Wednesday, August 22, 2007

My thoughts on the pit bull attack in Washington

This attack has made national news as do most incidents involving pit bulls. I have talked to media outlets as far as New York, regarding this tragic, yet avoidable incident. So I felt I should address this incident publicly on my blog.

This, like the majority of dog attacks, was completely avoidable. This poor woman is suffering, as is the neighbor's family who lost their beloved Jack Russel, for a few reasons-- irresponsible owner and Animal Control's lack of action (It is unknown if they didn't handle the incidents correctly, or if laws didn't allow them to react).

The owner of the female pit bull is quoted: "We never saw it coming. They’re the kinds of dogs you’d let play with your babies,” Martin said." However, in talking to neighbors, there are at least 5 incidents of human aggression by these dogs or other dogs in this person's care. Incidents that involve the dogs pinning a man in the garage to the point he had to shoot at the dogs with a BB gun, that same day they charged a young child on a bike. In another incident they charged a guy and snarled at him, preventing him from getting to his truck, he had to start throwing rocks at them. A year before that, Martin's dogs attacked his dog. Yet... "we never saw it coming" ??

As for Animal Control, the ACO is quoted "Boman said animal control officers have had past run-ins with the pit bulls, but couldn’t say exactly how many."

Now from the ACO's comments as well as the neighbors comments, these dogs should have been removed from the home long before yesterday's incident. This should have never happened. Was it because ACO didn't follow up and do their jobs by visiting the neighborhood and checking on the dogs? Or was it they didn't have the authority to remove dogs because of the way their local laws are written? I can't imagine 4 incidents being reported to this degree and nothing happening. These are the laws we need to change. We need to give animal control organizations the needed budgets to become proactive and not reactive. We need to have non-breed specific laws that empower animal control to remove dogs if they are a danger to society.

As a side note: The media keeps reporting that the dogs entered through a pet door. That is inaccurate. The dogs entered through a sliding glass door that was left open for the owner's dog to go in and out of the house.

Again, this is a tragedy that should have never happened.

Monday, August 20, 2007

The Vick Plea Bargin

I know a lot of people are happy to hear that Vick pled guilty today, I would not be one of them. I'm very disappointed in the Federal Prosecuters for cutting a sweetheart deal for Vick. In my opinion the Fed's really let Michael write his own deal and showed no back bone what so ever.

First,they have one solid case given the indictment, there were more charges that could be filed by Feds and were threatend to be filed. Vick was given a deadline and he was allowed to miss it and still keep the deal and no additional charges. Of all the charges in the indictment, he's only pled guilty to 1 of them. Rumors are they will ask for prison time to be 12-36 months.

I'm just disgusted by the actions of the US attornies, there is no excuse for such a plea bargin. I certainly hope States Attorney will come thru with set of charges against Vick and will not plea him out like the Feds. How fitting would that be, the Feds swoop in and take over the investigation because the State isn't doing a good job, moving slow. When the race ends, the Feds whimp out and fall short of the finish line with the State possibly sprinting forward to cross it with a solid case.

Vick's public statement is nothing short of insulting. He apologizes?? Apologize to all the dogs you murdered, tortured and mutilated. Apologize to the 66 dogs that will be murdered because of what you have done to them.

We can only sit back and wait for the terms and hope that the Federal Judge will show the back bone the US attornies didn't. That he will take a stand for justice given the crimes committed by Vick.

We also sit and wait to see how Mr. Goodell will handle the plea. I honestly hope Mr. Goodell will stand behind his "code of conduct" and ban vick for life. He openly lied Goodell and Blank about being involved.

This whole thing has just been sickening.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

The O-HELL-O Supreme Court

In an unbelievable move today, the Ohio Supreme court rendered their decision in the Tellings v. Toledo case. Their decision has dog owners across the USA stunned in disbelief as they decided against Tellings and supported Toledo.

I have never in my life seen such a display of ignorance by a State level Supreme Court. Back in April when the case was presented to the Justices I, like hundreds of you, sat and listened to testimony. While Tellings' attorney was lacking in knowledge regarding the dogs, Justice O'Conner seemed to not only understand arguments, but greatly assisted our side in presenting arguments against another Justice. After all was said and done, I spoke with some very well-respected fellow BSL fighters and we all felt good about the case and its out come.

Then some 3 months later we were shot down. Shocking-- given the evidence, prior court cases. Heck, they had ruled in 2 other cases that non-pit bull specific that laws based on a breed were unconstitutional. So why the change? All of the scientific evidence supports our position, all of the national canine organizations support our position, there are several cases that support our position. What is wrong with the O-HELL-O Supreme court?

As for Justice O'Conner, I have a complete lack of respect for her now. Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethal-ness through abuse or aberrant training."

What is that? If you stand against something, don't believe it to be right, why would you vote for it? Very disappointing.

If you would like to read the written decision you can by clicking here