Monday, February 24, 2014

Not a service breed
"Mum-of-four Emma Bennett, 27, was found unconscious at her home in Leeds with horrendous injuries to her head and face...
"Witnesses spoke of “crazy” scenes as up to 30 police officers, including an armed team, descended on the street in Leeds.
"Another shocked neighbor, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “I saw Emma in the back of the ambulance as ­paramedics were pounding on her heart. She was just floppy.”
" wanted to go for her whenever she was having a fit [epilepsy]."

 A fourth (or is it fifth?) person to be mauled during an epileptic seizure. She is younger than I am, with two more children than I have. This is why pit bull bans make sense. This is why pitbulls are grossly inappropriate for use as service dogs. They are too unstable to handle even a life of gentle love and care at home with the people who cherish and feed them. The last thing a community needs is to have such volatile animals roaming the community at large, forcing their way into venues as "service" dogs to interact with strangers and all sorts of stimuli they are not accustomed to. 
 If they are unsafe at home, under good care, where they feel safe, know a routine, have no fears, have no worries, no unmet needs... where on earth can they be a safe companion? 

This is why safety advocates protested bringing pitbulls into a school full of small children for more propaganda fluff, ostensibly under the guise of 'literacy'. And what makes these canine critters such excellent tools that aid literacy? What amazing quality is it that somehow is deeply transformative of a child's reading skills?
They "listen".
That's all.

Any other smaller, safer breed could "listen". Fanatics trumpet "any dog can bite" as if it were a legitimate and powerful counterpoint to gruesome and grievous pitbull attacks....*  well, then, "any dog can listen". Something that does not pose great risk of dismembering children without provocation. Any animal incapable of tearing children apart could be a substitute. Why not a "literacy hamster"? They can "listen". Even a pet rock made of dung would be more appropriate.

 (in itself a fallacy; yes, any dog can bite, but the end result is NOT the same. hell, even plants can 'bite'--venus flytrap--ergo, the ability to bite does NOT define equality or similarity with a specific animal or breed)
Many pitbull fanatics brag about how they skirt bans and ordinances by obfuscating their dog's breed or arbitrarily registered it as a service dog, in hopes of using the legal system to impose their will, and their dogs on the public.  Some are deluded enough to genuinely beleive these animals are great service dogs, on par with any other service animal.
A bloody and escalating history of violence would beg to differ.  Even discounting all attacks on humans and non-canine animals, the fact remains that these dogs have an undeniable neurosis for 'going game' on other dogs.  It's what they were bred for, excel at, and succumb to most frequently.  

REAL guide dogs, of time-tested temperament to excel in this line of work are frequently attacked by pitbulls.  Many do not survive.  These are animals that spent hundreds of hours being trained and earning experience in what they do.  Their testing was complex and lengthy--a hard-won prize, and they have no parallel.
By contrast, pitbull 'service dogs' are of the Cracker Jack variety; a person sends a paltry amount of money to register their dog as a service dog--with no training, no testing, no verification--slap a vest on their animal, mislead and falsely advertise the breed.  The result is in epileptics being caught unawares and grossly mauled--a few even unto death--because of the pitbull service dog farce.

A TRUE service/guide dog must be able to accompany their charge anywhere and everywhere--which means they will be out and about in the community, exposed to all sorts of environs, people, and animals.  It makes no sense to task a breed that cannot stand to be around other dogs/with a psychotic compulsion to kill other dogs with such circumstances that set them up to fail--and inflict a lot of collateral damage.

Dog breeds are tailor made for their tasks, their tasks are an element of conduct, and ergo, their behaviors are a product of their breeding.
Pitbulls were bred to spontaneously and unrelentingly tear other animals apart, and the rising death toll issues that they perceive humans to be in that category.  Their aggression is neurotic and generalized (NOT animal/dog specific).  If someone TRULY loved the breed/their pitbull, they would realistically manage their expectations for the dog and operate with a 'big picture' perspective allowing for the breed-specific tendencies of their animal. 

Pitbulls are a horrific mismatch with the task of being a service dog, as poor a pairing as expecting a teacup chihuahua to herd sheep, a pug to retrieve water fowl, a dachshund to race, a greyhound to pull arctic sled teams, or a Pomeranian to take down wild boars.  These are simple facts of reason, common sense, and biology. 

