urbpan | Why you should care about pit bull bans

Entry tags:

Why you should care about pit bull bans

It's obvious why those of us who own pit bull type dogs get angry about efforts to ban our dogs. But why should anyone else care? Sure, if you own another breed of dog that's sometimes singled out for negative attention you should be wary, too. Once they ban pit bulls, it will be that much easier to ban Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, German shepherd dogs, huskies and malamutes, chow chows, shar-peis, akitas, mastiffs, bulldogs, ad infinitum. But what about those people who own only small dog breeds, or those people who don't own, or even like dogs? Why should they care about dog breed bans, or breed-specific legislation?

Because, as has become all too familiar in recent years, fear and misinformation are being used to take away your freedom. Fear is used by the media as much as sex in order to get our attention. And your attention is more valuable than ever to the media. It means ad revenue. The media doesn't care what you think or believe, or how much freedom you have, it justs wants your attention, so that it can sell more ads.

Misinformation is a great way of spreading and amplifying fears. It can be as simple as emphasizing a fact in a story, or even better, omitting a fact. It can be an outright mistruth, since there are no consequences for the media outlet that redacts their misstatement in a subsequent issue, hidden on the bottom of page three. And it can be as easy as choosing words for impact, instead of literal meaning. In that spirit, I am going to henceforth refer to the media's use of misinformation, omissions, and mistruths, as 'lies.'

The people who wish to ban certain breeds of dogs, or otherwise restrict ownership of them, use media stories to back up their position. They repeat the lies, which, since they are written by a professional news outlet, are taken to be facts. They back up their media-inflamed assertions with studies cobbled together from 'data' mined from media stories. They use the news media as if they were scientific journals, reinforcing their fears with misinformation deliberately concocted to reinforce their fears. Lawmakers react to emotional pleas from a fearful public, which drowns out the reason and knowledge of the veterinary community, animal behaviorists, and dog experts.

Today I read a news story that used several well-worn tactics for spreading fear through misinformation. I'll go through it, point by point. Remember, even if you don't like dogs, or if you hate pit bulls, or your idiot neighbor who owns pit bulls, what I'm talking about here is LIES used to TAKE AWAY your FREEDOM.

The headline reads 'Baby boy attacked by family pit bull.' Whoa. Am I really going to defend this dog, this monster that turned on its own family, that ATTACKED a BABY? Well, no, I don't even know this dog. But I will point out facts in the story that don't quite mesh with this alarming headline. For starters, reading the body of the story, we find that the baby does not belong to the family that owns the dog. The baby came with visiting relatives--so technically, everyone involved is family, but the dog doesn't know that. Again, I 'm not excusing the dog from attacking, I'm saying the dog did not know it was attacking 'family.' We can't accuse the dog of betrayal, as the headline suggests.

More importantly, we have facts about the circumstances of the 'attack,' which are often omitted in this kind of story. It turns out that the baby approached the dog while it was eating. Again, this is a terrible thing, a baby was bitten by a dog, but any idiot knows you don't approach a strange dog while it's eating. A DOG OF ANY BREED, toy poodle, golden retriever, your loveable mutt, is more likely to bite if it's approached while eating than any other time. The use of the word attack, in this context, is misleading. If I slap your hand away when you reach to steal something off my plate, am I attacking you?

Pretend for a minute that some other kind of dog snapped at a strange kid who was approaching it while it was eating. Is that really news? If a cairn terrier (Toto from The Wizard of Oz) bit a member of the family who owned it so bad that it required a trip to the hospital, and made the family question whether or not they should keep the dog, would that be something worthy of a television news crew? My mother's cairn terrier did just that, and broke my father's finger--if he was a baby on the floor, it would have been facial injuries, like what happened with the pit bull in this news story. Where were the reporters?

It's only news because you can get people to pay attention to the words PIT BULL, no matter what actually happened. If a pit bull gets loose from a fenced in yard and chases a child, and the child is not injured, the headline will read 'PIT BULL ATTACKS, CHASES CHILD.' If a pit bull injures another dog, it's a MAULING. My mother's cairn terrier was torn to shreds by my neighbor's German shepherd when it got loose from its kennel. Somehow that didn't make the news either, even though she made a miraculous recovery that the news outlets would have loved. If a pit bull attacks a domestic animal, like a horse, goat, or cat, it makes the news. Again, my mother's cairn terrier got ahold of my pet hamster and killed it; dogs are predatory animals that attack and kill other animals every day--it's not news. Unless the dog attacking the domestic animal is a pit bull, then it can be added to the scary mythology of the monster dog.

Overstatements, lies, misstatements, facts out of context, and more lies, all engineered to make you scared. I'm not saying there aren't dangerous pit bulls out there owned by irresponsible people--they are one of the most popular breeds in the country, it's the law of averages that some jerks will mistreat their dogs, chain them up in yards, let them run without leashes, and refuse to get them spayed and neutered. I won't stand up for criminals, but I also ask that those of us who keep our dogs correctly not be made into criminals because of the dog breed we choose. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's a violation of our freedom.

You should care about pit bull bans because the same kind of fear tactics could be used to take away your freedom in another sphere of life. You would be forgiven if you thought that the number of dog attacks was spiraling out of control--it sure sounds that way. In fact, despite the increasing population of people and dogs in the United States, attacks per capita have been going down steadily for decades. There isn't an epidemic of pit bull attacks, there's an epidemic of reporting of pit bull attacks, real and imaginary. But since it fits the story, the scary story that there is this one breed of dog unlike all the others, that's popular with inner city people and trailer park people and drug dealers, and that they are on the rampage, attacking and killing the people that own them and innocent strangers too. LIES. I'm tired of mincing words about it. LIES TOLD TO YOU to make you scared, and to make you needlessly scared of my dogs, so that you join the herd of panicked sheep taking away our freedoms. Stop believing lies.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

clearly, the pit bull ban people and the assault weapons ban people are reading the same playbook.

Well said, you should send this to the newspaper.

Yeah, and it makes me really uncomfortable, because I usually come down quite predictably on the FAR LEFT side of any political disagreement, and the pit bull thing--at least here in Massachusetts--has me siding with the Republicans and against the Dems.

It seems that Democrats, who believe government has a role in protecting the public by creating regulation, are quite susceptible to the monster dog myth.

As for guns, I've moved over to a libertarian position there, of late. I believe in the first amendment with fervor, and if I feel that strongly about one item on the bill of rights, why don't I feel that way about item number two?

I do think that as a practical matter, banning the public's use of certain guns has had a positive public safety effect, such as in Britain. But the bill of rights doesn't say 'do what keeps everyone safest,' it lists a bunch of freedoms that government isn't allowed to restrict. Then there are those pesky first four words--what exactly is a 'well-regulated militia?'

Thanks, I tried to comment to the message board of the story because of an infuriatingly ignorant comment that was there, but I didn't want to register. Maybe I'll just email the tv station directly.

Pitbulls have become a scapegoat for bad training. As you have said, it is the type of dog that drug dealers, testosterone fueled big men, security, and downright dodgy individuals are more likely to own - because of this breed reputation. This makes it so much worse as these are the people that encourage dogs to attack people and other dogs, encourage violence and aggression and create this impression that pits are evil. If drug dealers owned terriers then I am sure the dogs would become little monsters and perpetuate the opinion that terriers are evil. Its all in the training.
My boss owns a white pitbull x boxer or something of that ilk... and she is a doll. She was rescued from the streets in a "dodgy" area and can be slightly aggressive to other dogs when out on the leash. During the day she has the run of the grooming salon and interacts with all the other breeds with gentle dignity. Including yorkies, poodles and huge labradoodles. No aggression whatsoever and this is a street dog. She spends most of her day sitting next to a groomer with her head in the groomer's lap. She is not pushy, just sits and looks up with those big eyes. How anyone could consider her as a dangerous dog is beyond me. The idea of her being destroyed because of the breed restriction is appalling.

Yeah, well, you know who the real bad guys are here? The zoo keepers! Those guys are just flat out evil, especially the vet tech/pest control guys.

Yeah, okay, seriously, you're right. Although, those of us in the print media, the ones I've met anyway, still make an honest attempt to not intentionally be part of the fear machine. Hell, I usually write nice stories. At least, that's what I'll do until someone in HR gets off their ass and gets the fear mongering handbook to me.

