If you've been following the story of Pumpkin, the pit bull terrier who was euthanized Thursday after attacking an Ahwatukee woman and her two Yorkshire terriers, you probably have a strong opinion one way or the other. By the owner's account Pumpkin was an average dog, gentle with her family and never previously prone to attacks. The victim of the attack differed, and in the end a Phoenix Municipal Judge ruled Pumpkin had to die.
I do not want to diminish the severity of either the injuries sustained by the victims - one of the Yorkies nearly died, and their owner faces a long recovery from her wounds - or the loss of Pumpkin to her family. But I believe this commentary by Emily Behrendt in the Ahwatukee Foothills News needs to be rebutted, and unfortunately what I have to say about it is inappropriate for the comments section of that online paper.
They might be amenable to my opinion that pit bulls and rottweilers are not, as Behrendt suggests, inherently dangerous animals and unfit as pets. Too many pit bulls and rotties are brutalized as puppies in order to turn them into attack dogs or worse, and these breeds are selected for this because they have the characteristics that make that sort of abuse a success. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see some of the people that "raise" their dogs to be killers put into a cage with one of their prize students for a few hours or days.
What would probably get my comment booted from the AFN website is my contention that Pumpkin attacked those two Yorkies for the simple reason that something she sensed from them set off some of her more primal instincts, marked them either as prey or as weaklings that needed to be driven out for the good of the pack, and acted accordingly. This isn't a trait limited to pit bulls, rottie, dobermans, or any of the dogs that scare us as a society: it could have happened with any dog, particularly a purebred.
Two anecdotes to illustrate this: I knew a rottweiler named Max owned by a bar owner in Scotland. My girlfriend at the time worked there, and sometimes I'd come pick her up at the end of her shift. Max was there, wagging his tail, greeting every customer with his playful nature. As he got used to me he'd put his paws up on the bar when I sat down and demand that I scratch his ears before I touched my pint.
But every so often someone would walk into the bar that would set Max off. His whole affect changed dramatically: he'd put his paws up on the bar in an aggressive stance, bare his teeth and growl at the newcomer, and would not back down until that person left. The bar keeps would simply tell the man (it was always a man) that Max didn't like him and that he'd better leave. Upon seeing Max, they did so without argument.
I could not tell you what it was that set Max off, but his owners knew how to deal with his reaction: remove the source of his agitation. Once the man left, Max would return to his usual jolly self.
More recently - two days ago to be exact - I was walking a pair of elderly miniature schnauzers and an eight year old Jack Russell terrier who thinks she's eight months old. As a pair of Maltese or similar little white dogs came around the corner my three charges began growling and pulling at their leashes as if they wanted to rip the throats out of the other two. The smaller of the schnauzers, who suffers from severe degenerative hip problems and could fit in my pocket, might have done so if I hadn't had a good hold on her. As soon as the other owner and I got clear of each other my three defenders of the sidewalk got back to the business of happily sniffing the bushes, as if the other two dogs had never existed.
The dogs we keep as our household friends and companions are descended from predators, and all retain some degree of that proto-canid nature. We may never understand what sets one dog off and not another, but we have to recognize that they all have that potential. We have no right to single out particularly strong breeds like pit bulls, rotties, shepherds, etc., as Behrendt does, because any dog can snap for Dog knows whatever reason. Particularly the purebred ones.
Therein, I believe, lies the problem. Pure breeding limits the genetic health of any creature, and dogs are no exception. I've said before that the best dog you can possibly have is the mutt you adopt from the pound, because s/he will not only appreciate you taking hir home but s/he will be genetically more robust than a purebred.
I refrain from posting my comments on AFN because I don't believe I'm articulate enough to write it in a way that won't leave at least a few people thinking I'm suggesting the Yorkies deserved to die because Pumpkin responded to them as prey. I am certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that we have to stop patronizing not only the bad breeders who damage their dogs but the ones who damage the entire species by limiting their gene pool and virtually insuring they will have mental and/or physiological problems at some point in their lives
We single out pit bulls because they are strong and scary. We single out rottweilers because they are big, black, strong and scary (see the Big Black Dog post). We need to recognize that dog ownership carries a responsibility to the species itself in the form of not perpetuating the madness of pure breeding and to accept that dogs sometimes just lose their shit.
Get well, Yorkies and Yorkie owner.
Rest in peace, Pumpkin.