Remember that woman in rural LA county who was killed by a pack of dogs last week?

[baldguy]

208. You're not even reading your own links.

These are two different studies. The first was conducted by Julie K. Levy, DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVIM from the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine. The second was conducted by Victoria Voith, DVM, MSc,MA, PhD, DACVB from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine, Rosalie Trevejo, DVM, Phd, MPVM from Oregon State University, Seana Dowling-Guyer from the Animal Rescue League of Boston Center for Shelter Dogs, Colette Chadik, DVM from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine, Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB from the Animal Rescue League of Boston Center for Shelter Dogs, Vanessa Johnson, DVM from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine and Kristopher Irizarry, Phd from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine. These aren't the same people. Anyone can tell that BECAUSE THE AUTHORS HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. If you're accusing all these veterinary professionals of academic fraud, you'll need a little more than one reference to one blog entry (about one unrelated paper authored by someone else entirely) from a guy who trolls for unscrupulous publishers, and has been repeatedly sued for libel.

The NCRC is an advocate for dogs and is involved in canine research. And it's not just because it says so right on the label. They publish, underwrite, and reprint accurate, documented, reliable research about dogs - and tell the truth when they do it. The fact that they don't single out Pit Bulls is the only thing that makes them suspect in your eyes. You're showing your blind prejudice & unsupported biases by dismissing them.

"The two dogs that had the highest misidentification rate as purebreds..." This proves you haven't even bothered to read the surveys. In Dr. Voith's study:

We were interested in how often visual identification of dogs by people, assumed to be knowledgeable about dogs, matched DNA breed identification and how often these people agreed with each other (inter-observer reliability). Over 900 participants who engaged in dog related professions and activities viewed one-minute, color video-clips of 20 dogs of unknown parentage and were asked to identify the dogs’ predominant breeds.

In Dr. Levy's study:

We conducted a national survey of dog experts to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs. More than 5,000 dog experts, including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, rescuers, and others completed the survey.

None of these dogs in either study were represented to the participants as purebreds. The researchers didn't ask the participants to identify them as such. They were simply requested to ID the most predominant breeds. The fact that they were not able to do so in 43/100 of the dogs is proof that visual ID doesn't work. Yet this is the only form of ID required by the dog haters of the world looking to stigmatize Pit Bulls.

Please tell me: What happens under the draconian BSL laws when a dog is visually ID'd as a Pit Bull when it isn't? What happens to a Pit Bull when it isn't ID'd?

"Do you really think that most people have no idea what kind of dog they have?" No, I don't. This statement is one of the most idiotic I've seen on DU. Do you understand that dogs don't check for registration papers when they want to fuck? Unless there's documentation from a professional AKC registered breeder, or DNA evidence available, there's no way to tell what breeds make up the parentage of any individual dog. And that goes double for strays - which are 90% of the dogs people get from shelters.