People are fascinating when they truely believe something. The problem is, when people are presented with evidence contrary to that which they believe, they refuse to accept it.
I have no problem with that, if those people were able to back up their belief in fact. However stating something emphatically will not make it a fact. Provide the research and then let’s talk.
I have been accused over the last week of cherry picking “facts”, not being able to back up my claims and white washing how dangerous pit bulls are. #thespinmachineisaliveandwellhereapparently
That sentiment is really unfortunate. When I started this, I never meant to take a pro-pitbull stance, at least not in the way that it has evolved. If you look back at my first post on the topic, you will see I was attempting to bring both camps together in order to encourage some beneficial discussion hence the hashtag #changetheconversation.
However, when one listens to the misinformation presented as facts by people who do a quick google search trying to prove a point, it is staggering and I found myself constantly making cases for the pro-pitbull side.
If you are totally against pitbulls, that is your prerogative. Nothing I present, no matter how logical the argument, nor how much science backs what I am saying, will change your mind.
That is ok.
I have stated in other posts, fear makes one act in irrational ways.
However please consider the damage your fear can do when you propogate the myths about the pitbulls and what BSL can accomplish. Please understand that science does not support what you are saying. Please understand the danger of BSL discussion is that it takes away from valuable discussion of ideas that may lead to actual change occuring.
You want to lower the incidence of dog attacks, stop focusing on BSL and start talking about other factors. #responsiblepetownership
In an effort to drive this point home, I have collected a series of quotes taken from various journal articles, position statements, literature reviews and studies to support the infomation presented in these fun facts.
This list is by no means exhaustive.
It represents a small portion of the existing published reputable science. I encourage you to read through the list, go to the links and review the associated bibliographies with each of the articles. After doing so, I hope it will be difficult for anybody to deny the anti-pitbull sentiment is irrational and BSL discussion is dangerous.
I have attempted to separate the quotes into topics of discussion. I will be give the original source for the information below each quote. Again, feel free to review them. It may be enlightening.
1. On the use of bite statistics and why this method of data collection is totally unreliable and misleading:
"Dog bite statistics are potentially misleading for several reasons: (a) most dog bites go unreported unless medical attention is sought (which may be more likely with larger breeds that have the ability to inflict more serious injury); (b) the total number of dogs of a given breed in the local community is seldom known, so the degree to which that breed is over-represented among reported dog bites is usually undetermined”
Duffy, D.L., et al., Breed differences in canine aggression, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.006
Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem”
“There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community.”
"Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the “danger- ousness” of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons. First, a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior. Second, there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time (eg, 10 attacks by Doberman Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs). Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal. Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals who are not familiar with breed characteristics and who commonly identify dogs of mixed ancestry as if they were purebreds. Fifth, the popularity of breeds changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable.”
https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf
"The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents."
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Co-occurrence%20Whitepaper%20-%202013.pdf
"In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it's virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds"
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/
2. Why breed is not a useful indicator of aggression
"The relatively average C-BARQ scores for stranger-directed aggression found among Pit Bull Terriers (Fig. 3A) were inconsistent with their universal reputation as a ‘dangerous breed’ and their reported involvement in dog bite-related fatalities”
Sacks, J.J., Lockwood, R., Hornreich, J., Sattin, R.W., 1996. Fatal dog attacks, 1989–1994. Pediatrics 97, 891–895
"Differences between lines of distinct breeding stock indicate that the propensity toward aggressive behavior is at least partially rooted in genetics, although substantial within-breed variation suggests that other factors (developmental, environmental) play a major part in determining whether aggressive behavior is expressed in the phenotype."
Duffy, D.L., et al., Breed differences in canine aggression, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.006
"The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed. While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials."
"Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location."
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx
"We don't support breed-specific legislation -- research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources."
"The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren't deterred by breed regulations -- when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they're intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive."
"For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation -- which they call inappropriate."
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-and-outlaw-breed-specific-legislation-bsl-united-states-america-federal-level-0
3. Why BSL discussion is actually dangerous:
“ An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.” Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens.”
https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf
"Laws that ban particular breeds of dogs do not achieve these aims and instead create the illusion, but not the reality, of enhanced public safety."
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls
The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren't deterred by breed regulations -- when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they're intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.
For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation -- which they call inappropriate.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Co-occurrence%20Whitepaper%20-%202013.pdf
4. Organizations and agencies stance on BSL
“In August 2013, the White House, citing the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published a statement with the headline, “Breed-specific legislation is a bad idea.”19 BSL is also opposed by major national organizations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society"
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/
“We (the White House) don't support breed-specific legislation -- research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources."
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-and-outlaw-breed-specific-legislation-bsl-united-states-america-federal-level-0
"Neither science nor statistics support policies that discriminate based on breed or physical appearance"
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/breed-specific-legislation/fact_sheets/breed-specific-legislation-no-basis-in-science.html
"Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed."
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nacanet.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/NACA_Guidelines.pdf
5. What can be done to actually address some of the risk of dog bite attacks?
"We can effectively address the danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous enforcement of laws that focus, not on breed, but on people’s responsibility for their dogs’ behavior, including measures that hold owners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs. Breed neutral “dangerous dog” laws, “leash laws” that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners’ property, and “anti chaining” laws can control the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help reduce the risk of harm to people and other animal"
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls
"Animal care and control agencies should encourage enactment and stringent enforcement of
dangerous/vicious dog laws. When applicable, the agencies should not hesitate to prosecute
owners for murder, manslaughter, or similar violations resulting from their animal's actions, and
their owner’s lack of responsibility. Laws should clearly define "dangerous" or "vicious", and
provide for established penalties. Penalties may include fines, imprisonment, and/or the
relinquishing of total privileges to pet ownership.”
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nacanet.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/NACA_Guidelines.pdf
Again this list is not meant to be exhaustive. It represents a small portion of the science which currently exists on the subject. Unfortunately, science is often ignored in favor of knee jerk reactions like BSL that do nothing to address the actual issues. Discussion on BSL gives people a false sense of achievement and allows our policy makers to appear as if they are addressing the concerns.
Don’t we deserve better than that?
Again, I encourage all to review the links provided above. Review the bibliographies attached to the links. Read the links left in other fun fact pages and then form an opinion. When you do, the ensuing discussion may prove effective.
#changetheconversation
#replacefearwithfact
#dontbullymybreed
