What's gone wrong at Dogster?

I've followed Dogster, both on Facebook and on their website, for years.  I have a profile set up on their site for both Dahlia and Teri (my parent's dog), as well as profiles for dogs who have passed on.  I have communicated with others in their forums.  I get their e-mails in my inbox. And I actually read them.

Dogster claims to be "The #1 site for dog lovers on the Internet."  With over 111,000 likes on Facebook and over half a million members on their website, that may very well be true.  I cannot deny that a lot of people follow them and, hopefully, learn from some of the great articles they have had there over the years.

But lately there seems to be a turn the site is taking, with articles that are inflammatory in nature.  The first one I took issue with was a reprint of an article by Megan Segura called If You Bought Your Dog, I'm Judging You.  The article is exactly what it says it is.  In it, she lists the reasons she believes people choose to buy a dog instead of going to a shelter and for each one offers up several judgmental remarks about what she thinks of these people.  Her face "gets hot," her "stomach drops" and then "the rage begins."  

On Dogster's philosophy page, they list their values.  One of those values is "We champion adoption. And we support responsible breeders" (underline not added by myself).  If so, why post an article against that value?  As one commenter on the article pointed out "Judgement of anyone for any reason is ugly and has no place whatsoever in animal rescue."  There was simply no reason for alienating so many people and going against their own values.  Around here, we call that "hypocritical."

 The latest article, though, was not only inflammatory but wildly inaccurate and wholly offensive.  Dogster defends their posting of this article with the following: “Doghouse Confessionals” are intensely personal stories from our readers about life with their dogs. We recognize that ALL dogs need proper training and socialization and welcome your viewpoints in the article comments...We also understand that the experience shared by the author of this "Confessional" may not be that of all of our readers.

The article in question is called We Adopted a Pit Bull Mix -- Who Turned Aggressive on Us.  In it, the author of the article details her adoption, issues, and subsequent return of Marley, a supposed pit mix.  There are many things wrong with the way the author speaks of and dealt with Marley during his time with her.

She went to the shelter to adopt a large mixed breed dog like the one she had recently lost, an admirable thing to be sure.  The dog she fell in love with was Marley, a 12-week-old puppy who she was told was a Mastiff mix, even though she "knew he was probably not a Mastiff as he did not have the wrinkles."  Here's the first, fairly minor, quibble with this article: mixing breeds of dogs means you may remove certain aspects of one breed or the other.  My dog is likely mixed with Golden Retriever, yet there is nothing "golden" about her.

But then her concerns began: The dog had been neutered before the vet-recommended 5 months (a common thing at shelters who will often neuter dogs as young as 8 weeks old). The staff came to check multiple times on the puppy and one occasion they said "They all have those eyes," indicating they believed the dog was a pit bull mix.

In reality, is the dog in question a pit mix?  It's possible, but based on the photos it's also possible the dog is a mix of Sharpei, Great Dane, Mastiff, and many other breeds.  Without knowing a dog's specific origin, it is impossible to say whether or not a dog really has pit bull in him.  It's impossible to say what breeds are in any mix unless the parents are known.  I call my dog a Border Collie/Golden Retriever mix based on what I know of canine genetics, her looks, and her personality.  But she was a stray, parentage unknown.  Someone I know calls her a "hairy black farm dog."  That may be even more apt.

From here, the story takes a hard turn.  The dog begins to show fear issues (though the author mislabels them as "dominance" issues, thus perpetuating yet another myth): spooking at the sudden appearance of other people, barking at other dogs, their dogs getting into a fight (which, despite their "going for each other" she blames solely on Marley and says he wanted to kill the other dog).  After an incident of his showing extreme fear after being surprised by some people on holiday, they clearly would have done a few things: take the dog to the vet to make sure his health was in order (was he losing his vision? thyroid off? were his hips bad and causing him pain?) and if his health was fine, they'd start a program with a good behaviorist to work on his fear issues: LAT (Look At That), BAT (Behavior Adjustment Training), counter conditioning.  There are many ways to work on fear in a dog.  They would "crate and rotate" so that Marley was neither locked away nor let loose around other pets. They would walk him alone and work on his issues while out in the world.

Unfortunately, this is not what happened.  The dog was chained to their camping van for the remainder of their holiday (research has shown that chaining dogs increases frustration and fear and that many chained dogs become aggressive) and the author became afraid of him.  I'll give them credit for at least trying a few things, but when dealing with a dog who has such intense fear issues, unless you are a trained behaviorist, you simply cannot do it on your own. I know a fair bit about dog training, but I would never attempt to work on such severe issues without professional help (granted, they never would have gotten to that point with me as I would have begun working on them at the first sign of problems). They never even spoke to the shelter of the issues they were having with Marley.  Often the breeder, rescue, or shelter you get your dog from is a great resource for any issues you might be having, both major and minor.  Sometimes they have their own trainer on staff.  Often they can advise you as to what to do and who to go see about your dog. They are a resource that anyone who adopts from them absolutely should make use of.

In the end, they did finally get together with a trainer, one who used shock collars (something any behaviorist worth his/her salt would recommend against for a dog with fear issues).  They gave him one day to fix the problem and Marley "behaved" for the shock trainer.  But as soon as he was gone, he went for their other dog again, and that was it for Marley.  They returned him to the shelter, a shelter who had no idea that there were so many problems happening with this dog.  She said of this, "We did not enquire what happened to Marley afterward, but his prognosis was not good under the current legislation. I’m sorry, but I preferred not to know."

She preferred not to know.  Surely she must know what became of this dog.  If someone turns in aggressive dog here, the dog is immediately euthanized.  Sometimes they're euthanized even if they're not showing any aggressive tendencies, but it's done solely on the owner's statements.  I seem to recall one awful story in which someone stole their neighbor's dog, turned it into the shelter claiming it was their own and it was aggressive, and the dog was euthanized before the neighbor even knew what happened.  At any rate, Marley is dead.  I can guarantee you that much.  And saddest of all, Marley died surrounded by strangers in an intense state of fear.  If you have tried everything, if you have a dog who has such fear issues that you do not believe you can live with the dog or rehome him, if you feel that his quality of life is so poor that the best thing for him is to end his misery, then you take your dog to the vet, you be with him as they end his life, you allow him to be surrounded by those who supposedly love him instead of strangers.  But the author of the article could not even grant her dog this final kindness and instead turned him over to the shelter to let them do it.

Now after the author wrote this "confessional," do you think that the ultimate result was her taking responsibility, advising people to see a behaviorist or trainer before it's too late (According to Dogster, it's up to us, the readers, to educate, and not their site), being up front with the shelter or rescue, getting your dog in to a vet to evaluate him for possible physical causes of aggression?  No.  Ultimately, the author blamed the shelter for adopting her a pit bull mix when she had a multi-animal household.

The shelter is blameless here.  They adopted out a puppy of unknown origin to someone who claimed she understood dogs and wanted a large mixed breed puppy of "bully breed origin." They never knew of the issues she was having with him until she returned him at the end.  And moreover, she blamed his breed.  If she had only known, she would never have gotten a pit bull mix as, according to the author, pit bull mixes do not belong in multi-dog households.

The entire article left a bad taste in my mouth and I can't help but wonder why a site that bills itself as a site for dog lovers would actively promote BSL by posting it.  Dogster, of course, denies that the article is doing anything to promote the pit bull hater's agenda ("I disagree that this article is spreading misinformation about pit bulls.").  Rather than admit that perhaps they were wrong in posting the article, they have instead battened down the hatches and written to anyone critical of the article to warn us off posting on Dogster.

In fact, yesterday evening I received an e-mail from one Vicky Walker, managing editor of Dogster entitled "Please consider taking a break from the Dogster discussion today" and warning me that if I continued to post, I would be given a "time out" (in fact, Vicky has since banned me from posting anywhere on Dogster).

Clearly Dogster has spoken.  It is the #1 site for dog lovers unless you own a pit bull or pit bull mix or defend those breeds.  It is the #1 site for dog lovers unless you believe in taking responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming everyone else for your own failings.  Then you better forget getting on the site to defend the breed you know so well against the accusations that the author of the post in question made and you better forget trying to educate people on what went wrong in the story and how things could have been handled differently.  Well, no worries Dogster.  You have lost multiple people due to your posting of this article and your subsequent actions.  In time it seems this site will be as highly regarded as the now Cesar Millan-driven "Dog Breed Info" site is by real dog lovers.

What a shame. You have a huge audience and you have squandered your chance to reach them. Perhaps you should rethink your strategy a bit, as well as rethinking the type of reactionary and inflammatory people you hire to be "managing editors" on your site.

Edited to add: It appears that Vicky Walker, the "editing manager," is a friend of the author's.  And a long-time friend at that.  She says in one comment: "And speaking as Vicky's editor: I've known her for over 25 years."  Perhaps Dogster might have done better to allow an editor who did not know the author handle the editing, posting, and moderating of comments.

Happy Pit Bull Awareness Day!

Now as anyone who reads this blog knows, I do not have a pit bull.  I have a 50 pound fluffy mutt of unknown origin.  But both Dahlia and I love pit bulls.

Some of her best friends over the years have been pit bulls and she plays well with them.  Here are a few of her favourite pit bull friends.

Jackson is a Pit Bull/Great Dane mix.  We first met him on walks around our local pond.  He and Dahlia have taught he each other so much.  She's taught him that chase is a fun game and he's taught her to not worry so much when another dog leaps on her.


 

 


 


Last year we got to meet the wonderful Nellie.  Nellie is an amazing three-legged pit bull mix who is just the goofiest, silliest, bravest dog I know (seriously...she went up against a wild pig and lived!).

 


Nellie was a great tugging friend!
 




Nellie even got to meet Jackson this year and they had great fun!   


This year we got to meet the gorgeous Molly and went on vacation with her, her person, and their other dog.  Molly is an amazingly muscular and fun dog to be around.



 



(Photo by Danielle)

So Happy Pit Bull Awareness Day!  I hope everyone who has a Pit Bull or Pit mix had a wonderful day with their dogs!

Book Review: The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise

Title: The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths, and Politics of Canine Aggression
Author: Karen Delise
Year published: 2007

Like the pharmacologically inactive sugar pill dispensed to placate a patient who supposes it to be medicine, eradication of the Pit Bull is heralded as the cure for severe dog attacks. However, a placebo is administered to appease a person's mental duress. In the present day climate of fear and misinformation about Pit Bulls and dog attacks, eradication of the Pit Bull is the placebo administered solely to appease the public's mental anxiety.

And so it goes. The Pit Bull: locking jaws, biting and holding while grinding, the dog that attacks like a shark. These are all media myths designed to demonize one particular dog breed.

The Pit Bull Placebo traces the media's coverage and the reality of dog bite attacks from the end of the 19th century through to today. Drawing on real cases and quoting from the newspapers' accounts of these cases, Karen Delise makes an incredibly simple case: There have always been dog attacks, some severe, some fatal. But it is the media's focus that has twisted the public's perception of the Pit Bull.

The Bloodhound was the original bad guy. Hyped up through plays based on Uncle Tom's Cabom in which the dogs chase down an escaped slave and her newborn child, these dogs were vilified and people were supposed to be frightened of them. But media reports, which did feature the dog's breed, generally focused more on the cause and effect aspect of the dog attack. They gave their readers a true picture of what caused the attack. It did not begin and end with the words "Vicious Bloodhound."

Then it was the German Shepherd Dog, which had two major saving graces: police work and Rin Tin Tin. While many substandard owners obtained German Shepherd Dogs for guard work and left them chained outside with little human interaction, many people recognized them as great, noble creatures.

The Doberman, which is still sometimes viewed in a negative light, followed on the heels of the German Shepherd Dog. The Doberman acquired its super-predator status through both reality and myth. The image of the Doberman used by Nazis was strong within people's minds. It was hard for them to see the dog as a gentle creature, a canine like any other, and so borne out of the harsh reality of life as a Nazi dog was the myth that Dobermans' heads were too small and their brains would outgrow it, thus leading to headaches that would cause them to snap. The Doberman had no saving grace like the German Shepherd Dog and only fell from this super-predator label when the Pit Bull emerged to take its place.

Through each of these decades, when the Bloodhound, the German Shepherd Dog, and the Doberman, were at the height of their turns as the supposed aggressive dogs, the newspapers continued to report dog bite attacks in a fairly realistic light.

It wasn't until the latter part of the 20th century when the media would begin to twist things to suit their need to always shock their audience. A good example of the media's twisting of the facts lies in their describing a dog that attacked as the "family dog." To most people, this description brings to mind Rover resting at the feet of his master while his master reads by the fireplace or Rover fetching the newspaper on Sunday morning. It brings to mind a well-socialized, friendly, family pet. What it does not bring to mind is a dog chained out back with a heavy logging chain, ignored for the most part, fed occasionally, often starved, beaten, or neglected. The latter cannot, in good conscience, be described as a "family dog." Delise, instead, describes it as a "resident dog." This is a more accurate term. But the media's use of "family dog" aids in leading people to the conclusion that these dogs will eventually turn on their owners.

There is just no basis for this claim. In fact, few, if any Pit Bull has turned on its owner without some sort of provocation.

Perhaps the best demonstration of the media's twisting of events can be seen in one particular case Delise outlines.

The media report can be summed up as: A 6-year-old girl was mauled to death by the family's pit bulls. The dogs were friendly, had been raised with the girl since they were puppies. In essence, they "turned on her."

The reality of the situation? The dogs (one male, one female), which belonged to the woman's recently-deceased boyfriend were intact and young. They had been confined to a basement of a vacant house while the mother and her daughter moved. They were underweight, starving (no food was found in their stomachs), and had ingested rat poison, nails, and rubber bands in an effort to feed themselves.

It sounds a bit different when they're described as they really were. Unsocialized, starving, and sick animals vs. family pet.

Delise makes the case that in order to truly understand dog attacks, one has to look at the people involved and the situation itself. Divvying up attacks by breed tells us nothing. Dogs that attack have often been chained out and neglected, are starving, have been abused, and are often intact.

Instead of looking at the real situation, the media has maligned an entire breed for sensationalism. And this has led to politicians taking up the cause and enacting breed bans.

Denver is often sited when discussions of Breed-Specific Legislation is brought up. They first enacted a ban on pit bull "type" dogs in 1989 and recently reinstated it. Their seven points in regard to why pit bulls needed to be banned were based on media sensationalism, twisted facts, contradictions, and "scientific" articles in such esteemed journals as Sports Illustrated. They brought in pseudoscience and anecdotes and called them facts. Even worse, this ban was enacted due to two incidents that happened three years apart: one fatal, one not.

What has happened to the Pit Bull has been a horrifying witch hunt that, just like the witch hunts of Salem, has no basic in reality. The Pit Bull is and can be a wonderful, real family pet if raised the proper way...just like any other breed of dog. To think that in less than 100 years human beings could create a monster of dog with anatomy unlike any other canine, is not only the height of arrogance, but is also ridiculous.

Unfortunately, this vilification is not likely to change until people start to think with a little bit more logic and the media starts to disseminate facts instead of twisted facts and sensationalized accounts that don't resemble reality.

The Pit Bull Placebo is now available online for free. Please download it and pass the link alone. This is an important book and Pit Bull owners everywhere would like you to see it.