Thursday, May 15, 2014

Purpose Bred

This began as a riposte to a grossly misinformed commentator's blather about the origins of pitbulls, however, by the time I went to enter my comment, I was notified the article is no longer receiving comments.  I included a fair number of resources, links, and information in my comment... I couldn't scrap it.  It's a message I wish for all to hear, so I decided to copy and paste it, and expound on it as an entry/lesson in its own right.

Barbara Kay is an award-winning columnist, author, and radio/tv pundit who frequently parries sadistic pitbull mania as a result of reporting on pitbull news with all the hard facts many news outlets have been intimidated into glossing over.  

As a result of her commitment to the truth (which so many find uncomfortable because it unseats their presumed and self-titled authority over a favored animal) and the subsequent debunking of popular lies, she is the recipient of a never-ending stream of obscene and fanatical hate.  Still, she perseveres, and as her knowledge of and experience in the cause deepens, so, too, does it seem--her resolve to combat the frothing insanity with reason, logic, facts, and wit.

The Comments sparking my writing:
(any textual emphasis added by yours truly, including on my own original comment)

 Stephanie Eberhardt W****y
Pits are not bred to be fighting dogs no more than chihuahuas are bred to be in a Taco Bell commercial.
[after a voice of reason informs her they were bred for dog-fighting] 
The original Pit Bull was used primarily for boar hunting as well as companion and guarding purposes and appears in paintings dating back as far as the 1500s. They then, due to HUMAN greed, went to bull baiting. So Gabriel, find another source.

The Informed;
 Gabriel B****s Stephanie Eberhardt W****y • 18 hours ago
Do a search for books on pit bull boar hunting, count how many you find. Then do a search on pit bull dog fighting, count how many you find. 
You'll find volumes of books and articles on pit bull dog fighting. Don't forget to check Amazon. Free shipping of you have a premiere membership.

There are my sources. Pit bulls are primarily used for dog fighting, not boar hunting. I don't think you'll even find a book on pit bull boar hunting. LOL!
[the only mention of pit bulls in boar hunting are online comments from dog-sport enthusiasts--using the animals in hunting feral pigs within ONLY the last 10-15 years.  Additionally, these hunts are extremely impractical and dangerous --especially to the dog, since these dogs are not used to merely 'alert' of a pig's location, but go 'all in' and fight these surprisingly fearsome swine-- and therefore a matter of recreation and sadism, not a kind of 'service' of culling non-indigenous pig populations (a big problem in the south, including my home state of Texas)... though enthusiasts may and do use that philanthropic cover for their activities.  Battling, injury, and even death from feral pig or pitbull attack is often a very slow and painful process--certainly not a humane 'method' of anything.  Several animal services agencies have even issued bulletins to pitbull enthusiasts and shelters that the dogs are being procured for hog hunting as a spectacle--watching one animal kill another.  This makes sense, given the history of dog-fighting evolving as various types of bloodsport; more on that later.]

Committed Ignoramus;
 Stephanie Eberhardt W****y
Hate to bust your bubble so soon. They were BRED for boar hunting. Your original comment "they were bred to fight". And while there may be a buttload of books on dog fighting, that is still a HUMAN sport using dogs as weapons. I know this because I've been up close and personal with the dogs, the fighting, and the damage for more than 30 years. And truly, I didn't mean for you to go to the library although its encouraging that you have a card. You can Google on the computer. It too is a fascinating weapon

By Stephanie's own standards, she fails, and also demonstrates her hypocrisy and failure to operate according to her own demands.  Instead of posturing and bluffing, I decided to hit back with actual traceable resources... the product of, yes, Google, which yielded tomes of information derived from academic, third-party (objective), scientific, and historical sources.  These sources are cited and easily accessible in the various links provided.  A person can easily backtrack to the original texts for reference.

My textual parry would have been:
Second question down answers and details the history of dog-fighting and the origins of the pitbull breed.

Note: There's a lot of hostility aimed at by pitbull fanatics, who spew libel of 'lies' and 'bias' about the site.  While it is true that the founder is a pitbull attack victim herself, that does not necessarily negate the content of her organization.  If anything, in its own way, that fact validates her credibility.

