For those who were citing the AVMA study, do you have a response to this post? Is it possible that the various pitbull-related fatalities were included among the 82% where the dog was not identified as a member of a "distinct recognized breed"?
If you compare the study to
this and then read the accounts, it becomes pretty easy to see which ones they likely picked out as their distinct breeds qualifiers. The AVMA says 256 DBRF's and that page only lists like 220 so some are missing. I suspect the "known mixes" they refer to in the AVMA study are the blue heeler/aussie mix (aka a texas heeler) and the rotty/pug mix, since these are well known mixes. The rotty/pugs were well liked and well known dogs in the neighborhood they lived in. Also considering the face of the dogs and the coloring i don't think they would ever have been considered to be something else. They had previously been owned by a police officer for the area.
I find that AVMA study to be disgusting.
Just look at the first two stats.
Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]),
Yep. They consider the absence of an able bodied person to stop a killing to be a bigger factor than a dog's breeding. Just work through that in your head everybody. They are basically saying being alone with a pit bull is the same as being alone with a maltese and that when a pit bull mauls you to death it has nothing to do with the instincts and breeding of the dog, it is the fact that you didn't use the freaking buddy system. The 87% threshold is important because at that level it means they aren't just tallying kids under ten alone or 85 year old women alone.
Then they are basically saying that being around a dog that you don't know, regardless of breed, is what is dangerous. You know when you visit aunt margaret and her yorkshire terrier is there, best to stay away so it doesn't KILL YOU because you have no familiar relationship with it.
Pit bull advocates like to claim that dogsbite.org has an agenda. The woman behind it is just mad because she got bit by a dog. They never say she was lying and that Frank Baber wasn't killed by pit bulls and instead he was killed by a car crusher or some other method(you know because he was in fact killed by dogs). Nope, they just bring up info about the woman running the site, or about chihuahuas being angry dogs.
Well what was the agenda of these people doing this study that made them eliminate breed traits from the hundreds of dogs involved in these killings? They don't even mention weight or size of the dogs as being a statistically relevant factor.
You have a pomeranian(5-8 lbs) that killed an infant and a jack russell terrier*** (15-18lbs) that killed an infant. Then the next smallest killer was 40lbs, of a small child. ZERO adults killed by less than 50 pounds of pooch.
But see, that's the thing. When you eliminate breed from almost all cases as a category by creating BS parameters and are left with data that shows a pomeranian is just as capable of killing a human as a weimaraner or a texas heeler or a great dane or a doberman or a bull mastiff or a jack russell terrier then yes, under those parameters weight becomes statistically inconsequential. Since pretty much all represented weight classes are getting one tally mark each. That right there makes this study obviously junk.
When studies come out about trauma center data over a number of years, they apply these same BS parameters to them to eliminate breed. So when childrens hospital of philly says over 50% of attacks they see come from pit bulls, we are supposed to simply dismiss it because there is no way the dog was identified properly. All it takes is one pro pit bull shelter worker saying they think that the primary breed is dachshund in a case. That's it, data point tossed. Discrepancy!!!