Pit bulls were Toronto’s biggest biters, before the ban

[XemaSab]

When Ontario banned pit bulls in August 2005, critics said the decision was arbitrary, based on a few dramatic maulings and a sensationalistic press. The campaign was a result of prejudice, not facts, they complained.

But city data obtained by the Star points to a different possibility: that pit bulls really were the most dangerous kind of dog, in Toronto at least. From 2001 to 2004, pit bulls were more likely to bite people and domestic animals than any other breed, the statistics show.

In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 pit bulls licensed in Toronto and 168 reported pit bull bites. That’s more than double the rate of German shepherds, the next most aggressive breed.

The figures, compiled by the city’s Animal Services division at the Star’s request, come from comparing a breed’s licensed population with the number of times it was reported to have bitten a person or pet.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/03/pit_bulls_were_torontos_biggest_biters_before_the_ban.html

[seveneyes]

1. Facts do not lie

But Pit Bull apologists do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Pop Corn

[surrealAmerican]

3. It's impossible to know from the article ...

... whether the ban has done any good. It doesn't really matter if some other breed is now responsible for more injuries. The only thing that matters is if the total number of injuries from dog bites, or their severity, is less now than before the ban. This article doesn't say.