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

[mita]

That's better. It's who's doing what, because they believe what. Not just they think their intentions are good.

As Sister Mary Honorious used to say, 'The way to hell is paved with good intentions.' That's a Catholic thing. :cool:

Seriously, the issues brought out in this article do need unpicking. Still reading on....

Edited May 15, 2009 by mita

[shel]

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.

Nope - you've missed it. I'm saying that shelters subscribing to and enforcing BSL is wrong and should be challenged.

[Greytmate]

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.

Nope - you've missed it. I'm saying that shelters subscribing to and enforcing BSL is wrong and should be challenged.

You are the one that has missed it.

The Pitbull Ambassador program is not BSL. They are literally poles apart. It would take a very warped mind to link them together and attempt to confuse the two for their own agenda.

In the sheep-like way that you post up NW's "No Kill" drivel, you have missed everything good that the Pitbull Ambassador program might be, and have attempted to discredit it.

For your own short-term satisfaction, you are willing to see other people's long-term initiatives fail. A refusal to understand that some breeds do need careful promotion and management for them to become more desirable by the public over time.

NW does not provide any solutions to the BSL issue. So, the options are you could do more research and offer something that might be considered as an intelligent challenge to the advocates of BSL. Or you can keep defending your nasty article, because throwing out simplistic insults on a complex subject and trying to discredit the good work of others is about as challenging as you actually get.

[Teebs]

god, my dogs wouldnt pass that test... sit still for a pat? kaos? :cool: Hell no!! She wriggles and rolls over for a tummy rub, she is also terrified of a brush, so would fail the grooming side of things...

Not going to comment on anything else, not in the mood for a debate today

[shel]

For your own short-term satisfaction, you are willing to see other people's long-term initiatives fail.

I would consider the leap from cross-posting an article and thoughts from another country; to wishing the demise of the entire rescue industry for kicks, as a bit of a leap, wouldn't you? (this)

This idea that by posting a concept means I'm completely blinded to every other facet is exactly the opposite of why I posted this piece. I'm not threatened by thoughts. Keep em, chuck em - its totally up to you. But if we only talked about the ones that didn't upset our delicate sensibilities, then where would we be?

Nothing great ever came from consensus.

Edited May 14, 2009 by shel

[Aussienot]

Nope - you've missed it. I'm saying that shelters subscribing to and enforcing BSL is wrong and should be challenged.

So you want shelters to break the law?

[shel]

So you want shelters to break the law?

Nope. Breaking a law doesn't challenge it.

[sandgrubber]

I just did a Google search on Pit Bull Ambassadors. The program is NOTHING like the slanderous article posted suggests.

See

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic....=1&topic=13

PLEASE don't slander rescue programs until you've heard their own description of their programs. Don't pick up some extreme no-kill person's writings and pass it on uncritically. Most rescue programs are backed by caring, dedicated people who are, on the whole, helping the type of dog they tend to work with. OK. You may not agree with everything they do. PLEASE don't call them killers because they cannot save all the dogs that come their way. In the APBT case, save your venom for those who are fighting dogs, formally, or just for the 'fun' of seeing their tough guy draw blood; and for the breeders who aim to strengthen, rather than weaken, the unsociable temperaments that arise from breeding dogs to fight; and for the others who give the breed a bad name.

Everyone seems quick to praise Ceasar Milan, and to agree that pitties are not for everyone; and few would disagree that some of the pitties who end up in rescue have ended up with some bad habits that aren't going to be corrected without help from a skilled owner or trainer, or both. It is unrealistic to expect a shelter with a lot of pitties and limited resources will be able to rehome all dogs. It looks to me like these guys are doing a fine job of making the best out of a bad situations, and helping to bring the APBT out of the legal pit it's been thrown into.

[mita]

Sandgrubber, I've been trying to find the PitBull Ambassador Program (S?) to fill in some spaces about where the pitbulls in shelters tend to come from.....& also exactly what their assessment & training processes are. So thanks for that link.

I haven't had a negatively reactive response to the article.

It seems to me that NW & the Ambassador Programs seem to be trying to come to the problem from 2 angles.

The Ambassador Program is coming from the angle that the pitbull has a poor public image. Which they don't deserve, as a breed, but which human failure & ignorance have laid on them. So this program goes all out to rehabilitate the name of the breed by having selection/training processes which have a higher bar than that put up for most breeds.

NW then comes in from that last angle.....saying that the Ambassador approach is actually reinforcing, in the public mind, that pitbulls aren't like most dogs. Which can give a tacit blessing to their being PTS with more alacrity & less thought, than other breeds.

Both views reveal 2 reasonable angles on exactly the same problem. And it would be possible to find a common ground.

Both parties need to see that one answer lies in joining forces to battle for improving the conditions ptibulls are bred/raised in. As an antidote to the the poor background management by humans which has led them into the shelters, in the first place.

The factors needed to breed/raise pitbulls to be suitably sociable, are the same for any dog. It's at that stage where it can be clearly presented to the public that pitbulls are like any other dog....& need the same conditions to develop as a well socialised dog.

If they were indeed different....it wouldn't be possible to make that statement.

If that can be got into the public mind....as an acceptable situation. Then it follows that pitbulls will be more equitably treated when they come into shelters. Because what's required for rehablitation & rehoming would follow the same principles as for any dog. And that includes drawing on expert knowledge of a breed. Same as would be done for a poodle!

There's no need for the problem to be put into 2 polarised camps.....& hurl abuse from one to the other.

NW & the Ambassador Program would be well sit down & working thro' the issues....not just talking, but doing some work on it. And getting the technical background straight....like the nature of temperament & of behaviour.

Edited May 15, 2009 by mita

[shel]

Don't pick up some extreme no-kill person's writings and pass it on uncritically.

Discussing an article like this online is the definition of examining it critically, wouldn't you say

The 'don't pick on us, we're the good guys - go do something useful like fight dog fighters' is an interesting comeback until you consider only a teensy tiny number of pitbulls and pitty crosses have been involved in dog fighting. The overwhelming majority having never seen abuse in their lives and are in fact, pets.

I think what this article is really picking up on is simply the law of unintended consequences; like that time you found out people were drowing cats in hessian bags so you ran an article in the paper on why it was illegal, only to have kitten drownings go up for a time (have experienced that one personally)

No one is saying 'disband the program' but they are saying 'are we inadvertantly perpetuating myths about pitbulls and strengthening the legislation around keeping them by subscribing to the idea that they are in fact 'special''.

:)shel

Edited May 15, 2009 by shel

[shel]

There's no need for the problem to be put into 2 polarised camps.....& hurl abuse from one to the other.

Wise words as always M - and I think the point of an article that is this deliberately polarising, is exactly that. People in the industry take notice, look at the two ideas, examine them critically then work to solutions that can work in the 'real world'.

Nathan doesn't have all the answers - but we do.

Edited May 15, 2009 by shel

[mita]

There's no need for the problem to be put into 2 polarised camps.....& hurl abuse from one to the other.

Wise words as always M - and I think the point of an article that is this deliberately polarising, is exactly that. People in the industry take notice, look at the two ideas, examine them critically then work to solutions that can work in the 'real world'.

Nathan doesn't have all the answers - but we do.

But if Nathan hadn't written that article.....we wouldn't have looked at what first seems like 2 completely different views.

And, if you hadn't put it up for us to discuss, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to pick it apart.

While ignoring all the 'isn't he/she a rotten egg'...or 'isn't he/she a saint'....stuff! Rotten eggs can get things either right or wrong....& so can saints. Abusing/adoring the people is useless. It's what they actually do that counts....based on what they actually believe.

What keeps striking me is the contrast with children's problems. To look at a child's serious problem, you have to look at what was significant in how that child developed.

But that's not done with dogs. The developmental track is never looked at for dogs. The way dog 'temperament' tests are named & used, would be considered inaccurate and unethical if the same thing was done with children.

[sandgrubber]

No one is saying 'disband the program' but they are saying 'are we inadvertantly perpetuating myths about pitbulls and strengthening the legislation around keeping them by subscribing to the idea that they are in fact 'special''.

Sit, Fetch, Stay Or Die is not what I would call a balanced headline, and it is a slander to the work of people who are working as best they know how to help a breed that they love. NW seems to be attacking, simply because the program is not no-kill.

Have a look at this website (one associated with the ambassadors program) . . it offers well documented statistics to back assertions you make about pitties . . . their pass rate in temperament tests is higher than many other breeds -- including Golden Retrievers. Not loose number slinging. The tests are described and sample sizes are given. Lots of references are provided. They very actively and effectively work to bust myths about bull terrier types.

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/

I see NO evidence that the "ambassador's" program is judging APBT's by a harder standard than other breeds, or that the practice is one of killing all dogs that don't pass. It looks like they put a lot of effort into rehabilitating dogs whose history leaves them a bit unbalanced. Also looks like they put their money where their mouths are.

Divisiveness based on unsubstantiated allegations is not healthy debate, and is unlikely to promote a good outcome.

"We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately" -- Benjamin Franklin

Edited May 15, 2009 by sandgrubber

[mita]

Sandgrubber, both sides need to get together & arrive at a more coherent message about pitbulls.

And get rid of the emotive prose. The dogs themselves will not benefit from the confrontation that the article sets up.

I agree with you that the Ambassador Program has set out to do their best via pitbulls.

But it would help if they'd also address the problem which pitbulls face when they come into pounds & shelters. And the immediate decisions made there. The step before any AP Program gets their hands on any.

NW & the No Kill folk tend to have their eyes on that point, because their focus is changing pounds & shelters & the attitudes about animals arriving there.

That's presently where the high bar for the pitbulls begins. Because of the widespread belief that these dogs are intrinsically different. So decisions about PTS come more easily to this breed.

Both the Ambassadors Program & the NW folk should work together on putting together the 2 pieces of the puzzle.

They need to get into the public mind that the problem for pitbulls, coming into the shelters, fits the same path that can lead all kinds of dogs there.

Failures in socialisation &/or management from the time they're born & bred.

That's the same for any dog, so pounds & shelters need to provide as sound an assessment for pitbulls as they would for any dog.

And ,so, give them the same fair chance to move on to rehabilitation & rehoming, as any other dog.

But presently it's at this point that pitbulls are far more vulnerable to PTS decisions, than other breeds.

It's not the Ambassador Program that's killing those pitbulls....it's here at the entry to pounds & shelters spot.

This is where the most 'dying' happens.

The Ambassador is doing sound work with what pitbulls come into their care. Building up a training knowledge & expertise. But only of the pitbulls which reach them. Now that is not the AP's fault.

The fault, for most pitbulls, lies back at the entry level to pounds & shelters.

I don't know how likely it is...but pitbulls would be best served if both the Ambassador Program and the No Kill presented a united face.....just on the point of stressing that pitbulls need the same kind of developmental path as any dog does, if they're to become well socialised & managed.

So they're less likely to be placed in a pound or shelter.

And, if they are, their immediate assessment should be as it is for any dog. Not culling because of their breed.

I may be prejudiced.....but it seems to be a US-thing that problems get polarised between groups. And another culture-war starts.

Edited May 15, 2009 by mita

[Greytmate]

Mita, if the two groups should work together then it is the No Kill movement that should be supporting programs like the Pitbull Ambassadors. The pro-active group that is doing the work with the dogs and adopting them out should not be hindered by having to compromise with a group of extremist zealots. There will always be partnerships, alliances and loose affiliations between groups that can support each other. But you cannot expect reputable organisations to be networking with people that use emotional manipulation and lies.

Don't pick up some extreme no-kill person's writings and pass it on uncritically.

Discussing an article like this online is the definition of examining it critically, wouldn't you say

You haven't examined the article critically. You are supporting it. You are arguing with the people that are examining it critically, and condescendingly saying we don't understand it. You didn't write it Shel, so my understanding of it is as valid as anyone else's.

You posted it up under your own name with your choice of topic title. I stand by what I post, have the guts to do the same Shel and stop trying to weasel out of it and pretend you are encouraging and supporting change. You posted words that you describe as deliberately polarising. Some would calling that trolling, others would call that shit stirring.

The article is rubbish, and really deserves no more examination. Who cares what obscure and implausible concepts you are now trying to accredit to it. It is an emotionally manipulative and venomous attack.

The Pitbull Ambassador program however is worth examining. The concept of turning an unpopular breed into something very desirable is a great one. Maybe there should be a new topic just to look at the Pitbull Ambassador Program without all the NW rubbish. Are there any pitbull people here that are interested enough to do that?

[mita]

Mita, if the two groups should work together then it is the No Kill movement that should be supporting programs like the Pitbull Ambassadors. The pro-active group that is doing the work with the dogs and adopting them out should not be hindered by having to compromise with a group of extremist zealots. There will always be partnerships, alliances and loose affiliations between groups that can support each other. But you cannot expect reputable organisations to be networking with people that use emotional manipulation and lies.

There's no compromise in what I've suggested. It's joining forces on the one key point that both the Ambassador Program AND Nathan W are leaving out.

Where & why most pitbulls are killed. And doing something about it....using what solid research tells us (Australian research at tha!).

The Ambassador Program is presently not looking into the fate of most of the pitbulls which do not make it to them. That is, the majority of pitbulls which are more likely to be PTS on entry to a pound or shelter. Because they are thought different from other dogs....in public perception.

