When we tell you about dogs coming home everyone rejoices. We have pictures of happy dogs, great footage of reunions sometimes. Happy dogs and happy owners. It’s just great. But now I want to tell you a different story of one dog and her owner.
Roxy and her owner found each other a few months ago. Roxy was being beaten by her previous owners. David saw it and wouldn’t let it lie…and Roxy came to live with him. He took Roxy to the vet who promptly told him they couldn’t treat his dog as she was illegal and frankly scared the life out of her owner. As advised by the vet he called the police as he is a good law abiding person. The police came and took his dog….a ‘dangerous’ pit bull. By the time the vets and police had finished David was convinced his dog was actually nasty and would turn and so when asked, he signed her over to be destroyed.
But it all didn’t quite make sense to David and he came through to DDA Watch. We told David the truth and immediately sorted a revocation of his sign over with his consent. But it didn’t end there. David had a lot of pressure from many directions to let Roxy die. He was stressed and worried, for himself, for his dog and for the public…what if we were wrong? The next blow came when he was told, through no fault his own or Roxy’s that Roxy would not be allowed back home to his current property.
So he had a dog whose life relied on him and now he couldn’t bring her home. With the support of DDA Watch he continued to fight. He refused to sign over. He went to court on his own without a solicitor and no legal aid. The court ordered Roxy to be exempted. Her life had been saved. David carried out all the exemption paperwork and Roxy was registered to him.
She was due to come home on Tuesday but had opened her spay wound so she was not returned until Wednesday.
David and two members of DDA Watch went to pick Roxy up.
But here’s the crunch.
At this moment in time, Roxy cannot go back home to David. She is currently staying with DDA Watch while she receives vet treatment and her future is secured. David had to pick her up yesterday knowing he could not take her home. He couldn’t even play with her due to her being so poorly. He picked up the dog he adores, whose life he saved. A dog who was taken from him a few months ago. He picked her up and then watched as she was taken away from him again.
It’s not all happy endings. It’s not all straightforward. Sometimes, it will simply break your heart.
Roxy has been deemed a “pit bull type” (commonly referred to in the press as a “dangerous” pit bull) and her owner is a young male (commonly referred to in the press as thugs and hoodies.) David, I know you’re reading this. I cannot begin to tell you how proud of you everyone at DDA Watch is. Never question the power you hold in your hands. You, literally, are a life saver.
This is David and this is Roxy and this is how to say hello…and goodbye.
Ken discussing the many ills of breed-specific legislation (BSL).
Ken talking about two unfortunate incidents, Hurricane Katrina and the Michael Vick situation, that ironically led to many new people coming to see Pit Bulls in a different light.
Ken talking about Uba, the former Michael Vick dog who was one of the more prominent faces of the Virginia dog fighting raid. She was commonly misrepresented by the media but is now happily living in her forever home.
Talking about Colleen Lynn and her sensationalistic website DogsBite.org. This website is often sourced by news media, giving much of the audience the impression that it is actually a credible source of information. In reality it’s simply a mega-bias website meant to exploit dog attacks and house rhetoric that blames every living Pit Bull and all of their owners as a group for any mentioned “attack” that they want to run with.
Discussing the backwardness of PETA’s vendetta against Pit Bulls and the crazy actions of their figurehead, Ingrid Newkirk. The story he shares about the email exchange is hilarious!
So here’s what we all saw the minute this happened back in April…
^Not only was this saturating the internet, but also the television news coverage. Sadly, once this is out there the majority of the damage is already done. Just look at it.
Here’s an actual comment from the owner of the Golden Retriever… Way to generalize! You stay classy Tim Frawley.
No corrections from the many media outlets that reported that this incident involved Pit Bulls. No “followup” stories on the television or in the newspaper. Many existing online accounts of this incident continue sticking with the Pit Bull narrative, paying no mind to much else. But there you have it…
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.
