Marjorie Darby, who ran the wonderful (and now unfortunately defunct) website, Goodpooch.com has one of those brains I like to pick. She's smart, logical and thorough. We sure miss her out here and wish she'd resurrect her site, but she's trying to have some fun these days so I'm not bugging about that. Much :>)
Anyway, somebody emailed me looking for the reasoning behind her statement that 99.9% of all dogs will never attack anybody. I asked her how she came up with the figure and in her usual gracious way, she responded in some detail. What follows is the explanation.
I hope you enjoy it and will pass it on.
____________________________
"Research
shows over 99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an
attack. Thus, I also like to say, “If any breed were genetically
programmed to attack, surely more than 0.1% of them would.”--Marjorie Darby
Back in 1999 or 2000, researcher Marjorie Darby looked at
news stories about dog bites, and separated them into what were reported to be
rather simple bites (ie, 'a pit bull looked at me') and those reported as being
more serious (ie resulting in more serious injuries - needing stitches,
hospitalization, surgery, etc.).
Ms Darby had a good contact at Toronto Humane Society at the time, who moved on
to Toronto Animal Services as an enforcement/investigation agent. When
queried about the number of dog bite cases, and the relative number of those
that were more serious than a simple bite she confirmed the general
ratio (nearly all reports were simple bites with minor injuries, only a tiny
number could be called "serious".) Based on all of this
information, it became clear that there were (and are) very few actual serious
dog bite cases in Canada.
There were maybe a dozen serious dog bite cases from across Canada in the
year studied.
To err on the side of caution, Darby decided to assume that the
real number of "attack" cases was double, triple or more compared with
what she had learned, since she didn't have (and no one has) access to the
precise number of incidents. As Janis Bradley says, nobody is counting
dog bites, you have to search hospital records for information - which only represent a portion of all bites.
Darby knew that many serious dog bite cases don't end up in
the media because of breed bias. Still, she could only confirm maybe a
dozen dog "attack" cases in Canada, nationwide, over a period of about
a year.
Not having access to every single dog attack case, she tried
to come up with a reasonable percentage to use in discussions about dog
attacks. With a dog population somewhere around 5,000,000 in Canada, 0.1%
is 5,000. That would mean that, in any given year, there would be 5,000
serious dog attacks, if just 0.1% of dogs were involved.
You can further extrapolate to come up with an even more
conservative statistic by theorizing a 10-year lifespan for dogs. It's
not a one-to-one ratio, but a simple way to do that is to simply divide by
10. That leaves the potential for 500 dog attacks per the entire lifespan
of every dog in Canada,
if just 0.1% of them were to do so. And based on what was found
concerning the the number of serious dog biting incidents, that is
still well within the range of the 0.1% figure (i.e.up to 500 attacks in any
given year). (Keep in mind that she only confirmed maybe a dozen or
so serious dog attacks in Canada that year - far fewer than the 500
figure.)
The process is the same for the U.S. but we have better
estimates about the number of 'pit bulls' there than here in Canada.
There are estimated to be about 65,000,000 dogs in the U.S.*
0.1% is 65,000. Meaning, in any given year, if 0.1% of American dogs
"attacked", there'd be 65,000 attacks, or 178 serious dog attacks
every, single day of the year. Not just bites, mind you, but
"attacks".
Hospital data vary greatly, but 800,000 dog bites treated
medically is at the extreme high end, and most of the data around 1999-2000
suggested the figure was more like 300,000 or 400,000. Still, that
doesn't tell us anything about severity, just that medical attention was sought.
Janis Bradley came on board and showed that fewer than 1% of
medically-treated dog bites score higher than a "1" (the lowest
ranking) in objective hospital injury recording criteria. Assuming the
dog "attacks" make up this 1%, that would mean about 4,000
biting incidents were more serious than a "1", if assuming
400,000 dog bites treated medically that year. 4,000 represents
0.006% of of the 65,000,000 dogs in America. If you want to do
the simple 10-year lifespan conversion, that would be 0.06% of all dogs at any
time in an average 10-year lifespan. That's still well-within the 0.1%
generalization. (It's almost half!)
There are estimated to be about 9 million 'pit bulls' in the
U.S.
Darby used a very conservative estimate of 5,000,000 to calculate what 0.1% of
'pit bulls' attacking would mean. It comes out to about 14 serious
attacks, every single day of the year. Every day that went by where there
weren't 14 serious 'pit bull' attacks somewhere in the U.S., that
would mean that even fewer than 0.1% of all 'pit bulls' were involved in a serious biting incident.
