Monday, October 31, 2005

Fight or Flight? YOU Decide!

If someone forcibly breaks into your home or car, should the law require that you turn your back and run away? If you don’t try to run away, then if you fight back, by shooting a gun, then YOU go to jail.

Well, that’s the law in many (most?) US states. Can you imagine being forced to flee an assailant? Is running away always the best way to deal with a threat? In a split second, you could be making a decision that could end your life.

You should have a choice, not be forced into flight. It doesn’t work that way in the animal kingdom. The option is FLIGHT or FIGHT… not just flight.

If I was a bad guy, and I knew you had to flee, then I could set you up to do just that… and be sure to kill you.

I like the Florida Castle Doctrine…

If someone forcibly breaks into your home or car, you can assume they mean you great bodily harm or death…

You can stand your ground and fight back…

And if the bad guy gets hurt, he can’t sue you in court, and you won’t go to jail.

Shouldn’t dog bite laws work the same way as the Florida Castle Doctrine? I think so. Dog owners have been SUED SUCCESSFULLY by criminals who forcibly broke into their homes, the dogs attacked, the criminals were injured... and they sued the owners for use of "excessive force"... and won! (Is this world messed up or what?)

Are you starting to see why gun laws and dog laws have so much in common?

Who Are Your Friends?

It is interesting to ponder the thoughts of the fanatics.

One major philosophy of the animal rights nutcases is as follows:

Animal rights activists, by contrast, generally invoke Jeremy Bentham's concept of suffering: "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" Under this approach, it's the ability to feel subjective pain that determines the presence of rights.

This sort of immoral and amoral thinking goes against reality and the moral pillars of our society.

Animal rights is anti-logic, anti-capitalist, anti-religious, and anti-nature.

The animal rights movement is a back door for far left, wacko communists to strip us of our humanity, and to impose upon us a socialist/ communist world. Don’t believe me? Note who they ally themselves with (anarchists, enviro-wackos, etc.) , and ask yourself if you’d have anything to do with their political “friends”.

Insect Rights?

So, you think I’m kidding about animal rights extremists?

In Europe, they proposed legislation to give the same rights people have to “insects, spiders, scorpions, and centipedes.”

Do you want THEM in power?

Animal rights nutcases have huge political power in Europe… and they are coming here to inflict their pain on you.

Know What You Support

Do you know the difference between ANIMAL RIGHTS and ANIMAL WELFARE?

I am for animal welfare, not animal rights. If you love your dog, you will be, too.

Dog "Guardian" vs. Dog "Owner"

Have you wondered why the animal rights folks want to designate you as your dog’s GUARDIAN instead of OWNER?

Check this out. It’s sneaky, and it is part of an agenda to ban your right to reasonably own a dog.

Rome Bans Fishbowls

Here’s a great example of what can happen if you let the animal rights nutcases any significant political power… banning goldfish bowls and making dog walks mandatory.

These laws are enacted to gum up your rights to own a pet, not for any legitimate animal welfare purposes.

I’ve had plenty of elderly customers who weren’t fit enough to take their dogs for a walk every day. They had pooches that didn’t need that kind of thing in order to be healthy or well adjusted. The dogs were fit and happy, and got other forms of exercise every day playing with toys and running around in the back yard.

Either we organize and start fighting back, or this garbage will end up on our shores.

Many liberal thinkers in the US believe we should mimic what they do in Europe. This kind of animal rights nonsense will affect us in a serious way if we don’t stomp on it now. Laws like PAWS are just the sort of thing that we should be opposing.

There are reasons why the settlers left Europe 500 years ago, fought against their imperial oppressors, wrote the Constitution, and formed the United States of America. There is also a reason why Europe is in decline, and why the smart, ambitious young professionals are coming here. Euro-socialism is a failure.

Want To Reduce Crime In Your Community?

Then designate some of your more dangerous parks as an “off leash” area for dogs.

This has been used in various communities, including in Seattle.

It works. It is like implementing a Block Watch program. Criminals don’t want their hangouts patrolled by citizens, especially citizens with dogs. The citizens start demanding that the parks departments clean up the discarded needles and condoms, move out the bums (no, I’m not politically correct… I won’t call them “homeless”… they are bums), increase police patrols (which the cities don’t do because there are folks that benefit politically by ignoring certain types of crimes… because they are corrupt), and invest in new amenities. The dog owners also start pitching in to clean up these parks and making them safe again. The community benefits all the way around.

Animal control doesn’t like it, because bureaucracies don’t like losing power. Neither do the parks department bureaucrats. Take a look at what is happening in Chicago. People are demanding more off leash areas, and the city officials are fighting it.

There isn’t enough off leash space for dogs in most metropolitan and suburban cities. Allowing dogs off leash in dangerous areas, and after dark in all parks, say from 10 pm to 5 am, would benefit most communities.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Remember Buddy... Where Was His Master?

Remember when Bill Clinton got a dog (Buddy, a fun loving, chocolate Labrador Retriever) to boost his sagging ratings in the polls?

Then, that fad faded, as such whims do, the dog was sent off somewhere, ran into the street and died… with Bill Clinton a million miles away.

Nope. Never forgave Clinton for that.

The Bushes have been dog people for years. Don’t see stories like that about their dogs…

Don’t get a dog if you can’t keep it with you.

Lots of celebrities do keep dogs with them, such as Oprah… so don’t start making excuses for Clinton. He is, and always will be, a publicity seeking ego hound. I have no respect for him as a person. This isn’t a Liberal/ Conservative thing, either. Oprah can’t be accused of being a conservative. But, clearly, she cares for her dogs.

