Comments on: The truth about dangerous dog statistics

By: Lindsay Stordahl

Lindsay Stordahl — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:42:08 +0000

Good point. I agree. That’s why statistics typically don’t tell us much.

By: stratobill

stratobill — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:41:41 +0000

I respect you for looking up the stats on dogs involved in fatal attacks, but this list is worthless without more context. For example, there is nothing to indicate how many dogs of each breed live in the U.S. So we don’t know what the ratio of fatal attacks to breed population is.

For instance, lets say there are 1 million pitbulls in this country. Since there were 118 fatal attacks by pitbulls, we might conclude that 1 out of 8,500 pitbulls was involved in a fatal attack. Then lets say there are 100,000 Huskies in the country. Since there were 21 fatal Husky attacks, we might conclude that 1 out of 5000 Huskies was involved in a fatal attack.

This would indicate that Huskies are more dangerous than pitbulls, even though there were more fatal attacks involving pitbulls. My numbers are hypothetical of course, and I’m in no way saying that Huskies are more dangerous than pitbulls. I’m just saying that without more information, it is totally unfair to draw any conclusions from your list.

And even if it turns out that a higher percentage of pitbulls are involved in fatal attacks than any other breed of dog, we still can’t conclude that the breed itself is more dangerous. What if it could be shown that pitbull owners are far more likely than owners of other breeds to mis-treat their dogs, use them to intimidate people, etc?

When drawing conclusions it is important to compare apples to apples. Comparing the number of attacks by dogs raised by jerks and gangsters to the number of attacks by dogs raised responsibly by loving owners would probably be a truer way to rank which dogs are more likely to be dangerous.

By: Lindsay Stordahl

Lindsay Stordahl — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:47:06 +0000

Yeah, I agree. Like most statistics, these calculations tell us nothing. My biggest issue is that most people can’t identify dog breed correctly. Pretty much anything could be considered a “pitbull.”

By: Tierney Silver-Goeden

Tierney Silver-Goeden — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:12:17 +0000

I just read that site and all of the cases that were reported for the year 2007 and 2008. It really bothered me to read it for several reasons:
#1 They used negative words such as ‘mauled’, ‘ripped’, ‘destroyed’ and more.
#2 They include information on breed, state and sometimes city but they are not including information on health of the dog, mental stability of the dog, owner responsibility, population of the area, enviroment and other factors that may change a dogs behavior. Sure, a lot of the attacks may be by pitbulls but were they trained to be gaurd dogs or mean? Were the owners walking them? Do the dogs recieve proper training and care?
#3 What provoked the attack? Sometimes it can be over-excitement, prey drive or injury. (They did say if the dog and child were alone but not if the dog had high prey drive).
#4 A lot of these attacks happened with dogs that wandered around the neighborhoods. Chances are, those dogs didnt have owners or their owners did not care enough to ensure the safty of their dogs.
#5 Did these parents properly introduce their child to dogs or did they assume their dog would be okay with babies? Did they teach their kids not to run or scream around dogs?

Mostly, I am pretty sure these owners were irresponsible. I doubt the dogs got proper social interactions or training.

By: THAT MUTT: A Dog Blog » Dangerous dog ordinances

THAT MUTT: A Dog Blog » Dangerous dog ordinances — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:41:09 +0000

[...] Dangerous dog statistics that blame “pitbulls” for the majority of dog bites are way off because pretty much any mutt can be identified as a “pitbull.” A ”pitbull” is not a breed of dog, and therefore it is up to interpretation what a “pitbull” actually looks like. The name “pitbull” generally groups together the American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog. [...]

By: Lindsay Stordahl

Lindsay Stordahl — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:25:34 +0000

Yes, all of the German shepherds I know are very sweet, calm and well-trained and socialized dogs. But not all German shepherds are lucky to have good owners. You’re right, it’s totally up to the owners to raise a well-behaved and social dog.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:44:03 +0000

im really suprised that german shepards are really on there i have one and his name is max he is the nicest dog i have ever seen he is also very protective of me and i love him a alot i think the reason dogs can be so agressive is not because of bad dreeding but wheather they get a lot of love from their owner i bet that if i didn’t love max and i treated him like garbage he would be a very dangerous dog. dogs are just like kids if they don’t get enough love as a child then when thier older they will blame everything little thing that goes bad in their life on their parents. that ios what i think i could be wrong but thats what i believe.

By: emily

emily — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:46:48 +0000

hye wow i have a mixed dog of pit german an lab he is the best dog ever untill it gets to the playing part that gets really ruff i don’t know what to do..☻

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:15:36 +0000

I Have a merlequin looks just like your pic. Harley just turned 2 and also she had to be registered with all breed, as ack does not recognize her , even though she is a petigree, i have had so many people tell me how beautifus she is, cant understand the akc. what about a PBGB?

By: lab great dane mix

lab great dane mix — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:41:44 +0000

for the most dog-bite related deaths, all the statistics I came across said roughly the same