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.