How? One of the most common things people suffering an affliction of any kind (an illness, cancer, loss of a loved one, permanent and life-changing injury) is to educate themselves about it as much as possible.  Directly (self), or indirectly (loved ones);
  • Domestic violence shelters tend to be run/staffed by those who have personal experience with it, 
  • people tend to specialize in the medical field according to their experiences with it, 
  • people tend to participate in causes and campaigns according to their experiences with it, 
  • donors and benefactors contribute to a cause according to their experiences with it, 
  • so on and so forth....
  To dismiss the legitimacy, research, and value of a given cause just because those operating within it are intimately familiar with it (and therefore best suited to educate and speak from experience with real authority) would be to dismiss the phenomenal work of groups such as Susan B. Komen's Race for the Cure and MADD (mothers against drunk driving).
Additionally, in and other organizations/blogs I list herein, hundreds and hundreds of references are used from all sorts of external, unbiased, unaffiliated sources...
...from physicians, scientists, universities, studies, news groups, authors, animal control agencies, shelter workers, independent and/or firsthand film/pictures/testimony, historical archives, law enforcement, and animal specialists from around the country--even from around the globe.  Many references predate the founder's very existence on this earth, and yet, according to blind or willingly deceptive fanatics, all are somehow supposedly 'in bed' with a person/organization many even recent sources  don't even know exists.
More compelling, the educational and charity groups involved operate with complete transparency--the same cannot be said of the self-proclaimed 'experts' pitbull advocacy hangs its hat on. The specifics for>
Another great site:
about page-->

In summary;
pitbulls did not exist until the emergence of dog-fighting, because they were PURPOSE bred for dog-fighting. Pitbulls were the deliberate mixture of the bull-baiting bloodsport champion breed--Olde English Bulldogges (for strength--especially superior jaw strength--and aggression) ...and terrier breeds (speed, agility, prey-drive, and tenacity). 

It is of note that bulldogs (a closely related, ancestral, but still distinct and separate breed from pitbull terriers) were used in bull-baiting--that is part and parcel of the breed name. 
In 'layman's terms';  Bulldog may = great great great great great great great great (insert as many greats as needed) grand-pappy of pitbull, but bulldog =/=pitbull.  Bulldogs predate pitbulls and can be tracked to the 1500s, but the pitbull terrier breed canNOT--because it did not exist then.

There exists no certifiably dated painting of pitbulls that conform to the breed standard that dates back farther than the last 150 years.  There do exist bulldog paintings in accordance with Stephanie's time-frame, but their breed is unmistakable to anyone:
1. capable of reading and viewing a breed standard and
2. with working eyesNeed not be 20/20, even, but enough to dependably ascertain color, texture, size, and shape.

The pitbull terrier as a breed emerged in the mid 1800s, with origins in England and Ireland, and heavily exporting to the US after dog-fighting was banned in the aforementioned countries.

Before dog-fighting was outlawed in the US, it was explosively popular, and many books, magazines, and even news items were written about the sport and game dogs... in fact, the UKC was originally created as both a legitimate way to 'recognize the breed' (the breed was that new, and the AKC would NOT do it precisely because of the breed's FIGHTING ORIGINS) and as a register for fighting dogs.

Returning to the boar-hunting claim for a moment; how credible is the assertion that it is more cover for sadistic bloodsport than utility?
It lies within the historical adaptability and ingenuity of those who love watching animals die.  Bulldogs were used for bull-baiting.  When that was outlawed, for a time, cock-fighting became 'all the rage'.  When that was outlawed, grotesque and impractical dog ratting competitions became hot stuff.  When that was outlawed, bloodthirsty men set the dogs upon each other. It stands to reason--since dog fighting is now illegal, but hunting boar with dogs is not, that they could/would/have avoid(ed) legal recrimination by moving the desired battle-to-the-death  onto foes that skirt law-breaking.

Though something should be said for the diversification of animal bloodsport--fanatics try to invalidate BSL (breed specific legislation) by claiming that, were the breed banned, the 'bad men' would just move on to fighting other dogs.  There is so much folly in that I can't even think of a witty analogy about it.  

The reasons that justification is a problem;

1.)the heritability of physical conformity and behavior. 'Form follows function.'  Dog behaviorist and author Alexandra Semyonova explains in scientific detail how, when dogs are bred for a certain behavior, their physical body evolves and changes shape to optimally fit the task--in a nutshell--the basics of evolution.  
Huskies look the way they do because they were bred for heat economy.  
Greyhounds have their telltale physique and deep chest for optimal oxygenation while sprinting.  
The border collie's skeleton (on which physique rests and therefore affects shape) is optimized for stalking behaviors that would cause acute arthritis in other breeds.
Certain characteristics are ideal for bloodsport, and selective breeding only accelerates and exaggerates the process.  Take the Russian fox experiment, for example.  A team of researchers started breeding Russian silver foxes for desirable companion behaviors--diminished aggression, affection for humans, etc..  In the span of less than 52 years, this breeding program dramatically altered not just the natural behaviors but the very appearance and shape of the foxes.  They went from this:
to this (and the above right): 

This is firsthand evidence that specific task breeding develops a certain physique.  Breeding dogs for fighting will inevitably elicit changes that generate the pitbull breed all over again.  It wouldn't take a rocket scientist or collective army to modify legislation as new problem breeds develop.  It WILL be possible to identify the products of continuing dog-fighting.  Creating an open-ended ban of fighting breeds is the most responsible and sensible course of action to take.  
We added amendments to our constitution (civil rights) because it was the right thing to do, and the fact that doing so could not eradicate problems and injustices a 100% was not grounds for maintaining the negative, violent, and abusive status quo.

2.)that is suggesting we enable criminal behavior by doing nothing to counter and resolve the problem.  when banning fighting breeds, possession of a fighting breed becomes a tip-off for illegal activities--in that sense, banning serves as a positive for the breed.  Eliminating supply makes it harder to fulfill demand, and making the components of criminal activity illegitimate makes it harder to hide.  Right now, it's extremely easy for dog-fighting rings to hide 'in plain sight'.  These people probably have the strongest vested interest in fueling and perpetuating fighting breed propaganda--especially considering individual fight purses can run as high as 100K.

3.)just because criminals are capable of adapting their chosen crime by finding new ways/tools to fulfill their sadistic needs, does not mean a 'war' against what they're doing is futile, pointless, and without value.  Drunk driving is illegal, but it continues to happen on a wide scale--because it cannot be eliminated wholly, should we throw in the towel and repeal punitive drunk driving laws?
Throughout history, drug purveyors developed (and continue to do so--think crack as the poor mans cocaine, bath salts to replace PCP, krokodil as a cheaper meth alternative, and synthetic marijuana to substitute the obvious) alternatives to various drugs.  How on earth does a new problem make an old problem a free-for-all?  It's not just reckless, dangerous, childish, and senseless; its lazy and a nihilist non-solution.  
"Why bother because bad stuff still happens"?  That is what waxing on about other dogs being victimized is... an attempt to excuse doing anything to stop the current victimization (which sucks in countless innocents and destroys lives in its wake).  That sort of attitude would cease the study of and development of new medicines  for viruses and bacteria because they continue to evolve and develop resistance against current medications.  These pathogens will continue to evolve into something else but that will never change the fact that the old ones will continue to exist and afflict ...and will continue do so indefinitely unless we continue being proactive about eradicating them.

Here is part of an interesting expose on the foundations of the pitbull breed:
(it specifically addresses the falsehood that 'man-biters were culled' and is testimony to the breed's fighting origins)
Please note, at the bottom of the entry is a full list of external sources full of great information from HISTORICAL (not personal musing) sources.
Adding to the massive oversight in pitbull breeding practices (aka the aforementioned 'man biters were culled' lie) is an additional, highly disturbing fact worth mentioning (as noted by a commenter on the Craven Desires blog entry on Colby);

FormerAKCmember said...
May 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM
    The Colbys also had a 2-year old child that died. She might have died from many different causes, including having her neck torn open by a Colby dog.
 [The commenter provided the link below, but Florence's name does not appear on the genealogy anymore.  The link was provided in May 2010, over four years ago at the time of this writing, and Craven Desires has drawn a lot of negative attention from pitbull fanatics.  It's highly likely the Colby family may have decided to obfuscate the record.  However, the child's existence cannot be entirely denied, via the headstone below the link.
I think it is also very telling--the fact that this child's life and death were conspicuously struck from records post dog-fighting expose...  Speculation alone is not nearly as telling as when that speculation moves someone to action/hiding--what is there to hide?  Why hide something... unless it affirms something you don't want known?  ...and the Colby line is quite a source of wealth for some in these contemporary times...]

More on Colby-->
Also of interest:
Check out (and by check out I mean at the library or glimpse through at the bookstore; considering who the authors are* and what any profit goes to...):  
COLBY'S BOOK OF THE AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER: by Louis Colby and Diane Jessup 192 pages, hardback. ISBN# 0-7938-2091-X
*Diane Jessup is a nutter warranting her own chapter.

Pitbulls were not 'chosen', they were CREATED for the sole purpose of blood-sport.  That is what purpose-bred means.  They were never guard dogs, or farm dogs, or herding dogs, and certainly not nanny dogs (that deadly obscenity still circulates today, even though pitbull advocacy juggernaut BADRAP itself flaccidly acknowledges the lie).  I think everyone should read just as everyone should learn about the dangers of fire, wild animals, driving safety, etc..

Refusing to address the issue, and allowing animal fanatic sociopaths to continue disseminating dangerously false--fatally false!--propaganda that places, essentially, canine timebombs-under-cuddly-companion-guise is what continues to create tragedies like these:

These images are for the express purpose of educating the public about dangerous dog breeds and what they are capable of and frequently do to their human victims.  These images and the use thereof is protected under the Fair Use Act.

These are the potential side effects of pitbull ownership/affiliation/encounters.  If only it were as easy to warn people about these animals as it is to view the side effects on a label of medication or pack of cigarettes....  People are actively working to subvert the truth, with the flimsiest of excuses and the boldest of lies.  Hey, not every drunk driver crashes every time they drive, not every smoker gets lung cancer... so those are safe right?

Included below are some thought provoking visuals.  One of which is physically graphic.

note; I am not the mind behind the following two creative and compelling images, but a fan of their message.  If you've read Kay's original piece (link at the top), you can surely understand why people may be reluctant to attach their names... safety advocates and truth-tellers are harassed, fired, alienated, lied about, have their identities stolen, lives threatened (especially media reporters--even when reporting only the facts), have their homes and loved one's grave-sites vandalized--I'm NOT kidding! (the most egregious being the vandalizing and breaking of a small child's grave) among other things...

examples evidencing the severity and frequency of such obscene bullying and harassment can be found at, under a post labeled 'hate mail'--while it was actively updated, new volleys of grotesque harassment appeared on a daily basis (according to the timestamps of the communications sent, not according to update dates--so many were coming in he updated around a weekly basis.)

Several blogs on the issue have similar (hate mail) sections where the public can see for itself just how horribly threatening and abusive fanatics are to decent and grieving people.

For this reason, I do not presume to attach names on these unless specifically desired by their respective creators.  If you are the proud producer of either of these, you need only to say the word and will put credit where credit is due.


  1. I was wondering if you know if the person in the bottom graphic (bear or pit?) lived, and if so, did they keep their limbs/hand/foot? I always wonder who that is, and what the details are. It's so horrific.
    SAme with the boy on the blue sheet. I have seen it elsewhere, and I am pretty sure its from a morgue. Any info on him? I am betting that isn't from the USA/

    Also, I thought John Harvard, 5, was killed by a dog no one even knew was in the neighborhood. I read it was caged up all the time, and that was the first day anyone saw it. There was another little boy, 7 or 8, was killed in his driveway by a dog he knew, and had played with. Am I mixing them up?

    There are SO MANY, it makes me wanna cry just thinking about it.
    I wish every person would see this, especially every parent. I see these kids every time I see a mauler. Like today, there were 2 at the park I was at with my kids! Is there no place free of these beasts? I am so tired of them.
    BSL ASAP!!!

    1. I can't remember the specifics of the photos ATM but I while get to them eventually. The image with the bear/pit--it was a pitbull that ripped that child up. I'm pretty certain it was a young girl but I wouldn't put money on it... there are just so so so many attacks and so many pics of horrific images that they can bleed together in the memory banks. To that effect, the image of the little boy in the morgue, might be of a 6yo boy killed by the family dog; but again, I'll have to re-research specifics.... always a draining and dis-heartening task.

      The pitbull that killed John Harvard was a neighbor's, and it had a history of roaming loose. John's story can be found under 'victim resources>>stories' on the website. His mother told his story in her own words.

  2. The Russian researcher Dmitry Kontanovich Belyaev reported that he had bred fear out of foxes in only eighteen generations, but impulsive aggression is a more complex response and much more dangerous to live with while you try to breed it out. Further, Belyaev’s foxes were bred under laboratory conditions, where there was absolute control over not having the wrong genes creep back in again.
    As Belyaev bred his foxes into the pettable creatures he wanted, they began to have an increasingly floppy-eared mutt exterior. Belyaev’s discoveries suggest that the interface of physical and behavioral conformation mean it is not possible to breed out the impulsive aggressive behavior of fighting dogs while retaining their shape and appearance.
    Form follows function: one cannot have a dog whose entire body and brain are adapted to executing the killing bite, without having a dog who will execute the killing bite.

  3. If a wild animal went into a suburban neighborhood and did this type of damage or fatality to a person NO expense would be spared to hunt that animal down and kill it-but because a pit bull is a DOG (in the same sense that Charles Manson is a human) we allow this unbelievable carnage to not only continue but there are those who support and defend it! The nanny dog term goes way back-to 1971 as seen here: The stupidity I hear from pit advocates is mindnumbing. I've even read that the EGYPTIANS bread them to be 'nanny dogs'. I'm waiting to hear someone say they were bred to herd flying pigs. Take a look at these pit bull 'herding' dogs for a good laugh:

    1. wow... they were Egyptian baked goods ;) maybe they used them to protect their young from roving packs of bite-moars that spontaneously disappeared back to Chihuahua and left no evidence of their child-marauding existence in Egypt*

      I love the Nanny Dog Blog and The Truth About Pitbulls. I've read every post in those blogs (in addition to Craven Desires, Dogsbite/and Decatur,AL, 17 Barks, Dangerous By Default, SRUV, and others that I can't recall right now). I'm a compulsive reader. :D Glad you bought the links here, seeing as how I use information from them in so many posts but don't always have the time or stamina to painstakingly back-track to get every source link. XD

      *note to new readers/those unfamiliar with the issue!
      there are a few inside jokes among safety advocates and pitbull truthers (not to detract from the dead seriousness of the issue but to cope with the insane deluge of hostility from unrelenting nutters)...

      These fanatics typically display minimal literacy, with all the horrible grammar and spelling to go with it. A common error is typing 'breed' as 'bread'. As such, when reading about the issue on blogs or social media forums/groups, you may come across people making odd statements about baked goods. They are making a crack about the breed=bread spelling. For example, the pinned post of one Facebook Group lists a rule simply stating 'we have nothing against baked goods here'.

      In an attempt to morph and deflect the pitbull issue, nutters frequently go on and on about how chihuahuas are more aggressive and bite more than pitbulls.
      And while this very well may be true, it is OFF TOPIC, as we are not discussing fearful, quick snap-and-release nips by toy breeds that result in, at best, superficial abrasion. We are talking about sustained mauling that result in *serious injury and death*, as it pertains to breed and frequency, environment, socialization, stimuli, provocation--lack thereof--and severity.

      Despite this being clarified and explained time and again, nutters typically circle right back to talking about chihuahuas and other small dogs that 'are more aggressive' and 'bite more', even though bite *frequency* has been explicitly stated as NOT the topic at hand. 'More' is often misspelled as 'moar'... and not in the deliberate, meme-captioning sort of way.
      So, 'bite-moars' is a reference to the mythos of raging chihuahuas so fierce they, by comparison, make pitbulls look like a fart in a hurricane.

      There's nothing funny in the regular disfigurement, dismemberment, and death in the daily attacks on people, pets, and livestock... but there's plenty absurdity to be found in comparing a puntable dog smaller than a cat to a fighting breed with a highly exaggerated and deadly head/jaw/shoulder/body ratio, streamlined for maximum damage via overdeveloped neck and jaw muscles, a high-on-PCP level of pain tolerance, a physique with a weight distribution that enables to dog to remain securely grounded while wildly shearing head and neck with potent force, and superior blood clotting factor found in no other breed.
      note; I do not advocate punting chihuahuas, unless in the event they are representing a real danger to others (like that'll happen outside of contracting a disease) or themselves (possible if maybe they're sitting in front of an oncoming train or something? I dunno...)
      Ok, enough with the hypotheticals. I'm feeling far too creative and imaginative today. *scuttles to create something*

  4. It's appalling how utterly stupid nutters are about their breed of choice. I've been told the Egyptians bread them to be nanny dogs, and I was stupid for not knowing this. Dear God. I'm surprised no one's told me they were bread to herd flying pigs yet.

  5. Great Content, I have appreciated with getting lot of good and reliable information with your post.......
    Thanks for sharing such kind of nice and wonderful information. I love reading your posts. They make me happy. Looking for large dog breeds for families Wondering what large dog breeds are good with kids or would be good for apartments Find out here A complete list of large dog breeds