Bills mount for family of dog attack victim

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10391372

Published Sunday July 27, 2008
Bills mount for family of dog attack victim
BY CHELSEA KEENEY
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

A statement showing $113,935.50 in accumulated medical bills doesn't concern Wendy Blevins — yet.


Charlotte Blevins dabs the face of her father, Aaron. Wendy Blevins, in background, says expenses related to Charlotte's care are mounting.


That's how much the trip to the emergency room and three surgeries have cost since Blevins' 16-month-old daughter, Charlotte, lost part of her scalp last month in a pit bull attack.

Wendy and Charlotte Blevins, 17-month-old Cade Spring and his mother, Carley Spring, were attacked by a neighbor's dog June 25 near 14th and Pine Streets.

Wendy Blevins was bitten in the neck, Cade Spring was bitten on the left side of his chest, and Carley Spring was bitten in the hand.

The dog was put down.

Blevins said sections of the synthetic skin on Charlotte's scalp have attached. Every few days, she said, doctors take a few more staples out of Charlotte's head — a sign that she is healing well.

"Basically, she's doing really good," Blevins said. "I got lucky that she twirls the sides of her hair and her bangs and manages to not actually touch the back of her head."

Aside from the changing of bandages, Charlotte tolerates the fuss over her pretty well, Blevins said.

FULL story at link.

Want to help? A fund has been set up to help cover medical and related expenses for Charlotte Blevins and her family.

Donations may be made at any First National Bank branch.

Direct contributions to the charitable account by marking your check "Charlotte Blevins Donation."

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. They should simply forward all bills to the dog's owners.

Doesn't the concept of "responsibility" EVER come into play any more???

:shrug:

[DrDan]

5. I doubt that would do much good - and the unfortunate family would

just continue to be stuck with these debts.

[LisaL]

27. That is if they have the money or insurance.

[DrDan]

2. these dogs should be bred out of existance . . . .

I don't want to hear these anecdotal stories about how great someone's dog is. How they are so gentle and would never hurt anyone.

These dogs are a menace and should be done away with - through non-breeding.

Statistics confirm their contribution toward these tragic stories.

[DesertFlower]

4. our petsitters will

not take care of pit bulls.

[Iris]

11. Our petsitter was unable to visit our cats one weekend because she spent it in a closet.

On the other side were 3 pit bulls just waiting for her to come out.

[uppityperson]

14. Poor person, having to spend the whole wkend in a closet.

Vote in my poll, or how about taking the OMGPITBULL stuff over there so this topic can stay open and about the family needing help? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3686374&mesg_id=3686374

[a la izquierda]

41. Your petsitter was in the closet or your cats?

If it was your petsitter, I recommend a new one. She ought to be investigating her clients better. My husband was a petsitter for years. If he had the slightest problem with an animal, he would no longer work with that client. His problem clients did not own pitbulls: typically, it was some small dog whose owners did not have the slightest interest in training the little thing. His worst bites came from Cocker Spaniels, Pomeranians and Labs; occasionally he'd get a nice attack from a housecat.

[Iris]

46. She is an excellent pet sitter.

This turned out to be one of her "problem clients" and is not longer a client of hers.

[a la izquierda]

58. Well that's good.

But the situation sounds more like really, really bad owners than a blanket breed problem.
Dogs aren't born to be killers; yes, they have the instinct to hunt that is cultivated in certain breeds by responsible owners. But behaviors such as the type you described have to be learned. Dogs don't just pick that up because they're a specific type.

[my2sense]

6. ITA

These dogs have attacked an killed too many people.

[johnaries]

8. The post is about an unfortunate family that needs medical help.

Don't start this uninformed crap about "dangerous breeds" again. Every veterinarian association says there is nothing to it. The only "dangerous breed" is Human.

[uppityperson]

9. Thank you. There should be a generic "biting dog" thing.

Sib just had to have a dog put down. It wasn't the big headed "pit bull" mixed dog that was the issue but the fuzzy golden mixed dog that got in a fight and bit someone breaking them up.

Every dog is capable of biting. There should be generic "vicious dog" or biting dog rules in communities, not singling out any particular body type.

[DrDan]

21. why not single out a singe "breed?

if statistics show these dogs do most of the biting - and contribute to the most number of significant injuries and deaths - then they should be bred out of existance.

