ANALYSIS | Pit bull attacks in South Africa: a historian sheds light on the matter

Pit bulls have been in the news in South Africa after a series of deadly attacks. There have been revenge attacks on the dogs and politicians have called for their ban, tapping into a history of dogs being used by white owners to intimidate and attack black South Africans. A racist incident then made the news when a dog lover responded with fury to the call for a ban. Sandra Swart is a South African historian who specialises in the history of dogs in society. We asked her to shed light on the issue.

Is the pit bull dangerous or being scapegoated?

A little of both. We are facing a real crisis, coupled with social panic. The attacks are a problem and to solve it we can and must learn from history. History shows us the dangers of social panic are two-fold: overreaction (to satisfy public outrage) and under-reaction (in favour of short-termism that avoids dealing with the bigger problem).

First we need to understand the history of pit bulls, which were bred, originally in England, for bull-baiting, a blood sport in which bulls tied to an iron stake were savaged by dogs. From the 1970s mainly, they were imported to South Africa, where they were further bred, some as guard dogs, some as pets, some for illegal dogfighting rings.

They have also been bred to have high pain thresholds. Their behaviour is perhaps 60% genetic, but remember, dog behaviour is flexible and can be drastically modified by training and experience, especially between three and 12 weeks. Moreover, their training is often derelict or intentionally aggression-inducing as they are often used as extensions of toxic masculinity, as status symbols with teeth.

That said, there are plenty who are genuinely family pets who are unlikely to inflict harm. If they have a personal history of unwarranted aggression towards people it is safer to euthanise. If an owner is worried (and they should be), they should get their dog assessed by the SPCA or a qualified dog behaviourist. But that does not solve the bigger societal problem.

What can we learn from history?

Whatever the state decides, the public must realise that previously other breeds were also held to be too savage for South African society. In the 1920s German shepherds, or so-called “wolf dogs”, were considered a scourge. There were later waves of concern over boerboels. In 1983 hackles were raised when the town of Parow in the Western Cape tried to ban rottweilers, Dobermans, bull terriers and mastiffs. However, vets were quick to point out that labradors and Pekingese were responsible for most bites. Any power breed (strong, muscular frame, broad head, bite-and-hold fighting tactic), indeed, most dogs, can inflict harm or death on a human.

There are long-term legislative actions that can be taken. The first is breed-specific legislation (banning certain breeds), the other is dangerous dog laws (which target bad behaviour rather than bad breeds).

Breed-specific legislation is being pushed for strongly, but while it feels suitably dramatic, history suggests it does not work. The concept has been around for a century, since 1929 when some parts of Australia banned German shepherds. After several maulings in the 1980s, the UK imposed legislation in 1991 banning pit bulls, but the number of dog bites stayed the same, as was the case in different counties in the US. People simply bought other vicious breeds.

Remember, “pit bull” is not a clearly defined genetic category. A lot of identification is simply perception. There are at least 10 breeds frequently mistaken for pit bulls (which also leads to over-reporting them as perpetrators). Equally, if pit bulls were banned tomorrow and cries for their immediate execution were heeded, many innocent dogs would be killed unnecessarily. Moreover, what to do with crossbreeds — half pit bull, half miniature schnauzer, for example: euthanise them too? This would be an ethical outrage. It would also be pointless because a banned breed can simply be renamed something else and the danger continues.

Moreover, breed-specific legislation ignores behavioural and other biological aspects: aggressive dogs are much more likely to be male, intact (unneutered) and unsocialised (including kept on a chain), or actively encouraged in aggression.

So this legislation is over-inclusive (it includes lots of gentle dogs) and under-inclusive (it misses many vicious dogs). It is easy to legislate, but impossible to enforce. It is popular, but provides a fake sense of security.

And dangerous dog laws?

Dangerous dog laws are complex, expensive and hard work. However, they work. They look at the earlier behaviour of the dog and can be tweaked to include more focus on dogs from “power breeds” or those over a certain size. They are not a quick fix, but over time they work by putting the responsibility for the dog and its behaviour squarely with the owner. It is like owning a gun — if you are negligent with that firearm, and someone gets hurt, you are criminally liable and face serious consequences, including prison.

There are many ideas to draw on, including requiring special permits, liability insurance and mandatory sterilisation for power breeds, dogs over a certain weight or known offenders. Micro-chipping and keeping a database of previous offences would mean dogs would be punished for their bad behaviour rather than that of their breed, which is hard to define genetically. Each case can then be evaluated on merit. It also requires private-public partnerships and the state needs to vigilantly uphold anti-roaming laws in partnership with the SPCA. They might not stop all dog bites, but they would greatly reduce fatalities.

What deeper historical issues does the subject trigger?

Our national psyche is troubled. Nothing remains as strong in the public’s imagination as the snarling German shepherd straining at the end of the apartheid police officer's leash. There is a deep ambivalence about dogs in this country and we need to understand why.

There is a strangeness in the relationship between dogs and humans, and between humans and humans over dogs. I reveal the history of this strangeness through the police dog as a lens in my forthcoming book, The Lion’s Historian. Through misuse of police dogs (and often privately owned dogs) as agents of control in the police and bio-surveillance in the suburbs, big dogs became signifiers of anxiety and stereotypes that white and black people have of each other, especially the terror of the police dog.

“Police dogs” were only used purposely for attack after 1961 for crowd control. For 50 years before that they were only allowed to be used as smell detectives, not to attack anyone. 

We can invert this apartheid model and do different canine educational roadshows at schools. Most victims are children. Teaching good dog ownership skills and safe behaviour around the animals would help a little.

What else can be done?

The Hawks need to break illegal dogfighting rings, working closely with the SPCA (which already does so much). Once dog fighting is stopped, there will be less incentive to breed for aggression and more money in breeding pit bull lines that are family friendly. Breeding strictly with behavioural testing against aggression will help too. Other breeds, such as the old English bull dog, also descend from fighting stock. Only once authorities cracked down heavily on fighting was there less incentive to perpetuate aggression in the breed. Now they are, famously, gentle family pets. Of course, there are breeders who focus on friendly, gentler pit bulls lines, so the genetic material is there.

Sandra Swart is a professor of history at Stellenbosch University.

This article was first published by The Conversation.