BSL musings, numero dos

Liberty is essential. Without it, you would literally not be able to survive.  Imagine a trip to your own restroom requires permission from a government bureau?  Of course, to have true liberty, you must marginally restrict it.  In other words, my right to swing my fist ends just BEFORE your nose begins, and vice versa.

If a bunch of us were to start our own Mars colony, and I was elected Governor, the first thing I would do to protect human health and safety would be to establish a non aggression rule.   This would be rigorously enforced.  Non aggression rules, or non initiation of force rules, are (or should be) the foundation of ANY legal system.  I believe the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) is the only just foundation of any legal system.  It is an excellent rule that protects everyone.

Therefore, we are setting limits on behavior.  Initiation of aggression is any behavior that infringes the rights of others. 

When aggression is, or has been, initiated, resultant outcomes and penalties would depend on a couple of things:

-          How much aggression was applied, and

-          What was the result of that aggression?

For example, death threats are considered aggressive.  However, that is considered to be less aggressive than say, actually murdering someone.  Therefore, we take action against those who threaten but not as much as those who actually murder.

The use of weapons to threaten, coerce, or intimidate others is considered more serious than using mere words.  This is sensible due to the fact that, in addition to violent intent, the aggressor has demonstrated the means to carry out the attack.  Additionally, the type of weapon used may also be used as a determinant in the severity of the aggression.  For example, threatening someone with a firearm is considered a more aggressive stance than threatening them with a pocketknife.  Firearms generally present a greater threat when compared to small knives.

So, what you have is a “sliding scale” that ranges from no aggression at one far end of the scale, to lethal aggression at the far opposite end of that same scale.  The severity of penalties associated with those actions is indicated on that same scale.

It’s noteworthy that the non aggression rule allows for the use of force, up to and including the use of lethal force, in self defense scenarios.  For example, if you are sitting in your living room watching television, and a blood soaked maniac kicks down your door and swings an axe at you, you are free to use whatever means available to defend yourself.  What is important to consider is, YOU did not initiate the aggressive act:  HE did.  It also grants the State the right to arrest and punish aggressors after the fact.  These uses of force are considered justifiable. 

Keep reading, I am getting to the point!

While I see many problems with BSL, I generally support it.  The breed history and statistics of the Pit Bull, and similar breeds, speak for themselves.  Treating Pit Bulls and other “power” breeds of dogs with prejudice is sensible from BOTH an individual AND a societal standpoint. The threat presented by a Pit Bull is greater than the threat presented by a Shih Tzu.   Placing restrictions on Pit Bulls (or Shih Tzus for that matter) does not violate one’s core rights as housing a dog in a human city is not recognized as a core civil right anywhere that I know of.  You may treat Pit Bulls with prejudice for no other reason than You CAN.

One nagging problem with BSL is that it is apparent to me that most BSL arrangements do NOT directly address the behavior of dogs or dog owners.  Sure, there may be a lot of low hanging fruit in a Pit Bull restriction BUT you are still not addressing the aggressive actions directly.   There is STILL no “non aggression principle” applied to dog owners! 

Non aggression principles dictate that you do NOT initiate aggression against ANYBODY with ANYTHING.  While the type of weapon is a determinant in the outcome, the use of “lesser” weapons remains intolerable.  “Lesser” offenses should likewise be treated with affirmative action.  Face it, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon.  One of the few things that Pit Nuts say that is sensible is “any dog can bite”.  Of course, none of them has quite the bite of the Pit Bull, but should that give owners of mixes and other breeds a complete pass on bad behavior?  NO!  It should not, but it does in many cases.

Here is a good for-example.  One of my problems with BSL is that it is an arbitrary hard line in the sand.   Let’s say for the sake of argument, I have 2 dogs, Rex and Fido.  Both are Pit-Lab mixes.  Rex is 7/16 pit bull and Fido is 9/16 pit bull.  Up until now, I have not only been allowed to KEEP the dogs, I have been allowed to use them to facilitate legalized assault:  They have been attacking neighbors and passerby, barking all night, destroying property, attacking other pets, crapping in neighbors yards, etc…  All of these are aggressive acts initiated by me, using the dogs as “agents”.  Authorities have been contacted but refuse to do anything. I have had NO legal restraint imposed upon me whatsoever.  I have been using my dogs to initiate aggression towards others LEGALLY.  You see this type of scenario in neighborhoods all over the world.

