Stephen and Rusty,

I was just made aware of the tragic incident that happened to yourselves and your dog Vargas. First off, thats
horrific and I genuinely apologize for your loss. No one wants to lose a pet, and especially in a fashion such as
that. Further, hearing the details of Stephens amputated fingertip is equally as sad, and would obviously create
a whole new set of difficulties for him. These are all failures on the part of someone and the trademark of a
reckless circumstance playing out. You obviously did nothing wrong and were trying to act in the moment to
save your dogs life.
With that being said, why has your focus now turned towards all Pit Bulls? The dog that attacked your Vargas
was an individual dog, not a reflection of the millions and millions of these types of dogs that exist. You detail
that the dog was allegedly wearing a muzzle and then that muzzle was somehow removed. It then gets lose and
is able to attack your dog. This is recklessness on behalf of whoever owns that specific dog, especially if it had
high animal aggression. This is not a reflection of all dogs from a certain class or type, nor their owners.
Ive also read about your attempts to secure an Animal Control report, a hearing date, and any kind of response
from the owner of the dog in regards to any form of reimbursement. Clearly a leash law was broken and a
failure to cite is wrong. Clearly the owner not being cited for this incident, at whatever legal level, is also
wrong. But these are failures of the dog owner, and the departments which handle the report, the hearing, and
the citations. This is not the fault of all Pit Bulls, nor is it the fault of all Pit Bull owners.
Your sweeping response to this incident, and desire to now define all Pit Bulls (dogs that cant even be properly
identified by animal professionals) as being potentially dangerous or dangerous, is usurping actual law.
You are basically scapegoating millions of individuals, both dogs and persons, for the actions of 1 dog and the
inaction of 1 person. That is not right, nor is it fair. Id urge you to reconsider.
Are you truly okay with banning a massive group of dogs by breed or type, and simply by the way that they
look? Does the thought of unjustly labeling them automatically, in a rollout of precrime, make you feel better
about what happened? Would creating any law meant to vilify a certain portion of the dog population, and by
extension their owners, bring back your dog? And have you given any thought to how many millions of
innocent dogs could be affected by such a philosophy? How many peoples families could be affected, or their
housing? And all because of 1 incident and the lack of concern shown by 1 Pit Bull owner?
We all want safe communities. We all want leash laws enforced. We all want owners of any breed or type of
dog to act in responsible ways. We all want due process to play out appropriately, and want the affected people
to be notified so that they can give their input. Youve been wronged many times over in this circumstance.
Dont take it out on innocent people and innocent dogs. Please.
Thank you for your time.
Josh Liddy

Dear Josh,
Thank you for writing us; we greatly appreciate your sympathy and kind words about our loss and what we
have experienced.
I know that this is a very hot topic and there are opposing points of view about pit bulls, but Id like to explain
our position.
Pit Bull is frequently defined as: any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier,
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above
breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards
established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds.
Pit Bulls developed as the result of selective breeding; these dogs were bred for the purpose of dog fighting. To
be more specific they were developed to participate in the blood sport of bull baiting.
Bull baiting was banned in England in 1835. Bulldog breeders/owners moved to the sport of ratting. To
increase agility, quickness and prey-drive in the bulldog, ratters crossed the breed with terriers, resulting in the
modern day pit bull terrier. On the heels of ratting, dogfighting developed.
As a result of this selective breeding, the bulldog developed into a compact muscular dog characterized by
tremendous jaw strength.
Evidence of genetics is seen in the fact that due to selective breeding, Pit Bulls have developed IDENTIFIABLE
TRAITS: they have robust jaw strength; a deadly hold and shake bite style designed to inflict the maximum
damage possible on their victims (this bite trait developed winning results in the fighting pit and while a pit
bulls jaw may not physically lock, it does have a specific bite style designed to shake indefinitely; tenacity or
gameness as evidenced by their ability to finish the fight no matter what (often reported as the dog
wouldnt let go: Dogmen consider pit bull terriers, who they commonly call 100% bulldogs to be the
ultimate canine gladiator, as pit bulls were selectively bred for their gameness, their ability to finish a fight);
and a high tolerance to pain (I beat the attacking pit bull with a sidewalk caf chair with no results; Rusty
poked attacking dog in the eye with his caneno effect).
Here is a list of traits that are genetic:
1. A strong fighting instinct, together with a low level of fighting inhibitions;
2. A strong chase instinct;
3. A tendency to attack those who exhibit no provocative behavior;
4. A diminished tendency to bark, growl, or otherwise warn their prey of an intent to attack;
5. A tendency to fight to the death and never quit and fight once engaged (which results in more severe
injuries than those inflicted by other breeds;
6. The ability to withstand great pain, which makes it difficult for a person or animal to fight off a pit bull
attack;
7. Powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging on to victims even while the Pit Bull withstands
infliction of defensive injury or pain;
8. A tendency to tear flesh, which results in grotesque injuries to human victims; and
9. A combination of agility, stamina, and strength, together with a genetic predisposition to aggressiveness
that makes pit bull uniquely dangerous, even to their owners, among all breeds of dogs, especially
where improperly raised or trained.
There are simply too many documented cases of pit bulls that have been raised from birth in good homes where
the pit bull has all of a sudden attacked and maimed or killed someone to simply blame the owner. (Often it is
the owner or a family member that is injured or killed.)
Granted, the owner may play a part in what happenshad the woman who owned the dog that attacked us been
in control of her dog and not let go of the leash, then Vargas would be alive and I would have all of my fingers.
But sadly very few owners are responsible. Sometimes we have to punish society at large because of the actions
of a few. Gun control laws are a good example of this. It may be sad and unfair in one sense, but the greater
good and public safety have to be given priority.
While I disagree with you, I respect your opinions; I hope you will do the same. Thank you for writing.
Stephen

Dear Josh,
I appreciate your thoughts and sentiments that you wrote to my partner Stephen. That said I just wish to answer
you quickly. Having now done extensive reading and listening to the history and biological make up of these
animals, mixed with the observations of how most people let them run off leash and have no idea how this
gentle animal may suddenly murder for no reason AND hearing the screams of our beautiful little puppy as this
breed slaughtered him play night after night in my sleep, I can honestly say kill every one of them. His life
should not be given in vain.
Rusty Fox

Hi Rusty,
Im taken aback by your response here but will just copy and paste my response to Stephen since both of you
emailed me separately... It applies all the same. Id just note that Vargas life is not given in vain, and it
certainly doesnt make things better by ending millions more lives in response to a senseless tragedy. Thanks
for your time.
Stephen,
I respect your opinions as well. I respect everyones point of view, which is why I reached out to you in the first
place. But based on much of what you wrote in response, Id suggest not taking your talking points from
DogsBite.org, which is pretty universally recognized as a Pit Bull hate group with the sole intention of banning
Pit Bulls and supporting any other action that would lead to that end. That organization is run by a woman who
was bit by 1 dog and shes made it her lifes work to drive Pit Bulls into extinction. Pretty nice and
fundamentally bias.
Every professional and relevant to the topic organization, from the American Bar Association, to the ASPCA,
HSUS, CDC, AKC and UKC, to the American Humane Association and the American Veterinary Medical
Association (and tons more), oppose breed-specific legislation (i.e. bans on breeds or types of dog, or legislation
meant to single out breeds or types of dog).
So with all due respect, and I mean this in a genuine way and not in a snarky way, are you a geneticist or an
animal behaviorist? Because you are speaking on topics which would imply that you are both. I know that you
are neither so to speak so confidently on things that you know little to nothing about is pretty damaging to us
all. Neither is the woman that runs DogsBite.org, yet she does it all the time. Geneticists, on the other hand,
have refuted these sensationalistic claims that many dog-banners rush to attribute to any dog that they deem to
be a Pit Bull.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Irizarry%20viewpoint.pdf
On the other hand, I speak about the reality of dogs and their deference to people, because nature and evidence
exists that proves daily that 99.999999% of these dogs, of any breed, have not done anything to anyone. No one
can refute this. Please try. Today will prove you wrong, as will tomorrow, as will the next day.
I also own 3 dogs that, at some level, are likely mixed with a breed thats lumped into the all-encompassing
media term of Pit Bull. With that, I highly resent your desired response. For you to say that very few owners
are responsible, wow, thats quite a ridiculous statement, considering sheer existence again proves you wrong.
Regarding documented cases, you realize that these documented cases are going off of media reports and
nothing else, right? Thats not scientific documentation, at any level. Theres quite literally no organization that
tracks dog bites by breed. It doesnt exist. A media outlet calling a dog a Pit Bull doesnt equate to it being one.
Also, noting gun laws to prove your point actually does the opposite, and thats simply shown by murder-rates
being highest country-wide in areas where guns have been highly regulated or banned. Thats because criminals
dont follow laws regardless, so no matter how draconian the law is, only innocent people are affected by them.
In closing, I know that this email is text, so tone is not evident, but please know that Im not a nasty person or
someone that has no regard for what youve been through. Im a good guy, and Im sure you both are good
people as well. But with that, I will fight your attempts to vilify these dogs. What you are doing is wrong. If you
dont see it now then hopefully you will at some point. When you speak about groups with a broad brush you
are negatively stereotyping to the full extent. We both know that that is wrong. You wouldnt want it done to
you. You should be consistently applying the same logic in life, not selectively applying it. It doesnt matter if a
dog is not a person. The philosophy and principle is still the same.

Josh

Josh,
So, all rapists arent bad? All serial killers arent bad? All animal abusers arent bad? Broad strokes?
Rusty Fox

Rusty,
Rapists, serial killers and animal abusers have committed crimes. If individuals are proven to be those things,
with actual evidence, then of course they are extremely bad. No qualms by me. But how is that example
relevant or comparable to dogs who have done nothing? Its not, at all. Grouping people together based on how
they look and grouping people together based on proven illegal and abhorrent actions that theyve committed
are 2 totally different premises. The same philosophy applies to dogs. What you are doing is the equivalent of
typecasting an entire race of people (because this example is a visual grouping) based on the criminal actions of
a few, and then using claims of incidents to imply that they are all (from the visual grouping) going to commit
those same things. Its an ideology of guilty until proven innocent. Its backwards. Its wrong.
Josh