Delise said only a tiny number of dog attack fatality cases -- perhaps two or three each year -- are freak accidents in which a seemingly nice dog goes bad.Others are either aggressive dogs or abusive owners who create accidents waiting to happen. Or they involve a cascade of mistakes, such as an owner failing to neuter a dog, ignoring a previous aggressive incident and then leaving an unsupervised child with the dog. "Once in a while, the dominoes line up and somebody gets killed," Delise said. "But statistically it's such a small number."
DOG FIGHTINGPeople often claim that we have pit bulls because of dog fighting, and that pit bulls will not be the same without dog fighting. Many will say they would never, ever, want their *own* dog to get hurt, but they can see the historical point of dog fighting.Can we really trust humanity and its history to make this decisions for us? Perhaps if people knew some of the social history of the era in which dog fighting was borne, they would understand it as a symptom of a social group of cruel and heartless men.At the time dog fighting was legal in England, it was also legal to beat your wife and children, to hunt and kill any beast for the sake of sport, and also legal to import the decapitated heads of Pacific Islander peoples (Pacific Island natives slaughtered solely for their heads, not as a result of disease or war) for decoration.In an era when all game and humans from distant lands can be slaughtered to decorate some noble Englishman's country home, it's hardly surprising that dog fighting would be legal. However, even back then it was not considered a "gentleman's sport" but rather the blood sport of the wharfies and uneducated farmers of the British Isles. It was a substitute for the fox hunting and big game hunting the rich could afford to do.If a society has not tendered itself to the cruelty of blood sports and the rich participate in them, of course those in a lower socio-economic group are going to imitate as best they can and that's what they did with dog fighting. It was also tolerated because it provided some financial income for those who had a low income or no other way to provide for themselves or their family.Two years after importing human heads became illegal, dog fighting became illegal in England, and these changes in British law came about as a result of the first Reform Act of 1832, which William IV at first opposed. Later, towards the end of his reign, he changed his stance and adopted several liberal laws which included banning importing human heads and dog fighting. It was seen at the time as the reformation of a once well-traveled and worldy man and a pious outcry from that man repenting for a hard-lived life and the blood shed in England. When Victoria, his niece, came to the throne in 1838, these laws were further enforced and have remained to this day. It was also during this era of bloodshed that the importation of African peoples by the British began in the United States for the purpose of slavery.I hope this helps people to understand the mentality and socially accepted treatment of animals and people at this time in British history. It is difficult to explain such an evil twist in British history except a strong Tory/Whig political system bent on extracting every last pence from any source, regardless of the suffering involved. Of course, this would spill over into their hobbies and sports. Even though many think that the Declaration of Independence separated us from the British Isles, it only did so in law. The British looked upon the Americas as a new land to colonize and exploit after it was shown to them that people could actually live here and prosper, and there were as many British here during our Revolutionary history as there were U.S. citizens. Did you ever wonder why people would save every last cent and get on a ship and sail for months with little food in cramped and filthy conditions to get away from the British? Life had to be pretty difficult and horrible there for the average person in order to undertake such a risk for a better life in an unknown country. And of course the British followed to exploit these colonists.I have no desire to let such a historical period and group of people make my decisions for me. Independence in this country is the leftover symptom of such a cruel time. We have the breed as a result of this time in history, that is true... but to say that pit bulls will not be the same without dog fighting parallels saying that those peoples brought into this country to be exploited and beaten and abused would not be the same as well. The end doesn't justify the means.Some people believe that a person who lets his dog fight with another dog, and gives it vet care afterward, is not an inherently cruel person. Maybe ignorant, but not sadistic like the person who just lets the dog stay bleeding or the person who ties a dog to a tree and abandons it, etc.Dogfighting is cruel - and it's sick. Too bad dogs can't talk. Cruelty and sadism feel the same to the victim. Cruel means without pity - not caring about the pain the dog endures from fighting. People seem to separate the definitions of cruelty and sadism not by the act but by the actions of the perpetrator after the fact, when sadism cannot exist without first an act of cruelty. Then they excuse the cruel as ignorant because he provides medical care. What exactly is he ignorant of? That a cut and bleeding animal feels pain? Well maybe someone should practice surgery on him without an anesthetic to enlighten him. I don't need to know that someone took pleasure or gratification in torturing an animal for me to think it's cruel and sick and wrong. They are both wrong and both illegal and the law makes no distinction for psychological motivation in this area.Ever notice the similarity in psychosis between a man fighting his dog and giving it veterinary care and the man who beats his wife then drives her to the ER? Does that make it any less a crime? It indicates someone who has no control over their actions and cannot stop himself from harming others. And they will both look you straight in the eye and say "I love my wife" or "I love my dog".These individuals appear to not have the potential to make the decision to not be cruel and cause harm. Maybe they're addicted and this act provides some evil to feed their twisted souls. And no, they're most likely not a "step away" because first they have to acknowledge they are doing something wrong then seek a way to heal from it, and not many people have the ability to psychoanalyze and treat themselves and surely most criminals don't get psychiatric help on their own volition.Rehabilitating every person who is cruel is not within our reach either unless we are a professional psychologist or psychiatrist and this person is willing to change. It is very difficult to reach those who do not want to be reached. Ironically, this is one of those criminal activities where most of the perpetrators actually get some of their kicks seeing us sensitive types cringe.Alexander Moss Author and Member of Pitbull-L