Thursday, May 17, 2007

Crying Crocodile Tears for Pit Bulls Best Friends Animal Society's Pre-emptive Strike on Massachusetts Lining up behind misunderstanding, fear and bigotry. Its like taking candy from a baby. Especially when you've got a mother lode of junk science to back you up, and the ready cash to do it in style. Best Friends' Pre-emptive Strike Best Friends Animal Society, the chaotic, incoherent "largest animal sanctuary in the country" with a reported income of over $32 million in donations and Democratic Party strategist Joe Trippi to light the way, is churning out misinformation on both dogs and dog owners.

So get ready, Massachusetts. It's your turn at bat. Best Friends is offering their guidelines for a pre-emptive approach to dangerous dog control to your elected representatives.

And don't be fooled by the pious rhetoric about how breed bans just aren't right. Best Friends "acknowledges that there are dangerous breeds" that have "aggressive tendencies bred into their genes [sic]."

Truth in Advocacy?

Not this time. Pandering to the public's worst fears, and hiding behind the smokescreen of junk science and twisted statistics, Best Friends joins the ranks of institutional killers-with-kindness PETA and HSUS, all to further their own agenda.

And by the way, Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States may have gotten caught in a little fib delivered to the U. S. Congress last week. A little science can be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Best Friends Animal Society's May 14 press release lip-syncs PETA/HSUS lies and misrepresentations almost perfectly by presenting a list of out-of-context, unsourced statistics and one-time-only studies, along with correlations which prove nothing. Best Friends is trying to pass off a nightmare of conjecture and manipulation as hard fact.

Repeat after me: correlation is not causation

As a wise man pointed out, colored lights placed on homes in mid-December don't cause snow to fall. Even if colored lights precede snowfall 99.9% of the time.

Science? Puh-leeze. Best Friends tells us that. . .

82% of all dog bites occur when dogs are off leash or not confined in some way.

Wrong. The often-quoted, rarely read CDC study on dog bite related fatalities mentions that 82% figure. But the study covered fatalities, not all dog bites as Best Friends would have us believe. Its conclusion specifically warns that since dog bite-related fatalities are rare, the data should not be used as a primary factor in determining public policy on dangerous dogs. Tricksy Best Friends. Trying to scare us with misquoted data. Was the intention to heighten fears of loose dogs (and interest in Best Friends' plan)? Or did they just get it wrong? 90% of fatal dog attacks are by dogs that are not spayed or neutered. This "fact" appears to stem from statistics created by Karen Delise, a licensed veterinary technician who received a grant from Animal Farm Foundation. Animal Farm Foundation supports mandatory spay-neuter legislation. The 90% figure does not coincide with anything released by the CDC. So, Karen Delise, the licensed veterinary technician, or the peer-reviewed studies published by qualified researchers and Centers for Disease Control. Which would you quote? Dogs that are chained are 2.8 times more likely to be aggressive. Spokespeople for both the CDC and the AVMA reject this popular piece of internet scholarship. It appears to derive from a single study that did not rule out the possibility that the dogs were tethered precisely because they had demonstrated behavioral issues, and identified several other stronger correlations for frequency of dog bites. That correlation/causation problem. Again. So, who's at fault ? Dog OWNERS Of course, of course. Nicely mimicking logic from the ASPCA (an organization which just recently stepped out of the animal rights closet itself) , Best Friends does a good job of placing the blame for dog bites at the feet of, who else, "irresponsible, criminal, cruel" dog owners.

How to fix the problem of irresponsible, criminal, cruel dog owners? Well, according to the ASPCA, words count. And the word is guardian.

"By viewing animals as more than mere property, the focus shifts from the ownership interest in the animal to what is in the best interest of that individual animal. This altered view of animals necessarily requires that we treat them with greater respect and compassion . . .rather than [as]an “owner,” who has title to and dominion over the animal for the owner’s enjoyment and benefit as he/she sees fit. The result of this paradigm shift will foster better protections for animals, as well as the development of a more respectful and humane society."

Harvesting the lowest hanging fruit: crackhead criminal gangbanging pit bull owners are easy pickings.

Remember HSUS representative Pam Rogers' letter to the members of Metro Louisville City Council? The one where she smeared pit bull owners, and their dogs, by characterizing them as ". . . the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol"? In Louisville, enactment of the worst animal control ordinance in the country started with a move to ban pit bulls. California's AB 1634, requiring the surgical castration of all pet dogs (and cats) in the state? Its precursor was SB 861, which allowed breed specific mandatory sterilization and rolled back California's historic ban on breed profiling. First, and only, casualty of SB 861 so far? Pit bulls. NYC Councilman Peter Vallone's proposal to restrict tethering? Vallone's first move was an attempted ban on pit bulls. Win the pit bull battle, but lose the dog ownership war That's where this is headed, folks. Guardianship. Mandatory sterilization. Tethering and breeding restrictions. Its all in Best Friends Animal Society's pre-emptive strike.

And count on it, "pit bull" owners and breeders: those pit bull-type dogs with their nasty genes are very much on Best Friends' radar. "Bans on breeding and training dogs for aggression"? That one's just for you, baby. Vincent Pedone (D-Worcester): What's his cut in this deal? What's pit bull hating Democrat Pedone's bottom line?

Will he continue to participate in a coordinated attack on dog owners? Does he relish the thought of dog ownership in Massachusetts reduced to conditional custody of sterilized animals like California's Lloyd Levine apparently does? Maybe he aspires to the title of Animal Extremist Poop-boy, East Coast Division? Is Vincent Pedone ready to give up his dog?

14 comments:

Caveat said...

What really mystifies me about all this 'Pit Bull' nonsense is that a simple trip through PubMed debunks all of it.

The chained dogs myth (red herring). The intact dogs myth (red herring). The 'breeding for aggression' myth (not supported by canine geneticists). The 'pit bulls' are responsible for most bites and attacks' myth (simply untrue).

A simple trip through a normal neighbourhood debunks the rest - the 'gangsters and dealers', 'guarding stashes', and all the rest of the outright lies spread about owners of bully breeds.

Of course the media, manipulated by our friends the 'press sluts', have done nothing but advertise bulldogs as the baddest asses in dogdom for years, with super-canine powers that let them leap tall fences in a single bound, allow bullets to bounce of their heads. The result of this intense advertising is that sales among twits who want a dog like that (even though it doesn't exist) have skyrocketed. It's a vicious circle. The media has a lot more responsibility in all of this than even the silly politicos who just want to be all things to the majority of voters, ie, the complacent ones who don't pay attention or investigate issues.

So, why is it that our selfless, altruistic, reasonable and educated representatives don't take that walk through reality?

I think it's more than laziness although that would be bad enough. I think the AR fascists are telling these clowns what they want to hear so they can remove civil rights (so messy) and cater to the dog-haters, newcomers from countries where dogs are not valued, ordinary dog owners who aren't halfway up to speed, and all the rest at the same time.

It's pretty sad that these transparent distortions and outright lies based on nothing but a not-so-hidden agenda can win the day so often.

So, what are we going to do about it?

Karen Delise said...

I cannot even begin to get into all the assumptions and correlations you present as "facts" in this "it's all about me and my rights" diatribe.

Yeah, go ahead - hitch your wagon to the CDC stats - see how that works for you.

And don't ask me about how I got my stats (not thru newspaper reports like the CDC), and don't ask if I claim that intact dogs are more aggressive than altered - make you own correlations and present them as causation.

Oh, and I am your enemy? Fine, so be it.

Good luck to you and your "rights."

Karen Delise

Author: The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression.

Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics.

BlueDogState said...

"Karen Delise" (I have no way of knowing if the writer really was Karen Delise, or a troll of some sort. I'm kind of hoping s/he was a troll.) writes:

I cannot even begin to get into all the assumptions and correlations you present as "facts" in this "it's all about me and my rights" diatribe.

"Karen" or whoever you are. . this is a BLOG. Its an opinion piece. Commentary.

I leave it for my readers to make up their own minds, based on what I've presented, their own experiences, etc.

Yeah, go ahead - hitch your wagon to the CDC stats - see how that works for you.

Exactly. You're suggesting that I pick and choose numbers in order to fit my agenda.

People, "animal sanctuaries", and even "pit bull advocates" do it from time to time.

And sometimes they get caught.

If they do get caught, they should be prepared to take their lumps.

And don't ask me about how I got my stats (not thru newspaper reports like the CDC), and don't ask if I claim that intact dogs are more aggressive than altered - make you own correlations and present them as causation.

We're not discussing how you wrote your book. "The story behind the statistics" is another matter altogether.

It gets to be a bit of a problem, though, when interpretation of facts, not to metion selection of "statistics", drives public policy.

Oh, and I am your enemy? Fine, so be it.

Good luck to you and your "rights."

Karen Delise


My "enemy", and yours, is the distortion and deliberate misuse of information in order to drive public opinion and public policy.

The piece is about Best Friends Animal Society, not you. Get over yourself.

Karen Delise said...

I responded to this "commentary" to challenge your negative implication on the reliability of my data. You would think that if statistics are "driving public policy" you would care to know how I came about my stats and how I apply them.

And I am not suggesting you pick and choose statistics to fit your agenda, (which you obviously did already)- but how about doing a little research into the methodology and how the data was obtained - and how it is really used.

The CDC stats DO drive public policy - all the time - and not to the benefits of your rights - or your ability to keep the breed of your choice.

Oh, and Bluedog, this is a BLOG, where you have placed a section to
"leave your comments." So, why in heavens name would you say for me to "get over myself" - when I am doing exactly what this BLOG is supposed to be for - commenting on what you said. And since I cannot speak for all the others you make sweeping and misleading statements about (Best Friends, ASPCA, HSUS)- I have commented on the aspects of your commentary that applied to "myself."

Oh, and what is silliness about my identity. You can email, or call me, my information is readily available on my website if you really don't believe I am who I say I am:

Karen Delise

Note from Blue Dog State
I don't know about anyone else, but this clears up the mystery for me.

I wasn't getting what "hitch your wagon to the CDC stats - see how that works for you" was supposed to mean.

You are still pitching your "more favorable to my ability to keep the breed of my choice" data. I've got a problem with that.

In any case, I understand that my sin was looking a gift--okay, $24.95--horse in the mouth.

Defend the HSUS, ASPCA, Best Friends-- and PETA, you forgot PETA-- 'til the cows come home. But don't expect to use this spot as a rolling advertisement.

East Coast Pitbull Advocates said...

Kare -
I have your book - and I appreciate all of your hard work.

But I don't understand why you are so upset at BlueDog here.

I think the ORIGINAL POINT was is that YOUR numbers regardless of their validity - are BEING USED by Best Friends - WITHOUT CITING THE SOURCE (meaning you) - to drive SUPPOSED PIT-FRIENDLY legislation.

NOT.

Hey - I got news for you, Karen - Best Friends is NO FRIEND to the pitbull.

To position themselves in the world of BSL - Best Friends held a SHAM BSL conference last year - they tried the year before and invited Kory NElson too - but I guess that didn't fly.

That Best Friends conference was nothing but a FRONT to drive their AGENDA of guardianship, mandatory spay neuter and anti-breeder laws.

Best Friends actaully published in their magazines AND on their site that "there are dangerous breeds" AND furthermore - at the conference - Best Friends suggested that we here in the US "look to the European model" of dangerous dog laws - especially from Germany.

Gag me, Karen - but as any REAL BSL fighter knows - pitbulls are banned in Germany and throughout the UK, and many other places in Europe - where it is illegal to breed those "dangerous breeds". And Best Friends promotes the idea that we should model Europe?

And Best Friends brings political media/spin guru Joe Trippi to run the BSL conference?

Pardon me, but WTF does Joe Trippi know about BSL? Jackshit, that's what.

But Joe Trippi sure knows how to spin an issuie, doesn't he?

That supposed BSL conference was nothing but one big focus could figure out how to USE the issue of breed-specific legislation to sell their agenda of guardianship, MSN, etc.

And they use YOUR book to get it done? ANd you allow this?

