BewareGoodDogPitBull

PIT BULL

Probably the most INFAMOUS breed in current popular culture

The victim of more tabloid slander than most small screen actors

These DOGS have become the new scapegoat for fear of large breeds

This page is meant to educate and explore this misunderstood breed

In the hopes of expanding our understanding of these amazing dogs

AND SAVE THEM FROM BREED GENOCIDE

The American Pit Bull Terrier is one of several bull terrier breeds, often kept as a pet.
Pit bull is a term commonly used to describe several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. Its use in media is often vague and rarely descriptive of specific breeds. There are several physically similar breeds that are often termed "pit bull", including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, and Argentine Dogos. These breeds are usually not included by name in any Breed Specific Legislation (see below), but are sometimes included because of a broad definition and confusion as to what a pit bull actually is. [1] All of these breeds as well as many others (including Great Danes, Newfoundlands and Rottweilers) are members of the Molosser family of dog breeds.

The Pit Bull is the target of more breed specific legislation than any other breed.

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)
In response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving dogs that resemble pit bulls, some jurisdictions began placing restrictions on the ownership of pit bulls, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK, an example of breed-specific legislation. Many jurisdictions have outlawed the possession of Pit bulls, either pit bull breeds specifically, or in addition to other breeds that are regarded as dangerous.

Pit Bull Terriers are regulated in the United Kingdom under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, administered by the government agency DEFRA. It is illegal to own any of these dogs without a specific exemption from a court. Licensing is done by local governments, dogs must be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, they must be registered and insured, and receive microchip implants. In November 2002, The Princess Royal was fined £500 under the provisions of the Act.
The Canadian province of Ontario, on August 29, 2005 enacted a ban on Pit Bulls. It was the first province or state in North America to do so. [49] The breeds listed in the ban [50] can no longer be sold, bred, or imported and all pit bull owners must leash and muzzle their pit bulls in public. A 60 day grace period has been put in place to allow for owners to have their pit bulls spayed or neutered. [51] Also it left a period to allow municipalities to adjust to the new law. Prior to the bill's passage, the Ontario government cited what it deemed the success of a pit bull bylaw passed by Winnipeg, Manitoba.[52]
Pit bulls were not the #1 biting breed in Winnipeg's dog bite statistics, prior to the ban being implemented in 1990. After the ban, overall bite numbers increased by an average of almost 50 per year for the following decade. Bites by other breeds increased dramatically, including the #1 breed reported for biting, German Shepherds and their crosses, at close to 100 annual bites by 1992.

Constitutional challenges to pit bull legislation in the United States
As early as 1921, courts have upheld breed specific ordinances in municipalities as a legitimate exercise of police power.[53] These have not been without their Constitutional challenges. A 1991 Colorado Supreme Court case outlines the basic arguments against pit bull specific legislation. It incorporated cases from Arkansas, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, et al. and several federal district courts, which upheld similar statutes. The case has become federal precedence for what classifies a constitutionally acceptable definition of a "pit bull" when the statute cites the United Kennel Club as the standard for defining the characteristics of the breed.[54] The Constitutional issues raised by the case cover the quintessential arguments against pit bull targeted legislation.
In Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver[55], the Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed en banc claims that the 1989 "Pit Bulls prohibited" city ordinance was unconstitutional. The ordinance made it
unlawful for any person to 'own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the City any pit bull.' § 8-55(a). The ordinance permitted an owner of a previously licensed pit bull to keep the dog only if the owner (1) annually renewed a 'pit bull license' (2) proved that the dog had been spayed or neutered and had been vaccinated against rabies, (3) kept the dog confined or securely leashed and muzzled, and (4) maintained $100,000 in liability insurance. § 8-55(d).
The ordinance defined a pit bull as
Any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying a majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds.
The trial court held that the ordinance on its face was unconstitutional as a violation of due process rights because it placed the burden of proof on the dog owner that his animal was not a pit bull for purposes of the ordinance. Furthermore, the trial court severed the licensing requirement as lacking a rational basis. It judicially modified the ordinance and ordered a 120 day notice to affected owners to comply with the provisions of the modification. Both parties appealed the decision.
Petitioners opposed to the ordinance made several constitutional challenges:
Owners were not afforded sufficient due process when the animal would be impounded for an alleged violation of the ordinance
Ordinance violated due process rights by creating a legislative presumption of criminal culpability of knowingly and voluntarily possessing a pit bull
Ordinance violated due process rights by permitting a finding that an animal fell within the definition of a pit bull without expert testimony
Ordinance was vague and overbroad for treating all pit bulls and substantially similar breeds as inherently dangerous
Ordinance violated Constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection under the law by targeting pit bull owners while omitting owners of other presumably dangerous breeds
The Supreme Court rejected each of these claims. It found that pit bull owners as a class were not constitutionally suspect when identified in a statute (as opposed to race, ethnicity, and natural origin). Furthermore, the ownership of an animal was not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, but a liberty interest to be safeguarded. Consequently, the court required only a rational basis test for the constitutionality of the ordinance. It held that state police power held a "significant state interest" in public safety and welfare, and that regulation of dogs was a proper exercise of that power.[56] The court adopted the trial court findings that "pit bull attacks, unlike attacks by other dogs, occur more often, are more severe, and are more likely to result in fatalities. The trial court also found that pit bulls tend to be stronger than other dogs, often give no warning signals before attacking, and are less willing than other dogs to retreat from an attack, even when they are in considerable pain."[57] However, the court did not cite any scientific sources for this legal conclusion.
The Supreme Court did affirm the lower court's ruling that the burden should fall to the state in proving whether an owner's dog was a "pit bull" for purposes of the ordinance. Given the case's federal citations for due process claims, this is particularly significant to those statutes of other states which place the burden on the owner in contrast to the Colorado ruling. Pit bull owners facing prosecution who hold the burden of proof for their dog could challenge the statute on due process grounds under the reasoning in Colorado Dog Fanciers.
The Colorado case did not address expert findings that specific breeds should not be banned from municipalities. Other jurisdictions have deferred the weighing of scientific evidence to the legislature, but do not accept expert testimony to the contrary if the legislature has a "rational basis for public health and safety."[58]
Subsequent to this ruling, a 2004 law passed by the Colorado General Assembly prohibited breed specific laws. However, it was overturned in April of 2005 after the city of Denver challenged the law on constitutional grounds. Over 260 "pit bull type" dogs have been seized from their homes and euthanised since this date, resulting in national protest by dog owners and animal rights lobbying groups. [59] Since 1989, Denver authorities have confiscated and destroyed over 1100 pit bulls from city residents who have violated the ordinance. Dog owners continue to bring pit bulls into the city.
No such ban on other dogs deemed dangerous has been enacted, and the number of pit bull related bites has changed little since the city reinstated the ban.[60]

Legislation and judicial opinions in opposition to pit bull specific legislation
Ohio became the first state jurisdiction to find its breed specific legislation unconstitutional on due process grounds. In Toledo v. Tellings (March 3, 2006), a 2-1 decision, the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals struck down breed specific legislation that restricted pit bull ownership in Toledo, Ohio. The law had relied on a state definition of a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog." The court held that the legislation was void for violation of a pit bull owner's right to due process, because the owner could not appeal a designation of his pet as a vicious dog. For the majority, Judge William Skow wrote: [61] "Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory." The court found no rational basis for the law. The case is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court and a final determination on the constitutionality of the law is due between October and December of 2007. The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled on this case, they supported or upheld Toledo's Ban [62]
The State of Virginia now has Anti-BSL laws prohibiting cities and counties from banning a dog of certain breed or cross breed.
The State of Florida, Statute 767.14 [63] forbids local governments in Florida from enacting breed specific laws unless the law was in place before October 1, 1990. Several communities, including Miami-Dade County, Florida had such laws in place before the law took effect and pit bull ownership is banned there.

Debate
The extent to which banning a particular breed is effective in reducing dog bite fatalities is contested. Some people maintain that pit bull attacks are directly attributable to irresponsible owners, rather than to any inherent defect in the breed itself. Other people believe that the Pit Bull Terrier is a breed that, although not inherently dangerous, needs a particularly knowledgeable and committed handler and should not be freely available to novice owners.
Pit bulls are said to be popular with irresponsible owners, who see these dogs as a symbol of status or machismo.[64] This type of owner may be less likely to socialize, train, or desex their pet. It is known that unneutered male dogs account for a disproportionate amount of all fatal dog attacks. Some say that many of those who do not believe in altering male dogs also believe that having and training an aggressive dog "goes with the territory," so to speak. Irresponsible ownership can have a great impact on how a breed is represented in attack statistics.
Some people[attribution needed] argue that banning the pit bull will simply result in irresponsible dog owners seeking to own other large or intimidating breeds, such as the Dobermann, Rottweiler or German Shepherd Dog, resulting in an increased occurrence of dog bites from these breeds.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which maintains the United States' database on fatal wounds inflicted by dog bites, does not advocate breed-specific legislation, instead encouraging "Dangerous Dog" laws that focus on individual dogs of any breed that have exhibited aggressive behavior.[65] The CDC study is also admittedly flawed due to a large number of dog breeds being unknown when the study was compiled. It bears mentioning that using newspaper reports as evidence is hardly the most valid data available.
Huntsville, Alabama police raided a dog-fighting arena on Feb 28, 2002 and seized 10 Pit Bulls. The city's attempt to legally euthanize four pit bull puppies, never trained to fight, was stopped by Madison County Circuit Court Judge Joe Battle, who ruled that the pit bull puppies were not dangerous by virtue of their genetics alone (AP Wire; Apr 6, 2002).
Huntsville appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed (City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack et al., 1010459, S.C. Alabama; Aug 30, 2002) the Circuit Court opinion by a 6-2 vote; the written dissent addressed procedural matters of legal status of the parties, not the nature of the dogs. The puppies were adopted. Animal Rights group PETA sent the Judge a letter calling for the execution of all the pups. Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, officially advocates the euthanasia of pitbull dogs brought in to animal shelters, as well as a ban on their breeding.[66] It should be noted however that PETA's position on dog breeding in general is that it is an unnecessary practice, and is not limited to pitbulls.[67]
American Airlines banned "Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and any mixed breeds containing one or more of those breeds" in August of 2002 following an incident involving an American Pit Bull Terrier puppy that escaped from luggage into the cargo hold of an airliner, causing damage to the cargo hold. The American Kennel Club lobbied the airline to lift the restriction, arguing that the incident was merely one of improper restraint, and could have involved any dog breed.
The restriction was lifted in May of 2003 after a compromise was reached that requires portable dog carriers in the cargo hold to employ releasable cable ties on four corners of the door of the carrier.

Pit bulls are often used for dog fights, due to their strength, courage and widespread availability. Although dog fighting is illegal in the United States, it is still practiced, and is sometimes accompanied by gambling. In the United States Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, it is a felony to organize, promote, be employed by, or wager on a dogfight, whether one is physically present at the fight or not. Laws vary in other states, but most states have some laws to address dogfighting.
Most people who own these breeds direct their dogs' plentiful energy toward nonviolent athletic tasks. Some people train their pit bulls for dog agility. Others involve their pit bulls in weight pulling competitions, obedience competitions or schutzhund. The pit bull often excels at these sports. Out of the 25 dogs who have earned UKC "superdog" status (by gaining championship titles in conformation, obedience, agility, and weightpull), fourteen have been pit bulls[citation needed].