All you ... PEOPLE who support breed bans: Let's Play FIND THE PIT BULL!!
Listed below are pictures of ten dogs. None of them are purebred. They are all mixed breeds. ONLY ONE IS PART PIT BULL. Your job is to FIND THE PIT BULL!!
I'll be posting the answers in 1 hour.
I want to hug them all...
Don't tell dog 111 but that leash makes his ass look fat. But he's so freakin' cute with his stubby little legs...
Except dog 58. He looks like he gives great hugs.
at least the ones I knew played like that. But what do I know, my border collie would hit me with her bowl if I let it get empty - to make a point I guess.
I think they all look huggable, except 111 - that poor thing looks terrified.
Bigger jaw? And I am 100% wrong, I would bet!! A good doggie is a good doggie and a mean doggie is scary as shit - no matter what their breeds.
I know the answer, but I cheated and won't ruin it for everyone else.
In the poll, I chose to ban the breed. Consider me schooled, and your point well taken.
Too many pit bulls kill too many people without provocation. No matter how many posts
you make, that fact will not go away and the danger will still exist.
Move on please.
Between their smoke breaks.
Pit Bull is not a breed. Pit Bull type canine is the definition but you can't tell that to the priests of dog-ma. So the answer is none.
I don't suppose you know what it is? Ours has longer legs (she's a mutt) and is a tad leaner still, but the resemblance is amazing. There's some lineage shared with whatever that dog is I'd bet.
They're all cute as can be though.
But seriously, I think 54 is part pit bull because of the chest configuration.
Good test, though. If half the dogs purported to be pit bulls really were, there would be no other breeds.
the breed is misidentified. This annoys the crap out of my friends who do pit bull rescue.
#111 has me a bit thrown though.
And oh #8
And I want them all!!!!!
89. Then I decided on 111. Width of the jaw and the width of the chest. I can't tell about the width of the chest on 89. So 111 final answer.
#1 - 22 that dog looks as if was beaten down. Sad.
#3 - 54
Hope all find good homes.
Here we go! Here are the answers. Based on the UF College of Veterinary Medicine Dog Breed Identification survey: What kind of dog is that?
We conducted a national survey of dog experts to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs.
More than 5,000 dog experts, including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, rescuers, and others completed the survey.
DNA Results: 50% Catahoula Leopard Dog, 25% Siberian Husky, 9.94% Briard, 5.07% Airedale Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Irish Water Spaniel, 25% Siberian Husky, 25% Boston Terrier, 8.33% Bull Mastiff
DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Alaskan Malamute, 21.95% Sealyham Terrier, 19.67% Pointer
DNA Results: 25% Chow Chow, 12.5% German Shepherd, 12.5% Alaskan Malamute, 14.22% Cairn Terrier
DNA Results: 37.5% German Shepherd, 12.5% Rottweiler, 12.5% Weimeraner, 11.44% Irish terrier
DNA Results: 25% Bulldog, 12.5% Mastiff, 12.5% Boxer, 10.42% Tibetan Mastiff
DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Entlebucher Mountain Dog, 25% German Spitz, 9.14% Golden Retriever
DNA Results: 25% Doberman Pinscher, 25% Wire Haired Dachshund, 12.5% Samoyed, 12.5% Miniature Schnauzer
DNA Results: 25% Bulldog, 25% Boxer, 12.98% Blue Tick Coonhound, 10.9% Weimeraner
DNA Results: 25% Basset Hound, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Chow Chow, 25% English Cocker Spaniel
Remember this anytime you see a news report of a "Pit Bull" biting someone. Trying to identify a dog's breed visually is little better than flipping a coin. The professionals in this survey got 43/100 wrong.
And also remember that the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Kennel Club, the American Bar Association, and the National Canine Research Council - In short, precisely ALL of the people who know the relevant law, medicine & canine behavior they ALL are opposed to breed specific legislation and breed bans. Anyone who tries to say different is lying to you.
Congrats to NV Whino(reply #14), Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #18), DevonRex (Reply #20), and and honorable mention to reformist2 (Reply #3). Thx all for playing!
See my answer above. #22.
Other dogs "bite" ........but pit bulls are bred to latch on, take down and kill.
Not a breed for irresponsible pet owners.
And this phony "quiz" didn't throw me off.
You lose. Go get another tat as a consolation prize!
Yes you did. You are quite wrong.
Tat? I lose? I know you are, but what am I? <-----just keeping it real for your benefit.
Pit Bulls are bred to please their humans & to be a part of a human family. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DOG.
But the breed was originally breed for bear and bull baiting.
Both of which are blood sports. If you don't want to look that up, a blood sport is pretty much "Put these animals in a cage, let them fight to the death."
This is the issue with, really, both sides of the pit debate. Pit supporters completely ignore why the breed originated, and pit haters ignore (most of) it's modern uses.
As for me, I don't really care either way. Have yourself a pit bull. I don't care. I wouldn't want to own one, but if you want to own one thats fine. As long as you keep them off of my property, I don't really care what breed of dog you own.
Or do you not understand that hunting is a "blood sport"? And don't try to lay out any bullshit that it's not the same. It is, and all dogs are carnivores. Therefore - according to your logic - that makes them all dangerous & none of them can be trusted.
In one main thing.
Hunting is done with the goal of killing a animal for use as food. The main goal of a blood sport is to provide entertainment.
Even then, not all game dogs fall under your idealogy. Some game dogs weren't bred to take down a animal - Only track or recover it.
And your comparing a dog's eating habits to a blood sport? Seriously? Are you running out of (good) arguments so quickly that you have to throw together stuff like this?
We just point out that it's largely irrelevant to any given individual of that breed. It's a question of training and owner responsibility.
If anyone's ignoring breed histories, I'm afraid it's the advocates of breed bans. Find me a dog breed that doesn't have at least some roots in maiming other living things. Please.
The #1 most popular dog in America, the Labrador retriever is a descendant of ship mastiffs - dogs bred and trained to tear up anyone not part of he crew who came aboard. It's got gundog ancestry as well, which is where the "retriever" part comes from. Newfoundlands show the mastiff ancestry even more clearly.
The #2, Yorkshire terrier, was like most terriers bred to, well, grab other animals and shake them around until limbs fly off. In the yorkie's case, this was rats. it was also used as a pit dog against smaller "game" - rats, other small dogs, cats, whatever might bring in the money.
They also do this, which is cool, I guess.
#3, the German shepherd is one of the classic "tough" dogs; originally derived to kill the shit out of wolves and other dogs who came near its flocks, then put in top tier for police and military uses. Most dog attacks in the world probably come at the teeth of a german shepherd; but so long as someone in a uniform holds the leash, it's not added to statistics.
#4, golden retriever, large spaniel and probably the other half of the labrador's ancestry. Alright, seems this guy was only used to pick up critters that were already dead, and do so carefully.
#5, beagle, scent hound. Bred to chase foxes in large packs. Fox hunts usually ended up with the hounds ripping the animal to shreds. This was apparently "jolly good sport," or something. Probably right up there with a terrier in how much carnage they can cause to your furniture, and the amount of terror they inflict on neighborhood cats, squirrels, and whatever else.
#6, dachshund, another scent hound. Like the beagle. only with badgers. In my experience, one of the most consistently foul-tempered breeds ever. Them and the goddamned cocker spaniels.
#7, boxer, mastiff type. descended from the german "bullenbaiser" which, if my three years of High school German doesn't fail me, means "bull-baiter." Originally used as a savage-game hunter (bears, boars, that sort of thing), then brought into the fighting ring, then trained as military attack dogs. Nowadays most famous for being tough-looking cuddlywumpuses who are more likely to run away from a huffy kitten than bark at it.
#8, poodle, gun dog. If assholes who wanted to have a "tough" dog knew anything, we'd be hearing about poodle attacks and pit bulls would be counsidered frou-frou. Don't let their silly show bouffants fool you, a standard poodle is a big, strong, ill-tempered animal who should not be trusted with anything that might at any point be considered as tasting somewhat like a pork chop. The breed history doesn't point towards any particular meanness.. .but then you remember, they're french, and the idea of a foul-tempered dog with a bad haircut that is still inexplicably popular with women makes sense
(I kid, I love poodles, but seriously, they're fluffy dingos, keep your eye on 'em)
#9, shih-tzu, a non-working dog of "ancient" type. Specially bred to look oriental because, well, Victorians did stupid shit like that. Probably descended in great part from the Lhasa apso and Pekingese, two breeds that were so dangerous, so evil and maniacal, that the Ancient chinese had to breed deformities like squished heads and rickety shoulder gircles into them just ot keep them under countrol (this is joking, save that the two breeds are known to be rather agressive to strangers. Most shih tzus I've happened across were perfectly nice and not at all like a Lhasa apso nightmare-dog)
#10, Miniature Schnauzer, herding type (they look like terriers, but yup, they're more related to german shepherds). While not exactly agressive, they are hugely intelligent, which leads to a situation where thye can become the alpha animal in the houseghold if the human isn't prepared. They are also very protective and, given the high rate of training failure, this can lead to the animal becoming snappy, prone to aggression displays, and otherwise being an unworkable asshole of a dog.
If the AKC recognized the APBT, it would very likely come in at #3, and yes, its background is a breed bred to chew up other dogs in a fighting ring. So are several other breeds, from boston terriers, to pugs, to the shar pei. It's my feeling that it's this lack of recognition that leads to at least some of the problem; there's no real oversight of the breeding practices, the breed is not normalized via dog shows and the like, and as the OP shows, any dog can look vaguely like a pit bull and thus every dog that attacks can get called a pit bull by someone.
Who has maimed and mutilated innumerable shopping bag handles and innocent socks. She has also attempted to drown the neighbor's cat by licking it to death. It's kind of amusing to walk her, since I've seen large men cross the street to get out of her path, even though she's only a threat to pepperoni pizza.
It's not the breed. It's the owner/the training/the individual dog. It's also whether the dog has been neutered. If you check out the stats on dangerous dog attacks, most are committed by unaltered males. That's why my complex allows pits, but no unaltered dogs. Sane policy.
He was fine until he got to be about 14 or 15 months old. After that he became aggressive with other dogs and some people. It was really scary because his behavior wasn't consistent. I never know when he would lunge at someone. His owners finally had him fixed and the change in his behavior was almost immediate.
springer in it. Thank you for the interesting example of how do you tell a mix. I bet many of these would be incorrectly labeled pits and be difficult to adopt, easy to have killed.
I had my dog DNA tested and it said she was all kinds of crazy things, and then I saw a picture of an English shepherd and I was like "Bingo."
Part of what makes me question the validity of their methodology is that half the dogs pictured have ultra-rare breeds in trace amounts.
"...to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs."
The survey lists the top 5 guesses, and the actual DNA make up of the dog. All the dogs have very common breeds in their make up. If visual breed identification was any better than chance, then the professionals taking the survey should have been able to deduce at least one of the breeds in the dog's make up better than half the time. They didn't.
You're trying to insinuate there's an issue with the survey when there is none. If you have proof that the DNA tests were done improperly, show it. (Along with the peer review for it, of course.)
Otherwise, be an adult, admit that you're wrong & move on.
Of the 119 dogs shown, there are 132 different breeds represented.
The first number is the AKC rank and the second number is the number of times that breed registered in this test.
I popped it up on a scatter plot, and the best R-squared I could get (which was logarithmic) was .21, indicating that there's a super weak correlation between breed popularity in the real world versus breed popularity in this group of dogs.
Therefore, the methodology of the test is in question.
