Preventable Husbandry Factors Co-occur in Most Dog Bite-Related Fatalities(title shortened)

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.

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 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.

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 report is not hard science. Sorry.

I used to be employed as a scientist and have an educational background in science, stressing the scientific gathering and analysis of data. This “study” or whatever you call it, is full of holes. This is a good indicaton that it was a propaganda piece by design.

For example, the highest potentially preventable “factor” is “no able bodied person present to intervene.” So all the pit bull owners killed by their own dogs should never have been left alone with their dogs? If dogs can’t be trusted alone, then people living alone must have cats and never dogs (although cat owners will assure us that their pets can kill them). Kinda kills the whole idea of service dogs for the blind - those people are alone with their dogs! I was alone with my dogs quite a bit and was never harmed but then I never had a pit bull.

How about the heart shredding story of the woman and her two beloved pits babysitting for a friend. The dogs attacked her to get to the baby -they disabled the “person present to intervene” first. She was transferring her dogs from a back room, where she kept them to avoid them having contact with the baby, to their dog run. Her own dogs attacked her and, now in shock and using her body to cover the baby, they began to dig under her body to get to the child. In shock and bleeding, she fought her own dogs to try to save the baby. She can’t recall some portions of the fight - too traumatic. The baby was shredded and of course, died.

PPits attack without warning, it often doesn’t help much if others are present - pits don’t stop attacking on command. How about those pit bull owners who advocate “responsible” pit bull owners carrying a “break stick” to pry the jaws of their dog open after it latches onto a person or other dog and refuses to let go? Bet all “responsible basset hound owners” wouldn’t go ANYWHERE without their break stick!

How about the fact that pit bull owners believe that their dogs are the subject of biased “myths” about their aggression level but still just CAN’T secure their dogs? So many of these attacks are by pits who “got out” “broke out” etc.? Beagles are not notorious for savaging the elderly in their front yards after “getting out.” Nope. Pits just can’t be secured like normal dogs.
I’ve read about pit bulls breaking through a screen door to attack a baby and her grandmother in their living room. It may be hot hot hot weather but whatever you do, don’t play with your grandchild in your living room with the screen door locked - pits can break through that. How much you wanna bet granny and her deceased grandchild were counted among that statistic for “no able bodied person present?” Granny tried to shut the baby in a room away from the dogs but she didn’t have the strength to fight off two pit bulls so I imagine that means she wasn’t able bodied.

I’ve read an account of a 40lb pit bull killing a horse. There ya go - no able bodied person present to intervene! The elderly man working in his yard? Attacked by pits who rips his limbs off and killed him - no able bodied person present. Owners found dead with pit bull covered in blood...clearly no one was there to help.

Pits can’t be kept secured - pit owners have proven that. They are well aware of the reputation their dogs have but the dogs routinely get out. Now alot of dogs “get out”, but when pits get out, they go hunting. Watch the youtube video of a dog racing through a large 4 way intersection to pull down it’s prey - a child walking with her grandmother. I doubt the authors consider an elderly person “able bodied” but if they do, the presence of an able bodied person didn’t stop the attack from happening. A bystander kicked repeatedly and the dog let go (pit bull breeders consider “giving up” a negative and would say the dog is not “game” enough) but the child was still savagely attacked. The presence of the first “co-occurring” factor (no one present) is virtually proof that they reverse engineered to protect the “Dogs of Peace” and now this junk “science is going to be earnestly trotted out over and over.
‘
Another trash factor in this study is “the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog.” Welp, that’s true. The elderly man, a retired military veteran, did not know the pit bulls that attacked and killed him while he was working in his own yard. Many pit victims did not have a familiar relationship with the dogs who maimed or killed them. The baby who was killed by his sitters dogs would not have a relationship with the dogs because all adults concerned decided it was best avoided. But owning a pit bull, a breed with the highest kill rate, means that there is zero room for error. The sitter put the baby on her hip (the dogs had licked his face before but that was only one meeting) to keep him out of range of the dogs as she transferred them from the back room to the dog run. It never occurred to her that her dogs would attack her to bring her to the ground to get at the child.You just can’t trust your family pit bulls enough to hold a child on your hip while letting them out. That video of a free roaming pit (hey he got out) racing through an intersection to “bring down” a child walking with granny shows yet another example of this “factor” - no relationship. I note that this factor was “co-occurring” 85.2 percent of the time. How much you want to bet that pits were over represented in the attacks in which the dogs DID have an established relationship with the dog? That’s part of the pit horror - they often kill or maim owners or family members. Ah but this junk “science” study seems like it was reverse engineered so that kind of analysis will not be allowed! I’ve had dogs for years - none of them go kill people if they get out. Pits get out and go hunting, for people or dogs to kill or “just” rip apart for fun - they aren’t guarding their territory, they are big game hunters.

You know there’s a “study” that purports to “prove that a few small dog species (I think one was llahso Apso) are FAR more likely to bite (and therefore were more dangerous) than pit bulls etc.?

And the “study” by a veterinary association that purports to “prove” that pit bulls do not have temperament issues? Yeah if you read and research a little bit you can find problems with their “scientific method.” A critical requirement was that their sample of dogs tested for temperament must represent an objective cross section of the breed - that means that the dogs must be randomly selected and tested. But that “study” asked for volunteers. So owners who felt their dogs behavior was remarkably good (and they mistakenly pat themselves on the back for that instead of thanking their luck so far) volunteered. WRong. Biased study. The study shifted from science to propaganda by testing the temperament of only those pit bulls ‘hand picked’ for their unusually “good behavior.” Even that was not enough - one pit bull owner who participated in the study said her dog had a little bit of trouble but noted with approval that the evaluator “understood” he was just having a bad day.

These trash science studies come up against the cold hard data which, without convoluted analysis or reverse engineering and “co-occurring” nonsense, cannot be refuted. The body count for pits is unacceptable, they kill the most people (even though they are not the most common breed) and of all breeds, they alone kill more adults in their prime. This study does nothing, absolutely nothing to change the truth about the levels of death and maiming that breed is responsible for.

You know why they chose the “co-occurring factor” title? Wanna guess? Oh c’mon!

Alright if you won’t guess - here it is. Their “study” could not prove a causal relationship so all they could say that factors were present. This is a critical flaw but it is done by design. When your study fails to prove anything, you can always say 4 out of the factors “occurred”...not “caused” because you can’t prove a causal relationship here....just say they “occurred” together. You want more examples of co-occurring factors? Lots of bleeding and screaming and helpless pleas for mercy while being ripped apart by pit bulls. On the dogsbite.org website, a woman being attacked by her pit bull lay against the door that her rescuer was trying to open. Unable to get the door open, her daughter heard her mother’s horrified scream ‘He’s eating me!’ Yes pits strip flesh off whereas ‘normal’ are far more likely to bite and release. I’ve never read an account of a dog attack that matched the pit for flesh removal. Those agonizing details are not causal either but they they equal in “scientific merit” to this study’s co-occurring factors There are happier factors that occurred at that time too - someone feeling good about getting their garden in order or playing with a grandbaby in the living room right before the fatal attack.

Here’s another worthless co-occurring factor: “a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog” See, there again service dogs are not the most dreaded species with the highest body count. In service dog situations - the dog HELPS the disabled. This throws real mud on the clarity of their worthless “factors” (might as well say observations because they are not causal) because it’s not clear how they would separate out the factor of “no able bodied person present to intervene” (he was alone) from the “age or physical condition” (and he was elderly). How do you “manage your interaction” with a dog that you’ve never seen before that wants to kill you? Note that among dog attack fatalities, pits are the only breed to kill adults in their prime. Hey the baby that was killed by the pits who crashed through the locked screen door, the baby that was killed in the care of her sitter, the child that was attacked walking down the street with her grandmother - they were all “unable to manage their interaction” with the attacking pit bull.

I am guessing they threw in the “factor” about people keeping “residential dogs” to imply that doggie was kept in a box or chained to a tree outside. I am guessing that not too many people felt safe letting a pit bull sleep inside at night after it outgrew the adorable puppy stage and started to show aggression. I’m guessing a dog that sleeps outside might be counted among residential dogs (guard) as opposed to pets. Hope not because some dogs sleep outside just for snoring or nightie snack raids on the kitchen garbage.

“Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors.” This nonsense dilutes their credibility to zero. 4 or more factors were present (not causal, they were just “present” like the blood and screaming) - their own biased statics show that mismanagement or abuse are by far the very least like factor to occur. Their stupid “breed was not a factor” is pathetic because they designed their study to obscure breed. All they had to do was collect observations, and pad those observations with pointless observations so you dilute breed as a factor. If their study was valid, it would roughly reflect actual damage recorded for actual breeds. A valid study would show some correlation to the number of Americans pits kill every month in the US. You have to look at the literal body count statistics for proof that pits kill the most people (shocking in itself given that pit attacks and killings far exceed the breed’s percentage of all dogs) and are the only breed that kills more people in their prime than the sick and they aged. They are big game hunters, not pets.

I'm not into breed bans, but I can see higher licensure costs or insurance requirements for certain working breeds.

I also think the authors didn't try very hard on the breed id issue because they preferred not to know because it doesn't fit their preferred agenda. But the truth is, they really don't have much in the way of ameliorating their co-occurring factors. Don't leave infants, disabled or elderly people alone with large dogs. Who the hell doesn't know that already?

Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group

Abstract Objective: Maiming and death due to dog bites are uncommon but preventable tragedies. We postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls. I also don't think the authors worked hard enough to obtain breed ID from the industries that keep the best and most accurate records; medical, legal and insurance companies.

Design: We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our level I trauma center with dog bites during a 15-year period. We determined the demographic characteristics of the patients, their outcomes, and the breed and characteristics of the dogs that caused the injuries.

Results: Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).

Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

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.