Talk:Pit Bull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Older discussion here: Talk:Pit bull/archive1 Talk:Pit bull/archive2

Contents 1 Introduction 2 CAPITAL LETTERS 3 Neutrality/NPOV issues 4 Removed how to avoid attack paragraph in Overview 5 Overview deleted 6 Cleanup attempt 7 General Comments 8 Discussion of Kentucky court case 9 Specific Incidents 10 Clifton Study 11 my two cents... 12 NPOV template 13 BSL Info 14 CDC nonfatal citation 15 Banned in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx??? 16 Semi-protection 17 WHAT THE FUCK! PITBULLS ARE EVIL!

[edit] Introduction

I work with animals. I have a lot of experience with bulls. I changed the intro to a very mild section on pit bulls as pets. It needs to be worked on, but it's a start. There are few statisitics avalible, so I simply put what I could. Please find sources, we need to find sources to show the fact that bulls are common owner surrenders and commonly euthanized.

ReignMan 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

- i.e. American Pit Bull Terrier, for which, I think, there is a separate Wikipedia article - and that other breeds of dog, owing to similarity of appearance, may also come under the general heading of "pit bull", although this is not necessarily correct, as these breeds are seen as distinct [e.g. Staffordshire terrier, by both UK and American Kennel Clubs]. The word "rubric" is neither easily understood by the general public nor appropriately used in this context, which is why I suggest the use of a phrase such as "general heading". Vandenwyngaerde 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to unrelated breeds such as Presa Canatios and Dogo Argentinos is both irrelevant and confusing. And the Molosser reference is controversial and useless. I edited the introduction to remove these statements and it reverted back for some reason. Pitbullet 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Presa Canarios and Dogo Arentine dogs are not American Pit Bull Terriers, but this article is about the word Pit Bull, which does not describe a single breed of dog, and is not applied consistently; i.e., some folks would say that the term should only refer to ABPTs and staffordshires, but many state laws are written up such that the term includes a wider selection of breeds; I included an example link demonstrating that. I don't understand how "molosser" is "controversial and confusing." You'll have to provided evidence that it's either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAPITAL LETTERS

Please don't use capital letters to make your comment look more important. Eventually everyone will be using them and the whole thing will get out of hand and be more difficult to read.

[edit] Neutrality/NPOV issues

While I agree that pit bulls get negative press and wholly support education on the positive aspects of this breed, I don't think that this article is unbiased enough to be quoted as "fact" to those doing research to benefit pit bull owners. The article appears to spend too much time pointing out the debate and the positive aspects, that encyclopedia based facts are lacking.

A proper history, that includes the true negative nature of the dog's breeding, statistics on temperment v/s other dogs, bite/fatality statistics (available from the CDC), and only external links to the debate would help clean up this article and provide a more neutral point of view. Possibly even creating a second article devoted to the legislative ban of dog breeds would help. Reducing the information provided may also be the answer, because the simpler the statement, the closer it is to the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.0.148.134 (talk)

Breed specific bite statistics have been hard to locate. Fatality statistics breed-specific are available and cited, but bite has been difficult. Gigs 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think by saying to include the negative nature of the dog's breeding and pointing out all the faults, you are in essence pointing out that ALL pit bulls were bred for fighting and that ALL pit bulls are nasty with other dogs. I think that your statement is truly what lacks neutrality, and by saying that we should reduce information, what you're really saying is "I hate pit bulls, delete this article." Come on now. Grow it up a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.150.200.99 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

this article is not anywhere close to neutral. there's a fallacy of the "golden mean" at play here. the idea that both point of views represented means it's neutral. that's not true. by that logic a balanced article about the holocaust would include the argument that the jews needed to die to purify europe. that's an extreme example of course. but look at the point i'm making. i'm going to look at this article over the next few weeks and try to bring it around.

Youdontsmellbad 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

a balanced article about the holocaust has to include the fact that a significant proportion of the population acceded to the belief that the jews needed to die (for what ever reason, I'm not a historian). Similarly a balanced article on pit bulls has to recognise that the aggressive trait has been amplified by breeding and that the breed exists to produce aggressive dogs, not all dogs will be as aggressive (I imagine) but it appears to be pathological. The article notes that it seems "irresponsible" owners choose pitbulls - but they're not chosen because they're cuddly and obedient; they're chosen because they are aggressive and strong. 91.108.165.70 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog bite and fatality statistiics are inherently going to be skewed when you take the fact that many breeds that are not remotely related to pit bulls are called that in the media and by proponents of BSL. Presa Canario is one the furthest breeds from a pit bull yeat it is constantly called one whenever they attack someone. As for breed determination in bite statistics it is almost completely left up to the victim. How many people that don't own a pitbull could identify one correctly? most people just think that any wide chest dog with a large head is a pit bull and dont properly undersatand the breed to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ? (talk • contribs).

The "Safety, Legal Issues and Controversy" section is particularly awful. A sampling of the problems:

Although often cited, CDC statistics are completely inaccurate and skewed, and would not be considered as a scientific statistical survey in court due to the fact that the breeds of nearly 89-90 dogs in the study were not known.

According to who, the wikipedia editor? This needs a source.

{quotation|The CDC has *admitted* this flaw, and has cautioned against reliance on the study.}} Again, a source is needed.

Unfortunately, others studies used the CDC study as a basis for their own studies, so that only adds insult to injury.

Unencylopedic writing & unsourced. Which studies?

Mixed breed dogs may or may not display specific physical breed characteristics, and assertions on determing the dog's breed are usually limited to visual observations by laypersons.

Weasel words & unsourced.

While some people contend that pit bulls are likely to cause fatalities when they do attack, claiming it might be their jaws or clamping on to a victim, it needs to be known that this is a theory, and it is not a scientific one, nor has it been shown to be true in any verified study.

A non-scientific theory? Why even use the word "theory" then? What qualifies as a "verified" study?

What is undisputed is that ANY untrained, unsocialized dog can be dangerous, particularly when the dog is large in size, but even small dogs can kill. A Labrador dog actually severed the head of a female child, and a doxie dog chewed off the legs of a baby

Pedantic, unencyclopedic, unsourced, and anecdotal.

What the average layperson doesn't know, is that PETA has actually killed 90% of the pets they took in last year (2005) while holding themselves out as animal "savers"............

Terrible writing, unsourced, POV.

There are more examples, but I'm getting tired of quoting. This section needs a complete rewrite. Scott5834 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I concur on the point Scott5834 makes. This is one of the most laughably biased articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and I've been coming here for almost two years now. The sections "Pits as Pets," "Legal Issues in the US," and "Urban Myths" are the worst offenders in this article. "Pits as Pets" does nothing to explain the issues of having a pit bull as a pet and instead is a poorly written tirade on "irresponsible" dog owners. If such a section is to exist, it should talk about the traits of pit bulls, their preferences, and requirements for owning. "Legal Issues" has virtually zero citations. It speaks at length about a "flawed" CDC study, but presents no evidence of this or the questioned study. Finally, "Urban Myths" could be condensed significantly. The section spends a lot of time accusing other dog breeds of similar behaviors and giving examples. Is this relevant to this article? In general, this section smacks of petulant, defensive attitude. 24.22.8.250 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh my gosh! I thought I had seen biased and POV editing in articles on Israel and the War on Terror, etc, but this is by a long way the most partial article I have ever read on Wiki - and I've been reading for many years. This article reads like it has been prepared by the Pit Bull appreciation society for the use of the Pit Bull breeders annual convention. Large amounts of this need removing as unencyclopedic and polemic. I suggest that if there are editors with time here, note is taken of whichever editors are adding all this nonsense, so that they can be reminded here and on their own talk pages that they are doing noone a favour by putting such biased material on Wikipedia. Fig 12:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Pits as Pets" paragraph could simply state facts, e.g. whether it is a recognised breed by the major Kennel Clubs - American, United, KCGB, etc. and any available statistics for pet ownership.

There are certainly doubts as to whether this type of dog makes a suitable pet and it needs to be acknowledged that ownership of pit bulls as pets is regarded as controversial in both the UK and the US. The introduction to this section is irrelevant and the quotation footnoted as 1 appears to be from a breed club site and therefore, although a source, not unbiased in itself, and quite apart from anything else, refers to the American Staffordshire not the American Pit Bull Terrier; it does not specify the "talents" of the dog either! Vandenwyngaerde 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole article reads like it has been written by an agrieved pit bull owner who spends his whole life trying to tell people that pit bulls aren't bad. Anything remotely negative seems to get deleted or watered down by describing it as 'debate'. 90.192.7.27 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is one of the most slanted Wikipedia articles I've ever read. WillNL 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed how to avoid attack paragraph in Overview

because it is original research. Frankly, following anonymous advice on defusing a dangerous situation is foolish as well. The paragraph should not be reinserted without a source, ideally one from an expert dog handler. hateless 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you will note that it is not 'how to avoid an attack', but how to defend against one once it has occurred. It has been modified, and a disclaimer has been added. I have personally used the technique with success. 'Expert dog handlers' (read: professional) have liability issues to worry about, so probably would be reluctant to give advice at all. Simply consider that if your child is attacked by a Pit Bull, you probably won't have the presence of mind to effectively combat it unless you are already familiar with the techniques. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysteredia (talk • contribs).

If this is your advice, then this is something you need to publish in your own name, not under an anonymous source like Wikipedia. If this is your own original work, it violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research because you personally are the primary source for this material. Apologies for calling the passage a "how to avoid" instead of "how to handle", however, the problem is it's still a how-to, and is also prohibited by policy outlined under WP:NOT#IINFO (instruction manuals). Since a mere disclaimer does not satisfy any of these provisions, I'm going to insist it be removed again unless you'd like to argue that this passage is permitted within WP's policies. hateless 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mysteredia, I agree with your sentiments regarding pit bulls, but I also agree with Hateless and the anonymous contributer that removed part or all of your how-to. This isn't proper material for an encyclopedia. If a particular weakness does exist uniquely in the pit-bull, then that could be mentioned. If this is just a method to subdue an agressive dog, it has no place here. I reverted before I removed your how-to because the last person had added other pro-pit bias when they took your passage out. Gigs 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview deleted

In attempt to stabalize the neutrality of the article, I have deleted the poor overview. I don't know much about the dog, so I would rather leave it up to someone who is willing to write an overview that is neither supportive or rejective of the dog breed. The problem with the overview was... basicly.. it was too oppinionated.

[edit] Cleanup attempt

I took a first pass at cleaning up the article. While I can't say I'm 100% neutral in this debate as an owner of a bully-breed mix, much of the text of this article sounded like a sermon. While I agree with most of the sentiment expressed in the "editorializing," much of it is uncited (and some of it dubious). There are plenty of good pro-Pit bull sites in the link section if someone wishes to read about that side of the argument.

If you plan on adding anything positive (or negative) about pit bulls in the article, please make an effort to find a reliable source to back up the statement. Google-searches for SPCA sites or study links are a good start. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is particularly biased - it seems like a whitewash job, rather than an encyclopedia article. I understand that pitbulls get a bad rap, but the fact is that many professionals (dog handlers, veterinarians, judges, police officers, etc) that deal with this breed daily are convinced that it has a propensity toward viciousness - and yet the article does its level best to ignore (or even attempt to contradict) that position. Wikipedia is supposed to present all relevant sides to an issue - and as the vast majority of dog shelters in my area (and many, many others) euthanize pitbulls as soon as they arrive, I think it's probably a majority opinion that they are not like other dogs. Tuviya 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This statement: "I understand that pitbulls get a bad rap, but the fact is that many professionals (dog handlers, veterinarians, judges, police officers, etc) that deal with this breed daily are convinced that it has a propensity toward viciousness..." is not true and certainly can't be backed up with any reliable source.

• I own a pitbull-boxer mix, and am good friends who my neighbor who own 4 pitbulls (and they play often with my family and with Harley, my "little man"), so I'm very biased, and therefore have to eliminate myself from editing this article. However, even in spite of my POV, I must agree that this article must present both sides of the Pitbull - the "pits are good pets and good animals" side and the "pitbulls have traits that are bred into them that make them inherently unsafe" side. NDCompuGeek 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Bulldogs are still extant, not extinct. They may look different from the original breed but the assertion of this breed being extinct is incorrect. [see e.g. UK Kennel Club breed standard http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/155] or the Wikipedia article on the Bulldog. Vandenwyngaerde 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth bearing in mind that in the UK the acronym BSL is not widely understood as referring to "Breed Specific Legislation", but instead the primary understanding of this acronym is "British Sign Language" among the general public. I was puzzled when I read 'BSL' at first in the body text of the article as I was wondering what sign language had to do with dog breeds and I feel that this is a classic example of unnecessary jargon. Vandenwyngaerde 09:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Comments

I would agree that the article, especially in original form, is biased. However, authors should be careful not to assume that just because some people believe pit bulls are inherently aggressive that this article should avoid making a conclusion--properly supported--that they are not.

Also, to those who write biased articles like these, I would suggest to them that they wind up being less convincing than when writing neutral articles. Readers know when they are being spun, and can become even more entrenched in their positions. In my opinion, the facts about pit bulls tend to absolve the breed as a whole of guilt. Relate those facts, and I think you might have a better chance of changing some ill-informed minds.

As for me, I should perhaps recuse myself as well, seeming as it does that I also have my mind made up. However, I may make some edits, eventually--not least because I believe it is important for Wikipedia to have a robust, neutral article about pit bulls, especially at a time when national media seems to be honing in on pit violence related stories. I feel confident I can do so neutrally, but I will not complain if someone beats me to the task.

No, the article should not draw a conclusion, period. It is obviously a controversial topic. We should only present the data and the arguments. Anything else would either be original research, or unencyclopedic. Gigs 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Kentucky court case

I am removing several paragraphs about a Kentucky court case. These paragraphs are strongly opinionated in favor of pit bull ownership, and are inappropriate for a neutral Wikipedia article. They would make a good opinion article, but they do violate Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. We can't write about "bad case law" or use opinion words such as "disturbing", "should not", "it is a fact that", etc. In addition, no sources are cited. Rhobite 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Incidents

Do we really want to have a section on specific incidents?

