|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 16, 2013 11:29:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 11:31:07 GMT -5
Kim I think if it looks like a pit bull and is going to be targeted as a pit bull then yes they should educate about pit bull ownership and all that goes with it. That doesn't mean that you have to be over the top and tell any potential pit bull owner that their dog is going to be uber dog aggressive it does mean however, that it is a possibility to have a dog selective /aggressive pit bull and if that is the case it can be managed. That also means any potential adopter should be aware of BSL. I fail to see where setting up the owner for success and not failure is a bad thing. Yep, I agree -- setting adopters up for success is key. And I agree that if it's possible that their dog could be labeled as a pit bull and discriminated against as a result, then it's good to empower them with resources/info on how to deal with that discrimination (rental housing, insurance, nasty comments, etc). As for behaviors, I can see both sides. On the one hand, it could be helpful to give adopters info on the more challenging behaviors (like dog-dog aggression) in case those behaviors arise. But on the other hand, I hesitate to attribute those behaviors to the dog's appearance -- and breed label -- if the dog isn't actually a purebred dog. I say this because there's such a wide net of dogs that get labeled as pit bulls these days, and I think it's unfair to the APBT breed when any/all negative behaviors get attributed to that breed. Why should APBTs be held responsible for the behaviors of mixed-breed dogs -- or, more accurately, for the shortcomings of the owners of those mixed-breed dogs? In other words, if breed is the default language for counseling adopters on all dogs (including mixes), then the breed will be default scapegoat when things go south -- even if the dog wasn't that breed to begin with. I think we'd all agree that it's unfair for APBTs to be targeted as a breed via BSL, when some of the dogs who are dangerous are incorrectly labeled as APBTs. And I think (but not sure) we agree that problems arise when a pit bull is defined as whatever anyone says a pit bull is. So I'm trying to understand how it's different for adoptions. If pit bull is shorthand for APBT, then are we sure we want shelters counseling adopters about pit bull behaviors -- knowing that many of the dogs coming through are not APBTs? Not sure if I articulated that well -- let me know if it's unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 16, 2013 11:39:00 GMT -5
Kim I think if it looks like a pit bull and is going to be targeted as a pit bull then yes they should educate about pit bull ownership and all that goes with it. That doesn't mean that you have to be over the top and tell any potential pit bull owner that their dog is going to be uber dog aggressive it does mean however, that it is a possibility to have a dog selective /aggressive pit bull and if that is the case it can be managed. That also means any potential adopter should be aware of BSL. I fail to see where setting up the owner for success and not failure is a bad thing. Yep, I agree -- setting adopters up for success is key. And I agree that if it's possible that their dog could be labeled as a pit bull and discriminated against as a result, then it's good to empower them with resources/info on how to deal with that discrimination (rental housing, insurance, nasty comments, etc). As for behaviors, I can see both sides. On the one hand, it could be helpful to give adopters info on the more challenging behaviors (like dog-dog aggression) in case those behaviors arise. But on the other hand, I hesitate to attribute those behaviors to the dog's appearance -- and breed label -- if the dog isn't actually a purebred dog. I say this because there's such a wide net of dogs that get labeled as pit bulls these days, and I think it's unfair to the APBT breed when any/all negative behaviors get attributed to that breed. Why should APBTs be held responsible for the behaviors of mixed-breed dogs -- or, more accurately, for the shortcomings of the owners of those mixed-breed dogs? In other words, if breed is the default language for counseling adopters on all dogs (including mixes), then the breed will be default scapegoat when things go south -- even if the dog wasn't that breed to begin with. I think we'd all agree that it's unfair for APBTs to be targeted as a breed via BSL, when some of the dogs who are dangerous are incorrectly labeled as APBTs. And I think (but not sure) we agree that problems arise when a pit bull is defined as whatever anyone says a pit bull is. So I'm trying to understand how it's different for adoptions. If pit bull is shorthand for APBT, then are we sure we want shelters counseling adopters about pit bull behaviors -- knowing that many of the dogs coming through are not APBTs? Not sure if I articulated that well -- let me know if it's unclear. The problem is, you and other people are STILL using the words "pit bull" when talking about these "mixed breed dogs". The breed still gets blamed anyway. Why not get people in your camp (for lack of a better word, not trying to sound derogatory), who are essentially just talking about basic dog traits/behavior, and saying NOTHING about breed, to STOP using the words "pit bull", "pit bull type", or any variation thereof, altogether? Just educate about DOGS. That would make things a whole lot clearer. Tell shelters to stop talking about breed. Tell them, if they want to bring in outside breed experts from purebred dog rescues, go for it. In the meantime/otherwise, just work on educating shelter staff about basic good dog management practices and dog behavior, and then tell them, if they are adopting out dogs that could be mistaken for Pit Bulls, then give their adopters the basic run down on BSL; tell them to use the caveat "We don't actually KNOW if this IS a Pit Bull or not, but the dog COULD be mistaken for one, so here is what you need to know about BSL/discrimination...." Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 11:47:39 GMT -5
In some ways this is a hypothetical question, since they'll probably do it anyways. But let's just imagine that you could advise them on how make adoption matches, and how to describe the dogs in their care. Before I dig deeper into this and take a closer look at your presentation, I'd like clarification: you do not trust shelter workers to "guess breed" and you do not want them making breed generalizations, but you are trusting them to be good at observing behavior, interpreting it, and then making descisions based only on the behavior they witness, in their placement of dogs? Is this an accurate assessment I am making? Thanks.  I think there's a wide range of skill sets seen in shelter workers and volunteers, particularly in the people who do behavior evals or write up adoption bios. I don't think their interpretations of dog behaviors are always accurate, nor are their recommendations based on those interpretations. If I had to guess, I'd say they err on the side of being wrong (not because those people are stupid, but because they've never been trained). So when I say "observation," I mean an objective description of what they observed the dog doing -- NOT an interpretation of why he did it. Just the facts of what they observed. For example, "Buster interacted with another male dog off-leash in the play yard," or "When Buster interacted with a female dog in the play yard, they got into a fight. The other dog received a puncture wound and it had to get stitches." Those are observations based on facts. If the shelter worker has never been trained to interpret those behaviors (which , sadly, most shelter workers have not been), then I think it's problematic for them to be making those assessments. Instead, I would recommend they document all their observations, disclose them to the adopter, and encourage the adopter to seek a professional trainer for support. What I'm uncomfortable with is when shelters look at a dog's appearance, label it a pit bull or pit bull mix (whatever that means?!), and then attribute all the dog's behaviors to the fact that the dog is a pit bull. In some cases, the dogs really are APBTs and they really do exhibit behaviors that are commonly found in that breed. But the problem is when all these other dogs get lumped in, and APBTs take the hit for any negative experiences that occur. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 16, 2013 11:49:33 GMT -5
I think there's a wide range of skill sets seen in shelter workers and volunteers, particularly in the people who do behavior evals or write up adoption bios. I don't think their interpretations of dog behaviors are always accurate, nor are their recommendations based on those interpretations. If I had to guess, I'd say they err on the side of being wrong (not because those people are stupid, but because they've never been trained). So when I say "observation," I mean an objective description of what they observed the dog doing -- NOT an interpretation of why he did it. Just the facts of what they observed. For example, "Buster interacted with another male dog off-leash in the play yard," or "When Buster interacted with a female dog in the play yard, they got into a fight. The other dog received a puncture wound and it had to get stitches." Those are observations based on facts. If the shelter worker has never been trained to interpret those behaviors (which , sadly, most shelter workers have not been), then I think it's problematic for them to be making those assessments. Instead, I would recommend they document all their observations, disclose them to the adopter, and encourage the adopter to seek a professional trainer for support. What I'm uncomfortable with is when shelters look at a dog's appearance, label it a pit bull or pit bull mix (whatever that means?!), and then attribute all the dog's behaviors to the fact that the dog is a pit bull. In some cases, the dogs really are APBTs and they really do exhibit behaviors that are commonly found in that breed. But the problem is when all these other dogs get lumped in, and APBTs take the hit for any negative experiences that occur. GOT IT! Thank you, I agree with the above. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 12:33:03 GMT -5
The only times when a shelter has to use breed labels is when the shelter software system (e.g., Chameleon, PetPoint) or adoption website (e.g., Petfinder) requires them. I think that needs to change, though it doesn't seem likely in the near future. However, there are plenty of places where breed labels are NOT required, yet shelters do it voluntarily: kennel cards, adoption bios, Facebook posts, flyers, Craiglist, etc. Some shelters create their own adoption contracts (instead of the ones generated through the shelter software), and even then they voluntarily include a breed label. None of this is required in order to adopt out dogs.
Of course, there will be purebred dogs that can be easily identified as a member of a breed, even without papers. For example, I adopted a Pug from a shelter -- she didn't have papers, but I'm 100% confident that she's a purebred Pug based on her appearance. But if pedigree papers are important, then get your dog from a source that can provide them. There's no value added to listing breed on the adoption contract. I know she's a Pug, and I don't need that in writing to know this. If I wanted it in writing, I'd acquire my Pug from a breeder who can provide me with actual pedigree papers.
When a dog might be considered a member of a targeted breed because of his appearance, I think that's an important conversation to have with the adopter. But it's a conversation, not something you put in writing -- because you might be wrong, and your guess is just a guess. From a legal standpoint, if an adopter lives in an area with BSL, then the shelter needs to consult an attorney on how to proceed based on how the law is written. If a dog can be identified as a pit bull based solely on physical appearance, it doesn't matter what you call it. And then there are cases where there's not BSL but the shelter is concerned with adopting out dogs that might be a certain breed. Again, I think that's a question for the shelter's attorney.
But this comes back to the same point: shelters are adoption agencies, not breeders or pet stores. They're not obligated to represent a dog's genetics or lineage because in most cases, they can't. So they shouldn't imply that they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 16, 2013 13:30:46 GMT -5
^ Kim, I'm so sorry, I hit the edit button when I thought I was hitting Quote and I messed your post up. I re-edited it and I THINK it's all intact, though. Really sorry about that.  Ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 13:31:15 GMT -5
Yep, I agree -- setting adopters up for success is key. And I agree that if it's possible that their dog could be labeled as a pit bull and discriminated against as a result, then it's good to empower them with resources/info on how to deal with that discrimination (rental housing, insurance, nasty comments, etc). As for behaviors, I can see both sides. On the one hand, it could be helpful to give adopters info on the more challenging behaviors (like dog-dog aggression) in case those behaviors arise. But on the other hand, I hesitate to attribute those behaviors to the dog's appearance -- and breed label -- if the dog isn't actually a purebred dog. I say this because there's such a wide net of dogs that get labeled as pit bulls these days, and I think it's unfair to the APBT breed when any/all negative behaviors get attributed to that breed. Why should APBTs be held responsible for the behaviors of mixed-breed dogs -- or, more accurately, for the shortcomings of the owners of those mixed-breed dogs? In other words, if breed is the default language for counseling adopters on all dogs (including mixes), then the breed will be default scapegoat when things go south -- even if the dog wasn't that breed to begin with. I think we'd all agree that it's unfair for APBTs to be targeted as a breed via BSL, when some of the dogs who are dangerous are incorrectly labeled as APBTs. And I think (but not sure) we agree that problems arise when a pit bull is defined as whatever anyone says a pit bull is. So I'm trying to understand how it's different for adoptions. If pit bull is shorthand for APBT, then are we sure we want shelters counseling adopters about pit bull behaviors -- knowing that many of the dogs coming through are not APBTs? Not sure if I articulated that well -- let me know if it's unclear. The problem is, you and other people are STILL using the words "pit bull" when talking about these "mixed breed dogs". The breed still gets blamed anyway. Why not get people in your camp (for lack of a better word, not trying to sound derogatory), who are essentially just talking about basic dog traits/behavior, and saying NOTHING about breed, to STOP using the words "pit bull", "pit bull type", or any variation thereof, altogether? Just educate about DOGS. That would make things a whole lot clearer. Tell shelters to stop talking about breed. Tell them, if they want to bring in outside breed experts from purebred dog rescues, go for it. In the meantime/otherwise, just work on educating shelter staff about basic good dog management practices and dog behavior, and then tell them, if they are adopting out dogs that could be mistaken for Pit Bulls, then give their adopters the basic run down on BSL; tell them to use the caveat "We don't actually KNOW if this IS a Pit Bull or not, but the dog COULD be mistaken for one, so here is what you need to know about BSL/discrimination...." Thoughts? I feel like I'm hogging the forum But thanks for the opportunity to have this conversation! My thoughts on those two magic words have changed over time, as you've probably seen. I've been really to lucky to have a variety of experiences in a relatively short amount of time. Over the the past 5 years I've worked in a shelter, volunteered in under-served communities, spoken with legislators, been involved with legal cases, talked to dog bite victims, interviewed members of the media, talked to breeders, engaged with dog owners from all over spectrum, and I'm now working in a veterinary school/academia. All I can say with certainty is that there's no rhetorical "solution" that would work in all these different scenarios. And even if there were, we can't force everyone to be on the same page, let alone agree on what page that should be. That being said, I think the most practical solution is for shelters and dog advocates to move away from using the term "pit bull" -- and to do so as part of a bigger movement to refer to dogs as dogs, instead of breeds. When I say this, I'm not including breed advocates such as the Real Pit Bull, nor am I referring to breeders or dog breed fanciers. I'm referring to the general animal welfare/dog advocacy/dog owner rights/sheltering community. To be clear, this is NOT to devalue breeds, to get rid of breeds, or to deny that they exist. Not at all. I want breeds to exist and I appreciate breeds. I see tremendous value in all kinds of dogs, purebred or not. My point is I don't think that breed is the factor we should focus on when addressing dangerous dog laws, pet homelessness/overpopulation, or dog owner rights. These are all dog issues -- or more accurately stated, these are all HUMAN issues. When we tackle these issues through the lens of breeds, we're complicit in perpetuating the idea that was breed was a factor in the first place. It was not. It was always a human issue. How many more breeds need to spend time in the hot seat before we try a new approach -- and focus on NEED, instead of breed? We're just going in circles, with targeted breeds coming in and out of the same cycle. No matter what dogs we're talking about, the most popular dogs (in terms of #s) will always struggle when we don't address the needs of their owners. Whether it's APBTs or "pit bulls" or Chihuahuas or Mastiffs or whatever, these dogs all have the same basic needs -- and when those needs aren't met, problems occur. That's not a breed issue. It's a need issue. So unless we're talking about breeders or breed fanciers, there's no reason to focus on breed when trying to address need. (all this rhyming is sounding hoakey....) I think there was definitely a time when APBTs -- as well as all dogs labeled as "pit bulls" -- needed an extra boost to overcome the negative perceptions. So I can see how associating "pit bulls" with positive stories was helpful in moving the general public over that wall. But now, with BSL on the decline and with public sentiment tipping in the dogs' favor, we're at a new point. And at this point, I think we're starting to do a disservice to the dogs -- both purebred APBTs and "pit bulls" -- by continuing to do this. If we want the dogs out of the spotlight, we need take the spotlight off them. The way to do that is to refer to them as dogs, and to let them quietly go about their business. (Again, I'm not talking about APBT breeders or fanciers; I'm talking about the masses). I'll be 100% honest: I am not a breed fancier. That's not to say I don't think APBTs are great dogs and an amazing breed. They are. That's just not what motivates me. What motivates me is the injustice they've endured (along with their owners), and how the animal welfare communities is responding. I think the animal welfare community can do better and can evolve, and I want to do whatever I can to bridge this gap and get things on the best path. We have a mutual interest in protecting the dogs' reputation, supporting the people who own them, and ending their time in the spotlight (both good and bad). Basically, I want this to be over so we can get back to enjoying our dogs! I honestly have no idea how y'all with respond to what I'm saying. I'm really curious to hear your input, and thanks for letting me speak frankly. Please know you can speak frankly with me, too -- I appreciate honesty |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 16, 2013 13:33:50 GMT -5
But breed labels are also a selling point. Rescue people are always chastizing people for going to breeders - "There are plenty of purebred dogs in shelters", they say. "Go to a shelter and adopt a dog", they insist. By removing all labeling, perhaps numbers of dogs adopted would go down. And more people would go to breeders, because we are now basically saying, "You can only get mutts of unknown origin from shelters, and that means you'll have no idea what sort of personality or temperament you may be getting".
KIM SAID:
But see, just when I think I'm getting on the same page as you are, I'm confused again. You can't have it both ways - either no one can ID breeds in shelters, or you concede sometimes some people when it comes to certain dogs CAN accurately determine breed (and hence give temperament guidelines). Why can you ID a Pug but I cannot ID a Pit Bull (APBT)? (Hypothetical.)
Totally agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 13:55:28 GMT -5
But breed labels are also a selling point. Rescue people are always chastizing people for going to breeders - "There are plenty of purebred dogs in shelters", they say. "Go to a shelter and adopt a dog", they insist. By removing all labeling, perhaps numbers of dogs adopted would go down. And more people would go to breeders, because we are now basically saying, "You can only get mutts of unknown origin from shelters, and that means you'll have no idea what sort of personality or temperament you may be getting". KIM SAID: But see, just when I think I'm getting on the same page as you are, I'm confused again. You can't have it both ways - either no one can ID breeds in shelters, or you concede sometimes some people when it comes to certain dogs CAN accurately determine breed (and hence give temperament guidelines). Why can you ID a Pug but I cannot ID a Pit Bull (APBT)? (Hypothetical.) Totally agree. I'm not in the camp that believes no one can visually ID an APBT. I can see why things I've said in the past might be interpreted that way, but that was never my belief. I think the average shelter worker/volunteer has trouble visually ID'ing purebred dogs, especially ones that are less common or are very similar to other breeds. I think APBTs are particularly challenging due to the variety of phenotypes accepted within the standard. I think that some of the generic mutts in shelters these days are similar in phenotype to APBTs, so it's even harder for untrained people to differentiate. But I absolutely think that APBTs CAN be visually ID'ed, even without pedigree papers, by some people. Is Tom Skeldon one of those people? No. But do I think some people on this thread could reliably ID an APBT? Yes. That being said, the fact that they're hard to ID has definitely helped in some cases. So if I had to choose between saying to the masses, "Visual breed ID is unreliable" versus "Experts can visually ID a pit bull," I'm gonna go with the former. It will prevent dogs from being unfairly targeted by discrimination, while also leaving room for visual breed ID when used voluntarily by breed rescues to identify dogs for their programs. |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 16, 2013 14:43:40 GMT -5
Kim if you are not comfortable answering I understand but is it fair to say that you don't agree or have changed your opinions on some of the material that AFF has put out or puts out for example say the Turbocharge pit bull stuff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 16, 2013 15:36:47 GMT -5
Kim if you are not comfortable answering I understand but is it fair to say that you don't agree or have changed your opinions on some of the material that AFF has put out or puts out for example say the Turbocharge pit bull stuff? With any organization, there's stuff I agree with and stuff I don't. My opinions change as I learn new things and have new experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 16, 2013 15:49:28 GMT -5
Fair enough and I totally get that! Just that much of what you have said here is sort of in direct conflict of what AFF stands for and I know you represented them for a while so that is what prompted me to ask. I didn't want you to think I was being snarky. I was just trying to get a better idea of where you stood on certain core issues. On a different note I did want to take a moment and say thank you for sticking around and sharing your experiences and info with us as well as listening to all of our experiences and beliefs. It has been most enjoyable to have an open discussion. |
|
pitbullmamaliz
I Love RPBF!
Liz & Inara CGC, TD, TT, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., CW-SR
Posts: 360
|
Post by pitbullmamaliz on Apr 16, 2013 16:21:23 GMT -5
I guess my concern is this, and I certainly hope I manage to phrase this legibly, LOL.
In a perfect world, only dogs that we are pretty certain are APBT's would be called Pit Bulls. Sadly, this world is not perfect. The media is going to take any dog with a short coat, muscles and strong-looking cheeks and call it a pit bull. Because of this, I think it behooves us as advocates to make sure that anybody who has a dog that could be mistaken for a pit bull by the media is the absolute best dog owner possible. We ARE held to higher standards. Is it fair? No, but it's certainly made me a great dog owner/trainer. But because the media leaps at any opportunity to publish something negative about pit bulls, people who MAY have one need to understand that they are under a greater scrutiny and they have a great responsibility to keep their dogs out of trouble. What's the worst that can happen? They don't take Fluffy to the dog park because they were told she might not always like other dogs? They keep Fido separated from Fluffy when they're not being supervised? They take some extra training classes? We all know that one bad incident undoes the work of thousands of pretty damned perfect pit bulls - I'd rather people err on the side of caution to make it easier for me to keep Inara peacefully living in my city/state.
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 16, 2013 16:38:16 GMT -5
I am with you Liz. I think people fear that sometimes rescues/shelters are too strict or scare people into not wanting to adopt a pit bull.
|
|
pitbullmamaliz
I Love RPBF!
Liz & Inara CGC, TD, TT, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., CW-SR
Posts: 360
|
Post by pitbullmamaliz on Apr 16, 2013 16:41:13 GMT -5
Quite frankly, if the thought of having to do a little extra management/training frightens somebody, they don't need a dog, let alone a strong dog that the media loves to see mess up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 17, 2013 9:58:43 GMT -5
Quite frankly, if the thought of having to do a little extra management/training frightens somebody, they don't need a dog, let alone a strong dog that the media loves to see mess up. I hear ya, and certainly no one wants to see incidents happen. It’s sad, but PB owners definitely have less room for error. I try to remind myself that incidents involving PB happen regularly – not because they’re PBs, but because they’re dogs and they're owned by humans. And incidents will continue to happen as long as people own dogs. Most of the time, the incidents don’t escalate to calls for BSL, crackdowns on PBs, or shitty news stories. When incidents do escalate, there’s always more to the story: pre-existing tensions between groups of people (and the dog becomes a proxy), opportunistic politicians, overly emotional victims, etc. If all it took was one incident to ruin things, things would have been ruined a long time ago. I also remind myself that most people are not like us: they don’ t get their dogs from shelters or responsible breeders, they don’t seek professional trainers, and they have no idea educational/advocacy groups exist. So no matter what we advise PB owners to do, we’ll never come close to having 100% compliance. If PB experts are saying PBs don’t belong in dog parks, then we’re not only failing to prevent people doing it anyways, but we’re actually encouraging people to blame the entire breed when an incident does occur. We’re also inadvertently saying that PBs owners who bring their dogs to parks are acting irresponsibly, even if nothing goes wrong. This just fuels the perception that PB owners are reckless. It’s also not fair to the PBs who do fine at dog parks. I also don’t think PB-specific restrictions are effective because people think we’re “crying wolf” and they ignore the advice. My friend is a great example. She adopted a PB and the shelter (where I used to work) gave her a handout on PBs and dog parks. My friend saw it as a blanket warning and assumed it didn’t apply to her, as an individual. She took her dog to the park and he got in fight. Turns out, the shelter knew this dog was a dick off-leash and they told her not to go to dog parks. But since the handout was a blanket PB policy, she didn’t pay attention – she thought they were “crying wolf.” The shelters I’ve worked with have had much more success by getting rid of PB-specific restrictions, and refocusing that time/effort on cases where the advice really does need to be followed. People are more likely to listen/comply if you make it specific to them. It also puts the onus on the owners, not the breed, to be smart; and if things still go wrong (which they do sometimes), at least people can’t say “This shelter is irresponsible for adopting out PBs, knowing people might take them to dog parks.” It seems counter-intuitive, but I’ve found that the more we try to protect the dogs and prepare for worst case scenarios, the more we open them up for scrutiny when something does go wrong. I've had more success meeting people/the public where they're at, instead of hoping they'll be where I want them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 17, 2013 10:27:20 GMT -5
I have question for y'all. What's your take on the term "Bully Breeds"?
I'm noticing more shelters and advocacy groups/rescues using it. I did an informal research project on what people think that term means, which breeds they include, where they got the information from, and why they chose to include those breeds. The results were really interesting, and I'm writing them up in a blog post I'm working on.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 17, 2013 10:55:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 17, 2013 11:49:00 GMT -5
I have question for y'all. What's your take on the term "Bully Breeds"? I'm noticing more shelters and advocacy groups/rescues using it. I did an informal research project on what people think that term means, which breeds they include, where they got the information from, and why they chose to include those breeds. The results were really interesting, and I'm writing them up in a blog post I'm working on. Thoughts? I don't like Bully Breed because of the connotation of the word "bully." I use the term Bull Breed to refer to the breeds which used to be called "Bull and Terriers." I sometimes use "Pit Bulls and Related Breeds" or "Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Related Breeds." Pit Bulls Against Misinformation uses "Targeted Breeds," which I think is a good one, but I just haven't gotten around to using it. |
|
Ugh.
