Dog Bite Statistics – Are We Being Lied to by Politicians With a Hidden ‘Dangerous Dog’ Agenda?
Figures released to Norman Lamb of the Liberal democrats have been splashed all over the media alongside headlines proclaiming a rise in “dog attacks”. Pictures of snarling beasts, most often bull breeds or the current “devil dog” the Rottweiler have been used to help emphasise the point.
But wait one second…STOP THE PRESS… the figures do not show a rise in dog attacks. Allow me to explain.
A few years ago I did an awful thing.
I was at a barbeque on a lovely summers day with my family and our dogs. My children where playing with the other children and one of my dogs was playing with the resident boxer, the sun was shining and all was right with the world. My dog tired of his game with the boxer, picked up his ball before dropping it in my lap and sitting down looking at me hopefully. I smiled, picked up the ball and threw it for him.
The minute that ball left my hand I realised what I had done and yelled loudly to recall my dog but it was too late. As I yelled, my dog ran straight into my daughter knocking her flying down on the hard ground. Thankfully my daughter, although bruised and sore for a while, had no broken bones. My dog didn’t know what had happened but had stopped, ball forgotten and gone over to lick at my daughter. I was mortified and have never taken a ball to another barbeque since!
Had my daughter been more badly hurt and been admitted to hospital, she would have been included in the recent figures paraded around the media as “dog attacks”.
What the media and Norman Lamb fail to mention in any article I have read, is that the figures do not separate dog bites from dog strikes. I know of quite a few people who have been admitted to hospital because their dogs greeted them a little too enthusiastically or accidentally knocked into them.
They will all be logged under the same code meaning “bitten or struck by a dog” yet the two meanings are often very different and certainly don’t scream “dog attack”. Many people have been struck by dogs, many have been bitten by dogs however few have been attacked by dogs. While even one true dog attack is unacceptable the medias use of these figures to “show” an overwhelming increase in dog attacks is misleading and nothing more than scaremongering.
The media have also focused on the “rise” in certain areas but do not seem to be aware of the fact that the strategic health authority for treatment restructured at the start of 2006 which, according to Ben Bradshaw when he supplied the figures to Norman lamb as a written answer, means a direct comparison is not possible before and after 2006.
Hospital workers are also “ a bit bemused” by the figures. It has recently been reported in one online newspaper that hospital bosses in west mids where surprised at the “findings” of an 80% increase in under 18’s being admitted due to “dog attacks”.
A spokesman for George eliot hospital in Nuneaton told a reporter for IC Coventry
Although we don’t have access to detailed statistics, we can say anecdotally that, if anything, the number of people needing treatment for dog bites is falling.
“We’re a bit bemused by these figures, to be honest. We don’t get anywhere near as many as we used to.”
The article goes on to state:
The same sentiment was also expressed by spokesmen for the University Hospital, Coventry, Warwick Hospital, and the Hospital of St Cross, in Rugby.
Maybe they are “bemused” because the figures are being stated as something they aren’t!
In recent years it has been pointed out that children 9 and under are more commonly admitted for “bites or strikes” from a dog and this is true. However over the last ten years in England, the number of children 9 and under who have been admitted to hospital for this reason, has actually risen the least of all age groups, by 4.1%. This equals just 39 more admissions when comparing 06-07 with 96-97. Using the same years comparison, the age group of 40-49 year olds show a massive increase of 136%. We rarely hear of large numbers of 40 odd year olds being attacked by dogs so would it be fair to assume we are actually looking at more strikes than bites?
It is not unusual for smaller children to be admitted to hospital more often than adults as a precaution. I completely agree with the reasons for doing so. Children are much more fragile and less able to tell you if there is a problem. If my children bang their heads I turn into the most paranoid mother about, constantly checking on them. Better to be safe than sorry so could this possibly explain the large number of young children being admitted? Children are also more likely to be knocked over by dogs simply walking or running past them.
There are many reasons that could contribute to any increase and could help explain why certain age groups are showing high numbers. The only thing the figures do not show is a definite increase in dog attacks.
The dog world does have problems and they are problems that need tackling. We, as dog owners, parents and members of the public, have all been let down time and time again by the law. The Dangerous Dogs Act was meant to protect us 16 years ago. It failed. Now the same people who helped bring in that law, are trying again!
The answer to our problems is simple. We need to look at facts and not create mass hysteria by telling only half of the story. We need to log dog bites and strikes separately and in more detail. We need to know what the injury is, who, where and why. We need to ensure we all know how to act responsibly and safely around dogs.
