|
What is a "pit bull"?
More than three centuries ago, John Locke observed that many debates hinged on definitions of words. This phenomenon can be seen with crystal clarity in the controversy that swirls around the "pit bull." There is no single, uniform, agreed-upon definition or description of a pit bull. People who insist that the pit bull is an inherently vicious devil-dog cannot find common ground with those who believe the dog is an angel in disguise. Consequently, I see no end to the debate. Rather than attempt to put forth my own singular definition of a "pit bull," in this essay I will attempt to describe the myriad definitions that exist. My hope is that, by pointing out the differences in definitions, people can better understand other points of view, thereby improving communication and eventually finding a common ground from which to begin real conversations. It is critical to understand that the "pit bull" is NOT a breed. A pit bull is a type of dog, just as the words "retriever," "terrier," or "shepherd" describe a certain type of dog, not a breed. The term "pit bull" has no single, solid, scientific definition. What you consider a "pit bull" is not likely to be identical to the concept retained by any other person. Table of ContentsWe will examine the various definitions momentarily, but first, let's set the scene for these definitions by describing the pit bull's history. History of the Pit BullThe Molossus, a large, mastiff-like, war dog, is the ancient ancestor of a number of large breeds. The Molossus seems to have originated in Greece and made its way to Britian via trading ships. The huge war dog also impressed the Romans, who brought them from Britain into other areas of Europe. From the Molossus descended a variety of dogs, including Mastiffs, Bandogs, Alaunts, and the pit bull's predecessor, the Bulldog - so named because they were used to catch and hold bulls for the butcher to slaughter. Blood sports, including bull and bear baiting, gained in popularity over time until they became grand events. The Humane Acts of 1835 in England put a stop to bullbaiting, and dog fighting quickly became the new "sport" for Bulldogs. Most breed researchers believe that the pit bull-type dog was created by crossing a bulky Bulldog with a smaller, faster Terrier, resulting in a Bull-and-Terrier, which was said to excel at dog fighting because it possessed the strength and tenacity of a Bulldog with the speed and determination of a Terrier. Over time, the Bull-and-Terrier evolved into the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which, when brought over to the United States, eventually became the American Pit Bull Terrier. The UKC (United Kennel Club) was the first major national kennel club to register the American Pit Bull Terrier. The AKC (American Kennel Club) followed suit years later, but they changed the name "American Pit Bull Terrier" to "Staffordshire Terrier", and later to "American Staffordshire Terrier" (to distinguish it from its English cousin, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier). Development of the Most Common "Bully" Breeds
The American Staffordshire Terrier is effectively the AKC show version of the APBT. In general, both AST and APBT breeders deny that the breeds are anything alike anymore. The AST is typically bred for appearance and conformation, while the APBT is in many cases bred for function. (By function, I do not mean that APBTs are solely bred for skill in dog fighting. Function-bred dogs can be bred for skill in hunting, weight-pull, Shutzhund, agility, service, and much more.) Breeding for function rather than appearance often results in a wide variety of sizes, colors, and body styles.
Definitions of the Modern Pit BullTechnical Definition
"Pit bull" does not include all bully breeds or all fighting dogs. Akitas are a fighting breed, but they are not a bully breed, so they are not pit bulls. Bull Terriers are Bull-and-Terrier type dogs, but they were never used consistently for dog fighting, so they are not pit bulls. The Dogue de Bourdeux might be considered both a Bulldog breed and a fighting breed, but the Dogue de Bourdeux has Mastiff, not Terrier, in its ancestry. Thus, in a technical sense, "pit bull" refers to a dog whose ancestors were Bull-and-Terrier type dogs once used for dog fighting. The specific breeds included in this technical definition are: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. On this website, I use the technical definition of "pit bull," with some exceptions as noted. The three technical pit bull breeds
In the United States, the American Kennel Club (AKC) registers American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. The United Kennel Club registers American Pit Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Their breed standards can be accessed at the following links: UKC American Pit Bull Terrier The American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier have very similar appearances, to the point that some APBTs are actually dual-registered as ASTs. APBTs and ASTs should be no more than 65 lbs at a healthy weight. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a smaller dog and should weigh between 28 and 48 lbs. In all cases, the dog's overall body shape should be proportional and fairly streamlined; no part of the body should look "oversized." Pit bull temperamentA dog's breed or type is not solely defined by its appearance; temperament must also be considered. The pit bull's proper temperament is usually described as one of confidence, determination, courage, and tolerance. Pit bulls were historically bred for dog-aggression, not human-aggression. Before a fight, dog handlers washed each other's dogs. In the heat of a dog fight, handlers had to be very close to their dogs, sometimes with their face just inches from their dog's face. Dogs that redirected their aggression toward people were culled (killed), with very few exceptions. Overall, this should have created a breed-type with a very stable temperament. This is reflected in the breed standards' descriptions of proper temperament. It is important to note that none of the breed standards allow for viciousness or human-aggression. Dog-aggression is acceptable to some extent but the dog should never be unmanageable. Legal DefinitionBreed-specific legislation (BSL) requires that all dogs be classified as a particular breed or type of dog. BSL almost always includes "pit bulls" as a specific target of the legislation. Because the term "pit bull" does not mean the same thing to everyone, a legal definition of "pit bull" is usually necessary in order to clarify exactly which dogs are affected by the legislation. Additionally, court cases revolving around BSL typically hinge on whether the definition of "pit bull" is too vague or incorrect. Who creates this definition?Breed-specific legislation, and thus the legal definition of "pit bull," is created by lawmakers (state legislators, city councilmembers, and so forth), sometimes with input from other sources (animal control, citizens, laws written by other legislators, etc.) and sometimes based solely on the lawmakers' own concepts of what a "pit bull" is. For this reason, the legal definition of a pit bull can differ significantly from the technical definition. Here are some examples of differing legal definitions of the term "pit bull":
Some places with BSL use "pit bull checklists" to determine whether a particular dog is a pit bull. The checklist items are entirely subjective and it's concievable that just about any dog could be deemed "pit bull" when the checklist is applied.
One of the major difficulties with the legal definition is that every dog's breed or mix must be identified. Most dogs do not come with a pedigree, and current DNA-based breed-id tests are expensive and not very accurate. Thus, dogs are judged on appearance alone. Defining a "pit bull" based on appearance alone is clearly problematic due to its subjectivity. Many breeds and types of dogs "display the majority of physical traits" of a pit bull but are not technically pit bulls. Some animal control officials have admitted that, by using appearance as the sole determinant of a dog's breed, a single litter of puppies may contain both "pit bulls" and "non-pit bulls." Dog warden Tom Skeldon, the driving force behind Ohio's BSL, testified before the court in Tellings v. Toledo (2006) that "even if a dog was 50 per cent pit bull, if it did not 'look like a pit bull,' the owner would not be charged. On the other hand, if a dog did 'look like a pit bull,' it would be classified as a pit bull and the owner would be subject to the 'vicious dog' laws." In summary, here are some photos of dogs that might be legally considered "pit bulls" (due to appearance or breed), but are not technically "pit bulls."
Popular or Stereotypical Imagery
The stereotypical or popular image of the pit bull is very different from the technical definition. The stereotypical pit bull is a human-aggressive, bloodthirsty, child-killing machine. It is impervious to pain, has locking jaws, and has incredible strength. It is highly unpredictable, unstable, and uncontrollable. Pit bulls are sometimes compared to sharks, tigers, venomous snakes, and other wild animals. There are a wide variety of myths associated with the stereotypical pit bull. Some examples of individuals invoking the image of the stereotypical pit bull:
Popular images of pit bulls often pair this type of dog with a similarly frightening owner. Owners are typically characterized as drug dealers, gang members, or dangerous criminals. They are often described as uneducated, poor, "trailer trash." There is an element of racism that cannot be overlooked. In short, pit bull owners are as undesirable in a community as the pit bulls themselves. Some examples of individuals invoking the image of the stereotypical pit bull owner:
For some antisocial individuals, it is actually desirable to own a vicious dog. Individuals with low self esteem, who feel bullied or oppressed, or who crave attention, typically feed off of the intimidation and fear that an image of a stereotypical pit bull can stir up among the general populace. For this reason, the stereotypical pit bull can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those who are inclined to own a vicious dog are likely to do whatever they can to incite their dog to behave inappropriately. Thus, people who "innocently" repeat and reinforce the stereotype, including those who repeat unsubstantiated rumors, and those who pass off mythology as fact, are partially responsible for the existence of vicious pit bulls. If the pit bull did not have such a strong stereotype, making it the "breed of choice" for irresponsible, dangerous owners, society would likely see a decrease not only in pit bull-related bites (and over-coverage in the media), but also in the number of criminals, thugs, and others who believe that a pit bull is the type of dog that will scare people, and consequently raise and train a pit bull to... what else? scare people. Fad BreedersNote: Because I do not want to provide free publicity to breeders—especially fad breeders—my source citations in this section will be rather vague. My apologies. A "fad" breeder is generally defined as a person who breeds dogs to make money. Fad breeders surf the waves of popular demand and try to supply consumers with the latest "craze" in dog ownership. But fad breeders do more than just produce an overpopulation of a particular breed. To turn a profit quickly, fad breeders must disregard breed standard, health and temperament testing, and all other costly and time consuming measures that responsible breeders undertake to produce quality representatives of the breed. Because fad breeders do not spend the time and effort to create a quality dog (one that meets breed standard and does not have health or temperament issues), and because they want a quick sale, fad breeders must market their substandard dogs in a way that makes the dogs seem better, more desirable, more unique, or "cooler" than properly-bred dogs. With pit bulls, fad breeders have redefined what "pit bull" means, and what traits are desirable in a "pit bull," in order to meet the market's demand for "badass" dogs. Fad breeders often define and describe "pit bulls" closer to the stereotype than the true breed standard.
Fad breeders of pit bulls will also emphasize guarding or protection abilities—never mind the prohibition against "viciousness" or human-aggression put forth by breed standards for pit bull breeds. Indeed, it seems that fad breeders are capitalizing on some individuals' desire to be "bigger, better, and badder" than everyone else; thus, they portray the "pit bull" as the "bigger, better, and badder" accessory. Fad breeders market "pit bulls" as bulky, musclebound, powerful beasts that can be used for protection—or perhaps just to intimidate other people. This is a far cry from the technical definition of the pit bull that I put forth above, but not too far from stereotypical imagery. Fad breeders are a major reason why the stereotype outshouts the technical definition of "pit bull." Dog Fighters
[Ed note: Naturally, the authors cited above claim that they are not involved in dog fighting. For obvious reasons, you won't find a lot of texts written by acknowledged dog fighters. However, the above authors—and many others—are very familiar with dog fighters and the dog fighting culture; they are the most accessible writers with texts in which dog fighters' voices may be heard; and they offer, and may even tout, the dog fighter's perspective. In this sense, their definition of "pit bull" is synonymous with the definition put forth by dog fighters.] Since the activity began centuries ago, dog fighters have been talking tough about pit bulls. Without exception, dog fighters frame pit bulls as the ultimate "fighting machine." Machines, of course, lack the frailties, imperfections, and emotions that an animal possesses. Machines must be commanded to start and stop. In this way, the dog fighter de-humanizes (de-canine-izes?) the pit bull. The pit bull feels no pain, participates willingly, will not quit, and is unbeatably strong. The fighting dog has no flaws. Why do dog fighters work so hard to build up the idea that pit bulls are the toughest, strongest dogs around? Why is it critical that pit bulls be presented as unbeatable and indomitable? One gets a sense, from reading the texts written by dog fighters, that the pit bull's status is tightly linked to the dog fighter's self-esteem. By owning an unbeatable dog, the owner feels superior to his peers.
In most texts written by dog fighters, there is a very stereotypically masculine-oriented bent to the discussion. Richard Stratton, in particular, uses the word "man" almost exclusively when talking about dog fighters, and apparently assumes most of his readers are men (men who are amused by dog fighting). Further, many writers about pit dogs inevitably strive to "impress" (as Stratton says) their readers by spouting out story after story of dogs fighting each other, dogs fighting wild animals, and, occasionally, dogs acting aggressively toward people. These stories are written with overt admiration and amusement. Because, in the dog fighter's mind, the only "real" dog is a supreme gladiator, it is natural that the dog fighter's definition of a pit bull revolves around the portrayal of the pit bull as an unbeatable fighting machine. Consequently, the dog fighter's definition of a pit bull is more of a stereotype than a reality. It should be noted that the dog fighter's definition is also the definition from which many legal and social definitions sprout. BSL is passed, in part, because politicians and citizens buy into the dog fighter's emphasis that pit bulls are unstoppable (i.e. "bulletproof," "hard to kill," "can do more damage") and unbeatable. Courts have also cited dog fighters' exaggerated descriptions of the pit bull as evidence that the dogs are dangerous (see, for example, State of Ohio v. Anderson, 1991). This, of course, only legitimizes the dog fighter's stereotype, thereby encouraging dog fighters—and others who wish to own "the toughest dog on the block"—to go out and get a pit bull not as a pet, but as a status symbol. Pit Bull OwnersThe definition of "pit bull" is not at all consistent among their owners. Furthermore, any owner's definition may evolve over time based on their experiences and gained knowledge about the breed-type. Type 1—Tough dogNovice owners' early definition of pit bull typically parallels popular imagery or the dog fighters' stereotype. This is due to these images' immediacy and prevalence, as well as the novice owner's limited experience and knowledge. Many first-time pit bull owners are easily able to obtain Richard Stratton's books, wherein the pit bull is described as a tough fighting machine. Jacqueline O'Neal's or Diane Jessup's books, wherein the pit bull is greatly normalized and the author puts forward a strong image of pit bulls-as-pets, can be more difficult to find. Furthermore, novice owners tend to receive a great deal of feedback from inexperienced friends and family members who define pit bulls via media horror stories and popular imagery. For those owners who aquired their pit bull as a status symbol and intimidation device, this definition may be quite agreeable. Therefore, they may never revise the definition past this point. Thus, owners may define pit bulls as
Type 2—Perfect angelOwners who are uncomfortable with the Type 1 definition, and who see an extreme disjoint between this and the definition that their own pit bull—usually a puppy—seems to be offering (friendly, gentle, sweet, funny, playful, etc.) will totally reject the former definition. They redefine the pit bull as a total angel, incapable of doing wrong. Common quotes by pit bull owners who use the Type 2 definition include: "He wouldn't hurt a fly," "My dog is the sweetest dog ever," "Not an aggressive bone in his body," "I trust him completely with my kids," "Perfect in every way," and so on. Many owners therefore see pit bulls as
Note: This sort of attitude is definitely not limited to pit bull owners; this can apply to an owner of any breed of dog. Type 3—Normal dogMore experienced and educated owners, having been exposed to a wider variety of material and points of view, generally reject both Type 1 and Type 2 definitions in favor of a more moderate definition. They see the pit bull as a normal dog, with typical canine needs, flaws, and abilities. Responsibilities and requirements for ownership are the same as with any other type of dog. It is generally understood that the pit bull is neither an innocent angel nor a vicious beast; the pit bull is a dog and will behave like a dog. These owners define the pit bull as
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Happypitbull.com is copyright © 2000-2009 by J. Thomas. |
Literally, the term "pit bull terrier" (from which comes the shortened term "pit bull") can be broken down into three components: "pit," "bull," and "terrier." "Pit" acknowledges the dog's history as a fighting dog (because dogs fight in "pits") while "bull" highlights the dog's bulldog ancestry and "terrier" describes the dog's terrier ancestry (see the graph and history section above). It is important to note that not every fighting dog is a Bull-and-Terrier, and not every Bull-and-Terrier is a fighting dog. The three elements (Bulldog, Terrier, fighting dog) come together only in the pit bull type dog.
This dog, according to a fad breeder, is a "pit bull."