Clifton has made a bit of a name for himself for his feaux study on dog bites

*******

The day after Gardner's article ran, the Toronto Star ran a typical example of a fear mongering piece (I've posted a picture of the page to the left -- yet can catch it online for yourself here and get a 14-day subscription for free).

The column ran in conjunction with an article about Cheri DiNovo tabling a bill in Ontario's Parliament that would recind the provincial breed ban on 'pit bulls' -- which I wrote about yesterday. 

In The Star's column, it takes a quote from Merrit Clifton stating that without the provincial breed ban -- "all hell would break loose."

However, there is no evidence that would support Clifton's claim.If you look at the number of dog bites by year in Ontario, there has been virtually no change in dog bites since the ban was put into place at the end of 2005 -- in fact, bites have remained very constant (except for 2003, before the ban took effect, numbers were dramatically lower).  Maybe even more telling is that in the past 45 years, the entire nation of Canada has only seen one fatal attack by a pit bull type dog. 

So there appears to be no evidence that all hell had broken loose in the years before the ban -- and no evidence that if the ban were recinded there would be any problems either. So it appears to be yet another attempt by the media (and Clifton) to stir up a fear of all hell breaking loose without any evidence that it would. Meanwhile, as with Gardner's school example, the resources being used to enforce this unenforceable breed ban -- a ban that is based on fear-mongering and not solid fact - would be better used in multiple other ways to deal with REAL problems and concerns....not just made up ones.

But the media -- and politicians like those who were responsible for enacting the ban in the first place - are great about creating fear -- it garners good eyeballs, and votes.  If Ontario wants to really improve public safety (from dog bites and from all other) it will ignore those who rely purely on fear-mongering to try to create policy, and rely solely on those who are using fact-based measures to determine what would be effective policy--and all of those professional organizatoins are 100% against the province's breed ban.

******

I would be remiss if I finished this post without a couple of comments on Merrit Clifton.

Clifton has made a bit of a name for himself for his feaux study on dog bites. I won't go a lot into a lot of detail on this here - -as I've covered his misleading attempts manipulate data to justify breed specific legislation to prevent shelter killinghere, and Lassie Get Help has a really detailed break down of his "analysis" here and here andhere.

It should go without saying that you cannot have an accurate study that is based 100% on media reports (where even the severity of an injury comes solely from a media report) that represents a mere fraction of a percent of the total dog bites that require hospitalization in this country and expect the numbers to tell you much of anything. Never mind that someone who doesn't know the difference between a Bull Mastiff and a Presa Canario, or the sameness of a Blue Heeler and an Australian Cattle Dog, should not be put in charge of tracking anything by breed.

But Clifton thinks it's statistical research -- which is problematic.

But Clifton's most recent "report" points to even a bigger comedy of mis-information that I just feel obligated to touch on - -and shows exactly what happens when someone tries so hard to make a point that they start literally creating data to support it.

In Clifton's 2006 study (that covers media-reported bites from 1982 - November 13, 2006), Clifton's numbers suggest that there were 2,209 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,323 "maimings".

In Clifton's 2009 Study (which covers bites from 1982-through the end of 2009), Clifton reports 2,694 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 1,493 "Maimings".

So from 2006 to 2009, Clifton reports 485 "attacks doing bodily harm" and 170 "maimings"

However, Clifton takes it one step further. He also pulls out the total number of attacks by "pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes".

In 2006, Clifton shows this number to be 1,638 "attacks" and 893 "maimings".  In 2009, he shows 2,147 "attacks" and 1108 "maimings".

So in the time frame, he shows 509 attacks doing bodily harm by his selected groups of breeds and 215 maimings. So in the past 3 years, Clifton's "report" shows that pit bulls, rottweilers and presa canarios were were responsible for MORE  attacks and maimings than he shows even happening -- which is obviously impossible.

For the life of me I cannot find any mathmatical error in the numbers -- and because Clifton doesn't provide any back up information it is impossible to tell where the error is. But needless to say, it pretty much distinguishes any idea that his report is valid if he is reporting three breeds of dogs as being responsible for more attacks than he reports actually happened during a 3 year timeframe.

And that folks, is what happens when you let the fear mongerers lead the parade.

We, as a society are better than this.  And shame on the Toronto Sun for running the fear-mongering article and for continuing to push fruitless, wasteful legislation.