ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th July 2019, 10:04 PM   #41
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,514
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
What? You got, from that throwaway comment, all of this?

You sir, and this kind of malicious misinterpretation of peoples comments, along with your smartass rolling eyes are one of reasons people are leaving this forum and signs ups are dropping.

Seconded. My three-post allotment a week is up after this one. Weaning myself off cause I've been here so long.

But this is still one place you can come to argue about things that virtually nobody in the real world cares about except the people in the OP link.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2019, 11:06 PM   #42
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,228
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
I still remember the 80's Big Bad murderdog being the Doberman pinscher. We were taught to fear the sight of those little gold eyebrows on an otherwise black, muscled dog that was bred for aggression and wouldn't hesitate to rip you apart.

When you use the exact same words on a different breed, it kinda removes their impact and makes you look like a liar, you know. Every season has its own Big Bad and previous breeds are *still around* and somehow aren't a problem now?
Yep.

I was told Dobermans were bred for narrower and narrower heads with big brains -a combination that invariable drove them crazy and almost guaranteed to eventually kill their loving owners.

In my lifetime, the "big bad dogs" have been German shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Cane Corsos, Chow Chows -and anything that is any part wolf.

Just wait a few years, and it will be some other breed that many will be insisting is a born-and-bred four-legged killing machine.

I'm sorry for the man who was killed, and I'm sorry the dog lost its life, too. Sadly, we just don't know have enough information to really form an opinion of what happened, or how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:19 AM   #43
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 15,064
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Your stats talk about aggression, not the outcome of aggression.
Not true. I took out the most summarizing parts, but there is a lot more to the official organization reports. And I even cited a study about fatalities.

Quote:
If you look at outcomes then pitbull(ish) breeds are much more dangerous. This is hardly surprising given that they were bred for a persistent 'to the death' type of attack, known in bully circles as 'gameness'. A retriever or spaniel simply doesn't attack in the way described in this and many other bully breed horror stories.
The argument i undermined with the "ish". The problem with this is that you can't tell that a dog was bred for dog fighting based on "ish", and many breeds aside from ones that may fall under the pit bull category were historically bred for gameness as well.

Further, environmental factors seem to out-weight any long lost heritage, as shown in the fatality study I referenced earlier.

Quote:
From pubmed, concerning a hospital study here

"CONCLUSIONS:

Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites."
We don't need speculation about the impact of strict regulation. The outcomes don't follow, as the reports I linked before showed.

As for this paper, it is very strange. The bulk of it isn't about it's own research, which it acknowledges as very limited, but about building up pit bulls to be as dangerous as "leopards".

Quote:
We should state that our study is limited by its retrospective nature and the limited number of cases in which the breed of dog responsible for the attack could be determined. This lack of information may compromise the validity of our results implicating the pit bull as a major culprit in severe dog bites admitted to our trauma center.

...

These breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated. Individual municipalities need the power to enact ordinances that can protect their citizens from this risk. If they are to obtain such power, the issue must be addressed at the local, county, and state legislative levels.
The data they gathered was 228 attacks over 15 years, but only 82 had identified breeds (how they were identified is unmentioned, which is important), and from that 29 were pit bull or pit bull mixed, which were then compared to the 53 other dogs with known breeds.

They also tried to calculate relative risk by each breed using the AKC registry.

There's a lot to unpack just in the question of breeds to compare, so let's set aside the small numbers.

First we notice the inconsistency. They are use the AKC registry for one data point, but then nebulous identification, on for the other. Added to that, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the most popular pit bull type which they include as a pit bull, isn't even registered under the AKC. This letter to the editor in response to the article list a number of other errors on the topic of identification. And most dogs, similarly to as pointed out in the Australian article referenced earlier, are not kennel club registered at all, especially pit bull-ish dogs.

To compare and contrast with the veterinary journal article on fatalities, it seems like this human medicine article fell into the trap of not caring about breed ID, when it is incredibly significant when you are relying on 29 pit bull-ish cases to base your statistics, let alone trying to make a case on breed genetics. This article on human medicine articles on dog bites covers a lot of the issues with this article.

Quote:
Such generalizations about “pit bulls” are particularly problematic (e.g., Viegas, Calhoun, & Mader,
1988) since this is not a breed or even a term with a single definition. This unofficial descriptor refers
to a group that may include dogs of multiple recognized breeds, dogs believed to have those breeds to
some degree in their ancestry based on someone’s idea of a physical resemblance, and mixed-breed
dogs whose ancestry cannot be reliably identified (Patronek, Sacks, Delise, Cleary, & Marder, 2013).
Nevertheless, articles use the expression “pit bull” or “pit bull type” in the same context in which they
discuss recognized breeds of dogs (e.g., Daniels, Ritzi, O’Neil, & Scherer, 2009).

