Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Bernice is a Special Treatment And Recovery dog, please help her.

PLEASE READ! This dog has been abused and needs a home!

Bernice is a Special Treatment And Recovery dog, please help her.

From the Department website here:

Original plea for help from Department Officer.

"I'm reaching out to the humane community for assistance with fostering out this poor girl. I am an officer with LA's Animal Cruelty Task Force and this dog, Bernice is from one of my cases. I can't disclose much information because the case has yet to be heard in court. I'm attaching some of what she looked like when seized from her owners property. She had pressure necrosis from an embedded chokechain, and her head is swollen as a result. She was very thin with her ribs, plevic bones, and lumbar vertabrae easily visible, and she had pressure sores on her hips. She was very scared and timid.

She has been at the shelter since December, had the choke chain surgically removed, and has gained weight. She looks great, but does have some scarring. This girl has been locked in a kennel for too long, and has to have the chance to see what life could be with a loving, caring guardian. Every time I visit her she gets extremely excited and start jumping on everything. She is dog aggressive, and will need to be the only pet until she can be properly socialized. It's not her fault she has never been shown manners, or love, yet she has been so forgiving!!! She would make an excellent companion.

*Anyone interested in fostering her e-mail me at: , or .

I don't want to see her sit in the shelter for a year or more or be euthanized when she is trully a victim of an irresponsible persons actions, lets show her what life can offer!!"

Judge OKs Public Sale Of Pit Bulls Seized In Alleged Dog-Fighting Ring

This story in has me totally mind boggled. The U.S. must be totally different than Canada, or at least in Ontario. For one, why are these people allowed so many dogs? Is there not an enforcement as to how many pets are allowed to be owned in a household?

The other things that doesn't make sence is, the sherriff stated the county would not be able to recoup nearly $20,000 that was spent caring for the dogs. These dogs were taken away from the owner in the first place because the owner was training and using them for dog fighting.

Firstly, is that not illegal and if so, why would they be returned to be sold by the owner? You would think the county could get back some of it's money by adopting out the dogs. To return the dogs confuses me enough, but then to allow a criminal to profit from his crime doesn't make sence to me at all.

Perhaps our Countries really do differ as far as laws are concerned, but why is this guy not in jail for training and fighting dogs? If this is allowed, then it's no wonder there are so many dog attacks, but why must our bullies have to suffer the concequenses of the bad reputatation when it's owners like this that is promoting what we are fighting against and our dogs banned.

It's no wonder there are statements said that there are more bad owners than responsible ones. From where I live and what I see, I've always denied that, but from reading news articles like this, it has me wondering if perhaps I'm really nieve. I certainly hope not!

Judge OKs Public Sale Of Pit Bulls Seized In Alleged Dog-Fighting Ring

Video: Judge OKs Public Sale Of Pit Bulls Seized In Alleged Dog-Fighting Ring

JOHNSTON COUNTY, N.C. -- A Johnston County judge ruled last week that 38 pit bulls believed to be bred as part of a large dog-fighting operation can be sold to the public.

The Johnston County Sheriff's Office seized 47 of the animals from the scene of a fatal shooting near Kenly in February. In April, a judge agreed to return 38 of them to their owner, Triston Hinson, who is charged with dog fighting, or his girlfriend.

"The dogs are really not very human aggressive, they are bred to be animal aggressive, and that's precisely what they are," said Ernie Wilkinson, director of Johnston County Animal Services. "They are, in fact, animal aggressive."

The judge's ruling states that Hinson must turn over a bill of sale for each dog to the county's animal services or to the county attorney, listing the new owners' name and address. Each also has an electronic chip so that it can be identified later.

Workers at the animal shelter said they recently received a call from a woman claiming she bought 11 of the pit bulls in question, but so far, county officials said, none of the required paperwork has been received.

"There is always a concern in our mind, as animal people, that any animal that is fought for sport, that there may be a danger in this animal turning on people," Wilkinson said.

Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said he is also concerned that the dogs are being sold to just about anyone and also that the county will not be able to recoup nearly $20,000 that was spent caring for the dogs.

The future of the nine other dogs -- which were the only ones veterinarians could confirm were actually involved in fighting -- is still uncertain. Most of them are being held as evidence.

"We have eight in custody, now" Wilkinson said. "We had to euthanize one because of an incident between that and another animal."

Previous Stories:
March 10, 2006: Suspect In Dogfight-Related Shooting Arrested In Virginia
February 24, 2006: Johnston Fatal Shooting Leads Authorities To Alleged Dog-Fighting Pit
Reporter: Mike Charbonneau

Dog attacks 9-year-old boy

Here's a bit of a twist, but not a surprise. Another kid attacked,'s NOT a bullie. It was only a matter of time before the full blame would not only include the bullies and rotties. Now add the larger breeds according to Gulbe's statement.

The News gives an account of this unfortunate attack.

Dog attacks 9-year-old boy
06:07 PM EDT on Tuesday, June 27, 2006

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- According to one estimate, someone in the U.S. seeks medical attention for a dog bite every 40 seconds. It happened Monday night on Pacelli Place. And Nikki Lester watched much of the attack unfold.

“I heard a dog going off and people screaming no,” she says. Nikki says hearing those screams grabbed her attention -- and what she saw was even more frightening.

“I looked out and the dog's on top of a little kid in the grass. He gets up and took off blood pouring down the side of his neck.”

Also Online
View this story

“A child was passing by. The dog got away from its owner,” says Jackie Gulbe of Metro Animal Services. “It jumped on the child and that's when the bite occurred.”

The dog is an Akita, a breed not often associated with attacks.

“It's definitely not only the pit bulls and rottweilers. Larger breeds of dogs do more damage,” says Gulbe.

This dog does fit the profile in other ways -- it's an un-neutered male. Figures compiled by the Injury Prevention Association say male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite than females. Unneutered dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than those neutered.

The owner has signed this dog over to Metro Animal Services. Small comfort to Nikki Lester, who now worries about her own 17-month-old daughter.

“We were going to come outside and play. It makes me terrified. I don't want to bring her outside.”

Metro Animal Services will hold the dog for ten days -- then it'll be euthanized.

Web story produced by Jay Ditzer.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Mean or misunderstood?

I can't agree with many of Ruark's statements, such as Pit bulls having to be trained against opening umbrella's or his comment on being more aggressive.

Not one bullie in our class of seven had a problem during these tests in our CGN, CGC Training. As far as aggressive, if you teach the dog aggression by putting it in aggressive situations, then yes, you're going to have problems. But you can also remove that problem by simply teaching it non-aggression. In most cases, what can be taught in a negative way, can be untaught by positive reinforcement.

Bullies simply want to please their owners. They strive on pleasing. That's why irresponsible owners are a menace to the dogs and to the responsible owners and the general public. Their need to please has been taken advantage of and turned into a negative way.

This artical can be found in the Vail Daily News.

Mean or misunderstood?
Pit bull fear unfounded, owners say, though some still fear the dogs

Click to EnlargeBrowse Vail Daily Photos

Tobi, who is 10 months old, is a prime example of how friendy and well-behaved pit bulls can be, his owner says.Shane Macomber/Vail Daily

EAGLE COUNTY — As he stalks toward you, a snarling frown stretches across his imposing head. Muscles ripple through his thick chest and broad neck. Your instinct is to run.

But the most pain Tobi can inflict is with his wagging tail or lapping tongue, said Kevin McKenna, the 10-month-old American pit bull terrier’s owner.

“Once he gives you that look, no matter how scary-looking you think he is, you know he’s not vicious,” McKenna said.

There’s no reason to fear pit bulls just because they’re pit bulls, Eagle Valley Humane Society director Char Quinn said. In Eagle County, more people are actually bitten by labs and retrievers.

Since 2004, eight pit bull bites have been reported in Eagle County.

In the same period, 25 bites from retrievers and labs were recorded and 28 bites from German shepherds and border collies.

Dawn Beacon/Vail Daily

Browse Vail Daily Photos

Dog trainer Mark Ruark of Pets Incorporated said these stats are probably due to the fact that there are more labs and retrievers in Eagle County than pit bulls, but he agreed people are misinformed. Even without proof, many people perceive pit bulls as inherently vicious, he said.

