So a few PETA-apologists claimed that I edited Lisa Lange’s words to misrepresent their positions on Pit Bulls and BSL. We’ll just ignore for now the fact that these stances are in countless publications (including their own) that are freely available to whomever wants to seek them out. But here’s another video perspective, ran alongside mine, showing that nothing was edited.

So PETA responded to my video floating around Twitter by addressing me directly and linking me to some document entitled “The Straight Scoop on PETA and Pit Bulls.” Notwithstanding the fact that I’d already read this PDF and knew fully what was in it, and it literally just backs up my claims that they’ve taken issue with, they still chose to send it to me in a public forum as if it actually disputes my video and disproves my statements made to Lisa Lange… And they attached a loving heart icon for good measure!

As you can see below, it’s written plainly that PETA not only wants the immediate ban on the breeding of any future Pit Bull, but they also support outright bans on the ownership of currently existing Pit Bulls not already “owned.” Going unmentioned is the fact that these positions then make life hell for the Pit Bulls that PETA claims that they will allow to be “grandfathered in,” as these laws are being created on the implication that all Pit Bulls are “dangerous.” All this aligns perfectly with what Ingrid Newkirk has said many times, and what I said in my video to Lisa Lange’s face: PETA calls for the “automatic destruction” of all Pit Bulls entering the shelter, a ban on Pit Bull ownership, and a fazing out of Pit Bulls altogether by lobbying for them to never be able to reproduce.

And I especially loved this doubletalking doozy: Saying that they are protecting Pit Bulls from breed-specific abuse through the use of breed-specific legislation. So PETA is going to protect Pit Bulls by banning them and then killing them. Thus, if there’s no more in existence then they can hypothetically never again be abused. Nice. This is akin to Big Brother and the Thought Police, staples of George Orwell’s novel 1984, telling Winston Smith that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

So sticking with the Orwellian theme, I guess I’ve now committed a “thoughtcrime” by confronting Mrs. Lange on their BSL position. What happens to the people in 1984 who commit a thoughtcrime? Well, they’re taken to this nice little place called the “Ministry of Love” where they are then tortured for committing the thoughtcrime. Again, a euthanasia needle is love, taking a dog’s life is a gift that PETA is giving them. It’s all sick. PETA is twisted.

The parallels between the hateful rant below, which was aimed at an autistic Canadian boy, and the vile garbage routinely spilled online by anti-Pit Bull hatemongers like Colleen Lynn, Dawn James, Korey Nelson and their klan of fake profiles is too rich to pass on noting. Look at this…

Doesn’t this type of disgusting rhetoric sound familiar? The creature who anonymously wrote the above letter goes so far as to say that this boy’s family should “do the right thing and move or euthanize him.” Prior to this they tell the family to “go live in a trailer in the woods or something with your wild animal kid.” Just before that they note that “he is a hindrance to everyone and will always be that way.” They then write “what the hell else good is he to anyone” after suggesting that his working organs be “donated to science.”

Yeah. This letter pretty much sums up many of the sycophantic followers of DogsBite.org. You could literally slide the references to the boy out and insert the noted breed of dog in and we are dealing with the same level of vitriolic ugliness. Discrimination is discrimination. Hate is hate. That is all.

Here’s some further observations that I wanted to quickly address…

@1:55 Total fear-mongering.

@2:26 I love Erika’s followup question here, and Lisa Lange has nothing to say besides looking around for a bailout.

@2:52 Mandatory spay and neuter for certain types of dogs is only 1 facet of breed-discriminatory legislation. To most people it is the lowest on the totem pole in regards to what is intolerable about BSL. I’d disagree, and argue that mandatory sterilization laws targeting specific breeds or types is a long-game way of working around the current laws out there that prohibit the outright banning or singling out of those breeds or types. But Lisa knows full well that BSL is not just mandatory spay and neuter. Yet she rambles on and on and on about it without addressing the portions of BSL that outright ban breeds and types. Bans them simply based around the subjective visual decision of some chosen animal control god. She knows that there is no science behind this. She knows that it’s discrimination based around how a dog looks, having nothing to do with behavior. She knows that it perpetuates the negative stereotypes and myths, blanketly throwing millions of dogs under the bus. She knows that it leads to the relinquishment of animals in mass, and thus their killing in mass. She knows what BSL is, and knows that PETA supports all facets of it, yet just continues addressing spay and neuter while denying all else.

@3:55 If by when you say “reducing populations” you mean of certain types of dogs, after you ban and then kill them all, then potentially yes. As far as mandatory spay and neuter laws actually reducing the number of animals being killed in shelters, that is false. City after city where these laws have been put into place shows that they actually raise shelter intake numbers, and thus shelter kill numbers. PETA doesn’t care about how many animals are dying in shelters every year, as they pretty much kill the entirety of their own shelter in Norfolk. What they do care about is that hypothetically less and less domesticated dogs will be produced into our society.

@6:07 They are outnumbered??? This is a massive lie. And if the media and organizations like PETA wouldn’t constantly let these dogs down by erroneously impressing upon people’s psyches who don’t know any better that these dogs are all land-sharks and killers, well, then that number could exponentially expand even further.

@6:25 Mandatory home-checks? Given by whom? Government, animal control? They are both already horrendously terrible at their current jobs. Don’t rescue groups and responsible persons already take it upon themselves to often do this? Of course. And people are allowed to go to the shelter and not have to worry about being harassed by someone who wants to be a control-freak. This is such a ridiculous statement. And then she starts grandstanding about “all animal’s safety,” yet the home checks are only for the Pit Bulls! Lol. Well, if you care about the other dogs wouldn’t you require these home checks for them as well? See, this is all straw man stuff. It’s not about the welfare of the animals going into new homes. It’s about control and simply throwing another massively confusing, unenforceable hurdle in the way of every Pit Bull adoption.

@8:14 Low-cost spay/neuter clinics all over the city? No there’s not!

@8:55 The “oh shit” face.

@10:14 PETA supports all forms of breed-specific legislation, and often times those exact scenarios happen under the unjust laws that PETA helped usher in.

@11:08 See the document.

@11:33 See the document.

@13:44 No example.

@14:50 Uh oh!

@16:22 Candid shots are pretty interesting.

Finally, a few people that I talked to afterwards made comments to me about my tone and how it could have come off as intimidating or forceful. These were observations from respected friends, and I hear them and understand… But I’m not here to play games with these people. That woman represents an organization that wields a huge public relations stick and they want to literally kill my dogs. They want to kill every Pit Bull in every shelter. I meet these dogs, I love these dogs. They view my dogs as not dogs, but as somehow different from all other dogs. They make life more difficult for my dogs and for me, and for you and your dogs. They want to kill my future dogs, and my ability to have Pit Bulls 5, 10, 25 years from now. They do not have my respect. I have no desire to beat around the bush with them. I love what they do for other animals–a lot of the factory farm stuff, saving the laboratory monkeys and all the rest of it–but their head honchos are authoritarian psychos at the core and their Pit Bull and shelter reform stances undoubtedly prove it.

*Update*

Within an hour of posting this article and video I had this little exchange with someone running to defend PETA on Facebook. There are numerous reasons why I’m posting this, so first check it out and then I’ll explain…

Okay, so first just notice the irrationality of the initial comment. But as you go deeper you quickly see that this person’s reactionary tendencies mirror someone from the DogsBite.org-inspired crew. She quickly throws out the blanketed “dangerous breed” crap and then accuses me of not caring about dead children, insinuates that my dogs have actually hurt children and then blames me for “verbally attacking” victims and their family members. What? Worse still, if you go to her Facebook page SHE IS POSING AS A PRO-PIT BULL PERSON WHO IS IN ALL OF THESE RESCUE AND PIT BULL GROUPS ONLINE. These infiltrators are going hard. Pay attention to their moves. Lastly, isn’t it funny that these are the folks that are defending PETA? The anti-Pit Bull, anti-shelter reform, pro-killing, pro-exploitation and demonization of entire groups “crowd.” Speaks volumes. You can watch the full 90-minute video of the discussion here.

*This was originally written on 8/5 and not posted until now because of Dianne’s first meeting with Gil Moreno, which hadn’t happened yet. He is now attempting to make her sign a “letter of expectation” in order to continue as a volunteer. This document apparently took many days to be doctored up by L.A. County’s administration department and was finally ready on Monday. No other volunteer is being asked to sign this. She has not seen a copy of the “letter of expectation” and her request to see it prior to their second meeting (which is tomorrow) was denied. The dog, referenced below as being in the play yard when Dianne was approached by Sgt. Webb, was killed days later. Dianne was also effectively barred from this weekend’s adoption events that she had signed up to work.

So today my girlfriend got notice that she was suspended from volunteering at the Carson shelter, pending a meeting with shelter manager Gil Moreno. This comes a day after getting in trouble while we were both onsite at the shelter and doing our normal routine of taking dogs back to the play yard and shooting videos of them for the purposes of networking them online. On top of that, another volunteer was also suspended and told to leave the shelter today. This girl is a 17-year-old high school student and one of the best volunteers that the Carson shelter even has. Their crimes? Taking dogs into the play yard. Being friendly with one another and making appearances in my videos. Dianne being my girlfriend. Sydney being an ally of my girlfriend’s. Yes, it’s that ridiculous.

This is the straight facts, no filter: The Carson shelter and manager Gil Moreno have instituted a shelter-specific policy that no “dominant breed” dog can be taken out of its kennel unless it has first passed a temperament test. This also doubles as an adoption policy, meaning no “dominant breed” dog can be adopted without first passing a temperament test. All non-“dominant breed” dogs do not even require that they be temperament tested. What is a “dominant breed”? Any dog that they say fits the bill, select staff members are the judge and the jury. All dogs then deemed by staff to be any part Pit Bull are classified as “dominant breed.” Not only is this breed-discriminatory legislation (which is against state law) on an in-house policy basis, but there is zero oversight and Mr. Moreno is essentially able to get away with each unjust “policy” that he decides on a whim to put into place. What this means is that the majority of all Pit Bull-type dogs are placed in their kennels and never taken out again until they are walked to the back to be euthanized. The Carson shelter does not do mandatory temperament testing of “dominant breed” dogs. They say they cannot due to not having enough staff. Yet, this shelter refuses to allow the volunteers the opportunity to help with testing, be trained on testing and ultimately alleviate some of that claimed burden by giving the tests themselves. What this means is that no “dominant breed” dog is even given a temperament test unless they first receive an interested party. What this means is that any “dominant breed” dog that doesn’t organically gain interest from a member of the adopting public will never receive a temperament test. What this means is that during their stay at the shelter those dogs are then banned from ever leaving their cage. No volunteer is allowed to socialize them, walk them, interact with them, run with them, play with them. Nothing. All of this pays no mind to the portion of this situation where the dog then has to pass the temperament test if it’s lucky enough to get one given to it in the first place. The discrimination and backwardness that goes hand in hand with the way these tests are so often given is a whole different topic entirely. Not to be forgotten, for those “dominant breed” dogs that do get scheduled for temperament tests it can routinely take this shelter 5-7 days to get around to administering them. So as a wanted dog sits in its cage waiting to be temperament tested, other dogs absolutely die for the excuse of “space.” Many dogs also often get sick while waiting, and these scenarios give rise to miscommunication and mistakes.

This was yesterday…

I was sitting in the empty play yard alone, waiting for Dianne to bring back another dog, when Sgt. Webb approached me and just started staring at me through the fence. Feeling awkward, I told him that a volunteer was coming right back and he just sort of gave me a nod and walked over to the side, out of view. As soon as Dianne could be seen approaching with another dog he reappeared and cut her off. Dianne motioned for me to come out of the cage, so I just walked out and went about my business walking through the runs.

Apparently Sgt. Webb asked which dog Dianne currently was handling and then went back to check its temperament test results. While he was doing this Dianne began playing with the dog in the play yard. He came right back and demanded that she immediately take the dog out of the play yard and put it back in the kennel because it had “failed” its temperament test. Dianne, feeling disgusted, went into advocacy mode for the dog that was happily sitting patiently by her side. She asked him, “Does he look aggressive to you?” She’d just been playing fetch with him for the last 10 minutes, and he was awesome! The dog was incredibly friendly and playful, and was doing great out in the yard. Sgt. Webb still claimed that he was aggressive and that she was violating policy by having him out of his kennel. A testy exchange ensued and Dianne came to find out that the dog was failed after an AC officer took him out of his kennel and he went to lunge at the front of the neighboring dog’s cage. That’s as far as the temperament test went. They put the dog back and failed him without even conducting the test. This dog had 2 different IPs (interested parties) on his file and they were very likely called back and told that he had “failed” his temp-test and was now unavailable for adoption.

Long story short, Dianne told Sgt. Webb that this was what was wrong with the Carson shelter. That they were routinely killing friendly dogs and that it was inhumane for them to never be able to be walked or interacted with. She was upset, tearing up as she spoke and internally furious. Sgt. Webb told her that she could ask Gil to have him re-tested tomorrow, and that he would update the dog’s notes and say not to euthanize him for 24 hours.

Dianne did just that, emailed Gil when she got home, and she was promptly rebuked when her request for a re-test was denied without explanation. She was then told that she was suspended until he could speak to her in person for violating the play yard protocol. She told him that she’d be at the shelter twice tomorrow, dropping and picking up a pair of dogs, but he said that he couldn’t meet with her then. Actually, he couldn’t meet with her until at least Wednesday. She then let him know that she’s pretty busy at work but could come in on Friday. Gil said that he wouldn’t be in on Friday, and oh yeah, he won’t be in on Thursday either. It needs to be Wednesday at 3pm. No regard for the fact that Dianne works 12 hours a day as a non-profit attorney in downtown Los Angeles. Apparently phone or email communication about this situation wouldn’t suffice either. Worse yet, Dianne was set to volunteer at 2 different offsite adoption events this weekend (1 which she arranged herself for the shelter with a PetSmart manager) and now can no longer attend. Gil Moreno is actually blocking someone who works all week at their own job from volunteering 10-15 extra hours of their weekend time in order to get his shelter’s pets adopted. Yes, that’s Gil.

So she is being dually punished: First for taking dogs out that haven’t passed their temperament tests (even though they’ve never been given one), and second for allowing me to physically be in the yard with the dog without getting a “puppy pass” for each dog that she gets out.

A puppy pass is when you go to the front desk and ask to see a specific dog, and they in turn tell you yes or no and then grant you a pass. This is done for “liability” purposes. Instead of dealing with the individual red-tape of it all, I asked Gil back when this first became an issue if I could just preemptively sign away my liability for all future dogs… I was told that I could not. I tried to then get further clarification in an attempt for a more workable solution. I sent Gil 3 emails regarding numerous outstanding issues… One on 7/2, another on 7/8 and then another on 7/16. He did not respond to any of them.

From 7/2:

“You can’t place volunteer networking holds on dogs outside of their 5-day holding period.” – Myra to Dianne today… Is this a new rule that is just now being implemented? Because both holds Dianne has place prior to this attempt have been on dogs outside of their 5-day holding period. Ruby being a prime example. And speaking of Ruby, why have you so coldly blamed Dianne for Ruby’s hold miscommunication, while “taking full responsibility” to others and putting out a letter to them in response? You haven’t even acknowledged any of this to Dianne, and she was the prime person affected by Ruby’s death. You can call me if it’s easier for you to respond that way.

