Wikipedia

Talk:Breed-specific legislation/Archive 1

< Talk:Breed-specific legislation
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Platonk in topic Seeking Dutch-speaking editor (Netherlands BSL)
Archive 1

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breed-specific legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Breed-specific legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Breed-specific legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Breed-specific legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

New York City....

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...bans the Boston Terrier? That can't be right. Or if it is, what on earth for? What kind of harm is a Boston Terrier capable of doing to a human being? Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


funny.. perhaps Boston terriers have caused harm to humans, kids, pets and property. That said its more a decisions for a forum.Mantion (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sample Legislation: Tennessee & Texas

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added citation references for Sparta law & list of other cities with pit bull bans and breed legislation with references in Table for Tennessee. Added Texas dog law samples in table per Texas Health & Safety code including Lillian's Law, legal definition of "Dangerous Dog" in Texas, and breed specific legislation information with citations. --Jenniferiarene (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Discussion on this article ended over two years ago, so I propose to completely rewrite it by replacing most of the existing text with text shifted from a section of the current Pit bull article that deals with breed-specific legislation, with minor edits to reflect general applicability to breed-specific legislation vice specific applicability to pit bull-type dogs. This will also help refocus the donor article on pit bulls; most of it is now taken up by the BSL section. Astro$01 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Text replaced. Astro$01 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pit bull ban in Miami-Dade County, FL

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The "Animal Law Coalition" and the "Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation" claimed in a news release that an administrative judge had overturned the County's pit bull ban ([1]), ([2]); however, the ban is still in effect, per the county government's websites ([3]) and ([4]); furthermore, closer reading of the animal law coalition release indicates that in this case a hearing officer refused to enforce the ban, rather than a judge overturning the law. As further proof, see the following story about a dog being identified as a pit bull on July 31, 2009 and ordered out of the city, despite a DNA test submitted as evidence that the dog was not a pit bull ([5]).

The cases of State of Florida v. Peters in 1988 and American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla. in 1989 appears to have set the precedent here; an administrative law judge cannot overturn rulings from a federal district court and a state appellate court. Astro$01 (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted text that said the ban had been repealed. Astro$01 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Under the "worldwide section > UK" the article refers to UK law (the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) and goes on to say that this law is not applicable in Northern Ireland. Whilst this is technically correct it gives the impression that Northern Ireland does not have breed specific legislation which is erroneous. The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 mirrors the Dangerous Dogs Act and bans the same 'types'. I suggest that the caveat about Northern Ireland is removed as it is more misleading than informing. 92.238.32.209 (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Kept caveat, but added that the same restrictions apply to Northern Ireland via the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, with a citation for the separate order. Astro$01 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

However, in the phrase "this law does not apply in Northern Ireland", it is not clear what the words "this law" refer to. If the words are taken to mean 'the law which bans pit bulls, tosas, etc' then it certainly does apply in Northern Ireland. If the phrase is to remain then it should be amended to clarify. Johnderondon (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate laws
- the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Its jurisdiction specifically excludes Northern Ireland ("This Law").
- the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. It covers Northern Ireland.
The two laws together ban these breeds in both locations. Specified "which law" is "this law" Astro$01 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the section not also cover the repeal of BSL in Holland?Johnderondon (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is focused on what BSL is and what its effects are, rather than where it may have been in the past. It is already a pretty long article by Wikipedia standards, so I hesitate to add a "this is where it was" section. Astro$01 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article cannot provide a worldwide view without including those countries and juridictions that have rejected BSL particularly those, like Holland, who have tried it and found it ineffective. By including only those jurisdictions that embrace it gives a skewed and biased presentation of the subject.Johnderondon (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly states that "the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed" and then summarizes the different positions, along with references and URLs for anyone who wants to pursue the merits further, so I don't see skewing or bias here. Astro$01 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the effectiveness of BSL is disputed indicates that some people are pro-BSL and some are anti-BSL. In itself it is a neutral statement so doesn't offset the bias that is introduced by subsequently detailing only those jurisdictions that are pro-BSL. Further the article asks for inclusion of a 'worldwide view' which seems incompatible with your earlier argument that the article is too lengthy to accomodate Holland's experience with BSL. Johnderondon (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The "worldwide" issue deals with the article's focus on the United States. BSL appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, in the United States and elsewhere, so I am not persuaded of the usefulness of detailing the countless jurisdictions that do not currently have BSL, either because they have never considered it, have elected not to implement it for the moment, or have decided to repeal it. Astro$01 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The course I am considering to address the "worldwide" issue is to take the details of the court decisions and place them in their own articles and refer readers to them for more details on those subjects. That should cut down the amount of space dedicated to the U.S. and hopefully result in a somewhat reduced emphasis on BSL in the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
From regrading it today, I've removed the worldwide tag. I went back into the history to see the state of the article when it was originally added and it was added because the article was completely about the US. I believe the article has now addressed this - the disparity in volume devoted to the states is simply because different states have different rules. Miyagawa (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline (needs work)

