Follow me on Twitter: @Gamedogs

Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds."
~ Orison Swett Marden

We have 19 guests and no members online

I'll send a little, I hope some other folks can help too.


Dwayne Parker | Reporter
November 29, 2010

Baby Girl

READING, Pa. -- A man is hoping the public will help him pay to amputate his pit bull's leg.William Singleton of Reading said his seven-month old pit bull, "Baby Girl," was shot in the leg while trying to scare away two armed bandits."I was in shock," said Singleton. "I didn't know what was going on."The attempted robbery occurred in the 200 block of Jameson Place in Reading around 7:30 Friday night.While a guest was leaving, Singleton said the two men rushed into his home.While tussling with one of the robbers in the entrance hallway, the other robber entered his home and encountered "Baby Girl."Singleton said he then heard a shot."Like 'pow,' one shot, and that was it," said Singleton. "They running out the door."Singleton said "Baby Girl," despite being hit in the leg with a bullet, still continued to chase the criminals.The dog suffered a shattered elbow. Veterinarians said her leg needs to be amputated."The last two nights she's been up most of the night crying," said Vicky Hoffman of the Wyomissing Animal Hospital.Hoffman said "Baby Girl" is on heavy doses of painkillers to ease the pain, but her leg needs to be amputated quickly.Singleton said he has a message for the bandits."Stop dropping out of school, thinking the streets is all that," said Singleton. "The streets ain't all that. In the streets, you going to end up in the grave."

If you'd like to help "Baby Girl," donations can be sent to:
Wyomissing Animal Hospital
c/o Baby Girl's Surgery
35 Commerce Drive
Wyomissing, PA 19610


http://www.wfmz.com/berksnews/25952344/detail.html

and even if they strip out the language and leave the rest of the ban, it will still then set up other legal challenges.


AURORA - Allen Grider Sr. spent a year of his life fighting for his country in the jungles of Vietnam. He's spent the last year of his life fighting against the City of Aurora to keep his service dog. That's because Grider's service dog has been identified by Aurora as a pit bull, a breed banned by legislation passed in 2005.

Grider served as a United States Marine in Vietnam. When his tour of duty ended and he came home, the memories of war came with him.

"If you ever kill somebody, don't look them in the eyes. You'll never forget it and I don't. I wake up every night looking at that and it is terrifying," says Grider.

He struggled to deal with everyday life until doctors with the Veterans Administration diagnosed him as having post traumatic stress disorder.

"When I went to the program at the VA hospital they told me to get a service dog, so I got Precious and she's been my service dog. She's my heart and soul," says Grider.

Allen Grider and PreciousHe has worked with Precious as his service dog for seven years. About a year ago the City of Aurora ordered Grider to remove the dog from the city in order to comply with its pit bull ban. Grider had a friend, who lived outside the City of Aurora, care for Precious while he sought legal help to fight the ruling.

That fight may be over as the U.S. Department of Justice has issued a clarification of ADA regulations as they relate to restricted breeds of dogs. That clarification states that municipalities will no longer be able to prohibit a disabled person from using a restricted breed as a service dog. The Department of Justice has given municipalities with breed restrictions until March 15, 2011 to comply with the ruling.

The City and County of Denver have already taken steps to do so. On December 6 city council will consider a bill that would modify their current pit bull ban to allow the breed to be used as service dogs. Pit bulls not used as service dogs would still be banned under the law.

Aurora city attorney, Charlie Richardson says their city council will look at and consider all options.

There are currently nine cities in Colorado with restricted breed bans.

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=165826&catid=346

CHARGES DISMISSED!

GREAT JOB!  I am so thrilled when I see someone actually have some guts to stand up to these bully DAs acting like whores and puppets for the animal rights driven "humane" societies.  I don't know Thaxton but if anyone reading does, please be sure and let him know if there is anything I can do to help I would be more than happy to!  I mean it - website stuff, graphics, or any other technical assistance, please just let me know.  I suspect he is not going to just let his suit drop either.  Kudos!  and thanks for standing up for the dogs!


DA may appeal dismissal of dog fighting charges
by Barbara P. Jacoby
Cherokee Tribune
October 06, 2010

Cherokee County's district attorney said he may appeal the dismissal of charges against a Union Hill man accused of raising pit bulls for dog fighting.

County Superior Court Judge Frank C. Mills III last week dismissed the case against Randall Thaxton, 46, who was arrested in October 2008 on dog fighting, animal cruelty and drug charges.

Attorneys for Thaxton argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds he was denied his Constitutional right to a speedy trial. Thaxton was indicted in January.

Mills said Tuesday he wouldn't comment on the decision.

District Attorney Garry Moss said Tuesday he disagrees with the defense attorney's argument that the time between Thaxton's arrest and indictment was too long.

"The case was being evaluated. The dogs were being examined for their hostility," Moss said. "It took a long time to get that information."

Moss said he's waiting to review the judge's order, which has not yet been filed, before deciding whether to appeal.

Thaxton was arrested by the Cherokee Sheriff's Office after a two-week joint investigation that also reached into Gilmer County.

He was arrested on seven counts of felony dog fighting, 10 counts of animal cruelty and one count of possession of marijuana.

Thaxton was indicted by the Cherokee County grand jury on animal cruelty and drug charges, as Moss said he would not be pursuing the dog fighting charges.

Investigators said the 10 dogs seized from the home had injuries including scars that appeared to be from dog fighting. According to the indictment, the dogs suffered "unjustifiable physical pain."

The juvenile dogs were found on collars and chains weighing between 4.6 and 8.8 pounds. A treadmill for the dogs and breeding equipment also were seized.

Thaxton's family since his arrest has denied the charges, saying the dogs were raised for pit bill shows not fighting. They also have filed a lawsuit against the county government, which is pending, for compensation for the dogs that were seized and euthanized.

A motion also was filed by Thaxton's defense attorneys to suppress the evidence gathered from his house arguing the search warrant shouldn't have been granted as there wasn't probable cause. A ruling wasn't made on that motion.

Attorneys for Thaxton didn't return calls for comment.

http://www.cherokeetribune.com/.../article-DA-may-appeal-dismissal-of-dog-fighting-charges

It seems that with time most jurisdictions discover these laws make no real difference in terms of public security from vicious dog bites/attacks and most have repealed them, or had them stricken down.  unfortunately thousands and tens of thousands of dogs have paid with their lives for this instruction to legislators.


City to dismiss pit bull cases

By Tim Hrenchir
October 2, 2010

The city of Topeka is discontinuing its prosecution of charges filed against dog owners under an ordinance requiring pit bull dogs to be specially licensed and implanted with a microchip.

The move comes after members of Topeka's governing body voted 9-0 Tuesday evening to approve a 39-page ordinance amending rules regarding animal control and animal cruelty.

City attorney Jackie Williams said the new ordinance, which takes effect Monday, takes steps that include overturning city breed-specific rules banning the ownership, keeping or harboring of any of three specific breeds of pit bull dogs if they haven't been licensed with the city and implanted with a microchip. The city has been confining dogs suspected of being unlicensed or unmicrochipped pit bulls at the Helping Hands Humane Society shelter until any charges against their owners are resolved in Topeka Municipal Court.

Williams said Friday that the city attorney's office planned to dismiss all pit bull breed-specific charges at the next court appearance of each owner, which will allow the owners to immediately claim their dogs from the humane society.

"We are in the process of making efforts to contact the dogs' owners to expedite the release of the dogs," he said.

Williams said seven dogs were being held at the humane society shelter solely because of charges related to their allegedly being pit bulls.

"While we will dismiss the breed-specific charges, each owner faces additional charges, such as dog at large and/or unlicensed dogs, which we will continue to prosecute," he said.

