DENVER: HOW BSL KEEPS GOING AND WHY

In 1989 Denver City Council passed the pitbull ban; in so doing, the following alleged "facts" were stated:

Characteristics selectively bred into or found in pitbull dogs:

Strong fighting instinct/low level of fighting inhibition; strong chase instinct (which "experts" believe causes pitbulls to be a danger around running children)

Tendency to attack even when no provoked behavior; diminished tendency to bark,growl or otherwise warn prey of attack; tendency to fight to the death and not quit a fight once started (allegedly resulting in more severe injuries)

Ability to withstand great pain (allegedly making it hard for one to fight off);powerful jaw capable of crushing bones/hanging on to victim even while animal withstands injury

Tendency to tear flesh, which has resulted in grotesque injuries to humans;Combination of agility, stamina, strength w/genetic predisposition to aggressiveness that makes them 'uniquely dangerous' even to their owners among all breeds of dogs, especially where improperly raised/trained.

All of these factors were presented in the Colorado Dog Fanciers case, and when appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, the Court sustained the rational basis of the lower court's opinion. It should be noted that the Plaintiffs did not do all they could have done at the trial level, which helped pave the way for the resulting defeat. (Contrast this case with the way Tellings was decided at the appeals level and you can see the difference.) This clearly shows that when litigating these cases, which are very political, Plaintiffs need to work much harder than they would in a normal civil case. Nothing can be assumed. Denver's breed ban was thus still intact.

Colorado Legislature Passed HB 04-1279 in 2004, Prohibiting BSL

Denver immediately filed suit, alleging that Denver's home rule authority allowed them to supersede the state law. The case proceeded to trial and the state argued that the ordinance had become unconstitutional as new facts and or science developed since 1991 had undermined the rational of the ordinance.
Note: On Wikipedia under "Pitbull" dogs, it was incorrectly noted that the Colorado prohibition against BSL was overturned by Denver. This is incorrect, Denver did not overturn the state law (as explained below) and the incorrect fact was corrected on Wikipedia yesterday.

Colorado Dog Fanciers case Revisited 2005, Denver against State of Colorado

The State of Colorado appears to have presented only a limited view of their contention and used only one expert (Doctor Estep.) Judge refused to allow American Canine Foundation to intervene into the case, and so the expert testimony that could have been presented (which had previously been given to the Colorado Legislature, after which BSL was prohibited)-- was not allowed.

The Judge further did not allow some of the evidence relied upon by Dr. Estep by claiming that it was not relevant and ultimately found that the state had not met its burden in proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ordinance was unconstitutional, and that the state had failed to provide new evidence.
AT this point, it should be noted that the evidence that likely would have shown beyond a reasonable doubt for the state, was not allowed to come in.

So, despite the prohibition against BSL for the state of Colorado, Denver's ordinance remained intact mainly because judge called the issue of dog regulation a local issue and not one of either statewide or state/local. (If it was labeled as statewide or state/local, then the ordinance would have been superseded by state law.) I think the state/local or even statewide is the more appropriate category, but we have to remember this is Denver.

Kory Nelson loves to gloat about the fact that the ordinance has been preserved. He loves to push the fact that it has twice been reviewed by courts. But he doesn't LIKE the fact that the American Canine Foundation (ACF) gave evidence to the Colorado Legislature, and he doesn't like the fact that the State even tried to supersede the Denver ordinance.

For these reasons, it is obvious as to why Kory Nelson embarked upon a solicitation campaign and online battle to try and tell numerous governmental entities, attorney groups, victims, and basically anyone who would listen to him, that the ACF is a strawman for dogfighters, that ACF does not file nor win any lawsuits, that ACF takes blood money and breeds dogs and that ACF is not credible. Nelson even brags that he goes to the BSL-UPDATES@Yahoogroups.com for gathering "intelligence" information so he can use it against the dog advocates which he claims are all fronts for dog fighters. That statement alone should have raised the ire of every single dog owner in the states!

After Nelson saw that Tellings had announced he would appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Nelson embarked on assisting the Seattle bite site which is patterned exactly after all the writing Nelson has done. Nelson is afraid that the high court might hear the Tellings case, or worse, perhaps issue a ruling in favor of Tellings. Anyone familiar with the Tellings case in depth can see that the case was not decided properly at the Ohio Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court may not even hear the Tellings case. But one never knows.
However, if anyone is familiar with the Cowan case out of Ohio, one can see that a dog that has attacked people on different occasions is entitled to an owner hearing but the owner of a pitbull does not get that same hearing, because the prima facie designation as a "vicious" dog precludes having such a hearing. Even if that dog has done absolutely nothing wrong.

