Jennifer (aka EM)'s Reviews > The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption
The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption
by Jim Gorant
by Jim Gorant
Jennifer (aka EM)'s review
bookshelves: going-to-the-dogs
Mar 19, 11
bookshelves: going-to-the-dogs
Recommended for:
football fans
Read in March, 2011 — I own a copy
UPDATED: 03/19/11 Read. Cried. Read some more. Got seriously pissed off. Read some more and finished on a bittersweet note.
The Lost Dogs tells the tale of a landmark dog-fighting case, the swirl of celebrity politics surrounding it, and the precedent-setting processes and activities that were developed to rescue and rehabilitate the dogs - for the first time viewed as victims, not evidence; saved, not destroyed. The facts it reveals about pit bulls were and still are critical to advancing the anti-cruelty, anti-BSL and animal welfare movements.
Well-told, not flabby like a lot of non-fiction (Gorant's journalistic style is ideal for the material). A hard read, in the emotional sense, but not as hard as you might anticipate or fear. Gorant's scenario-setting from the POV of 'the little red dog' and 'the little brown dog' (who turns out to be cover-dog, Sweet Jasmine) occasionally strays into anthropomorphism, but I think he strikes exactly the right balance for the vast majority of readers and his purpose in telling the story, too. There's enough pathos and sadness to make you feel for and bond with the dogs--the subjects of his tale. This is a better, more ethical and more constructive approach than dredging up anger as the primary emotion, which would be the case had he chosen to focus on the criminal-celebrity on the other side of the case and/or his supporters. I have an immense amount of respect for that strategy, both here in literary terms as well as in the broader context of pit bull advocacy and education.
Gorant is clear, at the outset, that he wanted to write the book to address the main and most frequent argument offered up by Vick defenders: "they're just dogs; why do they matter?" Anyone reading my threads here or on FB knows my response to that so I won't belabour the point. I'll end by saying: this is an important book. Vick's cruelty and celebrity created an alchemy that, ironically, has served this breed well, providing a high-profile focal point that advocacy groups like Best Friends and Bad Rap could use to reach the broader population and dispel the myths, misperceptions and realities of 'pit bulls', human beings' relationships with them and dogs in general, and our responsibilities to them. With this book and their work, the tide may be turning.
___________________________
Some preliminary thoughts. This topic is weighing on my mind these days as I watch my 14-year-old Wheaten Terrier decline, and think about what's next in terms of dog ownership for me.
I read the Sports Illustrated article upon which this book was based, and almost immediately afterwards, started to follow badrap.org. Bad Rap is the pit bull rescue group out of California which--along with a group of other forward-thinking and rational lawmakers, humane society workers, rescuers and volunteers--turned the atrocity of what Vick brought to light, the horrid underbelly, history and current situation of dogfighting and of this breed, in particular, to something good.
Learned a ton, in the process, about pit bulls, to the point where I now want to adopt one, but can't.
Here in Ontario where I live, there is province-wide, breed-specific legislation that prohibits the breeding and severely restricts the owning of any pit bull or "pit-bull-like" dog (yes, the legislation is that broad). The legislation also requires sterilization of all existing dogs -- pit bull terriers, am. staffordshire terriers and mixes. Any dog that bears even a trace or whiff of pit bull.
The reality of this law in practice is that any pit bull rescued in Ontario is euthanized immediately, if it can't be found an appropriate, out-of-province foster home.
What this means is that rescues of pit bulls in Ontario are dwindling to a trickle. Go on petfinder.org and type in pit bull, Ontario and all you will see are pleas for funds to ship rescued dogs out of province, by a few--very few--non-profits and shelters who continue valiantly to rescue the breed.
Most Ontario pit bull and "pit-bull-like" dogs are euthanized immediately, regardless of temperament, situation or history. The effort and cost is too exorbitant to even attempt rescue, much less rehabilitation.
But worse -- far worse -- dogs are still being fought and bred to fight, with efforts to stop this barbaric and inhumane practice underfunded and unsupported. Whoever is breeding pit bulls in Ontario now is doing so for one purpose--dog fighting--and doing it underground, way beneath the radar. In his review of The Lost Dogs, Cesar Milan (The Dog Whisperer) quotes Malcolm Gladwell, who says: "Dogs who bite people are vicious because they have owners who want vicious dogs."
The battered and abused dogs that are rescued from dog-fight operations in Ontario, if any are, will have been bred to fight; their rehabilitation that much more problematic and resource-intensive. It would take a Herculean effort -- and a high profile case such as Vick's -- to correct the incorrect assumptions about this breed, replace ignorance with fact, and turn the tide of public opinion. It's pretty much a lost cause. Along with it, we are losing a breed of dog that, WHEN BRED AND OWNED RESPONSIBLY (yes, I'm yelling), are among the most affectionate with humans and the most temperamentally stable -- ironically, specifically because they have been bred to be fight dogs (read the article(s) to learn why that is true). In the American Temperament Test, pit bull terriers score higher than golden retrievers. Of the Vick dogs that were not too far gone, either physically or emotionally, when they were rescued, 48 out of 49 dogs were stable enough temperamentally to either be fostered/adopted out or kept in a sanctuary. Only one -- "a female who had been forcibly bred to the point where she was irredeemably violent" -- note, BRED not FOUGHT -- had to be euthanized for behavioural reasons.
Read more here: The Lost Dogs
The Lost Dogs tells the tale of a landmark dog-fighting case, the swirl of celebrity politics surrounding it, and the precedent-setting processes and activities that were developed to rescue and rehabilitate the dogs - for the first time viewed as victims, not evidence; saved, not destroyed. The facts it reveals about pit bulls were and still are critical to advancing the anti-cruelty, anti-BSL and animal welfare movements.
Well-told, not flabby like a lot of non-fiction (Gorant's journalistic style is ideal for the material). A hard read, in the emotional sense, but not as hard as you might anticipate or fear. Gorant's scenario-setting from the POV of 'the little red dog' and 'the little brown dog' (who turns out to be cover-dog, Sweet Jasmine) occasionally strays into anthropomorphism, but I think he strikes exactly the right balance for the vast majority of readers and his purpose in telling the story, too. There's enough pathos and sadness to make you feel for and bond with the dogs--the subjects of his tale. This is a better, more ethical and more constructive approach than dredging up anger as the primary emotion, which would be the case had he chosen to focus on the criminal-celebrity on the other side of the case and/or his supporters. I have an immense amount of respect for that strategy, both here in literary terms as well as in the broader context of pit bull advocacy and education.
Gorant is clear, at the outset, that he wanted to write the book to address the main and most frequent argument offered up by Vick defenders: "they're just dogs; why do they matter?" Anyone reading my threads here or on FB knows my response to that so I won't belabour the point. I'll end by saying: this is an important book. Vick's cruelty and celebrity created an alchemy that, ironically, has served this breed well, providing a high-profile focal point that advocacy groups like Best Friends and Bad Rap could use to reach the broader population and dispel the myths, misperceptions and realities of 'pit bulls', human beings' relationships with them and dogs in general, and our responsibilities to them. With this book and their work, the tide may be turning.
___________________________
Some preliminary thoughts. This topic is weighing on my mind these days as I watch my 14-year-old Wheaten Terrier decline, and think about what's next in terms of dog ownership for me.
I read the Sports Illustrated article upon which this book was based, and almost immediately afterwards, started to follow badrap.org. Bad Rap is the pit bull rescue group out of California which--along with a group of other forward-thinking and rational lawmakers, humane society workers, rescuers and volunteers--turned the atrocity of what Vick brought to light, the horrid underbelly, history and current situation of dogfighting and of this breed, in particular, to something good.
Learned a ton, in the process, about pit bulls, to the point where I now want to adopt one, but can't.