The claim that certain breeds are more likely to bite also assumes the reliability of calculating
“relative risk,” a statistic that conveys the likelihood of an incident (e.g., a dog bite) being caused by a
member of one group (e.g., a breed of dog) versus a member of another group (e.g., Gurunluoglu et al.,
2014). The American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human–
Canine Interactions (2001) reported that relative risk calculations with respect to dog bite–related
injury are impossible due to the lack of accurate information about the breed of the biting dog in
question (numerator) or that of the comparator group (denominator). The pedigreed portion of the
U.S. dog population has been estimated at only 54% (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012)
and dogs of mixed heritage are not members of breeds, nor can they be expected to significantly
resemble their ancestral breeds in appearance (Parker et al., 2004; Scott & Fuller, 1965).

...

Another source of inaccuracy about breed is the breed identification itself, such as when
presumed breed is self-reported by bite victims or their family, friends, or others. For example,
Kasbekar et al. (2013) identified breeds by relying on the child’s guardian or reports from the child’s
doctor, and Lang and Klassen (2005) could not report the source of breed identifications but thought
they “probably” came from victims’ families except in cases where the dog was unknown to the
victim. One study compiled breed data not based on the dog that inflicted the bite but by showing a
series of pictures of dogs to bite victims and asking which picture resembled the dog they believed
had bitten them (Jarrett, 1991).

Data relating to presumed breed may also be unreliable when obtained either from news accounts
or hospital records, where the authors assume that whatever is written is reliable evidence (e.g.,
Chiam, Solanki, Lodge, Higgins, & Sparnon, 2014; Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, & Lockwood,
2000) and fail to integrate into their data analysis the difficulty of accurate breed identification, a
problem long recognized and demonstrated even now among dog professionals (Olson et al., 2015;
Voith, Ingram, Mitsouras, & Irizarry, 2009; Voith et al., 2013). Nor did these studies attempt to
address the problem through pedigree documentation.
Another curious aspect is that the study compared the pit bull to the Rottweiler and GSH, and separated out by breed for the relative risk calculation, but then compared just "pit bull-ish" to "everything else", which could include everything from a Shiba Inu to a Cane Corso.

If we are going to attempt such a comparison, I much prefer the methodology of this Irish Veterinary Journal study, which also contains good background information:

Quote:
Research from various other nations have suggested a lack of any efficacy and validity of targeting dog breeds as a dog bite mitigation strategy [8–14]. Conversely, research has observed some reductions in dog bites in a municipality following the enactment of breed-specific legislation [15]. However, once jurisdictions were used as their own controls in a pre/post comparison of incidence of dog-bite hospital admissions, there was no significant reduction in hospitalisations after breed-specific legislation was enacted [15]. A further study reported some reduction in dog bite incidence following the enactment of breed-specific legislation [16]. However, aside from several significant limitations outlined in the study, it is difficult to determine which aspects of the legislation have led to reductions. In other words, the enforcement of accompanying breed-neutral components could have led to some reductions, rather than the actual measures targeting dog breeds. Indeed, employing the statistical methodology of number-needed-to-treat (NNT; commonly used to determine the effectiveness of an intervention) reveals one aspect which makes the targeting of dog breeds at best, impractical. It has been reported that in order to prevent 1 dog-bite hospitalisation in a city or town, in excess of 100,000 dogs of the identified breeds would have to be removed completely from the population [17]. Figures would need to be doubled to prevent a second dog-bite hospitalisation, and so on [17]. Given breed-specific legislation also does not involve complete bans in certain nations (e.g., muzzle restrictions in Ireland), the figures would be considerably higher given the frequency of dog bites in the home when a muzzle is not public policy [17].

Research indicates no fundamental difference in aggression between legislated breeds, and other dog breeds frequently stereotyped as ‘friendly’ [18–20]. However, it remains the case that other group differences between legislated and non-legislated breeds could infer a greater risk of these dog breeds to public health. It is frequently proposed that while legislated breeds may not bite as frequently, in the event of a bite they can inflict greater injury compared to non-legislated breeds of similar size. However, a recent review has investigated claims which have been made in relation to a dog’s bite force ability, and in particular the force sometimes attributed to dog breeds and types frequently legislated for [21]. The review found that research literature have been ‘daisy chaining’ citations which actually do not possess any data, and some not containing any information pertaining to bite force at all [21]. As such, the present study sought to determine if differences exist between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds regarding a host of dog bite characteristics, which included dog bite severity and bite type.

...

Given legislated breeds do not fall into the small breed category under Kennel Club breed categorisations [22], small breeds were not examined. As previously outlined, this was done in order to increase the validity of comparisons between breeds of similar size. To limit the potential confounding of puppy mouthing, bites from dogs under 6 months were not collated. To control the potential limitation of inaccurate breed identification [23], mixed and unknown dog breeds were not examined. The final sample consisted of 140 dog bite incidents, were categorised as legislated (n = 40) and non-legislated (n = 100) dog breed bites.

...

No significant difference was observed between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds for the medical attention required following a bite. In addition, no significant difference was observed between legislated and non-legislated breeds for the type of bite inflicted. In other words, legislated breeds were found not to have a greater likelihood of inflicting greater injury and a differing bite type compared to non-legislated breeds. While a greater ability to inflict bites of greater severity and requiring more medical attention is frequently attributed to legislated breeds, these results do not provide evidence in support of these assertions.
Of course, as previously mentioned, the AVMA thinks this is still not sufficient:

Quote:
Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.45 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.

It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts46—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.

...

While some study authors suggest limiting ownership of specific breeds might reduce injuries (e.g., pit bull type,49 German Shepherd Dog50) it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community.
And I'll re-post the bit about breeds qua breeds in general again, relating to what I wrote above:

Quote:
Maulings by dogs can cause terrible injuries47 and death—and it is natural for those dealing with the victims to seek to address the immediate causes. However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: "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.37
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 15th July 2019 at 02:24 AM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:36 AM   #44
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
A while ago, I had a chance to look at someone's methodology behind an "x breed bad" approach to managing dogs.

What I found was that, over time, dogs became over-represented in "self-reporting" statistics, as the dog breed became more publicly known.

The particular flaw in the methodology in the report I examined, was to assume that the dog breed, where not identified, was present, in the same numbers, where the dog breed was identified.

If that assumption was taken out, the over-representation of the hated dog du jour disappeared.

In case you're wondering, I passed my reasoning on to a professional statistician at Flinders University and she agreed with my assessment.

I started looking at the stats, because of all the black dogs being reported as "Rottweilers".

Given my own experience (all Rottweilers I've met were soppy cuddle bunnies) that just seemed odd.

The Rottweiler club was plagued with people giving up their dogs, because they couldn't get them to be angry.

(Mine was a fourteen stone footstool, so I'm happy to report bias).

__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:55 AM   #45
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,475
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post

I started looking at the stats, because of all the black dogs being reported as "Rottweilers".

Given my own experience (all Rottweilers I've met were soppy cuddle bunnies) that just seemed odd.

The Rottweiler club was plagued with people giving up their dogs, because they couldn't get them to be angry.

(Mine was a fourteen stone footstool, so I'm happy to report bias).

IIRC The Rotweiller scare started suspiciously close to the popularity of "The Omen", my more limited experience of Rotties has also been postive. I remember talking to a security dog handler who told me they bring out Rotties for events as they're intimidating but safe around the public, if they think trouble is really going to kick off they take them back to the vans and bring out other breeds. They're powerful breeds, but one of the main purposes they were bred for was pulling butcher's carts.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 06:08 AM   #46
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,914
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
The Rottweiler club was plagued with people giving up their dogs, because they couldn't get them to be angry.
My first Rottie, Willie, who grew up in rural Whatcom county chasing small critters, killed the neighbor's cat. (Why the cat climbed down the tree into his waiting mouth I'll never understand.) The neighbors called animal control. I was required to bring Willie in for an aggression test, which, if he failed, would have meant I had to install a secure fence. I knew he would pass, because he was the singular most human friendly dog I ever met before or since. (One time there was a heated situation with a crazy person who reached his arm into our car trying to steal a camera, and Willie licked him.) Still, it was funny when I picked Willie up and the people who conducted the test asked if he could become their mascot. They said he was the least aggressive dog they had ever tested.

The disposition of my second Rottie is similar.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 08:07 AM   #47
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
My first Rottie, Willie, who grew up in rural Whatcom county chasing small critters, killed the neighbor's cat. (Why the cat climbed down the tree into his waiting mouth I'll never understand.) The neighbors called animal control. I was required to bring Willie in for an aggression test, which, if he failed, would have meant I had to install a secure fence. I knew he would pass, because he was the singular most human friendly dog I ever met before or since. (One time there was a heated situation with a crazy person who reached his arm into our car trying to steal a camera, and Willie licked him.) Still, it was funny when I picked Willie up and the people who conducted the test asked if he could become their mascot. They said he was the least aggressive dog they had ever tested.
I'm really sorry and please forgive me but I cannot, despite my best efforts, stop myself

And then the whole Police Station stood up and clapped.

Last edited by bluesjnr; 15th July 2019 at 08:29 AM.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 08:10 AM   #48
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,388
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
And then the whole Police Station stood up and clapped.
And that Rottweiler's name? Albert Einstein.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.