Buddy was loyal. Bill wasn’t. And I don’t let Hillary Clinton off the hook, either. It was their home and their dog. I hope she doesn’t run for Prez… we don’t need another Buddy adoption when the chips are down.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Can't Be Pro Dog & A Pacifist

I’m not a pacifist, and neither is a dog.

I’m also a logical person. I think you need to be consistent in your beliefs and political philosophies.

If you get in a conversation with a pacifist, they are typically also a believer in either a.) evolution or b.) God.

Well, you can’t honestly believe and reconcile that the world works according to the laws of the survival of the fittest, and also be a pacifist. Have any of you read Darwin? You can’t repeal the law of the jungle just because you don’t like it. Likewise, you can’t honestly believe and reconcile that the world works according to the laws of God, and also be a pacifist. You can’t explain how Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip, or accept the rest of the Bible, say you believe in the teachings of Jesus and the prophets, and be a pacifist. Can’t do it.

When you talk to an animal rights nut, pacifist or a far left wing nutcase about the use of dogs for self protection, they are against it. These are also the types that will fight you when it comes to allowing dogs to protect themselves or you. They are also against using dogs to hunt. And they fight against normal dog training techniques, opting for harnesses, head collars, treats and clicker training… while excusing why their dogs don’t obey in emergencies, even if they endanger others in the process. Dogs are predatory and pack oriented, much the same way people are. Aggression can't be programmed out of them... or wished away... or legislated away.

Extremism comes in many forms.

The Use Of Force To Defend Yourself

There have been numerous court cases defining the proper use of a dog for police work.

I think anyone who is working on a proposed dog bite law should examine these precedents.

There are times when it is appropriate for your dog to bite someone. The courts have recognized the value in using a dog against criminals.

Here is a web page with some interesting case analyses.

Some interesting concepts worth evaluating:

a.) Use of force continuum
b.) Use of a dog is not considered deadly force
c.) Definition of negligent training

None of this is indication that the courts are hostile to dogs being used to defend against criminals. In fact, it is an endorsement of the role of dogs in crime fighting, and helps show us the way to define the appropriate deployment of our own personal dogs in an emergency situation when facing a criminal.

Because, when the police aren’t there to protect you from a crime (and when are they ever on the spot at the time an attack takes place on anyone…?) it might just come down to you and your dog.

I think the logical conclusion would be you could use a dog for self protection when faced with:

a.) the immediate threat of trespass, terrorist crime, bodily harm or death would cause the dog handler to feel the need to actively and physically defend themselves;
b.) the suspect is engaged in a crime;
c.) a warning is given to the criminal before the dog is sent to bite.

I think a homeowner’s, or citizen’s, dog should be held to a lower standard of training than a police officer’s dog. A police officer has more tools at hand to deal with, and fight against, a criminal than a citizen. Thus, the situation is more dangerous to the citizen than the police officer. As a result, the claim of “excessive force” should be exempted when the above criteria are met before a dog is actively sent on a criminal by a citizen.

My Rules

I guess there are some things I should spell out with regards to this blog…

By participating in this web log, you agree to the following:

a.) I’m against any kind of wacko political stunts to further the pro-dog agenda… meaning no violence, property destruction, foul language, or anything that would otherwise bring dishonor to ourselves, our dogs, reasonable dog owners, or reasonable public servants. We’ve all been disgusted and appalled by the stunts of the animal rights nuts. We don’t want to be like them. You will not engage in any of these kinds of stunts in my name, or in reference to this web log.
b.) We need to work within the political / legal / cultural system. We need to persuade people by the logic of our positions. We have a strong case to present, and it is a winning cause. You agree to abide by the law.
c.) Everything stated here is my opinion. Every event quoted is “alleged” until proven in a court of law. I’m trying to examine and illustrate why we are right on this issue, not to conduct an inquisition or legal proceeding.
d.) From time to time, I receive very interesting comments, emails and letters. Typically they refer to some kind of behavioral problem or political issue. Since this web site is a way for me to oftentimes educate about responsible dog ownership, I shall sometimes use these inquiries and correspondence as the basis of a posting, article or as an example. By submitting any correspondence or inquiry, you thereby agree that the materials and information submitted are wholly your own, and you hereby give me permission to publish them in whole or in part, for potential profit or for free, without compensation to you of any kind, and to indemnify and hold me, and anyone or any organization referenced here, harmless for all claims and damages arising out of anything you say. This information, if we choose it for source material for this web site or other publication, will usually, but not always, be reasonably stripped of direct information about who you are, to protect your identity. This information shall then be used to educate people and benefit society concerning pro dog politics, dog training, behavior, responsible dog ownership and other relevant issues.
e.) If I don’t like the way you treat others, you can be banned from this web, at my sole option and discretion.
f.) Copyright and Trademarks and Patents: Nothing contained herein shall be used, promulgated, modified, transmitted or displayed without Sam Basso’s prior express written consent.
g.) Governing Law, Venue and Jurisdiction: All claims relating to this web site or Sam Basso shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona without regard to its conflict of law provisions. Any action with respect to such claims in shall be determined solely by Sam Basso, and brought in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona and may not be removed therefrom, except by express written permission by Sam Basso, at his sole option and discretion.
h.) If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this agreement and statement of policies is deemed to be unenforceable or contrary to law or void as against public policy or otherwise, if possible such provision shall be modified to be as similar to the original provision while still conforming to law (otherwise it shall be considered severable), with the remaining provisions continuing in full force and effect. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and no modification hereof shall be effective unless agreed to in writing and signed by all parties. Exchanged emails shall not constitute such written agreement.
h.) Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2005 Sam Basso, Phoenix, AZ, U.S.A. All rights reserved.
i.) Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
j.) No Warranties and Limits of Liabilities, Uses of Information: Information provided herein is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation warranties of merchantability, accuracy, timeliness, fitness for a particular purpose, or completeness. The author(s) of this information and web site assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions contained herein. Users of this information do so at their own risk. You can’t train every dog the same way, political issues are often times more complicated than presented in a web log, and legal remedies and advice need review by a competent attorney. Since this information is for educational, and sometimes business, purposes, some information is purposely omitted because the intention is to stimulate debate. This blog is NOT a political action committee or similar organization, nor represents itself as a non-profit venture. This is an e-newspaper and editorial comment device, for all practical purposes. Sam Basso and other producers of information for this web site shall not be made liable to users of this information, or anyone else, for any direct or indirect damages arising from any use of this web or information. Users must hire Sam Basso to obtain more complete, accurate and current information. We make no warranty that any of the materials on this web site are accurate, complete, or current. Although we may make changes to the materials contained herein at any time without notice, we do not make any commitment to update the materials.
k.) Permission is granted to temporarily download the materials (information, graphics, or software) from this web site for personal, non-commercial transitory, or educational viewing only. Such use may not violate the policies of www.blogger.com or www.blogspot.com or their related entities. You may also excerpt this web, or link to it, for the purpose of promoting pro-dog causes. We also reserve the right to require that you withdraw and/or delete any quote or link that we find detrimental to the purposes of this web log. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not: remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials or transfer the materials to another person or "mirror" the materials on any other server. This license shall automatically terminate if you violate any of these restrictions and may be terminated by us at any time.
l.) Hyperlinks to third-party web sites: We shall, from time to time, hyperlink this web to other web sites. We cannot be responsible for the contents or policies of any site we link to, nor do we make any express or implied warranty as to whether you shall be satisfied or damaged by interacting with these other web sites or their related businesses. It is possible that some links will be to retailers and manufacturers, Sam Basso might be an authorized affiliate, manufacturers representative, or otherwise be receiving a referral fee, commission and/or profit on any purchases you make. Sam Basso cannot make guarantees concerning the business policies or practices of these retailers or manufacturers. If you have a purchase dispute, you should contact them directly.
m.) Information Provided To Us: You agree that any information you provide to us shall be complete, current and accurate as to all relevant details. Any replies we make to you shall be limited to the quality and quantity of information you provide to us.
n.) Prices: All terms, prices, policies and conditions are subject to change without notice. All sales are final; no refunds; sold "as is."

