The Killing Fields Of Denver - Genocide Of A Breed
891 dead and counting.
That is the tally of the number of innocent dogs that have been confiscated and killed in the last year, since the reenactment of Denver's breed ban.
891 innocent dogs have deliberately killed - euthanized by the City Of Denver - according to Animal Control in Denver just last week. The City Of Denver is killing innocent dogs at a rate of about 3 per day.
Have these dogs have done anything wrong? No - that is - except for one thing - they were born the wrong breed. They were born as pit bulls.
Denver's pit bull law is a breed ban. It prohibits any person from owning, possessing, keeping, exercising control over, maintaining, harboring, or selling a pit bull in the City and County of Denver. A pit bull is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of these breeds.
Denver's breed ban has one purpose - the forced elimination of a dog breed. Denver's breed ban has also forced the owners of such dogs to make a choice: surrender their dogs to be killed or move out of the city. Any remaining pitbull type dogs in Denver are rooted out, confiscated, sometimes surrendered, and killed.
Some call it immoral, unethical, and wrong. Some call it an unconstitutional seizure of property. I call Denver's breed ban something else.....
I call it genocide.
Is This America?
Despite expert testimony AGAINST breed bans by every major animal health and welfare organization in the world, breed bans are quite popular with politicians, and are enacted with increasing frequency in North America "in the interest of the public health and safety".
Dog owners that may not be familiar with breed bans, upon hearing of such laws, and the stories of confiscation, and the killing of innocent dogs and puppies, usually react quite strongly.
How can they do this! they exclaim. Is this not against the law? You mean they could come and take my dog? Do we live in America? Do we live in a democracy???
Is This Genocide?
I often hear comments, such as... That's just like discriminating against a group of people, or Sounds like racial profiling for dogs. Didn't they do that to the Jews? or even This sounds like the Holocaust.
Yes - it does sound somewhat like a holocaust. In fact -there is even a Yahoo Group called Dog Holocaust, which covers just this subject.
What do you think? Are breed bans in effect a dog holocaust? And are breed bans tantamount to state-sponsored genocide?
Sit right back and set a spell - we're gonna find out.
What Is Genocide?
According to Wikipedia, the term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to massacre).
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic act(s) aimed at eliminating and exterminating a particular group of people.
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article II as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Hmmmm...........
Can Dogs Be Victims Of Genocide?
I posed that question to Dr. Gregory Stanton, the world's foremost authority on genocide and author of the Eight Stages of Genocide.
Dr. Stanton is President of Genocide Watch, the Director of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and the James Farmer Professor of Human Rights at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
He holds degrees from Oberlin College, Harvard Divinity School, and Yale Law School, and a Doctorate in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Chicago and served in the U.S. State Department, where he wrote the United Nations resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
After reading Dr. Stanton's Eight Stages of Genocide, I was surprised at the similarities or parallels that breed bans have to the defined and systematic stages of genocide.
So I contacted Dr. Stanton to tell him that I was writing an essay on those parallels, and to find out if the Eight Stages Of Genocide can apply to a breed of dogs, like a race or group of people. I was looking for an answer to a question - a question that I don't think anyone has asked him before.
The question is this ....... Can dogs be victims of genocide?
Dr. Stanton explained that genocide is a human rights issue. I told Dr. Stanton that I was not an animal rights activist - nor was I trying to assign human rights to dogs. I was, however, struck by the similarities of breed bans to genocide, and how the processes seemed so similar.
However, he was familiar with the Denver breed ban, and was a dog owner himself. Dr. Stanton said he would be most interested to see my essay - and to see if breed bans indeed matched the Eight Stages of Genocide.
Let me be very clear -this essay is not in any way about diminishing the victims of genocide by comparing the factory farming of chickens to the Holocaust, ala PETA.
What this essay is about is comparing the similar processes by which governments justify the marginalization, criminalization and denial of rights of a particular group (s) in order to achieve the supression or elimination of said group - breed bans and genocide.
Striking Similarities To Genocide
"Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The later stages must be preceded by the earlier stages, though earlier stages continue to operate throughout the process". - Dr. Gregory Stanton
The Eight Stages of Genocide reviews each of the steps in the process of genocide, and is used the world over as a predictive or risk analysis model to determine if a class/race/group of people are at risk for, or have become victims of genocide.
The processes or methods used to carry out a genocide and the processes or methods used to eliminate and exterminate a breed of dog are strikingly similar.
I shall share Dr. Stanton's work with you here - along with my notations at each of the stages. Each of Dr. Stanton's Eight Stages are numbered, and in black text. My comments follow each of the Eight Stages and are in red italicized text.
Let's see how they compare, then, you can decide for yourselves..............
Dr. Stanton's Eight Stages of Genocide
1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Catholic Church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been driven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania or Cote d’Ivoire has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON CLASSIFICATION: In order to separate pit bull type dogs from other breeds, the City Of Denver, along with other cities/states/provinces that have enacted breed bans or have pending breed specific legislation, has classified bulldog terrier dog breeds as a specific class - lumping them together as pit bull type dogs.
These pit bull type dogs include AKC/UKC/ADBA recognized bull breeds such as the American Staffordshire Terrier, The American Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and any mix of the aforementioned breeds, as well as any dog or mix thereof that exhibits the physical characteristics of those breeds.
2. SYMBOLIZATION: We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies”, or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply them to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980’s, code words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Denmark, when many Danes chose to wear the yellow star, depriving it of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON SYMBOLIZATION: As a means to distinguish pit bull type dogs from other breeds of dogs, municipalities with breed specific laws require that the owners of such dogs register with that city. Those dogs - and their owners are also assigned a special registration number for the dog, a number that specifically identifies the dog as a pit bull and also identifies the premises where the pit bull dog -and the owner - resides.
In addition, dog owners of pit bulls may also be required to implant a microchip (mandatory microchipping) to further identify and track the dog and the dog owner.
In some communities, owners of pit bull dogs are required to obtain a special license or tag, that may be visually different in color, size or shape from the standard issue dog license tags issued to non-targeted dogs. Pit bull dogs are then required to wear this visually different license tag, which visually identifies themas a dangerous breed.
Pit bull dogs are also be required to be muzzled in public, as in the case in the Province of Ontario. The muzzle itself can stigmatize both the dog and the owner. The sight of a muzzled dog is frightening to many people, who in turn glare at the dog owner and cross the street to avoid coming anywhere near the dog or owner. Dogs and owners in Ontario have been verbally and physically attacked in public while walking their dogs. These violent assaults against dogs and their owners have escalated, even on dogs that are not pit bulls, but have been mistaken for pit bulls.
People owning pit bulls suffer further stigmatization, as municipalities may require warning signage on their front doors, (Sex offenders are not even required to place signage on their front doors) which resulust in damage to relations with neighbors as well as property values.
3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than in democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON DEHUMANIZATION: Dogs are not human - however, is there such a thing as decaninization? Unequivocally, yes.
Municipalities supporting breed specific measures systematically reduce pit bulls to a status that is lesser than other dogs as the basis to justify breed specific ordinances.
Municipalities rely on pseudo-science, hearsay (if Kory Nelson, Denver's city attorney, says it - therefore it must be true), and urban myth to vilify the breed, therefore justifying the breed specific law.
However, dehumanization of dog owners of pit bull dogs also occurs. Municipalities – along with the media - repeatedly link dog owners of pit bull breeds to criminals, gang members, drug dealers, etc. through direct or indirect verbal or visual means.
The constant and pervasive linkage of pit bull ownership to criminals results in the commonly held public perception that anyone who would own a pit bull dog is a criminal, a crack head, drug dealer, dog fighter, etc. This is highly damaging to the breeds as well as the dog owners, as the vast majority of pit bull dogs and owners are responsible, contributing members of society.
Marginalization of pit bull dog owners as criminals then follows. Thus, the inferred and actual criminalization of pit bull dog owners serves to justify of the marginalization of these dog owners, as they are assigned a lower status within the community.
4. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings. To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATION: Breed bans and breed specific ordinances are no different - they are formally created, enacted and carried out by the state as a means to eliminate specific breeds of dogs - and their human owners - from the community.
Breed bans and breed specific measures are carried out even in states where there exists, in law, a prohibition against breed specific legislation, such as California and Colorado.
Local and state legislators have found or created loopholes in the law as a means to circumvent existing laws which prohibit breed specific legislation.
5. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas denied to them. Coups d’etat by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON POLARIZATION: The media and the state/municipality serve each other well. The media is used as the means to broadcast the message of the municipalities, whipping up pit bull hysteria and serving the state's need to polarize the general public, including uninformed owners of other dog breeds, as a means to justify breed specific measures. Those that publiclty oppose breed specific laws are often vilified and painted as not caring about public safety.
6. IDENTIFICATION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. They are often segregated into ghettoes, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called. If the political will of the U.S. Government, NATO, and the U.N. Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance to the victim group in preparing for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON IDENTIFICATION: As a means of identification, dog owners of pit bulls in other communities are forced to register with the municipality (just like sex offenders), as well as meet a set of requirements more stringent that any requirements placed on owners of other dog breeds.