The Carson shelter attends very few offsite adoption events per year. One of the ones that they do seem to partially attend is the annual Best Friends Super Adoption event at the La Brea Tar Pits. This event runs for 3 days, Carson usually attends for 1. This year it took place this past Friday through Sunday. As this blog title states, the Carson shelter routinely disallows any Pit Bull-type dog from attending any offsite adoption event that they attend. It’s clear discrimination and they hide behind technicalities and the general public’s unawareness to achieve this “policy.” This has been going on for at least as long as I’ve been visiting this shelter (over 2 years now), and very likely far longer.
To my surprise a very docile Pit Bull-mix who had already passed her temperament test with an “A” was all set to go to this event on Sunday. This dog was then magically marked as being “sick” on Saturday night and then conveniently left behind come Sunday morning. Knowing this, I visited the shelter on Sunday, not only to document how many of the big dogs were left behind but to also spend some time with the alleged sick dog. As you can clearly see, she was not sick…
I’ll just go ahead and claim that this was an excuse given in order to block this dog from attending while still giving certain volunteers the illusion that the shelter staff were willing to take her, had she only been healthy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
Now fast forward to the event, and how the shelter actually fared. Of course every single dog that they took was actually adopted or rescued. Further, this event specifically aims to have rescue partners from all over come together at the end to make sure that every dog that every attending shelter chooses to bring ends up being rescued. The Carson shelter knows how this event functions, as they’ve attended before. I bring that up because “worst case scenario” for the staff, they allow a few Pit Bull-type dogs to go and they don’t end up being adopted by the public… The adoption event’s rescue setup is always there as a backup. The shelter knows this. So if they view Pit Bulls as “difficult to adopt out” dogs that “take up too much cage space” and are “most routinely killed,” then why not take a few, knowing that they’d at worst be rescued? Logical enough, right? But put all of that aside…
The dog that was supposed to be going would have absolutely been adopted straight out, no need for a rescue. That would have happened had she been allowed to go. Should the shelter have considered a few more? Of course, and I can think of 3 easy adoptions right off of the top of my head that would have been givens to be adopted had they been brought…
Bella, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is happy and healthy and easily adoptable. She isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out. Really? You need to temperament test this dog?
Diamond, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. Again, she isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out.
Luna, a 11-month-old German Shepherd puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. You don’t think she would have been snatched up by one of the many thousands of people that make it a point to visit this huge event?
All 4 of these pictured dogs would have been adopted before Sunday came to a close. No need for rescue. I’m not advocating for these specific dogs taking another dog’s spot, just simply pointing out that 1) Any dog called a “Pit Bull” by staff cannot go, and 2) The Carson shelter could have attended more than 1 day and ultimately saved double or triple the amount of dogs that they did.
So the “sick” dog who got an “A” on her temperament test, and Bella, and Diamond, and Luna; they all still sit inside of the Carson shelter. They each could potentially be killed for space or for some other God forsaken reason. As do all of the big dogs, most of which went unmentioned here and are in some way mixed with “Pit Bull.” They sit, and they wait. And this shelter continues opting not to attend (or create themselves) other offsite opportunities. And the few that they do attend, they themselves ban the Pit Bulls from attending. And then they claim that they can’t ever adopt them out. Well, they can’t do anything when they haven’t put the effort into anything, and when they haven’t ceased at subtly (and blatantly) villainizing the dogs at every turn.
Here’s a video of all of the big dogs that were left behind on Sunday. The majority of which are Pit Bulls and would never be considered for offsite adoption event attendance due to current Carson shelter “policy.”
This was recorded back in February, but due to a pending issue with those involved I wasn’t able to post it online until now. During the first Rancho Cucamonga City Council meeting that I attended, back on 1/16/2013, there was a shelter employee that gave a public comment that was critical of the shelter director and supportive of the fired volunteers. Well, in a surprise to no one, that person was quickly put on administrative leave mere days after the City Council meeting. Kind of crazy? Yeah. He was then fired a week later. Retaliation? Coincidence? Where do the City Council members stand on this? Silence is a stance.
If you’d like to support “T.H.A.T. Group,” named jokingly because Veronica Fincher would constantly refer to her fired volunteers as “that group,” then please like their Facebook page and stay apprised of future City Council meetings.
Obviously today there was a horrible tragedy in Boston, Massachusetts involving numerous detonated bombs that went off during the yearly marathon. This killed people, injured countless others and was an all around cowardly act of terrorism from some section of the shadowy political stratosphere. What you see below was stated today by political commentator Erik Rush in response to news that a Saudi Arabian man was possibly arrested for this bombing. Now I have no idea if the Saudi guy had anything to do with this bomb, and even if he did, that isn’t even relevant in regards to the kind of flagrant comment that you will see below. And I’m personally not a Republican or a Democrat, so there is no partisanship going on on this website to blanketly target either side. I say all of this first because delving into national politics is so incredibly divisive and ultimately there are huge distractions around every corner. The goal is to avoid having the focus shift from this simple point in any way. All of that now aside, the below picture and the response by Mr. Rush is deadly relevant when talking about BSL/BDL and the kinds of vague and all-encompassing responses that Pit Bulls seem to garner from blatant hatemongers calling for their eradication by any means necessary…
^That’s 1.6 billion people that Mr. Rush is promoting that we kill in response to what happened at the Boston Marathon today. This kind of a response is no different than what Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org has routinely stated in regards to Pit Bulls. Take any name (or fake name) solely known for this kind of sensationalistic demonization… The responses are plentiful and always the same: “Let’s kill all of the “Pit Bulls.” “Let’s get rid of them all.” “The only good Pit Bull is a dead Pit Bull.” “Let’s euthanize the Pit Bulls and their owners, too.” It goes on and on and on. Ugliness. Here it is. This is what it looks like in another realm. There is absolutely no difference between what Erik Rush said here in regard to Muslims, and what Colleen Lynn or Dawn James have consistently said about Pit Bulls. None. It’s vague hate, that is all.
I’ve been randomly talking about this very thing for most of 2013. It’s something that I’ve noticed and continue to notice. And it’s showed through yet again while watching Colleen Lynn (founder of the anti-Pit Bull website, DogsBite.org) on The Huffington Post’s video panel that they put together last week to discuss Pit Bulls. If you haven’t seen this video, please go there and watch it. Don Cleary from the National Canine Research Council does an amazing job on the panel, btw. Lynn, on the other hand, should show her face more often because she comes off about as likeable as a kidney stone. To those unfamiliar with Collen Lynn, she’s called for an eradication of Pit Bulls and supports their ban and killing anywhere (and in any way) that it’s suggested.
But anyways, here is the point: Colleen Lynn (like the rest of anti-Pit Bull hatemongers infamous on the internet) is now shifting her attention towards MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER OF PIT BULLS. This is what I’ve been trying to point out for some time now, see here & here & here. Breed or type-specific mandatory spay and neuter laws are being proposed all over the place as a counter to bans, because it poses to do a good thing and still aims to seek the same objective as a ban would: breed or type elimination. Many cities, like those in California for instance, cannot get away with banning entire types of dogs because it is against state law. So they’ll settle for a breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter law as the 2nd best option to achieving the ban. It’s also easier to push to a gullible public because it purports to do a good thing, like spaying and neutering, while the true and much darker agendas can attempt to be suppressed. Well, that’s not going to happen because I can see through it and so can many of you.
Much of this is happening because politicians, disengaged from the actual issues and not trying to genuinely become involved, look for easy answers and quick fixes. People like Colleen Lynn are now attempting to shift their entire tones in order to match these kinds of efforts. This is all very likely being done because most all people found their initial tactics and general statements about mass killing and vague eradication of dogs as extremely reprehensible. They’ve obviously noticed that the breed-specific forced sterilization talking points have gained far more traction and in response are acting accordingly. Still, vile persons like Lynn and Dawn James can’t help themselves and hate literally radiates off of almost everything that they say or type anyways. This point still needs made, because others are better at hiding their contempt. I will not link to either of their many websites because they are many of the most exploitatively nasty on the entire internet. But that’s what Google is for.
