I think its quite common to try to pass off dogs as being of a more supposedly nicer mix. Very careless to get a dog like that and let your kid sit there stroking it.
Multiple sources supporting my assertion, and you think that's undermining?
I don't even want to know what mental gymnastics you're pulling out of your arse to arrive at that opinion...
If you'd actually read the links, you'd know that a good number of people won't report it because they fear losing the dog. Accidents happen, mistakes are made and it's often not the dog's fault, so even in bites that may be quite severe people deal with it themselves. This is actually a problem in industries that use working dogs as this lack of history impacts rehoming, either if the dog does not take to the training or for when they later retire.
Multiple sources supporting my assertion, and you think that's undermining?
I don't even want to know what mental gymnastics you're pulling out of your arse to arrive at that opinion...
I don't have an issue with your sources, it was the dodgy claim that I questioned and that you've not supported. That some less severe bites are underreported is about as relevant to my argument as highlighting that say Chihuahuas are more aggressive... It's the severe attacks and deaths I'm concerned about... you know the ones that *are* typically reported!
Plenty of other dogs cause not only deaths, but more often life-changing injuries and damage, yet often go unreported or recorded in statistics, which skews the disproportion.[sic]
That's what you claimed, you're talking about other dogs breeds causing deaths and life-changing injuries but you then point to sources and give me quotes talking about less serious attacks being underreported... what does that have to do with the claim you made? Perhaps try and address the claim I queried instead of turning to google and coming back to dump in links/quotes but no coherent argument to support the claim in quesiton.
I don't have an issue with your sources, it was the dodgy claim that I questioned and that you've not supported. That some less severe bites are underreported is about as relevant to my argument as highlighting that say Chihuahuas are more aggressive... It's the severe attacks and deaths I'm concerned about... you know the ones that *are* typically reported!
That's what you claimed, you're talking about other dogs breeds causing deaths and life-changing injuries but you then point to sources and give me quotes talking about less serious attacks being underreported... what does that have to do with the claim you made? Perhaps try and address the claim I queried instead of turning to google and coming back to dump in links/quotes but no coherent argument to support the claim in quesiton.
Actually there were two point in that quote, and I did address both of them:
1) Other dogs cause not only deaths, but more often life-changing injuries and damage
2) Such incidents often go unreported or mis-reported.
Firstly, the deaths is pretty obvious, and there is even one attributed to a Miniature Schnauzer.
Secondly, injuries tend not to get reported so widely because DEATH makes for better headlines. Sources generally estimate 80-90% of dog bites do not result in medical attention or death, but do specify that even some serious injuries (for varying reasons) are not reported to the Police. In some industries it's even regarded as just a hazard of the job. In other cases, the victims are owners or a similarly attached party who does not want the dog taking the blame and paying the price. Additionally, dogs can cause injury without biting - There are accounts of some larger dogs, such as Sennenhunds, injuring and even killing people just from knocking them over, or dragging them on lead.
As for your argument, leaving aside the fact that it was actually *my* point with which you raised issue yet still have not addressed - "It's not just people's behaviour though, you've still got the massive and rather obvious blind spot here re: the dogs themselves!"
On the last page you posted yet another link to an article about some idiot parents, who put an adolescent dog in with a toddler - Are you're telling me it was the dog's fault for being... a dog?
The parents were directly responsible for that dog and for ensuring its behaviour did not harm anyone.
Additionally, no responsible shelter would re-home to a household with (or expecting) children under 10, although 12 is also common policy, or with another dog under 1 year old.
"Rebekka, from Slidell, Louisiana, US, said: "They had a good relationship. The dog let her kiss her face, on the snout, let her pet her and everything."
A good relationship, from just 24 hours??!!
They let a toddler get right up, literally in the face of a dog with unknown history and unknown lineage!!!
"In a matter of seconds, it barked and latched on her face and then started shaking her side to side, while I'm screaming, 'get off my baby, get off my baby', in terror"
So it took umbrage to this kid bothering it, barked in expression of this, and then had a crack when theither the kid backed off nor the parents intervened...
"The traumatised mum is now warning other parents with young children to avoid adopting a dog, as you "never know what is going to happen"
No **** Sherlock!!!
