Equal time

On Monday, our local NPR station ran a little feature on their daily radio program "Central Standard" about Breed Specific Legislation entitled "Bully Breeds in the Kansas City Metro". It's about a 40 minute long segment.

As a part of the program, they brought on two 'experts' -- each representing a different side of the argument for and against pit bulls and breed bans.

For the "Pro ban" argument, they interviewed Don Bauermeister -- the Assistant City Attorney from Council Bluffs, IA who has been involved with dogsbite.org for quite some time. For the other side, they interviewed Anthony Barnett. I'm not going to begin to go over Anthony's resume, and in full disclosure, Anthony and I are good friends, but I will note that through a variety of Anthony's experiences in working with school kids on dog safety, with service dogs, shelter dogs, and doing police work with SWAT, I have found Anthony to be one of the more knowledgable people out there in terms of canine behavior.

One of the things that continued to strike me over the course of this segment was how annoying it is that the two sides on this conversation got equal time. One of the common misnomers of  journalism is that it should provide "equal time" to "both sides" of a debate. While it is true, Journalists should always seek different points of view, or angles of a story, it also has a moral obligation to seek truth. And sometimes the two "sides" are not equally represented. Thus is the case with Breed-Specific Laws.

I think we can start with this reality. On the "BSL is not the right approach" side, KCUR was able to find a local expert. There are a lot of folks here that could have done a very good job with this interview, and would have shared much of the same information that Anthony shared on the radio -- and all would have had a fairly similar point of view.

Meanwhile, for the ban pit bulls side, they had to go to Iowa to find someone to speak. Kansas City straddles a state line, you'd think somehow they'd find a leading "expert" in a two state area to speak on that side, but there weren't any. So they had to go to Iowa to find someone to speak on the matter. That should be your first clue. Bauermeister's arguments seemed indicative of someone who got their canine behavior knowledge off the internet instead of having actually worked with dogs. 

The interview took a lot of interesting turns. So in this post, I'm going to give a few highlights from the interview, clarify a few mistruths spoken by Mr. Bauermeister, and add onto a couple of the things I wish had gotten said.

Don Bauermeister

  - Bauermeister starts off by trying to articulate what a "bully breed" is. It's important that he notes that the definition of bully breeds varies from city to city and jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on whoever is writing it. This is part of the reason the laws are nearly impossible to enforce because the definition is very vague. He notes that in his own community it is a "majority of the characteristics" of being a pit bull as designated by 3 different sets of breed standards by the AKC and UKC. I think the ability to determine "majority" based on three different sets of breed standards is setting up virutally any type of dog to being included. Anthony did a nice job of pointing out that they seem to only recognize the breed standards based on appearances, but completely ignored the behavior standards which is contradictory.

- The host noted that according to the KC Police Department, the breed they most encounter in their bite reports were German Shepherds (actually the type of dog Bauermeister owns) and not pit bulls. Bauermeister then decided he'd "go out on a limb and guess" that it was because there were more German Shepherds in Kansas City, MO than pit bulls and that higher number of bites happen with breeds that are most common.  It's pretty clear from this statement that Bauermeister has never been to Kansas City. As someone who lives in KC, and helps manage the KC shelter, it is pretty obvious that Pit Bulls outnumber German Shepherds, based on what I see on the streets and in the shelter by at least 5 to 1. I mean, it's not close.  But Bauermeister ventures a completely uneducated guess to try to justify his position. This is what happens when you have to rely on out-of-state "experts" -- who seem completely content making up data to support their pre-conceived opinion.

I also think it's interesting that Bauermeister used the term "proportionality" in noting that certain types of dogs have higher number of bites than others because they're more popular, and yet completely dismisses how this plays a role in 'pit bulls' being attributed to bite incidents given that the popularity of pit bulls in the US has grown 47% over the past 10 years, and one of the top 3 breeds in 47 of the 50 US States (and this gets even larger if you cast a very wide definition of pit bull like Bauermeister does). In his statements, Bauermeister continued to cling to the myth that 'pit bulls' make up less than 5% of all dogs -- a statement that hasn't resembled truth for more than a decade.

-- Bauermeister also noted that a lot of cities were currently looking toward Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws for pit bulls. It's interesting that he'd mention that as Kansas City was one of the first places to pass Breed-specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter. The law has had zero impact on public safety in our community.

-- Then, in a truly bizarre exchange, Bauermeister went into considerable detail about how his German Shepherds would go about protecting his property and the series of warning signals they would give before they bite. Instead of using this as an opportunity to educate people on dog behavior, dog warning signals and reading behavior, Bauermeister then went on to say that 'pit bulls" don't exhibit these warnings signs and attack without warning noting that "this is second nature, everybody knows this. It's documented in the writings."

The quote here, to the best I can tell, is originally attributed to Randall Lockwood -- who made the statement in 1986 or 1987 during the height of the dog fighting controversy when he worked for HSUS. At the time, HSUS was trying to create additional fear about pit bulls and dog fighting in order to help them in their fundraising efforts to help combat dog fighting. The statement has been recirculated "in all the writings" of people like Bauermeister, Dogsbite.org and Kory Nelson for decades. However, the factual accuracy of the statement has been  debunked by virtually every dog traininer, handler and behaviorist in the nation in the 25 years since, and even Lockwood himself has noted that he wished he'd never said it because it was untrue and had been misused. 

- Then, in maybe the most bizarre part of the show, the host of the show goes on to ask Buaermeister why he thinks it is that 17 states have now PROHIBITED breed specific laws. Bauermeister then goes onto talk about what he calls "The pit bull propaganda machine" and about how this "well-oiled machine" which is "possibly funded by dog fighters" is responsible for this. He even specifically implicated the AKC as being funded by dogfighters. 

Um, ok. Hysterical much?

In Anthony's commentary, he notes the famous line by Menken "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong".

In this case, the 'solution' to combat the problem of dog bites by targeting specific breeds is simple-minded, and wrong.

 Breed specific laws are opposed by virtually every one involved in a professional field associated with canines. The National Animal Control Association, AVMA, multiple dog training groups, HSUS, ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, No Kill Advocacy Center, American Kennel Club etc ALL oppose breed-specific laws. It's important to note that many of these organizations spend a fair amount of time disagreeing with each other, but the fact that they all agree that targeting breeds is ineffective is notable. And the idea that dog fighters are funding their efforts (particularly when several of the groups actively seek out opportunities to fight against dog fighting) is, well, just laughable. If you have to make up a conspiracy theory (based on absolutely zero evidence) to support your viewpoint, maybe you should change your opinion.

- Later in the show, the host asked Bauermeister if he thought breed bans created a false sense of security. Bauermeister of course disagreed and pointed to how his own community, Council Bluffs, IA had virtually eliminated pit bull bites. Yes, if you exterminate an entire type of dog in your community, you will be fairly successful in eliminating bites by that type of dog.

However, if Bauermeister were being honest, he would note that overall public safety has not improved in the communities he's impacted. In Council Bluffs, total dog bites increased when they passed their ban in 2004 -- what changed was the breeds involved and all of a sudden people were getting bitten more by "Labs" and "Boxers" than "pit bulls". In Omaha(a neighboring community to Council Bluffs), dog bites have also gone up considerably after passing their breed-specific restrictions -- and the flippant "but they're bites and not attacks" argument has also been exposed as severe bites have not declined. Bauermeister has also acknowledged online that he is in contact with city officials in Sioux City, IA (who also has a ban), and was even laughing "lol" when a story came out about Sioux City's bite numbers increasing when they passed a ban also.

Let's set the record straight. Breed bans are an ineffective means of trying to control dog bites. All three communities Bauermeister has been involved with have proven that. Behavior based laws CAN be proactive when they allow authorities to put restrictions on dogs (and dog owners) who show themselves (through behavior) to need these restrictions -- such as their dog acting aggressively, roaming at large consistently, etc. These are, in fact, the type of laws that all of the national organizations with expertise support. 