During the Pit Bull video panel you can see Colleen Lynn shift and attempt to constantly grandstand behind “overpopulation,” acting as if her concerns are loving and as if she’s doing it for the good of the dogs and all the rest of it. Anyone that knows her website knows that that’s a complete pile of you know what, and she’s being about as disingenuous as anyone ever has been. You will see her lose her cool when someone asks her if she’d kill all the Pit Bulls. She clearly tries to distance herself from that idea and gets really angry at the suggestion, yet the internet is full of her own ideologies that support exactly those things. Apparently we’re all “crazy.” Then she starts again, acting like she’s doing a “humane” thing for the dogs and attempts to shift the focus back to mandatory spaying and neutering of all Pit Bulls. You can see right through a fraud, and Lynn is a total fraud. She’s one of the most tyrannically backwards and nasty individuals that exist in the “animal community,” and her message (and others’) is shifting. Please take note of what’s been said here…
*So I’ve had tons of computer problems over the last month but am now glad to be back and able to update my website again!
This past Tuesday the Riverside County Board of Supervisors held a meeting to consider an ordinance that would mandate the sterilization of all (and only) Pit Bull-type dogs. Earth to everyone: This is Riverside County trying to ban Pit Bulls, but since that is disallowed in the state of California they are simply attempting to pass (BSL/BDL) and force mandatory spay and neuter for only Pit Bull-type dogs instead. That is what is going on. Take the disingenuous presentation and throw it out the window. The desire for a ban is the reality, they just know that they can’t achieve it so they are attempting to dress it up in response.
Pasadena tried to do exactly the same thing in October of last year, and the people showing up to speak out against it got the issue tabled and the breed/type specific language killed altogether. Councilman Steve Madison openly stated that his desire initially was to ban them, prior to realizing that he couldn’t. The same thing is now going on in Riverside County, don’t be fooled.
Let’s look at a Press-Enterprise article detailing what the objectives are. There’s numerous spots in this article alone where their own talking points get completely crossed up. For example…
Right off the bat they claim that the “breed threatens public safety.” Wow, way to be specific and un-Nazi like. Then there’s this doozy further down, showing that there’s already an appropriate law on the books and realistically no need for another one. Focus on enforcing the existing laws!
Right now, dogs in the county’s jurisdiction can be forced to be sterilized if they are running loose, aren’t vaccinated against rabies or for “violations of the basic tenants of pet ownership,” according to a county staff report.
Of the 3 “attacks” that they continuously cite, ignored characteristics remain the same. On January 17th the dogs involved were ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. On March 5th the dog involved was ROAMING OFF LEASH, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED. And on February 8th it is pretty darn inconclusive what actually happened to the 91-year-old artist that was found dead with her son’s dogs in a hotel room (or how long she was dead, for that matter), yet the media claimed the dogs killed her, even while their own sources for the story claim that she could have died from natural causes. These sources go on to explain that it isn’t unusual to have animals repeatedly lick, scratch and even bite someone to try to awaken them if they are perceived by the animal to be in serious trouble. For instance, the woman who received the world’s first ever face transplant was allegedly “mauled” by her own Labrador, yet she claims that the dog was only trying to wake her up after she passed out from medication. What is the truth to either of those scenarios? I have no idea, but neither does the Riverside media. I’ve tried to followup on her autopsy results and they were not made available, yet none of that apparently matters because countless links existed immediately claiming that it was the dogs that killed her.
Here comes more demonization, justified by vague and unscientific “reports from the media.” No specifics, it just is.
The two-page report states Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets. The media is constantly reporting the incidents of human injury and death from attacks by this type of canine.”
Does the media want to come and cover my dogs? Nope, well behaved dogs are no interest to them. Does the media want to cover bites or “attacks” not involving dogs that they themselves deem to be Pit Bulls? Nope, these things are not newsworthy for them. So apparently any individual incident involving a dog that they deem to be a Pit Bull prompts them to be able to vaguely talk about all Pit Bulls as if they “significantly impact the health and safety of Riverside residents and their pets.” That’s ignorant, and hardly helps their chances of adoption.
Pit Bulls also make up 20 percent of impounded dogs, and the breed has “historically very low redemption or adoption rates,” the report added.
The report that they keep citing was put together by Robert Miller, the Director of the Riverside County shelters. He’s the same guy that routinely keeps the majority of their impounded Pit Bulls in a separate building away from public view. This gives them no visibility and no chance at adoption, yet he cites “low adoption” statistics as the reason for this legislation. What a fraudster.
“Reducing the fertility of this segment of the dog population is the only effective way to mitigate the negative impacts on the county and its residents.”
Uh, no it’s not. That’s a crock of shit. How about a broad focus on education? How about providing truly low-cost services and engaging the community? How about dealing with bad and/or irresponsible owners? How about enforcing current laws, including leash laws and the one mentioned above? How about discouraging the vague demonization and the continuing perpetuation of discriminatory misinformation? Again, what a fraudster. And worse, they won’t even be able (or willing, just look at their past record) to truly enforce this crappy law, even if it’s passed. This is all just a shell game meant to pacify concerns and give a certain portion of the public a false sense of security. It’s a total failure and a fraud.
“This dog is very agile. It’s very strong. It has a very high prey drive and when it does damage, it does a lot of damage,” he said. “There’s just far too many of them flooding our shelters. They don’t get adopted. Many of them are getting euthanized.” The ordinance’s intent “is essentially to be on the front end of these problematic pet owners, specifically the owners of these Pit Bulls” who allow their dogs to roam free, unlicensed and unvaccinated, Welsh added.
^Where do you start with this nonsensical doubletalk? Again, more sensationalism; then he says that they are flooding the shelters; then he claims that they don’t get adopted; then he brings up euthanasia, almost as a way to sympathize with the Pit Bull’s plight, even though they are the ones choosing not to promote them (or even show them) and kill them at the shelters instead; then he claims that the ordinance is meant to deal with problematic owners, even though it’s not, and even though they continuously fail to charge theses problematic owners. History shows that. It’s all just such rubbish.
Then there’s this mashing of 2 totally different quotes, based and given around 2 totally separate issues, yet they are presented on pe.com as if 1 supports the other…
In an emailed statement, the ASPCA said it does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws. However, “based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation,” the statement read.
Everyone supports spaying and neutering. It’s a responsible action for a dog owner to take. It’s suggested by everyone. My own dogs are all sterilized, yet I can still write all of this. The point is that you shouldn’t mandate it as law, ever (it’s pointless, it doesn’t work, when low-cost options don’t exist many can’t afford it, it makes shelter intakes rise, and oh yeah, actual criminals don’t ever follow any law), and especially when only targeting a specific type of dog and dovetailing your ordinance with the utter demonization of that specific type of dog as a whole. And then the writer craftily throws the “overpopulation” quote in there at the end, as if that’s the county’s true agenda. Wait, what? This entire Press-Enterprise article, as well as the Animal Control report, as well as the meeting that took place on Tuesday, were all based around how “vicious” and “unsafe” Pit Bulls were. Read the documents and watch the entire meeting yourself…
^Near the end you will hear the county’s incompetent shelter head, Robert Miller, constantly double down on ridiculous claims of myth and sensationalism. He first asks everyone to close their eyes and to picture what a Pit Bull looks like, and then “estimates that everyone would come up with roughly the same image.” What a crazy comment, considering “Pit Bull” isn’t even a breed and that very few people could even properly pick a Pit Bull out of a lineup of dogs. He goes on to cite the woman that said “these dogs bite like sharks,” he claims that their jaws are different (scientific evidence proves this totally false), he claims that they can all “hang from ropes in a tree for upwards of an hour,” he claims that their biting force (pounds per square inch) is much greater than any other dog (again, scientific evidence proves this totally false and not even able to be properly tracked).
It’s as if they all just love getting up there and telling Paul Bunyon tales, exaggerating details and just openly acting like fools. One Supervisor claimed that his son’s Pit Bull “carried a huge log around like it was a toothpick.” Then Miller actually says that when he was growing up that “Dobermans were the killers out there,” and then in the 90’s that “Rottweilers were a problem.” Good God. Do these people ever speak in specifics? Or just in broad fairy tales and all-encompassing generalities? It’s disgusting and highly ignorant. Another Supervisor claims that “we see more often than not that they are used as attack dogs.” Huh??? What the hell is that guy talking about? Millions of Pit Bulls exist in the United States right this very minute, and 99.99999999999% of them have done nothing to warrant this type of ridiculous villainization. How does that Supervisor even get away with making such an asinine statement? It’s incredible.
Earlier than that, at around 35:14 in the video, Miller makes this statement: “Right now, in this county (Riverside), there are tens of thousands of Pit Bulls, unaltered Pit Bulls, intact Pit Bulls.” Oops! He just totally discredited his own points, as well as the other Supervisor that I just quoted in the prior paragraph. Let’s just take the simple number of 10,000. Do you know how many Pit Bulls that leaves that haven’t ever attacked anyone? They cited a few of these “attacks” in the article. Well, based on Miller’s own estimation that then leaves 99+% of Riverside’s Pit Bulls not fitting their own awful characterization. And the ones that do “fit,” well, they’ve been proven to have either been out and freely roaming or chained up and NOT members of someone’s family… Yet people aren’t the problem? Why are those things consistently never made issues of? Instead, a vast amount of dogs get utterly scapegoated. What a disgraceful sham.
So in closing, I’m obviously for spaying and neutering in general, my own dogs are all altered. But making laws, especially breed-specific laws, is not the answer. And breed-specific laws meant to target only Pit Bulls is done simply to attempt to eliminate them. This isn’t just a “yes” or “no” issue, there’s implications and depth to this issue. The people simply discarding all the details because they are “for” spay and neuter in the general sense are actually part of the problem here. I’d ask that you folks really look into this issue further.
This vote will take place at a future meeting. I’d request that every pittie-loving person consider coming out to the future meeting where they will actually be voting on (and probably passing) this legislation. It is important that, regardless of whether they end up voting for it or not, people do show up and give public comments on behalf of these dogs and based around the backwardness of always targeting types of dogs and the incompetence of local agencies to follow already existing laws. The meeting is not scheduled as of now, but please know that they are always during the work week and are held at 9am in the morning. Super inconvenient on all fronts. It will be located at 4080 Lemon St., Riverside, CA 92501. That all being said, I hope that some of you will keep it in mind so that when this ordinance does get a date for a vote that you can possibly work a half-day or something and be there to speak.
If you’d like to respectfully contact the Supervisors individually…
District 1, Kevin Jeffries: district1@rcbos.org | 951-955-1010
District 2, John Tavaglione: district2@rcbos.org | 951-955-1020
District 3, Jeff Stone: district3@rcbos.org | 951-955-1030
District 4, John Benoit: district4@rcbos.org | 951-955-1040
District 5, Marion Ashley: district5@rcbos.org | 951-955-1050
*In my estimation Kevin Jeffries seemed least likely to support this ordinance. His comments tended to stick to the Constitution and erred on the side of not trampling over people’s rights. That only leads me to believe that he’d also be one that would not stand for the demonization of entire groups of anything.
