The Pasadena, CA City council has ordered an ordinance to be written that mandates the spay/neuter of all 'pit bulls' and pit bull mixes. They have been "studying" such an ordinance since four 'pit bulls" escaped an unsecured yard and attacked several people.
The city seems confused as to why they're passing the ordinance, because they are passing the ordinance following an attack, but then also mention that the Pasadena Humane Society says that 'pit bulls' fill a large amount of shelter space. Similar ordinances have not proven successful at limiting either bites or shelter euthanasia so I can see their confusion.
The ordinance would require spaying/neutering for all 'pit bulls' over 8 weeks old that aren't licensed show dogs or if the owner has applied for a permit as a breeder.
Of course no city ordinance would be complete without a "canine expert" moonlighting as a reporter having an opinion. In this gosh-I-should-have-interviewed-an-expert column, they call the move "narrow, but smart". The writer starts the column with saying that public safety should deal with "just plain facts" and then supplies almost none throughout the story. Interesting approach. Here are a few of their "expert" opinions with my commentary. The article quotes are in italics:
And we do agree with some of the law's critics on one point - (most) dogs are not born mean or vicious. Human training and treatment has a tremendous amount to do with these characteristics. And dogs can certainly be trained to be vicious. But that's part of the point here - certain breeds have been trained for so long in one direction or another that certain traits have become literally inbred.
This is quite interesting because it assumes that every single dog of the specified breed was trained a certain way, and has been for centuries, and that training can indeed be passed on genetically. I'm not a proffessional trainer, but it does seem from the ones I know that simply breeding their well behaved dog makes them automatically trained....for example:
"Labradors and other water dogs love to chase and to fetch. That's what they were trained to do down the centuries as working companions for bird hunters."
This is quite curious. One time in my life I actually had a Labrador and I can assure you that that dog never learned how to fetch birds...maybe it's not so instinctual...
"Talk to any objective canine expert - while indeed some are loving and almost entirely kind, an undeniable aggression has been purposely bred into pit bulls."
Interesting, I've never seen one real expert that has noted that every single one of these types of dogs (spanning several breeds that are really no more similar to each other than they are to Labradors) has inherant aggression.
How many times have you seen, or read about in the newspapers, roving packs of ... golden retrievers? Doesn't happen. They're ridiculously docile by nature. Pit bulls, even those that are understandably well-loved by their owners, are simply not docile by nature.
Maybe we should introduce the writer to the American Temperament Test Society's results that show that all of the 'pit bull' type breeds outscore Golden Retrievers in Temp Tests. Or maybe we should note that the idea of a dog being in "roving packs" already indicates that the dog is either ownerless or doesn't have a responsible owner. Or, maybe I could point out the several newspaper reports I've seen recently that prove that this does happen.
And especially for small children, when they get out, or get off leash - and they will - they can be terrifying attackers of people, and even killers...And, using the framework of a San Francisco law passed after a 12-year-old Bay Area boy was mauled and killed by a pit bull, that's why the Pasadena City Council is looking at a sterilization law aimed at pit bulls.
First off, all dogs can be attackers of people -- especially small children. Last year in Kansas City alone we had 59 different breeds of dogs that were responsible for the 312 dog bites. In the past 3 years, we've had 104 SERIOUS dog bites, with 22 different breeds of dogs found responsible. So, based on this, it looks like public safety is why they passed the ordinance (just like San Francisco which has seen an increase in dog bites since their ordinance)....oh, but wait...
But if you want to see ridiculous, pay a visit to the Pasadena Humane Society, where an extraordinary number of the adult dogs that have been given up by families that just can't handle them are pits. City officials say 25 percent of the dogs there are often full-bred or part pit - many times, a look around the kennels would seem to indicate that number is a low estimate.
Oops, now it looks like it's about preventing 'pit bulls' from coming into the animal shelter....not public safety. This of course is what Kansas City thought and since their BSL was enacted has seen a 76% increase in 'pit bull' euthanasia.
More ridiculous? Objectors to the proposed law who protest that it doesn't provide an exemption for service dogs. Come on, people. There are virtually no pit-bull service dogs in use by the blind or disabled. Docile Labs and goldens have understandably cornered that market.
And yes, being non ADA compliant is a GREAT idea...even if there were only a few 'pit bull' service dogs...which also isn't true, as there are thousands of therapy dogs such as Rufus and Ruby.
Still not sure why it's so hard to look at the the effects of ordinances before passing them...and as far as reporters go, talk to an expert or two before basing your opinion...that'd be swell. Thanks.
8 WEEKS OLD???!!! While I have no problem at all with pediatric spays and neuters done by shelters before pups are adopted out, requiring that already owned puppies be altered at 8 weeks is disgusting. At 8 weeks, you're going to know that this baby is potential breeding material. Of course you are.
This whole thing is all kinds of wrong in a wide variety of ways, but I'm stuck on the 8 weeks. Geez.
Posted by: katie | April 03, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Not sure what's worse, that you are stuck on the 8 weeks old, or that everything else is so jacked up that the 8 weeks old barely fazed me.
And yeah, 8 weeks is too young for most dogs.
Posted by: Brent | April 03, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Who wrote this? Nelson?
Let me get this straight. Dogs were trained to do something by people. Therefore, they will do those things without being trained.
Is it like a cultural memory thing, which doesn't exist?
Qualities have been learned for so long that they have become 'inbred' [sic].
Quick, scribe, define 'learned' and 'inbred'.
Right.
So, take reading for example. People have been learning to read for centuries (or in your case, a few minutes but I digress). So by now, the ability to read should be inbred.
Right.
I can't go on, there's too much here to mock.
This has GOT to be a parody, it can't possibly be a real article.
Maybe it's a late April Fool's thing.
Posted by: Caveat | April 04, 2008 at 12:43 AM
OK, one more thing. Where did Dr Doolittle learn (er, inherit the notion?) that Gun dogs are docile?
Obviously not from firsthand experience, from reading or from consulting with anybody who knows the slightest thing about dogs.
So, using the right fork? Is that inbred? How about making your bed? Inbred? Lighting a candle? Inbred?
Stop me, my head's about to blow....
Posted by: Caveat | April 04, 2008 at 12:48 AM
BIG SIGH......OK, so the difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits? There is no limit on how many dummy-dum-dums can keep the media trash cranking. It doesn't seem to be slowing down much. On another issue of nathan and the 147pg report of a WA shelter...I reviewed part of it..the shelter has MSN and doesn't enforce it (too costly/they are understaffed/under budget)but say that their live rate release has increased each year for about 6yr. I cant give opinion until I read entire report. But sources say nathan is barking up wrong tree.
Posted by: S Kennedy | April 04, 2008 at 04:19 PM
"Come on, people. There are virtually no pit-bull service dogs in use by the blind or disabled. Docile Labs and goldens have understandably cornered that market."
Well, geez, besides the Pit bull, there are virtually no Bassett Hound, Dalmation, Greyhound, Sheepdog, Yorkie, Afghan, Poodle, St. Bernards, or a hundred other breeds of dogs that rarely, if ever, can be found in use by the blind or disabled.
So we can then assume, as the writer of this article has, that if a breed of dog in not commonly found in use by the blind or disabled it is because they are not a "docile" breed.
You're right Caveat, this stuff is so incredible it almost seems like a "joke."
Oh, and excellent point about generations of human having been "trained to read" so that it should be "inbred" by now!
Posted by: Karen | April 04, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Brent, were you able to write a response to the person who published this piece of crap? It is criminal that this has been presented to the public as 'expert' opinion and facts. This is the very reason the GP is so ignorant on this issue!
We can joke about this stupidity, it is so ridiculous, but it is seriously dangerous. If we say we must call the writers of such rubbish on what they write every time, how can we do this besides just commenting or emailing the person? Retractions or corrections will never happen.
Posted by: Becky | April 05, 2008 at 09:51 AM
added note: Possibly the hardest part is that the writer believes what he has published. We've got myth and stupidity building on myth and stupidity and so the mountain grows higher by the minute.
Posted by: Becky | April 05, 2008 at 09:54 AM