To “Nanny-Dog” or “Not To
Nanny-Dog,” that is not the question
To continue the talk of the deaf....
Science, or scientific
research, does not answer the question ‘why.’ Scientific inquiry deals with
probabilities. For example, if event “A” happens, what is the likelihood that
it will be followed by event “B” or event “X?”
So, if we call the Pit Bull a
“Nanny Dog” what’s the probability of someone getting bitten or killed by a Pit
Bull? Conversely, if we agree that Pit Bulls are too dangerous to have ever
been called “Nanny Dogs,” what is the probability that someone will show up at
my door and want to take my dogs away and kill them?
So let me set up a decision
making matrix to see which way I would rather err..
The decision-making matrix
will depend on the payoff.
|
|
Null Hypothesis (H0) is true
Nanny Dogs
|
Alternative Hypothesis (H1)
is true
Not Nanny Dogs
|
|
Accept Null Hypothesis
Nanny Dogs
|
Right decision
|
Wrong decision
Type II Error
|
|
Reject Null Hypothesis
Not Nanny Dogs
|
Wrong decision
Type I Error
|
Right decision
|
H0 is False and I call it False – we continue calling Pit
Bulls “Nanny Dogs.” All Pit Bulls are loved and owned by responsible families. If we make a Type II error –
some people get bitten, maimed, or killed. The proposition is to mitigate the
Type II error by educating the public and make them “bite-proof.” Which is what
the experts tell us to do. The number of Pit Bull (or any dog) bites decreases.
Ho
is true and we fail to reject it – we state that Pit Bulls are not “Nanny
Dogs” (because… they are vicious – otherwise why not call them potential
“Nannies?”). Millions of dogs get killed, ownership is penalized, more
governmental control is put in place, people learn to be helpless because
somebody else will take care of them, individual responsibility is, once again,
minimized, and OTHER type of dogs will bite, maim and kill. A Type I error is vastly most
costly, if you care about dogs, freedom, responsibility, and are one of the
hundreds of thousand of us who love Pit Bulls.
My opponents’ aim is “prove”
that the Pit Bull was not named a “Nanny Dog” (because “it couldn’t possibly,
look at the terrible evidence we have..”) thereby further demonizing an animal
that doesn’t deserve it. My projection of his/her desired outcome: nothing will
change, except hundreds of thousands of more dogs will be killed. Cities that
banned Pit Bulls have NOT seen a decrease in dog bite fatalities. I can bring statistics
supportive of this statement. Their supporters: people who have been bitten by
dogs, people who are afraid of their shadows and want Big Brother to protect
them, politicians, media, and breeders.
My aim is educate the public
and let it know that the dogs are safe when handled properly and the public
needs to learn some basic knowledge to protect itself against DOG bites. I
said, DOG, not Pit Bull, on purpose.
The focus of Bully-haters remains heavily on the dog’s conduct
rather than on the owner’s conduct,
which, to me, seems misguided. Owner conduct is easier to correct through law,
education or other means, which is more likely to promote owner accountability
for dogs in the future. Focusing on the dog’s actions may mean it is destroyed
as ‘dangerous’ while the owner can still get a new dog, a new kind of dog, or
an alligator and act equally irresponsibly in the future.
Calling Pit Bulls “Nanny Dogs” seems to irk a cadre of
Bully-haters to such extreme that makes me wonder not only about their agenda,
but also about their mental health. In a country in which up to 300 kids are
killed each year by their biological parents we worry about what a Pit Bull may
or not have been called? What a costly investment of misplaced priorities,
energy, time and resources this is.
Just in case I have not stated my intentions clearly, the goals
of this blog have always been and remain to:
1.
Debunk the bad rap my favorite dog
breed gets;
2.
Provide (however biased) evidence that
Pit Bulls have been vilified by the media ad nauseam;
3.
Present evidence that close-minded people use b.s. published in the media to
further their own agenda with no regard to whom it may harm;
4.
Provide whatever
means I can muster to show off Pit Bulls as the great pet that they are in the
right hands and with proper treatment;
5.
Remind the
uneducated that the breed was bred for dog-aggression NOT human-aggression and
that two are vastly different from each other;
6.
Help the Pit
Bull by convincing folks to a) spay or neuter their dogs; b) understand and
assume responsibility of dog ownership; c) behave as they want others behave
towards them; d) put unethical and immoral breeders out of business; e) stop
dog-fighting; f) prevent the killing of nearly 500,000 Pit Bulls every year by
rescuing, fostering, training and adopting as many of them as possible; and g)
stop ill-equipped, uneducated, mean-spirited, angry individuals from showing up
at MY doorstep and take and kill my dogs simply because they look like
something a politician thought of as not deserving to live
So,
it’s not about “Nanny Dogs” at all. It’s about BSL, stupid!
More
about that later.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
