This is not junk research. This is the best researched dog bite study I have seen. It is interesting (but not really surprising) to look at the factors that occur around dog bite fatalities. And to note that one of those factors is NOT the breed of the dog.
FYI, to the rabid (pun intended) Pitty haters, don't bother flaming me for posting facts, I don't care.
I'm not advocating Pit Bulls...I'm advocating real science. Science is not 5 lines of drivel printed by semi literates at the AP, nor is it anecdotal incidents. Hold yourselves to the same scientific standards that you expect (but do not get) of the global warming EnviroTards.
If the only response some of you have to the post of this study is to make nasty, vulgar and personally insulting remarks about me, just go back the DU where that sort of "thinking" is institutionalized.
Preventable husbandry?? Pajama boy??
It’s been my experience that there are very few bad dogs.There are lots of really bad owners out there,however.
Thanks for posting that. I’ve tried to tell the Pit haters these very same things...to no avail. They will still leave their blinders on and make excuses, just wait and see.
That is a somewhat confusing headline. I have never seen the verb “Co-occur”. Maybe they could have used the phrase “that often occur”, as in; Preventable Husbandry Factors that often occur in dog-bite related fatalities.
Good luck in your research. You obviously care a lot about this topic.
The fact that Pit Bull owners cannot afford to live in my neighborhood saves me the time of going some report’s arcane footnotes.
I do not know why anyone would own this breed unless they want to frighten or intimidate other people. And better check your homeowner's insurance.
Breed may not have been a factor because “The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases”.
But breed is a factor in DBRF. Big breeds have a greater ability to fatally wound a human than little toy breeds.
Trying to pretend that all breeds are equally dangerous is analogous to the TSA security theater that all passengers are potential terrorists.
I won’t try to speak to ‘real science’, but I’d rather be bitten by a rampaging Chihuahua than a Rottweiler...
I base this belief on 20+ years of ER work having seen hundreds and hundreds of dog bite victims coming through our doors and not recalling having heard of a *single* one of them dying.
This report is not hard science. Sorry.
I used to be employed as a scientist and have an educational background in science, stressing the scientific gathering and analysis of data. This “study” or whatever you call it, is full of holes. This is a good indicaton that it was a propaganda piece by design.
For example, the highest potentially preventable “factor” is “no able bodied person present to intervene.” So all the pit bull owners killed by their own dogs should never have been left alone with their dogs? If dogs can’t be trusted alone, then people living alone must have cats and never dogs (although cat owners will assure us that their pets can kill them). Kinda kills the whole idea of service dogs for the blind - those people are alone with their dogs! I was alone with my dogs quite a bit and was never harmed but then I never had a pit bull.
How about the heart shredding story of the woman and her two beloved pits babysitting for a friend. The dogs attacked her to get to the baby -they disabled the “person present to intervene” first. She was transferring her dogs from a back room, where she kept them to avoid them having contact with the baby, to their dog run. Her own dogs attacked her and, now in shock and using her body to cover the baby, they began to dig under her body to get to the child. In shock and bleeding, she fought her own dogs to try to save the baby. She can’t recall some portions of the fight - too traumatic. The baby was shredded and of course, died.
PPits attack without warning, it often doesn’t help much if others are present - pits don’t stop attacking on command. How about those pit bull owners who advocate “responsible” pit bull owners carrying a “break stick” to pry the jaws of their dog open after it latches onto a person or other dog and refuses to let go? Bet all “responsible basset hound owners” wouldn’t go ANYWHERE without their break stick!
How about the fact that pit bull owners believe that their dogs are the subject of biased “myths” about their aggression level but still just CAN’T secure their dogs? So many of these attacks are by pits who “got out” “broke out” etc.? Beagles are not notorious for savaging the elderly in their front yards after “getting out.” Nope. Pits just can’t be secured like normal dogs.
I’ve read about pit bulls breaking through a screen door to attack a baby and her grandmother in their living room. It may be hot hot hot weather but whatever you do, don’t play with your grandchild in your living room with the screen door locked - pits can break through that. How much you wanna bet granny and her deceased grandchild were counted among that statistic for “no able bodied person present?” Granny tried to shut the baby in a room away from the dogs but she didn’t have the strength to fight off two pit bulls so I imagine that means she wasn’t able bodied.
I’ve read an account of a 40lb pit bull killing a horse. There ya go - no able bodied person present to intervene! The elderly man working in his yard? Attacked by pits who rips his limbs off and killed him - no able bodied person present. Owners found dead with pit bull covered in blood...clearly no one was there to help.
Pits can’t be kept secured - pit owners have proven that. They are well aware of the reputation their dogs have but the dogs routinely get out. Now alot of dogs “get out”, but when pits get out, they go hunting. Watch the youtube video of a dog racing through a large 4 way intersection to pull down it’s prey - a child walking with her grandmother. I doubt the authors consider an elderly person “able bodied” but if they do, the presence of an able bodied person didn’t stop the attack from happening. A bystander kicked repeatedly and the dog let go (pit bull breeders consider “giving up” a negative and would say the dog is not “game” enough) but the child was still savagely attacked. The presence of the first “co-occurring” factor (no one present) is virtually proof that they reverse engineered to protect the “Dogs of Peace” and now this junk “science is going to be earnestly trotted out over and over.
‘
Another trash factor in this study is “the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog.” Welp, that’s true. The elderly man, a retired military veteran, did not know the pit bulls that attacked and killed him while he was working in his own yard. Many pit victims did not have a familiar relationship with the dogs who maimed or killed them. The baby who was killed by his sitters dogs would not have a relationship with the dogs because all adults concerned decided it was best avoided. But owning a pit bull, a breed with the highest kill rate, means that there is zero room for error. The sitter put the baby on her hip (the dogs had licked his face before but that was only one meeting) to keep him out of range of the dogs as she transferred them from the back room to the dog run. It never occurred to her that her dogs would attack her to bring her to the ground to get at the child.You just can’t trust your family pit bulls enough to hold a child on your hip while letting them out. That video of a free roaming pit (hey he got out) racing through an intersection to “bring down” a child walking with granny shows yet another example of this “factor” - no relationship. I note that this factor was “co-occurring” 85.2 percent of the time. How much you want to bet that pits were over represented in the attacks in which the dogs DID have an established relationship with the dog? That’s part of the pit horror - they often kill or maim owners or family members. Ah but this junk “science” study seems like it was reverse engineered so that kind of analysis will not be allowed! I’ve had dogs for years - none of them go kill people if they get out. Pits get out and go hunting, for people or dogs to kill or “just” rip apart for fun - they aren’t guarding their territory, they are big game hunters.
You know there’s a “study” that purports to “prove that a few small dog species (I think one was llahso Apso) are FAR more likely to bite (and therefore were more dangerous) than pit bulls etc.?
And the “study” by a veterinary association that purports to “prove” that pit bulls do not have temperament issues? Yeah if you read and research a little bit you can find problems with their “scientific method.” A critical requirement was that their sample of dogs tested for temperament must represent an objective cross section of the breed - that means that the dogs must be randomly selected and tested. But that “study” asked for volunteers. So owners who felt their dogs behavior was remarkably good (and they mistakenly pat themselves on the back for that instead of thanking their luck so far) volunteered. WRong. Biased study. The study shifted from science to propaganda by testing the temperament of only those pit bulls ‘hand picked’ for their unusually “good behavior.” Even that was not enough - one pit bull owner who participated in the study said her dog had a little bit of trouble but noted with approval that the evaluator “understood” he was just having a bad day.
These trash science studies come up against the cold hard data which, without convoluted analysis or reverse engineering and “co-occurring” nonsense, cannot be refuted. The body count for pits is unacceptable, they kill the most people (even though they are not the most common breed) and of all breeds, they alone kill more adults in their prime. This study does nothing, absolutely nothing to change the truth about the levels of death and maiming that breed is responsible for.
You know why they chose the “co-occurring factor” title? Wanna guess? Oh c’mon!
Alright if you won’t guess - here it is. Their “study” could not prove a causal relationship so all they could say that factors were present. This is a critical flaw but it is done by design. When your study fails to prove anything, you can always say 4 out of the factors “occurred”...not “caused” because you can’t prove a causal relationship here....just say they “occurred” together. You want more examples of co-occurring factors? Lots of bleeding and screaming and helpless pleas for mercy while being ripped apart by pit bulls. On the dogsbite.org website, a woman being attacked by her pit bull lay against the door that her rescuer was trying to open. Unable to get the door open, her daughter heard her mother’s horrified scream ‘He’s eating me!’ Yes pits strip flesh off whereas ‘normal’ are far more likely to bite and release. I’ve never read an account of a dog attack that matched the pit for flesh removal. Those agonizing details are not causal either but they they equal in “scientific merit” to this study’s co-occurring factors There are happier factors that occurred at that time too - someone feeling good about getting their garden in order or playing with a grandbaby in the living room right before the fatal attack.
Here’s another worthless co-occurring factor: “a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog” See, there again service dogs are not the most dreaded species with the highest body count. In service dog situations - the dog HELPS the disabled. This throws real mud on the clarity of their worthless “factors” (might as well say observations because they are not causal) because it’s not clear how they would separate out the factor of “no able bodied person present to intervene” (he was alone) from the “age or physical condition” (and he was elderly). How do you “manage your interaction” with a dog that you’ve never seen before that wants to kill you? Note that among dog attack fatalities, pits are the only breed to kill adults in their prime. Hey the baby that was killed by the pits who crashed through the locked screen door, the baby that was killed in the care of her sitter, the child that was attacked walking down the street with her grandmother - they were all “unable to manage their interaction” with the attacking pit bull.
I am guessing they threw in the “factor” about people keeping “residential dogs” to imply that doggie was kept in a box or chained to a tree outside. I am guessing that not too many people felt safe letting a pit bull sleep inside at night after it outgrew the adorable puppy stage and started to show aggression. I’m guessing a dog that sleeps outside might be counted among residential dogs (guard) as opposed to pets. Hope not because some dogs sleep outside just for snoring or nightie snack raids on the kitchen garbage.
“Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors.” This nonsense dilutes their credibility to zero. 4 or more factors were present (not causal, they were just “present” like the blood and screaming) - their own biased statics show that mismanagement or abuse are by far the very least like factor to occur. Their stupid “breed was not a factor” is pathetic because they designed their study to obscure breed. All they had to do was collect observations, and pad those observations with pointless observations so you dilute breed as a factor. If their study was valid, it would roughly reflect actual damage recorded for actual breeds. A valid study would show some correlation to the number of Americans pits kill every month in the US. You have to look at the literal body count statistics for proof that pits kill the most people (shocking in itself given that pit attacks and killings far exceed the breed’s percentage of all dogs) and are the only breed that kills more people in their prime than the sick and they aged. They are big game hunters, not pets.
www.nydailynews.com/.../upstate-new-york-woman-mauled-rab...
by Carol Kuruvilla - in 123 Google+ circlesDec 11, 2013 - Cindy Bowman's arm was scratched up by a rabid bobcat. ... house when a bobcat lunged out from under her deck and bit down on her skull.
Her daughter’s boyfriend, Nate Nadeau, rushed to the house with a gun. He shot the bobcat before it could hurt him, but he still had contact with its blood.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/upstate-new-york-woman-mauled-rabid-bobcat-article-1.1544843#ixzz2nxiDQqVz
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/upstate-new-york-woman-mauled-rabid-bobcat-article-1.1544843
This happened near my sister`s farm.
We`uns all got guns up here just in case some of them varmits `n critters jumps on our haeds.
Trying to pretend that all breeds are equally dangerous is analogous to the TSA security theater that all passengers are potential terrorists.
__________________________________
You wrote:
I don’t see that as the point being made here. It’s not saying that all breeds are equally dangerous. i.e. a bite from a large dog is the same as a bite from a small dog. It’s not even suggesting that.
It is addressing the *likelihood* of attacks, etc based on consideration of multiple variables including breed.
Not the same things.
__________________________________________________________
You are actively disseminated false information. The study says breed is not a factor in fatalities. You say the study is “It’s not saying that all breeds are equally dangerous” and then confuse the issue by saying a bite from a large dog is not the same as a bite from a small dog - but the fake “study” is not about “bites”, it’s deaths and the study falsely rules out breed as a “potentially controllable factor” even though in 80% of the case they didn’t know what the breed of the animal was! JUNK! JUNK! JUNK! Breed might be the ONLY controllable factor. How does “I don’t know what the breed was” translate into “breed wasn’t a factor” in the fatalities??? Malevolent junk from pit apologists.
Cherry picking data: “Rather than rely predominantly on information contained in news accounts, as had previous studies of DBRFs, detailed case histories were compiled using reports by homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and interviews with investigators.”