KC DOG BLOG

A historical view of dangerous dogs in the United States

Karen Delise has a great new post over at the NCRC about the history of dog attacks in this country, the breeds of  dogs involved, and how the media reported the attacks.  The post is essentially an overview of her book, the Pit Bull Placebo, but is a great shortened version of the book for people without the dedication to read the book.

In the article, Karen notes that the late 1880s, the most feared type of dog was the bloodhound. Similar to pit bulls now, bloodhounds represented a large grouping of multiple breeds of dogs -- and their "ferocity" was played out by the media to creat the certain fears. Stage productions such as the The Tom Shows, and in books like Sherlock Holmes' Hound of the Baskervilles, showed the dogs in a negative light and led to their being feared.

Over time, order was restored, and people began focusing more on what caused attacks vs breeds of dogs that were responsible. Several different examples were given.

Meanwhile, during the time from1959 to 1979, none of the dog bite or fatal dog attack studies make any mention of either pit bulls or rottweilers. Neither of these breeds were popular in the use of guarding or for negative functions at the time, and the breeds most often used for these functions were German Shepherds, Great Danes and Dobermans. And in fact, during this period, these were the breeds often feared -- with misinformation abounding about them (remember the ridiculous myth that because Doberman's had smallish heads, as they matured and their brains grew their brains would press against their skull and eventually cause them to "snap" without cause?  Sound at all familiar to anyone?)

In the decade of 1965-1975, less than 2% of all fatal dog attacks in the United States were attributed to either a  pit bul, a pit bull type dog or a Rottweiler. 

Then in the late 1980s, media hysteria grew about a type of dog that was used by a small, violent sub-culture who were using for dogfighting purposes -- that came to a head mediawise in July 1987 when four major magazines contained articles about 'pit bulls'.  Some of the stories contained some innaccurate information in them abot the dogs -- and many of the myths from these stories still exist today, in spite of so much information available that proves it to be false.

The publicity, and the fear surrounding these dogs then created demand for them among people who wanted dogs for negative functions and for guarding....and with that, their involvement in more major attacks.

And so we have the cycle that we are in right now -- where the people who want dogs for guarding or negative functions are gravitating toward a few particular types of dog. And now, the public fears these breeds of dogs - -not much different than Bloodhounds in the 1880s.  So these are the stories picked up by the media.  The difference now is the wide availability of information with the internet where every story written in a local newspaper anywhere is available almost instantly to any person anywhere in the world.  And so the hysteria continues.

But let's make no mistake. There is nothing crazy-different about these dogs. There is no dangerous DNA in them, or certainly we would not have gone through several decades of dog bite studies with them barely represented.  They are just merely a breed of dog that due to the cycle of human emotions and hysteria that has become the victim of our irrational fears.  And this is why attempts to ban the breeds has not been met with success -- because it was never the dog's breed in the first place.  It was the owners -- and how they intended to use the dogs that was. And unless we focus on dog ownership issues, the cycle will continue, but in 30 years we'll be talking about entirely different breeds of dogs that need to be banned becaus of their supposed genetic predisposition to attack.

None of which will be true...just like it isn't now.

It's National Dog Bite Prevention Week

This week is National Dog Bite Prevention Week. Over the course of the week, I entirely expect to see way too many references to numbers that are largely anecdotal -- and outdated. The numbers (800,000 people receive medical attention because of dog bites) weren't really based on a legitimate sample size -- and was done nearly a decade ago and has ignored that dog bites are going down in this country.

With that said, far too many people are still bitten by dogs -- and the bites are largely preventable. Children are the most likely to be bitten, as most are not equipped to recognize canine behavior and warning signs that would prevent the bites from occurring. This is one of the main reasons why it is so important for parents to monitor the activities of their dogs and children to stop a situation before a bite occurs.

With that in mind, Jennifer over at Dogs and Storks --  (who I interviewed a few months back) has posted a series of videos she's pulled from YouTube that show children and dogs interacting together. Some of the videos show good interactions. Some are just dreadful. I mean, dreadful. While none of the children in the videos gets bitten (so they're all safe), it is so much to the credit of the canines in the video.  It doesn't take much of an imagination when you watch some of the videos to figure that if this is going on while the adult is watching with the video camera rolling (and seen as cute), that the recipe for one of these children being bitten is certainly there.  So please check out the videos (most are only about :30 long) -- and do what you can to prevent dog bites in your family.

