Interesting Article

[Kiroman]

Not sure if anyone has read this yet...I find it interesting on the classify the presa canario

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

[eSPO]

She had to lump in the Presa with something else otherwise the bite statistic would look unimpressive. She uses alot of generalizations and has an extreme amount of breed prejudice. While sensationalizing one breed she makes excuses for ithers. I don`t agree with her opinions and dont trust these "facts"

[genevieve]

If you read through carefully a lot of it is blatantly incorrect.

Where did the article come from? I would like to write a reply.

Genevieve

[presas4me]

Most of the people reporting dog bites don't know the correct breed of the dog and it is ASSUMED to be a certain breed. I've been reading reports on BSL and it is NOT working. A guy I used to train with runs the local SPCA and often has seminars to educate animal control officers (from all over California) on the different breeds; they usually lump everything into "pit bulls".......I was amazed that they did not know the different breeds; none knew what mine were. He also told me that Goldens and Labs were at the top of the bite list (not sure which list?) I too would like to know where the author got his/her statistics......

[Kiroman]

I found it last night, MANY nights I can not sleep and I just pick a topic and read about it for hours. What I found so interesting is that the call presa canarios bull mastiff, which obviously are a completely different breed. This was the site http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html. EVERYTHING I was reading stated that there were NO changes in dog bites in areas that enacted BSL. I bought this book http://www.fataldogattacks.com/ to read a more. I also read an article by a risk management group researching fatal dog attack and it was something like 0.000004% chance of it happening (20 fatal attacks per year relative to the somewhat 53 million dogs). There are MANY mre site it boomarked, makes for interestinf reading.

[JSF13]

East ??? Highland Terriers? Pitbulls have docked tails???Hard to give credence to a report like this. :confused:

[Kiroman]

Yes I agree, it was the most current numbers I could find...

[Zhenya]

I browsed thru the website kiroman posted and read this article: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf. Describes the Denver case. The whole BSL issue stopped making any sence to me and here's why:

Quote:
"Judge Egelhoff [ the one ruling in FAVOR of the bitt-bull ban !] noted:
It is difficult to accurately determine the breeds which cause the most bites for several reasons: (a) It is difficult to identify a particular breed of dog, especially with mixed breeds; (b) There is a tendency to over report dog bites attributed to a particular breed; (c) Certain dog breeds are owned by a population of dog owners who are more likely to be irresponsible; and (d) There is inaccurate reporting of the total population of particular breeds."
End of Quote

So they KNOW all those things and the actual numbers don't matter!! What matters is :
(a) Agressiveness towards human
(b) Shifted Higher Frequency Distribution Patterns of Dangerous Behaviour
(what a bull... the mean of the distribution IS determined by the number of bites which they claim to be unreliable)
(c) Effect of multiple pitbull (Gosh it was 23 Labradors that tore a man apart but ONLY for pit bull it's exponentiated!?!)


So basically they ban pit bulls because in case of an attack they are likely to kill due to their strength, tenacity and pain tolerance (testified to be unproven!). But it is NOT the number of the fatalities that soars in the US (and all over the world) but the number of dog bites!! For majority of which pit bull were NOT proven to be responsible in the court of law!!

I am confused. May be I gotta read more. Hope I am making sence myself.