The Save Lennox campaign came to
an end yesterday, as Lennox was "humanely put to sleep" by Belfast City
Council, a sad end to over two years of legal wrangling, accusations and
counter-accusations, leaks, politics, protests and petitions.
Was Lennox dangerous? Was he a Pit Bull type? I don't know the answers, and that is almost no longer the point. Lennox has become a poster boy, in his death he will be turned into a martyr for a cause, and his case has brought BSL to the attention of many people who neither knew nor cared about the legalities of the shape of dogs before this.
First and foremost, Lennox was a victim of a short-sighted law that caused him to be seized purely on the basis of his appearance. Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 banned certain breeds of dog. In the case of "Pit Bull types", the document used was published in the USA in 1977. Pit Bull Terriers have never been recognised by the UK Kennel Club as a breed, so there is no UK documentation that could have been used, and this is why the law refers to a type not a breed. Bear in mind, at this time six month quarantine rules had been in force for nearly 100 years for dogs entering the country, and it seems to me extremely unlikely that the UK population of "underground" pitbulls would have had much genetic overlap with the USA population of show bred American Pit Bull Terriers.
Even supposing the ADBA description of a pedigree show American Pit Bull Terrier was appropriate for an unregistered fighting-bred pitbull type on a different continent, that 1977 description was 14 years old at the time of the legislation, and a further 21 years have passed since then. I would not be surprised if in dog fighting circles 21 years equates to about 21 generations of dogs.
21 generations of selective breeding in any species can reap huge changes in both temperament and physical characteristics. Where is the evidence that the law is even looking for the right thing in 2012?
People tend to assume the look and character of a dog breed is a fixed thing. They think if you breed a Spotted Flooping Hound with another Spotted Flooping Hound, they will all look the same, forever. This is not true, as not all Spotted Flooping Hounds will have the same number of spots, and within a few generations a breeder could easily select the most or least spotted examples, and the kennel down the road could do the opposite. In a few years you could have a new breed, the Lesser Spotted Flooping Hound. The debate on whether this is a breed, a line, a strain or even a crossbreed comes down to paperwork and politics, and is a complete red herring for this discussion, as anyone breeding pitbull types or other illegal fighting breeds in this country is not going to be attempting to register them with the Kennel Club anyway.
In show breeding, breeds tend towards physical conformity, and a line up in the breed ring can be like a house of mirrors where the same image repeats and repeats. In many breeds, the focus on aesthetics has distracted from temperament and the original qualities of the breed have been lost. Not all terriers show an inclination to kill small furry things. Not all gundogs show hunting or retrieving instincts. Not all collies show herding instincts. In the same way, breeds originally used for fighting, bear-baiting or bull-baiting are generally accepted to now be perfectly safe pet dogs to own, as this temperament has been bred away from (e.g Boxer, Bulldog, Mastiff).
In contrast, when breeding working dogs, breeds tend towards a generally similar appearance, but working strains show far more variety in coat and type than their show counterparts - look at the working sheepdogs you see on farms or at trials, and they are all different. They would be mostly black and white and medium sized, but not all symmetrically marked, not all one type of ear set, not all one coat length, but all selected and valued for their working ability and aptitude. Put a working sheepdog in the show ring and you would get laughed out of town, but if you need some sheep fetching, many show collies would not have a clue.
I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. I find it very unlikely that fighting rings would see any benefit in breeding dogs to correspond with a description of a show dog from 1977. I suspect it is much more likely that they would breed for working ability, and in this case, this means selecting for a certain amount of size and muscle, an unpleasant, aggressive, stubborn temperament, and not fine detail of their physical appearance such as length or width of head, shape of tail, thickness of legs.
The "ideal" fighting dog could have changed immensely in the 21 generations bred since 1991, it could be a cross of any number of breeds, with or without pitbull, and could end up measuring up nothing like any of the breeds banned in the DDA. It may still end up in court on the grounds of its behaviour, but that does not excuse the "incidental" killings of staffie crosses, lab crosses, mastiff crosses, who just happen to grow up to measure similar to a pitbull type.
There is no proven correlation between aggression and any specific physical characteristics. The DDA is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Was Lennox dangerous? Was he a Pit Bull type? I don't know the answers, and that is almost no longer the point. Lennox has become a poster boy, in his death he will be turned into a martyr for a cause, and his case has brought BSL to the attention of many people who neither knew nor cared about the legalities of the shape of dogs before this.
First and foremost, Lennox was a victim of a short-sighted law that caused him to be seized purely on the basis of his appearance. Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 banned certain breeds of dog. In the case of "Pit Bull types", the document used was published in the USA in 1977. Pit Bull Terriers have never been recognised by the UK Kennel Club as a breed, so there is no UK documentation that could have been used, and this is why the law refers to a type not a breed. Bear in mind, at this time six month quarantine rules had been in force for nearly 100 years for dogs entering the country, and it seems to me extremely unlikely that the UK population of "underground" pitbulls would have had much genetic overlap with the USA population of show bred American Pit Bull Terriers.
Even supposing the ADBA description of a pedigree show American Pit Bull Terrier was appropriate for an unregistered fighting-bred pitbull type on a different continent, that 1977 description was 14 years old at the time of the legislation, and a further 21 years have passed since then. I would not be surprised if in dog fighting circles 21 years equates to about 21 generations of dogs.
21 generations of selective breeding in any species can reap huge changes in both temperament and physical characteristics. Where is the evidence that the law is even looking for the right thing in 2012?
People tend to assume the look and character of a dog breed is a fixed thing. They think if you breed a Spotted Flooping Hound with another Spotted Flooping Hound, they will all look the same, forever. This is not true, as not all Spotted Flooping Hounds will have the same number of spots, and within a few generations a breeder could easily select the most or least spotted examples, and the kennel down the road could do the opposite. In a few years you could have a new breed, the Lesser Spotted Flooping Hound. The debate on whether this is a breed, a line, a strain or even a crossbreed comes down to paperwork and politics, and is a complete red herring for this discussion, as anyone breeding pitbull types or other illegal fighting breeds in this country is not going to be attempting to register them with the Kennel Club anyway.
In show breeding, breeds tend towards physical conformity, and a line up in the breed ring can be like a house of mirrors where the same image repeats and repeats. In many breeds, the focus on aesthetics has distracted from temperament and the original qualities of the breed have been lost. Not all terriers show an inclination to kill small furry things. Not all gundogs show hunting or retrieving instincts. Not all collies show herding instincts. In the same way, breeds originally used for fighting, bear-baiting or bull-baiting are generally accepted to now be perfectly safe pet dogs to own, as this temperament has been bred away from (e.g Boxer, Bulldog, Mastiff).
In contrast, when breeding working dogs, breeds tend towards a generally similar appearance, but working strains show far more variety in coat and type than their show counterparts - look at the working sheepdogs you see on farms or at trials, and they are all different. They would be mostly black and white and medium sized, but not all symmetrically marked, not all one type of ear set, not all one coat length, but all selected and valued for their working ability and aptitude. Put a working sheepdog in the show ring and you would get laughed out of town, but if you need some sheep fetching, many show collies would not have a clue.
I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. I find it very unlikely that fighting rings would see any benefit in breeding dogs to correspond with a description of a show dog from 1977. I suspect it is much more likely that they would breed for working ability, and in this case, this means selecting for a certain amount of size and muscle, an unpleasant, aggressive, stubborn temperament, and not fine detail of their physical appearance such as length or width of head, shape of tail, thickness of legs.
The "ideal" fighting dog could have changed immensely in the 21 generations bred since 1991, it could be a cross of any number of breeds, with or without pitbull, and could end up measuring up nothing like any of the breeds banned in the DDA. It may still end up in court on the grounds of its behaviour, but that does not excuse the "incidental" killings of staffie crosses, lab crosses, mastiff crosses, who just happen to grow up to measure similar to a pitbull type.
There is no proven correlation between aggression and any specific physical characteristics. The DDA is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Lennox was only one dog, but literally hundreds of dogs have died under the DDA since 1991, most of which had never bitten anyone and were arguably not dangerous. They died due to a hastily written law that says they look wrong, and takes no account of their parentage, or most importantly their behaviour. Whatever the rights and wrongs on either side in the Lennox case, let the focus be on the fact that his first mistake was that he looked wrong, and in the end that is why he died.
