Content last edited 10/25/23 .::. This is regarding a topic that's a bit old (but still relevant). Please visit my main advocacy website: holypsych.org

Note: I often set links to external websites to open in a new tab or window.

This website is intended to be informative (mainly), meaning that it is not about an active organization to ban pit bulls. I've had my share of death threats from owners for merely sharing the history of the ban that the City of Denver enacted in 1989. The measure was sponsored by Councilwoman Mary DeGroot and Councilwoman Ramona Martinez.

I have to admit to the irony here that the motivation behind launching this site wasn't because of any recent incident where I was outright threatened or chased by an aggressive dog (which has happened to me three times in about the same amount of years). The incident that did occur that motivated me to publish this was an encounter with a rather docile large dog that was off-leash (on 23 Oct 23). Of course I couldn't know that the dog was so docile until it was right up near me (which was immediately after I walked out of the apartment complex door so there was no way I could avoid it), and also the owner said "don't worry the dog won't bite".

There's another point too that could seem anthropomorphic (to someone like me) but a large dog being docile is not necessarily evidence that it would be always that way and not attack an innocent person. (Of course the owners figure that the dog is a "good judge of character" because the people are Satanists, but aside from that...) Smaller dogs are more "excitable" and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out why ... everything else is larger than them, just about. A small dog is more fearful and so can be quicker to be "aggressive" in their way, but they're defensive and bark a lot when threatened (or being "protective", whatever). A large dog would have more confidence, but the problem is that other unexpected stimuli can arise at anytime in a public area and the dog might not be too discerning of who it attacks. The dog is "sociable"..., cute! I've actually witnessed a pack of stray dogs in Tecate, Mexico (in 1986) and it was frightening. The locals took off after them in vehicles to try to kill some since the dogs can maul or kill small children. (There is another section of the mixed-use apartment building where this occurred that contains a medical clinic business and there may be some people from areas like that who go there that shouldn't have to see a large dog running around off-leash. It's dehumanizing!)

A better way of putting it is that a dog's temperament can be associated with it's size and a larger dog, while having a more overall calm demeanor, is still capable of mauling or killing a person. A large dog's mellow behavior can be deceptive and people become accustomed to ..., well, "everybody getting along (it's only you, hehe)" but then some spontaneous stimuli that is discernable as innocent to a person (another dog appearing that's on a leash help by somebody who falls, perhaps) and whatever else that may simutaneously happen that can surprise a dog, and the dog attacks whoever is closest who isn't known. Other residents are not supposed to be subjected to such risk. The fact that there is disabled people in the building is apparently of no concern for the building managerment or owners. They're evil.

The dog being docile is not the main issue, however, since it still startled me and came so close to me that it touched me. It is obvious to me that the owner is one of those people who enjoy the reaction of the people he threatens. He enjoys scaring innocent people. I know that there is this trend now where people like to frighten people with some unexpected aggression toward them and video record the victim's reaction. The action is really a physical assault on the victim and I will explain how.

Both hearing and vision are processed by humans on a physical level, meaning that the sights and sounds actually encroach (the word that I will use here) on our physical body. Sound waves vibrate tiny bones in our ears and for vision, the shapes and other attributes of what humans see is unavoidably processed in a person's brain. Animals have only dichromatic sight. Humans have trichromatic vision and briefly, to make my point here, this article states "Vision involves the nearly simultaneous interaction of the two eyes and the brain through a network of neurons, receptors, and other specialized cells.". It should be obvious that shapes and any movement of what humans see is inevitably processed (thought about) in our brains. The point is that a human has no choice but to think about what is seen by them. That understanding bolsters the validity of bias motivated crimes (hate crimes) that are not direct physical assaults but are more considered as threats. Burning a cross on a person's front lawn, for instance, is more of an indirect physical assault on the homeowner/resident of the house but still a physical assault (by my definition here) and so it would make rational sense to any reasonable person that that action would affect people on a physical level. Furthermore, the victims really have no other choice but to allow the act to affect them physically. Threats of that magnitude are intended to do that very thing or why else would they be conducted?

I realized that I could utilize this website, or the incident that occurred to motivate me to publish it, to cover another point. Similar to the trend of deliberately frightening people and video recording their reaction is just another form of the boorish, age-old behavior of abusive people using some subtle threat or ostensibly innocent physical contact (patting a stranger on their shoulder who is working in some job that requires them to interact with the public, for example) to intimidate, belittle, etc. another person and if there's any reaction or objection then the perpetrator (or their ally) can coerce the victim into discussing their feelings about the event and then be further demeaned and degraded. The victimizer has the specious goal of educating their victim or comforting them, etc. but it all is really just ridicule.

Now I can bring up the concept of metacognition which basically means thinking about why we are thinking about something, or our thinking process itself. It also would incorporate our thinking about what another person's ulterior motive is, not if they have one, but rather what it is since, like the incident with the unavoidable contact with an off-leash large dog while egressing my apartment building that spurred me to work on this website, there was obviously a motive to intimidate me since it was a clear lease violation on the owner's part and no apology to me. If the owner fails to intimidate me (maybe I just go ahead report him to management or whatever) then the owner will be motivated (in order to save face) to escalate the violation against me so that I would fear his reproval or unacceptance of me. He wants me to be subservient to him, subdued, so he can feel powerful. He can do whatever he wants with absolute impunity and the hostile, inept (the word the HUD representative used) management will always be supportative of him since the manager takes her (little) dog outside without a leash too. They're a little "Wiccan" (as in, we can) cult and their dogs take precedence over any human being that they don't have any emotional ties to, even in the course of their employment where they interact with complete strangers. To me the entire attitude is frightening since they have to continue with their behavior or else admit to wrongdoing. (It's about their pride, in other words.)

