Merritt Clifton "study"????

More on the Clifton "study"
More ...

[quote]The studies I found had Rottweilers and Pit Bulls at the top of the list for inflicting injury.[/quote]?????

"Fatal Dog Attack Studies-Wrong Numbers,Not Statistics"

More ...

"Dog Bite Statistics:Science or Junk Science?"

More ...



"** The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released statement on the erroneous use and conclusions of the CDC study:"

[quote]

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites.

*****There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

More ... [/quote]

Texas Stats
More ...

[quote]Texas
Are Dogs A Real Danger?
A National Canine Research Council Perspective Report

Over the past 43 years (1965 - present) there have been 58 fatal dog attacks in Texas, or an average of one to two fatal attacks per year.

At least 17 different breeds/types of dogs have been identified as participating in a fatal attack in Texas.

The victims were: 17 adults and 41 children.

All the fatal attacks in Texas involved intact dogs (not spayed or neutered). Besides being intact, a significant number of dogs involved in fatal attacks in Texas were irresponsibly and actively being used for breeding:

In 1990, an 18-month-old girl was killed when she approached one of her father's chained breeding dogs. The father claimed he had bred "hundreds of dogs over the past 10 years." He also claimed he could not understand why the intact male dog would have attacked the girl since the child used to "ride the dog like a horse." (It is not known how an 18-month-old riding a chained dog "like a horse" would lead the father to expect the dog to exhibit future amicable behavior towards the child -- NCRC comment)

Other incidents involved chained dogs that were approached by young, unsupervised children:

In 2006, a two-year-old child was attacked and killed after she wandered over to a neighbor's dog. There was no shade afforded to the dog from the hot summer sun, other than that from the doghouse to which he was chained. (El Paso)

Fatal dog attacks in Texas encompassed a variety of different scenarios and risks factors ranging from low levels of negligence to extremely reckless or dangerous behavior; a number of which resulted in criminal convictions for the parent/owner:

In 1983, B. Rognaldsen received a 1-year sentence for criminal negligence after her 1-month-old daughter was attacked and killed by her dog. The dog had a detailed history of aggressive behavior and had "gnawed" on the baby's crib previous to the fatal attack. The night before the incident it was tesitifed that the mother was "very intoxicated and acted as though she was also on drugs." The infant was found mauled to death in the morning when the mother awoke. (Dallas)

In 1984, J. Traxler received a 5-year sentence for reckless injury to child when his 4-year-old stepson wandered out to his dog chained to a utility pole. His comment, "that boy knew better than to get near that dog" undoubtedly helped to convict him. He was allowed to serve this sentence concurrently with a 10-year-sentence for drug possession. (Conroe)

In spite of a significant number of reckless and dangerous dog owners in Texas, dogs still pose an incredibly low risk for causing a fatality:

Fatal Dog Attacks in Texas as Compared to Other Selected Risks:

Snapshot of Texas: Year 2005

Persons killed by dogs: 3
Child hyperthermia deaths (left in hot cars): 4
Persons killed by lightning: 5
Death from contact w/bees, hornets, wasps: 12
Child < 5 yrs. old drowned in tub or swimming pool: 26
Older children & adults drowned in swimming pool: 33
ATV-related fatalites: 51
Bicycle-related fatalities: 61
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities: 1,672
Total traffic (alcohol & non) fatalities: 3,536
Tobacco-related deaths: 24,200

Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

In 2005, one hundred and ninety-seven (197) Texas children died as a result of maltreatment (abuse or neglect).

In a SINGLE YEAR, 2005, nearly FIVE TIMES as many Texas children died from maltreatment (abuse or neglect) than the TOTAL of ALL children killed by dogs in Texas over the past 43 years.

Note: Texas experienced an increase in the number of fatal dog attacks the last 2 years (2006, 2007), with 14 fatal attacks within these two years. It is difficult, and perhaps premature, to attempt to draw any conclusions from this data since the number of dog attacks per year in any given state fluctuates from year to year. For example: Texas had five (5) fatal dog attacks over two years (1999, 2000) and then only one (1) fatal attack during the following three years, (2001, 2002, 2003).

So, are dogs a danger? Fact is, people in Texas routinely accept far greater dangers from ATVs, swimming pools and bicycles than any that are associated with companion animals.[/quote]

I can....(find an argument against it that is.)

I think your conclusions regarding "Strict Liability States leading to fewer attacks" is extremely bias based on the numbers that you have linked us.

I'm not a researcher by any means, but by rough estimation if you start compairing state by state with similar populations, your numbers will start to get scewed. For example:

More ...

.. and the populations for the states from Wiki.

Texas + Montana + Virginia + North Carolina = ~42,000,000 People with 10 Deaths

Florida + South Carolina + Alabama .. etc = ~106,400,000 People with 15 Deaths

This would certainly lead you to believe that there are more deaths/per person in a "One Bite State" - however...

If you start comparing state by state, whose populations are much closer, then you start seeing better numbers and more relevant information:

Texas (ONE BITE) - 24.3 Million People - 7 Deaths

California (STRICT) - 36.0 Million People - 1 Death

Let's not forget about ALL of the states that aren't even on this list:

Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming

There isn't even a "Death" listed in any of these states, and they are all "One Bite States" - (Which they "neglected" to list on the linked page)

Whereas; Georgia, Tennessee, New York Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Oklahoma, California, Indiana and Arizona are all Strict Liability States, and they ALL have at least one death.

Anyway, regardless of any of this.. 33 people died in 2007, out of what... 300 Million? We can’t even really generate any research from such a small sample. And heck, it’s not even a sample, these are real numbers. I feel sympathy for people that lost their loved ones and think people that have been injured by these animals should be compensated, but come on.... We lost 13,000 people due to drunk driving in 2007 alone.

Please cite the actual Research that substantiates his claim that..

[quote]two thirds of the fatal attacks were the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question.[/quote]

Can you say A-M-B-U-L-A-N-C-E C-H-A-S-E-R-S?

Shame on this particular group of Attorneys!

Compassionate people have sympathy for ALL dog bite victims and their families.

Quit trying to make this about Breed!

We don`t ask Attorneys how to build Skyscrapers,we sure don`t want you crafting Canine Laws.
Leave that up to Canine Experts and for Dawg`s sake if you want to be taken seriously DON`T tout Merritt Clifton as an "Expert".
He ranks right down there with Tom Skeldon.

@Shame, I think if you read the post a little more closely you wouldn't have such a vitriolic reaction. I agree with Beth that it is hard to argue against her conclusion...

"I do not want to ban these dogs but I would like to see Texas enact a strict liability law. It may not eliminate these attacks but is more likely to provide compensation to the most likely victim which is children."

We should have strict liability laws everywhere for ALL owners of ALL Dogs.

If these Attorneys would stop making this about Breed* perhaps there wouldn`t be a need for a vitriolic response.

You don`t read articles like this when a Husky or a Golden Retriever kills or seriously injures a child.

@Stop, I am not sure I disagree with you. I only suggest that the article is very level-headed in my opinion.

Agreed.
Let`s just stop talking about "these dogs" and start talking about irresponsible owners of ALL Breeds.
If we have Breed Neutral rules(Enforced!)and strict liability across the Board for ALL owners of ALL dogs we will have fewer problems.
It`s the Breed Specific talk that riles people up even when the article is level headed.

Obviously no breed should be banned, but I can't remember the last time I read about someone getting killed by a dog OTHER than a pit bull, or less frequently, a Rottweiler. This is a bad example of the perils of owning a Rottweiler though - the responsibility for this tragic accident is all on the parents of the unattended child, who apparently couldn't be bothered to mend the fence or watch their child.