Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc
"Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs"
Unless i am misunderstanding, I don't see how someone reading this study could evaluate and rule out breed as a factor when only 17% of the samples had verifiable breed data.
|
It's also pretty hard to miss the fact that while they identified 20 culpable breeds and two mixes, they do not specify what breeds they were or where they ranked. Why would they leave such vital information out of their results? They provide plenty of numbers regarding the other aspects of fatal dog attacks. They make the assertion that "breed is not a factor", and then fail to show us the numbers that they must certainly have. Curious.
In sharp contrast, the studies I posted above, and on other threads, very specifically identify the breeds in the instances in which they were in fact identifiable. So do the many other studies and statistic posted by other participants in these various threads. "Pit bulls", and their many variations, win every time by a very, very lopsided majority, even though they only represent about 6% of our canine population. That's when we can see the numbers for ourselves. It's only when we are not allowed to see them that "breed is not a factor". Curious. Again.
For some entertaining reading, google "pit bull apologists". My god, some of those writers are either reading along on this thread, or they know javadog personally.