[uppityperson]

26. Statistics don't show that though.MSM coverage statistics show that "pit bull" headline sells papers

More papers, more e-paper, more tv time is sold if they promote "pit bull bites" than even "retriever bites" or "big dog bites". Otherwise, no, statistics don't show that.

[DrDan]

29. the statistics show it very clearly

"pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

[uppityperson]

30. CDC study shows otherwise and I trust them more. Link and some clips

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
(there is much more at the site. Interesting reading if you have the time and patience. )
836 Vet Med Today: Special Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000
Special Report
From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States.1-3 Most victims were children. Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through 1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996. These data have caused some individuals to infer that certain breeds of dogs are more likely to bite than others and should, therefore, be banned or regulated more stringently.4,5 The purposes of the study reported here were to summarize breeds associated with reported human DBRF during a 20-year period and assess policy implications.

Procedure
We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to
dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies.1-3 The HSUS maintains a registry of human DBRF, including date of death, age and sex of decedent, city and state of attack, number and breeds of dogs involved, and circumstances relating to the attack. To supplement HSUS reports, as in the past, a database was searched for accounts of human DBRF that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Our search strategy involved scanning the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words and word combinations likely to represent human DBRF followed by a review of articles containing those terms.


We tallied data in 2 ways to provide alternatives for breed data interpretation. First, we used a human death-based approach in which we counted whether a particular breed was involved in a death. When multiple dogs of the same breed were involved in the same fatal episode, that breed was counted only once (eg, if 10 Akitas attacked and killed a person, that breed was counted once rather than 10 times). When crossbred dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dog’s lineage was counted once for that episode. Second, we tallied data by dog. When multiple dogs of the same breed were involved in a single incident, each dog was co(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred).


Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. Therefore, we have elected to present data separately for purebred and crossbred dogs to demonstrate at least 2 alternative counting methods. Relative rankings do not differ greatly whether one focuses only on purebred dogs or includes crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problematic when estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific population sizes).
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population
data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.


Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in ownerrelated
issues.


However, breeds responsible for human DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF; between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF. Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.

In addition to issues surrounding which breeds to regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practical issues. For optimal enforcement, there would need to be an objective method of determining the breed of a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially timeconsuming and complicated effort) combined with DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is the closest to an objective standard for conclusively identifying a dog’s breed. Owners of mixed-breed or unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of knowing whether their dog is one of the types identified and whether they are required to comply with breed-specific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement personnel have few means for positively determining a dog’s breed and deciding whether owners are in compliance or violation of laws.

[DrDan]

32. From your source . . .

"Despite these limitations and concerns, the data
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States
between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
United States during that same period and, thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Supports the later study I posted.

[uppityperson]

33. I trust CDC data more and yes, I can't argue with someone who is simply

seeking a study to validate their personal opinions an agendas. Tata.

[DrDan]

34. I read that CDC study - and change my reply

It supports the study I posted with 2007 data.

[uppityperson]

35. I love how you ignore how they got those numbers/inaccuracies. Lies, damned lies, statistics

I like how you cherry pick your paragraph. Too funny.

As you deleted from your post "I can't argue with someone who is simply seeking a study to validate their personal opinions an agendas. "

[DrDan]

36. your CDC study in several spots confirms the statistics I posted

They certainly do not deny the fact the pit bulls are an agressive "breed" and need to be dealt with. They just seem to have an issue with how to deal with these viscious dogs - in particular breed-specific legislation.

So thanks for your added support.

[DrDan]

20. bullroar

and who made you moderator

I stand by my statement - these dogs should be bred out of existance.

[johnaries]

38. Congratulations, you successfully hijacked this thread to spread your bias.

First of all, most "pit bull" attacks aren't even by pit bulls. Most people mistake many large breed dogs for pit bulls.

Secondly, these days it's pit bulls. Before that it was Chows. Before that it was Rottweilers. Before that it was German Shepherds. Before that it was Doberman Pinschers. It's not the breed, it's whatever breed is most popular at the time for people who want "attack" dogs.

Here is some more information for you, please educate yourself:

American Veterinary Medical Association: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp

ASPCA: http://www.iml.org/cnt/docs/Eff%20Animal%20Control%2010_20_07.pdf

http://doglaw.hugpug.com/doglaw_092.html

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?page_id=32

http://www.pbrc.net/breedspecific.html

[DrDan]

40. I stand by my statement

"Despite these limitations and concerns, the data
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States
between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
United States during that same period and, thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

and

"Rottweilers and pit bull-type
dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

"pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html


"Hijacked"?????

