I’m confused. This article in title and in text:
“so-called bully breeds — pit bulls, Rottweilers, chow chows, American Staffordshire terriers, Presa Canarios and mixes of any of them — be rendered “unadoptable,” according to minutes from the meeting.”
refers to “bully breeds” only. The thread article stated many more breeds (although I don’t think I’d ever call a Chow a “bully”).
Do the reporters think “bully” means “pit-bull type” or only in the English sense of “nasty, mean, intimidating”? Maybe they don’t know what is meant....
Reporters [and anyone else who thinks they can determine the “genetics of a “bully type” dog by looks, alone”] are blithering idiots.
Loosely speaking, any dog whose origins stem from the ancient Mastiffs *could* be considered a “bully” breed, even if that breed *never* had anything to do with droving or even once setting eyes on a bull, at all.
As an example, the woman who adopted my Portuguese Podengo Medio’s sister had her DNA “analyzed” to see what breed she was.
It came back that she was part Bloodhound, part Basset, part Pharoah Hound and about 4 other “you gotta be kiddin’ me!” breeds.
She and my PPM both were dropped off at the shelter by a Portuguese hunter with a reputation for breeding PPMs in N.CA.
They are both indisputably PPMs.
[in other words, do *not* waste your money having your mutt “tested”]
Sometimes, only God and the parents of the dog “know what it is”, regardless of appearance.
I’ve seen local Lab/Hound mixes that looked just like “Pits”.
Bottom line is, without the history of the indvidual dog, no one can know _for sure_ “what it is” unless it’s *obviously* a purebred ~whatever~.
Hope that helps...:)