My husband and I recently spent a fun weekend adoption hoping.  We are not looking to add another addition to the family.  We simply enjoy looking at all of the beautiful animals and donating where we can.

Stray Rescue St. Louis was hosting their annual "The One" event.  All pet adoptions were just $14!  And they do not let people traipse in and out of the areas where the dogs are kept.  Instead, they have a large binder that contains photos and biographies of all of their adoptable dogs.  We were very impressed.  The binder was even organized in alphabetical order by the dogs' first name!

One thing that we did notice was that they seem to specialize in rescuing Pit-bulls.  I am not a breedist by any stretch of the imagination.  I think that it is wonderful that so many Pit-bulls were saved from being euthanized.

However, upon looking at their website, I noticed that it mentioned to check for Missouri's BSLs before adopting.  What the heck is a BSL?  Thankfully, they provided a link to dogsbite.org.  BSL stands for Breed Specific Laws.  Some cities in some states have BSLs in which they tell people which breed of dog (s) they are and are not allowed to have.

I am outraged!  How can someone tell you what breed of dog you are allowed to have?  That is almost as ridiculous as saying that you are only allowed to have a certain type of human.  "Sorry, you can only have boys if you live in Fenton, MO."  Seriously?

But what I find even more appalling are the cities reasons for not allowing Pit-bulls.  Bonne Terre, MO states that "Pit bulls are declared "vicious"".  Hazelwood, MO claims that Pit-bulls are"dangerous".  As for the other cities?  They have simply banned Pit-bulls altogether.

What is even more heartbreaking is the tag line on the top of the dogsbite.org website: "Some dogs don't let go."  Really?  Why are they placing the blame on Pit-bulls and Rottweilers?  These are not the only types of dogs that bite.

In fact, all dogs have the capability of biting.  But, what these "law makers" are failing to look at is why the dogs are biting in the first place.  Was someone on the dog's property that should not have been?  If so, the dog was merely protecting his/her territory and owner.

Was a child involved in a biting incident?  If so, where were the parents?  Why were they not watching the child to make sure that the dog did not become provoked?  Did the child poke and prod and pull on the dog's eyes, ears, nose and tail? For some reason, many parents teach their children that all dogs are friendly and that all dogs love children.  And the worst "lesson" they can teach?  All dogs are play things.

We own a Chihuahua that was abused by children.  How do we know?  He hates kids.  He cannot be anywhere near children between the ages of 4-12.  That's when he becomes snarly and bares his teeth.  Oddly enough, he loves babies.  And he adores meeting new people and dogs.  So, should our town ban Chihuahuas because my dog doesn't like children?  My husband isn't exactly a fan of them either.  Should he be forced to move elsewhere?

I appreciate the following statistic that is listed on the website as well:

"In the 9-year period from 2005 to 2013, pit bulls killed 176 Americans  and accounted for 62% of the total recorded deaths (283). Combined, pit  bulls and rottweilers accounted for 74% of these deaths."

In response to this, I would like to know what type of Pit-bulls these were.  I'm not inquiring about their coloration or markings.  What I am in reference to is the heinous act of dog fighting.  The preferred breed among dog fighters is Pit-bulls followed closely by Rottweilers.  Were any of the dogs that were involved in the 176 American deaths former fighting dogs?  Or current fighting dogs?

Unfortunately, fighting is all that some dogs know.  That is how they were raised by their demented "owners."  This is not the dog's fault.  So, why are we so quick to blame the breed?  Why not blame Hollywood for placing such stereotypes in movies?  And how about MTV for their rap videos that feature these dogs as the "protection" of a pimp or drug lord?

These creatures are not naturally vicious.  They are not born that way.  All dogs want is a loving home filled with cuddles, food and clean water.  They want to love and be loved.

Someone is teaching these dogs to be overly aggressive. We need to take a stand and prosecute animal abusers to the fullest extend of the law.  There needs to be a public record of these abusers, just as there is one for rapists and child molesters.

BSLs are not helping these dogs.  In fact, they are aiding in quickly sending them to a shelter where they will be euthanized due to lack of space.  Please, speak to your local legislature about getting these horrific "rulings" overturned.  We need to be a voice for the voiceless.

As you know, I am very passionate about animals. While I am more drawn to dogs (even though I have a cat), I try to help all animals.  Every single creature on this earth has value.

Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way.  What's even worse?  Most of these people are former pet owners.

Since I have adopted all of my dogs from different rescue groups, I have quite a few connections on Facebook and Instagram.  I love to peruse the transformation stories of dogs that have gone from being a starving stray to a pampered pooch.  And I also enjoy viewing the dogs that are currently available for adoption.

What I have been reading recently has honestly been breaking my heart.  It appears that several of the previous dog's owners have suddenly decided that they "do not have time" for the dog anymore.  So, they drop the dog off at a shelter where it is quickly put on the list to be killed.

I simply cannot imagine what must be going through a surrendered dog's mind. "What did I do to make my master not want me?"  "Is there something wrong with me?"  "Am I unlovable?"

I'm sure that these are just of few of the thoughts swirling through the dog's brain as he/she tries to comprehend what is happening.  One dog that I read about had been in the family for seven years.  He got along great with everyone.  They just simply decided one day that they "didn't have time" for him. 

How could they let this dog go after having him for so long?  Wasn't he a part of the family, too?  What changed so much in their lives that would make them give him up?

Another biography that I read came from a Dachshund with Dachshund Rescue South Florida.  This dog was rescued from a high kill shelter after her owners surrendered her because they got a puppy of a different breed and "didn't have time for her."  Really?  You are taking a perfectly healthy, happy dog who loves you and your family and giving her up because of the "out with the old, in with the new" mentality?

Personally, I believe that the "no time" reason is simply an excuse.  These people just do not want the responsibility of caring for the dog anymore. Someone needs to inform these heartless people that this is not how life works.  What if we tried to do that with the mortgage payment?  "Sorry, Bank of Edwardsville, I simply do not have time to pay the bill.  Therefore, this month's payment will be free."

And what about children?  Can you imagine someone turning a child in to DCFS stating that they "don't have time" to raise him/her?  National television would blow up with that story.  Parenting groups from all across the country would be up in arms.  Protesters would abound.

But, for dogs, many seem to deem this as an acceptable practice.  They don't bat an eye before handing their dog over to, essentially, be killed. How do these people sleep at night?  How can they continue on as if nothing has happened?  As if what they did wasn't horribly wrong?

While being the owner of six dogs can be a bit crazy at times, I cannot imagine my life without a single one of them.  And I work full time and exercise five days a week.  Plus, I clean the house, do laundry and go to the grocery store.  Things that are all a normal part of life.

Furthermore, people know exactly what they are getting into when they adopt a dog.  They know that there is a certain amount of time that will need to be committed to raising and loving their new addition.  And the passing of time does not change this knowledge.

Additionally, people are not trying to make their new situation (s) work.  One example that comes to mind is that of an adorable Terrier.  His owner took on a second job and promptly surrendered him.  Even if the owner knew that having the second job would greatly compromise the time that he/she would be able to spend with the dog, couldn't he/she have waited until the second job began to see how it would truly affect their relationship?

Another common example is when a married couple is having a baby.  Many rid themselves of the loyal family dog.  Why?  The dog loves them the same as he/she always has.  And it would love the baby just as much.

These animals have feelings.  And they have spent their entire lives loving us unconditionally.  Yet, many are so quick to turn their backs on this loyalty in the name of convenience.  Dogs are not tissues.  They are not meant to be discarded.