“Too Many Pit Bulls”: A Case of Psychic Numbing

We have too many pit bulls. All we have are pit bulls. We have a pit bull problem. Nobody wants to adopt our pit bulls.

Across the country, in interviews with the local news, these sound bites are repeated over and over. Usually intended to be a call for help, a positive plug for the dogs, or to evoke sympathy for the dogs, these kinds of blanket statements from animal shelters may be doing more damage than we realize. When we tell the public we have “too many pit bulls” we unintentionally frame the dogs as less valuable than other dogs at the shelter.

In other words, it makes the “pit bull” dogs sound like a problem: Dear Public, Our organization has a problem, because we have too many of these dogs who are a problem for us to adopt out. Can you help us with this overwhelming problem?

It is easier for us to value one individual than it is for us to value an entire group. It is easier for us to devalue a group than it is for us to devalue an individual.

By framing the dogs as a problem that needs fixing, we wind up teaching the public to view “pit bull” dogs as less valuable than other dogs who are not a problem. We teach the public to think less of the very dogs we’d like to inspire them to adopt. And these language habits of ours end up making the public numb to this grouping of dogs we have created.

That’s not to say that in some areas there aren’t large numbers of dogs labeled “pit bull” who are waiting for adoption. Or that in some areas, adopters are hesitant to adopt “pit bull” dogs, therefore making it more of a challenge to send the dogs home. That very well may be the case.

However, when we talk about the dogs – internally or publicly – it’s important that we consider how our words might be framing the dogs in such a way that the dogs become a negative abstraction – an overwhelming problem – rather than individual dogs who deserve our compassion. This is important to understand because it can actually stop people from adopting the dogs. Big problems, that feel overwhelming, can cause a freeze in the public’s willingness to help.

Psychologist Paul Slovic, author of “If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing and Genocide” found that the greater the number of victims, the more we depersonalized the individuals involved. And when we stop seeing others as individuals, it makes it easier to create psychological and emotional distance from them. This causes indifference to those in need.

If we feel overwhelmed by the number of those in need of help (in this case pit bulls at the shelter) we are less likely to see them as individuals, and therefore less likely to take action to help them.

Psychic numbing also affects shelter workers. If we feel overwhelmed by the volume of the dogs that are in need of our attention, it can cause us to throw up our hands. It’s not unusual to feel a sense of powerlessness or helplessness in the face of broad or complex problem such as homeless pets. This can cause us to feel numb and detached from the dogs, incapable of getting to know them as individuals. You may feel as though none of your personal efforts matter. And this can generate a sense of apathy towards the “problem dogs” in your care.

Slovic notes that the numbers of victims and psychic numbing are related. The blurring of individuals can start in as little as just two victims! In order for humans to feel compelled to help or take action, they must be able to recognize individuals who are in need of compassion or assistance. Seeing the victims as valued individuals – not just an abstract group – allows us to identify with and feel empathy for them. This compels us to act.

So what does this mean for shelters that have “too many pit bulls?” If you want to boost the staff’s enthusiasm for the dogs, as well as their sense of possibility, AND encourage the public to adopt, we need to stop devaluing the dogs. We can start to do this by ceasing to communicate about “pit bull” dogs as if they are a problem. Instead, we can celebrate the dogs.

Teach the public see the “pit bull” dogs as individuals who are worthy of their compassion. Help them get to know the personalities and preferences of some of the individual dogs in your care, so that they can appreciate the singular dogs that are a part of this big group called “pit bull” dogs. Help the public make a more personal connection to the dogs, to get them to care and then take action.

Overwhelming negative abstract problem = apathy and numbness.

Valuable individual with likes and dislikes = empathy and action.

Remember, when it comes to eliciting compassion and inspiring action, there is no better, more effective approach to snapping out of the numbness then identifying an individual in need, with a face and a name.

As Mother Theresa said, “If I look at the mass I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.”

For the Dogs It’s All Pain, No Gain

Recently we wrote a blog about “pit bull” dog websites and the damage that well-intentioned advocates cause when they post outdated information about the dogs.

A prime example of this is the perpetuation of the old myth that “pit bull” dogs have a higher tolerance for pain than other dogs.

One advocacy website writes, “Sometimes presented as a negative trait, the fact that pitbulls have a high pain tolerance makes them exceptional family dogs. They easily (and happily) put up with the rough play of children without reacting.”

Tragically, the myth of high pain tolerance is also used on pro-BSL websites to justify why “pit bull” dogs are uniquely different, dangerous, and therefore need to be regulated. It’s even shown up in court as justification for bans via claims that their supposedly high tolerance for pain makes them uniquely dangerous in comparison to other dogs.

Let’s set the record straight, shall we?

There is nothing unique about the neurological system of a “pit bull” dog. All dogs, regardless of breed label, experience pain. How each individual dog responds to that pain will vary, but the response cannot be accurately predicted by physical appearance or breed.

Tufts Veterinary Medicine Magazine examined the issue of pain in their Winter 2013 issue. Here’s what the experts had to say:

“Pain medicine as a veterinary specialty is relatively new. As recently as a decade ago, most veterinarians assumed that animals didn’t feel pain, or at least experienced it differently than humans. Now all evidence points to the contrary. Research has shown that animals and humans have similar neural pathways for the development, conduction and modulation of pain, making it pretty likely that our pets experience pain in much same the way we do.”

This tells us that all animals experience pain. All of them.

The perception of pain is unique to each individual: human or dog. Humans have the choice to be stoic and decline treatment for issues such as chronic pain, but our dogs can’t speak up for themselves. When we perpetuate the myth that “pit bull” dogs are different in the way they experience pain, we may wind up missing an opportunity to provide them with the care they need.

The article goes onto say that even in people, pain is often undertreated. “If we’re looking at practically half of the human population that’s in pain getting undertreated, I have to believe that over 95 percent of animals in [chronic] pain are not getting proper treatment,” says Michael Petty, president of the International Veterinary Academy.

While all dogs will express pain differently, this doctor is saying that an enormous amount of our pets are not getting relief! That is a lot of “stoic” animals or, more likely, a lot of owners that are either ignoring or not observing subtle symptoms of pain (for more on how pain may present in a dog’s body, please read the full article).

photograph by Alonso Nichols for Tufts Veterinary Medicine Magazine

So, not only do the experts in companion animal pain tell us that there is no truth to the idea that certain dogs feel pain differently than others, there is also NO benefit to promoting the myth that “pit bull” dogs have a high pain tolerance.

