Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610138 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Article
US Adults’ Perceptions of Dog Breed Bans, Dog Aggression
and Breed-Specific Laws
Lori R. Kogan 1,*, Wendy Packman 2, Phyllis Erdman 3, Jennifer Currin-McCulloch 4 and Cori Bussolari 5
1 Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
2 Department of Psychology, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
3 College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163, USA
4 School of Social Work, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
5 Counseling Psychology, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA
* Correspondence: lori.kogan@colostate.edu; Tel.: +1-970-281-5580
Abstract: Dog aggression directed towards people is a leading reason for relinquishment and a ma-
jor public health hazard. In response to the threat of dog aggression and dog bites, breed-specific
legislation has been introduced in numerous cities within the United States and countries through-
out the world. There is limited evidence, however, to suggest that such laws are effective. This study
explored, through an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey, US residents’ views about the bite
risk of common dog breeds, breed-specific legislation, and alternative options for improved public
safety. A total of 586 surveys were completed by adult US residents, 48.8% female and 48.6% male.
Approximately half of the respondents reported feeling that dog bites are a serious public health
issue. Although 70% of respondents were opposed to a breed ban, only 56% felt that banning specific
breeds creates an animal welfare issue. Females were less likely to support a ban or agree that spe-
cific breed bans improve public safety. When participants were asked to indicate their support of
several alternatives to breed-specific legislation, the most frequently endorsed options included
public education about animal welfare and animal behavior, and stricter leash laws. Further re-
search pertaining to the most effective public education dissemination methods is warranted.
Keywords: breed; breed ban; Pit Bull; dog bites; dog aggression; breed-specific laws
1. Introduction
A total of 45% of US households included at least one dog in 2020, a dramatic increase
from the 38% of households in 2016 [1]. The popularity of dogs is unsurprising given that
having a companion dog has been shown to have a positive effect on numerous aspects
of guardians’ emotional and physical health [2–6]. Although dogs in the home offer many
benefits, they can also involve zoonotic diseases [7], injuries and accidents [8–10], and bite
risks [11–13].
Dog aggression directed towards people is the most common canine behavior prob-
lem for which guardians seek help, one of the leading reasons for relinquishment [14],
[15], and a major public health hazard, especially for young children [16–18]. More than
4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year in the United States, with dog bites ranking
as the 13th leading cause of nonfatal emergency department visits [19,20]. Many bites,
however, go unreported, meaning the actual prevalence of bites is likely to be much
higher than that reflected in official sources. One study by Westgarth [21] found 25% of
people report having ever been bitten by a dog, with only a fraction of these bites resulting
in a hospital admissions record.
In response to the threat of dog aggression and dog bites, breed-specific legislation
(otherwise referred to as breed bans) has been introduced in the United States and nu-
merous countries around the world. This type of legislation focuses on the banning or
Citation: Kogan, L.R.; Packman, W.;
Erdman, P.; Currin-McCulloch, J.;
Bussolari, C. US Adults’ Perceptions
of Dog Breed Bans, Dog Aggression
and Breed-Specific Laws. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19,
10138. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph191610138
Academic Editor: Paul B.
Tchounwou
Received: 13 July 2022
Accepted: 14 August 2022
Published: 16 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 2 of 15
strict control of specific breeds deemed a danger to the general public. Although numer-
ous dog breeds have been banned or are viewed as dangerous, one of the most commonly
banned breeds is the Pit Bull, which actually consists of three separate breeds: American
Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier. Many
states allow county or city breed-specific restrictions and over 700 cities have breed re-
strictions [22]. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that such laws are effective.
In contrast, there is growing evidence to suggest that such laws are ineffective, negatively
impact animal welfare, and, in fact, do little to make communities safer [23–27]. There are
many reasons why breed specific legislation is ineffective, including the misidentification
of dog breeds, an issue that has been reported among members of the general public, an-
imal shelter workers, law enforcement officers, and human health care professionals [28–
33]. The fact that most people are unable to accurately identify dog breeds significantly
impacts the ability to collect accurate breed-specific bite statistics. As a result, media sto-
ries, which influence public perception of different breeds, are often inaccurate and mis-
leading [34–37]. Even when the breed is accurately identified, because behavior is a com-
plex interaction of contextual and environmental factors, breed provides minimal predic-
tive information about behavior [14,38].
A study exploring US veterinarians’ views on breed bans found only a minority feel
a ban improves public safety (11%) and most (75%) feel a ban creates an animal welfare
issue. Instead, veterinarians’ support alternative community policies including public ed-
ucation about animal behavior and welfare, stricter leash laws, and harsher penalties for
dog owners in the event of a dog bite or attack [39]. Yet, despite the prevalence of breed-
specific legislation in the United States and throughout the world, and the media’s depic-
tion of ‘dangerous breeds’, little is known about how dog guardians and non-dog guard-
ians in the United States view bite risk for common dog breeds, breed-specific legislation,
and alternative options for improved public safety. Therefore, the objective of this quan-
titative study was to gain insights into how adults in the US view these factors: common
dog breeds in terms of aggression, breed-specific legislation, and alternative public safety
laws and programs. We hypothesize that participants will rate Pit Bulls as the most ag-
gressive breed. We also hypothesize that most participants will be opposed to breed ban
legislation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample
Survey respondents were recruited on 8 February 2022 through Prolific, an open
online marketplace providing access to potential survey respondents in which survey re-
spondents receive small monetary compensation for completing surveys (participants re-
ceived $6.50 for completing this survey) [40]. The diversity of participants recruited
through platforms such as Prolific is higher than that of typical Internet samples or North
American college-based samples, and the quality of data collected meets standards con-
sidered acceptable in published research in the social sciences [41]. In order to minimize
the influence of geographic and cultural differences on respondent data, the survey was
made available only to adult (18 years or older) responders residing in the United States.
The advertisement for the survey was simple, stating only that we were looking to obtain
people’s opinions about certain dog breeds and laws about dog ownership.
2.2. Instrument
An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was developed using Qualtrics (Qual-
trics, Inc., Provo, UT, USA). The survey was modeled after the survey used to assess vet-
erinarians’ views of dog breeds’ bite risk and breed restrictive legislation [39]. The original
survey was developed and subsequently piloted by ten veterinarians. The current survey
was also piloted by six researchers external to the research team, testing for ambiguous
questions, question flow, and appropriate branching. Feedback from the pilot test was
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 3 of 15
assessed and, when appropriate, incorporated into the final version of the survey. The
study was approved by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (IRB
#2293).