So Karen - let's get back to why you have reacted so strongly to BlueDog - who, btw - was't trashing you one bit.

First - are you or are you not a vet tech? I think that information comes straight from your bio in your book, does it not?

Second - while there may be correlation between tethering and fatal attacks, there is NO DIRECT CAUSATION, is there?

Third - has your work been peer-reviewed by ANY credible or medical scientific panel, association, etc.? If so - please share it with us.

Fourth - why are you so angry about the CDC? We all know the numbers were submitted by HSUS - and we all know that HSUS supports BSL.

The important part there was that the CDC and the AVMA still oppose BSL on record - screw HSUS.

Fifth - I hear Animal Farm Foundation pays your bills for the book- publishes it etc - and while they say they want to "save the American Pit Bull Terrier" - yet they advocate guardianship and mandatory spay neuter.

So in other words, Karen - Animal Farm Foundation has no problem depriving people of their property AND exterminating the breed at the same time. Gee - what part don't I get?

The point is, Karen - that PETA, Best Friends and HSUS are all using unsubstantiated claims and twisting the data - INCLUDING YOUR DATA to drive anti-tethering legislation, and using you and Tammy Grimes as the poster girls.

Oh- and lets not forget that most of those anti-tethering laws also limit "penning" and limit the number of dogs that can be tethered at one time.

Who tethers their dogs, Karen, and who has multiple dogs???

Gee - don't hunters tether dogs?

And gee, don't breeders tether dogs?

And don't pitbull people tether dogs?

And don't sled dog people tether dogs? ( bwt - aren't sled dogs and the Iditarod a favorite PETA target?)

And gee, Karen, if I were an organization say like, PETA or HSUS - or even Best Friends, AND.........

If I wanted to take out hunters, breeders, pitbull owners, and sled dog people, how could I accomplish all of that with a single shot??

Anti-tethering legisation.

So Karen - if you are such an anti-BSL crusader,why are you allowing yourself to be used by the very organizations that want to exterminate the breed - not to mention dog ownership?

The main question I have for you, Karen, is at the end of the day -

Whose side are you on?

K Delise said...

East coast pitbull...
"But I don't understand why you are so upset at BlueDog here."

Because s/he tears down people's credibility without substantiating how/why the information is "incorrect" and also fails to offer a solution. It's just criticism for criticism's sake.

"I think the ORIGINAL POINT was is that YOUR numbers regardless of their validity - are BEING USED by Best Friends - WITHOUT CITING THE SOURCE (meaning you) - to drive SUPPOSED PIT-FRIENDLY legislation."

Well, I can't control what Best Friends does, now can I?

"To position themselves in the world of BSL - Best Friends held a SHAM BSL conference last year - they tried the year before and invited Kory NElson too - but I guess that didn't fly."

Yes, and I was very upset about that, and was even asked to speak (by another party) against Nelson before he backed out.

"Best Friends actaully published in their magazines AND on their site that "there are dangerous breeds"

Yes, I am/was very upset about this also.

"And they use YOUR book to get it done? ANd you allow this?"

And how do you propose I stop this? Get a court ordered gag on them?

"First - are you or are you not a vet tech? I think that information comes straight from your bio in your book, does it not?"

Yes, and I am proud of this. So, what's the point of this?

"Second - while there may be correlation between tethering and fatal attacks, there is NO DIRECT CAUSATION, is there?"

I've said a thousand times that fatal attacks are the culmination of many risk factors - no single circumstance CAUSES a fatal attack.
How many times and ways can I say this? Everyone just hears what they want to hear. And this includes you and Best Friends.

"Third - has your work been peer-reviewed by ANY credible or medical scientific panel, association, etc.? If so - please share it with us."

This is a laugh. Do you know how the CDC (the supposed peer-reviewed study that Bluedog refers to) came about acquiring their statistics. They used newspapers for all their breed IDs. Please don't talk to me about peer reviewed until you truly have studied the nonsense that some of these "science" journals have published. Do you know how many "peer-reviewed" medical journal articles claim that Pit bulls bite with 1800 psi? - Literally dozens!

