I see it's silly season here again.
Fact: certain breeds are provably more inclined to aggressive behavior than others. The dogma that all breeds are the same is not supported by evidence.
Fact: the probability of serious injury or death in any given dog attack correlates with the size of the dog involved.
Posting a list of dog-related fatalities compiled from open news sources doesn't change these facts, particularly when that list includes as "dog-attack-related" deaths from other causes arising out of a dog bite incident. There is a significant difference between an attack in which a dog mauls the victim to death, and an attack in which the victim dies of a head injury caused when he falls from his bicycle after a dog inflicts a superficial bite.
That list includes:
- an elderly woman who died of complications from a broken hip caused when an Airedale knocked her down. There is no evidence the Airedale was acting aggressively.
- a child who died of strangulation caused by a beagle pulling on a leash wrapped around the child's neck. There is no evidence the beagle was acting aggressively.
- a man who died of injuries he received after he collided with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel while riding his bike. There is no evidence the spaniel was acting aggressively.
- a child who died of injuries after falling from his bike after suffering a superficial bite from a chihuahua.
- a man who died of an infection caused by a bite from a coonhound.
- a man who died of a heart attack following an unspecified incident involving an East Highland terrier.
- a woman who died of a heart attack after being bitten by a West Highland terrier. Apparently, highland terriers are a serious risk factor in fatal heart attacks.
- a child who died of strangulation caused by a Golden Retriever pulling on a scarf. No evidence the dog was being aggressive.
- a man who died of infection following a superficial bite from a JRT.
- a man who died after tripping over an old English sheepdog and being bitten; it is not established whether he died from the bite, the fall, or the cardiac event he suffered just before he fell.
These are not maulings. There is a significant difference not only in the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by "[COLOR=#333333]chiiuawawas, daschunds and more" and those caused by large dogs, but also in the nature of the incidents. It is obvious that all dogs do not, in fact, present an equal risk, and the report you posted does not pretend this is true.
Indeed, if you proceed to read the analysis that follows, you'll run into this remark: "it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances ... Pit bulls and Rottweilers ... must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
When we have one breed group (pit bulls) behind 82% of fatal dog attacks in a given year (2015), and when adding just two more breeds accounts for 97% of fatal dog attacks, it is not too difficult to determine where the problem lies, and it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a complicated question.
The far more difficult question is what steps might be taken to deal with that problem.
