Posted on 12/19/2013 11:57:47 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s
A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY USING A NEW APPROACH
In December, 2013, The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published the most comprehensive multifactorial study of dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) to be completed since the subject was first studied in the 1970’s.[1] It is based on investigative techniques not previously employed in dog bite or DBRF studies and identified a significant co-occurrence of multiple potentially preventable factors.
Experts have for decades recommended a range of ownership and husbandry practices to reduce the number of dog bite injuries.[2] This new JAVMA paper confirms the multifaceted approach to dog bite prevention recommended by previous studies, as well as by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[3] and the American Veterinary Medical Association[4].
The five authors, two of whom are on the staff of the National Canine Research Council (NCRC),[5] and one of whom (Dr. Jeffrey Sacks) was lead author on earlier studies of DBRFs, analyzed all the DBRFs known to have occurred during the ten-year period 2000 – 2009. Rather than rely predominantly on information contained in news accounts, as had previous studies of DBRFs, detailed case histories were compiled using reports by homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and interviews with investigators.
The case histories were compiled over a sufficiently long period of time – months or years, depending on the individual case — for the entire range of available facts surrounding an incident to come to light. The researchers found that their more extensive sources usually provided first-hand information not reported in the media, and often identified errors of fact that had been reported in the media.
POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE FACTORS
The researchers identified a striking co-occurrence of multiple, controllable factors: no able-bodied person being present to intervene (87.1%); the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s) (85.2%); the dog(s) owner failing to neuter/spay the dog(s)(84.4%); a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog(s) (77.4%); the owner keeping dog(s) as resident dog(s), rather than as family pet(s) (76.2%); the owner’s prior mismanagement of the dog(s) (37.5%); and the owner’s abuse or neglect of dog(s) (21.1%). Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors.
The distinction between a resident dog and a family dog was first proposed years ago by NCRC Founder Karen Delise.[6] 76.2% of the DBRFs in this study involved dogs that were not kept as family pets; rather they were only resident on the property. Dogs are predisposed to form attachments with people, to become dependent on people, and to rely upon their guidance in unfamiliar situations. While it is extremely rare that dogs living as either resident dogs or as family pets ever inflict serious injuries on humans, dogs not afforded the opportunity for regular, positive interaction with people may be more likely, in situations they perceive as stressful or threatening, to behave in ways primarily to protect themselves.
THE STUDY’S FINDINGS ON BREED
The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents.
The most widely publicized previous DBRF study[7] which was based primarily on media reports, qualified the breed identifications obtained in their dataset, pointing out that the identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective, and that even experts can disagree as to the breed(s) of a dog whose parentage they do not know. It has been known for decades that the cross-bred offspring of purebred dogs of different breeds often bear little or no resemblance to either their sires or dams.[8] The previous DBRF study also did not conclude that one kind of dog was more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog.
Lack of reliable breed identifications is consistent with the findings of Dr. Victoria Voith of Western University[9],[10]and of the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida’s College of Veterinary Medicine.[11],[12] Both Dr. Voith and the Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program conducted surveys[13] showing that opinions ventured by those working in animal-related fields regarding the breed or breeds in a dog of unknown parentage agreed with breed as detected by DNA analysis less than one-third of the time.[14] Participants in the surveys conducted at both universities frequently disagreed with each other when attempting to identify the breed(s) in the same dog.
90% of the dogs described in the new DBRF study’s case files were characterized in at least one media report with a single breed descriptor, potentially implying that the dog was a purebred dog. A distribution heavily weighted toward pure breed is in stark contrast to the findings of population-based studies indicating that ~46% of the dogs in the U.S. are mixed breed.[15] Thus, either the designation of breed in the media reports for the cases under examination was done very loosely, and without regard to possible mixed breed status, or purebred dogs were heavily over-represented. The latter conclusion did not seem likely to these authors, particularly in light of the photographic evidence they were able to obtain. Finally, the news accounts erroneously reported the number of dogs involved in at least 6% of deaths.
The earlier, widely publicized study of DBRFs has been misunderstood, and misused to justify single-factor policy proposals such as breed-specific legislation (BSL), though the authors of that study did not endorse such policies. Failure to produce a reduction in dog bite-related injuries in jurisdictions where it has been imposed[16],[17] has caused the support for BSL to fade in recent years. From January 2012 to May 2013, more than three times as many jurisdictions either repealed BSL or considered and rejected it as enacted it. The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association has passed a resolution urging all state, territorial and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.[18] In August 2013, the White House, citing the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published a statement with the headline, “Breed-specific legislation is a bad idea.”[19] BSL is also opposed by major national organizations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society.
