My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« The Citizens of Ontario get their court date | Main | More UK Dog Bite Numbers »

April 13, 2008


s kennedy

While it does appear on the surface that many of the dog incidents relate to certain areas or lower economic areas, if that is shown statewide, and it just happens to coincide with lower altering percentage, lower training percentage, and higher abandonment (to shelter for example)then it would appear that the combination of no dog training skills, lack of knowledge of safety training for kids, and poverty all combine to = higher rate or more likely to have child sustain injury via dog bite. I don't believe altering does anything re aggression v. humans, however it might may make the dog a little harder to train, if the dog wants to go after dogs in heat, or chase other dogs, etc. So from a general standpoint, I believe that the safety training for kids could/would benefit all children, whether they own a dog or not, but would be even more helpful to economically disadvantaged youth who may not have been taught simple canine facts.


I've been watching this for awhile, and when I can get an address of an attack, I'll cross-reference the demographic data of the area. Kansas City is the only place that I've done a full-fledged study on (and really, I did it by zip code because that's the data I had, if someone really wanted to do a good study, they'd do it by census tract).

I think there is definitely a correlation between low-income, poverty, and crime and dog attacks...and I think there are a lot of potential reasons for it. Certainly owner education, training and knowledge of child safety with dogs are a part of it.

But also, poverty tends to breed higher crime -- and many people get dogs as their security system (Which is also a bad idea). I think this has big correlation to different types of dogs that are responsible for attacks -- certain dogs are chosen due to their reputations for being mean, encouraged to be mean (your training issue) and end up being mean (go figure).

With "pit bulls" being inexepensive and easy to get in most inner-cities, along with their reputation for being aggressive, has put a lot of them in the situation where they are poorly trained to be "watch dogs" and end up causing other problems.

This was the same delima German Shepherds and Dobermans had in decades past.

I would still like to do a lot more study on this, but will basically have to start it from scratch as no one really tracks the data like I would need to be able to execute the research...

s kennedy

Re the Amy Thomas editorial...I don't know what she knows about APBTs. But it appears she just glossed over a few articles and came up with "criminals" shouldn't own dogs, "bully" breeds need a public makeover, "tethering" and or "non-altering" causes dogs to kill people, and basically that attacking dogs are owned by bad people. We all know even good people could own a dog that bites. A dog does not have to be unaltered, tethered, or owned by a criminal to bite. Although she made a pitch for blaming "people" rather than dogs, this is not necessarily helpful to APBT owners.

Why? Because the courts say what she says, that owners need to be controlled because they don't control their own dogs. The point of irresponsible owners is true in many cases, however----it does not help the current APBT owners override BSL. The Ohio case (Tellings)--however misguided-or corrupt-- clearly indicates the Supreme Ct of Ohio says that due to the PEOPLE using dogs for crime, police shooting these dogs, etc, that the dogs are rationally kept in the "vicious" category because people using them for bad acts, affects the health, safety, welfare of the public. (Also remember, all 3 courts agreed the breed is not inherently dangerous.)

Even if this was not true, claiming that the owners are to blame does not help the plight of the dogs. Punish the deed, not the breed indicates all dogs should be regulated evenhandedly by their acts--it does say all people should be regulated by their acts. [I am not saying people should not be responsible for their acts, but as to dog law/the US courts, the courts re BSL will try/use either the "people" or the dog breed, to justify BSL.] It is actually easier for a court to use the acts of the people than to prove a breed is inherently dangerous. Nelson makes the pitch that the breed is more likely to cause severe injury AND that bad "people" own the dogs. Think about it. That law is still in effect.

The comments to this entry are closed.