Persecution of a Hero
by, 02-19-2012 at 09:40 AM (10313 Views)
Persecution of a HeroMost people consider a pit bull to be a demon. Something evil. Something dangerous. Something that no “good” person would ever want to own. But the fact is, most people have no understanding of what a Pit Bull Terrier really is. In their mind, in the fantasy world created by their own imagination, the majority of people have formed an “image” of what a pit bull is in their mind—but in point of fact this “image” has little or nothing to do with reality. As such, the image most people have of what a pit bull terrier “is” is nothing but a negative distortion of the truth. The media is almost entirely responsible for this false and negative image that the pit bull terrier has in the public’s eye, because the media always make it a point to over-sensationalize any kind of pit bull-related story they can get their hands on. And the media does it for the money, and they do it for the ratings, without any regard for The Truth.
And every time the media tells some new story about a pit bull-related “attack,” or a “dog fight,” what happens is the average citizen once again solidifies (in his mind’s eye) that a pit bull is an evil dog, a dangerous dog, and then a mob mentality gets created which believes “the entire breed” needs to be exterminated. Yet no one ever wants to point his finger at what the real problem is with any dog-related incident, and that is always ignorant ownership. Even in legitimate cases where a pit bull (or any other breed) injures a child or other person,w hat people always do is blame “the dog”—or (worse) the entire breed. And plainly and simply this is retarded.
“A breed of dog” is not the cause of dog bite incidents, nor does “a breed of dog” stage dogfights; irresponsible owners are always the cause of these things. I know this for an indisputable fact, because I have bred and raised between 10 and 80 American pit bull terriers for over two decades now—and yet I have never had one of my dogs bite a person. Ever. I have also never had one of my dogs get loose and harm someone’s pet either. Ever. And the reason none of these tragedies has ever happened involving one of “my” dogs is because I am competent and responsible. This means, when dog bite incidents do happen, where a pit bull bites a person or where it gets away to harm someone’s pet, that the offending animal was owned by someone who was incompetent and irresponsible. Yet “the dogs” always take the blame, or even a whole breed takes the blame. And as someone who has owned several hundred pit bulls for more than two decades, and yet who has never had a single problem with any of them, I am absolutely tired of seeing these dogs get persecuted by the media simply because they are continually mishandled and misunderstood by every imbecile who wants to own one. The pit bull terrier is plainly and simply the most misunderstood (and mishandled) breed of dog that has ever existed. And thus I set out to write this book—and to create this website—to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about this breed.
Unlike other “bubble gum” pit bull authors who have tried before, I do have a proven track record as a competent breeder of these dogs. I have my own established bloodline within the breed, and it has an excellent record of success behind it, and so I do know what I am talking about on the subject of these dogs. Most other pit bull authors have been “watchers” or “students of the breed,” but yet were never actually successful in their own rights as either breeders or dogmen. As a result, one has to wonder about their true level of “expertise” on the subject of pit bulls, if they were never able to make a difference with this breed in their own rights. Still, all of us authors and fanciers will tell you basically the same thing about these dogs: when bred and raised correctly pit bulls are among the most stable and lovable of all breed types. Again, I myself have never had one of my dogs attack a person in over twenty years of having several dozen dogs. Not one. This is because I breed my dogs right, and I raise my dogs right, and I handle my dogs right, which is something that all-too-few people know how to do nowadays. Unfortunately, when mishandled by the stupid, the American pit bull terrier does have the potential to be the most dangerous of breed types. The problem with this breed of dog is isn’t inherent in the dogs themselves, what the problem is is that too many ill-bred, miscreant people want to get their hands on too many ill-bred “representatives” of this breed. In so doing these miscreant “people” pervert and distort the positive courage these dogs have into something that is evil and negative.
The bottom line is this: the pit bull terrier is the most loyal, and the most courageous, breed breed of dog that has ever existed. This is not hearsay or opinion; it is absolutely indisputable in the world of dogfighting that when tens of thousands of dollars are being wagered, no other breed is brought when that kind of money is riding, and that is because no other breed of dog has anywhere near the kind of courage and inner mettle that a pit bull has. Why is this? Well, the reason is simple: no other breed of dog has had its courage is continually tested and specifically bred for after being tested, literally for centuries like the pit bull has. That’s right, the pit bull terrier is bred for courage. Now, maybe courage is becoming out of style in our pale and plastic society, but there is no substitute for courage in a man, and there is no substitute for courage in a dog either. “Talking” about courage is one thing, but proving it in real life is quite another. And that is what separates the pit bull terrier breed from all of the other breeds of dog on the planet is that he proves his courage, over and over again, in real life. He was bred to prove it in the pit, and he has proven it in the pit—literally for centuries—while owners of other breed types “talk” about how loyal and courageous their dogs are. Big difference!
Well, if the Pit Bull Terrier is the most loyal and courageous breed of dog there is, then why does he have such a bad “image” with the media, and why are these dogs always portrayed in such a bad light? The reason is, like anything else that is good in life, courage can be abused and misused by the stupid. As I mentioned earlier, it is a combination of well-meaning owners failing to understand the breed, combined with total sub-human idiots intentionally misusing the breed—capped off with the desire of the media to make money by selling “hot copy” when anything having to do with a pit bull occurs—all combining together into one terrible injustice against a truly superior breed of dog. All of these factors have combined to hurt the breed’s image, perhaps beyond all repair, but this book will attempt to launch a repair anyway. Let’s face it, the mere mention of a “pit bull” inspires passion in people (both good and bad), and if the media stirs your passion, then you will buy their copy, and in so doing the media makes money. That is the bottom line goal of the media, is to make money, and they know the whole world will watch every “pit bull story” they can find (or concoct). Sadly, the one who suffers in the meantime through all of this is the totally-misunderstood pit bull terrier. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “What we do is never understood, but always only either praised or censored.”
Unfortunately, the pit bull terrier is seldom understood or praised, but instead he is always only misunderstood and censored. This entire breed of dog has been outlawed in some countries (censored), and in fact it has been outlawed (censored) in various cities and counties here in our supposedly “free country” in the U.S.A. Entire yards of dogs have been destroyed, citizens have been put in jail, all in a Salem Witch Hunt-like fashion—and always by people who do not even understand that which they seek to destroy. Lies have told, stories have been spread, and an indelibly-negative “image” of what a pit bull is has been painted—and unfortunately this negative image has been painted by people without even the right to speak on the subject of these dogs. Ignorant people. Biased people. Fanatical people. And, as always, people who don’t really know the slightest thing about the very subject which they vilify: the American pit bull terrier breed.
Well, I do know this subject, as I have been a major breeder of these dogs for over two decades. I have seen, interacted with, and raised more pit bulls than whole cities-full of people. So unlike some news reporter, who never petted a single specimen of the breed, I am qualified to speak with authority on the subject of pit bulls. And my judgment is this: outlawing the sport of dog fighting, combined with totally incompetent ownership by non-dogmen “pet-owners,” is what has truly created the problem with this breed.
If someone were to take on the task of becoming a keen-eyed historian, he would ultimately conclude that when the sport of dog fighting became a “crime,” the people who participated in this sport automatically became “criminals,” as defined by said laws. Yet no one has ever sought to question the legitimacy of the very laws themselves. People just a$$ume the laws are correct, and no one has ever questioned whether or not, in fact, dog fighting is cruel, or whether or not all of the people who enjoy the sport are, in fact, “bad people.” This is always what is a$$umed, rather than what is questioned. I will admit that, while it may be true that many of people involved with dog fighting are outlaws, it must also be pointed out that this is only because (since the sport was outlawed) all of the good people who enjoyed the sport got out!
And do you know what else? If you check your history, you will see that the same thing happened with Prohibition—when alcohol was made illegal, once again only outlaws remained in the alcohol business, while the good people stopped and got out of it. So, ask yourself, was the problem in “the alcohol” itself? Or was the problem really with the laws against alcohol? History has already proven that the very Prohibition laws themselves were in fact the real problem in the alcohol industry, not the alcohol itself, and that the enactment of said laws are what created the crimes.
Well, the same thing has happened by outlawing pit fighting contests. The laws against this activity themselves have created the now-rampant problems. You see, what the lawmakers don’t want to stop and consider is the fact that there really are many intelligent, decent people, who actually love dogs very much, and yet who are simply fascinated with developing the toughest, most courageous dog on earth: the American pit bull terrier. That is something that no one seems to want to consider, the possibility that there really are good people who simply enjoy watching rough and tough dogs fight, just as there really are good people who simply enjoy watching rough and tough human men box and wrestle. Such fans are not “bad people,” they are good people who are simply fascinated by combat. Therefore, the assumption that “all” people who fight pit bulls are “bad citizens” is just flat-out untrue! Yet no one wants to actually use their brains and acknowledge this. No one wants to stop and realize that all kinds of people, everywhere on earth, like to see fights … and it does not make them “bad people.”
You see, decent people, when they participate in the sport of dog fighting, aren’t being cruel when they set their dogs down; they are merely testing and maintaining the very standards by which the pit bull breed came into existence, and that is proving their courage in battle. There is nothing wrong with developing courage in battle; in fact, nothing could be more right than developing courage in battle. It is a legitimate interest and it is a legitimate pursuit. If there is something wrong with the desire to develop and preserve courage in a breed of dog, then I’d like to hear what that is. And if anyone knows how to analyze and select for courage within a breed of dog, other than by testing for it, I’d like to hear how this is done. I mean, really, why in the world would any sane person seek to outlaw the very testing method that develops and preserves deep courage in a unique breed of dog?
The truth is, the very premise that the laws against dog fighting are “correct laws” is the problem. These laws are not correct, because they were formulated by ignorant people who really don’t know the slightest thing about dogs at all, let alone the specialized knowledge of the American pit bull breed. And, yes, you guessed it, I do not agree with these laws against dog fighting, and as an American citizen I have the right to speak my peace on this subject—and as a successful breeder of these dogs, I’d like to think I can speak about this breed with some authority—as opposed to inventing pure nonsense out of my unfounded and over-active imagination like so many animal activists and lawmakers always do. I will make my arguments that follow with facts, not unfounded claims, and I will be speaking from years of legitimate experience with this breed as opposed to “he-said,” “she-said” baloney.
