…Where to start on my experience from October 8th’s Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting, where they oversaw a 5-0 vote in favor of breed-discriminatory legislation… This decision came after multiple hours of egregious and blanket vilification, and preceded a media campaign that continued marginalizing people’s dogs at the expense of the “stated” objective of the new ordinance. Coincidentally, this law goes into effect today, November 8th, 30 days after the vote.
I guess I will start at the end of the meeting. Right as the vote came down it was immediately passed and then members of the media began scattering to get people who were “for” the ordinance on camera. I was standing in the back, to the side, because I was videotaping the entire meeting. Seconds after the vote came in I could feel people watching me. I’d say there were about 100 people in the room, 125 tops. I was just standing there thinking how pathetic and depressing it is to know that witch hunts are still not only carried out, but cheered. Numerous people were glaring at me, some even pointed (as I was looking back at them), others redirected their looks as soon as they saw me look back, and others whispered to the person next to them, who then looked at me. Not that I’m in any way special, but I had just given an impassioned public comment on behalf of Pit Bulls a little while earlier, so perhaps I was a target of their curiosity in that moment. My point here is that the “us” vs. “them” mentality was taking over. It was as if some of these folks were real proud of themselves, and not only that, but looking to gain power over me somehow because of this “defeat.” They were looking for a reaction, and some clearly took joy out of seeing this result happen. It was certainly in the air, and it kind of speaks to the vitriolic nature of someone that wants to blame an entire group of anything for the acts of the very few.
Rewind 8 hours and I had left my place at 6 am because I was driving from Redondo Beach and I wanted to get there with plenty of time to spare. I also knew that the 91 was in my near future, a very congested highway experience. The meeting itself ran late and media was out in force as the Supervisors went 1-by-1 through their line items. Finally the Pit Bull-related ordinance was up and everyone in the media stood, cropped and zoomed, and pushed record. They were all here for the Pit Bull. Had it been for 20 other breeds who are larger, more powerful, just as “potentially” (insert here), it wouldn’t have mattered. But since this fiasco involves the words “Pit” and “Bull” here they all were, adding to the circus.
It started with a “presentation” by Robert Miller, the Director of the Riverside County shelters, and Dr. Allan Drusys, their head veterinarian.
Mr. Miller starts presenting stats from the “licensed” dog population. He claims that Pit Bulls represent 9.75% of that population. He claims that there are “currently more than a half of million licensed dogs in our county.” If we just take the lowest end of his rough estimation we get at least 500,000 dogs, right? 9.75% of that population would be 48,750 Pit Bulls. So if, for example, he wants to cite 5 “maulings” that have happened within the county and blanketly attribute them to Pit Bulls, I’d then immediately want to ask him about the other 48,745 who have done nothing. Keep in mind that this number is actually MUCH higher, because he is only pulling data from “licensed” dogs, which admittedly represent a minimal fraction of the county’s total dog population.
For example, using the above calculation 5 out of 48,745 dogs is 0.0001025% of the “licensed” Pit Bull population of Riverside County. That means that 99.9998975% of the “licensed” Pit Bulls of Riverside County have not mauled or maimed a person. If the number 5 changes–to 4, or 8, or 10–the clear percentages don’t change. You get the point.
Also please note that back in April of this year Miller made this statement: “Right now, in this county (Riverside), there are tens of thousands of Pit Bulls, unaltered Pit Bulls, intact Pit Bulls.” So that, on top of those that are unlicensed, on top of those mentioned above that are coming out of the licensed population. This just continues to illustrate how many completely innocent Pit Bulls there are in Riverside County.
They then show visual maps proclaiming to represent all of the dog bites in the county (not sure where they are getting these numbers, as there is no legitimate database for actual dog bites) and by their own map dog bites by “other dogs” substantially outnumber those that are alleged to be by Pit Bulls. Again, keep in mind that their visual indicator representing a “Pit Bull bite” is a pushpin, which is about 5x larger in scale than the purple dots meant to represent bites by other dogs. Even with this visual trickery it still shows a clear unevenness. Amongst all of this, they never explain how they’ve gathered these numbers, nor can they explain what does and what does not represent a “Pit Bull cross” dog, as Dr. Drusys calls them.
