February 28th, 2013 by Editor
A couple of weeks ago I was alarmed to see an “article” that had the audacity to say with a straight face that breed-specific laws (BSL) “protect” “pit bulls.” Um, what? Yeah, turned out it was a propaganda piece from a city — Fayette, Missouri — that had recently passed BSL most likely trying to cover for its sky-high kill rates and its Nazi-style Gestapo tactics.
And today we have more propaganda from the doggy death merchants. An article on AnnArbor.com encourages mixed-breed dog owners to get their dogs DNA tested:
I’ve been reluctant to write about DNA or genetic testing with canines since it became available several years ago and for good reason — the results have had a tendency to be unreliable.
Fast forward a few years, and the tests have become refined and more affordable.
Sure they have. And I have a bridge I want to sell you. So is this more propaganda from the people who tried to say DNA testing was reliable a few years ago so that they could justify breed-bans and breed-specific restrictions for that non-existent “breed” “pit bull”?
Yes, how do you test for a breed that doesn’t exist? They can propagandize all they want, but it is highly dubious that these DNA tests are any more accurate than they were a few years ago and this is just another propaganda piece to try to legitimize the passing of breed-specific laws. Are you gonna fall for it folks?
Still, the propagandizing continues:
In some municipalities, a dog wrongly identified as a pit bull can meet an untimely and unfair demise: they can be euthanized.
So, when the stakes are so high and with the current climate of distrust of some breeds, don’t we owe it to these animals — regardless their situation — to be properly and fairly identified?
Yes, line up for shoddy, still unreliable DNA testing so that the doggy Gestapo can “verify” what breed you supposedly do and don’t have. All the better to take them away from you now using breed-specific laws, and later using whatever pretense they come up with when your breed of dog is hauled into doggy court.
- No Comments »
Posted in "Pit Bull" Hysteria
- “Pit Bull” Newspeak: Breed Bans “Protect” “Pit Bulls”
- Was He Potentially Negligent Because His Dogs Were Free-Roaming or Because His Free-Roaming Dogs Were “Pitbull” and Rottweiler Mixes?
- State Senator Michael Rush’s S. 969 Would Allow Breed-Specific Laws in Massachusetts
- Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s Repeated Calls for HSUS Investigation Go Ignored
- Kokomo, Indiana May Consider Breed-Specific Ordinance for “Pit Bulls”