Campaigners have welcomed the move to outlaw the breed they argue is "a clear and present threat to public health", but concerns have been raised it may not be practical and lead to other kinds of dogs being prohibited.
You didn’t actually respond to my comment about a request for statistics, rather posting some individual stories. So since I posted I found this article from the BBC. It states that:
In 2022, there were 8,819 admissions to hospital in England with dog bites.
So that’s actually 24 dog attacks per day, so the problem is even more severe than you suggest, though the claim of only “some survive” then is misleading at best.
In 2022, there were 482 sentences given to owners of dangerously out of control dogs which resulted in an injury to a person in public
Out of all those hospital admissions, there’s 24 attacks a day being deemed criminal by our justice system. That data suggests that this problem is by no means limited to the XL bully breed.
482 dog attacks in 2022 resulting in criminal action but a fraction are caused by this particular breed.
In one recent study, researchers compared behavioural tendencies such as impulsivity and sensitivity to positive and negative stimuli – known to trigger aggressive responses – between eight dog breeds that are legislated against (including pit bull types), and 17 breeds that are not. This suggested that breed alone was a poor predictor of individual behavioural tendencies, including those related to aggression.
I don’t think I seemed offended. I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.
I see the statistics you cite come up as the first result on searches. Did you look at anything else? “Dog attacks in UK annually” has a lot of results for me.
I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.
There were two claims asserted:
“Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed.”
“Some survive, many do not.”
(Emphasis mine)
The first is not something I can find evidence for as there seems to be no break down easily availably by breed. And as for the second, most survive , 0.1% do not.
The down votes being given for asking for data seems like I’m offending some. 🤷
as far as info on which breeds are involved, I’m sure it’s out there.
Does not seem to be as you have also failed to find it. There is aggregate data for all dogs, which yes, is easily found actually refused some of the assertions that the person made.
Banning based on breed seems like a knee jerk reaction based on anecdotes.
Of course there is. Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed. Some survive, many do not.
Can you please link some statistics on this?
The only source I could find says:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/why-are-american-xl-bullies-being-banned-and-how-will-it-work
That’s too many deaths, of course, but hardly one a week.
Saturday: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-66256193
Wednesday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12522011/Shocking-moment-dog-mauls-boy-football.html
Thursday: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/man-dies-after-dog-attack-in-west-midlands
That’s 3 in 6 days.
That one is a Staffordshire bull terrier, not the breed being banned for these attacks.
You didn’t actually respond to my comment about a request for statistics, rather posting some individual stories. So since I posted I found this article from the BBC. It states that:
So that’s actually 24 dog attacks per day, so the problem is even more severe than you suggest, though the claim of only “some survive” then is misleading at best.
Out of all those hospital admissions, there’s 24 attacks a day being deemed criminal by our justice system. That data suggests that this problem is by no means limited to the XL bully breed.
Two attacks in six days rather than three then. Does this somehow make it acceptable?
They’re a dangerous breed and should be banned. No amount of pedantry or weasel words can change that.
Mostly cause we, y’know, ban the dangerous breeds, so we have a lot fewer dangerous dogs attacking people.
482 dog attacks in 2022 resulting in criminal action but a fraction are caused by this particular breed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans
That’s 6 of 10 fatal dog attacks. Though it surely disappoints them, not all attacks by pit bulls are fatal.
Apparently requesting to have a fact based discussion is offensive. I merely asked for actual data for some rather extraordinary claims.
I don’t think I seemed offended. I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.
I see the statistics you cite come up as the first result on searches. Did you look at anything else? “Dog attacks in UK annually” has a lot of results for me.
Here’s a BBC article for example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64798162
which states
as far as info on which breeds are involved, I’m sure it’s out there.
There were two claims asserted:
(Emphasis mine) The first is not something I can find evidence for as there seems to be no break down easily availably by breed. And as for the second, most survive , 0.1% do not.
The down votes being given for asking for data seems like I’m offending some. 🤷
Does not seem to be as you have also failed to find it. There is aggregate data for all dogs, which yes, is easily found actually refused some of the assertions that the person made.
Banning based on breed seems like a knee jerk reaction based on anecdotes.
True, “many” seems to be an overstatement. Being mauled by a dog isn’t great, either.
That’s a function of how much time I spent looking. You seem to be more engaged in this topic than I am, so perhaps you could find the data.
These stats are American, and only the ones that got in the news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States