Again, so you say. And you are only supported by what “best friends” and the HS that is under questioning, says. I’m sorry, that’s not proof.
Labels on pictures, which the validity of cannot be proven, means nothing.
Any one can take a picture of any place and call it what ever they want. I don’t know if those pictures are accurate and any one with any sense of wanting justice would want validation and proof that the pictures are actually of where you claim them to be.

Just because you say it is their place doesn’t make it so. If it was it was terrible and they should have been punished but they were not, as the charges were dropped. It still does not mean that that represents the hear and now. Just because a person has done wrong in the past it does not mean that wrong should follow them through out their life.

Again. I find it very strange the inconsistencies of those photos and the idea that those photos are being used to incite a hate campaign speaks volumes.

I want to see justice done. This means being non biased. Which I realize is a very difficult concept for you and your kind to have. It still does not change the situation. These people’s constitutional rights were violated. At that point it would not matter if they were guilty of murder, those involved have lost credence…If you want people to believe you then you have to come by things honestly, not bending things the way you want them to be.
Which is what has happened in this case…

Now…lets look at the facts as we know them.
*The Fairs are under fire because they kept their dogs on wire.
(yet 95% of the photos are dogs in the dirt)
*By the photos from the seizure we know the fairs bred SMALL FUZZY DOGS, usually shih tzu or Poms, any short haired dogs were frenchies or something similar
(THE DOGS IN THE PHOTOS ARE MOSTLY IN DISCRIMINANT BREEDS, Most look like mongrels and probably one JRT I think I saw some bostons but it was hard to tell)
*This seizure happened in the summer
(all the trees are bare of leaves)
So firstly we know IF these pictures are real they are NOT current nor or they even of the current property (glimpse of the house can tell you that). They are NOT of the CURRENT kennel. They are not of CURRENT situation and at this point I would be highly suspicious that they are even remotely accurate. It is obviously a blatant attempt to influence the public through misinformation.
But more than anything else. It shows WHAT extent these groups will go to to get their way, even fabrication of evidence. It shows that they are incapable of honesty. Incapable of being non partisan. In fact they are non capable of justice, since justice must be blind and deal with the facts.

Its only a matter of time before these people get caught as well.
Trumped up evidence, outright lies, doctored photographs are nothing new in this game. It’s the way it’s been played for a very long time. Don’t be naive. YES, some breeders SHOULD be shut down…but way to many are just being targeted because they have marketable dogs to bring in big donations……

Best Friend’s Animal Sanctuary

Dangerous Dog Summit

A First-Hand Summary by Randi Bolton

On October 27 – 29, 2006, I took the plunge and attended the “emergency” Dangerous Dog Summit, sponsored by Best Friend’s Animal Sanctuary (BFAS) held in Lakewood, CO which lies in the shadow of Denver, CO and its breed ban. Prior to attending the summit, I received numerous emails about BFAS but attended the summit with an open mind.

Here is my summary of the 2.5 day summit:

One word – scary. On the evaluation I turned in, I was very honest and let them know I could not support their efforts because of their thoughts on potential model-dog legislation and their 3-point national initiative. (*See Below) I feel that the AKC, UKC, national & local breed clubs, any person who loves their dogs and wants to have the right to keep them, need to band together to develop our own initiative for model-dog legislation to counter what BFAS will be proposing. BFAS has lots of backing, both from volunteers as well as funders, and is very well organized. They are approaching this like a political campaign and actually have two very experienced campaigners in their ranks (Joe Trippi and John Hinko).

The folks from BFAS talked about compromise but when we broke up into discussion groups and started talking about potential legislative points, the BFAS folks kept pushing their initiatives, especially breeder/breeding regulations. It was my impression that they have no intentions of compromising on any of their initiatives.

