By John Radford
Dedicated to Jojo, Happy Birthday to the “goodest doggo” one could ever have
As a first-year student here at the University of Georgia, this is one of the first times I’ve spent an extended amount of time away from home. Among the many things I miss is my dog, Jojo. Whenever I see service dogs on campus, I’m immediately hit with a wave of sadness and homesickness, as I remember the many happy memories and experiences that my dog has provided me. The saying “a dog is a man’s best friend” is a gross understatement to me. As Jojo’s fifth birthday approaches, I am reminded about how this dog and his breed’s history in the United States is intimately related to my identity as an African American man. My dog is an American Pit Bull Terrier which is one of the dog breeds associated with“pit bull” type dogs. Unfortunately, the pit bull has been unfairly marred by controversy and profiling comparable and connected to the intersectional struggles that the Black community and other marginalized communities face.
The history of how pit bull dogs came to be is interesting and complex. First off, “pit bulls” do not exist as their own specific breed. Rather, the term broadly refers to a line of dogs that were bred in England in the 1800s from the English Bulldogs (this means that pit bulls share a common ancestor, our beloved mascot, Uga). Most canine experts include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and American Bullies in this category. These dogs were bred to fight in the sport of “bull baiting,” where they fought against actual bulls (hence the “bull” in their names). After the British government banned this sport in 1835, these pit bull-style dogs were domesticated further and soon became popular guard dogs in both the United Kingdom and the United States. For the majority of the early 20th century, pit bulls were lauded as “America’s Dog.” Many Americans at the time associated pit bulls with loyalty, fearlessness, and protection. Many U.S. presidents at this time owned pit bulls, including President Woodrow Wilson and President Theodore Roosevelt. In both WWI and WWII, pit bulls even served on the frontlines with American soldiers in combat, carrying messages and sniffing out incoming enemy mustard gas attacks.
With this amount of former prestige, respect, and reverence, one may be baffled at how these dogs got the bad reputation they have now. The conventional explanation for this shift tells the story that in the 1960s and 1970s, underground dogfighting saw a resurgence in the United States, particularly in Black and Brown intercity communities. Breeders would breed pit bulls outside of American Kennel Club regulations, which contributed to overpopulation and more pronounced and intense fighting capabilities. Although dogfighting became illegal in the United States in 1978, the practice continued. While it is true that pit bulls became popular for dogfighting, this narrative conveniently ignores the fact that at the same time, pit bulls served a positive role in economically depressed Black and Brown neighborhoods as guard dogs, since social services were inept at protecting these people. However, the damage was already done, and Americans’ perception of pit bulls became integrally tied to the plight of the “dangerous” inner city. The upper-class white community indicted pit bulls as a reflection of the stigmatized problems of the Black community. False urban legends presented pit bulls as an inherently dangerous breed of dog.. As White politicians were trying to galvanize votes under “tough-on-crime” banter by calling poor Black men “thugs,” “gangsters,” and “superpredators” in the 1980s and 1990s, the public at large began to perceive pit bulls as the right-hand man to the Black criminal’s illegal activities.
As Black people moved to the historically white suburbs in the late 20th century, they brought their beloved pit bulls with them, White suburban communities, spooked by the negative stereotype of these dogs, turned to their politicians to ensure that pit bulls would not threaten their way of life. This fear-driven political pressure culminated in the adoption of breed-specific legislation (BSL). According to Michigan State University Law School’s Animal Center, BSL refers to a regulation that is directed toward one or more specific breeds of dogs. This type of legal framing targets dogs that have a negative public perception, like pit bulls. Since this style of legislation’s inception in the early 1980s, there are BSL laws in over 1,000 municipalities in 37 states. Furthermore, many countries have national-level BSL laws including Ireland, Australia, and ironically, the United Kingdom. Even here in Georgia, nine cities and counties have some type of BSL. While the stated intention of these laws is to protect the public, they are based on misconceptions and blatant lies. Many of the perceived “physical characteristics” of pit bulls are false. A researcher from the University of Georgia, Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, conducted physical research of the jaws of various dog breeds and found that there were “no mechanical or morphological differences between the jaws of American Pit Bull Terriers and those of any of the other comparable breeds of dogs” and that “American Pit Bull Terriers did not have any unique mechanism that would allow these dogs to lock their jaws,” debunking the popular myth that pit bulls are the only breed of dog that can “lock their jaws” while biting something. In many cases, BSL laws do not decrease instances of dog bites. When Ireland placed regulations on 11 dog breeds in 1998, the overall number of dog bites went up in the decade that followed. The only tangible accomplishment the Irish law has been able to achieve is forcibly seize innocent and non-threatening dogs from their owners.
So if Breed Specific Legislation doesn’t prevent attacks, and the laws are based on fundamentally incorrect information, then what’s the point of this legislation? Many pit bull owners, particularly those who are Black and Brown in low-income communities see these laws as yet another tool of the political and economic affluent to discriminate against and ostracize both marginalized racial minorities and an innocent type of dog. Thousands of pit bull owners across the country raise their dogs to be loving parts of their families and communities. Is it true that there have been some terrible breeders that have raised dangerous pits? Absolutely. However, this country cannot have it both ways. The United States cannot preach about how we should consider the actions of the individual, not the group, while simultaneously condemning an entire group of dogs on the actions of a few humans. Especially if that dog has no ability to determine its destiny.