This identification and separation also includes visual identity separation, such mandated muzzles in public and different color/size license tags for dogs, owners are forced place signage on their homes.
Owners of pit bulls are required to fork over additional personal data, sometimes submit to a background check, obtain special liability insurance, forced to spay or neuter their dogs, and build padloacked, six-sided enclosures for their dogs.
Dog owners of pit bull type dogs have been forced to move out of the community, as in the case of the City of Denver where an all out ban exists, or in the case of others are forced to move as they are unable to meet the requirements to own this breed of dog.
7. EXTERMINATION: begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade -- 5500 heavy infantry -- should be mobilized by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N., should intervene. It is time for nations to recognize that the international law of humanitarian intervention transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If NATO will not intervene directly, it should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene with U.N. authorization.
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON EXTERMINATION: The extermination of pit bull dogs is in full swing. The City Of Denver has an outright breed ban on pit bulls with no exceptions.
The City Of Denver is on a mission to kill, eliminate, exterminate, extinguish, and snuff out the lives of innocent dogs - wherever those dogs exist inside the City and County Of Denver. To carry out their breed ban, the Denver police, along with Animal Control and even the Sheriff's Department, armed with shotguns, have gone door-to-door to confiscate and kill these dogs.
Elimination and extermination of pit bulls is taking place in the Province of Ontario, Canada, where the second phase of province-wide breed ban has gone into effect. The Ontario law requires that any and all new pit bull puppies born in Ontario must be shipped out of the province, sent to research facilities or euthanized.
The State of California has enacted SB861, a new law which deliberately circumvents the state's preemptive law against breed discrimination. SB861 allows individual municipalities to discriminate against any breed they wish, identify any breed of dog as dangerous, as well as require the forced sterilization of those breeds.
SB861 is popular with animal rights organizations that see SB861 as a means of facilitiating their agenda of mandatory spay/neuter for all animals. SB861 has resulted in further overcrowding of shelters and demands on resources as dog owners of targeted breeds, now unable to obtain or keep housing or liability insurance, have dumped their dogs in shelters. The fate of these dogs, once owned by loving families, is now sealed.
8. DENIAL: It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence is heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav or Rwanda Tribunals, a tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the International Criminal Court may not deter the worst killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some may be brought to justice. And such courts may deter future potential genocidists who can never again share Hitler’s expectation of impunity when he sneered, ”Who, after all, remembers the Armenians?”
DOG POLITICS COMMENTS ON DENIAL: In the end, the city councils, mayors, and municipalities that enact breed bans and breed specific ordinances do so by denying the science, denying the experts who have vigorously opposed these laws, as well as denying the rights of responsible dog owners in their communities - the numbers of which are far bigger than those dog owners who engage in criminal, abusive or negligent acts.
Municipalities supporting or enacting breed bans or other breed specific measure also engage in deception on a number of points:
- They deceive the public by inflating the need and inflaming a community
- They deceive the public through pseudo-science or lack of science
- They deceive the public into thinking that breed specific laws are effective measures against dog bites or fatalities from dog attacks
- They deceive the public by the deliberate and repeated messaging that pit bulls are genetically inferior, more likely to attack, are baby killers, cannot be trusted, are genetically altered from other dogs, have locking jaws like crocodiles
- They deceive the public by pretending that a dog is responsible for the criminal, or abusive or negligent acts of humans
- They deceive and deliberately mislead the public through visually altered photographs to alarm and inflame, such as the one used by the City Of Denver on its website:
The City Of Denver uses this photo at left to provide visual support for a paper entitled, DENVER’S PIT BULL ORDINANCE: A REVIEW OF ITS HISTORY AND JUDICIAL RULINGS, By Kory A. Nelson, Esq., Assistant City Attorney – Senior Prosecution and Code Enforcement Section, City Attorney’s Office, April 15, 2005
Although the paper is dated April 2005, it is in current use and can be found by clicking here:
This photo had been deliberately altered in order to make the dog appear abnormally vicious, with larger-than-life jaws. This dog's mouth has been digitally enlarged to appear 3x the normal size, the jaw appear larger, both wider and deeper, and the teeth have digitally elongated. This dog is intended to represent a pit bull, however the dog is not a pit bull, but actually an American Bulldog. The selection and use of such a photo by any city government is highly unethical, and it is intended to deliberately strike fear and inflame the public.
Breed Bans Aren't Just For Pit Bulls
Breed bans aren't just for pit bulls anymore. Breed bans and breed specific ordinances are aimed at close to 30 breeds of dogs, depending on the community.
Breed bans and breed specific ordinances can include the following dog breeds - as wel as any mixes of these breeds:
- Akita
- American Bulldog
- American Pit Bull Terrier
- American Staffordshire Terrier
- Staffordshire Bull Terrier
- Bull Terrier
- Canary Dog (Presa Canario)
- Cane Corso
- Doberman
- Dogo Argentino
- Dogue de Bordeaux
- Fila Brasileiro
- Kuvasz Presa
- Mallorquin
- Rottweiler
- Tosa Inu
The Real Deal
Municipalities pass breed bans because they can't or won't address the core issues facing the community concerning dogs, such as:
- Criminal dog fighting & satellite crimes, such as illegal drugs and guns - felony offenses that call for law enforcement resources
- Negligent or abusive owners - misdemeanor offenses that require law enforcement or animal control resources
- Irresponsible owners -who require public health or education resources
Breed bans and breed specific ordinances are used by municipalities as an expedient method of disposing of these criminal and social issues in one fell swoop. Breed bans are a triple play that saves them the time, trouble and resources - and money.
But there's a problem with this strategy. A big one - ok - two.
First - breed bans rob responsible, tax-paying, dog-owning citizens of their rights, and punish good dogs and good owners for the sins of others. There are literally millions of pit bull type dogs in the United States and Canada, and millions of responsible dog owners like me.
Second - and unspoken by the media - except for here, on this blog..... breed bans may be in effect inherelently racist policies, intended to target poor, inner city blacks and Hispanics who may lack the legal, social or financial resources to fight back.
Breed Extermination
In the end, breed bans and breed-specific ordinances impose restrictions and conditions designed to limit ownership of targeted dog breeds through difficult, if not impossible to meet conditions, even by those with the financial resources to cope with those restrictions.
In addition - these municipalities and provinces impose sterilization measures on owners of targeted breeds to prevent if births of specific breeds, with the goal of exterminating the targeted breed.
Breed bans are the final solution for dogs.
What Are Breed Bans Really For?
Why are breed bans enacted? What do breed bans accomplish?
Have bite stats gone down? Has the crime rate for those using dogs in crimes gone down? Have breed bans had any major impact on dog bite prevention? On underground, criminal activity? On the rate of animal abuse or neglect? On the real and actual public health and safety?
No.
So - if breed bans and breed specific ordinances do not address any of the issues in any meaningful way for which they were supposedly enacted, what are breed bans for?
Breed Bans Aren't Just For Dogs, Are They?
Does the process of enacting breed bans follow process of genocide, articulated in Dr. Stanton's Eight Stages Of Genocide?
Have we answered the question..... Can dogs be victims of genocide? I think we have. But the real question is..........
Are breed bans about the elimination of the breeds of dogs known as pit bulls?
Or are breed bans really about the elimination of the breeds of people that own pit bulls?
I wonder what Dr. Stanton would say.
I cannot agree with your commentary on the forum. Its dispicable that you would attempt to describe a legislative action of the will of the people of Denver with the historical example of the genocide of a race of humans. The peoples of Israel deserve better than that.
All of this is over a dog. I like dogs. I especially like dogs that aren't bred to injure, maim and destroy. I love the quest of taming a wild and aggressive Chihuahua into becoming a friend. I relish opportunities to socialize with someone else's dog.
I run in fear of the concept of me or my grandchildren being attacked in their own front yards by roaming packs of 2 to 5 aggressive dogs. Amazingly, these packs always feature at least three pit bulls (or any of the dogs in question: Americans, Staffordshires, etc.)
Oddly, these dogs operate loosely in the neighborhood and are rarely approached by humans. They exhibit aggressive tendencies and merely roam the neighborhoods, defecating and urinating on whatever they want.
Enough dammit. The owners should be held accountable, but typically aren't. The dogs routinely threaten others and other leashed pets and no one can stop them.
Here's a thought for all the softheads writing "poor doggie" stories in this forum: I will kill the first aggressive dog in my yard that demonstrates anything but absolute respect for the children and my property.
I know my last paragraph reads angry; and frankly it is. Everyone says its the way they are raised. Odd how its always one of three breeds that end up eating people or other animals.
Have you ever seen a roaming pack of collies or goldens or labs looking for children to devour and other animals to kill? My point exactly.
What say ye now?
EDITOR'S NOTE: Well, Daryl - I say this:
1) This ain't no forum - let's get that straight from this start.
