~Lisa and pet Chloe, shown above~

---->*UPDATE<----------------------------------

~*~*~* AB1634, CA proposed MANDATORY ALTERING OF 98% OF PETS--HAS BEEN GUTTED AND MSN IS DISMANTLED!! as of 6/19/08, there is NO Mandated altering in the bill for 98% of pets. The animal extremists have failed to get their way--thanks to all of the people who opposed AB1634! The ARs will be back, but as a 3 time LOSER in the legislature--MSN statewide for California is not a likely proposition!! 

---->  MSN in Los angeles currently challenged in Los Angeles Superior Court, ed Boks now under fire by employees asking for him to be replaced

NEWS FLASH---BREED BAN IN AURORA, COLORADO CHALLENGED BY PLAINTIFFS AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION AND FLORENCE VIANZON PROCEEDING TO TRIAL AUGUST 2008 IN FEDERAL COURT     See petdefense.wordpress.com for details and much more on anti pet legislation issues including MSN Los Angeles   

*~*~*~*JULY 4th Weekend 2008

Nathan Winograd will be hosting a talk in Ventura, CA at upcoming dog show.............this will involve no-kill, MSN and his theory of implementation of no kill [NOT MSN]  This is sponsored in part by Petpac and others. If you are interested in attending please email us.

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

 Make sure to see the dog blogs below --updated JUNE 2008----very important to know who is working against the dogs,owners,dog breeders,pet laws, and more at divorceproblem.wordpress (dot com) blog which will soon have a link to this Ebay site.... 

FLASH---California AB1634:  PROPOSED TO ELIMINATE 98% OF ALL DOGS/CATS BY MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER

Proposed law was shot down July 2007; Levine withdrew it but has vowed to bring it back in June 2008, and Levine was pushing City of Los Angeles' MSN on 2/2/08, which has been approved 100% so far--but is now the subject of a legal challenge at the Stanley Mosk Superior Courthouse april 2008.......Levine is trying to run for senate. He will likely lose and be termed out and so will his sponsored MSN law.

The MSN law is seriously flawed, it has not worked in 95% of the places which passed it, and eliminating 98% of all dogs/cats (but NOT feral cats--AND it specifically exempts commercial breeding and PUPPY mills)-- by claiming it is necessary to save the 2% of animals which cannot find homes in California is just plain ludicrous.  They already passed SB861 (co-authored by BadRap dog rescue of SF, CA + United Animal Nations, Jennifer Fearing, Sacramento, now at HSUS--NOT surprising)  mandating altering for all pitbulls. It hasn't stopped dog fighting or affected dog bites, which have actually RISEN.  And NOW they want to do the entire state.

It should be mentioned that in June 2007, Levine had the proposed AB1634 worded whereby it stated, that IF one was to be allowed to have ONE litter (and only one) of pups, the owner of the litter MUST GIVE THE PUPS AWAY FOR FREE. REPEAT--THE OWNER MUST GIVE THE PUPS AWAY FOR FREE.

[To get out of the accusation that this would amount to a "taking", the owner would be required, upon obtaining the permit to have the litter, to sign a statement which in effect, meant that owner was taking the litter permit in consideration for signing the document giving animal control the right to search owner's house/and agreeing to give the pups away for FREE.] Obviously, no reputable breeder in their right mind would sign such a document, and the extremists know that.

  It's a sad day in the United States when radicals (animal extremists with hidden agenda)-- think they can affect every pet owner in this way. check out baddoglaws.com or saveourdogs.net for details. Especially note that ADL (Animal Defense League of Los Angeles) which has placed relentless pressure on Los Angeles to "stop" the killing, has used criminal tactics and tertiary targeting to make it known they will NOT stop. [ADL is considered a wanna-be ALF or ELF and while they may not rise to the same terrorist level on the surface, they are monitored by the FBI as links to the others.]

  And unknown to most until recently, certain animal rights extremists attempted last year to snuff out a well known canine advocate; the perpetrator (one of them) will be sentenced to federal prison soon when his sentence is approved--which will be long, hopefully.. So don't believe that animal extremists don't commit crimes against people--they most certainly do.  And it is not surprising that canine advocates or breast cancer scientists are targeted.  Restraining orders granted for UCLA against ARs that did home invasion against scientist, and now the Primate Project has filed con law case in GA against UCLA restraining order. 

