It's the Owner, Not the Breed

Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds is an advocacy group for the muzzling and banning of all "fighting breeds" from public off-leash parks, public dog friendly businesses, as well as members of such a breed (or mix thereof) coming inside Seattle city limits from the outside, unless passing in a car. Owners will also have to take out thousands of dollars of insurance if they want to keep their "fighting dog." Ellen Taft (head of FDAFB and dog attack victim) and her group's legislative proposal has the underlying goal to ban ALL of these breeds from the city, also evidenced by Ms. Taft's long-going well-known anti-"pit bull" campaign. While some cities, states, and even European countries have breed-specific brands, in a city with a dog population much higher than that of children, that could be a huge problem for Seattle owners.

Derailing from the subject for just a moment, National Geographic produced a documentary called The Science of Dogs in 2007, in which an experiment conducted by scientific observers involved tying a piece of meat to a rope, and leaving it unsecured in a cage. Both a wolf raised in captivity and a domesticated dog were able to get the meat out of the cage by pulling the rope. But when the rope was tied to the bottom of the cage, only the wolf kept trying to get to the meat on it's own, with no help from observing humans. The dog however, quickly looked to its human trainer for help after failing to get the meat by itself. (The full documentary is on the right, the experiment starts at 42:08.)

Dogs have been dependent on humans for thousands of years as they have evolved more and more away from the wolf. They look to us for what they are supposed to do and not do. So what happens to dogs that have no one to protect them, shelter them, feed them, love them? Or worse, what happens to those that are abused for monetary gain, then cast aside?

Most dogs that bite or attack are usually poorly trained (if at all), and/or have spent a percentage of their lives beaten or completely alone. The breeds of these dogs are incredibly varied, from any of the so-called "fighting breeds", (usually mistakenly) referred to as "pit bulls" to poodles, retrievers, and chihuahuas. I myself have been bitten and my wound needed stitches. But I wasn't bitten because of the dog's breed. He bit me because someone abused him for years and then abandoned him. He didn't know any better because no one was responsible enough to teach him any better.

Just because a group of people chooses to breed dogs for fighting does not mean every dog of that breed is inherently vicious. The Dogo Argentino, listed on the FDAFB site as a dangerous breed, have actually been brought to Texas farms to hunt wild boar, thinning out their numbers and preventing them from destroying crops. Their muscular build, keen eyes, and speed are the perfect combination for catching these creatures that threaten farmers' livelihoods. These dogs are helpful contributing members of society who are gentle, obedient pets as well as hunting dogs, because they were properly trained. (Video of Dogos at work can also be found in the Nation Geopraphic documentary, starting at 2:38)

In 2006, an elderly man in East Lubbock, TX was shaken by a pit bull. Not severely bitten, not even really injured, shaken. And the local news ran a story on it. "According to witnesses, the victim walked past a home where four pit bulls were tied up in the front yard. One of them broke free, and lunged at the man…" What about the owners? What's their responsibility in all of this? "Animal control services took the suspect dog into custody while officers instructed the homeowner to take the remaining dogs to the back yard."

Anyone who works with dogs will tell you that socialization, training, and regular upkeep of a dog's health are the factors that determine the odds of a bite or attack. All of these things are put upon the owner of the dog. So why are we even discussing banning these animals whose fates are determined by the actions of people?

Instead of blaming these sensationally biased reports of severe (but very rare) attacks on an umbrella of dog breeds and mixes that are impossible to identify with %100 accuracy (even by animal workers and DNA specialists), why don't you blame the owner who neglected the animal? How is the person who is supposed to tell the dog "No!" not responsible? All dogs are pack animals. If the owner is not pack leader, then the dog will assume the role, which includes confronting threats. And if a dog has no experience with other dogs or other people, then everything that moves can be a threat. Again, this comes to ANY breed of dog.

It's not the breed, it's the owner. Banning the breed from a city or state doesn't solve the problem, it just sends it somewhere else. Why can't we pass legislation with harsher sentences for animal neglect/abuse/cruelty? What about harder laws against dogfighting? After a fighting dog has been injured to the point they can't fight any more, or they turn on their abusive owner, they are usually just thrown out into the streets, fending for themselves until they get picked up or euthanized if they defensively attack someone. Because no one trained them not to.

It's time to look at the bigger picture, and that is "fighting breeds" and mixes of such breeds are over-dramatized in all forms of media because of the carelessness of abusive underground dog fighters and derelict dog owners. Stop blaming the breed, and start looking more at dog owners of ALL breeds, big and small. Just because a dog is small, fluffy, and cute, does not mean that it won't attack, and that it can't do damage. It can. A spokesperson for the Center of Disease Control said that "breed 'is no longer considered to be of discernible value' when it comes to bite prevention."

And for the record, the dog who bit me, leaving a nearly three inch scar on my face was a Boston Terrier mix. Who was abused and neglected for years before he was rescued. I would never want him euthanized because of something someone else did to him. That would be like putting an abused child to death because she/he had a violent reaction to someone making a perceived threat, while the abuser walks free.

People who have been abused and neglected get the help they need, as well as loving support from other people. Why should the dogs be punished because they are responding as victims?