“This is my female that is in heat just came in heat yesterday. She is a little tall. If anyone wants to breed there male. she is abkc registered.”
and more on the other Darwinian pit bull attack, also in Kansas, where the parents owned the family land shark for 8 years without incident, including the last 2 years of their sons short life, until it went “pit bull” and killed the son:
“Those dogs cannot be domesticated. They cannot,” the Darwinian father said.
Angela and Jeremiah made their eight-year-old Pit Bull part of the family. The dog lived in the house with them and their baby son and was socialized during walks through the community every evening.
Neighbors agreed in statements regarding the tragic death of Beau that Jeremiah Rutledge was a good and responsible dog owner. The dog was in good condition, was always walked on leash, and was friendly with children and adults in the community. The dog did not appear to be neglected or abused in any manner and did not live at the end of a lonely chain in an even lonelier backyard.
Jeremiah probably was unaware that on the same day as he was providing his sage and passionate advice on WSBTV, another family Pit Bull severely mauled a two-day-old baby in Coffeyville, Kansas. It ate her leg.
and the Facebook of Mrs Darwinian pit bull owner (dog that ate her 2 day old daughters leg)
“People who hate pits need to know this. Yes our daughter is in the hospital because of one DOESN’T mean they are ALL bad. It was an accident and nobody’s fault.”
Translated:
“Its not the dog, its the owner. But, wait, I am the owner.”
Then just hours ago, she posts a link “They tried to destroy us, but failed” with a photo of a pit bull.
She is more concerned about pit bulls than her own baby - no mention of her amputee daughter
You might also have pointed out that when you have hundreds (or even single digits) of deaths per tens (or hundreds) of millions of dogs, your signal-to-noise ratio is total shit, and you can’t make any statistical conclusion at all when the noise drowns out the signal you’re trying to measure, by that kind of orders of magnitude. Add in the fact that there’s no definition of ‘pit bull’ other than either a) the AKC breed definition, which requires papers, and is totally useless for the purpose the ‘anti-pits’ are pushing, or b) some witness or owner said ‘it’s a pit bull’, and you’re not able to define what the signal even looks like, let alone distinguish it from the noise. Mainly because they can’t define it.
Anecdote is not Data, especially when the anecdotes are so incredibly rare, per million dogs per year. I personally know a number of people who have been severely injured or killed in a traffic accident. I know no-one who was seriously injured or killed by a dog. The signal the ‘anti-pits’ are looking for can’t be statistically found in the noise in the data. Nor can their definition of the signal.
OK, next post to comment on:
Casting doubt on which? You’re not refuting the data, so you’re presumably not casting doubt on it. Her observation about how to interpret the data is correct, so you’re not casting doubt on that. So what are you casting doubt on? Clarification is in order here, because your post is just nonsensical.
OK, on to my disclaimers:
[Notes. I’ve never looked at the data, nor do I care to, given how few deaths per dog we’re talking about, here, but I do deal with signal-to-noise ratios all the time, and this is a tempest-in-a-teapot that you frequently see by people trying to generate outrage for something so extremely unlikely that it disappears in the noise, so you can’t rationally say much about it. Hence the irrational ranting on the side they want to be true. It’s hardly surprising that they do manage to generate outrage from people who don’t know what a ‘signal-to-noise-ratio’ is. Or how vital that is, when assessing actual risk.]
It’s not nonsensical, but you apparently missed the sense in it. No worries; I’m patient.
The problem I see with the data is the conflation of “percentage of dogs listed in classifieds” with “percentage of breeds out there.” To be sure, it’s a clever way to find that data, but if you ask the question, “Is there a reliable correlation between these two statistics?” the null hypothesis is “nope” (as it is with any correlation). So that’s the first doubt I’m casting on the data.
Second, the data suggest that pits are nearly half a THOUSAND times more common than chows. Anecdotally I suspect that’s very wrong, and a different set of data (AKC registration) shows that they’re only 66% more common than chows. Again, this doesn’t refute the data, but it raises more questions: why are classifieds more accurate predictors of actual dog population than AKC registrations? Are they? What evidence do we have to support that hypothesis?
Third, I’ve stated twice now, but I don’t mind stating a third time: the analysis Kimstu offered of the data is correct. I don’t fault her logic; rather, I question the data to which the logic is applied.
Finally, I don’t do so to impugn pit bulls. Cougar’s agenda is not my own. I’m interested in exploring the data fairly.
Edit: is the problem that you’re conflating “refuting” with “casting doubt on”? If so, don’t. I used the two terms because they have different meanings. Casting doubt is much milder than refuting. I can’t refute the data, but I also don’t think we should accept them without solid evidence that they’re reliable.
Are you familiar with the USA window blind company, whose product was pulled after just 3 children were strangled, out of millions of blinds? Or the couple dozen killed by Ford Explorers with Bridgestone tires, or Pintos with exploding tanks, or Nadars Corvair?
Pit bulls killed than all of these, combined.
Pit bulls are clearly defined in city bans like Denver’s and Miami, and they have weathered many USA court rulings.
There is a huge difference between humans dismemberment and death, versus the CpK of a dimensional feature on a crankshaft.
Laced Tylenol and oversized pistons are not equals.
Yeah, I missed what you’re on about. Yes, you’ll have to be patient, because I’m missing the entire statistical mathematics of what you might be trying to say. It looks totally nonsensical in the stats I learned. Maybe you’re missing the entire point of stats. There is obviously a disconnect in our mutual understanding, and I’m not seeing where it is, so let’s examine that. Kimstu made a very valid point about pulling facts out of raw data, combined with someone’s ass. She brought up the point that ‘deaths per breed’ is nonsensical, unless you also add in ‘deaths per breed per dog in that breed’ And can actually identify the breed. [my point was that the signal is so small relative to the noise, that we can’t really say anything at all, but her point is even more important.] How do you identify ‘pit bulls’? How do you identify the ‘breed’ “pit bull”? We cannot identify the problem, unless we define what’s ‘signal’, and differentiate it from the ‘noise’. How do you identify that? Personally, I’m not seeing how ‘pit bulls’ are being identified. Enlighten me. What’s your definition of ‘pit bull’. What’s ‘signal’, and what’s ‘noise’.
And the anecdata I see is that most mutts are actually that. ‘Mutts’. Most people get their dogs the same way I get my cats. And my current dog. And my mother’s last dog. And my sister’s last dog. And the current mutt my brother has. And Shit. You’re stuck with them. Take 'em in. And even God doesn’t know their ancestry. I’ve got a Labramutt. The last one I dealt with was a GermanDoberHoundRetriever. Yeah. He was a pure-bred.
Which brings up the problem with the ‘data’ you are using in your ‘second’ and ‘third’ and ‘finally’. Where are you getting that data from? It looks to be pulled out of the nether regions. In other words, it’s meaningless.
Nevertheless, my dog loves me. And so do my cats. And none of them qualify as any sort of ‘breed’. How do you identify a ‘pit bull’? Can you define that, meaningfully? If you can’t, you have nothing useful to say on the subject.
Congratulations. You’ve identified the fact that someone can get idiots worked up over bullshit. Thank you for pointing out that idiots can get other idiots worked up over made up bullshit. You’ve proven your point. I’m outmatched, here, so I will step out now, and not say anything at all, anymore on this subject. You’ve obviously identified my bias. I’m done. I’m a pro-‘pit bull’. You’ve identified me, and pointed out my obvious bias. You win. And everyone can see my bias. I’ll stop shilling for the Dog-Breeders who are obviously paying me to breed ‘pit-bulls’, now.
Then he needs to fix that number in the chart he’s got on that website. Half of one percent is 0.5%, not 0.05% as his numbers indicate.
I wonder if all his other 0.0x% percentages are also off by a factor of 10. This guy is not impressing me with the reliability of his data handling, though since I was the one who found his study in the first place I guess I have nobody to blame but myself.
No, it’s clear from the previous sequence of posts that LHoD meant that he’s questioning the accuracy of the data (and not unreasonably, IMHO), although he admittedly doesn’t have any specific evidence to show definitively that it’s wrong. I didn’t see anything “nonsensical” in that.
So the pit bull owner in California ( whose land sharks killed an UNRELATED passerby) was arrested today for murder, in that mauling.
Yet, in the countless recent Darwinian pit bull fatal mailings on family members of the owner, murder charges never are even considered. Even in Texas, which has “Lillian’s Law” that directs prosecution in fatal dog attacks, they never go after Darwinian cases.
The consensus is that the owner of the frankenmauler, has suffered enough by the loss of their spouse (Darla and Greg Napora, also in California, Darla killed by their pit bull), or granny ( the famous water color artist killed by her grandsons pit, also in California, to the countless child murders I linked to just this past year by pits.
Can I then shoot my spouse with my assault rifle, but not my neighbor?
I suppose it depends on your definition of “rarely.” In the Chicago area, pitbulls or AmStaffs are regularly adopted out at Chicago Animal Care and Control and the Animal Welfare League at the very least. Chicago Animal Care and Control even has a program with the Chicago Wolves (local AHL hockey team) and pits and pit mixes are commonly adopted out at those games, too. Now, most pits don’t make the adoption floor, but the adoption floor is generally about 60-70% pit bulls or mixes. They are also certainly not the most popular adoption–it’s the little guys that tend to go fastest, but I’d guess in a given week, about 20% of the successful adoption are pit bulls (I’d say about a quarter to half of applicants get rejected.)
This is why I say “it depends on your definition of rarely.” You sliced the pie first saying that of the shelters that can adopt out pit bulls, they rarely do. The shelters that I know that adopt out pit bulls do so regularly. That’s all I’m saying–you made it sound like shelters that have pit bulls don’t adopt them out often at all. They are not an unpopular dog to adopt here from shelters. Put it this way, at CACC I would say it’s the single most adopted breed, but makes up only about 20% of the total adoptions. These are not solid numbers, just guesses. Some weeks, 50%+ of the adoptions are pits.
And I use the term “breed” above to only count dogs that are listed on the cage card as pit bulls or pit bull mixes. I’m not counting American bulldogs, bull mastiffs, and other dogs that sometimes get lopped into the “pit type” category.
Right. Some shelters won’t adopt them out at all, but of those that do, around here the the PB variants are the second most common dog in the shelter, after Chihuahua. But those little guys get adopted out faster- unless they are mean tempered.