The survey began with an introduction that explained the purpose of the study and
details designed to ensure participants had the information they needed to make informed
consent to continue. These details included the fact that the survey was estimated to take
approximately ten minutes to complete and there were no known risks involved in com-
pleting the survey. Participants were also given the contact information for Colorado State
University Institutional Review Board and that of the primary investor. At the end of this
information, participants were asked to indicate if they consented to continuing with the
survey.
The survey began with a series of demographic questions (age, gender, children),
their pet status, and local breed bans. The next section asked participants to indicate their
level of agreement (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree/disagree, agree, strongly
agree), with statements pertaining to general dog ownership (e.g., “An adult should be
able to own any breed of dog”); and breed bans (e.g., “Banning specific breeds improves
public safety”). Next, participants were asked to rate a list of common dog breeds in terms
of serious bite risk from the options of ‘minimal’, ‘moderate’, ‘high risk’, or ‘don’t know’.
The list was derived from the most common breeds within the United States. The last
section asked about participants’ endorsement of several dog-related laws that might af-
fect public safety (e.g., “Stricter leash laws”, “Mandatory muzzling of specific breeds
when in public”). The survey was between 13 and 15 pages (separate screens), depending
on branching options, and most pages had between 3–6 questions. Participants could not
go back within the survey to change their answers. The survey was developed with Qual-
trics tools to help prevent multiple entries from the same person and bot responses (see
Appendix for full survey).
Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and chi-square, and binary logistic
regression, were conducted with IBM SPSS Version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). To ana-
lyze differences between participants based on whether they agreed or did not agree with
several dog-related statements, the agreement statements were recoded into binary state-
ments whereby ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were combined into ‘agree’, and ‘neutral’,
‘disagree’, and ‘strongly disagree’ were recoded into ‘disagree’ for analysis. Due to the
number of analyses conducted, the significance level (α) was set at a more conservative
level of p = 0.01.
3. Results
A total of 586 surveys were completed by adults residing in the United States. Of the
potential participants who accessed the survey, two people chose not to participate. All
participants who indicated they consented to the survey completed it in its entirety. The
respondents were predominantly under the age of 40 (73%), non-Hispanic/Latinx (89%),
White (78%), and included 286 (48.8%) females and 285 (48.6%) males, 10 (1.7%) nonbi-
nary, and five (0.9%) who chose to not answer. The number of respondents who reported
having children was 140 (24%). There was no difference in the number of males versus
females in the likelihood of having children, pet dogs, or a dog of the Pit Bull type. Ap-
proximately half (54%) owned at least one dog (Table 1). Of those who owned a dog (n =
319), 36 (11%) indicated the dog(s) were of a Pit Bull type. For those who indicated they
did not currently have a dog (n = 267), 232 (87%) indicated they would consider a dog as
a pet and of these (n = 232), 126 (54%) reported they would consider a Pit Bull type dog as
a pet. All participants were asked if they had ever been bitten by a dog, to which 249 (43%)
said yes. Of those bitten, 55 (22%) indicated the bite required medical attention. There was
no difference in the number of males versus females in the likelihood of having children,
pet dogs, a dog of the Pit Bull type, having been bitten, or having a bite that required
medical attention.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 4 of 15
Table 1. Participant demographics.
Category
N (%)
Pets
Dog
319 (54)
Cat
233 (40)
Bird
21 (4)
Reptile
26 (4)
Small mammal
31 (5)
Fish
21 (4)
Other
9 (2)
Gender
Female
286 (49)
Male
285 (49)
Non-binary
10 (2)
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
3 (1)
Asian
50 (9)
Black or African American
37 (6)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
2 (<1)
White
461 (80)
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latinx
65 (11)
Non-Hispanic/Latinx
521 (89)
Age
Under 30
261 (45)
30–39
166 (28)
40–49
81 (14)
50–59
44 (8)
60 and older
34 (6)
Children
Yes
140 (24)
No
446 (76)
3.1. Dog Aggression
Participants provided responses to four questions about dog aggression. Approxi-
mately half of respondents reported feeling that dog aggression against other dogs is a
serious community/societal problem (51%), and that dog bites are a serious public health
issue (49%). Most agreed, however, that owners of aggressive/dangerous dogs should be
held legally accountable if their dog attacks/bites another dog (87%) or a person (91%)
(Figure 1). No differences were found in responses based on gender, age, or child status.
Of those who owned dogs, 8% (95% CI 3.5% to 13.1%) fewer, compared to non-owners,
thought that owners of aggressive/dangerous dogs should be held legally accountable if
their dog attacks a person (dog guardians: 278, 87%, compared to non-dog owners: 255,
96%; X2 = 12.34 (1), p < 0.001). Similarly, 7% fewer (95% CI 1.3% to 12.5%) dog guardians
thought that owners of aggressive/dangerous dogs should be held legally accountable if
their dog attacks another dog [(268 (84%) compared to 243 (91%) of non-dog guardians
(X2 = 6.38 (1), p = 0.012)].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 5 of 15
Figure 1. Perceptions of dog aggression.
3.2. Breed and Breed Banning
The next set of questions pertained to breed characteristics. The majority of respond-
ents reported feeling that a dog’s behavior, regardless of breed, is a reflection of how they
are cared for (77%). Most also reported feeling that some breeds of dogs are more likely
to be aggressive towards other dogs (67%) or people (61%) than other breeds. Approxi-
mately half indicted they feel that, depending on the circumstances, all breeds of dogs are
equally likely to bite a person (52%) (Figure 2). Twenty-one percent (95% CI 1.3% to 29.2%)
more females agreed with this statement (177, 62%), compared to males (116, 41%; X2 =
25.65 (1), p < 0.001). No other differences in responses to the breed characteristics questions
were found based on gender, child, or dog ownership status.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 6 of 15
Figure 2. Perceived association between dog breed and behavior.