It is important for the media, and for politicians, to consider their sources. It only makes sense that when it comes to dog laws, that you would consult the experts in the canine training field, veterinary field, shelters, breeders, animal control officers etc. Why would you not?  And when it comes to the media, they have an obligation to seek truth -- which does not mean giving equal time to people who are pushing fringe agendas just beause they're the only ones out there supporting another side. 

 

Comments

[Jenn]

I am encouraged that both sides got equal time, Brent. Because there was a time when OUR side wouldn't have had the opportunity to even speak. It shows that we are slowly moving forward across this country and that there is a definite shift occurring.

As for the conspiracy theories, they never cease to amaze me in what they come up with. It's just getting crazier and crazier - and it's still not supporting their claims. Dog fighters indeed. I also am amused by the claim that vets are part of the conspiracy because they make so much money treating dog fighting victims. Because both winners and losers are taken to the vet to be treated after EVERY fight, right? (insert eye roll)

[Brent]

The conspiracy theories are pretty creative for sure. It's just funny that somehow they've convinced themselves that dogfighters paying everyone off is more likely than the fact that experts disagree with them.

I just continue to frustrated that people with websites and google are so often treated as the same type of experts as people with real dog training, handling, care or health expertise.

I guess I better start reading up on space travel so I can become an expert in space travel...

[Dog hero]

wow bsl is even crazier than i thought.

[Joel]

Thanks for the writeup Brent.

I continue to maintain that the breed neutral folks have absolutely nothing to fear from open dialogue, or these type of pro-con debates. The pro-BSL crowd should certainly have their voice, because it takes very little to discredit their arguments and tactics. More and more people are seeing this.

I'm quite comfortable with the dogsbite crowd representing the pro-BSL argument. They're creating more "pit nutters" every time they speak.

[Brent]

Joel, I agree that they're easy to discredit and I don't fear open dialogue. And agree that most people are now getting it. But I can't help but think our time could be better spent on teaching more about dog behavior/warning signs, about not removing dogs from litters too young, etc vs having the same tired debate over and over....

[Bennet Watson]

Sweet post, as usual.

The "Dog fighting" conspiracy is EPIC. Truly unreal. I wish these people had any clue as to how 100% of the pit bull owners I have ever met (myself included) feel about dog fighting.. and according to them there's a dog fighter behind every corner - bizarro.

In the end if you give airtime (and the internet is sort of a free-for-all of "airtime") to paranoid schizoids you will inevitably find nonsense like "dog fighters are paying the HUGE pit bull "propaganda" machine" - lol!

[Jenny]

But sadly BSL still exists in many of the KC suburbs. I live in Albuquerque now and am trying to move back to KC with my pitbull mix. Albuquerque has an excellent animal ordinance that I wish everyone had!

[Petra S.]

This "face off" tactic of giving 2 sides of an issue equal time in the name of fairness lets media off the hook. It's cheap & provides an illusion of "truth-seeking". It relies on the idea that the 2 sides can duke it out & allow people to make their own decisions. However, there's no guarantee that anyone speaks the truth. It's all "opinion"... and most people simply do not have enough reliable information to make a decision... about anything. Nothing on the Internet is reliable information. Once upon a time, journalism provided truth-seekers, who dug. They questioned. They probed. Having people who do that for a living costs media companies money. It's very expensive - so much cheaper to give "equal time" and be done with it.

[Brent]

Jenny -- I agree. Most of the laws here have been on the books since the late 80s and most of the city leaders seem to realize they're not effective laws, but are hesitant to repeal them too. It also has created a weird perception here because people seem to think that it's a 50/50 split between cities with bans and those without....but that's just locally. Nationally it's about 97% don't have bans, and 3% do. But we seem a little out of touch here with what is occurring nationally.

If you need help finding a city here where you can safely move let me know...we do have great communities here that are BSL-Free.

[Cheryl Huerta]

Great piece Brent. I will most definitely share it around FB because I think it gives pit bull advocates a few pointers on 'arguments' that can be made to counter the propaganda and myth based rhetoric of anti-pit bull people.