Maybe if she had done her research, she'd have known not to put her kid in such a ridiculously dangerous situation...
So you have several counts of human failure and gross negligence, which facilitated the incident in which a dog behaved according to its nature, and now that dog has had to die because humans were stupid.
Tell me again how it's the dogs' breed that's the issue, here.......?
The vast majority of dog incidents occur as a result of human stupidity, human negligence, human ignorance, human neglect and human abuse. Breed is not a factor, as so many different breeds have suffered the same fate from the same incidents resulting from the same human causes.
So, my point remains - Address the human factor and change the human behaviour, and you will prevent the vast majority of such incidents.
Actually there were two point in that quote, and I did address both of them:
1) Other dogs cause not only deaths, but more often life-changing injuries and damage
2) Such incidents often go unreported or mis-reported.
Not really, why does that skew things re: pitbull-type dogs?
You referred to minor incidents going unreported which seems rather irrelevant here. If you're talking about serious incidents going unreported then why is that likely to occur for some other breeds rather than bull terrier-type dogs?
That's dubious, why not address both? I'm sure there are irresponsible pug owners too but you tend to hear of pugs killing people or ripping kids' faces off! There is no need for this type of dog to even exist, they were bred for fighting and they are clearly dangerous as evidenced by the disproportionate deaths attributed to them.
The vast majority of dog incidents occur as a result of human stupidity, human negligence, human ignorance, human neglect and human abuse. Breed is not a factor, as so many different breeds have suffered the same fate from the same incidents resulting from the same human causes.
So, my point remains - Address the human factor and change the human behaviour, and you will prevent the vast majority of such incidents.
Not really, why does that skew things re: pitbull-type dogs?
You referred to minor incidents going unreported which seems rather irrelevant here. If you're talking about serious incidents going unreported then why is that likely to occur for some other breeds rather than bull terrier-type dogs?
Because, as mentioned, other types are more likely to be in working roles where they are considered of greater importance than just a pet, and getting bitten by your sniffer or Police dog or your sheepdog is just a workplace hazard to them.
Similarly, when the victim is the owner or the owners' friend, the possibility of that dog being destroyed is enough to dissuade, or persuade against, reporting. In other cases, payments, outright bribery, threats and other methods can coerce the victim into silence. I know plenty of people, including some on this very forum, who bear the scars of a nasty bite yet did not report it.
Labradors are a classic example, as they often feature very high on the bite statistics, but because they're lovable Labs and not some vicious child-killing status Staffie, victims are more willing to forgive or pereive it as an honest mistake.
Others don't realise that reporting is a legal requirement.
Also, people aren't all experts on dog breeds - They know the widely publicised Staffy, but many could not ID any of the actual Bull Terrier breeds, nor tell apart a Staffy from an American BT from a Pit Bull. They don't know the difference between a Doberman and a Rottweiler, a Malinois and a GSD, a Ridgeback and Vizala/Weimeraner/Black Mouth Cur, or even a Husky and a Samoyed. This doesn't even consider all the different crossbreeds.
These are just some of the reasons why reports are mostly sourced from medical interventions, where personnel are most likely to report dog bites, and why so many incidents (minor and serious) are either under-reported or mis-reported.
That's dubious, why not address both? I'm sure there are irresponsible pug owners too but you tend to hear of pugs killing people or ripping kids' faces off! There is no need for this type of dog to even exist, they were bred for fighting and they are clearly dangerous as evidenced by the disproportionate deaths attributed to them.
Because addressing both requires looking at dog breeds, which is already problematic as you will have seen from the various links.
Firstly, Pit Bulls are banned in the UK... and yet, more that 30 years after this very wonderful and effective ban was brought in, there are still thousands in the UK. Estimates are around 3-4,000 illegally owned dogs.
Secondly, Pit Bulls were banned, so the scrotes crossbred them with other dogs to get around the DDA. They'll do the same again if you start banning more breeds.
Thirdly, you'll already know that while Staffies were originally bred from breeds that did fight other dogs, any hints of inter-human aggression were specifically bred out, which is what led to them becoming the famed Nanny Dog. What you may not be factoring in is that the aforementioned scrotes now similiarly crossbreed Staffies with aggressive breeds, in order to breed that inter-human aggression back in.
