|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 14:37:11 GMT -5
The fact that so many people say pit bull is not a breed is part of the problem and the confusion. Pit Bull to me has and will always be APBT. I completely understand your frustration and I agree it would be easier if everyone understand that Pit Bull = APBT, and nothing else. But we all know that hasn't been the case for decades. When people say "pit bull is not a breed," they're not denying that APBT is a breed or saying that breed traits don't exist, and so forth. They are saying that the dogs that get identified as "pit bulls" do not represent a coherent, closed gene pool.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 14:51:32 GMT -5
The fact that so many people say pit bull is not a breed is part of the problem and the confusion. Pit Bull to me has and will always be APBT. I completely understand your frustration and I agree it would be easier if everyone understand that Pit Bull = APBT, and nothing else. But we all know that hasn't been the case for decades. When people say "pit bull is not a breed," they're not denying that APBT is a breed or saying that breed traits don't exist, and so forth. They are saying that the dogs that get identified as "pit bulls" do not represent a coherent, closed gene pool. This is because of MISIDENTIFICATION and this idea that many advocates have perpetuated in the past 10 years that there is "no such thing as a pit bull" (and dummies started lumping things like Presas and Dogos into the mix, as well). Didn't we talk here about how BSL mainly has always been about targeting "Pit Bulls" aka APBTs, ASTs and SBTs and just to make sure all bases were covered, any dogs that merely LOOK like these (two) breeds (to make sure the widest net possible was cast and ALL Pit Bulls were scooped up)? Because "anti pit bull "legistlation was always always ALWAYS about the APBT. Breed club politics came into play, which is why the AST and SBT were named specifically, apart from the APBT.
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on May 17, 2013 14:51:46 GMT -5
Kim, I get it and I get the “rationale” behind it but I am not on board with it and disagree with it. In my opinion it just makes it more confusing to the average person.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 15:21:20 GMT -5
I completely understand your frustration and I agree it would be easier if everyone understand that Pit Bull = APBT, and nothing else. But we all know that hasn't been the case for decades. When people say "pit bull is not a breed," they're not denying that APBT is a breed or saying that breed traits don't exist, and so forth. They are saying that the dogs that get identified as "pit bulls" do not represent a coherent, closed gene pool. This is because of MISIDENTIFICATION and this idea that many advocates have perpetuated in the past 10 years that there is "no such thing as a pit bull" (and dummies started lumping things like Presas and Dogos into the mix, as well). Didn't we talk here about how BSL mainly has always been about targeting "Pit Bulls" aka APBTs, ASTs and SBTs and just to make sure all bases were covered, any dogs that merely LOOK like these (two) breeds (to make sure the widest net possible was cast and ALL Pit Bulls were scooped up)? Because "anti pit bull "legistlation was always always ALWAYS about the APBT. Breed club politics came into play, which is why the AST and SBT were named specifically, apart from the APBT. I see what you're saying, but when you scratch the surface -- and you gotta go pretty deep -- you see that BSL was never REALLY about the dogs, although that's how the issue was always talked about. BSL has always been about targeting people. And I'm talking about certain kinds of people, not people like me (people like me just got caught in the crossfire). BSL has always been about targeting classes and races. Pit bulls got targeted because they were the dogs often owned by lower classes and minority races. They become a handy front to go after people and drive them out of areas, because overtly targeting those people would not be acceptable. The fact that APBTs were associated with dog fighting was just another convenient way to go after them. Few on this thread would deny that dog fighting wasn't really viewed as an "issue" worth addressing until the mid-to-late 1970s. The AWA simply put it on the public's radar. But what else was happening in the early 1980s when pit bulls became public enemy #1? Race and class tensions exploded. When you trace the news articles that discussed pit bulls over the decades, you see a sudden rise in pit bulls being associated with blacks, drug dealers, and urban gangs. I think it's bullshit when people claim pit bull incidents were never discussed in the media until the 1980s -- there were always stories linking pit bulls to aggression. The difference was that the dogs weren't liked to an underclass. And when I say "underclass," I don't mean dog fighters -- I mean young black men living in cities. It's no coincidence, in my opinion, that BSL is less acceptable these days because pit bulls are no longer just associated with "those people." That's not the only reason BSL is on the decline, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that's not a major factor. And sadly, the current trend in pit bull advocacy is to dissociate the dogs from "those people," as if those people aren't part of the so-called "majority." That's bullshit. Talk to the people in Denver who support BSL, from shelter professionals to politicians. Talk to Alan Beck. What do most of them say? They say pit bull owners are disgusting. Do I think for one second they're referring to me? Not a chance. They're talking about "those people." For these reasons, I think we're missing the mark by debating what "pit bull" should mean, in terms of public advocacy. The term "pit bull" took on meaning once it was linked with the deeper, darker issues our country struggled with -- and still does. The semantics were only worth discussing because of the legal definitions, almost as an afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 15:33:50 GMT -5
Well....your view of history is a WHOLE lot different than mine, Kim. A whoooooole lot.
Show me the articles and the stats to back up what you are saying. AWA, HSUS, that infamous SI issue....all these things painting the big bad dog fighters and their killer monster dogs as Public Enemy No 1. Pit Bulls got the rep, then moved into the hands of certain people of certain illegal proclivities, moved into urban areas, dog fighting became more of a problem.
No one even knew what this breed was in the 70's, please.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 15:47:00 GMT -5
Well....your view of history is a WHOLE lot different than mine, Kim. A whoooooole lot. Show me the articles and the stats to back up what you are saying. AWA, HSUS, that infamous SI issue....all these things painting the big bad dog fighters and their killer monster dogs as Public Enemy No 1. Pit Bulls got the rep, then moved into the hands of certain people of certain illegal proclivities, moved into urban areas, dog fighting became more of a problem. No one even knew what this breed was in the 70's, please. AWA, HSUS, and that infamous SI issue -- along with many, many other things -- absolutely painted the big bad dog fighters and their killer monster dogs as Public Enemy No 1. I agree with you! What I'm saying is, you have look beyond just that to see what else was going on at that time. Why would people think the dogs were suddenly worth focusing on, if the dogs themselves hadn't changed and dog fighting had always taken place? It's because dark people in the cities and drugs were sudddenly worth focusing on. The dogs themselves didn't change. They just came along for the ride. They always lived in urban areas. They've always been sort of a "poor man's" dog. The difference was the color of the poor man's skin. And once poor dark men became the target of the war on drugs, violent crime, gangs, and other things that scare the shit out people, the public became scared shitless of the dogs. We can argue about what "pit bull" should mean, but we're totally missing the real reasons why they're targeted.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 15:58:02 GMT -5
And why else did pit bulls suddenly become different than all other dogs? A major reason is because the animal welfare field decided to study them (e.g., Tufts conference). That conference sealed the deal. If the "experts" think pit bulls are worth having a conference and writing research papers about, then clearly there must be something inherently different and dangerous about them, right?
Wrong. WRONG! They were asking the wrong questions!! They were asking what made pit bulls different. If you go in expecting to find something different, you're bound to find something to confirm your bias.
Our field has been reacting to this ever since. And I understand why. But we have got to stop reacting to that and start asking the right questions. What's REALLY scaring people about pit bulls? The people they associate them with. What's REALLY causing pit bulls to enter shelters at high rates? The lack of resources and support. They're popular dogs, so of course they'll enter shelters at higher rates -- they exist at higher rates in the community. Are some pit bulls tweaky and unsafe? Of course -- when you have that many dogs out there, you're gonna get bad apples. (And no, I don't think they should be adopted out. I'm sorry, not when there are so many appropriate pit bulls being killed.) Do some people take on more dog than they can handle? Of course. But that happens with all kinds of dogs, you can't say that's unique to pit bulls.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 18:11:20 GMT -5
Kim, just curious.....is this a theory you've put together based on the research you've done, or do you have references or something you are working off of?
Sorry, I'm not buyin' what you're selling.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 18:15:48 GMT -5
Kim, just curious.....is this a theory you've put together based on the research you've done, or do you have references or something you are working off of? Sorry, I'm not buyin' what you're selling. I'd be glad to share references -- just tell me which points you're looking for, so I can narrow down the sources to send you.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 18, 2013 5:51:23 GMT -5
^ Kim, how about any references for any of the claims you've made? This is a WHOLLLLLEEEE new take on the history of these dogs. I don't know if you realized how long I've been studying this breed, so if there is a whole slew of sources that I've missed some how, I'd like to know.
P.s what is "our field". Not to sound like a bitch, but last I heard, any idiot can wake up one day and call themselves a "pit bull expert". I don't consider that a "field".
I'm a certified dog trainer and the director of a 501c3. So dog training and nonprofit sector are fields I am associated with.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 18, 2013 7:48:24 GMT -5
2013 15:58:02 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said: What's REALLY scaring people about pit bulls? The people they associate them with.
From my own perspective that is not true. There is unfortunately a lot of animal fighting, from dogs to roosters to Siamese fighting fish. Honestly if I was trying to get rid of some Asian crime gang, I don't think it would be fruitful to make betta ownership illegal. And I am not going to quake in fear when I see a betta in an aquarium.
You said: " Pit bulls got targeted because they were the dogs often owned by lower classes and minority races. They become a handy front to go after people and drive them out of areas, because overtly targeting those people would not be acceptable."
I just don't think it is rational to say that one, even if one wanted to, could drive out a particular group of people out of a particular location by criminalizing dog possession.
|
|
|
Post by maryellen on May 18, 2013 13:48:51 GMT -5
never trust a wolf in sheeps clothing.....
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 14:39:00 GMT -5
never trust a wolf in sheeps clothing..... What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 15:03:59 GMT -5
^ Kim, how about any references for any of the claims you've made? This is a WHOLLLLLEEEE new take on the history of these dogs. I don't know if you realized how long I've been studying this breed, so if there is a whole slew of sources that I've missed some how, I'd like to know. P.s what is "our field". Not to sound like a bitch, but last I heard, any idiot can wake up one day and call themselves a "pit bull expert". I don't consider that a "field". I'm a certified dog trainer and the director of a 501c3. So dog training and nonprofit sector are fields I am associated with. I think that's the difference in our perspectives, Mary. Neither one is wrong, they just come from different angles. We're asking different questions; we're not necessarily disagreeing. My interest in this topic has always been related to sociology, politics, and social work. Your interest (and correct me if I'm wrong) is in training and behavior, and advancing the breed and the breed community. Both of our interests are important. I don't expect us to agree on everything, but our different approaches can inform each other. This is a good thing. None of what I've written (in the preceding posts) is based on my opinion, because my opinion is useless. It is based on several years of research and input from others outside the dog community. I am happy to send you supporting references for any of the claims I've made. I won't take credit for coming up with any of this; it's more a matter of piecing things together and asking different questions. While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. I'm not at all surprised to hear your response because, like you said, this IS a different take on the entire situation. Perhaps it's *because* I'm not entrenched in pit bull issues and have not been doing this for decades, but as an outsider looking in, it's been clear to me that so many other factors have contributed to the challenges facing pit bulls/owners. It's also been apparent to me -- and it's been the elephant in the room -- that so little of the "issue" has to do with the dogs themselves, but with deeper and darker issues facing our society. To me, it's not that far-fetched to think that the hysteria surrounded pit bulls is more about people than the dogs themselves. With the exception of the Spitz, every other group of dogs that has been targeted (at least, that I'm aware of) was targeted because of the people associated with them, and the associations were tied to other issues going on in society at the time. Why would it be any different with pit bulls? It's not like pit bulls are unique in their ability to behave badly. Something else must be going on.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 15:12:04 GMT -5
The fact that so many people say pit bull is not a breed is part of the problem and the confusion. Pit Bull to me has and will always be APBT. This is an honest question -- and I promise I'm not trying to be bitchy: Let's imagine that starting tomorrow, the entire world could somehow agree that Pit Bull only referenced purebred APBTs. And let's imagine that somehow a system was put in place to make sure that only APBTs were identified as Pit Bulls (and that system would cover shelters, the media, dog owners, amateur breeders, dog licensing agencies, police departments, hospitals, advocates, researchers, etc). What would we gain? How would that make things better for the APBTs and their owners?
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 18, 2013 16:00:44 GMT -5
Kim, your statement: "While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. " I am familiar with research and the last thing a true researcher does is post anonymous third party information backed only by their own assurances. If others are as you say asking these questions, either post their names so the credibility of the questions can be judged, or stand down because your statement is not supported by references or facts.
|
|
|
Post by maryellen on May 18, 2013 16:19:30 GMT -5
its simple, never trust a wolf in sheeps clothing. those that lie will take on the form of others. twist info, etc.. and honestly i dont trust you or your motives . but thats just my own opinion.. opinions are like assholes, everyone has one..
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 16:34:52 GMT -5
Kim, your statement: "While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. " I am familiar with research and the last thing a true researcher does is post anonymous third party information backed only by their own assurances. If others are as you say asking these questions, either post their names so the credibility of the questions can be judged, or stand down because your statement is not supported by references or facts. I think you misunderstood, or maybe I didn't state it clearly. I am happy to share references to any of the sources I've read and/or spoken to in my own research. All of it is public information available through news and academic databases. That is separate from my statement about people other than myself starting to ask these same questions and take a similar approach to this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 16:42:43 GMT -5
its simple, never trust a wolf in sheeps clothing. those that lie will take on the form of others. twist info, etc.. and honestly i dont trust you or your motives . but thats just my own opinion.. opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.. When Mary invited me to participate in this forum, I was under the impression that it would be a respectful conversation. That's not what your statement is. Granted, if I leave now, someone will say that I'm ducking out because people started to question/disagree with me. It's a no win situation! I personally am genuinely interested in hearing other viewpoints and gathering all the information possible. I don't waste time guessing about your motives, because it'd be just that: a guess. I'm interested in the facts. I don't know you, Maryellen. I don't even know what your last name is. I don't understand how know could possibly know me well enough to not trust my motives. But it's clear that you feel that way, and it's clear that this conversation is not going very far. Ironically, it goes back to my original point: none of the hysteria surrounding pit bulls was about the dogs, it was about people.....this is just another manifestation of that. I'm not here to find friendships, I'm here -- talking with a group of people I know dislike and distrust me -- because we have a common interest in ending the shit our dogs (and we, too) have had to go through. I was hoping we could put aside our differences and make this a productive experience. I'm still up for that, if you are.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 18, 2013 16:43:08 GMT -5
Kim, it is not separate. If you are using their questions to bolster your argument, you must provide references, in order to gain any credibility from your statements. Anyone can say "Yeah, LOTS of people have my same opinions and questions" without it being true.
|
|