Caveat

STOP WHINING AND LET FLUFFY BITE YOU, ALREADY...SHEESH

 

I felt a bit mean in putting up that post about my encounter with Stanley Coren at the All About Pets show on Easter weekend but I got over it.

He put up a rebuttal at the Psychology Today page in which he made a few assumptions, the most hilarious being "As a psychologist I suspect that I know what is going on in her mind."

I guess what I said directly to him about his flawed sources was just a neurotic attempt to hide my real agenda.  Apparently, in arguing against the stereotyping of dog owners I'm similar to a mother whose offspring is arrested for holding up milk stores but pleads with the court for mercy, since she's a good kid.  Denial is a bitch.

But so am I.  Here's his article (comments available at the end where it says 'join the discussion'):

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201304/dogs-bite-and-people-dont-listen

"On the second day of the event, a woman accosted me and began to harangue me about statements that I had published about pitbull terriers. The statements which so offended her were reports of research published in respected scientific journals that found that pitbulls, and pitbull crosses accounted for a disproportionate number of dog bite related injuries and deaths.."

Here's the study he mentions in his post.  Obviously I have a problem with the breed ID which I don't see as relevant and I dispute Stanley's new assertion that "pit bulls" make up only one percent of the dog population in Philadelphia, but overall it looks like decent enough research.


 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644273

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):551-8. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181addad9.

Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5-year review of the experience at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Kaye AE, Belz JM, Kirschner RE.

Source

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa 19104, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The objective of this study was to characterize the nature of dog bite injuries treated over a 5-year period at a large tertiary pediatric hospital and to identify relevant parameters for public education and injury prevention.

METHODS:

Investigators performed a retrospective review of emergency room records of a single tertiary pediatric hospital. Records of all patients who were evaluated for dog bite injuries between April of 2001 and December of 2005 were reviewed. All demographic, patient, and injury details were recorded.

***

The rest of the abstract is available at the link.

Here's the thing.  Nobody is disputing that dogs bite.  Nobody is disputing that children tend to be bitten around the head and neck often, due to their stature and way of interacting with dogs.

Nobody is saying that "pit bulls", however you define them, do not bite people.  Quite the opposite (by nobody, I mean those of us who don't believe myths spread by 19th century crooks).

What people who study the issues say is that all dogs are capable of inflicting injury if poorly socialized or poorly trained, or exposed to poorly trained people in unsupervised situations who hurt or frighten them, usually unintentionally.

As someone pointed out in the comments at Stanley's post, "pit bull" is the only dog type where a bunch of breeds are lumped together and then any mutt that may resemble them is included so they all become one breed.  Any statistics based on this flawed method (which are hearsay) are skewed right off the bat.  Nobody is verifying the breeds of dogs involved in bites, attacks or fatal maulings, mainly because nobody, anywhere,  can determine the ancestry of a mutt to any degree of accuracy.  It's all just smoke.  

I wish we could unring that CDC bell from hell, but we can't.  What we can do is move forward, start talking about dogs instead of perceived breeds and look for better ways to prevent nasty incidents.

As I said over at Stanley's place, I doubt we will ever reduce serious maulings or fatal attacks much below what we have now because they are already incredibly rare.  Unfortunately, there will always be people who either don't care or don't know enough to behave responsibly around dogs (or much else).  I think that with some education for parents, kids and public workers, we can definitely reduce nuisance bites and make things better, not only for people and dogs they include in their lives but also for people who don't own or don't like dogs.  That is what has been shown to work in Calgary, the home of the best nuisance owner control system in North America.

Karen Delise did a great critique on a hospital study from Texas where they postulated a conclusion and then 'proved' it.  It's well worth reading; you can find it here:

http://legal.pblnn.com/9-uncategorised/121-why-the-texas-study-on-mortality-mauling-a-maiming-by-vicious-dogs-is-scientifically-unreliable

 

POP GOES THE SCIENTIST

"Sweetheart, I'm a scientist!"

"That's hot but I think I'll pass."

This weekend, as we've done every Easter for a few years, we worked a booth at the All About Pets show at the International Centre out by the airport.  An estimated 40,000 people visit the show although this year it wasn't as busy as in previous years.  People always rush over to our booth to sign petitions and talk about the ban. We got a couple of thousand signatures this year and only 8 people refused to sign. That's about right, ratio-wise, in terms of support.

Presenting at the show again this year was Stanley Coren, the author of  The Intelligence of Dogs and other pop-science books about our canine friends.

I was very anxious to speak with him, since I'd come across a news report the previous week in which he was quoted:

Stanley Coren, the Vancouver author of over a dozen books on dogs and their behaviour, is sharing some statistics compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This is quite astonishing. Although pit bulls make up only a half per cent of the total number of dogs in the US, they are responsible for 43 per cent of fatal dog bites,” he points out.

“That says something about the wiring of the dog.”

I wanted to find out what his sources were for the population and the percentage of dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) he attributes to "pit bulls".  Luckily for me, he stopped right near our booth to talk to somebody about their dog so I was able to sneak up on him and pounce.

He said he got his DBRF number from 'available data' because in the US there is a requirement for bite reporting only in cases of fatalities.  It's all in some database, apparently but he couldn't remember how to access it.

He said his "pit bull" population estimate, .5% (yes, one-half of one percent), was obtained via UKC and AKC registrations for  American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire Bull terriers.  I asked why he didn't include ADBA.  He didn't know about them.

I told him his DBRF data came from news reports, as stated by CDC, which is his source.  He disputed this and said I had no understanding of data. I told him it's right in the journal articles themselves, that there is no 'database' of DBRFs, that they scanned news reports, that there were missing death certificates and other weaknesses.  He became rather argumentative  at that point.

I said that in a population of 78 million dogs, 30 fatalities a year, while a horrific for the people involved,  are not statistically significant enough to predict any kind of trend.  He insisted there are 12 fatalities a year, not 30 on average.  I then realized he was talking about 5 fatalities attributable to "pit bulls" on average, per year.

I told him I think there are probably at least 5 million dogs that could be construed as "pit bulls" in the US.  He was sputtering by now and said that would mean 1:10 dogs are "pit bulls".  I said yes, that would probably be about right but actually it would be roughly 1:16.  I asked him if he includes mutts in his "statistics" he said no, just those three breeds.  I asked him who would be able to determine the purebred status of a dog in the US involved in an attack, since there is no requirement for identification. He didn't have an answer for that.  He didn't respond to my point about how most "breed" attributions are guesses or hearsay.

I didn't bother getting into how he determined how many were alive or  how he must be the only person who doesn't count mutts because they are in every piece of legislation, etc because by then he was kind of yelling that he was a scientist, repeatedly.

I had reminded him about our email conversation from 2006, when I had found his claim about 2000 psi pressure in a bound book after reading it in several news reports. After trying to throw me off-track and failing, he finally had to admit he couldn't find a reference and thought he might have overheard it. I have spared him the publication of our email exchange because I actually feel kind of sorry for him, but here is where he finally admits I've got him by the nuts over the 2000 psi:

 

I really can't be more specific. I apparently simply noted the
 essence of the findings to use as an aside in a talk I was
 giving. I always felt that  I could recover the original
 reference if I needed it, although you have proven  that 
this is not necessarily so. This has happened several times
 in the past,  where a bit of interesting data was briefly 
noted by me and then my contact with  it disappeared in the
 dimming memory of an aging psychologist. One would think
 that I would have learned to be more obsessive by now but
 being only 9 months from  retirement probably means that 
I have lost the window of opportunity to change my habits.

 

He told me on Saturday that he isn't responsible for what media write about him.  I said he's responsible for what he tells them - was he now accusing them of making it up?  "They can't print what you don't tell them and when you have an audience you should be careful about what you say."

He started yammering about his friends who have done studies recently but couldn't remember their names, which university they are from or what the titles of their papers are.  He thought they had a couple of papers in the Journal of Public Health. I said I'd look for them.  He mentioned a lurid paper from Detroit - one we have all seen that was written by an ER doctor. I said that "pit bulls" are very popular in Detroit, so it makes sense there will be more bites by that type.  He said they aren't popular there at all.