The ordinance approved Tuesday also replaces the city's animal ordinance with a similar but broader "dangerous dogs" ordinance regulating dogs that have shown inappropriate behavior. It requires any dog ruled as dangerous in Topeka Municipal Court to be microchipped, specially licensed and kept in a secured enclosure. Such dogs must be muzzled and secured with a leash not more than four feet long if they are taken outside to urinate, defecate, be sold or given away, or to comply with orders from law enforcement.

Williams said that in addition to the implementation of the ordinance passed Tuesday, a number of other procedural changes were in the works with the city's animal control division.

"This ordinance is just the first step in improving service," he said Friday. "For example, next week the police department will begin joint training with animal control on case investigations."

http://cjonline.com/news/2010-10-02/city_to_dismiss_pit_bull_cases

September 29, 2010
by Bob Barr

Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions.  Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down.  Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.

Dog owners [pitchick edit:] and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs.  Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called ‘police power‘ of local governments to protect the public ‘safety and welfare.‘

The 20-year old, federal Americans With Disabilities Act (‘ADA‘), however, may put a stop to such ‘breed-specific legislation.‘  The ADA protects measures designed to help persons with disabilities, which includes dogs used by disabled persons for assistance.  Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.

In what some might consider a rare example of the federal government recognizing that laws can be overly broad and therefore harmful to individual liberty, the Justice Department’s opinion on breed-specific legislation noted that such laws sweep too broadly; and that it is inappropriate to outlaw an entire breed of dogs because a small number cause problems.  Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.

Unfortunately, there are still those, like the mayor of Douglasville, Georgia, who favor overly restrictive measures.  The mayor recently noted in support of the city’s proposed pit bull ordinance, that he had no problem singling out pit bulls, because he sees them ‘on TV‘ causing ‘incidents.‘    One would hope that local government officials might on their own possess some understanding of limited government and individual liberty; but if the Justice Department at least in this instance will ensure that they do so by way of a federal law, then the feds are serving as an important check on excessive government power.

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/09/29/federal-law-leashes-pit-bull-restrictions/

as many of you might have noticed I have not made much comment publicly on the missouri busts.  since I have not much nice to say about most of those that were raided and handed over their dogs and ammunition (in many senses) to the "humane" societies I have mostly tried not to say too much.  However I have watched the news stories and know quite a bit of behind the scenes info on the whole situation - such as it supposedly spawning from a sideline dog guy in this area getting in some trouble and he had a missouri state trooper for an uncle.  I remember reading one of the first stories of the "hero" cops and the one named "Heath" said he liked fighting dogs and enjoyed training them for it.

I wonder how many people realize that the cops were doing (and liking!) exactly the "horrendous crime" they are trying to bust people for.  In this article it mentions for the first time I've seen that in fact while most of the dogs seized from/turned over by 'terrible, evil dogfighters'  in this whole fiasco were 'saveable', "the majority of the investigation dogs had to be euthanized after compassion care because of their poor condition".

Poll totals are as of the time of posting here.  yellow highlight is mine.



Is It Ethical for Police to Have a Dog in the Fight?

by Ledy VanKavage September 13, 2010
POLL:


Total Votes: 423

Last summer, 500 dogs were rescued from a multi-state dog fighting ring in the biggest fight bust in U.S. history. As part of the investigation leading up to the bust, police infiltrated the operation by throwing undercover dogs into the ring.

...

The operation was not taken lightly. U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan says his office decided what the dogs could be subjected to based on "thoughtful discussions with both the state and national humane societies, those individuals involved and with the undercover agents." Callahan declined to specify what training methods were off-limits.

The investigation started in January 2008 and ended on July 9, 2009. Independence day for most of the dogs but not for those who helped enable the bust.

The organization Bad Rap has taken in numerous investigation dogs in the past, including many from this bust. Tragically, in all of those cases, the majority of the investigation dogs had to be euthanized after compassion care because of their poor condition. You would hope these dogs would be in better shape, their condition reflected by the time they spent with the police, not the fighters.

Donna Reynolds rightly feels that ..."These dogs are the sacrificial lambs of the anti-dogfighting campaigns. ...


excerpted from:
http://animals.change.org/blog/view/is_it_ethical_for_police_to_have_a_dog_in_the_fight


This video shows the cops engaged in fighting dogs themselves:

as most of you know I mostly try to keep this page reserved for positive information regarding the breed and her true defenders and proponents.  however after so many recent 'busts' coming directly from peds online and in this particular county of virginia I thought I would issue a public service warning so that anyone being contacted to sell dogs in this area, especially if being offered a lot of money and to transport them to the area would know of this danger.  personally, I think this sounds like entrapment.  my understanding is that many of these initial contacts are originating on peds online and that the cops are really forcing this whole 'for fighting purposes' issue even when the people say they are not doing so.  notice one of the most recent stories talks about 'their understanding was they would be used for fighting'.  pretty vague if you ask me, how can they know what someone else understands?  many are greedy though and after having a lot of money waved in front of their noses they are apparently caving in to telling them what they want to hear and driving right into the hornet's nest.  use extreme caution when selling dogs anywhere nowadays (with bedford having this much luck other jurisdictions are sure to use the same tactics), but I would avoid all of virginia, and probably pennsylvania as well, altogether if doing so.  the following starts chronologically at the bottom and works up.

                                                

Second Bedford County Dog-Fighting Arrest in Two Days
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 5:29 PM CDT
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 6:29 PM EST
Reporter: Lauren Compton l Photojournalist: R.J. Nelson

Bedford Co.,VA - Bedford County deputies have arrested another person they say was trying to sell pit bulls for dog fighting. It's the second such arrest in just two days.

Deputies seized three pit bulls they say were being sold for the purposes of dog fighting in an undercover investigation. The dogs had multiple cuts and bruises.

Armon Lydell Peterson is now facing three felony counts of violating animal fighting laws. He's now out of jail on bond.

Sheriff Mike Brown says other investigations have been uncovering these sorts of crimes.

"With the other undercover investigations that we're working on these types of crimes just sort of popped out. It popped out in a way that we couldn't turn a blind eye to it," said Sheriff Mike Brown.

The dogs seized in this case are now at the Bedford County Animal Shelter.

http://www.wset.com/Global/story.asp?S=13076845


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 30, 2010

2 Pa. men arrested on dogfighting charges in Bedford Co.

Two Pennsylvania men face dogfighting charges in Bedford County after allegedly selling a pit bull and two of its male pups to undercover officers.

Authorities on Monday charged Martin W. Laluz, 39, and Daryl C. Klotz Jr., 20, both of Bethlehem, Pa., with three felony counts each of engaging in the fighting of animals for amusement, sport or gain.

Undercover investigators met with Laluz and Klotz at a Stop In Food Store at 11268 West Lynchburg Salem Turnpike in Montvale and bought the three dogs from them with the understanding that the dogs had been bred to fight, according to a news release from the Bedford County Sheriff's Office.

-- Rex Bowman

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/258789


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated: 4:21 PM May 27, 2010
Man Accused of Running Dogfighting Ring Arrested in Virginia
Bedford County
A man accused of running a nationwide dogfighting operation has been arrested in Virginia.
Posted: 3:40 PM May 27, 2010


A man accused of running a nationwide dogfighting operation has been arrested in Virginia.

Bedford County deputies arrested Jeffrey Denny Tuesday (pitchick says this would be May 25th).

They say they caught him when he tried to sell pit bulls to an undercover officer.

Deputies say this was something Denny had done several times before.

Bedford County Sheriff Mike Brown says, "He's acknowledged that he has sold hundreds of game bred dogs throughout the United States, from the East Coast to the West Coast."

Investigators say Denny told them he was on his way to Charleston, West Virginia to sell dogs when he was caught.

http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/95046729.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N.C. man pleads guilty to selling fighting dogs in Bedford

Friday, May 07, 2010

BEDFORD -- A North Carolina man who sold five pit bulls to a Bedford County investigator during an undercover sting pleaded guilty Thursday to promoting dogfighting.

Some of the dogs bore signs of wounds from previous fights, according to prosecutors.

