Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Countering dangerous dog propaganda

I have dedicated three essays to countering the excuses the malicious and irresponsible use when raising the noise level in our homes and public places for no good reason.

I am going to take a crack at the propaganda pumped out by authorities, apologistas, and dangerous dog aficionados that you are likely to encounter if you are the victim of a dog attack, or take issue with this senseless violence occurring in your community.

First, I’d like to say that the victims of ANY attack, dog related or no, deserve nothing but our support and sympathy.  My brother was attacked by a Rottweiler in a public park some years ago.  He was playing Frisbee with a lady friend and this dog attacked him FROM BEHIND and tore up the back of his leg pretty badly.  He escaped life threatening injury by fighting the dog as hard as he could.  The incident was what Craven Desires would refer to as a “Dine ‘N Dash” as the perp and his dog took off at top speed and my bro had to get to the emergency room.  The perp was never sought after or punished.  Victims of dog attacks are at the bottom of the social ladder.  Due process DENIED.

When you contemplate dog attacks on humans, consider that you are contemplating a fellow human being who was assaulted for no reason, and was often denied due process.  Not only are they granted no sympathy from the authorities or the community, but dog fanatics typically pour out of the woodwork to defend the perp and trash the victim.  How would YOU feel if that were YOU or someone close to YOU?  Maybe you think its “cool” that you have a tough dog, but what are you going to do when either your “cool” dog, or someone else’s, decides to lunch on YOU?  How are you going to feel when your colleagues throw you under the bus?  I’m telling you, that can and will happen.

That said, I could approach this with some humor but there is NOTHING funny about a violent attack against a fellow innocent human being.  The people who facilitate these attacks are the worst among us and deserve nothing but contempt from everyone.  There are NO EXCUSES and this is a menace that needs to be stamped out with extreme prejudice.  There are fellow human beings out there with missing limbs, scars, dead children.  People are walking on prosthetic legs due to the lifestyle choice of another to own a “power” breed of dog.   I want to say that I am 100% on the side of the victim.

In any case, here are some of the frequent excuses pumped out by apologistas, perps and authorities to promote and defend dangerous dogs and their owners.

It’s a Nanny Dog.   This is a common talking point among Pit Bull aficionados.  Their point being, the Pit Bull was in fact NOT bred to fight in the pit but was bred to “baby sit” human children.
Counterpoints.  This is ridiculous.  EVERYONE knows the breeding history of the Pit Bull. They were bred to FIGHT TO THE DEATH IN THE PIT.  Moreover, the statistics of Pit Bulls assaulting children speaks for itself.  Check out for more information (I won’t bother repeating the statistics here).  The interesting thing about this is, whenever a Pit Bull tears into a child, the “Pit Nutters” immediately throw the dog owner under the bus, stating “NEVER leave a child alone with a dog!”.  Now, isn’t that a direct contradiction to the “Nanny Dog” propaganda?  What good is a “Nanny” if I have to constantly worry that “Nanny” is going to rip my kid to pieces?  FAIL.

Its not the dog’s fault.  There is some truth to this.  To assign blame or fault requires a moral agent.  Dogs can’t truly be held accountable for their actions as they have no rights. 
Counterpoints: That said, the owner is 100% at fault, and should be punished accordingly.  If your dog kills somebody, that is murder and YOU are the perp.  Moreover, while the dog is not at “fault” dogs clearly act with volition and it is demonstrated the dog in question will attack a human being to get what it wants.  In any case, the reasonable thing to do in the aftermath of any dog attack is to 1) Jail the owner for assault, and 2) Destroy the dog as a vicious animal must not be turned loose in the community.  Public safety takes precedence over the interests of individual dogs.   Your dog is demonstratably dangerous.  You LOSE Pit Nutters!  FAIL.

Blame the Deed not the Breed.  This is an interesting one, and sometimes a difficult one to get your head around.  This is commonly deployed by Pit Bull fanciers in an attempt to muddle the fact that the dog was bred to attack and was simply doing what it was bred to do. 
Counterpoints:  The phrase itself makes no sense.  The word “Deed” is a noun, unless its referring to transferring a deed of property in which case it’s a verb.  In any case, “deed” (n) means “something that is done”.  It is the act itself.  Again, the phrase indicated is truly non-sensical in that you can’t assign blame to an action, you would assign blame to the agent(s) that delivered that action.  Therefore, you cannot BLAME a deed, BUT you can PUNISH perpetrators of a deed and take steps to PREVENT similar deeds in the future.  We do that by taking affirmative action against vicious dogs and their owners.  We despise the DEED and we BLAME YOU vicious dog owners for facilitating those deeds.  FAIL.

Its only a minor injury.  Their point being, their “ankle biter” is only as dangerous as a pellet gun and as such should be given a complete pass on any and all assaults. 
Counterpoints.  Oh, really?  So if I were to shoot YOU in the foot with a BB gun when you stroll past my house you would automatically give me a pass?  Somehow, I don’t think so.  If I were to shoot at everyone who walked by here with a BB gun, I would wind up in jail FAST.   Equal protection BABY!   ANY pet that brings harm to a human being needs to get gone NOW and I don’t care if it only weighs 5 pounds!  Hey, how big is a Piranha?!  Would you like it if I tossed a piranha or two into your bathtub?  Hey, you’ll recover.  Look, we have a RIGHT to use our private and public places in peace and safety and that means you put a LID on your bloodthirsty toy dog.  Sounds like a joke but it isn’t.   FAIL.

They/you deserved it.  Their point being, even the slightest provocation is justification for their dog to tear into you.
Counterpoints.  Listen, the threshold for using ANY force or violence against a fellow human being is VERY high.  Unless I am trying to cut your head off with a chain-saw, your pet should NOT be attacking me, got that?  You abuse this angle and your pet privileges will be GONE and deservedly so.  Any dog on human attack that is not an obvious self defense scenario must result in summary destruction of the dog and imprisonment of the owner:  We do it to gun owners and it’ll be done to you, too.  FAIL.

Trouble in Paradise

As I noted in my “Overton” post, the baby may wind up getting thrown out with the bathwater.  I am generally opposed to punishing the many for the actions of the few, BUT when there is a lot at stake, sometimes that is the best solution.

My volunteer work centers around maintaining hiking trails in my state, promoting outdoor activities among the general population, organizing work hikes, promoting and preserving our various outdoor spaces such as State Parks and National Forests.  I am an executive of and an activity leader for my state scenic trail association.

I am a very active supporter of my State Park system and I have working relationships with park rangers and other volunteers at many sites.
This relates to the subject matter at hand because my colleagues and I have noted with some alarm the increase in pet-related problems in the state parks.  We have noted high incidences of the following in the state parks:
-          Frequent, useless, loud barking.
-          Dog poop everywhere.
-          Dogs off leash.
-          Dogs where they are expressly prohibited.
-          Dogs behaving threateningly/dangerously towards people.
-          Dogs harassing wildlife.
-          Dogs destroying park property.

ALL of the above are in direct violation of park rules.  Dogs and related offenses are our #1 complaint!  Note that most people (90%+) do NOT bring their pets to the park, so while there are a large and increasing number of offenses, these offenses are being committed by a relatively small (and easy to identify) population of park goers. 

Consider our 2 main directives:
1)       Preserve the park resources, and
2)      Create and maintain a positive park going experience for the largest number of people.

It is becoming rapidly apparent that allowing dogs into the state parks is contrary to both of those directives and as such is more trouble than it is worth.  No one makes a choice to day trip or camp at a state park so they can listen to someone else’s dog(s) bark the entire time, have dogs lunge and/or chase them, etc….  In this challenging fiscal and political environment, it is absolutely critical that the parks be someplace people CHOSE to go:  High “attendance” is a MUST if we are to maintain these resources.  Once a park guest is harassed into leaving, they will not be coming back AND they will tell their friends and family not to bother going, either.  Each miscreant will drive away many others, and that is a loss we cannot afford.  Moreover, the noise, waste, and dangerous activity is not natural to the environment nor is it useful in any way.

