I felt compelled to write this even though it is a little off topic for my blog.
Julie was a "pit nutter" to begin with. She was regular on some blogs I am addicted to regarding pit bulls. Slowly she saw the light, the messages that these blogs were conveying about pits. Julie owned a pit and defended pits like a "pit bull". Once her eyes were open, she started a blog,
http://bslforpitsmakessense.blogspot.com/
because she saw that BSL makes sense afterall. She saw the cruelty that pits suffer and realized that BSL would help to eliminate this cruelty as well as help keep people safe. She has put together a wonderful blog written from the viewpoint of a pit bull owner. Also she began to share the problems she had with her own pit, the things that she did to try to overcome the genetics written into pit bulls, and the failures of what she tried. In other words, she did everything she could for this dog.
August 5th she made the decision to euthanize her pit rather than continue to put herself, her family, and her other dogs in danger from the escalating aggressiveness of her pit. I just couldn't let this go by because I realize what courage it took for her to reach this decision. She has shown a strength that not many people have. Instead of taking the easy way out by re-homing her pit, she chose to do the right thing. It's never the right thing pawning off your problem onto someone else just to avoid the hurt and pain.
Julie, I grieve with you and applaud you as a courageous person. You've now earned my trust and in addition, admiration. You have done the right thing and never doubt that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Julie, I know how hard this is. Thank you for being brave.
I have had to make this kind of decision myself. But I knew that this kind of behavior is just not normal. The dog's mind is diseased, and I could not live with myself if I just clung to hope that someone or someone's pet would not get harmed by my dog. Hope would not prevent this, and neither would all the training, behavior modification in the world.
It also would have been extremely irresponsible of me to hand on my dog to a deranged No Kill type to put in a home to hurt someone. Or to give to some dog fighter or twisted person to harm.
Before No Kill, this is the kind of decision that responsible people who truly loved animals made- dangerous dogs need to be humanely euthanized. Now, the No Kill fanatics try to convince others that endangering others is acceptable. It never will be.
Love cannot cure this kind of mental disease that pit bull breeding has created. What a terrible thing these breeders have done. We all suffer because of it.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
honesty, another horrendous story for your pit bull attack blog.
http://www.
salisburypost.com/
News/071410-
potentially-dangerous-dog-hearing-
owner-Kimberly-
Hamilton-qcd
Anon, that was so well said. "No Kill" is contributing to what is happening to the pits, most definitely. It forces the shelters to lie about pits, to pimp them out in order to make space. Look at what happened to Skeldon, a person who realized that shelters should not be adopting out pits, dogs without a history. It's one thing to not know about a poodle from a shelter, quite another to not know about a pit. There's reasons why there are so many pits in the shelter. I always have said it doesn't take long to know why a dog ends up in the shelter once you get them out. Pits are turned loose or surrender after the neighbor's cat is killed or their child receive a bite, unreported.
Shelters and individuals did euthanize aggressive animals prior to "No Kill". I would bet that if you could find a study, you would see a correlation between the advent of the "No Kill" movement and the increase of pit attacks. Dogs were meant to be man's best friend, not their killers. "No Kill" is only about the animals, if they had their way, we would be the pets, not the animals. "No Kill" can't recognize suffering, either for the animals nor for the humans. It has just royally screwed up everything. So Julie is now a victim of "No Kill" as well. She fell for the rap of "No Kill" and now is suffering because of it.
Anon, I published the NFP because I want you to know that my attacks blog is about 2 months behind. I have had to spend my time fighting the Barnette appointment in LA but I assure you that all the stories are in my mailbox awaiting time for me to get done with Barnette. I fought along side of the ACO Guild in King County against that bitch for three long years and just when I thought it was finished, she pops her ugly head up in LA. Needless to say it is a fight also against the Whino. I am embarrassed that my blog is so far behind but stopping Barnette and exposing her is more important to me right now. Thanks for sending these attacks and I promised I will get them up ASAP. I have the best readers, I can't say that enough.
Hi Honesty, yes, I realized that. I hope I didm't create pressure. I just thought it could be added to the file for later inclusion. Thanks!
Oh no, Anon, it didn't create pressure, I just feel badly that it is behind at this point. Hang in there with me and it will be done. Just wanted to reassure you is all. Thanks again.
To HH and the others that commented
I want to thank you for your words of kindness, they mean so much to me.
