The Maryland Thing

If you're at all interested in dogs and pit bull-type dogs in particular, and if you keep up with the news about these dogs, then you might be aware of the "Maryland thing."

By "Maryland thing" I mean the current breed-specific legislation that exists for the entire state of Maryland and the events leading up to it.

If you're not familiar with it, the basics of the story are this (as brief as I can make it): a child was attacked and mauled by "pit bulls" in Towson, Maryland in 2007. Thankfully, he survived. The parents of the boy sued the dogs' owner, who then declared bankruptcy. In a further quest to receive compensation for damages, they sued the landlord of the dogs' owner, the idea being that the landlord knew the dogs were dangerous. The case eventually wound up being heard by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Since the landlord could not have known the dogs were dangerous, it seemed like the family of the injured boy would be out of luck. But the Maryland Court of Appeals made an astounding decision: they declared "pit bulls" to be "inherently dangerous." This stunningly unscientific decision, made with the help of a commensurately stunningly unscientific amicus brief which can be read in its entirety at Pit Bulletin Legal News, is now the law of the (Mary)land.

Because the Court of Appeals decision was about as scientifically sound as legislating that the sky is green, advocates immediately protested it. Lawmakers, confronted with facts and statistics from every mainstream animal welfare and scientific organization you can think of, quickly conceded that the breed specificity of the new common law had no basis in reality. This was a great victory for animal lovers, companion animal advocates and pit bull-type dog advocates. However, it was only the beginning of the complexity.

Lawmakers were unwilling to go back to the common law as it was before the judicial decision. Instead, it was proposed that new legislation be crafted that would ostensibly make compensation for victims fairer while uniformly applying any new law to all breeds of dogs. But just how to go about this was not clear, and many conflicting interests resulted in delays. After two "pit bull task force" meetings, a special legislative session in the summer of 2012 during which, it was hoped, new dog bite legislation would be introduced, lawmakers could not come to an agreement about how the new legislation should look. No decision was made, and the problem was pushed to the regular legislative session, which wrapped up just a few days ago as of this writing (April 8, 2013).

Unfortunately, in an outrageous display of incestuous trial lawyer maneuvering and special interest bullying, the legislative session closed without an agreement. The law stands, probably for another year. Another year, during which Maryland families will be forced to lose their canine companions if they conform to the arbitrary visual identification of a landlord as a "pit bull." Another year of uncertainty on the part of insurers and property owners, veterinary clinics and business owners. And another year of taxpayer money wasted.

An unknown once said, "laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." So it was with this latest legislative session. In this case, it was the behavior of the lawmakers themselves that made the lawmaking such an unpleasant experience to hear (the proceedings were broadcast live). B-More Dog summed up the experience and the resulting disappointment better than I could. You can read it here.

And so we (I live in Maryland) find ourselves for another year, at least, in a limbo born of judicial incompetence and legislative failure. I have no idea how many dogs will be surrendered to shelters over the next year, how many families will lose a beloved pet because circumstances prohibit them from moving from an apartment where a landlord feels he or she may be culpable in the unlikely event of a dog attack.

Many of the dogs so surrendered will die, simply because humans - who agree that the dogs are not at all "inherently dangerous" - failed to summon the courage to stop it.

"Favorite Lies" Part 1

"Favorite Lies" Part 1

One of my Facebook friends shared this image that some of the anti-pit bull/pro-breed specific legislation people were spamming around. It’s the typical mean-spirited stuff, but it is useful in that it encapsulates the way these people think. I want to talk about them one at a time, otherwise the post will be too long.

1. Pit bulls are the nanny dog.

I’m not sure that any modern social services department would be thrilled at the idea of any dog filling the role of nanny to a child, so let’s take the tense of the verb in this statement with a grain of salt. Animal advocates typically say something along the lines of “pit bulls were considered the nanny dog,” not “pit bulls are considered the nanny dog.” But leaving aside the grammar Nazism for a second, the real question is: is it true or is it false?

As an aside: in this as in my other posts, I never link to or explicitly name blogs that I feel spread disinformation, hate, propaganda, or encourage or glorify animal abuse. I realize it's somewhat annoying, but I feel that it's unethical to direct traffic to such sites. When data is published by a reliable source - either for or against my position, I will gladly cite and link to it, same thing with credible journalism. Otherwise, you can probably track down the ugliness with a few searches and don't need my help.

The most common argument against the "nanny dog" label for pit bulls is the notion that the term is a new invention, and that the phrase was never used in the 19^th or early 20^th centuries: the vague, Victorianesque era people usually envision when they hear “nanny dog.” In fact, one blogger asserts that the first known use of the term (or a term like it) came in a New York Times article in 1971, in which Walter R. Fletcher writes (quoting Lillian Rant, editor if the Bull Terrier Club of the United States of America’s magazine):

“’The Stafford we know today quickly becomes a member of the family circle. He loves children and is often referred to as a “nursemaid dog.”’”

I debate that it's worthwhile to research the origin of the term "nanny dog" at all, for reasons I'll elaborate on later. But let’s say for a minute that the term “nanny dog” originated relatively recently. What exactly does this tell us?

It tells us that, if true, the term “nanny dog” originated relatively recently. That’s pretty much it. What it doesn't tell us is anything about the underlying sentiment – that these dogs have traditionally been considered good companions for children in particular and families in general. Discrediting the longevity of the term isn't terribly useful in discrediting that which the term describes. A rose by any other name and all that.

In the same blog post that I mention above, the author throws out a challenge to readers who disagree with the assertion that "nanny dog" is an invented and modern term to produce “proof.” Proof of what, though, isn't clear. That these types of dogs were in fact called “nanny dogs?” That these kinds of dogs were traditionally considered good with children? Anyway, this call for proof is accompanied by a photo of Petey, the dog from the Our Gang/Little Rascals comedies, with the cryptic caption “this, by the way, doesn't count [presumably as proof of the existence of nanny dogs]” (see the capture below).

Screen capture from the ranty blog.

But why wouldn't this count? Of course it counts. A series of mainstream short films featuring a “pit bull” as companion to a group of children? The message is not “look at these children managing to survive and retain their limbs in the presence of a 'fighting dog.'” The message is, “check out these kids doing their kid things with their dog.” By the same token, there are tons of great vintage photos of kids with their “pit bulls.” Many (100, to be precise) can be found on this 100 vintage pictures site.

None of the photos have captions like “Billy and his Nanny Dog”; but they don’t have to. The images provide sufficient anecdotal evidence (a "preponderance of evidence," even) that it was not unusual at all for “pit bulls” to be companions to children, and the presence of such dogs in mainstream media (like the Our Gang films) implies that it was unlikely that such a relationship would have been considered in any way dangerous or even unusual.

So were "pit bulls" called "nanny dogs?" Is it true or is it false? The answer ultimately is: it’s not really relevant. These dogs were friends to children in the past, as they are friends to children now. If they weren't registered with the Official American Board of Nanny Dogs®, they certainly acted like they were. If we must be historically accurate, it may be more on the money to say that “pit bull-type dogs have traditionally been considered nanny dogs” than “pit bull-type dogs have traditionally been called nanny dogs.” But it’s really kind of a dumb argument. Pit bull-type dogs have a history of being family dogs, regardless of their ability to change diapers, burp infants, or push a stroller through the park. Getting worked up over the label is missing the point.

Works Cited

Fletcher, Walter R. "A Bred That Came Up the Hard Way." The New York Times, 19 Sep 1971. Web. 30 Mar 2013.