Monday, October 29, 2012

Who bears the loss?

Who bears the loss? In that situation, nobody's negligent.
Sen. Brian Frosh

* * * * *
Revised: Oct 29, 2012; 14:16 GMT
Revised: Jan 29, 2013; 22:20 GMT
To: MD Task Force on Pit Bulls
Re: Comments of Oct 26, 2012

Who bears the loss? The answer is simple, but we'll return to that in a moment.

The Maryland task force on pit bulls has been charged by the Attorney General to consider the April decision of the Court of Appeals in Tracey v. Solesky.
Further, the Task Force will study the viability and definition of breed-specific standards in Maryland law and local prohibitions, as well as any issues concerning property insurance arising from the Court decision. Finally, the Task Force will make recommendations for potential legislation.
MD State Archives
Senator Frosh explains that the mission of the task force is complicated by the consideration of attacks by dogs previously thought to be nonviolent, in which there is no apparent negligence.
The task force is particularly struggling over the liability in a scenario where a previously nonviolent dog bites without being intentionally provoked. "Who bears the loss?" Frosh said. "In that situation, nobody's negligent."
So far in the calender year 2012 there have been 29 canine homicides; 24 of them by pit bulls and close mixes. There have been 147 reported maulings, 125 of them by pit bulls.* A death or a mauling by a pit bull every other day, and we don't know how many go unreported. Of those few canine homicides and maulings that were committed by dogs other than pit bulls, it's a safe bet that the attacking dogs had previously shown aggression.

It is practically unheard of for a previously nonviolent dog to initiate an unprovoked attack causing grievous bodily harm, unless it is a pit bull or pit bull cross. On the other hand, the majority of unprovoked attacks resulting in death or grave injury are initiated by pit bulls and pit bull crosses, many of which had been previously considered nonviolent.

The struggles of the task force would come to an abrupt end if they simply took a closer look at the Court's finding that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. It appears the task force has determined that the Court's finding lacks credibility, but the record speaks.

Who bears the loss after a pit bull attack? There have been a few sensational settlements, some of which hold municipal or county governments liable for six- or seven-figure sums. But after most pit bull attacks the victims are left to bear not only the extraordinary emotional burdens but the financial burdens as well.  Those who should bear the cost, those who own or harbor fighting breeds, are rarely held accountable.

To resolve the issue the task force must travel full circle and acknowledge that the Court's finding was correct. If the finding stands, insurance companies and landowners will quickly adapt, as they always have,  and pet owners will make wiser choices. If people do the right thing the cost of pit bull attacks will diminish over time -- a relatively short period of time.

Across the country, again and again, legislatures have confronted the same issues the Maryland task force now faces, only to be confused and intimidated by the barrage from the highly-paid career advocates of fighting breeds: lobbyists, attorneys, and legislative analysts working for radical advocates of fighting breeds. This seems to be a problem legislatures are unsuited for, and unable to resolve. And thus pit bulls will remain a menace to public safety until the courts step in.

The Maryland court has provided enlightened leadership on this intractable problem.  Responsible animal welfare activists from across the country welcomed the Court's findings. Cities across the country are looking to the Maryland task force: the challenge now is whether the Maryland legislature will join the court in this courageous stand.

* * * * *

* Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here.

Resource: MD Court of Appeals establishes new liability rule in pit bull attack cases

Google News: Today's pit bull attacks

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Fighting Breeds

The belief that pit bulls show no more aggressive tendencies than Golden Retrievers is widely accepted among advocates of fighting breeds.

The School of Veterinary Medicine at Hannover, Germany (TiHo) has been instrumental in promoting this belief.
See this index for a complete list of posts on TiHo and on the belief that pit bulls exhibit no more aggressive tendencies than Golden Retrievers.
* * * * *
Revised: Oct 24, 2012; 22:57 GMT
Revised: Oct 26, 2012; 15:32 GMT
Revised: Apr 28, 2013; 19:08 GMT
Revised: March 10, 2014; 13:07 GMT

On June 26th, 2000, six-year old Volkan Kaya was attacked by two dogs, an American Staffordshire terrier and a pit bull. Volkan had been playing soccer with schoolmates in the schoolyard, and was killed while his schoolmates looked on in horror.

