I’ve re-read my article plenty of times. Maybe I missed something. I thought that, due to the backlash that I’m currently getting, maybe I was honestly unfair or harsh. I’ve gotta say, upon reading it back numerous times, I feel more strongly than ever that I wrote the appropriate article and that I did what made sense to me. It continues to make sense to me. When addressing Villalobos directly, which was only a small portion of the article, what I wrote was not harsh. If anything, I went out of my way to praise them, while laying out what the published dynamics of this legislation aims to do, and then asking them to reconsider their support for it. That’s basically it. The “harsh” sections were reserved for Councilman Glenn Green and the legislation itself. Those stating otherwise must not have read it, because it’s still online and you can see it for yourself.

Literally no one is disputing anything specific about what I wrote. I’ve been dealing with this for a solid 6-8 hours now, since waking up, and no one is attempting to point out irregularities or inaccuracies. The vast majority of those disagreeing with what I wrote are basically attacking me as a person, calling me names, cursing at me, comparing our “popularity,” and so on and so forth. Can I get some kind of a thoughtful discourse? The lack of that is usually proof enough that I made a valid point.

^Do you not see this? They keep saying that that doesn’t mean that they support everything that’s in the bill. Okay, fine. But it’s in the bill. So if the bill passes, it happens. They support the bill. They are supporting what Councilman Green is proposing. Yet, I’m called the “liar” for simply pointing this out and then trying to break down the bill, and then asking Villalobos to reconsider their support for it. It’s being said by many that that apparently amounts to an “attack” on Villalobos. Not at all.

So I’m simply going to state a few things that I’ve also stated on my Facebook page…

This backlash that I’m getting for my statement on Villalobos’ position on the BSL in Westwego thing, as if I’m “jealous” or “uninformed” or “not reading,” or “not understanding,” or being a “hypocrite,” is totally off the charts insane. It’s really sad that some people can actually read something that was pretty darn clear, and still come to the vapid opinion that I’m somehow throwing rocks at the throne. It’s really sad that some people can read something that was fully sourced and essentially a response to information that is OUT IN THE OPEN, and then try to imply that I’m basically an “uninformed hater” that knows nothing about nothing. Where is the disconnect?

A hater? Of Tia and Villalobos? How?? I respect the hell out of both. I’m a hater for pointing out the obvious? I’m a hater for noticing that they are supporting some egregious compromise on BSL, and then trying to tell their hundreds of thousands of fans that this legislation actually is not BSL and that I’m somehow lying or misrepresenting their position? How? Why? For what? Wow. Humanity never ceases to let you down.

What’s most stunning is how so many people are just piling on me for reasons that don’t even make sense, as if they didn’t read a single word of what I wrote, and then calling me the hypocrite for “not reading.” A lot of this type of stuff seems to be coming from people who would rather follow someone because of “who” they are, instead of respond back to what I wrote with any kind of substance at all. What didn’t I read? How is what is being proposed in Westwego and supported by Villalobos not BSL? Can someone explain this to me? Can someone retort anything that I said, instead of just attacking the messenger? Someone even went so far as to actually compare me to Colleen Lynn!! You actually have to laugh at this stuff to keep from crying.

This world seems to be more and more awash in celebrity worship and so many people actually live their lives as if that kind of stuff somehow trumps any and everything. I love what Tia does, but she isn’t above criticism and neither am I. Criticize away at me, but please base it in something. I went out of my way to write the most thorough piece that I could, and to make it clear that I love what VRC does, but to also lay out my case for why I think that what they’ve chosen to do in Westwego is extremely damaging. I explained why, and thoroughly. I then simply asked them to reconsider their stance. That’s it. It wasn’t an “attack,” it wasn’t me “slamming” Tia, as so many people are now saying. My goodness. I’m in no way “jealous” of her fame, rather the opposite, and extremely happy that she has the platform that she has in order to show the true and wonderful nature of these dogs. I think that’s like the 50th time that I’ve said this now! Yet so many people are trying to boil the genuine stuff that I said down to “he’s just hating.” Really? I mean, really?

You can kill me all you want. Whomever wants to say whatever, go for it. I just wish that it was actually based in something, or in an effort to substantially retort something that I said. Instead, it seems to be the opposite. I’m just “bad” because I dared make a statement against a position that is clearly discriminatory and clearly meant to demonize Pit Bulls as a whole. I’m not saying that that’s what Tia wants, I’m saying that by her supporting the legislation that’s what she plays a role in basically allowing to have happen. It’s not my fault that Villalobos is supporting Councilman Green’s legislation, and backing a “compromise” that is totally wrongheaded and tyrannical on numerous levels. Yet, so many people have completely lost sight of that, simply based out of who this person is. It’s Tia, so we can’t dare question it. Um, why? Things shouldn’t work like that, where substance and principles go flying out the window, context out the window. Your dogs are going to be the ones affected! I’m all about compromise, and working together with people in all facets of my life. But I’m not up for “compromising” when it comes to people (like Green) who are hellbent on scapegoating Pit Bulls, demonizing them, perpetuating stereotypes, flaunting open discrimination and then passing unjust laws that usher all of that stuff in. I’m not for compromising with that.

In closing… What’s being lost here, and what’s most discouraging to me personally, is the clear disconnect between what is truly BSL and what many people actually do consider BSL vs. what they do not consider BSL. It’s beyond depressing that this definition is actually being fractured and that thousands of people don’t even seem to understand the basic nature of the legislation. For that, Tia should be ashamed. Because she is currently perpetuating that, and now doubling down on it by coming after me and attempting to turn my comments into something that they were not. Too many people will just listen to her, and take it as scripture, instead of even attempting to understand what is being discussed. That’s sad.

Thanks to those that actually know the difference.

Villalobos then came out with a statement, and then a 2nd statement, which was especially dramatic and pretty much out of bounds.

In the 1st one they tell me to “read before I write” and that I’m “spreading rumors,” while doubling down on this fearmongerish line of thought that had they not “compromised” then there would have been a total ban. That’s untrue, but okay. Telling me that I should read before I write is degrading and disingenuous. You bet I read before I wrote, why wouldn’t I have? This kind of a dismissive response insulting everyone’s intelligence, their own supporters included, by taking petty shots at me while they ignore the actual statements and positions that their own organization made and took in regards to the legislation that is being discussed here.

The 2nd statement was far more over the top, where they imply that I’ve somehow ruined the day for their adorable Puma, who was just adopted. They then accuse me of actually wanting them shut down, blame me for their donations drying up and then attempt to blame me for losing future adopters. If that wasn’t enough, they then claim that due to my blog post they “will no longer be commenting, discussing, talking, posting about BSL.” So it’s now become MY FAULT for their failure to use their massive exposure to positively counter BSL around the country. Then comes the accusations of me wanting attention at their expense, and that I was getting my “15 seconds of fame.” Nice. They even source an article that they recently re-posted of mine from 2 years ago, calling it “one of the best reads ever” in regards to BSL and California. Less than a week later my rather consistent opposition to BSL is no longer legitimate for that praise…

Regarding this notion that I’m “wanting them shut down.” This is a totally absurdist statement. Just for the record: I HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE VILLALOBOS SHUT DOWN, NOR DID I MAKE MY STATEMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO CAUSE THEM TO “LOSE SUPPORT.” My statements were made because I am against breed-discriminatory legislation. That’s it. Read what I wrote. It’s totally out there and available for people to read. Not only what I wrote, but what they wrote, and what Councilman Green is pushing for. For the 958th time: I SUPPORT VILLALOBOS and resent these accusations that I want them shut down, or that I’m trying to garner “fame” off of their reputation. Anyone that knows me knows that I don’t give a rat’s ass about fame. I don’t do what I do for “fame.” It’s total and utter bologna. If 5,000 people want to unlike my page in mass, that’s okay. People can be as nasty as they want to be with me, call me names, tell me all kinds of things that I can’t exactly repeat here… But it sucks that Villalobos are actually using reverse psychology and will probably succeed in turning massive amounts of people against me, people that don’t even know or care to even read what I actually wrote. Ultimately, people can make up their own minds on my reputation and my motivations. What I wrote is out there, I stand by it. I’m against BSL, not Tia, not Villalobos. I’m against “compromising” with people who are hellbent on scapegoating Pit Bulls for the individual incidents that irresponsible people repeatedly cause. This Council would never succeed in achieving a ban. We (Pit Bull people, Villalobos, myself, you) are in the right. BSL is totally backwards and wrong, and giving in at any ratio is extremely harmful. But again, saying that I want to see VRC shut down is an absolute falsehood. That’s the last thing that I’d ever want. They also can’t have it both ways, calling me a “nobody” that is “piggybacking on your fame,” while at the same time blaming me for “tons of donations lost” and the potential “closure” of your hugely massive and amazing rescue. If I’m a “nobody” then how in the world would I even remotely be able to accomplish that? Again, I have no desire in the world to see Villalobos close, or have their donations dry up. People can continue to put words in my mouth but I’ve been beyond clear and pretty darn consistent in the face of all of this.

Here’s my responses to basically the only criticisms that I’ve received, and they are constant and almost always the same:

That I should “go away” or “shut up,” coming from random people…

Folks, I’m here as a PIT BULL ADVOCATE that is stringently anti-BSL, in all forms. This is my page. I also run a website. I’m an American, which means the Constitution applies to me. You can’t tell me to “be gone” from my own page. I’m allowed to have my own opinion, I’m allowed to critically think, I’m allowed to discuss Pit Bull-related issues. Clearly I’ve made valid points, or this wouldn’t even be an issue. How do you think this has become an issue, on any level, if I didn’t make valid points? If you think rock-solid people from the Pit Bull community don’t stand behind what I wrote, which was much more anti-BSL and didn’t even address VRC until the end, then you’re sadly mistaken.

That I should “read before I write,” and that I should “do my research,” coming from Villalobos…

If anyone “didn’t do their research” it was Villalobos, who created a promotional image (in concert to their position aligning with Green’s proposal) which pointed to Einhorn Insurance… First of all, Einhorn simply covers the state of California, and secondly, they no longer even include Pit Bulls in their coverage, as they are employed through Farmer’s Insurance. Who isn’t doing their research? Who is implying false solutions to a problem that shouldn’t even be a problem?

That I’m “seeking attention,” or “fame” by saying what I’m saying, coming from random people and also from Villalobos…
That Villalobos has done “way more than me,” and “more than I’ll ever be able to do,” coming from random people…

I’ve kind of already addressed this one numerous times above, but someone actually said to me that I’m saying all of this “to get a few readers.” Uh, not quite. My page has received around 100 likes since they shared my 2-year-old article this past week. I’ve actually earned my support, thanks. Same as them. Further, for every person that chooses to no longer support me, there’s likely 2 or 3 that have now chosen to support me. That goes for taking on any position of difficulty. Some people actually don’t like puff pieces. Also, like I said above, it doesn’t matter to me if I lose thousands of followers over my blog post regarding Villalobos. That isn’t what this is about. This is about BSL, not me, or Tia or Villalobos. I absolutely do not care, AT ALL, about having “followers.” The entire premise of that phrase is derogatory. I’d much rather have 1,000 critical thinking, compassionate and rational supporters than have 500,000 people that don’t even understand me or get where I’m coming from. This isn’t a popularity contest, or a dick-measuring contest, despite all of these people constantly throwing that vapid and empty stuff in my face. I do not care about your perception of fame. I care about opposing breed-discriminatory legislation in all of its forms. I support Villalobos, just not their position on this issue. Read what I wrote.

That I should stop “spreading lies,” because Tia is all of a sudden “wanting to make this breed-neutral,” coming from random people…

Councilman Green’s legislation is NOT breed-neutral. This is a total misrepresentation of the current truth. Villalobos stated quite clearly that “we are actually in support of what Councilman Green is proposing.” Those are her words, not mine. So whether it eventually becomes breed-neutral, and whether Villalobos eventually supports all of these discussed things for all dogs in Westwego doesn’t change the fact that they first supported his initial proposal, that was and still is breed-specific. Stop rewriting history.

That these laws “won’t even be enforced anyways,” so it’s “not to worry about,” and that Tia is being “tactical,” coming from random people…

Did you get that? The eventually passed law will not be enforced, therefore it’s not a big deal and people are making a big deal out of nothing. So why the law in the first place then? That’s a pointless situation, a dog and pony show. If any of that is even remotely true then Villalobs’ stance should be that this law is pointless because it’s unenforceable and does nothing good besides villainize Pit Bulls and Pit Bull owners. Yet that’s not their stance.

That I need to “apologize,” and that I’m clearly in the wrong based around the “backlash” that I’ve gotten, coming from random people…

This isn’t about me, or them. I am not perfect, neither are they. Nobody is and nothing will ever be. But there will absolutely be no apology from me, as I did nothing wrong. I talked about the proposed legislation at depth, and simply asked Villalobos to change their STATED position on it. Okay? And just because there’s a “backlash” doesn’t mean that that’s the majority of people. It just means that I’ve gotten backlash. Big deal. I don’t choose what to do based on how much backlash or how little backlash I’m going to get.

And that I’m “attacking” Villalobos/Tia, being “negative,” or “infighting,” coming from random people…

Since when has trying to have a genuine discourse become “attacking”? How is talking about the injustice of breed-discriminatory laws, and the hedging against those principles, a “negative” thing? And when did “infighting” all of a sudden become the go-to response for every single person that never wants to have a public opinion or give their own thoughts on anything?

For the absolute last time: I have no ill will towards Villalobos, or Tia Torres. I respect the hell out of what they do, and their rescue in general. I have no desire for them to be shut down (asinine). I have no desire to see their donations dry up. None. People should continue supporting Villalobos! But people should also be against BSL and BDL. If those things cross then people need to figure it out for themselves. I asked questions. I then asked Villalobos to reconsider their position on Green’s proposed legislation. That’s all. All of this misinformation is out of control. Everything I’ve written is publicly available. In closing, I’m most definitely not the type to cower to intimidation from a lynch mob. If that’s what comes then I’ll just get more and more outspoken about it. I support Villalobos and continue hoping that they will eventually oppose Councilman Green’s pathetic demonization efforts.

So all kinds of stuff has recently hit the fan in response to a horrendous attack on a Westwego woman that was sharing a tiny home with a “Pit Bull” breeding operation, live litter and all. Since this horrible incident, the Westwego City Council have moved to amend their city ordinance in an effort to make it far tougher on Pit Bull owners as a whole…

Under the proposed changes Pit Bull owners must be at least 21 years of age and carry $100,000 in liability insurance, follow specific confinement regulations (both in and out of the home), keep the dogs muzzled when leaving the home (perpetuating stereotypes), display warning signs on the premises (perpetuating stereotypes), mandatorily spay and/or neuter their dog as well as implant a mandatory microchip. Going further, this will also require that unlicensed Pit Bulls be killed, that the city’s code inspectors be able to visit people’s private homes to “determine compliance,” and that DNA-testing be done at the expense of the pet owner. Back quickly to the dogs being killed if they are “unlicensed”–what then happens to the strays that are impounded at the shelter? I’m assuming they’d all be unethically killed.

“Those responsible Pit Bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

Ugh, actually we do. I’m responsible, and I have a big problem with it. Why? Because requiring that all “Pit Bull” owners get liability insurance in order to have or keep their family dog is BSL through and through. Folks, please remember that breed-specific legislation is not just simply a “ban” of a certain type of dog. It’s any legislation crafted that targets “specific” types of dogs. I put specific in quotations because there’s nothing ever specific about these policies, nor is there anything specific about how they are going to go about identifying whether your dog is or is not a Pit Bull. And notice how the Mayor says that “we do not want to take your dog away.” Um, okay. But you do want to create such a negative stigma around the dogs, as well as put hurdle after hurdle up in front of those already having the dogs, that they might voluntarily give their dogs up or be in violation of some law, thus being forced to give their dogs up. Not to mention the blowback that always follows a law that mandates liability insurance, allowing more landlords and insurance companies to move to over-protect themselves and avoid the dogs altogether. This is definitely an excuse for those folks to be more discriminatory in that regard. So no, all of this may not amount to Mr. Shaddinger actually coming to your home to personally “take your dog,” but it absolutely will amount to dogs being taken, given up, situational upheaval and the continuation of broad and sweepingly vile discrimination.

Green said the city needs the harsher guidelines because of Henry’s ordeal, and because he hears too many troubling stories about Pit Bull attacks. He doesn’t blame the animals, but he does blame pet owners who don’t properly care for them.

Ahem… Doublespeak alert!! Councilman Glenn Green “doesn’t blame the animals,” but yet what he’s doing is fundamentally making all of the animals guilty until proven innocent. He’s also admitting that “too many troubling stories” played a role, and goes on to admit that Mrs. Henry’s boyfriend didn’t “properly care for” his dogs. WOW. What a quote. So if he actually believes ^his last sentence then why aren’t his efforts based around responsible dog ownership and not the blatant targeting of an entire type of dog? Also, they already have a Pit Bull ordinance that went unenforced, and now they are “strengthening it,” even though the original ordinance did nothing to stop the attack that is prompting the doubling down on a new law. Again, how about targeting responsible pet ownership instead?

Now, onto Villalobos Rescue Center and Tia Torres, who I genuinely respect and think that they do great work with bringing public awareness to the true and very positive nature of these dogs. Up and to this point my only concern with them, in any area, has been that some of their merchandise is so abrasively Pit Bull-exclusive that it puts all other dogs down in the process (i.e. “If it ain’t pit, it ain’t shit”). Minor. Just me being observational and having an opinion. And I doubt they care. But anyways, to my surprise they are actually SUPPORTING this legislation! What the hell? See for yourself.

In this photo they then try to relay people to Einhorn Insurance, which supplies coverage to California and not Louisiana, implying that they will be fine once they call them. They won’t. And most, if not all, Louisiana homeowner’s insurance companies exclude Pit Bulls. So…? Further, let’s pretend none of that is even relevant. Not all people can even afford liability insurance for their dog. And furthermore, it’s wrong to have to be forced to get it when no one else does. That’s exclusionary. That’s punishing responsible people for committing no crime. That’s punishing the dogs.

Villalobos responds to the few critics of their position by implying that, hey, it was either this or “AN ALL OUT BAN.” Uh, not really. But way to fearmonger people into believing that there is only 2 options. Whatever happened to standing on your principles? I guess that somehow doesn’t apply with this, even though it does, and they are just choosing not to. They then tell people to “pick and choose your battles.” Alrighty.

Well, I’m here to say that what has been described here and elsewhere is pretty much an unofficial ban. Semantical games can be played but this is an egregious squeeze on law-abiding and responsible people, as well as an endless amount of good dogs. Requiring liability insurance in an area where all of the insurance companies choose to exclude that “type” of dog is essentially a ban on any dog that looks like that “type” of dog, whatever that means. And you won’t be able to decide, Glenn Green and his people will. Also, requiring that all dogs of a specific breed or type be forever spayed and neutered is an eventual ban, in theory, to boot.

Quite frankly I’m not only stunned by the stand that Villalobos has taken, but I’m also stunned by the amount of praise that they are receiving (and the amount of criticism that they are not receiving) in regards to the position that they’ve taken. My 2 cents is clear. You should be standing on the principle that this is totally wrong. That’s what everything boils down to. We are these dogs’ voice, and that’s a very important role to have and position to be in. And the platform that you have to be those things, I mean, my goodness gracious… Please, Villalobos: Reconsider your position. You don’t hedge on injustice, ever. You are either anti-BSL or you are not. That should be the end of it. Giving an inch to a politician hellbent on discriminating means that he is likely to take multiple miles. And what you’ve “given” here is far more than an inch. Is it worth discarding the soul of the argument, your principles and the truth, in order to appease a grandstanding Councilman who has it backwards? C’mon.

This online publication out of Riverside, CA has been very much on board with the continuous Pit Bull fear-mongering. They are quick to jump and exploit any incident that they claim involves Pit Bulls, and they usually follow that up with vague statements that attempt to shine a piss pour light on not only the dogs (as a whole) but the people that own them (as a whole) as well. This week the condescending Mr. Dan Bernstein took it to a new level, adding his 2 cents in the most overtly stereotypical way possible…

Right. So I’m going to be a tad sarcastic and crude in response to this “journalist” and his holier-than-thou attitude…

He’s basically saying that we should mandatorily sterilize all of the Pit Bulls and every single dog that he and his power-tripping task force think looks even remotely like one, since of course they can’t currently get away with banning them in the state of California. But sterilize them all into eradication, next best thing! You know, because they are all “bad” and that would then somehow fix the problem of roaming, chained and abused dogs from attacking people? Then, you sterilize all of the Pit Bull owners! Because, well, they must be fucking imbeciles to even own a Pit Bull so we wouldn’t want them having any more children and passing along that “imbecile gene,” now would we? Finally, we require that anyone wanting to give a Pit Bull a home have to go through some bureaucratic “background check” that will then tell us if we have the right, in America, to own a specific type of dog that we’d want to give a home to. You know, because there’s nothing better than more intrusion from the nanny state, as they ignore the circumstances that inconveniently follows every single one of their exploited “attacks.” Pay no mind to your dogs or my dogs, pay no mind to the millions of dogs and people that have done nothing. We are all guilty until proven innocent. We are all scum.

Screw you, Dan Bernstein. I’m sick of people like you trying to rule everyone’s lives with your perverse way of thinking and your open and cocky discrimination. You’re a bigot. Screw you.

But not only is this man bias in his way of speaking about the dogs as a whole, he’s also bias in regards to policing his own comment section when it comes to public discourse. I quickly left the below comment, and sure as the sun rises in the morning, out popped “Debbie Bell” and her diarrhetic canvasing of the comment section. Those unfamiliar with Ms. Bell, she’s one of a group of extreme Pit Bull hating fanatics that thinks that if they repeat themselves enough in every public forum that’s in any way related to “Pit Bulls,” that their rubbish will actually sink in and then be regarded as the truth. Not quite, but it’s cute, in the creepiest way possible. Pay no mind to actual reality. Just vaguely talk about everyone as a whole and the new truth will eventually hatch like an ostrich egg. Oh, did I say ostrich egg? My bad, that was in no may meant to imply that hate-mongering psychos actually have their heads in the sand in regards to the 99.9% of us all, people and dogs alike, that are totally innocent in all of this.

^You read that right? I’M actually to blame because a jogger was attacked by 8 phantom roaming dogs. I’M actually to blame because, God forbid, some random person that I don’t even know made an asinine comment on a website. Not their fault, MY fault. Not their fault, YOUR fault. Notice a trend? 1 dog attacks something, millions of dogs are at fault. 1 person lets his unsocialized dog roam free and it attacks something, millions of people are blanketly painted as being irresponsible. 1 person treats his dog like shit and fights it on the side for jollies, millions of Pit Bull owners must be dog fighters who relish being scumbags. And on and on and on it goes. Such a vapid ride it is with these shallow people.

But guess what? Hours after leaving my comment, and then replying back to the lady with the troll badge, my own comments were deleted from the website. That’s not a media bias? So Debbie is allowed to respond to me, and that stays, but then my response back to her goes, it goes the way of the memory hole. Well, not quite, because ^there it is. There they both are, even though they’ve now been scrubbed from the website completely.

So to the Press-Enterprise and to Dan Bernstein: You can delete people off of your “news website,” you can pretend as if thousands upon thousands of honest and loving people don’t actually own these dogs, you can pretend all you want about anything that you desire. Keep it up. But that doesn’t make it so. To both Dan and to Debbie: You will never have reality on your side. You will never have justice on your side. At this pace and with this view you will always and forever be wrong. Doubling down on the blaming of an entire class of dogs (and people) because of the actions of the very few is wrong. It’s racism. It’s discrimination, and it always will be. Journalists trying to shape the debate doesn’t actually change what is and what isn’t discrimination. The flooding of every comment section with empty words meant to incite hatred and prejudice towards millions of individuals from a group of “anything” doesn’t actually change what is and what isn’t discrimination. That will always and forever be the case.

If you’d like to contact Dan Bernstein yourself, feel free, I’m sure he’s lovely… 951-368-9439 or dbernstein@PE.com, Facebook, Twitter.

The sadness of this is overwhelming. It’s so unfortunate that much of our society stands idly by while this stuff happens in their name…

Testimony from the good people over at DDA Watch:

When we tell you about dogs coming home everyone rejoices. We have pictures of happy dogs, great footage of reunions sometimes. Happy dogs and happy owners. It’s just great. But now I want to tell you a different story of one dog and her owner.

Roxy and her owner found each other a few months ago. Roxy was being beaten by her previous owners. David saw it and wouldn’t let it lie…and Roxy came to live with him. He took Roxy to the vet who promptly told him they couldn’t treat his dog as she was illegal and frankly scared the life out of her owner. As advised by the vet he called the police as he is a good law abiding person. The police came and took his dog….a ‘dangerous’ pit bull. By the time the vets and police had finished David was convinced his dog was actually nasty and would turn and so when asked, he signed her over to be destroyed.

But it all didn’t quite make sense to David and he came through to DDA Watch. We told David the truth and immediately sorted a revocation of his sign over with his consent. But it didn’t end there. David had a lot of pressure from many directions to let Roxy die. He was stressed and worried, for himself, for his dog and for the public…what if we were wrong? The next blow came when he was told, through no fault his own or Roxy’s that Roxy would not be allowed back home to his current property.

