Quantcast
Animal Rights

Pit Bulls: Will More Adoptions End Shelter Killings?

article image

“Egregious misrepresentation aside, the offense for which the humane community is most culpable is promoting pit bulls in a manner which provides free advertising to the pit bull breeding industry,” ANIMAL PEOPLE Editor Merritt Clifton opines in his compelling and courageous editorial, More adoptions will not end shelter killing of pit bulls, in the October 2011 issue of ANIMAL PEOPLE (News for people who care about animals). http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/index.html

Following are excerpts from his argument for a reality check on what is really happening to pit bulls and why. Clifton’s comments are presented here for the most part in paragraphs, in order to avoid extracting phrases out of context that might distort his original intent. But this is a mere fragment of his fascinating and well-documented editorial. He writes:

“Each year from a third to 45% of the total U.S. pit bull population enters an animal shelter, a phenomenon never seen with any other dog breed. “Of critical importance to realize is that there are very few accidental pit bull births. Because nothing resembling a pit bull occurs in nature, it is necessary to practice line breeding, mating pit bull to pit bull or a very close mix, to continue to have them. “Almost every pit bull who contributes to the surplus is a product of deliberate breeding, sometimes by a dogfighter, but most often just someone engaging in speculative backyard breeding, capitalizing on a perceived vogue for pit bulls created at least in part by the aggressive advertising of shelters and individual rescuers who hope to rehome more pit bulls instead of having to kill them from lack of other options.”

Clifton provides politically incorrect, powerful straight talk to the world of humane activists and organizations, most of whom seem to have forgotten--or maybe never knew—why the current pit bull dilemma exists and that their assertions as “experts,” in an effort to divert public awareness from the genetic nature of pit bulls, is allowing dog fighters and pit bull breeders to continue their exploitive, cruel activities with impunity, causing the suffering and deaths of thousands of animals the rescuers and advocates purport to protect.

This is an article that should be read by anyone involved in, or with an interest in, pit bull protection or anyone who has been a victim of attack. Too much current propaganda has little or no basis in fact and is contrived to further the interests of those who profit from the breed or apologists who use glib euphemisms and rote to justify unacceptable or dangerous behavior. Co-dependency between shelter pit-bull promotions and breeders?

Here’s how Merritt Clifton describes the co-dependency between shelter/rescue promotion efforts and pit bull breeders:

“The ever-increasing numbers of fatal and disfiguring pit bull attacks increase public apprehension of adopting an adult pit bull of unknown history, but the public tends to believe that pit bulls can make great pets if "raised right" from puppyhood .However, shelters typically don't have puppies these days. Pit bull puppies are in effect in the commodities speculation market, until they grow up and are dumped in shelters. So, persuaded by advertising meant to promote adoptions to acquire a pit bull, Joe and Josephine Q. Public buy a pit bull puppy from a backyard breeder. “About one of those puppies in three will come to a shelter within less than two years.”

Or is it possible that many of these “rescues” are actually fronts for dog-fighting operations and/or breeders, who literally “have a dog in this fight”and mainly in this market? Could some pit bull rescues actually be breeders or dog fighters in disguise? Clifton’s editorial quotes a bold and passionate presentation by ANIMAL PEOPLE President Kim Bartlett at the Conference on Homeless Animal Management and Policy in Hartford, Connecticut in 2002. He adds that, if she had been heeded, it is possible pit bull overpopulation would not be an issue today and “…animal shelters since then might have killed between eight and nine million fewer pit bulls.” Here are excerpts from Bartlett’s statement (full text in the ANIMAL PEOPLE article):

"I believe that pit bulls have a more negative reputation than most members of the breed deserve. I am not endorsing any arbitrary killing of dogs simply because they are of a particular breed, but I favor a ban on breeding of all pit bull-type dogs… “I think it is unethical to breed any dogs, or cats, so long as they are being killed by the million for population control…Since pit bulls clearly can be more dangerous to humans and other animals, and are more difficult to handle than most other dogs, and--most importantly--since they attract 'owners' who may want to exploit and abuse them, then for the dogs' own good, preventing further breeding should be a priority for the animal rights cause. "I have an uneasy feeling that a lot of people claiming to be pit bull rescuers are actually pit bull breeders and even dogfighters in disguise. Otherwise why would they oppose breeding bans that would not affect dogs already born? “People who rescue feral cats want to see an end to their breeding. People who rescue exotic animals such as parrots, lions and tigers, and potbellied pigs would like to see breed bans on those species. Why not the so-called pit bull rescuers?” "Public policy on animal welfare issues should not be set by breeders and fanciers, and certainly not by dogfighters who pose as breeders and even pretend to be rescuers. “When so-called pitbull lovers and rescuers use language like 'it is the right of Americans to buy [or breed] whatever kind of dog they want,' then they are quite obviously not animal rights advocates."

Clifton provides indisputable statistics to refute apologists who ignore reality. To paraphrase, by insisting pit bulls who attack, injure or kill other pets or humans can be “retrained;” that “it’s just the owner, not the dog;” and that “pits just get a bad rap and are misunderstood” is causing—not helping. And insisting more adoptions are the solution is, in fact, a major part of the problem. “More adoptions will not end shelter killing of pit bulls.”

Merritt Clifton approaches past and current trends and catastrophic decisions by major animal- protection organizations with a real sense of compassion for the dogs brutally exploited by abusers and euthanized in disproportionate numbers in animal shelters because of blind repetition of myths perpetuating the illusion that if enough of them are just adopted out--often to an uncertain fate and with a history of errant and even dangerous behavior--eventually the influx will miraculously decrease. But reality does not support this idealism, he explains:

“The total number of dogs killed in U.S. shelters fell by more than 40% between 1986 and 1993, but the number of pit bulls killed in shelters more than doubled, to about 358,000--15% of the total.

It should be obvious by now that this is the proverbial attempt to empty the ocean with a thimble. As Clifton laments in this editorial, “There may now be more organizations focused on pit bull rescue and advocacy than rescue and advocate for all other specific breeds combined.”

Following is a random sampling of the intriguing issues Merritt Clifton presents as a credible platform for acknowledging that our current approach to the pit bull problem is not only ineffective but actually making matters worse:

Why the numbers have grown.
“About 8.4 million dogs were killed in shelters in 1986, of whom about 168,000 (2%) were pit bulls, according to the limited available breed-specific data. “ More pit bulls have been rehomed in recent years than ever before, but as most of the U.S. still has no effective brake on pit bull breeding, pit bulls in 2010 rose to 29% of shelter dog admissions and 60% of shelter dog killing. The 2010 U.S. shelter pit bull toll of 930,300 was the second highest yet.”

Why most pit bulls in shelters are adults.
“Typically they come to shelters at about 18 months of age, having already had at least three homes: their birth home, the home they were sold to, and one or more pass-along homes that took the dogs in after problems developed in the first home into which they were purchased.”

With all the free/low-cost spay/neuter programs, why is pit bull shelter population increasing?
“By 1995 more than 70% of the U.S. dog population had been sterilized. A dog who was impounded or surrendered to a shelter 25 years ago had just a 10% chance of being rehomed. Dogs in shelters today have about a 60% chance of being rehomed--unless they happen to be pit bull terriers or close mixes of pit bull, whose sterilization rate is still barely 25%. “Despite that extraordinary rate of success in pit bull placement, however, about 75% of the pit bulls and pit mixes arriving at shelters are killed, either due to dangerous behavior or simply because shelters are receiving pit bulls in ever-escalating volume. Each year from a third to 45% of the total U.S. pit bull population enters an animal shelter, a phenomenon never seen with any other dog breed.”

Is it “just the owner?”
Here are just a few of the tragic statistics Clifton provides about the realities of life for pit bulls. He explains that this is not a matter of “nature vs. nurture,” but, “…a matter of inherently problematic dogs being acquired by inherently problematic people…” “ More than 5,000 pit bulls have been seized in dog fighting raids since 2000, a mere fraction of the numbers believed to have been killed either in dogfights, in connection with training dogs to fight, or in culling dogs who lose fights or show little promise of becoming successful fighters. “About 21% of the dogs impounded in cases of severe and prolonged neglect since 2005 have been pit bulls, and also 21% of the dogs impounded in cases of violent abuse--including 49% of the dogs set on fire and 14% of the dogs raped in bestiality cases. “But pit bulls not just the victims of mayhem. Disfiguring and fatal pit bull attacks on humans have occurred during the past two years at the rate of two every three days, are an unprecedented pace. Pit bulls and close pit mixes have since 1982 accounted for 45% of all U.S. and Canadian fatalities from dog attacks on humans…”

Who’s really making the decisions?
Clifton provides an intriguing history of the major humane organizations—American Humane Association (AHA), Best Friends Animal Society, American Society for the Protection of Animals (ASPCA), The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)--in regard to proposals for mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls and breed-specific legislation. He also discusses the results of various forms of legislation to address both the burgeoning population and concerns about dangerous dogs.

Have they helped or hindered? What are the costs of pit bulls to society?
“According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites now account for more than one-third of all homeowners insurance liability claims, a recent average of about 16,000 per year. The average payout per claim rose 37% between 2003 and 2010…. “The cumulative liability from attacks by dogs from shelters and rescues in lawsuits known to have been settled within the past year alone is in excess of the annual budgets of more than 93% of all U.S. humane organizations.

Debunking the Myths
This editorial dispels the common myths that are repeated as gospel by pit bull advocates who have never bothered to determine their validity. Clifton debates these common untruths with facts: --No, pit bulls were never "America's favorite pet." --No, pit bulls were never "nanny dogs." --No, there is no evidence that if pit bulls were unavailable some other type of dog would be comparably exploited --No, it is not true that breed-specific laws do not reduce bites --No, breed-specific legislation is not inherently hard to enforce because of the difficulty of defining particular breeds.

Humane community credibility at risk?
Merritt Clifton reminds us that, “ANIMAL PEOPLE has warned, many times, that the trustworthiness of the humane community itself is at risk when animal advocates deny the realities of the pit bull crisis.”

Breed-specific legislation (BSL)?
“ANIMAL PEOPLE again reminds the humane community that an effective response to pit bull overpopulation must target breeding, and must be legislatively mandated, since pit bull breeders have proved intransigently resistant to any and all forms of gentle persuasion… “ANIMAL PEOPLE believes active enforcement of breed-specific legislation would be most effective if enforcement is triggered by evidence of breeding, sale, or other exchange. “Effective breed-specific legislation could stop the reproduction of pit bulls and other problematic breeds, stop dogfighting and speculation on fighting bloodlines, curtail shelter intakes of pit bulls and other "fighting" dogs, and reduce attacks on people and other animals.” (Above are excerpts. Read more… http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/index.html )

Get More:

Comments

NotBornYesterday's picture

Jennifer/Alice, go home, you

Jennifer/Alice, go home, you aren't able to run with the big dogs and your comments are making you more and more foolish.

dubv's picture

Alice, this is one of the

Alice, this is one of the dumbest tactics you folks take. Outside of your crowd of those who wear their compassion on their sleeves, people actually laugh at you for things like this. Thinking probabilistically about dog breeds is not similar to racism in any fundamentally important sense. Dog breeds were created by humans so that we could predict the form and behavior of puppies. So, generalizing about them is the entire point of dog breed creation. In contrast, no artificial selection pressure exerted by humans created human races. It is an apples to oranges comparison that feels right to you because it supports your position. Your philosophy extended would indicate that believing that dry sandstone is a more appropriate material for camp fire ring creation than water-soaked sandstone is like racism because it requires one to generalize based upon observation. What you aren't getting is that racists inappropriately generalize about a different category of thing (human races) in a way that is destructive. Dog breeds and human races are not similar except in the most flimsy way and you have not shown at all that generalizing about dog breeds is inappropriate. I suppose I'll take your advice and skip over that pointer puppy and instead buy a dalmation and attempt to train it to point. Oh I forgot, it is likely okay for me to generalize and make decision in that way because it doesn't involve anything negative or anything related to a breed that has been caused to suffer not by those weary of it but by those that have owned one.

dubv's picture

Right on NBY. If it was

Right on NBY. If it was really about animal welfare to them, then they would push for regulation that would drastically reduce pit bull reproduction. It is more about pet ownership rights, their own egos, and their own sense of justice.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Dubv, my big boy scared

Dubv, my big boy scared people. He was close to a hundred lbs., and all black. I started training him to the muzzle when he was a puppy and did not hesitate to put it on him if people were nervous. They would ask if it was because he was aggressive, and I would say no it is to make you feel comfortable enough to interact with him. He was altered, he was trained, he was socialized, always won bushiest tale at the Mutt Shows. My point is that people suffer from BDS, black dog syndrome, similar to how people react to pits. It is my responsibility to make those people with BDS feel good about my black dog, it is not their responsibility to "just get over it". If the pit apologists truly want their breed accepted then they would be willing to do anything to change what is happening. Education is not the solution at this point of the game.

gremlin's picture

Haven't seen many dog fights

Haven't seen many dog fights have you? I don't know if there is any iother breed that goes for the throat, tries to disembowel and remove limbs from it's victim like a pit bull does. I respect your opinion but will continue to advocate for stronger laws for dogs. and their owners that have caused serious injury/death to humans and domestic animals.

dubv's picture

Makes you wonder why

Makes you wonder why regulations like the following are controversial:

if you own certain breeds or a dog over a certain weight you must: 1. have a certain size yard, 2. the yard must be secured in a certain way, 3. you must have permission from your landlord if you rent, and 4. you must have an insurance policy. You could also throw in there that you can't be in the city or living within areas with a certain population density, mandatory spay/neuter, and even muzzling when off property. Those last few would be harder to pass though. I'm pretty sure the first 4 points would receive widespread support from the public. Sorry pit nutters, you wouldn't be able to have 3 intact male pit bulls in a trailer anymore. I know that will be hard for you to deal with.

Pit bull "advocates" don't realize that, if followed, these regulations would drastically bring pit bull populations down and limit attacks and negative exposure. They are so hung up on the drama of being an injured party that they are blind.

alice in LALA land's picture

just another red neck canine

just another red neck canine racist

dubv's picture

Alice here is hung up on me

Alice here is hung up on me referring to myself as a country boy in a tongue in check manner. Alice is a total tool bag.

dubv's picture

Alice, you must be drunk.

Alice, you must be drunk. Are there races of dog in the same way that there are races of human? No. Breeds of dog were created specifically so that we could profile puppies for the form/function we desire. Profiling is how breeders select which puppies to breed for confirmation. You are an utter fool.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Gremlin, I agree with you on

Gremlin, I agree with you on the lack of normal canine behavior from pit bulls. I have seen it over and over again and again. Have I seen it from another breed, yes, but not like it is with the pits. Other breeds are few and far between, not so with those nanny dogs.

alice in LALA land's picture

now we are getting down to

now we are getting down to it.. you are a racist

NotBornYesterday's picture

Is that the only argument you

Is that the only argument you have Alice? Go home, you can't run with the big dogs.

dubv's picture

Let's expand our vision to

Let's expand our vision to include genus, not just species. Let's look at the genus Felis. Is it racism to conclude based upon summarizing your observations that a jungle cat is a less appropriate pet than a tabby? You are being very foolish here. If anyone not involved does read this and sees you calling people thinking about variation among dog breeds racist, you will lose all credibility.

dubv's picture

For a mild mannered country

For a mild mannered country boy that doesn't look for (much) trouble, I've had my share of strangeness and a bit of violence from nanny dogs. Here's just one that well illustrates how pits are different. A neighbor came home to find her two pits (litter mates mind you) both dead. They had latched onto each other and inflicted simultaneous fatal injuries. She said the house was covered in blood and her chihuahua was hiding under the couch in emotional shambles. I was glad they were gone. They bit a child prior (one free bite state) and pinned my brother and his family in their vehicles multiple times.

alice in LALA land's picture

well now that makes it all

well now that makes it all very clear.. you are a racial profiler..your experience was bad so all "pit bulls" are bad.. hmm just like the author

NotBornYesterday's picture

It appears that Alice has no

It appears that Alice has no feelings for those victims of pit bulls. Is there a name for someone like that, lacking in compassion for another human being, lacking in respect for others, just plain lacking period? Let's call those sorts of inadequate excuses of humans Alice.

dubv's picture

I think they are called

I think they are called sociopaths, NBY. Have you heard of Godwin's Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I propose Alice's Law as follows: As a discussion with a pit nutter continues, the probability of them resorting to calling you a canine racist approaches 1.

NotBornYesterday's picture

Always, Dubv, always happens.

Always, Dubv, always happens. They are so predictable, unlike their mutant dogs who are so unpredictable.

dubv's picture

I offered one anecdote. I

I offered one anecdote. I did not in anyway infer that my opinion was based entirely upon it. Your reasoning takes the same form as the following: pretzels contain salt, chocolate cakes contain salt, therefore pretzels are chocolate cake. If you include as racism any discern among different types of life forms, then your list will be quite long. You are a waste of time and becoming a troll.

dubv's picture

You're right on the money

You're right on the money gremlin. Folks will tell you that you are wrong and point to their massive level of experience. Experience is nothing without the ability to learn from it. If this were not true, all 80 year olds would be wiser than all 40 year olds. This is OBVIOUSLY not true. Quite simply, there exist people who will not believe things that make them feel bad, if they can at all help it. If they see heightened dog aggression or another negative trait being more common in pits, then they typically and reflexively attribute it to them not being raised correctly, etc. This allows them to continue on their way and avoid cognitive dissonance. They do not ask themselves why the non-fighting breeds that were similar mistreated do not require the same level of mental contortion to get them off the hook for their behavior. Further, these emotion-led individuals chronically think in terms of blame. Sure, dogs are not moral agents and therefore it is inappropriate to apply terms like bad, blame, guilty, etc to them. That is beside the point. A dog can obviously be a contributing factor to the outcomes of its behavior and this can obviously be influenced by breed genetics. By focusing on blame, instead of cause and effect, everything a dog does will be traced back to some human that did not behave perfectly. It makes no sense.

gremlin's picture

The other thing with pit bull

The other thing with pit bull people is their inherent believe the ones that have already shown aggression, can be "rehabilitated". Mastiff rescue, I believe, won't even taken in a Mastiff that has shown aggression.

dubv's picture

Yes, it is insane to risk a

Yes, it is insane to risk a large dog that has attacked a human. This goes double for a full bore attack, and not just a defense nip that was fear-based. I had a debate with a guy who had a jack russell he had to keep tied to his waste with a tether at all times (when not in its crate or secured yard) because it once went in the red zone. He also had a 3 year old in the house. He could not see that what he was doing was incredibly misguided.

alice in LALA land's picture

really he kept the dog tied

really he kept the dog tied to his "waste'.. that is something I would like to see.. the word is WAIST a part of the human anatomy.. not WASTE.. except when speaking of red neck canine racists who really do not know the difference so it is no wonder they have no idea about dogs

dubv's picture

Alice, I have something nice

Alice, I have something nice to say about you. You exhale carbon dioxide which is helpful for plant growth. I think you've read enough from me by now to realize that I know the meaning of those two words and that it was a simple slip up caused by me typing quickly and not double checking. If that is all you have, then you are holding an empty sack.

gremlin's picture

Whether the attack was toward

Whether the attack was toward a human or another animal, it can't be tolerated, especially in a dog that size. Yes there is a difference between a full blown attack and a nip. I guess if I have to spend so much effort such as what you describe with the JRT, well I have better things to do. There are so many great dogs looking for their forever home. I just don't understand why so much effort is expended on ones that are aggressive.

dubv's picture

I think perhaps you are

I think perhaps you are misinterpreting the analogy. Are all dog breeds similar? As a dog becomes larger and with more dangerous behaviors, is keeping it tending toward that of keeping a wild animal. I think so. The arguments used by pit bull advocates could be copy-pasted and used by people who want to keep wolves or cougars. You merely have to swap out a few words. That is why your argument doesn't make sense. It is more a stretch to compare a pit bull to a chihuahua than it is to compare a pit bull to a cougar. As far as Clifton's stats being off, have you read what I wrote? Have you attempted to think about the data beyond hand waving dismissal because it is imperfect? Ask yourself this, what error sources affect this data and how potentially? How strong would these error sources need to be to cancel a breed effect? Is it likely that the error does this? Given the data that we have and some basics of decision making, what is the best course of action? The basic reason that we will not agree is that you and I view the human-dog relationship very differently. I love dogs. However, humans are much, much more valuable. We also view dog life differently. I feel a dog is better off humanely euthanized than warehoused its entire life. Your mileage may vary, but you aren't making a good case. You are simply asserting things and not explaining yourself well.

dogsRbetter's picture

we stand, currently, at 7

we stand, currently, at 7 BILLION humans, and counting. YOU, dubv, feel that humans are much, much more valuable. This is an assumption on your part. Just had to address that one, tiny little thing. Global warming has never been an issue caused by dogs. And, not to ramble on endlessly, again, my point was: Pits are different genetically, with a reaction to pain, fighting, adrenalin, unlike any other dog in the world. THIS, not even the unusual jaw pressure, is what makes the breed, if one can really call it that, so dangerous. In my opinion Pits are just a large group of dogs of similar appearance indiscriminately bred by individuals poorly equipped to understand the fine art of dog breeding, not dissimilar to many on this forum. dogsRbetter

dubv's picture

It is also me that feels

It is also me that feels murder is inherently wrong. Some basic, unprovable human intuitions form the start premises for most moral philosophies. I have no problem simply asserting that a single randomly selected human is more valuable than a single randomly selected dog. If our ancestors did not believe this, then we would not be here to ponder the question.

dogsRbetter's picture

tut tut tut-NOT even a Pit

tut tut tut-NOT even a Pit person, merely one with 25 years in dogs-and a whole bunch of knowledge. Not going to say that is something most of you lack but it is what it is. I DO NOT breed my girls repeatedly-my 5 year old just had her FIRST litter-which was harder on her than a litter at 2 would have been. Any canine GYN will tell you what is safer for the female-but I delay for all health testing/clearances, etc. and until a waiting list is in place, I want a puppy from her, etc. Not everyone is functioning on the same level here as regards dogs, breeding and it's purpose, etc. I regret that I was rude enough not to make certain we were on a level playing field-but then I didn't have the energy to clamber that far down. dogsRbetter (and please let me know where in the world you get that I said it meant the I was better-tho clearly I am saying that now.) you made it so easy

gremlin's picture

Wow..you really know how to

Wow..you really know how to act like your female dogs!

dubv's picture

Your reasoning is

Your reasoning is self-centered to the extreme and inpenetrable to others. Dog breeding and husbandry is not so hard to understand, dear. You are simply arguing for what you like to do. It is understandable, but don't think it fools us.

alice in LALA land's picture

my "handle" is because I

my "handle" is because I live in a land where idiots like this woman think that a dog is bad just because of the way it looks and a land where people think the solution to making it "all go away" is to make more laws..ones that will eventually make a type of dog and any closely related dogs EXTINCT. a land where people extrapolate figures out of thin air from unreliable sources and stuff them down the throats do gullible people like the ones on this list.. to find out what Merrit Clifton really say s ans why it it so wrong check out wwww.bluedogstate.com .. or kcdogblog.. or lassiecomehome blog.. they all take Cliftons "stats" and tear them apart. why? because they can.. it is easy. Safety of people?? in LA?/ about dogs?/ surely you jest

NotBornYesterday's picture

Only in your mind do they

Only in your mind do they "tear" them apart, only in your mind, that is what you want to see. Sorry, you don't have an argument other than to attack credibility. Clifton has been doing this much, much longer than any of your sources. Speaking of sources, you need to research a little yourself on those you name.

dubv's picture

Alice, no one is saying that

Alice, no one is saying that pit bulls are all bad. That is a straw man argument or what you selectively hear. As far as a solution, how has your movement decreased total pit bull kill rates? What it is doing, at best, is shuffling animals from No Kill rescues/shelters to places where they will be put down or otherwise suffer. How so? No Kill is actually limited admission in practice. What happens? Animals that aren't adopted are warehoused, left to roam, left out on a tether, or eventually find their way to a kill shelter. Very few people want pit bulls extinct. Certain breeds, however, should be rare. Pits breeds are one of these. Besides, calling out EXTINCTION over one breed of domestic dog is silly. We aren't talking about a naturally evolved organism that lives in spite of humans and likely holds some ecological benefit. Pit bulls we created by humans. They are one subtype of a species. They are in a different category. Clifton's conclusion that pits are euthanized at ungodly rates and that they are more dangerous than most other breeds is obviously true. Picking at his statistics is not the hardest thing because they must be estimates given the nature of the data. The pit bull and humane communities do not attempt to provide better statistics because it seems they are afraid what it may show them. The pit bull and humane communities laud the better behaved pit bulls and place the rest in the category of "must not have been raised right or must have been provoked". That is not a systematic way to think about the issue but an emotional way. Your emotional sense is not improving the situation.

alice in LALA land's picture

what "different category" are

what "different category" are you speaking of? something other than canine lupus familiaris? all dog are just that.. "pit bulls' do not have a special species of their own..they are just dogs.. "obviously true".. you must be joking..PIT BULS ARE DOGS.. they are not a subspecies a subtype or a different category..

dubv's picture

It seems when alice views a

It seems when alice views a line up of dogs as varied as chinese crested to newfoundlands, her first premise she will use in decision making is: These are all just dogs!

dubv's picture

You just defeated your own

You just defeated your own argument. If pit bulls are simply dogs, and we should not be thinking of subtypes, then how does eliminating pit bulls change anything? You get rid of them and there are still dogs. No change according to what you just wrote. You do not scrutinize your own thinking and you cherry pick and incorrectly apply the reasoning of others. That is why you are being smug here. Call it whatever you would like. There are dog breeds obviously. Calling a breed a subtype is no sin. It is using a different word for the same thing. If that is the extent of your argument, then pack it up. As far as different categories, I was speaking of human engineered life forms versus all other life. It should have been clear that I was comparing naturally to artificially occurring types. If not, hopefully it is now. Humans formed various dog breeds for our own purposes, no? Dogs are unlikely to fulfill some unknown ecosystem purposes, no? Since we created them, if humans decide that we are better off without a breed, then there is nothing wrong with decreasing breeding until they disappear. Future pit bulls don't care, and living ones wouldn't be affected. So, by using the word extinct, you are simply cashing in on those circumstances where that word really is appropriate and describes a dire outcome. To say it is morally wrong to allow a dog breed to disappear is to make an entirely emotional argument.

silva's picture

Just read dogsrbetter talking

Just read dogsrbetter talking about how "she" is better! Never heard any discussion of the article. She even wants us to believe not breeding "would put the lives of females in peril as it is dangerous to skip/delay too many breedings-even if it is just one." Well, if this were true of dogs it must be true of humans, so I wonder how many children she has. I guess that also means she breeds her dog every heat. Is that what responsible breeders do? I assume she's the representative voice since nobody else from the pit bull business seemed to chime in and correct her. Actually, I didn't see anything in her long monologue that pertained to pit bulls. It seemed to be all about HER! I guess we should be relieved when she says, "I am just going to go off, Off, OFF" Hey, spaying the females would end the threat to their lives by not breeding. It's simple, safe, and good for their health and most of them live longer and happier.

silva

dubv's picture

Yeah, she's likely wondering

Yeah, she's likely wondering why we aren't responding point by point to her disjointed rant. When someone goes "off", in the way she does, only a masochist could read it thoroughly.

alice in LALA land's picture

or someone who has an inkling

or someone who has an inkling of sense.. and determination.. not like most who here can only concentrate on a three word sentence.

dubv's picture

Alice, you are like Ed Henry

Alice, you are like Ed Henry in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsG_RWwEe00

Or that black knight in this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

dubv's picture

Yes, the problem is that we

Yes, the problem is that we cannot keep up with your incredible prose. Whenever a pit bull person or the ilk responds to an article of this sort, it is typically a huge block of text. The sentences are not interconnected or arranged into points, and it is peppered with emotional language and poor reasoning. Skimming the post was enough to confirm this.

dogsRbetter's picture

I'm disapointed, dubv, I gave

I'm disapointed, dubv, I gave you more credit than this. Never claimed to be a Pit person, or an ilk. Since I thought you, and only one/two others, actually kept up, and that's a NOT, I shall have to withdraw now. You all enjoy yourselves. Do continue entertaining yourselves and if someone new, with different or, heaven forbid, new views actually bothers to offer a comment, do attack, repeatedly, over grammar, and other non topical things while misreading and misinterpreting everything they have to say. To think-you all actually think I'm the one thinking I'm better! Huh? whatever. It amazes that the forum writers resemble Pitbulls more than other breeds. ouch-not to say you drew blood-just that Pits are illbred and illmannered.

dubv's picture

Sorry if I offended

Sorry if I offended unjustifiably. Given the article, you posts were too cryptic and I could not tell what you were trying to say regarding the issue at hand. Hopefully, we both just learned something. I now think I see that you were contrasting your own behavior against that of the pit bull breed community in order to point to why there is a problem there. Is that correct?

gremlin's picture

I've been around show

I've been around show breeders. All her comments I've heard before EXCEPT I've never heard a show breeder claim they have to breed their females frequently for their health! That's a new one.

silva's picture

She also said "-we are not

She also said "-we are not merely churning out pet puppies here but are devoted to the future of our breed!" Does it really matter why she is churning them out? If they are pit bulls they are not going to have a decent life. Anyone reading this no matter where they are in the US should go to their local animal shelter. It will be over 50% pit bulls. Is that the "future of our breed" these breeders are devoted to? And if they aren't pets, what are they being bred for?

silva

dogsRbetter's picture

I stated quite clearly that I

I stated quite clearly that I have a different breed-another large, protective breed, to be sure, but I don't even LIKE Pits. Several of you have gone at me for pumping out puppies-which I also said I do not do. If I DID breed Pits I imagine my 6 page application plus interview and contract would make it likely to find good homes. Attack me for many things but at least read the information so you can arm yourself! I do so hate engaging in combat with unarmed opponents. I was mistaken in thinking this forum might be helpful in educating people-some things just can't be done. dogsRbetter

gremlin's picture

What is your breed?

What is your breed?

dubv's picture

What you have not done is

What you have not done is make a point related to the article. Please skim the article to determine what it is about. Now, please use your massive experience as dog breeder to inform us about the situation of nearly 1 million pits being euthanized per year and how to go about remedying this situation.

dubv's picture

Did she admit to breeding

Did she admit to breeding pits? I couldn't finish reading it.

Close x
Don't Miss Out! |
Like us on Facebook?