Issue #129: The Politics of Pit Bulls
Growing support for repealing old bans
In the last week, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a plan for the Government to ban the American bully dog after a recent attack. In doing so, Sunak, who’s party BADLY trails Labour for next year’s election, has lit off a firestorm on social media among dog owners. The press coverage of the decision has also broadly labeled the move as a “Pit Bull ban.” While this proposed ban, which I do not support, is actually around a specific breed of dog, it highlights the fear mongering and mis-characterization around the phrase “Pit Bull.”
In light of this, I wanted to talk about the politics around Pit Bull bans in America, which actually have several referendums we can look at. In this I will aim to dispel some myths around the dog, and look at where public sentiment is in America on the issue.
Clearing Up Stereotypes with Statistics
As mentioned in my opening, the phrase “Pit Bull” is a loaded one. In reality, Pit Bull is not a breed, but a catch-all name for an entire family of dogs.
Regardless of exact classification, the perception of many of the bully dog is that of fear and aggression. The rare attack gets a tremendous amount of media attention and the perception around dog fighting and guard dogs in general has furthered a negative view of the “Pit Bull.”
So in the interest of dispelling some fear-mongering, I want to offer up some important data points
First off, the phrase “Pit Bull” is not really a scientific breed but rather a catch-all that covers many types of dogs. There are similar traits, but the phrase is still broad and is OFTEN over-used. Dogs with small traces of bully breed often get labeled as “Pit Bull.”
Studies have shown that dog bites are mis-characterized to Pit Bulls often, inflating their statistic as especially dangerous relative to other large dogs. One study showed the mis-identification rate was as high as 60%. This is important since the argument for bans is that the genetics of the dog makes its dangerous. However, these studies have shown that many times an ID’d “Pit Bull” had little of the supposed “dangerous” DNA.
Regardless of all this, peer-reviewed studies of attacks shows no link between genes and aggression. This is pretty obvious if you spend times around dogs. Any dog can be aggressive. While large dogs are obvious the mortal threat, no legislation proposes banning all dogs - just Pit Bulls.
The mis-characterization means that scary-sounding statistics of “60% of deadly dog attacks are Pit bulls” is actually FAR lower, depending how you classify the breeds. This also glosses over the fact that deadly dog attacks are still a very rare event.
Studies from experts have shown that what we consider a “Pit Bull” broadly have a temperament score that can make them very playful and friendly. The Pit Bull used to be a common family pet, so much so it was given the phrase “Nanny Dog” in modern times. That said, the phrase’s historic nature is actually disputable. However, the history does show the Pit Bull had a much more favorable public image until rare and tragic attacks in the 1980s got major media attention, causing the perception to be shifted. The Pit Bull’s nature is to please its owner do make it a good candidate for dog fighting or guard dogs, which further hurt its image via sensational media. That same people-pleasing nature does make them good family dogs when trained right. They are shown to be incredibly loyal and yes, good guard dogs against intruders.
A 2019 study showed Pit Bulls made up 22% of bites, with German Shepards in second with 18%. Unknown actually led in bites. While a Pit Bull bite will lead to more damage than other dogs, its not shown to be especially aggressive.
Your chances of dying by a dog bite are 1 in 116,000. You are more likely to die from a wasp sting or choking on your food. Being killed by any dog is winning a very unfortunate lottery.
There are 4.5 million Pit Bulls in America. If they were especially violent, we would have FAR more bites, damages, and deaths.
Studies have shown that breed-specific bans do not aid in reducing attacks, as those are likely to come from untrained or aggressively-trained dogs in the hands of owners who simply ignore the laws anyway. A breed-specific ban isn’t gonna break up the dog-fighting ring, after all.
The mis-identifying of attacks is well-documented in studies. If you have any doubt, here is a spokesperson for State Farm insurance commenting on if pit bull ownership would effect insurance rates for customers.
"Pit bulls in particular are often misidentified when a bite incident occurs, so reliable bite statistics related to the dogs' breed are unreliable and serve no purpose."
The people who’s job it is to get money and pay little of it out don’t see a Pit Bull as a major health risk (aka something they’d have to fork over cash for if something occurred). So I’d take them at their word there. This graph from pro Pit Bull groups highlights the human and also frustration many advocates see with how the dog is given a scapegoat.
Anyone who follows me on Twitter has also surely seen my gush over Buster, a blue-nose Pit Bull that my friend has. I dog-sit whenever she travels, and spam my followers with photos of him.
Buster is like Pit Bulls across the country. He is loyal, he is sweet, he has separation anxiety, and he is as dumb as a box of rocks. I love him.
Universally, when I’d take him for walks, it would be other dogs barking at him, he just wanted to sniff and get pets from the other humans. I can also attest that as a guard dog, Buster would suck. He has not been trained to be a guard dog, and as a result would roll over for any criminal with a treat.
There is also a degree of racism that remains with the anti-Pit Bull characterizations. When debate around Pit Bull bans emerge, you still see many comments that equate Pit Bulls with the inner city, crime, dog fighting, and the like. Right now, the city of Grosse Pointe Shores, MI is considering a Pit Bull ban. In the latest article on the subject, this comment really stood out to me.
“In my opinion, they are most often used as protection or a weapon in inner cities,” said Daniel Cyr, who said he’s been a Shores resident for 28 years. “Pit bulls do not belong here.”
This “opinion” is based off nothing positive or remotely fact-based. It is remarkably outdated. I guarantee their are Pit Bulls in homes on his block.
Of course, if you spend any time on social media, you will see the Pit Bull is in at least one suburban home in every neighborhood. The Pit Bull has seen a rise in ownership thanks to the “Pittie” community. The phrase “Don’t Bully my Breed” is often shown as owners defend their pets. Honestly spend any time on these accounts and you will see how sweet they are. This has helped dispel many old myths.
Some humor around this came from SNL comedian Michael Che. His bit on how white women have domesticated the Pit Bull has provided some hilarious videos on YouTube and Instagram. The audio of Che’s performance is laid over said Pit Bull owners showing off their dogs. Some examples below.
The Pit Bull is seeing a shift in its cultural perception. Fear mongering in efforts to ban the breed continue in different areas. However, electorally, I have seen a notable shift in how breed bans uphold at the ballot box.
Referendums on Pit Bulls
In the last decade, we have seen an uptick in votes and discussions around Pit Bull bans. I do not have a full database of these laws or elections. It is currently estimated that over 700 governmental jurisdictions, from counties to small towns, have some degree of breed-specific ban or heavy regulation. This is despite the fact that currently, 70% of Americans do NOT support breed-specific bans.
In the early 2010s, efforts to repeal bans did not meet with great success. In the August primary of 2012, Miami-Dade voted on whether to end its Pit Bull ban. The county held a ban since 1989. A Florida law from the 1990s prevented any other bans, so Dade stood out on this matter. Despite a belief the ban would be over-turned, it ended up failing by a wide margin.
The vote failed due to fear mongering on the issue. This came despite expert testimonials that the ban was not needed. Director of Miami-Dade Animal Services Alex Munoz said on the matter
“If you asked me if there was a predominance of pit bull bites versus other dogs, we don’t see a predominance of pit bull bites…because they’re no different from any other dog”
Many pointed out the ban was already selectively enforced, and often used against people in some communities vs others. While all demographics broadly rejected ending the ban, there was a notable racial split on the matter.
In the precincts over 80% Black, support for repeal was 42%
In precincts over 80% Hispanic, support for repeal was 36%.
In precincts over 70% white, support for repeal was just 30%.
The perception of the Pit Bull being associated with crime and inner city life remained high, with opposition to ending the ban highest in some of the up-scale communities.
The county Pit Bull ban, however, is no longer a thing as of this writing. Early this year, Florida passed a law that removed the Miami-Dade Pit Bull ban. This is one of the few times I support the Florida legislature overriding local government. The bill was sponsored by members of the Miami-Dade delegation. It would pass unanimously in the house and only have one dissenting vote in the State Senate.
Republican Miami-Dade Senator Sen. Alexis Calatayud said the following
“Breed restrictions are antiquated attempts to reduce liability in a community,” the Miami Republican said during Wednesday’s hearing. “Studies conducted by the National Canine Research Council and the Centers for Disease Control acknowledge that breed is not a determining factor in the likelihood of a dog to bite and that breed-specific legislation is not a useful tool for keeping communities safe.”
Pit Bull advocates would suffer another defeat in Aurora, Colorado in 2014. However, recent elections have shown a notable reversal in fortunes.
In late 2017, the city of Springfield Missouri banned Pit Bulls via the city council. This led to a massive petition effort from residents to put a “Citizen’s Veto” on the ballot. Residents were then asked if they they wanted to keep the ban or eliminate it. The YES side (aka keep the ban in place) only got 32% of the vote in the August 2018 election.
One of the easy issues for the NO side to latch onto was the vague wording of the ban. This wording is similar across many jurisdictions, as again Pit Bull is a catch-all phrase. The Springfield ordinance defined a Pit Bull as…..
…..an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds
Exhibiting traits? But I thought the genes made them especially dangerous? What if they have some traits but few genes? Should we run DNA tests? What about other large dogs? You see how big a problem this is to define? This type of vague law could be selectively enforced and is not a scientific way to go about things.
In 2019, Liberty, Missouri also held a referendum to repeal a long-held Pit Bull ban. The measure, which passed 52-48, made Liberty the 24th municipality in the state to repeal its ban. A vast majority of these have come from governments themselves, rather than popular initiatives. However, it highlights the trend is moving away from such bans, many of which were on the books for decades.
In 2020, the Pit Bull community had its biggest victory yet. That year, the city of Denver voted overwhelmingly to repeal its ban.
The measure to repeal the ban, which replaced it with a microchip and registration program, passed everywhere except a few outskirt precincts and the corridor of wealthy suburbs in the city core. This corridor is, relative to the rest of the city, the whitest, richest, and most Republican-friendly area of the city. As subspaceteatime highlights in her map of the Denver Mayor’s race; where it backed the more moderate candidate.
That same day as the Pit Bull ban was voted on, Joe Biden secured 80% of the vote in the city. The anti-Pitbull communities stand out as some of the less-blue regions.
Many of these other referendums took place in non-November votes. With Denver, I can look at how the YES and Biden side compared.
Biden out-performed YES almost all precincts, but did especially better in the upper-income suburbs.
Looking Ahead
The long term trend on this issue seems to be clear. The bans, many of which came in decades ago, are slowly being removed. As we are seeing with the UK and with a few towns in America, fear-mongering around the issue still exists. That said, the trend is clearly in one direction.
The next referendum to come? On September 26th, Williston, ND will vote on its Pit Bull ban. Lets hope they vote to repeal, so more people can cuddle up with these cute pitties.
