I have to agree with this article. Here is why.
Huskies among most dangerous dogs, study shows. Adorable balls of fluff as puppies, it is easy to see why many people choose huskies as a family pet. But an extensive study shows they are among the most likely breed of dog to cause death or serious injury to humans.
Keep up the good work, and a question, what is the friendliest breed in the world? 

This is absolutely absurd. I have a husky from pup who is three years old, He is the most intelligent placid dog i have ever had. Kids swing out of him and he never gets agressive. Husky's are Working Dogs! 20-30 years ago there eas no such thing as a siberian husky living in a semi detached back garden. They were pulling sleds and working closely with humans. They have become a fashion accessory like the new guchi bag, people going for the wow factor, look at my beautiful stylish dog! The fact of the matter is that these are high intelligence, high energy dogs. Like a collie with no sheep to heard becomes obsessed with chasing cars or stones a husky that doesnt get the stimilus it needs can turn neurotic. To put the stygima of being put on the dangerous dogs list on a whole breed of dog because of a few people's incompetitancy is rediculous.

Regards

Extremely annoyed dissappointed Husky Owner

There are a number of distinct issues which need to be addressed in the article above:

1) As many others will agree the current facts on dog attacks in the US (as is the case in most countries) is that the majority of states only require reporting on incidents which require hospital treatment (in the states that have any such provision). There is no requirement to detail breed, training, socialisation, owner experience, exercising or other potentially pertinent details in these reports. Given that the majority of large breeds are capable of inflicting injuries more likely to require hospital treatment this creates an artificial bias on the already flawed reporting which demonstrates a preponderance of large breeds appearing in the traditionally favoured 'top biter' lists. In the majority of US states there's no provision for the investigation into the background to even fatal dog attacks incident - any checks are ones ordered specifically by whatever judge is involved in the post mortem hearings, if in fact they request any checks.
All in all, incomplete data with an artificial bias towards large dogs shows that large dogs have a bias to appear in that data.

2) Given the recent popularity of northern breed dogs as 'flavour of the month' social accessories and the relative likelihood of someone who would be influenced by that trend also being a responsible owner who researched the needs of their choice prior to acquiring the animal and took care to address the animals social and physical needs on an ongoing basis (which I feel is unlikely), I'm a lot more comfortable making assumptions about the owners potential lack of appropriate care then the dog being an unpredictable risk frankly. Without adequate physical and mental stimulation any dog is capable of attacking a human, even without extenuating circumstances like inner ear infections, etc.
My point being that only people prepared to correctly care for a dog, of any breed, should own a dog - all breeds and mixes have individual requirements in terms mental and physical care which any prospective owner should
(a) be aware of
and
(b) be prepared to meet
Sorry for re-iterating the point twice in one sentence but it seems like no matter how many times it's said we see incident after incident where I suspect people have been told this but haven't actually listened.

3) The original research has been interpreted by lawyers who specialise in suing dog owners for injuries and then released as part of a press statement which is, obviously given I'm talking about people who sue for a living, in no way designed to advertise their services in a sensationalist way likely to catch the eye of editors looking to fill space on papers and are more concerned with eye catch tag lines rather then factual accuracy. If an actual canine behavioural scientist managed to conduct a comprehensive, rigorously applied and overseen study on all dog bites, small and large, in a particular region over a course of 15-20 years (to prevent 'fotm trending' from artificially affecting the results) then that's a report I would love to see. The interpreted results of an incomplete study by a law firm I have less faith in.

Yet again the FACTS have evaded this article. The Limerick attack was NOT a Siberian Husky. And all we have to go on for the recent attack is the press hysteria, a dog apparently given to the family by the previous occupants (I read this yesterday). Did this dog have papers? Was it indeed a Siberian Husky or a "lookalike/mix/cross"? 

And before I'm bashed about being insensitive... I'm defending the BREED once again. And those capable of caring properly for the breed. 

My comments, though perhaps too close in time to the poor childs incident this week are needed to level up the playing field. Husky owners have to speak out NOW while this is fresh in the press and peoples minds. I do apologies to any family members or the children attacked... My gripe is not with the incidents themselves. Or the parents.

My problem is with the FACTS, or rather lack thereof... in the press and online.

Both dogs are dead. Neither breed has been confirmed (as far as I'm aware) with IKC registered papers. The Limerick attack was apparently an Alaskan Malamute and the dog in Clare was reported to have been handed down to the family. With papers? Without? Was it indeed a Siberian Husky?

Will we ever know???

In the mid west there was not 2 maulings by huskies.  

There was an "incedent"  in limerick. The child was not mauled despite newspaper reports and was out of hospital in a day. This dog was also a malamute. 

What is most interesting, an employee of the ISPCA cannot tell the difference between a husky and a malamute. He is a dog warden and i would question his ability to do his job due to this. Also no investigation was done on this case and the dog was destroyed just as quick. This same Dog warden is also very quick to talk to the press on the "incident" He mentions a husky which it was not. He mentions a mauling but failed to go into specifics on the "mauling" The only thing mentioned was bruises and scrapes. This is not a mauling. (I stand to be corrected) 

On this issue the ISPCA are at fault. Not investigating the cases further, not investigating the dog's in question rather having them put down. Talking to the press on how Huskys are to blame, which is wrong, which in turn will cause more dog's being surrendered to the pound. 

It's very upsetting to see that a page like this promotes with a sensanionalist article Breed Specific Legislation, instead of working against it and looking at the whole picture. Here's something written by Anne Rogers,an actual Qualified Dog Trainer and Behaviour  "To whom it may concern,
In regards to the commentary from the Communications Manager, DSPCA relating to Siberian Huskys/Akitas.
That a spokesperson from a welfare organisation would bring up and concentrate her commentary on the issue of breed is disturbing and shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of dog behaviour, aggression and dog bite incidents.
Centring on breed only, which was the basis of this report, in relation to dog bite incidents has occupied legislators in jurisdictions around the world for decades and unfortunately has been shown to be totally ineffective in relation to reducing dog bites and increasing public safety. As a result, BSL (breed specific legislation) is being reviewed in a number of countries and states around the world.
To suggest that one dog over another, based solely on generalised breed characteristics, is more likely to bite or agress toward humans is inaccurate and a dangerous assumption - to presume that only certain 'types' of dog present a risk is nonsensical.
The emphasis, in an effort to report responsibly, should be one of education and especially to discuss the many and consistent factors present during dog bite incidents. When it comes to children being bitten, the most prevalent factor is lack of direct supervision by a responsible adult, capable of controlling the dog. This was lacking in the subject case as it is in most if not all dog bite incidents that involve children.
Please provide a forum for responsible discussion of this topic so as to prevent such incidents happening again.
I am a qualified dog trainer and behaviour specialist who deals with aggression, counselling of families and education of pet care professionals. I am a founding member of APDT Ireland (www.apdt.ie) and the Chairperson and training/behaviour consultant of dog welfare charity A Dog's Life (CHY 18640). I will happily provide commentary, material and references on this topic if required."

Obviously those sibs were locked up in a small yard and not shown any attention or love from their owners and were most likely treated very poorly I have two sibs and they are both great with children and love to play with my daughter and any other children in the area