Sunday, May 3, 2009

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

posted by   |  permalink  |  18 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/02/2009 1:06 AM  |  Flag  
This is a perfect example of a need for "dangerous owner" statutes. If every community adopted such standards, after just two or three complaints, however minor, a person would be designated as a dangerous owner, their dogs seized, and they would be prohibited from owning any dogs for several years. You wouldn't see these chronic complaints, because the dogs would be gone after just two or three.

Anonymous Doug  |  5/02/2009 3:48 AM  |  Flag  
They're all "man-biters." Let's dump another myth - another oft repeated lie from the mauling advocates.

In the beginning, human aggressive dogs were slaughtered or abandoned, they didn't develop within the fold of domesticates. Human friendliness was a necessary trait for all dogs, regardless of type. This wasn’t hard because early canines were pack animals, they had to work and get along with others. Humans were a simple adaptation for this social trait; broadening the definition of a pack member or leader was not a colossal leap.

Pit bulls never benefited from special selection for human friendliness; this potential characteristic already existed and was passed to them from their genetic predecessors. The only feature of their character that needed to be maintained was a modicum of pack loyalty and subservience to a pack leader (owner/handler.)

The myth of any special human friendliness by pit bulls is merely that – a myth. As in all animals bred and developed for competition, many faults are acceptable… so long as they can win. Winning is job one.

A parallel example of performance selection exists in the equine world. Anybody familiar with the race world knows that Thoroughbred horses rule the track. There is no other breed in contention beyond 2 furlongs. So you would think, if you subscribe to the so called “logic” within the mythology put forth by pit bull advocates, Thoroughbred horses must be the most tractable, gentle saddle horses ever created. After all, their purpose is to carry a rider; they don’t run these races by themselves! And Thoroughbreds have been in development for over 300 years – surely they are the most rider friendly of all horse breeds, aren’t they?

No one in the horse world would ever make such a claim about Thoroughbreds! The original stallions from the Mediterranean and Middle East were crossed with native horses to make them more manageable, but speed under saddle was and continues to be paramount. Many character faults are forgiven, so long as the horse can run!

And so it is in the TRUE history of pit bulls. Winning pit bulls that could be managed, even marginally, were always – ALWAYS – bred. No dogfighters ever forsake a winning lineage because of manageable human aggression. A winning pit dog need not be a family dog, anymore than a Thoroughbred needs the gentleness and versatility required for Junior 4-H horse shows.

The pit bull advocates have attempted to rewrite the history of pit dog selection. Their version is a fairy tale – a complete lie. Pit dogs were selected for strength, stamina, and aggression. If they happened to be tractable for their handlers, it was a fortunate happenstance carried over from their predecessor canines – definitely NOT a primary consideration in the development of winning pit dogs.

This pit advocate lie is a failed absurdity. The frequency and severity of attacks on humans make the truth self evident, regardless of how many times the lie is repeated.

Anonymous FoolMeOnce  |  5/02/2009 11:32 AM  |  Flag  
OMG! There is absolutely no excuse for 28 calls! Who wants to bet the AC in this instance has ties to dog-fighting, Winograd, etc? This never should have happened to that poor man.

And Doug, you are so right. The pit nutters have all had 100 gallons of the Koolaid. They spew forth the propoganda and then some. I recently read a comment from a man claiming to breed pits for 25 years with never an incident. He even claimed that pits were never bred to be aggressive, they were bred to be human friendly because the owner's had to be able to go into the pit in the middle of a fight without getting hurt, and they only reason that pits fight is because they are just the most loyal dogs in the world and only want to please their owners.

I'm going to be sick....

Blogger P.  |  5/02/2009 12:00 PM  |  Flag  
Doug, that was beautiful. And so true. What will it take to make people realize about these dogs? Actually I don't like to refer to them as dogs. Dogs are man's best friends. Not the case here.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/02/2009 1:11 PM  |  Flag  
Reading the above story reminds me of how Knox County Tn. Animal control handles things. Wow, 28 complaint calls and nothing done. My prayers and heart goes out to the mailman. What is wrong with governments that they let things like this go on, until someone is injured or killed and then they make dumb excuses.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2009 2:51 AM  |  Flag  
From what I read, only one of the calls was about the dogs. The rest were noise complaints and suspicious activity calls. If that's the case, it's not animal control that dropped the ball on this one, but the lazy police. I've got a hint for them. Suspicious activity usually means DRUG DEALING.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2009 3:08 AM  |  Flag  
These Holland line pits seems espcially dangerous..begging the question...

Where are the littermates?


Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2009 6:06 AM  |  Flag  
Norwich Animal Control puts the "F" in "F Troop"!

When is the public going to demand better execution of A/C agencies public safety function?!

I can't think of another profession so neglegent...

Anonymous MamaDog  |  5/03/2009 10:43 AM  |  Flag  
And what kind of drug dealer is minus his two pit bulls? Animal Control at the VERY LEAST should have called on Holland to see if he had properly licensed and vaccinated his dogs, his previous dogs had already attacked and been euthanized. I think this a two-part failure: the police and AC. Their inaction caused this mailman to be attacked and suffer severe injury. What if the dogs had attacked and killed a kid?

Anonymous MamaDog  |  5/03/2009 10:46 AM  |  Flag  
Don't forget that the CHIMP attack happened in CONNECTICUT! Connecticut seems to love their wild, attacking animals.

