[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

There seem to be two schools of thought looks versus papers. In this case what about those who dont look like an APBT but have the "papers" but not temperament of an APBT. IE- if a dog was 120 lbs spotted but had papers and was HA is that a pitbull? or is the dog who is lean with short fawn hair around 50 lbs but is DA without papers a pitbull? I just fail to see the reason for the division in the two schools.

Maybe it is the resentment of all bully breeds being called pitbulls, none the less many bully breeds have similar temperaments(DA, love people, hard working,etc) and suffer the same discrimination. Maybe it is the fear that if all bully breeds are compiled in one group those who are not APBT will be called pitbulls in the news for anything negative they do, but in the same token then should all the mutts who complete CGC, are great with kids, are police dogs, etc be called mutts rather than giving the "pitbull" a good name?

I guess I am just annoyed with the "purebred" APBT owners sometimes giving mutt owners shit about defining mutts as mutts but wanting the positive notoriety yet deny anything negative.

I have seen too many dogs with papers who look nothing like an APBT and have horrible temperaments AND too many mutts who look like pitbulls with great temperaments....so where does that leave communities like this? Should we define a pitbull as an APBT with papers? An APBT with papers who is DA? A dog who looks like an APBT with a great temperament? A dog who looks like an APBT who is DA? Or should all dogs who "look" like an APBT even if they are HA be considered pitbulls?

I am afraid there is no answer(even the UKC considers a few breeds as pitbulls) but I would like to hear opinions