| Selective breeding and dangerous dogs When treating delicate topics like the issue of dangerous dogs, one should treat the subject rationally and not emotionally. In an ideal world, as portrayed in Edward Hicks' art masterpiece, the 'Peaceable Kingdom', all animals would live in harmony and there would be no such thing as a dangerous breed or species. Alas, we live in the real world. The animal rights view specifies that all animals have rights, but animal rights, like human rights, are not absolute. There may be exceptions to any rule. The question of dangerous breeds is one. Some people might emotionally consider the humane gradual elimination of a dangerous breed like pit bulls, and the muzzling of such dogs, as a form of discrimination between breeds, but looking at the whole picture will show that this is not the case. First of all, dogs, unlike humans, have no concept of breed (in the case of humans - race). Putting it in simpler terms, left to their own devices, they would interbreed without any thought whatsoever. In time, were it not for human intervention, there would not be any "pure" breed. Unlike humans, dogs would see no problem with a particular breed becoming extinct. Now, since it is a well known fact that breeds like pit bulls were manipulated by humans for the purpose of fighting, and they are genetically predisposed to violent retaliation, this necessarily classifies them as a dangerous breed (both to humans and other animals), and it would be rational to make the breed extinct by humane methods (neutering the existing dogs and banning the breeding of these dogs). The only objection would presumably come from breed enthusiasts, either for genuine harmless aesthetic reasons, or for dog-fighting. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to require the muzzling of such dogs when in public. Even if such dogs do not attack humans or other animals unless provoked, still it would be wise to take all necessary precautions to avoid injury or even death. It is in the interest of both humans and other dogs, and also in the interest of the "dangerous" dogs themselves, for them to be muzzled when in public, since if they attack, (whether they are provoked or not is irrelevant), it would be reasonable and necessary for people to do all they can to stop them, which would always require violence, and sometimes, unfortunately, even killing them. Thus, in this case, a muzzle would save their own life apart from the life of others. Other people would argue that to make a breed extinct for the above reasons would still be a form of speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species), since no one would suggest anything similar in the case of humans. The case for the gradual elimination of dangerous breeds is not a case of speciesism, since the interests of both the breed in question and those of other breeds or species are taken into account, and a solution is sought which would produce the least harm possible. Also, the comparison is erroneous, since there is no particular human race predisposed to violence - it is only particular human individuals (irrespective of race) who might be genetically predisposed to violence (though even this is a controversial and unresolved issue), while in the case of pit bulls, for instance, it is a know fact that they are. It is also worthy of note that pit-bull "pure breeds" would not exist were it not for human intervention for profit. The proliferation of "pure breeds" is itself speciesist, since any human-enforced breeding is treating non-human animals as property, and is therefore itself speciesist. Also worthy of note is the fact that in the case of violent humans, the threat of harm to them when they act violently (like the threat from armed police officers) would usually be sufficient to stop them, and their institutionalisation, (prisons or mental hospitals), or their knowledge of the high probability of their institutionalisation for repeated offences (which could keep some violent people in check), would usually be enough to bring safety back to the community without excessive and unnecessary harm to the violent individual. In the case of pit bulls or other such breeds, the threat of violence would not be enough to stop them acting violently, and violence would certainly be necessary to restrain them. The only analogy with humans is where they are luckily restrained with the least harm necessary and possible, and they are "institutionalised" in an animal sanctuary. Muzzling would in this case prevent both outcomes (violent action to stop their own violence, and their institutionalisation to prevent further violence). To conclude, since dogs have no concept of breed like humans have a concept of race, and since it is in both humans' and other animals' interest that such breeds are humanely made extinct, the only humane solution would be to register and neuter all existing pit bulls and similar breeds, to ban the breeding and importation of such dogs, and to muzzle the existing dogs when in public. And this would be in conformity with the animal rights view, which requires that the interests of all sentient animals are taken into account, and that the least harm possible be applied to individual animals in the case of conflict of interest between members of different species (or breeds). As PETA's Ingrid Newkirk says, "How people can fight breed bans - in other words, how they can fight to keep on breeding a particular breed-is beyond me, unless they are dogfighters or similar. Aren't we supposed to be against breeding if we care about dogs? Here's why I support breed bans: 1. We have an overpopulation problem that means millions of dogs are killed every year for lack of good homes, so a breed ban on any breed or, preferably, all of them, can only reduce the flow of new dogs coming into a world that can't accommodate those already dying for a place. Who cares if someone wants to outlaw pit bulls, dachshunds, or poodles? Those of us who deal with overpopulation are opposed to all breeding, so why insist that pits or any dog still be allowed to breed? That's crackers! 2. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone proposes banning pits, we can make sure that this great law contains a grandfather clause so that no pits already born have to be given up if their people value them. If existing dogs aren't affected, what's the gripe? That we aren't allowing more of them to be bred? Are we dog breeders or dog protectors? And let's modify the law further to require sterilization of existing pits. That means that people who would like to care for and love a dog after the existing one has passed on won't be allowed to breed more just because they fancy a look or whatever it is they fancy (as if a dog is like a car that you pick and choose a model). Rather, they can actually show they care by adopting an equally wonderful but so far unwanted dog from death row." (source: http://www.ingridnewkirk.com/archives/2005/07/lets_face_it_br.html) Implementing the above Implementing the above conclusions would necessitate the following steps, some of which are already enshrined in Maltese law, some need to be enforced and some to be added. 1. The banning of the importation and breeding of pit bulls and like dogs and the registration of all such dogs which would be classified as potentially dangerous breeds. This would ensure the gradual humane elimination of such breeds from Malta without any necessity of killing any one of them. Huge fines for people who do not follow these rules should be applied. 2. Compulsory sterilisation of pit bulls and other classified dangerous breeds. This would be necessary to make point 1 effective. A date should be specified after which the owners of any such classified breeds found unsterilised would be fined. The registering of these dogs as mentioned in point 1 would make it possible to discover additional pit bulls or such breeds in a household, which in this case would necessarily mean that either such dogs have been illegally imported or illegally bred. 3. Cumpulsory muzzling of pit bulls or such breeds when in public. This would be a safeguard from any attacks (provoked or unprovoked). Attacks from unmuzzled pit bulls or such dogs should result in a huge fine for their owner and the taking away of the dog. 4. The adoption of any stray pit bull or any like breed should follow the same rules. In this case, registration of the dog should be made within 24 hours. 5. Anyone who breaches any of the above regulations should have their dog taken away. The dog would possibly be taken to an animal sanctuary willing to keep it. All expenses on the dog should be paid for by the ex-owner until the dog dies a natural death. 6. Animal sanctuaries should be exempted from any fees in connection with the registering and neutering of classified dangerous breeds. |
 |