Stop the Breeding of Pits So That We Don't Have To Kill Them

As any of my regular readers know, I HATE BREEDERS/GREEDERS. Stupid people who can't understand that we have a pet overpopulation despite what Nathan Winograd says. My favorite blog, http://www.DogsBite.org/, has just released a tell all report on how many pits are being euthanized in shelters. I just had to post some of this here because it shows how miserable a failure is of "No Kill".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19018863/Decade-of-adoption-focus-fails-to-reduce-shelter-killing-Animal-People-JulyAugust-2009

2009 U.S. Shelter Data Shows that Pit Bulls Account for 58% of Dogs Euthanized
Animal People July/August 2009
DogsBite.org - The latest issue of Animal People News, which projects 2009 shelter killings based on 2006-2008 data1, reports that a decade of "adoption focus" has failed to reduce these deaths, with the decade's average at 4.5, right where it was in 1999. The data shows that campaigns designed to reduce shelter killing chiefly by increasing adoption, instead of preventing the births of cats and dogs most likely to enter shelters and be killed, have been ineffective.

Among the unadoptables in 2009, based on the 2006-2008 figures, will be about 1.8 million cats, believed to be mostly feral, and as many as 967,300 pit bulls. Of the 1,663,167 shelter dogs projected to be euthanized in 2009, pit bulls account for 58%. The increased pit bull killing rate, it was 50% in 2007, exists despite the fact that pit bulls are not more than 5% of the total U.S. dog population, according to the article, and that serious efforts have been taken to reduce this rate.

Pit Bulls Killed at Similar Rate as Steers
"Of the total U.S. pit bull population of circa 3.5 million, about a third arrive at a shelter in any given year, at an average age of about 18 months. This is the same average age and rate, relative to their number on farms, at which steers go to slaughter.
Two-thirds to 80% of the pit bulls entering shelters are surrendered by their keepers. Most of the rest are impounded, either for behavior or as victims of abuse and neglect." ANIMAL PEOPLE July/August 2009
Cities with Pit Bull Laws (BSL) Kill Fewer

Page 10 of the article shows a regional breakdown of shelter killing during the 3-year period. A side bar chart titled, "The Effect of Breed-Specific ByLaws on City Pit Bull Terrier Killing Rates" is also included. As seen in the chart, the City of Denver, which bans new pit bulls, also euthanizes the fewest pit bulls. While the national average of pit bulls euthanized per 1,000 human residents is 3.15, the rate in Denver is only .14. Of the city's total shelter killing, pit bulls accounted for 3%.

The City of Cincinnati, which also bans new pit bulls, shows a pit bull euthanization rate that is less than half of the national average 1.34. As noted in the article, pit bulls made up a much smaller part of total shelter killing in Cincinnati (10%) than in Milwaukee (18%) or Indianapolis (17%), two cities of similar demographic profile. Lastly, the chart includes San Francisco data pre-BSL (43%) and post-BSL (29%), a 14% drop after the 2006 enactment of a pit bull sterilization law.


1The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection of regional and national shelter killing tolls each year is based on compiling the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the three most recent fiscal years is used.

Animal "Pounds" - The Conspiracy

I hate to hear an animal shelter referred to as a "pound". I hate to hear Animal Control Officers referred to as "dog catchers". Just like I hate the deceitful term "no kill". And let's not forget the best one of all, "high kill shelter". Let me give you my take on this. Here are the players.

We have the humane community, aka "rescues". What defines that term in the ears of the general public? The public's perception is people taking animals off the euthanasia table at the shelters or putting themselves at risk to "rescue" a drowning dog in a storm drain. Yes, there are some "rescues" that do take the high euthanization risk pets from the shelters. Yes, there are some that take the sick, injured, and old pets from the shelters. And there are some that do put resources and take risk to "rescue". These rescues have earned the use of the term "rescue" and I do applaud them. I don't hesitate to call them rescuers because they truly are.

Then we have the "adoption" groups who call themselves "rescues". These are the ones who, if they even go to a shelter, cherry pick for purebreds or cute, cuddly that in their minds are the adoptable ones. This also leads to the double standard in the entire industry of what is adoptable. Shelters are given one definition for adoptable and these adoption groups have their own definition. When the shelter can't adopt their "adoptable" ones, these adoption groups complain and call them "kill shelters".

