No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma
... The negative reputation of dogs identified as Pit Bull breed/type, for example, ("Pit Bull" is a generic category that includes the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier (Hussain, 2005)) is facilitated through negative or false media information which tries to elicit fear and to highlight the sensational. Highly-publicized death cases and dogfighting aided in the destruction of the Pit Bull's image perception, in particular (Riem, 2018;Yilmaz, 2016). ...
... Brice et al. (2018 showed that the Pit Bull bites were responsible for a significantly higher number of orthopedic injuries and resulted in amputation and/or bony injury in 66% of patients treated. A thorough examination of "canine homicides", based on statistical analysis, was performed by Hussain (2005) and she revealed that the Pit Bull was involved in almost one-third of the fatal attacks between 1981 and 1992, in the USA. It should be underlined that when discussing the findings of research such as Hussain (2005) about the Pit Bull, readers should remind that determining that the Pit Bull mixes are responsible for one-third of dog homicides is reliant on knowing the percentage of the Pit Bull in a geographic dog population which is rarely the case. ...
... A thorough examination of "canine homicides", based on statistical analysis, was performed by Hussain (2005) and she revealed that the Pit Bull was involved in almost one-third of the fatal attacks between 1981 and 1992, in the USA. It should be underlined that when discussing the findings of research such as Hussain (2005) about the Pit Bull, readers should remind that determining that the Pit Bull mixes are responsible for one-third of dog homicides is reliant on knowing the percentage of the Pit Bull in a geographic dog population which is rarely the case. Schalamon et al. (2006) argued that the relative risk for dog attack of Doberman or German Shepherd breeds was five times higher than that of a Labrador Retriever. ...
This contribution aimed to highlight the importance of the legal framework on human-dog interactions to better understand the “more‐than‐human cosmopolitanism”. Thus, it gives insight into the never-ending debate of how we can share the living space with other forms of life. The study acknowledged the inconsistencies between community members’ and experts’ opinions on the best methods to prevent dogs’ attacks, the imperative to consider concerns for animal welfare and public safety while improving the legitimacy of different implemented measures. The seriousness of the dog control problem determined the enactment of laws to limit or ban dogs purely on their breed/type. The study explores Romanian citizens beliefs regarding law labeled “dangerous” dogs within the context of Romanian breed-specific legislation (Governmental Emergency Ordinance No. 55 of 2002). An overwhelming majority of respondents considered that a dog’s dangerousness must be assessed individually, according to each specimen’s characteristics, and regardless of the breed/type to which it belongs. A significant percentage of people were unaware of the legal regime in place for “dangerous” dog breeds. Responsible dog ownership intertwined with learning to care could solve the societal annoyance of “blacklisted” dog breeds/type.
... High-profile human-directed dog aggression cases combined with public pressure can often prompt the introduction of legislation restricting certain aspects of dog ownership (Hussain, 2005;Oxley, Farr, & De Luna, 2012). There are two main legislation categories related to dog aggression: (a) dangerous dog laws, and (b) breed-specific legislation (BSL). ...
... There are two main legislation categories related to dog aggression: (a) dangerous dog laws, and (b) breed-specific legislation (BSL). Different countries incorporate these two categories of legislation to different degrees (Hussain, 2005). The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) of 1991 is the main piece of dog-control legislation in the United Kingdom and contains aspects of both categories. ...
... Dangerous dog laws aim to encourage responsible dog ownership by penalizing the caregiver (owner) of any dog who is deemed "dangerously out of control" (Dziura, 2013;Hussain, 2005). Section 3 of the DDA contains this phrase and applies to any dog of any breed (DDA, 1991). ...
Canine aggression came into the public eye in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s prompting enactment of the UK Dangerous Dogs Act , which prohibits four breeds or “types” of dogs. The act faced strong opposition surrounding correct identification of prohibited dogs. A questionnaire was distributed to the public via an online platform, especially targetting those who have worked with dogs. The questionnaire assessed respondents’ abilities to identify the four banned types of dogs from other breeds and their capability to identify Pit Bull Terrier types from other similar dog types. Identification of both banned breeds, F(1, 20) = 57.746, p < .001, and bull breeds, F(1, 20) = 9.293, p = .006, was significantly lower than identification of other breeds. Recognition of Pit Bull Terrier types from similar types of dogs was generally poor, although people in a dog-related profession, as opposed to those in other professions, could correctly distinguish more pit bull-type dogs (U = 46,164.0, n1 = 187, n2 = 575, p = .003). Findings suggest public understanding of dangerous dogs is poor, and it may impact societal perceptions of dogs more widely.