I have engaged our park system director directly and insisted that steps be taken.  I urged some “moderate” and immediate changes that included:  Empowering rangers to write citations; excluding any dog that is obviously badly behaved (ie barks at the ranger in the booth when the owners car pulls up); immediate eviction of any and all miscreants; sternly reminding park guests with dogs of their RESPONSIBILITY to refrain from creating a nuisance; actively patrol; charge additional park fees for pets; etc…

I made the additional request that, if the above changes do not have a profound effect, then dogs be banned completely from the state park system.  This would be an unfortunate step to take, however there is too much at stake to waste time fooling around or playing games.  Bringing ANY animal to a state park is a guest privilege NOT a right.  Note that the park system had a previous ban on dogs (that was lifted in the early 2000’s).  If it was done before, it can be done again.  

I believe the root causes of this problem are:  The complete, utter failure of the pet owning community to self-regulate and a total public policy fail regarding animal control.  If pet owners were “vetted” on the outside, we could be confident that they would not cause a problem in the parks.  However, when someone pulls up to the gate TODAY with a dog, there is some probability that the individual is some self-entitled miscreant.

The problems with off-leash and vicious dogs has become SUCH a problem that I have in fact taken the extreme step of “packing” on all my hikes.   If it gets any worse I’m going to have to terminate my volunteer activities.  Many of my colleagues will do the same. 

This situation has also created a huge liability problem where if a park guest were to be, say, KILLED or seriously injured by a dog it would be devastating to our interests.

Many will say “but you shouldn’t punish the many for the actions of the few”.  Good point, as many dogs in the park are not a problem.  However, we are currently left with attempting to “weed out” the relatively large minority of miscreants AFTER they have offended other guests and damaged our interests.  Moreover, park staff and volunteers have better things to do than constantly battle entitled, irresponsible and malicious dog owners.  I am NOT promoting and maintaining the parks in my spare time FOR FREE so a few nutters can run them into the ground.   We have completely HAD it with these people!

Again, bringing any animal to a state park is a privilege that can be revoked at any time…. We don’t even NEED a reason to throw them all out.   The cheapest, easiest and most productive thing to do would be to simply re-institute the ban.  Of course, dog owners can still visit the park… they just can’t bring their pets with them.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Overton Window of Political Possibility

This is a concept I have written about previously.  It’s a fascinating concept in that it relates how policies on various issues can change, particularly with the introduction of new ideas.

This concept also frees one from a logical fail known as “the fallacy of the disappearing middle” where we are only “offered” a pair of widely divergent solutions with no centrist options.

It is sensible to consider that there are a wide range of viewpoints on ANY subject.  There are 7 billion people on earth, and each has their own unique viewpoint on a diverse number of topics.  With that said, the Overton concept is generally related with a half a dozen viewpoints across the spectrum of ideas generally described as:

1)      Unthinkable.
2)      Radical.
3)      Acceptable.
4)      Sensible.
5)      Popular.
6)      Policy.

Introduction of new “unthinkable” ideas into political discourse can shift the policy position in various directions. 

So, how does this relate to the subject matter of this blog?  What does it mean to various players on all sides of animal control issues?

What I’m going to do is, take a crack at relating Overton to the animal control (primarily dog) public policy viewpoints.

1)       Unthinkable.  Complete ban within the jurisdiction.  No dogs anywhere.
2)      Radical.  Dog ownership technically allowed but severely penalized via high taxes, fines, and unlimited civil liability.  Dog breeding completely controlled by the State.
3)      Acceptable.  Dog ownership tolerated, but discouraged by the community and the State.  High taxes, fines, civil and criminal liability.  Dog breeding heavily taxed and regulated. 
4)      Sensible.  Privilege freely granted, similar to automobile driver’s licenses.  Owner licensing required; Animal registration mandatory; liability insurance mandatory; ownership privileges maintained via a “point” system.  Breeding moderately regulated.
5)      Popular.  Ownership a protected civil right.  Marginal infringement in very severe cases only.
6)      Policy.  Dog owners are a legally protected class.  Empowered to remove the rights of others at whim with the backing of the State.

I can say, definitively, that the “policy” in my jurisdiction is clearly what is indicated above.   The orbit of Pluto is smaller than the legal loopholes granted dog owners in my county.   The same is true in a lot of places.

