Profiling--Can't Do It To Humans, But Dogs . . . That's Different!

About a week ago, I shared an article from sports.yahoo.com on Facebook regarding how Miami Marlins player, Mark Buehrle had to buy a home well away from the stadium because he owned an American Staffordshire Terrier. This breed is included in a pit bull ban enforced by Miami-Dade County where the stadium is located. I stated that I was sick of this breed being vilified because of the publicity surrounding vicious pit bull attacks. The reaction to sharing this article was predictable. A few people "liked" this, one friend who had been the victim of a savage pit bull attack disagreed, and another – my brother, of all people – voiced the opinion that a ban on pit bulls was appropriate because pit bulls are dangerous. Facebook is not really appropriate location for an extensive discussion regarding this, so I thought I would expand upon my reasoning here. 

Before I proceed, I must emphasize that I truly feel for those who have been victims of savage attacks. However, using their experiences as proof that this means that all pit bulls are vicious is faulty logic!

On my Facebook post I initially used the analogy that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I'm not sure why I did this because this is one of my least favorite arguments in the world. However the analogy does stand up: it is the ineffective or irresponsible ownership of guns that leads to a problem. Supporters of gun rights frequently make this very point and argue that this doesn't mean everyone should be punished for the actions of the irresponsible ones. So why is this not also true of dog owners? Should everyone be deprived of the friendship of a particularly loving and loyal breed because of inadequate or irresponsible ownership by others? A pit bull that is roaming loose and in a position to attack a person or another dog says more about the owner than it does about the dog. But here are a few more thoughts:

·         Many dog attacks or dog bites go unreported because they are inflicted by smaller dogs. The reason that pit bulls and other large, powerful dogs make the headlines is because when they do bite they are capable of inflicting massive damage. We all know of aggressive small breeds that frequently bite, but because there is little damage we don't hear of these cases.

·         Idiots are often attracted to powerful breeds such as pit bulls and Rottweilers because of their reputation. They train the dogs to be aggressive or to be guard dogs, and then ignore them, neglect them, or let them run loose.

·         Many pit bull owners who pay appropriate attention and give appropriate love to the dogs report that they are the friendliest, gentlest, and most loving dogs you will ever meet.

The reason that dogs attack is often unclear but when a dog is chained, neglected, abused or allowed to run loose an attack is more likely. This is true of all breeds! I have many more reasons why I am staunchly against bans on pit bulls specifically – not least of which is the fact that this is obvious stereotyping and profiling, something that we all scream about when applied to humans – but I will stop here in the hope that some of you reading this may join in the conversation.

Any thoughts?

In Dog Adoptions We Are All Equal

In the current social climate, as the haves and have-nots are becoming increasingly hostile toward one another, it is nice to see that there is one area where there is no distinction made: dog adoption!

 In mid-December Petfinder.com reported on an interview with George Clooney that was published in Esquire magazine. In this interview, among other things, George relates how he was drawn to online reports regarding a Cocker Spaniel mix called Einstein. He attempted to adopt Einstein and was informed that he would have to pass a home visit. Of course, the interview goes on to describe in humorous detail George's attempts to ensure that Einstein would like him during the visit, but the basic point is, that like everyone else, he had to pass the home visit.

Obviously, there are inequalities. Someone with George Clooney's financial resources would have no problem fencing an area of his yard or paying the adoption fee, for example. However, as I say, he did have to pass the home visit. I am not naïve enough to think that all animal shelters are the same when it comes to applying their rules but we must applaud this particular shelter for applying the rules strictly no matter who the applicant was. 

Any thoughts?