From the start the breed earned an unjust reputation due to his fighting ability and the character

of the owner. To this day he is still trying to live down an unjust and undeserved reputation. Joseph L. Colby, The American Pit Bull Terrier, 1936

Often when humans see a void, they create something to fill it. We have seen examples this throughout history, and the American Pit Bull Terrier is a product of this dynamic. During the nineteenth century, when bull-baiting and bear-baiting were popular and socially acceptable, the Bulldog was found to be too slow for pit purposes, e.g., against rats and other small animals. The need arose for a dog with more speed and a much stronger jaw. (Colby, 130) The pit bull terrier was crossbred from the Bulldog and the English White Terrier. Not only did the pit bull fill a social need, ownership was considered a status symbol. When bull and bear baiting and dog fighting were banned, the pit bull was associated with the smartly attired young man about town, the prizefighters and tavern keepers. (Colby, 135) Regardless of the ban, breeding and fighting of pit bulls continued with full force. The son of one of the most prominent breeders in America, Joseph L. Colby published a book in 1936 titled The American Pit Bull Terrier. Colby published a manual on how to breed, raise, condition and fight pit bulls. It is clear in the initial chapters that Colby has immense respect for his animals, and does not see them as disposable, as do many others who fight dogs today. Colbys understanding and respect for his animals was extraordinary. Although his pit bulls are used to fight and make him money, the care and detail taken in breeding and raising his dogs was completely contrary to how dog fighters treat their animals today. Through his writing, and various contributors to his book, it is clear that although pit bulls were considered property, they were provided excellent care. You simply have to wonder, even though these dogs were

used for such an inhumane purpose, at what point in their history did they become the demon dog so often portrayed as today. In terms of the history of dogs, the American Pit Bull Terrier has a very short but tumultuous one. A major high in the history of the pit bull is their depiction during World War I. A series of American propaganda images, by artist Wallace Robinson, feature the pit bull as a positive representation of America. One such image is a pit bull dressed in a U. S. Navy uniform, with a star spangled neckerchief, labelled The American Watch-Dog and telling frightful Americans, Were not looking for trouble, but were ready for it. Another depicts the pit bull again in his star spangled neckerchief, surrounded by an English Bulldog, a German Dachshund, a French Bulldog, and a Russian Wolfhound. He is once again confident saying Im Neutral. BUT- Not afraid of any of them. The American Pit Bull Terrier is used to display the courage and strength of the American military forces. To tell the American people, and the world, that even though we do not want to get involved, we are not afraid if forced. Many pit bull advocates, including Cesar Milan an American dog trainer who has gained the nickname The Dog Whisperer also include the story of Sergeant Stubby. He was the first dog to ever receive the rank of Sergeant in the United States military. Although there is no confirmation of his exact breed he has been called an American Pit Bull Terrier, and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier it is certain that Stubby is a bull breed. Stubby was smuggled by his owner, Private J. Robert Conroy, to France and served in seventeen battles throughout the war. He was injured twice, and was awarded a number of medals for his bravery. After the First World War, pit bulls continued to enjoy a positive reputation. Although somewhat contested by pit bull opposition, it is thought that pit bulls earned the nickname the nanny dog because of their loyalty and tolerance towards children. Countless images have

surfaced and been publicised through social media in recent years, of pit bull type dogs seated next to young children and even babies. There is also a heavily repeated anecdote in which a mother in the early 20th century puts her injured pit bull in the pram next to her sleeping baby. Many who oppose pit bulls argue that such an action is dangerous and should never be done because they are so unpredictable. In 1936, Joseph L. Colby said the following regarding pit bulls: The general public is under the impression that this breed is carnivorous, vicious, and, fed on a diet of raw meat, would devour a human being. How easily it is to be misled into believing this to be true. I know of no other breed that is as true, loyal, kind, and affectionate as the American Pit Bull Terrier. (Colby, 241) So, what happened between 1936 and today why has the pit bull become identified as a super-predator? It is thought by pit bull advocates that the turning point for the reputation of pit bulls was in the 1970s. The American media had turned its focus to the problems at home, which, although not confirmed, this author proposes may be because Vietnam was coming to a close. The media began reporting on the overwhelming drug problems and dog fighting throughout the country, which were unfortunately inextricably linked. As the media brought attention to dog fighting, more and more people became aware of the dog that was being used for the illegal activity: the pit bull. The media stories about dog fighting may have been perceived as a warning against pit bulls, but given the rise in the pit bull population in the US the negative media attention may have also been taken as an advertisement for pit bulls. In addition to the increased coverage of drug problems, the public devoured one story in 1976, in which a dog killed a California boy. Newspapers across the US covered the story, and each time the details were reported incorrectly. The breed of the dog was always reported

