ArticlePDF Available

Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland, 1998-2013: Implications for current breed specific legislation

DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.04.021
Authors:
Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin at University of Limerick
Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of the current breed specific legislation in Ireland by investigating all dog bite hospital admissions throughout Ireland since that legislation was introduced. Data for statistical analyses were acquired through the National Hospital In-Patient Enquiry Scheme. In years 1998-2013, a total of 3164 human hospitalisations (admissions for dog bite) occurred in Ireland. Incidence of hospitalisations increased over this period (P <0.001). Male humans were at greater risk than females of dog bite hospitalisation (P = 0.015). Children under 10 years were identified as an at-risk group. The present legislation is not effective as a dog bite mitigation strategy in Ireland and may be contributing to a rise in hospitalisations. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Figures - uploaded by Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin on Oct 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted Manuscript
Title: Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998-2013):
implications for current breed specific legislation
Author: Páraic Ó Súilleabháin
PII: S1090-0233(15)00163-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.04.021
Reference: YTVJL 4490
To appear in: The Veterinary Journal
Accepted date: 16-4-2015
Please cite this article as: Páraic Ó Súilleabháin, Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in
Ireland (1998-2013): implications for current breed specific legislation, The Veterinary Journal
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.04.021.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will
undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its
final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could
affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1
Short Communication 1 2 Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998-2013): Implications for 3 current breed specific legislation 4 5 6 Páraic Ó Súilleabháin a,*
7 8 a School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, 9 Ireland 10 11 12 13 14 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 91524411. 15 E-mail address: p.osuilleabhain1@nuigalway.ie (P. Ó Súilleabháin). 16
Page 1 of 8
2
Highlights 17
There was a significant increase in incidences of hospitalisation of humans due to dog 18
bites in Ireland from 1998 to 2013. 19
Children under 10 years of age are at increased risk for dog bites. 20
Current legislation may be contributing to the rise in hospitalisations. 21
Breed specific legislation is not effective in Ireland. 22
Abstract 23
The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of the current breed specific 24
legislation in Ireland by investigating all dog bite hospital admissions throughout Ireland 25
since that legislation was introduced. Data for statistical analyses were acquired through the 26
National Hospital In-Patient Enquiry Scheme. In years 1998-2013, a total of 3164 human 27
hospitalisations (admissions for dog bite) occurred in Ireland. Incidence of hospitalisations 28
increased over this period (P < 0.001). Male humans were at greater risk than females of dog 29
bite hospitalisation (P = 0.015). Children under 10 years were identified as an at-risk group. 30
The present legislation is not effective as a dog bite mitigation strategy in Ireland and may be 31
contributing to a rise in hospitalisations. 32
33
Keywords: Breed-specific legislation; Dangerous dogs; Dog bites; Ireland; Dog breed 34
identification 35
Page 2 of 8
3
Governments frequently utilise dog breed specific legislation or non-breed specific 36
legislation to reduce injuries and fatalities from dog bites. Breed specific legislation prohibits 37
ownership or places restrictions on certain breeds of dogs categorised as ‘dangerous’ or ‘able 38
to inflict greater injuries’1. Non-breed specific legislation frequently includes measures 39
promoting responsible dog ownership coupled with an education programme2. 40
41
Breed-specific legislation is increasingly viewed as inappropriate and lacking a 42
scientific basis (AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006; Ott et al., 2008; Cornelissen and Hopster, 2010; 43
Patronek et al., 2013). No differences have been found in aggression or factors leading to 44
biting between dog breeds frequently legislated for and other breeds, suggesting that there is 45
no validity in breed specific lists (Collier, 2006; Ott et al., 2008). Patronek et al. (2013), 46
investigating 256 dog bite related fatalities in the USA over a 10 year period, found that 47
fatalities were associated with preventable factors under the control of both the owners and 48
victims. 49
50
This study examined whether reductions in the incidence of dog bite hospitalisations 51
have occurred since the introduction of the latest breed-specific legislation in Ireland (Control 52
of Dogs Act 1998 Regulations3). Dog bite hospitalisations were defined as human beings 53
admitted as day or in-patients with a primary diagnosis of dog bite, not including those who 54
attended accident and emergency departments. Data were collated and made available by the 55
Healthcare Pricing Office4. Statistics were made available from the introduction of the latest 56
legislation in 1998 until 2013 for all hospitals in Ireland (Table 1). The analysis was 57
