I dunno about that. The guy sounds like an ass. That’s an animal.
(If it walks like a duck…)
Turek’s answer is right on point, which is that in order for the state to *prove *that you own a pit bull, it must appeal to the *definition *of a pit bull, which necessarily includes proof of lineage.
I am not arguing that the physical destruction of the pedigree magically transforms a dog from a purebred into a mutt. That would be a silly argument to make, and your advancement of it amounts to a strawman.
What I am arguing is that “I know it when I see it” is a hell of a dangerous concept when allowed to stand as proof in a court of law.
That’s absolutely true. But every pit bull ban or proposed ban I’ve ever heard of uses it.
Just as the “spot the pit bull” quizzes demonstrate that people cannot identify the breed, which at least leads me to believe that many of the “pit bull attacks” are likely really “Jack Russell Terrier attacks” and “Boxer attacks” and “mutt attacks.”
Except there are no survivors of Jack Russel Terrior attacks. Or witnesses. Or any surviving family members of same. 
(Shiner, Rex, and Jefferson made me type that upon pain of death by snuggles and licks.)
dangerous indeed. Many a witch was burned for that.
But if the only legal alternative is documentation, then legally, no papers means no pitbull (and of course I didn’t mean that the purebreed would transubstantiate into a mutt). And putting the burden of proof on the interested party that there be no proof is, well, not terriby smart.
There would have to be some test of “pitbullness” that goes beyond eyeballing it but doesn’t require documentation
No, they don’t, and no, they can’t.
In Canada?
When was the last time it happened in the U.S.? Has it ever happened in the U.S.?
I don’t know what this means.
No offense, but insist all you want, there simply isn’t. A dog is a dog is a dog. You and I could join together and form the SapoContra Kennel Club and begin to recognize breeds. That is all that is required. If we choose not to consider parentage as a function of the definition, it will be awfully difficult to get any of them to breed true.
Lineage is an absolute and nececassary element of the definition of “breed.” The very word evokes this. Conformation to the breed standard is insufficient. In every case. All the time. I state this in the strongest possible terms. If you have no proof of lineage, there is no way any sanctioning body will accept your dog as belonging to a breed. No recognition = no breed. It is as simple as that.
Right… but BSL (breed specific legislation) in most cases is written in such a way as to give the animal control officer power to point at any given large, muscular dog with a “blocky” head and a blunt, square muzzle and call it a pit bull. And euthanize it. In many areas you have zero right to appeal–if your dog is a mix, or unregistered, and you have no way to prove it’s not a pit bull, your dog gets killed, purely on someone’s opinion. It’s horrifying.
Keep in mind that “pit bull” is not a breed that exists in any registry, but is a type of dog. A type of dog. So by definition, your lab or boxer mix or bull dog of any kind that meets the criteria for type is a pit bull–unless you can prove otherwise, and it better be damn good proof.
I’ve got a Dogo Argentino, a rare type of mastiff that looks very much like a large pit-type dog. Dogos are decidedly not pit bulls in the same way that American Bulldogs are decidedly not pit bulls, boxers are not pit bulls, and lab x shar pei crosses are not pit bulls. Recently the Dogo Argentino Club of America pulled out all stops trying to rescue an unregistered Dogo from Ontario where he had been “confiscated” by the town animal control authorities for being a pit bull. Experts from the DACA including breeders with decades worth of experience in dogos, qualified FCI judges (given international authority by the registry to determine what is a good dogo) and so on and so forth came forth in a process that lasted weeks to testify to the town council that this dogo was NOT a pit bull but an unregistered member of a rare breed.
Guess what? In the end, he was euthanized. Because nobody could prove the dog wasn’t a pit bull, and all the expert testimony in the world couldn’t beat the animal control officer’s say-so.
I love bull-type dogs, and I hate irresponsible dog owners, and all I can say in summary is that BSL takes the onus off the latter by slaughtering the former–it does nothing to promote responsible ownership or solve the very real problem of dangerous dogs. All it does is murder good dogs and present bad dog owners with reason to keep larger and more potentially dangerous breeds–an unsocialized, untrained presa canario worries me a hell of a lot more than any pit dog.
I wouldn’t report the owner, although I don’t support his breeding practices. A good conversation about breeding practices and ethics in a helpful and non-confrontational way would have done much more good. Report him and his dogs get confiscated and killed… and he goes out and gets rotties or corsos or (ye gods forbid) dogos. Bigger, meaner, cooler looking, more expensive, and much more potentially dangerous. Become a resource for knowledge and you might do some real good.
Just a thought.
Add “short haired” to that description.
A bozo once asked my sister if her Newfoundland was a pit bull, and one of my coworkers took one of those “point to the pit bull” quizzes, and he chose the Saint.
I wish I were joking.
Travelling across country a month or two ago, a woman at a gas station asked me in all seriousness if Simon was a Saint Bernard. We also get pit bull, boxer, great dane, and --my personal favorite-- albino dalmation*.
I wish I were joking, too. These are the people who get hysterical over the theoretical rabid, homicidal “pit bull” that needs to be slaughtered in mass numbers and yet haven’t the faintest clue what a “pit bull” even looks like.
*Completely absurd, but even funnier in light of the fact that he has a large black pirate patch over one eye, a black nose, and tons of black skin pigment visible under the white coat. Do people not even know what albinisim is?
Who’s definition? Without having it in front of me, my first inclination is that the law itself provides a working definition of “pit bull” which I doubt includes lineage papers the only copies of which are in the possession of the person who just broke the law.
At any rate, the only person the state has to prove anything to is a judge. Not a dog show judge either, but a legal type judge. If the state has their own expert saying it’s a pit bull, subject to the law, they will most likely have met their burden of proof, now it’s up to the defense to refute their expert.
Most people can’t tell Pit Bulls from Boxers, or any dog that has a short coat and a non-retriever earset. Really. Most dogs that come through shelters are labelled as “pit bull cross”, and it’s usually not the case.
Working with rescues, I’ve seen many a vet put to the test with those picture-based “find the pit” games. None of them seemed to get it right on the first try.
I’m against all breed bans - punish the deed, not the breed… and if a breed is a concern, fine, have a look at things on a case-by-case basis! Make your city require dogs to pass the AKC CGC or CKC CGN in order to be allowed to have a “is allowed to walk around the neighborhood on leash” license! Most trainers that I know would be GLAD to offer this service!
Urgh.
These guys, for starters.
How the hell do you know that this person just broke the law? At this point, it hasn’t been established that **any **law has been broken. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply?
You mean the ones defending the guy who just broke the law? What if he has papers proving it is a Mastiff. Is it OK to refer to them now? Or does his lawbreaker staus preclude that?
I am sure you are correct about the legal definition, which makes the whole concept of breed specific legislation ridiculous. A legislature could define automobile as “anything with four wheels and two axles,” but that would not turn your little red wagon into a car.
Proving that a particular dog is not a pit bull is an unreasonable burden, IMO. Prove that you have never cheated on your wife. Prove that you did not steal that pocketknife that you bought ten years ago.
Hypothetically, let’s assume that someone has, in fact, broken the law. Your lineage requirement means that the only way to prove he’s broken the law is to reference a document that only the lawbreaker has possession of, and that the lawbreaker is under no requirement to keep, or even have in the first place.
Again, hypothetically, the proof is having an expert testify that the dog is a Pit Bull. Outside of genetic testing that does not exist, and lineage papers that may or may not exist and can be destroyed on a whim, an expert’s assessment is the ONLY way to determine what kind of dog it is.
At least with the dog issue, you have a (presumably) reliable witness stating that the dog is a pit bull. If there was a reliable witness stating that I cheated on my wife, you bet your ass the burden of proof would be on me.
The state isn’t requiring every dog owner to show up and prove non-Pit Bullishness, it’s acting on the advice of an expert that a particular dog is a Pit Bull.
I do not believe in the existence of such an expert.
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.
Heh-you know, if you drew a ring around one eye, he’d be a dead-ringer for Petey.
It is not *my *lineage requirement. It is an essentiol part of the definition of ‘Pit Bull.’ The legislators were ignorant when they passed the law.
We really are arguing in circles. Any “expert” who claims to be able to positively identify a Pit Bull solely by physicdal examination is lying, and no expert at all. See Pit Bull, re. : definition of.
Forget the wife. Find a reliable winess who, on his word alone, can prove that your ten year old pocketknife is stolen, and wil shift the burden of proof to you. Remember, documents are worthless.
As **JSGoddess **has noted, the state is relying on the advice of an imaginary person. Bad Law! Bad Law! Down! Go to your room!
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?