Howdy Y'all from a Pibble Paniolo

Howdy Y'all! Well, I just thought I'd mosey in here and introduce myself. Up until yesterday, I was sitting in a doggie jail in a very small town in North Cackalacki. I'd got busted for loitering on the streets. The sheriff and his deputy were pretty nice fellas and had told me I could stay awhile until the right person came along and sprung me from the joint. However, They didn't plan on a bunch of doggie rustlers being apprehended and filling up the jail. They picked up 23 of those varmits in one afternoon and several more the next day. The jail only has 6 cells and they found they had about 50 fugitives on their hands. Many of these fugitives were juvenile delinquents or midgets, as they were mighty small. I overhead the sheriff and deputy talking about a lady that put mini gangsters like this on a stagecoach and sends 'em up north where they get rehabilitated and sent to some kind of "homes". They were trying to decide what to do with the rest of us and I heard them say that I might have to be put down. Now, I don't know why they looked so sad because if the others were going up north, I just figured I was going down south and I'm not sure what all the hooplah and crying was about because I like it in the south. Needless to say, Sheriff Ted decided that I was too sweet to go down and he schemed up a plan to contact some lady named Ms. Lynn that runs a boarding house over yonder. I heard them say that Ms. Lynn's boarding house was full but they said they'd send her on a guilt trip (maybe to the north) and if needed, give her something called chocolate so she'd give me a room. Must be some pretty fancy stuff, that chocolate, 'cause I know that no one has never given me any.

Well, it must have worked because yesterday they took me over to Doc's place and I got some shots and a lot of medicine. I guess Ms. Lynn's place must be really packed because they wouldn't let all my fleas and ticks come alone with me and made me leave them behind. The doc put me in another cell and soon after Ms. Lynn and a man showed up and came in and talked to me. Now that Ms. Lynn is one purty lady. Well, I think she is. I didn't really look at her face but she had a picture on her shirt that looked just like one of my cousins, so I liked her right away and immediately attached myself to her leg. The man was really nice too, but he talks funny. One of the other doggies told me that he heard talk like that before and that the man must be from Yankeeville.I asked where that was and he said it was up north. I sure hope all those juvenile delinquents will learn to bark Yankee when they get there.

Ms. Lynn and The Yankee was really friendly to me but when it was just us around, they kept talking about how dirty I was and how I needed my Saturday night bath right away! I heard them talking to Doc and he said that I was a big hearted fella and it was a good thing because I guess there are some worms in my heart taking up the extra space. Ms. Lynn said that she's take me to a doc near the boarding house to get that taken care of. That's ok with me because I don't really like worms. I guess my time in the joint took a toll on me, as my ribs are showing but Ms. Lynn said she's get me some good vittles from a nice Ranch called Flint River to fatten me right up.

All the dogs that were headed up north were at the doc's place too so it was louder than the saloon on Saturday night. I tried to count them dirty convicts but used all my claws and ran out before I was done. The lady running that stagecoach told Ms. Lynn they were taking about 30 of those ruffians to places called Virginy, Con-Ed Cut, New Ham Shire and Mass Achoo Sets. Not sure why anyone would want to live around sneezing hams but she seemed excited about it. I hope they can find a nice Yankee like the one who came for me to get them all back on the straight and narrow. That lady then gave Ms. Lynn a big hug and was crying too. She said she was so happy that Ms. Lynn and the Yankee were saving me. Not sure what I needed saving from but I guess I'm glad they did it.

After we got on Ms. Lynn's stagecoach, I could barely keep my eyes open and immediately took a nap. Not sure how long I was out but we was still driving when I woke up so I took advantage of the fact that the Yankee was steering the horses and cuddled up with Ms. Lynn in the back. She kept picking dead fleas off of me and throwing them out the window. I felt so much better with all those varmits off of me that I kept sneaking her kisses whenever I could.

After we got to the boarding house, Ms. Lynn walked me around the ranch for awhile and from far away I saw three other dogs in a big corral. They barked out a howdy to me and wanted to know who I was but I kept quiet. Not sure who they are and whether they are hooligans, but they can't be too bad because I saw the nice Yankee out there playing some foolishness with them. I think they might be bank robbers though because Ms. Lynn said it would be several weeks before I could meet them as they might try to take any Da Zees I have. Not sure if I got any Da Zees but I'm going to be sure and leave them with the Doc for safe keeping if I do so those dogs can't get to them.

The Yankee and Ms. Lynn then gave me a long bath. They both were just a scrubbing and scrubbing but it felt so good, I didn't complain. They found some stowaway ticks in my ears and had to pull those out. One of those buggers was in there deep and I let out a little "ouch" when they grabbed him but the rest of the time, I could't stop smiling. It was getting dark by this time so Ms. Lynn said it was time to get me a room. She asked what my name was but I told her I ain't got no name. The deputy at the jail kept calling me Rob, but that's because he kept confusing me with the drunk in the next cell who tried to hold up the blacksmith with a slingshot. The blacksmith nailed him with a horseshoe and carried him over to the jail.

Ms. Lynn and the Yankee decided I need a strong name that reflected my courage and also my big heart (you know the one with the worms in it). They told me that I would be called Kane Agape. Sounded kind of funny to me but I guess this is something called a Hay-why-an type ranch and their cowboys are called paniolos and I needs me a Hay-why-an name. They tried to explain the name to me but all I got was something about a god of creation and total love and I guess my new name loosely means starting a new life with unconditional love. Hmmm, that sounds purty good so I guess I'll keep it.

The Yankee and Ms. Lynn then told me to come into the boarding house but I was a little uneasy about that. They had to lure me in with some tasty vittles. I walked around a bit and didn't see no other critters but I could tell by the smells that those three De Zees thieves had been in there and I also smelled the scent of those things I'd met at the jail called Cats. You'd better watch out for them Cats, as they can be pretty sneaky. I didn't see any, but I know they're hiding around here someplace.

They showed me to a big room that had a bed and a washboard and some kind of small box they called a crate. Ms. Lynn told the Yankee to hang out with me for a bit and that she was going to go take care of the other inmates and she'd be back for some crate training, whatever that is. The Yankee picked me up and put me on the big bed with him and turned on a box that had little people in it. I curled up in the crook of his arm and promptly fell asleep.

I faintly remember Ms. Lynn coming back in the room and telling that Yankee that he was in big trouble. I kept my eyes closed and played dumb. She told him that she was mighty tired and was going to have a big slumber party out in the parlor with those Da Zees Thiefs and wiley Cats. I was a little worried about her being out there alone with all those troublemakers but she seems like a pretty tough cookie and I'm sure she can keep them in line. She gave him some papers that looked like a long list of rules to me and told him that if I woke up causing a ruckus that he would just have to follow the rules from Michele G. and give me my crate training. Now, I don't know who Michele G. is, but I think she must be the Queen of all the boarding houses 'cause Ms. Lynn looked pretty serious about it. I played it safe, kept my eyes closed and went back to sleep. I didn't wake up until Ms. Lynn came and got me this morning.

I'm not sure what I got myself into or what's in store for me. I heard Ms. Lynn and the Yankee were talking and they said that I'm going to stay at the boarding house while the doc gets rid of the worms in my heart and I get some training on my new job of ambassador. Wow, I didn't know I was going to get to work as an ambassador. I would have settled for Justice of the Peace or maybe Mayor or something. They said if I get along with those The Da Zees Thieves and those dastardly Cats, then maybe I can stay on here at the ranch for the rest of my life.

So folks, I'm sorry this is such a long introduction but I sure had a lot to tell you about and I hope that y'all will help Ms. Lynn make me into a real fine ranch hand so that I can live here a Pibble Creek with The Da Zees Thieves, The Cats and that real nice Yankee! I'm attaching my mug shot from the jail so that y'all can see what a pretty Paniolo I am!

Verizon Pit-Bull Ad Unleashes Flurry of Complaints

Humane Society, ASPCA Say Dogs Depicted Unfairly in LG Dare Spots; Marketer Will Keep Airing Them

By Sherry Mazzochi

Published: July 21, 2008

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Verizon Wireless has stepped into a steaming pile of complaints from animal lovers over commercials for its LG Dare phone, but the marketer is sticking with the 30-second spot.

Animal-rights groups protest pits' portrayal in ad.

The commercial shows a young man trying to obtain the phone by climbing a junkyard fence, when he is instantly greeted by two pit bulls. The dogs, with cropped ears and metal choke collars, bark ferociously and lunge at the intruder. They are just a hair's breadth away from the phone because their heavy metal chains do not quite extend far enough.

The spot has infuriated groups from the Humane Society of the U.S. -- which has asked Verizon to pull the ad -- to PETA, the ASPCA and dozens of pet-related websites, which have posted petitions and message boards on the web protesting the ad with slogans like "Can They Hear Us Now?"

'Despicable'
Veterinarian Susan Ralston sent Ad Age her letter of complaint to Verizon, which says, in part: "I don't know what your company was thinking. I don't know how much money was wasted on this despicable ad. Perhaps you should donate the million or so spent on that 'creative' to pit-bull rescue in an attempt to undo the damage. I switched my BlackBerry to T-Mobile. Maybe if enough folks do the same, it'll get your attention."

Brenda Raney, a spokesperson for Verizon Wireless, said the ads were never intended to offend. There are two ads that focus on the Dare, she said; the other depicts a woman on a ledge. "These are fictional ads, designed to be over-the-top, to break through the clutter and get our message across." Verizon is not pulling the spots, she said. Interpublic Group of Cos.' McCann Erickson, New York, is Verizon's agency and created the ad.

Inappropriate and inaccurate
Kathy Bauch, senior director-corporate relations and promotion at the Humane Society, said the ad could further inflame an already outstanding prejudice against pit bulls. "We understand why advertisers use stereotypes. It resonates and people get the point," she said. "But this perpetuates the idea that it is OK to chain dogs and it is OK to have guard dogs."

Mary Harwelik, founder and director of The Real Pit Bull, an education and advocacy organization, said, "This is big news in the pit-bull world. People are outraged." Describing the ad as inappropriate and inaccurate, she said, "Pit bulls are not guard dogs and they were never meant to be guard dogs."

A statement released by the ASPCA in response to the ads says, "These dogs can make wonderful additions to a family. The public also showed their support for the evaluation and rehabilitation of the pit bulls rescued from the Michael Vick case, suggesting that they are ahead of the corporate world in their understanding of pit bulls."

Pit bulls often victims
Mr. Vick, former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was convicted last year on counts of illegal dog-fighting. When authorities raided his home, they found 66 dogs, including 50 pit bulls. While two of the dogs were eventually euthanized, many have been rehabilitated and adopted. Mr. Vick is serving a 23-month sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., and still faces gambling charges upon his release.

"These dogs are often the victims of abuse," said Adam Goldfarb, animal-companion-issues specialist at the Humane Society.

Ms. Bauch said the Humane Society only rarely asks companies to pull ads. The last time was in 2004, when Energizer ran a spot that depicted a mother expressing displeasure at finding a cat in the dryer that had been put there by her son. Energizer complied and replaced the scene.

News: Animal Gives Emotional Bite to PSA On Behalf of Dogs Forced to Fight

by Cow News Droid on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:38:47 pm (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania--June 17, 2008)

Creative director Michael Killen of visual effects commercial production company Animal was driving into work one morning listening to the then- breaking and shocking story about NFL star Michael Vick’s involvement in dog fighting and horrendous accusations of animal cruelty.

Killen reflected on the impact the story would have on his children, particularly his young daughter, Erin, who is a passionate lover of all animals.

With a company named Animal, known for making animals speak via the magic of animation, Killen felt compelled to do something on behalf of dogs that are suffering and tell their story in a way that would touch people on a personal level.

He and his partner Jim Kreitzburg made a name for Animal by realistically animating, among numerous television ad campaigns, the speech of the Taco Bell Chihuahua and the California Cheese Cows in a humorous series of famous and widely popular TV spots. What better way to give dogs subjected to illegal dog fighting a voice than to create a spot where they dramatically told their stories from their own perspective?

Killen consulted with partner and executive producer, Kathy Dziubek, who loved the idea immediately, and together they decided to reverse the usual business process and approach an advertising agency for their help. Having done a lot of work for Smith Brothers Advertising, Pittsburgh, and, respecting the agency’s creative style and approach, they met with partners Lindsey and Bronson Smith to discuss the best way to confront the serious issue of dog fighting and powerfully communicate a message that would inspire people to action. “The goal,” said Killen, “was to make people think. We agreed that the spot should be brutally honest about what happens to dogs forced to fight, but without being violent or visually graphic.”

Senior writer for Smith Brothers, Cathy Bowen, researched the issue intensely and produced a poignant and unforgettable script that captured the desired message perfectly. “Animals have thoughts and feelings and feel pain just like we do,” observed Killen, “so how can people do this to them, unless those people are the real animals.”

Now the team had to find the right dogs that were the types of breeds typically used in dog fighting.

Animal producer Nancy Richert put the shoot together. Experienced at hiring animals for productions, Richert found the dogs (some actually rescued from dog fighting, including a fighting champion American Pit Bull Terrier named “Cookie” and an American Pit Bull Terrier puppy named “Dena” who was raised to fight). The cast of canines also included a Rottweiler named “Mason,” an Akita named “Neelix” and a Cane Corso named “Luca.”

With the help of Killen’s daughter, Erin, who was in charge of bringing the dogs to the set and petting them as needed, the shoot went smoothly with the dogs cooperating and delivering good performances.

The creative team members, including people from Animal, Smith Brothers and Market Street Sound, provided the voices of the dogs. Editor Beth Voltz of Animal, took the footage and the voice recordings and put together a very tender edit. Rob Deener of Market Street Sound composed an original guitar piece that beautifully and simply conveyed the emotion of the spot.

Animating the speaking dogs’ mouths was the last part to be done and it had to be done very subtly to make the words believable. Killen and Kreitzburg went to great effort to make of the speech look real (not comical) so that the thoughts and feelings would be real.

Finally, Animal enlisted the support of the Animal Rescue Association of America, a non-profit organization that supports member animal rescue organizations, shelters and veterinarians across the country.

The spot is beginning to air on several television networks and stations nationwide.

To view the PSA, please go to: http://web.mac.com/animalsite/iWeb/PSA/spot.html

For more information on Animal, please visit: http://animalspots.com/

For more information about the Animal Rescue Association of America, please visit: http://www.anraa.org/

The 4th of July and Dog Safety: A Personal Account

So it is that time of year again, the time where two of my dogs live in my closet for the next couple of weeks because of the nightly fireworks. Do not get me wrong, I LOVE a good fireworks display but that makes me in turn responsible for keeping my dogs safe. I found out the hard way that my Tyson was terrified of fireworks the first 4th of July we had him. The neighbor's display started early and lasted for about 2 hours. The whole time Tyson was on lock-down in the bathroom, drooling, panting and shaking uncontrollably. Once it was all clear, it was time to let the dogs out to potty. The fireworks had been done for a couple hours so I thought it was safe. After being in the yard for about 2 minutes the neighbor's decided to continue with the show. As soon as the first boom hit Tyson ran, scaling my 5ft fence and was gone. I was frantic. I looked for hours trying to find my baby and could not find him anywhere. I finally gave up my search for the night and went home to cry myself to sleep. At about 4 a.m. I let the rest of the dogs out only to find that Tyson had climbed the fence back into the yard and was hiding under my deck. I have never been so happy, I have never been so lucky.

Working in a shelter for the past 8 years, I have seen the numerous pets that are lost around the 4th never to be found again. Dog after dog come through the door, scared, lost and not knowing what happened. You have to be proactive when you own a dog during this time as it can be life or death for many.

After that night I almost lost Tyson forever, we have a ritual for the weeks around the 4th. No one is outside without a leash, no matter if fireworks are going off or not. I speak to my neighbors to ask when they think they will be setting off their display, so I can have my guys down in the basement in their covered crates. I approach my neighbors as friendly as I can as everyone is allowed to celebrate the 4th and this is not something to create neighbor wars over. Your neighbors could surprise you and be more sympathetic then you had thought. All of my neighbors understand and have no problem keeping me in the loop as they love my dogs as well. It is a good idea to have a radio playing, or tv on loud so that the noises can be drowned out as well. I also give my guys their most favorite treat in the world to bribe them to enjoy the night. Once they are in their crates for the fireworks displays, I leave them alone. Many times dogs will become even more anxious if you show more attention when they are scared. Many take this as a confirmation that there is something to be scared of.

There are also the type of dogs who really, really like fireworks. These are the types of dogs that will chase the sparks, chase the popping, and put themselves in danger-- not knowing that what they are doing could cause severe burns. Many people find it funny to watch a dog chase the sparks, but it actually is quite dangerous and the pets should be safely contained behind doors to ensure their safety.

If your dog has severe anxiety, I strongly suggest you talk with your veterinarian as there are medications that can be used to help calm/sedate your best friend. There is no reason for everyone in the home to be miserable.

The 4th of July is about celebrating, having fun, and having a day off from work. We all want to take the time to relax. We just have to help our four-leggeds out in relaxing sometimes. So have fun this year and keep those pitties safe!

~ J. Teal

"Standing Firm" on a Shaky Foundation: A Final Word on Brian Powers

Councilman Brian Powers has again quoted PBRC's website to support his proposed ban in Lakewood, Ohio, and we are once again compelled to respond. We will also take this opportunity to respond to a few of his other points.

In a follow-up letter to The Lakewood Observer, Councilman Powers contends that he did not take portions of our website out of context, but our last entry made it quite clear that he ignored or eliminated any reference to animal aggression. Here is the excerpt from his May 25th letter:

• For example, according to Pit Bull Rescue Central "It is a fact that our APBTs, ASTs and pit mixes come with a built-in fighting heritage [their emphasis]. It doesn't matter where we get them from, whether it be the pound, a stray we pick up, or a puppy we buy from a breeder. … We cannot predict when or where it will happen and we can't love, train or socialize it out of the dog [their emphasis]." The experts understand that these dogs have been bred to fight and that a fight may break out suddenly and without warning. Again, according to Pit Bull Rescue Central, "a fight can strike suddenly and for no apparent reason. Warning signs can be very subtle with Pit Bulls and even completely absent in certain cases."

By stripping these quotations of any specific reference to dog fights, Councilman Powers makes it seem as if pit bulls might attack a human without warning and that their "built-in fighting heritage" poses a threat to people. The latter quotation was drawn from an article called "Fight Prevention," which explicitly pertains only to interaction between dogs. Councilman Powers, however, places it into the context of the following questions: "Are pit bulls really more dangerous than other dogs?" and "The people who own and work with pit bulls every day say these dogs can be very friendly. Why don't we listen to the people who know pit bulls the best?" These quotations were written as advice on how to handle a pit bull around other dogs, but in this context they become a general (but inaccurate) statement about the breed's interactions with people. They are there to educate pit bull owners and have nothing to do with the relative dangerousness of pit bulls as a breed. One can certainly take something out of context while quoting full sentences and paragraphs. Had he read on to the page entitled "Breed Info," he would have found the following statement:

• Please remember that animal-aggression and people-aggression are two distinct traits and should never be confused. Unless they have been very poorly bred and/or specifically "trained" to attack humans (often by undesirable individuals through abusive methods), pit bulls are, by nature, very good with people.

Or this one:

• Another very important characteristic of pit bull dogs is their amazing love of people. Many people are surprised by the loving personality of these dogs the first time they meet one. Pit bull dogs are indeed remarkably affectionate and truly enjoy human attention. They are wonderful cuddlers, and nothing beats a belly rub. In fact, most pit bulls think they are lap dogs!

But that wouldn't have verified his preconceived notions. His follow-up letter contains another lengthy quote, which, he declares, shows that pit bulls "ARE very different from other dogs." We readily acknowledge that pit bulls are predisposed toward animal aggression, but that acknowledgment does not support the proposed ban in any way. The fact that pit bulls might fight with other dogs is not a compelling reason to ban them. The point Councilman Powers continues to miss (or ignore) is that animal aggression and human aggression are entirely separate phenomena. As experts with over 100 combined years of pit bull experience, we don't agree with much in Councilman Powers's letters.

Of course pit bulls are different. All purebred dogs are "different" inasmuch as they have been selectively bred over generations to perform a specific task. Labradors (retrieving) are different from pit bulls, which are different from Rottweilers (guarding) and Border Collies (herding). But again, the fact is that pit bulls have never been bred to be aggressive toward humans. They have never been bred for protection purposes. In his original letter, Councilman Powers implies that pit bulls aren't the same dog they were fifty years ago due to "crossbreeding" and "inbreeding." He's claiming that pit bulls have been bred to be aggressive toward humans. There is absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support this claim. While it could be true in isolated examples, just as any single dog could be poorly bred, it is not an across-the-board phenomenon. To point out that Michael Vick owns pit bulls is the fallacy of guilt by association. There is no relationship between Vick owning pit bulls and an imaginary negative change in temperament (interestingly enough, the majority of Vick's dogs have been successfully rehabilitated). Television personality Rachael Ray owns pit bulls. Actress Jessica Biel owns pit bulls. Doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, and accountants own pit bulls. When pit bull rescuers point out that famous people own pit bulls, it's not to pursue some kind of "innocence by association" argument. We are not arguing that pit bulls have a good temperament because Helen Keller owned one. As a way of recovering the breed's tarnished image, we are showing that pit bulls are not merely a dog for gangsters, drug dealers, and other degenerates. This is entirely true and verifiable, but Councilman Powers seems to have missed the point.

An interesting aspect of pit bulls' history is that they were systematically bred away from human aggression. As Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point) explains in an article published in The New Yorker (hardly a bastion of pit bull enthusiasm) in 2006:

• Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was "Man-eaters die.")

The main argument of Councilman Powers's original letter hinges on the notion that all pit bulls are unstable in temperament. Insofar as he sets out to prove that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, he fails. In upholding breed specific legislation (not a ban) in Toledo, even the Supreme Court of Ohio admitted that pit bulls are not inherently "vicious" or more dangerous than other breeds (Tellings v. Toledo). This is not a canard of the lunatic fringe. The Supreme Court of Ohio, the Center for Disease Control, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the ASPCA, and the HSUS do not believe that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, but Brian Powers does. The utter disdain for professional opinion in both letters is quite disturbing. As a group, veterinarians have no "special interest" in defending a particular breed of dog. Equally perplexing is his assertion that veterinarians are somehow unqualified to comment on pit bulls because they are trained to handle dogs. Veterinarians are actually more likely to be bitten than the average person because they encounter a disproportionately large number of fearful, painful dogs on a daily basis. If we can't trust the recommendations of the degreed medical professionals who know the most about dogs, who are we supposed to trust? This is akin to ignoring a physician who tells you not to perform complicated surgery on yourself. It is not in the Council's best interest to pass legislation without consulting veterinarians and animal welfare workers. They don't even have to be "out-of-towners." Some hands-on interaction with pit bulls wouldn't hurt either.

The temperament testing statistics that Councilman Powers dismisses are collected by an independent organization, the American Temperament Testing Society, which carefully evaluates companion dogs through a battery of situations similar to the AKC's Canine Good Citizen test. In the aforementioned article, Gladwell quotes Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the ATTS, on this issue: "We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs […] I've tested half of them. And of the number I've tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children." These statistics are an excellent gauge of normal pit bull behavior—that is, how these dogs conduct themselves when not starved, beaten, or chained to a tree without socialization. As it turns out, they act pretty much like any other dog when it comes to human interaction. In contrast, Councilman Powers can only recite the total number of fatalities attributed to "pit-bull type dogs" over a 25-year period. But, as the CDC points out, such numbers tell us nothing about the conditions in which the dogs were kept or the human negligence that is almost always the cause of these tragedies. The disclaimer that the CDC places before their study should settle any debate about the usefulness of this figure: "It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic [...] 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."

To support this argument, Councilman Powers's letters often drift into the realm of made-up facts and sensationalism. He writes, "When a labrador, collie or other dog bites, you might end up with a bruise or, in some cases, a puncture wound. When a pit bull attacks, you may end up maimed for life or, in many cases, dead." There is no clinical evidence to support this statement. The language is specious, relying on understatement and what rhetoricians call "misleading vividness." What counts as "some" cases? What counts as "many" cases? As Janis Bradley points out in her policy paper published by the Animals and Society institute in 2006, "Ninety-nine percent of emergency room-treated dog bites are rated as minor," which means "the person recovers quickly with no lasting impairment." To put this number into perspective, close to half of playground-related injuries are severe, but the overwhelming majority of dog-bite injuries, regardless of breed, are puncture wounds or minor lacerations. A couple of years ago, a woman in France received the world's first face transplant. The dog that disfigured her face was a Labrador Retriever. Several years before that, a Pomeranian killed an infant in California. While severe dog-related injuries are statistically rare, all breeds are capable of inflicting serious bites. As the conclusion on the very first page of the CDC report announces, "other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates [...] Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs." Peer-reviewed public health data tells us one thing: what matters is the total number of dog bites, not the severity of them. As we will see, history shows that breed bans usually result in a higher number of overall bites.

A look at some real numbers reveals that "many cases" isn't many at all. Over the past 43 years, there have been 17 fatal dog attacks in Ohio. At least 11 different breeds have been responsible for these fatalities. To use one year as a snapshot, in 2001, there was one dog-related fatality. That same year, four people died in farm-animal related deaths, 18 died in bicycle-related deaths, 30 died in ATV-related deaths, 1, 379 died in automobile accidents, and 452 people were murdered. In 2005, 83 of Ohio's children died as a result of neglect or abuse. In other words, in one year, more than seven times as many children were killed by their parents or guardians than in the total of all recorded dog attacks in Ohio (11) (National Canine Research Council). All of this illustrates that, despite a booming companion-animal population, dogs rank very low on the list of public health hazards. Nationally, dog bites have plummeted over the past three decades. As Councilman Powers writes, "members of Council have vowed to protect the people of Lakewood." This is true, and the Council has far more important issues on which to spend their time and Lakewood's money.

In fact, the broadest, most draconian instances of breed specific legislation ever enacted have failed to protect anyone. Just this past week, the Dutch government repealed a fifteen-year ban on pit bulls because they discovered that it did not reduce the number of dog bites. Despite banning the pit bull and three other breeds in 1997, the United Kingdom has had a fifty percent increase in dog attacks. In the wake of a comprehensive breed ban in 1991, Scotland's dog attacks have increased by over 150 percent over the past eight years. Closer to home, the city of Aurora, Colorado has witnessed a significant spike in reported dog bites since banning pit bulls in 2005. These are real examples of breed bans in practice, not theoretical politicking. They have done nothing to prevent dog bites because they do nothing to address the real problem: irresponsible ownership.

If the Council wants to protect the people of Lakewood, there are a number of solutions that are intellectually sound and do not buy into a media-fabricated frenzy. As Councilman Powers writes in his May 25th letter, "We must take action to stem this explosion in the pit bull population." PBRC agrees, and the best way to do so is to establish and promote low-cost spay-and-neuter programs. Such programs would actively reduce Lakewood's dog population, with the added benefit of making Lakewood a safer place to live. Intact dogs account for the vast majority of bites and fatalities. As a recent NCRC study shows, from 2005 to 2007, 91 percent of all fatal dog attacks in the U.S. were a result of one or more of the following factors: owner management (failure to "humanely contain, control, and maintain their dogs," as when dogs are chained or allowed to roam), function of the dog ("owners maintaining dogs for guarding or protection"), and reproductive status (whether the dog is spayed or neutered). Like the total number of dog-related fatalities relative to our human and dog population, these factors have remained constant over the past 40 years, regardless of pit bulls' popularity. Another CDC study indicates that the dogs most likely to bite are overwhelmingly male, intact, and chained. In Ohio, close to half of the children killed by dogs died in interactions with chained or penned dogs (another three were left alone with unfamiliar dogs). Laws that completely prohibit tethering, like the one passed by the community of New Richmond, Ohio, are easily enforceable, and they effectively attack one of the major reasons behind serious injuries without punishing responsible owners. Tethering is illegal in the entire state of Connecticut. Not surprisingly, there has been just one dog-related fatality there since 1965 (NCRC). These cost-effective methods would target the exact predictors that contribute to dog bites, rather than resorting to a sporadically enforceable ban that will require animal control to confiscate and house dogs that will probably never bite anyone. Most significantly, they place the burden of responsibility squarely on dog owners, the root of the problem. Lakewood's residents will not be any safer when tethered, intact pit bulls are simply replaced by tethered, intact Bullmastiffs.

PBRC is an online listing service and educational resource. None of our volunteers live in Ohio, and we have no stake in the Council's proposed ban. But when someone uses our information to mislead, we must respond. It seems that Councilman Powers started with the opinion that pit bulls are dangerous, then found, made up, or twisted evidence to suit his argument, rather than approaching the issue with an open mind and the desire to find out what is best for his town. Unfortunately, much of his evidence is statistically flawed, taken out of context, or demonstrably false. It is unlikely that the Council would build a road without consulting a civil engineer or authorize new police officers without listening to the advice of seasoned law enforcement officials. So it is deeply troubling that Councilman Powers is eager to enact complicated legislation that goes against the recommendations of the CDC and AVMA, while disregarding a raft of evidence that, as a breed, pit bulls are not temperamentally unsound and breed bans do not work. He would do well to lend an ear to those concerned voices flooding his inbox. Sometimes the right decision isn't unpopular at all.

Sincerely,
The Volunteers of Pit Bull Rescue Central

PBRC's Response to The Lakewood Observer

Below is Pit Bull Rescue Central's response to an editorial written by Brian Powers for The Lakewood Observer.

The article can be found by clicking here:
Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed Pit Bull Ban


On May 25th, Councilman Brian Powers quoted Pit Bull Rescue Central’s website to show that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable. Unfortunately, he ignored the context of these quotations and much of the other information on our website. More than anything else, we stress that while aggression toward other animals is a normal trait in pit bulls, aggression toward humans is not. This is a point that most people miss, and we are disappointed that Councilman Powers used our information to mislead his readers. The quotations were mainly taken from an article on how to prevent dog fights, and it is quite clear that we are talking about pit bulls’ tendency for dog aggression while urging pit bull owners to be cautious around other dogs. By neglecting to mention anything about animal aggression, the councilman made it seem as if we were declaring that pit bulls are generally unstable in temperament. This is not true.

In fact, pit bulls pass the American Temperament Testing Society’s stringent test at a rate similar to, if not higher than, many other medium-to-large, powerful breeds. The American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier pass at rates of 84.3%, 83.4%, and 88.8% respectively. Compare this to Golden Retrievers (84.2%), Great Danes (79.2%), Weimaraners (80.1%), and Standard Poodles (85.3%), to name just four common breeds.

The councilman also cites a Center for Disease Control report on dog bites and an American Veterinary Medical Association book on “vicious” dogs. The CDC has repeatedly acknowledged that this report is methodologically flawed and should not be used for setting public policy. It lumps American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers together with “pit bull mixes,” something it doesn’t do for any other dog. It is simply bad statistics to lump three breeds together with a bunch of dogs that might look like those breeds. Lumping German Shepherds together with mixes to create a third category called “German-Shepherd-type dogs” would result in a similarly inflated percentage. And while Councilman Powers seems confident that everyone knows what a “pit-bull-type dog” looks like, the doctors at the CDC aren’t, which is why they oppose breed bans and even stopped collecting breed-defined fatal attack statistics ten years ago. This is one of many problems with the CDC report; readers can find out more by clicking here.

There are, as the CDC notes, no reliable statistics on dog bites, and statistics on dog-related fatalities tell us little except that it is exceedingly rare to be killed by a dog of any kind. As Janis Bradley explains in her book Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous, your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in eighteen million. You have a better chance of being killed by lightning. While we are not familiar with the AVMA book, it is likely that those quotations were also taken out of context. Along with every other major veterinary and animal welfare group, the AVMA has clearly stated its opposition to breed specific legislation. Puzzlingly, Councilman Powers freely quotes the CDC and AVMA but refuses to heed the advice of their experts when it comes to legislation that would affect a significant number of people.

We urge the City Council and the people of Lakewood to show good sense in this matter. Breed bans do little to punish irresponsible owners. Councilman Powers writes as if all pit bull owners need to be punished. Why would he want to punish many people for the transgressions of relatively few people? Aside from wasting tax dollars, breed specific bans merely criminalize good owners, the kind of owners Councilman Powers needs in his constituency. Instead of strongly enforcing the laws already on the books and holding bad owners accountable, the council would rather curtail your property rights by having law enforcement officials bang on your door and take away your family’s dog (which may or may not be a pit bull), just because it looks a certain way.

Respectfully,
The Volunteers of Pit Bull Rescue Central
(www.pbrc.net)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Have you ever thought about having your dog be a blood donor? Blood products can be in just as great a need for canines, as they can for humans.

The benefits of doing this with your dog can be:

• Free annual blood chemistries, including a heartworm test
• Free, or discounted vaccinations
• Wonderful way to get your dog out there every 8 weeks to socialize and interact
• A warm fuzzy feeling, knowing your pit bull is helping another dog

Each blood bank handles these benefits differently, but most will give you some sort of annual blood panel screening and heartworm test at no cost, if your dog donates a few times a year.

Tonka has been doing this since he was old enough to donate (about a year old) and he is a superstar at the Eastern Veterinary Blood Bank (www.evbb.com) in Severna Park, MD. He is a favorite of the clinic not only because he is a perfect patient, but because he is one of those pit bulls that can’t hold his Licker! He likes to give the staff lots of kisses.

As a reward, he gets a plain hamburger from his favorite fast food drive-through afterwards (or chicken nuggets, depending on his mood.) He also gets a beautiful kerchief each time, handmade by one of the staff at he clinic. Currently, he has a snazzy kerchief for every major holiday, including his birthday.

Most dogs can donate until about the age of eight, before they need to retire. So, if you think your dog might be a candidate for this, talk to your vet for a recommendation to a blood bank close to you.

Who knows, your pit bull just might save another dog’s life!