CHAKO Dog Blog

The Vick School of Journalism

admin — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:41:00 GMT

This will be a short blog. Just about everything has been said about Michael Vick's indictment on dog fighting charges, but not much has been said about the politicians and journalists who have come out and suddenly realized that dog fighting exists and, gee, isn't it horrible, and wow, those poor dogs were victims of such a sick man.

It is an unfortunate testatment to society that it takes a celebrity to get the media and politicians to care about something that has been happening for well over a century in this country (and longer in other countries). Dog advocates and Pit Bull lovers have been saying all along that Pit Bulls are victims of sick human beings that raise and breed them (and other dogs) for vicious so-called "sport." Whenever Breed Specific Legislation raises its ugly head and politicians decide to villify dogs, the truly educated have pointed out that PEOPLE are at the root of almost every dog problem our society places, and the only way to truly target the problem is to target people.

But Michael Vick got indicted, and suddenly even Nancy Grace, who once villified a six-week old puppy that was mistakenly identified as having chewed off an infant's toes (the ferret did it!), is jumping on the "those poor dogs" bandwagon. Politicians are making speeches about the evils of dog fighters. The media is doing stories on how Pit Bulls, once America's sweetheart, has been victimized by evil people who torture them, make them fight to the death, and kill them in a variety of painful ways when they lose fights.

I can only hope that, sometime very soon, a celebrity joins the military, is stationed overseas, and has to send his or her faithful canine companion to a shelter. Maybe then, the media will focus its lense on that problem.

The Government as Micromanager

admin — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:32:00 GMT

Imagine you wake up in the morning, shuffle into the bathroom, turn on your faucet and eye the digital counter on the faucet that regulates your water use. You brush your teeth quickly, staying within your allotted water usage for that activity, then hop into the shower, which is timed to provide exactly four minutes of moderately warm water. You get out, quickly dry off and dress, then head out into the living room where you wake your 39-pound dog (dogs 40 pounds or over have been banned) and put some food in his bowl, which he eagerly devours. You open the backdoor and venture outside with your pooch, waiting for him to do his business. It's cold, and you're impatient, and you roll your eyes as he moves from place to place, sniffing. A slight drizzle begins, and you cross your arms for warmth. When your four-legged friend finally does his business, you pick it up promptly with the pooper scooper, then deposit it in an environmentally-friendly and sealed, county-approved bin for animal waste, then you let your dog back inside and follow him in, closing the door behind you. You eye the living room and hope it looks the same way when you return, since it's illegal to keep your dog in a crate, on a tether, in a kennel, or alone in the backyard (and pending regulations will make it a crime to leave your dog inside for more than four hours without providing an outside pottty break).

With a sigh, you grab your wallet, cell phone, and keys. You hop into your compact, fuel efficient vehicle and drive to your work three miles away (the sale of SUVs and vans were banned long ago, and only those who use a wheelchair or have two or more children may apply for an exemption. Also, since the law now places a $3,000 tax penalty on anyone who commutes to work more than five miles each way, you had to accept a less-than-ideal job closer to home). You stop for coffee on the way, but you're only able to get decaf (caffeine was banned years ago), and as you view the selection of fruit and vegetables that comprise the breakfast offerings behind the counter, you find yourself missing the occasional bagel or muffin. With a sigh, you pick up your drink and make your way to the building. You've made sure you aren't wearing any cologne or perfume, because those are prohibited since some people have chemical sensitivities, and as you get out of your car, you quickly sniff your armpits (since deodorant is banned, too, and you didn't have time to put a whole lot of time into that area earlier in the shower). On your way to your office, you stop in the breakroom and add some hot water to your coffee. The only vending machine offers unsweetened juice, low fat milk, or unsalted nuts and dried fruit for sale. You put in a hard day at the office and, on your way home, you stop at a drive through and order a bottle of water (soda is a thing of the past), a grilled, trans-fat free chicken sandwich on whole grain bread (white flour was banned a year ago), and a side of apple slices, which you plan to feed to the 39-pound dog. You have to be careful with what you feed him because, if he gains a pound, you'll have to euthanize him.

