Mistakes in Advocacy - 1. Owner or victim blaming

It is no surprise that dog bite related fatalities or dog attacks receive a fair amount of media coverage when a “pit bull” type dog was said to be the culprit. In the comments of the media write-ups we see the usual discussion about banning the breed. And then a flood of posts from advocates in response. While their intentions are good, some of their comments are unhelpful – even dangerous – in the big picture.

Over the next six days we are going to talk about the six most common mistakes we see in Facebook threads.

Owner and victim blaming take the top spot on this list. In many dog attack cases, we commonly see advocates appointing themselves as keyboard detective warriors, and their “investigation” ends up pointing fingers at the owner or victim.

Here are actual comments we read online in a recent case:

"A dog does not raise itself..so therefore owners are responsible! I don't care about the situation."

"Do not blame the dog, blame the very poor owner."

"The breed of the dog is not the issue here but the owners that either abused the dog so it is vicious or they trained the dog to attack. Either way the majority of the time it is the owners fault but the dog suffers. If this dog caused a fatality the owners should be charged with a crime".

"Pathetic owner is all this is, not the dogs fault. But the dog will be the one put down and blamed for being mistreated sad sad sad ….".

"I am upset that the other humans trained/neglected/abused a dog so much that this situation happened."

Now, from what we do know from the victim’s mother's statements, the dog was a family pet and the owner was known in the community for her commitment to animals. She had worked with trainers and was, by all accounts, an extremely loving and responsible owner.

There was no indication of abuse or inhumane training methods. While abuse, neglect, and poor early experiences can contribute to aggressive behaviour, they are not the only factors, and it is certainly not our place to make accusations behind our computer screens when we have no information about the case.

This woman appears to have been a wonderful owner, and at the time of the attack she was taking the dog for a walk and was using a muzzle, two indications of responsible ownership. Tragically, something went wrong and she ultimately lost her life. She is the victim here.

Do you see how the above comments can be incredibly harmful to advocacy? Can you imagine being the victim’s family members and friends and reading this over and over again?

It is cruel. It also makes us look like we lack empathy and value the life of an aggressive dog over a human. This is an argument frequently used by pro-BSL advocates, who paint us as empathy-lacking, victim-blaming monsters who oppose any restrictions or consequences for dangerous dogs.

By making assumptions about the story, and posting something along the lines of “the dog only attacked because it was abused” you put your credibility on the line. If it turns out this dog was not abused, you have given the pro-BSL advocates more fuel that breed must be a factor.

Next time you read about a dog attack, take a moment to recognize everything you DON’T know about the situation. Acknowledge that even if something is reported in the media or online, it may not be true – these days, news articles are posted immediately and may be based on a panicked bystander’s report or incomplete information.

Be constructive in your comments, and be respectful of the human beings whose lives have been changed forever.