Thanks to YOU -- the dedicated owners and advocates of the American Pit Bull Terrier across the U.S. and Canada -- Bless the Bullys 3rd annual National Pit Bull Awareness Day was a huge success (AGAIN!)

The National Pit Bull Awareness campaign is a nationwide effort to bring positive awareness to the American Pit Bull Terrier, and the positive articles are flowing in newspapers across the U.S. this weekend!

Since its inception in 2007 when Bless the Bullys introduced the idea of a national "pit bull awareness day," devoted pit bull advocates, enthusiasts and owners have jumped on the opportunity to participate in what is still...three years later... the ONLY nationwide initiative to bring about positive pit bull media attention together on one day.

Bless the Bullys thanks each and every organization and individual who organized and/or participated in one of the 90+ events held across the country this weekend! THANK YOU SO MUCH for your dedication to changing the undeserved reputation and stigma attached to these incredible dogs.

Bless the Bullys is thrilled about the turnout for the 2009 celebration of National Pit Bull Awareness Day, and we are already looking forward to 2010!

From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU again for another great year for our dogs!

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys

Below are some pictures from our NPBAD celebrations in Cookeville and Oak Ridge, TN!
 
..

Even if you don't know me personally, one glance at the pictures on my page quickly reveals that I am a pretty active person. I cherish the time I get to spend outside - out in nature with my dogs - because it brings me so much inner peace. I could work in the yard for hours on end or easily hike a 7 to 10 mile trail in a day. That is... up until recently.

Several months ago, I started to notice a significant shortness of breath while I was hiking. After time passed, it became so difficult to breath when I hiked, I just stopped. I had to completely stop one of my passions because my body was no longer able to do it. For a while I thought it was because I was getting older, or because I was out of shape, and then it was because of my diet, and on and on went the excuses... But
when the shortness of breathe became severe when doing basic things like making the bed or sweeping the floor, I had to face it - something was definitely "not right" with my health.

Blood tests revealed that my hemogloben was less than half of what it should be. I needed blood, and I needed it BIG TIME. What little blood I had was working so hard to carry oxygen to my heart and lungs, and both those major organs were struggling to function with the little oxygen they were getting. I received an emergency transfusion last Thursday,
and I feel even BETTER than my old self...I feel like a new person.

If not for the blood provided by donors, I would not have received that vital transfusion. I could have had a heart attack or a stroke due to the stress the lack of oxygen put on my heart. Its very scary when I think about what was going on inside my body and all the while, I was completely clueless. And the simple reality for me is, since we don't yet know what caused the loss of blood, I could need more transfusions
in the future.

Obviously, I can't donate blood - BUT YOU CAN!

Please be a life saver - - become a blood donor and make the same difference in someone's life that some very generous people made for me.

Call the American Red Cross at 1-800-GIVELIFE or find an America's Blood Center (http:../../..www...americasblood...org/..go...cfm?..do=..NBDR.EnterZip) near you.

Please feel free to share this with others - your blood donation really could be the difference between life and death for someone in need!

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys.com

**Army "Orphan" Crisis (Part II) can be found at www.blessthebullys.wordpress.com.  The dogs currently in need at Fort Cambell, Kentucky are pictured there along with additional information.  MySpace's blogging tools are just not user friendly...as you can see, I can't even get the pagination to come out right....**



ARMY "ORPHAN" CRISIS - PART I


When I first became involved in rescue, there seemed to be nothing more heartbreaking than the person who just did not want their dog anymore. The reasons vary…the dog no longer fit in with their lifestyle…they were having a baby…their significant other didn’t like the dog…whatever their reasoning and sometimes for no reason at all, they just wanted the dog gone.


The thought of dumping my beloved companion has always seemed unfathomable to me. I simply can’t imagine not developing that bond, that deep love and faithful companionship, with my dogs. Our dogs depend on us for everything. Our dogs’ lives revolve around us - our devotion, our care, our love and our attention. It didn’t make sense to me when I started the rescue, and time certainly has not changed my astonishment over the reasons why people no longer want their dogs.


What has changed, however, is my viewpoint since becoming so actively involved in fighting breed specific legislation.


Do you know what is more heartbreaking than the person who just doesn’t want their dog anymore? The person who wants their dog more than anything, but legally cannot keep him or her because someone made the decision that their dog - and all dogs like him - are “dangerous.” That designation is not based on any behavior of the dog, but rather, it is based solely on the physical characteristics of a breed…a square jaw…a big head…or any other physical characteristic that enables one to describe the appearance of a dog - not the temperament of a dog.


