Karen Delise is a leading expert on fatal dog attacks, ‘pit bulls,’ and canine aggression. She is the author of Fatal Dog Attacks and The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. She founded and directs research at the National Canine Research Council. She kindly agreed to answer a series of questions from the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner about ‘pit bulls’ and society’s strange relationship with canine aggression.
Read part two of the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner's interview with Karen Delise.
What led you to become an expert on fatal dog attacks and on society’s strange relationship with canine aggression?
It all started about 20 years ago when a young boy was killed by a dog about 10 miles from my home. At the time I was working in the Suffolk County Jail and accustomed to seeing all the types of violence and cruelty humans inflict on each other, and so I was rather shocked at the amount of anger and condemnation that was directed towards all dogs (and certain breeds/types in particular) after this very rare, and, to me, almost unheard-of incident. So, my interest was initially about our reaction to rare cases of fatal dog attacks, more so than about the actual attacks themselves. At the time we had housed approximately 80 inmates that were accused or convicted of murder in our county, yet, no one ever reported that “humans can never be completely trusted,” or some races of humans are more aggressive than others, yet this is exactly what was being said about all dogs because of the actions of a single dog.
What is a ‘pit bull’?
“Pit bull” is not a breed of dog -- it is a label that has become a huge catch-all that includes dozens of different breeds/types of dogs and a huge array of mixed breed dogs.
In your second book, The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression, you make the somewhat strange analogy between a breed of dog and a sugar pill. What do you mean by that?
Dogs and humans are complex beings, with complex drives, emotions and behaviors. Because of this, it is often very difficult to understand the human-canine interactions that have led to a dog bite or attack. Many individuals and politicians have no desire to undertake the work necessary to understand the human and canine factors that contribute to dog bites or attacks and instead offer “quick fixes” in the form of a sugar pill or placebo. This placebo is usually found in the form of a “breed ban” or blaming the appearance of a dog for its behavior. Certainly no dog bites because of its breed or appearance, yet breed bans are based on that very notion -- that certain dogs bite or attack because of their genetics -- while completely ignoring any immediate causes that may have caused a dog to bite.
You draw a distinction between ‘family dogs’ and ‘resident dogs.’ What’s the difference? Why is that an important distinction?
Dogs maintained outside the home (on chains, in kennels or in yards) and/or dogs obtained for negative functions (guarding, fighting, protection, breeding for financial gain) are not family pets; they are resident dogs. Acknowledging the environment in which they live and the function for which they are maintained is vital to understanding their behavior and, when the situation arises, their aggression.
Resident dogs cannot be expected to exhibit the same behaviors and level of sociability as family dogs.
Family dogs live inside the home and are afforded the opportunity to learn appropriate behaviors through positive and humane interaction with people on a daily basis.
It’s really fascinating how the breed vilified by the media has varied over the past hundred and fifty years. I was really surprised to learn that bloodhounds and Newfoundlands had once been regarded as extremely vicious breeds, something that seems utterly ridiculous today. What are some of the factors leading to a given breed being demonized? What does that tell us?
Bloodhounds and bloodhound-type dogs performed a vital function in the 1800s, i.e., chasing down fugitives, criminals, runaway slaves and missing persons. When America’s attitude towards slavery, and the hunting of slaves, began to change, so did the perception of the dogs whose function it was to recapture slaves. This was seen with great clarity in the “Tom Shows,” or the stage productions of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, in which bloodhounds were shown chasing Eliza across the frozen Ohio River with her baby in her arms. Audiences were thrilled and shocked by this scene and it demonized bloodhounds to many people. Naturally, while many people were horrified and frightened by “bloodhounds,” there were many people that sought out these dogs exactly for that reason.
‘Pit bulls,’ like other demonized breeds before them, are reputed to have behavioral and biological traits which are very different from those of other breeds. Is there any truth to these claims?
No.
Wouldn’t they have to have had these traits during all the long years prior to the media latching onto them?
Of course, but like the bloodhound, the traits the “bulldogs” had were viewed as positive traits; “gameness,” tenacity, extreme loyalty to owners, and determination were admired and respected by people 50 and 100 years ago. And, like the bloodhound, when the dog became associated with functions that society found shocking and unacceptable (i.e., dogfighting) the perceptions of the dog changed -- the dogs became the villains, as did the bloodhounds that were merely functioning in the roles in which humans placed them.
Why didn’t we start hearing about ‘locking jaws’ or exploding brains or the inability to feel pain or use body language in ‘pit bulls’ prior to the 1980s? Why don’t we hear the same things about Dobermans anymore? Were they miraculously cured of these biological and behavioral oddities?
No, the “pit bull” replaced the Doberman as the bad breed du jour. And in order to upstage the “fierce” Doberman, the “pit bull” had to have more incredible, more shocking and more frightening traits than the Doberman. Most unfortunately, at the same time the internet and technology now provide for these new myths and rumors about “pit bulls” to be transferred electronically across the globe in the matter of mere minutes.
What are the factors that dog attacks have in common? Are the factors associated with fatal and severe attacks different than those associated with less-severe bites?
Dogs and humans are both complex beings that interact in a myriad of different ways, from doting, caring owners, to clueless and even cruel abusive owners. There are no true generalizations that can be made about dog attacks, except to say that dogs in the hands of educated, humane owners are less likely to be involved in biting or attacks.
What are the consequences of breed-specific legislation? Does it prevent dog bites? Is it ever useful or appropriate to single out any breed of dog in an ordinance?
BSL can never prevent dog bites, as at its core, it does not address why dogs bite. Dogs do not bite because they are a member of a certain breed. Dogs bite during their interactions with humans. Only when these interactions are examined can there be an understanding and hence, solution to reduce dog bites or attacks.
Is there any reliable research documenting what breeds of dog are statistically most likely to bite? How would one design such a study? What kind of data would be required and is it even obtainable?
No to all questions. Again, dogs do not bite because they are members of a certain breed. They bite during their interactions with humans. Study the interactions between the two species and we will get a better understanding of why dogs bite.
It is NOT possible to only study dogs -- dog behavior cannot be separated, or studied apart from the humans which they are interacting with.
What is the earliest instance of BSL that you are aware of? What is some of the Georgia-specific history of BSL?
This is not my area of expertise. German shepherd dogs were banned in Australia beginning in 1929, until the middle 1970s. In the U.S., I believe the first ban against “pit bulls” was in the early-middle 1980s, in Hollywood, Florida.
To receive an email notification whenever I publish an article or trivia question, just click the ‘Subscribe’ button at the top of this article.
Become a fan of the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.
Become a fan of the No Kill Advocacy Center on Facebook.
Comments
Places should have the legal right to ban pit bulls if they want to. Wolves are banned from certain places yet there have been many tame and friendly house wolves. People are being "demonized" for wanting to ban pit bulls from certain residential areas.
Why should places have the right to tell you what dogs you have? They don't ban cars, or balloons or bikes, all of which have killed more children than dogs. The point is that there is no correlation between the breed and the bite incidents.
Vince, you have the right to own or not to own. you may be fine with giving up 1/2 of your rights. I on the other hand am not. I say my right to choose trumps your forfeit of 1/2 of your rights. You have no right to take my right to own away by placing a ban. Your very wrong about the wolves. There is not or will there ever be a tame friendly "house" wolf. You have no idea what your talking about . I have owned a total of 9 wolf hybrids during my life and while I loved them and they never caused harm to anyone they where far from being anything like a domestic dog.
Many landlords, especially of apartment buildings and condominiums, sometimes ban their tenants from keeping large dogs on the property. This is not against the law!
Since every dog is a descendant of a wolf then why are wolves banned from many properties? If humans are descendants of apes then why are people prevented from keeping apes in their own homes?
Vince, I don't understand why you are commenting on this particular article. Wouldn't your questions be better answered on say a philosophy forum?
Landlords do not pass legislation; they are not responsible for a municipality. I don't understand why you mention landlords. Is it your contention that because landlords can refuse to rent to owners of large dogs that that somehow means BSL is helpful or beneficial?
Try reading the article again, slowly.
Vince your argument makes absolutely no sense.
All that Vince Albanov is saying is that banning a certain type of animal (in this case a pit bull dog) is not unconstitutional. It has already been done successfully many times in U.S. history.
Stop being so passionate about an ugly dog breed and go get a life! Take up animal torture, like fishing instead! Or go to a Star Trek convention but forget about dogs for a moment.
Rachel...apparently you know nothing about the breed so I don't understand why you are even commenting. Maybe you and Vince should get together to have your own discussion.
You say it isn't but it is still being debated in courts across the United States. IMO it is not only unconstitutional but it violates my basic human right. Allowing the government so much freedom into my home as to control what kind of a dog I can and can't have???? It as absurd as the Salem witch hunts. Unbelievable!
Good information. Especially helpful since Texas legislators are now considering a Pit Bull ban. I don't understand why our legislators aren't learning from the failed BSL laws in other communities. These laws do not reduce bite cases and only serve to further the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocent dogs (Pitbulls and anything that even remotely resembles a Pit Bull).
More appropriate actions would be to look at each specific bite case individually, and if appropriate, punish the owner who let their dogs run loose unsupervised; or the owner who let his/her dog become aggressive in the first place. Every dog has the propensity to become aggressive in the right (or wrong) circumstances.
As aPit Bull owner, I know the real characteristics of the breed, and I have to say my CAT is more vicious than my Pit Bull. All of people I know that have Pit Bulls have well socialized, friendly "babies". BSL will not work as many issues with dog bites are NOT breed specific. Thanks to the media, all we hear is that it was a Pit Bull that attacked, whether or not it actually WAS a Pit. ANY breed can and will attack, based on how it was raised. There is no proof that genetics determines how a dog will act because it is a specific breed. With dogs, it is nature vs nurture and while there is some nature it is primarily nurture. If you tie any dog up outside and never give it love and attention it will be a vicious dog.
And to Vince Albanov and Rachel Kleinschmitt, get your facts straight before you post. First of all, while landlords can decide to ban large dogs from their rentals, that is inclusive, that means you couldn't have a St Bernard either. Second, Rachel, your comment that the breed is ugly, well let me say that is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions....
Thank you so much for your comment, pitbulls are very beautiful dogs, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Look one in the eyes & you see love & a best friend.
lilsassy71: DNA evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that wolves and dogs are the same. Dogs and wolves can live together and breed together very successfully. If wolves can be legally banned from certain places (which they have been) then why can't Pit Bulls be banned too? Isn't it always Nature versus Nurture?
Common sense proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement is absurd. My background is in biology. I used to work in a DNA lab. Dogs are dogs. Wolves are wolves. Yes, they can interbreed, but that is under artificial circumstances. When a wolf and dog meet, a dinner date may indeed result, but probably not any puppies if they are unchaperoned. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. Wolves have not. Their behavioral repertoires are quite different. That counts for something.
And, since banning 'pit bulls' does not help animals or serve the public safety, why would you want to do it anyway?
Rachel 100,000 plus years have changed the dog. Since domestication the dog's brain has shrunk 20% compared to the wolf's brain. Our brain has shrunk 10% since we domesticated the dog! This happened over 1000's of years we lost some of our inherited "animal" traits because we began depending on the dogs better one's, like smell. The dog lost some of it's inherited traits as well. They where safer, had to fight less for food and shelter because humans provided it. A wild wolf will kill a dog in a split second. Even on in heat if it is hungry.I have owned wolf hybrids and Pit Bulls they are like apples and oranges. I'll take on two Pit Bulls trained to kill rather than one wolf. It least with the Pit Bulls I would last longer than a minuet.Tell ya what Rachel, get yourself a Zebra and race in the Ky. Derby, basically the same animal but worlds apart. Nature doesn't verse nurture. It's nature/nurture 50/50. If the nurture is done right.
Bett said it all. Vince and Rachel need to take Diane's advice and read the article again, SLOWLY.
Better still download a digital copy of 'The Pit Bull Placebo'.
Or Janis Bradley's "Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous".
All the vilification and demonisation of Pit Bulls achieves is to make them highly desirable to the highly undesirable. They are the sort of owners who allow their dogs to rot at the end of a chain, to roam at large and encourage human-targeted aggression.
No bad dogs, just bad owners.
As for the people calling Pit Bulls "ugly" I'm sorry for you. You don't know what you're missing.
I love it when people that don't care about a subject, & know nothing about a subject, find it amusing to mock people & distract from the issues in this kind of forum. Wolves are wild animals, dogs are domesticated. Wolves don't do so well in domestic situations though there are exceptions.Our companion dogs depend on us for food, shelter & love & it is our duty to protect them. Pit bulls are currently the target of an all out holocaust. If all the smug little s*53!ts on this page would go to the shelters & see their sad faces on death row, or better yet, to the landfills to see the monstrous piles of dead pit bulls, perhaps it would shut them up, but probably not. Breed discrimination is not only ineffective legislation, it is an abomination & completely inhumane.
I would just like to had that I have been the victim of dog bites seven times in my life... AND NOT ONE WAS A PIT BULL. Or any other breed that has ever been considered "dangerous". I was bit by " sweet little lap dogs" (NOT) and carry the scars to prove it. BLAME THE DEED-NOT THE BREED. The only fear of have of an American Bull Terrier is being licked to death
Wow Vince that is a big load of misinformation you have there. First of all, People are NOT descended from apes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. There is a HUGE difference between the two statements!! It is clear from your statement that you do not really have a functional understanding of evolution. Second of all, it is not true that all dogs are simply descended from wolves. There are several other types of non domesticated dogs the world over and several breeds of domesticated dogs are descended from them individually or in combination (although it is true that the majority of domesticated dog DNA is from wolves). As such, Rachel, your statement that DNA proves that wolves and domesticated dogs are "the same" is misleading and ambiguous to point of being devoid of any real meaning and does not reflect the truth. And if you understood the concept of domestication you would know that the behavioral and social characteristics of domesticated dogs are very much different than wolves.
Brian Simpson: Scientists used to believe that modern, domesticated dogs had some coyote or fox DNA in them but they don't. All dogs (including pit bulls) are descended from wolves. Wolves can easily interbreed with dogs and produce fertile healthy offspring.
Ironically some wild wolf packs had been proven to have some dog DNA in them too especially if they have a black-colored coat.
If landlords can legally ban wolves and large dog breeds from apartment buildings (which they have) then why can't pit bulls be banned too for whatever reasons?
Wow. This is starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.
.While this lady writes books and claims to be an expert - she fails to tell of the horrible deaths and maiming by dogs that have been legally identified as pit bulls by authorities.
I have been writing about these people who have been attacked - all mauled and some killed @ Atlanta Faith and Family Examiner.
As long as people keep pulling the veil over the truth about these dogs, people will continue to be attacked and maimed.
In my research, I find many discrepancies in Ms. Delise's interview. Anything to sell a book, huh; especially when there is such a ready-made audience of these pit bull owners.
While some continue to defend the dogs, I choose to defend those innocent people who went for a walk, went for their mail, went outside to get into their car; or innocent children and infants being chewed to death by these dogs.
When one person died for taking one Tylenol from one store in one state, they were all removed from the shelves in every state.
How long will it take before cities and counties come to the fact that these dogs are bred to attack and kill. How many will have to suffer and die; especially the innocent children?
While some may be domesticated as house pets - many of these pet owners lived to regret that choice when they turned on family members.
Exactly what should be done to these "owners" who are touted as being the blame? Why should they be allowed to have animals that are capable of killing?
All dogs may bite; and some will attack if provoked; but this "breed" of Pit Bull does not have to be provoked. Attacking is a sport to them.
Honestly, I have no confidence in this interview
Yes, pit bulls are the dog-of-choice for street thugs, gangs and criminals. Any unsocialized, un-neutered, abused, chained or guard dog is more likely to be aggressive. The owner causes the criminality - not the dog.
Likewise, those who keep saying that it's legal to prohibit large dogs...Legal and constitutional are 2 different issues. Witch hunts used to be legal too.
Patricia-
Karen Delise is the acknowledged expert on the subjects she writes about, including fatal dog attacks. She does extensive research, including examining the CDC's mortality tapes and actual autopsy reports. These are far more reliable than media reports. (We will get more into media bias in part 2 of this interview.)
Please read the article before commenting. It appears that you failed to do so.
Additionally, your tone is quite rude. Karen Delise has dedicated much of her life to researching these subjects becasue she wants to make the world a better place for both dogs and people. For you to state otherwise is both rude and ignorant. For you to portray yourself as the defender of humanity and her as someone out to "sell books" is both prissy and tacky. If she were out to "sell books", why on earth would she have made 'The Pit Bull Placebo' available as a free pdf download? I linked to it in the article in the bolded text of the third question. I strongly recommend that you download it and begin the task of educating yourself.
Every last one of your assertions about the biology and behavior of 'pit bulls' is without merit.
Your analogy to the Tylenol scare of the 1980s is irrelevant.
Reckless dog owners should be punished and should not be allowed to even have dogs.
I am happy to engage in rational discussion. Attempts to malign the character of my interviewees will not be tolerated. Nor will baseless assertions based on emotionalism.
What a wonderful interview. Logic, rationale and educated discussion on a pretty straight forward topic for anyone who is smart enough to take part in it. Karen is confirming what any savvy dog person knows; any dog is capable of biting, maiming and fatally wounding if owned by reckless owners, so why is one, two or more breeds targeted? Pure and simple, isn't it. For anyone who works with dogs; albeit, trainers, groomers, vets, etc, etc, they know that it is not one breed of dog that is capable of inflicting serious injury.
I nearly laughed this week thinking of the ignorant people trying to ban a specific breed when I was called out to a mutli-dog home to work on aggression issues. Within the home resided an American pit bull terrier, a rottweiler, and a chocolate labrador. Who do you think was causing all the problems - yes, the labrador, who has attacked and injured both of the dogs; seriously injuring the american pit bull terrier, and also bitten both owners (requiring a hospital visit). How would a breed ban make this home safer? And this is just one case among many!
For the person/s who keep referring to dogs and wolves and making the bizarre argument that banning pit bulls is justified because dogs are descendants of wolves. Then why not argue to ban all dogs since you argue that they are linked to wolves. Are you reading what you are writing? Computers have spell check, so why won't someone create 'logic check'?
And, for the person who is the blogger for another examiner, promoting fear mongering by posting about 'alleged' pit bull attacks based on faulty breed identification (often victim statements) and/or due to negligence on behalf of the parents, and/or resident dogs in the home who are definitely not family dogs, and posting images of victims of 'pit bull' attacks does not support your argument that pit bulls are the only dog biting. Strange, but I never see these anti-pit bull bloggers posting, or even discussing, the first face transplant victims injuries, or even posting her images (since you love brutal images to persuade the public) or even trying to ban labradors based on the grotesque damage caused by this dog. Of course, this was just one labrador case. Maybe it must have had a reason to maul his owner...maybe he was just trying to wake the victim by licking her face and got carried away....yes, these are the silly arguments anti-pit bull people have posed. This would all be hilarious, if such flawed logic and fear mongering was not killing so many family dogs!
Thank you Karen Delise....please keep talking!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!