|
Post by maryellen on May 18, 2013 16:48:40 GMT -5
i am being honest and respectful.. i wasnt talking friendship either. if you post on a public forum you need to be prepared to have some folks be honest with you.. i am out of this conversation, so i wont be responding anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 18, 2013 16:59:51 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. Lucille, either I'm not stating things clearly, or you're misunderstanding. And to be clear, I never said "LOTS" of people have my same opinions. I said the opposite, actually -- that most people have looked at the dogs to explain the situation. But what I'm saying is that we should start looking at the bigger issues that coincided with the dogs' downfall to get a clearer sense of what else was contributing.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 18, 2013 17:13:45 GMT -5
"While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. "
Again, who are the others you reference in your statement?
I don’t think you HAVE anyone else who agrees with you. With one theory, you manage to offend the working class, minorities, and owners of pit bulls, all in one fell swoop.Perhaps you thought that we would agree with your racist comments as long as you cloaked what you were saying in popularity, saying that others thought along those lines. I don’t agree with you and in the unlikely case that they exist, I don’t agree with them either.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 19, 2013 11:50:32 GMT -5
"While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. " Again, who are the others you reference in your statement? I don’t think you HAVE anyone else who agrees with you. With one theory, you manage to offend the working class, minorities, and owners of pit bulls, all in one fell swoop.Perhaps you thought that we would agree with your racist comments as long as you cloaked what you were saying in popularity, saying that others thought along those lines. I don’t agree with you and in the unlikely case that they exist, I don’t agree with them either. Lucille, it's crystal clear that you and I don't know each other at all, and that you are misinterpreting everything I said. This is not even a conversation, and it's obvious you have no interest in hearing more information before forming an opinion. That's a bummer, but it is what it is. I tried.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 19, 2013 13:03:26 GMT -5
Nice red herring you threw to me, trying for a save. Very red and wiggly. But no, I think I'll go with:
I've asked several times for the names of the 'others' you used to bolster your posts. Your credibility is waning rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 19, 2013 14:21:21 GMT -5
Nice red herring you threw to me, trying for a save. Very red and wiggly. But no, I think I'll go with: I've asked several times for the names of the 'others' you used to bolster your posts. Your credibility is waning rapidly. Lucille, can I be blunt: Why are you so rude? This doesn't need to be such a hostile conversation. Can you please show some basic human respect toward me? I'm not your punching bag. And have we met? I don't think we have, but there seems to be a history between us. I would start by reading "Regarding Animals" by a sociologist named Arnold Arluke. Here is an excerpt of interest. Attachment DeletedLet me know if this doesn't post as an attachment.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 19, 2013 14:33:33 GMT -5
I have to admit, I'm somewhat surprised that people haven't heard this "argument" before. I'm by no means the first person to explore it.
In the excerpt I just posted, the authors note: Vicki "Hearn argues that pit bulls became a metaphor for something larger and scarier to many people who displaced their fear onto these dogs. Reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners that were guaranteed to threaten mainstream America."
"Capitalizing on class fears, pit bull reports by the media and even some humane organizations were peppered with references to poor urban blacks and Hispanics..."Decent citizens" were not at the root of the pit bull problem..."
"What is behind this fear and what does it tell us about the relationships of humans to other humans as well as to animals?"
"People's fear was certainly stirred up, but it may have been as much or more their fear of a perceived dangerous class of evil humans than a breed of dogs."
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 19, 2013 18:35:08 GMT -5
I suppose you think I ought to be more polite when responding to racism. Sorry, no. Racism is sickening and pernicious.
|
|
|
Post by jbone on May 19, 2013 19:01:26 GMT -5
The people enforcing BSL don't care about breed, and they don't have to care about DNA either.. the "with the appearance of " clause gives them all the out they need. The fight against BSL has always been "it's not the breed; it's the dog". A properly constructed study that showed ACO's can't identify dogs might be useful, though why it's more useful than the 100s of datapoints from the REAL world, I can't quite get my mind around. But the study is not what you want it to be in being a useful tool to combat BSL or death sentences. No court is going to accept an argument that "this dog is not a pit bull even though Mr LocalACO says it is; here's this study that proves ACO's can't identify dogs" ... because Mr LocalACO is going to testify about all his extensive expertise and training. And the prosecutor is going to ask, "How accurate is the DNA test?" and the defense is going to mutter "90%" and then prosecutor is going to smirk as the judge throws out the DNA evidence. You'd still have to do what is done today: dispute THAT particular identification by THAT particular ACO. I'm playing catch up here so quoting as I go along, but regarding this specific portion, I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but there is case law on this exact issue and it come down against the ACO because the is no verification that their ID's are accurate and therefore do not meet the criteria to be admissible in court. Here is the full opinion: legal.pblnn.com/images/Miamipleadings/cardelle.pdfACO's generally have no training in ID especially training that meets the burden of proof for a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by jbone on May 19, 2013 19:20:49 GMT -5
The theory that Kim is speaking about is called "red lining." A practice the initially started in the insurance industry but has come to reference any policy that is designed to essentially target lower income areas, which became synonymous with minority. There are numerous quotes from city officials, fewer now, most from the 80's and 90's, about targeting dog fighting communities through the dogs and references to "those people." Kim's research is far more in depth I'm sure, I have never bothered to save any of the information I saw personally, so I can't link right now, but I will be sure to find these examples for everyone to see. ETA: the results on this are hard to ferret out because of the different context the phrase "red lining" has specific to dogs so if you do a search don't be that you will have to weed through a lot of results to find the pertinent information. Not sure why that became a smilie. Odd.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 19, 2013 19:36:37 GMT -5
I suppose you think I ought to be more polite when responding to racism. Sorry, no. Racism is sickening and pernicious. Lucille, seriously -- did you read what I wrote? I don't think you're reading it. If you read it and thought about it, you'd see that I'm actually saying that racism (and classism) is to blame for much of what the dogs and their owners experienced. The fact that you've accused me of being a racist is downright bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Lucille on May 20, 2013 5:38:25 GMT -5
Kim, a nice side step. In my opinion you are totally off base, and to equate the fear of pit bulls with race is what is bizarre and offensive.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 20, 2013 8:54:15 GMT -5
"While I can only speak for myself, I can assure you that others are now asking these questions, too. " Again, who are the others you reference in your statement? I don’t think you HAVE anyone else who agrees with you. With one theory, you manage to offend the working class, minorities, and owners of pit bulls, all in one fell swoop.Perhaps you thought that we would agree with your racist comments as long as you cloaked what you were saying in popularity, saying that others thought along those lines. I don’t agree with you and in the unlikely case that they exist, I don’t agree with them either. Lucille, it's crystal clear that you and I don't know each other at all, and that you are misinterpreting everything I said. This is not even a conversation, and it's obvious you have no interest in hearing more information before forming an opinion. That's a bummer, but it is what it is. I tried. I just have to state that I do not even for one second think Kim is racist, and I don't think her comments were racist at all. In fact, her point regarding Pit Bulls and society's views on them had to do with racism in SOCIETY IN GENERAL. She's saying THAT'S WRONG. So let's just be careful with throwing around hurtful accusations, ok?
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 20, 2013 9:37:42 GMT -5
I have to admit, I'm somewhat surprised that people haven't heard this "argument" before. I'm by no means the first person to explore it. In the excerpt I just posted, the authors note: Vicki "Hearn argues that pit bulls became a metaphor for something larger and scarier to many people who displaced their fear onto these dogs. Reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners that were guaranteed to threaten mainstream America." "Capitalizing on class fears, pit bull reports by the media and even some humane organizations were peppered with references to poor urban blacks and Hispanics..."Decent citizens" were not at the root of the pit bull problem..." "What is behind this fear and what does it tell us about the relationships of humans to other humans as well as to animals?" "People's fear was certainly stirred up, but it may have been as much or more their fear of a perceived dangerous class of evil humans than a breed of dogs." I've read Hearne. I have heard the argument that BSL is racist, for sure. The thing that is "news" to me is that BSL was orchestrated from the beginning to target minorities (is that what I'm understanding you're saying?). Dog fighting and the job that animal welfare orgs did to demonize the "sport" as well as the dogs is what caused a problem for the breed. Also, all the bad publicity that the dogs had in the 80s and 90s. If you wonder why folks have focused SO MUCH on "the dogs", it's because the dogs were demonized. You weren't around in the 90s when literally EVERY single article coming out had ridiciulous and/or exaggerated claims. Of course we all spent a LOT of time proving the myths, misconceptions and prejudicial nature of these claims wrong. This worked, as you can see now, especially after the Vick case, the media has gotten WAY better at portraying our dogs. I just need more information about what you're saying because IMO, as I watched things unfold, it WAS about dog fighting, it WAS about deep south white dogmen, and it was about demonizing dogs and making the public think only dog fighters and criminals owned these dogs. It wasn't like, Pit Bulls are targeted because inner city minorities have them, and ok, let's make this a "thing" now. At least from where I'm standing. BTW, I just ordered Regarding Animals. Thanks for the suggestion! GOOD DISCUSSION!
