Urban Legends

I been thinking a lot about the urban legends recently.  You know, the superhuman jaw strength of a 'pit bull', the 'locking jaw' myth, etc.  I was thinking about these things when someone on a chat board somewhere was commenting about the ridiculous 1600 PSI bite strength (really, she started with 3,000, then caved to 2,000, and then admitted that she'd just read it in a few places with no real evidence but believed it to be true).  Sigh.

People who think they have the best interests of dogs at heart often believe in ridiculous urban legends and make a lot of decisions based on them. They heard a story about someone who knew someone and then all of a sudden it was true.

Thus is the case with some well-meaning folks in Oklahoma.

According to an article today from the Tulsa World, there is an ongoing debate on whether or not the shelter in Tulsa should adopt out 'pit bull' type dogs.  The currently policy is that any 'pit bull' that enters the shelter is killed after three days.

On the one side, many dog trainers are pushing for them to be adopted out noting that the dogs are very easily trainable and make great house pets and companions (note: pit bull type dogs are legal throughout Oklahoma as it is against state law for communities to ban them).

On the flip side, Ruth Steinberger of the Oklahoma Alliance for Animals and Nancy Atwater of Spay Oklahoma don't think 'pit bulls' should be adopted out because the they are too frequently used for dog fighting. 

"There is no other breed where people go to the shelter to victimize the animal," said Steinberger.

Atwater later adds that the animals that are taken to the shelter and euthanized have a more humane death than they would if they were adopted for fighitng.

Laura Morris, a dog trainer, recommended a policy so people could adopt the stray  pit bull terriers.  She said she'd be willing to help check for temperament and even proposed a 10-week long dog obedience class for people who wanted to adopt the dogs (she offered to teach the class for free) and that the shelter could then deny the people the right to adopt the dog.

Atwater and Steinberger said that the class wasn't practical because people could complete the program and still train the dogs to fight.

Let's make three  assumptions here really quickly that are standard at most shelters and should be at all of them.   Assumption #1: All dogs that leave the shelter are spayed/neutered  Assumption #2: All adopted dogs have an adoption fee of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100.  #3 Dogs have to pass a basic temperament test to be sure it's not super-freaky aggressive before being adopted out.

Given these two assumptions, let me ask, are dog fighters coming in to pay $100 for a spayed or neutered dog really a huge issue?  Most cities have a surplus of dogs, so there are many unaltered dogs available in these neighborhoods for $50 -- and come completely intact. Why would they pay more for an altered dog that has already had some type of temp-testing done to know it's not aggressive?

Now, in Tulsa, they're adding a new layer, and forcing them take a 10-week training course (offered for free). 

So do we really, REALLY, think that a dog fighter is going to pay $100 for an altered, non-aggressive dog AND take a 10-week training course, to then, turn around and fight the dog when he has the option of buying an unaltered dog for $50 from Joe down the street or from the many listings over the past few days on Craigslist (There were 10 free ones posted on May 3 alone - which really is a potential problem)?  I'm not buying it.

I'm not going to say that it hasn't ever happened. I'm sure it's happened somewhere.   However, this is another incident of an urban legend where the worst case scenerio gets played out as if it is the norm, and rescue person passes the story on to rescue person (and dare I say AR person passes it on to unsuspecting person wanting to do the right thing) as if it is a HUGE problem.  I've seen no evidence at all that it is. 

But for the one dog that slips through the cracks (which would no doubt be tragic), there would be hundreds of dogs that would bypass "humane killing" and get the opportunity to experience a loving, happy household.  As a society, I think we should be past the point where "humanely killing" is perceived to be our best option.  It's not. We can and should do better.  And adopting out 'pit bulls' is one way to start doing that.  It's one way to start eliminating the killing that is going on in our shelters. 

Let's take the steps necessary to be smart and cautious.  Taking advantage of the 10-week training course would have HUGE benefits to eliminating the possibility of a dog getting into the wrong hands (and let's face it, having people learn how to train their dogs would have huge benefits well-beyond just the dog fighting question.

Let's get past the urban legends and start coming up with practical solutions to real problems instead of creating potential problems in our mind that really aren't there. 

Comments

[katie]

Sounds so PETA, doesn't it? Let's euth all the pit bulls so something bad doesn't happen to them.

I think it is totally awesome of Laura Morris to be so generous with her time. I would absolutely love to see free obedience classes offered by shelters for the dogs they adopt out (of all breeds). I think that'd help more dogs "stick".

[Jayne]

Me thinks Ruth Steinberger works for PETA, sounds like the twin to Ingrid.
Good for Laura Morris, she's got the right idea.

[Becky]

Great ideas in this post, Brent! Let us hope and pray that more and more kind, caring people continue to come forward w/ more great ideas and eventually quash and supersede all the fables, myths and blind hatred!

[EmilyS]

Atwater and Steinberger are so totally spewing the PETA line: kill all pit bulls because some of them might be abused. It's the mentality that "justifies" killing 95% of the animals PETA takes in, and making money off of it.

It's so sick, it's hard to know what to say

[PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers]

A large portion of the rescue community in KC believes the same crap...personally, I think a lot of them buy in so pit bulls won't be their problem and they'll have more time to fight over the foo foo dogs in the shelter instead.

I'd like to hear of ONE instance where this has happened. And for that ONE instance - how do you justify killing the other 99!?

[kdmallard]

I think Best Friends is doing the right thing, especially with regards to the vick dogs.
http://dogtime.com/best-friends.html

[Caveat]

I like the free (or maybe half price?) obedience idea - for EVERY dog adopted from the shelter, not just medium-sized, short-haired dogs. People like this (even with the best of intentions) just help promote the idea that 'pit bulls' are so different from other dogs that they are hardly dogs at all.

How prevalent do these yin-yangs think dogfighting is? How many people who engage in this activity are interested in adopting dogs from shelters? Wouldn't they use purebreds from established lines?

These statements are nonsensical in the extreme and as pointed out above, promote the AR agenda.

I guess this article begs the question: who in their right mind would take their dog who might be mistaken for a 'pit bull' to the shelter in Tulsa? You'd be better off taking him to the vet and having him put down yourself if you couldn't keep him or find him a suitable home.

[Brent]

In Morris' defense, I think she made the training for 'pit bulls' just to offer incentive for the shelter to adopt them out (since they were the ones that were discriminating). Ideally, I think almost all rescues and shelters should figure out a way to offer some basic training information for adopters (regardless of breed). I think it'd really, really help their return rates, and give an opportunity to gain future volunteers with the incremental touchpoints.

[MichelleD]

I see your point Caveat, but KCDA plans to target pit bull /Presa /mastiff adopters for our next Pit Bull University training class. They're going to be looking for any reason they can find not to bother with adopting them out. Hopefully if we have some succesful graduates we can say "See, look how great this guy and his dog was!"

I like the idea for EVERY dog too - but with our coffers less than over-flowing we'll do what we can.

[Caveat]

When I adopted Monty from the Hamilton, ON SPCA, I got their obedience course at half price. This was for any adopted dog, 10 lessons, once per week.

Was it the best obedience course in the world? No, it was pretty basic but it made people work and show up every week, which is of course the point - building the commitment to your dog.

Oh, and my adorable Monty and I got a certificate for showing up, not passing. In the words of the instructor "There's one dog in this class who doesn't give a damn what anybody says to him." Guess who LOL?

PS He eventually cared what I said to him and that was good enough for me.

[Brent]

"I guess this article begs the question: who in their right mind would take their dog who might be mistaken for a 'pit bull' to the shelter in Tulsa?"

Interestingly it was someone from out of town who started this. Some guy from Wisconsin was on a business trip and found two 'pit bull" type dogs. He took them into the shelter and told them that if they couldn't find homes for them, he wanted to adopt them and would be passing back through at the end of the week. They took the dogs without telling him that they wouldn't even allow him to get the dogs back at the end of the week. So his complaints are what is leading to the potential policy change.