[GMMAC]

ABPT's are not necessarily (or likely) what's being referred to in this article nor are they the specific focus of 'breed specific legislation' within most jurisdictions.
As example, Ontario's current law (presently being hotly contested before the Courts &, as of now, zero for one therein) begins by citing ABPT's along with 3 other recognized breeds but then falls back on the same 'definition by subjective appraisal of appearance' which has been the fatal inherent legal flaw in most such laws. It then compounds this error by proceeding from the 'guilty until proven innocent', reverse onus that, if a dog is adjudged for any - even unlikely - reason to be a so-called "pit bull", it's up to the owner to prove otherwise.

IMHO, governments would be far wiser to literally 'throw the book' at all irresponsible owners no matter what sort of dog they possess:

National Companion Animal Coalition: "Do Breed Bans Work?"

Canada Safety Council: Aggressive Dogs Threaten Public Safety

BTW, far from "feigning", I'm the one taking a principled conservative position here which advocates holding offending owners personally accountable but still respects conscientious individuals' rights. "Shot gun" approaches to problems which negatively impact the good along with the bad should rightly be left to liberals.

[Vicomte13]

"'definition by subjective appraisal of appearance' which has been the fatal inherent legal flaw in most such laws"

Which subjective appraisal system do you prefer instead?

Biologically, a dog is a dog. There is no biological difference other than those things evident from appearance between a pound mutt and a purebred whippet.

You speak of "recognized breeds"...recognized by WHOM? The KC, the AKC or the CKC? And why should the opinions of some dog collectors be the basis for law? They say that a breed is based on a pedigree chart. The lawmaker says that a breed is based on a visual evaluation. Two completely subjective bases for dividing up the united genus species of canis familiaris.

Biologically, a dog is a dog. The division of dogs into breeds is pure subjectivity. Appearance is a better basis for it than anything else, because then you can just look at a dog and tell what breed it is. Any other categorization requires special knowledge of arbitrary documents.

[Wristpin]

BTW, far from "feigning", I'm the one taking a principled conservative position here which advocates holding offending owners personally accountable but still respects conscientious individuals' rights.

A principled conservative doesn't make a reckless breed ownership decision which cast a cloud of high risk over his neighborhood. Nearby, we just had a 72 year old man killed by his daughter's Pit Bulls. She walked in to find him dead and her "sweet Pit Bulls" covered in blood. I really don't mind if they keep it in the family as long as innocent kids aren't involved. The breed was purposely designed for fighting and any redeeming features they may have are purely accidental. Owning one seems quite irresponsibly liberal, but thats just me.

I suggest you Google "Pit Bull Shot" and see what a law enforcement burden and safety menace the breed has become. Like most Pit advocates you seem to be in denial.

Now which breed has a worse mauling record than APBT's?