I see hits everyday searching for Spadaro so finally I have an update for you guys.
The judge granted her another thirty (30) days to remove forty (40) adult dogs from the property. He added the following oral orders to her to be completed by the next hearing date of May 12, 2010:
1) Every dog is to be individually marked;
2) All mandated paperwork such as neutering and vaccinations are to be available;
3) All unspayed females are to be segmented from all unneutered males;
4) There is to be a reduction from the current 159 dogs of 40 adult dogs in the next 30 days before the next hearing.
In the new criminal complaint that was filed in January 2010 with the District Attorney’s Office, Spadaro was arrested on one (1) felony count for failing to provide proper veterinary care to a dog that was housed at the West Paw Kennel. She was arrested on March 25, 2010 on this criminal complaint and spent approximately eight (8) hours in jail before being released.
Also there is an article.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_W_wspadaro31.4393ba6.html
I have heard that Spadaro was hit by a truck a few months ago and is in a wheelchair. Payback is hell, Charlotte. Karma will get you every time.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Lies Flow Like Water
RECENT UPDATE: This just in and it shows another of the Whino's lies. San Francisco has never been no kill, they have always euthanized pit bulls because the SF SPCA won't take them out of the shelter. Yet, the Whino proclaims it to be, just another of his delusions of grandeur. http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Animal-Rights-Activists-Debate-San-Francisco%C3%83-%C3%82-%C3%82-/6760839 “The public really needs to be aware that this is traditionally not a no-kill city, but it is within our reach to achieve that goal.”
All my readers know that there is no love affair between me and Ed Boks, former director of Animal Control in LA. If you unfamiliar with Ed Boks, then google his name, his charades are too long to put on here.
However, Boks has finally clarified his stance on mandatory spay/neuter that the Whino has used to fight MSN. In typical Whino fashion, he has again spun another tail that is not true.
http://latopdog.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed-boks-e-mails-reveal-mandatory-sn-law.html
"Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy."
Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”
(Whino's quote)“Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’
Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."
What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.
Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”
Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.
It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill. "
Boks has the Whino's number for sure. Remember folks, that Patricia J. Ruland also discovered that the Whino misrepresents his credentials and that was in her story in the Austin Chronicle.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=696455
" As the current president of the national ASPCA and the architect of a nationwide pet-adoption program known as Mission: Orange, a mystified Sayres told the Chronicle he was the one who hired and then promoted Winograd to "operations director" in San Francisco – a job Sayres said Winograd held just a week and a half before resigning. That tenure makes Winograd's online promotion of his book – Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America – rather misleading. The promotional material describes Winograd as the former "director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA [New York], two of the most successful shelters in the nation.""
And because Ruland asked the "right" questions, the Whino knew exactly what he was in for and actually wrote a letter to her editor PRIOR to the release of the story, didn't even know what she was going to write. He did this because he realized that she was on to him. A reporter in Houston who asked the "right" questions was accused by the Whino of trying to blackmail him.
Nathan J. Winograd has no shame. Those who follow him have no sense.
All my readers know that there is no love affair between me and Ed Boks, former director of Animal Control in LA. If you unfamiliar with Ed Boks, then google his name, his charades are too long to put on here.
However, Boks has finally clarified his stance on mandatory spay/neuter that the Whino has used to fight MSN. In typical Whino fashion, he has again spun another tail that is not true.
http://latopdog.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed-boks-e-mails-reveal-mandatory-sn-law.html
"Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy."
Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”
(Whino's quote)“Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’
Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."
What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.
Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”
Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.
It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill. "
Boks has the Whino's number for sure. Remember folks, that Patricia J. Ruland also discovered that the Whino misrepresents his credentials and that was in her story in the Austin Chronicle.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=696455
" As the current president of the national ASPCA and the architect of a nationwide pet-adoption program known as Mission: Orange, a mystified Sayres told the Chronicle he was the one who hired and then promoted Winograd to "operations director" in San Francisco – a job Sayres said Winograd held just a week and a half before resigning. That tenure makes Winograd's online promotion of his book – Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America – rather misleading. The promotional material describes Winograd as the former "director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA [New York], two of the most successful shelters in the nation.""
And because Ruland asked the "right" questions, the Whino knew exactly what he was in for and actually wrote a letter to her editor PRIOR to the release of the story, didn't even know what she was going to write. He did this because he realized that she was on to him. A reporter in Houston who asked the "right" questions was accused by the Whino of trying to blackmail him.
Nathan J. Winograd has no shame. Those who follow him have no sense.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Nutters and No Kill'ers Aren't the Brightest Ones on The Block
Just ran across another pit nutter blog and seems she doesn't understand why someone who has worked all their lives to stop the euthanasia in shelters for time and space is exposing "No Kill". She gave a link to my blog (not the brightest thing to do considering she doesn't like what I have to say) and I can thank her for that because it brings more people here for a correct education.
Well, let me explain to you. There is a huge difference between stopping euthanasia for time and space and "No Kill". First note the use of capital letters. "No Kill" is a man's personal agenda, an evil program that when adopted means that animals are in jeopardy of even more suffering than normal. Example is the Philly shelter. The Whino bragged on Philly and his hand picked management staff, that is until he got wind of possible cruelty/neglect charges. Then, like the snake he is, he turned on his own people in order to save his ass. If you don't know about Philly, then do a search on this blog for the postings.
"No Kill" and "no kill" are not one in the same. "No Kill" means crate 'em, and stack 'em. In the hallways, in the lobbies of the shelters, in ventilation ducts (i.e. Doug Rae in Indy), in other words, overcrowding. Do I need to explain what that accomplishes? "No Kill" is the darling of hoarders and hoarding is reported to be on the rise, wonder why? Shelters are being forced by this movement into pushing the animals out the door, not into taking the time to do better adoptions, but setting up the adopting family and the adopted pet for failure.
Animal People News is reporting that after a decade of focusing on adoptions (No Kill) that we are going backwards. Euthanasia is going up, impounds are going up. "No Kill" is taking the focus off spay/neuter, contrary to what you may think. Cities and counties are forced by these crazed "No Kill'ers" to spend money instead on medical, expansion, lengthy stays and leaving less money for spay/neuter.
The Hayden Act in California, the worse piece of legislation ever, demands that shelters release animals to anyone who CLAIMS to be a rescue and they don't have to be a 501c3. So when a hoarder wants to take animals out, they invoke the Hayden and out the door they go with the animals. Another point about the Hayden is how it has killed more adoptable animals than before it's passage. Here's how it works. Fluffy is at the end of it's time but Spike comes in and there's no more room. Fluffy loses because his time is up so Spike can move in. Now Spike is a nasty pit bull but can he be put down, no. He's allowed to take up kennel space until his time is up and of course, he ain't adoptable. So now two dogs have lost their lives instead of one. Before the Hayden, Spike would have been put down and Fluffy could enjoy continuing to look for a forever home. Keep in mind that in the vast majority of shelters, they will not kennel another dog with a pit bull. Fluffy had roommates and took less space.
To this misguided blogger, there's a difference between "No Kill" and no kill. No kill is a noble goal that we all strive for. "No Kill" is one small man's quest to be popular. "No Kill" preys on the gullible, relies on people following blindly, relies on intimidation to silence the non profit rescues who would speak against it, and overall, contributes to the suffering of shelter animals. If you rely on donations, you don't need the Whino attacking and calling you an "animal murderer" like he does. Just because a rescue calls itself no kill doesn't mean that they are "No Kill".
Can some shelters be a true no kill? Yes, they can. I have visited some. I know of one that very rarely euthanizes for time and space, a lovely shelter, lots of volunteers, sitting right in town, an attractive building. I could not find one staff nor one volunteer who knew the Whino's name. And what I loved when I got to these small shelters is that no one has ever heard of Winograd, much less follows his program. Why can they be no kill? Several factors. Usually has to do with the spirit of the community and the size of that community. Getting into the larger communties such as LA, Indy, Philly presents quite a different story. There are no close community ties, people are struggling just to survive.
What these smaller shelters in these close communties have shown me is that they are quite capable of figuring out what to do without the Whino's input. I've said all along that the Whino is not bringing anything new to the table. We've known how to be no kill for decades. But you don't just wake up one morning and say "Stop the Killing". It takes work and the "No Kill'ers" are lazy.
The only way that "No Kill" makes sense to me is if I look at it from the prospective of being a breeder. That's why the breeders love this movement. "No Kill" says there is no pet overpopulation thus giving credibility to more breeding. Of course, we know the pit nutters love this program because it says that pit bulls get a "bad rap". Just go to almost any breeding forum or pit fighting forum and see how they push the Whino. Do some research on those organizations that push the Whino, the very people that we fight against the most part. Plus it takes away the guilt from the public about their role in all of this.
