commodification of the pit bull terrier
TRANSCRIPT
Corinne Haack The Commodification of the Pit Bull
How the Commodification of the Pit Bull Has Led to the
Implementation of Breed-‐Specific Legislation Breed-‐specific Legislation, or “BSL”, is an overarching term used to describe the
laws that attempt to regulate or completely ban certain types and breeds of dogs in
hopes of reducing fatal dog attacks on humans.1 The use of the phrase “dogs” in the
definition however is a bit of an overstatement, as the only type of dog the law seeks
to reduce is the American Pit Bull Terrier (“APBT”), crosses of the APBT, and breeds
such as the American Staffordshire Terrier, which excepting the denial of a white
nose for registration purposes, is the same exact animal. The goal of BSL rests on
the premise that law enforcement can readily identify the breed of an animal based
on some key physical characteristics. Among those characteristics are traits like: a
block-‐ish shaped head, short fur, and a straight or slightly curved tail. A quick
reading over that description and one readily sees that such defining attributes of a
Pit bull-‐type dog are really defining attributes of any one of hundreds of dogs;
Labradors, Weimaraners, Bloodhounds, among many others. The faulty logic
behind being able to label the genetics of any living being by visual sight is a topic
for another study. What I want to focus on, and what I hope to prove by the end of
this paper, is that selectively breeding for the enhancement of traits commonly
associated with the APBT has proved detrimental to the health and well being of the
breed as a whole, by allowing for easy identification of the animals in a world
1 "Breed Specific Legislation." Home. N.p., 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://badrap.org/breed-‐discrimination>. Breed Specific Legislation -‐ or 'BSL' -‐ is the practice of using laws to regulate and restrict dog ownership based solely on the physical appearance of someone's dog. It stems from the belief that some dog breeds are simply "born bad," and identifying those examples can be as easy as noting certain physical features.
2
currently set on destroying them. Put in other words, the commodification of the Pit
bull-‐type dog for human financial gain has opened the doors to the implementation
of discriminatory legislation aimed at eradicating a once great breed.
To illustrate how humans are capitalizing on modifying the Pit bull, I will
share the story of “The Hulk,” a monstrosity of a dog bred out of Dark Dynasty
Kennels. As stated above, humans are exploiting the ability to breed for Pit bull-‐type
dogs that are “intimidating.” The more the law tells people that Pit bulls are bad and
should be avoided, the more people are drawn to the breed like never before. Karen
Delise, author of “The Pit Bull Placebo” succinctly explains the problem in the
following:
“In breeding dogs some humans have created and continue to select for traits that will increase their tendencies to inflict
injuries and to fight one another for the exclusive purpose of our ‘enjoyment.’ To claim that the dog is dangerous because we seek out, select for and encourage these behaviors is just another
example of the transference of cruel human traits and behaviors unto our dogs.2”
Pit bull-‐type dogs carry with them a stigma of dog-‐fighting and general toughness,
and because of this, the bigger the dog’s chest, the larger its head, the more bulky its
muscles, then the more the animal is coveted. And, the more people will exaggerate
these characteristics to produce the most prized dog. Enter, “The Hulk.”
A massive dog that resembles more of a small horse than any canine, Hulk is
dubbed the world’s largest Pit bull. At only seventeen months old, Hulk weighs an
2 Delise, Karen. “Fighting Dogs: Branded with the Sings of Their Masters.” The Pit Bull Placebo. N.p.: Anubis, 2007. 130. Print.
3
outstanding 173 pounds.3 To put that in perspective, the breed standards for an
American Pit Bull Terrier places 60 pounds at the high end of what any full-‐grown
adult male should weigh.4 This means that Hulk is almost three times larger than
what breed standards allow! Now, this may not seem like earth-‐shattering news,
but any advocate for the APBT breed should be furious with the media circus
surrounding Hulk and his breeders. It is very clear that the dogs produced at Dark
Dynasty Kennels are not Pit Bull Terriers, not even close. The only way to achieve
such overgrown proportions is for the dogs to be primarily Mastiff, or more
specifically, Bull Mastiffs.5 The Bull Mastiff is often mistaken for an APBT because of
the similar blocky head and short fur, those starring characteristics used in BSL to
determine what dog is a Pit bull and which is not.
