|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 7:21:08 GMT -5
Bamapitbull wrote:
Personally, I would consider a bait animal as one used as snipe described, a prey animal which illicites the drive on a mill or such.
Think lure coursing...though the "prey" is artificial.
The nasty dogfighters of today use live bait not artifical prey and they dont use cages,sometimeS bait are hogtied and their teeth are removed so the fighting dogs are not harmed... Tanks oringinal post that started this thread is about the horrors of bait dogs, can we please post what tank is referring to ?
|
|
|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 7:51:53 GMT -5
ZOE
It certainly is not a myth that people take animals and sell them to research facilitys, its a real fact.... they are also stolen and sold to researchers........
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 17, 2009 11:43:48 GMT -5
I'm not seeing the value in this discussion anymore. I don't know what dogfighters of today do and I don't want to know. I already have a pretty good front row seat working in rescue.
This topic began regarding the false use of the term "bait" in regards to pets offered for free. I would prefer to not discuss what I "assume" dogfighters do out there and didn't feel my post was geared towards that angle.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Feb 17, 2009 11:54:28 GMT -5
Just wanted to add that not only do free-to-a-good-home animals end up in research facilities, but they also can end up as snake food (kittens and rodents) or at puppy mills. One of the biggest puppy mill cases here recently, Almost Heaven, was owned by a guy who had previously been implicated in obtaining free pets under false pretenses, and then selling them or breeding them. www.pet-abuse.com/profiles/9024/
|
|
|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 13:08:22 GMT -5
well Bamapitbullmom that is your opinion and this is tanks question about bait and what it really means, it is what is termed as bait and we are talking about bait dogs and if you want to call it something else that the public is not aware of then it gets confusing........I believe this is an informative discussion about bait dogs, people need to be aware of what goes on behind closed doors so that the problem of bait dogs can be eliminated. your quote: This topic began regarding the false use of the term "bait" in regards to pets offered for free. I would prefer to not discuss what I "assume" dogfighters do out there and didn't feel my post was geared towards that angle. I would not say bait dogs is a false term because that is what it is known as in the publics eye...
vallisong yes you are correct that small pets are also used to feed snakes , so very sad
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 17, 2009 13:47:13 GMT -5
I would not say bait dogs is a false term because that is what it is known as in the publics eye... I respectfully disagree that it is okay to accept the term "bait dog" just b/c this is what the public thinks. Most of the dogs we see who come in with scars or injuries did not acquire them from being used as bait. But so many other organizations say they were and it further implies that that's all this breed is used for and promotes adoptions out of pity and not reality. Not once have I had someone who claims that a dog has been used for bait been able to tell me that they have solid evidence of such. It is an assumption based on the continuous use of the term. And it affects all breeds. Any dog found on the street with wounds which can even remotely pass as dog-related are dubbed "bait dogs".
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 14:17:19 GMT -5
Not once have I had someone who claims that a dog has been used for bait been able to tell me that they have solid evidence of such. But have you been able to prove that it was not a bait dog? Sure some of the dogs are probably not bait dogs, but people still label them as such. It is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. However, I also think that some of the dogs (especially the ones taken from fight busts) that are small and have excessive scarring are used as some kind of bait dog. Why else would they be kept around? But until one of us becomes a dog fighter, we just will not know what they do to train the dogs they use. I think someone said before in this discussion that a dog does not develop a blood lust after it tastes the blood of a prey animal. While this may be true, I do not think that dog fighters are as educated as you and they probably don't care. Part of that practice is most likely to teach the dog some kind of fighting technique, and they just want to get the dog as revved-up as possible before a fight. " I don't know what dogfighters of today do and I don't want to know." (bamapitbullmom) Me neither, but I think that Tank was trying to alert people to be on the lookout and watch for this kind of stuff in their area. Of course not all animals that are listed for free will go to bad homes. As I said before we got our dog free, and she has a loving home. But unfortunately not all people love animals like we do, and will use them in horrific ways. So the moral here is that dog fighting, dog baiting (in some form), and other kinds of animal cruelty do exist, and we must realize this so that we can (like Tank) be on the lookout and help to prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 17, 2009 14:41:47 GMT -5
I have yet to see proof that large scale dog fighters ever use 'bait' dogs. Lots of times dogs seized from fight busts that are not Pit Bulls are automatically labelled 'bait dogs'. The bottom line is bait dogs don't do a thing to help a fighting Pit Bull - and may even be detrimental when a dog 'trained' on a bait dog is put up against a dog that can actually fight back. Historically, new fight dogs were always 'rolled' with older, conditioned fighters. Not weak, scared animals with pulled out teeth and no means of fighting back.
So while there might be idiots that think it's funny to sic a Pit Bull on another helpless animal (I am reminded of a case in which a Dalmatian was tied to a tree and Pit Bulls were allowed to maul him), in general the whole 'bait dog' thing is a self perpetuating myth. Everyone's got a story about it, but when you trace the roots, they *usually* go no where.
As far as Tank's reason for posting this ad, as she said, she wanted to point out how quick people are to assume the worst when Pit Bulls are somehow involved, for instance, that dogs from 'free to good home' ads just had to be getting fed to the big, mean Pit Bulls. Or that a cute, sweet dog with scars MUST have been a bait dog used by dog fighters.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 15:06:04 GMT -5
I have yet to see proof that large scale dog fighters ever use 'bait' dogs. Lots of times dogs seized from fight busts that are not Pit Bulls are automatically labelled 'bait dogs'. But again, we have no proof for or against the matter. All we can do is speculate until solid proof arises. And I am sure that while some fighters may use some kind of "bait" dog others do not. Honestly I do not think this conversation is going anywhere because we can never be truly sure. However, for the sake of arguing and some sort of conversation I would like to respond to this: " Not weak, scared animals with pulled out teeth and no means of fighting back. " I know that this may be somewhat unrelated but maybe it where the idea came from. In Pakistan (I think) they still do pit dogs against bears who have had their claws and biting teeth removed.
|
|
|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 15:15:01 GMT -5
GOOD POST SNIPE
Well said with true reality ..........
Bamapitbullmom, your quote:
I respectfully disagree that it is okay to accept the term "bait dog" just b/c this is what the public thinks. Most of the dogs we see who come in with scars or injuries did not acquire them from being used as bait. But so many other organizations say they were and it further implies that that's all this breed is used for and promotes adoptions out of pity and not reality.
I understand and accept your opinion that "you disagree that it is okay to accept the term bait dog just because this is what the public thinks," I feel the same way about the term bait dogs as you do ; makes me feel sick at the thought of it... but that is what is relevant to the term currently and until that word bait is changed ,I will feel more at peace with whatever word it is replaced with ... I dont think it is what the public thinks, it is what they hear from the law or the media and people pick up on the subject calling it bait as well...
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 17, 2009 15:17:24 GMT -5
But again, we have no proof for or against the matter. All we can do is speculate until solid proof arises. It MIGHT happen, so we should just assume that all dogs fitting a certain criteria are bait dogs, because hey, we don't have PROOF that they are NOT? ??? I don't perpetuate the bait dog mythology. I don't perpetuate myth, period. It's just not my way. I work from fact. Tell me what good it does ANYone to conjure up bait dog stories? All it does is scare people and further demonize the APBT. It sets a stage of 'Pit Bull as perpetrator, and other animals as victims.' I actually don't even use the term 'bait dog' unless I am correcting misinformation. Dog fighting and everything around it is bad enough as it is. Why people have to go the extra mile to make it sound worse is just beyond me. Again, I'm not denying that sick people toss helpless animals to other animals for the sake of watching them get torn to shreds. What I'm contesting is that 'bait dogs' are or have ever been an intrinsic part of fighting dog conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 15:43:31 GMT -5
Mary
QUOTE: What I'm contesting is that 'bait dogs' are or have ever been an intrinsic part of fighting dog conditioning
the evil gangsta types= pitbull puppy , thrown out of the window, pitbull set on fire, pitbull stabbed to death, pitbull decapitated and so on etc.....with sick minds and ignorance thrown into the pot ,do you think bait dogs are excluded? these nasties dont care about the fears and health risks of the bait dogs or the fighters, if one dog refuses to fight ; it is killed. they will do anything to win and get that much $$$$$$.... I have to say that what you and bama are saying conceals the truth and helps dogfighters....... reality can only be the winner.... we must get to the core of the problem with true facts .....Vicks case has exposed dog fighting for what it is, who in their right mind would hang dogs just like he did ,surely with mentalities like this, would they not use bait dogs.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 17, 2009 16:00:28 GMT -5
I have to say that what you and bama are saying conceals the truth and helps dogfighters....... If you think that I in anyway would conceal the truth in order to help dog fighters, I encourage you to leave this forum IMMEDIATELY. It is a completely unfair and unwarranted accusation. It is also a slap in the face as the work I do is nothing BUT trying to dispel myths, get the TRUTH out there, and help end the abuses heaped upon this breed. I understand the 'bait dog issue' is an emotional one, and we all have our opinions. That's fine. But I encourage you to read the posts written by myself (and Bama) in this thread, and really THINK about what is being said. This is a potentially beneficial discussion, but it is also potentially a heated, unproductive dicussion. As it stands now I'll leave this thread open, but let's remember we all care about Pit Bulls, all want what is best for them, and all have our opinions on the 'bait dog issue'. I do NOT want to see this discussion deteriorate, or turn into an argument as this is NOT what this board is about. We are hear to discuss politely. Period.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 16:01:47 GMT -5
"It MIGHT happen, so we should just assume that all dogs fitting a certain criteria are bait dogs, because hey, we don't have PROOF that they are NOT?"
No, I guess what I am really trying to say is that since we can never know for sure so why bother to argue about it.
I do not think it is a myth that people do use dogs as some kind of bait animal, but it IS probably a myth that all of them are used that way.
If I ever got into a conversation with somebody about this topic (in reality), I would probably just give all the options of why a dog looked that way, but would only use the "bait" animal theory if the dog came from a fight bust. Also, only if the dog was smaller, weaker, and more shy than the rest. Other than that there are thousands of reasons dogs can pick up scars, but that is getting pretty far off topic.
"Why people have to go the extra mile to make it sound worse is just beyond me."
I do not think people do it to make it sound worse, they probably do it because there is some shred of truth to it. It does make sense that to excite a dogs prey drive you could get it to attack a smaller animal, or to test how strong a prey drive it has.
"I don't perpetuate the bait dog mythology. I don't perpetuate myth, period. It's just not my way. I work from fact. Tell me what good it does ANYone to conjure up bait dog stories? All it does is scare people and further demonize the APBT. It sets a stage of 'Pit Bull as perpetrator, and other animals as victims.'"
Neither do I, in fact this is the first place where I have ever discussed this topic. That being said, I would not consider it spreading myth if you are just speculating. If you are trying to determine where a dog acquired such awful scars and the dog is from a fight bust and again it is small, cowardly, shows little aggression, would it not be reasonable to say that either it was attacked, or used as some form of baiting device. I say device because I was recently watching an episode of Animal Cops and the animal they pulled from a cage at the other end of a Jenny Rig (i think that's what it is called) was a raccoon.
Which brings me to another point if people are finding other sorts of animals used as "bait" is such a stretch to say they use a dog. After all that is the opponent they will be facing later on.
"If you think that I in anyway would conceal the truth in order to help dog fighters, I encourage you to leave this forum IMMEDIATELY. It is a completely unfair and unwarranted accusation. It is also a slap in the face as the work I do is nothing BUT trying to dispel myths, get the TRUTH out there, and help end the abuses heaped upon this breed. "
Now that seems a bit unfair to me. I do not fully agree with McGregor, but i think there is some merit to what he is saying. While we should not make premature accusations about whether a dog is a "bait" dog, it does nothing to ignore that it might be happening. Also, if no one is saying the dog is used as a bait dog for APBT then what is harm in saying it. Maybe that dog is being used by a disgusting person to make their Rottweiler more vicious. So in order to argue whether dogs are used as bait dogs we have to weigh both side of the argument.
This means we have to do as you say (not mcgregor) and educate people that not every dog with a scar was a bait dog, but we must also not ignore that it is a possibility.
Also I do not think he meant that your only intent was to help dog fighters just that we cannot ignore that they probably do some of these things. But i do not want to answer for him so McGregor... rebuttal if it so pleases you.
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 17, 2009 16:12:57 GMT -5
I believe there is some miscommunication going on here. I can't speak for Mary, but I believe that we both are trying to make the same point. Yes, there are those who use dogs and other animals as "bait" (for whatever reason and by whatever method) I do not dispute that.
My angle is from a rescuers point of view that it absolutely does no dog good by labelling it a "bait" dog. Period. If you have an opinion about why that would be necessary and/or helpful, please explain.
And the idea of calling a dog a bait dog simply b/c we have no proof that it *hasn't* been used as bait makes no sense to me. Why would it be better to make assumptions rather than simply describe a dog's injuries and say we have no idea how they were inflicted? Why label a dog a bait dog, what's the reasoning?
I don't even care to see a new term replace this one, let's just call it what it is...abuse.
I am quicker to assume that wounds or scars consistent from a scrap with another dog/s on a stray were acquired while it was on the streets, defending whatever resources it had at the time, be it food, space or potential mate. To me, that is likelier a scenario than concocting some "bait" dog story to explain a dog's injuries.
Mc Gregor says:
"I have to say that what you and bama are saying conceals the truth and helps dogfighters....... "
PAH LEEZE explain how my statements conceals the truth. And how is it that I am helping dogfighters? (Which, btw, is incredibly offensive to me considering my immense investment of my LIFE towards helping pit bulls.)
I do not sugar coat descriptions of dogs. I also do not fabricate their histories to make them seem more pitiful or deserving than they already are. I give them the respect and unbiased evaluations and determine who they are without dwelling on exactly what they went through, especially when I have no idea of what that may have been.
Trust me, the general public knows (or by now should) what is happening to these dogs. And I think it is more of a travesty that it is forgotten that pit bulls are DOGS and not every single one of them is a product of craphole fighters, no matter the scale.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 17, 2009 16:22:07 GMT -5
Also, only if the dog was smaller, weaker, and more shy than the rest. Other than that there are thousands of reasons dogs can pick up scars, but that is getting pretty far off topic. But I guess I'm trying to figure out why you think it is beneficial to even go down the 'bait dog route' at all? If it's just speculation, anyway? As someone involved in Pit Bull activism, I can tell you that the whole 'bait dog thing' is really detrimental on many levels, and does NO one any good. 1) It allows rescue groups to make excuses for dogs of bad temperament. "That dog is shy and scared and will bite because it was a bait dog; it's ok, we must save him and love him and find a home for him". 2) It makes it easier to demonize the 'fighting dogs' - the ones that attacked the supposed bait dogs. "Big mean fighting dog must be destroyed!" Even though it might have correct temperament, and BETTER temperament than the 'bait dog'. 3) It seperates the 'victims' ('bait dogs') from the 'victimizers' (the fighting dogs). We are working so hard to change the perception of fight bust dogs to help people understand that they are ALL victims, PERIOD. A 'bait dog' is just as much a victim as a 'fighting dog', but in the eyes of many, only the 'bait dog' deserves to live. They are all ABUSED DOGS - no need to throw labels around to make one seem more worthy of rescue than another. 4) Continued insistance that 'bait dogs' are a means of training fighting dogs only puts more ideas in the heads of sickos who will actually give this a try. I think it serves no purpose at all to make that speculation. I don't think it would be reasonable at all. In general, arbirary labels serve little purpose. But that is something totally different. The mechanism is not the same. In one case, the animal is safe in a cage, not torn to shreds. The point of the raccoon in the cage is to get the dog to run, and exercise himself. In the other case, the animal is torn up by the fighting dog, and this 'supposedly' helps him 'learn to fight'. What seems unfair?
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 16:36:52 GMT -5
I did not read you above post before I made this one b/c I was still in the process when you posted yours And the idea of calling a dog a bait dog simply b/c we have no proof that it *hasn't* been used as bait makes no sense to me. Why would it be better to make assumptions rather than simply describe a dog's injuries and say we have no idea how they were inflicted? Why label a dog a bait dog, what's the reasoning? I agree, I did make it sound as though we should label it as a bait dog b/c we have no evidence that it wasn't one, but I think I repented for that in my last post. I believe we just need to take in both sides of the story. Also, I do not know much about shelter work, but if I was going to adopt and I saw a dog labeled as it had been a bait dog then I would probably be more likely to adopt it. Now I would like to hear why it had been labeled in such a way so as to make sure it hadn't just been labeled like that just to gain my sympathy. PAH LEEZE explain how my statements conceals the truth. And how is it that I am helping dogfighters? (Which, btw, is incredibly offensive to me considering my immense investment of my LIFE towards helping pit bulls.) Forum Etiquette: Usually caps means shouting. Again, I do not want to speak for mcGregor, but I do not think his intention was to be offensive, b/c I think he recognizes the work you have done. Aside: I do not think McGregor meant to directly link you as the reason for dogfighting's existence. Rather it is the whole: if we don't acknowledge it, it isn't happening thing (which does in a way boost the dog fighters because it makes it seem as though their work is less horrible). However, I do not think you are doing that, but statements like: "I don't perpetuate the bait dog mythology. I don't perpetuate myth, period. It's just not my way. I work from fact. Tell me what good it does ANYone to conjure up bait dog stories? All it does is scare people and further demonize the APBT. It sets a stage of 'Pit Bull as perpetrator, and other animals as victims." Make it seems as though you are slightly unwilling to admit that it might happen. But if we can reasonably assume that the dog may have been a bait dog, is it really that terrible to say that it was one? "I am quicker to assume that wounds or scars consistent from a scrap with another dog/s on a stray were acquired while it was on the streets, defending whatever resources it had at the time, be it food, space or potential mate. To me, that is likelier a scenario than concocting some "bait" dog story to explain a dog's injuries." Again I am not talking about dogs from the street, but dogs from fight bust that seem to have no other purpose and would have no other use to people like Vick who "hang dogs"(McGregor) when they do not fight well, than to be used as bait dogs. "I don't even care to see a new term replace this one, let's just call it what it is...abuse." Yes it is abuse I 100% agree, and do not think that anyone else would disagree. But I think that people feel the need to label the dogs, and if they can reasonably assume that a dog was a bait dog, then I see no harm in it.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 16:44:03 GMT -5
RealPittBull: I agree this argument is a waste, but I am not arguing to label dogs this way to make them seem more pitiful, just that it could be an accurate label at times. Because some are used this way. "But that is something totally different. The mechanism is not the same. In one case, the animal is safe in a cage, not torn to shreds. The point of the raccoon in the cage is to get the dog to run, and exercise himself. In the other case, the animal is torn up by the fighting dog, and this 'supposedly' helps him 'learn to fight'. " Not really both are exciting the prey drive and both are conditioning the dog to fight. Yes there is no horrific harm done in the first method but they are still traumatizing the animal and putting in a wildly swinging cage where it gets chased by a dog at one hundred miles per hour. Again, this is stupid but for the sake of argument. How is it not teaching the dog to fight? He is actually practicing killing. I mean you can't exactly sit a dog down and say "well first you go for the jugular and then you rip the throat out, alright go practice." It his instinct to kill but if he is not practiced then he will be bad at it. All animals that are hunter and raise there young teach them to kill. Other wise when they had to survive by themselves in the wild they would be awful at it. Also dogs don't speak our language so they couldn't understand. (joke hehe) "I think it serves no purpose at all to make that speculation. I don't think it would be reasonable at all. In general, arbirary labels serve little purpose. " I agree we should not use meaningless labels but if no other label exists why not? LOL this is such a petty argument, we are arguing about how we think dog fighters train their dogs when we can never be truly sure. "Now that seems a bit unfair to me. I do not fully agree with McGregor, but i think there is some merit to what he is saying. What seems unfair? " What i thought was unfair was telling him to leave. I do not think he meant it to be that offensive, but I do not even feel like arguing about this b/c I need McGregor to respond in order to learn his actual intentions. Personally I think you and everyone else on this forum is in agreement that we only want what is best for the dogs and we would never to do anything hurt them or their reputation. But I think what he meant to say (but it came out wrong) is that we need to weigh both sides of a dogs story before we label it. Why label? Because then when someone asks how did he get those scars? "Well he was a bait dog." Sure it may cause them to sympathize with the with dog but that is just human nature, and the fact that he was a bait dog is the reality of the situation. Lastly, sorry if it seems I am taking sides i was trying to stay neutral. But I thought that Real and Bama were sort of ganging up against McGregor when what he said wasn't exactly what he meant. But again I will say that, that may have very well been his intent but I would like a response before I or you continue to judge. mcgregor: Could you possibly post full sentences some of you posts are hard to follow, which may be where the confusion is coming from. Your thoughts jump around a lot and are not complete. Also all the ... makes it really...hard to...read. Also (so that really should not have been lastly) this line really hits home with me but could also be that whole misconstrued intentions thing. "I don't perpetuate the bait dog mythology. I don't perpetuate myth, period. It's just not my way. I work from fact. Tell me what good it does ANYone to conjure up bait dog stories? All it does is scare people and further demonize the APBT. It sets a stage of 'Pit Bull as perpetrator, and other animals as victims." It makes it sound as though you think I like to spread myths or rumors or what ever you would like to call them, when in fact I do not. As I have said over and over, we need to look at the facts before we label. And my only reason for arguing the point of labeling a dog as a bait dog is to give it a correct label, or as a way to describe it at a certain time. I do not think it should excuse their bad behavior or be used a selling technique. I think that every dog should be equally judged, and always will believe that. And if I were to go into a kennel and see a dog labeled as a bait dog, yes I would sympathize with it, but then I would ask myself will this bring trouble further down the road. Will it always have that fear of other dogs? will it lash out in fear? That is the bottom line. I think we should keep the labels, as long as they are accurate and only used to describe the dog as what it is or was.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 17, 2009 17:20:44 GMT -5
"4) Continued insistance that 'bait dogs' are a means of training fighting dogs only puts more ideas in the heads of sickos who will actually give this a try. "
Really? I do not think dog fighters are looking for advice from the public. They most likely learn from each other, and other "sickos"
" 3) It seperates the 'victims' ('bait dogs') from the 'victimizers' (the fighting dogs). We are working so hard to change the perception of fight bust dogs to help people understand that they are ALL victims, PERIOD. A 'bait dog' is just as much a victim as a 'fighting dog', but in the eyes of many, only the 'bait dog' deserves to live. They are all ABUSED DOGS - no need to throw labels around to make one seem more worthy of rescue than another. "
I agree with this, the people are to blame. But I am only post as pro-bait dog title because I never even made that connection, yet I can see how you would. I also would not go around telling people well this dog was used as bait and this one attacked him.
"But I guess I'm trying to figure out why you think it is beneficial to even go down the 'bait dog route' at all? If it's just speculation, anyway? "
I think the speculation is whether all dog fighters use this method of training. I would say no to that. But I would definitely say some do.
|
|
|
Post by mcgregor on Feb 17, 2009 18:03:54 GMT -5
Thank you Snipe for your clarificating my communication attempts......but seriously I have have not made any capital letters unless you mean the qoute word , that was to highlight the word , its just one of my ways of changing things from the norm when I get bored with routine everyday itinery.
Mary and bamapitbullmom
if I offended you , I apologize and I did not mean it the way it sounded....... Bama, your recent quote: PAH LEEZE explain how my statements conceals the truth. And how is it that I am helping dogfighters? (Which, btw, is incredibly offensive to me considering my immense investment of my LIFE towards helping pit bulls.)
In answer to both questions, it shows denial of the fact that there are bait dogs and makes the dogfighters look innocent.... I really dont mean that you are both are helping them , your words make an impression of what it looks like and not that you really mean it...I apoligize again for my miscommunication......by the way I appreciate your efforts in rescuing pitbulls.
|
|