Moreover - Bull-Terrier types are more commonly owned by neglectful and abusive people who let them misbehave around other people, with no regard for the consequences... Those who own dogs that might behave similarly from such poor governance tend to be more mindful of the requirements and responsibilities in owning such a dog. At one point the Rottweiler was THE status dog to have, yet that has been changing in recent years - Why would you just ban a breed if such change can be effected to benefit both dogs and responsible owners?
Why would you baby and pander to those of the lowest standards, when they're just going to ignore you anyway while only those who make the effort and take responsibility have to suffer the costs?
Why not instead look to raise peoples' standards and eradicate the stupidity instead of the dogs?
Why would you baby and pander to those of the lowest standards, when they're just going to ignore you anyway while only those who make the effort and take responsibility have to suffer the costs?
Why not instead look to raise peoples' standards and eradicate the stupidity instead of the dogs?
This bit in particular, successive governments seem hell bent on pandering to the ignorant and stupid minority, dragging down standards to the lowest level rather than attempting to bring those standards up. Those low standards then become the new normal.
No no, it's ABSOLUTELY fine... It just means we can apply the same approach to banning a whole load of other things that stupid people have misused to cause deaths and injuries.
Cars will of course be the first, since they cause thousands of deaths per year, while annual dog-attack fatalities generally still appear in single figures.
Cows will be next, since several people a year ignore warning signs and end up getting trampled to death.
Electricity will also be banned, given how many people electrocute themselves.
Sports too see dozens of deaths, so those will be banned.
Anything you'd care to include on the list of things with which stupid people can't be trusted?
You could back up your point with a link and a direct quote supporting it but instead, you reply with a whole load of waffle, I've not got time to deal with more of your nonsense so I'll throw back - why not do both?
The problem isn't just the owners it's the dogs too and bull terrier-type dogs cause disproportionate deaths and severe injuries... why act completely naive to that and treat the issue as though say Pugs are as dangerous and just look at the owners? That makes no sense, a better solution is to deal with both.
You could back up your point with a link and a direct quote supporting it but instead, you reply with a whole load of waffle, I've not got time to deal with more of your nonsense so I'll throw back - why not do both?
The problem isn't just the owners it's the dogs too and bull terrier-type dogs cause disproportionate deaths and severe injuries... why act completely naive to that and treat the issue as though say Pugs are as dangerous and just look at the owners? That makes no sense, a better solution is to deal with both.
You could actually take the time to read the links that were posted, unless you really expect me to quote the vast majority of each one?
They were presented so you could examine them in their entirety, rather than me simply taking headline quotes which may potentialy be out of context.
If you don't have time to properly examine and understand the evidence presented, then any response from you in that regard is just deliberate ignorance and has no validity.
Dogs' behaviours are well known and easily predictable, so it should be easy enough to safeguard against incidents - The problem is that the failing of the owners facilitate these incidents, as exemplified in your recent link with Little Miss Half-Smile and her dumb-**** parents.
Humans are the controlling factor in all this. Addressing anything else is treating a symptom, not the cause, which will just means the symptoms will continue to persist.
Nah, given that the part you did quote didn't support your claim I don't see why I'd waste time - either support your argument or don't, it's not on me to waste time reading three different papers only to find out they don't actually support what you claimed.
Nah, given that the part you did quote didn't support your claim I don't see why I'd waste time - either support your argument or don't, it's not on me to waste time reading three different papers only to find out they don't actually support what you claimed.
"One limitation lies in the source of data. Data from official reports (rather than survey-based) are likely both underreported and incompletely reported".
Those official reports being primarily from medical professionals who deal with both severe bites and minor ones, and in both cases the argument is that both are under-reported as illustrated in the full quote.
The full report gives a more detailed explanation and provides such context, which is why it was linked for you.
"This study suggests that the real burden of dog bites is considerably larger than those estimated from hospital records. Further, many bites do not require medical treatment and hospital-based bite data are not representative of bites within the wider population".
In this instance, "not requiring medical treatment" just means they didn't go to hospital, which is usually the primary (if not only) data source for reports.
