Friday, December 5, 2008


Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »


posted by   |  permalink  |  17 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

17 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/05/2008 2:28 AM  |  Flag  
Wow...Three confirmed kills.

When the UKC was first established, three kills was the original requirement to qualify for registration papers.

Too bad Bexar County A/C seems unconcerned that communities are disintegrating into "Old Tyme Dogyards". Do we have another Pit Sleeper Cell inflitrating an A/C organization here?!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/05/2008 4:51 AM  |  Flag  
What is it with pit bull owners and shoddy fence construction?
A crappy fence with holes and boards missing must be the only prerequisite for owning one of these damned animals.

Anonymous annod  |  12/05/2008 11:35 AM  |  Flag  
The idiots at PBF have been rampaging against the man who shot a neighbor's pit in Oregon to protect his dog.
http://www.pitbullforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108796
defendabull (at all costs) says:

"he could have picked up
his damn dog.

and what a great memory
he gave the child to watch
her dog get shot."

These people are such hypocrites. Daily the non-fighting dog owning population is having to acquire these "great memories" thanks to their pathetic need to own these little killing machines.

If I had the choice between a memory of a bullet killing my dog or 3 dogs ripping my dog pieces...

There are a bunch Einsteins over there.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/05/2008 12:26 PM  |  Flag  
The problem in San Antonio is that their animal control got infected with the Nathan Winograd, Best Friends No Kill disease.

Nathan Winograd was there last year pushing the No Kill.

No Kill means that animals are not accepted into an already overcrowded shelter of warehoused pets because they don't want to "euthanize" them

Instead, the animals roam the streets, dying in terrible ways, and attacking and biting people and pets on the way to dying on the streets. Also spreading disease

No Kill is a complete failure. It does not work for open admission shelters, but Winograd has bands of fanatics stalking and harassing city officials until they give in.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A696455

and these are the kinds of people who push Winograd No Kill http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2007_12/LindyLAMagInterview.htm

Too many weak city officials give in, and the pets and citizens suffer.

In San Antonio, a citizen's advisory council made up of Winograd-like No Kill fanatics CONTROLS animal control and dictates their function. The citizens of San Antonio have lost control of animal control!

And Winograd is coming in to Houston, it looks like, to push the same thing on Houston.

Anonymous Trigger  |  12/05/2008 1:03 PM  |  Flag  
I have faith that Harris County is MUCH BETTER run than Bexar County. There's little evidence that Harris County will fall for his tactics.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/05/2008 1:13 PM  |  Flag  
Agreed on no kill. No kill shelters simply become warehouses which refuse 98% of the animals that need "sheltering" because there is no room. In order for them to "work" they need to accept ONLY highly adoptable animals that will "move" (cute kittens and puppies of popular breeds, small lap dogs, etc). Then they can screen carefully and refuse only 80% of animals who need sheltering.

I recently had an experience with a stray animal I ended up keeping; because NO shelter, all of which are no kill in my area, was taking any more pets in.

Anonymous Felony  |  12/05/2008 1:18 PM  |  Flag  
Einsteins, you got that right.

There are a couple people on that forum with a brain. i am consistently impressed with a fellow Washingtonian. More on WA state later.

The member who posted that story Savage Destiny right off the bat states: "I fully believe that yes, the dog should have been on a leash, but the fact is she was shot because she just wanted to say hello."

Take off those gumdrop rainbow unicorn glasses honey and starting reading the forums that don't sugar coat this breed. You will learn a lot!

Then there is the bimbo attorney from CA, Dawn Capp.
"Um... the big issue I see here is he fired a gun at a dog with the CHILD nearby trying to get the dog. Since the newspaper reported no injuries to his dog, I'm assuming his dog has no injuries."

"But regardless.... trained cops have fired their weapons in public at dogs and ended up accidentally shooting something/someone else. The bigger danger here is not the dog...it's the man with a gun firing it in public around children."

The bigger issue here is that everyday the CHILDREN are in close enough proximity of out of control dangerous dogs to threaten, maim and take their lives. And how about the issue of this ignorant mother allowing her CHILD to intervene a charging fighting breed?!?!?!? Tubby needs to be investigated. Grown men can not disengage these dogs without special equipment. MY GOD PEOPLE! You rail against unsupervised dogs and kids, kids and dogs and food, kids and dogs and toys, at every opportunity. HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?

And by the way, you start an awful lot of posts with "Um....". You sound like an idiot.

Moving on...

Back to the original idiot, Savage Destiny:
"Technically, the dogs were never even off their own property- the incident happened on a shared driveway. Local laws also say that while it is legal to shoot a dog to defend livestock, it is not legal to shoot a dog to defend another dog."

"Mr. Huggins also does not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I absolutely agree that the guy should NOT have fired a weapon within five feet of a child either, especially since his dog wasn't even being hurt, and the little girl was screaming at him that she'd get her dog."

The dog was on a shared driveway. I assume shared with the shooter. There fore he has an equal right to the driveway and to defend himself and his property ON his property.
Regarding a permit to carry a weapon, he probably does not need one to have ON his property. CWP are needed to carry on your person OFF of your property. You do NOT need one to keep a gun ON your property for personal protection. At least that is how the law is written for the 2 states that I lived in, my current state is WA and the law permits me to openly carry my weapon ON my property. Now if the shooter is a felon, he has a big problem.
Re: the right to shoot to protect livestock only, pfffttt. OUR LAWS ARE NOT CHISELED IN STONE, maybe chako can explain this to you (maybe not). And it is about time that people challenge this ridiculous archaic laws. Anyone who thinks that this man is not in danger himself in that situation or thinks that this man has no right to protect his dog is lying to themselves.

Back to Washington. i love this state for a lot of reasons but I really do appreciate our PROGRESSIVE gun laws. In my state, if a prosecutor fails to succeed to convict someone who has a used a gun in self defense, the state must reimburse the defendant for legal fees. Makes prosecutors think long and hard about filing charges. That's awesome.

You know that we read you and we know that you read us. There is some thing you pit nutters might want to consider. We are fed up with dealing with your fucking dogs. I tell EVERYONE, if you can LEGALLY own/carry a gun, do it and use it. If you idiots won't control dogs, if the states/counties/cities won't write laws that actually protect us, if animal control wants to play social worker, THEN WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM OURSELVES. Personally, I would rather spend a year defending myself in courts, than a month in the hospital or a year or two of reconstructive surgeries or losing one of my dogs.

WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Anonymous Felony  |  12/05/2008 5:47 PM  |  Flag  
Chako Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:59 pm
""We felt it important to show you because these dogs have the power to kill."

Um.... yeah, along with just about every other dog. On another board, a woman's Corgi's got into it and one ended up dead. Where was the news. Oh... it wasn't caught on tape, I guess"


SEE WHAT I MEAN? She must think she sounds cute or folksy or genuine. She just sounds dumb.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/05/2008 7:32 PM  |  Flag  
the word "um" is meant to be of condescending moral/intellectual superiority. It never works that way. Most of us are onto it/over it by now, and immediately dismiss any word after the first 'um'.
Using it really just comes across as if the prose were written by a snotty spoiled princess with a face like a fat Persian cat.
It's churlish and childish.

Anonymous Felony  |  12/05/2008 8:06 PM  |  Flag  
"the word "um" is meant to be of condescending moral/intellectual superiority. It never works that way. Most of us are onto it/over it by now, and immediately dismiss any word after the first 'um'.
Using it really just comes across as if the prose were written by a snotty spoiled princess with a face like a fat Persian cat.
It's churlish and childish."

I LIKE YOUR INTERPRETATION MUCH BETTER!