William Williams, 25, of Marshall, N.C., faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 when he is sentenced Aug. 31.

In Bedford County Circuit Court on Thursday, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Mark Robinette said investigators snared Williams during an investigation into dogfighting when an informant told them he had seen an ad for fighting dogs posted on an online message board.

An investigator had several phone conversations with Williams, who had apparently posted the ad, to arrange the purchase of the pit bulls -- one of which Williams said had won two matches, Robinette told Circuit Court Judge James Updike.

On Sept. 19, Williams met with an officer at a motel in Bedford. The officer, posing as a dogfight coordinator, agreed to buy all five pit bulls, which Williams hawked as fighting dogs.

"Some of the dogs," Robinette said, "had scars around their heads which indicated involvement in prior fights."

When the officer gave Williams the agreed-upon $6,500 for the dogs, other officers moved in and arrested Williams.

He is free on bond while he awaits sentencing. The dogs were turned over to the Bedford County Animal Shelter.

-- Rex Bowman

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/245961


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marshall man William Travis Williams arrested on dogfighting charges in Virginia

October 27, 2009

BEDFORD, VA. ’ A North Carolina man was arrested on animal fighting charges after an extensive, two-month, interstate undercover investigation, according to Sheriff Mike Brown.

William Travis Williams, 25, of Marshal, N.C., was placed under arrest after receiving $6,500 for transporting and selling the five pit bull dogs to undercover agents disguised as ‘dog fight‘ coordinators from central Virginia.

On Sept. 19, members of the Bedford County Animal Control and Field Deputies, assisted by the Humane Society of the United States, seized five pit bull dogs, in cages, from the Best Western Motel, in Bedford.

Investigations show that these dogs were transported to Virginia for the purpose of engaging in dog fighting in central Virginia and West Virginia.

Williams was arrested under a new felony law that makes it illegal for anyone to transport, own, train or sell animals into the state of Virginia for purposes of engaging in an exhibition of fighting with another animal.

If convicted, Williams could face 1-5 years in prison and up to $250,000 fine.

This investigation is ongoing with more arrests anticipated.

The seized animals are currently being held at the Bedford County Animal Shelter.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091027/NEWS01/91027017


9/12: here is a reply I received regarding this post (which by the way is mine, NOT peds online who stole it from this site with no credit):


Thanks for the heads up..  No reason why law abiding citizens such as myself who do not sell any animdl or any other thing for illegal purposes should be illegally entrapped... A lot of individuals like myself rescue dogs despite their physical appearance or condition... Should we abandon adoption and allow these animals to go to hell and not be cared for as they deserve... That sounds just like what American culture has done with our vietnam veterans and homeless in america... If our pets get in an accident should we chose to have them put to sleep and buried under the old Christmas tree... Every animal in America should be allowed to exist without public prejudice ... Shame on the countless racist Americans who should not be permitted to be represented as such... Hitler must still live through the Racist and Slave like mentality of these radicals trying to rid us of our rights to own one of the greatest breeds known 2 man... The true AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER... God bless America and those RACISTS that will perish in hell too...


of course spca-la is the same group that screwed over floyd, so I'm no fan, but she does have some great points in this editorial.

DNA Dog Testing: More Questions than Answers
by madeline bernstein spcaLA president

The latest trend I am seeing involves DNA testing for dogs. Some offer home kits so the curious can see what their dog really is. Some suggest that knowing the prominent breed in a pet will help preempt behavior issues with proactive training techniques. Others suggest it can be a panacea in some legal matters. I say before blithely jumping in, selling home kits, creating databases, inviting DNA booths to dog walk festivals, and participating in a collective knee jerk response of blind acceptance - we think about the intended results, the unintended consequences, the ethics involved and what the criteria for best practices in the usage of this information should be.

Consider these questions: Should shelters allow adopters to delay an adoption pending a DNA test result? Should shelters be liable if an adopter discovers an undesirable breed in the genetic analysis home kit. Should they be liable if that dog bites a third party and a DNA test was not done? These tests cost $70.00 and above. Should the cost be borne by the shelter or the adopter? Will steeper costs affect adoptions? What percentage of pit bull in such a genetic analysis is enough to violate a ban? Can a city with a ban or spay/neuter mandate of certain breeds force pet owners to test and share results? Can homeowner's insurance providers require tests? Should organizations like the American Kennel Club be liable if the purchased pet isn't as "pedigree" as they represented? Should they provide the DNA results before the buyer does? What is pure, genetically speaking? Will these "new" undesirable dogs be euthanized?

The ASPCA created a DNA database from samples taken from dogs found at a dog fight. They not only collected samples from the fighting dogs, but also pets, guard dogs and any other dog found at the location. The stated purpose of such a canine codis is to strengthen dog fighting prosecutions.

Really? Consider these questions: How does it do that? Since they collected samples of non fighting dogs as well as fighting dogs, the database is already tainted and unreliable, unless being near a fighting dog is somehow significant. What about the siblings of fighting dogs that don't fight. What would a codis hit mean to a potential adopter? What would it mean to an adopter who takes and rehabilitates such a dog? Can this evidence be admitted in court yet? Who will lay the proper legal foundation that having a dog with a codis hit is actually a fighting dog, and that the owner of the dog is actually a fighter. What about a rehabilitated Michael Vick fighting dog who bites a burglar? Is that relevant to the bite circumstances? Is that prima facie proof the dog is vicious? Is it a presumption that the human companion burglary victim  is a dog fighter? What does it prove if law enforcement raids a home for stolen high definition televisions and seizes and removes a dog incident to the arrest whose DNA turns up in this database?

The ASPCA could be responsible for the euthanasia of dogs in and related to dogs in the database if down the line people could check adoptions against this. A dog merely from the same litter or an innocent dog at the scene that was not involved in the dog fight could scare a family away. In fact, could shelters with law enforcement personnel be required to check animals against this list or be liable for not checking should a mishap occur? What inferences, legal or otherwise could be made against the human companions of these "list dogs"?

Finally, as animals are legally property, the usual cast of privacy advocates is silent. But, remember, the humans associated with these animals do have rights and should not ignore or passively accede to this trend.

This is piece is a call to action - to think this through. Good science can lead to bad consequences if the moral, ethical and legal uses are not established first. As far as I know, science has not yet figured out how to put the toothpaste back into the tube.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/dna-dog-testing-more-questions-than-answers

Libby Sherrill, Executive Producer, 'Beyond The Myth,'
a Film About Pit Bulls and Breed Discrimination

By Rose Kennedy
Wednesday, August 25, 2010


Beyond the Myth: A Film about Pit Bulls and Breed Discrimination
  • When: Friday, Sept. 3, 2010, 8 p.m.
  • Where: Bijou Theatre, 803 S. Gay St., Knoxville
  • Cost: $12 - $55
  • Age limit: 13+
Full event details »

Libby Sherrill first decided to tackle a film about pit bulls as a grad student at the University of Tennessee. Three years later, her theme has been honed to reveal the perils of breed-specific legislation as carried out in three cities that ban pit bull-type dogs: Denver, Miami, and Cincinnati’along with San Francisco, which requires the animals to be spayed and neutered. Although she wasn’t a pit bull owner herself when the film project began, Sherrill is now. She took a break from producing one last segment for the Sept. 3 screening of Beyond the Myth at the Bijou Theatre to talk about her creative journey.

What’s the film about?

Beyond the Myth explores the contributing factors behind the public’s generalized fear of pit bulls, and examines the conflict between advocates and opponents of breed-specific legislation in four cities. BSL has nothing to do with an owner or dog’s behavior, it’s based entirely on physical characteristics.

Some of the stories you filmed about people having long-time family pets confiscated are very sad. Did you end up feeling any sympathy for the other side, the ones advocating BSL?

