Photo: Gracie the Pit Bull Terrier remains docile even while her infected anal glands are examined.
A blogger I respected (up until now), recently posted (in a
three-
part series no less) on pit bulls and how strange it was that there are people who like them and hate BSL.
After hundreds of words, her posts boil down to this: "What? Some people keep pit bulls as pets? That's weird and outside my experience! My ten minutes of internet research confirms what I already suspected that pit bulls are different and dangerous. Stupid pit bull lovers! BSL for everyone!"
Yeah. That alone would have been enough, but she also compares pit bull advocates (which I guess I am) to vaccination deniers and fans of homeopathic medicine. Please, just slap me in the face, why don't you? This is supposed to be a skeptic's blog, and it's just. So. Wrong. I left a too-long comment there already, but as we all know I'm a fan of GYOFB philosophy, so here we go.
(Part 1: Paragraph 1)
She states that woo groups have shared characteristics, and one is that they do not "outright state their real purpose... and only nerds who like to dig deep into things (skeptics) will find the truth."
Very true. And it would have been great if she had actually "dug deeply" or found any "truth" or any evidence of a hidden agenda from people who advocate for pit bulls. Or really, anything but the same tired arguments for BSL that have been circulating for the last couple decades.
"There was an internal woo alarm that lit up for me upon researching pro-pit bull activism."
Judging by the rest of the posts, that "internal alarm" was her preconceived ideas (aka "bias") against pit bulls.
(Part 1:Paragraph 2)
She gives a history of what she calls the "pit bull debate".
"Pit bulls are a few breeds of dogs that are commonly lumped together... bred for blood sports and fighting long ago."
No reference for these statements, so I don't know exactly which "few breeds" she's referring to. Because breeds commonly affected by BSL include hunting dogs like the catahoula (unless 'hunting' is a type of blood sport? In which case all hunting dogs should also be persecuted, or lumped together with pit bulls?)
She also doesn't state what she means by "long ago". Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Because, "long ago", all dog ancestors were wolves, and wolves are undisputedly dangerous to keep as pets. "Long ago" English bull dogs, boxers, all the different mastiff breeds, and many other breeds NOT commonly lumped with pit bulls were also bred for blood sports.
She then lists a handful of examples of pit bull type dogs causing major injury to people, saying: "This is not typically something dogs in general are capable of." Another statement based on unresearched gut feeling. Like all thoughtless anti-pit bull people, she doesn't have any science that shows a locking jaw, or extra jaw strength, or any other genetic behavior that makes them SUPER CRAZY SPECIAL DOGS.
Physically, what is it exactly that makes a pit bull type dog so very different than a lab mix?
I've said it before, others have said it, and I'll say it again: for each and every anecdote pro-BSL people cite where a "pit bull" has done something negative, I can cite an equally bad, equally reliable example involving a lab mix, or a golden retriever, or a boxer, or whatever, or unidentifiable mix breed.
It would be difficult to link to all the reported examples of non-pit bulls causing grievous harm to people, property, and other animals, so I'll just reference the two most active blogs who collect such reports:
KC Dog Blog and
For the Pit Bulls.
She states: "Multiple studies... found that pit bulls and rottweilers are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks."
By "multiple studies" she means Dogbites.org and that famous CDC study. Both of which, she admits, are based on media reports and rely journalists to idenify dogs breeds. But, she says, "
The use of media is not necessarily inaccurate automatically- the support of other studies makes me think that the media is giving proportional attention to fatal dog attacks from different breeds." Handily dismissing, without much fanfare or research (and only one reference to
one study on Dogbites.org), any possibility of media bias against pit bulls.
And worse, I wonder if she actually read the entire CDC study, since the researchers say in their conclusion: "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem ... other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites." (Emphasis bolding mine)
(Part 1:Paragraphs 3)
"The [pit bull] advocates are generally against any breed specific laws and for everyone treating their dog exactly like they would any other breed of dog."
100% correct and a very reasonable thing to want since there's no reasonable justification for not treating a pit bull type dog just like other dogs.
"[Pit bull advocates] often characterize people who oppose them as hating all pit bulls or thinking that they all bit (sic) or kill. I haven't seen anyone on dog bite victim advocacy websites pushing that view at all."
Then you aren't reading very many anti-pit bull writers, then. Or the commenters on your own blog, apparently, many of whom responded to this post with variations of "Yeah! Make the pit bulls go extinct! There's no reason for 'em!"
(Part 1: Paragraph 5)
She states that pit bull advocates "try to state that pit bulls are equally likely to bite/equally as dangerous as any other kind of dog."
100% correct, though of course due to the difficulties in identifying pit bulls and reporting their good or neutral behavior, there's no good empirical statistics to prove this. It being the null hypothesis, however, it's up to the anti-pit bull people to prove it wrong. As I laid out above, there's no evidence, but, unfortunately, from this point on, the blogger acts as if the case against pit bulls has already been proven conclusively.
Here's her first strawman argument: pit bull advocates claim that their dogs can be trained out of their inherent aggression and that's ridiculous because "The exact amount of nature and nurture involved with animal behavior is difficult to calculate, but it certainly cannot be none."
Right. Since there's no evidence that pit bull type dogs are especially aggressive, there's no trait to "train out" of them that other dog breeds don't also have. Being a pit bull advocate, I think I can speak for us: when we say "it's all in how you raise them", this is a reminder that pit bulls are just dogs. Training and socialization is important for ALL dogs. A poorly socialized or abused lab is the same risk as a pit bull in the same situation. Just as a well socialized pit bull is just as reliable as a nice lab. Note I say "risk". An abused dog is not guaranteed to be aggressive, just as a well trained dog is not guaranteed to behave perfectly or to never bite. Dog trainers know this; most of the bloggers I read know this; heck, even dog fighters know this since they kill dogs from their breeding program who, despite all their efforts, still aren't aggressive enough.
Speaking of aggressive, the blogger next tries her hand at judging dog behavior. Without, apparently, doing any research into dog behavior. She says that we say that pit bulls "were bred to be aggressive towards other animals only, but not babies and children... The principle that "dog aggression" and "human aggression" are different from plain old "aggression" has never been demonstrated by advocates or scientists."
Really? Because most dog breeds are (or were "long ago") indeed bred to do exactly that. Hounds course and kill rabbits and coyotes and deer and boar and fox and whatever else; terriers live for tearing small animals to pieces; the intensity of a herding dog chasing sheep is merely modified hunting behavior; and they all come home and sleep at their owner's side all night. What dog owner hasn't seen the different ways their pet interacts with them versus the cat versus other dogs at the park? Humans may just be another animal in the grand scheme of things, but we're an animal that dogs can easily distinguish from other dogs and other animals. This is a big reason that dogs are such popular pets.
True, it's debated in the dog community how dog fighting training affects the dogs' relationship with people. It's also true that
some pit bull advocates are in denial about the ability to rehabilitate all former abused/fighting dogs. Not to even mention all the
guard and
police dogs are trained specifically to be aggressive towards other humans. This is an interesting topic that deserves more nuanced discussion, but to claim that dogs can't tell the difference between a human and another dog is just ignorant. And apparently
this study on dog aggression either slipped under her radar or didn't count as a scientific study?
"This doesn't stop advocates from being angry when their dogs are asked to leave dog parks, either."
Yes, well, if I was kicked out of a dog park because of the way my dog looked, not the way he acted, I'd be pissed. Just as I'd pissed if someone else refused to leave if their dog (of ANY breed) was acting badly. Being from pit-bull friendly Corvallis, Oregon, I've only witnessed the latter situation, and trust me, at the dog park, breed doesn't matter nearly as much as the idiocy of the owner.
(Part 1: Paragraph 7)
She says pit bull advocates say conflicting and often inaccurate things about dog behavior, genetics, and aggression. Yeah, I guess that kind of thing happens when there's a huge, diverse group of people that really only agree on one thing (despite the label that's been slapped on them): pit bull type dogs deserve the consideration as any other dog. I have indeed seen pit bull advocates with their heads in the clouds, who couldn't be persuaded to admit that a pit bull could hurt someone even if it was latched onto their arm. To characterize ALL pit bull owners and advocates as the same is as bad as making a strawman to knock down.
(Part 1: Paragraph 8)
After recently dismissing any possible media bias against pit bulls, the author now states that in fact it's the opposite: pit bull advocates, being biased for pit bulls, never admit that pit bulls could ever do wrong. This is inaccurate (see above about strawmen), and she obviously didn't look very hard; I read many pit bull friendly blogs, and many owners/lovers/neutrals on the subject are perfectly open to reporting pit bull attacks. Because pit bulls are just like any other dog and any dog could hurt a person.
The motivations for her bias becomes more clear in the comment section of Part 1. In response to someone who sticks up for pit bulls, she says: "...you haven't mentioned what the victims went through at all. ... The statistics aren't just numbers, they are people who have needlessly been injured or killed... I work in a hospital, what I don't like is seeing horrific injuries and deaths that are preventable. When you see the real consequences of things like loss of skin and amputations you tend to take it a bit more seriously."
So, apparently sticking up for the right for normal pet dogs to be treated like normal pet dogs is insulting to people who have been maimed by
other, different dogs. Right.
That sounds familiar.
There are so many resources that this blogger ignored it's actually a little embarrassing. Aside from the links I've already provided, the most obvious are:
Stay tuned as I go after Part 2.