This article would balloon to a huge size if we documented the hundreds of attacks and deaths reported as attributed to pit bulls in the media every year. I don't think we should document specific incidents unless they have other relevance, such as inspiring a new law, or setting a new case law precedent. Gigs 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree with Gigs - the amount of attacks that the media pins on this breed are staggering. Actual numbers may vary, but as soon as it gets reported by a "reputable" 6:00 news station, it becomes media-influenced fact -- regardless of the truth. Documentation of all accusations and incidents of "pit bull" attacks would surge so far out of control so quickly that this article would not be able to maintain it's NPOV. Again to agree with Gigs, notability is the issue here. If an attack in Michigan is what prompted the breed-specific legislation there (notice, no BSL for our British friends 8^P ), then it should be listed. If Joe Blow from East Outer Mongolia got bit by a pit bull and there was no other consequence, then this article needs to maintain a "so what" attitude.

Notability and relevance are the issues here.... NDCompuGeek 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another vote of agreement with Gigs. The news media can handle the seemingly ongoing specific incidents. We can highlight the select ones that really stress or cite a relevant and more universal point in time. Keesiewonder 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I specific incidents are verifiable facts, this article is pretty lacking in facts. Perhaps we could limit it to deaths and severe disfigurements, like Grandmother charged over death of Ellie concerning the mauling to death recently of a UK girl whilst at home with her Grandmother. I move that these incidents are important because neutral statistics aren't presented. If some multi-country statistics can be presented showing attacks and attacks resulting in permanent disfigurement, disability, or death then most other reports could be deleted. Of course a comparison would need to be established by giving similar figures for another dog ... but then you're getting in to a separate article on dog attacks.

[edit] Clifton Study

I believe the Clifton Study listed here to be of questionable validity.

That report was written by Merritt Clifton, editor of the self-described "independent" magazine "Animal People" ([ http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/current.html ], whose distribution information is not readily available.

It was not commissioned or certified by any organization. It was not peer-reviewed. It is not cited in the Wiki entry for "American Pit Bull Terriers."

All google results for the phrase "clifton study" dog bites or for for the title of the report were internet message boards with users citing the study, presumably from this entry!

It uses such language inappropriate for academic research, such as the phrase "hell of a problem."

The report consists of a table of bite information followed by an editorial on breed specific laws and pit bulls. It cites no sources. It says only that statistics were compiled from media reports.

Fear of pit bulls is undeniably a major media topic. Reporters report what gets read. Richard F. Stratton, who has been writing about America Pit Bull Terriers since 1976, asserts that "I have known many cases where reporters were there to cover a 'Pit Bull attack' and left when they discovered it was some other breed. Even worse, some reporters have been known to cover any dog bite as a 'Pit Bull attack.'"

I think the validity of this report's information is definitely open to question, and I think it should not be mentioned here. Mattausch 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This study clearly does not meet the Wikipedia guideline of verifiability: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." This report has not truly been published. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to include; therefore I submit that those who wish this citation included defend its verifiability. Otherwise it needs to get out of here before it is cited by 10,000 more people who see it here. Mattausch 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, I just accessed Journal Finder for this, and found the ISSN for Animal People is 1071-0035 and it is published in Shushan, NY. Maybe this number will be useful to someone trying to obtain the distribution and verifiability information requested above. Keesiewonder 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• So, if I were 'reviewing' this article, a peer-reviewed resource that cites the Clifton Study would be nice to see. Keesiewonder 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info, Keesiewonder. I still think the Clifton Study reference is miles from usable and is hopefully on its way out of this entry, especially based on some more information I encountered this morning (below).

An interview with Mr. Merritt, who is introduced as "the controversial editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE", includes a response by Professor Gary Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law.

Francione says: "I think that it is patently absurd--and dangerous to the movement--that people like Merritt represent themselves as "objective journalists." And again: "Moreover, he has abused his role as "journalist" to wage vendettas against those he does not like."

Francione also mentions Merritt's acceptance of conclusions that Francione considers "absurd," which are based upon data acknowledged as faulty by the study's author.

I do not mean this to be a diatribe against Mr. Clifton. I simply am simply trying to be sure the study's reliability is shown to be in question. The reference to Mr. Clifton's study must go. I'll attempt to remove it myself on January 14th, 2007 if no notable support for citing this study is shown. Mattausch 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping up with this from afar, and I concur - the Clifton Study is next to useless for any Encyclopaedic purposes. It is unverifiable, subjective and it's notability is up for debate. The actual document itself is vague and sensationalistic. I fully endorse the removal of the refs to Clifton's Study. - WeniWidiWiki 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in depth, but my current take is that the Clifton Study comes out. Has anyone taken the time to note who added it? i.e. if it is someone who made one or two edits and is no longer with us ... I'm not convinced we need to wait until the 14th to remove it. If proponents of it see that it is out and call it vandalism ... well ... we *are* trying to discuss it on the talk page ... but all those discussing so far are in agreement. I don't mean to rush things; I'm just recognizing that we have boldness and the ability to revert at our fingertips if needed. Keesiewonder 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As per the above consensus, I have pulled this paragraph and the link to the document from the refs:

The Clifton study revealed that pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks on children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal being studied.