Given that 'pit bull' incidents are reported by the media at such a high rate,
I would be surprised to learn than so many serious 'pit bull' attacks
are being ignored by them, if it is to be alleged that more than 0.1% of 'pit
bulls' are attacking people.
You can do the 10-year lifespan calculations on an
estimated U.S.
'pit bull' population anywhere from 5 million to 9 million
individuals. None of the calculations suggest anything other than that
99.9% of dogs, or even 99.9% of all 'pit bulls' will NOT be involved in an
attack at any time in their lives.
'Pit Bull' Fatality
Data
"When it
comes to ‘pit bulls’, fewer than 0.1% will ever be involved in an attack at any
time in their lives, and even conservative estimates suggest at least 99.99998%
of all ‘pit bulls’ have not killed anyone."
When Darby was conducting this research in 1999-2003,
there had been approximately 80 human fatalities attributed to 'pit bull'
attacks in the previous 30 years or so in the U.S. 9,000,000 'pit bulls' (assuming
a 10 year lifespan) would easily translate into 27,000,000 'pit bulls' that
existed during that 30-year period. 80 fatalities out of 27,000,000 is
0.0002%.
While that seems incorrect to Darby, since she recalls at
some point, a few years ago confirming it was 4 zeros after the decimal,
rather than 3, that's what this calculation concludes. Nonetheless, we're
still talking about, at most, 0.0002% of 'pit bulls' having killed a person in
the U.S.
That leaves 99.9998% innocent of the allegation they're all killers.
When
we're talking about such small numbers, Darby would still have no problem
saying, "Frankly, I don't know what relevant information is gleaned
from the acts of less than 0.0002% of the population. Whatever it may be,
it certainly doesn't conclude anything about the rest.Again
I would also reiterate, if any breed were genetically-programmed to attack,
certainly more than 0.1% of them would".
---
*According to the most recent US census results, there are now an estimated 72 million dogs in the United States.
I'm pleased to see that our friends in Calgary continue to make terrific progress in the areas of preventing dog bites and educating owners as well as children and utility workers about dog bite prevention.
Calgary dog attacks fall to lowest level in 25 years
City a leader in reducing canine problems, says top bylaw officer
By Sean Myers, Calgary HeraldFebruary 21, 2009
Attacks by aggressive dogs are at the lowest level they've been in 25
years despite a steady population growth and the absence of
breed-specific legislation brought in to tackle canine issues in other
jurisdictions.
Despite the low numbers, Calgary's top bylaw
officer plans to delve deeper into the causes of dog attacks to try to
bring the incidents even lower.
The population of Calgary has more than doubled since Bill started working on his program. The ongong statistics are depicted graphically at this link. The impound and kill stats also illustrate the remarkable achievement by Calgary Animal Services.
The Ontario Liberals were told of Calgary's success and asked to invite Bill Bruce to present at the Committee Hearings in 2005. Calgary was brought up throughout the hearings by various witnesses yet the government was reluctant to hear what Bill had to say.
I can only assume that's because they didn't want his remarks to be available through Hansard since one of their arguments in court has been that there is no alternative to their ill-considered approach to dog owner management.
Written presentations do not appear in the record so are therefore not available to the public. In the second snip, watch David Zimmer (Lib - Willowdale and friend of the WSPA) dance around when asked to invite Mr Bruce to present at Committee.
This was rigged from the start just as Bryant and McGuinty's law is completely rigged against dog owners.
February 2:
I will again direct you to Calgary's
approach. You received these many months back, and I'm sure you've received
them in the course of all these presentations. Their forward thinking has
worked for them for many years. Why can't it work here? Bill Bruce has even
offered to help set up and teach their approach to us here in Ontario. They
have approximately 90,000 licensed dogs in their city, and only five dogs
deemed vicious. That's five dogs -- count `em on one hand -- deemed vicious.
They are doing something right: zero tolerance for off-leash dogs and
unlicensed dogs, and strict requirements and high fines for owners who have
proved themselves incapable of being responsible dog owners.
Mr. Miller: Mr. Chair,
I have the director of animal and bylaw services for the city of Calgary, Mr.
Bill Bruce, who would like to appear before the committee, but because he's
employed by the city of Calgary and doesn't want to be seen to be interfering
in the affairs of Ontario, he needs to be formally invited by the committee
to be able to come before the committee. I would like the committee to invite
him to come before it. He has significant experience in animal control. The
city of Calgary has seen some significant reductions in animal bites. They've
had a 70% reduction in dog bites since they brought in their animal control
bylaws, and that has happened while the number of dogs in Calgary has
doubled. Mr. Bill Bruce would certainly be a very valuable person to lend his
experience to the committee, so I would move that the committee invite him to
appear before us.
The Chair: Mr. Miller
has moved that Mr. Bill Bruce, the director of animal and bylaw services for
the city of Calgary, appear before the committee. Is there any discussion on
the motion?
Mr. Zimmer: These
matters were taken up by the subcommittee, were they not?
The Chair: They
were.
Mr. Zimmer: There was
a witness list.
The Chair: There
was.
Mr. Zimmer: Presumably
this was raised then.
The Chair: It was
not.
Mr. Kormos: I don't
know the background of how this gentleman was brought to Mr. Miller's
attention, at least, but the fact is that here's a director of animal and
bylaw services for the city of Calgary. Reference has been made already to
the city of Winnipeg. I trust that other municipalities that have advocated
-- and fairly enough, because they've implemented breed-specific bans -- will
be called upon.
I don't know what the position is of
this gentleman from Calgary, but it seems to me that if the committee is
interested in getting the broadest range of information available to it --
gosh, we've got e-mails from people in other British colonies, Australia,
Great Britain. People are well aware -- this has attracted attention
internationally. If there's expertise available, why would we possibly shut
the door on it? If these people are prepared to assist the committee, let's
go; let her rip. Let's have these people in front of us. Quite frankly,
whether they're from Calgary or not doesn't offend me. It's of even greater
interest because obviously you've got a different provincial jurisdiction. I
encourage people to support Mr. Miller's motion.
Mr. Miller: I would
just like to support that by asking why we would not try to learn from the
jurisdictions that have had the most success, and Calgary has had significant
success. They've reduced dog bites by 70%. Here we have the director of
animal and bylaw services willing to come before the committee, but he needs
a formal invite to be able to come because he doesn't want to be seen to be
interfering with the affairs of Ontario. They've had very significant success
with an animal control bylaw that's not breed-specific, and I think we can
learn from that.
If the end goal is to have the most
successful legislation and to improve this legislation, I believe we should
be inviting Mr. Bruce to come before this committee. I would ask for the
committee's support in inviting Mr. Bruce to come and lend his expertise to
the committee.
The Chair: Shall I now
put the question?
Mr. Zimmer: This
matter of the witness list should have been -- if you wanted to make
arrangements to raise this matter, it should have been raised before the
subcommittee. This committee has set aside four days for hearings. There is
an extensive witness list for each of the four days. Each of the witnesses
has been allocated a time frame of approximately 10 minutes. The difficulty
now with entertaining last-minute changes to the witness list is, where do we
fit them in, and if we say yes to Mr. Miller's request, what should we do
with other requests that might come up from any other members on the
committee? There has to be some end to the process.
Mr. Kormos: The issue
seems to be the reluctance of this municipal official to make a submission to
this committee without invitation. Why doesn't the committee invite him to
make a written submission? Surely that can't be offensive to anybody. It
doesn't occupy any time of the committee, but it --
Mr. Zimmer: I'm going
to agree. I think that's a reasonable way to proceed.
Mr. Kormos: In that
case, you can interrupt.
Mr. Zimmer: That way,
we'll get the relevant evidence before the committee and we'll preserve the
integrity of the witness list for the remaining four days.
The Chair: Mr. Kormos
has the floor.
Mr. Kormos: But he
needs an invitation to make a submission so that he doesn't --
Ms. Monique M. Smith
(Nipissing): Written submission.
Mr. Kormos: Well, God
bless.
Mr. Zimmer: Yes.
Mr. Kormos: That's
what I said already -- so that he doesn't appear to be overriding his
jurisdiction.
Mr. Zimmer: We're with
you on this one, Mr. Kormos.
Mr. Kormos: You're on
track now.
The Chair: Mr. Kormos,
are you proposing an amendment to the motion?
Mr. Kormos: Mr. Miller
may want to. I don't want to cut his grass.
Mr. Miller: I
understand you're going to vote against this if we don't amend it. I'm
getting that feeling. Is that correct? The thing is, you have more members on
that side than we do on this side.
Mr. Zimmer: My
argument here is that we've got a very tight witness list. It's been planned,
10 minutes per witness over four days, and it's unfair now to re-jig the
witness list.
Mr. Kormos's proposal to accommodate
this witness, or accommodate your wish to have him send in a written
submission at our invitation, satisfies your purpose and preserves the
integrity of the witness list.
Mr. McMeekin: I'll
build on that. I suspect your political acumen is probably correct, Mr.
Miller. I think the rationale for argument from this side is where do you
draw the line? New Brunswick's looked at it. The provincial government in
Australia has looked at breed bans. There are a number of cities. To have one
isolated person in particular who has indicated a desire to make a
presentation -- I don't normally speak to amendments before they're made, but
I think on the surface, because we opened this up, there are at least a dozen
people I'd like to see invited. I think the concept of the written brief, as
Mr. Kormos has suggested and my colleague Mr. Zimmer has affirmed -- and
hopefully you, sir, might look at -- is a good way to go.
Mr. Miller: I would
certainly like to reiterate that I believe we can learn from Calgary's animal
control bylaw; I would be prepared to modify my motion to invite Mr. Bill
Bruce to make a written submission to this committee so that we may learn
from the city of Calgary.
The Chair: Mr. Miller
has amended his motion to read that Mr. Bill Bruce of the city of Calgary be
invited to submit a written brief to the committee. Is there any further
discussion? Shall I put the question?
Sports Illustrated did a spread on the Vicktory dogs and it looks like a good one.
Congrats to BadRap for getting the truth out there against all odds.
And you're right, guys. Sports Illustrated definitely owed us all a cover.
Here are the details with links to the online edition. For the first time in my life, I'll be looking for the magazine at the variety store tomorrow - I want to be sure to bag a copy or two before they sell out.
Unfortunately, the fringe lunatics at Peta were quoted with their usual "Let's kill all the pibbles" schtick. Maybe that's a good thing because a lot of people read Sports Illustrated. Let's hope the penny drops.
Nathan has a good post, in case you missed it, about taking back the animal welfare movement from the killers and shillers. He talks about calling evil by its name.
Oh, we do, Mr W, but spell it differently.
Why am I reminded of a tune by the Village People?
Thanks to everybody for organizing, attending and recording Saturday's Gathering of Beagles'Pit Bulls'Witches Ontario dog owners who want their rights back.
Yesterday, we held our sorta, kinda, annual gathering to commemorate the day that Democracy finally died in Ontario - August 29, 2005, the day the 'pit bull' ban became law.
It was also the day that Katrina hit New Orleans, which pushed 'our little problem' out of the media. Probably just as well, all that weeping and gnashing of teeth was hard on the nerves anyway.
Our storm wasn't as biblical in proportion or as widely destructive but to those of us who know and love dogs it was an unnatural disaster of the worst sort.
Our own bulldog, Franny, took a few pictures of the gang.
It was very hot and humid, not good dog (or people) weather, but despite that the turnout was fantastic. We will win this, folks, I just know it.
We know we are right and they are wrong - and so do they. It's just a game and the dogs the gamepieces, which is no way to treat your only friend.
Due to traffic, construction and a couple of fender benders, it took us over 2.5 hours to get to Queen's Park - it's usually about a 70-minute drive. My air conditioning packed it a couple of weeks ago, so it was hard on my boys. The ride home was better but we were glad to get into the house and just relax last night.
Warning: The wide shot is big, because otherwise it's too hard to see, so if you have slow service, you might just want to view the thumbnail.
I have more pics, will put them in the file later, but I was anxious to share these few with my friends in the fight.
Here's a link, click on thumbnails to see larger versions of the photos.
The American Kennel Club(r) (AKC(r)) will be joining
Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law Center, LLC of Lakewood,
Colorado and the Washington D.C. office of Kaye Scholer LLP in
representing dog-owning plaintiffs Sonya Dias and others who are
asserting that the Denver ordinance banning pit bulls within the city
limits is unconstitutional more»
Please feel free to circulate. We need to stop the flow of misinformation.
Also from the comments at the same post:
Check our response to Councilwoman Thompson's raving lunacies at helpfido.blogspot.com.
Please feel free to cross post. And please add us as a favorite!
Thanks- your friends at HELP FIDO.
Sorry for the delay in getting those posted, I really have been busy with something important and large this week. I've added the PBRC blog and the Help Fido blog to my roll under Man's Only Friend.
Note to PBRC and other 'pit bull' rescues/support groups: Some of your content was taken out of context, no doubt. However, we have to be careful about what we put out there always keeping in mind that both the good and the evil among us can access and use the information to suit their purposes.
Case in point: The statements around aggression in dogs are unsubstantiated by any scientific authorities to date. There is no evidence that any breed, or in the case of most 'pit bulls', mixed breed, of dog is born with a tendency toward same-species aggression. Also, according to the experts, there is no difference between aggression towards other animals and aggression towards humans - it's just a matter of unchecked escalation. The most obvious explanation for this is of course that People Are Animals Too(c).
Is there same sex aggression among dogs? Absolutely. Is there a greater tendency towards aggression when owner expectation or behaviour reinforces it? Indubitably. Is there any genetic basis for most of the popular statements about dog aggression and how it arises? None, barring disease or disorder, ie, while it would be possible to breed a line of dogs exhibiting a psychopathology, it would be difficult and ultimately pointless.
All dogs tend to be naturally unafraid of humans, or friendly towards humans, which is the same thing. It's the nature of the beast and it explains why they've been with us for many millennia - around 50,000 years according to the latest information.
Other generalizations which are common among supporters of 'pit bulls' (and other types), for example that 'pit bulls' love people and were selected for this quality, are great with kids, etc can be just as harmful. No matter what the generalization, by differentiating 'pit bulls' or any other kinds of dogs based on tendencies or behaviour for which there is no evidence other than the anecdotal kind, you are isolating the dogs, making them different and attributing qualities to them that are not supported by the research to date. You don't take any dog out of the box, wind him up and get the finished product whether he's a Chihuahua or an Irish Wolfhound.
That's what the bad guys do, generalize and make statements founded on minimal anecdotal evidence - it's just the other side of the coin. So yes, they will cherry-pick from your information and use it to their advantage. Be careful what you put out there and be able to back up your statements with references if need be.
This issue is a matter of concern. While we fight tooth and claw through the courts and elsewhere at great financial and personal cost to prove that so-called 'pit bulls' (which don't technically exist) are the same as other dogs, some of the groups which are onside with our cause are providing the enemy with ammunition - even though they have the best of intentions.
****
There was a fatality in Florida this week. Since I doubt that the story will get the typically wide play that a death reportedly caused by another shape of dog would merit, I'll do my part to get it out there.
Brent posted the news and his take is, as always, a good one.
Luisa has a good post about the story which focuses on some of the comments by readers of the news item in Florida. Her piece points out how an already ignorant public has been propagandized (and thereby rendered more ignorant) into believing all the nonsense about 'breeds' of dogs by a lazy, pandering media and self-serving government drones.
No need to gild the lily, they've got it covered.
****
As always, if you want to keep tabs on what the trogs are plotting, No Pit Bull Bans is a great source for upcoming anti-dog owner legislation. I check in there regularly.
Somehow, I doubt it, unless what we see - a duplicitous, avaricious Lord High Executioner for millions of helpless animals - is the real 'Humane Wayne'.
There's a good post over at Nathan Winograd's blog about Pacelle, his batty aunts at Peta and the travesty that was H$U$ Expo 2008 - held, of course, in Orlando Florida - the home of Disney World.
"According to HSUS as presented in statements, media quotes, and workshops at their conference, dogs and cats can and should be killed in shelters (it is a “necessity” and the “kindest option”); No Kill is hoarding; and cronies come before the animals being needlessly killed.
So we are left to conclude that this is the real Wayne Pacelle, and that this will be his enduring legacy to the millions of animals needlessly being slaughtered in shelters each year. When someone shows you over and over who they really are, what they really believe, and what they stand for, it behooves all of us to believe them."
I had the pleasure of making a presentation to the Mississauga City Council on Wednesday morning.
I was there to support a motion by Councilor Carolyn Parrish that would allow the owners of dogs incarcerated under Ontario's ill-begotten 'pit bull' ban to visit their pets while the wheels of justice slowly grind.
Mississauga's motto is 'Leading Today for Tomorrow', which seems apt.
After my presentation in which I briefly discussed the Ontario situation and presented some research findings into owner attachment and the effects of extended kenneling on dogs raised as housepets, Council voted unanimously in favour of the idea.
Well done, Mississauga!
Lori over at Wag the Dog has more, including the report from Mississauga News.