Dr. Drusys says that the shelter impounds “about 4,000 Pit Bulls per year” and that they “represent 20% of all the dogs at the department.” Their displayed chart shows that around 3,000 of those dogs (or 75%) are euthanized at the shelter. Drusys then says that there are “some very nice dogs in that population” that are euthanized, but “the problem is that people don’t necessarily want to adopt them.” I will touch on this point in a second. He talks about “factors that negatively influence people not to adopt these animals,” pointing to a few things that could be factors with ALL DOGS (ala food aggression), but fails to point out any factors that his own statements and actions (or those of Robert Miller, the Board of Supervisors, or especially the media) may outright create or perpetuate. Hmm… That’s conveniently outrageous. He then says that “only very infrequently do patrons come into the shelters and adopt a 2, 3, 5-year-old Pit Bull.”
Okay, what really gets under my skin is the disingenuousness represented in these cowardly statements. FACT: The Riverside County shelter has not 1 but 3 entire buildings that are OFF LIMITS to the public. I have been told numerous times by trustworthy rescue folks who frequent this shelter that it is within these HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW buildings where most of the dogs deemed to be Pit Bulls are held. Not held for a day or 2 and then moved to the public adoption space, but held for the entirety of their stay. This means that these dogs are never even seen by the visiting public, making their chances for adoption zero. And yet Robert Miller and Allan Drusys want to claim that no one wants to adopt them? And while attempting to bring attention to their low adoptions rates? What a crock of you know what.
Further, the “Reported Dog Bite Cases” chart that they throw on the screen shows a literal decline every year, from 2008-09 through 2011-12, with 2012-13 rising slightly to meet the number from 2010-11. This number is still substantially lower (35-40% lower) than that of 2008-09. The doctor begins fumbling his words and says that he “needs a little more time” to convince his self that that is the trend. Um, okay. I point this out not to claim validity over their numbers, because I have no idea how they are even getting their numbers, but simply to point out that they are using these things as their evidence! The point is that this “evidence” should bring up more questions that far outweigh the definitive statements that they want people to mindlessly swallow.
Robert Miller chimes back in to say that spay and neuter would now be a condition of licensure, never acknowledging that this will actually cause fewer people to license their animals than already do currently (most dogs still go unlicensed), while at the same time giving the impression that it is the county’s goal to increase licenses. Pretty interesting. He then claims that they will provide a “process of appeal” to the breed identification component, but fails to explain that “process” (the identification or the appeal) in any way whatsoever.
Miller then moves on to the “concerns” portion of the slideshow and states upfront that the issue is “more of a population-based problem.” He says “the cost for the taxpayers to house this 20% of the dog population is the greatest problem.” Funny that he doesn’t critique his own performance as head of the shelter, or his stuffing most Pit Bull-type dogs away from public view, or his preference to vaguely disparage Pit Bulls in erroneous ways. He also says nothing about “the cost for the taxpayers” to carry out this proposed law, to institute a system that will attempt to identify these dogs, to allocate time and staff from an already “understaffed” and “overworked” personnel, and to deal with citizens who will undoubtedly have their due process rights violated in a number of ways.
He then notes the issue in Rialto where a “Pit Bull,” according to whomever, gave scratch-like abrasions to the legs of 2 children and was shot dead by a neighbor. This was reported by the media as a “mauling.” He makes no mention that this dog was OUT RUNNING LOOSE, the real problem. He continues citing “the press” as evidence that these types of incidents are happening more and more.
Mr. Miller goes on to claim that dog bite statistics “are tracked nationally.” No they are not. This is a blatant lie, and they most definitely are not tracked by breed. There is absolutely nothing Robert Miller could genuinely produce to back up this statement.
From there he begins vaguely making statements about bites, and the severity of such bites, giving the impression that you could essentially pick any Pit Bull bite out of a lineup of bites. This is absurd and exactly the type of all-encompassing garbage that takes the emphasis away from individual instances and puts it on totality demonization.
Crazier, in an effort to paint this vastly uneven picture, he claims that of all of the licensed dogs in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County, “only 5% represent Pit Bulls.” This goes against his own slideshow, where just 10 minutes earlier it said that 9.75% of all of the licensed dogs in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County represented Pit Bulls (see 1:20 of the above video).
Robert Miller is clearly a liar who can’t even get his faulty statistics straight during his 20-minute propaganda presentation. He then doubles down on the disgusting claim that no Pit Bull over a year-old is ever adopted by a willing public, while being the sole individual in charge of holding them in private cells until they are egregiously killed. What a piece of work. He continues harping on the kill-rate, a number he was presumably hired to lower, yet takes no accountability for being a slimy hatchet man whose actions universally seal the very fates he now complains about. Wipe your brow, nervous Robert, as you’ve brought shame on your person and you know you’ll ultimately receive the bad karma that you deserve.
At this point Supervisor John Benoit calls Miller’s argument “compelling,” and cites his biggest concern as being that “Riverside County had to pay to kill 3,000 innocent animals last year.” Um, isn’t this in some form or fashion Robert Miller’s incredibly massive failure as a shelter director? That argument can easily be made, even if no one on this Board wants to hear it. It’s just funny (and sad) that this never crosses Benoit’s mind, as he cites it as his biggest concern. He outright makes the statement that the negative attributes of some of the Pit Bulls isn’t the compelling argument. Comically he recognizes the “publishing of one breed’s killing numbers” on their website as “discriminating” (which it is), yet recognizing nothing they (the Board of Supervisors) have done leading up to this moment, nor what they are doing at this moment as being discriminatory. Pretty breathtaking.
Supervisor Jeff Stone takes over and within his communication with Dr. Drusys, sees Drusys claim that “society is to blame.” This statement, although true, isn’t examined any further, other than to wrongly validate Stone’s vague perception of a Pit Bull. Stone then 180’s on Benoit’s statement, citing it’s sad they’ve killed 3,000 shelter Pit Bulls, but that “the paramount importance of this ordinance is that we need to protect the public from these vicious animals that have been engineered to cause bodily injury.” Shortly thereafter he refers to them again as “vicious animals that jeopardize the health and safety of our residents.” Totally shameful stuff by Stone and a clear indication of what this ordinance is really about.
On to the public comments…
Above Dr. Kristopher Irizarry, who has a PhD in genetics and genomics from UCLA, talks about how his group has published 2 papers on visual identification vs. DNA identification. He states that visual identification is “horrendous.” He then asks for more details on how the identification process will play out, and if it’s visual, will the owners of the animals then incur the costs of the DNA identification test in an attempt to refute the visual claim coming from animal control. Irizarry also notes Elaine Ostrander‘s 2010 study which showed that “the morphological appearance of a dog is controlled by 50 genes, out of the 20,000 genes that make up a dog’s genome. And so when you say a dog looks like a Pit Bull you’re really saying it has 4 or 5 genes that affect its physical shape, its head-shape, its snout, and it has no basis whatsoever on its behavior.” He ends his comment by saying that “3 or 4 generations that you breed from a dog, you’re normally going to have like 12.5% of the DNA from that great-great-ancestor, so most dogs that look like pits are crossed with other things, and even the DNA test, but it’s always the pit that it’s attributed to if it’s a bad thing, even if it’s 75% lab.”
A representative from PETA then comes forward and throws Pit Bulls completely under the bus by supporting the proposed ordinance, as she begrudges them in mass, and while lying about the “success” of similar ordinances. This is no surprise to anyone that knows anything about PETA, as Ingrid Newkirk (their founder and president) has for years lobbied to phase Pit Bulls out of existence by any means necessary. This is routinely masked in doublespeak as to pose as compassionate. See here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and all throughout here.
