Auburn, California, as we’ve previously blogged, had an incident a few months ago where a small group of Pit Bulls attacked a teenager. After that attack, Auburn was looking at drafting a new anti-Pit Bull ordinance. Originally, council member Kevin Hanley wanted to ban Pit Bulls (Auburn Journal report), but he later discovered that banning Pit Bulls is illegal in California.

After many hours of advocacy and education attempts, it appeared that we had been successful in showing most of the Auburn City Council members that any new dog law should target irresponsible owners of all breeds, not Pit Bulls as a breed. Will Wong, Auburn Community Development Director, has been working on some draft ordinances to submit to the city council, and we’ve been in close contact with him about when these draft ordinances might be ready for review.

Just before the draft ordinances were finalized, a dog that the Auburn Journal identified initially as an 80-pound male Pit Bull escaped its owners yard, went into the neighbor’s hard, and attacked a 91 year-old man, doing serious damage to his hand. A responding police officer chased and ultimately shot and killed the dog.

As it turns out, the dog is not a purebred “pitbull” (as Auburn spells the breed). The dog was identified by animal control as a Rottweiler / Pit Bull mix. What that means is, unless the owners have both parents on site (which doesn’t appear to be the case), there really is no way to determine with any degree of accuracy the breed of the dog. Pit Bulls, as educated people know, generally do not reach the 80 pound mark (unless they are very overweight!). The breed standards for the various registries that recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier generally call for a dog between 40 and 65 pounds.

In a followup article, the Auburn Journal changed the breed reference from “pitbull” to “pitbull cross,” referencing once in the second paragraph that the dog was identified as Rottweiler-Pit Bull mix.

Although, according to News10, the dog in question was actually a record-breaking, 80-pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Now that is one really, really big Bull! (For those who don’t know, Staffy Bulls are generally between 24 and 38 pounds).

Of course, even though Pit Bulls are usually smaller, that doesn’t mean they don’t get up to 80 pounds. Sure they do, just like human beings sometimes reach seven feet in height. However, 80+ pounds is not typical of purebred Pit Bulls (of course, there are many mixed breed dogs identified by bystanders as either “Pit Bulls” or “Pit Bull” mixes).

Not that it really matters what breed the dog was in this case. What matters is that an irresponsible owner who, according to some reports, had a dog known to act aggressively in the past, continued to keep this dog and — even worse — keep it in an unsecured back yard from which it was easily able to escape.

Pit Bull owners (and owners of dogs that look like they might possibly have touched a drop of Bully Breed in their lineage), if you really want to make sure that anti-Pit Bull laws come to your town, all you have to do is let your dog roam loose–bonus points if your dog is aggressive and injures a person!

Of course, we have to point out the obvious once again — the Auburn Journal has only, thus far, reported on Pit Bull attacks. The only mention of anything even resembling a non-Pit Bull dog attack is in a letter to the editor when a man states a good Samaritan tried to return a wallet when his Rottweiler “almost attacked” the good Samaritan. The other mention is a brief photo caption of a person holding out money as a reward for a dog that attacked a horse.

If you read The Auburn Journal, you’d think that Pit Bulls are the only dogs that bite in Auburn, which is obviously not true. The truth is that The Auburn Journal simply doesn’t care to report on bites by other dog attacks. The old adage “Dog bites man isn’t news, but man bites dog is!” remains true–except if the dog happens to look like it might be a Pit Bull or Pit bull mix.

To test this theory, we had one of our supporters contact The Auburn Journal to tell a reporter all about an attack by a Labrador Retriever. The Auburn Journal  hasn’t yet bothered to return that message.

Author: D Capp

If you needed even more proof that one should “blame the deed, not the breed”, I’d like to introduce you to Jason Bloor of the United Kingdom.

You see, Mr. Bloor is not exactly a stand-up kind of guy.