This is how they will lick you to death

Some thoughts on another's FB post;

considering all the attacks (body parts torn off and reduced to insalvagable hamburger) and fatalities this year, this child got off 'light'. There's nothing 'light' about this. What this is... is tragic, and frustratingly preventable. This girl, along with hundreds of other grievously wounded/killed people (often children) is why I find the 'lick you to death' diversion/cop-out extremely offensive. Anyone who utters such words with seriousness behind them, automatically winds up on my $h*t list until they wise up, acquire a little bit of humanity/compassion, and grow a brain.

Many erroneously trust in the safety of proximity to the breed, fostered by the lick-you-to-death misconception... like this man... and he lost most of his tongue for it;

Wholly deceived by the propaganda, and with the additional amelioration of years and years of non-aggression that lull people into a false sense of security... a friend of mine lost her child, to a dog named "Kissy Face" because she loved to lick "kiss" (hurk!) so much. Her two year old baby boy was decapitated by Kissy Face; and as she succumbed to the horror of the situation, she (Kissy) began mauling his lifeless body all over again.

The phrase 'lick you to death' is a blight upon the most innocent and helpless of humanity, and a tell-tale indicator of either gross ignorance or greatly deluded, pompous narcissism (lion-tamer complex).

Entreaty for re-evaluation

As I frequently do, I wrote a comment on a post and it just wouldn't quit. I end up writing so much stuff it's almost obscene to pass as a comment, and should be a post all its own. I was reading this today-->

And THIS is my response :B
(it's awaiting moderation on the blog itself, probably not visible yet)

Great write up, though a few points are off.... pitbulls need not be improperly trained/socialized or be abused to gruesomely maul someone out of the blue. They possess innate idiopathic aggression... which canNOT be tested for, predicted, trained out, or environmentally harnessed. It is NOT animal specific, man-biters were NOT culled and, if anything, pitbull fanatics today further pervert and contradict themselves by making such a false claim... all the while hysterically lobbying to free/save pitbulls that have savagely/fatally mauled people. That is certainly not culling "man-biters". As one of my betters put it;
[near-paraphrase/reworded in my syntax]
"They were bred to kill members of their own pack [ala dogfighting] and now that humans have been adopting them into their 'packs', the blood is flowing."

I strongly urge anyone and everyone, in furthering their reading about the truth of pitbulls, to use a source that is:

  • --objective,
  • --fair,
  • --uses science, evidence, and logic (rather than knee-jerk emotional appeals and fluff),
  • --proffers documents,
  • --evidence (video, pictures, etc.), and
  • --testimony of formally qualified/educated professionals like;
  • ----scientists,
  • ----animal control,
  • ----law enforcement (who have to deal with these dogs day in and day out),
  • ----formally educated animal behaviorists,
  • ----surgeons,
  • ----veterinarians, and
  • ----third party sources that do not have a vested interest in pitbull perception either way.

I also encourage reading multiple sources. I can name several pro-pit sites off the top of my head at any given moment. I can do the same for safety advocacy/truth-telling/ information/awareness/BSL sites.
The best site I've found offering any of this is (which reports not just on pitbull attacks, but *all* SERIOUS--no superficial little scratches or cutaneous nips, but penetrating wounds--dog attacks).

The blogs and links are worth more than a gander too; as the tragic and agonizing gauntlet of pitbull mauling increases in frequency, so too, are there an increasing number of blogs on the issue. There are personal accounts of attacks and experiences (Confessions of Pitbull Victims, for one), and yes, some heavy emotion... however, these are blogs, not formal news sites, and many of the authors have been personally--self or loved one--attacked (in multiple ways; often harassed, bullied, stalked, identities stolen, false reports filed, etc. by pitbull extremists--I'm not kidding... check out for some stomach churning examples), or have lost a loved one.

True, the founder of is a pitbull attack victim herself, but having personal experience with a matter does not necessarily invalidate the legitimacy of their work. Susan G. Komen's Walk for the Cure and MADD come to mind. If anything, personal experience can help someone serve a greater purpose. That which is emotive and that which is real can be filtered through viewing/posting of external news, videos, reports, etc., which can imbue a cause with substance.

