BAD RAP Blog: Sports Illus: A home run for pit bulls.
posted by Bob at 8:38 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
A Great End to a Spotty Year: Pit Bulls Save Christmas!
Admittedly, it’s been a while since my last post, but I’ve been busy and posting for me takes a good deal of leisure time to reflect prior to putting pen to page.
Regardless, I usually breakdown about this time of year and do the “Year in Review.” Wait! Don’t click to another site, I’ll make this relatively painless. Aside from the normal job changes I go through (yes, I changed again), this year was mainly one dedicated to watching my baby girl grow up, seeing my sister get married and coming to grips with the importance of family (again).
Oh yeah, and one more thing: I still love to debunk anti-pitbull BS - usually by way of editorials, etc. combating the rampant ignorance on city councils and other legislative bodies nationwide.
So, imagine my joy at seeing the year end Sport Illustrated cover go to . . . the Pit Bull! Not just any pit bull, mind you, but a rehabilitating Vick dog. You remember the Vick dogs, the ones PETA and HSUS would have euthanized before they even got a whiff of fresh air. And better yet, not only are the pictures wonderful – celebrating all that makes pitties so special, the joy in their eyes, the belly’s that need rubbing, the curious faces and headcocks we all know and love – but the story is a spot-on homerun for my favorite breed, pouring over the details I already know (but the public is largely unaware of) about the story of their salvation at the hands of a federal court and unbelievably great organizations like BadRap, etc. and calling PETA and HSUS on the carpet for their breed hatred.
It’s official: I believe in Christmas! Thank you SI (especially author Jim Gorant and photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice), BadRap and the wonderful breed ambassadors that survived the horror of their Vick imprisonment & torture. Hooray for second chances and the people that make them possible. And, of course, hooray for pit bulls!
Admittedly, it’s been a while since my last post, but I’ve been busy and posting for me takes a good deal of leisure time to reflect prior to putting pen to page.
Regardless, I usually breakdown about this time of year and do the “Year in Review.” Wait! Don’t click to another site, I’ll make this relatively painless. Aside from the normal job changes I go through (yes, I changed again), this year was mainly one dedicated to watching my baby girl grow up, seeing my sister get married and coming to grips with the importance of family (again).
Oh yeah, and one more thing: I still love to debunk anti-pitbull BS - usually by way of editorials, etc. combating the rampant ignorance on city councils and other legislative bodies nationwide.
So, imagine my joy at seeing the year end Sport Illustrated cover go to . . . the Pit Bull! Not just any pit bull, mind you, but a rehabilitating Vick dog. You remember the Vick dogs, the ones PETA and HSUS would have euthanized before they even got a whiff of fresh air. And better yet, not only are the pictures wonderful – celebrating all that makes pitties so special, the joy in their eyes, the belly’s that need rubbing, the curious faces and headcocks we all know and love – but the story is a spot-on homerun for my favorite breed, pouring over the details I already know (but the public is largely unaware of) about the story of their salvation at the hands of a federal court and unbelievably great organizations like BadRap, etc. and calling PETA and HSUS on the carpet for their breed hatred.
It’s official: I believe in Christmas! Thank you SI (especially author Jim Gorant and photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice), BadRap and the wonderful breed ambassadors that survived the horror of their Vick imprisonment & torture. Hooray for second chances and the people that make them possible. And, of course, hooray for pit bulls!
posted by Bob at 8:27 AM
0 comments
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Dumb or Evil, It's Your Call
Of course you know by know that pointing out the folly of BSL is my favorite pasttime. And, sadly, I have a seemingly unending flow of opportunities to make myself heard. The most recent example comes from Lakewood, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, where another either ignorant or evil City Councilman (Brian Powers) is pushing BSL on the heels of a single "pit bull" attack in January of this year. Below is my as my yet-unpublished response to the Councilman's OpEd justifying the breed ban. The twist here is that the local paper, the Lakewood Observer, has a residency requirement for publishing OpEd pieces. Hmm. Given that Councilman Powers directly mentioned me (http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/please-read-notesstanding-firm-on-pit-bull-ban-councilman-powers-responds-to-critics) in his response to his critics - nothing like always having the only voice / seat at the table - can you say "home-cookin'"? - I've asked them to reconsider their residency policy.
You can find Councilman Power's original OpEd on the Lakewood Observer's website - I'm not gonna give this guy anymore air time than he's already getting, especially given the outright lies he's spreading.
Below is my response to his OpEd. Happy reading!
Pit Bulls Are Just Dogs
By Charles R. Brettell
Let’s start here: “pit bulls” are just dogs – nothing more, nothing less. Like all dogs, they eat, sleep, love and play just like any other kind of dog because that’s what they are - just dogs. I know – I own 2 bully breed mixes and have included them in my family for the last 5 years.
It might strike some as odd that I include my dogs – “property,” as the law sees it – as family members, but anyone who has seen my 2-year old daughter play with her “doggies” (the first word she ever spoke), anyone who has received our annual Christmas letter (with accompanying family photo), anyone who has stopped me on the street to ask about my “beautiful” and “well-behaved” dogs quickly understands. So, yes, my dogs – my pit bulls – are part of my family.
And it is on behalf of my family that I feel a duty to speak out against the terrible wrong that breed-specific legislation (BSL) represents to law-abiding, responsible owners like me and the gross misstatements of fact made by Councilman Powers in his recent editorial in the Lakewood Observer.
Let me start by noting that I believe, as did our Founding Fathers, that that Government which governs least, governs best. While I acknowledge that a serious dog attack, apparently by a “pit bull type” dog, was the impetus for the proposed breed-ban and while my heart goes out to the victim and his family, I would still argue that, while tragic, a single occurrence of any event is not a sound basis for Legislative action.
Simply put, Government cannot protect you from every imaginable harm. Nor should they, nor would you (really) want them to, nor could any government afford to. Here, the specific harm sought to be prevented is so remote – 1 book calculates the odds of a fatal dog attack at 1 in 18,000,000 – that you have better chance of being struck by lightning.
As Councilman Powers correctly points out, current animal control laws – including current dangerous dog laws and, apparently, the leash law - are going totally unenforced. Given the current lawlessness, doesn’t it make more sense to simply start enforcing the existing animal control ordinances? Wouldn’t the very attack that spurred the push for a breed ban have been prevented if the City were just enforcing its leash laws? How much more simple a thing is it to do that than enforce a breed-ban, with its problematic breed identification issues and resultant costly litigation?
Let’s be honest: all dogs are capable of biting. Why not enact (and enforce) legislation that targets all dogs, regardless of breed, that have shown human aggression or can be shown (preemptively) to be a threat to humans? Breed-neutral legislation of this type is supported by virtually every animal welfare organization, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the National Animal Control Officers Association and the Centers for Disease Control. And while we’re at it, why not fund bite-prevention education and awareness for children, the group most likely to be the victim of a dog attack?
Finally, ask yourself this: Why would Councilman Powers attempt to support his breed-ban position with falsehoods, half-truths & innuendo? Specifically:
The CDC and JAVMA reports he cites contradict his position, disclaiming the results of their studies as subject to uncontrollable variables (like breed identification) that render them virtually meaningless; both also support non-breed-specific solutions, not BSL. See, http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf.
Pit Bull Rescue Central believes that their information was deliberately taken out of context, failing to note that it was from dog-on-dog aggression discussion. On their blog they say are “disappointed that Councilman Powers used our information to mislead his readers” and that by his omission the Councilman “made it seem as if we were declaring that pit bulls are generally unstable in temperament. This is not true.” See, http://pitbullrescuecentral.blogspot.com/.
Rather than supporting BSL, the AVMA has actually gone on record to say that BSL is “inappropriate and ineffective.” They further state that “statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the "dangerousness" of a particular breed.” See, http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf.) (emphasis added).
As for the Michael Vick dogs, the reality is that these victims of abuse were placed under the control of a federally-appointed Special Master who released them to animal welfare organizations around the country, including a group called BadRap (http://www.badrap.org/) in Oakland, California. Virtually all of these dogs have all been re-homed to warm, caring families across the Bay Area without incident.
To his credit, the Councilman rightly pointed out the superb utility of pit bulls as working dogs – due to their smart, loyal, dutiful, and self-confident natures. Some examples include:
Search and rescue - like the "pit bulls" who participated in the search for the Columbia astronauts (http://www.forpitssake.org/sar.html);
Drug detection & police working dogs (http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html);
Therapy dogs (http://www.forpitssake.org/therapy.html), and
National championship Frisbee dogs, like this year's winner of Purina's Incredible Dog Challenge, Wallace (http://www.wallacethepitbull.com/).
Turns out, pit bulls are just dogs – with all the good and bad that comes with thousands of years of human companionship – not the vicious monsters Councilman Powers would have you believe. It takes human intervention to make them monsters – criminals, abusers, reporters . . . and terribly misguided, ill-informed politicians.
Of course you know by know that pointing out the folly of BSL is my favorite pasttime. And, sadly, I have a seemingly unending flow of opportunities to make myself heard. The most recent example comes from Lakewood, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, where another either ignorant or evil City Councilman (Brian Powers) is pushing BSL on the heels of a single "pit bull" attack in January of this year. Below is my as my yet-unpublished response to the Councilman's OpEd justifying the breed ban. The twist here is that the local paper, the Lakewood Observer, has a residency requirement for publishing OpEd pieces. Hmm. Given that Councilman Powers directly mentioned me (http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/please-read-notesstanding-firm-on-pit-bull-ban-councilman-powers-responds-to-critics) in his response to his critics - nothing like always having the only voice / seat at the table - can you say "home-cookin'"? - I've asked them to reconsider their residency policy.
You can find Councilman Power's original OpEd on the Lakewood Observer's website - I'm not gonna give this guy anymore air time than he's already getting, especially given the outright lies he's spreading.
Below is my response to his OpEd. Happy reading!
Pit Bulls Are Just Dogs
By Charles R. Brettell
Let’s start here: “pit bulls” are just dogs – nothing more, nothing less. Like all dogs, they eat, sleep, love and play just like any other kind of dog because that’s what they are - just dogs. I know – I own 2 bully breed mixes and have included them in my family for the last 5 years.
It might strike some as odd that I include my dogs – “property,” as the law sees it – as family members, but anyone who has seen my 2-year old daughter play with her “doggies” (the first word she ever spoke), anyone who has received our annual Christmas letter (with accompanying family photo), anyone who has stopped me on the street to ask about my “beautiful” and “well-behaved” dogs quickly understands. So, yes, my dogs – my pit bulls – are part of my family.
And it is on behalf of my family that I feel a duty to speak out against the terrible wrong that breed-specific legislation (BSL) represents to law-abiding, responsible owners like me and the gross misstatements of fact made by Councilman Powers in his recent editorial in the Lakewood Observer.
Let me start by noting that I believe, as did our Founding Fathers, that that Government which governs least, governs best. While I acknowledge that a serious dog attack, apparently by a “pit bull type” dog, was the impetus for the proposed breed-ban and while my heart goes out to the victim and his family, I would still argue that, while tragic, a single occurrence of any event is not a sound basis for Legislative action.
Simply put, Government cannot protect you from every imaginable harm. Nor should they, nor would you (really) want them to, nor could any government afford to. Here, the specific harm sought to be prevented is so remote – 1 book calculates the odds of a fatal dog attack at 1 in 18,000,000 – that you have better chance of being struck by lightning.
As Councilman Powers correctly points out, current animal control laws – including current dangerous dog laws and, apparently, the leash law - are going totally unenforced. Given the current lawlessness, doesn’t it make more sense to simply start enforcing the existing animal control ordinances? Wouldn’t the very attack that spurred the push for a breed ban have been prevented if the City were just enforcing its leash laws? How much more simple a thing is it to do that than enforce a breed-ban, with its problematic breed identification issues and resultant costly litigation?
Let’s be honest: all dogs are capable of biting. Why not enact (and enforce) legislation that targets all dogs, regardless of breed, that have shown human aggression or can be shown (preemptively) to be a threat to humans? Breed-neutral legislation of this type is supported by virtually every animal welfare organization, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the National Animal Control Officers Association and the Centers for Disease Control. And while we’re at it, why not fund bite-prevention education and awareness for children, the group most likely to be the victim of a dog attack?
Finally, ask yourself this: Why would Councilman Powers attempt to support his breed-ban position with falsehoods, half-truths & innuendo? Specifically:
The CDC and JAVMA reports he cites contradict his position, disclaiming the results of their studies as subject to uncontrollable variables (like breed identification) that render them virtually meaningless; both also support non-breed-specific solutions, not BSL. See, http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf.
Pit Bull Rescue Central believes that their information was deliberately taken out of context, failing to note that it was from dog-on-dog aggression discussion. On their blog they say are “disappointed that Councilman Powers used our information to mislead his readers” and that by his omission the Councilman “made it seem as if we were declaring that pit bulls are generally unstable in temperament. This is not true.” See, http://pitbullrescuecentral.blogspot.com/.
Rather than supporting BSL, the AVMA has actually gone on record to say that BSL is “inappropriate and ineffective.” They further state that “statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the "dangerousness" of a particular breed.” See, http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf.) (emphasis added).
As for the Michael Vick dogs, the reality is that these victims of abuse were placed under the control of a federally-appointed Special Master who released them to animal welfare organizations around the country, including a group called BadRap (http://www.badrap.org/) in Oakland, California. Virtually all of these dogs have all been re-homed to warm, caring families across the Bay Area without incident.
To his credit, the Councilman rightly pointed out the superb utility of pit bulls as working dogs – due to their smart, loyal, dutiful, and self-confident natures. Some examples include:
Search and rescue - like the "pit bulls" who participated in the search for the Columbia astronauts (http://www.forpitssake.org/sar.html);
Drug detection & police working dogs (http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html);
Therapy dogs (http://www.forpitssake.org/therapy.html), and
National championship Frisbee dogs, like this year's winner of Purina's Incredible Dog Challenge, Wallace (http://www.wallacethepitbull.com/).
Turns out, pit bulls are just dogs – with all the good and bad that comes with thousands of years of human companionship – not the vicious monsters Councilman Powers would have you believe. It takes human intervention to make them monsters – criminals, abusers, reporters . . . and terribly misguided, ill-informed politicians.
posted by Bob at 10:07 AM
0 comments
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
On Being (and Having) a Father
Admittedly, this was not a subject of my own choosing. Rather, I was prompted to it by my stepmother who related to me that my Dad wanted his children (yeah, there’s more than just me out there) to give him a gift of authorship / thought for Father’s Day this year.
As usual, this was converted in my brain to something a bit different. Instead of the usual remembrances, I have chosen to relate how I now see the world as a father myself because, in my mind, a lot of that is relevant to my relationship with my Dad. Of course, I’ll sprinkle in stuff that I learned from my parents along the way. Here goes.
The birth of your own child. There’s no describing it. I can only imagine everyone has the same sense of beyond-description moment when they see their baby born, hear their first cry, hold them for the first time. For those among you who haven’t been there yet, I literally can’t help you here. It’s truly beyond words. I can’t help but think that that feeling is never something that you get accustomed to – 1st, 2nd, 3rd, however many times, I can’t believe that there’s anything but a sense of awe & wonder at those moments – time stands still, your heart flutters and the future is right in front of you. I imagine my father felt the same way because, like me, he’s a softy at heart, too.
Raising a baby. I remember being told (after being puked on, screamed at, peed on, awoken / annoyed by, etc. someone else’s baby) by more people than I can count how “it’s different when it’s your baby.” I always thought that was a crock – I still wouldn’t want to get puked on, etc. I was wrong – turns out when you are a parent that somehow becomes “cute.” Loss of sleep – more time to spend with a baby you know will eventually grow into a fully-formed, independent being too busy living their own lives to stop and think of you – after all, that’s what you trained them to do, right? I can’t say I miss sleeping, but I cherish the early-morning hours spent with my baby while the rest of the house slept. I imagine my father felt the same way – except for the part about him being a ridiculously early riser. Seriously, who but my father WANTS to be up at 5:00 a.m.?
A new beginning. That’s what your baby is; a chance to see the whole world in a new and different way. I’ve written about this before, but I sympathize with parents who have tragedies befall their children in ways I NEVER did before. Most recently an 18 year old girl went missing in a local suburb only to be found days later dead in a creek bed. I thought of those parents – thinking that most of the hard part of raising a kid was past – on to the glory years – college, career, marriage, grandkids – and then someone took their baby from them. And, yes, I think of it that way now, too – your baby is ALWAYS your baby – 1 year old, 16 year old, 25 year old, 50 year old – just your little baby in the crib. Sure you watch them grow, take pride in their accomplishments, have thousands of pictures around your home, office, etc., but they are ALWAYS that baby in your arms at 4:30 a.m. looking at you like you’re their whole world – and you, knowing they’re yours. I think of my father (ok, both my parents) thinking those things and understand now some of the conversations we’ve had – I’m still their baby and they can’t help but betray those thoughts sometimes. That used to really piss me off – now I get it. Live and learn.
So, for Father’s Day, I say to my Dad thanks for all the memories, lessons and love.
Admittedly, this was not a subject of my own choosing. Rather, I was prompted to it by my stepmother who related to me that my Dad wanted his children (yeah, there’s more than just me out there) to give him a gift of authorship / thought for Father’s Day this year.
As usual, this was converted in my brain to something a bit different. Instead of the usual remembrances, I have chosen to relate how I now see the world as a father myself because, in my mind, a lot of that is relevant to my relationship with my Dad. Of course, I’ll sprinkle in stuff that I learned from my parents along the way. Here goes.
The birth of your own child. There’s no describing it. I can only imagine everyone has the same sense of beyond-description moment when they see their baby born, hear their first cry, hold them for the first time. For those among you who haven’t been there yet, I literally can’t help you here. It’s truly beyond words. I can’t help but think that that feeling is never something that you get accustomed to – 1st, 2nd, 3rd, however many times, I can’t believe that there’s anything but a sense of awe & wonder at those moments – time stands still, your heart flutters and the future is right in front of you. I imagine my father felt the same way because, like me, he’s a softy at heart, too.
Raising a baby. I remember being told (after being puked on, screamed at, peed on, awoken / annoyed by, etc. someone else’s baby) by more people than I can count how “it’s different when it’s your baby.” I always thought that was a crock – I still wouldn’t want to get puked on, etc. I was wrong – turns out when you are a parent that somehow becomes “cute.” Loss of sleep – more time to spend with a baby you know will eventually grow into a fully-formed, independent being too busy living their own lives to stop and think of you – after all, that’s what you trained them to do, right? I can’t say I miss sleeping, but I cherish the early-morning hours spent with my baby while the rest of the house slept. I imagine my father felt the same way – except for the part about him being a ridiculously early riser. Seriously, who but my father WANTS to be up at 5:00 a.m.?
A new beginning. That’s what your baby is; a chance to see the whole world in a new and different way. I’ve written about this before, but I sympathize with parents who have tragedies befall their children in ways I NEVER did before. Most recently an 18 year old girl went missing in a local suburb only to be found days later dead in a creek bed. I thought of those parents – thinking that most of the hard part of raising a kid was past – on to the glory years – college, career, marriage, grandkids – and then someone took their baby from them. And, yes, I think of it that way now, too – your baby is ALWAYS your baby – 1 year old, 16 year old, 25 year old, 50 year old – just your little baby in the crib. Sure you watch them grow, take pride in their accomplishments, have thousands of pictures around your home, office, etc., but they are ALWAYS that baby in your arms at 4:30 a.m. looking at you like you’re their whole world – and you, knowing they’re yours. I think of my father (ok, both my parents) thinking those things and understand now some of the conversations we’ve had – I’m still their baby and they can’t help but betray those thoughts sometimes. That used to really piss me off – now I get it. Live and learn.
So, for Father’s Day, I say to my Dad thanks for all the memories, lessons and love.
posted by Bob at 6:09 PM
0 comments
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Let's Try A New BSL - Begin Speaking their Language
By Jennie Friedrich
There are a thousand pit bull faces in my mind. I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a puppy chained to a post, left for years, while a collar grows into her neck. I have seen that dog lick the vet tech as he pulls back the infected skin from the wound. I have seen that dog, quivering, start to play with other dogs, learn to love people. I have seen that dog find a home.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a dog neglected, left to his own devices, undisciplined, unneutered, unsocialized. I have seen that dog alone, day after day, confined in a space too small to run in with no one to play with. I have seen that dog grow restless, pacing. I have seen him charge the fence, increasingly wary of the dog on the other side. I have seen the fence grow weak, and, one day, the dog charge through, all the supercharged energy, anxiety, and isolation packed in a brain that twists with neglect. I have seen that dog kill.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a dog left in a back yard with a broken leg, screaming in pain as she hobbles, enduring month after month with no relief until her bones heal in a bow. I have seen her rescued by animal control and placed in a shelter where she waits on death row until a rescue picks her out. I have seen her cower when humans come near, take refuge in the shadow of a huge mama mastiff, and finally learn to enjoya few ear scratches. I have seen her steal shoes off her humans' feet, and learn to ring a bell to go potty.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a huge pit mix in a no-kill shelter spend day after day, month after month, waiting for walks, rolling over for belly rubs, giving kisses to children. I have seen him begin to balk at the door to his room on the way back in, whine when his favorite volunteer leaves, grab at her clothing to keep her from leaving. I have seen him grow resigned, restless, cease to resist when his people leave. I have seen him grow anxious and one day, when a child unexpectedly rubs his belly, turn and nip at her. I have seen him condemned, and fifty volunteers and staff come to pay their respects.
I have seen dogs tortured, mauled, starved, burned, broken, and shamed into subservience, but never in their eyes have I seen the hate that burns in the eyes of the people that fight them, that wield them like weapons or toss them away like dirty rags. Never have I seen them laugh at a creature in suffering. I have seen them react out of fear, confusion, or surprise, but in the end, their eyes are uncomprehending. They do not understand what they have done. There is no malice. These broken dogs, these tools of the insecure, cannot muster the viciousness of premeditation. In the eyes of those who hate them, they are a nightmare, but I have a different nightmare.
I dream of a dog ripped from the arms of its family, held in a cold cement cell, confused and alone, and killed because a dog that shared its ancestry bit a child in a nearby county. I dream of an owner falling to her knees begging a temperament tester to understand how sweet her dog is, running him through his tricks so they can see he's like every other family pet, pleading with their weary hearts to see that this dog is special, that this one deserves to live. I dream of that owner driving back to her empty apartment with its new "dangerous dog" policy, and collapsing to the floor sobbing because her dog is not a "dangerous dog," but she can't find an apartment manager who believes her.
In the background of my dream, I hear voices, people crowding in city halls, telling them their stories, holding up pictures of Staffies with babies, asking legislators to look, for a moment, at the lives they're affecting. I see people gathering in parks with their pit-bull-type dogs, doing interviews with news teams, introducing their dogs to strangers. I see huge bully grins and happy dogs catching frisbees. I see growing awareness that the laws governing these dogs do not encompass the needs of communities or address the root of the violence. And in the end, I see me. Fighting.
I also am not a fighter. I hate violence, fear, injustice and anger, but I burn with a desire to see the end of a misguided crusade to punish the innocent, and to return to rationality, where a dog is no longer responsible for the actions of its owner, but understood as a malleable, dependent being that relies on the guidance of a human hand and voice to teach it how to live in human society.
And then I am at peace, and I sleep without dreaming.
By Jennie Friedrich
There are a thousand pit bull faces in my mind. I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a puppy chained to a post, left for years, while a collar grows into her neck. I have seen that dog lick the vet tech as he pulls back the infected skin from the wound. I have seen that dog, quivering, start to play with other dogs, learn to love people. I have seen that dog find a home.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a dog neglected, left to his own devices, undisciplined, unneutered, unsocialized. I have seen that dog alone, day after day, confined in a space too small to run in with no one to play with. I have seen that dog grow restless, pacing. I have seen him charge the fence, increasingly wary of the dog on the other side. I have seen the fence grow weak, and, one day, the dog charge through, all the supercharged energy, anxiety, and isolation packed in a brain that twists with neglect. I have seen that dog kill.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a dog left in a back yard with a broken leg, screaming in pain as she hobbles, enduring month after month with no relief until her bones heal in a bow. I have seen her rescued by animal control and placed in a shelter where she waits on death row until a rescue picks her out. I have seen her cower when humans come near, take refuge in the shadow of a huge mama mastiff, and finally learn to enjoya few ear scratches. I have seen her steal shoes off her humans' feet, and learn to ring a bell to go potty.
I have never seen a fighter.
I have seen a huge pit mix in a no-kill shelter spend day after day, month after month, waiting for walks, rolling over for belly rubs, giving kisses to children. I have seen him begin to balk at the door to his room on the way back in, whine when his favorite volunteer leaves, grab at her clothing to keep her from leaving. I have seen him grow resigned, restless, cease to resist when his people leave. I have seen him grow anxious and one day, when a child unexpectedly rubs his belly, turn and nip at her. I have seen him condemned, and fifty volunteers and staff come to pay their respects.
I have seen dogs tortured, mauled, starved, burned, broken, and shamed into subservience, but never in their eyes have I seen the hate that burns in the eyes of the people that fight them, that wield them like weapons or toss them away like dirty rags. Never have I seen them laugh at a creature in suffering. I have seen them react out of fear, confusion, or surprise, but in the end, their eyes are uncomprehending. They do not understand what they have done. There is no malice. These broken dogs, these tools of the insecure, cannot muster the viciousness of premeditation. In the eyes of those who hate them, they are a nightmare, but I have a different nightmare.
I dream of a dog ripped from the arms of its family, held in a cold cement cell, confused and alone, and killed because a dog that shared its ancestry bit a child in a nearby county. I dream of an owner falling to her knees begging a temperament tester to understand how sweet her dog is, running him through his tricks so they can see he's like every other family pet, pleading with their weary hearts to see that this dog is special, that this one deserves to live. I dream of that owner driving back to her empty apartment with its new "dangerous dog" policy, and collapsing to the floor sobbing because her dog is not a "dangerous dog," but she can't find an apartment manager who believes her.
In the background of my dream, I hear voices, people crowding in city halls, telling them their stories, holding up pictures of Staffies with babies, asking legislators to look, for a moment, at the lives they're affecting. I see people gathering in parks with their pit-bull-type dogs, doing interviews with news teams, introducing their dogs to strangers. I see huge bully grins and happy dogs catching frisbees. I see growing awareness that the laws governing these dogs do not encompass the needs of communities or address the root of the violence. And in the end, I see me. Fighting.
I also am not a fighter. I hate violence, fear, injustice and anger, but I burn with a desire to see the end of a misguided crusade to punish the innocent, and to return to rationality, where a dog is no longer responsible for the actions of its owner, but understood as a malleable, dependent being that relies on the guidance of a human hand and voice to teach it how to live in human society.
And then I am at peace, and I sleep without dreaming.
posted by Bob at 1:07 PM
0 comments
Sunday, June 03, 2007
A Pit Bull Who Provided Lessons in Loyalty and Unfailing Love
As published in the NY Times
By Peter Applebome
Published: March 28, 2007
HOBOKEN, N.J.
Foxy the loyal pit bull.
In the pecking order of man and beast, there was no lower rung than the one shared by Randy Vargas and Foxy on the streets of Hoboken.
He was 46 and homeless, regular work like that fondly remembered machine-shop job long in the past. She was a member of dogdom’s least-fashionable demographic, a 10-year-old brindled pit bull, compact as a pickup truck, ears askew, two-tone face, white neck, the rest an arbitrary mix of light and dark.
And yet in this city increasingly defined by creatures who drew the long straw — winners in real estate and on Wall Street, sleek goldens, pampered Yorkies, fashionable puggles and doodles — there was something transcendent in their bond.
Maybe in a world of opaque relationships, theirs was a lesson in clarity like a parable from the Bible. He had rescued her back when she was homeless and abused, a scared runty thing living with homeless men who had no use for her. She in turn gave him purpose and companionship and love.
Maybe it was how the relationship brought out the best in both. It brought him to life and into the world, as much a part of Hoboken street life as any young comer with his black Lab. And it made her a creature of eternal sweetness, unfailingly friendly to people and animals, tail wagging at the merest glance, a pit bull in name but not metaphor.
So if you spent any time in Hoboken the odds are pretty good you would have seen the two of them, sleeping in front of SS. Peter and Paul Parish Center, visiting the Hoboken Animal Hospital, walking down the street — the dog keeping perfect pace with him, dressed in winter in raffish layers of sweatshirts and T-shirts plucked from the St. Mary’s Hospital Thrift Store, she keeping perfect pace with him.
Cheryl Lamoreaux remembered seeing Mr. Vargas resting on a condo’s shaded concrete steps on a sweltering August weekend day, flat on his back with Foxy in the same position one step below. It was the perfect image of man and dog, she said, and added, “This really was a dog with a deep soul.”
Everyone who knew them said the same thing: Mr. Vargas cared for the dog better than for himself.
“If it was the dead of winter, the dog would get all the blankets, he’d get the sidewalk with nothing on it,” said Robin Murphy, a groomer at the Hoboken Animal Hospital. “If it was raining, he’d put the umbrella up for the dog before he’d put it up for himself.”
But there’s not much margin for error at the bottom rung. Once this winter, he was arrested, accused of making threatening remarks to women. The case was dismissed, and friends say it should never have gone that far. But Ms. Murphy had to rescue Foxy from the pound in Newark, where she could have been euthanized.
It all ended so fast, people still can’t explain it. Aside from a dog run, she had seldom been seen off the leash, but on the morning of March 19 in the park, she was. She saw a dog she knew across Hudson Street, dashed across to say hello and was hit by a white pickup that stopped briefly and then sped off.
He held the dog, blood spurting from her mouth, and waved at passing cars, but none stopped. So he carried her 60 pounds, feeling the broken bones in his hand, as far as he could, then put her down and ran to the animal hospital for help. But it was too late.
People come by every day, some fighting back tears, to leave donations, more than $900 so far. Some come from people who knew them, most from people who felt like they did. Alone they might have been invisible. Together, they were impossible to miss.
In different ways, they’re still around. Her picture is in some store windows, wearing a gray sweatshirt with a red T-shirt under it, gazing to the right like a sentry, a wondrous study in essence of dog with a touch of human thrown in. Since the accident Mr. Vargas has had good days and bad ones, sometimes being up and around, sometimes, like the other day, looking groggy and defeated under his red comforter on the street. “I feel,” he told a friend, “like I have a hole in my soul.”
At the animal hospital they’re buying a pendant to hold some of her ashes that he can wear around his neck. Friends check on him regularly, bring him food, talk of finally getting him a place to live. There’s talk of getting him a new dog when he’s ready, which surely isn’t now.
“It’s like most relationships,” he said from under the red blanket. “You have to wait for the right time.”
As published in the NY Times
By Peter Applebome
Published: March 28, 2007
HOBOKEN, N.J.
Foxy the loyal pit bull.
In the pecking order of man and beast, there was no lower rung than the one shared by Randy Vargas and Foxy on the streets of Hoboken.
He was 46 and homeless, regular work like that fondly remembered machine-shop job long in the past. She was a member of dogdom’s least-fashionable demographic, a 10-year-old brindled pit bull, compact as a pickup truck, ears askew, two-tone face, white neck, the rest an arbitrary mix of light and dark.
And yet in this city increasingly defined by creatures who drew the long straw — winners in real estate and on Wall Street, sleek goldens, pampered Yorkies, fashionable puggles and doodles — there was something transcendent in their bond.
Maybe in a world of opaque relationships, theirs was a lesson in clarity like a parable from the Bible. He had rescued her back when she was homeless and abused, a scared runty thing living with homeless men who had no use for her. She in turn gave him purpose and companionship and love.
Maybe it was how the relationship brought out the best in both. It brought him to life and into the world, as much a part of Hoboken street life as any young comer with his black Lab. And it made her a creature of eternal sweetness, unfailingly friendly to people and animals, tail wagging at the merest glance, a pit bull in name but not metaphor.
So if you spent any time in Hoboken the odds are pretty good you would have seen the two of them, sleeping in front of SS. Peter and Paul Parish Center, visiting the Hoboken Animal Hospital, walking down the street — the dog keeping perfect pace with him, dressed in winter in raffish layers of sweatshirts and T-shirts plucked from the St. Mary’s Hospital Thrift Store, she keeping perfect pace with him.
Cheryl Lamoreaux remembered seeing Mr. Vargas resting on a condo’s shaded concrete steps on a sweltering August weekend day, flat on his back with Foxy in the same position one step below. It was the perfect image of man and dog, she said, and added, “This really was a dog with a deep soul.”
Everyone who knew them said the same thing: Mr. Vargas cared for the dog better than for himself.
“If it was the dead of winter, the dog would get all the blankets, he’d get the sidewalk with nothing on it,” said Robin Murphy, a groomer at the Hoboken Animal Hospital. “If it was raining, he’d put the umbrella up for the dog before he’d put it up for himself.”
But there’s not much margin for error at the bottom rung. Once this winter, he was arrested, accused of making threatening remarks to women. The case was dismissed, and friends say it should never have gone that far. But Ms. Murphy had to rescue Foxy from the pound in Newark, where she could have been euthanized.
It all ended so fast, people still can’t explain it. Aside from a dog run, she had seldom been seen off the leash, but on the morning of March 19 in the park, she was. She saw a dog she knew across Hudson Street, dashed across to say hello and was hit by a white pickup that stopped briefly and then sped off.
He held the dog, blood spurting from her mouth, and waved at passing cars, but none stopped. So he carried her 60 pounds, feeling the broken bones in his hand, as far as he could, then put her down and ran to the animal hospital for help. But it was too late.
People come by every day, some fighting back tears, to leave donations, more than $900 so far. Some come from people who knew them, most from people who felt like they did. Alone they might have been invisible. Together, they were impossible to miss.
In different ways, they’re still around. Her picture is in some store windows, wearing a gray sweatshirt with a red T-shirt under it, gazing to the right like a sentry, a wondrous study in essence of dog with a touch of human thrown in. Since the accident Mr. Vargas has had good days and bad ones, sometimes being up and around, sometimes, like the other day, looking groggy and defeated under his red comforter on the street. “I feel,” he told a friend, “like I have a hole in my soul.”
At the animal hospital they’re buying a pendant to hold some of her ashes that he can wear around his neck. Friends check on him regularly, bring him food, talk of finally getting him a place to live. There’s talk of getting him a new dog when he’s ready, which surely isn’t now.
“It’s like most relationships,” he said from under the red blanket. “You have to wait for the right time.”
posted by Bob at 11:24 AM
0 comments
Pit Bulls, Society and Schlock Science
Last year I undertook a campaign to persuade a large national dog care company not to use a certain “expert” due to his extreme position in supporting breed specific legislation. To his credit, after a 2 month war of words with the Company’s mouthpieces, he stepped forward to suggest a running debate / dialogue.
I will say that while I am unpersuaded by his arguments (which seem anything but scientific, try as he might), I found him to be a worthy correspondent – when he remembered to correspond, that is.
Here, for the world to see, is the dialogue we have had to date. It is unedited save to remove his name and other identifying details and clarify sources that might not be obvious to all readers.
I would note at the outset here, that this debate was originally proposed as being “CC” and “BCC” free and somehow later converted to “don’t tell anyone I said this, but”. As such, I believe that posting this to my blog in the fashion I have chosen is compliant with at least the letter, if not the spirit, of our original agreement (albeit outside the later and unilaterally imposed constraint). Further, I believe it is in the public interest to have this debate in the fresh air of the public forum such that others may gain an appreciation for the nuances of the arguments. Besides, what could he have expected from pitbull-loving scum like me, right?
Good reading, all and God save the innocent bullys among us!
Dr. AB,
Thanks for the reply. I'm using Webmail, so please forgive any spelling mistakes I may make.
I appreciate the reading material and will get to that over the course of the week.
Of course, I will respect our original agreement re: publication until I hear otherwise. That said, I would be more than happy to allow use of my comments as long as I had the chance to understand the context and approve the specific use. I think everything I've posited / argued to date has been accurate. I also try (no always successfully) to restrain my thoughts under the guise of "would my mother like to read this on the front page of her local paper."
On the Ohio point, I didn't mean to link you to that other than to indicate that I thought the City had used some of your co-authored studies (Lockwood, right?).
As for a debate, I'd love that. I spoke at an online Dog Expo last year and understand that the organizers wish me to return. Not that it would be a friendly audience for you, but I'd love to find a way to have an online debate in that forum if you're interested.
I would offer the same on editorial help. I tend to be a better editor of other people's stuff than my own (always works that way, right?)
Thanks,
Bob
To: CRB
From: Dr AB
April 9, 2007
Forgive delay for responding but I try not to correspond during a weekend that includes both Passover and Easter out of respect for others and for myself.
I have told many, including the ASPCA that I had nothing to do with the Ohio case—I didn't even know about it and I was never contacted and never gave any information about Ohio dog legislation to anyone.
FYI, the Ontario dog law has been upheld, see Cochrane Decision, attached.
I have not lost interest as much has having many projects this semester. I will dedicate my dog law writings to published efforts that can be reviewed. Email is good to develop ideas and even be therapeutic but does little to truly advance an issue. I ask that you honor our original agreement to keep our correspondence private. I too would enjoy quoting you in some of my work, but will not.
You should consider writing for the general audience. One lawyer has done so, see Kory's (Kory Nelson) article on the Denver experience, attached.
One of the ASPCA's attorneys (Ledy Van Kevage) has 'debated' me in the Veterinary Forum, which was an invited pair of essays, attached.
Consider presenting your approach to some legal journal. There have been some older efforts, most too technical to be used widely by either side.
You can let me let me peek at the pittie article your writing – I’m a great editor!
AB
From: CRBSent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 4:30 PMTo: ABSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
Not sure if we’re gonna take up this debate again, as it seems your interest has waned.
FYI, I think the ASPCA referenced some of the work you’ve previously had a hand in in their amicus brief in the Tellings case in Ohio. You should check out the argument (it’s posted at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/videostream/archives/2007/ and the argument was held on April 4th) – no one seriously advanced the “inherently dangerous” description for pitties. As a matter of fact, even the City of Toledo’s attorney conceded the point, instead arguing the deference was due the Legislative pronouncement on this matter (not true, where there are no facts to support their findings, but I digress).
My only regret about our correspondence is that it seems to have been a largely uninspired effort on your part. Not sure if that’s because you recognize the weakness of your position or you were too busy to give it an honest go (I think it’s the former).
Now to the punch line. Given that we’re clearly at the end of this, I’d like your permission to release our discussion to the larger community of dog interests. I think folks would be curious to see the total lack of support you provided for your position in light of my exceptionally well founded (if I do say so myself) argument.
Let me know your thoughts.
Cheers!
From: ABSent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:27 AMTo: CRBSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
I appreciate your insights and will review. For now, I am involved with organizing a new major course for next semester, many annual reports, and a major project deadline, not involving our common interest. I have put all my pit bull writings, including an article, on the proverbial "back burner." I suspect I will not even look at my work on this area until the end of January.
If WWI could have a Christmas truce, permit me to wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
AB
From: CRBSent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:39 PMTo: ABSubject: FW: Pit Bulls and societyImportance: High
Not sure if you never got this or are just caught up with other matters, but I’d like to continue the dialogue. Please let me know when I might expect a response. Thx.
From: CRBSent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:29 PMTo: ABSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and societyImportance: High
Dr. AB,
Thanks for the reply. I certainly understand busy as I work in a start-up that is on the verge of deploying our core technology product (of course, that had to coincide with the holidays, right - J). Anyway, on to the discussion.
Let’s start with the CDC issue and work from there. I find it curious that you would attempt to assert the validity of a study that the author has walked away from. That is, the CDC itself disclaimed its results as the basis for any link between breed and bite fatality rates. Further, JAVMA discredited the study in a September 2000 paper (attached for your reference). Specifically, the JAVMA paper stated the following defects to methodology:
Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases. Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. (emphasis added)
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available. Considering American Kennel Club registration data for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in popularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths (24,195 registrations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273 registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and 692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 deaths). However, official registration or licensing data are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their dogs and, thus, should not be used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner-related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. (emphasis added)
In other words, you can’t trust either side of the equation and there are uncontrolled-for variables in the study data. All you know is that more bites (and resulting deaths) were reported as having been associated with a certain breed regardless of ownership issues. As a scientist, I’m sure you appreciate that that is a far cry from what you are trying to assert the report says, namely that bully breeds are responsible for more dog bite related fatalities because of inherent characteristics. This is probably too fine a point for most legislators and the media, and definitely too subtle for John Q. Public, but you should be able to recognize the difference.
To your point about published papers acknowledging a breed link but being afraid to state it explicitly, I’d say they are less likely to be soft-pedaling that due to scientific conservatism and more b/c the studies which could support that conclusion are either non-existent or deeply flawed and they know it. As for the “power of the bully breed lobby” you reference as possibly blunting the real opinions of the scientific community, I was heretofore unaware of our political clout. Frankly, I have seen just the opposite – a scientific community quite openly stating that any if there is any link between breed and dangerousness it is currently unproven (probably why both the AVMA and our local KCVMA are on record in opposition to BSL) and an impotent and politically isolated bully breed community.
As for the role of the media, it’s a fact, not a perception of the bully community that the reporting is biased. I’ve attached an article from the Journal of Popular Culture that’s on point as well as a presentation a group I am acquainted with authored. If you can show me a single study that says pit bulls are fairly and accurately portrayed by the media as the dogs they are – hard working, loving, family pets and an occasional bad apple – I’d be happy to read it. I’m fairly confident you won’t find any.
I would also agree that there are much more telling factors in dog bite cases, including reproductive status of the dog, sex, age of victim and history of violence, abuse and neglect of the animal.
To your point that limiting the breed’s ability to reproduce would solve the problem, I agree. Killing off an entire species would probably limit that breed’s ability to be blamed for any attacks or fatalities once they were extinguished. Silly me, I think there might actually be a way other than mass killings to accomplish a similar result – it’s called a holistic approach to human – dog interaction, not just legislated and police-enforced brutality.
To your point about taking a positive leadership role, we do (see the attached KCMO Presentation PowerPoint set) and I would ask that you do the same. Rather than continuing to deny reality, try looking at the problem from all sides, starting with a review of the facts (the attached Tellings v. Toledo case is a nice summary of current thinking) and working from there. I’m sure you’ll find that the bully community would welcome you with open arms if you came over to the side of informed opinion (read: our side).
Yes, I do have a dog in this fight and that’s why I’m so outraged that someone of your stature, intellectual capacity and professional background would choose to ignore the facts and perpetuate such damaging fallacies in the public’s mind. To paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan you are entitled to you own opinions, just not your own facts.
I look forward to continuing our dialogue.
Bob
From: AB Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:13 PMTo: CRBSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
Forgive the delay but a very busy time—end of semester paperwork and more than usual traveling. I should mention that I do not take the topic of discussion as personally as you may—I love dogs but do not have any specific favorites or dislikes. I started my studies of risk factors with the usual scientific assumption of the "null hypothesis" that there are no differences and studies attest if there is and then in which direction. I was not looking for any breed types, other than size. While general bite does have an association with animal size, this is less true for fatal attack. My early studies (with Randall Lockwood) naively ascribed fatal attack to socialization of the dog, predation, and a disparate size between animal and victim. These factors described a little less than half of all attacks; the others were from pit bulls.
The bully breed community has a manta that the CDC studies are flawed. Actually, they were well done. While it is true that pit bull attacks get more "press" than attacks from other dogs, all dog deaths do get some press. In Lockwood's original 1987 study and then in the 1998 and 2000 CDC studies, great care was given that each incident was counted only once. The studies are a valid measure of dog attack incidents. All the published papers acknowledge that there appears to be a breed risk factor, though they are cautious—in part scientific conservatism, part bowing to political pressure.
I ask you to consider if you think the bully breed response would have been different if instead of attack, the problem was an inherited dog behavioral or physical problem? Would there been a more serious coordinated effort to solve the problem? That is what has happened in other breeds.
I keep hearing that pit bulls are the most commonly relinquished dog in shelters, regardless of legislation. More dogs are lost because of owner disappointment than legislative enforcement. If the dog is not best for most people maybe the breed lobby should indeed lessen their numbers, which will save dog lives. I just do not think it productive for the bully lobby to keep blaming the media, drug dealers, and legislators for the problem. If the problem was simply a media event or a few "bad dogs" the issue would not have remained relevant for over 16 years, across this country and in most developed countries. The pit bull community should stop just denying the data and take a positive leadership role for the sake of the dogs.
AB
From: CRBSent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:42 PMTo: Dr AB
Not sure if you got this, but I’m anxious to start our dialogue.
From: CRBSent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:05 PMTo: Dr AB
Dr. AB,
I know you’re traveling, but I just wanted to get our dialogue kicked-off.
Let’s start here: I know of no study in the public domain that supports breed specific legislation in any way, shape or form. That is, I have yet to see a carefully crafted, fully documented study that shows human aggression more prevalent in one breed than another. Most folks cite to the deeply flawed CDC study (a study the CDC itself disclaims), to no avail. So, I’d be interested in seeing the empirical evidence on those points (including what you have authored). Most of what I have seen of legislatures is that media-fueled hysteria when mixed with personal bias / political calculation is a deadly combination.
On to the specific example at issue, Ontario, I have seen no evidence that breed specific MSN has, can or does work to prevent bites – it merely prevents the coming of a life without any empirical support for that action. Again, there is no evidence in the public domain that supports BSL, whether it’s a ban or MSN. Further, the fact that ignorant laws exist does not bolster the argument that such laws are sound – it’s merely circular logic. Forced muzzling of dogs with no history of violence or aggression toward humans is absurd, adds nothing to the safety of the public and is an enforcement burden on already taxed police department. And as far as the slippery-slope, can’t the legislature merely add another breed when rampant (but baseless) public panic so demands?
As for society demanding BSL because of overwhelming evidence, I can only say I disagree. Again, I am unaware of a single study that supports BSL – either the position that some dogs are inherently more likely to be human aggressive OR that BSL has any impact in solving a community’s dog-bite problems. Further, as you are likely well aware, not a single animal rights organization supports BSL because it is utterly and totally without empirical support and proves ineffective in implementation. As to the “society” element, I can only say that folks that support BSL without the facts, without having ever met a single socialized pit, without any thought as to the effect of these laws on the families that pay the price, are the real problem (but not one that we can solve between us). Ignorance, hatred, discrimination and prejudice are so firmly rooted in humanity as to be almost second-nature, so to see that mind-set aimed at something that can’t fight back on equal terms hardly surprises me. But what shocks me is when folks with access to the facts act in the face of them, choosing instead to profit from the misery BSL inflicts. Finally, as to the pit bull community issue, I have seen lots of fanaticism in this group, some rightly placed. It’s kinds like the saying (I’m paraphrasing) “it’s not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.” The media, legislatures and everyday folks have chosen to be hostile toward my dogs and my ownership rights with no basis in logic. To say that is frustrating is an understatement. So, if we all seem a bit edgy, I think you can understand.
Rather than empirical evidence to support BSL, I would posit that bully breeds are suffering at the hands of an image problem created by their association (via an “if it bleeds it leads” media machine) with violent criminals, drug dealers and dog fighting. However, instead of enforcing laws against criminals, legislatures are taking the easy way out and aiming their power at helpless animals and innocent, law-abiding owners. In place thereof, one might suggest enforcement of existing laws relating to cruelty, neglect & abuse, dog fighting and tethering, along with non-breed specific spay / neuter and leash laws as a place to start solving the “pit bull problem.” Failing this we will only be treating the symptom, rather than the cause, and doing an injustice to the many wonderful bully breed ambassadors, including cherished family pets, therapy, search & rescue, law enforcement and military service dogs.
As for me, I live in a quiet suburban community in the city of __________. We have 2 shelter dogs (both pit mixes as far as we can tell), a cat, a six month old daughter (our first), and five graduate degrees between my wife and I. We’re well equipped for the BSL battle, me with 2 law degrees (JD & LLM) and an MBA, she with a PhD in genetics. We each are also excelling on our given career tracks – she as the Director of Molecular Genetics for our local children’s hospital and me as the SVP, Operations for a start-up franchising company. Essentially, we’re law-abiding, productive, professional, politically aware members of our community . . . and responsible pit bull owners.
So, there it is – a beginning. I welcome the opening of our discussion.
Talk to ya soon,
Bob
FYI, I cc’d my work e-mail so I could have a back-up copy if my computer ever crashes. Otherwise, as we’ve agreed, no bcc’s or cc’s.
______
From: CRB
To: Dr AB
Date: 11/7/2006 @ 10:59 a.m.
I, too, have fallen victim to my own e-mail protection - when trying to send pictures from my phone to my e-mail account. Very frustrating, but it does keep the spam to a minimum.
Looking forward to the dialogue.
FYI, my wife's name is Carol __________ and she was in Bob _____'s lab - that should jog Sally's memory.
-----Original Message----- From: Dr ABSent: Nov 7, 2006 8:09 AM To: CRB
Thank you for your response. I could not seem to get past your spam block so I was not sure you even received my message. While you blocking system was frustrating I was also somewhat envious.
Being on both the Faculty Affairs Committee and Senate Advisory Committee I meet with Sally several times a month and will send regards.
I too will be traveling, until November 15, so perhaps we can share later in the month.
Thank you,
Dr AB
From: CRB Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:30 AMTo: Dr AB
Dr. AB,
I appreciate the response, in both tone and content. I am out of town for business, but would indeed like to continue this discussion later in the week. I, too, will keep this a cc / bcc free debate and will attempt to limit myself to empirical data to the extent that I have access to it.
I'll get back to you toward the weekend.
Thanks,
Bob
From: AB Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:55 AMTo: CRB
I thought you may want my "take" in case you want to share within your community. There are no Cc or Bcc listed.
Starting in the 1990's many countries passed national pit bull bans including England, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Israel and Canada (Ontario Province and other cities). In the United States over 230 cities (in 32 states) have some form of BSL. The “bully breeds” are banned on all US Army and Marine bases worldwide. All these laws were a response to the empirical evidence that pit bulls caused a disproportionate number of human and pet dog deaths. All of this happened long before I was involved in any way. While I first published on animal bite epidemiology in the 1970's and co-authored one of the earlier papers on fatal dog bite (all in Public Health Reports, the official journal of the US Public Health Service) I had nothing to do with the laws that proliferated. While I did run the animal programs for the New York City Department of Health many years ago, bite epidemiology is not my major emphasis of research now. I am now more committed to the studying the health benefits of animal interaction and much of my work has been used to defend animal ownership, especially for older adults. It is in that capacity Purina asked me to review their public relations efforts to help older adults with pet ownership.
Back to the BSL issue; I did not support some early efforts, including the Denver law, because I did not believe it necessary to take animals away from their owners. I did offer to provide epidemiological analysis for the Canadian (Ontario) law because it was the best crafted and humane approach to address a social demand. That law does NOT require people to surrender their pet. It does require that pit bull-type dogs be spayed/neutered, which is consistent with most humane laws. The law is sensitive to the health needs of any animal providing for exceptions for the age and health of the dog. It also requires that such dogs be muzzled when in public but carefully mandates that the muzzle be humane, much like those use by police and military dogs now. The law also allows for dog shows and traveling through the province. The law also carefully defines the dogs involved so other breeds cannot be added (no slipper-slope). If I had any impact it was to keep the laws consistent with sound public health policy and humane considerations for animals.
The present laws were demanded by society because of the empirical evidence that was everywhere; the laws were additionally fostered by the social perception that the pit bull community was hostile to the rest of society and even other dog owners. The rhetoric that often comes from the pit bull community unfortunately reinforces that perception.
It is common knowledge that legislation only happens when self regulation either fails or is not even attempted. That is what happened with the pit bull issue.
Do tell me more of your interests. Do you breed or otherwise use dogs professionally?
I welcome a respectful and evidence based dialogue.
AB
Last year I undertook a campaign to persuade a large national dog care company not to use a certain “expert” due to his extreme position in supporting breed specific legislation. To his credit, after a 2 month war of words with the Company’s mouthpieces, he stepped forward to suggest a running debate / dialogue.
I will say that while I am unpersuaded by his arguments (which seem anything but scientific, try as he might), I found him to be a worthy correspondent – when he remembered to correspond, that is.
Here, for the world to see, is the dialogue we have had to date. It is unedited save to remove his name and other identifying details and clarify sources that might not be obvious to all readers.
I would note at the outset here, that this debate was originally proposed as being “CC” and “BCC” free and somehow later converted to “don’t tell anyone I said this, but”. As such, I believe that posting this to my blog in the fashion I have chosen is compliant with at least the letter, if not the spirit, of our original agreement (albeit outside the later and unilaterally imposed constraint). Further, I believe it is in the public interest to have this debate in the fresh air of the public forum such that others may gain an appreciation for the nuances of the arguments. Besides, what could he have expected from pitbull-loving scum like me, right?
Good reading, all and God save the innocent bullys among us!
Dr. AB,
Thanks for the reply. I'm using Webmail, so please forgive any spelling mistakes I may make.
I appreciate the reading material and will get to that over the course of the week.
Of course, I will respect our original agreement re: publication until I hear otherwise. That said, I would be more than happy to allow use of my comments as long as I had the chance to understand the context and approve the specific use. I think everything I've posited / argued to date has been accurate. I also try (no always successfully) to restrain my thoughts under the guise of "would my mother like to read this on the front page of her local paper."
On the Ohio point, I didn't mean to link you to that other than to indicate that I thought the City had used some of your co-authored studies (Lockwood, right?).
As for a debate, I'd love that. I spoke at an online Dog Expo last year and understand that the organizers wish me to return. Not that it would be a friendly audience for you, but I'd love to find a way to have an online debate in that forum if you're interested.
I would offer the same on editorial help. I tend to be a better editor of other people's stuff than my own (always works that way, right?)
Thanks,
Bob
To: CRB
From: Dr AB
April 9, 2007
Forgive delay for responding but I try not to correspond during a weekend that includes both Passover and Easter out of respect for others and for myself.
I have told many, including the ASPCA that I had nothing to do with the Ohio case—I didn't even know about it and I was never contacted and never gave any information about Ohio dog legislation to anyone.
FYI, the Ontario dog law has been upheld, see Cochrane Decision, attached.
I have not lost interest as much has having many projects this semester. I will dedicate my dog law writings to published efforts that can be reviewed. Email is good to develop ideas and even be therapeutic but does little to truly advance an issue. I ask that you honor our original agreement to keep our correspondence private. I too would enjoy quoting you in some of my work, but will not.
You should consider writing for the general audience. One lawyer has done so, see Kory's (Kory Nelson) article on the Denver experience, attached.
One of the ASPCA's attorneys (Ledy Van Kevage) has 'debated' me in the Veterinary Forum, which was an invited pair of essays, attached.
Consider presenting your approach to some legal journal. There have been some older efforts, most too technical to be used widely by either side.
You can let me let me peek at the pittie article your writing – I’m a great editor!
AB
From: CRBSent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 4:30 PMTo: ABSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
Not sure if we’re gonna take up this debate again, as it seems your interest has waned.
FYI, I think the ASPCA referenced some of the work you’ve previously had a hand in in their amicus brief in the Tellings case in Ohio. You should check out the argument (it’s posted at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/videostream/archives/2007/ and the argument was held on April 4th) – no one seriously advanced the “inherently dangerous” description for pitties. As a matter of fact, even the City of Toledo’s attorney conceded the point, instead arguing the deference was due the Legislative pronouncement on this matter (not true, where there are no facts to support their findings, but I digress).
My only regret about our correspondence is that it seems to have been a largely uninspired effort on your part. Not sure if that’s because you recognize the weakness of your position or you were too busy to give it an honest go (I think it’s the former).
Now to the punch line. Given that we’re clearly at the end of this, I’d like your permission to release our discussion to the larger community of dog interests. I think folks would be curious to see the total lack of support you provided for your position in light of my exceptionally well founded (if I do say so myself) argument.
Let me know your thoughts.
Cheers!
From: ABSent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:27 AMTo: CRBSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
I appreciate your insights and will review. For now, I am involved with organizing a new major course for next semester, many annual reports, and a major project deadline, not involving our common interest. I have put all my pit bull writings, including an article, on the proverbial "back burner." I suspect I will not even look at my work on this area until the end of January.
If WWI could have a Christmas truce, permit me to wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
AB
From: CRBSent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:39 PMTo: ABSubject: FW: Pit Bulls and societyImportance: High
Not sure if you never got this or are just caught up with other matters, but I’d like to continue the dialogue. Please let me know when I might expect a response. Thx.
From: CRBSent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:29 PMTo: ABSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and societyImportance: High
Dr. AB,
Thanks for the reply. I certainly understand busy as I work in a start-up that is on the verge of deploying our core technology product (of course, that had to coincide with the holidays, right - J). Anyway, on to the discussion.
Let’s start with the CDC issue and work from there. I find it curious that you would attempt to assert the validity of a study that the author has walked away from. That is, the CDC itself disclaimed its results as the basis for any link between breed and bite fatality rates. Further, JAVMA discredited the study in a September 2000 paper (attached for your reference). Specifically, the JAVMA paper stated the following defects to methodology:
Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases. Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. (emphasis added)
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available. Considering American Kennel Club registration data for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in popularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths (24,195 registrations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273 registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and 692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 deaths). However, official registration or licensing data are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their dogs and, thus, should not be used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner-related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. (emphasis added)
In other words, you can’t trust either side of the equation and there are uncontrolled-for variables in the study data. All you know is that more bites (and resulting deaths) were reported as having been associated with a certain breed regardless of ownership issues. As a scientist, I’m sure you appreciate that that is a far cry from what you are trying to assert the report says, namely that bully breeds are responsible for more dog bite related fatalities because of inherent characteristics. This is probably too fine a point for most legislators and the media, and definitely too subtle for John Q. Public, but you should be able to recognize the difference.
To your point about published papers acknowledging a breed link but being afraid to state it explicitly, I’d say they are less likely to be soft-pedaling that due to scientific conservatism and more b/c the studies which could support that conclusion are either non-existent or deeply flawed and they know it. As for the “power of the bully breed lobby” you reference as possibly blunting the real opinions of the scientific community, I was heretofore unaware of our political clout. Frankly, I have seen just the opposite – a scientific community quite openly stating that any if there is any link between breed and dangerousness it is currently unproven (probably why both the AVMA and our local KCVMA are on record in opposition to BSL) and an impotent and politically isolated bully breed community.
As for the role of the media, it’s a fact, not a perception of the bully community that the reporting is biased. I’ve attached an article from the Journal of Popular Culture that’s on point as well as a presentation a group I am acquainted with authored. If you can show me a single study that says pit bulls are fairly and accurately portrayed by the media as the dogs they are – hard working, loving, family pets and an occasional bad apple – I’d be happy to read it. I’m fairly confident you won’t find any.
I would also agree that there are much more telling factors in dog bite cases, including reproductive status of the dog, sex, age of victim and history of violence, abuse and neglect of the animal.
To your point that limiting the breed’s ability to reproduce would solve the problem, I agree. Killing off an entire species would probably limit that breed’s ability to be blamed for any attacks or fatalities once they were extinguished. Silly me, I think there might actually be a way other than mass killings to accomplish a similar result – it’s called a holistic approach to human – dog interaction, not just legislated and police-enforced brutality.
To your point about taking a positive leadership role, we do (see the attached KCMO Presentation PowerPoint set) and I would ask that you do the same. Rather than continuing to deny reality, try looking at the problem from all sides, starting with a review of the facts (the attached Tellings v. Toledo case is a nice summary of current thinking) and working from there. I’m sure you’ll find that the bully community would welcome you with open arms if you came over to the side of informed opinion (read: our side).
Yes, I do have a dog in this fight and that’s why I’m so outraged that someone of your stature, intellectual capacity and professional background would choose to ignore the facts and perpetuate such damaging fallacies in the public’s mind. To paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan you are entitled to you own opinions, just not your own facts.
I look forward to continuing our dialogue.
Bob
From: AB Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:13 PMTo: CRBSubject: RE: Pit Bulls and society
Forgive the delay but a very busy time—end of semester paperwork and more than usual traveling. I should mention that I do not take the topic of discussion as personally as you may—I love dogs but do not have any specific favorites or dislikes. I started my studies of risk factors with the usual scientific assumption of the "null hypothesis" that there are no differences and studies attest if there is and then in which direction. I was not looking for any breed types, other than size. While general bite does have an association with animal size, this is less true for fatal attack. My early studies (with Randall Lockwood) naively ascribed fatal attack to socialization of the dog, predation, and a disparate size between animal and victim. These factors described a little less than half of all attacks; the others were from pit bulls.
The bully breed community has a manta that the CDC studies are flawed. Actually, they were well done. While it is true that pit bull attacks get more "press" than attacks from other dogs, all dog deaths do get some press. In Lockwood's original 1987 study and then in the 1998 and 2000 CDC studies, great care was given that each incident was counted only once. The studies are a valid measure of dog attack incidents. All the published papers acknowledge that there appears to be a breed risk factor, though they are cautious—in part scientific conservatism, part bowing to political pressure.
I ask you to consider if you think the bully breed response would have been different if instead of attack, the problem was an inherited dog behavioral or physical problem? Would there been a more serious coordinated effort to solve the problem? That is what has happened in other breeds.
I keep hearing that pit bulls are the most commonly relinquished dog in shelters, regardless of legislation. More dogs are lost because of owner disappointment than legislative enforcement. If the dog is not best for most people maybe the breed lobby should indeed lessen their numbers, which will save dog lives. I just do not think it productive for the bully lobby to keep blaming the media, drug dealers, and legislators for the problem. If the problem was simply a media event or a few "bad dogs" the issue would not have remained relevant for over 16 years, across this country and in most developed countries. The pit bull community should stop just denying the data and take a positive leadership role for the sake of the dogs.
AB
From: CRBSent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:42 PMTo: Dr AB
Not sure if you got this, but I’m anxious to start our dialogue.
From: CRBSent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:05 PMTo: Dr AB
Dr. AB,
I know you’re traveling, but I just wanted to get our dialogue kicked-off.
Let’s start here: I know of no study in the public domain that supports breed specific legislation in any way, shape or form. That is, I have yet to see a carefully crafted, fully documented study that shows human aggression more prevalent in one breed than another. Most folks cite to the deeply flawed CDC study (a study the CDC itself disclaims), to no avail. So, I’d be interested in seeing the empirical evidence on those points (including what you have authored). Most of what I have seen of legislatures is that media-fueled hysteria when mixed with personal bias / political calculation is a deadly combination.
On to the specific example at issue, Ontario, I have seen no evidence that breed specific MSN has, can or does work to prevent bites – it merely prevents the coming of a life without any empirical support for that action. Again, there is no evidence in the public domain that supports BSL, whether it’s a ban or MSN. Further, the fact that ignorant laws exist does not bolster the argument that such laws are sound – it’s merely circular logic. Forced muzzling of dogs with no history of violence or aggression toward humans is absurd, adds nothing to the safety of the public and is an enforcement burden on already taxed police department. And as far as the slippery-slope, can’t the legislature merely add another breed when rampant (but baseless) public panic so demands?
As for society demanding BSL because of overwhelming evidence, I can only say I disagree. Again, I am unaware of a single study that supports BSL – either the position that some dogs are inherently more likely to be human aggressive OR that BSL has any impact in solving a community’s dog-bite problems. Further, as you are likely well aware, not a single animal rights organization supports BSL because it is utterly and totally without empirical support and proves ineffective in implementation. As to the “society” element, I can only say that folks that support BSL without the facts, without having ever met a single socialized pit, without any thought as to the effect of these laws on the families that pay the price, are the real problem (but not one that we can solve between us). Ignorance, hatred, discrimination and prejudice are so firmly rooted in humanity as to be almost second-nature, so to see that mind-set aimed at something that can’t fight back on equal terms hardly surprises me. But what shocks me is when folks with access to the facts act in the face of them, choosing instead to profit from the misery BSL inflicts. Finally, as to the pit bull community issue, I have seen lots of fanaticism in this group, some rightly placed. It’s kinds like the saying (I’m paraphrasing) “it’s not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.” The media, legislatures and everyday folks have chosen to be hostile toward my dogs and my ownership rights with no basis in logic. To say that is frustrating is an understatement. So, if we all seem a bit edgy, I think you can understand.
Rather than empirical evidence to support BSL, I would posit that bully breeds are suffering at the hands of an image problem created by their association (via an “if it bleeds it leads” media machine) with violent criminals, drug dealers and dog fighting. However, instead of enforcing laws against criminals, legislatures are taking the easy way out and aiming their power at helpless animals and innocent, law-abiding owners. In place thereof, one might suggest enforcement of existing laws relating to cruelty, neglect & abuse, dog fighting and tethering, along with non-breed specific spay / neuter and leash laws as a place to start solving the “pit bull problem.” Failing this we will only be treating the symptom, rather than the cause, and doing an injustice to the many wonderful bully breed ambassadors, including cherished family pets, therapy, search & rescue, law enforcement and military service dogs.
As for me, I live in a quiet suburban community in the city of __________. We have 2 shelter dogs (both pit mixes as far as we can tell), a cat, a six month old daughter (our first), and five graduate degrees between my wife and I. We’re well equipped for the BSL battle, me with 2 law degrees (JD & LLM) and an MBA, she with a PhD in genetics. We each are also excelling on our given career tracks – she as the Director of Molecular Genetics for our local children’s hospital and me as the SVP, Operations for a start-up franchising company. Essentially, we’re law-abiding, productive, professional, politically aware members of our community . . . and responsible pit bull owners.
So, there it is – a beginning. I welcome the opening of our discussion.
Talk to ya soon,
Bob
FYI, I cc’d my work e-mail so I could have a back-up copy if my computer ever crashes. Otherwise, as we’ve agreed, no bcc’s or cc’s.
______
From: CRB
To: Dr AB
Date: 11/7/2006 @ 10:59 a.m.
I, too, have fallen victim to my own e-mail protection - when trying to send pictures from my phone to my e-mail account. Very frustrating, but it does keep the spam to a minimum.
Looking forward to the dialogue.
FYI, my wife's name is Carol __________ and she was in Bob _____'s lab - that should jog Sally's memory.
-----Original Message----- From: Dr ABSent: Nov 7, 2006 8:09 AM To: CRB
Thank you for your response. I could not seem to get past your spam block so I was not sure you even received my message. While you blocking system was frustrating I was also somewhat envious.
Being on both the Faculty Affairs Committee and Senate Advisory Committee I meet with Sally several times a month and will send regards.
I too will be traveling, until November 15, so perhaps we can share later in the month.
Thank you,
Dr AB
From: CRB Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:30 AMTo: Dr AB
Dr. AB,
I appreciate the response, in both tone and content. I am out of town for business, but would indeed like to continue this discussion later in the week. I, too, will keep this a cc / bcc free debate and will attempt to limit myself to empirical data to the extent that I have access to it.
I'll get back to you toward the weekend.
Thanks,
Bob
From: AB Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:55 AMTo: CRB
I thought you may want my "take" in case you want to share within your community. There are no Cc or Bcc listed.
Starting in the 1990's many countries passed national pit bull bans including England, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Israel and Canada (Ontario Province and other cities). In the United States over 230 cities (in 32 states) have some form of BSL. The “bully breeds” are banned on all US Army and Marine bases worldwide. All these laws were a response to the empirical evidence that pit bulls caused a disproportionate number of human and pet dog deaths. All of this happened long before I was involved in any way. While I first published on animal bite epidemiology in the 1970's and co-authored one of the earlier papers on fatal dog bite (all in Public Health Reports, the official journal of the US Public Health Service) I had nothing to do with the laws that proliferated. While I did run the animal programs for the New York City Department of Health many years ago, bite epidemiology is not my major emphasis of research now. I am now more committed to the studying the health benefits of animal interaction and much of my work has been used to defend animal ownership, especially for older adults. It is in that capacity Purina asked me to review their public relations efforts to help older adults with pet ownership.
Back to the BSL issue; I did not support some early efforts, including the Denver law, because I did not believe it necessary to take animals away from their owners. I did offer to provide epidemiological analysis for the Canadian (Ontario) law because it was the best crafted and humane approach to address a social demand. That law does NOT require people to surrender their pet. It does require that pit bull-type dogs be spayed/neutered, which is consistent with most humane laws. The law is sensitive to the health needs of any animal providing for exceptions for the age and health of the dog. It also requires that such dogs be muzzled when in public but carefully mandates that the muzzle be humane, much like those use by police and military dogs now. The law also allows for dog shows and traveling through the province. The law also carefully defines the dogs involved so other breeds cannot be added (no slipper-slope). If I had any impact it was to keep the laws consistent with sound public health policy and humane considerations for animals.
The present laws were demanded by society because of the empirical evidence that was everywhere; the laws were additionally fostered by the social perception that the pit bull community was hostile to the rest of society and even other dog owners. The rhetoric that often comes from the pit bull community unfortunately reinforces that perception.
It is common knowledge that legislation only happens when self regulation either fails or is not even attempted. That is what happened with the pit bull issue.
Do tell me more of your interests. Do you breed or otherwise use dogs professionally?
I welcome a respectful and evidence based dialogue.
AB
posted by Bob at 8:37 AM
0 comments
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Thomas Jefferson was a Terrorist . . .
And so were the rest of our Founding Fathers. Read it and weep folks!
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
And so were the rest of our Founding Fathers. Read it and weep folks!
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
posted by Bob at 7:54 PM
0 comments
About Me
- Name: Bob
- Location: Kansas City, Missouri, United States
Arrogant, over-educated, handsome and brilliant. Currently thinking about - morality and public policy, breed specific legislation, the Constitution, policital theory and civil disobedience.
Links
- Sister Vanessa's Blog
- Brother Joe's Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- National Public Radio
- Public Broadcasting Service
- Heifer International
- BadRap
- Understand-A-Bull
- Missouri Pit Bull Rescue
- Mid-America Bully Breed Rescue
- Kansas City Dog Advocates
Previous Posts
- BAD RAP Blog: Sports Illus: A home run for pit bulls.
- A Great End to a Spotty Year: Pit Bulls Save Chris...
- Dumb or Evil, It's Your CallOf course you know by ...
- Duty, Honor, Countryhttp://www.jasonsmemorial.org/...
- On Being (and Having) a FatherAdmittedly, this was...
- Let's Try A New BSL - Begin Speaking their Languag...
- A Pit Bull Who Provided Lessons in Loyalty and Unf...
- Pit Bulls, Society and Schlock ScienceLast year I ...
- Thomas Jefferson was a Terrorist . . .And so were ...
- Love Thy Neighbor? Hardly!A few weeks back I read ...
Archives
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- August 2006
- October 2006
- May 2007
- June 2007
- June 2008
- December 2008