Do you know how many "peer reviewed" medical journals say Pit bull attacks are like shark attacks? - Like the peer-reviewed medical journal article that Denver used to help ban the breed. So much for your peer reviews.

Secondly, unlike the CDC, I will source all my information directly to anyone who asks.

"Fifth - I hear Animal Farm Foundation pays your bills for the book- publishes it etc - and while they say they want to "save the American Pit Bull Terrier" - yet they advocate guardianship and mandatory spay neuter."

You hear AFF pays my bills??? What a load of crap. Unbelieveable. I worked damn hard, spent a tremendous amount of money, time and effort on this cause and you "hear" something and I have to defend myself against this garbage.
Cite your source for this crap, so I can refute them directly.

I really am so sick of people saying things and not backing them up or having proof.

"So in other words, Karen - Animal Farm Foundation has no problem depriving people of their property AND exterminating the breed at the same time. Gee - what part don't I get?"

I cannot speak for AFF, but the last time I spoke to them they were not pro-BSL, Mandory S/N and certainly NOT "exterminating the breed", but why don't you ask them direcly instead of trying to make me speak for them?

"The point is, Karen - that PETA, Best Friends and HSUS are all using unsubstantiated claims and twisting the data - INCLUDING YOUR DATA to drive anti-tethering legislation, and using you and Tammy Grimes as the poster girls."

I personally can't imagine tethering my dogs. But, that is my PERSONAL opinion. And, again, I say over and over and over, that no single factor CAUSES a dog to attack. Geez, what are you not getting here?

"The main question I have for you, Karen, is at the end of the day -

Whose side are you on?"

If you cannot see this, I'll put the dots closer for all of you:

I'm on the side of the dogs, first and foremost - and then I am on the side of honesty, accuracy and fairness and being able to back up what you say.

And for the record. I do not have a "dog in this fight." Pit bulls are not my breed of choice. I just can't stand to see what is happening to these dogs in the world today.

Caveat said...

I bought Fatal Dog Attacks a couple of years ago and enjoyed it, despite the rather grim subject matter.

What I liked about it was the commonality in dog-related fatalities. As with most of these stories, the components which led to the victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time were all very similar - they related to negligent or criminal dog ownership.

In other words, I respect the work that Karen has done and continues to do.

That said, while chaining dogs can be a big mistake if not managed properly, I believe that the chaining was just a red herring, kind of like 'pit bull' or even 'dog'.

Dogs should not be tethered where the public can see them or have access to them - including other dogs, kids, malevolent adults, etc. It makes them a target for abuse, teasing, neglect etc.

However, many people tether their dogs successfully and provide proper housing, nutrition, off-tether exercise, etc. I believe these people are in the majority.

The big problem with laws directed at a tiny minority of scofflaws and abusers is that only the law-abiding, responsible people obey them.

Those people weren't the problem in the first place.

As far as the suggestion that intact dogs are more likely to display dominance aggression, that may be true. Whether or not they are more likely to bite, attack and maul remains unproven.

I think this is another red herring.

The correlation may be believed because overall, pet owners (as opposed to serious hobbyists) who don't speuter are also less likely to license, train and obtain regular veterinary attention for their pets. In other words they are less likely to value them.

It's funny though. When I grew up in Toronto in the '50s, people used to let their dogs out for a few hours every day. They wandered around the midtown neighbourhood having doggy fun.

In those days, males were very rarely neutered but females were spayed because nobody wanted pups.

There were no more dog-on-dog incidents then than now, maybe even fewer, among intact males who lived in the neighbourhood.

That's why I think the intact thing is another red herring. Wolves are intact, for example, yet fights are few and far between due to strong leadership of the pack. That's the key.

It's like saying that more people who wear black bathing suits drown, so by eliminating black bathing suits we can reduce drowning deaths.

It's specious reasoning.

The anti-tethering, MSN, breed banning agenda has absolutely nothing to do with dog welfare, despite the propaganda.

It's all about control (read: tyranny) by people whom I consider unqualified to comment on the subject - AR extremists, unschooled politicians, academics with lacklustre careers, bitter bureaucrats with a Tin Pot attitude and all the rest.

BlueDogState said...

Regarding Karen Delise's latest comments--

You say that tethering (or reproductive status) alone does not cause dog attacks? Ms. Delise, if you want to champion dogs, honesty, accuracy and fairness, here's a suggestion--

You are cited by. . .

--"Helping Animals"--a PeTA affiliate-- in an article titled "Why do chained dogs attack?"

--Animal Farm Foundation, "Spay/Neuter Keeps your Community Safer"

--Best Friends Animal Society, "Who, what, when, where, why of spay-neuter legislation"

--"Dogs Deserve Better"--the Best Friends protectorate-- in an article titled "Danger on a Chain"

--"Spay Spaulding"--a mandatory spay-neuter, anti-tethering organization

--"Unchain your dog.org"

--"Chainfree Austin"

--"Mothers against dog chaining"

the list goes on. . .

Your "I can't help what XXX does with my information" places you in exactly the same boat as the CDC.

The CDC concluded their infamous study with a warning that it should not be used to drive public policy, and offically opposes breed specific legislation. And then the CDC pretty much stood by silently as breed bigots used it for exactly that purpose.

If you truly are so unhappy about the manipulative use of your information, how about saying so? Out loud, repeatedly, and in public?

All of these organizations, and many more, use unsubstantiated claims and twisted data which they attribute to you.

Your "there's nothing I can do about it" attitude doesn't cut it. As it stands, you are complicitly supporting an anti-dog, anti-dog owner agenda.

You say reproductive status, or tethering, does not cause dog attacks? You say you're upset about Best Friends assertion that, yes, there ARE dangerous breeds?

Better say it again. Louder.

caveat said...

With respect to what is and is not peer-reviewed.

The CDC surveys were not peer-reviewed. They have also been publicly refuted by the CDC themselves. There were so many obvious flaws that a child could see through them.

The recent Cincinnati study stating that 'pit bull' owners are more likely to be criminals was not peer-reviewed. Again, there were so many obvious flaws I'm surprised it was published.

I have not read one peer-reviewed scientific paper that claims a psi bite pressure of 1800 for 'pit bulls' or any other dogs. I'd like to see references so I can check them out.

I am aware of one paper referring to a 'pit bull' attack as being similar to a shark attack (around 6 of those worldwide every year, by the way) but it was not a peer-reviwed paper. Again, references would be appreciated.

I'm not being facetious, I read as many research papers as I can get my hands on and I haven't heard of the ones mentioned.

Please send the citations along, either here or to caveatnewsdesk@hotmail.com.

Thanks.

East Coast Pitbull Advocates said...

East Coast Pitbull Advocates said....

"I think the ORIGINAL POINT was is that YOUR numbers regardless of their validity - are BEING USED by Best Friends - WITHOUT CITING THE SOURCE (meaning you) - to drive SUPPOSED PIT-FRIENDLY legislation."

"And they use YOUR book to get it done? ANd you allow this?"

Then Karen Delise said..............

"And how do you propose I stop this? Get a court ordered gag on them?"

OK Karen -

In answer to your question - here is exactly how I propose you stop Best Fiends, PETA, HSUS DOgs Deserve Better, Unchain Your Dog, etc. - from the deliberate misuse of your data in unethical ways to drive their own anti-dog agendas.

But before I outline this step by step plan - know that if you don't challenge them - and challenge them publicly - know this:

If you choose to keep your mouth shut, you are complicit in allowing them to do this.

And by allowing PETA/HSUS/DDB, and Best Friends to go unchallenged, they will continue to feel they are unaccountable to anyone or anything.

So, Karen, if you are so upset about PETA/HSUS/DDB/Best Friends, etc. twistng your data to drive their agendas -

Then you should take the following actions:

1) Immediately place a statment on your website, your blog - and in your book PUBLICLY stating that tethering does not cause aggression and that you do not support the organizations that are deliberately twisting your data.

Here is your own quote:

"I've said a thousand times that fatal attacks are the culmination of many risk factors - no single circumstance CAUSES a fatal attack.
How many times and ways can I say this? Everyone just hears what they want to hear. And this includes you and Best Friends".


2) Immediately send cease and desist letters to Michael Mountain, Wayne Pacelle, Ingrid Newkirk (that lover of pitbulls, NOT) - and every organization that is using your data to drive anti-tethering/chaining,anti-penning laws and send the letters certified return receipt.


3) Publish these cease and desist letters on your websites to ensure that every member of the public is aware of your stance.

4) Next - your book. Add a sticker and send a letter with every book you ship stating that you do not support anti-tethering/chaining/penning laws and that your data is being twisted.

5) Start issuing press releases to the contrary - you have a new book coming out - so make sure you nail it in your press releases.

6)Leave comments on dog blogs and other sites that deliberately misuse your data.

7) Start your own blog - and state your opposition there as well.

Karen- you said:
"I really am so sick of people saying things and not backing them up or having proof".

So - are you going to sit by and allow these organizations to get away with this?

Or, Karen, are you going to take action and do the right thing?

East Coast Pitbull Advocates

Caveat said...

OK, I made a mistake in my last comment.

The CDC fatality study was, apparently, peer-reviewed, although by whom remains a mystery.

I just wanted to correct my error.

Tammy Grimes said...

What I MOST love about people like Blue Dog is that they attack EVERYONE who is trying to SOLVE the problem...yet they offer no solution of their own, except to keep the status quo just as it is!

Get your heads out of the sand, people...

Here's my question: Wouldn't you think that people in Responsible Owners Groups would be AGAINST Irresponsible Owners?

Yet they are not, are they?...what they ARE against is anyone who DOES try to work against Irresponsible Owners.

Therefore, I motion to rename the Responsible Owners Groups the Irresponsible Owners Groups!

Do I hear a Second from Karen Delize or, Animal Farm Foundation (who I think is a WONDERFUL group who is actually trying to DO something about the BSL problem), or Best Friends?

Tammy S. Grimes, Dogs Deserve Better

Note from Blue Dog State:

Tammy, Karen Delise (note spelling, dear) suddenly went silent on us. Perhaps you can answer something for us--

Neither the CDC nor the AVMA have an official position on tethering. Spokespeople for both organizations reject that oh so popular (yet bogus) "fact" that dogs that are tethered are more likely to attack. As a matter of fact, Karen Delise herself says above that in her opinion tethering per se does not cause dog attacks.

So my question is: what gives you the right to steal people's dogs, and encourage other people to steal dogs, and build databases of future theft prospects?

You don't like tethering. You don't like penning (whatever that is). You don't like crating. And that's just for starters.

Humane restraint is an important part of responsible dog ownership. It protects both dog and community.

Oh, but that's right. You have a problem with responsible ownership, too. Don't you?

Keep up the good work said...

East coast pit bull advocate - well said!

As for Tammy Grimes, dogs certainly do deserve better than what organizations like hers stand for. Dogs deserve better than people purposely spreading disinformation about studies that in actuality don't prove their case. Dogs do deserve better than people like Ms Grimes treating good people like abusers (ironic for a dog thief to do that). Dogs do deserve better than to be used by people like Ms Grimes for publicity stunts. Dogs do deserve better than people like Tammy Grimes and her group.

Ms Grimes doesn't work against irresponsible ownership, she works against ownership.

Keep up the good work Blue Dog State. Your efforts in exposing animal rightists and waking people up is appreciated.

Anonymous said...

I agree w/ECPB, I think if I did not agree w/anyone who used my qualified data, I would make that clear I did not approve nor agree with the use as such. The word misrepresentation, as defined in Black's law dictionary, clearly indicates it means to mislead. Therefore if the statements are used in order to mislead then it is not being used properly. I know that Delise has issued a report to take issue with politicians and I think she did a good job on it. It would be easy for her to clarify what BF et al said in regard to her data and then issue statements that would clarify everything. I cant see arguing over it, but I can see the point of her clarifying it. After all it is her data, not ours. Regardless of spay/neuter or mandated altering, to which I am opposed, I believe the duty lies with the one who obtained the data/did the work. That person is not BF HSUS or PETA. thank you.