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to work on a timeline but it needs work to fix the aesthetics. Here's what I got for now. The problems are that the texts overlap. Maybe this could be a horizontal timeline. More info on these timeslines here: [6], Wikipedia:Timeline. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you will get a substantial overlap any time there are a couple of events that are close together, even if you set the height to the maximum number of pixels allowed (2000). I think the basic problem is that some of the events occur closely in time when compared to the 20+ year length of the timeline. We could try a table that lists the events by year, with all the events in for a particular year listed in that year's row, but I'm not sure this would have the effect you are trying to achieve. Astro$01 (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
For times when it overlaps very closely, they could be listed on the same line. For near ones, they could be taken to the other side of the line with the line in the center like here but I dont know how to make that work. The table may work too but yea, I was checking if the timeline could work. Hmmm - needs more work or until there's a better solution found. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know how to make the template work, "edit" (but don't change) the template page so you can examine the markup language. Copy all of it to a separate file so you can save your work, and then copy the text into a sandbox and fiddle with it until it does work. Astro$01 (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea I took the examples from those templates and tried to play around. Might just have to wait for a better timeline software as its a little hard to manipulate. I'll remove this graph for now as its taking up space (oops). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing bans

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fort Drum has banned pit bulls and other breeds but this is not an Army-wide ban. This is reflected in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefox226G (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with this article...

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The problem with this article is that some people have a very difficult time remaining objective and stating both sides of the BSL debate. I think that any statement that cannot be verified should be removed. I searched high and low for references to Italy's dog ban and could not find anything. That doesn't mean its not true, but it suggests that it might not be. This article, as much as any, needs thorough citations and objective analysis - NOT just rantings and angry editings from passionate pit bull owners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eshedges (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

You must not have looked very hard then. Link, link.155.13.48.17 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of the links you provide point to profoundly biased pit bull advocacy sites, and are unreliable. Don't point wikipedia readers or contributors to biased sources. Thanks. --Woodlandpath (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL good one.. someone adds links 4 years ago and now you comment on them? link or link... I found dozens of list to official government pages. obviously there are many laws and many updates to the laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

yah....this is far from neutral. For example this:

these laws appear to have only two outcomes ... the consequent grievous harm to property and liberty that flows from such wholesale compromise of procedural and substantive due process rights

Note that this quote comes from a legal brief (as noted) but the legal brief's job is to argue a certain position--not to be neutral. So we are by definition quoting a biased source without presenting the other side. Yet this one-side statement is presented as one of the only two outcomes of these laws. Ughhh... not Wikipedia's finest here. --67.166.97.61 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"bully"-type dogs and "Nanny Dogs"

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should the fact that Helen Keller owned two pit-bulls, the USMC uses pit-bulls as their "emblematic" dog because of the courageness and loyalty, and the fact that pit-bulls used to be called "nanny-dogs" because of their intelligence and gentleness with children also be mentioned to offset the 'dangerous dog' accusations? NDCompuGeek 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This material would be more appropriate in the article on pit bulls, wouldn't it? This article is trying to be one about legislation aimed at (specific) breeds in general. Keesiewonder 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
aah - Thanks 8^) .... NDCompuGeek 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This is about breed specific legislation, not breed reputation. Of course, they are connected but so are many other things. So, a line must be drawn somewhere. Plus, if you do a bit of research, you'll find that breed was never referred to as nanny dogs. The first reference to this is in a staffie fancier mag in the 1970s. There is no reference to this prior from the period of time in which it is alleged. Therefore, the burden of proof has not been met. This falsehood has been repeated, however, without citation so much that people believe it to be true. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The USMC doesn't use pitbulls as their emblematic dog. The dog breed they use as a mascot is the smaller English Bulldog, which is quite different from the larger American Bulldog and the pitbull (which is a crossbreed of the American Bulldog and a Terrier, giving it the aggressiveness of a terrier combined with the physical size and jaws of a bulldog). Also they use it as a mascot for its ferocious appearance as much as for its loyalty. Walterego (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Should there be a critical section added to this article? There is sufficient information to create one. If no one responds in 96 hours then I am going to create the section.--Trulystand700 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against a critical section. Critical of what? Critical of the article itself? Or critical of BSL? You can't add a section critical of BSL because you would be giving a personal opinion, which is against Wiki NPOV guidelines.Woodlandpath (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I completely agree. This article is about law. Lots of people disagree with laws, not really the place to argue the good and bad of a law. I think you could add a section that state list significant groups against breed specific legislation, like the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the ASPCA, the Humane Society..... that said, then people would want a list of groups that support the laws... and it will go on and on. Debating both sides of laws are done by politicians, lawyers and judges. Their opinions are represented in the article through the laws passed and relevant legal challenges.Mantion (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Pros and cons of BSL should be its own article perhaps. Those one or two pro/con articles will likely be difficult to compile in an objective way, and they will be vandalized, if past trends are indicative. Therefore, a prudent meta-decision may be to keep this purely about law description, so at least this article has a hope of being decent. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it would improve the article. If this editor has good WP:RSs that clearly lay out notable arguments against such laws, I don't see why it wouldn't be an improvement to make such a section if s/he just summarizes the citations well. I can't agree with the arguments above. Sure, lots of people disagree about laws, but one of the important things the reader should know about this type of law is that they are contraversial, and you can't say that about laws against things such as murder. If s/he just reports notable arguements s/he has found in WP:RSs elsewhere, and does not present his/her personal opinion about them, I don't see what quideline or rule or whatever could be used to justify a revert because it wouldn't be a violation of WP:NPOV if we've explained the reasoning for such laws equally well. In fact, it might be a violation without such a section. And by the way, just in case you think I'm pushing my point of view, I'm actually in favor of, if not BSL, then maybe something which might be called "Kind-of-dog specific legistation" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Would also be an improvement then to add a section that provides a section that outlines the arguments for BSL?

The only useful information on this page is in the charts, and even it is lacking and very much outdated.

The whole lead is a mess especially the second paragraph, below is the majority of the second paragraph.

"; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed.[4] One point of view is that certain dog breeds are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs of these breeds, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning them.[5][6] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation to the problem of dangerous dogs.[7][8] A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.[9]"

I don't understand why we need 3 points of view. And why are these POV in the lead. Who cares what peoples point of view is. I don't I am sure there are a million points of view. If you want to share your POV go to a forum. This is not a forum. Please someone delete the section I quoted below and put useful information in its place. Mantion (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dog bite stats

