Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
#89478 - 11/16/2005 09:39 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 06-09-2004
Posts: 738
Loc: Asheville, North Carolina
Offline |
|
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Kristen Cabe ]
#89479 - 11/16/2005 09:53 AM |
Moderator
Reg: 01-25-2003
Posts: 5983
Loc: Idaho
Offline |
|
Hmm......"animal experts"...and they quote a member of a tiny local Kennel Club. Yep, that has "expert" written all over it.
And then we see the amazing fact that *gasp*..the most common dogs are responsible for the most bites! Amazing! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Yep, that was a really informative "news" article......
*sigh*....why is the Media made up primarily of idiots?
Kristen, good link! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Kristen Cabe ]
#89480 - 11/16/2005 09:54 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-11-2001
Posts: 77
Loc: Minnesota
Offline |
|
My homeowners policy just dropped me for owning GSD's. They cited GSD, dobermans, chows, Rotts, dalmations, pits, and Great Danes as dangerous dogs on their list.
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Kristen Cabe ]
#89481 - 11/16/2005 09:58 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-02-2001
Posts: 999
Loc:
Offline |
|
That 'Top of the List' is only in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Italics & underlining are mine
Hamilton County (Ohio) officials recorded nearly 700 dog bites since January 2004. At the top of the list were German shepherds and Labradors -- also the two most popular breeds. News 5 found that bulldogs came in third, while miniatures -- such as Chihuahuas, Shitzus and Yorkies -- were fourth. Chows had the fifth-most reported bites, with 39 attacks.
What that says is there are a lot of German Shepherds in that area. To get a meaningful statistic, you need to normalize the data to reported bites per 1000 dogs. To get a valid statistic, you need to get a breakdown by breed of all bites per 1000 dogs. Bites from toy breeds are often under-reported.
This article was a follow-on piece about a chow, chained to a post, who attacked a six year old boy. The child may loose his voice from the injuries.
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/5320697/detail.html
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Will Rambeau ]
#89482 - 11/16/2005 10:34 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 06-09-2004
Posts: 738
Loc: Asheville, North Carolina
Offline |
|
Thanks, Will. I'm trying to do better. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
PetIDtag.com Keep ID on your pet! Profits go to rescues in NC |
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Dave Curtis ]
#89483 - 11/16/2005 11:50 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 04-30-2005
Posts: 2784
Loc: Toronto, ON
Offline |
|
My homeowners policy just dropped me for owning GSD's. They cited GSD, dobermans, chows, Rotts, dalmations, pits, and Great Danes as dangerous dogs on their list.
Which insurance company was that? We couldn't renew our home owners insurance because I got a GSD, I think dobermans were OK on their list of dogs though, but now I'm with Floridians First or something like that, they are OK with the GSD but if I were to want a doberman I'd be looking for a new insurance company.
How the heck can they consider great danes a dangerous dog????? The only thing dangerous about a great dane is their freakin tail, that thing hurts and it's crotch height... oh and they are leaning dogs, they wanna lean against everything and everyone, maybe they won't insure great dane owners because they knock everything over in the house and are worried owners will try to claim their dogs damages??
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Mike J Schoonbrood ]
#89484 - 11/16/2005 12:06 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 03-04-2005
Posts: 93
Loc: Worcester, MA
Offline |
|
Recently I had to go through 10 home insurance agencies here in MA until I found one that accepted GSDs. Otherwise I was going to have a state home owners insurance that would have cost me 20% more than a private insurance.
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Charlie Snyder ]
#89485 - 11/16/2005 12:06 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-26-2005
Posts: 566
Loc: NJ, USA
Offline |
|
That 'Top of the List' is only in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Italics & underlining are mine
Hamilton County (Ohio) officials recorded nearly 700 dog bites since January 2004. At the top of the list were German shepherds and Labradors -- also the two most popular breeds. News 5 found that bulldogs came in third, while miniatures -- such as Chihuahuas, Shitzus and Yorkies -- were fourth. Chows had the fifth-most reported bites, with 39 attacks.
What that says is there are a lot of German Shepherds in that area. To get a meaningful statistic, you need to normalize the data to reported bites per 1000 dogs. To get a valid statistic, you need to get a breakdown by breed of all bites per 1000 dogs. Bites from toy breeds are often under-reported.
This article was a follow-on piece about a chow, chained to a post, who attacked a six year old boy. The child may loose his voice from the injuries.
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/5320697/detail.html
Ha ha ha ha, this report is both irresponsible and unsubstantiated, as are MOST dog bite statistics.
Lets break this down logically....
Hamilton County officials recorded nearly 700 dog bites since January 2004.
So according to this their sample group for approximately 24 months is a sample size of 700. OK what are the characteristics of the control group, someone mentioned 1000 dogs. ....how many dogs of what breeds????? For example what percentage of the control group is represented by the breeds mentioned, not only do the attacks need to be normalized per control group size, but control group distribution. What was the dynamic of the control group over a two year period, how many dogs of what type left the control group and how many of what type entered, how does this dynamic effect the normalization of the sample size by quantity and breed distribution within the sample group?
For example they gave themselves away when they said in this particular area GSDs and LABS are the most popular....a logical assumption then is of the 1000 dog control group the GSD and Labs are over-represented, so statistically one would expect there to be more incidents with these types of dogs as there are simply more of them. So when analyzing the results of your sample set, each point must be weighted by the control set distribution to make any viable conclusion for that specific location and dog population......
Statistics are numbers you can stack them anyway you like, the CORNER STONE of a viable statistical analysis is sample group versus control group, and you better have the proper control group characteristics to provide any meaningfull results......so LETS SEE THOSE STATS I say, and I will turn them over to some of the finest statistical analysts industry has to offer and give you their read from a theoretical perspective...if not your conclusions are as valid as the number of sightings of the Tooth Fairy.......
Val
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Mike J Schoonbrood ]
#89486 - 11/16/2005 12:46 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-11-2001
Posts: 77
Loc: Minnesota
Offline |
|
Mike,
It was Allied Insurance Company. They have just added this dangerous dog bit. I had been insured with them for the previous 18 years. Farmers Insurance has me covered now.
|
Top
|
Re: Now GSDs top the list of dangerous dogs.
[Re: Dave Curtis ]
#89487 - 11/16/2005 01:16 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-03-2004
Posts: 247
Loc:
Offline |
|
Gee, I wonder if Labs will be banned now too, since they share the "top spot" with GSD's for dog bites <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.