Let's Talk!

[RealPitBull]

Apr 16, 2013 13:31:15 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

I feel like I'm hogging the forum But thanks for the opportunity to have this conversation!

You're not hogging! And thank you for having this conversation.

That being said, I think the most practical solution is for shelters and dog advocates to move away from using the term "pit bull" -- and to do so as part of a bigger movement to refer to dogs as dogs, instead of breeds.

That's like, the total extreme opposite of breedism, though. What if the opposite of racism was "don't ever talk about race, nationality, etc. Don't bring those things up, pretend they don't exist! Be proud of your heritage, but only in private."

When I say this, I'm not including breed advocates such as the Real Pit Bull, nor am I referring to breeders or dog breed fanciers. I'm referring to the general animal welfare/dog advocacy/dog owner rights/sheltering community. To be clear, this is NOT to devalue breeds, to get rid of breeds, or to deny that they exist. Not at all. I want breeds to exist and I appreciate breeds. I see tremendous value in all kinds of dogs, purebred or not

You know what you just did, right here? Further divide the purebred dog fancy from the rescue/mixed breed/breed doesn't matter camp. Not good.  Both sides need to be working together.

My point is I don't think that breed is the factor we should focus on when addressing dangerous dog laws, pet homelessness/overpopulation, or dog owner rights. These are all dog issues -- or more accurately stated, these are all HUMAN issues. When we tackle these issues through the lens of breeds, we're complicit in perpetuating the idea that was breed was a factor in the first place. It was not. It was always a human issue. How many more breeds need to spend time in the hot seat before we try a new approach -- and focus on NEED, instead of breed? We're just going in circles, with targeted breeds coming in and out of the same cycle.

Of course they are human issues. No one is saying they aren't. Laws should NOT be breed-focused. Period. But certain organizations dedicated to certain breeds are most certainly going to have breed-specific policies. And due to the political climate surrounding the breed, certain shelters and rescues may need to impose policies for APBTs and for dogs that may be confused as APBTs.

No matter what dogs we're talking about, the most popular dogs (in terms of #s) will always struggle when we don't address the needs of their owners. Whether it's APBTs or "pit bulls" or Chihuahuas or Mastiffs or whatever, these dogs all have the same basic needs -- and when those needs aren't met, problems occur. That's not a breed issue. It's a need issue. So unless we're talking about breeders or breed fanciers, there's no reason to focus on breed when trying to address need. (all this rhyming is sounding hoakey....)

The issue is this - certain breeds need more attention from advocates then other breeds. APBTs need more attention than PBGVs - that's just a fact. RPB was founded because a) Pit Bulls are my fave breed, and b) because the breed seriously needs help. I love all dogs, period. I'm what you call a through and through dog person. But I also love breeds. I am a purebred dog fancier, I love shows, I love studying pedigrees. Which is why I have purebreds. APBTs just happen to be my favorite purebred. So they are my focus.

And the focus of my breed-specific Pit Bull org.

There is nothing wrong with dog-specific (as opposed to breed-specific) education. BOTH are terribly needed. I used to do my "basic" general dog education through my dog training company. And I'd do general dog education through RPB as well, but I'd add in a bunch of relevent, pertinent breed-specific stuff as well. Why? If we are talking about a specific breed, and our audience is breed guardians, doesn't that make sense? The problem with certain groups now is that they are throwing around the words "pit bull" while also screaming, "breed is irrelevant! It means nothing! We aren't talking about breed, we are talking about dogs!"I wish these groups would just STOP using the words "pit bull".    You cannot talk about Pit Bulls/"pit bulls"/"pit bull type dogs" and NOT talk about THE BREED. But you most certainly can talk about DOGS IN GENERAL and b very helpful and informative, and never bring up breed once. I hope I'm being clear in my attempt to make a distinction here in these two sorts of educational groups? And there is NO reason why we all cannot work together. We BUTT HEADS because "pit bull" groups refuse to talk about Pit Bulls (the breed) and yell at groups like RPB when DO talk about THE BREED.

I think there was definitely a time when APBTs -- as well as all dogs labeled as "pit bulls" -- needed an extra boost to overcome the negative perceptions. So I can see how associating "pit bulls" with positive stories was helpful in moving the general public over that wall. But now, with BSL on the decline and with public sentiment tipping in the dogs' favor, we're at a new point. And at this point, I think we're starting to do a disservice to the dogs -- both purebred APBTs and "pit bulls" -- by continuing to do this. If we want the dogs out of the spotlight, we need take the spotlight off them. The way to do that is to refer to them as dogs, and to let them quietly go about their business. (Again, I'm not talking about APBT breeders or fanciers; I'm talking about the masses).

Pit Bulls still need a lot of help in the PR department, but not the way so many people think. Too much of a good thing IS too much. Pit Bulls need to fly UNDER the radar for the most part, some poisitve stories here and there and some human interest stuff is good, but right now it's overkill, esp. considering the level these dogs are getting hyped up to combined with a virtually complete lack of breed specific education.

[ames]

Apr 15, 2013 7:28:27 GMT -5 RealPitBull said:

Apr 12, 2013 16:47:47 GMT -5 ames said:

I don't want to bore people and repeat myself, but I wouldn't have such a problem with visually IDing anything if people didn't steadfast associate behavior with appearance. If you look at a bunch of breed descriptions, they overlap so much from breed to breed to breed, they are not unique characteristics or breed specific. If I take descriptions and posted them up and had people guess which breed was being described, it’s pretty freaking hard! It’s EASIER of you have a dog in front of you and can see how they behave and what they look like for you to surmise what their breed is.

But again, you are a) talking about someone who has misidentified a dog's breed, and b) assuming just because so-and-so cannot ID a dog's breed, NO one can. Just because the Boxer or Boxer mix gets mis-ID'd as a Pit Bull, it doesn't mean that I can't pull a Pit Bull out of a shelter environment assuming it is a Pit Bull and then educate potential adopters on possible Pit Bull temperament traits (and be able to largely predict those traits esp. after I've observed the dog in foster care for the 30+ days we ALWAYS keep dogs in care - although I MUST state that just because you have a Pit Bull in foster care and haven't observed certain behaviors, it doesn't mean you won't ever see those behaviors. Educating adopters on what "might" happen is also extremely important. I'd never ever place a Pit Bull in a home that wasn't prepared to deal with dog-directed aggression). ALSO, and this is a big one - since BSL covers dogs that merely LOOK like Pit Bulls but AREN'T necessarily Pit Bulls, if you have a Pit Bull-ish looking dog, and are not really sure what it is, best to err on the side of caution and tell the adopter to be careful about leaving your dog unattended with other dogs, to stay away from off-leash public dog parks, etc. IOW, to avoid being targeted by laws based off how your dog looks.

There is no way anyone can tell if they can or can not with certainty identify , that is what I am saying.  You can pull a dog that might look like a pit bull to you other people, but it might NOT be one.  I also don't think there are breedless dogs, I feel each and every dog is an individual and no dogs should go to dog parks.  No dogs should be left alone together with other animals.  I believe in crate and rotate when no human is present for all dogs, not just pit bulls.  I would educate on THAT not on what breed it might be and it might have this trait or that trait, but since I have no clue what or HOW it was bred, I don't know if the Human aggression trait was bred into the dog or any other trait that isn't  associated with the APBT.  I fully agree educating owners of all dogs, not just pit bull or pit bull type or bull breed owners lol.  I do feel they need to be educated about how uninformed society is and not let to believe they have a pure bred dog without knowing for a fact the dog is a pure bred.

For example, now don't CHEAT!!!!  lol  But what breed of dog is this description:  The ???is a big, bold dog with a distinctly powerful appearance: a large head in contrast to small, triangular eyes; and a confident, rugged stance. The mere presence of a powerful ??? serves as a deterrent to most who would cause trouble.

The standard you quoted doesn't even REMOTELY sound like typical Pit Bull temperament. Aside from the fact that I know the AST standard practically by heart, and APBT standards pretty well and KNOW this isn't a Pit Bull standard (AKC, UKC or ADBA),  the dog's described temperament would only sound like a Pit Bull to someone who has a commonly mistaken view of the breed (loyal, protective, etc), and really doesn't know Pit Bulls at all. Again, just because some people don't know, doesn't mean NO ONE knows.

sorry I didnt post the APBT one on purpose, and I didnt post this to look like it was the APBT, lol.  I know people are not Akita knowledgable I was just trying to say that without the breed its a crapshoot based off traits associated with any breed.  There is huge overlap from breed to breed.

In reality I think breed is only good for someone who is willing to pay money to ensure they know what they are getting. Anyone who wants a pet, and NEEDS to know what breed they have blown my mind. Why adopt then? There will never be a guarantee and if that’s what you want, go for it! If it’s so important to you to know what breed you have to try and assume anyone can predict behavior’s based off one breeding. You can assume behavior and if one of the 10 born have that, how do you explain the other 9?

But you are saying 2 seperate things here: 1) You think breed is only good for someone willing to pay money (I'm assuming you mean to a good breeder)....

no doubt, I do not take anyone breeding anything lightly and not responsibly and for a purpose, 

The only reason I was convinced breed and behavior have no merit was seeing an repeat breeding of some beautiful dogs. Same EVERYTHING, season, heat, location except 2 years apart. The offspring of the 2 litters were NOTHING at all alike. Not just size, but color and attitude! TOTALLY different from pup to pup and littler to litter.

....and 2) that there is sooo much variation within a litter that it's pointless to expect any pup from any litter to act any breed-specific way.

So what it sounds like to me is that you do not have a belief in the concept of purebred dogs and you do not believe selective breeding has any effect on temperament. You do not believe in purebred rescue. You think if someone has an interest in a specific breed and think that breed's temperament is a good match, they should forego breed specific rescue and just go to a breeder?

Sorry that was not what I intended.  I totally believe in the concept there are pure bred dogs.  What I also believe is most rescue and shelter dogs were NOT selectively bred because a reputable breeder would not allow their dogs to go to a shelter, they would take them back to their own yards first and find responsible homes for them, they do NOT end up at rescues or shelters if they can help it.  BYB's do not take their litters back, some don't even know what happens to their dogs when the leave their house, they are bred for pets.  I think there are enough dogs out there, there is NO REASON to breed for pets.  Selectively bred dogs have traits.  I do not think they are breeding them responsibly with behavioral traits in mind is at all the same thing as breeding for a size or head shape or a color or to make some money or because my dog is so great he needs to reproduce etc.  They don't health test, they don't temperament test, they are BYB.  I am NOT saying these pups may not make the best or worst pet EVER.  I am saying comparing a selectively bred dog with a BYB dog isn't the same type of stock (or traits) being compared.  To me a reputable breeder is few and far in between.

That helped me see its much more than just what breed a dog is.

Of course, no one said environment doesn't effect behavior. It most certainly does.  But, you cannot compare human nationalities to dog breeds. Irish people are not/were not selectively breed for heavy drinking.

haha shoot you don't know my family lol  they try, they really do!!  lol  point received though

I like bully breeds. I don’t like pit bull type (but have used it on occasion)

I like the term "bull breed" - that is really the correct term. But here I'm confused because if you think breed is pointless, why do you use the word breed in your descriptive term (and, BTW, it still sounds like you are using visual ID to make certain assumptions - like, dog looks like such-and-such because of a blocky head, etc, so it must be a 'bully breed')?


agreed, I do it because I want others to understand the way people use the term pit bull isn't correct (lumping dogs by a look since to me pit bull is the APBT) but way before BSL there were working breeds and herding breeds and bull breeds.  This isn't a new term.  I feels adding the breeds helps people see there is more than just the APBT but I can see how that might be confusing as to why bull breeds are OK and pit bull isn't.  But you are right, I am visually picking the dogs I feel are bully breeds and not saying one is a pit bull might send a mixed message and now I need to step back and rethink, so thanks for helping me see what your saying so I can think about it!! 

Thanks, Ames!

[ames]

Apr 17, 2013 10:27:20 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

I have question for y'all. What's your take on the term "Bully Breeds"?

I'm noticing more shelters and advocacy groups/rescues using it. I did an informal research project on what people think that term means, which breeds they include, where they got the information from, and why they chose to include those breeds. The results were really interesting, and I'm writing them up in a blog post I'm working on.

Thoughts?

You know how I feel  I touched on this above though.  Bully breeds means every dog, pit bull means one the APBT.  People using pit bull in BSL/BDL so not understand its being used incorrectly as a GROUP of dogs.  I feel Bull or Bully breeds works to get people to realize its more than just one breed of dog being targeted.

[jbone]

What would be lost if, instead of talking about issues that come up in shelter dogs and making that specific to what the breed might be, we instead frame these issues in terms of dog issues?
For example, instead of warning a potential adopter that X breed is prone to dog aggression, they are warned that dogs with an unknown socialization background may have dog aggression. The warning is still made but without continuing the perception that every dog that looks a certain way has the same behaviors as line bred dogs.

I suppose that that is my biggest issue so far with some of the points being made about breed as an educational aspect in adoption. We don't know the breeds that may have a genetic influence on the dogs behavior in their lineage, so why have that conversation at all?

I read things regarding shelter dogs like X, Y, Z behavior is common to this breed but the voice in my head is saying X, Y, Z behavior is common in rescue dogs. (Honestly what behavior isn't common in rescues lol anything and everything could be an issue.)

As far as the more general conversation about breed ID, I run along the line of if you don't know it, don't say it. So much of the breed blame train begins with the ID of the dog where it originated, shelter, neighbor, whatever. They call a dog one thing, the owner then calls it that and it gets put down on the papers as fact. If that dog is involved in an incident either it gets called what it looks like, or what's on the paperwork. Either of which are issues for different reasons.

I often find myself in a difficult position regarding the language used about pit bulls and BDL. Having to evaluate legislation and interpret it leans more towards language like "pit bull type dogs."

I'm open to suggestions on that one but I have yet to find a simpler descriptor for when legislation targets dogs that have "the majority physical characteristics" of APBT, SBT, AST.

[emilys]

I feel that I've had this conversation so many times, with people here and elsewhere, that IMO there's a gap that can't be bridged. For me anyway, the conversation is pointless. And no, it's not about "hating" the people I disagree with.

I'm only going to make one point and then really, I'm not interested:

My bottom line: I am just baffled that any breed advocates claim it's impossible to tell a dog of their preferred breed without seeing its pedigree, that it's pointless or unwise or counterproductive or dangerous to do so and that breed doesn't really matter in any meaningful sense.

I don't hang around on the forums of other breed rescuers/advocates, but I've never heard, for example, a Sheltie advocate say she can't tell a Sheltie from a border collie or an Australian shepherd and that she'll use rescue resources to take in all the hairy pointy nose dogs that bark a lot. And she won't tell adopters about the tendency of Shelties to bark. A lot.

Yeah, I know that Shelties aren't a target of BSL....

[ames]

I don't understand how so many can think visual ID is ok and use other breeds as examples if thy do it pit bulls must be able too and in the next thread argue they feel the APBT should be treated different in regards to owners and how they are managed or adopted out. Can't have it both ways people lol either visual is bunk or all dogs breeds should be treated special and different (just like those who support BSL feel.)

Just don't get why it's ok that adopters can be told special care is needed but not ok for them to have special consideration in regards to breed identification.

No one is out there making a "bad ass" sheltie mix or breeding shelties with a mastiff to make a bigger badder sheltie with a big head and good muscle tone and drive. Or maybe they are and I just haven't heard about it yet. Point is other breeds are not mixed with other as much as the APBT has been.

Because the classic American bully was founded on APBT and AmStaff bloodlines I have heard people say they can take an APBT and am AmStaff and make an American bully. People don't get it. They would have a pitterstaff my am American bully unless your using American bully bloodlines. From what u can tell other breeds don't have this problem AT ALL. Or please help me knew the ones that do

[pitbullmamaliz]

Can't have it both ways people lol either visual is bunk or all dogs breeds should be treated special and different (just like those who support BSL feel.)

But see, here's where I have an issue - because I feel ALL dog breeds should be treated as breeds with breed tendencies, you're accusing me of supporting BSL. That's the correlation I absolutely do not understand. I don't want a Border Collie because they stare and they have a tendency to try to herd other creatures in the house. I don't want a guardian breed because I like dogs that are wiggly and thrilled to meet new people. I don't want a *insert breed* because they have a tendency to *insert breed characteristic*. That isn't BSL. That's being realistic. If people don't want to potentially deal with dog aggression and having to crate and rotate and not go to dog parks, DON'T GET A PIT BULL. Period. That's not BSL. That's being realistic about the breed. That doesn't mean I support BSL though. That's absurd. I truly don't understand how that correlation can be made. I truly don't. And I've been accused of being a bad advocate and supporting BSL enough because of this that I'm starting to get annoyed. It's ludicrous. Because I believe all dog breeds are prone to display certain behaviors (not WILL display, PRONE to display), I think they should be banned or discriminated against? No, of course not. I just don't get it.

[Kim Wolf]

Apr 19, 2013 12:42:23 GMT -5 emilys said:

I feel that I've had this conversation so many times, with people here and elsewhere, that IMO there's a gap that can't be bridged. For me anyway, the conversation is pointless. And no, it's not about "hating" the people I disagree with.

I'm only going to make one point and then really, I'm not interested:

My bottom line: I am just baffled that any breed advocates claim it's impossible to tell a dog of their preferred breed without seeing its pedigree, that it's pointless or unwise or counterproductive or dangerous to do so and that breed doesn't really matter in any meaningful sense.

I don't hang around on the forums of other breed rescuers/advocates, but I've never heard, for example, a Sheltie advocate say she can't tell a Sheltie from a border collie or an Australian shepherd and that she'll use rescue resources to take in all the hairy pointy nose dogs that bark a lot. And she won't tell adopters about the tendency of Shelties to bark. A lot.

Yeah, I know that Shelties aren't a target of BSL....

Emily, do you think visual breed ID is reliable in mixed-breed dogs?

[Kim Wolf]

Watch this clip of Colleen Lynn on Huffington Post earlier this month:

(NOTE: the password to view this is "crazytown").

How would y'all respond to her, if you were part of the interview?

[emilys]

Apr 20, 2013 19:12:08 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Apr 19, 2013 12:42:23 GMT -5 emilys said:

I feel that I've had this conversation so many times, with people here and elsewhere, that IMO there's a gap that can't be bridged. For me anyway, the conversation is pointless. And no, it's not about "hating" the people I disagree with.

I'm only going to make one point and then really, I'm not interested:

My bottom line: I am just baffled that any breed advocates claim it's impossible to tell a dog of their preferred breed without seeing its pedigree, that it's pointless or unwise or counterproductive or dangerous to do so and that breed doesn't really matter in any meaningful sense.

I don't hang around on the forums of other breed rescuers/advocates, but I've never heard, for example, a Sheltie advocate say she can't tell a Sheltie from a border collie or an Australian shepherd and that she'll use rescue resources to take in all the hairy pointy nose dogs that bark a lot. And she won't tell adopters about the tendency of Shelties to bark. A lot.

Yeah, I know that Shelties aren't a target of BSL....

Emily, do you think visual breed ID is reliable in mixed-breed dogs?

It can be, sure. Why not?

[pitbullmamaliz]

Apr 20, 2013 19:18:24 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Watch this clip of Colleen Lynn on Huffington Post earlier this month:
How would y'all respond to her, if you were part of the interview?

I would remind her that they were bred to attack other DOGS, not people. Dogs are clever enough to know the difference, which is why the whole alpha mentality is such a crock. Dogs know we're not dogs. Dog aggression does not equal human aggression. Not sure where the confusion is.

[Kim Wolf]

Apr 20, 2013 20:32:17 GMT -5 pitbullmamaliz said:

Apr 20, 2013 19:18:24 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Watch this clip of Colleen Lynn on Huffington Post earlier this month:
How would y'all respond to her, if you were part of the interview?

I would remind her that they were bred to attack other DOGS, not people. Dogs are clever enough to know the difference, which is why the whole alpha mentality is such a crock. Dogs know we're not dogs. Dog aggression does not equal human aggression. Not sure where the confusion is.

(Not being snarky, just bringing up other views -- I swear! -- because I get these questions all the time, and I'm interested in hearing how you would answer.)

In your opinion or experience, how difficult is it to breed dogs to attack other dogs? What's the success rate for people intentionally breeding for that purpose?

Do you think that's the norm for pet APBTs today? I say "pet" because I'm excluding those that are selectively bred for illegal purposes.

What I have trouble rectifying is this: why do dog fighters (the "professionals") pay such high fees for fighting lines and have no interest in the rest, while APBT fanciers (pet/legal sport owners) say that all APBTs were "bred for fighting" and we can't ignore that? I'm trying to understand how the two sides can be saying such different things -- which are rooted in different understandings of genetics, and how purpose-bred traits are selected for and passed down.

Also, if dog-dog aggression occurs in all breeds/mixes, why do pet dog owners interpret it differently when an APBT acquired as a pet is involved? I hate to use my own dogs as an example (!), but if my dog Fannie (Heinz 57, stray) attacked my other dog Martha and nearly killed her, why should I attribute that to "dog" behavior -- but if Martha (purchased from a backyard APBT breeder) had done the same to Fannie, I should understand it as a remnant of what APBTs were "bred for" historically?

Which goes back to...are you buying dogs that the breeder is selectively breeding for the crime of dog fighting, or are you buying dogs from a responsible breeder who does not select for that?

These are questions I get all often. How would you guys answer them? Gracias -- I appreciate hearing your feedback!

[pitbullmamaliz]

Just because you aren't breeding FOR a trait doesn't mean that you are actively breeding AGAINST it. Which means it will still pop up, generally in that bell curve that most of us here reference - some dogs are really hot, most are selective, some are cold. For dog fighters, they're paying for the crazy hot dogs, not the selective or cold ones. They're paying for the ones that LOVE the fight, not that do it out of self-defense. Those will be few and far between which is why they pay good money. And honestly, go hang out on Game Dog forum - sure they won't admit they're fighting dogs, but there's an awful lot of talk about keeps and such as that. And they freely admit DA is inherent in the breed. As does every other forum I've been on that is specifically for pit bull owners. Every single one of them has a sticky about dog aggression. Every single one of them has a sticky about dog parks. So yeah, the majority of pit bull fanciers that I know, who treasure them as the amazingly athletic, historical dog that they are, admits that DA is common and should be anticipated.


And I'm quoting myself because I'd really like an answer to this. Why do I support BSL?

Apr 20, 2013 13:21:27 GMT -5 pitbullmamaliz said:

Can't have it both ways people lol either visual is bunk or all dogs breeds should be treated special and different (just like those who support BSL feel.)

But see, here's where I have an issue - because I feel ALL dog breeds should be treated as breeds with breed tendencies, you're accusing me of supporting BSL. That's the correlation I absolutely do not understand. I don't want a Border Collie because they stare and they have a tendency to try to herd other creatures in the house. I don't want a guardian breed because I like dogs that are wiggly and thrilled to meet new people. I don't want a *insert breed* because they have a tendency to *insert breed characteristic*. That isn't BSL. That's being realistic. If people don't want to potentially deal with dog aggression and having to crate and rotate and not go to dog parks, DON'T GET A PIT BULL. Period. That's not BSL. That's being realistic about the breed. That doesn't mean I support BSL though. That's absurd. I truly don't understand how that correlation can be made. I truly don't. And I've been accused of being a bad advocate and supporting BSL enough because of this that I'm starting to get annoyed. It's ludicrous. Because I believe all dog breeds are prone to display certain behaviors (not WILL display, PRONE to display), I think they should be banned or discriminated against? No, of course not. I just don't get it.

[Kim Wolf]

Apr 20, 2013 19:36:06 GMT -5 emilys said:

Apr 20, 2013 19:12:08 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Emily, do you think visual breed ID is reliable in mixed-breed dogs?

It can be, sure. Why not?

Regarding other dogs getting caught up in the name game, "Husky" comes to mind.

[Kim Wolf]

Thought this was interesting -- an article from 1986 with several quotes stating "pit bull" does not refer to a single breed, and the definition of the term varies from group to group. The opening line reads, "In the purest sense, there is no such thing as a pit bull."

Link to article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=ij5JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cwkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1749,5677931&dq=breed+specific+legislation&hl=en.

Also posting a pic of part of the article, in case that's easier to read. I have a PDF of the full article, but it's too large to attach here. Shoot me an email at [e-mail] if you want a copy.

Attachments:

[Kim Wolf]

Apr 21, 2013 14:23:58 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Thought this was interesting -- an article from 1986 with several quotes stating "pit bull" does not refer to a single breed, and the definition of the term varies from group to group. The opening line reads, "In the purest sense, there is no such thing as a pit bull."

Link to article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=ij5JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cwkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1749,5677931&dq=breed+specific+legislation&hl=en.

Also posting a pic of part of the article, in case that's easier to read. I have a PDF of the full article, but it's too large to attach here. Shoot me an email at [e-mail] if you want a copy.

Here's another example of the long-standing debate over what a pit bull is/how it should be defined -- this one from a 1987 New York Times article (PDF of article is attached).New York City_Pit Bulls_1987.pdf (127.04 KB)

''A clear definition of a pit bull dog will be difficult to draft,'' as well as ''impossible'' to enforce, said the president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, John F. Kullberg. ''I think we've gotten to the point where everybody thinks every aggressive dog is a pit-bull mix.''

''These dogs have been bred with mastiffs, they've been bred with Airedales, they've been bred with boxers to give them more leg,'' said the president of the American Kennel Club, Ken Marden. In most of those combinations, the physical characteristics of a pit bull may or may not appear.

[emilys]

Apr 21, 2013 14:11:26 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Apr 20, 2013 19:36:06 GMT -5 emilys said:

It can be, sure. Why not?

Regarding other dogs getting caught up in the name game, "Husky" comes to mind.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove.

[emilys]

Apr 21, 2013 14:41:25 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Apr 21, 2013 14:23:58 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Thought this was interesting -- an article from 1986 with several quotes stating "pit bull" does not refer to a single breed, and the definition of the term varies from group to group. The opening line reads, "In the purest sense, there is no such thing as a pit bull."

Link to article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=ij5JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cwkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1749,5677931&dq=breed+specific+legislation&hl=en.

Also posting a pic of part of the article, in case that's easier to read. I have a PDF of the full article, but it's too large to attach here. Shoot me an email at [e-mail] if you want a copy.

Here's another example of the long-standing debate over what a pit bull is/how it should be defined -- this one from a 1987 New York Times article (PDF of article is attached).View Attachment

''A clear definition of a pit bull dog will be difficult to draft,'' as well as ''impossible'' to enforce, said the president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, John F. Kullberg. ''I think we've gotten to the point where everybody thinks every aggressive dog is a pit-bull mix.''

''These dogs have been bred with mastiffs, they've been bred with Airedales, they've been bred with boxers to give them more leg,'' said the president of the American Kennel Club, Ken Marden. In most of those combinations, the physical characteristics of a pit bull may or may not appear.

quoting the AKC on the subject of "pit bulls" at that time (when they were in high denial about the existence of the APBT and its relationship to the AST) is pretty much as valuable as quoting HSUS.

[Kim Wolf]

Apr 21, 2013 18:50:41 GMT -5 emilys said:

Apr 21, 2013 14:41:25 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Here's another example of the long-standing debate over what a pit bull is/how it should be defined -- this one from a 1987 New York Times article (PDF of article is attached).View Attachment

''A clear definition of a pit bull dog will be difficult to draft,'' as well as ''impossible'' to enforce, said the president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, John F. Kullberg. ''I think we've gotten to the point where everybody thinks every aggressive dog is a pit-bull mix.''

''These dogs have been bred with mastiffs, they've been bred with Airedales, they've been bred with boxers to give them more leg,'' said the president of the American Kennel Club, Ken Marden. In most of those combinations, the physical characteristics of a pit bull may or may not appear.

quoting the AKC on the subject of "pit bulls" at that time (when they were in high denial about the existence of the APBT and its relationship to the AST) is pretty much as valuable as quoting HSUS.

The point is not whether the AKC or HSUS is a credible source. The point is that the public debate over what a pit bull is has been going on for decades, and it not something new (or something I caused).

[emilys]

Apr 21, 2013 19:10:28 GMT -5 Kim Wolf said:

Apr 21, 2013 18:50:41 GMT -5 emilys said:

quoting the AKC on the subject of "pit bulls" at that time (when they were in high denial about the existence of the APBT and its relationship to the AST) is pretty much as valuable as quoting HSUS.

The point is not whether the AKC or HSUS is a credible source. The point is that the public debate over what a pit bull is has been going on for decades, and it not something new (or something I caused).

another red herring
No one has ever said this is a new debate.
Nor that you "caused" it.

Really. You are arguing with your own vapors.