The point is that there’s not really such a thing as a dangerous breed. There’s dangerous dog owners though, and that’s different. When you ban a breed, most of these owners will switch to a different breed (which inevitably rises in the dog bite statistics). That’s mostly what that study showed, despite the ban on dangerous breeds, there weren’t any fewer bite incidents.
it seems clear that any reduction in rate of ownership of dangerous breeds should reduce the overall bite rate
In theory, sure. But this assumes that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous, which is largely unproven. Most larger studies seem to dispute this.
(Coincidentally, France’s restriction applies to all dangerous breeds
France’s bite rate isn’t substantially lower than neighbouring countries that don’t have these bans. In practice, it seems these bans do little to nothing to reduce bites, which is an indicator that the breed isn’t the issue.
It is an extraordinary claim that so called non dangerous breeds become more dangerous when so called dangerous breeds are restricted. I don’t think you can compare bite rates across borders because access to care, statistic collection methodology, dog ownership culture, etc are all confounding factors.
You’re making the logical error that the amount of bites indicates that a breed is dangerous. The claim I (and many others) make is that there’s no such thing as a dangerous breed.
As an analogy, suppose the government finds that cars with big flame stickers stuck on them get more speeding tickets, or end up in more accidents. Does the sticker make the car go faster? Would you expect the accident rate to go down if the government banned flame stickers? Or would you expect cars with lightning stickers to suddenly cause more trouble?
Ultimately, the owner is responsible and studies have shown that the owner is by far the strongest indicator of whether or not there will be problems.
The point is that there’s not really such a thing as a dangerous breed. There’s dangerous dog owners though, and that’s different. When you ban a breed, most of these owners will switch to a different breed (which inevitably rises in the dog bite statistics). That’s mostly what that study showed, despite the ban on dangerous breeds, there weren’t any fewer bite incidents.
In theory, sure. But this assumes that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous, which is largely unproven. Most larger studies seem to dispute this.
France’s bite rate isn’t substantially lower than neighbouring countries that don’t have these bans. In practice, it seems these bans do little to nothing to reduce bites, which is an indicator that the breed isn’t the issue.
It is an extraordinary claim that so called non dangerous breeds become more dangerous when so called dangerous breeds are restricted. I don’t think you can compare bite rates across borders because access to care, statistic collection methodology, dog ownership culture, etc are all confounding factors.
You’re making the logical error that the amount of bites indicates that a breed is dangerous. The claim I (and many others) make is that there’s no such thing as a dangerous breed.
As an analogy, suppose the government finds that cars with big flame stickers stuck on them get more speeding tickets, or end up in more accidents. Does the sticker make the car go faster? Would you expect the accident rate to go down if the government banned flame stickers? Or would you expect cars with lightning stickers to suddenly cause more trouble?
Ultimately, the owner is responsible and studies have shown that the owner is by far the strongest indicator of whether or not there will be problems.