This here is MY blog - and I publish according to MY whim . Your comments re also published at my whim.
2). Ignorance, fear mongering and general stupity are not tolerated.
Why is it that people like you insist on spouting forth malicious lies - that somehow packs of wild-roving dogs - the mythical pitbulls - are roving the streets of Denver looking for thier next meal of fresh babies topped off with old ladies for dessert?
Enough.
And yes, - you can protect your property AND your family deep in the heart of Amarillo, Texas from aggressive dogs - and people.
But shooting dogs based on what they LOOK like has no basis in science.
THAT is what say we.
Posted by: Darrell | May 17, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Breed specific bans are ridiculous and always the work of people that completely misunderstand the problem. I was attacked by a pitbull when I was 11. Had it not been for the intervention and determination of my mother I would surely have been torn to shreds. It wasn't the dog's fault. It's owner was an idiot. I've always loved dogs and have seen first hand that breed doesn't matter. The first poster here talks about her poodle being attacked by a pitbull... tough break... but I know a PERSON that's been attacked by a poodle. So, can we destroy your poodle?
Posted by: Michael | September 19, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I COMPLETELY AGREE with Denver's breed ban. Los Angeles should have the same breed ban. Just as I filed my small claim in court against the vicious pit bull that attacked my poodle, the gentleman working there said it was the 4th pit bull claim he had seen in 5 months!!
Lots of dogs are abused and ill treated, but not all dogs have the capacity for destruction as pit bulls. I've met some very nice pit bulls, raised by people with great intentions. But also some vicious pit bulls who make me feel unsafe in my building or visiting my family's home.
Dogs should not be put in the same category as people. Other people should not have to live in fear because of a dangerous breed of dog that is made even more dangerous when they're in the hands of stupid owners, which account for 80% of pit bull owners.
EDITOR's NOTE: Jessica - the fact is that dog-on-dog agression - DOESN NOT equate to dog-on-human aggression. I am sorry to hear that your poopdle was attacked by another dog. Was it loose? Was the OWNER irresponsible? Just how did it happen? BTW - I know PLENTY of Poodle owners that staunchly OPPOSE BSL.
Posted by: Jessica | June 19, 2007 at 04:02 AM
Well, you know, they are trying to ban these dogs to the point of extinction. Just like humans have made so many other animals extinct. It's pathetic how humans can be so cruel to animals and each other. I say we all start banning these idiots from positions of influence. Lets string them up and cut them open so they can bleed themselves to death. I'm so tired of how things are being run in this country. We all have our place in life and no one has the right to start killing animals off. Dogs only do what there owners train them to do. The only thing that is bad about dogs is if they get bad owners. People have to go through extensive screening in order to adopt someone else's kids, I feel it should be the same way for animals. Some people shouldn't be allowed to procreate or have any control over another animal. If I could afford to take in all those animals I would. Have a fu**ing heart people.
Posted by: Kristen | August 02, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Hm, i browsed through the site you posted, Jane Keppel... fear not, there's SOME good news: "Supporters: PAWS Regulates Breeders and Online Sales"
Posted by: Rianne Bateson | June 08, 2006 at 01:31 AM
I'm for what's best for the animals. Santorum's Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS) would be a way to keep track of pet dogs badly treated by their owners. Even if Kane says that "large seizures of poorly treated dogs are anecdotes, not proof of a problem," we can't be confidently sure.
http://www.votersdomain.com/article.php?aid=4753&tid=122&from=search
Posted by: poodle_fan | June 07, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Kane pointed out dog acquisitions amounts to less than 0.5%, noting that the large seizures of poorly treated dogs are anecdotes, not proof of a problem.
read at http://www.votersdomain.com/article.php?aid=4753&tid=122&from=search
Posted by: Jane Keppel | June 07, 2006 at 06:47 PM
I'm a proud (and responsible) owner of a beatiful Staffordshire female for over seven years now. I came across your article through a friend i'd shown the sorryagain website to and was mesmerized by what i read here.
I live in Europe, in Portugal - a country that has had its share of problems (and still does) with types of dogs being bred for fighting purposes alone (as well as status, i guess) and my dog is often discriminated on the street. I've been insulted several times if she is not wearing a muzzle and yet, she is an obedient dog, kind to people though protective of her owners, she's never hurt a human being ever. She's suffered the prejudice the media induced on people, just like the one you talk about in your article, she's been tagged agressive by being born "the wrong breed", with no further reason whatsoever.
Even though, things have never reached the situation you are living in the US. It's shocking to read what they've been doing to your dogs and i wish i could help.
Please let me know if there is anything i can do to help raise public awareness about this subject, or anything else.
Me and Nyka will be glad to do anything we can.
Posted by: Petra | June 02, 2006 at 06:44 AM
Just found a site that sells great bumper stickers against BSL http://www.cafepress.com/deeds_not_breed
Posted by: Stacy | May 23, 2006 at 11:14 AM
I wouldn't normally comment on a post made by another but in reference to the post stating that 'hounds were bred for one thing' I feel the statement is incomplete. It should read "Hounds were originally bred for one thing: to detect, chase and kill prey in packs without the intervention or direction of humans."
Terriers, on the other hand, while independent enough to dispatch vermin underground, rely heavily on humans for direction and protection during the hunt.
As for the so-called 'fighting breeds', they did not appear wanting to fight other dogs, nor do most of them exhibit this tendency. Their original purpose was to control large livestock in close quarter. The fighting of animals is something which humans of a certain type enjoy and any unfortunate animals being misused in this way require a significant amount of training (and not training of the fictitious type disseminated by HSUS the last time they wanted to stop dog fighting, all the nonsense about starving them, feeding them chemicals, etc, but real training, conditioning and socialization).
I'm afraid that breed, a human invention, really does not mean so much when predicting canine behaviour as does a good, long look at the owner and the conditions under which the dog lives.
Posted by: Selma | April 26, 2006 at 07:02 PM
To those posters that don't know jack sh#t about bulldogs. They were NEVER bred to be aggressive towards human beings...NEVER! KNOW YOUR HISTORY BEFORE MAKING SUCH IGNORANT REMARKS. Educate yourself by reading Diane Jessup's "THE WORKING PIT BULL". Go to the United Kennnel Club sanctioned shows. And yes, I have an American Pit Bull Terrier.
Posted by: Ann | April 22, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Some horrible parallels people should think about.
BSL - Anti-Jews, Holocaust
Denver Officials responsible = Hitler and his officers
Death Penalty for a breed = Euthanizing every male child lest they become a Ted Bundy or Hannible Lecter or Unabomber....
Anyone else see parallels here?????
Posted by: Pit Bull Mom | April 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Excellent piece, as usual.
What is truly shocking is that on this continent we have allowed people who appear to be uneducated sociopathic hooligans to obtain positions of trust. When you vote you are selecting people you expect to be impartial, educated, intelligent and experienced enough to uphold the constitution while writing new laws but someone is voting for these people...scary? You bet, especially when these individuals forget that they are supposed to be serving those they are instead persecuting.
Society appears to be degenerating instead of continuing to evolve for the good of all. I believe the root cause of this is laziness and an inability to anticipate the outcome of an action - certainly, this would appear to be the case with banning a dog because of its shape.
It is a mindset which was perfected during the Middle Ages: blame and punish the victim, God is on our side, we must protect these people from themselves, Us and Them. This outlook has been fostered and promoted throughout history by those without compassion, understanding or an objective, global view of issues - those on a personal vendetta or wishing to promote themselves at the expense of others.
To think that this shocking display of barbarism is taking place in countries which arrogantly and publicly state that they are superior to other countries (I presume because of their material wealth) is a complete travesty of what rights under the rule of law are supposed to mean.
I dream of the day when tin pot unelected officials like Nelson and others who are elected like Wesselhoft are ostracized and ignored and I'm hoping that day comes soon.
Million Dog March, anybody?
Posted by: Selma | April 12, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Would like to add some sanity to this debate. Government does not have a vendetta against a certain dog breed. To compare dog bans to Genocide? Easy I know to see our pets with human attributes but compare it to what happened to the Jews by the Nazi's???
Government is over reacting to the publics perception. Who's fault is this not the dogs it's irresponible owners and breeders. Part of the problem is the denial that bull dogs are not aggressive geesh. Do any of you posters even have a bull dog?
Bull dogs were bred for one thing as hounds were bred to track. Some hounds are better then others but even the worst tracking hound can track better then other breeds. So goes bull dogs even the bull dog with the least amount of drive will tend to have more drive then other breeds. To deny this is not helping bulldogs.
Bull dogs are tough (Mac truck tough) which is one of the attractions as owners to have this strong muscle bound dog be such a big baby for us. Yes and it is easy to forget that this baby who shares your bed, wants to be a lap dog is such a sweet pet has capability to be lethal.
If you care about the breed instead of complaining about bans lets do something that will help the breed. Train, socialize and control you bull dog. If you breed be selective and very very careful where you place your puppies. Otherwise we will all end up with cats as pets.
Hate to get government involved but do we need to increase license fees for all dogs? Get serious enforcement on owners and breeders? Shut down the mills? I don't know what the answer is but to complain about bans? Acting like the government the ban is just a sympton of a deeper problem.
Posted by: taylor | April 12, 2006 at 12:05 AM
What a truly amazing article..WAY TO GO!! I can't believe they lump all Pitbull owners as criminals, druggies, and dog fighters, for crying out loud. I have worked hard all my life, raised my daughter, and I rescue German Shepherd Dogs. I also own a Pitbull mix, she lives with 8 other dogs, and is a sweet girl. I have had her sinse she was 4 months old, she's now over a year old. Abby-gale LOVES all people and other dogs, there's not an aggressive bone in her body. She's my very good girl. And I am OFFENDED by people that think Pittie owners are the scum of the earth, I even own my own home. I have ALWAYS believed that you Ban the DEED, NOT the BREED!! It's the irresponsible owners that give ALL breeds a bad name, and Pitbull's jaws DO NOT lock. Go after the so-called humans that don't train or socialize their dogs, it's NOT the dog's fault if it's owners are morons. There are NO bad dogs....but there are BAD owners.
Posted by: Rose Hutchinson | April 11, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Kory Nelson, RINO - likes to pretend he is a Republican in favor of small government and individual rights. He's really a hypocrite. He's for MORE government intrusions when it will enhance his career and give him more opportunity to toot his own horn. His neighbors here in the cul-de sac are intimidated by his large, vicious dog, but he won't get rid of it. (at least not until he thinks Douglas County politics will enhance his career.
Maybe Kory should go back to talking about crack houses with every breath and leave responsible dog owners alone. Remember, the breed isn’t the problem, it’s the owner (like Kory and his German Sheperd).
Posted by: Kory's Neighbor | April 09, 2006 at 06:11 PM
I think this is a very well researched article and I am glad I read it so that now I can pass it on. I currently have a petition that opposes BSL and I would appreciate every signature added. My goal is 5000 but I expect to get more. Thanks and this really is a great article!
Here is the online petition site:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/504227089?ltl=1142356125
Posted by: Christie Bonamassa | April 08, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Please open your eyes to what you are doing! You don't kill an animal or person for what their heritage is.
What kind of "LAW" will allow such mass killing of the innocent?
The last I knew, this was America. What has become of us?
Please stop this killing!!
Here it is Easter and Christ died to save all of mankind. Makes you wonder why..........I'm sure he is saddened by what is taking place.
Posted by: Diana Walters | April 07, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Yet again, you have hit the problem on the head. Is it truly the dogs they are going after or is it "those people" they are going after. I fight BSL in KY and have been to a city and heard a councilperson state "we don't want those kind of people here". This was said in such a way as to lump all APBT owner's in one group and try to eliminate them. How can we as an intelligent, informed society condone this type of prejudicial statement from a member of the political structure of a town? Have seen it happen, know it does all too often. How can we change this behavior? Only by education and voting out the politicians that perpetrate this myth. I wear my button that says "my dog votes" to every town I go to. Does it make a difference? You bet your sweet **s it does! I have had the media interview me because of that little button and that gives me a chance to let them know that it is not the breed but irresponsible owners that are the problem. We have to stand up to all the nay sayers out there and make sure they understand that it is the owner and not the breed that is the problem and that we need to stop the irresponsible actions of these owners that make the difference. My personal motto is I can make a difference if it is only one city at a time, sooner or later all the cities will have been visited and then we will not have bsl. Simplistic? Yes. But it works.
Sandi
Posted by: Sandi Coy | April 06, 2006 at 01:38 PM
A guy from HSUS tore the city of Denver a new one on TV the other day! He really slammed BSL and this slaughter of the dogs.
Posted by: Dane | April 05, 2006 at 10:46 PM
On "dehumanization":
A local university professor, who is also one of those "terrible 'pit bull' owners", wrote about the power of symbolic words. In this case, she was talking about the Ontario Liberals' use of terms like "ticking time bombs" and "assault weapons" in reference to 'pit bulls'. Clearly this was the government's attempt to both whip up hysteria and reduce the dogs to little more than unfeeling killing machines.
We, as a society, are not expected to treat inanimate objects with consideration or care. We would think nothing of destroying bombs and other weapons. In fact, in most cases, we'd be considered heroes for doing so. A gullible populace begins to believe it is in society's best interests to destroy all 'pit bulls'.
By denying the sentient nature of 'pit bulls', the government turned the public's perception of them into automaton killers; unworthy of care, consideration and, ultimately, existence.
On "polarization":
Little more needs to be said than the dog owners who've faced terrible acts of discrimination and brutality at the hands of vigilantes who feel they're doing the government's bidding by attacking 'pit bull' owners and their dogs...although...in all too many cases, these geniuses also targeted non-'pit bull' dogs and owners, in their fanatical zeal.
See: http://www.goodpooch.com/attackreports.htm
On "denial":
You will never find the politicians who pass this kind of legislation in close contact with the newborn puppies they ordered killed. You'll never find the politicians who pass this kind of legislation keeping a tally on the number of completely law-abiding dog owners and their completely non-aggressive dogs affected by their laws. They don't acknowledge the pain of surrendering a dog for destruction or the personal, social, and financial sacrifices associated with moving to another region in order to save one's dog's life. You'll rarely find the politicians who pass these kinds of laws admit they been a failure in reducing dog bites. In fact, many politicians will deny to the end that these kinds of laws have failed, despite black and white facts from their own city's records. (Kitchener and Winnipeg come to mind.)
Denial is so strong in Kitchener, that after the city banned the #8 'breed' in their dog bite statistics ('pit bulls' - but not #1 German Shepherds, and not even #7 Poodles), they also stopped keeping dog bite records by breed. We're left with no records to specifically refute claims about the reduction in severity of attacks (since no city differentiates between bites and attacks) or about which dogs commit those attacks. However, we can still look at total dog bites for the region, since each instance still has to be recorded by law. The numbers prove what city officials are saying is inaccurate. Dog bites weren't reduced one bit in Kitchener, even 7 years after the ban.
Denial is so strong that, when asked about the effectiveness of a 'pit bull' ban, city officials often try to trick the public by saying "bites by (the) dogs have been all but eliminated."
The public hears that and thinks 'dog bites have been all but eliminated.' But what the city official really said was that bites by 'pit bulls' have been all but eliminated.
...Well...I should hope so, since every 'pit bull' was either killed or shipped out of the region. Of course there are no more bites by 'pit bulls' after a ban. There are no bites by the dodo, the wooly mammoth, or any other non-existent creatures, either. Boy! Those 'pit bull' bans sure are effective. They apparently prevent tiger attacks (except in Las Vegas), elephant stampedes, and zebra kickings, too!
On a side note, the image of the white dog is actually a photo straight from MSN clip art. I used it several years ago, in a project relating to dog bites. The image remains unchanged.
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPbitepreventionmovie.htm
Posted by: Marjorie | April 05, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Excellent essay, and very valid points. It appears to me that politicians in Denver, Ontario, Windsor and Kitchener do not have sufficient intelligence to learn, nor sufficient conscience to be ashamed of their actions. Judging a dog by its appearance is equivalent to judging a human by his or her appearance. Absolutely ridiculous. And making responsible, law abiding dog owners into second-class citizens because of their dogs' look is beyond ridiculous. However, intelligence and common sense have fled most political bodies, forced out by opportunism and ambition. To hell with the truth, to hell with citizens' rights, to hell with democracy. All that counts is what advances a political career most.
Posted by: Dianne Singer | April 05, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Wow, this one of of the most excellent, well researched, and convincing arguments against BSL I have ever read. Not that *I* need convincing, but there are many people who need to read this, and then once more, WITH FEELING. Thanks for posting such a great piece!!!!
Posted by: Donna Watkins | April 05, 2006 at 06:32 PM
http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=9365
(quote)
The City of Killeen is proposing tighter restrictions on certain types of dogs; this comes after a number of dog attacks in recent months. Pat Williams has owned her pit bull, Cadillac, for six years, and her other pit bull Zena has been a part of the family for the last year.
However, Eddie is quick to admit passing this ordinance may be an uphill battle, because it goes against a state law prohibiting the discrimination against specific types of dogs. “It is contrary to state laws on the books, but I feel it’s time for us to do something, take some leadership,” explained Eddie. (enquote)
against the law, but we'll do it anyway. Have a familiar ring to it?
Maybe like outing a CIA agent?
Maybe like warrantless spying on Americans?
Posted by: EmilyS | April 05, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Dog Politics calls it genocide.
And I call Dog Politics right on.
And as for the ultimate target of breed bans. . .here's a direct quote from Troy, New York, City Councilmember Mark Wojcik [keep in mind that New York State law prohibits breed bans]:
"We wish we could outlaw pit bulls. We want to make it as hard as possible for anybody who has a pit bull in this city."
oh, yeah.
Posted by: Mahlon Goer | April 05, 2006 at 01:43 PM