I hate rules. I wish we lived in a world where "a man's word was his bond", where people took personal responsibility for their words and actions, where you could do business on a handshake, and that people worked out their differences in a friendly and reasonable way. But, unfortunately, things just aren't that way. I have to penalize the 95% of good people out there, by having to implement some business rules, so that I can weed out doing business with the 5% of the nut cases out there. I apologize for having to set some rules just to advocate pro-dog editorials and to make an honest buck.
-- Sam

Friday, October 28, 2005

NO WAY on Santorum 2008!

I generally vote center/ right Republican. I’m for free enterprise, strong national defense, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and religious freedom. I’ve got liberal and conservative friends. But, I’m a true, classic conservative at heart… a balanced mix libertarian (small “L”) in economic matters, socially conservative family values, and traditionally strong national defense/ law and order/ Constitutionalist conservative legal views.

But, there is NO WAY I’m going to vote for Sen. Santorum (R ) if he runs for President. What kind of Republican sides with animal rights nutcases? To me, this is a classic RINO (Republican In Name Only). No wonder we aren’t seeing a Reagan type revolution in Congress with these types in leadership positions in Congress.

Something about that doesn’t fit. Something stinks when a Senator sides with any group of fanatics, such as with the PAWS legislation (see previous post).

Dogs and Guns, Again...

There are meaningful parallels between the banning of gun ownership and the banning of dog breeds.

GUNS

“With Canada's murder rate rising 12% last year and this year's high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings just this week in Toronto), politicians are looking for someone to blame... On Monday night, during his dinner with Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was being caused by weapons smuggled in from the United States.”

Mr. Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada -- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from criminals. Toronto's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to defend their turf?”

DOGS

Let’s substitute the word “dog” for “gun/ weapon”, “bites” for “murder”, etc., and see how that looks… Oh, let’s also substitute “Denver” for “Canada”, since they have banned ownership of pit bulldogs…

With Colorado’s recent sensational dog bite incidents last year and this year's high-profile rash of dog bites (several incidents last month in Jefferson County), politicians are looking for someone to blame... On Monday night, Denver’s mayor claimed Colorado's dog bite problem was being caused by pit bull dogs.”

The Mayor's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians -- he puts his faith in killing pit bull dogs as a means to fight crime, and clearly believes the everyone else should too. But as Colorado's experience with its new pit bull dog ban -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, banning dogs isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to kill their pit bull dogs or register their dogs is easy. The hard part is stopping criminals from using dogs in their crimes. Denver's gangs have no trouble getting the dogs they use for their drug operations. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring other breeds of dog to defend their turf?

Hmmm…

Close parallel, isn’t it?

Innocent, law abiding people obeyed the law, licensed their pit bull dogs in Colorado. Then, the government blamed the dogs for the actions of criminals, and then took advantage of the intentions of those law abiding citizens. They used the registry of licensed dogs, went to people’s homes, seized their dogs, and put them all to death.

Do you really think this will stop the criminals from obtaining dogs and wrecking them? Do you think that banning pit bull dogs, or any other breed, will prevent criminals from getting dogs to guard their drug operations? Don’t you think criminals could breed a new type of pit bull by breeding terriers with bulldog breeds? Or, just switch to other breeds?

Study The NRA

The NRA has successfully fought back against gun bans.

There was another successful defeat of gun banning in Brazil last week.

The clues to fighting back have already been given us by the pro-gun groups.

