I think it’s far more relevant that the ASPCA was happy to hire a mass murderer of Pit Bulls, and to send out their forensic “expert” to seize and injure a family’s good-natured, well-cared for Pit Bulls.

The arrogance of the ASPCA throughout this disgraceful episode has been unbelievable. Sooner or later, they need to understand that they are accountable for their actions, especially since they take money from others. The Fatal Plus that was used to execute Oreo was paid for by donors who had no idea their money would be used this way. They thought they were sending money to save Oreo, not to execute her.

It also seems that the whole “dog aggression” issue may have wandered into “what everyone knows” territory without a definition based on empirical evidence. As in “we know it when we see it.”, but do we?

That’s where I find myself being most reminded of the saying I mentioned earlier, that “the only thing two dog trainers can agree upon is that a third trainer is wrong”.

It also seems that the whole “dog aggression” issue may have wandered into “what everyone knows” territory without a definition based on empirical evidence. As in “we know it when we see it.”, but do we?

Over the years he has saved the behinds of many a Fortune 500 company, top exec, celebrity, etc. He believes many organizations that are actually quite good at day-to-day public relations really blow crisis communications, the expert practice of which can be counter-intuitive to “normal PR” in many ways.

My suspicion is that as far as crisis communications go — and that’s what the A was dealing with in this case, all other issues aside — the A just didn’t have the expertise someone like my friend has. Nor, frankly, could they/should they have hired him given their non-profit status, since he doesn’t even answer the phone unless guaranteed a retainer that’s more than than the annual income of most U.S. households.

Public relations aside, there’s no doubt that many animal advocacy organizations are now struggling with the changing expectations of animal-lovers who no longer accept killing of pets by “shelters” as unquestionably the job of those organizations alone to decide.

With the information currently available, their final choice doesn’t make sense. They’ve got to know that, too, so why aren’t they providing the necessary info?

Comment by monkeypedia — November 25, 2009

Great background. Thanks for adding it. It does provide some missing context, to be sure.

That lack of process would appear to be what killed the actual, (previously) living, breathing dog.

Be that as it may, I will suggest as backup to monkeypedia’s post that those who are interested in supporting physically abused pit bulls WITH undoubtedly outstanding temperament consider sending some $$$ to the rescuers of “Faye” from the recent big dogfighting bust. Faye is a dog whose lips were ripped off (either by dog or human) leaving her with a scary appearance and dangerous medical condition. Despite this, her eager-to-love behavior COMPELLED people to try to save her:
http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/

While this may be slowly changing, it’s generally been the case that pit bull rescues consider it unethical *not* to euthanize any dog that shows any aggressive behavior towards humans - no matter the circumstances of the aggression (that is, including aggression in response to pain or extreme fear etc). I would say that this is due to 2 beliefs:

1) The idea that human aggression under anything but a life or death threat to owner or dog is a serious temperament flaw in a pit bull, indicative of a fundamentally unstable dog (this is sort of the inverse of the mass media pit bull stereotype - here, pit bulls are supposed to be super dogs, willing to withstand any level of pain and abuse rather than bite a human)

and generally more importantly

2) the idea that whether or not the individual dog was justified in its aggression and/or can be rehabilitated, it’s wrong to risk another black mark on the breed’s reputation via the media storm that will occur if someone messes up in the management or rehabilitation of the dog, and a bite occurs. I think perhaps people outside the pit bull community don’t realize how prevalent this idea is - putting an individual dog down “for the good of the breed” is said quite regularly. The belief is that while other breeds can afford to have imperfect dogs, fearful dogs etc. and perhaps rehabilitate them, there’s no room for imperfect behavior from pit bulls anymore.

Here’s a link to the pit bull rescue code of ethics endorsed by several prominent rescue groups:

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/COE.cfm

Note the section on the standard for pit bull temperament. People take the last line about “is never aggressive to humans” very seriously (as evidenced in part by the note about not rescuing the puppies of temperamentally incorrect dams).

Anyway, this might be in part informing some of the discussion of the criteria for labeling a dog as human aggressive, and in deciding what should be done with a dog who has been declared human aggressive.