The Tellings case is not exactly like the Denver ordinance, but Nelson is worried anyway and will do anything to try and preserve BSL as if his life or job depended upon it. We hope that the bite webmaster continues to follow Nelson because she will be in for a surprise down the line. The only thing NOT offensive about the bite site is that we agree dog owners should be held to criminal standards in most cases. To have that happen, the people in areas which do not have strict dangerous dog laws would need to petition the government. We don't believe in BSL so the law would have to be breed neutral. As Los Angeles is getting clever these days by stringing onto their MSN both animal hoarding, and dog fighting, it is obvious that they are preparing to make it difficult to attack MSN. As for laws which would force dog owners to compensate victims, that is another subject.

KORY NELSON'S "OWN" GROUP ON DANGEROUS DOGS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DangerousDogLaw/

Description
"This restricted group will act as an objective oasis for local and state government officials seeking to obtain and exchange reliable information, strategy suggestions, and legal analysis on issues related to Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) for the constitutional exercise of police power to protect citizens against dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls. This will NOT be a place open for debate with opponents to BSL. Government attorneys, paralegals, elected officials and animal control officials who wish to learn more about the legal issues involved may join.
Smaller jurisdictions may need assistance from experts in dealing with the often emotional, illogical, and anthropomorphic "politically correct" arguments, misleading analysis, misguided dogma, factual mistruths, and often hollow threats lawsuits from dog owners, dog breeders, and individuals who claim to represent organizations of dog owners/breeders.

Examine and discuss such groups as the American Canine Foundation - the leading lobbying group on this topic.Some anti-BSL advocates are suspect. Members to this group may learn who is behind some of these shallow fronts, and learn their manipulative propaganda and lobbying strategy playbook. Some organize under the same generic banner of being "Responsible Dogs owners of Fill-in-the Blank", but may be created and organized by the same few individuals. A huge underground society is involved in dog fighting leaving a river of millions of dollars in blood money and cruel torture and death to innocent animals - both the fighters and the pets stolen or adopted as live training targets or bait. The demand for the best warriors - mostly Pit Bulls, has led to a profit industry for breeders and owners. Learn why anti-BSL advances their cause. If this industry is able to wash their blood $ through a lobbying group, furthering their own hidden agenda, these groups may be either oblivous or deliberately indifferent as to for whom they fight.The Emperor Has No Clothes!"

Founded: 11/5/2004

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it funny that the DAY Nelson was exposed for having helped the bite site get going, that the person who exposed it had their web site hacked down??? Further, that same person was clearly mentioned and verbally attacked later online in the bite weblog. That is not a coincidence.

SPREADING HATE VIA HER WEBSITE........

Below is example of the "canine expert-nouveau" that has cropped up out of Seattle, WA. Using guidelines from people like Kory Nelson, the bite site attempts to tell everyone that BSL MUST be implemented because they have some "facts." Apparently she doesn't care that the entire STATE of Colorado is affected by the PROHIBITION against BSL in regard to canines, and that Denver and several other cities have claimed (as exceptions) to avoid BSL due to their "home rule" which in essence means, they got someone to classify the ISSUE of dangerous dogs as LOCAL as opposed to statewide or a mixed concern (state/local) so that their ordinance supersedes the state law.


We already know Ms. Lynn is an art degreed person and not a canine expert. She probably doesn't even have the common sense to own a dog. And if she did, we would pity that poor animal for having her as the owner. People like this who listen to the likes of Kory Nelson and decide to suddenly jump on a bandwagon without realizing what they are doing are truly not helping.


Instead, this is creating the basis for hate crimes, fostering and focusing on hate against dog owners, the dogs themselves, dog breeders, and of course, dog advocates, since the site clearly stated (on 2/10/08) in a multitude (40) of postings, that those promoting "pitbull" dogs are dogfighters and greedy dog breeders. Although the adminstrator could have pulled those comments, instead she allowed all of them on the site.


Promoting and perpetuating both false data, and so-called studies which are not actual studies which could not be admitted into court, the webmaster-owner of the bite site is categorizing ALL such dog owners, breeders and advocates into DOGFIGHTER strawmen, DOGFIGHTER DOG PRODUCER, AND DOGFIGHTER ADVOCATE simply because we think the dogs are not WHAT SHE says they are. If I was to read her site and didn't know anything about dogs, I might believe that all dog owners, all dog breeders, and all dog advocates were producing dogs for the MICHAEL VICKS of the United States, and I might also believe that since dogfighting is usually a felony in most states, that all of us were felons for knowingly participating in such activities.


Now this might sound rather rude, but anyone who buys into something that Clifton says can't be very smart. It basically is NOT any different from saying that since black men are disproportionately REPRESENTED in jails across the United States, we need to make a law solely against black men. Why there are more of them in jail, if we look at it by proportion. And isn't that exactly what the bite site is saying? The dogs do xxx damage and therefore since they are causing disproportionate damage, we need a law solely against them.


Kory Nelson was not able to show, in a courtroom, that he could prove a specific dog was either a pitbull or whatever breed he claimed it was (since pitbull is not a breed anyway) beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, due to the way the generic pitbull term is often used, it can easily convey the same general physical appearance of many different breeds; further, due to the mixed breeds that might resemble a pitbull "type", how can we expect (when attempting to get a criminal conviction)--that an expert will have examined the dog they end up killing?


In the end, the criminal conviction is only sustained mainly because the owner did not obtain an attorney who could defend him/her properly. (I am not talking about whether or not the owner is responsible.) Since most of these cases are not challenged in court, Kory Nelson has never been forthcoming in admitting the fact that HE was unable to get a conviction against an owner who hired a decent attorney.
Instead, in court he kept rambling on and on in an attempt to convince Judge that the people he put on the stand were expert enough. Apparently after putting a guy on the stand that had done perhaps 500 evaluations of dogs (determining if a "pitbull" or not a "pitbull) and had worked there for 27 years or so, his testimony was not compelling enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. At least that JUDGE had the common sense to realize that much of the identification as to "pitbulls" is nothing more than "if it looks like a pitbull, it is a pitbull." There goes your criminal record.



Here is a sample of what this dog bite site claims to be doing:

"About us: DogsBite.org is a nation-wide group of citizens that have banned together to create a public education web site in support of the following:


"Distinguish which dog breeds are dangerous to have in our neighborhoods.
Help enact laws to regulate ownership of these breeds. (Already in place in several jurisdictions in WA)
Help enact laws that hold dog owners criminally liable if their dog attacks a person and causes serious injury or death. (Already in place in WA)
The facts are clear. Statistically, two breeds account for the most severe attacks: pit bulls and rottweilers. These two breeds do not make up the majority of household dogs, yet they disproportionately represent vicious attacks. This is unsurprising. Both are fighting breeds -- bred for tenacity, skill and strength in the area of fighting." (The Rott is not a fighting dog and merit Clifton or whatever his name is, is a collector of news clippings, not an expert.)

"What is surprising is the following:
Why these breeds are so popular amongst individuals and families.
Why many owners of these breeds refuse to recognize the danger their dog imposes on the community.
Why states do not have stiffer penalties for owners if their dog attacks a person and causes serious injury or death."

"Breed specific legislation: Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) seeks to limit public exposure to dangerous breeds by regulating ownership and breed population. Such laws are justified because far too many people and pets fall victim to these breeds and far too many owners fail to act responsibly on their own."

"DogsBite.org is a resource for individuals and communities seeking to protect their families from dangerous breeds and insufficient laws to prosecute owners after a severe attack. Our organization "gets it." We'd like to help you in any way that we can." [Those last 2 sentences copied out of Nelson's rambling solicitation letters on Denver letterhead. We have copies.]


"Future content: The largest portion of DogsBite.org content is not yet complete. This area is called "Take Action!" In this section, we will show you how to initiate BSL in your community and how to enact tougher dog laws in your state. Other communities have already treaded these paths. We will provide examples of which paths have worked and which have not."


Insufficient laws to prosecute owners after a severe attack? Webmaster of bite does NOT know the laws of her state apparently. And nothing stops victims from filing suit against owners on a civil basis. Restitution (criminal) is seldom paid, and civil lawsuits do not go anywhere against judgment proof owners. I suppose they might suspend their driver's license or some other punitive action could take place if they passed such a law, but that would not help the victim financially. For the record, I am all for dangerous dog owners going to jail.


In the end, we all know that any dog can cause serious damage if it wanted to do so, but statistically speaking, it is a well known fact that many dog-human incidents are the result of parental negligence. In dog rescue, you will easily see that when children and adults approach dogs they do not know, they will immediately place their hand out over a dog's head and get their head/face very close to the dog's face. All of which are completely improper when approaching dogs, especially for kids.

When you don't adquately supervise your toddler and he wanders away, what difference would it make if he is hit by a large truck and dies, or is mauled by a dog and hospitalized? The causal link is the parent who did not do their job. I am not advocating for aggressive dogs or their owners; I am just saying that if not for the negligent parent, there would be far fewer child hurt. In fact, the parent should go to jail for child endangerment. BTW, the jury out of SF on the "pit" mauling of Fabish was unable to convict the mother of the charges and she walked. (I suppose the people could have filed an appeal but I doubt it.)

