Canine Aggression On The Rise

[sandgrubber]

It is, or would be if the data were available, important to note differences between, say, the 5 year trend and the 20 yr or 50 yr trend. I would guess, based on personal experience, that over the long term, dog aggression has gone down because, with progressive urbanization and decline of 'country ways', dog aggression has become less tolerated. I'm in my 60s. I got bitten a few times as a child and that was viewed as ok. No one took action or was shocked or talked about law suits. Many people of my generation have had similar experiences. And then there's James Thurber's famous short story titled "The Dog That Bit People", written ~1939. The dog was a standard size Airdaile. It bit people, particularly guests, indiscriminately. The response, at Xmas, give boxes of chocolates to those who got bitten, and try to confine the damn dog. This was funny at the time.

The only stats I have come across that show this are some I came across trying to figure out whether the famed Calgary model of dog control was working. (These show a long decline in dog aggression over the years before the new, much acclaimed, laws came into effect, and a small rise after the new laws were implemented). See graph below:

source: http://www.calgary.c...Over%20Time.pdf

note: the famous Calgary Bylaws were passed in 2006.

If anyone knows of any other long term stats on dog aggression, it would be great to see them!

I suspect that the most important long term trend is in people's preferences for guard dog breeds (shown by the huge declines in dogs like the GSD, Rotti, and Doberman) and the rise in popularity of relatively playful and friendly breeds (or DD's, or Xbreed types).

The increase in popularity of small molasser / large terrier breeds, some lines of which are aggressive, bucks the trend. My very subjective reading is that in urbanized situations, particularly low income urbanized situations, many people feel threatened, and want a dog that can be both a companion, and a guardian. And some parts of youth culture go for aggressive posturing, or in the extreme, dog fighting. This goes wrong a lot. Hence BSL focussed on bull breeds.

Edited July 25, 2013 by sandgrubber

[corvus]

Statistics is far and away the best tool we have for detecting and characterising relationships between variables. It needn't be all or nothing, though. We just need to acknowledge both what the data are and what they are not. It's damn hard to get a dataset that is 100% representative of the population. This is not the big problem it seems to be on the surface. It just means that to interpret the data correctly we should note where it comes from and what subsets of the population may be over or under represented in the data. Where we can, we should find ways to account for skews in the data, which is often as simple as collecting data on possible confounding variables and plugging it into a model along with everything you really care about. The model will tell you when variables have a significant effect on whatever you are investigating. If you collect data specifically to support your hypothesis and nothing else, someone (many someones) is going to see right through it and dismiss the work because it is biased. As they should. The art of science is working out prior to data collection what variables you should be collecting data on and designing experiments to filter out as much noise as possible, and to narrow possible interpretations of the data down to as few as possible.

Simple statistics such as number of bites reported over time can be pretty useless or quite revealing depending on where the data came from and how consistently it was collected. Don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water. If the data were collected inconsistently (e.g. reporting policies changed partway through), the data from before the change and after are not really comparable and should be treated as two separate datasets IMO. But that's not to say all statistics is suspect.

[sandgrubber]

Statistics is far and away the best tool we have for detecting and characterising relationships between variables.

It's a system. Empiricism needs to be coupled with causal understanding. High correlation may confuse cause and effect. Or two variables may be connected in a feedback loop, and cause and effect may be obscure. The feedback behaviour may be affected by changes in boundary conditions. Eg, over, say, 20 yr time horizon, do changes in dog breed ownership explain changes in aggressive episodes, or does social pressure to reduce aggressive episodes cause breed selection? Or have breeds, themselves, changed? Or all three...operating under pressure from higher population density, more indoor living, and less exposure to livestock and wildlife. We won't ever have good enough good numerical data to test these hypotheses via study of statistical correlations or cluster analysis. There's as much need for historians as statisticians.

Edited July 26, 2013 by sandgrubber

[Santo66]

People are aware of the consequences of speeding and drink driving - and yet they do it. Do we punish responsible drivers by banning cars? Of course we don't

They did take V8's and turbocharged cars off P plate drivers in some states........same thing as taking powerful dog breeds off potentially irresponsible owners?

[tdierikx]

When "attack" is construed as "any act that causes fear in the recipient" - the statistics presented will be skewed. Stafford types will ALWAYS factor high in those sort of statistics because a high number of them will be way too friendly for their own good and will rush up to anyone and anything wanting to say hello in an over-enthusuastic manner.

