ONE of the most demeaning and debasing ways in which to describe a situation, and especially the involvement of particular persons in it, is to speak of it as “going to the dogs”. To use a column of this newspaper to speak on the subject of dogs is therefore potentially to put its reputation at risk. Thankfully, the situation is redeemable as it has to do with human lives and the place of dogs within it.

During the past week, the nation was horrified to learn of the fatal mauling of a two-year-old child and the injury of another by a pit bull. Traditionally, we have known that there are two subjects which we cannot discuss as a people without losing a sense of rationality and being overwhelmed by our emotions: namely, politics and religion.

The subject of pets is running a close third in Jamaica, unlike our friends in the United States of America, where the subject of guns occupies this spot.

Most of us have grown up in homes in which we have had pets, the most popular of these being cats and dogs. Coming from humble backgrounds, our pets were kept for functional purposes, namely, to control rats and to serve as protection for our homes, and they were fed from the family table leftovers.

At another level, they were objects of affection, and instruments by which children were taught to develop respect for the created order, and in some cases, assigned the care of them as a way to develop a sense of responsibility. Not many people could afford to have a separate meal prepared for their pets, and so one would sometimes hear the dog being exhorted to “go look mongoose”.

We have often heard that one of the symbols of poverty in a country is the presence of stray dogs and of men hanging around street corners in an obvious state of idleness for most of the daylight hours.

Today, the fortunes of many Jamaicans have changed, and so have the fortunes of pets. One only has to look at the mushrooming of pet shops all over the country, and just visit them to see the people from all walks of life who have made this a pastime.

In addition, as one moves around the country one now sees that the ownership and parading of a hybrid dog has become quite a status symbol. I think that the more alienated we as Jamaicans have become from our rural roots and our connection with nature, the more we crave for and surround ourselves with these symbols of our connection with the world of nature and the rest of the created order.

As fortunes and situations change, so it becomes necessary to examine what consequences may follow and what regulatory changes may need to be put in place. I believe that this is where we have reached in relation to issues related to dogs, more specifically, pit bulls.

Those of us who have had a chance to live in North America, or who just keep in touch with the news coming at us in the age of information technology, would have seen the news stories involving pit bulls, not for their fine canine qualities, but for their attacks on human beings. Knowing our penchant for aping every trend which emerges in North America, we would have wondered when this fancy for pit bulls would invade Jamaica.

Through the ages, dogs, like other domestic animals, have been bred for certain qualities. So, for example, our famous Dr Lecky was able to create specific breeds of cattle that would be high milk- and beef-producing animals in the context of our climatic and other environmental concerns.

Pit bulls were bred for the purpose of their dogfighting abilities. It is therefore rather disingenuous for owners or lovers of these animals to advance notions of their social qualities. It is known that lions, tigers, and the most vicious of animals can be trained to be sociable and to carry out commands, and yet, even these have been known at times to attack their trainers and owners.

To assume that these classes of animals are therefore social creatures because some can be trained is most misguided. Equally, to assume that selected pit bulls cannot be trained to be sociable would be just as misguided. This, therefore, points to the need for special care and responsibility to be exercised by owners of these animals.

What these attacks have taught us is that we cannot assume a responsible approach on the part of each owner. It becomes the role of the Government or any such agency charged with oversight of such matters to establish a regulatory framework.

I can hear the din of pit bull owners and dog lovers rising to a loud crescendo, but notwithstanding, I want to take us to the experience of that two-year-old infant and her family. What was it like for an infant, the beloved child and offspring of parents, to be confronted by that vicious animal and be bitten repeatedly, while screaming for help, and no doubt, clamped eventually by the deadly grip of jaws for which the dog was bred and is uniquely equipped? Can any of us try to minimise the experience of this child?

What could it have been like for parents and family members to see their beloved child mauled in this way? Is there any compensation that can alleviate the trauma and the loss which this situation has created? I reflect on the sense of terror which I experienced the morning I woke up to go on my daily exercise routine, only to discover someone’s pit bull sitting inside my yard and guarding my gate.

I have known of pit bull owners who have been most meticulous in the handling of their dogs. They know the nature of the dogs they own and they will not let strangers come near them, so they are duly confined to their kennels until it is time for them to be released for their purpose as watchdogs.

Yet even here, they are conscious that any breach in the fence can have dire consequences for passers-by. That I understand to be responsibility. As I walk and drive along the roads of this country I see persons profiling with pit bulls and moving with them alongside pedestrians. As a boy who was bitten by my neighbour’s dog while playing with the children of that home, after being told “he won’t trouble you”, I make it my philosophy that I trust no dog except my own.

Equally, it is not enough for owners of pit bulls to claim that they know their dogs and they will not attack under such circumstances. It is interesting to watch cases in which owners of pit bulls are before the Court and how they claim that it is uncharacteristic of their dog to behave in a vicious manner, or to try to establish that it was the victim of the attack who was at fault.

I believe that the nature of the breed requires control by the authorities. While a ban may not be a feasible proposition at this time, there must be clear regulations governing the conditions under which these animals are to be kept, as well as the conditions under which they can be brought into public places.

In an Internet search I was able to find the framework for legal regulations which the city of Denver has in place, and although not without controversy, it still stands and with good reason.

I have my doubts that we will see any move on the part of our authorities to take any action in relation to this situation, because pit bulls are expensive animals, and are, for the most part, affordable to the well-positioned in this society, including, no doubt, persons in governance.

The fact is that the life of one child of humble circumstances has been taken in a most vicious manner. That one life I regard as one too many, and the record of what happens in other places is that we can expect more such attacks even leading to death.

In a world in which we now are caught up with defending the rights of every individual and his or her cause, will the right of this child to life be of any consequence when weighed against the right of pit bull owners? Or is it the case that we have really gone to the dogs?

— Howard Gregory is the Lord Bishop of Jamaica