Book Review: Pit Bull by Bronwen Dickey

Book review: Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon, by Bronwen Dickey

I've read hundreds of blog posts and articles about pit bulls, and written plenty myself. Weirdly, the feeling* that built in me after each chapter was… relief. I never have to write another blog post about pit bulls. Anytime I feel the urge to correct some ignorance, I'll point them to this book, and if they haven't both read it and formulated a response, they don't get to have their opinion on the subject taken seriously.

I add this to my short list of books that should be required reading for animal shelter employees. But unlike the other books on my mental list (*cough cough* Winograd's Redemption), I can recommend Pit Bull with zero reservations about the content.

It would be easy to compare this book to some other ones, such as The Pit Bull Placebo, but unlike all the others, it does not take a stand (except perhaps in the very last sentence) and then work to convince you of anything; it exhibits a type of journalism that seems to be dying out in the mainstream media. It’s not just that Dickey keeps “an open mind”, it’s that the writing lacks any hyperbole or unexamined assertions. “Nanny dogs, you say? Well, let’s just look into that…”

Dickey is also the first writer I’ve come across who truly digs deeply into the classism and racism behind the hate of pit bulls. While I’ve admired writers like Shirley Thistlewaite and Bent Toellner, and many other “pit bull advocates” like them for calling it out, Dickey finally lays it bare as never before. It's the core theme of the book. And with so many citations that only those most deeply invested in hating pit bulls could ignore it.

It would be a disservice to call this book “balanced”, because, as she points out, “balanced journalism” is too often used as an excuse for false dichotomies while also an excuse for journalists to give too much weight to fringe voices for the sake of excitement/ratings.

What it is is honest, thoughtful, and well-researched (I’ve seen textbooks with shorter indexes than this biography). It well deserves it’s spot in the NYT bestsellers list.

-------------

*Some chapters also had me sobbing like a baby - warning: if you can’t handle discussion about dead or suffering people or animals, don’t read.

Quick Question

Why am I forced to call the one on the left a "pit bull mix", but the other I could call simply a "mixed breed"?

I like that animal shelters are starting to do away with breed identification of mixy mutts, calling them "All American" or something similar. Because there is no point to breed ID when the mix is too mixed.

Anecdotal Pit Bull #31

As a brief return to a neglected blog series, have a Dodger:




I can't remember exactly how Dodger came to the shelter, whether he was an owner surrender or a stray dog that was never claimed. Either way, we didn't know his history and had to evaluate the dog we had in front of us. And the dog we have in front of us, folks, is very pitty, and very nice.

Aside from the hysterical (the ones who still use terms like "land shark" with a straight face), and the ignorant (like the woman who came into the shelter last month to view a puppy, and when she saw we had a couple pit bull mixes up for adoption, stormed out in a huff after lecturing a staff member about how irresponsible we were), I hear the same dismissive refrain from anti-pit bull people that it all the good stories in the world won't make them like pit bulls (with the implied addendum "so shut up about your nice dog already").

All I can do is shrug and think, I could give two shits if you like pit bulls, just stop bad mouthing them, you're making my job needlessly harder.

The fundamental difference between an pit bull hater, and someone who is an advocate (or, like myself, neutral) toward them: one group wants dogs that look a certain way to be treated the same (ie, killed if they become homeless) no matter what, the other wants them to be evaluated as individuals, where possible pedigree is only one of many considerations when deciding their future.

So, I've asked this before and never gotten a logical response: tell me, any pit bull haters who happen to read this: why the hell should I kill Dodger? He is great with people and other dogs, and cute and goofy and every bit as deserving of a chunk of shelter resources as any dog. How would having a blanket shelter policy to kill all pit bulls serve the community in any way?

A Law Restricting Pit Bulls Saves the Day!

...or not.

Same owners, different dogs, repeat bite attacks in Kennewick

Thank goodness Kennewick has restrictions on pit bulls! Oh wait, that does nothing to help since no pit bulls were involved. That's right, an entire neighborhood is in fear from these people's dogs, multiple bites have occurred off the property, children are being chased, even the school bus driver altered their route because of these people... and there's nothing that can be done about it because " "There are no laws on the books that say otherwise. Only a judge can decide whether or not a person is fit to own a pet, even after multiple occurrences just like this situation. Still, there's got to be a lot of evidence to even prove a case before it gets that far."

There's a detailed law about restricting pit bulls, but none about this? Way to prioritize, Kennewick!

This owner, who's dog once barked at someone, faces more repercussions than these scumbags. How is that logical or justified?

Anecdotal Pit Bulls do Pinterest

Do you need a scientific study to "prove" that pit bulls can make good pets? Or that they can be good at sports, or good working dogs, or safe around kids and small animals and other dogs? No. For that, all you need are anecdotes and experience. 

I've been collecting pit bull related images since I discovered Pinterest last year.

On my board, you'll see pit bulls*

...playing in dog parks
...playing on the beach
...going for leash walks
...going for off-leash walks
...in the woods
...in the city

...living with other dogs
...relaxing with other dogs
...playing with other dogs
...relaxing with other animals
...relaxing on porches
...relaxing on couches and beds

...saving lives
...painted in portraits
...showcased by their breeders
...dying of old age
...protecting livestock
...hanging out with livestock
...being police dogs
...doing SAR 
...being service dogs
...doing agility
...doing weight pull
...doing disc sports
...doing dock diving
...doing flyball
...owned by rich people
...owned by middle class people
...owned by poor people
...with cropped ears
...with natural ears
...with spiked collars and studded harnesses
...in stupid, undignified costumes
...(you won't see many being crawled on by children, despite the large number available, because seeing dogs get crawled on by children makes me cringe)

What do all these anecdotes actually prove? A few simple things:

1) There is no single "pit bull culture". There is no dichotomy (as some haters would have you believe), of either felon-thug-owners or clueless-yuppie-owners. Pit bulls are owned by lots of different types of people and doing different things in different places.

2) Not all pit bull breeders are the problem. Breeding them on purpose can actually be OK.

3) Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of loved pet pitties out there.


I'm willing to accept arguments that there's some kind of "pit bull problem" in the US. Lot's of pit bulls are dying in shelters. They're one of the most popular types of dogs to be owned by dog fighters and criminals. What I don't accept are assertations that I hear all the time: pit bulls shouldn't be adopted out by shelters/to families/live with other dogs or animals/bred/be in dog parks/are ticking time bombs/good for nothing/untrustworthy/unneeded.

I don't have the answers. But I know for sure that, whatever the problem is, it isn't going to be solved by BSL, negative media bias, or magically making them all sterile.

*My definition of "pit bull" in this case is any dog that would be labeled such by your average shelter and/or be targeted by BSL. Therefore, any dog with short hair and a large head could qualify. Hard to define, but you know one when you see one, amirite?

Yet another neutral week for pit bulls

A dog I met a few years ago in a shelter in Corvallis, OR. Pretty unremarkable. Liked people. Liked to play fetch. She was adopted by a family. There would be no story here except for the fact she is a pit bull mix.

So, there's this post that came out awhile ago. Written by a smart guy who's knowledgeable about dogs, so, like, he has all these new insights about pit bulls and gonna skool us all.

Whatever. Same shit, different day.

And thus I break it down:


The title of the post is "Bad Week for Pit Bulls", but it should probably be titled, "I'm Just Really Mad at People Who Like Pit Bulls".

He starts by stating an intention to review a book, Unleashed: The phenomena of status dogs and weapon dogs, that Landauer hopes will be "tackling the dogs and their owners in terms of criminology and sociology instead of the suburban dog-mommy perspective on “saved” and “rescued” and “misunderstood” pit bulls that’s all too common in the dog blog sphere".

He hasn't read it, and yet: "...Reviews on Amazon suggest I’ll be disappointed and that the author reverts to the same old cliches about “only the mixed bred ones are bad” and “they’re nanny dogs!” nonsense."


He is so disappointed that this sciencey-sounding book doesn't seem to reinforce his stance on pit bulls! Apparently he doesn't read books to learn things, but only as reference for already-formed opinions.

He then takes another swipe at pit bull advocates and states "...topics most pibble-mommies don’t want to talk about: the image and use of these dogs as vicious killers by criminal thugs."

People who blog about their pet pit bulls don't want to talk about the use of pit bulls by criminals? Which blogs has he been reading? Because this type of blogger talks about this subject a lot... just not in a context that Landauer approves. They tend to focus on the positive or neutral aspects of pit bulls. When pit bull advocates focus on negatives, it's mostly about the criminals' actions, not specific acts of violence by the dogs themselves.

People who don't like pit bulls, on the other hand, really like to focus on individual acts of violence from the dogs. Something they have in common with dog-fighters, come to think of it. That's why they, like Landauer, prefer context-free news stories instead of the day-to-day details of a dog blog.

Everyone already knows that pit bulls are used for dog fighting and as guard dogs by criminals. What Landauer resents is not that people aren't aware that dogs are being used by criminals, but that they don't share his opinions about those dogs. The thing about all these dog blogs that he so despises isn't that all the observations of pit bulls aren't true, but that they aren't the ones he wants to focus on.

He has a small point in that, yeah, there are definitely pit bull advocates out there who exaggerate in the other direction, to the point of lying to themselves and others; some even claim that pit bulls are incapable of harming people/other dogs without some kind of extreme abuse/training/etc, which of course isn't true. Some dogs are perfectly good at being dangerous without training or abuse. Like so many arguments from pit bull haters, this is a red herring - most pit advocates are very reasonable about the risks of dogs and point out that ANY dog can seriously injure a person or another dog, and also point out that there are many, many pit bulls that make good family pets.This is verifiablly true from a million anecdotes, but, again, not the truth that he wants everyone focused on.


The main part of the blog is a series of three stories involivng pit bulls from around the internet. 
I think the title of the post, "Bad Week for Pit Bulls" is supposed to imply that these three situations indicate some kind of ongoing trend that was just especially bad this week, and also that they reflect on every single pit bull out there (a common trend with pit bull haters). It's unimpressive, as far as trends go: one news story about an owner who can't control her large, unneutered dog and let it kill a neighbor's pomeranian; one Reddit post (where we don't even know a pit bull was involved); and one Facebook kerfluffle where a dog-fighter in Mexico posted video of his dog(s) killing restrained cats.


"It’s important to remember that this is the reality of pit bull culture..."

That's the reality of SOME "pit bull culture". I can think of several different types of pit bull cultures and Landauer even mentions one in the same blog post; "pibble-mommies" are a distinct and recognizable cliche in the same manner of the dog-fighting-Mexican stereotype.

"This is happening in nice neighborhoods by all sorts of wayward youth who view the bully landrace as empowering, status symbols, and a source of entertainment."

So glad he took the time to point this out. NO ONE WAS AWARE OF THIS.

"... I see too many people on crusades to clean up the bully breeds’ image and not clean up the culture itself or even be honest with what is going on"

OK, so lets talk about "thug culture" for a sec. We have to use scare quotes though, because "thug culture" isn't as easy to pin down as they want us to think. The dress style of thugs and ganstas is pervasive throughout the US, with white and colored folks alike, popular with youth who want to look tough or even just fit in at school. Wearing the trappings of "thug" and actually being dangerous are two different things.

Regardless of that, though: cleaning up the bully breeds' image is a way to clean up "the culture". A very small piece of a much larger and more complex social justice picture involving everyhting from poverty, exploitation, gangs, racism, and misogyny.

Landauer calls it "white washing", but all it is is pointing out that many pit bulls make good pets. The fact that that pit bull there was used in dog fighting doesn't change the fact that this pit bull over here was a great family pet for 15 years. Nowhere is it implicit that ALL pit bulls should be pets, but, again with the red herrings, bully advocates aren't saying that.

