I cannot tell you how sick and freaking tired I am of hearing ignorant people make ill-informed statements about pit bulls. The random rantings only increased with my pregnancy and then, the birth of my son. People who seem otherwise perfectly sane lose their marbles at the mere mention of Ayize living under the same roof with our (gasp!) pit bull. These same astonished people quickly betray their canine ignorance when they hardly bat an eye about my baby boy crawling around on the same floor as our Chihuahua, a far more dangerous prospect in the eyes of any canine expert worth their salt.
Sadly, the gist of the most frequent comments I am subjected to run along the lines of: “I just don’t know why anyone would own one of those dogs…owning pit bulls shouldn’t even be allowed.” I have heard this and countless unsolicited similar statements directed at me - usually in an accusatory or derogatory manner - while holding the leashes of one or more of my wonderful, rescued, handicapped pit bulls at work (a veterinary hospital); on the street out for a walk in my neighborhood; at schools when I’ve been doing dog demonstrations; at hospitals and nursing homes where my pit bull mix regularly worked as a licensed therapy dog; and at various dog beaches and pooch parks, including one where my gentle, deaf, brain-damaged pit bull was viciously attacked by a Border Collie and needed emergency surgery to repair a torn artery in her leg. That’s right, my pit bull was attacked. No - not the other way around!
I have kept my mouth shut for the most part, finding such uneducated idiocy irrational and inane, and feeling that the topic - namely, singling out this usually-wonderful breed - is too large and too emotional an issue to address in the short space of rebuttal time allowed under normal circumstances. But I’ve had enough! I’m going to put down on paper, for once and for all, why the whole idea of breed-banning is stupid, stupid, stupid. I hope by the end of this paper that if you were anti-pit bull before, you will at least consider some of what I’ve said here next time you see or meet one, and try to keep an open mind.
If you stop to think about it, it’s not that unusual that people hate pit bulls so much. The world loves a scapegoat and it loves to stereotype. Lethal combination. One of my happiest moments during the recent presidential campaign was when Sarah Palin compared hockey moms (and thereby, herself) to pit bulls. Her message in a nutshell: pit bulls, like me, are vicious attack dogs. Watch out! Being that the majority of her other statements proved factually incorrect, she probably inadvertently helped their image (“Charlie Gibson interviews Sarah Palin”).
Michael Vick is another celebrity who took one for the team, albeit unexpectedly. Among other atrocities, he participated in the cruel killing - by drowning, electrocution, hanging, and cement-slamming - of at least eight pit bulls who weren’t “tough enough”. But now, he's imprisoned, earning approximately 12 cents an hour, with a monthly income of around $12.89. Meanwhile, 90% of his “killer” pit bulls have been rescued and rehomed, and he has been forced to foot the bill at a cost of just under a million dollars (Dahlberg). The attention his superstar status brought to dog-fighting has ironically helped improve the image of pit bulls, but only the dogs themselves can truly take credit for the positive press. Leo, one of Vick’s rescued, rehabilitated pit bulls, is a wonderful example of what the breed is capable of when kindness replaces cruelty. A large tan and white male slated to be euthanized, he was saved instead, and now regularly saves others as he makes his rounds around town, inspiring teen probates and cancer patients on chemotherapy alike (“Beaten-down dog from Vick case has his day”). Thankfully for Leo, California struck down breed-specific bans as unconstitutional. Otherwise his story would have ended in obscurity instead, with his swift demise following a short life of great suffering.
Other celebrities have championed the breed in far more straightforward ways. What do Thomas Edison, Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller, Fred Astaire, Billie Holiday, Alicia Silverstone, Michael J. Fox, Usher, Ira Glass, Pink, Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel, Rachael Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jon Stewart and Brad Pitt (among many others) have in common? They have all been smart enough to see through the hype, and have adopted, owned and championed the breed (Fenstermacher 9-10; “Celebrities who own pit bulls”). In fact, it’s too bad we don’t put as much stock in Hollywood’s choice of dogs as we do in their fashion trends. If we did, perhaps the average Joe and Jane would think twice before supporting ridiculous legislature that blanket-targets breeds regardless of individual dogs’ behaviors.
On an autumn afternoon in 1987, a pair of boxers playing in Chicago’s Lincoln Park sent a nearby crowd into an hysterical frenzy when they were mistakenly identified as pit bulls (Bosc 12). This event and hundreds like it across the country marked the pit bull’s rapid ascendancy to a throne dominated by large, muscular breeds and most recently predecessed by Doberman Pinschers (Randolph 12/13). It is a pedestal created by the human mind in its never-ending dual-pronged quest for both the ultimate ego booster (the “my dog is bigger then yours” phenomenon) and a mass media-worthy figure of fear in one complete canine package.
A closer examination of the pit bull’s reign, however, discerns several important differences: no other breed before them has managed to remain the enemy of the people for such a length of time and, more importantly, no other breed has inspired legislation across the nation specifically banning their ownership. It’s true, to an extent, that breeds such as the Rottweiler are occasionally included within breed-specific legislative boundaries, but these breeds are almost never the focal target, and their inclusion is generally the exception, not the rule.
The idea behind these laws is noble: to protect communities, their citizens and the animals within them from violence committed by canine offenders. But breed-specific bans and legislation rarely affect any real change within communities plagued by dog incidences, for reasons that we shall explore momentarily. But first, a little history is in order.
The roots of the pit bull are ancient. Originally developed as a tenacious dog of war, these animals were expected to fight anything able that moved. From rat-killing contests to one-on-one matches against bears and bulls, the striking combination of courage, strength and exceptional loyalty found in early bulldog-type breeds (those most closely related to the modern day “pit bull”) was perversely exploited to its maximum limits (O’Neill 6-10). “There are many stories of these early bulldogs going back at the bull with broken legs, stomachs ripped open, and even one story about a breeder who cut the feet off his dog to show she was game enough to still bait [attempt to attack] the bull on her stumps” (Fenstermacher 6-7).
Within the last hundred years, the dogs’ background diverged even more broadly. In 1898, the United Kennel Club was formed for the express purpose of creating a dog registry for “American Pit Bull Terriers” to accommodate their sudden rise in popularity in cities along the eastern coast of the United States. Always traditional rivals, the American Kennel Club finally recognized the dogs in 1936 but refused to use any name-paying homage to the past pit fighting ancestry of the breed (Stahlkuppe 14). After much debate concerning a variety of possible nomenclatures, they settled on “American Staffordshire Terrier” (Pierce 6). Today, sixty years later, it is ironic that pit bulls can generally be found in horrid conditions, being fought for amusement and profit, while “Am Stafs”, derived from pit bulls and virtually the same breed with the same breed standard, are more likely to be found trotting through a ring at the Westminster Dog Show.
Despite the odds against them, a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and the same holds true for the majority of pit bulls. The qualities that make them a popular choice among dogfighters: reliability, loyalty, and all-around companionship, prove stellar in their unexploited form. Their presence, therefore, has been by turns welcomed and protested by the American people, wholly dependent on the whims of popular culture.
The turn of the previous century heralded a heyday for pit bulls: Pete the Pup of the old Our Gang series was a pit, and so was Buster Brown’s famous dog Tighe. A pit bull lived in the White House as hunting companion and pet to Teddy Roosevelt during his presidency (Randolph 12/13). It comes as a surprise to the average American to learn that our nation was represented by a pit bull in a famous World War I poster. It depicted head portraitures of four international breeds -- a Russian borzoi, a French bulldog, a German dachshund, and an English mastiff, two on each side of the largest depiction, that of a pit bull gazing straight ahead with a caption that reads “I’m Neutral -- But Not Afraid of Any of Them” (Fenstermacher 10).
Let us examine the premise of an existence devoid of pit bulls. Where would the world be without them? For starters, it would be less 73 lives, 30 of them human, in a small town in California which was surprised early one morning six years ago by some of the worst flooding ever seen in that part of the country. In 1993, a dog named Weela was awarded the Ken-L Ration Dog Hero of the Year Award for courageous acts ranging from preventing a boatful of people from drowning to locating and alerting her owner to a cat who had been perched atop an island of debris surrounded by dangerous, swirling waters (Siegel 66). Weela was just your average pit bull off the street, originally discovered dumped in an alley to die with her nine littermates, who performed amazing feats time and time again without a shred of formal rescue training (O’Neill viii; Gordon).
