Sit, Fetch, Stay Or Die: The Pit Bull Ambassador Program

[shel]

The Pit Bull Ambassador Program: Old Dogma, New Package

Everywhere you look, it seems that Pit Bulls are being sold out. They are the voiceless victims of dogfighters. They are exploited by the media looking for a sensational story. Self-serving politicians pass legislation demanding their systematic destruction while wrapping themselves in the mantel of public safety. Groups like PETA call for automatic death sentences for those in shelters, while other groups like HSUS promote policies which lead to killing them in various contexts. Shelters like the one in Multnomah County, Oregon, temperament test them to death, falsely claiming the vast majority of them are “unadoptable. ” And self-proclaimed experts like Sue Sternberg advocate that even if they are friendly, they can’t be trusted around children and other animals and thus should be killed anyway. Add poorly performing shelters who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it, and the chances of Pit Bulls getting out of shelters alive are formidable.

Just as often, however, those selling them out are those who claim to be their friends. They say they advocate for Pit Bulls, while pursuing policies that allow for the majority of them to be killed. The new catchphrase in this kind of pro-Pit Bull killing apologia is “ambassador for the breed.” “The goal,” according to a shelter with a Pit Bull ambassador program, “is to debunk myths associated with the breed.” The idea is to adopt out only “perfect” Pit Bulls so that when they are in the community, they can show people that the Pit Bull can be a model dog they need not fear.

According to one shelter with a “model” Pit Bull ambassador program, “Dogs who make it into this program undergo extensive health and temperament screenings before they are adopted out.” A dog must score 100 percent on the following tests to become an “ambassador” and thus make it out of the shelter alive:

1. Accept a friendly stranger;

2. Sit politely for petting;

3. Appearance and grooming;

4. Walk on a loose leash;

5. Walk through a crowd;

6. Sit, down, and stay on command;

7. Come when called;

8. Reaction to another dog;

9. Reaction to distractions; and,

10. Supervised separation.

What happens to those dogs not deemed “perfect”? While some ambassador programs allow for less than perfect dogs to be adopted and simply withhold the label “ambassador,” many shelters adopt them out only if they meet the mandates of the program. In other words, these shelters kill Pit Bulls who are not “perfect,” even if they are friendly. In that context, the “ambassador” program creates yet another excuse to kill the vast majority of these dogs. And while this program is billed as a way of “debunking the myths” associated with these dogs, in practice, it actually perpetuates them. It sets Pit Bulls apart from other dogs, perpetuating the idea that they are different and potentially dangerous. It perpetuates the idea that their lives matter less than other dogs and that killing them is acceptable. It sets the bar so high that it perpetuates the paradigm wherein the majority of Pit Bulls can and should be killed. In other words, they have to sit, stay, come when called or die—something we would never accept as a standard for other dogs in shelters. This is simply another way of blaming the victim, of blaming the killing on the dogs themselves—rather than on those actually doing the killing in spite of alternatives.

To protect public safety, we cannot include truly aggressive dogs in shelter adoption programs, Pit Bull or otherwise. But it is a far jump from that reality to a premise that says dogs that pull too hard on the leash must die. If in their excitement, they greet by jumping on you, they die. If they do not sit politely while being petted, they die.

In other words, the “ambassador for the breed” program does little more than provide shelters that kill the vast majority of Pit Bulls with a “seal of approval” from supposed advocacy groups. With no criteria to determine whether the program is changing public perception, no timetables for evaluating it, no clearly defined, quantifiable goals as to what success is, and no suggestion of when it can be expanded to Pit Bulls deemed “less than perfect”, the ambassador program may delay the time when the vast majority are saved, To be effective advocates, we must challenge—rather than sanction—ideas which institutionalize killing. Rather than start with the prevailing paradigm of killing and embrace an incremental approach by beginning with saving a few “perfect” dogs, we must start with the goal of ending their killing and embrace the programs and services which will get us there. In other words, the Pit Bull ambassador program gets it backward.