Btw, using Maxie as an example is hardly fair. That thing was flat out evil. Too mean to live, too ornery to die. I'm still convinced she spend six months as a zombie before finally giving out.

Sorry, that was me not logged in.

EXTREMELY well written.
I just got back from walking Hummer and had some lady allow her kids to pet my ADORABLE dog. One of the little girls was like "What kind of dog is he?" And I said "A mutt, sweetheart. But he's definitely got some pit bull and probably beagle in him." The mother YANKED her kids from my pup--who was sitting patiently letting the girls love on him and crossed the street.
WTF? Way to send a good message to your kids. Especially when it was okay to pet him UNTIL he was a pit bull. (Which I didn't really understand...How could she not tell when they approached him?)
On this same walk, I also encountered a man that said I "look like the type of person that would own a happy pit bull." I'm going to go out on a limb and say that was a compliment...a strange one, but a compliment nonetheless.

My mom's Cairn Terrier who's bitten a couple times. Not while eating---but when he awakes from a sleep in a way he's not too impressed with.

Anyways, that was very well put. I'd send it to the newspaper for sure.

That comment deserves a Hummer icon...

Great post. I agree wholeheartedly. I am slightly wary of dogs in general, having been bitten/chased/menaced by a wide variety of breeds throughout my life (mostly childhood). I've met pit bulls so friendly you could sit on them and they'd just lol, facelick, etc. I've also met dachshunds, miniature poodles, and cocker spaniels that would sooner rip your face off than look at you (if only they could reach).

Because from my own personal experience, Spitzes "should" be banned, because my aunt owned one that attacked me and bit my face once or twice, resulting in a good deal of blood loss, stitches, and a week's worth of rabies shots. Also small permanent scars near my mouth. I was four years old at the time.

Nobody alerted the media that day, I can assure you.

I agree - send it in to your local paper. Very well said.

It seems that Democrats, who believe government has a role in protecting the public by creating regulation, are quite susceptible to the monster dog myth...
It's fear, and unfamiliarity. It's easy to pass laws against groups that are marginaziled and stereotyped by a majority of people in a political constituency. It's disgusting being on the receiving end, because you see the ugly side of the political left, which liberal folks like you or I generally want to think of as "the good guys."

As for guns, I've moved over to a libertarian position there, of late. I believe in the first amendment with fervor, and if I feel that strongly about one item on the bill of rights, why don't I feel that way about item number two?
The funny thing is that people don't want to even get that far and ponder it, they are quite content to skip from the first amendment right to the third. I'd generally consider myself to be liberal, but I'm increasingly distrustful of politicians that are so dismissive of any of our rights.

Fitting with your libertarian position, here's an interesting article on the subject from Reason magazine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html

I do think that as a practical matter, banning the public's use of certain guns has had a positive public safety effect, such as in Britain.
I would tentatively agree with the first part...there are and should be reasonable (and carefully considered) restrictions on all rights. For example, one's freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone. Restrictions on gun ownership need to be weighed against constitutional provisions, and also have some evidence to suggest that they'll actually make people safer, instead of just making them feel safer.

However, I've yet to see one bit of evidence demonstrating that gun control in the UK has produced any meaningful decrease in crime. In fact (while I'm not arguing this), just seeing the correlation with their rising violent crime rate might suggest the opposite effect. In either case, for or against gun control, I'm wary of international comparisons, because so many other factors come into play.

There is tremendous legal debate about the phrasing of the second amendment. I could highlight several decent perspectives from a "pro gun" side, but I'm sure you could find plenty yourself. Personally, while I think the constitutional scholarship is tremendously important, we usually don't even have to go that far...policy analysis and contemporary arguments make a good enough point, and SHOULD guide lawmaking.

While I don't think it's without flaws, Daniel Polsby's article about gun control from The Atlantic makes some solid observations:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199403/gun-control/2

Any attack by a "vicious" breed of dog on a child (especially a young one) is a bonus, because so many people think that anything that happens to a child is TEN TIMES WORSE.

IAWTC. And of course, it's children who don't know how to act appropriately around dogs.

I followed cotton's link here and just wanted to add an IAWTC to the max.

