Turn off the hate mail machine: We didn’t do it
By Gina Spadafori
April 20, 2008
This week for our syndicated pet-care column, Dr. Becker and I wrote a level-headed, sensible piece about how most dog bites are the result not of rampaging urban hell-hounds, but rather of people who either don’t recognize or are idiots about signs of aggression in their own family pets (or the pets of friends or relatives).
To go with this piece, we offered a level-headed, sensible picture which one of our client newspapers — I’m not sure which one yet, and it really doesn’t matter — chose to replace with a more dramatic picture.
That image? A pit bull.
Choosing such a picture in fact advances stereotypes about these dogs that we at the Pet Connection do not at all agree with. Choosing such a picture also misses the point of the column entirely, which is:
All dogs can bite. The important thing is to recognize that fact, along with what may make a dog more likely to bite (social isolation, lack of training and socialization, chaining, illness, not neutering young males, etc.) and take steps to minimize those risks, along with getting professional help when you do have a problem.
But no, instead, there’s that picture of a pit bull. And now, we’re getting hate mail. Lots and lots of hate mail, which suggests that people on e-mail lists are telling every else on e-mail lists to vent their spleens at us, for something we didn’t do, and wouldn’t have done.
Enough already. Don’t write to us. Write to the newspaper. Educate them.
And if I may make a suggestion before you do so: Please wipe the spittle off your e-mail, check your spelling, drop the four-letter words and the threats. They don’t help make your case, believe me. In fact, they have the effect of making you and your dogs seem quite dangerous indeed. And I’m sure that’s not the message you’re trying to get across.
I’d have to ask for the actual statistics, and as a matter of fact I think I will, but I’m getting the impression that possibly a plurality of bite quarantines at our shelter are due to the puppy or dog biting a child who was (pick one or more) teasing, whacking, sitting on or getting down next to the food bowl of the animal in question. Sometimes these have been dogs adopted from our shelter, which makes it doubly frustrating and drives the staff crazy since they try to get through to people what their responsibilities are when there are children in the household before they adopt the dog.
Sooo, where were the “adults” and why weren’t they properly supervising the interaction of their kid and the dog? Who pays the price? The dog of course. It really burns me up. Fortunately, it’s not an automatic death sentence at our shelter. Sometimes the circumstances are such that the dog can be released to rescue. Sometimes.
And you’re absolutley right- you can’t pin this one on pit bulls. I’ve seen big dogs, little dogs, lab mixes, you name it and, yes, some pits. If there are more pits, I’d been inclined to put it down to the self-selected group of idiots who seem so often to want them for all the wrong reasons. Of course, you could probably easily make a case that these people shouldn’t have kids either, but that’s a topic for some other blog.
Sorry you’re having to wade through another pile of email s—-, thanks to some clueless newspaper editor. But that’s why you get the big bucks, right ;-)
Comment by Susan Fox — April 20, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
That’s, uh, absolutely. And, really, I’ve only had one glass of wine this evening. Really.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 20, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Pour me a glass, too!
(Actually, that sounds like such an EXCELLENT idea that I’m going to get one now.)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 20, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Ah, the power of the internet to rally folks without them having to do any of their own research.
Clearly the vast bulk of folks on the warpath did not actually even read the column.
I make a point, even when the source is pretty reliable, to look at articles or columns when someone is declaring war over a quote or photo etc..
And sometimes I am left perplexed at how some one got from point A to point B to apparently point Z .
Being an advocate for a cause is no excuse to blindly jump off a cliff when ever someone yells “charge”. Critical thinking is a vastly underutilized and under-taught skill. And people need to realize that a dose of cautious skepticism is not a bad thing.
Comment by JenniferJ — April 20, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
I don’t tend to think of newspaper pieces as having been edited by an editor generally so this is a good tidbit for me to keep in mind.
Comment by slt — April 21, 2008 @ 5:09 am
The lens of the media is foggy indeed. Interesting that your piece spoke volumes about breed prejudice without meaning to!
Dog bless those pit bulls, btw. Selective breeding for fight was as much about creating a dog with bite inhibition to people as anything. Dog fighters, being selfish people of course. In all the thousands of dogs we’ve worked with, my one and only oh-crap-gotta-get-stitches bite came from a husky-mix. Go figure.
As you said, bites are more about humans making dumb mistakes with dogs — especially dogs that have ‘people issues.’
Comment by Donna — April 21, 2008 @ 10:29 am
I have looked at a lot of county bite reports here in California. And yes, the vast majority of bites are from the negligence of the people. Lots of puppies that bite from normal behavior. Unfortunately many dogs will loose their life because of a lack of understanding of dog behavior. It is very disturbing when one reads about a 10 week old puppy that is bludgeon to death because he nips little Johnny. Or the dog is stabbed, hit with a hammer, pitch-fork…..Who is the greater threat? And what is generally missing from media reports is the large number of bite reports in which little is known. That is the dogs are described generically, large, small, black, brown, short hair, long hair. This can make up about 30-40% of the TOTAL bites…..not the bites of which the breed is reported.
Some reports can be found here:
http://www.forpitssake.org/dogbitestatistics.html
Comment by Naama — April 21, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
And I always find myself wondering about the qualifications of the person making the breed identifications for these reports . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 21, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Good point. I found out recently that I and a number of the shelter staff, including the director, had, at different times in the past few years, taken one of those “ID the pitbull” tests on the internet and all of us failed. People tend to see what they are looking for.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 21, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
I totally agree that the vast majority of dog bites are to do with human stupidity but there’s also a possible chemical connection - how else to explain the fact that, as children, my brother and I behaved exactly the same way around animals and he was repeatedly bitten while I got away scott free? And we’re talking slow movements, letting the dog sniff you before throwing your arms around it etc - poor brother never got past the *sniff - NOM!* Of course it was funny to me at the time but I grew up in a land/time when people took dog bites as par for the course and didn’t rush to litigate/euthanize as soon as the poor pooch so much as looked in the direction of their precious poppets.
Comment by Urban Critter — April 23, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
I suppose the chemical thing is a remote possibility. But I’m more inclined to chalk it up to the fact that you can never overestimate the power of incredibly subtle body language cues when it comes to dogs (who are ALL about body language with one another, being the nonverbal creatures that they are).
So while you might believe your behavior and your brother’s behavior was identical, it’s far more likely that to a *dog* your brother was committing some cardinal sins in “dog language”. Perhaps he had a tendency to stare a dog in the eye more than you did, or perhaps he simply had a “harder” look than you - there’s a whole BUNCH of “dog offensive” things we humans do without having any awareness of it, and frankly, dogs are incredibly generous for the most part in their ability to put up with our “rudeness”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 23, 2008 @ 5:37 pm