# Pitbulls **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969 "2013-05-10T08:22:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/201 "2013-05-17T14:15:15Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > My point being, pit bull type breeds are what they are because of breeding, not training. They were bred to be dog aggressive but not human aggressive. I believe that training can overcome breeding. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/202 "2013-05-17T14:37:18Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > They were bred to be dog aggressive but not human aggressive… This is the part that I think a lot of the public doesn’t realize. I learned that here on this board some years ago, and whenever I tell someone, they are like, “ohhhhh…” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/203 "2013-05-17T14:48:20Z")
Nice recap, **DSeid**. I’m in the “call those statement-B dogs something else” camp, and I’ve suggested the term “muscle dogs”. I have no opinion on statement E about dog breeding, because I really don’t know anything about the current state of dog propagation. > [@Ulfreida](#): > > “Bad owners” are attracted to the possibilities of bringing out what is innate in the dog. Otherwise they’d use any biggish dog for their purposes. But that’s exactly what they do. Over the years, people looking for a badass “muscle dog” have gravitated toward different breeds, as changes in trendiness and legislation favor one over another. Victorian novels indicate that the intimidating “muscle dog” of choice in that era was the mastiff, for example. More recently, we’ve seen muscle-dog trends that include German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, and now Pit Bulls. Prior to that the collie was sometimes valued as a tough fighting dog, which seems weird to generations brought up on old _Lassie_ reruns. The current fashion in badass dogs is eventually going to turn from the Pit Bull to something else. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/204 "2013-05-17T15:42:36Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am going to take the liberty of recapping some of the positions here: > > Statement A: “The breed ‘Pit Bull’ - owned by owners of pets and bred to official standards - is dangerous and should be banned.” Few if any defenders here, even though the op started out in that space. Most accept that the actual pets are of no significant risk. Non-zero but not huge. Some of those who defend the breed will still recognize that the rare Pit Bull that gets spooked and attacks can and will cause more damage more quickly than say my whippet … even if the frequency of such happening is extremly low. > > Statement B: “There are scum out there who are attracted to the scary looking pit bull look and who obtain dogs of that build, sometimes being more attracted to an aggressive personality in a dog as well. These people are often the worst sort of owners for many reasons and create dangerous dogs, many of which have the pit bull look and some unknown number of whom may have some pit bull heritage.” Pretty broad agreement? > > Statement C: “It is fair and useful to call those dogs of statement B pit bulls.” Some substantial disagreement. > > Statement D: “Pit bulls, as defined in statement C, are dangerous animals.” Hard to discuss that one if you are stuck on objecting to the so defined part, but sure, muscular dogs owned by bad owners who prize aggressive characteristics are dangerous animals; if that is how “pit bull” is defined then they are, by definition, dangerous. > > Statement E: “All breeding should be outlawed except by registered breeders; all others should be neutered, especially males.” One major proponant of that position. I personally have no argument against it. > > Fair recap? Not bad. However, I am pretty sure the number of B that has “_some pit bull heritage”_ is close to 100%., at least currently. As far as A, “_the actual pets are of no significant risk_”- **to humans.** Even registered pet Pit Bulls must be carefully socialized and watched around other dogs. Mind you, this can be said of several other breeds, Malamutes for example. If some idiot yappy dog “challenges” a malamute, and doesn’t immediately show submissive behavior, it can go very bad for them. \* **E is the important part.** - One of my friends has a HUGE Malamute. She was out walking it one day when a couple of thug types came by with their scarred up pit. The thugs began making comments, and ‘somehow” :rolleyes:their Pit got loose. It got a big mouthful of husky hair, then the 200# Malamute proceeded to whup Pit bull ass. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/205 "2013-05-17T16:24:30Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Statement A: “The breed ‘Pit Bull’ - owned by owners of pets and bred to official standards - is dangerous and should be banned.” Few if any defenders here, even though the op started out in that space. Most accept that the actual pets are of no significant risk. Non-zero but not huge. Some of those who defend the breed will still recognize that the rare Pit Bull that gets spooked and attacks can and will cause more damage more quickly than say my whippet … even if the frequency of such happening is extremly low. I agree with everything in this statement, with the possible exception of my not being clear on the statistical danger presented by registered pit bulls to other dogs. I don’t know if there are any stats on that; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the stats favor registered pit bulls over dogs at large. > [@](#): > > Statement B: “There are scum out there who are attracted to the scary looking pit bull look and who obtain dogs of that build, sometimes being more attracted to an aggressive personality in a dog as well. These people are often the worst sort of owners for many reasons and create dangerous dogs, many of which have the pit bull look and some unknown number of whom may have some pit bull heritage.” Pretty broad agreement? Sure. > [@](#): > > Statement C: “It is fair and useful to call those dogs of statement B pit bulls.” Some substantial disagreement. If we’re willing to distinguish between rottweilers and pit bulls and dobermans at this level (all of whom tend toward short hair, large size, and obvious musculature), sure. “That build” means more than just muscled dogs. Folks who disagree with that statement perplex me. Do these folks think that pit bulls didn’t exist as a breed before the AKC formed? Do they think that no dog breeds existed before the kennel clubs came along? If a rural farm has a litter of dogs he calls hound dogs, is that farmer totally off-base because his dogs aren’t registered? The strict requirements for a dog’s papers before it’s considered a member of the pit bull breed seems to me like an ad hoc requirement thrown up to avoid charges of “dangerous dog” being leveled at the breed. It doesn’t seem to me like a very logical position. The only disagreement I’d throw up against that statement is that a qualifier is necessary: “It is fair and useful IN MANY CONTEXTS to call those dogs of statement B pit bulls.” It’s not necessarily fair and useful to use this label in a legal context, for example. > [@](#): > > Statement D: “Pit bulls, as defined in statement C, are dangerous animals.” Again, I love me some weasel words, so I’d add something like “disproportionately” or “often.” > [@](#): > > Hard to discuss that one if you are stuck on objecting to the so defined part, but sure, muscular dogs owned by bad owners who prize aggressive characteristics are dangerous animals; if that is how “pit bull” is defined then they are, by definition, dangerous. Note that’s different from the definition in statement C (or B): previously you defined these dogs as muscular dogs **with a pit bull look**. I want to keep that in there in case your (generally excellent) recap statements become grist for the mill of debate; nobody is saying that a rottweiler owned by a dude who wants a scary dog is actually a pit bull. > [@](#): > > Statement E: “All breeding should be outlawed except by registered breeders; all others should be neutered, especially males.” One major proponant of that position. I personally have no argument against it. I’m pretty okay with that one, as long as the breeding license is based on animal care measures and not on membership in a club (when I worked for the humane society about 10 years ago, the AKC had a ridiculously low number of inspectors for all its facilities and could not, pardon the pun, act as a watchdog). Overall, excellent effeort, and I appreciate it! ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/206 "2013-05-17T17:00:27Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Please point out to me a post where I went “totally nuts”. > > Please point out to me a post where I demonstrated that I am “defiantly” ignorant. I came into this thread admitting up front that I am ignorant on many aspects of the topic. I admitted that I used to be “anti pit bull” and that I have since been educated and know better now. I said that in my very first post in this thread. I have thanked kimstu for explaining to me where I might be not considering some points. > > I expressed the opinion that we shouldn’t use “pit bills are too hard to identify” as an argument. Kimstu made good points to support why the argument is valid, and I accept that. > > Kimstu is too kind, though. He supported your post even though your post wasn’t saying the same thing that he was. You said, > > \*“The point is, it’s completely unfair to say any dog that bites someone is a pitbull (which is EXACTLY what the media does) and then complain because “pitbulls” are always biting people. Can you get that?” > \* > > This didn’t look accurate to me, especially in Great Debates, which I rarely visit because I think one has to be on their serious business to post in here. Being on your serious biz means not making statements that aren’t accurate. So I called you on it. Yes, many reporters have gotten it wrong when it comes to identifying the dogs, but that doesn’t equal what you posted. I called you on it and you responded with that patronizing phrase “Can you get that”? > > I don’t know anyone who says that phrase in response to a simple calm post unless I they are saying it in a sharp, patronizing tone. So I called you on that too. > > Now, I see you are saying that the post wasn’t even directed at me. If that’s what you mean by this… > > “…since you went totally nuts at a post not even directed at you”… > > then, my apologies. I thought for sure the post was directed at me, since it was right beneath mine. > > So, I called you on it, using the very common tactic of turning the phrase back on you, using italics to emphasize that I caught the meaning of your condescending little sound bite. > > You somehow took that to mean that I was having strong feelings, or emotions or whatever you said, and invoked the word ‘hysterical’ in response to my aptly used “shrill”. I used shrill because it is the PERFECT description of the piercing tone one hears when someone patronizes them with phrases like, “don’t you get it?” “what’s not to understand?” “Can you get it through your skull?” or things like that. Shrill. > > I wasn’t surprised to see you finally end up just dropping the “gendered insult” accusation, though. Classy move. I mean, that ends the discussion right? Nothing more I can say once I’ve been branded with the scarlet letter “M” for misogynistic gendered insults. Half of this I don’t actually understand. You seem really upset that I used the word “exactly” when I meant something more like “frequently” or “often” or “usually”; you’re right. I used used hyperbole and GD probably isn’t the place for it. Let me try again: > [@](#): > > The point is, it’s completely unfair to say any dog that bites someone is a pitbull (which is FREQUENTLY what the media does) and then complain because “pitbulls” are always biting people. Can you get that? As to the rest of it, I have no interest in arguing with you. The misidentification of dogs by the media has been well-cited in this thread; either you accept the facts or you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/207 "2013-05-17T17:06:20Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Half of this I don’t actually understand. You seem really upset that I used the word “exactly” when I meant something more like “frequently” or “often” or “usually”; you’re right. I used used hyperbole and GD probably isn’t the place for it… The fact that you don’t understand what I wrote, despite me taking pains to recap everything as plainly and simply as I could has to be my fault. I am taking full responsibility for failing to communicate well in this thread. Also, you thinking I am very upset, emotional, totally nuts, hysterical…all of these words that you have used to describe my posts in this thread is further evidence that I have failed badly at communicating what I came in here to communicate. So, I am extending my sincere apologies. There is a reason I don’t make it a habit to post in GD. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/208 "2013-05-17T17:37:10Z")
Oops, for some reason my ‘latest post’ search didn’t work. Never mind! ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/209 "2013-05-17T17:43:00Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > My point being, pit bull type breeds are what they are because of breeding, not training. “Bad owners” are attracted to the possibilities of bringing out what is innate in the dog. Otherwise they’d use any biggish dog for their purposes. You mean, like German Shepherds or Doberman Pinschers or Rottweilers?\* All breeds that at some point in recent history have been called “the most dangerous dog breed” and been legislated against, at the same time that Pit Bulls were considered perfectly appropriate family pets? All breeds that, for some period, were THE popular dog for thugs to own? Said dogs being bred and trained by thugs for aggressive behavior and said behaviour causing public outcry due to all of the attacks they were responsible for? Those same breeds that, before and since their ‘15 minutes of fame’, have been considered perfectly appropriate family pets? Those “biggish dogs”? \*These are the ones I personally remember in my lifetime. There may have been others. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/210 "2013-05-17T17:55:00Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > The fact that you don’t understand what I wrote, despite me taking pains to recap everything as plainly and simply as I could has to be my fault. I am taking full responsibility for failing to communicate well in this thread. > > Also, you thinking I am very upset, emotional, totally nuts, hysterical…all of these words that you have used to describe my posts in this thread is further evidence that I have failed badly at communicating what I came in here to communicate. > > So, I am extending my sincere apologies. There is a reason I don’t make it a habit to post in GD. Cool. Ditto; I apologize as well. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/211 "2013-05-17T19:30:58Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > As to the rest of it, I have no interest in arguing with you. The misidentification of dogs by the media has been well-cited in this thread; either you accept the facts or you don’t. No. It hasn’t been. True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are _reported_, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage) In fact there’s \*no cites at all \*(that the media has been misidentifying dogs), as opposed this being “well cited”. Are you sure you’re reading the same thread or you know what a “cite” is? A “cite” is not just a poster posting his opinion, fyi. Even if he does so several times. Or over & over & over. Yes, there is difficulty IDing a dog as to breed, no doubt. Again there is little doubt, that most dogs called “Pit Bulls” are really "Pit Bull mixes’ and some may even have more other breed than Pit Bull. But I have seen nothing to indicate that a German Shepherd bite is being called a “pit bull attack”. Thus there’s no evidence at all that the media has been misidentifying dogs in significant numbers. Unless of course, one takes the position that if it’s not a “AKC Registered American Pit Bull Terrier “ it’s not a “Pit Bull” which is a ludicrous position to hold. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/212 "2013-05-17T19:54:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No. It hasn’t been. True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are _reported_, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage) > > In fact there’s \*no cites at all \*(that the media has been misidentifying dogs), as opposed this being “well cited”. Are you sure you’re reading the same thread or you know what a “cite” is? A “cite” is not just a poster posting his opinion, fyi. Even if he does so several times. Or over & over & over. > > Yes, there is difficulty IDing a dog as to breed, no doubt. Again there is little doubt, that most dogs called “Pit Bulls” are really "Pit Bull mixes’ and some may even have more other breed than Pit Bull. But I have seen nothing to indicate that a German Shepherd bite is being called a “pit bull attack”. > > Thus there’s no evidence at all that the media has been misidentifying dogs in significant numbers. Unless of course, one takes the position that if it’s not a “AKC Registered American Pit Bull Terrier “ it’s not a “Pit Bull” which is a ludicrous position to hold. You mean, like there are no cites at all when the media reports on the breed of a dog? No experts are consulted, it’s usually eyewitness reports. No genetic testing, no papers. The CDC has documented why they think breed identification is reported incorrectly, which is a damn good cite. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/213 "2013-05-17T19:58:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No. It hasn’t been. True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are _reported_, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage) > > In fact there’s \*no cites at all \*(that the media has been misidentifying dogs), as opposed this being “well cited”. Are you sure you’re reading the same thread or you know what a “cite” is? A “cite” is not just a poster posting his opinion, fyi. Even if he does so several times. Or over & over & over. > > Yes, there is difficulty IDing a dog as to breed, no doubt. Again there is little doubt, that most dogs called “Pit Bulls” are really "Pit Bull mixes’ and some may even have more other breed than Pit Bull. But I have seen nothing to indicate that a German Shepherd bite is being called a “pit bull attack”. > > Thus there’s no evidence at all that the media has been misidentifying dogs in significant numbers. Unless of course, one takes the position that if it’s not a “AKC Registered American Pit Bull Terrier “ it’s not a “Pit Bull” which is a ludicrous position to hold. > [@Critical1](#): > > [no really, click this](http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=ce270d38103a630c3181db372a25a052&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D690547%26page%3D4&v=1&libId=c9b0e408-ce85-42c5-8bee-e090c2dc215b&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspca.org%2Ffight-animal-cruelty%2Fadvocacy-center%2Fanimal-laws-about-the-issues%2Fpit-bull-bias-in-the-media.aspx&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.straightdope.com%2Fsdmb%2Fforumdisplay.php%3Fs%3D%26daysprune%3D%26f%3D7&title=Pitbulls%20-%20Page%204%20-%20Straight%20Dope%20Message%20Board&txt=Media%20bias%20that%20you%20are%20fully%20subscribed%20to&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13687702605006) I don’t feel like re-linking to the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/214 "2013-05-17T20:16:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Folks who disagree with that statement perplex me. Do these folks think that pit bulls didn’t exist as a breed before the AKC formed? Do they think that no dog breeds existed before the kennel clubs came along? If a rural farm has a litter of dogs he calls hound dogs, is that farmer totally off-base because his dogs aren’t registered? In an informal context, I don’t care what someone calls something. But if we’re going to start talking about ordinances or other methods of restricting who can own what dogs, I want to know how we’re determining which dogs should be so restricted and if there’s evidence to support the validity of that criteria. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/215 "2013-05-17T20:50:18Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I don’t feel like re-linking to the rest. Why not at least read that link? As I posted _"True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are reported, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage)_ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/216 "2013-05-17T20:58:30Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > You mean, like there are no cites at all when the media reports on the breed of a dog? No experts are consulted, it’s usually eyewitness reports. No genetic testing, no papers. > > The CDC has documented why they think breed identification is reported incorrectly, which is a damn good cite. Papers? _It is to laff._ “Papers?, we don’t need no stinking papers”. No, what the CDC sais is that there are difficulties with breed identification. That is entirely different than “_they think breed identification is reported incorrectly_”. They also said “\*Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” \* Where does it say “_they think breed identification is reported incorrectly_”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/217 "2013-05-17T21:06:16Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > In an informal context, I don’t care what someone calls something. But if we’re going to start talking about ordinances or other methods of restricting who can own what dogs, I want to know how we’re determining which dogs should be so restricted and if there’s evidence to support the validity of that criteria. Who here has suggested this? Several have suggested that ALL breeds of ALL dogs be neutered (except those owned by registered breeders)(same say just the males) and that no breeding be allowed except by registered breeders. Is there a poster here that has suggested breed-specific legislation? Breed specific legislation is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/218 "2013-05-17T21:06:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Papers? _It is to laff._ > > “Papers?, we don’t need no stinking papers”. > > No, what the CDC sais is that there are difficulties with breed identification. That is entirely different than “_they think breed identification is reported incorrectly_”. They also said “\*Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” \* > Where does it say “_they think breed identification is reported incorrectly_”? If there is no accurate way to correctly identify a breed (ie difficulties with breed identification), then some identification must be incorrect. Also, the above does not represent everything they’ve said on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/219 "2013-05-17T21:18:55Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > If there is no accurate way to correctly identify a breed (ie difficulties with breed identification), then some identification must be incorrect. Also, the above does not represent everything they’ve said on the subject. AH, \*since there difficulties with breed identification \*(conceded), **thus** _there is no accurate way to correctly identify a breed_ , :dubious: **thereby** _then some identification must be incorrect_, :dubious: \*\*then follows \*\* _The misidentification of dogs by the media has been well-cited in this thread_:rolleyes: Wow, that chain of “logic” has some mighty weak links. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969/220 "2013-05-17T21:35:48Z")
This is absurd. If you want to claim that breeds are correctly identified in dog attacks, then you need to provide a methodology that was used to determine such. It is not my job to disprove your claim, it is your job to prove it. I have seen no evidence that breed identification is based on any reliable data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitbulls/657969.md?page=12)