Merritt Clifton -- when the numbers just don't add up

Reporters looking to write articles about 'pit bulls' often find themselves looking to report "both sides" of the story.  Essentially, every expert organization in the country agrees that there is nothing inherently dangerous about 'pit bull type" dogs and that breed specific laws aren't the solution -- which leaves only a couple of independent sources to refer to when trying to find the 'pit bulls are dangerous" side of the equation.

One of those sources is Merritt Clifton. I've written about Clifton before, and his tendency to misuse data to support his personal agenda (or, possibly, because having the lone dissenting point of view is possibly the only way he has any relevancy at all to the conversation). Others have written about the inaccuracies of his data too --- and I'll mention those later.

While an initial look at Clifton's methodology shows some glaring flaws, the deeper you look at the numbers, the more glaring those flaws become.

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.

But let's assume for a minute that Clifton's report is somehow, miraculously, still valid.  We still have some issues to clear up on this 2011 report.

So, I got a copy of the 2011 report directly from Clifton - -this is an updated version of the report from one published a couple of months ago that had a glaring mathematical 'gremlin' in it that even I felt guilty about beating him up over the numbers. So I pointed out that a couple of numbers were clearly wrong, and he went back and redid his math to come up with more 'accurate' numbers.  Which are still, well, odd.

Below are the numbers -- the first number is based on the December 2009 report linked to above, the second number is for the August 2011 report I received from Clifton himself. The third number is my calculation of the difference between the 2 numbers that would reflect the actual number of incidents in each category for the 19 months of 2010 and through the first week of August, 2011.

                                                                2009            2011        19 month total

Attacks causing bodily harm     2694              3383             689

Deaths                                                345                  451            106

Maimings                                         1493               1917            424

So does anything stand out to you about these numbers? 

Does it seem odd to anyone else that a full 20% of the "attacks causing bodily harm" over the past 29 years have happened in the past 19 months?  To put this in perspective, for the first 27 years of this report, Clifton reported an average of just under 100 of these "worst case attacks" each year -- but in the past 19 months it averages out to be about 450 per year -- a 450% increase.

Clifton is now reporting that 22% of all "maimings" over the past 29 years have occurred in just the past 19 months, and 24% of all fatalities.  There is just absolutely no data, anywhere, that reflects anything near this type of increase. The HCUP numbers listed above have shown a gradual 89% increase over the past 15 years -- but nothing close to the 450% that Clifton is showing, and nothing that would show a sudden increase like these number project.

There could be any number of reasons for this -- here are a couple that come to mind:

1) There is no valid statistical way to gather the information Clifton seems to be trying to gather.

2) There is much better access to information via the internet now than there has been historically -- which means that all of Clifton's historical data is majorily incomplete (which we've all known for years).

There are several other questionable numbers that don't add up in the 2011 report. He's showing an increase in 'attacks causing bodily harm" among "pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, Dogo Argentinos, Fila Brasiliero and Cane Corsos" had an increase of 446 incidents over the past 19 months.  He's added more breeds to this category, but if you back out the 16 incidents of the added breeds, you have 430 incidents that have increased in this category.  However, the total number for "pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf Hybrids" went up by 614 -- which would lead to one to believe that there were around 170 incidents involving Wolf Hybrids over the past 19 months, but Clifton only has 81 total by these types of dogs over the past 29 years.

Then, there is the notes section. I got clarification from Clifton that the cases in the Notes section are included in the actual numbers.  So among the incidents that Clifton uses to mention how vicious 'pit bulls are' include:

1) A woman whose horse was startled by a pit bull and the horse kicked the woman

2) a girl who ran from a dog that never bit her and ran in front of a school bus and was hit by a bus (the girl likely ran from the dog because of the same hysteria that Clifton has helped create)

3) An attack incident involving 12 mixed breed dogs and 1 'pit bull' -- this shows up in Clifton's numbers as only a 'pit bull' attack because Clifton does not count mixed breed dogs in his reports.

4) An animal control officer who died from head injuries she suffered when she fell while trying to catch a dog.

5) A police officer who died from blood infection he received as part of a dog bite

6) And several incidents where the victims died from heart attacks

7) A person who was hit by a train when the dog they were walking took off after its owner (who was on a bicycle) and pulled the dog walker in front of an oncoming train.

8) A case where a dog's breed ID was labeled as an Akita, Weimaraner, Pit Bull and various combinations of mixes of these breeds -- but Clifton includes this case as a 'pit bull' even though he specifically notes that cases in which the breed of dog is uncertain are not included in the report.