Honesty helps, yes it is true, I was the dreaded Pit nutter... Honestly I can thank all of you (cd, dogsbite.org, etc.) for opening my eyes. I thought you all were crazy or something when I first started blogging with you, then my Pit Bull started acting weird and aggressive, and I couldn't figure out why. I started paying attention to what you were saying and it turned out to be true. Actually, she was showing signs of aggression way before I payed attention to them, I just chose to completely ignore them because she was my perfect little angel that could never do any wrong.
Not to boast, but like you said, it took a ton of courage to make a hard decision like the one I made. That dog was my princess! She had her own pink room with a real bed in it and everything! She was my best friend, and I had to be brave and let her go, no matter how bad it hurt. It was the right thing to do, it would have been very irresponsible of me not to do it. I did do everything for her, but all of that would not override her genetics. I consulted with many people about what to do (even though I knew, I just wanted to be reassured) and everyone said the same thing, you simply CANNOT keep a dog that is dangerous, and so I did what I had to do for safety.
She will be missed. We will always love her! I hope that I may be able to share my experience with other Pit Bull owners, and especially 'potential' Pit Bull owners.. Maybe I can stop them from going through something like what I went through. I cannot stress enough to people that you can't love the aggression out of them. I tried, and I got my heart broken.. But better to be my heart, then that crazy dog attacking or killing someone or something.
Julie, what can I say? Yes, you were a pain in the ass, you were like all other pit nutters. But us "pit haters" actually care more for the lives of the pit nutters than they care about themselves. We're trying to tell them about reality so they can be spared the hurt and pain that can and does come from the genetics of these dogs. All we actually want them to do is admit there is a problem with pits. When they can do that, then we can all join forces to bring about changes in the pits.
Pits are the most abuse breed, we don't want to see them abused either. But in order to stop it, there have to be laws directed at pits, not the owners. Owners don't come with a scarlett letter on their forehead telling us they own a pit. It only makes sense that the pits are targeted because they are identifiable.
Now that you have come out of your pit induced fog, you can see clearly that there is a problem. As a previous owner, why would you fight BSL? I certainly would not mind being told what precautions to take to keep my pit from escaping the yard, from walking in public safely (muzzling), etc. I would want others to feel more comfortable about having a pit in the neighborhood. With the way things are now, a pit owner is just asking for their pit to be poisoned, shot, etc. It will take an effort by the pit nutters to change the attitude of the public, either that or the pits will continue to be shot by the police, etc.
I think you can see by the response that us "pit haters" care. Unlike what you see from the pit nutters with their blaming the victims, blaming us, blaming everyone but themselves. They are their own worst enemies. If BSL and bans happen, it is their fault, not ours. We could sit back and it would happen anyway.
Again, I realize how much it took for you to make this decision and never regret it, it had to be done. Yes, it's hard to not like a pit bull with that big smile and wiggle butt. Until I found DogsBite I had said many times that I wanted to own a pit before I died. I credit DBO with saving my life. I, too, had drank the koolaid of Karen Delise. I have "rescued" thousands of dogs, picking them up as strays off the road and never had a problem with a pit. Therefore I thought they were people friendly. But that is deceiving, the pits are deceiving. They can win your heart in a flash. You have to accept what they were bred for, their genetics, their bloodlines. That is where we have failed the pit bulls, making them into monsters.
What you are doing now will help the future, you've sacrificed to do that. You may not have been able to save your pit, but you could make the difference in saving other pits. That's a wonderful memorial to your dog. Remember the good times with her but never forget the bad, it is what inspires you to continue.
"I would bet that if you could find a study, you would see a correlation between the advent of the "No Kill" movement and the increase of pit attacks."
In your educated opinion, when did the "No Kill" movement really work its way into shelters?
Turkey, a brief history of no kill, note the small letters. There is a difference between no kill as a goal and "No Kill", the movement.
No kill has been around for awhile. It was a marketing term designed to separate the private, closed door, limited admission shelters of non profits from the open door public shelters usually run by a government entity. Because private shelters usually only accept those pets they deem "adoptable" and turn away those they deem "unadoptable". These turn aways are the ones that end up in the open door shelters, the rejects of the no kill shelters.
