Bred To Be Nanny Dogs?

If you've ever read a news article about pit bulls you've noticed that they generate hundreds of comments.  If you've ever read the comments you know that there's a lot of mud slinging between "us" (pit bull lovers) and "them" (pit bull haters).  Both sides come to battle armed with their facts and figures, hurling them at each other with all their might, trying to make the other side see the light.

Jezebel says: The only one
I'm nannying is this super
cute foster kitten, and only
when my mom is in the room,
because she's careful like that.

Of course that never happens.
What does happen is too many people on "our" side spread facts that just aren't true.  Besides all that red/blue nose, Am Staff's are the most gentle of the pit bull group garbage, they insist that our dogs were bred to be nanny dogs.

Oy.

Our dogs were not bred to be nanny dogs.  Parents did not leave their children home alone with no one but the dog to watch them.  The term didn't even exist until 1987 when the Toronto Star interviewed a Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeder named Kathy Thomas.  I attempted to access the quote myself but in order to access the archives of the newspaper you have to subscribe to it.  So instead, I will quote the website I found this information on, even though it is an anti-pit bull site:

A timeline search does not turn up a mention of the exact term "nanny dog" until 1987 in an archived Toronto Star article entitled, Move to Outlaw Pit Bulls Under Study in Several Cities. 

"Thomas, mother of two young children, said her eight Staffordshires are 'wonderful with children. In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog because they were gentle with kids.'"

                         
Somehow, even before the internet, that idea went viral. It's been floating around out there for so long now that people honestly believe it's the truth.

The history of our dogs is ugly. We can't deny that.  I just wish that instead of spreading a romanticized piece of fiction we could celebrate what pit bulls have become despite what they were created for. Think of how many more people we could reach if we all had civil, intelligent conversations where we highlight things like:

• Yes, pit bulls were bred for fighting, but the positive byproduct of that is they were also bred to never bite a person.  Any fighting dog, no matter how good he or she was in the pit, would at the very least not be bred to pass on those abilities or, at the very worst, be killed immediately if a bite occurred. 
• Pit bulls are generally very people friendly, very affectionate, very smart, and very eager to please. Not all of them are, nor are all dogs of any other type, but temperamentally sound ones are.
• Pit bulls have a high tolerance for pain. A positive byproduct of that is they are very tolerant of ear yanking, eye poking, and tail pulling from young children.  Should we let toddlers do these things to dogs?  Of course not, but if it happens before we can intervene, the temperamentally correct dog is not likely to lash out.
• Children should NEVER be left in the company of a dog-ANY DOG- without adult supervision. And that person should be capable of removing the child or the dog if interactions are not safe (i.e. hugging the dog, trying to kiss the dog, carrying food around the dog).
• We know there are many unstable dogs out there.  We know there are many people who acquire them for nefarious purposes. We don't like these people any more than you do. We don't want dogs trained to attack people in our neighborhoods, we don't want badly bred pit bulls with attitude problems running loose through our yards .We just want good canine citizens owned by responsible dog people to live happily without persecution. 

As much as I'd like to believe that all of the vintage pictures of pit bulls and kids posed together prove  they were ever some mystical unicorn type of animal, I'm realistic. No one in their right mind would ever leave a dog in charge of a child. We need to use common sense when we defend our dogs.