"Further, prevalence studies based on hospital admission records do not include likely less serious dog bites which do not require medical treatment or are treated elsewhere, including Accident and Emergency"
From the same report as the previous quote - So again, inaccurate reporting in terms of both frequency and severity.
"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"
Do you really need this one explaining to you?
So yes, the argument has been fully supported.
If you cannot accept this and choose to bury your head in the sand, under some pretense of "not having time" to properly understand, that's your failing.
Why would *general* underreporting be an issue here re: skew? Also, you're regurgitating that less serious bites are underreported which completely misses the point! That's already been addressed so why waste time repeating that flawed point?
Other breeds may cause fatalities at higher rates... which breeds and to what extent? They'd need to catch up quite a bit to reach the rates of bull terrier types!
No the argument hasn't been fully supported, you've just thrown in some waffling about reporting issues in general, the only relevant part to the claim is that last bit and you've kept that vague!
Why would *general* underreporting be an issue here re: skew? Also, you're regurgitating that less serious bites are underreported which completely misses the point! That's already been addressed so why waste time repeating that flawed point?
Did you deliberately miss the part where I explained that this covers both serious and minor injuries??!!
As for why it matters - That has already been explained in that the breeds involved are either not identified or mis-identified.
Other breeds may cause fatalities at higher rates... which breeds and to what extent? They'd need to catch up quite a bit to reach the rates of bull terrier types!
Again, you're assuming every record of breed has been accurately and reliably ascertained as a "Bull-Terrier type", a term which covers several different breeds, incidentally - What do you expect is the number of people who wouldn't know a pit-bull from a bull terrier, from a Staffy, from a bull-terrier type... and most especially when it's a dog they don't know, that's in the midst of attacking them? Do you think they stop to consult a reference chart or do a DNA test?
Here's an example:
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable anecdotal evidence, by your standards, and in many other cases the breed was merely presumed by whichever medical practitioner or interviewing officer is filling out the incident report, without ever even seeing the dog!
Studies vary, as always, but generally assert that in only 30-40% of incidents was any breed identified, with no guarantee of accuracy. The rest are classified as mixed or unknown. This and the above would therefore call into question the validity of at least 60% of those bull-terrier rates you're relying on for your bleat.
As for what breeds, that is exactly one of the problems arising from limited and flawed single-source data studies - Even in independent studies, discrepancies arise from differing methodology, study size, breed identifications, location, and many other factors. For example, this study conducted in the Netherlands counted mixed breed dogs (212), Jack Russell terriers (114), and Belgian shepherds (58) as responsible for the most bites:
Lakewood, Colo. - Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians. Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites.
www.dvm360.com
About the only things most studies generally seem to agree on is that a) the most common bites, and the highest number of severe injuries come from unknown or mixed breeds, and b) that the percentage of bites that result in reported severe injury or death is extremely low. The rest is mostly just informed speculation.
No the argument hasn't been fully supported, you've just thrown in some waffling about reporting issues in general, the only relevant part to the claim is that last bit and you've kept that vague!
Firstly, those reporting issues also apply to this bull-terrier type rate you're so concerned with, so that's now reliable enough to go out the window.
Secondly, you specifically highlighted the section of the quote regarding reporting.
How vague do you think Working Dogs is?
Do you need a list of every single breed used as a working dog, in addition to those already mentioned, or will that be yet more waffle that you won't read?
The point is to get your focus off the dogs' breeds, as that has been shown time and again to be irrelevant, in all facets of the issue.
"Although it is understandable, the tendency for people to focus on the breed involved in a dog bite is unhelpful and often misleading.
Visual breed identification is notoriously unreliable, and generally, a dog’s breed has less to do with a bite incident than the situational context surrounding the bite does".
Quote from another study you'll refuse to read.
"In 2013, scientists with Tufts University published an analysis (which again you won't bother to read) of 256 dog bite fatalities that occurred in the United States between 2000 and 2009. In the course of their work, the researchers sought to identify factors that may have led to the bite. Now, it should be noted that the bites reviewed in this study were obviously very serious, and they did not review reports of minor bites. However, the information gleaned from the study should still prove instructive.
The researchers found that the bites were characterized by a small number of co-occurring factors.
And most importantly, these factors were all preventable".
Most dog bite related fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was notone of these.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
