Who can identify pitbulls- Dna Vs Visual Id = Dna 1. Visual Id 0.

A couple of weeks ago I sent in my dog Sea’s cheek swab sample for DNA analysis. I was curious to see what breed mix she might be – as while she looks to be a terrier/Chihuahua mix to me, she is certainly lacking in the terrier behavioral traits. While I had been curious for a while, it was Sea’s friend Jake that motivated me to buy the kits and send them off.

Jake and Sea

Jake looks to be in the bully breed camp. When Jake’s guardian Pam (name changed) and I first met, Jake was not with her – she asked about my dog, and I asked about hers. She was very hesitant to tell me about what type of dog Jake was. When I told her who I worked for and what type of work I do, she softened and told me that Jake was a pit bull-type mix. Pam lives in NYC and has felt the breed bias at a personal level. She has been told to keep her type of dog away from others at one dog park, and has heard that pit type dogs are treated differently if they have an aggression incident.

When Pam adopted Jake, he was labeled “pit mix.” While he looks like he may have some bully breed of some sort in him, it was not clear to me that Jake was a “pit mix.” Pam’s anxiety had nothing to do with Jake’s potential to be aggressive – the boy is the softest, kindest low-arousal guy I have met – but everything to do with the incorrect perception folks had around the label “pit bull.” I told Pam about the DNA breed analysis we could do, and we both decided to conduct a Wisdom Panel™ analysis on our dogs.

Dr. Victoria Voith (et al) published a research report in 2009 in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science on the comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification. 

While it is a small sample size (20 dogs), the results were compelling – 87% of the dogs who were identified to have 1 or 2 specific breeds in their ancestry did nothave those breeds in their DNA analysis. Of the five dogs who were identified by the adoption agency by breed “type” (terrier, for example), only 2 actually had that breed type in their analysis.

The authors point to the compelling photos from studies conducted by Scott and Fuller (1965) that showed that puppies from purebred parents of different breeds (cocker spaniel mother and beagle father, for example) can look nothing like either of their parents. Yet we in shelters (and in our homes) continue to assign breeds to the mixed breed dogs we encounter.

For Sea, being mislabeled as a terrier mix is less of an issue than for Jake to be mislabeled as a pit mix. The tragic fact is that pit mixes stay longer in our shelters, are vilified by insurance companies and some community members, and are at higher risk of euthanasia.

This weekend Sea’s and Jake’s Wisdom Panel results came in - Sea is in fact half Chihuahua – and half miniature poodle! And Jake – yep, you got it – not a speck of Am Staff, American bull dog or the like in his DNA… Instead, Lab, pointer, Rottweiler and more.

I know some of you will respond like some of my Facebook friends and simply choose to discount the scientific analysis and tell me that Sea must be a terrier mix ‘cause she looks like one. I will respectfully, and with science behind me, disagree.

A Poochi she is.

More important are the implications for the many, many dogs who look like Jake in our shelters today. If we do not have the ancestry in our hands, should we be picking breeds based on what he or she looks like? What can we replace that with for our clients whose first question is often, “What kind of dog is he? “ How about we answer, “The good kind.”

http://www.aspcapro.org/if-it-looks-like-a-duck%25e2%2580%25a6

Julie Wall and her twisted interpretation of Public Safety advocacy

If you oppose Breed Specific Legislation or own a pitbull and follow current news events you would have definitely seen this fanatical person "Julie (breakstick) Wall known for consistently recommending people carry breaksticks which are considered illegal  in some places but considered extremely suspicious to have on your person in MOST places.

Obviously Julie's latest goal is to dispel numerous studies and mountains of data relating to the issues related to identifying pitbulls, no doubt as with previous pro-bsl campaigns they rely heavily on their imaginative
MEME making skills and typically illegally use victims pics they've stalked from their facebook pages. 

Julie Wall

Yesterday at 2:33am

We must dismantle the myth that pit bulls can't be identified! Or it will haunt and thwart our cause for years to come. I think 25-years of this nonsense is enough! See related photo album (on.fb.me/1NSjGzl) A special tribute to Bryan Bickell too! ‪#‎PitBullsAreIdentifiable‬ ‪#‎ICanIDaPitBull‬

Who Can Identify a Pit Bull? A Dog Owner of 'Ordinary Intelligence' Say the High Courts -...

The DogsBite.org blog tracks U.S. dog bite fatalities, dog bite statistics, severe pit bull attacks, breed-specific dangerous dog laws and dog bite victims' issues.

BLOG.DOGSBITE.ORG

Like   Share

• 11 people like this.
• 

  Freda Ward Awesome, thank you!

  23 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Eve Sylvie Nobody really believes it's impossible to ID a pit bull.

  8 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Ryan McCabe How do you tell the difference between a bull dog and a pit bull?

  54 mins · Like
• 
  

I should have known dogsbut.org would be involved in 

this style of advocacy, well that's what they call it so 

they can convince themselves their doing the right thing 

which as most normal, reasonable sane thinking person

recognize immediately as being obsessive compulsive 

fear dis-order projected at pitbulls resulting from a 

traumatic incident involving a dog that either was or 

"looked" like a pitbull.

The majority of these pro-bsl culties have little to no 

connection with family members or the community for 

that matter having little to no social contact other then 

in their hate group and pages where they plan and 

execute co-ordinated attacks on pitbulls rescue 

organizations and anti Bsl groups.

Facebook seems to be allowing them to use the social 

to launch and administer organized smear campaigns

resulting in a number of law suits to date and many to 

follow to be sure?

The appeal case has highlighted the difficulties in identifying dogs believed to be pit bull terriers and could undermine the laws

THE Supreme Court has dealt the Baillieu government’s campaign to rid the state of dangerous dogs a major blow by granting a reprieve to two dogs deemed American pit bull terriers by Darebin and Monash councils.

The court overturned a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which, agreeing with the councils, had ruled the dogs complied with the legal definition of a restricted breed and should be put down.

The Supreme Court ordered the two councils to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees and pound costs, a move expected to deter other legal challenges by local governments.

VCAT had made an error of law in ruling the dogs were American pit bulls, said Justice Stephen Kaye, who ruled the physical characteristics of a dog must have a closer association with government guidelines for dangerous breeds.

The appeal case has highlighted the difficulties in identifying dogs believed to be pit bull terriers and could undermine the laws introduced in September 2011 following the fatal mauling of four-year-old St Albans girl Ayen Chol.

Under the contentious laws, all American pit bull terriers must be placed on a dangerous dog register, microchipped, desexed and muzzled when in public. Councils were given the power to destroy dogs whose owners failed to comply. Owners face 10 years’ prison if their pets are responsible for the death of a person.

Monash mayor Micaela Drieberg urged the state government to amend the legislation following the recent Supreme Court decision, which had ”raised the bar very high”.

”The government brought in these laws with the best of intentions, but the laws are not working. We’re keen to see the state government refine the laws to address the issues that are coming up,” Cr Drieberg said.

She said most councils faced massive legal costs every time a dog was declared to be a restricted breed.

The dog at the centre of the legal dispute with Monash Council, Rapta, was recently returned to its owner, while Darebin council was forced to return a dog called Tia that had been impounded for several months.

A Darebin council spokeswoman said the court decision would not be appealed but would serve as a guide when assessing dogs in future.

The court ruling has been hailed as a victory by owners of affected breeds, who have vowed to mount further court action against councils.

American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia president Colin Muir confirmed the organisation had helped fund several legal challenges.

Mr Muir said the recent decision would provide greater certainty for owners and discourage councils from taking legal action without proof a dog was one of the five breeds designated as dangerous by the government.

”The councils and the government need to know that we’re not going away. These laws don’t work; the government knows this but are just interested in being seen to be doing something,” Mr Muir said.

He said most dogs found to be pit bull terriers by council staff had never been involved in an attack.

Hospital admissions due to dog-related injuries rose from 451 in 2000-01 to 717 in 2010, according to figures collected by Monash University’s Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit.

■chouston@theage.com.au

Alternatives to banning Pitbulls by Defending Dogs

EDUCATION:  Just one of the many things to learn from the model bylaw of Calgary, Canada is that education is the key to preventing dog attacks and promoting safer interactions between humans and dogs.  Research shows that just 1 hour of dog safety training in grades 2 and 3 can reduce these attacks by 80%, and the city of Calgary spends a considerable amount of money, time and effort on dog safety public awareness and education campaigns.

LEASH LAWS.  Enact, strengthen and enforce leash laws.  Owners are responsible for containing their animals, and far too many times, existing leash laws are simply ignored.  Quite frankly, if a community cannot enforce the simplest of laws such as a leash law (where there is no question as to whether a dog is or is not on a leash), how can they possibly expect to enforce a breed ban, wherein animal control officers will be forced to question what breed a dog may or many not be?

HOLD OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE:  Strengthen and enforce penalties for irresponsible dog owners.  Rather than create dangerous dog laws, we should instead focus on “dangerous owner” laws.   Problem dogs are the result of irresponsible, negligent and careless owners, and greater focus on the cause of the problem will result in a community that experiences less issues with both “dangerous owners” and their dogs.

Generic dangerous dog laws which address the underlying cause of most dog-related deaths and injuries – irresponsible dog ownership – are a key point in preventing dog related incidents in the community.  Good dangerous dog laws place the owner in the position of ensuring that their dog(s) comply with all state and local requirements. Fines for violations can vary, but the leading principle is that dog ownership should be more costly to the irresponsible individuals. Experience has taught us that most bite incidents are examples of irresponsible ownership, not the specific dog breed involved. In other words, we need stricter regulations on dog ownership, no matter what the breed.

Non-breed specific legislation is cost effective in comparison to outright breed ban and is more readily accepted for the most part. More importantly, a well-thought non-breed specific legislation addresses the root cause of most, if not all, dog related injures and deaths, which is the irresponsible dog owner.

Strengthen animal abuse and dog fighting laws.  Dogs can become aggressive as the result of cruelty, abuse, neglect and/or otherwise improper care, and proper attention needs to be focused on the owners who inflict these living conditions on their dogs.

Regulate Dog Breeders.  Breeders play an important role in the temperament of the dogs they produce and sell.  Irresponsible breeding plays a very important role as the mating of two dogs with poor and/or unacceptable temperaments will no doubt result in puppies with unstable temperaments.  Moreover, if irresponsible breeders do not screen the individuals they sell their dogs to, you have the potential combination of ill-breed dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners.  A disaster in the making.

Provide low cost spay/neuter options for communities.  Unneutered dogs, particularly males, are far more likely to attack a human than either neutered males or spayed females.  In analyzing over 448 dog attack cases, Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks, determined that overwhelmingly, most dogs involved in the attacks were unneutered male dogs that were maintained for reasons other than to be household companions (i.e., yard dogs).  Providing lost cost options for the healthcare of dogs, including spay and neuter services, is an excellent way to help dog owners better care for dogs and take more interest in their dog’s healthcare and well-being.

Interesting Reading:

Breed specific legislation:  Considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives

http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/335_2005_August_pg735.pdf

Will breed specific legislation reduce dog bites?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1576444

From Defending Dog

http://www.defendingdog.com/id40.html

pitbull court cases to help in the battle against breed specific legislation,(defending dogs)

If you are interested in additional information regarding any of the below cases, please contact me.

Altman, et al. v. City of High Point, et al.  (2003)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

The Court held that dogs qualify as property protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

How does this case help you?  The U.S. Constitution guarantees that you shall not be deprived of your property without due process.  BSL deems all dogs of a particular breed as “dangerous” or “vicious.”  As such, owners are not provided the opportunity to dispute or offer proof that that their dog (their “property”) is not dangerous.  Dog owners of this particular breed are automatically subject to the law and, thus, are deprived of constitutionally guaranteed due process.

* * * * * * *

Carter v. Metro North Associates (1999)

Supreme Court of New York

The Court ruled that courts cannot take judicial notice of a dog breed’s particiular behavior when a dog’s “propensities” are not “authoritatively settled.”

How does this case help you?  In plain English, this simply means that a court cannot rule your dog vicious simply due to its breed.  The court cannot say, “Oh, its a pit bull, it must be dangerous.”  Proof of the dog’s dangerous propensities must be offered.

* * * * * * *

City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack, et al. (2003)

Supreme Court of Alabama

The Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous.

How does this case  help you?  This is our “landmark” case.  It doesn’t get any better than this with respect to countering the myth that pit bulls are born mean.

* * * * * * *

State of Ohio v. Cowan (2004)

Supreme Court of Ohio

The Court determined that the statute that penalizes owners of dangerous dogs who fail to buy liability insurance and properly confine their dogs was unconstitutional for failure to provide due process.

How does this case help you?  See above under Altman v. High Point.

* * * * * * *

Attorneys for Mr. Telling appealed the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.  Certiorari was denied in February 2008.  The decision stands.

City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings (2007)

2006-0690. Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724.

On April 4, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the the Tellings case.  The City of Toledo appealed the Appellate Court’s ruling finding breed specific legislation to be unconstitutional.  (You can watch the hearing via this link:  Ohio Supreme Court video archive )

On August 1, 2007, the Supreme Court issued an Opinionwhich overturned the Appellate Court’s ruling effectively upholding Ohio’s biased law against “pit bulls.”   Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “the State of Ohio and City of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls,” and that the laws were rationally related to that interest and were, in fact, constitutional.

It is fully expected that with this Opinion in hand, cities across the State of Ohio will fall like dominos to breed specific legislation targeted primarily at “pit bull.”

City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings (2006)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County

On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, in and for Lucas County, issued an opinion in the case of City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings.  The court’s ruling is monumental to the fight against BSL as it found breed specific legislation to be unconstitutional and it rendered expert testimony that was both relevent and up-to-date, dispelling many of the past notions on pit bulls and BSL.

Click here to view the Decision and Judgment of the Court.

For a breakdown of the 2006 ruling, please click here.

Tellings v. City of Toledo (2004)

Toledo Municipal Court

**Please be careful if using this case.  The plaintiff lost and BSL was ruled constitutional, but the Court determined several important points in our favor.** 

Positive findings of this case:

*Gives pit bull owners the ability to challenge the law by rebutting the prima facieevidence that pit bull are dangerous, thus relieving them from restrictions.  Plain English:  Prima facie is a Latin term meaning “on its face.”  This goes back to owners being deprived of due process as a dog is deemed dangerous “on its face,” i.e., due to its breed and not due to its actions.

*Sets forth that there is no scientific evidence to confirm that the pit bull’s bite is any more powerful (in terms of PSI) than any other breed of dog.

*Determined that there is little, if any, evidence presented that would indicate that the breed itself is a dangerous breed when trained and adapted in a social situation.

*There is no stastical evidence that indicates that pit bulls bite more frequently than some other breeds of dogs.

* * * * * * *

Zuniga v. County of San Mateo Department of Health Services (1990)

California Court of Appeals

The Court found that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous.

How does this case help you?  Again, this ruling dispells the myth that pit bulls are born mean.

http://www.defendingdog.com/id6.html

No scientific evidence shows that a pitbull type of dog is more likely to bite than any other breed/type of dog

All Animals magazine, March/April 2013

• 
  Dogs awaiting adoption play at Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter. Brian George/BARCS

The idea that breed-specific policies will lead to fewer dog bites “is absolutely a fallacy—it’s just not going to happen,” Coleman says. There’s no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely than another to bite or injure people, and breed bans in several cities have not reduced reports of dog bites, according to the National Canine Research Council, which funded the Maddie’s shelter study.

Breed-specific policies are similar to profiling people based on their color, height, or style of clothes, Brause says. “You’re looking at an animal, and by its looks you’re saying it’s going to bite you, and that’s not true. It’s just not a fact.”

One type of dog or another tends to be perceived as dangerous at any given time; Dobermans, rottweilers, and German shepherds have all gone through periods when they were seen as the ultimate “tough” dog, and that reputation heightened public fears. “Unfortunately, we’re in the decade of the pit bull,” Brause notes, “and it’s going to be another dog after this.”

Policymakers sometimes base their decisions on those perceptions rather than facts. Says Coleman: “The overwhelming majority of pit bull dogs—whatever it is you’re calling a pit bull—live companionably and unremarkably in just regular homes. … But yet we hear a story about a human-canine bond that has gone wrong, or somebody has been injured by the dog, and that becomes the loudest voice. That becomes the thing that we base law on, even though that is really an exception to what truly happens on an everyday basis.”

Can you tell a bull by his cover? Test your breed IQ »

In Maryland, a few dozen of an estimated 70,000 pit bull-type dogs have been responsible for reported bite cases, says Bernthal. “Breed-specific legislation dramatically impacts the 99.9 percent who have done absolutely nothing wrong.”

After the court decision, Maryland shelters experienced a smaller influx of surrendered animals than feared, Santelli says, but that may be because the ruling was temporarily put on hold when the court was asked to reconsider, and some landlords may not have realized the ruling’s implications for them. Brause says the number of calls and surrenders at her shelter slowed down as everyone waited to see what the legislature would do.

(Geronimo was adopted out to a new home, and Mazzetta’s landlord allowed him to retrieve his dogs after the court decided to exclude pit bull mixes from its ruling.)

But the injustice of the decision isn’t far from Brause’s mind.“Most of what we deal with are mixed, shorthair, stocky dogs—call them pit bulls if you want—and most of them are extremely friendly and loving. And we’ve placed thousands of them—thousands of them—into homes, wonderful homes, with children, with adults, with all different kinds of people,” she says. “… To turn around and say, ‘But they’re vicious,’ it makes me sad, and it shocks me. It’s like, how can you say that when we know otherwise?”

To read stories from pit bull owners and pledge to support Maryland families, go tohumanesociety.org/protectmddogs.