 |
| My name is Doc. Pretty sure I'm a pit bull. |
I posted something about this on Facebook recently, and I ranted a bit, but I'd love to hear some feedback from anyone out there who might be reading this blog.
Once again, I was browsing Facebook and came across a post insisting that "pit bull" is a meaningless term and not a breed and that not every pit bull is an American pit bull terrier. (Of course not – American pit bull terrier owners, in particular, are usually adamant about insisting that just because you have a pit bull does not mean you have an APBT.)
But all of this backing away from our dogs being pit bulls, or even related to pit bulls, is making me wonder: Why is being a pit bull such bad thing? Why would anyone who loves pit bulls feel compelled to back away from a dogs' likely heritage? (And by heritage, I'm talking general breeding heritage here, not dog-fighting history – just the dogs' heritage as related to the breeds that have always fallen under the label "pit bull.")
No, every dog being called a pit bull is not an American pit bull terrier. Some are American staffordshire terriers, some are Staffordshire bull terriers, some are mixes that do indeed appear to be primarily one of those breeds, and indeed some are being erroneously called pit bulls when they probably have little or no pit bull in them. Just like some black-and-white-spotted dogs with little or no Dalmation in them might get passed off as Dalmations and some dogs with black-and-tan pointing that clearly mutts might be called Rottweilers. But the purebred-looking Rottweilers that come into the shelters aren't called "Rottweilers" in quotes, or Rottweiler-type dogs or dogs with Rottweiler-type markings. Adopters aren't discouraged from thinking it might be a good idea to learn something about the Rottweiler as a breed before they take the dog home. Likewise with the Dalmations, the Golden retrievers, the German shepherds – not every dog with pointy ears and a black-and-tan coloring is a German shepherd, but people who know the breed well can make an educated guess and feel fairly confident calling a dog a shepherd without feeling like they have to hedge their bets or steer people away from thinking it might be one.
Everyone who knows dogs knows that within a breed there is always a wide range of individuals. Even within a line or family of dogs that are closely related there are individuals. Even within a tightly bred litter there are individuals. And on top of that, there are factors like environment and socialization and handling that will play into what a dog will be like when it matures. So of course we should judge dogs as individuals, if we're going to be put in a position to judge them, which is why pit bull lovers have long opposed the kill-all-pit-bulls policies that used to be so hyper-popular everywhere. Far more than they are now. You can't say all pit bulls are alike, just like you can't say all retrievers are alike.
What I'd like to know is why can't we have both good dogs that are individuals AND pit bulls? Why can't our pit bulls just be good dogs that deserve the same fair shake as all other dogs? Why do we have to try to back away from the possibility that they might even be pit bulls? If we want people to take us seriously as responsible pit bull owners, shouldn't we acknowledge that our dogs – whether they are of the gamedog, purebred show dog, working dog or shelter dog variety – are good dogs not DESPITE the fact that they might be pit bulls, but because pit bulls aren't inherently evil? They are, just like other breeds of dog, just dogs. But they are also pit bulls. And that's OK. At least to me it is.
very good thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI actually have the OPPOSITE concern. lol
My puzzlement is why people are applying the term "pit bull" to dogs they should know AREN"T "pit bulls" in any meaningful sense (which to me = looks/behaves the way an APBT/AST does). As if calling a dog a "pit bull" gives it some kind of special status (or, cynical me: access to rescue resources that used to go to actual "pit bulls"???)
To me, what the people you are talking about are denying isn't so much the "pit bull" part, but the BREED part, and the breed-specific behavior part. So in the laudable effort to insist on the individuality of every dog, and in correctly noting that not all dogs of a breed exhibit all the characteristics of that breed, they DENY that there are ANY pit bull traits that owners should know about. So they can call a dog a "pit bull" and laud it for all kinds of wonderful traits, but then say "there is no such thing as a pit bull breed" so they can ignore the traits they don't want to acknowledge..
Very good questions. When I got involved in Pit Bull rescue in the early to mid 90s (always within the context of all breed/all mutt rescue), it was pretty universally agreed that if you wanted to work with this breed responsibly and PLACE them responsibly, you had to educate yourself and your prospective adopters about the breed. That was the correct view then and it is the correct view now. The problem as I see it is that as Pit Bull rescue has become a lot "sexier" than it was in the days when there were just a few people crying in the wilderness in defense of these dogs, people have gotten involved whose general intellectual laziness is matched only by their ethical confusion, ie thinking that since dogfighting is icky, learning about or even acknowledging the history of this breed is icky. Wrong. There are also groups with members who seem more interested in being viewed as rescue rockstars than in keeping the focus where it belongs, ie on the dogs.It's regrettable on so, so many counts. But there are still a lot of people plugging along the tried and true old fashioned way, and good new people willing to learn. It'll take awhile, but sanity WILL be restored.
ReplyDeleteI love the American Pit Bull Terrier d/t its breed characteristics. I have known no other breed of dog to be so much fun to live and work with.
ReplyDeleteNot all pit bulls are Pit Bulls, but all Pit Bulls are pit bulls. The use of case here is extremely important as Pit Bull is a correct abbreviation for American Pit Bull Terrier, whereas pit bull refers only to a grouping of somewhat similarly-featured dogs, much like the generic hound or retriever. So, those that claim "pit bull" is not a breed are correct, one is only correcting referring to a breed when proper capitalization is used.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because we need to pull the teeth from groups like Dogsbite.org and their ilk who are trying to create the public perception that there is a "Pitbull" breed and there are millions of them in order to give credence to their libelous and delusional "statistics."
ReplyDeleteIt's rotten, because there is no shame in owning a Bully breed! They are wonderful creatures, but sometimes you have to dismantle the larger lie in order to expose the web of smaller, but more lethal ones it is sheltering.
Why? Because we need to pull the teeth from groups like Dogsbite.org and their ilk who are trying to create the public perception that there is a "Pitbull" breed and there are millions of them in order to give credence to their libelous and delusional "statistics."
ReplyDeleteIt's rotten, because there is no shame in owning a Bully breed! They are wonderful creatures, but sometimes you have to dismantle the larger lie in order to expose the web of smaller, but more lethal ones it is sheltering.
But Rachelle: dog breed names have NEVER been capitalized, unless one of the words is a proper noun. Like Labrador retriever, not "labrador"...
ReplyDeleteand American pit bull terrier, not "american"... you get my drift.
And of course in talking, you can't hear capitalization.
So I understand where you're trying to go, but it won't work.
Every "real" pit bull is an American pit bull terrier, or an American Staffordshire terrier. Anything else is "appears to be an APBT/AST" or a "mixed breed dog"
felurian, i have heard that argument before, and i actually don't buy it. i don't think that denying that a dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, or trying to tell people not to label dogs as such, actually does pull teeth from dogsbite, especially when it comes to how the public perceives pit bull owners. i actually believe that it makes pit bull people look like they are either dishonest or in denial, and i don't think that helps with our credibility.
ReplyDeletei've actually seen dogsbite and other pit bull-hating orgs actually point that out in their literature -- that pit bull "apologists" or "cheerleaders" or whatever other pejorative term they want to come up with are being deceptive and aren't to be trusted in their PR campaigns. one thing we did have before, at least, was complete honesty about what our dogs were, and now we don't even seem to have full community support on that.
I have no problem calling a dog a pit bull...except for when it's not. Personally, a pit bull is a nickname for an APBT. "Professionally" we all know that a pit bull is a generic name that everyone gives to a dog. Recently, BAD RAP took in a small Boston looking dog that was labeled as a pit bull in an Ohio shelter. Pit bull isn't a bad thing to be labeled, but it is a proper thing. What we can't do, as advocates, is allow every block head dog to be labeled a pit bull. Not only that, it really takes away from the other great breeds that are out there. A Corso is NOT a pit bull, a pit bull type dog, or a pit bull breed. It's a majestic mastiff. The same goes for Dogos, American Bulldogs, and so many other dogs that ARE pure bred animals and NOT pit bulls. This is my concern with using the term PIT BULL so loosely.
ReplyDelete