... Because, as will be discussed later, the data used for this study do not contain information about the dog involved, this literature is not discussed in detail here. Generally there is a lack of consensus on the relationship between breed and bites (see, for example, DeKuster et al., 2006;Hussain, 2007;Rosado et al., 2009;Shuler et al., 2008). ...
... There is greater consensus on the effects of other dog attributes on the likelihood of bites specifically identifying unneutered male dogs as the most frequent perpetrators (American Veterinary Medical Association [AVMA], 2001;Gershman et al., 1994;Hussain, 2007;Shuler et al., 2008;Patronek, Sacks, Delise, Cleary, & Marder, 2010). Other dog traits linked to bites include size of the dog, with larger dogs more likely to bite and with greater severity (AVMA, 2001;Rosado et al., 2009). ...
To be able to design effective urban public health programs to reduce the risk of dog bites and transmission of disease, the very complex factors that lead to bites need to be considered holistically. This research focuses specifically on the role of spatial and environmental factors as urban public health risks. In doing this, it addresses the following research questions:
(1) What are the relative powers of traditional demographic versus environmental variables in explaining dog bites?
(2) Do different areas of the city evidence different correlates of bites?
The answer to the first is that despite a long tradition in the literature, demographic variables do a relatively poor job of explaining variation in the rates of emergency room visits due to dog bites. Rather, environmental and spatial variables, particularly crime, vacancy, and blight, are better predictors of dog bites than traditional demographic variables such as age and gender. However, even the best-fitting regression model leaves dog bites in many areas of a city unexplained; bite covariates differ by neighborhood. Thus, to effectively address the risk of dog bites in urban areas, different policies are required for different neighborhood conditions.
... Thus respondents with more limited experience of dogs (defined by self-evaluation of level of knowledge of dogs, current dog ownership, and the role occupied by the dog in the respondent's life) would be more likely to be reliant on popular cultural representations of breed typical behavior. In this regard, it is worth noting that stereotypic perceptions of breeds underwritten by breedspecific legislation such as the Dangerous Dog Act, 1991 suggest Government endorsement of such somatotyping assumptions (Radford, 2001;Hussain, 2005;Swann, 2009) and may help to engender fear of particular breeds or types of dogs, which in turn reduces the opportunities for close and positive contact. As such, attitudinal response to breed specific legislation is a particularly useful context for testing the predictions of the contact hypothesis. ...
... Labelling plays a powerful role in both the development of stereotypes and the maintenance of assumptions about the characteristics of those stereotyped (Becker, 1963;Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, & Roberts, 1978;Cohen, 1973). Breed specific legislation suggests government endorsement of such somatotyping assumptions (Radford, 2001;Hussain, 2005;Swann, 2009) and may be more of a reaction to the politics of public fear than a sound mechanism for providing an effective response to the phenomena of weapon/status dogs or need for public safety. ...
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.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
... In the early 1900s pit bulls were considered the epitome of the all American dog. For example Stubby, the first war hero dog and Pete the Pup, from "The Little Rascals" were very good examples of this breed(Hussain 2005). Although bred for fighting other dogs the American Pit Bull terrier has long been a popular family pet, noted for his strength, intelligence and devotion. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise dog fighting in Europe. Dog fighting has been illegal in Canada since 1892. Nowadays in USA dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states. Dog fighting is also illegal in most South American countries. In Afghanistan although dog fighting is banned by the Taliban it is still common throughout Afghanistan as a winter weekend pastime. In India dog fighting is not common, but can be found in some rural areas, and is illegal as defined by the Indian law. In Japan dog fighting seemed as legal. Dog fighting was considered a way for the Samurai to retain their aggressive edge during peaceful times. In Pakistan dog fighting and other forms of animal fighting are highly popular in all parts of the country even though it has recently been banned. It is deeply rooted in the rural culture. In Russia dogfighting is prohibited in much of the West. These blood sports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. In Africa the Republic of South Africa is a country where one of the most dog fighting events happens. Dog fighting and the possession of any fighting equipment designed for dog fighting is illegal in Australia. "Restricted Breed Dogs" cannot be imported into Australia.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
... Generally the breeds of Staffordshire Bull Terriers, It is often asked whether the Pit Bull is unsuitable as a family pet or not? In the early 1900s pit bulls were considered the epitome of the all American dog.For example Stubby, the first war hero dog and Pete the Pup, from "The Little Rascals" were very good examples of this breed(Hussain, 2005). Although bred for fighting other dogs the American Pit Bull terrier has long been a popular family pet, noted for his strength, intelligence and devotion. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise dog fighting in Turkey. Obliviously dog fighting is a type of blood sport and almost occurs in every part of the country and in every type of community. When a fight begins, generally the spectator place bets with one another on which dog will win. Dog fighting also includes some strict rules for fights. Dog fighting is highly common in Turkey even though it is illegal and prohibited by the Law of Animal Protection. Dog fighting events are organized in cold seasons. This season starts around September and ends in late April. Dog fighting events are made on ground in a quiet place. Spectators never bet on dogs for money, but they just watch the game. Owners of dogs put their dogs in fighting field either for fame or money. Sometimes the owners bet even a car or a house for the game. A group of people organize pittbull fighting in Istanbul in pits in closed areas but their number is negligible. The dogfighters of Turkey are commonly ill-educated and income people. The most notorious fighting dogs are Turkish Kangal (Karabash) Shepherd Dog crossbreds. As a result the dog fighting is a criminal activity and requires police intervention.
... Yet, most research investigating dog-related laws is siloed, with detailed understandings of certain areas of law usually coming from different disciplines. Examples include animal welfare law [34,[83][84][85], dangerous dog legislation [57,82,[86][87][88][89], managing dogs in public spaces [22,48,51,90], managing dogs' impact on the environment [91][92][93][94][95], providing for dogs in accommodation [96,97] and exploring animal personhood [64,65,73,98]. This siloed nature of study is likely a result of the different aims of legislation, a focus on creating deep understanding of law, the different interests driving research, and dog-related law differing within countries. ...
Dogs and humans have shared a complex relationship throughout history, with law serving as an important tool to manage dogs’ integration into human societies. As dogs increasingly become regarded as family members in Western countries, and as similar trends emerge globally, it is vital to understand how legislation balances the interests of stakeholders. Existing studies often focus on localised disputes and fragmented legal areas, limiting understanding of how dog-related laws interact and potentially conflict. We developed a conceptual framework to systematically analyse dog-related legislation, using the United Kingdom as a case study. Identified through a systematic search, laws were evaluated using content analysis based on the benefits provided to stakeholders, the regulated aspects of dog ownership, and whether benefits afforded to stakeholders occur in public or private spaces. We found that the greatest legislative focus was on dog welfare, dangerous dogs, and dog control, with little emphasis on areas like the breeding and sale of dogs. Eighty-two percent of laws that manage dogs in public space predominantly benefit the general public, often disadvantaging dogs and their owners, while 81% of laws that govern dogs within the home favour dogs. Owners consistently face legal obligations, but gain few benefits. These findings highlight misalignments between the law and dogs’ evolving societal roles, potentially contributing to public space conflicts and low compliance. The framework offers a tool for cross-country comparisons and assessing legislation for other species with similarly shifting roles.
... People keep 68 million dogs as pets in the United States. 122 The great majority of house dogs are harmless, but sometimes dogs can exhibit abnormal behavior that can result in physical and mental harm to their target. When reviewing case law involving dogs, tort cases involving dog incidents amongst neighbors, house guests, and the like are rampant. ...
