TRUTH ABOUT PITBULLS and AB1634 MANDATORY ALTERING~*

~Lisa and pet Chloe, shown above~

@@@@*UPDATE@@@@@ Make sure to see the dog blogs below under PITBULLS--updated February 2008----very important to know who is working against the dogs,owners,dog breeders,pet laws, and more}}}

FLASH---AB1634: PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE 98% OF ALL DOGS/CATS BY MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER --BEING REVIEWED BY LEGISLATURE SOON--2008!!

[proposed law was shot down July 2007; Levine withdrew it but has vowed to bring it back in Jan 2008, and Levine was pushing Los Angeles' MSN on 2/2/08, which has been approved 100% so far]

The MSN law is seriously flawed, it has not worked in 95% of the places which passed it, and eliminating 98% of all dogs/cats (but NOT feral cats!)-- by claiming it is necessary to save the 2% of animals which cannot find homes in California is just plain ludicrous. They already passed SB861 (co-authored by BadRap dog rescue of SF, CA United Animal Nations, Jennifer Fearing, Sacramento, now at HSUS--NOT surprising) mandating altering for all pitbulls And NOW they want to do the entire state.

In fact Los Angeles just voted affirmatively on it on February 2 2008. On its face, altering appears to "save animals" but unfortunately, that isn't near the entire story. What it comes down to is that altering privately owned animals but NOT feral cats means you immediately will NOT be saving many more cats, but you WILL be killing more DOGS. (Those that rescue animals already know this, except for Judie Mancuso, the co-author of AB1634. She is naive to think it will work.)

It should be mentioned that in June 2007, Levine had the proposed AB1634 worded whereby it stated, that IF one was to be allowed to have ONE litter (and only one) of pups, the owner of the litter MUST GIVE THE PUPS AWAY FOR FREE. REPEAT--THE OWNER MUST GIVE THE PUPS AWAY FOR FREE. [To get out of the accusation that this would amount to a "taking", the owner would be required, upon obtaining the permit to have the litter, to sign a statement which in effect, meant that owner was taking the litter permit in consideration for signing the document giving animal control the right to search owner's house/and agreeing to give the pups away for FREE.] Obviously, no reputable breeder in their right mind would sign such a document, and the extremists know that.

It's a sad day in the United States when radicals (animal rights extremists)-- think they can affect every pet owner in this way. check out baddoglaws.com or saveourdogs.net for details. Especially note that ADL (Animal Defense League of Los Angeles) which has placed relentless pressure on Los Angeles to "stop" the killing, has used criminal tactics and tertiary targeting to make it known they will NOT stop. [ADL is considered a wanna-be ALF or ELF and while they may not rise to the same terrorist level on the surface, they are monitored by the FBI as links to the others.] And unknown to most until recently, certain animal rights extremists attempted last year to snuff out a well known canine advocate; the perpetrator (one of them) will be sentenced to federal prison soon when his sentence is approved--which will likely be between 25-39 years prison time, with no time credit for good behavior. So don't believe that animal extremists don't commit crimes against people--they most certainly do. And it is not surprising that canine advocates or breast cancer scientists are targeted.

Of course ADL explains clearly that they are VEGANS and protest all forms of animal useage. baddoglaws shows ADL's exact words where they openly admit they are a grassroots militant group that will use tactics that can put them in jail and that they will not bail out of jail. Why, that would be compromising their wonderful ethics, eh?

TRUTH ABOUT PITBULLS

OHIO SUPREME COURT HEARS TELLINGS CASE

August 1 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the dog owners! A reconsideration filed for the record was not acted upon by the court, so an appeal to the US Supreme court followed. Unfortunately, the court declined to hear the case; as approx. 5,500 cases are submitted per year, the Court hears only about 110 of them. There are currently BSL cases in Aurora, Colorado and Denver, Colorado. A BSL case in Arkansas Federal Court was recently originally started by RDOWS. Also, the federal district case against Los Angeles mandated spay/neuter (after a year and a half) was dismissed by Judge Chesney of San Francisco, but again, this is not that surprising (for federal court, especially the 9th Circuit, which has the largest amout of cases overturned by higher courts in the United States.)