Its noteworthy that things can change, and when they do they can do so fairly quickly.  Think United States in 1776, Confederate States 1865, Soviet Union 1917, Germany 1933, Cuba 1959.  In those examples, the existing status quo’s were turned upside down and the disenfranchised took control.  And, not always for the betterment of all.  Cuba is nothing more than a large slave plantation where all are forced to work for the state, by the state, and none can leave.  Germany…. Well, I think we know how THAT came out.

Its worth saying at this point that, anyone enjoying unfair advantages would be advised to moderate their behavior and that of their colleagues before the radicals are provoked and enraged any further. 

The next neck in the noose could be yours.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Countering Pro Barking Propaganda Part III

Here are additional excuses/talking points pumped out by pro-barkers, apologistas, and authorities.
Numbering scheme picks up where Part II left off.

11)    You are anti-social.  Dogs and their owners are in your community and you have to learn to live with them.  Their point being, that enduring endless loud barking, having a yard full of dog crap, and being chased down the street by various nasty dogs is simply the price we have to pay for civilization, like taxes or some such.  We should be forced to endure all of that if we are going to live in a society.   
      Counterpoints.  This fails on multiple levels.  The dog owner next door has no right to impose a “tax” on me!  May I tax THEM to get what I want?  Moreover, I could say the same thing about smokers, drunk drivers or child molesters:  Hey, such people do exist, should we be FORCED to endure THEIR “interests”?  I submit that THEY are anti-social and that THEY need to modify THEIR behavior in order to fit in.  One of the most basic responsibilities any individual has in society is to NOT be an unreasonable burden on others.   

12)   You are not doing enough or helping me or my dog enough.  Their point being, their entitlement status empowers them to demand that YOU take responsibility for THEIR dog and socialize it, train it to stay quiet, refrain from eating the mailman, etc...  
      Counterpoints.  This is a fail.  This is similar to the last point in that they should not be demanding any such thing from you or I.  How about they pick up my car payments or clean my gutters?  No?  Well, then FORGET IT.  CONTROL YOUR DOG OR GET RID OF IT.

13)   Get a life.  Their point being that you and I have absolutely nothing better to do than endlessly deal with police and animal control, document offenses, file lawsuits, write certified letters, etc… 

     Counterpoints. Listen, almost ANYTHING would be preferable to all of that.  I have a full time job, perform volunteer work, have a home to keep up with, have various social and leisure interests, etc… The problem is, you and your dog are actively disrupting those interests.  I’ve had to perform at work EXHAUSTED because your useless pet dog was barking all night.  My volunteer work has been impacted similar to my professional interests.  I have additional home maintenance duties given that your dog is constantly in my yard crapping, knocking over trash cans, and digging holes.  I can’t have company over because I never know when you are going to act up and force me to deal with police, thus ruining my get together (and, yes, that has happened).   If you want me to stop documenting and reporting your offenses you should SIMPLY STOP OFFENDING.  THEN I can and will get back to my normal life.

  14)   My dog is not barking.   Their point being, even though my dog is standing there barking in your direction it is in fact not barking. 

      Counterpoints.  I think it was Goebbels who said something to the effect that, the bigger the lie the more apt people are to believe it.  Don’t.

  15)   That is how dogs communicate.  Their point being, their dog is in fact trying to “say” something to me or you and that “speech” is protected.    

      Counterpoints.  Fail.  Right of free speech is protected BY people FOR people.  Moreover, screaming at ear-splitting volumes for hours at a time is certainly NOT protected BY or FOR anyone and if you or I did it we’d wind up in jail.  If we don’t tolerate it from other human beings why do we tolerate it from pets?   Whatever right you have to make noise STOPS at the property line!

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Dangerous owners, Part II

I’d like to dissect another fatal shooting that occurred in my area earlier this year.   This situation had a different, arguably better, outcome than the Miller v. Mulhall incident in Flagler Beach.
Here are the cast of characters and the particulars:

-          Willie Chester.  Dog owner.
-          Dan Daley.  Neighbor to Chester and complainant.   Lives 2 houses away from Chester.
-          Upon hearing Chester’s dogs bark, Daley walked to Chester’s residence and requested that Chester quiet his dogs. 
-          After making that request, Daley walked away.
-          As Daley was walking away, Chester attacked Daley from behind and began “beating on him” according to eye witnesses.
-          Daley yelled for help and the struggle continued.
-          Daley was seriously injured in the assault.
-          Daley drew a .380 semi-automatic pistol and shot Chester dead, ending the assault.
-          Original news article:   
-          Follow up news article, Daley not charged:

Note that eye-witnesses corroborate the story.  Daley was clearly assaulted in the street, from behind, by an enraged Chester.  Daley’s actions were protected by Florida’s “stand your ground” laws in that you are not required to turn your back to a violent attacker.   It was unlikely that Daley would have been able to turn or flee in any case.   If Daley had not been “packing” he would be dead.  Would that have been a desirable outcome?

I am also contemplating the point that Daley had ALREADY been assaulted by Chester due to the fact that Chester had been raising the noise level in Daley’s home without permission.

Gun control and self-defense issues aside, this case as well as Miller vs. Mulhall demonstrate that complaining to anyone about their dog face to face is a grave mistake that can have deadly consequences.  Unfortunately, the “protocol” in many places is to demand that you “work things out” with the dog owner before authorities will take any action.  If that is the case in your jurisdiction, print off the above news article as well as the link to the Mulhall murder and quote those to your authorities.  Tell them you’ll be glad to visit the dog owner in person WITH a police officer in attendance.

I again ask the question:  What drove Chester into such a total rage about the complaint?  Even if Daley was making a frivolous complaint, how difficult would it have been for Chester to simply tell Daley to get lost?   Again, I believe that Daley had challenged Chester’s status as dog owner and all of the empowerments that go with it:  “How DARE you ask me to not create endless noise pollution!   Adapt to suit me, or die!”.   Chester thought that his special protections included attacking anyone who spoke out against his dog.

I'd like to dissect some of the original article comments. One commenter had an out of control Akita that barked incessantly but wrote it off to “dogs will be dogs”.  They also said that they “don’t let it bother them”.  How extraordinarily civil of them to only commit crimes that they LIKE to commit, vs. crimes that they don't like committing!  I guess it would be REALLY bad if the offense actually offended the offender!

So, I suppose we should be ALL forced to adapt to THEIR lifestyle choice to harbor a noxious pet?  The fact that THEY are not bothered by THEIR own behavior or the actions of fellow sociopaths just makes everything A-OK?  Well, Golly Gee!   I guess the entire community environment only exists for THEM to destroy!   These people are SO impossibly stupid they are not even funny.  They insult the intelligence of everyone down to the level of plant life with their mindless drivel.  They are so impossibly selfish and stupid they are not even worth debating. 

As I pointed out in excuse #10:  They claim they have no control over their dog’s vocalizations but indeed there is PLENTY they can do:  They can affix an anti-bark collar, they can house the dog indoors, they can have the dog surgically debarked OR they can simply choose to NOT have a dog in the first place!  The vast majority of these people have to true interest in owning a dog.  These excuses insult our intelligence.  CONTROL YOUR DOG.

Back to the original point, why is approaching any of these miscreants such a dangerous proposition?  For the simple reason that creating unlimited useless noise pollution strictly for its own sake is by definition a hostile, aggressive, anti-social act, and only hostile, aggressive, anti social individuals commit these acts.   It would logically follow that anyone who would do those things might be expected to behave violently with little or no provocation.

DON’T complain to your neighbors face about their dog.  Call them or send a certified letter if need be, but avoid the face to face. 

Monday, May 21, 2012

Why is it so annoying, anyway?