The amount of poor reporting that I see on the topic pit bulls amongst others is frightening.

This is why I am SO PARANOID about letting kids touch my dogs, tbh. All it would take is an accidental knocking over for someone to start screaming about VICIOUS DOBERMANS OMG. And I've had people do the "pull away" thing with Tink, my fawn female Dobe. They will pet on her and tell me how they used to have Weimaraners, blah blah blah, and the minute I say "actually, she's a Doberman" they jerk their hands back like they've been burned and walk away. Because you know dogs only bite you if you KNOW they're a dangerous breed.

I had a toddler FLING himself onto my dog's incision once.. we were about to step into the parking lot at the vet's office after a follow-up check, so my attention was turned to checking cars, when I hear a giggle and the kid just throws himself onto her side... where there was a clear t-shaped incision, all stitched up, with TWO DRAINS sticking out of her. Kid's mother was just giggling and saying "Don't bother the doggy honey" in a high-pitched voice. Luckily Tink just ducked away and I put my leg in the way of further molestation but SERIOUSLY, who lets their kid jump all over dogs at the vet's office?

Then there was the 8 year old little girl who felt my male Dobe up in a VERY personal fashion while my attention was once again on possibly approaching traffic... she just knelt down and grabbed his sheath! The dog and I made O.o faces at each other and then we just walked away... I was totally floored by that one.

Sounds like the wrong critters are on leashes here.

I certainly agree with your point. How often do dalmatian attacks get covered? I don't believe I've ever seen a mainstream news source talk about dalmatian attacks despite the fact that male dalmatians are known to (due to inbreeding I believe) be fairly aggressive. Don't worry, I'm not a dalmatian hater, I've had two throughout my life, great dogs. But they're mythology is so drastically different from that of pitt bulls, rottweilers, and other so-called "dangerous dogs" that they maintain a clean cultural nose, while these other breeds are branded as bad.

what.
the.
fuck.

Ever watch Animal Planet's coverage of humane societies in various cities (Detroit, L.A. NYC)? They rescue a dog. They don't know it's background. It's a very nice dog in all respects.

And then they do the "food aggression" test, wherein they give a dog food -- oftentimes a dog that was rescued starving from an abandoned lot -- and then they HARRASS IT with a fake hand by dragging the bowl away from it while it's frantically eating for all it's worth. And when the dog snaps at the hand, that won't leave it alone until it does snap, they "humanely euthanize" it because they don't want the liability of adopting out a dog that could bite a baby, for example. I always get HOPPING MAD when they do that. Heck, I'd bite someone poking me with a hand, even while I wasn't eating.

Better to ask what idiot adult let a baby approach an eating dog. In this case, I hold the family wholly responsible for the baby not being watched carefully enough.

Also: usually when people blame dogs for "misbehaving", I think it's the humans' fault for not understanding dog psychology. They are not furry humans, much as we feel they are part of our family. To blame them for being dogs, not humans, is unjust.

I think most dog training is more to teach the humans how to communicate properly with their dogs, rather than vice-versa.

I don't have dogs in my life right now because I don't have a "lifestyle" that can properly take care of them, or devote the amount of day to day interaction they require for me to be a good companion/alpha leader for them. Cats are for lazy people like me. :-) But I like the idea that someday I'll be a fit company for a rescue. Maybe even a pitbull.

To be fair, I've had a bunch of totally wonderful dog-kid interactions, too, where the kids in question asked (or their parents asked for them) if they could pet my dogs, and then proceeded to pet the dogs in a gentle and appropriate fashion while talking my ear off about how soft and nice my dogs are. But as a Doberman owner, those aren't the moments that give me nightmares.

The dog-groping kid really made me wonder about the kid's home life, as did the little boy who asked me if daddy dogs just run off and leave the mommy dogs with puppies and never do anything for them ever again. I mean, I'm awkward with kids anyway most of the time, and here's this kid all "Are your dogs going to have puppies?" And I said no, they didn't want to be mommy and daddy dogs (because the kid was all of five and I did not wish to explain neutering) and then he pops out with that question about daddy dogs and I was all O.O

The toddler throwing himself on Tink just made me seriously wonder about the woman's parenting skills... if I had a mobile, dog-loving toddler at the vet's office, where dogs are likely to be hurt, scared, and snappy, you can bet that kid would never be out of my positive control. I had nightmares about that moment when he threw himself at Tink. Thank God she's a good dog who just moved away, y'know? I don't think I could have faulted her for snapping but just thinking about it makes me break out in cold sweats.

And there's a lot of parents who can't be arsed to teach them, or don't even know how to interact with animals themselves, because they'd never let one in their immaculate, do-not-touch suburban palace.

oh wow, that little boy. :(

i would never let a kid touch dogs at the vets - i'm assuming that lady just had no clue.

Awesome post. Have you read the book The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise? It talks a lot about the media and dog attacks and how they've changed over the past decades. Really interesting stuff, and far more in depth than I'd ever considered.

I agree about trying to get it published. What you have to say is *so* important for the general public to hear.

i'm reading the pit bull placebo right now--it was part of the impetus for this post.

*applauds*

I often ponder what I'd do with the world if I ran it. Admittedly, I'd be somewhat of a dictator.

One of the things I would do is ban the whole media/advertising to misinform conglomerate, and here is just another reason to do so.

I hate the double-standard - if an animal bites, or growls, or hisses, or scratches, because it's being annoyed, or trying to communicate to a human to stop whatever it's doing - it's being "bad".

But if a human expresses the same thing (albeit, using English, which of course, animals cannot do), then it's fine and dandy.

Let's euthanise every human who tells another to piss off. What would people think about THAT?

Well argued; I'm with you! With responsible owners, even dogs that are bred to be aggressive can be friendly, and with irresponsible owners, even breeds that are supposed to be mild tempered can end up in bad shape.

My sister-in-law owned a german shepherd-rottweiler (sp?) cross. Sounded like a super-scary dog, but this dog was the friendliest, dopiest, sweetest dog. Whenever I was feeling down, it would come put its head in my lap.

Oh, I came over here because of

cottonmanifesto's cross link, but I do like visiting from time to time, anyway. You guys are a great couple.

One of the nastiest dogs I've EVER met was a Chihuahua. My neighbors have two mixed breed dogs that would shred anything they could get their teeth on. Breed has nothing to do with it.

Do we have a "rising violent crime rate" in the UK?
The latest recorded crime statistics for 2007 show violence against the person down 1% and sexual offences down 7%, total recorded crime down 2%. Admittedly these figures probably don't represent the true picture since not everything gets reported. Still, I'm pretty sure the number of firearm incidents is much statistically much lower over here than in the US. Stabbings tend to be more of a problem.

Do we have a "rising violent crime rate" in the UK?
The latest recorded crime statistics for 2007 show violence against the person down 1% and sexual offences down 7%, total recorded crime down 2%. Admittedly these figures probably don't represent the true picture since not everything gets reported.

I don't profess to be anything of an expert on that, and two different improvements in crime reporting has increased the number of reported crimes, but my understanding from looking at statistics from your home office is that overall, if you look at the last few years, the crime rate has been increasing.

'Violent crime' - Long-term national recorded crime trend

Sexual offences' - Long-term national recorded crime trend

I know there is also the British Crime Survey, which relies on interviews of a sample of the population, rather than officially reported crimes, and this shows a decline in violent crime, but curiously "Violent crime, as measured by the BCS, includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences" which doesn't make it very useful for discussions of this sort.

Still, I'm pretty sure the number of firearm incidents is much statistically much lower over here than in the US.

Oh, absolutely. But this has always been the case historically, regardless of what your country's gun laws have been. The UK in general has overall, relative to the US, always had a lower rate of violent crime, again regardless of what your country's gun laws have been.

I don't even like dogs and I can't stand how many stories the media throws at you just because a bull was a part of it. If you're going to report about a dog "attacking" a kid, report about all of the dogs that "attack" a kid that does something to provoke a stranger's dog. They also need to be more specific about WHY the dog "attacked" the person in question. Animals don't attack for no reason in most cases.
Ugh! Just because there are people out there that do stupid things with their animals, everyone that owns the breed shouldn't be punished for it.

I'm with you on this one, I've got a rottie.

It's not the dogs that you need to worry about usually, it's the owners.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Why you should care about pit bull bans

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject