About Pit Bulls and Parolees

Pit bulls are eager to please, faithful and enthusiastic friends and pleasant with children according
to credible canine organizations. Really, it's true. Yet, the public largely associates these dogs with fear,
danger and unyielding aggression toward people.
Pit bulls actually were once ranked among American's top five favorite pets and were also known
as the "nanny dog" for their gentleness with children. But they have fallen from grace. Now often
associated with gang members, dog fighting and attacks, pit bulls are misunderstood, misjudged and
under-appreciated. Their bad rap stems from many misconceptions -- the biggest is that they are "killer"
dogs that pose a threat to society. While most dogs are known as man's best friend, people have lost hope
for the pit bull.
Time for that to change. Animal Planet introduces you to this breed's greatest ally -- she's fiery
and she's determined to end the needless hostility toward pit bulls. Meet Tia Torres -- 49-year-old mother,
top pit bull trainer and founder and owner of Villalobos Rescue Center -- the country's largest rescue
facility for pit bulls. In Pit Bulls and Parolees, Torres is dead set on fighting the perception that pit bulls
are the pariahs of the dog world and giving the ones in her care the love they deserve.
At her center, outside of New Orleans, La., Torres rescues, rehabilitates and retrains more than
400 pit bulls, so they can be placed in good homes. And she pairs those misunderstood animals with a
half-dozen ex-convicts on parole to provide both man and man's best friend a chance at redemption.
"Not many are willing to give a second chance to these parolees," says Torres, "But I have. And
now the 'bad boys' of society meet the so-called 'bad boys' of the canine community, and boom! Just like
that -- they create magic together. They bring out a side of each other that's sweet, warm and unbelievably
touching."
Because of irresponsible ownership, pit bulls have been blamed for the wrongdoings of their
owners. These days, pit bulls unjustly are viewed as unadoptable, with many shelters automatically
deciding to put them down. Fighting stereotypes against both pit bulls and parolees, Torres wants people
to understand that these dogs can make incredible pets and that people should think twice before they
judge this breed and the guys who work at her rescue to help save them.
"I know what it's like to be misunderstood," says Torres. "I grew up on the edge of society,
hanging out in gang-infested neighborhoods and ultimately marrying into that 'watch-your-back' way of
life. The guys I hire are ones whom no one else wants. I always have wanted to put my 'badness' to good
use, so I combined my lifestyle with my love for animals by giving parolees the chance to make a real
difference."
Pit Bulls & Parolees follows the turbulent drama and bittersweet moments as ex-convicts and illreputed dogs come together to strengthen one another. Sharing the same dominant traits of a pit bull -determination, agility, strength and energy -- Torres has the power to make a positive change for the
prison community and the dog world. Watch as one woman pulls the weight of 1,000 men to fulfill her
dream of saving pit bulls from dangerous situations and giving parolees a chance to repair their
reputations and their lives.

Position Statement on Dangerous Dog Laws

The ASPCA recognizes that there are dogs who by virtue either of training or lack of training and
socializationespecially in combination with a genetic predisposition to be wary of strangers, aggressive
toward other dogs and/or predatory toward other animalsmay pose serious threats if inadequately
supervised and controlled by their guardians. In order for dogs to live harmoniously with people and with
other companion animals, it is critical to hold guardians responsible for the proper supervision of their
dogs and for any actions on their part that either create or encourage aggressive behavior. At the same
time, laws that target dangerous dogs must be mindful of the rights of pet guardians and afford them
due process. These laws should target only those dogs who truly pose a serious risk to other animals or to
people. They should also take into account the fact that there are situations in which aggressive behavior
is justified, such as when a dog is protecting himself or herself, her guardian, her offspring or her home
from harm or when the dog has reason to fear a person or animal who has harmed her in the past.
The ASPCA believes that dog guardians should be held responsible for unjustified harm or
damage done by their pets. Guardians who breed dogs known to possess strong aggressive tendencies or
who train dogs to be aggressive should be liable not only civilly for damage done by their dogs, but also
under criminal provisions that prohibit such conduct. The ASPCA opposes dangerous dog laws that
designate specific breeds of dog as dangerous, vicious or potentially dangerous or vicious
without regard to the temperament or behavior of the individual dog. There is no credible evidence that
breed determines or predicts dangerousness. Dangerous dog laws should be narrowly drawn to define
dangerous dogs as those who have either attacked a person or another animal without justification,
causing injury or death, or those who exhibit behavior that strongly suggests the risk of such an attack, as
determined by a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, a board-certified veterinary behaviorist or another
trained and experienced animal behavior expert.
Dangerous dog laws should focus on the behavior of individual dogs and all of the circumstances
surrounding an event, including those that may justify a dogs aggressive actions. Once a dog is deemed
dangerous according to the criteria listed in the paragraph above, the court should require the animals
guardian to take all of the following actions: Evaluation by a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist or a
board-certified veterinary behaviorist and completion of any training or other treatment as deemed
appropriate by that expert; Spaying or neutering; Secure, humane confinement in a manner that prevents
escape and unsupervised contact with the public, permits the dog adequate exercise and provides
protection from the elements; Direct supervision by an adult 18 years of age or older whenever the dog is
on public property; Restraint on a leash whenever the dog is in public; Muzzling in public in a manner
that prevents the dog from biting people and other animals but does not injure the dog or interfere with his
vision or respiration and; microchipping
Euthanasia or permanent confinement of the dog are extreme remedies and should be utilized
only when the dog has attacked a person or domesticated animal without justification and has caused
serious physical injury or death or when a qualified behaviorist who has personally evaluated the dog
determines that the dog poses a substantial risk of such behavior and that no other remedy will make the
dog suitable to live safely with people.
Dangerous dog laws must accord pet guardians adequate opportunity to challenge charges
brought against their pets. Guardians should have the right to be heard, to appeal a dangerous dog finding
and to call for a stay of the disposition pending such appeal. Enforcement of dangerous dog laws is
ultimately the responsibility of local government authorities, and it is important that they exercise their
responsibility with vigor and discretion to protect both the public and responsible pet guardians.

