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?

The Drought Is Almost Over!

The recent period of inactivity on this site, which has been much longer than I anticipated – and seemed to be brought on by a combination of illness and the holidays – is almost over. Please watch this site; new posts will be appearing on a regular basis within the next few days. Hopefully, I have not chased off the few readers that I had, and I look forward to a fun and interactive time in the near future.




, Hopefully

An Apology

I would like to offer an apology to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis, if there is anyone who reads it on a regular basis.  Even though it is a relatively new endeavour there already has been a noticeable drop-off in posts over the last couple of weeks.  This may be due to the holiday season causing a reduction in my ability to be pissed off, or it may be a simple case of writer's block . . . whatever the reason, I apologize. As they used to say on British TV--they used to have to say it ridiculously often, actually-- "we apologize for the interruption . . . normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."

I would also like to make a request . . . if you see something that you disagree with or have your own opinions on or just that you would like to add to, please feel free to make comments. We can all learn from the experiences and opinions of others, especially if we disagree.  I would prefer this to be a forum for discussion (and even argument) rather than a simple one-sided rant. 

Thank you to anyone who who takes time out of their busy life to spend a few minutes here.  Have a joyous holiday season.

Giving Thanks

On this Thanksgiving Day I don't want to be annoyed or try to be controversial in any way.  I simply want to give thanks to all the dogs I have known throughout my life for the joy and the love that they offered.  Some, Tuppence for example, were only in my life for a few weeks but, while providing an early childhood lesson in topics such as the dangers and realities of buying a puppy from a pet store, they also exhibited the loyalty and love that makes the bond between humans and dogs so special .  Others such as Dalglish, Sandy, and Kettles gave us love and laughter for the entire fifteen years of their lives.  In this expression of gratitude I include all the dogs--too many to name individually--that I have met through my connections with rescue shelters.  So, to Timmy, Tuppence, Lassie, and Candy; to Dalglish, Sandy, and Kettles; to Suzie, Shadow, Sam, and Lulu thank you all.  My life would have been less fun and less meaningful if you had not been in it!

Michael Vick Reviewed and Revisited

In a previous post I touched on my refusal to forgive or forget what Michael Vick was involved in when he was running his dog-fighting ring.  I thought I’d just take a moment here to revisit the subject and offer a couple of thoughts.  Okay, I know there are some people out there who are probably rolling their eyes and saying, “A bit late, aren’t you?”  Well, excuse me for breathing . . . I didn’t have a blog when all that was in the news!

Do I begrudge Vick the money that he makes as an NFL quarterback?  The answer to that would be no . . . no more than I resent any other spoiled professional athlete when compared to professions that are more socially valuable.   If you asked me if I think he should still be in jail the answer would be different, but he served his time as it was laid down by the courts.  The legal system, although improving, still shows the same lack of concern that Vick showed for the life and welfare of dogs.  Having said that, he has a certain set of skills and he should not be deprived from cashing in on that if he is able to.  What does piss me off, however, is that the ownership and the management of the Philadelphia Eagles placed their profit-line above what seemed to be the popular sentiment of the time.  Of course they touted the idea that Vick was rehabilitated, reformed, and remorseful but, to me, that was just a rationalization for their decision.

Which brings me to my main point . . . Do I think that he is rehabilitated, reformed, and remorseful?  Of course not!!!!!  I have been a psychiatric nurse since God was a boy, and I have studied and worked with all kinds of mental illness, including behavioral and personality disorders.  I have seen this type of situation before.  Vick’s involvement in a dog-fighting ring showed a disregard for life that is not situational.  It emerges from a core value, a central belief.  Those core values and beliefs are not easily changed.   What Michael Vick is remorseful about is getting caught, not about what he did.  I honestly believe that if he thought he would not get caught again, he would do the same thing.  Now, I am not saying he is a psychopath, but it may interest you to know that a diagnosis of psychopathy cannot be given to anyone over the age of 40.  Why?  Because the established theory is that as psychopaths age they develop ways of channeling their anti-social tendencies into things that are more socially acceptable but that continue to fulfill their belief that they are the center of the universe.  Does that sound somewhat like what is going on here?  The re-emergence as a singular figure in the NFL?  The work being done on behalf of animal welfare groups (which were initially court ordered)?  This transformation is true of many personality disorders, not just psychopathy or sociopathy.  I don’t know the guy well enough to say that he meets the criteria for these diagnoses, but many of the traits are there. 

In saying all of these things I truly hope that I am wrong because, as an animal advocate, he is in a position to do an amazing amount of good.  The problem is that if I am wrong that would destroy my own center-of –the-universe view in which I am never wrong. 

Just one final thought--and I am probably just being vindictive here—I don’t actually think that he is as good a quarterback as last season would seem to have indicated . . . and there are probably more than a few Eagle fans that are beginning to agree with me!

Who Needs Enemies?

On 10 November 2011 Jacksonville.com, the local internet arm of The Florida Times-Union newspaper, reported on the recent resignation of a Putnam County animal control officer.  According to the report this officer was told on 26 September 2011 to pick up seven dogs held in three cages outside a residence.  The owner of the residence had called animal control to inform them that he was being evicted, had lost his job, and was moving.  On 23 October 2011 the dogs were found, still in the cages outside the residence: 6 were dead and 1 was barely alive.

According to the report, during an interview with her superiors, the officer admitted to driving past the residence but not picking up the dogs because she thought she would end up just returning them to the owner.   Even worse, between this time and the time the dogs were found dead, the officer had gone on vacation.  

The outcome for the officer?  She was given the choice to resign which she did on Oct 31 2011.

Now, I don’t know about you, but to me this complete dereliction of duty is the equivalent of a surgeon leaving you lying open on the table and walking out because he or she would just have to repeat the procedure at some time in the future.  In other words:  I don’t feel like it . . . What’s the point?  I don’t care what the officer says; it boils down to she couldn’t be bothered to do her job.  How many of us would get away with that in our job . . . and her responsibilities involved the lives of these dogs!!! 

It’s bad enough that animal abusers get a slap on the wrist and then go on with their lives a la Michael Vick—yes Michael, there are a lot of us who have neither forgotten nor forgiven—but when people charged with caring for animals can’t be bothered to do their jobs!!!   These are supposed to be the good guys! With friends like this, these animals don’t need enemies.

I am not absolving the owner of the dogs from blame, but it is horrifying to see that this travesty appears to be deemed resolved because the officer resigned.  Where is the public outcry? Where is the criminal prosecution?  One friend of mine suggested that we should cage the officer on the side of the road and then all drive by and ignore her plight.  This is a suggestion that I am not completely averse to!!!!