Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Do I think Pit Bulls should be banned? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Please read the following article that is in my book....
Sincerely,
Mel
K-9 Kampus
First, let us define the term
Bully Breed. Most of these breeds can be traced to, and many contain at least
some noticeable traits from the Mastiff, or mastiff “type” dogs. These dogs
were large and powerful animals, and were bred to be so in order to more
effectively and efficiently perform their required duties.
Though there is
no specific breed labeled as “Pit”, the two breeds most commonly referred to
under this classification – The American Staffordshire Terrier and the
Staffordshire Bull Terrier – have lately become associated with the American
Bulldog, Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, and even the Boxer under the one
singular categorization as “Bully Breeds”. Though some of these dogs attribute
a portion of their varied history as bait dogs or fighting dogs and/or wild
animals in a pit, their very inception and subsequent existence neither stems
directly from nor hinges upon these activites.
Originally, many
of these types of dogs were bred and kept by butchers specifically to take down
and control unruly oxen or other cattle – hence the “Bull” or “Bully”
reference. These large and powerful animals were essential to the day-to-day
duties of the butcher, and were considered as much of a valuable resource and
necessary tool of business as was the butcher’ cleaver.
Some of these
butcher’s dogs were also used for hunting purposes, benefiting from the dog’s
already well defined attributes and skills for capturing and, if necessary,
killing their quarry. One must also keep in mind this was before the wide
spread availability and use of firearms in hunting and that the dog has been
used for hunting purposes since the beginning of the domestication process.
A portion of
these breeds were originally bred specifically for the hunting of large and
often dangerous wild game. The pursuit and subsequent capture of this quarry
required a dog of high stamina and endurance, coupled with a very high strength
to weight ratio.
The boxer,
however, can be traced to inception by the German Military as a war dog – a
very light, quick, agile and courageous dog charged with the duties of carrying
medical supplies and messages between outposts and through the trenches of both
World Wars. Eventually, the Boxer’s tasking was increased to perform as a
sentry and guard for the German troops.
With the earlier
defined breeds, there exists a definite timeline within their history involving
fighting dogs as well as other dangerous animals in a pit. These fights were
commonplace across Europe during the 16th
Century, often held as large gatherings of the upper class. Essentially, these
events can be equated to our modern day boxing events. Prized fighters are
shown, exhibited, and promoted as the better fighter, therefore the safer on
which to place your bet. Ultimately, these two will face each other in the
ring, and the fight will ensure. The difference here is that routinely one of
these fighters, and quite possibly both, would die in this fight.
Animal fighting,
or “pitting”, eventually became viewed as brutal, barbaric, cruel, and
inhumane. This sport was eventually phased out of view, but not completely out
of the picture. Although, various legislation bills, and laws have been passed
against the proliferation and conduction of the sport, those deeply involved
with dog fighting have not given up their beloved sport easily.
Although dog
fighting has now been banned in most every civilized country in the world, it
sill continues today in the back alleys of our cities and the back yards of our
neighborhoods. Though no longer officially sanctioned events, there exists an
extremely strong network structured around the promotion and performance of
these fights, as well as for the promulgation of the animals involved. This
network spans across country, reaching into every community, and has evolved
into a private society fueled by power, illegal drugs, and money.
The animals used
in the current fighting rings are barely a resemblance of their ancestors, and
are by no means an accurate depiction of what the earlier breeds were actually
bred for. Specifically, while the earlier dogs may have been used at times for
fighting, the dogs were bred primarily to perform specific tasks that were
essential to the society in which they lived.
A majority of
the dogs associated with this category today are typically much smaller in size
as an adult than were their predecessors. In addition, these dogs are severely
lacking in social skills as a direct result of irresponsible breeding practices
focused towards promoting antisocial behavior in the dogs, coupled with cruel,
often barbaric mental and physical conditioning the young dog is exposed to.
It is not at all
uncommon for these young dogs to be exposed to other dogs fighting. By
witnessing this behavior and receiving positive reinforcement for exhibiting
any aggressive tendencies towards either of the dogs fighting, the dog rapidly
comes to understand that this is not only allowed and acceptable behavior, but,
most importantly, this is the desired behavior for the dogs to exhibit. Through
this process, the young dog is imprinted with the activities in which they are
expected to engage. The young dog may then be beaten, placed with a much older
and stronger dog to fight, or may even have their neck and muzzle protected in
a manner by metal covering or even barbed-wire that prevents the dog from
receiving deadly injuries, while also preventing the young dog to from fighting
back.
Though it is
widely believed that processes resembling the one above produce a much more
courageous and tougher fighter, the resulting product is actually a dog which
lives in fear, and though they may exhibit what appears to be a self promoting
attitude, confidence, and extreme aggression, these are all symptoms of a great
underlying problem.
This dog fears
everyone, and more specifically, every dog because of the earlier foolhardy
conditioning process. This dog has come to believe every person and every dog
is an eminent threat, and in the interest of self-preservation, the dog must
lash out, aggress, engage, and fight as long as necessary. The dog without
obvious provocation will very often exhibit these actions. It is imperative to
understand, however, the provocation existed early on in the conditioning
process of the dog, and has become ingrained in the dog’s perception of the
world around him. This perception has created a dog with the belief there are
no options available for dealing with this particular situation other than by
exhibiting the traits and characteristics instilled and promoted in the dog
through previous experience.
This dog is
prevented from ever experiencing a fulfilling life since he can never achieve a
true level of comfort in any environment because of his overwhelming fear and
concern of eminent threat. This dog is a by-product of people driven by the
illusion of control, the acceptance and promotion of violence, and the
ever-growing pursuit of power. To these people, the fighting dogs are merely
disposable pawns in a game of social insolence.
With all this in
mind, it is important to remember that there are many dogs within our society
that do not fit the mold above. Simply because there are people who make the
conscious choice to engage in the types of activities outlined above that does
not automatically make every representative of every breed concerned, or the
owners of them, just as evil. Not only would such an association be short
sighted, it is narrow-minded and wrong.
While there is
unquestionably a very large number of these dogs who will never be able to
function within society, much less within the bounds of a family, we must
arrive at a reasonable, responsible solution to the problem, other than simply
wiping out entire breeds. There are many representatives of the various breeds
who perform many different tasks, from hunter to personal assistant, that
conduct their duties while also operating as an integral member of the family
involved.
Recently, it has
become an ever-growing stance for knee-jerk reactions to create rash,
thoughtless, and shallow decisions. As of late, municipalities across the
country have enacted bans on the possession of “Bully Breeds”. Many more are
considering similar bans, while some are working towards enacting legislation
requiring such dogs be spayed/neutered before they achieve four months of age.
While we discuss
the pros and cons of spay and neuter in the relevant chapter, this particular
situation opens additional concerns. The “Bully Breeds” are being singled out,
and if effective, this type of mandatory altering will work along with breed
banning to completely extinguish not only a particular breed, but also an
entire “type” of dog. There are absolutely zero questions as to the very agenda
of the persons involved with generating, promoting and passing these types of
legislation, regardless how caring colorful their initial proposal may seem.
The concerns of
breed banning are far reaching. In regards to the “Bully Breeds”, this banning
is not reserved to an actual breed, yet a type of dog. How many of these bans
also call for the banning of the Boston Terrier, the Pug, or the French
Bulldog, even though they fit the loosely defined criteria of the ban? None.
Absolutely zero. Primarily because, again, these bans are concerned with “type”
of dog rather than breed, and these particular breeds just don’t create enough
public emotion. This is one of the glaring faults of the banning process.
Most
importantly, we must understand that passing the legislation banning these dogs
is the most difficult part of the process. This process revolves around how
much public emotion can be created to support the particular ban. This emotion
is created out of fear and lack of education. As long as the general public can
be scared enough through the presentation of “facts”, polls, statistics, and
surveys, though flawed and skewed in favor of the agenda, coupled with
inundation of the sensationalism from television and newspapers, the purveyors
of this legislation pave the way for its passage.
Beyond this
point is where the danger lies. Once the ban is in place, specifically bans
based upon type, association, or other loosely defined criteria, the amending
of this legislation is much easier. What this means is that once the ban
legislation is in place, and then another breed or even type of dogs loses
public favor, or, even the favor of particular Representative or Senator, the
stage has already been set to add this breed to the ban.
Breed banning is
not the answer for any of the dog issues pressing in today’s society. Breed
banning amounts to nothing more than selective extermination of a particular
“type” of dog, supported by public emotion that is long on fear and short on
education.
The first step
towards arriving at a realistic, long lasting answer is education. As
professionals in this industry, it is our collective liability to ensure this
education is not only available to the public, but to also pursue the avenues
within our individual scope to stifle the purveyors of myths, fear, and
misinformation.
The second step
to this answer is responsibility. At this point in this book, hopefully the
canine services professional has at least some insight to the responsibilities
we have to the dog, and to this industry as a whole. Part of this
responsibility is the constant pursuit of step one: sharing of education. The
greater portion of this step is the practicing of responsibility. We must
individually put into action the very things we are asking the rest of society
of practice. The canine services professional has a great opportunity before
them to be an example of responsibility to the entire community of dog owners
in the care, housing, rearing, and conditioning process of the dog. Individuals
must make the commitment of responsibility to the dog, as well as to educating
their neighbor.
