March 22nd, 2007 by Editor
At the Rolla City Council meeting Monday, the following considerations were discussed, including a possible ban on “pitbulls” and/or breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter: Read the rest of this entry »
March 20th, 2007 by Editor
Update: Jose Hernandez was acquitted of criminally negligent homicide on March 22, 2007.
“He should have known better. He ought to have been aware of the unreliable and substantial risk that the dogs posed to their neighbors and their families”…
These are the words of Dan Cervenka, an assistant district attorney for Milam County, Texas. Milam County includes the town of Thorndale where in 2005 an elderly woman named Lillian Stiles was mauled to death by possibly as many as six dogs (five “pitbull” mixes and one Rottweiler mix) owned by Jose Hernandez. Hernandez is now on trial accused of criminally negligent homicide. Read the rest of this entry »
March 19th, 2007 by Editor
*Update: The dog reported to be a “pitbull” in the following story was actually discovered to have been a Catahoula/American Bulldog mix. Doesn’t matter. The cops still shot it and it’s still dead.
You know, Texas officials just aren’t even trying to be stealthy anymore about turning every dog attack into a “pitbull” attack (all so they can push through some or all of their highly-restrictive dog-related legislation). The latest attack, which actually resulted in the death of a Friendswood, Texas woman over the weekend, was reported to have involved a retriever, a “pitbull-type dog,” and an Alaskan Collie. First of all, what the heck is an Alaskan Collie? Second, why was the “pitbull” shot and killed by police when it was the collie that had blood all over it? Responding officers said they shot the “pitbull” because it supposedly lunged at them, which is what they always say when they don’t care to be bothered with the dog and would just rather shoot it. Police, in an apparent attempt to outdo their own outlandishness claimed that,
“…only the one dog actually attacked the woman. They say it was the dog that they had to kill.”
It also happened to be the dog they thought was a “pitbull.” And how is it that the police know that the “pitbull” was the one responsible when nobody witnessed the attack and it was the collie that was covered in blood?
March 19th, 2007 by Editor
Widdled down from thirteen breeds to three — “pitbulls” (which is not a breed), Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids — McFarland City Council is considering breed-specific legislation of some sort. Worse, the city council arrived at these three “breeds” in particular based on the opinion of a local veterinarian, who according to McFarland City Clerk Effa Winkler said,
“Their jaw structure is where if they bite you they can really rip you apart”…
March 19th, 2007 by Editor
If Hillsborough County is successful in their request to overturn the statewide prohibition of breed-specific legislation in Florida the county will seek to ban “pitbull-type dogs,” Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, and any mixes of these breeds. Read the rest of this entry »
March 17th, 2007 by Editor
If you feed your dog or cat any of the following pet food brands, stop immediately and call the toll free number listed below for more information!
Recalled Dog Product Information:
Recall Information 1-866-895-2708
1. Americas Choice, Preferred Pets
2. Authority
3. Award
4. Best Choice Read the rest of this entry »
March 16th, 2007 by Editor
Amory, Mississippi city officials are considering a breed-specific ordinance. According to the proposal,
“Certain dangerous breeds of dogs will…be required to be registered in the city. Some of those breeds include American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire pit terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, mixed breeds from these breeds and some others that will be named specifically in the ordinance when it is adopted within the coming month. No breeds will be banned in the city, however.”
Please e-mail Amory city officials and tell them their proposal is unconstitutional and that the dangerous dog provisions of the ordinance are more than adequate to police dangerous dogs without resorting to a breed-specific measure.
March 16th, 2007 by Editor
A breed-specific ban that would prohibit “pitbulls” in Payette County, Idaho was proposed by county coroner Keith Schuller whose daughter was supposedly attacked by Schuller’s own “pitbull.” Schuller said before county commissioners that,
“There is evidence that shows pit bull attacks are more severe and are more likely to cause injury or death,” Schuller said. “They can make gentle pets – but they require special attention. Pit bulls give no warning before they attack and they will not retreat.” Read the rest of this entry »
March 16th, 2007 by Editor
“Our officers are not immune to what they see on the news about dogs. They realize (pit bulls) as a threat that can cause a great bit of harm”…
These are the words of Deputy Chief Rich Chiarello of the Round Lake, Illinois Police Department whose officers, while serving drug warrants, shot and killed a “pitbull” that the officers claimed lunged at them. The police chief just admitted that his officers are influenced by what they see on the news about “pitbulls,” (most of which we debunk everyday, by the way). Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that police have a no-tolerance policy for “pitbulls” and that any time officers see them, whether the dog is actually lunging or not, that they are authorized to put a bullet, or several, in the dog’s head. Does it concern anyone else that the police are this eager to discharge their firearms in suburban areas where other people live and work, especially when it has not been shown (other than by false, sensationalistic media coverage) that “pitbulls” are an actual threat??? “Pitbulls” aren’t even a breed, so how can they be a threat??
© 2003-2013 All rights reserved.