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Are there any studies that relate dog-bite statistics to owners' demographics? Certain demographics own and socialize certain breeds differently - thus it may not be a purely breed-dependent problem but one mitigated by owner and socialization. Please be aware that correlation does not imply causation in science and statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papucs05 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Found some good stuff here that could be imported. Not sure if its here already. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

dogsbite.org is a hate site, not a site for scientific information. Sailboatd2 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The previous statement from User Sailboatd2 is an ad hominem attack, and therefore unworthy of Wikipedia. We do not call those who disagree with us "haters". This statement indicates that Sailboatd2 is an unreliable editor. Woodlandpath (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Sailboat is a reliable editor who let his bias be known. That said I completely agree with you. The site may be valid even if Sailboat disagrees with it. Now if I disagreed with it it must be false. ;)Mantion (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quebec

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(moved here from miscellaneous reference desk by Loraof (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

You have a very good page showing restricted dog breeds in Manitoba and Ontario Please note that Quebec (specifically some boroughs of Montreal) have introduced a ban on 'dangerous dogs' I don't feel competent to write it up, but can give you these references:

From the press. It is not just Pit Bulls but any dog that shows aggression.

See here: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/frequently-asked-questions-on-montreals-new-pit-bull-ban And here: https://legallogik.com/legal-news-montreals-pit-bull-ban/

Here is a list of Quebec regions with restrictions: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-pit-bull-bylaws-cities-1.3667095

70.52.88.147 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Utah and Maryland

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Utah just signed a law prohibiting BSL in any municipalities. It takes effect on January 1, 2015 - should we make a note in the table that its been prohibited and remove it in January? Maryland is signing a similar bill (just passed the house) that will reverse the Tracy v Solesky decision. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I added text to the Utah page noting the bill will take effect in 2015, but we should remove it then. I have removed the Tracy v Solesky decision, as the governor just signed the bill on April 8th, which reverses the decision effective immediately. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be worth keeping the previous court decisions to have an idea how the legislation has changed through the years and the possible reasons that has happened? GenerikErik (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Each of the examples at the top of this article should have a citation with it. Keesiewonder 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It also seems that link to the FAQ for the banned breeds in Winnipeg is no longer functional and needs to be either removed or replaced GenerikErik (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What about jurisdictions that outlaw breed-specific legislation?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For instance, BSL itself is illegal in Virginia. "C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited." Citation: VA ST § 3.2-6540 (formerly cited as VA ST § 3.1-796.93:1)

Shouldn't some attention be paid to the other side of this issue? Sailboatd2 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, Articles and the discussion page are not soap boxes to have an opinion. That said you do bring up a valid point, I think you would be free to add that information to the article. I would create a new section, state the law with out a point of view, (just the facts) and try to include a link to the citation if possible. Worry about making the words free from opinion. Most likely someone who watches the page often will read your addition and will tweak it a bit.
That said, I read the Ordinance. I am not a lawyer, but read a lot of laws. From your citations, it would be perfectly legal for a local government or even the state itself to pass breed specific legislation. I am not good at explaining laws nor is this the place. But basically the state has a law about "dangerous or vicious" dogs. It only says that a dogs breed can not be a criteria for classifying the breed as "dangerous or vicious". That said tomorrow if the state wanted to pass new legislation restricting a breed it would be an additional law and not impact the law you cited. So really your citation has little or nothing to do with breed specific legislation.Mantion (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there are two ways that that BSL is prohibited in the US. The first is disallowing regulation of specific breeds, and the second method is disallowing the categorization of dangerous breeds according to this page. [[7]] It seems that there are six states that have the first, and fifteen that follow the second. These could either be added onto the legal cases, or as a separate section of their own. GenerikErik (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Time source

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The recently added Time source by Mukogodo is largely based on the work of Merritt Clifton who has been since exposed as an academic fraud. The sort of source we should be using for this information should come from a reputable veterinary body that specializes in such statistics and analysis, like the AVMA. In this more recent literature review, it is stated: If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs21). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies,56 presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. See Table 1 for a summary of breed data related to bite injuries. - which directly contradicts the Time article. If we are going to provide background to BSL, we should be giving the highest weight to organizations like the AVMA, not popular press like Time, in which this specific article is based off a discredited researcher. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that you cite an opinion piece in Huff Post to debunk an article in ("popular press") Time. Not exactly the high ground. Mukogodo (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The same information about Clifton can be found in this book from pages 187-189. It is not an opinion that Clifton states he has hundreds of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, but that this is a demonstrable lie.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion, I will replace the current Time source with the above AVMA source, a comprehensive peer-reviewed literature review. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Breed-specific behaviours

Latest comment: 4 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

I have had a number of dogs in my life. Those from herding breeds loved to herd (family, mostly), the retrievers could not be stopped from retrieving, and the german shepherd defended the home vocally, and occasionally aggressively. Most dog owners acknowledge that these behaviours have been bred for in these breeds, and are now part of their instincts. But suddenly when we talk about pit bulls (what were they bred for?), the conversation is all about bad owners and bad training. Curious.Mukogodo (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is to report what reliable organizations like the AVMA and CDC say. As pit bulls anatomy (severity of biting) and pit bull behavior (frequency of biting) are both veterinary issues, we should be reporting what high-quality veterinary sources say. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I have observed pit bulls' aggressiveness more times than other breeds combined. These animals should be considered a threat to public safety. While personal experience does not qualify for inclusion into the article until it can be properly sourced it is acceptable to post onto the talk page for discussion. SlightSmile 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Personal observation is absolutely no substitute for lack of sourcing. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to me that the stats are pretty clear, but that that vets are unwilling to stand up for them.Mukogodo (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to report the conclusions of reliable secondary sources - in this case, veterinary institutions like the AVMA and public health organizations like the CDC are the professional experts when it comes to animal behavior and statistics. Unfounded claims that veterinary sources are intentionally downplaying public health risks are not appropriate. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Unconfirmed is not "unfounded". You seem to confuse failure to confirm with evidence of exoneration (both when it comes to pit bulls and when it comes to my criticisms of AVMA). This is what we do in our justice system, but not science. I believe that the evidence supports the conclusion that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous. The AVMA says they currently lack sufficient proof. History will tell who is right and who is wrong. Taking bets?

BTW, shutting down debate in Wikipedia Talk sections is inappropriate. Mukogodo (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The AVMA absolutely does not say they "currently lack sufficient proof". Wikipedia is based on what sources say now, not on your opinion of what sources might say in the future. As far as 'debate', this is all unactionable WP:FORUM and should be hatted. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from the Wikipedia article: "American Veterinary Medical Association whose journal published the original article released a statement detailing that this study "cannot be used to infer any breed specific risk for dog bite fatalities" (for lack of sufficient data on total breed ownership)". Here is a complete exact quote from the AVMA article: "In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report). To obtain such risk information it would be necessary to know the numbers of each breed currently residing in the United States. Such information is not available." So now we are down to "lack sufficient proof" vs."lack sufficient information".

Just curious: do you believe that herding breeds do or do not have a breed-specific genetic tendency to herd? Mukogodo (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That AVMA source is from 2000 and almost 20 years old at this point. It is a commentary on the CDC study, also published in 2000. At the time it might have been true that they did not have sufficient information. However, given the study is so old, it is not surprising that new information has been published since then. This AVMA source from 2014 is quite clear: "Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous." and "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". The more recent source should probably come first in the article, as using 20 year old sources before more recent ones can give them undue weight in favor of recent scholarship.
What I believe on any subject is completely irrelevant to any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is to post what sources say, not individual editors. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

But this is just a talk page. Do you believe that herding breeds do or do not have a breed-specific genetic tendency to herd?Mukogodo (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums. Please see WP:FORUM. Wikipedia talk pages are only for discussing actionable changes to the article. What I believe on any subject, or the role of genetics in herding, is completely unrelated to this article, which is Breed-specific legislation. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that what you or I believe is not admissible in the article, but it is disingenuous to say the breed-specific genetic tendencies are "completely unrelated to this article".Mukogodo (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about legislation - sources and discussion should be about such. Unsourced tangents arguing for the merits of BSL by bringing up unrelated genetic behavior about herding to presumably try to tie this to supposed inherent genetic aggressiveness in pit bulls - which is wholly unsupported by souces like the AVMA, CDC, ASPCA, etc, is not what talk pages are for. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Many would disagree. It is also disingenuous to report that the AVMA concluded that the genetic aggressiveness of pit bulls is "wholly unsupported", when "not sufficiently supported" is a more accurate description (see above).

As noted above, you're referencing the 2000 AVMA source. This is a commentary on the 2000 CDC paper which says "Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once", "Several interacting factors affect a dog’s propensity to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a study in Denver of medically-attended dog bites in 1991 suggested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite than female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs", "Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive", and "Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in ownerrelated issues". The 2000 AVMA source goes beyond noting lack of solid data and says: "Data in this report indicate that the number of dogs of a given breed associated with fatal human attacks varies over time, further suggesting that such data should not be used to support the inherent “dangerousness” of any particular breed. More than 25 breeds have been involved in fatal human attacks over the 20-year period summarized in this report."
Looking at more recent sourcing, such as the 2014 AVMA source it says: "Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention.". In this 2013 AVMA source, written by many of the same people involved in the 2000 CDC source, they state in plain, clear terms: "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these.", and expand on the factors, by saying: "Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.".
Some more sources, from the ASPCA: "Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs.". From the AVSAB: "An examination of stringent, state-regulated compulsory temperament tests administered in Lower Saxony, Germany, found that 95% of the population of 415 dogs of “dangerous breeds” reacted appropriately to test situations.8,12 When “friendly breeds” were tested, their scores were similar, exposing the fallacy that targeted breeds presumed to be dangerous were, in fact, no more dangerous than breeds considered to be friendly.13 Breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually.", and another AVMA source from 2017: "However, in 2008 the Dutch government revoked a 15-year nationwide ban on ownership of pit bull–type dogs after a study concluded the law was ineffective. Researchers in a Canada-wide study published in 2013 found no difference between the number of dog bites in municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation."
As you can see, source after source of recent scholarship from authoritative relevant entities to animal behavior consistently note that breed is not a factor in bite or fatality risk. So yes, I think it would be completely appropriate to flatly state that inherent genetic aggressiveness in pit bulls is wholly unsupported by authoritative sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all these quotes. Even based solely on these, I think "not well-supported" is closer to the tenor than "wholly unsupported". The fact that there are lots of other correlates of dog attacks is relevant (although not, apparently, subject to the same level of "proof" and qualifications about confounding factors) to the extent that they will contribute to the difficulty in nailing down breed-specific tendencies.

I do find it fascinating that no other genetic breed-specific behaviors in dogs are challenged for other breeds, and instead are even positively asserted and celebrated on multiple Wikipedia pages (see Pointers, Herding Dogs, Retrievers). I sensed a double standard, and commented on it.Mukogodo (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You might think it's fascinating but I think it's a disgrace how Wikipedia allows itself to be is being used as a platform for pit bull lobbyists. SlightSmile 16:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:IDHT. The sources above are quite clear and quite authoritative. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You're the one not listening. It's commonly recognized that the behavior of every breed is determined by it's breeding but when it comes to pit bulls suddenly it's about the owners, not the dogs themselves. And yes I am baffled by AVMA saying that there's no evidence of pit pulls' killing instincts. SlightSmile 17:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not what is "commonly recognized". Above I've posted four sources by the AVMA, one by the CDC, one by the ASPCA and one by the AVSAB which wholly contradict your claims. If the AVMA says there is no evidence of pit bulls' killing instincts, maybe you should consider that the veterinarians who work in this area know it better than you do. When you have a source from an organization that has the weight of the AVMA, ASPCA or AVSAB supporting your viewpoint, feel free to post. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You can cite the alphabets till the cows come home, there's no question these animals are about ripping the flesh off of bones. SlightSmile 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously making the argument that we should ignore what the most respected organizations say on this subject? Wikipedia is based off of what reliable sources say, not your unsourced opinion. It is undisputable fact that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior are some of the most reliable and authoritative bodies in this area (that is - veterinary anatomy and behavior), and I've repeatedly posted sources backing up the statements in this, and other articles on WP. Your continual insistence we ignore these sources, and instead go on your unfounded and unsourced opinion in the face of well documented sources is the literal definition of WP:IDHT and is disruptive to actual improvements to this page. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Is that a threat? This is not about some trivial topic but about public safety. SlightSmile 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Literally everything you've posted on this article and the Pit bull talk pages are unsourced opinion. Thats not how wikipedia works. The authoritative bodies on the matter say that the notion that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and a public safety hazard are completely unfounded. Your continually ignoring sources and continuing to post about your unsourced opinion is disruptive, and I'm pointing you to the policies that say why. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing I would like more than to be wrong about this but don't ever think that you're going to own this or any other article on this project. SlightSmile 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"recent study"

