Monday, July 09, 2007

Dog ban.

Your home may be your castle but your pet is under a death sentence if it is unfortunate enough to be on Dublin City Council's hit list.
From today's Irish Times.

"Eleven breeds of dog, including Rottweilers, Bull Terriers and German Shepherds have been banned from all Dublin City Council properties, including houses, flats and estates, with immediate effect.

The council has said it will give tenants an opportunity to rehouse the animals but if alternative suitable accommodation cannot be found for them they will be destroyed.

The council has taken the step to remove all "dangerous breeds" due to the increasing numbers of complaints from tenants and because of the legal implications associated with an attack taking place on one of its properties. The ban initially applies to council housing and all public areas within council estates.

However, the council plans to amend its bylaws to include public parks in the ban. This would mean that anyone owning a dangerous dog could not walk it in a public park, even if they lived in private housing.

The council has also written to the Minister for the Environment asking him to ban all breeds of fighting dogs nationally. The 11 breeds are not banned for general ownership in Ireland but must be muzzled, kept on a special leash and be under the control of a person over 16 years old.

The breeds are: English Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Japanese Akita, Bull Mastiff, Japanese Tosa and Bandog. Cross-breeds of these dogs or crosses of these dogs with any other breed are also banned.

Executive manager of the council's housing department Michael O'Neill said tenants would be asked to remove any banned dogs but if they failed to comply the council would take them away. "Our information on these dogs is that that they can be very aggressive and while they might be family pets, that has to come secondary and would be no defence to us if a child or other vulnerable person was attacked on our property."

Labour councillor Kevin Humphreys said he understood council tenants may feel discriminated against, but he hoped that this was just the first step to banning these breeds nationally."

This is unreal. So if you have a German shepherd dog, who has never so much as growled as a person, that animal is also condemned to die because someone's dog bit someone? Outrageous.
This is a abuse of power pure and simple. This is heavy handed nonsense. A sweeping ban that does not take into account the history and behaviour of the individual dog. There was a child bitten in Kerry a few weeks ago, eighty stitches required, the breed? A labrador. Should we ban all labradors? No? Why not? They bite, dont they?
You cannot blame an entire breed on the actions of the few. You should not be able to tell responsible owner they cannot keep a much loved pet because some owners are not responsible. And if I was living in a council flat or house when I owned my doberman and they tried to remove him from me we would be having quite a high time of it in the courts.



Blogger Conan Drumm said...

Three legally important words: Duty of Care.

Stands to reason really, if people can be put out of council housing for anti-social behaviour (ie because of their impact on other tenants) then it logically follows that dogs be treated the same way.

They poo/pee everywhere, indiscriminately. They wander about and are often a threat to people. You'll gather I'm not a dog type person. I was bit very bad as a kid, after which that dog (a neighbour's) was pts.

All that said, here at the Drummspot we have three large hounds all of which could fall into the category of controlled breeds. They can frighten the bejay out of people but are quite docile really. They are not permitted to be off property unless accompanied.

10:40 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s an absolute disgrace if offending animal’s owners where subject to a hefty penalty they'd be inclined to take more care. you here of all these animals that savaged people but what happened to the owners?, you may bet they weren’t severely penalised. It's like drink drivers why don’t they get 12 months. Make an example of a few people and there'd be no need to ban any animal!

10:51 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It’s an absolute disgrace if offending animal’s owners where subject to a hefty penalty they'd be inclined to take more care. you here of all these animals that savaged people but what happened to the owners?, you may bet they weren’t severely penalised. It's like drink drivers why don’t they get 12 months. Make an example of a few people and there'd be no need to ban any animal!

10:55 a.m.  
Blogger Eolaí gan Fhéile said...

This is insanity dressed up as local government. I'd bet money that some of those breeds have saved the lives of more kids than they've ever killed. And when a young male perv enters a house without a guard dog and hurts a child will we lock up all young men because they can be dangerous, you know?

I was bitten bad as a child by an Alsatian - but I've met enough Alsatians before and after to know that it was that particular dog and its particular owners rather than the breed.

This is an incredibly lazy as well as ignorant form of governing. At the next council elections I'll be voting for the dogs - a rainbow alliance of 11 breeds.

11:07 a.m.  
Blogger Kim Ayres said...

You need to get yourself a wolf instead. I didn't see them mentioned on the list.

11:23 a.m.  
Blogger PI said...

I think people should be able to show they are capable of caring for any pet before they are allowed to buy them.

11:52 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

If an animal is well behaved, well socialised and not aggressive what right has any council to demand its demise.
Conan, if some people are anti-social does it also stand to reason that all people must be tarred with the one brush or should just the anti-social people be dealt with?
This is a huge number of animals that are to be removed and it's a bloody disgrace, it's a blanket decision, an abuse of power.
If dogs are straying or unaccompanied that is an entirely different matter and is a clear example that the owners are NOT in control of them, but what of the owner who is responsible, who has taken great care to keep a well trained dog, who has broken no law. What of them? Why are they caught in the same net?
Would you be okay with some chap calling to your home and telling you that your dogs are to be taken away and destroyed-despite the fact that you can say that they never leave your property uncontrolled?
I wouldn't and I would fight them tooth and nail.

12:13 p.m.  
Blogger Medbh said...

Malcom Gladwell had a good piece on this in the New Yorker a while ago and argued that you cannot reliably predict which dogs will bite/attack people. The Lab in Kerry illustrates that nicely because everyone assumes they're completely docile. One thing that nearly all dogs who attack people have in common is irresponsible owners who don't care for dogs properly. Dogs should be neutered and licensed.
Even if they outlaw supposed "dangerous" breeds, dogs will still bite. You have to educate people.
This ruling is inordinately cruel. I shudder to think how this is going to play out in real life. Who will be responsible to rounding up and killing all the dogs? What a horror show.

12:31 p.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

In a place where I used to live there was a very dark and forbidding house on the road, on a private housing estate. Each night at about 12-1am owner would emerge from said house with two hulking rotties. They were not on leads of muzzled. Once I was putting out the bin for the following morning when the dogs let me know in no uncertain terms that I had no right to be on their road. I got in my own front door just ahead of their teeth.

I imagine that the council has received a number of letters from people complaining that they feel unsafe on their roads/in their gardens because of uncontrolled dogs. So the council is doing something about it.

Let's not forget virtually 100% of private leases rule out the keeping of pets such as cats or dogs. So now the public renting sector is following suit. It may not be the animals' fault. But a skobe with a pit bull is potentially more dangerous than a skobe with a knife, and you'd have little difficulty saying he/she shouldn't be allowed have the knife?

12:36 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still would like know what happened to the owners of the dogs who have attacked surely this is where the attention should be, I have two Alsatian's I have my own house so its not an issue at the moment but with threats to implement the ban nationally it soon could be, regardless they won't be getting my chaps!!

12:41 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O and Conan, the fundamental ideals of one's "Duty of Care" obligations is simply that you ensure all reasonable undertakings are adhered to. By that very definition if you ensure your pet in a confined and secure place, use a leash, hag a "beware of dog" sign etc. you are complying with your obligation. Surely this would be more attainable that a mass slaughter.

12:55 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

As I've said before here, I owned a doberman for eight years, he was well trained, well socialised and leashed at all times in public. He was no more dangerous than a labrador or west highland terrier. So-pretending he is still alive for a mo- why should he be tagged as dangerous dog at all? How many doberman attacks have there been in Ireland I wonder. How many ridgebacks-a superb family pet, loyal and intelligent- have attacked people? I wonder how the attacks by these breeds-assuming there are any- would stand up against say bites inflicted by collies or mutts or god damned Jack Russells ot those yorkies that are always strangling themselves on the end of leashes.
Running has opened my eyes to just how nasty those little dogs can be. Personally I be happier running past a ridgeback or a doberman any day of the week that a bloody terrier.
A dog can be a dangerous animal, a dog can be a source of great love and affection, the main factors are how they are raised and trained and kept. To tarnish every dog on this 'list' without taking into account what I have just mentioned is downright cruel and irresponsible.

1:07 p.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

I agree, in principle, that the best thing for the council to do would be to have reasonable and enforced byelaws that would be adhered to by all dog owners. And sufficent wardens to police the scheme.

