Dog bite statistics (UK)

Evac101

So, once again we have a newspaper article that takes raw, un-analysed data, and then builds a unsupported story from it. No analysis of recorded bites versus percentage of pet dog population (to give at least a vague idea of actual bite incidence per breed), no investigation regarding socioeconomic status of owners^, no examination of whether larger dogs predominate since smaller dog bites tend to be home treated, no data on whether breeds are identified or suspected* . All in all, poor research, which always annoys me.

^ to anticipate the push back from this - certain owners value an aggressive dog, many of whom inhabit some very specific socioeconomic niches. Sorry but it's true.

* "it looked like a pit bull" being a statement which has been shown to be factually inaccurate in a number of studies linking the identification of a dogs breed with an association of violence (i.e. a dog described as violent is more likely to be identified as a pit bull, where the same picture described as a loving family pet is less likely, regardless of the actual breed of the dog). As these are American studies, where the incidence of staffies is much lower, I feel confident in drawing a corollary with staffies in the UK and Ireland where newspapers were forced to sensationalise/demonise those instead of pit bulls.

VonVix

Saw this the other day, there is so much I could say about this article lol. And... "animal psychologist"? Isn't that SO broad? They should have spoken with someone specific to canines and their behaviour.

jelone

this is just soooo weird..

tk123

TLDR the article... but wow - that dog has lovely clean teeth lol!

Evac101

As a partial explanation for my vehemence, a) I'm both a dog lover and continuing to train as a dog handler, so I know that all dog breeds are capable of biting given circumstances (poor training, poor socialisation, etc, etc) and b) I work with databases, specifically databases used to statistically analyse "stuff". I can generate probably a huge number of, potentially conflicting, conclusions from the same data depending on the methodology I adopt, so I'm very aware that raw data isn't particularly helpful until it's analysed using an informed and logical framework of examination. Drawing conclusions from raw data is something which irritates the hell out of me.

Choc Chip

I think there are two reasons there's little reaction to this.

First, newspapers are continuously guilty of reporting like this. For example, this popped up in my Facebook feed the other day: http://wingsoverscotland.com/until-your-ship-comes-in/

This kind of sensationalist reporting with zero analysis or context is just too common to provoke reaction in a time where established media is at a serious disadvantage to the immediacy of social media.

Second, there's probably some relief that it's not one of the stereotypically 'bad' breeds being highlighted for a change. Labradors arent at any immediate risk of being stereotyped as a dangerous dog and so articles like this don't get the same kick back as articles that attack breeds that already have a negative social image (e.g. staffies, rotties, gsds).