Participants were next asked their views about breed specific legislation. Overall,
participants were opposed to breed bans (398, 71%), whereas 88 (16%) supported a ban
and 78 (14%) had no opinion. A binary linear regression analysis was conducted to deter-
mine predictors of support for a breed ban (yes/no). All variables were entered simulta-
neously. The binary regression model (Table 2) predicting support for breed ban using
gender (male/female), age (under 30, 30–39 40–49,50–59, 60 and older), dog ownership,
children status (yes/no), and dog bite history (yes/no) was significant (X2(8) = 29.48, p <
0.001). Gender was the only significant predictor of support for a breed ban (females were
less likely to support a ban; B = 0.69; p = 0.008).
Table 2. Results of the binary logistic regression model predicting support of breed ban as a function
of child status, gender, dog ownership, bite status, and age.
Variable
Coefficient (B)
Std. Error
Wald
Sig.
95% CI
Lower
95% CI
Higher
Children
−0.68
0.29
5.50
0.019
0.29
0.89
Gender
0.69
0.260
7.13
0.008
1.20
3.32
Dog ownership
0.51
0.25
4.04
0.044
1.01
2.74
Bite status
−0.44
0.270
2.71
0.100
0.38
1.09
Age
12.14
0.016
Under 30
0.35
0.34
1.09
0.296
0.74
2.74
30–39
−0.09
0.39
0.05
0.822
0.43
1.95
40–49
−0.41
0.45
0.83
0.361
0.28
1.60
50–59
−1.27
0.45
7.88
0.005
0.12
0.68
60 and older
−0.68
0.29
5.50
0.019
0.29
0.89
Half of participants agreed that banning specific breeds creates an animal welfare
issue (56%), and 64% felt that banning certain breeds of dogs is an overreach of govern-
mental authority. Most also disagreed that particular dog breeds should not be allowed
near children (71%) or that banning specific breeds of dogs improves public safety (82%).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 7 of 15
Seven percent (95% CI 0.1% to 13.1%) fewer females (32, 12%) reported supporting a ban
than males (52, 19%); (X2 = 20.64 (2), p < 0.001); 15% (95% CI 7.1% to 22.3%) fewer females
agreed that some breeds should not be allowed near children (63, 22%) compared to males
(105, 37%), (X2 = 15.09 (1), p < 0.001), and 14% (95% CI 7.3% to 20.1%) fewer females agreed
that specific breed bans improve public safety (30, 11%), compared to males (69, 24%; X2
= 18.75 (1), p < 0.001). Twenty percent (95% CI 11.7% to 27.5%) more females reported
feeling that a ban is an overreach of governmental authority (213, 75%), compared to males
(156, 55%), (X2 = 24.33 (1), p < 0.001) and 13% (95% CI 4.7% to 21.3%) more females reported
feeling that banning creates an animal welfare issue (179, 63%; males: 141, 50%; X2 = 9.97
(1), p < 0.002). No differences were found based on child or dog ownership status.
Participants were also asked two questions about dogs and dog breeds as they relate
to where they choose to live. When non-dog owners (n = 267) were asked how a neighbor-
hood/complex that does not allow dogs would impact their decision to live there, 139
(52%) reported it would have no impact, 85 (32%) said they would be less likely to live
there and 43 (16%) said they would be more likely to live there. Additionally, all partici-
pants were asked how a potential future neighbor who owns a dog breed with an aggres-
sive reputation would impact their decision to live in that neighborhood or complex. To
this question, 388 (66%) said it would have no impact, 191 (33%) said they would be less
likely to live there, and 7 (1%) said more likely to live there.
3.3. Pet Ownership
When asked about dog ownership, the vast majority of participants (80%) agreed that
socially irresponsible pet ownership is a significant societal problem. Only one-quarter of
participants reported feeling that owning a dog is a right rather than a privilege, and 42%
indicated they felt that any adult should be able to own any breed of dog (Figure 3). No
differences based on gender were found for any of the statements. Thirteen percent (95%
CI 4.2% to 22.5%) more respondents with children agreed that owning a dog is a right
rather than a privilege (51, 36%) compared to those with no children (104, 23%; X2 = 9.41
(1), p < 0.002). No other differences were found based on child or dog ownership status.
Figure 3. Perceptions of pet ownership.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 8 of 15
Participants were presented with a list of common breeds within the United States
and asked to indicate their perception of the different breeds’ serious bite risk (defined as
requiring medical treatment) as ‘minimal’, ‘moderate’, ‘high’, or ‘don’t know’. The only
breed perceived by 50% or more of respondents as a high serious bite risk was the Pit Bull
type (Table 3). Additional breeds reported as high risk by at least 25% of respondents
included Rottweiler (43%), German Shepherd (36%), and Chihuahua (26%). The dog
breeds with the lowest perceived risk of serious bites (5% or less of respondents rated
them as a high risk) included Labrador Retriever (5%), Golden Retriever (5%), Yorkshire
Terrier (5%), Dachshund (5%), Cocker Spaniel (4%), and Beagle (3%).
Table 3. Serious Bite Risk Perception of Common Dog Breeds in the United States.
Breed
Minimal
n (%)
Moderate
n (%)
High
n (%)
Don’t Know
n (%)
Pit Bull type
75 (12.8)
194 (33.1)
293 (50.0)
24 (4.1)
Rottweiler
93 (15.9)
207 (35.3)
250 (42.7)
36 (6.1)
German Shepherd
119 (20.3)
230 (39.2)
212 (36.2)
25 (4.3)
Chihuahua
230 (39.2)
183 (31.2)
151 (25.8)
22 (3.8)
Doberman Pinscher
146 (24.9)
223 (38.1)
139 (23.7)
78 (13.3)
Mastiff
208 (35.5)
166 (28.3)
106 (18.1)
106 (18.1)
Chow Chow
219 (37.4)
145 (24.7)
104 (17.7)
118 (20.1)
American Bulldog
224 (38.2)
207 (35.3)
95 (16.2)
60 (10.2)
Siberian Husky
221 (37.7)
223 (38.1)
91 (15.5)
51 (8.7)
Boxer
209 (35.7)
241 (41.1)
74 (12.6)
62 (10.6)
Belgian Malinois
166 (28.3)
116 (19.8)
74 (12.6)
230 (39.2)
Akita
179 (30.5)
166 (28.3)
71 (12.1)
170 (29.0)
English Bulldog
276 (47.1)
178 (30.4)
68 (11.6)
64 (10.9)
Dalmatian
272 (46.4)
205 (35.0)
58 (9.9)
51 (8.7)
Great Dane
288 (49.1)
189 (32.3)
57 (9.7)
52 (8.9)
Jack Russell Terrier
309 (52.7)
164 (28.0)
43 (7.3)
70 (11.9)
Standard Poodle
356 (60.8)
153 (26.1)
37 (6.3)
40 (6.8)
Labrador Retriever
368 (62.8)
145 (24.7)
28 (4.8)
45 (7.7)
Golden Retriever
396 (67.6)
143 (24.4)
27 (4.6)
20 (3.4)
Yorkshire Terrier
364 (62.1)
130 (22.2)
27 (4.6)
65 (11.1)
Dachshund
383 (65.4)
106 (18.1)
27 (4.6)
70 (11.9)
Cocker Spaniel
386 (65.9)
107 (18.3)
21 (3.6)
72 (12.3)
Beagle
412 (70.3)
118 (20.1)
14 (2.4)
42 (7.2)
3.4. Community Policies
Participants were asked to indicate their support of several policies communities
have enacted in an effort to increase public safety. The most commonly endorsed policies
include public education about animal welfare (67%), animal behavior (66%), and stricter
leash laws (58%) (Table 4).
