by Jo Campbell

There is a tendency to blame the victims in many crimes. The pit bull, believe it or not, is one of these victims. The genesis of the damage caused by fighting dogs lies not in the breed, but in the large and profitable industry of dog fighting.

The Maryland legislature added another effort to outlaw the dog-fight biz at the end of the last session. House Bill 125 makes it a misdemeanor to be caught attending a "deliberately-conducted" dog fight as a spectator. Sounds like the slap-on-the-wrist rulings supposed to punish the "johns" in prostitution, doesn't it? Both exist in their light form because of the money and power behind the crimes involved.
An earlier Maryland law, according to Delegate Bennett Bozman, prohibits as a misdemeanor the crime of holding a dog fight. This does not work. Given a maximum penalty of five years, the heaviest ever levied has been six months, according to James McCarter, executive director of the Humane Society of Dorchester County. And a fine of $5,000? That's the cost of doing business when the bets laid on a single fight amount to about $500,000? Maryland is one of only eight states in which dog-fighting is a lowly misdemeanor. In all the rest it is a felony with suitable penalties. This makes the misdemeanor states sitting-duck targets for invasion by the dog-fight rackets, loaded with money and clout. Rural counties of Maryland and Delaware, according to McCarter, have already noted the incursion into their low-penalty jurisdictions. Is this the kind of "industry" we really want?
Alarmed local authorities may find it easier to turn against the dogs instead of the racketeers. The dogs appear to have spread in a very few years from the fighting industry into "civilian life." They have, in fact, become a teen substitute for the Saturday Night Special. According to an educator with the Humane Society of the United States, the typical owner of the fight-bred pit bull is a young man seeking a dog that will make a statement about himself.
Legislation against ownership of the pit bull is actually being considered in some areas. Welcome to the Eleventh Century.
This kind of ruling is reminiscent of the early Forest Laws of Britain which forbade the "Common Person" to own a dog with all four legs that was large enough to "disturb the game." The "Common Person" could be ordered by the Lord of the Manor to cut off the right hind leg of such a dog.
The Brits' Magna Carta, our own 14th Amendment and all that supposedly secured the right to own property, and to have ownership protected through due process. Now, the misuse of one kind of dog threatens to put us back into the dark days.
The pit bull is what one humane expert in Washington called "a generic dog," stemming, albeit, from one or more recognized breeds of British origin; the Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Terrier. The fighting pit dog, was developed in the 1500s and 1600s to fight bulls. The English humane movement put bull baiting out of fashion around 1830 and the fancy turned to dog fighting, then legal.
The pit bull type emerged in the United States about the time of the Civil War, and despite the existence of some as good household companions and guardians, the continuing underground dog-fighting, and other abusive uses of the dogs gave us the problem we have today.

While legislatures inch their way to proper penalties, human greed and canine heredity work. The pit animal bred for fighting is aggressive, attacks without warning and strives for maximum damage. This dog, sad to relate, is the cause of 20 out of 28 fatal dog bites in the United States.
Responsible dog owners and breeders, aghast at the attacks, are deeply concerned that breed-specific legislation is a threat to Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and property ownership. Dogs are property, not livestock, in case you wondered. The vagueness and constantly-changing nature of the pit bull type make it almost impossible for adequate understanding of what constitutes a violation of the law. Serious dog folk foresee that one stupid owner of a dog of any breed could endanger that entire breed.
Attorneys' views differ according to their dogginess, and their strict interpretation of the law. According to one attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, the system has a right to regulate or even to forbid ownership of anything which poses a proven danger: guns, poisons and dangerous animals. But, according to John C. Metaxas in the National Law Journal, other attorneys perceive clear Constitutional ramifications in the situation under the due-process provision.

But the fighting dog biz is "hot" just now, so essential points and obvious solutions are being overlooked.

For instance, while communities around the nation struggle with liability issues in the light of deaths and severe injuries, the 17th and 18th centuries are alive and well in many states, because the dog pit is literally brimming with money, and is protected by political influence.

High in HSUS priorities is what Dr. Lockwood called "a good generic vicious dog law." This would cover the offenses of problem pit-bull owners, and also breeds which may become the "macho breeds" of tomorrow. Japanese Akitas and German Rottweilers are already appearing in the same social circles, despite their higher prices. In addition, the Protean nature of the pit bull is already evident through cross breeding with the Bullmastiff and the Neopolitan Mastiff.
The banishment of dog fighting should also obliterate a lesser-known but even more horrifying dog racket; theft of other breeds as sacrifices to the dog fight industry.
These include theft of small, easy-to-kill pet dogs -- Pekes, Poms and Cocker Spaniels, for instance -- for use in "blooding" the young fighters. The "sports" also steal large, non-aggressive pets, like sweet ol' sloppy retrievers, to "train" fighting dogs on sparring partners that will put up a struggle but which are sure to be killed in the end. Many of these come from the "free to good home" ads in the newspapers and from low-budget, anxious-to-place county shelters. Nice?
Dog fighting is a life-and-death racket for people, too, one whose practitioners are peevish about investigation. According to one HSUS spokesperson, "They are the kind of people who will shoot you and bury you as quick as they would a losing dog." McCarter, in fact, says that on his professional rounds, "They threaten my dog, they threaten my children; they threaten me. We ignore that at this point."
If dog fighting is made a felony, and if the law is enforced, according to an HSUS field investigator, the source of pit bulls in the pet market as well as the role model of the "cool" fighter-owner may dry up. McCarter agrees that the dogs are victims.
Legislating dog ownership is looking at the wrong end of the lead.
(Jo Campbell and her family raised, bred and showed in conformation and obedience, Collies, Schipperkes and a Rottweiler when the kids were growing up. Active in local and national clubs, she edited the national Collie magazine, served as sports department stringer for the New York Times covering the East Coast shows, wrote news feature stories for the Washington papers. She now judges for the annual competition held by the Dog Writers Association of America...competition in which her work has won from time to time.)