Better in Paradise

Pursuant  to this post, serious dog related problems had been noted in the state parks.  Over time, I have noted gradual improvement.  While things are not perfect, they are a lot better.  It appears that the park apparatus has taken these problems seriously.

Consider this sign, now posted throughout all parks:

 

Best part is this:  "Noisy, dangerous, intimidating or destructive pets will not be allowed to remain in the park".   Amen to that!

Additionally, the park reservation page now has the requirement that the reservee state how many pets they intend to bring with them, and the species of each pet.  There is now a 4 pet maximum per site.  This new limit is another huge improvement.  In the past, I have noted individual campers with an excess of eight (8) (!!!!) dogs per site.   I understand that a lot of people, particularly RV'ers (caravans for those of you outside the USA) travel with pets, but bringing a dozen dogs to a state park is absolutely ridiculous.  It pegs the abuse meter.

I would urge those of you in the other 49 states, and around the world, to print off the photo above (or perhaps this entire article) and forward it to your park director. 

Pass the word!

The more things change...

... the more they stay the same!   As  follow up to this post, I received a visit from 2 AC officers a few days ago.  They asked me a few questions about the at-large dogs and we had a brief follow up conversation about it.

One thing about that conversation I really did NOT appreciate were the logical contortions they went through to absolve Rover and Fido.

Here is what I am talking about:  I mentioned that another neighbor had seen the dogs kill and dismember a cat on her front lawn.  They responded "ALLEGEDLY killed...".   Apparently, the other complainant had not actually seen the dogs attack the living cat, merely tear it apart.  I estimate she heard a commotion, and proceeded to a door/window after the dogs had already begun their dirty deed.

My response?  A facepalm and a big eye-roll.  This is insulting to the intelligence.  Look, this block does not have a problem with dead cats strewn everywhere.  The theory that the cat had a heart attack and died just prior to Rover and Fido happening along is REALLY far fetched.  We are contemplating way past reasonable doubt here.  Did a necropsy show the cat was already dead?  No?  Then the most likely explanation is Rover and Fido chased down the cat and killed it.   No sane society would grant these sort of due-process protections to DOGS.

This was nothing but a big cop-out engineered to get Rover and Fido off the hook.  

In any case, they did state that they intended to continue to cite the dog owner with escalating penalties as the offenses racked up.  So, there is that.

Enjoy your Sunday afternoon!

Collecting on a Judgement

There have been many discussions over the years on suing the owner of the dog that bit you / barks all night / has engaged in other destructive behavior.

Say you win that suit, and the court awards you damages?   Remember, the court is not a collection agency:  Its not like the bailiff is going to hand you a check on the way out the door.   Unless the defendant agrees to pay you, you will have to pursue a collection action against them.

I saw this video on YouTube the other week.  The host specializes in automobile law, but his monologue on collections would apply regardless of the complaint.

Here is the video:

"Lehto's Law" is a good channel to follow if you have any interest in legal issues.  Steve is licensed in the state of Michigan, but most states have similar laws.  As always, Your Mileage May Vary.

Steve makes the excellent point that very few people are truly "Judgement Proof".  To be truly Judgement Proof, one must meet all of the following requirements:

1)  Not have any sort of real job.  No W2 or 1099 wages.
2)  Not Participate in the financial system in any way.  No checking account, no brokerage accounts, no CD's, etc...
3)  Not own anything of any value.

If you are suing a dogger, consider that this activity may not pay for itself.  However, you don't sue a dogger to become rich, you sue the dogger to punish the dogger for their destructive, anti-social behavior.  In the current legal, social and political climate dog owners are virtually above reproach.  The civil court system is just about the only way to go after them.  You want to make their life a living hell, just like they made yours into the same.  If you make them miserable enough, they may modify their behavior.

Good luck, and happy new year!

The next step down

Dog fanatics have been VERY successful in protecting the interests of dangerous dogs and their owners.  They have effectively neutered ANY intervention by authorities.

Barking laws?   Place the burden on the victim!
Biting laws?  Refer to barking laws!
BSL?  In the past year or so, we have had TWO DBRF's in Miami where PIT BULLS ARE BANNED!  Skeptical?  Consider this and this.

Consider that law is downstream from culture.   Our culture demands that the interests of dogs and dog owners is the overriding priority in all situations.  Fido's interests take precedence over all governing laws as well as the rights, interests and needs of any animal in his vicinity (and that includes us 2 legged "animals").   As long as the culture is completely dog-centric, our laws and law enforcement will be as well.

So, law enforcement is completely owned by dogger interests.  Is there any remaining territory for them to conquer?

Political agitators being what they are, they are working on the last bastion of defense that we have.  Self defense.

Consider this from the Watch Mickey Beat Cancer Page:

I wonder what their definition of "cruelty" is?   The mother beating a pit bull to get it to let go of her 2 year old child.  YUP!   Again, read the FaceBook page and consider the benefactors.  These folks think it is completely legitimate for a dog to rip the face off a toddler at the slightest provocation.  These miscreants do not care about any "cruelty" or "abuse" aimed at anything else.  This is a Pit Bull Protection Symposium and nothing else.

FREE PADEEEEEEEE!

Time for a celebration!   Padi, the dog that ate the ear off a 4 year old, is FREE!   I know everybody is happy for PADI!

Some back-story on Padi and the other persons of interest:

- Padi the pit mi, er, I mean LAB MIX (wink wink, nudge nudge).
- Dr. Paul Gartenberg, veterinarian.  Padi's owne, er, I mean "pet parent".   Gartenberg allowed Padi to roam free throughout his clinic as a "greeter".
- Cooper Smith, victim.  4 years old.
- Amanda ?, Cooper's babysitter.
- Emily, Gartenberg's daughter.
- Dan Dannheiser, Smith family attorney.

The 10 cent version is this:  Cooper and his babysitter, Amanda, were visiting Gartenberg's office.  Cooper was interacting with Padi, who bit him on the ear.  The injury will require at least 2 reconstructive surgeries.   Cooper was being supervised by Amanda at the time.   This interaction took place with Gartenberg's knowlege.

Typical to a dog attack scenario, or anything involving a dog for that matter, it is difficult to get real "news".  Instead of being given facts, we must endure various canine supremacist narratives shoved down our throats.


Consider this piece from ABC "news".  It starts off with a plea to save the dog, including how sweet and wonderful it was.  Biased much?

