Some good reads out there that I want to pass along to you in case you have down time on a Friday or over the weekend.
It looks like Malcolm Gladwell has a new book coming out - you can pre-buy it here-- a collection of many of his articles that he has written for the New Yorker over the years. I'm thrilled that Troublemakers has made the list of articles they've decided to include. Troublemakers is a great article from 2006 in which Gladwell takes an analytical view of 'pit bulls'. The book is named after an article that he did on Ceasar Milan entitled "What the dog saw" which I remember liking as well. Gladwell is a brilliant writer and it will be great to have Troublemakers included in a book that is likely to become a national best-seller. If you've never read Troublemakers, click the link and spend the time with the article.
Winograd has a great blog posting from yesterday about shelters denying potential adopters with Good Homes Need Not Apply. The post starts with a touching tale of a couple who came to the shelter to get a cat a year after their cat of 15 years passed away -- and why they were declined by the shelter 15 years later. Here's a clip:
Unfortunately, too many shelters go too far with fixed, arbitrary rules—dictated by national organizations—that turn away good homes under the theory that people aren’t trustworthy, that few people are good enough, and that animals are better off dead.
I've often joked that I would have a difficult time actually adopting a dog from the rescue organization I regularly foster for....and this post hits the nail on the head of a lot of reasons why.
The final article is one that Winograd posted a couple of weeks ago on Forcing Transparency. The article was written by Kate Neiswender, an attorney who presented at Winograd's No Kill Conference in Washington DC in May. I've been meaning to post a recap for 3 months now -- so I at least get to take that off my to-do list. The article is a great look at State Public Records Laws (Freedom of Information Laws, Sunshine Laws) and how to use them in order to get information on shelter killing, dog bites, spending, etc to hold cities accountable for their animal control/sheltering services and for laws that are designed to "increase public safety" that often don't. For too long, these groups have gone relatively unchecked by the public and it is time we begin to hold them accountable. Our country has a beautiful system of open records laws that make this information open information for the general public...and knowing how to use the information is extremely important. So go check out that as well.
Have a great weekend.
Troublemakers is troublesome. Way too "game dog" oriented, complete with claims of "pit bulls" being "bred for love of humans". No?
Posted by: Julie | September 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I guess I don't see it that way Julie. The whole point of the article is to explain that stereotypes exist -- but are neither an accurate way of determining risk, nor an accurate way to deal with potential risks. That we often use stereotypes as a catch-all for our emotional responses, instead of truly understanding what has led to the stereotype and creating it in the first place. I think it does the cause far more good for people to read the article, and understand why the stereotypes are misleading (at best) than any quibbles I might have with some minor verbage of the story.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | September 11, 2009 at 01:39 PM
I appreciate the point of the article- I really do. I am just at breaking point here with the claims of "pit bulls" doing this or that, especially when those things are unfounded and are about things like "not acknowledging cut off signals" blahblahblah. Really not trying to start an argument- it has been a frustrating week, personally, with having to deal with stereotypes about "pit bulls". I know we all have those weeks...
Posted by: Julie | September 11, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Thanks for the heads-up about the Gladwell connection. He is an intelligent, insightful writer. Not everyone will agree with him, and that's good, it means his writing is provoking thought.
Julie, sympathies, I know how frustrating it is to deal with the stereotypes.
Posted by: Social Mange | September 12, 2009 at 07:52 AM
Sorry, not suficiently caffeinated yet. I meant the Gladwell collection, not connection.
Posted by: Social Mange | September 12, 2009 at 07:53 AM
I'm not sure what your beef is, Julie. The APBT WAS bred to fight other dogs and as a part of that, selected for individuals that would not redirect onto humans during a dogfight. It's not an unreasonable interpretation of that fact, along with the simple observation about the behavior of the APBT (including those descended from "gamebred" individuals) to say that they were "bred for love of humans". I don't like today's apologists or cultists of so called "gamedogs" (or which there are very very few in existence), but I don't like disappearing history, either.
Posted by: EmilyS | September 12, 2009 at 08:42 PM
A) Yes, it doesn't make much sense to ignore history.
B) I'm sure Julie's beef is with people with attitudes like this that in spite of the history, it is just that. The vast majority of APBTs, and even more of the dogs commonly referred to as pit bulls, haven't been used for fight for generations. In fact, entire breeds have been created in the amount of time it's been since most dogs of this type have been used for fighting.
Which is why...
3) The whole point of the article -- the failures of stereotyping -- is so relevant -- to everyone -- even those who think they are helping.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | September 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM