The Commercial Appeal has a blog set up to deal with the issue of bad dog owners. No, that’s a lie. They have a blog set up to deal with the issue of pit bulls. Despite the blog’s title (Menace Unleashed) and the scary graphics, the content isn’t completely hysterical.

The major factor in dog attacks (well, other than owners failing to restrain their pets which is really the only factor but you can’t count on people to be smart) is the reproductive status of the dog.

So wrong.

Politically Incorrect Dog is possessed. What’s more, we’re fairly convinced that he is possessed by the spirit of Politically Correct Dog, who passed away last year after battling cancer. Politically Incorrect Dog has taken on some traits he never had before but which Politically Correct Dog always had. Politically Incorrect Dog never much cared for treats nor was he ever inclined to beg for food. But Politically Correct Dog was all about some dog biscuits and begging for scraps. In the evening, Politically Correct Dog would hover around the cabinets where we kept the treats and whine until we gave him some. It was the evening routine. Politically Incorrect Dog would take the treats if you gave them to him but he never was much for begging for them. Recently, Politically Incorrect Dog as started to beg for his evening treats.

Also, Politically Correct Dog had the most bizarre habit of burying his head in the carpet while sticking his rear in the air when you’d scratch his head. Suddenly, Politically Incorrect Dog has started doing the same thing.

Politically Incorrect Dog has also started begging for food during dinner, which he never really did before but Politically Correct Dog did all the time.

Odd, indeed.

If your dog is wondering loose, it is a nuisance. End of story. So, check this out. Police dog decides to leave its house and runs loose (it is therefore a nuisance). It is threatening a neighbor and his kid (therefore is a nuisance again). Man shoots the dog, which is what you should do.

Now, he’s charged with cruelty to animals and third degree felony assault. That’s bull shit. The only one who is responsible here is Police Officer Bryon Deeter for failing to contain his dog. He is, of course, not being charged.

Next, we’ll be banning them:

One of the males suddenly tackled the man, threw him to the ground, and threatened him. The other male, holding his dog back, then threatened to have the dog attack if the man didn’t hand over his cash.

Aunt B. wants to start one. I don’t think any dog should be treated any differently just because it’s a pit bull. All dogs should be treated like, well, dogs.

Geez, what is with this country lately? Anyway:

Pit bull owners more likely to be criminals

Uh, no. Criminals are more likely to own pit bulls for a variety of reasons.

Letter to the editor:

I would also like to comment on the lack of mention on the breeds of dogs that fatally killed this gentleman. The dogs were an American bulldog, Johnson bulldog, Border collie, and a Neapolitan mastiff. I find it interesting that when a pit bull bites someone, the breed is the headline. When it’s other breeds, they aren’t mentioned. This story is a perfect example of why breed-specific legislation is flawed. It would not have covered these breeds. I feel for the family members of the gentleman who was killed by these dogs; house arrest is not enough.

The American Bulldog is what Politically Incorrect Dog is and they are often called pit bulls by those not in the know. He’s a standard American Bulldog. The Johnson is another type of American Bulldog. So, maybe the press did it right. And Border Collie? That surprises me.

All week long, the local news was aflutter with the news that two pit bulls attacked and seriously injured their owner. It was on the radio a lot. One expert said that pit bulls are similar to cats (yes, cats) in that they are hard to read and react quickly to stimuli. I don’t think the expert knows dick about pit bulls because while I agree they are quick to react, they’re quite easy to read, just like other dogs. Anyhoo, turns out the dogs were not pit bulls. Of course, pit bull isn’t actually a breed.

Update: WATE is sticking with the pit bull angle and notes that noise from a lawnmower may have set them off.

Radley Balko has a column on Breed Specific Legislation. Via, err, Radley.

Actual Headline: BSO deputy shoots, kills 170-pound dog

Uncle’s Headline: Cops can enter property, kill dog without warrant, probable cause.

Several of my friends (and my sister!) are expecting. Naturally, the question of what to name the kids is a contentious and often funny conversation. Here for their edification is the best and most comprehensive advice I’ve ever seen on how to avoid giving your child a regrettable name.

Roll call is another thing to watch out for. Make sure it’s not worse putting the last name before the first. Ted Farr probably won’t be happy for long, neither will Lester Moll or Nick L Pumper. However, this will probably keep them out of the armed services.

A pit bull, no less. A homeless man’s dog was shot by the police after charging the officer. Witnesses do not back up the officer’s story. I think it’s safe to say dogs (particularly politically incorrect dogs) should not be running loose.

Stray cats are something that should not be encouraged to hang around. But one man’s article has drawn an investigation:

Police in Red Bank are investigating after a man wrote about launching a “feline jihad” to rid his Chattanooga suburb of stray cats. Max Gerskin wrote a two-part series in the Chattanooga Pulse weekly publication.

In his commentary, Gerskin said the strays fed by someone in the neighborhood have brought filth and disease to his home, and local Humane Society officials haven’t been able to stop it.

As a result, he wrote, in these words, “I’ve officially become a trapper and it’s time to take a walk to the river.”

Tom emails:

It wasn’t a pit bull therefore there was no need to identify the breed of the dog

Ayup.

Nothing beats them, cute little buggers. Stuff I never would think about:

Or Abbie, for a short two syllable name ending with a vowel, making it easy to reach those high notes when calling.

A piece in the ChicTrib says breed bans don’t work:

There’s an adage that says, “When a dog bites a man, it’s not news, but when a man bites a dog, it is news.” These days, dog bites don’t just lead to news, they lead to fights between neighbors, lawsuits and controversial legislation. Unfortunately, laws that ban certain breeds of dog from a community provide nothing more than the illusion of safety.

Many communities struggle with issues related to dangerous dogs. Some have responded with breed bans, yet time and again such laws have failed to solve dangerous-dog problems. Lawmakers who educate themselves and understand this issue quickly recognize that a truly effective law must address all dangerous dogs, regardless of breed.

There are many factors that contribute to a dog’s temperament, but breed bans only address one of those factors. If elected officials are comfortable with regulation of such a limited scope, then the one factor to be targeted should be the most common.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70 percent of dogs involved in biting incidents are intact (not neutered) males. No other single factor is so highly represented in dog attacks. Mandatory pet sterilization is certainly a viable option, but this can also be easily addressed without legislation, through government-subsidized spay/neuter programs and community education about proper pet care.

Yeah, we know. Meanwhile(via Tom), this week’s evil dog is the pit bull. Next week’s will be the Presa Canario:

Authorities said she was giving Xeno a bath Friday in the back yard of the upscale Coral Springs home she shared with Rivero, when the 120-pound dog attacked the 120-pound woman.

It ripped open Willey’s jugular, punctured her trachea and tore into her arms, back and side. One law enforcement official called it a “surreal scene.”

Sadly, this woman had not been a model dog owner:

In 2000, she was charged with having a dog-at-large, court records show. In 2002, she was charged with having a vicious animal without current rabies vaccination and an animal registration, records show. The next year, she was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

And I called this a while back. Expect more.

Aunt B. is mad because Kansas City is rounding up politically incorrect dogs and killing them:

Animal control officials said 149 illegal pit bulls have been turned in or confiscated in the two weeks since the city increased its enforcement of a ban on the breed.

Mayor Joe Reardon announced July 28 that the city would temporarily waive penalties against people who turned over their pit bulls, which are illegal within city limits. The day before, a pit bull attacked 71-year-old Jimmie Mae McConnell, who later died.

The amnesty period ends today. More than two-thirds of the dogs were turned over in the first week, and animal control officials said the pace has slowed to what it was before the amnesty period.

And you can rat out your neighbor:

While those who voluntarily turned in their dogs didn’t get cited for violating the ban, owners who were identified through a telephone hot line were cited if officials could determine they owned a pit bull.

Breed bans are ineffective for a variety of reasons. And this is the result. Aunt B. also says:

I think it’s to punish their owners for being “scary” and “out of control” and “violent.” If some of us who own the dogs don’t happen to be poor young men, tough shit for us. This is about making sure that the “bad” elements of society know who’s in charge.

I would bet, dollars to donuts, that if you looked at the cities that have enacted “pit bull” bans, you would find that there’s a lot of tension in those cities about race. I know you could say that about every city in America, but I mean, I think you’d find “pit bull” bans enacted in cities where the demographics are changing rapidly. Look at the ban on “pit bulls” at the Nashville dog parks.

So, it’s doggie racism and people racism? Or classism. So many isms to worry about. The world needs less isms and more asms.