Dogs Help Fight Crime

Just like the anti-gun folks will never let facts get in the way of their fanaticism, the anti-dog folks wont let facts get in the way of their fanatical desire to kill off reasonable dog ownership. The facts are that gun ownership reduces the crime rate. The facts are that dog ownership reduces the crime rate, too.

How many of you got a dog as a crime deterrent?

How many women have you met that got a dog so they could safely go jogging alone, take walks alone, or so they would be safer living alone or in a first floor apartment?

Do you want that taken away from you? If you ban dog ownership, will that make any of us really safer?

Dogs aren’t the problem, criminals are the problem.

Don't Blame The Dog

Next time you see someone getting arrested for their dog biting someone, realize that even the police have these same types of problems…

Note the following:

a.) The dog was off leash, on a search for a criminal, so was in a defensive state.
b.) The dog didn’t bite the handler.
c.) The dog had bitten the other police officer during the search. This kind of incident has happened before. When you deploy a dog, you have the other officers BEHIND the dog, not in front of it.
d.) The female police officer kept struggling with the dog, so it wouldn’t release the bite… a police dog, or any dog, in a fight, isn’t going to willingly let go if you keep fighting the dog.
e.) The dog had troubles letting go in a previous apprehension. This is a training and deployment problem. It is a shame the dog had to die.

Mistakes happen. Bad training and deployment happens. This wasn’t the dog’s fault.

Top trainers know how to solve situations like this. Maybe this police department needs to bring in a training expert to review their program.

Dog Bites

Dog bite situations are more complicated than we are led to believe by the dog haters and the media.

Here are a couple of videos of dog bites…

Don’t Handle Dogs You Don’t Know

This one is the result of getting in a dog’s face, when you don’t know the dog. People do dumb stuff like this all the time. I had a lady run up to my dog a few years ago, grabbed him by the muzzle and kissed him on the lips! She came up from behind me and was on him before I could do anything. Fortunately, nothing happened. She loved dogs, and my dog reminded her of a dog she used to have… still her face could have been ripped off.

Watch this video, look at the dog’s body language (any dog person could have seen this coming if they had been watching what was going on), watch the handler (who isn’t seeing the events… which is why you have to be doubly diligent in your supervision when around crowds), and watch the idiot who closes in on this dog. This was a PROVOKED attack, in my opinion. I don’t blame the dog. This was a police service dog… why would such a dog be expected to tolerate a stranger coming in that close and over the top of him?

Police Dogs Training For Terrorists and Criminals

Here is an excellent video of the training and deployment of police/ military service dogs. I am a big service dog supporter, and advocate the use of police and military dogs to fight criminals and terrorists. These dogs are amazing. Watch the intensity and courage of these dogs.

If you ban the breeding and training of aggressive dogs, then where will the police get the dogs to protect us? Police dogs are bred by private breeders. By banning the breeding of protection dogs, you then can’t apprehend criminals and terrorists like this. The idea here is to get the outlaws, not outlaw the dogs!

If your kid was being held hostage, or your husband had to fight these criminals, would you want to deprive the police from using service dogs? Not me!

Many dog bites are justified. Got it now?

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Animal Rights Terrorism?

The Power Of The Dog Blog

If we are to win on our dog related positions, we need to master the use of the internet as an organizing force. I have just finished reading “Blog” by Hugh Hewitt. It is a must read. The dog haters and animal rights nuts have a head start against us in the media, so we have to now play catch up. Our advantage is that our positions will resonate with a majority of voters, and we can defeat the other side’s radical proposals. People love dogs and will reject being over regulated. We also need to start influencing the debate over reasonable dog ownership laws, rules and practices. That is why it is important for you to link your pro-dog web page to this blog. And if you let me know about your pro-dog articles, web pages, and blogs, I'll link this page to yours.

Harriet Miers Withdrawal Affects Us, Too!

The withdrawal of Harriet Miers nomination as a Supreme Court justice has me thinking…

Dog lovers have a stake in who gets on the Supreme Court. For now, we are an unorganized group of voters. But, decisions handed down by the Supreme Court affect our rights to reasonably own a dog.

For the past few years, dog owners and dog haters have started fighting it out in the courts. Many lawsuits over dogs are working their way through the court system. It is only a matter of time before issues such as breed bans, dog bite laws, homeowner association restrictions on dog ownership, breeding, and dog ownership make it to the Supreme Court.

We need to start watching and participating in this debate, too.

HALLOWEEN & DOG ATTACKS

If you participate in Halloween, it is foolish to let your dog greet kids or adults in costumes, especially at night. Your dog won’t see those costumes, or their behavior, as being anything but threatening. LEAVE YOUR DOG HOME, or put your dog away when Trick Or Treaters come by your house. Your dog could see them as a threat and attack.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Dog Was Better Than A Smoke Detector

The dog alerted the owner to the smoke before the smoke alarms went off."

There is a good reason why dogs belong with people...
Maybe Your Homeowner's Association Should Reconsider Its Ban On Dog Ownership...

" A family dog and locked door apparently thwarted would-be burglars at an Ann Arbor home Tuesday evening, city police reported."

We all know that dogs make our homes safer. I know of a family member that won't sleep with their window open at night... because they live in a first floor apartment. They tell me if they had a dog, it would be different...

Cities Are Getting A Clue: Make Parks For Dogs

Dogs need open space and play areas. Cities started with creating off leash areas in the worst parts of town. Now, they are catching on that people want a place, nearby, that is suitable for taking dogs for training, off leash play, and recreation. So, the next wave will be parks, nice parks, dedicated for dog owners. This will go a long way towards reduction of dog biting incidents (more socialization = fewer biting incidents), better training (peer pressure in public = people wanting their dogs to be well behaved in public), more city satisfaction (dog lovers will move to areas that are pet friendly).

Check this one out! This is going to be a growing trend. Please crosspost to other dog friendly sites. Get this to your local city council members!
Yes, we vote... Pro Dog!

Are dog owners a political constituency? To answer that question, My Dog Votes™ announced today the launch of The My Dog Votes™ 2005 Voter Opinion Survey. The My Dog Votes™ 2005 Voter Opinion Survey will seek to benchmark the political impact of anti-dog laws and policy through a random sampling of 1000 dog owners who are also registered voters. Dog owners are faced with rising local and state anti-dog legislation and measures.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The Press

I was interviewed this morning by a Philadelphia newspaper reporter regarding Clicker Training.

Someone has written a new book, and he wanted a counterpoint argument for the article.

I do believe in working with the media. There are risks, but there are also benefits. You just have to be careful to be precise in what you say, and to not harm others. I make it a policy to not slam other people in an interview, or if I am doing the interview.

I will fight hard against ideas, but I go out of my way to not get in strife with people.

So, I discussed the theories of Classical and Operant Conditioning, but I said nothing to slam or harm this book writer or this reporter.

Be sure when discussing dog politics to win through rational arguments, yet avoid slamming people.

I do think it fair to criticize fanatics, if they are public figures or organizations, however. These people have entered into the public debate, and then their character sometimes does figure into the debate. Some people need to be discredited. Just make sure to have solid arguments that you can back up with logic and facts... and don't go beyond your expertise. Your ego will be your downfall, if you let it rule your press relations.

Reptilian Brains of The Media

I don’t know if you’ve been following the Judith Miller/ CIA/ Plame/ Cheney story, but the it reminds me of my own experiences with the press over the years.

I can’t think of one interview where I’ve been accurately quoted. I’ve even had quotes written that never even came out of my mouth.

I remember being called by a TV reporter from www.King5.com, wanting to know if I could give them some names of people I had worked with who had been severely bitten or mauled by dogs. The context of the situation was that they were looking to do a hit piece on certain big breeds of dog (Rottweilers, pit bulls, etc.). I told her “no way’ was I going to give her any names, and shame on her for trying to make an anti-dog story just to promote her career. I knew the story wasn’t going to be fair or balanced.

My dad used to say, speaking of the press, “don’t believe everything you read.” I don’t. And he was right.

They make stuff up all the time. In every interview I’ve been involved in, they slanted the story to fit their agenda. They weren’t trying to report the news. They were trying to make the news. They are predators, and you have to know what you are doing if you are going to be involved with them.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Jerks!

Do you REALLY think that this loser of a city (Aurora, CO) is having problems with all these breeds? I bet these folks haven't even SEEN, and never will see, several of these breeds in their entire lives! Geez. The Presa Mallorquin is considered almost extinct. Why not add the Tyranasaurus Rex and Big Foot, while they're at it?! You never know. One might just pop up in your town and eat your kids.

"Aurora City Council Proceeds With Pit Bull Ban

The Aurora City Council has given initial approval to ban pit bulls and several other restricted breeds from the city limits, and is expected to vote on a final acceptance of the ordinance within the next month.

Dog breeds included in the ordinance are:

  • American Pit Bull Terrier
  • American Staffordshire Terrier
  • Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  • American Bulldog
  • Presa Canario (also known as the Canary Dog, The Canary Island Dog)
  • Presa Mallorquin (also known as the Ca De Bou)
  • Cane Corso
  • Dogo Argentine (also known as the Dogo Argentino)
  • Fila Brasileiro (also known as the Fila, Brazilian Mastiff)
  • Tosa (also known as the Tosa Inu)
  • Any mixed breed dog that bears the majority of physical characteristics as the ‘standard’ for any of the above named breeds.

The ban does include an exception, however. Pit bulls licensed within 60 days of when the ordinance takes effect will be allowed to remain in the city. Pit bull owners who obtain a license within the required timeframe will have to comply with several provisions, including:

  • Pit bull owners must pay an annual $200 licensing fee.
  • Pit bull owners must spay or neuter their animal, provide proof of rabies vaccination and must have a microchip implanted in the animal.
  • Pit bull owners must be at least 21-years-old.
  • Pit bulls owners must provide proof of at least $100,000 of liability insurance.
  • When the pit bull is at home and outdoors, it must be confined in a locked, secured pen or enclosure.
  • Owners must post warning signs on their property.
  • When walking the dog, the pit bull must be muzzled and on a leash no more than four-feet long.

    Failure to comply with the provisions will result in a revocation of the license and impoundment of the animal. If a court finds the pit bull is in violation of the ordinance, it will be destroyed unless the owner can provide proof that it will be moved permanently out of the city limits.

    Anyone found guilty of violating the ordinance will be subject to at least a $700 fine and up to one year in jail.

    For more information, contact the Aurora Animal Care Division at 303-326-8280."

Animal Rights Supporters Have A Mental Disease

ANIMAL rights activists who glorify militant acts against economic targets and laboratories are to face prosecution under terror laws aimed at al-Qaeda supporters.

Right Wing Wackos, Too

Just so you realize I’m not biased… I have already criticized the left wing wackos who want to take away your rights to reasonably own a dog…

I also have a few critical words about right wing wackos who want to take away your rights to reasonably own a dog.

Dog ownership isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. You can get reasonable dog laws passed by appealing to the majority of people from both sides of the aisle. Remember: they own dogs, too.

I’ll spell out more of this in detail later, but here’s the gist of what I mean…

Right wing wackos will object to reasonable dog laws on the following grounds:

a.) “Dogs are property, and we don’t want to limit what people can do with their property. There are strong protections of private property in the US Constitution.”