You know what is good at making these dogs more desirable for criminals? Media hype (and blog posts) about how scary and different they are from other dog breeds/types. So scary and different, they should be killed instead of risking them being family pets.

And as far as honesty goes: being honest that there's a connection between pit bulls and criminals and constantly focusing on the negative are two different things that Lanauer seems to have conflated.


"This breed doesn’t need a make-over.  Dog fighting  needs to go extinct and with it game dogs that are bred to fight."

A) As if he's the only one who REALLY wants dog fighting to go extinct, and B) flinging vitriol at rescue people while, C) not providing any real-world solutions of his own.

He says repeatedly that he does not support Breed Specific Legislation, so that leaves one to wonder how, exactly, he wants "game dogs" to go extinct. Mostly this post is about him being angry at people who promote pit bulls as pets and/or adopt them out as pets, so I guess the first thing he wants is for us rescue folks to stop adopting out pit bulls and start killing them instead.


In a comment Landauer states: "I do not consider death such an atrocious conclusion to an unwanted dog... Why should other breeds be displaced by filling homes with unwanted pit bulls... I don’t think it’s a moral, ethical, or practical problem to put down the surplus unwanted pit bulls ..."

I guess the bottom line is: what does Landauer want me to do with this dog?




She was a stray we fostered. Mellow, sweet, good with other dogs and cats. And he's ANGRY at ME because I dared boast about the fact she was adopted to a nice family? Why should I NOT adopt her to a family? Why the hell would I kill this dog?

What about this one?




One of the nicest dogs I've ever met. Family pet with kids and cats. How the hell am I an "apologist" for observing that this pit bull is nice and I wish there were more just like her?

...or this one?



She had stupid owners who let her run loose all the time and I ended up catching her multiple times before they gave up and left her at the shelter, but she was still a nice, friendly dog. How is it a "waste" to spend time and energy helping this dog find a home? How is she "surplus" in a manner somehow totally different than, say, a Labrador in the exact situation?


Type "pit bull terrier" into Petfinder, scroll through the list of nice, adoptable dogs that comes up, and tell me why each of those nice dogs should die because... they're taking up space for other nice dogs?

And tell me who's gonna wield the needle. I'm sure as hell not. I've got only so much time and energy to spend on animal rescue, and I'm not going to spend it killing nice dogs.

I've helped kill friendly, healthy dogs at work a handful of times, and it is soul-sucking. I've killed  lots of creatures, and the intimate act of hugging a happy, slobbery dog to your chest, as his tail is thumping and he's trying to lick your face while the doctor kills hims is terrible and different from any other type of killing: the old, sick, or aggressive, or animals meant to be food. It's different. Hence burnout rate of shelter veterinarians and techs at high-kill shelters. And if they don't burnout, they go numb or turn psycho.

"I do not appreciate that the public service of animal shelters which should be able to help me keep my dogs healthy and safe in the case that they go stray is burdened so much by abandoned pit bulls that my dogs might be killed on admission ...

How do you think your hypothetical stray border collie will fare in a shelter with a "kill all the pit bulls" policy? Staffed by people who, at best, are burned out and numb, and at worst, enjoy mistreating and killing dogs?

In the short term, it might be "practical" to kill every blocky-headed dog that comes in a shelter's doors. In the long term, that sort of policy hurts everything that shelters and rescues are trying to accomplish. You can't magically separate how bullys are treated and how all the dogs are treated. Moreover, shelters and rescues don't become popular by killing nice dogs. It's a good way to lose funding and support and volunteers.

When you actually get down on the ground (where I am, hi! *waves*), you end up having no ethical or practical choice but to treat all dogs as individuals. And, shit, the only reason there's any agenda at all for most of us "pit bull advocates" is because we got annoyed at the pushback when we try to place nice dogs in homes. That's how I personally got started on all these pit bull rants. And I still have a hard time understanding how it's so objectionable to place nice dogs in family homes, and then advertise that fact. That's really all us "apologists" are doing.

Relative Risk and the Animals in our Lives

I have a pet that's kind of dangerous to be around. He's injured several people, including myself. He bit my fathers face on one occasion, and on another fractured a bone in his wrist. He's caused me multiple bruises and has bitten me on the arms a few times, more than once drawing blood. He is not safe for children to be around without close supervision. I would never allow him off leash outside an enclosure.

Who is this pet, and why do I keep him around? If he were a pit bull, (or really any dog over 10 lbs) people would be asking me why I didn't have him put to sleep. And yet no one has ever asked why he's still alive.

The fact is, despite the risks, I find a lot of value in keeping this particular pet. I'm not alone; his breed is very popular, with millions just like him in North America. And, every year, animals of his breed kill people. Yet most people like him on sight. Children beg to pet him and feed him treats. And I will gladly let them pet him and feed him treats; I just take a few precautions first. Because with very little effort, the risk of children interacting with him is very small.

You've probably already guess what pet I'm talking about. Funny, though, that we have such different expectations of the different animals in our lives. A single, non-injurious nip from a "scary looking" dog is enough to send some people into hysterics, yet millions of horse-owners take being bitten, kicked, stepped on, thrown, and crushed against walls as par for the course of being around equines.

I have more to talk about on the subject of relative risk and how people are so terrible at judging it, but this is all I got for right now.

Some Pit Bull Stuff

1) I'm totally stopping my own blog series "anecdotal pit bull" because I've found an even better version of it: the Animal Farm Foundation's "Majority Project". It's just a huge, constantly-growing group of photographs of normal, mundane people who own pit bull dogs. Pit bulls are a very popular type of pet dog. The end.

2) And this article from HugABull: "From Skeptic to Breed Advocate"

Which is similar to my own experience, I guess.

I clearly remember the first time I met a "pit bull". I was about 12, and was at a friend's house for a sleep over or something. We took a walk to her neighbor's house to meet their new puppy, which was little, and cute and wiggly and kissy, and then the owner told us it was a pit bull.

My first thought was, "oh is that what they look like?" my second was, "oh, too bad it will grow up to be aggressive." I wasn't scared, because obviously it wasn't aggressive right that second, but I was puzzled why this family chose such a dangerous breed when, (surely!) they knew it would turn on them one day. We finished petting the puppy, and went back home, and I mostly forgot about it.

As far as I remember, I didn't do much more thinking about "pit bulls" until I got into college and started volunteering at the local shelter. There were lots of pit bulls and mixes there. I walked a lot of them. I trained with some of them. Sometimes there would be one in the 'off limits' area that was aggressive or a fear-biter.

In other words, "pit bull" dogs were just like all the other dog types at the shelter; a mix of personalities, back stories, and behavior. You judged each dog's individual behavior and needs before taking it out of the kennel. Aside from weight and/or strength, looks didn't help with that judgement at all.

I don't remember when I changed my mind, exactly. There was no "ah hah" moment, just a slow progression to "breed advocate" over the next few years. I think it helped that it coincided with my first, unfettered access to high speed internet and the flood of information available.

It also helped that Corvallis is a very dog-friendly town in general, (Kelly Dunbar visited the shelter once and said she saw more people out walking their dogs in her one afternoon driving through Corvallis than she saw in any other city in an entire day.). Lots of dog parks. Lots of hiking trails with public  poop bag dispensers. Lots of yuppies walking pit bulls in sweaters to the farmer's market. Sort of Portlandia Lite (TM), if you see what I'm saying.

In other words, a perfect place to lose your biases of pit bulls. There's just too many of them, out in public, being normal dogs.

I still don't feel like a "breed advocate", even though I've been labeled a "pit bull nutter" by several pit bull haters. They're not a breed/type that calls to me the way that, say,  border collies do. The only reason I talk so much about "pit bulls" is that .... I just like dogs. And logic. Pit bull hysteria is stupid and causing a lot of families a lot of grief, and killing a lot of really good dogs, all to satisfy some "if only one child is saved!" fallacy of risk assessment.

Stupid people who kill dogs, directly or indirectly, piss me off. That's really all it's about.

My Third Grade Voice

I've been doing this animal rescue thing for, what, ten years now? Started with volunteering as a dog walker at a shelter, and now I've worked my way up to starting my very own non-profit.

And from the beginning, I've scratched my head in honest confusion at pit bull haters.

I still don't get it. I truely, honestly, do not understand these people. Sometimes they make me angry, sometimes I feel like writing entire essays about or at them, sometimes to rant, sometimes to gently change minds.

And then, sometimes, I just feel like sticking my fingers in my ears, sticking out my tongue, and shouting "NEENER NEENER" at them.


"Neener neener! This dog I've been fostering for a month that needed expensive surgery is a pit bull mix! I've spent time and money on her, and now she's just been adopted by a really great (also, rich) family who have another pit bull and now she gets to live a long, happy life with lots of cuddles, walks, trips to the beach, and play times with another dog and kids and oh by the way HA HA, they live in a place where it's super unlikely that BSL will ever touch them! AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! NEENER NEENER!"

You want to kill puppies like Jenga? Too bad for you.

Animal welfare FAIL from a supposed skeptic

Skeptifem, a blogger I enjoy reading about 75% of the time, has a hate-on for pit bulls. She is in the health care field, and has experience in some kind of hospital setting where she has seen some dog bite injuries. She uses this as a reason to support anti-breed policies and to rant about those crazy "pit bull apologists".

I don't mind when people have uninformed opinions about animal welfare. I'm used to it (I work at a vet clinic, after all). It's when they use their misinformation and gut feelings to try to hurt animals that I love. For no reason.

The most recent post on this subject is here, where she tries to school all of us on the No-kill movement and how misguided it is, especially when it comes to treatment of aggressive dogs. Needless to say, the post is so dense with misinformation it needs an entire other blog post to correct it all.

Paragraph 1: She writes that people in the no-kill movement "tend to think that no animal should be euthanized for any reason,".

This is blatantly not true. Although the term "no-kill" can be initially confusing to some, the movement (No-kill with a capital "N") is aimed at ending the needless killing of adoptable pets in shelters, not an end to humane euthanasia. This is clearly stated by every single influential leader of the no-kill movement (starting with Nathan Winograd, who wrote the freakin' book for goodness' sake). Even those who might be considered on the "fringe" for believing that animals should not be killed due to any behavior issue, still believe in humane euthanasia.


Now, of course there's debate within the movement about the gray areas of what constitutes "adoptable", but no one, anywhere, except maybe some crazy hoarders on the outsides of the movement, believe that there should literally be no euthanasia.

When it comes to her agenda about BSL and pit bulls, Skeptifem has no problem cherry-picking quotes and events, and ignoring facts that don't support her already-established and immovable world view. This is not skeptical work.

Paragraph 2 is just a big pile of un-informed and un-cited fail:

1) "...it isn't as though shelters kill dogs for fun"

Actually, some animal control folks have killed shelter animals for fun. Or, at least, killed and had fun doing it.

And even those shelters that kill adoptable pets without apparent enjoyment don't get a free pass - not when there have been so many documented examples of them killing despite life-saving alternatives.

One of the primary tenets of the modern No-kill movement is to hold animal shelters accountable for killing adoptable animals. The old-school view is that animal shelters somehow get a free pass to do anything they want, just because they're animal shelters. They're "doing the best they can", even as employees kill animals for "space" without even trying to adopt them out first, even though there are alternatives that are proven to work.

2) "Adoptable dogs, such as those with aggression issues... are most likely to be euthanized in a shelter situation."

And where is the citation for this? It may be true that a dog that growls at a shelter employee will be the first on the kill list, but if you look at actual shelter reports, most animals are being killed for "space", not health or behavioral issues.

3) "...makes it impossible for every shelter to be a no-kill shelter."

Nathan Winograd has already crunched the numbers. There are more than enough homes for every shelter pet. Note also that these numbers take into account that a certain percentage of sheltered animals will need to be euthanized. So, no it is in fact very possible for every shelter to be No-kill. It could happen literally tomorrow, if every kill shelter suddenly decided to follow the advice of the No-kill revolution.

Paragraph 3: "[Sanctuary for aggressive dogs]... It is a nice idea. But does it work?"

Yes, it can work, and work very well. This is proven through the excellent work of many sanctuaries (ever seen the TV show DogTown? It's, like, on TV).

A better, more honest question would be: Does it always work, for every dog? I doubt it. Are there dogs that should be euthanized due to behavior problems? I think so, and so do many No-kill advocates.

Spindletop Sanctuary is not exactly a "typical" example of an animal sanctuary ("boarding", really?), and yet she discusses it as if it were. She wrote this entire blog post about sanctuaries for aggressive dogs, and the only one she discusses, links to, or even names, barely qualifies as a sanctuary at all, let alone a typical example of one.

If someone without an axe to grind about aggressive dogs were to pick a more typical example of a dog sanctuary, a better choice would be either Best Friends, (only, ya know, like, the biggest/most influential one in the US), or the Olympic Animal Sanctuary. I have a suspicion that she doesn't mention these facilities because they are doing a pretty good job, the dogs seems happy, the public is not being injured by them, and overall they don't neatly fit her world view.

Paragraph 6: "Life, even an extremely painful or lonely one, is considered to be infinitely better than timely euthanasia by advocates of no-kill ideology."

Blatantly untrue, again. See my point about Paragraph 1.

 "Trying to adopt out 100% of pets can make for dangerous animals getting the opportunity to hurt people or their pets."

Again, blatantly misleading. No one is trying to adopt out 100% of pets. The No-kill revolution explicitly states, multiple times/places/people, that not all pets are savable. Again, according to reports from shelters, most pets are killed for "space," anyway. Estimates are that somewhere  between 90 to 98 percent of shelter pets can be saved. Note that that's NOT 100%.

Strawmen. You haz dem.

Paragraph 7: " When there are not enough resources or homes to go around, careful consideration of resource allocation is absolutely crucial for deciding how to do the most amount of good."

There are enough homes to go around. More than enough. See my point about Paragraph 2. And thank you, so much, for explaining to us, poor, stupid rescue folks that we need to think about resource allocation.

There is, in fact, healthy debate on this subject within the no-kill movement. It's worth discussing. It's not, however, a good argument to simply kill every dog that every growled at someone (which is what I'm assuming she's trying to get at here).

The tired, cliche, "zero-sum" argument is BS. It's the same attitude that anti-pet people have - how dare we spend money on mere animals when there are children starving in Africa, amirite?

 2) "An optimal euthanasia rate, correlated with the rate of animals who must be euthanized because they cannot live comfortably, hasn't been established."

"Optimal" and "euthanasia" probably shouldn't be used together, but I get the point: she still hasn't done much reading about No-kill. If she had, she'd have found out pretty quick that Winograd, and others, have estimated "save rates" based on current shelter statistics: between 90 and 98 percent.

 Paragraph 8: "I have yet to see any no-kill plan that actually addresses these concerns." 

DO SOME FREAKIN' RESEARCH! I don't know what else to say. Many people have addressed these concerns. This post already has too many links.

Which leads me to a very important question for Skeptifem: what is your definition of "aggressive"? You've gone on about how aggressive dogs should be euthanized, but there are a lot of different definitions out there.

Many shelters would label a dog that growled, for any reason, as "aggressive". City/county laws are sometimes vague or just plain dumb when it comes to definitions of "aggressive". A shelter I volunteered at once told us to be very careful playing with the dogs because if they closed their mouth on our skin, we'd have to report it as a bite and then the dog probably couldn't be adopted out.

Is a dog that bites a stranger who trespasses onto her owner's property "aggressive"? What if she bit someone who threatened her owner? What if she bit in self-defense? What if she hates all other dogs, but loves people? What if she growls and cowers away from men, but is relaxed and happy around women and children? What about a friendly dog that is easily excited and knocks people down or nips when they play? What about dogs that are safe at home, but will bite the vet or groomer out of fear? What about dogs that kill small animals, but never act aggressive toward people? What about dogs that have been labeled aggressive, who bite people, but whose owners love them enough to take extra precautions that they never escape the yard?

Really, explain in detail, which dogs deserve to die, and which deserve to live. Because, seein' as how dogs are living, breathing creatures with emotions and complex brains (not so different from humans), they're kinda all sorts of gray area, and not a lot of black and white.

My own dog, Zelda, could be considered "aggressive" - she growls at dogs, she will bite them under the right circumstances, she will growl and nip at people under the right circumstances.

Yet, I (and anyone who's met her) consider her a "safe" dog. She obviously loves people, she will also happily play with other dogs as long as she gets a proper introduction and they're not rude puppies. She lives with another dog, and endures a constant parade of foster dogs that come through my home. Is she worth keeping as a pet, even though she's not an emotionless robot (a robot being the only type of dog that would never nip or growl under any circumstances)?

Identification of Mixed Breed Dogs

I'm a little late talking about this, but check out this study.

More than 5,000 dog experts, including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, rescuers, and others completed the survey. They were shown 2 photos of a mixed-breed dog and asked to guess it's ancestry. Then the dogs were DNA tested and the results of the guesses are published next to the results of the DNA test.

Now, I want you to look at the results, but completely ignore the DNA testing. It is not an accurate science, and it is irrelevant. Look at the "Top Responses" column. Every single one of the dogs had at least 5 guesses. In other words, a group of experts couldn't agree that any one of the dogs looked like "predominantly". (In fact, a popular "Top Response" is "No Prominent Breed")

Field identification of a mixed-breed dog is impossible, and pointless. Just like breed specific legislation.