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Seems questionable at best. Did not actually compare the number of attacks before and after the legislation was put into place. See comments here: [8] Bueller 007 (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It was published in the Veterinary Journal, which was established in 1875, making it about as a RS as you can get for the purpose of this article. I don't think we should be interpreting studies, but rather leave that to other sources. In this case, I'm not entirely sure if comments left on pubpeer.com would classify as a RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because something was published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean a claim made in the journal cannot be dubious. The fact remains that the analysis simply does not show what it purports to show. And trying to generalize from a flawed study in a single country that does not even ban ownership of these animals to breed-specific legislation in general--as is being done by its inclusion in the lead of the article--is obviously asinine. The claim and the reference should be removed from the lead. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree its too strong for the lede, but still has merit for inclusion per WP:RS. I've refactored it into the Ireland section. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed. [9] "Data was not analysed", "author suggested", "may have", and "may have" makes this a dubious opinion by the author (as stated in the peer review content [10]), and including it in the article is undue weight. Also, no other section contains study information; they focus on regulations and laws. Normal Op (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking Dutch-speaking editor (Netherlands BSL)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Netherlands should be included in the worldwide table.

Although this article mentions that Netherlands repealed their country-wide ban on breeding specific dog breeds (in place from 1993 to 2008), it fails to mention that Netherlands in 2018 (after dog bites increased) reinstituted a form of BSL by keeping a list of 20 or 21 dangerous dog breeds. Owners of such dogs must now take a course,[1] and in some jurisdictions such dogs are restricted (example: muzzling, short leash, pass behavior tests before breeding). Several other webpages mention the re-introduction of such regulations in 2018,[2] and others mention proposed future measures (breeding and import ban, a central dog bite incident register, a central anti-social behaviour register).[3]

I am, however, unable to ascertain the current status of BSL in Netherlands. It appears that much of the online news for Netherlands is in Dutch, and not also in English, making it difficult to locate information using English search terms in a search engine. (Although reading a Dutch webpage is simple enough given the availability of online webpage robo-translations.) And the links in some of the non-official/not-government articles do not result in finding the official list of dangerous dog breeds, nor the regulations.

If there is any Wikipedia editor who is fluent in Dutch and can search for this information, please do so. Even if you simply post the "found" webpages here (rather than inserting them into the wiki article) that would be most helpful. Platonk (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dutch draw up dangerous dogs list, send owners back to school". DutchNews.nl. May 18, 2017. The official list of dangerous dogs includes pedigree dogs and crossbreeds which are known to have a high risk of aggressive behaviour. It includes 20 pedigree breeds such as Rottweilers, various varieties of pitbull and bull terrier, bull mastiffs and the Akita.
  2. ^ "Dangerous Dog Regulations - Netherlands". Angloinfo.
  3. ^ bonus, Canis (July 14, 2017). "2018 Breed Specific Legislation in the Netherlands: a critical review and suggestions". Canis bonus.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breed-specific_legislation/Archive_1&oldid=1143142178"