Rank Number Breed
1 16 Labrador Retriever
2 9 German Shepherd
3 5 Golden Retriever
4 8 Beagle
5 7 Bulldog
6 3 Yorkshire Terrier
7 14 Boxer
8 1 Poodle
9 5 Rottweiler
10 7 Miniature Short Haired Dachshund
10 7 Short Haired Dachshund
10 7 Long Haired Dachshund
10 7 Wire Haired Dachshund
12 2 Doberman Pinscher
13 2 Miniature Schnauzer
14 3 French Bulldog
15 2 German Short Haired Pointer
16 8 Siberian Husky
17 3 Great Dane
18 2 Chihuahua
19 2 Pomeranian
21 2 Shetland Sheepdog
22 2 Australian Shepherd
23 4 Boston Terrier
24 2 Pembroke Welsh Corgi
26 1 Mastiff
27 2 Cocker Spaniel
28 1 Havanese
29 1 English Springer Spaniel
31 1 Brittany Spaniel
32 8 Weimeraner
33 1 Bernese Mountain Dog
34 1 Vizsla
35 5 Collie
38 1 Bichon Frise
39 4 Bullmastiff
40 5 Basset Hound
41 1 Rhodesian Ridgeback
42 2 Newfoundland
43 3 Russell Terrier
44 2 Border Collie
45 1 Akita
47 6 Miniature Pinscher
48 2 Bloodhound
49 1 Saint Bernard
50 1 Shiba Inu
51 1 Bull Terrier
52 4 Chinese Sharpei
53 2 Wheaten Terrier
53 1 Soft Coated Wheaton Terrier
54 1 Airedale Terrier
55 2 Portuguese Water Dog
57 2 Alaskan Malamute
58 1 Scottish Terrier
59 7 Australian Cattle Dog
60 4 Cane Corso
61 1 Lhasa Apso
62 4 Chinese Crested
63 2 Cairn Terrier
64 3 English Cocker Spaniel
65 2 Dalmatian
66 2 Italian Greyhound
67 3 Dogue de Bordeaux
68 3 Samoyed
69 12 Chow Chow
70 1 German Wirehaired Pointer
71 1 Belgian Malinois
72 2 Great Pyrenees
74 1 Irish Setter
76 7 Staffordshire Bull Terrier
77 2 Irish Wolfhound
78 1 Old English Sheepdog
79 19 American Staffordshire
89 1 Standard Schnauzer
90 1 Silky Terrier
91 2 Flat Coated Retriever
93 2 Afghan Hound
95 1 Borzoi
96 1 Wire Fox Terrier
98 2 Schipperke
101 3 Keeshond
102 2 Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever
103 1 Toy Fox Terrier
105 1 Norwegian Elkhound
106 1 Belgian Tervuren
107 1 Anatolian Shepherd
108 1 Welsh Terrier
109 1 Black and Tan Coonhound
110 2 Pointer
111 1 Tibetan Spaniel
112 1 Neopolitan Mastiff
113 5 American Eskimo
118 2 Saluki
119 2 Norfolk Terrier
120 1 Black Russian Terrier
121 4 Manchester Terrier
122 1 Briard
123 3 Australian Terrier
124 2 Belgian Sheepdog
126 2 Miniature Bull Terrier
129 3 Tibetan Mastiff
130 2 Irish Terrier
132 1 RedBone Coonhound
133 1 Blue Tick Coonhound
134 1 English Toy Terrier
139 2 Scottish Deerhound
140 3 Beauceron
142 1 Ibizian Hound
145 3 Puli
147 1 Field Spaniel
148 1 Swedish Vallhund
150 2 Plott Hound
153 2 Curly Coated Retriever
154 3 Irish Water Spaniel
156 1 Lowchen
157 2 Entlebucher Mountain Dog
161 3 Sealyham Terrier
162 1 Glen of Imaal Terrier
163 1 Norwegian Buhund
169 1 Komondor
170 3 Dandie Dinmont Terrier
171 1 Harrier
172 5 American Foxhound
8 American Bulldog
6 German Spitz
3 Catahoula Leopard Dog
1 Dogo Argentino
1 Lancashire Heeler
1 Small Munsterlander
Nice drive by accusation, there. For the second time: Prove It. Until then, we can assume you have bupkis & we can rely on the accuracy of the DNA testing.
As to the breed distribution represented in the survey, it's not intended to represent the breed distribution of all dogs everywhere. They were selected from four north Florida animal shelters to represent the range of breed types available in animal shelters. NOT the distribution of breed types available in the shelters. (If that was the case, nearly all the dogs would have been phenotypical "Pit Bulls".)
I'm sure you understand the difference between a populations range and its distribution, don't you?
I also see that you didn't notice that there are only 100 dogs pictured on the link provided - not 119. You made this mistake in spite of the number "100" being referenced to repeatedly on the survey web site. If you can't even count your sample size, why should we take your statistical analysis seriously?
The point of the survey isn't the dogs anyway. The researchers could have used any size sample and any population of dogs. The objective of the survey was to test the accuracy of the professionals ability to identify an individual dogs breed visually. Which the web page states openly:
We conducted a national survey of dog experts to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs.
The surveys methodology is sufficient the determine this.
A Very Important Note Regarding Dog Breed DNA Tests: The accuracy of dog breed dna tests may not be 100% reliable, although they can sometimes be helpful regarding health related issues you will not want to rely on them solely for medication or health related decisions. Always visit thoroughly with your veterinarian to see if the tests should be used toward any medical diagnosis for your specific pet or if it should be used for entertainment purposes only.
And I'll assume you've given up trying to refute the methodology for selecting the dogs? Good.
Let's see what the actual people who conducted the survey say about the DNA testing. Here's another survey from Levy, et al from 2010:
MARS VETERINARY, Lincoln, Nebraska, performed the DNA analyses and reported to have an average accuracy of 84% in first-generation crossbred dogs of known parentage
All of the breeds identified by the adoption agencies were in the MARS database
Breeds must comprise at least 12.5% of the dogs make-up to be reported Adopting agencies identifications
All dogs had been identified as mixed breeds at time of adoption
16 dogs had been described as a specific breed mix
4 dogs were only identified by a type (2 shepherd mixes and 2 terrier mixes)
1 dog had been identified by both a specific breed (Chow Chow) and a type (terrier)
DNA and Adoption Agency Comparison
Only 25% (4/16) of the dogs identified by agencies as specified breed mixes were also identified as the same predominant breeds by DNA (3 were only 12.5% of the dogs composition)
No German Shepherd Dog ancestry was reported by DNA in the 2 dogs identified only as shepherd mixes by adoption agencies
In the 3 dogs described as terrier mixes, a terrier breed was only identified by DNA in one dog
In 15 of the 16 dogs, DNA analyses identified breeds as predominant that were not proposed by the adoption agencies
There is little correlation between dog adoption agencies identification of probable breed composition with the identification of breeds by DNA analysis
Further evaluation of the reliability and validity of visual dog breed identification is warranted
Justification of current public and private polices pertaining to breed specific regulations should be reviewed
And here's a second survey, confirming the results of the first:
Over at least three different surveys, the accuracy of DNA tests used is advertized as being up to 99% from the manufacturers, up to 90% observed for F1 crosses, and up to 85% observed for F2 crosses. In the same surveys, the accuracy for visual breed identification of mixed breeds by professional dog experts ranges from 16% to 43%.
So - FOR A THIRD TIME - if you have any actual peer-reviewed data to show that DNA testing is not accurate, show us. now you need to put up or shut up.
That's not very accurate.
At least 20 of those dogs are misidentified by the DNA test. At least. And that's assuming that they're all first-generation crossbreeds.
A big part of what makes me skeptical is that I had my dog DNA tested and it said she was like, 8 different breeds, then I saw a picture of an English shepherd and said "OMG, that's Maddy!"
You claim to love pit bulls in one breath and then in the next breath you say it's impossible to determine what a pit bull is. You ever consider the fact that your snugglebunny is really a totally different breed and that "real" pit bulls are nasty vicious killers?
And that the 84% figure is from the oldest study? The technology and DNA sequencing techniques has improved a great deal in the last 5 yrs.
And you're not able to come up with anything else to refute the DNA tests, are you?
I was torn between #08 (Set of the hind legs compared to the others) and #33, who aside from coloration, looks just like a bully mix a friend had a few years ago.
Figured #111 was a ringer; make peopel guess "oh, that's the least likely so that must be it" only to turn out that it was nothing of the sort.
Could tell right off the bat that #54 and #58 were boxer mixes, though. I'm wondering how that Boston Terrier got in #07; must have been a male dog, I guess.
I would have guessed that the first dog was mostly Laborador retriever, but not a drop of that in him. That definitely supports your point that you can't always tell what's in them by just looking at them. I am actually not surprised that the last dog has Staffordshire terrier in him, however. It's the body shape and coat color... Not surprised about the basset hound part, either. Our local humane society occasionally gets basset mixes in. It seems like they nearly always inherit those short legs.
as neither are an official breed?
So, and correct me if I am wrong, the 25% AmStaff should not be included in the pit bull designation. Therefore, #111 is not a pit bull.
If this is a Pit Bull:
25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Boxer, 25% Soft Coated Wheaton Terrier, 18.66% Great Dane
then this is a Pit Bull also:
25% Basset Hound, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Chow Chow, 25% English Cocker Spaniel
Google is your friend.
(and thanks for the post...pibble fist-bump to you) I can't help but notice the absence of many folks who are so adamant about the destruction/banning of these dogs.
I find that odd. Just wanted to make note of that.
Your are all for the media defining assault weapons but not Pit Bulls? BTW, I've never seen an assault weapon kill anything but I had a Pomeranian killed by your preferred assault dog. Had to track down his head after your assault dog ripped it off his neck. Ban them all -- if it saves one child or Pomerian it's worth it. Dontcha think??
Pretty watered down!
25% Basset Hound
25% American Staffordshire Terrier
25% Chow Chow
25% English Cocker Spaniel
and perfectly willing to kill or destroy anything that they believe won't cost them personally.
That's your pit bull right there.
Response to Orrex (Reply #73)
and discovered this symbol on my keyboard. Ooh, ooh, can I play, too?
If not, I plan to do an OP with nothing but my newfound key. Even though, as I can see here, it gets old very quickly...
To deal with the pure bread issue that the OP addresses, it's probably better to identify the dominant breed. So, if a dog is over 50% pit bull, call it a pit bull. 59% of fatalities due to dog bites are from Pit bulls, 14% from Rottweilers.
For purposes of clarity, this report depicts "mixes" as the predominant breed. For example, a boxer-mix is depicted as a "boxer," a husky-mix is depicted as a "husky" and a pit bull-mix is depicted as a "pit bull."
Percentage of all Deaths
Pit bull 52 59% Rottweiler 12 14% American bulldog 4 5% Husky 4 5% German shepherd 3 3% Doberman pinscher 2 2% Chow chow 2 2% Wolf-hybrid 2 2% Labrador 2 2% Australian shepherd 1 1% Golden retriever 1 1% Boxer 1 1% Bullmastiff 1 1% Great pyrenees 1 1% Mixed breed (undetermined) 1 1% Jack Russell terrier 1 1% Old English sheepdog 1 1% Mastiff 1 1% Presa canario 1 1% Total 93 104%
Mine looks just like the one on the bottom right. He is quite a biter and latches on to his toys with a lockjaw. How did I NOT guess that he's a pittie?
It don't get any more DU than that. Thanks guys!
Just the opposite, in fact.
That's like saying you have to identify a picture of meth before you can say it should be controlled.
BTW: None of those seem to be pit bulls.
What's important is that the professionals surveyed were not able to identify 10 of those dogs, and they also ID'd 17 dogs as Pit Bulls (either American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers) which have no Pit Bull ancestry at all.
And I don't buy your "harmless pit bull" BS!
Responsible owner....... OK....... But that's not who gets these dogs.
Of showing data about DNA and how people visually miss identified a dog breed. Show data that poodles or beagles or huskies or terriers or labs or any other breed maul people to death with the same frequency that pit bulls do. Then you would have a compelling argument in the positive for pit bulls.
Which is very rarely.
That's the point of this exercise. Biting dogs are reported to be Pit Bulls, when they're not Pit Bulls. Stop posting lies.
Oooops! No pit bull...... Who could have thought of that?
It's not my job to educate you. There's plenty of links in this thread to allow you to educate yourself, maybe your should try.
With the position Pit Bulls are no more harmful than any other breed. However your position is not supported. The conclusion in the CDC link is clear. Certainly the issue can be muddied by framing it in a pure bred vs mixed breed but the simple fact is pit bulls have a higher than average instance rate of DBRF be them pure or mixed breed.
The CDC link also says that breed bans are not effective in curbing dog bites. And if you actually LOOK at the CDC web site, it'll tell you that There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill. You know how the Google works. I'm sure you can find it.
Say away from the lying assholes, though.
"Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982......designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise..."
Not only that DNA testing wasn't really available until 2004, and still isn't widely used for breed identification. Certainly DNA testing was unavailable in 1982. Evidently, the breed was determined by visual clues only, by untrained personnel. The study referenced in this thread proves that visual breed ID is no better than 50/50 chance, even when done by dog experts. And that that "Pit Bulls" are over-represented in visual breed determinations. Any studies based on visual factors are useless.
But the Clifton Report has been widely discredited even before DNA testing has been available:
Not here. This site presents factual information about dog bites and dog attacks.
Merritt Cliftons tabulation of dog bite articles is incomplete, inaccurate and badly edited. Readers have no way to access the original news stories and follow-up articles; breeds of dogs arent accurately recorded; and there is a significant discrepancy between press accounts of dog attacks and actual hospital data.
In a single year , for example, at least 6,000 people were hospitalized in the U.S. as a result of dog attacks, according to the CDC. Clifton, by contrast, claims that during the 24-year period covered by his study there were a total of 2,209 [dog] attacks doing bodily harm in the U.S. and Canada.
In December 2009 the Clifton Report featured 2,694 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,493 "Maimings) in the 27 year stretch from 1982 to 2009. There were several "interesting" things about these numbers:
1) Clifton issued a 2006 report that suggested there were 2,209 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,323 "maimings". A little math then shows that from 2006-2009, there were 485 'attacks doing bodily harm" and 170 "maimings" -- however, during the same timeframe, showed that the total numbers attributed to 'pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios" went up by 509 and 215 respectively - or more than the grand total of all dogs combined. This is, of course, mathematically impossible.
2) While HCUP estimates show that there have been an average of about 7800 hospitalizations (requiring an overnight stay) in the past 16 years, Clifton's study only included less than 100 per year -- or about 1% of the total hospitalizations -- and because he relies primarily on media reports for his information (and not, say, hospital reports), his numbers are statistically not representative. Now, Clifton will say that his study isn't meant to be all inclusive, but only cover the "worst of the worst", he is basing which incidents to include off of media report information. It seems like it would be impossible to decide which incidents to include, and which ones to not include, based on media reports on the injuries, and impossible to assume that every, or even most, major attacks are covered by the media.
Not to mention that there are no dog experts or veterinary professionals anywhere that reference Merritt Clifton. Why don't you try the people that know the relevant law, medicine & canine behavior - the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Kennel Club, the American Bar Association, and the National Canine Research Council. None of them support BSLs.
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
i think i need to teach a class on "how to be a responsible, effective human being"
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
illustrates how extensive and popular the bans and restrictions are, and how pointless your little exercise is.
and 2. I don't see any of the major organizations that actually care about animal welfare supporting any of what appears to be just a list of legislation by possibly uninformed and vote-mongering politicians.
I don't think the exercise is pointless at all.
I was wrong on the one I thought was a pittie (54).
I'm sure most of us, even the "pitbull enthusiasts," here were wrong.
Capital punishment for all owners of dogs who kill human beings ...
Not breed specific, and no ifs, ands or buts ...
Your dog kills? ... you die ....