# Dog ethics question **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 22, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250 "2006-12-22T17:36:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250/41 "2006-12-24T01:19:43Z")
[QUOTE=Caridwen] Not absurd if the person didn’t know or had no interest in dog breeds. I find it hard to believe, but there are people like that! 😃 I know nothing about cats and couldn’t tell one type of cat from another if my life depended on it. I don’t dislike cats, I’ve just never owned one so there’s not a lot of reason to learn all the breeds. My sister owns a Himalayan so if I see a cat that remotely resembles her cat I ask if it’s a Himalayan. I stopped trying to be polite and guessing the breed because I’m always wrong. Now I just say cute cat. The person at the gas station was just trying to be polite. [/QUOTE] Sorry, I thought asking if a dog with black spots was an albino bordered on the absurd, but I guess that’s just me ;0) I’m not making fun of people that play guess the dog breed and lose–I’m a dog geek so I’m likely to recognize a lot of breeds most people wouldn’t, and Simon’s a rare breed, so the chance of someone actually recognizing that he’s a dogo is pretty slim. What I was getting at is that the vast majority of people can’t tell one breed from another, and the fact that a dog looks like a pit bull to 99% of the population does not, in fact, make it a pit bull… and when you start talking about enacting laws that put dogs to death for having broad heads and short coats on one schmuck’s say-so… yeah, I think it’s absurd, amongst other pit-worthy adjectives. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250/42 "2006-12-24T01:30:26Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] If it is impossible to define any dog definitively as a pit bull without documented pit bull lineage, then how did the ancestors get defined as pit bulls? Somebody, somewhere, looked at a dog and declared “Pit Bull” and that goes on a document to prove lineage years later. Yet, today, it’s impossible to do the same. I know “pit bull” is used to describe a variety of sturdy dog breeds, but is it just the case that pit bull itself is poorly defined? [/QUOTE] See the problem is that the term “pit bull” is used as a collective noun to encompass pit-type dogs that fit a particular physical description, generally including dogs of several different breeds including American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers (!), and several others which are occasionally included. The terms used to describe the generic “pit bull” can describe a whole host of breeds, none of which are “pit bulls” and the “expert” opinions are not, always. I also agree with those who have said there’s not a person in the world who can infallibly a “pit bull” because “pit bulls” as a breed _do not exist_ and even if they could guess that a dog is likely to be of pit-dog lineage, is that good enough evidence to kill someone’s friendly, innocent pet dog? Remember that we’re not talking about a dog that’s been deemed dangerous due to actions, just average, every day pet dogs. It strikes me as canine racial profiling, but instead of the target getting pulled over more often, they’re getting killed. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250/43 "2006-12-24T01:32:19Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] Heh-you know, if you drew a ring around one eye, he’d be a dead-ringer for [Petey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_the_Pup). [/QUOTE] ;0) That pirate patch sure does draw a lot of attention. He’s like a walking cartoon! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250/44 "2006-12-24T01:42:33Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I know “pit bull” is used to describe a variety of sturdy dog breeds, but is it just the case that pit bull itself is poorly defined? [/QUOTE] It is definitely the case that “pit bull” is a poorly defined term. It is not a breed but a set of breeds, and dogs are thrown into the definition willy-nilly if they just happen to look a little like some bozo’s probably mistaken idea of what a pit bull is. It’s rather like “race” in people. What makes a white person white, or a black person black? Is there a test? Is it the one-drop rule? Is there a person who can look at another and determine that person is “white” or “black”? Are there expert witnesses who can make such a determination? Dog breeds are like races. You can make predictions about what the offspring of two dogs will look like, just as you can make predictions about what the offspring of two people will look like. Unlike the races (at least in any non-grotesque modern sense), dogs are selectively bred to carry certain traits. Once dogs start breeding true with whatever traits a certain segment of the population likes and finds distinctive, a new breed exists. But that’s only for going forward. The new breed sets a standard, then starts the process of getting registered with other people who accept that dogs have breeds that have their own standards. It isn’t scientific. It’s an agreement amongst interested parties that certain standards exist and are necessary for the definition of a breed. At that point, the dog’s lineage 100% determines if it is in the breed or out of it. A Newfoundland is a Newfoundland because its parents were Newfoundlands. If it looks like a Newfie but you don’t know where it’s from, you cannot prove its Newfie-ness. To use another analogy, it’s like looking at a person and saying if they are a Daughter of the American Revolution. If a foundling is left at a fire station, you can’t know if she is eligible to be in the DAR because being in the DAR is specific to your ancestry. Being a Poodle is specific to a dog’s ancestry. That is the definition of Poodle. The only thing you can determine by looking at a dog is what the dog looks like, and that’s exactly how the laws are set up, allowing any nitwit to claim that the dog looks like a pit bull and therefore is a pit bull. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250/45 "2006-12-24T17:59:39Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] Dog breeds are like races. [/QUOTE] Where were you last week?! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dog-ethics-question/385250.md?page=2)