CynthiaATL
05-01-2007, 12:18 AM
This right here shows that Dog bite statistics are not reliable.
The problem with statistics
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 (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/)), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks (http://www.fataldogattacks.com/)). 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 (quote from E-mail from 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.
I found this info at www.dogbitelaw.com (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/). Now it is an intresting site to say the least but I DO NOT agree with everything that is on there.
The problem with statistics
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 (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/)), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks (http://www.fataldogattacks.com/)). 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 (quote from E-mail from 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.
I found this info at www.dogbitelaw.com (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/). Now it is an intresting site to say the least but I DO NOT agree with everything that is on there.