I asked him why he doesn't talk about Canada.  He said there aren't enough data.  I asked him how many people have been killed by "pit bull" types, ever, in this country.  He didn't know.  I asked him how many had been killed by "sled dog" types.  He didn't know.  He kept saying there are not enough data in Canada.

He then beetled off down the hall at top speed.

So that's pretty much what Stanley Coren is about. He's not interested in accuracy, he's not interested in science, he accused me of being closed-minded about "pit bulls" and incapable of understanding data.

Somebody's neurons are misfiring, but I don't think it's "pit bulls".

Postscript:

Later that day somebody visited our booth and said "Stanley Coren said that "pit bulls" used to be called the nanny dogs".  I said "That's not true.  Dr Coren says a lot of things that aren't supported."  She said "But it's good, right?".  "If it's not true, how can it possibly be good?"

 

Rupert considers marking Stanley's leg but is too polite

Note belt and suspenders!

 

KEEP YOUR BELIEFS, JUST GIVE ME THE FACTS

Something's been bothering me for  awhile.  I don't know what to do about it.

It's the bullshit, doctor.    It's everywhere.

Yesterday, as a contribution to the truth in advertising campaign, I highlighted a common, outdated meme using a Facebook poster (for want of a better term) put out by a member of the choir.   It sounded nice and truthy but its message is  impossible to verify one way or the other.   I don't know what these things are supposed to achieve anyway, but that's another issue. 

If you can't back  up what you are saying with evidence, why would you present it as factual without any qualification?  How is this helpful?

You can't fight fiction with more fiction.  Isn't that what we dislike about media and others who believe a bunch of malarkey about dog owners?  Why aren't we holding ourselves to the same standard we expect from others?

I was surprised when another member of  the choir criticized my criticism because, apparently, if you can't prove it's true it doesn't mean it's untrue.  I guess the opposite applies as well, then:  If you can't prove it's untrue it doesn't mean it's true.  It's a wash.

I prefer to say that if you can't verify it, it's untrue and belongs on the big steaming pile of horse-pucky labeled "mythology" until it can be proved.   Apparently, I'm wrong in saying that a person who presents information as factual has the burden of supporting it.  Who knew?  I figure the first guy out of the gate has the burden of proof.

So if I say, for example, that yobs in UK council flats are fighting Chihuahuas in bathtubs, is it true? It would be pretty hard to prove either way so I guess it's not untrue then.  (It wouldn't surprise me at all  if that became the takeaway point from this post and got sprayed all over The Book.  No joke.)

If I say that Dalton McGuinty's family owned a "pit bull" named Tory, is it true?  That one is actually in Hansard and I've seen it spread by self-styled BSL warriors around here.  It was a joke but there I go again, spoiling a good story.  What a bitch.  I should change my name to Buzzkill.

I guess that anything said by any crackpot with a website or buffoon who claims expertise is true if it can't be proved to be untrue.  So when some piece of garbage like this comes out:

Stanley Coren, the Vancouver author of over a dozen books on dogs and their behaviour, is sharing some statistics [huh?] compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This is quite astonishing. Although pit bulls make up only a half per cent of the total number of dogs in the US, they are responsible for 43 per cent of fatal dog bites,” he points out.

...is it true? 

Nobody knows how many "pit bulls" there are because it all depends on how you define the term. You'd have to go from town to town, counting "pit bulls" to get the actual numbers. (I know that Alan Beck thinks "pit bulls" are only Bull terriers and Staffordshire Bull terriers.  He told me so.  He is a good friend of Stanley's.  He told me that, too.)

So, are people saying that if you can't define "pit bull" and you can't count "pit bulls" then anything said about them, including the bullshit blanket statement that they are responsible for 43% of fatalities is true. because it's not untrue?

Is that how this should work in some people's minds?  It is certainly why "pit bulls" are one of the best propaganda models in history.

You can't have it both ways, people.

I don't care if it's old messaging.  It matters.  I matters when hormonally unbalanced, demented "journalists" quote supposedly credible sources when writing  hate-filled rants intended to wound people by hiding behind dogs.  They can't be called before a human rights tribunal for spreading hatred as long as they stay focused on those who can't read - or vote.  "Hey, what gives,  just talkin' about "pit bulls" snorgle burfft schizzleconk bloob...you got a problem with that?" 