As usual, the comments on the above propaganda piece are pure GOLD:

"Euthanize the families lawyer and keep the dog. Fire the baby sitter".   Indeed, isn't it ALWAYS the babysitters fault?   Hell, if an ADULT is attacked by a dog lets just go ahead and blame the babysitter!

"Whip the kids butt and punish the parent for mistreatment of the dog. IF the dog was a greeter it surely was friendly to others.".   Only a dog nutter has the ability to load this much fail into 2 sentences.   They are beyond even self-parody.   Indeed, "whip the kid's butt" because as it turns out, the injury inflicted by the dog was insufficient punishment for not showing proper respect to a dog!   And, of course, there's the usual fail of "if it was nice once, it must have been nice to everybody".  If the dog ever behaved, it always behaved.


The "official" Padi narrative is this:   While being thoroughly ignored by his babysitter, Amanda, Cooper chased Padi into Gartenberg's office.  Cooper proceeded to torment and harass Padi, chasing Padi underneath Gartenberg's desk.  Cooper was behaving very, very dangerously and was indeed threatening the life of the poor, innocent pup.   At that point, Padi had no choice but to defend her very life by inflicting a small nip upon Cooper's ear.   Evil dog haters in county government then proceeded to "arrest" Padi and sentence her to death without any cause or reason whatsoever.  The parent's of the evil, deadly dangerous, 4 year old hired an ambulance chasing lawyer to file suit against Dr. Gartenberg, who is totally unaccountable for anything that happens at his office.

Here is the rebuttal by Dannheiser, Smith family attorney:"

My office, with the agreement of the Smith family, has created a proposal for the release of the Gartenberg family’s dog Padi. We expect the dog to be released to the Gartenberg family shortly.
The incontrovertible facts in this matter are that this four-year-old child Cooper, his babysitter Amanda, and Dr. Gartenberg’s daughter Emily were playing with the Gartenberg’s mixed breed dog Padi IN THE PRESENCE OF Dr. Gartenberg. Dr. Gartenberg did not feel it was necessary to watch over the children while they played with Padi and walked away as his daughter Emily took Cooper and Amanda to his office where Padi’s toys were kept so that Cooper could play fetch with Padi. At all times BOTH Emily and Amanda watched over Cooper and Padi. Both young ladies are responsible and intelligent girls who cared a great deal about Cooper.
Unfortunately, even though Emily and Amanda were standing there, Padi bit Cooper causing serious injuries. At no time did Emily, Amanda, or Cooper provoke Padi. Padi had carried a toy under an office desk and when Cooper walked to the desk to pick up another toy, while picking the toy up Padi lunged from underneath the desk and bit him and very unfortunately tore off a large portion of the child’s ear which will require the child to undergo multiple surgeries after which Cooper will be left with disfigurement.
The issue that is being missed in social media frenzy is that the confiscation of the animal and attempt to euthanize the animal has nothing to do with the Smith or Gartenberg family. It was a decision by the Manatee County Animal Control to utilize Florida statute 767.13 that provides that where a dog causes certain delineated injuries of the nature suffered by Cooper the dog is to be confiscated and destroyed. It provides for no judicial or administrative consideration of a totality of facts and circumstances. I believe that statute to be unconstitutional and have expressed that position. Whereas it is my responsibility to ensure that Cooper’s family is able to pay for his upcoming surgeries, we have no interest in this dog being euthanized and have worked diligently to encourage Manatee County to release Padi back to the Gartenbergs. I personally created an agreement to facilitate the return.

I do not know if the above account is super-accurate, either.  I would take it with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Interestingly, as per the above, Dannheiser facilitated the return of PADI to Gartenberg.  A lot of inquiring minds are asking:  WHAT THE HELL?   Why is the victim's lawyer advocating for the dog, and possibly even the DOG'S OWNER?

I found that situation VERY strange - here are a few of my theories:

- Dannheiser is a foaming at the mouth, raving dog fanatic and canine supremacist.  He is ignoring his client's best interest and pursuing a bogus animal rights agenda.   Consider:  ... It provides for no judicial or administrative consideration of a totality of facts and circumstances. I believe that statute to be unconstitutional and have expressed that position.   Again, IANAL, but exactly how does a dog have access to full constitutional protections?  Shall we issue PADI a pistol permit while we are at it?

- Dannheiser used PADI as a bargaining chip in the litigation.  In other words, pay up big time and do it NOW or we are going to kill your dog.  This is something I might be inclined to agree with.  I am sure Gartenberg would fight the lawsuit for years.

- Dannheiser and the family caved to various external pressures including social pressure, economic pressure, and death threats.  This is also very likely.

With the disclaimer that I was not there and probably do not have all the facts, I am going to render my judgement:

The dog should be killed and the owner confronted with civil and criminal liabilities.

Why kill the dog?   Simply because the threshold for using force against a human being is very high, and there is practically nothing this 4 year old could do to meet that threshold.  Enough of this "self defense" bullshit.... dogs should not be allowed to decide when force should be used against a human being - that is a right reserved for human beings.  Ergo, what PADI did was unacceptable, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

Why go after the owner?   Gartenberg allowed the dog to run free in his facility.  He should be held accountable for anything it does in that facility.   Ergo, the dog was an "attractive nuisance".  If Cooper had found a loaded gun on Gartenberg's desk and proceeded to shoot himself or someone else, Gartenberg would be in jail right now.  Q.E.D.

YES

Kevin's Mom is suing Mickey's owner!

Very little mention of this, even on the anti-Mick sites.  Should be very interesting!

Here is the link to the case info.  Case details, such as the pleadings, are not available.  Might be able to find them with more digging.

Party Time!

Anybody following the trial of Jena Wright in Iowa?   Dogsbite.org has the details.

Here is the article on the original incident.

Know what, Colleen did such a great job of reporting the incident and the follow up I will refrain from my usual snarky dissection (for now, I probably won't be able to control myself for much longer).

Long story short - Pit Bull owner exposes its KNOWN MAULER to a 4 year old, which the mauler (predictably) mauls to death.

Good news?  DOG OWNER FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS AND GOING TO PRISON FOR UP TO 35 YEARS!

All I can say is:

This is a HUGE win!  This is EPIC!  For us, this is like the flag being hoisted over Iwo Jima!

Thumbs up, Iowa Jury!

VUNDERBAR!

Service dog shenanigans

There have been a few side conversations on here regarding fake/legit service dogs, use of therapy dogs and the like.

To cut through the BS Here is the link to the US Department Of Justice Fact Sheet on the issue.

Read it.
Learn it.
Know it.

Excerpts from the Government website:

Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

From the above, note that:

- Service dogs are NOT pets.  They are animals trained to perform specific tasks for a human owner.  Legit service dog training typically takes MONTHS and can run into the tens of thousands of dollars.  This means that the pit bull you just picked up at the pound is NOT A SERVICE DOG, and probably never will be.

- "Emotional Therapy" and "comfort" dogs are NOT QUALIFIED SERVICE ANIMALS.  THIS MEANS THEY ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE ADA!

Almost everyone, at this point, has experienced an obviously fake service dog at one point or another.  Malicious, entitled dog owners will abuse the process, abuse sympathy for the disabled, and abuse the general love of dogs so they can have Fido drag them everywhere dogs are not welcome.

The last sentence above is key:  WE are forced by LAW to associate with dogs!   If that is the case, then these dogs BETTER be legit!  How about if we were to do the same with heavy weapons permits?

They get away with this by exploiting loopholes in the law, and exploiting ignorance about the law itself.

Long term, loopholes need to be closed.  The biggest loophole in my opinion:  "Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task."

Consider what I highlighted above.  Now, you may not ask the dog owner "what is your disability" or the like because that violates their right of privacy.  However, by not requiring ID on the dog, that means the dog owner can buy a $30 vest on Ebay, slap it on the dog and take it to the local steak joint.  No problemo!   Consider this article.      Or, simply Google "service dog fraud":  It is nearly ubiquitous nowadays!

This loophole needs to close.  Each service dog should be licensed by the Federal Government.  This document should be a hard-card ID (similar to a driver's license) with a photo of the dog, a photo of the owner, with a serial number that matches a chip in the dog.  The license does NOT need to indicate the specific task training, nor the disability of the human handler - thus medical privacy is maintained.   Penalties should be steep for presenting fake ID's.   All online sales of service dog ID's, vests and the like should be shut down (HT - Eileen).  Prescriptions for service dogs must be made IN PERSON, not online or over the phone, and there should be penalties for doctors that hand out frivolous service dog prescriptions (again, HT Eileen).  Hell, they have high standards for narcotics prescriptions, why not service dog prescriptions?

Libertarian type objections will not float here.  Again, the government is FORCING US BY LAW TO ASSOCIATE WITH CERTAIN DOGS.  Whether we like it or not!  Allergic?  Terrified?  TOO BAD!  UNCLE SAM SAYS YOU MUST HAVE THIS DOG IN YOUR ESTABLISHMENT!   The rest of us then should be able to demand the dog is performing a legit function.  In a libertarian universe, there would be NO ADA.  So, either get used to some restrictions, dog owners, or give up your protections.  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Again, like everything else in the doggy universe there are no standards, and malicious dog owners exploit every loophole to the extreme.

FOR NOW, here are a few things that may protect you.  You ARE allowed to inquire the following:  Staff may ask two questions: 

(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and 
(2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. 

Of course, if the owner is a good BS artist, I'm sure they may have the above down pat.

Some other tidbits that may protect you:

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: 
(1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or 
(2) the dog is not housebroken. 

So, if the dog berzerks or pees in the aisle.... BUH BYE FIDO!

Also:

If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.

Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

For now, the law protects dog owner bad behavior (nothing unusual about that).  That said, learn the law and make sure they do not step one inch over the line!

There has been a lot of buzz about implementing BSL in the service doggy universe.  This is a great idea, but I want to bump it up a notch... instead of blacklisting attack dogs and the like, there should be a "white list" of breeds found to be good service animals.  If the dog breed in question is NOT on the white list, it may NOT be a service animal.  Period.

For now, Job #1 should be a proofing/ID system.  I guarantee most (99+%) of Pit Bull service dogs are fake.  Simply eliminating the fakes should take care of the phony attack dog service issue.

Probably the worst thing about the epidemic of service dog fraud is the fact that it discredits and disparages legitimate service dogs and their owners.  Folks who are legitimately disabled and depend on their properly trained dogs to function would benefit from this new regime. 

VERIFICATION NOW.

Another juicy Pit Bull Predicament!

Another trainwreck a happenin'!   And, just in time, too!  I squeezed the "Mickey" debacle for all its worth,  and now its time for another juicy pit bull predicament!

Meet "Gus" a multiple time supermauler!  Gus has his own facebook page, though not nearly as popular as our cherished "Saint Mick"!

From a lawsuit filed against Gus' Mommy and Cesar Milan, Here is the backstory on Gus.

From the link above:  "She claims Gus had an "extensive history of vicious and unprovoked attacks on individuals and animals," and that the dog was previously impounded in Texas after attacking a trainer."   Hmmm... sounds like a great family Pit Bull to me!

STRIKE ONE:  "Feb. 7, 2013, Bitney says, Gus attacked trainer Amber Rickles ..... During a 20-minute attack, Bitney says, the dog bit Rickles on the right arm, and then latched on to her left breast when she tried to put it in a kennel.
     "With the pit bull still attached to her left breast, Ms. Rickles backed into a laundry room where the dog released his grip, enabling Ms. Rickles to close the door," the complaint states. "The pit bull then broke through the door and attacked Ms. Rickles a third time, latching onto her left arm and breaking it in two places."   Now, that is ONE game pitbull!!!

" Three men eventually pulled Gus off Rickles."   That must've cause poor 'ol GUS some real FEELBAD!

THEN!   "On Feb. 26, 2013, a Montgomery judge ordered the state to destroy the dog. But the rescuer who brought the dog to Rickles' boarding and training center, co-defendant Jennifer L. Romano, appealed the order, Bitney says.
     Milan's Dog Psychology Center then agreed to take the pit bull and rehabilitate it, according to the 27-page lawsuit."   Thank Dog for that!

STRIKE TWO:   In April 2014 the pit bull [Gus] bit an Alaskan malamute on the neck, [Awww.... he was just PLAYIN'!]  Bitney says. Knowing that the dog was still a danger to the public, the center released the dog on Sept. 17, 2014, according to the complaint.  Hey, DOG aggression does NOT equal human aggression!  A million pit bull rescue angels can't be wrong!  Its not like Gus attacked a person, or anything.... derp!

