More misinformation, deceit and attempts to mislead from Merritt Clifton

It almost seems that if I were looking I could make this a weekly column, but this one is too bizarre to pass up, and given that I've seen the latest piece from Merritt quoted in a couple of places already, I suppose I might as well nip this in the bud.

In the latest issue of Merritt's self published "newspaper" Animal People, Clifton takes aim at the state of Rhode Island with an article "Laws pre-empting breed-specific ordinances pass - but polls tilt the other way".

In the article, Clifton calls out Rhode Island (which has since passed it's law prohibiting laws targeting specific breeds, which is what he refers to as "pre-emption") and why he thinks the law is a bad idea. While most of the article is filled with mistakes, and attempts to mislead (much of it relying on Ed Boks' foolish blog post), there is a paragraph that I've now seen quoted a couple of times that is so full of errors and mis-information that it needs to be addressed in full.

Here's the snippet:

The Nevada, Connecticut and Rhode Island bills, like the similar bill passed in Massachusetts in 2012 were rushed into passage in the last days of their respective legislative sessions, with minimal publicity and debate. Fifteen states now ban breed-specific ordinances, including California, Illinois, Texas and Ohio.

State Farm Insurance, on May 17 2013 disclosed that California, Illinois, Texas and Ohio rated first through fourth in Insurance claims paid for dog attacks in 2011. State Farm paid $20.3 million to 527 victims in California, $10 million to 309 victims in Illinoi, $5.1 million to 219 victims in Texas and $5.4 million to 215 victims in Ohio."

Not only is Clifton's information largely erronious, is is purposefully so in an attempt to mislead people into fearing prohibition of breed-specific laws. It's a desperate grasp for something, anything, that would lend support.

State Legal Process

For all four states that have passed prohibitions on breed-specific laws in the past 12 months (yes, that's FOUR in 12 months, and very noticably trend), all went through the usual process for state laws. The laws were introduced at the beginning of the legislative session. They were sent to committees and discussed, and then, once passed out of committee they went to the House floor, were voted on, then went through the same process in the Senate, and eventually signed into law. Because of the lengthy process of the committee structure, most bills are passed very late in the session.

In Nevada, the bill passed both houses of the legislature with only one dissenting vote. 

In Connecticut, the Senate only had 4 dissenting votes. 

In Massachusetts, the bill spent 5 full months in the democratic process before being signed, so it was hardly a rush job. 

But really, the reason that the bills had less debate than others was because NO ONE OPPOSED THEM. Really, in a world where absolutely no professional support for breed-specifc laws, state legislators were met by knowledgable advocates and organizations in those states that helped pass the laws. This wasn't some rush job. I was a no-brainer based on the fact that there is almost no support outside of Clifton for breed-specific laws.

Ohio

First of all, let's set the record straight. Ohio does NOT pre-empt breed-specific legislation. Ohio law is a breed-neutral, dangerous dog law, that targets dogs based on behavior, not breed. However, the state law does allow local juristictions to pass breed-specific laws. 

So this information from Clifton is just flat wrong. But wait, it gets worse.

Up until February, 2012, Ohio was actually the only state in the US that targeted specific breeds. This law was overturned in February, 2012. 

Now, keep in mind, that Clifton was using Ohio's high bite numbers (and payouts) as a reason why pre-emtion was a bad idea. However, Clifton was basing  this on 2011 data -- a time when Ohio actually TARGETED specific breeds of dogs. So not only is Clifton wrong in trying to use the data to prove his point, in doing so, he actually makes a case against himself. 

Oh, but it gets worse for Merritt.

Keep in mind that Clifton is using only one insurance company for his data -- State Farm. State Farm has a policy that doesn't allow them to insure "Vicious" dogs. Because of the way the Ohio law was written (pre 2012), State Farm WOULD NOT insure pit bulls because state law declared them "vicious" because of breed. So based on this policy, it is unlikely that ANY of the 215 victims and $5.4 million in payouts Clifton attributes to Ohio victims was due to a pit bull bite. None. Further demonstrating how his falsifying of information here is actuall working against his point, not in favor of.

California, Illinois and Texas

So what about these other states?  In their case, it is true that they prohibit breed-specific laws (although California allows for breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter laws).  Why did they have so many bites? 

It's a simple answer:  Math

If you look at the total number of people in each state in the United States, the following are the 7 largest states based on total population:

1) California -- 38 million people

2) Texas - 26 million

3) New York - 19.6 million

4) Florida - 19.3 million

5) Illinois - 12.9 million

6) Pennsylvania - 12.8 million

7) Ohio - 11.5 million

Two things jump out at me on this list:

#1) All 6 of the 6 most populous states in the US have laws prohibiting laws targeting specific breeds.

#2) The best correlation among states with a lot of people bitten by dogs is that these states have a lot of people, and dogs. (New York would appear to be the exception here, but New York actually way under-indexes on dog ownership because such a large percentage of the population lives in New York City where high-rise living is less conducive to dog ownership than in most other parts of the country). So where you have a lot of people, and a lot of dogs, the likelihood of someone getting bitten increases. There's a reason why Maine, which also prohibits breed-specific laws, is not on the list.

This is rocket science.

So it appears that the number of people, and dogs, is the likely cause here, not the laws in place. Except Ohio maybe, which actually TARGETED breeds of dogs, and jumped several states with much higher population than them. Hmmm.

Inadvertently, Clifton then destroys his own data

Over the years, a lot of space has been dedicated here, and elsewhere, to breaking down Merritt Clifton's dog bite data.

Essentially, Clifton has a report of dog bites, as reported by the media, that he has tracked for 30 years now of severe dog attacks in the US.

The errors of the report are plentiful, from the total reliance on media reports, to increasing the number of pit bull attacks during a three year window by more than the total number of attacks, to his not understanding that his discovery of Google caused 20% of all of the bite cases in a 29 year report to have appeared within a 19 month window.

Now, I periodically get Clifton's reports just to keep tabs on things, so I don't have an exact window for 2011, but on Dec 22, 2009, Clifton had 2,694 "attacks causing bodily harm" in his report. 

On December 26, 2011, the number was 3,498 -- an increase of 804 (this was during his period of mysterious increase in bites).

So if you consider this 2 years worth of data (which it essentially is), then we can divide by 2 and say that average number of dog bites "causing bodily harm" for the two years is 402. So it appears that Clifton recorded 402 dog attacks in 2011. 

However, based on the numbers he reported in his recent story, one, singular insurance company, State Farm,  paid out insurance payments to 527 victims JUST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT YEAR. According to insurance market share reports, State Farm carries roughly 25% of the Property Insurance Policies in the state of California. So based on this, we can estimate that there were nearly 2100 insurance payments for dog bites -- just in California.

And yet, Clifton's report only notes 402, for the entire country. So again, his own data if making his biggest source of "fame" completely invalid for it's utter incompleteness because the media does not report all major dog bite incidents. The media doesn't (nor should it), and without a complete report, Clifton's data is useless and now, self-contradicting.

Inaccurate info, data out of context, and attempts to mislead

And this is where the last gasp is coming. States continue to take the leadership role in prohibiting breed-specific laws. With all credibility slipping away in favor of listening to real experts, Clifton, and the handful of other haters out there are finding themselves quickly on the wrong side of history. In a last gasp effort, they are flinging out inaccurate and misleading data in hopes of scaring people into not doing what's right, and effective, to try to scare people into being afraid of pit bulls.

It's not working. In response to the letters, and the fear mongering, the Governor of Rhode Island signed the bill prohibiting breed-specific laws in his state into law. 

Knowledge and truth are winning.

Comments

[twitter.com/BaltimoreGal]

Somebody really could write a weekly column called "What did MC mis-state this week?"

[Peter Masloch]

Clifton could be the long lost brother of Colleen Lynn. I hope he was reading the news that the CDC stopped tracking dog bites by breed.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

[Adrianne Lefkowitz]

Merritt Clifton has been hatin' since the mid 90s. I was on those boards arguing with him even back then. You would think he would have honed his statistical skills -- and his data gathering methods -- since then. That he hasn't is truly a testament to the lack of credible data to support his position. Believe, me, if there was credible data out there, Merritt would have found it and would be exploiting it.

[Nokillhouston]

Thanks for taking on the task of disproving Clifton. I'm surprised anyone listens to him anymore. I stopped listening to him several years ago when he told me that I should feel lucky that Houston shelters kill "only" 80,000 animals per year, with kill rates ranging from 52% to 89%. He also claimed that this astromically high kill rate was the best that we could do---and this was at a time when there were already a dozen or more Open Admission, No Kill shelters that we knew of.

[EmilyS]

oy. as we say on the innerwebz, "the stoopid, it burnsssss!"

[Karen]

Clifton is certainly one of the usual suspects and worst offenders, along with Colleen Lynn and Dawn James et al, but they shoot themselves in the foot with their lies, slander, abuse and bullying behaviour which reduces their credibility to rubble. They're working for us!

One of Dawn James latest attempts was to claim that no Pit Bull has ever been a police dog and none ever will be.
Ummmm...Shaaka (described by her police handler as the best k9 partner he's ever worked with - drug detection), Neville (drug detection), Popsicle (who won a significant seizure award as a drug detection dog), and Kris Crawford's three Pit Bulls who were involved in the recovery of the astronauts after the shuttle failed on re-entry and at Ground Zero after 911...there's 6 to start with. Busted! Again.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble that you do to be so huge a part of the solution, Brent.

[Joel]

The good news is that public sentiment and public policy is trending against BSL.

While some people get their panties in a bunch about Clifton and the dogsbite crowd, it's clear that they are a fringe element. The more material the put out, the easier it is to shoot holes in it and the more people see how silly their beliefs are.

I'm quite comfortable with them representing the "other" side, which will always be present in some shape or form. It just takes a bit of time and education to get past our initial revulsion to their scare tactics, misinformation, and name calling. Then they become nothing more than a comedic sideshow.

Education and open dialogue are their enemy. Anti-BSL people have nothing to fear from more widespread knowledge about dog bites and breeds.

[Mike Stein]

Here's an issue (and a related theory) I've had with MC's data that I would love to see addressed.

If you look at his pit bull mix data, you'll see that the pit/lab mix has a very high fatality to maiming rate. If you take pit/lab mixes out of his "data", you'll see the fatality/maiming rate of pit bull mixes drop significantly. You'll also see that labs have a very high fatality to maiming rate. In fact the accumulated lab vs. pit bull mix stats he has are almost identical.

I personally believe there is a truly significant percentage of "pit bulls" involved in these incidents that are actually labrador or other retriever crosses. This theory is grounded in the fact that a.) the lab population is similar in size to that as the pit bull population b.) there is a large stray lab population c.) there are a lot of dogs reported in news reports as being pit bulls, which later turnout to be labs (often mixed with other popular dogs such as boxers or bulldogs.) d.) labs can sustain bite force equivalent to or exceeding that of a pit bull.

But at the end of the day, it's a numbers game - labs are big, strong, high energy dogs and there are a lot out there in stray population.

[Brent]

Mike -- I guess I look at the data and think that no matter how you slice it, it is so inaccurate and incomplete to start with that no matter how you move the pieces around the data is useless. But would tend to agree with you on the Lab thing -- as their popularity would probably dictate far larger numbers than Clifton's data would suggest.

[DogLover]

To read more about the character of Merritt Clifton, read this and click on the links at the bottom of this page to learn all about his ethics, morals and judgement.

https://www.wheredidmydonationgo.org/merrit-defends-dana-costin

This horrifying video tells a bone-chilling story of a person who cares more about their bank account than the dogs in their care: https://www.wheredidmydonationgo.org/archives/22

[Mike Stein]

Absolutely Brent in re: Merritt's stats. However, I wouldn't discard them entirely, in so much as they have been created to represent the worst possible picture of "pit bulls", and use that as a foundation to show what garbage the data is.

For example: the theory among that group is that pit bulls are vicious. "Once they stop, they don't let go".. etc, etc. But Clifton's own data again fails him. It actually shows that the non-Pit/Rottweiler/Molosser type dogs are more likely to kill in an escalated violent attack situation.

The data shows that for every 5.5 reported attacks where a dog described as a pit bull actually tried (and potentially wanted to) harm a person - 1 person died. However, this ratio drops to 3.2 to 1 for the other molosser dogs, and 3 to 1 for the good dogs (labs, pomeranians, etc).

In short, the "good" dogs are actually more likely to kill someone in an actual vicious attack, according to MC's stats.

[Sandy]

I find these dog bite stats to be fairly erroneous as the post suggests. I have had to seek medical care from dog bites (breaking up a fight between my beagles) 3 different times (they are now much less feisty). My bull dog however...hasn't be the source of an issue resulting in bite to human.
Also are the reports dog "attacks" or "bites", the fact is an attack is not the same as a bite (attacks would most certainly cost insurance more money...). Many small dogs bite and only leave surface bruising which doesn't necessarily result in a bite report. I am not for banning any breed. Some responsible reporting of this information and context wouldn't hurt. Those of us who own dogs need to be responsible and careful not to allow our pets to misbehave. If you're breaking in to a house you deserve to be bit.

[EmilyS]

This is so fabulous, Brent! (though I agree with Mike's points that a HUGE issue with all the dogbite reports is "breed" identification. Especially these days when even some major advocates accept that any dog could be called a "pit bull".)

I'd love to see this packaged in some way as a press release and sent out to every reporter who has ever quoted Clifton. Maybe you could contact one of the major organizations to consider this. And make it a permanent file on a website somewhere.

[Howlingartist]

I would not be surprised to see a lot of bites reported from lab crosses. I have a lab cross, dad was a lab, mom was likely either 25 or 50% chow. He is mouthy like a lab, but lacks the soft mouth that they have. He would 'bite' in play, not in anger. A child would not understand the difference. He is a sweet and loving dog, just a bad genetic mix. It took some time, but he has learned to be more careful with his use of his mouth.

[TonyB]

Karen,

Kris Crawford is a known scam artist, and there is zero evidence (beyond her assertions) that her dogs worked at Ground Zero. There are so many press releases and memorials dedicated to the dogs of 911. Try to find anything that ties Crawford's dogs to it other than something that originated with her.

Also, I do not think Dawn ever stated that NO pits have ever used in police work, it is more likely that she stated that they are very rare and their numbers overstated by many.

You only listed a small handful. Any idea how many more labs and GSDs are used in that work? I'm guessing it is more than 1,000 labs or GSDs per pit bull in use by LEO.

[Brent]

Tony, not really sure what point you're trying to prove. I don't know, or really care much about Kris Crawford, but do know of several bullies that are working in police work. Certainly there are anatomical reasons why GSD's are better suited for such work(longer nosed dogs tend to be better at detecting scent), but that doesn't remove the fact that pit bulls have very desirable traits for such work, and sometimes have the nose for it. Even if there was only 1 pit bull used in police work it would eliminate idea that they can't be used for such work (they can). There are plenty enough breeds out there that have little value in police work including many large breeds, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove...

[Brent]

Emily, thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure if me peddling this to try to get mainstream coverage is something I have a lot of appetite for, but I hope others will use some of the information to dispute these ridiculous claims when merritt and others try to use them in comments sections of news outlets. I can book mark it with a "best of KC Dog Blog" to get it on the side column. Until then, you can always search the "categories" on the left -- Merritt has his own tag and it will show up there.

[TonyB]

My comment was addressed to Karen and related to her post upstream. You'd have to read her comment first for context.

I think it is obvious that a few pit bulls are fit for LEO work. I do not think they are as fit on average, for a variety of reasons. And the reason that GSDs are used so often is not simply due to form. GSDs are among the most trainable breeds. Pit bulls are never ranked among the most trainable or intelligent breeds when someone makes the list without trying to make a point.

[Brent]

I read both comments.

And I think most knowledgable dog trainers would argue about a pit bulls "trainability". Meanwhile, there are a lot of dogs that are generally considered smarter that do no such police work (like standard Poodles). No doubt GSD's and Malinois are the most popular -- because of their form as well as their drive. Pit Bulls generally do well with the latter, but less so with the former. Form, trainability and drive are why many bullies excel in things like agility and as disc dogs, and GSD's do not.

[Jen Brighton]

First, thank you so much, Brent for this report on Merrit Clifton. Being that he hails from my State of Washington, it drives me absolutely nuts every time I see him post his faulty statistics. His arrogance is amazing.

Second, in response to Tony B's comments about trainability of pit bulls, I always say a trainer isn't worth their salt if they can't train many breeds of dogs. I've come across trainers who say pit bulls are "untrainable." I would say that sort of trainer needs some improvement on their training skills.

I attended a 2-day conference featuring Dr. Sophia Yin and I firmly believe as a veterinarian, dog trainer and animal behaviorist there is no animal she can't train (including the chickens she trained to do agility). She showed clips of working with pit bulls and they were no different than any other dog. In fact, as you know, most pit bulls are very trainable as they are so food oriented, eager to please and have the terrier-type drive to complete a task, regardless of what it is, from drug/bomb detection work to therapy dog work.

[EmilyS]

The use of GSDs (and Dobes) for police work is purely historic. Few modern American GSDs are fit, either mentally or physically, for the physical and mental demands put on police or military K9s. That's why Malinois are more common in those fields today (or police forces spend absurd amounts of money importing German GSDs). Purebred APBTs (like most pet breeds) are unsuited for police work because they are temperamentally unwilling to bite people, unlike Malinois and, in the old days before their temperaments were destroyed, Doberman Pinschers. The temperament required for this kind of work makes a dog unsuited for most pet homes. So the use of any particular breed by the police doesn't say much about them, or any other breed.

APBTs are VERY suited for SAR and detection work because of their high work ethic, intelligence, drive and yes, trainability. Diane Jessup was demonstrating this with her LawDogs program. The only reason they are NOT used more commonly has to do with prejudice not capability. In fact, breed has little to do with the ability to be effective SAR/detection dogs.... capable dogs can readily be found in any shelter with the appropriate testing.

Kris Crawford DID have certified SAR APBTs. Her recent misadventures and bizarre claims don't negate that fact.

And as always, I challenge TonyB and others of his ilk, to produce evidence that most-- if any -- of the "pit bull" incidents were perpetrated by anything other than mixed breed dogs called "pit bulls" by the media/LEO/ACO/whomever because any dog that bites is a pit bull.

[Jen Brighton]

Well said, Emily. I had the exact same thoughts and comments about all you mentioned above, but you set them forth in a logical manner. Thanks!

[TonyB]

" Meanwhile, there are a lot of dogs that are generally considered smarter that do no such police work (like standard Poodles)."

-Standard poodles are sometimes used in SARs and drug detection. I would bet there are more of them doing this than pit bulls, but there is no way to confirm this.

"Diane Jessup was demonstrating this with her LawDogs program."

-Lawdogs was short lived. I have no idea how many dogs were placed by Jessup that were effective. I can only assume that if it was working out well then demand would have kept this venture afloat. Are you one to admit that dog-directed aggression is very common in pits? That is one reason I have seen cited by LEO for why they do not use pits. It is more difficult to get them to the point where they can safely be around other dogs, which is vital in many LEO/SAR roles.

"Purebred APBTs (like most pet breeds) are unsuited for police work because they are temperamentally unwilling to bite people, unlike Malinois and, in the old days before their temperaments were destroyed, Doberman Pinschers."

-Purebred APBTs are perhaps now often bought as companion animals, but the breed's history indicates that they were not created primarily to be pets or companions. That is important and should be recognized.

"Kris Crawford DID have certified SAR APBTs. Her recent misadventures and bizarre claims don't negate that fact."

-I know that she did. However, her claims of being at Ground Zero are only supported by her own unreliable words.

"And as always, I challenge TonyB and others of his ilk, to produce evidence that most-- if any -- of the "pit bull" incidents were perpetrated by anything other than mixed breed dogs called "pit bulls" by the media/LEO/ACO/whomever because any dog that bites is a pit bull."

-Changing the subject? This is similar to when someone states that pits are not a smart pet choice. Someone will immediately state something about BSL not being effective. I'm glad you are somewhat aware of the mountain of incidences attributed to pits that need to be explained away somehow.

[EmilyS]

BSL is NOT effective. Period, end of discussion. Brent has demonstrated this about a zillion times right here on his blog. Do you read this blog, or just come here to spew nonsense?

YOU can't justify the naming of any dog that bites as a pit bull.. because it seems that you're one of those people (like Clifton, in fact) who thinks any dog who bites must be a pit bull. I never deny the "mountain" of incidents attributed to "pits". Keyword: "attributed". I'm glad YOU acknowledge that incidents are "attributed" to "pits"... not that incidents are CAUSED by "pits" (whatever a "pit" is, anyway...).

The APBT has been a family pet since the beginning of its existence.. at the SAME time some of them were fighting dogs. You can't explain away the vast archive of photos of these dogs with kids/women/families.

Glad to read that you acknowledge that APBT SAR dogs DO exist. Whether they worked at Ground Zero is irrelevant.

Jessup abandoned the LawDog program NOT because of the failure of the dogs but for financial reasons and the prejudice of people like you.

[TonyB]

Emily,

Well, I'm glad you are able to discuss this while remaining calm and rational ;)

"BSL is NOT effective. Period, end of discussion. Brent has demonstrated this about a zillion times right here on his blog. Do you read this blog, or just come here to spew nonsense?"

Re-read my comment. I was stating how you used it as a red herring how that seems common. I hadn't even mentioned BSL.

"YOU can't justify the naming of any dog that bites as a pit bull.. because it seems that you're one of those people (like Clifton, in fact) who thinks any dog who bites must be a pit bull. "

What did I say that would give you the impression that I believe every single dog that bites must be a pit bull?

"The APBT has been a family pet since the beginning of its existence.. at the SAME time some of them were fighting dogs. You can't explain away the vast archive of photos of these dogs with kids/women/families."

If you will not admit that the primary selection pressure for pits was for the bull and then dog ring, then I would just ask you to read any book about the breed written prior to it becoming a source of controversy. Yeah, labs were kept as pets and also used in retrieving work. Being used as a pet at times does not change what a breed was created to do and the behaviors it exhibits.

The old photos of pits with families actually says very little about the breed. If you were thinking about this in relation to a non-emotional topic you would see exactly why I would say this.

"Whether they worked at Ground Zero is irrelevant."

It was brought up here and that is why I addressed. So, it is relevant in the context of this discussion thread.

"Jessup abandoned the LawDog program NOT because of the failure of the dogs but for financial reasons and the prejudice of people like you."

I'm prejudice because I am capable of recognizing average tendencies among breeds. No, I think that is called having common sense. If her lawdogs were so great, then between sales to LEO and donations, you would think she could stay afloat. There is very little information I could find about her dogs and how well they fared. I think it is a fool's errand to have a breed that has purposefully had dog-directed aggression instilled in around other SARs dogs that are loved and very expensive. It makes much more sense to simply use labs, etc. The only reason to use a pit is to make a point, and other people don't care about your point.