It matters when some poor newbie stands up at a public meeting and quotes one of these memes  (there are lots out there from which to choose) or uses an infographic from a supposedly reputable site like National Geographic that uses 'the facts' as a title for a graphic that doesn't contain one fact because he doesn't know any better, then gets called on it and is stuck for an answer.  Oops.  Bye bye credibility.  For everybody.

Those head-cases with their demented little echo chambers out in the cybernetic wastelands where all the bigots hide like to bend the truth, quote from unreliable sources and just make stuff up.  I don't know what their problem is, nor do I care because they are irrelevant to what we are doing.  If you validate them by treating them as serious players, you give them power.  If you don't care what you put out, you give them snips to use against you.

If you only say what you can support, you don't have to worry about the nut-jobs and nobody can shake you or make you worry about what might leak.  It's too late to change is not a valid reason for keeping on keeping on.

You aren't 'educating' the [imaginary] public when you are spreading mythology. You are talking to your own, brainwashing yourselves, marginalizing yourselves.  That's how religion operates - march in lockstep, don't rock the boat, just go along with it, don't stir up shit, just say it, don't question it, repeat after me  wink wink nudge nudge, this should make everybody like "pit bulls" or hate "pit bulls" or believe in "pit bulls" - it doesn't matter what the angle is.  It's truthy. Get with the program and stop stirring the pot, heretic.

I don't care what people believe.  I'm not going to try to convert them because that won't be possible.  I don't care if they hate dogs and dog owners.  That's their right.  It's my right to be free of harassment when I walk down the street with my dog, regardless of my appearance or his.  It's my right to not have to sweat the neighbours because a law is in place that allows them to put me through if they feel like it for no valid reason.  It's my right to not have the government walk into my house any time they want to because I own universally legal  personal property.  It's my right to be judged by my behaviour - not my race, religion, nationality or my personal appearance or perceived status in the community.

Anything else is irrelevant to this struggle as far as I'm concerned.

We don't need to make stuff up. We don't have to hide behind anything.  We are right out there in the open, drawing their fire and their impotent ire while laughing in their faces. 

I don't believe in truth or much else, maybe because I was brought up without religion and was taught to question everything from an early age.  

I trust evidence.  The evidence does not support BSL.

End of story. 

***

There are at least three battles being fought around dog ownership these days.

1. The battle against the animal-rights driven agenda to exterminate domestic dogs.  This is fought by brainwashing sensitive people so they will parrot nonsensical messaging about "pet overpopulation", "nasty breeders" and more. It is embraced by those who don't fact-check and don't think about the long game or even what they are 'saying' because all their friends are singing the same song.  Ignorance is fertile ground for this agenda.

 

2. The battle against legislation that discriminates against a minority to allow the erosion of civil rights for the majority.  This is achieved by using propaganda and distortion to create a distraction.   It's a trick.  It is not hard to deal with legislators, even obstinate ones in thrall to ideology.  It's a lot easier than trying to inject some sense into the animal welfare zone in my experience.

 

3. The battle for 'hearts and minds' which is not helped by advocates who send out awful messaging that is supposed to inform the public at large but is usually just a turn off for many reasons.  Most of it reinforces stereotypes and isolates them further.  Hey, if you keep telling me you are different and your pets are different, why wouldn't I believe you?  If you keep telling me to hate/fear your dog, am I supposed to ignore that?  

Somebody told me I shouldn't conflate advocacy with marketing messages.  

What's the difference?

 

ONTARIO: LAST REFUGE FOR FLOGGERS & HANGERS

"Hey Buddy, is this the way to Ontario?  We hear our kind is welcome there."

 

In his book, The Woodcutter, Reginald Hill describes a Victorian prison that has retained its forbidding exterior while totally modernizing its operations and interior. Keeping the grimy facade satisfies the 'floggers and hangers'.

Ontario's self-styled Liberal (please) government hangs on to the most ill-conceived, un-Canadian, pandering piece of legislation since WWII the way a Scottie grips a bad guy's ass. 

Meet the new Preem, same as the old Preem.  This is not surprising, since she has been in government since 2003.  Optimists among us had hoped that someone new with no investment in Ontario's dog ownership ban would be able to let it go gracefully.  

Alas, Ms Wynne (a member of a once marginalized minority herself - she's a lesbian) not only refuses to acknowledge her government's grave mistake, but is supporting the legislation for reasons that are right out of the Peta playbook. (It was probably the only source she could find that is a real, live looney-bin and not just a website out in the boondocks of cyberspace.)

On the one hand, "pit bulls" are supposedly the most abused dogs out there (they aren't, but you knew that).  The thinking is that we must exterminate them in order to protect them.   I shudder to think what their cure for child abuse would be.

On the other, a couple of people had been savagely abused by "pit bulls" so action was required.  Now, in case you thought they had a similar solution to that problem, rest easy-ish.  Again, it's "pit bulls" who must go. 

Sticky wicket for "pit bull" owners, eh, because enforcement of longstanding legislation doesn't seem to be an option.  To stamp out crime, remove the victims. I must admit there is a certain elegance to it.  Trouble is, the ones who are abusing "pit bulls" (other than the ones who spread lies through media) are the people who enact and cling to this type of legislation.

But cheer up, Charlie, there is hope on the horizon!  In the US, new Bills are being brought forward almost daily to make breed/shape-specific legislation illegal at the State level.  And they are passing.  Towns and cities are rejecting BSL out of hand or repealing it.  More and more places are becoming enlightened.  Check out Stop BSL for updates and lots of other useful information.

Sure, there are pockets of corruption (h/t Bronwen) out there, but it's pretty much over, thanks to a lot of dedicated people all over this continent (and others).   We are winning. We are the good guys, after all, so we are supposed to win (#happily_ever_after).

Ontario may soon be the last jurisdiction of any note to cling to its legislated bigotry.  BSL gives permission to hate for superficial reasons.  It is enacted to supposedly target 'dealers' and 'gang-bangers', terms which are just dog whistles for young men who are poor or new to the country.  BSL is only supported by those who either know nothing about it or directly benefit from it. The true evil of it is that it panders to those who just have to hate something or someone and don't care much whom or what it is.

It's an embarrassment to real Canadians to have had such a law even considered, never mind enacted, especially in the face of overwhelming opposition by every expert out there and tens of thousands of citizens.  

It must go and so must those who passed it and continue to support it.

Remember when an election is finally announced to

VOTE AS IF YOUR FRIEND'S LIFE DEPENDS ON IT

It's the least you can do.

 I see that Brent at KC Dog Blog is also in a positive frame of mind this week.

 

 

SEE HOW THEY RUN!

MPP Bob Delaney, Liberal Member for Mississauga-Streetsville, was at a family fun skate today.  The event was free for all and from what I've heard, missed turning  into a free-for-all by a dog's whisker.

When a constituent wanted to discuss Ontario's noxious dog ownership ban, whereby dogs are restricted and prohibited based strictly on their physical appearance, not their behaviour, Member Bob  distracted her by bongo-tapping on the table,  stood up, faked left and deked right into the Men's room to get away.

What a hunk of man!

Delaney was Chair of the Committee in 2005 when all Liberal members obeyed McDad and ignored expert advice and experience, preferring to marginalize dog owners.  Fib Committee members voted down every amendment written to improve the legislation.  Delaney gaily stood up to be counted on March 1, 2005, helping to pass Ontario's "pit bull" ban into law.  He voted against us again in February 2012 when Bill 16 came up for Second Reading.

Bob acts as if we are all fools who think the law is about dangerous "pit bulls" and protecting people from dog bites.  Even Big Daddy Dalton's lawyer said that wasn't true in open court in 2007.

Maybe Mrs Delaney's little boy is out of the loop, or hopes that if he just keeps slinging it, eventually some of it will stick,  somewhere. 

Delaney said to the woman at the rink today that he's glad the "vicious killing machines" are gone and that he will support the ban, forever.

The vicious killing machines in Ontario are Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government, of which MPP Delaney is a proud supporter, and  the OSPCA.   They certainly aren't domestic dogs, unless you're a rodent or a weasel.

Forever has a way of not being that long, Delaney, when you aren't holding up your end. 

Wake up, Ontario voters!  Give this charlatan and his ilk the bums' rush at the next election.

Don't let them get away with this nonsense.

Brindlestick covered this as well.

FAITH, HOPE, AND CHARITY

 Animals, especially dogs and cats, are big business these days.

The pet industry is huge, with revenue in the billions annually in both the US and Canada. 

A lot of revenue is also being generated by charities, rescues and advocacy groups.   Unfortunately, these outfits are not all what they seem.

Here's an excerpt from a press release issued by the Canada Revenue Agency about the revocation of charitable status for The Animals' Charity, a group I'd never heard of until today.

The Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) audit has revealed that the Organization failed to devote its resources exclusively to its own charitable activities by participating in a promoted donation arrangement in 2008. As a direct result, the Organization issued donation receipts exceeding $9 million for cash and shares purportedly traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Of the $1 million the Organization received in cash, it paid fundraising fees equivalent to 90% of the cash received to the donation arrangement promoter, Innovative Gifting Inc. It is the view of the CRA that the property for which the tax receipts were issued did not legally qualify as gifts; that the Organization failed to demonstrate that it had actually received the tax-receipted property; and that the Organization failed to report the fair market value of the property purportedly gifted. Additionally, the Organization has operated for the non-charitable purpose of promoting a donation arrangement and for the private benefit of the donation arrangement promoters.

Litte "rescue" groups pop up like mushrooms and disappear in short order. Anybody can set up a website these days, and a Facebook page is even easier to create if you want to look like the real deal.

Here, look at this.  It's just a small sample of what is operating because these are groups that actually have websites, etc.   Some of these names are familiar, some aren't.  Animal "rescue" has become a huge cottage industry in Ontario.

Ontario Dog Rescue Groups
 

There are good rescues and bad ones.  I want to be very clear about that.  The bad guys are doing even more harm to the good people in rescue and advocacy than they are to soft-hearted contributors.  They are tarnishing everybody's good name.

One of the first indications that somebody is serious is if they are a registered charity, because it means they are accounting for revenue and expenditures each year.  But as we've just seen, even charitable status is no guarantee that your donation is going to where you think it is going.

A lot of "rescues" are just people who are taking advantage of unwanted dogs and your kind heart and are selling them on Kijiji and other sites, using the term "adoption".   They are con artists who are making a buck on the backs of innocent animals, just like the millers and uncaring breeders are.  To them, a dog is a commodity.

From NCIS LA:  "Rescue dog.  Everybody wants a rescue dog.  It's cool to have a rescue dog these days."

It's true.  Everybody wants a story.

"Animal protection" ( the new term for animal liberation now that animal "rights" is blown), groups are taking in millions from people who aren't familiar with the philosophy.  The thinking seems to be that if they can afford to run well produced ads and have celebrity (usually has-been or C list) endorsements, they must be OK.  These organizations believe that domestic animals should be rendered extinct and that humans should have no interaction with other species.  You don't have to drill down far to find that out but most people don't do it, likely because of the emotional pitch of the advertising which is designed to pull the heart-strings while bypassing the head.

The whole celebrity culture is a big topic, but the widespread and wide-eyed belief that just because somebody is telegenic, can lie well and  fake emotions ie, act, it makes them a trustworthy source, really needs to go bye the bye.   There are obvious exceptions, but overall if the person has more replacement parts than original parts, there's a good chance they are faking everything, including their earnest concern "for the animals".  Just sayin'.

So, what to do?

Ask around.  Ask people you know who may be more plugged in.  Don't fall for promo on a website or a sad picture.  

Begging for money on Facebook can often be a red flag.  Established groups are set up to take donations by PayPal, credit card, cheque, etc.  They have mailing addresses, even.

Ask for references and check them.  How many animals have they placed?  What progress have they made for the cause?  Ask for references from people who have dealt with them, including pounds or shelters they may claim to be affiliated with.

Are they a registered charity or an incorporated not-for-profit?  Charities must keep any political activity, lobbying, etc to a minimum so a good advocacy group will have incorporated as a not-for-profit instead.

While being registered  obviously doesn't prevent dishonesty, it does mean that they are accountable and have some kind of dispassionate oversight. They also have more to lose than some raggedy-pants opportunist who is here today, gone tomorrow.  

Ask if they have insurance, including liability insurance.   In cases where a dog advertised as a great pet turns out to be unsocialized, unmanageable or in need of expensive medical care, what is their policy? Are they in a position to pay any bills that may arise during a probationary period?

Demand a receipt for all formal donations (dropping five bucks into a jar at a booth doesn't count).

Ask how long they have been around.  Longevity usually means they are more likely to be on the up-and-up because word gets around quickly about who's naughty or nice.

Don't fall for slick marketing,  sad stories and pictures.  Don't believe everything you see on the internet.  Don't let these dishonest, callous people break your heart while using animals for their own personal gain, or for a twisted agenda based on death and extinction.

It's a jungle out there and ultimately, your own gut feeling is one of the best indicators.   While some of the suggestions I've made may help, in the long run, with "rescue" being an unregulated industry, and only a small percentage of groups even bothering to incorporate, you have to be careful.

LITTLE FISH BITES IF YOU GOT GOOD BAIT

 

Thanks to  the marvel of the inter-tubes and the emotional investment of most of our supporters, we now have a situation where a certain columnist is fully engaged in baiting dog owners with greater and greater frequency.

The columnist in question, whose nickname is "Special", is the mother of the editor of the Comment page at the National Post, a newspaper that is struggling to survive financially and has been for some time.

This woman enjoys presenting absolute poppycock as factual, then sitting back to wait for the reaction.  She has said as much on Twitter.  She is thereby ensuring her future job security as a columnist while feeding her delusions at the same time.   She may not even believe the nonsense she writes.  It is entirely possible that she is more canny than we know and that this is a scheme to help the paper retain some relevance in the dog-eat-dog world that is modern news reporting.  Attention equals ad revenue equals solvency.

The people who gather at her site think "breed" ha ha bans are about their cute little "pit bulls" when in fact,  they are not.

Dogs are not affected by BSL.  They can't be.  They don't understand it, they don't read, they don't view the world the way we do.  They are dogs and happy to be dogs.  They don't know they are disliked because of their size, their colour, their perceived "breed" or any of the rest of it.

It is dog owners who are marginalized when BSL comes to town.  The latest column, which I honestly haven't read (nor have I read any of the others beyond a quick skim and a head-shaking astonishment at how much codswallop one can actually cram into 600 or so words) apparently talks about "caninism" a nonsesne term which I suppose means racism  in Doggyland in the mind of the writer and her ever burgeoning audience.

The thing is, racism is a fine word all by itself.  In Europe they refer to dog breeds as races, although technically they are ethnic groups in most cases.  There are three to five races depending on who you read, but that's not what this person is talking about.  She doesn't know enough about the subject to speak with any credibility at all so certainly won't get into the fine details.

Which brings me to my point. 

In reacting to this person, people are rewarding the behaviour.  Attention is what she craves.  Attention is what she is getting.   Dog owners are rising to the bait like fish and the more fish she catches, the more bait she will cut. 

As tough as it may be for those who are emotionally invested in this issue, the best way to shut this down is to ignore it.  Let her play with the handful, and I mean handful, of low-information people who support the same silly viewpoint she claims to espouse.

Quite frankly, anybody who is still talking about "pit bulls" as if they are a breed and as if they possess any of the preternatural powers attributed to them by charlatans, wags and lowbrows is so out of the loop it's actually kind of sad.

The fact that a paper that at one point had a certain panache, the National Post, has to lower its editorial standards to get the kind of traffic it needs in order to stay in business is even more depressing.

 Here's a thought that may cheer you up.  We are doing very well lately in the anti-BSL arena.  These policies are being removed and rejected outright in more and more places.  We have all the evidence, all the science, all the experts on our side.  We still have public opinion behind us as we have had all along.  That rankles the haters as they become more and more irrelevant in most people's minds.  In Edmonton, they did a survey and over 80% of people favoured lifting the ban.  

That is the story, that is the news.

We are winning.  Because we are winning, the handful of frothing ignorami who want to hate something, who thought they had it made when they could hide behind our only friend, the dog, will go down kicking and screaming and babbling in tongues.

