pit bull

Pit Bull is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dog in the Molosser family. The breeds most often placed in this category are the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Espanol, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance.^[1]

Contents 1 History 1.1 Attributes and Misconceptions 1.1.1 Locking jaws 1.2 As pets 1.3 Insurance problems 2 Legislation specific to Pit bull-type dogs 2.1 Dog bite related fatalities 2.1.1 United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000) 2.2 Bans 2.2.1 Global 2.2.2 United States 2.3 Legal challenges in the United States 2.3.1 Federal Court 2.3.2 State Courts 2.3.2.1 Colorado 2.3.2.2 Kansas 2.3.2.3 Ohio 2.4 Debate 3 Dog fights 4 Media coverage 5 Famous owners 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links 9.1 Government sites 9.2 Documentaries

History

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007)

The ancestors of modern Pit Bulls come from the bulldogs and terriers of England. At one time, every county in England had its own breed of terrier. Many of these still exist; however, some have evolved into new ones. Such is the case for the English White and the Black and Tan terriers, whose descendants include the bull-and-terriers, the Fox Terrier, and the Manchester Terrier. Terriers served an important purpose in England by killing vermin that might otherwise ruin crops, damage property, or spread disease such as the Black Plague. The development of sports such as rat- or badger-baiting further added to the breeds' importance.

Mastiff type dogs also have a long history in England; they are thought to have been brought by the Celts. It is also known that the Normans introduced the Alaunt. These dogs were used in battle and for guarding, but they also served utilitarian purposes, such as farm work. Specifically, these dogs accompanied farmers into the fields to assist with bringing bulls in for breeding, castration, or slaughter. The dogs, known generally as bulldogs, protected the farmer by subduing the bull if it attempted to gore him. Typically a dog would do this by biting the bull on the nose and holding on to the violently struggling bull despite injury. These traits permitted the development and rise of the bloody sports of bull-baiting and bear-baiting. In Elizabethan England, these spectacles were popular forms of entertainment, comparable to Shakespearean plays which often took place right next to the bear baiting pits in Southwark. However, in 1835, bull-baiting and bear-baiting were abolished by Parliament as cruel, and the custom died out over the following years.

Dog fighting, which could be carried out under clandestine measures, blossomed. Since Bulldogs proved too ponderous and uninterested in dog fighting, the Bulldogs were crossed with English White and Black and Tan Terriers. They were also bred to be intelligent and level-headed during fights and remain non-aggressive toward their handlers. Part of the standard for organized dog-fighting required that the match referee who is unacquainted with the dog be able to enter the ring, pick up a dog while it was engaged in a fight, and get the respective owner to carry it out of the ring without being bitten. Dogs that bit the referee were culled. The phrase 'man eaters die' was commonly known and reflects how aggression was not tolerated towards any person by any dog.

As a result, Victorian fighting dogs (Staffordshire Bull Terriers and, though less commonly used as fighters, English Bull Terriers) generally had stable temperaments and were commonly kept in the home by the gambling men who owned them.

During the mid-1800s, immigration to the United States from Ireland and England brought an influx of these dogs to America, mainly to Boston, where they were bred to be larger and stockier, working as farm dogs in the West as much as fighting dogs in the cities. The resulting breed, also called the American Pit Bull Terrier, became known as an "all-American" dog. Pit Bull-type dogs became popular as family pets for citizens who were not involved in dog-fighting or farming. In the early 1900s they began to appear in films, one of the more famous examples being Pete the Pup from the Our Gang shorts (later known as The Little Rascals).

During World War I the breed's widespread popularity led to its being featured on pro-American propaganda posters. (see poster, left)

The Pit Bull is the only dog to have appeared on the cover of Life magazine three times.^[2]

Sergeant Stubby an American Pit Bull Terrier was the mascot and a member of 102nd infantry during World War I, Stubby was and is the most decorated war dog in history. Stubby was awarded the following medals for his bravery in combat: 3 Service Stripes, Yankee Division YD Patch, French Medal Battle of Verdun, 1st Annual American Legion Convention Medal Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1919, New Haven WW1 Veterans Medal, Republic of France Grande War Medal, St Mihiel Campaign Medal, Purple Heart, Chateau Thierry Campaign Medal, 6th Annual American Legion Convention.

Attributes and Misconceptions

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2008)

Locking jaws

According to Dr. I. Brisbin, a senior researcher with the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of South Carolina, Pit Bulls do not have a "locking jaw" mechanism:^[3]

“

The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles, and teeth of Pit Bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different from that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier.[4]

”

A variant of the "locking jaw" story is told by Tom Skeldon, Lucas County (Ohio), dog warden, who said that an impounded Pit Bull that had been used in fighting started "going wild," biting at the walls of the kennel.^[5] He shot the dog with a tranquilizer, and then left it for five minutes to let it pass out. When he came back the dog had indeed passed out, but not before it had leaped up and clamped its jaws on a cable used to open the door of the kennel. "Everything else was relaxed, the dog was out cold, but its jaws wouldn't let go of that cable, and he was hanging in midair," said Skeldon. "Not even a jaguar will do that."

However, an incident reported by the Associated Press suggests that other breeds may also fail to relax their jaws when they become unconscious. An Albuquerque police officer was attacked, in October 2005, by a Belgian Malinois, a dog used for herding and police work, with no significant commonality with "Pit Bulls." The dog bit the officer on the arm. When the officer couldn't shake free, she shot the dog, killing it. Still, other officers had to come to her aid, and pry the dead dog's jaws off the officer's arm.

As pets

Pit bull-type dogs and dogs that have physical attributes associated with them make up a large portion of the population living in shelters across the United States, and may be put down due to the stigma associated with the various Pit Bull breeds, failure to meet temperament testing standards, or shelter overcrowding.^[6]

Insurance problems

Many homeowners' insurance companies in the United States are reluctant to insure owners of dogs that are considered to be a dangerous breed. Allstate (depending on the state) may not insure homes with Pit Bulls or even Boxers, Akitas, Chow Chows, Dobermans, Rottweilers, or wolf hybrids.^[7] The Automobile Club of Southern California will refuse to provide homeowner's insurance if a dog living in the home "looks like a Pit Bull".^[8] The CDC estimates that 4.7 million people were bitten by dogs in 1994. By analyzing data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP), the CDC determined that 368,245 persons were treated in U.S. hospitals for nonfatal dog bites in 2001, and that approximately 2% of the U.S. population are attacked by dogs per year. These attacks most often occur on the owner's property.^[9]

Some insurance companies have taken a compromise position, and will only insure Pit Bull owners if their dogs have achieved a Canine Good Citizen award.^[10] Alternatively, several insurance companies offer homeowner's insurance regardless of breed ownership ^[11]

Legislation specific to Pit bull-type dogs

Some jurisdictions enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull-type dogs. This legislation ranges from outright bans on the possession of pit bull-type dogs to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that the fact of being a pit bull-type dog is prima facie evidence that a dog is legally "dangerous" or "vicious."

The appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities is contested. Some people maintain that Pit Bull attacks are directly attributable to irresponsible owners^{[citation needed]}, 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.^[12] 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,"^{[citation needed]} so to speak. Irresponsible ownership can have a great impact on how a breed is represented in attack statistics^{[citation needed]}.

Some states in the United States have forbidden their own local municipalities from passing breed-specific legislation.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^[13] 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.

Dog bite related fatalities

Statistics about dog bites, fatalities, and injuries attributable to pit bull-type dogs are difficult to validate because dogs are generally categorized by differences in outward physical attributes, but the assignment of a particular bite event to one breed or another relies on a subjective evaluation based on observation..^[14] Recently, the decoding of the canine genome has allowed scientific testing to determine dog breeds, but this method is not yet widely used.^[15]

United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979-1998. The report found that

"the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

The report went on to say that,

"Although the fatality data are concerning, one must broaden the context to consider both fatal and nonfatal bites when deciding on a course of action....[A] 36% increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention."

The report suggested that "generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective.".^[16]

The latest CDC "Dog Bite: Fact Sheet" includes a disclaimer regarding this study, saying that

"it does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill^[17]

Bans

This table shows places where pit bull-type dogs have been banned or where bans were proposed.

Global

Place	Status	Type	Date banned	Details
Ontario, Canada[18]	Active	Province	August 29, 2005	The breeds listed in the ban[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] In October 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to the law and re-affirmed its legality.[22]
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada[23]	Active	City	1990	Pit Bulls are not allowed to be in Winnipeg by law.
Australia	Active	Country	March 10, 2006	Legislation and implementation dates varies across the different states, but here is the start of a list of the legislation in the various states: New South Wales,[24] Victoria,[25] Western Australia,[26] Queensland,[27] Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania.
France[28]	Active	Country	April 30, 1999	Ownership restricted; non-pure-breed animals resembling pit-bulls are to be surgically neutered
Norway	Active	Country	1991
Iceland	Active	Country	1995
Singapore	Active
United Kingdom[29]	Active	Country	August 12, 1991	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 leash 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. According to the UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, pit bulls-type dogs are prohibited in Great Britain because "...the prohibited types were all considered to have been bred specifically to be fighting dogs. Organised dog fighting is illegal in Great Britain. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 other types of dogs can be added to the prohibited list by Order in Council."[30]
Denmark	Active	Country		Banned alongside the Tosa in 1991 along with any non-pure-bred dog where either of the races are among the parent or grandparent animals. However in practice owners can freely walk their dogs anywhere in Denmark, even in train or metros.
New Zealand	Active	Country		Must be microchipped, muzzled in public, and cannot be publicly advertised for sale
The Netherlands	Cancelled	Country	1993	On June 9, 2008 Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Gerda Verburg announced the ban on Pitbulls will be canceled before the end of the year. The reason for this was that there was no reduction of biting incidents with dogs since Pit Bulls were banned. The ban was installed in 1993 after three biting incidents where three children were killed.[31] New rules will no longer select on breed or Molosser looks but require a behavior test for any large dog that shows signs of aggression[32]
Serbia	Active	Most of the Country	200?	Pitbulls are banned and all other breeds must be muzzled and leashed in public and the owners must pay an annual fee for any injuries caused by these dogs.
Italy	Active	All Country	200?	Pitbulls and other breeds such as Rottweilers must be muzzled and leashed in public and the owners must pay an annual fee for any injuries caused by these dogs.