I had an acquaintance submit this question to me the other day:  Why is the noise of barking dogs so totally annoying?  Excellent question.  Why IS it so totally annoying?  Why does it irritate such a large number of people?   I believe that the barking (and biting) epidemic is about to create a huge backlash, but that is a subject for another time.
Here is why I believe barking dog noise is a toxin like no other:
1)      It is excessively loud.  Dogs  bark at 105 decibels, loud enough to damage human hearing.  This incessant noise travels long distances and penetrates walls and windows.  No human being could “communicate” this loudly.  You would quickly lose your voice if you tried to compete.
2)      It is of a shrill nature.  Many dogs make a screeching or yelping noise that is particularly irritating.  It is the proverbial “fingernails on the blackboard”.  It is an intolerable irritant that is used as a torture method by military and police organizations the world over.
3)      It is not a natural sound.  Barking dogs are not the wind or the rain.  We are bombarded with this toxic and useless noise due to the voluntary lifestyle choices of our neighbors. 
4)      It serves no useful purpose.  Can the BS about it being a watchdog, that worthless pe(s)t is “guarding” me from my own front porch.  It also barks at absolutely nothing.  Day and night.
5)      It disrupts useful activity.  Pursuant to the last point, while it is by definition useless, it interferes with useful human activities such as sleeping, working, pursuing hobbies, studying, pursuing social activities, communicating, etc… etc… etc… etc… ad nauseum.
6)      It is nearly incurable.   Your fate of being tortured by a neighbor via their pet is similar to a diagnosis of an incurable and only marginal treatable disease.  There is no known cure and it is going to torment you forever.  You know, or will soon learn, the authorities are certainly on the side of your tormenter.  You can never escape as all of our neighborhoods and public places are awash in useless, toxic noise from barking dogs.  You can soundproof your house and wear earplugs to bed (marginally treatable) but you soon realize your quality of life is gone. 
7)      You realize you are helpless.  Your impotent anger will build and build until it consumes you.  Pursuant to the last point, you eventually realize that your neighbor has a pass on almost all bad behaviors.  The fact that they own a dog empowers them to literally destroy your life.  They are empowered to:  destroy your health, lower your property values, destroy your career, slander you throughout the community, turn the government against you, lie, cheat, and spew mindless drivel.  Hey, they can KILL you on your own property unprovoked and nothing will happen to them!   They can use their dog as a weapon against you and you KNOW there is nothing you can do about it.  They are nothing but legally endorsed thugs.
8)      Your mind and spirit disintegrates.   You come to hate your own home.  You don’t know when it is going to start or how long it is going to last when it does.  You cannot plan anything.  Your life as you know it is over.   Your life is being controlled by the thug next door and there is nothing you can do about it.  You have no legal protection and you are unable to take any “self help” as you know that any action against the owner or their pet will result in you being sued or going to prison. 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Dangerous owners Part I

I have discussed dangerous dogs, but what about the owners?  Who would turn these monsters loose amongst us?  They know the breed history, they know the controversy, in most cases they even know first hand what their mauler is capable of (killing cats, chasing the mail carrier, etc…).  They torment us regularly with useless, noxious noise.  They cover our land with feces.  What is up with these people?  
Due to the “dog loophole” that explicitly or implicitly allows dog owners to create mayhem, dog ownership has become little more than legally backed thuggery.  As per my “Assault is legal” post, you CAN assault others, destroy property, and create unlimited noise pollution with your dog. 

There was a shooting death near me a couple of months ago.  A dog owner killed a neighbor who had complained about his dog.  Here is the cast of characters and the particulars:

-          Paul Miller.  Dog owner.  Dog had been noted to bark loudly and frequently.
-          Dana Mulhall.  Neighbor to dog owner with uselessly barking dog.  Had complained to Miller about the barking dog multiple times.
-          Properties between the two was divided by a fence.
-          Miller shot Mulhall dead after Mulhall had shouted over the fence to “shut your F—king dog up”.  I’m not sure if those were the exact words used, but that was the spirit of the conversation anyway.
-          Mulhall never crossed the fence line.
-          Miller retreated into his home, retrieved his gun, went back outside and shot Mulhall FIVE times, including TWICE in the back.
-          Miller then called 911 and announced that he “shot his F—king ass” with what was noted as a “cavalier attitude” by the 911 operator.
-          Miller is now in jail awaiting trial for 2nd degree murder.
-          Miller’s attorneys are claiming self defense under Florida’s “stand your ground” laws.
-          More information on the case:   and

First, let me get this out of the way.  I am a gun owner, self defense activist, 2nd amendment supporter, NRA member and a general supporter of “stand your ground”.  Without that, we are legally obligated to surrender to violent criminals.  Who does that benefit?