So he had a dog whose life relied on him and now he couldn’t bring her home. With the support of DDA Watch he continued to fight. He refused to sign over. He went to court on his own without a solicitor and no legal aid. The court ordered Roxy to be exempted. Her life had been saved. David carried out all the exemption paperwork and Roxy was registered to him.

She was due to come home on Tuesday but had opened her spay wound so she was not returned until Wednesday.

David and two members of DDA Watch went to pick Roxy up.

But here’s the crunch.

At this moment in time, Roxy cannot go back home to David. She is currently staying with DDA Watch while she receives vet treatment and her future is secured. David had to pick her up yesterday knowing he could not take her home. He couldn’t even play with her due to her being so poorly. He picked up the dog he adores, whose life he saved. A dog who was taken from him a few months ago. He picked her up and then watched as she was taken away from him again.

It’s not all happy endings. It’s not all straightforward. Sometimes, it will simply break your heart.

Roxy has been deemed a “pit bull type” (commonly referred to in the press as a “dangerous” pit bull) and her owner is a young male (commonly referred to in the press as thugs and hoodies.) David, I know you’re reading this. I cannot begin to tell you how proud of you everyone at DDA Watch is. Never question the power you hold in your hands. You, literally, are a life saver.

This is David and this is Roxy and this is how to say hello…and goodbye.

Here’s some videos that I took from Author Ken Foster’s question and answer session while he was out promoting his latest book, “I’m a good dog: Pit Bulls, America’s most beautiful (and misunderstood) pet.” You should really pick up a copy of the book if you haven’t already, as it’s fantastic and full of a proper representation of the dogs that we all know and love. He’s also the author of “Dogs I have met: And the people they found,” as well as “The dogs who found me: What I’ve learned from pets who were left behind.” “The dogs who found me” was actually the first book that I read after Sway had passed away. It’s personalized stories are very endearing and I’d recommend it to anyone. Ken also heads up The Sula Foundation, named after one of his Pit Bulls. Sula also appears on the cover of “The dogs who found me.”

Ken discussing the many ills of breed-specific legislation (BSL).

Ken talking about two unfortunate incidents, Hurricane Katrina and the Michael Vick situation, that ironically led to many new people coming to see Pit Bulls in a different light.

Ken talking about Uba, the former Michael Vick dog who was one of the more prominent faces of the Virginia dog fighting raid. She was commonly misrepresented by the media but is now happily living in her forever home.

Talking about Colleen Lynn and her sensationalistic website DogsBite.org. This website is often sourced by news media, giving much of the audience the impression that it is actually a credible source of information. In reality it’s simply a mega-bias website meant to exploit dog attacks and house rhetoric that blames every living Pit Bull and all of their owners as a group for any mentioned “attack” that they want to run with.

Discussing the backwardness of PETA’s vendetta against Pit Bulls and the crazy actions of their figurehead, Ingrid Newkirk. The story he shares about the email exchange is hilarious!

One of my legitimate rescue friends just posted on how she is often suffering backlash because she (their words) “too often” publicly asks for donations…

My message to those critical people: Anyone saying that is a hypocrite. Those critics are getting paid as we speak for doing something, whatever it is that they do, and that pay comes consistently. No one is putting the spotlight on them. People need to realize that a person advocating on behalf of these dogs and running an amazingly good rescue while she does it, well, that’s HER job! She needs to continue to be able to provide for the dogs, while also continuing to educate the public. That is a job, too. No less important than any of their own jobs. It’s funny that people want to consistently praise others for the work that they do for free, but as soon as that person asks for help with sustaining what they do half of that praise dries up. Then if you draw a comparison, like I’m doing, it causes an issue as well. Why and why? The criticizers EXPECT to be paid for the “services” that they provide in their own lives, and would start a riot if they weren’t. This rescuer is simply asking for people to respect what she does enough to consider donating. That’s her job, that’s part of what’s keeping her able to do what she’s doing.

No one is saying that you need to donate blindly, or without thought. Plenty of people likely misrepresent what they are about in order to siphon funds from unwitting people, but that doesn’t mean punish everyone! That’s simply BSL in yet another form! If you respect an individual or an organization, and know them to be credible, then support them with not only your enthusiasm and your assets, but with your dollars as well. If not, then don’t. But have the foresight enough as to not be so much of an asshat and claim that they can’t ask for donations while you cash weekly checks for doing God knows what. Again, anyone being that nasty is a huge hypocrite.

*One of my readers added this point, and I want to expand on it. She stated that rescuers aren’t asking for donations to “get paid” in order to buy a new purse, and that the donations in actuality go to the funding of the rescue. This then makes those that criticize them look all the more like jerks. I totally agree. But expanding on that point…

No one is itemizing how anyone else spends their money from their own 9-5′s. If the integrity of the rescuer is high then the majority, if not all of the money would likely go right to the dogs in some form or fashion anyways. But the whole notion that non-profits and people who devote a mass amount of their time to a specific cause shouldn’t be paid, simply to be paid, is also bunk and false in my opinion. They are people that need to survive as well. No one wants to donate to someone’s lame new purse; but what about to the food that nourishes them, or a new book that serves to inspire thought, or some new adventure that they may take on a weekend to recharge? I’d gladly donate to the people that I respect and admire (if I had the funds to), in order to support them as human beings. Where do you think the good work that they do ultimately comes from? It comes from them. Helping with their own situations and their own lives, their own well-beings, only serves to trickle down onto the dogs in some way. And that’s the way it should be, right? I don’t see anyone else passing up their own paychecks from bussing tables at the diner, or from the local Kinko’s, or from their management positions, or from their law firms. So people can, if they want to, get into this whole pissing match of “what” job helps “who” and at what rate of frequency, but I’d rather have people see that this comparison is 100% legitimate. Furthermore, I’d hope that more people would realize it instead of being so nasty to each other.

Relevant viewing.

So here’s what we all saw the minute this happened back in April…

^Not only was this saturating the internet, but also the television news coverage. Sadly, once this is out there the majority of the damage is already done. Just look at it.

Here’s an actual comment from the owner of the Golden Retriever… Way to generalize! You stay classy Tim Frawley.

And then here’s the actual truth…

No corrections from the many media outlets that reported that this incident involved Pit Bulls. No “followup” stories on the television or in the newspaper. Many existing online accounts of this incident continue sticking with the Pit Bull narrative, paying no mind to much else. But there you have it…

In my article, “In response to Littlerock dog attack,” I stated that my hope was that the dogs actually involved in the attack would then be DNA-tested for breed lineage, so that THAT could then be a public discussion for the media. We all know that the results would come back showing tons of different mixes, hodgepodges of different dog types that the media could no longer simply pin on “Pit Bulls.”

I want to expand on that statement, and explain it further… I didn’t make it because I hold DNA-testing in any lifted regard. We shouldn’t have to do that, and in a rational world not prone to witch hunts it wouldn’t even need to be an aspect of the debate, because there wouldn’t be such a sensationalistic reaction, thus ending the debate before it starts. I also understand that calling for a DNA-test takes the focus off of where it ultimately should be placed. Breed doesn’t matter. What matters is how the dogs were in the position to attack a person, and the circumstances that led to their behavior disintegrating to such a degree that they’d ever even consider doing so. I get all of that and I totally agree.

The reason that I suggested the DNA portion was so that it would inevitably bring dog owners of other breeds under the spotlight as well, and then maybe they would be moved to actually care about these typical and unjust responses, once their own dog’s type or breed would be targeted as well. Too many times this vague reporting just leaves owners of non-Pit Bull types not worrying about it, as pits will always be the scapegoats for everything.

So that’s why I said what I said… Because the majority of people need to be engaged in the discussion in order to come to the conclusion of what is the right response. The right response is focusing on the individual owners who are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their own dogs. My suggestion was merely for that reason. Not to prop up DNA as a legitimate practice, or to cast a wider net. It’s just that involving other dogs in the witch hunt serves to quicken the pace of exposing the media for being completely nonsensical, as it pisses off more people and opens their eyes to the issues at hand.

I’ll draw a comparison to ending war. You truly want to end these numerous wars that our country continuously finds ourselves involved in? Re-institute the draft. Why? Because then future war immediately touches every single family in the country. You’re no longer sending some shadowy kid that you’ll never know over to die for something that you’d much rather pay no attention to. You want people to be invested? Send their kids. War would end by that weekend.

Responsible dog owners of all breeds and types need to be there for each other, and for the dogs that we all love. Stick together or hang separate.

In light of what happened in Littlerock, California yesterday people should be focusing on the fact that yet again, these were ROAMING DOGS. That is the sign of negligent behavior from whomever owned them. If they were in fact feral dogs the point goes unchanged. They were ROAMING DOGS. They are being ID’d as Pit Bulls on the eye-witness account of 1 individual, from a car, when most Americans can’t even pick the Pit Bull out of a lineup of 20 dogs when the poster is 2 feet from their face. Whether 1 of the 4 or 5 were Pit Bulls, whether 3 or all were, it still doesn’t change the fact that they were ROAMING FREELY out in the desert and able to do whatever they wanted to. Then you add in pack mentality. That’s putting aside any back knowledge on how badly they were treated, or what their circumstances were prior. All of these points should be the primary points of concern.

I obviously feel horrible for the lady that was killed. That is a total tragedy, and my whole heart goes out to her friends and family. It is beyond depressing anytime tragedy strikes, in any manner. But there is always ways to prevent the vast majority of these incidents. That is self evident. This shouldn’t be guilt by association. My dogs shouldn’t have to suffer because the media is repeating “blood thirsty Pit Bulls” all over the television anymore than a Hispanic man should have to suffer because Ariel Castro decided to kidnap and rape 3 girls for 10 years in a Cleveland basement. Imagine if the TV, in response to finding these girls and exposing Castro, started implying that all Hispanic men were “sex-addicted rapists.” Is that okay? Hell no, it’s not.

8 dogs were seized from a house, not even sure if they had anything to do with this or not. Reports openly claim that the actual dogs saw at the scene of the crime ran freely back into the desert. How are authorities planning to properly identify the involved dogs? I guess that remains to be seen. What I’d like to see is to have every single identified dog DNA-tested (for breeds), and then have those results openly discussed on the television. This would unquestionably show that other breeds of dogs were involved, especially when arguing over DNA (another topic entirely), and it would serve to put other owners of other breeds under the spotlight. My hope would be that people would then quickly realize what kind of vague quackery we are dealing with here, especially after their dog breeds or types may be brought into questioning. Dog owners need to stick together and stand up for the millions and millions of dogs, of all breeds and types, that have never done a single thing to anyone or anything. Not pile on Pit Bulls in a general sense, either by outright racist diatribes or by silence. Both actions harm dogs. Silence is an inaction, which is an action by default. 1 makes you look like a dirtbag, the other makes you look like a not-to-be-bothered apathetic. Innocent individuals, be it dogs or people, always will deserve better than this.

*This is not written to villainize all “roaming dogs,” as we know that stray dogs exist all over the place and they should not be treated badly simply because they are strays or running loose. Far, far more times than not a roaming dog is simply minding its own business and essentially looking for someone to help it. But that doesn’t make the human element of all of this any less worthy of debate. I’m simply pointing out that this is a circumstance that potentially leads to violence. I’m simply pointing out that almost without fail, any “attack” that’s ever been chronicled is either involving a roaming or a chained dog(s). I’m simply pointing out that allowing your dog to run loose is against every leash law ever created, and is at its core an irresponsible behavior.

The Carson shelter attends very few offsite adoption events per year. One of the ones that they do seem to partially attend is the annual Best Friends Super Adoption event at the La Brea Tar Pits. This event runs for 3 days, Carson usually attends for 1. This year it took place this past Friday through Sunday. As this blog title states, the Carson shelter routinely disallows any Pit Bull-type dog from attending any offsite adoption event that they attend. It’s clear discrimination and they hide behind technicalities and the general public’s unawareness to achieve this “policy.” This has been going on for at least as long as I’ve been visiting this shelter (over 2 years now), and very likely far longer.

To my surprise a very docile Pit Bull-mix who had already passed her temperament test with an “A” was all set to go to this event on Sunday. This dog was then magically marked as being “sick” on Saturday night and then conveniently left behind come Sunday morning. Knowing this, I visited the shelter on Sunday, not only to document how many of the big dogs were left behind but to also spend some time with the alleged sick dog. As you can clearly see, she was not sick…

I’ll just go ahead and claim that this was an excuse given in order to block this dog from attending while still giving certain volunteers the illusion that the shelter staff were willing to take her, had she only been healthy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

Now fast forward to the event, and how the shelter actually fared. Of course every single dog that they took was actually adopted or rescued. Further, this event specifically aims to have rescue partners from all over come together at the end to make sure that every dog that every attending shelter chooses to bring ends up being rescued. The Carson shelter knows how this event functions, as they’ve attended before. I bring that up because “worst case scenario” for the staff, they allow a few Pit Bull-type dogs to go and they don’t end up being adopted by the public… The adoption event’s rescue setup is always there as a backup. The shelter knows this. So if they view Pit Bulls as “difficult to adopt out” dogs that “take up too much cage space” and are “most routinely killed,” then why not take a few, knowing that they’d at worst be rescued? Logical enough, right? But put all of that aside…

The dog that was supposed to be going would have absolutely been adopted straight out, no need for a rescue. That would have happened had she been allowed to go. Should the shelter have considered a few more? Of course, and I can think of 3 easy adoptions right off of the top of my head that would have been givens to be adopted had they been brought…

Bella, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is happy and healthy and easily adoptable. She isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out. Really? You need to temperament test this dog?

Diamond, a 4-month-old Pit Bull-mix puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. Again, she isn’t up for offsite adoption event consideration. Why? Because she’s part Pit Bull. And furthermore, oh, she’s probably not even temperament tested yet so that’s another excuse that will be predictably thrown out.

Luna, a 11-month-old German Shepherd puppy, is also happy and healthy and easily adoptable. You don’t think she would have been snatched up by one of the many thousands of people that make it a point to visit this huge event?

All 4 of these pictured dogs would have been adopted before Sunday came to a close. No need for rescue. I’m not advocating for these specific dogs taking another dog’s spot, just simply pointing out that 1) Any dog called a “Pit Bull” by staff cannot go, and 2) The Carson shelter could have attended more than 1 day and ultimately saved double or triple the amount of dogs that they did.

So the “sick” dog who got an “A” on her temperament test, and Bella, and Diamond, and Luna; they all still sit inside of the Carson shelter. They each could potentially be killed for space or for some other God forsaken reason. As do all of the big dogs, most of which went unmentioned here and are in some way mixed with “Pit Bull.” They sit, and they wait. And this shelter continues opting not to attend (or create themselves) other offsite opportunities. And the few that they do attend, they themselves ban the Pit Bulls from attending. And then they claim that they can’t ever adopt them out. Well, they can’t do anything when they haven’t put the effort into anything, and when they haven’t ceased at subtly (and blatantly) villainizing the dogs at every turn.

Here’s a video of all of the big dogs that were left behind on Sunday. The majority of which are Pit Bulls and would never be considered for offsite adoption event attendance due to current Carson shelter “policy.”