paste. As you can see, they’ve taken 1 paragraph from the actual definition of what a Bullmastiff is (the 1st one) and mixed it with another paragraph that’s just some asshole’s wildly false opinion (the 2nd one). For those unfamiliar, this is all in regards to this incident.

From the American Kennel Club…

The Bullmastiff’s known history in England begins around 1860, when they were developed to keep large estates and game preserves free of poachers. Gameskeepers needed a dog that could track quietly, cover short distances quickly and pin and hold poachers without mauling them. The foundation breeding was 60% Mastiff and 40% Bulldog; breeders were hoping to create a dog faster and more aggressive than the Mastiff, yet bigger than and not as ferocious as the Bulldog.

Key word: ENGLAND. As in… 60% English Mastiff and 40% English Bulldog. This is important to note because many of these folks just love to call American Bulldogs “Pit Bulls” as well. First, American Bulldogs were not used in the official makeup of a Bullmastiff. And second, even if you could argue that they were, American Bulldogs aren’t Pit Bulls.

Dear hatemonger,
A Bullmastiff is a Bullmastiff, not a Pit Bull. A Presa Canario is a Presa Canario, not a Pit Bull. A Dogo Argentino is a Dogo Argentino, not a Pit Bull. A South African Boerboel is a South African Boerboel, not a Pit Bull. An American Bulldog is an American Bulldog, not a Pit Bull.
Signed, Reality.

Oh, by the way… Each dog listed above weighs anywhere from 2x to upwards of 5x more than a Pit Bull.

Oh, by the way again… If you want to delve into “mixes” then every dog becomes a target. They all derived from the same place. You want to tie Pit Bulls, or what your lunatic minds visually muster up as “Pit Bulls,” to all convenient incidents? Guess where the Dogo Argentino came from? Many breeds, including the Great Dane. Guess where the Boxer came from? Many breeds, including the Old English Bulldog. Guess where the Labrador Retriever comes from? Numerous breeds, most notably the St. John’s water dog. What’s a Newfoundland? A St. John’s water dog bred with… Wait for it… A Mastiff. Damn, now the circle of bans has engulfed Great Danes, Boxers and Labradors? Shit. Of course, no one has anything to say about the fact that some human being left a 5-year-old child unsupervised with a 150-pound Bullmastiff! Instead, just focus on them breeds until your voice gives out!

My advice to all dog owners: Stick together. Also, if you own a dog that’s mixed with any of these breeds: Look out! Black-hearted zealots like Merritt Clifton and Colleen Lynn will basically, when convenient, call your dog a “Pit Bull” and then lobby for its execution. They are routinely seen referencing “Molosser” dogs in veiled language that implies they are all vicious.

This just in…

It’s now opposite day and the brilliant Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org has went out of her way to state that the child was killed by a “dog” and not a “Bullmastiff.” How fantastical! In addition, she enlightens us with her theory on why the dog must have been a “mix” (i.e. mixed with Pit Bull)… Ah, yes, because the “town was so small,” containing a trifecta of schools within 1 single magic school! How astute of her. Totally means that the dog wasn’t a Bullmastiff. Like I said, brilliance abounds.

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.

I was informed that a few days back PETA was over on Twitter promoting a new t-shirt, featuring the face of a dog that they openly want dead. Yet, their shirt gives no indication that their organization’s official stance is that all Pit Bull-type dogs be killed in order to “save them from abuse.” That’s right… PETA not only supports the shelter-killing of every dog coming through the doors that is deemed to be in any way a Pit Bull, they also support BSL (breed-specific legislation) and lobby on its behalf anywhere that it is attempted. Those are the facts.

So as they tweet about a $25 shirt that’s meant to promote the shelter adoption of the “underdog” (another phrase routinely aligned with Pit Bulls), while using the face of a Pit Bull to boot, their organization supports the ceasing and existing of Pit Bulls altogether, while openly lobbying for them to be banned and never adopted.

So again, while a great message, it totally misrepresents their own stance on the issues and exploits the plight of Pit Bulls everywhere for profit. Get familiar with who, and what, you actually support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

…According to Merritt Clifton.

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

…Again, according to Merritt Clifton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to those that actually know the difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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