With that said, I am sick and tired of misanthropes such as Miller claiming “self defense” when his “self” was not threatened in any way.   Mulhall did NOT cross the property line, did NOT brandish any weapons, and was SHOT IN THE BACK.  Miller was SAFE IN HIS HOME when he decided to KILL Mulhall.  There is NO legitimate self defense scenario that involves shooting your “aggressor” IN THE BACK.  FURTHER, Miller had been provoking Mulhall with the noxious noise of his uselessly barking dog.  As, I noted in “Stop the torture”, barking dog noise IS torture method used by the military and law enforcement.   Miller had been torturing Mulhall!

Yes, Mulhall was angry.  I was, too, when I had explosively loud noises projected into my home by the malicious dog owner across the street.  I could not work or sleep.  Who would not be angry?

So why did Miller shoot Mulhall dead, including at least 2 shots in the back as Mulhall was trying to flee?  I believe that Mulhall had made the deadly mistake of challenging Miller’s status as dog owner.   How dare Mulhall complain about the explosively loud noises projected into his home?  Didn’t Mulhall know that Miller OWNED him and could do whatever he wanted to him with his dog?  Miller clearly expected Mulhall to be a compliant victim.  Miller clearly believed that ANYONE who dared complain about his dog deserved to DIE.   Miller believed he was empowered (entitled) to kill anyone who dared complain about his dog.  I disagree with authorities that this was a murder:  This was an EXECUTION.  This was PRE MEDITATED and CAREFULLY EXECUTED.  Literally!

I tell you, I have seen this rage first hand.  Unlike Mulhall, I pursued the malicious dog owner across the street through authorities, and the dog owner in question flew into a foaming at the mouth, apoplectic, towering RAGE at me for DARING to suggest that they should not turn their dog loose in my yard to crap.  Again, I challenged their status as dog owner…. How dare I suggest they keep their dog quiet and not crap in my yard?  I must be the anti-Christ!   Of course, authorities did absolutely nothing in my case (as they do in most cases).  This did not stop my neighbor from ruthlessly slandering me throughout the community and screaming and cursing at me in my own front yard!!!

Miller deserves to burn, and he will.  Dog owners take note:  Your legal protection does NOT extend beyond offenses committed with your dog.   You EXECUTE someone with a gun, claim spurious “self defense” you WILL go down.  Count on it!

Friday, May 11, 2012

Dangerous dogs Part II

In an interesting turn of events, Maryland's highest court has declared ALL pit-bulls and pit-bull mixes to be inherently dangerous.  Don't these judges know that a pit-bull is just like any other dog?

As per my last post, the statistics of the "pit-bull" dog speak for themselves.  When it comes to maiming and killing humans and other animals, pit bulls vastly outperform all other dogs.  In a sick way, the weaponization of this particular dog breed has been a huge success.  The pit bull dog is like weaponized anthrax or other similar biological weapons:  You take something inherently dangerous and via selective breeding and other methods make it even more dangerous.  Pit bull breeders have been given a de-facto license to create a biological weapon and turn it loose among us.

Aren't biological weapons ALREADY Illegal?  If the bio-weapon in question is a dog, then apparently not.

In my last post, I posited:  How did we come to this ridiculous point?  It is due to the fact that dog owners are granted a high social status and with that comes a pass on most bad behaviors.  Again, if you doubt me check out your local laws on barking and biting.  I had to nearly threaten to sue my county government over a proposed noise ordinance that allows dogs to bark (at 105 decibels... enough to damage human hearing) for 30 minutes straight but has zero tolerance for noise generated by fireworks or boom-boxes.  In regards to biting, the 2 dogs that killed Roy McSweeney in his own backyard had seriously injured 2 others on 2 separate prior occasions and nothing was done after those 2 discrete incidents:  Not by the owners, not by authorities, nobody.  The 2 dogs went on to kill McSweeney and while the dogs involved were FINALLY destroyed, Mr. McSweeney's human murderers walk free.   The list of equal protection violations is endless, but the bottom line is:  Dogs and their owners enjoy a level of legal protection that no one else has.  This spawning and release of this canine biological weapon into our communities is the logical end game of this absurd social policy. 

