Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.
This is the problem and a reason breed bans don't really work. The statistics are NOT proven because the input data is seriously flawed. Breed identification in bite incidents is seriously inaccurate. To try to reach reliable conclusions with this information is pointless.
Actually breed bans do exist because some clerk or bean counter is trying to develop any method possible to mitigate damages and payouts thus resulting in more profit. I'd really like to see if the breed bans do actually reduce the number of claims involving dog bites.
Then you have all the mix breed dogs that are mostly ignored by the insurance industry.
And you have all the individuals identified by their owners as XXX breed, not one of banned breeds. Is the insurance company or you as a business owner going to refuse service to those owners because you "know" this is one of the banned breeds?
There are so many better ways to deal with dog aggression and dog bite prevention than to institute breed bans.