No. I’m being honest. I started out with a less biased approach; my aim was to give people on both sides a chance to defend their positions. But as I got further into it, I myself could see no merit in BSL. It doesn’t decrease the number of dangerous dogs in communities, and it doesn’t stop irresponsible people from having dogs and it doesn’t stop dog attacks. Whenever you ban a particular breed, it does nothing to change the behavior of people who are in fact responsible for creating dangerous dogs through training and inhumane treatment. They can always get another dog or another breed.

Can you give an example of a story that really touched you from the film?

Desiree and her dog Coco, who was taken from her backyard by Denver Animal Control. She never got Coco back. Denver enforces their ban more stringently than any place I visited, killing close to 4,000 pit bull-type dogs since 1989. A lot were strays, I’m sure, a lot were owner surrenders, but that also includes confiscations.

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/aug/25/...beyond-myth-film/

atta boy!

A home is destroyed but a family of 3 is alive thanks to Thor, the pit bull being called a hero.

Thor the Hero

Jul 8, 2010

Bristol, IN
Nick McGurk
nick[dot]mcgurk[at]wndu.com

A home is destroyed but a family of 3 is alive thanks to Thor, the pit bull being called a hero.

Around 3 a.m. Thursday a family slept soundly as fire ripped through their home.

Pit bull Thor tried to wake both Kemper Hunter and Sarah Laughlin, asleep on the couch.

Neither woke up, so Thor kept barking ‘“ even biting his owner, Hunter.

‘He started barking, it made me upset, so I sat up,‘ said Hunter. ‘There it was, our house on fire,‘ he said.

‘It's just engulfed in flames and smoke everywhere,‘ added Hunter.

Meantime, Thor was busy.

"He had my infant, my 3-month-old little girl, bassinet and all, grabbed by the ruffles and drug to the front door, ready to go. He's a hero, he saved our lives,‘ said Hunter.

Frank Connolly, assistant executive director with Elkhart County’s Red Cross, agrees.

"It's a remarkable story,‘ said Connolly.

Connolly has helped countless people and families through tragedies.

"To meet someone who can say our dog saved our life, he pulled our baby out of the bedroom to the front door to save our life, it's pretty remarkable, it tops the list,‘ Connolly said.

Thanks to the Red Cross, the family has a hotel room for a few days ‘“ their second move in just over a week.

"Moved in a week ago and lost everything we own,‘ said Hunter.

After the family moved into their trailer a week ago, everything now seems to be lost. But perspective is looking at each family member ‘“ including Thor -- and knowing what's still here.

"Thank God for him, because if it wasn't for him, everything else is replaceable, but if it wasn't for him I think we'd still be laying in that bed if my dog hadn't been as heroic as he was,‘ Hunter said.

The family didn’t have renter’s insurance. The Red Cross of Elkhart County has set up a fund to help them. Please call the Red Cross at 574-293-6519 if you’d like to help.

http://www.wndu.com/hometop/headlines/98083109.html


Published - Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Animal rights group taking on state’s pig wrestling events

by Matt Johnson,
matt[-dot-]johnson[-at-]lee.net

A Madison-based animal rights group has taken a public stand against one of the biggest attractions for Viroqua’s Wild West Days -- pig wrestling.

The Alliance for Animals wrote Wild West Days organizers in late May saying it had conferred with two attorneys who are of the opinion that pig wrestling "is in clear violation of the Wisconsin Statutes." The Alliance notes in particular Chapter 951 entitled "Crimes Against Animals," which outlaws cockfighting, dog fighting and any other similar type of fighting between animals or animals and humans.

Lynn Pauly, co-director of Alliance for Animals, said that the organization’s main goal is education and it started a specific website, www.nopigwrestling. (pitchick says: no working links for ARs here) org, to bring attention to 10 different pig wrestling competitions held in Wisconsin.

Not only does the Alliance think that those who run or participate in pig wrestling competitions are breaking the law, but it also claims that anyone "being a spectator" of such an event is also in violation of Chapter 951. Someone prosecuted under Chapter 951 could face felony charges.

"There’s no necessity to have a gladiatorial display of human brawn against an animal who doesn’t want to participate," Pauly said. "Our intent is always education. We believe that people are compassionate and moral and deep down, after thinking about it, people will see [pig wrestling] is not right."

Vernon County District Attorney Tim Gaskell said he viewed the letter from Alliance for Animals and spoke with Pauly. He said he disagrees with the legal position of Alliance for Animals.

"When they specifically mention the examples, the intention is to maim or kill the animal," Gaskell said. "With the pig wrestling‘¦ there’s absolutely no intent to injure the animal. I would not prosecute the organizers, participants or the spectators."

Viroqua’s "hog wrasslin’" competition is attended by more than 1,000 people. Before the wrestling begins, there is a costume competition. There are both men’s and women’s divisions with about 30 teams participating. A three-person team goes into a mud-filled pit and attempt to grasp a pig and put it backside-first into a barrel in about half a minute. The team that gets the pig into the barrel in the shortest time wins. Rules include not being able to grab a pig’s leg or snout and not being able to put the pig under the mud. At the start of each competition, the emcee announces that the main concern is the safety of the pig. About two dozen pigs are put in pens near the pig wrestling pit to be used in the competition. Sometimes fewer than one-quarter of the teams will get the pig in the barrel. Some teams barely get a hand on the pig.

Wild West Days organizer Dr. Jeffrey Menn said Wild West Days conferred with Gaskell and officials from state and other groups to be certain its activities were legal. He said the 2010 "Hog Wrasslin’" competition, set for Saturday, Aug. 21, will go on as scheduled.

Pauly said that Alliance for Animals is in a fact-finding stage, attending pig wrestling events, taking photos and video, and documenting what occurs.

"What if it was a dog in that pen barking and whining when being chased around by six people?" Pauly said. "A double standard exists."

Pauly said that pigs have high intelligence and just because they are being raised to be slaughtered, doesn’t mean people can be cruel to them. She said Wisconsin, with at least 10 known pig wrestling competitions, is a haven for the activity.

"We’re not going to let this go," Pauly said. "We’re not going to stop it this summer, but we’re going to keep after it."

Pauly said one of the goals for Alliance for Animals is to get larger, national animal rights organizations to join its cause.

http://www.vernonbroadcaster.com/articles/2010/07/07/news/00lead.txt



Humane Society comes under fire in local farming magazine

Michael Broihier
July 7, 2010

Eagle-eyed IJ reader Betty McCall spotted a story about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that appeared in this month’s ‘Cow Country News‘ that might have surprised subscribers to the widely read magazine. Cow Country News, the monthly journal of the Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association, carried a story by David Martosko of Humane Watch, a group whose motto is, ‘Keeping a watchful eye on the Humane Society of the United States,‘ made some shocking claims about how the well known animal advocacy group does business.

The bottom line in Martosko’s article is this, in the last three reported tax-years the HSUS has raised over $288 million, mostly in donations, and has returned $1000 to the state of Kentucky, a fraction of one-percent so small that it’s not worth getting your calculator out.

In an interview Tuesday, Martosko was blunt, ‘Local animal care people should be pissed off. All of this money is being sucked out of your community by these very cynical lobbyists in Washington from donors under the misapprehension that the money will come back to their community. It’s a pittance, and frankly a slap in the face.‘

Martosko is the Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom (CFC), a group that has its share of critics for its ties to the alcohol, fast food and tobacco industries, but in this case his statistics appear bulletproof. All of the HSUS tax returns for 2006-2008 are available on line and back up Martosko’s charges that only a small fraction of the money HSUS raises goes to hands-on pet sheltering operations.

So where does the money go? Martosko said, according to tax returns, of the $288 million the HSUS raised in the last three years nearly $280 million went to salaries, lobbying, advertising, fundraising and other expenses with only $7 million going to sheltering operations, less than three percent.

In 2008 for example, the HSUS raised over $86 million and spent almost $38 million on salaries alone, almost 43 percent. It was this kind of disproportional spending that caused Charity Navigator, an independent, non-profit organization that evaluates American charities, to give the HSUS a one star, out of four possible, organizational efficiency rating. Martosko said this is a fair assessment of the HSUS use of donors’ dollars. ‘The standard in the nonprofit world (for overhead) is 22 percent, anything above 30 percent is scandalous,‘ he said.

While it is easy to see what the HSUS gives to Kentucky, next to nothing, by examining their tax returns, it is impossible to tell how much Kentuckians donate to the HSUS. Like all 501 (C) tax-exempt organizations, the HSUS is not required to provide donor information. But the $288 million the HSUS raised in the last three years came from somewhere, and it’s safe to say, Kentuckians gave a lot more than the $1000 they got back. Martosko points out that Kentucky isn’t even the worst served state. ‘Five states got nothing,‘ he said. ‘Look, they are taking advantage of little old ladies across the country who write $20 checks thinking it’s going to flow back into their community, and it isn’t,‘ Martosko said.

...

Locally, some sentiment is flowing against the HSUS. Garrard County’s Humane Society chose not to associate with the national chapter of the HSUS last December when the Farm Bureau Federation expressed displeasure with the association. A Farm Bureau representative said the federation believes the HSUS has a history of taking radical stances on livestock and agriculture, prompting a response from Kentucky State HSUS Director Pamela Rogers in a letter to the editor of the Advocate-Messenger writing, ‘In 2008, we provided more than 26,000 treatments valued at $1.2 million in free services. In total, we provided direct care to more than 70,000 animals in 2008. We also have major advocacy campaigns to combat animal cruelty, dog-fighting and cock-fighting, Canada’s notorious killing of baby seals, inhumane factory farming practices, and large-scale puppy mills, and we make no apologies for efforts to stop these terrible abuses.‘

With tough economic times affecting everyone, animal lovers may have to make a choice about where their charitable donations go. The HSUS, despite their massive overhead, do advocate for animal rights on the national and state level, but if you are interested in helping your local animal shelter directly you can get more information from Dude Cress at (606) 365- 2354.

http://www.theinteriorjournal.com/stories/2010/07/07/loc.526699.sto



Here is an example of how these ARs conflate and over-emote animal issues.  Of course all the H$U$/Peta propaganda has led the weak-minded to these simpleton conclusions.  This writer probably eats hamburgers and sees no hypocrisy in it too, lol.

Cruelty justifies banning of rodeos

July 8, 2010

The cruelty of rodeos and mindset of promoters is identical to dog fighting. Terrorizing and torturing innocent animals in order to dominate them is what rodeos are all about.

To keep horrific events palatable to the gullible public, promoters must make bulls or horses dangerous "villains," trying to buck off the poor defenseless wannabe cowboy. For the truly sadistic, calf roping is available for snapping a poor baby's neck, who has been terrorized to bolt straight out of a gate in a panicked run.

Those who support rodeo are just as guilty as those who exploit animals with barbaric suffering. Do not buy into the "heritage" hype ’ no rancher ever treats animals as they do in rodeo events. Take a stand; ban rodeo events.

Jim Cather

Loomis

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20100708/OPINION03/7080306/1014/OPINION/Cruelty-justifies-banning-of-rodeos



pretty good.

June 24, 2010

Veterinarian takes on pit bull breed ban vs. 'damage by dog' laws

By Patty Khuly Special for USA TODAY

I have a new foster dog. I took her in last week after she was liberated from a foodless, waterless, shadeless yard in southern Miami-Dade County, Fla. She was pokey rib-thin, crawling with mange, her excoriations festering with bacteria and yeast. Hairless, too. With the bad manners of an incorrigibly friendly jumper and a penchant for kitchen counter trolling.

Her bright pink hairlessness coupled with her cotton candy disposition earned her the name, "Pinky." How could a veterinarian resist? Trouble is ’ get this ’ she's a pit bull mix. Which means she's 100% illegal where I live. Ever heard the term "BSL"? It stands for "breed specific legislation" (AKA, breed ban or, more coloquially, "pit bull ban"). Municipalities all over the U.S. have adopted these laws in a misguided effort to reduce dog-related violence. Trouble is, there's no evidence they've ever managed to work.

Despite 30 years of statistics that show breed bans don't curb canine violence, a Florida state representative from Plantation, Rep. Perry Thurston, is sponsoring a new bill to amend Florida's existing "Damage by Dogs" statute. Currently, this Florida law keeps municipalities from banning breeds ad libidum. Instead, it seeks to hold individual owners of dangerous dogs liable for the damage their pets do. Rep. Thurston would see this limit on breed banning lifted so that individual municipalities can newly elect to ban specific breeds.

Make no mistake, Florida's "Damage by Dogs" law is a good one. It takes the enlightened view that individual humans must be made responsible for their dangerous pets. By limiting breed banning, it recognizes that such blanket constraints on individual property rights are not only intrusive, unfair and costly to implement, they also do little to decrease the risk of dog-related violence.

Rep. Thurston's bill would make way for more municipalities to adopt these regressive laws.

While it seeks to amend the existing "Damage by Dogs" law with greater restrictions, his bill (HB 101) does nothing to address the fact that there's currently little to no enforcement of its key provision: holding owners responsible for their individual dogs' behavior.

Predictably, this new bill has stirred up debate in the local and national media with big groups taking sides. For this party, PETA has been on hand to pass out hats and light the candles while the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and the Florida Animal Control Association are rallying their minions against the festivities.

Veterinarians, animal welfare groups and animal control organizations are speaking out ever loudly against breed specific bans for their biased infringement on property rights, their failure to stem the tide of canine violence and their short-sighted approach to the problem of unwanted behaviors. Good laws, like Florida's current "Damage by Dogs" law, already exist. Enforcing them is the obvious solution proposed by this new bill's detractors.

True to form, PETA supports breed specific legislation. Though its rallying cry references pit bulls and curbing blood sports altogether (which all animal advocates support), PETA's track record with shelter pets seems to suggest it'll leverage any excuse to keep dogs out of human hands altogether.

Earlier this year, my local daily, The Miami Herald, weighed in on the debate with an article quoting those on all sides. Surprisingly balanced, it pointed to the lack of statistics on dog bites and the questionable impact of Miami-Dade County's 20 year-old pit bull ban. In its final paragraphs it quoted Palm Beach County's animal control czar, who reported that Shepherd, Lab and Chow mixes were his area's biggest offenders.

Hmmm ... I'll wager Palm Beach won't be banning German shepherds, Labrador Retrievers or Chow Chows anytime soon. If the forbiddingly named, thug-evoking pit bull topped the list, however, I'd bet high against their surviving the year without a breed ban levied against them. This, because of popular culture and their abuse by those within it who would fight them ’ not because pit bulls are any more innately violent than these other dogs on Palm Beach's list.

The "jaw locking" thing? A myth. Pit bulls' jaws are not anatomically or physiologically different from any other dogs' in this respect. Neither are pit bulls behaviorally special, save their infamous, terrier-ish drive to kill small prey. Indeed, anyone who owns a Jack Russell or bull terrier (of "Spuds MacKenzie" fame) would recognize the same outsized drive.

The recognition of this fundamental unfairness is why after 20 years of a painful breed ban that's hurt only the most responsible pet owners among us and sent hundreds of dogs to their needless deaths every week, Miami-Dade County residents are finally getting sick of breed bans. In fact, last year, one judge ruled the ban unconstitutional in the case of one dog. (Which means that maybe ’ just maybe ’ Pinky will get a reprieve should she ever get hauled in.

Hmmm ... maybe a great picture in her new collar would help. Barring that, maybe I'll buy one of those newfangled breed tests. One blood test or buccal swab mailed to the lab and maybe we'll learn she's no pit bull at all. Viszla mixed with Boston terrier? Who knows?

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-06-24-vetviews25_ST_N.htm

I don't know this guy or anything about him but this is an obvious and ridiculous abuse of power, he should get a lawyer and not be foolish like the other NC guy this week and hand over his dogs for killing. it is so pathetic to watch so many have so little bottom end involved in a breed whose ideal is the gamedog. I hope he won't be one of them.