I support the Maryland Supreme court and the citizens of Maryland in FINALLY deciding to push back against the worst of the worst.  My only criticism is that they do not go nearly far enough.  They should proceed to hold ALL pet owners FULLY responsible for ANY and ALL actions of any animal the choose to house.  While I agree that taking affirmative action against pit bull owners is a big step in the right direction, this law barely scratches the surface.  We need to rid our neighborhoods of endless loud barking, we have a right to use our public places in peace and safety, we need to clean up our waterways.  Hold the owners of ANY animal FULLY accountable!

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Dangerous dogs, part I

I am going to play a word association game with you.  I am going to say a couple of words, then you tell me the first thing that pops into your head, OK?

The two words are “Violent” and “Animal:.  What is the first thing that pops into your head?

These days, smart money is most people would say “Pit Bull”.  OK, some would think that but not admit to it.  Isn’t a Pit Bull just like any other dog?

My understanding is, there is no specific breed known as a “Pit Bull”.  A “Pit Bull” is rather a category, or class if you will, that encompasses several specific breeds of dog.  These breeds include, but are not limited to:  Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  When I use the term “Pit Bull” I may be referring to any of the previously mentioned.

The term “Pit Bull” itself is indicative of the dog’s bred purpose.  Historically, these dogs were bred to fight in the “pit” (fighting enclosure) against other dogs, and sometimes against other animals (such as bulls).  These dogs were trained and bred to initiate an attack and pursue that attack until death. 

It’s worth saying that a dog’s breed history plays a major part in its overall behavior.  Dogs have been bred to pursue all types of behaviors:  Retrievers retrieve, pointers point, and Pit Bulls initiate aggression.  Obviously, training and “nurture” plays a part as well, but a dog is not an inanimate device on to which we can project our intentions. 

According to Dogsbite.Org, 59% of USA human fatalities in the 2006-2008 timeframe resulting from a dog attack were Pit Bull related.  Juxtapose that with the fact that so-called Pit Bulls were less than 5% of the US dog population.  Furthermore, a disproportionate number of dog on human attacks resulting in serious injury were also Pit Bull related.   This is likely due to the fact that the Pit Bull has been bred to bite down hard and “shake” its opponent.  This mode of operation results in horrific injuries.  I recommend visiting for more specifics.

There are also statistics that show that a disproportionate percentage of Pit Bull owners have felony criminal records.

It is also my observation that aggressive pit bulls are rarely treated with affirmative action.  In other words, these dogs are relatively free to attack, maim, and kill humans and other animals.  I say that with some conviction, as there was a murder in my community last summer where 2 Pit Bulls that had seriously attacked human beings on 2 separate, prior occasions went on to maul a retired US Army vet to death in his own back yard.  Both of his arms were ripped from his body.  Why were these dogs not restrained prior to  this killing?  Why is the owner not in prison for manslaughter?  No prior restraint would have been needed in this case.  In my opinion, both dogs should have been destroyed and the owner jailed after the FIRST attack.   After the murder, the dogs were FINALLY destroyed but the owner walks free.  Unfortunately, this is a relatively common outcome.

That said, the following is objectively true to me:
1)      The Pit Bull comprises several breeds of dog.
2)      Pit Bulls have been selectively bred to initiate aggression and fight to the death.
3)      Pit Bulls are significantly more likely to cause death and dismemberment as compared to other breeds of dog.
4)      Pit Bulls have a pre-disposition to aggressively attack other animals including other dogs, cats, horses, and human beings.
5)      The Pit Bull is the criminal’s pet of choice.
6)      Pit Bulls, and their owners, are generally free to attack, maim and kill with impunity.

How did we get to this ridiculous point?   I believe it is due to the following:  The social and legal norm is to put the interests of dogs and dog owners above public health and safety.  Everyone has to “love doggy” no matter what.  Our rights are stripped whenever we are in proximity to a dog.

 It started with endless loud barking projected into our homes:  We were told to “get used to it”.  It continued with “ankle biters” pursuing and injuring postal delivery workers and joggers:  We were called “haters” when we objected.  It went further with dogs in places where they don’t belong such as grocery stores and restaurants:  We were told to “get a life”.   We now have our most vulnerable literally torn to shreds in front of us and yet it continues. 

This is what the bottom of the slippery slope looks like.