Somewhere along the line, about the beginning of the 90's, this term changed and became a movement instead against the open door shelters with Nathan Winograd being the self proclaimed guru of this movement. The SF SPCA had a lot to do with this confusion. Actually SF has never been no kill because the SPCA refused to take pit bulls from the open door shelter.
Enter the Whino (Winograd) and now it becomes "No Kill" at the end of the 90's. His movement takes away the guilt of the public because he proclaims there is no pet overpopulation, therefore the decision to kill animals is strictly a decision made by the open door shelters. The Whino has this "formula" that he thinks shows there are plenty of homes available and euthanizing is done because open door shelters love to kill animals. I know from experience that those who buy pets will not go to the shelters for a purebred even if they are available. And those who adopt from a shelter do so because they feel it is right and want to save a life. So no matter what you do you will not get these to intermingle. Many people buy a purebred so they can get those papers on them and start breeding themselves. After all it is easy to do, brings in money, and it doesn't need to be report for taxes. Easy money.
The Whino started the "bad rap" business with the pits. Since pits make up the majority of dogs in the shelters, it meant that he could scheme with the "rescues" to put pressure on the shelters. It is nothing more than part of his scheme to take over. He sees the money from the Maddie's Fund, the money from HSUS, and he wants it. He is power hungry, the little man symdrome. Pits make up 58% of the euthanization in the shelters as you know. So it is easy for him to point fingers because of the euthanization of these pits. His "bad rap" makes the shelters look bad to the officials for euthanizing all these wonderful pets (pit bulls). And he wants to make shelters look bad, means he can be paid for consulting, etc. So in response the shelters now feel they have to adopt out the pits, actually pimp out the pits in order to avoid having him shake his finger at them. If they go against him, then he yells that they just want to kill, kill, kill. So shelters are caught in a dilemma, damn if they do and damn if they don't.
Then along came the "Savior" rescues, saving those pits. Can you see how this meant an increase in adopting out pits with no histories behind them to know if they have been bred for a bad or good temperament? As we know, street pits have probably been bred strictly for more aggression in backyards.
Continued....
Turkey, a brief history of no kill, note the small letters. There is a difference between no kill as a goal and "No Kill", the movement.
No kill has been around for awhile. It was a marketing term designed to separate the private, closed door, limited admission shelters of non profits from the open door public shelters usually run by a government entity. Because private shelters usually only accept those pets they deem "adoptable" and turn away those they deem "unadoptable". These turn aways are the ones that end up in the open door shelters, the rejects of the no kill shelters.
Somewhere along the line, about the beginning of the 90's, this term changed and became a movement instead against the open door shelters with Nathan Winograd being the self proclaimed guru of this movement. The SF SPCA had a lot to do with this confusion. Actually SF has never been no kill because the SPCA refused to take pit bulls from the open door shelter.
Enter the Whino (Winograd) and now it becomes "No Kill" at the end of the 90's. His movement takes away the guilt of the public because he proclaims there is no pet overpopulation, therefore the decision to kill animals is strictly a decision made by the open door shelters. The Whino has this "formula" that he thinks shows there are plenty of homes available and euthanizing is done because open door shelters love to kill animals. I know from experience that those who buy pets will not go to the shelters for a purebred even if they are available. And those who adopt from a shelter do so because they feel it is right and want to save a life. So no matter what you do you will not get these to intermingle. Many people buy a purebred so they can get those papers on them and start breeding themselves. After all it is easy to do, brings in money, and it doesn't need to be report for taxes. Easy money.
The Whino started the "bad rap" business with the pits. Since pits make up the majority of dogs in the shelters, it meant that he could scheme with the "rescues" to put pressure on the shelters. It is nothing more than part of his scheme to take over. He sees the money from the Maddie's Fund, the money from HSUS, and he wants it. He is power hungry, the little man symdrome. Pits make up 58% of the euthanization in the shelters as you know. So it is easy for him to point fingers because of the euthanization of these pits. His "bad rap" makes the shelters look bad to the officials for euthanizing all these wonderful pets (pit bulls). And he wants to make shelters look bad, means he can be paid for consulting, etc. So in response the shelters now feel they have to adopt out the pits, actually pimp out the pits in order to avoid having him shake his finger at them. If they go against him, then he yells that they just want to kill, kill, kill. So shelters are caught in a dilemma, damn if they do and damn if they don't.
Then along came the "Savior" rescues, saving those pits. Can you see how this meant an increase in adopting out pits with no histories behind them to know if they have been bred for a bad or good temperament? As we know, street pits have probably been bred strictly for more aggression in backyards.
Continued....
Turkey, a brief history of no kill, note the small letters. There is a difference between no kill as a goal and "No Kill", the movement.
No kill has been around for awhile. It was a marketing term designed to separate the private, closed door, limited admission shelters of non profits from the open door public shelters usually run by a government entity. Because private shelters usually only accept those pets they deem "adoptable" and turn away those they deem "unadoptable". These turn aways are the ones that end up in the open door shelters, the rejects of the no kill shelters.
Somewhere along the line, about the beginning of the 90's, this term changed and became a movement instead against the open door shelters with Nathan Winograd being the self proclaimed guru of this movement. The SF SPCA had a lot to do with this confusion. Actually SF has never been no kill because the SPCA refused to take pit bulls from the open door shelter.
Enter the Whino (Winograd) and now it becomes "No Kill" at the end of the 90's. His movement takes away the guilt of the public because he proclaims there is no pet overpopulation, therefore the decision to kill animals is strictly a decision made by the open door shelters. The Whino has this "formula" that he thinks shows there are plenty of homes available and euthanizing is done because open door shelters love to kill animals. I know from experience that those who buy pets will not go to the shelters for a purebred even if they are available. And those who adopt from a shelter do so because they feel it is right and want to save a life. So no matter what you do you will not get these to intermingle. Many people buy a purebred so they can get those papers on them and start breeding themselves. After all it is easy to do, brings in money, and it doesn't need to be report for taxes. Easy money.
The Whino started the "bad rap" business with the pits. Since pits make up the majority of dogs in the shelters, it meant that he could scheme with the "rescues" to put pressure on the shelters. It is nothing more than part of his scheme to take over. He sees the money from the Maddie's Fund, the money from HSUS, and he wants it. He is power hungry, the little man symdrome. Pits make up 58% of the euthanization in the shelters as you know. So it is easy for him to point fingers because of the euthanization of these pits. His "bad rap" makes the shelters look bad to the officials for euthanizing all these wonderful pets (pit bulls). And he wants to make shelters look bad, means he can be paid for consulting, etc. So in response the shelters now feel they have to adopt out the pits, actually pimp out the pits in order to avoid having him shake his finger at them. If they go against him, then he yells that they just want to kill, kill, kill. So shelters are caught in a dilemma, damn if they do and damn if they don't.
Then along came the "Savior" rescues, saving those pits. Can you see how this meant an increase in adopting out pits with no histories behind them to know if they have been bred for a bad or good temperament? As we know, street pits have probably been bred strictly for more aggression in backyards.
Continued....
Does this help you to see the connection? I know many people in many shelters all over the country. They are scared of adopting out pits but feel they have to because otherwise the "No Kill'ers" will raise hell. They also go along with the "bad rap" bit because otherwise they can't get the pits adopted by telling the truth.
Just like the credibility the Whino has given the breeders by saying the is no problem with pet overpopulation, the Whino is giving credibility to the breeding of these aggressive pits in the backyards of this country. His movement, despite what he claims, has set us back. Animal People acknowledged last year in an edition that a decade of focusing on adoptions, the "No Kill" movement, has resulted in a backward movement from what was happening. We can't adopt ourselves out of this, the focus has to be on reducing the population. It is too easy for the wrong people to own a pet and we need to equalize supply and demand. Actually it should be more difficult to obtain a pet rather than more easy. We now have shelters giving away pets for free. This is a disposable society, free means throw away. We want to increase the value of pets, more demand than supply, so they become more valuable.
I hope this explains a little because there is so much more to this problem. Feel free to ask any more questions.
"Somewhere along the line, about the beginning of the 90's, this term changed and became a movement "
I strongly feel that even more than a movement, it became a BUSINESS at this time.
People like Nathan Winograd were attracted to this marketing ploy because they felt they could profit from it, as well as get attention and stoke enormous egos.
At some point, when the Maddie's Fund was started, the No Kill BUSINESS people latched on to that family who started the foundation and filled their heads with marketing gimmicks and false promises and claims.
Wherever there is money, there is corruption and parasites to try to feed off it. Unfortunately when it came to No Kill, this scam also led to animals getting hurt and killed hideously, and the advent of much suffering.
