Wednesday, May 6, 2015

What's the big deal?

When a dog keeps the neighborhood up all night, what is the big deal?   You sleepless folks now have all that extra awake time to pursue useful activities... spending 7 hours a day in bed is just plain wasteful, right?

Same goes for dogs that kill... hey, the life Fido took wasn't all THAT valuable, right?  So, who cares?

Pursuant to that, a classic case of the "who cares" came to my attention.  Check out Dogsbite Decatur Alabama for details.

Here are the juicy details:

- Dog named "Bowser" bites the nose off a 3 year old boy last June.  The victim will face many reconstructive surgeries to repair his face. 

- Of course, the above is A-OK, according to Bowser's owner: "“Oh, he’s all right” and “It’s just the tip of his nose, that’s it.”   YEP... THATS ALL, FOLKS!

- Of course, true to form NOTHING is done about Bowser or his owner.  Nope... Bowser is set free to maul again!

- Then, the Merkelbachs [the boy's parents] found out about the Schilskeys, whose dog Sarge was allegedly attacked and killed by Bowser in Lake Arrowhead in late April.  “Sarge went over on his back with his paws up (and) the dog immediately chomped down on his chest and started to shake him,” Lynn Schilskey said.

So, the timeline appears to be that the dog was killed in April and nothing was done about it (of course), and then Bowser went on to maul the kid a couple of months later.  In any case, BOWSER AND HIS OWNER ARE TWO TIME LOSERS!

The result of all this carnage?  Bowser’s owners were cited, [Thank Dog for THAT] according to San Bernardino Animal Control officials, and the dog may be [!!] put down if deemed vicious at a public hearing scheduled in the coming weeks. 

Yeah, a dog kills another dog and then moves on to rip the face off a kid, so YES there is a SLIGHT chance it is vicious!  Not a big one, mind you, but its within the limit of possibility.  Kind of like time travel.  Or me being the first man on Mars.

Getting back to the original point - In the Dogocracy, any destructive act committed by dogs and their owners are simply of no consequence.  The lives they ruin don't matter.  In this case, Bowser got what HE wanted in both cases, so it is all good. 

These people have no concept of the Golden Rule, Karma, or "what goes around, comes around".  To them, it is THEY that get to be the final judge of every outcome.  If you would be better off without a dog, or a nose on your face, they are firm in the belief that is THEIR decision to make.

Of course, a sane society would have KILLED Bowser and jailed the owner for a year, and removed all pet privileges IMMEDIATELY AFTER the first dog was killed.   THIS would have prevented the subsequent mauling.  HEY DOG FOAMERS - Maybe YOU don't think the people you hurt are of any consequence but WE DO.

ENOUGH.   DOWN WITH THE DOGOCRACY.
 

50 comments:

  1. Did you see the threat off the Mick the Mauler page if us haters don't stop picking on their doggie. It was pulled down with lightening speed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, haven't been following St. Mick all that much recently. What was the substance of it?

      Delete
    2. We just want to let Mickey's fans know what we are doing. For over a year now Mickey, and the people closest to him have been attacked on Social Media. As the case is over, and Mickey is safe there is no justification for it other than to attack, and harm those closest to Mickey.

      We have tried to work with Facebook to get Pages and posts removed. However, Facebook takes a hands off policy when is comes to his. Almost like the Wild West were you had to defend yours...elf.

      Well Mickey and his friends are from Arizona, in the heart of the Wild West, so we do know who to take care of ourselves.

      From now on, you attack Mickey or your attack his supporters, we will post your information here. We will let the whole world see what type of person you are, and what you post. For the reach of this page is far greater than any hate page out there....

      My overpriced bells and whistles PC missed the screen shot. I do have a cut and paste. This is the text of the threat made. It was pulled quickly.

      Delete
    3. The stupidity of the Save Mickey acolytes never ceases to amaze. First, if they have the right to publicly worship the fleabag, then we have the right to criticize it. Period. None of Mick's critics have brought any harm to him... he has no clue whats going on outside his jail cell.

