Cries of "prejudice" and "profiling" tend to fall on deaf ears at a certain point, which is what has happened with airlines as brachycephalic breeds have predictably expired from respiratory distress, and as certain large game-bred and fighting breeds have destroyed plastic pet kennels and broken loose at airports.
With dogs dying and biting, some airlines have moved to ban certain breeds entirely, while others are fencing up to ban certain breeds from flying in hot weather, or to require special reinforced kennel boxes.
United Airlines, for example, initially banned 9 breeds of dogs from flying, but now allows their transportation provided they are placed in large specially reinforced carriers.
The breeds that had previously been banned from United Airlines transportation, but which can now fly in the new reinforced carriers are: Pit Bulls Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier (aka AKC registered American Pit Bull Terrier), Ca de Bou, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Perro de Presa Canario, Presa Canario, and Tosa (or Tosa Ken).
All but the last dog -- the Tosa -- is a butcher's dog directly descended from, or related to, dogs bred to grab pigs and cattle by the face so they can be altered. The Tosa is a pure fighting dog, though it should be said that Pit Bulls and several of the other named breeds here are often used to fight as well.
All but the last dog -- the Tosa -- is a butcher's dog directly descended from, or related to, dogs bred to grab pigs and cattle by the face so they can be altered. The Tosa is a pure fighting dog, though it should be said that Pit Bulls and several of the other named breeds here are often used to fight as well.
So are bans, limits and carrier restrictions profiling and prejudice? Or are these common sense steps reflecting the fact that not all dogs are the the same and that different dogs come with different internal codes as well as different health issues? Should someone's theory and philosophy trump the actual experience of companies that transport dogs? And if those companies are having those actual experiences with specific breeds of dogs, what does that actually mean?
.
.
3 comments:
Wait, I thought all I needed to do to make my Tosa/Dogo x safe in all situations was to put a bandann
a on his neck, and call him Pookie.
This is a first-rate blog. I like it very much. But in this post you ask: "Should someone's theory and philosophy trump the actual experience of companies that transport dogs?" The problem is, airline policies about shipping dogs, like many other policies of corporations and governments, are often not based on experience or evidence, they are based on fear, and too often the fears are rooted in baseless beliefs. In short, people often fear the wrong things; see Barry Glassner's excellent book "The Culture of Fear." And again, thanks for writing one of the best dog blogs on the web. David T. Johnson, Hawaii
THANKS David!
I agree with you that risk analysis is very hard and most people and companies are not very good at it. Swimming pools kill more children than handguns, etc.
Risk analysis is particularly hard with things that I call "ZIP functions" which stands for "ZERO: Infintite Potential".
A Zip Function is one where there is a very low chance of something bad happening (a hurricane that breaches levies in New Orleans, an earthquake and tidal wave at the same time in Japan).
In the case of dead brachycephalic dogs, of course, the risk is far from zero -- dozens die ever year. Consider this case >> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/airline_let_dogs_fry_lawsuit_4ttZCZv3H1MsGicSSbXFxI where the woman is suing for $4 million because her dogs died. Did she get that sum? Of course not, but the cost of bad press and defensive litigation in this case was not zero, while the business loss of saying no to dogs in crates is pretty low by comparison (the marginal profit on an airplane ticket is very, very low).
Most dog bite cases are settled for $50,000, but not all are. A case in Illinois recently topped $1 million.
So, to come back to it, even if the statistical chance seems low, when compared to potential loss and potential gain, logical risk-reduction may result in a ban.
But, as we both agree, the math here is difficult and subject to the assumptions made.
Post a Comment