NJ gets one right:

The American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) and two of its members, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, who reside in Englewood, New Jersey, were granted an interlocutory judgment against the City Of Englewood in New Jersey Superior Court this week in the challenge to overturn the city’s illegal breed specific ordinance, Docket No. BER-L-5285-06. Judge Jonathan Harris found that the city’s aggressive dog ordinance, which defined specific breeds of dogs as dangerous, was a clear and direct violation of state law, which explicitly prohibits breed discrimination. The American Dog Owners Association, the country’s largest independent dog owner’s organization, had asserted that the City of Englewood, New Jersey failed to provide its residents equal protection under the law by denying the residents’ applications to license their dogs and has subjected them to harassment.

“Breed discrimination is illegal in New Jersey, and now all good dog owners with good dogs in Englewood can breath a sigh of relief”, said Maureen Hill-Hauch, ADOA’s Executive Director. She noted that New Jersey’s Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act is one of the strongest dangerous dog laws in the country. “The City of Englewood has a duty to protect the public health and safety of all of its citizens, as well as protect the rights of responsible dog owners, regardless of breed. We’re so pleased that the court will require the City of Englewood to comply with state law”.

Luke (AKA: Politically Correct Dog)
1998ish to August 11, 2006

Godspeed, old friend.

I’m as pro-dog as they get but dogs should not run loose. That’s why I don’t particularly get upset when stuff like this happens. It’s sad the dog died and it’s not the dog’s fault. It’s the owners fault.

Surgery last week went well and the vet noted nothing appeared to have spread. Today, we got the lab results back and his tumor was benign. He’s A-OK!

Thanks all for the support.

I haven’t dog-training-blogged in a while. So, here’s some stuff.

We socialize and train our dogs for certain behaviors. But bear in mind a few notes on dogs that you ought not forget, no matter how much training you’ve done:

Dogs are not people. They are animals. Don’t forget that.

All dogs are killers. More specifically, all dogs have the ability (and even desire) to kill. Even that little yappy dog that some rich lady keeps in her purse is a killer at heart. It’s just a killer in a small package. Killing for dogs is the natural order of things. People often seem shocked or surprised when you remind them that fluffy-pookins has gnarly teeth for a reason.

Dogs are also scavengers. They’ll eat things that the thought of will make a billy goat puke. They’ll eat roadkill, feces, your child’s vomit, their own vomit, and all sorts of other nasty things.

For dogs, there is the dominant dog and all other dogs are subservient. In the dog’s eyes, you as master should be the dominant dog. Dogs are quite content with this as they favor a strong leader. If you are not the dominant dog in your dog’s eyes, you’re in for trouble. For a dominance test, look at these behaviors:

More things about dogs:

Dogs have no sense of fairness. Dogs don’t understand that it’s not fair for a big dog to attack a little dog. It’s the order of things to determine who is dominant. If you have two dogs and one very clearly is dominant over the other, your intervention in that should be minimal (by that, I mean if they fight you break it up). Do not treat them as though things should be fair or equal. They are not. For example, if one dog hops on the couch to lay at your feet and does not allow the other dog up, you’re doing no one any favors by inviting the other dog up. You have challenged the more dominant dog to re-assert himself over the other. You can control this only when you’re present, when you go to work, they’re going to iron out exactly who the boss is.

Dogs should be supervised when around children. More to the point, you’re supervising the child. I trust my dogs with my kids. I don’t trust my kids with my dogs. Junior will tug ears, pull tails, swat, and chase the dogs. The dogs will take it and like it. But, I still correct Junior and put the dog outside or in a bedroom. If a child physically hurts a dog, the dog may bite in defense. If I’m cooking dinner or otherwise can’t devote my attention to supervision, the kids and dogs are separated. Always.

Dogs do not understand sharing. They either have it or they want it. They don’t care if the other dog has it or not.

Dogs do not understand evil. Whether it’s chasing a field mouse, killing a neighborhood cat, or biting someone, dogs do not see these actions as evil. It’s just how things are. For them, it’s the natural order.

If your dog attacks someone who is a family member or invited guest, you shoot it. Non-invited folks are excepted because that’s what the dog does.

If your dog is out in public, it should be restrained. Dogs should be on leashes in public.

Do not let your dog run wild in the neighborhood. Have a fence. If you don’t, they will go scavenging and killing.

Dogs are wonderful animals, if properly socialized, trained, and supervised.

Someone is stealing Fug’s pics of his dog in bunny ears. Well, just get your own dogs some bunny ears:

Even with the air conditioner on:

The dog’s handler left his dog in a police cruiser outside the station with the engine running and air conditioner on. But the car stalled. When the handler returned, the dog was dead.

A lawsuit over the killing of several dogs is going forward.

A lawsuit will proceed in U.S. District Court on November 6 over a May 8, 2003 incident where Pennsylvania Constables Richard Seeds, 41, Greg Balliet and Vincent Stahl fired eleven shots killing two dogs and five puppies while serving an arrest warrant for unpaid parking tickets in an Allentown home

What is worth taking note of is the words of the law right before the shootings.

Judge James Knoll Gardner allowed the prosecution to let the jury know that just before the incident, Seeds told his colleagues, “I have to get something to eat or I am going to shoot somebody.”

Defenseless Bear Killed by Vicious Pitbull and Crazed Knife-Wielding Owner

In an update to Politically Correct Dog’s tumor, he went to the emergency vet last night after throwing up several times. That was bad. But the good news is that the ER vet basically said he’d seen this before and the sickness was usually indicative of a benign tumor. He also took additional X-rays and noted that no cancer seemed to have metastasized throughout his chest, which again may be indicative that his tumor is benign. He gave Politically Correct Dog much better odds than the original 25% and that’s a good thing. He has surgery today for removal.

Thanks to those for their well-wishes.

Just got bad news from the vet. Looks like Politically Correct Dog has a tumor by his spleen. 75% chance it’s cancerous and, if it is, he only has 3-6 months. Removal will be attempted but it’s not guaranteed. So, if you’re the praying sort (and the praying sort who prays for dogs), we’d appreciate it.

Good luck, buddy.

Aunt B. has a lot on the subject. There’s also a debate going on in the comments. She also seems to be disappointed that I haven’t chimed in (well, until now). The reason for that is twofold. One, I’ve said it all before. And two, I realize that this Christian Grantham person is either a disingenious hack or an idiot. Doesn’t matter which he is, he’s not worth my time.

WATE:

A Knox County couple is suing Walt Disney Entertainment and a laundry list of others because they claim their dog was taken from East Tennessee and cast in a blockbuster motion picture.

“The dog’s getting older every day. I want him to be with me as he’s getting older,” says William Robinson.

The Robinson’s dog, Kolby, is a pure-bred Alaskan malamute.

In the summer of 2004, the Robinson’s claim Kolby broke free from his leash attached to a dog run in their yard. They haven’t seen him, in person, since that day.

But on February 14, nearly two years later, came a frantic phone call from a family member.

“We’ve seen your dog in the paper, there’s a big story about Kolby in the paper,” said William, recounting the conversation.

The story was an article in the Knoxville News Sentinel. It was a review of the movie “Eight Below” and it discussed the K-9 allegedly Kolby as “.. a former Knoxville stray who was rescued and then discovered during a casting call.”

I wrote about Christian’s piece here. S/he’s has replied to critics by stating, err, I’m not sure what. Anyhoo, Aunt B. ain’t happy.

In comments to his post, Christian non-responds with his tripe:

Either owner seems to not care for the dog’s life or the actions taken by the majority, as represented by their elected officials, to ban them from their neighborhoods.

I suppose Christian then is OK with the notion of denying rights to gays. I mean to do otherwise would be to not care for the actions taken by the majority, as represented by their elected officials. Right?

Campground pet policy:

Ocean Lakes is happy to have your entire family, including your pets! Pets (excluding rottwielers, pitt bulls and exotic animals) are allowed at all campsites. They are not permitted in our rental sites – sorry!

And check out the picture of the dog in shades. Why, it looks like a . . .

Update: Everyone else seems to think it’s a boxer. Boxers have been classified as pit bulls as well. They share lineage.

Christian Grantham shows video of a pit bull attack. Then s/he* endorses a ban and calls them a vicious and uncontrollable breed. Aunt B. calls him/her out on it, though I think B’s original sentiment, while lacking in the subtlety department, is likely the best way to deal with dog ignorance.