The numbers as presented in the OP don't actually state how many of these "attacks" actually resulted in any injury at all - yet the average Joe reading them will correlate "attack" to mean that injury occured, and come to the (most likely) wrong assumption that Stafford types are dangerous, evil, bitey dogs...

... and THAT is the reason that I don't trust any statistics regarding this particular topic. They are presenting a "fact" that the people who designed the data gathering want to "prove"... and the assumption they are trying to prove with thos stats is just wrong from the get go.

T.

[corvus]

When "attack" is construed as "any act that causes fear in the recipient" - the statistics presented will be skewed. Stafford types will ALWAYS factor high in those sort of statistics because a high number of them will be way too friendly for their own good and will rush up to anyone and anything wanting to say hello in an over-enthusuastic manner.

The numbers as presented in the OP don't actually state how many of these "attacks" actually resulted in any injury at all - yet the average Joe reading them will correlate "attack" to mean that injury occured, and come to the (most likely) wrong assumption that Stafford types are dangerous, evil, bitey dogs...

Yes

... and THAT is the reason that I don't trust any statistics regarding this particular topic. They are presenting a "fact" that the people who designed the data gathering want to "prove"... and the assumption they are trying to prove with thos stats is just wrong from the get go.

T.

No. No one is designing data collection to prove anything, because they CAN'T prove anything with stats, even if it isn't skewed. They can only produce evidence that supports an hypothesis. I highly doubt whoever collects this data is trying to prove that dog aggression is on the rise. Someone has just interpreted it that way, and therein lies the problem with stats. The devil can quote the bible for his purposes and all that. Doesn't mean no one should ever listen to a clergyman.

[Santo66]

When "attack" is construed as "any act that causes fear in the recipient" - the statistics presented will be skewed. Stafford types will ALWAYS factor high in those sort of statistics because a high number of them will be way too friendly for their own good and will rush up to anyone and anything wanting to say hello in an over-enthusuastic manner.

The numbers as presented in the OP don't actually state how many of these "attacks" actually resulted in any injury at all - yet the average Joe reading them will correlate "attack" to mean that injury occured, and come to the (most likely) wrong assumption that Stafford types are dangerous, evil, bitey dogs...

... and THAT is the reason that I don't trust any statistics regarding this particular topic. They are presenting a "fact" that the people who designed the data gathering want to "prove"... and the assumption they are trying to prove with thos stats is just wrong from the get go.

T.

Recorded attacks IMHO should be incidents that result in bites........it's probably the same skewed collection of data that has rated Labradors and Golden Retrievers high in attacks like the over friendly Staffy.......only two days ago I was attacked in the driveway by a neighbours Staffy when getting out of my car......I was lunged at and severely licked when bending down to pat her........but that is stupid stuff to record as an attack........then again who in their right mind would report an incident like that to council anyway

I suspect that the most important long term trend is in people's preferences for guard dog breeds (shown by the huge declines in dogs like the GSD, Rotti, and Doberman)

The GSD on a whole has been massively watered down in protective traits through selective breeding from where they were 30 years ago when by breed alone in both the GSD and Dobe, many could be sourced from the pound and used in yards for guard dogs untrained once the dog established their domain, territorial aggression would keep out uninvited intruders.......now days you have to source specific bloodlines in the GSD where breeding has preserved the territorial traits suitable for protection of property beyond watch dog qualities.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Santo66

[tdierikx]

There is "attack" - resulting in injury...

Then there is "menace" - behaviour that can ONLY be construed as possibly leading up to an "attack"...

And then there is the average Stafford type of greeting with completely over the top pushy "pat/love me now" attitude... *grin*

If someone isn't dog savvy, the last scenario may be reported as "menace" in the very least - more than likely due to stupid reporting of stats like those in the OP... grrr!

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

There is "attack" - resulting in injury...

Then there is "menace" - behaviour that can ONLY be construed as possibly leading up to an "attack"...

And then there is the average Stafford type of greeting with completely over the top pushy "pat/love me now" attitude... *grin*

If someone isn't dog savvy, the last scenario may be reported as "menace" in the very least - more than likely due to stupid reporting of stats like those in the OP... grrr!

T.

Please do not use the word "Stafford" and "type" in the same sentence, the word "Stafford" is used by the breed enthusiast when discussing the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". By all means "Staffy" away, as that's the terms for the generic brindle pound mutt and the "type" without papers.

[Santo66]

Another thing comes to mind with kids getting bitten stems from todays parenting skills and general overview that kids getting bitten for doing something stupid is the dog's fault.......kids being allowed to rush over to strange dogs to pat them.........I had a woman lecture me a few weeks ago for telling her child who ran at us to pat my dog that he can bite so you can't pat him.......I shouldn't tell a child that a dog can bite......why not......my mum told me that and told me not to pat strange dogs and how to act if a dog shows aggression......we were exposed to dogs in the era when most neighbourhood dogs were floating around the street......more dogs then were hit by cars as a bit of dog news in the neighbourhood, attacks were virtually unheard of other than a couple bailing up the postman.......but we were all taught behaviour around dogs as standard practice, none of this all doggies are nice crap, we were told the truth and how to handle it and none of us got bitten either.

[Santo66]

There is "attack" - resulting in injury...

Then there is "menace" - behaviour that can ONLY be construed as possibly leading up to an "attack"...

And then there is the average Stafford type of greeting with completely over the top pushy "pat/love me now" attitude... *grin*

If someone isn't dog savvy, the last scenario may be reported as "menace" in the very least - more than likely due to stupid reporting of stats like those in the OP... grrr!

T.

Please do not use the word "Stafford" and "type" in the same sentence, the word "Stafford" is used by the breed enthusiast when discussing the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". By all means "Staffy" away, as that's the terms for the generic brindle pound mutt and the "type" without papers.

What's the go with Staffy's anyway........why is every second pound mutt of Staffy origin........Staffy's are ok and make nice pets, but I don't see what they offer exclusively to cause mass popularity........I think Stafford breeders are the most plentiful on the main page breeder listings to GSD's, Labs and some smaller breeds

[tdierikx]

There is "attack" - resulting in injury...

Then there is "menace" - behaviour that can ONLY be construed as possibly leading up to an "attack"...

And then there is the average Stafford type of greeting with completely over the top pushy "pat/love me now" attitude... *grin*

If someone isn't dog savvy, the last scenario may be reported as "menace" in the very least - more than likely due to stupid reporting of stats like those in the OP... grrr!

T.

Please do not use the word "Stafford" and "type" in the same sentence, the word "Stafford" is used by the breed enthusiast when discussing the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". By all means "Staffy" away, as that's the terms for the generic brindle pound mutt and the "type" without papers.

Sorry WIW - but the average Joe isn't going to make the distinction between "Stafford" or "staffy" when one is rushing up to greet them and it scares them, are they?

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

There is "attack" - resulting in injury...

Then there is "menace" - behaviour that can ONLY be construed as possibly leading up to an "attack"...

And then there is the average Stafford type of greeting with completely over the top pushy "pat/love me now" attitude... *grin*

If someone isn't dog savvy, the last scenario may be reported as "menace" in the very least - more than likely due to stupid reporting of stats like those in the OP... grrr!

T.

Please do not use the word "Stafford" and "type" in the same sentence, the word "Stafford" is used by the breed enthusiast when discussing the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". By all means "Staffy" away, as that's the terms for the generic brindle pound mutt and the "type" without papers.

Sorry WIW - but the average Joe isn't going to make the distinction between "Stafford" or "staffy" when one is rushing up to greet them and it scares them, are they?

T.

Average Joe wouldn't know what a "Stafford" is and I think to use the term in a discussion about bite stats is highly offensive to the breed enthusiasts and condemns the "breed" along with every generic brindle pound mutt.

Personally I would like to see no breed listed in rego papers unless you have the ANKC or working registry paperwork to go with it.

A "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is a "Stafford" call the rest whatever you like but "Staffords" they are not

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Did anyone see the news last night on Channel 7 about NSW Dog Laws not being strict enough?

It does contain a video of a Staffy mauling/killing another dog in its own yard and apparently the same thing happened in the same place, 8 weeks before:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/nsw/watch/18171619/nsw-dog-laws-not-tough-enough/

There is a picture of the dog that killed the other dog being led away. Not being a breed expert, it certainly looks like a purebred Staffy to me.

Hard to see what the dog was like that it killed, there was only a flash of white in the blurred pictures.

RIP poor dog, whatever you were. I'm sure more information will come out in the next few days.