Table 4. Participants’ endorsement of community policies enacted in efforts to increase public
safety.
Policy
Endorsement Rate
n (%)
Public education about animal welfare
394 (67)
Public education about animal behavior
384 (66)
Stricter leash laws
339 (58)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 9 of 15
Harsher penalties for dog owners in the event of a dog bite or at-
tack
337 (58)
Stricter laws about picking up dog waste
331 (57)
Stricter fencing or containment laws
278 (47)
Anti-chaining and anti-tethering laws
251 (43)
Compulsory owner dog training
249 (43)
Mandatory registration for specific breeds
163 (28)
Mandatory spaying/neutering for specific breeds
147 (25)
Mandatory muzzling of specific breeds when in public
98 (17)
4. Discussion
Due to the frequency of dog bites in the United States, this study was designed to
investigate United States’ adults’ perceptions of dog aggression, breed-specific legislation,
and alternative community interventions in an effort to better understand the public’s
perceptions of these key factors related to dog bites. The 586 participants in this study
were predominately White, under 40 years of age, with no children. Approximately half
of respondents reported owing a dog, 11% of which owned a Pit Bull. Most people who
did not own a dog indicated they would consider a dog, and over half of these individuals
would consider owning a Pit Bull. When queried about dog aggression and dog bites,
only half of the participants reported feeling these issues are a serious community/societal
problem or public health issue. Given the prevalence of dog bites, especially for young
children, this suggests the need for public education about dog aggression. When asked
to rate common breeds on serious bite risk, Pit Bulls were, by far, the breed rated highest,
followed by Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Chihuahuas, and Doberman Pinschers. Yet
Chow Chows were rated as high by only 18%, Huskies by 16%, Akitas by 12%, and Belgian
Malinois by 13%. This can be contrasted with perceptions of small animal veterinarians
who rated Chow Chows, Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Akitas, and Bel-
gian Malinois as high risk (rated as high by 40% or more of participants) [39]. Other breeds
rated as minimal risk by participants (e.g., Dalmatians, Cocker Spaniels) were viewed as
higher risk by veterinarians [39].
Furthermore, only 52% of respondents reported feeling that, depending on the cir-
cumstances, all breeds of dogs are equally likely to bite a person, and only 24% felt that a
dog’s behavior, regardless of breed, is a reflection of how they are cared for. Yet, due to
numerous factors, there are little data to support the premise that breed is a good predictor
of aggression. As Webster and Farnworth [33] note, the environment and a dog’s person-
ality traits are better predictors of aggressive behavior than breed. This could help explain
why dogs on banned lists do not cause the largest proportion of bites [42,43]. Additionally,
bite proclivity by breed is difficult to calculate because information pertaining to breed
populations within specific areas is typically unknown [44].
Instead of breed, other factors that have been shown to contribute to the likelihood
of bite risk include dog attributes (e.g., male, unneutered), and negative dog/human in-
teractions, such as chaining a dog in the yard, inadequate socialization, or harassing/teas-
ing a dog [28,38,43–49]. Regardless of breed, the vast majority felt that owners of aggres-
sive dogs should be held legally accountable if their dog attacks/bites another dog or per-
son, although dog guardians were less inclined to support this premise. Yet, despite the
number of stories in the media of stray aggressive dogs, most dog bites occur in or near
the home by a dog known to the child and/or family [20,50].
Although the majority (71%) of participants opposed breed bans, males were less
likely to oppose breed bans than females. Of all participants, however, only 56% felt bans
create an animal welfare issue and nearly one in five reported feeling that that banning of
specific breeds of dogs improves public safety. This can be compared to veterinarians’
views, in which 85% opposed breed bans and 75% felt they create an animal welfare issue
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 10 of 15
[39]. In our study, females were less likely than males to support a breed ban, or to think
bans improve public safety or that some breeds should not be allowed near children.
Despite opposition by many to breed-restrictive legislation, bans are still present in
many cities and counties throughout the United States, with Pit Bulls often the banned
breed [51]. This is problematic for several reasons. One central issue is that the Pit Bull is
not actually a breed, but instead a group of breeds. The term ‘pit bull’ typically includes
American and English Bulldogs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Ter-
riers and American Pit Bull Terriers, in addition to mixes of these and other breeds [31].
The determination of ‘pit bull’ is typically based on a dog’s physical resemblance to one
of several breeds that have been associated with the term ‘pit bull’ [32,52]. Yet, most peo-
ple, even animal professionals (e.g., breeders and animal shelter staff) are unable to accu-
rately identify a Pit Bull [30,32,33,53–55]. Even human health care professionals’ reports
about dog aggression are often inaccurate [28], with Pit Bulls often mis-identified and in-
accurately labeled as dangerous [52,56]. A study by Bykowski and colleagues found that
the breed of the involved dog is missing or assumed based on phenotypic characteristics
in over 50% of dog bite medical reports for children, leading to compromised validity [57].
Another challenge is that more than half of the dogs in the United States are of mixed
breed [58], yet most dog bite reports include only one breed [52]. These errors carry seri-
ous implications. For example, this is especially problematic when media stories about
dog bites place an emphasis on dog breed [59]. Patronek [52] found that the breed in-
volved in dog bite incidents reported in the media frequently differs when compared to
animal control reports. Yet, even the CDC’s report on Dog Bite-Related Fatalities From
1979–1988 relied on media stories in which breed identification was based on physical
appearance and stereotypes of Pit Bulls [60–63].
Likely due to numerous factors, several studies that have assessed the impact of dog
breed bans have found them ineffective [43,64–69]. Additionally, breed bans have been
described as expensive and difficult to implement, and to negatively affect canine welfare
since many seized dogs spend long periods of time in kennels even if they have not spe-
cifically been involved in an incident [27,42,70–72].
When asked about alternative community policies instead of breed bans, the inter-
ventions rated highest included public education about animal welfare and animal behav-
ior, and stricter leash laws. Approximately half of respondents also endorsed harsher pen-
alties for dog owners in the event of a dog bite or attack, stricter laws about picking up
dog waste, and stricter fencing or containment laws. These commonly endorsed commu-
nity policies mirror those supported by veterinarians, although veterinarians reported
even higher levels of endorsement [39].
The support for public education is perhaps unsurprising given that 80% of partici-
pants reported feeling that socially irresponsible pet ownership is a significant societal
problem and over 50% disagreed with the sentiment that any adult should be able to own
any breed of dog. The call for educating the public about dogs in general, and dog breeds
and bite risk prevention in particular, has been voiced by both animal and human medical
professionals alike [73–77]. It would appear the need is there; one recent study found that
70% of United States children have never received dog bite education and 88% of parents
wish their children were educated about bite risks [78].
There are numerous dog bite prevention programs that teach children how to interact
with unfamiliar dogs [13,79–81] or recognize potential risk factors with a family dog
[82,83]; fewer programs address how to recognize and interpret specific dog body lan-
guage including dogs’ behavioral responses and their stress signals [74]. Yet, an under-
standing of species-specific signaling and stress signs are critical in supporting positive
human/dog interactions, especially in a home with young children [83–85].
Education about animal behavior can take many forms and, although many educa-
tional efforts target children, some studies have suggested that targeting caregivers rather
than young children may be of equal or greater value [78,86,87]. One type of education
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 11 of 15
that has been found helpful in promoting safer behaviors around dogs and positive hu-
man–animal interactions is hazard perception training [74,88], which may include some
aspect of the ladder of aggression theory suggesting that dogs typically exhibit stress-re-
lated behaviors before snapping, growling, or biting [89].
Closely linked to education about animal behavior is animal welfare. Educational
programs about animal welfare can foster positive relationships between dogs and peo-
ple, reduce bite risk, and improve canine welfare [80,90,91]. More research exploring the
impact of educational programs, for both children and adults in the areas of bite preven-
tion and welfare, are needed to determine the best mode of delivery and presentation of
the material to make a positive impact on subsequent dog/human interactions.
Limitations to the current study are those inherent in online surveys and these results
cannot be generalized to the general United States population. Additionally, the survey
questions pertained to participants’ self-reported opinions and perceptions, both of which
have the potential to be biased. The topic of the survey may have impacted those who
chose to participate, further leading to the potential for a biased sample. Further research
pertaining to the public’s views of breed ban legislation and dog aggression is needed to
better understand this challenging issue.
5. Conclusions
Dog bites and dog aggression are serious public health concerns and create a signifi-
cant burden on emergency surgical resources [50,92]. In the United States, approximately
4.5 million dog bites occur annually and 20% of these bites become infected [93]. Dog bites
rank as the 13th leading cause of nonfatal emergency department visits in the United
States [20] and over 1000 people in the United States are treated in hospital emergency
departments for nonfatal dog bite-related injuries daily [94]. Children are at particular
risk; dog bites are one of the most common causes of non-fatal injury among children [95].
Unfortunately, the number of pediatric emergency visits due to dog bites has increased
recently, felt to be associated with COVID-19 health restrictions resulting in children’s
increased time at home [96]. Yet, since many bites go unreported, even these disturbingly
high numbers are likely an underestimate of the actual prevalence [21].
In summary, this study found that most participants do not support a breed ban, but
instead endorse education about animal welfare and behavior. This is in spite of the fact
that one-third of respondents said that they would be less likely to live in a home with a
neighbor who owns a dog breed with an aggressive reputation. This contradiction appears
to reflect the complexity of this topic and suggests that many people struggle with con-
flicting feelings about dog breeds and their ability to predict aggression. Yet, the majority
of participants in this study appear to understand that breed is a poor predictor of aggres-
sive behavior and are open to alternative interventions that place more responsibility on
dog guardians. These sentiments bode well for both canine welfare and public safety.
Author Contributions: Data curation, L.R.K.; Formal analysis, L.R.K.; Methodology, L.R.K., W.P.,
J.C.-M. and C.B.; Writing—original draft, L.R.K., W.P., P.E., J.C.-M. and C.B.; Writing—review &
editing, L.R.K., W.P., P.E., J.C.-M. and C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published ver-
sion of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Colorado
State University (#2293 August 2020).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: Data available by request.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher and James Oxley
for their contributions to the conceptualization of this manuscript.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 12 of 15
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. AVMA. Pet Population still on the Rise, with Fewer Pets per Household; American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL,
USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2021-12-01/pet-population-still-rise-fewer-pets-household
(accessed on 10 March 2022).
2. Bussolari, C.; Currin-McCulloch, J.; Packman, W.; Kogan, L.; Erdman, P. ‘I Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Quarantine Part-
ner!’: Experiences with Companion Dogs during COVID-19. Animals 2021, 11, 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020330.
3. Gee, N.R.; Rodriguez, K.E.; Fine, A.H.; Trammell, J.P. Dogs Supporting Human Health and Well-Being: A Biopsychosocial
Approach. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 630465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.630465.
4. Kogan, L.; Currin-McCulloch, J.; Bussolari, C.; Packman, W.; Erdman, P. The Psychosocial Influence of Companion Animals on
Positive and Negative Affect during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Animals 2021, 11, 2084. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072084.
5. Oyama, M.A.; Citron, L.; Shults, J.; Brown, D.C.; Serpell, J.A.; Farrar, J.T. Measuring Quality of Life in Owners of Companion
Dogs: Development and Validation of a Dog Owner-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Anthrozoös 2017, 30, 61–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228774.
6. Powell, L.; Edwards, K.M.; McGreevy, P.; Bauman, A.; Podberscek, A.; Neilly, B.; Sherrington, C.; Stamatakis, E. Companion
dog acquisition and mental well-being: A community-based three-arm controlled study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1428–1410.
7. Overgaauw, P.A.; Vinke, C.M.; Van Hagen, M.A.; Lipman, L.J. A One Health Perspective on the Human–Companion Animal
Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3789.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113789.
8. Enders-Slegers, M.-J.; Hediger, K. Pet Ownership and Human–Animal Interaction in an Aging Population: Rewards and Chal-
lenges. Anthrozoös 2019, 32, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1569907.
9. Obradović, N.; Lagueux, É.; Michaud, F.; Provencher, V. Pros and cons of pet ownership in sustaining independence in com-
munity-dwelling older adults: A scoping review. Ageing Soc. 2019, 40, 2061–2076. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19000382.
10. Willmott, H.; Greenheld, N.; Goddard, R. Beware of the dog? An observational study of dog-related musculoskeletal injury in
the UK. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 46, 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.004.
11. Dixon, C.A.; Mistry, R.D. Dog Bites in Children Surge during Coronavirus Disease-2019: A Case for Enhanced Prevention. J.
Pediatr. 2020, 225, 231–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.06.071.
12. Gee, N.R.; Mueller, M.K. A Systematic Review of Research on Pet Ownership and Animal Interactions among Older Adults.
Anthrozoös 2019, 32, 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1569903.
13. Shen, J.; Rouse, J.; Godbole, M.; Wells, H.L.; Boppana, S.; Schwebel, D.C. Systematic Review: Interventions to Educate Children
About Dog Safety and Prevent Pediatric Dog-Bite Injuries: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2016, 42, 779–791.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsv164.
14. Casey, R.A.; Loftus, B.; Bolster, C.; Richards, G.J.; Blackwell, E.J. Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris):
Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 152, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-
nim.2013.12.003.
15. Salman, M.; New, J.J.G.; Scarlett, J.M.; Kass, P.H.; Ruch-Gallie, R.; Hetts, S. Human and Animal Factors Related to Relinquish-
ment of Dogs and Cats in 12 Selected Animal Shelters in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1998, 1, 207–226.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_2.
16. Hsu, Y.; Sun, L. Factors associated with aggressive responses in pet dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 123, 108–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.013.
17. Peters, V.; Sottiaux, M.; Appelboom, J.; Kahn, A. Posttraumatic stress disorder after dog bites in children. J. Pediatr. 2004, 144,
121–122.
18. Ramgopal, S.; Brungo, L.B.; Bykowski, M.R.; Pitetti, R.D.; Hickey, R.W. Dog bites in a U.S. county: Age, body part and breed in
paediatric dog bites. Acta Paediatr. 2018, 107, 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14218.
19. AVMA. Dog Bite Prevention; American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USA. Available online:
https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-prevention (accessed on 11 March 2022).
20. Tuckel, P.S.; Milczarski, W. The changing epidemiology of dog bite injuries in the United States, 2005–2018. Inj. Epidemiol. 2020,
7, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y.
21. Westgarth, C.; Brooke, M.; Christley, R.M. How many people have been bitten by dogs? A cross-sectional survey of prevalence,
incidence and factors associated with dog bites in a UK community. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2018, 72, 331–336.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209330.
22. ASPCApro. Filling the Pit. 2019. Available online: http://web.ar-
chive.org/web/20190731184541/https://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2014/05/15/filling-pit (accessed on 6 June 2022).
23. Hawes, S.M.; Flynn, E.; Tedeschi, P.; Morris, K.N. Humane Communities: Social change through policies promoting collective
welfare. J. Urban Aff. 2019, 44, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1680244.
24. Raudies, C.; Waiblinger, S.; Arhant, C. Characteristics and Welfare of Long-Term Shelter Dogs. Animals 2021, 11, 194.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010194.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 13 of 15
25. ASPCA. What Is Breed-Specific Legislation? Available online: https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-
breed-specific-legislation (accessed on 4 August 2020).
26. Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Petrescu, D.C.; Tenter, A.R. Citizens’ Beliefs Regarding Dog Breed-Specific Legislation. The Case of Roma-
nia. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2021, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1923492.
27. Ledger, R.; Orihel, J.; Clarke, N.; Murphy, S.; Sedlbauer, M. Breed specific legislation: Considerations for evaluating its effec-
tiveness and recommendations for alternatives. Can. Vet. J. 2005, 46, 735–743.
28. Arluke, A.; Cleary, D.; Patronek, G.; Bradley, J. Defaming Rover: Error-Based Latent Rhetoric in the Medical Literature on Dog
Bites. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017, 21, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2017.1387550.
29. Gunter, L.M.; Barber, R.; Wynne, C.D.L. A canine identity crisis: Genetic breed heritage testing of shelter dogs. PLoS ONE 2018,
13, e0202633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202633.
30. Hoffman, C.L.; Harrison, N.; Wolff, L.; Westgarth, C. Is That Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of
Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014, 17, 322–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.895904.
31. Lockwood, R.; Rindy, K. Are ‘Pit Bulls’ Different? An Analysis of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy. Anthrozoös 1987, 1, 2–8.
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058713.
32. Voith, V.L.; Ingram, E.; Mitsouras, K.; Irizarry, K. Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identi-
fication of dogs. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2009, 12, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902956151.
33. Webster, C.A.; Farnworth, M.J. Ability of the Public to Recognize Dogs Considered to Be Dangerous under the Dangerous Dogs
Act in the United Kingdom. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2018, 22, 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1476864.
34. Clarke, T.; Mills, D.; Cooper, J. ‘Type’ as Central to Perceptions of Breed Differences in Behavior of Domestic Dog. Soc. Anim.
2016, 24, 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341422.
35. Kikuchi, M.; Oxley, J.; Hogue, T.; Mills, D.S. The representation of aggressive behavior of dogs in the popular media in the UK
and Japan. J. Veter. Behav. 2014, 9, e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.09.032.
36. Montrose, V.T.; Squibb, K.; Hazel, S.; Kogan, L.R.; Oxley, J.A. Dog bites dog: The use of news media articles to investigate dog
on dog aggression. J. Vet. Behav. 2020, 40, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.08.002.
37. Anthony, L. Dog on a Tightrope: The Position of the Dog in British Society as Influenced by Press Reports on Dog Attacks (1988
to 1992). Anthrozoös 1994, 7, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279394787001772.
38. Reese, L.A.; Vertalka, J.J. Understanding Dog Bites: The Important Role of Human Behavior. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2020, 24,
331–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2020.1790371.
39. Kogan, L.R.; Schoenfeld-Tacher, R.M.; Hellyer, P.W.; Oxley, J.A.; Rishniw, M. Small Animal Veterinarians’ Perceptions, Experi-
ences, and Views of Common Dog Breeds, Dog Aggression, and Breed-Specific Laws in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2019, 16, 4081. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214081.
40. Prolific. Quickly Find Research Participants You Can Trust. Available online: https://www.prolific.co/ (accessed on 15 April
2022).
41. Buhrmester, M.D.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
42. Creedon, N.; Súilleabháin, P.S. Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: A comparison of bites from
legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Ir. Veter. J. 2017, 70, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1.
43. Rosado, B.; García-Belenguer, S.; León, M.; Palacio, J. A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995–2004. Vet. J. 2009, 179,
383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.02.002.
44. American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, “A community
approach to dog bite prevention. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2001, 218, 1732–1749. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.218.1732.
45. Caffrey, N.; Rock, M.; Schmidtz, O.; Anderson, D.; Parkinson, M.; Checkley, S.L. Insights about the Epidemiology of Dog Bites
in a Canadian City Using a Dog Aggression Scale and Administrative Data. Animals 2019, 9, 324.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9060324.
46. Langley, R.L. Human fatalities resulting from dog attacks in the United States, 1979–2005. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2009, 20, 19–
25. https://doi.org/10.1580/08-WEME-OR-213.1.
47. Messam, L.L.M.; Kass, P.H.; Chomel, B.B.; Hart, L.A. Factors Associated with Bites to a Child From a Dog Living in the Same
Home: A Bi-National Comparison. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 66.
48. Morzycki, A.; Simpson, A.; Williams, J. Dog bites in the emergency department: A descriptive analysis. Can. J. Emerg. Med. 2018,
21, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2018.2.
49. Oxley, J.A.; Christley, R.; Westgarth, C. Contexts and consequences of dog bite incidents. J. Vet. Behav. 2018, 23, 33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.10.005.
50. Khan, K.; Horswell, B.B.; Samanta, D. Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region: An Epidemiologic and Pattern-of-Injury
Review at a Level 1 Trauma Center. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 78, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002.
51. Nolen, S. The Dangerous Dog Debate. 2017. Available online: https://www.avma.org/news/javmanews/pages/171115a.aspx (ac-
cessed on 10 July 2019).
52. Patronek, G.J.; Sacks, J.J.; Delise, K.M.; Cleary, D.V.; Marder, A.R. Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog
bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2013, 243, 1726–1736.
https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 14 of 15
53. Iliopoulou, M.A.; Carleton, C.L.; Reese, L.A. Beloved Companion or Problem Animal. Soc. Anim. 2019, 27, 327–346.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341529.
54. Mills, D.; Levine, E. The need for a co-ordinated scientific approach to the investigation of dog bite injuries. Vet. J. 2006, 172,
398–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2005.07.008.
55. Olson, K.; Levy, J.; Norby, B.; Crandall, M.; Broadhurst, J.; Jacks, S.; Barton, R.; Zimmerman, M. Inconsistent identification of
pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. Vet. J. 2015, 206, 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019.
56. Gunter, L.M.; Barber, R.T.; Wynne, C.D.L. What’s in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions & Labeling on Attractiveness, Adop-
tions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146857.
57. Bykowski, M.R.; Shakir, S.; Naran, S.; Smith, D.M.; Goldstein, J.A.; Grunwaldt, L.; Saladino, R.A.; Losee, J.E. Pediatric Dog Bite
Prevention: Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree or Just Not Barking Loud Enough? Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2017, 35, 618–623.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000001132.
58. HSUS. Pets by the Numbers. HumanePro 2021. Available online: https://humanepro.org/page/pets-by-the-numbers (accessed
on 10 March 2022).
59. Mouton, M.; Boulton, A.; Solomon, O.; Rock, M. ‘When the dog bites’: What can we learn about health geography from news-
paper coverage in a ‘model city’ for dog-bite prevention? Health Place 2019, 57, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.health-
place.2019.03.001.
60. Patronek, G.; Twining, H.; Arluke, A. Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners. Soc. Anim. 2000,
8, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853000X00020.
61. Patronek, G.J.; Bradley, J.; Cleary, D. Who is minding the bibliography? Daisy chaining, dropped leads, and other bad behavior
using examples from the dog bite literature. J. Vet. Behav. 2016, 14, 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.06.004.
62. Reim, P. Breed-Specific Dog Laws: Moving the United States Away from an Anti-Pit Bull Mentality. J. Anim. Nat. Resour. 2018,
14, 159.
63. Sacks, J.J.; Sattin, R.W.; Bonzo, S.E. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989, 262, 1489–1492.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.262.11.1489.
64. Cocchieri, B. Targeting the Wrong End of the Leash: Why Breed-Specific Legislation is Futile without Responsible Pet owner-
ship and Unbiased Media. Ava Maria Law Rev. 2018, 16, 25.
65. Cornelissen, J.M.; Hopster, H. Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to sup-
port evaluation of breed specific legislation. Vet. J. 2010, 186, 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.10.001.
66. Mariti, C.; Ciceroni, C.; Sighieri, C. Italian breed-specific legislation on potentially dangerous dogs (2003): Assessment of its
effects in the city of Florence (Italy). Dog Behav. 2015, 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.4454/db.v1i2.16.
67. Mora, E.; Fonseca, G.M.; Navarro, P.; Castaño, A.; Lucena, J. Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten-
year retrospective study. J. Vet. Behav. 2018, 25, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.011.
68. Nilson, F.; Damsager, J.; Lauritsen, J.; Bonander, C. The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in
Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208393. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0208393.