The world would also be the worse without Champion Bandog Dread, a classic representative of canine versatility. His owner, herself an animal control officer, questions, “What if Dread had been born in a city with breed-specific laws which required his death at the hands of animal control” (Jessup 18)? You may recognize him from his various acting roles in such movies as “Getting Even With Dad” and “The Good Son” (Jessup 19). This classy canine also has the distinction of holding more titles in more areas (ranging from obedience to scenting and tracking to weight-pulling to agility to herding) than any other dog of any other breed (Jessup 7).
And then there was Stubby. From his inauspicious beginnings as a homeless black and white pit bull wandering the streets of Hartford, Connecticut, “Stubby” went on to become the first dog ever to earn the rank of sargeant (Lemish 25) and remains history's most decorated WWI canine combatant (Stahlkuppe 28). “Three presidents -- Wilson, Harding and Coolidge -- invited him to the White House, and he was decorated by General [John Joseph] Pershing. Stubby was awarded life-memberships in the Red Cross, YMCA, and American Legion” (O’Neill 19).
But looming on the bright horizon of these and other pit bull triumphs lurk a few dark legislative clouds. Increasingly, many areas in the United States are choosing the ill-advised path of adopting breed-specific legislation. This legislation can flatly refuse to allow pet ownership of specific breeds to any citizen within a specified area. Cities across the nation such as Denver, Colorado and Miami, Florida already prohibit pit bulls altogether and states such as Washington and Ohio are currently considering passing breed-specific legislation which will entail blanket euthanasia for all current pit bull residents of both states. “A pit bull or a dog which an animal control officer suspects to be at least fifty percent pit bull can be taken from its owner on sight. This means that the dog can be retrieved from a backyard or from the inside of a home” (Cawley 215-6).
Alternatively, many cities do not prohibit ownership outright but owners of certain breeds of dogs (and their mixes) may be constrained by law to take various precautions with their dog based solely on the animal's breed, irrespective of the individual dog's temperament and behavior. A typical ordinance, such as one proposed in Buffalo Grove, Illinois a few years ago, calls for all “pit bull-type dogs to be restricted to a four-foot leash and muzzled whenever walking in public” (Dale 230).
There are quite a few reasons why the pursuit of either type of legislation is illogical and unwarranted. First, pit bulls are held responsible for far more canine crimes than actually committed. Second, these laws have no affect on clandestine players of the dog fighting world who keep their charges hidden from the general public, while they punish responsible pit bull owners with openly-declared and licensed pets. Third, these bans prohibit an arbitrary breed of dog, one which can only be vaguely defined at that.
Banning a breed that is not responsible for the majority of dog bite-related problems will do nothing to prevent further canine violence and in fact may cause more problems down the road if citizens are then lulled into a false sense of security by the notion that a pit bull-free community is a safe haven. The character of the pit bull today is a caricature drawn by the media: a mythical dog, a bloodthirsty monster who roams the street ready to maim, gouge, and kill whatever and whomever it crosses paths with. The popular representation of the breed as a baby killer is in sharp contrast to the general public’s first-hand experience, a fact that is finally getting some recognition, as this Chicago Tribune article demonstrated: “Noticeably absent from the 'not good' [with kids] list...are breeds such as the Doberman Pinscher and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, commonly known as the pit bull. These were rated 'good' with children” (Warren 14).
This is not to say that dangerous dogs do not exist or that our urban streets are not overrun by them - on the contrary, dog attacks proliferate, particularly in the inner-city areas of every major city in this nation. Pit bulls appear responsible for an inordinate number of these attacks by almost any popular account. But a closer look generally reveals the dogs as victims of hysteria-induced finger-pointing and blaming.
In a study conducted by members of the Journal of the American Medical Association researching dog-bite related fatalities, particularly those concerning pit bulls, it was found that “the term pit bull has been used to describe a variety of pit bull terrier and bull terrier breeds. It has also been suggested that any short-haired, stocky dog is likely to be called a pit bull” (Sacks et al. 1492). Further evidence of this displacement of blame is attested to in the following account:
Confusion occurs when attempts are made to label true mixed-breed dogs as 'Pit Bulls', a very common occurrence on bite statistics, police reports, hospital reports, and in newspaper accounts of dog bites. One large paper even misidentified a purebred Akita which had severely mauled a five-year-old as a 'Japanese Pit Bull.' The Akita is a giant spitz (husky) type dog and in no way resembles or is related to the Bulldog family.