United States

Place	Status	Region	Date	Details
Pawtucket, Rhode Island	Active	City	January 1, 2004	"It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the City any pit bull dog." City of Pawtucket Municipal Code, Chapter 116, Article IV, Section 116-37.1.
Sioux City, Iowa	Active	City	September 15, 2008	"Current pit bull owners [as of Sept. 15, 2008] who keep their dog registered can keep their pet but not to replace it with another pit bull when it dies. The ban exempts the Humane Society, Animal Control, dogs participating in dog shows and puppies born to pit bulls in the city, up to six months of age. Any pit bull not in compliance would be impounded, and the owner given 10 days to pay the impoundment costs and produce evidence the dog would be permanently removed from Sioux City. Otherwise it would be put down."[33][34]
Livingston County, Michigan	Active	County	May 20, 2008	"No Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American Bulldog, mixes (AKA Bully breeds) or any aggressive animal will be adopted or placed from Livingston County Animal Control - Stray Bully breeds and aggressive animals will be held for the State mandated holding period (pending owner claim). If not claimed the animal will be humanely euthanized - Owners may claim their aggressive animal after they show reasonable proof of ownership and pay fees. Further, Animal Control Department will refer matter to Prosecutor’s Office for a determination regarding potential prosecution for violation of law. - The Livingston County Animal Control staff has sole discretionary authority to deem an animal to be aggressive or to be a bully breed"[35]
Delta, Utah	Active	City	January 8, 2001	"The term pit bull dog used within this part shall refer to any dog which has any or all of (a) pit bull breeding; (b) characteristics resembling a pit bull and/or (c) exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which 1) Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers or 2) Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers 3) 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 It shall be unlawful to keep any Pit Bull Dog as defined in this ordinance within the incorporated area of the City of Delta, Utah."[36]
Independence, Missouri	Active	City	August 28, 2006	Pit bulls are only allowed in the city limits if they were registered before August 28, 2006. No new pit bulls are allowed to register after this date.[37] Owners of pit bulls already living in Independence have to register and microchip the dog, and the pit bulls must also be spayed or neutered....Owners of pit bulls ... have to carry $300,000 in liability insurance and face stiffer fines and jail time if there is a problem.[38]
Overland Park, Kansas	Active	City	September 21, 1987; amended July 17, 2007	"No person shall own, keep, or harbor any dangerous animal in the City of Overland Park.... "For the purposes of this chapter "dangerous animal" means and includes...any pit bull dog. "Pit bull dog" is defined to mean any and all of the following dogs: a. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dogs; b. The American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dogs; c. The American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dogs; d. Dogs which have the appearance and characteristics of being predominately of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier. "The registration of a dog at any time in any jurisdiction as a pit bull or any of the dogs listed above shall constitute prima facie evidence the animal is prohibited by this section. "All owners, keepers or harborers of registered pit bull dogs or wolf hybrids must within ten (10) days of the effective date of this ordinance provide proof to the City Clerk of public liability insurance in a single incident amount of $300,000.00 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by any persons which may result from the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal."[39] Note: the ordinance was amended in 2007 to increase liability insurance requirements from $50,000 to $300,000
Miami-Dade County, Florida	Active	County	1989	"It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own any dog which substantially conforms to a Pit Bull breed dog, unless it was specially registered with Miami-Dade County prior to 1989. Acquisition or keeping of a Pit Bull dog: $500.00 fine and County Court action to force the removal of the animal from Miami-Dade County." Ref. Miami-Dade County 89-22, Section 5-17.6(b)[40]
Council Bluffs, Iowa	Active	City	November 9, 2004[41]	"It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city of Council Bluffs, Iowa, any pit bull....A “pit bull” is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds (more so than any other breed), 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 A.K.C. and U.K.C. standards for the above breeds are on file in the office of the director of public health."[42]
Royal City, Washington[43]	Active	City	January 12, 2007
Denver, Colorado[44]	Active	City	9 May 2005	First banned in 1980s, but later revoked
Prince George's County, Maryland	Active	County	1996	"Effective February 3, 1997, in compliance with the Prince George’s County Code, Section 3-185.01, it is illegal to own or harbor a non-registered Pit Bull in Prince George’s County. To legally own a Pit Bull in the County, your pet must have been registered with the Animal Management Group prior to February 3, 1997 and maintain a current Pit Bull registration. The registration tag must be worn by the Pit Bull at all times. All Pit Bulls with expired registrations are considered illegal and will be impounded, and the owner may be fined or face criminal prosecution. If your registered Pit Bull produces a litter, the puppies are considered illegal and must leave Prince George’s County. Citizens and residents are prohibited by law from selling or giving away Pit Bulls in Prince George’s County. "The Code also requires that Pit Bulls be maintained within a building or secured kennel if kept outdoors for any length of time. In addition, the Code states that Pit Bulls outside of a building or kennel must be under the control of an adult and secured by an unbreakable leash. Violations to this provision will result in fines up to $1,000 or a sentence of not more than six months imprisonment. "Pit Bulls include any and all of the following breed of dogs: Staffordshire Bull Terrier; American Staffordshire Terrier; American Pit Bull Terrier; or dogs that exhibit the characteristics of a Pit Bull more than any other breed of dog."[45]
Springfield, Missouri[46]	Active	City	April 13, 2006
Oklahoma[47]	Proposed	State	June 21, 2005
Shelbyville, Tennessee[48]	Proposed	City	November 18, 2006
Aurora, Colorado[49]	Proposed	City	September 27, 2005
Youngstown, Ohio[50]	Active	City	January 10, 1999	due to the illegal dog fighting / see for OHIO http://www.pittiesplace.com/BSLinOhio.htm
Richland, Washington[43]	Proposed	City	December 21, 2006
Tupelo, Mississippi[51]	Proposed	City	September 28, 2006
Parker, Colorado[52]	Proposed	City	January 17, 2006
Chicago, Illinois[53]	Proposed	City	November 17, 2005
Enumclaw, Washington	Active	City
Garfield Heights, Ohio	Active	City	October 24, 2007	60 days in jail and or $1,000 fine if owner does not comply with city law.
Sparta, Tennessee	Active	City
Melvindale, Michigan[54]	Active	City	April 4, 1990	$100.00 fine or 30 days in jail.
Union County, Kentucky	Active	County	January 1, 2008	It is illegal to breed "pit bulls" and anyone who owns a "pit bull" inside county lines must register it as a vicious animal with the county clerks office. Owners must also have them fixed. And if owners keep pets outdoors they have to be kept in a Kennel with a concrete floor and on a chain.
Wheeling, West Virginia	Active	City	Jan. 17, 2006	Pit Bull Owners must register their dog. Must have liability insurance to own a Pit Bull. Must also have a 6 foot high fence to allow dog in yard without leash. When walking your dog you must have a muzzle on it as well as a leash no longer than 6 feet.
Kearney, Missouri	Active	City
Eureka, Kansas	Active	City

Legal challenges in the United States

As early as 1921, courts have upheld breed specific ordinances in municipalities as a legitimate exercise of police power.^[55] These have not been without their Constitutional challenges. The case has become federal precedent 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.^[56] The Constitutional issues raised by the case cover the quintessential arguments against Pit Bull targeted legislation.

Federal Court

In Vanater v. Village of S. Point^[57], the Ohio federal district court held that the village criminal ordinance prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village limits was not overly broad & was rationally related to the village's duty to protect the safety of its citizens. The court made the following findings of fact when it determined the village showed that pit bull terriers are uniquely dangerous & therefore, are proper subjects of the village's police power for the protection of the public's health & welfare:

• Pit Bulls ... possess the quality of gameness, which is not a totally clear concept, but which can be described as the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until death occurs, or as the continuing tenacity and tendency to attack repeatedly for the purpose of killing. It is clear that the unquantifiable, unpredictable agressiveness and gameness of Pit Bulls make them uniquely dangerous.
• Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, i) undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable.
• While these traits, tendencies or abilities are not unique to Pit Bulls exclusively, Pit Bulls will have these instincts and phenotypical characteristics; most siginficantly, such characteristics can be latent and may appear without warning or provocation.
• The breeding history of Pit Bulls makes it impossible to rule out a violent propensity for any one dog as gameness and aggressiveness can be hidden for years. Given the Pit Bull's genetical physical strengths and abilities, a Pit Bull always poses the possibility of danger; given the Pit Bull's breeding history as a fighting dog and the latency of its aggressiveness and gameness, the Pit Bull poses a danger distinct from other breeds of dogs which do not so uniformly share those traits.
• While Pit Bulls are not the only breed of dog which can be dangerous or vicious, it is reasonable to single out the breed to anticipate and avoid the dangerous aggressiveness which may be undetectable in a Pit Bull.^[58]

State Courts

Colorado

In Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver^[59], the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed 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 Colorado 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.^[60]

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."^[61]

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed 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 opinions 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."^[62]

Subsequent to this ruling, a 2004 law passed by the Colorado General Assembly now prohibits breed specific laws. The city of Denver challenged the law on the basis of home rule wherein the city's charter could supersede state law if the issue was to be considered as "local" as opposed to that of a mixed concern, or statewide concern. The district court (not the Colorado Supreme Court) said that there was no new evidence to change its ruling on the Dog Fancier's Case and that it was a local issue. The court refused to allow evidence in which was given to the Colorado Legislature when they passed HB 04-1279 previously. Therefore, the Denver ordinance was reinstated. 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.^[63] 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.^[64]

Kansas

In Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989), the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the City of Overland Park ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits,^[65] and held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).)^[66]

Ohio

In Toledo v. Tellings (March 3, 2006), the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to strike 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 appeals 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:^[67] "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 Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Toledo ordinance for the following reasons:

{¶ 30} The court of appeals found R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 unconstitutional with respect to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, and under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. We disagree.
{¶ 31} First, the court of appeals declared that the laws violated procedural due process pursuant to State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846. In Cowan, a Portage County deputy dog warden determined two dogs to be vicious following a complaint that the dogs had attacked a woman. Id. at ¶ 1. The dogs were determined to be vicious because of the alleged attack, not because they were pit bulls. We held that when a dog is determined to be “vicious” under R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a), procedural due process requires that the owner have notice and an opportunity to be heard before the owner is charged with a crime. Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 32} In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden’s unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious. However, in this case, the “vicious dogs” at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process.
{¶ 33} Second, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are not unconstitutional for violating substantive due process or equal protection rights. Laws limiting rights, other than fundamental rights, are constitutional with respect to substantive due process and equal protection if the laws are rationally related to a legitimate goal of government. See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560-561, 664 N.E.2d 926. As we discussed previously when evaluating whether the statutes and ordinance in question are valid exercises of state and city police power, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 January Term, 2007 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
{¶ 34} Finally, the court of appeals erred in holding that R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are void for vagueness. This court has previously held that the term “pit bull” is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. In State v. Anderson, we stated: “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.” 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 173, 566 N.E.2d 1224.
{¶ 35} In conclusion, the state and the city of Toledo possess the constitutional authority to exercise police powers that are rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Here, evidence proves that pit bulls cause more damage than other dogs when they attack, cause more fatalities in Ohio than other dogs, and cause Toledo police officers to fire their weapons more often than people or other breeds of dogs cause them to fire their weapons. We hold that the state of Ohio and the city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls, and that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to that interest and are constitutional.^[68]

Mr. Tellings appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, (Dec, 2007)^[69] which declined to hear the case.^[70]

Debate

The extent to which banning a particular breed is effective in reducing dog bite fatalities is contested.

Huntsville, Alabama police raided a dog-fighting arena on 28 February 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; 6 April 2002).

Huntsville appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed (City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack et al., 1010459, S.C. Alabama; 30 August 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.^[71]

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 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 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.

Dog fights

Pit Bulls are often the breed of choice for dog fights, due to their strength, courage and widespread availability. Fight training means using other dogs of the same sex, as most dogs will not show aggression towards the opposite sex.

Although dog fighting is illegal in the United States, it is still practiced, and is sometimes accompanied by gambling. Dog fighting is unlawful in all fifty US states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In the 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. In addition there is a federal law making interstate dog fighting activities a felony.

Even though dog fighting is illegal in all states, John Goodwin of the Humane Society estimates that there are over 40,000 people involved in providing dogfighting in the U.S. today. He estimates that there may be over 100,000 people involved with the practice of dogfighting in general. He also believes that the instances of dogfighting in America are actually increasing, despite more legislation to prevent it. He bases this idea on the fact that fifteen years ago, pitbulls made up 2 to 3% of the dogs brought into Animal Shelters. Today, they make up more than 1/3, many of whom have obvious scars from fighting.^[72]

Media coverage

Positive press

Some work in hospitals and care facilities as certified therapy dogs, many are well-loved family pets, and some have even saved people's lives. There are many instances of Pit Bulls being productively employed by U.S. Customs,^[73] as police K9s.^[74]

Pit Bulls have been reported in the news media as "adopting" other species of animals, such as kittens (fig. 1). This is one possible origin of the breed nickname "nanny dog".^[75] However, it is more widely accepted that the "nanny dog" nickname comes from Pit Bull-type dogs' innate love and tolerance of children.^{[citation needed]}

A rescued Pit Bull called Popsicle is a United States Customs dog, and is famous for sniffing out one of the biggest cocaine busts in history.^[76]

Dakota and Tahoe were certified pit bull search and rescue dogs who participated in over 200 search efforts for lost and missing people including such high profile search efforts as the search for Laci Peterson and the recovery efforts of the astronauts who lost their lives in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Because of their heroic work the two pit bulls have been featured on Animal Planet, National Geographic, and have received countless awards.^[77]

In February, 2006, New Yorker magazine writer Malcolm Gladwell published an article surveying the research on Pit Bulls which concluded that legal attempts to ban the breed were both crude and unnecessary.^[78]

In February 2007 a Pit Bull named "Chief" rescued his owner's family from a spitting cobra by dashing in front of the attacking snake and taking the deadly bite himself. Chief subdued the snake but died of the venom 30 minutes later.^[79]

In April 2007, columnist John Canzano of The Oregonian newspaper wrote a favorable piece on Hollywood, the Pit Bull that formerly belonged to NBA player Qyntel Woods.^[80] Hollywood, renamed Stella, was adopted by a loving owner and reformed from a fighting dog to a lap dog.

Nearly fifty Pit Bulls were seized from Michael Vick's dogfighting operation in 2007. Of those dogs, one was euthanized because of aggression issues. About half were sent to Best Friends Animal Society, a Utah animal sanctuary, where they are receiving care and behavioral training. The others, which were behaviorally evaluated as being suitable candidates for adoption, went to various other groups. Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (BAD RAP), transported thirteen of these dogs in an RV across the United States to Oakland, California, where they were placed in adoptive and foster homes.^[81] BAD RAP detailed the timeline of the dogs progress, from initial evaluations to fostering and adoption, on its website.^[82]

Famous owners

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

• Mark Twain^[83]
• Thomas Edison^[84]
• Jessica Alba.^[85]
• Michael J. Fox.^[86]
• Alicia Silverstone.^[87]
• Jessica Biel owns three Pit Bulls.^[88][89]
• Adam Brody and Rachel Bilson have a Pit Bull named Penny Lane.^[90]
• Cesar Millan, otherwise known as The Dog Whisperer owns several Pit Bulls and uses them as model dogs with which to aid in rehabilitating misbehaved dogs in some circumstances. His most famous and commonly used Pitbull, Daddy, once belonged to rapper Redman
• Big Boi from hip-hop duo Outkast is a registered Pit Bull breeder.^[91]
• Radio host Ira Glass has a Pit Bull.^[92]
• West Coast Choppers owner Jesse G. James owns a Pit Bull after whom he named his restaurant.^[93]
• TV cook Rachel Ray has one Pit Bull. Her Pit Bull's name is Isaboo and has appeared in cooking episodes and on her talk show. Rachel had another Pit Bull named Boo before she became famous.^[94]
• Comedian Jon Stewart has two Pit Bulls, named Monkey and Shamsky.^[95][96]
• Author Andrew Vachss, a vocal opponent of Pit Bull fighting^[97] and breed-specific bans, has a Pit Bull named Honey.^[98]
• Actor Humphrey Bogart^[84]
• American president Woodrow Wilson^[84]
• Actress Mary Tyler Moore^[99]
• DMX
• Comedian Kevin Nealon owns two Pit Bulls.

See also

• American Pit Bull Terrier
• American Staffordshire Terrier
• Staffordshire Bull Terrier
• Breed-specific legislation
• Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• List of dog fighting breeds

References

Further reading

• Karen, Delise (2002). Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics. Anubis Pub. ISBN 0-9721914-0-2. 
• Dawn, Capp (2004). Underdogs: dogs under fire: The Truth About Pit Bulls. Doral Publishing. ISBN 0-9745407-1-4. 
• Delise, Karen (July 2007). The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. Anubis Pub. ISBN 978-0972191418. 
• Capp, Dawn (October 2004). American Pit Bull Terriers, Fact or Fiction. Doral Publishing, Inc.. ISBN 0-9745407-1-4. 
• Delise, Karen (July 2007). The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. Anubis Pub. ISBN 978-0972191418. 
• Bullington, Barbara (January 2009). Then Along Came Barney: The Story of a Dog Who Changed My Mind About Pit Bulls.". www.amazon.com. ISBN 978-1440469152. 

External links

Government sites

• Nonfatal Dog Bite Related Injuries - U.S. Government

Documentaries

• A Little Vicious - Immy Humes's American tragicomedy about a pitbull on death row