Harassing Pit Bull Attack Victims, Jennifer Lynn from Stanwood, Washington Sends Hate Mail, Cyberbully

Jennifer Lynn, Studied Medical Assist at Everest College 2011, Went to Everett High School (Washington), Lives in Stanwood, Washington, sends hateful and harassing messages to victims of pit bull attacks and their supporters.

14141625_1444564708917112_7703865500816584080_n

14117746_154812168291279_4247602536778097902_n

2016-09-19_13h26_28

2016-09-19_13h47_36 2016-09-19_13h47_51 2016-09-19_13h48_12

2016-09-19_13h48_21

2016-08-24_13h48_48

 

Visit Jennifer Lynn on Facebook and tell her it’s not right to harass victims of pit bull attacks online because they have a different opinion and experiences.

2016-09-13_09h01_32

2016-09-13_09h03_32

2016-09-13_09h07_34

Leigha Whiteis, from Monroe, Oregon, Sends Hateful Message To The Father Of A Child Killed By Pit Bulls.

Leigha Whiteis, from Monroe, Oregon, Sends Hateful Message To The Father Of A Child Killed By Pit Bulls.

2016-08-17_07h29_52

2016-08-17_07h30_15

Tell Leigha Whiteis on her Facebook profile that it is unacceptable to send hateful messages to pit bull attack victims and their families.

Adam MacNeil from Thunder Bay, Ontario, sends hateful messages to pit bull attack victims

Adam MacNeil from Thunder Bay, Ontario, Studied at Fleming College, Went to Hammarskjold High School, sends hateful message to the father of a child killed by pit bulls and his supporters

2016-08-17_07h16_34

14011799_10207223426808201_806704215_n 14011835_10207223427048207_23088170_n 14012172_10207223426968205_976983035_n

2016-08-17_07h17_04

Send a message to Adam MacNeil on his Facebook profile and tell him it is unacceptable to harass people he doesn’t know on the internet.

2016-09-22_20h42_23

A Hilarious, One-Sided Conversation With a Pit Bull Advocate.

A one sided conversation with pit bull advocate, Brittney Catherine, through her boyfriend, Mike Alexander‘s, Facebook profile.


Sent to me by the Facebook page, “Anti-pit bull memes” today.  What started off as a call for help in responding to this willfully ignorant lunatic, turned into a one sided conversation and me being the proud new assistant editor of the page…LOL! They gave me a selection of memes to choose from and asked that I work them into this blog post. I gladly accepted the challenge under one condition, that I was able to add my own memes and screenshots as well. 🙂 I have to admit, I had a lot of fun with this post!

You can see most of the arguments she made have been debunked on my blog post here.


Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.

It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them. Indeed, calling someone “ignorant” shouldn’t really be a pejorative, but intentional and willful ignorance is an entirely different matter. In practice though, the word “ignorance” has often come to mean “willful ignorance”, and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually carries that meaning.

It is sometimes referred to as tactical stupidity.

Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased. More often than not this is simple circular reasoning: “I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with me”.

In other slightly more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study, in any way, anything that does not conform to the person’s worldview. With regard to oneself, this can even extend to fake locked-in syndrome with complete unresponsiveness. Or with regard to others, to outright censorship of the material from others.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance


1 2

FB_IMG_1450847024369

3 4

5

FB_IMG_1447523596195

6

willful ignorance

7 8

9

ears

10

11

Ancient Aliens pro pit bull

12

vampire dbo

13 14 15 16 17 18

dogsbite not credible but never say why meme

19 20 21 22 23 24

Senior College Student extreme pit bull advocate

25

FB_IMG_1431959217383

26

Stoner Dog dauchunds more dangerous

27 28

FB_IMG_1458407988397

29 30

Sudden Clarity Clarence bsl

33

FB_IMG_1433712106486

35

fucking rats from utah best friends animals society

36

FB_IMG_1458192761756

37 38

FB_IMG_1456422682734

39

kissing booth

40 41

Evil Plotting Raccoon bites

42

FB_IMG_1465902178589

43

FB_IMG_1450549162365

44

FB_IMG_1449533077097

45

FB_IMG_1458220835099

46

FB_IMG_1464395487263

FB_IMG_1464395492366

Pit Bull Advocate, Jamie Weston, email address: jamie_weston86@mail.com, IP address: 50.70.168.11, posts hateful comments

Jamie Weston, email address: jamie_weston86@mail.com, IP address: 50.70.168.11, Sends hateful message to a website named after a child killed by pit bulls

2016-08-14_11h32_39

Approved comment here: http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/abusive-andor-deceitful-emails/

Terry Holt, Harassment and his blog, “Pit Bull Haters Exposed”

Please scroll to the bottom for continued & updated cyber harassment, comments, screenshots and memes about this blogger from Australia, Terry Holt


Some of my friend’s thoughts on Terry Holt and his blog, “Pit Bull Haters Exposed.”

13620261_1752851804958454_3800567280081720768_n“While people are away at work, taking their child to the park, doing household chores, going on a date, or going fishing, (you know, things a person with a life usually does on the daily norm) social media becomes a sanctuary to the lonely and obsessed. Such a person who occupies that space resides in a small, littered trailer around Brisbane Australia, pounding away at the keyboard, squinting through dingy bifocals with contempt at the hundreds of what he calls “dog haters.” His unkempt appearance and neglected home is telltale he has built his life around not much else, not even bathroom detail as he proclaims he is constantly “pissing himself laughing” at the responses his vitriol produces.

Terry Holt over the years has produced many, many blogs, comments, and social media posts that were considered to a sane person to be downright fictitious, slanderous, and mostly unintelligible. In his decaying mind, he loves pit bulls and somehow helps them by treating people who are victims of pit bull attacks like shit. Perhaps one of his most outrageous musings is the one featured in this blog that he typed in regards to the 13934988_1584855051816285_5240613017379496832_ncomplaints of numerous victim advocates about the threats, name-calling, and death wishes they receive from total strangers via Facebook message.

“They can’t seem to understand that they provoke these pm’s with posts about family pets often including pictures with children in them they claim to be receiving often baiting their victim into saying something inflammatory and then they screenshot their victim and bring out their victims card doing the whole woe is me routine.” – Terry Holt

Terry Holt sure does paint a picture with that run-on sentence, doesn’t he? He only addresses ONE type of the many issues covered in BSL groups. This is where someone posts a viral photo of an innocent child squeezing a huge pit bull in an embrace. This is also where a baby who had barely been alive a week is pictured within snatching proximity of a pit bull’s jaws. This is proof that pit bulls are safe, according to Terry Holt and his social media cronies. Too bad it’s untrue and a dangerous lie that has killed so many. It is not the entirety of our group’s purpose, but it does come up. Victim advocates include people who once believed their child was safe around pit bulls because of such propaganda, and now that their child is dead or permanently disfigured, they consider this as bad parenting. They call it out as it is: exploiting an innocent child for a dangerous lie. According to Terry Holt, it’s just a “woe is me” line, and this justifies messages of death threats, threats on their children, or being called various vulgar names. People who are willing to pimp out their child for likes and shares should be a little less sensitive when their child neglect is pointed out.

“The fact is every hateful PM they receive is preceded by an inflammatory comment or post attacking the actual victim the irony flows deep in these ones as they just don’t seem to realize they’re doing what they’re accusing me of doing the only difference is I have the proof.” – Terry Holt

Terry Holt has been at this for YEARS

Terry Holt has been at this for YEARS

Wow, Terry Holt. Let us totally leave out the fact that these inflammatory remarks are made by people who are VICTIMS of pit bull attacks and their sympathizers who are trying to spread safety awareness. These inflammatory remarks that provoke such ill-bred messages come from people who post daily pit bull maulings, gofundme pages for unpaid medical and vet bills, FACTUAL AND SOURCED gathered information anto 1on pit bull breeds and the statistics that prove plain as day pit bulls are not fit to be pets. People have been stalked and harassed just for asking Facebook users to pray for their mauled child and told to not say pit bull because it was wrong. I myself was called a pig faced cunt by Facebook user Anto Taylor for stating Staffordshire terriers are pit bulls. Are people like Anto Taylor the actual victims Terry Holt seems to prioritize over the many grieving dog owners and parents? Are their precious social media feelings hurt so bad that they face the same physical, mental, and emotional trauma that many people in pit bull attack groups face everyday because of a pit bull mauling?

Lastly, he says to have proof that these, heartless, awful victims of unprovoked pit bull attacks are just using their position to gain sympathy and bash people. This has yet to be seen past their own hearsay and a small handful of vague screenshots that prove nothing. How convenient that Holt and company are ceaselessly watching them to see to it everyone sees them this way. From Michelle Heater’s steroid-fueled and aggressive pursuit of Jeff Borchardt, to causing the firing of Sarah Burke because she reported an illegal pit bull harbored in a rental place, to call themselves the actual victims is a slap in the face to anyone who ever lost a child and was hated for speaking out about it. It would take ages to show the proof WE have against them, but I assure you we will in due time. Terry Holt couldn’t be more of a victim-shamer. It is like saying a woman deserves to be raped for what attire she wears, and speaking out against her attacker deserves her to be harassed, stalked, and shamed in poorly grammatical blogs.

“They claim to be the victim whereas the overwhelming body of evidence affirms they’re all nasty nasty fanatics and they use and attack victims and in their grotty Facebook hate groups on a daily basis and it’s all being documented.” – Terry Holt

This last is so much of a projection of their own trolling, I swear Terry Holt could have a projector light jutting from his sweaty, wrinkled head. This is why they have pages like Truth BeTold, Pit Bull Haters Exposed, and Ignorance is Unbelievable, pages where people who speak on behalf of canine safety awareness and BSL are ridiculed, mocked, and called horrid names by Terry Holt and his friends. This is why anytime someone mentions shooting or putting down an attacking dog, they screenshot it and tell people we feel that way about all dogs. This is also why they search people for dirt, search for their place of work and residence, so that Terry Holt and his friends can continue to abuse and bully anyone who compromises their pit bull fur-baby fantasy world.

Terry Holt Boofhead (1)Let’s face it, Terry Holt, you have lost it. Aside from us telling facts that threaten and contradict what you WANT the world to believe about pit bulls, you are no actual victim of anything that you haven’t brought on yourself. Anyone you push is going to push back. If anyone was ever mean to you, it is because you made memes with their dead child’s picture or created identical pages of nonprofit organizations that cater to pit bull attack victims in attempts to tarnish their image. It would take days to count the ways you and your toadies are huge hypocrites in every sense of the word. You can’t whine about being a victim of bullying when you are and have always been the instigator through your own depraved and ceaseless troll antics. That says a lot about your character as a human being when you can actually feel justified for making fun of a dead baby and his grieving father, or think it’s okay for people to threaten or insult someone for presenting facts. Facts is not inflammatory. It is not hateful, nor is it provocative bait for a stranger to send threats via Facebook message, unless they’re just crazy like you.” – Dana Renfrow


“Like most of the Anti-BSL advocates I have encountered, Terry Holt is yet again as is his normal fashion, deflecting and projecting onto those of us who support BSL.  He claims we instigate hatred by sharing the stories of the victims, when in reality we are doing that in an effort to make people aware of the dangers of pit bull variances. How very hypocritical and projective/deflective of him to accuse us of the inflammatory behavior that he is notorious for.

Terry Holt enjoys trolling BSL groups, taking screenshots of posts, and then tries to instigate hatred towards us from his pit bull advocates. The recent incident with Sarah Burke is a glaring example of the kind of behavior that Terry Holt and his cult-like followers promote. (Yet they accuse us of this cult-like behavior – projection again?) Sarah Burke’s post was taken from a BSL group and twisted completely out of context, in order to try to get her fired from her employer. It could be easily said that only “fanatical” people would go to such extremes because they do not like the fact that Sarah stands firmly in her opinions. What was done to Sarah is actually unlawful. Participants of Terry Holt’s blog used libel, slander, defamation of character, and harassment in order to try to get Sarah to back-down.

I have seen numerous pit bull advocates take part in this deflective and projective behavior, it is actually similar to psychological warfare tactics that narcissistic individuals use to hide their own self-esteem issues and short-comings. What a wonderful way to do so in humanizing your dog no matter what the statistics are illustrating.

13907172_10207190412822872_2458948074921225328_n (1)I also saw where pit advocates posted on a religious Facebook page, regarding a man who spoke out about his opinions regarding the dangers of pit bulls. They tried desperately to make him look bad to his church. What type of people do such a thing? I will tell you who, the type of people that are so hellbent on their own perceived rights that they do not care about anyone else.

The majority of BSL supporters I encounter do not go out of their way to bully and intimidate, but after so long of taking it from the other side, one cannot be blamed for fighting back by pointing out they are getting harassed for trying to make the public aware of the dangers the media tries so very hard to conceal.

I never realized the level of deceit and corruption that exists in the Anti-BSL movement until I started to speak out myself. I imagine the vast majority of the public is unaware of what goes on behind the scenes. After I became a mother and I saw numerous pictures of the child victims of pit attacks, I tried to imagine the utter devastation those parents felt in losing their children. I could not fathom it, and certainly never want to experience it, that is the main reason why I speak out about the importance of BSL, the children. The children that had their lives cut short when it never should have happened, and could have been prevented.

Anyone that wants to stop those of us who support BSL should look into the eyes of a child victim and then tell us we are wrong, racist, and bigots. Tell that child victim when you look into their eyes that it was the owner’s fault, that all of the pit bulls are not a risk. It does little-to-no good trying to get the majority of the pit bull advocates to understand the human suffering that pit bulls have caused, they simply do not care, and that in itself is tragic.” – Gina Marie


2016-08-12_15h38_47

Click here to read “Hounded” http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/2014/12/hounded/

2016-08-12_15h46_38

PS:

If you would like to share your harassment from Terry Holt, I will gladly add your story to this post. Please send your story to pitbullpropagandamachine@gmail.com or make a comment underneath this post.

Another example of the obsessive stalking behavior of Terry Holt

 

2016-08-15_11h58_25

2017-02-03_08h46_30

IMG_20160818_080312 IMG_20160818_081811 IMG_20160818_081826

IMG_20160629_163909

IMG_20160830_050920 IMG_20160830_050935 IMG_20160830_050953 IMG_20160830_051027

IMG_20160411_151040

IMG_20160819_102809

IMG_20160422_120043 IMG_20160422_133005

IMG_20160422_064840 IMG_20160422_064852 IMG_20160422_064911 IMG_20160422_064940 IMG_20160422_072826 IMG_20160422_120847 IMG_20160422_132946 IMG_20160425_153121 IMG_20160425_153136 IMG_20160425_153152 IMG_20160425_153221 IMG_20160425_153255 IMG_20160709_161821

IMG_20160717_224037

13912865_10207230937435962_3186714630905245625_n

FB_IMG_1461331865088

IMG_20160709_161804 IMG_20160709_154930

img_20160907_172933

Updated 1/17/17:

Updated: 2/2/17

terry-montage

terry-holt-peanut-butter-anti-breedism-bites-vs-mauling-montreal

img_20170123_101540

fb_img_1471731689141

Chris Cabal from New York, New York Sends Hateful and Harassing Messages to Victims of Pit Bull Attacks and Their Supporters

Chris Cabal from New York, New York Sends Hateful and Harassing Messages to Victims of Pit Bull Attacks and Their Supporters.

13924975_10154372676087230_1144184770746590286_n

2016-08-12_08h10_36

Tell Chris Cabal it is unacceptable to send hurtful messages to people he doesn’t know on Facebook.

Kimberly Joy Klotowski from Brighton, Michigan, Sends Harassing & Hateful Messages To Victims of Pit Bull Attacks

Kimberly Joy Klotowski from Brighton, Michigan, Server at Diamond Steak, Studied at The University of Texas at Austin, Studied at Eastern Mich, Went to Brighton High School, Went to St. Patrick Catholic Grade School- 8 yrs., Sends hateful messages to victims of pit bull attacks and their supporters.

13668985_1414947065212210_5668740485476013614_n

2016-08-11_15h01_27

Tell Kimberly Joy Klotkowski this kind of online harassment is unacceptable.

Monica Massaro, from Orland Park/Rockdale/Chicago Area, Illinois, Sends Hateful and Threatening Messages To Victims Of Pit Bull Attacks and Their Supporters.

Monica Massaro, from Orland Park/Rockdale/Chicago Area, Illinois, Sends Hateful and Threatening Messages To Victims Of Pit Bull Attacks and Their Supporters. Boycott Terry’s Top Dog Pet Salon.

m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 m6

Click here to read the original pit bull victim troll post ran by Terry Holt. This is where the harassment begins.

13883707_10207181966771726_940187572_n 13956842_10207181968851778_51598223_n

13895348_10207181831808352_7070961113308618341_n

2016-08-11_09h32_16

2016-08-11_09h57_37

2016-08-11_09h05_43

2016-08-11_09h06_01

Please stop by Monica Massaro’s Facebook page and tell her to stop harassing people that disagree with her on the internet.

Oklahoma City Animal Services workers, Tommi Aldridge and Shannon Koenig Brakebill, call public safety advocate a “cunt” and “bitch” and tell her to “go fuck yourself” in disagreement about pit bulls and public safety

Oklahoma City Animal Services workers, Tommi Aldridge and Shannon Koenig Brakebill, call public safety advocate a “cunt” and “bitch” and tell her to “go fuck yourself” in disagreement about pit bulls and public safety.

t39

t29

Begin Conversation:

T1 t3
t5 t6 t7 t8 t10 t11 t12 t13 t15 t16 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22 t23 t24 t25 t26 t27 t28 t29 t30 t31 t32 t33 t34 t35 t36 t37 t39 t40 t41 t42 t43 t44 t45

Shelters lie to the public all the time, but not YOUR shelter, right Tommi? Just look at SOME of the labels placed on the OKCdogGov website

unnamed (1) unnamed (2) unnamed (4) unnamed (5)

unnamed (1) unnamed

I’m not approving your comment, Doug Aldridge. Rather, adding it to this post along with my commentary.

 

2016-08-11_19h27_33

“I’m sure we are all sorry for your loss.”

Your empathy and concern are oozing out of this statement. Do you realize that neither you OR your friends have not asked one question about what happened to my son? All your concern has been for the dogs and this is exactly why the shelter system cannot be trusted in matters of public health and safety.

In your book, the behavior you and your friends have exhibited was appropriate because they applied “generalizations to specific people or organizations”. You then go on to state that “Neither my wife nor her fellow workers proliferate, apologize for or lie about the animals they care for.” I have looked at the animals up for adoption at the Oklahoma City Animal Services shelter, the place where your wife has listed as her place of employment, and can clearly see that many of the dogs up for adoption are mislabeled. Do you really think the dog posted in the first screenshot above is an Australian Cattle Dog?  There are also several “Retriever Mixes” that resemble pit bulls more than retrievers. Don’t you find this a bit deceptive? How is this building trust between the shelter and the community? What about the family that adopts that “cattle dog?”

So, this person made a generalization that more people would be adopting instead of seeking out breeders or pet stores if the shelters/rescues were more honest with their information, and your wife’s own place of employment confirms deception in the rescue community. This person also stated that they did have some good rescues in their community, but most were not.

People like you should find more effective avenues for your pit bull advocacy than commenting on the father of a child killed by pit bull’s blog. Instead of ending a conversation with the “go fuck yourself” that your friends seem to be fond of, I am just going to no longer approve or post your comments. Your point has been made. We should both go back to our advocacy movements. I wish you the best of luck. I really do hope that the dogs that deserve to get adopted are adopted to good families. I am a dog owner myself.


More on the identification issue:

The term “pit bull” in lower-case letters refers to three closely-related breeds. The original breed was the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a dog bred for pit fighting in the 18th and 19th centuries in the UK. After importation to the U.S. in the late 19th century, they continued to be used for fighting, but were bred to be taller and heavier. These larger cousins were then registered in the UKC as “American Pit Bull Terriers” (1898) and in the AKC as the “American Staffordshire Terrier” (1936).  Note that these are identical breeds under two different names, and many individuals hold conformation championships in both registries.  In addition, some of the original, smaller dogs were reimported from the UK and were recognized in the AKC as the original “Staffordshire Bull Terriers” (1935).

A 2013 ASPCA double-blind study revealed that shelter workers were able to correctly identify dogs with significant ‘pit bull’ blood (‘pit bull’ = the 3 breeds above) 96% of the time, as confirmed by DNA tests.

http://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2013/09/25/bully-this%E2%80%94-results-are-in%E2%80%A6


John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller carried out a series of selective breeding experiments at the Jackson Laboratories in Bar Harbor, Maine. “By happy chance, their results revealed a simple rule that seems to work. Their general conclusion was that a mixed breed dog is most likely to act like the breed that it most looks like.

Thus, the conclusion to be reached is that if it looks like a pit bull, it probably is a pit bull. Which is why most breed-specific legislation is aimed at the “pit bull class” of dogs that includes its close mixes. Pit bull mixes that look a lot like pit bulls have most of the same personality and genetic traits of pure bred pit bulls, and should be regulated the same way.

http://www.amazon.com/Genetics-Social-Behavior-John-Scott/dp/0226743381


Why not just call them pit bulls?

We, dogfighters, and the law used to. Even the fur-mommy pit bull fans did. When the first laws were introduced to restrict or ban the ‘pit bull’, its fur-mommy fans were alarmed. They suddenly appeared everywhere to explain to us: “You can’t ban pit bulls, because it’s not a breed but a type of dog.” As deaths by this type of dog continued to mount, wise lawmakers listened to the fur-mommies’ wisdom – laws began to specify that restrictions applied to various ‘breeds’ that were of the pit bull type. The laws included all dogs (regardless of breed labels or mixed background) that displayed the main characteristics of this type of dog, and they include any mixes thereof. The American courts have also repeatedly taken this same position.

Most of the public understands nowadays that the distinction between the various fighting bulldog ‘breeds’ are a fiction, and that they are all included when we say ‘pit bull’. There is still some confusion about the pit bull – mastiff mixes. This is likely partly because they are so much larger than what people generally think of as a pit bull, and partly because of the invented ‘breed’ names that suggest these mixes are some local invention, unmixed with anything outside their area of origin. This is a fiction – the common thread that runs through all of these ‘mastiff’ types is the mixing of already inherently aggressive local mastiffs with fighting bulldog types.

All of these dogs come from juggling with the same narrow gene pool. In the end, they are all descended from dog types that were used either to maul bears, cattle and humans to death for entertainment, as well as to eradicate native populations in various colonies, and/or from pit fighting bulldogs that were mostly only pitted against each other and wild boar. They are a result of centuries of human selection for abnormally disinhibited behavior, a specific tenacious and deadly bite, grip and shear attack pattern, and the physical characteristics to make defense against an attack almost impossible.

They are all of them genetically and behaviorally closely related, all of them pit bull type dogs.

Read more: http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/why-do-we-call-them-pit-bull-type-dogs/


Who Can Identify a Pit Bull? A Dog Owner of ‘Ordinary Intelligence’ Say the High Courts

Why This Myth Must Be Destroyed

The myth that it is impossible to identify a pit bull or that only an “expert” with a suitcase of science can achieve this task must be discredited. Nowhere do the high courts make any presumption of “expert” knowledge being necessary to identify a pit bull. Specifically, the high courts state, “a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull” and the “American pit bull terrier is a recognized breed of dog readily identifiable by laymen.”

Read more: http://blog.dogsbite.org/2015/08/who-can-identify-pit-bull-dog-owner-of-ordinary-intelligence.html?m=1


In upholding Denver’s pit bull ban in 1991, the Supreme Court of Colorado wrote, “The city, however, is not required to meet its burden of proof with mathematical certainty of scientific evidence,” when identifying a pit bull. Death investigation reports prepared by police and medical examiners are sufficient to determine dog breed.

Source: The Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. et al. v. The City and County of Denver, 820 P. 2d 644 (Colo.1991)


“Dog breeds of all type are misidentified a large amount of the time.”

This talking point is a favorite but has no basis in fact. Appellate courts state, “a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull.” We find this decision in the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Ohio State v. Anderson (1991) and similar language in other jurisdictions as well, including Colorado, Florida and New Mexico. Below are excerpts from appellate court decisions.

State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 – Ohio: Supreme Court 1991
Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel. Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, state statutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation. By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog within the meaning of R.C. 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii). Similarly, by reference to these sources, dog wardens, police officers, judges, and juries can enforce the statute fairly and evenhandedly. – Ohio Supreme Court

American Dog Owners Ass’n v. Dade County, Fla., 728 F. Supp. 1533 – Dist. Court, SD Florida 1989
Despite the absence of scientific testing procedures for dog breeds, however, and the absence of pedigree in the majority of dogs owned in Dade County, the evidence demonstrated that the majority of dog owners know the breed of their dogs … Veterinarians opine that ordinary citizens may be trained to identify the breed of a dog based on the dog’s physical appearance. In fact, one resident of the County gave testimony that he was able to determine the breed of the dog he owned after comparing its physical conformation to that of other pit bulls he had seen in the media … The AKC or UKC standards at issue describe the pit bull dog as well as words can do. (T.R. at 406). Most of the terms in the standards are understandable to reasonably intelligent persons. – United States District Court, S.D. Florida

2011 – Court of Appeals of Kansas
State v. Lee, 257 P. 3d 799 – Kan: Court of Appeals 2011
Given the holding in Hearn, the common meaning of the term “predominantly” as used in the ordinance, and the existence of physical characteristics that make the breed of these dogs recognizable upon visual observation by an owner, veterinarian, or breeder, we conclude as a matter of law that the ordinance sufficiently conveys a definite warning and fair notice of the proscribed conduct and adequately guards against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. – Court of Appeals of Kansas

2009 – United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Dias v. City and County of Denver, 567 F. 3d 1169 – Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2009
The Ordinance provides a clear standard to determine violations—it references breed standards articulated by the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club. Denver, Colo., Ordinances § 8-55. The City of Denver keeps a copy of these standards on file at their office for reference by the public, id., and the breed standards are available online at http://www.akc.org (American Kennel Club) and http://www.ukcdogs.com (United Kennel Club). Although the standards are somewhat scientific in scope, they are not so scientific that a person of ordinary intelligence would be unable to understand their meaning. The Ordinance, therefore, certainly specifies a normative standard to which members of the public can conform their conduct. – United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

2007 – United States District Court, N.D. California
American Canine Foundation v. Sun, Dist. Court, ND California 2007
In any event, given that the Ordinance, on its face, applies to, inter alia, “any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, [or] Staffordshire Bull Terrier” and provides that the “AKC and UKC standards for [those] breeds are listed on their websites as well as online through the Animal Care and Control Department`s [ ] website,” see San Francisco Health Code § 43(a), it is difficult to imagine, at least with respect to purebred specimens, how the breed could be identified more precisely in the Ordinance. Indeed, courts regularly have rejected vagueness challenges to ordinances, on similar grounds, albeit based on an evidentiary record. See, e.g., American Dog Owners Ass`n v. Dade County, Florida, 728 F. Supp. 1533, 1541-42 (S.D. Fla. 1989) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance defining “pit bull” by reference to AKC and UKC standards); Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 820 P.2d 644, 650-52 (Colo. 1991)(rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance containing identical definition of “pitbull” as instant ordinance); Greenwood v. City of North Salt Lake, 817 P.2d 816 (Utah 1991) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance applicable to, inter alia,American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers); State v. Anderson, 566 N.E. 2d 1224 (Ohio 1991) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance applicable to “any dog that . . . [b]elongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pitbull dog”). – United States District Court, N.D. California

2007 – Supreme Court of Ohio
Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St. 3d 278 – Ohio: Supreme Court 2007
Finally, the court of appeals erred in holding that R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are void for vagueness. This court has previously held that the term “pit bull” is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. In State v. Anderson, we stated: “In sum, we believe that the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.” – Supreme Court of Ohio

2004 – Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
City of Pagedale v. Murphy, 142 SW 3d 775 – Mo: Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist. 2004
Here, City Ordinance No. 1169 states, “No person shall within the City raise, maintain or possess within his or her custody or control a dog of the ‘pit bull’ breed.” (Emphasis added). There does not appear to be any Missouri case addressing the precise issue of whether the use of the term “pit bull” in an ordinance or statute without a definition is so vague and indefinite that the law is unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Oh.1991), cert. denied, Anderson v. Ohio, 501 U.S. 1257, 111 S.Ct. 2904, 115 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1991), has addressed the constitutionality of a similar law in their jurisdiction. We find its reasoning and holding instructive and apply it here.
In that case, the Ohio statute stated that a “vicious dog” was any dog that “’belong[ed] to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog,’” and that “[t]he ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.’” Id. at 1225 (quoting Ohio R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii)). The dog owner in that case claimed on appeal that this statute was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
Id. at 1226.
The court disagreed with the dog owner and held that the statute was not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. The court reasoned that “pit bull dogs are distinctive enough that the ordinary dog owner knows or can discover with reasonable effort whether he or she owns such a dog.” Id. at 1227. The court specifically discussed certain distinguishable physical characteristics[1] of pit bulls, as well as certain distinctive behavioral features.[2] Id. at 1227-28. 779*779 The court concluded that “the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.” – Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

1993 – Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Dog Federation v. City of South Milwaukee, 178 Wis. 2d 353 – Wis: Court of Appeals 1993
Although there are decisions that have ruled pit bull ordinances too vague to pass constitutional muster, see American Dog Owners Ass’n v. City of Des Moines, 469 N.W.2d 416, 417-418 (Iowa 1991) (ordinance banning Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or dogs of any “other breed or mixed breed … known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit bull terriers”); American Dog Owners Ass’n v. City of Lynn, 533 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Mass. 364*364 1989) (identification by breed name insufficient) (dictum), the Federation and the individual appellants here have not carried their burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the City of South Milwaukee ordinance is impermissibly vague on its face. As Peters notes, “’the dog owner, who harbors the dogs at his residence, is the one subject to the penalties of the law. He should know the kind of dogs he owns.’” 534 So.2d at 768 n.13 (citation omitted). Simply put, a person acquires a dog for certain physical and mental characteristics. The ordinance puts persons who have or acquire dogs on sufficient notice of the type of dog that is prohibited. Accepting as verities for the purpose of this decision Dr. Brown’s conclusions that there is no absolute way to determine whether a dog is in fact a pit bull as defined in the ordinance, those conclusions do not overcome the presumption of constitutionality. Problems of ultimate proof do not make the ordinance unduly vague on its face.[6] As succinctly phrased by Peters, whether a dog is within the ordinance “is a matter of evidence, not constitutional law.” – Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

1991 – Supreme Court of Iowa
American Dog Owners Ass’n v. Des Moines, 469 NW 2d 416 – Iowa: Supreme Court 1991
Subsections vi, vii and viii of the ordinance refer to particular breeds of dog. The record shows that the determination of a dog’s breed can be done according to objective standards, although there are limits on the precision of such classifications. We believe the breed classifications listed in subsections vi, vii and viii give the reader as much guidance as the subject matter permits. We believe these subsections permit a reader of ordinary intelligence to determine which dogs are included. – Supreme Court of Iowa

1989 – Court of Appeals of Ohio
State v. Robinson, 44 Ohio App. 3d 128 – Ohio: Court of Appeals 1989
In Garcia v. Tijeras (1988), 108 N.M. 116, 767 P. 2d 355, a New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a municipal ordinance banning the ownership or possession of a breed of dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” As in the case at bar, the animal owners in Garcia challenged the ordinance as violating due process on the basis of vagueness for failing to adequately define “American Pit Bull Terrier.” The trial court found that American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed readily identifiable by laymen, and rejected the dog owners’ argument that the ordinance lacked meaningful standards that could be used to identify those dogs subject to its prohibition.– Court of Appeals of Ohio

1989 – United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.
Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 – Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1989
“The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer’s guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the AmericanKennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire BullTerriers and American Stafforshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack “mathematical certainty,” such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality. – United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

1989 – Supreme Court of Kansas
Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 772 P. 2d 758 – Kan: Supreme Court 1989
The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a similar local ordinance from a challenge for impermissive vagueness in Garcia 644*644 v. Village of Tijeras, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355 (Ct. App. 1988). The village ordinance prohibited the ownership or possession in the village of “any dog of the breed known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” The Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court.
“The trial court found that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed of dog readily identifiable by laymen. We understand the trial court’s finding to have been that the breed can be identified by persons who are not qualified to be dog show judges….
“There was testimony at trial that the term ‘pit bull’ is the generic term for ‘American Staffordshire Terrier.’ There was also testimony at trial that there is no difference between the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier.
“In addition, there was testimony that each breed of dog has a typical physical appearance termed as ‘phenotype,’ and that an unregistered dog can be identified as being of the breed ‘American Pit Bull Terrier’ by its physical characteristics, or phenotype. Several witnesses testified that they could recognize an American Pit Bull Terrier by its physical characteristics.
“We believe this evidence supports a determination that the breed American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed of dog recognized by its physical appearance. Given our obligation to indulge every presumption in favor of constitutionality, we interpret the term ‘known as’ in light of the testimony at trial. Thus, we interpret the ordinance to include not only dogs that are registered, but also dogs that are recognizable, as American Pit Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers.”
– Supreme Court of Kansas

1988 – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
State v. Peters, 534 So. 2d 760 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1988
As the ordinance makes clear, a dog is a “pit bull” if it substantially conforms to the American Kennel Club standard for Staffordshire Terriers or the American Kennel Club standard for Staffordshire Bull Terriers or the United Kennel Club standard for American Pit Bull Terriers. An owner or prospective owner of a dog need only look at each of the three standards and determine whether the dog is described by any one of them; if it is, then that the dog is not described by the other standards is irrelevant. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

1988 – Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 767 P. 2d 355 – NM: Court of Appeals 1988
The trial court found that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed of dog readily identifiable by laymen. We understand the trial court’s finding to have been that the breed can be identified by persons who are not qualified to be dog show judges …
In addition, there was testimony that each breed of dog has a typical physical appearance termed as “phenotype,” and that an unregistered dog can be identified as being of the breed “American Pit Bull Terrier” by its physical characteristics, or phenotype. Several witnesses testified that they could recognize an American Pit Bull Terrier by its physical characteristics.
We believe this evidence supports a determination that the breed American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed of dog recognized by its physical appearance. Given our obligation to indulge every presumption in favor of constitutionality, we interpret the term “known as” in light of the testimony at trial. Thus, we interpret the ordinance to include not only dogs that are registered, but also dogs that are recognizable, as American Pit Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers.”
– Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Now that it has been shown that high courts credit dog owners of ordinary intelligence with the ability to identify pit bulls, we come to research announced by the ASPCA in 2013 revealing that shelter volunteers’ visual identification of a pit bull agreed with the DNA test 96% of the time.
Dog owners of “ordinary intelligence” can identify pit bulls and shelter volunteers can identify pit bulls. Who else can manage this magical task? Please visit a dog show in your community and watch the judges work. Every dog show ever held relies on a visual identification system. Dog show judges are mere mortals like the rest of us, but they visually identify breeds, and also identify minute deviations from individual breed standards in order to pick breed winners.
So, “ordinary” dog owners, shelter volunteers and certainly dog show judges can identify pit bulls, but veterinarians regularly state that they are unable to identify pit bulls.
The official position of the veterinary profession is found in a statement from the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
Since no scientific proof is required to establish breeds and inaccurate reporting of alleged breed has such great repercussions, it is now recommended that veterinarians and shelters refrain from trying to identify breed mixes visually. Dog DNA tests reveal that even professionals experienced at identifying dog breeds (veterinarians, dog trainers, breeders, animal control officials, shelter workers, etc.) are unable to reliably identify breeds. – American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior

The reason these reluctant veterinarians and shelters are unable to “scientifically” prove breed ID for pit bulls via DNA test is that canine DNA tests are wildly unreliable, and no company producing canine DNA tests has been able to build a DNA profile for pit bulls.
The most widely used canine DNA test, the Wisdom Panel by Mars Veterinary, provides no independent scientific testing for the accuracy of their test. Mars claims 84% accuracy for offspring in first-generation crossbreds of known parentage. The accuracy of the test in dogs with more than two breeds and in dogs “lacking any purebred heritage” is unknown.
All of the pseudo-scientific papers by pit bull advocates attempting to show that visual identification is unreliable use this highly unreliable and unverified DNA test. One of these papers was obliged to disclose this about the Mars Wisdom Panel test they used attempting to discredit the accuracy of visual identification:
Limitations of our study include unknown sensitivity and specificity of the DNA breed testing and lack of a DNA test for American pit bull terrier. There is also no DNA test for ‘pit bull,’ since this term refers to a phenotype, not a pedigree. The test for the Bayesian analysis used by providers of the DNA testing relied on breed signatures of purebred dogs selected for the database and not a representative randomized sample of all dogs, which might be a source of inaccuracy. In addition, relatively little information exists regarding the accuracy of the DNA test for identifying the breed composition of mixed breed dogs. – Study authors
The Wisdom Panel does not include a DNA profile for the American Pit Bull Terrier, the most populous breed in the pit bull group. You could test every dog at a Pit Pride Parade and likely not get a single positive for pit bull. From the Wisdom Panel FAQ: “Due to the genetic diversity of this group, Mars Veterinary cannot build a DNA profile to genetically identify every dog that may be visually classified as a Pit-bull.” An additional quote states that the test is not to be used for BSL issues “Wisdom Panel® 2.0 is designed and intended to be used solely to identify the breed history of a dog and no other purpose is authorized or permitted. Wisdom Panel 2.5 and 3.0 are intended to be used to identify the breed history of a dog, as well as screen for the MDR1 genetic mutation and no other purpose is authorized or permitted.”