Here in Ontario where I live, there is province-wide, breed-specific legislation that prohibits the breeding and severely restricts the owning of any pit bull or "pit-bull-like" dog (yes, the legislation is that broad). The legislation also requires sterilization of all existing dogs -- pit bull terriers, am. staffordshire terriers and mixes. Any dog that bears even a trace or whiff of pit bull.
The reality of this law in practice is that any pit bull rescued in Ontario is euthanized immediately, if it can't be found an appropriate, out-of-province foster home.
What this means is that rescues of pit bulls in Ontario are dwindling to a trickle. Go on petfinder.org and type in pit bull, Ontario and all you will see are pleas for funds to ship rescued dogs out of province, by a few--very few--non-profits and shelters who continue valiantly to rescue the breed.
Most Ontario pit bull and "pit-bull-like" dogs are euthanized immediately, regardless of temperament, situation or history. The effort and cost is too exorbitant to even attempt rescue, much less rehabilitation.
But worse -- far worse -- dogs are still being fought and bred to fight, with efforts to stop this barbaric and inhumane practice underfunded and unsupported. Whoever is breeding pit bulls in Ontario now is doing so for one purpose--dog fighting--and doing it underground, way beneath the radar. In his review of The Lost Dogs, Cesar Milan (The Dog Whisperer) quotes Malcolm Gladwell, who says: "Dogs who bite people are vicious because they have owners who want vicious dogs."
The battered and abused dogs that are rescued from dog-fight operations in Ontario, if any are, will have been bred to fight; their rehabilitation that much more problematic and resource-intensive. It would take a Herculean effort -- and a high profile case such as Vick's -- to correct the incorrect assumptions about this breed, replace ignorance with fact, and turn the tide of public opinion. It's pretty much a lost cause. Along with it, we are losing a breed of dog that, WHEN BRED AND OWNED RESPONSIBLY (yes, I'm yelling), are among the most affectionate with humans and the most temperamentally stable -- ironically, specifically because they have been bred to be fight dogs (read the article(s) to learn why that is true). In the American Temperament Test, pit bull terriers score higher than golden retrievers. Of the Vick dogs that were not too far gone, either physically or emotionally, when they were rescued, 48 out of 49 dogs were stable enough temperamentally to either be fostered/adopted out or kept in a sanctuary. Only one -- "a female who had been forcibly bred to the point where she was irredeemably violent" -- note, BRED not FOUGHT -- had to be euthanized for behavioural reasons.
Read more here: The Lost Dogs
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Lost Dogs.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-44 of 44) (44 new)
date
newest »
newest »
jo, your support of my causes--you making them your own--never ceases to amaze me. Your sense of righteous outrage is deeply admirable. I can't thank you enough. I'll tell you what: you find a bullie in Ontario you want to rescue and I, personally, will pay the transportation costs. Let's team up.
Not sure if you've witnessed the HUGE fight I've had on Facebook among some who feel Michael Vick was "over"-punished. Bah. To his credit, he continues as part of his own rehabilitation and retribution (and beyond the time specified by law, I believe -- although I could be wrong about that) to speak out against dog-fighting.
For that, I thank him. It was a horrible path there, but the good he has done for this breed--intentionally and unintentionally--is immeasurable.
well there was some hyperbole there, but yeah, the gist is true! i will make every effort to adopt an ontario pit bull once my menagerie has an empty spot (and the pit bull proves to be a sweetheart as verified by competent sweetheart judges). i have no idea whether michael vick was overpunished cuz i don't know how he was punished. and i didn't see your fb fight, thank god in heaven. i must say, however, that i am not a big believer in punishment IN GENERAL. rehabilitation and retribution, yes, that's the way to go.
but seriously ... I know what you mean. When the rubber hits the road, would I have a pit bull rescued from a fight bust in my home?A brief story: a few years ago, I was about to buy a house. It had a basement apartment occupied by a tenant and, you guessed it, his pit bull. Very small backyard that we both would share.
Just before I was about to put in the offer, my brother made one, single comment to me: "you gonna let Molly out in the backyard when that pit bull is out there?"