All (and who knows what else) are bizarrely added to Clifton's report -- along with a host of other non-bite related deaths and injuries. This, I guess is fine, except he then used the data to support that certain types of dogs are more aggressive than other types of dogs based on a collection of data that includes non-bite-related incidents.

Clifton has also has apparently heard other peoples' criticisms that his data does not take into account breed population numbers -- and this time has decided to use, catch this, online classified advertisements for puppy sales, as a method to determine populations of various breeds. While I acknowledge that there is no good way to determine the number of dogs per breed, I am more than willing to acknowledge that online classified ads is a ridiculous method of trying to get that information.

Clifton has for years used his report to drive hysteria about 'pit bull' type dogs, however, every bit of actual research and science disagrees with his report.

Actual scientific studies indicate that there are few differences in aggression between different breeds of canines.  The Science of DNA testing has also proven that visual identification of dogs (which all breed ID was solely done by until the past couple of years) is an unreliable way to identify a dog's heritage.  Clifton acknowledges in his 'analysis" that breed specific legislation is very difficult to enforce because for 'pit bulls' there is no breed standard -- and yet, doesn't acknowledge that his data is completely skewed by this same complete inability to identify types of dogs.

But Clifton carries on - ignoring science and ignoring the faulty numbers in his own reporting. And yet, because he is nearly the lone voice for the 'pit bulls are mean" crowd, the press eats it up. 

A lot of others have written a lot about Clifton's "report" over the past few years, most focused on his failed information gathering methods and other innaccuracies in the report (particularly in the Analysis section) and here are a few of my favorites:

No Pit Bull Bans -- which has a great part about his analysis about 'pit bulls' and his failed logic on that front.

Lassie Get Help -- has a great report that walks through the failures of the numbers -- but at a one-time glance at the 2006 report.  They just continue to look worse over time. She then takes on the inaccuracies in the analysis section in her part 2 -- including the false idea that German Shepherds are herding breeds.  There is also the strangeness that Clifton apparently thinks Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios are the same breed.

One other thing about Clifton's "analysis", Clifton uses insurance issues to justify the need for breed-specific legislation. Clifton seems completely unaware that several national insurance companies have no breed restrictions or premiums, and many of the ones that do have done so because a handful of people like Clifton have created an unfounded hysteria around certain types of dogs. 

Clifton then goes on to compare 'pit bulls' to "pumas" (yes, pumas) even though the dogs are clearly domesticated and Pumas are not....but hey, if you're numbers aren't going to really make sense, then why should the analysis of those numbers?

So this is Merritt Clifton. Possibly the leading voice in the "Breed Specific Laws are a good thing" movement - and these are his numbers. Filled with numbers that don't add up, an under-represented sample size, breed identification issues, reports of aggressive incidents that weren't, data periods in which more pit bull attacks are counted than total dog attacks, 19 months worth of data accounting for 20-25% of the report, random analysis statements and comparisons between dogs and pumas.

THIS is the leading voice of the anti-pit bull movement.  The people who oppose such legislation include professional dog training organizations, professional veterinary organizations, the national animal control association, animal welfare groups and real scientists.

Sometimes there is only one real side to an argument. This is one of those cases.

Comments

[Brent]

Emily,

Yes, dogs share about 99+% of their genetics -- that is why genetic "markers" are the ones that pinpoint their differences. That's the point. Dawn's infamous youtube video was done 3 years ago -- and used a swab test. At that time, there wasn't a single swab test that had AST's in their database. Without AST's in their database, there would be complete cause to realize that the results would come back "odd". A lot of progress has been made in isolating these markers, and there are now tests that have ASTs in their database. I understand "skepticism", but I think dismissing them as being completely flawed based on an early test that didn't have the known breed in the database is foolhardy.

[EmilyS]

Karen, I have made no accusations or assumptions. Indeed, you are repeating here exactly what I have said that AFF/NCRC is saying: "pit bull" is not a breed because many people (who BTW know nothing) call lots of dogs "pit bulls".

Now you may not like the logical conclusions I draw from your statements, but I stand by them. The AFF/NCRC statements aid/abet the Cliftons/Lynns of the world by supporting THEIR contentions that any dog identified as a "pit bull" is indeed a pit bull and is properly counted as such in the biting statistics. The statements are also counter to 100 + years of history in which "pit bull" only meant the APBT. Which IS a breed of dog (assuming you believe in breeds, which isn't entirely clear to me).