True. But we have a different set of laws for “living” property and inanimate property. Thus, we talk about “our sons”, “our daughters”, “our wives” and “our husbands”. Yet, we have anti-slavery laws. You can’t do whatever you want with your property, and we punish people for harming “living” property. Just like all reasonable people support laws that punish spousal abuse and the sale of humans, we can also oppose selling dogs in pet stores, animal abuse and puppy mills.

b.) “We are Economic Conservatives. We don't believe in the Bible, but in free enterprise.”

We believe in free enterprise, too. But, we don’t live in a completely laissez-faire political/ economic system. We are highly regulated, and every regulation passed needs exceptions to counterbalance the restrictions imposed. Unless you can start repealing all these restrictive laws, then we need you to make the laws more balanced.

For example: What if the legislature required that if you were to buy a car, you also had to get insurance which guaranteed that if you killed someone in an auto accident, that the insurance company would resurrect them from the dead? In other words, what if they required you to get insurance, but the type of insurance they required was impossible to obtain? Well, that’s what is happening with dog bite legislation. The legislatures are requiring that you get types and amounts of insurance that the insurance companies are refusing to sell. The result is the banning of ownership of certain types of dog. Thus, you need counterbalancing legislation requiring the insurance companies offer whatever type of insurance that is being required.

c.) “Dogs aren’t people, they are dogs. They don’t have any rights in the Bible.”

True. But even God scolded Balaam in the Bible for beating his faithful donkey, so He does care about animals.

There are also horses, lambs, and lions in heaven... heaven isn't just for people... think on that one! There was a good reason why all those animals were loaded up onto Noah's ark... not all of them were food. It's about time to shed your doctrine and start reading the Bible again for what it says and doesn't say, not just what you heard some preacher say...

d.) “We believe in law and order.”

Good. So do responsible dog owners. But you we don’t want the nosy neighbor or the emotionally insane intruding on our rights to own a dog, by over-regulating us and calling the police every minute, either. Conservatives are supposed to be for limited government. The idea of "law and order" doesn't mean passing more and more laws that restrict our liberties more and more. We want objective standards to the law, relating to real harm and personal responsibilty. We don't want laws that are governed by the "feeeeellings" of weirdoes. We also support allowing dogs to be dogs, not holding them to the standard of being people.

There’s more… but I have to leave the house now and train some dogs…

The Natural Habitat Of The Dog

The natural habitat of the wolf is in the forests, beaches, plains, deserts and mountains. They survive by their wits and by those things they learn as part of the wolf pack. The natural habitat of the domestic dog is with humans in human environments. Wherever we go and wherever we live, the domestic dog must survive by their wits and by those things that they learn as part of their human pack. (This is the first part of this series, see Part 2)

Dogs have been the companions of humans before the beginning of recorded history. There’s no proof that dogs are manmade creations that came from wolves. They are uniquely able to thrive with people. In fact, it would be wrong to tell a dog it can’t live with people. Where is the domestic dog going to go if it can’t live with people? Most dog breeds aren’t equipped to both live with people and live in the wild. In fact, if a dog gets lost and away from people, they will most likely die. A dog is happiest and functions best with human companionship. The domestic dog’s habitat is with people.

In modern society, we must purposefully make a place for our dogs in order for them to survive. Unfortunately, we are crowding our dogs out of our society. In most areas, it’s hard to find a hotel, apartment or condominium that will accept a dog over 25 pounds. The funny thing is, that most dog owners are wealthier than the average person and are willing to pay extra to find a place to stay that takes a dog. In fact, private business owners could make a lot more money if they allowed dogs onto their premises and just charged the owners extra for the privilege. I know I’m willing to pay extra to be able to bring my dog into public and business areas.

It’s also hard to find parks that allow people to Train their dogs off leash. Our dogs NEED the space to learn off leash obedience in public areas, but we rarely allow them the opportunity to do so. It’s no wonder that so many dogs are untrained and anti-social. We don’t give them ample opportunities public opportunities to practice their obedience and social skills. There are also dog bans in many areas. In some cities and countries, it’s illegal or nearly impossible to own certain breeds of dog, regardless of their behavior. Many natural parks ban dogs from their trails and back country.

As a taxpayer and dog owner, I often ask whether it is really necessary to ban dogs from all trails in our National Parks. Couldn’t each major trail and area be analyzed to see if a dog would cause damage or harm? And if not, why not open up some of the trails to dog owners? Surely, there are some trails that could be opened up in almost every park. The only exceptions would be parks like Yellowstone that have dangerous physical (geysers) and animal (grizzly bears) hazards. Why should a dog owner, with a trained dog, be prevented from taking a walk with his or her dog in our National Parks? Anyone who has ever owned a dog knows how much fun, and how happy it makes a dog, to hike with them on a nature trail. In all my years, I have never seen ANY evidence of ANY damage to natural areas by leashed dogs. Why should our dogs be deprived of this happiness? And, why are we paying our tax dollars for OUR PARKS to prevent us from reasonably and safely using them?

With some Parks, it makes no sense for dogs to be banned. For example, Mt. St. Helens, in Washington State was destroyed by a huge volcanic blast. The blast was more powerful than a nuclear bomb. And, it’s predicted that the mountain will blow again in less than 100 years. Every tree within miles was blown down, and will be blown down again with the next blast. It’s just a bunch of dirt. But, dogs are banned beyond the parking lots.

How is it that it was OK with Mt. St. Helens park officials to allow tractors and logging crews to comb the hillsides there to pick up the downed trees, but a dog on a leash is not permitted on the trails? Which does more damage, tractors and logging crews, or a leashed dog on a designated trail? How is it that tractors are used to plow roads, and road crews are permitted to use dynamite to blow through rocks, in order to build miles of roads, visitor centers, and forest service roads? Which does more damage, tractors and road crews, or a leashed dog on a designated trail? Some of the trails are even paved, but dogs are not allowed even on the paved trails! In addition, horses, bicycles, 4-wheel drive pickups, and motocross bikes are allowed in the park, but not dogs! In fact, 1,000 pound domestic horses are allowed in many of our parks and trails. How can a huge animal, like a horse, which eats park grass and plants, and leaves huge piles of dung on our trails, be allowed in our parks, but not our dogs (which weigh far less, defecate far less, and are less likely to do any wear and tear to the grounds)?

Wild animals and wild dogs are allowed in our parks. Foxes, coyotes, and wolves roam freely, kill wildlife and defecate all over our parks with no damage. How in the world is a domestic dog, on a leash, on a designated trail, going to cause more damage than the wildlife that is already in the park?

How is the domestic dog going to be more damaging to our natural areas than:

The Bear: 300 to 600 pounds. Eats park vegetation and other animals. Should we ban the bear?

The Elk: 1,000+ pounds. Hooves damage sensitive park plants, sinking deep into the ground. Destroys trees with antlers. Huge amounts of dung. Should we ban the Elk?

The Buffalo: 2,000 pounds. Walks over sensitive geyser basins at Yellowstone Park, carries diseases that might be contagious to domestic cattle, walks off trails, leaves huge amounts of dung. Should we ban the Buffalo?

Wild Dogs: Wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, and wild dogs run freely, unleashed in parks around the world killing and eating endangered species. Should we ban Wild Dogs from our parks?

In fact, which group of animals would produce the greatest amount of dung on the grounds: the deer, wolves, foxes, marmots, birds, foxes, elk, and moose, or the domestic dogs on the trails? In fact, if the sight and smell and effects of dung is the issue, then why does almost every park have a visitor display that explains why animal waste is so important to the health and vitality of the park?

There is no documented scientific evidence, anywhere in the world, that shows leashed and supervised domestic dogs have ever measurably and significantly damaged any forest, park, beach, habitat, etc. One additional bogus argument why dogs are banned from wilderness areas is because they might scare off the animals that live there. That’s nonsense. YOUR presence on a trail will probably scare the animals as much or more than a leashed dog. Most wild animals are particularly afraid of humans. Wild predators are much more of a threat to the wild animals than your leashed dog. In fact, except at parks like Yellowstone, where people are afraid to go into the wilderness, it’s usually rare to even see most wild animals at all, whether you have a dog or not.

The reason dogs are banned from so many areas is because some people don’t like domesticated animals, because some people don’t like dogs, and because some people are afraid of dogs... not because the dogs, or their owners have done anything to deserve banishment.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

BEWARE: Types Of Dog Haters

There are several types of dog hater out there. These people will file false claims against your dog, fight for banning dogs from public and private life, harass you, and generally cause problems for all dog owners. All these types want to criminalize dog ownership.

The Phobic Hater

This person is irrationally afraid of dogs. Even so, they expect us to paddy cake their mental disorders in order to make them feel better. Always remember, the natural response to intense fear: FIGHT OR FLIGHT. These folks are mentally unstable, so they will either get away from you, or mount an unbelievably vigorous attack against your rights to own a dog. These people perceive an altered reality, and will imagine danger and offenses that never happened, but will testify, even in court, that they did.

Animal Rights Nut

They don’t believe in the domestication of wild animals. So, they don’t want you to own, breed or train your dog. Their positions are rooted in fanaticism. They can’t be reasoned with, so don’t even try. They have to be exposed for who and what they are.

Anti-Social Nutcases

These egocentric people are anti-social when it comes to your dog. They typically hate dogs (and children). Their attitude is “it's your dog, not mine.” There is a difference between people asking you to exercise personal responsibility, and asking you to kiss their rear ends just because they don’t like dogs. These people will nit pick every little thing your dog does. They study all the rules, and they like to get elected or appointed to committees that will determine your freedom to own your dog. These people are the first ones to call animal control or the police, and will claim danger and offenses that never happened, but will testify, even in court, that they did. Unlike the Phobic Hater, they don’t perceive an altered reality. They will lie and make things up to set you and your dog up for legal problems. They will try and ban dogs from housing, hiking trails, family cook outs, the workplace, beaches, any off leash areas, parks, etc. These people will not tolerate any audible dog barking. Dogs are going to bark, and we have to have reasonable rules to allow dogs to be dogs, and for dog owners to have a dog… but the Anti-Social Nutcase will press for a zero tolerance rule on barking… they will fight you even if they far away from you. They will use the barking as an excuse to force you and your dog out of the neighborhood. These types are especially intolerant of noise of any kind, so will press for zero tolerance laws and enforcement of extreme dog barking laws (these laws are clearly inhumane… forcing barking cases into court, where dog owners are fined thousands of dollars, and made to cut out the vocal cords of their dogs by the judges.) These people will complain about your dog even if it lives blocks away from them. These are the types of wackos that will poison your dog to get rid of it. You will also see then walking the neighborhood with a stick (often a sharpened stick or walking cane so they can stab and injure a dog they have a grudge against). Many of theses types have an aggressive and violent nature. These people don’t want to be around your dog at all. Their mentality is “I don't want a dog, and I don't want yours around me, either.” These people DO NOT want to greet your dog in public, or even have your dog around, period. They figure dogs should live in the country (…as if there are no people there). They are nosy, and will meddle in things that are none of their business. I have found many of these types to tend towards being cranky, hermit types. They figure that they should control and initiate all personal interactions, whether it is with dogs, kids, neighbors, businesses, or others. If you intrude into their world, uninvited, then they will be offended and go after you… and your dog. They want to teach you and your dog “a lesson”.

The Opportunist

These are the political types that use dog issues to further their political careers. They don’t care one way or the other about dogs. They will pass restrictive dog legislation and rules for their own benefits.

The Cheapskate

These types resent it if tax dollars are allotted to providing park space specifically for dogs. They forget that dog owners are tax payers, too. They also don’t realize the benefits dogs have to human society.

Why Radical Political Philosophy Harms Your Dog

When you see me criticize communism, socialism, left wing wacko ideas, and collectivists on this blog, you need to know why they are a danger to your dog.

These political philosophies all have one thing in common… they justify horrible acts of big government in the name of the public good.

Concrete Examples:

Nicholas Kristof is a major far left wing wacko columnist for the New York Times. The New York Times has a radical, left wing agenda. You have to read every article with the understanding that they are not just reporting the news, but are trying to influence public policy towards socialist/ communist ends. Want proof?

In a recent column, Kristof justifies why it was OK for Mao, the ultimate communist, to cause the deaths of about 70 million Chinese. Here is what Kristof knows, and yet also we see how he views these atrocities:

EVEN THOUGH MAO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF 70 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE:“Mao, however monstrous, also brought useful changes to China

EVEN THOUGH, LIKE ALL TYRANTS, MAO MURDERED HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS: “He wrote to party headquarters that he had discovered 4,400 subversives in the army and had tortured them all and executed most of them.”

EVEN THOUGH MAO WAS A MEGALOMANIC: “At times, Mao seems nuts. He toyed with getting rid of people's names and replacing them with numbers”

QUIBBLING OVER WHETHER MAO’S INCOMPETENCE LED TO THE DEATHS OF 38 OR 28 MILLION PEOPLE: “Take the great famine from 1958 to 1961. The authors declare that "close to 38 million people died," and in a footnote they cite a Chinese population analysis of mortality figures in those years. Well, maybe. But there have been many expert estimates in scholarly books and journals of the death toll, ranging widely, and in reality no one really knows for sure - and certainly the mortality data are too crude to inspire confidence. The most meticulous estimates by demographers who have researched the famine toll are mostly lower than this book's: Judith Banister estimated 30 million; Basil Ashton also came up with 30 million; and Xizhe Peng suggested about 23 million. Simply plucking a high-end estimate out of an article and embracing it as the one true estimate worries me; if that is stretched, then what else is?”

THIS MASS MURDERER GETS CREDIT BY KRISTOF BECAUSE MAO PROMOTED SOME FAVORITE LIBERAL CAUSES, SO HE MUST HAVE BEEN AN OK GUY IN SOME RESPECTS: “I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao's legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao's entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world's new economic dragon.”

HERE'S THE REAL TRUTH: Mao’s legacy is that we now have a country with a billion people, working feverously to build a massive military machine, threatening the US with nuclear war so they can engage in an unprovoked war and takeover of Taiwan, and still China is a brutal communist dictatorship (remember the Tiananmen Square protests against political oppression?). Gee… Mao… what a guy! What a great legacy.

Get my point?

This type of world viewpoint is psychopathic (see my previous post on psychopaths).

I guess we could say, if we thought like Kristof, “Hitler, however monstrous, also brought useful changes to Vichy France, Germany, Poland and Austria.” Or we could say, though Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, he at least kept the trains running on time (to efficiently deliver the Jews to the gas chambers). Remember your history? What were the Nazis? The were the National SOCIALIST Party. Socialist.

Using this logic, we could also say another great communist, Stalin , was a great guy. At least the great purges and building of the Gulags gave some folks a job to do.

I SAID ALL THAT TO SAY THIS

This same mentality is what drives politicians to ban pit bulls in a city like Denver. They will say that even though they seized and killed hundreds of innocent dogs from innocent owners, it will all be justified if no pit bull ever bites another child. This is why I think breed bans, and unfair dog bite and barking laws constitute a Dog Holocaust.

Can you now see why you have to reject these types of political philosophies if you love your dog?

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Ban Criminals, Not Dogs

Convicted felons would be barred from owning aggressive dogs or those weighing more than 20 pounds under legislation Contra Costa County supervisors will consider Tuesday.

This is the way to deal with the dangerous dog problems around the world. Go after the criminals, not the dogs.

By banning criminals from owning large dogs, the police will have new tools to go after drug dealers, dog fighting/ gambling operations, and a variety of animal abusers. Breed bans punish dogs for the crimes of people. The better way is to ban bad people from owning dogs.

All around the world, gutless and ignorant politicians have been passing pit bull/ Rottweiler/ Doberman bans. Denver passed a pit bull banning law, and has sent the police to people’s homes, seizing innocent dogs from innocent owners, and put the dogs to death. This is outrageous and inhumane. Even worse, once these bans are enacted, the politicians just keep adding breeds to the list. In Italy, they have banned over 92 dog breeds.

This is why I oppose pet licensing. Denver used their pet licensing information to locate and round these dogs up. Did they even consider that the people that took the time and paid the cost to license their dogs were probably NOT the kinds of people that would let their dogs harm innocent people? Do you think that criminals license their dogs before they deploy them to protect their drug operations, or before they put them in pits to fight, or before they get in a drunken rage and beat their dogs?

This is why some people call breed bans a kind of Dog Holocaust. There are many parallels to what was done in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.

I worked with several pro-dog organizations several years ago, and proposed banning certain types of felons from owning big dogs. The politicians liked the idea, but the groups didn’t pursue it… and the idea never went anywhere. So, I’m glad to see that someone has come up with the same concept and is trying to implement it.

I don’t necessarily support all provisions of this new law in Contra Costa County, but these folks are on the right track. Sometimes in politics, in order to get your main objectives, you have to accept that politicians will tack on other provisions that you wouldn’t really want in an ideal world. That’s life. For the most part, this sounds like a pretty good start.