This issue is so so deep and complex, ...trying to explain it all would turn this comment page into an ocean of text that would better fit into volumes. Though dogsbite and its blog companions (17 Barks, The Truth About Pitbulls, and Craven Desires, in particular) address and thoroughly DEBUNK the myriad myths and propaganda that has thoroughly penetrated our society in the last 30 years... pitbull advocacy has succeeded in laundering the breed's image, so deeply that it becomes taboo to utter anything but praise for these animals. Anything else often makes one a social pariah and object of scorn.

The myths and fabrications they thoroughly debunk;

__pitbulls attack because they weren't properly socialized

__pitbulls attack because they weren't properly trained not to (note the innate vs. environmental contradiction in those two)

__BSL doesn't work

__BSL is more costly than no-BSL

__pitbulls are only dog aggressive

__pitbulls were once nanny dogs

__pitbull is not a breed

__it's all in how you raise them

__its bad owners not bad dogs

__pitbulls are just like any other dog

__the media hates pitbulls and never covers attacks from other dogs

__people misidentify pitbulls all the time

__pitbulls must be abused, neglected, or provoked to attack

__spaying and neutering will prevent attacks

__pitbulls are great family pets

__pitbulls are loyal

__man-biters were culled

__pitbulls are [appropriate] service dogs

__people who are attacked are attacked because they are idiots/ignorant and couldn't read the dog's body language

(pitbulls are unique in that they do NOT warn before they attack--no growl, no rising hackles, no lifted lip, no flattened ears, no tensing stance and tail, etc.. Dogmen--those that breed for and participate in dog fighting--call this sort of warning indicator a 'tell', and purposely bred it out of the animals to give them the element of surprise. A common feature witnesses/victims that survive attacks notice is how sudden, and how absolutely quiet an attack strikes.

Dogsbite, 17 Barks, and Craven Desires have a couple of great exposes on the history of dogfighting and the emergence of the pitbull breed.)

__people who lobby for BSL are 'haters' (and granted, there are *some* who do hate the breed, though they are the minority AND they have suffered greatly, pets dismembered, people losing body parts, watching a loved one at the brink of death, or worse--faces torn off, limbs severed, decapitated, etc..) that "just don't like the way a dog looks"...

For most, this is NOT about hating a breed, but PROTECTING people--children comprise the majority of pitbull attack victims and most have not done anything to provoke the attack, many weren't even near the dog when it suddenly exploded like a rocket, crossing a great distance to rend and tear flesh (another attribute prized by dogmen--they call it 'scratching')--I personally actually think the animal is handsome in form,

...but I appreciate the dog the same way I can appreciate the beauty and strength of a tiger--from a distance. It does NOT belong in the living room, it does NOT belong in schools, it does NOT belong in backyards, it does NOT belong in a public park... you get the idea.

Pitbulls kill hundreds of other companion animals each year--and these perpetrators are just the socially integrated ones (i.e.pets), not counting the death toll caused by and within the dog-fighting circuit. They also kill and seriously injure livestock--animals as large as (surprise, surprise) bulls, horses, llamas, etc.. For small, family agricultural operations, this can represent a loss so large they lose the income to keep food on the table. Without BSL, they often have no legal recourse whatsoever, or that which is allotted is insultingly paltry.

I would like to add another point in how pitbull fanatics frenzied and fighting BSL actually works *against* the humane and compassion treatment of animals... the fact that continued integration makes it so so much easier to hide dog-fighting operations, enabling more growth in the illegal industry, and ergo greater animal suffering as a result.

Many can now boldly run in-sight by passing off the animals as domestic pets. They don't stand out among the neighbors anymore. To ban the breed would make the presence of pitbulls quite the giveaway. Limited in options and forced to sequester, dogmen would have a much more difficult time of operating--nonetheless expanding--their personal circuit.

