Being a "pit bull" advocate is like tiptoeing through an active minefield - you have to watch where you step or you're going to detonate something explosive. Ultimately, I do think we need to cut each other some slack: What we do is incredibly precise, challenging work. Even the best advocates can't be "on" all the time.
I certainly do not believe I know everything there is to know about "pit bulls" and how to best help them. I will never stop learning about this topic. The law and our culture are living entities. They evolve, so I evolve.
I do feel, however, that the following tactics are ineffective and possibly damaging to the movement. I see these crop up all over the place and, worse, I frequently see them used as weapons by anti-pit bull groups and spokespeople, in legal forums and otherwise. I urge folks to think about these points and how they can be revamped as or substituted for more effective advocacy tools.
1. The bait and switch: I've often heard folks complain about a factual inaccuracy that the opposition has made about "pit bulls," but then seen these folks substitute their own pit bull favorable, albeit also false or unsupported fact.
e.g. poodles are actually the breed of dog that bites most commonly (really? where is the information to support that allegation? And way to piss off poodle owners, owners like me) or "pit bulls are the most bred dog in the US" (I've never seen this fact and it's impossible to maintain with any level of authority since "pit bull" isn't a breed, and the word isn't uniformly defined, and there is no database containing information on "pit bulls." In AKC and UKC registrations, Am Staffs don't even come in in the top 10). Why it is acceptable to pick apart the oppositions' facts but hold scrutiny of pro-"pit bull" facts to a different standard is beyond me.
Without reliable research or authority to support a fact, don't use it.
2. The 'raise them well': "Raise them to be aggressive and they'll be aggressive." Well, probably not. This argument is problematic for a few reasons: (1) "Aggression" is an oft-misunderstood term. "aggressive" acts can range from a subtle movement to a bark or growl to a serious bite. All dogs aggress. Serious, violent dog-directed or human-directed "aggression" is not an adaptive trait and is no dog breed has a propensity for these behaviors; (2) This argument does not help change discriminatory policies in shelters that don't allow "pit bulls" to be adopted out, and does not encourage folks to rescue "pit bulls" either. So, untold numbers of these dogs continue dying in our shelters. Since the point is to save their lives, we should probably think about what we're saying about the dogs most in need of our help - the ones not raised in loving, responsible environments since puppyhood.
A better phrase would be something to the tune of: a dog's environment and owner management impacts a dog's behavior.
3. The elitist: Pit bulls are the best dog ever! No, they're not. Don't get me wrong, I've met some amazing "pit bulls" via my rescue and advocacy work, but I've also met some annoying or otherwise distateful (to me) ones that I'd never want in my home. Same goes for every breed (and mixes too!) out there. Dogs are individuals and the goals of fighting breed discriminatory laws are to put them on an even playing field, not a pedestal. Pointing out that they're the "best" makes it seem as though they're different. And the reason BDL exists and is upheld is because the argument that they are different has held up in court and convinced lawmakers!)
4. The mudslinger: Picking on other breeds. My question is always: Why? Most people in the US do not own "pit bulls," even if they are incredibly popular. So why are we alienating other dog owners? BDL really is a dog issue not a "pit bull" issue, and the more non-pit bull owning folks we can get on our side, the better. It makes the movement generalizable and more credible. Plus, we don't need to bring down other breeds in order to save the "pit bull." Finally, we never know what the impact of allegations on other breeds might bring: what if someone picked up on our negative statements and then tried to ban a different breed?
5. The historian: Discussing or Debating the "history" of the "pit bull" is problematic as this topic is conentious and not set in stone, even among knowledgeable advocates. Part of the problem is that we still don't know what a "pit bull" is today, needless to say how it was defined 100-200 years ago. Allegations of Nanny Dogs and fighting dogs and working dogs fly around wildly. But, quite frankly, it doesn't matter at all what the history of the breed is. Most breeds have evolved in a totally different direction than their history indicates. Plus, it's entirely possible to change the inclinations of an animal in just a few generations, as shown in the Russian fox experiments. So, for the purpose of fighting breed discriminatory laws, history is a red herring. Leave it be, or risk alienating other advocates who have a different opinion on the "pit bull's" origins and who might otherwise have been allied with you.
Showing posts with label breed specific legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breed specific legislation. Show all posts
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, October 7, 2011
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.
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.
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.
 |
| All these dogs were labeled "pit bulls" by shelters from which we pull. |
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)