April 17th, 2013 by Editor

April 25, 2013 update: According to the Wall Street Journal, HB 956 “died in committee.”  According to its sponsor, Rep. Rodney Moore, “he wasn’t sure that the breeds designated by the bill as aggressive are ones ‘with the most incidents,’ but he said they ‘were the most prevalent by the feedback that I’ve gotten’.”  Really?  So “Representative” Moore proposed HB 956 with no more than anecdotal “evidence” as “proof” that these breeds were “aggressive”?  Perhaps we should lobby for a bill to mandate minimum IQ requirements for potential “representatives.”

***

North Carolina HB 956, sponsored by Representative Rodney Moore and co-sponsored by Representative Larry Pittman, has a laundry list of nanny-state requirements (including the type of background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that we have seen in gun control laws!) in order for North Carolinians to own dog breeds the bill defines as “aggressive.”  An “aggressive dog breed” is erroneously defined as “any of the following breeds of dog and dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds”:

(1) Pit bull, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, American Staffordshire Terrier breed, and
American Pit Bull Terrier breed.
(2) Rottweiler.
(3) Mastiff.
(4) Chow.
(5) Perro de Presa Canario.

The term “aggressive dog breed” also includes wolf hybrids.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Palm Desert Patch:

….After hearing from their constituents, the [Riverside County Board of] supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would mandate spay and neuter of Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes across unincorporated areas of the county.

The draft will come before the board at a later date for consideration.

Among the citizens to speak before the board was Willa Bagwell, executive director of Wildomar-based Animal Friends of the Valleys. She spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, arguing that Pit Bulls fill up the shelter she operates.

Shouldn’t Bagwell know that breed-specific laws, any breed-specific laws, make shelter intakes skyrocket???

Bagwell also agreed with Beaumont City Councilwoman Brenda Knight, who spoke Tuesday. Knight said she had been attacked twice by Pit Bulls, and argued the dogs have a different, more lethal bite than other canines.

“They rip and tear,” she said. “Their bites are more vicious.

“I am a dog lover,” Knight continued, but she urged the supervisors to move forward with an ordinance.

A dog lover?  Really?  Then why support legislation that’s going to see so many dogs relinquished to local shelters to be killed???  And the tired old line about “pit bulls” (whatever they are since “pit bull” isn’t even a breed) supposedly being more aggressive or more dangerous than any other actual breed of dog, is just that: tired, and long ago debunked.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Times-Picayune:

Westwego officials want to make it more difficult for city residents to own pit bulls. After a near-fatal attack last month, city officials are amending the city’s pit bull ordinance, proposing that the dogs’ owners be at least 21 years old and have at least $100,000 in liability insurance under their homeowner or rental policies, according to a draft version of the city’s new ordinance.

“Those responsible pit bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

…Under the proposal, owners must have microchips installed in the animals to track them if they escape. Breeding pit bulls will be banned, and the dogs must be spayed or neutered, Shaddinger said. If not confined to backyards, the dogs must be muzzled and must be walked on leashes no longer than 4 feet, he said.

Licensing fees haven’t been set, but the punishment for violating the ordinance could include up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500, Shaddinger said.

Responsible “pit bull” owners do have a problem with this.  Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is unconstitutional, it unfairly scrutinizes law-abiding “pit bull” owners because of what a very few so-called “pit bull” owners do, and it erroneously defines “pit bull” as if it were an actual breed.  That and should “pit bull” owners in Westwego be assured that Westwego won’t eventually take their dogs away since this will be the second addition to an already existing breed-specific ordinance?  If Bluefield, W.V. is any indication, breed-specific ordinances often escalate to out-and-out bans, so if I were in Westwego, I wouldn’t be consoled by the fact that the Mayor says he doesn’t want to take my dog away.  Yeah, maybe not this time, but since Westwego is currently considering an escalation in their already not working BSL, how can Westwego citizens really trust that city officials don’t want to take their “pit bulls” away?  Read the rest of this entry »

April 5th, 2013 by Editor

April 11, 2013 update: Chippewa Falls Council stops short of a ban on “pit bulls.”

From the Chippewa Herald:

Does the city have a vicious dog problem? That’s the question Chippewa Falls City Committee 3 will discuss at an upcoming meeting.

“We haven’t set a date yet, but we’ll certainly do something (on) vicious dogs,” said Council Member Bill Hicks, vice chair of Committee 3, which deals with public safety issues.

The conversation has been initiated by resident Jillian Wollmer. She told the City Council Tuesday night that on March 29 her husband was chased into a vehicle by a dog she identified as a pit bull, before it and another pit bull mutilated the family’s cat, Ely, in her yard. Ely had accidentally been let out into the yard earlier by Wollmer’s 21-month-old son, who Wollmer said was fortunately inside the residence at the time of the attack.

The dogs ran off after police officers arrived at the West Central Street residence.

“As of now, the police haven’t found the dogs,” Wollmer said Wednesday. “They’re still out there, and no one knows if they’ve had any aggressive incidents prior.”

…“There will be serious discussion about a ban. The way (Wollmer) described her story, it could’ve been her child hurt or killed,” Hicks said. “Do we have to wait before someone is seriously injured first before considering this?”

…Ferg said the city’s ordinance against dogs running at large is a common citation, though the vicious dog citation applies to more serious incidents that involve injury or potential harm.

“The police are pretty good about when it’s a plain case of an animal running loose by accident and try to give a warning, but when there are repeat cases (of a dog running around) they will get cited,” Ferg said.

…“I can understand both sides (of the pit bull argument) but I think safety comes first,” she said.

Safety should always come first in any community, so why consider a breed ban or breed-specific restrictions for “pit bulls” when it is well known that breed-specific legislation (BSL) doesn’t work?  Oh, and that there is no actual breed “pit bull” .  Besides, Chippewa Falls doesn’t have a “pit bull” problem; Chippewa Falls has a free-roaming dog problem.  Read the rest of this entry »

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 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 Register-Mail:

After a 7-year-old boy [Ryan Maxwell] was fatally attacked by a family friend’s pit bull, city officials and area legislators have talked about reforming laws on dangerous dogs to prevent further attacks. With a ban on a specific breed of dog out of the question, political leaders might find it difficult to substantially strengthen local laws.

A state law that prevents breed specific legislation has withstood recent legislative challenges, and Illinois cities that have tried to ban pit bulls have been ordered to stop enforcing those laws. Galesburg’s ordinance regulating dangerous and vicious does not differ greatly from other surrounding cities, and follows closely to a state statute on dogs.

Despite how radical animal rights activists like Merritt Clifton disgustingly attempted to exploit the death of this boy by lobbying for a breed-specific law (BSL) in Galesburg, the fact of the matter is that Illinois has a statewide prohibition of breed-specific laws, home rule or not. 

And as an aside, shouldn’t animal rights activists have cared about the fact that the poor dogs in that yard were constantly tethered and starving?  But they don’t care, do they?  We already know they don’t care about the innocent little boy who was killed, but the fact that they also don’t care about the dogs who were likewise victims should be an eye-opener to those who think animal rights groups care about domestic animals.  No, their agenda is to end domestic animal ownership, and they’ll even exploit the death of an innocent little boy to accomplish their agenda.  What’s the agenda?  To pass legislation, like BSL, that goes on to see countless innocent dogs needlessly killed.

Regardless, it wouldn’t have mattered if there was a breed ban, breed-specific restrictions, or an anti-tethering law.  Ryan Maxwell would still have been a victim.  Why?  Because those dogs were victims.  In fact, the article about the Galesburg, Illinois incident clearly states that the dog in question was abused by his owner:

“The baby was taken away from us too soon by a mistreated dog. A lot of us are thinking that knowing Ryan, and the type of kid he was, he was probably going to feed the dogs, because they were starving. We were told their ribs were showing” [Paula Johnson, the boy’s great-aunt] said.

So, the dogs were abused.  Do you still want to blame the “breed,” or should we maybe look at the other end of the leash to the dogs’ owner who was starving them?  Read the rest of this entry »

March 6th, 2013 by Editor

You know it’s been hard enough watching the doggy killers and the gun grabbers repeatedly muddling “pit bull” ownership and gun ownership — like Gary Stein of the Sun-Sentinel did just this week when he advocated for breed-specific laws and gun control, as one alderman did in Watertown, Wisconsin when they were considering a “pit bull”-specific law, and when a neighbor shot at “pit bulls” who were attacking a boy in Washington, D.C.  But when I see them exploit the dead, well, then my hackles are really up.  What, it wasn’t enough for the gun grabbers to exploit the Sandy Hook dead with their gun-grabbing measures?  Now they have to come after “pit bulls” with their gun-grabbing, doggy-hating spiels?  Judging from what looks like Dogsbite.org‘s comments on an article regarding the Watertown BSL, what looks like Kory Nelson’s comments on an article regarding the Washington D.C. incident, and today, Merritt Clifton’s comments on an article about a boy who was mauled to death by a dog in Galesburg, Illinois, it’s almost as if the doggy killers all have the same handlers and those handlers tell them what to say and do.  What’s another word for that?  Oh yeah, puppet master.

The gun grabbers and doggy killers are right about one thing. Gun grabbing and breed-specific laws (BSL) share some commonalities: 1) They’re both unconstitutional seizures of property without due process, 2) They’re both done under the pretense of safety, and 3) Neither gun bans nor breed-specific legislation make communities safer; in fact, quite the opposite.

And since I’ve watched these evil gun grabbers exploit the innocent children that were brutally killed in Sandy Hook, I guess it should likewise come as no surprise when I see the likes of Merritt Clifton exploiting a dead child in order to push his massively skewed “pit bull” statistics.  Yes, believe it or not, Clifton made comments under the comments section of a WQAD channel 8 story about a boy in Galesburg, Illinois, who had been attacked and killed by what was erroneously called a “pit bull.”  Clifton wrote,

I have been logging fatal and disfiguring dog attacks by breed since September 1982 — more than 30 years. Of the 3,970 dogs involved in such attacks, 2,441 were pit bulls; 3,117 were of related molosser breeds, including Rottweilers, mastiffs, and their mixes, as well as pit bulls. Of the 502 human fatalities, 250 were killed by pit bulls; 371 (69%) were killed by pit bulls & other molosser breeds. Of the 2,194 people who were disfigured, 1,391 (61%) were disfigured by pit bulls; 1,790 (79%) were disfigured by pit bulls & other molosser breeds. Of the total deaths and disfigurements by pit bulls, approximately half have occurred in the past five years. This is, in short, a repetitively predictable phenomenon which is occurring more & more often, and, incidentally, is resulting in about 10 times as many animal deaths & disfigurements by pit bulls as are suffered by humans.

As I have so often done where Clifton’s ridiculousness was involved, I can so easily and quickly discredit Clifton’s “more than 30 years” of erroneous and laughable statistics by simply saying this: “PIT BULL” IS NOT A BREED! Read the rest of this entry »

March 4th, 2013 by Editor

March 10, 2013 update: In response to a torrent of responses to Mr. Stein’s ridiculous opinion piece last week (and of course the publicity he and the Sun-Sentinel were looking for on the backs of “pit bulls” and their owners whom Stein had maligned, which serves to generate ad revenue), Mr. Stein unapologetically wrote another hit piece noting that the responses to his response used the f-word alot.  Funny, isn’t it, how people don’t like it when you try to push legislation that kills innocent animals?  Not only that, but Mr. Stein actually had the audacity in his latest diatribe to call out some letters to him that were racist when he used the “those people,” “in that neighborhood,” “with those kinds of dogs” language himself.  Yeah, we all know he’s racistly referring to black and Latino neighborhoods, his latest harangue even racistly opining against Cubans apparently, but then he cited Dogsbite.org as a source!  So Forrest Gump truly was right: Stupid is as stupid does.  And Mr. Stein is once again incorrect when he says that “Pit bull lovers don’t like that site, because it makes their dogs look bad.”  No, we don’t like that site because it’s junk science, with skewed and erroneous statistics that no proper media outlet in its right mind would ever cite as a credible source.  But then, the Sun-Sentinel‘s admission that it has used Dogsbite.org as a source calls the Sun-Sentinel itself into question as a credible source, as do Mr. Stein’s ridiculous prejudices about “pit bulls,” Latinos, and gun owners.  That’s also why, of the three reasons that I listed why Mr. Stein might push Hitlerian gun control and breed-specific laws, mentally challenged AND corrupt got my votes.  

***

Today, the utter foolishness of Broward County, Florida, editorialist Gary Stein, who wrote the hit piece, “Getting a bang out of pit bull spiels” for the Sun-Sentinel poking fun at “pit bull” advocates and pro-gun lobbyists, deserves the following well-reasoned and godly response.  Solomon, one of the wisest men who ever lived, wrote:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:5)

So, via the following, I’m going to answer Mr. Stein as his folly deserves. 

Like his wiser forebear Solomon, Mr. Stein ought to know that we, as God’s creation, have a moral obligation to stand up for the weak, the poor, and the helpless.  But so often anti-gun lobbyists have appeared to overlook the glaring first amendment violation (specifically a violation of citizens’ freedom of religion) inherent in gun control/disarmament.  For the Christian and the Jew, Exodus 22:2 (i.e. the Pentateuch) very clearly states: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”  In other words, God clearly allows for protection to the death of one’s home, property, and the defenseless.

Similarly, when Cain killed his brother Abel using the jawbone of a donkey, God did not outlaw crude implements that could be used by wicked humans to take a human life; He cursed and banished the murderer (Genesis 4).  So there are very clear scriptural precepts that allow for humans to take another human life or hurt another in protection of one’s person, property, or in defense of another.  In other words, Jews and Christians have a moral obligation to defend themselves and others.  When the anti-gun lobby and the “representatives” they purchase reduce or eliminate citizens’ rights to protect themselves under the Constitution and under scriptural law, they are defying God’s authority and citizens’ moral obligation to defend their lives and the lives of others that are imperiled, which in turn is a 1st amendment freedom of religion violation.  If elected officials, and editorialists apparently, would read the scriptures more, they might not be so cavalier about pushing their own laws in clear violation of God’s.

To put the prior paragraph’s argument more succinctly: We have a right and a moral responsibility to defend ourselves, our own, and those who cannot defend themselves.  So when Mr. Stein does the bidding of his godless puppet masters and relates “pit bull” owners to 2nd amendment advocates, calling both “rabid,” his utter foolishness needs to be exposed. Read the rest of this entry »

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? Read the rest of this entry »