Still, pit bulls’ aggressive reputation is entrenched. “They scare me to death,” said Sandi Carstensen, although she has never had a bad experience with a pit bull.

“Dogs in general don’t scare me, but there’s something about that breed. They look imposing. I know some owners are responsible, but it seems that there are more irresponsible pit bull owners.”

Carstensen, of Littleton, said she is will soon buy a dog for her children, but a pit bull is out of the question.

McKenna, of Minturn, bought Tobi last October after seeing how well behaved his friends’ pit bulls were, he said. McKenna’s mother was initially nervous about her son owning a pit bull, he said.

“She was leery at first, because she only knew pit bulls from the Denver news,” he said. “But within weeks of spending time with Tobi, she opened up. Now she comes over to take him for walks.”

McKenna said the initial reaction to Tobi is sometimes fear, but the canine is quick to win people over. McKenna said when he takes Tobi to the dog park, labs are usually the aggressors and their owners are the ones who fear the pit bull the most.

“Tobi is submissive to other dogs. He just wants to be friendly,” McKenna said.

Breed not to blame

Pit bulls were originally bred to fight other dogs, Ruark said. Aware of pit bulls’ potential aggression, some owners have bred their dogs to be guard dogs, creating the violent image that summons fear now.

Breed basics

Pit bull is usually a generalization that refers to American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and other dogs that resemble these. American and English bulldogs are sometimes also included in this category.

Source: “Fatal Dog Attacks” by Karen Delise

“Pit bulls were never meant to be aggressive toward people,” he said. “But owners have taken their tenacity and turned them into watchdogs. It’s not the dog’s fault.”

Some dogs, like labs and retrievers, tend to be easier to get along with, while potentially intense dogs like pit bulls require more experienced owners, Ruark said. Because owners control upbringing, they have the biggest influence on a dog’s temperament, he said.

“It’s not the dog. It’s the owner,” he said. “Just because it’s more aggressive doesn’t mean it’s a bad dog.”

Whether you’re bitten by a pit bull or a dachshund, the breed’s not to blame, Quinn said.

“It’s rare to see a dog that’s actually an aggressive dog,” she said.

“In most cases, bites are provoked.”

Dogs must be socialized to their environment and be taught to tolerate things like car rides or strangers, Ruark said. Anything out of the ordinary — the sound of a skateboard or an umbrella opening, for instance — is a stress that could invite biting, he said.

Is a ban on the way?

Considering pit bulls potential aggressors, several cities and counties have banned the dogs. Denver passed a ban in 1989 after several attacks, and the law has survived despite multiple challenges of its constitutionality.
Minturn local Kevin McKenna says he'll move away if pit bulls are ever banned in Eagle County.

Shane Macomber/Vail Daily
Browse Vail Daily Photos

Impounded pit bulls are returned to owners who prove they will remove the dog from Denver, but abandoned and smuggled pit bulls are euthanized.

Aurora, Commerce City and Lone Tree have also enacted bans.

Eagle County Animal Services Manager Natalie Duck said there is no real threat of a ban in Eagle County, but McKenna said he is preparing himself for it.

“Breed-specific legislation is restricting dogs because of how they look,” McKenna said. “It’s just like racial profiling. It’s like getting arrested for fitting the profile of a certain ethnicity. Every dog in the world can bite and attack, but people don’t do their homework.”

Although breed-specific legislation makes mothers like Carstensen confident their children are safe, bans target the wrong victims, Ruark said.

“The bottom line is it’s not the dog,” he said. “It’s the owners that need to be educated.”

If the ban does make its way to Eagle County, McKenna said he would pack up and leave the same day.

“I’m a diehard,” he said. “I’d like to imagine there’s something we can do to fight it, but it’s a hard thing to get people to listen to.”

Brooke Bates can be reached at
Vail, Colorado

Scanton considering pit bull law

In The Times Tribute, Coutright seems to have gotten the message and reading this coloumn seems to tell it all. If dogs are allowed to roam (any dog) you're looking for trouble. But regardless of the breed, consider the owner.

It states that many owners have trained the dogs to be vicious. That tells us right there who the culprets are and it's not the dogs. The dogs are only doing what they were trained to do. Responsible ownership needs to be addressed.

In my opinion, if an owner (meaning of ALL dogs) can not be responsible by maintaining, containing and training properly, they shouldn't be allowed dogs. Remove the dogs from that owner and ban them from ever owning dogs again. Have the dogs properly trained and allow responsible dog owners to adopt these dogs. By elliminating the bad owners, you'll be going after the root of the problem.

Scranton considering pit bull law

A ban on pit bulls in Scranton is not likely, but legislation to make it tougher to own one could be forthcoming.

Solicitor Amil Minora is looking into whether City Council has the power to enact legislation banning or at least restricting the much-maligned canines. Mr. Minora’s opinion is expected Thursday.

“I am looking forward to Mr. Minora’s opinion on this,” Councilman Bob McTiernan said Monday.

“I suppose we can write legislation but the question will be whether our legislation can survive a challenge.”

Council made the decision to seek such an ordinance after several residents began complaining about pit bulls attacking other dogs.

The state has a law prohibiting breed-specific legislation. Municipal officials can, however, impose rules that could make it tough for the average pet owner. Some municipalities, such as Pittsburgh and Monroeville, already require owners of pit bull terriers and Rottweilers to have the dogs housed behind 8-foot fences, maintain costly licenses to keep the animals and proof of liability insurance. Expenses for these could easily mount, making it unaffordable for many dog owners.

While Scranton police studied the issue last year when reports of pit bulls attacking other dogs appeared to climb, nothing was done, Police Chief David Elliott said.

“We were going after what we felt were dangerous dogs, and some people have trained their dogs to be vicious,” said the chief, who was not in his office and didn’t have immediate access to incident reports involving pit bulls.

It has been more than five years since a pit bull was reported to have mauled a Scranton resident. A vicious attack in December 2000 left a 17-month old girl with a severed nerve in her face and a gash that required 450 stitches.In 2002, a pit bull was beaten to death by an ex-city cop who apparently came to the rescue of a neighbor and two other dogs.

Just as signs are placed on streets alerting traffic to children or handicapped individuals, Mr. McTiernan says another avenue to possibly explore is placing signs in neighborhoods where pit bulls are kept to warn of the presence of dangerous or vicious animals. It is important for council to act before someone is seriously injured, council President Judy Gatelli said.

“I have already gotten a lot of complaints from dog owners who said we cannot ban pit bulls,” Mrs. Gatelli said Monday.

If the city cannot ban pit bulls, Mr. Minora should explore legislation on tougher dog owner responsibilities, Councilman Bill Courtright said.

“I can remember years back, when people wanted Dobermans banned, but perhaps it’s the dog owner and not the dog that we should concentrate on,” Mr. Courtright said.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Petsmart is making it a point to let us bullie owners know we are UNWELCOME

UPDATE: I would like to make a correction. The comment I received on one of my other posts with this information was not from someone attempting to put the breeds down, but was added as an attempt to inform me of the Petsmart situation. I misunderstood as I had already known of this and thought someone had deliberately written this as a way of upsetting an already bad situation worse. The information I did write about Petsmart is true though, so I am leaving up this post for that reason only.

Since the ban started some of us here in London, Ontario have been insulted and we and our dogs have been yelled at by managers and staff of Petsmart to the point of pointing fingers and saying, 'Those dogs' as if they have suddenly turned bad.

Prior to the ban, our dogs were welcomed and we created a large volume of business to Petsmart. But with changing attitudes some of us have boycotted them and instead go to other pet stores that welcome our dogs openly.

Our dogs have not changed since the ban. They are the same dogs that customers and sales staff came and admired our dogs previously. Why the hostility now?

There are other excellent pet stores that welcome our dogs openly. They have a wide variety of articles that we now spend our money at these stores instead, such as SuperPet, Doctor Doo's and a variety of others.

I would like to add, that it isn't a Petsmart policy in all cities. We keep up to which are treating us unfairly and rudely. We have forums and notify each other regarding uncalled for incidences. Word of mouth is the best advertisement for any business. It also works the other way around too.

Petsmart Doggie Day Care: (web site withheld. I don't advertise for those against the bullies)
Who may not attend?

