The pits of Sick Vick: Challenging conventional wisdom
By Gina Spadafori
July 7, 2008
Sometimes I think there has never been a more exciting time to be writing about pets. Many things most of us have long accepted as true have been challenged, from the need to kill animals for population control to the idea of trusting government and industry with providing a safe food supply to the belief that any dog seized in a fighting raid is irredeemable and must be killed.
Asking questions can be hard going, but it’s the only way to get new ideas for making things better.
For good Monday reading, the Washington Post’s Brigid Schulte has put together a well-reported piece on the dogs taken from the illegal fighting operation of dirtbag Michael Vick:
Headlines described the nameless dogs as “menacing.” Some animal rights groups called for the “ticking time bombs” to be euthanized as soon as Vick’s case was closed and they were no longer valuable as evidence. That’s what typically happens after a dogfighting bust. Instead, the court gave Vick’s dogs a second chance.
[...]
Of the 47 surviving dogs, 25 were placed directly in foster homes, and a handful have been or are being adopted. Twenty-two were deemed potentially aggressive toward other dogs and were sent to an animal sanctuary in Utah. Some, after intensive retraining, are expected to move on to foster care and eventual adoption.
[...]
How can this be? Reports of gruesome pit bull maulings make international news. Pit bulls are one of the few canine breeds thought to be so dangerous that they are banned in some places.
The answer, says Frank McMillan, a veterinarian who is studying the recovery of some of the Vick dogs, is that we don’t know. “We’ve assumed all pits are the same, and we’ve never let this many fighting dogs live long enough to find out. There are hardly ever studies, because these animals don’t survive,” he said.
Yeah, it’s amazing what we can find out when we ask the questions and try something new.
Read the rest. Love this part:
“Every thoroughbred is not a great racehorse. Every pit bull, even if it’s of fighting stock, is not an aggressive dogfighter,” said Steve Zawistowski, an animal behaviorist with the ASPCA who helped assess the Vick dogs. “There are no simple answers.”
There are no simple answers. A good take-away to start the week.
And by the way, having Sick Vick educated towards reform by PETA is worst example of conventional wisdom ever. Ingrid Newkirk has said she would like to see an end to all pits. Conventional wisdom, simple answers and yet another reason to send your donations somewhere else.
When confronted with conventional wisdom, be like a kid: Just say, “why?”
Pictured: Former Vick dog Hector with Andrew Yori, his new dad, story at BAD RAP. Find out more about Hector’s new home here.
snipped from the ESPN article:
“In the initial meeting, PETA said Vick had mentioned wanting to speak to school children…”
Michael Vick, newly “educated” on animal welfare by the killingest animal group in America, speaking to our young people - hmmm, what’s wrong w/this picture?
Comment by slt — July 7, 2008 @ 7:38 am
Best Friends magazine had a wonderful story and pictures of some of the dogs. Very heartwarming.
Comment by VJ — July 7, 2008 @ 8:58 am
So did The Bark.
Comment by Susan — July 7, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Does anybody know if Best Friends got money from Vick for taking those dogs?
Comment by Mary — July 7, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Well, of course the guy from HSUS, would say what he did. He’s being proven wrong every day in every way. It’s great that groups like Best Friends and Bad Rap are having the chance to gather actual behavioral information on pits who have been fought, which should ultimately replace the assumptions that so many have been operating under for so long. And save a lot of lives.
I remember calling a well-known behaviorist when a shelter dog (big chow mix) jumped on me repeatedly and aggressively when he saw another dog while I had him out for a walk. I didn’t feel at the time that the staff took the incident seriously enough. And I was really new at being around shelter dogs or, really, many dogs at all. I was told by the behaviorist that it wasn’t a trivial incident, the point being that the dog had the behavior. Which made sense to me with what I knew about dogs at the time.
What I took from that call was that once a dog demonstrated a behavior, either positive or negative, it could show up again at any time if triggered. It has made me leery of any dog that acts in a way I would reasonably consider potentially aggressive or dangerous, because, after all, “they have the behavior”. As in, is it safe to adopt them out? (Care to comment, Marjorie? Anyone else?)
Now, it appears that that isn’t really the best or most accurate way of looking at dog behavior at all, thanks to the work being done with the Vick dogs. Wow, we have so much to learn. With luck the days when aggression or a bite, per se, means automatic death are numbered. Clearly, circumstances and the human factor count a lot.
Can someone get a restraining order to keep PETA away from Vick? Pretty please? Just asking.
Comment by Susan Fox — July 7, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
“Has the behavior?”
What a sad, limited, deterministic way of throwing up one’s hands and declaring defeat. Without having fought at all. Sounds like an academician who is afraid of dogs.
I’m a trainer. I’m dedicated to the proposition that undesirable behavior can be changed, and desirable behavior can be elicited.
Or, in plainspeak, I think dogs can be trained.
Or, in the active voice, I think people can train dogs, and I think dogs can learn, change, develop, and grow.
Would I adopt out the chow mix to the next family of six who just wuv his huggable fluffy face?
Duh. No.
If I had the resources to address the misbehavior and retrain the dog, and the ability to screen adopters to weed out the pushovers and other inappropriate humans, would I do it?
Double duh. Why not?
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 7, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Mary, the court assessed Vick about $900k in fines, which went to the groups who got the dogs. For dogs that probably could be adopted, it was $5k each; for dogs that probably could not (because of elevated dog agression or extreme shyness), it was $20k each. I believe that the dogs BF got fall into the latter category, but I also believe that if… as seems true with some of the dogs… BF determines that a dog could be adopted, they would ask the court for an exemption.
I don’t believe BF wants to keep the Vick dogs forever… the bigger issue is whether heightened dog aggression (which is common in “pit bulls” as a breed trait) should rule out adoption entirely. This seems to be the BF ideology. To relegate a dog aggressive pit bull to “sanctuary” (or to death, as is common) is wrong, in my opinion. With proper stewardship (and the kind of training H Houlahan mentions), dog aggressive dogs can be perfectly safe, and perfectly great pets.
Comment by EmilyS — July 7, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
And when someone screws up and the dogs get loose? As they inevitably will in some cases?
Two friends of mine watched in horror as their sweet, elderly, leashed, small dog was torn apart by two loose Pits, whose owner laughed while his dogs ripped up their dog. Their mortally wounded dog was in agony and had to be euthanized. They will never get over the anguish of watching a dear friend die in such a horrific way.
What Best Friends is doing for the Vick dogs is wonderful, but I hope the dog-aggressive dogs stay there forever.
Comment by Susan — July 7, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
A dog of ANY breed (or mixed breeds) who is dog-aggressive has to be moved toward the end of the list IMO. We are killing good tempered dogs every day in shelters because we are too lazy, ignorant or short on resources to get them into homes. I’m all for rehabbing dog-aggressive dogs if it can be done but not at the cost of diverting resources from balanced dogs who could be more safely and easily placed into homes. Let’s use trainers to teach the non-aggressive 100 pound retriever mix to walk on a leash and not jump up on people. That dog will be a lifelong ambassador to society for shelter adoption and the investment to get him there is minimal by comparison. Then, after we start turning the tide on placing balanced shelter dogs instead of killing them, we can and should use our resources to rehab dog-aggressive dogs in shelters whenever possible.
Comment by slt — July 8, 2008 @ 4:21 am
Susan, the incident you describe is tragic, and it’s the kind of thing that makes my blood boil when people who love their pits (and Rotties, Danes, Bernese Mountain Dogs, whatever) insist that small dogs are “just as dangerous as big dogs.” No, they’re not. Their temperments can run in exactly the same range, and bad behavior is bad behavior, but they’re not equally dangerous, whether we’re talking about two overly playful dogs of wildly different sizes, or two vicious dogs of wildly different sizes.
But what you’re describing is not a case of an apparently rehabbed dog, rehomed to a responsible owner, “inevitably getting loose” because a well-intentioned owner screwed up. What you’re describing is two dangerous dogs in the keeping of someone who wanted dangerous dogs, who made them dangerous dogs, and got a kick out of seeing an elderly woman’s beloved pet killed by those dangerous dogs he’d made.
That owner didn’t “screw up;” he got exactly what he wanted. The problem is the person, not the dog.
It’s not an argument for keeping dogs that can be rehabbed and placed in responsible homes, locked up in a sanctuary.
Comment by Lis — July 8, 2008 @ 5:12 am
well of course relative to very small dogs, large dogs are dangerous. But relative to very small dogs, any less small dog is dangerous. A Jack Russell Terrier-sized dog can kill a teacup poodle as fast as a Beauceron can kill a miniature schnauzer.
And it is NOT CUTE when tiny dogs snarl at and try to bite their owners, contrary to what “World’s funniest animals” wants us to believe.
Comment by EmilyS — July 8, 2008 @ 7:03 am
It isn’t ‘conventional wisdom’. It’s conventional, alright, but it’s as far from wisdom as you can get.
The whole ‘pit bull’ fantasy is the result of relentless propaganda perpetrated by legacy media and militant animal rights groups. There’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing there - did AR start it and manipulate LM into running with it, or did LM run it up the flagpole and AR saluted? I guess we’ll never know.
Any dog (barring disease or disorder) can be trained and desensitized, some to a greater or lesser extent depending on the skill of the handler. Certainly, any dog can be managed by a committed owner.
Aggression is really not that big a deal, unless it is allowed to escalate to inappropriate aggression towards pets, kids and eventually adults.
Oh, and ‘pit bull’ isn’t a breed, so the bizarre comments from the person who is stymied by the situation with the V-dogs aren’t really worthy of consideration.
“We’ve assumed all pits are the same, and we’ve never let this many fighting dogs live long enough to find out.
You’ve assumed incorrectly, since most of them are mongrel dogs of unrelated, unknown ancestry. And lots of fighting dogs lived into old age in days gone by - in the house with the family.
Sigh…
Comment by Caveat — July 8, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Yeah, you know, the “legacy media” has a big meeeting every morning and decides what propaganda goes forward … not.
I worked in a newsroom for 20 years, and write a weekly syndicated newspaper column now. Believe me, one should never credit to a plan that which can be simply credited to incompetence or an unwillingness to get below the surface on an issue. Mainstream media, given the short news cycle, truly loves to latch on to a shallow, simple concept and hang on tight. No time to develop a story further or look deeper … there’s something else to under-report! Look, it’s a celebrity!
Nor do I give the animal-rights movement credit for the ability for being able to start the pit bull problem and calls for breed bans.
Pit bulls became a problem when they became the gangster dog of choice, with predictable results. The media just took the easy narrative and ran with it.
By the way, “[a]ggression is really not that big a deal” to YOU, but “managing it” is truly beyond the abilities or the interest of most people. Me included. I won’t keep a dog-aggressive dog. I’m sorry, but my life is complicated enough already. My pack needs to get along.
And an animal who has bitten someone? I had two of them come in when I was running Sheltie rescue. I put them both down. I couldn’t and wouldn’t be responsible for the possibility that they might bite someone else, most likely a child.
When I was growing up, a neighbor child younger than I was badly bitten by her family’s dog. That child went from a beautiful, outgoing and happy girl to a timid, suffering one who endured surgery after surgery in hopes of repairing her face. No dog’s life is worth that happening to a child, “management” of aggression be damned.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 8, 2008 @ 7:56 am
And it is NOT CUTE when tiny dogs snarl at and try to bite their owners, contrary to what “World’s funniest animals” wants us to believe.
I certainly did not say, and do not think, that it’s cute or not a problem when small dogs behave badly.
But my neighbor’s Rottie (who is a complete sweetheart, like every Rottie I’ve met), absolutely had to learn not to jump on people, because she’s big and heavy enough to knock them over. Whereas, with my fourteen-pound fluffball, I’m having difficulty making that lesson completely effective, because even little kids and frail little old ladies do think it’s cute, and are petting and praising her even as I’m telling her off. Because it’s not dangerous, I have difficulty making other humans understand that it’s still bad behavior.:(
No one pooh-poohs my neighbor when his Rottie forgets and he corrects her. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not simply human perversity.
(When Addy arrived, she was very fear-aggressive towards other dogs. With a lot of work, she’s improved immensely. But until my now ex-tenant moved out, I had to endure periodic rants about how barking at other dogs is natural and I was trying to turn my little dog into a robot by trying to cure her of this behavior.)
(Owners of big dogs and owners of little dogs all have problems with the idiot humans around us; it’s just a different set of problems.)
Comment by Lis — July 8, 2008 @ 8:04 am
No, Gina, I don’t think the media hacks meet every day and decide who gets railroaded that decade.
I do believe they are easily manipulated, largely because of the hamster wheel they are on these days - websites, 24-hours news channels, frequent broadcasts, etc. So, they don’t have time to do any research. They pull stuff off the wire or quote self-proclaimed experts and run it.
What I don’t understand though is why when actual facts are pointed out, complete with references, they are still ignored. Ah, well, that’s why media credibility is declining, and quickly.
Let’s face it, ‘pit bulls’ generate lots of attention. although I think it’s finally waning. Increased audience share = increased ad rates.
The AR interest in ‘pit bulls’ is pretty obvious - first, it’s one of the most generic, non-extreme shapes of dog out there, almost like a pariah type. So, if you create hype and fear-monger properly (and count on media to play pass the word for you), pretty soon the members of the public are seeing ‘pit bulls’ everywhere. And of course, ‘breed’ bans aren’t about any group of breeds at all, they’re about eliminating domestication - but you knew that. It’s a 25-year stealth propaganda campaign which has been well funded.
As for aggression, it’s easy to fix and I well remember when most dogs didn’t like other strange dogs and mostly kept to themselves and their families.
Nips are another non-biggie to me. Yes, in very rare instances, people are seriously hurt by dogs. However, most bites are just a nuisance and can be very educational. I certainly wouldn’t kill a dog who bit somebody (especially a herding type) - since it’s a last resort response to a threat on the part of a dog, again barring disease or disorder. Kind of like a person shoving somebody after first telling them that they’ve pretty much had enough of their pushiness.
Time to quit stalling and get back to work now Have a good one :>)
Comment by Caveat — July 8, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Media hack! I represent that characterization. :)
These weren’t herding nips with these Shelties, by the way. They were bites. These were two pretty screwed-up dogs, puppy-mill alums both, sadly.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 8, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Let’s re-phrase that Gina. We don’t have a ‘pit bull problem.’ Rather, pit bulls have a people problem. Or a gangster problem, if that fits your fancy. And the media loves a bad guy, but since showing your racism will get you in trouble, they’ve learned to point at the dogs and kill two birds with one stone without raising the ire of the ACLU. (and I’m going to retch if I hear hip-hop blamed one more time for hurting pit bulls)
Look at Lakewood Ohio as an example. Their BSL scare and fear of pit bulls has more to do with being afraid of ‘those people’ from surrounding Cleveland who might be sneaking across the lily white borders as the economy takes a down-turn. The same is true for upper crust Grosse Pointe MI, on the border of Detroit, who banned pit bulls sometime ago.
If I were a brown teen in Detroit, I would totally want the biggest baddest sweetest pit bull I could find. And I would laugh my ass off at the Grosse Pt. people who were afraid of it. But alas, fate drew me very different cards.
Re: Pit bull dog aggression. Caveat is right … Except in extreme cases, it really IS no big deal (or should* be no big deal), even in a pack situation. Pit bulls are one of the easiest breeds to work with in that regard. Gawd help those people who have dog aggressive GSDs…or the lunging ACD that just tried to take a chunk out of my dogs during this morning’s walk. Shudder. Not a fun way to live.
Comment by Donna — July 8, 2008 @ 11:55 am
I hope I don’t drive anyone to tears here but I just saw this on another board:
Michael Vick files for bankruptcy protection
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....AD91PNAH80
Comment by slt — July 8, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
One of the problems with statements like ” I won’t keep a dog-aggressive dog” is that “dog aggressive” has no specific definition, and everyone has a different notion of what it means. If a “he just wants to say hi” bumptious [fill in breed] runs up and gets in the face of your aged cranky [fill in breed] who snarls/snaps in response, is this aggression? I can promise you that if the first dog is a Lab and the second is a “pit bull”, the pit bull WOULD be labelled aggressive. But the reverse would not be true. In fact, NEITHER dog is aggressive. The first dog is just rude and the second is responding appropriately to that rudeness. It is both owners’ responsibility to ensure that natural behavior doesn’t escalate into something equally natural but highly undesirable.
Dog aggression is generally highly situational. Virtually EVERY dog in existence will aggress on another dog given a certain trigger.
Clearly it’s difficult and in this society perhaps impossible, to own a dog that is highly highly reactive/prey driven towards other dogs. Not everyone can/should own a working-bred Malinois.
I certainly agree that a dog that will willingly bite a human is generally a candidate for euthanasia (again, do you want to exempt that Malinois?)
But considering that of the millions of dog bites a year(of people and of other dogs), FEW are serious and ALMOST ALL are completely preventable, the focus of both dog-dog agression and dog-human aggression needs to be on the human end of the leash.
Dogs are dogs. Making the natural instincts and behaviors of dogs into demon bugaboos, and in the end making them into people IS the AR agenda. That’s just one of the many reasons that pit bulls, which have a breed tendency towards other-dog aggression (or prey drive or fight drive or whatever you want to call it unless you are denying 100’s of years of breed history…) are the target. They ARE at leading edge of the AR agenda to change the role of dogs from pets that we own to wards of which we are “guardians”. The hysterical, lazy media is their willing tool and accomplice in this agenda
Comment by EmilyS — July 8, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
A friend and her dog were out for a walk in Feb. and were attacked by two neighbor dogs, a male and a female, both intact, both Cane Corsos. When the cops arrived on the scene, they shot the dog attacking my friend on sight.
The OWNERS of the attacking dogs are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As it should be.
Comment by Deanna — July 8, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
OK, Emily, let me spell it out.
I don’t want to and will not live with dogs who will not eat out of dishes in the same room and who will not graciously share toys, beds, me and other resources. I will not keep dogs who would snark at each other constantly without my continued effort, and above all I will not keep dogs who seriously entertain the possibility of putting puncture wounds in one another.
I will not keep dogs who need my constant vigilance, discipline and/or physical barriers to co-exist in the same home. I had one such situation in the last 30 years, and that dog was happily re-homed a few years back.
I am willing to grant my dogs a little more leeway with dogs they do not know, especially with regards to species-normal warnings to a dog with bad social graces.
I am also willing to accept that things may get snarky (but not injurious) when McKenzie is in season. During such times, I am willing to manage the situation. After all, it’s just three weeks, a half-dozen times in a dog’s lifetime. Heather, now 11, was spayed at three, unbred, and McKenzie, now three, will be spayed at four if she is bred or isn’t (it hasn’t been decided yet, and depends on her field work in the next six months). Woody will remain intact — and hormone boy isn’t the snarky one during such times anyway. (They don’t call them “bitches” for nothing!)
That’s my choice, and my knowledge of what I want and prefer to share my life with has led me to the dogs I live with. Maybe it’s laziness on my part, but as I’ve said, my life is complicated enough already.
Your tolerances and choices may vary.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Climbing down from the top of the comments, which I should’ve done in the first place, I wanted to point that only 10 of the BF dogs were truly fighters…in that they know how to do it well, from doing it a lot. They could certainly be worked into a responsible home (and we were tempted - great dogs, btw) - but the microscope is burning a hole on this batch. Although their label might be dog aggressive, it’s cleaner and more accurate to call these dog ‘seasoned fighters.’
Can ‘seasoned fighters’ learn to live with other (select) dogs and enjoy life on leash? Absolutely…Depends on the individual dog of course, but it’s done all the time. But IMO, not the 10 BF dogs, if only because the HSUS is watching with tongues hanging out.
I don’t really think that BF is planning on adoptions for those 10 btw, but I just love that they believe they deserve it.