I find it interesting that the anti-pit bull people out there all seem to take their 'facts' from the same source and how so often when they speak or write their 'facts' they are all nearly identical in content right down to being virtually verbatim.

I am currently keeping an eye on a very small rural town here in Oregon who very recently announced that it would be considering adding breed restrictions to their existing animal control ordinance. This last September a five year old was mauled to death by his grandmothers alleged pit bull and so the local police chief has gone to the city council asking to discuss and then implement a breed ban. A local newspaper had an editorial a recently that was obviously in total support of the proposed restriction/ban on pit bulls. The editorial received mixed comments from the public on line but for the most part got support from locals to have a breed ban. I found it so very interesting that each and every comment in support of the ban contained verbatim rhetoric that could have cut and pasted from Dogsbite.org.

I pointed out to one person who seems particular angry at pit bulls and who offered up many 'statistics' to support her views that while her experience with pit bulls is not from actually having one as a family dog but is from the propaganda, myths and misinformation that can be found on line from organizations like Dogsbite.org that my opinion of pit bulls and the information I am providing in the discussion is from my own personal experience with my pit bulls and also from the personal experience of the hundreds if not thousands of responsible pit bull owners I have come to meet and know through my being a pit bull advocate.

These people choose fear and we as pit bull advocates have to keep putting the facts out there as calmly and as rationally as we possibly can. We can't silence the anti-pit bull people. We just can't because of free speech. However we can drown them out and that's what we really need to focus our efforts on. That's why we have monthly bully walks here in Portland Oregon and that's why the bully walks are spreading out around the country. People are beginning to see the value of disproving the anti-pit bull peoples rhetoric by getting out with their dogs and SHOWING the public the truth about pit bulls and the people who choose to have them.

We have to remember that while they have propaganda, myths and misinformation on their side we have facts, truth and living proof by virtue of who we are and what kind of dogs our pit bulls are on ours!

[Dog hero]

brent you know i think bsl advocates think bsl will solve their problems. also do you ever think that when they say pit attacks are decreased why don't they say attacks of all breeds

[Christine]

Maybe "Media Irresponsibility" tag also applies to this.

[Brent]

Dog hero -- they seem to only want to focus on pit bull attacks because they live under the misguided notion that pit bull attacks are "different" from those of other types of dogs. So to them the bites by other breeds don't matter.

Christine -- I've added it.

[Dog hero]

brent i sent a bsl advocate to your site but when i asked if he had read it he said no. then i asked him to disprove and he avoided the question by saying he could but does not feel like it or something.
i even argued with some guy named tony solesky
he was good but after a while he stopped answering my questions.

[Karen]

Dog Hero, Tony Solesky has lost the plot. Some of the stuff he says on FB is nothing short of disturbing. He is very involved with dogsibte.org who seem to attract some of the flakiest flakes I've ever seen come together in one place!

[Jen Brighton]

First, thank you, Brent, for taking the time to disseminate the conversation. Very interesting to read your thoughts. I love that you point out that the station had to go far and wide to find someone who even supports BSL.

Karen, speaking of flakiest flakes, I just read the following comment from Jaloney Caldwell in the article about Dr. Ian Kupkee: 'Pitbulls carry genes that can mutate and turn on their fighting genes at any time." Someone really ought to write a book about these whacky statements. But in the long run, the Dogsbite crowd is just shooting itself in the foot with posts like that. And unfortunately, poor Tony Solesky has been bewitched by them feeding him this stuff. It's tragic.

[Dog hero]

Jen i bet one day dogsbite will be disproven and colleen caught in her web of lies. i mean how often do those"donations" she gets go to someone who was attacked. i mean you hear about people who are brually attacked by dogs all the time. how often do you hear dogs bite gave money to them. also one bsl advocate i talked too called the cdc an apologist. and how all pit owners are scum who want them alive to fight and how vets are in on it

[Nick]

Mr. Bauermeister wouldn't know about pit bulls in Council Bluffs as he does not live in Council Bluffs. He is the city's assistant city attorney and lives across the river in Omaha, NE.