Sydney's Most Vicious Dogs

[klink]

Linky here

Recently released figures from NSW Councils detail which breeds of dogs were most frequently involved in attacks on humans in the 3 months to September, 2010.

An article in the Sunday Telegraph of October 234, 2010 lists the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as being “the most dangerous breed of dog” since they were involved in more attacks than other breeds. The second most dangerous was listed as Australian Cattle Dog and the third the German Shepherd.

These figures are incorrect and are based on a complete misunderstanding of basic mathematics. The error is that the attack figures reflect which breeds are most common. That is, the more of a dog breed around, the more likely it is that bites or attacks will be recorded.

So, at Burke’s Backyard, we have adjusted the attack figures by dividing them by the number of dogs of that breed bred in 2009 in NSW. This is a statistical method to try to get a more truthful picture.

When adjusted the results are as follow:

The most dangerous breeds are:

1. Australian Cattle Dog

2. Siberian Husky

3. Rottweiler

4. American Staffordshire Terrier

5. Staffordshire terrier

6. Bullmastiff

7. Jack Russell Terrier

8. German Shepherd

9. Border Collie

10. Labrador Retriever

The Australian cattle dog stands out as a really nasty breed. It’s more than 12 times more likely to attack than a Labrador Retriever. Having said that, the Australian Cattle Dog and the Siberian Husky both stand out as dangerous breeds.

Of most interest is this: Of the 20 most popular dog breeds in NSW, 12 stand out as very safe indeed (since they don’t figure at all on the top 20 dog attack lists). These breeds are strongly recommended by Burke’s Backyard. They are, in order of popularity:

1. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

2. Golden Retriever

3. Cocker Spaniel

4. Pug

5. Toy Poodle

6. Miniature Schnauzer

7. Boxer

8. Bull Terrier

9. Rhodesian Ridgeback

10. West Highland White Terrier

11. British Bulldog

12. Smooth coated Chihuahua

NB: The kelpie stood out as a dangerous breed. We rejected the statistics since most kelpies that are bred are not recorded by the NSW Kennel Club, but rather by the working dog groups. That is, the statistics are so inaccurate as to be unusable. To the best of our knowledge the Kelpie is not a dangerous breed.

[klink]

does' anybody really give a 'rats' about Burke ? I doubt he would know which end of a dog to feed, anyone really remember him ?

[poochmad]

I agree with you PF. I've met some lovely ACDs very sweet natured and well socialised. However, where we live we have a family who are living as though they are on a farm in the town as their property is so large they have horses in their backyard and have multiple dogs. Last count they have 4 jack russells type dogs and 4 ACDs. Unfortunately they allow the dogs to run loose around the streets causing havoc, with the adult female ACD being extremely aggressive in that she has bitten their kids, nipped me and goes after every dog and person that walks past the property. People have complained and in the evening they lock the dogs in the backyard, but then they are running around during the day when most people are out and about. Oh, and they bred from her and now she has two pups runnning with her (both females, of course) and are learning how to behave from her. The pups started out as sweet but are now starting to copy her behaviour in that they are chasing after people and snapping and growling. All very dangerous. Idiots.

[mita]

Hmmm... and only pure breed dogs attack... ??

I wonder if the statistics might reflect a different story if the mixed breed dog attacks were correctly identified as what they actually were?

T.

Trouble is that so many of the 'authority'-type documents about dogs, ask people to nominate Primary Breed & Secondary Breed. They don't record the dog simply as Mixed Breed. So someone who usually hasn't a clue about the dog's origins, nominates Cattle Dog for Primary Breed and maybe Border Collie for Secondary Breed. (And that can be an owner as much as a victim or a witness.)

It must be some lame way the authorities hope to get some kind of 'visual' of the dog.

But when these dogs are pulled out of the data base, they're described as whatever was given for the Primary Breed. Like, Cattle Dog. In one fell swoop, a mixed-breed dog (of indeterminate origins) is turned into a purebred.

If only dogs that are Mixed Breed were recorded simply as that....interesting to see the stats for being involved in dog bites.

Or if pure breeds, with documented pedigree papers, were described/listed as such....like Australian Cattle Dog/P. Then stats collected on how many of these were involved in serious bites/attacks.

Good support from the US Government's Centres for Disease Control (CDC) & the American Veterinary Medicine Association AVMA):

The CDC has never issued a report or press release naming "the types of dogs most likely to bite," nor has the CDC ever released a list of dogs they consider "highest risk."

From the CDC:

"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

From the AVMA:

"There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.

First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds.

Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury.

Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. [source: AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression]

Edited October 31, 2010 by mita

[Ons]

my friend has two red cattle dog and his mother, who he lives with, has chihuahuas - both smooth and long coat

guess which dogs have actually bitten me

[Jed]

He was a tool, he is a tool, and he will forever be a tool.

I am disgusted the ridiculous hairy rectal orifice has the boxer No 7 on his (totally invented) kissy list. They'll all be buying 'em now, and more pfs will be breedin' em, and they'll be stuffed up like the more popular breeds.

Trust the man who made the designer dog popular to stuff something else up.

And his list might be right, who knows?

[Kirty]

Rather than using the number of dogs bred, surely you should be looking at the number of dogs owned of each breed. But then I guess that would be difficult.

[Jed]

Here's an old thread - check what good old don was up to then!!!

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=5121&hl=

Edited October 31, 2010 by Jed

[tarope]

"So, at Burke’s Backyard, we have adjusted the attack figures by dividing them by the number of dogs of that breed bred in 2009 in NSW. This is a statistical method to try to get a more truthful picture".

The above statement says it all, what do you expect from Don Jerk. Once a Boofhead always a Boofhead, but he is famous for being the only person (other names come to mind but not printable) that alienated every Dog Club in Australia against him and he's still at it.

It really shits me when the Media, Don Jerk and Hugh Wirthless crawl out of their holes every now and then and jump on the dangerous breed bandwagon. The sad thing is, the general public seem to believe these morons.

[geo]

What a load of crap, Don Burke is a complete and utter fool. Anyone who believes these sorts of stats is also a fool as they serve no purpose but to scare the public and bring about rediculous legislation.

The worse thing is the general public wouldn't get a chance to read this forum and gain an educated insight from dog breeders and fanciers who know a thing or two.

[Havasneeze]

my friend has two red cattle dog and his mother, who he lives with, has chihuahuas - both smooth and long coat

guess which dogs have actually bitten me

I'd be guessing it ws the chihuahuas!!! I show chihuahuas for a friend from time to time and have found that the smooth coats can be quite nasty but the long coats seem to be a bit more laid back and easier to get along with. I have also been chased around the ring by a smooth coat chihuahua trying to bite me, as it didn't want to do what I was trying to get it to do.... stand in a group line up!!!

When we used to show these smooth coats, we would have to warn people (usually children) not to put their fingers in the trolley or risk having them bitten off by the little darlings...

[Quickasyoucan]

Hmmm... and only pure breed dogs attack... ??

I wonder if the statistics might reflect a different story if the mixed breed dog attacks were correctly identified as what they actually were?

T.

Trouble is that so many of the 'authority'-type documents about dogs, ask people to nominate Primary Breed & Secondary Breed. They don't record the dog simply as Mixed Breed. So someone who usually hasn't a clue about the dog's origins, nominates Cattle Dog for Primary Breed and maybe Border Collie for Secondary Breed. (And that can be an owner as much as a victim or a witness.)

It must be some lame way the authorities hope to get some kind of 'visual' of the dog.

But when these dogs are pulled out of the data base, they're described as whatever was given for the Primary Breed. Like, Cattle Dog. In one fell swoop, a mixed-breed dog (of indeterminate origins) is turned into a purebred.

If only dogs that are Mixed Breed were recorded simply as that....interesting to see the stats for being involved in dog bites.

Or if pure breeds, with documented pedigree papers, were described/listed as such....like Australian Cattle Dog/P. Then stats collected on how many of these were involved in serious bites/attacks.

Good support from the US Government's Centres for Disease Control (CDC) & the American Veterinary Medicine Association AVMA):

The CDC has never issued a report or press release naming "the types of dogs most likely to bite," nor has the CDC ever released a list of dogs they consider "highest risk."

From the CDC:

"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

From the AVMA:

"There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.

First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds.

Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury.

Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. [source: AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression]

Yep so Burke's "more truthful statistical method" is to use the number of purebred registrations and the number of unverifiable and potentially unreliable breed identifications that were made at the time of the bites and put those together to get a result. :D

My dog is very definitely at cross breed, but every person I see calls him a "staffy". No doubt he would be listed as a staffordshire bull terrier if he was ever part of any DLG report but he is not. In fact according to BITSA (yep I know not necessarily reliable) he is more border collie than stafford but he just looks more like a bull breed.

Actually I must be stuffed because I have a mixture of 2 dogs on the top 10 list.

[whiskedaway]

The only way I can think of my Sibe being dangerous to me is if she suffocates me with her slobber from kissing me too much.

Don Burke is an idiot.