 Of course ADL explains clearly that they are VEGANS and protest all forms of animal usage. baddoglaws.com shows ADL's exact words where they openly admit they are a grassroots militant group that will use tactics that can put them in jail and that they will not bail out of jail. Why, that would be compromising their wonderful ethics, eh?

TRUTH ABOUT PITBULLS

OHIO SUPREME COURT HEARS TELLINGS CASE

August 1  2007, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the dog owners!  A reconsideration  filed for the record was not acted upon by the court, so   an appeal to the US Supreme court  followed. Unfortunately, the court declined to hear the case; as approx. 5,500 cases are submitted per year, the Court hears only about 110 of them. There are currently BSL cases in  Aurora, Colorado  and Denver, Colorado, however the court dismissed the case from Denver 3/08. A BSL case in Arkansas  Federal Court was recently originally started by RDOWS.  

Also, the federal district case against Los Angeles county mandated spay/neuter (after a year and a half) was dismissed by Judge Chesney of San Francisco, but again, this is not that surprising (for federal court, especially the 9th Circuit, which has the largest amout of cases overturned by higher courts in the United States.) HOWEVER, a legal challenge (Writ of Mandate) was filed 4/08 against City of Los Angeles Animal Care + Ed Boks in regard to the MSN Ordinance.  As of 5/23/08, there has been no update yet.

 As an example of how Judge Chesney rules: Judge Chesney sentenced Issac Asimov's son, who had 14 printers going, printing child porn---to wearing an ankle bracelet. [Issac Asimov, noted author]You can see that San Francisco is completely nuts. They condone marriage between same sexed persons, but want to eliminate dogs having puppies. Check out Craigslist online in SF and see what sexual topics are allowed, while dog/puppy rehoming for fees which they "feel" are "selling" are not allowed, and most will be flagged off. Not allowing people to buy dogs or list them online (which is what Last Chance for animals has proclaimed) is definitely a misguided AR tactic. Tell everyone you know that ARs like to promote adoption and blast breeding, despite the fact that well bred dogs are BRED for good temperament.

Some AB1634 proponents are now trying to say that the court has ruled mandated altering as constitutional and that AB1634 (statewide forced altering of 98% of animals) is therefore "constitutional"......

 This is an incorrect statement--the court in SF, only said that a local area (not a state) has the right, under rational basis, to implement laws involving the health, safety or welfare of its citizens, which is typical for them to say for ANY challenge to any constitutional case.

Based upon the Los Angeles allegation of "overpopulation", the Judge said it was rational as to the local area at issue- but that is NOT saying it is rational for the entire state.  Proponents of AB1634 will have a large battle on their hands. [The federal decision was not a published opinion.]

 All challenges as such, use the same standard. It should be noted that the Judge did not go into detail, because it is probably already known that if this was challenged on a statewide basis law (not a local law), it would likely prove to be "not" constitutional.  As an example, Federal Judge in Colorado stated Aurora did not have any evidence for a rational basis as to why a breed ban was needed, but Judge chesney of SF says "If there are less pitbulls, less kids will be killed by pitbulls." Even if 3 kids were killed by alleged pitbulls, do you really think a court judge should just assume that altering every single dog is correct? Well that's what SF Judge chesney did. And it is a very poor ruling which was promoted by animal extremist groups and misguided rescue/shelter AR followers.

@@@@@{{{Know thy Enemy}}}}@@@@@

Colleen Lynn of Seattle WA was allegedly bit by a dog and then commenced, supposedly, 100% on her own accord, (according to Kory Nelson of Denver) to start the bite blog known as dogsbite dot org. The site is updated and filled with every single news report she can gather, whether true or not, and then it is compounded by showing graphic photos of bite victims, and how victims are not monetarily compensated properly. This site is focusing and fosters hate against dogs, dog owners, dog breeders, and other legal entities.

