Dirty Liars Exposed: Bulladelphia

Pit bull advocates are known to lie through their teeth with no sense of shame or guilt. This lying contributes to the pit bull problem; unsuspecting owners get a "nice" pit bull, only to later be killed by their own dog.

I found a site that is no different - it is full of blatant lies. What I wonder is why people believe this bullshit even when faced with the facts. Here's a breakdown on a couple of the lies on bulladelphia.org.

Lie #1: "No spayed/neutered, indoor pit bull has ever killed a person."


It doesn't take much digging around to find cases of loved, spayed/neutered indoor pit bulls killing people. Like Tina Marie Canterbury.

October 2, 2007 | Middleburg, FL
Tina Marie Canterbury, 42-years old, was killed by her two red-nosed pit bulls. She had raised both dogs, Rebel and Thor, since they were pups. Both had been neutered and lived indoors. According to her cousin, Bill Canterbuy, the dogs often slept with her at night. Tina had been taking out the trash when the dogs attacked. Her son attempted to rescue her and was also bitten. Authorities eventually shot and killed both dogs. Animal Crimes Detective Annie Henderson said,"This was a responsible owner. These animals never had any history of any type of aggression."

Dirty lie exposed.

Lie #2:
"According to studies by the CDC, a person is more likely to be killed…
- by a family member
- by a falling coconut
- in a bedroom slipper-related accident
- choking on a marble
- drowning in a 5-gallon bucket
- getting struck by lightning
…than by a pit bull."

These "studies" were never performed. I emailed the website and asked them politely if they could send me a direct link to the source of the material, but all they could provide was the front page. How do I know these studies weren't performed? Besides n extensive search of the CDC's website, I took the liberty to ask the CDC whether or not the studies were conducted. Their response when asked if the scenarios listed by bulladelphia.org really are more likely to kill a person than a pit bull:

"NCHS [CDC's National Center for Health Statistics] does not collect data to confirm the statistical claim you are referring to."

Translation: They doesn't perform that kind of study. If they don't perform those studies, there is no way that bulladelphia.org could have acquired that information from the CDC. However, in the same email response was this, that contradicts bulladelphia.org's claims:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites found that at least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human deaths over 20 years. Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs were involved in more than half of the deaths."

I also found a report conducted by the CDC on breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, which also contradicts bulladelphia.org's claims:

"...the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF [dog bite related fatalities] in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

That's right. Breed-specific problem.

It's worth noting that for falling coconuts to be more likely to kill somebody than a pit bull, a falling coconut would have to kill a U.S. citizen every 21 days. I don't know about you, but where I live in the Midwestern U.S., there are more pit bulls than palm trees.

Case closed. Again, pit bull advocates are quite often liars, because to justify keeping a pit bull, one must tell blatant, dirty lies. Pit bull advocates also choose to ignore the facts because it will go against their twisted worldviews. Why do they not feel guilty?

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's the story behind the "coconuts kill more people than X" myth. It started with sharks, and it was recycled for pit bulls. Whatever you plug the myth into, it's false.

"the pit bull excess in deaths is real and growing"

this comment was recently left on craven desires:
I mean yes, there are more Pit bull type dogs in the US (the most popular dog in 2011) so obviously there will be more involvements w/ the breed then any other breed. There are more of them then any other type of dog, this equals more attacks...simple. But even w/ that in mind, do you know what your actual chances of getting attacked by one of these dogs are? Slim to none.

sometimes the pit bull apologists blame pit bull violence on the owners, sometimes they question the breed, sometimes they play the race card and blame the media and sometimes they point to the supposed massive popularity of america's dog to justify their over representation in these statistics of violence. whatever the flavor of defense the nutters serve up, it is typically followed up by a condescending minimization of risk by pointing to guns, cars, bath tubs, ATVs, bees, cows and coconuts as greater threats to life and limb. KAREN DELISE has honed the condescending minimization to an art.

it is often said that pit bulls make up approximately 5% of the dog population. i am skeptical about an accurate estimation of the pit bull population given their use in underground dog fighting and their attraction to the criminal element & the scofflaw types in society. add to that the high number of irresponsible people who fail to spay and neuter pit bulls which leads to more pit mixes, i could easily see their population doubling 5%.

popularity is somewhat dependent on region. for example, there are probably many more huskies in alaska than there are in arizona and many more pit bulls in arizona than there are in alaska but the easy peasy lab appears to be fairly universal in its appeal. the most popular dog in my area is by far the lab and lab mixes and i would estimate that the pit firmly occupies second place. whether pit bulls make up 5%, 10% or even 20% of the dog population, they most certainly do not make up 70% of all dogs in the united states, which is roughly their percentage of fatalities last year.

i took a quick look at petfinder.com last night and here are the most common breeds available for adoption.

23,670 labs 13.7%
18,380 pits 10.6%
15,338 chihs 8.9%
8,305 beagles 4.8%
7,167 boxers 4.2%
6,949 GSDs 4.0%
5,802 dachs 3.4%
5,464 amstaffs 3.2%

as i look around me, i'd say that the top four breeds looks about right. but i'd probably swap the boxer out for goldens and swap the amstaffs for huskies.

if there is any truth to what pit bull advocates say about breed popularity resulting in an increase in attacks then the top four killers, scalpers and amputators would be represented according to their popularity: labs, pits, chihuahuas and beagles.

i leave the nutters with a few questions to ponder. why was there not a single lab fatality in 2011? why hasn't a single lab been credited for scalping a child or amputating an arm or a leg of a senior citizen in 2011? and why wasn't the popular chihuahua or a beagle involved in inflicting this sort of trauma in 2011?

pit bull owners also like emphasize the risk of being killed by a pit bull, or any dog, as ridiculously low. at least one CDC doctor recognized the growing threat that dogs pose and in particular the threat that pit bulls pose in 1989.

"We're trying to focus public attention on this greatly underestimated public hazard," said one of the researchers, Dr Richard Sattin, chief of unintentional-injuries section of the Centers of Disease Control.

In 1979, pit bulls accounted for 20 percent of fatal attacks by dogs. That figure had risen to 62 percent by 1988.

Nobody knows the dog population of the United States or the exact breakdown by breed, Sattin said.

However, he added: "We do not believe that pit bulls represent anywhere near 42% percent of dogs in the United States. Therefore, we believe that the pit bull excess in deaths is real and growing.

Dr Sattin's warning was not only NOT heeded in 1989, the CDC completely reversed their position and officially claimed that breed doesn't matter. as a result, the pit bull menace continued to expand and now in 2011, pit bulls account for 71% of fatalities.

Eugene Register-Guard, September 15, 1989 (thank you vintage!)


Dr Richard Sattin is the president of the Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research.