Do you like this story?
Breaking: Christie’s head explodes. FDA not involved.
By Christie Keith
July 21, 2007
So, this morning I woke up and walked the dogs and looked at my email, and there was a little back and forth between Gina and Luisa over at Lassie Get Help. It went something like this:
Luisa: OMG, Gina, look at this.
Gina: OMG, Luisa, that must be a spoof. No one is that
evilstupid.Luisa: OMG no, Gina, it’s real. I swear. See proof attached. Check the link: It’s their new home page.
Gina: (stunned silence) OMG Christie please blog this immediately.
So I am:
And I have one question: Has Lloyd Levine sold his soul to the devil lost his mind?
Unlike HSUS, who, okay, may have exploited the Vick dogfighting case to raise some money, at least actually has a longstanding anti-dogfighting campaign and has actually done things to eradicate the practice.
If Levine seriously thinks his proposed law requiring that every dog and cat in California be spayed and neutered by the age of 6 months will stop dogfighters, I need him to sit down and take a few deep breaths while I explain to him slowly in words of one syllable that dog fighting is already against the law, Lloyd. Really, it is. Not to mention things like limit laws and animal cruelty statutes and all the forty bazillion existing laws in California that would prevent this kind of thing from happening if the people doing these things gave a damn about the law.
Which they don’t.
Yeah, I can see it now. Dogfighter A comes into the warehouse where their dogs are chained. “Hey, Dogfighter B, did you see this? All our dogs are supposed to be spayed and neutered now. It’s the law!”
Dogfighter B responds, “Oh, wow, I didn’t know that! We’d better run right out and get them all fixed, even though I can sell the puppies from my big winning fighting dog over here for a few thousand dollars. Because you know me, I’m a law abiding kind of guy.”
Wake up and smell the offensive self-serving crap coffee, Lloyd. Of all the half-truths, false impressions, and genuine differences of opinion that have been taken out for a spin since this battle began, this is without question the most egregious example of opportunism I’ve ever seen.
And I’d feel the same way even if I thought AB 1634 was the best idea since drive-thru espresso stands.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
“News
July 20 - AB 1634 receives renewed media attention in the wake of nationwide focus on dog fighting. AB 1634 gives animal control officers tough new tools to pursue dog fighting criminals.”
is this true? or just another figment of the dude’s very vivid imagination?
i’m absolutely stunned that he went ‘there’ . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
It’s not true.
California’s AB 1634 is (was, may be again) a mandatory spay-neuter law that exempted puppy-millers from the start, then gave the “just one litter” folks a pass and then got pulled without a vote (because there weren’t enough votes) from a California state Senate committee that couldn’t stomach the bill.
It has nothing to do with dog-fighting, which is already a felony in California. And frankly, I doubt the dog-fighters were among those thousands of reputable breeders, veterinarians and dog-lovers who called and wrote to say this bill was off-target.
I’m thinking dog-fighters just don’t spend a lot of time going to the statehouse to lobby their elected representatives. You tend to want to stay away from areas where laws are discussed when you’re committing felonies every day.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 21, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Ok, thanks. I thought maybe he had managed to get some air play on it.
The dog fighters don’t give two figs about MSN! Who does he think he’s kidding? He really needs to move somewhere where there’s less smog so he can clear his head . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 21, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
why should anyone be surprised?
It’s just a small step from the “overpopulation/all breeders are bad” hysteria that has typified the supporters of that bill from day one.
Their refusal to address the primary ACTUAL cause of dogs dying (owner surrenders) is more than just willful.. it’s obvious now that it’s deliberate.
When you don’t have facts on your side, all you have left is emotional hysteria.
Especially when your agenda is to stop all intentional breeding and ultimately eliminate purebred dogs as pets
Comment by EmilyS — July 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Well, the air is crisp and clean here in the Napa Valley. Quite smog free. However, with apologies to all my SoCal friends, PLEASE keep Lloyd!
“Lightbulb” Levine a/k/a “The Bachelor” can’t stray too far from Judie Mancuso. Didn’t the OC Register once describe her as “the woman behind the man behind the bill”?
Seeing her in person flitting about the Senate Local Government Committee hearing last week was a unique experience.
Comment by Brat Zinsmaster — July 21, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
This is such a bunch of bull. This guy is crazy. He might as well tellthem bad boys, Be nice and play fair. Right!
I was a great breeder. And the only reason I stopped was because I was ending up with too many rescues. Now, when the old lady down the road had to go to a nursing home and no one took care of Her cats, what else was I supposed to do? And she sure didn’t have the money to spay and nueter. what would this law have done to Her? Took away Her only companionship? [sp?].
anyway, I think the HSUS and PETA want to end up with none of us having pets. Where I live I have been through a tornado, and flood, and a hurricane. when i could finally call the HSUS to help out, they didn’t want My help, just My money. But I rescue over 20 cats and 3 dogs and what do I get from them? HaHa.
During those storms I had horses too. we had a heck of a time trying to feed the pets We have. I never once saw the HSUS or PETA.
this law would mean nothing but getting rid of pets, killing lots more.
