Pit Bulls: Part 1

Following a recent spate of unfortunate dog attacks and the inevitable fallout that is customary, I feel strangely compelled to stick my oar into the thorny ‘Pit Bull’ question and offer my 2 cents worth. Voluntarily leaping into the middle of the impassioned ‘Pit Bull’ wars might suggest a temporary flight from reason, but I have been getting increasingly frustrated by the superficiality of what passes for ‘informed’ debate regarding this multifaceted issue, and am becoming irritated as the media start circling once again.

 

 

Framing the issue

Whilst dogs tend to bite people with some consistency, there are times of the year when they increase in probability. There are also periods where clusters of more serious dog attacks happen very close to each other, and when these are serious or involve fatalities, it is usually perpetrated by one of a small number of ‘breeds’/types. This repetitive cycle seems to invoke some degree of community panic, and to captivate the media (who love neat and simple explanations, and especially proposals from professionals in support of breed-specific legislation). To date, none of this has changed a thing in South Africa, and what debate there is continues to be mired in hyper-emotion, dull stereotypes and very little science. To properly address it, I suggest we get away from the easy rhetoric and challenge some of the holy cows in play.

There seem to be just two opposing sides to this debate, with opinions highly polarized and trenchant; not much middle-ground on this subject. Either certain ‘breeds’ are considered a problem, an unnecessary hazard, and people support some kind of legislation to control them. Or else they insist that behaviour is all about how an animal is raised and trained (the old ‘pack leader’ trope is commonly invoked) and they always point to examples of dogs of this type with exemplary safety records. The problem is that both arguments have some elements of truth to them, but nothing is quite that simple when it comes to the intersection between genes, environment and learning.

 

What the numbers actually say

It is difficult to obtain reliable statistics for dog bites, or even for more serious dog attacks in this country. Collecting accurate data about dog bite incidents is notoriously difficult due to the sheer scope of the problem, and the fact that not all bites are treated at hospital emergency departments. Breed identification is an even greater challenge, as it is often as much a subjective attribution as a technical one. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the frequency hadn’t markedly increased in recent years. The scourge of excessive violent crime in South Africa has produced a very insecure human population, and this has significantly changed the profile of the average pet dog in a relatively short time. By the time I stopped consulting, most of the dogs I was dealing with were large, guarding types or those from a fighting lineage – uncommon choices as pets a couple of decades ago (other than the Staffordshire Bullterrier which has a relatively low problem profile after a century and a half of diligent genetic pruning) – and the majority of the problems being experienced were aggression-related, either human directed, or targeted at other dogs.

As has been pointed out time and time again, all kinds of dog can and sometimes do bite. Statistics, such as those we have from countries where more diligent data collection is customary, suggests a very broad correlation between the demographic distribution and incidence of particular breeds/types and their representation in dog bite incidents. Makes sense: the more of any particular breed there are in the community, the more dog bites from that breed you’re likely to see. But that’s just a very broad generalisation.

When examining this issue critically, it is essential to differentiate between general dog bites (A bite can mean anything from a bruising or small skin break to something that requires reconstructive surgery), and attacks that cause severe injury/maiming/fatality. Not all dog bites are equal. Just taking the information provided by Merritt Clifton, editor of the influential publication Animal People, in his analysis of newspaper reports, files and photos titled ‘Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, US & Canada, September 1982 to June 25^th, 2010’, it quickly becomes apparent that some breeds/types are overwhelmingly more highly represented when it comes to severe attacks, and some breeds have surprisingly low representation (and that seems to broadly apply as much to general dog bites – some breeds bite very occasionally). But it is just one data set, and reports gleaned from newspapers are intrinsically problematic because of the criteria used by journalists to identify ‘breeds’. Also, there is an overall variance between Clifton’s study and others that are frequently cited (the Center for Disease Control and Karen Delise, Director of Research for the National Canine Research Council and author of ‘Fatal Dog Attacks’) but Clifton’s statistics are very commonly cited.

Because of how statistics (especially those authored by Sachs et al., published by the CDC) are used in the justification and promulgation of legislation at local level, these data, such as they are, have become hugely contentious and have led to a flurry of books, papers and articles written either in support or debunking the ‘breed’ identification element, and the CDC as well as Clifton’s data. After the publication of her book “Fatal Dog Attacks”, Delise and the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) have compiled an eBook on this issue called ‘The Pit Bull Placebo” and made it free for download. On the opposite side, there is now a well-organised advocacy lobby, with websites like Dogsbite.org set up to counter the plethora of anti-BSL sites all over the internet. US based Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips is one of the most highly respected specialists in Dog Bite Law, and his website has a range of excellent links, facts and opinions, trying to navigate the contentious divide and examine the issue’s legal complexities.

However opaque the statistics might seem, and however deceptive the issue of breed identification certainly is, there is a glaringly obvious trend  that can’t simply be wished away by dog loving enthusiasts, or professionals instinctively averse to crude ‘breed’ finger pointing. And in South Africa, the problem of children being bitten seems to be getting steadily worse as well. The context supplied by the NCRC, Delise and a number of other experts are crucial in interpreting the raw data, but it doesn’t just wish the problem away by any means either. Technical questions about breed identification and attribution is meaningless to the general public – they have a clear idea about what they mean when they talk about specific breeds, and what they’re frightened of. Everyone in the dog world must rationally address this growing problem, however much we detest and wish to resist the very notion of breed-specific legislation and it’s inherent unworkability; we really need to fully appreciate the degree of public concern. To do otherwise is pure arrogance and a dogmatic derogation of professional duty.

 

Give a dog a bad name

When legislation is being discussed, it always seems to centre around the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). A few years ago there were a spate of really serious attacks on people perpetrated by Boerboels, and a few serious Rottweiler attacks here and there to compound things. Because the former is essentially an indigenous creation, and closely identified with an economically powerful sector of the population, calls for legislation were entirely absent during that period. But is ‘local-is-lekker’ the only reason for this differential response? Why not the immigrant Rottweiler? I don’t think so. In my estimation, there are far deeper cultural assumptions involved in the targeting of the APBT. Whenever Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) is discussed, debated or implemented, it is inextricably linked to the APBT wherever (around the world) this occurs. Other ‘breeds’ may or may not be included in any such proposals, depending on local circumstances, but I’ve never heard of an instance of legislation of this kind that doesn’t include the APBT.

The reason for this seems to me to be, in large part, because of the breed’s “outlaw” reputation. Not necessarily because of anything specific to its origins, but because of the sectors of the population they are now most closely identified with. Around the world, and especially in the USA, this is the definitive “Gangsta Dog”. It is immersed in hip hop culture, has long been associated with drug dens in metropolitan America and is inextricably connected to illegal dog-fighting syndicates as the ‘breed of choice’. In Cape Town it’s popularity is keenest amongst young men on the Cape Flats and in other sub-economic areas of the city, and it has now become the ultimate macho accessory. Informal dog fighting in these areas is also common, and apart from the prestige it can afford someone with a successful battler, there is also some money to be made. This association with the underclass and illegality encourages overt discrimination against the APBT type, and I believe explains entirely the readiness to discuss BSL in regards to APBT’s that is not witnessed in the case of the other breeds; even those that are repeatedly implicated in the killing, maiming and disfigurement of people.

The appetite for the APBT is also now slowly spreading into middle-class suburbia, and these dogs are popping up in places one would never have found them fifteen or twenty years ago. Highly organized dog fighting syndicates operate on luxury farms and in unoccupied industrial areas, and both clientele and audience arrive in luxury sedans and expensive 4 X 4’s, and it’s all kept very secret (with pervasive accusations of SAPS collusion). At this end of the fighting spectrum the sums of money that change hands are often staggering, and the number of purpose bred and trained dogs are significant, as is the injury toll and wastage. For these people, the dogs are a mere commodity, and there is little of the sentimental attachment witnessed even in the slumland dog ownership to be found.

In my experience the most obvious, common human attribute amongst the most vocal of APBT fanatics tends to be a simple one: masculinity. And not just any masculinity, but a conspicuous hyper-masculinity. There certainly are women who engage in the debate on breed legislation, and vigorously oppose it. There are women who are ardent advocates of the ‘breed’. But in my experience their approach tends to be more complex and nuanced; largely defensive and protective of what they see as unfair persecution of the breed. But I have never heard any outright championing of dog aggression from a woman. In contrast, the vocal, strident and most assertive segment of the APBT fan-base is almost entirely male.

 

Hard blokes, hard dogs

This particular human profile isn’t entirely confined to the APBT world though. There has always been a relationship between the keeping of strong, potentially intimidating breeds and a degree of ‘tough guy’ social posturing. Trainers and behaviourists encounter it constantly, and I’m not the only one who has spent inordinate amounts of time attempting patiently to explain to male owners why certain characteristics should not be encouraged in their young pet during the primary socialization period. And this is irrespective of their requirement that the dog grow up to master the ultimate in canine multitasking: bombproof babysitter by day and homicidal domain protector by night.

The human value system by which this apparent dichotomy is able to make perfect sense to people just doesn’t reliably translate to an animal that is going to be spending endless time with their children, and their children’s visiting friends. Fine, discriminative judgement calls about which exact circumstances it may or may not be entirely appropriate to employ aggression and threat to gain desirable reward or remove the unwanted are not the cognitive forte of the domestic canine. When the template against which comparisons are being made and imagined is that of working dogs, trained and rehearsed on a daily basis by proficient dog trainers, what is not being considered is that these dogs spend their off-time confined to kennels, with a single handler and never having to negotiate having their ears pulled by a curious six year old human child the dog doesn’t know.

 

Legislation is cockeyed and misguided

Whenever I’m interviewed about the merits or not of breed-specific legislation in Cape Town, or South Africa, I make it clear that I’m unambiguously opposed to it. It’s a bad idea because it misunderstands the problem, and misidentifies the solution. Ban a so-called Pit Bull Terrier on Monday, and by next week someone has crossed their Pit-type with a Chow Chow and the resulting offspring can in no logical way ever be described as any specific breed. This is the problem with the very concept of ‘breeds’ in general, and in particular the core issue regarding the Pit Bull: it isn’t a ‘breed’ as this term is commonly understood; it is a dog ‘type’ that encompasses a variety of forms and the label describes a phenotype rather than a genotype. This will be explored more deeply in my next posting.

Suffice it to say that one of the results of the ill-conceived Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK has been an exponential rise in the ownership of so-called ‘American Bulldogs’, and still every few months there is a story of a child being killed at home by family dogs.

That doesn’t mean that I think every dog “is the same under the skin” either, or that it’s all a matter of love and how they’re raised. Good husbandry, proper care and non-coercive handling, as well as extensive and appropriate socialization during the Critical Period for Social Development (between 2-3 weeks and the offset of this developmental period at about 16 weeks, with very slight variations), is certainly nonnegotiable. And whilst genes don’t cause behaviour, they certainly provide the genetic potential that can influence any number of behavioural traits. No-one can assert that all dogs are essentially the same but just look different – form potentiates function. There are a number of really good reasons why Dachshunds aren’t used for sledding.

 

The ‘Tabula Rasa’ theory isn’t helpful

Some types of dog are just not the best choice as family pets, not because they’re genetically determined killers but because they have been selected over countless generations specifically to perform functions that often put them at odds with the job a pet is asked to do. Many of these guarding and fighting breeds and types have a far lower threshold for reactivity, for instance, and may be intolerant of handling by youngsters. Most are less likely to flee circumstances that threaten them than they are to stand and fight. In the case of the bull types (and some of those derived from European Bullenbeisser ancestory), they also have a raised pain threshold, due to higher base levels of endorphins (opioid peptides)and this can create a chemical feedback loop that makes aggressive display innately rewarding.

But most problematic of all is the sheer size, power and jaw-strength of many of these dogs. All dogs may bite under specific circumstances, but some dogs can cause incredible damage, and even death, when they do so. When helping clients with pet selection, we will unhesitatingly advise people not to get a Husky unless they are prepared to accommodate their phenomenal exercise needs, or will warn that Jack Russell Terriers aren’t lap dogs and don’t do well in confined environments, despite their size, and shouldn’t be over-handled. So why exactly are so many of us reluctant to be straight with the public and tell them that some kinds of dogs are a risky venture to be kept as pets because of the harm they can do? However many exemplary individuals there may be to cite, that isn’t going to help the family with the child in Red Cross Children’s Hospital one iota, nor does it provide any kind of predictable measure.

Ultimately, the problem should be addressed holistically. That means that the source of the rampant domestic insecurity must be addressed, and functional alternative strategies made available. Also, an unapologetic dialogue about the ubiquitous machismo that is causing so much social damage, not just regarding dog choice, must begin in earnest.

Potential dog owners must appreciate that guarding breeds have implicit limitations, especially in an armed environment such as South Africa is, and that the best any dog can realistically be expected to do is provide an early warning of potential intrusion. Thankfully, many security companies are now advising that small, noisy dogs are a better security investment than the larger guarding breeds, which are as likely to prevent armed response personnel access to the property when needed, as much as repel intruders. And the little ones are also unlikely to fundamentally disfigure your children, even if they do bite.

 

In Pit Bulls: part 2 I delve a little into the issue of what constitutes a breed, and something about the history of the ‘Bull’ types. Also, I’ll flesh out some of the misconceptions and assumptions about the issue of aggressive behaviour in dogs