Excellent analysis of the "vicious dogs/vicious owners study"

[Rene Allegrini]

Article and link provided by fightBSL member Jodi Preis.

My friend, Patty Letawsky, has put together an incredible analysis of the now infamous Journal of Interpersonal Violence "study" wherein it was determined that "vicious dogs have vicious ownes." As you know, although a few other breeds are thrown in, the vicious dogs they are specifically referring to are pit bulls.

Below are some important factors to consider that Patty has put together, as well as a letter she drafted to the voice her dissatisfaction with this severely biased study.

A specific goal of those invovled in this study is that the information be used by legislators and law enforcement personnel and, in that respect, it has the ability to make a horribly negative impact on owners of certain breeds everywhere. In fact, I just read an article this morning from The Standard Online out of Kenya, Africa, which quoted directly from this study. How sad that grossly inaccurate and biased information is so easily accepted and, as a result, is blazing across the media like a wild fire.

If you have not yet done so, please write to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence to express your displeasure with the way this study was conducted.

Thanks to Patty for the work and time she put into this! She has given permission to cross post.

Jodi

_____________________________________________

Journal of Interpersonal Violence -- Table of Contents (December 1 2006, 21 [12]) (4th article down is study).

What I completely disagree with with regard to this study is taking entire breeds of dog and deeming every dog within those breeds high-risk/vicious (while at the same time disregarding these dogs' individual temperaments and/or histories) and somehow claiming conclusive results. They've at the outset of the study deemed 100% of all Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Chows and Akitas participating in the study as high-risk/vicious.

Since the study automatically deems all of them high-risk/vicious, how do we really know which of these dogs in actuality are dangerous?

The study cites Ohio Law Section 955.11 as one reason for labeling pit bulls vicious. And that law was overturned and deemed unconstitutional this past spring (I believe March 2006). **To my knowledge, Ohio state law has not been overturned, and the March 3, 2006 decision in the City of Toledo v. Tellings matter has been appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, thus staying the ruling of the Appellate Court. ~ Jodi

The study also uses insurance companies black list as a reason for concluding certain dogs are high-risk/vicious, but it picks and chooses only certain black listed breeds to use in the study.

The study claims their other basis for listing certain breeds of dogs as high-risk/vicious at the outset of the study the fact that the Cincinnati SPCA said so.

Also, the study uses as one of the reasons for listing dogs in the "cited" category as "failure to file registration of dog (44.7%)." But this is grossly unfair since pit bulls are the only type of dog that registration was required of. If a pit bull wasn't registered with the police department, wasn't microchipped and wasn't tattooed, it would fall in the cited category (as 44.7% did). This was not a level playing field, so to speak, since none of the other 43 types/breeds of dogs had the potential to be cited for not being registered.

And, as far as I can tell, if 100% of pit bulls are already in the high-risk category, and if 44.7% didn't go through the tedious breed-specific registration process, then 44.7% are already going to be in their "Cited/High-risk" category.

They used only 355 dogs (44 breeds) out of 51,000 licensed owners. The study utilized less than five dogs per breed for 30 of the dog breeds they were studying. And 17 different dog breeds were represented by only one dog! How is that conclusive?

And in order to make the claim of 355 out of 355 they had to include traffic violations.

The fact that their study utilized a total of three Chows, three Akitas and four Rottweilers to come to their conclusions is also absolutely hideous. Under the Labrador Retriever column, under "High-Risk Cited" it says 100% (just as it does with Chows, Akitas and Rottweilers), yet they fail to label all Labs as high-risk/vicious. This study is not science.

They used zero Cocker Spaniels in this study, which is not an uncommon breed. So, why were no Cockers used? Maybe they didn't conform to the outcome the study was looking to create since Cockers would be considered low risk by the study.

The study also labeled every breed of dog that wasn't a Chow, a Pit Bull, an Akita or a Rottweiler as low risk. They had no basis in fact for doing so.

My issue is with this study taking entire breeds of dog and at the outset claiming each and every dog in that breed is high-risk/vicious and using that as a basis of fact for the study when it is not a basis of fact. My issue is with utilizing a total of three Chows, three Akitas and four Rotties and then publishing supposedly conclusive results based on such a minuscule sampling of dogs.



Here's the link to comment to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence regarding the vicious dog/vicious owner study.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence -- Feedback

Journal of Interpersonal Violence -- Table of Contents (December 1 2006, 21 [12]) (This link is to the actual study- 4th article from top).