1 See: Irish Statute Book: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html (accessed 21 October 2014).
2 See: The Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-
Services/Responsible-pet-ownership-bylaw.aspx (accessed 21 October 2014)
3 See: Irish Statute Book: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html (accessed 21 October 2014).
4 See: Healthcare Pricing Office: http://www.hpo.ie (accessed 21 October 2014).
Page 3 of 8
4
conducted using SPSS (IBM) and examined the annual incidence, expressed as number of 58
dog bite hospitalisations of human beings per 100,000 population5. 59
60
There was a total of 3164 human hospitalisations due to dog bite from 1998 to 2013, 61
with a 45% increase in numbers hospitalised; the incidence increased by 21% over the same 62
period. The effect of year on number of hospitalisations was assessed using Poisson 63
regression, with year as the unit of analysis and year number fitted as a continuous variable. 64
The natural log of population size was fitted as the offset. Visual observation and Durbin-65
Watson statistics suggested no autocorrelation in incidence between years; thus, the analysis 66
did not account for autocorrelation in residuals. 67
68
The incidence of dog bites increased significantly with year (P < 0.001; incidence 69
1.015; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.007-1.022); thus, incidence was estimated as being 70
1.5% higher than the previous year. Pearson’s correlation coefficient revealed a significant 71
positive correlation between incidence and year (r = 0.52, P = 0.02). Incidences were 72
calculated for human males and females separately based on population estimates6. A 73
Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that males (median incidence 4.98 dog bite 74
hospitalisations per 100,000 population) had greater annual incidence across years in 75
comparison to females (median incidence 4.29 per 100,000; P = 0.015). Across years, an 76
averaged 14% of the population were children < 10 years of age, but this age group 77
accounted for 49% of all hospitalisations. 78
5 See: Central Statistics Office, Population and Migration Estimates:
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2014/#.VD_h5xYm9
Wh (accessed 21 October 2014).
6 See: Central Statistics Office, StatBank:
http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/statire/SelectTable/Omrade0.asp?Planguage=0 (accessed 21 October 2014).
Page 4 of 8
5
79
The objective of the Control of Dogs Act 1998 Regulations is to reduce the incidence 80
and severity of bites from specific dog breeds (11 total, including mixes and strains) deemed 81
capable of inflicting injury requiring hospitalisation more frequently than all other breeds. 82
The regulation of these breeds should have resulted in a decreased incidence of 83
hospitalisations, whereas a significant increase in incidence was observed. The absence of a 84
marked decrease in incidence could be due to increased medical attention seeking behaviour 85
over the study period; however, this appears unlikely, given the severity of bites within the 86
present study requiring hospital admission beyond treatment solely in accident and 87
emergency departments. 88
89
Current regulations may be contributing to increases in hospitalisations due to dog 90
bites. Regulating breeds places restrictions on dogs that pose little risk and ignores the 91
possibility that any breed is capable of inflicting serious injuries; for example, fatalities have 92
been caused by dogs that fall into the toy breed categorisation (Collier, 2006). Ott et al. 93
(2008) indicated that the breeds currently regulated in Ireland do not possess higher levels of 94
aggression in comparison with other domestic breeds. Breed legislation can mislead the 95
general public into believing that unregulated breeds are less capable of inflicting serious and 96
fatal injuries (Clarke et al., 2013). 97
98
Regulating dogs based on breed to reduce injuries resulting in hospitalisations and 99
fatalities is contrary to scientific evidence (AVMA, 2001; Cornelissen and Hopster, 2010) 100