Baby playing the tug game with dog.

Baby playing with sleeping dog.

A good interaction between dog and baby -- model this behavior.

A dog is clearly frightened by the infant.

Another dog that really has no idea what to do with the infant -- and the adults laugh at the dog's reactions throughout.  I fear what happens when this dog grows up and finds that subtle signs to be left alone are completely ignored in the household.

And honestly, this last one is a complete credit to the dog that this child didn't get bitten. I have no doubt that this scenerio plays out in a large number of the stories where the dog "snapped for no reason."

I think Jennifer does a great job with these videos and I hope that everyone learns something from them so we can make vast decreases in the number of children that are bitten by dogs -- and better educate people on WHY these bites occur.

Have we lost all common sense when it comes to dog bites?

An80 year old Alameda, CA woman died this week after being bitten by a dog. 

The woman, Dolly Newell, was out walking here Rottweiler and was approached by one of the neighborhood dogs. She fed the dog a biscuit. In its apparent excitement to grab the biscuit, the dog nipped the woman on the finger. However, when the wound would not quit bleeding, she went to the hospital, and got one stitch to sew up the wound. However, being a dog-lover herself, she lied to the doctor -- and initially her friend who drove her to the hospital -- that she hurt herself gardening. She didn't want to say the dog bit her because she didn't want to get the dog in trouble.

A couple days later, the woman was found in serious condition on her bathroom floor when she got a bacterial infection in the wound - -and later died at the hospital.

It's a tragic tail. And all I can think is, has our societal zero-tolerance policy on dog bites gone too far and caused us to lose all common sense?

Nothing in the article would lead me to believe that the dog that bit her was a dangerous dog.  It was being a dog -- maybe not a completely well-behaved dog, but certainly not aggressive - and was a bit over-zealous in getting the biscuit. However, in our ultra-sensitive society, I can see a situation where that dog would be put down or at least put on restrictions for the small bite.  Instead of using common sense that this dog clearly wasn't a huge danger to society, in many areas with "zero tolerance" policies this dog could likely be put down.  That's not common sense, it's paranoia.

I understand why this woman - a dog owner and lover herself - -wouldn't want to get the dog in trouble. Especially if it were one of a few often targeted breeds of dog, a simple act of over-zealousness would mean death.

And in her effort to protect the dog, is now, sadly, dead.

I can't help but think that a little common sense would go a long way in helping with dog-bite issues.

Meanwhile, covering this story wouldn't be complete without a media irresponsibility component. While all but one media outlet reported the story as I noted above, leave it to the NBC affiliate in the bay area to, well, make up their own version of the story. Check this headline:

"Woman Dies After Rottweiler Bite, Small wound wouldn't stop bleeding".

They reported the actual story correctly, but the headline blames her dog for the bite and makes it sound as if she bled to death instead of from an infection.  Disgraceful.

My heart goes out to Dolly's friends and family.

Breed ID is easy, and causes of dog attacks -- more myth-busting

A 7 year old North Carolina boy is in critical condition following an attack by a dog on Thursday.

One news story identified the dog as a Chow mix.

While another said the 100 lbs dog was described by the Jackson County Sheriff as a St. Bernard mix while animal control officers said it looked more like a Shar Pei mix.

This news story also has the dog listed as a St. Bernard mix.

That breed ID thing is easy, eh?

Meanwhile, if you follow the news trail (and it takes a bit of reading to put the pieces together, the dog was apparently one of many that was owned by the dog owners -- and was usually left chained up.  However, neighbors had seen the dog roaming free earlier in the day. Apparently it had gotten free from it's chain.

Meanwhile, the owner of the dog, Carolyn Higdon, was found guilty of animal cruelty in 2002 and had been ordered to not own any dogs for 2 years. 

If you watch the videos in the links - -you can see the conditions all the other dogs are living in. They're all on chains, in the middle of a field, with a dog house for shelter. None of them are in what I would call good living situations.

