If you're hoping that restricting dogs by breed will lead to fewer dog bites, well, you're barking up the wrong tree, according to the author of a study published last month in The Veterinary Journal.
Páraic Ó Súilleabháin -- a doctoral candidate in psychology at National University of Ireland, Galway, who focuses on human/canine interactions -- looked at government-collected hospitalization records to see if dog bites had gone up or down since Ireland imposed breed-based dog regulations in 1998.
Akebono: It seem that those who want to make it about counting "bites" apparently don't see the difference between a warning nip, and losing your arms in a 45 minute mauling. These folks count both of these things as a "bite".
The vast majority of dog bites don't break the skin and require no treatment, so the goal has never been to eliminate "dog bites". The goal is to reduce disfiguring or fatal dog attacks.
Every locale where pit bulls are properly regulated has had virtually no fatalities from dog attack. In other places, like North Carolina, where pit bulls are unregulated, not so much07.10.2015 0 points
gary: That is a good article. Breed specific legislation has proven time and again that it does not work to address the problem with "misbehaving dogs" as it is usually attributed to the owner.11.06.2015 0 points
