Talking about "unholy alliances"...

My foe, DubV, once again pours water on a duck’s ass and “alerts” me to yet another masterpiece of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric.  This time an “article” written by Branwyne Finch, a self-proclaimed “expert” and “contributor” to the blogs of two ladies whose life-goals are to kill dogs.

I have no idea who Branwyne Finch is, what are his qualifications, or whether anything about what he writes has any value. Is he a geneticist? An animal behaviorist? A sociologist?  A veterinarian? Or is he a self-serving mouthpiece for two women who have nothing better to do with their lives than to denigrate an entire dog breed?

Finch writes well; however he self-references exclusively the blogs written by these two ladies and this puts a serious dent in his credibility. Given that these blogs are read ONLY by folks who are already convinced by the righteousness of their “cause,” he is “preaching to the choir.” He sounds convincing and reasonable, however, the numbers he is “citing” are pulled out of thin air and the arguments he uses are exactly of the same caliber as those used by “pit nutters” (as these people, globally,  call us).

At some point in his diatribe, Finch states “It has become increasingly apparent that a relatively small but vocal group of people who are fanciers of dangerous dog breeds have managed to form an unholy alliance with the dog breeder lobby and animal welfare organizations to ensure that the breeding and ownership of dangerous dogs goes completely unregulated.”

I wish Mr. Finch did not lump all of us together. MY cadre of Pit Bull fanciers has little tolerance for backyard Pit Bull breeders or breeders in general. We are definitely NOT aligned with any organizations that promote “the breeding and ownership of dangerous dogs.” We loathe criminal behavior and cringe at the thought of dogs fighting each other. In fact, what Mr. Finch wishes for (i.e., “a call for cracking down on criminals and backyard breeders producing the glut of unstable dogs, a call for breed clubs to redefine ethical breeding practices, and a strong commitment to breeding away from the aggressive behavior, including dog aggression that defines the pit bull breed”) is EXACTLY the focus of our endeavors.

Mr. Finch’s statement that Pit Bull fanciers promote unregulated ownership of dangerous dogs is patently false. What we want is a distinction between a “dangerous dog” and Pit Bulls. In his mind and in those of his cult, the two are synonymous.

What Finch purposely misstates is that we are a “relatively small” group. Actually, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of us who are rational, thoughtful, socially responsible, and kind human beings who just happen to love a dog that gives us and our families much pleasure and improves the quality of our lives.

Probably much to his surprise, we (genuine Pit Bull fanciers) completely agree with Finch’s conclusions. Those of us who work to rescue Pit Bulls and advocate responsible ownership will automatically spay and neuter the dogs and will foster and re-home only those dogs that are animal and human friendly.  Demanding dogs are paired with experienced handlers and placed in families that are appropriate for the dog. The gauntlet of tests and the level of scrutiny through which prospective adopters AND the dogs have to pass is probably matched only by the FBI applicants.

If Mr. Finch were truly interested in our society’s welfare, he ought to go after the criminals and the greedy breeders who unconscionably perpetuate the existence of animals and situations that are dangers to our society. Not OUR dogs!