Position Statement on Pit Bulls

Dog breeds are characterized by certain physical and behavioral traits. Each breed was developed
to perform a specific job, whether that job is hunting rabbits, retrieving downed birds, herding livestock
or sitting on peoples laps. When developing a breed, breeders selected only those dogs that performed
their job best to produce the next generation.
Physical abilities and behavior are both important facets of any breed. A well-bred dog should
have both the physical attributes necessary to perform its job and the behavioral tendencies needed to
learn it. Its not surprising that individuals of a specific breed tend to look and behave somewhat similarly.
Pointers are more likely than Poodles to point, and sheepdogs are more likely than lapdogs to herd.
However, while a dogs genetics may predispose it to perform certain behaviors, tremendous behavioral
variation exists among individuals of the same breed or breed type. Its also important to note that some
dog breeds are now bred for entirely different jobs than those for which they were originally developed.
For example, certain strains of Golden Retrievers are now being bred as service dogs, a far cry from their
original job of retrieving downed birds.
Todays pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting doga dog that was bred to
bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals
was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger,
slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic
dog for fighting other dogs.
Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more
likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesnt mean that they cant be around other dogs or that
theyre unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship.
These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even
those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for
fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated.
Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an
undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct
aggression toward people than dogs that arent aggressive to other dogs.
It is likely that that the vast majority of pit bull type dogs in our communities today are the result
of random breedingtwo dogs being mated without regard to the behavioral traits being passed on to
their offspring. The result of random breeding is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral
predispositions. For this reason it is important to evaluate and treat each dog, no matter its breed, as an
individual.
While a dogs genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a
vacuum. Rather, behavior develops through a complex interaction between environment and genetics.
This is an especially important consideration when we look at an individual dog versus a breed. Many
diverse and sometimes subtle factors influence the development of behavior, including, but not limited to,
early nutrition, stress levels experienced by the mother during pregnancy, and even temperature in the
womb. And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing
conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors
that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that its usually impossible to
point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such
variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the
same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the pit bull specifically bred for generations to be

aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive
toward people.
Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing
aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people
and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults. Given
the powerful impact of socialization, its no surprise that dogs that are chained outside and isolated from
positive human interaction are more likely to bite people than dogs that are integrated into our homes.
Unfortunately, pit bull type dogs that find themselves in these conditions may be at greater risk for
developing aggressive behavior. But because these factors are ones that can be controlled by better
educated owners, it is possible to reduce these risks, not just in pit bulls but in dogs of all breeds.
The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive
traits. Therefore the responsible ownership of any dog requires a commitment to proper socialization,
humane training and conscientious supervision. Despite our best efforts, there will always be dogs of
various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society. We can effectively address the
danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous enforcement of laws that focus, not
on breed, but on peoples responsibility for their dogs behavior, including measures that hold owners of
all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs. Breed neutral
dangerous dog laws, leash laws that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners property, and
anti chaining laws can control the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help
reduce the risk of harm to people and other animals.
Laws that ban particular breeds of dogs do not achieve these aims and instead create the illusion,
but not the reality, of enhanced public safety. Notably, there are no statewide laws that discriminate based
on dog breed, and 18 states have taken the proactive step of expressly banning laws that single out
particular breeds for disparate legal treatment. Even the White House has weighed in against laws that
target specific breeds. In a statement issued in 2013, President Obama said [w]e dont support breedspecific legislationresearch shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a
waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when
theyre intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.
All dogs, including pit bulls, are individuals. Treating them as such, providing them with the care,
training and supervision they require, and judging them by their actions and not by their DNA or their
physical appearance is the best way to ensure that dogs and people can continue to share safe and happy
lives

Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs

Abstract
Objective: Maiming and death due to dog bites are uncommon but preventable tragedies. We
postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and
that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls.
Design: We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our level I trauma center with
dog bites during a 15-year period. We determined the demographic characteristics of the patients, their
outcomes, and the breed and characteristics of the dogs that caused the injuries.
Results: Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries;
for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared
with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury
Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or
lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a
higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).
Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital
charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls
may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

The Breeds Most Likely to Kill

As of May 25, 2013, the USA death count from dogs in 2013 is 14. Of these, 13 people were
killed by pit bulls. In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and
Rottweilers: "Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human
DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and
Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993
through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human
DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for
anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a
breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds
of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA
2000;217:836-840.)
The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to
Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the
canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and
maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of
dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or
more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman
pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have
been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.
The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is
about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to
be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in
the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl
Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section,
Page B-5.)
In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that
the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to
kill. In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that: Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite
a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for
making a dog into something dangerous. An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation
that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the
Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above). Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though
its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a
dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether
or not it is going to attack.