So every dog would have to be licensed and micro-chipped, and neutered unless the owner has dog-breeding license. All dogs not licensed / microchipped and running around unsupervised should be rounded up by wardens and sent to the pound. The full cost - license, neutering, chipping, warden's time - should be passed to the owner if they come to collect them. Otherwise, ciao, chow.

1:22 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for a moment we will assume that the council is made up of intelligent people, ok so when you have stopped laughing please consider, if this new legislation is well thought out, then the council will have wardens to ensure the new laws are complied with, at the very least they will have the resources, so why can't they spend there time ensuring animals are chipped. Even without neutering, the problem is solved if the animal is not chipped penalise the owner, if the animal is up to no good penalise the owner.

1:37 p.m.  
Blogger grimsaburger said...

My husband routinely gets chased and threatened (and once bitten) by our neighbor's Welsh corgi as he runs by, though it seems to have a specific problem with my husband, and it's almost always on a long lead tied to the porch. But still. A corgi.

1:42 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

I would agree with nonny mouse, it's the owners who should be held responsibe for the actions of their pets. Ergo, if the council really want to be fair minded and reasonable and STILL protect the public, a series of changes can be implemented.
If your dog is on the '11' list, firstly I think you should be given the option to license, chip and neuter/spay said dog. If you comply with this and comply with keeping your dog confined to your property, and leashed when not then there should be no need for such a brutal and draconian sweep as that the council are trying to carry out.
If a dog is running loose it can either be traced through its chip, or it can be taken to a pound until either the owner turns up or it is put down.
This way good and responsible owners are at least given an option to save the lives of their pets and those who wish to flout the law are backed into some legal avenue where they can be made legally responsible to provide information for the animal they own, or to not own said animal.
Okay, it's still not perfect, but then neither is killing thousands of dogs simply because a few idiots think using dogs as weapons is a good idea.

1:59 p.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

But Anonymous, ownership is the whole problem. A dog that causes grief is nobody's dog, unless it's chipped. Then it becomes a liability to its owner if it's done wrong. That's why there's resistance to owners' responsibility for these dogs. And, logically, the only option left to the council is to round them all up. The dogs, that is. Rounding up people is not so simple though MickeyMac was working on it.

2:03 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

Corgies, pfft. Nippy little shits.
I watched a bloody shit-zu try to attack a rangy looking mutt in the park yesterday. It was nearly foaming at the mouth and up on its hind legs. Its owner was laughing and telling the mutt's owners 'Oh don't mind her, she's nuts ahahahahah. Stop it pookie, oh now, stop.'
Er right.
The mutt at least looked suitably bemused.

2:05 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

They should be given the option to chip Conan, most owners will if they want to keep their animals alive.

2:07 p.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

Ours are. Chipping should be obligatory for all dogs. If someone refuses to have their dog chipped then it should be taken off them, irrespective of its fate.

We'd be the first to put our dogs down if they seriously threatened or harmed anyone, or another animal.

2:18 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hold on now at some point if they want to enforce this legislation, there going to have to physically knock on somebody’s door & look at the dog if the dog is not chipped well then give them the option of chipping the animal. And as for the dogs that attack well of course they should be put down and as for the stragglers roaming the street, that’s what the DSPCA/Dog Warden is for, they are suppose to take them in. More people where shot last year in Ireland that bitten yet any malignant little gimp can get a gun. My dogs are 8 what about them?

2:32 p.m.  
Anonymous Ammo84 said...

Any dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Any car can be dangerous in the wrong hands too, many more people die in car crashes than dog attacks! But we're not going to ban cars, are we? Instead we have a system which means not just any one can drive a car, you have to pass a theory test, a pratical test, have tax, insurance and an NCT. Instead of killing hundreds of loved and loving family pets, why not introduce measures to make sure only responsible people have pets and stamp out the idiots who want muscle dogs to make themselves feel cool, and the puppy farmers who supply them.

3:34 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

So we're all in accord then? This measure is a knee jerk draconian sweep with little common sense behind it. A decision that punishes the innocent as well as the guilty.
Right, so lets support ANVIL who I believe have a petition so that we the public can voice our objections.

4:43 p.m.  
Blogger Sam, Problem-Child-Bride said...

They want to kill all these dogs? Bloody hell, that's miserable. That's no way to handle a problem. You can't just exterminate yourself out of the potential for being sued.

