I was made part of a thread on Facebook yesterday that really started delving into a topic that has been on my mind for awhile now. I shared some thoughts there, and I’d like to echo those thoughts here. With that, I’d like to also point to one of my first posts that I’d ever made on this website, which is very relevant to what I’m about to write.

The question that some people might need to ask is the question that’s at the top of this post. I’ve personally heard of so many different things in the short amount of time that I’ve been photographing shelter dogs, advocating for them, that I’ve found myself kicking that very question around on numerous different occasions. Do people intend to do well? I’m sure they (most of us) universally do. Do they have the means to do well? That’s a different question entirely. Then, next, what defines “well”? I have my own philosophy of what a “rescue” looks like… Regardless of the dog, regardless of the person–I believe that if you pull a dog, you are responsible for that dog’s well being, and you should see that rescue through, until its appropriate forever home is found. This process could take weeks, it could take months, it could take over a year. There are many facets of this that get quite detailed, and yet they all revolve around doing your absolute due-diligence, and doing it on the animal’s behalf.

That short synopsis aside–I’ve seen many rescues (both 501c3′s and not), as well as “independent” rescuers, fail to live up to their responsibilities. This comes with many different examples, but one of the most troubling things that I’ve personally seen is when a legitimate 501c3 rescue/rescuer has a “pull list” that has been compromised, either with or without their knowledge. The people on this list then act as liaisons who freely give their access to other people–who many times are never checked out or ever followed up with. This has irresponsibility written all over it, and yet it’s justified for a laundry list of reasons that I won’t bother getting into at this time.

For those of you that aren’t totally clear: A “pull list” is a collection of people who are officially able to pull an animal from a shelter, under a specific rescue’s 501c3 status, and on that rescue’s behalf. That animal would then legally become the responsibility of that rescue. If you are on this list, you are deemed appropriate to represent that rescue in these matters, and it’s common knowledge that everyone on the pull list ultimately reports to the rescue. The problematic part is when you see people who are “officially” on a rescue’s pull list, then pulling and handing off animals to 3rd or 4th party individuals (they themselves (many times) acknowledged as “rescuers”), and then just trusting that everything goes well, never to follow up again. This happens way more than it should.

Are there ways to appropriately take those types of steps? I’m sure that there sometimes are–and more power to those people who, in times of necessity freelance a bit to achieve a genuine objective. But it’s GOT to be done responsibly, and you should always remain accountable for your decisions. In my opinion, people are out taking advantage of this tactic, and it’s creating a messy landscape, which is sadly becoming more and more commonplace.

Just to be clear: I’m not trying to criticize anyone specifically, as I’m not a rescuer and there’s much that I obviously don’t know… I’m simply observing and trying to create a dialogue on the topic, which might hopefully inspire better practices going forward… At the end of the day it’s just beyond horrendous to hear that animals that were “rescued” from 1 shelter, may many months later end up in another shelter (or worse)–only to then be tracked back to their original rescue puller, who in many instances had no idea that they were even pulled in the first place! That’s inexplicable nonsense.

How does this happen? I suppose a previously thought to be “good” adopter could, down the line, choose to abandon their previously adopted animal without giving the rescue from which it came prior knowledge of their decision. That does likely happen (albeit hopefully not very often), but in which case that rescue should be contacted by the shelter and immediately reclaim the animal. But that’s not what I’m talking about here… So then you ask, are certain rescues knowingly being so irresponsible with their pull rights? Some likely are, many may not be. Many may just have rogue pullers… Either way, it ultimately comes back on the rescue, and should. My main point is that if a rescue/rescuer isn’t keeping good records, ^that scenario is unfortunately the type of crap that may end up happening. How does a rescue honestly not know which dogs they’ve actually had a hand in pulling? If you’re a rescue/rescuer and you can’t produce a record of every dog that you’ve ever pulled, as well as having a noted contact and location as to where that dog is/was physically residing, then you just need to get out of the rescue business. Honestly. And if this stuff was ever done unbeknownst to the core of your actual rescue, then you need to immediately track down whoever was behind that decision and cut that bait.

I know that’s an overall harsh tone to take, but people need to take their organizations and their reputations a little bit more seriously. The sheltering system is a HUGE multifaceted problem and these animals count on efficient rescues to handle their business appropriately, as well as counting on others to actually want and aspire to become good rescues as well, and do it in the right way and for the right reasons… This type of a thing playing out obviously has the opposite effect, that goes without saying. Just as importantly, it then gives tyrannical killing shelters MORE of a reason to limit access to legitimate rescuers who consistently do things the appropriate way. And again, by no means am I insinuating that anyone isn’t a legitimate rescue/rescuer. That’s honestly not a pissing match that I want any part of… But I can speak to illegitimate practices. I’ve seen them happen. If a rescue/rescuer is employing someone (or allowing an employee to “downlow” employ another) who is doing a shit job, then that rescue/rescuer needs to get rid of that person before their entire reputation as an organization/individual is damaged beyond repair. That does nothing good for anyone, animals included.

Lastly, at no time should a genuine rescue/rescuer ever just “leave” a dog with a foster, with little to no follow-up, and an insinuated unwritten responsibility transfer… I’d want to believe that any good rescue/rescuer, if given the foresight of bad circumstances happening, would immediately then swoop in and protect/re-collect those animals that they are ultimately responsible for. Unfortunately, I know that there are many times when this doesn’t happen; and quite the opposite actually ends up happening instead. Please do better. There’s no excuse for this kind of stuff. People can’t get away with an “ignore the problem, focus on a solution” attitude (which is dismissive of the problem, and when ignored, invites it to repeat itself), when those people who are ultimately the problem are still prominently involved and are still out doing what they have done incorrectly in this instance. C’mon!

I honestly hope that this was a fair criticism, and that people will be able to relate to it. I’ve met many great and wonderful people since starting this website. Loving, compassionate people. Many times I’ve personally tried to go an extra mile and help different individuals in an assortment of ways; by networking, fundraising, 1-time “guest pulling” when a rescuer couldn’t get off of work, freely transporting, even fostering. At the end of the day, I chose to offer myself up for the dogs, and as a favor to the individuals that should have been absolutely responsible for the things that they’ve willingly and knowingly signed up for. Fortunately, I’ve witnessed many things go beautifully. By the same token, I’ve witnessed other things hit snags. Things do at times hit snags, and that’s just part of life. Some snags are totally uncontrollable, yet many are actually directly relatable to the lack of due-diligence that these “rescuers” do. The people pulling these dogs need to have a plan, and a backup to that plan, and then the intestinal fortitude to create another, if necessary. The dogs deserve nothing less than that. Admittedly, a portion of the content of this article is solely based on what I have heard, yet much is based on what I have actually seen. There’s no doubt that the things that I’ve stated here will likely ruffle a few feathers, but at the end of the day, so what? I do believe this content to be meaningful and important.

There’s breathtaking confusion (as always) coming out of the LA County shelter system… 30 minutes ago we called on 2 dogs: A pittie that was impounded at the Downey shelter that I’d photographed on 2/23/12; and then Tilly, the dog belonging to the homeless woman that is noted in the prior post before this one. Regarding the Downey dog, the phone operator said that he came in on 2/5/12 and was killed on 2/8/12. As I noted, that’s impossible, because I took his picture on 2/23/12 and his kennel card (at that time, and shown above) stated that he was impounded on 2/17/12. WHAT IN THE EFF IS GOING ON WITH THIS HORRENDOUS COUNTY SYSTEM???

Secondly… Tilly apparently already has a CTA on her file and is set to be picked up by a private adopter tomorrow! This flies in the face of everything that Shannon/we were told yesterday, as the Carson shelter staff stated that Tilly was “rescue only” and gave Shannon the opportunity to place an IP on Tilly’s file. They also printed out her kennel card, as well as a lengthy bill detailing what it would take to regain possession of her. At no time did anyone sitting behind that front desk say anything about any of what I just learned over the phone. And it has been done and locked in for numerous days, because that explains why Tilly was spayed, which never made sense to me until now.

So I’m left with 2 conclusions… That front desk attendant is either a blatant asshole, or they are so incredibly incompetent at their job that they can’t even do the minimum amount of work that it takes to be a front desk person. This type of unreliable bullshit happens SO MUCH at the Carson shelter. The miscommunication is rampant and in my opinion is a reflection of the horrendous management. The careless work-style undoubtedly attributes to a continued cycle of death for an endless number of animals that may have had a different outcome otherwise… We called on 2 flippin’ dogs! Imagine the tales that I’d actually have to tell if I consistently called on every dog that I’ve photographed.

While at the shelter yesterday I met Shannon, a homeless woman, who had both of her leashed Pit Bulls illegally shot by the police when their homeless encampment was raided last week… The “raid” had nothing to do with Shannon or her dogs. Unfortunately, 1 of her dogs was killed after it was shot in the chest. The other (Tilly) ran away and is now impounded at the Carson shelter. While there, the shelter wouldn’t let Shannon see her. The staff has marked Tilly as “rescue only” and they want close to $500 in fees from Shannon before even entertaining the thought of allowing this woman to get her dog back. Can we raise this money for her? I’m going to try…

If you’d like to donate: Please go HERE. If we can get a rescue involved then I’m assuming that the fees would be much less, since they can’t transfer penalty fees onto whomever else that would want to save this dog. Regardless, whichever way becomes necessary, I’d like to have an amount that can be designated for helping them. If they need the money for the shelter fees, fine. If not, and we can find another way to get Tilly saved through rescue, I’d still like to give them the funds that are raised so that we can help them in that small way. This woman was a nice person who clearly loves her dogs. She is still grieving heavily and rode her bike to the shelter to try and see Tilly. Thank you to anyone that does help…

The subject matter of this video is clearly outlined in this document. The breaking down of actual numbers begins around 3:10 in the video. Not only do I want to kick-start another round of discussion regarding who is actually running our LA County shelters, but I also (and just as importantly) want to inspire people to do these same types of public records requests for your local shelters, wherever you are in the country. Shine light on these tragic realities.

“The people who are making this world worse are not taking a day off… How can I? Light up the darkness.” ~ Bob Marley

Yesterday I attended the town hall that was put on by the Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) General Manager, Brenda Barnette. This was regarding the confusion over the leaked changes being made to the New Hope coordinator positions. I admittedly know less about the city side, in comparison to county, but wanted to attend anyways because I have numerous friends that seem to be on both sides of the issue. People have been up in arms for days over these changes, and what got my attention was some of the attempts at justifying why what was being done is being done. Barnette perplexingly took public comments BEFORE laying out her version of the proposed plans, a move which made absolutely no sense to me, and still doesn’t. People were furious, and confused, and that doesn’t make for a good mix.

^Here is 80+ minutes of audio. I began recording AFTER the initial public comments, many of which were very good. I apologize for the poor audio quality, I’d arrived late and was stuck at the back of the room…

Anyways, some of the things that were said by Barnette kind of rubbed me the wrong way. She explained away the fact that on 5/1, the very day that these changes were to go into affect, that the coordinators phone lines were coincidentally down because of a “glitch in the system.” I don’t know, I certainly don’t buy that. Another thing that she said (in response to certain rescuer’s passionate pleas of support for their coordinators) was to compare these specific New Hope folks to “personalized shoppers.” To me, that was kind of trivializing genuine relationships (and expected levels of proven compassion) that have been established over a certain extended period of time. To think that that will be seamlessly swapped out is a bit farfetched, and that kind of stuff DOES matter. And why didn’t she meet with the actual New Hope coordinators individually, or as a group, prior to assessing the worthiness of the position? They were apparently totally out of the loop. That seems beyond odd… But most notable, for me, was her poorly framed comments about Pit Bulls. For instance, when Barnette was speaking about Best Friends and referencing their newly pulled animals from last weekend’s Super Adoption, she said this… “They might have a lot of really cute ones up there now. The last time that I was there they just had a lot of Pit Bulls.” Tone missing for added effect. Minutes later she followed that up with, “The last thing we need is more Pit Bulls.” This seems to mirror some of the comments coming from others on the inside, one being a quote that a recent article attributed to a “key source”…

The adoptions from the Best Friends shelter have been less than stellar … and I think that is because the agreement only allows them to take the “leftovers” … meaning animals that are not adopted by the public or taken by rescue groups … so that means they are left with a whole lot of Pit Bulls, Chihuahuas and tabby cats … making it more difficult for rescues to get animals out of the shelter would leave more “desirable” animals to go to Best Friends and thus improve their adoption numbers to justify a private group taking more responsibility by doing better.

^Now I don’t know who said that, but what I do know is that it’s not a very fair comment. I don’t personally have an opinion on the behind the scenes dynamics regarding LAAS and Best Friends. But this quote insinuates that there is some shenanigans going on, which again, I don’t cosign. My whole thing is, isn’t one of the pillars of the problem HOW PIT BULLS ARE ACTIVELY PERCEIVED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC?? So when the people in the positions to bring forth this NKLA movement are deeming them as “undesirable,” well, that does a certain level of irreparable harm in and of itself. In my opinion, if they do legitimately intend to get to “No Kill,” they’re going to have to find a way to genuinely translate the many wonderful truths and attributes of Pit Bulls over to the indoctrinated portion of the public, instead of speaking (and feeling) of them as if they are 2nd class (dog) citizens… Because the reality is, Pit Bulls aren’t going anywhere, nor should they ever have to go anywhere. This should be a multifaceted effort that started yesterday. At the same time: If this last quote is in any way prophetic, it would imply that rescue groups are being shouldered out so that more “adoptable” dogs can make their way to the privatized shelter(s), which would then also imply that many of the “unadoptable” dogs (i.e. Pit Bulls, Chihuahuas) would continue to be funneled down to the remaining kill shelters, possibly at a more egregious rate. I say egregious because the dynamic between “privatized” and “public” shelters may soon shift… That would leave less public space for more “unadoptable” types, and yet the rates of intake aren’t declining… Again, I’m not saying this is what is going to happen. I’m just speaking as if whomever stated that quote knows something that we don’t. Time will certainly tell…

Lastly, I want to give credit where credit is due… At least Brenda Barnette held something like this. It was intense at times, and she stood in and faced the firing squad people and heard their concerns (whether she listened is still up for debate). All I know is that Marcia Mayeda (from LA County) would never hold anything like this. So for that, Barnette gets commended from me…

The harsh reality of Devore is that all of these dogs pictured in this video will likely be dead in just a matter of days. The photographs were shot on 4/13. There are no kennel cards anywhere on the premises, which means that I had no way of aligning the ID numbers with the faces, embedding my customary tag onto the pictures. Some dogs wear a 3 digit number around their neck, most don’t. What does it mean? I have no idea. You have the option of picking up a sheet at the front desk which shows a smattering of cage numbers, maybe a third of which have corresponding “3 digit numbers.” Nowhere on this sheet do they opt to list any of the corresponding ID numbers. The sheet also fails to list the majority of the cages, as well as the majority of the dogs. Even if the sheet was properly handled, I was told that they change dog cages so often that 1 days sheet doesn’t even match the next days. Management seems pretty brazen there, ignoring the minimal sheltering laws and essentially daring people to do something about it. I noticed a pattern of excusing themselves from having to spay or neuter some of the dogs that go out through “rescue.” It’s definitely freezing up there at night. Yet they don’t accept blanket donations, even though numerous organizations have literally begged the staff to take them. They say it’s a “safety hazard.” Sounds to me like they just don’t want to make any type of an effort to do that laundry.

If you see a face that you cannot live without, please call the shelter immediately (909-887-8055).
In order to attempt to match a possible face with an actual ID number:
Check the “Adoptable” section of their website…
Check the “Lost” section of their website…

Please help Change of Heart Pit Bull Rescue and other advocates in their incredible efforts to assist this poverty stricken couple living in Perris, CA…

It’s a tragic situation that at its core continues to show how inherently good people, regardless of their circumstances, continue to be good people. These 2 individuals, deeply hit by economic hardship and since rendered homeless, have been living for numerous years in a tiny camper with broken windows and a non-functioning door. They are located in a downtrodden area of Perris, California and have been allowing many of the local “stray” dogs to make themselves at home in their environment. Unfortunately, the surrounding area serves as a “prime dumping ground” for people looking to castoff their unwanted animals. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Doubly bad, some of the locals have started poisoning the dogs, already killing 5 of them… There is currently 12 dogs remaining, many that are pittie mixes, including 4 young puppies and a beautiful mother.

These folks collect cans to get money for food, and due to not having a running water supply, have to consistently fill up jugs with water for themselves and the dogs. The nearest store is probably 3 miles away, and it is unclear whether they have an efficient mode of transportation. They have no trash service, no electricity, which means that they are freezing at night. While visiting, Sarah (from COHPBR) noticed that they had no blankets for themselves. She supplied them with a bundle of donated blankets–and the couple, instead of actually using them for themselves, just happily gave them over to the dogs! In the face of all of this, they keep the location as organized as possible and have managed to keep the dogs well fed. They are NOT hoarders. They are NOT pulling dogs and stashing them. They are an elderly couple who are opting to care for the roaming castoffs that literally show up and onto the property that they are living on. There’s a big difference.

Sarah noted how the woman’s hands were “painful looking, cold, cracked, weathered and filthy.” She continued, “She showed so much affection towards these dogs, she talked to them in a kind voice and handled them gently. She was so happy to hear that we would be helping to get them spayed and neutered. She showed nothing but gratitude.” This woman is willing to give all of these dogs to legitimate rescues. She wants the best for all of them… They have no money, but it is beyond clear that they do absolutely care.

COHPBR, due to being full, cannot actually take any of the dogs; but Sarah is actively raising funds and plans to personally transfer each dog, one by one, to her private vet to have them spayed and neutered. She has also set up an Amazon Wish List in order to gather supplies for this couple and their dogs. Please consider donating to either link, or both. All of your donations are tax deductible, as COHPBR is a registered 501(c)3. Any other ideas in regards to helping? Please contact Sarah through cohpitbullrescue@yahoo.com!

Lastly, please do not judge these people. Please help. They are doing everything that they can with the few resources that they do have. Please contact responsible and reliable rescue personnel, and put your heads together with Sarah and the many others that are already trying to help. Animal Control should absolutely NOT be called. They are already trying to get the dogs out, and they would likely just be taken to shelters and unceremoniously killed within days. Please help make this a better situation for all involved, people and dogs.

I’ve written about these 5 before… They are the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and they are solely responsible for supporting (or replacing) current LA County killing dungeon shelter director, Marcia Mayeda.

I write this article because 2012 is an election year, and because 3 of them are currently up for re-election. Unfortunately, 2 of them (Ridley-Thomas, Knabe) are running UNOPPOSED. Michael Antonovich is being challenged by only 1 person, Raj Pal Kahlon of Palmdale. Fact: No sitting LA County Supervisor has been denied re-election since 1980. The election process is nonpartisan but the candidates are required to get a majority (51%) of the vote in order to win outright and avoid a runoff in November. Since the passing in 2002 of “Measure B,” no supervisor can serve more than 3 consecutive 4 year terms. This forces Gloria Molina & Zev Yaroslavsky out in 2014.

If Marcia Mayeda is to ever be replaced, these are the individuals that will need to ultimately do it. If they refuse, which they have up until this point, then they’d need replaced themselves. Get familiar…

This is Gloria Medina. She represents the 1st district, which includes Azusa, Baldwin Park, East Los Angeles, Pomona, West Covina. She has been a member of the Board of Supervisors since 1991 and is now due to be termed out in 2014. You can currently email her at molina@bos.lacounty.gov

This is Mark Ridley-Thomas. He represents the 2nd district, which includes Carson, Compton, Culver City, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, South Los Angeles. He has been a member of the Board of Supervisors since 2008 and is running UNOPPOSED this election year. You can currently email him at markridley-thomas@bos.lacounty.gov

This is Zev Yaroslavsky. He represents the 3rd district, which includes Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Malibu, San Fernando, Santa Monica, West Hollywood. He has been a member of the Board of Supervisors since 1994 and is now due to be termed out in 2014. You can currently email him at zev@bos.lacounty.gov

This is Don Knabe. He represents the 4th district, which includes Diamond Bar, Downey, Hermosa Beach, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Torrance, Whittier. He has been a member of the Board of Supervisors since 1997 and is running UNOPPOSED this election year. You can currently email him at don@bos.lacounty.gov

This is Michael Antonovich. He represents the 5th district, which includes Arcadia, Burbank, Glendale, Lancaster, Palmdale, Pasadena, Santa Clarita, West Covina. He has been a member of the Board of Supervisors since 1980 and is currently running against Palmdale business owner Raj Pal Kahlon. If he is victorious he will be due to be termed out in 2016. You can currently email him at fifthdistrict@lacbos.org

This post is my response to a guest commentary piece, written by Pam Ashley, that ran in Alabama’s “The Gadsden Times.” Please read hers first for the full context…

Dear Pam,
First of all, I’m genuinely sorry to hear about what happened to your Weimaraner, Bleu. That is a tragedy, and a senseless act that certainly could have been avoided, albeit not by anything that you did or didn’t do. By the accounts that I’ve read, you and your family did all that you could do to ensure a safe environment for all. It’s beyond unfortunate that your family was located next to a neighbor that was this irresponsible. It’s also beyond unfortunate that these types of irresponsible people even continue to exist at all. I would give anything to have everyone in this world take responsibility for their actions, to treat others (people and animals) with kindness, to consistently use common sense, to show empathy, to have compassion in their heart. I’d also give anything to have everyone that has a companion animal embrace the fact that that animal should be loved and treated as if it were part of the family. My best bet is that these 2 Pit Bulls were not from this type of environment. That’s unfortunate. The “no remorse” shown by your neighbors seems indicative of this fact. I also realize how unsettling it must be to have a sheriff deputy, followed by the local animal control, claim that they can do “nothing” in response to this fatal attack upon your dog. That is ridiculous, all very much ridiculous. But please continue to hear me out…

The statistics you cite, claiming fatal dog attacks (to people), and showing that a certain amount were perpetrated by Pit Bulls… This total number (from all dog types) is just a handful, per year. I say that not to justify any attack, but to attempt to provide a perspective in regards to how often these things actually happen. According to the HSUS, there is approximately 78 million “owned” dogs in the United States alone. That doesn’t account for the millions of shelter animals (4-5 million are killed each year, close to half of the dogs being Pit Bulls), nor the many that are unregistered and etc… I’d say that it’s certainly not a stretch to then say that at least 5 million of those 78 million are Pit Bulls or Staffordshires. To the average person who will vaguely use “Pit Bull-type” as a phrase, that number probably then doubles, due to the fact that the Pit Bull isn’t even an actual breed of dog. And these are all fairly conservative (Pit Bull-related) estimates mind you… So just to continue to be fair: You are essentially saying that x-amount of Pit Bulls (4? 5? 6?) killed a person during whatever specific year you’d want to cite, without then accounting for the x-amount of Pit Bulls that didn’t. Well, that “didn’t” number is going to astronomically dwarf any number that you can possibly find.

For examples sake: Let’s say that there are 5 million Pit Bulls, and then 10 fatal attacks that you can actually thoroughly cite…
That means that 0.000002% of all Pit Bulls actually killed a person that year.
In turn, that means that 99.999998% of all Pit Bulls DID NOT kill a person that year.
So yes, you’re correct, “statistics do not lie.”

Fatal attacks involving “Pit Bulls” from the years 1979 through 1998 total “66.” In that 19 year window it breaks down to 3.47 “fatalities” per year. Not 34, not 347, but 3(point)47.

You also realize that in the extremely rare event that a dog does actually kill a person, the media has been caught countless times just shamelessly calling that dog a Pit Bull, when in numerous instances it’s later found out to not actually be the case. This is done to drive coverage, to sensationalize the broadcast. I’d hope that that would come as no surprise to you.

Also worth noting… Pit Bulls outnumber German Shepherds and Rottweilers and Chows and Dobermans, the other 4 types commonly cited in “bite” statistics, by a 3-4-5 to 1 ratio. Which then means that these other types infract “more.” So are you in favor of banning them as well? I would assume that you are not, since they weren’t the type that killed your dog, nor do they have websites dedicated to peddling misinformation that defies logic, and all in the name of being hateful.

In regards to your claim that “if provoked for whatever reason, a Pit Bull attacks relentlessly until its victim is dead, unless forced off” … Well, that’s just patently false. Millions of Pit Bulls are “provoked” every single day. “Provoked” could mean anything quite frankly… If what you say is actually true, these landsharks would be killing thousands of animals, as well as thousands of people, PER DAY. Because, as your article states, “they cannot be called off the attack once they’ve started.” So that implies that either the Pit Bull dies (due to being “forced” off, shot, etc.), or the animal or person it is “attacking” dies. So, um, why aren’t we hearing about this kind of thing at the rapid fire pace that your outrageous claims imply?

To your claim about Pit Bulls not being used by law enforcement or the military. Well, first, many are…. But more importantly, the reason why they are not IS NOT because of what you state. You claim that they aren’t used because “they cannot be called off once they’ve started.” Nope. In reality, they aren’t used because they aren’t inherently human aggressive. They are not bred for protection, or to bite and hold, like say, a German Shepherd or a Belgian Shepherd is. And that’s not a knock on German or Belgian Shepherds either, as they are wonderful dogs as well. But Pit Bulls specifically have human aggression purposely, and oftentimes brutally, bred OUT of them. This is done, even by the shadiest character, so that they can continue to be used by scum for dog fighting, without then redirecting and “attacking” their human ring handler.