These decisions come down from governmental entities, typically municipalities, as knee-jerk reactions to adverse incidents in the community. In this particular case, the decision comes in the form of a “pet policy” implemented by the United States Army that applies a blanket designation of “aggressive” to all pit bulls, rottweilers, dobermans and chows. Soldiers across the country are being forced to give up their family companions because someone with no personal knowledge of their dog has designated him or her as an “aggressive breed.”


Ironically, we send our soldiers overseas to fight for our freedoms, only to have them return to the United States to find that some of their freedoms have been revoked. We entrust these brave men and women with the responsibility of defending our country. We trust them to make mature and reasonable decisions regarding the manner in which they maintain our freedoms. We entrust them with our hope that they will secure our rights and our freedoms, as well as the elusive “American dream.” Yet we don’t trust them enough to be responsible with the dog breed of their choice?


Loyalty and commitment are common themes of many, if not all, military unit mottos. Are we to believe that these character traits are only encouraged with respect to a soldier’s military life? Shouldn’t these qualities be associated with and employed in all aspects of life – and, for that matter, not only the lives of soldiers? These are the traits that we respect and admire so deeply in our military personnel and hope to achieve for ourselves. “Be all you can be” implies a pledge to become the best person we can possibly be by utilizing our strengths, including our loyalty and commitment to the world around us.


We know the army recognizes the special bond between humans and dogs as the current story on U.S. Army’s website is dedicated to service dogs and their handlers. The article sets forth the deep ties between soldiers and their dogs. In fact, the final paragraph of the article states:

“We have a bond with these dogs that are as attached to us as we are them. I have gone to war with this dog, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I will go to the end of the world and back again for this dog, and I know he would do the same.” Air Force Staff Sgt. Joel Townsend speaking of his K-9 partner, A-Taq.

While I have not gone to war with my dogs, my feelings for them are certainly just as strong as those of Sgt. Townsend.


According to the Department of Defense, the military divorce rate continues to climb over previous years. In addition, the U.S. Army reports that the suicide rate among troops is at a 30 year high. Our soldiers put their lives on the line for their country, and in doing so, they see things I cannot ever imagine trying to process - all of which can and does leave them traumatized and carrying very real emotional scars. Our troops come home to strained marriages and relationships - must they also add to their worries the stress of losing their dogs? There are few things more therapeutic than interaction with our pets, and animals have long been recognized as being a positive force in the healing process and boosting our emotional well-being. In a time when our military personnel are emotionally broken, the Army is taking away one of the most accessible and effortless forms of therapy available to them.


Forcing people to abandon their dogs goes against every element we teach people about responsible dog ownership and lifetime commitments. Moreover, these types of policies punish responsible dog owners and do nothing to prevent incidents related to aggressive dogs. Quite frankly, if you are an irresponsible owner, you will be irresponsible regardless of the breed of dog you own. Despite the growing sentiment caused by breed specific policies, you are not an irresponsible owner BECAUSE of the breed of dog you own, and these policies only support archaic and manipulated stereotypes of both owner and dog.


The new Pet Policy for Privatized Housing includes a “grandfather clause,” and military personnel who currently own dogs of the targeted breeds can do so until they vacate their current on-post housing. However, it is common knowledge that military personnel are stationed at many posts during their military careers. Therefore, a dog that is safe from the pet policy today, may be a victim on this same policy tomorrow.


WHAT YOU CAN DO:


Ledy VanKavage, an attorney with Best Friends Animal Society, says that even if you don’t have a dog – if you can sympathize with military families - call your United States Senator or U.S. Representative. “This is still news, and it is likely most public officials aren’t aware of this ban and affront to military families,” she says. “I believe in my heart President and Michelle Obama would be appalled.”


To write a letter to the Obama’s, please click this link to access an online form.


In addition, please contact the House and Senate members for your state’s Armed Services Committee. To find out who your respective members are, please use the below links.


United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee


United States Senate Armed Services Committee


Finally, the Department of the Army’s memorandum issued on January 5, 2009 states that any comments relating to clarification of the policy can be directed to the Plans and Policy Division representative, Ms. Joyce VanSlyke (joyce.vanslyke@us.army.mil).



All correspondence should be professional, polite and respectful. In addition to the foregoing, you may want to include the following:

(1) Alternatives to breed specific legislation, including increased fines for irresponsible dog owners, as well as the possibility of revocation of ownership rights for habitually irresponsible dog owners regardless of the breed they own;

(2) Educational programs and services for children;

(3) Information regarding the ineffectiveness of breed specific legislation.

