Taylor Moore from Lansing, Michigan did a thesis on pit bulls and decided to educate a Facebook page dedicated to victims of pit bull attacks.
I’ll add my commentary and links at the end.
Wow, what a hateful, ignorant website full of lies. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Did you include that pit bulls used to be nanny dogs in your thesis?
Oh, OK. Good to know. How much of your thesis included their history, heritage and role in dogfighting?
Could you be more specific? I’m happy to answer what I can, but my project was very long, so I could be here for hours lol
He was also taken from a bad situation
How much more specific do I need to be? Who was Chauncey Z Bennett and what is his significance to pit bulls? John P. Colby? What is his significance to the AKC?
You asked about an incident from 100 years ago
You have come up with circumstantial ifs. Nothing more
I can provide a litany of stone cold research and facts that contradict everything you’re trying to say about something someone did a long time ago and the breed, today.
Are you an animal behaviorist? Have you worked rescue? Have you engaged in alpha pack behavior and understand how to read animals?
My commentary and links:
1. “Unlike yourself, I went straight to credible, unbiased sources, not that dogbites.org garbage”
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. They are the oldest and largest nonprofit committed to putting the safety of humans before dogs, as they are one of the few sources of information on this topic (pay attention to this next part because it is important) that is not OWNED, CONTROLLED, or FUNDED by dog breeders, owners, veterinarian or animal welfare groups.
DogsBite.org is a non-profit organization to raise dangerous dog awareness, promote safety and archives ALL serious dog attacks. The related blog and Facebook group sometimes include commentary in a post, but the primary focus and bulk of a post in evidentiary, factual and statistical details. Though pit bull fanatics would have you believe the entirety of the site is fabricated or invalidated because the founder is a pit bull attack victim, the truth is that;
Victim’s status should not be grounds to disqualify the experiences and professionalism as it pertains to their particular issue. If anything, are not victims of domestic violence best testimony about what it entails? Are mother against drunk driving (MADD) not well versed in the horrific aftermath of drunk driving? Is their data gathering any less valid just because they lost a loved one?
Even so, issue with the founder itself is not relevant here because the charity organization is composed of data and facts not issued by her individually but by other people and groups (detailed below)
It provided accessible and easily traceable citations for every assertion.
It cites hundreds – if not thousands – of external sources from independent studies, historical archives, news reports, literature, doctors, surgeons, animal control professionals, dog trainers, breed enthusiasts, canine organizations and kennel clubs, peer reviewed studies and polls, law enforcement, court records, eyewitness testimonies, images and videos, dog behaviorists, the mouths of pit bull owners and breeder themselves, shelter employees, pit bull lobbyists and their sites, pit bull celebrities and their reality shows, service dog agencies, dogfighting related professionals, and highly experienced veterinarians.
It’s a collective of external information, much like a library. To discredit the information therein requires going to any of the numerous external sources cited above and discrediting each to invalidate data of epic proportions.
2. “For example, one of mine is the centers for diseases control. Yes! Our own, biggest research facility and government entity specifically for things such as infectious disease and dog bites”
“I was so adamant that the statistics be aired in the segment that I went as far as stating them at least ten times during the lengthy interview. The reporter that interviewed me was very kind and the final story that aired tugged at the heartstrings of the viewer, but she did not use the statistics that I was so insistent on. The next day I asked her why? She said that management uses CDC statistics because it is a universally accepted website; they cite a variety of health related statistics from their website. But the CDC stopped tracking fatalities by dog breed statistics 15-years ago, so there was not any data to cite in my segment. My son’s death and hundreds of others since 1998 are simply uncollected data.
My experience with WISN, along with other similar experiences I have later, compelled me to reach out to my congressman the following year.”
More from our recommendations document:
The purpose of a breed-specific ordinance, nearly always targeting pit bulls, was never to “prevent all dog bites,” as the AVMA/CDC states in the 2000 study. Such laws are designed to significantly reduce the 5% (serious injuries) and eliminate the 2% (mauling and maiming injuries and deaths) inflicted by well-documented dangerous dog breeds.
Briefly, the joint study, and the last issued by the CDC on this subject, “Special Report: Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998,” was published in September 2000. The study was comprised of two human medical doctors and three animal “experts,” specifically, two veterinarians from the AVMA and one animal behaviorist.
The 2000 study was a culmination of three studies before it, which added 27 new deaths (from 1997 and 1998) to human fatalities examined in previous studies (from 1979 to 1996). The focal point of the 2000 study is clearly identified in its conclusions, which issued a policy statement unfavorable to breed-specific laws, despite no investigation of its effectiveness, along with using misleading vernacular about the purpose of breed-specific ordinances, which was and still is to dramatically reduce serious injuries and to eliminate mauling and maiming injuries and deaths.
Our other primary concern is the heavily weighted role of the AVMA in a United States government study examining human fatalities. Not only did the AVMA manage to ensure animal “experts” were represented on a study about health and human safety, they managed to ensure they were the majority of the study authors.
Additionally, when the study was released in 2000, it was not directly released to the American public. Instead, it was published in an AVMA journal (JAVMA), a private technical journal for veterinarians. This confused the U.S. media at that time, which initially called the study, “by the American Veterinary Medical Association.”
The AVMA even had to release a statement, along with a copyright notice to press members who requested a copy (attached). The “Special Report” to the American people could not even be freely distributed due to the AVMA copyright.
Now 14-years later, the AVMA/CDC study has been abruptly elevated into the public eye once again, this time by the White House, for political purposes or simply lack of knowledge. It is possible that the White House is even unaware that all three military divisions, the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force, have adopted uniform pet policies that ban this same handful of dog breeds from all privatized housing, domestic and abroad. Col. Richard P. Flatau Jr., commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, stated the reason why most aptly in April 2009 following Camp Lejeune’s policy shift:
“These specific breeds present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of our residents and are therefore prohibited.”
The CDC will tell you that they already did examine this issue. They will point you to the “policy” results of the dated 2000 study.
Yet, in the 2000 study, the CDC made the following statement, which diametrically opposes their rabies initiative of a large-scale apparatus to “prevent just one death,” as well as the very foundation of public health.
“Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
Click here to read full CDC remedy document: http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dogsbiteorg-cdc-remedies-dog-maulings-and-fatalities.pdf
What can a person do to make a difference? Each of you can do what Jeff Borchardt did. Contact your U.S. Representative or Senator and bring this issue to their attention. The CDC is fully aware that they are not providing sufficient information to the American public about this issue, and the CDC, whose mission is to protect America from health, safety and security threats, is turning a blind eye to a known danger that victimizes children the most.
3. “The kennel club guy”
The American Pit Bull Terrier is, like all the ‘bully’ breeds, one of this group of descendants of the British ‘bull and terrier’ type fighting bulldogs. Once imported into the United States, it was bred up to be bigger again, and again used in baiting animals and in dogfighting. The American Kennel Club (founded 1884) was unwilling to register these fighting dogs, so in 1898 the United Kennel Club was founded, (by Chauncey Z. Bennett, “the kennel club guy”) specifically to register working pit-fighting dogs and to promote dogfighting. In order to be registered, a dog had to first win three pit fights. The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) became a ‘breed’. As dogfighting declined in popularity in the 1930s and 1940s, Colby (the most famous and prolific breeder of these dogs) began to search for a new market and began promoting the APBT as family pets. This despite the fact that his breeding lines included child killers.
Learn more HONEST facts about the American Pit Bull Terrier: http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/american-pit-bull-terrier/
4. “If I remember correctly, colby is the guy that bred his dogs to fight or something along those lines. Something to do with one of his dogs attacking someone”
“Human aggressive pit bulls were culled”
Did John P. Colby cull the pit bull that killed his nephew? This is unknown. What is known is that Colby produced man-biters, such as the one that savaged Bert Colby Leadbetter, continued to breed fighting dogs and continued to fight his dogs long after 1909. The death of his nephew did not slow his breeding business down, which continues today over 100 years later. Sadly, Colby and friends likely referred to the incident as a “yard accident” not long afterward.
The American Staffordshire Terrier is in fact the same dog as an American Pit Bull Terrier, but registered by a different kennel club. At the turn of the 20th century, the pit bull breeders wanted the respectability of AKC recognition, but the AKC was reluctant to register fighting dogs. The AKC finally recognized the American Pit Bull Terrier in 1936 after decades of lobbying by pit bull breeders. John P. Colby’s champion fighter, American Pit Bull Terrier ‘Primo’, formed the basis for the breed standard of the ‘new‘ AKC breed – but the AKC wasn’t willing to have the word ‘pit bull’ in the ‘ new’ breed’s name. The ‘new’ pit bull breed was dubbed ‘the Staffordshire Terrier’ in order to hide its relation to the pit bull and its origins and history in the fighting pit. The breed’s name was changed again to American Staffordshire Terrier in 1972, to distinguish the larger American version from the smaller English version (which kept the name ‘Staffordshire Bull Terrier’). In 1972, the breed register was also re-opened for a time to allow people to register their UKC registered pit bull as an American Staffordshire Terrier if they regretted not having done so earlier.
5. “The other problem is that dogs are constantly labeled as pitbulls”
But not yours, right Taylor?
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 athttp://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 of pit bulls, as well as certain distinctive behavioral features. 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. 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. http://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2013/09/25/bully-this%E2%80%94-results-are-in%E2%80%A6
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 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.”
6. “He was rescued from the heart of flint, mi, smack dab in the ghetto from a let’s just say questionable individual”
A questionable individual? You mean a dogfighter? Taylor doesn’t even realize what she just did with this reply. She basically answered herself with everything she needs to know about the significance of the heritage of fighting breeds. Pit bull advocates are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. A great article:
Dogfighting, and bear- and bull-baiting by dogs have been practiced for centuries. These well documented “sports” are fueled by the human desire for competition and gambling. These dogs were selectively bred to fight. Sadly, to this very day in a town near you, dogfighting continues. It is practiced by those who make money from the gambling proceeds produced by the fight bets, and by breeding and selling dogs who have the will and ability to fight. Yes, dogfighting is technically illegal, but rarely prosecuted, and when it is, prosecution is more likely for the gambling, not the abuse of the animals. That is, unless you happen to be a famous sports personality.
7. “He is now my service animal”
“As for “therapy dogs,” there is presently no regulation whatsoever on who can call their dog a therapy dog and who cannot. If my dog holding out a paw makes a sick child smile, I can call him a therapy dog. Pit bull owners whose dogs have harmed other animals or people are notorious for slapping little “therapy dog” vest on their miscreants and photographing them making nice to kids to garner sympathy for their dogs and take the focus off their dogs’ victims. It’s a cynical ploy, but it works with gullible animal lovers, as we have just seen.”
8. “You also haven’t factored into anything the population and statistics that go accordingly”
Quote from the article:
“Pit bull advocates often allege that the popularity of “bully” breeds is why they inflict upward of 80% of all fatal and disfiguring dog attacks on humans and 95%-plus of fatal attacks on other animals.
The 2016 ANIMALS 24-7 survey of classified ads offering dogs for sale or adoption, however, shows the pit bull category slipping from market share of 6.7% and 6.6% in 2014 and 2015, to 4.9% in 2016, consistent with a seven-year average of 5.2%.”
9. “Do more pits need to be fixed? Absofuckinglutely. Is their over breeding an issue? Damn right it is. I agree 1000%”
“The only individuals that can solve the pit bull problem are pit bull advocates and owners. The peaceful public can’t impact the numbers of pit bulls abandoned on the streets and surrendered to shelters, only responsible neuter and spay by the owners of pit bulls can stop this suffering. Pit bull advocates refuse this surgery even when it free. Please google Kansas City. They got a $1000,000 grant for pit bull neuter and spay, at the end of the year nearly $87,000 of it had to be returned unused because pit bull owners ignored direct mail notices, TV and radio spots, signage, and house to house visits. It is the same everywhere.
Only pit bull owners can help starving pit bulls, the dogs are starved by their owners. Abused pit bulls? The abuse comes at the hands of their owners.
Advocates hoping to educate (and pit bull advocates have been promoting education to solve the pit bull problem for 30 years and it has never worked anywhere) should target their “education” to pit bull owners, not the peaceful public. We are the survivors of pit bull attacks, or family members of those who did not survive. We got our education direct from the pit bulls.
If advocates could educate pit bull owners on responsible containment of their dogs, bred for an activity so violent that it is a felony in all 50 states, that would be a huge step forward. Educate pit bull owners on the value of neuter and spay to prevent the horrific overcrowding of shelters, some 60% to 90% pit bulls, that would be a big step forward. Mandatory insurance for pit bull owners would be huge, survivors pay their own medical bills till their money runs out. At this point survivors become Medicaid cases and the taxpayer foots the bill. If pit bulls were contained, insured, and neutered and spayed, and the safety of the public was protected then there would be no need or demand for regulation.
Pit bull advocacy needs to clean up its own mess, we can’t do it for you.”
From the April 1, 2011 issue of the JAVMA. Volume 238, Number 7
Table 3 – Prevalence of castration among the 10 reported purebred dog breeds at 651 private veterinary hospitals in the United States during 2007.
Breed Number (%) castrated
Labrador Retriever 62,058(72%)
Chihuahua 32,309 (46%)
Shih Tzu 31,943 (57%)
Yorkshire Terrier 23,750 (51%)
Pit bull-type* 10,691 (27%)
Golden Retriever 25,150 (74%)
Dachshund 20,878 (66%)
Boxer 17,172 (58%)
Beagle 19,980 (74%)
German Shepherd 15,526 (58%)
*Pit Bull terriers (APBT) were classified as pit-bull type since it is possible that identical breeds (ie, American Staffordshire Terrier) which maintain their separate breed designation, may have nevertheless been recorded as APBTs in some instances.
Thanks for the opportunity to educate, Taylor. Even though I doubt you’ll take much from this, it wasn’t really meant for you anyway.
Added 8/2/16: Yep, I was right.
New threats from Steve Weaver, C.E.O. at Sleepycloud’s Repair Service, Former Trainer at Personal Fitness Trainer, Former PowerServer at Toot’s – Murfreesboro, Former Chief Executive Officer at Jack of all trades, Studies Computer Science at MTSU
Apparently Taylor’s arrogance does not stop with harassing messages to Facebook pages dedicated to victims of pit bull attacks. She has now resorted to harassing people’s places of employment.