STRIKE THREE:  "Bitney says the dog [attacked] her at Vazzoler's home six days after Millan's center released it.     Her injuries allegedly included "disfiguring open wounds, deep muscle and tendon lacerations and open comminuted fractures to the radius and ulna of her left arm and permanent loss of feeling and function in her left hand."  Quite the party, Indeed!

Its my understanding that GUS finally received a well earned, and long overdue, DIRT NAP.  This was AFTER his "rescue mommy" Jennifer Romano pulled out all the stops to save GUS AGAIN!

Barking for Dollars

What are the real, quantifiable damages associated with dog barking?  I have had MANY folks email me about a recent civil case.   Apparently, a dog owner loses a $500,000.00 lawsuit over their allegedly barking dog.

Relevant actors:
- Woodrow Thompson, plaintiff.
- Denise Norton, defendant.
- Cawper the superbarker.

"In a sprawling 36-page complaint, Norton's neighbor Woodrow Thompson alleged that Cawper is known for "raucously, wildly bellowing, howling and explosively barking" and that he is an outrage, with intentional infliction of emotional distress -- and that his barking caused "profound emotional distress."

I am with you there, brother!  People often use their dogs to project aggression, since almost everyone knows that aggression of all types via dogs is perfectly acceptable.  Indeed, my ex-neighbors across the street would respond to complaints about their dogs by moving them to their front yard so as to increase the noise level in my home even further.   This type of behavior is so common in these sorts of cases it is now my default assumption.

"Thompson's complaint suggests Cawper is capable of barking at 128 decibels through double pane windows. According to Purdue University research, that would mean Cawper is louder than a chainsaw, a clap of thunder and just a hair quieter than the takeoff of a military jet."

That may be a bit of an exaggeration.  I think the world record for loud barking is ~113 decibels.  Consider that a Decibel is a logarithmic unit:  For example, 110 decibels is NOT 10% louder than 100, it is MANY TIMES AS LOUD.  This would mean that Cawper is generating MULTIPLE TIMES more sound energy than any other dog recorded.   I believe your typical superbarker generates 105 decibels, still enough to damage human hearing in close proximity, and carry for long distances and through solid objects.

Not that I dismiss that portion of the claim out of hand:  They keep breeding pit bulls bigger and bigger.... why not keep breeding barkers louder and louder?  It is only a matter of time before we have 200+ lb pitbulls in our neighborhood, so a superbarker loud enough to shatter concrete may not be far behind!  Forget about mere noise trespass and harassment - Fido can now level buildings with his exclamations!

On to the legal aspects:  One interesting thing about this case is that the plaintiff did NOT win the case on merit.  The case was won by default.  The defendant did not take the complaint seriously, and ignored it.  She flat out disregarded the summons.  Who are those lowly peons to complain about the almighty Dog?

I am a relatively experienced litigant:  You do NOT ignore a summons!  Even a frivolous case can and will be won if you don't defend it.  If the case truly is frivolous, for example if the defendant had the dog debarked years ago and can prove that, then they need to offer that as an affirmative defense AND perhaps counter sue the plaintiff for harassment.  DO NOT THUMB YOUR NOSE AT THE COURT.

So, the takeaway is this:  There is a BIG difference between (A) doing the right thing, and (B) doing the wrong thing and getting away with it.  If you let your dog bark all the time you fall squarely into the (B) column.  While dog owners enjoy "noble" status (for now) that does NOT grant you unlimited political and social capital.  Keep up the bad behavior and you WILL get into trouble eventually.   Do not be wildly overconfident when dealing with the lower (i.e. non dog owning) underclasses as they CAN rise get you if they try hard enough and/or you are irresponsible enough.

QUIET YOUR DOGS.

Change we can believe in!

The tide is turning.  I am calling the top of the bubble:  The canine supremacy movement has shot it's wad and is now in decline.  As usual, YMMV.

First, some bad news:  Andrew Nason and Julie Custer, owners of the dogs that killed Klonda Richey, face NO CHARGES.  Apparently, murder by dog in Dayton remains legal (for now).   The prosecutor in that case MUST be a foaming at the mouth, dog worshiping fanatic.  The DA OWNS the grand jury... there is NO WAY they walked out without charges unless THAT was the pre-determined outcome. 

Better news:

- Owner of the dogs that chewed the hands and feet off a pedestrian in Detroit has been arrested.
- Craig Sytsma's murderers are charged with 2nd degree murder.
- Alex Donald Jackson gets 15 years for murder of Pamela Devitt.

And, so it goes.   The universe of the the pit nut, AR fanatic and raving dog cultist just got a little smaller.  Maybe a LOT smaller!  Indeed, it turns out that your noble status just got taken down a BIG notch.  Just think, today they ban murder and maiming by dog... what will those commie's think of next?  Perhaps you won't be allowed to blow out the eardrums of everyone on your block with Fido's exclamations?   Your heart must just break knowing that, soon, your next door neighbors front yard is NOT your dog's toilet!   Yikes, you are now BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE.  O the dogmanity!

Awesome news!  Craig Emory was NOT (yet) charged for stabbing "Clara" the pit bull!   As I have written in the past, I am not a huge fan of people who bring small pets to PetSmart.  That said, the guy had a right to kill the dog that was attacking his dog.  Hey, Craig?   Consider one of these next time.   That, or stay the hell out of Petsmart!!

See, the rest of us were not willing to sacrifice our lives to accommodate your furry god.  Indeed, we have a right to PEACE and SAFETY in our own homes and public places.  We will use 2nd amendment protections where appropriate, and kill your dogs and throw your ass in jail when you get out of line.

Don't like it?  Tough shit, that is the way the cookie crumbles.   YOU get to kiss OUR asses for a change.  You are god damned lucky you get to even OWN a dog in this city.   YOU follow OUR rules to the LETTER or you are DONE. 

BUMP - Monsters among us

Hey, there has been an update in the Lenton Case!   Read about that here.


Consider my comments in BOLD.


"March 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM
PELL CITY, Alabama - A Leeds couple was sentenced today after pleading guilty to charges in the 2012 death of an 83-year-old man, who was killed by two of their Rottweilers.


[Yes, 2 of approximately 35 Rottweilers!   Anybody have a problem with 35 Rottweilers in a suburban backyard, where barnyard animals are probably banned completely?!?]

Jacqueline Lenton, 57, and Jerry Lenton, 57, were sentenced by St. Clair County Circuit Court Judge Bill Weathington during a hearing at the St. Clair County Courthouse in Pell City. The pleas and sentences were part of agreements worked out in consultation with the victim's family.


[If I were in the victims family, I would have been pushing for life for murder.  Probably settled for 20 years.   Hey, if a DUI killer can get 25, why not 20 for canine homicide?]

Jerry Lenton pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to a split 10-year sentence, with one year and a day to serve in prison. He is to report to the St. Clair County Jail, where he will serve his sentence, on May 12. The judge also ordered Jerry Lenton placed on five years of probation, the first two years under supervision, after his release.


[ A year and a day for the murdering dogger!  Well, that's 366 days more than most of them get!]

The family declined to comment after the hearing, but Chief Assistant St. Clair County District Attorney Lamar Williamson read a message from the family that "we believe justice was served."


[ In March 2015, Lenton gets to go back to breeding Rottenweilers.... its a win-win!]

Williamson said that the plea agreements were worked out in consultation with the family.


[Too bad they didn't consult with me]

"It's just a very tragic situation. Good people on both sides," said Don Colee, attorney for Jacqueline Lenton."

I would argue assholes on both sides, including the victim's family... they want to turn Lenton loose to wreak more canine havoc?   He's probably been "banned" from owning dogs for life but that has about as much stick as Teflon.... forget it, this guy will be back to breeding more killer dogs the nanosecond he gets out.  Count on it!   I would have pushed for the max at every opportunity.  Absent, an even aside from, a ban on these monsters we need to put the screws to the HUMAN element (which is ultimately responsible) AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. 

Something like this happens to you, YOU have an OBLIGATION to screw them into the ground!  Turn them into ground up shit!  The rest of us need to relentlessly bash these people, outgroup them, and humiliate them at every opportunity.   THAT will ameliorate this problem.  You let stuff like this slide then YOU are part of the problem.  Get with it!

Also, read the comments on the original article - one of Lenton's fan club has been stalking me.  I find it quite complementary, actually!!   Keep it up, pal - it increases my site hits and gives me another opportunity for a snarkfest!

Trainwreck Ed. 1.4 Save MICKEEE!

Tomorrow is the BIG day! A judge in Maricopia County, AZ decides the fate of MICKEY, a pit bull that ripped the face off of four year old Kevin Vicente on February 20^th.

The Save Mickey facebook page now has over 60,000 likes! The pit nuts, unrestrained dog lovers and A.R. Extremists have pulled out ALL the stops to “Save Mickey”. They have poured out of the woodwork in the tens of thousands to mercilessly stamp out any and all opposition to their cause... that being, SAVE THIS MAULER AT ALL COSTS! After all, he was just a dog enjoying his BONE, right? That makes EVERYTHING he does just perfectly acceptable, now doesn't it? He would NEVER do something like that again, would he? Well, of course he would... and then it would be 100% the fault of THAT victim. Ha!

Brace yourselves, the Mickey supporters are coming for us!  Prepare yourselves for this juggernaut of dangerous dog fetishists!   Save yourselves, run for your lives!

Note that the Kevin support page still has under 800 likes. So much for being for BOTH the child and the dog!

All of that said, I am going to reverse my opinion regarding Mickey. I now want Mickey to be spared, for now at least. How come, you say?!? Again, this is an epic, uncontrollable train wreck and there is NO good outcome, only a series of very bad outcomes and we have to pick the least bad of them all.

Here is why Mickey should be spared:

1. Pit nuts will use Mickey's euthanasia to build political capital – if Mickey is put down, pit nuts now have the “martyr” they NEED to push their agenda. Mickey must NOT become a martyr. Mickey NEEDS to live (for now). If Mickey is put down, there will be protests all over the WORLD, politicians will come out crying that Mickey should have been spared and given a good home with lots of kids that will love him, media and celebrity people will come out in droves: It will be a DISASTER.
2. The overall situation must become worse before it becomes better. Mickey should be spared and re-homed where he has access to children, other animals, the UPS guy, etc... But, won't he attack them, you say? Of COURSE he will, THAT is the point... someone (or something) has to die (or at least become injured) for the cause. The pit nuts figure they can just re-home Mickey in a pit-loving home and everything will be just fine. But, “things” WON'T be fine. Its imperative that Mickey become a further liability to THEIR cause. I say, let Mickey be THEIR political disaster.  In other words, the victims need vindication.

This is a very cynical policy, to say the least. But, what else is there? If cynicism is my only weapon, I might as well use it.

An unpreventable tragedy, Part III

Were Dayton AC, Police, et. al. Culpable in Klonda Richey's death? The woman made multiple calls to AC, multiple 911 calls, and sought a protection order and got NO relief. The dogs she was complaining about ultimately killed her.

Many have been saying: "AC was negligent!" "Fire Mark Kumpf!" (the AC director) "Impeach the magistrate!" "Sue the Police!".

Did the Dayton City government run interference for the dog owners in the Richey case? Absolutely. However, the devil is in the details. It not so much the ENFORCEMENT of the laws, its how those laws are written.

Unless you have been physically on the front lines of the dog wars, you need to take everything you know about AC laws and throw them out the window. I have written many times in the past about the special legal protections that Fido enjoys. I was not kidding or exaggerating. I am completely serious.

Lets consider barking laws for a moment. What is the purpose of an "anti" barking law? If you think the purpose of an "anti" barking law is noise abatement you would be flat out, 100% WRONG. Indeed, the purpose of "anti" barking laws is to protect the owners of noisy dogs. The purpose of "anti" barking laws is to shift the entire legal burden to the victim AND to set the standard of prosecution so ridiculously high that few will attempt it.

Consider the letter I sent to my county administrator regarding some proposed "anti" barking laws in my locality. Generally, "anti" barking laws burden the victim and protect the perpetrator in 2 ways:

1. Multiple household rule. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is unique in the legal universe. What this means is, each complaint requires that MULTIPLE complainants step forward before ANY action is taken. Imagine that someone steals your car and you have to get at least 2 neighbors to agree, in writing, that having your car stolen is a problem before authorities take any action... your head would explode, for sure, BUT this is EXACTLY what happens in the Fido universe!
2. Consecutive disruption laws. This is another one that helps seal up Fido's overclass status. What this means is, in addition to having multiple complainants, the offense itself must continue unabated for a minimum amount of time before any action is taken. So, going back to the car theft analogy, if the thief joyrides for less than, say, 1/2 hour the theft was completely legal... even if you get all your neighbors to agree that the theft was an issue.

Its also important to consider that you can clear those enormous hurdles and the State may still find against you, particularly if the judge is Dorg.

Note that, typically, neither of the above is contemplated for any OTHER nuisance noises, such as fireworks. Fireworks enthusiasts typically get busted right off. Again, Fido and his owner have special protections the rest of us do not (though YMMV).

Another good example of this effect is the infamous "One Bite Rule". This states that a dog/owner gets to attack you one time and get off scott free. I wonder, how do they even keep track of this? They probably don't, particularly if the dog owner changes jurisdictions. In any case, again, contrast this with the rest of the legal system – Where is there a "one burglary rule" or a "one bank robbery rule"? Sure, perhaps the penalty for first time offenders may be less than for repeat offenders, but its generally not nothing. Again, the purpose of many of our "dangerous dog laws" is NOT public safety. The purpose of many "dangerous dog" laws is to keep biters biting.

In Florida, KILLING someone with your dog is only a 2^nd degree misdemeanor. Off property attacks are often given a complete pass. Again, consider the Roy McSweeney incident.

The bottom line is, many of these "animal control" laws are crafted in such a way to protect the individual animal and individual animal owner. They are NOT crafted to protect public safety. This gives authorities a TON of plausible deniability.

Personally, I seriously doubt that the owners of the killer dogs in the Richey incident get any real jail time.  As far as I know, no charges have been filed at this time. Hell, the only reason the dogs are dead is because they tried to attack the cops at the scene (who promptly shot them). If they hadn't been killed at the scene I would not have been surprised to see the dogs spared and returned to the owners. Technically the dogs were first time offenders.

I also seriously doubt that Kumpf or anyone else in authority will be held accountable. Again, the laws are likely crafted in such a way that they ALL have a ton of weasel room. This is NOT unique to Dayton or anywhere else.

An unpreventable tragedy, Part II

Its axiomatic!

So, more and more news is coming out about the Klonda Richey incident. The situation leading up to her killing is not exceptional in any way. Almost every neighborhood has a bully like Andrew Nason (the killer dogs owner).

Here are the actors in this boiler-plate story:

• Klonda Richey. Victim of doggers. Begged for help, denied any kind of due process.
• Andrew Nason. Bully dogger. Used his pets to project intimidation, terrorize the neighborhood. Had no restraint placed on his behavior.
• Mark Kumpf. Corrupt and lazy AC officer. It appears that he withheld some information from the victim that may have gotten her some relief. Dawn at Craven Desires did some SUPER investigative reporting on this character.
• Dayton PD / 911. Does not take animal related complaints seriously.
• Magistrate Kristi Wuebben. Did not take animal related complaints seriously. Denied protection order in spite of video showing violations taking place.

There are literally ten million stories like this. Sure, 99.9% of them do not end with the dogs killing the victim. However, they are all epic fails with the lives of the victims changed for the worse, perhaps forever. Many of these scenarios typically result in a different, but still awful, outcome.

What would some of the more likely outcomes been?

• Victim moves away. Often, taking a big financial loss. Many folks get literally "barked out" of their homes. Very common.
• Dog owner kills complainant/victim, or at least tries to do so using a non-canine method. Uncommon but happens.
• Complainant kills dog owner. Sleep deprivation from endless loud barking can result in a psychotic episode. As per the above, the vic occasionally kills the dogger in justifiable self defense. Uncommon but happens.
• Victim takes matters into their own hands: Shoots or poisons the dogs. May wind up in jail for doing so. Fairly common.
• Dog owner arrested / incarcerated for something other than a dog related offense. Its noteworthy that Nason had a long "rap" sheet – he would have likely wound up back in prison before much longer. Fairly common.
• Dogger moves away for various reasons. These people have very unstable lives and often move around a lot. Sometimes, the victim will "out asshole" the perp who then go project their aggression onto someone else somewhere else. Fairly common.

Why were Richey's pleads for help summarily ignored by authorities? (This is my favorite rhetorical question). Remember, many hold dogs and dog owners are absolutely perfect as a First Principle. Its axiomatic! So when they receive a complaint, that leaves only 2 options – 1) the complainant is a crank and a liar, or 2) they deserved what happened. All evidence is summarily dismissed as forgery.

And it IS axiomatic – Its like a computer program:

IF COMPLAINT

THEN DECLARE FALSE

END IF

IF EVIDENCE PRESENTED

THEN DECLARE FORGERY

END IF

IF EVIDENCE IRREFUTABLE

THEN BLAME VICTIM
END IF

Of course, there are a small handful of places where these scenarios are taken seriously, so YMMV. There are a handful of people who are not brainwashed by The Collective. Unfortunately, none of those people were in Dayton.

In any case, I'm sure the judge who was reviewing Richeys case was following a similar decision tree. There is no thought process, judgement, or reason involved. Its pure binary logic. I mean, the videos clearly showed violations in progress, but that did not fit the narrative: There is no programming for that.

I'm sure the cops and the judge were fully confident that Richey was indeed an evil mastermind, using all her considerable skills as a special effects guru to frame the innocent dog owner and his absolutely perfect pets for wrongdoing. What else could it have been? There is no other explanation. See, during process of elimination you first eliminate the dogs and dog owners from the calculus, as being a dog/owner is a rock solid alibi in itself. Hell, they might as well have been on Mars when all this went down!

Kumpf, I am sure, probably was not too concerned as to the validity of the complaints... he just needed to protect a fellow Nutter at all cost: That is HIS programming.

As an aside, I've been taking some flak recently for a few things I've said on here and some comments I've made on Craven and other blogs. Again, I did not create this regime nor do I contribute to it. Look, when you are confronted by "The Dorg" your life as you know it is over. Don't freaking get pissed at ME about it. You can't afford a kevlar body suit for your pet bunny? AR15's with night sights ain't your thing? Those things may be true but they don't mean squat. That and 99 cents will buy you a cup of coffee in this town What it means is, YOU just outsmarted yourself.

Phony complaints my ass

I live in marginal peace. Doggers within a half block radius know better than to tone up the neighborhood with their yard barkers... pursuant to the 2 year conflict with the foaming at the mouth raving dognuts across the street. They would LIKE to tone everyone else up, but they know I won't let them get away with it.

However, if you increase that radius to say, 3 blocks you get into some serious AC issues. If I step outside at any time in a 24 hour period, it is impossible to NOT hear a dog bark. I literally see off leash dogs on a daily basis.

I don't bother complaining for the primary reason that I am burnt out on that, and again I have at least marginal peace in the home... I can sleep through the night and do my work without interruption. I am sure these other doggers are making their immediate neighbor's life pure hell but that is a battle for them to fight, not me.

This is an intermediate essay regarding the Klonda Richey incident. I have been reading the facebook pages, blogs, news websites and the like regarding the incident. Not surprisingly, I see a trend in the comments indirectly blasting those who make complaints.

Here are some good ones from the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center:

Heather Coleman How long did you stay and watch? Most loose dogs don't hang around at home...but do come back shortly...yeah 90% of these complaints come from pissy neighbors with too much time on their hands, but you are out there for that time that there is a legitimate complaint, like this one. Hope this is a wake up call to everyone.

Deborah Koehler Agree with Christina, some people use the ACO to harass neighbors regarding their pets.

Yup, thats right Heather – in spite of the fact that neighborhoods all over the world have an epidemic of barking, biting, dog off leash, and dog crap everywhere, a full NINETY PERCENT of such complaints are false! All I hear are barking dogs, but I'll just go ahead and FABRICATE a complaint since I am just a nasty dog-hating Nazi.

Tell you what Heather – come to my block and throw a rock... there is probably a 90% chance you will hit a nuisance barker, dog off leash, dog behaving dangerously, dog destroying property, or a dog shitting on someone else's lawn. How is that for a great statistic??

The absurdity of Heather's statement is compounded by the fact that, in most places, it is next to impossible to prosecute a dog owner for ANY bad behavior. This is based on the First Principle that all dogs are wonderful and all dog owners are Noble. Anybody who does not love Fido unconditionally is a bad person, and all dogs and dog owners are by definition justified in ALL of their actions.

Seriously, if I were to harass a neighbor I would use ANYTHING other than a dog complaint. Dog owners are given a pass on just about everything. Authorities go WAY out of their way to protect dogs and their owners. Their overclass status is nearly rock solid. It would be, literally, the path of MOST resistance. I'd be the knife wielder at a gun fight. Only a complete idiot would pursue that avenue.

I submit the polar opposite: For every complaint, there are 10 offenses: A bare minimum of 90% of offenses go unreported due to the facts that: Authorities don't give a shit, doggers are neighborhood bullies backed by the State, and endless propaganda that everyone has to love Fido no matter what.

Yeah, we are all a bunch of cranks and liars and Fido is just absolutely perfect.

You win some, you lose some Part I.

It’s always 3 steps forward and 2 steps back.  Who was the unqualified winner in the Pacific Theater in WW2?  That would be the ALLIES, namely the United States with plenty of help from various allies such as Australia, New Zealand, UK, and others.  However, this was not an easy thing:  We all lost a LOT along the way.  Consider this for a moment… the US Navy’s submarine losses during WW2.   there was plenty of bloody ground lost during that war.

In any war, the losses are terrible, even for the winner.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself… is this worth it?  If you believe so, you soldier on.

I have suffered a colossal loss as well as a crushing win on the Animal Uncontrol front the past few months.   I always start with the bad news first, so here goes…

I stepped up to Chairperson of my local state hiking organization in the beginning of the year.  As I had noted here and here, we have a BIG problem regarding uncontrolled dogs in the woods in my state. 

In any case, after a particularly bad episode regarding an uncontrolled dog, I decided to put my foot down.  There would be NO off leash dogs at any events.  ALL pet nuisances would be reported to both authorities AND property managers immediately.  Last but not least, ALL miscreants would be banned from the organization for good.   Accommodating troublemakers is the kiss of death, and these punks would NOT be accommodated under my regime PERIOD.  I had received many complaints from many people and many folks were threatening to quit the organization. 

Consider that a few folks thought it entertaining to turn their dogs loose to harass wildlife (usually ducks and geese).  Note that this is considered to be poaching under state law and may result in the owner being arrested and sent to prison.   If a state game warden witnesses such an act, the perp WILL be arrested.  

It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that anyone who turns their dog loose in the subtropical jungle that comprises this state is dumber than a box of rocks.  I mean, they are so dumb that calling them stupid is an insult to stupid people.   These woods are filled with ALLIGATORS, RATTLESNAKES, WATER MOCCASINS, BEARS, PANTHERS, BLACK WIDOW SPIDERS, and other assorted wild nasties that absolutely DO NOT CARE about your impossibly stupid supremacy arguments!

Back to the political battle.   The entire leadership group was against me, and in fact turned the whole ordeal into an analysis and subsequent character assassination of Yours Truly.  This was not a hill surrendered lightly:  There were daily arguments, threats, screaming matches, fingers in the face… all of this went on for OVER A MONTH. 

I will not compromise my standards.  I would not be part of an organization that uses pets to destroy what we are chartered to protect!

I only have so much fight in me.  In May I submitted my resignation.  The dog nutters  “win” this round.   Of course, what indeed have they won?  They still have the government, property managers, and the public against them.  As I noted above, poaching is a felony in this state and I believe sufficient grounds to shoot a dog.  Partially due to my urgings, the state park service has initiated a pogrom against irresponsible pet owners.  I, and many others, continue to hike “hot”…. Get the point, Fido owners??    Maybe you won THIS round, but stay tuned….

Free Rider Problem

Ever feel like someone else was the unfair beneficiary of your efforts?  Even better, have you ever felt relief when the efforts of someone else solved your problem without any effort, expense, exposure or risk taken on your part?

Free Rider Problem explanation from Wiki.  A good excerpt from the article:  “In economics, collective bargaining, psychology, and political science, a free rider (or freeloader) is someone who enjoys the benefits of an activity without paying for it. The free rider may withhold effort or resources, or may impose the costs of his or her activities on others.” 

Many of my neighbors got a complete “free ride”, courtesy of me, when I engaged the rescuer/puppy miller across the street, their landlord, and authorities.  Many of the other neighbors flat out hated what was going on over there, as they were exposed to the same hardships as I.  They would complain bitterly about the barking, dog at large, dog pee and dog crap everywhere, etc…  However, NONE of them would lift a finger to go after the miscreants. They wouldn’t call authorities; they wouldn’t complain to the miscreant, they wouldn’t complain to the landlord.  They refused to even co-sign any of my complaints!  However, they sure did benefit BIG TIME from my efforts!  They didn’t thank me, and there was no need to given that if my efforts benefited only THEM I wouldn’t have bothered!

So, it was ME, completely on my own, who had to:

-          File repeated complaints with AC, police, and code enforcement.

-          Dealt with excuses from above.

-          Perform a significant amount of legal research on my own time and dime.

-          Write and mail certified letters to dog owner, landlord, and authorities.

-          Face down the miscreant *in person* and thereby enduring the most extreme belligerent behavior on multiple occasions.  My friends and family were concerned for my safety.

-          Threaten both the dog owner and landlord with lawsuits.

-          Threaten my landlady with breaking the lease AND suing her for a rent abatement (THAT got her moving!).

So, now peace reigns upon the neighborhood (for now).  Again, my useless-ass neighbors didn’t have to lift a finger to get peace restored to their homes.  I did that for them!  Some of them even saw fit to CRITICIZE me!   I was TOO HARD on the poor couple, they said!

Of course, NOBODY is complaining about sleeping through the night!  Nothing like “Hey man, I really miss laying awake all night listening to those dogs bark!”.  No, it is armchair quarterbacking in its full, insipid glory!

Of course, this is only what I did in relation to the pet problems *on my block*.   My dealings with the larger issues are a similar but much larger story.   I won’t go into the gory details again, but as I noted in this essay and this essay I have made significant efforts to ameliorate the pet problems apparent in my state’s natural areas.  I built significant political credit via my activities in my state trail association, and I have had to BURN most of that credit working a problem that never should have existed in the first place!  I have also engaged my county executive and county attorney directly and those efforts have had some effect.  These efforts include, but are not limited to:

-          Engaging my state park system director directly regarding barking dog problems.  In addition to the letter sent, I have followed up by phone and email on this issue and the director is interested in ameliorating the problem.  Indeed, the pet regulations have become MUCH more strict recently (wonder why!).

-          Engaged individual park managers and park rangers regarding the problem.

-          Engage State Police at planning meetings.  They also seem interested.

-          Engage National Forest Service managers at open houses.  They seem interested in solving the problem.

-          Engaged my county executives and county attorney directly via certified mail and I have followed up with emails and phone calls.  They took my issues seriously enough to shelve an objectionable change to barking dog legislation.  So far, this appears to be a “Korean War” type outcome.  Hey, at least its only difficult to go after the nuisance barkers and not impossible!  So, now you do NOT need a neighbor to co-sign the complaint and the dog can only bark for 10 minutes.  YOU ARE WELCOME!

Why do these people even listen to me?  BECAUSE, I am active and engaged.  See, I don’t spend all my time blogging, I am actually OUT THERE doing useful things.  These people respect me because I cut new hiking trails in Florida in June.  They respect me because they know I do the right thing, and without the support of people like me their jobs would be very difficult, perhaps impossible.  They respect me because I am face to face with them and don’t snipe at them from some internet forum.  They respect me because they know I don’t have to get out of bed at 5am on a Saturday and work all day for free so Florida hikers can enjoy a safe hiking experience, but I do it anyway!   

See, these are the people who make the rules and enforce those rules.  THOSE are the people you have to engage directly and convince.  Preaching hate to a bunch of converts on some obscure web-page won’t do SQUAT.

So, you may ask… why do I have THIS forum?  Primarily to organize all of my thoughts in a place that can easily be accessed.  This forum is a tool, but only one tool of many at my disposal.

In any case, I put forth the effort to earn all this “political credit”, but unfortunately I have to burn it all up in this unending war against the “dogtopians”!  These efforts benefit others:  Thanks to me and people like me, you are now more likely to experience an outdoor adventure in peace and safety… that did NOT happen by itself!  Likewise, wildlife has a better chance of “making it” without constant harassment from out of control pets!

The alternate title of this essay was “Freedom ain’t free”, because it SURE ain’t!  A while back I wrote that to hold a right, one must demonstrate the ability to assert that right.    What that means is:

-          Get OFF YOUR DEAD ASS!

-          EXPEND SOME EFFORT!

-          LEARN THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM/EDUCATE YOURSELF!

-          BURN SOME SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CAPITAL!

-          TAKE SOME RISK!

-          MAKE THINGS HAPPEN!

To change the subject just a little.  Dog owners enjoy a huge advantage.  Why do you think that is?  Did that happen ALL by itself?  NOPE… it happened because THEY are going to government planning meetings and open houses.  THEY are staging protests.  THEY are confronting executives and law enforcement.  THEY are “packing” planning meetings, town halls, and open houses.  THEY are out there actively promoting their interests.  AND, those interests are often in conflict with YOURS!   This is a WAR and THEY are shooting at YOU!  WHAT are you going to do about THAT?

Know what, if you won’t assert your rights, YOU do not deserve them!  They do not exist!  Look, ANYBODY can sit and complain!  Was it complainers sitting on their asses who won world war II or ended slavery?  NO!  If peace in your home were truly one of YOUR rights, you would do whatever you must to defend that, as I DID.  If you won’t do whatever you must to defend that right, then that right simply does not exist.

Whats even worse is, some of you make a POINT of doing nothing useful!  You have institutionalized worthless whining!  Your position is, “I flat out, pointedly refuse to do anything useful but I will sit here and hurl insults at anyone who does!”.  Wow, how could the world turn without the likes of YOU?

Furthermore, you whiners do NOT have the right to criticize ANYBODY.  You have not earned that!  How DARE you sit in peace and comfort and criticize those who fight your fight for you!  YOU go out there and do what I did and THEN come back and criticize!  The fact that I am making our neighborhoods and parks better for the likes of YOU makes my bile rise… again, if it benefitted only YOU I would not bother!   I respect the dog-nuts more than you because THEY at least put forth the effort!  You want to mix it up?  You want to “take me for a walk”?  If you want to sit at the adults table, you need to act like one and any 3 year old can bitch and complain!!

Put up or shut up!