Animal advocates, newspaper reporters, TV and radio station personalities, breeders, animal control officers, veterinarians, shelter workers, dog fighters, street thugs, and just about anyone able to speak has an opinion or personal theory about 'bait' dogs. These opinions and theories are based on a dizzying mixture of personal experience, media-induced images, rumors, myths, speculation, and personal or financial agendas. Separating fact from fiction is time consuming and tedious work. It is much easier for most people to embrace information which supports their pre-existing belief.

Unfortunately, much of the information presented about 'bait' dogs falls under the category of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can best be described as information presented as fact, with the appearance of a scientific basis, which, however, is found upon examination to have no evidence supporting such claims.

People often rely on information presented to them through the media to make an assessment. But when the media or advocates talk about 'bait' dogs, and others write in with different facts, no one wants to hear it. Reporters and advocates have been heard to say, “Don’t tell me about that bullshit.” In reality what they are saying is, “Don’t inform me of anything, because I want to base my theories on supposition, alone, and then present this to the public as evidence of my belief.” The ill-informed public then accepts this skewed and biased presentation as reliable information.

If we truly believe that the extremely rare cases of 'bait' dogs merit extreme measures—if our concern and shock is genuine—then we must be equally genuine and sincere in seeking out and addressing the real causes for these atrocities.

The term 'bait' dog is used to label dogs that have any types of bite marks or scars. Sadly, 'bait' dogs do now exist, but they are not as common as you think.  

An increasingly larger number of dogs are being labeled as 'bait' dogs each day based on nothing more than speculation.