The big issue here is that Dark Dynasty Kennel owner, Marlon Greenan,
states the goal of his breeding operation is to “specialize in security dogs and
personal protection dogs.”6 Put another way, Greenan is breeding aggressive traits
into dogs that are already perceived as being aggressive. Even though the Dark
Dynasty dogs are primarily Mastiffs and not Pit bulls, the public perceives them as
Pit bulls and any aggression shown by Greenan’s dogs will be attributed to Pit bulls
as a whole and that negative image is not something these dogs need to suffer from
any more than they already have. It is breeding operations like Dark Dynasty
3 Burnett, Erin. "Meet 'Hulk' the Giant Pit Bull." CNN. Cable News Network, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 May 2015. 4 " American Pit Bull Terrier." United Kennel Club: American Pit Bull Terrier. N.p., 2015. Web. 11 May 2015. 5 Stevenson, Linda. "Breaking News!" Hello Bully. N.p., 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2015. 6 Greenan, Marlon. "DDK Training." Dark Dynasty K9s. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
4
Kennels that are fueling the establishment and use of breed discriminatory laws.
Flaunting overly massive animals with ripped muscles and huge jaws and calling
them “Pit bulls” does nothing to ensure the longevity of the APBT breed as it is
meant to be. People do not fact check what they see on the media. If “The Hulk” and
dogs similar to him are paraded on the public’s television screens being called Pit
bulls, then the general populace is going to believe that is what a Pit Bull is: a
humongous, terrifying, beast of a dog. A cursory fact check however on what the
breed should physically comport to be, readily shows that the United Kennel Club
standards state that, “[e]xcessively large or overly massive dogs and dogs with a
height and/or weight so far from what is desired as to compromise health,
structure, movement and physical ability” are to be considered “Very Serious
Faults.”7
So, why and how have we gotten to a point where the APBT breed is
bastardized to the point of being unrecognizable? The Pit bull terrier was never
meant to be a guard dog or a protection dog. The mutation of the breed is aided by a
sub-‐culture of people who partake in dogfighting and so need animals that look the
part. Unfortunately for the animals, this look has become the iconic touchstone in
drafting legislation banning them from cities, townships, and even entire states.
Legislation aimed at eradicating dogs based upon appearance is overlooking the fact
that, “[t]hose who claim the Pit bull is destined by its genetic code to behave a
certain way are denying the very fact that man has selected for these traits,
7 " American Pit Bull Terrier." United Kennel Club: American Pit Bull Terrier. N.p., 2015. Web. 11 May 2015.
5
continues to select for them and could just as easily select against them.”8 The Pit
bull breeds are maintained by a constant and continuous selection for traits. Policy-‐
makers who claim they must ban the breed because “[w]e can no longer control the
appearance, behavior or traits within the breed, or that the breed has ‘gotten away
from us,’ is absurd.”9 The fear and distrust of the breed stems solely from a man-‐
made market for a dog that is in whole or in part, contrary to its natural disposition.
“Every part of the Pit bull, from conception to death, is within the direct control of
owners [and breeders]. Any way in which the Pit bull differs from any other breed
of dog is the direct result of our behaviors. . . To claim we are now hapless victims of
the Pit bull’s strength, temperament or anatomical traits is denying the indisputable
fact that breeds of dogs are man-‐made[.]”10
In Nancy Leong’s Harvard Law Review article entitled, “Racial Capitalism,”
she defines racial capitalism as, “the process of deriving social or economic value
from the racial identity of another person.”11 She claims that a person of any race
might engage in racial capitalism, as might an institution dominated by any racial
group.12 I would like to take her premise and twist it, to demonstrate how Pit bull-‐
type dog breeders capitalize on the class of people concerned with a certain type of
“thug” lifestyle and appearance. Instead of the word “racial” however, I use this
concept to refer to a culture, as in “culture capitalism.” Some large scale and many
backyard breeders of Pit bull-‐type dogs derive economic value from the cultural 8 Delise, Karen. “Fighting Dogs: Branded with the Sings of Their Masters.” The Pit Bull Placebo. N.p.: Anubis, 2007. 138. Print. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Leong, Nancy. "Racial Capitalism." Harvard Law Review 126.8 (2013): 2153. Print. 12 Id.
6
identify of the consumers who purchase a dog from said breeders. Without straying
too far into labeling an entire group stereotypically, the class of people most drawn
to bulky, intimidating dogs, often belong to “gangster” culture, “thug” culture, or
“street” culture. The dog symbolizes toughness; a very visible symbol the owner
hopes portrays his own strength. The want for this “street” look has become
“something desirable-‐and for many, it has become a commodity to be pursued,
captured, possessed, and used.”13
“If the reason a person obtains a dog and how the dog is maintained are important signposts on the road to aggression, something as simple as the dog’s name is often just as relevant to the future behaviors we expect from our dogs. . . Many dogs involved in severe and fatal attacks are found with . . . menacing, criminal-‐laced names because they have been acquired for the express purpose of intimidation. The names of theses dogs coincide with their use as status symbols by urban thugs in a
culture of violence, drug abuse and dog fighting.”14
The sad truth of the matter is that the BSL laws are not even meant to target
the dogs; the dogs are targeted because they have become symbols in a market
indicating dog fighting and other illegal endeavors. According to Jeff Theman,
director of the BSL documentary, “Gulty ‘Til Proven Innocent,” “[I]t became quite
apparent early on who the law was really targeting, and it wasn't usually about the
dogs at all. . . The perception was, if we can go after the dogs, we can go after the
people. The law was used as a tool by law enforcement to legally harass individuals
with dogs who appeared to be ‘pit bull’ in an insidious attempt to search for other
13 Leong, Nancy. "Racial Capitalism." Harvard Law Review 126.8 (2013): 2155. Print. 14 Delise, Karen. “The Real Causes of Dog Attacks.” The Pit Bull Placebo. N.p.: Anubis, 2007. 161. Print.
7
crimes being broken[.]”15 So, the nefarious look of the Pit bull, a look that humans
desire and have consequently enhanced, is so enmeshed with a group of people who
partake in illegal activities, that the mere sight of the dog is a tip off to law
enforcement. While clearly an argument can be made that this is profiling by the
police, it is undeniable that many individuals who want and own Pit bulls do so to
augment a taboo lifestyle. The people who breed guard-‐type Pit bulls or personal
protection Pit bulls, do so because there is a market to profit from. Breeders are
able to capitalize from a specific sub-‐culture of people; where there is demand,
someone will always be ready with a supply.
At this point, people who are advocates of a free-‐market structure, or a
Laissez-‐Faire system, are probably thinking that if people’s preferences dictate the
breeding of intimidating Pit bull-‐type dogs, then that creation should be freely
allowed. I believe however, that when living beings are involved in human
preferences there is something inherently different about that transaction, whether
the living beings are human or not. If life is involved, preferences should not be
allowed to gravitate to their most efficient uses, as purely economic thinkers would
have it. I believe the trading of the Pit bull in the market place, as a symbol of
aggression and illicit culture, should be “inalienable.” The concept of market
inalienability comes from Margaret Jane Radin’s Harvard Law Review piece, “Market
15 Theman, Jeff. "No Bull: This Law Is More Dangerous Than Pit Bulls." The Dodo. N.p., 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
8
Inalienability.” In her piece she describes inalienability as something that “is not to
be sold, which in our economic system means it is not to be traded in the market.”16
It is important to note here that I am not saying that dogs meant to be loving
house pets, should not be allowed to be traded in the market. I am saying that
marketing the Pit bull as a status symbol, instead of a living, breathing being, should
be outlawed. Karen Delise, summarizes the difference nicely when she explains,
“[D]ogs maintained outside the home (on chains, in kennels or in yards) and dogs obtained for negative functions (guarding,
fighting, protection, breeding for financial gain) are not ‘family dogs’-‐they are ‘resident dogs.’ This distinction is vital in the understanding of canine behavior and aggression. Dogs
maintained as resident dogs cannot be expected to exhibit the same level of sociability as dogs afforded the opportunity to interact with humans and their families on a daily basis and in
positive and more humane functions.”17 So, again, buying and selling animals meant to be “family dogs” is an acceptable use
of the market place. The problem is the market for Pit bull-‐type dogs meant to fulfill
functions desired solely for human prestige and appearance. Radin says that, “[t]he
most familiar context of inalienability is the traditional liberal triad: the rights to
life, liberty, and property”18 (emphasis added.) Enhancing physical characteristics
of the Pit bull so much as to bastardize the standards of the breed and then using
these enhancements to serve roles that demonize the breed in the eyes of the media,
is not protecting the dogs’ right to life. Legislation tailored to banning the breed due
to selective breeding meant to fulfill human preferences is not protecting life. 16 Radin, Margaret J. "Market Inalienability." Harvard Law Review 100.8 (1997): 1850. Print. 17 Delise, Karen. “The Real Causes of Dog Attacks.” The Pit Bull Placebo. N.p.: Anubis, 2007. 167-‐68. Print. 18 Radin, Margaret J. "Market Inalienability." Harvard Law Review 100.8 (1997): 1851. Print.
9
Instead, the APBT is being commodified for monetary purposes when the breed
should not be commodified in this way at all.
“Market-‐inalienability often expresses an aspiration for noncom-‐
modification. By making something nonsalable we proclaim that it should not be
conceived of or treated as a commodity. When something is noncommodifiable,
market trading is a disallowed form of social organization and allocation.”19 The use
of the Pit bull terrier as a symbol of aggression and protection should be disallowed
from market trading. It has clearly been shown that when this type of trading is
allowed, the dogs suffer in the form of health problems from development of
undesired physical characteristics and from the creation of legislation targeting the
dogs’ very existence. I think the argument that regarding the trading of the Pit bull
as a status symbol as noncommodifiable then we cut off the free right to contract, is
nonsensical. Even though Radian says that, “[u]nrestricted choice about what goods
to trade represents individual freedom, and maximizing individual gains from trade
represents the individual's ideal,”20 there is something inherently different when
contracting about life. A human individual should not have utterly free privilege
and choice when contracting for another living entity. To demonstrate this, one
need only look at the history of selective breeding of our canine counterparts to see
how free human choice has had a devastating impact on other forms of life.
In Caen Elegans’ work, “100 Years of Breed ‘Improvement’,” he states that, “I
would never buy/adopt a dog whose breed characteristics exacted a health burden.
19 Radin, Margaret J. "Market Inalienability." Harvard Law Review 100.8 (1997): 1855. Print. 20 Id.
10
That just incentivizes people to breed more of these intentionally unhealthy
animals.”21 He goes on to say that,
“If ‘improvement’ in looks imposes a health burden then it is not a breed improvement. No dog breed has ever been improved by
the capricious and arbitrary decision that a shorter/longer/flatter/bigger/smaller/curlier ‘whatever’ is
better. Condemning a dog to a lifetime of suffering for the sake of looks is not an improvement; it is torture.”
As already cited, what is considered a Pit bull today is far from what the breed
standards call for, since the dogs have been modified to suit human preference for a
tough dog capable of fighting. The Pit bull however, is far from the only dog breed
that has suffered from selective breeding. The following is a look at the changes
made to some of the primary breeds used today to make what most would call a “Pit
bull,” as taken from Elegans’ work.
Bulldogs: The English Bulldog suffers from almost every possible disease. A
2004 survey by the Kennel Club found that they die at the median age of 6.25 years
(n=180). There really is no such thing as a healthy bulldog. The bulldog’s monstrous
proportions make them virtually incapable of mating or birthing without medical
intervention.
21 Elegans, Caen. "100 Years of Breed "Improvement"" Science and Dogs. N.p., 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.
11
Boxers: A shorter face means a host of problems. The modern Boxer not only
has a shorter face but the muzzle is slightly upturned. The boxer – like all
bracecyphalic dogs – has difficulty controlling its temperature in hot weather; the
inability to shed heat places limits on physical performance. The Boxer also has one
of the highest cancer rates among dogs.
Bull Terriers: It seems incredible that at one time the Bull Terrier was a
handsome, athletic dog. Somewhere along its journey to a mutated skull and thick
abdomen, the Bull Terrier also picked up a number of other maladies like
supernumerary teeth and compulsive tail-‐chasing.
All the disorders mentioned for the above breeds can also affect the Pit bull terrier,
since many Pit bulls carry blood from a host of other breeds. The result is Pit bulls
that are too thick to function properly, but are desired due to the tough, muscled
12
look it portrays. The result is Pit bulls who breathe abnormally due to selection for
short, wide snouts that protrude the dog’s teeth. The result is Pit bulls that are
sickly and a mutilation of a once proud breed.
The origins of the Pit Bull terrier show a dog that was small and light. The
history of the breed began “at least two centuries ago, in England, where a type of
working bulldog was found to be useful to butchers in holding and controlling
animals at market. . . Adding Terrier genes to these working Bulldogs was found to
create a lighter, athletic, and more agile dog.”22 To demonstrate, here is a visual
showing what a true APBT should look like, as described by the American Dog
Breeder’s Association:23
Clearly, the image shows a svelte animal. It certainly does not look like the media
image portrayal of a snarling, teeth-‐bared, aggressive Pit bull. The large chest, the
bulky shoulders, and other traits that law enforcement look for under the guise of
implementing BSL, are physical characteristics that would not be seen on the breed 22 Delise, Karen. “Fighting Dogs: Branded with the Sings of Their Masters.” The Pit Bull Placebo. N.p.: Anubis, 2007. 136. Print. 23 "Conformation Standard." American Dog Breeders Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.
13
excepting the human creation of such a dog.
The dog the majority has come to associate as the American Pit Bull terrier
looks something more like this:24
Here, you see the broad chest, the short and widened muzzle, and cropped ears.
Overall, it is an image of a much more fierce looking animal: the animal that is
desired most on the market currently. These are the types of dogs wanted to guard
and to fight. The pervasiveness of breeding dogs that look like the above has
become so great that a new breed organization called the “American Bully Kennel
Club” has been created and it designates various classes of this mutated dog based
on the animal’s size and mass.
It is not debatable that a modified Pit bull-‐type dog is desired on today’s
market. What is debatable however, is would this type of dog be coveted if more
people knew the pitfalls to breeding to such extremes? Put another way, would the
appeal of owning a dog that exuded strength and ferocity be wanted, if the health
defects and negative legislation aimed at the dogs were more readily known? And if
the problems were known, could the Pit bull finally take its place back as a loved
family dog? I would hypothesize that hopefully, the demand for personal protection
24 "Abkc New Classes." This Is Bully. N.p., 08 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
14
Pit bulls would decrease as people became more educated. Unfortunately, people
have a bounded rationality and are poor engagers of cost-‐benefit analysis.
In his piece, “Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and
Unconscionability,” Russel Korobkin explains the concept of a “weighted analysis.”
A weighted analysis is when one looks at every feature or attribute of a good and
weighs each feature against one another based on the person’s preferences. When
this “weighing” is done, it is said that a person undertook an analysis that is “non-‐
selective” and “comparative.”25 Undergoing such a time-‐consuming process is
tedious but should yield increased accuracy in one’s choice.26 The concept of the
weighted analysis is similar to the function of the famous “Hand Formula,” which is
a type of cost-‐benefit analysis. Simply put, the Hand Formula states that if the
“Probability of the harm” multiplied by the “Gravity of that harm” (or loss) is greater
than the burden of precautions to prevent that loss, then it is considered negligent
to not partake in the precautions. If people who contract engage in a type of cost-‐
benefit decision-‐making, that is non-‐selective and comparative, the analysis would
be extremely costly and simply impossible to do. It is a strain on rationality to
indulge in a comparison of all possible costs and benefits or all possible attributes of
a single good. The way people make actual decisions is different than participating
in such an extravagant analysis, whether that be for better or for worse.
25 Korobkin, Russel. "Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability,." The University of Chicago Law Review 70.4 (2003): 1220. Print. 26 Id. at 1222.
15
In the real world, people use heuristics to limit and cut back on the attributes
they focus on. Korobkin says we, as consumers, focus on “Salience.”27 The Oxford
English Dictionary defines salience as the "most noticeable or important."28 In the
realm of contracts, salient terms will tend to be efficient and non-‐salient terms will
tend to be poor and inefficient.29 In the Pit bull world, what is salient in the current
trend of breeding is bulk and strength. When a person first looks at a dog to buy,
they will immediately be put-‐off if the animal does not show the massive physical
characteristics that buyers have come to covet. What does not stand out, and hence
what gets overlooked, is the health of the dog or the longevity of its life. These
terms are not salient and because of this, the terms are of low quality. This
phenomenon is plainly not advantageous for the dog itself.
To explain the concept of salience better, take this example. If it is true that if
a company is willing to spend $10 on a warranty, and that warranty would give
most consumers $15 more dollars in value, then there should be market pressure
for a standard term that includes the warranty, but only if that term is salient. If the
term is non-‐salient, companies will be forced to not include the warranty to
decrease the price of their product to stay competitive, as price is almost always
salient. If a term is non-‐salient we assume it will be low quality and worse for
consumers as a class because companies who try to put in better terms will be run
out of business if they try to create better, non-‐salient terms, because consumers
27 Korobkin, Russel. "Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability,." The University of Chicago Law Review 70.4 (2003): 1223. Print. 28 "Salience." Oxford English Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2015. 29 Korobkin, Russel. "Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability," at 1229-‐1230.
16
won’t understand the true quality they are receiving. If the health of the dog is not
salient to a consumer, then breeders will never have an incentive to produce healthy
stock. Those breeders who had some integrity would have to close up shop because
of the added expense it would cost to produce healthy dogs when people won’t pay
more for that health because health is not visible to them. What is visible is mass
and muscle and so those are the only “terms” that matter.
So, what should be done about these non-‐salient terms? Can the parties to
the transaction solve the problem themselves? What will not help for sure is to
confront people with information overload, as is the issue with engaging in a full
weighted analysis. Knowing too much about a transaction can actually prove to be a
detriment and can undermine the efficiency of the market. What can help however,
is giving people the ability to bargain for their own terms. This power may induce
more people to participate in the market place for healthy, safe, family dogs. A big
boost in enabling people to contract for the health of their dogs, and hence make
health salient, is to have laws in place that hold breeders accountable for poor
quality animals. I suggest that the current “lemon laws” available to buyers of
puppy mill dogs be expanded to anyone that calls himself a “breeder.”
Puppy Mills are commercial breeders who sell large quantities of dogs, either
in wholesale (sell to the pet store who then sell to consumers) or directly to the
public.30 The main concern with Puppy Mills is that the owners and managers of the
facilities care more about profit than about the well-‐being of the animal, much as
breeders of the Pit bull-‐type dog care more about physical appearances than about
30 "Puppy Mill FAQ." ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
17
the animal’s well-‐being. To protect the public from Puppy Mill operations, about
half of the states have enacted their own version of consumer protective legislation,
called Pet Store Lemon Laws.31 The purpose of such laws is to protect individuals
who have purchased a sick pet. There are usually 2 different categories that a
consumer can file a claim about:
1. Pet has an illness or disease; or
2. Pet has a congenital or hereditary condition.
For the first category, consumers generally have 7-‐21 days to make a claim,
depending on what state you live in. For the second category, the range to report is
broad, starting at 10 days and going up to 2 years in some states.32 The usual
remedies available to people under the Lemon Laws are: replacement of the animal;
refund of the purchase price of the animal; or reimbursement of vet expenses,
generally up to the purchase price.33
In Illinois, the reporting time limits are 21 days for a disease or illness and
one year for congenital or hereditary conditions. The law that covers puppy mills in
Illinois is the “Animal Welfare Act,” 225 ILCS 605/13.15.34 There are 3 purposes of
the Illinois Lemon Law:
1. To make pet stores disclose to consumers a list of information regarding the
dog or cat prior to sale. This information includes: any known diseases the
31 ASPCA. "State Puppy Mill Chart." (2015): 3-‐13. Web. 32 "Puppy Mills: Frequently Asked Questions : The Humane Society of the United States." The Humane Society of the United States. N.p., 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. 33 Id. 34 "Illinois Puppy Lemon Law." The Puppy Mill Project. N.p., 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.
18
animal has/had, all vaccines the animal has had, and the name and address of
the breeding facility where the animal was born;
2. Pet stores must notify the Department of Agriculture (and sometimes
consumers) if there is an outbreak of Distemper, Parvovirus, or any other
contagious disease at the pet store;
3. Provide a financial remedy to consumers who purchase a sick pet.35
The Lemon Laws could be used as a great template for how any type of breeder,
regardless of size of operation, should be treated. This would incentivize backyard
breeders to either a) halt their breeding operation, or b) breed healthy dogs instead.
The key to this analogy of course, is that if breeders of Pit bull-‐type dogs felt some
hurt from having financial obligations if they sold sick or under-‐functioning animals,
perhaps then they will care about producing dogs of quality. If dogs of quality, aka
dogs that have normal proportions with mild temperaments, are produced then
breeders will raise their price accordingly to account for the costs of breeding viable
dogs. If and when consumers inquire about the higher price, then breeders make
health a salient term to the consumer by explaining the value of owning a quality
animal. And in the end, the dogs benefit.
To summarize, the current market demand for Pit bull-‐type dogs that appear
overly muscular and vicious, is harming the dogs in numerous ways. The public
perceives them as a danger to society, laws are enacted to ban the breed in its
entirety from whole geographic areas regardless of each dog’s own individual
temperament, and the exaggerated breeding selections lead to dogs that are 35 "Illinois Puppy Lemon Law." The Puppy Mill Project. N.p., 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.
19
generally unhealthy. I put forth the idea that there is something inherently special
in life of all forms, not just human life, and as such, free trading in the market place
should not be allowed. I do not think that anyone’s right to contract is infringed
when rules are in place to protect breathing, feeling beings. The commodification of
the Pit bull breed for people’s monetary gain is abominable. It is my hope that if the
effects of uneducated breeding were brought to the attention of the public, then the
demand for such mutated dogs would cease. It is crucial, I believe, that the health
problems that afflict Pit bull-‐type dogs be made salient to those in the market to
purchase one. If the pitfalls of reckless breeding were salient to the majority, the
awareness should work towards exerting market pressure for a sound, loving family
dog, opposed to a territorial, bulky, guard dog. And once the Pit bull is again viewed
in the light it once was decades ago, the breed will be freed from the breed-‐
discriminatory legislation that currently taints the dogs’ image.
“And, like a dog that is compell’d to fight, Snatch at his master that doth tarre him on.”
William Shakespeare, 1564-‐1616 (King John, Act IV, Scene 1)