Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Indianapolis, IN - In the May 2009 edition of Animal People, an article discusses an online poll recently conducted by WTHR-TV. The poll was taken to measure public support of the proposed At Risk Dogs ordinance by Indianapolis council member Mike Speedy, which would require sterilizing pit bulls. The poll found 69% support for Speedy's proposed ordinance, against 26% opposition and 5% undecided. Sara Galer of WTHR said that 1,988 people participated.
Online polls are not scientific, but Animal People's controlled survey findings suggest that WTHR's results are close to residual public opinion nationwide.The May article discusses the common "initial response" to online polls that try to measure the public's desire for a breed-specific law following a serious pit bull attack. They report that the early response "usually skews heavily in favor of breed-specific legislation, but after the first few dozen votes are recorded, input tips abruptly the other way -- unless the poll is quickly closed." This abrupt tip is likely due to an organized response by opponents of breed-specific laws.
To better understand the early poll tilt in favor of breed-specific laws, Animal People conducted a survey of their own. The central question being: Does the early poll tilt reflect residual opinion, likely to be found in any poll at any time, or just reaction to local incidents? In a tightly controlled small survey of people from places where there had not been recent pit bull attacks and the legislative debate that often follows, Animal People asked participants three questions and analyzed the results.
Animal People Survey Results
- 68%, including 71% of the men and 62% of the women, agreed that they would prefer not to live next door to a pit bull. 28% -- 29% of the men but only 21% of the women -- did not object to living next door to a pit bull.
- Four percent of the respondents had a pit bull, about equal to the rate of keeping pit bulls in the general population. 76% of respondents had pets, far above the U.S. norm of 57%; 24% had children, all of whom also had pets; 24% had neither pets nor children.
- No men were undecided about living next to a pit bull, but 18% of the women were undecided, all of whom had pets but no children living at home.
- Among all respondents with pets, 69% would prefer not to live next door to a pit bull.
- Among all respondents with children at home, 80% would prefer not to live next door to a pit bull. Among all respondents who had ever had children, 86% would prefer not to live next door to a pit bull.
04/24/09: Indianapolis Councillor Files "At Risk" Dog Proposal Today
03/07/09: Coverage of Indianapolis Serious Pit Bull Attacks and Controversy
11/13/07: Group Asks: How Popular Were Pit Bulls Once Upon a Time?
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 5/12/2009 6:20 AM |
More cities and towns should put it to a ballot initiative. That would very neatly and cleanly step right around the out of state pit lobbyists that come in and bamboozle local politicians. It would also keep out of state and out of district pit nutters from being able to skew the vote.
| 5/12/2009 9:06 AM |
When I was looking for a house in an area regarded as the armpit of CA, San Bernardino, it was a chore. Whenever you looked over the fence, there were chained pits, loose pits, Rotties, in every yard. Took me three months to find a house where only one yard had a pit, on a chain. The pit got loose, was tearing the fence down to get to my dogs when I came home at lunch. It was attacking me thru the fence as I was trying to block the hole. The owner was home, I was yelling. All she was saying was "I has a baby" like that stopped her from helping me. Had I not come home from lunch, well, you know the rest of the story. No I don't want to live next to themm, absolutely not.
| 5/12/2009 9:13 AM |
4% pit bulls? No way! Why, they are the most popular breed! so naturally they have more bites on record. That and the evil media's conspiracy to malign pit bulls by only reporting pit bites. That and that people really don't know what a pit bull is. Blah Blah Blah!
I sure hope they Indy Pit Crew is unsuccessful in their attempt to block BSL in Indianapolis. I'm certain when they get their hands on this survey, they will get their own "experts" to conduct a survey of their own. And you know they will hear about it, because they troll this site.
| 5/12/2009 11:10 AM |
The dog breeder lobbies have been fooling with polls for years.
These people spend a good portion of their lives sitting on dog breeder boards or forums (when they aren't cheating on their taxes with their primarily illegal businesses or promoting sales.)
When one of them spots a poll that may impinge upon their incomes (which means, they believe, any form of regulation regarding canines) they whip themselves into a frenzy, mass emailing and gathering their related lobbyists to "bomb" polls.
Some of them instruct others how to vote multiple times.
This includes breeders from OTHER COUNTRIES, not just other states away from the the polling state!
Their description of tactics has been described by them online, in their own names, frequently.
| 5/12/2009 11:19 AM |
What I don't understand is that Douglas Rae in Indianapolis is NOT working for the citizens of Indianapolis, the pets of Indianapolis, public safety.
Rae is working to represent a PRIVATE BUSINESS of Mr Nathan Winograd's, a private No Kill industry and lobbying front group.
As well as the for-profit breeders and breeder lobbyists who now hide behind Winograd and pull his business's strings.
Winograd even writes of how he is directing Rae to do Winograd's No Kill work and promote Winograd's BUSINESS.
How can a public servant BE WORKING FOR AND REPRESENTING A PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS? And representing the financial interests of a private for-profit industry?
The ADBA American Dog Breeder Association is involved with Winograd now!
What is Indianpolis thinking?
I understand that they let Warren Patitiz, who has a business relationship with Winograd, import Rae into Indianapolis from his failure in Philadelphia to represent Winograd, misrepresent Rae, hide his failures, hide the abuse connected to his "leadership," and hide his No Kill business agenda.
But correct a wrong!
Especially when keeping Rae is unsafe for the public health and safety and working AGAINST public interests!
| 5/12/2009 11:29 AM |
Indy Pit Crew needs to be held legally and financially responsible for the false information they are giving to the public about pit bulls that endangers the public, and for the implied warrantee they give for pit bulls.
Telling people that pit bulls are good with children means that people who adopt or foster them are setting themselves up for a disastrous attack
like Out of the Pits did with the aunt who adopted the pit bull from them. The pit bull then nearly killed her nephew Frankie Flora.
They are promising people that pit bulls are safe with children, are safe family pets that need to be treated like any other dog.
They are pronising that passing "temperament tests" prove that pit bulls are safe.
That is a warrantee!
| 5/12/2009 12:53 PM |
Rae is already defying the Council. Why he is against sedation before euthanasia is beyond me.
| 5/12/2009 4:29 PM |
Is it a requirement there that VETS have to do the sedation?
The breeders all want to kill their dogs using any means they desire (in other words, the CHEAPEST methods that don't cut into profits!) The AKC and the rest all lobby against euthanasia that requires a vet. In part, because they want to keep costs down for the puppy mills that supply their money.
In part, because the AKC breeders thmselves are performing veterinary surgery etc. on their own puppies and dogs, and they see any kind of vet requirement for dog services as a slippery slope to regulating that activity.
Puppy mills routinely drown, stone, shoot, the stock they don't want any more. No vet bills.
Since his boss man Winograd is now involved with AKC and other breeder lobbyists, opposing sedation before euthanasia may be Rae just pandering to the breeder lobby against requirements to use a vet.
| 5/12/2009 7:44 PM |
Here's a quote from a 6 year old article:
And a November 23-29, 2001, article in the weekly Washington City Paper detailed the response received by four District of Columbia council members after they proposed, in November 1999, a ban on new pit bulls in the city. “Then the council members were inundated by pit-bull supporters. ‘We were totally unprepared for what happened next,’ [council member Kevin] Chavous explains. ‘[We] got calls, letters, and e-mails from all over the country. I personally got calls from big stars like Mary Tyler Moore and Bernadette Peters, who never seemed to care about anything that happened in the District before, offering to fly across the country to explain why a pit-bull ban was unfair, ineffective, and a slander of a wonderful animal.’…
| 5/12/2009 10:36 PM |
Bernadette Peters has a pit bull. Mary Tyler Moore and some of the other celebs have absolutely no idea they are being suckered by some of the most abusive dog profiteers there can be, in part because it gets filtered through manipulated oerganizations like ASPCA.
But these breeders do this stuff all the time on all kinds of regulation issues.
Think about it. They make money running these illegal, unlicensed businesses where there is zero accountability, in part because they have fended off regulation to be able to keep them underground. They are willing and able to spend 20 hours a day protecting the money stream. Whatever it takes. Calls, emails, threats, whatever.
Some of these puppy mill breeders are making millions of dollars a year. Millions in untaxed income.
Even the "responsible" ones are pulling in thousands of dollars a puppy, unaltered. Little to no vet bills, for all their deceits. More breeeding females than they admit to. No income claimed, no one even knows what they are up to or how many dogs they have. No taxes paid.
That's not to mention the dog fighters with the lucrative breeding businesses AND the huge gambling activity
And some peripheral lobbies.
And they all climb out from under their rocks when its "protect the bank account" time.
These are not average, employed, upstanding members of society. Their obsessions and delusions are their lives. It's a marginal subset of weird America that fights like a pit bull to stay in the shadows. Unregulated.
| 5/13/2009 3:57 AM |
The Pit Bull Sterilization intiative was tabled last night.
Committee Chairman Bob Lutz said he was concerned that debate over the ordinance would eat into time needed to consider other issues facing the city."
Perhaps Crazy Bob Lutz needs to be eaten on during the next Level 5 Mauling. He now owns the problem.
| 5/13/2009 10:29 AM |
Maybe Bob Lutz got a nice big campaign contribution from the AKC/dog fighter brigade
Of course, Doug Rae is working for the city, and Doug Rae in reality works for Nathan Winograd, who works with these breeder lobbies.
What a dirty situation in Indianapolis government