The program also ignores a basic reality that roughly nine out of ten Pit Bulls already debunk the myths in that they are not aggressive. According to national Temperament Testing results, about 87% of owned Pit Bull-type dogs are friendly. The numbers in a shelter environment are similar. About nine out of ten Pit Bull-type dogs should pass a fair evaluation for aggression (In Tompkins County, while I was the director, it was 86% in 2002).

Some of these dogs will obey commands, some won’t. Some will eat your kid’s breakfast when no one is looking, some will think all shoes are dog toys, some will poop in the house, some will dig up your garden, some will take over the bed when you go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, some will greet you by jumping up on you with muddy paws when you are wearing your Sunday best, some will be shy, some will pull too hard on the leash, some will think that—though they weigh 80 pounds—they can sit on your lap and then shift around to get more comfortable. But none of them will be aggressive. All of them are dogs worthy of being saved. And thus, all of them are ambassadors for the breed in showing that they are not the mean, vicious breeds that they are made out to be.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of Pit Bulls that end up in shelters are killed. And the majority of them are friendly. The only difference between a shelter which simply kills them and one that claims to promote ambassador programs is the seal of approval to the killing that the latter provides. In the end, the notion undermines the basic foundation of the No Kill movement that every animal who can be saved must be saved. Our duty is to expose the myths and disproven dogmas which have allowed for the unnecessary and cruel slaughter of two million dogs every year in our nation’s shelters, including Pit Bulls. Rather than dismantle this deadly paradigm, those defending the breed by promoting the “Pit Bull Ambassador” approach actually create a new rationale for the killing of “adoptable” animals and perhaps, worse of all, officially sanctioned it.

The “ambassador” approach buys into the idea that the lives of individual animals are not paramount. That these individuals can be sacrificed for what we perceive to be the greater good: the lives of a few we deem “perfect.” Ultimately, it is simply repackaging “catch and kill” sheltering in a new fuzzy label: “ambassadors for the breed.”

Facts, figures, comprehensive adoption programs, and passionate, unyielding advocacy on their behalf is needed to undo the years of misinformation and abuse by which Pit Bulls have suffered. Challenging the status quo and exposing hypocrisy is not easy and never pleasant, but that is what we must do for Pit Bulls. Simplistic, superficial gimmicks which sanction the harmful ideas we are supposed to be fighting and sacrifice the lives we are supposed to be saving violate our core duty to the dogs. How can we expect to change the attitudes regarding these dogs if their advocates are willing to sell them out?

Rather than embrace a program based on the flawed and deadly idea that it is acceptable to sacrifice the many to save a tiny few, how about treating them just like dogs and working to save all of them? After all, “Pit Bulls are just dogs. Four legs, two eyes, one heart.” (Delise, Karen, The Pit Bull Placebo, Anubis Publishing, 2007.) We should treat them that way. That is what compassion and justice dictate. And that must be the first premise of our advocacy on their behalf

Read more at www.thenokillnation.com.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1103

[Greytmate]

Just as often, however, those selling them out are those who claim to be their friends. They say they advocate for Pit Bulls, while pursuing policies that allow for the majority of them to be killed. The new catchphrase in this kind of pro-Pit Bull killing apologia is “ambassador for the breed.” “The goal,” according to a shelter with a Pit Bull ambassador program, “is to debunk myths associated with the breed.” The idea is to adopt out only “perfect” Pit Bulls so that when they are in the community, they can show people that the Pit Bull can be a model dog they need not fear.

Given the bad reputation this breed has now, I think these people are helping their breed, not selling it out.

If people want to put their effort into careful assessment and training of a particular breed, to make it more rehomeable and to improve the reputation of the breed, that is a really good thing. Good luck to them. This will be sure to increase the number of pitbulls they rehome long-term.

The program also ignores a basic reality that roughly nine out of ten Pit Bulls already debunk the myths in that they are not aggressive. According to national Temperament Testing results, about 87% of owned Pit Bull-type dogs are friendly. The numbers in a shelter environment are similar. About nine out of ten Pit Bull-type dogs should pass a fair evaluation for aggression (In Tompkins County, while I was the director, it was 86% in 2002).

A few figures given to us is not 'basic reality'. They are statistics from very small samples. What is Temperament Testing, and why the capital letters? There are many temperament tests around, some good, some of dubious value, and none perfectly reliable. Why shouldn't this group assess and make decisions on their dogs according to their own criteria?

