Wednesday, December 31, 2014

What is BSL?

What is BSL?

BSL stands for breed-specific legislation. It need not apply to banning dangerous dogs but is also a useful tool applied in managing humane breeding standards in physiologically problematic breeds, the care and management of sporting breeds, etc.. 

As is most relevant here, breed specific legislation is legislation and ordinances passed to regulate or 'ban' dangerous dog breeds, such as pit bulls and other blood-sport dogs from the mollossar group.

Some common misconceptions or even outright deceptions propagated by the anti-BSL camp are;

Myth: dogs are identified arbitrarily by sight, and by 'random' professionals that could have little or even no experience with identifying dog breeds./Only a DNA test can verify breed.
While it is true that more sophisticated methods--such as DNA tests--cannot distinguish 'pit bull' as an individual breed... (in fact, many fanciers laugh about the fact that their purebreds/prize winner DNA tests come back with absurdly wrong results, KNOWING their dogs are full well not just pit bull, but take pride in them being the epitome thereof), pit bulls are as readily identifiable as any long-standing, distinguishable breed by the cluster of lists identifying specific traits and body ratios according to UKC standards (or in the AKC under the guise 'American Staffordshire Terrier').

In reality, in areas with pit bull bans, a dog in question must be identified by a cluster of attributes by animal experts like veterinarians, animal control, and shelter workers. For example; in Miami Dade County, there is a 47 point identification for establishing a dog as 'pit bull'.

Myth; BSL punishes 'good owners'. Many people don't realize this, but BSL doesn't equate an outright ban. In many BSL areas, breed-specific ordinances may be a combination of any of the following;

  • (dogs must be) licensed
  • spayed/neutered
  • micro-chipped
  • muzzled in public
  • housed according to specific containment standards
  • insured with a certain minimum of liability insurance
All of these are reasonable parameters for responsible dangerous dog ownership. Truly responsible owners would be following such measures already and only those deviant and seeking to avoid responsibility for the management of their dogs would feel 'punished'. Many owners of other breeds, including toy breeds, already take such precautions because they understand that, much like driving a car, you must assume responsibility for ALL aspects of a privilege to maintain such privilege.  "Insurance/licensing/etc. punishes good drivers" is not an excuse or logical reason to throw automotive regulations out the window.

Dangerous dog ownership is a privilege, not a right. Car ownership is a privilege, not a right. A car must be inspected, insured, and up to safety protocols; and these are inanimate objects with no free will of movement. That free will of movement is what makes it all the more important to appropriately maintain a high-risk animal. 

There is also the animal itself to consider; the benefits of neutering and spaying are myriad, and a dog that gets loose is subject itself to dangers; toxic substances in the environment it may consume, harsh elements, abduction, being hit by cars, etc.. Ergo, proper containment and micro-chipping are preventative and crucial tools in safe-guarding a pet, respectively.

Myth; BSL hurts/kills innocent dogs. Hysterical anti-BSL lobbyists rail and compare BSL to the holocaust, invoking images of dogs being rounded up and euthanized en masse. The reality is; in the history of BSL, there has never been a mass round-up and euthanasia of banned breeds. When a ban is enacting, existing dogs are grandfathered into the area, and can be kept till the end of their natural lives according to the city's protocol--meaning adhering to micro-chipping, insurance, etc within a reasonable period. Owners that refuse to comply with such measures are issued a generous grace period in which to re-home their pet elsewhere. That same grace period is generally given to those who relocate into the area with banned breeds, as well.

In reality, BSL can save innocent dogs; "[from] ANIMALS 24-7 does not believe that animal rights, animal welfare, or even just being kind to animals is advanced by protecting backyard breeders of fighting dogs from the passage of effective breed-specific legislation to prevent the births of a million pit bulls per year who will repeatedly flunk out of homes and be killed at the average age of 18 months."  In areas with BSL, the rate of euthanized dogs and shelter overcrowding drops dramatically, easing the burden on taxpayer shelters and Animal Control.  For example, in Aurora, Colorado;
"...the dogs placed a tremendous burden on city staff. According to city documents, before the ordinance was enacted in 2005, up to 70 percent of kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner.  That number is now only 10 to 20 percent of kennels."

Myth; BSL doesn't work.  Mountains of evidence in areas with long-standing BSL beg to differ; here's a list of cities with successful BSL and the relevant data accompanying each.  A few snippets;

Police records show Sioux City police officers responded to 37 percent fewer dog bites in 2013 than they did in 2007, the year before the breed ban was passed. During that time, the number of reported bites declined each year but one.
In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right — the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13.
The ordinance the city adopted prohibits pit bulls and mixes of the breed, as well as any other vicious or dangerous animals, from being in the city. In the almost 20 years since it was adopted, Antigo has had no attacks, no maulings, and no dogs killed by pit bulls or other dogs.
the city of Greenwood both have similar bans on pit bulls and dangerous animals... the city has had no attacks and issued no citations.
According to statistics taken from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, as reported in the News-Leader March 12, for the three-year period beginning in 2004, there were 42 "vicious" animal attacks recorded in the jurisdiction covered. After passing the local ordinance banning or strictly controlling the ownership of pit bull or pit bull types, the number of attacks has dropped dramatically. For the five-year period from 2007-2011, there was a total of 14.
in March, Aurora released statistical data showing a significant reduction in the volume of pit bull attacks and pit bulls euthanized after adopting a pit bull ban in 2005.
For the four years leading up to the ban, from 2000 to 2003, officers responded to 71 incidents of biting or scratching involving pit bulls in Pawtucket, a majority of those, 51, involving attacks on people.
In the 10 years since the ban was put in place, police responded to 23 total attacks involving pit bulls, with only 13 of those involving attacks on people. 
[Since the city adopted mandatory spay/neuter BSL for pit bulls] San Francisco has impounded 14 percent fewer pit bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer - which is a "significant decrease," said Rebecca Katz, director of the city's Animal Care and Control department. 
In January 2013, the Nebraska Humane Society reported that pit bull bites dropped to 31 in 2012, down from 121 in 2008 (a 74% reduction), the year that Omaha enacted a progressive pit bull ordinance.
The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.
A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.
Provincial laws that banned 'pit bulls,' defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.
Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites. 
The county saw a 9.6 percent decrease in dog bites in the year since the spay/neuter program was instituted. (San Bernardino, CA)
And on and on it goes...

Myth; BSL is too costly to enforce.  Again, the existing data disproves this.  Pit bull lobbyist Karen Delise's 'BSL cost calculator' is skewed against BSL by exaggerating enforcement costs and failing to account for the broader scope of the issue.  BSL has existed for decades in many jurisdictions with no catastrophic fiscal ramifications.  Additionally, dramatic reductions in euthanasia rates and shelter overcrowding reduce the strain on city coffers.  

The community is more productive in the absence of debilitating, brutal pit bull attacks.  Unlike most other breeds, a pit bull attack often entails life-long disfigurement and disability, both physically and mentally.  This creates people dependent upon the system for life, which would otherwise have become or continued to be productive citizens contributing to their communities.  

Monday, December 29, 2014

Attacked Where They Slept

"It’s unknown how the dog got so close to the baby in the middle of the night."

It well may be found that the dog simply approached the baby wherever she was sleeping and inserted itself into the infant's space to maul her. If you read about infant maulings and fatalities, you will find multiple instances of pit bulls attacking a baby while he/she slept in their crib, on a bed, in a bassinet, in a baby swing, in a car seat, or even sleeping next to his/her parents.…

These are only a handful of such tragedies;

  • 11 day old Mya Maeda was mauled to death in her crib by the family's pitbull mix 
  • 9 day old Daniel Smith was mauled to death in his crib by the family's 9yo pitbull 
  • 15 day old Darius Tilman was mauled to death his crib 
  • 2 week Brian Lillis was sleeping in his car seat when the family pitbull mauled him to death 
  • A 5 day old girl was mauled to death in her bassinet by the family pit bull 
  • A 13 day old baby was killed in his baby swing by the family pitbull 
  • Newborn Thomas Carter Jr. was killed by the family pitbulls while sleeping next to his father 
  • 8 week old Iopeka Liptak was mauled to death by the 5yo family pitbull while sleeping on his mother's bed 
  • 3 month old Rayden Bruce was mauled to death by his father's pitbull while sleeping on his father's bed 

If you read about pit bull attacks in general, you will notice a disturbing pattern of just how stealthy silent these dogs can be. These dogs can be so quiet that a person need not be impaired or intoxicated in any way to miss the sounds of attack; and in the case of no doubt sleep-disturbed parents of a newborn, it can only be more so.…

It's possible there is some wrong doing on the part of the parents in this case (we just don't have enough information), but please, please, remember... the overwhelming common factor in pit bull attacks are not environment or stimuli, but the dogs themselves. Nutters love to say 'get educated'. I did, and the truth the led me here. 

Please do venture forth and form your opinion on this; but read ALL sides, and pay attention to the victims, not just the dogs. That is where you will be able to discern for yourself just what makes this breed dangerous; look for common factors, if any, compare and contrast the information from pro pit bull, victim/awareness advocacy, and verifiably neutral sites (the NCRC and ASPCA are not neutral) and think critically.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Excellent quotes from "My Dog Doesn't Bite! The Parents Guide to Dangerous Dogs"

Excellent quotes from veterinarian Jack Tillerson's book 
(emphasis formatting added by moi)

Official Book Description from the site; 
Dr. Jack Tillerson has practiced veterinary medicine for over twenty years and has witnessed the horrors associated with vicious dogs and canine attack. The majority of dog attack victims are children. These kids can be maimed, disfigured, or killed. The author knows that many of the 4.7 million dog bites that occur annually in the U.S. could be prevented if parents were better informed.
My Dog Doesn't Bite, by way of multiple sources and references, lists the dogs most likely to attack, maim, and kill. Readers will learn the myths and excuses used by owners of dangerous breeds in an effort to deflect criticism. There is also a discussion of little known diseases that humans, especially children, can contract from dogs. These diseases are found in unexpected places and can cause severe illness, including blindness and death.
There are a number of patterns associated with canine attack. These observations, along with a veterinarian's unique perspective, are used to educate readers on how to avoid becoming a canine attack victim. Read accounts from persons who were mauled by vicious dogs.Witness the frustrations of canine attack victims, or their survivors, as lives are are shattered in a matter of minutes.
Almost everyone has a story about dangerous dogs. Most of these events occur for a reason, making knowledge the best defense against canine attack. My Dog Doesn't Bite is like no other book currently in print. Dr. Tillerson assembles the bare facts on vicious dogs along with testimony from experts, victims, and a cynical veterinarian. Nearly one million Americans require medical care for dog bites every year. Laws protecting citizens are weak in most of th country. My Dog Doesn't Bite goes a long way to help you or a family member from becoming a canine attack statistic.

"I went on to ask [a legislator's mouthpiece] if people can own Pit bulls and other dangerous breeds of dogs without restriction, then why not pumas, tigers, or for that matter, pythons. The assistant stated that exotics are not considered domestic animals as are pit bull dogs. If a python can be labeled as a reptiles of concern by the state of Florida, then why not classify dangerous breeds of dogs as canines of concern? These animals heap far more morbidity upon humans than Burmese pythons ever will.
“Someday, the child of a well-known politician will be maimed or killed by an aggressive breed of dog. Along with media hoopla, there will be cries across the land to do something about dangerous dogs. In the meantime, the rest of us will need eyes in the back of our heads. We will need to keep our families behind fences and pray that these mobile creatures of destruction do not cross our paths. Perhaps someday, legislators like those in Denver and Miami will realize that protecting citizens from canine attacks is more important than a few extra votes.”

“The reporter was interviewing a man described as a dog expert of one kind or another. The subject was how to defend against a canine attack. The expert described using your bicycle or other objects as a barrier. He said that raising your arms will give the appearance of being larger. There was also the old water spraying technique. The man sounded reasonable. The reporter went on to ask what to do in the event the attacking dog was a pit bull. The expert briefly looked at the ground, seemingly embarrassed as there was no quick answer to the question. The man looked up, smiled sheepishly, and said, "Give him your bad arm." 

"In other words, an attack victim has a chance of escape with almost any breed of dog should he be able to mount some form of defense. According to this man, however, if you are attacked by a determined it bull, you won't be getting out of the situation. You are going to be physically damaged. The only question is to what degree.”

“The behavior of the pit bulls that attacked Bonnie has been seen over and over. The breed is a prime offender. Sometimes they circle, but often these dogs attack without barking or hesitation. The dogs were persistent and did not back away.”

“With weak statues and lax enforcement of them, canine attacks are part of twenty first century life in America. Ownership of vicious dog breeds is socially acceptable, and authorities do little to deter the practice. Parents must maintain constant vigilance to keep their children safe. It is a defense that is incomplete at best. Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, that is as good as it gets.”

“There are a lot of people who will say the problem of dangerous dogs does not exist or is exaggerated… I hear of bites, attacks, and fatalities on a regular basis. Too many owners of vicious dogs are apathetic toward the dangers their pets present, until some innocent is attacked. Most of these attacks are on children.
“I have practiced veterinary medicine for more than twenty years and have heard every excuse, B.S. story, and cliché in the book. If you could see what I see in the veterinary clinic, you would know that the problems of dangerous dogs is vastly understated.”

“The difference between nasty small dogs and their larger counterparts is significant. ...The difference between a mean Chihuahua, Yorkshire terrier, or Miniature Pincer and a mean Rottweiler is that a small dog is not likely to kill or disable you for life. Little guys can hurt you, but they will not grab a two-year-old child by the abdomen and shake him until there is nothing left for the surgeon to work with. …One can put the direct comparison of nasty small dogs with large aggressive dogs to rest. The argument is like comparing apples with oranges.

“These were horrible stories. ...I would use them in an attempt to educate clients when they came to the clinic with a dangerous dog of any breed. By and large, it was a waste of time. Still, I though the folks who were attacked needed to have their side of the story told. I hoped that sharing the stories might help others avoid inflicting a future tragedy on an innocent victim. Unfortunately, most owners of dangerous dogs feel that a similar occurrence would never happen with their dog. Their dog is a good dog. That is how almost all owners of dangerous dogs think. And why not? There is, in most cases, little ramification should the worst occur.”

Thursday, December 11, 2014

The Problem with Bagging on Alleged 'Pit bull haters' in the Debate Arena

(crossposted to The Canine Game Changer)
As so eloquently illustrated in Jeff Borchardt's editorial 'Hounded', and as is the experience of virtually every outspoken dangerous dog victim and awareness advocate (including meself!), nutters love to cyber-stalk a person and pick apart their lives in a ceaseless smear campaign.  They attack anything and everything they can; the way a person dresses, talks, where they work, where they live, what pets they have, how many children they have, their weight, their diet, their skin/hair, their religious views, their hobbies, political views, past experiences and mistakes, etc.. 

 They deserve no further recognition, but nutters run various hate pages on Facebook and blogs, updated daily (so I hear, I avoid them for the plague and garbage they are, and though I know you mean well, folks who contact me about this crap, I follow the golden rule when it comes to bullies--ignore them, do not feed them, they want your energy and attention, they desperately need validation of any kind). 

 They do these things in a puerile attempt to raze a person, in the vain hopes that besmirching a person's character is the key to destroying their credibility and shutting them up.  This kind of personal attack in response to a well-stated argument is, unfortunately, a common evidence of the failure of our educational system, because anyone with a basic education should be well aware of what this is--ad hominem.

A flawed character is not grounds for dismissing the validity of a person's extra-personal observations and assertions.  Insisting that nothing a person says is valid in any area because they have been less than stellar people in another area is not only fallacious but utterly unrealistic... because no human being is perfect in all aspects of life--mistakes and flaws are a promise of human existence itself.  If only perfect, infallible people are to be believed, we must discard the observations and achievements of virtually everything we know and everything that makes us intelligible, civilized creatures.  This is the problem with ad hominem (personal attacks, impugning ones character in a fallacious attempt to discredit the person issuing the argument, rather than discrediting the argument itself).

The only time, say, calling someone a liar is going to effectively work in discrediting their argument is if you
 1.) can verifiable prove the person is a liar
 2.) with evidence that is relevant to the argument. 
 #2 is the biggie!  #2 is non-negotiable.  Saying Joe Blow cheated on his taxes is not relevant to arguing, say, what the most efficient smelting method is at the foundry.  If you were arguing money matters, perhaps, but for something wholly unrelated it just isn't pertinent.  A real life example;

Albert Einstein's personal life was considerably less honorable than his academic achievements; he fathered an illegitimate child with his first wife before they were married, and the baby disappeared from documented existence.  He set strange rules for his wife, detailing that "she had to serve three meals day, to stop talking if he asked her to, and to expect no intimacy from him."  However, he had enough intimacy to spare to court many mistresses (though in his writings he claimed their affection was unwanted too; however, not unwanted enough to avoid extramarital affairs with them); among them his first cousin paternally (and second cousin maternally), whom he left his first wife for, to marry.  Mental illness was a specter in his family; his second son, Eduard, was deeply afflicted with schizophrenia at age 20 and spent his life in and out of (at the end, perpetually in) asylums.  

However strange and deplorable his personal romantic exploits, one cannot use them to fault and argue on the validity of his other work; the theories of relativity, gravitational fields, particles, motion of molecules, light photons (photoelectric effect), the principles of equivalence and adiabatic invariance, the injustice of racism (he was a member of NAACP), his academic teachings on theoretical physics, thermodynamics, and analytical mechanics, and research on uranium and chain reaction (nuclear fission, the Manhattan project).

No, to discredit Einstein's scientific bodies of work would take something in kind--other bodies of scientific work, evidence, etc..  Where Einstein chose to sling his trouser snake has nothing to do with  the math of quantum mechanics. Were Einstein's work the research, study, and teaching of dangerous dogs, no doubt every little aspect of his personal life would be open game to the critics (nutters), even his unfortunate schizophrenic son.  I know SABSL* advocates with autistic or mildly disabled children and the vocal ones have had those innocents attacked and smeared in the vicious, frothing frenzy that is angry dog fanatics. 

 The scope and intensity of their virulence is precisely why the term 'nutter' exists... and as an aside, for those new to the issue, 'nutter' does not encompass ALL dangerous dog owners; just those who are deceptive, aggressive bullies and/or stalkers.  A pit bull owner with an open mind that truly listens and does not worry a debunked claim like their dog with a bone, but instead absorbs and seeks to learn anything they can to be as cautious and careful as they can--truly understanding all the facets of their dangerous dog breed... is not a nutter.  Little known fact is there ARE dangerous dog owners in SABSL groups who get along just fine, and do work together toward creating safer communities. 

 These are the people who understand that their dogs aren't fit for public consumption and were perhaps acquired with the best of misguided intentions.  However, now having all the evidence before them, they stop with perpetuating dangerous myths and stop with excusing (any/every attack) and abusing (victims, victim blaming, wild speculation, etc.).
Sadly, these people are far too rare.
I digress.

What is SABSL? An umbrella acronym for safety/awareness/breed-specific legislation advocates.

Other Bad Boys in History
Oscar Wilde
Pablo Picasso
Julius Caesar
Errol Flynn
Elvis Presley
Alexander the Great
King Charles II
Percy Shelley
John F. Kennedy
Benjamin Franklin
Lord Byron
Howard Hughes
Sir Walter Raleigh

Rational Wiki has an excellent article describing the ins and outs of this logical fallacy known as ad hominem.  From this Wiki:
Defining ad hominem

The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "to the person." It also sometimes applies to any argument that centers on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.

As most people use the phrase in recent times, an ad hominem argument occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It is therefore a special case of the broader category of formal logical fallacies, the non sequitur, in which the conclusion urged, e.g. that the disputant is incorrect, does not follow from the premise asserted, e.g. that the disputant is a dick.[1] Even if the ad hominem attack is true, e.g. the disputant really is a dick, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant's argument is logically sound.

How ad hominem works

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g.treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of your opponent's arguments.

Subtle uses

Often, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. There are many forms of this, such as pointing out bad things they (the opponent) have done in the past in arguments about morality (they are not attacking the person's points about morality, they are attacking the person), or using exclamations (for example, "Jeez!") to imply that the person is incredibly slow at understanding your point.

Blatant uses

Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally trolls who want to provoke people to fight. These are often partnered with not even responding to the person's post, using arguments that make no sense, and thus have never been heard of, then mocking their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal, and many other such techniques. 
False positives

Ad hominem attacks are strictly fallacious when the attack has little or no bearing on the argument at hand, for example, dismissing a female scientist's opinion on a subject because she is a woman would be a fallacious ad hominem argument - dismissing it on grounds of insufficient qualification or experience would not be, although it may fall into other fallacious categories and may constitute a Courtier's Reply. Similarly, pointing out someone's known track record on a subject would also not count. For instance, YouTube creationist VenomFangX has a past history of filing false DMCA claims, and it would not be an ad hominem attack to bring this up should he file another. It would be an ad hominem however, if it was brought up to refute one of his YEC claims.

Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a valid logical conclusion based on their actions. Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn't automatically make it an ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot - not the other way round.

Creationists sometimes make the mistake of calling a personal insult an ad hominem attack when it is not intended to address the truth or falsity of the creationist's claim, but merely to denigrate the creationist. Likewise, creationists are known to mis-characterize logically sound arguments as ad hominem attacks in an attempt to obscure the soundness of the argument or their burden to respond by making an emotional appeal.

A criticism is also not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. A habitual liar is not physically incapable of telling the truth, and therefore dismissing their claims entirely is not valid, but it is certainly not incorrect to weigh their testimony as less trustworthy than that of someone with a reputation for studious honesty if comparing contradictory claims by the two.
SRUV put it best when they wrote "An entire genre of the advocacy movement has developed based not on evaluating the data but on character assassination." (In regards to the constant assaults on investigative journalist and humanitarian Merritt Clifton, but it is a route taken with all scientists, investigators, victim advocacy groups, and writers whose findings defy the propaganda machine;, Animals 24-7,, Walk for Victims of Pit Bulls (and other Dangerous Dogs), Barbara Kay, Alexandra Semyonova, Jeff Borchardt, etc.) In fact, these raze-the-ground tactics are such a default modus operandi of 'pit bull advocacy' that exposes on these crimes against human decency are myriad enough to span an entire blog; Scorched Earth: The Politics of Pit Bulls.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

One Breed, A Million Excuses.

One breed, a million excuses. At what point does one stop to consider, "hmmm, why does this particular breed require militant advocacy and excuse after excuse? Why does it require publicity and PR managers aggressively managing the 'breed image'?"

One of the wisest things I ever heard was from my father, "Never be with someone you have to make excuses for." The reason the issue is so complex is precisely because so many excuses have been disseminated so thoroughly they have been blindly accepted as fact.

If Myth Busters did a pitbull series they could easily run several seasons on it. Ridiculous. It's like the abusive psychopath who blames the rest of the world for his self-created problems... any and every excuse, no matter how wrong or ridiculous... to deflect blame...

I don't even know if I can list all the excuses, lies, deflections, and smokescreens used by pit bull (and other dangerous dog) 'advocacy'. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to provide information debunking every fallacious, empty 'talking point' issued by sociopaths eager to perpetuate the wide-scale suffering and death of animals, people, and even the very breed they claim to love.

The trash that needs to be taken out;
  • The media has it out for pitbulls. (over-reports, misreports, under-reports on 'other breed attacks', 'never posts good stories', etc.)
  • People misidentify pit bulls (crucial in insinuating the attack/kill counts by pit bulls is much smaller than issued). ...and the related;
  • Staffordshire terriers and pit bulls are totally different breeds.
  • Pit bull is not a breed.
  • Pit bulls are only dog aggressive.
  • Pit bulls are stable/safe/appropriate companion pets.
  • Pit bulls are great service dogs.
  • Pit bulls are loyal and protective.
  • Pit bulls were nanny dogs.
  • Pit bulls were bred as farm dogs (or for any purpose other than dog-fighting and blood-sport).
  • Pit bulls were once so popular they were 'America's Dog'.
  • Any/all dogs bite/kill.
  • Only abused/neglected/fight-trained/provoked/unsocialized/untrained pit bulls attack. (Notice a lot of the self-countering there? They must be trained to fight/they must be trained not to fight, etc.?) ...and the related;
  • It's the owners not the dogs.
  • Pit bulls are just like any other dog.
  • BSL kills innocent dogs.
  • BSL punishes good owners.
  • BSL doesn't work.
  • "Your breed is next./In the (insert decade here) it was the dobermans/rottweilers/German shepherds/(insert allegedly maligned breed here), now it's the pit bull..."
  • BSL supporters are nothing more than 'haters'.
  • is a bunch of lies made up by a pit bull hater.
  • Animal experts support (insert any of the above claims).

Monday, October 20, 2014

Some Disturbing Parallels

I'm writing a paper on secession for a US History class.  Part of that assignment is to present a chosen state's Ordinance of Secession (OoS)
My group was assigned TX, and I must pinpoint the states stated reasoning for it.  Many of these illogical assertions parallel the victim bullying, victim blaming, wrong recusing, and fact denying assertions of the pro pit bull movement.

First, it claims the union is denying a person's state-constitution rights; it is a Texan's right to own slaves!  So, too, it is with pit bull fanatics  who rally against BSL; it is a RIGHT to own a fighting breed dog no matter the cost; however, reasonable people understand this is not so.  

It should not be so.  Why?  Because we have a long standing precedent of regulating animal ownership for the collective safety of the communities we live in.  A person cannot own apex predator animals in the community at large; you cannot bring a bear or a tiger into highly populated area for the undeniable threat they pose to the surrounding people.

In many places, other animals are restricted from city/town propers for the same reason.  For example, in some areas, you must obtain a permit to bring a horse into town.  These animals are irrefutably less fatal than pit bulls.  However, their biology makes them powerful and skittish.  Pit bull biology makes the dogs powerful, bold, unstable, and devastatingly destructive when they go off.

A person cannot import exotics into certain areas because they are highly problematic as an invasive species--they threaten the ecosystems around them, indirectly so to humans.  It is not so as pit bulls. You'd be hard pressed to make a week without an occurrence of a pitbulls breaking off lead/containment to attack members of the community.

Another portion of the ordinance classify the few fatal skirmishes between law enforcement protecting freed slaves as "murders". It is truly sad when anyone or thing dies as a result of violence, but classifications of homicide are issued according to context (self-defense, unforeseeable accidents, and acting under military orders are not classified as murder, for example).

Even when a person's child or animal is mercilessly attacked and they have no choice but to kill the dog to end the attack(1), even when a police officer is charged full-on by a pit bull--even when said pitbull had just commenced an attack on another person or animal, even when police fire upon a pitbull because the pit bulls own family is being mauled relentlessly and BEG him to do it.... (2)  Pit bull fanatics cry foul, make a martyr of the aggressor, label the officer a murder, hold protests against him, and demand his termination. (3)  Acting as a public servant to fulfill their sworn duty to protect and serve, or to save yourself or your loved ones from a vicious attacker hell-bent on killing is not murder.

Secessionists cried natural law and that slavery is a divine institution sanctified by The Creator.  We all know this is not so.  Scientific evidence--fact--proves to us that differences among the races are arbitrary At best.  It's plain physiology.  

The scientific physiology of a pit bull is riddled with dangerous biological markers. (4)  If you've ever heard someone call a pit bull a "ticking time bomb", this is why; Pitbulls are endowed with brain structures that are exaggeratedly different; their impulse control is greatly diminished, Their brain rewards idiopathic (unprovoked, suddenly without warning, and extreme in severity and duration) aggression with a powerful cocktail of opioids and dopamine.  It physically rewards violence.  Their blood clotting factor is supreme above all canids  to keep them "in the fight" for as long as possible.  

The observable precedent of behavior (which we all acknowledge as being able to be discerned as innate through observation in collies herding, labs retrieving, etc.) that plays out on a daily basis is that these dogs  Are spontaneously violent, their attacks incredibly implacable, and that they are not target specific.  

They will maul people--any person, including family, not solely aggressors or abusers), animals of every kind, and even vehicles when they are in the zone.  Science proves pit bulls are a significantly elevated risk to life and limb just as it proves that, among human races, no one race is smarter, stronger, or cleaner than another.

The OoS states the union was on a power trip and sought to destroy southern institutions.
Fanatics howl that SABSL proponents are seeking to--for no reason imaginable--to destroy dog ownership and that other breeds are ominously next.  This is a wholly unsubstantiated claim designed to recast those championing a safe society for all as hate filled extremists who relish in "destruction" for destruction's sake... And wholly ignores the fact that even pit bulls themselves benefit from regulation. In areas where even mild BSL is present, the rate of severe bite injuries and fatalities plummet dramatically, leaving less "negative press" for the breed, in addition to plummeting dog-fighting, dog-abuse,  crammed-to-the-gills (and therefore compromised standards of care) shelters, and pit bull euthanasia rates. (5)

In the OoS, there is also an assertion that abolition fractured and divided people, and while this is true, that does not make abolition wrong.  Disagreement is not grounds for ignoring an issue.  Anything but.

The South issued that the north was acting vicious economically, seeking to destroy southern industry to somehow (the regions largely traded wholly different products--manufacturing, fishing, timber, textiles, etc.  In the north, sprawling plantations and cash crops in the south) fill their own pockets.  Basically, it's all about money.  Pit bull fanatics claim victims are just frauds seeking to solicit charity moneys for personal gain, and even proclaim that pays large sums of money to people to "make up stories".  This ignores the fact that behind every attack is a victim with very real, crippling, lifelong, or fatal injuries.

These injuries are evidenced by witnesses and medical treatment, and they are not "easy" ones--missing eyes, ears, noses (6), scalps (7), limbs (8), permanent nerve damage (9), loss of function (10), brain damage (11), etc..  Many of these People have medical bills that exponentially soar above the alleged "bribe", additionally, singular bribes would be grossly ineffective in "converts".  

A much more effective and profitable endeavor—taking a page from the pitbull advocacy play book) would be to generate propaganda films and "documentaries" (another parallel--the early 1900s saw the production of race based "documentaries" espousing the alleged inferiority Of non-whites (12), peppered with gross amounts of junk "science" to support it.) and aggressively and Consistently make media fluff plays.

When Kevin Vicente had his face partially torn off, his family set up a fund that received a measly 5K for months, while a "save Mickey"--the dog that mauled him--campaign received tens of thousands of dollars and support in a few weeks. (13) This is not uncommon... It is substantially more lucrative to generate money through a pro pit bull scam than a victim plea.

Man stabs pit bull in defense of tiny Westie 
Family begs cop to shoot pit bull 
Pit bull protesters want police officer fired 
Pitbull physiology 
Successful BSL 
Mauled faces--eyes, ears, noses
Scalped pit bull victims
Pit bull victim amputees
Nerve damaged pit bull victims
10 Disabled pit bull victims
11 Brain damaged pit bull victims
12 Racist Propaganda films (and other media)
13 Kevin Vicente and Mickey the pit bull 

Sunday, September 7, 2014


Have you ever heard the question, or wondered for yourself;
"What's the difference between Staffordshire Terriers and Pit Bulls?"
(or any variation thereof)
People often encounter the mention of Staffordshire terriers in any arena of pitbull conversation.  Staffordshires are referenced as a wholly separate breed from pitbulls, and on this faulty premise, people typically make several assumptions/assertions;
  1. The given; these are different breeds.  Ergo, many traits--especially behavior--may or may not be shared, any more so than any other breed from one to the other.  (That in itself is a faulty premise but that's a post for another day.)
  2. They have different histories and purposes.
  3. People cannot tell one from the other, or they are often confused for one another.
  4. Because of this, people confuse the two, the statistics on pitbull/staffordshire attacks can't possibly be accurate or relevant.
  5. This claim is unspoken, but heavily implied by the aforementioned; BSL (breed specific legislation) does not work.  Why it's relevant is because one of the very few hats anti-BSL advocates hangs its hat on is the (statistically) insignificant drop in bite/attack rates since the UK banned pitbulls.  This might, perhaps, somehow signify something if Staffordshire terriers and pitbulls were truly wholly different animals, as different from each other as, say, Cocker Spaniels and malamutes, but an unspoken fact is important to bear: the pitbull ban did not include Staffordshire terriers.

