CliftonThere are other reputable sources.
Clifton is a major league animal rights kook.
"Around the world, societies that practice animal husbandry are desensitized societies. The abuse of animals inevitably spills over into the treatment of women and children. Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and slavery persist in ... as extensions of common agricultural practice to those of our own species who are least able to protect themselves."
Link
There are many critques of Clifton's "study" and methodology available.
KC DOG BLOG is good start. Google will reveal others.
For good investigation and analysis look to the CDC which is up front about its methodological weaknesses.
Its conclusion for example...
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)"
(What they are touching on here is the numerator/denominator problem. For accurate study and conclusions both the numerator[the # of dogs of a specific breed involved in attacks] and the denominator [the total population of the specific breed] must be known.)
Karen Delise also does an honest job beginning with her book Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics
and followed by The Pit Bull Placebo which she has made available online.
Her organization, The National Canine Research Council strives for accurate information, for example, their 2009 study of dog bite-related fatalities....
"NCRC is the only organization that does not rely on media sources for information on dog bite-related fatalities.
There were 31 dog bite-related fatalities in 2009. NCRC contacted officials on each case in order to obtain the most accurate and comprehensive information available. We have re-interviewed sources that the media has reached, and located others that they have not, among whom may be police investigators, animal control officers, coroners, veterinarians, health department officials, dog owners, and eye witnesses. We have obtained incident reports, bite reports, human and animal autopsy reports, summaries of judicial proceedings, and crime scene data and photographs.
Official reports often do not agree with news accounts and/or contain important information that was either unavailable or not of interest to reporters. The NCRC 2009 final report on dog bite-related fatalities is released at the end of 2010 because we believe that our mission of preserving the human-canine bond obligates us to be as accurate about these emotionally charged incidents as we can, so that they are calmly, correctly and, therefore, usefully understood.
Accuracy takes time, work and research."
Investigative Reports on Dog Bite-Related Fatalities for 2009
Karen Delise I don't believe her to be reputable. She is a self appointed expert.
Dog Bite Law Blog
Karen Delise is a living, walking, talking non-sequitur. Hardly worth rebutting were it not that she pretends to an unearned status. For those out there with a bit of analytic capability and/or scientific training:
1) Delise consistently switches from apples to oranges, as fits her propaganda goals. First she says ‘all dogs bite’ and pretends that dog bites are the same as sustained attacks. You know, Serpell’s point that dachhunds bite too and this is just as bad as a PB attack. But later Delise objects to statistics on dog bites because published statistics don’t separate out bites vs. sustained attacks and fatalities. Gad, she even makes this switch in a single comment here (March 1, 2010). Can you get more confused in your reasoning, or more transparent about your personal agenda?
2) Delise is herself partly responsible for the failure to separate statistics on mere bites vs. maiming/killing attacks. No wonder, since her entire book about slippers and balloons depended on keeping the distinction vague.
3) The book Delise gained fame with was a non-sequitur to begin with, though the PB-fans did latch onto it. All the things she cites in that book as causing accidents — slippers, balloons and such — do exactly that: cause accidents unrelated to the goal they were designed for. None of the things Delise mentions in her book were specifically designed to kill, as PBs are. Delise would have been more scientifically legitimate if she’d compared PB-inflicted deaths with deaths inflicted by firearms. You know, at least take two things that were designed to kill and compare those.
4) Another thing Delise omits in her book is the fact that a thing as simple as a household ladder comes with an extensive label warning of the risks and what precautions to take to minimize those risks. It’d be a crime to falsify such label, stating that you can put a ladder on the most unstable of surfaces and then stand on the top rung. Yet this is exactly what Delise is doing re the PB. She not only omits to mention the risks, but actively denies them. It would be nice if at some point she were held as liable for this as the maker of a ladder with a lying label would be.
5) That Delise works at a place called the National Council of Canine Research sounds impressive, until you go look and see that this is an organization that she founded herself. In the usual line of manipulative deception the PB fans use, Delise has chosen a name for her organization that SUGGESTS it’s a government run research center, thus an objective institution. It’s not. It’s just the umpteenth propaganda and lobby club that has chosen to hide behind a deceptive name.
6) Delise isn’t only the founder of this phony National Council of Canine Research, she’s also (according to the web site) director. This makes me wonder what kind of salary she’s awarding herself for her propaganda efforts. Nowhere, no matter how I search, do I find a resume that would show Delise has any kind of scientific background or what education she does have. She’s on Scientology lists, food for thought, since this ain’t the same as science — and aside from that everything refers back to her propaganda organization with the deceptive name.
6) So I suppose we’re all supposed to be impressed and drawn into debate by Delis’s self-bestowed title as ‘director’ of something.
This is just a heads up to those who might waste their time trying to engage in serious discussion with her here. Like trying to discuss economics with bankers who are still awarding themselves huge bonuses for causing the present crisis. You’ll only get opportunistic, distorted, self-interested arguments back.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/massena-ny/TELNN99U45Q7CFQRI
NATIONAL CANINE RESEASRCH COUNCIL IS JUST ANOTHER LYING PITNUTTER SITE FOUNDED AND RUN BY OUTRIGHT LYING PITNUTTERS WHICH I HAVE PROVED POSITIVELY BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT WITH THE ABOVE POSTS THEY THINK THEY CAN SAY WHAT EVER THEY WANT AND NOT BACK ANY OF IT UP WITH DOCUMENTED VERIFIABLE FACTS - HELLO GOOGLE - AND THEY HOPE NOBODY WILL ACTUAL RESEARCH ANYTHING THEY SAY THESE TWO LYING PITNUTTERS ARE THE ONES MAKING UP THE LIES AND MYTHS THAT ALL YOU PITNUTTERS ON HERE SPEW ALL THE TIME I HAVE ALWAYS TOLD YOU PITNUTTERS TO DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEW A BUNCH OF BS AND AGAIN YOU FAILED TO RESEARCH THE NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH COUNCIL AND NOW YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN PROVED YOURSELF TO BE LYING IGNORANT FOOLS AND DON'T BE MAD AT ME FOR PROVING YOU TO BE LYING AND IGNORANT ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS DO A LITTLE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS BS
Are you a pitnutter?