The fact is, the very laws against fighting these dogs have basically outlawed the selection process required to test and develop courage in our most courageous breed of dog. These laws have caused countless great dogs to be “seized and destroyed,” and they have caused countless good people to be imprisoned and labeled “criminals,” and yet no one has ever questioned the legitimacy of the very laws themselves. Just like with Prohibition, which made “outlaws” out of decent people simply for having a drink, the laws against fighting dogs have made “outlaws” out of people just for enjoying combat. Like Prohibition, these ill-thought laws have created a “crime” that doesn’t exist, and they have inspired criminal activity where there didn’t need to be any.
Does the name “Al Capone” ring a bell? Well, you do realize that this kingpin criminal was created by Prohibition, don’t you? But you see, where Prohibition was eventually repealed, and sanity restored, the laws against dog fighting still remain in existence. And (if anything) they are getting stricter and stricter. The truth is, the whole idea of making dogfighting “a crime” really is insane, same as the whole idea of making the sale and use of alcohol “a crime” was insane. The idea that breeding and testing dogs for courage is “wrong” or “a crime” is simply insane. It is absolutely insane. To put people in jail because they want to perpetuate and develop a tough and courageous breed of dog is nothing but the insanity of a declining nation. Our society has now legalized “homosexuality,” same-sex marriages, yet we have outlawed the development of courage? That, people, is insane. And you need to recognize it for the insanity that it is.
Yet, although I vehemently disagree with the laws against dog fighting, I am forced to obey these laws myself. In fact, I haven’t matched a dog since Saturday, November 25, 1995, when my Poncho dog lost game to Big Ernie’s CH Leonard. Yet, while I have obeyed the laws against dog fighting myself, regardless of how ridiculous they are, I have always maintained an avid interest in the fighting ability of pit bulls, and I have kept in contact with those who in fact still do contest and fight their dogs. This doesn’t make me a bad person, merely because I enjoy combat, any more than people who enjoy watching human boxing or wrestling are bad people. It makes me normal. The simple fact is, most normal people are fascinated with “the fastest”—“the strongest”—“the tallest”—“the smartest”—something out there, and I just happen to be fascinated by the toughest dogs out there, and there are many decent people just like me who are also.
→ Key Point: Think about it: there are people whose whole lives center around the fastest cars. There are people whose whole lives center around the fastest horses. There are people whose whole lives center around the best boxers, the best wrestlers, the best golfers, the best tennis players, you name it. Simply put, competition, and the desire to see competition, is everywhere in the world where there are men. That is a fact, and there is nothing “abnormal” about having such competitive interests; in point of fact there is something abnormal about NOT having such interests! The desire to witness and participate in some form of intense competition is simply part of being human. I just happen to be fascinated with sportive competition that centers around the toughest dogs, and there are many other men and women just like me, who are decent people and normal people who feel likewise. So why is there a problem? I mean, truly, why is there a problem? The fact is, there shouldn’t be a problem, because it is our Constitutional Right to pursue happiness, so long as we do not interfere with the rights of other men.
Having a deep fascination with fighting dogs doesn’t make us “bad” people, any more than having a deep desire to develop the best racehorses makes someone “bad” either; it only means we all have our own unique interests and fascinations. Everybody does. Unfortunately, so many meddling animal rights activists have lobbied together and passed laws, that we dogfighters now have had our individual interests turned into something “illegal.” Yet who are these animal activists to do this? If analyzed accurately, it is actually the animal rights fanatics meddling in our business, and taking away our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms through high-dollar lobbying, that should truly be illegal. Their actions have been based on nothing but ignorance and lies, and these laws have violated our rights as American citizens to pursue our passions. Not only is the enactment of such laws a violation of our rights, but it is my expert opinion (and anyone with common sense can see) that outlawing dog fighting has resulted in the sad fact that only outlaws remain willing to participate in the sport of dogs. The sad result of these ridiculous laws is that pit bulls suffer, they do not prosper, from the very laws against fighting them. The sport is now left to be in control of (predominantly) outlaws, who are invariably stupid and barbaric people, because the good people that are legitimate fanciers of the breed invariably “got out of the game” just to protect their freedom. I again remind you that the same thing happened with Prohibition: only the decent citizens stopped drinking and distributing liquor, when alcohol was illegalized, while all of the criminals continued to do so (in fact, they flourished in this climate). Yet when the voters repealed the Prohibition laws, by God all that crime went away too, didn’t it? And the good people came back.
So why are so many people blind to this parallel reality regarding the sport of fighting dogs? After all, the same truths apply! Since most of the good people have bowed-out of dogfighting, this has left only the criminals to remain in the sport. Thus the perception the general public has of both fighting dogs, and of the men who contest them, is that “the whole thing is evil and is conducted by evil criminals.” What the general public doesn’t understand is (again, just as the distribution of alcohol was left to criminals when Prohibition was enacted) so too has dog fighting been similarly left only to criminals. But I am here to tell you that it is not “the sport” which is the problem, it’s the laws against it which are the problem! You see, the perception people have of this sport (and the people in it) is simply unfairly slanted and flawed, and the reason it is unfairly slanted and flawed is because of the lies and agenda that have been told and re-told by the animal rights activists who pay the media to tell these lies. The incredible irony is, in a twisted way the public is right: the sport of dog fighting is conducted mostly by a world of criminals—but what they don’t realize is that the very laws against the sport are responsible for this! The sad truth is, the human element around dog fighting didn’t used to be that way. If people bothered to study their history, they would find that dog fighting was once a world of sporting gentlemen who simply bred and competed with a superior breed of dog—a courageous breed of dog—the American pit bull terrier.
To be honest, I understand why most people would want to outlaw the sport of fighting dogs, as most people have been brainwashed to think it is “cruel,” and there is no sane or morally-sound individual who would tolerate cruelty. I myself would never tolerate cruelty, and no one of any sort of moral fiber would tolerate it either. The trouble is, dogfighting is not inherently cruel, any more than two men boxing is inherently cruel. Legitimate pit dogs want to fight, they love fighting, and they do not feel pain like other dogs do. However, nobody really takes the time to understand this. Again, as Nietzsche said, “What we do is never understood, but always only either praised or censored.”
In this way, dogfighting has never been understood by the people who have outlawed it; it has always only been either “praised or censored.” (Mostly censored.) But the question remains, is dogfighting really cruel? The supposed cruelty is what the lawmakers “assume” to be there, and yet this assumption has never actually been put under the microscope to be analyzed. So the question remains, is dogfighting really cruel? The answer might surprise you.
~ A Question of Cruelty? ~A keen mind (that takes time to reflect and analyze) soon realizes that cruelty can only be judged by the participants of the activity, not the “observers.” By this I mean a tree-hugger watching dogs fight and cringing at the thought of two doggies “biting each other” has no accuracy in judgment from the dogs’ perspectives. Similarly, a ping-pong player being horrified at the thought of “being hit” should not have his opinion carry the same weight as the boxer’s perspective of being hit in the sport of boxing. Taking a punch from a professional fighter might make a pingpong-sissy cringe—and so it would be cruel for the pingpong-sissy to be forced to take a punch—but this has nothing to do with how a professional boxer feels about taking a punch. The professional boxer doesn’t care.
Well, when bred and raised correctly, pit dogs are just like human professional fighters: they could care less about “being bit.” The only thing a good pit dog cares about is biting. So too, a professional boxer could care less about “being hit,” he only cares about hitting. Thus, when looked at from the participants’ perspectives, there is no “cruelty” to the pit bull in a dog fight, any more than there is cruelty to the professional boxer in a human fight. In fact, there is even less cruelty to a pit dog, because he is tougher than any man ever dreamed to be, for pit bulls are actually bred to fight and to be tough.
Furthermore, the assumption that fighting dogs are therefore “mean” dogs is pure and utter rubbish. This is another totally misunderstood aspect about fighting dogs, and that misunderstanding is the assumption that, just because a pit bull enjoys fighting contact (while he’s actually fighting), that this makes him a “mean” animal when he’s not fighting. That would be like saying, just because a professional human boxer enjoys boxing in the ring, that this makes him “a mean man” outside the ring. This is perhaps the biggest misconception in these dogs: that a fighting dog = a mean dog. This is pure and utter rubbish. Again, to continue the parallel, there are plenty of professional boxers who are kind and decent human beings outside the ring, and there are plenty of pit dogs that are wonderful and loving “pets” when not in the pit.
Thus the premise that “fighting dogs are always mean” is totally invalid. Pure fabrication by people who know nothing about the breed. Here is another parallel to illustrate: just because your pet kitty-cat will attack and kill any mouse he sees doesn’t mean your kitty-cat will attack a person. That’s just what cats do: kill mice! Another example: just because a ‘coon dog will chase and kill a ‘coon doesn’t mean he’ll chase and try to kill a person too. That’s what ‘coon dogs do: kill ‘coon! But this has nothing to do with how a ‘coon dog sees a person. Well, so too, just because a pit bull will attack and fight another dog, or animal, doesn’t mean he will attack and try to fight a person. That’s what fighting dogs do: fight! But this has nothing to do with their temperament towards a human being. I think even a simpleton should be able to follow this logic.
Yet for some reason the majority of people “assume” (and to assume is to make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”) that a dog which is bred to fight other dogs “must” be dangerous to people too. Yet this assumption is just flat-out untrue. I myself have had many superb, competitive, highly-skilled pit dogs, who could not be beaten in the pit, but yet they would romp and play with me (and sometimes even other dogs) when not in the pit. How is this possible? Well, it’s possible simply because these dogs were intelligent animals, who knew when they were supposed to “do their job,” and yet they also knew who was their enemy, who was not, and how to relax and enjoy “being a pet” when they were not being called upon to do their job. In short, these little warriors I had were not mindlessly-aggressive brutes; they simply were intelligent, well-socialized performance animals—who, although bred to excel at fighting, were nonetheless able to understand when they were “not supposed to do that.” In the same way, a sweet & lovable kitty-cat knows the difference between the mice he is supposed to kill, and the human beings he’s supposed to love. Just because the cat will tear a mouse to pieces and eat him doesn’t mean he won’t be lovable to you, or to your friends, when you go up to pet him.
