|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 1, 2014 7:13:55 GMT -5
I've come across some Facebook posts recently from people complaining how there is "too much money" going towards Pit Bulls now and other dogs are getting neglected. I was blown away. Although Pit Bulls have come a long way in recent years, there are still a huge number of them out there in shelters that need help and they are a particularly problematic issue w/r/t BSL, aggression, and prejudice. There has always been a lot of help for "dogs in general", and Pit Bulls always got the short end the stick. Now there are "too many resources" for Pit Bulls. Say what?
If you don't want to do Pit Bull specific stuff, fine, then don't do it, but don't complain that these dogs are getting too much help now.
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 1, 2014 9:49:46 GMT -5
Give me a break. The politics of the rescue world is never-ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 1, 2014 10:47:29 GMT -5
The posts really upset me, I was up at 4:30am feeding the baby and scrolling through my newsfeed and saw them and just had to reply. Of course I got called "defensive" and that it's "wrong" for so much money to go to Pit Bulls and not to other dogs. I'm not sure what grants these people are talking about, but I have a hunch they are from orgs that are Pit Bull-specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 1, 2014 11:17:23 GMT -5
yeah I saw one of those, though I guess not the one you commented on.. considering that the person who posted that gained whatever public profile she has now through her work for an organization (allegedly) advocating for pit bulls, it's pretty shameful. Some called her out for sour grapes because SHE didn't get any funding.
But what is really bugging me right now are all these messages that we're not even supposed to think our dogs are special. Just another dog...
That one I REALLY don't get. Don't all breed advocacy groups think their breed is special?
It's a horrific outcome of the "let's just call any dog a pit bull" thing. No one gives a rat's a** about the real dog.
There is NO APBT rescue left at this point. (well hardly any... )
BR actually posted that the most serious problem is the housing situation (landlords not allowing dogs, or not allowing certain kinds of dogs).
As if, even where they live and have supposedly solved all the problems with their outreach programs, pit bulls weren't killed by the hundreds every month.
If you say stuff like that, you're accused of being negative and backward thinking
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 1, 2014 11:25:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by megan on Apr 1, 2014 12:52:31 GMT -5
Too many resources going towards pit bulls?  What?! It's irrelevant what breed of dog people are talking about, really... You can't control what people or organizations choose to support! My response to that mentality is as follows: If you don't like it, set up an organization that supports another breed rescue or non-specific breed rescues and shut your damn mouth ya' cry baby  |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 1, 2014 14:33:16 GMT -5
^Amen!
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 1, 2014 15:07:21 GMT -5
I was disappointed to see the suggestion that said person questions "when advocating for the "underdog" crosses the line into profiteering off them staying in that position."
I can assure you RPB is not profiteering off of anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 1, 2014 19:47:40 GMT -5
I was disappointed to see the suggestion that said person questions "when advocating for the "underdog" crosses the line into profiteering off them staying in that position." I can assure you RPB is not profiteering off of anything. OTOH, the directors of BR make a pretty nice salary and I suspect a good portion of their property is a write off..... |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Apr 1, 2014 21:11:33 GMT -5
Duly noted Em!
I just didn't like the insinuation. I know it is hard for a lot of these people to understand that we advocate for a breed not a type that we do think is pretty damn special!
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 2, 2014 7:34:35 GMT -5
Is it wrong for the board members of an organization to be able to make a living off of the work they do, hence enabling them to do MORE work? Real question.
|
|
|
|
Post by suziriot on Apr 2, 2014 9:12:58 GMT -5
^ Absolutely it is not wrong, Mary. The test is whether the organization is successfully fulfilling its mission and purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 2, 2014 10:35:50 GMT -5
^ Absolutely it is not wrong, Mary. The test is whether the organization is successfully fulfilling its mission and purpose. Ok, I am in agreement! |
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 2, 2014 11:05:51 GMT -5
Is it wrong for the board members of an organization to be able to make a living off of the work they do, hence enabling them to do MORE work? Real question. Board members.. no, by definition. Nonprofit board members cannot be compensated (other than reimbursement for actual expenses). They could make a living by starting a business based on the experience and reputation they've gained from serving on a board. Directors are a different matter. There isn't anything wrong with directors getting paid, and getting paid a good salary. I'm not necessarily criticizing BR for paying Donna and Tim decent salaries (which in the context of California are probably not excessive)... except for the highly incestuous relationship between them (as founders) and the board. I both admire and am repelled by their self promotional abilities and their entrepreneurial accomplishments. Especially since there's little evidence that Donna actually likes dogs |
|
|
|
Post by suziriot on Apr 2, 2014 15:34:58 GMT -5
Actually that's not true Em. Nonprofit Board members can be compensated for their time, and not just expenses. Many officers on nonprofit boards are compensated. And Directors refers to non-officer members of the Board. Directors can also be compensated. Compensation should be consistent with other nonprofits of similar size and meet non-excessive compensation guidelines from the IRS.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 2, 2014 18:00:27 GMT -5
Actually that's not true Em. Nonprofit Board members can be compensated for their time, and not just expenses. Many officers on nonprofit boards are compensated. And Directors refers to non-officer members of the Board. Directors can also be compensated. Compensation should be consistent with other nonprofits of similar size and meet non-excessive compensation guidelines from the IRS. thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Mar 5, 2015 10:31:59 GMT -5
I've come across some Facebook posts recently from people complaining how there is "too much money" going towards Pit Bulls now and other dogs are getting neglected. I was blown away. Although Pit Bulls have come a long way in recent years, there are still a huge number of them out there in shelters that need help and they are a particularly problematic issue w/r/t BSL, aggression, and prejudice. There has always been a lot of help for "dogs in general", and Pit Bulls always got the short end the stick. Now there are "too many resources" for Pit Bulls. Say what? If you don't want to do Pit Bull specific stuff, fine, then don't do it, but don't complain that these dogs are getting too much help now. I haven't been on here in a while, but I came back yesterday to see your thoughts on the Hulk situation. For the record, I haven't applied for nor have I received any funding from AFF, with the exception of a $500 donation they made when two of my dogs died. So my post was not "sour grapes" about not being funded. (For what it's worth, the person who apparently "called me out" on that thread is actually the Executive Director of AFF.) My issue with the large increase in pit bull specific funding/resources is that it forces people to cast a wide net on what a "pit bull" is. When the money and resources coming FROM funding organizations (e.g., AFF, Best Friends, PetSmart Charities) are earmarked for pit bulls only, then there's a financial incentive and requirement to make everything a pit bull, regardless of what breed or mix the dog actually is. To me this encourages, if not forces, the very practice that people on this forum are trying to prevent (i.e., using pit bull to describe dogs other than APBT). Part of why I don't participate in pit bull campaigns and pit bull grants is because I think forcing people to self-identify dogs as pit bulls does more harm than good in the long term. There are numerous grants I've chosen NOT to apply for simply because they're earmarked for pit bulls only. The funders are NOT defining pit bull as APBT; they're using the term to describe a wide range of dogs. From my perspective, this contradicts our efforts to fight BSL and discrimination. So I haven't applied for the funding. I wish someone had bothered to ask me. Instead, it was just assumed that I posted that because I was turned down from AFF for funding. This is disappointing, because I think more on the same page than we think. We're seeing this play out with the Hulk crap going on. If anyone and everyone can say their dog is a pit bull -- and if funders are essentially forcing, or at least encouraging, people to cast a wide net on what a "pit bull" is -- then we're gonna have to take the good with the bad. That's unfortunate. At least we all agree on that (I think). |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Mar 5, 2015 11:25:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, this conversation happened almost a year ago so I don't really remember specifics to be honest. Maybe I'm too distracted by the toddler running around and screaming at me, but I'm not quite following you? Are you AGAINST breed specific funding only because it may be incorrectly applied to non-Pit Bulls who will then be called "pit bulls", or are you against it in general? Thanks and HI btw, long time no talk!  |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Mar 5, 2015 11:45:08 GMT -5
No worries -- and I know I'm late to the game in responding I'm all for breed-specific funding.....if it's earmarked for an actual breed. What I have trouble understanding is how the same organizations telling politicians and shelters NOT to assign the "pit bull" label to a wide range of dogs (many of which are NOT APBTs or a mix of), are the same ones that require funding recipients to do just that. I feel the same way about certain PR campaigns focused on "pit bulls." Take AFF's "The Majority Project", for example. I understand what they're trying to accomplish (i.e., to show that most people who have dogs that get labeled as pit bulls are not reckless owners who cause problems). But the same organization that encourages anyone to send in pix of their "pit bulls" and to self-identify as a "pit bull owner" then tries to say, "Oh, but you shouldn't label dogs"....that seems contradictory. So I absolutely support funding/efforts that are breed-specific, if the purpose is to support a particular breed. The Real Pit Bull is a great example, and it's clear that you're focused on APBTs as a breed. For example, Best Friends and PetSmart Charities both have "pit bull grants" to subsidize spay/neuter for pit bulls. Many of the dogs that utilize the spay/neuter services are mixes (and I would imagine many are not even APBT mixes). So why force shelters or community orgs to label the dogs as "pit bulls" just so they can receive funding? Especially when those same organizations (e.g., Best Friends) are out there lobbying against BSL on the notion that the "pit bull" label is applied too broadly? |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Mar 5, 2015 12:05:02 GMT -5
Oh boy, I couldn't agree with you MORE. 100%. I'll try to respond more later when the baby is napping.
|
|
I look forward to learning much here