-
Basic Googling shows that dog bites come from a range of dogs.
An expert on dog-human interaction and dog bite attacks says that all dogs are a risk. The evidence suggests that all dog breads are a similar risk of aggressive behaviour, the only variation between breeds is that bigger dogs can do more harm.
Another issue is that owners tend more and more to have their dogs in all areas of the home increasing the risk of harm to children, again regardless of breed.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2023/jun/12/whats-behind-the-rise-in-dog-attacks
neu-
The evidence suggests that all dog breads are a similar risk of aggressive behaviour
And yet for some reason 1 breed in particular is responsible for almost all fatal attacks on humans and god knows how many unrecorded ones on other animals.
-
I'm not saying Carri Westgarth has an agenda, but she's written a few articles like that all based off research done at her university. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/7753/1/NewmanJen_June2012_7753.pdf
In a nutsell it's a study of other studies and says it's inclusive.In her own written testemony to parliament she says
"What is the evidence that some breeds cause more serious injuries? Studies presenting hospital injuries identified: Shepherds, Rottweilers and Dobermans (24), German Shepherds, mongrels and Labradors (25) and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (26) as the most common breeds. PBTs were over-represented among the paediatric and adult populations in the USA (27, 28)""Breed is just one of many factors linked with dog’s likelihood to be aggressive. Other factors influence dog behaviour more than a breed. Although the legislated breeds are perceived to be more aggressive than other breeds, at the moment there is no evidence to suggest that they are more likely to bite. However, when they do bite they may cause greater injury. Therefore, if BSL was in place as a strategy aimed to reduce severity of bites, the list of legislated breeds would hypothetically need to be extended to all large strong dogs. Given the large number of Pit-Bull type dogs in the UK, discrepancies in identifying them and increasing dog bite rates, it is clear that the current legislation has not worked as intended. Breeding practices for all breeds (e.g. selection for friendly temperament, avoiding breeding from fearful sirens and sires) and litter environment"
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/91190/html/
She seems very hard to be down playing the affect of breed temperaments. It's like "these dogs are responsible for more attacks and do more damage when they attack but yaknow any dog could do it really"
Sumo
I probably don't know enough to give a properly formed opinion, but the current law strikes me as a pretty vibes based bit of legislation so on principle I don't have an issue with it's repeal. However, that link doesn't give any details on the proposed alternative or how you then control for an influx of breaders (responsible or irresponsible) from flooding the market to owners (clueless or cunts).
Basic Googling shows that dog bites come from a range of dogs. For e.g these figs compiled by an insurance company from Merseyside Police.
The wiki page on deaths unsurprisingly shows that the dogs that kill humans tend to be powerful dogs originally bread for fucking livings things up.
... so I guess I return to my original point that I doubt many owners can control a powerful dog on a mission. So I'd also be inclined to licence certain dogs based on some sort of weight and power formula.