The AP has no advocacy for these pitbulls at the moment.

Nathan W & the No Kills are looking at changing the attitudes of pounds & shelters towards pitbulls. But they think the problem is that the AP has set a bar too high. But they're not looking at why pitbulls who'll never get anywhere near the AP, have poor chance of survival.

So the No Kills have no advocacy for these pitbulls in this position, either.

The AP's are not looking at the majority of the pitbulls that are likely to be PTS.

The No Kills are looking in the wrong direction to prevent their being PTS.

A solution is, as I've suggested previously.

Simply AP & the No Kills join forces on the means which would help the majority of pitbulls entering pounds to be viewed the same as any other dogs, assessed as fairly, & given the same chances of getiing to rehabilitation/rehoming. Instead of instant culling.

Both groups would only be addressing something that's presently left out of both their positions.

Then the AP would be doing something for the majority of pitbulls at risk of PTS.

The No Kills would be doing so, too. With no need to be blaming the AP.

We're fortunate in Australia that we can pick to pieces, stuff out of these highly emotional US culture wars. And get something sensible & useful to be going on with.

Edited May 15, 2009 by mita

[Greytmate]

The AP's are not looking at the majority of the pitbulls that are likely to be PTS.

That is where you might be wrong. I can only speak for myself on this, but our program could be accused of doing the same. But we do look and we do cry and this motivates us to do more.

We are working towards 'no kill' from a different angle. We concentrate on increasing the desire for our dogs, and making our dogs more adoptable. Given the finite number of dogs and the potential to take market share away from other types of pets and the ability to create new markets, we feel we can achieve 'no kill' in a way that does not put the public at risk from problem dogs. If that takes us longer than NW suggests, so be it. I don't see anyone else in Australia that is both "no kill" and "open to all surrenders", although some places do attempt to make that claim.

We have to ensure our own survival by not taking risks that are outside the boundaries of wider community expectations. I think the pitbull ambassador people know that too.

[mita]

The AP's are not looking at the majority of the pitbulls that are likely to be PTS.

That is where you might be wrong. I can only speak for myself on this, but our program could be accused of doing the same. But we do look and we do cry and this motivates us to do more.

We are working towards 'no kill' from a different angle. We concentrate on increasing the desire for our dogs, and making our dogs more adoptable. Given the finite number of dogs and the potential to take market share away from other types of pets and the ability to create new markets, we feel we can achieve 'no kill' in a way that does not put the public at risk from problem dogs. If that takes us longer than NW suggests, so be it. I don't see anyone else in Australia that is both "no kill" and "open to all surrenders", although some places do attempt to make that claim.

We have to ensure our own survival by not taking risks that are outside the boundaries of wider community expectations. I think the pitbull ambassador people know that too.

I'm basing my comment on the Ambassor Program's website...that they're not actively advocating for a changed & more informed view of the majority of pitbulls coming into pounds. That is not a critical comment....it's simply a statement that there's one missing piece of the puzzle towards a better solution.

And the No Kills are missing out on actively advocating on that one point, too.

That is, pitbulls are the same as all dogs in that the path which leads dogs into pounds, tends to be failure to provide socialisation and/or management from the earliest age. So they should be given the same fair assessment on entry to pounds/shelters, not automatically culled.

Nothing more is asked for them, that any dog would get. Same issues apply re how treatable any severe health or behavioral problem might be.

It would be inhumane to demand that some dogs continue to live. The most strongly towards No Kill places like AWL Qld acknowledge that.

It's simply a reality.

People like NW would not argue that a severely injured or terminally ill or wonky brain-wired dog would be kept alive for the sake of ideology.

There's a difference between arguing a case for the big picture... & making humane decisions for individual dogs.

I agree with you that there are also other things that would help bring down the pitbull PTS rate, just as you're doing with greyhounds. Like raise the acceptance and adoption rate of pitbulls. That is what AP is aiming to do, by presenting socialised & trained pitbulls.

But it needs to be understood a lot of effort has been put into those dogs to achieve that. As for any rescue dog.

The' end product dog' should not be confused with the 'raw material dog' that turned up in the pound in the first place.

That's another point which should be emphasised to the public....so that the 'saving' bar for pitbulls isn't set too high in pounds & shelters.

[Just Midol]

I can't find any references to the actual temperament test and a description of it?

Is there one... or do they hide what they do?

[Aussienot]

A tester needs to be trained and certified before having access to the material. No responsible group would post detailed information about the test on the website for any yahoo to use without the theoretical knowledge.