YOU CAN'T BUY A PUPPY??

Several days before Christmas 2007, animal groups held a demonstration outside the Posh Puppy of Beverly Hills pet store, holding up signs which said DO NOT BUY..ADOPT with the URL of a site to ban puppy mills.

HSUS, Best Friends, Last Chance for Animals and smaller rescue groups pushed their belief that buying a pet "causes" a shelter animal to die.

In California, most extreme animal rights groups are against any type of canine breeding at all. In fact, June 2007 in the AB1634 draft, it was clearly stated that IF an owner was even allowed to have ONE (and only one) litter of pups, they would have to sign a waiver stating they would have to

GIVE THE PUPS AWAY FOR FREE.

The entire absurdity of this mess is that EVEN if small frou frou type dogs end up in animal shelters (which is not often)--people are usually FIGHTING to get the dogs; in one incident, it was stated that an auction was held and a mini poodle went to the highest bidder for $800 from a shelter.

We are very familiar with animal rescue as well as the advocacy by the animal extremist people. If canine breeding is considered criminal and immoral (since it is said by extremists, that it causes a shelter animal to die) and if BYBs are not to be allowed because they aren't good enough, and supposedly every puppy mill or commercial breeding facility is a nightmare on Elm Street, then where are members of the public allowed to obtain a dog besides the shelter or rescue?

It is obvious that if hobby breeders hit the skids, as the intention of CA AB1634 is headed, then only feral cats and commerical breeders will be left out, since they do not fall under the law. What this appears to do is to force the public into obtaining a dog from a shelter or rescue. Although there are many good dogs in rescue, there are very seldom any puppies or female small breed, young dogs, which is what approximately 84% of the public desires.

Part of the reason for this is that the "statistics" pushed by bite studies claim that "females" are less likely to bite. Small dogs are in much higher demand than larger breeds, and the public has been led to believe that "adopting" a dog is preferable to "buying" a dog, because "buying" a dog will make someone rich. Then we have the long time horror stories about all the puppy millers. Of course since puppy mills or commercial breeding facilities are legal, we are only talking about either the ones that produce dogs with bad health, or are in violation of some standard.

It comes down to the fact that obtaining a puppy from a reputable breeder is not usually inexpensive. Puppy milled dogs may be less expensive at the outset but by the time shipping is factored in, and the risk that the dog's health is only covered for certain situations is added, it becomes apparent that buying a dog without knowing its background is risky.

Nevertheless, there are many dogs bred in commercial facilities whose health is not always substandard. A commercial facility might consist only of the minimum number of dogs regulated by the governing law, or it might have a high number of dogs. The point is that if animal activists are going to tell people NOT to buy a dog, and activists also tell people that "buying" a dog causes a shelter animal to die, then activists are saying people must get dogs from shelters or rescues.

If that is the case, and activists will stand outside a place of business even in Beverly Hills to do this, then why are most of the dogs in shelters NOT finding homes???? The answer is pretty simple; the dogs many people want are not in shelters. Many rescued dogs are rescued solely because they have special problems (called special need dogs) or they are allegedly "bad" puppy milled dogs. However, the "bad" puppy milled dogs with brain damage or liver shunts are not free either.

They are priced at $500-$850 online at national small breed rescue sites such as the National Yorkshire Terrier. Then there is the Bichon "rescue" that BUYS puppy mill dogs at auction, and then sells them for $150. Usually they have high medical bills which are all covered by their huge donations from the public. Last time we looked, they took in (or admitted to taking in) more than half a million in one year.

It would seem to us that buying puppy milled dogs from the dog millers, and then taking $500,000 in donations so you can resell the dogs for $150 each is making some vets pretty wealthy. A review of what surgeries are done show they allegedly spend several thousand on certain dogs. However, I personally think that this is not actually considered to be rescuing animals, but is just buying puppy milled rejects and making the millers more income.

As for importing animals, I find that ridiculous when you are still killing shelter animals in the states. Animal activists in many senses, are not placing emphasis on choosing well at the outset when obtaining a dog, but are just pushing people to avoid "buying." I only own rescued dogs myself, but not because I think everyone must have one, nor do I hate dog breeders. I believe that activists should promote adoption of unwanted animals but at the same time realize that they are not for everyone; and I absolutely would NOT demonstrate in front of a legal business to accuse them of something which is not necessarily true. If someone wants to buy a dog, they should be able to buy it and not have to wade through a bunch of zealots out front screaming.

People don't seem to mind it when thousands of patrons flood inside gambling establishments and lose their paychecks or worse. It's a good thing they don't allow pets to be sold inside casinos.

COMPARING BITES BY BREEDS???

When Brady Barr measured the bite force of various animals for a National Geographic program, a hyena again was measured at 1000 pounds of force. A lion's bite force measured 691, a shark 669, and a Rottweiler 328 pounds of force. A German shepherd came in at 238, and a pit bull's bite was measured at 235 psi pounds of force. As far as I can tell, there are no studies of any kind, peer-reviewed or not, showing canine bite force to measure more than the 328 pounds of force recorded by Brady Barr. If you know of any, please share.
(Information on this page is listed at the site directly below here except for bracketed wording as stated below.)
http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/

Why it is extremely difficult to accurately calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.

First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. [Example: newspapers often report dog incidents without ascertaining the actual facts and later have to update the truth; breed of dogs are often unknown to those bitten.]

Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. [Many are actually bitten by pets owned by friends/family which are not reported]

Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. [It is common for many jurisdictions to have less than 20% of the dogs licensed]

Source: AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression; Bracketed comments are only opinions of this blog site and not the AVMA or other site linked above.

CANINE IQ TEST

WOW– Everyone these days is now a dog "expert", "victim" expert, some kind of expert!!!
Why not try and answer the following questions below....................

and see how savvy you are??
~~*~ WARNING: If you don't know much about dogs, you will NOT be able to pass this! Ask a friend who owns a pitbull or rottie to help you. The IQ test below is for entertainment purposes....if you hate certain dogs like Amstaffs for example, forget it. You will never pass.


Your IQ probably is much lower than you imagine. And if you think you're a know it all because you have reviewed the garbage and nonsense published currently attributable to a certain person out of Seattle, Washington---then we have some swamp land for sale on which you can build your new home!!

Since everyone on the Seattle site is posting anonymously, it's pretty obvious that someone is just making up most of the banter in an effort to gain support for a cause that is misdirected. We say misdirected because substantial change in reducing dog incidents, for example, has already been done in places such as Calgary, where there are no breed specific laws. Breed specific laws are generally used where ANIMAL CONTROL IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB PROPERLY. Furthermore, Washington has some of the harshest penalties in place for dangerous dogs.

If you are only talking about victims being monetarily "compensated" that is another story, because in general owners are strictly liable for their dogs. (Dog bite attorneys can explain compensation for victims; but one thing should be carefully noted; dog bite attorneys do not usually take cases where the dog's owner is not insured, or there is no source of assets from which to collect for victim. They will not usually work to obtain a judgment for a victim which is very difficult to collect, or not collectable. On the other hand, an actual crime victim may have possible rights to a crime victim fund in their state if the dog was used in the commission of a crime against victim; this would have to be determined by an attorney in that specific state and there may be specific timeframes for filing administrative remedies. See an attorney quickly. )


Take our word for it, if everything that the Seattle bite blog site said was "true", we would be the first to agree with her. Unfortunately, just about everything she keeps publishing is taken straight out of the mouth of either Kory Nelson, PETA, dog bite ATTORNEY Mr. Phillips out of California (paid to bring lawsuits for bite victims, which is legal), Clifton, news stories (often completely wrong as to "breed" of dog) or someone else who gets paid (such as an "expert") to testify that certain dogs cause whatever damage, even if that opinion would not be necessarily considered as either relevant, material, or expert on the issues at hand. LAST but not least, Clifton Meritt or whatever his name is, is NOT an expert on anything, and his testimony about saving news clippings would not qualify him as one.

Don't care how many years he says he kept track of news "stories". *The Colorado Legislature, on the other hand, in 2004-2005, did have the facts and THEN PASSED A LAW WHICH PROHIBITS BREED SPECIFIC LAWS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. (They did NOT listen to Kory Nelson.) Nelson claims Denver's law remains in effect now because the "court" said it was a "local issue." The court that said this, was NOT the Colorado Supreme Court. We shall see if in fact any other courts believe that Denver has the only local issue regarding dogs when time passes this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Who knows more about canines:

a) City attorney from Denver that solicits victims
b) Dog owners of dogs with good behavior
c) Tom Skeldon, dummy dum-dum of America
d) Ohio Supreme Court, aka Corrupted, Incorp.
e) The cat woman who publishes weblogs about dogs and caters to the lowest mental crowd in America, (think National Enquirer mental giants)-- the sheep that follow anyone who can parrot a sentence (as long as it only has 5 words)

2. Who knows more about why dogs bite:

a) Great parents who don’t know where their 3 yr old kid is right now, and really don’t care anyway
b) Owner of dog that leaves dog 24/7 alone in back yard, no water, no shade, no shelter, what the hell
c) Owner of 2lb midget dog that takes midget to dog park to frolic with 100lb doggies, no leashes of course, no biggie
d) Owner of 2lb midget dog that allows midget to go after any other dog because midget is 2lb and harmless but midget ends up with a busted butt

e) Owner/Dog walking calmly down the street wearing a pink muzzle due to ordinance saying it must be worn because you (dog) “look like a pitbull type” therefore you must be one!

3. What is the worst blog out there re dogs, (amounting to the National Enquirer about dogs for Idiots) and who is publishing it:

a) Extreme dogs (sled pull)

b) Extremely stupid Yahoo group, dangerous dogs and the political “pundit” (his own words) who started it to push BSL and get rid of dog advocates across the country–oh–yah–and the dogs as well–why not? I will just find an expert with a fake certificate who can pretend he knows ALL about dog behavior!!

c) Legendary Lloyd Levine, he doesn't need a blog to show his ignorance!

d) Dog torturer Skeldon who couldn’t publish a blog unless he thought it resembled a pitbull, which he could then instantaneously recognize with the bat of an eye as a must-be-a-criminal-gangbanger-drug lord-criminal-gangbanger-oh-i-already-said-that-one-Duh!!

e) Last but not least, alleged "bully" victim Colleen Lynn, of Washington, who thinks that because a dog bit her, it is her civic duty to follow the solicitor’s every notion as to why every dog of a particular type or breed is a timebomb just waiting to happen and for pete’s sake let’s not forget that we don’t know one cotton pickin’ thing about canines, but I need to be compensated for a dog bite, and that we got an art degree, not a science degree, but who cares, i make websites and i know how to read and write and dogs aren’t all that difficult to figure out when they take a bite at you are they? HAHAHAHAHA

NO, the dogs know that certain people can’t tell a canaan from a JR terrier from a lab mix from anything with a somewhat flat head and two ears which, according to most or all newspapers, are in fact pitbull dogs; remarkably in Colorado, animal control even claimed that CHOW CHOW dogs were pitbull dogs---oh yes, and they bit a child's arm or whatever. *Nothing personal against Chow Chow dogs, but if you know a Chow from a bull then you know there ain't no mistakin' the two.

4. OK everyone–quickly!! Who is Kory Nelson?

a) oh BOY this is too easy–he works in the Gravy Train solicitation department in Denver! And aren’t there 98-99 other attorneys working there, making it one of Denver’s largest “law firms?”

b) ok maybe I made a mistake–is he the one that sends out solicitation letters to victims and other governmental entities to make them see he is the “expert” on dog law, has 'certified' psych experts to boot, and knows that the state of Colorado has outlawed breed specific laws (2004)-- but he must push on, he must go forward, he must find and kill, he must get rid of every living dog that resembles a particular breed or type or so help me God I might puke? *hint–you are getting close!

c) WAIT WAIT! No, no, no—- he’s the one in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper who told the reporter that people would be justified in shooting a pitbull in the street and that San Francisco should obtain BSL to get rid of those pesky pitbull dogs who took out that la crosse player lady–oh wait a second, by jove that was not a pitbull , that was the two dogs purposely trained by owners to be man killers for the express purpose of bringing down humans and who went to jail for the acts of the dogs!

Ok forget that, let's use the Fabish kid case instead, at least that dog might have been part pit. I think. Well, since I can't, as city attorney, actually identify a "pitbull" dog beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe it was something else. But never mind. I will just suggest the dog awful site webmaster simply copy whatever GOOGLE says because their word is the gospel!! Ya know?

d) AH HA--Now it’s coming to me; he must be the so-called self-titled “messenger” (being sent by whom? the City of Denver? ) that published in writing to third parties, that the leading dog advocacy lobbying group against BSL is the American Canine Fdn which allegedly does not know for whom it lobbies (according to our boy here)--but, according to the messenger-boy himself:

....."if this industry* is able to wash their blood $$ through a lobbying group, furthering their own hidden agenda, these groups may be either oblivious or deliberately indifferent as to for whom they fight."
[*industry meaning dogfighters]

Can't you just hear Messenger-boy musing to himself.................
...as I flat out stated before, they are strawmen for dogfighters, even though I have not any evidence for such a defamatory statement but I can publish those types of statements because I am on the gravy train with 99 other attorneys, I have confidential info, and I am always right and I can get away with sending solicitation letters to victims or other city governments on Denver City and County letterhead because I am the man and I RULE!!!

...I know that Colorado dog fanciers case inside out and who cares if it was in 1991?! Who cares if the Petitioners at that time did not submit true and sufficient evidence (like that which was submitted by the American Canine Fdn to the Colorado LEGISLATURE, which then outlawed BSL in Colorado)--- Who cares if Denver city attorneys and the County of Denver never 'authorized' me to do it, (or did they?! ) There is such a thing as apparent authority. I do what I want, and I say what I want because, constitutional law and all that, ya know? Just call me 'pundit dude'!

Hey! I work in Code Enforcement and I see criminals everywhere!

And never mind that the Tellings v Ohio case is at the Supreme Court of the United States (horror of all horrors)-- I am really afraid the court might hear the case or maybe even RULE on the case, which the American Canine Fdn helped push–of course, I am praying hard that the court will just dismiss the case. Only thing is.....
I can’t figure out why on earth a strawman for doggiefighters group would want to call such drastic attention to themselves with the Vicktory dogs bust going down, and all those horrible dogs being placed in dog rescues, for later adoption to suitable homes--and--where the government had Vick pay nearly $1 million bucks to care for all of them (the awful dogs which were tortured) so they could enjoy a better, or more normal life in suitable homes??! Go figure!

...Oh sure, I was previously told that my actions in publishing such statements were essentially defamatory and that I needed to immediately remove my statement alluding to the group as dogfighter strawmen.
...But like I said, in my Yahoo group blurb on dangerous dog law for other smaller [and maybe even larger] government entities, which has helped other places START BSL, those dog advocacy groups echo stuff like threats of hollow lawsuits, and I am sure they will never take any action against ME....so what's the big tadoo about?

....Hmmm.....Could it possibly be because they are not strawmen for dogfighters but instead members of the public that helped enact one of the harshest laws against dangerous dog owners in the state of Washington, that have individuals who have worked on dogfighting taskforce teams, that will not tolerate a pinhead attorney who is nothing but a corrupt civil servant, investigated by the FBI, that is breaking the disciplinary rules, ethical rules, court rules, and more?!
Gee, now who is the "messenger"?!

5. What animal “saving” group, known as radical or animal extremist, says they SAVE animals by killing, in 2006, 97% of the companion animals they take in to “save?”

a) Uh, is it that group which is extremely big in the Bay Area, which helped to pass SB861, breed specific legislation, which are all vegans (veg heads) who believe that animals should NOT be OWNED and that animals are NOT our property? Where that group has a stranglehold upon the entire San Francisco area and has brainwashed them into believing that dog breeding is a moral sin and a tax haven for breeder-criminals??!

b) Is it that lady Ingrid who will use every tactic possible to call attention to their sworn agenda to eradicate animals from being used or owned by humans in any way, shape, or form, and if it means killing every homeless animal rather than finding it a home, by golly gee then that’s what we will do until we kill 100% of all animals we take in.
Of course--- that 'won’t' count the 100’s of animals we had to kill and dump in the Piggly Wiggly dumpsters in our neck of the woods when we were not at fault, after all those employees were just stretching it a bit, you know, they didn’t have bloody permission to dump them in those dumpsters, they were supposed to dump them further out of town!

But I forget—they were not convicted of abuse to animals, they were convicted of littering–such a small offense! Never mind the killing, it didn’t amount to much! Who would know anyway, right? We saved all those kitties and pups from bad humans!! We made sure they were killed quickly!

And YES, it’s true, indeed we do call for the killing of all pitbull dogs because they are bad, and used by bad people!! Never mind that they can be/are very loyal dogs with a proven temperament higher than the Shih Tzu breed according to the ATT; and never mind that even the huge majority of the Vick dogs, which were used at one time to fight, are considered human non-aggressive by canine behaviorists/those testing the dogs. (National Geographic will be completing the documentary on the dogs and their rehab work down the line.)

c) I was thinking maybe it was that group which has stated “No Birth Nation” on Animal Planet?? And after all, the British Broadcasting Company does nearly all the production for those cutsie animal documentaries (check it out yourself) which often feature people who harm animals, people who kill animals, people who hunt animals, people who poach animals, and ... etc.

Right!
....... from watching Animal Planet, it appears that all people are not fit to own animals, because animals are not our property –so we better eliminate all the domesticated animals from being owned by people, and get that mandatory spay and neuter going to achieve the No Birth Nation, kinda like San Francisco, where you can’t buy a puppy (or fur, God forbid), anymore because you will be stoned to death by animal activists, and God forbid you want a small breed puppy off of craigslist, because they will flag you off so fast your eyes will pop. And don't even TRY to go to Beverly Hills Posh Puppy, because the activisits will stand outside and scream/chant no one should BUY a dog they should ADOPT a dog!! (Much too long for explanation here!)

Hell, I guess I will have to work on the low level non thinkers to get a law passed to alter every dog/cat in the state of California, why not start BIG? I mean, we got craigslist to stop allowing people to sell/get homes for their animals and only allow paltry rehoming, rescue or adoption fees like $25 so that people can get animals for nearly free, never mind the fact that studies show that animals purchased for $0.00-$100 are the ones most often landing in the shelters!! (And never mind that prostitution and murder is posted on craigslist but you can't buy a puppy on there!)

Oh, but that doesn’t matter if those animals land in the shelters because I, Ingrid, worked overtime in DC when I worked for animal control, so I could kill more animals before the other employees even got to work!! What a thrill!
No better way to save animals from “people” than to kill them before they can find a home!! Is that not the best remedy for homeless animals?

And by time that mandated altering is in place, well I know it won’t affect ANY FERAL CATS–but hey–it’s still a great proposed law, that AB1634. We are definitely advocating for it!! It will mean no more killing in shelters unless I get a job there! JaHA Just kidding, it will actually mean there will be MORE killings, because people who are cited for violations will not bail out their animals.

SO what will happen is they will KILL more animals AND since the ones that are having animals born out of wedlock probably can't be found, let's just blame everything on dog breeders!!

That's the ticket! Easier to find, easier to fine,

easier to use as a scapegoat!!

Gee I am brilliant!!

And amazing just how many of these sheep actually

bought into the theory!!!

Why I might even have some people take animals from rescue groups and then say I will get them a home, but forget it, that would be too much work!! Killing ‘em would be faster and easier so off to the dumpsters!!

By the way, that real peabrain, Judi Mancuso, has become a vegan like myself, and she’s trying to get that AB1634 passed. I mean she wants to save cats, but as I said, AB1634 does NOT apply to feral cats (which is the leading number of animal demise in shelters), so I guess that we can’t save them via AB1634. Who cares?! Our goal isn’t to save any animals anyway, it’s just to save any of those animals from humans even owning them as their property.

Why after all, didn’t humans put the animals in the shelters? C’mon, don’t tell me there is no animal “overpopulation”, even though I see tons and tons of people who want dogs/cats/pups/kittens and must end up getting puppy milled dogs from out of state, because we shut down most of the good breeders by using our infamous mantra:

spay and neuter
spay and neuter
spay and neuter
spay and neuter your neighbor's dog

I know that most shelter animals were OWNED by people and they give them up for various reasons after they are not small and cute anymore.
I think those people who want a pet, should be forced to take animals in shelters—despite the fact that most animal shelters admit that 50% or possibly more, of the animals in the shelters do not pass temperament testing, and that, as it was shown in the past, 52% or more of the fatal incidents involving humans/canines are attributable to re-homed, shelter, or rescued canines--which is what craigslist caters to--"adoption" of animals with problems.

We hate breeders, even good breeders!!
Why?? Because we don't want people to own animals, much less have more of them to pick from! Animals are NOT commodities--they are not property--and that's what we advocate.
I know about that recent study that involved dogs which bit children, and I did read that 93% of the biting dogs in the study, WERE ALTERED–but heck—I am pretty sure they must have made a mistake because I always believed that ALTERED dogs didn’t bite people? Hmmmm….???? Well ya can’t win em all, huh???
So 93% of the biting dogs were neutered already. And maybe those dogs were re-homed, rescued or shelter dogs? Gee, there sure are a lot of things going on these days aren’t there?
...And if I didn’t know better, I would think that people who don’t know a rat’s ass about canines or the subject of inherently dangerous dogs, canine genetics, or worked personally with those that do, or have studied the law, should not be making idiots of themselves and trying to fool the public by publishing third party hearsay news accounts of situations she knows absolutely nothing about personally, in order to push canine profiling taught by unethical, unprofessional civil servants investigated by the FBI................

I may be radical, but I don’t try and pretend to know everything about canines. I don’t need to know those things because I have "people" like Pamela Anderson to shake her booty and stuff, and I can just quote other people if I need to?

.. As for messenger-boy, aka self proclaimed "pundit" ha ha ha.... I would be v-e-r-y careful……..you never know who’s watching. I have to call the ACLU to help me because whenever I try and get on a plane, they want to strip search me.
And when I get those teenage kids out there protesting and ruining businesses which are legit, I tell ‘em don’t worry about the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act)—the SHAC 7 only got a total of 24 years jail time. AND ALL THEY DID WAS USE THE COMPUTER? The tertiary targeting, harrassment, and in some cases smoke bombs like the ADL of Los Angeles and all, intimidation, etc, hey–ya know we gotta make a scene to make people take us seriously!!