Dog attack by breed are generally tied to breed popularity. The big bad dog of 1970s was the German Shepherd; 1980s it was Dobermans; 1990s it was Rottweilers; now, it’s the pit bulls turn. Of course, there is no breed of dog known as the pit bull. It is a class of dog that includes American Pit Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers and others. The crocodile hunter’s dog was a pit bull; so was Petey from The Little Rascals; pit bulls were on US propaganda posters in WW2; and the dog that recently won Westminster was a pit bull. But they’re evil killing machines, as far as the ignorant are concerned.

The dog that would become the pit bull was originally a cattle dog. It was then bred with Bull Terriers to create a dog fighting dog. It’s a shame, but their past is in dog fighting. As such, they are inherently dog aggressive but this can be socialized out of them. If you have other dogs, don’t get one. If you can’t properly socialize a dog, don’t get one. If you want a dog because you want a tough dog and think you’re going to train one to be mean, don’t get one.

However, they are not inherently people aggressive. In fact, people aggression was bred out of them because, in a dog fight, a handler had to be able to separate a dog without getting bitten. A people aggressive dog was disqualified from the fight. People aggression must be taught to the dog or is the result of poor socialization.

The trouble with pit bulls is that they are currently popular. As such, people who should not own any breed of dog now get them as status symbols because they’re known as tough dogs. And drug dealers get them to guard drug stashes and dog fighting is making a comeback so others get them for that.

This year, it’s pit bulls. Next year, it will be whatever dog people decide is cool next. The Preso Canario, for example, had an uptick in popularity after it killed that lady in San Francisco. If you ban a dog based on dog attacks, another will just take its place. Pit bulls rank in temperament tests as well as retrievers and better than ShiTzu’s and Scotties (here’s the rankings from ATTS).

The solution is to hold folks criminally liable for dog attacks regardless of breed. But I suppose it’s just easier to ban things, like dogs, guns, bathtubs, cars and anything else. For the children.

Here’s a savage mauling I happened to witness with a camera ready:

* yes, I could probably peruse the site and determine gender but, honestly, I don’t give a squirt of shit.

WBIR:

Tennessee puppy mill raided

The McNairy County Humane Society has seized 32 dogs from what officials describe as a “puppy mill.”

My first thought was: The Humane Society can conduct raids? I was relieved to discover that’s probably not what happened.

The animals — of several breeds — were seized at a Bethel Springs home. Sheriff’s officials say the owner, Melvin Russom, was arrested on animal cruelty charges.

Another case of police committing puppycide.

Heh.

Dunno if you’ve ever watched the show but it’s good. Anyway, he says of politically incorrect dog bans:

Ontario’s pit bull ban is an unfair law based on ignorance – because getting rid of a breed of dog doesn’t get rid of the problem, says celebrity dog trainer Cesar Millan.

Millan, known as the Dog Whisperer for his uncanny ability to solve canine behavioural problems, was in Toronto this week promoting his National Geographic Channel show and the recent DVD release of the first season’s episodes.

“In the United States, in the ’70s, they did the same thing to the Doberman. In the ’80s they did it to the German shepherd, in the ’90s they did it to the Rottweiler, and now they’re doing it to the pit bull,” he says.

“So whatever dog is in fashion, people are going to blame them for things.”

Sounds like he’s been reading me.

To do something (anything!) about puppy mills, TN is looking to tax dog food:

Cat and dog food would be subject to a $2.00 per-ton tax to help defray costs of stricter enforcement against puppy mills under a bill passed by the Senate Wednesday.

The measure sponsored by Sen. Curtis Person would increase the penalties for people selling more than 25 dogs or cats without a license.

The bill would close what the Memphis Republican called a loophole that exempts breeders who sell directly to consumers.

Police, it seems, are killing more and more family pets. Radley details a couple of incidents. One that rather frightened me:

The three officers chasing a suspect “acted in reckless and callous disregard for the constitutional rights” of Cynthia Peters and Mark Parr when they shot the couple’s 1 ½-year-old pit bull Blu on July 27, 2005, according to the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Blu was in the couple’s fenced yard on Sixth Street when the officers opened the gate to pursue a suspect, then shot the dog 11 times with pistols and a shotgun. When Parr ran up and asked the officers, “Why’d you shoot my dog?” police “pointed their guns at him, kicked and punched him and threw him to the ground,” the suit said.

Seriously? That is beyond reason to willfully shoot a family pet with such fanatical zeal. Then to threaten the family? That is inexcusable. I’d have put 11 rounds in someone myself.

Pics of a savage dog attack.

To KPCL because this is the first time I’ve ever known a reporter to look at both sides with respect to pit bulls:

Despite how you may feel about the American pit bull terrier, you may be surprised to find out that the breed is given more than an 83 % passing rate by the American Temperament Test Society. That is a group that tests how aggressive certain kinds of dogs are. Pit bulls were found to be less aggressive than the popular border collie.

7 News found some warnings about pit bulls, even on a pro-pit bull web site. The warnings included such things as never trusting your pit bull not to fight with other animals, always supervise your dog with small children, and that it is important to start socializing pit bulls while they are still very young. 7 News also found that pit bulls are often used as narcotic and bomb sniffing dogs, as well as in search and rescue efforts.

Pit bull advocates all seem to agree that it is important to punish the “deed, not the breed.” Others feel pit bulls are such naturally powerful animals, they are just too risky to have in neighborhoods.

The Boston Channel:

A Foxborough man was arrested and charged Wednesday after shooting his neighbor’s Siberian husky dog, Kato.

[feel good info about the dog and its owners snipped]

Wednesday, Kato wandered to East Street where Frederick Grossmith, 48, lives. He said Kato and his own dog started fighting and, he told police, when he tried to break them up, Kato bit him. He then got his gun and shot Kato in the head.

[feel good info about the dog and its owners snipped]

Grossmith called 911 and EMT’s treated him for minor dog bites. He is not known as animal hater. He owns the most recognizable herd of animals in Foxborough. Now, however, he’s been charged with animal cruelty and weapons violations. He was arraigned in Wrentham District Court Wednesday and the judge ordered him to stay away from Kato’s family. Police confiscated all his weapons.

If the facts are as presented (and I think they are since he was treated for dog bites), why was he arrested, charged and why were his guns taken? And what are these weapons violations? I’m as dog-friendly as they get but an unrestrained, wondering animal is potentially dangerous. If that animal is not on its own property and is fighting other dogs, I think said action is justified.

Via Brittney, Claire Suddath looks at the Pit Bull ban.

I’m used to seeing hysteria and stupidity regarding breed bans but there usually in some far off land like California or Canada. That all changed today when it landed in my state. Brittney tells us that Pit Bulls have been banned in Nashville dog parks:

Citing safety concerns, the Metro Parks Board on Tuesday banned pit bulls from the city’s three off-the-leash dog parks. The new rule will be effective April 15.

The board passed the ban after hearing testimony from two Nashvillians who have had violent run-ins with the dogs in Metro Parks, including Lt. George Mitchell, who heads the Park Police and was bitten on the arm by a leashed pit bull in Centennial Park last September.

West Nashville resident Ellen Cox also urged approval of the ban, citing $211 in veterinarian expenses she faced after a pit bull attacked her dog at the Shelby Park facility.

The board voted unanimously to ban pit bulls and also “dogs having the characteristic of the pit bull breed,” though the ambiguity in the rule caused concern among board members James Lawson and Lamont Carter that breed owners could have grounds for a legal appeal if cited.

Yes, on the testimony of two people, the city banned dogs based on loosely defined criteria. Criteria so loose, expect trouble and a successful court challenge a la the Alabama Supreme Court decision on the issue. All dogs share well over 99% of their DNA with other dogs (wolves too) and there is, generally, no scientific way to tell breeds apart. So, if you happen to have a particularly bullish looking Boxer, you might get in trouble.

Facts are that all dogs are capable of violence. All dogs are natural killers, including little Fluffy-Wuffy in some 60 year-old cat-rancher’s purse. All dogs have a desire to have their place in the social order spelled out definitively and this leads to dog on dog violence. People seem to forget that they are animals or are just unwilling to accept the fact that little Fifi would dominate you in a minute if given the chance. This is evidenced by Brittney’s update:

One of our videojounalists (sic) went to a Nashville dog park to get some footage and interviews for his piece on this for tonight. While there he witnessed a dog fight. A male Chow attacked a mixed breed. There were no pit bulls at that park.

I don’t really have a lot more to say about it that I’ve not already said before. This week, it’s pit bulls and next week it will be German Shepherds. Remember, the single most telling factor in dog aggression (particularly fatal dog attacks) is the reproductive status of male dogs.

In fact, I’ve had my share of doggie violence lately but it was the result of the one that is politically correct and not the one that looks that certain way.

Additional thoughts: I have never been a fan of off leash parks or taking dogs anywhere off leash. It’s not that I don’t trust my dog, it’s that I don’t trust you or your dog. At these parks, they shouldn’t screen the dogs, they should screen the owners.

I mentioned our inter-dog aggression problems in the past (here and here). What I haven’t told you is we got rid of Politically Correct Dog (PCD). We still have Politically Incorrect Dog (PID). It’s not as bad as it sounds. A while back, the in-laws’ lost their dog due to health problems. They asked if they could borrow PCD for a week or so to help scare off squirrels in their bird feeder and because they’ve always liked PCD. Also, they’d been looking for another dog and hadn’t had much luck. Basically, he went there and never really came back. No big deal, really. He was just 3 miles up the street and we knew he was taken care of.

Last week, the in-laws went out of town and asked that we watch PCD while they were gone. So, Junior is swinging on the play set and I’m pushing her. The dogs are behind me and playing a bit of tug and chase. I wasn’t watching them like I should have been but was focused on swinging my little girl. Then, I hear the sound of them fighting. I go and break it up by grabbing each dog’s collar and pulling them apart. When I get it broken up, PID looks like he’s been beaten half to death. He’s got blood all over him and is limping. I check him out and he otherwise looks fine. Then, I find the problem. I look at PCD and his lip is swollen. I take a closer look and realize his front left canine tooth is sticking directly to the side. He had bled all over PID. Well, crap. Call up the vet and head that way.

Get to the vet, she tells me they’ll have to put him under and extract the tooth. She seems mostly unconcerned about it. I tell her to go ahead and ask if, while he’s under, they could trim his nails while they’re at it. A couple hours’ later, they call. They tell me his other canine tooth is gone as well. I, finding it odd that he’d lose two teeth, ask if he’s having gum or tooth troubles that would have lead to that. She says both were done today and the dogs probably bit each other’s mouths at the same time.

Now, of course, the in-laws are upset with PID because, well, he looks a certain way. Our dog aggression troubles pre-date PID’s existence. PCD has a long history of dog aggression with random dogs he’s been in contact with. Unfortunately for him, PID don’t play like that. PID fights back and, frankly, at eight years old, PCD isn’t exactly a spring chicken in his doggie dominance prime. It’s a hard lesson and maybe he learned it this time while he’s eating his soft canned dog food until his mouth heals.

Apparently, California wants to outlaw dogs acting like, well, dogs.

I generally share this sentiment seen at LeanLeft:

Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that I am a friend to the creatures of the earth when I am not busy eating them or wearing them.

Though I would add that I also like when they warm my ass on the heated leather seats in the truck and when I get cozy on my leather couch, love seat and recliner. I am otherwise animal friendly. But there’s not a day that goes by where I don’t contemplate taking out one of my neighbor’s dogs. Not that I would ever act on that, of course. They have three dogs and two of them are not very well-behaved. Those two are a couple of large Labradors. They have dug holes under my fence, which is adjacent to their fence. They have destroyed several pickets on my fence. One day, the got in our yard when I wasn’t home and made their merry way through our dog door. Our neighbor, being the mindful person he is, took care of those issues by putting a small electric fence at the base of his wooden fence. No problems since.

But the latest is the constant barking. All day long. They’re not barking at anything in particular, rather they just sit in the yard staring at each other and barking. And when I go into my backyard to let Junior play on the swing set, slide, monkey bars, sand box, rock wall contraption, they bark at us constantly. I’ve taken to leaving the hose in the backyard on and, when they commence barking, I give them a good soak. They even bark at Politically Incorrect Dog, who has the sense to ignore them.

They’re also quite nefarious about it. See, when my neighbor is home, they don’t bark because they know he (being the mindful sort he is) will stop them. But when he leaves for work, they start. I’m at a loss. I figure the hose beats calling animal control. Sure, the hose may annoy my neighbor if he sees me do it but calling animal control would really strain the neighbor relationship. He’s a good guy and I wouldn’t do that, just like I wouldn’t actually take his dogs out no matter how much they interfere with my enjoyment of my property.

Aunt B. thinks she has mutant foxes over in Nashville way. Or coyotes. West and North Knoxville have been experiencing problems with coyotes recently. In fact, one night a friend’s two dogs (one very small and one medium sized) got out of the fence and went wandering. The little dog didn’t come back and the medium dog returned and for a few weeks kinda twitched funny. Another friend heard a few yipping on his property and both barrels of his 12 gauge scared them off.

They seem to be coming around more often and have lost their fear of people. That’s probably because people aren’t inclined to shoot them on sight any more. To keep them away, any large dog would work. ‘Yotes are opportunists and not suicidal. Any dog that weighs considerably more than them (such as an 80lb Labrador) will probably dissuade them from hanging out too much. And, of course, a good varmint gun would take care of them too.

In the past, I’d see articles like this screed against how certain dog breeds are just evil and I’d feel inclined to comment about the inherent stupidity of the person who wrote it and how they’re selective with the facts and how their personal tale of tragedy impairs their objectivity. Now, I just don’t give a fuck. Sure, I still like to blog. Sure, I still oppose breed specific laws. Just don’t feel the need to comment but felt the need to comment on the fact that I don’t feel the need to comment. Weird, huh?

Am I burnt out? Uncaring? Or is it because I’ve addressed it all before? Not sure. I think it’s the realization that the people are fed lies and misinformation every day from supposedly credible news sources and there’s really not a lot I can do about it. So, there you have it.

No, really:

Rufus cuddled up beside the couch, ready for a good nap. Belly full from his favorite steak dinner and tuckered out from a romp around the house, he put down the head that has become the signature of dogdom in America.

“He’s a wonderful pet,” owner Barbara Bishop cooed. “My grandson used to sleep with him in the crate.”

But in some parts of the country, dogs that look like this Best in Show winner are seized, muzzled and in some cases, destroyed.

Cities in about 20 states have either enacted or are trying to pass “BSL,” short for breed specific legislation designed to control certain types of dogs that are deemed dangerous.

Pit bulls and pit bull mixes are the main target of such laws and ordinances, along with American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers – part of the so-called “bully” breeds, with stout bodies and distinctive heads. Owners can be fined and even jailed.

Rufus is a colored bull terrier, the same breed that spawned Spuds McKenzie and the Target store mascot. Nearly 6, he won Best in Show at the Westminster Kennel Club show this week, thanks to a perfect, egg-shaped noggin the size of a football.

Tan and white, Rufus also is a marked dog because some of the BSL includes references to dogs that have similar physical traits as the outlawed breeds.

“There are places we won’t go because of the BSL,” Bishop said Thursday from her home in Holmdel, N.J. “You just don’t know what might happen.”

Aunt B. cracked a joke about that the other day.

By the way, why are dog shows covered in the sports section? That’s like making modeling a sport.

Aunt B.:

Ferocious Pit Bull Kills Everyone at the Westminster

Oh, wait, no.

He won Best in Show. Too bad breed specific legislation will keep him out of Denver.

Heh. Mark my words, this breed is about to hit the shitter. The worst thing for any breed of dog is to be popular. Bull Terriers have their history in dog fighting (in fact, most say that’s where the American Pit Bull Terrier gets its dog aggression as it is thought to be the result of breeding bull terriers with English bulldogs – the real kind of English bulldogs and not those squatty freaks of nature we call English bulldogs today). Expect increases in dog bites reported from this breed, an increase in rescue dogs of this kind, and an increase in price.

BTW, I’m not one for dog shows based on appearance. I don’t really think breeding based on appearance is good for breeds of dog. In fact, it’s usually quite bad for the breed as a whole (look at English Bulldogs if you want to know why). But, I don’t mind dog competition. I’m more an Iron Dog sort of guy myself.

Winner of the Iron Dog: Did protection work, competed in hardest hit, ran a 50 yd dash, pulled 50 times its body weight, was airborne for 20 minutes hanging on to a 2X4 with its teeth, had a tug of war with a comparable dog, and ended with a nice 12 mile run.

Winner of Westminster: Looked pretty, got brushed.

I thought Mrs. Wigglebottom was a cat. Aunt B. on Kathy McIntyre’s publishing the names and addresses of pit bulls (which I discussed here):

No, I’m not going to run out and buy a gun. Yes, I will continue to be ill-at-ease about guns. But, god damn if Say Uncle doesn’t remind me of the importance of… well, fuck me, boys, I don’t even know what you call yourselves… guns-rights-advocates (?) and the necessity of throwing props their way every once in a while.

Why, you may ask, am I moved to cheer for guns-rights-advocates? Because when it comes to the silliness and offensiveness of trying to shame people into “proper” behavior, they get it.

I prefer to be called gun nut.

Kathy McIntyre, of some paper I’ve never heard of, published the names and addresses of 24 pit bull owners in a newspaper for Commerce City, Colorado. Her lame ass reason was for the greater good of the community. Never mind that, like the time the Cleveland Plain Dealer published names of carry permit holders, it’s an unnecessary privacy violation. She assumed that people who owned such dogs were a threat and should be embarrassed or acknowledged so as to be ridiculed, apparently. It also could give some folks the view that the paper is encouraging vigilantism. Blogger Andrea Weckerle recommends that you contact her via the address at the Metro North Chamber.

Well, here’s the address of a real threat to the community:

At work:
Kathy McIntyre
Commerce City Gateway
PO Box 88
Commerce City, CO 80037
(720) 221-7352
(720) 221-7352
kathy@coloradobusinessalliance.com

I also have her home address, phone number, a map to her house, a picture of her house, and know her husband’s first name. I could publish all that but that would make me a dick. Man, Al Gore’s Internets are a scary place.

In Cali, Bay City News:

More than three months have passed since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill allowing local governments to regulate the neutering, spaying and breeding of specific dog breeds, but it was only Thursday that the law took effect.

Senate Bill 861, authored by state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo/San Francisco, would have become effective on Jan. 1, but a referendum drive to overturn the law left it in limbo.

However, the referendum petition failed to garner the 373,000 signatures needed to overturn SB 861, and the bill went into effect today, Speier’s staff director Richard Steffen said.

The “bill allows cities and counties to pass specified breed-specific legislation for mandatory spaying and neutering, and breeding restrictions,” according to California state Senate floor analysis.

It’s now OK to pass ineffective laws to deal with irresponsible pet owners. I guess Cali is no longer not a wholly evil place.

A letter to the editor from Adam Goldfarb of the Humane Society concludes with:

If Lincoln County wants to be a safer place, then thoughtful, non-breed specific legislation should be enacted and enforced. Such legislation would address responsible pet care and severely punish irresponsible owners, as well as provide local animal control with the power and funding to enforce such laws. Breed bans are ineffective and expensive and will not curtail the problems caused by dangerous dogs.

Via Brutal Hugs, comes this Slate comparison of Dogs and guns:

In a span of decades, we bred ferocity into Dobermans and then, with equal deliberateness, bred it out. We treated dogs like guns. We designed and bought them for protection, then complained when they hurt us. When cities banned pit bulls, we bought Rottweilers. It was as easy as replacing an illegal assault weapon with a legal one.

I’ve been saying that for years. Read the whole thing entitled FrankenFido Our creepiest genetic invention, the dog for a good history on how dogs are basically our first genetic experiment and how humans have sort of screwed dogs up.

I have been having some inter-dog aggression issues among my politically incorrect dog and my politically correct dog. As a result, we decided to take PCD to the doggie psychologist. I made my predictions about what I thought they would say here. I was largely correct but it was good for my recommendations to be affirmed by a professional.

What surprised me about the visit was that the neurologist didn’t seem to know a lot about my particular breed of dog, the American Bulldog. She stated that she was concerned because he’s genetically programmed to fight other dogs to the death. I then stated that she has him mistaken with the Pit Bull Terrier, which was bred for that purpose by (according to some) crossing American Bulldogs with Bull Terriers. Bull Terriers are also noted for fighting. Further, she recommended that a good family dog based on research was the Golden Retriever. I kept my mouth shut even though I knew that Pit Bull Terriers score better on temperament tests than Golden Retrievers.

The behaviorist person basically affirmed what I had said. She recommended that we keep dogs and the baby separate when we’re not capable of close supervision (duh, like we didn’t know that). She also said that the other changes we had made (restricting treats, food, etc.) were good (again, duh). But, and here’s where it paid off, she stated we should implement a policy of Nothing In Life Is Free. In other words, for the dogs to eat, go through a door, get attention or nearly anything, they must perform a command (most notably sit). Excellent idea. And, of course, regular obedience training, which we’ve been slacking on lately with the new baby.

Another interesting thing that she stated (and which really seemed to work in one day) was an attitude of aloofness. Given my dog obedience background, I’m inclined to correct behavior by essentially asserting dominance. A glance and a sharp No is my method, generally, for correcting behavior. But this aloofness thing works. The concept basically is that as long as the dog is engaging in inappropriate behavior, you act completely uninterested. Even to the point of getting up and leaving the area. Apparently, this aloofness thing is what alpha wolves engage in to keep the pack in line. It shows confidence and calm. For example, when the dog wants affection and comes up and nudges, I would have, in the past, said No. And later invited the dog back on my terms. Under the new method, such nudging isn’t even acknowledged. At all. Just ignored while you act interested in something else. And it works very well. A nudge by PCD that I ignored turned into a brief bit of anxiety on his part. However, he soon came up to me and sat patiently, wherein he was rewarded with a head scratch.

The point to all this is that as your life changes, you must expect the way you interact with dogs to change. In our single days, it was OK for the dogs to be a bit rambunctious and playful. Or for them to lounge on the couch with us. Now that they (at 75 pounds each) have toddler they can knock over or hurt, things must change. And as the dogs get older, they change too. PID as a pup was never concerned with dominance. Now, he is and that must be corrected.

Now, PID and PCD are on an 8 week program.

I posted the follow up to my Dog Psychologist predictions over at No Silence Here.

Believe it or not, I know a little bit about dogs. It’s true. I used to train police dogs when I was a teenager. But the Mrs. needs a second opinion, apparently. Lately, Politically Incorrect Dog has gotten older, we’re experiencing the changing of the guard wherein PID is asserting his dominance over Politically Correct Dog. Out with the old and all that.

There have been a few tussles between the two and, given the types of dogs I have, the result is predictable. A couple of weeks ago we had to take PCD to the vet because PID had torn the muscle in PCD’s leg. These fights have a few common characteristics, the primary one being that they don’t occur when I’m around. See, I am the alpha dog. All is calm and kosher because I rule the roost. However, the Mrs. often mistakes certain dominance displays as affection, such as when PCD comes and parks his ass on her without permission or when he hops up on the couch without permission. And staring at her which she interprets as looking lovingly into her eyes. And nudging her when he wants affection. Another factor is food. PCD is a chow hound. He’ll do just about anything for a treat. PCD, who has realized mostly that he’s no longer the dominant dog, tends to assert himself when food is in play.

My solution, no more treats unless they’re separated. Not allowed on furniture. Immediate corrections for nudging or sitting in laps without permission. Because, and this gets back to PCD’s growing up getting affection that way, this is interpreted by PID as a dominance display. As such, once PCD displays these behaviors, PID begins staring at PCD. Any flinch, and it’s on.

Now, don’t misunderstand me to be saying this is PCD’s fault. It’s got more to do with PID and his dominant nature. He has a tendency to be direct to both animals and people who do not (or in the case of some dogs can not) assert dominance. In other words, he (being a dog) is stating If you don’t assert your dominance, I’ll assert mine. He does this in generally non-aggressive ways, such as he follows them around, attempts to get them to play, takes food and treats, etc.

As a result of this, we pondered getting rid of one of the dogs out of fear that PID would seriously hurt PCD. We opted not to because I can’t be without PID and the Mrs. can’t part with PCD. It’s true, we each have our own dog and even the dogs seem to realize it. So, today, we’re going to a Dog Psychologist. Seriously. Actually, this person is a vet neurologist and behaviorist. I have a feeling this person will basically offer as a solution what I already know. I hope, at least, she convinced the Mrs.

My Google News Alert for pit bull sent me the headline that read York, PA Farmer Attacked by Pit Bull. Trouble is, when you go to the story, the farmer was actually attacked by a bull.

I’m used to the bad press that pit bulls get but I was shocked to see one started a fire:

The pit bull named Satchel climbed on top of the stove Thursday and turned on a burner by stepping on a push-button control, said the dog’s owner, Josh Larson. The burner ignited something plastic on the stove top.

More like an insult to pit bulls:

A Florida law firm’s television advertisement featuring a pit bull, a dog breed known for its aggression, is misleading and an affront to the legal profession, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

I particularly like this;

The advertisements “demean all lawyers and thereby harm both the legal profession and the public’s trust and confidence in our system of justice,” Chief Justice Barbara Pariente scolded a unanimous decision.

Err, last I checked, there wasn’t much public trust and confidence in our system of justice.

Update: Xrlq is in snark mode.

Xrlq alerts us to a petition to end the pending doggie racism in San Fran.

Media overstate pit bull dangers:

It seems that the Register attempted to yet again blame the breed for this “mauling” which looked like nothing more than a bite to the mail carrier’s hand and arm. In no way am I stating that this attack isn’t important, painful or dangerous, however it shouldn’t be called a “mauling.” It was a dog bite and those happen often with all breeds. However, pit bulls are the only ones that are really reported on.

Yesterday, in reference to an old pic I posted of Politically Incorrect Dog, Tom asked:

Dude, you don’t have a newer picture than that?

Turns out, I don’t have many. I was perusing through our picture files for dog pics and lately we’ve not taken many. However, we have no less than 11,000 pics of the baby. When it comes to pictures, it seems new baby trumps dog.

But here’s one:

Notice the Christmas tree in the background? Yesterday’s pic in the sombrero was actually taken this week. This one, a year ago.

A ban on politically incorrect dogs:

City supervisors passed a new set of laws requiring spaying and neutering of pit bulls five months after the fatal mauling of a 12-year-old boy by his family’s pit bulls.

Tuesday’s decision came in the face of a threat of a ballot initiative to overturn a tough new state dog law. It is the latest move in the contentious debate about how to regulate pit bulls after the death of Nicholas Faibish in June.

“This will serve as a model for other cities in how to responsibly craft laws and policies that deal with dog aggression,” said Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who wrote the ordinances. “We needed to do something.”

Yes, we must do something even if it won’t work or make a bit of difference. Breed specific legislation doesn’t work. People will just find another breed.

Dufty said that over the next two to three years, the rules will reduce the number of pit bulls in the hands of irresponsible owners.

They’ll just switch breeds.

The ordinances also require city permits to breed pit bulls and prohibit owners of pit bulls or pit bull mixes from retrieving impounded dogs unless the animals are sterilized.

Owners who refuse to spaying or neutering would face fines of up to $1,000. Breeders of show dogs recognized by a kennel club would be exempt. The ordinances are scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

There are quite a few unethical show dog breeders, puppy mills come to mind.

That’s not a bulldog, this is a bulldog:

Update: Fine, here’s a bulldog in a sombrero. Actually, it’s a sun hat but don’t tell him. He gets defensive when we dress him like a girl:

This story about a 520lb wild hog is amazing. Couple lessons to take away: A 22-250 is not an adequate farm gun and farmers need politically incorrect dogs.

The pit bull law in Canada has left officials pondering how to pay for enforcement:

An Ontario law that targets dangerous dogs could take a $100,000 bite out of London taxpayers.

The new law, which takes effect in February, has municipalities across the province scrambling to estimate its potential cost to local property tax owners.

I tend to doubt, as has happened before, that it’s worth the cost.

Seen at Ravenwood, in California they will restrict felons from owning dogs. This comes complete with registration, safe storage, waiting periods and the whole anti-gun wish list:

The Contra Costa County board of supervisors unanimously supported on Tuesday prohibiting convicted felons from owning any dog that is aggressive or weighs more than 20 pounds, making it all but certain the proposal will become law when it formally comes before the board for approval Nov. 15.

The proposal would also for the first time require people with dogs deemed potentially dangerous to apply for a permit to keep their dog and to abide by certain rules. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier said his desire to do something about dangerous dogs was galvanized by the March 29 mauling of 11-year-old JaQuan Rice Jr., as the boy walked near his home in Concord.

We must do something, anything for appearance. Even if it’s the wrong thing.

I’m not a cat person. Never have been. Here’s why:

I don’t like to keep a box of turds in my house.

Also, if you point at something, a dog will look. The cat will sniff your finger.

Dogs will bark at intruders, cats will show them where your bedroom is.

Dogs come when you call them. Cats look at you like you’re an idiot.

Dogs can be house broken. Cats will always go in your house, though it’s usually (but not always) in a box.

And cat piss ruins anything it touches.

Tom and I don’t agree on much but we do agree that cats suck.

Update: And A University of Missouri-Columbia study says that having a dog can help people get more exercise and lose weight.

Looks like Upper Marlboro, MD is looking to repeal its ban on politically incorrect dogs:

“Public policy should make sense,” said Councilman Thomas R. Hendershot. “It shouldn’t be overly expensive, and it ought to be fair. The pit bull ban is none of the above.”

The county captures and boards about 1,000 pit bulls annually, euthanizing about 800. That has cost about $600,000 over the past two years, according to a recent audit.

Hendershot’s bill defines a “potentially dangerous dog” as one that injures, aggressively provokes or chases a person or domestic animal or is impounded by the county at least twice in a year. He plans to introduce the bill as soon as this week.

A task force commissioned to review the ban recommended the repeal, suggesting the law be replaced with one that does not specify a breed.

That’s pricey for ineffective feel good, legislation.

I’ve yammered in the past about how some insurance companies won’t insure politically correct dogs or at least jack the rates up. Reader Corey emails these links:

Bank rate has a list of 11 dogs that could raise your insurance.

Paw-rescue discusses the issue and lists insurance companies that are dog friendly:

Here are some companies that pet owners report are dog-friendly and tend not to discriminate by breed: State Farm, Farmers Insurance Group, Travelers, Liberty Mutual, United Services Automobile Association, Erie, Fireman-s Fund, Kemper, Chubb Group, Allstate and Safeco Corp.

And the American Veterinary Medical Association has a tale of an insurance company dropping a customer over their dog.

A while back, I learned that state law in California prohibited laws regarding dogs based on breed specific legislation. I opined that California is not a wholly evil place. Now, I’m not so sure:

Prompted by a series of vicious dog attacks, lawmakers on Wednesday sent the governor a bill that would allow local governments to require spaying and neutering of specific breeds.

The Senate voted 22-15 to approve Assembly amendments to the bill by Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, sending it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Speier called the proposal a modest bill that would restore powers held by cities and counties 16 years ago. Spaying or neutering would reduce the aggressiveness of the animals and help limit unwanted populations that end up in animal shelters, she said.

Not sure if he’ll sign it, of course, but I’d guess he will. I wonder if this law will also allow other breed specific laws? In other news, arm the pit bulls.

Challenges to Canada’s politically incorrect dog ban are expected because defining what is and isn’t a pit bull is, well, impossible.

Canadian dog owners plan to defy Ontario’s politically incorrect dog ban:

Pit bull owners remain defiant as a pit bull ban comes into effect across Ontario today — the first such province-wide ban in Canada.

Pit bull owners now have 60 days to get their animals spayed or neutered, and must muzzle and leash them in public.

People will not be able to own, breed, import, transfer or purchase pit bulls, although they can still adopt them for a limited time.

Those violating the rules can end up with their pets seized and euthanized, while they could face finds of up to $10,000 or even jail time.

However animal advocates fear hundreds of adult and puppy pit bulls may now be euthanized and candlelight vigils were held across Canada Sunday night to protest Ontario’s new law.

Jessica Peacock, of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Canada, said many of the problems associated with pit bulls were the fault of their owners.

“Banning an entire breed is not going to solve the problem of responsible dog ownership,” she told CTV’s Canada AM.

There is a challenge to the law because it is too vague.

I’ve often said that dogs are the product of their owners. Irresponsible owners are usually the cause of dog attacks. Case in point:

“These are not normal dogs,” says Tyler Eison, gazing reverently at a litter of seven-week-old pit bull puppies. “I like having very vicious, angry dogs. I’m going to teach them not to like other dogs. I’m going to agitate them, make them aggressive. That way when it’s about business, they are going to be serious.”

As a real estate investor and auto dealer, Eison, 41, values aggression in his dogs for protecting both himself and his property. “My dogs are my pistols,” he says, cracking a gold-tooth smile. “I have my dogs on my property, and I have faith in them. If they’re coming at you, you have to shoot them to kill them.”

Tough people want tough dogs, but if you want a truly vicious dog you have to create it yourself. With his latest litter of three girls and a boy, Eison is trying to re-create a bloodline of fighting dogs he owned 20 years ago (though he insists his fighting days are long over). He’s making a stud dog out of his prized companion Rock, an eerily silent pit bull with a golden brown coat and pink nose. Rock’s first litter was born in early May, and Eison watched its progress daily to see which of the puppies would develop more of their father’s traits.

[snip]

Hoping to turn Rock’s offspring into deadly weapons, Eison started antagonizing them when they were around nine weeks old. One afternoon he held an all-brown puppy by its midsection and for several minutes forced it to lie across the neck of one its sisters, who Eison believes might be the pick of the litter. Eison didn’t think the brown pup was willing enough to play rough, so he decided to force it into a scrum. After a minute or so, its sister became angry and began to growl and bite the brown one’s ears. After the incident the brown puppy cowered under a metallic-blue racing motorcycle Eison keeps in the backyard and peed.

An accident (or worse) waiting to happen. Some people shouldn’t own dogs and this guy is one of them.

Montgomery Adviser:

Montgomery City Councilman Glen Pruitt is considering proposing a city ordinance that would ban the animals from the city limits.

“I want us to be proactive. I don’t want to open the paper and see where a child or senior citizen has been hurt or injured by one of these dogs,” Pruitt said.

He believes this will eliminate many of these issues and improve public safety.

“Seeing some of the things in the paper lately has brought the issue to light,” Pruitt said. “It is something we probably need to address pretty soon.”

Pit bulls often are linked to people involved in illegal activity such as drugs, dog fighting and hog-dog rodeos, in which the dogs chase, catch and brutalize wild hogs for people’s amusement and gaming.

But, you know, let’s not go after people who do those things, let’s go after the dog. And, regarding the wild hogs, it’s called hunting. People do hunt wild hogs with dogs, the dogs do catch them but brutalize is a misleading term.

I do think Glen Pruitt should maybe refer to the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled there is no genetic evidence that one breed of dog is more dangerous than another, based on breed alone.

In Oklahoma:

State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, bit off a mouthful with his announced intention to seek legislation placing restrictions on pit bull terriers this summer. His initial plan was shot down by Attorney General Drew Edmondson who ruled state law currently prohibits breed-specific bans.

Mr. Wesselhoft, a freshman, plans to push ahead and seek legislative approval to give cities the right to discriminate against certain breeds. He proposed the ban after a June attack on a boy by pit bulls in a neighbor’s yard. The 3-year-old’s left arm had to be amputated at the shoulder following the attack.

Mr. Edmondson said the law provides that local government regulations must focus on “dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs instead of specific breeds.”

The owner of the dogs was fined for having too many animals in his yard. Pit bull breeders and animal rights associations have opposed the efforts, saying the proposal is discriminatory. They rallied at the Moore City Council meeting where Mr. Wesselhoft proposed the ban.

We think any such proposal put forth by Mr. Wesselhoft should not be breed-specific legislation and should be altered to include other vicious animals.

I honestly think that’s the first editorial I’ve seen that opposes breed specific legislation. Hats off to The Norman Transcript.

The city of Battle Creek has stripped breed specific language from a dangerous dog bill. Good.

In Indianapolis, pit bull overpopulation is a problem:

Pit bulls were a large portion of the 18,000 dogs and cats euthanized last year in Marion County.

Animal activists argue that pit bulls are only dangerous if they are raised to be.

An effort is under way to control the growing breed that officials said has overpopulated, causing an array of problems.

Christine Jeschke, of Spay-Neuter Services of Indiana, has two missions — control the overpopulation of often mistreated pit bulls, and erase the stereotype of the feared breed.

I would think that general dog overpopulation is a problem in most places. I almost hit two strays this morning.

Nope, no bias here:

A five year old child is recovering at UT Medical Center Tuesday morning after being attacked by two dogs.

The boy was mauled by a pit bull and another dog on Monday, near Englewood in McMinn County.

Tragic event but was there even an effort to determine the breed of the other dog? Not a pit bull, so it’s not important.

In Battle Creek, Michigan there is a proposed pit bull ordinance. Here’s the odd thing:

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wrote a letter to Mayor John Godfrey urging either a pit bull ban or stronger restrictions.

Let me get this straight, PETA is advocating a ban on dogs. PETA is advocating doggie genocide, like what happened in Denver where the police went door-to-door collecting pit bulls so that those dogs would be killed.

More proof the PETArds are a bunch of damn lunatics. Screw ‘em.

James has pics of what is the result of a pit bull vs. porcupine match (pics are not for the squeamish). Somewhere, there is a naked porcupine. James wonders if it’s real. I thought it was possible as bully type dogs aren’t exactly known for giving up.

Jay emails that Snopes says it is real. But it’s a bull terrier.

Cool interview with the author of Bully: It’s the Pits, which is a celebration of everything Pit Bull. Oddly, it ends with:

It got hold of one of his tapes and went crazy. Later that day, his mom went to walk the dog and ended up having to pull 90 minutes of tape out of the dog’s ass.

Here’s a brief summary on state supreme court decisions on breed bans. I knew about the Alabama ruling but not the Ohio ruling:

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in 2002 there is no genetic evidence that one breed of dog is more dangerous than another, based on breed alone.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the state’s pit bull ban was unconstitutional because it denies dog owners their right to due process.

Here’s an article on Denver residents’ efforts to save their dogs:

A few weeks ago, two police cars and two animal control vehicles pulled up at the home of Stef’ny Steffan looking for her beloved 4-year-old pit bull, Xena. Seven officers hauled the animal off to the city shelter, putting her on death row.

Xena became an outlaw after Denver won a court fight and reinstated one of the toughest pit-bull bans in the nation. Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed – an average of more than three a day.

Dog owners are in a panic. Some are using an underground railroad of sorts, sending their pets to live elsewhere or hiding them from authorities. City officials would not estimate how many people might be violating the ordinance.

It also has some interesting stats:

Critics of the ordinance say that a blanket ban on an entire breed is misguided that the law should instead target irresponsible owners and all dangerous dogs.

“If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill – unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen – that’s not based on scientific data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.

The CDC, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States examined 20 years of dog-bite data and concluded that pit bulls and Rottweilers caused the most deaths.

But the researchers also noted that fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog-bite injuries and that the number of bites per breed simply seems to rise with their popularity.

Ravenwood notes that the press isn’t too keen on pointing out that a dog is a pit bull when it’s the dog that’s the victim.

Check out The Daily Dog Watcher.

Actual headline:

Pit bull chases puppy into house

It’s officially beyond sensationalist.

Looks like the police chief in Madison wants to ban Rottweilers and Pit Bulls.

Here’s a decent piece on pit bulls, which notes:

Would you have a pit bull in your home?

For many dog lovers, this question is becoming increasingly difficult to answer. Reports of dogs attacking humans often involve the American pit bull terrier, a strong breed originally bred for human companionship and later for fighting with other dogs. As the pit, which is also called an American Staffordshire terrier, has become more trendy as a guard or protection dog, it has been increasingly misbred for aggressive tendencies, rather than good temperament.

As a society, we’ve seen this happen before. Rottweilers, Dobermans and German shepherds have been labeled the “most dangerous breed” in past decades, mostly due to poor breeding and owners that value having a tough, aggressive dog over having a pet that can fit into the family and the community.

Let’s look at the good news: Pit bulls can be bred and raised to be wonderful dogs. Even dogs that are not well-bred can be good pets in the right household. Do you remember the case last year of former Trail Blazer Qyntel Woods owning and abusing fighting dogs? According to a KGW News report, the two dogs were placed with experienced dog owners — one in the Bend area and one in the Portland area — and have become good family members. The dog in Bend even lives with two cats and does very well.

Most professionals in the animal care field don’t see pit bulls as being more aggressive toward humans than other breeds. In fact, a pit bull that has gone through strict temperament evaluations may be one of the best breeds for a family with small children, because they are sturdy dogs that tolerate a lot of handling, grabbing, and attention without reacting negatively.

An article details how the number of pit bull maulings may be skewed by the breed’s popularity:

But experts disagree about whether pit bulls are inherently more dangerous — or just the latest breed in vogue among irresponsible dog owners.

After all, German shepherds killed more people than any other dog in the late 1970s, when many people favored the breed for its fierce reputation. Then, for two years, it was Great Danes. Rottweilers topped the list of killer dogs through most of the ’90s, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control. Now it’s pit bulls.

Duh. A couple of other smart crackers have been saying that for a while.

Speier’s repeal of doggie protections passed committee:

SACRAMENTO State Senator’s Jackie Speier’s dog law bill passed the Assembly Local Government Committee today on a four-to-two vote.

Current state law prohibits breed specific legislation. But Speier’s bill — S-B 861 — would allow local governments to place restrictions on breeders of certain types of dogs and allow local governments to enact spaying and neutering programs.

The one thing that made me think California wasn’t wholly evil is probably going away.

Gavin Newsom has, for once, conceded that he is not above the law:

This week, state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, introduced a bill that would change state law to allow local governments to enact animal-control laws directed at specific breeds. Speier’s bill doesn’t mention pit bulls explicitly, but given the recent attacks in the Bay Area involving the breed, most people see it as aimed at the squat, square-faced animals.

[snip]

The biggest support for Speier’s proposal comes from San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the senator to craft legislation to make the streets safer from aggressive dogs, and Concord, where in March an 11-year-old boy was seriously injured by a pit bull. On Thursday, San Jose Councilwoman Linda LeZotte said she will ask the full council to support Speier’s legislation.

If these had been gay pit bulls, he would have likely went ahead and passed this legislation regardless of applicable state laws. He seems to be learning his lesson with respect to the law but this time his proposed actions are just stupid (note: I supported his gay marriage decision, despite it breaking the law. I can’t support reactionary stupidity). A child, who was left without parental supervision and who had barricaded in a basement, was killed by the family’s pit bull. The mother has been indicted on felony child abuse. This woman’s irresponsible actions seem to be getting a pass from everyone, while a breed of dog is unjustly taking the heat.

The Christian Science Monitor, which is usually full of crap, has a fairly well-balanced piece on Denver’s pit bull ban:

Even supporters of the ban, such as Councilwoman Boigon, say that the problem does not include all pit bulls. But they note that generations of breeding the animals to be fighters have imbued the dogs with unpredictable violent tendencies.

“This is a strategy we have for managing a breed that is being encouraged to be aggressive,” she says.

The Humane Society of the United States opposes breed-specific bans such as Denver’s because the organization says many factors, including how the dogs are treated, determines violence.

“Breed is one part of what can go into whether a dog will bite,” says spokeswoman Stephanie Shain, “but pulling out that one piece of five or six things just does not make sense.”

Statements by some city officials that indicate pit bulls are favored by drug dealers and gang members have also stirred debate that the ban unfairly targets minority pet owners.

“We hear that a lot,” Kelley said of the racism charge. “We get pit bulls from all over the city. Nobody is targeted. The majority of pit bulls we pick up are a result of people calling us.”

They also note that more than 150 dogs have been put down. These dogs were, in some cases, taken by force from their owners. And Denver also has a Doggie Underground Railroad to get dogs out of the city:

They have passed out flyers and made phone calls to inform dogowners of the rescue network and potential safe houses until dogs can be relocated. If an animal control officer comes to the door before that, owners are urged to ask for a search warrant.

Volunteers estimate they have driven or referred about 20 pit bulls to the Mariah’s Promise Animal Sanctuary, including Zena and Dias’s own pet, Gryffindor.

A good idea: In Frisco, the local Humane Society is paying people $10 to bring their Pit Bulls in to be neutered.

Meanwhile, Xrlq notes another pit bull attack and wagers:

Once again, watch for ample coverage of the fact that the pit bull was a pit bull, and relatively sparse coverage of the fact that the dog had a history of aggressive behavior, and sparser coverage still over whether or not he was neutered (the smart money says he wasn’t).

And, I’ll add, the smart money says the dog wasn’t socialized properly.

Update: Xrlq was correct.

A good article on Pit Bull behavior:

Pit bull’s demeanor depends on who’s holding the leash
Training determines breed’s disposition, animal experts say

The bottom line, she said, is that dogs do what they are genetically designed to do.

“Pit bulls are great with people,” she said. “They’re bred to be aggressive with dogs and other animals.”

Where the situation breaks down is over-breeding and poor handling. Pit bulls tend to be the dog of choice for gang members and methamphetamine addicts, and they proliferate in poor areas, both urban and rural. It can be a lethal mix because, as such, they don’t get the proper care and attention from their owners and they suffer from too much inbreeding, Seraphin said.

Also, I caught a few episodes of that show The Dog Whisperer. People who have problem pets call this guy and he shows them how to deal with those issues. The guy is good. Most episodes I’ve seen show that the number one problem with doggie misbehavin’ is the result of lack of exercise. I highly recommend the show.

SayUncle’s sis: We got a new dog.

SayUncle: Cool, what kind?

SayUncle’s sis: A Chow, Shitzu mix

SayUncle: They use a ladder or a lubricant?

Despite the fact such regulation is illegal, SF authorities, who have a history of acting outside the law, will be discussing the regulation of dangerous dogs.

Good. Dog fighting is a deplorable practice. However, I found it odd that a grand champion pit bull went for $60K. Does it come with a Mercedes?

This game is called Guess who’s lying. A local police officer shot a woman’s dog (which the press dutifully points out is a pit bull mix). The pit bull mix was shot in the head with a .40 caliber handgun, was treated by a vet, and is still alive [Damn, tough dog or weak ammo - Ed.]. So, on to the game:

Blount County Deputy Lt. Patrick England claims:

England was following up a missing child report Sunday, near the Wallace Harris Avenue residence of Sybil Patty, owner of the dog.

According to a report, by deputy Steve Blankenship, England “approached” the front door of Patty’s residence. When she opened the door the dog ran out and she attempted to grab it. England reported the dog ran at him in an aggressive manner, and that he attempted to shove the dog off of him with his hand, but missed.

England also reported that he began to back out of the yard toward the corner of Wallace Harris Avenue and Bramble wood Drive, and that the dog continued to make “aggressive advances” toward him. When the dog was within a short distance, England reported he drew his weapon and fired one round striking the dog in the “top left of the head.”

Versus what the owner and witnesses say:

Witnesses disputed England’s report.

Patty called the dog back, and Petey turned and began walking toward the house, according to Davidson. The officer followed and the dog turned around and barked, and the officer hit him with a flashlight, said Davidson. Patty thought the dog was hit with a stick.

Witnesses are unsure what the dog was hit with, and there is no mention of the dog being struck in Blankenship’s report.

So, England, genius that he his, follows a dog who was dutifully defending his property but told to retreat by its owner. Then, he hits the dog. Not smart. And:

The dog wasn’t closing in on England, according to Davidson and Johnnie Dover, a Howard Jones Road resident who said she saw the shooting. She said that had England stopped and given Patty a chance, she would have gotten the dog back in the house.

Dover didn’t think England would have shot the dog if he wasn’t a pit bull.

“All because he’s got (pit) bulldog in him,” Dover said. “That’s a bunch of bull — all pit bulls aren’t mean.”

You can call the Blount County Sheriff’s Department at (865) 273-5000. Or you can go here and send them an electronic message.

Eric has more on Frisco’s proposed ban on politically incorrect dogs:

I want to address Newsom’s apparent contention that people who own pit bulls don’t “think what’s in their best interests.” I’ve had these dogs since the mid 1970s, and while I’ve perhaps not written enough posts about this issue, it’s because it makes me so sick that the government would try to take my dogs away because someone doesn’t approve of them that I fear I’d be overly redundant and emotional.

I blog about pit bulls and other politically incorrect dogs all the time. Since I have no problem being overly redundant and emotional, let me state that you will get my dog from my cold dead hands.

Kind of funny how the dog ban parallels gun bans, namely the assault weapons ban. We don’t want to ban dogs but want to ban scary looking dogs based on arbitrary criteria (i.e., appearance) since there is no easy way to genetically identify what breed of dog a specific dog is as they share approximately 99% of their genes with other dogs. And pit bull is not actually a breed but rather a type of dog. Don’t believe me? Go here and play a game of find the pit bull.

Eric also links to what he calls Joe Gandelman’s thoughtful post on the issue, which notes:

But common sense would screech out this: if you have a kid, don’t buy a pit bull.

Actually, common sense would dictate that you don’t leave a kid and a dog unattended. Ever. Regardless of dog breed. And when baby is interacting with the dog, it helps to have a camera handy to capture the savage mauling the child will receive:

Some other tales of pit bull viciousness here and here.

The problem with pit bulls is that people who shouldn’t own any dog and are going for the macho, tough look get pit bulls. They then encourage the animals to be aggressive. Or they’re abusive to the animals. The other problem is that they are the preferred breed of drug dealers and people who engage in the horrendous practice of dog fighting. And, of course, people predisposed to keep dogs that are mean are typically not predisposed to obeying the law.

Pit bulls have better than average temperament and, as Xrlq noted, are not represented fairly in the media. In fact, the media even reports when someone is attacked by a dog and the dog is not a pit bull, that the dog is not a pit bull as if to convey surprise.

The similarity between guns and dogs is striking. We must ban mean looking dogs/guns. Dogs/guns are represented with either ignorance or willful deceit in the media as long as the story can scare someone. Laws passed regarding both are reactionary, ineffective, and not well thought out.

Breed specific legislation is ineffective. We need people control, not dog control.

Fortunately for all involved, California code prohibits breed specific legislation. However, the mayor of San Fran, as Xrlq points out, is not above breaking the law.

Update: Hell has frozen over as Tom agrees with Xrlq.