Interesting info on dog bites

Well, one stat I always take with a grain of salt is the number of dog bites requiring emergency medical care.  Most people go to the ER if they have punctures b/c the bites can so easily become infected.  Also, I know a lot of families that rushed their children into the ER b/c the parents were terrified of the dog and of course need to make sure the other people are to blame so they can sue the family and have the dog put down.  When I was bit and shaken repeatedly by the lab at the shelter, everyone encouraged me to go straight to a Dr. and I didn't even have deep punctures. 

I'm not saying people shouldn't go to the ER, but I think with animal bites people usually go straight to the ER whereas when we cut our fingers or stub our toes - injuries that are often more painful and can be more serious - we suck it up and deal.  So, I for one do not believe that a stat saying "this number of people went to the ER and required medical care for a dog bite" is indicative of the severity of the bite.

Quote from the site and the key to the problem and the anwser to every one of the posts regarding dog attacks.
 
 
"" 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.  """"

Good point Liesje.

I should have probably gotten some medical attention when I was bitten, but I didn't because I didn't want either of the dogs involved to get fingered as having bite histories because it was my dumb mistake for trying to break up a fight between them. I had a friend who was bitten by a neighbor's dog who she was trying to be kind to and she also was hesitant (though the bite was severe enough that medical attention was necessary and she did get it) because she recognized that the dog had been abused and neglected and she didn't want the dog to have be destroyed over it. And then you have the opposite--people who have it in for the dog and will seek medical attention even when it's not entirely necessary just so they can finger the dog and lobby to get it destroyed.

My turn for a cut and paste
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See [linkhttp://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html]Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans[/link].)
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

ORIGINAL: Liesje

Well, one stat I always take with a grain of salt is the number of dog bites requiring emergency medical care.  Most people go to the ER if they have punctures b/c the bites can so easily become infected.  Also, I know a lot of families that rushed their children into the ER b/c the parents were terrified of the dog and of course need to make sure the other people are to blame so they can sue the family and have the dog put down.  When I was bit and shaken repeatedly by the lab at the shelter, everyone encouraged me to go straight to a Dr. and I didn't even have deep punctures. 

I'm not saying people shouldn't go to the ER, but I think with animal bites people usually go straight to the ER whereas when we cut our fingers or stub our toes - injuries that are often more painful and can be more serious - we suck it up and deal.  So, I for one do not believe that a stat saying "this number of people went to the ER and required medical care for a dog bite" is indicative of the severity of the bite.

 
 very true. I have  had 5 incidents of dog bites over 47 years, none were from Pit Bulls, Rotts or Chows although I have been in close contact with all of those breeds.I love all the large breed dogs and spend most of my dog time working with them, I am more inclined to speak to them, or pet them when I am out than I would be someone'e smaller dog.Yet I have never been bitten by one (unless you count the hound as a small child)
 
I was bitten as a small child by a hound that I tried to hug while he was eating. (Doctor visit, no stitches)
ShitZu bit my son in the lip, owner told him it was ok to pet and he bent over to pet and was bitten in the lip (ER visit no stitches, no lawsuit)
I was bitten by a Chihuahua in the nose. I was sitting on the couch and my sister in laws Chihuahua lept up and bit my nose (self given medical attention, no lawsuit)
Son was bitten by a dachshund at the park. Large family picnic and he was walking to the food table and one of the family#%92s dachshunds bit him in the calf. (ER visit no stitches, no lawsuit)
I was bitten by a "pack" of Jack Russell terriers, this did not result in injury as I was wearing high riding boots at the time, but a couple of them latched on hard and I literally drug them across the yard attached to my boots. (No medical treatment, no lawsuit)
 
  It would be interseting to see how many people have been bitten and by what type of dog, maybe I should start a thread.

ORIGINAL: 2bully

My turn for a cut and paste
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See [linkhttp://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html]Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans[/link].)
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

According to this study which is pretty upto date ( 2006). Two breeds account for 2/3 of all the bites in that time span, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.  If those two breeds were not in an area, the number of bites would drop dramatically in that area. 

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: 2bully

My turn for a cut and paste
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See [linkhttp://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html]Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans[/link].)
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

According to this study which is pretty upto date ( 2006). Two breeds account for 2/3 of all the bites in that time span, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.  If those two breeds were not in an area, the number of bites would drop dramatically in that area. 

 
and would be replaced by the next fasionable breed which would rise in population as would bites until such time as someone who thinks BLS is the solution and bans those breeds and then we start again. A few years ago this data was mostly GSD's.

ORIGINAL: dgriego

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: 2bully

My turn for a cut and paste
Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.
The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See [linkhttp://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html]Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans[/link].)
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

According to this study which is pretty upto date ( 2006). Two breeds account for 2/3 of all the bites in that time span, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.  If those two breeds were not in an area, the number of bites would drop dramatically in that area. 

and would be replaced by the next fasionable breed which would rise in population as would bites until such time as someone who thinks BLS is the solution and bans those breeds and then we start again. A few years ago this data was mostly GSD's.

Do you really think that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers at present account for 2/3 of the dog population?  I don't think so.....Far from it according to the AKC. So those 2 breeds seem to  have a very high dog to bite ratio compared to other breeds.

[linkhttp://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm]http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm[/link]

Most pit bull types are unregistered.  You can't go off of AKC stats.  In some breeds, the majority of them are registered with different organizations if they're registered at all.  Besides the AKC doesn't accept all breeds. 

dog bite statistics are only as accurate as the bites that are reported and the information that is reported.

there are a lot of bites that go unreported, there are a lot of reports that claim the dog that bit was a pit bull when in fact it looked nothing like a pit and was probably a cocker-foxhound-papillon-basset-corgi mix (or any other unidentifiable combination).

Do you really think that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers at present account for 2/3 of the dog population? I don't think so.....Far from it according to the AKC. So those 2 breeds seem to have a very high dog to bite ratio compared to other breeds.

Do you really think that AKC registration is an accurate indication of the popularity of each breed of dog?  Ha.  Yes, in my area, pits, rotts, and their mixes make up nearly 2/3 of the dog population (if you add labs, then I'd guess that accounts for 80% of the dog population around here).  I'm the only dog owner I know that actually has an AKC registered dog.

Do you really think that AKC registration is an accurate indication of the popularity of each breed of dog

 
I'll tell you that both of my dogs are purebred, but not registered. I have their papers, but i don't want to send them in.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

[linkhttp://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html]http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html[/link]

[sm=feedtroll.gif]

I guess you missed this gem in your link
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results
 Is it possible that you only take that which suits your stance on the subject?
 here's some more from your link
However, the focus on death cases may leave the public with the false impression that pit bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for the dog bite epidemic. It is a much broader problem than that, involving all dogs and all dog owners. While pit bulls and Rottweilers inflict a disproportionate number of serious and even fatal injuries, the dog bite epidemic involves many different breeds, and results from many different causes. A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic.
 You also forgot to mention one other breed to your citing of the 2/3 statistic, and the mixes as well
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question.
 Now how does one go about identifying a mixed breed dogs parentage?