My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« How shelters and rescues have failed | Main | Woman wins legal suite against KCK Animal Control »

October 01, 2007

Comments

Caveat

Actually, with the CDC study, it's worse.

Remember, the source of the info was news reports. We all know how good the general public is at breed ID.

The famous 67% did cover a one-year period, when the total number of dog bite-related deaths in the US was 27. Alleged 'pit bulls' and 'rottweilers' were responsible for 16.

I don't believe anything I read in the paper or see on the news unless a reputable source can back it up. Bird 'flu, anyone?

Brent

Yeah, the CDC report is way worse than that...but even if the you exclude the innacurracies of media reports flaw in the equation, the reality is that they are STILL off because 25% of the bites aren't included. Instead of using total #s and including "unknowns" as a category (that would lead in attacks), they reported without the unknowns...which I pretty much assume is ALL non-Rottweiler's and "pit bull-types" as no newspaper has ever missed an opportunity to report these "breeds" doing anything negative.

Marjorie

Let me just throw my hat in the ring, and also emphasize that the category "pit bull-type" is made up of several 'breeds' and mixes.

I've long pointed out that if we created a similar category for dogs of Mastiff origin (i.e. Mastiff, Bull Mastiff, St. Bernard, Great Dane, Rottweiler, etc.)...let's call them "Mastiffies"...then we have a new leader in the dog bite injury-related human fatality statistic.

The same could be said for dogs from the Working Group (or, used to be in the Working Group until recently, such as the German Shepherd Dog). Let's call them "Workies". They too would be at or near the top of the stat's.

When you scrupulously exclude all biting incidents that don't involve a specific breed, then lump a whole bunch of breeds together in another category, what do you think is going ot happen?

Knowing the kinds of people involved in the research compiled in the CDC reports, I don't believe they intentionally perverted the data in that way. I think they just didn't know any better. And I think that's the problem with nearly every discussion about dogs. Average Joes believe they're more knowledgeable than they are, and actual subject matter experts are willing to acquiesce to popular opinion to both placate the public and avoid unwelcome controversy or criticism.

The comments to this entry are closed.