Where can i get a list of dog bites by breed....or a list of which breed has the most to least bites reported?

Question

And if you dont know...please dont answer because all your gonna say is pit-bulls are on the top of the list and thats just not accurate.

Answer 1

You're right. Pit Bulls are not at the top...Cocker Spaniels are actually the dog most likely to bite you. And, one must keep in mind that there are 26 breeds of dog commonly mistaken for "Pit Bulls", which means that the actual number listed as pit bite statistics is likely much lower when considering the dog in question is likely NOT an actual APBT. According to these statistics, Pit Bull type dogs and Rottweilers do the most damage when they do bite, which is understandable, considering their size and strength.

Lookie here! Out of 247 sample bite cases, the breed that was identified the most in bite cases is....The Labrador. Surprised?

http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/publichealth/pdf/Section4_FullDogBiteReport.pdf

Answer 2

Dog Mauling Statistics By Breed

Answer 3

The issue is that dogs are poor generalizers - it's not that the dog is "sneaky, greedy" etc, but that they have no intrinsic sense of morality or "rightness" and so only think something is "bad" if it has bad consequences. If it has never had bad consequences except with a human in the room, then how on earth are they to know that the rules still apply with the human out of the room? You need to train in such a way that corrections and rewards occur when the dog does not think you are present - i.e. hiding around the corner. Read here https://tr.im/rn8fI

I personally owned a Labrador Retriever (read: chow hound) that could be left 6" from a hot dog in a sit-stay for half an hour and not touch it - the word was "mine" and it meant that you don't touch that, even if I am not in the room, even if whatever, you DO NOT touch that. You could leave a plate of food on the floor for hours and not only would she not touch it, she would also keep the other animals (dogs and cats) from touching it.

In all probability, these dogs studied were just not properly trained/proofed before the experiment. With "proofing" to set them up and catch them in the act to give

Answer 4

There is a difference between bites, number of bites in total, bites per population, severity of bites and fatalities resulting from bites. You have to slice the numbers to get an accurate representation of risk.

The other side of the equation is the type of human involved in the bite and the circumstances/environment in which it occurred.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm

These are from the previous decade and are FATAL dog attacks. Rottweilers and Pittbulls lead the list but they have lots of company many of which are dogs of unknown breed.

Again, these are FATAL attacks which are incredibly rare which is why they get so much press.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Unless you can get idiots from breeding pit bull type dogs, fighting them, encouraging their aggression and then dumping them on the streets to be taken up by the unsuspecting, this type of dog is going to get more bad press.

Answer 5

Pit bulls weren't on the top of the list when the county I live in tried to outlaw them about a year ago. Rottweilers were, for deadly attacks at least. But consider several things: Popularity of the breed (shepherds and huskies have topped the list, too). More importantly, consider the type of people who like the breed for the wrong reasons and how they probably keep them in most cases. For instance, tough guys in bad neighborhoods who keep unhappy pitts in their yards on chains with no fence are simply asking for the kid next door to chase a ball into the yard and invade the dog's territory. So how many people in nice neighborhoods who keep their perfectly groomed poodles inside are likely to have bite incidents? The statistics carry some meaning, but they're terribly skewed against the stereotyped "aggressive" breeds. The first real full pitt bull I met immediately knocked me down at my shoulders and proceeded to start lapping my face like crazy!

Answer 6

This is all I found:http://www.wolf2woof.com/EDUCATION/FACTS.HTM
# Mixed breed and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting dog bites. The pure-bred dogs most often involved in dog bites are German shepherds and Chow chows.
# Dogs between one and five years old are involved in more dog bite incidents than dogs older than six years. Male dogs are more frequently involved than female dogs. Dogs not spayed or neutered are three times more likely to bite than sterilized ones.
# The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place. 77% of biting dogs belong to the victim’s family or a friend.
# Each year approximately 20 people die from dog attacks. The dogs most responsible for dog attack deaths are pit bulls and rottweilers. On average 67% will involve an attack by one dog; 19% by two dogs and 15% by three or more dogs.
The ten breeds involved in the most lethal attacks over the past ten years are pit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, malamutes, Dobermans, chow chows, St. Bernards, Great Danes, and Akitas.

Answer 7

I'm not sure of a link or an actual number on dog bites. My own experiences have been with little nippy toy breeds that bite... I have a rotweiller and she's just not a biter.. We've spent a lot of time training her to be as gentle as she is though... We take food,toys and bones out of her mouth and she won't do anything.. She's not "protective" of her things because she "thinks" everything is ours and if we LET her have it to play with she's ok.. I think pit-bulls, dobie's and rotts get a bad rap. .It 's all in how you raise em'.... However a bite from a large breed dog can be more dangerous than a small breed for obvious reason the strength/power of the breeds...

Answer 8

Keep in mind that labs are the most popular dog in the US, by a long long way, so it would only make sense that there would be more bites from labs.

I would be more interested in the number of bites vs the number of AKC registrations for each breed.. or something lke that.

Answer 9

Google search engine and Wiki have the numbers. It's Pits and Rotti's because of fatalities, small breeds especially cockers rate very high on bites---However--we all appreciate that death by Cocker Spaniel is not reality. Nip, bites, compared to crushed and shredded is the difference and thereby the criterion to decide which is more dangerous.

Answer 10

Actually Pit bull "types" are on the top of the list. Why - because no one seems to be able to accurately identify all the bully breeds so they lump them all together - they don't do that with ANY other breed, just the pitbulls. It's so annoying and SOOOOO misleading. You take uneducated folks in terms of math skills and reasoning skills and they simply see pit bull at the top. What they don't realize is that there are many different bully breeds that should NOT be lumped together but they are.

And uneducated stupid sensationalistic media reps get their hands on the list and tout statistics (which by the way people, math can be used to manipulate and show whatever you want it to show!!). Correlations are drawn where they shouldn't be drawn, relationships supposedly exist where there are none. It's infuriating.

Notice the language - and notice the other breed mentioned - yet no one else talks about rotties

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)


The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)


In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.


The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

The court then stated that,

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.