A Breed Apart?
The abandoned puppy was barely surviving and was in terrible condition when Emily Larocque
adopted it four years ago. At the time, she didnt know its breed. It didnt look like a pit bull, she said. It
was. The Kekaha woman named the female dog Biscuit and raised it in her home. But early on, she had
her doubts. She wondered, Is she going to grow into this vicious thing everybody tells you about? Its
been just the opposite, she said. Biscuit grew into a strong, 70-pound, smiling pet. Shes a love bug. She
loves people. I dont think shes ever been around a person she does not love, Larocque said. If Biscuit
had been raised in a home where she was chained up all the time and not allowed to be with the family,
she would probably be a different dog, Larocque said. But she sleeps in the same bed as Larocque and has
slept around her cats, too. The dog just needed hope, she said.
But when it comes to pit bulls, not everyone agrees that they just need lots of love and training.
Pit bulls, which tend to be large, powerful animals, are under fire for being aggressive. Some argue they
were bred to fight other dogs and their genetic disposition makes them too dangerous to be around people,
especially children.
Kapaa resident James Kimo Rosens dog Obama was attacked by a pit bull running loose last
year. He hasnt forgotten how terrifying the incident was. He only saved Obama by holding him up until a
Good Samaritan came running up and grabbed the dog, he said. A friend, Rosen wrote, was attacked by
pit bulls a few years ago and needed 38 stitches in her upper arm. He said there is a reason pit bulls have
been banned in 12 countries and some counties wont allow people to own them. He doesnt agree that its
how the dog was raised, rather than what is in its genes. These dogs are born with aggression and the
ability to kill, he wrote. There have been pit bull attacks on Kauai. In June 2013, a pit bull attack caused
the death of another dog at Moloaa Bay. In April 2014, pit bulls broke into the back porch of a Hanamaulu
home and killed a 5-year-old Shih Tzu/Pomeranian. In March of this year, a pit bull, which was a family
dog, bit a 2-year-old boy. The dog was euthanized.
Kristi Sasachika and Chance Kinney of Kilauea own two pit bull mixes named Butters and Coco.
They adopted Butters from the Kauai Humane Society when he was a puppy three years ago. Coco is
nearly a year old. Sasachika had no hesitation about adopting Butters because he was a pit bull. Theyve
been around people from when they were puppies, they were socialized pretty well, she said. Both dogs
are playful, Sasachika said, but might frighten people because theyre loud when theyre excited. The
couple take their pets to the dog park, where they do well around other dogs. They love it. They run and
go in the pool, she said. Sasachika said how a dog turns out has more to do with how it is raised than its
breed. The owner has to be kind to them, train them well, socialize them a lot, she said.
Becky Gagnon, owner of Happy Dog training on Kauai, has worked with pit bulls and doesnt
believe theyre naturally aggressive. She said pit bulls are sometimes adopted by people who want a
larger, stronger, even scary dog for a status symbol, so they have that reputation. We cant just say pit
bulls are the ones that do this, she said. Any dog is capable of biting someone, which is why its
important they be socialized and supervised. Dogs must be trained to obey the family and kept out of
situations it cant handle. Positive training methods, which are a focus of Gagnons program, are
important. My first inclination is yes, theyre fabulous pets, she said. Extremely people friendly. They
really like people. But regardless of how friendly they are, Gagnon said that a pit bull, or any dog,
should not be left alone with a child. To leave a dog alone with a child is dangerous, she said.
Since April 2014, KHS has received 218 pit bull mixes. Seventy-one were owner surrendered and
147 were strays. Of those, 38 were adopted and 62 were returned to their owner.

KHS currently has some pit bulls up for adoption, including two American pit bulls, Hanai and
Catfish. Both are described as strong and friendly. Penny Cistaro, KHS executive director, said pit bulls
can be aggressive, but so can other breeds. You cant categorize pit bulls across the board, she said.
You have to look at the dog itself and not necessarily the breed. She said pit bulls can be loving, caring,
smart dogs that are easy to train. KHS treats pit bulls the same as other dogs when it comes to
determining their temperament and whether they should be put up for adoption. If people breed them for
aggression, thats where a problem comes in, she said.
Val Masters of Sacramento, California, has 30 years of experience training and owning pit bulls
and is a certified dog behavior consultant. She estimated she has worked with 5,000 pit bulls and has
owned six. She said that in general, pit bulls are great with people, but issues can come up, and it is most
cases, it has to do with how they were raised. If theyre left tied up all the time and not allowed to
socialize with people or other dogs, they probably wont behave appropriately. Pit bulls, because they
were bred to fight, tend to be aggressive around other dogs, she said, but can be just fine with them, too.
When a pit bull does bite, it can cause significant damage because theyre very strong dogs, Masters said.
Any dog thats big and strong, you want to take more precautions with, she said.
Pit bulls are not really for novice pet owners. They need someone who will be firm, fair and
consistent. They need structure, socialization and positive training methods. Harsh corrective methods can
cause them to shut down, Masters said. Theyre sensitive, believe it or not, she said.
Rosen disagrees. He said local laws are needed regarding pit bull ownership, but things wont
change until a person is attacked by a pit bull on county property and lawsuits start rolling in. You can
train lions and tigers, too. However, would you want one as a pet? Probably not, he wrote. No matter
how well trained, a pit bull can turn on you at any time. They kill people and other dogs. Larocque
doesnt believe pit bulls are vicious by nature. Every dog has the potential to bite, she said. You cant
just say the whole breed is bad, she said. Its more of how theyre raised. There can be a bad dog in any
breed.

Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

President Obama is looking more and more like dogs best friend.
In the same week the First family welcomed its newest member an adorable Portuguese water
dog named Sunny Obama also tried to take a bite out of laws that target specific dog breeds. In
response to a petition against Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) posted on We The People, the
governments official site for citizen suggestions and commentary, the Obama administration came out
unequivocally against the mostly-local laws:
We dont support breed-specific legislation research shows that bans on certain types of dogs
are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They
found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that its
virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds. The response also noted that the CDC
suggests a community-based approach as an alternative, and more effective, method of preventing dog
bites. Ultimately, we think thats a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and
pet owners, said the statement. In addition to the CDC, organizations like the American Bar Association
and the American Humane Association have also come out against BSL.
That the administration replied at all to this petition is perhaps the best evidence yet, other than
the familys two dogs, that the Obamas care deeply about canine rights. We The Peoples Terms of
Participation clearly state that an administration response is only required once a petition reaches 100,000
signatures. This particular petition had only 30,000 supporters, meaning the administration voluntarily
chose to make a public statement on the matter.
Breed Specific Legislation has been implemented in hundreds of municipalities across the U.S.,
including Prince Georges County, Maryland, located just a short drive away from the White House. The
county has banned pit bulls outright, and according to the Maryland Dog Federation, those found within
the county are usually either put down or donated to families in other areas. However, there is strong
opposition to the laws, and the same federation reports that 17 states have banned legislation that single
out specific types of dogs.
In addition to going against neighboring counties, Obama has also placed himself squarely in
opposition to many in the United States military. The Marine Corps bans large dog breeds with a
predisposition toward aggressive or dangerous behavior, including pit bulls, from on-base housing, and
many Air Force, Army and Navy installations have followed suit. (The anti-pit bull website DogsBite.org
catalogs exactly which bases and municipalities have banned certain dog breeds.)
Will the administrations stance convince states and military authorities to drop Breed Specific
Legislation for good? At least one anti-BSL activist thinks it will help.
The White House is such a bully pulpit for important issues, Lisa LaFontaine, president of the
Washington Humane Society, told the Huffington Post. And certainly for them to come down against this
type of discrimination I think will give pause to any communities that are thinking about putting
something like this in place, and certainly will fuel the work thats already being done by advocates to
overturn legislation that already exists.
Its a really happy day, LaFontaine added.

Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog bite-related fatalities
(DBRF) in the United States.1-3 Most victims were children. Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were
involved in approximately a third of human DBRF reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through
1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from
1993 through 1996. These data have caused some individuals to infer that certain breeds of dogs are more
likely to bite than others and should, therefore, be banned or regulated more stringently.4,5 The purposes
of the study reported here were to summarize breeds associated with reported human DBRF during a 20year period and assess policy implications.
Procedure
We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts
related to dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies.1-3 The HSUS maintains a
registry of human DBRF, including date of death, age and sex of decedent, city and state of attack,
number and breeds of dogs involved, and circumstances relating to the attack. To supplement HSUS
reports, as in the past, a database6 was searched for accounts of human DBRF that occurred in 1997 and
1998. Our search strategy involved scanning the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words and
word combinations likely to represent human DBRF followed by a review of articles containing those
terms. Data obtained from HSUS and news accounts were merged to maximize detection of human DBRF
and avoid duplicate reports. One new human DBRF from 1996 was identified in the 1997 and 1998
reports and was added to the existing data for 1996. A human DBRF was defined as a human death
caused by trauma from a dog bite. In addition to excluding 9 human deaths, as described in previous
reports (eg, dying of rabies from a dog bite, strangling on a leash or scarf pulled by a dog, dying from fire
ant bites after being pushed on a mound by a dog, or dying from a motor vehicle or bicycle crash while
being chased by a dog), for 1997 and 1998, we excluded 3 additional deaths: death resulting from
infection secondary to a dog bite, death attributable to trauma from being knocked over but not bitten, and
death resulting from myocardial infarction, which was caused by an individual being chased but not
bitten. For the 20-year study, we excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by guard or police dogs at work
and approximately 90 deaths when breed information for the attacking dog was unavailable; thus, this
study included approximately 72% of cases of human DBRF and is not exhaustive. We tallied data in 2
ways to provide alternatives for breed data interpretation. First, we used a human death-based approach in
which we counted whether a particular breed was involved in a death. When multiple dogs of the same
breed were involved in the same fatal episode, that breed was counted only once (eg, if 10 Akitas attacked
and killed a person, that breed was counted once rather than 10 times). When crossbred dogs were
involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dogs lineage was counted once for that episode.
Second, we tallied data by dog. When multiple dogs of the same breed were involved in a single incident,
each dog was counted individually. We allocated crossbred dogs into separate breeds and counted them
similarly (eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a person, Great Dane was counted 3 times
under crossbred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred). Data are presented separately for
dogs identified as pure- and crossbred. Lastly, dogs were classified as to whether they were on or off the
owners property and restrained (eg, chained or leashed) or unrestrained at the time of the attack.
Results
Fatalities during 1997 and 1998During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died as the result of
dog bite attacks (18 people in 1997 and 9 in 1998). Of 27 human DBRF, 19 (70%) were children (1 was
30 days old, 3 were between 7 and 11 months old, 9 were between 1 and 4 years old, and 6 were between
5 and 11 years old), and 8 were adults (ages 17, 44, 64, 70, 73, 75, 75, and 87). Approximately half (n =

15 [56%]) of the human DBRF were male. Five (19%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs off the owners
property, 18 (67%) involved unrestrained dogs on the owners property, 3 (11%) involved restrained dogs
on the owners property, and 1 (4%) involved a restrained dog off the owners property. Eighteen (67%)
deaths involved 1 dog, 5 (19%) involved 2 dogs, and 4 (15%) involved 3 dogs. Sixty percent of attacks by
unrestrained dogs off the owners property involved more than 1 dog. Fatal attacks were reported from 17
states (California [4 deaths]; Georgia and North Carolina [3 each]; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin [2
each]; and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New
York, South Dakota, and Tennessee [1 each]). Some breed information was reported for all 27 attacks. As
in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by
pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these 2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of human
deaths. Twenty-year dataSome breed information was available for 238 human DBRF. More than 25
breeds of dogs were involved in DBRF during the past 20 years (Table 2). Of 227 human DBRF for
which data were available, 55 (24%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs off the owners property, 133
(58%) involved unrestrained dogs on the owners property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on the
owners property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off the owners property. Four hundred three
dogs were responsible for these attacks. There were almost twice as many dogs involved in off-ownerproperty attacks, compared with attacks occurring on the owners properties. In 160 human deaths, only 1
dog was involved; in 49 deaths, 2 dogs were involved; and in 15 deaths, 3 dogs were involved. Four and 7
dogs were involved in 3 deaths each; 5, 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each; and 11 and 14
dogs were responsible for 1 death each.
Discussion
Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculated to compare breeds and quantify the relative
dangerousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by Breed X relative to a population of 10,000
Xs (1/1,000) implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y relative to a population of 1,000,000 Ys
(0.1/1,000). Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y would be perceived to be the more
dangerous breed on the basis of the number of fatalities. Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities,
because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human
DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the
breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are
likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2
Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our
methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because
identification of a dogs breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular
dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not
clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29%
of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more
than once. Therefore, we have elected to present data separately for purebred and crossbred dogs to
demonstrate at least 2 alternative counting methods. Relative rankings do not differ greatly whether one
focuses only on purebred dogs or includes crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problematic when
estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific population sizes). The denominator of a dog breed-specific
human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not
currently available. Considering American Kennel Club registration data7 for Rottweilers in parallel with
fatality data for that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in popularity, so have Rottweiler-related
deaths (24,195 registrations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273 registrations from 1983
through 1990 and 6 deaths; and 692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 deaths). However,
official registration or licensing data are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds may be less

likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their dogs4 and, thus, should not be used to
calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be
accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or
owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. Despite
these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67%
of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted
for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be
a breed-specific problem with fatalities. Although the fatality data are concerning, one must broaden the
context to consider both fatal and nonfatal bites when deciding on a course of action. Nonfatal dog bites
continue to be a public health problem in the United States. Although this and prior reports1-3 document
more than 330 DBRF during a 20-year period, these tragedies represent only the most severe
manifestation of the problem. In 1986, nonfatal dog bites resulted in an estimated 585,000 injuries that
required medical attention or restricted activity.8 By 1994, an estimated 4.7 million people (1.8% of the
US population) sustained a dog bite; of these, approximately 800,000 (0.3% of the US population) sought
medical care for the bite (332,000 in emergency departments), and 6,000 were hospitalized.9-11 This 36%
increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective
response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of
all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites
have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are
promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public
policy regarding dog bite prevention. Several interacting factors affect a dogs propensity to bite,
including heredity, sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral),
reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a study in
Denver of medically-attended dog bites in 1991 suggested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite
than female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained
dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs.12 Communities have tried to address the dog
bite problem by focusing on different factors related to biting behavior. To decrease the risk of dog bites,
several communities have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In general, these have focused on
pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human DBRF have varied over time.
Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the
following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16);
Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever
(3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow
Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As
ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF;
between 1997 and 1998, Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human
DBRF. Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks
on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire terrier, and a Labrador retriever. In addition to issues
surrounding which breeds to regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practical issues. For optimal
enforcement, there would need to be an objective method of determining the breed of a particular dog.
Pedigree analysis (a potentially time consuming and complicated effort) combined with DNA testing (also
time-consuming and expensive) is the closest to an objective standard for conclusively identifying a dogs
breed. Owners of mixed-breed or unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of knowing
whether their dog is one of the types identified and whether they are required to comply with breedspecific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement personnel have few means for positively determining a dogs
breed and deciding whether owners are in compliance or violation of laws. Some municipalities have
attempted to address this classification issue of unregistered and mixed breed dogs by including within
their ordinances a description of the breed at which the ordinance is directed. Unfortunately, such

descriptions are usually vague, rely on subjective visual observation, and result in many more dogs than
those of the specified breed being subject to the restrictions of the ordinance. When a specific breed of
dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners fourteenth
amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people and
property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore,
violate owners equal protection rights; and second, because identification of a dogs breed with the
certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dogs owner is prohibitively difficult, such ordinances have
been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process. Despite such concerns, a
number of breed-specific ordinances have been upheld by the courts.14-16 Another concern is that a ban
on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the
same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific
legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained
to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the
effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to
breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior.
Although, it is not systematically reported, our reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in a great many cases and should be sufficient
evidence for preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous dog and owner behaviors are
numerous. The potential importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated by our data; from
1979 through 1998, 24% of human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically more than 1) that were
roaming off the owners property. Some deaths might have been averted through more stringent animal
control laws and enforcement (eg, leash laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention
effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and programs has not been systematically evaluated, free
roaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are problems that need to be addressed even if they do
not bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes). Generic nonbreed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be
enacted that place primary responsibility for a dogs behavior on the owner, regardless of the dogs
breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners
are required to assume legal liability for the behavior and actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to
seek professional help in training and socializing their pets. Other options include enforcing leash laws
and laws against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that less than one half of 1% of DBRF were
caused by leashed animals off the owners property. Subdivisions and municipalities that outlaw fences or
limit fences to heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be increasing the probability of children
interacting with unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects of such regulations are important.
Education of dog owners can address several issues: (1) understanding breed profiles19,20 may assist
owners in selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and training abilities, (2) convincing owners to
seriously consider the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is important because male and sexually
intact dogs are more likely to bite than are female and neutered dogs,12 and (3) teaching owners about the
importance of socialization and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a dog that will
eventually bite. Veterinarians play a key role in educating pet owners, but because many dogs that bite
may not be seen by a veterinarian prior to the bite incident, programs that encourage responsible
ownership must also be presented through other venues. Public education strategies should include
school-based and adult educational programs addressing bite prevention and basic canine behavior, care,
and management. Programs should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper socialization, exercise, and
attention; that they are given adequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that they are neutered if
they are not maintained for legitimate and responsible breeding purposes; and that they are trained
humanely and confined safely. However, like breed-specific legislation, all these approaches appear
formally unevaluated for effectiveness. Targeting and evaluation of prevention efforts requires improved
surveillance for fatal and nonfatal dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by local or state

ordinances, and reports of such incidents should include information about the circumstances of the bite,
ownership, breed, sex, reproductive status of the dog, history of prior aggression, and the nature of
restraint prior to the bite incident. Collection of data on the entire dog population (eg, breed, age, sex)
would help resolve comparative risk issues and may be accomplished by combining paperwork on
mandatory rabies immunizations with registration of breed and sex. Only with numerator and
denominator data and with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies tried by various communities
will we be able to make science-based recommendations for decreasing the number of dog bites. In the
interim, adequate funding for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing animal control laws, and
educational and policy strategies to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors will likely result in
benefits to communities and may well decrease the number of dog bites that occur.

Golden Retrievers Are White, Pit Bulls Are Black, and Chihuahuas Are Hispanic
Next, I look at a series of ads featuring golden retrievers as representations of white middleclass
family life; at pit bulls as symbols of lower-class African Americans; and as Chihuahuas as stereotypes of

Latinos. I have chosen these three because they most obviously illustrate some of the issues at hand and
because they happen to be currently popular breeds seen in a variety of formats. I do not at all intend to
suggest that anyone who has or breeds one of these types of dogs is a racist, or that representing qualities
through dog breeds automatically means one is prejudiced. There are certainly many examples of images
of dog breeds used to advertise or convey any number of qualities not related to race, and other reasons
why advertisers might choose a particular animal (for example, trainability or size). What I mean to say,
rather, is that the history of the dog-human relationship has been marked by racial concepts and that
advertisers, celebrities, and media representatives, when they portray dogs, tap into those concepts,
sometimes knowingly and sometimes not.
Americas Golden Boy
Golden retrievers and yellow Labrador retrievers are extremely popular in contemporary media
and advertising as accessories to white upper-middle-class life. Americas favorite breeds in 2009
according to AKC registration statistics are the Labrador retriever followed by the German shepherd,
Yorkshire terrier, and golden retriever. These breeds arose from Anglo-Saxon hunting culture: according
to the AKC, all retriever breeds begin with the water-loving Saint Johns dog of Newfoundland, and the
golden retriever originated from Lord Tweedmouths estate in the Highlands of Scotland, while the
Labrador was so-named by an English earl.24 In contemporary representations, these light-colored
retrievers are figured as the popular dog of white nuclear families.
In a magazine advertisement for metal roofing, the only face in the ad is that of a golden retriever
looking at a white female, who sits in a lawn chair next to a man. The ad reads: 4 kids. 11 grandchildren.
9 cars. 2 dogs. 3 remodels. 66 vacations. 1 roof. The race and class markers are clear: the couple is
white; the man is wearing a polo shirt and shorts; the house is white and has an expanse of green lawn.
Another ad with a golden retriever portrays white upper-middle-class life. This one shows
General Electric frontload laundry machines in the background, with a blond woman and her blond
children in the foreground with their golden retriever puppy. The mother is helping the children with their
soccer shoes. The advertisement reads: Until now, an attractive, fully-featured frontload laundry pair was
a luxury for the privileged few. Not anymore. The message is the same as that for the metal roof: wealth
and the upper-middle-class life are affordable; and the markers to it are clear and include having a golden
retriever and being, or at least acting, white. Whiteness is apparent not only in the blondness of the family
and their dog but also in the white-colored machines, the white background of the ad, and the activity of
cleaning suggested by the machines.
In a series of L. L. Bean catalog ads, golden retrievers symbolize white American masculinity and
focus on the athletic body. One dog is in a pickup truck behind a smiling white Representations of Breeds
of Dog | 119 man; another golden retriever jumps into a lake with a group of white models, embodying
physicality, recreation in an Adirondack-like setting, and echoes of the historical setting of the retrievers
provenance.
In an H&M ad, a group of children, mostly white, with the exception of a dark-skinned boy in the center,
are accompanied by a seated golden retriever. The lightest child in the ad, a blond girl, is visually central
as she looks at the camera and has her arm in a gesture of ownership and belonging around the golden
retriever. The retriever is symbolically equated with the blond girl.
In a series of television advertisements for Cottonelle, the toilet paper, we meet a yellow Lab
puppy (whose fur color is more white than yellow). He speaks in a male voice to testify that using the
toilet paper will put any consumer in the lap of luxury. We see a white woman in a luxurious apartment

at the beginning of one commercial. The puppy is compared directly to sheets of toilet paper itself as the
female voice says, A roll of Cottonelle toilet paper is so much longer than a roll of the leading brands
Red Pack, that if we had a puppy for every extra sheet. Thered be a hundred of us, the puppy
responds, as it appears with dozens of identical puppies.25 This invokes the image of dog clones achieved
through breeding or genetic manipulation. The Cottonelle puppy represents both the animal body as site
of the eliminatory function and the control of the animal body through cloning. The white color of the
dog, the toilet paper, and the white woman, similar to the General Electric ad, suggest that whiteness is a
quality dogs can simultaneously display and hide through symbolic absorption.
The popularity of the yellow Lab and golden retriever as images of mainstream values extends to
the world of books and popular movies. The megabest seller Marley and Me (followed by the 2009
movie) starred a yellow Labrador retriever as the goofy, lovable family pet. The twentieth edition of the
official AKC guide, The Complete Dog Book (2006), shows a golden retriever family on the cover (an
adult dog with two puppies resting on her back). Other recent books about dogs featuring yellow Labs or
golden retrievers on the cover include Mark Dotys Dog Years, Elizabeth Marshall Thomass The Social
Lives of Dogs, and Jon Katzs The New Work of Dogs. 26 All these popular booksThe Social Lives of
Dogs and Dog Years were both New York Times best sellerssignal dogs elevated status as objects of
literary concern and upper-middle-class leisure.
Precisely because the public can be reliably counted on to associate golden retrievers and yellow
Labs with a constellation of values figured as upper-middle class, their coding as racially white can go
unnoticed. It is not any one particular image or commercial that states, more than any other, the
association of golden retrievers or yellow Labs with whitenessit is rather the ubiquity of these images.
In a culture where explicit racial images and language are taboo, golden retrievers and yellow Labs can
safely transmit assumptions about whiteness.
Pit Bulls
Golden retrievers signification with markers of white identity is usually unremarked, in the same
way that whiteness itself is usually unremarked: it is conceived of as a neutral signal for cultural norms. It
is harder to miss the medias symbolism of racialized otherness in the figure of the pit bull. Pit bulls
generally appear in the media in two guises: as misunderstood worthies saved from the brink of
destruction (many celebrities and writers have adopted them) or as dangerous dogs. They do not appear,
as golden retrievers do, as the common family dog, although during the 1950s they did. One might point
out that the bull terrier used in Target advertising and Spuds MacKenzie, the Budweiser bull terrier, are in
the same family as pit bulls; however, they appear more in the specific context of the brand mascot, and
their unusual bullet-shaped nose-bridge makes them visually distinct from pit bulls.
Usually media portrayals of pit bulls are negative, and they frequently link the dogs with black
men. For an example of this, one need look no farther than the Michael Vick case. As Wright Thompson
wrote for ESPN regarding the case, Animal rights activists think its about cruelty. . . . AfricanAmericans in Atlanta, according to prominent black leaders, think its about Vick not getting due process
because of the color of his skin.28 The media portrayed the gruesome realities of dog fighting, while
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protests made it seem as if Vick was already guilty
before his trial. The outcry against dog fighting was intensebut did the nature of the crime warrant the
attention? Regardless of ones point of view, the Vick case highlighted the symbolic connections mass
media draws between black men and pit bulls. Playing on these same linkages are shows such as Animal
Cops, the weekly reality show on the Animal Planet network filmed, among other places, in New York,
Detroit, and Philadelphia. One episode, Extreme Danger, portrayed attack Rottweilers owned by an

African American man. Such programs often sensationalize animal neglect and abuse in the context of
cities with low-income populations of African Americans.
Where mainstream media often demonizes pit bulls, some African American artists have
appropriated them as powerful symbols of identification. Long a part of the public imagery of pit bulls
has been Snoop Dogg, who himself has pit bulls (on one episode of Fatherhood, his reality show, he
claims he and his family have twenty dogs that they breed). In his music he proudly claims his identity in
canine terms that align him with a symbolic underdog. He uses the term dog to signify toughness,
loyalty, and a criminal past. He does so within an African American tradition of using the word and the
concept to refer to a complex mix of elements of identity. With Snoop Dogg, one never knows if hes
being completely serious. Snoop Doggs album titles all feature the word dog, some humorously:
Doggfather, Doggystyle, and No Limit Top Dogg. Other rappers have adopted the moniker in various
forms (Nate Dogg is another rapper and Snoop Doggs cousin; Tha Dogg Pound is another rap group that
signed with Death Row Records, a label with which Snoop Dogg has recorded. Lil Bow Wows albums
have included Unleashed and Beware of Dog.)
One of Snoop Doggs most famous songs, from 1993, Who Am I (Whats My Name)? samples
from George Clintons song Atomic Dog. In the lyrics, dogg conjures up a whole chain of
associations from the word in African American culture: the woof refrain, sampled from George
Clintons Atomic Dog, from the problack funk of the 1970s, is like the black fraternity Omega Psi Phis
woof call (used like a secret handshake). Pledges of Omega Psi Phi are referred to as Que-Dogs.
Arsenio Hall also adopted this woof call on his shows, where audience members sat in the dog pound
near the stage, woofed, and pumped their fists in the air. DoVeanna S. Fulton recognizes this reaction as
an essentially positive, problack one: This particular form of applause has long been a part of African
American youth culture.
Many associations are attached to Snoop Doggs use of the symbol of the dog, and they include
group and family belonging, sexual prowess, the idea of the underdog, and the power gained from an
animal mascot or emblem. His use of Doggystyle as one of his album titles makes the sexual
identification clear; so do his lyrics frequent use of the word bitch to describe women. Dogs are also
family in his symbolic universe, and he is often portrayed as being affectionate toward his pit bulls on
Fatherhood. Snoop Doggs identifications with pit bulls also tap into the symbolic resonances around
dogs and African American history. His sometimes self-satirizing dog-identified stance speaks to a past in
which rhetoric often equated nonwhites with sexualized animals. Snoops dogg, instead of being an
animal historically used by whites to maintain power through defending territory, killing interlopers, and
tracking escaped slaves, becomes both a reenactment and a reversal of that legacy.
Another rapper, DMX, like Snoop Dogg, uses dogs as symbols of oppression, but his videos are
more explicitly violent. His lyrics also identify him with dogs and underdogs. His video for Whats My
Name (on the album And Then There Was X, 1999) caused controversy because it depicted pit bulls in a
fighting ring.30 In the video, the dogs are on chains, and DMX is wearing a similar thick chain. DMX
stands alone in the center of the ring and says Bust my gun / . . . Im always down for the one on one /
Dog for life. The lyrics identify both DMX and his imaginary opponent as symbolic dogs. While the
chains on the dogs reflect the culture of dog fighting, they also refer to the shackles of slavery. In the
video, two men hold two dogs who growl, posture, and lunge. For DMX, dog fulfills the embattled
stance of a lone man who insists on fighting one on one and stands outside the scope of the law. In
1999, thirteen neglected pit bulls were found at his home, and in 2002 DMX pleaded guilty to charges of
animal cruelty. While his case was not sensationalized to the degree of Vicks, it was another example of
the associations the media makes between pit bulls and black men. Both DMX and Snoop Dogg

appropriate these associations in their music and videos, sometimes satirically (as with Snoop Dogg) and
sometimes seriously.
The associational linkages set up by various media between pit bulls and black men extend
beyond the symbolic when they influence behavior and legislation. Malcolm Gladwell, in The New
Yorker, drew a parallel between pit bull bans and racial profiling by the police, making the point that by
banning pit bulls, municipalities focus on breed, not other factors that might be more important (such as
whether dogs are on or off leash at the time of the bite incident; or whether the animal in question has
been spayed or neutered).31 That jurisdictions continue to focus on the dogs breed enforces a kind of
anthropocentric racialism in legislative approaches to animals. Humane shelters and sites like
Petfinder.com shy away from using the term pit bull, fearing that the public will not want to adopt
animals bearing so many negative associations (instead of using pit bull, they often use terrier).
Similar to the avoidance of pit bulls, potential adopters, especially in the South, pass by black
dogs, preferring their lighter compatriots in what is known in shelters as Black Dog Syndrome. Some
speculate that black does not show up well in online photographs; perhaps it also has something to do
with the many folk legends associating bad luck with black animals. Web sites such as blackpearldog.com
couch the problem in terms of a minority group that has been victimized through no fault of their own.
Whether or not one describes the phenomenon as a projection of racism, it seems clear that coat color in
pet dogs can have great meaning for humans.33 The marginalization and now rehabilitation of black dogs
do suggest that when it comes to assigning value to pets, humans carry a lot of baggage related to color,
race, nation, and class.

A Legitimate Chance
A subject that really gets me heated is the claim that certain breeds of dogs deemed dangerous to
society should be prohibited to own. How absurd.

I believe that no dog deserves that kind of treatment, and that no family should have to live
without such a wonderful addition to their home. I absolutely love animals, especially dogs. So much, in
fact, that Ive volunteered for three years at an animal shelter in St. Augustine and took care of dogs, as
well as cats and other miscellaneous animals. I have trained dogsall breeds!and handled even the big,
bad species of dog: pit bulls. Some were given to lovers as gifts; yet the lover was afraid and unable to
cope with that fear, sending the poor dog to a shelter. Most, in their records, were rescued from unsafe
environments. If they were prohibited to own, they would be euthanizedmurdered!on the spot.
Of course some of them were nervous, antisocial, and defensive. Yet, I, along with others, worked
with them. Trained them, socialized them, and gave them a real chance in the world because they never
got a proper first one. Soon enough they were no longer frightening beasts, but lovable dogs needing a
decent home.
No dog is born to be aggressive or anti-social, that is an effect of the owner being a poor parent.
All dogs deserve a real chance in the world, and shouldnt be stripped from society so violently. Dogs can
be trained to be wonderful pets, even pit bulls and rottweilers, the breeds that are most feared by society.
Take my dog Lukas for example: hes a rottweiler mix, and as sweet as can be. Hes never
growled or been aggressive in any manner at all during his whole life. Hes brought smiles to so many
people that I couldnt even dream to number, and hes brightened many days. If dangerous breeds were
prohibited, none of the happiness would have ever occurred.
My step-mom had a pure bred pit bull named Bandit while she had two young daughters, and the
dog couldnt have been better in that family. The daughters played with him, and never once did he
expressive aggressive behavior. Always a happy, lovable dog that wanted to be a part of the family. He
kept those girls happy, gave them company when my step-mom was busy with house-work.
All dogs deserve a true, legitimate chance in the world, and an example of some poorly trained
canines shouldnt be the standard for a whole breed. Not only is it unfair, but its also very sad, seeing so
many innocent animals suffer as a result of irresponsibility on the trainers part. Dogs are born to love, not
to hatethey can only be taught to hate, when someone provides nothing but neglect and a hostile
environment, or just doesnt take the time to save a life.

Pit bulls: Pet or Monster, You Be the Judge

This past week one of the headlines in The Garden island news was: A 2-year-old child is in
serious condition after being attacked by a family dog on Tuesday in Puhi. That dog was a large,
muscular, mature gray adult pit bull and was surrendered to humane officers by its family. The dog was

the familys pet, yet still attacked. The question remains, are pit bulls loving pets or monsters? You be the
judge.
Many pit bull owners call it a cultural thing, similar to the fireworks argument? You will hear the
argument that its the owner and not the dog. This is true to an extent. However, a dog breed that was
originally bred as a fighting dog would not be my choice as a pet, especially around keiki. I realize not all
pit bulls are bad, just like all politicians arent bad.
When my dog was attacked by a pit bull last September, she survived with my quick thinking of
lifting her by her collar with an exhausting swinging and saving venture of keeping her away from the pit
bull. This went on for what seemed like an eternity until by the grace of God a Good Samaritan came
along to wrestle the pit bull to the ground.
After the pit bull attacked my dog, the owner said, Shes always been the sweetest dog and only
wanted to play. Shes such a nice pit bull, shes trained. A witness to the attack had told me that same dog
had attacked numerous others. You can train lions and tigers, too. However, would you want one as a pet?
Probably not. No matter how well trained, a pit bull can turn on you at any time. They kill people and
other dogs.
My neighbor was swimming in the waters of Anahola beach a few years back, when her friends
pit bull ran into the water and nearly tore her arm off. She wound up getting 38 stitches in her upper arm
and is now petrified of any pit bull and even of swimming in the ocean. She was diagnosed with PTSD
from that attack. To top things off, my friend never pressed charges since the dog belonged to a friend of
hers. The worst part of this, that dog is still out there along with the pit bull that attacked my dog.
Last year on Kauai, three pit bulls were euthanized and their owner cited by police, just hours
after the dogs mauled a Chihuahua mix to death in front of a Kekaha mother and daughter. If the little girl
had not dropped the little dog, it could had been her that died. Stories like this are all too common on
Kauai. Everyone knows a pit bull owner and since everyone knows everyone on the island, nobody wants
to be the rat, narcing on their friends or relatives. This is just one of the many unwritten laws of island
life.
If pit bulls are such wonderful family dogs, why have they been banned in 12 countries? Thats
right, 12! Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Canada (Winnipeg, Quebec) the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Puerto Rico and Sweden. It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own or keep
American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or any other dog
that substantially conforms to any of these breeds characteristics. There is also a $500 fine for acquiring
or keeping a pit bull in Miami Dade County.
These dogs are born with aggression and the ability to kill. You never see a poodle attack and
mutilate a human or other animal. People go la-la over these animals and value them more than the safety
of another persons life. The county will eventually take heed when a fellow human is mauled to death on
county property and the lawsuits start rolling in. Until then, things will never change.
However, I will be the first to say, I told you so next time there is a death or injury associated with a pit
bull. Pit bull, pet or monster?