In Ireland, as I write this, a dog is being put to death. The dog’s crime? He resembles a pit bull terrier, a breed declared illegial by the Dangerous Dog Act in Belfast City, Northern Ireland. I’m sure many of my regular readers followed the tragic story of Lennox to it’s bitter conclusion. What troubles me is not so much the death of one dog in a city thousands of miles from my home, but the reality that it is just one of hundreds of similar stories that go on every day in our “civilized” society.
It is the year 2012. As a child, I was starry-eyed in wonder at the predictions of what the “future” would bring. Movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey showed me the wonders the future might bring; flying cars, tours to the moon, an end to disease, and more. And now, having arrived at the era projected in those science fiction movies, I find myself both amazed and shocked by turns at what has actually come to pass. In an era where managing my diabetes no longer means an early death and the Internet puts the world’s knowledge at my fingertips, people still believe that aggressive behaviour in dogs is breed specific and that electronic shock collars are a good idea to manage a dog’s behaviour.
We need to think
It is simply stunning to me that in the 21st century, there is still so much disgreement about the biology and behaviour of dogs. The past 100 years has seen incredible progress in our knowledge of physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, and more across a wide spectrum. Our society has benefitted in astonishing ways. And yet we still believe our dogs misbehave because they have some agenda, some would call it “dominance”, to prove they are in control of the household.
It’s not that we don’t have information about dogs and their behaviour. We do. In fact, that body of knowledge increases almost daily as more and more researchers are publishing their findings about dogs. They are the most prevalent of all domesticated animals and it is in our best interests to know as much about them as we can to provide for their welfare and well-being. But how does one explain some of the popular opinions about dogs that are just plain wrong. How do we come to terms with the fact that so many believe things of which dogs have been proven incapable?
Dogs are a part of our everyday lives. They are our closest animal companions and work closely with us in so many ways from herding to search and rescue to work with the disabled as assistance dogs. And yet, with all of the willingness they have shown to work with us, when things go wrong it always seem to be the dog’s fault. It is never the humans that worked with that dog that could be at fault. There is no more stark example of the strangeness of that than the case of Lennox. Lennox was put to death because he looked like a breed that humans decided needed to be destroyed. Not because he had done anything to harm his family, the general public, or disturb the peace in any way. He was put down because he looked like a dog who might have, at one time or another, under the right circumstances, might have been capable of inflicting damage on another person or dog. Or not. Better safe than sorry.
Willful Ignorance
It is almost as if there are those in our society that want to remain ignorant of the facts we are learning about dogs and their behaviour. It has been decades since studies have shown that dogs are not pack hunters like their ancestor the wolf. There is no struggle for status in a hierarchy to determine who will have first access to a fresh kill. And yet so many dog owners and dog training professionals will talk at length about the need to be the “alpha” or the “pack leader” for your dog. It is a paradigm that has been proven false and yet it persists by word of mouth. This is just one of many examples of dog professionals ignoring scientific facts about dogs and dog training.
This past weekend a friend sent me a link to a dog training blog article that openly states “Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are obsolete theories of behavior.” The author may wish to inform the many universities and psychology professionals continuing work based on those theories. The author, of course, cites no source other than his own opinion that this is a fact. Clearly a dog trainer in Arizona would know more about current trends in psychology and behaviour than those who have studied and practiced it for much of their lives.
Also this week, I received a comment on one of my past articles. In it, the author asks me to cite empirical studies on positive reinforcement and clicker training for dogs. Not a particularly unreasonable request but for two simple facts. First, a read through just a few of my past articles would provide links to such sources on particular topics. Second, such references are as available to the commenter as they are to me by using Internet search engines like Scholar.Google.Com. In addition to that, libraries and online bookstores are full of excellent books on positive reinforcement training for dogs. These books offer a wealth of information and many cite scientific research that supports the book’s content.
I know what I like and I like what I know
It appears to be a part of human nature to be resistant to change. The familiar is comfortable and when what you know works, there seems to be no reason to change. The effort required to make changes can seem like a risk. There is no guarantee that the change will be for the better and it’s almost a guarantee that you will not be good at it at first. So it’s easy to understand why those who ignore the new information about dogs and new techniques for training them are resistant to it.
