Waterloo, Iowa is certainly not the first city we’ve seen targeted for breed-specific legislation (BSL) for “pit bulls.”   It is, however, one of the most severely targeted we’ve seen.   And, since the dog lobby has seen this modus operandi before, we’re quite certain that when Waterloo ceases to be a BSL target city, the so-called “pit bull” attacks will cease as well, whether BSL is passed or not.

Even Waterloo would probably have to admit that the sheer number and severity of these so-called “pit bull” attacks seem quite implausible.   For instance, last week I wrote this post on Waterloo’s third, or was it supposed to be the fourth, so-called “pit bull” attack in as many weeks, wherein the stray “pit bull” in question supposedly followed his attack victim home and even beat her and her dog to the woman’s house though the woman was in a truck!   How did the dog know where she lived?   Did he have a GPS?   I mean, it’s kind of funny when you look at what you’re expected to believe, but it’s kind of not funny when you look at what you’re expected to believe in light of the extreme legislation being pushed in Waterloo as a result.

Like in Denver, someone in Waterloo wants a “pit bull” ban badly, and also like in Denver, it looks like the powers-that-be who want BSL, or some kind of attending legislation, will stop at nothing to get it, no matter how absurd the story is or how ridiculous it makes the town look.   And absurd and ridiculous are words I would use to describe Waterloo’s fifth so-called “pit bull” attack.   This time you’re expected to believe that a “pit bull” can kick down an intended victim’s door.   No really, look at how the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, the media outlet that’s been pushing BSL hard in Waterloo, describes the incident:

Beth Rosenberg was letting her dogs out at about 11 a.m. Friday [September 13, 2013] when a pit bull pushed its way through the front door of her Chestnut Street home and lunged at her.   “He went straight for my neck. He just missed my jugular by a few inches,” said Rosenberg, who received scrapes to her jaw line and leg.

 Rosenberg’s dachshund, “Toki,” came to her aid, and the attacker turned its attention to the smaller dog, biting down on its head.

 That’s when “Wolf,” her 5-month-old rottweiler, joined in to help the dachshund.   Rosenberg’s boyfriend, Iverson Holmes, heard the commotion while he was sitting on the living room couch and grabbed a rattan table.

So we’re to believe that a crazed so-called “pit bull” busted down someone’s door and went on a rampage?  

According to KCRG, another media outlet reporting on the aftermath of these so-called “pit bull” attacks, yes, that’s what we’re to believe:

Iverson Holmes, 62, watched a pit bull run into his house on Chestnut Street and attack his two smaller dogs.   “He ran all around the house, breaking stuff,” said Holmes. “He was about three years old, a heavy dog, about 90 pounds.”

Since when is a “pit bull” — a term which, when defined in breed-specific legislation, usually means American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers — 90 pounds, even if it’s “heavy”?   The breeds I just listed do not exceed 65 pounds.   Could it be that once again someone in Waterloo has confused a mastiff with the three breeds I just listed which are commonly and erroneously called “pit bulls”?   Still, the breeds I listed will almost certainly be named when a breed-specific ordinance is proposed, and yet clearly they are not the breeds responsible for these attacks.

Regardless, the only way the rampaging “pit bull” scenario would make any sort of sense is if the dog was on PCP or some other drug, or if he was acting under orders like some kind of Manchurian Candidate.   And while I wouldn’t put it past those trying to push BSL to use a dog as a Manchurian Candidate, I don’t think the technology exists to control a dog by remote control.   Does it?   I do, however, believe that it is possible to dose a dog with some kind of drug to make the dog go crazy. (And yes, I’ve heard rumors that those who stage these “pit bull” attacks use epinephrine, i.e. adrenaline, and maybe some other drugs, to make dogs go on crazy rampages, so it’s not entirely unheard of.)

Now let’s see if we can figure out what’s going on with Waterloo’s sixth, yes sixth, so-called “pit bull” attack since Waterloo became a BSL target city several weeks ago.   Wednesday’s attack on another senior citizen was covered by, who else, the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier:

 A 79-year-old man and his dog needed medical attention after being attacked Wednesday [September 18,   2013] by three pit bulls in George Wyth State Park

Bill Winder, of Waterloo, and Snickers, his soft-coated Wheaton terrier, were the latest victims in a rash of dog attacks prompting city leaders to take stock of their animal control laws.

“The dog and I go out to George Wyth about every day and walk,” Winder said. “We were on a trail going south by the sanctuary and these three pit bulls come charging up to where we’re at and proceed to work my dog over.

“They had no collars, no tags and no leash,” he said. “It’s one thing to go someplace and let your dog run loose, but you’ve got to be able to control the things.”

. . . Winder received 14 puncture wounds to his arms as he attempted to get the pit bulls off his 50 lb. dog. Two women, who apparently owned the pit bulls, also pulled the dogs off and got them into a nearby vehicle.

“I told them I needed their name and number, but they bailed,” he said.

 The 6th Waterloo “attack” reminds me of a similar attack in West Peoria, Illinois a few years ago when Illinois, like Waterloo, was a BSL target:

Two loose pit bulls attacked a Yorkshire Terrier in its backyard Tuesday afternoon, according to a report by the Peoria County Sheriff’s Department. The dog died from bite wounds later in the day at a veterinary clinic . . .

The report said a man in his 40s, driving a maroon GMC sport utility vehicle, drove in the area looking for the pit bulls. The dogs came when he called them and got in his vehicle. The witness was unable to get the license plate number of the vehicle.

So do you get what happened there?   Those dogs had a handler.   When the dogs were done attacking, the handler picked them up and was never seen or heard from again, and the victim most likely could not get a license plate number because there wasn’t one.   And yes, I’m saying just exactly what you think I’m saying.   In Illinois, at least, those types of so-called “pit bull” attacks one after another, stopped when the BSL proposal went away.   Curious, isn’t it?

And like the Illinois incident, the 6th Waterloo incident had  people who come running over to collect the dogs when they’ve done attacking the intended target, and then they’re gone never to be seen again.   And also like the Illinois incident, Winder was unable to get the license plate number of the two women whose “pit bulls” supposedly mauled him.  

Certainly you can say these people who run away after these attacks are “pit bull” owners who are simply trying to escape culpability for what their dogs have done, but then why can’t authorities ever seem to find them?   In a town of approximately 68,000 people (meaning not a city with millions and millions of inhabitants), these suspects shouldn’t be that hard to find, especially if the media is advertising what they look like and other pertinent information like what kind of car the suspects were driving.   But, to my knowledge, the media has not done so.  

The behavior of the dogs, the people, the authorities, and the media during and after these incidents just doesn’t make sense.   Regardless, I’ll finish this post by saying what I started this post by saying: When Waterloo ceases to be a BSL target city, the so-called “pit bull” attacks will cease, whether BSL is passed or not.