pit bulls Archives - Oh My Dog!

The “pit bull problem” isn’t a pit bull problem

02•23•16

It’s an all-dog problem.

Or, I should say, it’s a problem for all dogs.

Because what the “pit bull problem” really is, is a complete and utter misunderstanding of what dogs are and how they behave. (And how they should be treated, but that’s part of the what dogs are question, too.)

Did you guys see this?

Toronto’s pit bulls are almost gone. So why are there more dog bites than ever?

Honestly, this is what pit bull advocates have been shouting from the rooftops for forever, right?

Breed-specific legislation will never be the answer. Never ever.

Ever.

Here’s the thing: We are a dog-driven, dog-heavy, dog-saturated society. Even if you’re not a dog person, if you live here among the rest of us, you probably can’t go a day without seeing at least one dog. In your neighbor’s yard, walking past your office building, jogging in the park, on television, in advertisements, in statues and on greeting cards and on and on.

Dogs are everywhere.

That’s wonderful, of course, because they sure make life great.

But it’s also damaging (to dogs) because it’s all-too-easy for us to forget: Just because they’re part of human life around every twist and turn, they are a whole other species with a whole other set of needs, behaviors, and quirks.

Right? We can all agree to that, right? Dogs aren’t people.

So, here’s where the dog problem comes in: By forgetting that they’re a separate species, we (I’m using “we” generically, here, so please don’t take offense… I’m sure you’re a lovely dog person) treat them unfairly. We (again, generically) turn them into shelters because they bark too much or jump on our granny or–gasp–bite our children.

Our expectations–dogs are part and parcel of human life, so obviously they’ll know the rules we want them to know because obviously they’re dogs, duh–do not align with the reality of inviting another species into our homes.

Dogs languish in shelters, dogs lose their lives, dogs get sentenced to a life chained in the backyard because our expectations do not align with the reality of having another species woven into the fabric of our lives.

And that isn’t breed-specific.

I will not disagree with those of you who cry out that there are some dogs who do not belong with families, who are unsafe to be in our homes. Yes, there are some. They are oh-so-few, though, and many labeled as such (Lucas.) can be incredible family pets if treated, trained, fed, exercised, etc. correctly.

And that isn’t a breed-specific distinction, either.

Let’s set aside the emotion of breed-specific legislation for a sec, that intense, gut-wrenching pain of family dogs being taken from their homes or never even given a chance to have a home because of how they look.

Set that aside for just a sec.

Looking at it from a purely logical standpoint: Wouldn’t it make far more sense to focus on teaching people how to understand and how to train dogs? Wouldn’t it make far more sense to focus on behavior–of both dog and human–than outward appearance? Heck, we humans learn from the youngest age never to judge a book by a cover or a person by their skin, so how can we not apply that same logic to dogs?

It makes no rational sense.

I get that this is an oversimplification. I do. I get that it entails all sorts of things like how to actually deliver that education and how to overcome our culture of violence and how to (finally) link domestic abuse and animal abuse and, taking that even further, how to focus on rehabilitation not just a punitive approach (again, dogs and humans) and on and on.

I get it. It’s complicated.

But I also think we’ve so over-complicated some of the most basic issues with “the pit bull problem” that we’ve ignored the fundamental problem: a lack of understanding of dogs. Just dogs. Any breed.

Because, at the end of the day, we can all acknowledge that BSL doesn’t work. (And, by “we” I’m still generalizing because there’s a small subset of the population that refuses to acknowledge data and science over fear and emotion.)

So, let’s stop talking about breed, eh? (<— Canadian reference as a nod to the Toronto data!)

Let’s use our heads and start talking about the things that really matter, the things that will keep dogs happy and healthy in homes, the things that will decrease dog bites.

Because it sure isn’t a breed ban.

The results are in! Cooper’s DNA test results show…

06•30•15

I seriously can’t stop laughing, you guys. This is pretty hilarious.

Okay, so there were a lot of solid guesses when I posted about DNA testing Cooper with the Mars Wisdom Panel 3.0. Here’s that original post.

The majority of the votes were for a Ridgeback, some pittie, maybe some lab, and my two favorites, a Jack in the Box suggested by Mayzie’s mom, and a Golden Resneezer suggested by my friend Erik. Those two made me laugh…

But not as much as his REAL results!

Cooper is… {{drumroll}}

…an American Staffordshire Terrier Mix!

Helpful, huh? 🙂 And, actually, duh because we already knew who his mom was!

On the Mixed Breed Signatures page, it suggests that his mixed ancestry most likely includes members of the herding group followed by a smaller signature from members of the terrier group. There were much smaller signatures from the sporting group and from the Asian group. I guess his dad was just an all-around all-American mutt!

The good news, though, from this test, which I do think made it worth it: He tested normal/normal for the multi-drug sensitivity mutation. What that means is, “These dogs are not at increased risk for experiencing side effects from drugs that are pumped by P-glycoprotein.” Sort of amazing for this dog! But definitely nice to know!

There you have it! So hilarious and not all that helpful!

Lucas’ results, if you recall, were super specific and explained so much. I guess that’s the luck of the draw when it comes to genetics!

Have you had your dog DNA tested? Were the results helpful like Lucas’ or vague like Cooper’s? If you haven’t, would you consider doing it?

Advocating: Why we must be a voice for pit bulls

03•09•15

Thankfully, it doesn’t happen often, but occasionally I receive some pretty vile comments. There are a few posts that receive more than average, but the post that grosses the most hateful comments is PETA and Pit Bulls.

When I receive comments of dissent – expressing an opposing viewpoint – I usually let them through and strive to respond to them. Discussions and disagreements are A-OK because it’s how we exchange ideas and develop deeper connections. Slander, insults, name-calling, and hate… those aren’t OK, and I mark all those as spam so that the person’s email address is forever blocked.

That was working well until recently when, dangit, a commenter outsmarted me by using a fake address.

On the PETA post, in quick succession:

Pit bulls are not animals, they are monsters.
Humane euthanization of these dogs would make our children safe from these increasing attacks.
You just inspired me to donate to PETA! Thanks!

Normally, I huff a little, mark them as spam, then move on. There are just some wackos out there who, for whatever reason, get so fired up about something that a discussion, even with all the facts laid out, can’t pry their mind open even an inch. Maybe I was feeling extra grumpy that day, but those comments lodged in my head. Really, it just breaks my heart. My dogs and your dogs aren’t monsters. They’re loves.

(Nothing’s wrong with Cooper’s face… just glare from the reading lamp…)

This is why we advocate on behalf of our dogs, because there are closed-minded folks spreading fear. I truly believe the tides are turning. Repeals of BSL are happening faster than new laws being enacted. Pit bulls are getting so much more positive press, the positive press they deserve, thanks to mainstream pubs like the Huffington Post.

But comments like those remind us that we all need to advocate for our dogs. We must be a voice for pit bulls because there are people who still have hateful, misinformed ideas about our dogs, and – unfortunately – our pups can’t speak for themselves. (If Emmett could, though, I’m pretty sure he’d say something like, “Wait. What? But I love you! Hey, do you have any snacks?”)

So, yeah. I’ll continue to spam or delete vitriolic comments. I’ll approve and respond to the ones that seem somewhat open to discussion. And I’ll continue to write about how wonderful ALL our dogs are. Because all dogs are wonderful and deserve to be loved, cared for, and treated respectfully (just as people do, too…).

Those of you who blog, how do you handle negative comments? Those of you who have been faced with negative comments in person, how do you respond?

New here? Welcome! We just launched our brand-new design and navigation. Poke around and make yourself comfy – don’t mind the dog hair – and please join the discussion in the comments or on Facebook!

We’re talking about the wrong things: pit bulls, KFC, and journalistic integrity

06•24•14

Yesterday, I was still stewing about the TIME article as I sat in a rental car parking lot waiting for John. (RIP, Saturn Ion. You gave us 10 good years.)

Anyway, I got a ding, glanced at my phone, and balked. The headline: KENTUCKY FRIED HOAX. Story of girl getting tossed from KFC bogus; ‘It never happened.’

You can read the full article here or in any of the other outlets like Yahoo! that are covering the fraud, but gist is that the little girl who was mauled by three of her grandfather’s 10 pit bulls… never got kicked out of KFC… never disturbed other patrons with her scars… never ordered mashed potatoes and sweet tea… in fact, she never even went into KFC. The hoax netted the fund started by the girl’s aunt over $135,000 (up from the $595 they had raised prior to the “incident”) plus offers of free surgery and an additional $30,000 pledged by KFC.

What does this mean?

This means that Alter’s reporting in TIME was even shoddier than we thought yesterday. This means that the impetus for writing her fake story was… fake. This means that we can safely assume that, since the biggest “fact” of her entire story wasn’t fact-checked, pretty much none of them were. And what does that mean for TIME?

Circling back around to my point from yesterday, what does it all really mean for the big picture?

Will all the people who were enticed to click on the splashy article yesterday click on the fraud article, which appeared in a small local paper, to get the rest of the story?

Will TIME run a retraction? Will they correct their errors? They haven’t yet, and in the age of the internet when you can make changes in real time, that’s deplorable and unconscionable.

We have effectively “buried the lede,” to use a journalism quote. The conversation has been steered by Alter, Lynn, PETA, Clifton, and this girl’s desperate family. We’re talking about KFC and we’re talking about fraudulent parents and we’re talking about journalistic integrity. Even the “other side” has latched onto this story and the hoax by saying (I’m condensing several comments here), “Of course they lied. They’re pit bull people.”

We’ve lost sight of the big picture. The critical elements – dog bite safety, animal welfare, the details of the mauling, punishments for negligent pet owners (and parents), how to address the root causes that result in little girls’ faces getting bitten – have been glossed over.

On yesterday’s post, my friend Pamela said it best: “The truly sad thing is that some people who are bit by dogs suffer tremendously. We need to prevent bites as a public health problem. And demonizing one group of dogs based on their appearance has not saved one person.”

Preventing dog bites. That needs to be our bottom line.

I’m lucky to know many wonderful people who work tirelessly to improve the reputation of pit bulls, to improve the conditions of companion animals, and to improve education and outreach efforts to teach dog bite safety.

I get indignant when stories like this distract and detract from the efforts of those big-hearted, dedicated advocates.

I’m furious that stories like this fuel the hatred and anger of the anti-pit-bull contingent.

But, beyond feeling angry, the whole thing is just sad.

It’s sad that the little girl was attacked, and it’s sad that her family was so desperate that they pulled this scam. It’s sad there were 10 dogs in a house without proper containment, training, restraint, supervision, and more. It’s sad that the garbage Alter wrote was published and widely circulated. And it’s sad that nothing will likely happen because of this mess, except more prejudice against pit bulls and their advocates.

Many days can feel like an uphill battle. I guess some days the hill is steeper than others.

Write those letters. Hug your dogs.

When mainstream media gets the facts wrong

06•23•14

I know. I should be ashamed. The truth is: I don’t really know what’s going on in Syria. I mean, I have the general outline but no specifics. I don’t know the history, so I have a hard time contextualizing what I hear on NPR.

So, let’s say I decide this week to get a firm grasp of the situation. Where would I go? Well, I’d probably start with mainstream magazines that have spent decades figuring out how to consolidate huge world issues into comprehensible, bite-sized chunks, right? That’s what most people do when they want to learn something about a particular issue…

And that’s where the problem comes in.

I could write about journalistic standards and the decline of integrity in the media, but luckily a lot of people* are doing that in the wake of Charlotte Alter’s fear-mongering article in TIME. (I’m not going to link to it here. You can find it on their site if you’re interested.)

Instead of addressing her lack of reporting and total disregard for her responsibility to objectivity, I want to focus on the other side of that article: the reader.

Since you are here, reading a dog blog during some of your precious free time, I’d venture to guess you’re more informed about a bevy of dog-related issues. I’d also venture to guess that the majority of TIME’s readers don’t fall into the dog-blog-reading category. What that means is that those readers, when they want to learn about a particular issue, turn to the magazine to info-gather. Most probably stop reading after a piece like Alter’s. Who has time, after all, to do further research? To fill the reporting gaps? Especially when there are other problems that are more pressing? So, they finish the piece, toss the magazine in the recycling bin, and walk away – having formed an opinion about pit bulls with only those erroneous 1,500 words as background.

And I can’t fault them for that. That’s probably a close approximation to how I’d tackle the Syria issue.

Alter’s shoddy reporting, her editor’s laziness in letting that piece get published without a shred of objectivity, the pressure to publish click-bait, foreshortened editorial calendars, and so on… all that comes into play.

But, again, my concern isn’t for the decline of journalistic integrity. My concern is for those readers who skimmed that article and walked away with a misguided, misinformed view of “the pit bull problem.”

And, I know, saying “problem” is a gross over-simplification. Pick your problem: chaining, limited access to veterinary and behavior services, bad breeding, an overcrowded shelter system, and on and on. The number of problems – all inter-related and cyclical – feels insurmountable, like an out-of-control wildfire.

But, when it comes down to it, misinformation and fear-mongering nonsense that comes from people like Alter are the fuel behind that fire.

We can put it out. We just need to reach out to those people who aren’t reading dog blogs.

I’ve been thinking “what can I DO about this” since I read her article last week. I thought about writing to Alter, though I’m not sure it’s worth it. I thought about writing to the TIME Magazine editorial staff (the masthead is available online), and I still might. But I’m sure those people are getting slammed on both sides already, and I kept circling back around to the issue of the reader, the average non-dog-blog-reading but likely-dog-owning magazine subscriber. Those are the people who need the correct information.

So, here are two simple things that we informed folks can do to combat Alter’s bad reporting and to help those readers get the correct information:

1. Write a letter to your local paper. Yes, it seems counterintuitive to go local to combat a national article, but it’s the same subscriber base. In fact, coming from someone they know – you! – your neighbors and colleagues may take it more seriously or spark a discussion with you. You can find the submission requirements for various sections (letters to the editor, op-ed, even features in smaller markets) on the paper’s website. Share your polite, educated, passionate position.

2. Leverage your social media accounts to reach those people who are close to you who may not be as in-tune with animal initiatives. A quick status update in your own voice – and maybe a pic of your pup – could resonate. Even a question, like, “Did anyone read that TIME article about pit bulls? I’m so disappointed in that lack of reporting. What did you think?” You’ll open up the possibility for people who aren’t in-the-know to ask you their questions, and it sets you up to dispel myths.

Did you read the article? Any other ideas or suggestions for how we, as a caring group of dog lovers, can address the misinformation presented there? Have you taken any steps or led any discussions about these issues? I’d love to know what you’re doing!

And, on a final note, when I do finally get the chance to read up on Syria, you can be sure that I will not be purchasing a copy of TIME.

*If you’re interested in delving into the mistakes and false data she presents, here’s a great recap of the problems.

New here? Thanks for visiting! Join the Facebook page or subscribe to the feed to stay on top of the discussion!