I have the utmost respect and appreciation for your work... sadly I think you are diluting its value. Because as you say the dogs you so carefully and diligently research are mostly NOT identifiable as a breed... then why are you promoting a notion that DOES associate them with the name of a breed?

Rather than acquiescing in bad history, bad politics and bad language, why don't you advocate for the point that matters: there is NO "breed" correlation in bite statistics and the perpetrators should be called what they are: dogs of unknown breed or mixed breed dogs. Isn't that the whole point of your research?

[kmk]

I think there's a country song in here someplace - "A person who was hit by a train when the dog they were walking took off after its owner (who was on a bicycle) and pulled the dog walker in front of an oncoming train".

Yikes.

Hey, what IS Merrit Clifton's agenda, anyway? I've been trying to figure that out for at least 20 years now.

[Karen Delise]

Emily, is astounding that you would ask me, “why don't you advocate for the point that matters: there is NO "breed" correlation in bite statistics and the perpetrators should be called what they are: dogs of unknown breed or mixed breed dogs.”

This is EXACTLY what I advocate; this is the conclusion of all the research promoted by NCRC. It is the mantra of NCRC and AFF. It is the cornerstone of all our dialogue, points of view and research.

And Emily, I’m sorry but “pit bull” may have once been associated with a particular breed (APBT) by those with knowledge of dogs, but today, common vernacular has bastardized the word to mean something totally different. I’m sorry, but we have lost the term to those who know nothing about dog breeds (the majority of people) and we cannot get it back. We need to let it go and expose it as a term used by novices that include a wide variety of breeds and mixed breeds.

And Emily, you asked “Because as you say the dogs you so carefully and diligently research are mostly NOT identifiable as a breed... then why are you promoting a notion that DOES associate them with the name of a breed?"

How am I doing this? I would love to know how I can be perceived as doing this since my every waking moment is dedicated to NOT promoting any notion that would harm “pit bulls” or any breed of dog.

[Pit Bull=APBT]

"PB+APBT -- while Karen addressed this, I think there's a huge difference between making a statement that is, undoubtely, how breed specific legislation is enforced in this country, and actualy endorsing that practice."

They are endorsing the practice of using the term Pit Bull to mean whatever dog they feel like. Check their Facebook page. They are calling any dog with a blocky head, short hair and a big chest, a Pit Bull. Well, actually they call them "pit bull dogs," to try and appease those who still care about the breed (it doesn't). Just look at this album: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150279725207076.328441.51042412075 a good portion of the dogs in there are American Bulldogs, there are a couple of Staffords (SBTs), a few mixed breeds and a few Pit Bulls that are all being put under the blanket term "pit bull dogs."

Here's a comment from "Sarge" AKA Kim Wolfe, who put the album together:
"I love how different all these dogs look! Such diversity! Really illustrates the point that these days "pit bulls" are not a singular breed of dog; they're an increasingly large group of purebred and mixed breed dogs!"

Why do you insist on using the term "pit bull" in all of your literature if you don't actually care about Pit Bulls?

AFF, and other groups like it, are playing right into the hands of those who drive BSL. If Pit Bull advocates can't tell a Pit Bull from an American Bulldog, how is the general public supposed to be able to do it? If the advocates can call any dog a Pit Bull, so can the public. Now every dog that bites, no matter what the breed is, can be called a Pit Bull and the newspaper that reports the story can quote right your website, AFF. And in the end the dog that suffers from all of this nonsense is the American Pit Bull Terrier, the only breed that can TRULY be called a Pit Bull.

[Karen Delise]

To Pit Bull=APBT

Ok, yeah, I see it is important to you to spend your time going over AFF's site to find something that you don't like, certainly that seems to be more important to you than to address the Clifton "study" or all the other horrendous things that are said and done to "pit bulls."

What a colossal waste of time; the more we argue about breed the more we don't talk about all the other important things that influence how dogs behave and how we treat them.

Unlike you, I try not to find fault with people who are working damn freaking hard caring about and helping dogs. AFF clearly states their mission is to help ALL dogs that are "labeled pit bulls," not just APBT (which seems to be your only concern).

The "pit bull" has many enemies, and I assure you, if you think the best use of your time is picking apart AFF, I really don't have time for you.

And for the record, I am not going to speak for AFF, but, for myself, I am not at all interested in "appeasing those who still care about the breed."

I'm interesting in saving and helping dogs, regardless if anyone thinks they are a "pit bull" or not.

[kmk]

The biggest gripe I have with the term "pit bull" has nothing to do with anything here...and Brent can probably back me up on this. Or not, LOL.

There have been dog attacks in the Kansas City, MO metro area where the dog(s) was described as a Rottweiler, then a mastiff mix, then a boxer mix, and then suddenly, it's a miracle - the dog is a "pit bull".

there was a dog-related fatality on the Kansas (Kansas City, KS) side several years ago (victim actually died of a heart attack). The breed of dog morphed several times before it was declared a 'pit bull'. There was a "pit bull" held in the city shelter as evidence while the prosecutor tried the alleged owner (TWICE) for involuntary manslaughter. First trial ended in a hung jury. The second trial was successful, although I do not know how. I believe the "owner" is serving three years in prison.

the owner did own one dog, but wasn't living in the house at the time (although his dog was living there), and the offending "pit bull" was allegedly a stray he was feeding.

I'm still not convinced the dog in the shelter was the dog involved in the attack. And what happened to his own personal dog? Never heard the end of that story. Several people saw the "pit bull" in the shelter and said it was quite friendly. ????????

I also just dealt with YET ANOTHER dog confiscation in KCMO - a man had his Bullmastiffs and Rotties confiscated on grounds of illegal 'pit bull fighting'. At some point the rocket scientists involved recognized, they weren't being fought, so they went through several gyrations to try and justify keeping the dogs, including mandatory speutering for pit bulls (except they weren't pit bulls), "illegal breeding" (he had a hobby permit with the state), and then "over the pet limit" (oopsie, property is zoned ag, limit does not apply).

I'm tired of "pit bull" being used as an excuse to stir up emotion and harrass and prosecute otherwise law-abiding people.

[Pit Bull=APBT]

Of course I care about all dogs, but that doesn't mean that I don't also care about Pit Bulls! Would you call out a GSD person for not caring about other dogs because they focus on GSDs? Would you call out a Golden person for not caring about other dogs because they focus on Goldens? Would you call out a Greyhound person for not caring about other dogs because they focus on Greyhounds? So why are you calling out a Pit Bull Advocate for focusing on his favorite breed? I am a Pit Bull advocate, so I want the term Pit Bull to continue to mean something! I don't want it to be watered down by groups like AFF.

Also, I didn't just pull a quote from the depths of their page. My first AFF quote was right from the description on their Facebook page! AFF is not a Pit Bull advocacy group, so why do they insist on using the term "pit bull" or "pit bull dog" in their literature? I think AFF does great work with the dogs they take into their care, but I also think they are harming the legitimacy of Pit Bull Advocates and the work that we do by watering down the term "pit bull."

"I'm interesting in saving and helping dogs, regardless if anyone thinks they are a "pit bull" or not."

So you are a Dog Advocate. That is admirable, but not the same thing that I am. My main focus is on Pit Bulls. Does that make me a bad person?

[Lis C]

"Doesn't anyone find the Voith study suspect due to the fact that the dogs tested were of unknown ancestry and there is no way to prove that the DNA test results were actually indicative of the genetic breed makeup of the dogs? Unless I missed something....."

I was at the Tufts Canine & Feline Breeding & Genetics conference this weekend. They said that the Mars Wisdom Panel, when run on a blood sample rather than a cheek swab, gives over 90% accurate results when used on dogs of known ancestry.

When you mix breeds, you don't know what you're going to get in appearance and temperament, and the combinations can come out looking like some other breed entirely. For instance, mix a Sibe and a hound, get basic Sibe conformation and coat, but the saddle pattern/coloring from the hound--instant "German shepherd mix" to someone who doesn't know the dog's ancestry. And the owner who adopted a "GSD mix" might be very resistant to hearing that it's really a mix of two breeds very different from that.

[Pit Bull=APBT]

Very good point, Lis C. That is an other reason that I think it is important not to call a dog a Pit Bull unless you can be relatively sure it actually is a Pit Bull.

[Jennifer Brighton]

Karen, your explanation of AFF's statement is exactly how I understood it in my first reading of it. Anything that bites or causes trouble is labeled a pit bull, because as the public knows, other breeds of dogs don't wreak havoc (insert sarcasm here).

My husband and I joke that although I've become such an advocate for the "pit bull," maybe our shelter dogs don't have any pit in them. Regardless, I know purebred APBTs and AmStaffs and they are more than worthy of my advocacy. As to my dogs, I just want them to be model citizens, no matter what breed they are.

[kmk]

I was talking to a friend this weekend about this topic, and people tend to assume that the mixed breeds in the shelter are all somehow mixes of purebreds, when in reality many of them are undoubtedly mixes of mixed breed parents, which were also the result of mixed breed parents,etc. While they may exhibit certain phenotypic characteristics of certain purebreds it doesn't necessarily mean that's what's necessarily lurking in the woodpile.

Everything with a short coat that has any muscles at all is "pit bull". Coated dogs are "sheperd mixes". Coated dogs with curled tails are "Husky mixes". Shorter, squatty dogs with a round face and a lot of coat are "chow mixes". Any black on the toungue at all is a "chow mix" although other breeds exhibit dark pigment on their toungue as well. Nondescript dogs with a moderate coat and a long tail are "Lab mixes".

[Pit Bull=APBT]

'Everything with a short coat that has any muscles at all is "pit bull". Coated dogs are "sheperd mixes". Coated dogs with curled tails are "Husky mixes". Shorter, squatty dogs with a round face and a lot of coat are "chow mixes". Any black on the toungue at all is a "chow mix" although other breeds exhibit dark pigment on their toungue as well. Nondescript dogs with a moderate coat and a long tail are "Lab mixes".'

Very good point. I'd like to point out that despite all of that, you don't see Chow people, Lab people, Shepherd people and Husky people jumping on the bandwagon of every dog labelled a (insert breed here) is one! So why are so many Pit Bull Advocates doing so?

[Brent]

Because most pit bull people realize that "pit bull" has essentially replaced "American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier Mix" as the word people use to describe dogs that look like 'pit bull mixes". I've yet to see the German Shpeherd people stepping up to try to own "Shepherds" as their breed....

[Jennifer Brighton]

I'm not sure it's so much the case of owners jumping on the bandwagon as the public's perception. Every time I take my dogs out and about they are labeled as pit bulls by others. I even had a shelter worker tell another worker my male was purebred. He's not. He's taller and lankier than an APBT (most likely mixed with pointer), but he has the traditional large head so all anyone sees is that.

If you deny they are a pit mix, then people think you are trying to "hide" their breed. There is just so much negativity about the breed, it puts responsible owners on the defensive and therefore those of us who have lovely dogs want to show the public that their perception is skewed.

As to German shepherds, I've noticed a huge surge of shepherds in my area. I'm sure if they rebound in the public's opinion as vicious dogs, those owners will loudly decry their vilification, or jump on the bandwagon, so to speak. And most Chow owners I know, which aren't many, are fully aware that others are frightened of their dogs because of their supposed fierceness as protectors. I'm sure they, too, would advocate the breed if it ever came to that.

It's just unfortunate that pit bulls are such a trend as the bad dog of the day.

[Jack]

"This is directly copied and pasted from AFF's Facebook page:
""Pit bull" is not a breed or breed mix, but an ever expanding group that includes whatever an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer or newspaper says it is."

This statement is not saying that this is true or accurate, but points out the misinformation spread by ignorant and sloppy reporting by these parties, and the dilution of the meaning of the breed designation as this misinformation comes into popular acceptance. Or something like that!

[Fran C.]

Thanks so much for this information. I am from Ontario and whenever there is a debate this is the Joker the Ontario media calls to "give the other side".

[Caveat]

"Pit bull", certainly here in Ontario, is not a breed of dog. It is a legal term that combines and renames three distinct purebreds - the AmStaff, Staffy Bull and APBT and further adds any dog that is substantially similar in appearance and physical characteristics.

There is absolutely no such thing as a "pit bull". It is a slang, street term for a mutt that somebody thinks looks like an APBT. People have to get this.

Most of the dogs reported as "pit bulls" here in Ontario look nothing like the very rare (here) banned breeds. In this province, a Cane Corso IS a "pit bull" if somebody wants him to be. Ditto any other breed not registered with the CKC, AKC, UKC or ADBA. And, obviously any medium-sized, short-haired mutt. In fact, there is nothing in our law that excludes lookalike purebreds, although they haven't tested that yet.

It's a witch hunt, pure and simple. A "tool in the toolbox" as the Attorney General of the day said during the debates. Speaking of tools.

[Petworlds]

I'm impressed to see your site. You did a great job on this site. I love all pets.And Thank you for sharing this information.
http://www.petworlds.net/ragdoll-cat/