I was bitten a couple times when I was young too & no, it wasn't my fault. Both times a dog was able to reach over a four-foot fence & the second time I was working, mowing a lawn to earn extra money; and no, those weren't the worst things that ever happened to me. So because of my past experiences with other dogs and also the degrading treatment that I've experienced, and am continuing to receive from the apartment manager (and building owners) that's entirely unfounded (they've out-right stigmatized and ridiculed me, etc.), my thought process upon hearing the owner say that "things have changed 'old-school', this is a new era" was that he is demanding that I allow myself to be degraded and dehumanized by him and his dog (and whoever else in the building that wants to) or not live in my apartment. Simple as that. There is threat of escalated violence from him and it is apparent to me that if I react/respond with any behavior to regain my human dignity then I will be accused of being the aggressor. I will be the one "violating the lease" and their little cult has the narrative to tell other residents, and whoever else who will listen, that this old disgruntled veteran is not a man of honor (basically). They can tell people that I'm unappreciative and disruptive and aggressive and voltile and that it's due to my feelings of entitlement (and whatever other slander that they can derive from their rotton little minds).

It will be dangerous for me to use the elevator and if I refuse to take one with other people then I could be labeled as racist which is the ultimate cultural reward for these kind of people, like the owner of the large off-leash dog that brushed up against me, and his landlady friend. I am still being threatened with a hundred dollar "fine" everytime I take my trash out to the trash-chute room. They all want to set me up to be extorted because it is just too tempting for them. If they can commit some evil against me then that means that I must deserve it, right? (If I don't like my city or state charging minors as adults for crimes then that means I must be some sort of horrible or stupid person too, right?) I do work at advocating for "the people" in general ... I've defended vulnerable people, etc. but of course I am treated as just the opposite by people who are clearly prejudice.

They're obviously the kind of people who like to be able to make a three digit phone call & have some innocent person killed since it's something that they are capable of doing and it's just way too tempting for them. Laws are to protect them from retaliation by their victims. They're so gangsta that they are tight with the police (it makes sense to them, anyway). With a big dog at his side, a little twig of a young man can scare an older gentleman and feel tough & powerful & stupid people will see him as a Saint (little twig of a young man). They all have me to bully now, and they have their common enemy. I've risked my life for my country & have worked hard in my life & have helped good people & have even saved a couple lives (seriously!) and I am treated like I am a monster by these people... maybe I am to them since they're evil.

Oh! I need to cover the motivation of abusive people who goad others into communicating their feelings about an offense committed against them that is purported to be only a slight inconvenience that was unintentional, or at least not serious enough to garner the resulting reaction. I used the example earlier of patting someone on the back or shoulder who is working and a similar action would be somebody doing that to a neighbor in an apartment building while (confined) in an elevator. One of my counselors (who has a masters degree and is a state licensed counselor who had about twenty years experience in the field at that time) posed the question to me regarding those sort of actions by others if that is something that I would do to someone in similar situation. The answer is "no" and in the latter example it would be violating the terms of the lease, and (as with the large off-leash dog effectively impeding my egress of my apartment building) the audacity of the action would frighten me since it is aggression and aggression can esculate if the perpetrator is not satisfied with the results. It all creates a hostile living environment for me and I am a veteran on disability so there is no limit to what violence could be committed against me since there isn't anything preventing people from physically contacting me (by proxy at this point, using their dog).

If I can be incited into attempting to explain my thoughts about some unprovoked offensive action against me then the opportunity presented to the person to criticize, ridicule and ultimately, discombobulate me would be too tempting for them to pass up. I've had unprovoked violent crimes committed against me when I was a young man. My counselor once said that if it wasn't for the trauma that I experienced I would have succeeded in my life, meaning that I would or could be that homeowning, career orientated man with high earning potential due to my intelligence and ambition. Some people would rather mock me and degrade me so as to get me to sound idiotic and whatever advocacy I do for the people in my demographic of "mentally impaired" (is the Americans with Disability Act designation terminology) would be rendered pointless and worthless. It has been discovered that trauma can interfere with a person's ability to articulate their thoughts. This article by Bob Johnson, MD covers the phenomenon: "Trauma Blocks the Frontal Lobes – 'Verbal Physiotherapy' Can Unblock Them - Mad In America". When I was a young man there were people that I associated with in the course of employment, etc. that would escalate in that aspect by forcing me to repeat myself or pretend that they didn't understand what I said and get me to explain in different wording. They would then insinuate that I was being vulgar or expressing a "parapraxis" (or commonly called "Freudian slip") by innuendo, & euphemism, etc. and it was intended to frustrate me. I would attempt to address their ulterior motive that (in my metacognition) I could perceive and I ould become discombobulated by their out-right denial and I'd become irritated and frustrated and so they effectively suppress my ability to communicate. Their point was that they were a better class of human being than I was, etc. and any misfortune that I experienced in my life was justified.