If that reality seems far-fetched, it isn't. Legislators in America are quickly becoming micromanagers of our lives, and while some of the above regulations may be genuinely good ideas (saving the planet seems like a good idea to me!), others clearly fall into the area of unwarranted intrusions into personal lives.

Let's rewind to today. A cluster of new California laws are set to take effect July 1. These new laws include a bank on junk food and soda in schools, recycling programs for plastic bags, and increased fees for bottles and cans that are recyclable.

The ban on junk food arose from Senate Bill 12, passed in 2005, and details the type and number of calories food items must contain in order to be sold. It also specifies how foods must be prepared (or how they must NOT be prepared). Senate Bill 965, passed the same year, limits the type of drinks schools may sell to the following:

1) fruit-based drinks that are composed of no less than 50 percent fruit juice and have no added sweetener,

2) Vegetable-based drinks that are composed of no less than 50 percent vegetable juice and have no added sweetener.

3) Drinking water with no added sweetener.

4) Two-percent-fat milk, one-percent-fat milk, nonfat milk, soy milk, rice milk, and other similar nondairy milk.

This year, Assemblymember Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make it illegal for parents to spank their children. Another law will prohibit drivers from talking on their cell phones without using a hands-free device. Yet another pending law would require all dogs in the state to be sterilized by the age of four months. Still another law makes it a crime to leave a dog tethered in the yard for more than three hours, even if the owner is present with the dog (say, working in the front yard on the car with the dog on a long line) or camping with the dog. It doesn't stop there, another proposed law would regulate what type of lightbulbs we use.

These laws slowly chip away at the personal freedoms upon which this country was founded. Every year, more laws add to the ones already in existence, managing what we can wear, drive, and eat. Many places already limit (or are proposing to limit) the type and number of pets you can own, how high your fence should be, what size or breed of dog you can own, whether you can leave your car parked on the street overnight, sleep in a parked vehicle, or even wear baggy pants. Personal choice is on the verge of being obsolete, because the government has decided it knows what is best for us and our children, and like a good little proactive parent, the government is involved in every facet of our lives.

It will soon become time to change our nation's motto. American was once the Land of the Free. Now, it is the Land of the Overregulated.

* Editor's note: as an ironic example of overregulation, the word "f e c e s" originally used in place of "waste" in the first paragraph was automatically blanked out by the server filters, requiring the change to "waste." Apparently, **** is no longer on the list of approved words.

Portis - penitent and perlexed

admin — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:11:00 GMT

Clinton Portis recently expressed regret that he'd made comments trivializing dog fighting.

In a May 21 interview with WAVY-TV in Norfolk, Portis said of accused dog fighter Michael Vick, "It's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

After a firestorm of public criticism, Portis backtracked, stating, " "I didn't know it would affect that many people, didn't think what I said was that offensive....I've never been into dogs, never dealt with dogs, don't like playing with dogs. But at the same time, there's a lot of people who are crazy over pets."

It seems Portis just doesn't know how to spin very well. What he's made clear by his latest comments is that he doesn't find dog fighting offensive, but he's sorry he opened his mouth because there are a lot of crazy pet lovers out there who found his comments offensive and said so. Portis has revealed the lesson he's learned from all this.

"From now on, I don't comment on nobody."

You're a stand-up guy, Portis. Just please stand far, far away from me.

Guest Blog: Who cares about THOSE dogs? by Jackie Marshall

admin — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:25:00 GMT

For a year and a half, I have been dreading the inevitable: the criminalization of dog ownership.

At first, I approached the members of my German shepherd training club and asked them to support my pit bull friends by opposing SB 861. They would have no part of it. "It's just THOSE dogs; it'll never happen to our breed." No matter what I wrote or said, such as "I guarantee that our dogs are next," nobody would support me in my anti-BSL campaigning because nobody would bother with a bill that didn't affect them personally.

Then, all of a sudden, the powers that be wanted to criminalize dog breeding in Sacramento County (with Sac City close behind), but this time it isn't breed specific; it's dogs of any breed. I spent quite a bit of time opposing that, too, but I couldn't get any of my German shepherd buddies to support those efforts either. This time they said, "That law will never pass." And of course it's no surprise that it did. None of the dog people at those meetings would support each other; they just bickered in a "Well, why would I support poodle/spaniel/mutt breeders? Those dogs are useless anyway." In other words, who cares about THOSE dogs, and who cares about the people who love them?

So now California wants mandatory spay and neuter laws statewide, which everybody says will never pass. It does not make exception for ranch dogs, unless they are registered AKC, which pretty much guarantees that they won't work. All the people who swear by mutts will be out of luck forever. Breeders will have to pay fees. Breeders will have to get permits. Dogs will have to have paperwork about their shots, breeding, and residence addresses formally registered with the State. All of a sudden, again, no surprise, the German shepherd people are up in arms! Please, everyone, take action! They are going to make laws about breeding OUR dogs! Please help immediately! Fight this new bill!

But I for one do not care to participate any more. I have no sympathy for dog owners who don't care a damn about other dog owners. Maybe the "Nazi" in German shepherd lineage has finally kicked in...well sure, make those dogs illegal, they are just show dogs or family pet mutts! Uh huh. Not the important kinds of dogs: OURS.

The ranchers with long lines of working dogs find them important, and so do people like me who have had a blessed experience with a mutt, and all the people who swear that their best dogs have been of indecipherable lineage and they'll always adopt mutts from the shelter. It's my opinion that MY dogs are important, as they are police K9 candidates (which may not matter to you if you're a criminal). But it sure as heck is also my opinion that the State shouldn't be determining what kinds of dogs THEY will let US find important. Who cares? It won't be happening to MY dogs, because everybody wants my dogs. In fact, it just drives my puppy prices up, as they will be in demand when only Germans can breed them.

So the rest of the GSD people are out of luck, as far as finding support here. They let too many pit bulls go under the needle, so I no longer care about their rights to hobby breed. As far as I'm concerned, they're on their own, like pit bull people have been for a long time. And I've learned a valuable lesson in modern self-centeredness.

Author: Jackie Marshall

Was Mayor Newsom drunk when he proposed SB 861?

admin — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:33:00 GMT

Mayor Gavin Newsom has admitted to having an alcohol problem and stated he plans to seek counseling for alcohol abuse. "Upon reflection with friends and family this weekend, I have come to the conclusion that I will be a better person without alcohol in my life," Newsom said in a statement.

Newsom's admission follows the public revelation of his affair with the wife of his former campaign manager.

This new admission makes us wonder -- Was Newsom drunk when he came up with the idea to do away with Pit Bulls? Oh sure, critics will say the current law just allows mandatory spay and neuter (and, hey, they don't have to exempt show or service dogs, according to the law). But the original proposal Newsom wanted to push through allowed everything just short of an outright ban. That means muzzling in public, million dollar insurance requirements (which are vitrually impossible to get and would therefore constitute a ban), making it illegal to allow your dog to roam free in your own fenced backyard, etc.

It wasn't until the American Veterinary Medical Association, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the ASPCA, and even the HSUS said Breed Specific Legislation is wrong and ineffective and just plain all around BAD that the bill got watered down further and further to allow mandatory spay and neuter.

Mandatory spay and neuter, by the way, means that a county can require all dogs of a certain breed be spayed or neutered as puppies, without exception, so that the breed slowly dies. And, no, it's not just necessarily limited to Pit Bulls.

By the way, Rufus, a Bull Terrier, one the last Westminster. However, in a few years, there may be no more Rufuses at Westminster. No more Pete the Pups of the Little Rascals, and no more Chances in movies like Homeward Bound.

Extinction, after all, is forever.

Sober up, Mayor Newsom, and when you do, please reconsider this law that allows San Francisco to discriminate against creatures based solely on their appearance.

Though we would love Newsom to come to his senses and do away with breed discrimination, we strongly agree with San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. Ultimately, Mayor Newsom should resign. He has broken the public's trust and demonstrated poor judgment and an abysmal moral code. "What he has been trying to do in portraying himself as the victim is totally Machiavellian," McGoldrick said. "It represents a total failure to recognize the damage to that family and the damage that he did to the city."

Thank you, McGoldrick. We could not have said it better.

San Francisco Mayor apologizes for Lapse in Judgment

admin — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:55:00 GMT

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who spearheaded the ultimately successful effort to legalize breed discrimination in California (changing decades of nondiscrimination law), apologized Thursday, February 1st for a lapse in judgment when it became known that he had a sexual affair with his former campaign manager's wife. Newsom's former campaign manager was Alex Tourk, who approached Newsom about the affair after Tourk's wife confessed to him. Tourk then resigned.

Newsom is seeking a second four-year term in November.

CHAKO officially rejects Gavin Newsom as an appropriate candidate for ANY public office. Not only has he spearheaded a drive to allow genetic discrimination, he has demonstrated a lack of personal morals by betraying someone who worked closely with him for many years. Newsom's confession came only after Tourk learned the truth and confronted the Mayor about the affair and it came after the San Francisco Chronicle reported the situation. It doesn't take morals to confess to a serious transgression that is already publicly known. That's called "damage control."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_re_us/san_francisco_mayor;_ylt=AsEP98uEQNeRTwCg8qFJG_Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

Highlighting the need for dedicated Search and Rescue Volunteers

admin — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:51:00 GMT

The cases of Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck, two boys kidnapped and recently recovered in Missouri, highlight the need for specialized canine-based search and rescue teams across the nation that are able and willing to respond without advanced notice to emergency situations. Unfortunately, most search and rescue teams are composed of volunteers, meaning these dedicated people (and dogs!) work without compensation. They are often called in the middle of the night and the early hours of the morning, rising out of bed to answer the call of their emergency pagers. Dogs work in rugged and often extreme terrain, in snow, hail, or even in 110 degree temperatures. Often, dogs that are injured or become sick as a result of their SAR work aren't covered by any county or city insurance, so their volunteer owners and handlers often end up footing the bill.

Any relatively able-bodied person with a dog and enough time has the ability to get involved with SAR work. Please consider getting involved if you have the time, resources, and commitment. If you think SAR might be for you, visit http://www.nasar.org/nasar/specialty_fields.php.

An another, non canine-related note... someone has apparently purchased the domain benownby.com. The registrant seems to have used a privacy service listed as follows:

Domain name: benownby.com

Administrative Contact:
Domain Privacy Group, Inc. privacy-157540@domainprivacygroup.com
Toronto, ON M2N 6L9

Registrar of Record: Netfirms Inc.
Record created on 2007-01-10.

We're not entirely sure who took this domain or why, but it's obviously created very recently, approximately two days before the boys' recovery. The site does not appear to be anything the family would have created, though of course it's possible. We hope it's not some unscrupulous domain-squatter hoping to capitalize off this tragic situation.

The Omni Government - Legislating Home and Family

admin — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:20:00 GMT

California State Senator Jackie Speier (D), introduced a bill in 2005 to allow counties to restrict certain breeds of dogs. In many places, a county or state can tell you exactly what dogs you can and cannot own based solely on a dog's looks. Some counties restrict all dogs over 40 pounds, some have drafted legislation targeting all dogs over 20 pounds.

The State doesn't just stop at regulating Rover. Another California State legislator, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, wants to make it a crime for any person to spank a child under three years old. Lieber also supported Speier's anti-pet bill, but she's taking government intrusion into private life to new levels. Liebers proposed bill will prohibit ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said any smacking of a child under three years old would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000.

That's right, smacking your child's hand, even if that hand is about to touch a hot stove, can land you in jail for a year. Any parent that smacks his or her child lightly on the bottom, even if that child is throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket, can find him or herself behind bars. Apparently, Lieber believes it's better for a young child to be deprived of its mother or father for a year rather than get a light smack on the bottom.

I wonder what world I'll live in when I'm 80 years old. Will I only be able to own one pet, as long as it's under 20 lbs, sterilized, microchipped, never tethered or kenneled for more than three hours, is licensed, vaccinated, given obedience lessons every year (with proof furnished to the county), allowed at least 8 hours of sleep a night, drinks only filtered water, and eats at least twice a day? Will parents be serving 10 years for imprisoning their children in rooms (i.e., grounding) or 20 years for spanking? Will children no longer receive discipline and the few remaining state-approved types of pets be given rights equal to human beings? Will slip collars and crates be banned? Will there be a law saying we can't smoke within 25 feet of any child or animal? Will I be subject to criminal prosecution for child abuse if I dare to buy my niece a sugar-loaded candy bar or a hamburger?

I'm scared of the future. I'm not really sure I'll want to live in the world twenty or thirty years from now. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not really sure I want to live in the world the way it is now, but unfortunately, I can't move. Maybe some day, I'll be able to buy my very own terra-transformed planet.

Or maybe I'll just become the crazy hermit lady who lives on a dirt road in a small house with boarded up windows and dozens of NO TRESPASSING signs.

Ripon sends a powerful message to dog owners - Don't license your dogs!

admin — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:33:00 GMT

Letters went out Thursday to over 40 owners of pit bulls licensed in Ripon, California. The letters informed these owners, who were conscientious and responsible enough to license their dogs, that their pets must be sterilized by the end of the year. These owners should be thankful, we suppose, that they didn't live in a city that implemented a breed ban, because then these conscientious and responsible owners who licensed their pets would likely be receiving very different kinds of letters -- ones telling them to surrender their pets to be killed.

While sterilizing a pet is always a good idea, targeting a specific breed is just plain, old-fashioned discrimination.

Even though there haven't been any reported Pit Bull attacks on humans in the last couple of years, Ripon still decided that it needed to sterilize Pit Bulls to reduce aggressive animals, at least according to Police Chief Richard Bull. (We can't help but notice that his last name is quite appropriate, since it's certainly bull that sterilizing dogs will solve the problem of dangerous animals).

Regardless of why Ripon decided it needed to sterilize Pit Bulls in an attempt to rid the city of dangerous dogs, Ripon has taught its residents the following lesson:

Don't license your dogs, because when the law changes, yours will be one of the first doors knocked on by Animal Control officers.

First they'll force sterilization of entire dog breeds, then they'll move onto humans

admin — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:25:00 GMT

Such a proposition might seem far-fetched. Might. However, in today's world-gone-mad, the far-fetched often becomes reality. A single incident, whether it be a dog mauling or an armed robbery, can ultimately lead to the eradication of basic rights. Take the case of Charleston, South Carolina. A City Council member, reacting to a video store holdup believed to have been carried out by children, says parents who can't properly care for their kids should be sterilized. Larry Shirley, the reactionary City Council member, proposed a law to deal with unruly children who commit crimes. "We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can't take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it's running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

It has been almost a decade since I received my graduate degree in medical science, but I seem to recall reading it takes two people to conceive a child -- a woman and a man. Certainly, any effective sterilization procedure should include both genders, just as with stray animals. In fact, sterilization procedures are a lot simpler, safer, and less invasive for men than they are for women.

The residents of South Carolina (and the rest of the world) are wise to stay tuned to this situation. Sure, forcing the mandatory sterilization of human beings would violate fundamental human rights, but in a world where the government can hold people in prison for years without ever charging them for a crime or allowing them to see an attorney; can force the extermination of entire breeds of dogs -- destroying thousands of innocent animals -- all for the actions of a few irresponsible dog owners; can peak into private homes and find out what websites citizens have searched; can pepper spray toddlers because their parents are part of a peaceful demonstration....

Is mandatory sterilization as proposed by Larry Shirley, a duly elected politician, really so far-fetched?

Ditch the dog, get a handgun

admin — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 04:43:00 GMT

The BTK Killer, Dennis Radar (Wichita, Kansas court) testified that when he invaded the home of one family, "The dog was the real problem."

Now, a year later, Wichita is looking at banning Pit Bulls. Next it will be Rottweilers, then Dobermans, then German Shepherds. Then people like the BTK killer won't have to deal with any "problems" when they invade family homes. Meanwhile, irresponsible dog owners in Wichita will continue to run amok because legislation that targets dogs misses the mark entirely.

Maybe Wichita should get its priorities straight. What defense against killers such as Dennis Radar do families have? A handgun?

Which would you rather keep in the home with small children? (Statistics on gun-fatalities aside, do you think you'd be able to get to a gun in time if someone broke into your home intending to do you and your family harm?)

Here are the stats:

In 1995, 3,280 children and teenagers were killed with guns, 1,450 commited suicide with guns, and 440 died in unintentional shootings. Firearms killed a total of 5,285 of our young people. (National Center for Health Statistics. 1997).

In comparison, approximately 300 people have been killed by domestic dogs in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s (Humane Society of the U.S). That's about 10-20 fatalities every year caused by dogs, compared to over 3,000 gun-related fatalities for children and teenagers alone.

Is it really a good idea to ban dogs?

Eenie, meenie, minie, moe: Giuliani v. Clinton

admin — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:29:00 GMT

According to a CNN poll, 31% of self-identified Republicans want former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani to be the next President while 37% of self-identified Democrats picked Hillary Clinton. Dog lovers and anyone who respects the United States Constitution need to pay particularly close attention to any race that has Guiliani running for President. Guiliani tried to push for a law singling out Pit Bulls and "streamlining" the process for destroying dogs. His idea of streamlining was to eliminate dangerous dog hearings and just skip straight to euthanization. What that would mean for dog owners is, based on someone's accusation, your dog could be killed without so much as a hearing. That's the world Mayor Guiliani sees. Why stop there? Why not streamline the criminal process and do away with a fair trial? Oh, but wait, he has already proposed such an absurdity. Dangerous dog laws generally fall under criminal codes. So, when a person is charged with harboring a dangerous dog, he or she is charged with a crime. Streamlining the process means taking away a fundamental Constitutional right.

Apparently, Giuliani believes the Constitution can be warped to fit his own personal agenda. Anyone with that kind of an attitude shouldn't get anywhere near the Presidency.

References:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/bronxbeat/1999/march/march8/pitbull.html

What Steve Irwin taught us

admin — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:06:00 GMT

Steve Irwin died September 4, 2006 when a stingray's barb pierced his chest. While I only watched one or two episodes of The Crocodile Hunter's exploits (and, frankly, considered him a little crazy, though undeniably passionate about wildlife), he was, without a doubt, unique. He brought wildlife into the homes of millions of people across the world, and he taught those who cared to learn a valuable lesson. With his trusted companion Sui at his side, he wrestled Crocodiles and braved Australia's wilderness. In one video, I watched Steve Irwin wrestle a huge male Crocodile into a boat then onto the shore. Sui remained by his side the entire time, just out of reach of the Crocodile's jaws while she periodically nipped at the animal's tail to turn him away from Irwin.

Irwin made no secret that he loved Sui. In fact, he seemed to love all animals, big and small. His message to the world was one of conservation. Animals deserve respect. Humanity must work to preserve the creatures and wildlife that exist. Extinction is a very sad thing, especially when caused by human hands.

His lesson, however, hasn't reached everyone. In fact, if Irwin were to have visited some parts of the world with his sidekick Sui, he'd find his faithful companion confiscated and possibly even put to death for what she was -- a Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross.

Steve Irwin tried to teach the world to love and respect all creatures. His passion for animals was undeniable, his love for Sui complete. I can only hope that enough people have heard his message.

Unfortunately, it's too late for many of Sui's canine kin all over the world. Ironically, even Irwin's homeland, Australia, has lashed out at Sui's kind, creating laws that target "pit bulls." In the United States, places like Denver, Colorado kill "pit bulls" on sight, even wonderful dogs like Sui. I can only hope that, someday, Sui's kind isn't just a distant memory.

Irwin never blamed an animal whenever one injured him. He always knew where to place the blame -- with a human.

Thank you, Steve Irwin, for trying.

Proposed ordinance would require dog owners to declare their race

admin — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:01:00 GMT

Police Chief Gary Benthin of Eden, NC has proposed an ordinance that will require Pit Bull owners to be photographed and provide a record of their name, address, race, gender, date of birth and place of employment in addition to shelling out a $50 registration fee.

Really, if this weren't so absurd, I might have some witty things to say. As it stands, I'm out of witty things to say because obviously the police chief forgot about the United States Constitution and the federal government. Bad police chief.

I'm not Eden's city attorney, but I am an attorney. Mr. Benthin's idea to track the race and gender of DOG OWNERS in Eden is probably going to cause him some serious federal headaches. Frankly, I can only hope Eden's city attorney is explaining exactly why Mr. Benthin should not and, in fact, legally cannot start racially profiling dog owners. One wonders -- exactly how is race and gender information even related to dog ownership? Why doesn't he just get to the root of it push for a law forbidding black and Latino men from owning Pit Bulls? Anyone want to share a bag of popcorn with me as this absurdity unfolds?

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060902/NEWSREC0101/60902007

The Science of Breed Discrimination

admin — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:54:00 GMT

It is often said that some breeds are genetically prone to aggression. A dog's behavior is determined by genetics. Human beings, however, are intelligent, sentient creatures who have free will. Dogs, of course, are also intelligent and sentient creatures, but being 'lesser' animals, different genetics apply to them...somehow.

Of course, genes are genes, whether in humans or canines. So, when politicians start banning breeds under the rationale that some breeds are more inherently vicious than others, they engage in breed profiling. If these same politicians were to say, on the other hand, that black people need to be eliminated because they commit the majority of crimes, that would be racial profiling. Racial profiling is wrong. Breed profiling is, however, somehow thought of as different. Dogs are not people, after all.

Dogs are not people, that is obvious, but humans, especially those called politicians, are perhaps a bit too arrogant and naive. If the argument is sound that some breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to aggression, then the argument is equally sound that some ethnicities within the human species are genetically predisposed to aggression. Dogs may be dogs, but science is science, and science is both objective and universal.

Sir Francis Galton, born in 1822, was the first scientist to study heredity and human behavior systematically. Since then, the science of behavioral genetics has advanced. There are several indications that behavior is genetic.

Behaviors can be altered in response to changes in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can transform a shy, quiet person into a loud, aggressive jerk, and doctors routinely treat behaviors caused by mental illness with drugs that affect brain chemistry. Geneticists have even created or abolished specific mouse behaviors by inserting or disabling certain genes.
In humans, some behaviors run in the family. For example, mental illness tends to cluster in families.
Behaviorial similarities run across similar species. Chimpanzees are humanity's closest relative, sharing 98 percent of oru DNA. The two species also share behaviors that are very much alike. For example, both are highly social creatures. Both nurture, cooperate, demonstrate altruism, and even share similar facial expressions.

Recently, the science of behavioral genetics has shown that many human personality traits that most people see as a product of will are, as it turns out, products of genes. Novelty-seeking, for example, shows a strong genetic influence. In fact, studies demonstrate that certain behaviors such as alcoholism are related to growth hormone release. Another study looked at 124 unrelated subjects and showed that "higher than average novelty seeking test scores were significantly associated with a particular exonic polymorphism, the 7-repeat allele at the locus for the dopamine receptor D4 gene." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=601696) What that means, basically, is that novelty-seeking is likely linked to a particular genetic variation in humans.

Genes affect a variety of human behaviors, whether or not individuals like to believe they do. Dog behavior is also influenced by genetics. In fact, humans share more of their ancestral DNA with dogs than with mice. Dogs and humans are so genetically alike that scientists study disease in dogs to learn about disease in human beings. ""When compared with the genomes of human and other important organisms, the dog genome provides a powerful tool for identifying genetic factors that contribute to human health and disease," according to Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Scientists also have evidence that genes influence aggression. Researchers at the University of Virginia, for example, published information indicating that sex chromosomes (those X and Y shapes of DNA in our cells) influence maternal and aggressive behavior in humans. Emilie Rissman, PhD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Virginia remarked on her research, "It is our hope that these data could lead to the discovery of new genetic bases for aggression and parental behavior in other animals, including humans."

So, beware. If you believe that certain breeds of dogs should be exterminated because they are genetically prone to aggression, then it follows, logically, that certain human races or even genders are more prone to aggression than others. In other words, if you support breed profiling, then you must, according to science, also support racial profiling.

Welcome to the brave, new world.

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