My Theory on why Pitbull advocates are ‘Nutters’

"Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy." – Aristotle

A few years ago, I experienced a serious pitbull attack that led to countless personal losses, I found myself outraged at the system that had enabled such attacks to occur in the first place. I mean isn’t Government supposed to protect innocent people from such unnecessary brutal and violent assaults? It didn’t take long for me to discover why, I soon learned there was an aggressive and outraged pitbull advocacy movement that had influenced Government and prevented reasonable protective legislation from being implemented. So I turned to social media to interact with these people, only to realize that they felt they were the aggrieved party, even though they had suffered no permanent physical injury, as I had, they had not lost the ability to walk or care for themselves for a substantial amount of time, as I had, they had suffered no large financial losses, as I had, they had never faced years of legal wrangling to seek compensation for their losses, as I had and they had not lost their business as I had. The only loss it appears they had incurred is that people hurt their feelings because they were critical of the breed of dog they had chosen as a companion animal. And yet their outrage was as if someone had murdered their entire family. This disproportionate over reaction struck me as incredibly bizarre and until now I hadn’t been able to understand it sufficiently.

Up until a few years ago, I knew little about fighting breeds of dog until I was seriously injured after I was confronted by two angry pitbulls, leaving me unable to walk for 6 months, a severed Achilles tendon, a permanently maimed left leg, a badly mauled left leg and arm, a DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) and serious skin infections and at the time forcing me to close my business and eventually lose my life savings. It was this event that initiated my investigation into the issue and how and why such attacks were still occurring in modern civilized communities. It didn’t take long to discover there was a maniacally obsessed group of people who literally worshipped pitbulls. I visited pro pitbull webpages that had posted graphical memes that had replaced Jesus on the cross with a pitbull with statements such as “He died for others sins’. They were literally insinuating the pitbull was the son of god and was being unfairly persecuted. Needless to say, such revelations were shocking. I mean, aren’t all dogs wonderful, what is it about the pitbull that had elevated itself to such divine status in the eyes of such people? It didn’t make sense to me that a breed of dog that regularly maimed, mauled and killed innocent people and animals and was bred for the specific purpose of efficiently killing other dogs could be compared to what many religious people claim to be the son of god, a symbolic perfect human being who had never sinned in his life, let alone violently mauled an infant to death.

Only recently did it occur to me, the pitbull is more than a dog for such people, for them, the pitbull is a SYMBOL. A symbol is an object that represents an idea, visual image, belief or an action. For those whose lives have been forever negatively impacted by pitbull attack, the pitbull represents senseless violence, unimaginable pain and suffering, a lack of freedom and an ongoing threat to everyone’s safety and security. But for those who worship the breed, the pitbull is a symbol of injustice and unfair persecution, unfairly despised because it is misunderstood.

Now I feel I need to go off on a tangent here to further explain my theory. I have always had an interest in psychology, and why people behave in certain ways, and recently I have been exploring the issue of child rearing and its later impact on adult behavior. I recently read some of Alice Miller’s writings on what she terms ‘poisonous pedagogy’, referring to destructive child rearing practices and its relationship to the later development of tyrants and serial killers and the like. To simplify the theory somewhat, she espouses that children exposed to very harsh and punitive upbringings are forced to repress, deny or justify such humiliating experiences until they can be safely expressed at a later date. She explores the childhoods of many prominent Nazis who almost always had incredibly punitive and harsh upbringings to highlight her theories. The infantile rage felt during such harsh child rearing is pushed to the unconscious and often times expressed much later on as an adult through dysfunctional and/or anti-social behavior. One of the ways this can manifest is through what Psychology terms ‘Repetition compulsion’, the unconscious drive to replay negative past events in the here and now in the hope that they can achieve a different outcome and therefore resolve the initial issue. For example, a young girl who witnesses her alcoholic father beat her submissive Mother may grow up to be submissive herself and marry an abusive alcoholic and make every attempt to affect a different outcome.

Now back to why I think Pitbull advocates are ‘Nutters’, for some people, the pitbull is symbolic of their unacknowledged childhood hurts and any real or perceived unfair oppression they had to endure long ago. They come to view the pitbull in the same light they do their wounded inner child, as an innocent victim, unfairly persecuted and deprived of the love every child craves and needs. In effect, the pitbull is a physical manifestation of their past childhood wounds long since buried deep in their psyche and any aggression shown by the pitbull is more than justified due to the unfair and unacknowledged suffering it has long had to endure. In effect, the pitbull is THEM, it embodies everything the owner believes they are: misunderstood, unfairly persecuted, unloved or unlovable and justifiably angry and aggressive.

Now where do the pitbull attack victims fit into this picture? It isn’t unusual for those who have been negatively impacted by a pitbull attacking either them, their loved ones or their pets to feel aggrieved and outraged, as often time such attacks cause a disproportionate amount of damage in comparison to incidents involving non fighting breeds of dog. Over recent years, pitbull related fatalities have become inevitable and occur every few weeks and those attacks that don’t kill, often cause serious and permanent injuries and countless other losses. To feel outraged after such an experience is a normal and healthy response to such an injustice. The victims, previously unaware of the level of threat such dogs present soon realize that some type of legislative protection is needed. Out of a healthy concern for both themselves and others some victims choose to speak out either in the media, in public or via the Internet. They soon learn that for quite some time many others have also been trying rather unsuccessfully to achieve the desired protection and stand up to a hostile and aggressive pitbull lobby group.

It is at this point the attack victims and the pitbull supporter’s clash, with the former usually experiencing shock at the hostility and abuse they receive when they initially express their disappointment at being attacked by pitbull/s and their desire to seek future protection to prevent such an incident occurring again. Many victims never overcome this shock and learn they were thoroughly unprepared for the well-rehearsed onslaught of those who have been deterring such dissenters from expressing their desire for legislative protection for many years prior to the recently created victim entering the fray. At this juncture, many victims simply give up, as the thought of experiencing even more suffering on top of the pitbull attack is too overwhelming. The initial pitbull attack experience was overwhelming enough and the thought of any more unnecessary suffering after that quickly dissuades them from pursuing any further attempts at speaking out.

