Pay Day for Pit Bulls

[mili04]

The Humane Society of Southern Arizona is beginning a program that will pay owners of pit bulls and pit bull mixes to have their dog spayed or neutered. I have met some really sweet pit bulls and really hope this program works to reduce their numbers out on the street and those being bred by people who aren't taking care of them and properly socializing them at a young age.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/124434.php

What do you guys think?

[jesvet]

I think it's a much better idea than many I've heard! Anything to reduce the number of unwanted animals by increasing the number of spays and neuters is good in my book.

[MLA]

Great idea. I've known lots of lovey-dovey pit bulls, but in the wrong hands, they can be a pretty vicious breed. I really hope that this program is successful and can be replicated in other cities.

[Kanga]

I think it's great, although I don't think I could take the $20 from an association of that kind.

[maxandmolly]

I think it would be a great idea for ALL dogs. There are far too many homeless, unwanted dogs in this country, regardless of breed.

[IrishMeg]

I think it would be a great idea for ALL dogs. There are far too many homeless, unwanted dogs in this country, regardless of breed.

My thoughts, too. And cats as well.

[Scooter]

I think this is going over better because it's a voluntary program--but it makes me worry that it's still not going to get the the more irresponsible owners to do it. And those are the highest risk group, I'd assume.

At least the reaction so far to this idea has been positive. There was a lengthy thread before about the law in San Francisco about pit bulls having to be spayed or neutered & people were really upset about it, likening it to outlawing specific breeds in certain cities.

It's too bad this is specific to pit bulls, I agree it should be for all breeds.

[MLA]

There was a lengthy thread before about the law in San Francisco about pit bulls having to be spayed or neutered & people were really upset about it, likening it to outlawing specific breeds in certain cities.

It's too bad this is specific to pit bulls, I agree it should be for all breeds.

I thought that the SF law was outlawing the breed completely -- No one could own a pit bull in the city, and anyone who already had one had to either get rid of it or move. Was it really just a spay and neuter law? If so, it seems ridiculous for people to be up in arms over it. If it was what I thought it was, then, yeah, it's pretty awful.

[Scooter]

I thought that the SF law was outlawing the breed completely -- No one could own a pit bull in the city, and anyone who already had one had to either get rid of it or move. Was it really just a spay and neuter law? If so, it seems ridiculous for people to be up in arms over it. If it was what I thought it was, then, yeah, it's pretty awful.
Basically what it was about is that if you own a pit bulls you are required to spay or neuter it if you want to keep it. And anyone who's visited any shelters in that area knows that 75% of the dogs there are pits or pit mixes, plus there is a ton of dog fighting in the area, so I don't think it's purely about them being mislabeled as monsters who attack everyone. And people who breed or show them can still do so. IIRC, people got really upset in that thread without having read the proposition. This is from the SF Animal Control website (http://www.sfgov.org/site/acc_index.asp), if you want more specifics (boldface added): PIT BULL ORDINANCE

A new law is now in effect that makes it illegal to own an unaltered pit bull -- or pit bull mix -- in San Francisco. Also in effect is San Francisco Health Code Section 44, which requires owners to obtain a permit from Animal Care and Control in order to breed their pit bulls or pit bull mixes. These laws went into effect after the Governor signed SB 861 into law – paving the way for cities and counties to create legislation specific to spaying and neutering of particular breeds of dogs.

It would be nice to have more people who are pressured to neuter or spay their dogs & cats, in every city. I don't know which is better, legislation or incentives like in Southern Arizona, but for the sake of the unwanted & abused animals, something is needed.

[Teresita]

I think it’s great that they are trying to reduce the number of unwanted pit bulls. It is horrifying how many unwanted animals are killed each year in our country, and I know that a disproportionate number of those animals are pits and pit mixes.

That being said, I would much prefer that the program be open to all dogs. Although from the article it sounds as though the program is being funded by someone with pit bulls’ best interests at heart and carried out with good intentions, I nevertheless think that a program that specifically targets pit bulls—even if well-intentioned—serves to reinforce the many “monster myths” surrounding the breed.

[jesvet]

That being said, I would much prefer that the program be open to all dogs. Although from the article it sounds as though the program is being funded by someone with pit bulls’ best interests at heart and carried out with good intentions, I nevertheless think that a program that specifically targets pit bulls—even if well-intentioned—serves to reinforce the many “monster myths” surrounding the breed.

I agree with everything you said.

That being said, I still think it's better than nothing. I can't imagine it being fiscally possible to extend the same incentive to all pet owners. And while it is a slippery road to target any breed, for good or bad, I guess I would still rather have this in place than not exist at all because in the end, it will hopefully result in less animals being euthanized.

[Rico'sAlice]

That being said, I would much prefer that the program be open to all dogs.

It's not the same thing as this program, but I know in my town pet licenses cost significantly less for altered animals. Of course, a lot of these owners probably aren't licensing their dogs anyway.

[mili04]

That being said, I still think it's better than nothing. I can't imagine it being fiscally possible to extend the same incentive to all pet owners. And while it is a slippery road to target any breed, for good or bad, I guess I would still rather have this in place than not exist at all because in the end, it will hopefully result in less animals being euthanized.

ITA with this. I am a proud Rottie momma and very much against breed specific legislation. But I've been to the shelters in S. Arizona and it seems like half the dogs there are pit bulls. Something needs to be done to curb the irresponsible breeding of these dogs. I'm glad to see somebody making an effort to do something.

In other news, they had 39 people respond on the first day. Here is an update with a couple of pictures of adorable pit bulls as a bonus!

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/9398.php

[Teresita]

jesvet I agree completely that it is better than nothing and certainly something needs to be done to try and address the dreadful situation that so many animals (and so, so many pits) are facing in pounds across the country. But it is nonetheless difficult for me to be too enthusiastic about it since 1) I feel it is addressing the symptom, rather than the source of the problem; 2) it may very well be adding to the source of the problem.

As we all surely know, in large part the reason so many pits and pit mixes are euthanized each year is because they have a reputation of being a vicious breed—a breed that is somehow set apart from all others as being the worst of the worst among dogs. This reputation makes pits an attractive dog to the types of people who are not responsible owners and who are more likely to mistreat their dog(s), not spay/neuter their dog(s), and abandon their dog(s)--all leading to the ridiculous numbers of pit bulls in city pounds. Then, the types of responsible people that you do want to own dogs will most likely never consider adopting a pit or pit mix because they have such a terrible rap--hence the sadly low numbers of pits who ever leave pounds alive.

IMO, even a program such as the one in Arizona perpetuates the negative stereotypes that surround pits. While that newspaper article was by and large positive, it of course made mention of pits’ potentially “aggressive nature” and talks about the need to “spay and neuter this breed" in particular, and the more recent article mentions that they want to lessen the presence of pit bulls to make room for “more adoptable animals.” IMO, singling out pit bulls perpetuates the notion that pit bulls are exceptionally aggressive and “unadoptable” and subtly reinforces the sentiment (expresssed most strongly in the breed bans that have been anacted around the country) that pit bulls are dogs that we do not want in our society. So, I am concerned that even a positive program such as this one could be adding to the source of the very problem they are trying to address.

But yes, in the end, I agree that if it saves some dogs' lives, then it is at least better than the status quo.

Rico’s Alice My city also has a program that discounts licenses for spayed and neutered pets, and I am fully in support of it. I see it as a very different issue. For one, it is not a breed-specific program. Moreover, I do not have any problem singling out spayed/neutered animals because as far as I am aware being spayed or neutered does not make a pet more likely to attract a bad owner; it does not make an animal less likely to be adopted by a good owner; and it does not make it possible for an animal to be banned from a city (in which cases the authorities can come and take such animals from their homes and their loving owners and kill them). However, the singling out of pit bulls as a breed apart from all others has had all of these negative consequences. (ETA: BTW, I love your avatar--you have some gorgeous dogs!)

Mili04 That’s great that the program has had such a good response so far!


One a lighter note, check out this sweet pit bull story: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainment/8479377/detail.html.:)

[Scooter]

Then, the types of responsible people that you do want to own dogs will most likely never consider adopting a pit or pit mix because they have such a terrible rap--hence the sadly low numbers of pits who ever leave pounds alive.I think that's a huge generalization of why these dogs aren't being adopted. It's important that a breed's temperament matches with the owner, as well, and I think if you have any one breed overrunning the shelters, the problem is partly going to be that not enough potential owners match well with that kind of dog. And then there's another part of it, too. For example, when we were going to the different shelters to look for a dog, we saw tons of pits/pit mixes. The main reason we chose not to adopt them didn't have to do with them being viscious monsters, it had to do with not knowing how they'd been treated when they were younger. There is so much fighting around here that chances are most of those came from irresponsible owners who hadn't put any training into them, or had been given up because they weren't good fighters. We weren't interested in that--and to be clear they're not the only breed we weren't interested in.

While that newspaper article was by and large positive, it of course made mention of pits’ potentially “aggressive nature” and talks about the need to “spay and neuter this breed" in particular,As with any dog, it's important to look at the breeding history. Pit bulls do have a potentially agressive nature, especially in-breed, because that's what they were bred for origninally. It's like mentioning a collie's need to herd or a rottweiler's need to guard--they were bred that way. These are important characteristics to understand about the breed so those things can be expected & addressed--before they become real problems.

[jesvet]

This reputation makes pits an attractive dog to the types of people who are not responsible owners and who are more likely to mistreat their dog(s), not spay/neuter their dog(s), and abandon their dog(s)--all leading to the ridiculous numbers of pit bulls in city pounds.

Yep. And that is another reason I am so against breed specific legislation- outlaw pits, and those losers will start breeding Presa Canarios or some other dog to fulfill their needs. FWIW, the vast vast majority of pits I see are wonderful dogs with great owners. That has not been the case in my own experience with other breeds that get tagged with the same designation; not sure why that is.

Then, the types of responsible people that you do want to own dogs will most likely never consider adopting a pit or pit mix because they have such a terrible rap--hence the sadly low numbers of pits who ever leave pounds alive.


And they are scared of losing their homeowners insurance. Some of the shelters in our area won't adopt out pits, period. They are automatically given a death sentence.

The whole situation is sad, and complicated, and boils down to people who are idiots.

[Sue]

As with any dog, it's important to look at the breeding history. Pit bulls do have a potentially agressive nature, especially in-breed, because that's what they were bred for origninally.

Just want to clarify that they are prone to dog/animal aggression, NOT human aggression. Handlers had to be able to handle their dogs in the pits, without the possibility of being bitten. Any dogs that showed any human aggression were culled. And back then, the dogs that were being fought, lived with the handler's family as pets.