WALLACE the pit bull--Ambassador for the breed
B.S.L. in the media by BlueRagePitBulls






So, what is it about these bans???
Pit-bull bans involve a category problem, because pit bulls, as it happens, aren't a single breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier—all of which share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, short-haired coat. Thus the Ontario ban prohibits not only these three breeds but any "dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar" to theirs; the term of art is "pit bull-type" dogs. But what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull terrier and a golden retriever a pit bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? If thinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization. "The way a lot of these laws are written, pit bulls are whatever they say they are," Lora Brashears, a kennel manager in Pennsylvania, says. "And for most people it just means big, nasty, scary dog that bites."
Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? "The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner," Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That's a category problem.
Excerpt from Gladwell.com
"The point is that it (the breed(s) involved in dog bite fatalities) changes over time. It's a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want to own an aggressive dog."
"About twenty per cent of the dogs involved in fatalities were chained at the time, and had a history of long-term chaining. Now, are they chained because they are aggressive or aggressive because they are chained? It's a bit of both. These are animals that have not had an opportunity to become socialized to people. They don't necessarily even know that children are small human beings. They tend to see them as prey."
Randall Lockwood
Instead of breed discrimination, communities should focus on these factors to
prevent dog bites: restricting tethering, prohibiting guard dogs, and enforcing
animal-cruelty laws.
The New York City Department of Health and Hygiene is justifiably
proud of the fact that dog bites in the city have been reduced from over
37,000 in 1971 to less than 4,000 in 2005. Other cities across the nation
record similar stunning decreases in the number of dog bites over the past
35 years: Baltimore, 6,809 reported dogs bites in 1971, reduced to 582 in
2005; Philadelphia, 8,524 in 1971, down to 1,520 in 2000; and
Washington, D.C., with 3,351 reported bites in 1971 down to an
astonishing low of 183 reported bites in 2006.
None of these cities have passed B.S.L.
Community Involvement and Outreach