-Intact (unneutered) male dogs or pregnant females
-Dogs who haven't been socialized with other dogs

-Dogs in the "bully breed" classification (e.g. Pit Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Dogs or mixed breeds that have the appearance or characteristics of one of these breeds)
-Wolves/wolf hybrids

Be a good dog owner

In the Rockford Register Star in the Opinions column comes this opinion of what we all are saying. We just don't understand why it doesn't make sence to a lot of people.

Be a good dog owner

Americans have embraced the joys of dog ownership for centuries, from George Washington and his American foxhounds to George W. Bush and his Scottish terriers.

Today, there are approximately 73 million dogs in the U.S. and their roles in society have shifted from hunter and working dog to family companion.

When we hear of unfortunate incidents involving dogs such as bites it’s often because of carelessness by dog owners and a failure to take responsibility for the animal they chose to own.
There are two ends of every leash. Responsible dog ownership begins with the man, not the best friend.
Canine companionship is not only a right but a privilege to be respected and nurtured. In return, dog owners need to respect reasonable, enforceable, nondiscriminatory legislation governing the ownership of dogs, such as local leash laws, curbing policies and licensing regulations.
The saying “one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch” rings especially true in terms of dog ownership.
Breed-specific laws do not work. Mandatory microchipping, spaying and neutering, and education and stricter law enforcement are key.
Learn what it takes to be a responsible dog owner. Your best friend is counting on you.
— Cathy Anderson, Rockford

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Pit bulls are crowding the county's animal shelter

I can't agree with this article regarding 'Pit bulls are naturally aggressive towards other dogs.' It's statements like this that make the general pubic unfamiliar with the breeds fear them. How is it that there are plenty of multi-dog families with no problems with dog aggression.

Naturally, dogs that have been rescued from illegal fighting rings are prone to be aggressive to other dogs since they have been taught to fight or die, but with many they need to be desensitized rather than put down.

Just as a person who has been drawn into a Cult and brainwashed, do you kill the person or do you help that individual? There IS help available, but it's an easier solution to just eliminate the problem when it's a dog. These poor dogs have their fate sealed only because they happened into the wrong hands. That does not excuse the fact that their needs are not being met and they are not receiving the help that they need.

I shake my head at some people that take the oath of veterinarian to help and save animals, yet because of breed that oath no longer applies.

This story is published in the Fayetteville Online.

Published on Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Pit bulls are crowding the county's animal shelter
By Andrew BarksdaleStaff writer

Pit bulls are crowding Cumberland County’s only public animal shelter.

At times, more than half of the 70 dog pens at Animal Control are sheltering American pit bull terriers.
Pit bulls are large, strong animals that are naturally aggressive toward other dogs, said Dr. John Lauby, a veterinarian and a member of the local Animal Control Board.

Unlike smaller, more sociable dogs that can be grouped up to three animals per cage, pit bulls must be kept one animal to a pen — in some cases because they are crime evidence, but always because of their aggressiveness.
“It reduces our adoption side,” Animal Control Director Sue Nicholson said. “We are having to be very selective.”

Normally, the shelter devotes 35 pens to dogs that can be adopted and the rest for pit bulls or other strays that are usually euthanized after three days.

In most cases, the pit bulls end up at the shelter after being picked up as strays or seized in dog fighting or animal cruelty cases.

Court cases can take months, and most of the time the dogs are euthanized.

“It’s a huge drain on Animal Control,” Lauby said.

Lauby said pit bulls can be friendly toward people, but the animals are easily provoked to rage. A screaming child or a neighbor’s dog wandering by can set the dogs off.

And because pit bulls are so strong, they can easily kill or injure another animal or person and make headlines.
In 2003, an 88-pound pit bull that Lauby was treating mauled two of his employees at East Fayetteville Veterinary Clinic. They recovered from their injuries.

In 2004, a 3-year-old boy who walked into a neighbor’s yard in Hoke County’s Anderson Creek was attacked and killed by a pit bull.

Eleven of the pit bulls at the shelter have been there since December, when Fayetteville police charged William Jeffrey Almond II with fighting dogs at a house on Andy Street. Nicholson said Almond’s case is pending.

Two of the pit bulls seized in that case were 5-week-old puppies. One died; the other remains at the shelter.

“We have asked for leniency for that one,” Nicholson said. “We could find a good home for it because it has not been subjected to fighting and would be safe around people.”

In another case, animal control officers picked up four emaciated and injured pit bulls in October on Amanda Circle, off Strickland Bridge Road. One was euthanized immediately. Officials determined that another had been stolen, so they returned that animal to the original owner. A judge has yet to hear the case.

Nicholson said the number of pit bulls at the shelter fluctuates from day to day. On Thursday, the shelter had 23 pit bulls — each in a separate cage.

She said the high number of pit bulls has been a problem since she arrived in July. She doesn’t know how many pit bulls are in the county.

View slideshow

Creative coping

Nicholson said the crowding has forced her to be creative. Five animals in county custody are at temporary foster homes, and she has begun calling veterinary clinics to get help finding homes for some of the shelter’s dogs.

The number of dogs adopted from the shelter has risen in recent months; 234 were adopted in the January-March quarter, compared with 139 in the previous quarter.

Nicholson said she has no problem keeping cats, which require smaller cages and have to be quarantined less often.

The space shortage for dogs at the 28-year-old building has long been a problem. A $4.2 million shelter is under construction and is expected to be finished early next year in the county’s industrial park.

But even the new shelter might not be big enough.

Last week, the county’s Facilities Committee agreed to add 32 dog pens to the new building, at a cost of $58,708. That would bring the total number of dog pens to 96. Half would be reserved for adoptions.
County Engineer Bob Stanger had recommended the extra pens to the committee, he said, because of the pit bull population.

The county commissioners approved the recommendation Monday without comment.

Linda Lewis, chairwoman of the Animal Control Board, said before the meeting that she worries the new building will be full the day it opens.

“They are building this expensive place, and it will start out with a lack of cages,” she said.

Stanger said the building has been designed to accommodate about 40 pens beyond the planned 96 cages.

Staff writer Andrew Barksdale can be reached at or 486-3565.

Doggone Shame

It's a sad and all too familiar story that you can read about from the Salt Lake City Weekly.

City Week - June 22, 2006
Doggone Shame
Whether bred for battle or back yards, pit bulls don’t have much of a fighting chance.

by Shane Johnson

A mangy red heap was curled up beneath a winter display at the 2003 Christmas Village festival on Ogden’s 25th Street. Other passersby didn’t dare approach the emaciated and motionless pit bull, says Paul Schultz, who stopped despite his own leeriness of the breed.

“He honestly looked like he laid down there to die,” Schultz says. “I took off my camera strap, put it around him and coddled him along to my car.”

The now 3-year-old pit bull that Schultz named George likely went by a more menacing handle in his puppy days.

At the time of his rescue, George bore the marks of a gladiator: a streaking scar across the rib cage, fresh gashes about the head and face, and puncture wounds to the throat. His ears were sliced off—apparently two fewer appendages to be torn apart in battle. It’s as likely that George was discarded “bait”—a noncontender tethered to a wall used to rile up other dogs before a match—otherwise his tail would have been docked, too.

After a week of nourishment and cautious affection, George was hopping into Schultz’ bed for cuddles and wrestling with his children in the living room. Heaven’s Gate Animal Sanctuary kicked in for vaccinations, some much-needed veterinary attention and a trainer specializing in problem dogs. But George’s stay with Schultz was short-lived. Six months after being taken in, he bit a neighbor boy.

“Didn’t even break the skin,” Schultz insists, adding that the kid taunted George with food and whipped him with a rope. Though George will never get along with other animals, a trait exacerbated by his upbringing, Schultz says he’s as acclimated to people as any dog. Still, a judge ordered George banished from Riverdale city limits or destroyed. So it is that George now spends his days awaiting adoption at the Heaven’s Gate “no-kill” sanctuary in Morgan.

George’s story would be extraordinary if it weren’t so common, says Temma Martin, spokeswoman and education coordinator for Salt Lake County Animal Services. Of the 755 pit bulls and pit-bull mixes that strayed into the county shelter last year, a handful each month share George’s hallmarks of combat and are therefore unadoptable. A good many more are too aggressive to be offered for adoption in good conscience.

