[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Wow. So, now I'm "hatefull", I'm being "emotional" about this issue, I'm "beating my chest", and I'm "crying on the internet". Wow. I just love the internet...

I'm sorry, but as an engineer I look at numbers rather dispassionately. No emotion, and certainly "no dog in this fight". No chest beating, no whining - none of that at all. Just the raw data, and what it clearly says about this situation.

So, then I run across someone who is in denial as to what these numbers so clearly demonstrate. Someone who uses all manner of contrived "logic", assumptions, irrelevant data, and unsupported opinions to justify her denial of those numbers. So I can't resist pointing that out. I guess I do that sometimes regardless of the topic, or irrespective of my interest in that particular topic. It's just a characteristic of people that I find particularly baffling - this ability to brush aside facts and data, and develop contrived arguments against clear facts and data. That's all I saw going on here, so I commented on it. I could really care less about the dogs.

So, in response to my comments, I'm now rewarded with unfounded and unprovoked personal attacks. I see a lot of folks resorting to that tactic on the internet in their attempt to shoot the messenger and thereby discredit their position. It's become pretty much de rigour. So, yeah, call me whatever makes you feel better about yourself. You rock.

The numbers are the numbers. Do with them what you will - I really don't care. Like I said above, I really don't have a dog in this fight, or any sort of emotional attachment to this issue whatsoever. I do, however, see that there is a very real problem with a very specific breed of dog. I'm merely watching from the sidelines as this breed's passionate supporters stand in denial, twist logic, and introduce all manner of irrelevancy into the discussion. It's almost amusing, but not amusing enough to waste any more of my time on it. See ya...

Since you're a numbers guy and seem to be (at least to me) representing yourself as having a firm grasp of the facts... and because, as you state, the data is clear...

Does the data take into account the population numbers of the breeds? Surely, that's critical to the data, right?

The reason I ask... I haven't seen any mention of populations. How can you determine which breeds are dangerous if you only look at reports of death/bites and not the population? To use a silly example, if pitt bulls and pitt bull mixes represent 5% of all dogs, but 50% of all serious bites and deaths are attributed to them, then there is an obvious problem. But, if PB represent 50% of all dogs, but only 5% of the kills, then they're probably the safest of all dogs.

Isn't the number of pittbulls in existance a critical piece of the data? Why isn't anyone referencing those numbers?

Further, how do they determine what is a pitt bull and what is not when compiling the data? Is there a test? Like DNA? Or is it by appearance?

If by appearance, then we must ask what is the population of blocky headed "pitt bull like" dogs. Right?

Two side notes...

What's super weird to me, of all the dog trainers/behaviorists I know, most of them have pitt bulls.

What's even wierder... Watching those who have proven they have little to ZERO trust of "the media" and government go ALL in when it comes to this. It litterally makes me laugh.

- Skip