So, some folks come along, perhaps my victims, and they say “Look, these Pit Bull type dogs are dangerous, lets ban them!”.   So, the city comes up with a rule that specifies that all dog owners must submit their dogs for DNA testing and any dog that is 50% or more pit bull will be confiscated and destroyed.  As a result of this new policy, Fido is destroyed by the government.  However, I still have Rex, who continues the reign of terror throughout the neighborhood unchecked.  Passerby continue to be routinely harassed, people STILL can’t sleep in their homes due to frequent barkathons, there is dog crap everywhere (but only half as much), people aren’t safe in their own yards, etc… AC and the cops continue to ignore my neighbors when they call, as they always had been.   It is noteworthy that while no restraint is placed on MY behavior, severe restraint is placed on my neighbors’ behavior:  If they were to poison or shoot Rex, they would face the most excruciating penalties!

Agreed, in the scenario above my victims are arguably better off BUT they are still being victimized. They are still being victimized because, as dog owner, NO LIMITS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON MY BEHAVIOR!   Not only am I allowed to keep Rex, I may continue to do whatever I want with him!   I may not only possess the weapon, but I may use it completely at my discretion with no boundaries or limits defined whatsoever!  WooHoo!  

Now, you could change the hypothetical Pit Bull ban indicated above so that any dog that meets a DNA threshold of 25% or even 12.5% Pit Bull would be summarily destroyed.   Such a threshold might solve the “Rex Problem” temporarily but it STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE DOG OWNER!

An allegory would be, due to an increase in shootings we will implement a strict ban on automatic rifles.  However, shooting at people with “lesser” guns continues to be completely legal.  Therefore, as long as your gun is semi-automatic, you may act with NO restraint of any kind whatsoever.  How sensible is THAT?  Under NAP rules you do not initiate aggression with ANYTHING EVER.

What I am getting at here, is that it is sensible and fair to place limits on behavior FIRST.  This is because it is the AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR that is damaging.  Therefore, it is the AGGRESSOR that will be the object of restraint and punishment.  The TOOL, or “thing”, that is used to facilitate that aggression is of secondary consideration.

I agree that it may become sensible to put limits on ownership of “things” as well.   Perhaps some things are just too dangerous to leave in the hands of individuals, including those with peaceful intent.  However, I would only restrict “things” AFTER non aggression rules have been firmly established.  I have argued that if reasonable non aggression principles had been applied to pet owners all along, the “Pit Bull Problem” never would have presented itself.  Even now, if you were to start locking up ALL dog owners that use their dogs as weapons that would be completely devastating to the Pit Bull community, perhaps even more so than a ban that does not address behavior.

Non Aggression Principle (NAP).  Learn it.  Know it.  LIVE IT.

BSL Musing, numero uno

Do breed specific bans work?  I am contemplating legislation similar to that in Miami-Dade, Florida.  There have been NO DBRF’s in Miami since the ban was initiated, which lends some credibility to the notion that the ban has had positive effect.  I attempted to gather some statistics on dog bites and dog related nuisances in Miami to see if it there were any correlation there, but was unable to come up with anything conclusive.  If any reader has better information than I, feel free to elucidate us and I’ll put it in as an edit.  Consider that the Miami Pit Bull ban has been in effect since 1989, so comparing 2012 stats to 1988 stats is not a good comparison… The city’s demographics have changed, it is a different political and cultural climate, an entire generation of Miami citizens has turned over, etc…

Common sense would dictate that there is a lot of “low hanging fruit” in a Pit Bull ban.  In addition to killings and infliction of battlefield type injuries, Pit Bulls are involved in a large, disproportionate portion of “lesser” incidents that include nuisance barking, dog at large, dog crap everywhere, destruction of property, harassing wildlife, attack with minor injury, etc…

In the past, I wrote of issues I found with breed specific bans.  To that I would like to add the notion of “transfer of risk”:  That being, any animal, or group thereof, represents a given level of threat regardless of where it is.  I.E. Everything else being equal, simply expelling them from your jurisdiction (for whatever reason) doesn’t accomplish anything but endanger someone else in (transfer the risk to) another jurisdiction.  An individual dog represents the same danger in Palm Beach (or Topeka) as it does in Miami.

For example, due to the ban baseball player Mark Buehrle has been forced to house his pit bull “Slater” in Flagler County.  Therefore, if “Slater” has a bad day it will be in Flagler, not Miami, thus “preserving” Miami’s (potential) low incidence of serious dog bite.  Of course, this would not alter the overall perception of Pit Bulls in any way.

With that said, does it really MATTER if breed bans work?  Do we, either as a society or as individuals, need a reason to take affirmative action against Pit Bulls or ANY pet dog for that matter?   If banning the beasts is something we CAN do, then why not?

I don’t need a reason to assert my rights.  I assert them because I have them.  When I was having it out with the idiots across the street, I made it plain that the noise level in my home is for me to control strictly because it IS my home.  Why can’t their dogs use my yard as a toilet?  Strictly because it is my yard and I SAY SO!  THAT is the reason!

Similar to individual rights, electorates also have rights.  Harboring a pet dog in a human city is not recognized as a core civil right anywhere that I know of.  With that established, the privilege of keeping a pit bull, or any domestic animal, within city limits CAN be voted away… and it was!  63% to 37%!   The people of Miami have a RIGHT to decide what domestic animals may be harbored within city limits.  They can go ahead and ban beagles, too, if they want!

Face it, zoning restrictions of the sort indicated affects all sorts of potential pet owners.  Let’s say for the sake of argument that I want to adopt a horse.   Local zoning regulations dictate that I cannot harbor a horse in this neighborhood.  I am out of luck unless I move to a farm property or rent a stall in a commercial stable.  Ownership of horses is restricted in many places.  These horse restrictions are based on the notions that:  Horses have special needs that can only be met on farms or other large properties; While not fundamentally vicious, due to their size and strength horses may present a safety hazard when in close quarters with human beings; Owning a horse is not a fundamental human right and may be restricted legislatively.

Of course, (of course… haha!) almost anything you say about horses could be said about many pet dogs.   How is the danger posed by a single horse greater than that posed by, say, 10 pit bulls?  Are the needs of most dogs met when housed in a city or dense suburb?  Why is it “legal” to zone out horses and not pit bulls?  Sure, in the age of mechanized transport, no one NEEDS a horse, but no one needs a pit bull either!

The bottom line is that property rights are not absolute.  What you keep and do on your suburban ¼ acre MAY be restricted legislatively. Whatever you have or do MUST be entirely restricted to your space. A while back I was writing up some talking points useful when arguing with owners of yard barkers, in particular the “I can keep/do whatever I want on my property” excuse.  Oh, really?  How about I fire up my own nuclear reactor 30 feet from your bedroom window?   Oh, and neighbors?  I am going to set off one of these in my backyard next 4^th of July Holiday!!!  Enjoy!

The vast amount of propaganda spewed by Pit Nuts regarding the ban is all lies and junk logic that has no basis in reality.  Every plank of their proverbial platform is rotten to the core.  Bottom line is, the Miami Pit Bull ban is totally constitutional.  As per my horse example, there is nothing truly exceptional about restrictions on Pit Bulls.  Hey Pit Nuts:  You abused your privileges, refused to self regulate, and those privileges were removed.  You refused to control your dogs, so that is now done FOR YOU… by killing them or shipping them to Flagler and Palm Beach!  Get over it!

The lesson here is that, if you don’t control your affairs, someone else WILL.  And, that someone else may not have your best interests in mind.  CONTROL YOUR DOGS!

I find it hilarious when the excuses pit nuts and dog fanatics spew are paraphrased and used against them.  Here is a good question:  Hey Pit Nuts, what do I think of the Miami Pit Bull ban?  Answers:  They are Miamians, and hating pit bulls is what they do!  Miami people banned pit bulls strictly because they are Miami people!  Anything Miami people do is acceptable because they are from Miami! They are well meaning!  You do not understand the behavior of Miami people! They were just expressing themselves at the voting booth!  They are Nanny Voters, and great with kids!  Those voters were provoked by dog attacks and Pit Nuts acting like idiots!  The ban is not bothering them!  They can do whatever they want in their city!  Pit Bulls are not allowed in Miami, so stop being anti-social and get used to it!  If you don’t like the pit bull ban, why don’t you just MOVE!?  Stop complaining and get a life!  Quit being so sensitive! Nobody can identify a pit bull, anyway, so what do you care!   Why do you need the State (legislature) to solve all of your problems for you?

And last, but not least… STAY OUT OF MIAMI’S BUSINESS!

Threat Perception

Threat Perception:  What makes you perceive a threat as such?  Is your fear, or lack thereof, based on reality, or is it the result of conditioning by others?   I got the idea for this article from esteemed peer “Professor Hilder”, author of the “Munchers of Doom” site indicated to the right.  The professor’s ideas may seem a bit radical to some, but his sort of forward thinking is crucial to mitigating the Animal Uncontrol problem.  He brings a clarity to the issue that is much needed.

In addition to Threat Perception, one of the professor’s concepts is the tie between dog/pet fanatics and the extreme ecological movement. That is not something I had taken note of personally, but is worth considering and I’m going to tie that to the concept of threat perception.

I am an executive and activity leader in my state hiking trail association.  This is strictly volunteer work.  I lead group hikes, perform trail maintenance, develop new hiking trails, build coalitions and organize events with other groups with similar interests, promote outdoor activities in my state, promote responsible use of outdoor/wilderness areas,  work closely with the federal/state government, and represent my organization in county, state and national planning efforts.   I am a very experienced hiker, I completed an “outward bound” type course in my teens, and I have hiked and backpacked all over US and in a few places overseas.

The politics of my group are “moderate”.  We consist mostly conservative Democrats and liberal-moderate Republicans (Jon Huntsman was my guy… oh, well).   While eco-fanatics are not a part of our group, we do work with them at times and they do participate in our activities.  

One thing that always strikes me about the eco-fanatics (“Greens”) is that they are terrified of wildlife.  They have this terrible fear of being attacked by bears that is absolutely not grounded in reality.  You might as well be terrified of Russian space satellites de-orbiting and crashing onto your heads, people.  Note that in my state (Florida) NO ONE has been killed by a bear, nor have there been any serious injuries involving bears that I know of.  There have been a handful of bear-human “encounters” that have resulted in minor injury to the humans involved.  It is noteworthy that in most of these, the human in question was doing something that was expressly prohibited or not recommended, i.e. feeding the bear or purposefully encroaching on its “personal space”.  In any case, I have to invest some time in reassuring them that, no, they are not going to be eaten by a bear!

Juxtapose the lack of remarkable injury in bear-human encounters with the fact that pet dogs kill Florida residents yearly.  Pet dogs send Florida citizens to emergency rooms on a daily basis with injuries ranging from minor bites to battlefield level injuries! 

My observation is that, most of these “Greens” are urban leftist fools that know about as much about the forest (and pets) as I do about brain surgery or the surface of Venus…. in other words, absolutely nothing.   Almost everything they know, think and understand is a product of conditioning (brainwashing) by other know-nothing idiots.  They spend most of their time hanging out in the city reading communist rags and talking it up with others who have the same foolish attitudes and lack of real knowledge and understanding as them.  Look, if you are going to be attacked by something on 4 legs, either in the woods or out of it, that creature is almost certain to be a dog AND that dog is almost certain to be a Pit Bull or some similar fighting dog.  When I inform them of this little tidbit, they look at me like I just grew an extra head.  Their threat perceptions, and lack thereof, have been fully conditioned and have no basis in reality.  I believe this is true, albeit to a lesser extent, in the larger population as well.

Indeed, there are threats in the woods, and most of them are not products of the natural world.  For example, in the prior one year period I have noted the following four animal-human encounters that I would consider hazardous:

-          While hiking alone, I was “charged” by an at-large juvenile Pit Bull dog.  The dog decided to let me live that day:  After completing its “charge” it sniffed my foot for a couple of seconds, then took off at full speed… come to think of it I HAD forgotten to change out my “odor eaters” that week, perhaps that is what saved me?

-          When leading a large group we encountered 2 hikers coming in the other direction each with an on leash dog that appeared to be pit-boxer mixes.  Both dogs wore “prong collars”.  One of the dogs lunged and snapped at my face as they passed.  Fortunately, the owner had it (barely) under control.  The 2 dog owners dragged their dogs off the trail and none of my hikers were further threatened or molested that day.  This incident was just prior to noting an unattended dog barking for 2 and ½ hours straight in the campground on the same property.

-          At a National Forest campground, an at-large Pit Bull dog chased one of my hikers into her car where it glared at her through the window for several minutes, and the dog eventually ran off.  She told me of the incident and I fetched a forest ranger with a sidearm and we attempted to find the dog but were unable to locate it.

-          While hiking with a small group 2 hikers travelling in the opposite direction had an on-leash border collie dog that snarled and snapped at my arm as it passed.  The owner was able to jerk it back before it was able to bite me.

Does anyone see a pattern, here?  Four dangerous animal encounters in the woods.  ALL of them pet dogs.  MOST of them Pit Bulls or mixes!  And, this is only in the past year!

In response to this rather valid threat perception, I now legally carry a 9mm handgun on all of my hikes.

To be fair, I had a fun encounter with a rattlesnake on a group hike about a year ago.  However, the snake in question was sunning itself on the trail and did NOT strike or move in our direction.  One of my hikers had ventured too close to it (she had gotten way ahead of the group) and it rattled at her.  Again, it didn’t lunge or strike.  The hiker in question had not been paying attention and had violated the snake’s “space”.   We stood around for a few minutes, gave the snake its space, and after a couple of minutes it slowly proceeded off into the woods.  We proceeded on our way after that.  When encountering wildlife, do NOT approach!  Give it a WIDE berth!

My only direct encounter with a bear was in Great Smoky Mountain National Park in the summer of 2006.  The second he saw me he ran off at what can only be described as astonishing speed!

As per the Professor, pet dogs are NOT a product of nature.  They are products created by people to meet the needs of other people.  This is particularly true of the Pit Bull, as Pit Bulls are a product aimed at those who wish to project intimidation upon others and desire a weapon for legalized assault.   Therefore, while they are not a product of nature and were brought there by people for people, you WILL encounter them in the woods.

So, what about the “Threat Perception”?  Well, many of us have been conditioned via generations of propaganda to contemplate pet dogs as completely harmless.  We have also been conditioned, to a lesser extent, to view wildlife as fundamentally dangerous.  Consider 75 years of movies, books, and television that portray wildlife as dangerous and pet dogs as purely wonderful.   Therefore, many people harbor an irrational fear of wildlife, but an irrational *comfort* (or lack of fear) around pet dogs.  We have been told over and over, that all dogs are fundamentally good and that if you are “nice” to a dog it will reciprocate.  This assertion is used to bolster the notion that all dog on human attacks are strictly the fault of the victim:   Since it’s a given that the dog is fundamentally good, the human victim MUST have done something to deserve it!  Likewise, if a dog harasses or attacks wildlife, that act is also purely good and necessary as the dog is the agent of what is Good, and the wild animal the agent of what is Bad.

This lack of threat perception regarding pet dogs has proven to be particularly toxic:  It results in injuries, threats to health, damage to property, disruption of wildlife, and DEATH.  It is especially toxic when contemplating Pit Bulls and other fighting dogs:  I.E. All dogs are good and Pit Bulls are dogs, ergo Pit Bulls are good.  Again, these dogs are NOT a product of nature.  In fact, NO pet dog is a product of nature!   Pits ARE created by human beings, for human beings, to fill the need for a weapon in legalized assault.  They are a carefully crafted biological weapon deployed to project intimidation and to injure others.  They are an invasive threat that is endangering our cities AND our natural areas!  Back in May I wrote about the threat that pet dogs pose to state park visitors, park property and wildlife.   To paraphrase “Your Quiet Neighbor” this THREAT needs to be PERCEIVED for what it IS. 

BTW if you want the FACTS about bears in FL, consider the State game and wildlife website. 

Dog Bless America!

Is “The Temple of the Dog” a true religion?  Sure, we can say “anything someone worships IS a religion”, but is that technically considered as such?   In the past, I wrote that the behavior I have observed on various internet forums and in real life may likely indicate a primitive religion.  When one takes the position that an animal is superior to a human being, and does not provide hard scientific proof of the matter, that presents a clear example of deification.  The legal and social leeway presented to dogs and dog owners indicates that many may consider the dog to be a sacred animal.

Opinions aside, if we are presented with a true religion that in turn presents some profound public policy issues and impacts, primarily issues related to separation of Church and State.   What does it mean to the rest of us if our neighbors and community leaders truly consider a dog a sacred animal?   That may depend on the “separation” codified in your jurisdiction, or if your jurisdiction has a state religion.

In the United States the general policy is separation of Church and State.   That more or less means the following:

-          We have no state religion.

-          The state does not direct church policy.

-          The church does not direct state policy.

-          In parallel, citizens have a right to change religion or to not follow any religion.

-          There is an implied freedom from religion.

-          Etc…

An establishment and recognition of a formal “Temple of the Dog” might indicate that harboring a dog is indeed a core civil right, as practitioners generally have a right to their objects of worship:  Holy texts, crucifixes, etc…

However, the above would also present the notion that we “non practitioners” have a core civil right to be free of such things.   Would they be able to demand that others wear a crucifix?  Fast on Saturdays?  Bow towards Mecca 5 times a day?  May I stand in my neighbor’s yard and read the Bible into a bullhorn at 3am?  If my religion requires human sacrificial rites, may I kidnap and kill someone as part of that ceremony?  This separation indicates that participation in a particular religion grants NO passes on bad behavior NOR does that participation empower someone to control the personal lives of others.

Now, there are several dog owners in my community that I believe deserve to be “sacrificed” but somehow I think that would just get me into a lot of trouble.

If a dog is indeed a religious symbol, that may also restrict doggy access to public places and government properties.

Separation of Church and state also indicates that, for the most part, the electorates do not want executives, bureaucrats, law enforcement, and legislators making policy decisions based on religious doctrine.  Essentially, NO, we are not going to force everyone by law to go to church on Sunday.  Rabbis are not allowed to go on shooting sprees at the mall strictly because of who they are and so forth.    This is by no means a perfect mechanism, as the majority of people have some sort of spiritual beliefs and those are going to influence the actions and decisions of those same people.  However, it’s generally understood that government agencies are by definition secular institutions.

A couple of months ago I wrote about the systemic corruption of our AC and law enforcement agencies and how that is a major contribution to the Animal Uncontrol problem.  Essentially, our AC and law enforcement agencies have been taken over and thoroughly corrupted by animal rights and owners rights fanatics.  These people put the interests of individual dogs ahead of human rights, health and safety.   They have a strict “dogs first” policy.  When the interests of an individual dog intersect with the human rights, health and safety, they do whatever they can to make sure the dog wins!

So, why have a “dogs first” policy?  Well, if one considers a dog to be a sacred animal, then that is the only policy one CAN have!  If a dog is barking all night or attacking someone, you CAN’T take action as the incident in question was by definition an Act of Dog!   If you get mauled by a dog when fetching the mail, the state can’t intervene as that was, literally, Dog’s Will!   You must Thank Dog that you were not killed!   It is clear that you must be a horrible person who has sinned terribly to bring the Wrath of Dog down upon you!!  You must repent, and Pray to Dog for forgiveness!  If you will not repent, then Dog Damn you!

On a more serious note, the above presents an interesting policy situation as we very well may have executives, legislators, bureaucrats, and law enforcement (all paid by our taxes) making public health and safety decisions based primarily on religious doctrine.  This clearly violates both the spirit and intent of Separation of Church and State.  It is fundamentally no different than a Pagan Sheriff tolerating human sacrifice based on his/her religious beliefs.  Such a “policy” is objectionable to any civilized person regardless of their belief structure.

Have a great weekend everyone and Dog Bless you all!