Winograd Post On HSUS Scare Tactics

Just so nobody misses this, Nathan Winograd, the founder of the No Kill Equation, has yet another great blog posting today regarding HSUS and how they've used fear tactics to get many of their laws hindering pet ownership in place.  It's long been known by politicians that creating fear is a great way to get them elected (they can solve those fears) and the media often creates fear because it helps sell papers (or get people to watch).  Winograd calls out HSUS's scare tactics in a great post that is worth the long read.  Here's a sample:

Despite an explosion in the number of dogs in the US and their greater integration in society, the number of fatal dog attacks has remained relatively constant for decades. You are “five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning” and “four times more likely to be killed by a forklift, even though a very small number of people come into contact with these machines.” [Bradley, Janis, Dogs Bite (2005: James & Kenneth Publishers)] In other words, comparatively speaking, it is exceedingly rare.

Despite this, dogs remain heavily regulated: they must be licensed with local authorities, they cannot go in public places without a leash (if at all), they must be vaccinated against rabies, you can’t live with more than a small number of them, animal control officers can seize and destroy them if they determine that they are a nuisance, and the threshold of making a determination that they are dangerous and subject to extermination puts dogs at a disadvantage, even when the facts show otherwise. Together, license laws, leash laws, vaccination laws, pet limit laws, nuisance laws, health codes, property laws, and dangerous dog laws control dogs, in concert with an animal sheltering system built on overkill, that there is little justification to tighten the noose even further.

We will never eliminate risk in society. We can minimize it, but in the case of dogs, there is little more that can and should be done. And, in many ways, we need to undo some of the laws and regulations because they allow friendly dogs to be killed without making anyone safer (such as breed bans).

Banning Pit Bulls or any breed of dog is geared to overkill by definition because—media hysteria to the contrary—the vast majority of dog bites occur within the home by many breeds, with the dog biting a member of the family after some provocation, a different causal mechanism than the false image presented: an epidemic of free roaming Pit Bulls attacking unknown children or the elderly. As a result, a breed ban won’t stop the vast majority of dog bites. On top of that, roughly 20% of those bites are a result of the dog defending him or her-self from being attacked.

There's MUCH more where that came from.  Go read it now.

Comments

[Caveat]

Jonnie is a cutie. Looks as though Vick was breeding smart, good-looking dogs. Too bad he was throwing them onto the garbage heap. Hope he's enjoying jail.

[Becky]

Winograd's piece is excellent, as always.

Personally, I am thru listening to anybody who claims we need to ban and kill dogs as a matter of public safety or WHATEVER. I would not dispute the fact that if a family was forced to make a choice between their child's face and a dog, that the dog would have to go.

However, to anyone who claims to be truly concerned w/ public safety and the lives of their children, who is not fighting for tougher traffic laws, tougher exams and protocol for obtaining driver's licenses, and safer automobiles, I will say, you are really not concerned w/ safety. You are only concerned w/ blaming everything else. Because our automobiles are just too danged affordable and convenient and you do not want to give that up or change that.

Over 40,000 people are killed each year in automobiles. How many more are seriously injured, maimed and crippled?

So where is the fear mongering here???

Race cars are proof that cars can be built to be much safer. But it would just cost too danged much to demand this. I process traffic tickets for a municipal court. I know the cops are sneaky and they spy and that cities are just 'sucking' money out of us. However, I will also say that the MAJORITY of those who receive tickets for running stop signs,going 12 mph or more over the speed limit, driving without insurance, and making illegal turns, believe that they should not have been targeted or 'picked on'.

I don't like all the inconveniences of tagging, insuring and safely operating an automobile any more than the next guy. But perhaps, just PERHAPS, we might do better to direct some efforts in that direction, rather than blaming and killing dogs and cats. (and getting rid of trans fat and merry-go-rounds) We CAN make ours and our childrens' lives safer IF we REALLY care to.

Let's help and protect, not kill our companion animals.

I WANT SAFER ROADS AND HIGHWAYS!