March 28th, 2013 by Editor

As the Huffington Post has been posting all week, here is a picture of “Boom,” the Staffordshire Bull Terrier who poses with a big smile on his face with chicks and bunnies.  Awwww!

March 28th, 2013 by Editor

From the Leesville Daily Leader:

The town council of New Llano voted unanimously (3-0) at its regular meeting Tuesday to ban all pitbull dogs within the corporate limits of the town, effective immediately.

The ordinance prohibits Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pitbull Terriers, and dogs that have the “appearance and characteristics of being predominately” of the aforementioned breeds from being owned within the city limits.

Violators will have their dogs immediately impounded, and owners can only redeem the dog after paying a $100 or more running at large penalty or $500 or more for failure to comply penalty; after transferring or selling the dog to another party, who cannot reside within the town limits (or the owner is moving from the city limits of New Llano) (bill of sale is required); and the dog must be vaccinated within the current calendar year.

Dogs that are not redeemed within five days after being impounded will be put down, according to the ordinance.

Oh so is this the new thing now, keeping consideration of breed-specific legislation out of the press until after it passes to prevent those opposed to breed-specific legislation (BSL) from speaking out against it?  The people have a right to know and speak out against BSL everywhere because it’s the same Constitution you negate there that adversely affects my constitutional rights where I am.  

March 28th, 2013 by Editor

Yesterday, well known “pit bull” hater, and misogynist apparently, Phil Luciano opened his big, fat head and let Peorians, et al, into another one of his brilliant harangues.  This time, he didn’t just denigrate “pit bulls,” but also their female owners/defenders, and misogynistically apparently.  He must have been taking a page from the Sun-Sentinel‘s Gary Stein (who similarly went off on a “pit bull”-owner-hating diatribe when he and his puppet masters didn’t get their way when trying to illegally push a breed-specific law in Florida’s Broward County), who, like Luciano was virtually nonsensical in his rant.  Luciano wrote:

…many pit bull aficionados launch into fanatical blatherings that make you question their sanity. And more and more — judging from feedback here — the most extreme voices are female.

Last Sunday, I wrote about a 70-year-old Peoria woman who took her Yorkie for a walk on a leash. A loose pit bull charged at them, killing the Yorkie and chasing the woman — until its owner called it away.

One reader, Marie, questioned the motive of the 70-year-old: “What was done to provoke this ‘attack’? I doubt that your ‘victim’ is as innocent as they would have us believe.”

Well, that’s certainly some interesting thinking there, Marie. Even though animal-control officers confirmed the pit bull as the attacker — as the column clearly explained — you’re suggesting that an elderly woman went out of her way to antagonize a pit bull, using her 6-pound dog as bait. I’m not sure investigators looked into that angle — perhaps because it’s sheer lunacy.

Gee, Phil, misogynistic much?  How would you feel if I said you were acting like Snookie from the Jersey Shore, thereby calling attention to the fact that your behavior might have something to do with you being Italian (which, in case people don’t know is the underlying joke in Jersey Shore but I guess it’s okay and not racist because they call themselves ‘guidos’).  My point is, it’s so pathetic to simply name-call, or point to someone’s gender or ethnicity disparagingly, because you can’t refute someone on their argument.  Typical playground, bully mentality.  And everyone knows bullies are geniuses right?

What Marie was trying to say, though I’m guessing you took her comments out of context to simply name-call, is that dog attacks aren’t unprovoked.  She wasn’t pointing to the elderly woman as the culprit.  She was pointing to the Yorkie.  For instance, the parenting section of a typical question-answer website informs parents of the common signs of an impending dog bite or attack — which can include stiffening, raised hackles, a standing tail, a showing of the whites of the eyes, and of course bared teeth and growling — adding,

Dogs typically don’t attack without warning.  In most cases, dogs are sending subtle cues that signal distress before resorting to an attack.

Simply because people may be ignorant of the subtle cues that a dog of any breed may give before attacking, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.  So Marie’s point was probably that the woman’s Yorkie was most likely barking or stiffening or otherwise showing some kind of bravado to make itself look big as little dogs will often do (You know what that’s like don’t you Phil?), and it provoked the “pit bull” to attack.  I’ve seen the same behaviors between Chihuahuas and Labradors and other breeds at dog parks.  Little dogs can have inferiority complexes too, just like little men, and they can pick fights with dogs many times their size, but it has nothing to do with the breed of the little dog that attacks, and it has nothing to do with the breed of the bigger dog that was provoked.  What Peoria should have learned from that incident is that their leash laws need to be better enforced, and that perhaps they need to make the punishments a little stiffer for the people who let their dogs free-roam. Read the rest of this entry »

March 27th, 2013 by Editor

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Early one morning last week, Stephanie Smith and her dog
Lokey, who was sleeping by her side, were awakened by a loud boom
outside their apartment building.

Smith, 31, jumped out of bed, but Lokey, a 50-pound female pitbull mix,
beat her to the open door and bolted into the hallway where she was
confronted by a small army – members of the Lake County Metropolitan
Enforcement Group (or MEG). Still groggy, Smith took in the hallway full
of officers, each holding “the biggest green guns I’ve ever seen.”

Lokey, who was named after the Loki, Norse god of mischief, barked at
the strangers, but she was also wagging her tail and sniffing their
boots, according to Smith.

“Let me get my baby! Let me get my baby!” screamed Smith.

“Then the tallest [officer] just stepped through the crowd, aimed his
gun down and shot her twice in the head,” said Smith.

….”I keep reliving that moment,” Smith said. “I wish my memory could be
erased. Lokey was innocent. I’m innocent. Regardless of what the police
think they know, we’re humans. We have feelings. They could have called
animal control and got her out of danger.”

These officers shot an innocent dog in the head because they were looking for the woman’s brother who wasn’t even at the residence of the door they kicked down.  It makes you wonder how long it will be before the Gestapo starts pointing its guns at the people to act as Judge Dredd, jury, and executioner.

March 26th, 2013 by Editor

Please read the KTLA article about the pair here, and if you’re in California, please consider giving these two special-needs pooches a foster home or a forever home!

March 19th, 2013 by Editor

From KY3 in Springfield, Missouri:

The city of Springfield is considering revamping its vicious animal ordinance, to include all breeds of dogs.  A task force could make some recommendations to the City Council this year.

Right now, pit bull owners definitely have to jump through the most hoops to own that dog — like registering it with the city, having a permit, etc.   A task force made up of citizens is discussing possibly recommending removal of that pit bull-specific part and making it where all vicious animals would be covered, regardless of breed.

…Mary Collette is one woman charged with figuring out how to build on what she calls the ordinance’s success.

“Perhaps not looking at having our ordinance be breed-specific in any way, but we could have it be vicious animal specific which is really what we are trying to get at anyway.  That is really how you are going to reduce the bites and damage,” Collette said.  “We’re hoping we can bring our ordinances in line with what is a little more progressive and actually more productive in curbing animal attacks and bites.”

Collette says the possible changes to the ordinance are in the very early stages.  There are a lot of people on the task force with ideas, and all the ideas will eventually go before city council, as well as the public getting to weigh in.

While of course breed-specific language should be removed from Springfield’s ordinance (we’ve been saying that for years) the dangerous dog language may not be much better.  Read up on how dangerous dog laws can be deadly.

March 19th, 2013 by Editor

From the Daily Tribune:

The city will not ban any breed of dogs, but it will adopt new regulations for pet owners in an attempt to reduce the number of bites and vicious dog reports, which totaled 32 in 2012.

Opponents of breed-specific legislation barraged city officials with information about the inaccuracies of judging a dog breed visually and the expense of proving it with DNA tests.

…City Attorney David Gillam recommended Royal Oak’s dog ordinance be revised to designate three classes of dogs: dangerous dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, and all others.

A dog would be classified as dangerous if it bites or attacks a person, or bites and attacks a domestic animal and causes serious injury.

 A dog would be considered potentially dangerous if it has bitten or attacked a domestic animal; chased or menaced a person or domestic animal; acted in a highly aggressive manner within a fenced yard or enclosure; or has run at large on more than one occasion within a specified period of time.

This is a victory for Royal Oak citizens, no doubt, but I have long railed against labeling dogs dangerous, or “potentially dangerous” for attacking domestic animals, which is a common element of dangerous dog laws and why dangerous dog laws can be deadly.

March 18th, 2013 by Editor

March 19, 2013 update: HB 621 and its amendment have been withdrawn by their sponsor Rep. Brenda Gilmore and will not be considered going forward.

From WBIR NBC channel 10 in Knoxville:

Reporter’s note:  The original version of this story below provides links to House Bill 621, but those online documents at the Capitol website have not been updated to include the amendment with breed-specific language.  A pdf of the amendment that is cited in the article to specifically say “pit bull dog” has now been attached to this article.  (Updated March 16, 9:02 PM)

…a State House committee will discuss a proposed bill that takes aim at the pocketbooks of people who own pit bulls in Tennessee.

Representative Brenda Gilmore of Nashville has sponsored House Bill 621, which would require owners of vicious dogs to carry a minimum insurance policy of “$25,000 for liability against any injuries inflicted by the dog.”

On March 20 at the meeting of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Gilmore will introduce an amendment to the bill to define vicious dog.  The amendment defines vicious as any animal with a previous history of causing injury or death to a person or other animal without being provoked.  It also says any animal that “belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog” shall be considered vicious.

While HB 621 is not breed-specific, its amendment is. (The amendment is not available on the TN legislative site yet, which is inexcusable on the part of the Tennessee legislature, but you can click here to see the PDF listed in the above excerpted article.) The amendment language merely refers to “a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog” and reads:

…The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.

First, THERE IS NO BREED KNOWN AS A PIT BULL DOG!  The dog lobby is going to keep screaming that until people get it.  “Pit bull” is a slang term and has no business being used in legislation as if it were an actual breed.  In fact, this disaster of an amendment doesn’t even name actual breeds like American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Terrier.  It just says a “breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.”  Well there is no one breed referred to as a “pit bull dog.”  There are countless breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes that have been erroneously called “pit bulls.”  So does that mean Boxers are now prima-facie vicious?  Because they are frequently confused for “pit bulls” (just ask Denver’s ACOs).  So do you see the problem?  The legislation is so vague, no one would know how to abide by it if it passed.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 18th, 2013 by Editor

From the Arizona Republic:

March 18th, 2013 by Editor

CBS THV channel 11 in Little Rock reports that,

The city council is considering banning pit bulls after the Animal Control Commission presented a report showing pit bulls were responsible for 57 percent of the city’s 28 dog bites last year.

Around half of the reported dog bites happened at the homes where the dogs lived under the supervision of the owner…

First of all, is the Animal Control Commission recommending a “pit bull” ban?  Because the National Animal Control Association notes that, “One breed is not more likely to bite than another breed” so perhaps the Animal Control Commission should heed the National Animal Control Association.

Second, since there is no breed “pit bull” the Animal Control Commission’s statistics are fatally flawed and therefore indicative of nothing. Indeed, countless breeds of dog, their mixes, and lookalikes have been fingered as so-called “pit bull.”  So, does no one understand that if you mix several actual breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes together and label them as if they were one breed that statistics on that “breed” might be massively skewed?  This is the kind of flawed logic espoused by the likes of the simpletons at Dogsbite.org.  These are not proper statistics, this is not proper scientific method, and it’s certainly not evidence credible enough to promote policy.  As the CDC notes:

Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous…  From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.  An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior.

Please write the West Memphis City Council here and politely tell them that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed bans are ineffectual, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.