Dogsbite - is there a dog bite epidemic?

Dog bites: how big a problem?

Inj Prev. 1996 Mar;2(1):52-4.

Sacks JJ1, Kresnow M, Houston B.

Author information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate the magnitude of the dog bite problem in the US.

METHODS:

Data on dog bites were gathered as part of a 1994 national telephone survey of 5,238 randomly dialed households. Data were weighted to provide national estimates.

RESULTS:

The weighted total number of dog bites was 4,494,083 (estimated incidence = 18/1,000 population); of these, 756,701 persons sustained bites necessitating medical attention (incidence rate = 3/1,000). Children had 3.2 times higher medically attended bite rates than adults (6.4/1,000 children v 2/1,000 adults).

CONCLUSIONS:

More attention and research needs to be devoted to the prevention of dog bites. Potential prevention strategies include: educational programs on canine behavior, especially directed at children; laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs; enhanced animal control programs; and educational programs regarding responsible dog ownership and training. 

Unfortunately, the relative or absolute effectiveness of any of these strategies has not been assessed. 

Continuing surveillance for dog bites will be needed if we are to better understand how to reduce the incidence of dog bites and evaluate prevention efforts.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 

Free PMC Article

Source..... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9346056

more to come.....

I own an American Pit Bull Terrier!

From the internet.....

No Pit Bulls here.....

Psychonomics 1230 points 3 years ago 

I own an American Pit Bull Terrier, and I did a TON of research on the breed before I bought one (I collected so much info, I was able to give an 18 minute speech for a communications class on them from memory). 

My sources were both online and books on the breed. 

I can clear up some things here.

1. 

Bull Dogs of all types WERE bred for animal aggression (to fight bulls, bears, and other dogs depending on the time period and animal abuse laws in England in the 18th and 19th centuries, where the breeds originally developed).

Bull Dogs

2. 

Animal aggression is not the same trait as human aggression. Guarding breeds like German Shepherds and Rottweilers were historically bred to be wary of strangers, and are better choices for Schutzhund (guard/attack dog) training.

3. 

The reason Pit Bulls were known as "Nanny Dogs" in America was because of the frontier nature of early American life, if you lived on the frontier, you wanted a companion for your children that could handle bears, wolves, snakes, other dogs etc.

4. 

Modern Pit Bulls vary in their aggressive tendencies, because they are bred for many different purposes (some illegal and some legal). 

As a general rule of thumb, it is UNNATURAL (i.e reflecting unstable breeding or abuse) for a Pit Bull to be human aggressive, but some will be aggressive towards other animals regardless of how bred or raised.

5. 

When I see a Pit Bull or "Bully Breed" on the street, I immediately look at the owners, not the dog, to determine how the dog has been raised. 

Generally if the human is tying to convey menace through his clothing or demeanor, I am wary of the dog as well. The race of the owner is not really an issue, white rednecks like mean dogs as much as black or latino thugs.

6. 

When dog fighting was legal, one of the rules was the dogs were put down if they bit either owner or the referee of the fight, some Bull dog enthusiasts cite this as evidence that the breed actually had human aggression selected out of them more so than other breeds.

7. 

I asked my vet about this stuff, she said in general, larger stronger dogs were less likely to bite or be aggressive than smaller breeds, the problem is no one calls the cops wen an ill tempered chihuahua bites someone, but strong breeds do so much damage that hospital/police reports are inevitable.

8.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the reproductive status of the dog(fixed or unfixed), sex of the dog (males are more aggressive), presence of other dogs, and age of the victim were all greater factors in dog attack fatalities than the breed involved.

9. 

Pit Bull attacks tend to go over reported for a variety of reasons.

There are over twenty breeds of dog that can be easily mistaken for "Pit Bull" type dogs. 

Can you find the American Pit Bull Terrier?

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Mixed breed dogs are frequently entered into reports as "Pit Bull Type" or "Pit Bull Mix" when the owners/victims/officer writing the report has no idea the actual parentage of the mutt in question.

The behavior of my unfixed female pretty much reflects what I read before purchasing her. She is dominant towards other dogs, but has never attacked or injured one. Small animals are on the menu. 

She chases cats if they run, but if its a mean cat it stands its ground and claws her face up- cat uninjured. She loves people of all types, but she has knocked down children when jumping up to lick their face. 

I have to be careful with her around kids just because of her size and strength, not because she is aggressive.

Source.....https://www.reddit.com

“Dog Bite and Injury Prevention: Analysis, Critical Review and Research Agenda”

Ozanne-Smith, J.; Ashby, K.; Stathakis, V.Z. Injury Prevention, 2001, Vol. 7, 321-326. doi:10.1136/ip.7.4.321.

