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
.

Breed-Specific Legislation is myth-based and ineffective according to the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB)

AVSAB, a national association of veterinarians who are board-certified in the specialty of animal behavior, has just released a position statement expressing their opposition to breed-specific legislation. Their position paper notes that they are “concerned about the propensity of various communities’ reliance on breed-specific legislation as a tool to decrease the risk and incidence of dog bites to humans,” noting “that such legislation (BSL) – is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.”

“Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually,” the authors conclude, citing the wide range of findings across the literature regarding breeds and bite risk. And many such findings are called into question by the demonstrated unreliability of visual breed identification, particularly with regard to the estimated 46% of the US dog population that are of mixed breed ancestry.

In discussing why dogs bite, these behaviorists point out that while there are many motivations, most occur when the dog feels threatened in some way, and that uncovering the triggers specific to the individual dog and responding appropriately are key to prevention. Understanding the social needs of dogs is particularly important to bite prevention, ranging from appropriate socialization of puppies to including the dog in the family, providing daily, positive interactions with people. Dogs that are kept simply as resident on the property, without such social opportunities, are much more likely to feel threatened by humans and respond accordingly. And owners who teach their dogs, through harsh training methods, that people are indeed dangerous are more likely to evoke aggressive responses from their dogs.

The AVSAB stresses that breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Indeed, this recommendation is in line with a recent study of dog bite-related fatalities which reported that in 80.5% of cases, four or more potential risk factors were present.

According to this national association of veterinarians who have specialized training in animal behavior, what does work is “responsible dog ownership and public education.” These “must be a primary focus of any dog bite prevention policy.”

The AVSAB also invites you to share this resource, “to discount common fallacies of ‘easy fixes’ that are often based on myths, and instead promote awareness that will reduce the prevalence of aggression toward people and promote better care, understanding, and welfare of our canine companions.” The full position statement can be viewed here:http://avsabonline.org/uploads/position_statements/Breed-Specific_Legislation-download-1.pd

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/breed-specific-legislation-is-myth-based-and-ineffective-according-to-the-american-veterinary-society-of-animal-behavior-avsab/

Breed-specific legislation on the decline

Breed-Specific Legislation on the Decline : 5 more states no longer allow BSL & more than 7x as many U.S. Municipalities repealed or rejected proposed BSL, than enacted it between: January 2012 – May 2014.

The national trend is moving steadily away from breed-specific legislation (BSL) and toward breed neutral laws that hold all owners equally accountable for the humane care, custody and control of their dogs. The list of states that are considering and passing legislation to preempt municipalities from passing BSL continues to grow.

BSL is a discriminatory law or ordinance that prohibits or restricts the keeping of dogs of specific breeds, dogs presumed to be specific breeds, mixes of specific breeds, and/or dogs presumed to be mixes of specific breeds.[1]

The trend reflects a growing understanding that regulating dogs on the basis of breed or physical description does not reduce dog bites.[2].[3],[4]. An analysis published in 2010 offers one explanation for the failure of BSL.[5] Most importantly, studies continue to show that one kind of dog is no more likely to threaten or bite a human being than another.[6],[7].[8].

The American Bar Association has urged the repeal of all BSL.[9] The White House also opposes BSL and released a statement saying, “research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”[10] No major national organizations endorse BSL, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Control Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society.

The tide has turned against BSL and communities are implementing policies that hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of their dogs, regardless of breed or appearance.

Building safer and more humane communities requires multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities.[11],[12].

Updated June 16, 2014

To view this document as a PDF, click here.

SOURCES and NOTES

[1] The most drastic form of BSL is a complete ban, but BSL also includes any laws that impose separate requirements or limitations on dogs and dog owners, including but not limited to: mandatory spay/neuter, muzzling requirements, liability insurance requirements, special licensing and additional fees, mandatory microchipping or tattoos, owner / walker age requirements, property posting requirements, confinement and leash requirements, breed-specific pet limits, sale or transfer notification requirements, restrictions on access to certain public spaces with the dog [e.g.: public parks; school grounds], required town-issued items [e.g.: fluorescent collar; vest], training requirements, requirement that photos of the dog and/or owner be kept on town file. BSL, in any form, results in the destruction of many pet dogs.

For more information and to stay up-to-date with BSL, please see the NCRC BSL Map:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/bsl-map

[2] National Canine Research Council. (2013). Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Denver%20BSL%20Brutal,%20Costly,%20and%20Ineffective%20_%20Aug%202013.pdf

[3] Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., & Palacio, J. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5): 166-174.

[4] Cornelissen, J.,M., & Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in the Netherlands: a study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. Veterinary Journal, 186(3): 292-298.

[5] Patronek, G.J., Slater, M., & Marder, A. (2010). Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237(7):  788-792.