From 7/8:

I’ve been waiting for a response to my last email, sent this past Tuesday, and it’s really important that there’s some clarification made on the portions of these policies that are not being consistently upheld… I understand that you are busy, and my emails are definitely not your top priority, but there are people wanting to understand these policies so that they can then try to use them for the benefits that they were supposedly created to offer. That’s important. Please let me know if I can come in at any point this week and meet with you for 10-15 minutes. I know you work during the top of the week, so just let me know what is easiest or if that would be possible or helpful… I’m actually coming in in about an hour anyways, so if today works at all give me a call on my cell phone.

From 7/16:

I’m still waiting on replies to my last 2 emails, sent on 7/2 and 7/8. Dianne’s also still awaiting some kind of a reply regarding Ruby and what happened with that. You took 10 days to do a side investigation and then came back with a snippet of info that all parties were aware of from the beginning. You’ve also ignored all else that’s been stated on the topic and even your own past words to her. Are we able to engage you or aren’t we?

Is email a good form of communication, or phone, or onsite at the shelter? I’ve asked and been ignored. Dianne sees you at the shelter but we are two different people. You’ve dodged the Ruby topic and Dianne has just been graceful about it. I have no such desire to be graceful. You killed an incredible dog this morning that was afraid of its shadow and as sweet as could be. All these dogs go down, while numerous dogs with sketchy temperaments remain. If it’s pointless to come to you to get your side or something then just let me know and I won’t bother with it. But there’s tons of questions that people have about blunt policy, easy stuff it’d seem, and you have no desire to clarify anything. This is causing confusion, which only gets more dogs killed. It would be nice if this was something you acknowledged at some point.

Since I could potentially do videos of 10 dogs in 1 day, it didn’t make sense for me to go in and congest the public lobby line further for 10 different puppy passes! A few weeks later Dianne was told that Gil apparently said that it would be okay if I got 1 puppy pass and then wrote the ID numbers of all of the dogs that I was in the yard with. This was never communicated by Gil directly to me or Dianne, but rather through another person. I didn’t take it that serious as he didn’t even take the time to let us know, plus, I’ve learned that with Gil you need to get stuff in writing. He is prone to changing something at his discretion and then blaming you for it. So we continued doing things as we were doing them. If he didn’t take 10 seconds to write Dianne or myself an email regarding this change to his puppy pass expectations then I doubt he’d of honored it anyways. We’ve learned that the hard way.

The racket of the yard play and puppy pass mess is that 90% of the dogs Dianne was taking out to the yard weren’t being temperament tested, so they were being shunned by everyone and disallowed from ever leaving their kennels. This wasn’t a situation where the shelter staff was temperament testing 98% of all dogs and Dianne was bucking the system to take out the 2% that weren’t being tested. Not at all. No Pit Bull-type dogs were voluntarily being given temperament tests, yet they can’t leave their cage without first passing one. This is extraordinarily unfair. The in-house policy that Carson has instituted is unjust, so we simply treated it as an unjust policy. Dianne was going to continue taking the time to interact with these dogs, show them love, let them play, let them run around and stretch their feet, let them put a toy in their mouth and feel like the center of attention for a few minutes. This was the right thing to do. So Gil’s first going to blame Dianne for having me back there shooting video of the dogs, trying to get them adopted. He then pulls the puppy pass stuff, trying to make the repetitious hoop-jumping unbearable. Then he allegedly just wants 1 list of all the dogs we took out. Okay… But what happens to that list? Of course he would use that list to then cross-reference the dogs Dianne took out vs. the dogs that have or haven’t been temperament tested. Dianne would then be punished for each dog that she took out that hadn’t been temperament tested and the puppy pass list would be his self-implicating proof. See how that works? Gil Moreno also targets dogs that we’ve taken video of, so as we are trying to help them he is putting an X on their back. The double-edged sword. That may sound like a bold accusation but just read through this website a little further.

