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.

Deconstructing a Dog Bite Media Report

Those of us who study dog bite incidence look for underlying patterns of human behaviors, environment, and canine characteristics that manifest themselves in every attack. And, as insinuated, these patterns do exist, although it is not yet certain that they paint a complete picture of any bite incident nor is it apparent that any one factor necessarily causes a dog to bite. 


What is clear, however, is that media reports consistently lack information necessary for researchers and viewers/readers alike to decipher the "why" element of a dog bite.  


Perhaps more harmful than the blood-and-guts stories that weave bias into these "fair and balanced" reports are the details that are left out - and there are a lot of them. Now, I understand that a reporter cannot always gather all pieces of pertinent information before the story itself becomes untimely and, consequently, obsolete. But it is possible for the reporter to indicate that the information is relevant, but missing. 


From Theory to Practice 


Below is a new story, featured yesterday, here. I do not intend, by my deconstruction, to minimize the tragedy or seriousness of events like this, because I do take them very seriously. I merely wish to point out the rich details that are reported juxtaposed with gaping factual holes left unfilled - holes that, to the average reader, go unnoticed as hypothetical information is classified as irrelevant to understanding. My comments are in red.  


LAKE MARY, Fla. -- A Seminole County family is mourning the loss of a pet after they say a pack of pit bulls [Breed ID is never a necessary or relevant piece of information in a dog bite story. Further, there are no photographs or any other indication of how "breed" identity was confirmed; thus, it should not be included as a fact in this story] attacked and killed their dog.

The scene was so chaotic that a Lake Mary police officer actually shot two of the pit bulls to death.

Authorities say three pit bulls ran loose [this IS a relevant piece of information - already we see an irresponsible owner played the principal role in this incident] and grabbed a Bedlington Terrier named Chewy. [But what the story fails to tell us is whether Chewy was off his leash or, really, anything about Chewy's location or actions immediately preceding the attack]. 

"There's a lady out here. She's being attacked by a bunch of dogs. She's screaming. There's blood. She's asking for help, but I'm not going over there," a frightened 911 caller said, too scared to leave her home.[C'mon now, really? In a side bar? This fact is irrelevant, used only to provoke emotion and sensationalize the incident; it's also inaccurate, as no woman was attacked. Thanks, media, for detracting from the solemn, serious nature of this tragedy by turning it into entertainment].

The pit bulls' owner tried to stop the attack but could not.[So, did the dogs escape their yard, were they leashed, how and why was the owner present?]

"The next door neighbor was trying to get her dog off of my dog and couldn't do it," said James Brabb, Chewy's owner.

"The three pit bulls, once they got the pack mentality going, they mauled my dog," he said. [Again, extraneous fact, and problematic because it represents that Chewy's owner possesses some sort of authoritative opinion on canine behavior, pit bull behavior in particular. This certainly is not "unbiased" reporting]. 

Two of the three pit bulls involved in the incident were shot to death by the officer responding to the scene because they got aggressive with him. The offer said he hit the dogs with a baton, but to no avail.

"As the dogs aggressively approached me, I was in fear for my safety," the officer wrote in the report.

Brabb says Chewy did hold on until his daughter came home from school.

"When Chewy heard her voice, he kind of picked his head up a little. His breathing picked up. Within a minute it had stopped. He had passed. I think he was waiting for her to say goodbye," Brabb said.

Animal services said a citation would be issued. Lake Mary police say it has answered eight complaints about the home since June. [YIKES! eight complaints! And none of these prior incidents resulted in a bite. The owner irresponsibility factor is now off the charts, and we can see the system of laws designed to protect people and their dogs has failed; Chewy should be alive, because these dogs should have been taken from their owners, and the owners heavily cited, months ago]. 

Even now, the surviving dog cannot be declared vicious.[And, should not, without proof that this dog itself was actually one of Chewy's attackers. Simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time is not good enough for me, especially when a dog's life is in the balance. It's also not good enough for the law in many jurisdictions, including here in WA state]. 

"Florida statutes require that the animal be involved in more than one attack before we can deem the dog dangerous," said Morgan Woodward with Seminole County Animal Services.

No one answered the door Wednesday at the home where the pit bulls lived.


What else is missing? 


Other than the missing information I indicated in red when appropriate, the following facts were not present or accounted for in this report.Simply indicating the unavailability of the information below would allow readers to recognize that the story is lacking information critical to a full understanding of the incident. 


1. Where did this incident occur (one someone's property, on the street)? 


2. Were the dogs altered?


3. Where did the dogs primarily reside (outside, inside, chained, penned)?


4. Has the owner received any other animal-related citations?


5. Had Chewy had any prior contact with these dogs? 


6. Had the dogs been involved in any prior incidents with humans or other dogs 


7. Were the dogs ill or injured at the time of the incident? 


Conclusion


Chewy's death was tragic - and more so because it could have been prevented. We must champion for stricter, breed-neutral laws that target irresponsible owners - laws that speak to the confinement, care, and living conditions of the dogs in our communities. 


We must also always remember that the information we do not know about a serious dog bite is as important as the information that we do know. Tens of millions of dogs live in the US peacefully, and without incident. We cannot hope to fully understand and thus prevent dog attacks unless we have a complete set of information concerning these incidents. 


Hold media accountable. 
Make your voice heard. 

Murders vs Maulings: what we fear does not reflect the facts

In 2010 and 2009, the most recent years for which reliable, fully-investigated information is available concerning dog bite fatalities, 33 and 31 humans respectively were fatally injured by dogs. Most of these dogs were resident dogs, socially isolated in backyards or on the end of chains; many of the fatalities involved unsupervised children left to wander outdoors or left alone inside with unfamiliar dogs. Many of the dogs had been forced to endure extreme abuse.

Sixty-four human lives is not insignificant, particularly from the perspective of the friends and family members left to pick up the pieces left after these tragedies. But it is not a large number considering the population of humans and dogs in the US (310 million and 70 million, respectively).

Thousands of years of evolution and biological fine-tuning have created a predisposition within humans to fear predator species - and that includes dogs. Media reports with gruesome details of dog attacks recognize this fear, capitalize on it, and perpetuate it. In particular, pit bull attacks will often make national news.

But what about human murder rates? Unless a murder is particularly horrific, murders often don't make the news. They certainly don't make national news. And the standard murder (for lack of a better term) does not initiate a violent emotional reaction and public outcry.

Indeed, it seems from media and citizen reactions, that there is much more to fear from the risk of a dog-bite fatality than a murder.

Of course, this is untrue. Here's a glimpse of the statistics for a few states.

State	2010 Murders	Scaled 2010 Murders*	Dog-bite fatalities (all breeds)	Dog-bite fatalities attributed to pit bull type dogs
Arizona	409	90.8	0	0
Florida	987	219.3	3	none reliably confirmed, 2 reported**
California	1809	402	7	2 (confirmed)
Texas	1249	277.6	2	none reliably confirmed, 1 reported
Washington	152	33.8	0	0

** of these two reports, one was reliably identified as not a pit bull type dog

State	2009 Murders	Scaled 2009 Murders*	Dog-bite fatalities (all breeds)	Dog-bite fatalities attributed to pit bull type dogs
Arizona	370	82.2	1	0
Florida	1034	229.7	2	0
California	1971	438	4	none reliably confirmed, 2 reported
Texas	1355	301.1	5	none reliably confirmed, 3 reported
Washington	194	43.1	0	0

*The scaled population takes into account the difference in total human vs total canine population nationally. There are approximately 4.5 times more humans than dogs in the US.

Thus, in 2009 and 2010 you were around 250 to 500 times more likely to be murdered by a fellow human than attacked and killed by a dog irrespective of breed. And, if human and dog populations were equal, you'd still be 60 to 100 times more likely to be murdered than mauled to death. Murders are rare occurrences. Dog bite fatalities are rare to the point of being statistically insignificant, particularly at the state instead of the national level. From a statistical perspective, they are purely chance occurrences.

Of the fatalities included in the chart, only four were caused by family dogs, only one of which was even debatably a pit bull type dog. So I will repeat the sentiment I will repeat until the day I die: if we treat our dogs like members of our family, they will always live up to their moniker as man's best friend. And yes, this includes our pit bulls.

Sissy, Sinister, and Sadistic: Stereotypes harm all breeds

Three different stereotypes, three different problems 

Before I rescued pit bulls, I rescued poodles. The question I heard time and time again was issued with a incredulous chuckle: "What do poodles need rescuing from, too much pampering??" Media portrayals of poodles show dogs covered in jewels and gems, immaculately groomed, and perfectly content to sit around on velvet cushions being pampered. But poodles are sporting dogs, originally bred to hunt. The Standard Poodle remains a canine athlete, with incredible levels of intelligence and an astute sensitivity that I fully appreciate.

Time and time again, I rescued poodles from owners who did not realize that a Standard Poodle is a large, active dog who will run a household if given the opportunity. Dylan routinely outperforms my pit bull fosters on hikes, bike rides, and runs. He can leap to heights over my head. Do not underestimate the athleticism of a poodle!

I have had pit bull people scoff at my boy Dylan and suggest that owning and managing a pit bull is on a totally different level than owning and managing a poodle. I do not like the suggestion and poodles are not "real dogs" and do not present challenges or require exercise or training. Because they do.  I train my foster pit bulls the same way I trained and rehabilitated Dylan: through positive reinforcement methods. 

While it would not be fair to say that poodles - or any other breed - are proportionately poisoned by cruel, violent owners or suffer abuse at a level that truly is epidemic like pit bull type dogs, they are abused and neglected and treated with indifference and they do suffer. I have seen poodles come in emaciated, so matted their gender cannot be determined, with teeth rotting from their faces. It happens, and it should not be forgotten. 

My other resident dog is Ted, a dog unfortunate enough to be born big and black. Black dogs are the last dogs to be adopted at shelters. They do not photograph well. There are certain negative stereotypes associated with black. And, for some reason, black bores people. 

We live in a culture where physical appearance is often valued first and above other more important traits. This is a significant part of why we perpetuate dog breeds. Most of us don't need a dog designed for a purpose -- we just need to fellow couch surfer or foot warmer. But we are drawn to a specific look. Very often dogs end up in rescue because that specific look came with a specific set of personality traits and behaviors very unsuited to the surrendering family. 

I urge pit bull advocates in particular to stay away from glorifying pit bulls by defaming other breeds. This is unnecessary and hypocritical. I know it is done with good intentions and because breed seems very relevant when the pit bull "breed" is singled out. But what advocates want is equality. 

All dogs have value. If we want pit bulls to be treated as equals, then we need to consistently advocate for them as equals -- by embracing and loving all dogs and shutting down all stereotypes and overgeneralized remarks. They are never acceptable, even if they don't seem overtly harmful. 

Kirby's Journey: The first leg

Tough Love is not a large rescue. But our volunteers all put in far more than requested of them and they do with with grace, efficiency and passion. So, we make it work. When my volunteer Ashley sent me the photo of Kirby, I knew we would find a way to help him. I didn't care what it took or what it cost. 


This was the right decision. 


Immediately, people flooded in to help Kirby live. He has been with us less than 24 hours and already has touched countless lives. I received the following email from Kirby's transport, Jamie, and she has given me permission to share her experience helping Kirby. Kirby's story is about a dog. But it also is about the people with whom he interacts. I hope sharing their moments with you will make an impact. 


Hello Gemma:

I just wanted to say Thank You for allowing me to be a part of such a eye opening experience.  My birthday is on Sunday and I wanted to do something that I have never done before and that would make a difference.  When I logged into Facebook Thursday night and saw Kirby I was drawn to his picture and knew in my heart I had to help.  My husbands initial reaction when I woke him up was NO.  But I was determined and told him "fine, I'll make the drive myself".  He knew I would not take no for an answer so he was on board very shortly after that and that is when I committed to you that I would help. 

My pets are rescues but they were abandoned at the dog park so I did not have to go far to pick them up.  I have never been to a pound or animal control before.  I only saw that on television.  

When we were waiting in the front to speak with someone we could hear all the dog barks for help and it was heartbreaking then and my husband put his hand on my shoulder and told me to brace myself.  The woman up front thought that it was nice he was already named and she said dogs in his condition do not walk in and she was amazed that Kirby walked in.  

We got the paperwork and was told to drive around the back.  The woman at the front walked out with us and took a deep breath and said "wow, we are burning paper today".  When we drove around back we decided to wait in the parking lot right next to the building.  I certainly did not want to go in and see all the other animals we could not help.  We could hear more yelps for help and I wished that I could rescue them all.  I looked and saw the contraption they were "burning paper" in and noticed a wheel barrel next to it with filled black garbage bags in it.  I whispered to my husband "That doesn't look like paper to me".  He whispered back "I know, it's not".  

Then she came out with Kirby.  She carried him because he was so tired from eating that she did not want him to walk.  My husband swept him our of her arms and turned him to me.  He lifted his head and I knew then he was a fighter.  I rubbed his head and started to cry.  We got him in the car and when I sat down in the front seat I began to bawl.  It was amazing and heartbreaking all at the same time that this animal was alive.  I was so taken aback that this live animal in such horrible condition wanted to be next to us wanted to move around and it was obvious he had not given up.  The entire experience was surreal.  

Kirby immediately after leaving the shelter 

The vet was so nice and they gave him extra treats.  All his skin and bones added up to a pathetic 27.8 lbs. but Kirby is not pathetic, he is a walking miracle.  At the vet, he got cleaned up a bit around the rear end, ticks removed, nails trimmed, water under the skin, he walked out of the vet on his own and got right back into the car where he began his final leg of the journey to his foster home.  He did not want me to stop petting his head but I finally got him to relax and he slept for the next hour.  

Kirby finally falls asleep

When we passed him off to Phil, my husband woke Kirby up and scooped him up from the back seat.  As he was bringing him to Phil's truck he was wagging his tail again.  I have no doubt that we will be getting updates of Kirby as he puts weight on and gets the life back into him.  He is a fighter and I am very glad that I was a part of his second chance.  I know you will find a great home for him once he gets healthy.  I know that his wonderful personality will only shine more once he is better.  I have a great feeling about this little pup and I want you to let his forever owners know about his journey. This is a very special dog.  

This experience was very emotionally taxing on me but one I will never forget.  I am sure I will be able to help in the future and when I am able to I will let you know.  Keep up the great work Gemma.  You are making a difference one awesome pup at a time! :) 

It's not just how they're raised

Well-meaning "pit bull" lovers consistently supply variations of the phrase: "Pit bulls are great dogs if they are raised properly and socialized from a young age." I cannot say this phrase is untrue, and I certainly encourage folks with puppies to train and socialize early and with love, but it inherently suggests that pit bull type dogs rescued from poor or unknown backgrounds and upbringings cannot be reliable family members.

This is untrue.

More important than a dog's past is a dog's present. Dogs raised from puppyhood, lovingly socialized and cared for, may still be dog selective or develop a behavioral issue. Dogs are individuals, influenced by biology as well as environment as well as unknown factors and interactions; dog owners generally can only control for environment. What really matters is how the dog is managed, which must be based on how each dog actually responds, interacts, and behaves, regardless of that dog's known or unknown upbringing.

Dog bite incidents (involving any breed) do not occur because the dog had a bad first owner. They occur because their present owner failed to contain the dog, or watch a child properly, or recognize the limits of their own pet. I'm not saying a dog's history is totally irrelevant, but I am saying it can be neutralized by a good owner.

Although many news reports of dog attacks include phrases like "the dog bite was unprovoked" or "the dog has never shown signs of aggression until..." Proper investigation (or even overlooked comments in the news reports themselves) indicate that these phrases rarely are accurate. With nearly negligible exceptions, dogs do not seriously injure human beings without having a history of behavioral signals. Whether or not these signals are noticed and/or covered up by an owner who clearly has reasons to lie (the laws favor folks with no prior knowledge of a dog's aggressive propensities) is indicative of the dog-owner relationship.

Most of the dogs in our program came into shelters as strays. We very often are asked: What do you know about his past? Truthfully, we rarely know anything. We do not know where they were born. We do not know if they were hit. We do not know if they were exposed to other dogs, cats, or kids. What we do know is what we can observe, and it is not difficult to make adjustments to a dog's routine, care, socialization, or training based on what we see. We've been placing dogs with unknown histories in loving family environments for years without a single incident arising therefrom.

Farrah was used for breeding and was reserved until she found someone to trust; now she loves everyone she meets. Jade came in to our program totally shut down, but also blossomed when she learned to trust.

In our rescue, and among my friends, I personally know many dogs who have had their truly horrific pasts confirmed with reasonable certainty, and, yet, they are absolutely wonderful pets who get along great with people, other dogs, even cats and critters.

Time and time again, these dogs remind me how resilient, flexible, and forgiving dogs really are. Their histories merely highlight the fact that they are individuals. All dogs are. And they all deserve to be treated as such.

Dogs live in the present. So should we. Please adopt a rescued "pit bull" today!

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.