I'm looking at that chain and, well, I know a 15-lb terrier who could break that chain, let alone a 55-lb large puppy.
The dog is called a Pit Bull in the bite report. This dog is not a Pit Bull. The owner claims this dog is a Boxer-Labrador Retriever mix. That is about as accurate as calling the dog a Pit Bull.
He looks like a Catahoula to me, but that does not make him one. I can eliminate "pure breeds" he isn't, but I have no evidence to prove the breed or mix he is.
Regardless, what breed gets put down for the registered report? When statistics are gathered, which label will this dog be given in the amassed data?
This is the problem with legislation based on phenotype. The only data set you have to work with are generally witness reports, not pedigrees or genetic analysis. We know witnesses are notoriously unreliable - this is seen in car crash reports as much as dog bite reports.
Anti-dog zealots do not care. They see this dog and he is enough like the look of a Pit Bull to be called a Pit Bull. They use bite reports as factual evidence that some breeds of dogs are worse than others. I'm not adverse to using bite reports, but it must always be with the caveat that they rely on potentially faulty and inaccurate source information. Treat dog bite reports as suggestions, not as facts. Don't use them to legislate against types of dogs. Makes sense. Except to some lawmakers and all anti-dog zealots.