This woman’s stats that she presents relating to San Francisco’s ordinance are a common talking point that can be refuted simply by looking at the actual numbers… She claims that “21% fewer Pit Bulls had been impounded” since the passing of San Francisco’s breed-specific mandatory spay and neuter, and that “the number of Pit Bulls euthanized had reportedly dropped 24%.” No timetable is clearly noted to accompany her statistics. To the contrary, Brent Toellner of KC Dog Blog actually did public record requests in order to get the hard numbers, and he compares the 19 months prior to the law going into effect with the 19 months after the law went into effect. They show that during the 19 months prior that the kill-rate for Pit Bulls was 56%, and that they represented 33% of the total intake. Pit Bulls represented 61% of all dogs killed that entered the shelter. During the 19 months after it showed that the kill-rate for Pit Bulls was 58% (an increase of 2%), and that they represented 26.5% of the total intake (a decrease of 6.5%). Pit Bulls represented 58% of all dogs killed that entered the shelter (a decrease of 3%). The city’s recorded bite numbers (from all dogs) also showed a 13.4% increase over the same 19-month period following the law going into effect. These numbers do not vibe with what PETA claims.
Here’s further evidence, showing bite numbers not being positively effected, pulled from separate reports done by Dr. Terry Houston. The 1st report, which was done and given to the San Francisco Animal Control group prior to their passing of BSL, includes this adamant paragraph…
The data from the City of San Francisco indicates that mandatory spay/neuter of any specific breed based on reported bites to the city is not an effective method of minimizing dog bites. The risk from an intact dog for the moderate/severe bites shows that reproductive status is not a risk factor. The high portion of males as victims in reported bites also would indicate that bites are very much a human factor. To minimize dog bites the issue has to be addressed to all dog owners, not just particular breeds. Training and socialization of the dog are important factors to help minimize the risk of a dog bite.
Above is my public comment, and the many presented points are detailed here. Also worth note is that the media never covers any of these points, nor do they feel as though they are worthy of pointing out when discussing public safety. Pretty darn absurd.
These are all of the other public comments that were given. A lot of good stuff in there from responsible dog owners coming out on behalf of all of our dogs. “Fear-based law”? That’s absolutely what this is. This same commenter mentions Elle, a Pit Bull Terrier, who a day earlier had won 2013’s “American Hero Dog” from the American Humane Association. She also talks about being specific vs. generalizing. The 2nd commenter admits that she was frightened by Pit Bulls prior to actually meeting one. She’s since adopted a Pit Bull and clearly loves her dog as a member of her family. Zia Bossenmeyer, a member of a local spay and neuter organization, details why she is against the ordinance and explains its impact on low-income communities. “Well-intentioned but misinformed.” The only thing that I’d disagree with is that many of these Supervisors are not “well-intentioned” at all. Another commenter makes the point that these dogs are often stolen because so many will “go with anybody.” Comments against the ordinance continue asking for rationality.
Beaumont City Councilwoman Brenda Knight (13:09), who constantly comes out to push BSL/BDL onto other counties and cities, drops one of the most laughable statements of the entire session… “These are verifiable, it’s from DogsBite.org.”
Um, yeah. That website is run by a woman who has made it her life’s work to flagrantly demonize the Pit Bull Terrier at all costs. Her name is Colleen Lynn, and she is on the record stating that she wants all Pit Bulls dead. This language from Lynn has been evasively softened more recently, and depending on who she’s talking to, because she must’ve learned that most people don’t care too much for control-freak authoritarians. Regardless, her website is the main hub for anti-Pit Bull propaganda and cherry-picked “statistics.” Not much of a “source” to anyone genuinely trying to pay attention to, and understand, any part of this issue.
Knight says the following: “Pit Bulls made up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population. There were 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks. Despite being regulated in military housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, Pit Bulls contributed to 61% of these deaths.” This comes directly from Colleen Lynn’s website.
First off, this claim that “Pit Bulls” make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population is complete rubbish. Low-end estimations of 4-6 million dogs divided into 72 million dogs comes out to over 5%. These are all estimates of course, and no one has exact numbers on anything, because so many dogs go unlicensed. But to not even be able to represent the basic estimates correctly is pretty silly. So that’s first. Then we get into the domain of “what is” a Pit Bull. If, when a dog attacks, any dog that’s not a Chihuahua is called a “Pit Bull-mix” by these same folks, then why doesn’t that type of careless tallying go both ways when calculating how many “Pit Bulls” exist in the country? Yeah. That’s inconvenient. That would easily double (or more) that estimation. Yet these people parrot this notion that Pit Bulls make up less than 5% of any dog population. A complete and utter fairytale on every level. Next, they note 38 fatalities and then want to drop percentages like the identification of the dogs involved have been in any way scientifically validated. They haven’t. Most “statistics” that DogsBite.org exploit are purely pulled from media accounts, which oftentimes lack all traces of actual evidence. Yet words are reported, and repeated, as fact. This is unreliable. That’s the only fact there.