What do we do about those who not only resist new information and techniques but seek to discredit them for their own comfort? Why do force trainers write articles about how positive training can “ruin” a dog? Believe it or not, I have seen some blogs that claim that using treats to train your dog can make them “food aggressive” and a danger to children. While the reasoning to support such a ridiculous claim is interesting enough, there is never any credible evidence provided to support it. Oh sure, there is always a story of some trainer who met some client with an aggressive dog that used a clicker and the dog was unruly or didn’t like the new trainer. So clearly clicker training creates vicious dogs. Not exactly the best example of “Critical Thinking” is it?
Try both sides of the fence
I am a cross-over trainer. That means that just over 10 years ago, I believed in “alpha dominance”, discipline, being a “pack leader”, prong collars, choke chains, and ecollars (yes, I still have one stuck in a drawer someplace). But I made a change to see if all of this new, positive reinforcement based training was actually different or better than what I was doing. And I wasn’t very good at it in the beginning. But I kept at it. I read more, I learned more, I got more instruction, and I got better at it. Now, 10 years later, I can talk with some authority about both force training and training based on positive reinforcement and behavioural science.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of many of my colleagues who champion force-based training techniques. Many of them go to great lengths to write about the dangers of being “too soft” on dogs with all that “food bribery” but the fact remains that I have yet to find a force trainer who has actually learned to use positive training properly and can speak from any experience about it. It’s all biased reasoning and speculation about how they think it works rather than any actual experience.
So I would challenge any trainer who tells me that positive, behavioural science training doesn’t work as it claims. Come to my side of the fence. Come over and have someone show you how to use a clicker, operant conditioning theory, prompting and fading, reinforcement ratios and schedules, and the mechanics of proper reinforcement training. Spend a couple of months or years with it. If it doesn’t work, find out if you could be doing it better. And then, after you’ve trained a few dogs with it, come and tell me about all of your bad experiences with it. I suspect it will be a very short conversation, if such a conversation would happen at all.
You just can’t stand at a distance and say “Look at those foolish positive trainers, they are ruining their dogs” without actually trying it. I’ve been in the force training world. I trained dogs that way for more than 15 years. I got acceptable results too. It can work, after a fashion. But I much prefer what I am able to accomplish with dogs using reinforcement and behavioural training now. Why not see for yourself instead of wasting time writing about something you haven’t done.
By the way, clickers are about $1.00 and you can get a beginner book for $10. Cheaper than an eCollar. Happy training.
Epilogue
We call this the “Information Age.” But to me, it is ignorance that lead to the unnecessary death of Lennox, a dog who only looked like a banned breed. It is ignorance that keeps people buying electronic collars capable of inflicting injury on their dogs. It is ignorance that causes people to work with dogs using harsh and confrontational methods that often lead to dog bites or worse aggression problems. It is ignorance that kills dogs by the millions each year. We are into the second decade of the 21st century. Can we not use our laptops and smartphones and, pardon my bluntness, our brains to do a better job? Or is that just too much effort to expend on our dogs? I hope not.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs.
Photo credits –
Eric Brad – Copyright Petra Wingate 2012
Banner – cobalt123 2012 from Flickr
What a great article! When people stop looking at dogs as fashion/status accessories and start seeing them as fellow creatures on earth that deserve to live a decent life maybe the irresponisble breeding problems will stop.
Thanks for a well-written article.
The dog was not destroyed because he looked like a pit bull, or any other dangerous dog. He was killed because his owners, a family who professed their love and tried to save him until the very end, broke a law that has been in effect in the UK, since 1991. When you break a law, you face the consequences. No amount of training, positive primarive or otherwise, will change that one simple fact. This time the dog paid.
In case no one has noticed – there is a pit bull problem. That is, people who breed them will sell them to basically anybody. People who own them, seem unequipped to deal with 60lbs of energetic, uninhibited bundle of muscle. We love our breed, defend it against unjust persecution, but seem to ignore the fact that more pit bulls are destroyed each year, than all other breeds registered by the American Kennel Club.
Hi Maureen –
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comment.
Let’s just clear up a few facts in the Lennox case – 1) Lennox was NOT a pit bull terrier by any valid scientific evaluation. The evaluator who was brought in simply performed physical measurements and compared them to the those of an average pit bull terrier and pronounced the dog a “pit bull.” 2) The evaluator in question was a police constable (a patrolman) with no qualifications as a dog behaviourist or show judge to determine if Lennox was a pit bull or any other breed. 3) The Belfast City Council (BCC) dismissed the findings of two qualified behaviourists before turning to the police constable as their final judge in the matter.
If your point is that the family who owned Lennox deliberately went out and acquired a known banned breed and that they should be held responsible for such a bad decision, I think you have your facts wrong. When is a pit bull not a pit bull? When the genetics show that it is not. The Canine Genome has been mapped for over 10 years and simple and relatively inexpensive DNA testing is available (The AKC use it all the time to determine a dog’s eligibility to compete in sanctioned events). Why was the Belfast City Council unwilling to perform a simple blood test? They had ample time (2 years).
As far as I can see, the family who owned Lennox were “guilty until proven innocent” and even if they had presented DNA evidence to the BCC, it would likely have been rejected as had the findings of two qualified behaviorists. For a more in-depth look at this case, here is a link to behaviourist Jim Crosby’s account of his personal involvement in the Lennox case: http://canineaggression.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/lennox-gloves-come-off.html
As to your point that there is a “pit bull problem”, I would have to agree with you but perhaps not in the way you would think. There may be a problem with breeders of pit bulls who “sell them to basically anybody” but this is not a problem confined to this one breed. I happen to love and own Belgian Shepherds, a large wolf-like breed that is both a herding and guarding breed. The Malinois variety is known in North America as a great protection dog and is used in police work. Belgians do not possess the tremendous bite strength of the pit bull and are instead “slashers”, they will repeatedly bite and rip. They are no less deadly than a pit bull. There are breeders in the world of Belgian Shepherds that have questionable practices as well. Should Belgian Shepherds be banned?
Pit bulls are a breed that has been singled out for their ability to inflict serious damage very quickly because of their physical attributes. But it is also true that pit bulls are not the breed most reported to hospitals each year in the US. That distinction belongs to – the cocker spaniel. This is not a banned breed. Why? Because it is unlikely that a single bite from a cocker could break an arm or seriously incapacitate except by sheer luck. Irresponsible breeding and placement practices does has more potential for risk in pit bulls than in, say, pomeranians. But the same could be said of my Belgian Shepherds. Or rottweilers. Or German Shepherds. Or Dobermans.
My point here is that the offense you cite at the root of the problem is a human one. Irresponsible breeding, placement, and training of dogs. And yet the ones who suffer are first the unfortunate dogs, and second the unwitting families who acquire these dogs. It seems the breeders and force trainers who create aggressive dogs continue to go unpunished in cases like Lennox and gleefully continue counting their money while people like you blame the dog or the breed or the owners instead of those who legitimately caused the problem.
Thousands of people live happy and productive lives with very social and happy pit bull terriers. I have competed at agility trials with several and found them to be intelligent, well trained, and very affectionate dogs. The defect is not a genetic one, in my opinion. It is a societal one. Today it is the pit bull terrier. How long before they come for my Belgian Shepherds, the big black wolf-looking dogs who might tear your face off?
If you truly care about this issue, get involved, as so many of us in the dog world have, in promoting proper conduct by the HUMANS involved in the dog industry and stop applauding the needless death of animals who have caused no harm. We could use the help.
Your articles are always well written! Always looking foward to reading and sharing them. Keep up the good work!!
Very well said! I want to plaster this story anywhere and every where i can. We really need to
Ban ignorance and not breeds! I
Hope everyone passes this information on. Thank you for being a voice of reason and a voice for these dogs.
Thank you for such an article. I was extremely saddened to hear about the death of Lennox. How barbaric when there were other options had the family been agreeable, such as rehoming him on the UK mainland. It really does need someone somewhere to take forward the message that there is no such thing as a dangerous breed of dog, merely dangerous owners! Those irresponsible few who achieve certain behaviours from their dogs, either by positive encouragement or by violence and neglect, who seem to think that owning a dangerous dog gives them some kind of kudos. Any dog, given the right circumstances can be a dangerous dog and it’s a shame that in this day and age people in authority are still prepared to say it’s breed specific. I speak as someone who owns a Rottweiler, themselves reviled as a dangerous dog in their day, as were German Shepherds when I was a child. I come across prejudice from others every day because of her breed when she is no more likely to attack someone than fly in the air. Something needs to be done, although what I’m at a loss to say. The governments idea about having all dogs chipped will just end up with the law-abiding owners doing as they’re told and those who the legislation is aimed at, thumbing their nose at it.
Love your Article and it is so well written… 🙂 Thanks for crossing over to the softer side of things… 🙂 I will be keeping up with your writings they are awesome… 🙂
OK. I imagine I’m going to get into trouble here, but I would hardly say that pure positive trainers are immune to dogma. Don’t get me wrong. I am not at all opposed to the use of positive training, and have two clicker-savvy dogs who compete in a variety of venues. But really, scientifically speaking, positive punishment is just as real as positive reinforcement. Reinforcement is defined as something that increases behavior and punishment is defined as something that decreases behavior. They HAVE to both work by DEFINITION. Now, you might choose for ethical reasons never to deliberately cause pain or discomfort to your dog. But that doesn’t mean that punishment doesn’t work. It doesn’t work to teach a dog to DO something, it teaches a dog NOT to do something. By definition. And guaranteeing that using a prong or e-collar will ruin your relationship with your dog is just silly. An e-collar is a punishment that is very divorced from the handler — the dog most likely doesn’t even know the handler causes the punishment. Now, again, you might feel that there is always a better solution, but I see no evidence that use of an e-collar damages relationships. Can it be mis-used in a damaging way? Sure. But assuming that the collar of necessity will make your dog hate you has no basis in observed fact that I know of.
Today an older woman came to my obedience class with an e-collar on her very large, obstreperous lab. It was the only thing she had found that got him under enough control that she could take in out in public without being dragged off her feet. The dog was not shut down. He was friendly, happy, enjoyed working with her and meeting other dogs. He was simply under control. Now, the handler didn’t even have the control for the collar with her at this point, and hopefully the dog will get to the point where the collar itself is superfluous. But using the collar in a limited way allowed her and her dog to get out and enjoy themselves, creating a positive circle where the dog got both more training, more exercise and more rewards because the handler felt physically able to manage him. To say that she had ruined her relationship with this dog because she put an e-collar on him would be dogma, not fact.
Hi Lynn –
Thanks for the comment.
For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a “pure positive” trainer. I don’t even know what that means. As far as I can tell, it is a derogatory term invented by force trainers to suggest that positive reinforcement trainers NEVER use any other quadrant of the operant conditioning spectrum. Everyone, EVERYONE has to diminish an unwanted behaviour in their dog at some point. By scientific definition, anything that diminishes a behaviour is, as you rightly say, “punishment” in operant conditioning terms. I do not personally know anyone who would refer to themselves as a “pure positive” trainer.
If you read my column with any regularity, you know that I have said on several occasions that I believe that all dog training works, eventually. Dogs are very motivated by their life situation to react in a way that keeps the food and water coming. They are motivated to figure it out.
With regard to ecollars, I was very careful in my wording for a reason. An ecollar does not, by itself, cause any harm. It is the person at the controls who has the potential for inflicting damage, both physical and mental. They have the potential to cause great harm. But they do not necessarily cause any harm at all depending on their use.
With regard to your older woman with the lab and the ecollar, I’m glad she is happy with her situation. I hope that the relationship continues on it’s current pleasant path. I see the potential, perhaps years down the road, for things to get a bit dicey but that is by no means certain. It is all up to this woman and her continued work with her dog. I can’t comment on this woman’s relationship with her dog. And you’re correct, it would be dogma to blame a piece of electronic equipment instead of the handler when a relationship fails.
I do not believe that ecollars are necessary. Her very large, obstreperous lab could very well have been trained (while not large or obstreperous) to behave in a very different way. Chances are this woman didn’t seek professional help until things were beyond her ability to control with the knowledge she had. Perhaps a pomeranian would have been a better choice. In any case, there are alternatives to things like ecollars and prong collars. But they require thinking and planning. In my experience, ecollars are always implemented in the way you suggest – the owner can’t find any other way to control the dog. I would respectfully suggest that something went awry long before the ecollar was necessary.
Now, to get a couple other things out of the way – Punishment works. Pain works. Intimidation works. Fear works. The change in the day to day behaviour of the American public after the the events of Sept. 11, 2001 should be enough to demonstrate this. The real question is whether training based on that kind of approach is the best we have to offer our dogs. Is this really as clever as we can be in working with our dogs? Good lord, I hope not.
Aversives can be used in an effective way to supplement mostly positive training. Most trainers I know have their recipes for this and it can vary from dog to dog. But the simple paradigm is to say “Yes” much more often than you say “No.” Force trainers (like I was for more than 15 years) have that ratio reversed. My experience has shown me that not only does that kind of training create both mental and emotion fallout in dogs, but the ability of trainers to deflect blame for the aberrant behaviours they create with force is absolutely amazing. There’s always something wrong with the dog – he’s too soft, he’s stubborn, he’s moody. It’s never the human’s fault.
What I’m suggesting is that there are better ways out there if you want to look for them. You don’t have to. I did and my life is better for it. If you choose not to look into positive training, there are lots of other methods out there that will get you where you want to go with your dog. Chances are you will both be happy. But you will never know what it’s like to train the way I and other positive trainers do. I suggest you don’t knock it unless you’ve tried it and given it a good fair shake. I spent 15 years doing it the other way. I think I know whereof I speak.
Thanks again for your comments.
Eric
Thanks for your detailed response, Eric. I think, actually, our training styles are not that far apart. I have, in fact, looked into positive training, and, as I said, both my dogs are clicker-savvy and the vast majority of my training is positive. I’ve trained with exceptional positive trainers like Denise Fenzi and Michele Pouliot. I think the power of positive training is enormous. But I also think that when particular tools get demonized, then people don’t know that they have the option of something that might, in fact, lead to a happier relationship all around. You were not the one who “guaranteed” that a prong or e-collar would ruin a person’s relationship with their dog — it was a reader in the comments. But that, for me, was an example of someone being dogmatic on the positive training side. My point is simply that positive trainers are just as capable of being dogmatic and only seeing the evidence through their particular frame as force trainers. Another example of people seeing things only through their particular frame might be the fact that, although I said I had clicker-savvy dogs, you read my post assuming that I was a “force” trainer and knew nothing about positive training.
However, I know that, for instance, I would never have gotten two musical freestyle championships with my Terv without the power of the clicker. I also know that there are occasions when his love of running free and marking the larger territory of the length of our street will trump any treats that I have, and that we are safest training on my unfenced front lawn if I have an e-collar on him that will guarantee that he will come back when I call him. Yes, there are other options. I could never let him off-leash in places where he wouldn’t be safe going for an unauthorized romp. However, this option works for us. It has not destroyed our relationship. It has not formed the basis of my training. It is simply a tool that works for us in handling a problem that was getting in the way of all our other training. It has decreased my frustration level, allowing both of us to enjoy our training time more. This is my criterion for an appropriate training tool or technique — it should increase the happiness both of the trainer and the dog.
Hi Lynn –
First things first – having re-read the last paragraph of my response, I incorrectly used the word “you” throughout. My thoughts there were not intended to be directed at you specifically. As you quite rightly point out, I know very little about you, your dogs, and your training methods. It was not my intention to give the impression that I thought you were a force trainer. My intention was to present the ideas in a more general way to those force trainers who have not given positive training a fair shake. Clearly you are not one of those trainers and you have my sincere apology for any misrepresentation on my part. That paragraph should have read “What I’m suggesting is that there are better ways out there if ONE wantS to look for them. ONE DOESn’t have to…” and so on. Unfortunately I fell into the trap of using a more convenient word (“you”) and that was unfair of me, I’m sorry about that.
On the issue of ecollars – I am not one to demonize an inanimate object as I hope I made clear in my first reply. Like any training method or equipment, if used by a thoughtful and skilled trainer, an ecollar is no more dangerous than a leash and a flat collar. My concern is that the POTENTIAL exists for serious harm to be done by the unskilled trainer looking for a quick fix. It’s the same with techniques promoted by Cesar Millan. Used with skill and precision, his techniques can produce successful results. But it is the potential for improper implementation that could lead to dangerous situations that troubles me.
Clearly you are a dog lover and trainer who has spent a great deal of time working with dogs and learning techniques to create productive and rewarding relationships with your dogs. If only every dog had that kind of home, I probably wouldn’t have much to write about. But that’s not the case. Unfortunately I don’t write for only the skilled trainers out there.
Your personal choices of training methods and equipment would no doubt change when and if they produced results that you didn’t find satisfactory. You seem well read enough on canine behaviour and training to understand the risks and rewards of any given approach. My concern is for those who are not as discriminating, those who may have created problems in their dogs and look for a quick fix. While you may find a use for an ecollar in your personal life, I would be more comfortable if trainers like yourself would advocate a broader spectrum of solutions for dog owners. Not every dog needs to run free. Not every dog should be placed at risk. And not every dog, in every circumstance, can be stopped even by an ecollar. A physical tether (leash) is still, to me, the safest way to be out and about with your dogs.
Please accept my apology if you feel I painted you in an unfair light and I hope this clears that up. Rest assured that I don’t blame the ecollar, I blame the handler if it is used improperly. But it does seem that trainers like you are in the minority and ecollars are for sale everywhere to anyone. If trainers spent less time defending their use of ecollars for their own convenience and instead helped to educate the dog owning public to the many other alternatives you allude to, I think more than a few unintended misuses of ecollars could be avoided.
I suppose it’s rather like the handgun debate in the US. Can they be used responsibly? Yes. Are they frequently misused? Yes. Should we prevent the public from having access to them? I don’t know. That’s a dicey question, isn’t it.
Thanks again for your comments Lynn and thanks for reading.
Eric
Great article – extremely well put.
Of course it doesn’t help that (in North America at least) absolutely anyone can call themselves a trainer with no qualifications whatsoever. There is a great deal of ignorance in the world of dog training and behaviour – I see the fall-out from it regularly and it is as disturbing as it is upsetting.
For my part, I have never had any need to use physical or psychological intimidation with any of the dogs I’ve worked with regardless of the behavioural issue. Whether it’s training or behavioural modification, I put dogs in a position to succeed and then praise them for getting it right – instead of putting dogs in a position to fail and then punishing them for it. It’s effective, reliable, humane and safe, and I would not be able to get the same results through using aversives.
Beautifully written and oddly enough reminded me of a blog post I recently wrote. You do write much more eloquently that I do, however. Here is my blog: http://adventuresincaninetraining.blogspot.com/
It is a quick fix society. I know when a client says, “How long before he is cured?”, that these folks aren’t going to be in it for the long run. I cannot answer that question. No one can. And yes it takes work on your part to help your dog heal. I come for an hour a week and entrust you to do the skills I taught you….the caretaker of this dog, to follow through for the best success.
The ones that do commit, have great progress which makes them committed and they continue. The others think it is too much work and see a trainer that guarantees success in 3 visits, by way of compulsion.
The the dog owner doesn’t have time of course…they work, have kids, taking care of the house…who has that time? It is just a dog,a family pet that they don’t want it to bark, and can’t see why exercise is important.(that takes up more time they don’t have)
Hit your partner, they will stop what the annoying behavior. Slap your child, so they don’t have a voice…they will stop talking. Shock or do something to cause pain to your dog…they will stop. But in all these situations you might be successful in stopping the unwanted behavior, but I can guarantee you., the relationship is ruined. At what cost do we believe force/compulsion is the way to go. Thank you Eric. You are always right on.
Why is it that we as force free trainers have to defend doing the right thing??? 🙁
Eric, great article. Pleae keepup the goodwork. Finally, I’m getting through “Reaching The Animal Mind”. I’ve learned about how a click goes straight through the amygdala, the most primitive part of the brain. It produces strong emotion and that causes the individual to learn faster and remember longer. The click can also produce a dog terrified of the clicker, says Karen Pryor. So I guess that a fearful dog, if prevented from escaping, could become agressive (a fear-bitter) if that particular dog had a fear of the click. This situation was discussed in the chaper called ‘Answers’. I was noticing while reading the book (I was outside under the shade tree – lovely) that the dogs were snaping at flying insects that then few away. So snapping/clicking is a very primitive sound-signal; it works for insects!
I think bit by bit we’re making a difference for the better. I was pretty discouraged recently when a truly awful trainer full of just sheer lunatic theories was going to make a public appearance at a local store. But a few short days later, his appearance was cancelled, and while it’s true that many of his supporters are upset, I like to think that some might have learned something during the various online debates over methods.
We all get discouraged but I always fall back on this quote:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead
And I’m currently reading “Influencer: The Power to Change Anything” It’s an interesting look at how some people have managed to make huge changes in people’s behavior and attitudes.
Lovely article, thank you Eric.
Great article Eric.
Well said, Eric.
I find myself just horrified about the death of Lennox for so many reasons. And it sickens me knowing that this sort of thing happens regularly because of BSL. What ever happened to punishing a deed instead of bred (racial) profiling?
Thank you for saying this. Perhaps at least one person will open their eyes and perhaps start to use their brain.