This high pain tolerance myth implies:

- That parents can allow their children to inappropriately handle “pit bull” dogs in a rough manner. The experts on family dog safety tell us that this type of rough play leads to dog bites – no matter what breed or mix the dog may be. To reduce dog bites and increase pet retention, children should always be taught to treat dogs gently and respectfully – “pit bull” dogs included.

- That dog owners should be alarmed if their “pit bull” dog does not “happily” accept rough play from children. If the dogs react, something must be wrong with them, right? Wrong. All dogs deserve to be handled respectfully and will have varying tolerance levels for physical play. There’s nothing wrong with dogs that prefers gentle play (or no play at all) with children.

- It suggests that they are biologically different than all other dogs. For people that are afraid of “pit bull” dogs, it suggests the dogs are uniquely capable of causing damage because they cannot be stopped by regular management techniques.

- It makes a convenient excuse for humans that wish to exploit them and/or abuse them. It should go without saying that we should never justify cruelty by suggesting the victims have a high tolerance for being abused.

This pain myth does nothing to help “pit bull” dogs. There are many ways to promote the wonderful pet qualities and proper care of “pit bull” dogs without having to resort to perpetuating the pain tolerance myth.

We can promote “pit bull” dogs as family pets, without bringing pain into the picture. Focus on each individual dog’s pet qualities and help families meet dogs that will be a great fit for their kids.

Now that we know better, we have an obligation to consider the way we communicate on behalf of the dogs and the information we’re sharing. The dogs are depending on us to stop adding to their problems by recycling old content like the myth of high pain tolerance.

However, if you’d like to discuss pain in dogs, here are some talking points:

• The perception of pain is unique to each individual, human or dog. Factors that affect each dog’s individual response to pain include age, gender, and health status. Activities they’re engaged in might also affect how dogs perceives pain. For example, if dogs are engaged in work or a sport, it can effect how they perceive pain in that moment (just like humans).

• Recognizing and determining the source of pain in dogs can be a challenge, especially since the early signs of pain can be subtle. One of the best ways to assess pain in any dog is to know what’s normal for them. In your everyday life, really pay attention to your dog’s regular behavior and habits, so that anything abnormal will be obvious to you. There is nothing better than being familiar with an individual dog in order to recognize a change in their behavior and the symptoms of pain.

• There is nothing unique about the neurological system of a “pit bull” dog. All dogs, regardless of breed label, experience pain. How each dog responds to that pain will vary, but the response cannot be predicted by physical appearance or breed.

The veterinary experts are telling us that like humans, individual dogs have varying pain tolerance levels. It’s time we all kick this tired pain generalization to the curb once and for all. It’s not helping the dogs – it’s hurting them.

Naming Shelter Dogs: The Framing Effect

Xena, Brutus, Trigger, Monster, Ruger, Tank, Harley, Chopper, Flex, Maximus, Whiskey, Storm, Tyson, Gunner, Bullet, Boss…

Before you name your shelter dogs*, consider this: You can influence your adopters perceptions of “pit bull” dogs, starting with the names that you give them. That’s because their names frame them. It’s the context for how adopters will interpret the dogs in front of them.

What’s the deal with framing? Framing is the way that information is presented and it can influence decision-making about that information.

In this case, the information we’re trying to frame is the “pit bull” dog in the shelter kennel. When we make deliberate choices about how a dog is presented, we can influence how adopters will think about that dog. This is framing and it creates a context in which the dog is first viewed. Those first impressions count!

When we create context around a dog – with kennel cards, photos, bios, the blankets in their run, or a sweater – it shapes and alters adopter’s assumptions and perceptions about that dog.

Take the dogs totally out of context and the adopter is left with their own assumptions. But in context, the adopters will view the dogs through the framework we’ve purposely created. We can help adopters to reach new conclusions and leave behind preconceived notions by framing the dogs in a positive light.

One dog, framed two different ways, can have two very different results. Negative frames tend to elicit negative feelings and result in aversion. Positive frames tend to elicit positive feelings and result in proactive choices. Really – it’s that simple!

Meet Bob the Builder. What does that name make you think about? Do you form any expectations about his behavior based on his name? What if his name had been Blaster, Dread, or Tank?

Framing the dogs so that potential adopters think positively and feel good is crucial to the business of saving lives. We need to take the framing effect into account every time we write a bio, take a photo, or write content for our websites. But we can start with their names!

The next time you have the chance to name a “pit bull” dog, consider this: using tough sounding names or names related to weapons or violence reinforces negative perceptions of “pit bull” dogs. And using ironic names – such as “Tiny” for a large dog or “Teflon” for a dog that’s survived abuse or injury – might just backfire too.  They can wind up emphasizing features about the dogs that adopters don’t find appealing or even unintentionally perpetuate misconceptions about “pit bull” dogs.

When potential adopters come across a name with a negative association, it may cause them to hesitate (perhaps subconsciousnessly) to meet the dog. Don’t add any roadblocks to a dog’s adoption. Frame them right, from the name up.

What names should you use? Stick with names that are popular and positive. What names make you smile? This article reports that old fashioned human names (like Clara and Alfie) are on the rise for dogs. Think of popular or legendary entertainers, authors, cartoon characters, sports stars, or historical figures. Get your inspirations from geography – think vacation spots, national parks, and beaches or popular local destinations. Brainstorm a list of these pre-approved names and keep them at the intake desk for quick and easy inspiration.

Meet Adele la Belle. What do you think of when you hear her name? Would things change if her name was Harley?

The goal is to choose a name that can’t be associated with something obviously aggressive, illegal, or reckless. There’s no one name that will elicit positive associations for everyone, but you can aim to create a positive experience for the majority of the folks who visit your shelter’s website or kennels.

And if a dog comes in with a name that elicits stereotypes or negative associations, change it!

Remember, the adopters can change the dog’s name to anything they choose once the dog is home. That’s when the best kind of framing happens: from shelter dog to family dog.

*Please note: this blog pertains to shelter dogs who do not have families. Marketing is an important aspect of increasing adoptions for shelter dogs. If your family dog has one of these names, that’s perfectly ok! Your dogs are already part of your family and don’t need to grab the attention of potential adopters.  

Progressive Animal Sheltering: Dogs are Individuals First

Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be. – Khalil Gibran

As today’s animal sheltering professionals increasingly focus on providing dogs with quality care and getting to know them as individuals – through standardized evaluations, volunteer notes and foster programs, play groups, enrichment, and more – it’s time to examine:

What role should breed – breed identification and breed labeling – play in today’s animal shelters?

Current research has helped us understand that focusing on breed is not an effective approach to successful, progressive animal sheltering. Too many dogs are mislabeled, too many assumptions are made based on behavior traits associated with a breed label, and too many dogs are unfairly penalized for the breed label they’re assigned.