Compounding the dilemma, people in the market for a well-tempered pit bull, of whom there are plenty, are often the type who’d feed—and feed off of—its aggressive predisposition.

The commonly known “pit bull” isn’t a breed per se but shorthand for a family of dogs which originated in England—including the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier. For centuries, pit bulls have been bred for “gameness,” a euphemism for the killing instinct. They were pitted against bulls and bears until the British Parliament outlawed such displays in 1835, but underground dog-on-dog contests persisted. The blood sport made its way to the United States, where it continues in basements and off the beaten path.

“They wanted an animal that would go in and fight and not stop until the other animal was dead or gave up,” explains John Paul Fox, chief animal cruelty investigator for the Humane Society of Utah. Those stocks were meticulously preserved so that now the pit bull’s stout physique, crushing jaw power, unmatched pain threshold and reputation as the meanest beast on four legs make it a trophy for less-than-upstanding dog owners—toughs, sundry criminal types and dog fighters.

“If it’s aggressive, it probably won’t get adopted, because the people who want an aggressive dog often aren’t people we want to adopt to,” Martin explains. “And the people who want a nice family dog often don’t even look at pit bulls.

“On the other hand, the people who know the breed and know that if you get a pit bull, and socialize it, and train it, and raise it with the mentality of a golden retriever—it can be a perfectly nice dog.”

But local headlines suggest pit bulls’ bully rap will get worse before it gets better. Around the Wasatch Front, menacing pit bulls have forced police officers to their holsters more than a few times lately. For example, two escaped pit bulls terrorized a Tooele neighborhood, biting five children and a woman before responding officers killed the dogs. And, furthering the scumbag-canine-of-choice premise, Salt Lake City SWAT officers shot a pit bull dead while serving a search warrant at a suspected drug house.

In years past, Martin could fall back on hard statistics to disprove pit bulls’ reputation as the worst of the worst. Though they regularly ranked among the top five or six breeds for biting people, the far-less-notorious Labrador historically took top honors. In 2005, however, Martin says pit bulls lived up to the hype, notching 99 reported bites in Salt Lake County compared to 83 for Labs. Those numbers reflect a surge in pit-bull demand, Martin reckons, with more owners drawn to their “mystique.”

Municipalities across the country have responded with a wave of breed-specific ordinances aimed at cracking down on pit bulls and, to a lesser degree, maligned breeds such as the Rottweiler. Most notably, Denver reinstated a city- and countywide pit-bull ban last year, with surrounding cities following suit to fend off four-legged refugees. Among Utah municipalities, Morgan requires that pit bulls be leashed and muzzled at all times in public; Springville and North Salt Lake both mandate insurance bonds for owners; the breed is illegal in South Jordan; and some shelters have adopted 100-percent euthanasia policies for pit bulls.

Martin says a better approach than ostracizing pit bulls is to crack down on dog-fighting circuits and abusive owners while pressing breeders to recognize the inevitable fate of their litters. At that, of 505 purebred pit bulls taken into the county shelter last year, 39 percent were returned to their owners, 46 percent were destroyed and only 8 percent were adopted, she says.

All of which adds up to a grim outlook for George. Nonetheless, Schultz and the rest of Heaven’s Gate’s committed volunteers are rooting for their rehabilitated bruiser. George’s perfect human can’t have any other pets and will need a strong hand along with a kind heart.

“He’s not a bad dog, but he’s a special dog,” Schultz says.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Watch were you place your donuts

In the YAHOO! News is the story of the doughnut eating dog. Please people! Don't place tempting food on the stove.

Dog craving doughnuts blamed for fire
Tue Jun 20, 4:09 PM ET

RIDGEFIELD, Wash. - A dog with a craving for doughnuts was blamed for starting a house fire in this city north of Vancouver.

According to Clark County fire investigators, the homeowners had left a box of doughnuts on the stove on Sunday. The dog jumped up onto the stove to get to the doughnuts and accidentally flipped on a burner.

"The burner set the box on fire and the fire spread from the kitchen to the attic," Fire District 11 Capt. Ben Meacham told The Columbian.

Investigators said the fire caused about $75,000 worth of damage.

The dog, home alone when the fire started, escaped injury.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

America's #1 Terriorist

WARNING: Not suitable for children

Stray dog attacks child

An dog attack in WILX in Lansing doesn't say what breed the dog was, but as usual, Pit bulls and Rotty's have to be named as Dangerous Breeds.

Stray Dog Attacks Child

Watch the video:
Dog Attacks Child
Lori Dougovito

A three-year-old boy is recovering after being attacked by a stray dog in Lansing Friday. It happened around 8:30 p.m. at a home near Miller Road.

The boy was at a barbecue with his uncle and cousin when a dog with brown spots and a blue collar came up to him and bit his face. The boy's uncle, Kelly Rahme, was throwing away some garbage when he heard the boy yelling. Rahme turned around to see blood pouring off of his nephew's face. He took him inside to clean it up then to the hospital where he received 24 stitches.

No one knows whose dog it was. Ingham County Animal Control has been contacted. Meantime, the little boy has to get a series of rabies shots and may need reconstructive surgery to repair the damage done to his face.

Proposal to control dangerous dogs introduced

In the Indianapolis Eye Witness News

Proposal to control dangerous dogs introduced
June 20, 2006 05:14 AM EDT

Watch the video:
Dangerous dog ordinance introduced

The proposed ordinance on dangerous dogs will be reworked.
Mary Milz /Eyewitness News

Indianapolis - An ordinance meant to tighten the leash on dangerous dogs is a good start, councilors say, but it needs work.

"(It's) very vague. Any dog can maul or hurt people," said Councilor Patrice Abdullah.

The ordinance introduced by Sherron Franklin limits the number of dangerous dogs owned and raises penalties for owners who fail to control them.

Councilman Phil Borst told Eyewitness News it's a step in the right direction.

"The ordinance is good because it does say you have to have a fence, they can't go over it or under it. You have to keep it in the house, that type of thing."

Council member Joanne Sanders wants a little more in terms of penalties. She said "$50 doesn't seem like much to me. And I'm also toying with the idea of should it be made commensurate with medical expenses."

The ordinance comes on the heels of several pit bull attacks, including the mauling of 2 year-old Amaya Hess, with Mayor Bart Peterson also calling for action. "I favor looking at breed specific legislation, though I know some people are opposed to that," he said.

Several councilors too are okay with the idea of targeting pit bulls or any other breed.

"(It) comes down to the matter of irresponsible pet owners," said Borst.

Stacy Coleman, head of the Indy Pit Crew, an organization of pit bull owners, agrees that the city should go after the people who breed and train pit bulls for fighting, not the dogs.

Coleman said "My hope in all of this is that Indianapolis comes away with a tough enough dangerous dog law to keep the public safe, to stop the suffering of the dogs, and, at the same time, focus on the issue of dog fighting, because it really is at the heart of the pit bull overpopulation problem."

Pit bull proposal raises tempers

This sounds like an exact repeat of Ontario previously before the ban. When will people figure out;




Whether it be a bullie owner or another breed, RESPONSIBLE OWNERS TAKE CARE OF THEIR DOGS!

Who's going to suffer if the ban is enforced? Responsible owners and their bullie breeds.

The bullie breeds are not human aggressive. It's a taught behaviour, so that takes us right back to irresponsible owners again.

We've seen the effects of what BSL has caused in Ontario and other parts of Canada and the U.S. Innocent dogs snatched from their families and put to death and not only does the family suffer from the loss of their loved one, but pays dearly where it hurts the wallet.

Socialization, a much needed quality to raise a well adjusted, friendly dog ceases or responsible owners need to find new avenues to keep their dogs socialized which usually amounts to paying out more money.

Stop penalizing the responsible owners and their dogs and go after the problem.

The irresponsible owners either abandons their dogs or hides them. They think they are still 'above the laws' and continue to breaks them playing Russian Roulette with their dogs lives.

If you want attacks and bites to stop, start going after the irresponsible owners instead. They don't deserve dogs and dogs don't deserve them.

Pit bull proposal raises tempers
The Kansas City Star

Pit bull lovers and haters crowded into an Independence City Council meeting that came close to turning into a dogfight Monday night.

There were jeers and sneers and name-calling. A councilman told about profanity-laced e-mails sent to the family of a victim who was nearly killed in a recent pit bull attack.

