Dog Attacks

(As you read down this page you will see how my views have been swayed as I have read around the topic. That’s what happens when you research a topic rather than just holding on to cherished ideas that are allowed to go unchallenged - you risk having to change your mind. Wow!)

Yes, it’s a tragedy every time that a child is injured or even killed by a dog attack. Such instances bring the usual “Ban all dogs” demand from limited hacks in papers and on TV. (“Hack - a writer who does a lot of low quality work.”)

Time to remember the message from “DOGS BITE But Balloons And Slippers Are More Dangerous”

“Dogs are dangerous. And they are more dangerous to children than to adults. Not as dangerous of course, as kitchen utensils, drapery cords, five-gallon water buckets, horses, or cows. Not nearly as dangerous as playground equipment, swimming pools, skateboards, or bikes. And not remotely as dangerous as family, friends, guns, or cars.

Here’s the reality. Dogs almost never kill people. A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or a balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident. Your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in 18 million. You are five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning.

The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don’t actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level.

Dogs enhance the lives of millions more people than even the most inflated estimates of dog-bite victims. Infants who live with dogs have fewer allergies. People with dogs have less cardiovascular disease, better heart attack survival, and fewer backaches, headaches, and flu symptoms. Petting your dog lowers stress and people who live with dogs just plain feel better than people who don’t.

Yet lawmakers, litigators and insurers press for less dog ownership. This must stop. We must maintain perspective. Yes, dogs bite. But even party balloons and bedroom slippers are more dangerous.”

 

Perspective

In the US in 2003, 20 people (of which 10 were children) were killed by dog attacks.
In the same year 2000 children in the US were killed by their parents.
For other statistics see http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer

A child is safer with a “dangerous dog” than with a parent?

Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In half (52%) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect.

In 2005/2006 in England and Wales,

• 24 children were killed at the hands of their parents.
• 13 children were the victim of suspects known to them (i.e. other family member, friend or acquaintance)
• 12 children were the victim of strangers.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/Statistics/KeyCPStats/4_wda48747.html

The Dangerous Dogs Act

In 2008, Ryan O'Meara, editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, wrote: -

“A couple of weeks ago I was asked to do an interview for BBC’s The One Show regarding the DDA - specifically BSL (breed specific legislation) - only there was a bit of a problem.

The makers of the show wanted/needed someone to put forward “the other side” i.e the case for BSL within the DDA. Nobody would step forward. They tried every avenue. The government, the police, the original legislator - not a single person could they find who was willing to appear on camera and give a glowing endorsement for this highly derided piece of legislation. Quite telling.

But it’s certainly not compelling enough to scrap this law purely because of this superficial piece of reasoning. No. But it is compelling to scrap this law when we look at the figures.”

See his full article at: http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/1207/the-dangerous-dogs-act-its-time-for-breed-specific-legislation-to-go-go-now/

For details of the Dangerous Dogs Act, http://www.cfidos.co.uk/the-dangerous-dogs-act/

Breed Specific Legislation

http://www.deednotbreed.org.uk/

This website states:

“No breed or type of dog is more likely to attack than any other. Lack of proper training and responsibilty by the owner is much more likely to create a dangerous dog.

Unless legislation is followed that deals with the owners who fail to control their dog, regardless of breed, we will never reduce dog attacks. If we, the general public, allow this to continue we may find we are opening up more discussion of adding to the banned breeds. Your breed or type could be next.”

What if the Breed is the Problem?

A study in the USA published in 2000 found that Rottweilers and pit-bull-type dogs are responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog bites, with Rottweilers being number one. In 1997 and 1998 these two types together were responsible for 67% of all fatal dog bites, and they don’t make up anything like 67% of the total dog population of the USA..)

Jeffrey Sacks et al., “Special Report: Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998”, JAVMA 217, No 6 (Sept 2000)

More recent studies have shown something that some dog owners may not want to think about.

Myth 38 from “The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs” (2009) is the belief that “You can make a Pit Bull ... or any other breed that has been specifically bred for aggression into a sweet dog if only you raise him right.” In response to this myth it concludes:

“The killing bite and uncontrolled aggression are most certainly genetically determined in a number of dog breeds. (That’s what we have been breeding them for, to be fighting dogs!) The brain abnormality behind this behaviour is strongly heritable.

Just like the Border Collie and the Husky, these breeds have been developed to perform a specific task. You can’t take the behaviour out of their genes - make them sweet - by raising them a certain way, anymore than you can take the stalk out of the Border Collie or the sled gait out of the Husky just by raising him differently. The main difference is that it’s generally not a tragedy when the Border Collie or the Husky does his thing.”

Myth 39 is the belief that “The serious to fatal damage the aggressive breeds inflict when they attack isn’t due to their genes, but rather due to having the wrong kind of owners.” In response to this myth it concludes:

“This myth is true in the sense that these dogs always have the wrong owners, people who shouldn’t have a dog in the first place. However, it’s false because it is the genetics of the dog that make him a killer, regardless of what kind of owner he has. In other words, these dogs aren’t killers because they have the wrong owners, rather they attract the wrong owners because they are killers.”

 

If you want one of the fighting dogs (Pit Bull types, Rottweillers, ...) as a “pet” you might want to ask yourself,

• Why do I want a “fighting” dog? 
• Why do I want a dog that is a ticking bomb, that if I am lucky may never go off ?
• Why do I want to support the breeding of such dogs?

What does it say about you as a person?

Natural dogs are social animals that want to get along with others. They have well developed senses to alert them to the state of mind of others, and to send calming signals to defuse potential problems. However, for centuries man has been interfering in the breeding of dogs, and has produced some very unnatural dogs along the way. Potentially the most dangerous of these are the so-called fighting dogs and guarding breeds.

We have bred fighting dogs for centuries, so is it any suprise that some of them, without warning, explode and kill some other peaceable dog or person? That’s what they were bred to do, and to do so without the usual warning signals that dogs use to alert others to their heightened state of arousal. They were bred to keep attacking even when they are offered calming signals from their victim, and in many cases to keep attacking even after the victim is dead.

These aren’t natural dogs; nature doesn’t design psychopaths.