News analysis by Barbara Kay
When I began writing regularly for Canada’s National Post, my editor told me that two kinds of news stories can be counted on to attract heated response from readers, and plenty of it: sports and animals. Even thus forewarned, I was taken aback by the virulence of the feedback my first column on pit bulls provoked. “Heated” is a euphemism for the abuse in some of those emails (this was pre-Twitter; social media is where most of the anger ends up nowadays).
But it wasn’t all invective. Many pit bull owners and advocates believed that I had arrived at my position – pit bull type dogs pose a high risk for unprovoked aggression, and are therefore a public-safety issue demanding regulation – out of ignorance, or because I had naively placed my trust in biased sources. They sincerely wished to educate me, and were prepared to spend a great deal of time in earnest dialogue to effect my conversion.
Poor argumentation
Nobody ever came close to converting me, even though it used to be my custom to engage with my more intelligent responders at some length. Their failure to persuade wasn’t for lack of open-mindedness on my part. It was because of the poor quality of the argumentation: the near-absolute indifference to logic, statistics and objective evidence, and the near-absolute dependence on personal feeling and personal narrative to make their case.
Indeed, if any cultural observer were seeking strong evidence of just how thoroughly the mantra “the personal is political” has penetrated our culture, he or she would find a cornucopia of evidence in my reader-correspondence files, or in virtually any online debate about pit bulls.
“Do you even own a pit bull?”
I am often asked, for example, with withering condescension, “Do you even own a pit bull?” as if owning a pit bull were a prerequisite to forming an opinion about the level of risk inherent in this type of dog. This question is often accompanied by a paean to the writer’s own excellent pit bull, who has never hurt a fly.
In the past I would patiently observe that, following their curious strain of logic, which would preclude commentary on subjects not personally experienced by pundits, we would have no historians, medical researchers or jurists.
I would also explain that if a responsibly owned pit bull who had never hurt a fly were an acceptable argument for generalizing about all pit bulls, then by its own logic, the generalization can be neutralized or reversed by stories of responsibly owned pit bulls that have killed family members. Sadly, my argument never made the smallest dent in my correspondents’ armor-plated certainties.
Trooper
Why pit bulls will break your heart, by ANIMALS 24-7 social media editor and photographer Beth Clifton, perfectly illuminates the impasse rational polemicists too frequently encounter in this domain. In this article Beth Clifton, a veterinary technician, humane volunteer and former animal control officer, recounts her passage, from disillusion with the pit bull advocacy she had once endorsed, to advocacy for the victims of pit bulls. For Beth, the catalyst for change it was a personal experience with a rescue pit bull named Trooper that no amount of love could render trustworthy with family members.
Since it is rare for pit bull advocates who have been mugged by reality to publicize their defection, and in this case, moreover, with eloquence and compelling candor quite devoid of rancor, Beth’s article attracted a great deal of reader response.
Trooper was a pampered pit bull.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Indignation
Given the editorial disposition of this publication, much of the commentary was supportive. Some, though, expressed indignation, such as commentator Anne Streeter, who wrote, “If Animals 24-7 advocates for breed specific legislation what comes next after Pit Bulls – German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Huskies and many others – or mixes of the same for that matter. Things are never black and white. Surely you must be able to find one positive story. If not, I have one. Her name is Annie and she is an absolute gem.”
Ms Streeter’s opening ‘slippery-slope’ argument about regulation of other breeds associated with aggression, often adduced by pit bull defenders, is not without merit. It is rebuttable on statistical grounds (and was rebutted by ANIMALS 24-7 Merritt Clifton in a reply), but it at least springs from a rational impulse. However, the words “one positive story” then leapt off the page for me, provoking the familiar irritation.
Beth’s children stopped coming for visits because of the risk from her pit bull Trooper. Beth’s life had been transformed into that of a guard and guardian. (Beth Clifton photo)
Interrogation of received wisdom
Beth Clifton did not turn her cognitive world upside down on the basis of ‘one negative story’ with Trooper. Her negative experience set her on a path of interrogation of the received wisdom of pit bull advocacy that she had not previously doubted. It was the knowledge she gained on that path that confirmed her suspicion that she had been adhering to a false belief.
And so I added a comment in reply to Ms Streeter: “Nobody advocating for [breed specific legislation] has adopted that position because they were unable to find “one positive story.” Nor did they become BSL advocates because of “one negative story.” One comes to a policy position through exposure to epidemiological trends, not personal anecdotes. Moreover, just about every case in which a family’s pet dog mauled or killed a family member was a “positive story” until the tragedy happened – randomly and suddenly.
Trooper with his sock monkey.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Risk assessment
Public policy is not about “you” or “me” or anyone in particular. It is about risk assessment. There are many people who smoke all their lives and never get lung cancer. That does not mean that smoking is safe. Pit bulls present an elevated risk to other animals and to humans. That is settled fact. What to do about it is the question you should be considering instead of limiting your focus to your particular pet.”
In a domain as charged with emotion as the pit bull debate, we cannot make much progress if there are no common rules governing discourse. Personal stories are what bring most people involved in this debate into the combat zone. But personal stories are not in themselves knockout punches. On the other hand, they should be collectively acknowledged as important empirical evidence in support of the real knockout punches of objective, scientifically based evidence.
Learning to make the distinction between anecdotal and hard evidence ourselves, and insisting that our opponents recognize the distinction as well as a pre-condition for engaging with them may raise the tone of individual confrontations, and in the process diminish the frustration that is the besetting scourge of this ongoing conflict.
[Barbara Kay taught English Literature and Composition for many years both at Concordia University and in the Quebec CEGEP system. She is a Woodrow Wilson fellow. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Barbara was a board member of the magazine Cité libre and a frequent contributor to its pages. Barbara has been a National Post columnist since 2003. Barbara is the co-author of Unworthy Creature: A Punjabi Daughter’s Memoir of Honour, Shame and Love, published May 2011. Barbara’s latest book, Acknowledgements: A cultural memoir and other essays, was published in 2013 by Freedom Press Canada.]
Please donate to support our work:
https://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
Pit bulls, history, & sociology
Anti-Vaxxers and the pit bull advocacy movement
The orca whale Lolita, 57, spent 53 years in prison without killing anyone
Drone wars over Joliet: charreada rodeo bad actors identified
Are animal advocates “weak & lazy,” or just at different stages of the cause?
What Charles River Laboratories has in common with Al Capone
Kay is a beautiful voice of reason. I know it was a hard decision for Beth to make about Trooper but she made that decision in the best interest of her other pets and also for Trooper.
Merritt, this argument is getting s0000 tiresome – and what makes Barbara Kay an expert! Equally tiresome!
Beautifully written indeed! And rational. But there were too many complicated words and too much logic and truth to make any sense whatsoever to a pit bull advocate. Like Barbara said, the advocates base everything on emotions and feelings.
I couldn’t agree more.
I do believe that a “Death at SeaWorld” or “Blackfish”-level book or documentary needs to be produced about this issue before most members of the general public will understand or acknowledge how the increasing popularity of pit bulls has hurt the dogs themselves, as well as other pets and people.
Look how quickly cetacean captivity has become a matter of intense public debate in the wake of a few high-profile exposes of the marine park industry. Before that, they were all but ignored by all but the most passionate animal defenders.
Kay nails it.
I always read your editorials with the greatest of interest, as they are factual and logical without fail. Thanks once again for shining a light into this dark and horrifying “alley” of American history
What troubles me is that breed specific legislation does not take into account those individuals who indeed are not dangerous.
This statement is categorically false. No breed-specific legislation has been enacted in either the U.S. or Canada which did not “grandfather” pit bulls who had been licensed, vaccinated against rabies, kept safely, and had no dangerous history.
You cannot tell which dogs will end up harming and killing, so they must be considered as a group. You say, what about the good pits, as if their existence makes the carnage acceptable. I say, what about the deadly ones?
But really, fighting BSL for pits because you like to own them is saying “my desire to own a type of dog that kills and permanently maims people and pets everyday, is more.important than public safety”. Sorry, but there are hundreds.of.other breeds, and mutts that are.not pit mixes, no one needs a pit bull. My family and I.should not bear the risk simply because you want a dangerous.pet.
Amen!
Absolutely brilliant as always.
Pit bull type dogs are not just like any other dogs, they are considered one of the most powerful breed, stronger than most of their guardians. Of all the dog breeds, they are the all time number one killer of humans and other people’s beloved pets. Pitbull types bite down, clamp and shake, causing severe tissue damage. This is a typical pit attack on another animal.: https://www.youtube.com/watch…?v=9ZTiGWgQubA
Between 2004 -2014, 208 people have been killed by pit-bulls in the US. You can read their individual tragedies here: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php
Some people argue that dogfighters have removed the human-aggressive trait in pit bulls from the gene pool by culling. This is a myth. Many pits come primarily from backyards of those trying to breed aggression, not good temperaments. Often, their dogs are the product of reject pits purchased from dog fighters as cheap stock.
READ CAREFULLY: I have 3 well-known & well respected pit advocacy orgs giving cautionary recommendations about pit-bulls here in my post who admit they can snap at anytime so you need to be prepared: This is very telling: Pit-bull Rescue Cental recommends all pit guardians to carry a break stick: http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html This is very telling: The Rescue Train recommends shelter pits be the only pet in the household: “ADOPTING A PIT BULL FROM THE ANIMAL SHELTER – Though we always welcome someone who considers a shelter dog, there are some things to consider when adopting this breed. Do not be fooled by the fact that this dog appears to live harmoniously in the cage/kennel with other dogs. Dogs in a shelter environment are just trying to “survive” and tend to do what it takes to avoid confrontation. When adopting an adult Pit Bull from a shelter environment, we highly recommend that you have no other pets in the home. http://www.therescuetrain.org/pit_bull_education.php
This is very telling: Bad Rap( pit advocate group) recommends pits not to be taken to dog parks because of their gameness trait: http://www.badrap.org/dog-parks
Here is a big red flag. Here is more evidence that people who have pit-bull type dogs and certain other types of breeds are endangering people and other people’s beloved pets in our communities. When shelters & rescues are rehoming certain dogs, I sure hope they explain this to people who are adopting these breeds that their insurance company might not be covering their dog: “Most dangerous dog lists are based on a 2002 study by the U.S.National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that looked at deaths resulting from dog bites over a 19-year period. Pit bulls and Rottweilers topped the list and accounted for half the 238 deaths where breeds were known, followed by German Shepherds and Huskies.”http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2014/09/15/homeowner-insurance-blacklist-dog-breeds/
I think owning a Pit Bull would be useful in terms of having a say. Apparently it is not necessary for Barbara Kay in order to be an authority. It is her way or the highway no matter what! Strange. The same goes for Merritt.
Anne Streeter’s perspective on pit bulls, to the extent she has stated it, appears to be limited to her own pet. Mine includes lifelong familiarity with animal shelters, several dozen years of tracking shelter statistics, 32 years of logging dog attack fatalities and disfigurements, 3,440 of which have involved pit bulls as compared to 1,645 involving all other dog breeds combined, and extensive relevant historical research. Barbara Kay’s relevant experience includes several decades of close observation and participation in public policy-making, on numerous issues involving public health and safety. Credentials aside, however, nonprofit regulation and the normal rules pertaining to public policy-making require persons with a vested interest in the subject at hand––though they may participate in preliminary debate––to recuse themselves from the decision-making process. As regards pit bulls, this has been disregarded at the policy-making levels of many leading humane organizations, resulting in the adoption of policies which benefit pit bulls at risk to the health and safety not only of humans, but of other animals, more than 40,000 of whom were fatally mauled by pit bulls in 2013 alone.
BRAVO Barbara Kay!!! I advocated the “it’s not the breed…” myth for a long time, and then I educated myself. This article is perfect in it’s execution. It was like reading my own path, from logically, intelligently, and socially conscientiously moving from one position to the other and the bumps (opposition) faced along the way. This article paints a very accurate portrait of the pro-pit crowd! They flat-out refuse to even so much as acknowledge solid facts in favor of their own sentiment. I’ll be blunt here, they remind me of gun fanatics – they just don’t care about anyone beyond themselves.
I winter in Tucson AZ aka pit bull central. Pit bull puppies are sold at flea markets and advertised on street corners. The animal shelter has HUNDREDS of pit bulls and a large number will be euthanized because there are not enough homes though the shelter does a heroic job of trying to re-home its dogs. If pit bull advocates want to help the breed, show us how to end the prolific back yard breeding of pit bulls.
btw, don’t say education is the answer. Pit bull owners are educated – they all know the standard line when their pit bull savages another dog at the dog park: “Your dog started it.” (That is my experience)
My heart cries for the breed; there would be a lot less suffering if there were fewer of them. How is that going to happen? Solutions, not trolling, please.