and compounded by research highlighting the inaccuracy of breed identification, making 101
current regulations unenforceable (Voith et al., 2013). For example, a dog genetically may be 102
50% a legislated breed and yet lack the genes responsible for coat, muzzle length, size and 103
Page 5 of 8
6
ear properties assumed to be typical of the breed (Voith et al., 2013), rendering accurate 104
breed identification impossible. Simpson et al. (2012) recommended refraining from 105
attempting to identify a dog’s breed or mix of breeds due to the high frequency of 106
misidentification. Incorrect breed identification may also have serious legal implications for 107
the identifier, not least in terms of reputation, court costs and damages. 108
109
If non-breed specific legislation is not enacted in Ireland, the author contends 110
hospitalisations will continue to rise, resulting in fatalities. Prior to the abolition of breed 111
specific legislation in The Netherlands during 2006 and 2007, hospitalisation incidence were 112
1.5 dog bite hospitalisations per 100,000 population annually (Cornelissen and Hopster, 113
2010). In Ireland during the same period, incidences were an average of 4.75 dog bite 114
hospitalisations per 100,000 population annually and rising (5.64 per 100,000 in 2013). Non-115
breed specific legislation has been successful worldwide (Oswald, 1991) and the introduction 116
of such legislation in Ireland is recommended. An education programme for children is 117
warranted and should adhere to science-based principles (Ó Súilleabháin, 2015). 118
119
Conflict of interest statement 120
The author of this paper has no financial or personal relationship with other people or 121
organisations that could influence the content of the paper. 122
123
Acknowledgements 124
The author wishes to thank the Healthcare Pricing Office and the Central Statistics 125
Office for their assistance sourcing the data. 126
127
References 128
Page 6 of 8
7
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association), 2001. A community approach to dog 129 bite prevention. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218, 1732-130 1749. 131 132 Clarke, T., Cooper, J., Mills, D., 2013. Acculturation - perceptions of breed differences in 133 behavior of the dog (Canis familiaris). Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 1, 16-33. 134 135 Collier, S., 2006. Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? 136 Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 1, 17-22. 137 138 Cornelissen, J.M.R., Hopster, H., 2010. Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, 139 injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific 140 legislation. The Veterinary Journal 186, 292-298. 141 142 Ó Súilleabháin, P., 2015. Training methods and dog-owner interaction as a public health risk 143 factor for dog bites. Zoonoses and Public Health. doi: 10.1111/zph.12195. 144 145 Oswald, M., 1991. Report on the potentially dangerous dog program: Multnomah County, 146 Oregon. Anthrozoos 4, 247-254. 147 148 Ott, S.A., Schalke, E., von Gaertner, A.M., Hackbarth, H., 2008. Is there a difference? 149 Comparison of Golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation 150 regarding aggressive behavior. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications 151 and Research 3, 134-140. 152 153 Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V., Marder, A.R., 2013. Co-occurrence of 154 potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States 155 (2000-2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 243, 1726-156 1736. 157 158 Simpson, R.J., Simpson, K.J., VanKavage, L., 2012. Rethinking dog breed identification in 159 veterinary practice. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 241, 160 1163-1166. 161 162 Voith, V.L., Trevejo, R., Dowling-Guyer, S., Chadik, C., Marder, A., Johnson, V., Irizarry, 163 K., 2013. Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-164 observer reliability. American Journal of Sociological Research 3, 17-29. 165
Page 7 of 8
8
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for dog bite hospitalisations and population sizes in Ireland by year from 1998 to 2013.
