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--> http://metisrebelunleashed.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/why-pit-bull-lovers-piss-me-off

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 http://dogsbite.org/ (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 http://fatherofdax.tumblr.com/ for some stomach churning examples), or have lost a loved one.

True, the founder of dogsbite.org 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:
http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/2014/02/tallahassee-fl-pit-bull-medical-service.html
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.

Addendum;
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

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php
http://nj1015.com/roselle-pit-bull-owner-begs-cops-to-kill-it/?trackback=tsmclip

^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. 

https://www.facebook.com/ProtectChildrenFromPitBulls/posts/440001229436653

 

 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 http://fatherofdax.tumblr.com/ 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
http://dogsbite.org/ 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

Puppycide?? the "po-po" dog shooters

Within the last few weeks, we've had a near daily rash of fatal dog-shootings.  There is the inevitable backlash, the outrage, the fury--that an armed, trained, intelligent human ... would be so "extreme".  Would respond with "excessive" force.  

"Surely there must be another way!"  

"Shooting a dog, nonetheless family dogs?? How sadistic/lazy/cruel/other-negative-character-traits-here!!  I mean, who can't handle a dog, right? Throw it a steak or get over a fence or talk real nice and sweet to it or rope it with a harness, or just kick it away, right?"

The problem is... these 'common-sense' assumptions saddle a breed with uncommon aggressive habits and attack style.  Brutal attacks by pit bull type dog breeds are a daily occurrence.  Every 12-14 days (some years more, some years less, but the trend over the last 30 years is a steady incline...)  they kill another American--this doesn't count the fatalities occurring in the UK, NSW, Brazil, etc..  Every six days someone loses a BODY PART to these dogs--even if they were loved and spoiled family pets, raised from puppy-hood and bonded over years and years of uneventful cohabitation.

Trying to warn anyone about these crucial and life-altering differences typically gets a person assaulted and threatened, and called a 'hater', 'racist', 'ignorant', among other ugly ad hominem toss-outs.  This onslaught of harassment is so steady and prolific that it often is effective in silencing a truth-sayer.

Ergo, the majority of the community plods on, oblivious to the danger roaming around on four legs.  But law enforcement knows.  Their experience far out-classes that of the average joe-schmoe, even those who claim to be animal rescuers and the like.  These men and women of the law regularly face "when-things-go-wrong" scenarios.  The average pet owners' experience is tempered by the fact that their own sphere of exposure is relatively small, and experience with crisis situations may be non-existent... until it's too late.

I'm not claiming no police officer has ever done wrong or exercised bad judgement... they're fallible and human mortals like the rest of us.  What they do have, though, is training and experience with crisis situations in abundance.  They must follow protocol.  That protocol is based on a precedent of history. That history shows it is far too reckless to let a pit bull type dog roam at large--especially when it's aggressive.  What these animals do to people is not like the fearful, quick bite-and-release snap of an ordinary domestic dog.

Additionally, law enforcement must act with prevention in mind.  Preservation of the peace.  "Prevent "the deed."  This breed is infamous for sustaining attacks even after being beaten, gouged, stabbed, hit by a car, tazed, maced, and even shot REPEATEDLY.  It's important to keep in mind the damage that could be wrought upon the officers or innocent bystanders.  

It's important to keep in mind the unique horrors these animals can visit upon a body with no warning, and in seconds.  

THIS is what the officer must keep in mind when making that split-second decision on how to handle the animal;

(WARNING: graphic and disturbing images below--these are included for educational purposes only.  These are a pictorial representation of the 'side effects' of a pitbull attack, much like how manufacturers of medicines and products are obligated to be responsible and must include warning labels listing all known dangers--no matter how remote the chances are.)

 

Do you still think law enforcement should play coombaya with these animals first, when they approach the officer during/right after an attack?

Ideological comforts first! No memorial for attack victims allowed??

In reviewing some links on my own personal page, I was both startled and nauseated to find that a tribute video to pit bull attack victims had been stripped from YouTube.  It was not graphic, it was not offensive, it was barely even political.  The focus was on remembering the deceased and putting a little humanity--faces, names, stories--to the otherwise abstract, cold statistics currently representing those people.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924-e6o6zQc#t=720

It makes me sad that I have to wonder of the newest tribute video:
how long will this one last until it is flagged, censored, and stripped from view?  How many times will it have to be re-uploaded in response to fanatics flag-bombing it into obscurity?

Precedent shows it is not just videos that are subject to unfounded flagging and removal. The Wikipedia entry for the breed is penned by fanatics, offers no quarter from anyone else, and any time someone attempts to inject anything but, their material is immediately removed.  One user edit offering statistics and fatalities lasted no longer than a half day; another was live for only three hours.  Venture into any pit bull fanatic forum discussing 'management' of BSL supporters, and you will find page after page of encouragement to flag and harass authors/a post/sponsors until the 'offending' material is removed.

The only thing separating this tribute to the dead from so many others (such as tributes to 9/11 or cancer victims) is the manner of death in which they were taken.  Why does their killer merit more concern and defense and outrage than the victim??  Why is it wrong to honor and remember them??

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAEjWOQTNPQ

Even victim memorials are targeted.  The owners of the two pit bulls--Ricky and Christi George--that killed 10 year old Justin Clinton vindictively demanded destruction of a small memorial assembled by his classmates, friends, and family.  In an attempt to avoid legal consequences via touting their "good character", they formally testified that they were sympathetic to the family.  This was before they forced removal of the little flower-pot and cross memorial.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2009/11/pit-bull-owners-force-removal-of-justin.html

 

(image from dogsbite.org)

After the attack, classmates of Justin created a make-shift memorial at the spot where he took his last breath. The location is next to CR 133 and falls at the very back of the George's property, a distance from their house and fenced yard. Recently, the George's demanded that the memorial be removed from their leased property.
 ...

Mrs. Clinton states:
"Our family has been touched by the love and prayer of our community when they established this small make-shift memorial for Justin. Everyday my daughter would go by the memorial on her way to school. As a cheerleader for the school, she would each day say a prayer and give Justin a cheer at the site of his gruesome death. This helped her cope with her grief."

Here is the most recent tribute.  It's so compelling, and beautiful (in a tragic way) that fanatics will, no doubt, be foaming and rallying to strip it from view ASAP.

http://youtu.be/YhvYMRKjNlw

It's so sad that putting a face to an issue involves, predominantly, so many young children. Here is the product of the nanny dog myth. Here is the reason why perpetuating the myth, and regurgitating garbage like "[they'll only] lick you to death" is not only extremely offensive and wrong, but in the face of such recurrent tragedy--it's OBSCENE. This is why I will never suffer utterance of such garbage ever again. ...and this--this is only representative of less than one complete year. 

People have been so blinded to the frequency and severity of these atrocities (occurring daily--an attack on a person, pet, or livestock) and seek only to perpetuate the same tired, false propaganda pumped through: 

-false experts, 

-scripted "reality" shows, 

-advocates with a vested financial interest in keeping the problem lidded from public purview (including dog-fighters, whose industry is $50 billion strong, and fight purses can be $10,000 high), 

-gross spinning and manipulation of the facts, 

-omission of fact, 

or--more often than not--outright deceit.

...and yet, people have the gall to proselytize that a media "conspiracy" and "witch hunt" is at work here.
The pit-negative "conspiracy"
does.
not.
exist.
If anything, the media is a tool of benefit to such a lethal cause, and fake experts exploit it to push their agenda every day.

It's disgusting to me that people respond with such furious outrage over just TALKING about the problem (how dare I!?) and are so recalcitrant on the DEATHs of innocent people occurring every 12-14 days. To those that would be dead silent about/ignore the dead, but rally and froth for merely mentioning the pit problem/sharing information--shame on you!

Such people won't even take a moment to view such a beautiful, but tragic tribute comprised mostly of images and music (a few seconds or less of text sharing data, is not a politic-laden piece--the rest is in honoring the deceased)... People are more likely than not to gloss over posts/the issue entirely, and yet will turn around and sanctimoniously declare others are "ignorant" and should "open [their] mind[s]".  This, from those who refuse to investigate anything further than their noses.

Lovely.