I could also point out here that one of the philosophy books I've read is Aristotle's "Ethics" and in it he discusses "extremes" and exaggeration and whatnot, as opposed to "reasonable", but he stated that laws are general in their very nature as to cover as large a group of the general public as possible.† He went on to include that there will inevitability be cases that have extraordinary circumstances so that is not reason to consider the laws as not valid. That is important here since there are the people (as I mentioned) that will want to distract their victim and use their violation of the person's (human) rights to educate, usually associating whatever incident with racism and "turning the tables", so to speak, by implying that I must be part of the overall problem. Why, because I am a white (looking) man who lives in low income housing and alone? Seriously? The idea is that other white people were always good to me unless I deserved otherwise. That's insane! (†You can do Ctrl+F to search for "general" and the second instance is included in the statement: "It is all-important to remember that practical or moral rules are only general and always admit of exceptions, and that they arise not from the mere complexity of the facts, but from the liability of the facts to a certain unpredictable variation.".)

But, alas! By pure serendipity I actually have the relatable evidence with the many times forms of the word "racism" were brought up im the comments about the proposed repeal of the ban (that passed). I was trying to do my best to get through to these (white) people all arguing with me on nextdoor.com that there was a Latina councilwoman that was one of the people to sponsor the original ban legislation. They didn't care. The woman didn't even exist as far as they were concerned. Their whole point is to be as dehumanizing as possible. The cult of attrition. Their dogs have right to freedom (liberty) but a disabled veteran does not as far as they're concerned. ... & Yeah, for the curious inclined, my military discharge paperwork does include "physical disability" since I had a honorable medical discharge, but I do not technically have that designation by the VA so I usually don't express it that way. I am on disability through the federal gov't, though. See, I didn't merely drop out of the sky, a lot has happened in my life.

The following is from my original webpage on this subject...

Note: I had originally published this page under a different domain (realnextdoor.org) in response to being abused and harrassed on the "nextdoor.com" social media platform in a discussion about the repeal of the city's ban on pit bulls. Below is the screencaptures and text of the comments in the thread. This article on denverite.com Surprise, surprise. Denver’s pit bull ban has always been controversial was one of my sources.

(Anonymized exhibits included here in conformance with fair use in this criticism.)

Posts

The included photograph is the epitome of "anthropomorphic"!

Vote to end breed specific legislation. Vote YES on 2. this November to end Denver's ban on pit bulls and implement dog laws that focus on responsible dog ownership!

Why?

Breed specific legislation doesn't make cities safer. Breed isn't an indicator of whether or not a dog will bite- responsible ownership is. It is proven that pit bulls are not disproportionately dangerous compared to other dogs.
Enforcing Denver's ban on pit bulls has cost the city over $5.8 million.
Denver already has rules in place about animal attacks, bites, and dangerous animals. Overall it is discriminatory against responsible owners and their dogs. Thousands of family dogs have been euthanized because of this ban.

If you are interested in learning more, watch Beyond the Myth on amazon prime or reach out for more resources!

New legislation:

My original comment ...

New legislation:

1. All pit bulls will be required to be microchipped.
2. All pit bulls will be required to be spayed or neutered.
3. Only two pit bulls will be allowed per home.
4. Owners will be required to notify animal control if their dog escapes
5. If after three years there are no issues, the pup will qualify for a standard dog license.

Posted in General (12 neighborhoods)

Lisa B- * East Colfax
Agreed! Go pibbles!!!
23Sep Like Reply

Danette R- * North Park Hill
Will Do!! Love them, love all dogs!!
23Sep Like Reply

Lisa B- * East Colfax
PS-Thank you got the suggestion on the film. 25 years in veterinary hospitals tells me all I need to know, breed is not the best indicator of behavior. All dogs can bite, and any dog can have an irresponsible owner. It's time to do better by pets, and find a way to make people better pet caretakers, when necessary.
Edited 23 Sep Like Reply

Sarah J- * South Park Hill
Yes!!!
23Sep Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
While all dog breeds can bite not all are associated with mauling a human being. A child spent his last minutes on this planet, in this city, suffering a horrifying death..
"(1986) Fernando Salazar | On October 26, 1986, 3-year old Fernando Salazar of Denver wandered into a neighbor's yard and was killed by a pit bull chained to the neighbor's carport. At the time of the attack, Gil Troncasa, the dog's owner, was watching football on T.V. His wife ultimately discovered the deadly incident."

What if Revered Billingsley's neighbor wasn't there with a shotgun to help him?

"(1989) Rev. Wilbur Billingsley | On May 8, 1989, 59-year old Rev. Wilbur Billingsley of Denver was attacked by a pit bull in the alley behind his home. The victim suffered serious injuries with over 70 bites and two broken legs. His neighbor, Normal Cable, stopped the assault by firing a shotgun at the dog.”

Here "Davyd" associates the ban on pit bulls with racism:

(Scott H. continued...)

Another article I found showed that statistically Labrador retrievers were common biters but there is also most likely a fairly large population of them (statistics can be manipulated with context, type thing). Why wasn't the history of the ban in Denver included with the post? The truth of the matter is that if a person really wants to own an animal that's banned in Denver but not elsewhere then they can move elsewhere.

Statistically (and these statistics are rather straightforward), "Annual data from 2017 shows that 38% (15) of the fatality victims were children ages 9-years and younger and 62% (24) were adults, ages 19- years and older. Of the total adults killed by canines in 2017, pit bulls were responsible for 88% (21)."

---and---

"Victims 50-years and older suffered the most, accounting for 75% (18) of all adult fatalities. Death by adult age groups show: 19-29 years, 13% (3) deaths: 30-49 years, 13% (3) deaths: 50-69 years, 38% (9) deaths and 70+ years, 38% (9) deaths."

Many elderly people stay active in this city and walk throughout the neighborhoods; and what are the special requirements all about for the breed if the ban is lifted? Oh yeah, the dogs have been known to maul people to death ...

- My sources: 1) blog.dogsbite.org/2009/08/history-of-denver-pit-bull-ban-and.html

2) chicagoinjurycenter.com/common-breeds

3) dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2017.php 24Sep Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland I know those links are easy to find from the dogbite site. But it is a site that does not use real data and is driven by a charlatan.

huffpost.com/entry/merritt-clifton-pit-bulls_b_5866176

25Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- To part of Denver history you can read it in the news. Proper research . means you might be educated
2daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- I know the history. Denver pulled dogs from families and killed them by the thousands. University of Denver recently published a study of the pit bull ban. This economic assessment of BSL identified that the City and County of Denver has spent at least $5.8 million on enforcing the legislation, with additional economic analyses estimating BSL resulted in approximately $107 million in lost direct and indirect economic activity related to lost pet care revenue. The study goes on to show there was not measurable decline in bite incidents, injuries or death. Whereas a proven strategy of dangerous dog law could help Denver, the BSL has provided no value to the citizens of Denver and has costs over $100 million in cash outlay and lost revenue. BSL is a clear indication of racist legislature that unfairly punishes marginalized groups. It has no purpose for public safety.
2daysago Like Reply

Michael G- * Congress Park

Pitbulls are the most lovable dogs ever. They are only mean if they have mean owners. Just like humans are born to love and learn but are then taught to hate and be racist. You can't label a breed
24 Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
That's incorrect.
2 days ago Like Reply

Darcy associates the ban with racism ("gang activity") in the last comment here:

Michael G- * Congress Park
Pitbulls are the most lovable dogs ever. They are only mean if they have mean owners. Just like humans are born to love and learn but are then taught to hate and be racist. You can't label a breed
24 Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
That's incorrect.
2daysago Like Reply

Jude W- * South Park Hill
Norma C- Norma can you please actually read the comments that I have posted and do some research from reliable sources. You and scott just keep commenting, expecting us to listen when you are not listening to us. please be respectful and if you want to have an actual conversation listen! have you ever met a pit bull? as someone who has volunteered with TONS of them, they are such love bugs!
Edited 2 days ago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Jude W- You're too funny absolutely too funny I have done my research. Posting stuff just to post stuff. This is a moot point. There are pit bulls running amok all over Denver. . Again you obviously don't know me. I have met several lovely pits that T absolutely adore and love. As a matter of fact my cousin is a breeder of the pit. You know nothing about the breed!
ldayago Like Reply

Darcy S- * Congress Park
The pittie ban was put in place during a time of high gang activity in Denver. It's real purpose was to curb gang violence first, and public safety second. It's time for it to end!
25 Sep Like Reply

Davyd reiterates the claim of racist origin for the ban & includes unsubstantiated quotes...

Darcy S- * Congress Park
The pittie ban was put in place during a time of high gang activity in Denver. It's real purpose was to curb gang violence first, and public safety second. It's time for it to end!
25Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
You are barking up the wrong tree . that is the funniest thing I ever heard. Was put in place for the amount of people who are harmed because of pities and badd owners. People don't follow laws now, people didn't follow laws then, people take Responsibility for their actions. It is a very selfish world.
Edited 2 days ago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Denver's ban was enacted after the energy industry bust resulted in "migration [that] dramatically changed the population of the city": whites moved out and Latinos moved in. When Aurora, CO, enacted a ban. one of the commissioners stated that she did not want "those sorts of people" moving into her community. Its racist. It always has been.
2daysago Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
"On May 8, 1989, 59-year old] Rev. Wilbur Billingsley left his house at 20th Avenue and Emerson Street through a back alley on the way to pick up some groceries. His daughter, Michelle Billingsley. told Denverite that her mother started to worry when he didn't promptly return. She poked her head into the alley and found him on the ground, badly bleeding and still being mauled by a neighbor’s pit bull. It had jumped over the fence to attack him.

Michelle said the incident put her father in the hospital, and he couldn't walk for some time after he came home. While the bites on his...

Jude W- * South Park Hill

do you realize that all breeds of dog can bite? Pit bulls have consistently scored above average as friendly dogs with the American Temperament Test. You listing times when people have been attacked by pitbulls proves nothing, it gives no information about the circumstances, if the dogs has been abused or not if they had have been fixed or not. I could list times when golden retrievers have killed someone. Any dog is capable of the circumstances are right. Its a scary thought, but that's why it is crucial to pass this law so abusive owners are held accountable and the dogs that are actually dangerous, can be helped so the community isn't at risk. It has been proved time and time again that breed specific legislation does nothing to keep the community safe. It has cost denver millions of dollars to uphold and it punishes responsible owners and innocent dogs. Please do some more research before listing pit bull attacks. The media has extremely skewed the way we see dog attacks, I highly recommend watching Beyond the Myth, it is very eye opening. If you really are advocating for the safety of the city against dog attacks, you should support breed neutral legislation and realize that over 50 breeds of dogs have been involved in fatal attacks in the past few years, and banning pitties is just a temporary solution to a larger issue or irresponsible owners and over population. Just like in humans, the way a dog looks or what their genetics are, determines nothing in regards to aggression and temperament.

