I am passing along some pretty bad news. That is that Sam McCree was convicted of possessing dogs with the intent that they be used for fighting. The jury in all its wisdom acquitted him of actual dogfighting. Why is this bad news (other than for Sam)? There was no case against him, and HE WASN'T GUILTY! I had flown up to testify for him, and his attorney decided not to use me as a witness, but I did spend time with him and tried to impart as much knowledge about Bulldogs as I could. The idea in not using me was that the other side knew I was to be a witness and they had used a lot of their resources in finding ways to cross examine me. The attorney thought they could avoid a lot of lengthy cross examination about aspects of the pit by not calling me. Besides, he felt Sam was so squeaky clean in this thing that I might taint the case. I understood his reasoning, and I agreed with him–especially because they had other good witnesses.

The fact was that I was surprised that they were pushing the case to trial. The only evidence was the dogs themselves (unscarred, mind you), a pair of unused breaking sticks, some dog magazines, and an old keep by Maurice Carver, obviously a collector's item. The reason Sam's place was searched was that his name was in the phone book of a man who was convicted of fighting dogs, albeit with a little more evidence.

I am simply amazed on all fronts. I know for a fact that Sam wasn't even rolling dogs. He was simply interested in breeding the old Steinberg line, in resurrecting it, so to speak. I am confounded that the judge didn't direct a verdict of not guilty, and I'm further surprised that he didn't set the verdict aside. Sentencing is in March. The dogs have already been destroyed. ("Humane" groups are quite good at that sort of thing!)

The only reason for sharing this with all of you is for you all to be especially careful. I'm not trying to ruin your day, but obviously it has become dangerous to even own these dogs. Thank goodness we are a persistent and tough lot.

Best regards, Dick Stratton

*******

To whom it may concern,

I was surfing the Internet and came across your site. I was looking for information/sources for a college research paper I am doing, were I am asking the question "Should the government ban the American Pit Bull Terrier?". As I read your site I became confused about it's nature. What exactly are some of these "supplies" you are talking about and why would you they help a person in court? Your site talks about going to court to prove "you have a valid reason for owning these objects and the dogs themselves". What is the valid reason for owning these dogs according to you? Do not get me wrong I love the breed, I have one of my own and have fostered many of them for rescue groups, I love the breed. And just to let you know animal rights groups are not after the dogs themselves but people who treat them bad. I work at a humane society and I love the breed (as do many of my coworkers) but I see what people have done to them and all anyone wants to do is prevent the suffering of these wonderful and loyal dogs. I know it does seem like the breed is being attacked, it is ignorant people, but all humane agencies are trying to do is prevent the suffering of animals. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Christine Thomas

A: Bill handed you off to me, Christine. First, let me suggest that it is probably going to be difficult for you to research this subject solely on the web. I would recommend two of my books: the World of the American Pit Bull Terrier and the Truth about the American Pit Bull Terrier. These are normally available in public libraries, and they will give you a pretty good background on the breed as well as the problems facing them. I hate to recommend my own writing, but I think those books are just the ticket for helping you to understand some of the things you are asking.

It may be true that humane groups only want what is good for the breed, but they have a bad record in that respect. They automatically kill dogs that they deem unadoptable. If they think that they have been used for fighting, they are automatically vicious in their eyes. Hence, they are dispatched. If they really knew what they were talking about, they would realize that some of those old pit dogs have the best dispositions with people. There has not been a single game-bred dog implicated in an attack on a person. All the dogs doing the attacking are what dog men call "curs," poorly bred dogs. And even these are quite limited in number. One of the problems here is selective reporting by the news media. No, it isn’t a conspiracy, but the news media tends to cater to the public by reporting the vivid and the salacious. (See Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 24, Number 2, for more detailed information in that regard.) Thus, over reporting of incidents and misreporting has created distortions in the public mentality.

As for legitimate reasons for keeping the dogs, isn’t this still a free country? Can’t someone who is interested in breeding the dogs keep them for that purpose? Humane "experts" testify that dogfighters have a characteristic way of keeping dogs. They have scarred dogs, breaking sticks, and they keep their dogs on chains. Well, I have long argued that even a person with one dog should have breaking sticks. This is a sign of being responsible. Nevertheless, a very fine fellow was convicted by a jury trial of keeping dogs with the intent that they be used in fighting. This was absolutely ludicrous. I guess the jury felt they had done the right thing because they acquitted him of dogfighting. But the only evidence was that he had a litter of pups, six grown dogs, and a pair of breaking sticks. Of course, the humane organization involved promptly put his dogs down!

Currently, in my area, we have a case going which is really a divorce case. Let me interject here that it is nearly impossible to keep Bulldogs without a few of them getting scarred up from accidental fights. But Terry Williams did. The animal control confiscated twenty unscarred dogs. Two of them are no longer unscarred, as the animal control had two accidental fights! Not having breaking sticks, I can only imagine, with a certain degree of horror, how they got the dogs apart.

As you may have ascertained by now, breaking sticks would be one of the items that we are concerned about, and yet, we all need them. As I said before, it is downright irresponsible not to have them! Also, a treadmill is a nice item to have if you are keeping several dogs, as it allows one to exercise the dogs, and Pit Bulldogs crave exercise. Other items that help exercise a dog would be things like a flirt pole and a spring pole, but these are viewed as dog training devices by your "experts."

I’ll take you at your word about the good intentions of many humane agency people and, most assuredly, the volunteers. But good intentions have not produced good results. I’m sure I’ve become somewhat jaded in my views, but it seems to me that arrogant and ignorant humane agencies have added to human suffering without doing much for animals.

Yours truly, Richard F. Stratton

Mr. Richard Stratton,

I just wanted to thank you for your response to my e-mail, not many web sites have responded. I also wanted to thank you for your research material recommendations. I know it will be a hard topic, but one I think will be a very good learning experience.

Thank you again, Christine Thomas

*******

I think you guys over there at pit bull reporters have a great magazine and equally as good site . I find your site to be very informative and entertaining as well. I am the owner of a 2 month old red nose pit named jungle and don't think I could have found a better pick without your help thanks guys!!! Hector (Florida)