Shame on you Shel for posting this sort of diatribe, knocking people doing good work.

[sandgrubber]

Shel's post was copied directly from a no-kill blog (see links at the end of the post). I see it as the no-kill line, as applied to APBT's. As with other no-kill lines, the ideal is great, and I wish it were realistic. I agree with greymate . . . temperament screening is the way to go given that there are too many dogs in shelters, and it's particularly important for breeds whose reputation could use a bit of cleaning up.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

[Greytmate]

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

The article doesn't say what type of temperament screening is done, or what training is done with the dogs so that they can go through the scheme. The article just attacks some people who love the breed and are working hard and saving the lives of pitbulls.

The author of the article has an agenda, and regularly attacks organisations running in competition to his own. There is no explanation of the scheme or statistics on adoption figures for the breed either. It is yet another typically nasty and very vague attack on people working to save dogs. To accuse these people of having a 'paradigm of killing' is really offensive.

There is a lot of info on the web about the program, it is well-supported and a huge amount of good work is being done. There is only Nathan Winograd, Shel, and now you that seem to be having problems with it, or more specifically, problems with the people that run it.

So Rhapsopdical, what do you know about the rescue groups that run the Pitbull Ambassador scheme that that makes you agree with the article? You really think that groups like this one, or this group, or any other rescue groups deserve public condemnation? That they do not treat the dogs they save with compassion and justice? That they are selling out their breed? That they exist in order to kill pitbulls? That shows a pretty warped attitude towards the people that make a personal sacrifice to try to help dogs.

If you are going to join in with the vitriolic attack on people in rescue, you had better be prepared to explain what it is exactly that you find so objectionable about the way that those groups rehome their dogs. You might even like to tell us what it is that you are doing instead.

[sandgrubber]

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

Which of the listed points do you think is/are rediculous? They look pretty much like the screening I went through when my girl did hospital visits with Delta -- and a reasonable, though vague, description of things a dog should be evaluated on before being adopted.

1. Accept a friendly stranger;

2. Sit politely for petting;

3. Appearance and grooming;

4. Walk on a loose leash;

5. Walk through a crowd;

6. Sit, down, and stay on command;

7. Come when called;

8. Reaction to another dog;

9. Reaction to distractions; and,

10. Supervised separation.

I'd say the article is a bit muddled, and doesn't give the information needed to evaluate the 'ambasadors' program. Its intent seems, mostly, to damn the program and brand it as 'killing'.

It first says dogs must pass 100% to make it out alive, and then it says that some shelters rehome dogs that are less than 100%, but just don't label them as 'ambassadors'. No clue about what percent of shelters require perfect scores for the dog to be rehomed, or how the listed points are interpreted (eg. #8 . . . is the dog ok if it ignores another dog or is it required to be friendly; #10. . . what is the dog supposed to do under supervised separation). The pass/fail rate isn't given. There is no information about whether dogs are given a little training before being tested. Nor does it say what percent of shelters have a policy of euthanasia for all pitties, and whether some of those shelters have adopted the 'ambasador' program and are now rehoming a fair number of pitties.

[WreckitWhippet]

Shel's post was copied directly from a no-kill blog (see links at the end of the post). I see it as the no-kill line, as applied to APBT's. As with other no-kill lines, the ideal is great, and I wish it were realistic. I agree with greymate . . . temperament screening is the way to go given that there are too many dogs in shelters, and it's particularly important for breeds whose reputation could use a bit of cleaning up.

Absolutely..

Release only those dogs with stable temperaments back into the community and given the reputation of the breed, dogs that have passed the criteria are far more likely to be adopted, given that they can sit, stay , drop and have a recall. A basic level of training makes them far more appealing to the general public , screening also reduces any potential risk.

If resources were available I'd like to see every shelter and pound in this country implement such a program, sadly there are not the people, $$ or the time. Many of the rescues are now working in conjunction with the pounds and have basic temp testing in place. This is going a long way to ensure that the dogs from those pounds are indeed suitable for adoption and if they do have problems that present at the time of testing, potential owners can be advised as to the nature of the issue and make an informed choice should they choose to adopt.

Edited May 12, 2009 by PPS

[Just Midol]

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

Which of the listed points do you think is/are rediculous? They look pretty much like the screening I went through when my girl did hospital visits with Delta -- and a reasonable, though vague, description of things a dog should be evaluated on before being adopted.

1. Accept a friendly stranger;

2. Sit politely for petting;

3. Appearance and grooming;

4. Walk on a loose leash;

5. Walk through a crowd;

6. Sit, down, and stay on command;

7. Come when called;

8. Reaction to another dog;

9. Reaction to distractions; and,

10. Supervised separation.

I'd say the article is a bit muddled, and doesn't give the information needed to evaluate the 'ambasadors' program. Its intent seems, mostly, to damn the program and brand it as 'killing'.

It first says dogs must pass 100% to make it out alive, and then it says that some shelters rehome dogs that are less than 100%, but just don't label them as 'ambassadors'. No clue about what percent of shelters require perfect scores for the dog to be rehomed, or how the listed points are interpreted (eg. #8 . . . is the dog ok if it ignores another dog or is it required to be friendly; #10. . . what is the dog supposed to do under supervised separation). The pass/fail rate isn't given. There is no information about whether dogs are given a little training before being tested. Nor does it say what percent of shelters have a policy of euthanasia for all pitties, and whether some of those shelters have adopted the 'ambasador' program and are now rehoming a fair number of pitties.

I bet the majority of dogs owned by dolers would fail those.

1) Fair enough.

2) Do they train the dog to sit "politely"?

3) So they only adopt out good looking dogs?

4) Do they train the dog to do this?

5) Fair enough, but this is a training excersize.

6) Do they train the dog to do this?

7) Do they train the dog to do this?

8-10) not enough info.

That's a very shallow list of requirements and any organisation which uses those 10 points to temperament test can not be considered reputable. If someone wants to run a rescue, and use those as guidelines for releasing dogs then they need to train the dog to perform in the expected fashion, if they don't, they're killers.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Just Midol

[sandgrubber]

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

1. Accept a friendly stranger;

2. Sit politely for petting;

3. Appearance and grooming;

4. Walk on a loose leash;

5. Walk through a crowd;

6. Sit, down, and stay on command;

7. Come when called;

8. Reaction to another dog;

9. Reaction to distractions; and,

10. Supervised separation.

I bet the majority of dogs owned by dolers would fail those.

1) Fair enough.

2) Do they train the dog to sit "politely"?

3) So they only adopt out good looking dogs?

4) Do they train the dog to do this?

5) Fair enough, but this is a training excersize.

6) Do they train the dog to do this?

7) Do they train the dog to do this?

8-10) not enough info.

That's a very shallow list of requirements and any organisation which uses those 10 points to temperament test can not be considered reputable. If someone wants to run a rescue, and use those as guidelines for releasing dogs then they need to train the dog to perform in the expected fashion, if they don't, they're killers.

That is a list compiled by someone who is hostile to the program and seems to have been phrased to play into prejudices, not to tell the reader how the screening works. . . . The author doesn't say whether they train the dogs or attempt to correct behavioural problems. If a hostile observer described one of the better known temperament screening procedures, I could imagine the list might look similar.

[Greytmate]

From what I have seen, there are volunteers that train the dogs to prepare them for adoption, and training organisations supporting the program.

Midol, please research the program yourself before you form an opinion on it.

From what I have read so far, it is an excellent initiative, that may be worth adapting for use in some places in Australia. If there are enough people prepared to make it work, there is a good chance it could be used to overturn BSL in areas where pitbulls are restricted but not banned. I would also be interested in helping anyone that was attempting to do it properly.

[shel]

I think what the author is trying to say is;

is labrador, is poodle, is mastiff, is pitbull... is dog

And that all dogs, regardless of breed, deserve the same temperament testing and an equal playing field. The idea that a dog of certain breed must be more 'special' before they deserve a chance at being saved, is perverse if we're going to make the assumption that all breeds are equal and non is more dangerous (the whole premise of anti-BSL advocacy).

