www.dogsbite.org/

7 replies [Last post]
elisabooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2013-03-14

Pet Profiles

So I found this website when I was reading about a horrible incident where a pit bull was stabbed to death by the owner of a dog that was offleash who ran up to it while it was leashed.  Full story here -> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pit-bull-stabbed-at-kits-beach-defended-by-owner-1.2435423

Well one of the comments, and they are very heated, quoted what looked like a legitimate website called www.dogsbite.org.  So I go over to look at it and it has an insane bias against Pit bulls.  It doesn't even mention some of the other bad offenders, like Huskies, but seems to only exist to vilify Pit Bulls.  I was wondering does anyone have any more unbiased web sites with actual statistics, not just ones massaged to fit one person's personal vendetta? 

Cheers, 

E. 

talisin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-02-25

Elisa try this one:

http://www.thedogplace.org/Family-Dog/Dog-Bite-Stats-Dokken.asp

I found it to be non biased and works from the line of thought of stats being untrustworthy due to regulations concerning dog bites,

I think if I remember correctly the most likely dog to bite is the dacshund followed by the chihuahua and the rottweiler and pit bull were the least likely it's just that when they do they cause far more damage than those little snots.......making reporting the dog bite a requirement whereas the little dogs can go unreported. The large dog most likely to bite is the golden retriever

KevinK's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-15

Pet Profiles

This bias is simply so uncalled for...  last year, 23 people were killed by pitbuls.  I'm not saying that this is ok, but let's put that into perspective.  Your average person has a significantly better chance of being struck by lightning than being attacked by a pitbull.  Out of the estimated few million pitbulls, 23 were involved in fatal incidents.  Again, while I'm not saying it's ok for anyone to die of a dog bite, these statistics are pretty insignificant, and I don't understand why people get so worked up about them.

talisin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-02-25

There are always going to be reports and stats on this dog doing that and so on; this is why I am so upset with police officers who shoot dogs dead when the worst that would happen to them is at most a dog bite not death.....we have created a society that is terrified that any dog will kill them if they come at them to bite them......it's a hard thing to rectify once it starts rolling down the hill gathering incorrect info and scattering fear.

andrew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2013-01-11

Here is a recent study into 8000 dogs http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20131812-25116.html

I find this topic interesting, yes, some breeds have a predisposition for defending territory, tracking for hunting or rounding up live stock etc, agression and attack are two very different things imo. Rather then stats on breeds I would like to see stats on owners. The demographic, economic and social environment the attacks are born from. Saying a particular breed is more likely to attack you is like saying all Asian men are good at calculus. There is no such thing, other then in your head that says there is a biological explination to such outcomes. 

Having said that, if a environment breeds agression that leads to an attack, certin dogs such as pit bulls are far more dangerous purely from their capabilities to cause major damage.

For example, if all dog owners had to be registered and you were identified as low income, criminal record, a drinker with 6 children from 3 different woman. You should be restricted to small dogs that can't endanger people by agressive behavor. this is an extreme example to make my point.

Here is a statistic, not one dog, ever in the history of the world has ever attacked a person when it had an owner who properly trained, cared for and supported their dog.

KevinK's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-07-15

Pet Profiles

While it's an interesting read, I also think that study is fundamentally flawed. That's bad science at it's best :-) 

Wolfgirl_121's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-11-08

Pet Profiles

There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad dog-owner.

 

Imho... I just don't think people who buy their dogs for accessories should be allowed to have them. Nor do I think that people who buy them to look tough should have them. Honestly, you should have to be liscensed to have any sort of pet, just like you have to to drive a car. This would cut back on the amount of untrained, unfixed animals and there would be less bites, less strays, less problems. 

 

Idk if I've made sense as I'm half asleep, but there's my thought on the subject. 

talisin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-02-25

they should do the same thing before having kids too!! so many unqualified people with kids and animals somehow it would be nice to make them all safe from stupid people