In July of 2000 the state of Lower Saxony passed a Dangerous Dogs Act; provisions of the law placed restrictions on specific breeds of dogs. In August the Veterinary School at the University of Hannover began testing restricted dogs under provisions of the law, and collecting data from the tests.

The following year (March 2001) TiHo was established at Hannover, and the first dissertation on dangerous dogs was published in May, 2002. In the following years the TiHo faculty and students have been closely associated with the study of canine aggression, and have an extensive history of publications on the subject. The dissertations have been carefully directed, primarily by the long-time director of the program Prof. Dr. Hansjoachim Hackbarth. TiHo publications have exerted a strong influence on the animal legislation in Germany, and on the advocates of fighting breeds in the US.

In our series SRUV has focused on the papers which assert that pit bulls and other fighting breeds show no more aggressive tendencies than Golden Retrievers. We have yet to comment on the very first paper published by TiHo in their series on dangerous dogs, Fighting dogs: history, use, and behaviour problems, by Andrea Steinfeldt (May 2002). In the paper Ms Steinfeldt arrives at the following conclusion:1
However, to use the term „fighting dog“ for all members of certain species must be rejected for many reasons. Forms of increased aggressive behaviour of dogs can be caused by various endogenetic and exogenetic factors,2  regardless of the species a dog belongs to. From a veterinarian point of view, a dog should be assessed by its individual behaviour and the term „fighting dog“ must by all means be avoided, as it is of historical origin and referred to dog species, which were especially reared for dog fights and which do not exist anymore.
Ms Steinfeldt claims that fighting breeds no longer exist, which observation and common sense tell us is false. If we interpret this passage as leniently as possible, perhaps Ms Steinfeldt may be claiming that dogs are no longer bred to fight, which is nonetheless false. No matter how we choose to interpret Ms Steinfeldt's assertions, the fact remains that she is wrong on all counts. Dogs are still being bred to fight, and dog fights are still being held. Backyard breeders continue to overproduce pit bulls with all the characteristics of authentic pit fighters. Fighting breeds do exist.

This dissertation, the first from TiHo on dangerous dogs, clearly attempts to lay the groundwork for subsequent TiHo papers on fighting breeds. It is instrumental in establishing the core belief of advocates of fighting breeds: that all dogs are individuals and should not be considered as members of a breed. This hypothesis, if carried to its logical extreme, would erase the concept of dog breeds altogether.

* * * * *


1  This excerpt is from the English version of the dissertation summary.
2 This translation into English (which is copied exactly from the TiHo web site) incorrectly translates endogene und exogene, the terms used in the German version. The mistranslated terms endogenetic and exogenetic appear to apply solely or primarily to geomorphology. Based on the definitions in Aggressive behaviours in dogs: a new descriptive-contextual classification (Dehasse, 2004), as well as on the author's intent, we believe the correct usage in English is endogenous and exogenous.

Fighting dogs: history, use, and behaviour problems. Bully Species: a study of the literature.
Andrea Steinfeldt. Hannover, Tierärztliche Hochschule (TiHo), Dissertation, 2002

Google News: Today's pit bull attacks in the US

Monday, October 22, 2012

The End of BSL

Yes, there are pit bulls that bite, but there are Chihuahuas that bite.
Chris Charbonneau, MSPCA

* * * * *

To: Julie Cohen
Re: Views Clash on the end of the pit bull ordinance

We are writing to correct a number of misrepresentations in your recent article.

Your article features several images of Nia, an elderly pit bull who probably likes nothing more than a good  nap after lunch. Nia, of course, is wearing the de rigueur lighthearted scarf, as recommended by advocacy groups. We are shown only the feet of the anonymous and obviously demure lady owner. A disproportionate amount of your lengthy article is given over to this owner's travail's with owning a stigmatized dog.

Nia is hardly a representative pit bull, and the interview is an early indicator of the bias throughout your article. This bias is reinforced by extensive comments from Kara Holmquist, an architect of the legislation to invalidate Boston's Responsible Pit Bull Ownership ordinance.

You fail to mention that the new law in Massachusetts was pushed through on the last day of the legislative session, with the rules suspended. You fail to mention that the law was marshaled through the legislature without consulting important stakeholders: the men and women who are charged with protecting the public safety.

You failed to interview any responsible animal welfare expert who holds opposing opinions.  You failed to point out that pit bulls have killed, on average, 25 people a year over the last three years (2009-2011), more than all other breeds combined.* You failed to mention the countless horses, ponies, llamas, alpacas, and other animals that have been attacked, many of them killed. You failed to mention that the number of disfiguring attacks on humans has soared in the last two years.*

You also failed to mention one of the unintended consequences of removing Breed Specific Legislation (BSL): within a short period the animal shelters in Boston will experience what many shelters across the country already deal with every day -- an explosion of the pit bull population. The average population in most shelters consist of 40-60% pit bulls, which results in increased pressure to adopt out dangerous dogs, or increased euthanasia rates, or both.

Journalists who advocate for fighting breeds as you have are expressing the opinions of a strident minority of society, while putting the public safety of the rest of us at risk. You are performing a disservice to the majority of your readers; your article therefore merits recognition in the SRUV Journalism Hall of Shame.

* * * * *

* Statistics are from Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada. The report is continuously updated; to request a copy of the current report click here. 

Google News: Today's pit bull attacks

Postscript to readers:
We are baffled by the comment of Chris Charbonneau (top of page). Of course Chihuahuas bite, as do fleas. But do Chihuahua bites bear any relationship to pit bull bites? or to BSL? We think not. For a discussion of how advocates of fighting breeds attempt to blur the distinction between breeds see Chihuahuas aren’t dangerous, just small, yappy and annoying (National Post, Oct 18)

Saturday, October 20, 2012

A Terrible Accident

No one knows what happened, It was a terrible accident.
Robert Rios

* * * * *

To: US DHHS, Administration for Children and Families
      Region 1: Mary Ann Higgins
      Region 2: Joyce Thomas
      Region 3: David Lett
      Region 4: Carlis Williams
      Region 5: Kent Wilcox
      Region 6: Leon R McCowan
      Region 7: Patricia Brown
      Region 8: Thomas Sullivan
      Region 9: Sharon Fujii
      Region 10: Steve Henigson
      Child Welfare League of America, American Humane Association, and dozens of state Child Protective Services officials, and others

On Friday Sept 11, 2011, 20-month old Neveah Bryant of West Haven CT was killed by her aunt's three pit bulls. Thirteen months later, on Oct 11, 2012 Neveah's aunt, Erica Hobdy, pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge and received a suspended sentence of one year of jail and three years of probation.

For those unfamiliar with the case we've listed the relevant details:
  • Hobdy had left the child in the house alone with her three pit bulls while she went to the store for drinks for her son and a friend, who were outside the house;
  • Police and neighbors confirmed that the dogs had previously demonstrated aggression;
  • Hobdy was arrested after the attack, in December of 2011 and released on bail. She was soon taken into custody again because the arrest violated probation conditions of her past criminal cases.
  • Local rescue groups claimed that the tragedy was an isolated case. 
  • According to news reports (see below), Hobdy's  previous dogs attacked a mailman and children years ago in another city.
This was not an accident, nor was it an isolated incident, as advocates of fighting breeds often claim. Earlier this month Tarilyn Bowles (MI), less than a year old, was killed in a similar incident. In September Rayden Bruce (TX), also less than a year old, was killed by a family pit bull, as was James Hudson (NC), also less than a year old. In June Tyzhel Latella McWilliams (CA) was killed before her first birthday. In May Makayla Darnell (OH), less than a year old, was killed during the same week Ohio pit bull advocates were celebrating the dismissal of Ohio's Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Also in May, Jazilyn Mesa (NM), who had recently celebrated her first birthday, was killed by the family pit bull. In January Jace Valdez (TX), a year old, was killed by the family pit bull.*

There is wide disparity in how these cases are prosecuted. Hobdy was charged but plea bargained her way to a suspended sentence. Three members of the Mesa family were recently charged. SRUV previously reported on the death of a 10-day old infant in Kalamazoo, MI, after an attack by a recently adopted pit bull. In that case detectives sought involuntary manslaughter charges against the child's mother but the county prosecutor's office declined to press charges. Kalamazoo is the home of the United Kennel Club, the official registry for the American Pit Bull Terrier.