I am pretty certain a lot of this is coming from 'peds online'. that site is a nightmare for the dog's decent real owners and defenders. it is full of snitches and cops, peddlers and online big mouth wanna-be and sideline-hanger-on 'dogmen'. Anybody who is still on there and posting regularly in 2010 is suspect or stupid.

most of the big breeders have been raided or scared out of dogs. same for most of the working class guys and gals just keeping a small yard and doing dogs as a hobby, the decent people. Now all that's left are the worst of the worst, and a few breeders and/or registry (with associated sycophants) or two who must be infiltrated/cooperating.

I usually try to keep only to the pro-bulldog type articles for this site but I wanted to comment on this because Goodwin is just so in the weeds on this public comment about how transporters are used "to bring female pit bulls to customers in order to breed for dogfighting purposes". it's like so much of this witchhunt against dogmen and even BSL. They're using the example of the "bad" actions of a very small minority as though it is the rule.

I hate liars. and the dog world is full of them on both sides of bulldogs.

the fact and TRUTH is the vast majority of people using transporters are using them to transfer puppies they've sold to pet owners and maybe an occasional older dog. It is an out and out lie to make it out like the transporting business is about nothing but facilitating the breeding of fighting dogs.

In a way it is just an extension of breed profiling since the transportation of cocker spaniels would never be considered for these ludicrous invasions of privacy and property. Same goes for treadmills, they always say treadmills indicate dogfighting yet not only do hundreds, maybe thousands, of APBT owners use them for completely lawful purposes but so do thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of dog owners of other breeds!

I have a whole argument I could make about all that but won't go into it now. I will say that it should be noted that the brian bailey event precipitated some of this anti-transporter agenda as well (I think he got back on peds online as soon as he got out of jail. I know he got on hachiman's and oldog's boards right away which was just as bad). He's another example of the trash I mentioned in the first two paragraphs. Him taking his umpteenth "deal" just fueled and emboldened the h$/ARs on this whole issue.

N.C. man arrested on dogfighting charges in Bedford County

By Scott Leamon
WSLS-10
May 25, 2010

The Humane Society of the United States confirmed on Tuesday the arrest of a North Carolina man in Bedford County on a charge of dogfighting.

Online court records show Jeffrey Denny is charged with one misdemeanor count of animal fighting.

The Humane Society’s animal fighting campaign manager, John Goodwin, said Denny is one of only a handful of ‘transporters‘ in the illegal world of dogfighting.

Transporters are paid to bring female pit bulls to customers in order to breed for dogfighting purposes, Goodwin said.

Goodwin said authorities in Randolph County, N.C., raided Denny’s property at about the same time as his arrest in Bedford County.

The Humane Society’s brand new mobile crime lab assisted authorities in the investigation, Goodwin said. He said it was the first alleged animal abuse case in which the society has used the crime lab.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/...bedford_county/27325/

May 1, 2010

The Toronto Humane Society has completed the results of a statistical survey of municipalities across Ontario regarding the number of dog bites. This survey shows that the Pit Bull ban has not resulted in a reduction in the number of dog bites in Ontario.

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) was included in amendments made to the Dog Owners Liability Act making Pit Bull’s an illegal breed in Ontario. This act has seen countless Pit Bulls (and Staffordshire Terrier’s) euthanized simply because of their breed.

When introduced former Attorney General Michael Bryant stated in the Legislature ‘It's time that we make amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act that make our streets safer.‘ BSL has failed to do so.

A study of the total number of dog bites since the Act came into effect in 2005 shows that there has been no significant reduction in the total number of dog bites since that time.

BSL data 2003 - 2009

* Please note: On April 30th the THS revised figures for Durham Region to reflect a miscalculation in the data originally provided. The revision decreased data from Durham Region by the same percentage each year (2003 ‘“ 2009). It does not affect the argument made that dog bites have not been reduced as a result of BSL.

Click here to download the chart data in excel format

The Toronto Humane Society has long been an opponent of Breed Specific Legislation as it targets the wrong source of the problem. Dogs are not born violent but are made that way by irresponsible owners who train them to be that way or neglect them and they develop behavioural problems.

‘If we want to reduce the number of dog bites we have to address the route cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals.‘ Said Ian McConachie, Senior Communicator at the Toronto Humane Society. ‘It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites.‘

The Toronto Humane Society calls on the McGuinty government to address this issue with amendments to this Act and to stop the punishment of innocent animals.


http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/

April 20, 2010

from an email I exchanged with a friend:

the h$u$ has already issued press releases asking for more/different laws.  and the ruling and dissent both hint that the dog fighting aspect may or may not be of "serious" value (alito says more plainly it isn't unless pro-AR) and what is the definition of serious anyway? (I love courts)  lol  they leave it pretty clear that they are ruling on an almost class-like basis and not by individual merit.  if a narrower law was tested who knows.  this coulda been 5 years ago if [a certain someone else] had had the guts bob did.  very (very!) few dog people do.  people always talk about "this isn't right", "this should be against the law", "it's criminal what they had done to them" but then they almost all take deals and never test it.  laws are only unconstitutional if there're people willing to stand up in court and say so.

I'm curious what the civil ramifications of this will be. 


way to go bob stevens! 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

or it can also be viewed here:
http://gamedogs.org/?view=article&id=321

edit: additionally, I have looked it over pretty well by now and have highlighted some areas I thought were of particular interest.  I will look it over many more times I'm sure, such things take many readings to fully comprehend. 
http://gamedogs.org/docs/08-769-marked.pdf

April 19, 2010

News conference

In January, the Baltimore County Police Department told a televised news conference full of props and photos that evidence indicated a marijuana and dogfighting ring was operating out of Nicole Marie Caruso's townhouse in North Point. Two months later, prosecutors have quietly, and without television cameras rolling, vindicated Caruso of the charges that her lawyer said most seriously harmed her reputation in the animal-loving community. (Baltimore Sun photo by Algerina Perna / January 26, 2010)

Back in January, friends and police portrayed Nicole Marie Caruso alternately as a dog groomer and a dog fighter, an animal rights activist and a drug dealer, a beloved worker with loyal clients and a thief who pilfered piles of animal meds from her employer.

Her co-workers, bosses at two jobs, friends and neighbors defended the 26-year-old. They called the charges of drug-dealing, theft and animal cruelty preposterous. Baltimore County Police Chief James W. Johnson told reporters at a televised news conference full of props and photos that the evidence indicated a marijuana and dog-fighting ring at Caruso's Lange Street town house in North Point.

Now, two months later, prosecutors have quietly, and without television cameras rolling, vindicated Caruso of the charges that her lawyer said most seriously harmed her reputation in the animal-loving community. They dropped all charges related to mistreating dogs that had been filed against her and her two housemates, one of them her boyfriend.

Assistant Baltimore County State's Attorney Adam Lippe said veterinarians disagreed with the police conclusion that pit bulls Dutch, Whezzy, Lucia, Bruno, Gotti and Kane were used for fights. The dogs - some owned by Caruso, others by her roommates - were aggressive, but all were spayed or neutered, and healthy, Lippe said. Caruso and the others still face drug and theft charges.

Caruso's attorney, Brian G. Thompson, called the initial statements and charges by police proof of an overzealous investigation that unfairly dragged a respected dog groomer "through the mud in public as some kind of Michael Vick character" to capitalize on visceral public reaction to dog-fighting.

But authorities say the case is far more nuanced. They are prepared at trial to say that although the dogs didn't fight, they played rough and were trained to be aggressive to protect the sale of $5 marijuana bags from the house. One law-enforcement official noted that these dogs "were not the type to bring home to your child."