Shame on you Shel for posting this sort of diatribe, knocking people doing good work.

Tomato, tomatoe. You say diatribe - I say 'thought piece'. I don't believe there is any shame, nor should there be is examining the way different programs are run. He is examining the whole 'pitbull ambassador program' idea as it stands in the US - not attacking any particular group.

This idea that because rescue are working with good hearts and therefore working without fault, or should be somehow immune from examination is not only unrealistic, its unhelpful. Only by discussions such as this thread can we examine our ideas and test their merit.

Our strength will come not from always being right, but from constantly challenging our thinking.

[GeckoTree]

Quick question would other breeds such as CAO etc, pass that temperament test?

Dog temperaments vary from breed to breed being bred for differing temperamets over many generations, so only docile dogs pass into adoption? not dogs with different breed temperament traits?

I guess I am asking are breed temperaments a factor when making the decisions, Rodesian Ridgebacks temperament being aloof to strangers etc as example. Someone looking to adopt / save one, might be looking for a dog with that temperament as that is what the dogs have in the breed temperament standard. But not interested in a RR with the temperament of a more accepting to strangers lap dog breed might have for example.

Edited May 14, 2009 by RebLT

[Diva]

Quick question would other breeds such as CAO etc, pass that temperament test?

Dog temperaments vary from breed to breed being bred for differing temperamets over many generations, so only docile dogs pass into adoption? not dogs with different breed temperament traits?

.

To me it's a list of behavioural criteria not a temperament test - a bit of basic training would fix most of those criteria for most dogs. I also didn't see anything in that list of criteria that an aloof breed should not be able to pass, and I own/have owned breeds whose standards decribe aloofness with strangers. Aloofness shouldn't excuse shyness or sharpness, an aloof breed should be able to accept - but not fawn over - a friendly stranger.

If these people are genuinely trying to rebilitate the breed's image good on them. In an ideal world all adult rescue dogs would be so trained before adoption. I know of course that resources don't allow that, sadly.

I don't know if a trained CAO would pass that test, but most CAO are still genuine livestock guarding dogs as far as I know, chosen with their special characteristics in mind. If they ever got as popular as pit bulls maybe the same hard decisions would be being made - lets hope they are spared that and kept as working dogs. Criteria suitable for their role in life as LGDs is hardly the same as that for dogs kept as pets.

Edited for typos

Edited May 14, 2009 by Diva

[Greytmate]

I think what the author is trying to say is;

is labrador, is poodle, is mastiff, is pitbull... is dog

And that all dogs, regardless of breed, deserve the same temperament testing and an equal playing field. The idea that a dog of certain breed must be more 'special' before they deserve a chance at being saved, is perverse if we're going to make the assumption that all breeds are equal and non is more dangerous (the whole premise of anti-BSL advocacy).

Shame on you Shel for posting this sort of diatribe, knocking people doing good work.

Tomato, tomatoe. You say diatribe - I say 'thought piece'. I don't believe there is any shame, nor should there be is examining the way different programs are run. He is examining the whole 'pitbull ambassador program' idea as it stands in the US - not attacking any particular group.

This idea that because rescue are working with good hearts and therefore working without fault, or should be somehow immune from examination is not only unrealistic, its unhelpful. Only by discussions such as this thread can we examine our ideas and test their merit.

Our strength will come not from always being right, but from constantly challenging our thinking.

Don't bother telling me what you think the author is trying to say. I can read exactly what he said. The article wasn't about what the dogs deserve, it was an attack on people trying to rehome them.

There is a polite way to challenge, and there is the Nathan Winograd way. A way that attacks other people and labels them killers. What a nasty thing to do. And you help him.

Imagine the reaction if any of us on the rescue forum laid into another group like that? Even politely pointing out differences in rescue philosophy are interpreted as attacks in there. I cannot believe you are that naive to think that NW's attack on the pitbull program is merely an innocent 'thought piece' or that the intention of his article was merely to examine.

Would you like it if I posted on the internet a little thought piece on a website called PetRescue? I could examine what it does, give a brief gloss over of how it operates with an emphasis on the negative and keep up the constant subtext that you (personally) are clearly KILLING ALL THE DOGS that miss out on a place on Pet Rescue, because YOU CHOOSE to leave them in the pound to DIE. Would this challenge to your thinking be helpful? Would it inspire you to go out and save all the dogs that you have so far failed to save? Or would you just think what a bitch I am, giving you a serve back of what you so regularly dish out to others?

Shel, don't you feel any shame that you publish pieces like that, that call shelter volunteers killers that sell out their breed? No matter how many differences I have with the rescue people on this forum, I would not start a nasty topic like this merely to attack other rescue groups. What did you hope to achieve here?

What makes that article's inclusion in the BSL forum so innappropriate is that programs like the pitbull ambassador one are actually opportunities for change to BSL. It would be more constructive to get people interested in looking at the pitbull program and thinking about it, not attempting to discredit it.

Lastly, what you describe as 'the whole premise of anti-BSL advocacy, is possibly the exact reason why we have BSL. It is an ineffective and counter-productive premise, that would be almost laughable if it wasn't so serious. What a silly justification for posting your venom. I have had greyhound laws changed all over Queensland Shel, and it wasn't by spouting rubbish like 'all breeds are equal and non is more dangerous'.

[shel]

Agree to disagree.

I think it was an article and a premise worth debating.

Edited May 14, 2009 by shel

[Greytmate]

Quick question would other breeds such as CAO etc, pass that temperament test?

Dog temperaments vary from breed to breed being bred for differing temperamets over many generations, so only docile dogs pass into adoption? not dogs with different breed temperament traits?

I guess I am asking are breed temperaments a factor when making the decisions, Rodesian Ridgebacks temperament being aloof to strangers etc as example. Someone looking to adopt / save one, might be looking for a dog with that temperament as that is what the dogs have in the breed temperament standard. But not interested in a RR with the temperament of a more accepting to strangers lap dog breed might have for example.

One of the appealing things about the Pitbull program, is that it is designed and run by lovers of that breed. They could choose their temperament test based one the breed traits and more importantly, the needs of the people that are going to be living around these dogs when they are out in the community.

I see similarities between that program, and the Greyhound Adoption Program. Our temp testing is specific to our breed, and takes into account both the expectations of our community, and the people that typically want to adopt a greyhound from us.

So really any breed group that wanted to improve the profile of their breed could do the same thing. If the support is there, people will volunteer to help, and that is where you will find a work force of dedicated breed people fostering and training those dogs and ensuring that they are of the highest possible standard. It isn't just the temp testing, it is the training of the dogs and the support to the new owners.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

The testing itself is fine, but to expect a dog to get 100% on it? What, are they going for their CGC or something? Ridiculous.

That type of temperament screening is ridiculous. Good article.

Which of the listed points do you think is/are rediculous? They look pretty much like the screening I went through when my girl did hospital visits with Delta -- and a reasonable, though vague, description of things a dog should be evaluated on before being adopted.

1. Accept a friendly stranger;

2. Sit politely for petting;

3. Appearance and grooming;

4. Walk on a loose leash;

5. Walk through a crowd;

6. Sit, down, and stay on command;

7. Come when called;

8. Reaction to another dog;

9. Reaction to distractions; and,

10. Supervised separation.

I'd say the article is a bit muddled, and doesn't give the information needed to evaluate the 'ambasadors' program. Its intent seems, mostly, to damn the program and brand it as 'killing'.

It first says dogs must pass 100% to make it out alive, and then it says that some shelters rehome dogs that are less than 100%, but just don't label them as 'ambassadors'. No clue about what percent of shelters require perfect scores for the dog to be rehomed, or how the listed points are interpreted (eg. #8 . . . is the dog ok if it ignores another dog or is it required to be friendly; #10. . . what is the dog supposed to do under supervised separation). The pass/fail rate isn't given. There is no information about whether dogs are given a little training before being tested. Nor does it say what percent of shelters have a policy of euthanasia for all pitties, and whether some of those shelters have adopted the 'ambasador' program and are now rehoming a fair number of pitties.

[shel]

I see similarities between that program, and the Greyhound Adoption Program. Our temp testing is specific to our breed, and takes into account both the expectations of our community, and the people that typically want to adopt a greyhound from us.