Law enforcement officials are often unwilling or unable to bring charges after an attack by a dog which results in the death of a family member. Many of these deaths, and hundreds of tragic disfigurements, could  be avoided if Child Protective Services and other social welfare agencies were to recognize the inherent danger of accepting fighting breeds as family pets.

* * * * *

* For details of these attacks, as well as the attacks on adults, see Fatal Pit Bull Attacks

News sources:
Aunt of toddler killed in West Haven pit bull attack claims the dogs had no history of aggression (Oct 1, 2011)
Autopsy Complete on Toddler Attacked by Pit Bulls (Oct 3, 2011)
Pit bulls' killing of Fairfield toddler an accident (Oct 4, 2011)
West Haven pit bull owner gets no jail time in fatal mauling of toddler (Oct 17, 2012)

Google News: Today's pit bull attacks

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Responsible Advocacy: II

. . . we need to embrace a comprehensive
dangerous-dog law that will actually work.

Kara Holmquist, MSPCA

* * * * *

It took us a moment to realize why this line is funny. Then we remembered that we're deep in the political season, and the word comprehensive, when it appears in the same sentence as plan, law, bill, etc, takes on a whole new meaning.

For those who are addicted to the news (as we are), the following terms are as common as air:
  • Comprehensive tax bill
  • Comprehensive energy legislation
  • Comprehensive immigration reform
  • Comprehensive health care reform
And now we have comprehensive dangerous dog laws. News junkies understand that when a politician uses the word comprehensive, it's his promise that nothing, absolutely nothing, will happen. (We may have come close with health care reform, but close only counts in horseshoes.) The speaker adopts a principled manner  and promises that any interim or inferior bill will not be tolerated (bills which, however imperfect, might actually accomplish something).

Advocates of fighting breeds rarely make original statements so we checked the web and sure enough, "comprehensive dog laws" has become a favorite of those wanting to torpedo Breed Specific Legislation (BSL).
  • The ASPCA’s Government Relations department has a strong history of helping to create and promote comprehensive, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. (ASPCA)
  • . . . urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws  (ABA TIPS)
  • Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation . . . would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed. (HSUS)
  • etc, etc, etc.
Needless to say, many of these advocacy organizations make kind offers of assistance to states and municipalities, offering to help them write their animal legislation. Boston already had dog laws which worked just fine, thank you very much, and Ms Holmquist helped mightily to send them to the trash bin.

Ms Holmquist also indulges in additional silliness in her letter to The Boston Herald. Her Logic 101 lesson in the first sentence:
Using the recent dog bite incident in East Boston — which occurred while the pit bull ordinance was in place and didn't prevent it — to argue the ordinance is needed is flawed logic.
. . . is itself an example of the fallacy of cause and effect or final consequences, take your pick (not to mention an example of obtuse syntax).  Remember, Ms Holmquist is referring here to an attack in which two pit bulls burst out of a house and went on a rampage; no law other than a strict ban could have stopped such an attack.

It is disingenuous of Ms Holmquist (and Dr Finocchio) to pretend that BSL is ineffective if it doesn't stop every single pit bull attack -- neither do conventional, comprehensive dangerous dog laws. The primary goal of BSL has always been:
. . . to reduce dog attack fatalities and disfigurements, and to reduce shelter killing. These goals have been fulfilled wherever breed-specific laws have been brought into force.
Animal People, Oct 2011
BSL has been effective in Boston. The advocates of fighting breeds must come up with relevant, honest, responsible arguments, rather than the tired, frivolous, borrowed arguments they habitually use.