That said, if a corgi atacks you will likely get scuffed up a bit but arent likely to die. If a Rottweiler attacks with its 2400lbs of pressure per square inch bite - double that of an Alsation - then you might not walk away from it. To me there is a difference between "dangerous" dogs and the rest but I put the blame for any dog attack squarely at the feet of the owners not the dog. I agree they ought to be microchipped, licensed and I agree with Pat that there ought to be some sort of test or license given to ensure more owners are capable of owning and caring for these animals. Some dog handling classes or something.

To mandate people who already have dangerous dog breeds to give them up and threaten the dogs with death is a ridiculous way to go about a thing and tramples all over all sorts of civil liberties I reckon.

Let people keep the dogs they want - just make sure they know how to handle them, is all.

5:14 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok then see you all the protest.

5:29 p.m.  
Anonymous Pinkie said...

I had a customer on my bus hit in the cheek with a stone thrown from a little scumbag no older than 10 on Pearse Street today - I think we should ban them from the city-- little scum bags that is, not tour buses.

What a load of fucking nonsense!

PEOPLE are the problem - not the fecking dogs!

They poo/pee everywhere, indiscriminately. They wander about and are often a threat to people.

I could say the same for the druggies down Wood Quay and all. No joking either - they DO poo and pee everywhere and they are a threat to people.

6:03 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

Here's the link for ANVIL's page.

6:10 p.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

Yes Pinkie, the capital's quay-side junkies have quite a well-deserved rep. But they probably wouldn't behave the way they do if it wasn't for their owners.. I mean their parents. So, as a preventive measure, all children should be had under license and microchipped, and be kept on leashes at all times.... this is where all this is going, right?

In the following just insert children instead of dogs, and parents instead of owners: All dogs not licensed / microchipped and running around unsupervised should be rounded up by wardens and sent to the pound. The full cost - license, neutering, chipping, warden's time - should be passed to the owners if they come to collect them...

6:18 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I lived in a town once where they banned pitt bulls. We were told our dog had to go because "he looked like a pitt bull". No kidding. Our dog stayed in our big fenced yard, nver got out, and had no pitt blood at all. He was colored like one though, and the only way he would ever hurt someone is if they were standing behind him when he wagged his tail. Very lovable and loving dog. But at that time, in such a small town, micro-chipping hadn't even been heard of. We had no way to prove he was not a pitt, and we had to get rid of him.

6:28 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And as far as micro-chipping your kids; I don't know about anywhere else, but it's becoming more common here in the states. Yes, people are actually chipping the kids.

6:31 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, but I can't remember the last time one of my kids bit someone, or shat on someone's lawn. That's probably because I have taught (or trained) them not to...

6:33 p.m.  
Blogger charmingly ardent said...

This is absolutely ridiculous. While there are certainly dogs that are more prone to attack, the problem lies with the owners who don't know how to handle or take care of them. I've known several lovely pit bulls that had good owners and never so much as heard them growl. Then there are the people who buy these dogs "cause they're badass, dude." They don't have the sense god gave a domestic turkey and they have NO business buying a poodle, let alone a pit bull. I was the very proud owner of a Rhodesian Ridgeback and he was the best dog I've ever had. And he DID save my son's life when a pissed off cow tried to get him. The dog ran between them and jumped right in the cow's face, distracting her while my son ran to safety.
There are a million stories and 99% of the ones that end badly are due to careless owners. It's a real shame.

6:52 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

That's outrageous Metafitz, you had to get rid of your dog because it LOOKED like a pit?
Urgh, speaking of pooin and peeing all over the palce, I once opened the door of a house I lived in many many years ago to find a woman squatting behind my privet hedge.
'What the fuck are you doing?' I inquired politely.
'Ah sorry luv, 'said she, ' I got caught short.'
She then got caught with my foot half way up her hole.
Charmingly, I do like ridgebacks a whole lot, the one I met was a splendid fellow and smart as a whip. His owner told me how he liked to lie up on a bank of grass behind their house because it gave him a 360 degree view of the property perimetre and thus he considered the family were safe from ambush. Terrific dog, gorgeous looking and so noble.

7:24 p.m.  
Anonymous Pinkie said...

Responsibility for action mate -

Dogs are trained to act the way they act, or they can be trained to act the adverse - it is the responsibility of the owners to do that.