In one West Coast city, a police officer was bitten while standing in the street...the dog, described by witnesses as a 'large, white, shaggy dog,' was in fact a female Labrador cross...the police officer...turned in a bite report stating he had been attacked by a 'Pit Bull.' The dog was thereafter described as a 'Pit Bull' by the media.
In another incident a police officer shot and killed his own police K-9 in a panic reaction to a fight between his dog and a purebred male Golden Retriever. The Golden Retriever was reported in the local papers to have been a 'Pit Bull' or 'Pit Bull-Collie cross.' (Jessup 133)
J. D. Pierce put it most succinctly in his discussion of the topic when he said, “the breed that consistently ranks number one among breeds reported to have been involved in bite incidents, namely the cocker spaniel, has not received a fraction of the notoriety” (7).
Breed-specific bans are meant to be aimed at dog fighting communities in the belief that legislation will force fighters “out of business”. However, people who indulge in these violent orgies have conducted their business underground for the last century and have already perfected the art of hiding within their own subculture. The dog fighting community remains almost completely unfazed by breed-specific legislation. “Even though pit fights still take place, the average person would have great difficulty in finding one. State and federal laws in the United States have forced whatever dog fighting remains to be a secret, clandestine activity” (Stahlkuppe 13). Therefore, breed-specific bans punish responsible pet owners while, if not rewarding, then certainly ignoring, the dangerous fringe culture of the population it is supposed to be affecting.
Breed-specific legislation, specifically those laws banning pit bulla, can generally be legally attacked on two fronts. First, they are considered unconstitutionally vague and do not properly specify precisely which dogs are illegal. The majority of breed-specific bans refer to something called a “pit bull”, the definition of which is not very precise. There is no such breed as a “pit bull” although the slang phrase is loosely used to refer to anything from the United Kingdom-recognized American Pit Bull Terriers to the American Kennel Club’s American Staffordshire Terriers, English Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, large Boston Terriers, large French Bulldogs, and pretty much any other breed bearing even a marginally-similar appearance to the American Pit Bull Terrier (Randolph 12/11). Second, the bans are in violation of so-called “pit bull” owners' constitutional due process rights, since it is arbitrary to ban only one breed of dog which has the potential to bite or otherwise endanger a human. All breeds of dogs are potential biters, the argument goes, so either all dogs must be banned or none (Randolph 12/12-13).
Hence, a viable alternative to breed-specific bans are dangerous dog laws. This type of legislation does have its drawbacks, the main one being vast differences from locality to locality inviting arbitrary enforcement (Randolph 12/2). The gist of the general law, however, has much to commend it. Rather than attempting to do away with one or two breeds entirely, dangerous dog laws are set in motion by a complaint about a specific dog, regardless of breed. Each complaint that pans out entitles the owner to a penalty, usually a combination of a fine and other restrictions on the dog, such as a minimum fence-height requirement. The penalties get progressively stiffer if complaints stack up, which encourages compliance at lower levels of enforcement (Randolph 12/7). Another aspect of dangerous dog laws that improve chances of success is the firmness with which the letter of the law is generally carried out: “Once a dog has been declared legally vicious but allowed to live, it’s unlikely to get a second chance if its owner doesn’t follow the judge’s restrictions scrupulously. The owner of a vicious dog who doesn’t comply with the law’s conditions on keeping the dog securely confined and away from people may be guilty of a crime” (Randolph 12/8). Essentially this type of legislation allows responsible dog ownership of any breed while concurrently prohibiting irresponsible ownership of any breed. Although dangerous dog laws in some areas are simply a substitute for breed-specific bans, hiking up insurance rates and requiring added liability for owners of specific breeds (Gardner 58), the majority of dangerous dog legislation has its sights set on punishing only demonstrated irresponsible dog ownership (Cawley 218).
A vicious cycle exists, and turns something like this: a human is attacked by a dog, and the dog responsible, so he says, is perhaps a 'pit bull mix'. The media covers the story and newspapers trumpet tales of another “pit bull attack”, raising sales and attracting more readership. The public view, particularly among crime-ridden inner-city populations seeking property protection, translates into a yearning for the ‘baddest dog on the block'. A “pit bull” is acquired (usually a terrier- or mastiff-type mix of questionable heritage) and improperly (if at all) socialized with different types of people, animals, or experiences. In some cases, the animals are even encouraged to informally spar on the street with other dogs. The generally-intact animal is probably bred indiscriminately or accidentally at least once in its lifetime if not more, thereby increasing the number of so-called “pit bulls” in an already saturated area. Finally as a result of these combined pet-ownership shortcomings, this questionable mixed breed, or perhaps one of its offspring, attacks a human. The media catches wind of another “pit bull” attack and fans the flames of fear. And so the cycle turns.
The sad and generally unseen side result of this bitter cycle is the dogs who pay the price of human carelessness. Sadly, the best fate most of them meet with is banishment from a jurisdiction and humane euthanasia at an animal control facility. Many pit bulls die much more inhumanely, at the hands of fanatics who buy into media reports without bothering to research the breed:
Are Americans turning the pit bull into a scapegoat? In Kansas City, an apparently gentle terrier had to be destroyed after vandals set its doghouse afire, severely burning the animal. In San Antonio, a disc jockey suggested feeding pit bulls poisoned meat. In Greensboro, two pit bulls were clubbed to death and a third poisoned while chained in a back yard. (Bosc 12)
What is amazing is that the character of this breed is strong enough to withstand these insults and remains at base the same steadfast, loyal, loving breed. Few breeds could withstand such ceaseless punishment.
There is hope for the future. Breed specific bans are slowly losing popularity as the 'pit bull hysteria' dies down incrementally. Concurrently, humane legislative groups are beginning to accept and declare support for dangerous dog legislation, recognizing their worth as a measure against breed-specific banning, particularly in light of recent improvements to these laws (Weisberg 28).
Current trends are beginning to reflect favorably again on the pit bull and public opinion has been improving slightly over the last few years. Popular culture that once brandished the slogan 'pit bull’ as a metaphor for all things evil have begun to reflect a recent counter-current against the deluge of bad publicity that haunted pit bulls for years.
A People magazine article titled Kool K-9 recounts the tale of a “drug-sniffing superdog”. The article concerns a pit bull named Popsicle who was found as an abandoned puppy in a garbage bag in a freezer. He had been dumped there to die after already suffering shocking abuse at the hands of his owner. Ironically the article was from a magazine that printed a multitude of anti-pit bull articles over the last decade. At the end of Popsicle’s story, the magazine reports that, “people who visited the SPCA shelter looking to adopt a puppy were put off by his breed’s reputation” (People 117). Is it any surprise? And yet – the fact that such a magazine is finally reporting the bright side of the breed fills me with new hope for the future.
Let’s face facts; laws banning an arbitrary breed are ridiculous, and even more so when responsible pet-owning citizens suffer. We need to educate ourselves. Gone should be the days of ignorant legislation based on what amounts to canine racism. Americans need to move beyond the pointing-fingers-and-punishing stage against these animals who have already endured so much abuse at our hands. Reprimanding individual offenders also recognizes that within the human-animal bond, the actions of dogs are not simply the actions of wild animals but that there is a human motive behind them. As one well-worded bumper sticker reads, “Punish the deed, not the breed.”
Hopefully, future generations will have the compassion and ability to look beyond labels, generalizations, and bad press to find the truth waiting in the wings. It is my sincerest wish that the pit bull will regain its once-beloved following of the past, and this lame legacy of breed-specific laws will be remembered as an unconstitutional, undemocratic footnote in the pages of our legislation.
Sarah Palin and her lipsticked pit bulls and stereotyping scare tactics lost the election. Michael Vick’s surviving dogs are having the last laugh as they recoup their lives just as his is effectively ending. It seems like change is a-comin’ and I, for one, can barely wait. I pray the current events aid in the enlightenment of the general public on ALL matters, pit bulls included.
Do your part.
Think long and hard next time you’re asked to vote on dog laws in your area. Take another look at the next pit bull you meet and ask yourself what you really see: demon…or dog? Popsicle and Weela, Stubby and Leo, may be incapable of the spoken word, but their shining eyes and slow, low-wagging tails will speak more deeply of their gratitude than any mere human word could convey.
* * * * *
WORKS CITED:
Bosc, Michael. “Life is the Pits for Pit Bulls.” US News and World Report 17 Aug. 1987: 12.
Cawley, Linda A. “Arrest That Dog on Sight.” Legal Beagle: Diary of a Canine Counselor. New Jersey: New Horizon Press, 1996.
Colby, Louis B. Colby’s Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier. New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications, 1997.
Dale, Steve. Doggone Chicago. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2001.
Fenstermacher, Todd. A New Owner’s Guide to American Pit Bull Terriers. New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications, 1996.
Gardner, Janice. “The Canine Legislative Beat.” DOG World Apr. 1997: 58.
Jessup, Diane. The Working Pit Bull. New Jersey: TFH Publications, 1995.
”Kool K-9.” People 26 Apr. 1999: 117.
Lemish, Michael G. War Dogs: A History of Loyalty and Heroism. United States of America: Brassey’s, 1999.
O’Neill, Jacqueline. The Ultimate American Pit Bull Terrier. New York: Howell Book House, 1995.
Pierce, J.D. Guide to Owning an American Pit Bull Terrier. New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications, 2000.
Randolph, Mary. Dog Law. United States of America: Nolo Press, 2001.
Sacks, Jeffrey J. and Richard W. Sattin. “Dog Bite-Related Fatalities From 1979 Through 1988.” JAMA 15 Sept. 1989: 1489-92.
Siegel, Micki. “Super Dog.” Good Housekeeping Oct. 1994: 66.
Stahlkuppe, Joseph. American Pit Bull & Staffordshire Terriers. New York: Barron’s, 1985.
Warren, Ellen. “Kennel Club in Doghouse Over Kid-Friendly Listings.” Chicago Tribune 8 Apr. 1998: 1, 14.
Weisberg, Lisa. “Animals & the Law: Dangerous Dogs.” Animal Watch Winter 1998: 28.
WORKS CONSULTED:
“Battling Over Pit Bulls.” Time 11 Aug. 1986: 17.
Clifford, Donald H., Kay Ann Green, and Ronald M. Watterson. The Pit Bull Dilemma. Philadelphia: The Charles Press, 1990.
Fogelson, Gail. “Aggressive Behavior in Pit Bulls: Learned or Inborn?” Animal’s Agenda Jan. 1989: 52.
“Rotts Get Reprieve.” Dog Fancy Jan. 1998: 12.
Satchell, Michael, and Tracy Shryer. “The Most Dangerous Dog in America.” US News and World Report 20 April, 1987: 24.
INTERNET ARTICLES CITED/CONSULTED:
Author unknown. “Beaten-down dog from Vick case has his day.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25214356/
Author unknown. “Celebrities who own pit bulls.”
http://greylinepitbulls.kinnemankennels.com/2007/07/celebrities-who-own-pit-bulls.html
Author unknown. “Charlie Gibson interviews Sarah Palin.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2
Author unknown. “Kool K-9 Popsicle retires.”
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml
Author unknown. “Sarah Palin: Pitbull With Lipstick!”
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/09/65095/index.html
Dahlberg, Tim. “Vick wants to play, but what team would risk it?”
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-timdahlberg-111508&prov=ap&type=lgns
Gordon, Ruth. “Weela: A Community Hero.”
http://www.ultimutt.com/weela.asp
Haynes, Brad. “Pit-bull owner cited twice before, could face felony charges.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003849268_pitbull23m.html
Lapasan, Barangay. “Pit bull saves 2 women from deadly cobra, dies wagging his tail.”
http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070301a.php
Pulkkinen, Levi. “Pit bulls injure woman, attack officers.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328568_pitbulls22.html
Schulte, Brigid. “Michael Vick’s pit bulls get a second chance.”
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/pets/stories/2008/07/07/Vick_pit_update.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment