Don’t be bull-headed about adopting pit bulls
If you’d asked me two months ago to state my opinion about pit bulls, I would have said this: Humans have made some of them dangerous, and this doesn’t make pit bulls undeserving of life and companionship. They can be as gentle, loyal, and loving as any other dogs. And pit bull bans just hurt innocent animals and their families—the people who love them.
I’d respond similarly today, but with far more emotion and conviction, like someone who’s been talking about this a lot lately. I’d respond with Mabel in mind. As noted in last issue’s column, a sick, scared, and injured dog appeared in our neighborhood several weeks ago and won our hearts. She is living with us as a foster dog until we can find a permanent family for her, and whoever does take her home will be so lucky to have her.
Someone broke Mabel’s jaw, but she still licks all over my face. Someone blinded her left eye, but she still looks at me with absolute trust. Someone threw her aside, but she still lies next to me and rests her head on my shoulder. Someone broke her teeth, but she still lets me look inside her mouth. Someone refused to give her love, but she still offers it in buckets.
Mabel is a pit bull. She is goofy, affectionate, patient, and smart and bursting with love—for me, for her other foster mom, and for her best doggie friend. Mabel is a pit bull. And I feel completely safe with her.
I’ve spent much time defending Mabel—defending her basic right to live—in the past several weeks to people who know only what they read in papers and see on TV. In actuality, aggression toward people among pit bulls is extremely rare. Pit bulls adore humans and are devoted to them. The attacks you read and hear about are not the norm—they are infrequent exceptions, and most of the time, they are the fault of humans, whether because of a human’s behavior in the moment or because of human behavior and treatment of the dog in the past. News organizations don’t report every dog bite or attack; they clamor to report an incident only when it involves a pit bull–type dog, which gives the public the false impression that these dogs are more likely to attack humans than all other breeds. They aren’t.
There are a disproportionate number of pit bulls in shelters, and hundreds of thousands, including perfectly healthy, friendly dogs, are euthanized every year because of people’s fears based on misconceptions. Thousands who, just like Mabel, feel sadness, love, and joy and simply want a home, who don’t understand that the humans they want to love fear them, even without knowing them.
Adopting a pit bull, just like adopting any dog, isn’t something everyone can or should do. Lifestyle and home environment, including the presence of other animals and their age, personality and gender, must be considered. You need to do research and give the decision serious thought. But if adopting a pit bull is something you can do, saving the life of one of these extraordinary, affectionate animals in such great need is a choice you won’t regret. And you will reap the benefits—namely, your companion’s incredible love—for years to come.
As for Mabel, her perfect family is still out there somewhere. If that family might be yours, or you just want to find links to pit bill resources or read Mabel’s story and keep up with how she’s doing, visit Mabel’s blog: http://mabelthepitbull.blogspot.com
Stephanie can be reached at mail@stephanie-ernst.com. You can read the Furry Five’s bios and see their photos by visiting www.TheFurryFive.com.
"Pit bulls are FAR more likely to be dangerous to other dogs than are other breeds because killing other dogs (without provocation) is what pit bulls were bred to do."
Gee, I sure am glad people like "Betsy" (if that is your real name) is trying to educate us pit bull owners. In the past three years my two pit bulls and I have been aggressively harassed by numerous dogs (all breeds, all off leash) on our leashed walks and all this time I was naively assuming that all breeds are capable of aggression, but Betsy tells me I am wrong. So although my dogs are politely holding a heel while we are being harassed, I am to believe that my pit bulls are inherently more aggressive than other breeds. Obviously, all these aggressive dogs must just be a figment of my imagination. I am feeling enlightened and so much safer on my walks now! If only ignorance could be fixed with legislation.
Rasputina,
Sorry.
It is just a fact that pit bulls are far more likely to be dangerous to other dogs than are other breeds. Here, for example, is a quote from a highly pro-pit bull publication, talking about dog-on-dog aggression: "You can't graduate from Bull Breed Reality School until you accept dog-on-dog aggression as fact." (Source: "Bully Breeds: All About America's Favorite Dogs" p. 15) Later (p.16) the author points out "If your idea of the perfect life is a happy pack of romping pooches, carefree, with no worry about snarfs or disasters, leve the bully breeds out of the mix and check out more dog-friendly breeds."
Actually, my idea of a "perfect life" DOES including cutting down on the likelihood of dog "disasters," especially ones whose chances are minimized by choosing less dog aggressive breeds. I spoke with the owner of a wonderful bully breed dog once and asked her about dog aggression.in her dog. She sadly told me that her dog had killed one of her other dogs and said "if you own bully breeds long enough, it is going to happen." I don't necessarily agree with that, but "yard accidents" (where one pit bull gets off his chain and kills another in the same "yard" are a whole lot more common among a bunch of pit bulls than among a bunch of beagles.
Breed bans are not the answer. You have a hidden agenda, and would like to blame us, the responsible pit bull owners for the lack of education and ignorance of others. Regulation of any breed is not acceptable, not BSL or any other regulatory measures that you would like to enforce. You want to implement BSL by regulating pit bulls. Why aren't you as concerned with the horrendous neglect and abuse being commited as we speak in all the puppy mills around the U. S. A?. Why aren't you on your soap box protesting the multimillion dollar profits made the corporations sanctioning puppy mills?.
You could care less about pit bulls, your self serving interest is banning pities. Guess what, is not going to work, at the end of the leash of the majority of pit bull owners is a registered voter. With all the criminal activities increasing in every city, people like you and politicians use the corpses of every pit bull killed by BSL as a stepping stone, to distract the average citizen from the real issues facing this nation. Creating a false sense of security by implementing BSL and leading the sheep to believe "I am safe, the pit bulls are gone", but the issues of crime. poverty, unemployment, and foreclosures continue in a daily basis. Pit bulls are being victimized all over again by individuals like you and the politicians that present false, misleading and inflamatory information in order to give the appearance of caring by addressing the issues of community safety. Be as involved in the development of safety and education in order to prevent dog attacks of any breed.as you you are in bashing pit bulls and their owners Lack of accountability for the people who own the "resident dog" since humans are the ones creating the tragedy of a dog attack. Unleashed dogs, chained dogs, lack of adult supervision when children are interacting with a dog, regardless of breed are some the issues that need to be addressed thru education and strict enforcement of the law to start addressing dog bites, and have an impact in the safety of any community.
Peace Addigallia, Huckle and Finn
Addagllia,
I agree that absolute pit bull breed bans are not the best solution to the pit bull crisis. They are cheaper and probably easier to enforce than more creative approaches, however, so unless there is a strong concensus alternative that actually addresses the pit bull problem, absolute bans are coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
And even in places where breed bans don't exist, insurance consequences will only get worse for pit bull owners. Insurance companies pay close attention to the stats of which of their customer's dogs are causing liability and it isn't the golden retrievers. Many insurance companies currently refuse to insure pit bull owners. Many more will likely jump on the bandwagon as the problem continues to grow. The availability of rental housing can also be affected, since if the landlord's insurance carrier says "no pit bulls," a pit bull owner might find it difficult or impossible to find housing.
And absolute pit bull breed bans are actually wildly politically popular. The only actual scientific poll I have seen on the subject was taken a few years ago in the state of Oklahoma and 70% of the responders said "ban them entirely." But in the wake of nearly every pit bull attack some online news organization asks if pit bulls should be banned. These polls ALWAYS result in a huge majority of the folks responding that they want them banned, until the pit bull websites start spreading the word and stuffing the ballot box. (Go to any pit bull bulletin board and you will see plenty of "please vote, we are losing!" posts trying to skew various online polls) So, yeah, the average person doesn't own a pit bull and can't really see much reason for pit bulls to exist. This is especially true in the wake of some tragedy, where some adorable child is killed or maimed for life by a pit bull. And post-tragedy is when this issue always arises. (Right now, Omaha is starting a debate about what to do about pit bulls, following an incident where a little girl was horribly injured in a totally unprovoked attack).
These are the political realities and why pit bull bans keep getting passed. Usually they have grandfather clauses, but sometimes not. Often the grandfather clauses have really onerous requirements re insurance, muzzling and containment for existing pit bulls I do not support most of these laws but they are INEVITABLE given the fact that 21 pit bulls/pit bull mixes killed people last year.
If I wanted pit bulls gone, the easiest thing in the world for me to do would be to jump on the bandwagon and join the chorus of voices screaming to ban them entirely. As a dog lover and a person who appreciates relationships people have with dogs, however, I would like to think of better solutions that enable responsible people to keep pit bulls.
Call me an idealist.
I will not accept any differential treatment placed solely on breed, and enforced upon my pit bulls. When all dog owners are mandated to microchip, neuter and spay their dogs then I'll agree to such laws. My dogs are neutered, licensed and better trained than the majority of children in my community. It is amazing the amount of time and effort some people will spend spouting misinformation and half truths about pit bulls. Funny that Denver is mentioned considering that the law has been used there to enforce gestapo like tactics against the lawful owners of registered pit bulls. So many inocent dogs have been snached from their caring, loving owners in order to kill them, and their bodies disposed in garbage dumps in the senseless, blood thirsty mass killings of dogs. No responsible dog owner should live in fear of having their companions meet such horrific end. Amazing that no mention is ever made of the pit bulls that are therapy dogs, narcotic and explosive detection dogs, search and rescue dogs, and the list goes on and on. Live me and my dogs alone, so that we can enjoy life and the freedom to live in peace, without fear of being assaulted, insulted, and threatened by the imbecils without anything better to do than intrude and try to restric my rights as a law abiding taxpayer. Please find some other cause that will help create a better society for us all. Volunteer at a shelter, help the senior citizens in your community, improve the lives of unwanted children, teach the illiterate to read, check with your local hospital they would love to have you as a volunteer, donate some of your time and energy at any VA medical center and became an advocate for all of our war vetererans, they can use the enourmous amount of time that you so freely waste attacking pit bulls and their responsible owners. Take the time to ask yourself if pit bulls are such terrible beasts, why so many law abiding, decent people love them so much, why so many of us will die for our dogs?. No, you don't know pit bulls at all. We do, and will continue to embrace, rescue and protect them from the ignorance of people like you. We will try to do our best to educate you. As a dog owner I should not have to spent time dispeling the myths and ignorance that you fanatic cruzaders are posting all over the internet?
Peace Addigallia, Huckle and Finn.
Addigallia,
So you won't "accept" breed specific reglations applied to pit bulls? Somehow you have no problem "accepting" the fact that nothing meaningful is being done to protect pit bulls, though, and pit bulls are suffering and dying by the tens or hundreds of thousands every year in this country (and the problem gets worse every day) BECAUSE of irresponsible pit bull breeders. Right? Why is it easier for you to "accept" pit bull suffering (and the occasional mauling and/or death of a child) than it is for you to "accept" totally reasonable regulations on irresponsible pit bull breeders?
As Pogo said: "we have met the enemy, and it is us." This has never been truer than when applied to pit bulls and the "proud owners" of pit bulls who do everything in their power to thwart any effort to solve the problems that cause horrible pit bull suffering and will likely (maybe sooner, maybe later) lead to pit bull breed bans everywhere.
Thanks for this great article on Mabel.
Since owning one Pit Bull,I will never own another type of dog.
I have owned many dogs in my lifetime but none like the Pit.
They are the most lovable goofy dogs I have ever encountered..
Every one I have ever met has been the same.
I personally had no problem with any animal aggression but it`s something any owner of any dog needs to understand and be aware of.
The worst case of dog aggression I have ever experienced in my household was a Cocker Spaniel that went through a door glass to go after another dog.
Are Pit Bulls for everyone?
Of course not.
They don`t just need good owners,they need exceptional owners because of the media.
The reason being that a Pit Bull in Timbuktu that chases a cat is going to impact ALL Pit Bulls around the world and their owners because the media will turn that into an "attack" and then we will see all these comments by uninformed posters saying "What if it had been a child?" and calling for something to be done about these "killer dogs" and screaming for Breed Specific laws.
Anyone that doesn`t think the media is a huge problem just has to look at the "attack" this week by the Pit Bull puppy on the shoelaces of some kid and the big burly Plumbers that saved the kid.