We MUST move the conversations about dog attacks away from talking about "breeds" -- to talking about how we keep and maintain our dogs. As you can see, breed ID isn't really as easy as people want to make it out to be (ie, 3 different breeds cited in four news stories) -- and the circumstances that led to the attack are very typical:  dog that was routinely chained and appeared to be unsocialized that then got off leash, with an owner with a history of abuse, and a young child that was the victim of it all.

I hope the boy recovers -- although it sounds like he has a lot of hospital time ahead of him.

At some point, we have to educate owners

I'm not sure how we got here. But we need to change it...quickly.

At some point, in this country, we decided that we thought it was possible to punish people into being responsible dog owners. We can't.

And the idea that we can has failed us miserably. It has failed the dogs.  It has failed owners. And it has failed children. 

Last week here in Kansas City, some volunteers took a dog from a home (the owner game them to 'ok' to do so) because the dog was a mess.  The dog had 30-40 wounds on its body.  The dog later died in spite of receiving veterinary care.  This wasn't the first time that the owner had had problems with cruelty and neglect. Since 2003, the owner of the dog has been cited for 18 different animal control violations - -and had 12 different dogs confiscated from the property. That's one about every 6 months. 

Some people can't be educated on raising dogs. Certainly we should prevent them from owning dogs. But some people just don't get it -- and just taking their dogs, every 6 months, and giving them a fine, isn't going to allow them to get it. They have to be educated about proper care for animals.  Just taking their dog, putting it in the shelter (which likely meant it ended up being killed at the shelter), and allowing the cycle to repeat itself, is definitely not helping the situation for the dogs.

The same is true for people.

Last fall, the city of Omaha passed a whole gaggle of laws aimed at punishing irresponsible dog owners.  Rules included limiting the amount of time a dog could be tethered and mandating muzzling and insurance for certain breeds of dogs.

Last weekend, there were three significant dog bites in Omaha.

One involved a Rat Terrier that bit a child as it was "being disciplined" for digging in the kitchen trash. It was disciplined near the child and lashed out at the child.

One involved a 3 month old child that was bitten by Husky in the stomach. The bite caused four ribs to be broken. The Husky had been in the home only 2 days, and was left alone with the infant for a length of time long enough for the attack to happen with the caretaker being far enough away to not hear the infant's screams. The dog had clearly not been in the home long enough (2 days) to be socialized with the child to the point of warranting ANY time alone with the infant. Meanwhile, the Nebraska Humane Society apparently wants to continue the misinformation by stating that the "family was not at fault." Huh? Don't leave your dog alone with your infant child -- ESPECIALLY if you've had the dog for 2 days. It is your fault.

The third incident involved a woman's 'pit bull' that attacked the woman in her home. In spite of the city's well-publicized ordinance that mandated that all 'pit bulls' be licensed, altered, and have a $100,000 insurance policy on them, the owners did not meet any of the required criteria. Meanwhile, the dog had a history of aggression having bitten someone in November, but that attack was ignored and was a precursor to this attack.

Folks, we can't continue to go through this conversation thinking we can legislate responsible dog ownership. Sure, we can put laws in place that show what we want people to do -- but we must follow the laws up with real conversations about responsible dog ownership practices.

Calgary, Alberta, has, statistically, one of the most successful animal controls in North America.  One thing that makes Calgary's animal control laws work is that they have the laws -- but they don't use the laws to punish the owners that violate them.  They use the laws to create conversations to educate owners on responsible dog ownership.

Most people want to be good dog owners -- and if you show them how, they will do it.

Just taking a dog from an owner doesn't teach them anything. It just ends up killing the dog and causing the process to repeat.

Not teaching people how to appropriately discipline dogs (and to not do it in front of children), doesn't help the people to do it right the next time.

Telling owners "it's not your fault" when they leave a three month old child alone with a new dog does not help them understand that they should not do it again.

Passing a host of breed specific ordinances that will be followed only by the people who are responsible dog owners who are jumping through the hoops to follow the ordinance, will not make irresponsible owners into responsible ones. Teaching them to recognize the warning signs of aggression (and let's face it, having bitten someone before, is not a subtle sign) will help them recognize the signs so they are able to stop the behavior early -- instead of letting the aggressive behavior build up.