Evidence of how great Dianne is out in the yard, and how great the dogs are too…

^That’s who they are suspending.

Don’t these people want to save dogs? Huh? Huh? Suspending Dianne, who is one of the most outgoing and engaging volunteers that they could ever hope to have. She promotes the hell out of dogs. She will talk to anyone and really knows how to strike a chord with each different person. That is one of her gifts. And they are shitting on it at the expense of dog’s lives! And suspending Sydney, who is an amazing volunteer that will go out of her way to be at all of the adoption events and who carries herself much like Dianne when it comes to interacting with the dogs. She takes them out and makes them feel loved and wants to do more than she is allowed to do. She is 17 years old! She makes flyers for the rabbits and snakes that come into the shelter. She takes photos of the dogs and tries hard to network them privately. She is 17 with an awesome spirit and they are trying to kill it like they kill the dogs! How dare you penalize her because you have a vendetta against other people.

Gil Moreno, you are an awful human being. Awful.

The 39-year-old Trumann, Ark. man, who is paralyzed from the waist down, had recently adopted the “small, white, fluffy” stray dog in hopes of having a loving companion, reports KAIT8.com. The man said the newly-adopted animal bit off one of his testicles while he was sleeping naked around 7:45 a.m. on Monday.

Had this dog been a Pit Bull the title of this article would have been “Pit Bull mauls paralyzed man as he sleeps” and it would have been covered in hundreds of outlets. Yeah. Instead we get “Dog eats paralyzed man’s testicle as he sleeps” and everyone goes on with their lives. Sensationalism city not cared about in this instance and the mainstream media silently goes aww shucks. I also don’t hear DogsBite.org hyperventilating with outrage over this testicle-eating “small, white, fluffy” dog. Crickets. Ms. Colleen Lynn could even exploit the angle and drum up more sympathy since the victim was paralyzed and in a wheelchair. What a story! Crickets. This is her thing, after all. Crickets. Only Pit Bulls do it for her. All other dogs get a pass, all day, every day. And so it continues… Adolf Lynn is in her apartment bunker going through her Google key-word-emails, trying to keep her catfish profiles straight. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Did you know that your local, self-proclaimed “progressive” shelter out in Wildomar, CA is actually a house of racism and killing? It has a cute name, “Animal Friends of the Valleys,” and through its name recognition actually comes off as more of a rescue than an actual shelter. Well, it’s a shelter, and they kill a lot, and they really make it near impossible for the Pit Bulls. Check out this “Pit Bull adoption policy.”

So anyone interested in a dog that this shelter deems to be in any way a Pit Bull must first be interviewed by the executive director of the shelter, they must then have a home check done, they must introduce their entire family to the shelter representative, they must have liability insurance, they must sign a “release of liability” form (okay, whatever), the dog cannot go into a home where any other animal resides and the dog cannot go into a home where any child under the age of 12 resides. Wow. You guys are unfair as hell.

I took a screen capture of all of the available dogs that are being displayed on their website at the time that I wrote this piece, therefore giving you a visual representation of how this policy plays itself out…

I don’t know about y’all, but just off of this image alone I notice numerous anomalies. Anomalies that don’t bode well when being viewed under a rational and ethical lens. I see dogs that are labeled as Pit Bull-mixes that might not be. I see dogs that are labeled as something else when they might be part Pit Bull. I see dogs looking nearly identical, where 1 is labeled as a Pit Bull-mix and the other is not. I see Rottweilers and Dobermans and German Shepherds and American Bulldogs and big Labradors that have no restrictions on their adoptions, while anything that is called a Pit Bull has tons. I’m certainly not advocating for those other dogs to have restrictions too, but instead for all dogs to be treated fairly and without this prejudicial profiling.

Worst of all, you see a pair of dogs that were surrendered together (row 7, image 1 & 2) where 1 is labeled a Pit Bull and the other is not… Going off of the AFV “Pit Bull adoption policy” alone it shows that there is no way that these 2 dogs could ever be saved from this shelter together, as the shelter’s policy clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes where other animals reside.” This pays no mind to the shelter’s own notes which say that both dogs (Bourbon and Brandie) are “kind” and “excellent” with each other and with kids.

Speaking of kids, this shelter’s policy also clearly states that “Pit Bulls will not be placed in homes with children under 12 years of age,” and yet many of their listed Pit Bulls at the time of this writing have notes saying how good they are with kids. So unfair.

The Animal Friends of the Valleys shelter is clearly neck-deep in unscientific, inconsistent profiling. And this act alone probably gets the majority of these innocent dogs killed. That’s an injustice and I’d argue that this shelter is openly violating state law and the statute that says you cannot discriminate by a breed or type of dog.

In a story that’s straight out of the cellar of hell, the Beijing government has apparently begun the purging of all dogs who are taller than 13.7 inches. SMH. Those dogs found to be standing above than the mandated tape measure are then automatically deemed “large” and “vicious,” taken from their families, and worse, turned over to the local dog meat industry. This order has been in effect since June 13th.

This is nanny-state tyranny run rampant!! Forcing an illegal “order” onto the population. Rounding up and capturing both stray dogs and owned dogs alike, and in the name of “public safety.” Giving dog owners 10 days (from 6/2-6/12) to relocate their dogs outside of the city. Fining individuals and businesses who don’t comply. Capturing dogs around the clock, and not just out on the street but also through confiscation efforts that involve forcing their way into your home. Stating that “all resistance to this enforcement will be severely punished.” Having the police departments encourage the gestapo/TSA-like tactic of “see something, say something.” Essentially demanding that the populace snitch on each other. Actually offering cash rewards for the people who turn in other people’s dogs. Anonymous tip-lines have been set up to accommodate this nonsense. The police have capture-quotas themselves that, if met, would trigger cash bonuses. The media are obediently following orders. Censorship has been unleashed and any criticism against this policy is being memory-holed by those in charge. This is literal Nazi-stinking hell on earth for dog owners.

Just as an exercise, re-read the above paragraph and note how much of what is being done in Beijing reflects the BSL/ban crowd regarding “Pit Bulls.” Ahem, Denver! Unbelievably criminal and immoral at every turn.

In further comparison to the irrationality and downright sensationalistic illegality that’s being done in the name of BSL…

Officials note that rabies last year killed 13 people in Beijing, more than double the number in 2011. Big dogs, the police contend, are incompatible with city living.

Sound familiar?

So there you have it folks. Total bullshit actually happening on a grand scale. Wake up.

If you’d like to support the people of China please follow this Facebook page that was setup in order to update folks on the developments. You can also show your support by signing their petition that’s been addressed to the chairman of China.

So a few months ago I did a phone interview with a journalist about all things related to my Pit Bull advocacy. Having known beforehand that she was also going to be asking me about the Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA) that ultimately took Sway’s life, I set out to videotape my side of the interview so that I could then create an accessible testimony for the many other people currently going through what we went through. That video, which is almost 30 minutes in length, will be available within the next few days. Please stay tuned…

The videos below are some of the other questions that I was asked.

“What was the instance that acted as a catalyst in becoming an advocate for Pit Bulls?”

“What stereotypes did you experience while having Sway?”

“What are your thoughts on BSL (Breed-specific legislation)?”

“Where does the negative stigma and its perpetuation come from?”

Talking about the breed-targeting dynamic and the challenges of engaging all people… “Why does the Pit Bull stereotype still persist?”

“Can you talk about your relationship with the kill shelters that you photograph at?”

Read this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Katz then sites her dog bite numbers…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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