Pulled the offer. Real estate agent nearly went out of her mind. Ignorance on my part and my brother's? Maybe. But ..... even though I know much more now, I'd make the. exact. same. decision. today.
(and I probably had more to fear from the tenant, than the dog, if the truth were told.)
i would have no problem at all living near a pit bull, or any other dog, and let them frolic with dory if they were proven to me to be nice and gentle. some of the pit bulls that were rescued from vick sound amazing. then you meet an adorable toy dog and it bites into your ankle and you need to jaws of life to pry it loose. i stick by my original plan. gentle ontario pit bull shipped by you when a spot next opens up! and letters to the governor or president or king of ontario asking to repeal the fucked up ban.
LOL - the ban went through in 2005, and I don't even know if there is any residual resistance.Although, I would be most happy to see the King of Ontario's head on a stick, along with the Emperor of Canada (I'd be goin' after him first, let me just say) and quickly thereafter, the new chief pooh-bah of Toronto.
But I'm knitting a scarf to whip the citizens into a revolutionary frenzy anyway.
A pox on them all.
My personal nemesis of a breed is the chihuahua. Forgive me chihuahua fanciers, but I've been bitten twice by those little fuckers. And another one, lives in my building, barks her nasty head off all the livelong day. I also personally want to drop-kick her owner who dresses herself all in pink and rhinestones and dresses her damn dog -- called Destiny, I kid you not -- all in pink and rhinestones. They both deserve a swift kick in the ass with my frosty boot for the sheer annoyance factor.But I still wouldn't condone a breed-specific ban on the chihuahua. To each her (albeit misguided and terminally-precious) own.
hahahahhaahha. you are funneeeeeeeeeee. please instruct me as to organ/person/office to address to express outrage over pit bull ban.
Good question.Running out door, but here's a recent Globe & Mail article that provides a good background into the legislation.
It'd be the Premier, Dalton McGuinty (head of Ontario gov't when legislation enacted in 2005, as now) or Ontario's Attorney General that would be good targets for protest. You could start here.
Here's a site I found that seems to have been active early on in rallying protest to resist the Ontario pit bull ban. FYI, they got Clayton Ruby -- Canada's highest-profile civil rights lawyer -- on their side. Ruby continues to speak out on the ridiculousness of the legislation as mentioned in the Globe article above and here.
I have no idea what the status is of protest against this legislation right now, but it looks like Ruby is still speaking out against it and generating controversy as a deliberate tactic to keep the issue in the news. Smart man. If I ever murder anyone, I'd use my phone call to try to reach him.
Let me preface this by saying I am a HUGE lover of dogs, lifetime dog owner, current owner of an extremely sweet, obedient Vizsla, and that I 100% agree with you about the temperament of pit bulls. A well-socialized pit who has had the proper amount of training and conditioning is really one of the most gentle, submissive dogs there is. Also what Michael Vick did makes him a sick f-ck and I wish they'd have given him 10 more years. That said, I think in your review here you're really arguing against yourself.
You say, on the one hand, that pit bulls, "WHEN BRED AND OWNED RESPONSIBLY . . . are among the most affectionate with humans and the most temperamentally stable." (emphasis yours) And yet in the same breath you say, "Whoever is breeding pit bulls in Ontario now is doing so for one purpose--dog fighting."
If this second statement is true, the legislative decisions of Ontario strike me as perfectly sound. It seems to me that if there is a big pit bull fighting ring problem, then severely restricting the owning and breeding of pit bulls is a totally proportionate response. If there were huge numbers of responsible pit bull breeders and owners in Ontario, then I'm fairly sure the issue would have never come up. That it did so reflects that there was a problem, with this specific breed, and so perfectly proportionate steps were taken to deal with that.
Now, if your animus had risen from a situation in which pit bulls were being specifically discriminated against because of rumors about what the breed was capable of "elsewhere" or "out there" somehow, then I could understand it. For example, military housing does not allow pit bulls, german shephards, etc., just as a blanket policy. It's not because there are dog fighting rings on military bases, it's just sheer reactionaryism. But in Ontario that does not all seem to be the case.
