Ingrid Newkirk Hates Pit Bulls

For a group that proclaims to love animals, you would think that their love would extend to a breed of dog that is currently being persecuted vis-a-vis "Breed Specific Legislation" (BSL). Specifically, Ingrid has her panties, or knickers, as they are called where she is from, in a knot over pit bulls.

If you were to ask Ingrid if she loves bulldogs, she would probably say that she does, and then recount the time that she was bitten by one as she was trying to "rescue" it. Knowing her closeness with the ALF, I wonder if that "rescue" operation was even legal to begin with... Perhaps the dog didn't feel like it needed to be rescued. If I was a bulldog, I wouldn't want to be "rescued "by PETA, either. Of course, I know that PETA has a policy of euthanasia for the bulldogs they rescue. Don't believe me? Here are some of Ingrid Newkirk's own words on the issue:

"People have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any "pit bull" who comes through the front door goes out the back door -- in a body bag...This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover. ..Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very people who are trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur, or frogs for dissection, supports the pit bull policy..."

"Those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive."

"I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable."

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own."

"We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note. "

Here's a news flash, you fucking bitch: Dogs are only as good as their owners. You can train any dog to be vicious, and you can train any dog to be docile and loving. It isn't the dog's fault that its owner has decided that he wants an attack dog. An entire breed shouldn't be punished because a few of them are used as attack dogs. Nor should an entire category of breeds.

Anecdotal evidence time: I have a friend. Big shocker, eh? This friend has a pit bull mutt. This dog is one of the friendliest dogs I've ever seen. It is not territorial at all. When I come over infrequently, it jumps on me, knocks me over, and licks me. That's a real malicious dog, eh?

I haven't even gotten to PETA's press release concerning pit bulls, have I? Well, let's examine that. Ingrid Newkirk justifies her position that these dogs should be euthanized because they were bred from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which was designed for bull-baiting. And? Does she have any idea how many breeds of dogs were originally designed for bloodsports (not including legitimate hunting)? Should we euthanize all those dogs, too? Oh, wait. I forgot that PETA hates the idea of pets anyway and wants to see us "admire animals from afar". Well, Ingrid, I've got something you can admire from afar...

Ingrid Newkirk also claims that pit bulls are the most abused class of dogs in America. Well? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's sterilize black people because they are more likely to become single parents! Pit bulls are more likely to be abused, but that shouldn't matter. Instead of endorsing BSL, they should be going after these people who train these dogs to be vicious and who use them in dogfights. Applying a statement that may be true for certain members of the collective to the entire collective amounts to the logical fallacy of Converse Accident. There exist plenty of responsible pit bull owners out there, and pit bulls, when raised properly, are loving and affectionate dogs, Newkirk's own experience nonwithstanding.

In the opening of the press release, Newkirk claims that a growing number of animal shelters have a "zero tolerance" policy concerning pit bulls. They are euthanized as soon as they come in. Well, considering that these are the most often abused dogs, that kind of makes sense. You cannot put a vicious dog up for adoption. It must be destroyed. Also, with the ever growing number of municipalities that have enacted BSL, is it any surprise that these shelters have to destroy the pit bulls that come in?

Newkirk claims to have amassed a small collection of news stories of pit bulls attacking people. Well, it has been my personal experience with pit bulls that they are very nice dogs. In fact, I've been attacked by a dog once that I can remember (I'm told that a dog we had when I was a toddler got jealous of me and bit me, but I don't remember that), and that dog was a dalmatian. It bit me on the head, and I've still got the scar from the attack. In fact, the scar will never go away. I have never been so much as growled at by a pit bull. I have been nuzzled by a pit bull, and I have been licked by a pit bull, but never attacked by one. Maybe Ingrid could do a little math and figure out what the percentage of viscous pit bulls to the entire pit bull population in this country is. Maybe she could do the same for all other medium to large breed dogs, as well. She may be surprised... Pit bulls get more media coverage because they are more popular right now. Did you know that, until recently, it was illegal to import German Shepherds in Australia? Any dog that size can be trained to be vicious. It is senseless to ban a certain breed or class of dogs just because a few pet owners are irresponsible or decide to break the law.

Ingrid's last comment pisses me off royally:

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones."

No, you can stop killing pit bulls by enforcing laws already on the books. And some people have a preference as to what kind of breed of dog they want. If you get a purebred dog, you are more likely to be aware of the breed characteristics and you are more likely to find a dog suited to your personality. My mom loves beagles, for example. Beagles are very social animals and love attention. My mom loves giving attention to our beagle. Beagles are also energetic, and my mom loves watching our beagle run around the house (she runs up the back of our couch). I completely understand that some people like mutts. My dad likes mutts. But I also understand that some people like to know what they are getting when they get a puppy, and the best way to do that is to get a purebred. With that said, I encourage responsible breeding, as advised by the American Kennel Club. I also encourage going to breed rescues, if possible. If you don't mind not knowing what your dog's temperament will be like, then, by all means, adopt from your local animal shelter. I also encourage adoption.

Okay, off the rabbit trail. PETA is full of morons. Of course, they do have a point about the animals in shelters, but you shouldn't get on the backs of people who like a particular breed for that. If you want to reduce the number of dogs in shelters, encourage spay/neuter programs. BSL is not the answer, especially if the aim of your organization is to encourage ethical treatment of ALL animals. Is it just me, or is PETA getting a bit Orwellian?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Of course, in the case of PETA, we ARE talking about animals. Seeing as they are quick to claim "specieism" when arguing against using animals in experiments, entertainment, or for food or clothes, shouldn't they be trying to avoid discriminating against certain animals themselves?