Pit bulls, the humane movement, & the elephant in the room, by Ed Duvin

“A compassionate movement can’t exist in a state of intellectual & moral bankruptcy & maintain its credibility.”

Editor’s note:  ANIMALS 24-7 guest columnist Ed Duvin began his long career in social justice movements in civil rights and anti-poverty work during the Lyndon Johnson presidential administration.  He later advised animal advocacy organizations including the Humane Society of the U.S.,  the No-Kill Conference,  and In Defense of Animals.

Often called “The Father of the No-Kill Movement” for his widely distributed 1989 essay  In the Name of Mercy,  Duvin wrote in that essay,  “If our movement spent as much time soberly evaluating our policies and programs as we do polishing our public image,  then no doubt the struggle for justice would be on higher ground.

“Surrounded by the deaths of millions of precious beings,  this industry has demonstrated neither the concern nor competency to even validate the information upon which it bases life and death decisions.”

This remains among his foremost concerns.

––––––––––––––––––

Bred for blood sports

I seldom reflected on dangerous dogs during my 20 years in the animal advocacy movement, believing they were victims of their environment.  Years later,  upon retirement,  I examined this tragedy through a more objective lens.

Since domestication,  humans have selectively bred dogs for specific purposes,  strengthening certain genetic traits over time while diminishing others.  German shepherds,  for example,  were bred as multi-purpose working dogs,  keenly aware of their surroundings and alert to danger.  They display clear warning signs when agitated,  and their genetic disposition is to subdue rather than to maim or kill.

In contrast,  pit bulls and most bully breeds were historically bred for blood sports.  Breeders didn’t want the visual warnings or restraint found in German shepherds and other working dogs.  Instead, they were bred to grab,  bite,  hold and shake,  unresponsive to restraining efforts.

Brain chemistry cannot be trained or loved away

This isn’t a conscious choice made by pit bulls,  but is the direct result of a genetic blueprint—tragically,  often directed toward those they love.

This unpredictable aggression is hardwired into pit bulls’ DNA,  and their brain chemistry cannot be trained or loved away.  Yet,  this biological reality hasn’t taken hold in a movement that professes to be life-affirming.

In an earlier essay for ANIMALS 24-7,  I wrote the following:  “I can’t imagine a social justice organization ignoring the mounting loss of human lives.  Yet,  in this movement,  leaders seem impervious to the ongoing tragedy.  Only a movement with shades of misanthropy would remain silent while innocent lives are needlessly lost.  The intent isn’t to cast aspersions on anyone,  but to shine light on a regrettable form of selective morality.  Justice isn’t divisible.”

“Selective morality does not exist in a vacuum”

This selective morality does not exist in a vacuum,  as institutional inertia and self-interest are at its roots.

Corrective action would require organizations to align message with mission,  which would risk alienating their membership and donor base.

This results in the problem being rationalized away,  placing practical concerns above moral imperatives.  Silence becomes a strategy,  and their coffers remain full.

The financial concern doesn’t solely relate to fundraising,  but also to the legal liability of rehoming pit bulls.  If shelters acknowledged the inherent danger of rehoming pit bulls,  they would be liable for damages with even higher insurance costs.  So the truth is concealed,  and innocent humans and animals pay the price with their limbs and lives.

Our leading organizations would respond by saying that there is some truth to my genetic argument,  but I’m taking the tendency of some pit bulls and generalizing to the entire population.

“A fair response if not for the data”

That would be a fair response if not for the data.  Pit bulls inflict more than 70% of deaths and disabling injuries,  and combined with other closely related bully breeds,  the figure rises to 90%.

Not every pit bull poses a danger,  but there is no means of reliably distinguishing between safe and unsafe pit bulls.  This fact goes to the very heart of the problem:  a safe and loving pit bull today is often the cause of a tragedy tomorrow.

Pit bulls constitute a highly disproportionate percentage of homeless and surrendered dogs,  and shelters are faced with two choices:  make the honorable decision to protect the public;  or rehome pit bulls as though they were just another breed.  Shelter management does not look to the science of genetics to guide their policies,  but to the course of least resistance.

I don’t mean to be harsh on shelter managers,  as they merely follow the national leaders.

“Lack of scholarship is reflected in lives lost”

And what are they told about safety by leadership?

Precious little.

In a landmark study published in the Journal of Neuroscience,  Harvard researchers used MRI brain imaging to demonstrate that selective breeding has systematically altered the gross structural anatomy of the canine brain.

These hardwired neurological networks shape traits like drive and responses to stress.  To ignore this and similar research is to deny neurobiology.

Our movement pays little heed to science.  That lack of scholarship is reflected in lives lost.

For a larger perspective,  over seventy nations have partial or complete breeding bans on dogs posing a danger to humans and other animals.  This is not meant to diminish the tragedy faced by pit bulls and pit-bull types across the world,  for as stated earlier,  they are victims of selective breeding.  They deserve better,  much better,  and I don’t know one breeding-ban advocate who doesn’t lament what our misguided species has done to pit bulls.

“My comments are directed to leadership”

I understand and respect that some activists cannot emotionally accept my viewpoint.

My comments are directed to leadership,  as they have the responsibility to go beyond the comfortable and expedient.  They could explain the genetic reality to supporters in a sensitive manner that most would understand,  as I’ve endeavored to do in this essay.  However, they fear the repercussions of doing so,  and thus the vicious cycle continues unabated.

Those who subordinate conscience to self-interest are leaders in name only.

A compassionate movement cannot exist in a state of intellectual and moral bankruptcy and maintain its credibility.  Almost forty years ago,  I authored an essay credited by many as igniting the no-kill movement;   however,   if we continue being complicit in the loss of precious lives,  no-kill has no meaning.

Dangerous dogs is a heart-wrenching issue,  but it won’t go away by denial or evasion. Sanctity of life is the movement’s foundation.  The gaping cracks in that foundation serve neither humans nor animals.

Please donate to help our work: 

www.animals24-7.org/donate/