Er, no. The dogs were identified as pits. If you want to claim the dogs weren’t actually pits, then you get to prove they weren’t. Not the other way around.
Or are you just admitting that the dogs involved in fatal attacks were actually pits?
Bullshit. They need to back up their assertions. They don’t get to claim anything they want without supporting evidence.
If I claim that toothpaste cures cancer, it isn’t up to you to prove me wrong. I have to back up what I say.
So on the one hand we have hundreds of reports on fatal dog attacks, with the dogs being identified by people involved in the case as being primarily pit bull types.
On the other hand we have you saying, ‘no they weren’t! Prove they were! sticks fingers in ears la la la la la no they weren’t la la la’
:rolleyes:
Triple Bullshit.
Its not up to the state to provide the documents on the dogs breed. The onus is on the owner to prove it isn’t. And, no, having papers showing they were “New Yorkies” or “St Francis Terriers” (both invented breeds in New York by Animal Control director Ed Boks, and in San Francisco by similar, to assist in adopting out pit bulls - until both programs backfired due to unexpected mauling and fatal attacks - no kidding).
"Breed-specific legislation in the United States often relies on the published standards of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club to clearly identify the characteristics of dogs subject to regulation as “pit bulls.”
Here is what the courts have approved for definition and ID of pit bulls:
Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers;
or
Substantially conform to the breed standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers;
The standards of the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club referred to herein shall remain on file with the clerk of the city.
Technical deficiencies in the dog’s conformance to the standards of this definition shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a pit bull terrier under this division.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that:
" the city was not required to prove a dog was a pit bull with mathematical certainty, and could use expert opinion and non-scientific evidence to prove its case in court."
Florida Court of Appeals (Miami):
“the definition of “pit bull” was not unconstitutionally vague, citing substantial precedent that laws requiring “substantial conformance” with a standard are not considered vague; and that mathematical certainty of a dog’s identity as a pit bull was not required for a legal determination that a dog was in fact a pit bull.”
Supreme Court of Ohio:
“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.”
Wisconsin Court of Appeals:
“The dog owners claimed that the definition of “pit bull” in the ordinance was too vague in its description of a “pit bull”; however, the Court of Appeals found that the ordinance’s reference to the breed descriptions of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club were enough to allow someone to know whether they owned a “pit bull” or not”
Other states ban wording that has been upheld:
" An identification using the above standards shall be prima facie proof and create a rebuttable presumption that a dog is a pit bull."
Utah:
“Technical deficiencies in the dogs conformance to the standards described in subsection one and two shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a Pit Bull Dog under this ordinance”
WV:
" If there is a question of whether a particular canine fits the definition herein; it will be sufficient to show identification of a canine as either a pure bred or belonging to a mixed breed if a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) would identify the canine as such."
Aurora CO:
“or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds.”
As DragonAsh and others (myself included) have noted / commented, in 2013 every fatal pit bull attack resulted in the police, animal control, and the pit bulls owner, saying the dog is a pit bull.
Jesus Christ, do you have the ability to follow even the simplest of discussions? We’re talking about the accuracy of breed identification, not the legal procedures by which BSLs are enforced.
Clearly, you haven’t read this thread. I’ve never claimed they were wrong, I’ve questioned their methodology.
And you think that asking someone to prove their assertions is akin to sticking my fingers in my ears? That speaks volumes about your ability to engage in debate. It’s absurd.
Exactly
read me reply above.
And note that it also addresses Dsieds post about the AKC.
The American Kennel Club recognizes American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers;
The United Kennel Club recognizes American Pit Bull Terriers
The Ohio Court was / is correct, the AKC does not recognize the American Pit Bull Terrior, and it was determined in Ohio court hearings from the AKC, that it was because they (AKC) felt they were dangerous.
The USA definition of “pit bull” is the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and any crosses amongst the three.
This is why any state that uses Denvers guidelines for BSL wording, will be upheld in the Courts. Note that Mass did not clearly define “pit bulls” in their ban years ago, and it was overturned. Now Massachusetts probits BSL. This is why it is imperative that any city, county, state, or nation, that wants BSL, must follow Denvers BSL wording.
Holy crap, what does any of this have to do with anything? Of course the AKC recognizes those breeds. What on earth are you even talking about at this point?
Triple Jesus Christ. Do you have the ability to read what 20 US courts have said about accurately determining a pit bull?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what DragonAsh and I are talking about. It’s scary (triple scary!!) that you can’t see the disconnect here.
AKC does not recognize either “pit bull’ nor American Pit Bull terrior”
That was the Ohio Courts point - and the court said the AKC reason was pit bulls were dangerous. Their exact wording is in my post above.
Dseid clearly replied that was wrong (the Ohio Court) by stating the AKC recognizes Staffies. Dsieds pointless reply was moot, and concurs with what Ohio (and Cougar) stated.
He said they recognize American Staffordshire Terriers. You said the same thing. What the hell are you arguing about?
Seems you don’t like what cougar posts…why do you suppose people buy put bulls, of all the breeds to choose from?
You have a BMW 3, a quite expensive vehicle, to drive it 500 miles a year?
Oooookay.
I’ve pretty much given up reading what cougar posts. But this I can attempt to answer.
Depends on the person.
Some buy these dogs of how loving they are. Some because they love the fun goofy and loyal personality. Some want a dog but dislike the smaller yappy bitey things, and don’t like the personality of either Labs or Goldens, and haven’t seen enough greyhounds to know how rescueing one of them is actually the best choice (:))
Some feel a dog in the house that looks intimidating will deter home invasions and on a walk deter a mugger.
Some see them up for adoption and want to save a life.
Some think a tough dog makes them seem tough.
Some like the disconnect between a dog that looks so tough acting so goofy.
Some scum want a fighting aggressive dog and the bad-ass rep gets them choosing this one to abuse.
Probably other reasons too.
The question seems to assume some single reason or set of similar reasons. If it was a widely disparate set of reasons depending on the person, it’s hard to see what the value would be as a rhetorical question (and I assume it’s not a pure request for information).
In some cases people get strong dogs, often though hardly always those colloquially called ‘pit bulls’ (a term encompassing a wide range of breeds and mixes, by no means limited to pure breed APBT’s, AST’s or SBT’s) for the perceived ‘bad boy’ image.
Others specifically want to use the dogs for protection of self or property, though the classic ‘bully breed’ dogs are a poor choice for this. As far as real APBT’s or closely related breeds, you have to really mess with the dog to train it to be aggressive to humans, very much against its nature, and you get unpredictable results from such training, a very different proposition from claiming the dogs are inherently unpredictable.
Others are just reacting to tastes prevailing in the sphere in which they travel. And as in many other case (music, clothing, etc) style trends in the black community tend to eventually go ‘mainstream’. This is certainly IMO at least one factor in the ‘pit bull’ debate; it’s definitely not all about statistics or science. Like almost every other issue in US society, race is a factor as well.
A relative few sociopaths (IMO) use dogs in this general category for dog fighting.
But many other people have ‘pit bull’ type dogs simply because they want to help solve rather than contribute to the problem of dog overpopulation, by adopting dogs from shelters. In many areas the dogs on offer in the shelters are predominantly or even almost entirely, ‘pit bull’ type dogs. That’s why we have a ‘pit bull’ type (she’s probably a Dogo Argentino/APBT mix, big girl for a ‘pit bull’). We wanted a dog, she needed a break.
90% of serious dog attacks involve unaltered males (the condition itself is a factor, though the way owners who would keep unaltered male dogs tend to manage their dogs is perhaps a bigger factor). Attacks on people by lone spayed female dogs are quite rare, even leaving aside formal temperament tests (our dog aced hers, the obvious result for anyone who knows her). Add that to the total lack of scientific evidence of higher likelihood of human aggression in dogs colloquially called ‘pit bulls’, corrected for how the dogs are managed, and there’s no rational basis I can see to suppose we’ve increased our risk of being killed by a dog by any meaningful degree. And even just limiting it to the points I’ve mentioned would presume that dogs don’t have individual personalities and/or humans cannot fathom those after knowing a dog for years. But that’s rubbish. We know our dog well after all this time, and she’s a very pleasant creature. Dogs can go crazy (as can people), airliners crash every once in a while etc. but there’s no rational basis to believe our dog poses more threat than all kinds of risks everyone accepts every day.
I tend to look at the ‘pit bull’ issue in terms of the BSL debate. Once you suggestively ask ‘well who do you suppose owns pit bulls?’, you’ve undercut any rationale for BSL, by pointing at the right end of the leash to deal with dangerous dogs. BSL points at the wrong end.
OTOH if some people want to feel superior because they don’t own a ‘pit bull’ (or because they do, for that matter), I don’t care.
I’ll answer why I did: I kept meeting pit bulls that were absolutely delicious in personality. Add to that the fact that they are, by far, the most abused, neglected and abandoned breed of dog, and I I felt it incumbent upon me to choose a pitbull as my next dog, knowing that I am and extremely devoted dog guardian, I knew I would provide a good home and raise up a wonderful dog that would (and will be) a refutation of negative stereotypes.
And yet no one is clamoring for mandated neutering and restrictions on breeders. Oh wait, the people in the thread who actually understand statistics are.
Firstly, I wasn’t aware there was a certain number of miles I need to drive each year to justify what car I own.
Secondly - I don’t know what car you drive that makes you think the BMW3 is ‘quite expensive’, because it isn’t. In fact it wasn’t that much more expensive than the decked-out Mini Cooper SD I had before the kids were born.
Thirdly, I don’t ‘need’ to prove anything; I’m not the one protesting that the dogs responsible for some insane percentage of fatal dog attacks in god knows how many years are really just misunderstood ‘sweet, gentle doggies’.
Hey, you guys can own any dog you like. If you guys want to say that pit bulls are dangerous because of the owners, fine by me. I’ll just assume that pit bull owners are far more likely to be shitty owners and thus are far more likely to own shitty dogs. And I’ll continue to stay far away - and keep my kids and my dog far away - from you and your shitty dogs.
Much to the chagrin of Dseid and Zeriel, a Federal Court just upheld the state of Marylands ruling that pit bulls are vicious from birth
Game over