Adoption groups get the best of the best anyway. They are called by owners wanting to "get rid of" their pets and their phones don't stop. Many owners do try to place their pets with a "no kill" "rescue" group first. So a few questions later and a request for a donation, the adoption group decides whether they want the pet. If they don't want it, what happens for the owner then, what choice does the owner have? Either dump the pet or take it to the public shelter, the "kill" shelter. Hard choice, huh? So we end up with strays because the adoption groups want to continue to give the public a bad impression of the shelters by calling them "kill" shelters.

Here's where the conspiracy part comes in. All these negative terms used against animal control shelters only lead to more euthanasia because it is driving away potential homes. Who wants to go somewhere that "kills" animals? But would it be different if the public were told that some animals are "put to sleep" or euthanized? This has a different meaning to the public than using the term "kill". And criticism only drives the public away.

And where does the public end up? At the "rescues", of course. The "rescues" have actually given their competition a bad name and they are the beneficiaries. Much nicer to go to Petsmart than to a shelter. Don't have to worry about seeing cruelty, hateful staff, and barrels of dead animals. These"rescues" are the problem, a big problem. Rather these adoption groups, because like I said at the beginning there are groups that earn the title, are deliberately condemning the shelters for their own personal agendas.

The shelters end up with these adoption groups' rejects is what it comes down to. And these adoption groups are shameless with their complaints about euthanizing when the dead are those they turned away under the guise of the term "no kill". The blood of the shelter animals actually lies on their hands, not the poor employees that have to do their dirty work.

I get really pissed off at this subject. It's one thing to undermine your competition if you are in the restaurant business but this quite another when lives are lost. The use of all these terms is a conspiracy to further personal agendas, the Savior complex usually, and drive people away from the shelters and into their hands. Not all shelters are the same but those who deserve respect should have it.

Part 3 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

We learned only last night that one of the "Scum" is in deep shit with the California Attorney General - Bill Hemby. I had heard for the last couple of years that he was being investigated but now it is official.

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1746

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1746_law_enforcement_apprenticeship\
_program_foundation.pdf#xml

=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/5b9b899c-9134-4f70-8154-666bfe\
ea9cdb/1/hilite/

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1746_california_organization_of_pol\
ice_and_sheriffs.pdf#xml

=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/2de01967-aaac-418b-a9d6-9bb22e\
a9be32/1/hilite/

Part 2 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

To answer some of the lies of the previous scum that I mentioned in Part 1, Judie's husband posted on a blog (previous post with link). This information is also very useful for all of us to know.

Judie's email made some folks mad
Hi everybody

I run a software company, my wife Judie Mancuso is a full time volunteer working on legislation to improve the lives of pets in California. My interaction with the animal community is as a sometime TNR volunteer, and as someone who tries to keep up with the bevy of animals swarming through my home. When Judie started on this path a few years ago, I had no idea about the number of people illegally breeding animals in California. I also had no idea about how mean some of them are!

Usually I don't have much time to participate in this stuff, but things have gotten so nutty that I started a blog to be able to vent. Since Judie started her work, there has been a group of breeders who constantly post insults and questions about her motives on their websites and blogs. Always present in the group has been someone named Gina Spadafori. For years, although we have never written to her or about her, she has regularly passed on bogus arguments about spay and neuter legislation, while her blog readers follow up with nasty personal comments about Judie.

Judie (for the first time) mentioned Gina in a recent email (you can see it here), describing her as a writer for the AKC, and quoting her directly as writing "realize that we’re all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction".

Now, I have no idea who Gina is, other than if you Google her you find lots of stuff about her books, her AKC associations and her work against puppy mills.

Anyway here is part of Gina's post from yesterday:

"Judie Mancuso, the spittle-spewing hater behind forced spay-neuter, sent a fund-raising pitch out to her e-mail list while I was gone, quoting me out of context and claiming that I was a regular contributor to AKC publications.

Uh, no. Haven’t taken an assignment from any AKC publication since the ’80s. But hey, why start with the truth now? Mancuso continues to insist that Santa Cruz was a success and that forced spay-neuter works, even though it hasn’t worked anywhere, and everywhere it kills more pets than it saves."

Oh, man... all these years, tricked into thinking I was living with a caring animal rescuer, now this eloquent author informs me that in reality my wife is a spittle spewing hater! As I said, this pet stuff is not my main thing, but I have reviewed the state statistics and have worked with shelter folks enough to know what's up. So, here are some responses to that posting.

First, Santa Cruz truly is a success story. I can provide contact details to Gina if needed and she can talk directly to the folks who run the shelters over there. Or if readers want to get details about the program directly from the Santa Cruz SPCA, you can visit their website here. Opponents like Gina may feel that the SCPA is just lying, of course, but they are not... shelters around the state are indeed shipping animals to Santa Cruz today, because they have extra space. New York City also has a similar law in place, you can read about their success here.

Second, regarding the 2008 LA statistics, the Los Angeles ordinance only began enforcement in late 2008. No one would expect it to produce large results in a few months. The truth is that today in LA, the previously underutilized free and low cost spay and neuter programs are now FULL, with waiting lists, thanks to the new ordinance, and several other markers are moving in a positive direction.

Here are some details about that bogus claim cited by breeders across the Internet, that LA euthanasia rose 177% in one year (2008).

First of all, the LA ordinance did not even begin enforcement until Oct 2008. As far as the 177% increase claim, here is what's actually going on. The Los Angeles dog euthanasia numbers reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) are as follows:

2004 37,078 dogs euthanized
2005 33,723 dogs euthanized
2006 30,250 dogs euthanized
2007 12,118 dogs euthanized*
2008 33,601 dogs euthanized

The CDPH has a note next to the 2007 number that states " * Report was not received from entire jurisdiction".

The opponents of SB 250 are taking the incomplete 2007 number, comparing it to the actual 2008 number, and concluding that dog euthanasia went up 177% in one year (12,118 to 33,601). But clearly the 2007 number is just incomplete data.

The 2008 number did actually rise 11% since 2006, primarily because of the thousands of people relinquishing their animals due to financial troubles. How do we know? Look at the total number of "surrendered" dogs in Los Angeles:

2006 43,559 dogs surrendered
2008 60,712 dogs surrendered

That's a 39% increase in surrendered dogs, primarily due to the terrible financial crisis today.

The Dept of Health fixed their error within a week, but the folks on the wrong side of this issue kept the old data that allows them to claim the sky is falling in LA based on 2008 data.

Third, readers should take issue with anyone who claims that spay and neuter laws kill more pets that they save. The data that supposedly supports this argument comes only from sources with a vested interest in stopping these laws; sometimes the data is distorted to make a point, other times it's just outright fabrications. One sheet from an opposition group purported to show a bunch of different communities where spay and neuter laws did not work. SCIL spent two days calling the principles in those communities to find the truth, and it turned out the entire sheet was pure fiction. The amount of made-up stuff out there about these laws is incredible, and the amount of personal attacks about Judie (questions about her motives, insults, etc.) is hard to keep up with.

In any event... Gina also is upset because she says Judie is lying about her (she's not). But I can sympathize - my last name is Wicklund, and there is an animal activist in the middle of the country with the same last name. So guess what? There are posts all over the net claiming that we are brothers, that we plot together on devious anti-pet schemes, etc. Nutty stuff.

Anyway, there are plenty of sites out there that refer to Gina as an AKC contributor. But as a correction, the YESonSB250.com website has been changed to list her as "author, columnist, former contributor to AKC publications".

Besides that, it is difficult to identify what else is supposed to be a lie or out of context. Gina does indeed make the claim "we're all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction". There is nothing to take out of context in that statement; like other breeders, she is pushing the fantasy world of pet extinction, while claiming that her views represent pet-owners as a whole.

So, Gina, I can request a correction on the website on either point if that statement you wrote doesn't actually represent your views. You can write me at johnwicklund_at_socialcompassioninlegislation.org, just let me know which thing (1 or 2) was misunderstood:

1) If you don't actually buy into the ridiculous concept of pet extinction, deep apologies & I'll request a correction on the site for you.

2) If you understand that the majority of pet owners are in favor of spay and neuter legislation, and that virtually all the opposition is linked to breeders or animal industries, apologies & I'll request a correction on the site for you. Readers who need information on this can visit this page, it is an overview of a 2008 Zogby poll showing support for laws like SB 250 to be high among voters.


One more comment, Gina's blog post states that she supports ethical breeders, a claim frequently repeated on other breeder friendly blogs. I wonder if they include adherence to the law as part of their definition of ethics, as I would. Readers may know, or some may not believe, that the majority of people breeding and selling animals in California do not have the required seller's permit, and / or do not comply with local & state business and animal welfare laws.

In fact we have several recent written examples of breeders telling one another how to avoid complying with local laws, avoid animal control when they want to enforce those laws, and avoid tax law. Many of these guys and gals are openly hostile to the idea of complying with local and state laws. Gina may be an ethical person, and her work against puppy mills is admirable, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking that most people breeding pets for money share that enthusiasm for the law.

John Wicklund
SCIL

Addendum

As I was writing this, a comment from someone representing the anti-legislation group "Save Our Dogs" was posted, complaining about Judie's email, and personally attacking Judie in the same way that Gina does. They point out that the SOD website is based in California; Judie had stated that the site was registered out of state (correct). I requested a change to the YESonSB250.com website to list the site as "created and maintained by a California couple", which I believe is also correct.

Readers may be interested to know that the main bar chart distributed by Save Our Dogs, supposedly showing that the Santa Cruz program is a failure, is a misrepresentation. SCIL took their same bar chart and extended the values over time. The result is a graph showing that the Santa Cruz values dropped dramatically over time compared to the other communities on the graph, the exact opposite of what the original snapshot (showing only one point in time) purports to illustrate. It is a lesson in data manipulation that extends to much of what the opponents of spay and neuter legislation do in their attempt to stop progress for pets in California.

Part 1 - Judie Mancuso vs. Scum

So little time, so much to blog. I've been wanting to do a post on hoarding, Indy, pits, "No Kill" but feel this particular issue/subject needs more attention. I think it has far reaching effects even though it is really a local issue in California. My hero, Judie Mancuso, has been fighting a real battle in Sacramento. She comes face to face with people that we all despise such as Bill Hemby of PetPac. Judie is lucky in one regard in that she has never come face to face with Nathan Winograd aka the Whino but he has had his nose stuck in there. The AB 1634 effort for mandatory spay/neuter was, unfortunately, watered down but it did pass. So Judie took another route to get the job accomplished with SB 250 and AB 241.

SB 250 is the Pet Responsibility Act requiring that a dog must be altered to get a license and roaming cats must be altered.

AB 241 is the Responsible Breeder Act that limits owners and breeders to a 50 maximum for unaltered pets. This is aimed at puppy mills.

Who could be against this legislation?

The answer is: the vast majority of opposition to animal friendly legislation comes from one group - underground animal breeders who fear that new legislation will affect their unscrupulous businesses.

These backyard breeders are joined by hunting groups, fur farmers and other people who make their living off the backs of our animal friends.

The leaders of these groups rely on the most outrageous arguments and claims. They do this in order to rile up animal breeders and animal profiteers, compelling them to call, fax and visit legislators to complain against the bills.

Here are the two primary arguments used by opponents:

Spay and neuter legislation is actually designed to eliminate dogs and cats forever. The supporters of spay and neuter legislation are radicals who do not want anyone to own pets.

Pet overpopulation is a myth. Dogs and cats killed in shelters are unadoptable, and therefore cannot find homes anyway. And, the reason pets are killed in shelters is not overpopulation... it is actually the fault of uncaring shelter directors, shelter workers and rescue groups who just don't try hard enough.

In Their Own Words

Here are some of the most vocal opponents of spay and neuter laws, and some others opposed to animal laws in general, in their own words.

William Hemby, founder of PetPAC, describing who he thinks is behind SCIL legislation:

"...across the United States you have some of these animal rights extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front... it started years and years ago, if you remember, about throwing the blood on fur coats and all that jazz....

Well now... these people want to eliminate all dogs and cats in California, and so they want everybody else to conform to their society."

As far as I can tell, it was PetPAC's Mr. Hemby who first coined the phrase "Pet Extinction Act" to describe spay and neuter laws. The term has inflamed breeders and presumably increased donations to PetPAC.

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council), on pet overpopulation:

The claims of pet overpopulation are "without sound basis" and "intended to alarm the public about an overpopulation problem that does not even exist".

Regarding the enormous number of pets euthanized in shelters "it is unclear where the evidence for such statements comes from, or whether it even exists".

A quick note... PIJAC is the primary lobby group representing pet stores in California, and these quotes are taken from a letter submitted by JK Pedrotti, a Government relations firm representing PIJAC.

Clearly, it is in pet stores best interest to pretend there is no overpopulation problem. If PIJAC will not believe the shelter admission and euthanasia numbers submitted to the State by the shelters themselves, then they will never believe that we have a problem, no matter how many pets we kill each year.

We the People for Pets, an anti-pet legislation group:

Animal rights is a "staircase leading to pet extinction and total loss of pet owner rights", and spay and neuter laws are being pushed with tactics "used by the Nazi party to dehumanize their targets".

I can't really find words to address this lunatic fringe stuff...

Nathan Winograd, author and shelter consultant, on pet overpopulation:

"Shelter killing is not the result of pet overpopulation; it is the result of shelter managers who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it."

Nathan states that shelter workers are "content to kill animals" while "hiding behind the myth of pet overpopulation".

I must take a moment to comment on this. I have spent much of the last four years meeting with shelter workers across California. I have seen their tears as they explain their anguish at having to put down healthy animals every day. I have seen the emotional toll, and I have seen their pain as they come to grips with the horrible task they are faced with every day, thanks to careless pregnancies and reckless overbreeding. You can watch interviews with many of these shelter workers at www.YESonSB250.com.

The claim that it is the shelter workers who are to blame for the number of pets flowing into our shelters, rather than the irresponsible pet owners and breeders who fill those shelters with their careless actions, is callous, shallow thinking.

Nathan is now selling books directly to breeders via a book tour with PetPAC, who advertise "Tour Dates" for him on the PetPAC website. And incredibly, he is now involved with radical underground breeder publications like The Animal Herald, a newsletter based partially on the idea that spay and neuter laws are "akin to genocide of dogs". The founder of this publication, cat breeder Diane Amble, appears to devote a lot of time trying to find ways to use the term "terrorist" in conjunction with the term "animal rights". This image is a capture from the latest edition of The Animal Herald... you can see a cartoon of Senator Florez, Assemblymember Nava and myself, dressed as "angels of death" for trying to pass animal protection laws. Nathan Winograd's contribution to this classy publication begins directly under the cartoon.

Ironically, or conveniently, pet breeders have become the biggest cheerleaders for Mr. Winograd, and they are often seen at the Capitol with a copy of Nathan's book clutched as their bible. Nathan has given backyard breeders an 'out' for a problem they directly contribute to, while blaming those who have to clean up the mess.

Gina Spadafori, (former) regular contributor to AKC (American Kennel Club) Publications:

Pet breeders must "realize that we’re all in this together, pet-owners against the forces of pet extinction".

Gina is a columnist and author of pet books. Shame on her for constantly pushing the bogus claim that pet owners are against spay and neuter legislation. The truth is that tens of thousands of pet owners have written and called in support of the bills. Those "pet owners" who come out against these bills consistently turn out to be people only looking out for their own self-interest (the "Me Me Me" crowd).

In fact, according to a 2008 poll by the well respected firm Zogby International, "California voters are strongly in support of a law that would enforce the spaying and neutering of pets." The Zogby poll found that 66% of California voters supported spay and neuter laws, and that after learning more about the laws, a full 80% of the voters supported them. The Zogby poll conclusion? Pet owners overwhelmingly support spay and neuter laws to reduce shelter euthanasia.

From the scarier side of the breeder community... some breeders refer to violence as a possible answer to what they perceive as an intrusive government in league with animal rights "wackos":

Walt Hutchens, Timbreblue Whippets breeder in southwestern Virginia:

"We need to win as rapidly as possible, hopefully before there is any significant violence. The effect of violence on our chances of victory cannot be predicted." In general Mr. Hutchens seems to oppose violence, but he also slyly notes "By making the AR wars 'interesting,' it will lead to much more media interest".

Joe Overlease, Cocker Spaniel breeder from Missouri who ships dogs nationwide:

"Every Breeder I know is armed to the teeth as well, hot lead is a good motivator even for the most sincere AR wacko... Welcome to Fort Cocker".

Walt Hutchens' writings appear on the website Rexano.org, which is devoted to keeping exotic animal ownership legal and unregulated.

California Farm Bureau Federation writing about SB 250:

"Not all counties have provisions for intact [differential] licenses, and the amendments do not seem to allow dog owners to obtain an intact license if their cities or counties do not have them. This would force... dog owners residing in these counties to sterilize their dogs."

This statement from the Farm Bureau is completely wrong, and is one of the many scare tactics being used by opponents of animal legislation. In fact, statewide law for differential licenses have been in existence since 1973 (Food and Ag code 30804.5).

"Farm Bureau is also concerned about the potential for... actions taken against our members who may leave their dogs in the back of a pickup truck."

This is another example of outlandish hyperbole meant to scare Legislators. There is no provision in SB 250 that would allow animal control to seize a dog, and in the several California communities where similar laws are already in place, these hypothetical events do not occur.

Save Our Dogs, an anti-spay and neuter legislation group:

"...are the supporters trying hide the fact that the real goal of the bill is to eliminate all cats and dogs?"

The Save Our Dogs website, registered to someone in Oregon, also provides misleading graphs for download. The site consistently tries to influence opinion by presenting only part of the available data. In my opinion, this group was formed solely to provide misinformation about spay and neuter laws.

John Yates, American Sporting Dog Alliance (in Pennsylvania), on spay and neuter laws:

"Such is the murderous intent of [this]... movement, which seeks to gradually eliminate animals from American life. Its immediate goal is to force people to sterilize or euthanize as many dogs and cats as possible, and SB 250 was written for this reason."

Unbelievable. The delusions held by some of these people are downright ridiculous.

Last, but not least.

No overview of spay and neuter law opponents would be complete without mentioning the Oregon group National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA). This group is front and center when it comes to opposing legislation that helps any type of animal, whether it is spay & neuter laws, curbs on puppy mills, or restrictions on animal cruelty.

Who are they? According to SourceWatch, who featured NAIA in their “FRONT GROUPS” project, “The NAIA is a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce and agriculture based in Portland, Oregon. Agendas include financial interests, legislation and public perception related to farm animal agribusiness, commercial breeding, hunting, fishing, trapping, fur ranching, animal testing, horse slaughter, rodeos, circuses and entertainment.”

All these people coming out against one woman who could be blown away with a wisp of wind. Judie has balls, really big balls, no neutering for this woman.

Last week Judie sent out an email with this information on it and she has been catching hell ever since. But she not only can dish it out, she can take it.

Happy Days Are Here Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got up this morning think it would be another uneventful day. Little did I know that this would end up being the day that the Whino will regret. I had been telling you that something was about to happen. Well, it is here.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090812/NEWS/908120326

Doug Rae has been placed on probation. According to the Whino Rae is the best shelter director ever. He can't say enough good things about Rae. Well, Whino, this is your boy in all his glory.

Animal Care and Control Director Douglas Rae took over the city shelter determined to save the lives of more Indianapolis dogs and cats.
Seven months later, city officials are worried that he is jeopardizing the safety of people.

Rae said he did not believe the removal of the two officers affected response times. But city officials and animal advocates find that hard to believe. Some critics even wondered whether Rae was purposely leaving strays on the street to drive up the percentage of adopted animals at the shelter.

Anything to save those "numbers". That is all the Whino's program is, a numbers game. Well, Whino, your game is up and it is long overdue.

Go Get 'Em Judie!!!!

You gotta read this one http://scilblog.blogspot.com/

Looks like we got a little war going on here. Do these fools think that we are going to take their shit quietly? Not hardly. Judie is coming out swinging and I welcome her.