Do you think dog bite statistics are 100% accurate?

Question

I was just reading someone's post about dog bite statistics by breed and I was just wondering:
1) how many bites probably go unreported, meaning some breeds might have higher occurances of bites than actually documented
2) how many bites are by mixed breeds who's exact history is unknown - and people might just 'guess' their breed incorrectly

Are my questions far fetched? Do you think dog bite statistics are pretty accurate?

Oh Yeah Michael I did forget to mention how many were biting only in self-defense. Thanks for brining that up!

Answer 1

I doubt they truly reflect how many dogs bite and what breeds. I am sure that most small breeds that bite rarely require hospital care so many of those go unreported. I have been bitten by 2 small dogs and neither one was reported since they were very minor injuries. Also, many dog bites that should not be counted are reported, such as defensive bites or accidental bites. For instace, my dog was in a fight that another dog insitgated, and when my husband tried to separated them, he was accidentally bit. Because we had to take my husband to the hospital, the bite was reported, but it was not a typical bite. Any dog is capable of biting in a fight because they kind of just close their eyes and bite anything that comes close enough. Neither dog has ever shown aggression towards people, so in my mind, that was an unfair bite report.
I think it is impossible to do a really accurate count so that is all we have to go on, but you need to look at it as just a guideline. Many breeds like Pitbuls are going to take the blame for many bites simply because they look like so many other breeds. I am sure a good portion of all the Pitbul bites were not Pitbuls at all. Also many reported bites are going to be justified defensive bites or accidental bites because the count does not allow exceptions for those.

Answer 2

It varies. While some statistics come closer to the truth then others, it's really a toss up because there are so many misidentified dogs, as well as those that aren't reported. There have been countless cases when a dog is reported to be a pitbull, splashed across the news and front page, then when it's discovered the dog is NOT a pit, there's never a correction. The above answerer made a good point about smaller breed bites not being reported...you won't see that many people reporting chihuahua bites. In my personal experience, smaller dogs are the ones that tend to bite. In order to get as close to the truth as possible, when researching dog bites, you have to view the web sites entire page--lots of sites that have "statistics" are obviously biased against certain dogs, and will indicate that in articles on the page. At the same time, you don't know the whole story behind each individual bite--was it unprovoked or was the dog being abused itself and was acting in self defense? Was the person that was bit breaking up a dog fight, and it was accidental? Was the person bit trespassing, or acting in a hostile manner towards the dogs owner? There are lots of questions that go unanswered regaurding dog bites.

:o)

Answer 3

Bite statistics are well known not to be at all accurate. They likely aren't even 50% accurate. They are based on identification by people that think everything black and tan is a Rottweiler and everything with a blocky head is a pit bull... go figure. :) Also they are frequently unreported unless the bitten person goes for medical treatment and then they can lie about the dog -- I was treated for a bite by a German Shorthaired Pointer -- puppy b*tch. The ER staff didn't have a clue what that was so they listed 'unknown breed of dog' - I thought it was fairly common but if I had said Doberman or Rottweiler or Pit Bull, the breed would have been reported. Actually most bites are done by mixed breeds -- either recognizeable as such or defined as some sort of possible mix that is often completely incorrect (back to the black and tan and block head thing). The mail handler's list of breed bites is 'black labs' -- now that can actually be mixed with pit bull but heck, how can you expect a mail handler to properly identify a breed of a mixed breed dog when it doesn't exist! haha I have seen perfect Bull Mastiffs that had no Bull Mastiff in them but were mixes of several breeds totally unrelated to Bull Mastiffs. Also there are often unreported breeds -- JQP will rarely admit that his Cocker Spaniel was the dog that riped the face off of his two year old child... and even if they call it that, it is often not any resemblance to that breed but one that is obtained from one of the millions of bybers that hasn't seen a ACS gene for generations... No, statistics about breeds are wholy inaccurate as well as number of bites -- I know people who have had family members severely bitten by their dogs that never report it and have their 'friend' help with medical care and the dog can have several bites known about without ever being reported -- I know of one instance where a friend vet sutured up one lady's husband after their dog layed his arm open ... never reported... then there is the dog that was a biter turned into rescue and rehomed that ended up hospitalizing (long term) its new adopter ... people deny a lot about their dogs since it evidences their lack of knowledge in general... and they don't want to do that...