Anonymous Jimmy  |  5/03/2009 10:54 AM  |  Flag

You must see the news video in this link.

Anonymous Jimmy O  |  5/03/2009 3:00 PM  |  Flag  
Are you sure that is a SOFT drink?

Looks like one of those vitamin fortified caffeine added high alcohol content drinks to me.

Blogger bitbypit  |  5/03/2009 3:11 PM  |  Flag  
If you can pinpoint anything about the drink, let us know. It certainly does appear to be one of the high caffeinated/energy drinks...Then again, we'll never know what was "actually" in the can.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2009 3:43 PM  |  Flag  
He should choose his drinks carefully. The last thing he needs is another dose of stupid.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2009 5:41 PM  |  Flag  
"It's the BREEDER stupid!

Two centuries of degenerates breeding these things going all the way back to the bull baiters of Stafford. Enough already!

Anonymous ACOwestcoast  |  5/08/2009 11:02 PM  |  Flag  
First I agree, the public should demand better "public safety" priorities from AC agencies. First the divisions need to, due to humaniacs the AC has turned to animal care instead of animal control. Also they are not recognized as such,they do not get safety retirement or any of the perks a "public safety employee" gets therefore most do not even see thmeselves in that manner even though they risk their own SAFETY to protect the SAFETY of others. Second...I wish to god I lived in Norwich as I watched this, if that was my father the police would get 1 more call there.....and it would be the last...........

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/15/2009 7:51 AM  |  Flag  
This is to clarify several misconceptions some folks have regarding this story. The police were called to this residence 28 times in the past for loud music, disturbances, and suspected narcotic activity. With the exception of a few calls arrests were made in each instance.There have been no other dog complaint related calls to that residence.

In 2008 ACO Kellough responded to and seized the mother of the two pit bulls who attacked the mail carrier. The owner himself (Holland) called because the dog 'had gone crazy'. ACO Kellough went to the residence with a police officer in the event the dog attacked her and managed to noose-pole the dog, impound it and because of its vicious nature, euthanized it. It was later discovered that the dog had attacked Holland's mother at a local park where he was walking with the dog. His mother reported to the ACO's that she had been attacked by a roaming Labardor (which of course was never located). Holland secreted the dog away until it 'went crazy'.
In the mailman's case (and the video) Holland was given an infraction ticket with fines totalling $700+. He signed to have the dogs eithanized and the following morning he came to the Norwich Pound and insisted ACO Kellough rescind the order that he signed because he changed his mind and wanted his dogs back. This was because his mother was yelling at him the day of the mauling that he should not have signed the dogs over to the ACO because they could sell them and 'make money'. Getting a clearer picture here of what kind of people are being dealt with here?
ACO Kellough immediately telephoned her supervisor at the Norwich Police Department who ordered her to bring the dogs to the vet and euthanize them.

Now I for one know that not all pit bull terriers are vicious. I've known several people who have them...responsible people I might add...and have had instances where I've been in contact with a few at pounds that have been docile.
No dog can be completely trusted. Holland and many of these other people who have these dogs train them, breed them and treat them poorly (an understatement) to be vicious or their lack of proper care and training makes them what they are.
In Connecticut you cannot euthanize a dog that bites or is vicious unless there is no owner/owner cannot be located or the animal is signed over to an ACO with a signed euthinaisa form. If the ACO decides the dog should be put down due to his vicious nature, the owner can appeal to the State Department of Agriculture for a hearing. ACO Kellough has 2 vicious dogs (one a pit bull) that have been in custody for almost a year because one of the hearings is in appeals and in the case of one, euthanization is recommended and has to be approved by the Commissioner of the Dept of Ag. Such are Connecticut laws. I can speak for ACO Kellough...a professional with 25 years on the job and not a pit bull sympathiezer..she finds the laws (especially in vicious dog cases) as teriffically restrictive. This in addition to the majority of people who keep dangerous pit bulls are the likes of Holland and his dysfunctional family. People are under the misconception a court can order you to never own dogs again. Sure...just like they can suspend your driver's license and tell you not to drive.
Keep in mind that in most attack cases the dogs are unregistered and when you track down the owner, they claim they're 'watching' the dog for someone else. The 'someone else' is either nameless (first name only) or you're shuffled off to another party who cannot be located. Depite an arrest its contested in court and the court recognizes that no solid proof of ownership can be assigned and the case is dismissed. This happens more than you can imagine.
The dogs are hidden from view...usually raised in basements and away from the eyes of neighbors or police so ownership cannot be assigned. Finally, you can't quite make arrests or prove ownership when you show up to a mauling in a neighborhood where no one will commit anything to the police as far as who owns the dogs. But blaming the police or the ACO's for a mauling is first and foremost. Despite the fact that the neighbors are well aware of who the dog's owners are.
In the Norwich incident this was not the cae and neighbor's readily reported that Holland is the owner of the dogs. This is usually never the case for the most part.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions of the incident and answers some questions. And Holland? There isn't anything to prevent him from getting more dogs. Nothing. That doesn't sit well with anyone whose decent and law abiding but of course were aren't talking about a stellar individual, are we? The video proves that.

Blogger Seth Myers  |  11/11/2010 10:12 PM  |  Flag  
This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment »