What they all look like they are walking on four legs? I assume the bark too, they gotta be 'pit bulls.' >roll eyes< The media's new term for mongrel must be 'pit bull'?

No kidding. It it hadn't been for your comment, Adam, I wouldn't have hit all those links :>)

So true about them being masters of disguise, I'm always amazed at their lab and boxer impersonations too. It getting crazy out there...

Ridiculous, especially that first one. Well, no all of them. Ridiculous. At least in the first one, though, the newspaper got busted on that by their comments received.

I'm glad I grabbed the picture. I have to be quick, I guess because they use 'pit bull' as the initial lure.

Those little ones of the dogs from Virginia were only online for a few minutes - I was glad I grabbed them at the time.

The same is true of that picture of Bryant that I use (Ban..blah blah..). Ten minutes after I scooped it, it was gone. Lucky break that day. It's classic.

Great post! This shows what a joke our National Media is sometimes. But of course, "Pit bulls attacks child" is so much more dramatic than "Dog of unknown breed attacks child".

We should start collecting these pics in earnest, especially since they rarely run them.

Even less interesting would be "Sordid circumstances create perfect storm, unwitting roaming child killed by neglected, fearful, unsupervised dog"

Or "Parents let kid treat dog as hobby horse, rag doll and outlet for anger; Dog finally can't take it anymore, bites kid"

Or "Novice owners think you just add dog food and get Lassie; find out to their horror this is not the case"

"Bratty boys tease fenced, unsupervised dogs; dogs escape yard and shows 'em what's what - dogs punished for 'unprovoked' attack" - as we see with the first story.

Even better make sure to get a screen shot to so as to show how they misrepresent themselves...

Good point, Adam. I usually print a pdf to keep in my files, which need some serious organizing by topic.

Screen shots are very handy indeed.

Thanks for putting this up, Selma...it really is a shame at how willing some are to throw Pit bulls under the bus. What's that saying the old timer's used to use - oh, yeah - "a picture is worth a thousand words."

In the bite reports upwards of 30% or more of the dogs implicated are actually unknown. They are variously described as long-haired, short-haired, by color, by size. Or sometimes what is listed as say a "pitbull" is then corrected and called say a Lab when going through the follow-up information. Now is that correction made to the initial data input that is reported? Kinda doubt it. So when "authorities" talk about the percentage of a breed involved, one has to ask the question is that percentage of TOTAL bites? or percentage of bites of IDENTIFIED dogs?? BIG DIFFERENCE! SF did this. In reported their initial reports, stating 25% of bites were from "pitbulls", they did not include the 30+% of unknown bites. Now they DID do that 2 years later (after SB861), and how and behold "pitbull" bites drop to what they say 17%.....well, that is only because they included the unknowns in the total this time.
In any jurisdiction that claims success, certainly necessary to make certain they are comparing apples to apples as it were. And that reduction in shelter intakes of "pitbulls".....Well, hard to say that without have more information, or more likely being there. But is the "pitbull" mix now called a Lab mix? GSD mix? Pointer mix??
Changes the whole scheme.

TEY

Excellent points.

Since 'pit bull' really means 'mutt', it is the height of dishonesty to describe such dogs as anything other than mixed breeds. If you are adopting dogs, it's nice to describe size, haircoat, personality, etc, and a guess at breed ancestry can help someone who is looking for a dog to suit their situation and abilities. For example, saying 'poodle' indicates a lot of grooming and a constantly growing coat. Saying 'JRT' means a little dog that requires minimal grooming. I get it..

However, when you're using these inexpert, unverified opinions (such as those seen in media reports) as 'evidence' that a 'breed' must be restricted/altered/banned, it is unacceptable and borders on corruption.

When a 'pit bull' law comes in, a lot of dogs suddenly become 'pit bulls'. It isn't even a breed in the first place, it's a shape.

It's easy to ID a purebred, as we know, and it isn't done on a perfunctory visual inspection by a bystander, animal control officer or victim. Duh.

Do I trust these people to be objective? Hardly. Is the perceived 'breed' of a dog involved in a bite incident relevant? Not at all; however, if that's the game they want to play, I'll play it..

In Winnipeg, their bite numbers only started to improve when they consulted Calgary for advice - and followed it. Their 'ban' is a complete failure, as they all are. The stats from 1984-2003 are linked at my post re: Cote-St-Luc, below.

I found this through another dog blog and it totally hit home. I have a Shar Pei/Great Dane mix and people always ask if he's a pit bull. He's actually closer looking than any of these dogs you showed, but clearly too tall. My old roommate has an AmStaff (who is the sweetest dog ever) and compared to him, my dog is a giant. Fortunately, I live in a county where pit bulls are allowed, but I have to be careful about where I take him because there are some counties with BSL in Colorado and in one city they can just take your dog if you don't have papers on them.

It's really sad that "pit bulls" are so unfairly discriminated against to the point that anyone with a dog that's bigger than a breadbox and smaller than a Volkswagon has to worry about where they take them.