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.
Read more: http://blog.dogsbite.org/2014/07/nonprofits-urge-cdc-track-richer-data-for-dog-bite-fatalities.html
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.
Read more: http://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/05/1909-fatality-john-p-colbys-fighting.html?m=1
———–
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.
Read more: http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/american-staffordshire-terrier/
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[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. 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%.”
Read more: http://www.animals24-7.org/2016/07/29/2016-survey-list-of-top-5-u-s-dog-breed-types-ousts-pit-bulls/
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
Page 901
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.
Updated 8/5/16:
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
Updated 9/27/16:
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.
Updated: 1/2/2017
Daxton's Father 
I like this series you’re doing on the nutter messages you get, but this one had me really laughing. Reminds me of people who walk into a room and the first thing they say is, “My IQ is 365, so you have to take everything I say seriously.”
I’m not going to visit this nutcase’s Facebook page, but I suspect that she’ll list her seven degrees as coming from ‘the school of hard knocks’, as so many of these nutters do. I also suspect that her ‘serious adhd’ has something to do with a meth problem (I don’t lightly suspect people of this), and that her ‘service pit’ does mostly the service of keeping her stash guarded.
Finally, thanks for all the info and sources you posted for the general public at the end of this post. It will interest everyone out there who is sane.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you. I really got tired of getting Facebook bans for posting things pit bull advocates say to ME. It really is pointless engaging with these people because they don’t listen/learn anything anyway.
Meanwhile, another DBRF in Georgia today. Boyfriend’s pit bull. Go figure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LMFAOOOOO I AM CHOKING FROM LAUGHING SO HARD. NOW, I HAVE A METHOD PROBLEM AND A SERVICE DOG THAT GUARDS DRUGS?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 BUT I’M THE NUTTER, RIGHT? YOU GUYS ARE TOO FUNNY.
LikeLike
Yep. And now I have your email AND IP address. Boy, for someone with “7 degrees” you’re not too bright. I’m surprised the trolls that alerted you to this post didn’t educate you better.
BTW, did you see this? Number 500. Sweet, family pit bull, loved, cared for, always inside kills an “expert.”
But you know it all. Don’t you, Taylor?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Um, ok? Have my IP all day. Sounds to me like you’re making a threat to do something with it, which I’m pretty sure is illegal. Kind of like where your friend up there is accusing me of hoarding drugs- also libelous, and illegal. The email I used is a burner, so don’t get too excited, kiddo. But a few things….
1) Thank you for using great pics of me. That was too kind of you.
2) Thank you for the inpouring of support and genuinely curious inquiries by complete strangers from all over. By putting your deeply disturbing, excessive hatred on display, it overpowered what you’re trying to do and you essentially shot yourself in the foot trying to gain more people on your hate wagon. Many of the people who messaged me were on the fence about pitbulls, but I took the time to calmly and TRUTHFULLY educate them in regards to the breed, not once bothering to say anything nasty about you. Why? Bc it’s not necessary to be overly dramatic when you can engage and support with FACTS, but also because your instability is put on display regularly completely on your own.
3) I’m truly sorry you wake up everyday with such hate in your heart and have literally nothing else better to do than manipulate stories and attack an animal bc of what ONE did to your son. That’s like hating all Muslims bc of a few terrorists or hating all black people bc of a few thugs in the news. Or, like saying, “My son died in a motor vehicle accident. The vehicle that killed him was a truck, so, therefore, all trucks should be banned bc they are more likely to cause more injury or death in the event of a collision.” Your psychotic and irrational hatred is quite disturbing, but I truly only wish the best for you and hope that you get the mental health assistance you so desperately need. I have not lost a child, so I cannot say I know how you feel, but it’s clearly traumatized you so significantly, you’ve taken to writing blogs attacking people and lying with every waking moment of your life. Maybe it takes the pain away from you for a moment, maybe you were this way prior to your son’s death. But, seeing as how much you lied, even about the things I said, I find myself questioning how many of the circumstances surrounding your son’s death you have manipulated and misrepresented to use for attention.
4) Thank you and your friends for all the hysterically hilarious comments about my “drug” usage, being on meth and steroids, and all the other insane rhetoric you guys pulled from who knows where. I am extremely flattered by being called a bodybuilder and the acknowledgements of my physique, which I did work very hard to attain. I’m glad you all noticed and commented. 🙂 The day your post came out, my friends and I had a blast and they, too, thank you for the entertainment. To be honest, I don’t remember the last time I laughed that hard, as I woke up the next day physically sore, all credit to you. The sad attempts at insulting me were pretty funny, too, but flattering bc I essentially had my very own group of “Mean Girls” with a “Burn Book”- your own little closed group, where you hide behind a “Request to Join” button. We all know you wouldn’t have the gumption to engage in such silliness with pitbull advocates to their face, however.
5) Thank you for putting my fitness transformation out there further, as I’ve gotten almost instantaneous fame, aside from the pitbull cause, for being so successful in the gym and have been able to inspire others on their fitness journey. I am honored to be able to help others.
6) Thank you for showing me just how appreciative I am to have the wonderful, extensive and legitimate education I worked hard to obtain. Seeing as how the basis of most of your group’s argument was that because they couldn’t find my papers or info on the internet, I must not actually have done anything, goes to show how ridiculous your justifications, for lack of a better term, are, and how being so uneducated can really be an embarrassment and hinderance to a cause. The entirety of your ramblings are repeatedly yelling the same insults at people, yet never actually answering anyone’s questions with credible, unbiased research. Instead, you want to dwell on an incident from over 100 years ago and try to mislabel other animals for your convenience. Even the page about me, all you did was copy and paste some circumstantial stuff that you twisted to your liking and tried to cite as fact, but didn’t really make any sense. Most of the PhDs I showed it to were quite confused, then they laughed, but ultimately felt the same sympathy for you that I do.
7) You people aren’t the first to insult and mock me for standing up for what is right and I know you won’t be the last. One of the things I think I take pleasure in most is that you can try to tear me down all day, but when it comes right down to it, pitbulls are here to stay. There will always be exponentially more supporters than haters, so little groups like your 900 in the “Propaganda Machine”, don’t even make a pockmark in the reality of things.
8) I am truly flattered you took THAT much time out of your day to write such an extensive post about me. I’m satisfied to know I impacted you to the extent that your mind was consumed by thoughts of me to the point I got my own lengthy diatribe on your personal page. Good to know I will always have a place in your heart!
9) Watching how quickly you and your cronies were to make pretty disgusting comments about someone’s disability in an attempt to discredit them, makes me even more thankful for the decent, moral filled and respectful upbringing I had. Regardless of whatever someone else may say in disagreeance with me, there is nothing more disgraceful than making fun of a disability someone was born with and had no control over. It’s pretty much the same as having no substantial support to argue, so you resort to calling them ugly. However, I am in no way, shape or form ashamed or embarrassed of having a disability, or even utilizing medication to better myself, bc I am still incredibly intelligent, have accomplished more in 27 years that most will in multiplie lifetimes and I’ve done so with dignity and integrity- NOT shamefully attacking a disability bc I disagreed with their point of view.
Best of luck with your hateful, fear mongering pages and in the future. Just remember, they won’t bring your son back. Try doing something to honor his legacy, not make him ashamed to be watching over you. Make him proud, not forced to watch his father attack people’s looks, disabilities, etc, lie and advocate for the death and torture of innocent animals.
LikeLike
You’re just mad because I called you out for being a liar. Maybe next time you won’t go, so arrogantly, into a victim’s advocacy page guns blazing. I’ll be waiting for your “thesis” on your new troll friends that alerted you to this post in the first place.
You’re right. I’m not going to waste anymore time on you, “pitbullnutter.” Next.
LikeLike
At least she gave herself a fitting alias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgive my ignorance, as I only have 2 degrees, but is this woman a surgeon in a trauma unit? And if she is a surgeon, how did she find time to get all 7 of those degrees while still going through undergraduate, medical school, internship and residency, all the while obviously spending 8 hours a day at the gym, and still look like she’s 30? I’m trying to do the math (not meth, haha) but having trouble figuring this one out. I would also like to get a copy of that thesis she wrote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have read this blog, and it looks like my friend was pretty fair to you, even though you were a raving troll from the beginning. Now, you want to pretend you’re some sort of victim, even after you repeatedly and frantically have pursued him and people who talk to him in groups these past SEVERAL days. You ended up on his blog because of your lying, neurotic rants, much like many other pit bull lovers. Seriously? Get the fuck over it!
Nobody is going to treat you like you’re special, simply because you suddenly say you have a disabilty. Who believes someone who lies like you? Having a mental disorder does not excuse you for acting like this and running people down. You are grown, go take care of that shit. Don’t want to be called a pill popper? Don’t tell us you pop pills! Want to not be mistaken for a druggie? Don’t fucking act like one! Now that Jeff has shown everyone how hilariously full of self-contradictions you are, you think throwing a hissy fit and acting disabled will get you your way. Lol.
LikeLike
Now, I know Jeff won’t leave this post up here, but I’m starting to really question this guy’s motive and the circumstances surrounding his son’s death. It seems quite suspect to me how he attacks people ALL day long, insulting and lying, yet someone looks at him cross eyed and he makes these posts about people “messaging the father of a child killed by a pit”. Playing the victim to a t. Anyone with with a basic education is psychology knows that someone that traumatized over their child dying in that manner doesn’t post pics and stories of people getting killed by dogs, everyday. Not to mention, attacking people on posts that did nothing but try to have educated conversations, yet the second someone says something he doesn’t like, he twists it and uses the word “victim” to shed himself in an innocent light in an attempt to gain sympathy from people. He’s the same guy threatening to do stuff once he obtains your IP address and email. No one else thinks it’s quite suspect that a “grieving” father has the wherewithal to threaten and attack people all day, yet can never seem to answer any questions asked of him with facts and in a competent manner? This same guy that supposedly lost his child to violence, yet he advocates it everyday when facilitating discussions on his pages about people going out to shoot pitbulls. He’s obsessive about it and I’d love to know what kind of profit he has made in donations from people. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this picture. Call me whatever you want, Dana. As I said, your education is in food service at Taco Bell. You message people saying the nastiest things, then try to play the victim, like Jeff. I hope law enforcement reopens the investigation into his son’s death and people start looking into where the money people sends you goes, on top of why you seem to know so much about where dead pitbulls that where shot keep popping up. Hmmm….
LikeLike
Jeff,
I LOVE the way that you are exposing people here! As a breed specific legislation supporter after being involved in a pit attack over 20 years ago and after working for many years with victims, we KNOW what these dogs are capable of. The fact that all of them are not attacking has no bearing on the ones that are or the results of the attacks.
What’s interesting to me is how as a victim and victim supporter I have been completely trashed and harassed and threatened by people who haven’t had my experience. The fact that you had to lose a child to one of these beasts and three years later are still having people post harassing, threatening, and untrue things about you and about the breed blows my mind. But it doesn’t surprise me, because I experience the same things.
Facebook is so biased toward Pitbull supporters, Probably because of the amount of harassment that they themselves have had, or maybe they just have a pit supporter on the staff for community standards, nonetheless they allow harassment from pit advocates to breed-specific legislation advocates all the time , But not the other way around.
It’s genius that you have found an area where you can actually expose people. I look forward to other exposures, learning about what kind of people do this, I look forward to passing these stories on to my friends and family so that they steer clear of them also, and I look forward to responses like the one above where they continue to expose themselves, even here!
Bravo! Daxton’s looking down from heaven very pleased with his dad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. If you like this blog, see my new category called, “Hate mail.”
There is a meme recently posted on the Facebook page, “Anti-pit bull memes” that I think sums it up perfectly. It’s a scene from the movie “American Gangster” and it says, “Let’s see, when’s the last time I initiated a harassing PM to a pit bull nutter? NEVER.”