Abstract: 

“The Australian dog bite death rate (0.004/100,000) is lower than both the United States (0.05-0.07/100,000) and Canadian rates (0.007/100,000). [Victora state] hospitalized trend rates were stable between 1987 and 1998, but there was a decline for children <5 years (p=0.019) corresponding with a reduction in dog ownership. 

Children 0-4 years have the highest rate of serious injury, particularly facial. Adults have longer hospitalizations, most frequently for upper extremity injury. 

Risk factors include: child, males, households with dogs, certain breeds, male dogs, home location, and leashed dog…. Dog bite rates are high and it may therefore be assumed that current preventative interventions are inadequate.

 

Responsible dog ownership, including separating young children from dogs, avoiding high-risk dogs, neutering, regulatory enforcement and standardized monitoring of bite rates are required. Controlled investigations of further risk and protective factors, and validated methods of breed identification, are needed.”

Tags: youth, safety, consumer affairs

Writer: John Wihbey 
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/dog-bites-attacks-research-review

On the consequences of roaming dogs: Is that love? Trish Hernández

Roaming dogs, or dogs at large, a more legal term, have always been the most-reported animal challenges people of our community complain about and want the law to enforce.

Animal control is called, or not, but the problem just keeps on being the gift that keeps on coming. There are many reasons people have for allowing their dogs to run free and not be constrained in any way.

Personally, I feel it is just plain selfish and self-serving without any care for other people’s private space. Also, your dogs can find multiple ways to destroy, kill and get killed, as well. Oh, you love your dogs … really … is that love?

Does anyone have the right to expect their property and their animals not be destroyed and their pets killed or injured? I will never forget the day a family brought their dead, young dog to me wrapped in a blanket one day at The Taos News. The dog had been mauled to death by two dogs in his own yard. No one would help this family receive some justice. They were desperate for someone to see what an impact their dog’s tragic death had on the family.

Today I have spent the majority of my time working on a report that came to me this morning. A certain neighborhood in our county has been consistently experiencing the harassment of two dogs that yesterday killed a beloved pet dog.

Both dogs attacked the dog in front of the owner, who watched them kill her dog. She is devastated and overcome with grief. She feels as if she has lost her best friend and companion. He went everywhere with her. I am hearing from neighbors who are upset and disgusted with the attack dogs’ owners. They have been approached many times and apparently do not feel any accountability for the concerns and pleas from their neighbors.

This is not the only incident by a long shot. Roaming dogs are everywhere. If everyone who had problems with dogs running at large came to a meeting, you would fill the room with standing room only.

The laws are there, but without enforcement, the laws don’t mean much. There is a breakdown here between animal control, the shelter and the community — a big breach of information. I expect the animal control officers to enforce the law in the animal ordinance, and I expect the animal officers to have the latest information given to the public. That did not happen in the aforementioned dog attack. We need more county animal control officers, as well. Taos County is a lot of country to cover for two officers.

A few years ago, a bill was attempting to get through the legislature that would brand certain breeds as dangerous. Thank God it failed. When you have breeds banned as dangerous over other dogs, the owners are subjected to discrimination, especially in rental properties, insurance, etc.

The bill that was passed and is in the Animal State Statute law is called “The Dangerous Dog” law. Basically, you, the owner, are held responsible for your dog, regardless of the breed. It doesn’t matter if your dog is a Yorkshire terrier, cocker spaniel or a pitbull, you are the one held accountable and responsible for a dangerous pet. A dog that kills another animal, depending on the circumstances, is a dangerous animal.

Here are the town and county animal laws on dogs at large. Animal Protection of New Mexico Cruelty division can be called in, as well.

Part of the 2011 county ordinance reads:

5-1 Dogs Running at Large-. It is a violation of this Ordinance for any owner to allow or permit any dog to run at large. Any dog permitted to run at large in violation of this Section is declared to be a nuisance, a menace to the public health and safety, and may be taken up and impounded as provided in Section 3-1, et seq. in addition, its owner shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Appendix A. 5-2 Dog on Owner’s Property A. Any dog that attacks and kills another domestic animal will be impounded and the owner fined and to appear in magistrate court.

Town of Taos 6.16.040:

B. Animals Off Owner’s Property: 1. Any animal, excluding cats, off of its owner’s property shall be kept on a leash at all times in compliance with this chapter, and/or under the immediate physical control of a person capable of restraining the animal. Voice command is not an acceptable form of control, except in areas specifically designated by the town.