The use of dogs as tools of oppression against African Americans has its roots in slavery and persists today in everyday life and police interactions. Due to such harmful practices, African Americans are not only disproportionately terrorized by officers with dogs, but they are also subject to instances of misplaced sympathy, illsuited laws, and social exclusion in their communities. Whether extreme and violent or subtle and pervasive, the use of dogs in oppressive acts is a critical layer of racial bias in the United States that has consistently built injustices that impede social and legal progress. By recognizing this pattern and committing to an intentional effort to end the devaluation of African Americans, the United States can begin to address the trailing pawprints of its racial inequities.
... It has been documented that when "scary" dog breeds attack humans, media coverage tends to be far more extensive than coverage on attacks by other dog breeds (see Hussain, 2005). Thus, akin to pit bull dogs, more coverage leads to more dissemination of anti-wolfdog sentiment by critics, who falsely charge that hybrids are inherently unpredictable and dangerous (Sloan, 1998). ...
Wolf hybrids present a case study for deconstructing and critiquing how the nature/culture dualism permeates discourses about and constitutes human relationships with “wild” and “domestic” animals. In this essay, I conduct a critical textual analysis of three competing discourses about wolf hybrids: (1) wolf hybrid buyers and sellers determined to defend the animals as suitable pets for the “right owner”; (2) conservationists worried about preserving a pure stock of wild and/or endangered wolves; and (3) domestic animal advocates worried about individual wolf hybrids’ welfare in the hands of irresponsible owners. Despite legitimate ethical concerns about the “ownership” of canines, hybridized or otherwise, I posit that these discourses largely eschew complex ethical quandaries in favor of a simultaneous fetishization and fear of the “wild” wolf. The wild/domestic dualism discursively invoked for and against wolf hybrids constitutes an ahistorical eco-normativity that constructs wolf hybrids as both liminal and killable creatures. Wolf hybrids ultimately function as “companion cyborgs”: neither wild nor domestic canines, but rather liminal denizens of both sides of a nature/culture dualism ill-suited for wolfish dogs and doggish wolves.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise dog fighting in some European countries. Dog fighting has been illegal in some world countries such as Canada, USA, in most South American countries, Australia, Afghanistan, India, Japan, Pakistan, and the Republic of South Africa. These blood sports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. Dog fighting and the possession of any fighting equipment designed for dog fighting is illegal in. In Russia which has part of Europe dog fighting is prohibited in much of the West
... It is perceived as being overinclusive 'by subjecting all members of the target breed to regulation regardless of prior behaviour; that is . . . it reaches both dangerous and docile members of the target breed'. 56 McNeely and Lindquist advocated governments taking a more nuanced approach to this issue as an acknowledgement of their responsibility towards all citizens: ...
Legislation governing the regulation of dangerous dogs is notoriously fraught with difficulties, in particular concerning the definitions incorporated within, and the enforcement and application of, the relevant provisions. This paper examines two aspects of the legislative framework; the regulation of ‘type-specific’ breeds of dogs, and the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres. These aspects afford an opportunity for two principal justifications in favour of controlling owners and their dogs to be analysed: the protection of the public and the need to responsibilise dog owners. This paper considers the extent to which type-specific provisions and the extension of dangerous dogs legislation to cover private spheres achieve those desired aims and concludes that these goals are not clearly met. The authors recommend a consolidated piece of legislation, alongside a more sophisticated approach (supported by further research) being adopted with respect to the nature of dog ownership.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise dog fighting in the World. Dog fighting has been illegal in Canada since 1892. Nowadays in USA dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states. Dog fighting is also illegal in most South American countries. In Afghanistan although dog fighting is banned by the Taliban it is still common throughout Afghanistan as a winter weekend pastime. In India dog fighting is not common, but can be found in some rural areas, and is illegal as defined by the Indian law. In Japan dog fighting seemed as legal. Dog fighting was considered a way for the Samurai to retain their aggressive edge during peaceful times. In Pakistan dog fighting and other forms of animal fighting are highly popular in all parts of the country even though it has recently been banned. It is deeply rooted in the rural culture. In Russia dogfighting is prohibited in much of the West. These blood sports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. In Africa the Republic of South Africa is a country where one of the most dog fighting events happens. Dog fighting and the possession of any fighting equipment designed for dog fighting is illegal in Australia. "Restricted Breed Dogs" cannot be imported into Australia.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA, dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog ( (Lockwood, 1995). ...