I don’t mean to get short with you in any way, but some of the things that you’ve said, well, I’ve taken GREAT offense to. You are offending millions of people with your broad-brushing. What you are doing is senselessly piling on, and it’s going to indirectly affect someone else, someone innocent. You state “sterilization should also be a requirement so this breed can die off.” Do you hear yourself? That’s an unbelievably cruel thing to say. If you were my mother I’d be completely embarrassed by your assessment. My mother happens to be a registered nurse, just like you. She also happens to have a Pit Bull that she loves and makes part of her family.

Your argument is essentially to “ban the gun” instead of even remotely attempting to focus on the criminal who used that gun to shoot and kill a person. That’s misguided. That’s not to compare a Pit Bull to a gun, it’s just a visual reality that people can comprehend. If you “ban the gun,” then those criminals will just go and get an ax, or a hunting knife, or a baseball bat, and so on and so forth. What you are knowingly (or unknowingly) contributing to is the placing of blame down upon an entire breed/type (we are talking MILLIONS of dogs!), while allowing the person(s) responsible for the heinous crime to go free and infract again. That makes no sense at all.

I’m white… If an African American or a Hispanic person were to murder my entire family tomorrow, I wouldn’t go to my local paper and call for the immediate demonization of all African American or Hispanic people. You wouldn’t see my face on the news, unfairly (and insanely) stating how “dangerous” they are as a whole. I would never state anything as remotely psychotic as that. I wouldn’t think it privately to myself, not for a second. There would be absolutely none of that at all, whatsoever… Yet with you, that’s what you’ve done here. Do you not see how your response is comparable to this hypothetical example? If you don’t then you’re just a total hypocrite.

You asked me (Pit Bull advocates) to ask myself some questions. Here are the answers…

“Why, specifically, do you want a Pit Bull?” Because they’ve been in my life for over 10 years. My best friend in the world just happened to be one, she was with me for over 8 years. She was extraordinarily special. They are extremely loving, smart, affectionate, loyal, hilarious, good-natured animals.

“What about a Pit Bull is more appealing than adopting any other breed of dog?” Well, what made you adopt/buy a Weimaraner? There’s qualities in each dog, as individuals, that we fall in love with. Dogs are individuals and loving people choose how they choose. I can’t speak for someone that wants to fight them, or treat them like garbage, or not socialize them, or not show them love… But please don’t confuse me with such a person. Please don’t confuse the hundreds of thousands of people that have Pit Bulls as family pets, as such a person. Your vagueness doesn’t fly here. Your text smugness doesn’t fly here. Why do I personally like Pit Bulls going forward? Because I know firsthand what amazing dogs they are. I know firsthand how badly they are stereotyped, and how badly they are treated by certain factions of humanity. I know that there are people like you out there who are trying to spread hate, whether you realize it or not. I will fight that until I’m dead and gone.

“Why don’t you believe the evidence that shows Pit Bulls cannot be called off an attack once it starts?” Because that evidence doesn’t exist. Why don’t you believe the mathematical evidence that unequivocally shows that 99.9% of Pit Bulls living in this country have never killed a person?

“Are you willing to view graphic pictures of people and animals mauled by Pit Bulls and then tell those people that there was about a 48% chance they wouldn’t have been attacked, that they were just unlucky?” You’re sarcasm is unnecessary. Yes, I’m willing to view pictures. No, I wouldn’t have a generic rhetorical response to feed them. Each instance should be looked at and treated on its own merits, and that goes for every incident involving dogs of all breeds.

“Can you visualize your child/neighbor/yourself with arms chewed off, face torn off, neck ripped open, and state with assurance that none of this can happen to you or those close to you in the presence of a Pit Bull?” No, I can’t visualize it because my dogs are responsibly cared for. Your stereotypical, ugly way of framing your language is no better than asking me if I “feel safe around a Muslim.”

“Do you defend Pit Bulls because you have a need to have a cause to argue?” No I don’t. Do you blanketly target Pit Bulls because you’re hateful?

Lastly, I implore you to not turn your pain into ignorance. What happened to your dog, Bleu, was terrible. What you are now doing is equally terrible. You are assisting with an ill-sighted witch hunt, and honestly, you should be completely ashamed of yourself. I’d also ask that you visit your local shelter. Physically find it in your heart to actually meet a few of these “types” of dogs. Not your neighbor’s dogs, just random Pit Bulls. Mix it up a little bit. Maybe then your “one side” will turn into something else.

I’ll leave you with this: “No single, neutered/spayed household pet Pit Bull has ever killed anyone.” ~ Karen Delise, Author of “Fatal Dog Attacks”

Thank you for your time and honest consideration,
Josh Liddy