Corby's Laws

On balance, this site defends Corby Davidson.  I think he’s a unique radio talent and he entertains me.  I have probably laughed out loud at his utterances more than I have at those of other hosts.   I don’t look to him (or any Ticket show or host) for highly-informed commentary on current affairs, science, philosophy, or anything that really matters much to me, or that I know much about.    

I do understand less generous opinions about the man.   Critics are not wrong about lack of preparation, exaggeration and hyperbolic descriptions, celeb-sniffing, mic-hogging (but this is entirely a result of Mike R’s and Jeff C’s permissiveness), and excessive holding-forth on matters political.  Perhaps I’ve become inured to them.  In any event, I can’t remember the last time I punched out of The Hardline.   So on balance I’m a pretty strong Corby fan; while I’d insist on some fine-tuning if I were the Catman of the Western Hemisphere, I'm not one of those calling for the ‘Line’s ouster from PM drive.

But  .  .  .  (you knew it was coming):

Corby was on a major rant on the show last week that I’ll describe below, one of those that needed to be about 2/5 as long as it was, and much reduced in vehemence.  Nothing upsetting, not a life-and-death topic.  But as he went on, I formulated a set of rules for  listening to Corby’s extended oral essays, which I call:

Corby’s Three Laws of Inverse Certitude:

First Law:  The more certain Corby purports to be, the more likely he is to be wrong.

Second Law:  The more vehemently Corby expresses his insistence that there is no room for dispute or discussion, the greater the magnitude of his error is likely to be.

Third Law:  The likelihood of error in any rant ending with Corby saying “period, end of story” approaches 100%.

All right, so now I’m being hyperbolic, jes' having a li'l fun here.  Corby isn’t always wrong in his impromptu declamatory lectures.

But this one  .  .  . 

Corby was commenting on the Sports Illustrated story about what happened with Michael Vick’s fighting dogs.  It’s a great story.  The dogs – most, but not all, were pit bulls or near-pit bulls -- were evaluated, and all but three were deemed “re-educable.”   They’re in the process of being treated and placed.  The process is a long one, and the treatment intense.   The new owners themselves appear to be concentrated on the special needs of these dogs.  To date – no maulings.  Not all the dogs are out of the woods yet, but it is a very encouraging tale.

Corby’s conclusion:  Dogs, irrespective of breed, are never inherently problem animals.   Viciousness or aggression in dogs is always the result of bad owners.   Never the breed; always the owner.  He was that black-and-white about it and said it several different ways.  Period, end of story.

Now let me say two things here:  (1) I am not about to claim that the inclination of a dog’s owner, or the dog’s training, has no effect on its tendency toward viciousness.  (2) I am not about to claim that all or even most pit bulls are vicious.

I will point out, however, that studies unanimously show that the pit bull is involved in a hugely disproportionate percentage of bites and fatalities in the U.S.   An organization devoted to dog-bite awareness collected the statistics from 2005 to 2017.  Pit bulls, which account for about 6.5% of dogs, were responsible for 66% of all fatalities.   Another study for the period 1982 to 2012 reports that the molosser breeds (pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs, and some less common breeds) were responsible for 79% of the attacks that result in bodily harm and 77% of those that result in maiming – well more than half accounted for by pit bulls in each case.   A 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control examining a 20-year period reported very similar numbers.

These numbers alone do not prove inherent viciousness.   Certainly the size and strength of these dogs – and their tenacity and imperviousness to pain once they begin an attack – means their attacks are likely to be far more dangerous than those of a much smaller dog, which would tend to inflate reports of their predations and the seriousness of the attacks.

But these statistics call into serious question -- all but refute -- the assertion that pit bulls do not pose a problem that is not accounted for in all cases by abusive owners (Corby’s position).   They almost certainly do.   Pit bulls are not the only dogs reported to have attacked humans without provocation and with no history of vicious behavior, but the numbers are hard to explain away – surely “bad” or neglectful owners are not gigantically overrepresented among the owners of molosser breeds.  Even scholars who are friends of the pit bull say that the dog’s upbringing requires particular care in socialization.   Numerous courts of appeal have affirmed the inherent dangers associated with the breed.

And, frankly, think about it:   You’ve seen it yourself -- herding breeds will engage in herding behavior whether an owner trains them to herd or not.  A variety bred to kill will be more inclined to violence than one bred to race.   Corby's position is:  It's always nurture, it's never nature.   Oh?  Ever known a rotten kid with great parents? 

 

Let's not forget that Corby has done great work for the Good Puppy Dog for Dallas DogRRR for which he deserves our gratitude.  He may believe he’s helping the cause of the pit bull by absolving them of all inbred vices.   I know some great people who are friends of the “pitty,” and the breed has probably received some bad press it does not deserve.   But to claim that attacking pit bulls are always the result of bad owners is unhelpful.   When it comes to unprovoked, serious assaults on humans, molossers are a problem disproportionate to their numbers, and pit bulls lead the pack.

Period, end of article.