What is the higher authority?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some commentary about how not all sources of information are created equal -- and that it is important for people to consider their source when it comes to deterimining the validity of that information.

Then, the conversation continued a bit over at Caveat and I had a small revelation that hit me - that, while small, and almost humorous in nature, it actually creates quite a problem for the opposition to Breed-specific laws (BSL).

Let's say the topic of BSL comes up in a community. A reporter is eager to get boths sides of the story so he starts making a few phone calls to local rescue groups, shelters, etc. The first couple of phone conversations to his local experts likely reveals that all are opposed to laws targeting specific breeds. Such laws are ineffective, create a false sense of security, and target the wrong end of the leash. Breed-neutral laws that focused on a dog's behavior, and responsible ownership, are more effective.

However, he still has to find a supporter of breed bans. Local phone calls have gotten him nowhere, so he has to do an internet search. The search leads him to a particular dogs bite website that claims to be a national authority on the topic (even though they have no expertise at all in actual animal behavior). So they get their quote. Both sides are represented.

Unfortunately, for many while both sides get their quotes, the sides aren't equally represented. The anti-BSL group has many supporters, including everyone locally. The pro-BSL group has one supporter, from several states away. Unfortunately, both sides get equal airtime. And unfortunately, often times the general population sees the national organization as being a higher authority than the local groups. No one is ever smarter it seems than the out-of-town 'expert'.

And so the pro BSL side gets a slight advantage in the world of public opinion.

Such has been the case in Vancouver over the past couple of weeks. In a column.

On September 13, the a Vancouver Sun editorial writer wrote an editorial in favor of breed-specific laws. He, of course, didn't consider his sources, and posted a lot of inaccurate gibberish. You can pretty much tell something is going to be gibberish the second they start comparing dogs to bears or when they refer to people who oppose breed bans as the "attack dog lobby". Um, yeah.

It's pretty amazing that you have dozens of national organizations of trainers, rescue groups, dog handlers, animal control officers, veterinarians, etc -- and most don't agree on much of anything - -but the one thing they do all agree on, is that breed-specific laws are not the answer. And because of that, all of these groups are now somehow considered to be some sort of conspiracy lobbying group. Yip.

So, the local experts, talk back. Including this very nicely written letter by Kathy Powelson, the Executive Director of the local Paws for Hope Animal Foundation. Now, I don't know Kathy, but she sounds like a very knowledgable person when it comes to animal handling and canine laws - -and has a title (not just a website) that would help prove that.Kathy points out that most of the evidence presented in the original editorial is from unaccredited, unreliable sources (and she's right).

Maybe my favorite piece of this is that dogsbite.org founder Colleen Lynn then writes defending her own credentials.  Folks, if the only person that comes to your defense and defends you as a credible source is you, you may have a problem.

Let me be perfectly clear - the evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to breed-specific laws and there is a completely lack of expert and professional support for such laws. And the local experts are generally the local experts that have the higher authority with their hands on experience with animals.

One website owner does not change that.

 

 

Comments

[Laura Prowicz]

For two years I have been saying this...Why do you (pick a pro-BSL person, any pro-BSL person!) get to sit in judgement of me and my pets? It's all the same thing! It's all about finding someone who is an "expert" so that they can sit in judgement of me. It's discrimination against pet owners who happen to like dogs that have blocky heads. BSL has all of the hallmarks of discrimination: no due process, vague descriptions that don't hold up legally, singling out one pet owner out of all of the pet owners just based on the type of dog she prefers, some Government "official" making a decision that he or she has a right to pass judgement on my choice of animal I prefer. It's all the same thing. you're on the right track, if we would start tying it all together we'd be rid of it.

[Jen Brighton]

I chuckled more than once reading this, Brent. Thanks for the levity, even if it was unintended.

As we all know, DBO gets the spotlight because it (and its knockoffs) are the ONLY group that a reporter comes across in an Internet search that claims BSL works. In the time a reporter has to write his/her article, he/she doesn't seem to have the time to delve into the reality behind DBO and thus DBO gets the air time. Sad, but true.

[Brent]

Jen, I hear you. It is almost impossible for me to see things like comparing dogs to bears/tigers/wolves/etc and not get a chuckle -- but the "pit bull lobby" thing is probably the most commical.

[Colleen M]

Actually ugh and I cringe to mention it, but so does "peta". Of course Peta also is not in favour of anyone "owning" companion animals either. At least the Canadian Medical Veterinary Association wrote an open letter to the government of Ontario urging them to repeal BSL and explaining why it doesn't work, as of so far it has fallen on deaf ears, however.

[Colleen M]

I meant that "Peta" also supports BSL.

[Selma]

Thanks for the mention, Brent.

I really wish this whole idea that reporters have to present both sides of an issue, regardless of how silly, would die out.

Sometimes there is no valid opposing view. That is certainly true of BSL. Not one expert supports it and what's more, so many places that had it have removed it because it simply does not work.

[Brent]

Yeah Colleen -- I wouldn't call anyone at PETA much of an expert on anything outside of euthanizing animals. I can't imagine how anyone takes them even remotely seriously

[db]

Sorry - but peta does not euthanize animals - they downright kill them. I have this thing about telling the truth and by using the "e" word to describe killing, I think we are giving the wrong impression.

As far as your BSL and "BS" - dogsbite.org, you are right on there. Why is anyone listening to her?

[Believe]

DBO has a disclaimer that reads,

"No professional advice"

"The Site and its Site Materials is for non-commercial, educational and research purposes only and is not intended to replace or substitute for any professional advice."

In reading their disclaimer, it is evident, DBO is for entertainment purposes only.

[April]

Great post! And as a further positive addendum to the story, an editorial was published the following week written by Rebeka Breder and Rebecca Ledger.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Op-Ed/Opinion+Punish+aggressive+behaviour+individual+dogs+breed/7256225/story.html

Breder is the leading animal lawyer in BC, having worked on some of the highest-profile dangerous dog and animal law cases. Ledger is an academic researcher who has published several peer-reviewed studies on animal behaviour and is with the University of British Columbia, one of Canada's most prestigious post-secondary institutions.

Many of us wrote in support of Breder and Ledger's editorial, asking them why their voices weren't sought from the beginning! Unlike Mr. Hume, whose experience with dogs begins and ends with having them in his home, these people study dog aggression variables as a profession and have no reason to be anything but objective.

[John Richardson]

Great post, Brent. I recall emailing in on an absolutely horrid article that mentioned Tom Skeldon back in the early 00's and the reporter was such a dope about being "even handed". I just said, "Look, NO ONE who understands dogs in general and Pit Bulls in particular consider Skeldon anything but a charlatan", to which they replied "We understand there are strong feelings on both sides." Sure, there are strong feelings on both sides. But there isn't strong KNOWLEDGE on both sides. "Even-handed" does not necessarily mean "fairly represented".