That was laughable.
It was a puppy playing,pure and simple.
It might be just me but I`m getting a whiff of PeTA .
Every dog should have a responsible owner.
Pit Bulls require exceptionally responsible owners for one reason and one reason alone,the media.
Leashed,properly contained dogs can`t be a problem.
Unfortunately if your out of control poodle etc causes a problem with my leashed Pit Bull.
My Pit Bull pays the price as does EVERY other Pit Bull and owner around the world.
That`s why they require exceptional owners.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with these dogs.
They have NO supernatural powers and I personally have seen far worse dog aggression in many other breeds.
It`s no reason to exterminate dogs.
It`s something you manage.
And BTW there is one study that I have seen that states the following
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pdf/DowdAPBTbehaviormanuscriptV4form...
[quote]This Study has statistically shown,based on a defined temperament test,that the classification of dog breeds and dog breed types(breed groups),with respect to their aggressiveness towards humans is not supported scientifically.[/quote]
It`s getting very tiresome defending these wonderful dogs against people that need to blame dogs for the ills of Society but I will defend them until the day I die.
Hopefully those that need to blame dogs will move on to some other Breed or type in the next few years or decide to get informed that dogs are not the problem.This is a human issue and education is the answer,not legislation.
Pit Bulls will not be exterminated because we`re NOT going to allow it!
Take that PeTA. et al.
Sorry that the post is so long but as usual the naysayers always have to ruin a great story about a wonderful dog.
Pibble,
Thanks for the link to the "study," authored by Scot Dowd of the "Matrix Canine Research Institute." That sounds pretty official and the "study" is written in the kind of language we expect to hear from actual peer reviewed scientific literature (even though I don't see any indication that it has been peer reviewed or published anywhere but on the internet). But would the "Matrix Canine Research Institute" of Shallowater, Texas possibly have a link to Matrix pit bull breeding kennels of Shallowater, Texas? Is Scot Dowd (the author of the "study") the same Scot Dowd who is a pit bull breeder?
The "study" you link to is just a rehash (translated into the slightly stilted language of scientific literature, apparently to impress the naive) of American Temperament Test Society statistics. It isn't a "study." Again, , the ATTS was designed to test not for good family pet temperament, but for the bold temperament necessary for "bitework" sports. Bold breeds, including pit bulls, typically do well on the ATTS test. Less bold breeds (for example, shetland sheepdogs) typically do poorly.
One interesting aspect of the ATTS test is that the evaluators are told that they should evaluate dogs based on ideal breed temperament. What would be a passing behavior for one dog of one breed is not passiing for another of another breed. It is unclear what they are supposed to do with breeds (for example, the American Staffordshire Terrier) where the breed standard doesn't even include a temperament description. Guess, I imagine. So even for what it is worth, the ATTS test isn't "standardized." I didn't see that this was mentioned in the article. Maybe it was mentioned, but the premise of the article was that this was a standardized test of breed temperament, and it is no such thing.
There has been one actual peer-reviewed, scientific, published (in an actual peer reviewed journal, not self-published in the internet) study that I know of that actually did look at the relation of breed to dog dangerousness. The study was by Gershman, Sacks et al. and entitled "Which Dogs Bite--A Case Control Study."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/6/913
Unsurprisingly to anybody who knows anything about dogs, the authors (who, unlike Mr. Dowd, aren't selling pit bull puppies and really don't have an axe to grind beyond protecting kids) found that BREED MATTERS. The study took place in Denver (where pit bulls are totally bannedl) so pit bulls were not a factor. But BREED (in this case, chow chow and german shepherd) was found to be one of the two most important factors predicting dog dangerousness. (The other was being an unneutered male). I personally was surprised that this carefully done case controlled study found that breed was more predictive of dog dangerousness than even previous incidents of aggressive behavior and that BREED is a more important predictor of dog dangerousness than whether or not a dog is kept chained. (I.e. a beagle kept chained is less likely to be dangerous than a chow kept unchained). That shocked me, but is more evidence that a whole lot of dog behavior is based in genetics and you get what you breed for.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of pit bull breeders are breeding dogs totally irresponsibly and often to be used as weapons, either against people or other dogs.
I do resent all the inflamatory comments about pit bulls. I am the proud owner of two pit bulls, five years old brothers. My companions are well behaved, well trained, and I adore them and they return my love one hundred and fifty percent. I have shared my life with dogs for as long as I can remember, but I never experienced the pit bull devotion, loyalty and total faithfulness that only pit bulls are capable of giving us, the humans in their lives. I am not a thug, I am a female, profesional, I own my home with a fenced in backyard, and my dogs are always supervised, even when playing in their yard. Not because I fear what they may do, but what may be done to them. My dogs are friendly to dogs, cats, children, and adults. I fear for my companions, because the hysteria and ignorance from the people who have never bothered to meet any pit bulls at all, the people who would hurt my dogs and rationalize their actions as "they are pit bulls", the same individuals that will go out of their way to insult my dogs when I walk them, or take them to the pet store to shop for toys. What gives them the right to approach me and proceed loudly to tell the other shoppers, "nasty dogs, they will turn on you and kill other animals, they should be banned or dead". My dogs continue to wag their entire bodies, while the tirade goes on and on. I love my pit bulls and I would sell my home and change careers if BSL is passed in my community. My dogs are true embassadors of their breed, they are the rule and not the exception of the pit bull. I would never consider adopting any other dog than a pit bull. Ignorance and fear are accepted without any questions about the source, and the appalling lack of education about pities, from the closed minded individuals who refuse to learn and continue to distribute misinformation and opinions about my dogs, the same ones who shout the loudest about the "super killer, the beast that will kill you without warning, all pit bulls are evil, perverted animals, they should be banned, kill them all". The lack of factual information floating around is created by the media to sell their products to their unquestionable readers. Yes, pit bulls are not for everybody and because of their own ignorance many individuals in our communities will never own the best family dog in creation. Pit bulls are the most abused and suffering dogs in our society, yet they continue to forgive and love humans with all their souls and hearts. By being afraid and believing what the media propaganda is passing as true facts, so many homes will never know or experience the loyalty of a pitie. This type of fearmongering is appealing to certain people. I know, I know pit bulls are responsible for higher taxes, the price of gas and the state of the economy in our country,
Peace Addigallia, Huckle and Finn.
So, addigallia, since you love pit bulls so much, would you strongly support a breed specific law that requires that all pit bull owners microchip their pit bulls and that all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs be spayed/neutered?
Where did all those pit bulls who are being abused come from, if not from totally irresponsible pit bull breeders? Is "the media" breeding and abusing pit bulls?
I know that this debate is getting long and tense, but I do want to respond to Betsy's latest replies. First of all, I ask again, Betsy, that you read my words carefully before responding to them, so that we're actually talking about the same things--I never accused you of calling Mabel herself "horrible," and I can't see you how you could have interpreted that I did in any way.
Second, I'd like to sincerely apologize for omitting any specific discussion of pit bull dog-aggression in the column. Betsy is right that this is a highly important issue to consider when adopting a pit bull, and I was remiss to leave it out. As I noted before, I was focusing on the misconceptions about human-directed aggression in limited space, and I encouraged further research and consideration, in particular with regard to other animals in the home, but I really should have at least mentioned the specific issue of dog-aggression, and I am sorry that I did not. Indeed, Mabel herself, though not dog-aggressive in general and though quite gentle and loving with her best friend and most other dogs, has tension with one of the dogs in our house that resulted from an irresponsible introduction on our part as well as conflicting personalities and that now requires extremely responsible care and supervision on our part for as long as she is with us.
However, I find some of Betsy's recent comments to be of the intentionally inflammatory, fear-mongering type. Making a remark such as "it takes only a second for a dog to escape an unlatched gate and maul the neighbor's dog to death in front of their eight year old daughter" is intentionally extreme and intended to terrify people. People should be extremely, overly cautious if they have a dog-aggressive pit bull, but again, you seem to be playing on people's fears, Betsy, that tragedies like this are the rule rather than the exception. And they are the exception.
I did not intend to insinuate that "bigoted" people who refuse to adopt pit bulls are the primary reason for the deaths of so many pit bulls in shelters. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that anyone reading would know that of course original, primary blame for what happens to so many pit bulls lies with the people who breed them irresponsibly and/or raise them irresponsibly and therefore make some pit bulls dangerous and give others undue bad reputations. Again, I wasn't able in this short space to go into great detail about all the ins and outs of the pit bull issue from birth to death. I wish I would or could have.
Despite what they are capable of once in a fight, pit bulls are not all rabid killing machines just waiting to snap, which is a fear Betsy seems to be perpetuating. And yes, I do not doubt for an instant that pit bull attacks are far more often fatal than other dog attacks simply because of what pit bulls are capable of, but that does not make the average well-trained and well-socialized pit bull any more likely than another well-trained, well-socialized dog to randomly attack a human in the first place.
I'd like to make it very clear here that I am not encouraging people to take a human-aggressive dog into their home or put a dog-aggressive dog in with their other dogs and then expect to be able to love and socialize the aggression out of the dog. Not at all. I am encouraging people to not rule out adopting adoptable pit bulls from reputable rescues than can assess the family's and dog's suitability for one another and to, once they have decided to adopt a pit bull, take the necessary precautions and responsibilities and do the necessary work and training.
I won't engage in an argument about the temperament testing because it's not my area of expertise by a long shot, and I would need to do more research before being able to discuss it in detail. But your statistics regarding how many "pit bulls" have killed humans versus how many, say, labs have over the years are extremely misleading. "Pit bull" is not technically a breed and often is used to refer to several different breeds with similar characteristics, and you are citing a statistic that actually includes the total numbers for several different "pit bull type" breeds and mixed breeds and then comparing that to the number for a single breed. And as noted several times before, so many attacks can be prevented altogether by appropriate human behavior and education of humans. And if we're going to talk statistics, there are others out there too--such as the fact that there are 25 times more children killed in by their cribs each year than there are adults and children killed by pit bulls (http://www.realpitbull.com/perspective.html). I won't use this space to go into my strong opinions about the AKC or purebred breeding.
The following link also leads to statistics from Karen Delise, and the PDF document highlights again the substantial role that humans' decisions, failures, and irresponsibilities play in dog attacks: http://www.pbrc.net/misc/PBRC_stats.pdf. Here's a sample of what appears there: "Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered male,s" and "of the 448 cases of fatal dog attacks from 1965-2002, there is NO documented case where a single, neutered, American Pit Bull terrier was the cause of a human fatality."
Other educational materials for potential pit bull companions can be found at the following URL and throughout the Pit Bull Rescue Central Web site: http://www.pbrc.net/flyers.html
Finally, I find highly offensive the remarks that pit bulls suffer and die because of "the pit bull community and 'proud owners' of pit bulls" and the insinuation that human companions to pit bulls do not place any blame on irresponsible breeders and other exploiters of pit bulls. This could not be further from the truth and seems to be intended more as a personal jab than a defensible, fact-based argument. The "pit bull community," by and large, is made up of people dedicated to saving and protecting both pit bulls and humans and ending the irresponsible breeding, treatment, and exploitation of the dogs. Perhaps no one is more aware of the details and depths of today's pit bull problems than pit bull rescues and rescuers and the humans who adopt pit bulls.
I was an eight year old child whose dog (who I was walking on leash) was mauled to death by a dog aggressive dog who got loose momentarily from a really responsible home. (I am not being sarcastic, here--the owners really were responsible 99.9% of the time, but they slipped up once). So, yes, that is an extreme example, but it is also a real one that graphically demonstrates the consequences of dog aggression. You say that you want owners of such dogs to be "extremely, overly cautious" (I believe the owners of the dog who killed my dog were actually extremely cautious, just not perfect), but object to my "playing on fears." I frankly want them to be terrified, because only that will, at least hopefully, offer the best chance to keep other people's dogs safe from a dog who wants to kill them.
By the way, a MORE extreme example is the child either trying to intervene when her dog is attacked or being the victim of redirected aggression (as was the five year old killed by a pit bull last week in Texas) and being mauled herself.
The fact that most pit bulls are dog aggressive (as the UKC American Pit bull Terrier standard explicitly acknowledges) is one really good reason why pit bulls should be very rare. Dog aggression is an entirely negative trait in a dog. Most people don't need it and most people can't be responsible enough to deal with it all the time.
Your suggestion that Mabel's dog aggression toward one of the dogs in her household was caused by an incorrect introduction on your part may be correct. On the other hand, maybe it is the result of her developing dog aggression as she matures. One of the really difficult things about pit bulls is that they frequently don't "turn on" to their full potential dog aggression until they are at least two years old. If Mabel is really a year and a half old, (especially since she isn't yet healthy) you frankly don't KNOW what her mature potential for dog aggression will be. She might be great with every dog but a few or she might be the kind of pit bull who launches herself through closed windows to attack any dog passing on the street.
I absolutely agree that you are as much of a victim of Mabel's irresponsible breeder as she herself is. She is going to be very difficult for you to keep (with the issues with the other dog in the household) and very difficult to place responsibly (with the unknowns about her dog aggression). I know that you are trying to do the right thing and I respect you for that. Unfortunately, for the individual pit bull in the midsts of the pit bull crisis, happy endings are difficult to find. The ultimate solution is to make fewer pit bulls. And that will take breed specific laws.
I've decided to remove myself from this string of comments, but I would first like to clarify one thing, on Mabel's behalf:
I never wrote or implied that Mabel is aggressive toward any of the dogs in our home. She is not. I said that there is tension between her and another dog. Their introduction was bad, and the other dog, who is a rough player, suddenly jumped on Mabel, from her blind side, scaring Mabel into responding because she thought was being attacked. Since then, because the incident freaked her out, the other dog has been borderline aggressive toward Mabel, not the other way around. On the contrary, Mabel has consistently, happily tried to get close to her (while leashed and supervised closely), and the other dog has growled her away. The one scary incident that has occurred between them in the 6 weeks since then was entirely, 100% my fault, and it was still not a matter of Mabel being suddenly aggressive toward anyone--it was a matter of her responding to a greyhound flying directly at her full-speed. We are careful with Mabel not because we think she will out-of-nowhere attack another dog, but because of the capacity for serious injury if she or another dog does get provoked and because our home, with so many animals already, is just not the ideal atmosphere for her. But at about 2 years old, Mabel is not showing signs of aggression toward other dogs, even in these less-than-ideal circumstances. Does that mean we're going to stop being anything but cautious--or encourage her adoptive family to be anything but constantly cautious? No. Does it mean we'll start leaving her loose with the other dogs in the house when we're gone? Absolutely not.
Our home isn't the right place for Mabel long-term, but we are determined to find another home that is. One of the reasons we may have trouble placing her is that people read remarks like this, implying that a dog like Mabel may at any moment bust through a glass window to kill another dog, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that she'd ever do anything even a fraction that extreme, and are scared away. She barks and runs along the fence when dogs go by. If she hears or sees a dog outside the house, she barks a bit. She does not struggle to break through the fence or get out the window. In other words, she acts like every other dog in our house.
Betsy, I am truly, deeply sorry for what happened to you as a child; I can't imagine how devastating and horrifying that must have been. And I thank you for bringing up some important issues. But I'm not going to give up on Mabel or assume the worst about her--and I hope others won't either--for no reason at all beyond other people's fears and experiences with other dogs, when all the evidence that we see day after day points in the opposite direction, showing us the best of her and the potential she has to be the perfect companion for the right family.
Stephanie,
I don't want you to give up on Mabel and it never occurred to me that you would. My initial involvement in this blog came in response to a few lines in your original post. You wrote:
"There are a disproportionate number of pit bulls in shelters, and hundreds of thousands, including perfectly healthy, friendly dogs, are euthanized every year because of people’s fears based on misconceptions."
As I hope we can both agree, the reason that "hundreds of thousands" (I am not sure where that number came from, but it is tens of thousands per year, at least) of pit bulls die in shelters is NOT because people who should otherwise adopt them are mindlessly afraid, (which is what you implied originally), it is because thousands of horribly irresponsible breeders breed them and the pit bull community does nothing to lobby for (and, in fact, actively opposes) the measures that will be necessary to turn this situation around. .
In your original post, you also described Mabel, without qualification, as loving other dogs. It is way premature to think that you know this about this dog, even if all she did when she "responded" to the greyhound flying at her was to blink nervously (and why am I thinking that there was likely a bit more drama than that?) .
I agree that some of this information could make it harder to find a good home for Mabel, and I am sorry about that. You SHOULD be angry, but not at me, instead at the pit bull breeders who breed pit bulls for whom qualified, responsible homes are rare. Most people who know enough about dogs to responsibly own a pit bull also know enough to know that they don't want to own a pit bull. I certainly understand how having a pit bull for whom you are desperate to find a loving, responsible home might want you to gloss over some of the inconveniences of pit bull ownership but that doesn't do anybody any favors in the end.
Mabel is a victim. You are a victim. Until there is meaningful breed specific regulation of pit bull breeders there will continue to be lots and lots of victims like you and Mabel.
Wow, I can't believe I'm responding again. Betsy, every single one of your responses to me, in addition to your original response to my column, has included some twisting of my words or has attributed to me something I never wrote. This final time, it was this: "In your original post, you also described Mabel, without qualification, as loving other dogs." I did no such thing. Here were my exact words: "She is goofy, affectionate, patient, and smart and bursting with love—for me, for her other foster mom, and for her best doggie friend." I said she loves her best doggie friend—I referred to one dog, not all dogs, and so certainly and obviously did not describe her as loving all dogs "without qualification." And yes, her response to a charging greyhound was certainly more than a blink, and I never implied that it wasn't. But her response, though scary and though--again--completely my fault, was the same response a lot of (if not most) dogs, regardless of breed, would have given when a dog who has previously been aggressive toward her is suddenly running at her with the extraordinary speed of a greyhound. It was neither her fault nor her breed's. It was simply proof that humans must be vigilant and that a home in which she doesn't get along with another dog (or another dog doesn't get along with her) is obviously not the right home for her, and that would still be the case even if she were a beagle rather than a pit bull.
Stephanie,
In the interests of caution, I wanted to mention that just because Mabel is trying to get near to the greyhound she earlier showed aggression toward and seems "happy" about getting close to her, you shouldn't assume that she necessarily wants to be best friends This COULD be true, of course, but she also could easily be happy at the prospect of a great fight. Remember, fighting other dogs is what pit bulls were bred to do and they find it self-gratifying. The reason most dogs give all kinds of signals of aggressive intentions is that they want to warn the other dog and thus avoid a fight. They raise their hackles (look how big I am) show their teeth (look how big my teeth are) and growl (listen to how deep and low my dangerous growl is) precisely because they hope to intimidate the other dog into backing down and thus avoid the fight. Pit bulls often don't want to avoid fighting, so they often do not do a lot of posturing and warning.
Maybe the greyhound (who is very wary of Mabel) is reading Mabel's intentions more clearly than you are.
This debate is wearing me out, and Betsy, I'm very sorry to see that some of the comments in response to your own have become so heated as to be personal attacks, but I've started to worry about this now simply having become nothing more than a matter of who gets the last word. But to set the record straight, one final time, during the weeks that Mabel was walking up and sniffing and trying to be close to the greyhound (for now, we're no longer allowing them to get that close to each other), she had not earlier been aggressive toward her. I've clarified that repeatedly. I do appreciate your concern. But we are dog people too, who also know plenty about dog behavior and signals and about our other dogs' personalities and reasons for reacting the ways they do. We know our greyhound, and though we're disappointed in her reactions, we are not ultimately surprised by them, and we know her reasons for them. And as the person who has spent nearly 24 hours a day with Mabel for the last six and a half weeks, I trust my interpretations of her intentions in various situations (and, just as importantly, I trust the other two dogs' interpretations of Mabel's identical overtures toward them, one of whom is sensitive to and wary of other dogs and who would be the first one to sense a desire to fight) more than those of someone who has never met her and is basing her opinions on tiny bits of information from which she chooses selectively and which she has repeatedly twisted.
Mabel finds lots of things to be gratifying: sleeping next to her dog friend, rolling in the grass, cuddling with her foster moms and slobbering all over their faces, and receiving praise and treats when she responds so well to training. If she wanted a fight, she could pick one every time her closest companion pulls alpha rank and growls and barks at her for some minor perceived infraction; instead she licks her friend's face and gets out of her way. In fact, she has lowered her body to and licked the faces of each of the dogs in the house, displaying submission to even the greyhound toward whom you keep insisting she is aggressive.
I do not believe that you have some hidden agenda or that you outright hate pit bulls, Betsy, and I'm glad that you have presented your concerns and perspectives; there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. However, your continual skewing of things I've written in the column and comments, about pit bulls in general and Mabel in specific, has become quite frustrating. I also think that we both (and others) have made our positions fairly clear and that this may be the time to agree to disagree, lest this comment thread take over our lives, in addition to having taken over the Vital Voice Web site. :)
Stephanie,
I'm not "tense" in the least. This is an important discussion between dog lovers. I certainly can keep it civil and I am sure you can, too.
Can you point me to where you find members of the "pit bull community" working to pass breed specific LAWS to control the actions of irresponsible pit bull breeders? I know of TWO (maybe only one, actually, but I'll give the other the benefit of the doubt) such people in the "pit bull community" (and I have been discussing these issues for a longtime, online). In private, members of the "responsible pit bull community" admit (as they must) that they are completely powerless to stop the irresponsible breeders. They certainly whine about how horrible irresponsible breeders are and how irresponsible breeders are hurting both pit bulls and, sometimes, children. But they oppose any effort to do anything meaningful about it. Isn't it generally a good idea to pass a LAW to protect the powerless from the powerful when education fails? Education has certainly failed, big time, to protect pit bulls or children from pit bulls from the people who are exploiting them.
The law I propose is simple: Every pit bull and pit bull mix should be required to be michrochipped and every pit bull and pit bull mix should be required to be spayed/neutered except for AKC or UKC-PR registered show dogs. Can you tell me any reason that wouldn't receive the wholehearted support of the responsible pit bull community if they REALLY want to meaningfully address the pit bull crisis? It doesn't require them to do a bit more than they already do, if they are responsible owners or even breeders of pit bulls. Yet, if you propose such a law they immediately start whining about all the reasons it is "unfair" to single out pit bulls and why pit bull problems are all the fault of "the media." (Huh?)
But maybe you want to tell us exactly what the pit bull community is doing to work meaningfully toward "ending the irresponsible breeding, treatment and exploitation" of pit bulls? Because all I see from them is a lot of whining about how they can't do anything to control the actions of irresponsible pit bull breeders but when anybody suggests a law that meaningfully WILL control the actions of irresponsible breeders, they start whining about how "unfair" it is. Then they say "but PETEY was a pit bull."
Uh huh.
Betsy,
Sorry but you have been misinformed. The writer of this (great) article stated that you need to do your research, ie pit bulls can be dog aggressive. Are they always? No. Mine has never growled/nipped/bit any animal/person, whether it was a group of small children surrounding and petting her (who were quickly attacked with her wet tongue) or was a rambunctious stray dog.
Simply put, the only ones you hear about are the "bad" ones. Will you be the one to tell elderly and disabled receiving assistance from these wonderful dogs that you don't think they should have them? What about those that have been rescued by search-and-rescue pit bulls? What about the cops using them for law enforcement? How about the millions of households who have these pets and never have any problems?
I think I can safely assume that you've never had much experience with these dogs and are basing your "facts" solely on what you see on tv. There has been absolutely no study proving that they are more easily provoked or likely to bite. However, there have been studies (by atts.org) that show they have an above average temperament. By the way, they test temperament by attempting to provoke the dogs by placing them in various stressful situations. Odd, if going by what you say, you would assume they score much worse than the average breed, not better. Also read "Shelia Tack vs Alabama" to see a court case where the Supreme Court ruled there is absolutely no evidence that these dogs are more likely to bite than other breeds. CDC's study, which so many people hail as proof, is a poor study based on various unverified reports, and they list "pit bulls" in quotations. The reason? Most of the reports are done by people with no proper breed-identification experience, and are frequently incorrect. I've seen news reports of "pit bull" attacks that have had pictures of dogs that were very positively not even close to a pit bull. It's what gets attention, and it's what they show. Please don't try and use the Merritt Clifton report as "evidence" either. It has been ridiculed as complete garbage of a study. It's obvious sensationalism and he gathers his reports from media. Sensationalism based on sensationalism, without an ounce of science to his data.
Before I got my own pit bull, I had the same misinformed views on them. I believed they were all dangerous ticking-timebombs. I visited a friend one day who had a couple dogs. I had no clue what they were, but they were very intelligent and acted like 60lb lap-dogs. I asked what kind they were, and to my surprise he told me they were pit bulls. When I began looking for a dog, I decided to research them, and found out what great companions they can be. I adopted one from a family who's apartment didn't allow large dogs, and am very happy that I did. I'm also happy to report that my mother, who also had the "there's no such thing as a good pit bull" view and wouldn't allow me to visit with my puppy, eventually allowed me to and now completely adores her. She treats it as her own furry family-member and no longer believes they're all vicious. I take every chance I can to show people what a lovely breed they truly are.
It's amazing how the dogs rescued from idiot Michael Vick were able to be rehabilitated and brought back in to society without any problems. [sarcasm] Must be because they're waiting to snap unprovoked, and lock their jaws, right? [/sarcasm]
This is a very nice article and I wish more people would be able to see the good in these dogs instead of the bad. I do agree that they aren't for everyone. They're a working breed, and thus require exercise. However, if someone can raise any other dog to be nice, they can do the same with this one. Responsibility is a key factor in how any dog turns out, regardless of breed.
The writer pointed out research is necessary before deciding on one (as it is with any dog), and I wish people would research as well before spreading misinformation and getting misinformed views. I wish media would also show the good in these dogs instead of only showing the bad. People do horrible things, and that's all you see on the news, yet people understand not all people are bad. Some pit bulls do horrible things, and that's all you see on the news, yet people believe they're all bad. Unfortunately, dogs can't defend themselves, so the proud owners (like myself) have to do the legwork.
I'm grateful for my "vicious" American Pit Bull Terrier, and it will be the only breed I ever own. I'm grateful I was able to adopt her before an unscrupulous individual (such as the one that obviously had Mabel) was able to abuse and mistreat her. I'm grateful I'm able to give her a life that many pit bulls never get to enjoy because of the idiots that adopt them for bad reasons, and those that are so scared of them due to media that they won't open their homes to him.
Thanks Stephanie, from a proud pit bull owner.
Jorsher,
I addressed some of your points in my reply to Stephanie. Specifcially, I wanted to address your misconception that the American Temperament Test Society conducts "studies" on breed temperament that are somehow indicative of dangerousness. . In order to flunk the ATTS based on dangerousness, a dog would have to react aggressively to even a friendly stranger. Such dogs exist, of course, but their owners are not paying $35 to have them take the ATTS test. Dogs do flunk the ATTS test, but it is because they won't walk across the x-pen on the ground, or they freak out at the gunshots, or they won't approach the umbrella (I'm not sure what THAT is about). I am an AKC CGC evaluator and I don't believe I ever have flunked a dog on the "friendly stranger" portion of the CGC which is equivalent to the same portion of the ATTS test.
"Proud owners" of pit bulls, like yourself, ought to be spending less time arguing that the pit bull problem is all some product of some mythical hatred by the media for pit bulls and realize that the glut of completely irresponsible breeders of pit bulls are not only destroying the breed's reputation and causing occasional children to die in pit bull attacks, but are causing immeasurable amounts of just horrific pit bull suffering. (Mabel is one of the very lucky ones).
Are you in favor of strong, breed specific restrictions on who can breed pit bulls? (For example, all pit bulls must be microchipped, all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR show dogs must be spayed/neutered)? If not, I suggest you take a stroll through your the nearest urban shelter's death row and see the rows and rows of pit bulls who are waiting to die (and who nearly all had brutal lives of suffering before reaching the shelter). As far as I know, "the media" hasn't bred a single pit bull. These dogs all ended up suffering and dying because of the pit bull community and "proud owners" of pit bulls.
Good for you for rescuing Mabel. Unfortunately, you are wrong when you say that pit bulls are no more likely to attack than any other breed. Pit bulls are FAR more likely to be dangerous to other dogs than are other breeds because killing other dogs (without provocation) is what pit bulls were bred to do. And, sadly for pit bulls, there are lots of people who are currently breeding them for aggression toward people. It is a significant problem.
The reason that "hundreds of thousands" of pit bulls are killed in shelters is because pit bull breeders are almost all (not quite all, but almost all) completely irresponsible. Pit bulls (if only because of dog aggression) are horrible dogs for most people to own. THe ONLY people who should own pit bulls are people who are capable of being 100% responsible, ALL the time. This is not most dog owners. You shouldn't be touting pit bulls as being just like every other dog. Pit bulls were bred to kill. Golden retrievers were not bred to kill.
Mabel may well be the exception, and may be a pit bull who gets along fine with other dogs for her whole life. On the other hand, you have a rescue dog who is still in the honeymoon phase (many rescues take a few months to settle in and show their true temperament) and is even now, still suffering from significant health problems. You won't have an accurate picture of her true temperament until she gets healthy.
I hope that you are not leaving Mabel unsupervised with any of your other animals. It could be okay, but you could return home to a bloodbath and one or more dead dogs.
Pit bull experts say "never trust a pit bull not to fight." I know you think your pit bull is different, but everybody who comes home to a dead dog thought their pit bull was different until they learned he wasn't.
Betsy, I understand your concerns, but first of all, if you reread my column carefully, you'll see that you misread or misinterpreted some of things I wrote. For one, I never said that pit bulls are not more likely than other dogs to be dog-aggressive. I said that they aren't more likely to attack humans. There's a big difference. You're right that there is certainly more potential for aggression toward other dogs in put bulls. We're not in disagreement. This is exactly why I recommended that people do lots of research first when considering adopting a pit bull--and why I specifically mentioned that the presence of other animals in the house must be one of the considerations. There was not space to cover every issue that goes along with pit bull adoption. This was meant to ask people to give pit bulls a chance and to research the issues further. No responsible rescue organization would ever allow a family to adopt a pit bull without first making sure that the family was a good fit and that the family understood all the responsibilities and issues that come with bringing a pit bull into the home; the organization furthermore wouldn't adopt out a dog to a family without first making sure the dog is suitable for adoption. Some dogs aren't. Many dogs are.
Second, absolutely, absolutely, irresponsible and sometimes cruel breeders and caregivers (and other shady folks) are major contributors to the problem of pit bulls dying in shelters. But blanket fear and characterization of pit bulls--and the demonization of pit bulls--is also a problem.
I completely disagree with your insinuation that only a handful of perfect people are capable of being caregivers to pit bulls and your rather bold statement that they are "horrible dogs for most people to own." And even pit bulls who are dog-aggressive can be wonderful, loving companions to humans when there is responsible caregiving and training. Should dog-aggressive pit bulls be only dogs, rather than be in a home with another dog? Many would say "definitely." But the fact that some dogs should be only dogs doesn't make them "horrible" dogs for people to have and love; many people choose to have only one dog in the home, regardless of breed. There are lots of people with pit bulls who would vehemently disagree with your statements, which seem to be perpetuating the idea that the majority of pit bulls are likely to cause death and injury to other dogs or people, when in reality, there are far more pit bulls out there living peacefully and lovingly in their homes than there are pit bulls who have turned on members of their family. The solution is not discouraging people from adopting pit bulls--it's educating people about pit bulls and their needs in adoptive homes and teaching them to be responsible, knowledgeable caregivers.
As for Mabel, we are very responsible about her interactions with the other dogs and about separating her from them when we leave the house.
Finally, from Pit Bull Rescue Central, an organization that is very forthcoming and realistic about the issues surrounding pit bulls and pit bull adoption:
Unlike the myth propagated by the media however, human aggression is NOT a problem specific to pit bulls. In fact, pit bulls tend to do better than average in temperament tests.
The American Temperament Test Society provides temperament testing around the country for dog breeds, and gives a passing score for the entire breed based on the percentage of passed over failed within total number of the particular breed tested. As of December 2003, the American Pit Bull Terrier has a current passing rate of 83.9%, and the American Staffordshire Terrier passes at 83.2%. In comparison, The Golden Retriever passing rate is 83.2%.
Stephanie,
Nobody said that Mabel herself is "horrible." But your initial post advocating that people adopt pit bulls didn't mention a word about pit bull dog aggression, which is a huge, huge issue. Even if a dog aggressive pit bull goes to a one dog home, he presents a danger to other dogs unless the owner is 100% responsible all the time. It only takes a second for a dog to escape an unlatched gate and maul the neighbor's dog to death in front of their eight year old daughter.
. You insinuate that the reason that pit bulls die in such horrific numbers in shelters is that people are just bigots and unreasonably don't want to adopt them. The reality is that pit bulls die in horrific numbers in shelters because NEARLY ALL pit bull breeders are completely irresponsible. Many of these irresponsible pit bull breeders are currently breeding dogs specifically to be either dog aggressive, human aggressive or both.
According to Katie Dineen, one of the founders of BADRAP (a pit bull advocacy group) "In the past 20 years, unethical people have not only tolerated aggression toward people, but have encouraged it and have been breeding for it." And "A lot of the [pit bull community] don't want to acknowledge that that these dogs can be aggressive toward people...but in the Bay Area shelters it's become a significant problem."
The American Temperament Test Society statistics are dearly beloved by people who want to claim that pit bull dangerousness is NOT the "significant problem" that Ms. Dineen acknowledges it is. Pit bulls do relatively well on the ATTS test because the test was originally designed to test for canine aptitude for "bitework" sports such as schutzhund and rewards boldness. (The test requires a dog not to freak out at gunshots, for example, and to not be scared of an umbrella opened suddenly) Pit bulls do tend to be bold. Shetland sheepdogs tend to be timid, so the Shetland Sheepdog pass rate on the ATTS is a miserable 67.4%. But when is the last time a Shetland Sheepdog killed a child in this country? (Never, as far as I can tell). When is the last time a pit bull killed a child? (Uh...that would be last week...in Texas. Interestingly the dog flew into a rage because another dog was in his yard and redirected his dog aggression on a five year old child). The ATTS doesn't even test for dog aggression at all. A dog can literally want to kill every other dog with whom it comes in contact and still pass the ATTS test with flying colors. I personally wouldn't think that a dog who wanted to kill every other dog would have optimum "temperament," would you?
Nobody knows if pit bulls bite more often than do other breeds. Nobody keeps good statistics on which breeds of dog bite. We do know, however, that pit bulls KILL people FAR more often than do other breeds of dog. (Pit bull advocate) Karen Delise counted 92 pit bull related fatalities between 1965 and 2001. During that same time period, labs killed 4 people. Since 2001, the rate at which pit bulls have been involved in fatal attacks on people has continued to rise. Last year, 21 people were killed by pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
You did (and are doing) a very nice thing by adopting Mabel and nursing her back to health. I hope that she continues to be the nice dog that you believe her to be and that (if you don't end up keeping her) she finds a perfect home. The pit bull mess is a crisis that will only be solved by putting strong, breed specific limitations on who can breed pit bulls, however. It won't be solved by trying to convince potential adopters that pit bulls aren't what they are.
What a gut wrenching account of the cruelty man (as in mankind) are capable of inflicting. Pit bulls are amazing dogs that, unlike humans, are able to be subjected to so much, and still come through without holding a grudge, with so much love to give and beaming with those pittie smiles that are unbeatable in any other breed.
Rather than kill this great breed, people should imitate the characteristics that cause so many responsible owners to adore them; their love, their loyalty, their forgiving nature, their joy for life. I guarantee this world would be a much better place if we were to do so.
Thank you for a wonderful article!
Faith
Families Against Breed Bans
~there are no dangerous dogs, just dangerous people~
www.FABBSeattle.com