Why does that matter?
Because Staffordshire terriers are about as different from pit bulls as chocolate labs are to yellow labs.

The AKC doesn't recognize pitbulls by their common title; the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT for short), but does recognize the breed under the more formal and more confusing title; American Staffordshire terrier (often nicknamed 'AmStaff' 'Am Staff' or even the slightly more transparent 'Am Bully').  
It is the same breed.  
The AKC initially refused to acknowledge and set a standard for the pitbull breed precisely because of its undivorceable dog-fighting origin and purpose.  (In fact, the AKC's initial rejection was the whole reason the UKC was formed--to serve as a kennel club that recognized fighting breed dogs, and in fact, a pitbull had to have won three fights to be eligible for recognition(1).)

The American Kennel Club advertises the American Staffordshire's history as thus(2);
Until the early 19th century, the Bulldog used for bull baiting in England was more active and longer-legged than the breed as we know it today. It is thought that the cross of this older Bulldog and a game terrier breed created the Staffordshire Terrier. Originally called the Bull-and-Terrier Dog, Half and Half or Pit Dog, it became known as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in England. When accepted for AKC registration in 1936, the name changed to American Staffordshire Terrier to reflect the heavier American type and to distinguish them as separate breeds.
The history of the pitbull:  When bull-baiting was outlawed in England, gambling sadists turned to pitting dogs against each other... and for this purpose, they crossed the Olde English Bulldogge (spelling verbatim)--for aggression and strength, especially jaw power--with terrier breeds for speed, agility, tenacity, and prey-drive.  When dog-fighting was outlawed, many dogmen took their bloodsport overseas to the Americas, where it had yet to be outlawed.  This 'migration and separation' was a historically  recent occurrence.  Aside from getting a little bigger than their English ancestors (which was also a tandem phenomena in humans as well--but in both, only marginally at best), the differences are negligible.   

Every line up to but the last is the pitbull's history (3), verbatim... all the key players and words are present;

  • bull-baiting
  • english bulldogs
  • terriers
  • bull and terrier
  • pit dog
But there are heavy omissions.  The entirety of the reason for the breed's inception, for example... why exactly it is these dog 'fanciers' decided to cross bulldogs with terriers?? DOG.FIGHTING.  No other reason.  Adequate and fantastic family, guard, farm, hunting,  tracking, retrieving, assistance breeds... all already existed (many by centuries, if not more), were present, and accessible in the area.  People were much more pragmatic about dogs in those times. As mercenary as it sounds to modern cream puffs; they were a means to an end.  

Why take a smaller,  more controllable, portable, sustainable, and companionable dog that 'got the job done' (whether it be herding, ratting, etc.) and make it larger, more unpredictable, more costly in resources (feed, etc.), and more difficult to handle?  It sure wasn't for gently guiding livestock or babysitting, I can tell you that.  Disturbingly,
especially the trusting due given them, the UKC and AKC won't.  They even go one step further and continue endangering families and perpetuating blatantly false perceptions that are getting pets and people maimed and killed on a mass scale;
Right Breed for You?The Am Staff is a people-oriented dog that thrives when he is made part of the family and given a job to do. Although friendly, this breed is loyal to his family and will protect them from any threat. His short coat is low-maintenance, but regular exercise and training is necessary.
A mess of Staffordshire owner-victims would beg to differ about the breed's loyalty and threat level.  Comb news archives (4) and you'll drown in the overwhelming testimony of this.  Opponents of BSL like to claim that BSL 'doesn't work' by citing the fairly undiminished number of bites and serious attacks overseas.  Perhaps  that is because BSL wasn't implemented to the fullest as it pertains to fighting breeds--Staffordshires are legal there, and so all the pitbull owners have to do is relabel the same dog and it passes for the other breed because... well, the other breed isn't really 'another breed'.  It is the same dog, different name.

Sadly, too many people take kennel clubs to be the be-all-end-all of dog knowledge and professionalism.  It is important to remember these are not charity groups or educational institutions... these are, first, foremost, and always, a business.  These groups operate with financial agendas.  Papers, dog shows, breeding licenses, schutzhund events... there is money in dogs--if you're working through a Kennel Club.  It's rather telling, that the next line under the breed propaganda is, replete with link to purchase;
If you are considering purchasing an American Staffordshire Terrier puppylearn more here.
The UKC's description and history of the pitbull not only omits the inherent danger of pitbulls as companion animals, but goes a step further to wholly falsify the breed history and purpose.  They assert the dogs were bred for farm work or boar hunting, but fail to provide historical evidence supporting this.  Even pro-pitbull literature peppered with the usual arsenal of deflections, deceptions, and excuses acknowledge the breed's fighting origins. (5)
Given the earlier mention of how the UKC came to be, it should be no surprise that the fruit of men who had no compunctions about disregarding the well-being of living beings for sadistic spectacle and monetary gain... would have equally no conscience about continuing to mislead and endanger countless more, despite the snowballing death-toll rising with it.

The image--interesting to note that it is not of a 'whole' dog but one with the cropped ears and docked tail that typify fighting dogs and tend to change the whole visage of an animal--accompanying the AKC's history of the Staffordshire terrier is;

looks like s/he's got a few long lost siblings here:

oh wait... those are purebred pitbulls

How arbitrary are the differences between these allegedly separate breeds?  From inception of a breed standard in both the UKC and AKC, people have, and CONTINUE TO double-register (5) their dogs as pitbulls and Staffordshires.  The very same dog can have an AKC paper reading 'Staffordshire' and a UKC paper reading 'APBT'.  For example, this female purebred pitbull (left) won best in show in BOTH an AKC Staffordshire placing and a UKC show:
The breeder from which she springs profusely brags the dual awards her dogs routinely receive.  (6)
 This is wholly legal and acceptable, and using the Staffordshire moniker is an oft employed means of skirting breed restrictions.  The average landlord may be frustratingly thwarted by this.  They look at the animal and know it is a pitbull, but may not know what to do if someone shoves a 'Staffordshire' breed paper in their face, unawares that they are officially one in the same in the professional dog circuits.  Flagrantly disguising breed via name is far from a new tactic meant to confuse the public at large. (7)

Breed Standards:
Comparing and Contrasting the AKC's American Staffordshire Terrier and the UKC's American Pit Bull Terrier's breed standards

Head: Medium length, deep through, broad skull, very pronounced cheek muscles, distinct stop; and ears are set high
Head: It is large and broad, giving the impression of great power, but it is not disproportionate to the size of the body. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge. When viewed from the side, the skull and muzzle are parallel to one another and joined by a well defined, moderately deep stop. Supraorbital arches over the eyes are well defined but not pronounced. The head is well chiseled, blending strength, elegance, and character.  Very Serious Fault: Overly large, heavy heads.

