From USA but quite interesting, especially the point that large-dog bites need treatment far more often than small-dog bites and are therefore more often reported which distorts the figures.

http://www.candogseat-this.com/research-study-finds-most-aggressive-dog-breeds/

Yep, when I walked my very large GSD a few years ago she was terrified of a JR. This little fireball would try and bite my dogs legs ( the only part it could reach ). My GSD made no attempt to bite back although she could have ripped it to pieces, but she would shake if she saw it coming. I had no option but to change my walk timings to avoid this little tiger. ( it's owner just thought it was funny, I bet that would have changed if my dog had bitten back - not so funny then )

Zuma is my 3rd GSD and with all of them I have had 'small & hairys' up on their back legs ranting and raving at them while the owners do the usual 'oh it will eat you for breakfast ha ha'..............................stupid people!!!!!

It is true that many smaller dogs can be, are allowed to be, snappy. But it is also true that a chihuahua is highly unlikely to kill or seriously maim anyone. So yes I may be more likely to be bitten by a small dog, but if I am going to be killed by a dog the chances are very high that it will be a pit bull. So size and type of dog really does matter when talking about dog bites/attacks on humans. The people that bang on about 'deed not breed' are constantly ignoring the facts that certain breeds are capable of, and actually do, kill people.

If you look at the list of people killed by dogs in Amercia you will see that so far this year 2 people have died, both killed by pitbulls. last year 33 people were killed by dogs - 19 by pits, 3 by rotties and 2 by bull mastiffs. None at all by small dogs. 2013, 26 people killed by pitbulls, 1 tiny baby was killed by 2 shibas but they would have a hard time killing anyone older.

We had two babies killed in recent times one by a jack Russell and one by a big dog, there wasn't nearly the negative publicity with the small dog incident yet a baby died in both cases.

The people that bang on about 'deed not breed' are constantly ignoring the facts that certain breeds are capable of, and actually do, kill people.

I'm so glad you said this. This is exactly what I think but nobody ever seems to agree with. It's just plain fact, breed DOES play a part because of the size difference and also strength of the bite. Okay a newborn baby could even be killed by a rat let alone a dog, but an adult or older child simply could not be killed by a tiny dog.

Yes bigger animal bigger responsibilities, after all more people are killed by cows and horses each year than by dogs.

But we haven't got hysterical calls for dangerous cattle and horse laws.

> But we haven't got hysterical calls for dangerous cattle and horse laws

I guess that is because most homes don't own a cow or horse, they are rarely escaping from owners gardens and attacking neighbours, or attacking kids that the owners are babysitting. People killed by horses are generally participating in what could be called a dangerous sport, it's their choice to do it.

Yes bigger animal bigger responsibilities, after all more people are killed by cows and horses each year than by dogs.
But we haven't got hysterical calls for dangerous cattle and horse laws.

One of the columnists in Our Dogs some years ago pointed out that more children are killed each year by their parents than by dogs.................election promise.............Dangerous Parents Act

in reply to Goldmali, I agree that a 'large dog' attack is far more likely to result in death but I think the author was pointing out which were the most common breeds to cause ANY bite.

Yet more people are killed by Cows???  So goes to show how rare deaths by dogs are when there are 1 in 3 homes with dogs, compared to those in close association with cattle..

The people that bang on about 'deed not breed' are constantly ignoring the facts that certain breeds are capable of, and actually do, kill people.

Yes, but, (a big 'but'), that saying/subject idiom of the time, had an effective commercial motive by its' originators, namely DT, (The Dogs Trust). They originated & broadcast that idiom from their web site & made numerous representations in favor of its sentiment, which of course became a logo of its time for those either with banned breeds or breeds/dogs which, >at the time<, looked at risk of being, a) restricted in some way, b) the idiom was used i attempts to lift the ban on APBT's. The dogs trust in turn received ££££'s funding contributions from interested parties.
.

but an adult or older child simply could not be killed by a tiny dog.

A couple of months ago I was hospitalised and nearly died from a small dog bite. I went downhill so fast I didn't realise I had septicemia, at first I thought it was flu, but by day 3 I was close to organ failure. Massive amounts of ABs and treatment and I am fine again now. A dog doesn't have to rip you to pieces to kill you. I am very careful now with any scratch or small bite whether in play or otherwise.

I think its also an embarrassment thing. e.g A man gets bitten by a dog like a Bullmastiff or a Staffordshire Terrier he may well report it and even go to the papers about it, and is likely to get front page billing from his local paper.  A man gets the same injuries from a Maltese..... not a chance in hell that he will report it - and not a chance in hell the paper would print anything about it other than possibly a small side article buried in the back of the paper.

As for the "deed not breed" thing - and the "no bad dog just bad owners" etc..... are true and great in sentiment but unfortunately certain breeds are attractive and popular to certain types of irresponsible people that are more likely to either purposely or otherwise raise an aggressive dog, the types of people wanting a "status" dog that is "tough" looking that is allowed to be aggressive openly or think they have their dogs trained to in some way be only "selectively" aggressive along the lines or a personal protection dog.  Those are the owners of the dogs that end up more likely to commit a serious attack or bite and those dogs are not likely to be a Bichon Frise or a Jack Russell they are likely to be ... these days, large dogs or Staffordshire Terrier crosses or similar. And it is true also that a sustained attack by a small dog like a JR or Maltese and an identical sustained attack by a dog like a Staffordshire Cross or Boxer cross or bigger dog are quite simply not going to cause the same damage - dogs raised in a way where they will commit a sustained or serious attack will always cause more damage the bigger they are, the bigger their mouths, and the more power behind their bite. It's still the owners fault - but it will always be both the victim and the dog that pay the price.