In 2003, Mr. Bloor was suspected of conspiracy to rob a victim of domestic violence, Tania Moore. Her former fiancé, Mark Dyche, allegedly hired Mr. Bloor and 3 other men to rob and assault Ms. Moore. Mr. Dyche ended up standing trial for the murder of Tania (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article383400.ece)

In June of 2009, Mr. Bloor admitted to allowing his 3 Rottweilers to attack a woman and kill her poodle. (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-21-bled-death-after-alsatians-bit-him-51-times) He was charged under the “Dangerous Dogs Act”, “given a 12-month supervision order, sent on an offending behaviour scheme and had to pay £250 compensation…” (http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/)

After that conviction, Mr. Bloor moved on to Alsatians (German Shepherds). It was those 3 dogs that mauled Andrew Walker to death in May of 2009. (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/cheadle/news/Lodger-killed-fighting-pet-dogs/article-1566859-detail/article.html)

But what does this all really mean?

For one thing, a person of less than moral character will find a way to do whatever vile thing he or she wants to do. Ban him from Rottweilers, he’ll move to German Shepherds. Ban him from assault rifles, he’ll move to handguns. Take away his drivers license, and he’ll simply drive illegally.

Jason Bloor is just flat out not the kind of guy I’d want to see in a dark alley, period. He wasn’t a responsible owner with the Rottweilers, and he surely wasn’t responsible with the German Shepherds. I have no doubt that if he had a pack of 3-legged Pugs, we would hear about them attacking someone. Keep in mind, neither Rottweilers nor German Shepherds are banned under the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act, so I’m assuming that all those that voted in favor (favour?) of the Act were absolutely dumbfounded that despite all their well-intentioned banning, there are still reports of fatal dog attacks.

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, if the Dangerous Dogs Act focused on irresponsible ownership and criminal behavior instead of a dog’s physical traits, Mr. Walker would still be alive today.

It’s a travesty that Mr. Walker’s death was ruled an accident. The only accident here is that Mr. Bloor will remain a free man, free to own more dogs that will no doubt kill again.

Author: Rachele L.

Recently, a woman wrote to the Auburn Journal that Pit Bulls were ruining the dog park she frequents. According to her, when a Labrador Retriever collided with a Pit Bull, a fight ensued, costing about $400 in veterinary bills. Apparently, she thinks Pit Bulls are the only dogs out there capable of getting into fights at dog parks. Never, of course, would a LABRADOR fight at a dog park (if you believe that, read on).

First, I’ll tell you one sad story the media hasn’t reported on, but if the headline read, “Pit Bull Attack in Dog Park,” you can bet it would have made news (the Auburn story did, after all). It’s the story of two dogs at a northern California dog park. One dog, an eight to nine month old Pit Bull, was romping around the dog park chasing after his ball. The other dog, a much larger golden-colored animal with a medium coat (the owner called it a Redbone Coonhound mix) charged across the dog park and attacked the Pit Bull.

The Coonhound latched on to the smaller Pit Bull, and both owners tried desperately to get it to let go. The Coonhound bit the owner of the Pit Bull (likely accidentally) during the scuffle. Off to the vet they went. To his credit, the owner of the attacking dog went with the Pit Bull owner to a veterinarian’s office and paid the bill, which amounted to over $1,000 after surgery to repair an internally mangled ear.

Another case comes out of Miami-Dade, Florida and involves two Labrador Retrievers. (In perfect irony, Miami-Dade banned Pit Bulls). One dog — we’ll call him Brody to protect the innocent — was happily playing with his ball when another Labrador Retriever went after the ball. The two dogs got into a fight, leaving the interloping Labrador Retriever with puncture wounds in his mouth and lip. Yes,that’s right, two Labrador Retrievers got into a fight at the dog park. Oh my! What will “Pit Bulls are evil, Labradors are salt of the earth” Auburn lady say about that?

Let this be a lesson to everyone. Dog parks aren’t the greatest idea, even for perfectly friendly dogs like the Pit Bull in the first story. Lots of bad things can happen. If that’s the only place you can run your dog off leash, go during non-peak hours when it’s nearly deserted, and leave when others start to arrive. It’s great that cities and towns want to provide off leash spaces for dogs to run, but unfortunately, people bring dog selective or even dog aggressive dogs to dog parks, and that can spell disaster for your best friend. And for those who think it’s “Pit Bulls” that are the problem at dog parks, this should be just ONE wake up call for you. Get over the delusion that only Pit Bulls have dogs among them that can be aggressive to other dogs. Dog aggression is an inherent trait in the canine species. It exists in all breeds. In fact, intraspecies aggression — that means aggression toward members of one’s own species — is rather prevalent throughout the animal kingdom…even, and perhaps most especially, in the group of animals known as humans.