Kids are taught to act the way they act or they can be taught to act teh adverse - it is the responsibility of the parents to do that.

I do blame the parents for misbehaving children like I blame the owners for misbehaving dogs. Like I said, the problem is not the DOGS it is the PEOPLE WHO OWN THEM.

8:33 p.m.  
Blogger caro said...

people need to stand up against this type of discrimination and stop letting these laws be passed without a fight!!
i for one would be happy if all these people on this page got out and did something together to make a difference writing on this page will do nothing so
if anyone wants to get together and fight this or come up with a plan email me at
lets get the people involved because this is disgusting!!!!!

11:46 p.m.  
Blogger caro said...

this is a better contact

12:50 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

Caro, go to ANVIL's home page and follow their petition. The more voices they have the better chance we all have of being heard.

8:29 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

Sorry, here's the link.

8:31 a.m.  
Blogger lillie said...

first of all id like to say there is no such thing as a dangerous breed of dog just because one dog out of a breed may be dangerous does not mean you can label the whole breed. the problem with the pitbull is lack of knowledge, mistaking identity, bad owners, bad press ignorance and cruelty plus they can be bought for as little as 100euro and mostly giving away because there owner has no use for them anymore. Ive had this breed for 20 years and at the moment i have 3 pitbull terriers and never had one problem with this breed as any breed of dog you have to train and restrain the pitbull is no different to any other breed, there are more attacks from lab’s and cooker spaniels Colly’s than pitbulls ever its just never reported, pitbulls of any breed if you do some research were breed pacifically to be non person aggressive, yes they were breed for animal combat but as i said a well trained obedient pitbull is no different than any other breed. banning certain breeds is not the answer as it will only move to the next breed. responsible ownership needs to be promoted plus the law’s on these restricted breeds needs to be enforced. but for us humans its always easier to blame the lower being such as the dog than to recognize the mistakes of owners and the council, if i drink drive and kill someone they don’t blame the car.. punish the deed not the breed and then we will see results.. and further more how dare people say that it Stands to reason really, if people can be put out of council housing for anti-social behaviour (ie because of their impact on other tenants) then it logically follows that dogs be treated the same way. the only people who will be effected by this is responsible owners people who are causing anti-social behaviour are 9 times out of 10 the one's who are causing these problems with these dogs, and people like my self are getting painted with the same brush how dare they, my dogs are like my family i love them just the same as i would love a member of my family and the day they come to take my dogs well lets say ill die for them and you may bet there's plenty more people like me.

2:58 p.m.  
Blogger lillie said...

Did you all know that micro chipping causes cancer in animals??? a tag on a collar with proof of identity is already a law.. enforce it rather than giving your dogs cancer.. truth be knowing its all just a money racket for these people who micro chip. responsible owners will put tag's on their dogs color but the one's who's causing these problems wont so why the micro chip when a simple tag is just as good, council owners should sign a different contract so owners take full responsibility for their dogs actions and take the blame off the council, if you don't what to sign a contract don't own a dog.. and this should be for all breeds..

3:14 p.m.  
Blogger lillie said...

Pleast log on do some research on breeds.....

3:25 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

It's easy to take a dog collar off, not so to remove a chip. All of my cats are chipped.

11:12 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vet Pathol 43:545-548 (2006)
© 2006 American College of Veterinary Pathologists BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS AND CASE REPORTS
Fibrosarcoma with Typical Features of Postinjection Sarcoma at Site of Microchip Implant in a Dog: Histologic and Immunohistochemical Study
M. Vascellari, E. Melchiotti and F. Mutinelli
A 9-year-old, male French Bulldog was examined for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. Cytologic examination of the mass was suggestive of a malignant mesenchymal neoplasm. Histologically, the mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates. By immunohistochemistry, the sample was investigated for vimentin, smooth-muscle actin (SMA), CD3, CD79 , and CD18. All the neoplastic cells were positive for vimentin. Scattered cells at the periphery of the lesion were also positive for SMA, highlighting a myofibroblastic phenotype. The lymphoid cells were positive for CD18 and CD3. No aluminum deposits were detected by the aurintricarboxylic acid method. A diagnosis of fibrosarcoma morphologically similar to feline postinjection sarcomas was made. Fibrosarcomas at the site of injections have been reported in dogs and ferrets. Furthermore, neoplastic growth at the site of microchip implant in dog and laboratory rodents has been described.
Key words: Dog; fibrosarcoma; immunohistochemistry; microchip.
On April 2004, Leon, a 9-year-old male French Bulldog, was examined by the referring veterinarian, based in Guelph, Ontario (Canada), for the sudden growth of a subcutaneous 3 x 3-cm mass located on the dorsal midline of the neck, just cranial to the shoulders. The dog was regularly vaccinated against the most common canine infectious diseases and rabies, and was microchipped (Indexel, Merial, Lyon, France) in September 2003. A complete physical examination excluded any further alteration. Fine needle aspiration of the mass highlighted a single population of large, bipolar streaming spindle cells in swirling bundles. Cells had moderate nuclear/cytoplasm ratios and oval nuclei, with fine chromatin, multiple dark nucleoli, and prominent anisocytosis and anisokaryosis. Mitotic figures were rare, and no extracellular matrix was present. No evidence of inflammation or sepsis was observed. The cytologic diagnosis was fibrosarcoma.
On the veterinarian's advice, the owner decided to have the mass removed. The mass was surgically excised with 2 cm of margins. The microchip, which was detected attached to the mass, was also removed. The tissue was immediately fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin, routinely processed, and paraffin embedded for histologic examination.
Histologically, a not well-demarcated, not encapsulated nodular mass was evident in the subcutis. Neoplastic cells were characterized by elongated pleomorphic nuclei, with prominent nucleoli and high mitotic rate (2–4 mitotic figures per high-power field; Fig. 1). Multifocal random necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates were also present (Fig. 2). Further serial transverse sections were made to find the microchip. The microchip was found, not embedded within the tumor, but immediately adjacent to it, surrounded by a very thin fibrous wall (approximately 1 mm thick) and some fresh hemorrhage. The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma. Because the histologic features of this tumor were remarkably similar to feline postinjection sarcoma, further investigations were strongly recommended. On this advice, the dog's owner submitted paraffin blocks of the tumor to the Histopathology Department of the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro (PD), Italy. Further 3-µm sections were evaluated for the presence of aluminum deposits by the aurintricarboxylic acid method21 and were immunohistochemically stained for vimentin (V9, Dako, Carpinteria, CA, USA, M0725, 1 ° 25), which reacts with the 57 kDa intermediate filament protein present in cells of mesenchymal origin, and smooth-muscle actin (SMA; 1A4, Dako, M851, 1 ° 50), which labels the smooth-muscle cells of vessels and different parenchyma, including myofibroblast in benign and reactive fibroblastic lesions. Each primary antibody was incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. Antigen retrieval for SMA was obtained by trypsinization for 30 minutes at 37°C. The EnVision Peroxidase Dual Link System detection system (Dako, K4063) and DAB (3,3 diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride; Sigma, St. Louis, MO) as chromogen were applied. The sections were counterstained with Mayer's hematoxylin.

4:58 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm amazed, I must say. Seldom do I encounter a blog that's both equally educative and engaging, and without a doubt, you've hit the nail on the head. The issue is something which not enough men and women are speaking intelligently about. Now i'm very happy that I found this in my hunt for something regarding this.

my webpage :: ideal waist to Hip ratio
Also see my web site :: hip to waist ratio calculator

2:44 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Me and ozzy fucked tougher, trying to show to my own god!
FUCK YES!' just before cumming inside my warm pussy. were still fucking

Here is my blog post: hcg injections

6:08 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Αcсording to v2 сigs reviеw уou сan еаsily check on net about еlectrοnic cigarettе brands.

Feеl free tο surf tо my web pаgе

5:19 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello to all, how is all, Ι think every οne is
gеttіng moгe from this
website, and your views arе good in supρort
of new pеορlе.

Feel frеe to suгf to my homepage

9:56 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi! I've been following your blog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Kingwood Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the good job!

Feel free to surf to my blog post ... herbal party pills

9:57 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article is genuinely a fastidious one it assists new the web viewers, who are wishing for blogging.

Feel free to visit my web-site New Kobe Bryant Shoes

4:26 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home