Some victims do overcome this initial onslaught and develop the resolve to continue speaking out with the goal being that society puts in place appropriate protective mechanisms to ensure the safety of innocent people from other peoples poor choices of companion animals. And this is where the Pitbull advocates focus their unconscious fury; you only need visit any online pitbull news stories to see the pitbull advocates aggressively insulting and taunting anyone who dares disagree with them. It is not unusual for pitbull attack victims who speak out to receive regular messages of hate, abuse and even threats from those who promote pitbulls.

Such advocates try to dissuade the outspoken victims from blaming the breed of dog and suggest that irresponsible ownership is the reason as to why there is a disproportionate amount of pitbull attacks causing serious injury and death. But this argument makes little to no sense to victims, as it wasn’t the dog owner that violently and unpredictably attacked them, it was their pitbull. And frequently the owner was just as surprised as the victim at the sudden assault and often times there is little evidence to suggest the owner had been irresponsible with their dog, no more so than the owner of any other breed of dog. It also doesn’t explain why pitbulls also kill their owners more than other breeds of dog do; surely no sane human being would run the risk of neglecting or training their pitbull in such a manner that exposed them to the chance of a fatal mauling by their own dog. And if irresponsible ownership is the cause of dog bite related fatalities, why do we not see similar statistics associated with the many other varied breeds that irresponsible people own. Surely it isn’t just pitbulls that attract irresponsible owners. And if it is just pitbulls that attract a disproportionate amount of irresponsible owners, why is that? Why do they choose the pitbull specifically?

In all honesty, such arguments mean little to the victims who seek legislative protection, they don’t really care why such incidents occur, much like rape victims don’t care too much about the unfortunate childhood of the perpetrator of the crime. The family and friends can praise the perpetrator all they like; it’s unlikely to matter to the rape victim. At the very least, the victim of such a crime that society has already legislated against can at least feel that their experience and its negative consequences are recognized and acknowledged by the society they live in. This cannot change what has happened to them, but at least the majority of society will understand and offer the appropriate support after such a traumatic experience. Pitbull attack victims have no such luxury, they are often left to pay all the costs associated with recovery from such a serious attack, only to learn their society didn’t care enough to provide reasonable legislative protection in the first place and then they eventually run head on into an aggressive and abusive pitbull lobby determined to promote their selfish desires ahead of the safety and security concerns of other citizens. Pitbull attack victims feel their communities have let them down and worse yet, refuse to acknowledge it. There are few places such a victim can go to seek the consoling so sorely needed for healing to occur. Appropriate dangerous dog legislation would go a long way to minimizing such serious attacks in the first place but also provide the already countless victims the much needed societal understanding they so desperately need.

Now back to the original topic, why I think Pitbull advocates are Nutters. In my years of advocating online via the use of social media I have often wondered what pitbull advocates gained from sending me hate mail, littered with insults, abuse and veiled threats. I mean it’s not like my humble facebook page called ‘pitbull attack’ threatens to change any politicians minds anytime soon, after two years of diligent and thoughtful work on the page, it is yet to see a thousand likes. Yet, it isn’t uncommon for a pitbull on death row after a serious attack to have a facebook page started to save the dog from euthanasia to attract tens of thousands of likes in just a few days. So what is it pitbull attack victims represent to pitbull advocates?

Well it goes back to what I was saying earlier, about how the pitbull becomes a symbol for the wounded inner child of the owner. Now as I also alluded to earlier, those who were unfairly treated as children find ways to repeat such incidents later in life in the hope of mastering the trauma and creating a different outcome. The pitbull comes to represent all the unresolved hostilities the once wounded child experienced but had long since pushed to the back of their conscious awareness. Any attack or criticism of the pitbull is seen as personal attack on the once innocent, unfairly treated child. I mean who wouldn’t be upset at adults unfairly criticizing and attacking an innocent child who had already endured untold suffering and oppression by the parents they loved and depended upon? That would be outrageous! Except everyone else knows the pitbull isn’t an innocent child that was long ago mistreated and left with unresolved and unconscious torment. This fact escapes the pitbull owner, who isn’t consciously aware of how they are using the pitbull as a psychological prop to repeat past traumas in the hope of securing a better outcome and hopefully resolution to the pain and suffering that remains outside of their conscious awareness..

The victims of pitbull attacks, who are in essence the driving force behind seeking legislative protection from pitbulls come to represent to the pitbull advocate the oppressive and authoritative force that long ago treated them poorly and didn’t take the time to understand them and as a result withheld the love they so desperately craved and needed. The goal of the pitbull advocate and their ‘’Repetition compulsion’ is to get the oppressive force to come around to their way of thinking, to finally understand their point of view and only then can love and respect flow between the two. If this is achieved, the initial trauma has been repeated, mastered and in the mind of the afflicted, overcome.

But is this really all that is needed to overcome their childhood oppression and humiliation? Even if pitbull advocates are successful in their attempts to convert those they believe represent their childhood oppressors, such pseudo victories don’t really heal the initial wound. Because the initial hurt, shame and rage experienced as a child has been repressed, denied or justified and later displaced without the initial causes for such feelings of hurt and humiliation ever rising to conscious awareness. The initial oppressors, the parents or caregivers have been absolved and the resulting adult rage has been displaced onto a pseudo parent figure, in this case the pitbull attack victims who dare speak out. It isn’t any wonder then that such people that have let the idealized parents/caregivers of the hook by idealizing the parents and displacing their negative feelings elsewhere, in this case pitbull attack victims who speak out. They then go on to do the same with the pitbull breed, absolving the idealized pitbull and displacing the blame elsewhere, in this case ‘Irresponsible owners’ or any number of justified culprits.

So what is the answer for both the pitbull attack victims and those that promote them? Well, the theory goes that those who don’t find a way to bring past unresolved transgressions into conscious awareness are doomed to displace unconscious negative feelings onto others, at best only creating relationship difficulties or self-destructive behaviors and at worst, severely harming or killing other people. Only when someone comes to realize the deep pool of pain and suffering buried in past unresolved hurts and humiliations can someone then rightly experience the resentment and the sorrow such incidents caused. They can then eventually grieve and move towards healing thereby reducing the future chances of participating in similar destructive behaviors and further traumatizing other people needlessly, in other words, breaking the cycle.