69. Strutzel, J. Pit Bull Ban a Waste of Taxpayer Dollars; Platte Institute for Economic Research: Omaha, NE, USA, 2010.
70. Oxley, J.; Gaines, S. The Welfare Implications as a Result of Breed Specific Legislation in the UK. In Proceedings of the UFAW
International Animal Welfare Symposium, Surrey, UK, 29–30 June 2017.
71. Oxley, J.; Shepherd, K. Need for welfare-related research on seized dogs. Vet. Rec. 2012, 171, 569–570.
72. Stephen, J.M.; Ledger, R.A. An Audit of Behavioral Indicators of Poor Welfare in Kenneled Dogs in the United Kingdom. J.
Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2005, 8, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0802_1.
73. Jakeman, M.; Oxley, J.A; Owczarczak-Garstecka, S.C.; Westgarth, C. Pet dog bites in children: Management and prevention.
BMJ Paediatr. Open 2020, 4, e000726. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000726.
74. Meints, K.; Brelsford, V.; De Keuster, T. Teaching Children and Parents to Understand Dog Signaling. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5,
257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00257.
75. Owczarczak-Garstecka, S.C.; Christley, R.; Watkins, F.; Yang, H.; Bishop, B.; Westgarth, C. Dog bite safety at work: An injury
prevention perspective on reported occupational dog bites in the UK. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 595–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.034.
76. Parente, G.; Gargano, T.; Di Mitri, M.; Cravano, S.; Thomas, E.; Vastano, M.; Maffi, M.; Libri, M.; Lima, M. Consequences of
COVID-19 Lockdown on Children and Their Pets: Dangerous Increase of Dog Bites among the Paediatric Population. Children
2021, 8, 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080620.
77. Patterson, K.N.; Horvath, K.Z.; Minneci, P.C.; Thakkar, R.; Wurster, L.; Noffsinger, D.L.; Bourgeois, T.; Deans, K.J. Pediatric dog
bite injuries in the USA: A systematic review. World J. Pediatr. Surg. 2022, 5, e000281. https://doi.org/10.1136/wjps-2021-000281.
78. Dixon, C.A.; Mahabee-Gittens, E.M.; Hart, K.W.; Lindsell, C.J. Dog Bite Prevention: An Assessment of Child Knowledge. J.
Pediatr. 2012, 160, 337–341.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.07.016.
79. Chapman, S.; Cornwall, J.; Righetti, J.; Sung, L. Preventing dog bites in children: Randomised controlled trial of an educational
intervention. BMJ 2000, 320, 1512–1513. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1512.
80. Hawkins, R.D.; Williams, J.M. Assessing Effectiveness of a Nonhuman Animal Welfare Education Program for Primary School
Children. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017, 20, 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2017.1305272.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10138 15 of 15
81. Kienesberger, B.; Arneitz, C.; Wolfschluckner, V.; Flucher, C.; Spitzer, P.; Singer, G.; Castellani, C.; Till, H.; Schalamon, J. Child
safety programs for primary school children decrease the injury severity of dog bites. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2021, 181, 709–714.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04256-z.
82. Dixon, C.A.; Pomerantz, W.J.; Hart, K.W.; Lindsell, C.J.; Mahabee-Gittens, E.M. An Evaluation of a Dog Bite Prevention Inter-
vention in the Pediatric Emergency Department. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013, 75, S308–S312.
https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31829be2bc.
83. Meints, K.; De Keuster, T. Brief Report: Don’t Kiss a Sleeping Dog: The First Assessment of ‘The Blue Dog’ Bite Prevention
Program. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2009, 34, 1084–1090. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp053.
84. McGreevy, P.D.; Starling, M.; Branson, N.; Cobb, M.; Calnon, D. An overview of the dog–human dyad and ethograms within
it. J. Vet. Behav. 2012, 7, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.001.
85. Reisner, I.R.; Shofer, F.S.; Nance, M.L. Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Inj. Prev. 2007, 13, 348–351.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2007.015396.
86. Arhant, C.; Beetz, A.M.; Troxler, J. Caregiver Reports of Interactions between Children up to 6 Years and Their Family Dog—
Implications for Dog Bite Prevention. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 130.
87. Cook, J.A.; Sasor, S.E.; Soleimani, T.; Chu, M.W.; Tholpady, S.S. An Epidemiological Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries Over
a Decade. J. Surg. Res. 2020, 246, 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.013.
88. Christley, R.; Nelson, G.; Millman, C.; Westgarth, C. Assessment of Detection of Potential Dog-Bite Risks in the Home Using a
Real-Time Hazard Perception Test. Anthrozoös 2021, 34, 767–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1926710.
89. Shepherd, K. Ladder of aggression. In BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine; British Small Animal Veterinary
Association: Gloucester, UK, 2009; pp. 13–16.
90. Baatz, A.; Anderson, K.L.; Casey, R.; Kyle, M.; McMillan, K.M.; Upjohn, M.; Sevenoaks, H. Education as a tool for improving
canine welfare: Evaluating the effect of an education workshop on attitudes to responsible dog ownership and canine welfare
in a sample of Key Stage 2 children in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230832. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0230832.
91. Notari, L.; Cannas, S.; Di Sotto, Y.A.; Palestrini, C. A Retrospective Analysis of Dog–Dog and Dog–Human Cases of Aggression
in Northern Italy. Animals 2020, 10, 1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091662.
92. Loder, R.T. The demographics of dog bites in the United States. Heliyon 2019, v5, e01360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heli-
yon.2019.e01360.
93. CDC. Preventing Dog Bites. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 18 May 2015. Available online:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dog-bite-prevention/ (accessed 13 March 2022).
94. Dogsbite, Quick Statistics—DogsBite.org. DogsBite.org-Some Dogs Don’t Let Go. Available online: https://www.dogs-
bite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php (accessed on 13 March 2022).
95. CDC. Nonfatal Injury Data. 2022. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nonfatal.html (accessed on 13 March
2022).
96. Tulloch, J.S.P.; Minford, S.; Pimblett, V.; Rotheram, M.; Christley, R.M.; Westgarth, C. Paediatric emergency department dog
bite attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit at a tertiary children’s hospital. BMJ Paediatr. Open 2021, 5, e001040.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001040.