Similar but different as there is no government legislation mandating the destruction of all of your breed, their crosses and anything that looks anything like a greyhound should they fail to make the grade to get into your program.

What you've described; you, I or any breed lover starting a breed specific program which picks the 'cream of the crop' to act as advocates for the breed, supporting owners, promoting adoption; is a very noble cause. Power to anyone who wants to do it.

But what this essay is talking about is councils getting off the hook by saying "we don't have BSL - we're working with a pitbull advocacy group" - then automatically killing any of those not inducted into the program. No rescue, no potential adopter seeing them in the pound... nadda.

If we assume that the temperament test to get into this program is more stringent than one for the regular pound population (yes?) we're effectively saying 'we'll save the labrador who gets a 65%, but we'll absolutely no questions asked, kill any pitbull that gets less than say, 95%

That's BSL.

I for one believe that all dogs should be tested on their individual personality and merit and not their breed. Which is why I feel killing those dogs who fail to make it into these programs, but whom are still healthy and adoptable, simply because they're not a labrador is wrong.

[mita]

I need to start over & read the article again. To separate the reasons why people are doing what they do, from arguments against persons.

I don't think Shel's putting up the article for discussion (whatever she thinks of it) is cause to be calling 'shame' on her head. Disagreement, yes....& why.

But off to re-read... My original response was.... temperament & behaviour being confused in assessments of dogs.

[Greytmate]

Similar but different as there is no government legislation mandating the destruction of all of your breed, their crosses and anything that looks anything like a greyhound should they fail to make the grade to get into your program.

Which is why I said that something like this may only work in areas where pitbulls are restricted but not banned. Obviously there are differences in the breeds and the laws about them, but the concept of the Pitbull Ambassador is an opportunity to change community perceptions about the breed. The only way that BSL can be changed is for the community perceptions to be changed, and for the government to be given proof that the dogs in question will not cause any harm in the community.

If we assume that the temperament test to get into this program is more stringent than one for the regular pound population (yes?) we're effectively saying 'we'll save the labrador who gets a 65%, but we'll absolutely no questions asked, kill any pitbull that gets less than say, 95%

You would only assume that if you didn't look any further than what NW had to say. It seems to me that the dogs need to reach a certain standard to be adopted out of the program, not to get into the program. There are volunteers working with the dogs in foster care to bring them up to the behaviour standard required. Perhaps different groups run the program differently, and only the outcome is the same. We don't know what requirements have to be met for a dog to get into this scheme or how this differs from the temp tests used on other breeds in the same shelters.

Labradors do not have the image problem that pitbulls do. Labradors with temperament or behaviour problems rarely make the evening news. Pitbulls with those problems sometimes do. If Lab people have a situation where labs with temp or behaviour problems are being adopted out, they can deal with the fallout. If Pitbull groups only want to see pitbulls with no behaviour or temperament problems being adopted out, why should anyone pressure them to lower their standards? Do you really think we need pitbulls in the community with less than solid temperament and good behaviour? Who would want to adopt a nasty pitbull instead of a nice one?

I for one believe that all dogs should be tested on their individual personality and merit and not their breed. Which is why I feel killing those dogs who fail to make it into these programs, but whom are still healthy and adoptable, simply because they're not a labrador is wrong.

So you feel that breed specific rescue initiatives are wrong. That is reflected in the way you run your site. Breed specific rescue is not responsible for dogs of other breeds dying. No group saving dogs is responsible for the dogs that they don't save.

But what this essay is talking about is councils getting off the hook by saying "we don't have BSL - we're working with a pitbull advocacy group" - then automatically killing any of those not inducted into the program. No rescue, no potential adopter seeing them in the pound... nadda.

Councils are not on the hook. The pitbulls are on the hook. The article is very vague on the whole subject of adoption figures and the fate of the dogs failing the test. Which organisation that adopt dogs out under this program are you accusing of 'automatic killing' Shel? Be specific if you are going to make such a serious allegation.That way we can look at their overall pitbull adoption figures, before and after they started the scheme, and decide for ourselves if it is a good thing.