Advocates Beware: some tactics are counterproductive

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.