PDA

View Full Version : Dog bite statistics. Flaws exposed.


Leon
05-30-2009, 07:43 PM
I am sick of people saying..statistics this statistics that when it comes to dog bites, especially pit bulls. So i complied a list of resources that you can use to debunk any of their claims based on statistics.

I am going to keep it as short and informative as possible. I will provide all the links in the sources section for further reading.

Introduction

First lets look at what exactly is recorded in the statistics as a dog bite.

Animal control and public health departments, consider any incident in which a dog’s tooth or nail comes into contact with a person’s skin and in which the skin is broken, regardless of the circumstances, to be a “bite.” These include:

Dogs deliberately biting people
Nips from playful puppies
Scratches from a dog’s nail
Scrapes from a dog’s tooth
Accidental bites by dogs
Bites to canine professionals that may have occurred under extreme duress, such as when the dog was in pain or otherwise unable to control its behavior (e.g. a vet tech bitten while removing intubation tube from a dog’s throat)
Good Samaritans bitten trying to assist injured dogs (e.g. dogs hit by cars)
Bites by working K-9 dogs in the performance of police duties. [1] (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/)


Now lets look at the statistics.

There are two statistics that have been predominantly(in most cases exclusively) used by BSL supporters and law makers, and anyone trying to justify that certain breed of dog especially pitbulls are much more dangerous than other breeds. These two studies are the Center for Disease Controls (CDC), Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf), and the Merritt Cliftons study,Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to November 7, 2007 (http://www.********.org/pdf/dog-attacks-merritt-clifton-2007.pdf).

Lets look at the serious flaws on both these studies.

CDC study.

Classification of breeds.

"The biggest flaw in CDC statistics, and certainly the one that causes the most grief, is that the “breed” categorized by the CDC as “pit bull-type dog” does not exist. Nor is “pit bull” a breed recognized by any breed registry. Housed beneath the catch-all designation “pit bull” are at least twenty (and as many as 35) different breeds of dog. Lump twenty breeds of dog together as one breed and you will certainly have what looks like a breed problem as relates to dog bites and dog-bite-related fatalities!" [2] (http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32)


Misidentification of breeds.

Since the CDC collects data from news reports and eye witness accounts, misidentification of breeds is a huge problem that skews the accuracy of the statistical data.

"The average person can accurately identify less than 30 dog breeds on sight, let alone in a stressful and intense situation like a dog bite. The bite will get reported as whatever breed the people involved think it most closely resembles. Even law enforcement officers, animal shelter workers, and some veterinarians cannot accurately identify many breeds. For the average person anything with prick ears and blue eyes automatically becomes a "husky," yet many breeds can have blue eyes, and many more have prick ears. Any smooth coated brown dog, medium sized, and muscular becomes a "pit bull" yet upon examination may be a purebred Boxer. Any tall dog becomes a Great Dane, fuzzy or hairy and it’s a Chow Chow. If it’s black and tan and heavy it’s a Rottweiler, etc. See the problem with this? The average person cannot tell the difference between an Alaskan Malamute, a Siberian Husky, and an Akita."[3] (http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Family-Dog/Dog-Bite-Stats-Dokken.htm)


Missing population data.

"In addition to breed misidentification, the CDC statistics are inaccurate because they are not based on “reliable breed-specific population data” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838). Certainly Rottweilers and “pit bulls” appear more prone to bite since they top the CDC list of most bites, but the probability of them to bite may be the same as any other breed since these dogs could just simply be more popular. The more dogs of a breed you have in existence, the more bites you would have just as a matter of course. However, their propensity to bite would remain unchanged. And as already stated, it is impossible to get accurate population data for “pit bulls” in particular since they are not a breed."[2] (http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32)


Media as a source of data.

A large portion of the CDC's data come from media sources. Other than the misidentification of breeds, the media is notorious for its bias against certain breeds.
"Since neither first responders nor news reporters are breed experts, canine misidentification is commonplace. Almost every mongrel is reported as a “pit bull” mix, unless proven otherwise. Even then, if editors are forced to recant, it’s buried somewhere among the obituaries. No wonder Thomas Jefferson wrote "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers". A television report has long since moved on. I still encounter people who believe that “pit bulls” killed Dianne Whipple in San Francisco in 2001 when it was actually two pure bred Presa Canario’s. Not surprising when you consider that “pit bull” is just a slang term encompassing several breeds and mixes thereof."[4] (http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Media.Bias_07.htm)


CDC themselves explains that their data is inaccurate

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.[5] (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf)

Leon
05-30-2009, 07:44 PM
Merritt Clifton's study.