"he proclaims there is no pet overpopulation"
I feel that THIS particular scam started when Winograd was basically getting rejected by the humane movement (because people saw the flaws and suffering, and also the deceit, in his marketing plan) and then Nathan Winograd, in desperation, went into business with breeder lobbyists and breeders.
Nathan Winograd did NOT make up the "overpopulation is a myth" scam.
He got that directly from his new associates, the breeder community, including lobbying groups like AKC and puppy mill and dog fighting linked NAIA who had been using that lie for years to try to get breeders out of their responsibility and to try to oppose breeder laws.
They realized that they as breeders weren't getting this lie across, so they got Winograd to try to do it for them.
It of course is as ridiculous now as it was when the breeders were saying it.
But always notice that when the breeders are trying to promote Winograd, they will say this over and over again and put it in his mouth, to try to trick people.
Thank you Anon, you are so correct on all that. It is a business, scammers recognized that and it has been taken advantage of. It is no longer a goal, a noble goal, it is down and dirty. It has made the humane effort a very complicated thing and in my opinion, has done more harm to the animals that was necessary. The animals aren't even the issue with "No Kill", they really don't give a damn about the animals or they could see what damage they are doing. There's not very many people I can say I hate but I truly hate Nathan Winograd with a passion. Not only has he hurt the animals, but he has hurt a lot of good people, people who have the strength to do a dirty fucking job for the irresponsible public.
Thank you for the crash course - it does seem that the rise of no kill in the late 90s coincides with an increase in pit caused human deaths as well as an increase in the percentage of pit bulls in shelters. It would seem that before no kill, common sense prevailed and these dogs were generally not offered for adoption, certainly rehab programs and other such breed-specific benefits were not handed out like candy at a parade. When treated like all other dogs, adoption is usually not an option for pit bulls. Proper breed education would deter any adopters for the dogs that were deemed safe. So a combination of lying about pits and breed specific programs geared towards their adoption could only come about in a no kill environment.
Turkey, you said it in a nutshell. I have a post, a couple earlier than this last one, with two articles. One article shows a timeline with the installation of the Whino's program in 04-5 in Philly and an increase in hoarding. Seems before 04 the PSPCA saw one to two hoarders a year and after 04 they are seeing one to two a month.
The other article shows a hoarder whom the PSPCA busted stating how she took animals from PACCA, the Whino's program. But she is taking fosters from the PSPCA who busted her. The PSPCA is run by Sue Crosby, a Whinonette, and they are having board members leave, blah,blah,blah.
Like you Honesty I am watching Barnette...... who is Phylis Doughty and do you think sh is on the right track ?
Dumbfounded, You'll have to come again. Are you speaking of Phyllis Dougherty, the one Ed M speaks of on his blog? And what track is she on?
Pit bulls were the BIG problem for No Kill.
How can you claim that your euthanasia numbers are going down and there's no overpopulation IF your kennel is filled with pit bulls, and more are coming in all the time?
It's easy for the private No Kills. They just limit the animals they take in. That's what Winograd did in Tompkins County New York. He just refused to take pit bulls. So did Brenda Barnette at Seattle Humane Society. Then they can kind of, sort of get away with lying about being "successful" and with fooling with their faked statistics because people don't know they are refusing to take dogs that die elsewhere!
But then No Kill went into BUSINESS, and people like Winograd wanted to get their greedy little hands on lots and lots of taxpayer money. They don't have to fundraise. They just rape the taxpayer for their con game.
Problem, though! THEN, when it's animal control, you HAVE to take the pit bulls and NO DECENT HOME WANTS THEM and NO ONE WANTS TO FOSTER THEM.
Plus they take up more space, more money and more other breeds of dog die because pit bulls are crowding out the room and using up all the money for anyone else.
So the statistics-conning that Winograd and the rest do gets screwed.
So now they have a problem. No Kill is failing in an obvious way that everyone can SEE and COUNT, and they can't hide it anymore, so they need a new plan.
What's the new plan?
Best Friends figured it out, and Ledy VanKavage at ASPCA, etc. START PROMOTING PIT BULLS! Start lying about them, start pretending they are pets, start ignoring or lying about the FACT that they are fighting dogs specifically bred to kill, ignore the fact they are the top killer of people especially children, conceal the fact that they are killing and maiming other dogs and pets in record numbers. FAKE IT! HIDE the fact that pit bulls are dangerous breeds for anyone to have.
Get involved with pit bull breeder and dog fighter lobbies and start churning out propaganda, also known as LIES, to hide the very awful problems that pit bulls have, the blood, the death, the dangers!
Pretend pit bulls are "service dogs" or "nanny dogs" when of course the reality is that pit bulls are and always have been one thing only. FIGHTING DOGS.
Even the breeders that have been breeding pit bulls for years, when they are being honest, all say that pit bulls ARE NOT PETS. They don't belong around other animals or children. They don't belong around people. Even the BREEDERS get attacked by their own dogs sometimes!
But No Kill is on a marketing campaign built upon lies and deception. They try to convince Jane Doe they should take a pit bull home to be a nanny to 4 children. Play on her emotions. Use her. Just lie to her. Use marketing tricks. Use public relations scams. Get people in the media to lie too.
Hey, it worked for Big Tobacco for a long time!
Remember Virginia Slims? Telling women they are groovy, fashionable feminists if they smoke VS?
Well, now the same kind of marketers and con artists tell women (and the men who get tricked too) that adopting a pit bull is charitable and being loving and good. Tell them pit bulls are just victims, and that love is all is takes to fix them.
It's called CONSUMER FRAUD.
When a marketer is faced with a build up of unwanted, defective, flawed, unsafe merchandise, they just START A MARKETING CAMPAIGN to hide all these flaws and create myths to get people to buy the defective merchandise.
(Unless of course there is regulation, like the recent regulation in the toy industry with the lead-painted toys that were making kids sick. The marketers would have kept shilling that dangerous junk forever unless regulation had happened. That's why No Kill hates regulation! Then they can't shill dangerous, deadly dogs to unknowing people, also known as victims)
And this is all about No Kill BUSINESS marketing. No Kill doesn't "love" animals or want to "help" animals. No Kill USES animals to make money. It's ALL ABOUT MONEY for No Kill, just like the breeders.
That's how the No Kill business thinks it can market its way out of this problem and keep faking the statistics, so they can keep taking over animal control and get rich off the taxpayer's money.
And because No Kill sold out to breeders and dog fighters, they can't address the only thing that will truly deal with the problem. BREEDER REGULATION! Better animal control laws. Breeder licensing. Mandatory spay neuter.
So the problem gets worse, the lies intensify, the No Kill business fanatics are desperate to keep their hands on the money and they start acting like terrorists, and people and pit bulls (and other pets) all suffer more and more.
NOW as people are mauled and killed, of course, the lawyers enter the picture, as they must in this case.
And the No Kills are getting sued.
Of course they STILL don't care because it is the TAXPAYER (or the DONORS, if it's private) that will pay out the lawsuit.
Then the non-pit bull dogs and cats, horses, etc get helped even less. The pit bulls take away all the money for the others!
Virtually everyone suffers with No Kill EXCEPT the No Kill charlatans that collect the MONEY for running it and pushing it.
People like Brenda Barnette, Ed Boks, Crosby, Rae, and the others MAKE A LOT OF MONEY off this game.
Thank you Anon, truth sounds better from someone else.
The shelters feel the pressure of these No Kill'ers and they lie, whatever, to get valuable space when they move out pits. It's damn if they do, and damn if they don't. They are caught between a rock and a hard space. If they don't pimp pits, the No Kill'ers come down on them, turn the public away from the shelters with their accusations, and thus cause the shelter animals to lose their homes. It ultimately hurts the very animals we are trying to save. The Whino is either clueless or a cunting, evil man taking advantage of the gullibility of the humane community, hoarders, "Savior" rescues, all for the benefit of the dogmen and breeders. Hollywood can't write this drama.
Honesty, is there a way you can devote a post to rescue groups? (You know, what to look for, what to look out for, how they operate...that sort of thing.)
I think it would definitely be helpful for anyone who would like to do the right thing and adopt a homeless pet.
It would also be helpful for those of us new to politics of the animal welfare world, too. :)
Thanks, Honesty!
I can do that. Right now is a bit busy with Brenda Barnette coming to LA, my attack blog is only 2 months behind. But give me a bit and I will work on it. Great idea by the way, putting it all in one lump.
subercYes, I speak of the one on Ed's slog. ( Can't really call it a blog ) It seems he has singled out women for attack before and I wondered if this was the same thing. Or is she really just an animal lover who believes in laws ?
I read Ed's slog and seems to me that she is an animal lover that is in touch with reality. Looked up a few other things too and I have to say she understands the reality, not the fantasy world Ed is living in. I firmly believe in household limits. Can't believe LA would tolerate more animals. Philly has a limit of 12, that's entirely too much for the close quarters they live in. Still could not make the Whino's "No Kill" work with those limits. When will these fools learn?
read Ed's apology to her after the cease and desist from her lawyer, lead on his blog.....
Thanks Dumbfounded!!! Looks like Eddie got put in his place, wherever that is because it sure isn't in reality land. Cudos to Phyllis for taking a stand. The more I see from this woman, the more I like what she stands for.
And I forgot, she did mention this blog on an article she did in opposing views. I've gotten quite a number of hits from it.
Good for you! Keep up the good work, keep us informed.
"us new to politics of the animal welfare world, too. :)"
I thought about what you write, and I thought it's funny (not in a good way) but it used to be that the sleaziest thing you'd probably find was that some breeder lobbyist like the NAIA and AKC types or puppy millers were pretending to be advocating for animals, and instead pushing for animal abuser profits or just fighting against regulation.
The world has gotten so weird that now it's not only those types, but actually some people in the animal welfare world that hurt animals and claim they are helping them.
I never thought I'd see the day that hoarders would try to legitimize their abuse by calling themselves No Kill sanctuaries. It seems like they are actually worse than the puppy mills these days!
Or that people in animal shelters would be putting pit bulls in cages to rip apart other dogs, or would be adopting them out to rip apart animals in their new homes.
Or that something like Best Friends would now be in there fighting for pit bull breeders and dog fighters to be able to keep hurting dogs. To think I ever supported them, I feel ashamed of myself. But they didn't start out that way, but Bad is where they've taken themselves.
Of course, when it comes to Winograd No Kill, the sleazy breeder lobbyists and puppy millers are hiding behind those people and doing the same old things, but still, how can things even possibly get better for animals now when the people who should be the good guys are acting like or with the bad guys?
Ed Muzika. Does he even have a clue? Or is he just doing the lobbying front thing too?
He has to know that he is working for Rick Berman/AKC/puppy mill type interests with his blog. Does he?
"Thwart Progressive Animal Reform"
What Ed means is, thwart the puppy millers, dog fighters, NAIA, Rick Berman, and all the others that Winograd is now involved with to oppose regulation so animal profiteers can continue to abuse animals and make money easily without laws.
That's why the breeders and puppy millers oppose things like animal limits. They mean less abuse, and the breeders would have to get licensed and pay taxes, and tax cheating is the name of the game when it comes to breeding.
Does Muzika care that Winograd is lobbying for the Rick Bermans and AKC puppy mills? Does Muzika care that he himself is helping animal abusers and profiteers out?
I mean this is a guy who had some cats, right? He never actually did anything for animals, right? And now there is Rick Berman inspired stuff puffing out of him?
This makes me think that there are ulterior motives here. Is this another lobbyist getting supported by those types?
Brenda Barnette wants to up pet limits because her AKC breeder and puppy mill friends have wanted this done for some time.
Barnette wants higher pet limits because then her AKC and puppy mill friends could more easily CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES (they don't have to get licensed) and RUN PUPPY MILLS.
The dog fighters can also more easily run their businesses if pet limits are upped.
Brenda Barnette is working for the breeding industry, and enabling more abuse, more profits, more dog fighting, and more tax cheating.
Exactly as predicted, Winograd and the breeders etc pushed Barnette so that the BREEDERS and DOG FIGHTERS and PUPPY MILLS could make money more easily as Barnette tries to change laws that cramp their style.
Tax fraud and tax cheating and animal abuse goes up immediately when pet limits are raised, as does dog fighting and puppy milling. Hoarding gets out of control.
And they know it.
And does anyone need any more proof that TNR (Trap, Neuter, Release) has some serious, bad problems?
Ed Muzika says it himself.
"Then, Jimmy, the homeless man I had been helping feeding about 45 cats just moved away to Sacramento. I had been giving him about $100 worth of cat food and medicine a month. Jimmy had to move out of his tent in Northridge by August 17, or go to jail. He has been to court a dozen times during the past 14 months.
Now I am feeding four of Jimmy's colonies of cats as well as the three I had been feeding. I am trying to find local help to take over some of the responsibility."
This is what people HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS, the very people that Ed attacks.
What happens when the "caretaker" dies, leaves, gets sick, goes to jail, moves, loses interest, etc, etc
Then, THE CATS GET SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is Muzika dumb or just slimy?
This quote is rather ridiculous "Who gives a f..k if she were a breeder, breeder sympathizer, etc.? I just don't get what all the heat is about."
Well, maybe because the "breeders" (the AKC and their lobbyists, and the dog fighters that lobby with the AKC lobbyists) support ANIMAL ABUSE, support PUPPY MILLS, and support rampant overbreeding without regulation which is part of the reason there are so damn many animals in the shelters without homes.
And Barnette isn't just a "sympathizer." She's a LOBBYIST FOR THE AKC. She lobbies FOR abusive treatment of animals, puppy mills, buying dogs instead of adopting them, and rampant overbreeding without regulation that creates the very real overpopulation stuffing the shelters.
A guy who claims to love animals supporting someone who lobbies FOR animal abuse, who thinks animal abuse is great as long as breeders make money from it.
Have you seen one of the AKC's recent useless books? It's all BUY, BUY, BUY a dog from a breeder, and then telling people that dogs in shelters have issues and are problems.
Liars that they are. Thanks to AKC bad breeding, the problem dogs are the AKC dogs, and that is the show dogs as well as the puppy mill dogs. The worst behavior and physical problems in the canine world- that's what AKC breeding has created.
Honesty, I have a question for you.
Some of these No Kill wackos are pushing this
"shelters can no longer kill an animal when there are available cages or the animals can share a cage or kennel with another one"
Everyone knows that pit bulls should NEVER be caged with another animal. Even the so-called "friendly" pit bulls have a high prey drive and kill other animals. Jere Alexander did that in Fulton County Georgia and people would come in the next day to find the poor dog caged with the pit bull killed and in pieces and vblood all over the walls.
Ed Boks had the same thing happening in California before he was fired.
So are the No Kill wackos now trying to force shelters to cage pit bulls with other kinds of dogs, to kill other kinds of dogs?
Isn't this animal abuse?
Is this how they are getting the statistics for euthanasia down now. just let the pit bulls kill the non-pit bulls? They sound desperate and so cruel.
No Kill kills more animals, the Hayden's Law, Oreo's Law style.
Winograd should be held accountable for each of these dead animals. This is what he says shelters should be doing, giving animals to people like this
http://www.
bakersfield.
com/news/
local/
x2120045888/
Kern-released
-animals-to-
woman-now-
accused
-of-cruelty
A "respected" rescue vouched for that killer hoarder and told Kern County she was fine!
NO KILL KILLS MORE ANIMALS IN TERRIBLE WAYS! Nathan Winograd and the No Killers just kill & kill. Winograd and his terrorist No Killers sue, but then they disappear and let the hoarders take over.
"The situation in Tulare illustrates the difficulty faced by Kern County animal control officials who are tasked with collecting unwanted animals but also trying to reduce the number of those animals they must regularly euthanize.
"We're caught in between," Shaw said.
Several years ago, Kern County was sued for not working with rescues and for euthanizing animals early. So it has pursued working with rescue groups more aggressively.
And in recent years, rescue groups have taken thousands of unwanted animals out of the county shelter before they can be euthanized.
But the county runs the risk, Shaw said, of inadvertently releasing animals to people who will not care for them properly."
Think about this Anon, as long as the shelters have problems, the Whino thinks he is assured of a job, job security is what he wants. Why not put another dog in with the pits and have them kill them? Keeps those euthanasia numbers low. Also it gives the Whino something to complain about.
And Ed M. doesn't have a clue, he is too stupid to be a front of anything. He loved Boks and it took an act of God to get him off that. Did he learn a lesson? Not hardly. In fact he has jumped into bed with the ADL-LA, the ones condemning him previously for his love affair with Boks. He has another blog "It is not Real" which is more appropriate because the world he is living in is defintely not real.
Honestly, Ed has no idea that his blog is being used as a weapon against TNR in other areas. We read all this horror stories of abandoned colonies it hardly makes other cities went to adopt the same program. I wish BB would invite BB down to be her assistant and then they could both go to HELL.
Post a Comment