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

9 thoughts on “Officials Must Stop Ordering Dogs Deemed 'Dangerous' to New Jurisdictions

Please review our comment policy.

  1. The pit bull involved in my attack had very recently been moved across state lines as a rescue. She came from a city that orders dogs with a violent history moved out of town. My attack was very public. The dog was moved into another community 6 weeks after the attack (ordered out of town or evicted from the apartment complex, I don't know which) The documents on the dog had been falsified. The new residence was in a high population density suburb, directly across the street from a school, by this time the dog is uninsured. The owners were caught red handed by the county. The new comunity was warned and the dog was ordered out of town AGAIN. This is at least 3 trips on the Pit Bull Express. At their depositions the pit owners stated they gave the dog away and had no information on her location. This dog failed her real world temperament test and was given far too many chances. My life was changed by the "get this vicious dog out of my backyard" school of problem solving. The problem does not get solved, the only thing that happens is innocent people become victims, and the cycle starts all over again. And she is still out there…

  2. What happened to you, April 29, should happen to no one! Derelict officials, complicit in mauler relocation schemes, belong in the bone pile of unemployed, has-been bureaucrats.

  3. I just don't get it. How can any dog owner look at her horrendous injuries and want to keep the beast alive, be it a pit bull, great dane, or chihuahua! Cue the pit bull psychotics…

  4. Gotta wonder what Yakima is doing and if the dog is actually even there. The Burien IDIOTS — most notably Animal Control Director Leslie Kasper IDIOT — gave the dog (legally deemed dangerous) back to its owners after the attack and said, "Better get the animal out of town." That dog could be anywhere, including in a Burien basement.

  5. One of the biggest problems in animal control is the infiltration of people who are not performing their job protecting public safety, but instead are catering to the dog breeder trade or the No Kill extremism cult.

    The dog breeders continually, despite protestations of "deed not breed," oppose dangerous dog laws of all kinds, or support weak and useless ones that end up protecting dangerous dogs. Breeding animals, even dangerous ones, represent money as breeding stock, and they want these animals returned for financial reasons.

    No Kill has become intertwined with the breeding industry.

    It must be remembered that veterinarians do NOT represent public safety interests. DVMs reflect the business interests of those who make money from animals, historically breeders and more recently No Kill.

    Leslie Kasper is a DVM. DVMs are not animal control authorities. Kasper has a relationship with breeders in her area as indicated by past news stories, in particular AKC breeders and breed associations.

    AKC breeders have ostensibly supported dangerous dog laws. But when you look at the actual laws that AKC breeders promote, for example one by a pit bull breeder in Massachusetts I have found reference to, the laws are weak, wipe records clean after only months, allow multiple attacks, and allow dangerous dogs to be returned to owners with vague talk of "training" and be RELOCATED.

    Kasper's interests do not lie with public safety. Dangerous dogs can't be retrained, despite propaganda from breeders and related commercial dog trainer and No Kill interests.

    The recent fiasco at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary with their Vicktory pit bull Tug, who along with another Vicktory pit bull, killed and decapitated another sanctuary dog even though supposedly "rehabilitated" after years of million dollar care and containment and "retraining" should be a grave warning among many to us all that rehab for dangerous dogs does not work, even after the best of care is provided. How many individual owners can provide such care and containment?

    It should be noted that Kasper recives $120,000 per year to perform animal control services for the town of Burien, and recently had to close her private practice for "financial reasons."

    If Kasper wants to cater to breeder interests, she needs to do this in her private practice. But her role in animal control is that of public safety, safety first. There is a conflict here.

    Another issue that seems to be a problem in Burien is pressure from No Kill fanatics who do not care about public safety.

    Local governments are often pressured by vocal and even belligerent special interest groups to act irresponsibly.

    Burien is allowing Kasper to endanger not only the lives of the future victims of this dog, but also risking lawsuits for their citizens that could cost the town millions.

    There needs to be a focus on quality animal control that represents public safety first and foremost.

  6. This is the first time I have visited this site. Let me say that it has scared the crap out of me. I thought if a dog mauled someone then it was euthanized. No questions asked! This is totally unbelievable.

  7. "If you know about a crime and do nothing about it, you are guilty of the same crime." Plato.

    I am gobsmacked at the criminal injustice committed by the "authorities".
    Martin Sutherland.

Comments are closed.