Yet another dog attack.

There have been many studies on dogs and aggressive behaviour. These studies conducted by universities, dog behaviourists etc. The result being - dog aggression is NOT breed specific. This is a fact, not an opinion.

I'm sorry, what was it you apologists were saying again? I mean what could go wrong with this cross breeding right? These breeds are harmless, really........:ashamed:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rom-dog-attack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roper

The result being - dog aggression is NOT breed specific. This is a fact, not an opinion.

---

I don't think statistics support your theory, especially in regards to 'fatal' attacks, certain breeds have a greater propensity towards aggression.......

Quote:

---

Pictured are the two most deadly dog breeds in America: pit bull terriers and rottweilers. Research from DogsBite.org shows that during the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, these two dog breeds accounted for 74% of the total recorded fatal human attacks. By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2014, a report by Animals 24-7 shows that pit bulls (307) and rottweilers (89) and their mixes contributed to 67% of the attacks resulting in human death.

1. Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014, by Merritt Clifton, Animals 24-7, December, 31, 2014 (www.animals24-7.org)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hunteronwheels

you might want to read this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/

since we are in canada this is better info

and i would also venture to say that alot of the so called pitbull attacks are mistaken identity
i have first hand experience
i was given a ticket and also a warning for owning a pitbull that was not fixed and not muzzeled by bylaw officers and they were trying to sieze my dog
animal control came to my house on another occasion there was a complaint of me walking a pitbull without a muzzle
i told them i did not have a pitbull they said i was lying that they saw it the back yard
to make a long story short i owned a %100 purebred Boxer i had to pay for gentic testing for court
so the people who are in charge of saying what is and isnt a pitbull have no clue

---

Interesting but media reports are where it's at.

Sorry to hear about having to go through that load of crap, but these people know their breeds from a mile away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I'm sorry, what was it you apologists were saying again? I mean what could go wrong with this cross breeding right? These breeds are harmless, really........:ashamed:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rom-dog-attack

---

There was probably some wolf and landshark mixed in there as well. Perhaps maybe even a little Grizz and black bear.


Another media report to add to the stats:



"It was a blonde coloured American cocker spaniel looking dog."

Runner mauled in 'nasty' dog attack in Letchworth

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...ail/story.html

Now that's science.


Or maybe they should ban all springers.
Eight-year-old girl left eating through a syringe after being attacked in park by springer spaniel that tore off part of her lip and bit through her cheek

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bit-cheek.html

Pray tell, why are you so adamant that the numbers are wrong? Vested interest? I went to the site provided by MikePal, seems well researched and straight forward to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Pray tell, why are you so adamant that the numbers are wrong? Vested interest? I went on the site provided by MikePal, seems well researched and straight forward to me.

---

They're taken from media reports.

First sentence:

Compiled by the editor of ANIMALS 24-7 from press accounts since 1982

Lots of good reading here.

http://stopbsl.org/fortherecord/scientific-studies/

Where do the numbers come from?
There is no uniform dog bite reporting procedure, nor is there a national agency charged with collecting such data. Dog bite data is collected and reported haphazardly. Animal control departments, hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and state health agencies may all collect different types of data, or none at all.

I'm surprised nobody has posted the fatal dog stats, yet:

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
BREEDS OF DOGS INVOLVED IN FATAL HUMAN ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1979 AND 1998

This is perhaps the most misused and misunderstood dog bite report. Politicians and the media often quote this report inaccurately.
The main flaw in the CDC study is that it attempts to characterize dog attacks by breed, while ignoring all other possible factors.
Media as a source of data

What about things like , 37% of dogs in shelters at one time are pit bulls or pit bull crosses. Why? What would the editor of animals 24-7, have to gain by misrepresenting dog bite stats? Even if the press reports are off by 50% Pitt Bulls are still way, way, way, over represented in attacks % wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

What about things like , 37% of dogs in shelters at one time are pit bulls or pit bull crosses. Why? What would the editor of animals 24-7, have to gain by misrepresenting dog bite stats? Even if the press reports are off by 50% Pitt Bulls are still way, way, way, over represented in attacks % wise.

---

Read it, and make that decision for yourself:

Several studies have attempted to gather dog bite information from news articles and other news media; in fact, Merritt Clifton’s often-referenced dog attack “study” relies entirely on news media. This is a particularly unreliable source of information about dog attacks, as shall be explained next.

http://stopbsl.org/fortherecord/scientific-studies/

Do you not think BSL has an agenda? Of course they do , so why believe them over other 'research' ?