On the other hand, I think the issue goes somewhat deeper than that. Pit-Bull/Dog lovers always want to raise the flag of misperception and stigma and argue these facts (which are true!) about how sweet pit bulls can be if raised properly, and how the problem is the dog fighting rings. But while this is true, it completely misses the point. The point is in the empirical evidence of what is going on in Ontario. There is a problem with this breed, because: (a) it was a breed bred for many years selectively for aggression and the ability to rapidly kill or disable, and (b) MOST dog owners are NOT responsible owners.
Notice that (a) and (b) are BOTH prerequisites for the existence of this problem. I'm not just arguing that pit bulls are inherently evil. It's a human issue, not a dog one. But face it: when's the last time you heard of a Golden Retriever killing a child? It would never happen. So clearly, there is something specific to this breed which is different, keeping in mind of course that no breed exists in a vacuum and every breed must be raised by fallible people.
The point is that you're at best naive and worse obstinately opposed to the principle of inherited characteristics if you don't think that breeds have certain qualities which can be generalized and that, in general, pit bulls are more likely to be violent and aggressive than the majority of other breeds. I mean, sure, it's possible to have a Chihuahua that never barks and dances a jig on command, but with an average owner you're far more likely to get a hyper, noisy, aggressive little ankle-biter dressed in sequins. Same with pits.
hmmm, isaiah, i will let jen answer this, but three points:1. why ban pit bulls period instead of only pit bulls raised in fighting rings? it should be pretty easy to find out the provenance of animals, hey?
2. the consequence of this ban is that pit bulls are immediately destroyed, instead of being sent to sanctuaries or other rehabilitative places who might be willing to have them (those places are not allowed to exist, except out of state). this seems rather draconian and stupid to me.
3. the blanket nature of the ban reinforces the public perception of pit bulls as objects of fear, thus also reinforcing public support for the ban. as jen points out, one might choose not to move in next to a place where a pit bull lives (i guess this sentence should be in the past tense). pit bulls drive down property values. pit bulls, arguably, end up reflecting poorly on their owners. the whole community is up in arms against pit bulls.
a more rational, discerning, educational program might rehabilitate pit bulls AND refocus law enforcement efforts away from destroying pit bulls and toward shutting down dog fighting rings.
not that i'd mind watching me a good ol' dog fight, mind you.
Isaiah, I'm so sorry -- I was here shortly after you posted and crafted a huge long response, which was promptly eaten by GR. Maybe that's a good thing.So ... the BSL in Ontario was passed in response to a couple of high profile cases, one of which in particular was clearly an irresponsible owner (actually, the dog owner's mother) who couldn't handle a poorly socialized, untrained dog of uncertain origins who ended up escaping from a backyard and hurting a kid. It was passed as a reactionary law to the general hysteria surrounding pit bulls and not to any emergence or existence of a dog fighting problem. The problem of dogfighting in Ontario isn't any worse than anywhere else in the world, and likely much less than elsewhere in the world.
It's a bad law, as all BSL is, because it doesn't account for the individual differences among dogs, even within breeds, and for the huge potential of any breed to be aggressive when they aren't trained, socialized or managed and/or when they are in the care of irresponsible owners, or owners who are deliberately
I was extrapolating from the mandate of the current law and making an argument which runs roughly the same as the NRA argument: i.e., when guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.
When dogs are banned by breed, only criminals (dog-fighters and backyard puppy mills who cater to them) will have that breed. Further, the dogs that are rescued from those horrible situations will have even less chance of rehabilitation, because the law entrenches the bias against pit bulls.
Here's where I'm (still) unclear, and where my original rant went off track: it appears that not even dogs who are bred to be fighting dogs, or who are rescued after horrible experiences as fighting dogs, are necessarily going to be dog-to-dog aggressive (much less dog-to-human aggressive, which is extremely rare among pit bulls, apparently).
I continue to read and learn. Bad Rap, the pit bull advocacy, rescue and training folks who rescued the Vick dogs, has a page (here) talking about "fighting" pit bulls and the myths surrounding them.
It takes a tremendous amount of abuse to produce a vicious dog. If there is one bright spot in the Vick case, aside from the fact that the bastard was forced to pay close to $1 million to care for and rehabilitate the dogs rescued from his abuse -- it's that the political, legal and public profile of this case made it possible for Bad Rap and the others involved to demonstrate that even dogs from the worst of backgrounds, and from long lines of "fighters," could *and should* be rehabilitated. It takes an individual evaluation, and rehabilitation by people who know what they are doing.
A couple of the Vick dogs are therapy dogs now. All of those who were deemed adoptable as family pets have received their Canine Good Citizen certification. Most have been adopted out to families with children and with other pets.
There are different levels of dog tolerance among pit bulls, as there are among all breeds of dog, and even dog-aggressive dogs can be trained to be dog tolerant, dog selective or even dog social. But so much depends on an owner who can properly train and manage these dogs.
All that said, even Bad Rap acknowledges that certain dogs are dog-aggressive, because of their history and their genetics. It only makes sense to me that a dog can be selectively bred for dog-to-dog aggression, in the same way you breed for other temperament and physical characteristics. It's remarkable that *even with selective breeding* so FEW of the Vick dogs actually were dog-to-dog aggressive.
Doesn't this show (among other things) how contrary to the breed's basic nature dog-to-dog aggression actually is? And NONE of them were human aggressive (in fact, the opposite).
If you detect conflicts in my argument, it's likely because there are conflicts in my own mind about these dogs and the role of genetics and selective breeding. But the more I read, the more likely it is that I would adopt one of these dogs, if I could, and if they ever repeal this stupid law. I would love to be an advocate for this breed in a very real way.
Lil' Arnie More here: Bad Rap Adoptions
jo <3 lil' arnie. this is entirely not confused or contradictory. i don't detect any conflict. please make conflicts clear. :)
I'll wait for Isaiah to point out if I've left any remaining!Isaiah, you say: "So clearly, there is something specific to this breed which is different... and in general, pit bulls are more likely to be violent and aggressive than the majority of other breeds.
These two things are absolutely untrue. While on the former, pit bulls who have been raised as fighters *may* show higher levels of dog-to-dog aggression, this is by no means a certainty and is, it appears, a pretty hard thing to breed for. In fact, temperamentally, they are rated as better canine good citizens than lots and lots of other dogs, including Golden Retrievers. See breed statistics at American Temperament Test.
On the second, pit bulls are no more likely to be violent or aggressive than any other breed which is treated cruelly, socialized badly, trained and bred for dog-to-dog aggression. The problem is not the breed, it's the conditions in which they are raised and bred. When they are aggressive, true, they do more damage than a chihuahua -- exactly in the same way a shepherd or a rottweiler does -- because they are bigger, they are stronger, they are more tenacious and ... they are terriers.
These two things are at the core of the bias and misunderstanding of pit bulls and it is here that we, as advocates for the breed, need to set people straight.
actually what i meant is that you should tell us where there are conflicts, cuz i don't see any: see?
jo wrote: "actually what i meant is that you should tell us where there are conflicts, cuz i don't see any: see?"I do! There aren't any, none at all. Except for my own inner conflict (lack of understanding) about the direct role of genetics in aggressive behaviour. Nature/nurture. That whole bugaboo.
Isaiah may say otherwise. I await his verdict. :-)
I'm not sure that I am going to have the time/energy to respond to the huge amount of information here. The reason is that I pretty much agree with you about what should be done concretely, i.e., breed-specific legislation is a bad idea, and public perception of certain breeds should be rehabilitated. I agree with that.Where I disagree frankly is with your understanding of genetics, and with your perception of how aggression arises in dogs in the real world (i.e., you seem to want to blame it on the owner, when the root cause is owner PLUS dog's genetics). I just doubt that there's anything I can really add beyond repeating everything in my original comment that follows "I think the issue goes somewhat deeper than that."
And, like I said, I agree with you on "what is to be done," so I'm not sure I see the pay-off in arguing here.
jo wrote: "don't be talking to me about no fuckin genetics i'm so fuckin tired of that fuckin shit. fuckin A."Perhaps you are being facetious here and it's over my head, but considering that the very existence of canis familiaris as a species indicates the ORIGINAL genetic experiment carried out by the human race on inherited characteristics, this does seem like a rather strange reaction.
Great thread, Jennifer. I'm interested in this breed because such a huge percentage of the rescue dogs in my area (desert southwest) are either Pits or Chihuahuas and I'm curious to know why these breeds are abandoned so frequently. The little blurbs from the pound are usually glowing and they look so damn cute (the Lil' Arnies, not the ankle biters). So, why are there so many at the pound?
I've got to say, the few Pits I've known have not been stellar ambassadors for their breed and I believe, for two of these dogs anyway, that nature dealt their hand. They were (neighbor) family pets and never fighting dogs. These dog were not killers, either, but they were certainly more aggressive than I'm comfortable with.
I'm glad this breed has advocates like you and Jo and like I said, I don't think I would probably ever have one, myself -- I'm more of a scruffy mutt type of girl. I do wish them well, though and I'd love to see the end of what looks like a trend of breeding, fighting and dumping these animals.
jo wrote: "don't be talking to me about no fuckin genetics i'm so fuckin tired of that fuckin shit. fuckin A."just being silly, isaiah. also, jen and i are friend, and this was a sort of an inside joke that i'm sure was lost on her too. :)
Jo, haha! :-p Isaiah - I didn't think we were arguing, I thought we were discussing. :-) I'm on a serious pursuit of knowledge here about a topic that I hold misconceptions and biases about.
I acknowledged my lack of knowledge about genetics. Even Bad Rap seems to be talking out of both sides of their mouth on this point. But, far be it from me to belabour the point (or not accept that I'm being given the last word).
Ko -- interesting observation about the pits and chihuahuas. In the case of the pits, they are definitely harder to adopt out for myriad reasons (and are called kennel trash as a result). And perhaps they are also more frequently abandoned, also for a bunch of different reasons.
Another one for jo:
Rosalie
I think the observation that Pits and Chihuahuas dominate animal shelters is an accurate and interesting one, and it's worth examining.Why Pits and Chihuahuas? The fact is these two breeds tend to (speaking in generalities, of course) attract owners that are not prepared to care for a dog. Pits attract bad owners because they have a reputation for being aggressive. You see a huge number of pits in low-income neighborhoods where having a pit-bull increases one's street credibility of being dangerous. These types of people aren't interested in the long-term care and training of a dog, they just want to buy into that image.
Similar with Chihuahuas. I would never say that there are not plenty of responsible Chihuahua owners who love the breed for what it is (I know some myself), but oftentimes the breed attracts people who just want something small and cutesy to put in a purse and think a dog just "turns off" when you aren't paying attention to it.
Liberal-minded folk don't like to speak in generalities, but we all know that these sketches are predominately true.
Now, the problem with pits is that (a) they attract bad owners and (b) their behavioral problems when not properly socialized and trained tend to manifest as aggression at a higher rate than other dogs in comparable conditions. This is precisely because they have been genetically selected to manifest aggression at a higher rate. That is why the breed exists.
Now, of course, nowhere have I said that most pit bulls will be aggressive or even that most pit bulls will become aggressive under bad/abusive ownership. Only that this will occur at a higher rate than with, say, Golden Retrievers. Any argument about genetics or behavior that tries to imply otherwise is simply double-speak.
Furthermore, whether you like it or not, and whether or not you think it is sympathetic to the animal (it's not), this is a problem. It's a problem BECAUSE pit bulls have owners and the world is not some utopia in which all dogs are raised correctly.
Now, I don't think the right solution to this problem is Ontario's solution. That's not the right one because of the point that EM was making previously and that went over my head -- that when you formulate BSL against just pit bulls, then they end up only going to the underground and the whole stereotype/bad ownership cycle is simply exacerbated. However, you can hardly fault them for trying to find a solution.
Now I'm following you, Isaiah.I think it vitally important when defending this breed, which is certainly what I am doing, not to misrepresent the facts about the breed. So I thank you for your counter-argument and the information you're presenting.
The only thing I would caution, when talking about pits and their tendency to aggression, is that we should probably take care to differentiate between dog-to-dog aggression and dog-to-human aggression. From everything I've read, these are different things.
Too often, people appear to believe that pit bulls' aggressiveness is a continuum - that a pit bull that is dog-to-dog aggressive will eventually or concurrently also be more likely to be dog-to-human aggressive.
In fact, pit bulls appear to be unsuited to roles where they might need to be human aggressive - such as police or guard dogs. It is their tendency not to be human-aggressive, even when crazy with fear and adrenalin such as in the middle of a fight, that makes them the dog of choice for dog-fighting assholes.
And on another note, this is a really progressive approach to dangerous dog legislation - kudos to Dearborn, MI for resisting the hysteria and getting the facts before passing reactive BSL.
And on a last note, I still haven't purchased or read this book. A particularly gruesome, Michael Vick-specific excerpt was posted yesterday on the Bad Rap blog. I still haven't worked up the stomach and/or psychological armour I will need to read it. But I feel I should, and I will.
Yay, Charles! Bailey doesn't look like a GSD to me -- look at that snout! And those bully ears!! ['scuse me] - she's adorable. C'mon, Ko -- you have room for one more, don't you?
She reminds me a little of Blue Dog, or even Simple Dog from Hyperbole and a Half.I'll let you know if we have room just as soon as I'm done convincing Mr. Ko that we have plenty. (I'm working on it.) :)
Update: rescued from the pound on Wednesday, meet Winston! Hardly a bully dog, but completely awesome, nonetheless. :)
Jennifer, yes! I've been wearing down Mr. Ko since we lost our previous scruffy mutt to a stroke in May. This little guy was just too irresistible! Very smart, very cute, very bad. We lucked out. :)
Way to go, Mr. and Mrs. Ko! Any idea of lineage? Obviously lots of terrier -- maybe every single kind of terrier?!? LOL How old?(and re: this book. I've three times put it in my online cart, and three times chickened out. I haven't worked up the guts to even buy it, never mind read it.)
Hah! It's almost embarrassing. The pound thinks he's half Yorkshire Terrier and half Miniature Poodle. A Yorkipoo. (God!) Sounds like a dreadful yappy little accessory dog, doesn't it? But like I said, he's very cool and fortunately for us, only a year old.As for the book, I'll never read it, Jennifer. I used to read books like this, but I won't anymore. I already know bad things happen to perfectly good creatures and I'm old enough to want to spare myself the horrible details.
I have had this since October. I'm putting off reading it.It is the people, not the dogs. My chihuahua puppy has growled at my little nieces. They provoked worse than that. My puppy only growled leave me alone. I hide him when they come over.
Some kids aren't fit to be around animals. A few years ago I had to rescue a cat from two little boys and their bat. Monsters. I wouldn't have blamed any animal if they (the kids) were hurt.
OMG Mariel! seeing kids inflict cruelty like that always sends up alarm bells in my head. Here's something I wrote, in which I try to convince myself and others to have compassion for people like Vick. I do think in adults and among those who breed and fight dogs, the story behind the behaviour is more complex, and raises bigger societal issues.
The vid at the beginning of my blog post has inspired a lot of controversy, apparently.
Thank You, Michael Vick
great link, Ben. "Senator Jim Norman knows that pitbulls have been typified as vicious, but all dogs need to be judged as an individual - not as a breed."
If only there were more like him out there.



also, as soon as i can, i'm going to adopt an ontario pit bull. word.