We're not going to be able to punish our way into a whole society of dog owners. We're going to HAVE to create forums for educating owners into responsible dog ownership.  The idea that we can legislate it has proven to be a failure. Legislation cannot replace education.

And pretending that we're "doing something" by creating things like breed specific laws ADD to the lack of education by saying, these breeds are bad.  But other breeds are safer.  We've taken the owner responsibility out of it -- which is exactly the OPPOSITE of education.

We must bring proper education in canine behavior and ownership back into the equation. In the end, it will be better for the dogs, better for the owners, and better for the children.

Put "pit bull" in the headline, ask questions later

This is the third similar case this week.  The media had a little trouble with breed ID in attacks last week, and this week is off to a similar start.

This week starts with an attack in Austin, TX - -where both the CBS and Fox affilliates went on air last night with stories about a "pit bull" attack on a six year old girl.  You can see their original headlines here.

Meanwhile, KVUE has updated their information to show the attacking dog as a Bull Mastiff.

KEYE originally reported it as a 'pit bull" attack, then changed it to a "Bull-mastiff mix" in 3 out of the four places it was mentioned in the story -- but left one of the 'pit bull mix' references in for good measure. 

Fox has not yet issued an update.

This is particularly annoying because the state legislature in Texas (which just so happens to be in Austin) is supposed to hear an ordinance this session that would overturn the state's ban on breed specific legislation.  In both Montana and Hawaii, when state legislation has come up, the media has instantly jumped on stories of dog attacks to fuel the fire...and in this case, the mistaken breed ID sends out the message of a 'pit bull attack' on the evening news, only to have it changed for the folks who are reading their news online.  Unfortunately, that's not what people remember so much.

Breed of dog is not a determining factor in dog bites or attacks. And the sooner the media quits trying to persecute a breed of dogs (without asking the appropriate questions or fact-checking) by putting 'pit bull' in the headines and asking questions later, the better off as a society we'll all be.

It's about the dogs, right?

A four year old child was attacked by two of the family's 'pit bulls' yesterday near Tacoma, WA. And the News Tribune wanted to be sure you knew pit bull were responsible by placing it in the headline.  Because we want to be sure the dogs are held accountable after all.

If you follow along in the story, you find out that the girl was outside the home alone. The girl's father, and her 5 year old brother were both inside the home -- the father was sound asleep on the couch and only awoke after police arrived and yelled at the father to wake up.  Apparently the girl's step mom was not at home because she had gone out to get a tatoo.

Meanwhile, if you caught KIRO TV, they at least eventually get to a bit more information.  Apparently the father has a bit of a track record and is both a registered sex offender and having been convicted of animal cruelty three years ago.   I'm not saying this immediately makes him a bad person, I don't know him. But it does at least let us know that he's prone to make a bit of bad judgment in his life -- like letting his four year old play in the yard with two dogs unattended while he sleeps (apparently quite soundly), on the couch.

But no, by all means, let's make this about the dogs. Because if these people owned another breed of dog, I'm sure they would have been completely responsible owners....whatever.

The girl was taken to the hospital with only minor injuries (thanks to the neighbors stepping in). The children have been removed from the home and are with child services until the case is investigated.

Until we get at the heart of the dog bite problem, we will NOT make headway in protecting people from dog bites (which are, overall, quite rare). We must focus on the issue of responsible dog ownership if we are going to make it work.

Breed ID is easy, the media is unbiased, Council Bluffs is safer from dogs, and other myths

Yesterday, Caveat had a nice little post about the what a "pit bull" looks like -- if you believe the media reports. Let's just say, the media is none to good at determining what a pit bull looks like.

Then, today, there were several news stories about a dog attack in Council Bluffs, IA that popped up in my google reader.

Most of the stories started off as stories about a "pit bull attack" (you can tell through Google's cache feature -- if you look at the older stories, they all have "pit bull" in them, with it often in the headline -- but if you click on the links, they have been updated).  This story calls the dog an "American Bulldog", as does this one,  while this one refers to it as a Boxer  and meanwhile this one just went with "dog" instead.  Breed ID is easy right?  And because the media says it is a pit bull, they must know...

Anyway....

The victim was a 77 year old woman that was out walking her dog and the dog came up to her and attacked her and her dogs. As someone was driving by, he saw the woman's situations, tried to help her from the dog, but ended up having to stab the dog and kill it with his pocketknife to stop the attack.  Fortunately it's pretty cold in Iowa this time of year and the woman was protected by a heavy coat and only sustained fairly mild injuries.

Which then leads us back to Council Bluffs. In January 2005, Council Bluffs enacted a ban on "pit bulls" in the community. The head of animal control in Council Bluffs has been very vocal that his ban is "working" because they've virtually eliminated bites by 'pit bulls' in the city -- however, based on their own data, there is no evidence that the number of total bites has decreased.  While 'pit bull' bites have virtually gone away with the ban, the number of bites by all other dog breeds has gone up, and at no point have they even come close to having as few bites as their 2003 pre-ban bite numbers.

Breed ID is innaccurate at best.

The media is more likely to report something if it is a 'pit bull' attack (even if they have to change it later). And often makes reporting errors because they aren't experts at Breed ID either.  This is also why any study based 100% off of media reports is going to be misleading and biased.

And cities that enact Breed Bans are not overall safer because of it -- because until you deal with the irresponsible owners, you're still going to have dog bite problems.

I'm really not sure why any of it is that hard to figure out.

Update: And I'm going to post the picture below because, well, let's just say that Breed ID is apparently REALLY hard.

Most all of the articles noted that the woman that was attacked was walking a "Miniature Doberman".  Here's a picture of the woman and her dog:

The dogl looks like a great dog -- but either that's not the same dog she was walking when she was attacked, or breed ID is REALLY hard.

The Bloomington Pantagraph identifies the dog she was walking as a young Rottweiler mix.

"In spite of the stats, I don't believe it"

There was an, um,"interesting" letter to the editor in the Everett, Washington Herald Newspaper today.  The letter was written in response to a good editorial written by the newspaper itself that had a lot of good statistical information about the ineffectiveness of breed specific legislation.

Because the writer of this letter, John Mack, actually felt the need to mention my blog in his letter (hey man, thanks for the PR!), I thought I'd respond to a couple of his comments here -- just to give him a little boost as well.  Clips from his letter are in italics -- and I'll respond below.

"According to the KC Dog Blog, there were 33 dog attack fatalities in 2007. I would venture to bet that these attacks were not caused by beagles, collies, shepherds, golden retrievers, black labs or silky terriers, and I'm sure some of these dogs have irresponsible owners."

I'd like to thank him for reading...it's just a shame he didn't spend more time here. Here is the list of the breeds of dogs that were identified (there were a couple of unknowns) as being involved in fatal dog attacks in 2007 :

Pit Bull, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Boxer/Bullmastiff cross, American Bulldog, Catahoula Bulldog, Golden Retriever, Doberman, Chow, Siberian Husky, English Bulldog and "mixed breed".  If you expand the list to include the 18 or so fatalities in 2008, you'll additionally find: Labrador Retriever, English Sheepdog, Golden Retriever/Lab mix and Jack Russell Terrier.

That's 15 different breeds of dog, plus the unidentifiable mixed breed, that were involved in fatal dog attacks in the past 2 years. Including 3 breeds he specifically mentioned were not responsible.  Each attack was its own perfect storm of irresponsible dog ownership, keeping  a dog in horrible conditions, neglectful parenting, or random stray dogs without owners that were not picked up by animal control.

"Why is it most articles I read in the newspaper relative to dog attacks have to do with pit bulls, Rottweilers or bull terriers? I think it's because they have much more of a potential to attack due to lack of socialization, natural guarding instincts along with attack tendencies, and abuse from owners."

The reason for the newspaper articles COULD be because people like John Mack are drawn to articles about 'pit bulls' and Rottweilers than they are about other breeds of dogs.  But yeah, wouldn't it be great if the media reported bite evenly across breeds?  What is interesting though is that here are the reasons he thinks pit bulls and Rottweilers are more likely to attack:

Lack of Socialization

Natural Guarding Instincts along with attack tendencies

Abuse from owners

Interestingly, two of the three reasons he "thinks" they're more likely to bite tie right back to irresponsible ownership.  So why does he think "breeds" are responsible.  Virtually all breeds of dogs carry with them a degree of "guarding instincts" that come with a territorial nature of defending their territor, and most breeds of dogs were bred with with intention of them hunting or attacking other animals (rabbits, foxes, rats, badgers, bears, lions, etc).  

But here is the line that is my favorite: 

"I am not convinced by the editorial, irrespective of the stats in the article."

Yes folks, THESE are the people who favor BSL. The people who think it is the right way to go, regardless of the statistics, professional and expert opinions, or other factual data.  They will believe what they want to believe, facts be damned.   Yip, THOSE are the people pushing for BSL. The people who don't care about facts...only opinions. 

Let's start really looking at the facts behind dog bites, fatalities, genetics, etc and really realize that 'pit bulls' are just dog, bites happen because of inadequate care or socialization, and that breed bans do NOT prevent inadequate care and socialization which are what really cause bites.  When we start focusing on the real issues, we will make progress in this matter.  Not when we listen to people who base their beliefs on opinions formed "irespective of stats".

Maybe they're not reading their own press clippings?

This is getting old. KIRO TV in Seattle has an interview with the victim of a dog attack that occurred a couple of months ago in Seatac, WA.  Along with the victim, Houng Le, is a man that she raised Eric John Makus.  First of all, it appears that Ms. Le is doing well following her attack -- and thankfully, will have a full recovery.  Mr. Makus is of course upset (and rightfully so) about the attack on this woman and vows to avenge the attack by making sure it never happens again.  His solution is, of course, a breed ban.

"I believe that a breed ban, while it's unfair, it's unpopular and it's extreme -- I'll tell you it's effective, and in my opinion, it's absolutely necessary to protect public safety," said Makus.

Never mind that such policy has never been effective at minimizing dog bites in cities. Oh, people will point to a decrease in "pit bull" bites and say that it's working, but it just shifts the bites to other breeds of dogs that were owned by the same irresponsible owners that caused the problems in the first place.  This type of policy has caused the total number of dog bites in Aurora to go up by 43% in two years following the policy.  Scotland saw a 150% increase in dog bites over a 10 year period following their Dangerous Dog's Act.  The UK has seen a 50% increase in dog bites over the past 10 years with their law. WhenSan Francisco passed their mandatory sterilization law for pit bulls, their dog bites doubled the following year.  And Cincinnati, OH found their law to be so difficult for animal control officers to enforce, they are now using police officers to help with the enforcement of the law.  Never mind that Cincinnati has the 8th highest murder rate in the US.

No, trying to enact statewide BSL in Washington is not for "public safety".  BSL has never improved public safety. It's for vengeance. And this is why people with expertise in canine behavior should be listened to for making laws, and not dog attack victims and their families. 

The interesting part about this story, is it once again is the perfect storm of irresponsible dog ownership. The owner (Travis Cunningham) of the dogs that attacked Houng Le was a convicted felon. He was out of prison on parole. In addition to owning the dogs that attacked her, he was also in possession of a stolen weapon (a double felony, as he had stolen the weapon and wasn't allowed to possess one because of his history of violence).  Instead of looking at a breed ban, why not look at a law restricting the dog ownership rights of convicted felons?  Why not ask why animal control wasn't able to enforce the city's leash law and these animals were out roaming around? 

A breed ban would not have stopped this attack. It doesn't appear as if the law is all that important to a man like Mr. Cunningham.  And if animal control can't enforce a leash law, how would they ever enforce a breed ban? 

Let's forget about wasting time on a state-wide breed ban. Let's start focusing on ways of dealing with the Travis Cunningham's of the world -- those people who pose a threat to society regardless of what type of dog they own.  And leave good, law abiding citizens alone and not waste animal control (or police) resources in dealing with people who are not problems.  This is how we will prevent future attackes on innocent victims like Houng Le....and that should be the goal.