Posted on September 10, 2015 by Colleen Lynn

2015 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bulls Kill Man, Injure Woman in North Shore, California

Emilio Rios Sr. was fatally attacked by two pit bulls in North Shore, California.

Attack Reignites Alarm
UPDATE 9/10/15: On Tuesday, Emilio Rios, 65, was savagely killed by two pit bulls in North Shore, an unincorporated community in Riverside County. The dogs also attacked a woman who came to his aid. John Welsh, a spokesman for county animal services, said, "Remember the old days when the pioneers came and had to worry about wolves? We are not in those days anymore. A person should not have to worry about perishing from an attack by an animal," he said.

Not just an "attack by an animal" mind you. A crushing fatal attack by a domesticated dog breed selectively bred to fight to the death in a pit.

Thanks to dogfighters, out-of-control pit bull breeding and out-of-control pit bull "rescuing" and adoptions by out-of-control "humane" groups, a person does have to worry about perishing or being permanently maimed in a violent pit bull attack today. If you have not seen the images of what happened in New York recently, you should. After a man blasted a bullet into a pit bull's head that was latched onto a man's face, it took several minutes for the pit bull to release its jaws.

We point out these disturbing images because this is what a savage pit bull attack scene looks like. In the case of New York, the dog was shot to death. What do you think the scene looked like when sheriff's deputies found Emilio brutalized and dead and the female victim screaming while being actively attacked by the two pit bulls? It was a violent, horrific crime scene in North Shore; the same kind that has accompanied pit bull attacks for over a hundred years in this country.

Legislation Follows Violent Attacks

In addition to using hard-hitting quotes by Welsh, the Press Enterprise provides a brief history of Riverside County and adjacent San Bernardino County, which is the largest county in the U.S. in square miles. In 2010, after four people were killed by pit bulls in a 5-year period, San Bernardino County adopted a mandatory pit bull spay and neuter ordinance affecting all unincorporated areas. Since this time, pit bull admissions and euthanasia of pit bulls has been cut by more than half.

In fiscal year 2009-10, right before the measure was passed, the county reported 2,066 pit bull admissions. Wert said 77 percent of them were put down.

“Since the ordinance went into effect, the admission and euthanasia rates for pit bulls have steadily decreased,” he said in an email note. “In fiscal year 2014-15, we had 1,037 pit bull admissions, 31 percent of which had to be euthanized.” - David Wert, San Bernardino County spokesman

In 2013, Riverside County adopted a similar law for unincorporated areas. Back when county officials debated the issue, they did so honestly as well. The primary public safety issue with mandatory pit bull sterilization is to drastically decrease roaming pit bulls, which sterilization does reduce, and to lower the overall number of unwanted pit bulls in a community. The two dogs involved in the fatal attack of Emilio were male, one had been neutered, and the other had not.

We’ve always preached that it (mandatory sterilization) is one step closer to a safer community. But it doesn’t solve all problems.” - John Welsh

Welsh is exactly right. A mandatory pit bull sterilization law is the very least a municipality can do to help protect its citizens and reign in pit bull-related shelter issues. As pointed out by Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit, both jurisdictions have already done as much as they can legislatively. In California, local governments can regulate "specific breeds" with sterilization laws, but state law bars jurisdictions from declaring a specific breed "potentially dangerous" or "vicious."

09/09/15: Coroner Releases Age
Fatal dog mauling victim Emilio Rios Sr. was 65-years old, according to a coroner's office news release. When deputies arrived to the scene at about 6:15 am Tuesday, Rios was found dead and two dogs described as pit bulls were actively attacking a woman. Officers responded to the woman in their vehicle with lights and sirens on, causing the dogs to flee. The woman was taken to a local hospital. Animal control captured both dogs and photographs have been released to the media.

KMIR reports that family members say that Emilio was watering plants at the home where the dogs fatally attacked him. Luisa Rodriguez, who tried to help him, was walking out of her house when the same dogs attacked her. She is currently hospitalized recovering from serious injuries to her arm. KESQ reports that both dogs were located at a nearby residence. One of the pit bulls was so aggressive toward animal control that it had to be tranquilized, according to sheriff's officials.