Report: Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada - September 1982 to November 13, 2006

Consensus at this point is for removal, as the material does not meet the criteria set at WP:VERIFY - WeniWidiWiki 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my two cents...

im no writer but would have to add to this discussion. i work at a dog pound and would have to say that no dog that comes in rivals the aggressiveness(if thats even a word)of a pit bull...well maybe except a Chihuahua. they are the most owner surrendered, most euthanized animal. the very few dogs that do come in that have killed people, are always pit bulls. i have seen pit bulls on many occassions "lock" their jaw on another dog. weve even had to sedate a pit bull to get it to let go of another dogs leg that was in another cage. because of pits being aggressive, pits almost have to be quarantened. they have the most incidents of bites in our county, blah blah blah, every negative stereotype you can think of is true...at least where i live and work. all of this im saying is not just speculation or stuff ive heard from other people. i see it with my own two eyes on a daily basis. i think more needs to be done to keep people from owning pits in fact i would say that they should be outlawed for a couple of years or so just to lower their population. its not very fair what is happening to pits but the only way any of these problems are going to go away is if the breed is just outlawed. there are too many ignorant people out their than responsible owners and you can say and preach all you want but people and animals are still going to be killed and injured by this breed. i love animals myself and do all i can to save animals where i work on a daily basis but i dont think its fair that i cant walk my boxer in my neighborhood without fear of being attacked by a pit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.11.251.80 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your perspective, and I don't doubt your experience for a second. The 'problem' here is we are trying to write an encyclopedia article that is not a point of view piece but is balanced. If we could find scholarly research backing up the experience you wrote of or that referred to the Clifton Study, we could incorporate it in to the WP article. I have not met many pit bulls or pit bull owners so I don't have direct personal experience with the breed. I know lots of other people's opinions, and I hear the news reports ... and have been around long enough to know not to believe everything I hear or read until I check it out for myself ... Thanks again for your perspective. It is nice to be reminded of someone who does all they can every day to make animals' lives better. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 11:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We all appreciate the rescue work that dog pounds do, especially for pit bulls, but judging a breed on that basis (see above) is like evaluating humanity based on a sampling of jailed prisoners. The overarching obstacle that this article faces as an encyclopedic article is the number of passionate editors who cannot temporarily control their passion for pit bulls--either outlaw them b/c they're monsters, or love them to death if they're your pet. And we all feel sorry for the dogs that are abused. PBarak 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Understood. Remember who said this:

my current take is that the Clifton Study comes out. Has anyone taken the time to note who added it? i.e. if it is someone who made one or two edits and is no longer with us ... I'm not convinced we need to wait until the 14th to remove it. If proponents of it see that it is out and call it vandalism ... well ... we *are* trying to discuss it on the talk page ... but all those discussing so far are in agreement. I don't mean to rush things; I'm just recognizing that we have boldness and the ability to revert at our fingertips if needed. Keesiewonder 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also trying to exercise 'be nice to newcomers.' Keesiewonder 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work of our pounds and rescue agencies I have to dismiss the claims of the pound worker above as inflammatory and unverifiable. I've spent the last 12 years researching pit bulls and while "Pit Bull-Type" is acceptable for the CDC, anyone who has spent anytime with the full spectrum of pit-bulls knows that they vary from 20lbs to over 100lbs come in every color and body type. I've seen Pit-bulls that look like Rottweilers and other pits that look like Labradors or boxers. The pound worker stated that every stereotype about pit bulls is true. Well that shows the unfortunate ignorance of the majority of people in the world. There has not been one study that has shown that a pitbulls jaw locks, there is no study that has shown that pit bulls perform the most attacks(only that "Pit Bull-type" dogs have the most fatalities) especially not into the hundreds as he claims. I am more than willing to concede the point that there are bad dogs, and that THOSE bad dogs should be euthanized. The majority of "bad" dogs, of any breed, however are nurtured into viciousness not born. Of my 12 years of active research into the breed I have come across two that have been vicious, yet most Non-Pit Bull owners, that I speak with, become fearful at the mere mention of the name Pit Bull. The media and and anti-pit bull types like the pound worker love to pick on the Pit Bull just as they did The Rottweiler The Doberman Pinscher, The German Shepherd, and a variety of other "innately vicious" dogs before them. Pit Bulls are not for everyone, they require a lot of work. The idea that we should ban the dogs for now is just ludicrous, the law would never be overturned, which is why pit bull fanciers fight tooth and nail against it. That kind of logic is the same logic (applied differently of course) that racists use against blacks and hispanics. Sorry for the diatribe, but please try to add substance not propaganda

