Posted on 08/07/2010 12:09:52 AM PDT by Chet 99
The country is full of gang bangers and various other low lifes breeding pit bulls. Where do you get your denial?
Incidents are commonplace.
Baby bitten by pit bull in critical condition
ELLENWOOD, Ga. — Authorities say an infant who was bitten by a pit bull remains in extreme critical condition after undergoing emergency surgery for her injuries.
By Associated Press
Saturday, August 7, 2010
“Incidents are commonplace.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Even more so than you know. Public health records show that the one or two pit bull attacks reported on the news are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to dog attacks. There are on average two thousand hospitalizations every day from dogs. My question is, where are all of the rest of the stories? Surely the ones by pit bulls are horrible, but are they any worse than the others? According to public health, there are lots of really bad attacks that aren’t making it to the news. Why not?
Also, why is it that the average number of fatalities has not risen since pit bulls became popular? If they were as bad as many believe, wouldn’t they have a big impact on the numbers? Accounting for increases in both human and canine populations, the number of human fatalities has not risen to account for such a claim. There are an estimated 10 million pit bull type dogs in the country, and many of these are probably owned by less than stellar people, yet there aren’t more pit bulls doing bad things than there were german shepherds back when they were popular. Now that they aren’t, everyone went back to thinking they’re great family dogs. The same will be true for the pit bull when thugs and the media find another breed to ooh and aaaw about.
“The country is full of gang bangers and various other low lifes breeding pit bulls. Where do you get your denial?”<<<<<
I’m not saying there aren’t places where this is happening. I know first hand that this occurs, because every time I take my dog for a walk through surrounding neighborhoods, someone comes running up to tell me about the pups they just had, with pride, as if they themselves delivered them, instead of just putting two dogs with the right parts in the same room together.
However, for as many of these dolts that are pumping out dogs, the percentage of pit bulls that attack is extremely small compared to their population, and this unfortunate effect of poverty and ignorance has not managed to increase the average number of human fatalities caused by dogs. These dogs simply replaced other breeds that fell out of popularity with the same type of people. They have not increased the total, therefore it only makes sense to see this as an owner issue, which the experts do.
You will not find a credible expert that is willing to say a breed of dog is responsible for all of this, because the research simply does not support it. Several sites on the internet try to use the reputable studies out of context to show that organizations like the CDC agree with them. Anyone with a sixth grade level of reading comprehension can click on the link and see that it is not the case, but these sites continuously get used by the media, who don’t bother to check their sources, and don’t want to correct their mistakes. It will continue this way unless people call them out when they do these things. There is no excuse for the media to be able to misdirect, misinform, and incite fear into people due to sheer laziness. NO, they are not a public service, but they should be held accountable for the environment they create. We of all people, on this site, should be very aware of how the media can make a bluebird look like a duck. It’s a shame that some of us don’t follow the same logic when it’s something we get emotional about.
Yes. Worse and far more frequent relative to the number of dogs in that debased breed.
All? Who said all? That's a classic example of a straw man argument.
What "credible expert" claims that the number of fatalities in America isn't disproportional to that breed?
“Yes. Worse and far more frequent relative to the number of dogs in that debased breed.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
According to the first study on your link, dog attacks aren’t even listed by breed. Dog bite related fatalities are, and if you read the entire thing, you will see that they aren’t agreeing with you. It might seem that way if you only read a few lines, but go ahead and read the whole thing. They make it very clear here:
“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)”
And here:
“Numerator data may be biased for 4
reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely
underestimated; prior work suggests the approach
we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second,
to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy
than those by other breeds, our methods may
have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
by breed. 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.”
And this:
“Finally, it is imperative to
keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could
be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or
owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds.”
Heck, they even offer a solution STRIKINGLY similar to the one I have repeatedly spoken of:
“An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate
individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
preemptive action.....Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible
dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners are
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
professional help in training and socializing their pets.”
By the way, I wouldn’t trust everything on that site. Dogbitelaw is run by lawyers, not dog experts. They have some great stuff on there, but mixed in with it is some nonsense that has been dismissed as rubbish (specifically, the Merritt Clifton study, which is a perfect example of fear-mongering combined with misinformation, manipulation, and flat-out lies). I wouldn’t dismiss the entire thing, though, because there is a wealth of information available on that page. I do believe this lawyer, among others, has committed the cardinal sin of being too lazy to read the whole thing, or to even research his sources, and because of that, I would be wary about some of the things he puts up. For the most part, he does seem to have reputable studies available. How he decides to use the information is another story, though.
Fatalities are. And in any case, the link does give fatal and nonfatal statistics, in contradiction to your misdirection.
"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."Odd that you missed that.
"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."
I disagree with that subjective conclusion. Fatality rates should be a driving factor. Maimings too.
Apparently, you've decided to abandon your original question and change direction instead.
"Surely the ones by pit bulls are horrible, but are they any worse than the others?" --solosmoke
“Fatalities are. And in any case, the link does give fatal and nonfatal statistics, in contradiction to your misdirection.
“According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings.”
Odd that you missed that.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didn’t miss it. I mentioned that very study. Merritt Clifton’s study is what I specifically said to beware of because experts have dismissed it as being biased, blatantly false, and even purposely misleading. The man includes Presa Canarios, a rare breed of dog that has taken less lives than Huskies, and grouped them with the other two for an unknown reason. He says pit bulls have customarily docked tails, which is absolutely not true. He also uses Blue Heeler, Queensland heeler, and some other name in three different breed categories (they’re all names for the same dog!), and has rejected other attack stories for no reason other than his opinion that they should not be used. The fact that it is still used is a testament to the sad reality that most people don’t care where they get their “facts” as long as they agree with their opinion.
” Apparently, you’ve decided to abandon your original question and change direction instead.
“Surely the ones by pit bulls are horrible, but are they any worse than the others?” —solosmoke”<<<<<<<
Nope. I was asking if pit bull attacks are worse than other breeds, and they are not, according to an UNBIASED source, public health records. Merritt Clifton’s study is a shameful illustration of what happens when someone lets their bias take over their professionalism (not that he’s even educated in the subject! He’s an editor, and has no background in animal behavior, genetics, etc. and it definitely shows). His study is the only thing out there with dog attacks related to breed over a long period of time, which is probably why it is used, but it isn’t portraying the reality of the situation.
According to public health records, which I believe was also quoted in the first study on that page, several thousand people are attacked every day in this country. About 7% of the total require hospitalization, of which we see only the pit bull stories. Why is it that we are not seeing the rest of these on the news? Is one hospitalization somehow less important? I have seen pit bull attacks on the news, and even posted here, where no one was even bitten, yet horrible maulings go unreported because they don’t meet the media’s criteria for acceptable profits. Tell me, where are all of the other stories? They aren’t all caused by pit bulls, because the same records show that in many places, labs, cockers, dalmatians, etc. are leading in bites.
In a different subsequent post.
I specifically said to beware of because experts have dismissed it as being biased
Again, not in the post I was replying to. By the way, who are these unnamed experts?
He says pit bulls have customarily docked tails, which is absolutely not true.
Gotta source? Where I lived in Southern California it was very true.
I was asking if pit bull attacks are worse than other breeds
And they are. Fatalities and maiming are worse4 than other attacks.
About 7% of the total require hospitalization, of which we see only the pit bull stories. Why is it that we are not seeing the rest of these on the news?
The maimings and fatalities are worse. BTW, are you trying to insinuate that those attacks don't involve any pits?
“I specifically said to beware of because experts have dismissed it as being biased
Again, not in the post I was replying to. By the way, who are these unnamed experts? “<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Here are a few links discussing the study:
http://stopbsl.com/fortherecord/scientific-studies/ -Scroll down to “A closer look at the popular studies” to see the facts on the Merritt Clifton study.
http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html -Same here, just scroll down a little bit and you can see the details
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/merrit-cliffton/ -Basically all of these say the same thing, but you can get an idea just reading the ones I had on hand.