We’re all so bad because We breed. I’m so sick of hearing that. these people need to get a life.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 21, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Comment by Brat Zinsmaster — July 21, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
he better stay down there! just move out by the ocean to clear his head. Napa Valley needs to stay free of him since that’s where I plan on moving to when I come back to CA!
“Register once describe her as “the woman behind the man behind the bill”
shouldn’t that be Bull not bill?
Comment by straybaby — July 21, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
To add to the ad nauseam — from the food angle —
Castleberry’s Food Company has expanded their recall. Even MORE chili, corned beef hash, stew with even MORE brand names including store brands. List is quite large now. Botulism is a very serious disease resulting from ingesting the botulium spore.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_...../index.asp
Comment by Kat — July 21, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
What about the new law in Minneapolis where animal control can seize and then euthanize your dog (pet) if a mail carrier makes a complaint that the dog is a threat? Not that the dog actually attacked the carrier …
There is a pending case in which a dog that ran toward and BARKED at a carrier was seized and is on “death row” while the owner protests the case. But according to the report I heard, at least 8 of the 30 dogs that have already been put to death under this law were deemed to be threats and did not attack anyone.
WTF is going on?
Comment by sandy — July 21, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Here’s a link to some of the dogs that have been caught and their alleged offenses.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.u.....s_List.asp
Comment by sandy — July 21, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
My head is exploding, but the FDA is involved…
http://www.itchmo.com/
Natural Balance Recalls Food Due To Botulism Risk
Natural Balance has announced that it is recalling it’s Natural Balance Eatables for Dogs due to a supplier’s recall. The affected formulas include 15oz cans of: Irish Stew, Hobo Chili, Chinese Take-Out and Southern Style Dumplin’s with Gravy. The supplier, Castleberry Foods, found one instance of botulism in improperly sealed cans of human food.
Comment by Schnauzer — July 21, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Sorry I haven’t been able to find a link (yet) to a story or ordinance detailing the specifics of this new law.
Comment by sandy — July 21, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
okay, here’s one report (video clip) about the Minneapolis postal workers’ ability to call out and order dogs’ euthanization (tiny url anyone??):
http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/p.....geId=3.1.1
Comment by sandy — July 21, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Castleberry may have found only one can with botulinum - but there are *four* people sick across the country — 2 kids in Texas & a couple in Indiana.
Here’s a news article, with Natural Balance at the very end.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....8BJRSs0NUE
Comment by Kat — July 21, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Texas passed a vicious dog law a few months ago. The law states that if an animal is provoked or if the attack is on THEIR property & the owner has attempted to control the dog or restrain in some way, then there are no charges.
That is unbelievable about Minnnea.
Comment by Kat — July 21, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
That video is AWFUL!!
Comment by Kat — July 22, 2007 @ 12:01 am
Regarding Levine’s new webpage:
Anything for attention-getting publicity, I suppose.
Comment by Lynn — July 22, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Minneapolis City Ordinance
Title 4, Chapt. 64.110 Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals
64.110. Dangerous and potentially dangerous animals.Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may deem any animal as a dangerous animal or a potentially dangerous animal subject to the requirements under this Code and under Minnesota State Statute 347.50 subdivision (2), Dangerous Dogs and Minnesota State Statute 347.50 subdivision (3) Potentially Dangerous Dogs.
(a) Definitions.
(1) Dangerous animal. “Dangerous animal” means any animal that:
a. Without provocation, inflicts substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property;
b. Kills a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner or custodian’s property;
c. Has been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner or custodian has notice that the animal is potentially dangerous, the animal aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(2) Potentially dangerous animal. “Potentially dangerous animal” means any animal that:
a. When unprovoked inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property;
b. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the animal owner or custodian’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack;
c. Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
FULL Ordiance: http://www.municode.com/resour.....?pid=11490
Comment by Kat — July 22, 2007 @ 12:15 am
GOOD GOD THIS LAW IS HORRIBLE! 3 foot chain, muzzle, micro chip, fine, concrete floor with heavy wire mesh fence with TOP!
~un~BELIEVE~able~
Comment by Kat — July 22, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Here’s yet ANOTHER e.coli up-chuck report…
If you live in *MICHIGAN* — *BEWARE*
Abbott’s Meats — “The ground beef products were produced between July 12 and July 20, 2007 and were distributed to hotels, restaurants and institutions in Michigan.”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_...../index.asp
Comment by Kat — July 22, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I live in Michigan ~ glad I’m a vegetarian! Will this never end?
Comment by catmom5 — July 22, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Sports Illustrated has a poll up about the impact on the NFL of the Michael Vick case. http://tinyurl.com/2mz5vc
Comment by Cate — July 22, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
interesting poll. seems to be fairly balanced in replies (from one question to the next). only one i didn’t really agree with is that the indictment will deter other players from engaging in dog fighting. they still do all the other stuff even though other players have been caught . . . might make some borderline ones think twice, but players either seem to go there or not.
Comment by straybaby — July 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm