Editor’s note: this is part 1 in a series on dangerous dogs. In part 2, “Dangerous Dogs Part 2: Myths and Misconceptions from Both Pit Bull Advocates and Opponents,” Sarah Albert discusses some of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding pit bulls that come from both pit bull advocates and opponents.
Dog bites and attacks are extremely emotional events. They create a sense of panic and trigger an innate fear within us—the fear of becoming prey. This is something we, as a species, are no longer used to. With an estimated 78 million dogs owned in the United States (not counting homeless dogs) plus dogs living in closer proximity to us, both by becoming family pets and through urbanization in general, it appears that dogs are extremely safe overall. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that around 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year (bitten by about 5.8% of dogs) –with only around 800,000 of those needing medical attention (bites from about 1% of total dogs), and around 20-30 bites causing death (.000038% of total dogs). These facts surrounding serious dog attacks show exactly why dog attacks make so many headlines, and draw so much heated debate – they’re rare, fear-inducing, and easily sensationalized. Of course, this is still a very serious topic for us to discuss. We don’t want to see anyone being mauled by dogs; children bitten and admitted to hospitals; or dogs euthanized for growling at or biting a person or other animal.
However, after examining the debate and data revolving around dog bites and dangerous dogs, it’s clear there is a massive amount of misunderstanding around why dogs bite, which dogs bite, and what may be the appropriate proactive approach to protecting people from dog bites. To begin understanding this topic a bit better, we have to confront some of the issues surrounding this area of discussion and consider the topic of dangerous dogs more closely. To be clear, when we think of the topic of dangerous dogs, dogs labeled as pit bulls or bully breeds tend to come up in the discussion more often than not. They make many headlines and are implicated in a number of dog bite statistics.
Let’s begin by discussing these dog bite statistics. We often see, on websites and social media, bite numbers and percentages being thrown around regarding which dogs bite. This seems, at first glance, like conclusive data that certain breeds may be inherently more dangerous, but there really is more than meets the eye in this case. We want to be skeptical as we examine these data. There are several inherent flaws with dog bite statistics that many people don’t take into account that we’ll discuss here.
There is no national dog bite reporting system in the United States.
The United States has no central reporting agency to track the number of dog bites across the country. This means that all dog bites are not recorded, and there are various measures of which bites people feel need to be reported. Because of this, many less serious bites often go unreported. This makes determining bite frequency difficult.
To know true bite frequency we would need to know the number of each breed in a community’s dog population and compare this to how many of that breed are actually biting. If we were able to get an accurate count of dogs in a community, and dogs of certain breeds, we would then want to compare that frequency to the other dog breeds. Why is this important? Pit bull-type dogs are a very popular type of dog right now. More of them exist in communities, so the likelihood of a bite is higher than with a less popular breed. For example, if we have a dog population of 1,000 and we have 400 pit bull-type dogs and 25 Mastiffs, it makes sense that we would see more pit bull-type dog bites in this community. It would be unfair to look at these as equal populations.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a good idea of how many dogs even exist in any given community. Many dogs go unreported each year, and the only numbers we have may be from dog licensing data from animal control facilities. This would not include dogs not registered, or homeless dogs. Despite this fact, dog bite statistics are generally looked at, by the public, as a reliable estimate on the number of dogs biting, despite the fact that we miss a lot of information just from our lack of data.
Dogs are often listed as purebred, even when they aren’t. “Pit bull” is a generic term that includes several purebred dogs and mixes.
Can you tell which of these dogs is an American Pit Bull Terrier? The other three are not. One is a mixed breed.
When you look at many dog bite statistics, we see that dogs are listed mainly as purebred dogs. This would imply that mixed breed dogs do not bite, or do not bite as frequently. Pit bull-type dogs (which often includes any dog that remotely resembles an American Pit Bull Terrier) are also labeled as simply “pit bulls.”
What exactly is a pit bull-type dog? “Pit bull” actually refers to a more general term today (both legally and socially). It includes several breeds of dogs – American Pit Bull Terriers (where the term “pit bull” came from originally), American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bullies, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, and others. In addition to this, the term also includes mixes of these breeds, and any dog with the physical characteristics of one or more of these dogs (even if they share no genetic ancestry). That’s a LOT of dogs.
We do this “typing” with other mixed breed dogs as well. It is commonplace to see dogs listed as collies, shepherds, labs, or hounds when these dogs are clearly mixes of unknown origin. Sometimes these dogs are listed as purebreds, sometimes as mixed breeds.
This makes things a bit more complicated. When you start adding in purebred dogs and mixes, your pool of total dogs is going to increase significantly. Think back to my first point on calculating bite frequency; our pool of dogs labeled as “pit bulls” can be much larger than the actual population of purebred dogs.
In addition to this, when we’re looking at these statistics, the goal is to have defined sets of data to compare. It is certainly clear that the generic term “pit bull” is not a defined set of data. If we actually broke down this term into its purebred breeds, and required confirmation a dog was a purebred before being labeled as such, perhaps those numbers would decrease. But, this is not what is happening now with our dog identification, and is not terribly realistic.
Visual identification of dogs is often unreliable.
Professionals are only able to identify a dog’s predominate breed around 27% of the time!
Even when we are looking at a dog that has bitten someone, often we have a hard time accurately identifying the breed. We may think we know what breed or mix the dog is, but studies have shown our guesses are often inaccurate and extremely subjective. In one study, animal professionals from around the country were tested on their ability to guess the predominant breed in a mixed breed dog. This was then compared to a DNA ancestry test on the dog. This study even gave the professionals a lot of leniency in guessing the breed – if they chose any breed in the dog (even as low as 25% of its makeup) they were scored as “correct.” With this in mind it was found that, on average, these professionals were only able to accurately determine the breed of dog around 27% of the time. That’s an extremely low accuracy rate compared to how well professionals thought they were doing (or what the public thinks they can do). In this same study, each dog that was assessed by these professionals was labeled with an average of 53 different predominant breeds amongst all the animal professionals.¹ Obviously, those labels are extremely subjective, depending on who is looking at the dog that day. We have to remember that this inaccuracy and subjectivity is reflected in the labels dogs are given by animal shelter professionals and veterinary professionals across the country. These labels stick with dogs their entire lives.
In another study, animal professionals were again asked to give breed labels to dogs with unknown ancestry. Similar to the other study, a DNA analysis was done to determine each dog’s breed ancestry. In this case, researchers found that pit bull sensitivity (the number of true pit bull dogs labeled accurately by staff) was only 50%. On the other end of the spectrum, 38% of non-pit bull-type dogs were nevertheless given the “pit bull” label.² This means we’re missing half of the true pit bulls while also inaccurately labeling other dogs as pit bull-type dogs. Again, not very accurate.
These labels are immensely important. They determine how a dog will be labeled by animal control, the victim, witnesses, and the media if a dog bite does occur. This also determines how the dog is listed in bite statistics. This contributes again to those inherent flaws in dog bite statistics.
These labels are an important point of discussion as well since most bite victims self-report when entering emergency rooms. We leave it up to the average person to accurately identify a dog during an intense, emotional event. If animal professionals are unable to label these dogs adequately in their everyday activities, how can we expect the average bite victim to do this?
So, whether a person is bitten by a loose dog, or even a family dog, the breed labels may or may not be accurate. As you can see, breed labels greatly impact dog bite statistics, and are likely inaccurate.
Dog bite statistics remove a lot of context.
Pit bull-type dogs are popular today. And many are poorly treated. How might this affect reported bite statistics?
When we look exclusively at dog bite statistics, we miss almost the entire story. Again, pit bull-type dogs are popular dogs right now. What we do note is large, popular breeds tend to make up most of the serious dog bites at any given time in history. Popularity is a human, societal factor that changes with time. Historical dog bite statistics tend to reflect this.³ On top of this, there is a lot of context missing when a dog bites someone. We should always take a statistic, or a story of a bite, and consider – what led to this situation?
Imagine a situation where a dog is tethered outdoors almost exclusively. The dog is poorly socialized, under-exercised, highly aroused by situations in their environment, and is starving. A small child wanders into the yard and is mauled by the dog. If we were only looking at dog bite statistics, we would have missed all of the important information about this situation – information that could help us prevent more bites from happening in the future. Instead, all we see are the numbers and a breed label given to the dog. We then draw an inaccurate conclusion that the dog’s breed caused the bite – classic post-hoc fallacy in this case. Correlation does not imply causation. Context is completely missing.
Even in situations where we think we have all of the information, context is often unknown or misrepresented. When we see the media report on a dog attack, we hear sparse information about the situation. Often, the dog is identified as a family pet, and the owner claims they never expected the bite to happen. Often, when we dig into the situation more, we see many warning signs of impending bites. We’ve seen family dogs that live exclusively on chains, used as guard dogs, and being used for breeding purposes (being in heat or guarding puppies). We’ve also seen dogs labeled as pit bull-type dogs who have no similar characteristics to these dogs. Sometimes there are histories with animal control (nuisance reports, dogs growling or biting at other people, dogs roaming frequently, etc.) that suggest the owner was reckless with their dog, or the dog had a history of aggression. In all, we tend to miss a lot of things, and the owners of the dogs often do not want to admit they knew the dog was a danger.
It is important to note – a family dog who is well trained, socialization, and appropriately cared for will generally not showcase the same behaviors as a dog who is unsocialized, abused, neglected, and tethered. Context is critical.
This isn’t to say that all pit bull-type dogs are poorly maintained. A large majority of these dogs are owned by responsible, caring owners. You have people from all demographics and socioeconomic classes owning these dogs, just like any other dog. Again, pit bull-type dogs are very popular right now, both purebred and mixed breeds, so we see more of them across the board. We also see many of them coming into veterinary clinics and being cared for as members of the family. Remember, according to bite estimates, dogs are very safe. Millions of dogs are living in homes, and doing nothing to hurt anyone each and every day. The owner and the living conditions of the dog do have a large influence over a dog’s behavior, it’s not just genetics. Instead of focusing on breed or mix in our statistics, let’s look closer at the context. It’s likely we’ll find many more common factors that could help us create better ways to keep people and dogs safe.
Poor treatment of a breed is a major reason that the breed may be associated with biting.
Pit bulls are often considered status symbols in gang culture and have been used in street-level dog fighting.
We also have to remember that some dogs gain popularity for the wrong reasons. Popular culture has made many dog breeds popular for negative reasons throughout the course of history. These are dogs that are sought for guarding, protection, or fighting purposes. Functions that all encourage aggression. When this happens, we see bites increase in those breeds. Once this popularity shifts, we tend to see those breeds biting less frequently.
For example, in the early 20th century German Shepherds were considered to be dangerous dogs, and the number of people owning these dogs for negative reasons increased. Bites subsequently increased. Eventually, their reputation received a makeover with the “Rin Tin Tin” series and their popular use in police and guide dog work. The bites started to drop.
Pit bulls have been largely associated with gang and thug culture since the 1990s, and have been involved heavily in street-level dog fighting. These instances have created dogs that are being owned by people who encourage aggression. We also see these dogs more likely to be neglected, tethered, and abused. Would it make sense that these same dogs, regardless of breed, would bite?
On the flip side, Labrador retrievers are a popular breed today, but have a very positive image as the quintessential family dog. These are dogs that are typically kept in home environments as family pets. They are usually owned humanely, and are generally more socialized. That positive image rarely makes them desirable for people who want to encourage aggression.
Replace pit bull-type dogs with the next popular dog, and you’re going to see this trend continue. Dangerous breeds are highly influenced by their popularity and portrayal in popular culture.
Long-term study finds multiple preventable factors in most dog bite incidences
If you’re interested in some of the management factors that lead to fatal dog bites, I suggest looking at this study which examined these factors more closely. The researchers found that breed was not a significant factor, and that oftentimes breed was incorrectly assigned to dogs, or completely unknown. This was also a unique study in that it did not rely solely on media reports, but examined a more comprehensive view of fatal bites that occurred, as well as cross-examining reports from the media, law enforcement, medical examiners/coroners, as well as other sources and documents.
Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)
Human ignorance of dog stress signals contributes to bites.
The average dog owner may not be aware of common stress signals in dogs that precede bites, and may often even escalate the dog’s stress unknowingly, resulting in a bite.
Sometimes, dogs bite because people miss the signals that a dog was giving leading up to the bite. Unfortunately, many people assume a dog is comfortable with a situation because they don’t see obvious stress signs, such as fleeing or tucking the tail. Dogs often display more subtle signs to display their discomfort with situations and to politely ask people to leave them be. These often go ignored or unseen – eventually leading to a bite. This is where we often hear stories of dogs that bit without warning, or out of the blue. This is rarely the case – almost all dogs warn before biting.
With small children, even the smallest bite in the right place has the capacity to seriously injure or kill. This is important, too, as people often assume only large dogs can maim or kill, but small dogs have been implicated in killing or seriously injuring small children as well.
Not all aggression is equal.
When we talk about aggression in dogs, the public tends to consider aggression as one very specific behavior. Aggression is a very complex trait, and not all situations where dogs display aggression should be considered equal. There are dogs that showcase aggression towards members of their family or people they are familiar with; while others are only aggressive towards strangers. Some dogs are aggressive towards other dogs; and some show predatory behavior towards children, small dogs, cats, and other animals. Some dogs display defensive or fear-induced aggression.
Even a friendly human will use defensive aggression when they feel threatened. But we expect dogs not to?
Consider yourself. You may be a friendly person overall—social and outgoing with most everyone. Let’s say you are out one night alone and a stranger comes up to you and corners you in what you consider a threatening manner. You verbally tell them to leave you alone while giving “leave me alone” body language signals at the same time. The stranger continues to advance upon you, ignoring your requests. Would it be out of the question for you to defend yourself in this situation? Does this mean you’re an aggressive individual? Of course not. We respond to fear and stress very differently than we do in more relaxing situations. Dogs are the same way, but we have to remember that what we consider a threat and stressful is different than what they may consider stressful or threatening. This is important to note as there have been dogs that have killed people who were fear aggressive—these dogs attack defensively because they fear the actions of the human, actions that the human may not recognize as causing fear in dogs. This is one reason it’s important to understand dog body language. There was a post on this blog recently on how to understand dog body language that explains in detail how to read the signs.
Conclusion: these aren’t really statistics at all.
To sum up, there are many issues inherent with these dog bite statistics that are being shared online. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who published probably one of the most well-known and shared sets of dog bite data, has even stated the issues inherent within their own study and the downsides to using breed-specific enforcement to control dog bites.
“Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”⁴
Just by examining these inherent flaws in our current dog bite statistics, it’s actually fair to state these really aren’t statistics at all, but rather just a small picture of dogs being reported for biting. It may give us an idea on the number of serious bites, but we can’t draw definitive conclusions about why dogs are biting or which dogs are biting from these numbers alone. We have to examine the lack of comprehensive nationwide reporting, the preponderance of breed misidentification, and context (including owner management) more closely, and actually ask for information beyond the headlines to find out how to best protect people from dog bites in the future.
¹ Croy, K. C., Levy, J. K., Olson, K. R., Crandall, M. & Tucker, S. J. (2012) What kind of a dog is that? Accuracy of dog breed assessment by canine stakeholds. Retrieved from: https://vetmed-maddie.sites.medinfo.ufl.edu/files/2012/05/2012-Croy-Madd…
² Olson, K. R., Levy, J. K., Norby, B., Crandall, M. M., Broadhurst, J. E., Jacks, S., Barton, R. C., & Zimmerman, M. S. (2015). Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal, 206, 197-202.
³ “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218.11 (2001): 1732-749.
⁴ Sacks, Jeffrey J., Leslie Sinclair, Julie Gilchrist, Gail C. Golab, and Randall Lockwood. “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 217.6 (2000): 836-40.
Image attribution
byrdyak © 123RF.com, Benoit Daoust © 123RF.com, Daniela Jakob © 123RF.com, Eric Isselee © 123RF.com, Svetlana Pisareva © 123RF.com, Susan Richey-Schmitz © 123RF.com, Eric Isselee © 123RF.com, mexitographer © 123RF.com, Svetoslav Sokolov © 123RF.com, Rob Byron © 123RF.com, Susan Richey-Schmitz © 123RF.com, iStock.com/kandypix
We encourage you to copy and share this blog post! But please respect the author by complying with his or her chosen Creative Commons license. View human-readable license summary. (Note that this license only applies to the text of the blog post, not to any media files embedded in the post, including images and videos, as some of these may contain a third-party copyright license.) Alternatively, you may share the post freely via social media by clicking on the social icons elsewhere on this page.
This blog post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Sarah Albert
Latest posts by Sarah Albert (see all)
- Dangerous Dogs Part 2: Myths and Misconceptions from Both Pit Bull Advocates and Opponents - July 21, 2017
- Dangerous Dogs Part 1: Taking a Bite Out of Dog Bite Statistics - June 1, 2017
- “Breed Branding” - April 14, 2017
The one organization that regularly puts out dog bite stats is actually a group who lobbies for breed bans. What is worst is media uses their overly biased and skewed stats. The org's supporters have been known to say “when a bite occurs call it a “pit bull” and let them prove it's not”. The person who started the org has said she wants all “pit bulls” dead. THAT is the organization whose stats many in mainstream media use in their articles. It is a sad state of affairs. Great article. Keep em coming.
This is where we agree that progressive and educated solutions are needed. BSL does not mean a breed ban but is a useful tool to legislate regulations that in the past have been self regulated and done voluntarily. It is time to regulate backyard mixes and crack down on their overbreeding.
There is so much effort to nullify and discredit the raw data. Why,I have to ask myself? Articles such as yours have an undercurrent of an agenda. The raw data should and does identify trends. The trend currently of pit type dogs dominating serious bites is fact. The high courts have determined that the average person can identify a pit bull. Pit Bulls not being a breed has truth in that they have always been mixes which is why the UKC was originally created. Pits did not have a specific breed standard but were registerable if they won 3 fights. The DNA companies have clauses that clearly state they cannot DNA test for a pit bull.
just more white noise from the intentionally ignorant?
Note – My reply is split into multiple comment fields due to limitations of the commenting software.
Some of these questions were addressed in the article. Please reread the section on the problems with accurate breed identification for starters. Even dog professionals only correctly identify a dog's breed about 27% of the time, and even then, they are deemed as correct if the dog only is 25% of the identified breed. This is *extremely* inaccurate. The “High Courts” are nothing more than a small group of human beings who make decisions for millions of other human beings. They are by no means experts on breed identification. If dog professionals who work with dogs on a daily basis can't accurately identify a dog's breed, how can these folks called the “High Courts” who do not work with dogs, logically conclude that the average person on the street can identify breed?
This goes back to your first question regarding raw data – that “data” as you can see, is not *accurate* data to begin with if breed identification is, as a whole, extremely inaccurate. I would also suggest reading the insert in Sarah’s article about the JAVMA study that found that breed was *not* a factor in Dog Bite Related Fatalities (DBRF's) in its study of cases from 2000-2009 in the US.
That said, let's say theoretically, that in the last decade it was indeed pit bull-type dogs that caused the most DBRF's in the US – this still doesn't mean that the pit bull-type breeds are *inherently* dangerous or that banning these breeds makes people safer from dog bites. For several reasons:
1. Context – which Sarah described in the article – popular perceptions of dogs and how those perceived to be “aggressive” breeds tend to be treated more poorly and encouraged to be aggressive (used in dog fighting rings, as guard dogs, etc.) Context is key to the cause of bites – it is essential to understand this if we want to reduce bites.
I understand how you came about your conclusions but ask that you dig deeper. The studies I read beginning I Richmond VA showed an over 95% rate in identifying pit bulls.
Next you are not seperating bites vs. fatal maulings which is significant. The most popularly owned dogs typically bite but that is far different than those blocky head mixes of a particular breed type that are killing and disfiguring. I need to state that historically there have always been times when a breed type reaches popularity to the extent that they are overbred indiscriminately and produce dogs with unpredictable aggression. This is not a new phenomenon except that at this time the pit rescue community denies this issue exists. This is preventing tried and true solutions.
Why punish owners of responsibly maintained dogs? What if you pass BSL and people switch to another breed? Or want the banned breed more because of its new exoticness, or us confirming what they think – these dogs are dangerous, and I want them. Why are we not targeted irresponsible owners of ALL dogs. If I have a child, I want them to be protected against ALL dogs, not just pit bull type dogs. If someone's kid gets mauled by an aggressive husky, they're going to ask why the BSL in town didn't protect them. Maybe because the law didn't help ACO figure out how to handle a poor owner, but instead focused on a BREED of dog.
Honestly, I get more frustrated at all the talk about breed legislation because we shy away from the other dogs mauling and killing people. Why do those victims not matter? Why are we not tackling the root issues of dog bites? If BSL works so well, why are cities repealing those laws to go with more breed neutral laws, citing cost and ineffectiveness of BSL as a reason to repeal? If people care so much about dog bite victims, they honestly need to care about the causes of ALL dog bites, otherwise we'll go through this cycle again with another popular large dog of choice in a few decades and we'll be sitting here having this conversation again and people will somehow think that it's only breed causing these issues. I definitely don't deny that these dogs are making up a large number of bites, but the trends just aren't there to show that it's a breed issue – if it was they would have topped the charts for over a century now…and they haven't. I want true solutions, rooted in facts and effectiveness. I want irresponsible people held accountable for their dog's actions. People control and maintain dogs and in America a person who is responsible should be allowed to keep their dog.
The Richmond study you cite is problematic for a few reasons. It's not a peer-reviewed study. It wasn't published, and the study wasn't conducted as a breed ID study in the first place. There's some real methodology issues to consider there. There was no random sampling of dogs. We couldn't see how many staff were involved to look at inter-observer reliability. For all we know several staff members felt a dog was not a pit, but was included. We don't know how many true pits they missed that weren't included in the sample. Just a lot of issues that we don't see with the studies that were posted in the article I have here. This is also just one shelter – the other studies look at either a large sampling of animal professionals, or multiple shelters…both with random samplings of dogs given. Again, both were peer reviewed and published – I think you're looking at a Richmond SPCA “study” posted in ASPCAPro – I would definitely not consider that a true study on dog breed identification in its setup or discussion.
Also, even considering fatal attacks, you still have to consider how low those numbers are based on numbers of dogs. Is that really worth spending the time and money on BSL that doesn't show to be effective at stopping those? The American Bar Association doesn't agree with it. Case law actually has some examples of judges showcasing BSL to be void for vagueness or confusing as a result of the breed ID issues or ACO inability to properly identify breeds. The CDC doesn't believe in BSL, neither did the Obama administration. These aren't groups with “agendas”, but rather people who have looked at the peer reviewed studies coming out. You have countries repealing BSL (Italy, Netherlands, places in Spain) and cities and counties in the US because they haven't worked. You also have states banning BSL because of the ineffectiveness. They rather want to focus on human behavior and responsible ownership.
Historically, if you look at DBRFs you have time periods where bully breeds were still popular, often as family dogs, where other dogs were the culprits. I've seen high numbers across the last two centuries of husky type dogs biting and killing people, and St. Bernards…but no one is talking about these dogs….let's focus on ALL dogs that are a nuisance or threat….and then look at those owners to see what the issue is with their management of these dogs. That targeted approach makes more sense and is more cost effective.
Even if you look at the numbers, some people say that pit bull types account for 6% of the population. I think this is low and only including registered purebreds. So, we could inflate that, but I'll go low…there's 80 million dogs in the US. That's about 4.8 million pit bulls. There are about 30 DBRFs or so each year. That means that even if they were all caused by pit bull type dogs (they're not) that 0.000625% of pit bulls are killing someone. Only 800,000 people need medical attention for dog bites each year (serious maulings and need for some stitches maybe). Again, let's say ALL those are pit bulls (they're not). That's only 16% of the dogs seriously hurting people. Now…if you pass BSL you're punishing far more people than necessary…and missing the owners of other breeds of dogs causing maulings and deaths to happen. This is not an epidemic….bites have not significantly increased since pit bulls have become popular – but you would think so after watching 24 hour news cycles and looking on the internet (which wasn't accessible 50 years ago when other dogs were causing the damage).
Even digger deeper, your studies you've looked at and your arguments just really don't hold up to the numbers. Aggression is so much more complex than people think it is (different types of aggression/motivation, nature and nurture, epigenetics influence, etc.). People have the power, people maintain and control dogs. It really makes more sense to make laws for PEOPLE.
2. Large popular breeds that are perceived to be aggressive at any given time in history in a particular geo-political region, tend to be the ones identified as representing the most fatal bites at that time in history in that region. This perceived “aggressive” breed has changed over the centuries and decades and varies from region to region. In current times, pit bull-type dogs have the misfortune as being perceived and treated as the most aggressive breeds in the US. This article discusses some of the past perceived “dangerous” breeds in the US: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dickey…. It also discusses why breed bans make us less safe.
In regards to other geo-political regions – Canada, for instance: “Of the roughly 60 dog-bite deaths reported in Canada since 1964, “pit bulls” have been involved in only two.” Sled dogs and huskies seem to be implicated as being the breeds responsible for more than 25 of those bites (from link above). So why are some municipalities in Canada banning breeds with much lower DBRF's than other breeds? Would it be political suicide to ban sled dogs in Canada? I'm betting it would.
And in the UK – what's the most likely breed of dog to bite you in current times? Labradors, according to this 2016 article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do…
And in Australia in a study of dog bites from January 1990 to July 1993. “A total of 356 dog attacks were identified. Three-quarters of hospital treated attacks were caused by 5 of 160 available breeds. The breeds of dog recorded for these cases were as follows: German Shepherds (25.3%); Bull Terriers (13.6%); Blue or Red Heelers (13.6%); Dobermans (11.7%); and Rottweilers (9.1%).” http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.asp…
This is just a small sampling – if we look at dog bite statistics worldwide and over decades or centuries (if that were possible), I think we'd see a clear pattern of bites being associated with the popular perceived “dangerous” breed at the time, with those breeds being different in each geo-political region in different periods of time.
You are correct in that popular breeds became aggressive after being overbred but it isn't perception but fact. Those breed groups when threatened with BSL started to self police and admit the issues in the breed. The bottom line is they admitted it was the dogs themselves not poor ownership or unruly kids that were the problem.
3. Professional veterinary medical associations say breed bans don't work:
“The Australian Veterinarian Association (AVA) reckons that focusing on breeds is the worst way to solve the problems. In its extensive report Dangerous Dogs – A Sensible Solution the AVA stated: “The Australian Veterinary Association is opposed to breed-based dog control measures because the evidence shows that they do not and cannot work. They’ve not worked anywhere in the world.”” http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-…
“The American Veterinary Medical Assn., the National Animal Control Assn., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Bar Assn. and even the White House have denounced this approach.” http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-dickey…
With all this in mind, I go back to your original question where you said that you think there is so much effort to discredit and nullify the raw data – and you ask yourself if there is an agenda to this. My answer is – YES! The agenda is to inject accurate, more comprehensive and relevant information into the debate about which dogs are dangerous. The issues that cause a dog to become dangerous are more complex than simply blaming dogs of a particular breed. And as noted, the raw “data” itself is not very accurate to begin with. Let's have a real discussion about dangerous dogs with real solutions and stop this madness of breed-discriminatory legislation, which not only makes us humans less safe, but has caused the deaths of perhaps thousands, or hundreds of thousands of harmless (banned) dogs. Legislation that has, in some cases, forced responsible dog owners to move to different provinces or areas where their beloved and harmless family member is not banned by ignorant politicians simply due to the genes she carries.
Surely in 2017 we humans can come up with more informed, compassionate and effective solutions than simply banning specific genes.
Breed discrimination laws are barbaric. Let’s do better.
The “trend” is a dog bite reporting behavior. Many non “pit bull” bites never get past local reporting. Where two types of dogs are involved, the “pit bull type” is frequently the only one identified when the news goes nationwide or the second dog somehow ends up not being there at all. The other aspect of this trend is that it is not
German Shepherd types or Rottweiler types or Doberman Pinscher type dog or any other type dog. Only Pitt Bulls get a type which is every square headed short haired dog. I've seen everything from giant jowly droolly mastiffs to itty bittty mini pinschers misidentified as Pitt Bulls. Worse those particularly uneducated people get mightily offended by my laughter. Most people assume breed wrongly based on whatever dog breed is the “Scarey Monster” of the day
This is absolutely true. Media tends to be negative and fear inducing – and whatever is considered a “bad breed” of the day makes more media coverage. I'm with you though – I've seen many dogs labeled pit bulls that are much too large to be a standard pit bull breed (usually 60 pounds or less). This does have an impact – not sure if you've read it or not but Karen Delise has a great book called Pit Bull Placebo. There's an online download for the free book. She looked into the stories from the media vs the reality of the situation and found that same conclusion. Also found that many dogs labeled as pit bulls were nothing even close – including dogs with long hair or other non-bully breed features. These stories went out as pit bull despite animal control reports suggesting otherwise.
She also found the increased coverage of pit bull type attacks vs those of other breeds. And she studied bite trends across many decades – fatal ones which tend to all be reported, regardless of breed as someone died (while media may not cover, there is a report filed with animal control, police, and/coroner offices to follow up on). Those fatal bites are really a good way to look at trends because they're the most complete information out there. But she tracks the bad dog trends there. Great read – highly suggest if you haven't already! 🙂
I TOTALLY agree. And there is another problem and the problem is humans in general do not like to be told that they are doing something wrong with a dog or being told they are doing something wrong in general. I had a really interesting (sad) encounter with a young man who was trying to make friends with a dog who was clearly afraid and she was giving him every signal in the world to leave her alone and he kept pushing and pushing and I told him numerous times please stop doing what you're doing the dog is afraid and if you get too close she is likely to bite you. This was not my dog… the owner of the dog was sitting there and saying oh she's not afraid she's just a little bit shy and I told him no you don't understand her body language she is absolutely afraid and does not want that fellow doing what he's doing. This guy was bending over forward which is a terrible body posture to do with any dog but especially a fearful one and he kept going forward with his hand out over her head trying to pet her and I was sure he was going to get bitten except that she had Escape Routes available. And it was a lucky thing that she did because I'm positive she would have bitten him had he cornered her or had she felt she couldn't get away. The owner was totally oblivious to what she was saying and I had to try to educate both of them but the young man totally did not listen and insisted that I was wrong and he just wanted to be friends and she needed to know he just needed to be friends! This is the kind of crap people do that gets them bitten and then they blame the dog! I wanted a haul off and sock that guy in the mouth. I would have loved to have grabbed the owner by the hair and giving him a good shake too! Of course I did neither of those things but I kept insisting to both men that this dog had fear issues. The owner was not young… probably was in his late fifties early sixties and eventually did listen to what I had to say. The stupid kid however walked off still thinking he was right. Sigh….apparently you can't fix stupid!
Thanks for the comment, Roberta! It is frustrating when people don't listen when a dog professional tries to make a learning moment happen to make things safer for both them and their dog. I've definitely seen that happen before. It is human nature to resist new information that contradicts what you think, unfortunately a lot of dogs suffer from that when their fear is ignored for too long. Good thing the dog had an escape route in that case, or I'm sure a bite would have surely happened. Dogs only have so many ways to say “go away, I'm scared” before they feel they have to defend themselves.
And maybe it's on us as dog professionals to reach people in a way that feels less like preaching or lecturing to get them to be more open to these ideas, but I definitely understand what you mean about people being hesitant when told they're doing something to scare their own dog, or make their dogs more dangerous in general.