Until people become responsible dog purchasers/obtainers and owners the bite statistics will continue and the BSL will continue to rise... you can't stop irresponsible from owning a dawg, unfortunately...

Answer 4

No I do not. Too many people even animal control can not id a breed let alone a mix, most small dog bites are in home with family/friends and unreported. I think major bites and unknown dogs are the ones reported and breed id is iffy at best.

I also know for fact of several dogs who have bitten owners who went to the ER who are by law required to report bites so the owners made up stories of strays when they were bitten by their own dogs.

Answer 5

Ohhhh - given the number of breeding questions we see on here I bet #2 has a HUGE impact on bite statistics. I bet MOST dog bites are indeed from mixes and the stats reflect the breed that the dog "looks" most like, or the breed that people "think" it is. If you look at my dog you would call him a lab - but he's a mix. If you looked at my other two you would say pit, but they are a mix - thus if they bit someone the stats wouldn't be right.

I wish the stats did say mix - ohhhhh wait - they do - but only for pit bulls. You know - the classification of "pitbull type" - meaning anything that remotely looks like a pitbull.

I saw no "lab type"

no GSD type

No chihuahua type.

Just a pitbull type.

SO how do you think the stats would be skewed ;)

Stats - I hate him - you can make em say whatever you want them to!

Answer 6

I will think some bites are unreported, like from labs or toy dogs. People always report when they are bitten by those so called bully breeds (which I hate that name) but why not to report bites from Chihuahua? I think there must be a reason for dogs to bite or attack. Don't you think so? As such, I don't trust those statistics.

Answer 7

Dog bite statistics are so convoluted. Not only is there the issue of wrongly identifying breeds, but also how many dogs bite in self-defense (or to defend a loved one... note: if you're walking down the street and someone tries to mug you and your dog bites them, that's considered a "dog attack"), etc, etc, etc... Once, years ago, neighbors who didn't like us reported that my dog ran over and attacked/bit one of them while he was "running around" (note: he's NEVER been allowed to just run around outside), and the police came and whatnot... we insisted that they were lying. We ended up getting several other neighbors to verify that they never once saw him "running around"... ever. And everything was fine... however, it was reported (and initially written up) as a dog attack case.

There are just so many factors playing into dog bites that make the statistics useless. Likewise, compared to the amount of dogs in the US, there are *very* few "attacks" at all each year... less than 1% of the dog population.

Answer 8

Oh Brother. I have to disagree with Michael S. to say it's NEVER ever a dog's fault it bites. That is just not realistic. Some dogs are just aggressive. Although a LARGE percentage are due to up bringing, but to say that, is just ignorant. I personally had a Chow that had never been abused. I got him when he was 8 weeks old. He lived the life of luxury at my home. He was well introduced to MANY people and was never ever harmed or threatened. At about 8 months old, he began a more aggressive attitude towards people. He loved his family - of course, but he just had a nasty temperment. He was not a dog to be trusted! I gave him to a guy who owned a junk yard and wanted a good guard dog. I would feel for anyone who tried to cross that Chow-Chow.

Answer 9

I would venture to guess that they a way off. I think there are far more bites than reported.

Dog groomers get bite quite often but they go unreported. Trainers get bit quite often & they go unreported. Family members get bit by a pet that go unreported. Mail deliverers get bit, meter readers get bit, & the list goes on & on.

The stats simply cannot be right.

Answer 10

the statistics are far from accurate. it has actually been found that most people who dont know what breed of dog bit them will say it was a pit bull when infact it wasnt even a breed related. here is a link that will show you how difficult it can be to pin point a pit bull no matter how well you know the breed.

www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html