When treating delicate topics like the issue of dangerous dogs, one should treat the subject rationally and not emotionally. In an ideal world, as portrayed in Edward Hicks’ art masterpiece, The Peaceable Kingdom, all animals would live in harmony and there would be no such thing as a dangerous breed or species. Alas, we live in the real world.

The animal rights view specifies that all animals have rights, but animal rights, like human rights, are not absolute.

There may be exceptions to any rule.

The question of dangerous breeds is one. Some people might emotionally consider the humane gradual elimination of a dangerous breed like pit bulls, and the muzzling of such dogs, as a form of discrimination between breeds, but looking at the whole picture will show that this is not the case.

First of all, dogs, unlike humans, have no concept of breed (in the case of humans – race). Putting it in simpler terms, left to their own devices, they would inter-breed without any thought whatsoever. In time, were it not for human intervention, there would no “pure” breeds. Unlike humans, dogs would see no problem with a particular breed becoming extinct. Now, since it is a well known fact that breeds like pit bulls were manipulated by humans for the purpose of fighting, and they are genetically predisposed to violent retaliation, this necessarily classifies them as a dangerous breed (both to humans and other animals), and it would be rational to make this species extinct by humane methods (neutering existing dogs and banning the breeding of them). The only objection to this would, presumably, come from breed enthusiasts, either for genuine harmless aesthetic reasons, or for dog-fighting.

Furthermore, it would be reasonable to require the muzzling of these dogs when in public. Even if such dogs do not attack humans or other animals unless provoked, it would still be wise to take all necessary precautions to avoid injury or even death. It is in the interest of both humans and other dogs, and also in the interest of the “dangerous” dog itself, for it to be muzzled when in public, because if it attacks (whether it is provoked or not is irrelevant), it would be reasonable and necessary for people to do all they can to stop it, which would always require violence, and sometimes, unfortunately, even killing it. Thus, in this case, a muzzle would save its own life, apart from the lives of others.

Some people would argue that to make a breed extinct for the above reasons would still be a form of speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species), since no one would suggest anything similar in the case of humans.

But the case for the gradual elimination of dangerous breeds is not a case of speciesism, since the interests of both the breed in question and those of other breeds or species are taken into account, and a solution is sought which would produce the least harm possible.

Also, the comparison is erroneous, since there is no particular human race predisposed to violence – it is only particular human individuals (irrespective of race) who might be genetically predisposed to violence (though even this is a controversial and unresolved issue), while in the case of pit bulls, for instance, it is a known fact that they are.

Also worthy of note is the fact that in the case of violent humans, the threat of harm to them when they act violently (like the threat from armed police officers) would usually be sufficient to stop them, and their institutionalisation, (prisons or physchiatric hospitals), or their knowledge of the high probability of their institutionalisation for repeated offences (which could keep some violent people in check), would usually be enough to bring safety back to the community without excessive and unnecessary harm to the violent individual. In the case of pit bulls or other such breeds, the threat of violence would not be enough to stop them acting violently, and violence would certainly be necessary to restrain them.

The only analogy with humans is where they are luckily restrained with the least harm necessary and possible, and they are “institutionalised” in an animal sanctuary. Muzzling would in this case prevent both outcomes (violent action to stop their own violence, and their institutionalisation to prevent further violence).

To conclude, since dogs have no concept of breed like humans have a concept of race, and since it is in the interest of both humans and animals that such breeds are humanely made extinct, the only humane solution would be to register and neuter all existing pit bulls and similar breeds, to ban the breeding and importation of such dogs, and to muzzle existing dogs when in public. This would conform with the animal rights’ view, which requires that the interests of all sentient animals are taken into account, and that the least harm possible be applied to individual animals in the case of conflict of interest between members of different species (or breeds).

Kenneth Cassar

Animal Rights Malta