Unleashed: The Phenomena of Status Dogs and Weapon Dogs

Book Review
From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  May/June 2013:

Unleashed:  The Phenomena of Status Dogs and Weapon Dogs 
by Simon Harding
The Policy Press,  U. of Bristol (c/o U. of Chicago Press, 
427 East 60th St.,  Chicago,  IL 60637),  2012.  
286 pages,  hardcover.  $100.60;  Kindle $23.72.

    I first saw an American Staffordshire,  better known as a pit bull,  during a 1989 visit to Baltimore.  Three youths had stolen a cocker spaniel and were encouraging their three unleashed pit bulls to tear the spaniel apart alive.  The spaniel tried desperately to escape,  but was held on a short leash.  By the time I reached the scene,  the spaniel had collapsed,  possibly dead.  The youths kept kicking the remains,  and the AmStaffs kept attacking.  By the time the cops caught up with them,  they had disposed of the evidence.  They laughed in the cops’ faces: “Man, you’ll never find that dead dog, and anyway we’re juvies––you can’t touch us.”
    The attacking dogs’ behavior was so utterly abnormal,  so utterly unlike how I’d ever seen any dog behave, that I told various friends about it.  “Oh,”  they all said, “those were pit bulls.  It’s what they do.  They are not like other dogs.’
    The recorded history of the pit bull began in the Middle Ages.  Hundreds of years of selective breeding eventually produced dogs aggressive enough for use in baiting bears and bulls.  This mayhem had its heyday during the reigns of Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I.  After public opinion turned against both the torture of humans and the torture of animals as entertaining,  Britain in 1835 abolished bull-and bear-baiting.  Breeders and gamblers then turned to pitting “bull” dogs against each other.  No longer did they need to obtain bulls or bears,  or maintain fighting pits big enough to hold a terrified bear. 
    Fighting dogs were soon introduced around the world by the soldiers and sailors of the British Empire.
    Simon Harding,  author of Unleashed: The Phenomena of Status Dogs & Weapon Dogs,  worked in youth justice for 25 years.  He recently received a doctorate from the University of Bedfordshire.  He now presents himself as an expert on dog behavior.
    Even in 1989,  when I discovered the existence of pit bulls,  I found a wealth of information about their history and behavior in one afternoon at my local public library.  Vastly more has been published since.  Yet Harding opens by alleging that the problem of “weapon and status dogs” is newly emergent,  little documented by academic literature and primary data.
    There is no lack of relevant academic literature and primary data;  Harding just consistently ignores most of it.  For example, Harding somehow never found the unmatched statistical feat accomplished by ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton, tracking fatal and disfiguring dog attacks by breed for more than thirty years.  (The fatality data has been retrospectively confirmed,  case by case,  by DogsBite.org founder Colleen Lynn.)
    Harding does not consult the many pediatric medicine and surgical journals that discuss the relative seriousness of the wounds that pit bulls inflict.  He skips the data showing that pit bull bans not only dramatically decrease catastrophic dog attacks and shelter admissions,  but also coincide with reductions in gang crime of as much as 40%.  Since Harding ignores the work of Charles Darwin on natural and artificial selection,  it is no surprise that the work of geneticists and veterinary neurologists does not interest him either.
    Instead, Harding leans for his history of the bull breeds almost exclusively on the work of longtime pit bull advocates Karen Delise,  a vet tech,  and Diane Jessup,  a pit bull breeder.  Even there Harding is selective,  missing the publications in which Jessup acknowledges––or rather boasts––that the fighting and gripping behaviors of pit bulls are genetically determined,  and that it is a flaw in a pit bull if these traits are missing.  Harding instead simply states––with only Delise’s word for it––that pit bulls are like any other dog;  that they were never fighting dogs,  and rather were always and are still working farm dogs;  that they were peaceful family pets until some time in the 20th century when back yard breeders took over;  that only bad owners and poor breeding make them a problem now;  that there has never been trouble with any purebred pit bull;  that German shepherds bite the most;  that pit bulls merely suffer from a media-created image problem.  On page 110 Harding repeats the “nanny dog” myth,  which has recently been rejected even by the pit bull advocacy group BADRAP.
    Harding seems equally ignorant of the history of his own country,  claiming that breeding dogs for fighting purposes is new.  I find myself wondering whether he has ever heard of Henry VIII,  Elizabeth I,  or Shakespeare,  whose Globe theater in London competed for audience share with the nearby Paris Gardens bear-baiting pits favored by Elizabeth.
    Harding even ignores his own data.  Of 138 dangerous dog owners he approached, 76% of the interviews were not completed.  43% subjects refused to be interviewed;  8% asked for money.  Harding departed early from 5% of his attempted interviews,  fearing for his personal safety.  20% of the interviews were disrupted when the dangerous dog misbehaved. Only 33 interviews were successfully completed.
    Harding’s interview subjects consistently acknowledged keeping pit bulls as weapons.  They agreed that crossing a pit bull with something else,  usually a mastiff,  produces a bigger but equally aggressive dog.  They use the dogs to show their masculinity as they define it––as a resource of violence,  intimidation and aggression,  and as backup for controlling and oppressive behaviors in their dealings with women,  authority and their own peer group.
    Harding admits that ordinary people are using public space differently because of the presence of dangerous dogs.  He cites statistics showing a year-upon-year doubling of British hospital admissions due to dog attacks since 2004,  paralleling the rise in “weapon dogs” seized by police.
    Without questioning why most unemployed ethnic youth do not become involved in gang activity and with “weapon dogs,”  Harding tags those who keep these dogs as innocent social victims.  Worse,  he paints them,  despite their predatory behavior toward working class people,  as representatives of the working class.  He argues that what the public really fears is a new set of social values developing,  which we should learn to accept as a part of normal social change,  rather than rejecting these poor gang youths by rejecting their dogs.
    Towards the end of Unleashed,  Harding reveals that his goal from the start was to support the repeal of breed bans.  Bully breeds are weapons,  Harding admits, but rather than banning them we should allow everyone to have one.  We should educate criminal youths about how to be kind to animals,  and improve the image of pit bulls so we won’t be afraid any more,  and so that sociopathic youths won’t mistakenly think these dogs are dangerous.
    Meanwhile,  Harding agrees there should be restrictions on ownership of bully breeds,  but only until we have educated these criminal youths.  After that,  everyone will be safe with pit bulls at all times,  as long as they are of pure breeding.
    As George Orwell wrote:  “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”                              
––Alexandra Semyonova

    [Alexandra Semyonova,  a dog behaviorist and former Dutch SPCA inspector,   is author of The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs (Hastings Press,  2009.)]

Maryland legislature adjourns without repealing pit bull ruling

From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  April 2013

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland–– The 2013 Maryland state legislature adjourned on April 8, 2013 without passing a bill meant to “abrogate” an April 2012 state Court of Appeals ruling that “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous,” for a victim to claim damages from whoever possesses the dog or dogs.

The Maryland House of Delegates on February 21, 2013 unanimously approved a bill by Luis R.S. Simmons of Montgomery County which would in effect have restored to all dogs the common law “one free bite” standard that prevailed before the appellate ruling in Tracey v. Solesky. The ruling originated from an unprovoked pit bull attack on two boys in April 2007. The pit bull keeper was indigent, but the landlord was held responsible for severe injuries to one of the boys, Dominic Solesky, because the house she had rented to the pit bull keeper lacked a fence capable of keeping the pit bull confined.

The Simmons bill was endorsed by the Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the U.S., American SPCA, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as by lobbyists representing landlords and the insurance industry, and was expected to clear the Maryland Senate until it was amended on March 7, 2013 by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. The amendment, proposed by state senator Robert A. Zirkin and approved 7-4, would have applied to all dogs the strict liability standard that the court established for pit bulls.

Three Maryland residents were severely injured by pit bulls between the House of Delgates’ passage of the Simmons bill and the end of the legislative session––an Edgemere woman who was mauled by at least one of her own two pit bulls on February 22; a two-year-old Dundalk girl who suffered head and facial injuries on March 10 when attacked by a pit bull reportedly belonging to a family friend; and a five-year-old White Plains girl who was left in critical condition on April 3 by a pit bull, a Cane Corso, and a Presa Canario kept by her mother’s boyfriend. Both Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios are pit bull variants.

Pit Bull Awareness Month News

Tim Omarzu
Times Free Press
Etowah, Tennessee passes pit bull ban despite opposition!
The City Commission in Etowah, Tenn., approved an ordinance banning pit bulls by a 3-2 vote at its meeting Monday night, despite a campaign by pit bull owners against the measure.
The ordinance, which the City Commission already approved once in a first reading, singles out pit bulls as a particularly dangerous breed with a strong fighting and chase instinct. Some of the characteristics that make them dangerous, according to the ordinance, include a diminished tendency to warn they're going to attack, a tendency to "fight to the death" and to tear flesh "which has resulted in grotesque injuries to human victims."




Rob Borkowski
Woonsocket Patch
Woonsocket, Rhode Island is attempting to legislate grippers again. i think they might succeed this time.
"We're not having a major problem with rottweilers," said Kay. "It's always the pitbull, pitbull, pitbull."
She said right now, the city pound has 13 cages, and nine of them have pitbulls in them. There are so many pitbulls taken in by the pound from irresponsible owners, she said that they haven't got resources left to care for regular strays.




Barbara Kay
National Post
Canada
Their sole raison d’être is causing animal and human suffering. And therefore, those who are drawn to pit bulls above all other 400-plus breeds – apart from those naive souls who have been duped, and plenty have — are morally bound to interrogate their motivation in fetishizing this canine anomaly.




Merritt Clifton
Animal People
on Tracey v. Solesky

Libertarian theory holds that the “invisible hand” of the marketplace should enforce socially responsible behavior, not legal mandates.  According to libertarian theory, if certain behavior is dangerous, such as keeping pit bulls, the people who keep pit bulls–and their landlords–should be sued for the costs resulting from attacks, and should pay higher insurance premiums to offset the risk of lawsuit.

Landlords should have the option of either excluding pit bulls from their private property or charging higher rents.  If keeping pit bulls becomes economically prohibitive, due to the costs of insurance and compensating pit bull attack victims, libertarian theory holds that breeding pit bulls should become economically unviable and come to an end.

Arguing that pit bulls should be subject neither to breed-specific law nor to market pressures is in effect arguing that people who keep pit bulls should be exempt from any restraints taking into account the unique behavior and physical characteristics for which pit bulls are bred and acquired.

murderous Detroit nanny dog in custody

Book Review: The Lost Dogs

From ANIMAL PEOPLE,

September 2010:

(published October 5, 2010)

The Lost Dogs:

Michael Vick's dogs and their tale of rescue & redemption

by Jim Gorant

Gotham Books (375 Hudson St., New York, NY 10014), 2010.

287 pages, hardcover. $26.00.

The Lost Dogs, like a Three Stooges film, should open with the warning, "Don't try this at home, kids."

Yes, the American SPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, and several other partner organizations were able to avoid euthanizing 47 of the 51 pit bull terriers who were confiscated from football star and dogfighter Michael Vick in April 2007. About two-thirds of the dogs were eventually placed in homes; the rest remain in sanctuary care.

But, contrary to hype, this does not mean anyone has achieved magical advances in handling authentic fighting pit bulls. Little was done that might be within the means of local animal shelters. Much as the chairs that the Three Stooges smashed over each other's heads were made of balsa wood, most of the Vick dogs were not elite fighting stock. Most were barely more than puppies. The one dog who was a confirmed fighting champion was euthanized.

"Breeding no doubt plays a role in dog behavior," admis Lost Dogs author Jim Gorant. "There are border collies who are better at herding and retrievers who are better at retrieving because they have been carefully selected to perform that task over time. By the same logic there are pit bulls--so-called game-bred dogs--who are more inclined to fight and are potentially better at it than others. The Bad Newz crew, it seemed, had not been willing or wise enough to spend the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars more it cost to buy dogs from elite lineages."

Vick and associates had ordinary pit bulls, not confirmed killers. The ASPCA and Best Friends, meanwhile, are among the wealthiest and best staffed humane societies in the world. They collected $1 million from Vick as part of a court settlement, and enjoyed national publicity that afforded them the pick of thousands of prospective foster caregivers and adopters.

More than 80% of the animal shelters in the U.S. have less funding per year for all of their programs combined than was invested in the Vick dogs. Probably fewer than 5% have as many volunteer and adoption applicants per year.

Understates Gorant, "Because there might be resources available to support them, it could be possible to save dogs who would otherwise probably not make the cut."

The success--so far--of the effort to save the Vick dogs has escalated the pressure on shelters to save every dog. The ASPCA itself felt the heat after euthanizing a pit bull named Oreo who recovered from physical injuries after being thrown off a rooftop, but proved excessively reactive.

Any of the Vick dogs may yet crack under stress. The odds are against it, but each year about one pit bull in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one dog of other breeds in about 10 million. About one adopted pit bull in 30,000 kills or disfigures someone after passing behavioral screening.

The ASPCA, Best Friends, their partners, and the Vick dogs themselves have all enjoyed a long run of good luck. But a more indicative case may be the disposition of more than 500 dogs who were seized from a fighting ring by the Humane Society of Missouri in October 2009. Through extraordinary effort, with more resources than most humane societies but still just a fraction of the resources available to the Vick dogs, the Humane Society of Missouri has also saved about two-thirds--and has had to euthanize more than one third.

--Merritt Clifton

craven coverage of "rehabilitated" fight bust dogs:

missouri fight bust dogs on tour

pimping the vick dogs, it's mel's turn

pimping the vick dogs, ssshhh

another less than stellar book review compliments of Mark Caro and the Washington Post.