This speaks volumes. I have NEVER once gone out of my way to send a private message to someone because they advocated for dangerous dogs. The folks that I write blogs about, or expose, or fight back, are people like Taylor here. People like Taylor who GO OUT OF THEIR WAY, so arrogantly, to message a page called “Protect Children From Pit Bulls.”
If you don’t like the way I fight back, DON’T INSERT YOURSELF INTO MY LIFE. Don’t harass a page dedicated to raising awareness of pit bull and dangerous dog attacks, then when you get called out, claim you’re somehow the victim.
LikeLike
Really, Annie? You were involved in a pit attack?
This is what you posted in the private Facebook group about your “attack”, dated May 26, 2015:
“I was charged by a pitbull around 1992. I was standing in my front yard with the waterhose, about 8 feet or so from my front door. I looked up and saw a big brown pit staring motionless at me from two yards away. When my gaze met his I knew what i had to do. I dropped the hose and darted for the front door, hearing a deep throated snarl at my heels. I flew into the house and slammed the front door, just in time for him to run into it full force. No yelping, no barking, just deep throated snarls. It was terrifying. I called the police and they ticketed the owner. I never saw him loose again. But never let my kids in the front yard alone and moved from that house as quickly as i could. On that day, my two babies were not with me as they were 99% of the time. They would have been outside and my story would be vastly different. There were several loose pits in my neighborhood back then. Many were shot and killed by police. My siblings and my daughter have all run into pit bulls and gotten away unscathed. But several Very close calls. I have been a BSL advocate since the 80s. Just this year got re-involved.Glad to see we are taking off but sad to see that we have to. :(”
Now you’re claiming you were “involved in a pit attack”? I also have a screenshot of what you wrote and posted to the group, Annie.
I’m rating your ‘pit attack’ as Pants on Fire.
I am 100% confident that Jeff will not approve this post. He doesn’t care if people lie about being involved in a “pit attack”, right, Jeff?
LikeLike
Sounds like a pit bull attack to me, Justin_O’Phuqcue@hotmail.com…whoever you are.
LikeLike
Pingback: A Hilarious, One-Sided Conversation With a Pit Bull Advocate. | daxtonsfather
Sounds like a pit bull attack to me also! She’s blessed to have made it inside in time.
LikeLike
The weirdo messaged me and I don’t even know what she was referring to. Blocked. SMDH.
LikeLike
Ha, same. She must’ve been messaging us around the same time. She is clearly on something, and I’m not saying that as an insult or joke. She was all over the place, couldn’t stick to a topic, insulted me, would be polite, insult me again, and outright lied. She even told me she didn’t have any pits, which is obviously not true. The whole experience was surreal. Now I’m pretty sure she’s messaging me under a different name. Either that or it’s one of her friends.
Taylor even said at one point that pit bulls were never bred to fight, and weren’t different than any other dog. I tried explaining that even a normal pit bull advocate would disagree with her, but that just led to more insanity, followed by her blocking me — and she’s the one that messaged me.
One of the most bizarre encounters I’ve ever had with a human being. Hope she gets off that stuff, I’ve seen what it does to people. Sad.
LikeLike
Taylor just struck again lol. She messaged me and started off the conversation with a bunch of school-yard insults- calling me names and making transphobic comments (I’m a straight woman so I’m not sure what that was about). Must be time to refill the meds. She then tried to insult my intelligence and claim that she has several degrees and that she “knows all the ins and outs of pitts due to her extensive education”.
Then more insults and some anger about a meme I posted, and a “friendly message to tell you to get your facts right about pits or stfu. We don’t need any more haters on the breed. That is all”
She closed with a warning to check out Jeff and that I’ll “be amazed by the violence and lies that those people have spread across the Internet, which is what people are believing.” Yawn.
Then my husband starts messaging her and asking if she’d like to meet and really get this all settled once and for all (in not so many words lmao). She goes pit and let’s ‘er rip with insults and more strange gay slurs and irrelevant remarks.
Someone needs to get her a refill, stat.
LikeLike
I would love to add her comments to this post. Email me the screenshots to pitbullpropagandamachine@gmail.com
LikeLike
Taylor Moore has all of her dogs removed from her possession. Dare I divulge more?
LikeLike