Media as a primary source of data.

The Clifton study is pretty much a collection of media reports on severe dog bites.
"Merritt Clifton’s study is a medley of newspaper articles that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an incomplete tally of severe bites than a study."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)

As explained above, the media is not a credible source for data collection, due to bias and breed misidentification.


Missing data

Clifton does not include all dog bites in his statistics, only the ones that are severe or fatal. Also Clifton excludes police dogs, guard dogs, dogs trained to fight, and dogs whose breed may be uncertain.

According to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm): “Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994, approximately 6,000 were hospitalized.”

Clifton's data only shows 2,363 bites total, for the past 25 years.

"If approximately 6,000 people require hospitalization each year because of a dog attack, then over 25 years, there would have been 150,000 people hospitalized. Yet Clifton has apparently only found media reports for 1.6% of all these attacks.

Clifton’s report therefore implies that the remaining 98.4% of bites that required “extensive hospitalization” according to the CDC were by non-identifiable types of dogs or police, guard, or fighting animals. This is highly unlikely. Clifton’s data is so incomplete as to make it virtually useless for analyzing patterns related to severe dog attacks."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)

"1,182 severe attacks by pit bulls and pit mixes in the U.S. and Canada over a 24-year period [according to the Clifton statistics] works out to an average of just over 49 severe attacks by pit bulls and pit bull mixes in North America per year.

If Clifton’s pit bull numbers are correct, and no more than 49 of the 6,000 or so hospitalizations due to severe dog bites in the U.S. each year are a result of pit bull bites or attacks, then pit bulls and pit mixes are responsible for less than one percent of those hospitalizations."[2] (http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32)

But in reality according to Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC found:

Out of 5,000,000 registered APBT's there have been 60 fatal attacks that is a percentage of .0012%. [7] (http://www.stop-bsl.com/bitestats.html)


Miscategorization and misidentification

Clifton does not separate pit bulls into individual breeds, since dozens of other breeds are put into the pit bull category because of their appearance, his data on pit bulls is inconclusive.

"The report also attempts to identify the predominant breed in dogs. Clifton gives no reason as to why he listed an attack as being done by an Akita/Chow mix instead of a Chow/Akita mix. How did he determine that Beagle was the predominant breed in the attack done by a Beagle/German Shepherd Dog?"[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)


Inability to determine risk scientifically

"In Clifton’s analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and “degree of relative risk.”

Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.

Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a “degree of relative risk,” Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)


Misapplied and misinterpreted data

Clifton assumes,
"Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are."

"Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.

Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog’s health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)


Misunderstanding of dog behavior and ignorance about breed standards

According to Clifton,
"They [pit bulls] are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog."

Clifton clearly shows his lack of knowledge of the breed with that statement.

"Tail docking has never been common or customary with any of the pit bull types. Docking the tail of an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier means immediate disqualification from the show ring."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)

"Studies have indicated that, generally, people do not understand dog body language. A person may not recognize that a dog standing very still, legs apart, tail waving slowly, is indicating an impending attack. When one cannot identify all possible threat behaviors, it might appear that a dog is attacking without warning. Clifton provides no evidence to show that victims are oblivious to impending attacks by pit bulls at a greater rate than impending attacks by other dogs."[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)

"There are over 50 different breeds of dogs, including the Cocker Spaniel, Airedale Terrier, German pointer, Jack Russell Terrier, Poodle, and Corgi, whose tails are traditionally docked. If tail docking inhibits the communication of impending aggression, why are tail-less breeds not disproportionately represented in any list of severe and fatal attacks?"[6] (http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/)


Conclusion.

Both the CDC study and the Clifton study are full of errors and assumptions and should never be used to conclude on dog bites, especially by breed.

So the next time someone says "well data shows pit bulls attack most people", you tell them:

Data shows squat.
There is no way for any data to to accurately give information on dog bites by breed, because most of this data is collected though media outlets, many bites go unreported and most people cannot identify dog breeds, the main source of the data.


Then they will claim that you are wrong and show you the CDC report and the Clifton report, most probably from ********.org. But now you have a list of rebuttals for both those reports.

Sources.

[1], http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/
[2], http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32
[3], http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Family-Dog/Dog-Bite-Stats-Dokken.htm
[4], http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Media.Bias_07.htm
[5], http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
[6], http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/
[7], http://www.stop-bsl.com/bitestats.html

APBTMOMMY
05-30-2009, 08:25 PM
Wow that is pretty long....I read some of it I will have to come back later and read the rest....

Leon
05-30-2009, 08:31 PM
Sorry, i tried to keep it short as possible.

My point of the thread is to tell anyone who uses dog bite statistics that, they are inaccurate and unreliable because of Miscategorization and misidentification of breeds, Missing data, Media as a primary source of data, and Misapplied and misinterpreted data.

APBTMOMMY
05-30-2009, 09:57 PM
Yes I agree with you on that... maybe they should step back and do some statistic reviews on these damn ankle bitters....they snap faster and are way more quicker to bite someone than a pitbull is....

Leon
05-30-2009, 10:15 PM
The problem with analyzing data on these small breeds is, most people don't report it. Thats the missing data problem with all dog bite statistics, people not reporting it, and people not including non serious bites in their reports.

But i do have one article. Here (http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/news-updates/the-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-dachshund-1) is a study from the journal of applied animal behavior science. In their tests they found the most aggressive breed of dog to be the dachshund.

Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored higher than average for aggression directed to both humans and dogs, putting them towards the top of the list.

Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers, which have “bad boy” reputations, mostly scored high for dog-directed aggression. When they did injure humans, however, the injuries tended to be more severe than those inflicted by the scrappy, smaller dogs.

APBTMOMMY
05-30-2009, 11:20 PM
See that excatly what I am talking about...no one worries about it cause it a little dog.....however if its a big or bigger dog then they freak out and it gets reported ......and of course it just so happens that the "pitbull type/mix" gets hit so hard with bad rep...when its the little suckers you really have to be worried about....

Leon
05-30-2009, 11:30 PM
Yes, for an adult, a little dog might seem harmless enough, even if they do bite, you can always shrug it off. But considering that children are bit the most often by dogs, to them even a small dog can be deadly. People need to start thinking about this, not blindly follow statistics.

APBTMOMMY
05-30-2009, 11:45 PM
You got it.........;)

ItsMe
05-31-2009, 12:38 AM
The data collection for dog bites is hopelessly flawed. Unfortunately, I believe it has become convenient for certain people to further their agenda of lets kill certain dogs because their dangerous. I love it when pro-bsl types quote this nonsense like it proves something, it only proves their ignorance. The scary thing is, if enough people believe something, does it start to be true?(If that makes sense)

Leon
05-31-2009, 12:41 AM
The scary thing is, if enough people believe something, does it start to be true?(If that makes sense)

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”- Adolf Hitler

Leon
10-22-2009, 08:52 AM
Got a few more statistics on dog bite data. This one is from Colorado.

DOG BITES IN COLORADO. (http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/documents/DogBitesinColorado-FinalReport.pdf)

Dog Bites in Colorado – Key Findings and Recommended Action Steps (http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/documents/DogbitesinColorado-CLSDactionsteps_006.pdf)

Here is a summary for those who don't have time to read the whole thing.


Most dogs do not bite. Less than one-third of one percent of dogs in the reporting area were reported to animal control for biting a human.


Many different types of dogs were involved in reported dog bite incidents. Bites from 129 different breeds of dog were reported to the 17 participating animal control organizations during the one year period of study.


Any dog can bite given certain circumstances.


Running at large was the single most common bite circumstance.


Many bites were not a result of aggression towards humans, but occurred when a human intervened in fighting or play between dogs.


Many bites were not a result of aggression towards humans, but occurred when a human intervened in fighting or play between dogs.


Whether any breed is more or less likely to bite than any other breed depends on knowing the number of each breed living in Colorado.


As for which dog did bite the most, its none other than the Labrador Retriever. Labs have been the cause of 13.3% of all dog bite incidents, while pit bulls came at 8.4%.