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING HUSBANDRY FACTORS WILL LEAD TO BETTER PREVENTION
The trend in prevention of dog bites continues to shift in favor of multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities. The findings reported in this study support this trend. The authors conclude that the potentially preventable factors co-occurring in more than 80% of the DBRFs in their ten-year case file are best addressed by multifactorial public and private strategies.
Further, they recommend their coding method to improve the quantity and quality of information compiled in future investigations of any dog bite-related injuries, not just DBRFs. This new study and its methodology offer an excellent opportunity for policy makers, physicians, journalists, indeed, anyone concerned with the prevention of dog bite-related injuries, to develop an understanding of the multifactorial nature of both serious and fatal incidents.
This is not junk research. This is the best researched dog bite study I have seen. It is interesting (but not really surprising) to look at the factors that occur around dog bite fatalities. And to note that one of those factors is NOT the breed of the dog.
FYI, to the rabid (pun intended) Pitty haters, don't bother flaming me for posting facts, I don't care.
I'm not advocating Pit Bulls...I'm advocating real science. Science is not 5 lines of drivel printed by semi literates at the AP, nor is it anecdotal incidents. Hold yourselves to the same scientific standards that you expect (but do not get) of the global warming EnviroTards.
If the only response some of you have to the post of this study is to make nasty, vulgar and personally insulting remarks about me, just go back the DU where that sort of "thinking" is institutionalized.
Preventable husbandry?? Pajama boy??
It’s been my experience that there are very few bad dogs.There are lots of really bad owners out there,however.
Thanks for posting that. I’ve tried to tell the Pit haters these very same things...to no avail. They will still leave their blinders on and make excuses, just wait and see.
Great one!
Pajama Boy will be the new media sob story of someone victimized by the evil right wing nuts.
Har Har Har
That is a somewhat confusing headline. I have never seen the verb “Co-occur”. Maybe they could have used the phrase “that often occur”, as in; Preventable Husbandry Factors that often occur in dog-bite related fatalities.
Good luck in your research. You obviously care a lot about this topic.
If I had a dollar for every a$$hat dog owner I wanted to punch out........
The fact that Pit Bull owners cannot afford to live in my neighborhood saves me the time of going some report’s arcane footnotes.
Yeah, I thought that also.
I think what they mean by co-occur is that more than one of the preventable factors occur in most cases. Several at least, I'm thinking.
What I care most about is genuine, quality research (very little of that out there) and accurate reporting (none of that out there). That applies to more than dog bites. Oh, and I'd like to see a few people that when presented with good research, could take the time to read and digest it (damn little of that).
going through
I do not know why anyone would own this breed unless they want to frighten or intimidate other people. And better check your homeowner's insurance.
State Farm doesn’t care what breed of dog I have. He scares no one and doesn’t understand the word intimidate.
Breed may not have been a factor because “The authors of the new JAVMA paper reported that the breed(s) of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases”.
But breed is a factor in DBRF. Big breeds have a greater ability to fatally wound a human than little toy breeds.
Trying to pretend that all breeds are equally dangerous is analogous to the TSA security theater that all passengers are potential terrorists.
And this is just one state. He may have the stats that the thread originator is seeking. These lawyers are in all states, and the insurance companies often refuse to cover bully breeds with huge jaw muscles--who have been bred to mindlessly attack in pits.
I won’t try to speak to ‘real science’, but I’d rather be bitten by a rampaging Chihuahua than a Rottweiler...
My State Farm agent has no problem with the breed of dog that I own. He knows my dog, who does not live in or ever been near a pit. Mindlessly licking and loving is his nature. I really can’t put it any simpler.
You never met my mother's Chihuahua. Damn vicious little beast.
I'd also rather get run over by a bicycle than a Hummer.
I don't see that as the point being made here. It's not saying that all breeds are equally dangerous. i.e. a bite from a large dog is the same as a bite from a small dog. It's not even suggesting that.
It is addressing the *likelihood* of attacks, etc based on consideration of multiple variables including breed.
Not the same things.
I base this belief on 20+ years of ER work having seen hundreds and hundreds of dog bite victims coming through our doors and not recalling having heard of a *single* one of them dying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.