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 20, 2013 10:01:01 GMT -5
Really great discussion! Here's a more recent article (summer 2010) by Arluke: ctx.sagepub.com/content/9/3/34.abstractIt's too large to post as an attachment, so email me at kimtwolf@gmail.com if you want a copy. Here's an excerpt of relevance: Given the evidence’s weakness, the reaction to pit bulls seems excessive if not a form of mass hysteria. Many cities have condemned pit bulls as community problems, requiring them to be leashed and muzzled at all times when in public or banning ownership of the breed. In more extreme cases, cities like Denver take pit bulls off the streets to euthanize them. This national phobia isn’t just about the dogs but about the kinds of humans associated with them. Although there has been an increase in the number of pit bulls owned by individuals associated with crime and violence, this increase has been exaggerated by selective media coverage of both bad dogs and bad owners. Now, when we think of pit bulls, we think of dogfights and drug traffic; deadly, unprovoked attacks on humans by “vicious” dogs; and owners who threaten mainstream America. Pit bulls—and, importantly, their owners—have become scary and frightening monsters to many Americans. No stereotypical portrayal of an African American, Latino, or working-class skinhead gang is complete without a pit bull in the picture. So, pit bulls (and by implication, their owners) are defined as dangerous, hated by association, and given no place in civilized society. As long as Americans negatively stereotype some human group, there will likely be a matching species to reinforce these harmful images and serve as a target for our hatred.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 20, 2013 10:19:03 GMT -5
Maybe I misconstrued what you were saying first off, but based on the above abstract, I mean, I cannot argue with what is being said, however I think he's a bit late in his "findings". It's never been about "nice" people owing these dogs, though. That was kind of the whole point. Bad people doing bad things with bad dogs. And instead of focusing on THE PEOPLE, everyone focused negatively on the dogs.
I'll just relay a little anecdote of my own. I got my first Pit Bull in 1994. I heard multiple times that I "don't look like" a Pit Bull owner. I'm not gonna sugar coat it, it was disconcerting and bugged the heck out of me. What was I SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE?!? I always wanted to yell this at people who would make this comment to me. And wait for things to get awkward. LOL
I have not heard ANY negative comments about my owning a Pit Bull, directly to my face I mean, when out in public, in literally YEARS. The perception has changed a LOT.
What I've always done was focus on a) cleaing up the myths and misunderstandings, b) getting the dogs out of the spotlight and letting people know average, everyday folks DO own and love these dogs, nothing special to see here, move along and c) providing support to people who care for these dogs so they can *keep them out of trouble* because like it or not, when the dogs got popular, a whooooooole bunch of even well-intentioned, decent people got this breed and had NO clue what they were really about.
Right now, it's not hard to find a "pit bull" in a shelter that is not even an F1 cross, but is being called a Pit Bull and is just the lowest-drive, mellow kinda couch potato dog. People are like, "Yes! I own a Pit Bull, and look how chill he is and how great he gets along with bunnies and kittens and puppies". Actual Pit Bulls would give a LOT of "modern pit bull owners" a real shock. This is one reason why Michele and I dislike calling everything and anything a Pit Bull because the BREED is being misrepresented and when someone walks into a shelter and adopts a "pit bull" who knows what they are really getting? A low-drive Boxer mix, or an actual APBT? People getting an actual APBT without any education can get into some real trouble. Them AND their dog.
Of course a big problem is now since the popularity boom there are SO many dogs that ended up in bad hands and lots and lots of mixes out there. Yes it's difficult to differentiate at times. Yes, you don't want to inadvertantly burden a dog with Pit Bull specific traits and hence make it less likely to be adopted but there is a balance that must be met, and when you have obvious Pit Bulls (APBTs) in shelters, there NEEDS to be some breed ed. I don't care what behavior was or was not witnessed in a shelter setting. Moving "beyond breed" can mean you're setting a lot of people and dogs up to fail.
Hope I'm making sense.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 20, 2013 14:09:58 GMT -5
I slacked off and I'm just getting around to reading the blog and now off to read the study. I have to say, my initial response to the BLOG only (like I said, gotta go read the study), Brent's overview of the numbers on reliability of the DNA results, I'm not even remotely impressed and think unless we're going to be disingenuous, should kinda back off the whole DNA thing.
This is more the line that I am taking and think what needs to be harped on:
"- The Visual ID of mixed breed dogs is highly subjective, as most 'experts' don't agree on the breeds based on looks - Even those well-educated in the field are susceptible to judgment biases Thus, statistical data that has often used to promote breed-specific policies is, and has been, based on visual breed identification that is proving itself to be highly subjective and inaccurate. And if public policy-makers want to rely on scientific and accurate information for their decisions, then the best solution will be to focus solely on behavior-based ordinances that target how dogs (and owenrs) BEHAVE, not how they look."
Thanks for continuing to bring this info to us, Brent! Great work.
|
|