“Putting out forest fires without dealing with the fuel buildup just perpetuates the problem because you’re not treating the root cause.”  

That brings ~us~  to the question of the dogs.  It would seem that canine experts know why and what can make dogs dangerous, and it is frequently the topic of debate among members of the public, and of course by those in charge of making dog ordinances.  But the public and lawmakers are not necessarily dog experts?  So when laws are made in the name of “safety and welfare”, we should look at the laws to see if they reasonably actually do, for example, protect the public welfare.

That’s where we usually end up disagreeing, because most lawmakers think that passing any law which SOUNDS like it might help—-WILL help.

Frequently, despite the legislative analysis, many laws are passed because it is politically related to a favor they might owe to someone else who has passed their former legislation.

And when pet owners, for example, pipe up and start an avalanche of opposition, the legislature usually (but not always) has to listen.

CANINE experts have long advanced the opinion that breed specific legislation is not the answerto dangerous dogs. And why is that?  Because BSL addresses the problem with the assumption that only certain specific canine breeds are ALL timebombs waiting to go off.  Of course, that is surely an opinion, and not necessarily a valid one.  Most of those pushing BSL, such as the bite blogger out of Washington, know absolutely nothing about dogs—she just sees “media” stories and then republishes them.

Canine-human aggression is much more complicated than what most think. However, when we look at fatal attacks where canines have killed humans, it shows that as much as 52% of the animals were either rehomed, rescued, or shelter animals. Even if this only happened once in awhile, with the statistics on dog populations, it is nearly impossible and certainly against all odds that the approximate 15% of dogs (which are rescued , rehomed,shelter obtained) out of perhaps 70 million dogs nationwide—-could make up 50% of the fatal attacks??????

We are looking at perhaps 30 dogs out of 70 million What are the chances that half of the 30 dogs would be rescued, rehomed or shelter obtained???  If we  hired a statistician, I think this would be very telling.  In fact, I think I will get my friend’s cousin to construct the mathematical summary for me to post here.


All of the talk about “aggressive” biting dogs and biting dogs being intact is not necessarily the “answer”, as many have stated.  The study (shown elsewhere on this blog) which examined the dogs which had all bitten small kids–indicated that 93% of the dogs were ALREADY ALTERED.  If it was true that only intact dogs bit kids, then how is it that over 2,000 dogs can be at a dog show at the same time,  and they are not biting the kids or people there?


Could it be that the ARs are in fact feeding us a bunch of BS?  Could it be that the AR movements wants to desperately have us all believe that it’s only intact dogs that bite, or maim, or anything bad—so that we will all alter our dogs?  So that eventually there WON’T BE ANY DOGS BORN?  Could it be that PEtA and friends want all dogs born ELIMINATED so that people cannot enjoy having a puppy?

So that everyone MUST adopt a dog from a foreign country–such as a stray dog?  Imported puppy milled dogs have been banned from entering the country by law.  What does that leave?  How would one know if a dog was actually a “puppy” milled foreign dog?  The puppy milled  dogs from out of the mid west and the East and not illegal. HSUS has not shut them down yet. But HSUS is still working on it, by helping to get people with Best Friends/ASPCA to close down pet stores and to stop all of them from selling any type of animals.

BUT—– If they DID shut them down, and if small home breeders (hobby breeder) were illegal, just where would anyone obtain a puppy?

For example, the Animal Defense League-Los Angeles, is a militant group which used smoke bombs and other tactics to attempt animal shelter change; they have threatened shelter workers and basically caused severe problems at the Los Angeles shelters by demanding change on their own timetable…..

Unfortunately, they caused so much criminal action that the ARs tried to “push No Kill” without using targeted altering in lower economic income areas.  That one flaw alone would cause any no kill program to fail, since 50% of the dogs come into Los Angeles shelters FROM ONE SAME AREA.  We think they did it purposely so it would knowingly fail.  And fail it did.


One thought on ““DANGEROUS DOGS” AND AR Bullsh*t re MSN

  1. Dog bite-related fatalities are so rare that I don’t think you can create a valid statistical model from them. Just as the perceived ‘breed’ is irrelevant, so is the dog’s personal history, imo. It’s all about how the dog is handled and maintained.

    Aggressive behaviour is learned and perfected through practice, according to experts. Novice owners are less likely to recognize the stages of aggression and nip them in the bud.

    As for the intact thing, it’s a red herring but one that fits nicely with the AL/AR/AP agenda of eliminating dog and all animal ownership.

    Scientific research indicates that neutering increases activity and excitability in males and territorial aggression, nuisance barking and a tendency to snap in females, which may be why it is promoted by the fanatics – besides its obvious endpoint of extinction, that is.

    There are similarities in many DBRF cases – isolated dogs not considered pets, unsupervised children and a few other factors – all pointed out by the CDC in their much-quoted but rarely understood mess of a paper on DBRFs in the US from ’79 to ’98.

    As for forest fires, yes, contrary to the dewy-eyed newbie enviro-zombies, forests must be managed. Prior to the European invasion of N. America, the indigenous populations managed the forests – including the redwoods in CA.

    Accumulation of fuel in the form of saplings and deadfall is what causes fires and lets them spread. In a completely natural environment, forest fires are fairly rare and a good thing – they lead to regeneration, enrich the soil, etc. However, due to the spreading of human habitation, they are now a threat to property and lives.

    Most of them seem to be caused by humans in CA these days, through carelessness or malevolence.

    Clear out the brush, disease and deadwood and things will be much better.

    Same goes for public offices, as far as I’m concerned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s