Pit Bulls and Pattern Recognition

"Observations are the meat and potatoes of science"

--Irving Rothchild, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Biology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

One of my fave vet bloggers has an interesting entry about vets recognizing patterns when dealing with patients. She says:

Part of being a good doctor is learning to recognize patterns. This can generally be agreed upon by medical professionals. A more subtle part of being beyond good and being excellent is realizing when to ignore the patterns so that you don't miss something really important.

She goes on to describe a recent event where she used the age and breed of a dog as important factors of her initial diagnosis, and only later realized they were irrelevant.

Humans are great at pattern recognition. But we are also really great at fooling ourselves.

Perceptions are easily altered by expectations. And one of my great annoyances are people who mis-use scientific terms and ideas to further an agenda that isn't based on science, but on their own expectations.

People who support Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), are notorious for not only not knowing the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, but for hypocritically applying such reasoning to their own arguments.


Take, for example, some observations of from my own experience: By my own rough count, I have interacted closely with at least a hundred dogs who would be identified as "pit bull types" under BSL, and I've observed many dozens more from a distance. In many cases, the interaction was very stressful/painful for the dog. In other cases, it involved me approaching an unknown stray dog, catching it, putting in my car, and taking it to a shelter. In other cases, it involved me making the dog do something it didn't want to do, like go back into a kennel after a walk. I've never found any of my interactions with these dogs dangerous. I have not been injured. I was bitten once, and by "bite" (another word hard to define), I mean he closed his teeth on my fingers.

The prediction of BSL advocates, is that "pit bulls" are more dangerous than other types of dogs, in particular, they are more likely to bite a human, and when they do bite, it's more damaging. Yet my own, not insignificant experience this is not true. But all of MY experiences don't matter (to BSL advocates, anyway) because they're "only anecdotes". Observations and experiences from experts in the field don't count, either.


At the same time, BSL advocates demand that THEIR experiences and anecdotes ARE important and must be used as evidence for BSL. For example, a medical professional who has seen serious dog bite injuries first hand. They don't even feel the need to have seen a pit bull, nor do they feel the need to do any research about dog breeds; a second- or third-hand report is enough for them to support BSL.

What would it take for me to support a ban on, or elimination of, "pit bulls"?

There would need to be actual statistics about the relative dangers of different dog breeds. BSL advocates claim these exist, but they don't really.

For that to happen, there would need to be a relatively accurate "doggy census" performed so we'd know what our overall population of "pits bulls". Right now, we only have guesses about the true number of pet dogs out there, and an even vaguer guess about breed numbers.

For it to be relavant, mixed breeds would either have to be DNA-tested (a technology still frought with inaccuracies and plagued by false negatives), or  left out of the equation (making any real-world application of such a study nearly useless considering the large number of mixed-breed dogs out there).

Also for it to be relevant, "breed", especially "pit bull", would need to have a clear, unambiguous definition or it is useless to try to compare to other "breeds".

And here the problem really begins. "Breed" seems like such an easy thing to define, especially for the layman. The AKC has fooled a large number of people about what breed is and how it is defined: namely, that each breed is as distinct as its own species. But the AKC has only been around for 130 years. Dogs have existed for thousands of years. And the AKC only represents a fraction of the dogs and dog-owners out there.

Lets forget about the millions of unidentifiable mixed-breed dogs out there for a moment: Even within the population of AKC-registered dogs, breed characteristics blend together and overlap. Could your average animal control officer differentiate between a pure-bred Manchester Terrier and a Miniature Pincher?  Flat coated retrievers are not much more than black golden retrievers, and a number of the medium-sized terrier breeds are identical except for which colors are "allowed".

There's a reason that half the stray dogs put up for adoption in shelters are labeled "shepherd mix" - identifying the breed(s) of an unknown dog is difficult and often impossible. Some shelters have stopped doing it altogether, unless the physical traits are extremely obvious. Hence the birth of the "American shelter dog" breed.

What about all the "pure bred" dogs that aren't registered with the AKC, or at all? Pure bred dogs registered with a working dog registry are often very different looking than their AKC counterparts. Does that mean that one or the other isn't a valid registry? Or that one of those dogs isn't actually a "basset hound"?

Many "pure breds" aren't registered at all. A great example from my local area are working cow dogs. Most ranchers, if asked, would say they have a pure bred border collie or Australian shepherd, or heeler. Yet, most of the time, these dogs are not registered, are not part of a kennel club, and no one is enforcing a breed standard (except what the individual breeder had in mind when they thought "border collie"), and in many cases, the breeder isn't keeping track of pedigree for more than a few generations. These dogs tend to show a much wider range of phenotypes than AKC-registered dogs do. They blur the lines so much between the modern herding breeds that half the time, if the rancher didn't tell you, you could call an individual dog any one of those breeds. (And any one of them could be called a farm collie.)

"Breed" is very difficult to define if you think about it for more than thirty seconds.

Many BSL advocates would ignore all of this and simply say that most people know a pit bull when they see one, and can correctly identify one on the street. This is completely unverifiable speculation, and worse, has been proven wrong in several notable cases, including when  done by Animal control officers.

The more specific you get, the more useless breed definitions or identifications become. And by the time you get down to it in practical terms, what an individual dog looks like DOES NOT MATTER.


The main ways that breed identification are applied, are also the ways where it's completely useless in a practical sense.


1) An ACO picking up a stray dog off the street and bringing it into a shelter to be adopted out to the pubic.

2) A child approaching a strange dog: in a neighbor's yard, in the park, at the beach, whatever.

3) You're out jogging and see a loose dog up ahead.

4) You're getting ready to introduce your new baby to the family dog.

These examples are important for public health, and in each one the way a dog looks DOESN'T MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST. If you have any brains at all, you'll be looking at the demeanor of the dog, how its acting, where it's eyes are looking, the hardness of its gaze, if its hackles are up, if its tense or relaxed, how its tail is positioned, or growling, or running or walking or panting ... the list goes on. How long its hair is or how floppy its ears are DOESN'T MATTER.

So why do BSL advocates try to pretend it does?

Anecdotal Pit Bull #24 - #30

Been awhile since I did one of these, but I assure you its not because I haven't been running into any "pit bull types". While anti-breed people like to say "pit bulls" are relatively rare (and then only owned by thugs, of course). They're certainly not rare around here. We see at least four or five (non-repeating) BSL-eligible dogs per week, usually more. I just don't get a chance to photograph many of them. Plus I've been busier than usual the last couple months.

Below you'll see the usual; these are normal, beloved, family pets that would be targeted by BSL should it ever come to my area. Each and every one represents a potential drain on the city budget and local law enforcement if such asinine legislation were passed.

We don't even have the budget for animal control here, and we're the second-largest city in the region. As it stands, police can't even respond to all the dog-at-large complaints (one of the top calls the city police receives, btw). I'm told by my friend at the department that they usually ask the caller if they feel comfortable catching the dog themselves and bringing it to the station or directly to the shelter (a private shelter that has a contract with the city to hold strays). They already have to prioritize their time.

I'm not sure where BSL-advocates think that cities like mine would find the resources to go around confiscating dogs that have done nothing wrong while still continuing to enforce the dangerous-animal laws they do already. I'm serious. I really would like to know exactly what pro-BSL people think it would look like on a day-to-day basis if police had to enforce BSL. I mean, its not like anyone is going to call in complaints about dogs that aren't doing anything wrong. Oh, sure, if a new BSL ordinance was advertised enough, there would probably be some pit-bull haters in the community who would be more than happy to report their neighbors. But then again, if it were advertised widely, then owners of the persecuted "breeds" would have a heads up to hide their pets.

So, IN ADDITION to the calls they ALREADY don't have time for, would the police also have to also go door-to-door, like they do in some places that passed BSL? Would they stake an officer out at the three vet clinics in town? Or just require us to make daily breed-sighting reports? Would they pull people over while they're driving? All of the above?




#24 in my series is Holly, my current foster dog. She is not a pit bull, but she could easily be targeted by BSL. She likely has some boxer in her recent ancestery, but other than that she's a certified mutt. But she has short hair and a somewhat blocky head and the coloration from her boxer genes; from the right angle, she definitely looks "pitty-ish". In fact she looks quite a bit like this dog. Certainly enough for a vindictive AC officer to haul her away if she lived in the wrong city.



#25 is the dog from this earlier post. He's one of many dogs owned by a local rancher. He's friendly and mellow and gets along with the other dogs. He's unneutered. Maybe he's a boxer mix, maybe "pit bull". I keep forgetting to ask the owner.




#26 is a 3 year old unneutered male. Owned by a family with children. We hospitilized him, I think for pancreantitis. He was scared of everything, but never aggressive.




#27 is a "mastiff mix" according to his owner, and that seems likely. However, he would likely be targeted as a "pit bull type" by BSL. We hospitalized him, I don't remember what for. Caring for him was not a memorable experience.




#28 is a "lab/pit mix" according to the owner. Another hospitalized case that I don't remember very well (I need to keep better notes). I obviously felt confident enough to walk him to the potty yard without a muzzle and an armed guard, so there's that.



#29 is a young female dog, maybe 2 years old, who was found wandering the countryside. A kind person took her in, and when her original owners couldn't be found, decided to keep her. We were treating her for a vaginal prolapse and spaying her. She was very submissive and friendly.




#30 is a husky/pit mix. He went missing and came home that afternoon riddled with buckshot. The police were never called, so we may never know why someone felt compelled to shoot him from short range - once from the front, and once from the back presumably as he was running away. It's possible he acted aggressively. But it's also very possible he wandered into the yard of someone who just doesn't like dogs, or "pit bulls". He was perfectly friendly while at the clinic. Even while in considerable pain, he was never aggressive.

another unreported dog bite

Yesterday I was mauled by a pit bull.

OK, not really, but that's probably what a news article would say.

What really happened was a family brought in their 8 month old mixed breed dog. He had kind of a big head, so the shelter they adopted him from called him a 'pit bull mix'. I see a lot more lab, personally; his body shape and coat are pure labrador retriever, but that's hardly matters: most people would indeed call him a pit mix.

As is common, I came around the counter and, after asking permission, squished his big face for a minute, then went back to work. He was very friendly and lick-y and completely untrained and unruly. A few minutes later, another dog and their person entered the waiting room, and both large dogs immediately started barking at each other.

As is often the case with dogs bites, it was my fault. The 'pit' mix was lunging against his leash and the kid holding him looked like he was about to fall down, so I ran over and reached out to grab his collar. My fingers ended up in the dog's mouth instead, and teeth closed down on them, but then quickly released, I assume because my fingers were getting in the way of his barking. It didn't hurt, it certainly didn't pierce skin, it barely counts as a "nip". Life immediately continued on. We separated the dogs into different rooms, things quieted down, I washed the slobber off my hands. I don't think anyone except me noticed I'd been bitten.

But there you have it. In the interests of full disclosure, I've been bitten by a "pit bull".

Part 4: dog training applies to non-pit bulls, too

In post 4, Skeptifem attacks Bad Rap for having information on their blog about socializing and training foster dogs. She implies that only pit bulls require this kind of socialization, therefore these posts are proof that Bad Rap is hypocritical about their stance that pit bulls should be treated like any other dog.

If you actually read the posts from Bad Rap, all you find is the same general advice you'd find on any dog trainer's website regarding any type of dog.

The biggest and most embarrassing mistake in Skeptifem's multi-post series on pit bulls is this idea that certain breeds of dogs are "safe" and others are "unsafe". Period, end of story, any counter-examples are rare flukes.

All dogs need socialization and training. Many types of dogs needs special socialization or training to overcome issues and go on to become fine pets. Temperament isn't a black and white issue. Aggression isn't a black and white issue. Context matters.

Dog trainers (of all types) know this. Animal behaviorists (you know, the scientists?) know this. People who foster or adopt rescue dogs know this. The dog-bloggers I read know this. Heck, even the lawyers seem to understand. It may be complicated and nuanced and not everyone agrees on everything, but it's not a secret, and it's not at all limited to the "pit bull nutters".

Even professional dog trainers can get frustrated with their pets.

Dog-dog socialization is important from a very young age. Unless you've bottle raised an orphan, we tend to take this for granted.

A perfectly good pet in a home situation may act terrified and anti-social while in a shelter situation.

The idea that you can go to a shelter/breeder/pet store and pick out a "safe" dog based solely on breed is not just ignorant, but dangerous.

[Edited to add] It has been brought to my attention that I haven't linked to the blog post I'm reacting to and therefore the numerous readers of my blog can't make up their own minds about it and are helpless slaves to my opinion. I apologize for the oversight and have corrected it with a link in my first sentence above.

Anecdotal Pit Bull #16, 17, 18, 19, 20

More examples of dogs that would be targeted by breed specific legislation simply because of the way they look, not the way they act.

If we used BSL-type logic at the clinic, we'd waste a lot of time "protecting" ourselves from friendly/neutral/nondangerous dogs. And not enough time looking for behavioral signs that a dog (any dog) might injure us.


Lacey is a 6-year-old spayed female rescue dog. She's possibly a catahoula mix, but who knows. With her smooth coat and head shape, she would definitly be targeted by BSL as a "pit bull type" dog. She is owned by a co-worker who also has three young children that Lacy loves and gets along wonderfully with. Lacey has killed cats in the past, and can be cranky with the other two dogs that live in the same house. She recently came into the clinic to be treated for a broken toe. She hates being held down to have it bandaged, but never shows aggression.




This pathetic face belongs to a 6-month-old neutered male pit bull terrier. His family (husband, wife, toddler) doesn't speak very much English, and my Spanish is too rusty for me to ask many other questions about him. All I can tell you is that he is incredibly friendly to all people he meets.



This is a 7-year-old spayed female American Staffordshire Terrier. In this photo she's in considerable pain from arthritis in her neck. She's a well-loved family dog. She never acted aggressive as we handled her to examine and take x-rays.




This ridiculous, neutered male dog is, according to owner, an Alapaha Blue Bulldog. At nearly 90 lbs, he's certainly much larger than any pit bulls I've seen, but because of his short hair and head shape, he would without a doubt be targeted as a "pit bull type" dog by BSL. He was in for a minor lump removal surgery and aside from being a leash puller, acted very nicely for everyone. He has the kind of face I want to smoosh.




When you first see Toby, the first thing you think is "rottweiler mix of some kind". His huge blocky head, short hair, wide set front legs and deep chest would easily fool anyone who didn't know his ancestry. He is actually half boxer, half black lab. He is one of the goofiest dogs I've ever met, and that's saying something. He's been at the clinic for almost a week now, and we have to shove pills down his throat twice daily, and hold him in the sink to flush his wound once daily. It sometimes takes 2-3 people to hold him, but he's never aggressive. I've personally had my hand up to the wrist in his giant gullet several times and at no point did I fear losing it.

Anecdotal Pit Bull #15

I forget her name. She is a 2 year old pit bull/heeler mix who came in to be spayed. She's a family pet, and has a child to play with at home. In the clinic she was nervous and kept tail tucked. Until I took her outside for a potty walk, then she relaxed and started bouncing up and wanting to play.

The Anecdotal Pit Bull #12, 13, 14, and Bonus

I forget her name. She's a 8 month old American pit bull terrier, brought in by her owner to treat some skin issues. She was very friendly, and pretty mellow. I had to hold her down while the vet painfully scraped her skin in muliple places. She struggled a little but otherwise didn't complain.

Number 13 has no photo because I was too busy to take one. I'll include it in this little series of mine because he was very clearly a "pit bull type" dog and I spent some time handling him. Teko is a white, 7 year old female spayed "pit bull mix" brought in for an annual exam and vaccines. Her owner, a local rancher, has owned her since she was a puppy. She was quite nervous, and when I came out to the waiting room and made brief eye contact with her, she ducked under the bench. When we lifted her onto the examine table, she started shaking slightly and didn't stop until we were done. Despite that, she never acted aggressive or attempted to bite.

Number 14 also has no photo for the same reasons. His owner brought him in to treat a persistent cough. He's a 6 year old, unaltered male American pit bull terrier with a ridiculously and disproportional large head. White with brindle spots. He was very happy and friendly to everyone. He obviously was untrained and not used to being forced to hold still, (and and 65 lbs of pure muscle, difficult to hold as well) but at no point did I feel unsafe holding him.



And here's the Bonus! This is a list of all the patients at this clinic that are listed in our computer records as "American pit bull terrier". The total number: 268. This does not include "American Staffordshire terrier", "Staffordshire bull terrier", "pit bull mix", any dogs whose owners didn't bother giving us a breed, nor any of the boxer, lab, and bull dog mixes that would be targeted by breed specific legislation under the right circumstances. The search program isn't used very often and seems to be buggy, also I don't have time (or permission) to do some really good digging into breed numbers. But I'd like to. But in the meantime, this should give some pretty compelling preliminary (and anecdotal) evidence that "pit bull type" dogs are popular pets.

The Anecdotal Pit Bull #11

Four-month-old intact male "pit bull type" dog. Came in for vaccinations. Acted like a friendly puppy. The end.

The Anecdotal Pit Bull #10

Being only 8 weeks old, Tiga (a "pit bull" according to his owner) hasn't had time to eat any faces yet. He's more into licking them. Owners brought him in to get vaccinated and to x-ray his front paws, which are growing funky.

That's it. Ho hum.