Please note, a ban does not mean some form of canine Holocaust/genocide. Typically, banning requires spay/neuter of all existing animals, registering them, grandfathering existing pets from the ban, (so no..., no one is going to charge into another person's house, confiscate their animals, blow away their dogs with bazookas, round them up and gas them en masse, or whatever ridiculous scenario the fanatics concocted and are presenting now). Within fifteen years or so, these 'grandfathered' animals reach the end of their natural life and no more new pitbulls are to be acquired or created. For the interim, one must procure liability insurance, meet containment standards (these dogs are profoundly athletic and require more measures than merely fencing the average dog), have documented proof of vaccination, register their dog, and muzzle it in public.

I think you said it perfectly when you asked: "how does this punish 'responsible owners'?" Responsible owners should already be taking at least half these measures! People crying about punishment and see responsibility as a considerable and 'wrong' imposition is akin to someone claiming speed limits, traffic lights, and auto insurance punishes responsible drivers. Responsible drivers should *already* be operating with respect to those parameters... and therefore, have to make no changes and are in no way inconvenienced as a result formal regulation.

The people that rail about punishment and responsibility and so forth... are those who are *not* being responsible. If they were, why would they have a problem with making that responsibility formal (and thusly giving recourse to those harmed by the irresponsible)?

Service Dog Insanity--a faux 'crime' against a faux 'service dog'

I often comment on articles/posts/status updates in an extremely lengthy fashion, especially when I've had some proverbial food for thought.  These meandering diatribes become expansive enough to warrant their own post, and here is one such example;

the post:

long story short; a woman went to visit a patient in the hospital and bought her 'service' dog pitbull with her.  Hospital staff asked her to evacuate the dog, and did not acquiesce to her flimsy cries of service animal. 
(note; any dog can be masked as a service dog by paying a $60 fee to title it as such--no training, tests, conditioning, exams, or third party evaluation needed.  These animals are most often touted as 'emotional support dogs'...These kinds of "service dogs" are the equivalent of pulling a degree out of a Cracker Jack box. .)

my response:

how lovely that [the syndication] omits entirely what the dog's alleged purpose is. A venue can only be charged with a misdemeanor in denying access if the dog is a SPECIFIC KIND of service dog, i.e. guide dog.  Service dog =/=guide dog. There IS a difference. She's not blind, deaf, or significantly impaired physically (though mentally seems quite another story). Those are the qualifiers for unrestricted admission.

I bet you dollars to donuts this 'service dog' is nothing more than 'an emotional support dog' with no real training or purpose, just a vest slapped onto what obviously appears to be a former fighting dog (the docked ears) or a "rescue".  Pitbull fanatics brag--yes brag--about how they arbitrarily turn their companion animal into a service dog to skirt ordinances that inconvenience them. They derive great pleasure from their 'endeavor' and crow about 'beating the system'. (I think one of the recent posts on Craven Desires showcases an example of one such service-dog-joke nutter.)

Additionally, the hospital was right! The dog is yet another contagion whose purpose does not outweigh the risk. Not by a long shot. You've got the canine champion of most unpredictable, sudden, most frequent, and most brutal destruction trapped in a building with society's most vulnerable and helpless people.

The woman was not in any need of medical care. Putting her out was not harming her in any significant way. She was a VISITOR, not even family, and not a patient. Ergo, the hospital was not denying a patient critical medical care. If she's so unstable she can't handle bringing along a friend or family member to substitute as her emotional crutch for a little bit, just to see a sick friend in a controlled environment (not exactly a trying and nerve wracking ordeal), she's not really fit to be in that environ anyway.

I do not say this to denigrate, but more as an observation of mental fitness for certain environs. I say this as a person who knows what its like to have a little baggage and not feel safe outside the home without a companion close by (this phase has passed, obviously), but here's the thing: I didn't expect the world to rearrange itself according to my dysfunction.

This smacks of boredom and a persecution complex.

The hospital was right, PERIOD.

Capital Regional Medical Center of Tallahassee, if you EVER "apologize", I hope it is naught more than this; "We are sorry this woman was uncooperative and deeply distressed by our unwavering dedication to put patient safety first." I know where I'm goin' if I ever need medical care in Tallahassee.