Read the vet’s bill below showing what it costs to fix the poor Pit Bull’s ear. Even worse than the financial cost is the pain the incident caused an impressionable young pup.

You can read the Auburn letter online at http://auburnjournal.com/detail/141250.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=pit+bulls&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

I and other responsible dog owner advocates attended last night’s Auburn City Council meeting. I took the opportunity to speak to the council after listening to a report by city staffmembers who said that breed-specific legislation is burdensome and likely to be ineffective. In particular, they looked at San Francisco’s ordinance mandating spay/neuter of Pit Bulls and found that, after the ordinance, a little over 50% of all dog bites were caused by animals that were spayed or neutered. Their conclusion: spaying and neutering does not reduce a dog’s aggression toward human beings. We told them that during the November city council meeting, by the way. Removing a dog’s reproductive organs does not turn an unstable, vicious dog into a sweetheart. Using spay/neuter to solve public safety issues won’t work. Rather, the city should focus on targeting all irresponsible dog owners — of all breeds.

Kevin Hanley who originally proposed the anti Pit Bull ordinance (in fact, he wanted to ban them entirely at first), said he wants Animal Control to keep a record of all Pit Bull owners in Auburn so that police can periodically drive by their houses. By the way, he wasn’t entirely alone in his sentiments. Dr. Bill Kirby, another city councilmember (he’s the bald guy on the right in the photo below) said he wanted to make sure everyone knew there would be no peace or love for Pit Bulls.

Yes, he really said that. You can hear his statements on our youtube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vYva_Q6CC0

But before you head off to youtube, take a look at our photos from last night’s meeting!

The City Council

A silent protester



A pit bull service dog attends

Now you can check out our youtube video from last night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vYva_Q6CC0

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

According to two New Zealanders, owning a pet dog is worse than owning a sports utility vehicle in terms of the eco-footprint. The declaration in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale goes over the numbers. Taking into account the land required to generate its food, a medium-sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 global hectares (2.07 acres). Compare that to the mere 0.41 global hectares required to drive a sports utility vehicle 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year (the number includes the energy to build the car). Some experts, however, disagree with that “dog” number.

“When I saw the study I ran some quick numbers,” Clark Williams-Derry, chief researcher at a the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability thinktank, told the Seattle Times. “The average dog has to eat at least twice as much as the average person for this to be right. People are just heavier than dogs so, I just had to scratch my head at that.”

But, heck, forget pets. They are mere blips on the radar. By taking a quick jaunt over to Wikipedia, I was able to deduce the average eco-footprint of a human being. “In 2005, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 2.1 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.4 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.0 gha per person, while China’s was 2.1 gha per person. The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%. Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is smaller than the 2.1 global hectares published for 2005, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)

Dogs have many eco-advantages to human beings. They do not drive cars, buy bottled water, burn fires in chimneys, buy plasma televisions, get new clothes every season, turn on the air conditioner, use computers, buy cosmetics, water their lawns, insist on the newest goodies for Christmas and birthdays, or commit any number of other human eco-sins. Humans are, of course, far worse for the environment than even the most anti-environmentalist of canines.

Just to see what my footprint was, I tested out this nifty footprint calculator at http://www.footprintcalculator.org/ and came up around 4 gha per year. So, for each child a U.S. resident foregoes, he or she can own approximately 62 medium-sized dogs–a fair trade, in my assessment. That number takes into account the comparative lifespans of each species, with dogs at about 14 years and humans at approximately 78 years. Dogs have other advantages to children that aren’t directly related to their environmental impact. For example, a child isn’t going to bark at a strange noise, alert me to smoke in my home, or even–in the case of my dogs–carry my laundry upstairs, get my shoes or slippers, and turn on or off the lights when needed.

So, Robert and Branda Vale, forget having any(more) kids…get a dog!

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.