Ears - Cropped or uncropped, the latter preferred. Uncropped ears should be short and held rose or half prick. Full drop to be penalized.
Ears - Ears are high set and may be natural or cropped without preference. Prick, or flat, wide ears* are not desired.
*aka full drop

Eyes - Dark and round, low down in skull and set far apart. No pink eyelids.
Eyes - Eyes are medium size, round and set well apart and low on the skull. All colors are equally acceptable except blue, which is a serious fault. Haw should not be visible.

Muzzle- Medium length, rounded on upper side to fall away abruptly below eyes. Jaws well defined. Under-jaw to be strong and have biting power. Lips close and even, no looseness. Upper teeth to meet tightly outside lower teeth in front. Nose definitely black.
Muzzle - The muzzle is broad and deep with a very slight taper from the stop to the nose, and a slight falling away under the eyes. The length of muzzle is shorter than the length of skull, with a ratio of approximately 2:3. The topline of the muzzle is straight. The lower jaw is well developed, wide and deep. Lips are clean and tight  The American Pit Bull Terrier has a complete set of evenly spaced, white teeth meeting in a scissors bite.  Faults: Snipey muzzle; flews; weak lower jaw. The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color.
Here, here we see the first and only definitive difference between the breed standards--the color of a dog's nose. Asserting that the trait of nose pigmentation is somehow indicative of a behavior aspect of form meets function* is a  task that would best even champions of  mental gymnastics.
*See dog behaviorist Alexandra Semyonova's"Heritability of behavior" (10) and the relevant section on  physical-behavioral body conformation

Neck: Heavy, slightly arched, tapering from shoulders to back of skull. No looseness of skin. Medium length.
Neck:  The neck is of moderate length and muscular. There is a slight arch at the crest. The neck widens gradually from where it joins the skull to where it blends in to well laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap.
Faults: Neck too thin or weak; ewe neck; dewlap.

Shoulders: Strong and muscular with blades wide and sloping.
Shoulders:  The shoulder blades are long, wide, muscular, and well laid back. The upper arm is roughly equal in length to the shoulder blade and joins it at an apparent right angle.

Back: Fairly short. Slight sloping from withers to rump with gentle short slope at rump to base of tail. 
Back:  The back is strong and firm. The topline inclines very slightly downward from the withers to a broad, muscular, level back.

Body: Well-sprung ribs, deep in rear. All ribs close together. Chest deep and broad.  Loins slightly tucked.
Body:  The chest is deep, well filled in, and moderately wide with ample room for heart and lungs, but the chest should never be wider than it is deep. The forechest does not extend much beyond the point of shoulder. The ribs extend well back and are well sprung from the spine, then flattening to form a deep body extending to the elbows. The topline inclines very slightly downward from the withers to a broad, muscular, level back. The loin is short, muscular and slightly arched to the top of the croup, but narrower than the rib cage and with a moderate tuck-up. The croup is slightly sloping downward.

Tail: Short in comparison to size, low set, tapering to a fine point; not curled or held over back. Not docked.
Tail:  The tail is set on as a natural extension of the topline, and tapers to a point. When the dog is relaxed, the tail is carried low and extends approximately to the hock. When the dog is moving, the tail is carried level with the backline. When the dog is excited, the tail may be carried in a raised, upright position (challenge tail), but never curled over the back (gay tail). Fault: Long tail (tail tip passes beyond point of hock).

Legs:  Forelegs set rather wide apart to permit chest development. The front legs should be straight, large or round bones, pastern upright. No semblance of bend in front. Hindquarters well-muscled, let down at hocks, turning neither in nor out. Feet of moderate size, well-arched and compact. Gait must be springy but without roll or pace.
Legs:  The forelegs are strong and muscular. The elbows are set close to the body. Viewed from the front, the forelegs are set moderately wide apart and perpendicular to the ground. The pasterns are short, powerful, straight, and flexible. When viewed in profile, the pasterns are nearly erect
Faults: Upright or loaded shoulders; elbows turned outward or tied-in; down at the pasterns; front legs bowed; wrists knuckled over; toeing in or out.The feet are round, proportionate to the size of the dog, well arched, and tight. Pads are hard, tough, and well cushioned. Dewclaws may be removed.

Coat: Short, close, stiff to the touch, and glossy.
Coat:  The coat is glossy and smooth, close, and moderately stiff to the touch.  Faults: Curly, wavy, or sparse coat.

Color: Any color, solid, parti, or patched is permissible, but all white, more than 80 per cent white, black and tan, and liver not to be encouraged.
Color: Any color, color pattern, or combination of colors is acceptable, except for merle(11)
Merle A marking pattern, used in conjunction with another color, to describe Shetland Sheepdogs, Collies, Great Danes, and Australian Shepherds. The color is characterized by a marbling effect of dark patches against a lighter background of the same color

Size: Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about 18 to 19 inches at shoulders for the male and 17 to 18 inches for the female is to be considered preferable.
Size:  The American Pit Bull Terrier must be both powerful and agile; overall balance and the correct proportion of weight to height, therefore, is far more important than the dog’s actual weight and/or height.
Desirable weight for a mature male in good condition is between 35 and 60 pounds. Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds.
As a general and approximate guideline only, the desirable height range for mature males is from 18 to 21 inches at the withers; for mature females it is from 17 to 20 inches at the withers.
It is important to note that dogs over or under these weight and height ranges are not to be penalized unless they are disproportionately massive or rangy.
Very Serious Fault: Excessively large or overly massive dogs and dogs with a height and/or weight so far from what is desired as to compromise health, structure, movement and physical ability.

Here is an AmStaff that won 'best in show' according to the AKC:
A purebred pitbull:
Another Staffordshire Best in Show:
Purebred pitbulls:
Another Staffordshire competitor:
Purebred pitbulls:
I'm a real Yorkie.
So here we have it, a detailed description defining each breed; identical in every which way sans one--the color of the dog's nose.  It's a stark irony that pitbull fanatics accuse  people who distinguish between breeds as it pertains to their heavily contrasting traits...  (for no fool could confuse the very different breed standards for, say, a dalmatian versus a chow, a chow versus a beagle, a  St.Bernard versus a greyhound, or a chihuahua versus a pitbull) of racism and discrimination...  ...and yet are so adamant about separating, scrutinizing, and distinguishing between dogs with the very same sort of arbitrary differences that compose human 'race' (i.e. color, pigment, geographical origin or placement.)  These deliberate confusions may be why Miami Dade County, Florida, applies 47 different points of identification when scrutinizing dogs as it pertains to the pitbull ban. (12)  They apply the race argument where it is most faulty, and are conspicuously quiet where it would reveal contradiction and hypocrisy.

No... a Staffordshire is to a pitbull as a chocolate lab is to a golden or black lab.  These are not genuinely different breeds; just the same dogs, each of a different color  stripe.  This is the only adequate canine comparison to the very arbitrary pigmental differences among human races, and it does not work in the pitbull  fantasists' favor, because it truly deepens the scope of the breed specific problem.  This is why, when I speak of pitbulls, I am speaking inclusively of any of the deceptive attempts at other-breed-names (6)...  when I say pitbull, I include APBT, Am Staffs, bull dogs, pit terriers, American Bull Terriers, Yankee terriers, St. Francis terriers, New Yorkies, American bulldogs, Staffordshire Terriers, and any other ridiculous or diversionary name for the
bloodsport blend of English bulldogs and terriers that emerged post-bull-baiting-bans.  These are what I speak of when I use the term 'bully breeds'.

So what does this all come down to, when referring to what these names denote?  Geography, and maybe, weight.  A Staffordshire is a pitbull across the Atlantic.  An APBT is a pitbull in America.  It may or may not be a little heavier in general, but that is understandable considering the obesity epidemic in the US (just stating facts, not meaning to disparage!).  These differences are arbitrary at best; being a Staffordshire terrier makes a ancestral-pit-fighting dog no more different an animal from an APBT than an American man moving to London makes him a different animal.  

Sure, there are cultural issues and such, but c'mon now... animals are too cognitively simplistic to be affected in the myriad and nuanced ways people are by advanced abstract concepts such as national identity, politics, history, etc..  Locale does not re-write a dog's cognitive abilities, behaviors, genetics, and other pre-existing predispositions.  Though cliched to death, I will paraphrase Shakespeare, "What's in a name? Does a rose by any other name smell not as sweet?"

No, the purpose of the Staffordshire name continues as it began--to distance an animal from it's true, 'unsavory' history, to confuse the breed-danger issue, to mislead, to con, and falsify numbers to skew statistics in ways the average Joe will not be aware of.  Much like spouting the nanny-dog myth, anyone authoritatively asserting/arguing about differentiating between Staffordshire's and pitbulls as wholly different breeds outs themselves--in a highly visible way and easily identifiable way...  as someone who does not know what they're really talking about, vibrantly displays their ignorance of history and biology, and consideration should be given with accordance to their massive deficit in verifiable knowledge.

(1) The History of the Pit Bull Breed -- subsection on the formation of the UKC and dog-fighting
(2) AKC History of the American Staffordshire Terrier
(3) History of the American Pit Bull Terrier
(4)  Google 'staffordshire attack'
(5) Section of pro-pit lit on fighting origins and purpose breeding
(6)  Deliberately relabeling pitbulls
(7) Heritability of Behavior in the Abnormally Aggressive Dog
(8)    Merle
(9)   AKC Breed Standard
(10)   UKC Breed Standard
(11)  Breeder's dogs routinely compete and succeed as BOTH 'Staffies' and pitbulls
(12)   Miami-Dade Pitbull Ordinance

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Analysis of an attack: Identifying pit-bull attack triggers

Last Monday, Highland Crest police officer fatally shot one of two marauding pit bulls that were obstructing safe passage to a school bus stop and chased three Separate residents--one of three with her 5mo infant in her arms--onto car roofs.  From the article: 

Wakeena Tyree was in for a rude awakening around 6:30 a.m. Monday as she was getting her baby out of the back seat of her car in the Highland Crest neighborhood of southeast Topeka. 
Tyree, 37, said she heard two pit bull dogs bark at her in the predawn darkness. She said she turned and saw the dogs standing in the middle of the street in the 3300 block of S.E. Colfax. 
In short order, Tyree said, the dogs charged at her. 
A short time later, a Topeka police officer fired two rounds, both of which struck and killed one of the “vicious” pitbulls.But before that happened, Tyree had to take quick action to keep herself and her baby safe. 
As the pair of dogs began to charge at her, Tyree said, “I told them to go home. I guess that made them mad.”Holding her 5-month-old son, Christian, in her left arm, away from the dogs, Tyree jumped on the hood of her car, parked in a driveway on the east side of S.E. Colfax. 
She used her feet to kick at the dogs as they tried to jump on top of her car, she said.Just then, a neighbor across the street saw what was happening and yelled out “Go home” at the dogs, who then turned and headed north on S.E. Colfax toward the man’s house. 
Tyree said a police car arrived on the scene about the same time. She said the officer got out of his patrol car and was charged by the dogs. 
The officer, Tyree said, swung his baton back and forth three times, backing up in the process, before using his gun to shoot one of the dogs two times. The dog died at the scene. The other dog, meanwhile, took off running and police hadn’t located it by 9 a.m.“The officer didn’t want to shoot the dog,” Tyree said. “It was his last resort.”

Well gosh... These people triggered the attacks donch'ya know? 
1.) being a police officer 
2.) opening a car door  
3.) yelling around a pitbull 
4.) unloading a car 
5.) being a baby 
6.). Getting out of your car 
7.)  Fleeing an attack 


These attacks were totally preventable, so folks, study up on what provokes pitbull attacks--here's a comprehensive list of what you should always avoid doing within a 5mi radius of a pitbull; What Prompts a Pitbull to Attack.  Don't forget: doing nothing at all enrages them most.

Note: I frequently source because it is an excellent "one-stop-shop" for pitbull related data.  Dogsbite is not the SOLE claimant of this information--it includes links to the source information provided, but getting those individual links instead of a cohesive reference cost invaluable time and energy.