Here are some other links, in case you are interested:
www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com - There’s a lot of info here about the history of dog attacks, including the original “bad” dog, the bloodhound, and what made the breed infamous (pretty much identical to what people think of the pit bull today)
www.atts.org - Tests on unprovoked aggression. Listed by breed, you can compare the breeds to see where your favorite ranks. Notice that pit bulls rank higher than many other breeds. This is an ongoing thing, so every year you can see if certain breeds are doing better or worse, or if the average is moving at all.
www.kcdogblog.com - You can see the last few years of dog bite fatalities. He lists the breed, the care the dog received, the age of the victim, the circumstances leading up to the attack, the poverty level of the area, and even how many news stations picked up the story. This site also goes over legislation in different areas, and whether or not laws are helping. There’s just a ton of info here.
“About 7% of the total require hospitalization, of which we see only the pit bull stories. Why is it that we are not seeing the rest of these on the news?
The maimings and fatalities are worse. BTW, are you trying to insinuate that those attacks don’t involve any pits?”<<<<<<<
What I am saying is that the ONLY stories we see are the ones involving pit bulls, and I know for a fact that many reporters reject stories based on low profits. I also know that the majority of dog bites depend on the most popular breed of the time, which is why public health records have labs, pit bulls, cockers, dalmatians, etc. listed as the most common biters. Lastly, I know that there is a huge discrepancy between what is reported on the news and what public health records are saying. I’m NOT saying that none of those are pit bull bites. What I’m trying to show you is that regardless of how many other attacks are happening, the one or two pit bull stories are all we get to read about, making it appear that they are the only dogs attacking. According to the records, that is definitely not the case, and many serious attacks don’t ever make it on the news.
Again, who are these unnamed experts?
Pitbull attacks boy in BloomingtonBy Ray Cortopassi
Fox59
2:56 p.m. EDT, August 9, 2010Bloomington, Ind. — The Monroe County Sheriff's Department is investigating a pitbull attack that left a 7-year-old boy with dozen of stitches to his face and several broken teeth.
The attack happened in a backyard at the home on Woodbine Drive southwest of Bloomington Thursday afternoon.
Of course, you also left out the conclusion of the report that further points toward human culpability..."Negligence charges have not yet been ruled out."
Whether the vicious pit bull was out loose by accident or as the the result of negligence.
Or are you suggesting that the poor dear thing had a mind control device implanted in its skull and was being forced to act against its true gentle nature when it ripped apart the face and broke the teeth of the young boy?
Nope. I'm suggesting that anybody that allows an unsupervised dog, regardless of breed or size, to mingle with a birthday party of seven year old boys is a moron.
Or anyone who has a pit bull in a residential neighborhood for that matter.
Well, there are people who exercise their responsibilities and those who don't. Of course, people who turn to government to solve all their problems usually fail to see the difference.
“Again, who are these unnamed experts?”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You want names? I’m sorry but I don’t know them personally. It should be easy enough to find out if you are really curious. However, I presume your question is not purely for education. It’s alright either way. The names of the site owners are on the sites. Their professions are often listed as well.
As for the study they are all talking about (the second one mentioned on that page you linked to), experts aside, you should be able to see the faults from a mile away even if you don’t have an education in an animal-related field.
Oh, forgot to ask you where in Cali you are? I see plenty of rotties and dobies with docked tails, but I have only ever seen one pit bull without a tail, and I believe that was from an injury. According to the breed standard, the tail doesn’t get in the way of the job, so there’s no need to cut it off. Pit bulls customarily will have cropped ears, and perhaps that is what Clifton meant to say, but the fact that he can’t tell the difference between the main breeds and their looks is kind of shocking to me, considering he’s the editor of Animal People. What made things worse for him, I think, was that he misspelled so many different things, and even used names for dogs that didn’t exist (or combined two unrelated breeds as if they were the same). Apparently, he’s not even good at the job he’s been hired for!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.