Just an addendum to the Pitbull thing - a few people have rightly asked the question - what does spaying and neutering of a breed (or mix of breeds) of dog over-represented in animal shelters have to do with them being a dog bred for fighting? I never proposed spaying and neutering these dogs because they were bred for fighting. I proposed it because of the sheer numbers dying in shelters.
There is a reason, dear reader, why this maligned dog has been chosen to represent modern machismo, and is being bred, carelessly, in huge numbers. It's because of what it was originally bred to do - fight other dogs. And everyone involved in the history and the breeding of the American Pitbull knows and accepts this. There is some rapid cleanser being applied to the breed. On one site, I read that the Am Pitbull is being re-worked to be more like it's cousin the American Staffordshire Terrier, which, while it can be dog aggressive, is not bred for that trait. There's also some quick acting whitewash being applied to the history of the original breeders here in the US to reduce the impact on the breed clubs they founded.
The irony of this breed is that they do have an enormous tolerance for children and can be exceptionally docile. And the outrage shown by the breeding community towards Breed Specific Legislation ignores the fact that it was their own forebears, the very originators of this breed that have brought the dog into disrepute. Blaming it on a new kind of owner just belies the history.
But when people ask me what the connection is - it's just that. They are being bred because machismo - whether in the backwoods of the South or the barrios of the West, the lofts of Manhattan or the Painted Ladies of San Francisco - is alive and well. Until the Am Pitbull is just another family pet and the history has receded far into the history books, the street cachet of owning this animal which is described on dogbreedinfo.com as a dog " of power, passion and undying willingness." will continue.
Comments