Authorities have not released information about the dogs' owner. In the KMIR video, Luisa's daughter said that Emilio is her relative and both dogs belong to her neighbors. "The dogs belong to our neighbors, they coincidentally probably jumped (the fence) or they slipped through when the neighbors left to work," Michelle Rodriguez said. Despite locating the dogs at a "residence" and Michelle's account, county officials are telling the public to be "extra careful with stray dogs."

09/08/15: Dogs Fatally Attack Man
North Shore, CA - A dog attack this morning left one man dead and a woman seriously injured. The attack occurred in the unincorporated community of North Shore near Salton Sea. Deputies were dispatched to a location near Seagull and Dolphin Drives at about 6:15 am, according to Riverside County sheriff's officials. The victims have been identified as Emilio Rios Sr. and Luisa Rodriguez. The woman was transported to a local hospital to receive treatment for her injuries.

The two suspected dogs appear to be pit bulls, according to sheriff's officials. Animal control officers seized both dogs. So far the dogs' owners have not been named or located. John Welsh, a spokesperson for Riverside County animal services, said today's death is the third fatal dog attack he can recall during his 9-year tenure with the department. Since December 19, 2008 (7-years), data from DogsBite.org shows there have been seven fatal dog attacks in Riverside County.

Riverside County Fatal Dog Attacks

2008: Gerald Adelmund, 60-years old (Rubidoux, CA)
Mauled to death by his son's two pit bulls
2009: Hill Andrew Williams, 38-years old (Rancho Mirage, CA)
Mauled to death by his fiancée's two Italian mastiffs
2010: Christina Casey, 53-years old (Moreno Valley, CA)
Mauled to death by her neighbor's two pit bull-mixes
2010: Edward Mitchelle, 67-years old (Murrieta, CA)
Mauled to death by his nephew's pit bull
2013: Elsie Grace, 91-years old (Hemet, CA)
Mauled to death by her son's two pit bulls
2014: Annabell Martin, 89-years old (Corona, CA)
Mauled to death by her grandson's three rottweilers
2015: Emilio Rios Sr., 65-years old (North Shore, CA)
Mauled to death by two pit bull-mixes

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: California Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

Posted on September 8, 2015 by Colleen Lynn

Announcement: DogsBite.org Releases New FAQ about Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)

An analysis of 860 cities with breed-specific laws showed that pit bulls were named in 100% of these ordinances, followed in distant second by rottweilers, named in just 7%.

Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ
DogsBite.org - Today we release our Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ that will empower advocates and city officials who support breed-specific laws. The FAQ drills down into the effectiveness of these ordinances, which breeds are involved and the three most common types of ordinances. The FAQ provides examples for each ordinance type, jurisdictions that achieved strong results and highlights the public support for pit bull ban ordinances by reviewing two recent election results.

Full news release: Dog Bite Victims' Group Releases FAQ about Breed-Specific Legislation

The FAQ answers many questions, but we call to attention the "alleged" high cost of enforcing BSL. This part of the FAQ destroys the online BSL calculator created by former tobacco economist John Dunham and hawked by Utah-based fighting dog advocates Best Friends Animal Society. The sham BSL calculator was funded by the National Canine Research Council,1 a subsidiary of Animal Farm Foundation. Both are owned and operated by extreme pit bull promoter Jane Berkey.

The FAQ shows that the sham BSL calculator's estimate to enforce a county pit bull ban is an exaggeration by almost two orders of magnitude.

Back in February 2012, when Miami-Dade County was debating the issue of placing the pit bull ban on the primary ballot, pit bull defender Dalia Caines testified to committee members that, "taxpayers paid $3 million annually to enforce the ban on pit bulls." In response, Animal Services director Alex Munoz told committee members that $3 million was more than the department's entire budget for enforcement and that pit bulls accounted for 2% of the enforcement costs.

The FAQ breaks this down for readers by examining the 2011-2012 Miami-Dade County Animal Services budget.2 The total budget for the department during the period was $9.36 million. The total budget for Code Enforcement was $2.3 million. Director Munoz stated that pit bulls accounted for 2% of total enforcement costs, which equates to just over $46,000. The BSL calculator, which claimed the ban cost taxpayers $3 million, is an exaggeration by almost two orders of magnitude.

John Dunham "Calculators"

Dunham is known for the "calculators" he designs for his clients -- primarily lobbyists, industry trade associations and at least one candidate.3 The sham BSL calculator exaggerated the actual cost by a whopping factor of 65. Dunham's calculators and "economic research" studies have been scrutinized by the media before, even his feral cat calculator was (which vanished in 2012),4 but the media has never questioned the sham BSL calculator. They just print its spurious results.5

We urgently call on advocates to spread this information and to criticize publications and reporters who blindly print the calculator's bogus results.

Other Sections of the BSL FAQ

The breed-specific legislation FAQ discusses the history of BSL and how long these laws have been targeting fighting dogs -- since the late 1800s. The FAQ provides evidence of "bulldog" ordinances from 1896 to 1912, along with an 1897 woodcut illustration published in The San Francisco Call of a policeman "strangling a savage bulldog into releasing his hold" of a child. The FAQ reminds readers that attacks by pit bulls back then were just as horrific as they are now.

The FAQ discusses the constitutionality of breed-specific laws and why well-written ordinances have a 100% success rate when under constitutional scrutiny. The FAQ also dismantles several untruths about constitutional issues, often voiced by oppositional groups. Lastly, the BSL FAQ touches on state-preemption anti-BSL laws, as we first examined in our April report, and the primary driving forces behind them -- Best Friends Animal Society and dog breeder interests.

Download: The Breed-Specific Legislation FAQ is also available as a PDF, download now!

Full news release: Dog Bite Victims' Group Releases FAQ about Breed-Specific Legislation

1The BSL Fiscal Impact Calculator, released in May 2009, was commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society and funded by the National Canine Research Council.
2FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget and Multi-Year Capital Plan, by Miami-Dade County Animal Services Department.
3Other Dunham calculator examples: U.S. Egg Producers, National Chicken Council and American Meat Institute.
4The feral cat calculator, released in March 2010, was commission by Best Friends Animal Society and funded by PetSmart Charities. By September 2012, it had been removed from the web, apparently for good. In a Facebook post by Shadow Cats, the person asks, "Anyone have the right link to what used to be this "Trap, Neuter and Return Cost Savings Calculator" I cant find it and I need it asap. anyone?"

Janice Dankert, Best Friends' Community Cat program supervisor, responded by saying, "Unfortunately, the BF calculator has been having a lot of issues lately and we've had to take it down. At this time, we don't know if or when it'll get fixed. Sorry." Then Dankert added, "[The calculator] is a great benefit, if it's providing accurate information. Unfortunately, it wasn't always which can be more detrimental to our mission."
5It is also noteworthy that a Huffington Post blogger called out John Dunham's tobacco roots in February 2014, after he was invited to speak at a for-profit college companies' trade association event. In the very same month, writer Arin Greenwood of the Huffington Post -- who frequently pens pro-pit bull pieces for the organization -- willfully pushed bogus results from the sham BSL calculator to bolster the Huffpo's staggering pro-pit bull stance. Greenwood leaves out John Dunham's name.

"Best Friends also emphasizes the cost of enforcing anti-pit bull bans; the group commissioned an economist to put together a tool that calculates the costs by city. And here's a sample calculation: In Baltimore, there's an estimated 151,105 dogs, of which 10,918 are assumed pit bull type dogs. The costs associated with enforcing laws against pit bull ownership would be $992,606 per year." - Arin Greenwood, Huffington Post, citing John Dunham's calculator results

Posted on September 4, 2015 by Colleen Lynn

2015 Dog Bite Fatality: Autauga County Woman Killed by Family Dogs

Images of Dogs Posted
UPDATE 10/05/15: The Autauga County Sheriff's office has released very few details about the dog mauling death of a woman in early September. Barbara McCormick, 65-years old, was attacked and killed by up to three family dogs on September 4 at her home on County Road 1. Earlier that morning, and unrelated to the fatal dog attack, her husband was admitted to the hospital. We learned by reading the son's Facebook page that he died shortly thereafter.1

The McCormick family has suffered an unbearable tragic loss.

On September 12, the couple's son, William McCormick, published photographs of his parents' three family dogs to his Facebook album. The photos show a pit bull-mix, shepherd-mix and golden retriever-mix. The pit bull was never mentioned in any earlier media reports. The third dog, a younger version of the golden retriever-mix, was posted as a comment within this post and he states, "How could anyone think these dogs could've hurt my mom. I just don't understand."

After again reviewing the few media reports about this fatal dog attack, its actually unclear where the "shepherd or retriever mixed breeds" description came from. Was it Sheriff Joe Sedinger or a person at the scene? The description is accurate, but the third breed is absent. On September 4, we watched the live WSFA video stream (the video was never posted with the news report). That brief footage captured the golden retriever-mix tethered at the time, but captured no other dogs.

At this point, it is still unknown how many dogs were involved in the attack. On September 9, Sheriff Sedinger told the Montgomery Advertiser, "There were two dogs off the leash and one dog was still tied up" (presumably during the attack). On Septmeber 10, 6-days after the fatal attack, WSFA reported that only two dogs had been seized; officials were still searching for the third. On September 29, we wrote to Sedinger to try to clarify these discrepancies. He has not replied.2

Reminder to Rural and Semi-Rural Jurisdictions

Information will be shared on social media -- this cannot be stopped. In this case, it was the victim's own son who published the images of the three family dogs, which had been under the sheriff's authority at that time with few details released and others omitted. The cornerstone of DogsBite.org is to accurately document all U.S. fatal dog attacks and to make this information freely available to the public. The CDC stopped collecting a rich data set for these victims in 1998.

When authorities fail to share even the most "basic parameters" after a fatal dog mauling to local media and the public two things are ensured. 1.) Breaking parts of national fatal dog attack statistics and 2.) Failing to provide information that could help save future lives. When fatal dog attacks involve children or senior citizens and dangerous dog breeds or multiple large dog breeds and tethering scenarios, there is always a significant health and safety message to be shared.

09/09/15: Autopsy Confirms Death
Preliminary autopsy results show that Barbara McCormick, 65-years old, was mauled to death by dogs, according to Autauga County Sheriff Joe Sedinger. Authorities seized and quarantined three dogs that were believed to be involved in the deadly attack. Sedinger vaguely described the dogs as "shepherd or retriever mixed breeds." The dogs belonged to the victim and her family. Sheriff Sedinger believes McCormick may have been feeding the dogs just before the fatal attack.

Though authorities may never know what actually happened, Sedinger said, "I think the dogs got into a fight when she was feeding them, and maybe she tried to break up the fight, or maybe they knocked her down during the fight." Sedinger added, "Physically she was a small lady, and she had health problems. Once she was on the ground, it would have been hard for her to get away." The close-knit community south of Billingsley has been shaken by McCormick's tragic death.

09/04/15: Dogs May Have Killed Woman
Billingsley, AL - A 65-year old woman was found dead in her yard Friday with injuries consistent with a dog attack. Barbara McCormick was discovered dead by a friend, Autauga County Sheriff Joe Sedinger said. Her body will be sent to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences for an autopsy. "She had medical problems and right now we don't know the cause of death," Sedinger said. "We don't know if the injuries were received after death or if she was attacked by the dogs."

The attack occurred at McCormick's home on the 1400 block of County Round 1, which is south of Billingsley. Several large dogs were tied up in the yard. Three of the dogs owned by the family were seized and quarantined. Family members said the dogs had never shown aggression toward McCormick before. WSFA reported that earlier Friday morning, and unrelated to the dog attack, McCormick's husband was admitted to a local hospital. No other information was released.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: Alabama Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

1A double funeral was held on September 18 at Martin Funeral Home in Clanton, AL.
2The Autauga County Sheriff's Office website has been offline for at least a month, perhaps much longer. We had to write to his 2014/2015 election campaign email address. It's unclear if anyone ever received it.

Posted on August 31, 2015 by Colleen Lynn

Pit Bulls Are Identifiable Meme Campaign

DogsBite.org - For 25 years appellate courts have ruled that a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull (See: Ohio v. Anderson, 1991). In addition to this, the high courts have ruled that scientific precision is not required when determining the breed (See: Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver, 1991). Yet still the myth persists ad nauseam -- pushed by the Pit Bull Propaganda Machine, pit bull advocates, animal groups and more -- that it is impossible to identify a pit bull.

Readers are familiar with this myth, which has variations like, "it is impossible to identify a pit bull" and "pit bulls can't be identified," and the mothership motto, "there is no such thing as a pit bull." In a series of 8 memes, directly quoting high court rulings, we highlight how the high courts have ruled on this subject. The courts have ruled that a pit bull is a breed of dog with distinctive traits that can be recognized by its physical appearance by a dog owner of ordinary intelligence.

"Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence..."
- Ohio v. Anderson, Supreme Court of Ohio (1991)

The series of memes are for readers to share on Facebook, Twitter, other social media networks and commenting platforms. They are especially effective as Facebook photo comments when debating "breed enthusiasts" who flock to Facebook to comment after a serious or fatal pit bull attack to defend the breed and disseminate false myths. You do not need to engage with these pit bull defenders, just post one of our memes as a photo comment -- no other words are needed.

Why This Myth Must Be Destroyed

The myth that it is impossible to identify a pit bull or that only an "expert" with a suitcase of science can achieve this task must be discredited. Nowhere do the high courts state that "expert" knowledge is necessary to identify a pit bull. Specifically, the high courts state, "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull" and the "American pit bull terrier is a recognized breed of dog readily identifiable by laymen."

"The trial court found that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed of dog readily identifiable by laymen."
- Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, Court of Appeals of New Mexico (1988)

Our memes are big and bold because we are shouting to the public: Yes you, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull! The high courts have clearly stated this. Do not allow this false myth to lead your confidence astray. Moreover, when faced with anyone who claims that a pit bull cannot be identified, whip out one of our high court memes -- it cannot be denied! So be bold, have confidence and help us dismantle this myth, long ago debunked by the high courts!

In Closing: It's an Old Recycled Myth

The weighty curse of this false myth cannot be expressed enough. While it is jarring to see the many pit bull specific rescues who claim, "there is no such thing as a pit bull" while operating a pit bull specific foundation or pit bull specific adoption program, understand that this claim is very old. All four of the high court decisions that were used in these memes (from 1988 to 1991) involved pit bull owners claiming in one way or another that a pit bull is "not a breed" or is "not identifiable."

This is how we think Judge Judy would respond to the Bryan Bickell Foundation's shenanigans.

Pit Bull Identification Meme Campaign

Suggested hashtags: #PitBullsAreIdentifiable | #ICanIDaPitBull

Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver, 820 P. 2d 644 - Colo: Supreme Court 1991

Ohio v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1991

Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 767 P. 2d 355 - NM: Court of Appeals 1988

Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 - Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1989

Additional Analysis

To demonstrate the knowledge required to identify a pit bull, the high courts were specific: "An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction" (Vanater, 1989), "Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books" (Ohio, 1991), and "the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners" (Toledo, 2007).

We list these early high court decisions in chronological order below leading up to 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Tellings v. Toldeo. Back in the late 80s and early 90s there was no Internet. By today's standards, if you can Google or if you have an iPhone, you can learn how to identify a pit bull. It is that straight forward according to the high courts. Today, dictionaries, dog breed profiles, dog breed information and AKC and UKC breed standards and more are online.

There is an ample body of literature which can aid in the identification of Pit Bulls and, most often, a Pit Bull is identifiable as such by its conformation. - Vanater v. Village of South Point, Dist. Court, SD Ohio (1989)

The other theme that runs through many of the constitutional challenges about pit bull breed identification is best expressed in American Dog Owners Ass'n v. Dade County, FL (1989). The Court wrote, "Plaintiffs contend that there is no such thing as a pit bull dog." Also in 1989, in American Dog Owners Ass'n v. Yakima, WA (1989), the Court wrote: "plaintiffs admit acquiring their pets believing them to be pit bulls, although they now aver they cannot identify the breed."

Fast forward to the Bryan & Amanda Bickell Foundation 25 years later claiming the exact same routine, "I am a pit bull owner" and "There is no such thing as a pit bull," echoing the old recycled themes from the mid 80s. While it is true that "some day" a reliable DNA test might come along for scientific identification, what is also true is that "there is no constitutional requirement that legislation be written with scientific precision to be enforceable" (Colorado Dog Fanciers, 1991).

Chronology of Identifying Breed

June 29, 1989
Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 - Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1989

The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them.

August 24, 1989
American Dog Owners v. City of Yakima, 777 P. 2d 1046 - Wash: Supreme Court 1989

Finally, the plaintiffs fail to show vagueness "beyond a reasonable doubt." In fact, the plaintiffs admit acquiring their pets believing them to be pit bulls, although they now aver they cannot identify the breed.

November 30, 1989
American Dog Owners v. Dade County, Fla., 728 F. Supp. 1533 - Dist. Court, SD Florida 1989

Plaintiffs contend that there is no such thing as a pit bull dog...

Veterinarians opine that ordinary citizens may be trained to identify the breed of a dog based on the dog's physical appearance. In fact, one resident of the County gave testimony that he was able to determine the breed of the dog he owned after comparing its physical conformation to that of other pit bulls he had seen in the media...

Presently, there exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. Even if a scientific method is developed to identify breeds of dogs, an enforcement scheme will still depend on initial visual identification...

If, after consulting the ordinance, an owner remains in a quandary as to whether the ordinance applied to him, the owner could seek guidance from a dictionary, a guidebook to dogs or from his or her veterinarian.

February 13, 1991
Ohio v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1991

Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, state statutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation. By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog...

As the court noted in American Dog Owners Assn., supra, at 1541, "[i]f, after consulting the ordinance, an owner remains in a quandary as to whether the ordinance applied to him, the owner could seek guidance from a dictionary, a guidebook to dogs or from his or her veterinarian."

August 1, 2007
Toledo v. Tellings, 2007 Ohio 3724 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2007

This court has previously held that the term "pit bull" is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. In State v. Anderson, we stated: "In sum, we believe that the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog."

February 19, 2008
Tellings v. Toledo, Supreme Court of the United States 2008

On February 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the pit bull lobby's appeal of Toledo v. Tellings, making the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision final. There is no further appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected all four constitutional arguments brought forth by the pit bull lobby, including: procedural due process, substantive due process, equal protection of the laws and void for vagueness (the pit bull identification issue). Read a deeper legal analysis of this decision.

The beauty of memes is that they inspire creativity! We created a series of jump starter memes -- including the Bryan Bickell Paradox, Can You Google?, Got an iPhone? and Judge Judy memes -- to help advocates get even more ideas and start making memes of their own. The jump starter memes are located in our Facebook album. Have fun and be bold!

DogsBite blog ::

2015 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bulls Kill Man, Injure Woman in North Shore, California

Announcement: DogsBite.org Releases New FAQ about Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)

2015 Dog Bite Fatality: Autauga County Woman Killed by Family Dogs

Who Can Identify a Pit Bull? A Dog Owner of 'Ordinary Intelligence' Say the High Courts

Pit Bulls Are Identifiable Meme Campaign

Pit Bull Identification Meme Campaign