Perhaps what you should do, rather than rambling as you do, is take Ms. Delise's rebuttal and break it down piece by piece. Or maybe you've never read it?
Then perhaps you should take her two published books and provide us with her lies and then provide us with the truth via links and studies.
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Dog-Attacks-Stories-Statistics/dp/0972191402/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365957685&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Placebo-Politics-Aggression/dp/0972191410/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365957685&sr=1-1
here's a FREE version for you and anyone else to read:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf
All you have done thus far in this thread is ramble rather than laying out facts with cited sources.
You mention ONE study where the authors report that the dogs implicated in 87% of THEIR cases (of 199 dogs) were not "pit bull" dogs or lacked a breed label at all. The authors go on to state, "We should state that our study is limited by the retrospective nature and the limited number of cases in which the breed of dog responsible for the attack could be determined. This lack of information may compromise the validity of our results implicating the pit bull as a major culprit in severe dog bites admitted to our trauma center."
To be fair and impartial, us citizens need facts backed up with links and cited sources not ramblings about NAMBLA and little boy butt sex.
Karen Delise is a well known Nutter, she is considered a fraud and a hypocrite. You can visit this link here to find evidence of her frauudelent ways:
http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/scapegoats-part-1-bloodhound.html. I will also post a letter below from Senior Assistant City Attorney who read her book and penned a letter stating what he thought of it.
And as for your other question. The study merely points out that when conducting studies such as they have done, their are variables that can't be accounted for, in this case there is a small percentage of attacks whereby the breed can't be verified. They didn't say this could invalidate the study, only compromise it. It is just as likely with a complete picture of the dog breeds implicated it could further incriminate Pitbulls. This issue was also dealt with during the deposition of Dr Alan Beck, who explained quite precisely how during these studies their has to be a certain percentage of data for a study to be considered representative, as it is almost always impossible to get complete data. Both the CDC study and the Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs 2011 study had enough data to be considered representative.
Like I said, arguing if Pitbulls are dangerous is disingenuous, it truly is like arguing with an idiot if ice is cold. It is just a tactic used by Pitbull Nutters to prevent rational discussion on what should be done about the epidemic of serious dog attacks. mainly because a solution could be serious restrictions or even breed bans. An option that frightens the average Pitbull addict. Imagine taking away a drug addicts stash and their reaction and you have a visual for the way Pitbull nutters react to potential solutions to the issue. I am well beyond arguing if pit-bulls are dangerous, my concern is "What to do about it". Unfortunately the solution offered up by Nutters, which is to do nothing will never be acceptable to a decent citizen. You seem to want information, so I provided you with some links. Enjoy.
To be fair, I have dealt with pitbull Nutters on a daily basis for years now, I know your shtick and it isn't to view the problem impartially, your agenda is to promote the right to own fighting breeds of dog. The main difference between you and I, one child being mauled to death is one child too many, as i have no interest in Pitbulls and they aren't a human need requirement, it wouldn't matter to me to see them criminalised. But for you, their isn't a limit to the amount of deaths caused by Pitbulls that would be a problem for you. Because, essentially, the question is,
How many Pitbull fatalities is enough before Dog owners will make a relatively modest change in behavior? Unfortunately for the rest of us, a Pitbull Nutter doesn't have a limit to the amount of carnage Pitbulls inflict, like a drug, they just have to have one and they don't care if it will potentially kill them or someone else. Such is the nature of addiction!
You can read Dr Alan Becks deposition here:
http://legal.pblnn.com/images/Denverpleadings/alanbeckdepo.pdfYou can read the study Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs 2011 here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSba3p4NW5CT09ZX0E/edit?usp=sharingYou can download the Interview with Gary Wilkes an experienced pitbull Trainer here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbdzhIVTdwUVFkUFk/edit?usp=sharingYou can read the study "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbU1JHWGZPWHZ3a0E/edit?usp=sharingYou can read Adam Greenbaum, Pkastic Surgeon Interview in relation to Pitbull Injuries here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbMUR0YzZvbHFnNWc/edit?usp=sharingYou can read the study "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to December 26, 2011" here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbRDFTTmtyWEFiWTQ/edit?usp=sharingYou can read the study "Aggressive Behavior in Adopted Dogs (Canis Familiaris) that Passed a Temperament Test" here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_TQhn0TrPSbNnpieXl4Qmotd1E/edit?usp=sharingLetter from Senior Assistant City Attorney who read Karen Delise's book "Fatal Dog Attacks". He wrote this letter stating what he thought of it.I have read Karen Delise's entire book.(Fatal Dog Attacks) I challenge her entire book as being a false work for several reasons:
1) Qualifications. Karen Delise is a licensed Veterinary Technician with a degree in
Veterinary Science Technology. She offers no basis for her opinions to be of any consequence to anyone; she simply lacks any credibility based upon her education or training in her occupational field.
2) Data collection. I don’t believe she actually collected the official reports on these cases as she claims for several reasons.
a) First, she fails to reproduce any of this alleged data in the book – just her alleged conclusions after having collected this data. IF she had the data – why not publish it? Wouldn’t any objective reviewer expect to see a table of the information, such as a listing of the actual number of fatal attacks, the locations (states/counties/cities), the type of dog involved (reported/revised), age of victim, or the cause of death/nature of injury, etc.
b) Second, such a task would not be easy; I have made some attempts and found it very difficult to track such reports down.
c) Fourth, and most damning -- if she actually claims to have requested and obtained copies of reports involving each and every fatal or serious maulings in the 1980’s, this would be a lie. I have the only available copies of reports involving a highly reported fatal pit bull attack upon a 3-year old child in Denver in 1986. As Ms. Delise never contacted my office, never obtained copies of these reports, I challenge her claims of researching these cases. She provides no information within her book to even suggest that she had conducted any individual case review.
Conclusion: As a direct result of this apparent knowing or intentional misrepresentation, if not constituting direct fraud, Ms. Delise’s credibility in regards to her alleged work and her conclusions in her books is subject to severe, if not complete, impeachment, otherwise known as “complete discreditation”.
3) Unreliable Publisher. The publisher of Ms. Delise’s books is “Anubis Publishing”, which is an enigma, as it can’t be located. But now there is little doubt that her book has not been “published” by any entity with a history of ethical responsibility in fact checking or editing of substantive claims.
4) Ms. Delise – whom, as explained above, is not a credible expert on this topic, but in fact, is a self-serving author who may have falsified her research and who apparently has no proof of the creditability, reliability, or accuracy of her conclusions. The financial source for her hypothesized self-publication could be hidden for a multitude of reasons, including that her financial supporter(s) may have their own hidden political agenda.
Conclusion: Ms. Delise’s book appears to be nothing more than a series of subjective conclusions that are impossible to verify in any manner—either through the data allegedly collected, or any objective methodology of logically analysis.
The book simply appears to be a piece of propaganda with a clear political agenda to assist anti-BSL groups by printing all of their subjective opinions and wrap it in a cloak of self-serving objective authority through an unverifiable claim that the author “reviewed” all this data, when I have personal knowledge that she has not reviewed the data of two very high profile fatal maulings in the 1980’s that directly led to one of the most controversial Pit Bull bans in the United States.
Therefore, Ms. Delise’s work is not only highly suspect, but may be considered as being without any credibility, without any academic integrity whatsoever, that the totality of circumstances could justify the fully informed reader to reach the exact opposite conclusions of
Ms. Delise, because it may appear to that reader that
she is a fraud. --
Kory Nelson - Senior Assistant City Attorney in the Prosecution Section for the City & County of Denver, Colorado.
