September 11, 2008
Will Pit Bull Attacks Boost Hands-Free Sales?
The King County Animal Care and Control department is far too understaffed to check up on dogs running loose, even aggressive ones, reports the Seattle Times. Animal control officers have reiterated--after a pit bull attack on a 71-year-old SeaTac woman last Monday--that they can't do much until after you've got bite marks. Bottom line: as it's hard to dial with a pit bull hanging off you, hands-free phone technology is clearly more important than ever. For those who enjoy fact-based argument, in 2007 pit bulls represented four percent of licensed dogs in Seattle and 22 percent of reported dog bite attacks. Poodles didn't bite anyone, but we still advise keeping an eye on them.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Advertisement: Seattlest Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
[ report this ]
I hope this doesn't become the bazillionith flamewar on this topic (go check craigslist Rants & Raves if you want to see the one already going on). Just want to say keep in mind the saying that 95% of statistics are made up. 4% of dogs doing 22% of bites isn't necessarily accurate. It's likely that bites from small dogs are severely underreported, because who wants to admit they got bitten by a poodle? Also, large dogs do more damaging bites, so those ones are more likely to be reported since it's more likely to result in a hospital visit or at least a more annoyed person.
[ report this ]
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
[ report this ]
Oh, and to further refute your bullshit about 95% of statistics, take a look at the CDC data here:
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf
[ report this ]
@jdavin: I don't think anyone's worried about under-reported non-serious bites precisely *because* they're non-serious. Pit bulls in Seattle are responsible for 22% of the bites serious enough for people to report. That's troubling, and even a pit bull advocate should take that to heart.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, really, but it seems fairly clear that when pit bulls decide to mess your shit up, they've got the goods to do it by a fairly wide margin. (Labs came in second in Seattle: they were 18% of licensed dogs and 12% of bites.)