In Defense of the Pit Bull: How pseudoscience, the media, and racism turned America’s dog into a social construct

Defining “pit bull”

The pit bull has been so maligned and misrepresented that even the term “pit bull” is now imprecise. It is more of a social construct than a breed.

In its most narrow definition, “pit bull” refers to the American pit bull terrier, which dates back to 1889 in the United States. Today, the label also officially includes the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American bully.

But ask the average person to identify a pit bull, and they will also include mixed-breed dogs that have “pit bull features” but no or minimal genetic connection to pit bulls.

Indeed, the label of “pit bull” has become associated with visual characteristics, whether or not the dog in question actually has any relation to a true pit bull. The latest genetic research indicates that most dogs identified as “pit mixes” are not (Dickey, 2016).

As we’ll see, 98% of “pitbull-type” dogs are actually mixed breed dogs (in other words, not purebred) by DNA analysis (Gunter et al, 2018).

No dog is as persecuted as the pit bull, following decades of negligent and hyperbolic reporting by the media and pseudoscientific “research.” Not only that, but as the pit bull became an inexpensive guard dog for poor, often non-white populations, society projected its racial fears and hatred onto the dogs.

This has caused tremendous suffering for pit bulls and countless other dogs who have no relation to the bully breeds, but look like they do.

In this essay, we will elucidate the history of the American pit bull, identify the events that led to its demonization, and correct the record with empirical scientific data. In the process, we will debunk the racism, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience that have resulted in one of the most egregious examples of cruelty in American history.

History of the American pit bull

Pit bulls originated in the United Kingdom, where they were bred from Old English Bulldogs, the breed known for its use in bull baiting. One or two bulldogs would be let loose on a bull. The animals squared off until the bull collapsed, and this was seen as entertainment for the lower classes.

Parliament then enacted the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1835, which banned the baiting of certain animals, including bulls. The ban list did not, however, include rats, and thus the blood sport of “ratting” was born. Now the events involved releasing bulldogs into a pit with rats, which presented a new physical challenge.

Rats are quite a bit more agile than bulls, and so the bulldogs needed more agility to match. To solve this, bulldogs were crossed with the faster Terriers, leading to the first Pit Bull Terrier.

While they were used in ratting, these dogs were also selectively bred for bite inhibition towards humans.

Immigrants brought the Pit Bull Terrier to the United States, giving us the American Pit Bull Terrier. In the 19^th century, pit bulls were frontier dogs, helping the young American nation expand its borders west. They excelled at herding cattle and guarding family farms.

They displayed a loving and loyal demeanor, making them one of America’s favorite family dogs. A key correction to the record, however, is that they were never considered “nanny dogs,” a label that was attached to them in the 1970s. One should never leave children alone with any dog – there are no nanny dogs capable of watching children in the absence of adults.

Pit bulls became the American mascot, because Americans saw many qualities in the dogs that they wished their new nation to have. The dogs were friendly, brave, worked hard, and earned their respect.

They became a symbol of the American military in both world wars, even accompanying troops to the trenches. Sergeant Stubby, for instance, was a pit bull who served 18 months on the front lines, witnessing 17 battles and 4 campaigns.

Back at home, pit bulls were the stars of advertising and culture, the way golden retrievers often are today. Helen Keller, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Theodore Roosevelt, and other celebrities kept pit bulls.

After World War II, the country saw pit bulls as “regular dogs,” members of families and no more or less special than other breeds. Arguably, this was one of the best eras for the pit bull in America, when no one thought they were different.

All the while, some underground dogfighting occurred, but the reporting of it had not yet overblown the statistics and number of instances. Most pit bulls were used for herding, guarding, and family companionship (Dickey, 2016).

What changed?

Dogfighting garnered heavy and loud resistance from animal rights’ advocates in the 1970s and 1980s. While this did result in Congress amending the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 to prohibit dogfighting in all 50 states, it also inadvertently made dogfighters seek out pit bulls.

To meet the increased demand for pit bulls by people who wanted them for the wrong reasons, breeders gave little concern about temperament or socialization. They became commodities, not conscious creatures with their own emotional lives.

This trend coincided with increased media attention on dogfighting, and the public soon viewed pit bulls as the dogs that only poor “urban thugs” wanted. In short, all of the fear, racism, and class angst humans displayed toward each other became projected onto the dogs.

It was easier for the country to make pit bulls the indirect target of its racism than to admit the true underpinnings of the fear.

Then, in 1987, Time Magazine published a cover story titled “The Pit Bull: Friend and Killer”. The media became the latest party to “cash in” on the pit bull panic, turning America’s dog from a breed into a social construct. Stereotypical images of pit bulls showing their teeth appeared in a torrent of stories about “pit bull” attacks on humans.

Of course, rarely did the media take the time to verify if the dogs in question were actually pit bulls. Later studies would refute most of the breed identification done by media outlets, who labelled any dog a “pit bull” because the ensuing panic sold more papers.

But the damage was done, and still continues today. Pit bulls were seen as criminals, but this was really a reflection of how the public viewed urban, poor, and non-white citizens. The pit bull was given the same “superpredator” status that society gave young black men in the 1980s and 1990s.

That image was not true, of course, but the public’s reaction was based in fear, not logic.

In the fallout, shelter populations of pit bulls skyrocketed, and the panic gave politicians the chance to run on breed-specific legislation (BSL) (Dickey, 2016).

BSL has since been proven ineffective at reducing dog bites and fatalities in countless studies of real-world outcomes.

There are also plenty of studies refuting the media’s portrayal of pit bulls, as well as the ways in which law enforcement and the medical communities have falsely recorded “pit bull”-related incidents.

What does the science say about pit bulls?

In this section, we’ll walk through a sampling of recent peer-reviewed studies providing empirical evidence that the pit bull is not a dangerous breed, as well as refuting myths about their bite strength and incident rates.

Breed Risk

Researchers at Tufts University (Center for Animals and Public Policy, Department of Environmental and Population Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine) published data on breed-related risk information. They showed that the biggest factor in incidents of dog bite-related fatalities is irresponsible ownership, and concluded that breed is not a factor at all and is not a determinant of risk.

The study also showed that media reports are a poor source for breed information, as percentage of discrepancies between the breed reported in the press and subsequent identification by experts was 40%. Further, breed identification was only possible in about 18% of incidents.

This not only invalidates the media’s reporting on pit bulls, but it also refutes past “scientific” studies that used media stories as sources of data on “pit bull” incidents.

Since breed is not a factor in determining the risk of dog bites and dog bite-related fatalities, the study also refuted BSL as a valid policy choice (Patronek et al, 2013).

Bite Severity

Creedons College Ireland (Department of Dog Behaviour) and the National University of Ireland (School of Psychology) published a study in 2017 that looked at 140 dog bit incidents. They found that there is no difference in the medical treatment required following a bite, or in the type of bite inflicted, between breeds stereotyped as “dangerous” and other breeds of similar sizes and strengths that are not in legislated categories.

Further, they discovered that bites by breeds not stereotyped as dangerous are less likely to be reported at all, skewing the available data pool against legislated breeds.

This research, too, refutes BSL (Creedon & Ó’Súilleabháin, 2017).

Dog Bite Statistics

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a study that was published by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). It looked at 20 years of dog bite-related fatalities (238 in total), with data on 25 breeds. The data showed that the risk rate of a dog bite-related fatality for “pitbull-type” dogs is in-line with the risk rates of other large breeds.

Further, 72% of dog bite-related fatalities in the dataset involved non-pit bull type breeds.

The results also refute BSL (Sacks et al, 2000).

Breed ID and DNA

Study 1

A study by the University of Florida (College of Veterinary Medicine), Michigan State University (College of Veterinary Medicine), the Jacksonville FL Humane Society, Jacksonville FL Animal Care and Protective Services, Tallahassee FL Animal Services, and Marion County Animal Services Ocala FL was published in 2015 by The Veterinary Journal.

In it, the researchers analyzed breed identification errors in assessments of the breeds of 120 dogs. They looked for errors made between visual identifications of breeds and the dogs’ actual DNA signatures.

The results showed that “pitbull-type” dogs were misidentified 60% of the time. Specifically, 62 of the 120 dogs were visually identified as pit bulls but only 25 dogs had DNA signatures from any of the pit bull breeds.

The study is damning for media reports on pit bull incidents, which largely rely on non-expert reporters visually identifying the dogs in their stories. Researchers found that visual breed identifications by individuals in the study were “highly inconsistent” with the DNA results. The accuracy rate reached as low as 33%.

Crucially, the participants in the study were shelter staff members, who have far more experience with and knowledge of dogs than do reporters. Even their breed identification skills were unreliable.

The paper specifically weighs in on BSL: “Since injuries from dogs have not decreased following bans on particular breeds, public safety is better served by focusing on recognition and mitigation of risk factors for dog bites” (Olson et al, 2015).

Study 2

In 2018, Arizona State University published a study that concurred with the above. They analyzed the DNA of 919 dogs from two shelters and again compared shelter staff member’s visual breed identification accuracy to the dogs’ DNA signatures.

Of the “pitbull-type” dogs in the study, DNA showed that 98% were mixed breed dogs. Only 5 of the 244 total “pitbull-types” (including American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers) were purebred pit bulls.

Of those same dogs labelled “pitbull-type,” the average DNA breakdown showed that the majority (62%, or 152/244) had less than 50% DNA concentration from pit bulls.

The study concluded that visual breed identification is highly unreliable. The accuracy rate nose-dived to as low as 10.4% in their results.

On BSL, the paper explicitly states: “Because there is a lack of any scientific basis for judging how breed signatures interact within an individual dog, we believe shelters should instead focus their resources on communicating the morphology and behavior of the dogs in their care to best support matchmaking and adoption efforts” (Gunter et al, 2018).

Breed Aggression

Study 1

Researchers at the University of Veterinary Medicine of Hanover, Germany published a study in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research in 2008. They analyzed the difference in aggression levels between legislated breeds and non-legislated breeds. The Golden Retriever was used as a control group.

They looked at comprehensive aggression testing data from 415 legislated dogs (including “pitbull-type” dogs) and 70 Golden Retrievers.

The analysis showed no differences in aggression between the legislated breed group and the control group of Goldens. The paper concludes: “Comparing the results of golden retrievers and breeds affected by the legislation, no significant difference was found. A scientific basis for breed specific lists does not exist” (Ott et al, 2008).

Study 2

Research conducted by the School of Clinical Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom analyzed canine aggression towards humans. It was published in 2014 by the Journal of Applied Animal Behavior Science.

The study showed that a dog’s aggression is linked to its individual experience and/or environment. Aggression was not a trait of any particular breed, even those whose remote heritage dates back to blood sports.

Factors that correlated to higher aggression levels included intactness (male dogs who had not been neutered), age, and the use of punishment as a training method. The researchers write: “It would be inappropriate to make assumptions about an individual animal’s risk of aggression to people based on characteristics such as breed” (Casey et al, 2014).

Bite strength

Study 1

A 2009 study published in the Journal of Anatomy in 2010 tested bite force, as well as bite force measurement methods and factors that influence bite force.

Researchers from multiple universities concluded that a dog’s size, not its breed, is the most significant factor in bite force. They did not identify breed as a factor affecting bite force, concluding: “Force of biting in domestic canids is strongly related to size” (Cornelissen & Hopster, 2010).

Study 2

A 2018 study published in the Journal of Frontiers in Veterinary Science looked at bite forces in cats and dogs. Their data included bite force testing, measurement methods, and test results.

These researchers, also from multiple universities, saw similar results as the authors of the above study. Namely, a dog’s size and weight were the primary factors affecting bite force. Breed was not identified as a factor (Kim et al, 2018).

Breed-specific legislation

A plethora of studies, including the ones above, refute the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation. Others can be found below:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3552590/
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500163X
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023309003888
• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208393
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787817301405

Erroneous medical studies on dog bites

Pro-BSL special interest groups often cite a selection of medical studies to support their claim that BSL is effective. The studies suggest that bites by “pitbull-type” dogs are more severe than bites by other dogs. However, experts have since pointed out numerous problems with those studies, none of which were conducted using valid scientific methods and therefore do not hold up to professional scrutiny.

A 2017 peer-reviewed study by researchers at Northeastern University and Tufts University – Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine performed a qualitative review of 156 such medical publications tagged by terms like “dog bite” and/or “dangerous dogs.” The paper authors found that many of these medical studies were laden with misinformation, including: “clear-cut factual errors, misinterpretations, omissions, emotionally loaded language, and exaggerations based on misunderstood or inaccurate statistics.”

In many of the publications, they saw “misinformation about the significance of breed and breed characteristics.” Furthermore, no due-diligence efforts had been performed to accurately identify the breeds involved in the bite incidents.

As we’ve seen in previous papers, visual breed identification is highly unreliable. This is the primary method of breed identification by which reporters “identify” the dogs in their stories about bite incidents. Many of the publications cited news reports as their data source. This alone seriously calls into question the validity of these studies’ claims.

In short, the studies cited by pro-BSL special interests are pseudoscience and give no sound information on breed-risk. Their methods were invalid, and they blatantly cherry-picked data to support the anti-pit bull conclusion desired by the groups funding the studies.

The authors of the 2017, peer-reviewed paper conclude that BSL is nothing more than “panic policy making” with no scientific substantiation (Arluke et al, 2017).

The impact of pseudoscience and sensationalism in the press

It is estimated that there are 3 to 5 million pit bulls in American shelters, many of which lack the necessary space and money to care for the dogs. Research indicates that dogs labelled “American pit bull terriers” represent most of the country’s shelter populations, though at least half of those have no pit bull DNA (Gunter et al, 2016).

Due to overpopulation and scorn shown to the breed by potential adopters, many end up among the 1.2 million (ASPCA estimate) dogs that America euthanizes each year.

Not only that, but BSL policies across the nation have resulted in the seizure and execution of countless dogs. In many cases, “pitbull type” dog owners in cities and towns where BSL laws passed opted to euthanize their own family pets before the government could come and forcibly take and kill them (Dickey, 2016).

While the media is to blame for a large portion of this suffering, they are not the root problem. After all, their irresponsible reporting full of misinformation, conspiracy, and pseudoscience about pit bulls needed receptive listeners and readers in order for it to have the negative impact that it has.

Still America’s dog, but in two different ways

The pit bull was once America’s dog in the sense that it was the nation’s mascot, seen as representing the best qualities of its citizens.

It is still America’s dog, but not in that same sense.  

In one new sense, the pit bull is America’s dog because it has become caught up in and has come to represent one of the oldest conflicts in the nation’s history: America’s fear about its own racial and socio-economic diversity. Hundreds of years of hatred and persecution have been projected onto the dogs, making them a social construct, not a breed.

It was easier on the consciences of Americans to vilify the pit bull, seen as the type of dog that non-white, poor, urban populations favored, than to face the ugly truth that white America still sees those human populations as the “other.”

Dangerous, different, rough, violent, aggressive…it’s in their nature, it’s in their genetics. Those are all words often used to describe pit bulls. Now, apply them to people instead. When you do, the parallels to hateful language spewed about people of color in America are obvious. The very same arguments once used to advocate for slavery (and still used in the white supremacist movement) have been refashioned and deployed against pit bulls.

But is it really about the dogs, or is America’s racial cruelty still as big a danger as ever, this time collecting pit bulls as collateral damage? It is clearly the latter, as science has ruled out any possibility that the demonization of pit bulls is based in rationality.

In a second, more positive sense, the war of cruelty waged against pit bulls has inspired a pro-pit bull countermovement that is dramatically improving the situation. While significant problems remain, as seen by those shelter statistics, public perception of the pit bull is turning around.

Just as Americans have stood up to fight against racial injustice (a project with much work left to do), people are stepping up to help pit bulls. And in this sense, the pit bull is still America’s dog in that it represents the positive outcomes possible when Americans fight for the ideals on which the country was founded.

Ever since the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal, people see pit bulls more as victims of abuse than as violent offenders. Furthermore, protests, marches, and engaged activism have pressured politicians to reverse BSL (Dickey, 2016). A map of current BSL locations can be found here: https://bslcensus.com/.

It is worth noting that many of the states that continue to enforce BSL are former slave states. They are many of the same states that currently pursue policies seeking to reduce voting participation by people of color, and states that frequently see reports of law enforcement targeting poor and non-white populations.

It’s not about the dogs. Our fear of pit bulls is really fear of each other. As Americans tend to do, we choose not to confront our racial conflicts and injustices. The easier option is to find a scapegoat, or really any way to keep the peace. As of this writing, the pit bull has been that scapegoat for four decades.

It is time for scientific rationality to end the cruelty, just as science has refuted every single argument that proponents of slavery once levelled against African Americans.

The best thing for pit bulls is for people to stop talking about them.

They are dogs. Normal dogs, who do what dogs do. They are no different from other breeds. Science has spoken.

Now America must face the human problem underlying its pit bull problem.

Bibliography