Maddie, a perdy Holstein lady
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9fb78/9fb7880ff77d7a1326e394e7ef4ee413ecb5eec2" alt="Maddie enjoying new pasture"
Howie, a handsome Charolais steer. He likes hugs.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19a4d/19a4dc934dcc3c5db967c2c5c547f65275711db3" alt="Howie heading out"
Nicholas
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9313/f9313f2587e3e36e3728e05f657437417f18e44d" alt="Taking the first steps"
Sadie, best cow ever (tm)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7b2fd/7b2fd8540af3f38f20027d9045fe7f2eb7237993" alt="Sadie going out to new pasture"
Elsa knee deep in grass. Eat those foxtails, dammit!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6f9b/c6f9b9b884fea9efcb7aeba6c9d8950a77bdedd2" alt="Elsa munching on grass"
However authorities shake this out — i.e., determining the breed of the dogs and their potential for danger — it puts Mitchell in exactly the same spot it has been in several times in the past. Another dangerous dog — possibly a pit bull — has stricken fear in another Mitchell resident.Possibly a Pit Bull. Um, Daily Republic editor, have you seen the photo? Those dogs are not possibly Pit Bulls, they are Boxers. If Mitchell had a Pit Bull ban, these dogs would probably be included due to the fact that the Daily Republic editorial board thinks they are and so does the city. Logic and pedigrees saying otherwise be damned!
Other towns have done so for the sake of citizen safety. Denver, for instance, is a metropolitan city that by law doesn’t allow pit bulls.Ah, a shining beacon for anti-dog zealots. Denver. The city that has killed thousands of family pets. The city that spends thousands on court cases. The city that kills puppies who look a certain way. The city that criminalizes residents and forces them out of town if they want to keep their dogs. The city that still has Pit Bulls and still has dog bites and still has Pit Bull bites.
Read that. Read it again. The editors of this paper are saying they don't care if those dogs aren't actually Pit Bulls, but because they got loose, Mitchell needs to ban Pit Bulls. If not now, eventually, there will be another Pit Bull attack, and don't say we didn't tell you. As you know, banning Pit Bulls ends Pit Bull attacks and improves public safety. This is true in Ontario and in Denver and most true in the United Kingdom. Banning a breed is the 100% most successful way to end dog and Pit Bull attacks. Since it has worked for Denver and the United Kingdom, it will surely would work for Mitchell. Oh. Wait.
It’s true that the dogs in the most recent case may not actually be part pit bull. The owner says they’re not; the city says they are.
That doesn’t matter to us. What matters is that without a city ordinance banning certain breeds, there will be a pit bull attack in Mitchell. Perhaps not this week or this year, but eventually.
No matter what their owners say, pit bulls cannot be trusted. They are dangerous and temperamental. It’s in their DNA to attack.Well, Daily Republic editors, here is a DNA-model. Please educate me. Tell me where the dangerous and temperamental markers are!
"It’s also possible that some of the 35 dogs have vaccination records and their previous owners still have such records. Officials are looking into this possibility, Keller said, but, at this point, Circle of Friends doesn’t have any such records..”I am confused. Every state or city/county has laws regarding the rabies vaccine. Most shelters require adopted animals be vaccinated. Some shelters vaccinate incoming animals, while others save money by only vaccinating adopted animals.
"For 20 years, Diane Odegaard has enjoyed morning walks near her home in Mitchell."So for twenty years this person has walked near her home without incident. That means for 20 years no dog has threatened her. Yet now that she has been "attacked", the entire city has to be concerned about Pit Bulls?
“They fanned out about 6 feet apart right in front of me,” said Odegaard, who had two of her own dogs with her. “I was about hysterical because I thought these dogs were going to attack me and my dogs and kill us.”Now I am not diminishing this person's fear. Having three unknown, loose dogs approach is scary. Somehow, some way, these three dogs did not go on a mauling spree. In fact, all they seemed to have done is expressed an interest in interacting. Three really aggressive, tenacious, "game" dogs would hardly be deterred by space, pepper spray and a piddly barrier like a shovel. Point of fact, Odegaard is right and we are to believe what anti-dog zealots say about Pit Bulls, she and her two dogs should be dead!
Parker said the dogs — a male and two puppies — are pit bull/boxer mixes.Wait a second, Pit Bulls are under scrutiny because three mixed breed dogs approached a woman?
“The pups were very friendly when I was down there,” Parker said. “I had no problem when I met them. They’re probably a little more boxer than he is.”Well, I don't know, Parker. Either these dogs are so dangerous that they required pepper spray and a shovel to ward them off or they're so friendly that you had no problem with them. And if they are so friendly, well golly-gee, by Parker's logic it must be because they have a "little more Boxer"in them. ETA: Well, Parker, you are an idiot. All three dogs are purebred Boxers. So the dad? All Boxer.
Sebert said a recent fourmonth survey conducted by public safety officers found that approximately 10 percent of all local calls for assistance involve complaints about animals. He wasn’t sure of the legality of banning certain dog breeds within city limits, but he said he would be in favor of banning pit bulls in Mitchell.It's a bit like grasping at oily straws to claim that since 10% of local calls for assistance involve animal-related complaints, Mitchell should just ban Pit Bulls. If I told you that 10% of calls for assistance involve vehicle-related complaints, what would your response be if I then suggested a solution of eliminating blue SUVs?
Sebert said pit bulls can be raised to be “a very friendly dog,” but he also believes them to be a “dangerous breed” that can be trained to be fighters.If a dog can be a "very friendly dog", can they be members of a "dangerous breed" as well? Either they are "very friendly dogs" or they are all members of a "dangerous breed". You cannot have it both ways.