Debbie Stafford – from Denver – did an impromptu visit. I spoke with her after her speech and offered my assistance to her in fighting the breed ban in Denver, if she is re-elected. She had some great ideas:

1) focus on a single state where you know you have a good chance of winning

2) challenge home rule

3) change “dangerous dog” to “irresponsible owner” legislation

4) tougher consequences (fines, jail time) for people involved in illegal activities or have had a dog they own bite/attack, etc. (depending on the circumstances)

Key takeaways (I won’t go into my opinions on these as I believe all or most of us share the same opinions):

Offer up other type of legislation as an alternative to BSL (breed-specific legislation), such as breeder/breeding restrictions, anti-tethering laws (does the name Tammy Grimes ring a bell? Yes, Ms. Grimes attended as a guest speaker. Her motivation behind anti-tethering laws is that she was bitten by a tethered dog)
Formulate breeder/breeding restrictions – didn’t get into specifics – did mention mandatory registration of breeders and licensing. (called them “exploitive” breeders). Sounds good on the surface for curtailing BYB, puppy mills but this one really scared me
Consider dogs as part of the family and nothing more – the BFAS person went on to talk about the “cruelty” of dog events. No more dog shows – conformation or performance, folks!
Push guardian language in any type of animal ordinances, do away with dog “ownership”; elevating animals, specifically dogs, to the same level as humans
Craft public service announcements (no focal point at this time) – talked about educating the public about safety around dogs
Push mandatory temperament testing
Push mandatory spay/neuter – any dogs that were not registered breeding dogs would fall into this requirement. Gee, I guess those of us that show in conformation but don’t breed would either have to get a breeder’s license or stop showing and spay/neuter our dogs.
Push the Brandenburg Edict (** See Below) – this was coming from BFAS’s attorney – he evaded the issue of the breed specific language as well as the height/weight restrictions. If you haven’t read the Brandenburg Edict, you need to. Close to 20 breeds are automatically classified as dangerous dogs as are any dog over 15 inches or weighing more that 44 pounds.

It amazed me that the premise of this summit was for good, sane, well-written, enforceable breed-neutral dog ordinances and yet BFAS came up with all these points that support breed-specific dog legislation. Several points they want to propose are subjective (“exploitive” breeder, temperament testing, aggression) and may be hard to define.

Michael Mountain, president and founder of BFAS, talked about a recent poll they did. In one question, (can’t remember the phrasing) the result was that breeders are responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of dogs they have bred. Another question indicated by almost 70% that owners were responsible for dog bites and attacks; less than 20% felt the breeder was responsible for the dog’s actions. The questions seemed to contradict each other. The poll is the basis for many of the points BFAS wants to include in their national initiative for dog legislation. I searched BFAS’ website and was unable to find the poll.

Many of the guest speakers quoted CDC statistics in supporting their views. None of them acknowledged that the CDC does not support using their statistics for developing dog legislation and even admits to the inaccuracy of the data.

There was a tremendous focus on gang violence and dog fighting by gang members. I pointed out that in Colorado and many other states, that yes, dog fighting by gang members may be a factor, but they also had to look at the cultural issues – in certain cultures, dog fighting is a part of life. Dog fighting is legal in several states and, though I am against dog fighting, until it is banned, there is little that can be done legally. Several people pointed out that it’s not the dog-fighting dogs that are biting; it’s the family pets that have been improperly (or not) trained and socialized.

BFAS spent time commenting about Denver, its breed ban and the number of pitties murdered here. However, they spent no time calling out other cities that have breed bans and have murdered as many if not more pitties than Denver. A shelter worker from Ohio indicated that, so far this year, they have put down over 2,000 pitties in his city. And, this is WITH a state-wide law declaring Pit Bulls as dangerous dogs.

BFAS is planning to build this into a grassroots movement – they have over 300K members so the effort will be huge. They are supported by prominent attorneys, legislators, people who investigate dog bite fatalities (Jim Crosby), ACOs.

I believe most of the information from the summit will be posted to their website. BFAS has a network community (basically blogs) and they are encouraging people to join, comment, support their efforts at breed-specific dog legislation.

People warned me before going to this summit but I never thought it would be this frightening! BFAS picked the perfect weekend for this summit (Halloween weekend.)

(*) model-dog legislation and their 3-point national initiative
(**) Brandenburg Edict

Randi Bolton randigb@comcast.net
ARC (American Rottwieler Club)
AKC Legislative Liaison – Colorado, MHRC