Anonymous jimmy o  |  12/06/2008 1:51 AM  |  Flag  
"Local laws also say that while it is legal to shoot a dog to defend livestock, it is not legal to shoot a dog to defend another dog."

I haven't read any of these laws but I have heard about them and I doubt that they explicitly state that you can not shoot a dog that threatens your dog.

There is a big difference between a law that states
1) you can shoot a dog that threatens your livestock.
and a law that states
2) you can shoot a dog that threatens your livestock but not if it threatens your dog.

A hundred yrs ago when the laws were written, most likely, it was a simple omission because it wasn't a problem yet or because there was no value placed on dogs.
I think we can all agree that neither of those possible explanations for excluding protecting your dog would be considered acceptable today.

Anonymous Felony  |  12/06/2008 2:01 AM  |  Flag  
A couple of excerpts from Dawn Capp's
American Pit Bull Terriers: The Truth Behind One of America's Most Popular Breeds
p50
Not even the AKC, an organization that zealously combats breed-specific legislation, is immune from breed discrimination. While handling her female Amstaff in a multi-breed class, a woman in southern California was dismayed to find the judge inspecting every other dog except hers. In fact, the judge seemed downright afraid to approach the lone Pit Bull in the ring. Some AKC Amstaff enthusiasts also grumble about possible breed discrimination in the order of breed classes, since Amstaffs are almost always shown very early in the day. This practice has caused some Amstaff owners to speculate that the AKC wants the Pit Bulls off the show grounds early to avoid scaring members of the public and other handlers who are not afraid of the breed.

(Um...yeah, DUH!)

p26
The three registries also expect different behavior in the ring. The AKC disqualifies any dog that shows aggression in the ring. The UKC recognizes that these dogs tend to be dog aggressive, but judges will often disqualify a dog that growls or lunges at another dog int he ring. In the ADBA show ring, dog aggression is not a reason to disqualify a dog. In fact, dog-aggressive dogs tend to do well in the ADBA.

(Um... yeah, well that's what they are! DUH!)

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/06/2008 2:34 AM  |  Flag  
Dawn Capp runs the pit bull special interest lobbying group CHAKO in California. CHAKO sued the City of San Francisco after they implemented their pit bull sterilization law on the grounds that it "hurt" disabled Americans. SHE LOST for obvious reasons:
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/06/chako-vs-city-and-county-of-san.html

Using disabled citizens for her cause!
CHAKO opposes breed discrimination and furthermore believes the city's ordinance unfairly discriminates against persons with disabilities who rely on service dogs in managing their daily lives. CHAKO believes that persons who do not have to live with disabilities often do not realize the significant and positive impact service dogs have on persons with disabilities. CHAKO's founder Dawn Capp states, "While we are saddened that one of the nation's most liberal cities has chosen to discriminate based on breed and has taken that a step further in advocating a restrictive view of the rights of disabled persons to use service dogs, we nevertheless feel that we are better served working to address these issues through a means other than lengthy and expensive litigation.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/06/2008 2:40 AM  |  Flag  
Ah the sense of entitlement!...Instead of the Pit community cleaning up their own mess...They'll sue to make sure Pits keep consuming the lion's share of animal control resources.

Not to mention the lifeflight helos and caskets being filled by their sweeties!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  12/06/2008 3:29 AM  |  Flag  
Anytime a child is mauled, the typical reflexive response from the Nutters is to blame the parents for lack of supervision.

Here we have a 9 year old alone with 3 pit bulls.....And it's the neighbor's fault!

Prevent the Deed...Regulate the Breed!

Anonymous Felony  |  12/06/2008 10:43 AM  |  Flag  
I wonder if Chako would support the disabled rights to own of these:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16207

Um... nah.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/06/2009 7:21 PM  |  Flag  
i have had my lamb killed by a pitbull attack this past saturday (October 3rd, 2009) and can not find any thing on laws on what can be done to the pitbul. What did you and your family do?

Post a Comment »

archives: