Adams Red White & Blue Kennels

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIERS

BULL SHIT LAWS AND ALERTS

THERE IS SO MANY BSL ALERTS I DECIDED TO DEDICATE A PAGE TO THIS.   I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT UPDATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE  SO CHECK OFTEN FOR  NEW BANS OR ORDINANCES TRYING TO BE PASSED IN YOUR AREA. STAY ACTIVE IN YOUR AREA,WRITE LETTERS, GO TO MEETINGS IF YOU CAN AND BE AWARE OF WHAT MIGHT BE GOING ON IN YOUR CITY OR COUNTY.  JOIN CLUBS AND DONATE TIME AND/OR MONEY TO THE ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE FIGHTING THESE LAWS. 

PETA Kills Animals -- And It's A Felony

Authorities in Ahoskie, North Carolina dropped a disturbing bombshell
yesterday with the news that they had charged two employees of People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with 31 felony counts of
animal cruelty. PETA's Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle were arrested
late Wednesday night after police saw them dump bags containing seven
dead puppi More..es and 11 other dead animals in a grocery store's
dumpster. Their PETA-owned van, seized by police, contained another
13 animal bodies. Ahoskie's police chief told reporters: "We've been
investigating animal cruelty and illegal disposal of dead animals
within our city for the last four weeks" -- roughly the same period
of time in which our popular PetaKillsAnimals.com website and giant
Times Square billboard have been making news.

PETA Norfolk HeadquartersResponding to our website, PETA has claimed
that most of the animals it kills are "broken beings" and that: "[W]e
refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters." But the
dead animals included a female cat and -- according to a local
veterinarian -- her two "very adoptable" kittens. "These were just
kittens we were trying to find homes for," he told PETA's hometown
Virginian-Pilot. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never
made it out of the county."

PETA's Andrew Cook & Adria HinkleThe animal-control officer
responsible for the county where Cook and Hinkle were arrested told
the Associated Press that PETA had picked up the animals just a few
hours earlier. He added that PETA's employees "told him they were
picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would
find them good homes."

Instead, the animals wound up being treated in a decidedly unethical
fashion. This morning the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald began
distributing a grisly photograph showing a police detective in hazmat
garb removing a puppy carcass from a garbage bag found in the now-
infamous dumpster.

Last night WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included breaking heart
details from the manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an
impromptu pet cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started
throwing dogs ... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week
that was pregnant ... last week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's
happened to us nine times ... they drove straight from there,
straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered
more than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to
PETA. WKTR-TV reported today that Cook and Hinkle are out on
bond, "thanks to the President of the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals."

In a story that eerily resembles the current charges facing PETA's
employees, the Associated Press reported on April 8 that an
additional 150 euthanized dogs were found in rural Virginia,
apparently dumped in trash bags near a riverbank. The Scott County,
Virginia Sheriff is investigating.




 

Bogus Ad Placed in Dog Fancy

 Dog Fancy Issued a full page apology in their most recent issue for unknowingly running a PETA ad this summer. The ad read as follows:
 
ABC Puppy Products - Just bought a brand new purebred puppy?  Welcome her/him into your home with a free gift bag!  Call us today at (866) 834- 6061 to claim your bag and hear about our products. 
 
 When the number is called a recording plays informing you that by purchasing a purebred puppy you have sentenced a shelter dog to death. It goes on to say that all animals need to be altered and the only place your future animals should come from is a shelter. ABC is Animal Birth Control, PETA's newest campaign which promotes a "no birth nation" or a country where no animals are ever bred. The free gift bag? You are told to leave your address so PETA can send you a body bag that will represent the shelter animal you killed by buying a purebred puppy.
 
 PETA stood outside of the Westminister dog show this year with signs reading "BREEDERS KILL shelter dogs chances". Looking at their shelter's statistics though, it seems like PETA KILLS shelter animals chances.
 
 How does a group which claims to be for "ethical treatment of animals" justify adopting out only 12 of 3,062 animals in a year, while killing 2,981 of them? According to their official numbers, that is exactly what happened in 2006:
 
Out of the 6,375 cats which came into PETA's shelter  4,410 were reclaimed by their owners. From the unclaimed cats, PETA adopted out 2, transferred 21 to other shelters and killed 1,942.
 
Out of the 3,175 dogs which came into PETA's shelter 2,131 were reclaimed by their owners. From the unclaimed dogs, PETA adopted out 8, transferred 25 to other shelters and 3 were classified as "miscellaneous". 988 of the unclaimed dogs were killed by PETA.
 
 Out of the 86 "other companion animals" which came into PETA's shelter, 34 were reclaimed by their owners. From the unclaimed pets, PETA adopted out 2 and killed 50.
 
 The total for pets taken in was 9,637 with 6,575 lucky enough to have been claimed by their owners. Of the 3,062 unclaimed pets, PETA adopted out only 12, transferred 46, classified 3 as "miscellaneous", had 3 die in the shelter and killed 2,981.
 
 And they did even worse with wildlife taking in 249 live wild animals, release 1 and killing 248.

Judge Lets Pit Bull Bans In 4 Ark. Cities Stand For Now





 

A federal judge says the cities of Beebe, Jacksonville, North Little Rock and Lonoke can continue to enforce their bans on pit bulls for now.

U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes denied a request from a group of dog owners and breeders to temporarily stop the cities from enforcing their bans while the group pursues its federal lawsuit challenging the local ordinances.

Attorney Andrew L. Clark, who represents Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs and four dog owners, said the case is tentatively set for trial December 1.

The suit alleges the ordinances' definitions of prohibited breeds are vague and create an undue burden on dog owners to prove a dog's breed. The suit says the ordinances discriminate against a certain group of people and interfere with due process by allowing property to be seized without notice, a hearing or fair compensation.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that breed-specific ordinances in the four cities violate the Fifth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

M. Schaeffer,RDOWS,Finance Director
Pacific Coast Patterdale Club
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance,NAIA,Pet-PAC
My Dog Votes! NO on Parks for Supervisor!
"First Your House,Then Your Dog,Finally Your Children!"
Vote Like Your Constitutional Rights Depend on it!
They Do!

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH  43229

Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326

Website: www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen.org

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE            Contact: Cory Johnson (614) 888-4868 ext. 214

May 8, 2008                                        Sharon Hayden (614) 888-4868 ext. 226
 

Animal Rights Group Dupes Donors Into Believing It Takes Care of Animals
 

(Columbus) - When regional retailer, Meijer, received pressure from sportsmen to sever ties with the animal rights extremists in the Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS), some questioned why the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) acted to oppose the partnership.

“Most people simply don’t know that the HSUS is actually an animal rights organization that is opposed to any use of animals for the benefit of humans,” said USSA president and CEO Bud Pidgeon.  “The public deserves to know the hidden agenda behind this is to deceive them.”

On April 24, 2008, HSUS, the world’s largest animal rights organization, announced a partnership with Meijer, a regional discount retail chain to raise $5,000 for the organization’s fund to address the purported problem of abandoned pets as a result of the national home foreclosure crisis.

The USSA, a national organization founded to protect the rights of sportsmen, responded with an alert asking hunters to contact the retailer to protest the partnership.  Meijer quickly responded by canceling the arrangement.  Since that time, some animal welfare activists have questioned why USSA would oppose a partnership alleged to benefit pets.

The Washington DC-based HSUS, raised $100 million dollars according to its 2006 IRS filing.  Despite a name that seems tailor made to animal shelters, HSUS is in fact an animal rights organization.  Its main function is to change laws that permit Americans to gain any benefit from animals.  It advocates for restrictions on livestock farmers, bans on life-saving medical research performed on animals and opposes zoos, circuses and rodeos.  Of course HSUS also opposes hunting.  The HSUS does not operate or represent the local dog and cat shelters that exist across the United States.

“With a name like the Humane Society of the United States, it’s easy to see why some people believe that there is a connection between it and local animal shelters, which struggle every year to make ends meet,” explained Pidgeon.  “HSUS spends the bulk of its money on making contributions to politicians, lobbying, lawyers and expensive 30-second advertisements to promote voter issues aimed at banning various uses of animals.”

The Humane Society uses campaigns, such as the Meijer campaign, as a public relations tool to help it raise its $100 million dollar war chest for its animal rights crusade.  Evidence of this is contained within its leadership.  Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the organization, is the former executive director of the Fund for Animals, which was the nation’s leading anti-hunting group.  Upon accepting the executive job at HSUS, Pacelle announced a merger with the Fund for Animals and quickly hired its most ardent hunting opponents as his top management staff.

The HSUS then swallowed several anti-livestock organizations, hiring their leadership as well.  Its takeover of the Doris Day Animal League has given it access to Hollywood dollars, previously the home turf of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Unlike PETA, however, Pacelle and HSUS are not interested in making a large public relations spectacle using naked models or making outrageous statements comparing the Holocaust to the slaughter of chickens.  Instead, HSUS has launched a series of campaigns that put it in a positive light with animal lovers in general.

Such was the case in 2005, when HSUS created a fund to aid animals stranded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  Later, the Louisiana Attorney General’s office launched an investigation of HSUS when allegations surfaced that the money never made it to the pets in need.

In 2007 it launched a campaign to address the issue of so-called “puppy mills,” abusive large-scale commercial dog breeding operations.  Using sentimental images of suffering puppies, the organization is backing legislation in Pennsylvania that would devastate small hobby breeders, dog show kennels and sporting dog enthusiasts.  The legislation is so radical that it has been opposed by the American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club and even dog rescue shelters in the state.

“Taking advantage of the American people’s love for their pets, HSUS is able to deceive donors and the public into believing that the organization is in the mainstream of American values,” said Pidgeon.  “It is this mainstream image that allows HSUS to raise its 100 million dollar budget to take our hunting and fishing rights away.  At the same time, by deceiving animal lovers, HSUS robs financially strapped dog and cat shelters of critical funds needed to actually look after abandoned and abused pets.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance recommends that people who want to help real animal shelters give to their local shelter organizations.

“Some animal rights groups masquerade as pet shelters, so donating to a local organization gives the contributor the opportunity to determine how their funds will actually be spent,” said Pidgeon.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs.  For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website,
www.ussportsmen.org.

 

PETA CALLS FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF ALL PIT BULLS
In June 2005 Newkirk published her position on Pit Bulls. Her title: "An Animal Deadly as a Weapon"
"Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

"Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls.

"Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive.

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pit- bull breeding. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note." 1

Not only does Newkirk support the wholesale extinction of Pit Bulls, she goes to extraordinary measures to seal their deaths. For example, in 2001 PETA wrote a letter asking an Alabama judge to exterminate 32 pit bulls confiscated after their owners were arrested for dog fighting. In the end, the court ordered 28 dogs destroyed but held that 4 Pit Bull puppies could be adopted because they were 'not lacking any useful purpose' or 'vicious' as PETA claimed. 1

PETA supports BSL or breed specific legislation. 1 BSL permits an entire breed to be designated as 'dangerous' such as in Denver, Colorado where Pit Bulls and their look-alikes are killed if not removed from the State. 1 See our arguments against SB861, BSL which passed in California August, 2005 : 1 2


 

 

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Roger Schnyer 501-676-7582

501-590-3668

 

DATE: 12/27/07

 

HEADLINE: Lonoke, Beebe, Jacksonville, North Little Rock Named in Federal Lawsuit

 

BODY:

Roger Schnyer, Chairman of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc., (ROADS, Inc.) reports that attorney Andrew Clark filed a lawsuit today in the United States District Court (Eastern District )  against the cities of Beebe, Jacksonville, Lonoke and North Little Rock on behalf of their members who have been directly harmed as  a consequence to the passage by these cities of breed specific dog ordinances. 

 

Mr. Schnyer says, "ROADS Inc. alleges in their complaint that the breed specific dog ordinances in those cities, and other jurisdictions in Arkansas are discriminatory and therefor are in violation of Constitutional rights."

 

The complaint seeks to have the ordinances declared void. The complaint further seeks  to recover monetary damages for it's members who have been harmed by the enforcement of the alleged unconstitutional laws.  

 

ROADS, Inc.'s member's dogs have been seized without warrants, micro-chipped and neutered and/or spayed, even killed,  against the pet owners wishes, and at the pet owner's expense. In some instances after the pets were forcibly neutered, micro-chipped and the owners fined, they were then ordered to remove the pet from the city in which they reside. 

 

ROADS Inc. will file a petition with the Court for a temporary injunction to prohibit any further enforcement of the breed specific dog ordinances pending the outcome of the trial.  Roger Schnyer, chairman of  ROADS Inc. says,"We expect a speedy trial as the problem of  Breed Specific bans/restrictions affects owners of more than 75 different breeds of dogs in various jurisdictions both within the state of Arkansas and throughout the nation."

 

Roger C. Schnyer

Chairman, Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs  Inc.

P.O. Box 18

Lonoke Ar 72086

cajun9@sbcglobal.net

http://roadsinc.org

PRESS RELEASE ~ PRESS RELEASE ~ PRESS RELEASE
RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF ARKANSAS DOGS, Inc.
Roger Schnyer, Chairman
P.O. Box 18
Lonoke Arkansas, 72086
phone (501-676-7582)
SEPTEMBER  16, 2007
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADs) has incorporated, and set up a bank account with the purpose of posing a legal challenge to the Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances in Federal Court.  The attorney Andrew Clark of the firm Clark and Byarley has been retained to try the cases. Mr. Clark is preparing the cases, and will file the suits in Federal Court on our behalf, and will seek immediate injunctive relief for our plaintiffs who reside in Beebe, Lonoke, and Jacksonville. We expect that the cases will be filed the week of September 17th. 
The American Canine Foundation is lending its experience, and its body of case law to our challenge.  Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin will be among the expert witnesses, his testimony is invaluable to our case.  This team has been the most successful in prevailing in legal challenges against breed specific ordinances, and legislation since its inception in the United States. 
We know that other cities in Arkansas have enacted breed specific ordinances, too.  We just do not have the financial means to include all of them in our suits. When we prevail, it will automatically cause the other cities to have to repeal their breed specific ordinances.
Breed specific dog ordinances violate not only Constitutional rights, they violate civil rights. They are based upon discrimination, that discrimination is directed at the dog owner through his/her choice of dog.  They also violate a person's right to be innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law. Breed specific dog ordinances remove American citizen's rights to due process. They also violate property rights. Breed specific dog ordinances take away the burden of proof being with the accuser, and placing it solely upon the accused. These are violations upon the most basic principles of American law.
Dog owners in Beebe, Jacksonville, and Lonoke Arkansas are having their dogs confiscated, and killed by animal control based solely upon the dog's physical appearance.  They are under the immediate threat of the loss of their dogs. Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc., needs your generous help in our fight to overturn Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances. ROADs, Inc., does not profit from your donations. Legal challenges are expensive. We must bring in expert witnesses, and we must pay all filing fees, and attorney fees. The American Dog Breeders Association has agreed to match funds up to $5,000.00. Please help us protect your animal ownership, and animal husbandry rights.  We fight for your right to responsibly own any dog. 
                                                                                      
                                                                                            Please make your checks payable to:
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.
and mail to;
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.
C/O Arvest Bank P.O. Box 57
Cabot Arkansas 72023
Or donate by PayPal
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs Inc. is a proud affiliate of Responsible Dog Owners of The Western States 

PLEASE HELP

STAMP OUT BSL IN ARKANSAS

RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF ARKANSAS DOGS, Inc.

Roger Schnyer, Chairman

P.O. Box 18

Lonoke Arkansas, 72086

phone (501-676-7582)

e-mail  cajun9@sbcglobal.net

Website http://www.roadsinc.org

SEPTEMBER  10, 2007

Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADs) has incorporated, and set up a bank account with the purpose of posing a legal challenge to the Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances in White County, Pulaski County, and in Lonoke County.

The attorney Andrew Clark of the firm Clark and Bayarly has been retained to try the cases. Mr. Clark is preparing our cases, and will file the suits on our behalf, and will seek immediate injunctive relief for our plaintiffs, just as soon as we have the financial means.  They are under the immediate threat of the loss of their dogs. 

Beebe, Arkansas dog owners are being threatened by the local police with having their dogs confiscated, and killed by animal control. 

Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs needs your generous help in our fight to overturn Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances. Please make your checks payable to:

Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.

and mail to;

Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.

C/O Arvest Bank P.O. Box 57

Cabot Arkansas 72023

New state vicious dog law in effect


Published: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:07 PM CDT

A new Arkansas law provides for the filing of criminal charges, under certain circumstances, against the owner of a dog that attacks someone.

According to Rep. Lance Reynolds, several cities and counties across the state have approved, or are considering, bans on certain dog breeds, most notably pit bulls in the wake of some highly publicized attacks. Some of those ordinances are the subject of lawsuits claiming that banning a specific breed of dog is unconstitutional. No Arkansas law bans a specific breed statewide.

Prior to the passage of Act 258 of 2007 (House Bill 1489) and during testimony on the bills this past spring, some law enforcement officials said they had little recourse against dog owners whose animals attack someone. Act 258 now allows a Class A misdemeanor to be filed in certain cases and sets a course in which the attack victim can get compensation for medical costs.

That law stems specifically from a dog attack last winter on an 81-year-old woman in Calico Rock. At least four dogs attacked the woman while she was walking to her mailbox. She suffered serious injuries and incurred high medical bills.

Specifically the law creates the crime of "unlawful dog attack" and allows the charge to be filed against the owner if he or she "knows or has reason to know" that the dog has a "propensity to attack, cause injury or endanger the safety of others without provocation" and when the owner "negligently" allows the dog to attack another person and the attack causes death or serious injury.

Conviction of a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The law bill also permits a judge or jury in the case to award restitution to the victim for any medical costs incurred. That provision is aimed at saving the victim the expense of having to go to civil court for damages. The bill was approved in the House on a 92-1 vote, and by 35-0 in the Senate.

Lawmakers in Texas recently approved one of the stiffest penalties in the nation in such dog-bite cases. The law was prompted by a fatal attack by six dogs on a 76-year-old woman. At the time, only misdemeanor charges could be filed against the dogs' owner, and he was acquitted by a jury, in part because there was no record of the dogs having attacked anyone before.

JOIN THE BSL WORKSHOP GROUP  THEY HAVE A GREAT WEB-SITE , LOTS OF SUPPORT AND HELP WITH BSL ISSUES

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSLWorkshop/

 

HERES CONTACT  INFO FOR RDO'S ACROSS THE US. 

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

P.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156

Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.com

Blog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821

Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.com

Hermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com

Arkansas Director, Roger Schnyer  cajun9@sbcglobal.net

California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.net

Illinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.com

Indiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.net

Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.com

Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.net

Nevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.net

Ohio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.com

Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

Texas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com

Pit Bulls: Why are They the Most Hated of Breeds?


By Carroll Bou
Sep 14, 2007
 

In recent weeks, the story of Michael Vick, the Atlanta Falcons player accused of bankrolling an illegal dog fighting ring and killing failed fighters, has been in news reports across the country. Facing the testimony of three of his cohorts, all of whom agreed to testify against the NFL quarterback in exchange for plea deals, and the damage that letting a judge and jury hear every disgusting detail associated with his involvement would do to his chances of avoiding incarceration; Vick accepted a plea bargain.

There are many opinions about it, but the media has only been concentrating on the two polar opposites. On one hand, you have the people that don’t really see what the big deal is because “They‘re only dogs.” They often compare dog fighting to boxing, and see nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, you have PETA and hundreds of other animal rights groups that think all animal sports are cruel and inhumane to animals, even rodeos and dog sled races.

Somewhere in between, is a little known group of dog owners that are upset by Michael Vick’s actions for a very different reason. They agree that dog fighting is an inhumane pseudo-sport because it causes the dogs severe pain, injuries and death. However, there is another reason that they’re mad at Michael Vick and those like him. They believe that dog fighting is destroying the reputation of the Pitbull breed and ruining the breed itself through bad breeding and training practices.

Pitbulls are the most hated dogs in the world. As a breed, they’re no more aggressive than any others. They beat out most other breeds in temperament tests performed by the American Temperament Test Society, including the Golden Retriever and Poodle, but bad owners create dogs that are unpredictable. These dogs are not properly socialized to people, children and other animals. They are not properly trained, and they’re owned by irresponsible, ignorant people that refuse to take responsibility for their dog’s training. Because of them, Pitbulls have gone from being the all-American breed, prized for their loyalty and intelligence, to the most feared and misunderstood breed ever known.

All breeds bite, but the most feared get plastered all over the news. Also, Pitbulls are often wrongly accused because people incorrectly identify the breed of the dog. People usually wrongly identify a dog as being a Pitbull or Pit mix because it has a big head or a lot of muscle. This makes things even worse.

People also have a lot of misconceptions about the breed because of myths that they have heard their entire lives. Like, “Pitbulls have locking jaws.” False. Researchers found that a Pitbull’s jaw is no different from any other dog’s jaw. It does not lock. “Pitbulls hate kids.” Also false. Pitbulls were once known as “nurse maid dogs” because they were so reliable with small children and very protective. To this day, there are millions of children all over the world living with a Pitbull. People believe these things because they heard them all the time when they were kids and they see reports of Pitbulls killing someone in the media. There are thousands of dog attacks every year that never make the news, including a story about a 6 week old infant that was mauled to death by a Pomeranian.

The problem these dog owners face now is not aggressive dogs. It’s aggressive politicians. Breed Specific Legislation, also known as BSL, is sweeping through the land like a plague. BSL is any law that affects a dog based solely on its breed, regardless of its actions, and Pitbulls are not the only ones being affected. There are dozens of breeds being included in these laws, from Pits to Pugs. The most disturbing thing is that BSL punishes innocent dogs and owners while allowing irresponsible owners to hide behind it. Responsible owners are being forced to give up their dogs or move, even if their dog has never shown any aggression toward humans or animals. Irresponsible owners are given an escape when their dog bites someone because all they have to say is “It must be the breed.” If you lived in a neighborhood where the mailboxes were getting busted by teenagers, you wouldn’t ban all teens. You would want the parents of those kids to be held responsible for the cost of your mailbox, right? The same should go for dogs.

Between the media’s search for ratings, popular myths and pig-headed politicians, Pit bulls and other “vicious” breeds don’t stand a chance. The only ones fighting for them are the loving owners that take care of them, nurture them and know exactly how wonderful they really are. It may seem trivial to a lot of people, but to the thousands of Pitbull owners in the U.S., it is an everyday struggle to keep their families from being torn apart by something as ridiculous as a bad reputation.

TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER

 

The animal rights movement as those who would take our animals from our care, and nurture prefer to be known, is the enemy of all owners/breeders, and practitioners of animal husbandry. They support, and encourage the passage of breed specific dog ordinances that started with the “pit bull”, and have expanded to name upwards of seventy-five recognized breeds, plus any mixed breed that contains as an element of it’s make-up any of those breeds.  They support, and expound upon mandatory spay/neuter of all privately owned dogs, and cats, as though they have a personal proprietary interest in the animals that are rightfully owned by others. They push for mandatory licensing of pet animal husbandry practitioners, better known as breeders.  Their impetus is to use our legislative bodies, at every level to remove our animals from us, and to annihilate tens of thousands of years of the human/ animal bond. They are trained to use techniques that make them appear to be experts on all aspects of animal ownership, and laws. I have chosen to call this movement the animal takers.  It is in our own best interest to learn to recognize their strategies, so that they will not manipulate us. Animal taking zealots endeavor to deceive people into believing breed myths. The following chapter deals with animal takers myths of the absolute as pertains to the “pit bull”. 

Chapter 1.) MYTHS OF THE ABSOLUTE

Absolute: All pit bulls are dangerous, unpredictable killers.

Hmmm, wouldn’t that make them predictable? Not one of the numerous registries that operate in any nation registers a breed of dog as “Pit Bull”.  The term “pit bull”, used to mean any dog whose owner used it for pit fighting. It was a functional term that has been distorted, and used now to define actual breeds of dogs. Under the guise of banning “pit bulls”, upwards of twenty-five actual breeds of dogs have been named in bans, prohibitions, or restrictive ownership ordinances. Dogs are as individual as are we human beings. No two dogs within a given breed are exactly the same, just as no two human beings within any given race are exactly the same. Similarities to each other are either physical breed characteristics, or learned behaviors. It is not only erroneous to characterize all dogs of a given breed as being exactly alike it is exceedingly foolish.

Absolute: All pit bull breeders/owners are dog fighters.

This is not only a false accusation it is libelous. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners have a very high percentage rate of conformation show entries, obedience trial entries, and are engaged with their dogs in sanctioned sport competitions such as fly ball, agility, weight pull, schutzhund, tracking, when compared to other breeds of dogs owners. Check with registry statistics.  We do not deny that dog fighting exists. It is not an openly conducted activity.  In truth dog fighting has increased exponentially since the Humane Society of the United States set its sights on the once legal, and sanctioned sport, that was conducted under strict rules.  HSUS fought for legislation to make dog fighting illegal. They succeeded, and dog fighting is bigger than it ever was as a legal, and sanctioned activity. The preceding statements are not meant to condone dog fighting, but to give a historical perspective.  The vast majority of dog owners whose dogs are targeted in breed specific ordinances are law abiding citizens, and are responsible for, caring, and nurturing of their dogs.

  

Absolute: All pit bulls are bred to possess supernatural traits.

That “pit bulls” possess locking jaws is the most common mythical misconception. No canine has the ability to lock, or unlock its jaw. There are three head types in dogs. Not one of which has a lock. There is the brachy-cephalic, it is the pushed in face with the protruding under jaw like the Pug dog in the movie Milo and Otis. It has the least bite strength of all head types. The mesocephalic is the most common type head in dogs. The Dalmatian is a mesocephalic type of dog breed. The length of muzzle approximates the length of top skull. It is the strongest configuration. The third head type is the dolicho-cephalic. It is the long narrow head with a long muzzle.  The Collie is a dolichocephalic type breed.  These breeds do not depend upon strength of jaw, but upon their teeth that are used for slashing.  Most of the breeds that are named in breed specific legislation fall under the mesocephalic head type, but not all, there are several of the brachy-cephalic breeds, and even a few dolichocephalic breeds. This should be indicative to any thinking person that the umbrella term, “pit bull”, is a convenient blind for city councils, and county boards to use to remove all domestic dogs from ownership, in a piecemeal way.

The not stoppable, appear out of nowhere, disappear, attack without warning, etc., myths are the stuff of horror movies. These stories confer supernatural powers on domestic dog breeds, but have no basis in reality. Newspaper articles are reported in such a manner as to evoke fear in the reader, and to reinforce the urban myth. They offer no proofs, only rhetoric. As dog owners our responses to these reports must be reality based, and we must openly question any reports of the supernatural kind. All dogs are corporeal. No dog is capable of appearing, or of disappearing.  All dogs are stoppable.  All attacks are triggered. The people, who are involved, may not know what triggered the attack, or they may know, and choose not to divulge what they know to the media, and to the police.

Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are geniuses of genetic engineering

If we believe the myths that surround the “pit bull”, then we must believe that their breeders possess an innate ability to manipulate their dog’s genes to reproduce without fail a monster of mythical proportions. These breeders can do what the greatest geneticists in the world cannot; they can make a dog that conforms unerringly to a prescribed, and uniform mold, each and every time. Not even automobile manufactures can make identical cars when using all standard parts.  

Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are imbeciles of genetic engineering

In a direct contradiction to the myth above, the detractors describe the physical ailments, and crippling genetic defects that are purportedly rampant in the “pit bull”, hip/shoulder dysplasia, myocardia, cataracts one would believe that their breeders are incapable of producing a sound physical specimen of dog. If we believe this myth, then breed specific legislation is a waste of time, and money to implement, and enforce, because the dogs are well on their way to extinction. Genetic defects are reported in purebred dogs because their breeders are the ones who spend the money, and care enough about their dogs to test them. Breeders strive to produce healthier dogs through eliminating dogs that are defective from their breeding programs.  To use the facts that purebred dogs have defects in order to sully the reputations of breeders is an exploitation of the breeders concern for producing healthy animals.   

Absolute: All BSL proponents are pit bull experts, but can’t define them

Ask the most vociferous “pit bull” hater to define the term. You will quickly discover that a “pit bull” is any dog which animal control deems as such. There is no set definition. There are at least twenty-five actual breeds, plus uncounted mixed breed dogs that are now labeled as “pit bulls”, and the list is growing.  The takers, and various legislative bodies have wrongfully cited, or misused breed standards as a means of identifying dog breeds. Breed identification is not the purpose of a breed standard. A breed standard is a written device that is used by dog show judges to determine, or measure the standard quality of the conformation of each pure-bred, registered dog of any given breed in the show ring, at a sanctioned dog show. The judge is not guessing what breed is being judged. Dog show judges are tested on their knowledge of the breed standard, and it’s application prior to being licensed to use that breed standard in a sanctioned show. A judge is tested, and licensed separately for each breed that he, or she is allowed to judge. Breed standards are copyrighted documents. American Kennel Club parent breed clubs are owners of their breed’s standard copyright. Other breed standard copyrights are property of the breed registry. Any misuse of dog breed standards is a violation of intellectual property rights of the copyright owner.  

Absolute:  Only titled, health tested show dogs should be allowed to breed. 

This removes a whole dimension of working dogs, hunting dogs, service dogs that will never see the inside of a show-ring. The whole idea of show dogs is elitist on one hand, and arbitrary on the other hand. It is elitist to believe that a dog that has earned conformation titles is superior to a dog that works on a cattle ranch, and earns it’s way, and provides help to it’s owner. The rancher will put far more value on his dog’s working ability than upon it’s conforming to a show standard of quality.  The rancher is far better equipped to know whether his dog should be used in a breeding program than any arbitrary government body. The idea that government imposes mandates upon who may, or may not practice animal husbandry, and mandate an impractical standard for the animals to be used within that program, exceeds the scope of government, and is a taking of ownership, and use rights.

Health testing is a tool that is at the disposal of any animal owner/ breeder who wishes, or needs to use it. The test results show the tested animal’s health for the day that the tests were done. They do not project guarantees into the future health of the animal, nor do clear test results guarantee that any offspring of the tested animal will test clear. Testing is an option, it should never be mandated.

Absolute: It is wrong for a breeder to profit from breeding, and selling dogs.

A dog breeder is supposed to spend thousands of dollars, and not see a return that will be reinvested back into the dogs.  According to the detractors of dog breeders, in order to be responsible, a breeder must have endlessly deep pockets, and always spend, never, ever breaking even, let alone operate a real business based upon doing what one loves, and is proficient in. How would this absolute myth apply to any other business? Tell it to ATT, FORD, YAHOO, MICROSOFT, TYSON, H$U$, PeTA. In any business the measure of success is to see a financial return that is based upon the quality, desirability, and usability of said product.

 Absolute: All dog/cat/pet breeders must be licensed, and obtain breeding permits

Animal husbandry is an ancient, noble, and respected human occupation. Its beginnings are lost in the remote past. A license is a temporary, revocable permit that is issued by government that allows the holder to have something, or to do something that is illegal to have, or to do without the license. This is simply another ploy to remove our animal ownership, and use rights. Our animals do not belong to the government. We do not live under a socialist, or a communist government that holds ownership over people, and their property.

 Absolute: All dogs must be spayed/neutered

No government in the United States of America has the power to mandate invasive surgical procedures be performed upon privately owned animals. Animals belong to their owners. Animal’s reproductive organs likewise belong to the owners. Governments do not have the power to take away constitutional, or traditional property rights. It is solely up to we the people to stand firmly, and to refuse to capitulate to the taking of our ownership, use, and property rights in our animals. This is a legislated extinction of domestic pets.

Chapter 2.) RECOGNIZE ANIMAL TAKER TACTICS

Personal attacks take the place of evidence

Once you have made logical inroads into the taker’s ideology, you will be a target for personal attacks, especially if you have a website, or you are an officer, or a director in any dog/cat club, or organization. You may be accused of being a “shill”.  Your appearance, or choice of apparel may be critiqued. There is nothing too despicable for these takers to stoop to when trying to discredit us.

Goading us into anger

The takers are skilled in haranguing, if we show the least irritation that is where they will concentrate their attack. If we watch carefully, and learn their techniques, we can avoid being goaded into anger.

Changing the subject

The takers will ask personal questions to try to take the topic where they want it to go. We must be alert, and stay on track. Our information is far more important than their ideology. Our reasons for joining a blog, or a public forum is to put useful, educational information into the hands of the readers, and to expose the animal takers for the ideological zealots who are bent upon removing our pets from us.

Attempt to divide the defenders

The takers will be working together to reinforce their position. They will try to detract from the valid points that the defenders make. One of their frequently used tactics is to use personal attacks that are aimed at the defenders, or at their dogs.  It is very important for our side to reinforce our position without using the rude, personal attacks that are often employed by the takers.

Promoting “breed/breeder” hatred

Breeder is not a four-letter word. The takers will make it appear to be in the same context as child molester, rapist, murderer, or any number of heinous criminal activities. A breeder is a practitioner of the ancient, and noble art/science of animal husbandry. It is a legal business, and an admirable calling.  Without breeders we would have no dog breeds, nor would we have any of our domestic animal species. That is why breeders are so hated, and vilified by the takers. Their goal is a complete severance of the human/animal bond. Our dogs/animals are the product of our applied art/science. In the minds of the takers our animals are not worthy of life, as they are the product of our, their breeder’s, vision, and effort.

Accusing the defenders of doing whatever is true of themselves

As chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, I was accused of being a shill for the animal industry. My accuser refused to divulge any information as to who, or what entity or group that she/he was fronting for.  It was obvious that this person was promoting an agenda of BSL, breeder licensing, and mandatory spay/neuter. It was a very slick and polished presentation.

Hide behind anonymity

Forums or blogs allow screen names to be used so as to hide the identity of the person who is commenting. The supporters of restrictive, and oppressive animal legislation tend not to use their real identity. I always use my own name, and I sign with all of my contact information. I want everyone who reads what I write to know that I have the courage of my convictions. I want everyone to know how to contact me should they want, or need any more information.

Claim to be experts, yet show no credentials

Having been involved in debates with the takers on public forums I always put forth all of my credentials. Any person who is promoting an agenda but refuses to divulge anything about them self on a professional level is not believable. These are the people that are filling blogs, and public forums with the takers agenda. They offer no credentials only a very polished presentation. The presentation hardly varies by a word or two from forum, to forum carried by a scripted anonymous army. Always ask who, or what organization that they represent. Ask why they hide behind the shield of anonymity if they are truly such advocates.

Attempt to discredit those defenders who do have credentials

Any defender who is accessible through running a search engine may be made the target of the attack. This person may be challenged on his/her physical appearance, choice of wearing apparel, and any number of things that have no bearing upon the subject matter of the discussion. I was asked if I was a member of the NRA. I did not respond. Neither the question, nor my answer would have been of any benefit to the topic under discussion. My personal website was brought into the discussion. It is important to recognize these tactics that are used to discredit us, it is a tactic to move the conversation away from the topic.

Isolate one defender to befriend, and another to denigrate.

A divide, and conquer technique is frequently utilized to distract the defenders. One defender may be befriended by one of those pushing the taker’s agenda, while several others may gang up on a different defender. This tactic is quite often very successfully used against novice defenders. 

Chapter 3.) ANIMAL TAKER PERSONAS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED

 The animal lover

Example; “I have a pit bull, but I believe that they should all be spayed, and neutered, and the owners licensed. What are you afraid of?” The opening statement is an opinion. The question is an assumption that we are clinging to a baseless fear concerning the relinquishment of the ownership of our animal, and its reproductive organs.

The Victim

Animal taking zealots may employ a false victim to gain sympathy.  This person will call for a ban based upon a claim of having a friend, or a relative who was maimed, or killed by a “pit bull”.  This person is unable to give any provable facts when pinned down by a defender.

  

The “objective” person

May claim that he/she owns no dog, but agrees with the takers point of view.  Ignore this person. Why call attention to him/her? It does our side no good, and is a wasted effort. This is another distraction technique.

The sleeper agent

Disguises him/herself as an owner supporter when in fact he/she is an agent provocateur. This is Mr./Ms. Perfect who does everything by the book. You know the book.  It might be that cookbook with all of the perfect pictures that no real person in a real kitchen could ever replicate. Those photos are supposed to be reality, but no matter how hard we strive, we mere mortals will never create the false reality of Mr./Ms. Perfect.

The accuser

Animal taking zealots accuse breeders/owners of being irresponsible for not buying into the totalitarian propaganda of mandatory spay/neuter, breed bans, or mandatory breeder licensing.  The takers attack on a very personal level here. We must ask where the precedent for all of this taking of our animals comes from. We must ask where this has been in effect, and for proof that it works. San Mateo, Ca is the only place that comes to mind for setting a precedent on mandatory spay/neuter, and mandatory breeder licensing. The dog breeders compromised with the takers, and lost their rights. Even so, it is a dismal failure. Point it out after arming yourself with information. 

Animal taking zealots employ actions, and words to put animal owners on the defensive. That is okay; we are defending our ownership, and our use rights.

Chapter 4.) PROTECTING YOUR ANIMALS AND YOUR RIGHTS

Debate openly

Do not hide behind anonymity.  Only those who are not open, and above board have need to hide behind the screen of anonymity, think Wizard of Oz. If you are honestly concerned about retaliation, do not join in a public forum, or blog.  Put a credential behind your name. If you belong to a dog club you can add “Member, Alpha Dog Club” behind your name. It lends credibility.

Stay on topic

It is very easy to be taken off track by a skilled activist agitator. They will ask personal questions. They will do, say, or write anything to devolve a logical defense into a free-for-all, name-calling debacle. Think before you write. Your response is not only going out to the agitator, it is going out to an audience that you want to educate.

Ignore personal attacks

Point out personal attacks that are directed at you, but refuse to lower yourself to defending them. Personal attacks that are made by strangers are diversions. Do no allow yourself to be diverted along a path of the attacker’s choosing. Use your free will. You get to choose how, and to whom to respond. Ignoring the attacker, and putting your point across strengthens your position.

Offer proof

Prove every point that you make when defending our position to retain our ownership and use rights. Never write, or say anything in a public forum that you cannot immediately prove. If in doubt, leave it out.

Use humor

Humor slays zealots, they do so want to be taken seriously. Ridicule, done as gentle humor brings a perspective that simple denial will not.  The humorist is generally perceived as having superior knowledge. He/she not only sees the joke, he/she shares it.

   

Never allow anger to take control over your writing, or speaking

It is okay to write, “This makes me angry.” It is not okay to allow anger to take you to a place that is harmful to the dog owner’s positive image.  Our detractors are portraying us as the out of mainstream fringe element. We are the only one’s who have the power to dispel the projected image.  Each individual dog owner is responsible for ensuring that he/she is perceived as a law abiding, respectable citizen who is concerned with public safety, as well as protecting the rights, and freedoms that are characterized in our Constitution.

Treat the enemy with politeness, and respect 

Give your adversary the benefit of being a fellow human being. Being polite and respectful, even after being verbally abused shows the general public that you are secure in your position. People will certainly forget your name, but they will always remember how you made them feel. When we are writing on a public forum, it is extremely important to make the entire readership feel comfortable with our point of view.  We must treat each person as though he/she were an invited guest that we want to share our message with.  Our objective is to win the hearts, and minds of the readers who are not posting. We are dealing with two different groups of people. We are firstly dealing with the promoters of the taking of our animals.  Secondly we are dealing with the average citizen who is not caught up in the struggle, but has no doubt been adversely affected by the urban myths that so permeate our society. We will never change the minds of the takers. That is not our objective. Our objective toward them is to blow huge gaping holes in their ideological arguments, so that the secondary group starts to have doubts about their agenda. Our next objective is to speak with logic, to prove our points, to bring in the laws that are on the books, and to persuade the citizens that we are more like them, than are the detractors. It is human nature to align with those who sound the most as they do.

Expose the lies, distortions, and myths

Do not enter into a battle of ideology that you have not made preparation to win. Before joining in a blog, or a public forum be prepared. The takers come prepared. They have read, and book-marked every book written about dog fighting, or fighting dogs. Richard Stratton’s books may be introduced into the discussion. He may be quoted as the final authority in order to bolster their position. They will apply his writing to not only the dogs that he writes about, they apply it to breeds that they have determined are “pit bulls”, and are not the dogs that Mr. Stratton has immortalized in his books. This ruse is meant to bring our side into discussing the books, and away from the topic. They assume that everyone who owns “pit bulls” has read Richard Stratton’s books. That is an erroneous assumption. I have not read his books. Having not read his books, I can neither confirm, nor deny any point that they are trying to establish by using quotes from his, or any other author’s book. I can only state with honesty that the opinions expressed in any book, are certainly those of the author.

Know your enemy

The dog takers have done their homework thoroughly. They expect that you have not. If you find yourself in over your head, then please depart before you cause harm.  Never write, or speak without giving considerable thought as to what you will say.  The takers will use every opportunity to twist your words into a meaning of their choosing.

Know yourself

You are the only expert on yourself. You know your strengths. Use them. You know your weak areas. Do not expose them. It is okay to say, ”I don’t know.” It is far better to admit that a topic is not your area of first hand knowledge, than to forge blindly onward and cause our side to lose ground. Always stay within your own personal comfort zone of knowledge, and information. That is where each of us is strongest.

Know the law

There is nothing more traditional than animal ownership, use, and animal husbandry. The rights that are enumerated under our Bill of Rights are not our only rights. Our framers created the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights not to be all-inclusive, but to lay the foundation of law for the people of our free nation. If they had tried to list every right, and every freedom that we the people might enjoy, then surely we would be restricted. Our rights, and our freedoms are bounded only by our moral, and social obligations to have a functional society. The framers were wise beyond their time, and beyond their worldly scope. To prevent any such similar takings of our traditional property, or our animals, and to prevent the cessation of any ancient, noble, and honorable profession such as animal husbandry, they wrote: AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.AMENDMENT X.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Besides these two Amendments that reaffirm our rights of traditional human occupations, we also have the right to be recompensed for any taking of our property. Our animal’s ovaries, and testicles belong to us. If the government is going to mandate a taking, it had better be prepared to PAY!!! To pay for the surgeries, for those citizens who will comply, to pay for loss of the viability of the animal, or to buy out the real property of the animal owner, whose right to its full use and enjoyment has been removed due to the government’s arbitrary removal of it purchased purpose.

Learn from every encounter

Do not join a blog, or public forum expecting to sway the animal taking extremists to our side. You will lose. They are equally as committed to their idealism, as we are committed to preserving our animals, their ownership, and our traditional animal husbandry practices. The objective is to put forward usable information that is backed up with proof, and to sway the people who are undecided.  The animal taking zealots have nothing that is tangible to take. They are pushing an ideology. We, on the other hand have the tangible, living, breathing, animals that count on us to protect them. Even though our animals have no way of knowing it, they are dependent upon us for the continuation of their breed, and their gene pool to survive into the future. We cannot succeed by entering into compromise agreements with the animal taking zealots. They have nothing to offer us from their ideology. We have everything to lose. The very worst thing that anyone from the animal owner side can do is to accept any part of the opposition’s ideology. That acceptance will grow like a malignancy until it engulfs us, and our dogs, and our traditions, our way of life, our freedoms, our past, our present, or our future.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
http://www.povn.com/rdows
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

 

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
“Home of the swinging, flying show dogs”
509-447-2821
http://users.surf1.ws/paragon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WARDOG

 

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” —Marcus Aurelius