Above apparently added by 19:46, January 11, 2007 24.13.4.214 (Talk) (→my two cents...) Keesiewonder 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but in regard to the aggressiveness of pits, because people see them as aggressive dogs, they buy them as guard dogs, lock them up outside, abuse them, etc etc etc. I don't think evidence of proportionally higher rate of attacks is indicative of the breed being more aggressive. Well, I think it is partially indicative, but i think the stats are skewed because a much lower percentage of pit owners (compared to other breeds), buy them as family dogs (as opposed to guard dogs). Just a thought for whoever ends up fixing this article. And I write this having witnessed some nasty pit bulls. Maxterpiece 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two factors involved with Pit Bulls that lead to the negative stereotypes, which I do believe are not completely without warrant. The first issue is that they are, as a breed, a very powerful and tenacious dog. I don't think that many will dispute this. I believe that the underlying issue is, however, their appeal in society to certain demographics. Ironically, it's the stigma attached to Pit Bulls from which the appeal is derived. These particular owners often lack much of what it takes to properly train and socialize any dog -- a problem that only made worse when dealing with such a powerful dog. I've witnessed an owner like this, promoting aggressive behavior to "show off" his dog. The dog has since been euthenized, after he put his owner in the hospital with severe arm lacerations. It's sad, because it is clearly a case of a bad owner, not a bad dog. I guess to summarize -- bad owners are attracted to Pit Bulls, and responsible owners are turned off by the stigma attached to them.

Thewbg 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV template

At this point, these templates are next to useless for an article this evolved. If someone contests specific statements or needs sources, using the specific appropriate tags {{fact}}, {{who}} and {{vc}} aould be more productive. There are also {{POVassertion}} {{POV-statement}} {{Dubious}}. Sections which are totally unsourced can be pulled intact to the talk page to be discussed or re-added later. Drive-by editors slapping templates on articles is not conducive to actual progress. Rather than raging against the wiki, why not contribute to the article? - WeniWidiWiki 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSL Info

To counter the often used incorrect statement that there is no proof that BSL bans work,

"Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls in 1990, a year after an attack left a young girl badly disfigured. Since then, incidents involving pit bulls have fallen from about 25 a year to one or two."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dogs/

Also, to disprove the claim that other dogs will fill the gap, from [1]

"We've seen positive results from similar bans in other jurisdictions. The most relevant and telling is the Canadian experience: 14 years ago, Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. Winnipeg was experiencing over 30 serious reported pit bull attacks a year; today, zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks a year, and in a few short years since the ban came in, thanks to the leadership of their mayor and to Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who is in the gallery today, they now have about one pit bull attack a year in Kitchener."

"This means that people in those cities who otherwise would be subject to the repeated attacks of pit bulls are instead spared serious injury, and the same goes for their pets. Even more interestingly, dog bites in Winnipeg went down over the course of the pit bull ban, refuting the hypothesis that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by banned pit bulls." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Could it be that reporting is somewhat skewed in post-BSL areas because people are less likely to assume an ambiguous breed is a "pit bull"? Either way, it's not about proving or disproving anything, wikipedia doesn't do that. We should only report the facts. It looks like you may be able to get a citation of these Winnipeg BSL effects, but you'll have to do better than a google cached article that no longer exists. Gigs 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

-- I'm new to th whole wikipedia thing, so bear with me as I attempt to address the above quotations.

I happen to have some expertise in this area.

The Winnipeg dog bite statistics have been made available to anyone who requests them. The city of Winnipeg's own data shows, when pit bulls were banned in 1990, there were 214 reported dog bites that year (with 68 bites by German Shepherds and crosses, 18 bites by Terrier crosses, 16 bites by Labs and their crosses, and 11 bites by pit bulls). For the decade following Winnipeg's pit bull ban, there were an average of close to 50 MORE dog bites per year, with immediate spikes in bites by German Shepherds and crosses (92 bites in 1991, and 97 bites in 1992); Terrier cross (29 bites in 1991, and 34 bites in 1992); up to 2001, when the top biters were German Shepherd and crosses 64 bites, Rottweiler and crosses 37 bites, and Lab and crosses 30 bites.

Total dog bite numbers were only lower than the 1990 figures 5 times in the following 13 years.

Winnipeg's own data shows that bites increased, and bites by other breeds increased dramatically, in some cases. The ban was such a failure in reducing dog bites, in 2000, Winnipeg officials quietly adopted the proven (non-breed-specific) measures pioneered by the city of Calgary. (Calgary has reduced dog bites by 70%, and now boasts the lowest dog bite rate of any major Canadian city. They haven't banned any breeds and, through enforcement of existing laws, targeting habitually negligent dog owners, and increasing fines, they've made their animal control department financially self-sufficient, in the process. The city boasts nearly 100% licensing, compared with most cities' 10-20% licensing rates.) Winnipeg's dog control by-laws used to reference the Calgary model, but those references have subsequently been removed. Only after the Calgary model was adopted did dog bite numbers begin to fall in Winnipeg.

The first quotation I'll address is: "Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls in 1990, a year after an attack left a young girl badly disfigured. Since then, incidents involving pit bulls have fallen from about 25 a year to one or two."

Notice the author only mentions a decrease in the number of "incidents" involving pit bulls. They leave readers to assume every bite is a serious attack, and even mislead readers into believing that overall dog bite numbers have been reduced.

But since pit bulls were banned from the city, the only logical conclusion is that bites by pit bulls would be reduced. That logic says little more than, "by banning dogs we can eliminate dog bites". One could argue that Winnipeg's pit bull ban also eliminated elephant attacks, since there haven't been any in the city since pit bulls were banned. It's specious reasoning.

The next 2 quotation are: "We've seen positive results from similar bans in other jurisdictions. The most relevant and telling is the Canadian experience: 14 years ago, Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. Winnipeg was experiencing over 30 serious reported pit bull attacks a year; today, zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks a year, and in a few short years since the ban came in, thanks to the leadership of their mayor and to Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who is in the gallery today, they now have about one pit bull attack a year in Kitchener."

-- and --

"This means that people in those cities who otherwise would be subject to the repeated attacks of pit bulls are instead spared serious injury, and the same goes for their pets. Even more interestingly, dog bites in Winnipeg went down over the course of the pit bull ban, refuting the hypothesis that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by banned pit bulls."

I've dealt with Winnipeg, above. The ban led to more bites, and increases in bites by other breeds (such as an immediate 50% rise in bites by German Shepherd-type dogs, along with 1-2 bites by Rottweilers prior to the ban, up to 37 bites as of 2001).

Kitchener is a similar circumstance. No more pit bulls means no more pit bull bites. But Kitchener is an example of allegations of blatant hypocrisy, secrecy, and outright lies associated with the claims made about the ban.

The city banned pit bulls without doing any research into the city's own dog bite records, according to experts who later did the research. It appears nothing more than media reports of dog biting incidents led the charge. AFTER Kitchener banned pit bulls, a committee was formed to investigate the city's dog bite data, and determine which mixed breed dogs in the city would be affected. Their findings confirmed pit bulls were #8 in the city's bite statistics, "right behind #7 Poodles." The city immediately halted the tracking of dog bites by breed. They will no longer make dog bite data available to the public, as well. Dr. Gary Goeree, DVM, quit the committee in disgust. He's testified in public hearings opposing breed-specific legislation, and is helpful in refuting inaccurate claims made about the alleged success of the Kitchener ban.

However, every animal bite in Kitchener is still required to be reported to the Medical Officer of Health. I confirmed the findings of one organization that found dog bite numbers in Kitchener are the same today as they were in 1996, the year before pit bulls were banned. As of 2004, dog bite numbers haven't been reduced in Kitchener.

Kitchener officials often claim dog "attacks" (as opposed to less-serious "bites") have also been reduced, along with the reduction in the number of pit bull biting incidents. They have no factual support for these claims, though. At best, it seems these views are primarily based on media reports of dog biting incidents, rather than actual dog bite data. At worst, they're a deliberate attempt to falsely attest to the success of the ban.

My own research has found the complete opposite of the claims made in the above quotations. I haven't been able to find credible evidence that any region can prove a reduction in the number or severity of dog bites after banning a breed of dog. Bites remained the same in Kitchener. They increased in Winnipeg. The BBC reported hospitalizations due to dog bites increased by 25% within 5 years of banning pit bulls in England. Just a few days ago, the National Health Service reported that figure is now double the 1996 number. In other words, dog bites have increased dramatically in England since pit bulls were banned. Dog bite-related fatalities have remained relatively constant in England (and the U.S., Canada, and Australia).

There are a number of cities that have repealed their breed bans, citing their ineffectiveness and inability to be enforced, as the main contributing factors. The number of cities that have repealed their breed bans grows every year.

12 U.S. states have made breed-specific legislation illegal. One city successfully got around that obstacle by cleverly wording their dog control by-law, so that any breed attributed with 40% or more of bites could be restricted. I'm sure city officials expected this would lead to restrictions on pit bulls, but, since 2003, pit bulls have not been restricted.

Pit bulls rarely top municipal dog bite statistics. (They do in some cities, but those are the exceptions.) When people learn of this, they often fall back on the opinion that pit bulls may not bite the most, but when they do, they cause more damage than other biting dogs.