If you are able to offer immediate assistance to some wonderful dogs in need, please contact me at rescue@blessthebullys.com or contact Sergeant Polizzo with the Ft. Campbell, Kentucky shelter at tweety_6600@yahoo.com. The shelter is full, and these innocent dogs are running out of time!

Perhaps President Obama is right on target with his belief that change is coming. Ok....I know he is speaking mainly of political policies in Washington, but the events of this week showed us that our hard work is paying off with respect to changes in the fight against breed specific legislation. We are seeing more elected officials beginning to understand the reality that people are the driving force behind “vicious dogs,” and that the breed and/or physical appearance of a dog plays absolutely no role in determining whether that dog is or is not “dangerous.”

This third week of January brought some positive news on the BSL front...

The Montana House of Representatives quickly kicked to the curb Representative Robin Driscoll’s proposed bill that would effectively ban “pit bulls” in the state of Montana. Representative Driscoll’s arguments in support of breed bans sounded as if they came straight from dogsbite.org, a website that considers media reports to be statistically and factually sound. (Seriously, stop laughing...its true!!) Fortunately, the remainder of the Montana House Committee had enough common sense to understand that “dangerous dogs” are the result of “dangerous owners” and that, among other things, individuals who support any other position are interested in pursuing their own personal agendas rather than ensuring community safety. HATS OFF to the Montana representatives who swiftly put their foot down and stopped Driscoll’s faulty bill in its tracks.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to hear the city of Reading’s appeal with respect to its 10-year old “aggressive breed ordinance.” The ordinance imposed restrictions on dog breeds that bit too many people. Survey says...WRONG ANSWER. While this is a creative attempt at disguising breed discrimination, the lower court ruled, and the state Supreme Court agreed, that the ordinance violated Pennsylvania state law that prohibits breed specific legislation. The ordinance has effectively been axed.

Oshkosh, Wisconsin and Molalla, Oregon both said “NO” to breed specific legislation. Both city councils conducted extensive research on the issue, and both went to great efforts to included the public in the decision making process. Ultimately, both cities came to the conclusion that breed specific ordinances were not the way to go. Good call.

Despite an official request made by the Sheriff to the county commissioners for an ordinance banning "pit bulls," officials in Thomas County, Georgia have decided not to pursue any such ban. According to the County Manager, commissioners are currently working on an ordinance that will address the problem of “all vicious dogs regardless of breed.” This is, of course, the only way to effectively ensure community safety.

While we are seeing change with respect to public opinion on breed specific legislation, the one change I am not seeing (unfortunately) is a change in practices related to responsible dog ownership. The news continues to be full of dog attacks, which we all know are the result of careless, irresponsible dog owners. The one difference I am beginning to notice, however, is that more media outlets are picking up dog attacks of ALL breeds - not just those allegedly committed by “pit bulls.”

While it is a positive sign that the media is beginning to recognize that all dogs can and do bite, they are failing to take the golden opportunity they have to educate the public on dog bite prevention. The media would rather reap the glory of a sensationalized headline as opposed to taking the upper hand in the prevention of the next sensational story. The public must be educated on responsible dog ownership, and the biggest focus must be put on kids and dogs. The media, having access to millions of people - is in the perfect position to do just that....but they do not.

If we are to achieve success with respect to eliminating breed specific legislation, the one change that must occur is the elimination of irresponsible dog ownership practices. Sadly, we are not even out of January, and FIVE children have lost their lives in dog attacks. These are senseless tragedies that could have easily been prevented.

If a change really is gonna come, and if future tragedies are to be prevented, public education - not breed bans - is the key to that change.

Click the picture to watch the "Message to the Media." (The video takes a minute or so to load).

This first week of January brings news of two very preventable tragedies. Two young girls lost their lives in dog attacks. The first happened in Thomasville, Georgia, where a 5 year old girl was playing on a trampoline in her yard, without adult supervision. Also in the yard were three dogs - one of which was pregnant and the other two were chained. One of the dogs broke its chains as the girl jumped up and down, likely agitating or exciting the dogs, and attacked her.

The second happened in Australia where a 3- year-old girl was killed and her 15-month old sister critically injured by a pack of dogs. The children were in the care of a babysitter who was also the owner of the dogs. It is believed the girls were unsupervised at the time of the attack.

The dogs involved in these attacks are reported to be “pit bulls” and bull mastiffs. However, breed is not the issue here. What is important are the circumstances that led up to the fatal attacks. Two little lives were lost because young children were left unsupervised with dogs. One of the fundamentals of dog ownership is that you never, ever leave small children alone with a dog - regardless of the size or breed of the dog.