My advice to fellow victims of pitbull attacks, whether they be the direct victims of a serious attack, or they are the relations of a loved one that has been attacked and seriously injured or killed, and even those who have lost beloved pets to pitbull attack is that you are justified in despising and hating those that are responsible for what are obviously preventable attacks. And who is responsible? We can rightfully blame those who own and promote the breed and actively prevent society’s reasonable attempts to prevent such serious attacks occurring with appropriate legislation. Once the cause for your suffering has been identified, and the true feelings of how you feel expressed, you can then move onto a grieving process that will hopefully produce some level of acceptance. In the long process of healing, from hatred to acceptance, it is probably best to avoid those who promote pitbulls and ignore their abuse and hostility and see it for what it is, a manifestation of their own past hurts and sufferings that have nothing to do with you. If you have the strength, advocate for legislative protection, it is good for your self-esteem and shows you value yourself and others and that you have a healthy sense of self preservation.

If you allow the Pitbull advocates to shut you down, forcing you to repress, minimize or deny your true feelings of hurt, anger and rage about the injustice you have suffered, you run the risk of pushing such feelings into your unconscious and at a later date displacing your unconscious hurt feelings onto inappropriate targets. Just as pitbull advocates are currently doing. The difference being, the pitbull attack victim is expressing normal healthy emotions typical for anyone who experiences a serious injustice and directs their outrage at those who are collectively responsible. Whereas pitbull advocates outrage and anger is displaced, and the cause of such hostility is from injustices experienced long ago in childhood and long since pushed out of conscious awareness. No amount of raging and temper tantrums directed at pitbull attack victims will help them resolve their underlying issues until the rage is directed at those responsible for treating them poorly in the first place, in this instance, their parents or caregivers.

Pitbull advocates can argue all they like they aren’t responsible for these regular and now inevitable serious pitbull attacks, but it is only because of their determined efforts that society has yet to implement suitable legislation that at the very least could minimize these unnecessary attacks and possibly even eliminate them altogether. Just as driving while intoxicated is a behavior that increases the risk of innocent people being seriously harmed and killed and can’t be blamed on only those drunk drivers that do harm or kill others, but on anybody who participates in such reckless behavior. Society has labeled any such people who indulge in driving while intoxicated as ‘bloody idiots’, and rightly so. If certain behaviors, such as drunk driving or owning a fighting breed of dog exposes innocent people to unwanted and unacceptable levels of actuarial risk for the sole benefit of the person behaving in such a manner, then anyone who behaves in this way is complicit in any and all suffering caused by the collective of individuals acting in such a manner.

As for the pitbull advocates themselves, what would my advice be to them? I would suggest they seek psychiatric help to uncover what led them to use pitbulls as a physical manifestation of their unconscious childhood wounds that continue to remain unresolved. By treating the pitbull attack victims who are unwilling participants in the pitbull political drama as substitutes for the caregivers who long ago hurt you is futile. It is only likely to draw towards you more hatred and abuse and moving you further away from your goal of being loved and understood. I highly doubt this advice would ever be taken by pitbull advocates, but at the very least you should be willing to remain open to the idea that maybe you are drawn to pitbulls for more reasons other than the fact it is a dog. If it truly is dogs you love, a pitbull ban wouldn’t matter to you, because even if pitbulls were grandfathered out, there will always be a desperate mutt at the pound to rescue, such is the unfortunate nature of the pet industry.

There are many reasons people don’t look to childhood hurts inflicted on them by their parents or caregivers as being responsible for current dysfunctional behavior, some of these are religious and others cultural. It is easier to idealize one’s own parents and childhood than to risk losing the love and support of the only parents you have. Also to do so would cause a great deal of pain and suffering that many people aren’t prepared to bear. The alternative is though; to repeat the same old abusive patterns again and again, often on those who are too vulnerable to be able to do anything about it. As the old saying goes ‘Hurt people, hurt people”. The only way to overcome the hurt is to acknowledge it’s origins, express the long repressed emotions associated with the negative experience, eventually grieve the loss, heal the hurt and move to a point of acceptance. But this process can never start if the individual can’t even recognise the origins of their pain and suffering.

It is readily apparent to anyone who even moderately investigates the issue that the only way to repair the well-deserved reputation of the pitbull breed is to prevent the underlying causes that led to the reputation in the first place. Those causes are the all too frequent attacks that lead to serious injury and death on unsuspecting citizens. No amount of propaganda or good will stories can help the breed’s reputation now. Only evidence that the serious pitbull attacks have been drastically reduced or better yet, eliminated will repair the breeds damaged reputation and even this may not be enough. These types of results cannot come about under the current paradigm, and worse yet, the current efforts of pitbull advocates has only increased the frequency of these attacks and also increased the rate at which pitbulls are routinely destroyed. In effect, their advocacy has been bad for civilized communities and those concerned for its citizens welfare, it has been utterly detrimental for the pit bull breed itself, with more pitbulls destroyed each year than ever before, estimated at nearly a million a year, and it obviously isn’t helping those who have used the pitbull as a means to heal their wounded inner child.

In conclusion I think pitbull advocates are ‘Nutters’ aka ‘Crazy’ because they remain unaware that through their advocacy and promotion of pitbulls many innocent people and animals (including pitbulls) suffer unimaginably as a result. This can only lead me to conclude that the reason they persist with such efforts isn’t to do with the well-being of the pitbull breed itself, as their efforts have undeniably harmed the breed. There is obviously some other underlying cause leading them to continue to advocate for and promote pitbulls in the relentless manner they do. I hope this essay has shed some light on why I think it is certain people are drawn to own a breed of dog that is a physical manifestation of an antisocial attitude, and why it is difficult to convince those that promote or own pitbulls to consider a more suitable breed of dog as a companion animal.

To any reasonable human being, it would be considered crazy behavior to abuse and harass victims of serious pitbull attacks who advocate for sensible legislative protection from fighting breeds of dog. These victims have suffered serious and permanent injuries, some have lost limbs and appendages, others have lost precious children and loved ones, these are people that have experienced unimaginable and unspeakable horrors, and to attack and harass such people all because they react normally to having to experience such injustice, for me this is pushing the boundaries of even ‘Crazy’. To act more outraged than these victims because these people have hurt your feelings and criticized your obsessive need to own a pitbull is ‘crazy’. To be unwilling to choose any of hundreds of far more suitable breeds of dog as a companion animal is ‘crazy’. To claim to care about the breed and yet advocate in such a way that only harms the breed is ‘crazy’. To use an animal as a psychological prop is ‘crazy’. To want to own a breed of dog that has killed more people than all other breeds of dog combined is ‘crazy’. To want to own a breed of dog that kills someone every few weeks is ‘crazy’. To ignore, deny and minimize these regular serious attacks and fatalities is ‘crazy’. To try and use propaganda to cover up the fact pitbulls regularly maim, maul and kill innocent people is ’CRAZY’. And that’s my theory as to why pitbull advocates are ‘Nutters’.