The solution isn’t that we need to get better or work harder at identifying breeds or breed labeling the dogs. Rather, the next phase in the evolution of animal sheltering is to put the focus where it belongs: assessing all dogs as individuals, first and foremost.

Breed is just one part of any individual dog – as is their socialization, training, genetics, environment, etc. – but traits related to breed are not the whole dog. The whole dog is the individual. Breed traits are a just a possible slice of the pie. To go forward, we must focus on the whole dog.

It can be a challenge for all of us to think outside the breed box, but the research is clear: shelters need to stop wasting time and energy trying to get better at breed identification and get to know the dogs as individuals instead. In today’s animal sheltering world, it’s critical to the success of our work.

Changing old habits is always a challenge, so we’d like to address the questions and concerns of those working on behalf of the dogs. Here are our most frequently asked questions regarding breed and breed traits in animal shelters:

Isn’t it important to know a dog’s breed, so we can share their breed traits and then adopters will know what to expect? Aren’t breed traits just more information to share with adopters?

Breed traits most certainly exist. However, how breed traits present themselves in dogs, particularly in mixed breed dogs of unknown origins (the majority of dogs found in our shelter system), varies tremendously. Therefore, a guess at how a breed trait may or may not manifest itself in a dog is not nearly as reliable as the information shelters can gather by observing the dogs in their care. If you observe breed traits, share them with the adopter. If you don’t observe them, don’t assume they’re there.

Please note that breed traits don’t apply to mixed breed dogs. Mixed breed dogs are not any breed of dog at all. Pure breed dogs are bred from from closed gene pools. Mixed breed dogs are not from closed or coherent gene pools and cannot be considered a member of any breed. They have more in common genetically with ALL dogs, then any one breed in particular.

No matter what a dog’s breed or mix may be, when we give equal or more weight to breed traits, rather than focusing on what we’ve observed about a dog’s individual needs, we can hinder their chances at a successful match. Get to know the whole dog.

When dogs are improperly identified, do we cause problems for the adopters and/or the dogs? Will adopters think we’re trying pass off “pit bull” dogs as other breeds and stop trusting us?

We believe that honesty is the best policy. The overwhelming majority of dogs in shelters are mixed breed dogs (the ASPCA reports that up to 75% of dogs are of mixed heritage). And research tells us that visual identification of mixed breed dogs is highly inaccurate. Unless you know what a dog’s breed mix is for sure – you know the parents or have paperwork – speculating about the possible breed mix is just a guess.

If you wish to be 100% completely honest with your adopters, tell them the truth: you aren’t sure what the breed mix might be. Most importantly, tell them the truth about the dog’s actual behavior based on your observations and evaluations. Remember, people are adopting a DOG, not a breed. How that dog behaves is the key to a good match for potential adopters.

If the adopters notice physical markings or certain behaviors that lead them to believe a dog might be a certain breed (for example: a black mark on the dog’s tongue has them guessing he might be a Chow mix), be honest in your response by acknowledging that it is a possibility. Here’s an example of how you might respond: “Yes, it is possible this dog might have some Chow in there, though we don’t know for sure. How do you feel about that? Would that be ok with your landlord?”

If you’re concerned about someone else (an insurance company, Animal Control, etc.) identifying the dog as a “pit bull”, let the adopters know this is a possibility and determine how that may affect them legally. Be aware of any potential breed restrictions in your community and give resources to educate your adopters about these realities.

Share what you know for sure and be clear about what’s a guess. They will appreciate your honesty.

Lots of the dogs we see have the characteristics of a “pit bull”, so shouldn’t they be identified as a pit bull or pit mix?

The only thing we recommend is being honest. If all you have is a visual inspection and no pedigree, then you’re guessing at a dog’s breed or breed mix when you choose to label them as “pit bulls”. You can label the dogs however you choose, but be careful not to make behavior predictions based on this guess and don’t imply that a label accurately indicates anything about a dog’s suitability for adoption or what kind of home he needs. The label doesn’t change the dog, but often the labels will change how we perceive the dog.

In the past, we used to think that we needed to get better at breed labeling dogs, but then Dr. Voith’s research showed us that we cannot get better at it. And Dr. Marder and Janis Bradley taught us that there is behavior variability within each breed, and even more among breed mixes, so that we cannot possibly predict a dog’s behavior based on breed alone. Each dog is an individual. Help adopters to see past labels and get to know the dog’s actual pet qualities.

Should we DNA test the dogs in our shelter to find out? 

No, we do not recommend that shelters give their dogs DNA tests to determine its breed or breed mix. Dog behavior is a complex mix of nature and nurture and knowing a dog’s DNA is only one piece of the puzzle. It’s just another tool in the toolbox. Shelters are in the business of adopting out companion animals and the only way to know if a dog is going to be a good companion is to get to know that individual dog. Shelters are better off spending their time and money getting to know the dogs in their care.

We want to call our dogs of unkown origins “mixed breed” or “American Shelter Dogs”, but the shelter software doesn’t give us that option. How should we lable the dogs? 

You may be forced to pick a primary breed in shelter software, but you can make other notes on their profiles that explain that this is just a guess. We use this language on Petfinder:

The petfinder.com system requires that we choose a predominant breed or breed mix for our dogs. Visual breed identification in dogs is unreliable so for most of the dogs we are only guessing at predominant breed or breed mix. We get to know each dog as an individual and will do our best to describe each of our dogs based on personality, not by breed label. 

Feel free to copy and use it! We even have free posters and kennel cards  with this info to help get the conversation going with adopters.

We take lost and found reports at our shelter. Does getting better at breed identification improve lost and found reporting?

No, focusing on identifying breed and breed mixes is not the best way to reunite owners to lost pets. No matter how “good” you can get at guessing breeds, you still might guess wrong or the owner might label them differently than you do.

Dr Julie Levy of Maddies’ Fund agrees. In this interview with Vetstreet she says, “A lot of times, lost and found searches are based on breed, so an owner might come in [to a shelter] and describe their missing dog as a Lab mix, but the shelter might’ve recorded that black dog as a Pit Bull mix or a Shepherd mix. If the search is done purely by breed, they might not match at all, even though that dog is at the shelter or described in a found poster.”

The more accurate approach is to focus on the physical description of the dog: color, weight, any identifying characteristics, where the dog was found, etc. Owners who believe their dog matches that physical description should then visit the shelter to identify them in person. We recommend taking photos of all found dogs and posting them online, either on your website or on social media.

Our shelter works with pure breed rescue groups. Don’t we need to get better at breed identification, so we can send them dogs?

No, you don’t need to get better at guessing breeds. A simple photograph of the dog in question, emailed to the rescue group, will help them decide if the dog in question is a dog they’re interested in helping. If they choose to come meet the dog in person, it’s based on the photo you sent them and their opinion of the dog’s breed. They’re the experts on the breed they work with, so let them make the call via photo, or better yet, a video.

***

We know there are even more questions on this topic and we will continue to address them. However, the answer to all of these questions and many more isn’t to get better at identifying the breed – to do so would be conforming to an outdated shelter system model that research has helped us all outgrow. The real solution is to be progressive in your shelter policies and assessments and change the system! Focus on the individual dogs, first and foremost.

There is limited time and resources when working in the busy shelter environment. Rather than asking your staff to get better at guessing dog breeds labels – which research has proven over and over to be inaccurate – help them spend that time gathering information about each individual dog as a whole. What they discover about a dog’s personality will be far more valuable to adopters than any label.

Focus on getting to know the dogs in front of you and help your organization evolve!

There Is No Us vs.Them: We ALL Want Safe Communities

In February of 2013 House Bill 5287 and Senate Bill 178, were introduced in Rhode Island. The companion bills called for state-wide regulation of the ownership of “pit bull” dogs and would have required, among other things, mandatory insurance, confinement, muzzling, and banned from walked within 100 feet of a school, and other severe restrictions. The bills would have created statewide BSL. In March of 2013, both bills were withdrawn by their sponsors.

Animal Farm Foundation’s Executive Director worked closely with Rhode Island the constituent who submitted the bill to his legislators, in order to help affect a positive outcome. She writes about her experience here:

Last month a Rhode Island Senator introduced legislation targeting “pit bull” dogs. The language was some of the most inflammatory I have ever seen in legislation. But as I read the legislation it was clear that this was motivated from a place of deep emotion.

My experience as an advocate has taught me that almost every single instance of proposed breed specific legislation is motivated by emotion – a reaction to a single, frightening event. Or, maybe it is a reaction to something frightening that could have happened, but didn’t. BSL is always fueled by fear and a desire to address the issue of safety. It’s always about the fear of not being safe in our own communities. We all want to feel safe. And that’s something we can all agree on.

I called the senator who sponsored the legislation and asked him if he was willing to tell me about his motivation for filing the bill. In order to help him understand that I wasn’t calling to start an argument, I explained that while on the surface it may seem that we didn’t agree, that I was certain we really did. I explained that we both probably wanted the same thing: for ALL the citizens of Rhode Island to feel safe. So although the senator and I did not agree on how to get there, we shared a community of interest. We both agreed everybody in Rhode Island deserved to be protected from reckless dog owners. We had established common ground to stand on together.

Turns out, I was the first person who had called the senator with solutions regarding building safe communities, instead of complaints. The senator asked me to speak with the constituent who had asked him to take up this legislation in the first place. I was glad to!

The constituent, a dog owner himself, had a very scary experience with a dog in his community. While they were out for a walk, another person allowed their dog to severely injure this constituent’s dog. The dog needed emergency surgery and lots of stitches. It was a legitimately terrible experience for this citizen and his family – they were afraid their pet was going to die. They had every right to be angry and frightened. I would have been too.

Afterwards, there was a dangerous dog hearing regarding the incident. It became clear that the reckless dog owner didn’t care if his dog was destroyed. He’d simply get another dog if this one was gone.

The dog owner was the problem – he’d failed to properly manage his dog – and he was the one to blame for the incident. But since the victim does not live under the “pit bull” tent as so many of us do, he was susceptible to the incorrect notion that the “pit bull” was to blame for what happened to his dog. He believed that in order to prevent this sort of thing from occurring again, it was “pit bull” dogs that needed to be restricted. He didn’t want what happened to his family to ever happen to another family. He had exhausted all recourses allowed by law, but nothing had really changed. He knew he needed to do something to bring attention to the problem of reckless dog owners.

So after months of meeting with his city council about this matter, this gentleman was given the opportunity to meet with his senator to discuss a legislative solution. The result was that statewide breed specific legislation (BSL) was proposed in Rhode Island.

Obviously, I do not agree with their legislative solution. But as a dog owner who would do anything to keep her pets safe, and as a human being who genuinely cares about the well-being of her friends and neighbors, I could understand why they felt like they needed to do something. I know firsthand what it feels like to live in a city where legislation (fueled by the acts of a single, reckless dog owner) would ultimately force me to either leave my home and my job, or surrender my dog to be killed, was being considered. I was afraid. And I no longer felt safe in my own community. And I also know what it is like to feel unsafe in my own neighborhood because a reckless dog owner will not properly contain his dog. I have a “pit bull” dog who is still too afraid to go for walks in our own neighborhood because he was bitten by the neighbor’s at-large dog.

In talking with the constituent it turned out that we’re more alike than we are different. Instead of focusing on our disagreements, we started with our shared community of interest and our goals regarding building a safe community. We discussed how BSL has never been proven to reduce dog bites and fails to increase public safety. We agreed that in order to reach our shared goal – community safety – BSL was not going to be an effective solution for addressing reckless dog owners in Rhode Island.

Together we determined that there was much room for improvement in how Rhode Island currently deals with reckless dog owners and that by focusing our efforts there – on addressing reckless owners of ANY dog – we could affect real transformational change in regards to increasing public safety. We looked at existing animal control laws and discovered where a lack of enforcement (of current ordinances) could be addressed. When current legislation isn’t being enforced, introducing new legislation makes little sense – why not try enforcing what you already have on the books, before introducing new legislation? We could both see that there were many steps we could take to improve community safety in Rhode Island, without banning dogs based on physical appearance or breed label.

Today, there is still much work to be done, but all the stakeholders now agree that BSL is not going to be the solution.

It’s worth noting that I didn’t attempt to influence the constituent’s decision by talking about how much I love “pit bull” dogs. I was not attempting to change how he felt about “pit bull” dogs. From the beginning it was clear that we were both on the same side, so I focused the discussion on our mutual interest in building safe communities and shared the research that shows BSL would not lead to an increase in public safety. BSL fails responsible “pit bull” dog owners, such as myself, and it fails our neighbors and fellow community members, such as this gentleman.

We all wind up losing with BSL, no matter what side we’re on.

The takeaway here is that there is no us vs. them when it comes to wanting to be safe in our own communities. I am absolutely certain of this. Responsible dog owners (of all kinds of dogs) and various community members typically have more in common than it might seem at first. On the surface it seems as if we are worlds apart, but remember: safety is the goal for everyone. We all want to be safe. Rather than creating a divide based in misunderstanding and anger – us vs. them – we can start the conversation from the common ground we all share: a desire to be safe in our own communities. Safe from reckless dog owners and safe from ineffective, discriminatory legislation. That how real solutions which truly benefit everyone are achieved.

I think that the us vs. them syndrome is rooted in the chronic fringe that dances around those of us who are working hard to make a difference. On one side, there’s the anti-”pit bull” dog, agenda-based hate groups that masquerade as champions of victims’ rights. On the other are the arrogant, reckless dog owners who disregard basic ownership laws allowing their dogs (“pit bull” dogs or any other dog) to become a nuisance or a threat to all of us. Both are the exception. They are on the far ends of the spectrum and have little in common with the majority of us who live together and are working towards fair, safe, effective solutions. These fringe groups do not get to define how the rest of us interact with one another.

Let’s refuse to play this divisive game of us vs. them. We did. Together, we found a common ground solution that benefits all the people of Rhode Island. You can do this too. You don’t need to be the Executive Director of a non-profit or even a member of a group to build bridges and let the “other side” know that you understand their concerns and want to work with them to create safe communities for all of us to enjoy.

We’re all more alike than we think. The same goes for the dogs: “pit bull” dogs are not uniquely different than other dogs – for worse OR better. The way to move forward effectively isn’t to get stuck championing how different or special or unique our dogs are or by spewing anger at the other side. We can accomplish so much more if we focus our energies on what we have in common. We’re all on the same team. We all want safe communities.

For more information, please watch our presentation on Breed Specific Legislation.

“Pit Bull” Dog Advocates: Is the Info You Share Hurting or Helping?

Here’s a riddle for anyone who communicates on behalf of “pit bull” dogs:

What happens when you promote “pit bull” dogs for adoption and advocate for their fair treatment while ALSO communicating outdated, fear-inducing information about the very same dogs?

Answer: You wind up hurting the dogs you’re supposed to be helping.

We’re betting the public are left scratching their heads when organizations that are seemingly FOR “pit bull” dogs, are simultaneously putting out information that makes the dogs they’re advocating for look like highly deviant, potentially even deadly, dogs.

Think we’re exaggerating? A quick look around the Internet and various “pit bull” advocacy pages and the average person – who may have no prior information about “pit bull” dogs – will discover subtitles such as “Pit Bulls: Never Trust Them Not To Fight,” among other inflammatory and subjective pieces.

If our mission is to promote the adoption of “pit bull” dogs from shelters and to advocate for breed neutral laws that do not discriminate, then what purpose does it serve to scare the public sideways, with articles that perpetuate fear and have little to do with the individual dogs themselves?

We trust that these two “pit bull” dogs are simply playing. To set them up for success we get to know the dogs as individuals and we supervise the dogs during play groups. No breed-specific warnings necessary.

That kind of tired, negative information promotes fear not fact, and hardly supports our collective work to end canine discrimination and save lives.

Could it be that some advocates and organizations don’t consider “pit bull” dogs to be normal dogs? That’s the only conclusion we can come to based on the inflammatory information we find on various “pit bull” advocacy websites, such as “because of their strength and fighting ability, Pit Bulls can easily do a lot of damage in a short period of time.” After reading breed-specific hype like that all over the web, how can we expect anyone to adopt a dog labeled “pit bull” or not be afraid of them?

The very people who are supposed to be advocating on behalf of the dogs are making them look like deviant monsters, set apart from all other canines.

Dogs are more alike one another than they are different. There is NO behavior that is unique to one dog breed. You can get to know “pit bull” dogs by learning more about DOG behavior.

If our goals are to save lives, help the public to better evaluate the right pet dog for their families, to properly care for the “pit bulls” they already own and love, and to end discriminatory polices, then animal welfare organizations and advocates need to promote accurate information, not hysteria-inducing sound bites that further marginalize dogs labeled “pit bull.”

In short: Scare tactics are not resources.

And further: our opinions are not facts, even when they’re based on our personal experiences.

“Pit Bulls” are dogs. The behaviors they exhibit are DOG behaviors. And not a single one of these canine behaviors are unique to “pit bull” dogs alone. But just looking at the websites with “pit bull” dog resources would make anyone think that “pit bull” dogs are in need of highly specialized, vigilant, and skilled handling…or disaster will strike.

If advocates use fear in order to get the public to be responsible (like some sort of canine “Scared Straight!” for dog owners), they’re missing the point. ALL dogs need responsible owners. We don’t need to make “pit bull” dog owners afraid of their own dogs in order to discuss responsible dog ownership or give them excellent resources to help them set their dogs up for success. Fear-based generalizations aren’t helping the dogs.

All dogs need responsible owners who manage them properly and care for them based on their individual needs. Don’t single out “pit bull” dogs as different than any other dog or burden them with breed-based generalizations that may cause more harm than good.

It is our responsibility as advocates to constantly re-examine our language, the information we’re sharing, and the research that we’re promoting. Rather than weeding out old content published back in the ‘00s, many sites have kept outdated, inflammatory posts and information on their websites and in their resources. This information, published years ago, might have been the best information and advice available at the time, but in the progressive world of animal sheltering and canine research, five to ten years is a lifetime ago. Our work has changed, as the information and research we’re privy to changes.

The dogs are depending on us to stop adding to their problems by recycling old content and tired warnings. Stereotypes, myths, generalizations, and opinions that are floating around the internet are promoted and perceived as fact. We owe it to the dogs to be vigilant in the information we provide to the public, even when that means admitting we were wrong in the past or that new information has come to light. We must also be aware that what we say might be misunderstood in and outside of the animal welfare world, resulting in serious, real life consequences for the dogs and their people. And we need to stop using fear and warnings in place of solid, fact-based information and resources.

The dogs need us, the experts, to revamp the outdated information that perpetuates the misperception that “pit bull” dogs are uniquely different than all other dogs and further marginalizes them in shelters, in the law books, and even in the homes of the people who love them.  Fear isn’t Fact.

Responsible Pet Ownership Month: All Day, Every Day

We just heard that February is “Responsible Pet Ownership Month.” Who knew? And maybe a better question is, shouldn’t every month be Responsible Pet Ownership Month? Better yet, every day!

Responsible pet ownership is one the KEY elements to creating safe, humane communities. So when dog owners disregard the basic rules that govern responsible pet ownership, they don’t just cause a problem in their immediate circle, they also make it harder for every single dog owner out there.

For example, calls for BSL usually stem for a single incident involving one irresponsible dog owner whose actions (or inaction) caused trouble.

Being an irresponsible dog owner creates community-wide problems!

That’s not to say that “pit bull” dog owners need to be MORE responsible than other dog owners. ALL dog owners need to be equally responsible…all the time, every day, in all kind of ways.

Are you responsible?Let’s check.

You may be an irresponsible dog owner if you:

• Allow your dog to roam loose and unattended.
• Ignore leash laws.
• Fail to scoop your dog’s poop on public property.
• Allow your dog to be a nuisance to your neighbors.

When you do these sort of things, it upsets everyone around you, it’s unsafe for your dog, and, frankly, it makes us all look bad.

If you said yes to any of the above points, you are a potential community problem. And not being a community problem should be a goal to strive for every single day, not just during the month of February.

Because let’s get real: we may act like we don’t notice the irresponsible things you’re doing, but we see you. And we’re tired of it. Stop messing stuff up for the rest of us, will you please?

And that’s a year-round request!

Moving Animal Sheltering Forward: Individuality Takes the Lead

Shelters are in the business of sending pets home. If our goal is to provide shelter dogs with the best care during their stays, save more lives, and make better matches for adopters, we have to focus on their individual pet qualities first and foremost.

That’s why we were discouraged to read the latest blog from the ASPCA, directed at shelter workers and adoption counselors, which advised them to, “…make clear the breed traits of the dogs when we can identify the breed or breed mix.”, suggesting that knowing a breed trait would help shelters predict which dogs were appropriate for play groups and various types of enrichment.

In response, we wanted to remind shelter staff why it’s crucial to get to know dogs as individuals first, as well as the overwhelming good news about playgroups for dogs of all kinds.

Successful adoption programs recognize that all dogs are, first and foremost, individuals. Every dog is an individual with a distinct set of needs and behaviors that are determined by a wide variety of factors, including: genetics, breeding, socialization, training, management, and past experience and current environment. The only way we can accurately determine what a dog needs are is to look at the individual dog in front us for the answers.

We owe it to all shelter dogs to see them for who they really are, free from assumptions that are based on a known pedigree, a breed label guess, or physical appearance. Read more here.

This does not mean breed traits don’t exist or that they have no place in adoption counseling. Breed traits most certainly exist, but how they present themselves in dogs, particularly in mixed breed dogs of unknown origins, varies tremendously. Therefore, a guess at how a breed trait may or may not manifest itself in a dog is not nearly as reliable as the information shelters can gather by observing the dogs in their care.

No matter what a dog’s breed or mix may be, we should never allow our speculation, biases, or guess-work to stand in the way of providing the best care, socialization, and adoption matches possible. When we give equal or more weight to breed traits (particularly when it pertains to mixed breed dogs), rather than focusing on what we’ve observed about a dog’s individual needs, we are potentially denying them a range of positive experiences.

These two shelter “pit bull” dogs are in training to become assistance dogs

How does seeing dogs as individuals FIRST and foremost make a life saving difference? Here’s one of many examples from the shelters we work with around the country:

After attending a recent play group workshop, run by Aimee Sadler, we heard from the Canine Services Manager at the Norfolk SPCA, who wrote:

“It was an absolutely life changing experience and we have already begun building playgroups here at the Norfolk SPCA. One of the most valuable pieces of this workshop was the focus on the individual dog. There wasn’t any focus on breed. This really hit me. I stress daily to my staff that we must treat each dog as an individual…After participating in Aimee’s workshop, I realized that I had been making so many assumptions based off of breed. Until now.

Now, we will be truly focusing on each individual dog. I look back at all of the dogs that could have benefited from these playgroups. There were many dogs that weren’t allowed to go home with other dogs because it was too much of a “risk”. It brings tears to my eyes to think of all of the dogs that have been held back. But in the spirit of the dog, we are moving forward!”

We may look like we’re from the same litter, but we’re not related and we’re both individuals!

This forward thinking approach echoes what Alexandra Horowitz, a researcher of dog behavior and cognition and author of “Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know” recently wrote for the NY Times:

“…breed standards include personality descriptions. Unfortunately, personality is not genetically determined: just as a person’s personality derives from more than her genome, a dog is not merchandise whose behavior (outside of a few hard-wired ones, like pointing) can be predicted ahead of time.

While many owners may see breed-typical personalities in their dogs (we humans do tend to spot just the evidence which supports our theories), there is simply no guarantee that a dog will behave just so. Witness the cases of cloned — genetically identical — pets who have, to their owners’ great surprise, quite different personalities.

Since the vast majority of dog owners are not showing their dogs, but adding them to their families, the alleged predictability of personality is problematic. When a dog does not behave in accordance with her “billing,” owners call this a “behavior problem” — the single greatest reason for relinquishment of a dog to a shelter. Thus, inadvertently, breed standards lead potential adopters to treat them more like products with reliable features. Dogs are individuals, and should be treated thusly.”

Read more here.

If there’s any doubt that recognizing dogs as individuals first is saving lives and increasing adoptions, take a look at what’s happening at Chicago Animal Care and Control (CACC), an open admission city shelter with a large number of pure breed and mixed breed dogs labeled “pit bull.”

Last year Aimee Sadler, creator of the Success Through Socialization program, provided a multi-day hands on lesson for volunteers and staff members to learn how to run play groups. We followed up with Cynthia Bathurst, the Executive Director of Safe Humane Chicago, to find out how the Court Case Dogs (a Safe Humane program that supports dogs who have been relinquished by defendant owners charged with animal abuse or neglect and are housed at CACC), are doing and how the play groups at CACC have impacted their lives.

Here’s what Cynthia told us in a nutshell: play groups are saving lives.

Cynthia says, “All dogs who are social or comfortable with other dogs, or with particular dogs (depending on play styles and compatible personalities), can participate in play groups. It depends on the individual dogs. Any restrictions are set by the play group volunteers themselves and are the result of individual observations or individual limitations, such as a dog’s medical condition or play style or lack of social skills.”

They do not use breed or breed mix to determine which dogs are allowed to participate in play groups.

Read the full interview here.

The fact is that we’ve all been relying on breed traits – accurate or not – for too long now. It’s a step backwards to advise shelters to use physical appearance as an equally reliable tool for evaluating a dog or to determine their suitability for various kinds of socializing and enrichment. This old-fashioned, fear-based, reliance on possible breed traits in sheltered dogs has denied countless dogs the chance to socialize in stress-reducing play groups, to go home with adopters who have other pets, and to discover the pet qualities that will truly make the best match for an adopter. It’s time to move forward in our approach to adoptions and enrichment by focusing on dogs as individuals FIRST.

Tackling Discriminatory Policies: The Vacation Edition

The Northeast was hit by a blizzard this week, so to take our minds off of the weather we’ve decided to start daydreaming about our summer vacations! We love hitting the road with our dogs, but occasionally we run into discriminatory policies that threaten to put a damper on our family fun.

Since so many of us like to travel with our pets, we thought this would be a good time to talk with AFF adopter Lynn Rogers. Lynn frequently travels with one of her two dogs, Dakota (who has her Canine Good Citizen certificate and is a therapy dog), but last year, she encountered a rental agency that had breed specific polices. Lynn kept a level head and took this as an opportunity to do some education. Let’s see how it turned out!

AFF: Can you tell readers a little about your dogs?

Lynn: Both of our dogs are good dogs. We know them very well and we know that Dakota is a real people dog, but Morty is not so comfortable meeting new people. Dakota loves to visit people and new places. However, Morty is afraid of meeting new people and this issue is training in-progress for us. Both of them LOVE going to “doggie” daycare and are favorites there!

AFF: You choose to board Morty, instead of bringing him on vacation with you. How come?

Lynn: Morty is uncomfortable meeting new people in new spaces. It doesn’t take a degree in dog behavior to see that taking him somewhere new, with ten new people to meet, is not a recipe for success for him. So Dakota came with us and Morty spent his week at our daycare. He had a spa treatment and the trainer there worked with him on his meeting people issues. She and her husband say he is a model dog when he is there, and they take excellent care of him and he gets to play, play, play all day long!

Morty enjoying his vacation

AFF: We love how you recognize that each of your dogs is an individual and needs different things to succeed. Since Dakota loves new people and places, you go on vacation with Dakota each summer. What happened when you tried to take her on vacation last summer?

Lynn: I found a house with a new rental company, and after I placed the deposit, I received their contract. I noted that the contract included a breed specific discrimination clause which included pit bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and German Shepherds. I contacted Animal Farm, asking for advice. Should I pursue having the company change their rules and accept my dog? Or should I just look for another rental company? AFF suggested that it would help move the issue forward if I attempted to challenge the rental company.

AFF: How did you approach the rental company and, ultimately, get them to make an exception to their policies?

Lynn: I phoned them and explained Dakota’s credentials and her history at past beach houses. I also let them know that I had another dog that I would not be bringing because he would not be comfortable in that situation. They listened and agreed that because Dakota is CGC and TDI certified (I sent them copies of her credentials) that they would bend their rules.

Dakota on vacation

AFF: What’s your advice for anyone in a similar situation?

Lynn: I guess the biggest lesson for me was not to give up, and to ask for the rules to change. I hope that by bending the rules for my dog, the rental company might see that each dog is an individual.

Thanks Lynn! We hope your 2013 vacation is another success!

(editor’s note: original answers were edited for space and clarity)

Dakota hits the beach!

If you find yourself in a similar situation this summer, here are some tips:

• Know your dogs. If your dogs aren’t comfortable with new people or places, taking them on vacation may not be a good choice. It’s ok to leave them at home with a pet sitter or at a kennel. If you do bring them along, give your dogs the skills they need to make a good impression on property managers. Teach them how to greet new people politely.

• Education is key! If you do run into discrimination, rather than walking away take it as an opportunity to educate. Talk to the rental companies, the campgrounds, or hotel managers. Be polite, calm, and respectful in your approach. Find out why they have a breed specific policy and ask that they reconsider.

• If your dog has credentials, show them off. Certifications like Canine Good Citizen or Certified Therapy Dog may influence business owners to make an exception for your dog. If you’ve successfully rented or vacationed with your dog in the past, mention this. Better yet, if you’ve keep records of correspondences with past property managers (that show you left the house in good condition and are welcome back) share those too.

• Let your wallet do the talking. If they’re not interested in having a discussion with you or changing their policies, don’t lose your cool. Take your business elsewhere. After you enjoy your vacation, why not write that first company an email to let them know how much money they lost out on by discriminating against you and our dogs? Tell them that you hope they’ll reconsider their policies and that you’d be happy to support their business in the future if they do.

Want to be a voice for change, but need a little help getting started? Check out our new BSL Talking Points eBook for tips on speaking up for your dogs!

Education, Advocacy, Action: How Iowa is Defeating BSL

It has never been easier to defeat Breed Specific Legislation. With dedication, thorough thinking, and cooperation you can be successful. In 2012 we saw a growing trend of repeals, rejections, and overturned BSL across the country. Recently in Iowa two communities were able to remove BSL from their towns.

We wanted to find out more about these success stories, so we went straight to Stephanie Filer, Manager of Special Gifts & Partnerships for the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and Staff Liaison and Co-founder of the ARL Pit Crew to learn more.

AFF: Can you start off by telling us a little bit about ARL and the ARL Pit Crew Club?

SF: The Animal Rescue League of Iowa is located in Des Moines, IA and is our state’s largest animal welfare organization with an annual intake of over 18,000 animals and thousands of animals served through our community outreach programs.

The ARL Pit Crew Club has really evolved over the years. To start with, Des Moines has a Breed Discriminating Ordinance restricting the ownership of “pit bull” dogs (dating back to the 1980s). This made it incredibly difficult to place “pit bull” dogs into homes and also created a community that felt like they had to be in hiding if they had a “pit bull” dog. So, with the blessing of our Board Chair and our Executive Director, the ARL Pit Crew Club was founded in August 2010 by myself and Camille Roth.

The initial goal of the club was to take the three “breeds” that the city of Des Moines targeted in their ordinance and create a sense of pride for those who chose to love those dogs. Adopters received a free one year membership to the club at time of adoption and anyone could join with a paid membership (includes t-shirt!). Instead of using the city’s term of “pit bull” we coined the term “Lov-A-Bull” for any dog already in a home and “Adopt-A-Bull” for any dog still waiting.

From there we launched an adoption campaign and a “Respons-I-Bull” campaign where we partnered with photographers to feature local dogs and their people. With an emphasis on responsible dog ownership and a desire to assist the public in being compliant with the ordinance, we also created a list of Pet-Friendly Housing, insurance agents who don’t discriminate, and businesses with special offers for Lov-A-Bulls.

Since the Des Moines ordinance is confusing to navigate, we also created an ordinance cheat sheet for those who live in Des Moines and a list of dog-friendly cities in Iowa to help dog owners navigate the rules as they travel or look to move.

In 2011, we expanded our group from education and awareness from the ARL to action from the dog owners themselves. We started offering 50% off dog training classes for Lov-A-Bulls through our Train-A-Bull program and soon after started a campaign to get dogs Canine Good Citizen certified through our Award-A-Bull program – both thanks to grants from Animal Farm Foundation.

We had our first two dogs receive their CGC in the 2011, but realized there was still a lot of confusion to the process, so in January 2012 as part of National Train Your Dog Month we launched a no-budget video series called “10 weeks to CGC“. We documented how to train your dog to prepare for the test using one technique each week. In 2012 we had eleven dogs receive their CGC award!

Also in 2012, we created an elite group within the Pit Crew Club called the Ambass-A-Bulls because there was a desire within the group to do more and start to make real change in their communities. The Ambass-A-Bulls serve as the community outreach arm for the Pit Crew club. In order to participate in this group, dogs must have received their CGC award, be compliant with any ordinances in their city, and be spayed/neutered and microchipped.

The Ambass-A-Bulls dogs and their people visit schools to talk to kids about bullying, stereotypes, and how to safely greet a dog of all breeds, visit nursing homes to provide animal-assisted therapy (for those who are therapy certified), visit schools to help kids improve their reading, participate in local parades and events for awareness, volunteer to work with the dogs in adoption, assist potential adopters with questions, work to change BSL, help dogs prepare for the CGC test, donate blood to the state’s canine blood bank, and much more!

AFF: BSL was recently overturned in Perry, IA and rejected in Newton, IA. 

The ARL, along with other local advocates and organizations, like the Perry Humane Society, worked together to address BSL in these communities.

Can you share your strategy for taking on this challenge?

SF: All of the efforts above were done to help prepare us for our ultimate goal of creating breed-neutral communities. Our strategy has been to  wait until we’re ready with our message and the people are ready to hear our message. At times this has been painfully long, but it has proven time and time again to work. Timing is everything. There has been a lot of behind the scenes work that has gone into each of the victories as well.

With the Perry victory in the fall of 2012, we played more of a support role. Abby Benifiel, Director of the Perry Humane Society contacted us after she had laid all of the ground work with the city council and just needed us to help seal the deal. The city council was planning to meet to add additional breeds to their already existent BSL, so Abby saw that as an opportunity to remove all of the BSL! We worked with her to provide the fiscal impact research, dog bite statistics, and ownership discrimination information and, armed with all of the info and a great presentation, the city council removed all of their BSL instead of expanding it.

To celebrate the victory, Abby coordinated a therapy dog visit with the Ambass-A-Bulls to one of the local nursing homes. Nursing home visits with “pit bull” dogs are now a regular occurrence in Perry.

For Newton, the ARL took a behind the scenes role and instead had a member of our Ambass-A-Bulls (Lisa) who is a Newton resident, take the public lead. Sadly, over the past year there had been an attack on a person and an attack on a dog that had the city council re-examining their weak vicious dog ordinance. We fully supported this effort in order to protect the community, if done the right way. The city newspaper, along with at least one of the victims, was making this a breed issue instead of a dangerous dog issue. Lisa presented the following message to the city council:

“Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you tonight. My name is Lisa G. and I have been a business owner in Newton for 22 years. In lieu of recent events involving dogs, I feel the need to say that more needs to be done, not only to protect the citizens of Newton, but also the dogs that are owned by reckless and irresponsible people. Not only are people victims in these instances, the dogs also suffer as victims at the hands of their careless owners. As a responsible dog owner I too want to be protected from the reckless few who disregard the laws that govern responsible pet ownership. I’ve heard some trying to make this a breed issue, but it has nothing to do with breed – it is merely a dog issue and an issue surrounding the careless people who sometimes own dogs.

Almost four years ago my husband and I were asked to foster a dog who needed a new home. Fostering quickly turned into adopting. We now own two dogs. Chloe is a 16 year old golden retriever/cocker spaniel mix and Porsche, who was initially our foster dog, is now a 6 year old “Pit bull”. You may have also heard about Porsche in the news, but it’s not because she has done anything wrong. Instead, Porsche is an AKC canine good citizen award earner, a therapy dog with Therapy Dogs International, a Tail Waggin’ tutor, (which is a child’s reading dog), and she and I are active volunteers in the community of Newton. For the past few months every Monday morning she reads with children at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School who need extra help with their reading skills. She also volunteers every Wednesday afternoon at the Newton Public Library reading with children at an after school program. She visits many nursing homes bringing smiles to people’s faces…Porsche is not the exception to the rule, she is the majority. Just as I am not an exceptional dog owner, I am the majority.

And as such, I want to make sure I, my community, and my pets are protected from people who are reckless and allow their animals to harm others. In addition to enforcing the dog laws that we have in this city, we could stand to add a few more restrictions for dogs who act badly as a result to negligent owners. I brought an example of an ordinance that is working in other cities and counties to hold owners accountable and protect the public. As a business owner and active member of this community I would like to offer any assistance I can provide, with the resources that I have to make Newton a safe community for both the people and dogs’ who live here. Thank you.”

After much discussion, the council unanimously voted on a stronger, breed-neutral vicious dog ordinance.

While this was a great first step, we will continue to work with the council and share other  breed neutral best practices to strengthen their dog laws, including anti-tethering, at large penalties, spay/neuter, etc., in order to proactively create a safe community.

AFF: What were some of the key elements to your approach?

SF: As you can see, Lisa had a powerful message thanks to the groundwork the ARL Pit Crew and Ambass-A-Bulls had begun. First, create awareness. Then create positive action and rally the “troops” under a common goal and message. Finally execute the plan. For the cities that we’re currently working on, we begun attending the council meetings regularly and are getting to know our council people prior to ever bringing up the dog issue. In January alone the Ambass-A-Bulls spent a collective 32 hours attending or presenting at their council meetings.

AFF: How are you putting AFF’s resources and tools to use in your advocacy work?

SF: Over the past 2.5 year journey, we’ve learned a lot, but more importantly we learned how much we don’t know. So early on we made a conscious decision to model our language and strategy based on what we learned from Animal Farm Foundation. In Lisa’s presentation above, you’ll notice a lot of language from AFF included. If she would have stormed in there with her “pit bull” shirt and “blame the deed, not the breed” rhetoric, her message about all of the great things she is doing for the community would have been overlooked.

This was one of the most powerful learning moments we experienced early on from AFF and it’s how we’ve differentiated ourselves from the other “pit bull” groups that have popped up over the years in our community. We firmly believe after everything we’ve learned from AFF that saying the wrong thing is worse than saying nothing at all. We’d rather say nothing until we’re ready to say the right thing. The “loud and proud” strategy just doesn’t work.

When it comes to awareness, we routinely reference the “Labels & Language” section of the AFF website, watch the AFF BSL Presentation, and make “The Language of Advocacy” article required reading for our Ambass-A-Bulls.

If we’re not all speaking the same, correct message, we’re going to confuse our audience.

Thank you Stephanie and the ARL for sharing your successful approach to fighting BSL in Iowa. Keep up the inspiring work!

To learn more about the ARL Pit Crew, please visit them on Facebook. And for further BSL resources, please see our website.