Wow.

ETA: I see that there's commentary below the numbers that tries to account for popularity of breeds.

Interesting commentary regarding specific cases, one can see that the devil's in the details.

As examples, see the chihuahua and daschund cases.

The statistics are not meant to be 'fair' to any breed. They are what they are.

If there are too many pit bulls, then we need to reduce the number.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Good information on my GSD.

is a promoted talking point like the stuff about "toxic" wind turbines?

Get ready for the usual defenders.

Those statistics don't capture at least two questions that I know I'd want, to do a really useful comparison:

1) For each breed of dog, what is the percentage of that breed involved in bites/attacks? In other words, what percentage of pit bulls are involved in attacks, compared to the percentage of chihuahuas, or labradoodles, or weiner dogs, etc...

2) If you have a statistically robust answer to (1), the next important question is: How do various human social factors affect the frequency of attacks, per breed?

For example, some people get pit bulls because they've got a reputation for being tough or macho dogs. That says something significant about how the owner thinks, which in turn is going to have a big statistical impact on how the dog is trained, and socialized (or not trained or socialized).

Related but not exactly the same, a disturbing number of pit bulls are specifically trained for dog fighting. That hugely impacts the behavior of the dogs, but really has nothing to do with the breed's tendencies outside of that environment. I don't see many labradoodles and cocker spaniels being raised for the dog fighting circuit. If labradoodles were raised in large numbers of dog fighting, I bet that would spike the frequency of labradoodle bites.

the USA, according to the AKC. They are:

1. Labrador Retriever
2. German Shepherd Dog
3. Golden Retriever
4. Beagle
5. Bulldog

The American Staffordshire Terrier (the breed most often identified as "pit bull&quot ranks at # 76.

My question is, where are all the reports of deaths and injuries caused by Labs, GSD's, etc.? If pit bulls, with a much lower popularity ranking, account for the largest number of attacks, doesn't that say something about their temperament?

BTW, the reason pit bulls are specifically trained for fighting is because they are good at it. If labradoodles and cocker spaniels were good fighters, they would be raised for dog fighting, also. However, their talents lie in a different direction.

the actual population numbers, so you could get "incidents per dog per year", for each breed. I'm sure there must be that kind of data available somewhere.

Although breeds may have various innate characteristics, there is a huge difference between taking a dog (of any breed) and specifically training them to be hyper-aggressive, and generally raising them badly, versus raising them in a loving environment where they are well socialized with people and dogs.

Mostly what I mean by that is, to do the statistics really well, you have to find a way to account for that kind of treatment, and how it differs between breeds due to human social factors. That also can be done, but collecting the kind of data needed to categorize socialization differences that is properly associated with each breed would be a big undertaking. It could be that there is such a study, although my brief attempt to find one wasn't successful.

1st. Clifton states clearly in the first few paragraphs any known errors in his report such as 2010. He also states where his info is compiled from. The report clearly indicates press reports nothing about hospital reports. The press does not cover every dog bite but a hospital does. Also a "dog bite" does not constitute a "maiming" or a "death" which is the reports focus.

2nd. Animal Control officers are pretty professional and good at knowing dog breeds. Plus there is some common sense involved. If it looks, walks, talks like a Duck chances are good that it is a Duck even if a few % of its DNA is Pigeon.

3rd. I looked at your links one does not even work and most others are based off supposition of the argument that it is the "owner" not the "dog". This is really very close to the "guns don't kill, people do" meme and kind of unfair to the gun. There is a big, huge difference between inanimate and animate objects.

4th. The one thing in the report that I though was interesting and feel Clifton should really have pointed out was the list of victims of Pit Bull. They are mostly at the beginning or end of their lives... the two most vulnerable times in ones life.

5th. It possible to have a debate on differing views on a subject over the internet with out name calling or accusations. Once a person resorts to that they have lost the debate. Keep it civil.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

"2012 statistics
38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012.2 Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities,3 pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.4"

1) I didn't say anything about hospital reports, because Clifton says his data comes from media reports. The news media are notorious for misreporting the breed of dog in any dog bite story. (The old saying is that "Anything that bites with four legs & a tail is a Pit Bull", is true.) Next, the Clifton report purports to list "dog attacks & maimings". What constitutes an "attack" or "maiming"? According the the document, " 'Attacks doing bodily harm' includes all fatalities, maimings, and other injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment. 'Maimings' includes permanent disfigurement or loss of a limb. So, according to Clifton this document at least lists all the dog "attacks" in 2012, which he numbers 3394.

"Reality is that media coverage incorporates information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source." Note that he does not say that he accessed the hospital records directly, but only through "media coverage". Clifton wants us to believe that every dog bite that required hospitalization will be the subject to a news report, and that he has been able to accumulate them. From my link above, a surgeon who treats dog bites said "I stitch up five dog bites a week". That's one surgeon, in one hospital. The CDC estimates that there are about 5 million people who suffer from dog bites each year, and about 1 million of which will require hospitalization. Where are the other est. 996,606 victims? News reports are neither complete, nor are they accurate. Because the media gets their breed identification data from inaccurate sources.

2) "Animal Control officers are pretty professional and good at knowing dog breeds." If you have any peer-reviewed report, study or survey to refute Levy, Croy, et al: "DNA and Survey Results: What Kind of Dog is That?", or their preliminary survey, done by Olsen, Levy, et al: "Pit Bull Identification in Animal Shelters", or the separate independent survey by Voith, Trevejo, et al: "Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability". These peer-reviewed studies authored by academic professionals at major institutions all show that your assertions are false.

3) You're continuing to labor under the assumption that the breed must be the only primary determining factor in dog aggression. Again, this assertion is false. Per the American Humane Association (http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html): "Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered. Approximately 25% of fatal dog attacks involved chained dogs." Breed is not a determining factor. Lack of proper training & socialization, not having the dog neutered, and having the dog suffer abuse & neglect are.

4) Clifton is revealing the problems with his admitted his bias here. Since he uses only inaccurate & incomplete news reports as a source (and assuming he's being honest), he's limiting himself to stories which help the news media gain market share. "If it bleeds, it leads." Stories about children & old people will be more common that other stories, without regard to the actual age distribution of all victims. According to the CDC, The rate of dog bite-related injuries is highest for children ages 5 to 9 years, and the rate decreases as children age. (http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/dogbite-factsheet.html)



5) Remember that your allies are the ones calling for mass murder of any Pit Bulls, Pit Bull mixes, & anything that even remotely looks like a Pit Bull. The sources you're using are biased, lying, have no academic standing, and have been debunked repeatedly, while the sources I use consist of major govt, academic, and professional agencies directly involved in animal control & behavior.

If you don't believe that, just look at any of the links I've provided. What are their sources? Then look at your link to the Clifton Report. What are his sources? Clifton doesn't list any. He has a few heart-wrenching little stories at the end of the report. Where are the sources for them? Clifton doesn't list any.

Under the heading for Pit Bull, he's very careful to list all of the apparent mixes: Pit bull, Pit bull/Akita mix, Pit bull boxer mix, Pit bull/chow mix, Pit bull/Doberman mix, Pit bull/Doberman/GSD/Lab, Pit bull/GSD mix, Pit bull/Lab mix, Pit/Rhodesian ridgeback mix, Pit bull/Rott. mix, Pit bull/Sharpei mix, Pit bull/Sheltie mix, Pit bull/Weimaraner mix, Pit mix unknown... But he doesn't do that with any other breed listed. When a Pit Bull is mixed with any breed, it gets counted as a Pit Bull, not as any of the other breeds. Why is that? Are Pit Bulls exceptionally promiscuous? And why would

Look at the breed listing on the report. Clifton lists the "Australian Blue Heeler", the "Australian Shepherd", the "Blue Heeler", and the "Queensland Heeler" all separately. Do you think Clifton is aware that these are all the same breed? Don't you think he should be?

And finally, if Clifton is so meticulous & dedicated, why are so many of the breed names are misspelled?

So, don't you go whining about not getting respect when you offer nothing but shit.

If you have a big breed that you know is capable of killing/maiming and you are ignorant, willfully or otherwise, about that breeds capability then you are part of the problem. If you deny your great big baby could ever harm a fly then you probably aren't doing much to ensure that it won't.

I know mine (technically my guy's) could kill me or anyone really, in a second if she wanted to. It's my job to make sure that A) she never knows she could. B) would never want to C) is never in a position where she could harm someone else because I was not in control of the situation.

Last weekend everyone was away and I was taking care of the dog. I was invited to visit a friend. When I told them I had Kyra and couldn't they said "oh, bring her along". THAT would have been a mistake. Now Kyra is loving, friendly and incredibly smart. But she is also a Malamute. Bringing one into a strange house with new people could be a disaster. My friends children might get scared, because she looks like a wolf. People around her wouldn't know how to behave around her. She might get anxious or afraid. She's far to powerful of a dog to make that mistake with.

I love her. I adore her. I think she is the best fucking thing since the wheel. But I also look at her with realistic eyes. She isn't human, she isn't my child and she needs structure and consistency within her family (pack) to live a happy life.

So love your GSD, Pit, Akita, Malamute, Chow, etc.... but don't be blind.

Every time you hear about one of these attacks you also hear about what an awesome dog it was and how the owner would have never believed the dog could have done that. Perhaps if the owner HAD known the capabilities then they would have chosen a different breed or would have trained the dog differently.