The stats were from a report developed by Merritt Clifton of Animal People. ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. They are animal friendly and think specific breed banning is inappropriate. And the stats aren't a decade old as you griped about earlier. The fact that the report was obtained from a lawyer's site dedicated to those that suffered injury isn't relevent to the facts of the information in the report.
Now looking at the numbers of attacks by breed one would see that Pits far outnumber those of the other breeds listed but the circumstances of how the maulings/killings took place aren't given nor the numbers of each breed owned nor any information about the owners and the animals upbringing/environment. It is just a statistical report.
I own a breed that has a high incident rate and love him immensely but as he is an animal I don't trust him blindly as he is simply that, an animal.
Ok Ken. I'll see that and raise you the following from that very same site:
The conclusions that we draw about dangerous canines is derived from what we know about them. Our information is from media accounts, government pronouncements and studies, organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, and experts who have conducted original research as well as reviews of other materials.
Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt.
Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However,
none of their figures agree. This is largely because of the difficulties involved in gathering dog bite statistics. When the CDC reported on canine homicides, one of their methods of ensuring accuracy was to eliminate all death reports that did not appear in LexisNexis. When Delise did her study, she included all homicides which were confirmed in other reliable ways, such as by interviews and police files, and arrived at a figure that was 100 deaths higher than the CDC. Clifton's study includes both the USA and Canada, and is derived from newspaper accounts as well as his review of photographs and files.
Delise illustrates the information problem in the following graphic way (quoted from E-mail by her to Attorney Kenneth Phillips):
Consider five fatal attacks included in the CDC statistics.
A man was bitten in the forearm by a Pit bull. The bite was not serious but introduced into the wound was a virulent and fast spreading bacteria. The man died 4 days later from this virulent bacterial infection.
A teenage girl give birth to a infant, distraught and frightened, she tossed the hours-old infant into a neighboring-junk-strewn yard where two Pit bulls resided. The dogs killed the newborn.
A German shepherd mixed breed dog went into a bedroom, lifted a newborn out of a crib and carried the infant (by the head) into the living room where the adults were seated.
A man restrains his girlfriend, while ordering his Pit bull to repeatedly attack her. He is eventually convicted of murder and is serving a 20-year sentence.
An elderly man attempts to stop his German Shepherd dog from fence fighting with his neighbor's dog, the dog turns on his owner, severely mauling him, inflicting fatal head and neck wounds.
The CDC was right, in that five people died as a result of a dog bite. But were all these bites the result of aggression? Were they the same type or level of aggression? Which behaviors initiated the attack, human or canine? So the number of deaths by dogs (as per the CDC) cannot be used to define aggression, or the aggression of certain breeds, as aggression is not defined or qualified.
The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:
Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."
The court then stated that,
Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.