      Second, they are threatening to "out" their critics with the implication that harm may come to them. This is referred to as "doxing" and doing so with the intent to cause harm opens one up to serious civil and criminal liability.

      It was probably pulled when one of the St. Mick "Inner Party" (Schill, Piccone, Sheriff) realized they'd gone way over the line. They might be unethical and crazy but they have to understand that something like this can have very severe consequences.

      Delete
    4. Quite the post wasn't it.
      Given their insistence that dogs have a human trail it might be wise of them to remember that Mickey was found guilty ( vicious) had his teeth ground down and was sentenced to life in prison.
      I have no idea who made the post itself but it was a post from the WMBC page. Some fairly frothing accolades were posted from the devotees as they anticipated outing anyone anywhere for defiling the dog/god.
      Yes indeed they opened the door to shut themselves down. Of course pulling it down does not absolve them if one of the nuts decides to follow the directive.

      On barking dogs and sleep. Yes it is beyond disruptive. I can't hear a dog bark at night without tensing up in anticipation of the onslaught. What I miss more than anything is being an avid reader. Something that became more and more difficult to do as the stress from the barking increased. It is impossible to enjoy a good book. My reader is stuffed with books where the first few chapters are started and abandoned

      Delete
    5. Eileen - I hear you about this has impacted your interests, even when the problem is not immediately present.

      Due to my various "encounters", I too sometimes find it difficult to enjoy the things I used to. I am extremely vigilant at all times, hyper-aware of my surroundings. A day or a weekend at a state park now brings on apprehension - am I going to be barked at the whole time? Will a dog try to attack me, or someone else in my party? Will I wind up in another nasty encounter with a malicious, destructive, supremacist canine fanatic?

      These experiences do change us. I'm not the same person I was 5 years ago. As the problem continues, and the bad encounters continue to add up I find myself more cynical, more likely to use force in a bad situation, less polite, less patient, less able to enjoy the things I used to, more suspicious of strangers, and a LOT more suspicious and hostile towards dog owners.

      It used to be, everybody started off on a good footing with me. Today, anyone with a dog is assumed to be a destructive scumbag until they prove otherwise. I do not like being that way, but I can't seem to help myself.

      Delete
    6. You describe the You just described me.

      Delete
    7. Uncontrol, you just described me too. And, sad thing is, I used to be a dog lover.

      Delete
  2. Another killer dog mauling another kid. When I said it's the owners fault and not the dogs, I simply meant, the idiots who keep a dog alive that has killed are responsible for any subsequent problems. A good owner, even if a pit is their dog of choice would have it put down after even an attempted attack. Dogs are not smart enough to know right from wrong. If their owners do nothing to the problem, it's still on them, the dog is simply the vehicle of their being irresponsible or stupid. If a dog kills or mauls another living thing it should be put down, always. Owners of yappers should be fined three times and if they don't correct the problem, jailed and bye bye Fido. If we don't make the humans on the other end of the leash responsible nothing will get better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trisha. No one needs a dog that has the capacity to inflict the type of damage a pit type dog can. The best way to prevent death and maiming is to outlaw these dogs in every state. Considering the rate they are being bred I don't see that happening.

      Delete
  3. I would agree, even after knowing some cold ones Eileen. There's an older woman in town who used to have a boxer mixed with some type of bully breed. It wasn't pit, the dog was too big to be a standard pit/boxer mix. I don't know what happened to that one, but now she has 5, yes FIVE big bully mixes. They're behind a standard four foot fence, except the few in the unroofed cheap six foot kennel. What kind of idiot wants five of any kind of dog, really? Especially five bully breeds, they look like they're part mastiff, judging by the size and chest to me. I think my small town is slowly being taken over by large dangerous dogs. As much as I dislike yapping, I'd really rather call the police for it than an attack. I'm all for banning them and s/n to extinction, for our sake, and because I really do hate to see animals mistreated, their own sake as well. The five big dogs are right down the alley from a humane society volunteer, I wonder what will happen if one gets loose and mauls a foster dog? Our humane society has been pushing for real animal control in our town, I wish they would win.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As for me, I really do hate to see humans mistreated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it disturbing to see the mantra it's how you raise//train your pit bull.
      I would like to see case after case of AC being brought into court along with pit owners whose dogs have attacked and been reported.
      Most of us don't realize we are walking bait for that one free bite so the dog owners is now on notice their doggy is bad. In some areas you may not even be able to sue to recover you medical.

      Delete
    2. Eileen - "It's all in how you raise them" is probably the deadliest myth. With this logic people assume the pit was mistreated or badly raised, so they don't see a reason to look further into the story.

      Down the rabbit hole we go...

      Delete
  5. As do I your quiet neighbor, but again only humans are truly capable of mistreating anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... and what better way to do that than with a DOG!

      Delete
    2. Depends doesn't it? I think more people choose to mistreat others using physical violence than dogs. Either way, the human is at fault, the weapon of choice is simply their tool. The guy I've called social services twice on for smacking his upside the back of the head doesn't own a dog. Dows that make him a good person? Is it ever ok to smack a young child upside the head? Would he really be any more of a scumbag if he sicced a dog on the boy?

      Delete
    3. Yes, but if you use a DOG you will get away with it!

      Delete
    4. You are 100 % on the mark there.

      Delete
    5. Non sequiturs. When I (or anyone) says "Dogs should not be used as weapons" that does NOT translate to "projecting aggression via fists, guns and knives is always acceptable". A sanction/negative critique against one thing is NOT an endorsement of something else. NOBODY is saying that a non-dog owner beating their kid is acceptable. Understand?

      It is not a binary world. More than one thing can be true at a time. For example, who is to blame for most pit bull attacks, the dog or the owner? I blame BOTH the dog and the owner - the dog for being what it is, and the owner for using it as a weapon against the innocent.

      Moreover, the over-arching topic of this blog is that there is usually NO sanction against using dogs as weapons... its considered perfectly acceptable by the government and in most social circles to bring harm to others via a dog. For example, whats the difference between someone who kills their neighbor with a gun and another who kills their neighbor with a dog? Answer: One goes to jail and the other walks. The use of knives and guns is restricted, the use of dogs is not and THAT needs to change. Enough said.

      Delete
    6. Please see my later post about making owners accountable. Honestly I believe there should be prison time for owners of dogs that kill. It doesn't matter where the attack happens. Their house, the street. or the particularly nasty home and yard invasions. If they kill an animal, at least 10 years for the owner. If they kill a person 20 to life. Maulings should be a minimum of 10 years. All of them should never be allowed to own an animal again. I'm tired of seeing innocent children and older people especially ripped apart by dogs that shouldn't be kept as pets. We all owe it to the innocents to keep them safe.

      Delete
    7. The only times I can excuse a dog biting are honest to god defense, of their owner. That would take the owner being under real attack and the dog would probably not be a pit bull. They're not smart or trustworthy enough to be real guard dogs. The kid I knew who bragged about pulling the food away from the nursing mother and she went for his arm, I can justify that bite. He was being stupid and at least slightly cruel. Accidental nipping, like playing fetch with a puppy who gets your fingers while they're still learning the release command. Not really a bite and not intentional and should be easy to correct. Possibly the dog in severe pain, who needs to be put down anyway. None of those are common bites except maybe the puppies being trained. None of them seem to factor into the average pit attack, those are almost always unprovoked Maulings or killings.

      Delete
    8. Dogs are incapable of making the moral judgement on when to attack. Dogs trained for protection should not attack unless commanded to do so and should cease on command. Dogs are more apt to appear to be protecting their human when in fact they are reacting to their own fear. It's a useful trait but should not be confused with nobility.
      No dog is justified in delivering a bite for having a toy or food taken away. A dog that is properly submissive to humans will yield. Your thinking is in line with the Mickey supporters who believe Kevin was at fault for his own mauling.
      Mickey most likely mauled Kevin becasue he was already showing signs of aggression, chained up and being stimulated by the human activity going on around him. If not chained up Kevin might have been spared as Mickey would have been out killing other dogs to satisfy his breed instincts..

      Delete
    9. Eileen the boy was a teenager who bragged about teasing the nursing mother many times. I would think submissive or not any animal is capable of getting tired of it. Since she didn't even break the skin it wasn't a vicious bite. The dog was a rottie so there's no doubt if she'd chosen she could have done much more than nip and scare him. I don't believe Kevin provoked Mickey, Patrick freely admitted to teasing the dog with food and water, and it was an ongoing thing. There's a difference between provoking an animal and just walking near it when it has some sort of food or treat.

      Delete
    10. Again the dog does not understand motive. Be it a teen age boy with his immature front lobe poor decision making ability or a toddler running around screaming like a toddler. The dog reacts to the stimulus in the same way. The fact that one dog delivered a devastating bite and the other choose to only put it's mouth on the boys arm are rather irrelevant. That was just the luck of the draw. After all not all pits that bite carry the action into a full scale mauling.

      Delete
    11. But I would not insist the dog who stopped be put down. A bite breaks the skin at the very least or bruises it. A red arm for ten minutes is nothing but a warning and it was arguably provoked. She never bit anyone else including the toddler of the owner. I'm not a fan of rottweilers but this guy bred them and never had any problems. A rottweiler is one of the two breeds that came at me totally unprovoked in the past. The other was a chow.

      Delete
    12. Trisha. The statistics show that there are a group of breeds that not only bite but cause massive damage or death. The majority of dogs no matter the breed are born and die with little consequence to humans. With some common sense the needless death by dog mauling could cease. Of all the things we have to contend with why not remove that which is possible. A few weeks a go a baby was killed because the father left the dog alone with his son for a few minutes. The pit took issue with the bouncy swing or the baby and killed him. A two month old baby was mauled to death. Does anyone really think the family floor rat would have done that ?
      I keep repeating this. If a car seat failed once it would be recalled. But animal activists somehow see the dead bodies as collateral damage in their quest to humanize dogs.
      A little boy has his nose bitten off and the dog owner is so deranged he suggests it's ok since it was only the tip of the nose. Never mind his mutt had eviscerated another dog before.
      You can't pick out which pit bull type dog in a line up is going to be the one to maul or kill. In a breed line up you can easily spot the usual suspects.

      Delete
    13. It seems to me rottweilers have become more aggressive in general since dog fighters decided to keep them. I could be wrong, I don't look up 70s and 80s stats. Rots were known as unpredictable but well bred ones were usually easily controlled by the owners. Now they're at least as dangerous as a pit. Still there is a difference between provoking a dog into biting you and the family dog taking issue with the bouncy seat. You're right the majority of dogs are of little consequence outside of their families and they usually consider them an enrichment. It's the dangerous dogs that need to be done away with. The barkers may be annoying but we can hopefully rehabilitate their owners to train them better. We were walking home last night and a gentleman was walking his BIG dog. It was a lab/shepherd mix. Obviously well trained as my dog loving son asked to pet it. The dog sat quietly and happily accepted the attention with no barking or fast movement.

      Delete
  6. Sadly, that does seem to be the case. I'm all for one bite and you're out, especially when it comes to bully dogs. One killing of any other living thing and the owner loses all future chances to own a dog as well. Bowser and Mickey aren't so different, each killed a dog then mauled a kid. In both cases the owners should have faced charges, and been sued into the poorhouse for life. We have to make people accountable for their actions, including the actions of their dogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dogs that bite should be put down no matter what breed or size. Owners of floor rats don't train them thinking they only bite a little. It's time to stop looking for the softer side in dealing with dog owners.
      Owners of bully breeds are well aware their weapon of choice is dangerous and yet they still run loose and are left with small helpless meat sacks(babies) to play with.
      Dog owners are ruining our neighborhoods with barking, piss and crap covering everything and large portable meat grinders roaming at large. And a pit behind a 4 foot chain link fence is a pit at large.
      Your dog bites should equal your dog is dead.
      Of all the things some animal activist lawyer would pick to single out and make a career of. Dogs that maul and kill. Good choice. Looks to be a lucrative business.

      Delete
    2. I did not say the owners of the small ones get a free pass when it comes to biting. I just said the owners of bully breeds need to be punished even more. The small dog bites and lets go, the owner has to pay the medical bills, but maybe not much else financially. They still don't get to own dogs until they pass some type of class and prove they can and will train the next one not to bite, bark or destroy other's property. Owners of maulers and killers don't get off so easy, they have to pay for the lifetime of emotional damages their choice of pet inflicts. They are never allowed to own another pet, I don't care if it's an ant farm.

      Delete
  7. Indeed there is some type of court date on May 14th to make an appeal to free Mickey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eileen, do you have a link or a source for that? Definitely fodder for another post!!!!

      I thought the worthless fleabag was supposed to stay in the jail. What possible basis could there be for "paroling" the craphound?

      On the bright side, if Mickey IS set free and attacks somebody, that will cost them MAJOR political capital. Again, the stupidity of the Mickey nutters knows no bounds.

      Delete
    2. I found it right on the WMBC FB page.
      Ep 57 - First Anniversary Show on VoiceAmerica.tv I can't get a cut and paste.
      start watching at about 5 mins. actual Mickey news at 7:30 minutes.

      Delete
    3. http://player.voiceamerica.tv/video/21CAA131BC/ep-57---first-anniversary-show-on-voiceamericatv

      Delete
    4. AHA!

      The filthy sum-bitches!

      You are right, you can't link directly to it, you have to surf the site to find it.

      What part of "no parole" don't these idiots understand?

      Delete
    5. A good defense lawyer goes for the best deal of the day to keep his client off death row in the hopes of appeals later. Sheriff Joe is kissing the ass of this beast all the way.

      Delete
    6. The jail is protective custody for the mauler. Note that I am *not* necessarily endorsing or promoting any violence against the beast, merely that this debacle has manufactured a LOT of haters. He is going to need more security than the president.

      They are going to have to watch him every minute he is outdoors to make sure he doesn't gobble down any "special treats". He can't go where other people are because someone may try to beat, stab, shoot, or run him over. Every line of sight for 500 meters will have to be considered, even when the beast is indoors: He will have to be kept away from windows.

      All of the above is on top of the fact that Mick is a known mauler, and he WILL attack again given the opportunity. If/when he does so it will be a PR disaster of Biblical proportions for the foamers (which is not a bad thing).

      Again, the dog foamers are mentally incapable of thinking through the consequences of their actions. They lobbied to keep the beast alive, sentencing him to a life of poor care and misery in an old jail. Now, they want to double down on stupid and put him back in circulation where the risk increases exponentially.

      Dumb asses, the lot.

      Delete
    7. This nonsense is covered in life's playbook with a whole chapter dedicated to unintended consequences. The same rules would apply to any dimwit who put Mickey down through a criminal act. Doing that would make the dog a forever innocent victim and more valuable to the cause dead than alive.
      Hopefully this is a plea to move him to a different facility where the living conditions might be better. Which isn't saying much for old Joe's MASH unit. If it isn't good enough for Mickey it's probably not a decent place to keep any animal. That said the majority of shelters and rescues are squalid on their best days.
      Considering the source of this court date I highly doubt that anyone in the inner circle is willing to loose control of the Mauler.
      Best guess is some of that ' broken webcam ' time will end up with their personal pitwit of choice doing stress tests on the dog and declaring him to be free from all of his built in DNA. They will likely have video of him at the vets, going and coming showing he is such a well behaved nanny dog. I mean if my goal was to get this dog out it's what I would have under my hat before dragging this back to a judge.
      His ability to attack again depends on how much his handlers believe he won't. My guess is they are not going to put sacred cow in a position to cause harm. Or at least that is what they will believe.

