Friday, July 18, 2008

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  10 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/18/2008 1:28 PM  |  Flag  
With integrity and credibility issues like this, who wants to trust the care of their pet to someone that calls a zebra a horse, a gray sky blue, or in particular -- denies their pit bull is vicious AFTER it attacks a woman and her dog?!!!


What are the odds this is the same pit bull advocate that has posted, “I’m a vet tech and proud owner of two pit bulls, blah-blah-blah, yada-yada-yada, BS-BS-BS?”

Got it! Northpark Animal Hospital, 1625 Burlington St, Holdrege... Avoid like the plague.

And, there’s Councilman Randy Aldrich who said, "Let's go after the person who harbors that dog and knows it's a vicious dog."

Right-O Randy! We should abide by your words and go after you! By refusing to consider pit bulls vicious the way other communities and states have, you are harboring vicious dogs and are part of the problem. If not for the enabling dereliction by Mayor Mark Rona and Councilman Aldrich, this would not have happened!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/18/2008 2:54 PM  |  Flag  
This reminds me of what is at the root of the BSL is an age-old philosophical question that was wonderfully outlined in a
Jan.2007 issue of Animal People...I have cut and pasted it below...

"The debate over whether possession and sale of pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and possibly other dog breeds should be restricted to protect public safety is in essence a debate about possibly the oldest of all philosophical questions vexing lawmakers.

Since Biblical times opinions have conflicted as to whether laws should seek to prevent harm by forbidding potentially injurious behavior, or merely punish those whose behavior results in actual harm.

The argument that no one should be enjoined from behavior if it does not do harm tends to be politically attractive, but the counter-argument is that if harm comes to an innocent person and a guilty person is punished, at least two people suffer for an action which might have been prevented.

Further, in the case of a dog attack that kills or maims, the harm may be irreparable. As no amount of punishment can undo the damage, the argument for breed-specific legislation holds, preventing attacks of extreme consequence by prohibiting possession of dogs of high risk potential better protects public safety than relying on the uncertain deterrent effect of punishment.

Non-breed-specific dog control legislation typically relies on identifying dangerous dogs from their past behavior, which does not protect anyone from the consequences of a first incident. Usually it requires that all dogs be securely confined."

In my opinion, the assumption that severe punishment for owners of aggressive dogs will somehow serve as a deterent falls flat; as we have seen time and time again with pit bull owners, many are already engaged in criminal behavior, such as drug trafficking. The threat of incarceration will not deter them. Other pit owners, such as the vet tech in the story, are emotionally and intellectually unable to recognize and admit that their dogs are dangerous. Time and again we see pit bull owners lie about their dogs behavior, blame the victims of dog attacks, anthropomorphize their dogs, make excuses for aggressive behavior in their dogs, insist that dogs involved in serious attacks are not "really pit bulls", etc. I fail to see how someone who thinks that pit bulls have to be "abused and trained to be mean", would be prompted into becoming a more responsible owner by the incarceration of another pit bull owner.

Clearly, if the goal is the prevention of both human and canine suffering, BSL is the logical way to achieve this.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/18/2008 5:36 PM  |  Flag  
Excellant post!

"I fail to see how someone who thinks that pit bulls have to be "abused and trained to be mean", would be prompted into becoming a more responsible owner by the incarceration of another pit bull owner."

That statement perfectly explains the situation. Pit bull owners all consider themselves to be responsible and therefore no amount of punishment will change their behavior. Further, no non-pit bull owner can educate them on their dog as anyone who has read a forum will tell you that pit bull owners consider all non-owners to be ignorant of the breed - you have to own one to be able to talk about them at all. Pit bull advocates will not teach potential owners that the dogs are dog aggressive and so forth because that will mean fewer adoptions, fewer advocates, and an acceptance of what these dogs are doing. So the logical conclusion is that nothing short of breed-based restrictions of some degree will make pit bull owners take care of their dogs in a proper way. They have to be forced legally into doing what they should be doing on their own. And even if such laws are passed, enough evidence exists that owners don't follow these laws while still maintaining that they are responsible owners. I see no greater argument for a complete and total ban.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/18/2008 5:50 PM  |  Flag  
My guess is that this nutter spammed countless post attack threads with the "I'm a vet tech and" schtick and somehow indoctrinated herself.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/19/2008 2:04 AM  |  Flag  
This is exactly why the veterinary community's "expert testimony" should be taken with a grain of salt.... The pit bull problem is public safety and law enforcement issue not a veterinary one.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/19/2008 10:41 AM  |  Flag  
I would never give this vet tech my business - how can I entrust the care of my dog and cat to her? I don't think she would understand any medical terms, she might think heartworms are good for their hearts! She must also be blind, couldn't see the facts if they smacked her in the face. "Oh, that gaping wound in your face wasn't caused by my loving,dear dog when he jumped up and tried to rip your face off!" ???? I don't understand some people.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/19/2008 1:02 PM  |  Flag  
This really bothers me about the pit bull PR machine; they keep insisting that extremely DA dogs are no problem and that "animal aggression and human aggression are two different things!" The reality is, many people have been hurt or killed when a pit bull, adrenalized and in full fight mode, redirects a dog attack toward a nearby human. Also, owners of leashed dogs are bitten almost daily by pit bulls attempting to maul their dog. A Boston woman lost her finger when a neighbors pit bulls attacked the dog she was holding in her arms; they simply bit right through her hand in their attempt to kill her dog, and bit her finger off.

Pit bull propaganda sites continue to downplay the problems of owning a fighting breed. The reality is, for the average dog owner, (and most dog owners are average) owning a dog that wants to fight and kill other dogs is misery. It requires constant vigliance, you can't go to places where there may be dogs off leash, you can't take your dog to the kids soccer game and sit on the sidelines like other people, you can't stop and socialize and chat with other dog owners. I know someone who had a highly DA dog, she was the epitome of a responsible owner, did obedience, was beginning agility; but as her dog matured, and the behavior got worse, she had to get rid of the dog. Even months of work with a professional trainer could not change the fundamental temperament of the dog.

The bottom line is, fighting breeds DO NOT make safe pets...they pose a risk to your neighbors dogs AND to your neighbors. DA is a BIG drawback of owning a pit bull, and its immoral of the pro-pit lobby to keep denying this.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/23/2008 5:18 PM  |  Flag  
Lots of breeds bite but they simply inflict the injury then stop on their own when they see a display of pain or submission, or they stop when yelled at or most certainly when hit. A Pit Bull, on the other hand, will keep biting and shaking and tearing until its victim STOPS MOVING. Period. This is what they do just as Labs swim and Beagles follow their nose.

The statistics on how many maulings and deaths were committed by PBs who had NEVER shown any aggressive tendencies before is all the more reason to not trust the breed EVER.

Think of it this way: Cougars purr and you can even teach one to use a litter box but a cougar will never, ever be a house cat. It will be the most gentle, cuddly, loving pet... until one day it isn't. PBs are like that.

Blogger Aldar  |  7/23/2008 8:48 PM  |  Flag  
Owning a Pit Bull is THE alternative to owning a Handgun!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  9/18/2008 4:16 PM  |  Flag  
As a handgun owner, I find above comment offensive an unenlightened. Guns NEVER go off on their own. When I unload my gun, lock my gun and put it in a safe, it takes a determined criminal to render it a threat. It only takes a passing toddler to make a PB/Rotty/Chow/etc a threat.
My handgun is neither unpredictable nor aggressive. The principal reason I own a gun is to defend myself and my family from attack (human or animal). Perhaps the above post should read "Owning a pitt bull is THE alternative to brandishing a handgun and threatening any and all passes by with injury or death."

Post a Comment »