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

Per Shannon’s Facebook page…

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

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

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

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

The Pasadena Sun recently reported that the city is mulling over the idea of banning Pit Bulls. City Councilman Steve Madison, at a 10/1 meeting of the council’s Public Safety Committee, had this to say…

Time after time, a Pit Bull chews a kid to death somewhere, and I’m not going to let that happen in Pasadena. I would have no problem saying Pasadena’s a special place: If you want to live here, come, but don’t bring your Pit Bull.

The article then further points out that current California law prevents any city from banning any breed or “type” of dog, but notes a law in San Francisco that requires that all Pit Bulls be spayed or neutered. This is now apparently being discussed by Pasadena officials, as a way around Madison’s desire for a ban.

I sincerely hope that people do understand that any breed-specific legislation, whether an outright ban or an alienated mandatory spay/neuter proposal, should be opposed by any and everyone that truly cares about this type of dog. BSL is BSL. There’s no minimizing it or putting a happy face on it. Mandatory spaying and neutering of just Pit Bull-type dogs is obviously meant to eliminate them over a generation. That’s their cutesy way of getting around the law, while also saving face and posing to do a good service.

But ignore that for a moment, even if Madison already played his hand. You can’t seriously get away with proposing a mandatory sterilize law for a specific breed or type unless you 1) Claim that that breed or type has an “overpopulation” issue, or 2) Imply that that breed or type is dangerous and aggressive, and that the sterilization would then help in that regard. Well, it’s a given fact that a sterilized dog is by and large a less dominant dog. That goes for any breed or type of dog. But implying that Pit Bulls are more aggressive is just false. And implying that any “overpopulation” issue then justifies phasing them out is a flawed (and disturbing) way of thinking.

Let’s be serious for a second… They don’t want to honestly stop any so-called “overpopulation” problem, or they’d genuinely be attempting to address instead the inordinate amount of failure that lingers in almost every single shelter within this state. They’d genuinely be proposing instead some serious shelter reform that could be put into place and aimed at drastically lowering the amount of killing that is currently taking place in almost every shelter in California. They’d genuinely be asking more of shelter staff and the political bureaucrats (themselves) that have appointed aforementioned shelter staff (primarily the manager and the person above them). Because not only did they (in most cases) appoint them, but their inaction consistently protects the shelter higher-ups and allows them to continue dictating their ways, while they also continue to kill and pay no mind to alternative options of addressing the problem that the bureaucrats are now going to pretend to want to address. All this would involve lawmakers, in Pasadena and at any other level, stepping back and critically examining themselves and the people that they’ve appointed, the same people that continue to apply these obviously failing positions. Oh, and not to mention that their idea of wanting to “help” with the spaying and neutering is only mandated upon Pit Bulls and Pit Bulls only. Why then? Because if it was a genuine cry of “overpopulation” then it would be focused on ALL dogs, since dogs of every breed and type are discarded by the smaller, non-caring, irresponsible faction of our society. And if these attempts were in any way meant to not negatively stereotype Pit Bulls as aggressive and unworthy of living, then wouldn’t they want to direct their focus onto the owners of any dog that causes a legitimate problem? And then how do they plan to determine “what is” and “what isn’t” a Pit Bull? You can believe what you want, but I know disingenuousness when I see it. You should too.

Some will say, well, it’s “just” in Pasadena. Please realize that precedent is a dangerous thing. A bad idea gaining precedent, and then being repeatedly carried out, is far more dangerous than any dog. If Pasadena’s attempt to sterilize all Pit Bull-type dogs were to actually happen, and then let’s imagine it were to be repeated in city after city, or worse, statewide or federally… Well, that would mean that after 1 generation there would be no more Pit Bull-type dogs. I know that’s a big jump to make, to believe that a city ordinance would eventually be adopted nationwide, but this isn’t a game and shouldn’t be shrugged off or ignored. So now, let’s imagine that this idea wasn’t Pit Bull-specific, and instead was applied to every dog. I mean, I certainly know many people that continue to harp on “overpopulation” and what not, and continue to use that phrase to consistently excuse abhorrent shelter killing. So do y’all then support the mandatory spaying and neutering of ALL dogs? Because again, if effectively carried out, that would over 1 generation amount to no dogs. Is everyone okay with that? Because if you’re not then you either don’t understand, you’re a hypocrite or you’re bias against Pit Bull-type dogs.

In 2008 Los Angeles City passed a law requiring that ALL dogs and cats be spayed or neutered. They couldn’t get away with making it breed-specific, even though many people originally wanted it that way. But regarding the ordinance that was eventually agreed upon… It’s had pathetic results thus far and not a single person can deny it. Killing increased 30% within the first year alone. Intake and kill numbers rose again in year 2. They both dipped slightly in year 3 and then rose again in year 4. Why? Well, for one, a lot of people can’t afford the procedure. With very few low or no cost options available (L.A. closed many clinics years ago in a flurry of budget cuts) it becomes rather difficult for many people to even comply. This creates more surrenders into the shelter, as well as creates more confiscations from people who have now “broken” the new law. Allow me to also mention that prior to this law passing there was 8 straight years of decreasing kill numbers! So please ask yourself, are these laws actually helping, or are they simply empowering a system that ultimately impounds and kills more animals? After a review of the proposal L.A. City then waved the white flag and announced that they will now rely on “voluntary compliance.” What in the hell does that mean? Isn’t that what we had prior to the passing of the bogus law? So apparently they just swindled the taxpayer and made off with more funding for a failing animal control. A “mandatory” anything doesn’t ever attempt to rely on communication or education, which should in reality be the foundation of everything.

In closing, I resent and am truly offended by anyone that attempts to put a loving face on BSL. Mandatory spay/neuter for only Pit Bulls is BSL. Politicians can’t ban them here (at least not right now) so this is their disguised alternative. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric.

If you’d like to let your voices be heard then please consider going to StopBSL.org’s article, and at the bottom they provide many contact options.

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.

Here’s some audio from when I called into Pit Bulletin Legal News to discuss how breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter laws are just another way to essentially ban a certain type of dog.

After reading this article and watching the video, why is a straw man argument being presented by the journalist, the family and the cops? So, if the dog “was” a Pit Bull then that justifies the cops in shooting and killing it? Why are all 3 parties debating over whether the dog was a Pit Bull or not? It’s as if the family is trying to prove the dog’s innocence by making sure everyone knows it “wasn’t” a Pit Bull. Well, what else does that imply then? Is everyone implying here that Pit Bulls are guilty and deserving of taking bullets to the face? This dog (or any dog), Pit Bull or not, doesn’t deserve to be the victim of a cop’s power trip. ALL types of dogs are capable of being innocent bystanders. This type of false debate, false implication, does just as much harm to dogs as a whole as any gun could ever do. RIP Scar.

A few days ago Pam Ashley came to my page and posted a comment in response to my open letter to her… I’ve since updated the original post with a handful of the most disagreeable dialogues (Pam’s included). You can link directly over to those updates by clicking here.

Her communication has since went further, thus prompting this new post…

Quite bluntly, Pam doesn’t make any sense at all… In her initial op-ed she said, “Statistics do not lie.” I even quoted her in my original post, responding in a way that used her chosen statistics, and numerous others, against her point. Now, in the comments many months later, she’s claiming that statistics do not mean anything. Here’s actual quotes from Pam, posted in my comment section from yesterday: “Do statistics on either side of the argument mean a thing? No.” & “My statement is meant to say that people choose to believe what they want regardless of statistics… Talk about closed minded!” Then she mentions her self-proclaimed favorite quote, which is pictured below…

So, in essence, she’s basically admitting that the only statistics that mattered to her were those that propped up her initial argument. Then once confronted with other statistics, they all of a sudden don’t matter at all, but her’s still do. Which is why I find her favorite quote ironic, because that quote is fundamentally speaking about a person who is diametrically opposed to dialogue and taking serious another point of view. That’s her in a nutshell. She can’t say the same about me, because at least I respected her’s and others opinions enough to respond to literally everything that they said. Whether you agree or disagree with what I actually said, the acknowledgement of the many debated topics is there. Pam’s retorts leave you with the feeling that she didn’t even read anything that was written, let alone think on it. She instead just goes through a repetition of vague defenses. All rights and wrongs aside, it’s pretty obvious that she isn’t coming from an open place. Irony. Her favorite quote condemns her.

So here we are. There’s been a back and forth, albeit kind of scattered. I can’t make or force anyone to even remotely want to respond to actual points of debate. I can’t force someone to want to have a genuine and rational conversation. What I can do now is at least extend this invitation…

Pam,
I’d like to personally invite you out to Los Angeles, California so that you could accompany me on a visit to one of the local shelters out here. I’d love to film you actually meeting the dogs, and then interview you on camera claiming that each of those individuals should be euthanized and for whatever reasons that you’d like to openly justify on film. We could even speak to the shelter staff and see if they’d be willing to let you stand in the room while they euthanized some. I’d be willing to film that too, and then put whatever message you’d like to attach to it out and into the world unedited. Please note that this would all be filmed and shared on the internet to be seen by countless amounts of people. If you are so confident in your positions and in your opinions then I’m sure that we can expect to have your video public service embraced by the majority of society. I’d love to give you that opportunity to put your face onto your chosen message of outright Pit Bull elimination. Why? Because I’m confident in the opposite, that you’d be exposed as a hateful and spiteful individual who couldn’t hold her own in a 2-way conversation, thus doing Pit Bulls the ultimate service. I have no doubts that I could raise the money to cover not only your flight but a local hotel as well. This would be contingent on you signing a contract agreeing to fully take part in the video documentation, as well as the interview and video conversation with myself. What do you say?

*UPDATE*

Pam, as expected, quickly declined…

But, “No redeemable value”? Really? The chance to put your voice and message on video, to be virally shared on numerous platforms and having the potential to reach a very large amount of people. The chance to speak to thousands of pro-Pit Bull people directly, and thousands more people in general, spreading your “wonderful” and “righteous” message. The chance to school me (critic of the witch hunt) in an interview, on film. The chance to have your views embraced, since they are so awesome and the public is bound to overwhelmingly agree with her on this, right? You’d think that someone who was remotely confident in their ways of thinking would actually at least consider this idea. Apparently not. Yellow streak?

It’s been thoroughly pointed out how backwards, hypocritical, contradictory, and downright evil PETA’s stances are in regards to any and all things “Pit Bull.” I’ve been meaning to put my overall take on their asinine position out and into the public domain–but people don’t need to hear it from me, as there’s plenty already out there that covers their nonsense in detail. But now with Lennox’s imminent death coming down from the BCC, and the protests and public outcry going on on his behalf, it begs the novice question: Where’s PETA?

Well, here’s your answer…

Unfortunately PETA doesn’t care about Lennox, or any other Pit Bull-type dog for that matter. Their official stance is that ALL Pit Bull-type dogs should be phased out and killed. The reason? I honestly can’t make this type of stuff up, it’s far too Orwellian for any sane or rational person… They want to eliminate the breed/type in order to “save them from abuse,” and before that aforementioned abuse were to even potentially happen. You know, since ALL Pit Bull-type dogs are “abused” and all, and while ignoring the fact that millions are actually living in loving homes right now… So, not only do they want to brand all Pit Bulls as being “abused,” they then want to take the “abused” and kill them. There’s no desire by PETA to focus on who the actual abusers are… No. Why do/support all of that work when you can just scapegoat a vague type of dog, as well as the people who have and love them? Support BSL? They absolutely do. So how could they, in good conscience (or no conscience), come out in support of Lennox, when they, as an organization, support the very laws that got him impounded in the first place? Sorry, the truth hurts. They’d rather separate Pit Bulls from dogs, perpetuating the stereotypes and myths, and pose as their fake saviors by killing them all as an “act of mercy.” How loving of PETA. No, fuck PETA.

This is the equivalent of someone saying that all newborn children should be immediately put into state-run foster care because their actual parents “may” abuse them. This is the equivalent of an organization rounding up all of the newborn elephants on the Serengeti and killing them in order to “save them” from potential poaching. This is the equivalent of a group of power trippers using self-established numbers, like income (for example), and then establishing who is “fit” or “unfit” to do (insert activity here) as a “whole,” or as a “group,” or as a “class,” or as a “race.” Where I come from that’s what racism is. “Killing to save them”??? Besides being totally insane, this is DOUBLESPEAK in its grandest example. Talking to disguise, distort, reverse the meaning of words, so that it sounds pleasant or less horrific… Yes, this is how we go all over the world starting wars in the name of “peace.”

Peace IS NOT a bullet in the head.

Not to get too political, but doublespeak is all around us. In this field–the Pit Bull advocacy community–there is no bigger violator than PETA.

I’m embarrassed for humanity today. There’s really no other way to state it.

Bid to save Lennox from destruction fails
Belfast woman loses final bid to save Pit Bull Terrier-type dog
Lennox sentenced to death
Lennox to die as N. Ireland court rules against dog

Outrageous ignorance and a penchant for living lives ruled by imagined fears are unfortunately two of many people’s biggest traits. This is a sad reality. Lennox is paying the ultimate price for these traits. God only knows how many ultimately pay the price every day. Shame on Belfast and anyone anywhere in the world who supports the scam that is breed-specific legislation.

All that these people responsible for upholding this scam needed to do was bring Lennox out (privately, or even publicly, and with camera’s rolling) and let him reunite with his family. They’d quickly see for themselves that this is a good dog. Not only that, but they’d then be forced to re-examine this decision from a less-detached place, or opt to uphold this monstrosity in the face of that touching moment. Instead, his family (which includes a 12-year-old girl who misses him dearly) won’t even get to say goodbye or even see him for a second, and he will likely be murdered by some scumbag who is ordered to drag him into a room with a catch pole. This is a total tragedy. To the people that don’t agree: My God, what has happened to your insides?

As of now, Lennox is still alive. I have no idea when the actual killing is going to happen… So knowing that, please continue to fight for him! He has (and has had) many rescues outside of the country that have offered him a safe haven, and yet, Belfast has refused to release him. Belfast has also ignored multiple assessment videos, ignored countess recommendations from highly respected dog behaviorists, and ignored their own photographic evidence that shows Lennox KISSING the very person that (under oath) called him “extremely aggressive.” They’ve also undoubtedly ignored their conscience constantly, as well as the overwhelming evidence that disproves BSL as an effective tactic when it comes to decreasing the many frowned upon behaviors and happenings that it was created to curb. Most important of all: Lennox did NOTHING. He was found guilty merely because the size of his head (when tape measured) exceeded some number that a bureaucrat had set, as to determine “what was” and “what wasn’t” a “dangerous” dog. This is tyrannical insanity.

To email Ireland’s Prime Minister: taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie

To let the Belfast City Council hear you, go to their Facebook page and leave a “recommendation.”

If you’d like to send an email to each of the Belfast City Council members, blind copy them all at these email addresses: attwoodt@belfastcity.gov.uk, d.browne@ntlworld.com, maryellencampbell@hotmail.com, converyp@belfastcity.gov.uk, corrs@belfastcity.gov.uk, tiernac77@gmail.com, catherine.curran@allianceparty.org, niallodonnghaile@gmail.com, tom@weaverscourt.com, garrettm@belfastcity.gov.uk, empgroves@msn.com, hairet@belfastcity.gov.uk, hannac@belfastcity.gov.uk, sandebelfast@sinn-fein.ie, hartley_tom@hotmail.com, maire.hendron@allianceparty.org, williamhy@dup-belfast.co.uk, husseyj@belfastcity.gov.uk, mervynjones54@yahoo.co.uk, keenancolin@belfastcity.gov.uk, bkelly@utvinternet.com, kingstonb@belfastcity.gov.uk, kylej@belfastcity.gov.uk, mallonn@belfastcity.gov.uk, conormaskey@hotmail.com, mccarthyp@belfastcity.gov.uk, frankmccoubrey1@hotmail.co.uk, gareth@dup-belfast.co.uk, laura.mcnamee@allianceparty.org, mcveighjames@belfastcity.gov.uk, caoimhinmgm@yahoo.com, mairtin@newbelfast.com, mullankate@belfastcity.gov.uk, adam.newton@live.co.uk, carole.newton@hotmail.co.uk, lydia@dup-belfast.co.uk, reynoldsl@belfastcity.gov.uk, robinsong2@belfastcity.gov.uk, rodgersj@belfastcity.gov.uk, spenceg@belfastcity.gov.uk, christopher_stalford@yahoo.com, stokerb@belfastcity.gov.uk, naomi@dup-belfast.co.uk, andrew.webb@allianceparty.org

Further reading:
An outrage in Belfast: The sad case of Lennox, the dog
Victoria Stilwell “shocked” at Lennox health condition
SaveLennox.com

In light of the recent human-on-human cannibalistic “mauling,” when does Miami-Dade County consider banning African American males who also have beards and neck tattoos?

I’m obviously COMPLETELY KIDDING, but since this is currently in the news, I thought it could be used to show how ridiculously absurd it is to take 1 horrific event and blame an entire group of anything (people, animals) for the actions of an individual, or a few.

Before I go any further… I’m totally sorry if anyone takes this as an insensitive post. That’s not my intention, but I do want to acknowledge how it may be perceived that way by some… I also wanted to state that I have no idea why or how Rudy Eugene did what he did. I don’t know if he was a bad guy, I don’t know if he was on some crazy drug, and I don’t mean to imply to the people that actually did know him what he was or what he wasn’t. I can comment on his actions though… He ate someone’s face practically off, and that is clearly disturbing and abhorrent. Back to my intention with this post: All I’m doing is noting a well-publicized incident that happened and trying to draw a parallel with how a group of dogs (Pit Bulls) get demonized as a whole when some scumbag treats his dog like shit, chains it in the yard, doesn’t socialize it or show it any kind of love, and then it eventually “bites” someone or (using a go-to of the media) “mauls” someone. Well, now Rudy Eugene has legitimately “mauled” someone. The homeless man that was attacked “had his face eaten down to his goatee.” So yes, my initial question was sarcastic. It was satire. It’s intended to show the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance of such a potential action. An action that is actually playing out in the dog world. An action that has, coincidentally enough, already played out in Miami. Lastly, this absolutely has nothing to do with me trying to minimize black people, as Rudy Eugene just as easily could have been white or Hispanic, and I would have used the exact same example.

All that being said, I maintain that people and animals alike should be treated as individuals and judged by their specific actions. You cannot demonize anything for the actions of a few. You cannot honesty attempt to ban or cull a group of anything for the actions of a few. People are ultimately responsible for themselves. People, owners, guardians are ultimately responsible for their animals. If someone commits a crime, they should be tried in front of a jury of their peers, and if proven guilty, suffer the consequences of their actions. If any animal legitimately mauls or kills a person, that animal should be dealt with appropriately and the owner of said animal, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident, should be thoroughly examined… If unsavory treatment is found (which is always the case) then that person should be effectively charged so that he/she is held accountable, made clear of the improper treatment, and if they infract again then the punishments should escalate. What SHOULDN’T happen when someone commits a crime is then seeing everyone else who falls under some sort of comparable category to the perpetrator (race, ethnicity, type, creed, similar look, similar interests, similar characteristics) suffering the broad-brushing and unjustified consequences. That’s tyranny folks. That’s ignorance folks. That’s hate folks.

*Update*
In an odd turn of events, Maryland, a state which just recently introduced statewide legislation meant to negatively typecast all Pit Bulls as “inherently dangerous,” just had a similar cannibalistic event come to light today… Apparently Maryland resident, Alexander Kinyua, admitted to murdering his college roommate and then “devouring his brain and heart.”

I now ask: Is the asinine state of Maryland, bent on discrimination, now considering enacting a statewide ban on all African American males who also have shaved heads? You know, since they all must be cannibalizing murderers and all…

And the insanity strikes yet again,
London apparently has an animal-torturing, cannibalizing murderer of their own, and who they’ve yet to catch… What’s the tie in? You guessed it, the United Kingdom has a countrywide ban on anything that remotely resembles a Pit Bull. Furthermore, under the “Dangerous Dog Act of 1991,” any dog that even “intimidates” another person can be seized and destroyed. “Intimidation” is a very open-ended phrase, very subjective and could mean essentially anything to anyone. For example, if a friendly dog were to run up to someone who was claiming to be scared of that dog, that would then qualify and your friendly dog could be deemed “dangerous,” seized and destroyed.

So again, and hopefully for the last time, I ask: In light of these recent events, is the United Kingdom now considering a ban on all white males who are also bisexual and enjoy partaking in gay porn? Because someone that fits that exact description is out there chopping people’s bodies up, eating them, and feeding live kittens to a yellow Burmese python for a video audience!

In November of 2011, the Carson shelter killed (at least) 130 Pit Bull-type dogs. I know this as an absolute fact, because I’d photographed each animal, and later verified each’s status with numerous phone calls. This kind of claim can be made because for that entire month I was visiting the shelter every other day. This was done with the intention of documenting every pittie face that came through this terrifying facility. I met and spent time with every one of these beautiful creatures. They were sweet, they were individuals. Over my dead body will this information remain secret.

Allow me to make this as real as possible for you… In order to fill that type of a killing total for the month of November, they’d of had to kill the equivalent of 4.3 Pit Bulls EVERY DAY. I’m here to tell you that the Carson shelter absolutely did this. No, I’m not stating that they actually killed 4 dogs every single day. They could have just as easily killed 12 one day and 0 another, as evidenced by their killing of 18 pits during the 58 hours that they were “closed” for Thanksgiving. But these are how the numbers work out, horrifying in either regard. Next, take the per day Pit Bull-type estimate and stack that next to the per day kill-rate for ALL dogs impounded at Carson (from current fiscal year 2011-2012 (ytd))… That number works out to 6.7 per day, established after receiving some public records from the shelter regarding their outcomes. Math then reveals that with these 2 estimations, over 60% of all shelter dogs actively murdered in November were likely “labeled” as Pit Bull-types. I realize that that isn’t an exact science, as 1 number is solidly November, and the other number is an average pulled from almost 10 months now of total intakes… But you get the idea. Unfortunately, the transparent truth is probably even worse. The overriding point is that this type of stuff is happening every month, November is the topic today because I was constantly there to document and demonstrate the example.