Aim of this paper was to review dog fighting which happens almost all over the world. Generally, two dogs, often of a pit bull breed, are put into an area to fight and sometimes kill each other. Dog fighting can involve high stakes, and carries with it the same sociological dangers of other gambling, particularly illegal gambling, and activities. They are generally unsocialized to any other dogs and to most people. However, many professional fighters invest much time and money in conditioning their animals. They are frequently given quality nutrition and basic veterinary care. On the contrary, the street fighters usually make little investment in conditioning or training their animals. Instead, they rely on cruel methods to encourage their dogs to fight, including starvation, physical abuse, isolation and the use of stimulants or other drugs that excite the dogs. Dog fights are organized in places of variety of locations and at any time. In rural areas, they may be impromptu events in a barn, outdoor pit, back alley, or carefully planned and staged enterprises in a location specially designed and maintained for the purpose. On the other hand in urban areas, fights may happen in garages, basements, warehouses, abandoned buildings, back alleys, neighbourhood playgrounds, or even in the streets.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to summarize historical process of dog fighting which happens almost all over the
World. The history of dog fighting reaches to ancient Roman and Chinese civilizations. Historians showed that
large-scale human migration, development of trade, and gifts between royal courts of valuable fighting dogs
facilitated the spread of fighting dog breeds. Accounts of dog fighting in China date back to 240 A.D.Dog
fighting can also be traced back to the Roman Empire. The Etruscan wall paintings dated about 5th century BC
show scenes of bloody competition between human and dogs. Moreover floor mosaics from Libya celebrate the
Roman arena slaughters with scenes of humans and dogs working together to spill the blood of a wide variety of other animals such as horses, antelope and wild boar. Romans bred and exported fighting dogs to Spain, France and other parts of Europe until eventually these dogs made their way back to England. A Staffordshire bull terrier was brought to North America and dog fighting became part of North America culture in 1817. Dog
fighting had begun to flourish after bull and bear-baiting became illegal in the 1830s.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to summarize historical process of dog fighting which happens almost all over the World. The history of dog fighting reaches to ancient Roman and Chinese civilizations. Historians showed that large-scale human migration, development of trade, and gifts between royal courts of valuable fighting dogs facilitated the spread of fighting dog breeds. Accounts of dog fighting in China date back to 240 A.D.Dog fighting can also be traced back to the Roman Empire. The Etruscan wall paintings dated about 5 th century BC show scenes of bloody competition between human and dogs. Moreover floor mosaics from Libya celebrate the Roman arena slaughters with scenes of humans and dogs working together to spill the blood of a wide variety of other animals such as horses, antelope and wild boar. Romans bred and exported fighting dogs to Spain, France and other parts of Europe until eventually these dogs made their way back to England. A Staffordshire bull terrier was brought to North America and dog fighting became part of North America culture in 1817. Dog fighting had begun to flourish after bull and bear-baiting became illegal in the 1830s.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable, 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain, 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise by considering human factor in dog fighting events. There are three types of dog fighters including street fighters, hobbyists, and professionals. Hobbyists and professionals often decry the techniques street fighters use to train their dogs. Street fighters fight dogs over insults, turf invasions, or simple taunts like "My dog can kill your dog ". Urban street fighters generally have several dogs chained in backyards , often behind privacy fences, or in basements or garages. Hobbyists fight dogs for supplemental income and entertainment purposes. Professionals breed generations of skilled "game dogs" and take a great pride in their dogs' lineage. Professionals also tend to own a large number of dogs which are sometimes 50 dogs or more. Dogfighters often face additional charges related to drug, alcohol and weapons violations as well as probation violations.
... They can easily be removed after the fight, carried away in sacks if their condition was likely to draw suspicion (Drable 2014). For example in USA dog attacks and bites are not so common (Hussain 2005). Although more than 20 fatalities happened each year in USA because of dog biting, there was no report that a man did during dog fight, but the dog. ...
Aim of this paper is to revise social aspect of dog fighting. For centuries usually dog fighting has been principally enjoyed by men. Unfortunately, the popularity of this activity has increased. There are three types of dog fighters including street fighters, hobbyists, and professionals. First type of fights is often spontaneous, unorganized, conducted for money, drugs, or bragging rights. At second type, dogs are used for supplemental income and entertainment purposes. The last types are professionals. Professionals breed generations of skilled "game dogs" and take a great pride in their dogs' lineage. Those fighters make a tremendous amount of money charging stud fees to breed their champions. In USA professional fighters also use trade journals to discuss recent fights and to advertise the sale of training equipment and puppies. There are people who promote or participate in dog fighting from every community and background. It is always asked that why people get involved in dog fighting. There are many reasons people are attracted to dog fighting. The most basic is greed. In additional the attraction lies in using the animals as an extension of themselves to fight their battles for them and demonstrate their strength and prowess. The appeal simply seems to come from the sadistic enjoyment of a brutal spectacle.
... This has been recognized by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which state that user fees, taxes, or bans may not be effective and stress the critical and unaddressed role of the local level (Riley, 2008). Others in the field also recognize that a more nuanced policy that focuses on the source of specific risks can be more successful (Hussain, 2006). ...
Invasive species are a major threat to biodiversity and economic interests, with many introductions resulting from actions of people involved in pet and ornamental plant businesses. Invasive species eventually end up in the care of the general public, with most costs born by society rather than businesses or owners: a classic economic externality. Although standard economic instruments used to address externalities are useful, they require considerable extension in this case. Simple taxation of the trade has been suggested and can reduce the volume of trade, but taxes do little to discipline the riskiest actors in the market. Using reptiles and amphibians as our focus, we provide an outline for a mechanism addressing invasive species issues, focusing primarily on the local level. We propose to collect funds from the trade and apply them specifically to support (1) a national resource center offering information and training; (2) programs to professionalize local education and response teams, focusing on pet store owners, hobbyist organizations, and first responders; (3) an incentive program to encourage pet stores to take back unwanted animals; (4) a tracking system for identifying and penalizing owners of newly released animals; and (5) a rapid-response system to address newly reported invasives. Participation by local entities helps them avoid uniform policies from the national level that are typically both more onerous and less effective. To provide an additional incentive for the industry at large to participate in the process, the level of taxation could decrease as problems diminish.
... Recently, some insurance companies have increased homeowner insurance rates or denied coverage altogether for owners of dogs of certain breeds alleged to be particularly dangerous and mixes of such breeds. 15,16 Although some states have legislation pending that would disallow such practices, 17 concerns regarding liability insurance coverage could adversely affect willingness to own dogs misidentified as belonging to these breeds. ...
Objective:
To identify demographic and urban environmental variables associated with prevalence rates of dog bites per zip code in Detroit.
Design:
Retrospective ecological study.
Sample:
6,540 people who visited any 1 of 15 hospital emergency rooms in the 29 zip codes in Detroit between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013, with a primary complaint of dog bite.
Procedures:
The number of dog bites over the study period was determined per zip code. Data for the human population in each zip code in 2011 and demographic and urban environmental variables were obtained from federal, state, and municipal databases. The prevalence rate of dog bites in each zip code was calculated, and regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with this outcome.
Results:
Results of multivariate analysis indicated that demographic variables (eg, gender, age, and education) accounted for 23.2% (adjusted R2 = 0.232) of the variation in prevalence rates of dog bites per zip code, whereas urban environmental variables (eg, blight, crime with weapons, and vacancy rate) accounted for 51.6% (adjusted R2 = 0.516) of the variation.
Conclusions and clinical relevance:
Findings suggested that demographic variables had poor association with variation in prevalence rates of dog bites per zip code, whereas urban environmental variables, particularly crime, vacancy rate, and blight, were better associated. Thus, public health and education policies need to address these urban environmental issues to lower the prevalence of dog bites in distressed urban areas.
To summarize breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to assess policy implications.
Dogs for which breed was reported involved in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF).
Data for human DBRF identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of the United States' registry databank.
During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners' property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners' property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner's property.
Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.