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Dog bite incidencea
4.65
3.77
4.76
4.16
4.55
4.92
3.94
4.42
5.07
4.24
5.03
5.68
5.43
5.64
Total number of hospitalisations
172
143
183
163
181
199
163
187
222
192
229
260
249
259
Population b
3,703,100
3,789,500
3,847,200
3,917,200
3,979,900
4,045,200
4,133,800
4,232,900c
4,375,800
4,533,400
4,554,800
4,574,900
4,585,400d
4,593,100d
Patient type
Day
e
e
e
e
8
e
9
15
8
e
9
e
13
17
In-patient
e
e
e
e
173
e
154
172
214
e
220
e
236
242
Dog bite incidencea
Male
5.44
3.40
5.59
4.01
4.86
4.62
4.03
5.10
5.66
4.21
5.70
6.21
5.51
6.11
Female
3.86
4.14
3.93
4.31
4.24
5.21
3.86
3.73
4.49
4.26
4.36
5.16
5.35
5.17
Total hospitalisations
Male
100
64
107
78
96
93
83
108
124
95
129
141
125
139
Female
72
79
76
85
85
106
80
79
98
97
100
119
124
120
Age group
0-9
100
73
95
82
94
102
73
83
102
92
101
120
101
109
10-19
15
19
26
23
17
22
12
18
29
22
30
31
22
46
20-29
11
e
8
9
e
12
10
14
18
12
15
19
15
12
30-39
11
11
6
6
18
e
9
10
11
14
26
17
22
26
40-49
10
10
15
13
10
13
22
16
19
16
16
17
24
19
50-59
7
9
9
13
8
15
16
13
17
14
14
23
27
21
60-69
7
6
8
e
15
14
9
6
e
13
14
17
14
12
70-79
e
e
7
9
9
11
e
20
11
e
e
e
14
14
80 years and older
e
6
9
e
e
e
e
7
e
e
e
e
10
e
In-patient mean length of stay (days)
2.7
2.4
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.8
2.8
2.0
2.7
2.3
a Number of dog bite hospitalisations per 100,000 population of human beings.
b Population numbers are rounded to the nearest 100 by the Central Statistics Office (http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2014/#.VD_h5xYm9Wh).
c Up to and including 2005, the annual population estimates are on a de facto basis (people present in the country on census night). From 2006 onwards, the concept of usual residence (people usually resident and present in the State on census night
plus absent people who are usually resident in Ireland) is used.
d Preliminary.
e Missing data.
Page 8 of 8
... In fact, studies that have assessed the effectiveness of BSL in Canada (Clarke & Fraser, 2013), Spain (Mora, et. al., 2018), Ireland (Súilleabháin, 2015), Scotland (Klaassen, Buckley & Esmail, 1996) To date no research evaluating the impact of BSL on ED visits in local municipalities in the U.S. has been published. For this study, medical records from hospitals in the state of Missouri (MO) were used to determine if ED visits for dog bite injuries are higher in MO municipalities without BSL than in MO municipalities with BSL. ...
Emergency department visits for dog bite injuries in Missouri municipalities with and without Breed-Specific Legislation: a propensity score-matched analysis
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Oct 2023
Background Breed-Specific Legislation is a type of law that bans or restricts ownership of specific dog breeds. Some local governments – including over seventy municipalities in the state of Missouri - have enacted Breed-Specific Legislation to prevent injuries from dog bites. Several studies from the peer-reviewed literature have found that aggressive behavior is not associated with any particular dog breeds and, since 2018, at least a dozen municipalities in Missouri have repealed these laws. To evaluate the impact of Breed-Specific Legislation on public safety, the 2010-2015 rates of emergency department visits for dog bite-related injuries in Missouri municipalities with and without Breed-Specific Legislation were compared. Propensity-score matched linear regression models were used to assess the effect of breed restrictions on injury rates while balancing the samples on population characteristics and estimates of dog ownership. Findings After matching the sample on population, housing and dog ownership estimates, no association was found between emergency department visits for dog bite injuries and whether the municipality enacted Breed-Specific Legislation. However, with every 1% increase in the population of males aged 5 to 9 the rate of emergency room visits for dog bite-related injuries increased by 6.36 visits per 100,000 residents (p<0.01.) Conclusion This study has found breed discriminatory laws have not reduced the risk of emergency department visits for injury from dog bites in Missouri. There appears to be no greater risk to public safety as local governments move to repeal existing breed bans.
View
... Additionally, the widespread presence of dogs in human environments presents societies with practical issues that have implications for human safety, dog welfare, and the health of both parties 3 . In fact, it has been shown that the way in which handlers treat their dogs during training (e.g. using punishment-based techniques) is associated with dog aggression towards people and conspecifics, highlighting the importance of considering how the owner behaves with its dog in dog bites prevention 4,5,6 . However, most of the studies which aimed at investigating the dog-owner relationship focused only on one partner: the dog. ...
View
... Still, despite the many benefits, child-dog interaction is not without risk. Dogs often exhibit aggressive behaviour and children (SÚILLEABHÁIN, 2015) and teenagers (BREGMAN and SLAVINSKI, 2012) are the most frequent victims of dog bites. Injuries range from minor superficial wounds to serious injuries, especially since children are more commonly bitten in the face, head and neck (MORGAN and PALMER, 2007). ...
Risk factors for dog bites involving children
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
Although children are the most frequent victims of dog bites, gaps remain in understanding of the factors that lead to biting incidents. Using a retrospective and victim self-report questionnaire, risk factors for dog bites with respect to younger and older children in Slovenia are examined. The results showed that younger children were more commonly bitten in a non-public place, outside or inside a house when the owner was absent. They had approached and interacted with a dog they knew, which had a history of aggression and had displayed tense or aggressive behaviour before the bite. Older children were mainly bitten outside in a public space, when the owner was not there. They were approached and bitten by an unknown dog while running or cycling, while entering the dog's personal space, or it was completely unprovoked. The dog involved had a history of aggression and before the bite the victims had neither interacted nor attempted to interact with the dog. These results suggest that the risk factors for dog bites involving children might be age-related calling for due attention and further assessment.
View
... Certain dog breeds -predominantly those historically used for guarding work or dog fighting -are commonly considered to be more likely to exhibit problematic aggressive behaviour, and legislation aimed at preventing dog attacks on humans is typically focused on restricting or prohibiting ownership of such breeds (Allcock & Campbell, 2021;Creedon & Ó'Súilleabháin, 2017;Súilleabháin, 2015). ...
Comparison of behavioural tendencies between “dangerous dogs” and other domestic dog breeds – Evolutionary context and practical implications
Article
Full-text available
Aggressive behaviour by dogs is a considerable social problem, but the ability to predict which individuals may have increased aggressive tendencies is very limited, restricting the development of efficient preventive measures. There is a common perception that certain breeds are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour, which has contributed to the introduction of breed‐specific legislation. The rationale for such legislation explicitly assumes high heritability of this trait while also implying relatively little variation within breeds; these assumptions are largely untested. We compared behavioural tendencies between 8 breeds that are subject to legislation in at least one country and 17 breeds that are not subject to legislation using two validated psychometric tools: the Dog Impulsivity Assessment Scale (DIAS), which scores elements of impulsivity, including a tendency for aggressive behaviour, and Positive and Negative Activation Scale (PANAS), which scores sensitivity to positive and negative stimuli (which may trigger aggressive responses). We found that the two groups of breeds do not differ significantly in the specific DIAS factor relating to aggressive behaviour, “Aggression Threshold and Response to Novelty”, or any other DIAS and PANAS factors. We found large variations in all behavioural tendencies measured by both psychometric scales within both groups and within each breed studied. Taken together, our findings indicate that breed alone is not a reliable predictor of individual behavioural tendencies, including those related to aggression, and therefore breed‐specific legislation is unlikely to be an effective instrument for reducing risk.
View
... The most frequent reasons for a service request included collecting a stray dog from a person's property, an owned dog being out of control in a public place, and bite incidents or reports of aggressive behaviour. In a review of hospital records-based dog bite injuries in Ireland, Ó Súilleabháin [33] raised concern about use of breed-specific legislation, as currently applied in Statutory Instrument (SI) No. 442/1998 (the Control of Dogs Regulation 1998) [34]. Recently, Keogh et al. found low levels of awareness among the general public (both dog owners and non-dog owners) that key responsibilities of dog owners are prescribed under Irish law. ...
Understanding the dog population in the Republic of Ireland: insight from existing data sources?
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
Background Reliable information about national pet dog populations is an important contributor to informed decision-making, both by governments and national dog welfare organisations. In some countries, there is an improved understanding of aspects of the national pet dog population, but as yet limited published information is available in Ireland. The current study reviews the utility of existing data to inform our understanding of recent changes to the pet dog population in Ireland, including both biological and organisational processes. Results Based on national data on dog licencing and microchipping registration, pet dog numbers have remained relatively stable in recent years (ie prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). Since 2015, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of dogs managed through dog control centres. Although the completeness of the data are likely variable, there appears to be substantial, and increasing, number of dogs moving from Ireland to other countries, including UK, Sweden, Italy, Germany and Singapore. We also note an increase (albeit much smaller) in the number of dogs being moved into Ireland. Conclusions This study highlights the challenges faced when using existing national data to gain insights into the dog population of Ireland. The linking of existing national databases (individual dog identification, dog licencing, dog control statistics) has the potential to improve both the representativeness and accuracy of information about the Irish pet dog population. In the next phases of our work, we will focus on the work of dog welfare organisations, given both the increased role played by these organisations and the substantial public funding that has been committed in this sector.
View
... Still, despite the many benefits, child-dog interaction is not without risk. Dogs often exhibit aggressive behaviour and children (SÚILLEABHÁIN, 2015) and teenagers (BREGMAN and SLAVINSKI, 2012) are the most frequent victims of dog bites. Injuries range from minor superficial wounds to serious injuries, especially since children are more commonly bitten in the face, head and neck (MORGAN and PALMER, 2007). ...
Factors Affecting Human-Directed Aggression Resulting in Dog Bites: Contextual Aspects of the Biting Incidents
Article
  • Nov 2021
Using a web-based questionnaire with 29 close- and open-ended questions about 400 self-reported dog-biting incidents in Slovenia, this research investigated the contexts of dog bites, focusing on characteristics of the dogs and the descriptions of the situations to identify the main risk factors for the occurrence of dog bites. Even though it has been suggested that most dog bites occur during initially non-aggressive interactions with the dog (e.g., during petting, playing), in our study we discerned a wide variety of contexts, including those in which the person did not intend to interact with the dog. Most victims reported unprovoked bites during fast movements near the dog, while coming into close proximity, and during incidents without a reason. These incidents more likely occurred in public than private places and were associated with purebred dogs with a history of aggression.
View
... These typically involve defining a dog bite as a punishable offence, often in conjunction with breed specific legislations (BSL) that restrict the list of dogs that can be legally owned on grounds of safety. Although studies investigating the prevalence of dog bites concluded that BSL or similar legislations was successful in Winnipeg (Canada) [17], it was not linked with a reduction in a number of dog-related hospital admissions in The Netherlands [3], Ireland [18,19], Spain [20], Denmark [21] or England [22]. In addition, as banned breeds are usually not accurately identified [23][24][25][26], these legislations contribute to poor welfare of dogs perceived as dangerous [27][28][29]. ...
“If You Don’t See the Dog, What Can You Do?” Using Procedures to Negotiate the Risk of Dog Bites in Occupational Contexts
Article
Full-text available
Dog bites are a health risk in a number of workplaces such as the delivery, veterinary and dog rescue sectors. This study aimed to explore how workers negotiate the risk of dog bites in daily interactions with dogs and the role of procedures in workplace safety. Participants who encounter dogs at work were recruited using snowball sampling. Ethnographic methods (interviews, focus group discussions, participant-observations) were used for data collection. All data were coded qualitatively into themes. Six themes describing dog bite risk management were identified: ‘Surveillance of dogs’; ‘Communicating risk; ‘Actions taken to manage perceived risk’; ‘Reporting bites and near-misses’, ‘Investigating bites and near-misses’, and; ‘Learning and teaching safety’. While the procedures described dog bite risk as objective, when interacting with dogs, participants drew on experiential knowledge and subjective judgment of risk. There was a discrepancy between risks that the procedures aimed to guard against and the risk participants were experiencing in the course of work. This often led to disregarding procedures. Paradoxically, procedures generated risks to individual wellbeing and sometimes employment, by contributing to blaming employees for bites. Dog bite prevention could be improved by clarifying definitions of bites, involving at risk staff in procedure development, and avoiding blaming the victim for the incident.
View
A mixed-method survey to understand the role of dog welfare organisations in Ireland, including reported challenges and potential solutions
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2023
Background: This novel study forms part of a larger research programme seeking an improved understanding of aspects of the owned dog population in Ireland. Dog welfare organisations (DWOs) in Ireland are recognised as an instrumental pillar of the animal welfare sector with some receiving substantial public funding. We conducted a survey of DWOs in Ireland (n = 39) to gain a better understanding of their role and function, including their policies and procedures and the rehoming of dogs to other regions. In addition, we wanted to get a better understanding of the challenges experienced by DWOs in fulfilling their role and their perspectives on potential solutions to these challenges. The survey questions consisted of closed and open-ended items. Closed items were analysed quantitively; open-ended items were analysed thematically. Results: Most DWOs (> 80%) had written protocols for important welfare actions including rehoming procedures, assessment of owner suitability and euthanasia. DWOs sent dogs to Northern Ireland (13%), Great Britain (38.5%) and to other countries outside the United Kingdom (36%, including Germany, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands and Czechia). Reported challenges included a general lack of funding, limited public awareness of the importance of dog welfare and insufficient capacity to handle dog numbers. To address these challenges, the DWOs highlighted the potential contribution of subsidised programmes and access to resources to educate potential owners. In a further qualitative evaluation to capture perceptions of appropriate solutions by DWOs, several themes emerged, relating to legislation, education, an overwhelmed workforce, and funding. Conclusions: This study provides important insights into the roles and functions of DWOs and challenges they experience in Ireland. It is hoped that the findings from this research will inform future research investigating potential solutions to these challenges as well as the development of policy in Ireland.
View
View
Muzzles as a means of bite prevention – history, legislation, welfare and safety aspects / Maulkörbe als Mittel zur Bissprävention – Geschichte, Maulkorbpflicht, Tierschutz- und Sicherheitsaspekte
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2023
A historical review of the development of muzzles shows that the requirements for these devices, which are anchored in modern animal protection and security police law, were discussed as early as the beginning of the 20 th century. As muzzles are regarded as a safe means of preventing bites, security police legislation imposes far-reaching obligations on muzzles for dogs in public spaces. We have collected initial information on problems related to the safety of muzzles or individual muzzle types. In 2022, we conducted a survey of dog trainers and veterinarians in Austria and Germany to gather information on incidents in which muzzled dogs caused a (bite) injury. We also collected information on the popularity of certain muzzle types among dog owners and on the recommendations of different muzzle types by dog trainers. There have been 63 reported incidents involving muzzled dogs that resulted in a bite or other injury to a human or other animal. During the (biting) incident, the dogs wore muzzles made of biothane (27 %), leather (25.4 %), metal (22.2 %) or hard plastic (9.5 %). More than 60% of bite injuries with muzzles made of bio-thane and hard plastic led to perforation of skin and tissue, while more than 50 % of injuries with muzzles made of leather had no tissue perforation. Bites with muzzles made of metal generally (78.6 %) resulted in impact injuries. At initial consultations, dog owners mostly used muzzles made of hard plastic, followed by muzzles made of biothane or metal. Dog trainers recommended muzzles made of biothane, followed by muzzles made of metal or hard plastic. The results show that the safety of individual muzzle types is sometimes overestimated, as muzzle-wearing dogs can also cause bite injuries and there are differences between the muzzle types with regard to the severity of (bite) injury. Our results suggest that mesh muzzles made of metal should be recommended for dogs with a body weight of approx. 20 kg or more.
View
Acculturation - Perceptions of breed differences in behavior of the dog ( Canis familiaris )
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2013
Behavioral breed differences in dogs are frequently attributed to largely genetic factors. An alternative hypothesis to explain perceived breed-specific behavioral differences uses the concept of acculturation. A key feature of acculturation is the Contact Hypothesis involving experience of other cultures, with limited contact resulting in beliefs based on stereotypic images of a group. A survey was developed to investigate if personal perception of breed behavior is associated with the informant’s relationships with dogs. This was tested using statements premised on somatotypic (or appearance based) assumptions, including breed-specific behavioral characteristics such as intelligence, original function and aggressive tendencies, and the validity of breed-specific legislation. 166 surveys were returned from 5 targeted populations expected to vary in contact with dogs. Their responses to each statement was recorded on a 4-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The results were consistent with the prediction that level and quality of contact influenced tendency to believe breed stereotypes. Those with limited contact with dogs were more likely to agree with breed-specific legislation, and that certain breeds were more aggressive than others. In contrast responses related to intelligence, or breed’s original form and function were not influenced by respondent’s experience of dogs. These findings suggest increased positive contact can overcome potential misconceptions regarding dogs. In particular, where there is a negative emotional component to a breed’s image such as aggression or potential danger, then those with limited positive contact tend to base their beliefs on popular somatypic stereotypes.
View
Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2009
As part of an evaluation of Dutch breed specific legislation, data were collected from dog bite victims (1078) and dog owners (6139) using Internet surveys. The incidence rate of dog bites and details of incidents (victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors) are reported and the justification for using breed specific measurements to deal with dog bites are considered. For aggressors, attack records for breed groups and popular breeds were established by calculating breed risk indices using a reference population. Several breeds and breed groups were over- and under-represented in the biting population and there was a mismatch between risk indices and the then-current legislation. Mitigation strategies should not be based on attack records (since this would lead to the rejection of a significant proportion of the canine population) but on the circumstances of the incidents. Preventative measures must focus on a better understanding of how to handle dogs.
View
View
View
Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000-2009)
Article
  • Dec 2013
Objective: To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies. Design: Prospective case series. Sample: 56 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Procedures: DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis. Results: Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners' prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. Conclusions and clinical relevance: Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
View
Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior
Article
Between 2000 and 2002, legislation in Lower Saxony insinuated a special dangerousness of certain dog breeds, and controls were imposed on them. Exemption was only possible if the dogs passed a standardized temperament test. In a previous study, test results of 415 dogs belonging to breeds affected by the legislation were analyzed. Ninety-five percent of the dogs showed no indication of disturbed aggressive communication or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. Because a control group was not available at that time, these results referred to a comparison between the affected breeds. In this study, golden retrievers were tested and used as control group. Seventy golden retrievers were tested in the temperament test. The order of testing was: veterinary examination, learning test, situations of dog–human-, dog–environment-, and dog–dog-contact, and obedience. Levels of escalation in aggressive behavior were scored using a scale of 1–7. A total of 58.57% of the dogs did not show aggressive behavior (Scale 1). Forty percent displayed aggressive behavior referring to Scale 2, and 1.43% showed aggressive behavior referring to Scale 5. A total of 98.57% of the dogs reacted appropriately, and 1.43% displayed aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. In the previous study, 95% of the animals reacted appropriately, whereas 5% displayed excessive aggressive communication or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. Comparing the results of golden retrievers and breeds affected by the legislation, no significant difference was found. A scientific basis for breed specific lists does not exist. Therefore, legislation in Lower Saxony was changed, and breed lists were withdrawn.
View
Report on the Potentially Dangerous Dog Program: Multnomah County, Oregon
Article
  • Dec 1991
In April 1986, a five-year-old boy was fatally mauled by a pit bull terrier in Multnomah County, (Portland) Oregon. This tragic event sparked concern over how effectively the public was being protected from the hazards posed by aggressive dogs. In June 1986, a new ordinance was passed that identifies and regulates potentially dangerous dogs. In the first three years of the program, 1,652 dogs were classified as potentially dangerous, and restrictions were placed on the ownership of these animals. A pretest-posttest evaluation methodology examining the rate of recidivism was used to measure the program's effectiveness in limiting the opportunity for identified potentially dangerous dogs to repeat their behavior. In the five years prior to the implementation of the program, 25% of those dogs that had caused injury to people or other animals through attacking or biting repeated that same behavior within one year. After the implementation of the program, that rate of repeat incidence has been reduced to 7%.
View
View
Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified?
Article
After more than a century as an uncontroversial dog (Jessup, 1975), the American pit bull terrier has developed a notorious reputation as a dangerous breed since 1980, with consequent restrictions placed upon it by jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere. Studies in the United States have indicated that the "pit bull" is responsible for a significant number of human fatalities resulting from dog attack, but the data on which such studies are based are flawed by methodological shortcomings. Using absolute numbers of dog attacks by breed in Australia, data on attacks on human beings reveal the pit bull terrier to be exceeded by several other breeds. Regardless, the primary problem is that reliable data do not exist for the number of attacks relative to breed population. Of 19 human fatalities in Australia over the past two decades, none has involved a dog verified to be an American pit bull terrier. The evidence does not sustain the view that this is a uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it have not been demonstrated by authorities to be justified by its attack record.
View