It pushes, promotes, and perpetuates hatred toward law abiding people, dog owners, dog advocates, and anyone who dares to take a stand against something like preserving one's rights. Why?  Because the site does NOTHING more than attempt to list alleged "pitbull" incidents as evidence that the dogs are all timebombs waiting to happen. There is no proof that such dogs are purebred actual APBTs. It appears that many mixed breed dogs do their share of contributing to bite statistics. It does nothing but push sensationalism, drama, and accounts which have likely not been verified.  Further, it then highlights the statements of idiots; for example, one recent statement:

 "PITBULLS AND ANGRY PEOPLE SHARE THE SAME DNA"

This was taken from an article written by Mike Scarlett out of Australia, on 2/14/08,  and HE even cites the CDC "statistics"...he then goes into a biblical connection and somehow tries to link killer dogs with killer people.  

Look at whydogsbite.blogspot.com for a good laugh in testing your canine IQ so you can recover from looking at the senseless junk being perpetuated by a newly minted "dog expert" webmaster. People underestimate the damage this junk can do to dog owners.     
 

Greetings........

We are advocates against anti-pet laws and against  Breed Specific Legislation, Mandatory altering, and any canine laws that we consider unconstitutional.  If you know anything about bully dogs, APBTs, etc, then you know that the proper temperament for an APBT is non human aggressive. That the PSI of the jaw is NOT 2,600psi. (That is likely an alligator.) It has been theorized by the Science Channel on TV that a T-Rex dinosaur may have had a bite pressure of 4,000 lb?  The average dog bite pressure is about 320psi. 

  Altering  will not cure  dog -human aggression. (If you want to know why they say these things, it's because their known goal is to eliminate animals as pets. They believe this is slavery....they believe animals are not a commodity. ) ISAR (International Society for Animal Rights) claims that purebred dogs are the "Plague of Purebreds" and they blame the AKC for issuing paper on purebred dogs, and for creating genetic misfits. Check online for the ISAR site where you will see this is their position.  When you hear Bob Barker tell everyone to spay/neuter, you are listening to the number one ISAR spokesperson.

First they say eliminate this breed. Then, eliminate all breeding. Then, eliminate all dogs being sold. Then, eliminate all dogs as pets. It's not that difficult to figure out. They even tell us that is their plan. PETA,  in particular,  advocates to kill all pitbulls to end "abuse" of the dogs.

Even the Best Friends Animal Society in Utah has decided (without any expert help) that "aggression" is 'bred into the genes' of dogs by people who want aggressive dogs; they have decided that they want to promote the EUROPEAN method of aggressive dog control--what is that? It's called banning breeds and killing them. (If you don't know what they have banned in Europe, please do the research-----CORGIS are restricted in Italy, as an example, no minors or criminal can own them; there are about 90 other restricted breeds!)

Did you know that it is impossible to scientifically determine which dog is an American Pitbull Terrier? Many laws assume that people can tell which dog is an APBT because it "looks" like one. This is not the case. Many dogs 'look' like a pitbull type dog but are just mixed breed dogs and some are not even mixed with APBT. Although the COURTS have stated that people know what type dog they own, in CRIMINAL cases, the government must prove the dog's breed beyond a reasonable doubt under laws which single out dog breeds. This is not possible with American Pitbull Terriers. And is not likely easily done with several other breeds from mixed parentage. 

BSL?  It cannot be proven to work  because scientifically, no dog breed is inherently dangerous.  IF it was true, we would have a lot more people who sustain serious injuries---come now---if you can call ONE breed inherently dangerous, then that breed would all be doing the same thing in huge numbers. Instead of 10 fatal attacks, we would have 10,000 of them. And we don't. One of the largest problems of BSL is that it promotes certain breeds as DEFINITELY dangerous and ignores other breeds---then the public believes they are "protected" from being harmed. 

What the public doesn't understand is, the chance of being maimed fatally by ANY dog is about the same as being struck by lightning.    The trickle down effect of all this breed maligning is that medium sized dogs from shelters are having a more difficult time finding homes.

Please----let's get one thing straight when it comes to BSL laws. It doesn't matter how the law is worded, when the owner is subject to CRIMINAL SANCTIONS---the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as in any other criminal matter, that the owner is guilty. The standard of proof cannot be deviated from-----therefore, if the government cannot prove the dog in question is actually what the government claims it is, then the owner cannot be convicted.  This is usually never mentioned when you hear about BSL cases----because the government (which passes BSL ) wants people to think that just owning a dog makes the owner guilty of, or subject to, a crime.  This is not the case.  If you own a dog that may resemble a banned breed, you would do well to consult with an attorney familiar with BSL cases PRIOR to both licensing and registering the dog. *In Ontario, Canada, the dog owner must prove that his/her dog is NOT a pitbull.  I assume that this would be done via expert witness. I can see where that might get expensive! 

