And On and On the Pit Bull Conversation Goes

Nathan Winograd has this morning posted an additional thoughtful (and thought-provoking) response to the agreement between HSUS, Best Friends, and others announced yesterday, including some interesting details on how the agreement was come to that you won't find elsewhere. There are good reasons to still be only cautiously optimistic about what this agreement means or does not mean, and Winograd makes the case for that caution well. I'd much rather be celebrating a real, significant change that could, over time, save hundreds or thousands of pit bull lives, that will start changing public perception, and that shows that even the biggest, most powerful organizations can change course in meaningful ways even when that change is difficult or takes some pride-swallowing--I'd much rather be doing that than sitting around and dissecting what the agreement really means or what changes we can really hope for.

But the simple truth is that just hoping it means what so many of us want it to mean and celebrating the assumption that the vague, not-easily-reached agreement will mean major changes without real proof or assurances that it will might make us feel better, but it won't help the dogs. So the conversation continues. And we watch and wait and see what happens next--what further statements are made and, most importantly, what happens following the next inevitable busts of dog-fighting operations. Will the same patterns be followed? Will there be words about individual evaluations followed by, still, determinations that all, even nursing puppies, should be killed? Or will the change so many of us want to see really happen? We'll see.

Please do read Nathan Winograd's post here: Las Vegas Round 3. As I noted earlier, there are insights here, some disconcerting, that you won't find elsewhere about how the agreement was reached and what it took to get there and about what all this may or may not mean. It really is an excellent, thoughtful post.