Have no doubt, NOBODY gets any pleasure in fault finding or finger-pointing, especially under tragic circumstances, but our unwillingness to get to the bottom of these attacks will certainly only result in future tragedies.

In an interview regarding the Australia fatality, Hugh Worth, President of the Royal Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), stated, "People out there aren't listening and now we have another life gone." Truer words have never been spoken. “NEVER LEAVE children alone with dogs,” Steve Lawrie, CEO of the RSPCA stated emphatically. Mr. Lawrie went on to state that this message is one of the primary missions of his work, and that when he says "never", he means that there are no exceptions. "It is fundamental, " he emphasizes. "Our message is don't EVER leave children alone with dogs.”

As a society, we must come to the realization that dog owners owe their families, their communities and their dogs a duty to educate themselves on responsible dog ownership. As long as we continue to let irresponsible and negligent dog owners off the hook and place the blame solely on the dog, we will never, ever see a decrease in dog bites and/or dog attacks. According to the National Canine Research Council, From 2005-2007, increased focus on negligent and criminal human behaviors has resulted in 31% of owners and/or parents of young victims being criminally charged. Holding owners accountable for the humane treatment, containment, and control of their dogs is the only way to minimize incidence of canine aggression.

Riding the coattail of the two horrific attacks this week comes the news that the RSPCA in the United Kingdom is calling for a repeal of Section 1 of the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 -- the section that bans particular breeds of dogs. A report issued last year in the UK indicated that over the past ten years (and despite the banning of specific breeds of dogs), dog bites in the UK are up fifty percent. By moving forward with this proposal, the UK can put itself in a position to follow the example set by the Netherlands in repealing breed specific legislation and replacing it with a law that puts the burden of responsibility on owners, rather than destroying dogs who are guilty of nothing more than looking a certain way.

We’ve seen much progress in this respect over the past year. As mentioned above, the Netherlands repealed their pit bull ban that had been in place for 15 years after statistics revealed the ban had no effect on dog bites and did not increase public safety. In addition, Aurora, Colorado issued long awaited statistics after the first year of the implementation of their pit bull ban with the very same conclusion – overall dog bites were up. While not issued this year, a five year study from Spain regarding their dangerous dog law indicated the same things... bites from targeted breeds were down, while bites from other breeds were up. The statistics from all these places show that despite a decrease in bites from targeted dogs (obviously, this is cause and effect, if you decrease the number of dogs of a certain breed, bites from that breed will go down). BUT... dog bites from other breeds increased because the same irresponsible owners just got different dogs.

The key to preventing dog attacks has and will always be public education.

According to Michael Daley, Acting Local Government Minister, New South Wales has the toughest dangerous dog laws in Australia. Despite this, no law can prevent the lack of parental supervision and/or the lack of public education and awareness. Those strict NSW laws did not save Ruby Lea Bourke, but public education very would could have. How many more preventable tragedies have to occur before we realize this?

All statistics and research reveal that breed bans DO NOT ensure public safety - the goal cited by those who push for the passage of breed specific legislation. Sure, those who support breed specific legislation can do their “fact” searches on websites that do nothing but track media reports and offer biased opinions regarding certain breeds of dogs. However, by doing so, you can be certain that the information obtained is manipulated, prejudicial and far from accurate. It is rare that I refer to “those website” as they are maintained by people with agendas based on nothing more than generating public fear to achieve a desired outcome. Moreover, it is extremely unfortunate that those agendas are aimed ONLY at eliminating certain breeds of dogs rather than promoting public safety or "sensible laws" as they profess to be.

To put it simply, those websites are nothing more than PROPAGANDA....

[prop-uh-gan-duh]

(1) information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, etc.

(2) the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

Unabridged Random House Dictionary

It is beyond me why websites such as dogsbite.org are viewed as evidence to support breed bans (other than the simple fact that they help bolster the proposals of uneducated public officials who are trying to rationalize ineffective laws). Quite frankly, the mere allegation that someone has been the victim of a dog attack does not make that person an expert on dog attacks, nor does it qualify them to dispense advice on the matter. Let’s face it, just because I can drive a car, doesn't mean I am ready to become the editor of Car and Driver Magazine or offer driving tips to Mario Andretti.

Its time for common sense to take the place of hysteria. Statistics - not the media - should rule in decisions of public safety, and the statistics from across the globe clearly indicate that banning specific breeds of dogs does not promote public safety. In effect, it simply gives a community a false sense of security.

Can dog attacks ever be completely prevented? Of course not. There will always be irresponsible and negligent owners. Those people who just do not care. However, if we hold those owners accountable for the actions of their dogs and the damages they incur, we can greatly minimize the occurrences of future tragedies.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys