Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[Mr Skeptic]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/156576

 

Among the most common dogs used in fighting, pit bulls often end up in animal shelters because they are overbred and some of their owners are more interested in the dogs' tough image than in caring for a pet, according to several animal workers.

 

By far, pit bulls are the most overbred, abused and neglected breed of dog entering shelters every year," Jake Roos, the kennel supervisor at the Norfolk Animal Care Center, wrote in an e-mail. He said that in shelters that admit pits, they often make up half of the dog population.

 

It seems that many shelters simply refuse to take in pit bulls, so that a disproportionate number of them end up at those that do. This would make shelter statistics extremely variable. The 30-40% estimate would belong to shelters that take in pit bulls.

 

Also, shelters are a place for unwanted dogs, and that may increase the estimate of the pit bull population. On the other hand, unwanted dogs are more dangerous regardless of breed.

[iNow]

If you have more accurate numbers on this population, I'd be glad to redo my same calculations using those numbers instead. The preponderance of evidence suggests that all of my points will hold true.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, I do keep saying that the dogs that are not there don't kill anyone. I have been saying that for some time. That's what I meant when I said a ban is effective- it's a truism.

 

It also shows that you are 100% biased against pit bulls. The problem is not deaths caused by pit bulls, it is death casued by dogs. Unless you are saying that deaths casued by dogs are OK so long as they are not pit bulls?

 

If you have more accurate numbers on this population, I'd be glad to redo my same calculations using those numbers instead. The preponderance of evidence suggests that all of my points will hold true.

 

If you don't want to get roasted, I suggest a good dose of reality. It is simply laughable that pit bulls would make up 30-40% of the population. Even with your reduction, that would necessarily place them among the top ten most popular breeds. I won't argue that as someone else will shortly.

 

I am mostly on your side, but so far the evidence I've seen suggests that pit bulls have caused a disproportionate number of deaths. However, I have seen no evidence yet that that is a genetic factor (save for size/strength) rather than an owner problem, or that a ban would reduce dog related deaths, or that the number of deaths is enough to warrent a ban if it would work.

[John Cuthber]

"Can you show the math of this conlcusion, since only one in roughly every 600,000 pit bulls is likely to be involved in an attack?"

I already did. Obviously it hasn't anything directly to do with the 600000.

Have e look at the post where I first estimated it. If you don't like that try 42% of the deaths from 1% of the dogs. With the accuracy of these sorts of numbers 159/3 or 42/1 are both about 1 in 50.

 

 

"Your continued suggestion that risk of death is dog type specific is rooted in logical fallacy and misframing of the issue. You cannot prove causation using only correlation, as you clearly know. "

What have I shown that is correlated with what? where have I shown a range of some ordinate and compared to some coordinate?

It's true enough that correlation and causation are not the same thing but so what?

I have produced the evidence that pitbulls are responsible for more deaths than you would expect from the fraction of the population that they represent. In return you have come up with the " statistic " that they are someting like a third of the dog population. Someone else has described that as laughable. I wonder if any objective observer would have posted that without thinking about what it meant. I wonder if you fell into the (very human) trap of seeing the answer you wanted.

 

 

Mr Skeptic you accuse me of bias and you may have a point; but my bias isn't against pitbulls per se but against any breed that kills vastly more than its share.

 

I can't prove that the effect is genetic- I doubt there is any useful research on a "gene for violence" in humans where a lot more research is done than in dogs.

On the other hand, I can point out that these dogs were bred to fight (OK, originally it was as buldogs but the pit in their name isn't a coincidence). Mankind is quite good at selective breeding; if we wanted a fighting dog that's what we would get.

 

I accept that owners with no suitable skills don't help, but it's odd to think that it's only pitbulls who have irresponsible owners or that the owners of pitbulls are particularly irresponsible (in fact there's evidence against that in this thread where some of the posters are responsible owners of these dogs).

If the breed is responsible (and I think it is as I have explained then removing it would reduce the number of deaths.

Whether or not 66 deaths, and presumably many more injuries, is enough to justify getting people to chose anothe breed is a matter of personal opinion. I have already said I think it's selfish to put your choice of breed before others' safety- no matter how small the risk.

[SkepticLance]

And to admit my bias right up front.

 

My bias is against any person who claims to be a scientist or at least think like one, who then manipulates or denies proper data.

 

iNow knows that the pit bull population of the US is of the order of 1%, as reported by the Endangered Dog Breed Assn. So he 'manipulates' data so he can claim it is 30 to 40%. I am seriously biased against those who misuse data in this way.

 

As I said before, I do not care whether pit bulls are banned in the US or not. 66 deaths over 20 years is still 66 too many, but we have more vital issues for social change. I do care about this forum being misused, and people who cannot think scientifically pretending to do so, and misusing the site to push illogical and irrational ideas.

 

I have no bias against any particular dog breed, but I am increasingly feeling a bias against iNow for the reasons stated above.

[iNow]

I am mostly on your side, but so far the evidence I've seen suggests that pit bulls have caused a disproportionate number of deaths. However, I have seen no evidence yet that that is a genetic factor (save for size/strength) rather than an owner problem, or that a ban would reduce dog related deaths, or that the number of deaths is enough to warrent a ban if it would work.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

 

 

My bias is against any person who claims to be a scientist or at least think like one, who then manipulates or denies proper data.

 

iNow knows that the pit bull population of the US is of the order of 1%, as reported by the Endangered Dog Breed Assn. So he 'manipulates' data so he can claim it is 30 to 40%. I am seriously biased against those who misuse data in this way.

How about you quit with the personal attacks and the ad hominen based support of your position.

 

Care to tell me what else I do and don't know?

 

 

I posted data, I stated how I obtained that data, and used that data to make my case. I suggested that if better numbers were available, I would use those, but I was using the best I had available now.

 

For you to go off on this tirade that I'm manipulating numbers, misusing data, and speculate about my motivations not only lacks accuracy and merit, but it adds NOTHING to your side of the issue.

 

 

I do care about this forum being misused, and people who cannot think scientifically pretending to do so, and misusing the site to push illogical and irrational ideas.

 

I have no bias against any particular dog breed, but I am increasingly feeling a bias against iNow for the reasons stated above.

 

Un-fu(king-believable. Have you looked in a mirror lately?

 

 

 

The only illogical idea being pushed in this thread is the suggestion to ban 5.3 million dogs because 8 of them were involved in the deaths of humans in one year.

[Phi for All]

Thread closed temporarily. You're all in the doghouse.