A man who shouted from the audience for tougher pit bull laws had to be removed by police.

The public showdown came in the wake of at least five recent pit bull attacks in the city that left three men hospitalized and four dogs dead. Last week a man sicced his pit bull on a police officer.

Backers of a ban on pit bulls in the city presented the council with a petition with more than 2,300 signatures.

Opponents of a ban said pit bulls, if treated right, are loving and loyal. They cited research that they contend shows that the number of dog attacks did not go down after other cities banned pit bulls.

The biggest ovation — and a standing one — came for the son of Alan Hill, who on May 4 fought for his life against three pit bulls that attacked him while he was mowing a lawn. Hill has been hospitalized since with blood loss, severe bites and nerve damage.

“My father will have to learn all over how to comb his hair, brush his teeth and hug his only granddaughter,” Chris Hill told the packed chamber, his voice breaking as he pleaded with the council to ban pit bulls from the city.
Pit bull owners countered that any dog will turn vicious and that it would be unfair to single out a single breed. They blamed irresponsible owners for the recent attacks.

“Yes, those were pit bulls, but that doesn’t mean all pit bulls are bad,” resident Tim Watkins said. “All breeds, if they have teeth, will bite.”

Chris Hill agreed. “But all dogs can’t kill you,” he added. “Pit bull owners boast about the strength and power of dogs than can pull 3,000 pounds. Am I the only one who thinks that’s not a good thing?”

At the end of Monday’s debate, the City Council directed City Manager Robert Heacock and his staff to begin working on options for a new vicious dog ordinance.

Council member Renee Paluka-White pushed for a tougher ordinance partly because other cities, including Overland Park and neighboring Lee’s Summit, are talking about pit bull bans.

“Some of those dogs will end up in Independence if we don’t do something,” Paluka-White said.

City officials stress that a new ordinance could include a “grandfather clause” that could allow current owners to keep their pets — with restrictions — but ban new pit bulls.

Mayor Don Reimal said any new law must be fair, just and defendable in court.

“We must make a decision, and we will,” Reimal said.

The attack on Alan Hill, 59, of Lee’s Summit, was the most vicious of the recent incidents. The dogs attacked him after he got off a lawn mower near 23rd Street and Kings Highway.

Hill tried to hit and choke the dogs, but soon gave up the fight and attempted to escape by crawling under his Jeep.

The dogs pulled him back. His wife, Connie Hill, said later: “Those dogs were eating him alive.”

The same three dogs, which were later hunted down by police and killed, also attacked two other men that day.

One of them, Steve Dixon, was at Monday’s Independence meeting and signed the petition to ban. He had a patch on his head and bite marks on his arms and neck.

“One bit a chunk out of my temple,” said Dixon, who said he experiences nightmares and panic attacks from the May 4 attack.

Dixon hugged Connie Hill, who told him, “I’m sure my husband would like to meet you, but he’s not ready yet.”

Monday, June 19, 2006

Police dog attacks man walking home

In The Charlolette Observer it shows ANY dog can make mistakes, even the extremely trained ones... that is, providing that dog isn't on the BSL list or it would meet certain death.

My point to posting this is to show a dog is a dog and just like a person, no matter how well trained, we are all prone to making mistakes. This does not make this police dog vicious any more than your well mannered bullies and rotty's for example are not any more dangerous than any other breed.

The officer didn't foresee a problem arrising when he allowed his dogs out of the vehicle. That was a mistake on his part, not the dog. We, as the public require our dogs to be leashed which would have prevented this problem. That is, providing the owner is responsible to abide by the laws or bylaws.

Police dog attacks man walking home
Officer apologizes; German shepherd got away from him


Darrell Hargraves has owned three German shepherds. He'd never been bitten by them -- or any other dog -- until Sunday.

That's when the 33-year-old heard something behind him as he walked home after his Saturday night work shift and a few rounds of pool. He turned and saw a dog racing at him.

The German shepherd on the loose belonged to Charlotte-Mecklenburg police's K-9 unit. The dog, Sam, pushed him down, teeth bared.

The dog had slipped away when its handler stopped the vehicle to let the dog go to the bathroom, said CMPD spokesman Keith Bridges. "We're sorry that it happened," he said.

Hargraves was nursing puncture wounds on his stomach and scrapes on his hands, elbows and knees at his home Sunday.

"What are the procedures?" he asked. "I thought there were leash laws with regular people. With officers, I thought the dog has to be in sight of the officer at all times."

The Police Department will conduct an internal investigation of Officer M.T. Yoder, who handles the dog.
Because the dog was not wild and has all his vaccinations, it will not be euthanized, Bridges said. N.C. law requires a 10-day quarantine for all dogs, cats and ferrets that bite people, according to Charlotte-Mecklenburg police's animal control unit.

If the pet has a current rabies vaccination, this quarantine may take place at home. Sam will stay in a kennel at the officer's house.

Hargraves said he hadn't thought to worry when he spotted the K-9 police vehicle as he walked home around 3:30 a.m. Sunday. He turned the corner of South Boulevard onto Longleaf Drive in southwest Charlotte, just blocks from home when he heard the dog behind him.

The dog lunged. Hargraves tussled with it, trying to get it off.

Hargraves, who moved to the neighborhood recently, figured it was a local dog that had jumped a fence. He could feel a choke chain around the dog's neck so he knew it wasn't a stray. He tried to hold the dog down, keeping its mouth away from him.

Then he heard someone calling "Sam" in the distance.

"Is this your dog?" Hargraves shouted back.

The dog raced to a uniformed officer standing in the street.

The officer kept apologizing, Hargraves said.

Hargraves was OK but shaken up. His wife drove him to a hospital to get his wounds examined.

At 5-foot-10 and 197 pounds and as someone who regularly works out, Hargraves said he's glad the dog didn't attack someone smaller, such as a teenager or woman. "That dog was strong," he said.

Yoder told the Observer he couldn't comment much because of the pending investigation.

"I'm definitely sorry," the officer said. "Sam's a really good dog. He's caught a lot of dangerous people for the city of Charlotte."

-- Staff writer Melissa Manware contributed.
-- Kytja Weir: (704) 358-5934

Tips for Staying Safe Around Dogs
Every year dogs bite an estimated 4.7 million people, killing about a dozen, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

• Always ask a dog's owner if you may pet the dog. Some dogs shouldn't be touched. It may be "on duty" as an assistance or service dog, or it may be injured, ill or afraid.

• Approach a dog from the front or side -- not from behind. Hold your hands low and speak softly. Do not surprise a dog, force it into a corner, wave your hands in the air or scream at it.

• Beware of a dog that is barking, growling or showing its teeth. Stay away if its ears are back, tail is up, or its hair is standing up. Say "NO" firmly and slowly walk away with your arms by your side.
• Stay calm. Do not scream, stare into its eyes or run away.

SOURCE: American Kennel Club

More Pit bulls taken to Colorado Springs Humane Society

In Colorado Springs, News 11

Colorado Springs: Pit Bulls
More pit bulls being taken to Colo. Springs humane society

The Colorado Springs area appears to be seeing more pit bulls since the breed was banned in Denver and Aurora.
Wes Metzler -- director of the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region -- says his group received more than 1,400 pit bulls since taking over city animal-control duties on July 23rd.

That's an 80 percent increase from the 779 pit bulls taken in from July 23rd, 2002, to May 31st, 2003.
The humane society doesn't track specific breeds throughout El Paso County, so Metzler says he can't be sure the statistics show an overall pit-bull boom.

But he says pit bulls were the most likely breed to be listed on bite reports in the first quarter of 2006 at 112 times.

Metzler says he's also received calls from Aurora and Denver residents asking about moving their pets to his city.
Metzler says that of the 1,400 pit bulls arriving at the shelter since last July, 285 were adopted and 519 were euthanized.

Most of the rest were given back to owners after being brought in by animal-control officers who saw them running loose.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Spencer to live out his life at animal sanctuary in Utah

Spencer to live out his life at animal sanctuary in Utah

(MOBILE, Ala.) June 16 -- His fate has gained national and international attention, and he doesn't even know it. Now it appears “Spencer” the pit-bull terrier is getting “a new leash on life.”

At a Friday news conference, Mayor Sam Jones announced while he supports the shelter’s policy of not adopting out pit bulls, he is taking a special interest in Spencer’s case. The dog will be transported to a sanctuary half-way across the country to spend the rest of his days.

Spencer is to be picked up from the Mobile Animal Shelter by Hearts of Gold Pit Rescue, a group based in Tennessee. They have arranged transport and foster-care for Spencer until he can be taken to the Best Friends Network, another group which is based in Utah.

Spencer was discovered May 30 when he was walking down a midtown Mobile street dragging a 10-foot chain. He was dehydrated and starving. The dog was so thin it was able to slip through the bars of a wrought iron gate of a residence. It is obvious the dog had suffered physical abuse. He was wearing a leather collar with the name "Spencer" stenciled on it. Spencer is believed to be about 18 months old.

Residents of the area took him to the shelter. Janet Jordan, kennel manager at the Animal Shelter, commented that the dog is not aggressive towards other dogs at the shelter. “He seems to be real friendly," she added. "He doesn't bark at any of the other dogs." It was obvious to her Spencer had been starved as well as beaten.

Amanda Kramer filed a petition for a temporary restraining order to stop the euthanasia of Spencer. Amanda pleaded to adopt Spencer. Judge Stout granted that petition which stayed the euthanasia pending a hearing. In the subsequent hearing, however, the court ruled Kramer had no standing in the case and the city had the right to follow its unwritten policy, meaning Spencer should die.

Bill Fassbender, director of animal control at the Mobile Animal Shelter, who testified at the hearing, claimed it is a nationwide practice to destroy pit bulls because of the possible danger from them. No evidence was presented, however, to show proof of that statement.

In fact, there is nothing in the Mobile, Alabama ordinances or Alabama law that requires the shelter to kill Spencer or refuse to adopt him to the many people who have offered to take him and give him a good home. Instead, it is the shelter’s policy to kill pit bulls not claimed by their owners regardless of their temperament. Apparently, it is an unwritten policy followed by many shelters throughout Alabama.

On their website, David Phelps, a representative for Best Friends Network told readers the organization had contacted the city of Mobile and arranged for Spencer to be given “sanctuary,” so he will not be killed, but he will also not be adopted out to anyone else.


Friday, June 16, 2006

Spencer is SAVED!!!


June 16, 2006

Mayor Sam Jones Rescues Pit Bull Terrier

Mobile Mayor Sam Jones has negotiated a new home for the
Pit Bull Terrier found in Midtown last month - a move that will
protect the safety of the public and not alter the city's policy on
these breeds.

The Pit Bull, which was found underweight, ill-fed and
dehydrated, will be sent to the Utah-based Best Friends Animal
Society, a group found Friday by Jones and animal shelter officials.

"The issue with the dog has taken away from the city's
award-winning adoption program at the shelter," said Mayor
Jones. "This arrangement will hopefully return the focus back to
the need for good homes for adoptable animals in our shelter."

There are currently 109 dogs in our kennel, with 51 up
for adoption. Jones said the Best Friends Animal Society has
assured the city that the dog will not be adopted.

"This will allow the city's policy to remain intact,"
said Mayor Jones.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Dog Saves Family from Burning House

In NBC10 Local news came this amazing recue by Buster, the famly dog, a boxer/pit bull mix.

Dog Saves Family From Burning House
Dog Alerted Couple To Fire
June 13, 2006

Slideshow: Dog Rescues Family From Fire Video: Buster Saves The Day

Buster the dog was rescued from the mean streets of Philadelphia and now he has saved the lives of the family who saved him.

The fire that broke out in a home in the Kensington area of Philadelphia early Tuesday morning could have been deadly. The windows were blown out and the entire building was gutted from the heat and flames of the blaze.
But the Hernane family was alerted to the fire by their determined pet.

Two years ago, Jennifer Hernane's family took in Buster, a boxer and pit-bull mix who was a stray living on the streets. Hernane admitted she wasn't particularly fond of the dog because of his menacing looks.

"When he came home I was scared of him," Hernane said.

However, that fear quickly turned into affection once she saw how loving Buster could be.

Just after 5 a.m. Tuesday, a fire ripped through the Martha Street home where Hernane's parents, Anthony and Donna Hernane, lived alone. They were both asleep.

"He was at the first window, the blaze was coming out really bad," a neighbor said.

Fire officials said there were no working smoke detectors in the house, so Buster sounded the alarm the only way he knew how -- he barked.

"He was barking and screaming. My dad got up and opened the door of his room and the flames came bursting in, so he shut the door. Then that's when they jumped out the window, my mom and my dad," Hernane said.

"All the way to the hospital I was sitting there shaking," said Anthony Hernane Jr., the couple's son.

Jennifer Hernane and her brother spent most of Tuesday trying to salvage some belongings. Anthony Hernane Jr. went to see his parents in the hospital. He said his dad did have some injuries, but was mostly overwhelmed by what his pet did.

"He said, 'If it wasn't for Buster, he wouldn't be alive,'" said Anthony Hernane Jr.

Smoke inhalation made it difficult for Buster to breathe, but Jennifer and Anthony said they would care for him after he did so much to save their parents.

"He's my mom and dad's guardian angel," Anthony Hernane Jr. said.

Firefighters ended up rescuing Buster. They said that he is going to be OK.

The Hernanes were in critical but stable condition Tuesday night with some broken bones, but they were both expected to make a full recovery.

Fire officials said the cause of the blaze was careless smoking.

Exclusive: 3-Year-Old Recovering After Dog Attack

In the Hampton Roads, News Channel 3 is an attack of the family dog, a golden retriever mix, named Trouble, that caused a 3 year old 300 stitches for thes portion [the cheek] of the child was hanging on his shoulder, where you could literally see skeleton.

But these statements confuse me. "What we considered a friendly, tame household pet came close to killing my son," Shifflett said.

Then this statement. "We grabbed the dog by his neck and threw him off the child, and scooped Phillip up," Shifflett said. When I picked the child up, the dog lunged back at us."

But Trouble had already torn off the little boy's cheek, biting him several times.

"He also tore off the facial nerve or the nerve that works the muscles of the face," said Dr. Richard Rosenblum, a pediatric plastic surgeon with CHKD. "So, Phillip is going to need a series of surgeries, not only cosmetic, but functionally to repair muscles, nerves and work on scars."

It took 300 stitches to repair the damage, and Dr. Rosenblum said Phillip was lucky not to lose his eye.

And finally, this statement. As for Trouble, he is still under quarantine with his owner. After the 10-day quarantine is over, police said Trouble will stay with his owner.

So, the dog came close to killing his son, and afterwards he lunged at them both of them a second time, but after the 10 day quarantine the dog will continue to live with his owner. This totally boggles my mind.

Had this same dog had of been a Bullie breed, it would have been bye bye doggie! Because of breed, do they not think this dog could do it again? Is that it? I'm dumb founded.

Sara Straeten Reporting
Exclusive: 3-Year-Old Recovering After Dog Attack
June 13, 2006 06:06 AM EDT

A three-year-old boy is recovering in the hospital after a dog attacked him. What's surprising is the little boy was attacked by a common family dog, a golden retriever mix.

The boy's father spoke exclusively with Your Newschannel 3. He said his son is making an amazing recovery after a very serious attack.

Three-year-old Phillip Shifflett is alert and talking. But his wounds tell a scary story.

"This portion [the cheek] of the child was hanging on his shoulder, where I could literally see skeleton," said his father, Phillip Shifflett.

Last Tuesday, a golden retriever mix, named Trouble, attacked Phillip in his backyard. Phillip has known trouble his whole life, even lived in the same house.

"What we considered a friendly, tame household pet came close to killing my son," Shifflett said.

Phillip went outside to play, his father trailing just seconds behind. His dad said he didn't see what provoked Trouble, but saw the dog mauling his son.

"We grabbed the dog by his neck and threw him off the child, and scooped Phillip up," Shifflett said. When I picked the child up, the dog lunged back at us."

But Trouble had already torn off the little boy's cheek, biting him several times.

"He also tore off the facial nerve or the nerve that works the muscles of the face," said Dr. Richard Rosenblum, a pediatric plastic surgeon with CHKD. "So, Phillip is going to need a series of surgeries, not only cosmetic, but functionally to repair muscles, nerves and work on scars."