...also pit bull is not even a breed of dog, it represents 4 breeds and over 20 other breeds have the same physical characteristics. Pit bulls make up 20% of all dogs and are consistently misidentified by animal control and the media.
25Sep Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
The Myths of pit bulls (not actually a breed) are rife with alarmist misinformation. animalfarmfoundation.org/community-advocates/mythbusting/

25Sep Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
What happened to Reverend Billingsley was one of the cases that was an impetus for the city council to enact the ban, Jude W-. Here you are insisting that I watch your propaganda but you (and others) are apparently ignoring the articles I've included regarding the history of the ban. While all or most dogs can bite, many will only bite and not continue on to maul a human being. You are insisting that the new legislation will help ensure that “abusive owners are held accountable and the dogs that are actually dangerous, can be helped” - so if a dog (that falls in the range of the currently banned breed) does go and attack some person then the owner will be held accountable but the person who was attacked and their loved ones would still have their reality to contend with.

Dogs are not equivalent to humans in any way. shape, or form so one that attacks a person doesn't need "help", it needs to be put down. "Anthropomorphic" is ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things. The picture you included in your original post could be described as anthropomorphic in

...

Scott H. * Hale
What happened to Reverend Billingsley was one of the cases that was an impetus for the city council to enact the ban, Jude Wolf. Here you are insisting that I watch your propaganda but you (and others) are apparently ignoring the articles I've included regarding the history of the ban. While all or most dogs can bite, many will only bite and not continue on to maul a human being. You are insisting that the new legislation will help ensure that “abusive owners are held accountable and the dogs that are actually dangerous, can be helped” - so if a dog (that falls in the range of the currently banned breed) does go and attack some person then the owner will be held accountable but the person who was attacked and their loved ones would still have their reality to contend with.

Dogs are not equivalent to humans in any way. shape, or form so one that attacks a person doesn't need "help", it needs to be put down. "Anthropomorphic" is ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things. The picture you included in your original post could be described as anthropomorphic in nature and it's not realistic.

There have been bans enacted in cities throughout the country and some have been in effect for decades now so any statistics regarding dog attacks in relation to breeds would need to take that into consideration in order to be completely accurate but of course that would be difficult to near impossible. From a human rights perspective the absolute accuracy of the related statistics doesn't matter that much anyway since the goal is to prevent the dogs from propagating.

I am not going to research the technical specifics of the type of canines involved since the current law (and similar ones around our country) specify what dogs are included. Maybe the ban needs to be broadened is the way I would go.

How are you so desensitized to human suffering?

25Sep Like Reply

Notice that Norma picked up on the idea to suggest that the pit bull owners just move...

Norma C- * East Colfax
Jude W- You're so right Jude. The 4 boys that were Chased through the park and up a tree, nowhere near the pit bull Have great circumstance. The young boy being locked out of his house that no longer has an arm has great circumstance.
People don't follow the law as is it is this is it moot point. Best part is pit bulls attack people move.
5daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Scott H. Its not desensitized to h8uman suffering. It has been studied that bran breeds do nothing to lower dog attacks.
What you need to do is treat the dogs, and people, as individuals. Dangerous dog laws have been effective. Breed bans have not. If you support breed bans you are actually missing the opportunity to reduce attacks and human suffering.
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Jude W- And if you look at trauma centers that you've been the number one dog forward the most damaged caused. With owners moving, walking away. and not taking responsibility
2daysago Like Reply

Aszur R- * Historic Montclair
Pibbles are amazing! Thanlks for posting this. I grew up with them and have had one (or two) my whole life. I truly hope people will open their hearts and lift this senseless ban.
25Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
If you think people will follow the law and be responsible your as crazy as the world is
5daysago Like Reply

Davyd with his crack to "get rid of all laws then..." shows example of what Aristotle covered about extremes over two thousand years ago!

Davyd S- * Skyland
Scott H. Its not desensitized to h8uman suffering. It has been studied that bran breeds do nothing to lower dog attacks.
What you need to do is treat the dogs, and people, as individuals. Dangerous dog laws have been effective. Breed bans have not. If you support breed bans you are actually missing the opportunity to reduce attacks and human suffering.
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Jude W- And if you look at trauma centers that you've been the number one dog forward the most damaged caused. With owners moving, walking away and not taking responsibility
2daysago Like Reply

Aszur R- * Historic Montclair
Pibbles are amazing! Thanlks for posting this. I grew up with them and have had one (or two) my whole life. I truly hope people will open their hearts and lift this senseless ban.
25Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
If you think people will follow the law and be responsible your as crazy as the world is
5daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Should we get rid of all laws then? I mean, if no one is obeying laws, what is the point?
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- Isn't that the way it is now everybody does whatever thev feel like...

(Some of these are duplicates & overlap.)

Aszur R- * Historic Montclair
Pibbles are amazing! Thanlks for posting this. I grew up with them and have had one (or two) my whole life. I truly hope people will open their hearts and lift this senseless ban.
25Sep Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
If you think people will follow the law and be responsible your as crazy as the world is
5daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Should we get rid of all laws then? I mean, if no one is obeying laws, what is the point?
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd Smith Isn't that the way it is now everybody does whatever they feel like.
4daysago Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
Laws are meant to be a deterrent, Davyd S-, if they prevented crime there would be no need for jails or prisons, (This is all becoming merely a war of attrition.)
4daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
I would agree with you. I was questioning Norma's logic.
4daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- If everyone gets to do anything they like than they should all get whatever dog they like and we can all stop discussing it.
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
o Davyd S- 12nd that. In today's societee actually for as long as I can remember. They're just some people who get up look in the mirror and say you know wet don't care. They don't care about their communities, their neighbors or anything else as long as they can do whatever they feel like. Better the 1st to complain. I have a Box of tissues sitting on my porch just for passers by
2daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- They have whatever dogs I like. This whole form is a joke.
2daysago Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
Twenty years ago the founder of the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" organization. Ingrid Newkirk. wrote an opinion piece that was published about pit-bulls and it created quite a stir since she was in favor of bans. The official position of the PETA organization is in support of bans on the animals to this day. dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-20000127-2000-01-27-0001270085-story.html

It was about ten years prior to that when two City of Denver Councilwomen, Mary DeGroot and Ramona Martinez, spent some of their valuable time and effort to pass the "breed-specific legislation” to ban pit-bulls in Denver. ( City Councilwoman Ramona Martinez was. inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame in 2010 and Mary DeGroot almost became mayor of Denver in 1995 but lost to Mayor Webb in a run-off election. ) Their work to get the law enacted was in response to the two incidents that I referenced in a previous reply to this posting.

my comment...

Scott H. * Hale
Twenty years ago the founder of the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" organization. Ingrid Newkirk. wrote an opinion piece that was published about pit-bulls and it created quite a stir since she was in favor of bans. The official position of the PETA organization is in support of bans on the animals to this day. dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-20000127-2000-01-27-0001270085-story.html

It was about ten years prior to that when two City of Denver Councilwomen, Mary DeGroot and Ramona Martinez, spent some of their valuable time and effort to pass the "breed-specific legislation” to ban pit-bulls in Denver. ( City Councilwoman Ramona Martinez was. inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame in 2010 and Mary DeGroot almost became mayor of Denver in 1995 but lost to Mayor Webb in a run-off election. ) Their work to get the law enacted was in response to the two incidents that I referenced in a previous reply to this posting.

I noticed that there is a whole list of other "experts” and organizations, including the Colorado Humane Society, that support eliminating the ban. From what I can tell there's an idea that abusers of the animals will be flushed out and brought to justice. It has been postulated that it's the abused animals that are the cause of fatal and near fatal attacks on people but I think it's possible that something could happen that is out of the owner's control that could be a stressor and put a dog in an agitated state enough to where it would revert to the instinctive behavior that is characteristic of the type or breed of canine.

It shouldn't be at the expense of the public's safety in a densely populated area to informally experiment with dogs that were specifically bred to attack and fight (read Ingrid's article). The dogs exhibit behavior akin to wild animals. There are other things that residents aren't allowed to do within the city limits for the sake of public safety. In reality it doesn't matter to a vietim of a dog attack if the animal was abused or not. There is an apparent amount of pride (ak.a. "virtue signaling’) among the aficionados of the dogs which is evident even here that reveals bias in itself. I would contend here that the included picture of the dog with sunglasses technically is a sign of abuse of animals since a dog would typically immediately knock the glasses off of its head and would have to be trained to wear them, no matter how easy it would be, but the dog doesn't need them so it's merely for human entertainment.

my comment continued...

(Scott H. continued...)

merely for human entertainment.

This is an emotionally charged issue and I contend that there's bias even on the part of some animal welfare organizations that I alluded to in the last paragraph. I realized that a way that bias could be expressed is "anthropomorphic bias and (lo & behold) I am not the first person to think of that. After a quick internet search I found that there is an article written about the subject (link below): "Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias" by Mike Dacey. Individual canines don't have a right to be born and exist merely because some people adore the way they look and want one as a status symbol. I also contend that there is social pressure from a majority group that's coercing influential people to agree and that phenomenon was explored with the Solomon Asch conformity experiments at Swarthmore College in 1951.

"Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias" by Mike Dacey M.A., Ph.D, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine pdfs.semanticscholar.org/19dd/2eb7187d2c5303ch8bb3517ade8a84dad2e5.pdf

bates.edu/faculty-expertise/profile/mike-dacey/

I also reiterate my contention that any examination of relevant statistical data needs to take into account that there have been bans enacted at various times in various municipalities throughout the nation so there would be a reduction in overall population of the type of dogs and it would stand to reason that others would increase. There is one study that I found that purportedly takes a local enacted ban into account but I don't see where any increase (or change) in human population is included as well as any population increase for canines in general. → The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study & that study is referrenced in this "Psychology Today" article psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201902/do-breed-specific-laws-reduce-the-number-of-dog-bites but Psychology Today isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it's a magazine that is available to the general public that is published for profit.

There is also the difference of scientific data and the interpretation and presentation of data. There’s an article that explores that topic here: "Misleading Statistics Examples - Discover The Potential For Misuse of Statistics & Data In The Digital Age" By Mona Lebied datapine.com/blog/misleading-statistics-and-data/

In another article that I found the author begins the section on the disadvantages of breed-specific legislation by immediately going into people’s U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment Rights which is side- stepping the issue of whether or not the dogs are too dangerous to be kept in city limits in light of public safety. "Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma" Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma

The other thing I have noticed is that opponents of breed-specific legislation continue to use the word "bite" in articles on the subject but there is a big difference between a dog biting someone and one mauling someone. I think we should err on the side of caution and be respectful of the work done by the city councilwomen as well as be considerate of the innocent people injured and killed and their loved ones.
4daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Yes. PETA hates homeless pets. They have one shelter and kill 90% of the pets that enter for the past decade. They are disliked by the majority of homeless pet advocates. Newkirk is a crackpot, PETA is a cult.

Davyd S * Skyland
Yes. PETA hates homeless pets. They have one shelter and kill 90% of the pets that enter for the past decade. They are disliked by the majority of homeless pet advocates. Newkirk is a crackpot, PETA is a cult.
4daysago Like Reply

Jude W- * South Park Hill ~
it's funny how people cite PETA only if it benefits their argument. PETA has time and time again given inaccurate information, in fact they euthanize a majority of the animals they claim to rescue. If you are attempting to source a reputable organization, I suggest you check out American Bar Association, the National Animal Care & Control Association, the United Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association. the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even the White House. They all oppose breed specific legislation because of the proven facts that it is ineffective and discriminatory. Here are links to the specific oppositions:
antibreedismalliance.blog/organizations-that-do-not-endorse-breed-specific-legislation-bsl

Here is more information that I think you would benefit from:
resources.bestfriends.org/article/why-breed-specific-legislation-ineffective
4daysago Like Reply

Jude W- * South Park Hill
If you are so against the issue of dog attacks, you should be working towards punishing bad dog owners and working towards stronger animal abuse laws as well as spay and neuter laws. 97% of dogs involved in fatal attacks are not fixed and 84% of the attacks involved reckless owners and 78% of the dogs were not treated as pets, they were owned to guard or breed. It makes MUCH more sense to your argument to restrict or even ban reckless owners from owning a dog-any breed- because any dog can bite, and hundreds of breeds other than pitties can kill. So once again this is a people problem not a pit bull problem!
4daysago Like Reply

Scott H. * Hale
There is no ban in Colorado Springs, Jude W-, and just last October 20, 2019 a 5-year-old girl was attacked by a dog that was identified as a terrier-bull mix by the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region. They don't support bans either because of some convoluted reason. Their explanation is that "one animal's life is equally as important as the next" but we're not discussing animals that are already alive. Using the word "discriminatory" in regards to animals is warped and even offensive. The story about the Colorado Springs girl being attacked apparently went international. I thought I'd check the United Kingdom laws and the dogs have been banned there since 1991 !
dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2115014/video-Shocking-moment-dog-viciously-attacks-5-year-old-church-parking-lot.html

hsppr.org/tis-the-season-for-trick-or-truth/
4daysago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- Yes pits are one of the biggest high kill dogs because people get them not understanding the breed. Itis a very powerful intelligent dog. And a lot of people have no clue
2daysago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- They are not very "high kill" dogs. The reporting on them has been bastardized by some of the sites mentioned above. The actual data shows a very different story. My dogs are not pit bull (not a breed) and well over 100 Ibs. If they were trained to attack or abused to be reactive they would be more dangerous than any pittie. T5he breed has nothing to do with the danger a dog can present. This is not an opinion. It has been studied and shown there is no difference between any dog of the same size.

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- Keep your heads in the sands, people keep your heads in the sand. The meaning of high kill dog. is when a person gets a dog. doesn't like them, sets them free or takes him to the pound. Nobody takes them and they are Euthanized.
ldayago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- That would lead me to recommend you have your brother stop breeding them ([ believe that was in another comment you make). If you meant kill shelters, 1 assure you I understand that fully. Tam president of No Kill Colorado. Regressive shelters kill healthy and treatable pets. pit bull issue, that is a shelter management issue.
ldayago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
That is not a pit bull issue, that is a shelter management issue.
ldayago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- I would say that's a people getting the wrong dog issue.
ldayago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- You wouldn't own one that's for sure. They do deep background checks on people. And it's not my brother
ldayago Like Reply

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- Your cousin. Whatever. If you believe there are too many and people are to blame, I hope you have a conversation with your cousin.

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- Why do you think I would not have one? I adopt pets for many reasons - breed is not an important part of my choice. live in Denver, and as this subject is about, they are currently not legal. Currently I do not have one as I can still save lives of other types of dogs until that time comes.
ldayago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- I said she would not sell you one.
Edited 1 dayago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- Her business is her business. she is licensed, she's legal and she is not a puppy mill. here in Denver you think everybody can and should have one
ldayago Like Reply

Jude W- * South Park Hill
I hope you talk to your cousin and reflect yourself, 93% of pitbulls are euthanized and only 1 in 600 ever find a forever home. They are constantly being bred and killed for no reason. People will backyard breed to make money and the dogs are often time abused and then we get pitties who feel like they need to protect themselves out of fear
ldayago Like Reply

Norma C- * East Colfax
She is not a puppy mill. She does not sel to just anyone. All of her dogs are under contract. No reflection . She is very specific on who her dogs go to and make sure They are well prepared for these dogs. Go out to your street look up-and-down the street and tell me how many people up-and-down your street should have these dogs. Every dog she is ever gotten rid of has been a forever home.

Davyd S- * Skyland
Denver's ban was enacted after the energy industry bust resulted in “migration [that] dramatically changed the population of the city”: whites moved out and Latinos moved in. When Aurora, CO, enacted a ban. one of the commissioners stated that she did not want “those sorts of people” moving into her community. Its racist. It always has been.
4daysago Like

Darcy S- * Congress Park
Wow, so this is all a hot mess. Understanding *why* breed restrictive legislation was enacted requires one to grasp nuance and cultural competency.

Anyway...there are plenty of credited sources and research into breed specific legislation that are a simple goog away. PETA is an incredibly biased source and likely cult. I don't have the time or spoons to teach people how to do proper research or develop critical thinking skils.

My friend has a service pittie to assist her in severe panic attacks caused by her rape. Some person with "the facts" on pitties subsequently decided to attempt attacking them while out as a "citizens arrest." (It is perfectly legal to have a service dog of any breed. This is protected by disability law)

These attitudes influenced by breed restrictions have real world consequences.

Have a cute picture of the service pittie back when she was in training. I'm so thankful my friend was provided with such a loving and affectionate service dog. This pup was chosen specifically for those characteristics along with high intelligence and eagerness to please.
Edited 6 hr ago Like

Davyd associates legislation regarding canines to "racism" once again...

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- Why do you think I would not have one? I adopt pets for many reasons - breed is not an important part of my choice. live in Denver, and as this subject is about, they are currently not legal. Currently I do not have one as I can still save lives of other types of dogs until that time comes.
2daysago Like

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- I said she would not sell you one.
Edited 2 days ago Like

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- Her business is her business. she is licensed, she's legal and she is not a puppy mill. here in Denver you think everybody can and should have one
2daysago Like

Davyd S- * Skyland
Norma C- I wouldn't buy one. Never have, never will.
Licensed or not, breeding is a bad idea, based on eugenics, a wildly racist philosophy, and a contributing factor to homeless pet issues. 1 believe everyone should be allowed to have a dog and breed should not be part of the law.
2hrago Like

Norma C- * East Colfax
Davyd S- and the race card . Really! So when people show dogs. They are to grab them from the pound. They are not A factor to the homeless pet issue. And see you're part of the problem because you feel everyone should be able to own a dog. And any dogs they want! It is people like you that make this problem Every dog I have ever owned has been a rescue dog. Every cat I have ever owned has been a rescue cat. And I personally believe not everybody should own a pet. But I guess that's what keeps the SPCA in business
lhrago Like

This comment by Lisa B. is from an earlier thread that I didn't copy. She basically is stating that I need to be murdered.

Lisa B * East Colfax
Scott H Huh. True dog hater. Never actually encountered one before. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you to make you like this. No sense arguing with someone who can't be changed. Might as well “put you down.”
2hr ago Like Reply ol

Relatable Articles

I can include here a point here about an article regarding a question posed to an expert (message forum) asking about dogs needing muzzles in elevators. There was an incident where a dog nipped a child and it was revealed that the child grabbed the dog's ear first. I'd like to point out that a child can't be faulted since it's up to an owner to ensure that the dog is at safe distance from anyone unknown. Regardless of how familiar the owner was with the building there's no telling who or what (like another dog) waiting for the elevator. People often get bit when two dogs start fighting.

The other point that I would make is that if the owner of the dog was on the elevator with somebody famous then wouldn't they be more careful? Maybe the cited case isn't the best example but dog owners would probably control their dogs better (keep them on-leash, etc.) if there were a celebrity in the vicinity.

Related Media

Dog owner speaks after video shows dog attacking mail carrier

10/20/2019 in Colorado Springs a pit bull attacked 5 year old girl walking with her parents.

2 pit bulls attack mail carrier - May 2009 in Norwich, Conn.

Pit bull attacks woman on NYC subway

Teen Attacked by Pitbull - Locals Struggle to Rescue Him

Dog attacks child man who intervened in Price Hill

About Webpage & Author

Content use in conformance with fair use

Photograph of my old department crewmembers & I displaying our
Battle Efficiency Award onboard the now decommissioned USS Wabash AOR-5

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
~ James Madison

"We want and are entitled to the basic rights and opportunities of American citizens: The right to earn a living at work for which we are fitted by training and ability; equal opportunities in education, health, recreation, and similar public services; the right to vote; equality before the law; some of the same courtesy and good manners that we ourselves bring to all human relations."
~ (Dr.) Martin Luther King, Jr. from August 6, 1946 letter to editor of Atlanta newspaper.

The biggest danger to our rights today is not from government acting against the will of the majority
but from government which has become the mere instrument of this majority...
Wrong will be done as much by an all-powerful people as by an all-powerful prince.
~ James Madison

Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class. Unable to deny, try as they may, the existence of social classes, they preach the need for understanding and harmony between those who buy and those who are obliged to sell their labor. However, the unconcealable antagonism which exists between the two classes makes this "harmony" impossible. ~ Paulo Freire

Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both. ~ Paulo Freire

"Only a lively appreciation of dissent's vital function at all levels of society can preserve it as a corrective to wishful thinking, self-inflation, and unperceived rigidity" The Wrong Way Home : Uncovering the patterns of cult behavior in American society | by Arthur J. Deikman, M.D
ISBN 10: 0807029157 ISBN 13: 9780807029152

Force has no place where there is need of skill.
~ Herodotus

site part of:

Contact