Dig the cool widget in my sidebar that I just got from FrogDog - it references the latest and possibly most shameful case of the HSUS successfully pushing for the killing of all dogs seized in a dogfighting bust without giving any of them a chance...can you say "blame the victims"? We're not proposing that anyone starts adopting truly dangerous dogs into the community - what we want is to have each dog FAIRLY evaluated and - when appropriate - placed with a knowledgeable rescue.
But on many occasions the HSUS - the very organization that most people associate with animal protection - has pushed to kill every dog seized from a dogfighting bust. Even though the Michael Vick dogs have proven that even dogs "bred to fight" can be rehabilitated.
When it comes to killing dogs, Michael Vick doesn't have anything on the HSUS.
(Or PETA, for that matter. But that's another story.)
What was so particularly disturbing about this case was that there were several litters of puppies born after the dogs were seized, and even those babies were killed. Never mind that EVERYONE who knows ANYTHING about dogs understands that a dog's upbringing, early socialization and training are the most important predictors of that dog's behavior as an adult. Since these dogs had several knowledgeable groups offering to take them, evaluate them, and rehabilitate them - free of charge to the Wilkes Co. Animal control - those puppies had a shot at a GREAT start in life. But it didn't happen that way.
Selma at Caveat has a superb outline here of what the HSUS is really all about:
Time to Take the 'Humane' Out of HSUS
I know this post is turning out to be a blogger's equivalent of a clip show - but there are so many people out there who have done a really excellent job of uncovering and explaining the facts that I can't possibly do it better.
I'll leave you with a short article written by someone who - unlike John Goodwin of the HSUS - really IS an expert on evaluating and training pit bulls, even those with a fighting background:
The High Cost of Being a Victim
Showing posts with label Banning breeds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banning breeds. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Fighting Breed-Specific Legislation
"Breed-Specific Legislation" - or BSL - for those of you who don't know, refers to legislation which targets and punishes certain breeds of dogs based solely on the fact that they ARE a certain breed or look like a certain breed. It is based on the misguided notion that certain types of dogs are inherently more dangerous than any others, and so those types must be suppressed or eliminated.
And misguided it is. Yes, of course there are certain types of dogs who are more dangerous than others... large dogs for instance do usually cause more damage when they attack than small dogs do, because they are stronger. Adolescent, intact dogs are involved in more attacks on humans than puppies or old dogs, for the same reasons (youthful strength and energy, lack of life experience and raging hormones, combined with a lack of discipline) that adolescent and young adult men commit more violent crime than children or older adults. The most dangerous dogs of all, of course, are those owned by people who WANT to have a dangerous dog but are too irresponsible to be willing or able to properly manage their dogs.
But a particular breed being more dangerous? The only way to determine if a particular breed really IS more dangerous than others - based on reports of attacks on humans - is if you know the number of dogs of all the different breeds or mixes that are in a community. Then you could figure the percentage of dogs of each breed or type that are involved in serious attacks each year.
An article on dog bite prevention on the Centers for Disease Control web site states: "A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, [emphasis mine -B] and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."
A commonly given example of this is that if a study indicates that there are five bites by golden retrievers and 10 bites by pit bulls, but there are 100 retrievers in the community and 500 pit bulls, then statistically the retrievers are the breed more likely to bite.
There are many many articles on the Internet and many books out now about this. A great article I just found is on the Caveat blog. Please go read it.
Why do I care about this so much? After all, I don't own a pit bull. I care mostly because BSL is just unfair, and WRONG, and unAmerican in the most essential way possible - it is absolutely and unashamedly willing to punish the majority of innocent pet owners in order to catch a few guilty parties.
And, of course, I also care because I'm scared. I know that all it would take would be for the media to decide that Great Danes are DANGEROUS and then my dogs would be next on the chopping block. Despite their having never done anything wrong.
And that is something I cannot even bear to think about.
And misguided it is. Yes, of course there are certain types of dogs who are more dangerous than others... large dogs for instance do usually cause more damage when they attack than small dogs do, because they are stronger. Adolescent, intact dogs are involved in more attacks on humans than puppies or old dogs, for the same reasons (youthful strength and energy, lack of life experience and raging hormones, combined with a lack of discipline) that adolescent and young adult men commit more violent crime than children or older adults. The most dangerous dogs of all, of course, are those owned by people who WANT to have a dangerous dog but are too irresponsible to be willing or able to properly manage their dogs.
But a particular breed being more dangerous? The only way to determine if a particular breed really IS more dangerous than others - based on reports of attacks on humans - is if you know the number of dogs of all the different breeds or mixes that are in a community. Then you could figure the percentage of dogs of each breed or type that are involved in serious attacks each year.
An article on dog bite prevention on the Centers for Disease Control web site states: "A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, [emphasis mine -B] and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."
A commonly given example of this is that if a study indicates that there are five bites by golden retrievers and 10 bites by pit bulls, but there are 100 retrievers in the community and 500 pit bulls, then statistically the retrievers are the breed more likely to bite.
There are many many articles on the Internet and many books out now about this. A great article I just found is on the Caveat blog. Please go read it.
Why do I care about this so much? After all, I don't own a pit bull. I care mostly because BSL is just unfair, and WRONG, and unAmerican in the most essential way possible - it is absolutely and unashamedly willing to punish the majority of innocent pet owners in order to catch a few guilty parties.
And, of course, I also care because I'm scared. I know that all it would take would be for the media to decide that Great Danes are DANGEROUS and then my dogs would be next on the chopping block. Despite their having never done anything wrong.
And that is something I cannot even bear to think about.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Dangerous Politicians
There is a wonderful article here: The National Ledger
If all you know about "Pit Bulls" is what you've been fed by the media, you are sorely misinformed. Breed specific legislation is becoming a national tragedy that tears apart families and murders good dogs - all so that the politicians can say they are "doing something" about a made up problem... and the criminals stay underground and aren't affected at all.
Sorry this isn't a funny post, but BSL is just too sad...
If all you know about "Pit Bulls" is what you've been fed by the media, you are sorely misinformed. Breed specific legislation is becoming a national tragedy that tears apart families and murders good dogs - all so that the politicians can say they are "doing something" about a made up problem... and the criminals stay underground and aren't affected at all.
Sorry this isn't a funny post, but BSL is just too sad...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