People love to blame APBTs and protection line dogs. The statistics show that fatal attacks are not done all by APBTs. And the CDC studies are nonsense because they didn't even get all the dog breeds listed, which skews the entire study. The CDC admits this and cautions NOT to use their study as a reliable source of percentages. Yet many dog BITE attorneys quote that study like it was the Bible.   Governmental authorities and animal extremists like to use it to bolster their position for breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter. In Los Angeles, according to the master plan by Charlotte Laws, an animal extremist,  they plan to do MSN, and then call all pitbulls "unadoptable" and ban them from the city once they get the no-kill scheme in place. Hmm....we see a problem there.

Recently evidence has shown that "rehomed", rescued  and shelter dogs are responsible for a substantial amount of the fatal attacks across the country. [Only approx. 15% of all dogs are from shelters.]  About 50%+ of the attacks have been attributed to dogs which are either rescued, re-homes (like Craigslist) or shelters. 

What is not surprising about this, is the fact that many rescue people believe in "saving" animals even if they have questionable temperaments, and they believe that the dog 'may' bite people, but allegedly it won't bite people IF you do such-and-such with the dog. An example:  Rescue from around Fairfield, CA, collected mostly bad dogs to adopt out. One dog had already been returned 3-4 times for aggression. Another was a known biter.  Another was anti-social and hated kids.  Another had already harmed a child. But still, these dogs were being adopted out. AND the leader of the rescue claimed there was nothing wrong with these dogs.

Sure enough, a poster on infamous Craigslist, posted the story of adopting the known biter. She took the dog home and it immediately tried to bite a family member. The rescuer person then lashed out at the adopter and blamed her for letting a family member attempt to pet the dog.  When we see scenarios like this, we are not surprised at the number of dog altercations out there.  Thank God, this rescue is no longer showing pets  in Sacramento, and the rescue has closed down.

Another study done/ recently published,  in attempting to categorize dogs which bite children, showed that 93% of the dogs which had bitten children were ALTERED. 

This was surprising to the people doing the study, as many believe that altering a dog will render it non-aggressive. This is not true and in some instances it might reduce some dog-dog aggression, whereas in others it may have little and no effect.

          ~~~~~DOG SAFETY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For new dog owners without any dog experience, it is best to avoid a dog where you cannot ascertain the history of its background, esp. if you have small kids such as age 4.  Many dogs are mistreated and if temperament testing does not show aggression, they assume the dog is ok when it is NOT ok. This has nothing to do with breed of dog but everything to do with the unknown background.

One of the best defenses against dog BITES is to safety train your kids *BEFORE*  you get a dog, no matter what type dog it is. It is a fact that many bites are done by smaller dogs, and it is a fact that many owners of smaller dogs allow the dogs to rule the roost, and thereby allow the dog to control the master. 

 When this is done by a larger dog, everyone blames the dog.  When this is done by a smaller dog, very few people blame the dog. Lots and lots of small, yappy dogs are biters. And having owners that let them get away with such behavior is inappropriate. 

If you want to know more,contact us. 

Colorado is particularly disturbing because Kory Nelson loves gloating about the dogs going down, yet he claims he had nothing to do with the law. However, if you read his "secret government" Yahoo Groups website (you can see it on doggiedefenders.com) you will quickly see that this person has a personal agenda against both the dogs and those who rally to try and protect innocent canines. You will notice the similarity to the dogsbite site by Lynn, mentioned above. There is no discussion allowed, just their views and their adamant ranting that they won't stop what they are doing. 

 We consult with groups all over the United States on dangerous dog issues, dangerous dog law, trial for unconstitutional canine laws, illegal seizure, civil rights issues.We have been on ebay since 2000.   Help us save all dog breeds from extinction. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs is unconstitutional AND it will not stop dangerous and aggressive dogs.  .

.