The fact is, truly superior pit dogs are complete animals. Properly-raised pit bulls are credit to their breed, and they are a joy to have around under any circumstance. They are intelligent, they are capable, and they are loyal. This is the Breed Standard as to how the true American pit bull terrier should be bred: he should be a fierce warrior when called upon—but a trusted, intelligent, and affectionate companion when “off duty.” And it is absolutely incumbent upon future breeders of this breed to keep these dogs like this: all-around athletes, yes, but most of all Man’s Best Friend, as the domesticated dog was originally bred to be.
→ Key Point: Did you know that scholars, professional sportsmen, writers, and even United States Presidents used to attend dog fights, at pitside, in the early- and mid-part of the 20th century? (In fact, some still do now, whether you believe that or not.) Did you know that the United Kennel Club (UKC) itself used to sanction pit fights and appoint pit judges too? Did you know that none other than The Police Gazette likewise used to sanction pit fights and appoint referees? You didn’t? Well, it’s true This was also around this same time period that “Pete The Pup” was featured as the children’s friend on the TV program The Little Rascals. And no “little rascals” ever got bit by “Pete” the pit bull pup either
The truth is, pit dog fighting used to be an accepted sport, and these dogs used to embody the American ideal, courage, because that is what this sport is all about: a truly competitive event involving the courage of truly superior animals. But along came some “tree huggers” in the mid-‘70s and they spoiled everything. They decided pit dog fighting was “wrong.” They began to argue that pit dog fighting was “cruel.” Yet these animal rights zealots knew nothing of the breed they were talking about; they knew nothing about the sport they condemned, and so therefore all of their hysteria was based on nothing but their own over-active imagination. Basically, the zealots who outlawed this sport were nothing but “ping-pong players” cringing at the thought of “being hit,” and they were too caught up in how “they” saw dog fighting, to consider the fact that their opinions were irrelevant to how the dogs saw it. In truth, the zealots themselves knew nothing about the sport of dog fighting which they were condemning. And the same is true with the masses of people against the sport today: they “don’t understand, they only censor.” That’s right, every single animal activist today a$$ume his “moral rightness” in outlawing the sport, but the fact of the matter is every one of them is flat-out wrong! These people have condemned without taking the time to fully understand that which they are condemning. Every single one of these fanatics assumes that the cruelty exists, rather than actually investigate the question as to whether or not the cruelty “in fact” does exist. Sadly, man’s history is full of such injustices—from The Inquisition, to The Salem Witch-Hunts, to Prohibition—assuming they know there’s an evil without realizing only they are evil.
You see, this human weakness that so many people suffer from—the propensity to condemn and destroy rather than trying to understand—is hard to shake. It is hard to overcome. Human stupidity, prejudice, and the general refusal to consider all of the facts has caused more damage and more evil to occur in this world than all of the other maladies combined. And this human pathos to have this kind of a knee-jerk reaction is precisely what the majority of society does when they contemplate dog fighting: it stems from this same primitive mentality. Primitive minds can’t reason about a subject; they can only react to a subject. Such people (in fact most people) when they contemplate dog fighting, only picture “blood and guts” and poor terrified doggies “fighting for their lives”—and so most people can’t help but reflexively call the activity “cruel” and seek to put an end to it. Yet this is nothing but their over-active imagination. None of these things is, in fact, what actually happens in professional pit contests. And thus the opinions of the entire group of animal rights zealots are based upon nothing but the fabrication in their own minds—which “images” they irrationally cling to—rather than opening their minds and seeking to gather and analyze the true facts.
~ The Crux of Cruelty ~We’ll get into what really happens in these contests later, but the simple truth is, as I stated earlier, the activity of dog fighting itself is not necessarily cruel to the dogs. The fact is, cruelty is a subjective thing. The presence or absence of cruelty depends on the perspective of the participant, not on what you think, and not on what I think. This is the only way in which cruelty can be truly understood is by trying to understand the perspective of the participant of the activity. As for the forthcoming discussion of ethics and cruelty, I feel it necessary to point out that I have a BA degree in ethics and philosophy, from UCLA, and so I am every bit as qualified to discuss the ethical theory I will soon be covering as I am qualified to discuss the subject of the pit bulls themselves. Okay? So I repeat, the question of cruelty should be based on the perspective of the participant of the activity, not on a mere “observer’s” opinion.
Recalling the example I made of a ping-pong player’s view of “being hit” compared to that of the boxer’s, I will now make another analogy to show the subjective nature of “cruelty.” Suppose a triathlete decided to run at a good clip for 5 straight miles—in the hot sun. We can easily see that there would be no cruelty involved in a well-conditioned athlete running like this, because this activity would be easily-tolerated by such a man. However, if we made a grotesquely-fat man—with a heart condition—run that same 5-mile run in the heat, then such extreme activity would most definitely be cruel to him. The fat man would be in agony in a 5-mile run in the heat, whereas the triathlete would not.
→ Key Point: Thus, here again, we see that the question of cruelty is always subjective, and it depends on the individual performing the activity, not on the activity itself. One cannot therefore judge “an activity” as being cruel—in and of itself—one has to judge the presence or absence of cruelty based on the perspective of the participant in the activity. It really is that simple.
Unfortunately, the clarity of this truth is too clear for simple-minded people to see, as too many can only operate out of the inventions of their imagination rather than on the actual facts before them. The reality is, in our day and age, there are too many self-righteous, self-centered, meddling whiners out there trying to force ‘their’ perspective on other people, as if ‘their’ perspective is ‘all’ perspectives. Such meddling busy-bodies try to control other people’s behavior because they don’t have the mental capacity to think about subjects like these from anything but ‘their own’ perspective. They cannot listen to reason nor can they consider another point of view besides their own. Such people think they ‘know’ dog fighting is cruel, just because their toy poodle would scream and be terrified of being bitten—or because they themselves are reflexively and irrationally mortified by the thought of fighting—but such people’s weak-kneed cowardice doesn’t mean my pit bull is terrified of fighting. My pit bull could care less; he enjoys the fighting contact.
→ Key Point: This is the entire fallacy behind the existing laws against dogfighting today: the opponents assume ‘the activity’ is cruel, when in fact any cruelty would depend on the perspective of what animal is being fought. The point that simple-minded people can’t seem to fathom is what may be cruel for one animal will not necessarily be cruel for another. This is the pivotal, key point that so many tree huggers simply cannot understand.
Yes, a pit bull fighting a toy poodle would be cruel—for the toy poodle—but it is not cruel for the pit bull eating him up. One individual (the poodle) would be terrified and in agony during such a fight, while the other individual (the pit bull) would be having a blast in that same fight. Thus we can immediately see that the actual activity is NEUTRAL. Therefore, what actually determines the presence or absence of cruelty can only be judged by the perspective of each participant! This is the crux in understanding the heart of this whole issue—for the activity is the same—yet the perspectives of the participants in the activity are much different—and thus the question of cruelty will be much different for each animal.
In this way, a person of superior intellect can clearly see that “the activity” of dog fighting is not inherently cruel. The final truth on this issue of cruelty, therefore, must always be judged on an individual basis; there can be no ‘blanket statement’ that will ever be true about any activity. Only by understanding the perspectives of the dogs (are they terrified or are they ready-and-willing?) can we determine whether any cruelty is actually occurring in the unique, individual fight we are now seeing. The is why blanket laws against such an activity are ridiculous by default: they fail to account for individual differences.
It is just like the question of whether or not it is ‘cruel’ for a man to run for 5 miles in hot weather—the answer to this question will also be much different for a well-conditioned triathlete than it will be for a grotesquely fat man, and so there is no ‘one’ answer to this question that can be given here either. Outlawing ‘the activity’ of running 5 miles in the heat isn’t the answer here either, but rather selecting the right individual for the job is. So too, when we seek to ask the question of whether or not it is ‘cruel’ to let two dogs fight each other in pit contests—the answer will be much different for a combat-bred pit bull than it will be for a toy poodle. So here again outlawing ‘the activity’ of dog fighting isn’t the answer either, but bringing the right dog for the job is.
This is the point of reconciliation that not one of these animal rights activists seems to have the mental capacity to fathom. Tree huggers simply cannot fathom that ‘their’ perspective of dog fighting has nothing whatsoever to do with the perspective of a pit dog. You see, it is not cruel when two combat-bred, willing pit bulls go straight into each other and commence to fight, because both dogs enjoy it. That is what they’re bred for and that is what they live for. Unfortunately, most simple-minded animal rights activists cannot think on that level, and so they strive to outlaw “the activity” for no other reason than it disturbs their personal feelings about fighting, rather than honestly attempting to base their judgments on any factual evidence gained from keenly observing the animals. The truth is, just because an animal rights fanatic’s heart flutters at the thought of a dog fight doesn’t mean that a fighting dog’s heart is fluttering. And the factual evidence is, for any person who takes the time to observe, and who has eyes to see, that a true combat-bred, well-schooled pit dog loves to fight. The truth is, these dogs enjoy what they are doing—and as such there is nothing whatsoever that is cruel about the activity of allowing them to do it. When using truly combat-bred dogs, and when the event is conducted by professional sporting dogmen, dog fighting is a legitimate sport and it involves no cruelty.
~ The Failed Laws ~Although the reason dog fighting was made to be illegal was supposedly in the interests of the pit dogs’ welfare, as you will soon see the truth is outlawing the activity has hurt the pit bull breed and actually caused more suffering than there ever existed for the dogs when the sport was legal. Outlawing the activity certainly has not helped a thing, because (again, like Prohibition) illegalizing the sport only made the good people get out of it, while the outlaws and thugs (who don’t care about laws) remained. As a reminder, and lest we forget, pit dog fighting used to be run by The Police Gazette and the United Kennel Club itself.
There have been similar efforts in a human parallel. The same kind of pale, faint-hearted, tree-hugging animal-rights zealots (who have outlawed the sport of dog fighting) have also tried to outlaw boxing, no-holds-barred (NHB) mixed martial arts (MMA) human fighting (e.g., the UFC), and many other completely legitimate fighting activities, all based upon this same (basically insane) premise that these activities are “cruel.” These people believe they ‘just know’ what is right and wrong for others. Again, we see this same inability to consider all perspectives, not just one’s own. This total self-centered denseness, this same inability to see any other perspective besides one’s own, is then combined with the same basic unwillingness to examine all the facts in order to reach a fair, balanced, and accurate conclusion. Thus I write the Introduction of this book which I make as my opening Blog Post as well. I write this critical differentiation for the reader (who perhaps might be against the sport of dog fighting, but who really doesn’t know much about it), but yet who has a mind that is open enough to—just perhaps—be willing to listen. I write this introduction to tell the real truth about dog fighting.
Let me be completely honest both ways, however, because I believe this is important. I will admit that dog fighting can become cruel. It can become cruel when any of the people involved in staging the contests don’t have the ability (or don’t care) to recognize cruelty when it starts to happen. For even though two dogs may both start out willing to fight, there are many times when one of the dogs really doesn’t want to be in there anymore, but yet he is forced to remain (often called “left down”) to continue to fight in the contest anyway. This most definitely is cruelty, to the one dog who no longer wants to fight. When it is clear one dog has had enough a compassionate owner, handler, and/or referee should stop the fight—and yet because most of the good dogmen today have got out, what’s left of the sport are thugs who will leave their dogs down to suffer abuse rather then ‘pick up’ and stop things at that point.
~ Cruelty Defined ~At any time during the contest, if one of the dogs ‘gives up’ or no longer wants to be there, then at that very moment the contest is cruel to the dog who doesn’t want to be there anymore—and every second that the contest goes on from that point forward becomes another step into cruelty for that dog—and it is precisely here where a good dogman will stop the contest, but where a cruel handler will not. (More on this soon.)
You see, this is precisely why outlawing the sport of dog fighting (and leaving it to outlaws) has hurt the pit bull breed, and the individual combatants, rather than help it or them. These kinds of lowlifes will not stop pit contests that need to be stopped, and they will thus allow cruelty to go on and on for one poor dog, precisely because there is no presiding governing body overseeing the event. Although a good, legitimate dogman will stop a contest the moment it no longer is a sport, even without a governing body presiding, unfortunately these are few and far between, again because most of the good dogmen have gotten out.
A similar parallel can again be drawn to the human fighting contests of boxing or the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC): neither event, by itself, is cruel for the human combatants, as they both want to fight, and they are both good at fighting. As such, there is no cruelty involved in professional human fighting contests. However, imagine if in a boxing (or UFC) contest, if one of the fighters wanted to quit, to tap out, or if a given fighter was severely injured and could no longer defend himself—but the contest was still allowed to go on and-on and-on, without referee intervention. If this kind of thing was allowed to happen in boxing, or in the UFC, then one of the fighters in either sport could eventually become seriously injured or killed. Fortunately, because we have sanctioning bodies and appointed referees who stop human fights, no such thing ever happens. Thus all human fights are immediately stopped when they need to be stopped, and as such any injuries suffered by the human participants are seldom serious—and so there is never any cruelty involved. Thanks to this kind of referee vigilance, everybody (who wants to) can enjoy professional human boxing, wrestling, or no-holds-barred fighting, without ever seeing a moment of cruelty.
These same truths ‘would’ apply to dog fighting too—but unfortunately, because this sport has been outlawed (again, like Prohibition), the result is that nearly always only outlaws wind up being involved, and so cruelty is very often allowed to happen because there is no presiding body governing the contests. You see before, when the sport was legal, and when it was held by legitimate dog men, such pit contests used to be presided over by policemen, or by legitimate UKC officials, and thus the sport was seldom cruel because there was a governing body overseeing the activities. Now, however, these contests are only presided over by outlaws, who in general could give a damn about rules, society, cruelty, suffering, or anything else besides the possible gambling money to be won—and the natural conclusion of this is that most dogs wind up suffering, not prospering, because the sport of dog fighting has been outlawed. These laws against dogfighting have actually hurt the dogs, they have not “helped” them. You may not want to believe this, but it is the truth.
Thanks to these dog laws (which have made the good people get out of the sport of dog fighting), the majority of the uneducated, malicious people who remain in the sport of dog fighting allow their animals to be brutalized without any regard for their lives or health. The true spirit of what this sport should be about (the tremendous ability and courage that these animals have) has now taken a back seat to the gambling money to be made—as well as the excitement of the fights. Instead of a down-and-out (but still-willing) dog being picked up and saved when he needs to be—by a good dogman who values his dog’s life and his courage—the lowlifes who remain in the sport either leave their dogs down (hoping their dog’s courage will still win them their money somehow)—or they just leave their dogs down because they get off on watching an animal lose its life and could give a damn about it.
In neither case is the dog valued, however, which is the mindset of most outlaws (and which is why they’re outlaws in the first place): they have no values. This is the true result of the sport of dogfighting being outlawed: the dogs are left to suffer in the hands of immoral outlaw idiots. As the saying goes, “A pipe gives a wise man time to think—and a fool something to stick in his mouth.” In the same fashion, good dogmen really do appreciate their quality dogs, whereas immoral fools just abuse them. This same truth obtained in the alcohol business, after Prohibition illegalized it, when there really were decent people with class who enjoyed drinking—they left—and so the drinking and distributing of alcohol was left to outlaws and thugs, all because of nothing but the ridiculous laws.
What you, the reader, need to understand is the fact not everyone who enjoys dog fighting is a cruel thug. There really are a few remaining combat dog enthusiasts who are not outlaws, but who just love this breed of dog and the courage the animals represent—who stay with the sport regardless of the legality. True dog men look after their charges like a father or a responsible boxing manager looks after his favorite fighter: with a passionate interest in the sport, yes, and with the desire for his fighter to be good at it and to win, sure—but also with loving concern for his fighter’s safety. And if his fighter needs to have the towel thrown in, then (just like a good boxing manager or a father watching his son box) a good dogman will throw in the towel and get his dog if he’s in over his head.
I consider myself to be one of these fanciers, a true dog enthusiast, and other such fanciers like myself still want to develop the best canine fighting athlete we can. Testing these dogs in the pit is the only way to do this, yet we strive to do so humanely, in exactly the same way as a boxing manager trains and manages his human fighters. That is what these animal rights activists simply cannot understand. They simply cannot understand that, when run correctly, a dog fight is humane. A truly good dog enjoys the work, and a truly good person presides over what’s happening and stops the contest when one of the dogs needs to be picked-up, just like human boxing matches are conducted. It really is that simple.
Sadly, these unthinking laws against the sport turn the good fanciers into “outlaws,” when in fact all we are dog enthusiasts who seek to test and preserve the hallowed trait of courage in our favorite breed of dog, by testing for it. Folks, courage is a positive thing, and there is no other way to maintain courage (or any other trait) in a breed of dog than by testing for it, and then by breeding for it when the trait is demonstrated in individual athletes. And the only way to compare, test for, and then breed for deep courage in a dog is to evaluate the animals in the pit—one against the another—to see who is who—and then to simply make the determination as to which individual(s) really do have what it takes. The sad truth is, when the lawmakers made the activity of dog fighting “illegal,” they in essence made selecting for legitimate courage and bravery illegal to breed for in a dog. This is the great irony about this sport: by illegalizing dogfighting, what the genius lawmakers have done is ensure that true courage can no longer be specifically bred-for, when courage is one of the key traits everyone wants in a dog.
You’re probably thinking, “If this is true, and if dog fighting really is not cruel (when being staged by willing and able animals), then what about the risks? Surely, there are safety risks involved to the dogs, regardless of how willing or able they are to perform?”
OK, true. Yes. But although there is always some safety risk to a dog when he is placed in the pit, this risk is not much different from when a human boxer steps into the ring. The injuries are usually minor. Should we ban boxing, or anything in life that contains risk? Some people think so, as some people have tried to outlaw human boxing too (and damned near everything else). I mean, hell, should we never step outside then? Should we keep ourselves (and our dogs) in plastic bubbles to make sure we are ‘always safe’ and ‘risk-free?’ Of course not.
Most rational people realize that there are risks involved in many different activities, especially in boxing and other forms of fighting, yet there is also the right of the boxers to take that risk and fight anyway—and this is what makes the sports’ champions so special. So why do we allow human boxers to fight but not pit bulls? Why do people risk their lives rock-climbing and skiing? Should we ban everything risky? This makes no sense. In fighting, any sane person realizes that virtually all risk can be held to a minimum simply through intelligent and compassionate observation, and by removing a down-and-out fighter (dog or human) from the situation when it is obvious he has had enough and cannot win. This happens all the time in human boxing, when referees stop fights and declare a winner, and thus very seldom do we see anyone get seriously injured in a boxing match.
Why is it so hard, then, for animal rights zealots to see that the same truths would apply to dog fighting if it were made legal and had appointed referees? Even now, there really is no real risk at all, when the dogs are handled and observed by caring, competent handlers, and the injuries sustained are only minor holes in the skin that heal up in a few days. So what is the problem? The fact is there are risks of injury or death in any type of competitive sport, be it man or animal. In baseball, basketball, football, car racing, boxing, skiing, rock-climbing, etc., human lives are at risk. Similarly, in horse-racing, field hunting, hog hunting, ‘coon hunting, bear hunting, dog racing, varmint hunting, and dog fighting, canine lives are at risk. So just because there is “a risk” does not mean there is cruelty. The presence of risk does not make the activity either ‘wrong’ or ‘cruel,’ and just because sometimes lives are even lost doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate purpose and greater good to be gained through achieving excellence in any of these endeavors, either. Hell, if you want to get technical, there is a greater risk in simply driving your car to work than there is in any of these sports, but that doesn’t make driving a car ‘wrong’ either. Any vigorous competitor of any sport is well aware of the risks, but the thrill of the activity is what is important to them. The risk does not make it ‘wrong’ for such people to go ahead with the activity either, nor does it diminish the nobility of achieving a championship or proven excellence in the sportive activity.
Some people will point out the fact that intended injury to the dogs is the point of dog fighting, which they believe makes things ‘different.’ Such people state this is where it becomes more of an ethical issue than mere ‘risk’ of injury, it is that all of the fighting sports involve intended injury, not ‘risk’ of injury. As such, these people say, fighting sports simply hold a greater risk of harm on a contest-to-contest basis than other sports. Yet this same thing could be said of the intended injury to humans as being part of the make-up of boxing. Yet boxing is legal. I mean, if we can accept the premise of human beings intentionally-injuring other human beings for sport, on the basis of a greater good being achieved through proven fistic prowess, then why cannot we accept this same premise in dogs? Are dogs more valuable than human beings? In fact, staging fighting contests between dogs is even more sensible, ultimately, because we can actually breed for courage in dogs based on the results, creating and perfecting a superior breed type.
In fact, it is precisely through seeing which dogs hold up better to continuous injury, and seeing which dog’s will to win shines brighter than whose, that allows us to determine which of the dogs, truly, is the braver and better animal. Evaluating tolerance to injury, resistance to fatigue, and which of the combatants has an unyielding determination to win, no matter what, is exactly why it is necessary to stage these contests in an effort to develop the toughest and bravest of canine athletes. In human boxing there is less of a point to it all than dog fighting, since we don’t actually ‘breed’ humans for courage. Yet in dog fighting, not only is there the superficial desire to see a competitive sporting event in-and-of-itself, but there is the deeper underlying point to it all in actually testing and breeding for outstanding courage in a unique breed of dog.
Let’s face it, every pet owner ‘thinks’ he has a courageous dog—and yet the pit process that actually evaluates and demonstrates legitimate courage has been outlawed! I mean, how can you actually prove that courage exists in your dogs to an incredible degree, without truly showcasing it? And how can you maintain courage in a breed of dog, if not by breeding to the most proven-courageous individuals, which proof can only be based on the results of actual contests? Dedicated fanciers must intentionally create a scenario that induces combat, injury, fatigue, and severe challenges to a dog’s willpower in order to determine which dog handles it the best. Even in boxing, though we don’t actually ‘breed’ for courage, it is precisely the intended injury and fatigue to the participants—with one of them prevailing through it all—that carries the drama and which also carries with it the greatest prestige and valor in sports. Maybe that is why former World Heavyweight Champion, George Foreman once said, “Boxing is the sport to which all other sports aspire.” The reason George said this is there is no greater test of courage in sports than in the fighting sports.
Well, the fact of the matter is pit dogs prove even more valor and courage in their contests than do human boxers, so a pit dog who has earned the title of “Champion” is truly a special and superior athlete. Only the frail of heart can’t see passed the risks involved in competitive sporting activities to behold the far greater virtues. Frail people simply have a weak passion for living, which is over-ridden by their strong ‘fear of risk.’ Such milquetoasts tremble at the thought of any perceived danger involved in any vigorous activity, whereas men and women of valor savor the opportunity to achieve the glory that dangerous risk bestows upon those who can and do prevail over it. Basically, there are people today (the Humane Society, P.E.T.A., etc.) who are themselves so weak that they try to remove all dangers involved in living, not just in their own sad lives, but these insidious, meddling types reach-out and try to remove any risk in the lives of others as well. Rather than live their own lives, such meddling cream-puffs try to take the ‘life’ out of every one and every thing else.
Ultimately, what these anti-risk fanatics call ‘living’ becomes mere ‘existing’: a trance-like state of tranquility and safety, but not of passion. These meddling ‘fear of risk’ types basically try to suck the life out of all individuals who live more passionately than they do. “Do nothing risky,” they say, “or be labeled a ‘criminal’ by us.” This kind of a pale, sickly life may be fine for such weaklings, but it is not fine for all. The unsung truth is, pit bulls are the antithesis of the frail-hearted animal rights people; these dogs embody courage and they define daring. True pit bulls are beaming with life and they are beaming with vitality, and as such they enjoy the sport for which they were bred—fighting—and there is absolutely no cruelty in allowing these dogs to do what they were bred to do, when handled and presided over by knowledgeable, competent, caring dogmen.
It is a sad commentary, that actually reflects the change in our whole country’s backbone, that at one point in our history, courage in a man used to be valued—and (not coincidentally) the sport of dog fighting used to be legal then, too. In fact, so true is what I am saying that the pit bull terrier was actually on an American war poster, depicted as the courageous fighter he is and symbolizing American courage and tenacity. Yep, that’s right, during World War I the pit bull terrier was actually used as an American symbol of courage for this Great War. He was flanked on one side by an English bulldog and a German dachshund, and on the other side by a French bulldog and a Russian wolfhound. And the caption below the pictorial read, “I’m neutral, BUT, not afraid of any of them!” Take a look at this poster below and see for yourself:
There was a time when the American pit bull terrier’s courage was used as a symbol of the
very same rugged courage upon which America itself was built—and, not coincidentally, as
America has turned its back on what the pit bull’s courage stand for, so too has America’s
own image been tarnished.
Again, it is a sad commentary that in our society today a game, courageous, fighting spirit is no longer considered to be a virtue. Instead, being a pale weakling is what is held to be of value. Being a soft, weak ‘business man’ is considered virtuous today. All day long we see soft, unathletic, sickly men in suits and ties working in ‘offices’, drinking espresso coffee, discussing their ‘business affairs.’ That is supposedly the contemporary ideal of a man today—rather than holding rugged men of action and courage as the ideal any longer. Hell, even being a homosexual has now been elevated to ‘acceptance’ in our society these days, while being a fierce warrior is now deemed to be ‘unacceptable.’ I mean, really, how pathetic have we become as a people?
Well folks, the good news is not everyone in our society has a declining sense of values. There are still people today who admire physical excellence, and who admire deep courage, both in human beings as well as in our domesticated animals—and we are not criminals for valuing courage, and we are not criminals for testing for it in ourselves and breeding for it in our dogs. If anything, we should be saluted for maintaining a level of excellence in a breed of dog that no ‘pet owner’ will ever maintain with his lap dogs.
We true pit dog fanciers are not cruel, like the media attempt to portray us; we just understand that in order to create the strongest metal, you have to forge it in the hottest heat. The pit bull terrier is the strongest canine metal, and it has to be continually forged in the hottest heat (the pit) to make sure that each individual within the breed remains true to standard. The simple truth is, fighting is literally required to prove the mettle in these dogs, and intelligent fanciers can achieve the objective of producing both a top-notch fighting dog while still conducting each event without any cruelty, by using plain old vigilance, compassion, common sense, and humanity.
We true bulldog fanciers are the ones who have kept the impeccable standards of this great breed alive, while treating the animals humanely and giving them a good life. Unfortunately, because this sport has been made illegal, many well-meaning pit dog enthusiasts (again, like myself) are forced to quit our hobby, not wanting to risk our freedom on account of our interests. Thanks to such laws, the sport is therefore left to people who don’t care about the law, their freedom, or any other potential consequences involved in breaking the law—and this means most pit dogs wind up suffering, not prospering, thanks to these laws, by being relegated to being owned by criminals with this irresponsible mentality. The sad truth of the sport being outlawed is that very few well-meaning enthusiasts can afford the risk of ‘getting caught’ pursuing their passion anymore, so they get out of this hobby, leaving it to criminals who don’t care.
Thus, rather than pit contests still being held by intelligent, caring fanciers who hold the integrity of the breed as the supreme value, such contests are left to be held by irresponsible, immoral criminals who could give a damn about anything other than the fast-action and the gambling money to be won. Again, as the saying goes, “A pipe gives a wise man time to think—and a fool something to stick in his mouth.” And that is also why you have the problems today with pit bull attacks: the dogs are now left to be bred and raised either by ignorant, foolish ‘pet owners’—who are too clueless to handle these dogs properly—or they are left to be owned by unintelligent, immoral, outlaws. In neither case, however, are these dogs being handled and cared for properly. You can see novices every day, who let their pit bulls run loose, and you can see criminal thugs every day who have these dogs kept in deplorable conditions and who simply don’t care about anything. And yet the professional dogman, who created the breed standard, and who actually knows how to handle these dogs properly, has been run off from keeping this breed alive and pursuing his vocation, thanks to these ridiculous laws.
It is my view that pit bulls should only be owned by intelligent, professional dogmen—the dogfighters who created the breed in the first place—and by no one else. It is simply a matter of historical fact that every bit of the ‘pit bull problem’ has been caused by the ignorant laws against the sport of dog fighting. These laws have run all of the good people out of the sport, which in turn has left the breed to the hands of either ignorant pet owners or outright outlaws—and the resulting media hoopla that constantly follows has done nothing but attract the attention of both, neither of whom knows how to handle these dogs properly, simply because they don’t truly understand them.
~ Hypocrisy Defined ~It is a matter of unimpeachable fact that, not only was it unconstitutional to have enacted laws against dogfighting, thereby abolishing a certain sub-culture’s rights to pursue their legitimate interests in creating a superior strain of canine athlete, it is also contradictory to what the animal rights fanatics ultimately do to the very dogs they confiscate: for they kill them. So let’s talk about that and see if there really are “animal rights.”
→ Key Point: Animal Rights? What are animal rights anyway? The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) both say that animals have ‘rights.’ They say we pit bull owners cannot fight our doggies, and these animal organizations have orchestrated laws that will result in the arrest any person for being caught (or even suspected of) fighting a dog. Yet why doesn’t anyone concern themselves with the rights of these same pit bulls after they get confiscated by these so-called activists? Do you know what happens after a dogfight raid? HSUS and PETA take away the doggies—and then what do you think they do with the confiscated doggies immediately thereafter? They kill them! That’s right, these incredible, hypocritical animal rights idiots will say out of one side of their mouths that pit bulls have a right ‘not to be fought,’ and then out of the other side of their mouths (as soon as they get ahold of the dogs) these same animal fanatics will say out of the other side of their mouth that these same ‘rescued dogs’ dogs don’t have a right not to be killed! This is ludicrous. And yet the entire United States population says nothing. Everybody just kinda goes along with it. I mean, even a 3-year-old should be able to see the logic that if pit bulls have a right not to be fought, then they also should have a right not to be killed. Or, stated in the reverse, if a pit bull doesn’t have a right not to be killed by HSUS, then he sure as heck shouldn’t have a right not to be fought by his owner either. You can’t have it both ways!
Yet HSUS and PETA have lobbied heavily enough to pass laws in our country basically saying that it is wrong if a person fights his own property (his dog), while HSUS and PETA feel they are ‘in the right’ to forcibly take that man’s property, and then kill that same doggie for its being fought (which isn’t even the animal’s fault!). Any person with an IQ over 60 should be able to see the logical fallacy here. If these dogs have a right not to be fought, then they also should have a right not to be killed. Or, if these dogs don’t have a right to life, then they also shouldn’t have any rights regarding being fought either. Again, you can’t have it both ways, and in the end the fact is DOGS ARE PROPERTY and the ethical truth is, no one has any right to tell me what to do with MY property, EVER. It is that simple.
Further, just think about all the other laws which support this view, by allowing us to straight-up kill other species of animal that we can own (let alone just watch animals fight). I mean, just think about this: it is “legal” for any person to slaughter hundreds of cows, chickens, pigs—you name it—we can kill them all day long, every day of our lives, on account of human food. Yet it has been proven that man can survive without eating meat. What this means, bottom line, is that we allow literally millions of animals to be killed each year (animals who certainly don’t enjoy their deaths) to make man money and to give man pleasure, the pleasure of eating meat.
Or, for that matter, any person can hunt and kill all kinds of wild animals by obtaining a permit to shoot and kill them (again animals that certainly don’t want to be killed). We don’t even need to eat these animals, we can just legally kill them ‘for sport’—or for a set of antlers. Worse, a person can miss his shot and send the poor thing into the brush to die an agonizing death—legally—but for some reason that same person cannot legally take his pit dog (who loves to fight) and place him with another pit dog (who also loves to fight) and then just let them do what they were bred for centuries to do—fight—even if neither dog ever comes close to dying. I mean this is logically-ridiculous! Doggies are basically elevated by our laws to be ‘more valuable’ than every other species of animal, including humans! Only HSUS and PETA are allowed to kill them with impunity!
Another contradiction is, the way current laws stand, I can legally have my pit dog attack and maul a wild pig (which is a form of fighting), yet the pig doesn’t even like it. He does not want to be attacked and mauled, but this is considered legal. Yet my same pit dog cannot legally engage another pit dog in a fight, even though both enjoy the combat. I mean, really, how much sense does this make? My dog can attack a pig, but not another pit dog? Even though the other pit dog is my dog’s equal, and enjoys fighting also, whereas the pig is not my dog’s equal and does not enjoy fighting? Just think about that. Somebody needs to help our lawmakers think accurately. Remember, we have proven that cruelty is dependent upon the perspective of the participant in the activity, and so it is cruel to allow a dog to attack a pig, because the pig does not want to be attacked—yet this is legal—whereas both pit bulls love to fight each other, and so there is no cruelty in this instance, but yet this activity is considered ILlegal.
The hypocrisy and cluelessness of our lawmakers truly is astounding. Anyone with eyes to see, and a brain to think, can immediately conclude the former activity of willing dogs on unwilling pigs does involve cruelty to the pigs. This is true cruelty, from the pigs’ perspectives, because these animals do not enjoy the fighting contact. Yet the activity of willing dog on another willing dog is not cruel, because both dogs are equals and both dogs enjoy the contact. Let me stress this point even more clearly and graphically: we allow several bulldogs to gang-up-on and administer a slow death to a wild pig on a hunt—that is unfair to the wild pig who agonizes over the contact—but we will not allow one dog to so much as nick another dog’s skin, in a sporting contest where both dogs are equal, and when both dogs actually enjoy the fighting, and even where neither dog actually dies. I mean, really, any intelligent person should be able to see that our laws regarding animal fighting are totally absurd, that they are exactly bass-ackwards, and the reason for this is these laws were created by people without the slightest clue about the very animals for which they have created said laws.
Truth is those who have created these animal laws (HSUS and PETA) know nothing about the animals for which they have created said laws. The truth is HSUS and PETA violate the whole concept of “animal rights” every time they kill a dog and put it down. The truth is, we blithely allow legitimate and unspeakable cruelties of isolation to animals that are being produced for food. The total confinement of young calves in the dark to produce veal probably heads this list of unconscionable cruelties which we allow every day to be committed against unwilling animals. We also allow insanely over-crowded conditions in the keeping of egg-laying chickens, who are forced to live crammed in tiny cages laying eggs all their lives. And you bet these conditions are cruel, because none of the animals involved enjoys this kind of treatment at all; these animals are miserable every moment of their brief, overly-confined lives—the end of which is to get their throats cut or their heads chopped off to be eaten for food.
Yet the lawmakers allow this kind of animal torture to go on all over the country, I mean hundreds of thousands of animals, but they won’t allow a pit bull the joy of fighting another pit bull, even for five minutes, and even when both dogs have been raised in the house with love their whole lives, as opposed to being confined for their whole lives in a dark shed to be raised for slaughter. And again, we will also allow these same bulldogs to fight and kill wild animals, creatures which don’t enjoy the fight at all, and which get killed by a gang of attacking dogs, but yet these same dogs that can legally kill a pig in an unfair gang-fight cannot legally fight each other, even when done fairly and singly, where both dogs enjoy it, and where neither dog dies! I mean, who can say any of this with a straight face? Yet this is the way these laws stand right now.
The final coup de grace to this issue of hypocrisy is the fact that I can lace on a pair of boxing gloves myself, and legally fight another man who does the same. That’s right, two human beings can legally have fun beating the hell out of each other—black eyes, broken noses, bloody lips, brain damage and all—but these same two human beings cannot legally let their dogs fight each other, even for five minutes—when the dogs are ten times better at it and only suffer little holes in their much tougher skin. Thus, not only are the existing laws contradictory relative to animal rights (which is a contradiction in terms), not only are the laws contradictory in legalizing injury or death to other kinds of animals we own—but the existing laws are further contradictory in that they also say humans can legally injure other human beings—through organized human fighting—but yet these same humans cannot let their doggies injure each other, through organized dog fighting! The inconsistency of our laws is so ridiculous that we have basically elevated the status of ‘doggies’ over and above all other life forms, to where dogs are considered to be more sacred and valuable than every other kind of animal on earth, including the status of human beings!
~ The Bottom Line ~So why are the dog laws so contradictory? Why are such ignorance and hypocrisy so prevalent amongst animal fanatics and the puppet lawmakers who pass their ridiculous and self-contradictory laws? In a word: lobbying. The truth is, there are always irrational zealots who try to ‘outlaw’ everything, everywhere—from guns, to abortion, to hunting, to alcohol, to boxing, to dog fighting, to even owning a dog—you name the pursuit—and there will always be a group of some zealous idiots, somewhere, assembling together in an effort to try to enact some kind of legislation against the activity.
So why has dogfighting remained totally illegal then, where other truly cruel animal matters have been allowed to go on legally? For that matter, why was Prohibition made illegal—and then why was it successfully repealed? Why was boxing made illegal for awhile too—and then why was boxing successfully re-instated? Why can human beings once again drink alcohol, and why can human beings once again fight each other, legally, while doggies still cannot fight each other legally? Why can I shoot and kill other animals, legally, but yet why can’t I let my dogs have a good old-fashioned brawl with other dogs (even if nobody dies)? The answer is simple: there are more people willing to stand up and lobby for their right to have guns—their right to drink, their right to eat meat, their right to have boxing contests, and their right to hunt wild game, etc.—than there are those who are willing to stand up and lobby for their right to breed and contest fighting dogs. It is that simple.
The bottom line is our laws have nothing to do with what truly is right or wrong, the enactment or repealing of our laws has to do solely with what gets effectively lobbied-for or not. That’s all of it. In the end, it’s not that dogfighting is wrong, it’s that the small segment of people who do fight dogs for sport are simply not big enough, and have simply not lobbied enough, to stop the animal rights lawmakers from taking away their freedoms—even though those very animal rights idiots can legally kill the same dogs they say ‘can’t be fought’—and even though dog fighting is less cruel than either slaughtering farm animals or hunting wild animals—and even though human beings can legally fight. It’s the power of the vote, people, not the righteousness of the ‘good,’ nor the intelligence of the lawmakers, winning out here. That is all zealous idiots have ever done, is try to pass laws against every single activity that people enjoy, and the simple truth is groups people have always had to stand up and defend themselves and their rights from zealous idiots by lobbying-back. The difference is, so many people have fought for their right to drink, their right to hunt, their right to box, their right to keep and bear arms, etc.—whereas no one has ever bothered to stand up and fight for their right to have professional dog fights and to maintain and perpetuate courage in a superior breed of dog. The irony is, we bulldog owners have simply lacked the very courage that we demand in our dogs and have not fought back.
Now, mind you, I am no more in favor of animal cruelty than any so-called ‘tree hugger.’ I truly don’t want to see any animal suffer and I truly am not a cruel person. I don’t even like fishing, because I feel sorry for the fish! Why? Because the fish don’t like being caught. I don’t like to kill insects or butterflies. I don’t hunt for anything besides food. I am even against hog hunting. The reason is, I am subtle enough in my intellect to clearly see that no animal wants to be shot and killed, and so I really don’t hunt much, except when varmint hunting becomes necessary in my rural area or I intend to eat what I kill. But I would never just “trophy hunt,” as I myself do not believe in this practice. So please don’t call me “cruel,” because I most definitely am not a cruel person. I am a highly-intelligent individual, who can actually make a determination as to what, in fact, constitutes ‘cruelty,’ by judging how the participant of the action behaves whilst participating in the activity. All wild animals run from and are terrified of being either shot or caught, whereas a good pit bull seeks to get into a fight with another pit bull, and so the pit bull truly enjoys the work. I mean, how simple is that?
Therefore, I do love legitimate, willing combat—both in human beings and in the American pit bull terrier—and I have the intellect and understanding to differentiate between what is truly cruel from what in fact is not cruel. And there are a lot of other people who like to watch fighting contests too, be they dog contests or human contests, just as there are a lot of people who like to watch fast running, be it dog racing, horse racing, human racing, or car racing. Human beings simply love competition, many different kinds of competition, and there is nothing at all wrong with this. In fact, that is how ALL forms of sport originated: by man’s love of competition
So why is there all of the drama surrounding dog fighting? The fact is, this sport is really no different from any other animal sport, when done professionally and compassionately; it is merely one more form of sportive entertainment. What’s ‘wrong’ isn’t man’s desire to see intense competition and combat displayed in the arena—what’s wrong are animal fanatics who try to prevent the expression of this kind of legitimate activity. These laws against dog fighting are in fact what’s wrong. People meddling in the affairs of other people is what’s wrong—especially when such meddling comes from people who are absolutely ignorant of the subject to begin with—and especially again when they seek to kill the very animals they claim have ‘rights.’
Wrong or not, these are our laws, and I will obey them for the time being. Unfortunately, those who won’t obey these laws are often those who don’t obey other laws as well, and again the result is more often than not this great breed of dog is being used by the scum of our society, rather than being bred and developed by its truly competent devotees, who do so with intelligence, compassion, and sophistication. Just as horses are bred and raced by sophisticated people in horse racing, so too should sporting dogs be bred and ‘raced’ by sophisticated people who understand them. But the current laws won’t allow for this. Yet, while these laws may control my actions, they cannot control my mind. Thus I will do everything I can to ensure the perpetuation of this breed and its ideals through my writings, while at the same time obey the current laws as they stand—or until they fall. As Edward Bulwer-Lytton so famously wrote, “The pen is mightier than the sword”…
~ The Real Solution ~I personally believe that dog fighting should be legalized, but that the contests should be held under the scrutiny of a governing body, with regulations, and by permit only. I believe that this will likely never happen, but if it ever did the events could be taxed and the federal government would benefit by bringing in at least the revenue that boxing does for Las Vegas or horse racing does for the Derby. The level of combat ability, stamina, and courage that a truly good pit bull has is so much greater than even the bravest of human fighters, as to make there be no comparison between the two. The professional sports of horse racing and greyhound racing utilize animals that are nowhere near the all-around athletes that a combat-bred pit bull terrier is. As a result, the money made in horse racing, dog racing, and even human fighting is nothing compared to the money that could be made in dog fighting if it were legalized. I am talking about honest money made on absolutely the strictest standards of physical prowess that can be graded: a pit dog fight. If dogs are ‘man’s best friend,’ then let us elevate and celebrate the bravest and toughest of dogs, the American pit bull terrier, and put him back on his pedestal where he belongs—rather than trying to find ‘value’ in a world full of useless, fluffy mutts.
The standards that have created the finest all-around canine athlete on earth, the combat-bred American pit bull terrier, should be cultivated and improved upon, by legalizing the activity. The proving grounds to build and breed courageous dogs should not be abolished, because in so doing we threaten the extinction of our most courageous breed of dog. I mean, how many wonderful creatures, of all different types, must continually be rendered extinct by the plodding, stupid human beings of this earth—who don’t understand anything they do—before we all wake-up and stop being so stupid and destructive? Legalizing dog fighting, and elevating the performance standards of our greatest of dogs, is in fact what would benefit this breed the most. This would minimize any suffering involved, and it would also eliminate the criminal element that has surrounded the sport since it was outlawed. Again, recall what happened when Prohibition was repealed, when it was once again legal to manufacture and distribute alcohol: the organized crime element left, and normal decent citizens could once again enjoy a drink amongst friends. If the sport of dogfighting were once again legalized, so too would the criminal element leave dog fighting, and once again sporting gentlemen could go on and enjoy developing the most courageous breed of dog on earth—while the dogs themselves would once again enjoy being owned by more competent, compassionate, better all-around owners.
As famed dog author Jack London said in his novel, White Fang: “He was justifying his existence, than which life can do no greater; for life achieves its summit when it does to the uttermost that which it was equipped to do.” Jack London was an avid outdoorsman as well as a renowned author, and he himself attended pit dog fights. He understood animals that were bred to perform certain tasks. Former United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself coined the phrase, “It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that counts as much as the size of the fight in the dog.” That’s right; United States Presidents have attended dog fights and have owned fighting dogs. Teddy Roosevelt was another one.
The rules, regulations, and presiding bodies of sanctioned dog fights should go back to the days of the UKC and the Police Gazette. If this activity were to be legalized in America again, and the standards even further improved upon, not only would much of the human scum involved in the sport be eradicated by the appropriate governing bodies, but the level of care the dogs themselves would be given would be elevated immeasurably as well. The necessary result of legalization would be that the level of dog produced ‘as a breed’ would continue to be elevated also. I mean, why not produce the very best dogs we can, as opposed to the very lamest and useless? Why not treat those very best dogs to the very best care, under the very best rules and regulations, to be presided over by the very best people we can to promote them?
More importantly, to those who actually want to stop the real cruelty involved in dog fighting (which is thug owners allowing their dogs to be mutilated or killed when they no longer can defend themselves toward the end of a contest), legalizing dog fighting would ultimately benefit the dogs in this regard as well. As things stand today, with the illegality of dog fighting, and with no governing bodies, cruel and stupid owners often allow their dogs to get mutilated and killed in the pit, because they are lowlifes and not true dog fanciers, and because there are no presiding referees to control the standards. Without any authority to say otherwise, most miscreant thugs will not pick-up their dogs if they are in losing, nor are there any professional veterinarians available to the dogs afterward. If the sport were legalized, however, with a governing body and specially-appointed referees to preside over the contests, the dogs would have their fights able to be stopped by referee intervention (same as in boxing)—and the dogs would also have top quality veterinary care available to them immediately after a fight—instead of having a bunch of drunk amateur “vets” trying to stick an IV in their veins, as things often are now. (That is, if they remember, or care, to bring any medical supplies at all.)
If dog fighting were legalized with these two changes combined—referees being able to stop fights, and the availability of immediate professional veterinary attention after the fights—the frequency of after-fight deaths and mutilations of pit dogs would be reduced to virtually non-existent, just as they are virtually non-existent in human boxing. So if it’s the dogs’ welfare that HSUS and PETA are really after, then legalizing the sport is the only way to do it. Because, folks, this sport will continue to go on—in some remote warehouse, bayou, or garage—regardless of the laws against it, again just like drinking continued to go on, somewhere, regardless of the laws against it in the Prohibition Era. The truth is, we need a better way.
~ My Proof ~My final proof that legalizing the sport would be the best thing for the dogs is that all of what I have said is actually happening in Japan. That’s right, dog fighting is legal in Japan, with a ranking and sanctioning body, with professionally-appointed referees presiding over the contests, and with professional veterinarians taking care of the dogs afterward—and it is a crime-free, totally-professional operation over there, even more professionally-run than boxing is here in our country. The Japanese are a highly-sophisticated culture and they prove beyond any doubt the merit of my beliefs (as did the UKC and Police Gazette in our own country at one point), and so there is really nothing to debate on this subject. Legalizing the sport is the answer!
Again, just as Prohibition failed in our country, and just as trying to outlaw boxing failed also, so too has outlawing dog fighting continuously failed on every level. It is still going on everywhere in the U.S., and the remaining good people in it have been turned into ‘outlaws,’ when they really aren’t. Meanwhile, taxpayers’ money is being wasted on chasing a ‘crime’ that doesn’t actually exist, while still more money is being wasted imprisoning ‘criminals’ who aren’t really bad people. By contrast, if legalized, tax money would actually be made off of the sport of dog fighting, rather than being wasted in vain trying to stop what is essentially unstoppable.
The truth is, the real outlaws are the lawmakers who have enacted false and self-contradictory laws that violate our Constitutional rights. Fact: the lawmakers have deprived tax-paying citizens of their American right to Pursue Happiness, with their poorly-thought and senseless laws. Fact: the appointed ‘authorities’ who have raided the homes of American citizens over these stupid laws have in deed become the real outlaws. These law enforcement officers have mendaciously been given carte blanche power to raid people’s homes, to take and kill people’s animals (unreasonable search and seizure)—and in violation of their own ‘animal rights’ precepts—all because of an incredibly short-sighted, logically-stupid, and totally-ignorant set of ‘laws’—that were created and passed by people who don’t understand the first thing about these dogs or about animals in general.
If a keen mind really analyzes the facts, here is what these laws basically boil down to: it is considered a ‘crime’ for a person to allow his dog to bite another dog—and yet the lawmakers can ‘legally’ come into this person’s home, ‘legally’ take away all of his dogs, and then ‘legally’ execute every single one of them. Forget a mere ‘bite’ now, we’re talking execution. I mean, this is totally insane: to call allowing one pit bull to injure another pit bull ‘a crime’—while calling the complete execution of that same animal ‘legal.’ Ask a hundred different people what they would choose, if given a choice between being in a really hard fight (but cared for afterward), or being publicly-executed into permanent oblivion, and all one hundred of them will choose ‘being in a really hard fight.’ You would chose to fight instead of getting killed, so would I, and so would a dog! Yet, as the law stands now, it is ‘a crime’ for a person to allow a dog to fight another dog—but it is ‘legal’ for the authorities to execute that same fighting dog, just for being in a fight. They say a man’s doggie ‘has rights’ when the true owner has him; yet as soon as HSUS and PETA get their evil hands on that same doggie, suddenly it doesn’t even have the right to life. This is absolutely insane!
Any rational mind realizes that our laws should be designed to create order and to prevent harm, not to create disorder and to cause harm. It is an historical fact that failed laws like Prohibition, outlawing boxing, and outlawing dog fighting have caused more disorder and harm than they have ever prevented or relieved, which is why two of them have already been repealed. The facts are, such laws accomplish *nothing* towards curtailing the actions of their intended purpose. This is why we repealed Prohibition, and why we re-instated boxing in our country, both of which legal flip-flops prove my point. And, just as certainly, the seamless order of legalized dog fighting in Japan proves my point here again as well. It is simply an indisputable fact that the fighting dogs of Japan are treated better than our fighting dogs here, that there is absolutely no crime surrounding the activity either, precisely because the sport is legal over there. Again, these are the indisputable facts regarding the legal sport of dog fighting in Japan, compared to its illegal counterpart here in the United States—there is nothing to debate!
~ New Standards ~In conjunction with legalizing the sport, as stated above, I maintain that pit bulls should not be available to the general public. The reason I say this is because pit bulls are simply “too much dog” for clueless people to handle responsibly. I believe there should be government regulation of dog fighting, not abolishment, and that this regulation should start with people being screened and qualified before they can be owners/handlers of this breed—and there are plenty of recognized experts within the breed who could draft and preside over such screening and licensing.
The tragedies involving people (especially children) getting mauled by pit bulls almost never involve owners who are professional dog fighters. Instead, such tragedies invariably involve ill-bred dogs, that are bred and owned by incompetent novices—truly ignorant “pet owners” who have no idea how to handle this breed responsibly—and who generally get their dogs, not from true dog men, but from other irresponsible, totally-clueless backyard breeders. Legitimately-superior pit dogs, in the hands of truly competent dogmen, are absolutely terrific animals—and their incredible abilities deserve to be enjoyed and perpetuated, responsibly and professionally, but *only* by proven-competent fanciers and dogmen—not by any idiot who has the cash to buy one (but who hasn’t the competence or sense to handle it properly).
Therefore, only by obtaining a permit, based upon passing a series of strict examinations, do I believe an interested person should be allowed to obtain and own a pit bull, with training courses being given as to how to handle the breed responsibly. Such training courses and tests could be created and presided over by recognized experts on the breed. Thus any interested ‘pet owners’ would have to score very high on these examinations, showing a high level of dog-handling competence, rather than a minimal level of competence. I honestly believe that what should be abolished is any non-permitted ownership of pit bulls, precisely because of the constant mishandling that happens with these dogs in the hands of idiot-novices. These dogs are powerful animals and should not be available to the totally clueless, but only to proven-competent, licensed individuals who have demonstrated their dog-handling competence on a very high level, according to a series of strict qualifying examinations set by us experts.
I further believe interested pit bull owners should have to prove that they are home owners, with stable work histories, and also proof should be given that escape-proof quarters will be used for their animals. If you think this proposed testing and licensing sounds a bit extreme, consider the fact that you have to take a driver’s education course to be able to obtain a license to drive a car. The reason is the same, because of the serious consequences that can potentially be involved in the mishandling of a vehicle. You also have to pass a series of examinations in order to adopt a child, again because of the serious responsibility involved. You likewise have to go through even more paperwork to start your own business, and to obtain the necessary permits and licenses to prove your legitimacy as a business, etc., etc.
Getting licenses and permits is part of any serious and responsible person’s life, so why isn’t it reasonable to place a similar licensing requirement in order to prove a person’s legitimate knowledge and competence in handling as serious a breed of dog as an American pit bull terrier? People who are unwilling to go through this kind of an education, screening, and licensing process would only prove their own lack of commitment and/or unfitness to own this breed—just as people who don’t want to get the necessary work permits or driver’s licenses would show their own lack of commitment and fitness to enjoy these privileges as well.
Does this sound harsh? Not to the serious it doesn’t. I believe that the strictest standards of excellence in ownership should apply to the finest breed of dog on the planet. Only lazy, unsuccessful, and irresponsible people would disagree—because truly responsible and successful people are already used to going the extra mile to get the necessary licenses and permits they need in life in order to get what they want.
As things stand, I find it ironic and sad that the finest of all dog breeds is all-too-often owned by the lowliest and cruelest of people (and/or the most clueless), and again this is a direct result of the laws as they are in the books now. I believe the guidelines set forth above (and below) would drastically change this.
For this reason, I no longer breed my dogs for sale to the general public, as I do not believe it is fair to the animals produced. It is too much of a heartache to learn of one ownership incompetence after another in the handling of my dogs for me to be able to continue making them available for more of the same to the average dog owner. I do, however, offer my males at stud, and I still make puppies available to proven-competent owners and fanciers of the breed, who can establish enough ‘life-stability’ so as to provide my pups with a good home, whether as a pet, a show dog, weight puller, or whatever.
Although I myself no longer engage in any illegal activities involving these dogs, I will continue to write my views on how to raise these dogs responsibly, as well as to provide my sound arguments against the laws which forbid dog fighting. Since the pen truly is “mightier than the sword,” I believe my writings will continue to benefit the dogs owned by would-be dog fighters as well as by regular pet owners. Because the laws have become so strict, to the point you can’t even take a picture of a dog fight, or ‘promote’ dog fighting, make no mistake here: I do not write this book or post this Blog entry to “organize or promote” any illegal activities, nor am I encouraging people to break the law. I write these words because (I believe) I still have my First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and written expression, and I write this indictment to show the logical absurdity of the current laws against the sport.
Admittedly, I also want to educate those folks (who are going to fight dogs anyway) on how to do so humanely. I mean, let’s face it: dog fighting will continue, legal or not, with or without my involvement and with or without my words. However, the unfortunate truth is, because of these laws against the sport, and because most of the good people in the sport got out, that leaves this activity to be carried out (incompetently and inhumanely) mostly by the thugs remaining in the sport—thanks to all of the secrecy involved. But there are some good people still left who are interested in doing things the right way. So while I write this book to help change these laws, I also write it to help those good folks who are going to take their chances anyway, to do these things properly, which means with the least possible trauma to the dogs, while still maintaining high standards. My goal is not to promote people to break the law here, my goal is (1) to show how stupid, illogical, and ineffective these laws are to begin with, and (2) to teach those people (who are going to break the laws anyway) how to raise and school their dogs with the least possible trauma to their animals.
The truth is, pit dogs are going to be raised for fighting anyway, by individuals all over the world, and these dogs desperately need owners who truly know what they’re doing—as opposed to being owned by imbeciles who will make one ignorant blunder after another with their poor animals, without the proper guidance and perspective. So rather than have these dogs suffer through total ownership ignorance and incompetence, as things stand now, I write this book to outline exactly how this activity should be done, correctly and humanely, from beginning to end. Without the proper guidance, so many pit dogs (who are in this type of situation anyway) are going to get totally mishandled by their ignorant owners, and I am simply trying to help prevent this. Thus my intent in outlining the proper way in which to go about raising and schooling combat dogs is not my “promotion” of any illegal activity; rather it is simply my attempt to help the dogs who are going to be in this situation anyway, by showing their owners how to raise and handle their charges properly and humanely, as most would otherwise be mishandled in ignorance.
I hereby expressly waive anything that could be construed as my condoning or promoting illegal activities. I DON’T believe people should break the law, and I myself don’t break the law. What I believe is that people should obey the law. What I also believe, however, is that these laws should be repealed, as they were created by people who know nothing about this breed, nor even the true nature of dogs in general. I also know that people are going to break these laws anyway, and in so doing they are probably going to mutilate and ruin a lot of wonderful dogs along the way—unless they receive some sort of proper instruction on how to bring a pit dog along correctly and humanely. Thus I explain these correct procedures, only out of a deep interest in the breed, and because of my heart-felt concern for the welfare of its individuals. It is my hope in writing this book that those dogs that will be used for combat anyway (despite the laws), will suffer the least possible trauma while they are being groomed and contested, and that every other moment of their lives will be happy and healthy, thanks to a better understanding of all levels of pit dog ownership: from kenneling, to feeding, to grooming, to parasite control, disease prevention, breeding, etc.
This is what I hope to achieve by writing this book and in creating this website.
I hereby state, absolutely and unequivocally, that I myself am not involved in these activities any longer, nor will I be ever again, unless and until the sport becomes legalized. My interest in providing this information on how to go about these activities, properly, is only to protect this breed from any more abuse and misunderstanding than it already has. I love this breed of dog, and I know for a fact that when these dogs are groomed and handled properly (like a human boxer), that dog fighting is not cruel, and that the end result of this activity (when intelligently conducted) is that it produces the overall finest breed of dog on earth. Thus I verbally challenge these senseless laws with my Introduction, and I also outline the proper way to handle these dogs—from beginning to end throughout the rest of this book—solely to minimize the cruelty of ignorant ownership that is rampant among most of the owners of this breed today—in order to keep the wonderful qualities of this breed intact for future generations.
My intent is not to encourage people to break the law; my intent is to show how ridiculous the laws are to begin with, and then to show those who are going to break the laws anyway the proper methods to achieve the best possible results with their dogs, with the least possible errors and suffering to the animals. I myself am simply no longer involved with the sport, out of my own compliance with the laws (however ill-thought they are), and out of valuing my own freedom.
However, although these ridiculous laws may control my body, they cannot control my mind (at least not yet), nor can they control my First Amendment right to express my views orally and in writing. Though our country may be forever sinking in a downward spiral—in its lack of respect for Truth, Human Freedom, and Dignity—there still remains my Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression. I still have my Right to express my views on an illegal sport, while not actively participating in said sport, and while neither promoting nor condoning it. Although my actions may be limited, I hope that through my writings I can still manage to help this breed to be understood better—and to avoid any further mishandling and persecution that it has suffered already—by telling the whole truth about these dogs and this sport, for one and all to take-in and absorb.
~ California Jack (Disclaimer)