Her demand for an apology smacks of entitlement, but I do want to note that there is an instance in which I might understand that desire... if they were inappropriately rude or excessively terse with her from the get-go about it. But that would be more about the staff's behavior than the service dog policy.

Notably, she evacuated the premises when the 'threat' of law enforcement was issued, which tells me she knew on some level she was in the wrong--otherwise, why would someone with the temerity to hit the presses over her non-incident not stand her ground and assert she is doing no wrong?

Now some might say, perhaps, that maybe she was afraid her dog would be shot (since pitbull fanatics hyper-fixate on the armed self-defense people must use against these animals). However, in such a small place (ricochet risk), with countless witnesses (discouraging 'bad behavior'), with great risk to self and others if a firearm is discharged (oxygen tanks, etc.), law enforcement would not discharge their weapon unless absolutely necessary... i.e. the dog is aggressive and threatening.

If she left for the possibility of mere police presence alone (which, if she is truly convinced she's in the right, would be the only reason to prematurely depart), that means, on some level, she knew that contentious dog behavior in that situation was high enough a possibility to warrant a scootch-away.

If her animal is truly a service dog, on par with other service dogs, it should possess the necessary congruency of temperament, documented background, and [what should be] extensive training to not be phased by a plethora of varying environments and people. If crowds, machines, different sights and smells, or even a mere stranger elicits canine hostility, the dog is definitely NOT FIT to be a service dog...

and most likely was never formally qualified by a reputable testing method in the first place. In some jurisdictions, turning your dog into a service dog is as easy as filing some papers, paying a fee, and slapping a vest on your dog.

That, in conjunction with her fixating on the dog aspect of the scenario, and not mentioning anything about the staff attitude toward her, leads me to believe this is a case of--pardon the vernacular--attention whoring, most likely eagerly exploited by the pitbull lobby as a publicity stunt to push their product.  That may sound conspiracy theory-esque, but when a single fight purse can go for tens of thousands of dollars, and this underground 'sport' nets billions of dollars, you can bet your buns there is high incentive to blind and distract the public from the dog's true purpose, so that they might be easily camouflaged in communities, thus expanding the range of the industry.

Motives Unveiled

^Compilation of families betrayed by their dogs, that wound up having to beg authorities to use lethal force to end the attack. Among these, are normal, everyday folk, like you, like me, like anybody. ...Good to their pets, not thugs, not abusers, not "dog-men", not deviants, not hoarders, not delinquents,
...many even feel they are helping make the world a better place, buying into the social hype that makes martyrs of dangerous animals and villains of realists and accurate journalism.

Unable to support their dogma with evidence or logic, pitbull zealots frequently resort to spewing emotional accusations of animal hatred at victims and BSL supporters. (Many of which are advocating for legislation to protect their own cherished pets/livestock/animal preserves, but that point is lost to them--save but for pitbulls--in the minds of intensely biased and callous fanatics.) It is an last/only-resort appeal intended to shut down 'the enemy' in the hopes that they will be stigmatized and dismissed as negative bigots.  

It's time to stop avoiding the issue, time to stop mislabeling and obfuscating. This isn't about bigotry or breed hatred. This isn't about persecuting innocent animals. This isn't advocating a genocide of some form.  This isn't the next Holocaust, as much as pitbull fanatics would have you believe BSL means all pitbulls will be rounded up en masse, ripped from their homes, and slaughtered ASAP. 

(Actually, extremely moderate methods of BSL with successful results have occurred in many cities and other countries--they involve grandfathering existing pets from the ban, but prohibiting further breeding, mandatory registration, spay/neuter, vaccinations, approved containment structures tailored to the breed, and liability insurance, muzzles in public, and much harsher penalties for any infractions.) 
This is about taking an appropriate stance in regard to a dangerous animal, allowing the truth to shine, and adopting more appropriate attitudes and measures.

The breed really isn't appropriate as a domesticated pet. It's a powerful, unpredictable, and highly lethal animal that requires treading with caution and all the due respect of any large, wild apex predator. It is no more bigoted to remove these animals from living rooms and family parks than it is to separate those human realms from wild bears and mountain lions. Appreciating those animals from a safe distance does not equate hatred and bigotry but common sense and decency. It is exercising understanding due caution for the animal... the stance is one of prevention.