* * * * *

News source: Law lacks bite, Boston Herald
Google News: Today's pit bull attacks

Sunday, October 14, 2012

RISPCA vs Boston: II

No animal should be trusted because they are unpredictable entities.
Dr. E.J. Finocchio, RI SPCA

* * * * *
Revised: Oct 15, 2012; 00:13 GMT
Revised: Oct 15, 2012; 15:44 GMT

The furor over the new Massachusetts animal control law continues to generate headlines. Among the recent stories:
  • Oct 5th; two pit bulls pushed through a window screen and escaped. They then terrorized the Sumner Street neighborhood in East Boston, killing a cat and biting a youth before they were captured. In the aftermath of the attack Mayor Menino called for continued Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) aimed at muzzling pit bulls.
  • Oct 8th; In an effort to neutralize news of the attack, the advocates of fighting breeds responded with their own news. WPRO talk radio published the online version of an interview with Dr Finocchio, which included the comment on the banner at the top of this page, as well as a rebuttal of the Mayor's comments.
  • Oct 11th; the East Boston Times-Free Press published a story with comments from Councilor Sal LaMattina and John Guilfoil, a spokesman for the Mayor.
  • Oct 11th; The Boston Herald ran a brief, incomprehensible note from Kara Holmquist, a supporter of the legislation. (We will return to her article in our next post.) Ms Holmquist and her co-author fail to comment on the ongoing pit bull attacks, other than to say that the city's laws failed to stop them.
  • Oct 12th, The Herald publishes an account of an attack in Dalton, in which two pit bulls rushed out of an apartment and mauled a man outside his home.
Dr Finocchio holds a far more nuanced opinion of pit bulls than most SPCA directors, but his Oct 8th comment continues to trouble us. Then, while reading the Oct 11 East Boston Times-Free Press we noticed the following comment from a reader:
. . . since the media only focuses on what they hope are pit bull attacks we never get a fair representation of the reality of having at least 75 million dogs (carnivores) in the US.
Carnivores? The word carnivores evokes images of wolves stalking their prey, which loops back to Dr Finocchio's insinuation that domestic dogs retain a bit of feral unpredictability. The comment was posted by an individual identified as 123tl78. (123tl78's profile indicates that he (or she)  has posted 1113 comments, all of them in defense of pit bulls.)

It's not uncommon to read accounts of pit bull attacks in which the dog's owner explains that his dog has a "high prey drive;" this is sometimes offered as an explanation for the attack. The phrase also appears in chat rooms, as well as in classified ads for pit bulls. The phrase is a euphemism indicating that the dog has aggressive tendencies. While some owners exhibit pride in their dog's "high prey drive," others can't bring themselves to admit that their pit bull is more aggressive than other breeds; they'd rather believe that all dogs still retain a bit of canis lupis. Dr Finocchio and millions of others  may have succumbed to this belief because we've become accustomed to the havoc of fighting breeds living in our midst.

Fortunately we have someone with the good sense of Alexandra Semyonova, who reminds us (in Myth 29) that the domestic dog is not a naturally aggressive species. Dr Finocchio may choose to reconsider his remarks after reading Ms Semyonova.

* * * * *

News sources:
RISPCA says muzzling pit bulls in public will not prevent attacks
** City officials seek restrictions on pit bulls following attack

Other news sources:
Law bans breed-specific dog regulation, SouthCoast Today
Brockton police shoot charging pit bull, Enterprise News
State law trumps Worcester pit bull regs, Worcester Telegram
New state law could maul Lowell's pit bull ordinance, Lowell Sun
Mayor Menino: Animal-rights law . . . ., Boston Herald
Violent MA pit bulls now Schenectady's problem, Albany Times Union
Hundreds of pit bull attacks listed in Boston, Boston Herald
City Leaders Outraged, WBZ CBS

MA Legal Blogs:
Pit Bull Ordinances Nullified Under New State Law
The Law and Pit Bull Attacks and Pit Bull Ordinances

Research: Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba

Google News Today's pit bull attacks

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

RISPCA vs Boston

No animal should be trusted because they are unpredictable entities.
Dr. E.J. Finocchio, RI SPCA

* * * * *

Dear Dr Finocchio,

We beg to differ. Canines and humans have evolved together precisely because dogs can be trusted. For the director of the RISPCA to suggest otherwise is to undermine the relationship that millions of children, families, farmers, hunters, herders, and disabled individuals enjoy and depend on.


* * * * *

Advocates of fighting breeds would have it both ways. Sometimes they claim that pit bulls are no different (and no more dangerous) than Golden Retrievers; in short, all dogs are as safe as lambs.