But back to Brenda Knight… She’s the same woman that back in April said that Pit Bulls “bite like sharks.” Literally everything that she says is the most exploitative, vague, and all-encompassing crap that you could say. These Board of Supervisors ate it all up.
The next commenter follows suit, calling yard (“resident” dogs) and chained dogs “family Pit Bulls.” Wrong. He then notes an attack where dogs were loose, even saying the word “loose,” but doesn’t find any issue with the fact that they were loose, only that they were claimed to be Pit Bull mixes. He also doesn’t have any problem with the breed that the media claimed that the involved dogs were mixed with (in this case Australian Shepherds).
The last woman to speak tragically lost her granddaughter to a dog attack in 2003. She said that she was “mauled to death” by a “baby Pit Bull.” She then outright admits that “the babysitter left her for 3 hours.” The babysitter was “running errands.” If you read the above article you will find that while the babysitter was gone this 2-year-old child made her way into the front yard, and then was met by the loose or chained dog that was in this vicinity. She then basically claims, and definitely implies, that Pit Bull owners care more about their dogs than their children and other people’s children. Nonsensical and completely unfair. Clearly this woman doesn’t care much about the fact that her 2-year-old granddaughter was left alone for 3 hours, and that that’s what allowed this to happen, or find that relevant. If she does then she doesn’t inform the Supervisors.
By watching the video, are you noticing any common denominator from these commenters? Holding posters and pictures of injuries, alongside the most vicious picture of a dog that they can find. Yeah. All while I actually held up the existing Riverside County dangerous dog law that already exists (that’s breed-neutral and goes completely unenforced), and the Board of Supervisors could care less about that.
It honestly begs the question… Is this about actual public safety or simply expediting the killing of innocent animals while you breathtakingly betray the public’s trust in the process? And done while claiming to want to lower shelter kill-numbers but knowing that they will undoubtedly rise; and while calling those already killed Pit Bulls “innocent,” but then on a dime calling them “dangerous” and “vicious” in any other context; and while violating state law’s principled protection against breed discrimination, while your own words and the media’s coverage flagrantly discriminates against breeds that you have generically deemed problematic but can’t even identify. Incredible.
In the above video Dr. Allan Drusys attemps to respond to myself and Dr. Irizarry’s major concern about breed identification. He begins by citing the study by Victoria Voith, the same study that we both brought up in our public comments, and proudly states that many of those tests occurred at their shelter! LOL. That isn’t something to be proud of, considering that the study found that animal control officer’s MISIDENTIFIED impounded animals over 70% of the time! Yet he proudly admits the link and no one draws the parallel or shows further interest in actually looking at the study.
Drusys then makes many statements throwing shade on the DNA-testing process, saying oftentimes the results “defy logic.” He says that some of the breeds listed on the test they had never heard of, “let alone seen at one of our animal shelters.” Um, how would you know to see it if you haven’t heard of it, and ultimately who’s fault is that? Yeah, none of that seemed to matter much. Drusys says that “breed identification genetic testing isn’t an absolute either.”
Following this he admits in many ways that the identification is all done visually, then ignorantly claims that there’s a “consensus,” and then draws an asinine comparison to pornography! Dr. Drusys said that “no one can define it, but everyone knows it when they see it.” This, along with many of the emotionally-driven, problem- and solution-allergic public comments, certifiably stamps this entire proceeding as an absolute shit show.
Drusys then says that the appeals process is outlined in the ordinance. No it isn’t. Read the ordinance, there is nothing outlined at all. Wilder, they actually put in print that the burden of proof is on the owner of the dog to prove that whatever dog in question isn’t a Pit Bull, rather than the burden of proof being on Riverside County to prove that their dog is a Pit Bull. That is incredible. Constitutional law quite clearly shows that this country’s legal foundation is based on things being the other way around. Just look at the insane “Section 6” of this ordinance… You can’t take someone’s property, call it a “Pit Bull,” have that sole determination be your “proof,” and then force the property owner to prove that their dog isn’t what you say it is.
Riverside County Ordinance 921
That is obvious precrime, made famous by the movie Minority Report. This county is openly criminalizing even being a Pit Bull, and by visual assertment only, and then all dogs they deem to be “guilty” of being Pit Bulls are just that, guilty until proven innocent of not being Pit Bulls. The document outright states that the “owner has the burden.” So illegal, and stupid. They will undoubtedly be sued.
Further, nowhere in the ordinance does it even non-lazily define what makes a “Pit Bull,” or what percentage of whatever noted breeds then justifies a “Pit Bull.” 50%? 25%? 1%? There is nothing in any kind of detail at all, no attempt was even made. The document even refers to American Staffordshire Terriers as “American Stafford Terriers.” This is worth noting because it displays that whatever button-pusher wrote this document doesn’t even know what they are talking about on that basic level. Then the Dr. says that the appeals process would rely on the same DNA-testing that he minutes earlier said “isn’t absolute” and many times “defies logic.” Again, I point these things out not to validate the art of DNA-testing, because it seems to have its flaws (big or small, I don’t know, I am not a scientist), but to rather highlight the hypocrisy of a system that won’t take serious any “proof” that a DNA test may provide when inconvenient to their intent, or how it reveals an identification rabbit hole, but will still then turn around and use these same DNA tests if challenged on an identification appeal.
The point is that Pit Bull-type dogs CANNOT BE SCIENTIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, as much of that process is subjective, and much of it currently is purely done visually, and none of it aims to focus on the acts of the individual dog but rather how they all look instead.
It then comes out that who will be the first line of identification will be the “referring veterinarian.” So if a dog is already licensed then it will apparently be the listed breed on its rabies certificate that will first determine what breed it is. Doesn’t matter if it’s wrong, doesn’t matter if the previous owner is mistaken, and none of the problems outlined in the prior paragraph (all of which apply under this scenario as well) seem to matter at all to these folks writing and passing the ordinance.
What does seem to repeatedly matter to Robert Miller is the “outcome” statistics, as he cites again the inability of Pit Bulls to be adopted. No mind paid to his untransparent stashing of Pit Bulls, villainizing of Pit Bulls, or categorical failure as the director of numerous shelters. Miller then brings up L.A. City and L.A. County, and their mandatory spay and neuter laws, both of which go COMPLETELY UNENFORCED, yet that gets no mention. Drusys then says that the Pit Bulls are the largest group of “easily definable” dogs. Ha! Miller then again claims that most of the dogs are “self-identified,” ignoring the fact that the same list of problems exists with that premise.
THIS WAS AN UTTER FAILURE OF EXPLANATION IF I’VE EVER WITNESSED ONE. A MASSIVE FAIL.
Finally the vote comes down and it is an egregious 5-0 vote which patently ignores common sense, defies logic, and does everything short of spitting in the face of the many passionate public speakers that came out to raise points and make it known that they don’t approve of the demonization of Pit Bulls, or entire groups of anything, for the sins of the extreme few.
I want to notate many of the statements made in the above clip, which again, clearly show the (hidden in plain view) purpose of this ordinance:
Supervisor John Tavaglione: “I am sick and tired of debating this issue, because I have seen scores and scores of deaths and maiming of individuals, of all ages, as a result of Pit Bull attacks.”
Supervisor John Tavaglione: “I heard the young lady say we are sensationalizing. Well, if you talk about a 2-year-old innocent boy, who was pulled out of his bedroom, by 2 or 3 dogs, that actually there were 7 that I understand, in the yard, in Colton. Mauled to death. His face ripped off. And then the man who had to leave to babysit his grandchildren, where I wish I was today, he mentioned that 2-year-old boy. And also the 8-year-old James Hernandez, who still sits at Loma Linda University, who was out proudly riding his bicycle, which he just learned to ride without training wheels in a cul-de-sac in Corona, who was attack by 2 Pit Bulls who broke loose out of their yard. Dug a hole under their chain link fence and attacked him. You talk about an 87-year-old lady in Jurupa, just west of us, last year who simply went out to get her mail and was attacked by a Pit Bull roaming the streets. You talk about another elderly man who was in a wheelchair just this last year, sitting on his porch, who was attacked by his own family Pit Bull, and died. Is that sensationalism? I don’t think so. That’s death and maiming.”
Supervisor John Tavaglione: “I’ve been told by people that they’re afraid to walk their own pet dogs, small dogs, in their own neighborhoods. Or for mothers to walk their children in strollers in their neighborhoods, because they know there are Pit Bulls and people who walk their Pit Bulls. They’re fearful of walking their dogs and children in their neighborhoods because they’ve heard of all of these stories. Isn’t that horrible? It’s a horrible way to live.”
Supervisor John Tavaglione: “These Pit Bulls, and mixes, a lot of people don’t understand this, their bites are 2,000 pounds per inch. Their jaws apply a pressure of roughly 2,000 pounds per inch and they don’t let loose. Versus other dogs? 750 pounds per inch.”
Supervisor John Tavaglione: “It’s time to say enough is enough. Stop the killing, or at least stop the process that will stop the killing and maiming. I’m tired of seeing innocent people hurt.”
I’d like to directly address Supervisor Tavaglione… “Have the will”? You think what you’ve done is courageous? You think what you’ve done is leadership? What you’ve done is easy. What you’ve done is prejudicial through and through, and wrong at every end. This shows no will, or courage, or leadership, or desire to improve public safety. You, like the purporters of the sham data that you repeat, have no desire to improve public safety or help our fellow citizens. You’d rather tear down millions of dogs (and their owners) than focus on the individual incidents and the situations that repeatedly lead to these incidents. Loose dogs? You don’t care. Non-existent supervision? You don’t care. Criminal behavior and unspeakable treatment of dogs? You don’t care. It is people like you who literally disgrace public office and what it should mean to be in the position that you are in. You are a joke. Where do you get off implying that Pit Bull owners want to see innocent people hurt? Or anybody hurt, innocent or not? You are such an asshole. I think very little of you at this point and yet I don’t have any desire to see you hurt. Imagine that! I desire to see you gain some rationality and drop your (admitted) 19-year grudge against millions of innocent dogs. I desire to see you gain some perspective and focus on the circumstances that create these horrendous outcomes, rather than scapegoating groups in mass and grandstanding on the top of a select number of maimed and dead victims. You are a very sad and nasty person, truly.
Supervisor Jeff Stone: “What I’ve learned over the many decades is that the genome of the Pit Bull has been manipulated to create a very vicious animal with a catastrophic bite.”
Supervisor Jeff Stone: “One of the speakers mentioned that Pit Bulls represent less than 5% of the dog population in the United States but are responsible for over 61% of the dog mauling deaths. I think that’s a startling statistic.”
Supervisor Jeff Stone: “I think that if 1 life can be spared through this ordinance, that it’s 1 life worth saving.”
Supervisor Jeff Stone: “If you look at a little baby tiger they’re a very innocent, lovable cub. But it’s not something that you want to raise as a pet because when they grow older they have this instinct to want to kill.”
Supervisor Jeff Stone: “I believe that there could be a gene for aggressiveness or viciousness in dogs.”
Supervisor Kevin Jeffries: “The type and the length of the attacks by Pit Bulls, just incredibly vicious.”
Supervisor Kevin Jeffries: “I hope and pray that the cities that make up the bulk of the population in this county follow suit so that we can save even more lives.”
Supervisor Marion Ashley: “We heard a lot of testimony out there saying ‘we don’t need this ordinance,’ and the more I heard, just smoke and mirrors. And based on some of their comments there is no problem. That’s all smoke and mirrors as far as I’m concerned.”
Supervisor Marion Ashley: “The reality of these vicious bites, these vicious attacks, is with us, it’s all around our districts. No one is making this up. This is real.”
Supervisor Marion Ashley: “This definitely should be a model ordinance for other counties to follow, and also cities within our county, the Inland Empire, and cities throughout California. If they need a model ordinance well hopefully this will be a good place to start.”
^So California, do you think any of this has to do with “spay and neuter,” or “bringing down a shelter’s kill numbers”? Are these not disparaging remarks meant to demonize the Pit Bull?
Supervisor Ashley called the many great comments and points made by numerous folks that showed up in support of their dog (and yours) “smoke and mirrors.” Nice. He said that defenders of Pit Bulls didn’t recognize that there was a problem. I can only speak for myself, but I laid out problem after problem, and right in front of Mr. Ashley, who sat literally right in front of the podium that I stood at. If he tuned me out from 5 feet away then I’d hope that at some point he’ll actually take the time to read those problems again. They were there. They are there. They will forever be there, in almost every dog-caused human fatality, and no matter the breed.
A relevant point that bears repeating: What is a detriment to public safety is people who allow their dogs to roam freely and without supervision. That’s irresponsible. What is a detriment to public safety is people who chain or confine their dog to a specific area, unsupervised, and then allow children to enter that premises, unsupervised. That’s irresponsible. Show me an “attack,” in your county or elsewhere, that doesn’t fit 1 of those 2 scenarios. It’s hard to do. Yet you choose to ignore these facts to focus on the appearance of a dog instead of the behavior of its human.
^How in the world is that smoke and mirrors? How is pointing out that Riverside County ALREADY HAS a breed-neutral dangerous dog law on the books, and that it obviously and routinely must go unenforced, smoke and mirrors? My God, the Supervisors are astonishingly poor listeners to simply discard those points of contention or pretend that they don’t exist. It’s an embarrassing display of ignorance and arrogance. Is that the takeaway? My takeaway is that this Board of Supervisors had their minds made up on how this vote was going to go, and long before this dog and pony show played out for the media.
Before I wrap this extremely long entry up I’d like to say something to the California rescue and advocation community… Where are you? I personally know countless certified Pit Bull rescues in this state and only 1 of you sent a representative to these meetings, to speak truth, to advocate on behalf of the dogs. I have no idea who or how many of you were advocating behind the scenes, through email, etc. But why not go as well? Why not send someone, a volunteer, anyone? Is it honestly the spay and neuter component? Is it too politically incorrect to oppose an attempt at further spay and neuter, even as you see it disgustingly dovetailed in disguise with nasty and untrue rhetoric that consistently paints millions of dogs as monsters? My God. Where are you? This is breed-specific, or rather breed-discriminatory legislation in its finest form. And what’s just as bad is the steaming pile of disingenuousness marinating off the top of this heap of nonsense, and on your watch. This is a definite precedent-setter. This is right out of the pages of DogsBite.org and other bigotry-fueled hatemongers, who have readjusted their ends to fit more “acceptable” language, even as their goals remain the same. Those goals seep nastily through the coverage of this monstrosity. They seep nastily out of the mouths of these Supervisors. Do you have a TV? A computer? Do you not see and hear the narratives? Are you deaf, blind, dumb? Silence and/or inaction is an act, just like doing something or saying something is an act. The dogs deserve better.
As everyone was filing out of the room the cop who was stationed in the back for the entirety of the meeting came walking by me to leave. We had been standing probably 10 feet from each other the entire time, never speaking other than to initially say hello and then to have him tell me to keep my conversation quiet during the meeting. He was an older gentleman than me, maybe in his late 60’s. At one point I had the notion to mozy on over to him and ask him what he thought of all of this insanity. His poker face was on and any time that I found myself looking in his direction I could never really tell. But as he headed toward the exit he put his hand on my shoulder, leaned in and said, “You did a good job Mr. Josh. You were very articulate and passionate, and I was impressed.” I told him that I appreciated that and he was out the door. Hopefully he knows that all of our dogs are truly innocent until proven guilty. Do you?
If you’d like to contact the Supervisors individually and continue this dialogue in your own way then please do so…
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