differently, being referred to as a Bulldog, a Bull Terrier, and Pit Bull. One newspaper ran the headline Five-year old killed by Bulldog, yet in the very first line the dog is referred to as a Pit Bull. As well as misidentification, newspapers included incorrect facts about the anatomy of the dog, saying: Because a Bulldogs lower jaw is longer than the upper jaw, it is physically impossible for the dog to let go while there is any tension on whatever it is holding in its mouth. (Delise, 109) To further discuss the medias apparent lack of fact checking, we should first discuss the history of reporting on dog attacks. A major difference in the reporting of dog attacks today and in the 19th and early 20th centuries is that in the past, newspaper articles perceived and portrayed dogs as emotional beings. The media of that time understood that canine behaviour was complex, and used the emotional terms in an attempt to understand the motivations and reasons for the dog attack. (Delise, 58) There was a clear desire to understand the cause and effects of the dog attacks, as most newspapers presented the underlying cause for the attack, which generally explained the reason behind the attack. In 1886, a 6-year-old boy was playing with 4 of his neighbours dogs: two Collies, one Newfoundland, and one unidentified. The newspaper article clearly illustrates the human and canine behaviours, and how quickly one dogs actions can trigger a pack attack:

The Landers boy had often played with these dogs, as they have always been considered harmless. Taking for granted the gentle disposition of the dogs the child harnessed one of them, and, as he expressed it, began to play horse. In chasing the dogs he fell and one of the Collies bit his wrist...and when the child attempted to rise they turned upon him and began to tear him in a fearful manner. A man who was passing was attracted by the boys outcry, and after some difficulty succeeded in driving the dogs

away, but not until they had literally stripped the child of his clothing and almost killed him. Mitchell Daily Republican, November 7, 1886

Another factor that the media of that day covered was the human responsibility toward the dogs involved. Many articles written discussed the human fault of the dog attacks covered, including obvious factors, such as excessive heat, teasing, chaining, and abuse. They placed blame not only on the dogs, but also the owners, and if a child was involved, the childs parents. The public and media of the late 1800s and early 1900s had a grasp on the causes and reasons for dog attacks, and realized that human care and control of dogs can often be all that is needed to prevent dog attacks. (Delise, 62) Nearly 100 years later, we see a different approach. By the 1980s, the media was realizing that the stories they ran about pit bulls were evoking an emotional reaction from their audience, which only added fuel to the fire. The media began churning out stories filled with inaccuracies about pit bull anatomy and behavior, as well as myths and unproven claims by so called experts, with no mention of the causes of the reported attacks. The American media knew that these sensational and emotional stories would sell newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, economics became the driving force behind journalism, and the reputation of the pit bull was a casualty of this force. However, as the media enjoyed their pit bull reporting frenzy, the population of pit bulls was skyrocketing. United Kennel Club (UKC) registrations show a 30% increase in registrations of American Pit Bull Terriers in a single year, (1983 to 1984). (Delise, 96) The media didnt realise, or didnt care, that as a result of their riotous reporting of pit bulls and the dangerous drugs subculture, the pit bulls popularity was unfortunately increasing

in a segment of the population who will always be concerned with impressing and intimidating others. (Delise, 96) As common sense would show, exposing a dog breed involved in negative functions will not increase their popularity with the average person looking for a pet. These dogs portrayed in a negative function will only increase in popularity with owners who seek out these dogs to increase their status or power. As rap music was also closely linked to the world of drugs and dog fighting, many of the rap artists who became prominent brought their pit bulls with them. The rapper DMX is unfortunately well known for owning pit bulls. Many of his album covers show his pit bulls, and not in a positive way. His album Year of the Dog, Again depicts the rapper in an alleyway, with a snarling pit bull. In 2007, his home was raided and 12 pit bulls were seized, all reportedly in bad condition. He was later arrested on animal cruelty charges. (Barboza, 2008) One rapper has gone so far as to make his stage name Pitbull. Armando Cristian Prez chose the stage name Pitbull, and when asked why gave the following reason: "They bite to lock. The dog is too stupid to lose. And they're outlawed in Dade County. They're basically everything that I am. It's been a constant fight." (Wiltz, 2004) Unfortunately, due to the misinformation and inaccuracies of the media as fact, the public has embraced a fear and loathing of the pit bull. The broad head and square jaw of the pit bull made this myth an easy sell for the media of the 1980s. However, there are no scientific studies or evidence that proves or even remotely supports this misconception. Dr. I Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia conducted research on the functional morphology 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

which we studied. In addition, we found that the American Pit Bull Terriers did not have any unique mechanism that would allow these dogs to lock their jaws.

With a statement such as this, which is clear evidence to refute the locking jaw myth, it would seem the publics opinion should begin to soften. However, pit bulls were, and still are, up against a much deadlier force: the American politician. Politicians pushed forward the misinformation and unproven claims in order to manipulate the fear fostered by the media. Politicians took advantage of this opportunity to attack pit bulls, and to show their constituency they were doing something about these super predators. You should think, and we would all like to believe, that our laws are passed based on scientific fact, proven theories or testimony by experts. However, in the case of breed specific legislation against pit bulls, the information used is all based on media reports, which all contain incorrect facts and myths about pit bulls. Unfortunately, during the process to make breed specific legislation, the medias headlines are more often used as evidence than the testimony of canine behaviour experts. (Delise, 102) In 1989, the city of Denver, Colorado, was working to pass the first breed specific legislation against pit bulls. The city council had called in an expert, who attempted to explain how all dogs can display the same types of aggression and respond aggressively to certain stimuli. Despite the fact that this expert was a professional dog trainer, who had trained over 100 protection trained dogs of all different breeds, one councilwoman simply refused to accept the experts information regarding this topic, commenting, You cant tell me that if there was a Pit bull loose and a small terrier loose, that they are going to respond in the same manner, because that is not true. The expert reassured the councilwoman it was true, stating, You could be

attacked by a Schnauzer the same way that you could be attacked by a Pit bull. For a second time the councilwoman dismisses this mans expert opinion, responding, Im sorry but people run away from Pit bulls. People dont run away from Schnauzers. (Delise, 102) Unfortunately, the continued demonization of these dogs once again brings us back to the ever cyclical problem that this only increases the pit bulls desirability with the exactly wrong people, the people who seek a dangerous dog. Those people are the owners that will put their own community at risk by not responsibly owning their pit bulls. In a very recent example of this, a 58-year-old man in Queens, New York, was mugged. However, he was not threatened with a gun or knife, but rather a pit bull. When he refused, the dog was released on him and attacked. (Wilson, 2012) A large piece of this pit bull puzzle is just that: responsible dog owners. Karen Delise explains in her book The Pit Bull Placebo: At perhaps no time in history has mankind been as ignorant of natural canine behavior as we are today. Perhaps at no time in history has mankind been more ignorant of the essence of the familiar bond between owner and dogthe bond which drives and directs most canine behavior. And perhaps at no time in history has man publicly forsaken or denied his command of the canine species. (103) Humans are now simply standing by and absolving ourselves of any responsibility for dog attacks and the way our dogs behave. It is quite the same as someone accused of murder saying that they didnt kill anyone, the gun did. This defense would never hold up in a murder trial, so why is it acceptable for a dog owner to use the same excuse? It seems quite unlikely that after thousands of years of companionship and mastering the canine species, humans have suddenly lost that ability. After so many years of loyalty, we have betrayed canines, denying we

had any part in creating this sub-species known as the pit bull. Karen Delise says Weve thrown up our hands and cry out that we are now the victim of this breed. They have forced us to destroy them. It is not our fault; the beast has gotten away from us. (103) The pit bull, throughout its history, has been a beneficiary as well as a victim, of the media. Although not the only factor by which the pit bull has been demonized, the media has played a huge role. Vladimir Lenin is quoted as saying A lie told often enough becomes the truth. This is exactly what has happened in the case of pit bulls. The misinformation provided by the media has been repeated so many times, it has become accepted as truth, and unfortunately most people cannot be bothered to fact check the newspaper every day. We pick up our morning papers trusting that the news we are presented with is true and factual, not filled with myths and misinformation. The medias lack of credibility throughout the last twenty to thirty years has become more and more frustrating and disheartening. Is there anyone left we can trust to be honest? It seems not. However that discussion is another topic entirely. It is the opinion of this author that although the media is a large factor in the demonization of the pit bull, there are a number of factors that must change in order to remove the super predator label. In addition to the media, dog owners must take responsibility for their pets. They must train their animals correctly, and take responsibility when their animal acts out. We should no longer feign ignorance to this problem. We must take responsibility for the actions of the pit bull. If it were not for our human need for social entertainment, the pit bull would never have been created.