[mita]

Anyone who believes these sorts of stats is also a fool as they serve no purpose but to scare the public and bring about rediculous legislation.

The worse thing is the general public wouldn't get a chance to read this forum and gain an educated insight from dog breeders and fanciers who know a thing or two.

Agree.

[poodlefan]

The only way I can think of my Sibe being dangerous to me is if she suffocates me with her slobber from kissing me too much.

Don Burke is an idiot.

Sibes and neonatal babies can be a fatal combination if unsupervised. There are no records of Sibes fatally attacking any human older than 4 months. There was an attack of this nature in WA a few years back and another in the USA last year.

If you can get a copy of the book Fatal Dog Attacks you will find it an illuminating read on the issue.

Of course if people didn't leave dog with access to kids, it wouldn't be an issue for ANY breed.

Edited November 1, 2010 by poodlefan

[mita]

Of course if people didn't leave dog with access to kids, it wouldn't be an issue for ANY breed.

The US Centre for Disease Control, would support this. Among their main tips for avoiding children being bitten by dogs:

.Spend time with a dog before buying or adopting it. Use caution when bringing a dog into a household with an infant or toddler.

.Never leave infants or young children alone with a dog.

.Don’t play aggressive games with your dog (e.g., wrestling).

.Properly socialize and train any dog entering your household.

.Immediately seek professional advice (e.g., from veterinarians, animal behaviorists, or responsible breeders) if the dog develops aggressive or undesirable behaviors.

[bernym]

Perhaps they should just publish the actual figures for the number of dog attacks per state, broken into dog-animal attacks and dog-people attacks and leave the mathematical equations out.

If possible, they should also publish a photo of the dogs that attacked, if they were caught, so people can decide for themselves what breed it resembles, and whether this is a breed they would want to own.

I personally have witnessed dogs belonging to 5 of those 10 breeds act aggressively towards people and other dogs. That first-hand account has made me question owning those breeds of dogs, more so than seeing them in a list like this. But, it is interesting that all the aggressive dogs I have met are of the breeds in the list!

[mita]

I personally have witnessed dogs belonging to 5 of those 10 breeds act aggressively towards people and other dogs. That first-hand account has made me question owning those breeds of dogs, more so than seeing them in a list like this. But, it is interesting that all the aggressive dogs I have met are of the breeds in the list!

My own first hand account of witnessing dogs acting aggressively to people (as in actually biting them), pulls up a Small White Fluffy (crossbreed) & a bunch of Chihuahuas (no evidence if p/b or not).

That's not surprising from a stats point of view.... because there's lots of SWFs and Chihuahuas (p/b or not) in the dog population.

Statistically, the odds are against my witnessing one of the rarer breeds doing likewise.

And the more there are of certain breeds, pure or not, so will the numbers of owners who don't do all the things the US CDC recommends for preventing dog bites/attacks.

It's for such reasons that the AVMA....with statistical tools on hand...stated that slating home breed as first cause can't be substantiated.

[poodlefan]

Of most interest is this: Of the 20 most popular dog breeds in NSW, 12 stand out as very safe indeed (since they don’t figure at all on the top 20 dog attack lists). These breeds are strongly recommended by Burke’s Backyard. They are, in order of popularity:

1. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

2. Golden Retriever

3. Cocker Spaniel

4. Pug

5. Toy Poodle

6. Miniature Schnauzer

7. Boxer

8. Bull Terrier

9. Rhodesian Ridgeback

10. West Highland White Terrier

11. British Bulldog

12. Smooth coated Chihuahua

I feel sorry for the breeds on that list - now they'll be targetted by buyers who think that getting the right breed means they don't have to supervise or control their kiddies That in turn will lead to BYBers cashing in on the breeds to sell as "ideal family pets" regardless of the temperament of their breeding dogs. That's how the Golden Retriever has made it up to top of the list of dog bite stats in Canada.

For the record, I not rate a Toy Poodle as a good pick for someone with kids under school age. As pups they are too frail for the rough and tumble of life with young kids.

[Moselle]

"So, at Burke’s Backyard, we have adjusted the attack figures by dividing them by the number of dogs of that breed bred in 2009 in NSW. This is a statistical method to try to get a more truthful picture".

The above statement says it all, what do you expect from Don Jerk. Once a Boofhead always a Boofhead, but he is famous for being the only person (other names come to mind but not printable) that alienated every Dog Club in Australia against him and he's still at it. ;) :D

It really shits me when the Media, Don Jerk and Hugh Wirthless crawl out of their holes every now and then and jump on the dangerous breed bandwagon. The sad thing is, the general public seem to believe these morons.

Could not agree more !!!!!