Posted on 08/08/2018 1:44:51 PM PDT by Norski
First-ever election win for pit bull advocates
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri––Out-spending voices for animal and human safety by a margin perhaps as high as $10,000 to $1.00, pit bull advocates on August 7, 2018 celebrated their first-ever defeat of a pit bull ban in a municipal general election.
Reversing the outcome of earlier attempts to repeal pit bull bans in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Aurora, Colorado, pit bull advocates in Springfield, Missouri polled at least 21,142 votes, or 68% of the votes cast, against 9,772 votes (32%) for the ban.
Older breed-specific ordinance remains in effect
Opened Question 1 on the Springfield primary election balloti:
“Shall the City of Springfield establish a future ban upon the possession of new pit bull dogs within the City limits by prohibiting acceptance of any new pit bull registrations and only allowing renewals of existing current pit bull dog registrations?”
Though the proposed ban on new pit bull registrations was rejected, the election result does not mean the end of breed-specific legislation in Springfield.
Still in effect is a pit bull registration ordinance enacted in 2006, which requires the owners of pit bulls and pit bull mixes to have them microchipped, spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and identified with a registration tag which must be worn at all times.
The language of the proposed Springfield pit bull ban, meant to strengthen the 2006 ordinance, was approved 5-4 by the city council in November 2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at animals24-7.org ...
This being on your “about” page:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no “gray area” on issues. Everything is black or white when all information is known. It is our distance from a circumstance or issue that makes something appear gray. In reality, what appears gray is due to what I call the Halftone Effect. Look at a picture in the newspaper. It appears to have gray tones, but there is no gray—it is your distance from it that makes your eyes lie to you. Get closer. Do you see that there is only black ink and white paper? This is how everything that is right or wrong is made gray. When you see the reality of it, there is only one right answer and only one color to stand on.
See things from both sides, but choose the right side.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I admire this, and am attempting to act accordingly. I am not in favor of Breed-specific registration per se.
However, the problems of a breed-type of dog specifically bred to deliver attack, mauling, and death as an activity illegal in all 50 states, and then foisted on an unsuspecting public as pets predominantly over the last 38 years has become so abhorrent to me that I see very few options.
This is being done for money, and it has a spiritual root.
What is your solution?
My old dog was some weird Collie-Chow mix. She had a black spotted tongue. She wouldn’t hurt a fly either.
I’m on my third pit bull. Amazing and loving dogs!
Gonna be kind of funny when they finally manage to outlaw Pit Bulls but the drug dealers come up with some dog that’s even meaner.
Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies
Volume 6 Number 3, 1998
Dogmen: The Rationalization of Deviance
Craig J. Forsythe 1 and Rhonda D. Evans
Texas A&M University
Dogmen are individuals who fight their pit bulls in matches against other pit bulls. This paper uses neutralization
theory to examine the rationalizations of dogmen as they attempt to counter stigma and criminal identity in a world
that is becoming increasingly intolerant of dogfighting. To maintain their rationalizations, the dogmen use four
recurring techniques: (a) denial of injury;(b) condemnation of the condemners; (c) appeal to higher loyalties; and (d) a
defense that says dogmen are good people (their deviance_dogfighting expunged by their good character). The authors
conducted interviews with 31 individuals who fight and breed pit bulls and with significant others in the dogfighting
enterprise, including Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) officials, veterinarians, and local law
enforcement officers. The research also examined newspaper accounts of dogfighting. This article provides some insights
into the social construction of reality of individuals who engage in an activity that most of us find reprehensible. As
with any criminal/deviant behavior, understanding and subsequent solving of the problem begin with knowledge of the
offender’s perspective.
In a dogfight, two dogs are put into a square pit, which measures twelve, sixteen, or twenty feet on each side. The
dogs fight until one is declared the winner. There are two handlers and one referee in the pit with the dogs. Spectators
surround the pit, the sides of which are wooden and three to four feet high.. The dogfight begins when the referee tells
the handlers to pit their dogs, at which time the dogs are released and attack. Once the fight begins, the spectators place
bets with one another on which dog will win. The dogs continue fighting until one of them makes a “turn,” which is
defined as turning the head and shoulders away from the opponent.
Once the referee calls the turn, the handlers then handle their dogs when they are out of “holds,” which means they
are not biting each other. The dog who made the turn must “scratch” to his opponent. Scratching is defined as crossing
the scratch line, which is drawn in the center of the pit, and attacking one’s opponent within a specified amount of
time usually 10 to 30 seconds. If a dog fails to scratch, his opponent is declared the winner. If the scratch is successfully
completed, the fight continues. From this point on the dogs are handled only when they are out of holds, and the dogs
are required to scratch in turn. If a dog fails to scratch in turn, he is declared the loser.
The fight may end in one of four ways: (a) a dog’s failure to scratch; (b) the owner’s calling the fight (analogous to the
manager of a boxer throwing the towel into the ring, a signal that the fighter has quit); (c) the death of one or both dogs,
or (d) one of the dogs jumping the pit. Failure to scratch is the most common way in which a fight ends. Less common
is the death of one of the opponents. The least common ending is a dog’s jumping the pit, which means the dog literally
jumps out of the pit in order to escape the opponent. This is rare because a dogman will not risk humiliation by bringing
a cur dog (dog who refuses to fight) to a fight. The dog who jumps the pit will surely die at the hands of his owner.
The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) is the exclusive breed employed in pit fights in the United States today. This
breed has been bred over several hundred years to produce a dog who has an innate ability to fight and overcome his
victim. The APBT is specifically bred to fight. The pit bull is unique in his absence of threat displays when fighting. A
pit bull almost never bares his teeth, and rarely will he raise the hair on his back. When fighting, the pit bull neither
growls nor barks. The dog does not rear up and snap. Rather, he takes hold, shakes, and punishes with his hold. Dogmen
contend he wants to fight and fights to damage (Matz, 1984). This ability is found with such virility only in this
particular breed (Foran, 1994).
Method
The data for this study were obtained through field research by using interviews with, and observations of, people who
are, or were, involved in dogfighting, including those who were actively opposed to such activities. Interviews were
conducted with 31 individuals who fight and breed pit bulls. All of the participants had been involved in dogfighting for
several years. Three interviews were conducted with former breeders and fighters of pit bulls who no longer participate
in the sport. Interviews ranged from 2 to 4 1/2 hours. These interviews were conducted at the pre_fight meetings, at the
fights, or at the homes of dogfighters. Several informal interviews were conducted with spectators and the wives of men
who participate in dogfighting. Additional data were obtained from interviews with officials of the SPCA, members
of Legislation in Support of Animals, (LISA), veterinarians, and local sheriff ’s officers. The research also examined
newspaper accounts of those who supported and those who opposed dogfighting.
Observations and Interviews
The research took place in several parishes of Louisiana, recognized by many as the center of dogfighting in the United
States, (Kent, 1982a) and in counties of Mississippi. Observations took place at 14 formal dogfights. Respondents
were identified through a “snowball” method and represent an available sample. The authors interviewed all individuals
who agreed to be questioned. Respondents were asked about various aspects of dogfighting : the reasons they engage in
dogfighting and how they started dogfighting ; techniques of breeding and training ; the negotiation of a contract; the
fight; the setting ; the choice of a setting for the fight; the types of dogs in general as well as the great fighting dogs . . .
These previous posts are excerpted from the first two of a ten-page pdf file titled “Dogmen, the Rationalization of Deviance”
https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/1998-dogmen-the-rationalization-of-deviance.pdf
Your evidence is merely tangential?
Mine is direct: 40 years of direct interface with non-abused pits and never a single instance of aggression.
In contrast, I’ve had blood drawn on my calf by ankle biters and nearly had my face bit by a Lab.
Eat it.
I attempt to give information sufficient to for a decision.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . .”The purposes of this paper were to examine the neutralization techniques dogmen use as they attempt to counter
stigma, criminal identity, and criticisms in a world that has become increasingly intolerant of dogfighting. First, a brief
overview of neutralization theory is given. Second, comments from dogmen are framed within specific techniques of
neutralization. Third, comments from those who oppose dogfighting are offered. Finally, the paper extends a discussion
of the conflict over dogfighting.
Neutralization Techniques
The foundation for neutralization theory was set by Sykes and Matza (1957) when they distinguished five defense
mechanisms through which individuals rationalize their deviant behavior. Techniques of neutralization counter the
negative impact of deviant behavior.
Major Techniques
Sykes and Matza (1957) cited five major techniques of neutralization:
l. Denial of the victim, wherein the offender maintains that whoever is harmed by an action deserves the harm.
2. Denial of responsibility, wherein one contends acts are caused by forces beyond one’s control.
3. Denial of injury, wherein one claims no one was harmed by the action; hence, there is no victim.
4. Appeal to higher loyalties, wherein attachment to smaller groups takes precedence over attachment to society.
5. Condemnation of the condemners, wherein those who denounce a certain form of behavior have, themselves,
exhibited worse forms of behavior.”
If interested, you may wish to see posts 25-34.
I don’t believe these dogs should be banned.
__________________________________
Me Neither. Shot on sight? Sure.
The pitbulls naturally go for the jugular on children and adults and fellow canines alike. If they could be trained to sniff out progressives, they would be celebrated heroes.
I think all Freepers can unite in our abhorrence of dogfighting
although I fail to see its relevance to the topic of this thread.
Only some dogs would succeed in such an attempt — and they tend to be a type of dog that might attempt it even if you don’t treat them like dogs.
Idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.