[6] American Veterinary Medical Association: Animal Welfare Division. (2012). Dog Bite Risk and Prevention: The Role of Breed. Retrieved from: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

[7] Guy, N. C., Luescher, U. A., Dohoo, S. E., Spangler, E., Miller, J. B., Dohoo, I. R., & Bate, L. A. (2001). Demographic and aggressive characteristics of dogs in a general veterinary caseload. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74(1), 15-28.

[8] Casey, R. A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G.J., & Blackwell, E.J. (2014). Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiarias): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 152, 52-63.

[9] American Bar Association. (2012). Resolution 100: Adopted by the House of Delegates. Retrieved from:http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/mental_physical_disability/Resolution_100.authcheckdam.pdf

[10] The White House. (2013). Breed-Specific Legislation Is a Bad Idea. Retrieved from:https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/breed-specific-legislation-bad-idea

[11] National Canine Research Council. (2013). Causes and Prevention. Retrieved from:http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/causes-and-prevention/

[12]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.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/breed-specific-legislation-on-the-decline/

DOG BITE PREVENTION "THE CALGARY MODEL"

The Calgary Model

 

The animal control bylaw in Calgary, Alberta, Canada has been hailed by many as a HUGE success.  While other cities and provinces in Canada are banning breeds, Calgary is choosing education program and stronger enforcement.  

What's the end result?  By all accounts, reports and statistics, the bylaw is working!   Not only that, the bylaw works so well and the results are so highly praised, Calgary is inspiring animal control officials outside of Canada to use the bylaw as a model for their own animal control ordinances.

 

 

The following is written by Dana Grove:

 

The bylaw officers in Calgary have taken a stand against breed banning, and responded to dog bite concerns with a tougher licensing program and stronger enforcement. 

The City of Calgary also spends considerable funds on dog safety public awareness and education campaigns. Research shows that just 1 hour of dog safety training in grades 2 and 3 can reduce these attacks by 80%.

"We don't punish breeds, we punish behavior," said chief bylaw officer Bill Bruce. "The bottom line is, we believe all dogs are capable of biting."

In Calgary, 90 per cent of dogs are licensed, allowing bylaw officers to keep track of pets and owners. The city also has a strict fine structure that includes a $250 penalty for chase incidents and $350 fines for bites. 

The bylaw also allows the officers to declare specific dogs as “dangerous” and this label brings with it higher license fees, muzzling rules and age restrictions on the dog's handlers. The bylaw states that a dog can only be destroyed by owner request or court order.

The county of Newell in Alberta received dozens of letters and e-mails from around the world from people who oppose breed restrictions, said deputy Reeve Jack Harbinson.

"We decided after listening to the people, they were right," he said.

The success of their actions? Approximately 1000 reported dog bites in 1985 and 260 reported dog bites in 2003.

 

Calgary’s dangerous dog legislation was implemented in response to the bite problem. Dangerous dog, not dangerous breed. The results speak for themselves – a 70% drop in the number of OVERALL dog bites. 

The measures Calgary has taken have shown results, and set a model and a precedent that should be implemented across Canada. THIS is the model Ontario should be looking at… 

 

http://www.bdnhumanesociety.com/calgary_solution.htm

 

 

 

Calgary dog attacks fall to lowest level in 25 years

City a leader in reducing canine problems, says top bylaw officer

 

By Sean Myers, Calgary Herald February 21, 2009

Attacks by aggressive dogs are at the lowest level they've been in 25 years despite a steady population growth and the absence of breed-specific legislation brought in to tackle canine issues in other jurisdictions.

Despite the low numbers, Calgary's top bylaw officer plans to delve deeper into the causes of dog attacks to try to bring the incidents even lower.

"This is exactly what we've been targeting," said Bill Bruce. "Our ultimate goal, of course, is to get it to zero, or as close to that as possible."

Bruce said Calgary is a leader in reducing dog attacks in Canada, noting that he often receives invitations from animal services around the world to talk about the work done here to reduce dog bites.

Calgary bylaw officers recorded 340 reported aggressive dog incidents in 2008 which included chases, bites and damage to property.

Of those, 145 complaints were bites.
In 2007, 374 aggressive dog calls were made, including 137 bites, and in 2006, of 402 aggressive dog complaints, 199 were for bites.

By comparison, back in 1985, the city received a whopping 1,938 aggressive dog complaints, including 621 bites, at a time when Calgary had a population of just over 600,000.

A new pet owner bylaw was brought in three years ago that included stiffer fines and a recognition that aggressive behaviour in dogs is normally traced back to irresponsible owners. 

Bruce said both the heavier penalties -- ranging from $350 to $1,500, to euthanizing the dog--and the philosophy of blaming bad owners rather than pets has helped reduce incidents.

This year, Bruce is launching a pilot project where he'll have six officers dedicated to following up every aggressive dog complaint to identify common factors in attacks that can be addressed in future bylaw enforcement and public education campaigns.

"We want to look at everything that led up to an aggressive dog attack," said Bruce. "We're hoping to find four to six common things that people do that causes dogs to bite. Our goal is not to have anyone bitten by a dog."

At the same time Bruce investigates softer approaches to addressing pet owner issues, he's also been given a bigger stick with which to penalize chronically non-compliant dog owners.
In the fall, bylaw enforcement gained the right to tag a dog as a nuisance pet, which means doubling the fines on the owner.

One dog has already received this designation, according to Bruce.
Brandy Campbell-Biggs, president of Pit Bulls For Life, a non-profit animal rescue operation geared specifically toward pit bulls, said targeting bad owners instead of stigmatizing entire breeds is the key to reducing aggressive incidents.

While dog bites have been going down, the number of pit bulls coming to the city has been increasing, she said.

She doesn't know how many there are in the city, but her organization has placed 160 pit bulls in foster homes or with permanent adoptive owners in Calgary over the past three and a half years.

Pit Bulls For Life brings the dogs in from jurisdictions with breed-specific legislation that sees many breeds deemed dangers, including pit bulls, targeted for euthanasia. She said 20 per cent of the dogs they help come from Ontario.

"We have a lot more pit bulls in Calgary now," said Campbell-Briggs. "Part of the reason is we don't have breed-specific legislation. 

I'm proud to be a Calgarian because our animal by-law officers deal with specific incidents and don't deal with it as a breed issue. There's no bias and that's so important."

Pit Bulls For Life doesn't take in any dogs with histories of aggression toward humans or other animals and says it works with the city bylaw department to educate owners.

Canada Post has also noticed a slight reduction in dog incidents involving its letter carriers in Calgary that bucks the trend nationally.

From January to August last year, 25 dog incidents were reported by carriers, two of which resulted in time off work. In the same time period in 2007, 28 incidents were reported, with three requiring time away from work.

An aggressive dog can lead to an entire block losing mail service until the animal is brought under control.

"We have to ensure the safety of our employees--your front step and front yard are our employees'workplace,"said Andrean Wolvers, Canada Post safety manager for Calgary. "We tell our employees when in doubt, get out."

Wolvers says partnerships with the city and other organizations that send employees into residential neighbourhoods has helped reduce dog attacks on posties.

"The city and Bill Bruce have been very proactive," said Wolvers.
The Calgary Humane Society said the working relationship it has with the city is unique in Canada.

"We have a very collaborative relation-ship. When we talk to other humane societies, they say we're the only ones they've heard of that have a positive working relationship with the city bylaw department," said Calgary Humane Society spokeswoman Lindsay Jones.

"Other cities learn from us and the way we do things here."
smyers@theherald.canwest.com

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Calgary+attacks+fall+lowest+level+years/1313555/story.html

For the original story and more great information follow the link.......
               http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html

AUSSIE POSTMAN SHOWS HOW TO NEGOTIATE A NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF DOGS WITHOUT SHOOTING ONE, TANE NOTE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS!

An Australian postman, armed only with a DriftHD 1080P Camera and some dog treats, shows just how easy it is to traverse a neighborhood full of dogs; without shooting them.

The fact that ‘puppycide’ is even a word is a tragedy within itself.

According to an unofficial count done by an independent research group, Ozymandias Media, a dog is shot by law enforcement every 98 minutes.

Last year The Free Thought Project reported on a slew of tragic dog shootings, including one department in Buffalo, NY whose officers shot 92 dogs from Jan. 1, 2011 through Sept. 2014.

Buffalo is hardly an isolated incident either. In Southwest Florida, the News-Press discovered 111 instances of dog shootings among multiple agencies between 2009 and 2012, representing about 37 per year. According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Police shot approximately 90 dogs per year between 2008 and 2013.

Last year we broke the story of a SWAT team responding a dispute between two neighbors and then shooting a small dog as it ran away from them.

Some of these officers really do seem to get a thrill out of shooting animals.

In October of last year, we broke the story of the sickening video uploaded to facebook of a Cleburne Texas Police officer calling a small dog towards him and then shooting it.

Why are these cops killing so many dogs? 

Is it because their lives in are in danger of ending every 98 minutes as they come across vicious animals in the line of duty? Some people in law enforcement actually expect us to believe that.

However, a video published to youtube by an Aussie Vlogger, who happens to be a postman, shows us that interacting with dogs, even menacing ones, can be done, without killing.

Watch below as friendly Australian postman, Cody Stavros, records some of the many dogs he encounters along his route. Some of these dogs are welcoming and nice, while others are ferocious. Either way, Stavros deals with them, without shooting them.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/postal-worker-inadvertently-instructional-video-police-deal-dogs/#wzO9B5PQPOXAKTRE.99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92owVMK6NSM