In a way... you could even say... it's about... "respecting the beast".
This particular beast is man-made and man-maintained. Tragically, it is also man-tortured. The best favor to the breed would be to cease aiding and abetting dog-men by camouflaging their operations in our communities, drastically deplete and hinder their range of operation, starve their industry dry by cutting the crap and eliminating the further proliferation of a breed so grossly perverted and inbred (a breeding method used to produce an exaggerated trait as quickly as possible) that all that encounter the animal--including the animal itself--often suffer a bloody price.  It would be kinder to gently let the genetic "freak-show" expire. This could happen in as little as 15 years, if implemented.

Remember; this is about LOVING our communities and ENDING this circus of canine SADISM, NOT hatred.

TRUE Animal Advocates don't enable and ignore the gross injury, suffering, and death of hundreds of innocent animals

From the FB group  Protect Children From Pit Bulls And Other Dangerous Dogs
 This post is chock full of data and numbers pertaining to animal victims of pitbulls, and how this epidemic being swept under the rug--in the interest of pitbulls only--by those who call themselves animal advocates screams of hypocrisy.
 Among the spoon-fed, generic lines indicative of mindless indoctrination via the latest trending 'reality tv' (aka farce) hype; "just like other dogs"

a little information and a little independent thinking married with even basic elementary math should arouse some discord even in prepubescent intuition.  From the link above;
"Thus in 2013 about one pit bull in 107 killed or seriously injured another animal, compared with about one dog in 50,000 of other breeds."

Deductive reasoning is far from an unattainable, secondary-education necessitated skill-set. Even the uneducated can possess it, and exercise it with regularity and efficiency.

Deductive reasoning tells us that if something is 'just like' something else, it will possess the same qualities, attributes, form, and these will exhibit or demonstrate similar qualities, attributes, inclinations, and behaviors within a fairly tight continuum.

To vary dramatically is to make something NOT 'like the other', since 'like the other' is a designation of sameness. Make no bones about it, the variance here IS definitively, undeniably drastic. An animal is HUNDREDS of times more likely to be seriously injured or shredded by a pitbull than any other breed of dog.

(Another common pitbull fanatic blow-off is a flippant howl of "DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!" ...with no additional information or contribution to the subject at hand. It shows the juvenile and immature mindset of the whiner who throws such a dismissal, because they are counting on what is efficient in their own mindsets--a puerile aversion to 'extra work' and 'homework' and the nitty-gritty of investigation.... anything 'not fun' or salacious. However, when this affront is unloaded on someone with the intellectual capacity and maturity to investigate comprehensively rather than recreational... an individual who rises to the challenge of 'do your homework'.... this works against the pitbull extremists' cause, because 'homework'... hard numbers and facts, do NOT align with their dogma.

Case in point...
If you want to get into some simple high school math (basic pre-algebra here) to nail down the numbers, here ya go;
For comparison, determine the percentages, via the simple percentage-ratio equation;
any given percentage to be determined/over a hundred = ratio of subject, for example, 1 pitbull in 107 will be 1/107, one dog in 50,000 other breeds will be 1/50,000, so we will have;

1/107=x/100 for the first equation and 1/50,000=x/100 for the second, respectively.
Cross multiply each to get;
107x=100 and 50,000x=100
Using the distributive property of multiplication (which, in this case, is dividing either side by the remaining coefficient on the variable side), we get;
x=.9345... and x=.002

To determine how many more times likely an animal is to be killed by a pitbull than a dog of another breed, we simply divide the pitbull number by the other breed number... .934 (and that's rounding down for the pitbulls, folks!) divided by .002 equals 467.

An animal is not 10... not 20... not 50... not 90... not 100... not 200x but... 467 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE MAULED/KILLED BY A PITBULL THAN ANY OTHER BREED OF DOG )

Pitbulls definitively do not conform to the shape, design, temperament, ability, predictability, or behaviors of other dogs--not by a long shot. This is why some even call them 'un-dogs' because that which was bred in the canine species to be domesticated--to be our contemporary understanding of 'dog' as companion--has been aggressively bred out of pitbulls and fighting dogs for several hundred years now. The evidence of this divergence is piling up daily, and it is in rivers of blood. Much of this blood belongs to animals that people deeply love--just as much, arguably if not more-so than any pitbull owner loves their pet. Yet, their pain, torture, loss, their plight is grossly ignored, undermined, swept under the rug, and even mocked by fanatical pitbull advocacy.

It is tragically clear that animal welfare is nothing more than a thinly veiled construct (one easily shattered) of a ruthless game-dog advocacy that will stop at nothing and use any and every dirty trick in the book to deify their cause and villainize others.

Denying facts of nature is proving to be quite the deadly fallacy

There's a great pitbull meme circulating around FB, a striking comparison of how disturbingly backwards pitbull zealots are in their oft self-contradicting rhetoric--anything to venerate the Chosen Breed.  Which got me to thinking... 

Would you like to accuse people of being racist for not allowing bears to be domestic companion animals? Do you want to repeal any legislation or ordinances that prevent you from keeping a pet bear and touting it all through the public, and throwing up a furor when restaurants and other venues deny access because of your service bear?

Pitbull zealots like to talk about the plethora of things that kill more people than pitbulls do, justifying that we shouldn't regulate their status as pets because we don't ban cars, cigs, HFCS, etc.. This insinuates there is a fatality threshold at which something becomes unacceptable or not, and that, until an issue/object/animal reaches this threshold, it isn't a problem worth serious consideration. (This especially hypocritical and folly for a society that regularly recalls products that injure or kill the consumer, many need not even need a single fatality to be rescinded.)

This deeply flawed mockery of 'logic' would dictate that animals should be evaluated on their own individual merit, rather than by their species/breed and risk--and should only be addressed as individuals, like people. This in itself is a significant fallacy.  While it may feel like a noble and worthy concept, it is riddled with problems.  

If we elevate the status of every animal to person-hood, then it stands to reason that the consumption of meat and use of animal products must cease completely.  This does not bode well for the populace's health; the human body cannot synthesize B12 from plants--it is only through animal protein that we can process it, and insulin-dependent diabetics will have to forfeit the only substance keeping them alive.

When animals equate human citizens, we cannot keep pets--for they cannot give consent, and if a person is incapable of consenting to where/who/how they live, if they are not allowed to determine their own path and self-concept, we call that imprisonment and/or slavery.... which is wrong no matter how 'nice' the master may be.  We also cannot administer medicine, medical treatment, and hygeine upon those who do not consent to it. 

When we demand to anthropomorphize animals according to person-hood, we are demanding that all human interference with them cease.  No more meat, or ownership, spaying or neutering, and just where do we draw the line?  Rodents and other pets should be allowed free reign, to pursue the right of happiness as people do, no? 

No matter how much we want to humanize animals, the fact remains that their biology--their DNA--is a powerful predictor not just of appearance but behavior... and in dogs, especially more-so, since humans have been selectively breeding for specialized traits for thousands of years.  We streamline breeds with a purpose in mind, and that purpose involves not appearance but function and behavior.  That is simple, undeniable fact.  It is why we attribute specific skill-sets to specific breeds
  • the greyhound races
  • the husky pulls sleds
  • the Labrador retrieves
  • the dachshund digs
  • the beagle bays
  • the pointer points
  • the shepherd herds
...and we observe these traits occurring in companion animals far removed from their point of origin and intended purpose--they act out their genetic heritage without training or prompting, influenced primarily by a carefully cultivated instinct.  This is irrefutable in wild animals too; 
tigers enjoy water, lions do not, cats 'knead bread' with their paws, woodpeckers peck trees, beavers chew wood, pachyderms run from predators, and so forth.  All of these are attributes of behavior, not merely appearance.  

It takes an animal's conscious decision to act out chewing, swimming, running, pawing, etc..  Arguing that there is no innate compulsion for specific behaviors specific to certain species is beyond counter-intuitive.  These animals need not be trained or subjected to extraordinarily abusive/neglectful environments to do what they do. It comes naturally, and so, too, is it with the pitbull breed... bred to savage impulsively, without rhyme or reason, instantaneously, severely, fatally if they can help it, with no provocation needed. 

Pitbull fanatics cry 'blame the deed' even though that rhetoric still has people and animals dying by the hundreds (or more; the animal toll is nearly incalculable).

The reason we have existing limits on what constitutes an appropriate pet is through the interest of PREVENTING the 'deed', and if you look at the variances between the fatalities inflicted by wild, 'unacceptable' pets versus the allowable, coddled fighting breeds, it becomes quite clear that prevention IS effective. Death by wild animals is but a drop in the bucket compared to the 'acceptable' fighting breeds' kill count. Why is that...?

Because it does not allow for the opportunity to attack, and attacks dramatically diminish. Incorporate it into households, obfuscate their true nature, obstruct educational tools that don't sync with a particular propaganda, deny regulation of any kind... and the death toll grows and grows... (not to mention the extreme maulings that occur on a daily basis.)

We're talking people and animals losing limbs, being scalped, degloved*, grossly disfigured, blinded, brain damaged (loss of blood and/or oxygenation), grievously injured and disabled...
*medically speaking, 'degloved' is a term for the skin being forcibly ripped up and peeled back from the underlying viscera/muscle. Think of a person as a banana, and skin as the banana peel.

If it were a product, it would be called defective.
If it were a medical entity, it would be called malpractice.
If it were a force of nature, it would be called a natural disaster.
If it were pests destroying resources it would be called a plague.
If it were a band of united peoples inflicting this kind of damage one would call it war.
If it were a virus, it would be called an epidemic.

No matter what you call it, if it were any of those things, it would be terminated/prevented/mitigated at every possible turn, by any means possible, with collective support and enthusiasm. All those things would be recognized for the blight they are. To manage/handle them is not an act of 'hate', but of concern, care, responsibility, even love. It would be the right thing to do.

Unless you call that thing pitbull. Then heaven help you.

You will be harassed, bullied, smeared, threatened, deceived, and assaulted in countless ways. Pitbull zealots will stop at nothing, they will lie, they will spread lies as fact, they will get you (or die trying) fired from your job, they will salt your earth. They will blame you or your loved ones for being a victim, they will post pictures of you and collectively mock and bully you (Faces of BSL Apologists is one example), they will post your contact information and send you (and, if they can get their grubby paws on extended info--your family and employers) an endless stream of hate-mail. (the hate-mail on is just the tip of the iceberg in the ugliness pitbull fanatics employ)

They will rain hate down upon you and yours with merciless tenacity. And you, you will be labelled the 'hater' for daring to have a voice, or simply having the misfortune of being afflicted by someone else's propaganda/bad choices.

Interested in exploring the issue more in depth? Please visit great objective site, lots of citations and external resources, objective, reports on ALL major dog attacks, not just pitbulls. It has a must-read myth-busting section, comprehensive and informative articles, a great blog, and many more great links.

There are a lot of great blogs out there too. True, there is personal motivation to some, but many cite experts and external sources/syndication to back up their views/information/statistics.

  • Confessions of Pitbull Victims
  • 17 Barks
  • The TRUTH about Pitbulls
  • SRUV
  • Dangerous by Default
  • Father of Dax
  • Baby Beau Foundation
  • Pitbull Fatal Attack Archive
  • Craven Desires (a personal favorite but it makes no bones about being a site of personal expression and is not objective--BUT there is just so much good information incorporated into the personal writings that it's a great place to mine links for quotable data. There is a great side button labelled 'experts' that is page after page of info and quotes from REAL animal authorities (those with formal educations and experience, employed and 'in the trenches' with these animals, real scientists with verifiable research, etc.), not the self-proclaimed animal experts like Karen Delise, whose deceptively formally titled clique 'The Canine Research Council' is nothing more than a social club of fanatics who pick and choose from Google searches and present their cherry-picking to the public like it's confirmed fact/science)
  • First Church of Pitbulls
  • The Nanny Dog (myth)
  • The Canine Game Changer
  • Scorched Earth--the politics of pitbulls
  • Munchers of Doom
  • Animal Uncontrol
  • and if you use YouTube, a user named zupf has a channel chock full of pitbulls-in-action footage WARNING: many are NOT for the faint-of-heart