This theory is in direct conflict with actual dog bite data. For instance, I believe most people would agree that dog bites serious enough to require treatment in hospital would represent the most severe dog biting incidents. The Canadian Hospital Injury Reporting and Prevention Program tracks dog bite data submitted by several reporting hospitals across Canada. They published a report about these hospital-treated dog bites:

“Of the 385 records in the study, 278 (72.2%) specified the breed of the dog. There were 50 types of purebreds and 33 types of cross-breeds identified. The most common breeds were German Shepherds (40), Cocker Spaniels (16), Rottweilers (16) and Golden Retrievers (15).”

The only information available in Canada about (presumably) the most serious dog bites doesn't conclude that pit bulls are the biggest problem. Indeed, the breed most attributed with bites, attacks, and fatalities in Canada is the German Shepherd. (The very first unprovoked, dog-related, human fatality officially attributed to a pit bull occurred in May 2006. The dog was reportedly a Labrador Retriever/pit bull mix.)

Even in the United States, where the crude CDC data is often used in ways cautioned against by the authors of that data, the evidence is clear...

There are those who suggest that pit bulls are unique in the dog world. They're 'inherently vicious' and inflict much great damage when they attack. There is no scientific evidence that corroberates these claims, but we do know this. Every bit of science and statistics shows that non-pit bull dogs bite, attack, and kill far and away more often than pit bulls. Dog-related deaths are statistically rare, but even there we see that approximately 320 of the past 400 human fatalities have not involved pit bulls. Nationwide, the best estimates suggest 9% of the dog population are pit bulls. Yet, when one compiles as many municipal dog bite statistics possible, one finds pit bulls make up less than 4% of bites. This suggests pit bulls are less likely to bite, that one should expect, based on population numbers. Even where pit bulls make up as much as 10% of bites in a region, that still leaves 90% of bites attributed to non-pit bull dogs.

The only thing I can find special to pit bulls is that they are fancied for aggression training more than most other dog breeds. As such, it shouldn't be too surprising to find more pit bulls trained to behave aggressively.

Of course, there is a lot more I could say on this issue, based on years of research into dog biting incidents around the world. (No, I don't have any particular affinity for pit bulls.) I realize this is a lot of information to post on the discussion page. Be gentle. It's my first time. I just hope it helps to wade through the often inexpert, unscientific, and often unsubstantiated claims made about the success of breed bans. --

[edit] CDC nonfatal citation

There was a question on the CDC nonfatal numbers. I added the citation. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm The 2% of the entire US population bitten per year may raise some question since it is not explicit in the article. It is derived simply: CDC estimates 368,000 people treated in Emergency departments each year. The CDC estimates that 17% of bites are treated in a medical facility, with 38% of those treated seen in Emergency departments. Some simple arithmatic gets you 5.7 million people bitten per year (estimated). This is approximately 2% of the population of the United States. I believe when I originally wrote that section I was looking at a different CDC article where they actually expanded this arithmatic themselves to come to a number close to 6 million per year, but this article should suffice as a citation. Gigs 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In another spot (the breed specific fatality study summary I also cited, that is often controversial due to the "denominator" issue), they say "Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs.".. a little less than 2% Gigs 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) telephone survey that led the "4.7 million annual dog bites" quotation was conducted in 1994, when the population of both dogs and humans was smaller than it is today. Essentially, the telephone survey found only about 1 in every 12 dog bites was reported. Using the 368,000 reported bites the year of the survey as a guide, HHS extrapolated that figure based on the survey findings, and estimated the total number of both reported and unreported annual bites was 4.7 million. Some years, there are as many as 800,000 dog bites reported in the United States. According to hospital injury reporting criteria, 99% of dog bites that are treated medically fall into the lowest category for injury: a "1" on their scale, meaning quick recovery with no lasting impairment. By comparison, the most common type of injury, a fall, typically ranks a "4", meaning lengthy recovery or lasting impairment.

[edit] Banned in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx???

I would like to see some citation for the allegation in the chart - namely that there are active bans in boros of New York City. I have been unable to find any evidence of these bans, and indeed it appears NYS has a law preventing BSLs, which would make those bans impossible [2] - Lciaccio 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

What do you all think about semiprotection of this page? It seems to attract a ton of vandalism, but on the other hand we have kept on top of it more or less. Gigs 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT THE FUCK! PITBULLS ARE EVIL!

I LOVE THAT PICTURE OF THE FUCKING DOG WITH A FUCKING SCARF, REAL FUCKING CUTE. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT PITBULLS ARE SAVAGE KILLING MACHINES, AND THEY SUCK. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A SECTION ON THE EXTENT OF THEIR EVIL, AND HOW THEY SHOULD ALL BE FUCKING ROUNDED UP AND PUT ON A DESERT FUCKING ISLAND SO THEY CAN GROWL AT EACHOTHER AND SHIT IN THEIR OWN FUCKING YARDS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.187.76 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC).