Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

pit bulls and 'profiling'

badger
February 26th, 2006, 12:34 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact

gdamadg
February 26th, 2006, 09:54 PM
This is a pretty good article.

LavenderRott
February 26th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? “The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner,” Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings.

For a man in Herkstroeter's position to make a statement like this to a reporter for a magazine that is read by many in U.S. legislative positions is beyond irresponsible.

You can fight BSL without passing the buck to other breeds.

Prin
February 27th, 2006, 12:04 AM
Yeah, that's not nice.:mad:

Georgiapeaches
February 27th, 2006, 12:56 AM
LavenderRott, I completely see your point and agree.
Love all of these breeds, so I hate to see any of them blamed.
Pitbulls are aggressive because:

A. Persistant training to be human aggressive
or
B. Their "hardwiring" is off (breeding)

I really like the article...minus that point.

Loki
February 27th, 2006, 01:58 AM
I re-read the article, and I think that the "human-aggressive..." comment was made by the author.

The quote looks really bad when it is taken on it's own. The author definitely should have worded it better, but I don't think his intention was to bash those breeds.

In context, I think he was trying to say: people looking for a big mean guard dog - crossing a pit bull with a breed with some guarding instincts, with the intention of getting a larger dog with the fighting ability (etc) of a pit bull, while losing the pit bull's desired temperament with humans (that he previously described).

( I did a worse job wording it :) )

I recall reading an article where an author tried to make a similar argument, but they used the phrase "guardian breed" instead of "human-aggressive."
( not sure if that is any better)

I think it was a badly worded statement, but he wasn't trying to label other breeds as aggressive. The point of the article is to not make generalizations based on breeds - I think, when making general statements about other breeds, he assumes that the reader has that in mind.

babyrocky1
February 27th, 2006, 01:03 PM
I agree with Loki, I read the whole article, the one in the Sun and the one in the New Yorker, and I didnt' pick up on that line til it was placed here out of context, Yes, it was poorly worded in an of itself but the whole article was against breed bans overall. Hopefully readers will not pick up on that either but you never know, it was an unfortunate choice of words for sure!

babyrocky1
February 27th, 2006, 01:07 PM
I think the term "guardian breed" is much better than "human aggressive" some breeds have beeen historically bred as guard dogs, and Im sure the general public is aware of that, but when you say "human aggressive" it sounds like the whole breed is waiting for some human dinner!:eek:

Copper'sMom
February 27th, 2006, 08:59 PM
I think this article is great. It was emphasised over and over that dogs are the result of their owners and why there are more attacks fom one breed to the next in different time spans.
I am sending this article to everyone I know with the hopes that they might read it. Some are dear friends that still just don't understand why I own 2 Pit Bulls.:( But that's fine because my dogs are my best friends.:love:

kigaro
March 1st, 2006, 12:11 AM
yeah, i read it the same way loki did, but can see why there are different interpetations. malcom was attempting to show the potential problems with pit bulls attackng humans could be because of crossing with breeds that are more capable of human aggression (guarding breeds) as pit bulls are not naturally human aggressive. i don't think they were bashing the other breeds mentioned.

babyrocky1
March 11th, 2006, 11:35 PM
Apparantly, Dumb A$$ had his letter published to the New Yorker, it is in the latest edition. He is basically saying in a few short sentences that he would agree with Malcom except that Pit Bulls arent people...the only people to suffer because of the ban are Pit Bull Breeders, and get this....Dog Bites have gone down over all in Ontario......Im sure someone will post a link to this soon and we can all have a go at it:evil: I found that even the thought of him writing a letter or ofcourse having one written for him, that was that short and thoughtless, compared to the depth of the article he was responding to, just made him look silly, petty, and defensive. Probably cause thats what he is!

twodogsandacat
March 12th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Babyrocky1.

Then write the New Yorker and let them know that Michael Bryant’s government REFUSED all attempts by the opposition members to include a ‘dog bite registry’ in the new legislation which prevented any real proof that dog bites have gone up or down from being gathered. In fact due to this legislation and the refusal of Michael Bryant who struck those recommendations down dog owners who believe this law ignores the fact that all dogs that bite have one thing in common – they are dogs- are creating their own registry.

Cases of dog attacks that make print, although the stories are seldom picked up outside of the municipalities where the incidents happen , are being forwarded to an anti-BSL group. Stories such as the attack last weekend in Port Colborne where two non pit bull type dogs which are reported to have killed another dog a couple of years ago have once again killed another dog - in this case a Pomeranian. Dogs such as this are the issue. Dangerous dogs of all breeds and sizes that are not considered an issue by the same politician that when asked about another breed (which I won’t mention) said that the breed was ‘not an issue’ despite being responsible for both of the dog related deaths in Canada for the past two years and once again the breed was not a pit bull breed.

That the same Michael Bryant has stood up and made false statement s regarding Winipeg's stats despite those stats being published which really says a lot about the man.

Go ahead BabyRocky1....I dare you. I double dog dare you.....
Letters to the Editor
To submit a letter in response to a New Yorker article for publication in the magazine, you may send an e-mail to themail@newyorker.com. Alternatively, letters may be faxed to 212-286-5047, or mailed to us at 4 Times Square, New York, NY 10036. Letters should include the writer’s name, postal address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium. All letters become the property of The New Yorker and will not be returned. We regret that, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply to every letter. Publicity materials or submissions should not be sent to these addresses and will not be forwarded to other departments.

babyrocky1
March 12th, 2006, 01:10 AM
You double dog dare me??? LOL I think you just wrote the letter for me. But I dont know how to cut and paste, Ill ask my daughter in the morning. I mean after Ive slept this is the am isnt it. I wonder though, if the New yorker is going to allow us Ontarions to "slug it out" in there letter section. Hmmm. That was the point I was making in my sarcastic way, the one about his refusal to creat a provincial dog bite registry.

Prin
March 12th, 2006, 01:15 AM
Grab what you want with the mouse and then press ctrl and C together, then to paste, ctrl and v.

twodogsandacat
March 12th, 2006, 01:35 AM
I wonder though, if the New yorker is going to allow us Ontarions to "slug it out" in there letter section. Hmmm. That was the point I was making in my sarcastic way, the one about his refusal to creat a provincial dog bite registry.

Of course they will if you praise a very smart and sensible :usa: American Senator :usa: . Georgia (stiffer penalties for those that train and fight agressive dogs) and Virginia (establishs a dangerous dog registry ) have not passed pit bull laws despite recent calls in the last year to do so. Instead in both states we see laws that address the issues not a single breed of dog that is often just as much a victim of somebody else's lack of responsibility. Why can Americans see this but Ontario can't.

This is the same Ontario Liberal government that refuses to take responsibility for it’s own short comings and welcomes diversions from the real issues. In fact just in the last six months alone it that has blamed the United States for Ontario’s gang and gun problems (despite the fact that the guns are smuggled across the border into Canada and paid for with the profits of drugs going into America) and ignores it's own power generations issues so instead buys increasing amounts of power from the same power plants it continually blames for Ontario's pollution issues to the point that they recently said they are considering legal action against the American companies that produce power from coal.

Ontario needs leadership that addresses the real issues at the root instead of implementing popular and simplistic solutions such as bans on pit bulls while using anti American rhetoric to divert away from it’s inadequacies in dealing with core issues that the citizens of Ontario care about such as safety from crime and reliable and affordable power.

If real public safety were an issue then it wouldn’t be lost on the Attorney General of Ontario that in Canada’s last two dog related deaths (over a two year period) that both of those attacks did not involve any pit bull type dogs at all. Which leaves a lot of dog owners of all breeds wondering what the real purpose of Michael Bryant’s highly popular but statistically inappropriate ban was.

See where I'm going with this ^^^^^?

You could also throw in the fact that while a Winnipeg animal control officer (Tim Dack) was in Ontario praising Michael Bryant for following in Winnipeg’s foots steps that some fourteen years after passing a ban his city was now under siege by attacks by larger dogs of other breeds. Once again a Pomeranian was killed (what’s with these Pomeranians?) and a senior citizen was dragged down the street. In fact a dog that had been picked up four times already was finally destroyed after – only biting a Winnipeg Animal Control Officer. Pit bulls aren’t the issue. Effective enforcement of reasonable laws regarding ALL dangerous dogs is the issue.

Throw in a couple of the :usa: AMERICAN Pit Bull Terrier :usa: comments too. Hey Canadians like to make fun of the Americans, give them something to mock us for. Like one of the first dogs to be saved from a certain death in a shelter in Ontario now becoming one of Washington State's new bomb detection dogs in Seattle.

You can do it. Don't be too 'pro pit bullish' but get across the points.
BTW: If you read some of the other letters in the New Yorker they don’t seem to worry about keeping it brief. Keep it reasonable and I bet it will be published and the little man will be irritated.

Last legislative session, Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, planned to introduced legislation that was aimed at pit bulls. There was a well-publicized incident in his district in which a woman was injured while shielding a young boy from a pit bull attack.
But Deckert learned something after he introduced his bill. "I got to meet a lot of great pit bull owners and great pit bull dogs, ones you'd feel as safe and comfortable around as a basset hound," he says. So he created a task force that recommended beefing up state law based on the deed, not the breed.

mastifflover
March 12th, 2006, 08:34 AM
Twodogs that was great I love the fact that you have stroked the ego of the Americans and at the same time made great points. The fact that the government as a whole sucks and the AG is a completely inept politician who is lazy and ineffective because of his lack of knowledge and the fact he really is not interested in finding anything that goes against what he decided from the beginning to ban the breed. I think the article was really good and I agree if those quotes are taken out of context they do sound bad. But that is not the way they were intended. I do perfer guardian better than human aggressive. Oh by the way that is a double dog dare Babyrock. You can always post the letter you write and we will help you perfect it

babyrocky1
March 12th, 2006, 09:17 PM
As difficult as it is to pass on a "double dog dare" I cant give the letter anything that you have not already said. Your posts are extrememly well written, analytical, and well researched, so this "double dog dare" is going right back atcha! Seriously, its your research and these are your ideas, which I totally agree with but never the less, if I write a letter it has to be, for better or worse, my own. Besides that, yours is already written,- cut, paste, and send! Ill be sticking to what I need to do for the "cause" at the moment which is publisizing our fundraiser big time this week. So double dog dare You! 2 Dogs!;)

babyrocky1
March 12th, 2006, 09:22 PM
Grab what you want with the mouse and then press ctrl and C together, then to paste, ctrl and v.Thanks Prin, is it the same with Mac?

twodogsandacat
March 13th, 2006, 03:05 AM
..... is it the same with Mac?

Oh, you're one of those people.;)

OK, I will go buy a NewYorker (the second one I have ever bought) and then write them.

Good luck this weekend.

babyrocky1
March 13th, 2006, 09:17 PM
Way to go Two Dogs,! I guess I will have to buy one too so I can have a "hard copy" of it when its published....Your letter I mean...LOL Yeah we have a Mac, problem is we need two of them or Ill never learn anything, Shannon shows me how to do something once and expects me to remember six months later...LOL not likely. But yep were two of "those people"

Pitbulliest and I just got finished dropping off flyers and asking for donations, it went really well. People were very receptive and took our posters, even the big colour ones. We got some good donations for the auction and the possility of more. It was really Rocky and Messina that charmed them all though:) :pawprint:

twodogsandacat
March 13th, 2006, 09:53 PM
Our last coop student was a die hard Mac fan. He almost had me convinced into trying one. Still the iPod is as close as I will get to an Apple product.

I will get to writing a letter later this week BabyRocky1. I need a clear head and I don’t have one right now. I just upgraded 1800 XP workstations to Service Pack 2 and latest release of anti virus product over the last two nights. Most went silently and flawlessly but it’s always that last one percent that is a pain in the butt and required me to be onsite.

Must sleep now. Good luck with all the fund raising.

twodogsandacat
March 18th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Well I can’t anything online which indicates that BabyRocky1's "dumb ass" also known as Satan by some (if only Satan could sue for slander) otherwise known as Michael Bryant sent a letter. Hard copies are not available around these parts (not even at Chapters but hey I had a Starbuck’s anyways so it wasn’t an entirely wasted trip).

However, a coworker has very artsy intellectual parents who live in a border town. They are as much American in their activities as they are Canadian. When they go out for dinner it’s just as likely that the restaurant will be in the Buffalo NY area as it would be in the Niagara Region Canada.

They also - happen to subscribe to the New Yorker. She will be checking it out and bringing me a scan of any articles of interest.

babyrocky1
March 18th, 2006, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE= I just upgraded 1800 XP workstations to Service Pack 2 and latest release of anti virus product over the last two nights. Most went silently and flawlessly but it’s always that last one percent that is a pain in the butt and required me to be onsite.

.[/QUOTE]
:confused: :confused: HUN....? LOL

Geez after all this double dog daring, I hope this Bryant letter isnt just a rumour after all that LOL ...It was a reliable source ... really LOL

Loki
March 18th, 2006, 10:59 PM
Here's a link to Gladwell's Blog:

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/


He's got a few entries regarding pit bulls and the article, with comments.

twodogsandacat
March 19th, 2006, 12:00 PM
:confused: :confused: HUN....? LOL

Geez after all this double dog daring, I hope this Bryant letter isnt just a rumour after all that LOL ...It was a reliable source ... really LOL

It just means I worked my butt off doing a night shifts on the weekend in the middle of my normal 9-5 shifts. I was dog tired.

Still can't find anything though.