Bill Link, who owns SoBo Dog Day Care in South Baltimore's Locust Point, where Caruso worked for six months and had a loyal following of dog owners from as far away as Towson, said this week that he would wait until all the charges are adjudicated before deciding whether to bring Caruso back to work.

She is accused of stealing medicine and equipment from Link's business to treat the dogs at her home.

"I need to let things settle down with her," Link said. His company's Web site links to Caruso's Facebook page, on which she wrote this week:

"To everyone that has supported me, THANK YOU!! my most exciting news to report is ... the cops had to admit they were wrong about dog fighting. ... They put me through the ringer [sic] and now who is going to announce on the news that they lied ??????"

Police initially linked Caruso and her housemates to the bloodthirsty sport based on evidence that included blood stains on an inside wall, photos of injured dogs, a torn-up backyard and the bulk medicine that detectives said indicated Caruso nursed dogs injured in fights back to health. They also pointed to a collar with bite marks, a leg iron with a 2 1/2 pound weight and a treadmill with paw prints, evidence, they said, of dogs forced to work out.

Neighbors said Caruso bought the treadmill for $30 on Craigslist to lose weight, herself, that she treated not only her dogs but countless strays and other injured animals she found, and that her dogs' injuries were the result of aggressive play, not sport.

Prosecutors said they are prepared to proceed with a trial and that they don't have a problem with the way police investigated or with the conclusions they reached. Caruso's attorney wishes police had done more work before making arrests and announcing the busting of a dog-fighting ring on television.

"The only evidence they had was pit bulls and a torn-up backyard," Thompson said.

A Baltimore County police spokesman declined to comment.

Caruso still has a long way to go. Court records show she has money problems. Even with animal cruelty charges dropped, she faces the possibility of prison time if convicted of the remaining charges. Her dogs are at a shelter, but her attorney said they won't be destroyed and she might get them all back.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bal-md.hermann11mar11,0,4140575.story

March 28, 2010

Links page back up!

I'm going to try to get all the links from all the different parts of the site consolidated down into the new links management component as much as possible.  I've already moved the patterdale links.  this should make it a lot easier for me to manage but eventually also easier for users to submit links for most parts of the site.  anyone truly interested in promoting the better health and public image of game dogs should do so.

there's a problem with the little snap preview to the left of the links that mostly isn't working and I'm trying to get that fixed too. 

crossposted via gamefowlnews.

CSP Daily News, March 3, 2010

Pilot's Facebook Fracas
Ends employee in-store collections for Humane Society after social media pushback

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- In an example of the role that social media can play in the retail realm and community relations, Pilot Travel Centers LLC has clarified its position on employee and customer contributions gathered to date at Pilot locations for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and changed its corporate position on the charity because of a controversy that erupted on Facebook.

Over the past three years, Pilot employees have raised approximately $52,000 for HSUS-supported causes through in-store collections. Last Thursday, the animal rights organization acknowledged and praised Pilot for the efforts. "We're giving a shout out to Pilot Travel Centers for standing up against animal cruelty and supporting us!" HSUS said on its Facebook page (click here).

Then Knoxville, Tenn.-based Pilot started taking flak for the support on its Facebook page (click here), reported WBIR-TV, with many of the comments arguing that HSUS does not represent the interests of Tennessee families who work and depend on agriculture. One of HSUS's causes is the End Factory Farming Campaign, the goal of which is to work to reduce the suffering of animals raised for meat, eggs and milk.

Escalating the discussion beyond the Pilot situation, some in the farming community also questioned HSUS's ethics as an organization, citing a Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) report (click here) critical of the group. HSUS supporters fired back (click here), accusing the CCF as being a front for Big Ag.

Last Friday, Pilot released a statement on the matter:

"We sincerely regret any actions that led to the misperception of our support of this organization. Pilot Travel Centers is a strong supporter of agriculture interests in our home state of Tennessee and across the country. Since 2007, less than $52,000 in voluntary donations from customers and employees were collected in stores as part of an employee-driven charity event. The money went to three specific areas: rural animal veterinary care services, disaster relief and a foreclosure fund to help rescue animals left behind in homes during the foreclosure crisis."

It added, "In order to avoid any further misunderstandings, employees will immediately cease collections of donations to HSUS. Pilot corporate has never matched a single dollar of these donations and will not support any organization that has an agenda that works against agriculture interests.

LINK

crossposted

Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS

You may have missed our New Year’s Eve exposé covering the dismissal of a federal lawsuit pushed by a consortium of animal rights groups that included the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The groups alleged that Feld Entertainment (the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) mistreated elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but in December a judge tossed out the lawsuit. Now the plot thickens: The circus is suing HSUS, two HSUS lawyers, and a number of other animal rights organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. (The lawsuit is exclusively available at HumaneWatch.org.)
The original animal rights lawsuit, filed more than nine years ago, was based on information provided by a former Ringling elephant ‘barn helper‘ named Tom Rider. After Rider left his circus job, he was paid by animal rights groups to testify about the supposedly ‘bad‘ treatment of elephants there. In all, the original lawsuit’s plaintiffs paid Rider more than
$190,000’his sole source of income for years’while the litigation made its way through the court system.
Sound a bit like pay-for-play? As Judge Emmet Sullivan noted in his December ruling that dismissed the animal rights groups’ lawsuit: ‘The Court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony‘¦. [T]he primary purpose [for the payments] is to keep Mr. Rider involved with the litigation‘¦‘
Based on Judge Sullivan’s finding, Feld is suing everyone who played a part in this collaborative scheme (hence the ‘racketeering‘ aspect). This includes Rider and a nonprofit ‘Wildlife Advocacy Project‘ charity that the Washington, DC law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal allegedly used to launder money between their plaintiff clients and Rider.
One of these clients putting up dough to support Rider was the Fund for Animals, which merged with HSUS in 2004.
Feld is leveling bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys, three other animal rights groups, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, and all three of that firm’s named partners. It’s an earth-shattering lawsuit. Today we’re telling the media:

America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket. But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.

You can read the full, 135-page lawsuit over at HumaneWatch. It’s worth more than a glance. If these allegations are proven true, HSUS employees might be finding themselves walking the same breadline they’ve tried to put so many others in.

February 1, 2010
  printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Get Ready for ‘˜HumaneWatch’

Get Ready for ‘˜HumaneWatch’

There’s no denying it: The gargantuan Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is now the animal rights industry’s richest and most powerful player. HSUS is exercising its prohibition-minded influence in every corner of America, over everything from the pets in our homes to the eggs on our plates. HSUS pursues a PETA-like agenda with a budget and seriousness that PETA itself has never been able to match...

Next week we will re-launch HumaneWatch.org, and you are cordially invited to lend a hand as it grows. HumaneWatch will be a blog, a document library, a rogues’ gallery, a historical resource, and more. Our Director of Research will be sharing what we know, and inviting you to do the same. No topic will be off-limits, and your comments will be welcome. (Yes, Mr. Pacelle. Even yours.)

So today we’re putting out the call: If you have anything in your files or on your computer that concerns the Humane Society of the United States (no matter how insignificant it may seem to you), we would like to see it. Most of what is known about HSUS is squirreled away in filing cabinets, or lost to history but for the memories of a few persistent Americans. But that’s about to change.

We want fundraising mailers (including forwarded e-mails), old tax returns, advertisements, magazine back-issues, correspondence, legal papers, photos, contemporaneous accounts of historical events’you name it. Anything related to HSUS or any of its many subsidiary groups.

We’ve set up two easy ‘drop boxes‘ so you can start flooding us with anything you want to share. Anonymous submissions are welcome (we will take pains to authenticate everything before using it). We promise to protect your privacy.

You can e-mail information about HSUS to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (a robustly virus-protected address), or send postal mail to ‘HumaneWatch,‘ P.O. Box 34555, Washington DC 20043.

Materials sent to the P.O. Box will not be returned, so please only send copies of anything you’d like to keep. If you have large archives to share, please drop us an e-mail for a discussion of how we can take it off your hands at no cost to you.

We’ll let you know when the new website goes live. In the meantime, please gear up to help us ask some tough questions, and provide some answers.

Because even a dog-watcher needs a watchdog.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4094-get-ready-for-humanewatch

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

This is a Floyd Boudreaux Benefit Event.

  • Richard Stratton will be judging on Saturday
  • Floyd Boudreaux will be presenting the "Top Dog" trophy Sunday

February 13: alright I'm moving this off the front page.  there have been no opinions issued in about a month so maybe they are on hiatus or something.

January 22, 2010: I expect the ruling on the Stevens case might come down by next week.  I personally want to thank Bob Stevens for seeing this thing through.  You know a lot of people when they have trouble think 'I don't have a lot of money and should just take a deal'.  Looking at the court records I see that Bob pushed through a good part of his fight with nothing but a public defender!  keep that in mind people, your lawyer must follow what you say and if you take a deal, even illegal laws will stand.

Win or lose (and my opinion is he'll 'win' and the Supreme Court will let the appeals court ruling striking down the law stand) at least he didn't just lay down, like others have when they had the chance to make a difference and took the easy way out.

previous stories:
http://gamedogs.org/?view=article&id=194

http://gamedogs.org/?view=article&id=237

http://gamedogs.org/?view=article&id=244

kudos to Mr. Smith and the OCDA.  We need more committed owners like this, who won't just allow themselves or our dogs to be run over by Un-Constitutional Laws.  These bad laws don't get changed by just complaining about them, you have to actually fight for your rights in Court!  In case no one else has noticed, we might be getting run over by the h$u$ on the laws since they have the $$, but we've been winning against them in Court a lot.  Judges are generally not bought off as easily as Politicians and Cops.  Thank goodness they tend to have a mind towards what's right and lawful rather than who donated what or 'popular' opinion polls.

Judge says Toledo's 'pit bull' law flawed

Some aspects cited as unconstitutional

Photo
Toledo Municipal Judge Michael Goulding ruled in a case charging Hugh Smith with 13 violations.

January 21, 2010
By JC REINDL
BLADE STAFF WRITER

A Toledo Municipal Court judge's ruling yesterday found numerous aspects of the city's "vicious dogs" law unconstitutional, countering a ban on owning more than one "pit bull" and excluding "pit bull" mixed breeds as inherently vicious.

The ruling by Judge Michael Goulding involved the case of a Toledo man, Hugh Smith, who was charged with 13 violations of the city's dog laws in October. That month, the Lucas County Dog Warden's Office seized what it deemed to be three "pit bull" dogs from Mr. Smith's home after one of them got into a fracas with another dog as Mr. Smith was taking his three for a walk. The warden initially refused to give back Mr. Smith's dogs and cited him for having unmuzzled, uninsured, and improperly confined "pit bulls" as well as two too many "pit bulls." The city's vicious dogs ordinance restricts residents to owning only one "pit bull" and requires that owners keep the animal leashed and muzzled when it's away from home. Under Ohio law, dogs of a breed "commonly known as a pit bull" are deemed inherently vicious. Yet Mr. Smith's attorneys claimed that his dogs were in fact cane corsos - not "pit bulls" - and argued that the city's vicious dog ordinance was unconstitutional anyway.

Judge Goulding yesterday dismissed 10 of the charges against Mr. Smith, asserting that the city's muzzle requirement and one-only limit for "pit bulls" are unconstitutional as they conflict with home-rule doctrine.  "While the state statute does not specifically permit ownership of more than one dog 'commonly known as a pit bull,' it does not specifically prohibit it either," the judge wrote. Photo

He added that the challenges in this case are different than those in the Tellings case in which the Ohio Supreme Court in 2007 upheld the city and state laws singling out "pit bulls" as inherently vicious. Judge Goulding also wrote that a provision of the city law lumping "pit bull mixed breed" dogs with "pit bulls" is unconstitutional. That judgment could have wide implications in the county, as the dog warden's office refuses to adopt out adult "pit bull" mixes as well as "pit bulls." Those dogs are then killed by lethal injection. Mr. Smith's attorneys, husband-wife duo Daniel and Kristi Haude of Cleveland, took the case pro bono and did not challenge the other three charges against Mr. Smith for failing to immunize against rabies.

Mrs. Haude praised Judge Goulding's decision for striking down a law that "leaves the door open for dog wardens to arbitrarily classify any dog as a 'pit bull.'" "The problem with [the law] is that innocent dog owners are faced with criminal charges, and their dogs are taken away before they have a chance to prove their dogs are not vicious or are not 'pit bulls,'" said Mrs. Haude, a co-founder with Lucas County resident Jean Keating of the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates.

Adam Loukx, acting law director for the city, said yesterday that city prosecutors have yet to decide whether to appeal Judge Goulding's decision. "As is always the case when a judge strikes down an ordinance or part of the code, we're disappointed," Mr. Loukx said. "We'll be reviewing his reasoning very closely to see if it was justified." "Pit bull" is a generic descriptive term for a dog trained to fight and can refer to multiple breeds, including the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, and other mixed breeds determined to be "pit bulls" by Lucas County's dog warden. More than 55 percent of the 1,951 dogs euthanized last year at the pound were called "pit bulls" or "pit bull" mixes. The city of Toledo has a contract with the county dog warden to enforce its local laws. The contract was for up to $146,882 last year. Three Toledo City councilmen recently announced an effort to establish a committee that would examine the city's laws and policies related to dogs.

Councilman Joe McNamara, who first proposed the re-examination, said yesterday that the judge's opinion "underscores the need for us to re-examine the city's policies concerning the regulation of dangerous dogs." "I do think Judge Goulding was correct when he wrote that 'a more uniform, practical, and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo,'" Mr. McNamara said. Ms. Keating said the dog warden eventually released all three of Mr. Smith's dogs. Mr. Smith took one home and boarded the other two with a friend as he waited for the judge to decide his case. "What we formed this group to do is to help people like Hugh," Ms. Keating said yesterday. "Otherwise, those dogs would have been dead." Lucas County is accepting job applications for a new dog warden to replace the long-serving and controversial Tom Skeldon, set to formally leave office Jan. 31. Mr. Skeldon announced his early retirement late last year after weeks of mounting criticism that he euthanized too many dogs, among other complaints. On Tuesday, county commissioners voted to reverse a policy that previously prohibited unclaimed "pit bull" puppies from leaving the pound. Such puppies can now be transferred to the Toledo Area Humane Society for adoption.
Contact JC Reindl at 419-724-6065.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/NEWS16/1210344/0/SRMAIN

The United States Dog Organization announced today that Richard Stratton has agreed to work with them as a Consultant.  Mr. Stratton has a long history as an Author and APBT enthusiast/advocate.  He's also testified in numerous trials, most often in criminal cases, but he has also testified against tethering in some civil cases.  Mr. Stratton is available to testify in cases where such testimony may be of benefit.  You can get in touch with him through the USDO website.

http://usdogs.net


>>> Sign up/Registration now enabled.
  I'm in the process of installing a new links component that will allow a lot more user participation in maintaining them and logged in users are part of that.

I've added a "Not Guilty" menu item to the left for easy tracking of the stories I profile of bulldog folks who are harassed and persecuted by ARs/LE only to be found not guilty.  This helped clean up the front page a little for quicker page loading too.

I finally sat down and figured out how to get videos embedded here so that they all work (for me at least, let me know if not for you).  so if you've looked in the past and the video page has been a mess, have another look. (tbest viewed on a high-speed connection)

I cleaned up the Concrete Water Bowl Instruction page and just got the Concrete Feed Bowl Instructions done too.  I hope to get the chain set up page done this week if possible as well.  The "mark as read" function in the forums is fixed now too.

The Arcade is back too, along with its menu link to the left.  Patterdale page is cleaned up and I am almost ready with the new main (kennel) links page, it's gonna be nice!

January 2010

^