Last Wednesday morning a security guard on his way to work was killed by a pack of dogs which had escaped from their yard. Afterwards the animals turned their attention to the wife of a pastor who was bitten on her arms and leg before former minister, Dr Dale Bisnauth, came to the rescue with a stick, causing the dogs to retreat. Initial reports had suggested that some of the dogs, at least, were pit bulls, although this was denied by a relative of the owner, who said they were mixed breed. Whether any of them were pit bull mixtures, however, was not made clear. The matter is of some interest, since pit bulls – and by extension, pit bull cross-breeds – have acquired an unsavoury reputation in many countries for being ‘dangerous dogs.’
Even in this country they have gained considerable notoriety following attacks on people, including one earlier this year when full-blooded members of the breed bit two Tucville residents as well as two employees of the Guyana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This was after a woman in the area – unbelievably – was alleged to have loosed them on a group of children who had been making a nuisance of themselves. Then there was the case last year of two pit bulls attacking a jogger in North Ruimveldt, and seriously injuring him.
Several countries, or in some cases, provinces within countries, have restricted pit bulls, including our neighbour Trinidad and Tobago. Similarly in the UK – reputedly a nation of dog lovers – they are one of four dog types which cannot be bred, sold or exchanged, the intention being that they will eventually die out. The other three breeds are little known in Guyana, although from their names two of them would seem to originate from this continent. The current British law covering the four specified breeds, cross-breeds from these and any other dogs “appearing… to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose,” is the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991. The act has homed in on the essential characteristic of the named breeds, namely that they have been bred for fighting, and by implication that is what makes them dangerous. Not everyone agrees. Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says it is wrong to “criminalize” an entire breed, and that what matters is how individual dogs are trained. In the case of pit bulls, they were originally bred for bull-baiting, but when this was banned in the nineteenth century, a switch was made to dog-fighting. Even then, some animal organizations say they were not trained to be aggressive towards humans, only other dogs, and according to Chris Lance, the veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, “If they are properly trained… they’re no more likely to bite you than a Jack Russell.”
However, he was reported as going on to say that pit bulls had acquired a new status as a “macho symbol” for young men, and that this had been responsible for the more recent attacks in the UK. The dogs had been trained to growl and show aggression, and these temperamental defects were exacerbated if the animals were kept in outside kennels and away from interaction with human beings. It might be observed that in Guyana the vast majority of dogs, pure bred or otherwise, tend to be kept in outside kennels and away from human contact, because their owners want them to show aggression to intruders.
That fighting pit bulls can potentially be rehabilitated is demonstrated by the case of the former United States NFL quarterback, Michael Vick, who is currently serving a 23 month federal sentence for his part in a pit-bull fighting operation and for helping to kill at least six dogs. The animals rescued from his kennels, who – the fighting apart – had been appallingly maltreated, were assessed by officials, and a number of them, although not all, subsequently cleared to be given homes. These dogs, of course, had not been trained to show hostility to human beings.
In this country pit bulls have become enormously popular largely, one suspects, because of illegal fighting operations, but partly because as in the UK they have become a macho symbol for young men, and partly for security reasons. Their reputation for fierceness is such that for guard dog purposes they have probably overtaken in popularity the German Shepherds, Dobermans and Rottweilers which used to be so favoured by more affluent home-owners.
Where Guyana is concerned there are two issues for immediate consideration. The first relates to whether specific breeds should be outlawed or restricted, and the second to the control of dogs in public areas. The first issue is closely related to the matter of dog-fighting, which is a cruel sport and even under current legislation dealing with cruelty to animals is illegal. If the police made any headway in stamping the practice out, one suspects that the popularity of pit-bulls would decline. At the moment the grape-vine has it that dog-fighting is associated with a betting culture, which would make it especially difficult to eliminate. The current penalties for a cruelty conviction (encompassing dog-fighting) involve a relatively trivial $200 fine, which in most cases will be accompanied by the much more stringent punishment of six months’ imprisonment.
Given the prison penalty, at least, the main issue in this case seems to be the implementation of the law, rather than the law itself. Since one presumes that many of those who keep dogs for fighting purposes may in other respects be law-abiding citizens, it will be doubly problematic for the authorities to access intelligence about fighting locations, etc. Nevertheless, clearly the time has come for them to develop strategies for confronting this problem, as well as contact the GSPCA about devising a publicity campaign against the practice.
But even if dog-fighting were minimized, should the government go on to contemplate banning or restricting specific breeds and cross breeds, more particularly in our case, pit bulls? Aside from the views of the RSPCA and the Dog Trust mentioned above that it is not a breed which is dangerous, but how an individual dog is trained, the BBC has also reported on discussions in UK courts about what exact breed (or cross breed) a particular dog is. It does not take too much imagination to envisage the kind of arguments which would be put forward in our courts by clever defence lawyers. If only on these grounds one is tempted to the view that the administration’s attention should be directed to any dogs – pure bred or mongrel – which are dangerously out of control in a public place, as the British law puts it.
The current law in Guyana – the Dogs Act – is probably in need of upgrading where the control of dogs is concerned. A magistrate can hear a complaint about a dog being dangerous and not being kept under proper control, and he can make an order directing that the dog be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed. In our present circumstances one cannot help but feel that where a dog has seriously injured a person and more particularly has killed someone, a magistrate should have no discretion and the animal should be destroyed.
The British act provides that a dog “dangerously out of control in a public place” can be destroyed and the owner jailed for up to six months; while the owner of a dog which injures someone can be jailed for up to two years.