What the hell does that mean. Is there a limit to how many times someone can post? Or you are simply agitated that someone does not agree with you?

"bias"?

Yep - guess you are a bit sensitive to someone not agreeing with you.

"Please educate yourself"

'scuse me? Read the sources I provided. Please do a bit of self-education yourself.

[johnaries]

45. Yes, as I originally posted this thread was supposed to be about

a family in need. You decided to hijack it to pursue your own prejudiced vendetta. Or don't you know what "hijacking a thread" means?

I read your article. Please do me the same favor and read the multiple articles I linked to. All of the experts agree that the dog attack problem has nothing to do with "breed-specific" traits. Therefore, your earlier statement that ANY breed should be bred out of existence is ill-informed, uneducated, and just plain ignorant of the facts.

This has nothigng to do with whether you agree with me or not. The CDC, the AVMA, the ASPCA, and every other dog expert disagrees with you.

[DrDan]

48. "every" dog expert? come now - that is a pretty big statement

Yes I know what hijack means. Am I not allowed to respond to replies to my posts? And, btw, who made you the moderator?

The experts agree there is a problem with pit-bulls and the like. Read the article. The difference is in what to do about it. Sorry you disagree - but I do have my own opinions about how this should be fixed. And face it - if I agreed with you, you would not care one whit how many posts I had.

And I am planning on sending a contribution to this family. How about you? Or is your agenda to simply attack those who disagree with your biases?

[johnaries]

61. Yes it is a big statement, which is why it's so convincing since it's TRUE.

Your article does not come from any experts. Your article comes from Sensationalists.

I find it interesting that you say you know what "hijacked" means but don't feel that it applies to you.

And please continue to attack me personally. In my experience, personal attacks only prove that you know you cannot argue with facts and you know either on a conscious or sub-conscious level that the facts are against your "opinion."

If you can come up with a reputable report or link from a true animal expert, I would be willing to give it consideration. In the meantime, it is obvious that your "opinions" are driven by ignorance and prejudice. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have offered ample proof to the contrary, not just "logic" but multiple links to reputable sources repudiating your bias.

Can you do the same? No, you can't. "Opinion" is all well and good until it runs up against the wall of Reality.

Did you know that at one time Pit Bulls were used to Represent America because of it's loyalty and lack of aggression? Pit Bulls were a favorite of hunters for many years because when it would retrieve game it had a "soft, gentle mouth" and would not damage the game when retrieving? For many years, the American Pit Bull was prised for it's loyalty, it's intelligence, and it's gentility. Especially towards children.

The "aggressiveness" of the breed changed when the perception of the breed changed.

Obviously, it has nothing to do with the breed.

EDIT to add: Oh, BTW. I once believed as you do. I discovered I was wrong. Since I discovered I was wrong, a "rescue puppy" pit-bull/boxer mix found his way into my home. I would have refused it if I had not already been proven wrong. He is not the "best" dog I have ever owned. That honor goes to a pound puppy that was a Basenji/Shepherd mix. But he has been the second best dog I have ever owned. And he has never been "aggressive". When we have gone on walks together, he has always submitted to the territories of others, going so far as to lying on his back and submitting his belly in submission in some cases. Those are not the actions of an "aggressive" breed.

[DrDan]

71. I had no doubt you owned a pit bull. Your anecdotal example

simply proves nothing. All pit bull owners have similar stories. These are animals. They are capable of inflicting great pain and death. You are in denial if you do not accept that. I pity your first victim - it could have been avoided.

If not aggressive - then why do continued studies show 1/2 to 2/3 of all bites and deaths are attributed to pit bulls and rottweillers.

[johnaries]

77. Refer to the articles I provided. For one thing as I stated before

most pit bull attacks are not actually pit bulls but misidentified. Also, as I previously stated, it depends on the popularity of the breed with people who train their dogs to be agressive. Today it's pit bulls, it used to be Chows, before that Rottweilers, before that German sheperds, before that Doberman Pinschers. Several of the articles that you obviously refuse to read explain that.

But you don't want to know the truth, do you? You simply want to wallow in your prejudiced ignorance.

[DrDan]

82. wallow in prejudiced ignorance . . .

Me and the following states who have enacted breed-specific laws, nearly all focus on pit bull type dogs. Courts have found these laws constitutionally sound.

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Oklahoma
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

and

Military Bases

[uppityperson]

78. Because, as has been repeatedly posted, those numbers are based on media stories.

As CDC said, as most reputable places have said, they base their numbers on media coverage and we all know how accurate that is. (you seem unable to see that fact) So, a bigger question is why does media continue to post erroneous information about dog bites? Why does the media continue to not press forward (hah) with information about WHY people get bit, instead focusing on the sensationalistic and often wrong breed of a dog?

Simple. Sensationalismness sells papers and coverage.

http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Media.Bias_07.htm

Here is an excellent site on dog bites, myths, facts, media
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/

There is no evidence that breed-specific legislation has been effective in reducing the frequency or severity of attacks in any community, city, county or country.

However, canine aggression continues to be viewed by many as a breed specific trait and lawmakers and politicians persist on introducing dangerous dog legislation as a breed specific issue.

In addition to the fact that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of BSL, some politicians, in the process of defending their positions on the "dangerousness" of Pit Bulls, have made statements about fatal dog attacks and Pit Bulls that have no factual documentation.

Unsubstantiated claims about the number of fatal attacks and the breeds involved in these incidents are becoming more frequent. Since, no other professional national agency is presently researching fatal dog attacks, erroneous statistics and comments from lawmakers are going unchallenged, thereby making it necessary for the NCRC to address factual errors about Pit Bulls, canine behavior, and dog attacks.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/politicsandpitbulls.asp

There is no evidence that breed-specific legislation has been effective in reducing the frequency or severity of attacks in any community, city, county or country.

However, canine aggression continues to be viewed by many as a breed specific trait and lawmakers and politicians persist on introducing dangerous dog legislation as a breed specific issue.

In addition to the fact that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of BSL, some politicians, in the process of defending their positions on the "dangerousness" of Pit Bulls, have made statements about fatal dog attacks and Pit Bulls that have no factual documentation.

Unsubstantiated claims about the number of fatal attacks and the breeds involved in these incidents are becoming more frequent. Since, no other professional national agency is presently researching fatal dog attacks, erroneous statistics and comments from lawmakers are going unchallenged, thereby making it necessary for the NCRC to address factual errors about Pit Bulls, canine behavior, and dog attacks.

http://www.coldsteelpits.com/coldsteelmedia.htm

Pit Bull Attack Victim Leaves Hospital WTVO (Channel 17) April 25, 2003
Man Struggles to Recover from Pit Bull Attack WTVO (Channel 17) April 29, 2003


Pit Bull Horror New York Daily News February 7, 2004
Pit Bull Mauls 3-Year-Old's Face New York Newsday February 6, 2004


Cortland Pit Bull Mauling Death WBNG.com (Channel 12) Dec. 9, 2002
...(much more)

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php?topic=96


http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/sfu_news/archives/sfunews07130607.shtml

Now, you can have the last word by copy/pasting 1 select paragraph or sentence and then we can all get back to arguing why Michelle Obama hates the country her husband wants to run.

[Texasgal]

15. OH jeez..

Here we go again. :popcorn:

[uppityperson]

16. I did a poll, want to add your strongly held opinion there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3686374&mesg_id=3686374

Lots of popcorn in there too.

[Texasgal]

17. Most dog bites and attacks

are mainly because the owner of the dog is a dumb ass. Not because of the breed.

Many of these dogs are male, not neutered and in many cases abused.

The dog owner needs to take some sort of responsibility. Not the breed.

[uppityperson]

18. Yup.

Some have a tendency to forget that all dogs can bite, that every dog has a bite in him or her. Even pampered and well trained dogs can bite. Most of the time they don't, most of the time there is a reason like you say, but every dog can bite. Owners need to take responsibility.

Dealing with a breed is stupid, I agree.

[DrDan]

23. when a small dog bites, someone gets a bit of a flesh wound

when a pit bull bites, someone is seriously injured - if not dead.

Not dealing with breeds is naive and simply in-denial

[uppityperson]

25. You are talking size and viciousness of the attack, not breed.

Size can and does matter, as does viciousness of the attack. So you would like to kill all large dogs I guess since their bites can be worse. Thank you for clearing that up.

[DrDan]

28. you are welcome

and you know very well what I am saying. Playing around with the rhetoric and the intent of my post does not solve the problem. These are a vicious breed that can inflict great pain to the point of death.

Look at the statistics.

[uppityperson]

31. Your intent is clear.

You compare a small dog to a larger dog. That is not rhetoric, but what you wrote.

[DrDan]

50. I never mentioned anything about size

please do not put words in my mouth, nor in my posts

[uppityperson]

62. "when a small dog bites"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3686170&mesg_id=3688192

[DrDan]

49. I NEVER said to kill any dog

please do not put any words in my mouth.

[a la izquierda]

39. How about the case of the woman in France?

The face transplant lady?
Her dog was a LABRADOR RETRIEVER!!! Good family dogs.

[PeaceNikki]

80. Black Lab kills 8 week old baby

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8746561&nav=menu682_12_3

[DrDan]

22. yep - tell that to that little girl

I am sure she will agree with you that we have talked way too much about this particular topic.

Not NEARLY enough!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. That's A Completely Ignorant Thing To Say.

By and far overall they are some of the most family friendly and safe dogs out there. You're basing your opinion on ignorant perception. Try and learn some facts.

[DrDan]

60. I would agree with you - we need to curtail the breeding of these vicious animals

[uppityperson]

63. bwahahahaha. I agree with OMC too. "That's A Completely Ignorant Thing To Say."

:eyes: :smoke:
By and far overall they are some of the most family friendly and safe dogs out there.
"I would agree with you - we need to curtail the breeding of these vicious animals".

:eyes:

[DrDan]

68. friendly and safe - they sure are . . .

just ask the family of that little girl . . . .

Good Lord.

[DrDan]

72. progress

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/one-citys-experience.pdf

"given the
clear rational evidence, breed-specific
legislation is still a legally viable option.
There is no new evidence that undermines
the holdings of Colorado Dog Fanciers,
only new relevant evidence that
adds additional support for BSL, as the
differential treatment of pit bulls is
based upon logical, rational evidence
from the scientific field of ethology."

[DesertFlower]

3. i think they should

stop breeding pit bulls. we had a case recently where a pit bull broke through a fence and went through a neighbor's doggy door to get at their dog. he attacked the dog's owners.

[shireen]

10. pit bulls are not the problem, the real attackers are their moron owners. nt

[Iris]

12. how so in the case you are replying to? Sounds like a pitbull being a pitbull to me.

[shireen]

19. i don't have the time or patience to get into another debate about pit bulls

If you care about this issue, do your homework. Read about the breed before you condemn it. Anyone who has properly studied this issue knows that pit bulls are not the problem, it is the irresponsible stupid owners that abuse them.

Pit bulls, when raised properly, are sweet loving dogs that make wonderful family pets. That's what I've learned from doing my homework about them.

[DrDan]

24. here are the facts - not that it will do any good

"pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. "

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

As long as "we" remain in denial about these dogs, we will continue to read stories about children like this being seriously injured.

[flvegan]

42. Ha ha! Merrit Clifton is a fucking hack.

You should check into how Clifton got that data. You'll feel pretty stupid for using an ambulance chasing law firm website as a resource.

[DrDan]

43. Are you suggesting the data is false?

If so, I am sure you can provide a source substantiating that claim.

[flvegan]

44. I"ll use Clifton's own words

"Compiled by the editor of Animal People from press accounts since 1982..."

Press accounts...that's bullshit data, especially since "press accounts" are oftentimes from witnesses and second party information.

So again, Merrit Clifton is a fucking hack.

[DrDan]

47. the data was in sync with the CDC study I also posted

their statistics were similar.

[flvegan]

51. The DBRF study? Okay

That data was taken from the Humane Society of the United States and media accounts. Sounds kind of like the aforementioned hack, Clifton. Media accounts do not make for good data. Here, read the paragraph under "Procedure":

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Got anything else?

[DrDan]

53. so you are suggesting the CDC uses bum-data?

Ph.D.'s, M.D.'s, and DVM's. Yep - can't trust 'em to do valid research.

[flvegan]

55. Not suggesting, confirming.

Are you suggesting that folks with education trump simple facts? You'll note that because the data and the report were so full of holes (JAVMA has done a couple articles on the problem with it) they've *stopped* doing it.

So, one probably could trust them to do valid research if they had a proper way to gather data. Which they don't.

Anything else you'd like to add?

[DrDan]

56. more "holey research"

The breeds most often involved in fatal attacks are Rottweilers and Pit bulls.

In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html


Rottweilers and Pit Bulls were involved in 60 percent of the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Rottweilers were involved in 10 deaths, and Pit Bulls were involved in 6.

From 1979 through 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human dog bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths.

http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statistics.html


My word - more related statistics. Must be a conspiracy. What do ya think?

[flvegan]

57. You're not very good at this

"The information presented below has been gathered from numerous sources, many of which include news reports on the internet."

In other words, they're using the same information. The second one is from the CDC compiling information from emergency rooms. Where does their data come from? The victim, to whom many dog breeds appear to be the same. 3/4 of this site can't pick a pit bull out on one of the 'net tests.

Anything else?

[DrDan]

59. no - you are absolutely right

and I would agree - we need to curb the propagation of this vicious breed as supported by the literature and research.

[uppityperson]

66. Glad you can see that you're not very good at this

[flvegan]

67. That's it?

Thanks for caving. Makes it easier for keeping score, considering your "literature and research" have been soundly trodden upon and proven to be inaccurate and stupid.

[DrDan]

69. that's it

I will continue to stand on those statistics and that research. Enough consistency consistency for me.

And - I also will continue to preach for breeding these vicious animals out of existance. A sane, mature, civilized world does not need this.

[DrDan]

73. progress

States with BSL

Over 250 US cities have enacted breed-specific laws, nearly all focus on pit bull type dogs. Cities that reside within states containing a "BSL prohibition" clause have effectively implemented them as well. Courts have found these laws constitutionally sound despite the prohibition clause.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Oklahoma
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Military Bases

http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dogs-state-by-state.htm

[uppityperson]

65. Even the CDC says their numbers are suspect and probably not accurate.

They said it in the report I posted. The report you copied bits out of later. Perhaps you missed the parts where they said that the data may not be accurate because of how they collected it. Funny how they wrote that.

[DrDan]

70. well - not that you are that interested in facts

but those numbers are validated by numerous studies. 1/2 - 2/3 of vicious bites and deaths can be attributed to pit bulls and rottweilers.

Enough proof for me that these vicious animals need a continued effort to rid this country of their existance.

[uppityperson]

64. YOU posted the CDC study? Wow, I thought it was me.

First you agree with OMC that "That's A Completely Ignorant Thing To Say", now you become me, posting the study I did. Amazing.

The CDC study *I* posted said repeatedly that the statistics could be in error due to how data was collected.

Edited to add link to CDC study *I* posted. You copy pasted the link 1 1/2 hours after I posted it. Incredible.

[DrDan]

74. yes - you posted it

and I continued with another posting.

I would guess - that if we did some research - you were not the first. Are you willing to admit you were not the first? I am.

[DrDan]

76. so - why are you concerned that I used your source to support my claim

that these dogs are vicious and offer a statistically significant contribution to serious dog bites and deaths?

I think this statement speaks volumes - and I plan it's continued use.

"Despite these limitations and concerns, the data
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States
between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
United States during that same period and, thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

[DrDan]

37. absolutely - agree completely

[gatorboy]

7. Where did you get the information on donations?

Just curious because I'd like to help in some way.

[Omaha Steve]

13. It is in the story as a side bar at the link

Marta works in the main office building downtown. It is the state's tallest building btw.

[gatorboy]

54. Jesus, you people! You could do some real good and donate to these folks.

Does EVERYTHING here have to turn into a squabble???

[DrDan]

75. I agree

I wrote the author of the article to see how donations could be made - the article did not elaborate.

Her response.

****************************
Hi Dan,

Thanks for reading.

I do not know of any site to make an electronic contribution to the Charlotte Blevins fund.

I would call First National Bank (402-341-0500) or US Bank (402-348-6000) to see if they have any suggestions on how to donate electronically.

I am sure the family would appreciate your generosity.

Take Care,
Chelsea Keeney

[uppityperson]

79. That was nice of you. I hope your donation helps.

[SOS]

81. Sue the neighbor for $114,000

When my dog was attacked by a pit bull (with an imbecile owner) the vet bill was $1,000.
I tracked him down, sued him and won.
He paid every last cent (on his Visa Card!)