We are the good guys.  There is no doubt about that.  It's time to act  like it by rising above the nonsense.  Let the trogs duke it out in the mud.  We have other things to do that are more important and much more honourable.

In the interests of public service , here is today's column for discussion purposes.

If you have time on your hands, fact-check her column, write an Op-Ed and submit it to the paper, ask them to run it as a rebuttal. Or even just write a letter to the editor.  I recommend getting somebody who knows their stuff to look it over before you send it in.  

We are the ones with the facts.  Never forget that.

COLOUR ME PERPLEXED

 

I was just over at Brent's place reading his excellent post about sources and how important it is to determine credibility before floating your boat on them.

It reminded me of something else that I find very difficult to understand about BSL.

In 2012, after a quarter-century of "breed" banning and restrictions, we have an abundance of data, reports, scientific papers, bite statistics, hospital records - a  figurative mountain of good hard information just waiting to be mined.  We have expert commentary, Committee hearings, debates in legislatures, court decisions and more.  Compared with when I got seriously involved in 2004, the body of evidence is so huge as to be almost embarrassing in its richness.

The best thing about it is that it overwhelmingly condemns BSL as wrong-headed, unworkable, expensive, counter-productive and based on fiction.

Here's where I start doing 360s inside my head.  

If you are a journalist and under pressure lately because the great leveler has allowed lowly pamphleteers to get their message out there with the big boys, wouldn't you want your work to be superior and unassailable?  We all play in the wonderful soup called the internet these days, hit-and-miss, catch-as-catch-can, it's absolutely thrilling; I'm so glad to have been alive during its birth and growth that I am in awe a lot of the time.

Like most of us, I was just a dog owner when this started in Ontario, just a person who loved dogs, had dogs and knew a bit about them.  One of the things I knew was that BSL was a crock and must not be allowed to stand.

But if you are a real, live journalist why on Earth would you want to look like somebody who is easily gulled by quoting crackpots and presenting their nonsense as "evidence"? Even Johnny Lowbrow is laughing at you and not only because you are way behind the wave on this one.

A greater mystery is why any public official, be they a town councillor, Congressman, MPP or Mayor, elected to be the voice of reason and manage affairs, would consider BSL to the point of even mentioning it to anyone.  It has proved to be a failure everywhere it has been tried.  So why would an elected officer tout a failed policy?  Is there something wrong with telling a bite victim who is hot for vengeance because it always has to be somebody's fault and somebody always has to pay for every goddamned thing that happens to them in life, to chill out and move on?

If necessary, in serious cases, charge the dog owner, get restitution, whatever. Copy Calgary's successful program.  Why would anybody deliberately bring on the inevitable shit-storm that follows this scourge called BSL around, when calmer heads can prevail and achieve better results?

Do they want to look like idiots?  Or is Kory's letter having undue influence on them?

I don't know about you but I am totally fed up with talking about BSL. Can we move on? Do something positive?  Ignore the whiners and ignoramuses for a change?

Maybe it speaks to not knowing who is a credible source.  Maybe Brent is right.

 

 

 

PUBLIC MEANS PUBLIC - JUST SAYIN'

What is Peterborough Liberal MPP Jeff Leal afraid of? A constituent reports that after waiting over six months for a 15-minute meeting, she was given the bum's rush this morning.

Apparently, Leal first asked her if she wanted a photo, then demanded the information packet on Hershey's Bill (which will remove Ontario's dog ownership ban), grabbed it and scuttled back into his conference room, slamming the door in her face.

Why would somebody run for public office if they don't want to deal with constituents? The person booked a meeting, had it constantly rescheduled but was still polite and on time.  This is disgraceful behaviour; regardless of his own personal opinion or the one provided to him by Premier McDad, he should have held the meeting as scheduled.

I suspect Leal was fearful of possibly deviating from the party mantra then being ostracized by the ever-shrinking rat pack (most of them left the sinking ship last summer) that runs with the Premier, or maybe he is worried about losing his job as Party Whip.  

On the upside, this type of arrogant behaviour is exactly what will sink the McGuinty Liberals, as we saw in Kitchener-Waterloo.

Whippet good.