I stumbled across this article today -- in a magazine I honestly had never heard of until recently. In the December/January issue of "Garden and Gun" Magazine (yes, that's the real title, more on it in a second) has an editorial entitled "Licked to Death by a Pit Bull".
I think it's a story that many readers of this blog will identify with -- as the author tells her story about meeting a friend's pit bull. Her reaction was somewhat typical, though open-minded. When the time came for her to get another dog, she adopted a pit bull of her own that she named NOLA.
She then briefly discusses some of the history around pit bulls and the reactions she received from others about her dog. And some conclusions:
"In a hundred years, the pit bull has gone from national hero to unpredictable monster, and the dogs are still the same. We’re the ones who have changed. Despite the variances in their size and shape and traditional uses, all breeds of the domesticated dog trace their genes back to one species: Canis lupus familiaris. The strongest element in their DNA is that they want to be with us, that they want to do what we ask of them. That is both the blessing and the burden of their loyalty."
And then ends with her own, new, stereotype of people who own pit bulls:
"So I will end with this:
I now make certain assumptions about people who own pit bulls, too. I assume they are independent thinkers, they have transcended a long-standing prejudice, and, more important, they know a damn good dog when they see one."
I have to say I enjoyed reading the article, and the magazine, as both came as a surprise. It's also refreshing to see an outsider's perspective on pit bull ownership - -and it's great to see this in a magazine like Garden and Gun. Garden and Gun is a fairly new publication (started in 2007) and has a circulation of about 250,000 (most of it in the Southeast). It also targets a very upscale outdoorsman audience -- that has an estimated $1.5 million in net worth. The magazine has also won quite a few editorial awards (including making Advertising Age's 2011 Hot List which is a major nod).
It's great to see more and more people exposed to the good that 'pit bulls' bring to the world -- from a perspective of someone who once had the same perceptions that many reading the article also have.
Because, indeed, the author's story is similar to my own story - -and I suspect many who read this blog. And I think that more people would have the same story of love and respect for these types of dogs if they approached the idea of pit bulls with an open mind and open heart.
So please go check out the story to let them know that positive articles drive web traffic too.
Update: I'm bringing this up from the comments -- but apparently the writer of the article, Bronwen Dickey saw several comments on Andrew Sullivan's blog, and posted a very lengthy response on her own blog.
I really like many of her comments -- but this segment really struck me because it really mirrors my own experience:
But, as often happens when you’re a writer casting about for stories, I had several experiences that challenged what I previously thought I “knew” about dogs, so I started researching the topic and couldn’t easily pull myself away from it. I discovered many things, but what I found most sobering was the huge, gaping chasm between the empirical data on canine aggression and the widely-held, all-but-unchallenged view that pit bulls and bully breeds are, by nature of their DNA, “dangerous.”
That chasm, filled with bad science and freaky logic, isn’t doing anyone any good. It just keeps people afraid. And in places like Denver and Miami, it is used to deprive people of their property, thus marginalizing big segments of those communities and wasting public funds on enforcement programs thathaven’t yielded any of the intended results.
Bad science should not be used as the basis for legislation.....
Dogs are such a common fixture in our lives that we hardly ever challenge our beliefs about them or think about them scientifically. They are incredibly complex animals (much more complex than I ever realized), their behavior is shaped by an almost infinite matrix of circumstances, our behavior toward them is equally complex, and any attempt to apply sweeping generalizations to various groups of them is usually an exercise in futility.
When I first started the conversation about adopting my first dog as an adult, I began looking into "pit bulls'. I had my belief about them, but never gave much thought to where that belief came from. But the actual research that was available at the time (and there is much more even now) was hugely different than the belief I held in my mind. When personal experience through dog interactions confirmed the data, I became a fan, and adopted one. Then two.
And I'm still in that huge chasm -- hoping to continue to find more and more data and research to help others find their way across.
Garden and Gun has been my absolute favorite magazine since it was first published. I read that article last week and didn't even think to foward it to you.
I agree, it is nice to see a well written article about the bully's!
Posted by: jenn | December 21, 2011 at 04:46 PM
This article prompted a lengthy back-and-forth on Andrew Sullivan's hugely popular blog, which ended on a positive note, thank heaven:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/why-do-pit-bulls-get-a-bad-rap-ctd-3.html
Be sure to read Bronwen Dickey's excellent follow-up here:
http://bdickey.tumblr.com/post/13979058784/tooth-claw-a-few-thoughts-on-pit-bulls-and-canine
Happy Holidays! [dashes off to vacuum before guests arrive]
Posted by: Luisa | December 21, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Luisa -- thanks for posting these. I had completely missed any previous discussion on this and only stumbled across it when a copy of the magazine randomly arrived in the mail at the office earlier this week. I think Dickey's comments very much mirror my own experience -- where I had an idea in my head about 'pit bulls' but no real idea where it came from. And yet, the actual research was completely different than what I had actually believed. I love that she called it a rabbit hole she couldn't help but venture down -- because, well, it was one I ventured down and here I am, 7 years and more than 1,000 blog posts later, still exploring the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Brent | December 21, 2011 at 06:26 PM
Just this week, I met a couple whose goldendoodle was jumped by a pit bull at an off leash dog park and had numerous bite wounds. I felt terrible, but when they started denigrating pit bulls, I was quick to let them know I have two pit bulls, including a therapy dog. The husband was understanding; the wife started arguing with me, telling me that Alberta and Denver have banned them and that it's "in their DNA." I set her straight on Alberta and tried to explain Ontario is moving towards abandoning BSL when she corrected herself, but eventually she just turned her back and walked away from me saying that pit bulls are bad dogs.
I wish I had the above independent thinker quote to hand to her and had gotten their email address so I could send some info., but she was just not willing to listen, even after I explained my prior dog had been pretty severely bitten by a golden that required a few trips to the vet, but that doesn't mean I don't like goldens. Didn't matter, pit bulls are vicious in her mind and nothing I could say would change her course of thinking at this point.
I always question whether people who think this way should own any breed of dog as they obviously do not understand dog behavior. I told her husband it's probably better to stay away from dog parks and find a group of dogs their dog gets along with well and have play dates. Then incidents like what they went through are much less likely to happen.
Posted by: Jennifer Brighton | December 22, 2011 at 01:25 PM
Thanks for calling my attention to this delightful article, Brent! I'll have to check out her blog, too - she's obviously an excellent writer. I'm not leaving this rabbit hole any time soon, either.
Posted by: pitbull friend | December 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM