Caveat
Caveat
Caveat
Search
Alltop. Seriously?! I got in?
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 

Put The Big Red Button on your site
image
Locations of visitors to this page Who links to me?
incivility
Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter
This Month
March 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Year Archive
View Article  MORE THAN 99.9% OF ALL DOGS WILL NEVER ATTACK ANYBODY
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.


View Article  THERE'S A CURE FOR IGNORANCE
But you can't fix stupid   more »
View Article  ALERT! COTE ST LUC PLANS TO RESTRICT DOGS BY 'BREED'
They read some stuff in the papers and want to be 'proactive'.   more »
View Article  'PIT BULLS' HARD TO TRAIN AS K9 OFFICERS?
According to K9 officers in Chicago, whose unit uses the traditional German Shepherd Dogs and even has a Bloodhound on staff, 'pit bulls' are a problem for the force.

A pit bull named Elliot Ness is anything but untouchable. Loving and friendly, these traits keep most pit bulls from being good police dogs.

"The main problem we're finding with pit bulls is that they're too darn nice. All they want to do is just sit at your feet or crawl in your lap. They're very nice dogs," said Deborah Thedos, Cook County K9 Unit.

Police officers main contact with pit bulls is when they break up dog fighting rings. When encountering these dogs they found that they were anything but vicious.

"We knew from the get-go that these dogs, they aren't made this way," said Sheriff Tom Dart, Cook County.

For Elliot Ness's partner the pit bull is much more than just a dog.

"He's my best friend. He's my friend. He's my baby and he knows it," said Thedos .

Here's the whole item, with accompanying video.

Thanks to ABC News for running a true story about 'pit bulls'.

You made my day.

View Article  PREVENTING DOG BITES IN CHILDREN
KC Dog Blog  interviewed Jennifer Skyrock about keeping kids safe around dogs - and vice versa.

From the introduction:

"Jennifer Shryock CDBC, the founder of Dogs & Storks™. Dogs & Storks™ is a nation-wide network of dog trainers and canine behavior consultants that work with new and expecting  families in preparing for a life where dogs and children co-exist peacefully. While the advice here is meant for educational purposes, it is not meant to be a replacement for good old common sense and the help of a trained professional in your area"

Good stuff, KC!

View Article  ABOUT THOSE FIVE MILLION REPORTED BITES
Once again we see a guess become a fact and then get jazzed up further by our friends in the media   more »
View Article  I THINK I'LL MOVE OUT TO MONTANA SOON
...and raise me up a crop of...dental floss.

That line by the late, great Frank Zappa never fails to crack me up.

I wrote to the House Reps in Montana the other day (full list of email addresses is available at No Pit Bull Bans).

It wasn't one of my better missives but I wrote it and sent it, poor phrasing and all.

I didn't cover a lot of the aspects of why BSL is a huge mistake, but I did send along at least some information which the Committee may find helpful.

I got a very speedly reply from Representative Becker, who is opposed to the concept of BSL and understands that it is owners, not dogs, that cause problems when they ignore local regulations.

What I sent in is attached, with some contact info redacted because I don't want to encourage spammers.



1 Attachments
View Article  BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION & THE APBT: ARE THE LAWS JUSTIFIED?
Well, I think most of us could answer that question quite easily with a resounding 'No'.

But why listen to us?

Here's a paper from the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour by Stephen Collier that presents data and an analysis which reaches the same conclusion.

The abstract:


After more than a century as an uncontroversial dog (Jessup, 1975), the American pit bull terrier has developed a notorious reputation as a dangerous breed since 1980, with consequent restrictions placed upon it by jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere. Studies in the United States have indicated that the “pit bull” is responsible for a significant number of human fatalities resulting from dog attack, but the data on which such studies are based are flawed by methodological shortcomings. Using absolute numbers of dog attacks by breed in Australia, data on attacks on human beings reveal the pit bull terrier to be exceeded by several other breeds. Regardless, the primary problem is that reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative to breed population. Of 19 human fatalities in Australia over the past two decades, none has involved a dog verified to be an American pit bull terrier. The evidence does not sustain the view that this is a uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it have not been demonstrated by authorities to be justified by its attack record.


And the best part?

The entire paper is available at no cost here.

View Article  WHAT IS AN AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER?

The wonderful, cantankerous Terrierman has a question which should be fairly easy for you to answer:

What the Hell is an American Staffordshire Terrier?

So, if you'd like to explain here I can collect your answers and send them along, or you can comment over there.  Keep in mind that he moderates comments.

I let all comments through and if any are libelous, threatening to an identifiable person or just plain moronic (you know who you are) I delete 'em.

My place, my rules, right?  Right?

Have fun.