The pit falls and potential positives of labeling a rescued "pit bull"

I recently stumbled across a post on happypitbull.com that talked about the general nature of the term "pit bull" in today's world. The post was dead on, but got me thinking about the liberal use of the term in shelter and rescue environments and its impact on these dogs, the "pit bull" term itself, and breed legislation.

I believe a breed label is marginally useful no matter what breed we may be labeling. I wholeheartedly believe that every dog is an individual, and that, particularly in adult dogs, breed itself is far less relevant and consistent than people may believe -- especially when looking at behaviors relevant to potential adopters (tolerance with children, sociability, activity level,  for example). In the abstract, any individual dog of any breed may thrive in any one particular environment.

At the government shelters I work with, each dog is labeled by predominant "breed," something I take issue with, although I certainly am not alone. A shelter volunteer at Pima Animal Care Center in Tucson, AZ, has expressed concern over the shelter's labeling practices -- concern that has been ignored by her superiors, who continue to label just about anything a "pit bull mix." Such munificent labeling certainly is inappropriate.

Perhaps such labeling simply follows a public trend to know the breed they own. Petfinder.com, adoptapet.com, and rescueme.org require a dog to be labeled a specific breed -- preferably two -- and, although "mixed breed" is an option, it does not attract hits. People seem to like "breeds," and I want to get my dogs adopted. So I label.

All these dogs were labeled "pit bulls" by shelters from which we pull.

Historically, shelters simply labeled dogs of uncertain ancestry as "mixed breeds" or "mongrels," and adopters chose a dog based on the physical and personality characteristics they appreciated. This seems, in theory and devoid of context, wise. But, we live in a world where your dog legally can be taken from you and killed if an arbitrary actor sees fit to label him/her a "pit bull." Is it really fair to surprise adopters in this fashion simply because we hate what the label has come to mean?

At a seminar for rescue workers I recently attended, we were told never to guess or make assumptions about a dog's past or a dog's present preferences, and simply to list the facts: what we'd observed, what background information may have been given or confirmed. Ideally, this also should be the case with breed descriptors.

When a dog is labeled a "pit bull," the dog often is automatically stripped of its individuality -- even by reputable pit bull rescues. Some, for example, will not adopt "pit bulls" into homes with dogs of the same gender as pit bulls have a greater propensity to aggress toward other dogs. But many "pit bulls" likely have no ancestry tied to a particular breed. All "pit bull" rescues want to set their dogs up for success. How do we make sense of and balance these complications?

Unfortunately, even for a rescue like my own, where we know the pit falls of labeling, it is hard not to label. Indeed, the label is often in the name of the rescue itself, something I struggled with when choosing a moniker. Ultimately, I decided I wanted my organization to be readily identified as a safe harbor for any dog unfortunate enough to be labeled a "pit bull" by a shelter, as, really, all those dogs, no matter their breed, are that much less likely to find their way into loving homes. Tough Love Pit Bull Rescue does not assist American Pit Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers. We assist the dogs in greatest need of help. And these dogs are pit bulls.

The "pit bull" is a very popular type of dog in America. Imagine how many "shepherds" or "retrievers" or "spaniels" there would be if we grouped all distinct breeds and their mixes into one generalized category like we've done with pit bulls. It is not surprising then, that "pit bulls" make up the bulk of dogs killed at many shelters, or appear more frequently as the actors in bite incidents (yes, I know this is a loaded statement, but for simplicity's sake, let's assume media bias is irrelevant). Last week a shelter employee told my co-director that a full 50 of the dogs at their facility (which houses 300 dogs at capacity) were "pit bulls." That's a lot of pit bulls.

The problems with labeling "pit bulls" in shelters are twofold (1) As discussed above, "pit bulls" are much less likely to be adopted than other "breeds" and (2) liberal labeling of mixed-breed dogs as "pit bulls" leaves these dogs susceptible to breed discriminatory legislation and gives BDL proponents an argument to expand the definition of a "pit bull" legally. We certainly do not want to give teeth to any discriminatory movement by handing them a very large, very general conglomeration of "pit bulls" that they now must control. So, really, is the problem with such generic labeling simply an issue of attached social implications?

In the long run, though, I think the "pit bull" generalization will backfire on BDL proponents and prove legally useful in contesting BDL. That is, if the term is used as liberally as it is, it eventually will lose all appreciable meaning or significance. It will no longer be solely attached to the American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier, or any other breed with a history of baiting or fighting (a point courts continue to cling to). If this were to happen, there would be no viable legal argument that a "pit bull" is distinct from other dogs based on a set of historic and present-day characteristics.

So, I posit this: Is it possible for the "pit bull" label to be dually helpful and detrimental?

At the end of the day, at least here at Tough Love, a "pit bull" is still a dog and will always be treated as an individual. So, even if every dog of every breed were labeled a "pit bull," it wouldn't change how we interact with our rescues. Thus, concerning our interactions with individual dogs, the label matters only when we allow it to matter.

And when dealing with everyone else, perhaps the solution is not to discourage labeling, but to educate and to transform the label into something different than it is today -- something positive.