As an example: Judge Chesney sentenced Issac Asimov's son, who had 14 printers going, printing child porn---to wearing an ankle bracelet. [Issac Asimov, noted author]You can see that San Francisco is completely nuts. They condone marriage between same sexed persons, but want to eliminate dogs having puppies. Check out Craigslist online in SF and see what sexual topics are allowed, while dog/puppy rehoming for fees which they "feel" are "selling" are not allowed, and most will be flagged off.

Some AB1634 proponents are now trying to say that the court has ruled mandated altering as constitutional and that AB1634 is therefore "constitutional"......

This is an incorrect statement--the court in SF, only said that a local area (not a state) has the right, under rational basis, to implement laws involving the health, safety or welfare of its citizens, which is typical for them to say for ANY challenge to any constitutional case. All challenges as such, use the same standard. It should be noted that the Judge did not go into detail, because it is probably already known that if this was challenged on a statewide basis law (not a local law), it would likely prove to be "not" constitutional.

Based upon the Los Angeles allegation of "overpopulation", the Judge said it was rational as to the local area at issue- but that is NOT saying it is rational for the entire state. Proponents of AB1634 will have a large battle on their hands.

@@@@@{{{Know thy Enemy}}}}@@@@@

Colleen Lynn of Seattle WA was allegedly bit by a dog and then commenced, supposedly, 100% on her own accord, (according to Kory Nelson of Denver) to start the bite blog known as dogsbite dot org. The site is updated and filled with every single news report she can gather, whether true or not, and then it is compounded by showing graphic photos of bite victims, and how victims are not monetarily compensated properly. This site is focusing and fosters hate against dogs, dog owners, dog breeders, and other legal entities.

It pushes, promotes, and perpetuates hatred toward law abiding people, dog owners, dog advocates, and anyone who dares to take a stand against something like preserving one's rights. Why? Because the site does NOTHING more than attempt to list "pitbull" incidents as evidence that the dogs are all timebombs waiting to happen. It does nothing but push sensationalism, drama, and accounts which have likely not been verified. Further, it then highlights the statements of idiots; for example, one recent statement:

"PITBULLS AND ANGRY PEOPLE SHARE THE SAME DNA"

This was taken from an article written by Mike Scarlett out of Australia, on 2/14/08, and HE even cites the CDC "statistics"...he then goes into a biblical connection and somehow tries to link killer dogs with killer people.

Everyone who knows anything about canines should be closely monitoring this blog (but don't send in any comments to the owner) because this is how hate crime is perpetuated. RDOWS has already called Kory Nelson on it (see the RDOWS Wordpress blog by RDOWS) but of course he claims she did it "all herself." Right--a person who doesn't have a dog and likes cats, who has an art degree is NOW a canine expert???? Pushing M. Clifton and his news clippings? Trying to disguise the site as a "victim" site?? Come on, that site is nothing more than a thinly veiled, financially motivated, hate site against people who own certain breeds of dogs, and where Nelson and Clifton claim such dog breeds need to be taken out.

If Nelson wants to call ACF strawmen for dogfighters, and then proceeds to say the same thing about those who advocate for the dogs, we all know where his head is at----and he is giving this blog owner ALL the information he can, so he can continue on his manic way of pusing BSL across the country.

Look at whydogsbite.blogspot.com for a good laugh in testing your canine IQ so you can recover from looking at the senseless junk being perpetuated by a newly minted "dog expert" webmaster. People underestimate the damage this junk can do to dog owners.

Greetings........

We are advocates against anti-pet laws and against Breed Specific Legislation, Mandatory altering, and any canine laws that we consider unconstitutional. If you know anything about bully dogs, APBTs, etc, then you know that the proper temperament for an APBT is non human aggressive. That the PSI of the jaw is NOT 2,600psi. (That is likely an alligator.) It has been theorized by the Science Channel on TV that a T-Rex dinosaur may have had a bite pressure of 4,000 lb? The average dog bite pressure is about 320psi.

A rather recent troubling web site has appeared out of Seattle WA, by a webmaster named Colleen Lynn. Sadly, she chooses to use her talent to publish and focus hatred toward owners of dogs that may be pitbulls, resemble pitbulls, or even are pitbull dogs. We know there is no canine breed known as pitbull but we speak generically here. In addition, she blatantly states that it is the "ANTI BSL LOBBY" that needs to change the laws to get victims compensated when they are bitten by dogs. That may be true, if only because she is guided by the "messenger" boy Nelson??!! And surely Lynn isn't going to get the job done. That's obvious.

It is believed that Kory Nelson, city attorney out of Denver, self-proclaimed "messenger" and self-titled "political' pundit (for who? PETA? HSUS?) has again employed his solicitation tactics, this time focusing on individual victims, and using his authority from his professional job (if we can call his behavior professional?) to solicit both people and city councils alike. Apparently telling the SF Chronicle that it is justified to shoot a pitbull running in the street was not good enough of a pitch for him. He has to go further. And indeed he has.

Check brent's blog, which is btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog, (unofficial watchdog on animal welfare issues) and discuss the hatred the site above (not watchdog site) uses to show people should not own any dog "they" "think" are all timebombs waiting to go off....and which has listed a contact phone number to a Chevron gas station under WHOIS. Which was later changed to the "Seattle Police Dept."...and then changed again after Police Dept. found out. How is that for credibility? The site is strictly for propaganda purposes, as no discussion is actually allowed, especially if one is pro-dog. (Trust us, anyone who would parrot K Nelson and his manic drive to kill dogs cannot be a thinking individual)

Myths are perpetuated by many, especially animal extremists. They love to say that spay/neuter will cure all. What it will do is stop the end of well-tempered dogs being born. In fact, one of the city council persons personally stated that they will "alter them out of existence", in reference to pitbull type dogs--and this is common thinking among those that wish to generalize about the dogs. Many of the "new" laws being pushed keep claiming that this will stop "dangerous" dogs---but just think about it for a second.............. 99.9% of ALL show/champion/obedience dogs are NOT altered. Millions of non-altered dogs are FINE and present no problems to society. In fact, show/obedience/champion/titled,etc, that is, dogs that have received PLENTY of training, are "OKAY" to breed, but others are eliminated.

Anyone who knows anything about canines realizes this is simply ridiculous, inconsistent, and hypocritical. Yet the extremists push it because it gives them power over "animal control." They use it as a stepping stone. Extremists have infiltrated many animal pounds, shelters. Achieving a PETA 'NO BIRTH NATION' IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER WITH MANDATED ALTERING--if you don't know what No Birth Nation is, google it and it will lead right to PETA.

One rescue we know in Sacramento will not allow any of their animals to be adopted to the Greater BAY AREA anymore. Why? The Bay has been instrumental in pushing mandatory altering for everything alive; hence, there are few/no pups available to adopt. If the dog fanciers/owners in the Bay don't care enough to even challenge their own unconstitutional law which allows breed specific discrimination, then when those same people cannot find a pup to adopt or buy in their own darn neighborhood, well that's just too bad isn't it?

Altering will not cure dog -human aggression. (If you want to know why they say these things, it's because their known goal is to eliminate animals as pets. They believe this is slavery....they believe animals are not a commodity. ) ISAR (International Society for Animal Rights) claims that purebred dogs are the "Plague of Purebreds" and they blame the AKC for issuing paper on purebred dogs, and for creating genetic misfits. Check online for the ISAR site where you will see this is their position. When you hear Bob Barker tell everyone to spay/neuter, you are listening to the number one ISAR spokesperson.

First they say eliminate this breed. Then, eliminate all breeding. Then, eliminate all dogs being sold. Then, eliminate all dogs as pets. It's not that difficult to figure out. They even tell us that is their plan. PETA, in particular, advocates to kill all pitbulls to end "abuse" of the dogs. (Shall we eliminate abused kids to end their abuse?! What about the ABUSER????) PETA GOT OFF REAL REAL EASY on the felony animal abuse charges--they were charged instead with "littering"!!! and using false information to gain possession of the dogs they killed. They killed almost 100 animals and then threw them in dumpsters. That was definitely NOT justice served in North Carolina!! PETA managed to kill 97% of the pets they took in for 2006, and adopted out 12. Wonder why they didn't kill the last 12, so they could make it 100% kill???

Media reports are just THAT---stories. Many of them are wrong and call every dog alive a "pitbull".....so you cannot believe 70% of them. We advocate both at the legislative level, and in the courts to right the wrongs that lawmakers create. It's sad but true, that many people 'create' bad dogs by NOT training, NOT socializing, and abuse. Many 'bad' dogs are created through the environment, but many animal extremists believe that breeders create all the bad-tempered dogs by design.

Even the Best Friends Animal Society in Utah has decided (without any expert help) that "aggression" is 'bred into the genes' of dogs by people who want aggressive dogs; they have decided that they want to promote the EUROPEAN method of aggressive dog control--what is that? It's called banning breeds and killing them. (If you don't know what they have banned in Europe, please do the research-----CORGIS are restricted in Italy, as an example, no minors or criminal can own them; there are about 90 other restricted breeds!)

Did you know that it is impossible to scientifically determine which dog is an American Pitbull Terrier? Many laws assume that people can tell which dog is an APBT because it "looks" like one. This is not the case. Many dogs 'look' like a pitbull type dog but are just mixed breed dogs and some are not even mixed with APBT. Although the COURTS have stated that people know what type dog they own, in CRIMINAL cases, the government must prove the dog's breed beyond a reasonable doubt under laws which single out dog breeds. This is not possible with American Pitbull Terriers. And is not likely easily done with several other breeds from mixed parentage.

BSL? It cannot be proven to work because scientifically, no dog breed is inherently dangerous. IF it was true, we would have a lot more people who sustain serious injuries---come now---if you can call ONE breed inherently dangerous, then that breed would all be doing the same thing in huge numbers. Instead of 10 fatal attacks, we would have 10,000 of them. And we don't. One of the largest problems of BSL is that it promotes certain breeds as DEFINITELY dangerous and ignores other breeds---then the public believes they are "protected" from being harmed. What the public doesn't understand is, the chance of being maimed fatally by ANY dog is about the same as being struck by lightning. And come to think of it, if one only thinks about that one issue (being maimed by a dog)--you know what? If you keep thinking of it day after day after day, it WILL eventually happen to you if your mind power is seriously used. So be careful what you think about!

Please----let's get one thing straight when it comes to BSL laws. It doesn't matter how the law is worded, when the owner is subject to CRIMINAL SANCTIONS---the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as in any other criminal matter, that the owner is guilty. The standard of proof cannot be deviated from-----therefore, if the government cannot prove the dog in question is actually what the government claims it is, then the owner cannot be convicted. This is usually never mentioned when you hear about BSL cases----because the government (which passes BSL ) wants people to think that just owning a dog makes the owner guilty of, or subject to, a crime. This is not the case. If you own a dog that may resemble a banned breed, you would do well to consult with an attorney familiar with BSL cases PRIOR to both licensing and registering the dog.

NATHAN WINOGRAD HAS JUST RELEASED HIS NEW BOOK ENTITLED "REDEMPTION" WHICH BASICALLY EXPLAINS WHY

1) THERE IS NO REAL ANIMAL "OVERPOPULATION"

2) SHELTERS THEMSELVES ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM IN FAILING THE ANIMALS AND NOT FINDING THEM HOMES FOR MANY REASONS.

If you do not know who Nathan is, we suggest you research online. He has always been right and is still right today. His group has just filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles and M. Mayeda for failing to proeprly care for the animals and failing to abide by CA law/killing animals early.





People love to blame APBTs and protection line dogs. The statistics show that fatal attacks are not done all by APBTs. And the CDC studies are nonsense because they didn't even get all the dog breeds listed, which skews the entire study. The CDC admits this and cautions NOT to use their study as a reliable source of percentages. Yet many dog BITE attorneys quote that study like it was the Bible. Governmental authorities and animal extremists like to use it to bolster their position for breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter. In Los Angeles they actually think they can implement mandatory altering for all dogs, then they plan to call all pitbulls "unadoptable" and ban them from the city once they get the no-kill scheme in place. Hmm....we see a problem there.

Recently evidence has shown that "rehomed", rescued and shelter dogs are responsible for a substantial amount of the fatal attacks across the country. [Only approx. 15% of all dogs are from shelters.] Nearly 40% of the attacks have been attributed to "altered" (meaning neutered) dogs, despite the false 'theory' that altered dogs make a dog "non-aggressive" to people.

What is not surprising about this, is the fact that many rescue people believe in "saving" animals that do NOT have good temperaments, and they believe that the dog may bite people, but it won't bite people IF you do such-and-such with the dog. An example: Rescue from around Fairfield, CA, collected mostly bad dogs to adopt out. One dog had already been returned 3-4 times for aggression. Another was a known biter. Another was anti-social and hated kids. Another had already harmed a child. But still, these dogs were being adopted out. AND the leader of the rescue claimed there was nothing wrong with these dogs.

Sure enough, a poster on infamous Craigslist, posted the story of adopting the known biter. She took the dog home and it immediately tried to bite a family member. The rescuer person then lashed out at the adopter and blamed her for letting a family member attempt to pet the dog. When we see scenarios like this, we are not surprised at the number of dog altercations out there. Thank God, this rescue is no longer showing pets at Pet Smart in Sacramento, and the rescue has closed down.

Another study done/ recently published, in attempting to categorize dogs which bite children, showed that 93% of the dogs which had bitten children were ALTERED. This was surprising to the people doing the study, as many believe that altering a dog will render it non-aggressive. This is not true and in some instances it might reduce some dog-dog aggression, whereas in others it may have little and no effect.

~~~~~DOG SAFETY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For new dog owners without any dog experience, it is best to avoid a dog where you cannot ascertain the history of its background, esp. if you have small kids such as age 4. Many dogs are mistreated and if temperament testing does not show aggression, they assume the dog is ok when it is NOT ok. This has nothing to do with breed of dog but everything to do with the unknown background.

One of the best defenses against dog BITES is to safety train your kids *BEFORE* you get a dog, no matter what type dog it is. It is a fact that many bites are done by smaller dogs, and it is a fact that many owners of smaller dogs allow the dogs to rule the roost, and thereby allow the dog to control the master.

When this is done by a larger dog, everyone blames the dog. When this is done by a smaller dog, very few people blame the dog. Lots and lots of small, yappy dogs are biters. And having owners that let them get away with such behavior is inappropriate.

One of the key goals we have is to take down the law in Colorado involving APBTs and mixed APBTs. Kory Nelson needs to go as well. Currently there are two lawsuits in Colorado challenging the law.

If you want to know more,contact us.

Colorado is particularly disturbing because Kory Nelson loves gloating about the dogs going down, yet he claims he had nothing to do with the law. However, if you read his "secret government" Yahoo Groups website (you can see it on doggiedefenders.com) you will quickly see that this person has a personal agenda against both the dogs and those who rally to try and protect innocent canines. You will notice the similarity to the dogsbite site by Lynn, mentioned above. There is no discussion allowed, just their views and their adamant ranting that they won't stop what they are doing.

It's a downright shame to see an attorney pimp himself off as a self-proclaimed BSL man, and he was quoted in the SF Chronicle as saying that a person is justified to shoot a pitbull in the street.

We consult with groups all over the United States on dangerous dog issues, dangerous dog law, trial for unconstitutional canine laws, illegal seizure, civil rights issues.

We have been on ebay since 2000. Help us save all dog breeds from extinction. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs is unconstitutional AND it will not stop dangerous and aggressive dogs. Remember---Rosa Parks was just one person. Yet her act alone changed the course of history. Don't ever think that what YOU do doesn't count. We are all good at something, and every good thing counts. We do it for the dogs.

Maybe you do too.

---

Orignal From: TRUTH ABOUT PITBULLS and AB1634 MANDATORY ALTERING~*