Pit Bulls -- Breed Discrimination: Can it be Stopped?

Just now

Breed Discrimination is a very touchy subject among dog enthusiasts. Everyone has very strong opinions concerning one of the most heavily discriminated breeds, the “pit bull”. There are tests are available on the internet, flip through the photographs and find the pit bull. Most people choose the wrong breed (Myself included). The term pit bull refers to several breeds of dogs including the American Staffordshire Terrier, the English Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the English Bull Terrier, and even some bulldogs get lumped into the pit mystique. Throughout the text the term “pit bull” will define any and all of the above mentioned breeds.

May 18 at 4:40pm

At the turn of the twentieth century, the American Pit Bull was the number one family dog in America. They appeared on patriotic posters during WWI as the epitome of loyalty and honor. When German Shepherds were starting to making their way to American shores, they were looked upon as vicious dogs that were unstable and untrustworthy. Once the German Shepherds were found to be excellent family dogs as well as police dogs, the Doberman Pinscher was well on its way to becoming the most aggressive breed to be feared. On the height of Doberman’s discrimination, Rottweiler’s were rapidly ascending the list of ferocious instability. Although the stigma still lingers in some dog lovers minds concerning the Doberman and the Rottweiler, it is now the “pit bull” that has gotten the brunt of fear and anger.

Statistically Speaking

While searching the internet for unbiased statistics concerning biting by breeds, the results that continuously popped up were fatal dog attack reports by “pit bulls”. Over a ten year period there have been thirty-six fatal dog attacks against humans. Twenty of those attacks have been reported to be by “pit bull” dogs. There have been two “pit bull” dogs a year that have killed humans. Impartial data from the CDC showed that the Golden Retriever held the number one spot for biting in the United States. The American Pit Bull was listed as number four.

Discriminating Legislation

Some animal rights movements have launched legislation banning specific breeds from residing within city limits. Not only does it cover house pets, but service animals as well. Several rental agencies and landlords forbid certain breeds from residing on their properties. Insurance companies won’t offer rental or homeowner coverage if certain dog breeds live in the dwelling.

Stopping Discrimination

Get involved with a rescue that deals with a discriminated breed. Attend events to get the word out. There are several national campaigns to end the discrimination. Best Friends Animal Society has the “Saving America’s Dog” Campaign. The ASPCA has several ways to get involved including educating the public on alternatives to Breed Specific Laws (BSL). Knowledge is power. Become informed and share it whenever possible.

Written by Renee Moen

http://iheartdogs.com/breed-discrimination-can-it-be-stopped/

“Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998”

Sacks, J.J.; Sinclair, L.; Gilchrist, J.; Golab, G.C.; Lockwood, R. Journal of the American Medical Association, September 2000, Vol. 217, Issue 6, 836-40.

Abstract:


“Dogs for which breed was reported involved in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF). Data for human DBRF identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of the Humane Society of the United States’ registry databank. During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998).

bit.ly/pfp-john-ajax

 At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property. Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. 

Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/dog-bites-attacks-research-review

Mutts vs. Purebreds By Stacy Mantle

Which Type of Dog is Better

 By Stacy Mantle 

Which type of dog is better to have as a pet?

Is it better to adopt a mutt or buy a purebred? While the answer depends on what you’re looking for in a dog, author Stacy Mantle weighs in on the pluses and minuses of both.

It’s the one question I get on a recurring basis: Is it better to adopt a mutt or buy a purebred? I fall directly on the side of mutts. I’m a longtime fan of their unique sizes, shapes and personalities. Most of all, I love their enduring spirits. Is this to say that purebreds don’t share the same traits? Absolutely not, and there isn’t a purebred alive I don’t love as well. However, when it comes to having a pet, I’ll always err on the side of the mutt.

That’s me, however. Let’s look at some research data on generalized dog preferences.

Temperament

While I believe that temperament is a direct result of nurture over nature, that debate is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other.

A study by Best Friends Animal Society in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine studied 6,000 dogs and discovered that those from pet stores are more likely to have behavioral problems than ones purchased from small breeders. The pet-store dogs also showed more aggression toward strangers and increased separation anxiety when left alone. Now, when I say “pet store dog,” I’m referring to “puppy mills” versus responsible small breeders who are breeding for conformation and behavior.

I also looked at the stats from the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS). The temperament of an animal relies ultimately on stress factors and its individual life conditions. Those in a shelter are naturally going to be in a higher level of stress. How they cope with that stress can make or break a dog. Any dog coming from a legitimate and reputable breeder will have fewer reasons to be stressed. A dog coming from a reputable rescue, who manages to come out of that unscathed, will have a pretty decent track record. It’s going to take a lot to shake up a dog like that in the future. I’m handing the temperament issue to the rescue dogs who make it out of rescue in one piece.

Mutts: 1             Purebred: 0

Genetic Disorders

Mutts can be just as likely to have genetic disorders as purebreds; which breed a dog most closely resembles determines the health issues that might arise.

A study by UC Davis showed that there was a prevalence of genetic disorders in both populations (rescue and bred): “Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the two populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population.”

In layman’s terms, a dog is probably going to susceptible to genetic diseases of the breed he most resembles. That means my pointer-pit mix who mostly resembles a pointer is probably going to experience eye issues such as progressive retinal atrophy, as well as thyroid disease, epilepsy and allergies. Her littermate, who more closely resembles a bull terrier, is more likely to develop orthopedic diseases such as elbow dysplasia, luxating patella and osteochondritis, as well as thyroid disease and skin conditions.

I’ll call genetic issues a draw.

Mutts: 1             Purebred: 1

Infectious Disease

Dogs in large groups are naturally exposed to more disease, particularly if dogs are coming in and out every day. For this reason, they are more likely exposed than dogs in a reputable breeder’s kennel. Therefore, they will experience infectious disease more often than purebreds. However, my argument is that if they can overcome disease, they are light years ahead of purebreds in terms of immunity.

Statistically speaking, rescue dogs will contract more diseases that are infectious. However, that’s due to environment rather than breed. I’ll call this a draw.

Mutts: 1             Purebred: 1

Behavior Problems

One problem with dog bite statistics is that the data only looks at the breed, not the dogs’ owners. Many aggressive behavioral issues are due to nurture (i.e., the dog’s training or lack thereof), not a breed’s “inherent” nature.

Some people think purebred dogs have fewer behavioral problems, but I don’t believe that. Any dog raised in a group will become territorial over limited resources, just as any human in a group will become that way (assuming they want to survive).

A study by the CDC examined how many people died of dog-related attacks by breed. This is a difficult study because so many rescue animals are identified by one breed when they are actually a mix. That said, the results show that while “fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”

Again, I think this comes down to the “nature vs. nurture” argument. I’ll call it a draw.

Mutts: 1             Purebred: 1

Looks

I like individuality, especially in dogs. When I look at a purebred golden retriever, I know they are all different, but it’s hard to tell unless you live with them. I can look at two littermates and see completely different animals. As far as this goes, I’m favoring the rescue dogs. You might favor near-identical-looking animals, so you might rank it differently. However, I’m giving it to the rescues.

Ethical Issues

Puppy mills; need I say more? Rescuing a dog is the right thing to do. Period. The chance of you walking out of a rescue environment with a purebred dog (although you might not have her papers) is very high anyway. Why would you spend nearly twice as much money to buy a dog when there are so very many in immediate need of homes?

http://www.animalbehaviorcollege.com/blog/which-type-of-dog-is-better/

Can Merritt Clifton and Animal People Magazine Be Trusted?

By WhoIsColleen

In 2006 Clifton registered a Romanian rescue through the Washington Secretary of State’s office, listing himself as the Agent for the organization.  Why?  His connection to the organization was simply personal. Dana Costin would be the primary operator, and benefactor, of all proceeds raised to rescue and care for dogs in Galati, Romania.

In an email from Clifton to Nancy Janes of Romania Animal Rescue Inc (RAR), he lays-out a story involving kidnapping, child prostitution, and other crimes against humanity in effort to perhaps convince her that ROLDA, and Dana Costin are both legitimate and worthy causes.

If you’ve been following along through the articles in this series, you know that Merritt repeats regularly his degree of ethical journalism…

Oddly, just a few short months after Merritt sets the kidnapping story loose on unsuspecting donors in effort to solicit donations, the story begins to fall apart.  Kim Bartlett communicates with Janes about the far-fetched story of Costa’s heroic youth.

EXCERPT:
Not everyone who works for BF understands about ROLDA. When Merritt wins anyone’s trust, he starts promoting ROLDA and tells that pathetic fantasy about poor little Dana and how she and Rolando heroically saved the lives of the other children who were about to be killed by the kiddie porn ring who had kidnapped them all…and in spite of all their hardships and the cruelties they endured, as soon as they were freed they adopted the other children (even though they were themselves teenagers) and set about saving all the animals of Galati, even though they had to hide their identities so they wouldn’t be killed by the porn gangstas (which must have been difficult since they were living in the same town, with Dana’s parents) where Dana had always lived). I found out today that he has sent ROLDA calendars to some of our high donors, which is utterly inappropriate and unethical. He says the people he sent the calendars to were ROLDA supporters before I even heard of ROLDA, which is ridiculous. I don’t believe even Anna Bell was a ROLDA supporter before the profile of you was published in AP.

This story is made up by a 30-year journalist that prides himself on ethical journalism?

Janes was already onto Merritt’s dishonesty, having witnessed it first-hand and could only wonder if others should know the real Clifton.

From: Romania Animal Rescue <romaniadogs@xxxxxxxl.net>
Subject: Re: info
To: “Kim Bartlett” <xxxxxx@whidbey.com>
Date: Sunday, December 2, 2007, 3:52 PM
Hi Kim,
Actually, I contacted AnnaBell on my own, singing the praises of ROLDA……duh………. 
I don’t want to contact that person that Merritt openly lied to about Oana Belu……funny no one else has ever heard of her, from Bucharest, Arad, Cluj, Constanta -p but the all mighty Merritt knows her. I’m certain that he does!
Anyway, back to my point. If Merritt were made out for the liar that he is, what would that do to AP? To you and XXXX?
I’m not going there Kim. You need to keep your job for you and your son.
Me

The whole story is that 27-year old Dana Costin and Clifton began a torrid affair in 2005 that would quickly lead to the end of his 15-year marriage to Kim Bartlett.  While in California, Costin and Clifton would slip away from the CHAMPS conference for brief interludes, other times according to Kim flaunting their affair amid other animal welfare advocates, all while Costin’s partner Rolando remained in their shared room, suffering from a terminal illness.

Once their affair was discovered there was no more hiding the real Merritt Clifton from the public.  In an email from Kim, to Costin;

It was really something on Tuesday, at the Helen Woodward Animal Center seminar, how you followed Merritt around outside instead of listening to the speakers in the classroom. And on Thursday and Friday, at the CHAMP conference, people couldn’t help but notice all the time you spent together, your seductive behavior, and how it seemed you were waiting and watching for Merritt every moment you weren’t together. Certainly every time I was with Merritt, you were lurking somewhere nearby, with the two of you were pretending not to notice each other.

This went on while your boyfriend was supposedly lying gravely ill in your hotel room. What a display of loyalty and good character on your part!

Soon after, the Animal People duo were divorced.  Clifton was continuing his attempts to build funding for his new object of devotion. In another email, Bartlett communicates with Janes that Merritt has been caught using ANIMAL PEOPLE contacts to solicit donations after Bartlett received a check for $20,000 tagged for ROLDA.  Interestingly, Kim responds to the donor informing her that ROLDA is not an approved ANIMAL PEOPLE organization.

On Sat, 11/14/09, Kim Bartlett <xxxxxxx@whidbey.com> wrote:
From: Kim Bartlett <xxxxxxxx@whidbey.com>
Subject: Costin
To: “Romania Animal Rescue” <romaniadogs@xxxxxxxl.net>
Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:32 PM
Do you know of a donor to ROLDA named Nanette XXXX in Petaluma. She mailed a check for $20,000 payable to ROLDA here to Animal People, to Merritt’s attention yesterday, but I open the mail. I voided the check and sent it back to her and told ROLDA is not an approved AP group and she should contact you. I hadn’t heard anything about ROLDA or Costin for so long that it below the radar of my mind, and now I am angry again, because this Nanette called here in October and ordered our Watchdog Report, so Merritt is obviously using contacts from AP for ROLDA and that is a huge conflict of interest.

But, hasn’t Merritt always expressed pride in his non-affiliation with organizations, remaining independent and unbiased in his data collection and dissemination of information?  *Follow the money*  Bartlett states ROLDA is not an approved AP group.  Does this indicate that ANIMAL PEOPLE does in fact have special interest groups?

Soon after, Costin could see the writing on the wall, the fraudulent activities and lies were unveiling themselves to those she needed if she were to succeed.  In an attempt to find a safe landing place to manage some protection from the possible fall0ut of Clifton’s lies Costin sent an email communication to Nancy Janes wherein Costin admits to Clifton’s lies about abductions and being held hostage.

Also,everyone is making too big deal about my character and about my life(past,present or whatever),these thing shave to stop in order Merritt stop exagerating and imagine things like being kidnapped and so on…

I don’t have the time to analyse carefull everything,but my instinct told me that Merritt is not 100% our friend and soon,he can start causing us a lot of troubles,being influenced by Kim.

Did you knew that Claudiu was helped by Kim to get a grant from Marchig (for sterilization,of course) 
Registered or not,a group can be a scam if they ask money for things that they don’t do.It’s the worst to use dogs’money in others purpouses.

Now it was Costin’s turn to turn the heat up on Merritt and Batlett’s fundraising projects.  Exposing that Kim Bartlett had received a grant for a sterilization project that allegedly was non-existent would certainly raise a few eyebrows of closer associates.  But had Clifton been part of such fraud?

Had such fraud even occurred by Bartlett?  Or was this simply a manipulating plot of self-preservation on the part of Costin? Costin had been caught with her hand in the proverbial cookie jar, purchasing personal items including alcohol from monies received as donations from Romania Animal Rescue.  When Janes caught wind of it, Costin played coy by disclosing Clifton’s lies in the above email.

In response to Costin’s betrayal, Clifton detailed in a 5-page email to Janes a fantasy spun with lies and an intricate web of attempted emotional manipulation. Clifton shadowed a man unhinged, discussing visions and unseen voices, premonitions and even foresight into Costin’s partner Rolando’s death.  All of this while still offering excuses for Costin’s behavior and declaring his romantic interest in her.

Is this another common-interest and perhaps bond between Colleen Lynn and Merritt Clifton?  Besides their hate for pit bull type dogs, they believe they experience fortune telling abilities?

EXCERPT:
Merritt Clifton <xxxxxx@whidbey.com> wrote:

[…] I have had confusing premonitions about Dana’s role in my life, in a sense, since soon after Kim & I were married. Kim is deeply into astrology, and did charts for us. On one particular afternoon she described Dana very well, as someone who was then a child and far away, and even more particularly described her own response to this person arriving in our lives. 

I had two much more specific and detailed premonitions later, in December 1996 when I merely downloaded, printed out, and picked up the USA Today international edition article that described Dana and Rolando, and in a series of short dreams on the bus we took together to Brasov.

[…] I have told Dana only some of what I saw. Kim intercepted and spammed around that correspondence, so you may have seen what I told her, including that the first dream was just a voice commanding, “Do not fall in love with that girl!” which startled me awake, because it was such a strange thought to have. To that point, I had only been thinking about dogs and evaluating shelters.

I didn’t tell Dana, or anyone, that in both December 1996 and May 2004 I “saw” Rolando’s death, exactly as it happened. I absolutely did not want Rolando to die. That was the most terrible premonition about anything that I have ever had–and was, even when I first had it, just handling a piece of paper and experiencing feelings as jolting as an electrical shock.

I’m a rational person. I don’t really believe in anything more supernatural than a can of beer. Still, I have been haunted by all of the above dreams and premonitions for years. I also had a perplexing feeling in 1996 that Dana would at some future point become intensely a part of my life. That came from holding the piece of paper too, and I didn’t have the faintest idea how such a thing could be.

Then, on the bus, after I had gone through a series of brief but disturbing dreams that started with the voice, and included Rolando’s death and all of the stupid manufactured scandals, too, even identifying the specific Romanian players, I had one more dream. It consisted of just two still photos, that someone as yet unborn was looking at, far into the future.

[…] The message to me in the photo was simply, “Stand by her.” Do that, and despite all the tragic and disturbing events, the best would happen that could happen.

Love,
—
Merritt Clifton
Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

Soon, Clifton was again defending his romantic interest as she continued to distance herself from his revealed lies in another email.  When Janes requested receipts for full-disclosure of how the funds donated by Romania Animal Rescue (RAR) were allocated, Clifton refused access claiming superiority in accounting knowledge and providing her a condescendingly brief walk-through of definitions in terms.

From: Romania Animal Rescue <romaniadogs@xxxxxxxxl.net>
Subject: Re: Watch Dog
To: “Merritt Clifton” <xxxxxxx@whidbey.com>
Cc: “Kim Bartlett” <xxxxxxx@whidbey.com>
Date: Friday, August 11, 2006, 10:54 AM
When I realized Dana was having RAR pay for her personal things – clothes, shoes, cosmetics, perfume, alcohol, etc., then I thought it time to get a real accounting of exactly what was going on. Obviously you don’t care where donor money goes – if it’s to Dana, than you will find a way to excuse anything. If she wanted to take a salary, then she could have. MY donations from RAR
were a grant to her, and I have every right to get all the receipts for the grant expenses, such as Ahimsa or any other organization does. I did not exclusively work with ROLDA, much as Dana would have wanted it to be that way. When people asked me to give funds to other charities, I did so.

[…]

You need to clarify this in the Watch Dog update. You have deliberately mislead the public. Why won’t you give me the receipts for the expenses? Afraid of what I will find since I get them translated? I think it is illegal for you to keep those receipts, if in fact you have them, as RAR is entitled to them. You have no rights to them whatsoever.

[…]

>Can you send me the receipts since you seem to have them?
No.
> I’m sure you know I need them for April and May for accounting >purposes since Dana was removing funds from the account then and I have no receipts to justify this. 
Actually you don’t need detailed receipts unless you are an auditor. Usually when one charity transfers funds to another, the
transaction is documented by a single receipt per transaction from the receiving agency, with a statement as to what the money was spent for, not by individual receipts for each individual purchase.
If you were requiring from Dana on a regular basis the extent of detail she sent me, you were micro-managing her to death, & I am not surprised that she got sick of it.

Clifton’s facade of transparency and dedication for animals based on his love of was exposed. Naked and raw for the animal welfare world world to see.  And worse, he was rejected by the very girl his voices had warned him not to fall in love with.  His credibility both professionally and personally was now plummeting and rather than focus on the animals he proclaims to be so protective of he continued to lie.

EXCERPT:
From: Kim Bartlett <xxxxxxx@whidbey.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: objective perspective from an veterinarian
To: “Romania Animal Rescue” <romaniadogs@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Saturday, May 27, 2006, 1:42 PM
Merritt is just so pathetic. However, my pity is tempered by the fact that I had to refinance the mortgage and give him $111,000 as his half interest in the equity of his place so that I could keep the home for Wolf and the animals here, and also the ANIMAL PEOPLE office. The money he has given to her has come out of the money from the house that was meant for our family. He did give up everything for her, including the love and respect of his wife and son, and all rights of custody for his only child, but Wolf and I have suffered grievously because of it, and now I have a quartermillion dollar mortgage to pay so that Merritt could start his new life and get a new home he thought Dana would be sharing with him.

I have to ask what kind of a woman would allow a 52-year-old man to leave his home and family and jeopardize his career when she doesn’t even want him? Forget her animosity towards me, because Merritt has paid the bigger price. Merritt is a fool, but Dana is wicked. Her behavior goes beyond immaturity.

Please don’t forward things to Merritt. He will just tell Dana, and she will lie to her donors again.

As of this date, Clifton is still affiliated with ROLDA and Costin.  Unfortunately, that does little to lend to his proclamation of being honest, ethical and honorable.

Clifton is still listed as the Registered Agent for ROLDA with the Washington Secretary of State, and is still apparently soliciting funds for the incredulous fraud portrayed as a rescue.

Over the years, there has been little positive press regarding the organization and especially Costa’s.

2007 Costa was accused of orchestrating a fraudulent land deal and pocketing more than $97,000
Questionable accounting practices indicating misappropriations of donationsAlleged Impersonation of valid Organization in effort obtain funds by fraud
Alleged Embezzlement
Alleged neglect resulting from more embezzlement
More Alleged Impersonation of a valid Organization in effort to obtain funds by fraud
Alleged Abandonment of numerous dogs *video interview*

Now, the above links would suggest that Clifton has separated himself from ROLDA and Costa, but the last update provided in the above links from “Where Did My Donation Go?” was 2011.

In a postcard response in his own hand-writing, Clifton admits to remaining involved with ROLDA as a volunteer U.S. Trustee, handling the legal and financial work in the U.S. since 1986.

Wait…1986?  That caught WhoIsColleenLynn’s attention too.  So we began digging and found that “Where Did My Donation Go?” had already investigated the slip.

In 1986 Romania was still under communist rule
In 1986 ROLDA did not exist
In 1986 Dana Costin was approx 7 years of age

As we had already uncovered, Clifton hadn’t met Costin until 2004 and ROLDA was not created including Clifton’s involvement until 2006.

It’s possible that Clifton simply wrote the wrong date as a matter of habit, as that is the same year that Bartlett then worked at Animal’s Agenda as Editor where she hired Clifton in 1986.  As a reminder, Clifton was fired from that position prompting loyal Bartlett to resign in protest and c0-found Animal People with Clifton.

But, if he can’t keep his dates and associations straight, are we really to believe he is keeping his ‘data tables’ accurate?

Did you miss Part 1 and Part 2 of this series?

Please read more..... Who Is Colleen Lynn

Myths and Facts About Pit Bulls by Petfinder

By Robin Rock

It is a fact that Pit Bulls are one of the most maligned and misunderstood dog breeds in the world. Here are some of the myths I’ve encountered while working with Pit Bulls:

Thinkstock

MYTH: Pit Bulls have locking jaws.
Reality: Pit Bulls do not have any special physical mechanism or enzyme that allows them to “lock” their jaws. If you compare a Pit Bull skull to a skull of any other dog breed, you can see with the naked eye that both skulls share the same characteristics and general bone structure. However, one personality trait of the Pit Bull breed is determination. Whatever Pit Bulls do, they do it with a great deal of enthusiasm, and it is this trait that can make it seem like they have a locking jaw when they bite down on something and are determined not to release it.

MYTH: Pit Bulls are all inherently vicious.
Reality: This is a stereotype that is biased toward generalizing and condemning an entire breed based on the actions of a few bad people. The truth is that each dog should be evaluated by his own merits and not by his breed. A corollary truth is that there truly are no bad dogs, only bad people. In his essay Troublemakers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses what Pit Bull stereotypes can teach us about the wrongness of racial profiling of both humans and dogs.

MYTH: A Pit Bull that is aggressive toward other dogs will also be aggressive toward humans.
Reality: Dog-aggression and people-aggression are two distinctive traits and should not be confused. Unless a Pit Bull has been poorly bred or purposefully trained to attack humans, they generally love people. They are, in fact, one of the most loving, loyal, friendly and dedicated companions you can have.

MYTH: It is dangerous to adopt a Pit Bull that has an unknown history and parentage from a rescue or shelter, rather than buying a Pit Bull from a breeder.
Reality: Remember: each dog is an individual and should be judged by his current personality and behavior. Certainly he may be influenced by his genetics and history, but after working with thousands of Pit Bulls, I can assert unequivocally that many (if not most) Pit Bulls of unknown parentage that have been horribly abused, neglected, and/or forced to fight still love people more than anything, and still will be loving family pets. Responsible rescues and shelters evaluate dog behavior prior to adoption, and then adopt out only those Pit Bulls that display the proper temperament toward humans.

MYTH: It is better to adopt a Pit Bull puppy instead of an adult.
Reality: It’s a fact that puppies are adorable! But the thing about puppies is, well, they grow up. And as they mature, their personality develops and that’s when you really find out whether your Pit Bull is dominant or submissive with people, or whether she is aggressive toward some, none or all dogs. Dog-intolerance and dog-aggression are traits that do not develop in some dogs until they are fully mature. It is possible that the cute little puppy you adopt who is friendly with all other dogs may not like other dogs at all later in life, even dogs she has grown up with and lived with for her entire life. Both nurture (environment) and nature (genetics) play a role in determining a dog’s mature personality. This doesn’t mean that Pit Bull puppies should not be adopted, but if you want to know how big your dog will ultimately be and how she will act around humans and other animals, you may want to consider adopting an adult.

Ultimately, the decision to adopt any dog requires much thought on what is the right fit for your family, and your ability to commit to the dog for his or her lifetime.

Robin Rock is the founder and director of Measle’s Animal Haven Pit Bull Rescue, a 501(c)(3) non-profit rescue and sanctuary consisting of foster homes in Central Ohio. Robin has been rescuing, rehabilitating and advocating for Pit Bulls for over 10 years, and she has worked with thousands of Pit Bulls. She lives with her husband Joe, their five children, adopted dogs and cats and various foster dogs.

PETFINDER.....