Comment by Donna — July 8, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Donna, your inside knowledge of the Vick dogs is very helpful here. And I agree: There certainly must be people in the shelter industry who would love to have the opportunity to cluck in mock sadness after what would be a well-publicized incident and say, “We TOLD you so!” about these dogs. People just HATE to have their dogma challenged!
I also agree with your point earlier that identifying (or often misindentifying!) a dog involved in an attack as a “pit bull” is a way to suggest race/class of the owner without being called racist or classist.
That’s why I love how BADRAP works so hard to point out two things:
1) It’s not just “gangsters” who have these dogs; and
2) Even people who own them and DO SEEM on first impression to conform to widely held cultural stereotypes about pit bull owners in fact have the same desires as the owners of golden retrievers, including access to free space for exercising dogs, access to decent care options, and more.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 8, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
I share my home with a few dogs who will not eat out of dishes in the same room and who will not graciously share toys, beds, me and other resources, etc. They’re border collies. Bitches ;~) I keep an eye on them, and it’s all good. In decades of living with sheepdogs and pit bulls, individual border collies have kicked pit bull butt a couple times, and my pibbles did nothing in retaliation. Anecdotal, I know, but there you are.
Greyhounds kill Yorkie.
Standard poodle kills Maltese mix.
Jack Russell kills baby.
Lis wrote: it’s the kind of thing that makes my blood boil when people who love their pits (and Rotties, Danes, Bernese Mountain Dogs, whatever) insist that small dogs are “just as dangerous as big dogs.” No, they’re not.
Dangerous to whom? I am not trying to be obtuse — of course a bigger dog is capable of causing more severe injuries, and I’ve gone into greater detail about bite force and such here. But the majority of dog bite victims are children: little children. It doesn’t matter that your macho 220 lb internet blowhard could drop-kick a Jack Russell into the next county. Kids are the ones most at risk of being bitten, and kids are the ones being stitched up every day while grown-ups debate “which dogs are most dangerous.” Big dogs sometimes nip, and little dogs sometimes maul. Eliminate all dogs over 30 lb and you’ll still have dog-bite injuries and fatalities. Size is just one factor in the mix when a dog bites – along with the dog’s health, socialization, training, management, bite threshold, bite inhibition, victim behavior, etc. — and frankly, when you’re a infant or toddler, every dog may as well be a “pit bull.”
Comment by Luisa — July 8, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Luisa, did you read anything else I wrote besides that particular bit that you quoted? No? I thought not.
Because no one literate in English could have read all that I wrote, and come to the conclusion that I have something against dogs over thirty pounds. Or Rotties.
I couldn’t use a standard poodle as my specific example of a bigger dog whose training is not undermined as frequently by random people because the size clarifies the “manners” issue for them, because we don’t happen to have any in the neighborhood. I could have used a GSD, a boxer, or a pit as an example—we have nice ones all over the neighborhood—but I figured there was zero chance of my point being understood if I did use one of the pits, and I picked the Rottie because I happen to be especially fond of her and she’s such a marshmallow.
Wasted effort, obviously.
But to answer your question: More dangerous to anyone, when they’re behaving in the same manner. My neighbor’s Rottie needed to learn not to jump on anyone, ever, because even with the friendliest intentions, she could do serious damage just by bouncing on a small child, or a frail elder.
My fourteen-pound Chinese Crested can’t. She could do a fair bit of damage intentionally if she chose to and I didn’t prevent her—but our Rottie friend, if she were vicious rather than the sweetie she is, and if her owner were the kind of guy who wants his dog to be dangerous rather than an extremely responsible guy who has worked tirelessly to give her perfect manners, could do a lot more damage.
You’re doing what so many big-dog owners in the unreal atmosphere of the internet do: arguing that because individual (vicious) small dogs are more dangerous than individual perfectly behaved, very sweet big dogs, that it makes sense to say that all five-pound dogs are just as dangerous as all 220-pound dogs.
No, they’re not. The 220-pound dog can hurt you by mistake just trying to be friendly if it’s not excellently trained. The five-pounder can’t, unless it happens to accidentally trip you.
And yes, most dog bites are to children. Are most dog bites by dogs under thirty pounds? Yes? No? No idea?
I notice that none of your three links are to stories about little dogs killing big dogs, or a human past the “very youung child” stage. It’s not because a small dog is significantly likely to have a bad temperament than a big dog; it’s a question of physical capability.
There’s a reason most people react differently to my dog having a bouncy moment and my neighbor’s dog having a bouncy moment, and it’s not because they’re too stupid to live.
(Parents with young children ask if she’s safe for their kids, and if the kids have some minimal level of good behavior, I am happily able to say yes. Adults who aren’t afraid of dogs generally, though, never worry about their own safety with her. Because, oddly, a wiggly, bouncy fourteen-pound dog doesn’t scare people. Whereas even knowing how sweet the neighbor’s Rottie was, before she learned not to bounce on people, I was very careful around her. For y’know, obvious reasons.)
Comment by Lis — July 8, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
It’s not because a small dog is significantly likely to have a bad temperament than a big dog; it’s a question of physical capability.
Should have read, “significantly less likely,” of course. Don’t write long posts late at night.:(
Comment by Lis — July 8, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Caveat says:
“And of course, ‘breed’ bans aren’t about any group of breeds at all, they’re about eliminating domestication - but you knew that. It’s a 25-year stealth propaganda campaign which has been well funded.”
——————————————-
I think BSL is more about simple-minded thinking than a grand conspiracy theory.
Those conspiracy theories are perpetuated by people that have becoming ‘well-funded’ as their own goal.
Winograd is pretty well-funded himself with the $50,000 consulting fees from public shelters, no?
http://greenmonkeyfever.blogsp.....-work.html
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 1:30 am
What is the source for your claim of Winograd’s “$50,000 consulting fees from public shelters”? Doesn’t PETA have anything better to do? How about if you just sat around and did nothing? That would be an improvement AND save a bunch of pets’ lives.
Comment by slt — July 10, 2008 @ 6:31 am
Laurie: What would be the problem with a shelter (public or otherwise) paying someone for consulting services?
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 1:30 am
“I think BSL is more about simple-minded thinking than a grand conspiracy theory.”
I think there is some of both at work. The AR groups have been working at getting various forms of legislation enacted all over the country that are designed to slowly erode our rights as animal owners. And these different strategies play on human emotions and human behaviors in different ways - certainly, the “BSL strategy” plays on the tendency of many people to engage in “simple-minded thinking”.
As for your blog entry which you have linked to - has it ever been pointed out to you that the word you use repeatedly - I won’t stoop to using it here, but it begins with an “r” - is considered disrespectful and demeaning to those who are developmentally disabled? You don’t do your own credibility any good by using such crude and hateful language in your efforts to make your case.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 10, 2008 @ 7:29 am
I notice that in the whining about the $50,000 paid to Winograd, there is no acknowldgement of the money the shelter was just sitting on, not spending it on care of the animals, promotion of adoption, low-cost spay/neuter, or anything else.
Just letting it sit.
And I’d like to know what’s wrong with a consultant getting paid, too.
Comment by Lis — July 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am
slt says:
“What is the source for your claim of Winograd’s “$50,000 consulting fees from public shelters”? Doesn’t PETA have anything better to do?”
———————
Ah, the other grand conspiracy theory - everyone that isn’t in lockstep with your thinking is part of ‘PETA.’ FYI - I am an independent skeptic. The source is quoted.
(And I am not associated with the greenmonkeyfever blogger or the shelter in any way. I do not even live in that county nor do I approve of that ‘r’ word.)
To respond to the other questions…
The source said that $50,000 was paid by King County, not out of a pile of money the shelter had sitting around. This is much like the case where my county has paid an urban planning firm a small fortune just to come up with suggestions for using some park land the county aquired. Yet the county did not have the funds to put up a long-requested lighted crosswalk to the park and a little girl was killed on her way to the park. (Still no crosswalk a year later.)
Commons sense and decency do not always control how governments spend taxpayer money.
The question in my mind is how 5 days of time is worth $50,000? Perhaps there was some homework involved? (Lots of it.) Even if you think Winograd is ‘worth it’, is it right to take so much money to make suggestions about shelter improvements?
Personally I find the sum shocking. Maybe that blog is a bunch of bunk, I don’t know for sure, but I have been skeptical of Winograd ever since I saw that he submitted to interviews used by the Center for Consumer Freedom. I think it is fine to educate people about things, but I personally would not have anything to do with that lobbyist group.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....er_Freedom
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
“Ah, the other grand conspiracy theory - everyone that isn’t in lockstep with your thinking is part of ‘PETA.’ FYI - I am an independent skeptic. The source is quoted.”
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
If your source is that blog, you are putting “independent skeptics” everywhere to shame.
I tried to get in with the grand conspiracy theorists, but they wouldn’t have me. So I’m just a rogue thinker. And I think I recognize a duck when I see one.
Comment by slt — July 10, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Laurie, I didn’t say the unused funds were what paid Nathan Winograd his fee; I said that the shelter had (still has) those funds, and wasn’t using them for things that even your “independent” source agrees are needed. There’s a real problem with the King County shelter, no matter how much hatred you harbor for Nathan Winograd.
(And those idle, unused funds aren’t counted in the thousands, or tens of thousands, either.)
Comment by Lis — July 10, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
(Well, I’m not going to waste anymore time countering slt’s straw man.)
Lisa, I didn’t say that greenmonkeyfever is independent. But I notice that she links to Best Friends, a feral TNR program, Woodland Park Zoo…so she does seem to be an average animal lover. I would say looking at the amount of volunteer work she does, above average.
http://greenmonkeyfever.blogspot.com/
But she may also work at the shelter from looking at the entry about Winograd and she feels like the shelter was unfairly smeared.
She seems like a decent person, so you have any proof that the King county shelter is sitting on unused funds of any magnitude?
And if there are unspent funds, is it the fault of shelter management that the funds are not being spent, or is local politics involved? I really don’t know the answer to that question, but if there is really a money-hoarding problem with shelter management, how will the county spending 50K on a consultant fix things?
And I don’t hate Mr. Winograd, but I am skeptical what appears to be a cult of personality around him due to the CCF connection and he just seems like a very polarizing person.
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Laurie, have you read anything about the King County shelter except that one specific blog?
Are you aware that UC Davis also studied conditions at the shelter, and came to remarkably similar conclusions? UC Davis report cites animal suffering, death in King County shelters
The unspent funds were in the Animal Benefit Fund, public donations to the shelter that just sat and weren’t spent. When after the Winograd and UC Davis reports, a plan for reform was created, some of the funds came from those previously untouched donations. They were totally under the shelter’s control. I’m too hot and tired to dig out everything, bu this should get you started: Shelter dogs and cats to get new space and less crowding
Try searching “King County” on this site, and do some reading. Then search elsewhere. This isn’t about Nathan Winograd.
Happy reading!
Comment by Lis — July 10, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Thank you, Lis. I’ll read this all more carefully, and though I had heard about the shelter’s problems, I had not done much in depth reading. It looks like only some of the funding for reform is coming from the shelter’s donations fund, so I’ll reserve any judgement about a hoarding issue at that level. I know that county must have the funds to do better in general, though.
Most of what I just quickly read makes me think the real problems are with the King county government. I found a link to Mr. Winograd’s response to Ron Sims in one of the links you posted.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.....nt-of.html
Maybe Mr. Winograd is polarizing, but I admit he is growing on me. I see that Ron Sims did not buy himself a puppet when he hired Mr. Winograd. I never thought much of Ron Sims when I lived in King County, not that he is any worse than many county executives, I suppose.
I’m not sure now why the shelter workers got so up in arms over Mr. Winograd since I see no sign that he blamed the powerless for the awful mess there. Maybe there was a personality clash, but my impression at this point is that they should be glad that he stood up to Sims and the county government.
Comment by Laurie — July 10, 2008 @ 6:55 pm