Your "definition" of the word pit bull is stupid.
Yes, another rant from me again on this subject, but I felt the need to make a comparison post because another person tonight tried educating me on what the word “pit bull” means.
“Pit Bull” is not a dog type. It’s not a breed type. It’s not a group of a bunch of breeds. I don’t care how often Fox News calls a bully mix a “pit bull-type dog”, that “definition” is complete bogus.
The breeds lumped together under “pit bull type” are American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, American Bulldog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and less commonly the Dogo Argentino and the English Bull Terrier.
The most common explanation for what qualifies a dog to be “pit bull type” is that they look similar. Okay, well how about the Dutch Shepherd and the Belgian Malinois? Why don’t we call these dogs both Malinois? Why don’t we call them both Dutch Shepherds? Here’s a Mal beside a Dutch Shepherd:
They look a hell of a lot alike, don’t they? They’re both pastoral breeds, Mals can be brindled, they both have pretty smooth foreheads, large ears, dark masks.. why don’t we just call them all Belgian Malinois?
We don’t because they’re different breeds and it would be stupid to label them as “Malinois-type” because of their appearance.
Another argument is that because they share ancestors, they can be lumped together as one “type”, and that “type” is the name of one of the breeds. “Pit Bull” being short for American Pit Bull Terrier, yet applied to many dog breeds because of their ancestry or their appearance. Let’s use this example on other breeds; the Laekenois, the Tervueren, and the Groenendael. These dogs all share ancestries and are considered varieties of a “Belgian Shepherd” type, which also includes the Belgian Malinois!!! How come we don’t call them all Groenendaels? Why don’t we refer to them as Tervueren-type? Why is it that we refer to these dogs as their breed name, instead of calling them “breedname-type”?
They look different, don’t they? (Especially the top two compared to the bottom, which is their ancestor) Of course they do, so do the dogs under the “pit bull type” umbrella. Why is it that we call these dogs by different breed names?
If we’re to use the argument of ancestry for a reason to label a group of dogs under one breed’s name, why is the American Bully called a “pit bull type” dog? The American Bully’s history is something that nobody understands, nobody understands where the hell this thing came from. Is it a Pit mix? Is it a Staff mix? Is it an AmStaff mix? Nobody fucking knows and yet it’s called a “pit bull’ anyways, despite the American Bully’s ancestry being a shrouded mystery and the dogs never ever been used for anything aggressive in their entire existence.
If we are to use the "ancestry” argument, why don’t we call Plummer Terriers “Jack Russells”? Or even “Jacks”? Plummer Terriers are a mix of Jack Russell and small hound (Beagles, IIRC)… why aren’t the small treeing hound breeds called Jacks or Terriers? Why don’t we call the Parson Russell Terrier a Jack Russell anymore?
Why do we not label all of the small terrier breeds as “Jacks” because of their appearance, or “Jack-type” dogs? After all, “pit bull” comes from a breed’s name, and it’s applied to dogs solely because of their appearance and/or ancestry to that breed.
If you asked me, I’d tell you that today’s English Bull Terrier looks far more like a Gull Terr than it does an American Pit Bull Terrier. Not to mention the Gull Terr is currently used in blood-sports in the middle-east.
This is getting incredibly irritating and I really wish people would stop with their made-up definition of the word “pit bull”, especially when they call the dogs “pittbulls” while telling me that I’m incorrect.