Selection bias is running rampant here when interpreting the (partial) statistics around dog attacks and their seriousness.
For example: the dog breed most statistically likely to bite in the UK is the labrador (source). Jack Russels, chihuahas and dachshunds also rate highly in aggression but attacks are mostly unreported because they are rarely serious.
So saying some breeds are more aggressive than others may be true, but that’s only half the picture and the narrative around this discussion misses out that there are more aggressive breeds than bully types.
Bully breeds are strong, and if they attack, the damage can be serious. But the likelihood of them attacking is relatively small, they aren’t more predisposed to attack than the other breeds I’ve mentioned, and their attack response is heavily dependent on how they are trained, socialized and treated. The cases where a well-trained, well-treated and well-socialized bully breed dog is involved in an attack are pretty rare. Where attacks have happened, digging into the background often shows that the dog’s owners had not properly trained or controlled the dog. It is always the owner’s responsibility to care for and keep these dogs safe around others.
Finally, I’d like to say that this community is for appreciating dogs. Not some dogs. It shouldn’t be for berating people about pictures of particular breeds.
Your own source goes on to say Labradors are over-represented because they’re the most popular breed in the UK and the report count is a flat count of incidents, not a breakdown per 10,000 dogs for instance. They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making. The issue with dogs bred as fighting breeds is that they’re much more likely to cause catastrophic injury - that’s the whole problem. Nobody cares much if a Dachshund nips someone that stole its bone, they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity, and is usually one of just a handful of uncommon dog breeds. Not Labradors, Dachshunds, or Chihuahuas. Pit Bulls and Doberman.
They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making
The point I’m making is that the framing of bully type dogs being more naturally aggressive or violent than other breeds is not the case.
they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity
These deaths are tragedies, but are not regular. The reason they’re newsworthy is because of how rare these events are.
I think a large problem with the narrative around dog breeds, and their associated traits, comes from a lack of education and understanding about breeds and traits. You’re right, certain breeds have been selectively bred for certain activities: what this means is that collectively, dogs of this breed respond positively to being trained for that particular activity, as well as having physical characteristics to advantage them for that activity. It’s not that all dogs in the breed are predetermined to show those breed’s traits.
For example: border collies were bred as working dogs, specifically for herding sheep. Some have an innate herding instinct but generally they need to be specifically trained. A friend of mine had a border collie and it was the laziest dog in the world: it had no interest in herding or doing trial training. You can’t assume a dog from a certain breed will display the generalized behaviours the breed is bred for.
It’s telling that the biggest dog charities in the UK oppose measures for banning specific breeds of dog, because it does not work and takes attention away from measures that do improve safety, like responsible dog ownership and training.
Selection bias is running rampant here when interpreting the (partial) statistics around dog attacks and their seriousness.
For example: the dog breed most statistically likely to bite in the UK is the labrador (source). Jack Russels, chihuahas and dachshunds also rate highly in aggression but attacks are mostly unreported because they are rarely serious.
So saying some breeds are more aggressive than others may be true, but that’s only half the picture and the narrative around this discussion misses out that there are more aggressive breeds than bully types.
Bully breeds are strong, and if they attack, the damage can be serious. But the likelihood of them attacking is relatively small, they aren’t more predisposed to attack than the other breeds I’ve mentioned, and their attack response is heavily dependent on how they are trained, socialized and treated. The cases where a well-trained, well-treated and well-socialized bully breed dog is involved in an attack are pretty rare. Where attacks have happened, digging into the background often shows that the dog’s owners had not properly trained or controlled the dog. It is always the owner’s responsibility to care for and keep these dogs safe around others.
Finally, I’d like to say that this community is for appreciating dogs. Not some dogs. It shouldn’t be for berating people about pictures of particular breeds.
Your own source goes on to say Labradors are over-represented because they’re the most popular breed in the UK and the report count is a flat count of incidents, not a breakdown per 10,000 dogs for instance. They also are rarely serious bites so I’m not sure what point you’re making. The issue with dogs bred as fighting breeds is that they’re much more likely to cause catastrophic injury - that’s the whole problem. Nobody cares much if a Dachshund nips someone that stole its bone, they care if a dog mauls their toddler to death - which happens with far too much regularity, and is usually one of just a handful of uncommon dog breeds. Not Labradors, Dachshunds, or Chihuahuas. Pit Bulls and Doberman.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php
The point I’m making is that the framing of bully type dogs being more naturally aggressive or violent than other breeds is not the case.
These deaths are tragedies, but are not regular. The reason they’re newsworthy is because of how rare these events are.
I think a large problem with the narrative around dog breeds, and their associated traits, comes from a lack of education and understanding about breeds and traits. You’re right, certain breeds have been selectively bred for certain activities: what this means is that collectively, dogs of this breed respond positively to being trained for that particular activity, as well as having physical characteristics to advantage them for that activity. It’s not that all dogs in the breed are predetermined to show those breed’s traits.
For example: border collies were bred as working dogs, specifically for herding sheep. Some have an innate herding instinct but generally they need to be specifically trained. A friend of mine had a border collie and it was the laziest dog in the world: it had no interest in herding or doing trial training. You can’t assume a dog from a certain breed will display the generalized behaviours the breed is bred for.
It’s telling that the biggest dog charities in the UK oppose measures for banning specific breeds of dog, because it does not work and takes attention away from measures that do improve safety, like responsible dog ownership and training.