Under "No Kill" let's have that litter and when they get big enough to start being a problem, take them to the no kill shelter. You can tell the kids that they won't be killed, they will find homes because there are plenty, and it will be a happy ending. Don't believe it? Check Rancho Cucamonga where their surrenders are higher than the entire county which has a much higher population. They were duped by "No Kill". The Whino told Rancho to build it and they will come, speaking of volunteers. Didn't happen, in fact, their volunteer hours went down. That meant they had to spend more money, taking away from spay/neuter, to hire more staff.
So my remark to this pit nutter/"No Kill"er" is that in my opinion you are the problem, not the solution.
Well, let me explain to you. There is a huge difference between stopping euthanasia for time and space and "No Kill". First note the use of capital letters. "No Kill" is a man's personal agenda, an evil program that when adopted means that animals are in jeopardy of even more suffering than normal. Example is the Philly shelter. The Whino bragged on Philly and his hand picked management staff, that is until he got wind of possible cruelty/neglect charges. Then, like the snake he is, he turned on his own people in order to save his ass. If you don't know about Philly, then do a search on this blog for the postings.
"No Kill" and "no kill" are not one in the same. "No Kill" means crate 'em, and stack 'em. In the hallways, in the lobbies of the shelters, in ventilation ducts (i.e. Doug Rae in Indy), in other words, overcrowding. Do I need to explain what that accomplishes? "No Kill" is the darling of hoarders and hoarding is reported to be on the rise, wonder why? Shelters are being forced by this movement into pushing the animals out the door, not into taking the time to do better adoptions, but setting up the adopting family and the adopted pet for failure.
Animal People News is reporting that after a decade of focusing on adoptions (No Kill) that we are going backwards. Euthanasia is going up, impounds are going up. "No Kill" is taking the focus off spay/neuter, contrary to what you may think. Cities and counties are forced by these crazed "No Kill'ers" to spend money instead on medical, expansion, lengthy stays and leaving less money for spay/neuter.
The Hayden Act in California, the worse piece of legislation ever, demands that shelters release animals to anyone who CLAIMS to be a rescue and they don't have to be a 501c3. So when a hoarder wants to take animals out, they invoke the Hayden and out the door they go with the animals. Another point about the Hayden is how it has killed more adoptable animals than before it's passage. Here's how it works. Fluffy is at the end of it's time but Spike comes in and there's no more room. Fluffy loses because his time is up so Spike can move in. Now Spike is a nasty pit bull but can he be put down, no. He's allowed to take up kennel space until his time is up and of course, he ain't adoptable. So now two dogs have lost their lives instead of one. Before the Hayden, Spike would have been put down and Fluffy could enjoy continuing to look for a forever home. Keep in mind that in the vast majority of shelters, they will not kennel another dog with a pit bull. Fluffy had roommates and took less space.
To this misguided blogger, there's a difference between "No Kill" and no kill. No kill is a noble goal that we all strive for. "No Kill" is one small man's quest to be popular. "No Kill" preys on the gullible, relies on people following blindly, relies on intimidation to silence the non profit rescues who would speak against it, and overall, contributes to the suffering of shelter animals. If you rely on donations, you don't need the Whino attacking and calling you an "animal murderer" like he does. Just because a rescue calls itself no kill doesn't mean that they are "No Kill".
Can some shelters be a true no kill? Yes, they can. I have visited some. I know of one that very rarely euthanizes for time and space, a lovely shelter, lots of volunteers, sitting right in town, an attractive building. I could not find one staff nor one volunteer who knew the Whino's name. And what I loved when I got to these small shelters is that no one has ever heard of Winograd, much less follows his program. Why can they be no kill? Several factors. Usually has to do with the spirit of the community and the size of that community. Getting into the larger communties such as LA, Indy, Philly presents quite a different story. There are no close community ties, people are struggling just to survive.
What these smaller shelters in these close communties have shown me is that they are quite capable of figuring out what to do without the Whino's input. I've said all along that the Whino is not bringing anything new to the table. We've known how to be no kill for decades. But you don't just wake up one morning and say "Stop the Killing". It takes work and the "No Kill'ers" are lazy.
The only way that "No Kill" makes sense to me is if I look at it from the prospective of being a breeder. That's why the breeders love this movement. "No Kill" says there is no pet overpopulation thus giving credibility to more breeding. Of course, we know the pit nutters love this program because it says that pit bulls get a "bad rap". Just go to almost any breeding forum or pit fighting forum and see how they push the Whino. Do some research on those organizations that push the Whino, the very people that we fight against the most part. Plus it takes away the guilt from the public about their role in all of this.
Under "No Kill" let's have that litter and when they get big enough to start being a problem, take them to the no kill shelter. You can tell the kids that they won't be killed, they will find homes because there are plenty, and it will be a happy ending. Don't believe it? Check Rancho Cucamonga where their surrenders are higher than the entire county which has a much higher population. They were duped by "No Kill". The Whino told Rancho to build it and they will come, speaking of volunteers. Didn't happen, in fact, their volunteer hours went down. That meant they had to spend more money, taking away from spay/neuter, to hire more staff.
So my remark to this pit nutter/"No Kill"er" is that in my opinion you are the problem, not the solution.
Crooks, Liars, Thieves, Cowards, and Pit Nutters AKA CDC
Oh how the pit nutters love to quote the CDC report. Wonder if they ever took the time to look up the authors of this report to see just what their motives are to oppose BSL. Many decisions have been made based on this biased report. Their names are in red since they have blood on their hands from opposing BSL.
Jeffery Sacks obviously feels that death by dog attacks are no big deal and therefore doesn't need to be considered when it comes to BSL. Tell that to the families that have lost their loved ones to an attack. "A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." Who really gives a damn about a chihuahua attack that requires a couple of stitches? And why doesn't he look at the severity of attacks? This guy is a joke.
Leslie Sinclair, DVM
In 1997, after an article titled, "Playing with pets can be doggone dangerous" appeared in the AAP News (American Academy of Pediatrics),1 Sinclair felt "compelled" to share her veterinary advice with the pediatrics community. In her argument of the old English sheepdog, Sinclair fails to point out that only one fatal sheepdog attack had been recorded in the HSUS registry of fatal attacks prior to 1997, versus 76 recorded fatal pit bull attacks in just a 20-year time span.
"The article was incorrect in asserting that there are "nonaggressive breeds" such as the old English sheepdog. According to the HSUS Dog Bite-Related Fatality Database, even this lovable breed of dog has been implicated in the death of a 7-year-old child."
In 1999, one year before the release of the CDC report, Sinclair is quoted in the article, "The Canine Companion, Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?" Sinclair states: "Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem." She adds the classic, "The Doberman pinscher was the "scary"2 dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s..." Once again, Sinclair neglects to cite the differences in the number of deaths attributed to each breed.
Julie Gilchrist, MD
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/employment/pdf/job_profile_pediatricians.pdf That simple realization brought Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician specializing in sports medicine, to CDC a decade ago.
Since when are dog bites part of sports medicine. Where's her credentials on dog bites? I couldn't find any.
“If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Obviously records from animal control and thousands of media reports aren't considered to be enough to instigate a scientific study. The CDC report did state (I haven't re-read it lately) that they were unable to determine if reproductive status has an impact on dog attacks due to a lack of record keeping. Animal control agencies don't keep information of reproductive status on dogs. So using Gilchrist's logic of no scientific data, where does Karen Delise fit in with her myth? And one also has to question the fact that if the CDC could not find this information, how did Delise come up with it?
Gail Golab
"Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers who don't address the real issue."
"...Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police."
As a seasoned veterinarian and PhD, Golab voices a striking distortion of the truth regarding how dog bites are recorded for statistical purposes. Dog bites are recorded by animal control officials, these same officials determine the breed of the offending dog, not the media, not the person bitten and not lawyers.
Randall Lockwood, PhD
Finally, on the day the CDC report was released, Lockwood calls the fatal dog attack problem a "people problem." Ironically, Lockwood's extensive past research about pit bulls was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. His research addresses the following genetic traits in pit bulls: Non-display of rising level of aggression and “surprise attacks”, higher tolerance to pain, tenacity in attacks, and leakage of human-aggressive pit bulls into the general population.
PG 135 of the Lockwood study:
"In the Lockwood & Lindy survey (1987), 42.7% of the Pit Bull attacks involved animals that were chained, fenced or inside prior to the incident. Another 14% involved the dogs jumping or breaking chains. For bites involving other breeds 26.7% were similiarly restrained but only 1% involved breaking restraint."
This man also likes to tell the story about his being "surprised" that a pit bull tried to attack him.
I don't know about you but I would say these folks are full of shit.
Jeffery Sacks obviously feels that death by dog attacks are no big deal and therefore doesn't need to be considered when it comes to BSL. Tell that to the families that have lost their loved ones to an attack. "A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." Who really gives a damn about a chihuahua attack that requires a couple of stitches? And why doesn't he look at the severity of attacks? This guy is a joke.
Leslie Sinclair, DVM
In 1997, after an article titled, "Playing with pets can be doggone dangerous" appeared in the AAP News (American Academy of Pediatrics),1 Sinclair felt "compelled" to share her veterinary advice with the pediatrics community. In her argument of the old English sheepdog, Sinclair fails to point out that only one fatal sheepdog attack had been recorded in the HSUS registry of fatal attacks prior to 1997, versus 76 recorded fatal pit bull attacks in just a 20-year time span.
"The article was incorrect in asserting that there are "nonaggressive breeds" such as the old English sheepdog. According to the HSUS Dog Bite-Related Fatality Database, even this lovable breed of dog has been implicated in the death of a 7-year-old child."
In 1999, one year before the release of the CDC report, Sinclair is quoted in the article, "The Canine Companion, Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?" Sinclair states: "Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem." She adds the classic, "The Doberman pinscher was the "scary"2 dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s..." Once again, Sinclair neglects to cite the differences in the number of deaths attributed to each breed.
Julie Gilchrist, MD
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/employment/pdf/job_profile_pediatricians.pdf That simple realization brought Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician specializing in sports medicine, to CDC a decade ago.
Since when are dog bites part of sports medicine. Where's her credentials on dog bites? I couldn't find any.
“If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Obviously records from animal control and thousands of media reports aren't considered to be enough to instigate a scientific study. The CDC report did state (I haven't re-read it lately) that they were unable to determine if reproductive status has an impact on dog attacks due to a lack of record keeping. Animal control agencies don't keep information of reproductive status on dogs. So using Gilchrist's logic of no scientific data, where does Karen Delise fit in with her myth? And one also has to question the fact that if the CDC could not find this information, how did Delise come up with it?
Gail Golab
"Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers who don't address the real issue."
"...Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police."
As a seasoned veterinarian and PhD, Golab voices a striking distortion of the truth regarding how dog bites are recorded for statistical purposes. Dog bites are recorded by animal control officials, these same officials determine the breed of the offending dog, not the media, not the person bitten and not lawyers.
Randall Lockwood, PhD
Finally, on the day the CDC report was released, Lockwood calls the fatal dog attack problem a "people problem." Ironically, Lockwood's extensive past research about pit bulls was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. His research addresses the following genetic traits in pit bulls: Non-display of rising level of aggression and “surprise attacks”, higher tolerance to pain, tenacity in attacks, and leakage of human-aggressive pit bulls into the general population.
PG 135 of the Lockwood study:
"In the Lockwood & Lindy survey (1987), 42.7% of the Pit Bull attacks involved animals that were chained, fenced or inside prior to the incident. Another 14% involved the dogs jumping or breaking chains. For bites involving other breeds 26.7% were similiarly restrained but only 1% involved breaking restraint."
This man also likes to tell the story about his being "surprised" that a pit bull tried to attack him.
I don't know about you but I would say these folks are full of shit.
Monday, April 5, 2010
More on Pit Bull Violence
It's time to ramp everything up a notch...More and more cities are tracking dog bite stats by breed and almost everytime Pit Bulls lead in biting incidents by a mile. Normally, these stories just fade of the front page and are forgotten while the pit Bull PR Machine spews lies that their breed is least likely to bite.
Ogden, Utah:
In 2008, pit bulls and pit bull mixes accounted for about 20 percent of the dog population at the city's animal shelter, Geir said. In addition, last year those breeds were responsible for nearly 39 percent of reported dog bites in the city, he said.
http://www.standard.net/live/news/176434
Woonsocket, Rhode Island:
In 2006, the pit bulls accounted for 32 percent of all the dog bite cases in Woonsocket,” Paulhus says in the report. “The number increased to 37 percent in 2007. The year 2008 reflected half of all dog bites in the city were attributed to pit bulls. Many were serious.”
The statistics show there were 75 dog bites during the period in question, 15 of which involved humans and the rest other pets. Of the eight dog bites that occurred so far this year, three were caused by pit bulls, the report said.
http://www.woonsocketcall.com/content/view/90556
Ventura County, California:
Pit Bulls are ranked 8th in licensing, but the number one biter producing 117 biting incidents in 2007-2008. Cocker Spaniels, often cited by Pit Bull groups as the leading biter, ranked 6th in registration numbers, but 8th in bite numbers producing only 28 biting incidents. The Pit Bull mauling death of Katie Todesco was characterized as “biting incident”.
http://www.countyofventura.org/animalreg/
Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis)
The active Pit Bull community managed to influence dangerous dog laws producing a 33 percent increase in pit bull biting incidents in 2008 over previous years. Pit Bulls produced 490 biting incidents while Labradors produced 152 biting incidents and Cocker Spaniels only produced 27 incidents.
http://www.indystar.com/data/public_safety/dog_bites.shtml
Broward County, Florida
Broward County has an excellent bite incident database which includes attacks on pets/livestock. Once again pit bulls are the leading biter by a wide margin producing 586 biting incidents during the period from 2005-2008. Over the same period, Labradors produced 151 bites while rage inflicted Cocker Spaniels inflicted a mere 16 bites on the public.
http://www.fox8.com/news/sfl-animalbitedatabase,0,7192887.htmlstory
Lincoln, Nebraska:
Lincoln has an excellent database which also includes licensing numbers by breed. In 2008 a licensed population of 858 Pit Bull and mixes produced 60 biting incidents. The citys massive population of Labs and lab mixes totaling 5448 dogs produced 39 biting incidents over the same period. Data shows that 1 out of every 14 pit bulls in Lincoln is a biter, while its takes over 142 Labs to produce a bite.
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/health/animal/index.htm
Seattle, Washington:
As of 2008, Pit Bulls comprise 3.4 percent of Seattle’s registered dog population, yet produce 25 percent of the city’s annual bite total. In comparison, Labrador Retrievers represent 17 percent of the city’s dog population yet produce only 12 percent of the annual biting incidents. As an added bonus to the tax payer, the nearly half the dogs euthanized each year by Seattle’s Animal Control infrastructure are Pit Bulls.
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/09/seattle-pit-bull-statistics-bites.html
Richmond County, Georgia
"They tend to get the most exposure because unfortunately they do the most damage," said Diane Downs, the director of Richmond County Animal Control.
Animal control has had 139 complaints of animal bites this year, with 26 of them being pit bull cases. That's about 19-percent and is the most out of all dogs.
http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/48927862.html
Ogden, Utah:
In 2008, pit bulls and pit bull mixes accounted for about 20 percent of the dog population at the city's animal shelter, Geir said. In addition, last year those breeds were responsible for nearly 39 percent of reported dog bites in the city, he said.
http://www.standard.net/live/news/176434
Woonsocket, Rhode Island:
In 2006, the pit bulls accounted for 32 percent of all the dog bite cases in Woonsocket,” Paulhus says in the report. “The number increased to 37 percent in 2007. The year 2008 reflected half of all dog bites in the city were attributed to pit bulls. Many were serious.”
The statistics show there were 75 dog bites during the period in question, 15 of which involved humans and the rest other pets. Of the eight dog bites that occurred so far this year, three were caused by pit bulls, the report said.
http://www.woonsocketcall.com/content/view/90556
Ventura County, California:
Pit Bulls are ranked 8th in licensing, but the number one biter producing 117 biting incidents in 2007-2008. Cocker Spaniels, often cited by Pit Bull groups as the leading biter, ranked 6th in registration numbers, but 8th in bite numbers producing only 28 biting incidents. The Pit Bull mauling death of Katie Todesco was characterized as “biting incident”.
http://www.countyofventura.org/animalreg/
Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis)
The active Pit Bull community managed to influence dangerous dog laws producing a 33 percent increase in pit bull biting incidents in 2008 over previous years. Pit Bulls produced 490 biting incidents while Labradors produced 152 biting incidents and Cocker Spaniels only produced 27 incidents.
http://www.indystar.com/data/public_safety/dog_bites.shtml
Broward County, Florida
Broward County has an excellent bite incident database which includes attacks on pets/livestock. Once again pit bulls are the leading biter by a wide margin producing 586 biting incidents during the period from 2005-2008. Over the same period, Labradors produced 151 bites while rage inflicted Cocker Spaniels inflicted a mere 16 bites on the public.
http://www.fox8.com/news/sfl-animalbitedatabase,0,7192887.htmlstory
Lincoln, Nebraska:
Lincoln has an excellent database which also includes licensing numbers by breed. In 2008 a licensed population of 858 Pit Bull and mixes produced 60 biting incidents. The citys massive population of Labs and lab mixes totaling 5448 dogs produced 39 biting incidents over the same period. Data shows that 1 out of every 14 pit bulls in Lincoln is a biter, while its takes over 142 Labs to produce a bite.
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/health/animal/index.htm
Seattle, Washington:
As of 2008, Pit Bulls comprise 3.4 percent of Seattle’s registered dog population, yet produce 25 percent of the city’s annual bite total. In comparison, Labrador Retrievers represent 17 percent of the city’s dog population yet produce only 12 percent of the annual biting incidents. As an added bonus to the tax payer, the nearly half the dogs euthanized each year by Seattle’s Animal Control infrastructure are Pit Bulls.
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/09/seattle-pit-bull-statistics-bites.html
Richmond County, Georgia
"They tend to get the most exposure because unfortunately they do the most damage," said Diane Downs, the director of Richmond County Animal Control.
Animal control has had 139 complaints of animal bites this year, with 26 of them being pit bull cases. That's about 19-percent and is the most out of all dogs.
http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/48927862.html
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Pit Bulls = Gang Violence/Crime
The City of Lancaster, California should be awarded something for figuring all this out. Seems that since they passed BSL, gang violence has dropped dramatically. A good example for having BSL is what it is.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/lancasters-dog-ordinance-is-cited-in-helping-to-drive-down-gang-crime.html
Lancaster's dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime
January 21, 2010 1:56 pm
A Lancaster ordinance imposing stiff penalties on owners of “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs is reaping positive results, and may have even helped to drive down gang crime in the city, officials said.
The law, adopted in January 2009, was primarily aimed at preventing gang members from using dogs, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, to bully people or cause physical harm, officials said.
City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.
“A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals -- namely, gang members -- who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.
“These individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks. Today, more than 1,100 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create. Lancaster is now a great deal safer because of it.”
Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Under the dog ordinance, a hearing officer can deem a dog to be potentially dangerous, for example, if the animal becomes aggressive when unprovoked. The dog can be impounded, and the owner must have it properly licensed, implanted with a microchip and vaccinated at his own cost before the animal’s release.
Dogs deemed to be vicious can be destroyed if they are determined to be a significant threat to public safety, according to the ordinance.
It also requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to ensure proper leashing and muzzling, complete a dog obedience training course, spay or neuter their animals, and pay a fine of up to $500 for each offense.
Owners of dogs deemed to be vicious face fines of up to $1,000 per offense, and they could be prevented from possessing any dog for up to three years.
Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/lancasters-dog-ordinance-is-cited-in-helping-to-drive-down-gang-crime.html
Lancaster's dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime
January 21, 2010 1:56 pm
A Lancaster ordinance imposing stiff penalties on owners of “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs is reaping positive results, and may have even helped to drive down gang crime in the city, officials said.
The law, adopted in January 2009, was primarily aimed at preventing gang members from using dogs, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, to bully people or cause physical harm, officials said.
City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.
“A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals -- namely, gang members -- who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.
“These individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks. Today, more than 1,100 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create. Lancaster is now a great deal safer because of it.”
Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Under the dog ordinance, a hearing officer can deem a dog to be potentially dangerous, for example, if the animal becomes aggressive when unprovoked. The dog can be impounded, and the owner must have it properly licensed, implanted with a microchip and vaccinated at his own cost before the animal’s release.
Dogs deemed to be vicious can be destroyed if they are determined to be a significant threat to public safety, according to the ordinance.
It also requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to ensure proper leashing and muzzling, complete a dog obedience training course, spay or neuter their animals, and pay a fine of up to $500 for each offense.
Owners of dogs deemed to be vicious face fines of up to $1,000 per offense, and they could be prevented from possessing any dog for up to three years.
Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Justice for "No Kill'er"
This does my heart good. To see justice for the animals who were made to suffer needlessly by a tormentor who follows "No Kill".
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=370524
A noble venture that went bad.
That's how a DuPage County judge described the long saga of a Bloomingdale no-kill animal shelter whose two operators long were accused of hoarding animals and providing improper care.
One of them, Penny Horak, 70, pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor charge of violating her duties while managing Pet Rescue at 151. N. Bloomingdale Road. She was sentenced to two years' court supervision and barred from ever again running another animal facility in Illinois.
Prosecutor Amanda Meindl told DuPage Judge Ronald Sutter that Horak turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the problems.
"Animals were covered in feces," Meindl said, while showing the judge photos. "There was a strong smell of urine. Mucus from sick animals was caked on the walls. There were mice infestations. These were daily conditions."
Horak apologized and said she tried her best. This marked her first arrest. In exchange for her admission of guilt, prosecutors dropped misdemeanor animal cruelty allegations.
Horak could have been sentenced to up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.
"My primary concern was the animals," Sutter said. "It is my understanding that all of the animals have either been adopted out or transferred to other no-kill shelters."
He continued: "What may have started out as a noble venture as an organization to care for homeless animals, after many years, for whatever reason, it went bad. There was never any allegation of beating or intentional cruelty but, on the other hand, I believe the level of neglect has been severe."
Pet Rescue owner Dale Armon faces similar misdemeanors. She opened the shelter in 1973. The 75-year-old woman is fighting the charges. She is due back in court April 27.
Former shelter clients, volunteers and workers have urged village, county and state officials for more than a decade to shut down the facility. They even hired their own attorney to try to intervene and also set up an Internet site with photos of severely ill cats and dogs and the conditions of squalor in which the animals were housed.
After years of legal wrangling, the state revoked Pet Rescue's operating license. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also sued Pet Rescue after accusing Armon of spending the nonprofit shelter's funds for personal use, as well as other alleged infractions. The suit is pending, but assets were frozen. An estimated 200 cats, dogs and other animals were adopted out or transferred to other shelters for care.
Defense attorney Rick Schoenfield denied shelter conditions rose to a level that supports criminal allegations. He said finding sick animals in a no-kill shelter is the same as sick people in a hospital. He noted Horak's age, medical issues, clean criminal record and letters of support from some of those with whom she's worked.
"She never did this for anything other than altruistic reasons and a love of animals," Schoenfield said. "Whatever happened, her motives were always good."
That is the very statement that keeps people from seeing the real "No Kill". Just because someone represents themselves as an "animal rescuer" doesn't mean they are the salt of the earth. Many of these people are in need of professional help. Winograd is aware of these kinds and these are the ones he goes after. More of them need to be serving time, right along side of him.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=370524
A noble venture that went bad.
That's how a DuPage County judge described the long saga of a Bloomingdale no-kill animal shelter whose two operators long were accused of hoarding animals and providing improper care.
One of them, Penny Horak, 70, pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor charge of violating her duties while managing Pet Rescue at 151. N. Bloomingdale Road. She was sentenced to two years' court supervision and barred from ever again running another animal facility in Illinois.
Prosecutor Amanda Meindl told DuPage Judge Ronald Sutter that Horak turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the problems.
"Animals were covered in feces," Meindl said, while showing the judge photos. "There was a strong smell of urine. Mucus from sick animals was caked on the walls. There were mice infestations. These were daily conditions."
Horak apologized and said she tried her best. This marked her first arrest. In exchange for her admission of guilt, prosecutors dropped misdemeanor animal cruelty allegations.
Horak could have been sentenced to up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine.
"My primary concern was the animals," Sutter said. "It is my understanding that all of the animals have either been adopted out or transferred to other no-kill shelters."
He continued: "What may have started out as a noble venture as an organization to care for homeless animals, after many years, for whatever reason, it went bad. There was never any allegation of beating or intentional cruelty but, on the other hand, I believe the level of neglect has been severe."
Pet Rescue owner Dale Armon faces similar misdemeanors. She opened the shelter in 1973. The 75-year-old woman is fighting the charges. She is due back in court April 27.
Former shelter clients, volunteers and workers have urged village, county and state officials for more than a decade to shut down the facility. They even hired their own attorney to try to intervene and also set up an Internet site with photos of severely ill cats and dogs and the conditions of squalor in which the animals were housed.
After years of legal wrangling, the state revoked Pet Rescue's operating license. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also sued Pet Rescue after accusing Armon of spending the nonprofit shelter's funds for personal use, as well as other alleged infractions. The suit is pending, but assets were frozen. An estimated 200 cats, dogs and other animals were adopted out or transferred to other shelters for care.
Defense attorney Rick Schoenfield denied shelter conditions rose to a level that supports criminal allegations. He said finding sick animals in a no-kill shelter is the same as sick people in a hospital. He noted Horak's age, medical issues, clean criminal record and letters of support from some of those with whom she's worked.
"She never did this for anything other than altruistic reasons and a love of animals," Schoenfield said. "Whatever happened, her motives were always good."
That is the very statement that keeps people from seeing the real "No Kill". Just because someone represents themselves as an "animal rescuer" doesn't mean they are the salt of the earth. Many of these people are in need of professional help. Winograd is aware of these kinds and these are the ones he goes after. More of them need to be serving time, right along side of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)