quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

I don't blame the dog. I blame the parents for poor dog training and for poor kid training/supervision.

A fair number of bites come from smaller breeds, especially cocker spaniels and chihuahuas. I think most people really don't understand dogs (or cats) and never take the time to really train them--regardless of breed. And because of that, I also think people don't really take the time to train their children how to treat and act around dogs--especially strange dogs, but family dogs as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: poetessfree

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharonjef2007

quote:

I understand that any dog can attack but statistically, it is those breeds: pitbulls, rotweilers, etc that are doing the attacking. No matter what spin you put on it, the numbers speak for themselves. If people are going to raise dogs that are wild in nature, keep them locked up so that they won't get sued when their "working" dog attacks another innocent human being.

Please show me the statistics you are talking about.

Here is a story on statistics that may surprise you!

Gladly,

The deadliest dogs
Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

Here is link to website: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

quote:


An Analysis of Merritt Clifton’s Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada -
September 1982 to November 13, 2006, from the National Canine Research Council
Mr. Clifton's "study" can be found on a prominent dog-bite attorney website and is being used as
"statistical evidence" of breed behaviors by those who seem unable or unwilling to recognize the critical errors in data
collection and the damaging and erroneous conclusions drawn from a biased and flawed sample. Merritt Clifton’s scrapbook of
newspaper articles is presented, and often accepted, as an unbiased and accurate representation of dog attacks in
the U.S. and Canada. The title and numbers presented as “statistics” suggest that an
unbiased, scientific methodology was used to achieve the results. However, Mr. Clifton arbitrarily excluded dog attacks in which
the breed of dog was not “identifiable,” that is, where no one at the scene, or later, claimed to know what kind of
dogs were involved. Also excluded were dogs deemed to be used for guarding, police work or as fighting dogs. The
uncertainty of any alleged breed identification aside, the exclusion of all attacks by dogs where no breed identification was asserted,
combined with the exclusion of dogs used for a specific function, leaves us a list that is utterly unrepresentative of “dog attacks
and maimings” in the U.S. and Canada. Mr. Clifton’s “study” further suffers from the use of a biased
sample. There is no national organization in the U.S. or Canada that collects data on a systematic basis on the
circumstances or specifics of dog bite-related injuries. In the absence of a professionally reliable data source, news
reports are often substituted in an attempt to identify circumstances surrounding dog attacks. However, newspapers
do not have the interest, desire, resources or ability to provide an accurate or complete profile of dog attacks occurring in the U.S.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvie

One more semi-related comment ...

At some point, I expect that insurance companies will play a larger role in breed-specific restrictions. How? By refusing homeowner's insurance coverage to certain breeds/mixes? And not just refusing to cover dog-related claims, but refusing coverage altogether. I know that there is a list of 14 dog breeds (some pretty rare) that many insurance companies deem "problematic" and it impacts their underwriting analyses.