On other occasions the advocates of fighting breeds claim, as Dr Finocchio has, that all dogs are unpredictable and can't be trusted. They claim that even chihuahuas and dachshunds are as aggressive as pit bulls; in short, all dogs are wolves in sheepskin.

The goal, with either argument, is to blur the distinction between pit bulls and other breeds, so we will come to believe that pit bulls are no different from any other dog. A look at today's news proves otherwise.

SRUV has written extensively about both arguments. The "safe as lambs" argument is discussed in nearly twenty posts concerning pit bulls and Golden Retrievers. The "wolves in sheepskin" argument has also been covered, notably in RSPCA ACT and All Dogs Bite.

Dr Finocchio has chosen the second (wolves in sheepskin) approach. He is certainly aware that pit bulls have killed, on average, 25 people a year over the last three years.  Why would a highly-paid career animal welfare executive imply that all other dog breeds are as unstable as pit bulls?

* * * * *

News sources:
RISPCA says muzzling pit bulls in public will not prevent attacks
Funds for Animal Control Bill Secured by Sen Montigny

Other news sources:
Law bans breed-specific dog regulation, SouthCoast Today
Brockton police shoot charging pit bull, Enterprise News
State law trumps Worcester pit bull regs, Worcester Telegram
New state law could maul Lowell's pit bull ordinance, Lowell Sun
Mayor Menino: Animal-rights law . . . ., Boston Herald
Violent MA pit bulls now Schenectady's problem, Albany Times Union
Hundreds of pit bull attacks listed in Boston, Boston Herald
City Leaders Outraged, WBZ CBS

MA Legal Blogs:
Pit Bull Ordinances Nullified Under New State Law
The Law and Pit Bull Attacks and Pit Bull Ordinances

Research: Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba

Statistics on SRUV are from the 30+ year, continuously updated Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, published by Animal People. To view or download the current PDF click here. This page may also include information from Dogsbite and Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Information on euthanasia rates is from Pit bulls and Political Recklessness, by Merritt Clifton. Shelter  intake and euthanasia rates are published annually in the July/August edition of Animal People.

Google News: Today's pit bull attacks


Monday, October 8, 2012

Political Recklessness

On rare occasions SRUV departs from our customary format to reprint a column or editorial we believe is essential reading. The following excerpts are reprinted from Pit Bulls and Political Recklessness, the lead editorial of the September 2012 edition of Animal People. The full article can be accessed here.
* * * * *

. . . . Pit bulls over the past 30 years have increased from 2% of shelter dog intake and 5% of shelter dog killing to 30% of shelter dog intake and 60% of the killing.

Yet, instead of endorsing ordinances modeled after the San Francisco success, most national humane organizations and many local counterparts reflexively and paradoxically oppose breed-specific legislation in any form--in effect running interference on behalf of pit bull breeders and dogfighters.

* * * * *

. . . . The paradox of humane organizations opposing mandatory pit bull sterilization is that they are saying, in effect, that while the humane community contends that the births of all other dogs, and cats, should be limited to the numbers for whom good homes exist, there should be unlimited pit bull breeding, regardless of the availability of any homes. Reality is that almost a third of the total U.S. pit bull population enters animal shelters each year, and more than 85% of these dogs are killed from lack of safe adoption prospects, at the average age of 18 months. Yet invoking legislation to help curtail the surplus births producing this appalling waste of life is opposed as "breed discrimination."

* * * * *

. . . . A common mantra of pit bull advocates is "ban the deed, not the breed," meaning that legislation should take a punitive rather than preventive approach to addressing dog attacks, dogfighting, the use of dogs as weapons, and reckless dog care. Either banning pit bulls or mandating sterilization seeks to prevent the problems resulting from pit bull proliferation by preventing the proliferation itself. "Banning the deed" means that breeders remain free to produce pit bulls, while more severe punishment is meted out to those people whose pit bulls physically harm others, or others' pets, or who engage in dogfighting and other criminal behavior using pit bulls.

The difference in approach between banning the deed and banning the breed is in gist the difference between the libertarian approach to government, which holds that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish, so long as they are held responsible for the consequences, and legislative approaches putting the needs of the community first, practiced by everyone else on the political spectrum.

* * * * *

Google News Today's pit bull attacks

Send comments and corrections to safeisland911 [@]