Article content continued

Pit bulls also are hot in academia, especially gender studies. Here’s California graduate student of “animal-human studies” Harlan Weaver, whose new project, boasted of online, “comes out of 10 years of pit bull advocacy (and love). In it, Harlan explores the ways that species, breed, race, gender, sexuality, class, ability, and nation are mutually shaped by relationships between humans and so-called dangerous dogs, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs in particular.”

Then there’s journalist Tom Junod’s syrupy new paean to pit bulls, The state of the American dog, in Esquire Online. The average reader will find its lyricism enchanting (it’s gone viral). But I found it disingenuous and misleading in, for example, its implication that the severe damage his pit bulls inflicted on other dogs could have happened with any breed.

Even though it’s alive, a dog is a consumer product. You buy it. You sell it

He solicits one veterinarian’s opinion on whether pit bulls are inherently dangerous, and that particular vet waves away trait heritability. (He’s “just a dog” is the common refrain.) Judon implies this is the profession’s consensus by failing to mention that many other vets are on record with statements such as “[pit bulls] are time bombs” and “they are a perversion of everything normal dogs would do.”

Finally, here’s Judon playing that race card again: “The opposition to pit bulls might not be racist. It does, however, employ racial thinking..”

Tom. Tom! Even though it’s alive, a dog is a consumer product. You buy it. You sell it. You can euthanize it tomorrow if the mood strikes you. Discrimination amongst products is reasonable as a strategy to get the product that suits your needs — including, say, a product that won’t kill your child. Is it racist for the CNIB to prefer Labrador Retrievers over bloodhounds as service animals for the blind?

Judon concedes that statistics are worrisome, but “[pit bulls] are more sinned against than sinning.” There’s that species relativism again. Pit bulls have been responsible for most of the 4,000-plus fatal or maiming dog attacks in North America since 1982, and most of the killings of other pets. That’s a lot of “sins.” What’s more important: encouraging the proliferation of high-risk pit bulls or ensuring safe neighbourhoods for human beings and their low-risk pets?

Too many smart people, feeling instead of thinking, are giving the wrong answer.

National Post

bkay@videotron.ca