My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« The media, breed mis-identification, and the danger in creating narratives based on untruths | Main | Food Inc to premiere April 21st on PBS »

April 13, 2010


Social Mange

Brilliant article, thank you for the hat tip.


Amaxing article. I am going to have to use the information about the Nazi's more.

The last line troubles me.

According to Winograd's book Bergh was against killing for kindness, which only came about after his death. Yet the author of this piece lumps him in with the killing for kindness crowd.

Makes me wonder if Winograd was incorrect or if this author is just ignorant of the changes that came about after Bergh was gone? "Mercy to animals means mercy to mankind" sounds so much weaker after reading it in this context.


I've always found it so tragic at how quickly and thoroughly an entire stratum of dogs were villified and made into some sort of horrendous killing machines. In Great Britain, dogs they are killing in the thousands today for their "irredeemable" temperments were called "nanny" dogs becuase of their extreme gentleness and care of children. I have seen many breeds demonized over the years - when I was a kid it was German Shepherds (linked I think to the Nazi use of them during the war), then Dobermans, then Rotties.... but NONE of those breed hating efforts have come close to how horrifically "successful" the media and others have been in demonizing pit bulls.


Dan, the last paragraph seems to be a little awkwardly worded. It almost feels like an editor mad a few cuts to shorten it and changed the meaning a bit. Hard to say, but I agree that the last 2 paragraphs are a big awkward.


I happen to think that the Oreo case has nothing to do with the Boudreaux/Faron cases, unless you believe that no dog, at any time, should be killed. Which, if you read Winograd, not even HE believes. Remember, under his definition "no" kill means 5-10% kill (dogs that are irredeemably vicious or suffering from an incurable illness)

The ASPCA tries to save pit bulls, including the Vick dogs which they evaluated (and only one of which was killed for temperament reasons) . Using the same protocol, they evaluated Oreo, who they had tried to save, and assessed her as dangerously human-aggressive. Under every sane definition of "no kill", the proper (though sad) fate for such dogs is to be killed (or "euthanized" if you like to play with language).

In contrast, the slaughter of the Boudreaux and Faron dogs are exactly correct examples of the point the author is making: that pit bulls are killed for reasons of hate/fear


Emily, I don't disagree.

The idea that someone's dogs could be taken from them and killed based on what the judge ruled as "no evidence" that the dogs had actually been used for fighting is scary given how our justice system is supposed to be designed.


I wonder if you missed the response by Daphna Nachminovitch.
PeTA gives us a reason.


Oh yeah Dominic. I saw it. In typical PETA fashion, they ignored all of the success stories and have decided that based on one experience with one dog that all 'pit bulls' should be killed.

It's exactly what you'd expect from an organization that has killed 97% of the animals that have been left in their "care" over the past 4 years. They say they love them all so much that they want them killed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)