|
|
Post by emilys on Jun 5, 2012 15:59:01 GMT -5
here's the latest from Kim!
""It's hard to expect legislators to reject breed-specific laws if shelters and rescues use breed-specific policies and restrictions. If they believe "pit bull" dogs cannot live safely in homes without fenced-in yards and 24-hour supervision, for example, then can we expect the laws to treat them as individuals either? Just as the laws should review dogs individually based on their behavior, adoption policies should evaluate dogs as individuals, too."
Yes because the ONLY kind of breed specific policies are the extreme ones. Let's go right from 2 extreme examples to demanding that there be NO breed specific policies and accusing those who believe in breed specific policies of being in favor of BSL
That is SO exactly the passive-aggressive kind of crap she gives off... and then she denies she means what she has just written.
Some of us CAN read, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Jun 5, 2012 17:16:46 GMT -5
Agree Emily. Two extremes. Whatever happened to the middle ground?! Does not fit into the new agenda I suppose.
I also don't like how they demonize those of us who advocate for responsible ownership as these tyrants who are all about restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnr on Jun 5, 2012 17:31:28 GMT -5
Here's my latest contribution to the thread in question:
And I just adopted a somewhat older Pit Bull because I missed having one after Pablo's demise and chose one that would, like Pablo, tend to be a STABILIZING influence on the pack full of "reform school kids". Yes, they really do exist and so far so wonderful with Ms Paula. We also had a visit from one of the all time most wonderfully dog friendly Pit Bulls who once again did a splendid dog meet, this time with another long timer male Pit Bull. But I have also seen what happens when people get too starry eyed about mixing Pit Bulls willy nilly in with other animals or otherwise fail to understand the breed, including its more potentially challenging traits. There is a REASON why Paula shot to the top of the charts re being a candidate to take over Pablo's role in the pack. And it does show the importance of getting to know dogs individually. But a screaming example of NOT doing that is to say blandly and blindly that Pit Bulls are just like all other dogs, which some people do come out and say in so many words, even if others have learned to be coy about insinuating it.
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Jun 5, 2012 17:36:33 GMT -5
What is the harm in saying and or thinking that all dogs are individuals while keeping breed traits and history in mind?! I guess they would just go back to the argument that there is no such breed as a pit bull and or they can't properly be identified by anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Jun 5, 2012 17:36:54 GMT -5
Looking forward to their response to you John  |
|
|
|
Post by johnr on Jun 5, 2012 18:07:44 GMT -5
What is the harm in saying and or thinking that all dogs are individuals while keeping breed traits and history in mind?! I guess they would just go back to the argument that there is no such breed as a pit bull and or they can't properly be identified by anyone. There is no harm at all in using breed tendencies to set preliminary expectations AND to gauge what you take to be reasonable risks, given that there is only so much you can learn about the dogs you are placing, let alone the people you are placing them with and THEIR other animals. There is such a thing as being too rigid, but also such a thing as being so absurdly fluid that you end up setting dogs up for failure again and again. It sometimes seems like some people think that if you aren't 100% sure that things will go disastrously wrong, you should give it a whirl. But most people driving drunk do not get into accidents and most smokers, including heavy smokers, don't get lung cancer. So, those should be perfectly okay then, right? I mean, if it's not 100% sure to go wrong, what's the harm, right? Especially when you are placing a lot of animals, you HAVE to get a good feel for what is and is not a reasonable risk and stick to the plan. If you place 1000 dogs over your rescue career and "only" 50 end up killing other pets and "only" 10 end up mauling someone, that is NOT a record to feel good about!!! No one will have 100% perfect placements, but that doesn't mean any random number less than 100% is acceptable or that there is nothing you can do to balance minimizing bad adoptions vs minimizing euths due to non-adoptions. |
|
|
|
Post by johnr on Jun 5, 2012 18:20:50 GMT -5
But without question, the polar opposite of getting to know dogs as individuals is treating all of dogdom as one huge homogeneous mass of "just dogs". The rhetoric isn't even internally consistent, let alone in line with reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Jun 6, 2012 8:45:50 GMT -5
^ LOL @ those two ridiculous examples she gives as supposed typical breed-specific restrictions for adoption.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Jun 6, 2012 12:06:37 GMT -5
^ LOL @ those two ridiculous examples she gives as supposed typical breed-specific restrictions for adoption. exactly. How many places actually have a "24 hour supervision" requirement? That's why I accuse her of promoting a "if you believe in discussing breed characteristics you support BSL" agenda |
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 9:41:59 GMT -5
 Animal Farm Foundation Think you can spot a lab mix when you see one? Think again. All of these are mixed-breed dogs, but only #2 and #5 have any traces of Labrador retreiver in their DNA. When we label mixed-breed dogs based on visual breed identification, science has now proven that our guesses are usually wrong. (For more info: www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Dog%20Breed%20Identification%20is%20No%20Basis%20for%20Shelter%20Policy.pdf and www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Voith%20AVMA.pdf). But for adopters, those labels carry a lifetime of behavioral expections, both positive and negative, that will likely never be met. That "lab mix" you adopted so you'd have a dog who loves swimming? He might prefer land over lakes. That "pit bull mix" you walked past because you have a cat? She might have been Fluffy's new best friend. Instead of leading with arbitrary breed labels, we best serve the dogs and the community by describing each dog's behavior and personality as an individual, based on what we've observed and experienced with that particular dog. And if adopters insist on asking, "What kind of dog is that," it's best to tell them the honest truth: "I don't know." For a link to this poster, visit: www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Lab%20ID%20Poster.pdfLike · · Share · about an hour ago My comment: Christina Jacobs I really wish people would stop putting so much stock into DNA tests. Most can't even positively ID pure bred dogs of known parentage! While I agree that it is difficult to ID dogs based solely on their appearance, I think that claiming that Canine DNA tests are an exact science is just as wrong. 4 minutes ago · Like |
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 10:29:54 GMT -5
The response?
Animal Farm Foundation Christina Jacobs, you're right -- DNA tests are not an exact science by any means. And there are some companies that have much higher accuracy rates than others.
But the takeaway point is important -- we can't reliably guess a mixed-breed dog's genetics based on his physical appearance. And we definitely cannot predict how mixed-breed dogs will behave based solely on looks.
6 minutes ago · Like
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 10:30:40 GMT -5
"I know DNA tests aren't an exact science, I only said they were to make my other point..."
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Jun 8, 2012 11:04:28 GMT -5
well, that's not as good as Kim putting on her FB page that cute Capitol One ad with the (apparent) Staffordshire Bull Terrier and then responding to the "oooo how cute" responses: "Who cares what the dog looks like? It's a cute dog....and in many places, even Staffies are legally defined as pit bulls."
|
|
|
|
Post by suziriot on Jun 8, 2012 11:09:12 GMT -5
well, that's not as good as Kim putting on her FB page that cute Capitol One ad with the (apparent) Staffordshire Bull Terrier and then responding to the "oooo how cute" responses: "Who cares what the dog looks like? It's a cute dog....and in many places, even Staffies are legally defined as pit bulls."  |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Jun 8, 2012 11:43:21 GMT -5
I love how their argument is "you can't tell what a dog's breed is by looking at it, and you can't rely on DNA tests to tell you what the breed the dog is either". So...........???
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 12:22:57 GMT -5
well, that's not as good as Kim putting on her FB page that cute Capitol One ad with the (apparent) Staffordshire Bull Terrier and then responding to the "oooo how cute" responses: "Who cares what the dog looks like? It's a cute dog....and in many places, even Staffies are legally defined as pit bulls." My response: Who cares? Really? People who claim to be advocates and spend their time educating the public about dogs should care. How does it hurt your cause to accurately ID this dog as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Her response: Christina Jacobs, I don't care what breed orbreed mix this dog is. I care that in real life, many people would call him (her?) a pit bull and I care that he (she?) would be discriminated against in many places as a result. Obviously I care about the dogs! Come on. My response: I don't understand why, as advocates and educators, you wouldn't even consider saying something like, "Actually the dog in the picture is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The Stafford is often misidentified as a Pit Bull and is even included in some BSL, but is a different breed all together. While the Stafford is related to the Pit Bull, calling one a Pit Bull would be akin to calling a Golden Retriever a Lab or calling a Brittany a Springer Spaniel. Close, but no cigar!" I guess it's more fun to advocate for pit "bull" Type "dogs," pit "bull type" dogs, "pitbull" "dogs," or "dog type animals" than to actually educate people on the different breeds and breed mixes that are often caught up in the sticky web that is BSL. I'm too sick to be dealing with this! |
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 12:45:14 GMT -5
One more before going to work:
Why call yourselves Pit Bull Advocates if you don't actually care to advocate for or educate about Pit Bulls and similar breeds. Half of the dogs that I see being IDed as "pit bulls" by AFF and similar groups don't even remotely look like Pit Bulls! I'm just tired of seeing groups saying there is no such breed as a "pit bull" while also saying that any dog with short hair and a blocky head is a "pit bull." Instead of pretending to advocate for Pit Bulls, why not just say what you really do? You advocate against canine discrimination or you advocate for dogs that are commonly discriminated against. That is a good cause, but it is not the same thing as advocating for Pit Bulls.
And now I'm off to work with my Cow-Pig-Monkey-Pterodactyl-Hyena-Cat-"dog" Type "Creature."
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 18:13:06 GMT -5
I love how their argument is "you can't tell what a dog's breed is by looking at it, and you can't rely on DNA tests to tell you what the breed the dog is either". So...........??? You can rely on DNA tests when it's convenient! They only ever admit that DNA is bogus when confronted with the fact that DNA is bogus! |
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Jun 8, 2012 18:56:06 GMT -5
Now I remember why I blocked AFF from my news feed on FB!!  |
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Jun 8, 2012 19:28:40 GMT -5
and WE'RE the creepy ones! ??? ??? ???
Someone needs to remind Kim of all the private emails she sent to everyone pleading to have a conversation and assuring us that we were on the same page (and of course demanding that we not share the emails...). And sending those supporters who have been our friends to chastise us. I got one PM asking why I "hated" Kim
|
|
I look forward to learning much here