Dogs that roam freely will often join packs. Even without a pack, their primal, feral instincts surface, and killing wildlife and domestic animals become almost a “normal” part of their day. At home, their behavior will be different. Perhaps you feel that this kissy face, cuddly, good dog would never act in this manner. How about a first clue? Your neighbors are complaining. Quit being so selfish and keep your animals at home — secure for their sake and the sake of your neighbors.

So whether you live in Talpa, by the county club, in town or in the Tune Drive area, quit being negligent. Have regard for your neighbors and pay attention to their concerns. If you dog is confiscated by animal control, your dog will be put in a cage for as many days it takes to go to court. Is that love?

Your dogs can be shot or poisoned because you will not be accountable. Is that love?

Taos News

DOG BITE-RELATED FATALITIES ARE EXCEEDINGLY RARE.

The interactions between dogs and humans are so numerous and complex that no one factor can be considered, in isolation from any other factors, to be the sole cause. There were 40 verified dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) in the US in 2014.1


They occurred within a human population of 316 million and a canine population estimated at between 70 and 83 million.

National Canine Research Council continues to thoroughly investigate DBRFs using the same methodology described in the comprehensive, ten-year study published December 2013 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2


INVESTIGATIONS TAKE TIME TO CAPTURE ACCURATE INFORMATION.


Number of fatalities: In January 2015, the Preliminary Report on Dog Bite-Related Fatalities 2014 noted that 41 DBRFs were currently being investigated. It has subsequently been determined that there were 40 DBRFs for 2014.


National Canine Research Council investigations have found that two of the deaths initially believed to be DBRFs based on media reports were ruled by the Medical Examiner to not have dog bites as either the immediate cause of death, nor were dog bites listed as a contributory factor.3

Another death initially reported by the media to be attributed to stab wounds was ruled by the Medical Examiner to be the result of dog bites.


Breed Identification: In only 20% (n=8) of the cases of DBRFs was there any evidence that the dogs involved were purebred and/or had a known pedigree.

In all the other cases, the dogs were either of unknown origins and/or genetics (n=29), or were never located or identified by authorities (n=3). Criminal Charges: Criminal charges against a parent or dog owner were filed in 37.5% (n=15) of the 40 cases of DBRFs in 2014.


MULTIPLE FACTORS CONTINUE TO CO-OCCUR THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF OWNERS.


The December 2013 study is the most comprehensive multifactorial study of DBRFs to be completed since the subject was first studied in the 1970’s.


Covering all incidents that occurred during the ten-year period 2000 - 2009, it is based on investigative techniques and data developed by National Canine Research Council not previously employed in dog bite or DBRF studies.


The study reliably identified seven factors potentially within the control of dog owners and caretakers that cooccurred, in various combinations, in the overwhelming majority of DBRFs the authors examined:


The study, as had DBRF studies published previously, found no evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog.

. Four or more of the factors identified co-occurred in 80.5% of the incidents during the ten-year period studied.

Only very rarely (in 2.5% of the cases) was there only one factor identified. Serious and fatal dog bite incidents are complex, multifactorial events. Factor Cases from 2000-2009 with this factor present No able-bodied person being present to intervene. 87.1%


The victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s). 85.2% The owner failing to neuter/spay the dog(s). 84.4% A victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog(s). 77.4%

The owner keeping dog(s) as resident, rather than as a family pet. 76.2% The owner’s prior mismanagement of the dog(s). 37.5% The owner’s abuse or neglect of the dog


THE CONCLUSION OF EXPERTS: SERIOUS AND FATAL DOG BITE-RELATED INJURIES ARE MULTIFACTORIAL.


Annual reports and detailed case histories considered in isolation will not enhance awareness of what the experts have agreed on.


Minor annual fluctuations in co-occurrence of owner factors, or dramatic, one-of-a-kind case histories may, in fact, obscure rather than enlighten. No single factor has been shown, in isolation from other factors, to be the sole cause of a dog bite-related injury or fatality.


Professionals studying dog bite-related injuries, even when venturing speculations regarding breed, have been remarkably consistent in their recommendation of pet ownership and child safety practices directly relevant to prevention, and against regulating dogs on the basis of breed or appearance.4


Updated December 31, 2015. SOURCES and NOTES:

1. See: “National Canine Research Council Protocol Definition of a Dog Bite-Related Fatality.” Retrieved from: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#Annual reports

2. Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V., & Marder, A.R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726-1736.

3. Cases erroneously reported by the media to be dog bite-related fatalities: Rita Pepe, 93 years old, New Haven, CT. On April 13, 2014, Rita Pepe was seriously bitten on the leg by a dog.


The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner determined her death on May 25, 2014 to be from natural causes due to renal failure.


Nancy Newberry, 77 years old, Phoenix, AZ. On March 14, 2014 the media reported that Nancy Newberry was “mauled” by a dog and “bled out from a dog bite to the stomach.”


The Maricopa Medical Examiner ruled that Newberry “died as a result of advanced atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Blunt force trauma of the head is a contributory factor.”


Dog bites were not found to be the cause of death, nor a contributory factor. 4. American Veterinary Medical Association. (2014). Dog Bite Prevention. Retrieved from:

https://www.avma.org/public/pages/Dog-Bite-Prevention.aspx

National Canine Research Council


more to come.....

Pit Bulls and Media Bias Fort Thomas

Media Bias Highlights One Problem with Fort Thomas "Breed Specific Legislation"

A correction for the erroneous report in The Cincinnati Enquirer, dated 5-15-14. While the headline was large and incorrectly identified the dog as a "pit bull," the correction was on page A7 next to the Lotto drawings. 

Fort Thomas resident and Campbell County Jailer candidate, Dave Guidugli, was interviewed recently by The Cincinnati Enquirer and Channel 12 about an incident that occurred while he was walking door to door in Fort Thomas campaigning.

He said that, while he was walking away from a house in the north end of Fort Thomas, a "pit bull" grabbed ahold of his leg and bit him.

The problem, of course, is that the dog was not a "pit bull."

The story grabbed headlines because of Guidugli's status in the community and because the word "pit bull" was in the title of the story.
The simple fact is that it is very difficult to identify a pit bull. The Enquirer got a tip through someone from Burlington, Kentucky. Second-hand information came from this person that there was "a pit bull attack" in Fort Thomas and they ran with it.  It wasn't verified. The Enquirer was fooled. So was Channel 12. These incidents occur often and it's unfair to put this burden on the those charged with enforcing the law.

According to Animal Control Officer, Terri Baker, the dog was a mixed breed and did not fall under the characteristics that the city uses to determine whether or not a dog is a pit bull.

"I thought it was a pit bull. It looked like one to me," said Guidugli.  "I don't believe any dog is born bad, it's just how it's raised.  I have many friends that have pit bulls and they are good dogs. I'm against the pit bull ban in Fort Thomas."

Click this poster to see if you can identify which of these dogs are characterized as pit bulls.

The current ordinance, which was enacted in 1988, in part states that "It is hereby determined that pit bull terriers have inherently vicious and dangerous propensities." Dr. Jean Pritchard, veterinarian at the Fort Thomas Animal Hospital, believes that the ordinance is outdated. "Changing the ordinance is overdue and it's time to stop stereotyping by breed. 25 years ago if you would have asked me my opinion on pit bulls, my opinion would be different. It's fair to say that with amount research available now, that stereotype is not true. We have to learn to evolve and change this ordinance." 

Proponents for ending the "Breed Specific Legislation" do not want to completely eliminate the ordinance. Instead they are proposing to increase the ordinance to include regulation for all dogs.
In March of 2012, Fort Thomas resident Gina Holt, was taken to the hospital after her neighbor's 150-pound Rottweiler mixed breed dog broke loose and lunged at her, unprovoked.

"I knew I didn't want an aggressive dog like this in my neighborhood, let alone two doors up. Animal Control told me that they had received several calls on this dog in the past and knew it was aggressive and was just waiting for it to hurt someone. The city was aware of all of of this. However, the law in Fort Thomas didn't allow Animal Control to prevent this dog from hurting me. Our law only bans pit bulls, whether they are dangerous or not, not dogs that demonstrate aggressive behavior. So Animal Control literally had to wait for the dog to attack someone before they could get it out of the city," said Holt.

Proponents of the new ordinance say that taking out the "breed specific" part of the dog ordinance will actually increase public safety. They want to institute amendments to the ordinance that have been proven to decrease bites. Items such as spaying and neutering, anti-tethering laws and adding an education component to public safety. And in Holt's case, if the ordinance were to regulate all dogs, not just one breed, the dog that attacked her could have been prevented.

"We all want the same thing which is more public safety. Nobody wants dogs running wild and certainly nobody wants dogs biting. The current ordinance is simply a placebo effect and does nothing to increase public safety," said Fort Thomas resident, Alison Head. "If there is a dangerous dog, regardless of breed, the same ordinance would apply to them. Make it about the owner, not the dog."

"It's a common sense solution," said Guidugli. "I try to run my campaign that way."

Was The Enquirer deliberately trying to sensationalize the story to get more coverage? According to the author of the story, that was not the case. "I was horrified," said Terry DeMio via Twitter, who wrote the story. An edit on the story was done on the digital version as soon as the mistake was realized. A print retraction was run the day after the mistake, albeit very small compared to the headline.