My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Omaha to discuss dangerous dog law today at 2:00 | Main | Omaha Dangerous Dog Ordinance - Final Version »

September 30, 2008


Fight Back!

Ms Blevins sounds like she would fit right in in Seattle.
Seeking revenge rather than solutions.
I hope Responsible owners fight back and fight back hard with a lawsuit.
Wasn`t the dog that bit her kid loose?
Are dogs going to be taught to put their own muzzles on before roaming?
People like her are pathetic.
I did have sympathy but no more.
Apparently she thinks her child`s injuries are worse than the parents who have suffered fatalities by other Breeds* of dogs.
I wonder how long it will be before the Grandfather chimes in with his "Expert" opinion.
Maybe her child needs to be taken away(just in case) because we all know that the child is 100x more likely to killed by the Parent than ANY dog of ANY Breed!

KC KS Kills Dogs

Note the local Humane Society asked that American Bulldogs be included in the pit bull definition. Not because they are dangerous, just because of the difficulty in discerning American Bulldogs from Amstaffs etc.

I think it's time the local folks of Omaha and the surrounding area, quit donating to their local Humane Society. They are not very Humane - they have thrown how many dog owners under the bus?

Heck why don't they just add dachsunds to that mix of regulated dog breeds?

Another city to put on the list of DNSM. DNSM = Do Not Spend Money in that city.

Unanswered Questions

"I think if we have law-abiding citizens, (the rules) should prevent these types of situations," Blevins said of the attack her toddler daughter suffered.[/quote]

There is no hope if this woman is being listened to rather than people like Karen Delise

and/or this Task Force on Community Dog Bite Prevention.

She should be ashamed of her lack of intelligence and her attempts to portray herself as an "expert".

Another non thinking person who has jumped on the Ban bandwagon.

Was this Blevins case ever fully investigated by the proper authorities?
Was the Owner of the dog fully investigated?
Was the involved dog ever actually identified by a Canine Expert as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier,APBT or American Staffordshire Terrier?
Who was the Expert?
Were the circumstances leading up to this bite incident ever investigated?
Did this alleged 'pit bull' just run up and bite this child or is there more to this story?
Did this woman just freak out due to Media hysteria over this alleged 'pit bull' and initiate all this?
I think there are a lot of unanswered questions in this Blevins case.

I think dogs that just run up and bite/"attack" people are few and far between.

I`m getting very tired of Media reports and dog identifications by the witnesses.


You don't need an expert to identify a purebred dog - the whole point of having a registered purebred is that the dog is not only identified but also, um, registered to an owner. It is a serious offense to remove identification from a purebred animal of any species - in Canada, it is a federal offense and the fine is $50,000.

So all this 'what does he look like'? bulls**t is just that - bulls**t. It's irrelevant. Period.

These morons have never understood that and I guess they're either too stupid or too lazy to look for some actual facts - which are not kept in a safe in the basement of some secret society, but are readily available.

They also fail to understand that the existing evidence does not, in any way, support the popular myths about 'dangerous breeds'.

I repeat my question to Council: If these measures are believed to be successful in preventing dog bites/attacks, then why would they not be applied to all dog owners across the board?

Since other shapes are responsible for the vast majority of bites, attacks and even the rare fatal maulings, why are you targeting the minority, rather than the majority, of supposed 'dangerous shapes'?

As for the victim, I don't want to sound harsh but somebody who has been bitten by a dog, and a loose one at that (since a solitary loose dog is very unlikely to bother anyone), is the exact opposite of an expert on dog behaviour. She's a victim with an axe to grind. That axe is based on lies, propaganda and a belief that a system which has failed everywhere it has been tried will somehow magically work in Omaha.

I'm losing patience with these morons.

Unanswered Questions

I realize that about Pure Breeds bu the fact that an announcement is NEVER forthcoming in these bite reports tells me that it is not those 3 Breeds that are biting because it WOULD be easy to identify them.
If it was one of the look-a-like Pure Breeds-Dogo,Corso etc it WOULD be easy to identify them.
In Karen Delise`s book "Fatal Dog Attacks" when she attributes a certain # of fatalities to 'Pit Bulls' she stresses how they were identified as such ie Court Proceedings.
What I want to know is who stated that this dog that bit this Blevins child was a 'Pit Bull'.
I`m sure the Owner was charged with something.
So who identified the dog and WAS IT one of those 3 Pure Breed dogs?
There should be a very simple answer to that question in this "attack" and EVERY other 'attack' out there.
This is why people think there`s a problem with these dogs.
No one pushes for who identified the dog and was it a Pure Breed dog and if so what Breed?
If it wasn`t a Pure Breed something then it was just a mutt and that`s what makes me sick about this Blevins woman and others claiming that this kid or other kids were "attacked" by these 'Pit Bull' Breeds*.
She probably can`t even name the Breeds that she has maligned.
When a dog bites/kills do they actually look for a tattoo or microchip?
I know that the Breed/type is irrelevant but these morons don`t, so I want to know if the "attacking" dog in this Blevin case was identified as some Pure Breed!
So Blevin clan---what Breed of dog attacked your daughter/granddaughter since you think this is relevant and you have set the wheels in motion to destroy innocent dogs and destroy people`s lives!
Because I`m fed up with revenge seeking morons like you and Collen Lynn in Seattle.
And if it wasn`t a Pure Breed dog,name the person/Expert who says it was a 'Pit Bull' Breed* in spite of no tattoo or microchip.

I don`t care if it sounds harsh.
I was very seriously injured as a young person by a horse and I din`t seek revenge against all horses that looked like the one that injured me.
My injuries would make your child`s injuries look like nothing.

So I think it`s time to say to these bite victims to put up or shut up about these dogs.
If you can provide PROOF that these Breeds are dangerous,let`s see it.


Unanswered Questions,

I think Wendy Blevins was probably manipulated into her mad mother role and coached along. A victim's family drama like this happening in Omaha immediatly makes me think of the Omaha World Herald.

The media coverage of the attack does indeed leave questions unanswered.

The coverage implied that the dog intended to attack when it slipped its collar. However, the dog's owner complained about being repeatedly pushed by one of the mothers while trying to retrieve her dog. I find it hard to believe that this shuving match was going on while the dog was biting. Also, the two mothers had conflicting stories about who was bitten first.

From what I can tell, the dog was a well socialized, poorly trained, family pet. Neighbors testified to its friendlieness, yet the world herald tried show that the dog had a history of aggression. The evidince? The dog had "approached" children and had chewed on a neighbor's porch carpet.

It's possible, but I think it's unlikely that the dog just snapped.

Did anybody notice how the animal control guy let the dog flail around for five minutes in front of the cameras before caging it?

Aaron Blevins

Not sure how many of you were actually directly involved with the Ordinance here in Omaha, or anywhere else for that matter, but I would like to ask everyone here to take any focus on bashing my Wife or any other person documented as working on this ordinance, and look for ways to implement future amendments or ordinance here or anywhere else this issue is present. Blogging, forums and discussion are fun, and a way to interact with like minded individuals, however going to the source is the direct way to get things done the way that You want them.

We can all play the "Lets Hurt Feelings" game,...and what good does that really do? The idea of constructive criticism can be useful, when respectfully done.

A few thoughts of mine throughout this ordeal:

-At what definable level do you deem a feline or canine not safe for domestic co-habitation? or any other species for that matter

-How does the general public define a "real expert"? experience or education, or what? especially when in this situation we had local, national and international input and discussion. Is there someone out there willing to take the time, energy and resources to gather all canine experts?

-What percent of the general animal owning public is actually lending to the outcome, rather than doing nothing or complaining about it?

-If a muzzle (regardless of the owner) would have prevented my Daughter's Scalp from being torn from her head, why is there so much push back on that, especially if the "pit bull", or any other "dangerous dog", owners get to keep their dogs, and lend to the idea that this can be prevented? ...and a harness would have not allowed any animal to get away from an owner paying attention.

-For the dog owners out there that are afraid of their Dogs being put to sleep, wouldn't that thought make you think it's time to do something different about your dog(s) training, lifestyle, aggression, etc.? or at least be willing to take the necessary steps so you can keep the canine, or take the steps to find it a good home.

Regardless, thank you for actually caring enough to think about it all. If you would like to get further involved here, or anywhere else, please contact me.

Thank you,
Aaron Blevins



Many people here didn't have a voice in Omaha. Many on the city council there made it very clear early on that they didn't want input from outsiders...which is a shame. It's the outsiders who have dealt with these issues before and actually have experience on the matter. So we were mostly stuck watching from afar.

In answer to some of your questions. Yes, we have been successful in getting a large group of animal legislation experts together. Our group here in Kansas City has hosted two "Canine Legislation Conferences" that have featured people from around North America and how they have worked ordinances for the greater good. We've done the conference once in Chicago and once in Kansas City. NHS had some members in attendance at the one in KC - and one of the outside advisers has spoken at it once and attended the other time.

I realize that you had some true expert input -- my big problem with it was that a lot of their recommendations were basically ignored. They certainly didn't recommend breed specific anything due to the difficulty of enforcement, or muzzling, or harnesses, or anything of the sort. They even recommended AGAINST these things...and were ignored.

Really quickly:

Muzzles -- many dogs absolutely hate them. Most muzzles make it diffucult for dogs to pant well -- panting is what cools dogs on walks on hot days (with the saliva evaporating off their tongues). Cage muzzles allow for dogs to pant ok, but make it difficult for them to drink water -- again, a problem during exercise. Additionally, (and this is the part I tried to explain to your dad), dogs can only protect themselves by biting -- it's their only defense mechanism. If a dog is muzzled, they have no defense mechanism. So if a muzzled dog is approached by another dog, they become very cautious, withdrawn and fearful -- because they have no way to defend themselves from that dog.

So what does the muzzling do over time? It makes it tougher (almost impossible) to keep the dog well exercised and socialized.

While a muzzle may have prevented the unfortunate attack on Charlotte (I hope she's doing better BTW), most dog attacks don't come from dogs that were being walked on a leash at the time. Most are underexercised, undersocialized dogs that somehow "escape" -- a yard, a door, a window, something. What the muzzling now does is increase the number of underexercised, undersocialized and fearful dogs. It's not a good ordinance.

As for harnessing, go to a dog training class sometime. See what type of leashes/collars they recommend for training. They recommend collars -- worn high up on the dog's neck -- because they give the trainer/owner maximum control and ease and effectiveness in correcting unwanted behavior. None of that is possible with a harness. No trainer anywhere would ever recommend trying to train with a harness. And aren't well trained, well controlled dogs, what we want?

Hey man, I appreciate what you're trying to do. If it were my daughter, I'd have wanted to do something too. It's just unfortunate when people want to ignore, or not listen, to the people who have followed different types of legislation from around the globe to see what works, and what makes things worse. I honestly think this ordinance -- even though there are some good components of it -- makes things worse because the bad components are really bad.

I'd love to help in Omaha...or anywhere for that matter.



I also think that your wife is being treated too harshly.

People opposed to breed specific legislation in Omaha are upset because your wife was allowed to be directly involved in writing a law that they feel will be ineffective and is discriminatory.

Instead, anger should directed towards the Omaha city council, who had the option of not letting your wife become so deeply involved in the writing of Omaha's ordinance.

Your family's unfortunate circumstance was exploited by the city council, the nebraska humane society, and the local news media, in order to pass a law that will not make your daughter safer.

However, I think she set herself up for criticism when she publicly took the logically weak position that a dog's level of threat to the community can be determined by the way that it looks.

Angry but still listening to people like the Blevins

Let me say that I do realize that the victims and families of alleged 'pit bulls' are being exploited by certain groups,by the Media, by Councils with an agenda BUT at some point they have to give themselves a shake and wake up.
If I realize they are being duped and exploited,why don`t they realize it?
The families of the children KILLED by Huskies just recently are NOT on this Blog demanding bans/restrictions.
They are NOT out there lobbying Councils to destroy ALL Huskies and making claims that muzzles,harnesses etc will prevent similar tragedies.
Are these people smarter,wiser,more stable,more compassionate,more able to comprehend logic than the victims of these alleged "demon" dogs?
Did they love their children less than the parents of and Grandfather of Charlotte?
I understand the pain and the anger of the Blevin family.
I would understand if they filed suit against the Owner.
I would understand their anger at Animal Control if they failed in their responsibilities prior to this incident.
I would understand wanting this particular dog dealt with in a way that it would not hurt another child,whether that be muzzling,various other restrictions,removal from that owner,death if the dog is truly dangerous.(A dog is not truly dangerous JUST because it bites your child)That is why the circumstances are important.

My anger at them is because they are not thinking for themselves,they are just jumping on that bandwagon because of the look of the dog that bit their child.

God forbid that Charlotte EVER gets bitten again by ANY dog but I can guarantee them that if they EVER started asking for or demanding restrictions on ALL Golden Retrievers(for example) they would more than likely be laughed out of town and NO Media or Council would take them seriously.
NO reporters would be talking to them or about them.
NO pictures of Charlotte would be sent out around the World.
NO dog bite advocacy group would care about this child.

The people that oppose BSL and the restrictions that the Blevins want enacted to protect their child and other children ARE the people that truly care about Charlotte.

The Blevins have joined the WRONG camp if they truly care about public safety.
They are actually going to cause more children to be harmed.
Do they not understand that?
They COULD do so much good.
No good is going to come from their anger and their misinformed,misdirected efforts.

I think it was on this blog that I read that the Owner of the dog that bit Charlotte now has a German Shepherd tied out front of their house.

What are the Blevins going to say or do if that dog gets loose and attacks Charlotte or another child?

Are they going to go to Council and ask for German Shepherds to be added?

What do they NOT understand about this issue?

I really am trying to understand these people.
There is absolutely NO logic to what they have done.
Muzzling MY dog will NOT protect YOUR child from ANY dogs of ANY Breed/type owned by irresponsible owners.

Please come on here and explain HOW your restrictions on OTHER people`s dogs solve ANYTHING.

I`m listening but the angry people out hear will have the same response as a dog when pushed.

Fight or flight.
We won`t be pushed out of our houses,our communities,our towns,our Cities because a dog with a certain look bit your child.
We won`t comply with restrictions that don`t apply to ALL dogs.
We won`t comply with restrictions that do harm EVEN if they apply to ALL dogs such as muzzling.

That only leaves fight unless BSL comes off the table around the World.

We feel like the abused dogs thrown into a Pit with no escape.
Some will cower and be killed and some will fight because those are their only 2 options for us if you insist on throwing us in that BSL Pit.



One other thought on the muzzling that I don't think I've made clear anywhere.

Under the generic dangerous dog section of this ordinance that was submitted by the NHS, any dog that showed signs of aggression could be declared "potentially dangerous" based on this behavior -- regardless of what type of dog it is. These restrictions I believe, include muzzling in public.

So the only "new" dogs that would be covered under the breed specific muzzling would be dogs that don't show any signs of aggression. If they show aggression, they could be grouped under the original dangerous dog law.

So why, please tell me, do we want laws that require animal control time to enforce on dogs that don't show any signs of aggression? What's the point of that?

All such a thing does, is tie up animal control resources (they're not unlimited) that should be used to deal with dogs that really are a potential threat to society. So not only are you potentially causing some dogs to become aggressive that weren't, but you're taking animal control resources away from dealing with potentially dangerous dogs to deal with dogs that show no signs of aggression at all.

It just doesn't make sense.

The comments to this entry are closed.