Disclaimer: As the author of this article, I claim no expertise in either animal behavior or psychology. I am simply a victim who has chosen to have a voice. My goal is to develop an understanding of how it came to be that in modern day civilized society I could be seriously injured by fighting breeds of dog. A scenario, that prior to the attack, never occurred to me to be a possibility with the understanding I had at the time regarding the meaning of domestication in companion animals. I had always mistakenly assumed that domestication was the process of making animals safe to live together with humans, eliminating the fears that would normally accompany humans living in close proximity with wild animals. I believe developing an increased awareness of why such incidents happen, is for me, a path to healing.

There appears to be an aggressive minority defending the pitbull breed as a companion animal based on a claim of concern for animal welfare. This claim has never made sense to me. As humans slaughter 150 billion animals a year because they taste good. The majority of people seem content to destroy so many animals for what appears to be a reasonably trivial reason, animals that can claim to be truly innocent. Not only that, the pet industry destroys countless innocent animals because they are viewed as a commodity, therefore they are overbred, creating an excess that are simply destroyed. Many of these animals would be far more suited as companion animals in civilized communities as opposed to fighting breeds of dog such as pitbulls.

Considering this, I don’t believe animal welfare is the reason pitbulls attract such vociferous support, as there are countless opportunities for those wanting to protect animals rather than promoting fighting breeds of dog, dogs that have only created considerable discord in every society they have been allowed to be kept as a companion animal. This essay was my attempt to understand why I, as an outspoken victim of pitbull attack receive regular abuse and harassment, and why those who promote the breed do so in such an aggressive and excessively defensive manner. I believe there are several different types of people drawn to pitbulls, this essay was the exploration of only one of those types. For me, this type is particularly offensive, because not only are they complicit in supporting an unsuitable breed of dog for society leading to serious injuries and fatalities, they do it in good conscience, in such a way that they believe they are holy and righteous and everyone else who opposes them is evil and wicked.

Legal Experts and the Enemy of Humanity

KENNETH PHILLIPS, Attorney for dog bite victims   (dogbitelaw.com)
In 2013, there have been 18 canine homicides of which 17 were committed by pit bulls or pit bull mixes. Our dogs are not killing us. Pit bulls are killing us. And although pit bulls attack and kill strangers like Claudia Gallardo, 38 (killed by a pit bull in the front yard of its owner's house in Stockton, California) and Pamela Devitt, 63 (killed by 4 pit bulls running at large as she took a walk in Antelope Valley, California), the usual victims are our children, parents and guests.

I have come to believe that the modern pit bull should not be thought of as a dog at all. A dog is man’s best friend, but this is an animal that will kill the man, his wife, his children, his parents and the guests in his home. Clearly this is not man’s best friend; clearly it is not a “dog” in the sense that we think of a dog. Charles Manson was anatomically a man, sociologically a neighbor, and legally a citizen, but he is spending his life behind bars because he was a deranged individual who orchestrated mayhem and murder. Just because pit bulls look like dogs, they do not have to be thought of like we think about dogs such as golden retrievers and Yorkshire terriers.

In almost all homicides carried out by pit bulls, the owners and neighbors express shock and disbelief because the animal never gave a sign that it wanted to kill anyone. But to me, this is like a drunk driver expressing shock and disbelief that his car could kill. In both types of cases, a person made a choice to do something incredibly reckless, either by getting drunk or by getting the animal that makes headlines because of the frequency and brutality of its killing. We need to stop people from doing these reckless things.

Lawmakers have to stop listening to the nonsense about breed specific laws which is spouted by the owners of bully dogs like pit bulls. Since 2006 there have been 3 psychological studies which focused on the personality and behavioral traits of the owners of pit bulls and other high-risk breeds of dog. A study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence showed a link between ownership of high-risk dog breeds and deviant behaviors, crimes against children and domestic violence. Another study concluded that "vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance." A third study established that the owners of high-risk breeds of dog displayed more antisocial thinking styles, have an arrest history significantly higher than owners of other dogs, and engage in fighting to a significantly greater degree than other dog owners. They also had higher levels of overall criminal thinking patterns to go with the actual criminal behavior. These people, who are fixated on the animals that kill, maim and terrorize, are not the people that a lawmaker needs in his camp. Reasonable people want fair laws that provide a solution to the obvious problems caused by pit bulls.




THOMAS J. MOYER, Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court 1987-2010
"The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."




THOMAS J. MOYER, Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court 1987-2010
Toledo v. Tellings,114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007
In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull dog" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel. Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, state statutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation. By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog within the meaning of R.C. 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii). Similarly, by reference to these sources, dog wardens, police officers, judges, and juries can enforce the statute fairly and evenhandedly. Consequently, we find that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.





WILLIAM M HOEVELER, US DISTRICT JUDGE, ADOA v Dade County, Florida
Despite plaintiffs' contention that there is no such animal as a pit bull, plaintiffs' own experts have written articles about their pedigreed dogs referring to them by the common nickname of pit bull. At trial, these experts identified photographs of dogs as pit bulls, rather than delineating the dogs into any one of the three breeds recognized by the kennel clubs. Moreover, veterinarians commonly identify dogs as pit bulls -- rather than one of the three recognized breeds -- by their physical characteristics. Two veterinarians, testifying for the defendants, stated that they are often called upon to identify a dog's breed because it is an integral part of the animal's health record. This they do by reference to standard physical characteristics. Generally, these veterinarians testified, owners themselves know what breed their dog is.

There was ample testimony that most people know what breed their dogs are. Although the plaintiffs and their experts claim that the ordinance does not give them enough guidance to enable owners to determine whether their dogs fall within its scope, the evidence established that the plaintiffs themselves often use the term "pit bull" as a shorthand method of referring to their dogs. Numerous magazine and newspaper articles, including articles in dog fancier magazines, refer to pit bull dogs. Veterinarians typically refer to the three recognized breeds and mixed breeds with conforming characteristics as pit bulls. In addition, the veterinarians who testified stated that most of their clients know the breeds of their dogs.

DON BAUERMEISTER, Council Bluffs, IA prosecutor

All dogs can "get into it". The reality, though, for way too many dog owners is the sudden, unprovoked, violent and very serious attack from a pit bull. These folks have to pay the immediate vet bill. Yes, sometimes, the Court is able to intervene and order restitution, but what about the dead dog. What about the psychological damage to those who had to witness the attack. I have seen pit bulls attack and injure other dogs. It is something that you will never forget. A very purposeful bite, indeed. Pit bulls are pros and the rest of the dog world are amateurs. Man made them this way.

KORY NELSON, Denver, CO City Attorney
The most significant point about the justification for bans or restrictions of pit bulls is that these are not dependent upon a claim that every pit bull has a higher than average propensity for attacking humans. The justification is based on the clear evidence that, as a group, pit bulls, compared to other breeds, generally have a higher propensity to exhibit unique behavioral traits during an attack. These behaviors havea higher likelihood of causing more severe injuries or death. The Colorado Dog Fanciers trial court made this clear, stating that, while it could not be proven that pit bulls bite more than other dogs, there was “credible evidence that Pit Bull dog attacks are more severe and more likely to result in fatalities.” The court, in great detail, noted fourteen separate areas of differences, including: strength, manageability and temperament, unpredictability of aggression, tenacity, pain tolerance and manner of attack.

A municipality that is experiencing a problem with pit bull attacks needs to consider for itself the best course of action to protect its citizens, especially those most likely to be unable to defend themselves from the tenacious and sustained attack of a pit bull, who will likely bite, hold, and tear at its victim despite efforts to stop it. However, given the clear rational evidence, breed-specific legislation is still a legally viable option.There is no new evidence that undermines the holdings of Colorado Dog Fanciers, only new relevant evidence that adds additional support for BSL, as the differential treatment of pit bulls is based upon logical, rational evidence from the scientific field of ethology.

BOB JOHNSTONE, Cincinnati, OH city attorney

We have amassed what I consider an overwhelming amount of information that demonstrates to me that pit bulls are, by far, responsible for more fatal or serious attacks than any other breed.

JUDGE VICTOR E. BIANCHINI, San Diego, CA
A pit bull is the closest thing to a wild animal there is in a domesticated dog.

U.S. SUPREME COURT, SENTELL v. NEW ORLEANS & C. R. CO., April 26, 1897
Laws for the protection of domestic animals are regarded as having but a limited application to dogs and cats; and, regardless of statute, a ferocious dog is looked upon as hostis humani generis, and as having no right to his life which man is bound to respect.

The science of how behavior is inherited in aggressive dogs by Alexandra Semyonova

From Animals  24-7

    Probably most people recognize that every dog breed results from human manipulation of inherited physical traits. 
    Until recently,  most people probably also recognized that much dog behavior is also a result of manipulating inheritance:  if you want to do sheep trials,  you get a border collie.  If you get a beagle,  he will likely become instantly deaf to your calls if he picks up a scent to track.
    But after discussion started about perhaps banning breeds who often attack and kill,  defenders of these breeds began to dispute the heritability of any kind of dog behavior.

Conformation

    Only when behavioral inheritance is understood,  beginning with basic biological concepts,  can we have a clear and honest discussion about aggression in domestic dogs.  First we must understand the relationship between “physical conformation” and “behavioral conformation,”  which may be seen as opposite sides of the same coin.
    “Physical conformation” describes how a dog has been bred to become physically shaped specifically for the task we want him to perform.  The purpose-bred dog’s body––brain,  skeleton,  muscles,  and metabolism––will be different from those of other dogs. The dog will feel physically comfortable doing the job,  whatever it is. 
    The border collie is physically designed for the stalking stance and for switching easily and often from standing to lying down to standing again.  A greyhound enjoys sprinting,   with a deep chest that easily provides enough oxygen to the dog’s muscles to fuel a burst of high speed.  The same deep chest means the greyhound cannot run marathons because the deep chest prevents a greyhound from losing heat efficiently. 
    The greyhound’s brain has been shaped by selective breeding to steer the legs in a gait that provides maximum speed in a sprint.  The unique composition of a husky’s skeleton,  muscles and brain enables a husky to pull a sled with a different gait,  and to sustain a brisk pace for long distances. 
    The greyhound runs by leaping,  the husky by pushing,  always with one foot on the ground.  Each dog is genetically wired to use the specific body the dog has.
    Dog breeders have for centuries selected for particular traits by simply watching how a dog performs.  They have bred dogs for specific tasks by removing the dogs who perform less well from their breeding stock.  Sometimes they will cross in a dog breed they think will add traits to perform the task better.  Breeders select for performance without always knowing exactly which traits they are breeding for.  For example,  until recently no one realized the husky was being bred for a particular heat economy;  they just chose the dogs who kept running the longest. Eventually, successful breeders produce dogs who are physically shaped to do the dog’s task better than any other dog,  no matter how well the other dog is trained.
    “Physical conformation” leads to “behavioral conformation.”  First of all, each dog’s brain is genetically predisposed to grow to efficiently direct the body it is born in.  Then the dog’s brain adapts itself further to the body it is in as it grows in the developing puppy.  There is no gene for running or stalking,  but there are genes that give a dog four legs and make those legs longer,  shorter,  more or less flexible, and so forth.  It is because of the action of the genes that confer differently shaped bodies and brains that the pointer enjoys pointing,  the border collie stalks and stares,  the Newfoundland floats in cold water,  and so on.

Selecting for aggression

     Just as we cannot make a dog into something the dog has no genetic capacity to be,  we cannot prevent a dog from being what the dog is genetically predisposed to be.  Because inherited postures and behaviors are suitable for the body and brain the dog was born with,  they are internally motivated and internally rewarded:  they feel good. This means that inherited behaviorial traits are practically impossible to extinguish by manipulating external environmental stimuli. 
    In breeding dogs to perform certain tasks or have a certain look,  humans often select (sometimes inadvertently) for abnormalities in body and behavior.  We do this by looking for mutations and then breeding for them,  or by crossing breeds to get combinations of traits.   to speed the process up. A clear case of this is the old English bull dog,  who can hardly walk,  hardly breathe,  and cannot be born except by Caesarean section. The bull dog has also been crossed into other breeds by people who wanted to increase aggression in a breed without waiting for mutations to appear.
    There is such a thing as normal aggression in dogs,  as in all animals. Maternal defensiveness,  territorial defense,  and predatory behavior and depend on different neuronal and hormonal mechanisms,  and are all normal coping responses. These dog behaviors have been accepted by humans in the process of domestication,  as long as the behaviors can be foreseen.
    But abnormal disinhibited behavior is not functional,  and it is unpredictable.  Although high arousal and sudden attack can be functional in certain environments,  this behavior is pathological in a safer environment,  where a high level of arousal and aggressivity are not necessary and only lead to unnecessary attacks and injuries.   Research implicates the frontal cortex,  subcortical structures,  and lowered activity of the serotonergic system in impulsive aggression in both dogs and humans. Impulsive aggressive behavior in dogs seems to have a different biological basis than appropriate aggressive behavior.
    Kathelijne Peremans,  DVM discovered this by studying two different populations of impulsively aggressive dogs.  Each dog had executed one or more attacks without the classical preceding warnings,  and the severity of the attacks was out of all proportion to environmental stimuli.  Peremans found a significant difference in the frontal and temporal cortices of these dogs,  but not in the subcortical areas,  compared to normal dogs.  Peremans also found significant dysfunctions of the serotonergic systems among these dogs. Serotonergic dysfunction has been widely shown in many different species to be connected to abnormal, impulsive aggression.
    Peremans studied dogs of various breeds,  selected purely on the basis of their behavior.  Peremans was not interested in implicating any particular breed, but rather in finding the mechanism behind the behavior in any dog it occurred in.   She found that all of the dogs with a history of abnormal impulsive aggression shared the same physical abnormalities in the brain.  The gender of the dog made no difference.  Neither did whether the dog was castrated or spayed.
    Peremans left open the possibility that we will later find other physical factors that contribute to abnormal impulsive aggression.  For example,  the adrenergic system may also play an important role.

Heritability of behavior

    Another researcher,  Linda Van Den Berg,  investigated specifically the heritability of impulsive aggression among golden retriever,  a breed rarely involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks.  The goal was find out whether impulsive aggressive behavior was inherited in those few golden retrievers who exhibit it,  and if so,  to isolate the gene responsible for the behavior.   Van Den Berg found high heritability of impulsive aggression,  but did not succeed in isolating the responsible gene(s).
    The heritability of abnormal aggression in certain breeds of dogs can no longer be denied.  The bodies of these dogs have been selected to execute a killing bite more efficiently than other breeds.  These dogs share physical conformation to the task of killing,  including exaggerated jaw muscles,  heavy necks and shoulders, and body mass that makes defense against an attack much more difficult.  Among people who want dogs who can kill,  these are the breeds of choice because they are physically more fit for it than other breeds.
    But breeders also selected for behavioral conformation.  To perform well,  a fighting dog had to attack without provocation or warning,  and to continue attacking regardless of the response of the other animal.   Bull and bear-baiting dogs had to be willing to attack in the absence of the species-specific signs that normally provoke aggression, responding to the mere presence of another animals,  and not stopping in  response to external stimuli.  The Dogues du Bordeaux used to guard extended farmlands in France,  the Boerbulls used similarly in South Africa,   and the fugitive  slave-chasing dogs of Latin America,  such as the Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasiliero,  all were selected to specifically for a propensity to kill.
    As they selected for performance,  breeders could not know exactly which physical changes they were selecting for.  But research now shows that selection for aggressive performance includes consistently selecting for very specific abnormalities in the brain. These abnormalities appear in many breeds of dog as an accident or anomaly, which breeders then attempt to breed out of the dogs.  In the case of the aggressive breeds,  the opposite occurred. Rather than excluding abnormally aggressive dogs from their breeding stock,  breeders focused on creating lineages in which all the dogs would carry the genes causing them to reliably exhibit the desired impulsive aggressive behavior.
    Now that we know exactly which brain abnormalities the breeders of fighting dogs have been selecting,  the assertion that this aggression is not heritable is no longer tenable. It is also not tenable to assert that not all the dogs of these breeds will carry the genes that make them dangerous.  These genes may occasionally drop out through random accident,  just as golden retriever may acquire the genes to be impulsively aggressive.  But the failure to have these gene,  in the aggressive breeds,  is just that––a failure.  It is therefore misleading to assert that the aggressive breeds will only have the selected genes as a matter of accident,  or that most of them will be fit to interact safely with other animals and humans. 
    As in the pointer,  the husky,  the greyhound,  and the border collie,  the genes of aggressive breeds have been selected so that certain postures and behaviors just simply feel good.  These dogs will seek opportunities to execute the behaviors they have been bred for.  Because these behaviors are internally motivated and rewarded,  they are not subject to extinction.  Learning and socialization do not prevent these dogs’ innate behaviors from appearing. 
    Environments such as the fighting pit,  confrontations with tethered bulls and bears,  and the pursuit of escaping slaves,  for which these behaviors were selected as an adaptive response,  are so extreme that there is no appropriate context for these behaviors in normal life.  Functional in the pit or facing the bull or bear,  these behaviors must,  in all other contexts, be called pathological. Because the behavior selected for was impulsive aggression,  by definition this behavior will always emerge suddenly and unpredictably.     
    Speculating in favor of the aggressive breeds,  suppose that human artificial selection will fail as infrequently in the aggressive breeds as it does in the golden retriever.  Van Den Berg found impulsive aggression in approximately one out of a hundred golden retrievers.   If behavioral selection fails comparably often in fighting breeds,  there is only a 1% chance that their keepers will not endanger others in their surroundings.

Can aggression be bred out?

    Can impulsive aggressive behavior be bred out of fighting breeds?
    The fiction that, for example, the American Staffordshire terrier is a different dog from the pit bull,  just because the breeding has (also fictionally, by the way) been going on separately for several decades is just that:  a fiction. 
    The Russian researcher Dmitry Kontanovich Belyaev reported that he had bred fear out of foxes in only eighteen generations,  but impulsive aggression is a more complex response and much more dangerous to live with while you try to breed it out. Further,  Belyaev’s foxes were bred under laboratory conditions,  where there was absolute control over not having the wrong genes creep back in again.
    As Belyaev bred his foxes into the pettable creatures he wanted,  they began to have an increasingly floppy-eared mutt exterior.  Belyaev’s discoveries suggest that the interface of physical and behavioral conformation mean it is not possible to breed out the impulsive aggressive behavior of fighting dogs while retaining their shape and appearance. 
    Form follows function:  one cannot have a dog whose entire body and brain are adapted to executing the killing bite,  without having a dog who will execute the killing bite.
    [Alexandra Semyonova,  a dog behaviorist and former Dutch SPCA inspector,   is author of The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs (Hastings Press,  2009.)]

 The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs, Alexandra Semyonova

Dogwise
U.S. amazon kindle
amazon.co.uk

The Myth of the Herding Pit Bull Farm Dog

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. Friedrich Nietzche

Trying to find objective third party evidence to back up the bogus claim that pit bulls were once used as farm dogs and herded cattle, was like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Of course nearly every pit bull propaganda website regurgitates that claim but the real world and the fantasy world that pit bull advocates occupy more often than not contradict each other.

Herding Dogs

Here's what Ledy VanKavage's former employer, the ASPCA had to say about pit bulls and herding:

The Pit Bull Today

Most experts agree that today’s pit bull is a short-coated dog characterized by a wide skull, powerful jaws and a muscular, stocky body. But there is great variation in the pit bull’s appearance. Typically 35 to 65 pounds, some weigh as little as 25 pounds, while others tip the scales at 80 pounds or more. Some have bulkier frames and colossal skulls; others have leaner, more muscular bodies. All are strong and athletic. With their impressive stamina and staunch work ethic, pit bulls enjoy a variety of activities, including agility, disc dog competitions, flyball, freestyle and competition obedience. They often excel in weight-pulling contests and schutzhund. Some pit bulls work cattle in herding trials, and some still function as hunting dogs.

There is the fantasy world of versatile herding pit bulldogs and then there is the reality of pit bulldogs herding cattle.



I managed to find a couple of videos of pit bulls "herding" sheep. My favorite is Hagrid the Herder. Watch this video closely. During the 5 minutes Hagrid is in the pen, he is given time outs at :50, 1:49, 2:27, 2:57 and 3:35. Notice how small the pen is and how close the handler stays to the sheep. Also note that the handler doesn't use the standard flimsy whip to keep the pit bull at bay, he uses a rake. The handler excessively praises the pit bull and is constantly making physical contact with the pit bull.




Herding Instinct Tests

According to the American Kennel Club, "The purpose of noncompetitive herding tests is to offer herding breed owners a standardized gauge by which a dog's basic instinct and trainability are measured."

"The purpose of the competitive herding trial program is to preserve and develop the herding skills inherent in the herding breeds and to demonstrate that they can perform the useful functions for which they were originally bred. Although herding trials are artificial simulations of pastoral or farm situations, they are standardized tests to measure and develop the characteristics of the herding breeds."

The AKC defines Herding Instinct as follows: The inherited balance in a dog’s temperament, between the predatory drive and the dog’s submission to its master. The stronger the herding instinct, the stronger must be the desire to comply with the commands of the handler. 

8 month old Border Collie

9 month old Sheltie

6 month old Aussie

Kelpie (young!)

Cattledog

Corgi (never seen a sheep before this test)

11 month old GSD

Now that you have seen what REAL herding dogs go through to achieve their herding instinct certification, let's watch a purebred american pit bull terrier earn his herding instinct certificate.



You can also watch this on a larger screen on youtube.

UPDATE: CARLA ANN THOMAS HAS DELETED HER VIDEO. WHY? IT'S INCRIMINATING. I HAVE A COPY AND I AM WORKING TO GET IT TO YOU.

Notice how the handler keeps her body between her pit bull and the sheep as they circle the small flock and she stays a good 20-30 feet from the sheep at all times. This sheep owner should be ashamed for participating in this sham.

This is how pit bull advocates are able to claim that their dogs can do it all. I do not believe that Jaeger legitimately earned that certificate. Either CARLA ANN THOMAS greased someone's palm to sign off on this test or Jaeger did not pass and she is lying. I will attempt to answer that question elsewhere.

Same here. This APBT earned his herding instinct title while LEASHED.

According to WorkingDogs.com, the dogs are to be tested off leash. This website has a good overview of the test. The author of this page acknowledges the subjectivity of the testers and how they evaluate and grant titles for dogs.

From the AKC Herding Regulations
Amended to August 2008

Section 4. Qualifications. The total number of
qualifications necessary to complete the requirements
for a Herding Instinct Certificate and for the issuance of
the titles Herding Tested Dog (HT) and Pre-Trial Tested
Dog (PT) shall be established by the Board of Directors
of The American Kennel Club.
The Judge’s certification of qualification for any particular
dog constitutes certification to The American Kennel Club
that the dog on this particular occasion has evidenced abilities
at least in accordance with minimum standards and that
the abilities demonstrated would justify the awarding of the
title associated with the particular test class. Qualification
must never be awarded to a dog, which exhibits abilities that
do not meet minimum requirements.
In Instinct Test the dog must show sustained interest
in herding livestock, either going around them, gathering
them and moving them toward the handler, or moving
them ahead of the handler to drive them or a combination.
For boundary, the dog should show sustained interest in
working the livestock and honor the border.
In tests, dogs must demonstrate the ability to move and
control livestock by fetching or driving, and be sufficiently
trained to work at the proper balance point to move the
stock forward on the course. Dogs that constantly prevent
the stock from being moved in a controlled fashion, or that
chase or harass the stock, will not qualify.
Dogs may continue to enter tests to gain experience
after the title for that class is earned with no entry
preference.

Section 5. Instinct Tested Certificate. The
American Kennel Club will issue an Instinct Tested certificate
to an eligible dog that has been certified by two
different Judges to have qualified by passing two separate
licensed or member Herding Instinct Tests.

Section 6. Instinct Test Description and Test
Elements. The dog is brought into the arena on a long
line approximately 6-15 feet in length. At some point
while on the line, the dog must demonstrate a stop (down,
sit or stand) and a recall before the line is dropped or
removed. A dog, which cannot be recalled, shall not be
let off line. Dogs must be immediately removed from the
ring if physical force is necessary to protect stock from
the dog.

Either the two women involved in the herding instinct tests above are lying or they have found some unscrupulous individuals willing to sign off on anything that pays the entry fee.

There is not a whole lot of buzz on the pit forums about herding and it is understandable when you look at the above rules and regulations. I did find two interesting discussions about herding. On pit bull chat forum. A member is interested in trying it with her pit. One member suggests using a muzzle to be safe, while another states "While I love APBT's.... terriers often don't make good herding drive. They lack the gathering instinct that the prey drive has developed into. That said, if you can afford to reimburse the trainer for dead sheep, go right on ahead! Herding is really fun!"

A member on chazhound broaches the question of herding with pit bulls and the responses are equally interesting. i have used them as rec herders we used to have a cattle ranch and i would take them out with a few cows and work with them herding them. Never anything serious tho. Our sheltar and farm dogs did that. 
And

My dogs would love to herd livestock........then bring them down. But baiting bulls/livestock is in there blood so for me to expect them to be perfect gentlemen/ladies around large animals might be asking too much. It honestly depends on the animal/dog aggression within that dog. And I've seen a case where someone brought their very submissive non-DA 'pit bull' out to the barn & it seems instinct took over. The dog however ended up with the brunt of the damage after being ganged up on by 2 of the horses (1 of them the one he was going after).

What does the Bulldog Diva, Diane Jessup have to say on the subject?

Because I titled Dread in duck and sheep herding and trialed him a time or two on cattle, as well as earning "Herding Certificates" (not really a training title) on several other pit bulls, people often ask me about information on this activity. To be truthful, it is not something I recommend. Today's herding trials are not a fair venue for these "catch dogs". Bulldogs can and do move stock, but that is not their real purpose. Their purpose is to catch and hold.

Today's herding trials are so much more risky than real world "herding" of yesteryear (sarcasm again). That might have something to do with society progressing towards more humane attitudes and behavior towards animals. The baiting activities that pit bulldogs were originally bred for was criminalized in England in 1835.

There will always be X number of duds within each breed. A dud being a dog that lacks all ability to function as originally intended. I do think that a few select people can exert sufficient control over even fewer select pit bulldogs long enough to pass these tests but no one with half a brain would trust a pit bulldog to round up their sheep or function in an unsupervised capacity as a farm dog.

The herding instinct titles on these two pit bulls are even more worthless than the ATTS.

Farm Dogs

The farm dog myth goes something like this, early immigrants brought their cherished bulldogs with them to America where they continued their role as loyal hard working family members on american family farms.

My search for references to pit bulldogs functioning as all purpose farm dogs on non-pro pit bull propaganda web sites and books proved to be as futile as finding objective third party references to the pit bull as herding dog. 

I haven't been able to find even a rough date when bulldogs began to invade our shores but at the very latest, they came here in the late 1700's as President Thomas Jefferson reportedly had a couple of bulldogs.

In 1800, 94% of the U.S. population lived in rural areas. That means nearly every american lived on a small family farm. They grew their own vegetables, raised their own chickens, milked their own cows and goats. Any dog owned by 94% of the population in 1800 could technically be labeled a farm dog. By 1920, half of the U.S. population lived in the country and half in the city.

Babe Ruth lived on a farm in the 1920's. He raised poultry and he owned pit bulldogs. Technically, you could call Babe Ruth's pit bulls "farm dogs", since they lived on a farm. But Babe Ruth's pit bulls didn't behave like farm dogs when they escaped containment and killed his chickens and a neighbor's cow. This behavior is the antithesis of a farm dog and like every early american would have done, Babe Ruth killed the dogs.

The most famous pit bulldog that is credited as being a "farm dog" is Laura Ingalls' Jack the Brindle Bulldog. In her books, Jack is credited with protecting the Ingalls from wolves and it was also noted that Jack needed to be tied up to keep him from attacking indians. There is no mention of Jack rounding up sheep or cattle. Jack functioned as a guard dog. Interestingly, the Ingall's loyal hard working "farm dog" was callously traded for a horse.

If you are like me, when someone says "farm dog", you picture a dog that adheres to the phenotype of collies and shepherds. Farm dogs were truly versatile dogs. They had to be, or like Babe Ruth's dogs, they would have become food for worms. Early americans could not afford to own dogs that viewed their family's food source and livelihood as prey. As I searched in vain for objective evidence to support the pit bull propaganda, I realized I needed to expand my breed net to find information about farm dogs in general.

Hobby Farms had an extensive list of "farm dog breeds" on their website, everything from collies and shepherds to flock guardians and hunting dogs, even rottweilers. But alas, no bulldogs or pit bulls.

Farmcollie.com proved to be a wealth of information. The description of the farmcollie reads exactly like the fantasy pit bull histories found on Badrap, the ASPCA and every other mom and pop pro-pit bull website. In fact, I thought that pit bull advocates likely stole the identity of the american farm collie for their own Machiavellian purposes; european roots, versatility, once the most popular breed, they even allude to the farm collie performing nanny dog type functions.

The American Working Farmcollie, also known as the Old Farm Shepherd, (Old Shep) was once the most popular dog in the country. As descendants of the Old Scotch Collie, the farmcollies were versatile dogs, indispensable to farmers in the 19th and early twentieth centuries. During that period, it was this dog that most Americans thought of as a “collie”, although they were quite different from the AKC collies of today. The Farmcollie in this country quite likely also carried the blood of other types of herding and shepherd dogs that were brought here from Europe, but he remained a dog that clearly showed his Scotch Collie heritage. Like the Scotch Collies, the American Farmcollies excelled at herding, guarding (both livestock and the family), hunting and predator control. Their duties varied from protecting the baby from snakes to moving the bull. Over the years, however, the focus of American life moved from the homestead to the urban areas, and as small farms became swallowed up in larger corporate farms or urban sprawl, the need for this type of all purpose farmdog had all but disappeared. In its place came myriads of specialized breeds---companion dogs, hunting dogs, guardian dogs and herding dogs.


Nope, no pit bulldogs in here.


farm breeds

Farmcollie.com

Old-Time Farm Shepherd

Jack the Brindle Bulldog

1800 - 1990 changes urban rural us population

Old Time Farm Shepherd

Thomas Jefferson

Babe Ruth

pitbull-chat Herding!

chazhound pit bulls as herding dog

What To Expect from a Herding Instinct Test 

Herding on the web

Diane Jessup on Herding

Carla Ann Thomas and Jaeger