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.

Dog aggression has little to do with breed, so test the owners

Author

1. Rachel Casey
   Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare, University of Bristol

Disclosure statement

Rachel Casey has received funding for research from Dogs Trust, RSPCA, Blue Cross, The Kennel Club, Defra, BBSRC, Merck, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, Cats Protection, Langford Trust and Waltham Foundation.

Woof. joshDubya

It is always heart-breaking when children are injured by family dogs, and tragic when it leads to a death. Emotions understandably run high and there are calls for “something to be done”. Often the focus is on the most obvious element, such as the breed of the dog involved.

Dog breed is commonly discussed in media reports of attacks and, despite the inaccuracies recent research shows these reports often contain, such discussion leads to perceptions that breed is a key factor in the risk of aggression. Is this the case, or is it distracting us from other important factors influencing dog behaviour? While there is little research in this area, what there is suggests the dog’s breed is of little importance.

Good dog, bad dog

At Bristol University, we surveyed dog owners regarding aggressive behaviour in their dogs, such as growling, lunging, barking and biting. We asked about the occurrence of aggressive behaviour in three situations; towards family members, towards unfamiliar people entering the house, and towards unfamiliar people outside the house. From the nearly 4,000 replies, we investigated whether dogs were reported to show aggressive behaviour in more than one situation, and whether the characteristics of owners (such as age) and their dogs (including breed) influenced the risk of aggression in each context.

What we found was that dogs tend not to be aggressive in more than one of the surveyed situations. That is, those that are aggressive towards family members rarely do so towards unfamiliar people, and vice versa. This is important, because it challenges the idea that dogs are either innately vicious, or “man’s best friend”.

Gundogs are less likely to show aggression towards strangers. myheimu

This won’t be a great surprise to anyone familiar with dog behaviour, who will know that each dog with a tendency towards aggression will have a backstory, where the behaviour can be traced to a specific situation. But it’s a very important message for the general public: understanding that any dog can potentially be aggressive given the right circumstances is key to reducing injuries. Approaching an unfamiliar dog without checking with the owner first is not a good idea, even if it looks cute and friendly with others. And owners need to understand that even their gorgeous, loving pet can show aggression if exposed to a situation where it feels anxious or threatened enough.

Does that mean that all dogs should be controlled in some way, muzzled or kept away from children? No, of course not – dogs enhance our lives in so many ways, and most live alongside us without any problem. What’s more, keeping dogs away from people could be counter-productive: less familiarity with people is likely to make dogs more worried about them, increasing the risk of aggression. Better to focus on education, so people understand why aggression develops and can recognise early signs. This is particularly important for those getting puppies, whose early life can, like humans, have a big impact on the whole of their life. And these messages need to be simple, clear, authoritative and consistent.

Not in the breeding

In our study, we compared breed groups in each situation with a reference category of cross-breeds. In terms of dogs that were aggressive toward family members, we found no difference between those of specific breeds and cross-breeds. For aggression toward unfamiliar people, gundogs (hounds, retrievers and pointers) had a reduced risk compared to cross-breeds, and pastoral or herding dogs (for example German shepherd dogs) had an increased risk specifically when outside the house.

One dog, no man. Harden Moss

So there are some breed effects on risk of aggression in some circumstances, but, importantly, the contribution these effects made was small. No more than 10% of the difference between aggressive and non-aggressive dogs were accounted for by the statistical models – and these included all the significant factors, not just breed.

Clearly different breeds vary in aspects of their behaviour – any dog owner will tell you that. But when it comes to risk of aggression, the influence of breed is pretty small. It’s also important to point out that we don’t know if these effects are related to the characteristics of the dogs themselves, because they could also be influenced by the type of people who choose to own particular breed types. So, in evaluating aggression risk for an individual dog, there are more important factors to consider than its breed.

Ownership tests

But there is one aspect where breed is relevant to the risk of injury from dogs: size and strength. Because while large or powerful dogs don’t display any greater risk of aggression than any other, the potential for serious injury is higher if they do. So should particular, powerful breeds be banned? To answer that, it’s worth considering whether there’s evidence that this approach works, or whether reducing aggression risk in all dogs is a better approach.

Several countries, including the UK, have banned or restricted certain breeds. This had dealt a blow to dog welfare, not least those surreal cases where dogs' lives are determined not by their behaviour but on measurements of leg length or skull width, and the long-term kennelling of dogs during protracted legal proceedings.

Do you see what I see? Dr. Manfred Herrmann Allgemeiner

History seems to show that this approach is not effective at reducing injuries – in fact they are rising, despite these measures. Paradoxically, breed-specific legislation can increase the number of dogs of banned breeds, as the cachet of an outlawed dog appeals to some. Dogs in these environments can indeed become dangerous – because the way they are treated makes aggressive behaviour more likely.

Policy should instead focus on the factors that influence the risk of aggression in the first place. Most people object when governments take the approach of banning things – imagine the cries of “nanny state” if fast cars were banned from the roads on account of their greater likelihood of causing injury than less powerful vehicles if driven irresponsibly. In reality, society takes the approach of reducing the risk posed by all drivers, regardless of what car they drive.

Every new driver is given a thorough education, which is bench-marked by a standard theoretical and practical driving test. We have well-established, and largely accepted, codes of practice that govern drivers' behaviour to reduce accident risk, and laws to enforce them. It would make sense to take the same approach for reducing aggression towards humans in dogs
.