I stopped reading this jerk's blog on the Reno Gazette Journal quite awhile back but he recently issued a post that I just have to comment on. For those unfamiliar with Robison (aren't you lucky) he is stumbling down, passing out drunk from drinking that koolaid of Nathan Winograd.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110719/NEWS/110719006/Fact-checker-What-s-scary-about-pit-bulls-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Local%20News|s is the most pathetic piece of BS I have read in a long time.
Dig this, first he is talking about fatalities and then suddenly switches to talking about bites, a move designed to throw the reader off track.
"Another common source about pit bull dangers is Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People newspaper. His latest report claims that there have been 173 fatalities from dog attacks over the past 28 years and 47 percent involved pit bulls or pit mixes.
But Clifton’s research covers less than 2 percent of dog bites requiring hospitalization and relies only on reports in the media, which have been shown to emphasize pit bull attacks over those by other breeds."
Taking those lessons taught by the Whino is a specialty of Mark Robison, compare apples to oranges in hopes the reader doesn't catch it.
Then he goes on to try to deceive us by saying there is no way to determine how many pits are in Washoe County. Excuse me, but don't you have license requirements there? All you have to do, Jerk, is check those to get an idea of the percentage of pit bulls in Washoe County. Instead he plays that numbers game which always uses the impound numbers rather than the factual numbers like licensed pits compared to other breeds.
"Looking at just dog bites, pit bull types accounted for 18.6 percent of reports.
Next, it needs to be determined how many pit bulls live here. If they’re the most popular breed, then having the most bite reports is to be expected. Unfortunately, there is no dog breed census. (It is called licenses, Jerk.)"
"If impound data is reflective of general population (a big if), this seems to show pits are a bit more dangerous than their population would predict."
But, and that is a big but, if you compare their bite ratio to how many are licensed, then the figures come out completely different. Can't do that, that would undermine the creative bookkeeping taught by his puppetmaster, the Whino.
So once again, creative bookkeeping, dodging those true numbers, has struck. Robison, I challenge you to prove that pits are not dangerous. I challenge you to show the severity of those pit bull attacks in Washoe. Just because someone hasn't died yet doesn't mean they aren't left with life altering injuries. Downplaying what a pit is only means more people and their beloved pets have to die.
So now the other side of this story. Robison did what he could to discredit the Animal People News editor, Merritt Clifton. Clifton has issued his response on http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/07/animal-people-editor-responds-to-fact.html
One prominent source used to criticize pit bulls is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on dog bites from 2000 that looked at 238 dog-related fatalities over 24 years. It found that 32 percent involved pit bulls or pit mixes.
The CDC report actually covered the years 1979-1998, a 20-year time frame which is now 13 years behind us. But it is a reasonable starting point.
What is not reasonable is to represent the conclusions from 13 years ago as appropriate in the present context, in view that fatal and disfiguring dog attacks have exponentially increased in the interim, primarily involving the breed category that the CDC found to be most often involved.
But the CDC adds a disclaimer warning the study does not - and there currently is no accurate way to - identify which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
That's me. But Robison made no effort -- none -- to contact me to find out what my latest data shows. Instead, he cited a version which appears to have been at least two years old, apparently obtained second-hand. The current version would list 204 fatalities and 1,076 disfigurements by pit bulls and pit bull mixes.Robison's next statement takes my data set completely out of context: (Typical of those lessons taught by the Whino)
But Clifton's research covers less than 2 percent of dog bites requiring hospitalization
First of all, the subject of my data compilation over the past 30 years is not "dog bites," nor "dog bites requiring hospitalization."
As the headline clearly states, the subject is "Dog attack deaths & maiming."
As the preface explains further, "Over the duration of the data collection, the severity of the logged attacks appears to be at approximately the 1-bite-in-10,000 level."
In other words, what I am studying is by definition the worst of the worst, which is most likely to be reported in depth & detail. (We aren't talking dog bites here when it comes to pits, we talk about death and maiming.)
Would Robison be condemning himself when he stated:
Robison then adds:and relies only on reports in the media and goes further to state:
have been shown to emphasize pit bull attacks over those by other breeds.
Wonder how his editor feels with his condemning the media like that, what about his co-workers?
Clifton responds with this diddy:
As purportedly a member of the working media, Robison should know that media reports include police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. They are, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source.
Robison's next argument is shot to hell by Clifton.
Twenty-seven dogs are registered as dangerous in Washoe County; three are pit bulls.
If pit bulls are 3.3% of all dogs, but 11% of the registered dangerous dogs, that alone signifies elevated risk.
Then the old trick of "identifying a pit bull". I mean, Robison, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Each picture posted was one of a "gripping" dog, the bully breeds.Even the most uneducated, retarded people in the world know these dogs are on the same level as a pit as far as being dangerous.
When you finished reading the excellent article at http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/07/animal-people-editor-responds-to-fact.html, then try on http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/2011/07/battle-over-statsitics.html
All in all, Mark Robison is a disgrace, a shameless puppet of "No Kill". Lying to people only means more attacks, more fatalities, and more families destroyed. "No Kill" doesn't care, just as long as the cult members are picking the program.