It took 300 stitches to repair the damage, and Dr. Rosenblum said Phillip was lucky not to lose his eye.
"Children always have to be watched, and you have to be hyper vigilant when your child is with any breed, even the family pet like this," Rosenblum said.

Phillip's dad wants parents to listen to that warning, too.

"They saved his life, and put him back together," Shifflett said. "I am fortunate. They next child may not be so lucky."

Phillip will have more tests Monday, and doctors said he could go home as early as tomorrow.

Phillip's dad said he is thankful for the doctors and staff at CHKD who acted quickly to save Phillip's life.
As for Trouble, he is still under quarantine with his owner. After the 10-day quarantine is over, police said Trouble will stay with his owner.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Blogger Issues

It's been extremely frustrating with the Blogger problems and all my sentences running into one. Blogger has appologized for these problems and are working hard to correct them. Only some site are being effected and I'm one of those sites. Too bad I wasn't so (lucky) with Lotto tickets. LOL
Hopefully these problems will be corrected soon.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Pit bull pwners get final notice

Home here in the London Free Press is this article. I'm actually surprised at the amount of dogs registered as it was at least 1/2 that amount of the due date. It was only a matter of time that the city was going to clean up and look for the unregistered dogs and owners.

I was beginning to feel like I was the only responsible owner in my area as any Bullies I saw weren't muzzled or even altered.

I also noticed that two people I was really working on to get their dogs fixed, registered and muzzled, as far as giving them both the City bylaws and the Provincial Laws regarding the Ontario Pit bull Ban and it's requirements are no longer seen. Perhaps they moved, but one of the guys came over and wanted to know where I bought Shasta's muzzle. He said he needed to get it immediately. I never saw him nor his dog after that as well as the other guy with his dog that I saw all the time.

It makes you wonder...and saddened. That to me was no different than playing Russian Roulette with your dogs life. It's only a matter of time until you get caught.

Pit bull owners get final notice
Mon, June 12, 2006
They're told to register their dogs by June 30. After that, 'hardline' enforcement is planned.

The City of London is warning nearly 300 pit bull owners that they have till the end of the month to register their dogs.

Jay Stanford, the city's manager of environmental services, estimates there could be about 290 unlicensed pit bulls in London, based the number of owners who haven't renewed their dog licences from last year.

A bylaw passed last fall requires all pit bulls in London to be licensed.

On May 30, the city issued its fifth and final notice to pit bull owners to have their dogs licensed, demanding full compliance by June 30.

Stanford described the enforcement approach as "balanced" as opposed to "hardline," especially given the uncertainty created by a court challenge of a provincial law banning the breed.

"If a situation requires a hardline approach, it will be implemented immediately," he said.

The issue of dangerous dogs was thrust into the spotlight last month when a 77-year-old Middlesex County man was fatally mauled by his unlicensed pit bull crossbreed.

John Martin's wife and a taxi driver witnessed the attack in the driveway of Martin's home in Welburn, south of St. Marys.

The dog is in quarantine but is expected to be euthanized.

The city has issued 685 licences to pit bulls owners since the province passed legislation last year banning the breed.

When the province amended the Dog Owners' Liability Act, the city followed up with a supporting bylaw.
Existing pit bulls were grandfathered under the law.

The laws require owners to have their pit bulls sterilized and microchipped. The dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public. The licensing fee is $50 plus an application fee of $10.

Bylaw infractions carry fines ranging from $200 to $500. Violations of the Dog Owners' Liability Act carry fines up to $10,000, six months in jail, or both.

Some pit bull owners may have moved or shipped their dogs outside the city or province, Stanford said.

"Some people don't believe they have a pit bull . . . so there's potential for denial," he said.

Some pit bull owners may be awaiting the outcome of the court challenge of the Ontario ban before spending the estimated $200 to $300 to sterilize and microchip their dogs, Stanford said.

"And there are people out there who are just taking the chance of not getting caught," he said.

The law bans pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog "that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs."

The province imposed the ban after a number of vicious attacks by pit bulls on people and pets.

This year, London police have laid eight charges under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, compared with two last year and one in 2004.

Police have responded to 56 pit bull related occurrences this year, compared to 29 last year and 22 in 2004.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Political Double Talk. WHAT DID THEY SAY??? or...WHAT DO THEY MEAN???

Just prior to the provincial election in Nova Scotia, Rick Conrad, writer of the Petpourri column in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, posed questions about pet ownership, sale, cruelty, and breed banning to the three major party leaders.

In The Chronical_Herald
Sunday June 11, 2006

Politicians collared
By RICK CONRAD / Petpourri Column

It’s only a week until election day. Do you know where your candidates stand on all issues of pets?
NDP Leader Darrell Dexter
Liberal LeaderFrancis MacKenzie

Q: Did you have a pet growing up? If so, what kind and what was his/her/its name?

NDP - Yes we always had pets. A cocker spaniel when I was young and we always had cats. My mother also had a poodle called Cuffy that meant a lot to her.

Liberal - I have had dogs and cats around most of my life — Princess and Lew (American cocker spaniels). Cats: Brutus, Rosie, Oreo.

Q: Are you currently a pet parent? If so, what kinds of pets do you have, what are their names, how long have you had them and where did you get them? If you and your family don’t have pets, why not?

NDP - No. My wife and I both have very busy lives, and I often have to travel. Having grown up with animals I feel strongly that no one should be a pet owner unless they have the time to give an animal the care, company and attention they need. When our lives slow down we would like to get a Nova Scotia Duck Toller.

Liberal - We are the proud owners of a cat named Nero who has been part of our family for the last eight years. We obtained Nero through a friend.

Q: Where do you stand on breed-specific legislation that would ban certain breeds of dogs like Rottweilers or pit bull terriers?

NDP - Personally, I support breed-specific legislation.

Liberal - We are not in favour of bans on certain breeds. There are bad owners but very few bad pets. These types of breeds, however, require knowledgeable owners and we would encourage owners to seek professional training. Owners must be held responsible for the actions of their pets. If any legislation is considered, it will look at the owner, not the breed.

Q: Do you believe pet stores should be allowed to sell animals?

NDP - My main concern is always that animals are well-treated. I would like to talk to animal health professionals more about this to hear their view and would take their advice.

Liberal - I think it depends on the store and the type of pet. People should purchase dogs through reputable breeders or through adoption from the SPCA or animal rescue. But if the interest of the pet is being safeguarded, pet stores can be a suitable option.

Q: If so, should the province regulate the breeding and sale of live animals as household pets?

NDP - Yes, I think the province has a role to play in regulating pet breeders and those who sell pets, for both the protection of the animals and the protection of families looking for a pet. So much depends on breeding and early environment.

Liberal - We believe that there should be consultations with interested stakeholders before proceeding with regulation. While regulation can help safeguard the interests of animals and their owners, we would prefer an educational approach.

Q: Are you in favour of tougher penalties for those found guilty under the Nova Scotia Animal Cruelty Prevention Act and why or why not? What’s your opinion of how the act is currently enforced?

NDP - The real issue in enforcement of the act is resources. I question if the resources, human and financial, are there to fully enforce even existing regulation.

Liberal - Yes, because people who are cruel to animals take away from our humanity. This area of the law does not seem fully developed in Nova Scotia. That includes enforcement. We believe that many agencies do a fantastic job. The issue may simply be one of a lack of resources. We should examine this area of enforcement with the goal of making improvements.

Note that Darrell Dexter's office has retracted his original statement that he supports breed-specific legislation. His retraction was printed in the Chronicle Herald.
Sunday, June 11, 2006

NDP says Dexter has no plans for breed-specific bans on dogs

The New Democrats say they’ve made a faux paw.

Spokeswoman Barbara Emodi said Wednesday said she made a mistake when submitting leader Darrell

Dexter’s answer to a question about banning some dog breeds.

The questions were posed in The Chronicle Herald’s Petpourri column, published Tuesday.

She said Mr. Dexter does not support breed-specific legislation.

"I wrote it down wrong," she said.

Janet Chernin, the Atlantic chairwoman for the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, wrote to Mr. Dexter after seeing his answer in the paper.

Ms. Chernin, the owner of two bull terriers and a Rottweiler, said she could not support a party that backed a breed ban.

The three leaders were asked the following question: Where do you stand on breed-specific legislation that would ban certain breeds of dogs like Rottweilers or pit bull terriers?
Here are their answers:

NDP Leader Darrell Dexter
Personally, I support breed-specific legislation.

Later amended to (via e-mail response to a number of upset citizens): I can assure you that the Nova Scotia NDP has no policy or position in favour of breed specific legislation. The NDP has no plans to introduce such legislation.and another e-mail:

Mr. Dexter and the NDP are certainly prepared to be held responsible for the position that they do not support breed specific legislation, and have no plans to bring such legislation forward. and (via his retraction in the Chronicle Herald):

Mr. Dexter does not support breed-specific legislation.

Liberal Leader Francis MacKenzie
We are not in favour of bans on certain breeds. There are bad owners but very few bad pets. These types of breeds, however, require knowledgeable owners and we would encourage owners to seek professional training. Owners must be held responsible for the actions of their pets. If any legislation is considered, it will look at the owner, not the breed.

(An earlier statement made by Francis MacKenzie)
These types of breeds, however, require knowledgeable owners and we would encourage owners to seek professional training.

Progressive Conservative Leader Rodney MacDonald (via e-mail after publication deadline)
I'm assuming this question deals with public safety, given the breeds you've mentioned. I believe there is a half pass, half fail rate with this type of legislation across Canada. I'm not entirely convinced that by banning certain breeds would prevent dog attacks from happening. Other breeds can also demonstrate aggression toward people depending on the circumstances, how the dog was raised and treated itself. I think I'd be more supportive of legislation that addresses the causes of aggression rather than targeting the banning of specific breeds.

Local NDP Candidate Sean Bennett, Hants West (via e-mail to a concerned constituent)
The comment from Darrell Dexter was his personal opinion and not that of the NDP.As you know Darrell lives in the Dartmouth-Cole Harbour riding and animal and child safety has been an issue for citizens in that area.

I feel that it is not the dog that is necessarily the problem but the owners and trainers.

I think that Breed Specific Legislation might be an option where certain breeds (such as Pit Bulls for example) can only be purchased through a breeder, not through pet stores or other avenues. Responsible breeders will ensure that these dogs are raised with proper training and under the proper rules and regulations to ensure that breeds are not blamed. (Is he saying, Let's put strict rules on the breeders and owners of "these dogs" even if we don't ban them outright?)

Are you confused yet? I sure am!

Friday, June 09, 2006

Please sign this petition and crosspost

*****Please sign this petition and crosspost*****

On May 31, 2006, two young pit bulls were found dead on a small path near the town's firing range.They had been shot 37 times.With two high-powered rifles in the back of their car, two men drove their victims to a desolate dirt road at the edge of a wooded area of Cape Cod.

Then, police said, Todd A. Soderberg and Keith B. Kynock let their victims go, watching them flee for safety, 40 feet, then 50 feet down the road, before the two lowered their rifles and opened fire. After allegedly firing 37 rounds, their victims lay dead, their bodies shattered from the rifle blasts.

''This was an execution,'' Barnstable police Sgt. Sean Sweeney said. ''This was not a humane act in any way.''

We are not only outraged at this cowardly act of premeditated brutal and cold blooded murder, but that they pleaded NOT guilty!

Aside from the weapons charges, the items found in one vehicle denotes these men had other intentions besides the premeditated murder of the two Pit Bulls.

We, the People, respectfully ask that each man be convicted on two counts of felony and serve the maximum allowed by the laws of MA.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION "Public Appeals for Maximum Sentencing of Premeditated Dog Killers", THEN PASS IT ON!ANONYMOUS SIGNATURES WILL BE DELETED, (as will inappropiate language)!

This petition is time sensitive, ie...ending July 5th, 2006. These men are to appear in court on July 11.

In the Cape Cod Times is the horrendous story.

Two charged in dog slayings

BARNSTABLE - Two Cape men pleaded not guilty yesterday to brutally shooting a pair of pit bulls earlier this week near the town firing range.

Keith Kynock, left, and Todd Soderberg are arraigned yesterday in Barnstable District Court. The men were charged with shooting two pit bulls to death. (Staff photo by Steve Heaslip)

The dogs were discovered Wednesday morning riddled with bullets in what police that day called an ''execution.'

'Keith Kynock of Cotuit and Todd Soderberg of Forestdale, both 26, were arraigned in Barnstable District Court yesterday afternoon. They face two counts of maliciously killing a domestic animal and two counts of animal cruelty, as well as several weapons charges.

Both were released on cash bail - Kynock for $2,500 and Soderberg for $1,000 - and are scheduled to be back in court July 11.

Kynock took the dogs Tuesday night from Guy Nelson, a mason he knew from work at a Marstons Mills landscaping center. The Nelson family was moving to a new apartment that did not allow pit bulls, and Kynock already owned a pit bull that in the past had played with Nelson's dogs.

Less than 10 hours later, police say Kynock and Soderberg drove the dogs to a path near the firing range off Service Road in West Barnstable. The suspects, described as friends, opened fire on the pit bulls with two semi-automatic rifles, unloading 37 rounds and killing both animals, according to police.

A couple walking their own dogs early Wednesday morning discovered the dead dogs and called Barnstable police.The dogs were found about 100 feet off the road, and were shot mostly in the hindquarters, head and spine, police said. They determined the animals were running away when shot. Neither was wearing a collar or identification tag.

Thursday morning, Latoya Nelson, 24, saw a picture of the female pit bull in a Times story about the shooting. She identified the dog as Hennessey, her 2-year-old pit bull and the sister of Caesar, her father's male pit bull.When Guy Nelson heard about the shooting from his daughter, he went to the police, who called Kynock to the station.

''You got me''

During questioning, Kynock told police he previously owned a pair of AR-15 rifles, the kind used to kill the two pit bulls. But they had been stolen years ago, he said, according to police. Kynock, who has a gun license in Barnstable, gave police permission to search his car. Inside, they found an improperly stored .40 caliber pistol, brass knuckles, a black ski mask, bolt cutters, rubber gloves and a police scanner.

Police arrested him Thursday on three weapons charges. They have not yet recovered the rifles they believe were used in the shooting.

Meanwhile, working on a tip, police went to Soderberg's Forestdale home Thursday evening and brought him to the station for questioning.Soderberg, a former U.S. Marine, initially showed police a cut on his leg and said he had been attacked by two pit bulls, police said. When asked if he knew Kynock, his story changed and he admitted that they had shot the dogs, police said.

''When you got me, you got me,'' he told police, according to a police report.

Yesterday morning, as Kynock drove to his arraignment for the weapons charges, police arrested him on additional charges of killing the two animals.

Cape and Islands Assistant District Attorney Matt Kelley asked Judge John Julian to set a high bail for Kynock and Soderberg.

''They put the public in extreme danger by firing the weapons and by taking the law into their own hands,'' Kelley said.John Cartwright, the Barnstable attorney representing Soderberg, acknowledged in court that Soderberg had been in contact with the two pit bulls, claiming that one of the dogs bit his client's leg.

After the arraignment, Cartwright suggested his client was defending himself. On his way out of the courthouse, Soderberg declined to comment.Kynock's attorney, Robert Deehan, blasted the Barnstable Police Department for intimidating his client.

When Kynock was brought to the station Thursday for questioning, Deehan told the judge, authorities pressured his client into allowing them to search his car under threat of arrest.

''He was put into a Catch-22 type of situation, I might say,'' Deehan said.

Beyond denying his involvement in the shooting, Kynock refused to comment after the proceedings.

Former owners shocked.Yesterday, Guy and Latoya Nelson described themselves as ''shell-shocked.'' They said the pit bulls were loving animals with no violent histories.Kynock called the Nelsons after picking up the dogs Tuesday night, they said, seeking advice about how to control the animals.The Nelsons said that despite offering to find another home for their pit bulls if it didn't work out, Kynock made no suggestion he wanted to return the animals.

When they called Kynock after seeing the story in the paper, they said, he asked them not to go to the police.

''I never would have let my dogs go to him if I thought there was any way in the world this is what was going to happen,'' Guy Nelson said.

David Schoetz can be reached at .
Staff writer Jason Kolnos contributed to this report.