We need a law that holds the owners responsible for their dog’s actions and ensure they are fully equipped to deal with the responsibility that comes with owning any dog BEFORE they obtain one.
Norman Lamb has got one thing right. He is quoted in several articles as saying
“No-one knowingly puts their child in danger but it seems that the message is not getting through.”
So lets make a Dog Ownership Test a legal requirement and force that message home.
Highly Recommended: Learn the secrets of one of the most effective, trusted, dog training techniques ever discovered – click here!
Related posts:
Loading ...
Every child that ends up in hospital because of some stupid dog owners is another tragedy. Hiding behind these statistical anomolies is merely defending the indefensible.
Every time I am in a UK park, there are dogs running around without leads in family areas. The only change I would make to the laws would be to incarcerate the dogs and have the owners put down instead of visa versa when another child is mauled, maimed or killed.
Reply
Graham Reply:
April 27th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
According the NSPCC the average number of children killed per week is one or two, equally 79 a year of which in 78 percent of cases the parents were the principal suspect.
There are on average 8 people a day killed on the roads. Car drivers are the principal suspect!
Are humans more of a problem than dogs?
Reply
admin Reply:
September 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Dogs do not have to be on leads in UK parks.
Manipulation of the true facts is done to persuade gullible people that the government’s anti-dog agenda is justified.
It has succeeded admirably in your case.
Reply
The problems with dog bite reporting have always been a bone (sorry the pun) of contention. Except for hospital injury data (where injuries are ranked on an objective scale of severity), simple dog “bites” are typically intermingled with “attacks” and even “fatality” statistics.
I agree that dog bite statistics leave a lot to be desired. Novices to the field are often quickly confused or overwhelmed.
The breed of dog is irrelevant, when it comes to unprovoked attacks, but even those designations are grossly subjective, and never verified in any meaningful way, in my experience. The behavioural histories of biting dogs are rarely, if ever, verified by anyone in a position of authority. The cause of, or conditions relating to, the bite/injury are seldom even noted, much less confirmed or even considered, for future preventative measures.
As you correctly contend, a person suffering a serious injury because he/she tripped over a dog, might be considered equally with someone who suffered a serious, but inadvertent, injury caused when both the person and dog reached for an item at the same time (humans use their hands, dogs use their teeth), as might someone innocently minding his/her own business, and being mauled by an at-large dog. All are very different scenarios, with different potential methods of prevention. Yet all could end up being counted equally, in obtuse dog bite/injury statistics.
In my experience, the vast majority of dog bite reports do, in fact, involve dog bites. As you correctly point out, though, not all dog-related injuries are the result of bites.
Any credible agency or statistician categorizes these kinds of injuries in the following ways:
- dog-related (i.e. tripping over a dog or its leash, suffering a heart attack after being jumped on by a dog)
- dog bite-related (i.e. getting an infection via broken skin contacting/caused by a dog’s teeth)
- dog bite injury-related (i.e. losing a finger which was severed by a dog’s bite)
Furthermore, there are “bites” (a single bite and release), “attacks” (multiple bites, or serious injury resulting from a sustained tearing or shaking bite or bites), and “fatalities” (where the individual’s death was the direct result of injuries caused by a dog during an attack).
Dog bites are further categorized by being either “provoked” or “unprovoked”. (While, from the dog’s perspective, all dog bites are likely “provoked,” there are few reasonable people who’d suggest a dog doesn’t have a right to defend itself from an actual attack by a human. As a result, dog bite statistics related to public safety should be limited to those deemed “unprovoked.”)
I find it exceedingly common for these categories to be confused, and for conclusions to be drawn using misinterpreted data.
Overall, dog bite statistics are primarily kept at the municipal level, and very, very few of those municipalities have created an objective method for differentiating between “bites” and “attacks”. For the most part, those who claim one kind/size of dog causes more severe injuries than others typically have no verifiable basis for their views.
Dog bite-related human deaths, while rare, are a bit better defined. After all, death is rather definitive.
As for “attacks”, hospital data tends to be the most reliable, in this regard. Hospitals use an objective scale for indicating the severity of an injury. In America, just one out of every eleven estimated dog bites receives medical attention. Of those, fewer than one percent are above the lowest category for hospital injury reporting. In short, over ninety-nine percent of U.S. dog bites are no more serious than, say, a skinned knee.
Dog bite injury-related human fatalities are extremely, extremely rare events. It is more common for people to die tripping over their own slippers, than to be killed by a dog. In this rare (dog-related) category, some of the breeds listed as having killed a person include victims who died of heart attacks after a dog jumped on them, or tripped over a dog’s leash, and suffered a fatal head injury.
In America, a Bureau of Labor study found cows were 14 times more likely than a dog to kill someone in the workplace. Most of those deaths were the result of cattle “attacks”. Yet none of the dog-related workplace fatalities were attributed to dog attacks. Nearly all were the result of workers (during the act of driving) hitting, or swerving to avoid hitting, a dog in the roadway, and crashing his/her vehicle, leading to the worker’s death. One of the dog-related deaths in the Bureau of Labor study involved a worker who died due to a heart attack suffered after attempting to lift a heavy dog.
…Not exactly the ‘fatal dog maulings’ most people think of when they see some of these dog-related injury stat’s.
I wish people would do some actual research (not just Google searches) before forming opinions. I wish people would stop citing their local media as their source. (Too often, they have it totally wrong.) Just as important, is understanding the data one has researched, to be sure conclusions are relevant, and actually supported by the data. For example, one of the most popular studies poorly-informed people use to support breed-specific legislation actually cautions against a breed-based approach to dog control, in the study’s own conclusions.)
What can’t be argued is the fact that universally, 99.9% of all dogs, regardless of breed, size, or original breed purpose, will never be involved in an attack at any time in their lives. Dogs will never compare as hazards with parents, relatives, friends, automobiles, sports, swimming pools, bicycles, balloons, marbles, five gallon buckets, and on and on and on.
Unsupervised, poorly-socialised, and poorly-trained dogs make up nearly all the dogs involved in unprovoked biting incidents. All these factors relate to owner responsibility, rather than anything to do with the dog.
Dog bite data is useful, but only if we consider the kinds of information that would help us prevent future biting incidents. At this time, ticking off biting dogs by breed or size or original breed purpose will do little (if anything) to improve the situation.
So, while some are focused on that, regions that target habitually-negligent dog owners, and promote (truly) responsible dog ownership and public education programs have seen the biggest improvements in dog-related problems, including biting. When society addresses “why” dogs bite, we lower dog bite rates.
No matter what the total number of (unprovoked) bites might be, the cause always comes back to an irresponsible dog owner. In nearly a decade of dog bite reserach, I didn’t find one, responsibly-owned dog involved in an unprovoked attack. …Not one. I also found every, single dog involved in an attack that I investigated had a known history of aggressive behaviour (despite common denials by owners or the media). Simply put, when a dog is well-trained, properly socialised, and adequately supervised, it doesn’t bite unprovoked. When owners allow/encourage aggressive behaviours in their dogs, they are significantly more (almost exclusively) likely to be involved in a biting incident, one day.
Again, until we actually put measures in place to ensure dogs are responsibly-owned and/or to remove them from the care of owners who refuse to do so, we will continue to have unprovoked biting incidents, and we won’t be doing anything helpful to reduce those numbers, in the future.
Reply
The Liberal Democrats meander around the palaces of power trying to think up ways of being more popular to the electorate and decide as most Liberal Democrats do to jump on the band wagon of the latest fad, which in this instance is ‘review the dangerous dogs act and look at what breeds are on it/should be added to it’. While they were warming up their crackpot ideas machine somebody must have hit the button that churned out ‘rise in dog bite statistics’. What Norman Lamb fails to realise is that hospitals used to collate all ‘bites’ together and as was discovered by a number of organisations, there were more ‘bites’ on people from other people than from dogs!
Where did the Liberals get their statistics from and who are their advisors on dog related issues?
Yet another great own goal from a party that would put breed specific legislation forward as a vote winner, no wonder they are always last!
Instead of calling for a review with a mind to add more breeds, they should ask for the DDA to be scrapped altogether, now that would probably be a vote winner?
Reply
[...] be fair, the sources above are biased. Looking at another source you can see a spin put on the statistics that have them appear much less menacing. Of course, my [...]
Aren’t you doing exactly what you are accusing the govt. of doing – interpreting the figures to suit your own agenda?
Looking beyond your own interests. I think most parents would react in exactly the same way to having their child hospitalised by a dog whether it was by biting, striking, being sat on – whatever…!
There has been an astronomic rise in ownership of ’status’ dogs in urban areas over the last couple of years. Ask anyone who lives in central Manchester for instance – I mean anyone at all.
It has made some of the parks in central Manchester very difficult places to take a child or, for that matter, a smaller dog. It is a serious problem, and imagining the government invented it to get at dog owners will not make it go away.
Reply
Ryan O'Meara Reply:
September 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
Please define ’status dog’. Then please relate the data between ’status dog attacks’ and the rise in ’status dogs’. Are ’status dogs’ hospitalising people? Of the four human deaths that have happened as a result of dog attacks in the past 4 years, which of those is attributable to ’status dogs’? And, which of those is attributable to ‘family’ dogs, or more to the point, grandparent’s dogs? These are some cold, hard stats that are not easily manipulated: Cadey Lee Deacon, killed by grandparent’s dogs. Ellie Lawrenson, killed by Uncle’s dog whilst in care of grandmother. Archie Lee Hirst, killed by grandparent’s dog. Jaden Mack, killed by grandmother’s dog whilst in care of grandmother. 4 deaths, running theme, so, where’s my ‘killer grandparent’s dog’ unit? These aren’t the dogs hanging out at the park, these are ‘family dogs’. So, as I say, cold, hard fact – ’status dogs’ are not the ones killing people but, by all means, let’s not the facts get in the way of any pre-conceived ideas about which dogs (owners) are the most serious threat to public safety.
Reply
Felicity Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
i would also like to know what you class as a status dog. my famile and i have a ridgeback as a pet, i’ve trained him not to jump up at people and i’ve never had a problem with him showing any signs of aggression. a jack russel ran over and attacked him for no reason and he just lifted his head out of reach and did nothing! yet, people cross the street when the see him and pull their dogs away, because they class him as a “aggressive status” dog!
i can’t go to my local park because people try to kick him, even though he did go anywhere near them, he just likes to mind his own and sniff the grass. they run put to him, yelling and trying to kick him, all he did was run and hid behind me! people scream abuse at me.
i don’t like people who have a dog to feel hard. and no, i didn’t choose the breed because their big and muscular. we bought him because the breeder was going to put him down because he way born without a ridge!
you say you can’t take a child or a small dog to the park, is that beacuse the dogs are showing aggression or is it that you are intimidated by the fact that they are muscular breeds? my ridgeback lives happily with cats and a small jack russel cross. they steal out of his bowl and even push him off despite the fact that their only 1/10 of his size!
the goverment should be focusing on prevent the wrong people from ownings dogs, giving more power to the police to place leash and muzzeling orders on dogs before they inhjure someone. and promoting responisble ownership, spay and neuter campaigns and prevent people breeding unsuitable dogs and breeding for the wrong reasons! not on breed bans, which by the way prove ineffective every where they’re in place! why do you think italy and the neverlands lifted their breed bans?
Reply
A ’status’ dog in our area is simply a muscular dog that increases street presence.
Ownership of these dogs has rocketed here in the last 5 years. You would have to be blind not to notice it – they are now part of the urban street culture. Some are well-controlled, some are running wild. Have local injuries gone up? I don’t know.
BUT you don’t need to be a statistician to see the obvious flaw and bias in the original piece – the writer is speculating (without evidence) that the increase in hospital admissions caused by dog injuries is down to ’strikes’ rather than bites and that this somehow makes things better or reveals a conspiracy by the authorities to get at dog owners. Even presuming the writer is correct, how the dog injures someone (or whether it was deliberate) is completely irrelevant.
To the Ridgeback owner – you have a big powerful dog, which you obviously love and care well for. Good for you, I think they are superb dogs. But don’t you think you are asking too much for strangers to immediately trust both your dog and your ability to control it?
Every single dog owner I know is 100% sure of the same thing – “Don’t worry it won’t hurt you”. They are not all right.
The blindness of love. We are all guilty of it.
Reply
felicity Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
all i really want is to be able to go to my local park without someone trying to attack my dog! there is a diiference between not trusting and just attacking! you think that is too much to much to ask?
pesonally i don’t care if people cross the road! i only state that to prove people are ingorant! i don’t like people getting in my face about which dog i own or why, when they don’t even know me! i want to be left alone! no i don’t think not having having my dog kick and abuse screamed at me is too much to ask!
you didn’t anwsere my question! is it because the so-called ’status’ dogs are accuatly acting angressively or it’s you asumen they are?
which is it!
Reply
Richard Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Reply
Richard Reply:
December 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Felicity said:
“all i really want is to be able to go to my local park without someone trying to attack my dog! there is a diiference between not trusting and just attacking! you think that is too much to much to ask?”
Of course not. Where did you get the impression that this is what I was saying? You have experienced being unfairly judged because of the type of dog you have. That’s not nice for you I appreciate that and whoever attacked your dog is clearly a cruel idiot.
Felicity said:
“you didn’t anwsere my question! is it because the so-called ’status’ dogs are accuatly acting angressively or it’s you asumen they are?
which is it!”
It’s because I read a tabloid article about demon pitbulls and I assume all muscular dogs are aggressive and will eat my child at any given minute.
(is this what you would like me to say?)
Felicity said:
“so saying all muscular are status dogs is vague. if someone gets a dog, trains it to be aggressive to delibarate intimade others, that is what i consider a status dog!”
You are right – it would be a vague thing to say but I never said it. Look. Around where I live a lot of people – mostly young men – own bull terrier type breeds, for protection and street image/presence. It is how it is around here.
It might be different around your way but that is the fact here.
You can assume I am imagining it if you like.
There are a group of men who exercise their dogs by setting them on small trees in the park, another guy gets his dog to tear up the rubber swing in the playground. Then there is the 10 year old lad who is dragged along the path by an agitated staffie nearly half his size. (I could go on and on and on). All these dogs are bull terriers or rottweilers.
These are all owner issues not breed issues. I understand this, I am not a moron. But if they were misbehaving with Scottie dogs I would not be concerned. The fact is these particular very powerful breeds have the capacity to cause enormous damage.
If an irresponsible person buys a hamster there is no problem, if he gets a crocodile we all start to worry.
Reply
felicity Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
i want to add something.
not every person that has a muscular dog has it because they want a status dog. yes there is an increase in the amount of ‘tough looking’ dogs around, but then again dog breeds popularity is always changing. not so long ago the average family would have had a mutt as the family dog. now most people have pure breeds, society is always changing. why anyone selects their breed of dog, as long as they train and care for it well, is entirerly up to them.
many breeds are muscular, greyhounds are quite muscluar, maulumants are muscular but their covered with thick pushy hair, st.barnards and newfowlands are the same. so saying all muscular are status dogs is vague. if someone gets a dog, trains it to be aggressive to delibarate intimade others, that is what i consider a status dog!
i’m not sure if you had my first post proberly or if you think that someone coming over and trying to kick my dog and being abusive towards me is acceptable, but i’ll refrase. my dog was no were near them. he didn’t go towards them or even look at them! THEY CAME UP TO HIM! now i can understand someone being afaird of a large dog coming up to them, and them deffending themselfs from it! but like i said, they went out of their way to come up to him. thats not self-deffence, thats just attacking for the sake of attacking!
sorry but if anyone feels they have the right to attack a dog that wasn’t intefearing with them or anyone else, somthing is wrong! now i dont accept people to trust him, to be petting him or hugging him, i wouldn’t accept anyone to do this with any dog they didn’t know, regardless of what breed of dog it is. but like Brianna said i want people to respect my right to be in public with my dog! we’ve not hurting anyone, nor are we tring to or tring to scare anyone. this image of every single muscular dog is a status and the owner only having them to train it to be a visous attack dog, is rubbish!
infact, i’ve never met a dog & its owner that are like this. i know that there out there some where, but this image has nothing to do with me and my dog! i met aggressive dogs from ‘friendly pet’ breeds, the worest being an aggressive black lab amd their are two aggressive dogs in my local park. every single time i see these dogs they are off lead, causing problems with every one else’s dogs! the owners of course denining that the dogs are a problem because ‘my babie’s not aggressive’ and thats it! its the owners causing the probelms, and not just the owners of ’status’ dogs!
personly i agree there is a problem with dogs that are off lead that shouldn’t be! yes, your right that is doesn’t matter if it was an accident or not if you or your kid gets put in hosptiacl by a some else dog. some owners let their dog off lead, regardless of the fact that is aggressive or hyper and slamming into everyone. for this reason, i think that dogs should have to pass a behavoiral test or kennel club good citizen test before they can be let off lead in public. i don’t think banning any breed will stop the problem with bad and irresponisble owners!
yes, this article is bais. it’s suppost to be! its an arguement after all. the goverment minipulate stats for their agenda, the for breed ban arguement. so minipulating stats to prove the opposite is the normal counter arguement! both sides are bais, their ment to be even some of the goverments arguements are speculation. which arguement you support is up to you, this article is just to inform everyone that not every thing they read is accurate.
Reply
I have a very large GSD, he is very well trained. My dog has had a weiner dog run up and try to attack him, and all he did was try to hide behind me.
I agree that it is ‘asking too much for strangers to immediately trust both your dog and your ability to control it’, but what I do ask for is respect for both me (the owner) and my dog since neither of us have done anything to receive such a negative image. I believe in judging by ‘Deed not Breed’
My first dog as a kid was a Doberman Pinscher, once again a very well trained dog. But my family took precautions since they are potentially dangerous; instead of banning these great family dogs why not enforce leash laws,teach children how to behave around a dog and socialize your dog?
Reply