      Delete
    8. Not saying I feel sorry for Mickey, but that's a hell of a life for an animal. If he were human I could see life in prison. Since he isn't the kind thing would have been to put him down. Again I just don't understand the Mickey cult. Honestly there are cases where dogs are put down for killing another animal, but it's ok for pits to maul and kill everything?

      Delete
    9. Interesting points -
      - Yes, assasinating Mick would make him a martyr. Of course, so would euthanizing him.

      - If Mick was out of the prison during the "down" webcam time, they would be pretty dumb to present that to a judge.... they'd be saying, you should revoke this court order because we've been breaking it. Essentially, parole him because he has already escaped. I don't think a judge would fall for that.

      - Where else would they put him where he is not a threat to public safety or other animals. In the jail cell, he has access to no living things and its practically impossible for him to escape. If they send him to a "sanctuary" somewhere, that may increase the probability of somebody or something being attacked.

      Delete
    10. Being conniving and sneaky do not add up to intelligence or common sense.
      It is interesting to note that neither side wins no matter what the outcome. This was never a case about right and wrong. It was pure AR agenda.
      Everyone lost when the dog ripped the child's face off. Nothing has changed since.
      Meanwhile pit bull type dogs continue to kill and maim humans.

      Delete
  8. The Mickey cult sickens me. They're among the worst humanity has to offer.
    This came across my news feed, yet another shining example of humanity and animal control : http://fox59.com/2015/05/07/muncie-man-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/ Some people honestly should be fed to the dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope they get a judge that tells them to go pound sand. The MASH unit is full of adoptable cats and dogs. Perhaps the greasy lawyer should adopt a pet that hasn't killed another dog and ripped a child's face off.
    Expect Mickey to testify on his own behalf that he has now found Jesus and deeply regrets his past sins. It would be nice if the judge ordered the dog put down if they feel it is suffering from living in the cage they bargained for. It's what should have happened in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trisha. I truly believe that every rescue and sanctuary near that mess has a hot wet crotch just thinking about the massive donations getting a load of abused dogs could mean to them. If there is a deformed puppy in the bunch its a certified bonanza. No front legs or a cleft palate.? Up go the fundraisers.
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that's all it's really about. The mentally weak are fodder for the pet industry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With bulldogs being dangerous in general I question how adoptable ones from situations like this are. A start like that isn't good for any living thing. Of course, when they go off, it'll be the victim's fault for triggering something from their past. Still I blame the breeders, rescuers and adopters. We as humans are sentient the dogs are not. Therefore putting them down is the kind thing to do. It's also the safe and sane thing to do. BTW I'm dying over Mickey finding Jesus. Of course he should have been put down, but sanity doesn't come into play with his cult.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm espying various nutter arguments here. Let's do the breed discussion (various pit mixes aren't pit bull type dogs), let's make it relevant that undogs don't know right from wrong, it's all on McConnell's 'other end of the leash', only humans can mistreat anything and we do it so much more often than vicious dogs do, some pit bulls are adoptable it's only some that aren't, there's such a thing as a 'good pit bull owner', and throwing around the dogman's terminology 'cold bulldog' around. Hey, she's known a few 'cold' ones, so she must be an expert.

    Oh, and of course 'I've been attacked by lots of breeds other than pit bulls'.

    And the big finale: Let's not ban the things, let's just punish owners after the fact.

    Just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sweetie pie, I never claimed to be an expert. I agree with banning them despite knowing a few who have never attacked anything in their lives. As for the mixes, I was only pointing out they're not standard pit bulls. They're bigger and much more intimidating. The chow that chased me from 1/4 mile off the road ( it's yard, which I never entered ) until I found a tree branch and swung at it was as bad as any pit bull. So was the rot that I kicked at when it came from it's porch to try and bite me just for riding by on my bicycle. Neither owner had their dogs safely contained. Neither time did I do anything other than go by the property. Both times I would've sued the owners for having vicious dogs.
    Only humans have the forethought to mistreat other things. That makes the owners of any dogs the one's responsible for their pets actions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/portlanders_should_spend_on_hu.html

    ReplyDelete