Quote:
Originally Posted by Breeze  If you look on the web further you will see that that "report" is not very scientific" or correct due to the fact: "that the "Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many separate breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.
Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". "
It's funny how some yorkie lovers preach about teaching the truth about teacups, tinies..... but have no problem saying and spreading false things about other breeds.  I used to believe this too until I spent many hours researching to learn the truth, I hope others do the same. CDC Stand on Dog Bite Statistics |
I really wanted to make sure that I was not quoting a Pit Bull hating group when I posted the link that I did so I kept searching last night and found even more information. By no means what I trying to trash the "breed" and felt that the information in that link was informative. What I noted was that it gave a wide range of dogs that were involved in biting incidents, broke it down by breed as well as injury, mauling and even death. If you read the sites at the bottom of the report it give very specific date for instance packs that attacks and the kinds of dogs involved in these attacks. I felt it was responsibly put together and informative but this is only my opinion. The very first sentence of the article says
"this table covers only attacks by dogs clearly by breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets."
What I found interesting was all of the information at the bottom on the article and how the author was NOT in favor of breed specific legislation.
I then went to their website this was included at the bottom of the article to see if I could find a witch hunt where I found this statement:
ANIMAL•PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. Founded in 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity.
Here is the site that I am referring to:
ANIMAL PEOPLE I FRONT PAGE
From what I can see they seem to be a very legitimate organization involved in all types of Animal Rights and have their monthly newsletters with a wide range of information relating to many different issues. I tried to discredit the link but the more that I read the more that I liked what I saw and even book marked their site to go back and read more of their newsletters relating to animal right and issues. If I missed something that should make me think otherwise please point me in the correct direction.
