New study points to many factors related to dog bite fatalities

Last week, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) the released an in-depth study of 10 years worth of dog bite fatalities -- and the results are extremely interesting (if not altogether suprising).

This study is the first long-range study of factors involved in dog bite fatalities in nearly 2 decades. The study relied on more than just media reports (as other reports on this have done), and dived deep by looking at police reports, interviewing investigators, etc to analyze the entirety of contribruting factors in these fatal incidents. 

According to the report, much of this study was necessary because of the lack of solid data, and misleading data, that exists:

"The undue emphasis on breed has contributed to a lack of appreciation of the ownership and husbandry factors that more directly impact dogs and the complex genetic factors that work in combination with husbandry to influence a dog's behavior and responses to a given set of stimuli."

The report notes that it has been long-recommended that dog bite prevention strategies not be focused on a singlular factor in isolation (such as breed) -- but that strategies focused on multiple key factors of animal husbandry be used.

The results of the study continue to reinforce this position -- with a lot of information about factors involving fatal incident. Let's get to some key points from the study.

The study

The study analyzed 256 dog bite related fatalities from 2000 to 2009. The study again notes that dog bite fatalities are exceptionally rare -- with only an average of 25 per year over the course of the 10 year study in a country with a human population of 300 million and a dog population of about 70 million.

The writers of the study focused on police reports, talked to homicide investigators, coroner reports, animal control reports, photographs and studied previously unreported behaviorally relevant factors.

The Victims

 -- 45% of victims were less than 5 years of age.

-- Only 7% of victims (17) were the established owners of the dog(s). In only 6% of cases (16) did the owner have a familiar relationship with the dog(s).  In 85% of cases, the victim had only an incidental relationship with the dog, or no relationship with the dog.

-- In 143 (56%) of the incidents, the victim was deemed unable to interact appropriately with the dog. In 116 of these cases (81%) it was because they were too young (less than 5). The rest were older individuals, compromised because of drug and alcohol use or suffered from alzheimers, demential or uncontrollable seizure disorder.

 -- In 223 (87%) of the cases, there was no able-bodied person close enough to the victim to be able to intervene

-- In 148 (58%) involved a single dogs. Most of the deaths among infants (26 of 30) were attributed to a single dog, whereas over half of the deaths (63 of 96, 66%) involving victims over 15 involved multiple dogs.

-- In 74% of cases, the deaths occurred on the dog owner's property. Only 20% of cases (51, 5 per year) occurred entirely off of the owner's property.

-- In 84% of cases, inolved dogs had not been spayed or neutered. 

Husbandry-Related Factors

-- in 78% of cases, the dog(s) involved in the incident was owned.

-- In 76% of cases, dogs were kept by their owners as resident dogs vs family dogs

-- of the incidents involving resident dogs, the dogs were usually kept in ways that isolated them from the humans in the family.  38% were chained. 35% were in an isolated fenced area, outdoor pen or isolated indoor area. 15% were allowed to roam free. 

-- In 38% of cases, there is evidence that the owner or caretaker had knowledge of either prior dangerous actions by the dog or had previously allowed the dogs to run loose.

-- In 21% of cases, there was evidence of prior abuse or neglect of the dogs

-- Past mismanagement of the dogs was far more prevelent (56%) in cases involving multiple dogs.

-- Very interestingly, co-occurance of multiple variables were present in 81% of cases. This is significant.

The role of breed

The report really struggled with determination of breeds involved in the attacks. While previous (and other) studies have relied solely on media reports, this proved to be problematic.

For single dog incidents, in 22% of cases, media reports actualy conflicted as to the breed of dog involved. In 35% of cases, law enforcement assessment of breed differed from media reports.

For multiple dog incidents, breed descriptors in media reports conflicted in 36% of cases, and law enforcement assessment differed from media reports in 43% of cases.  

In 91% of cases, dogs were characterized by at least one media outlet as a single breed descriptor even though more than 50% of US dogs are mixed breed dogs.

Overall, they were only able to accuratedly assign breed status in 45 of the 256 (18%) of the caes. These 45 cases represented 20 recognized dog breeds including 2 dogs of known mixed breed ancestory.

Discussion

From the paper:

"The most striking finding was the co-occurrence of multiple factors potentially under the control of the dog owners: isolation of dogs from positive family interaction and other human contact; mismanagement of dogs by owners; abuse or neglect of dogs by owners, dogs left unsupervised with a child or vulnerable adult who may be unfamiliar to the dog; maintenance of dogs in an enviornment where they are trapped, neglected and isolated and have little control over the environment or choice of behavior. These conditions potentially predispose dogs to enhanced territorial, protective, and defensive behaviors toward stimuli that occur commonly in every day life."

"The most preventable incidents involved very young children left alone with dogs to whom they were unfamiliar or toddlers were allowed to wander off and encounter unfamiliar dogs. In at least 19 fatalities, authorities considered the lack of supervision so negligent that crimminal charges were filed against the parent or caretaker."

The article also goes into some pretty significant discussion about how husbandry practices influence a dog's bahavior:

"Dogs that have not developed a close relationship or bond with humans (ie resident dogs) generally act without relying on input from a human. Topal et al reported that dogs living in homes (in contrast to dogs living outdoors) developed bonds with people and were more dependent on their owners when solving tasks. Appropriate humane and clear interactions with people provide dogs with information about how to interact with humans in ways that are neither scary nor injurous to the dogs or humans.....discouraging maintenance of dogs in isolation from farmily; stressing the importance of a secure, stable, predictable environment and encouraging positive relationships with people may have considerable benefits."

The article is interesting throughout -- with some other interesting notes on ways that may benefit in dog bite prevention.

One unaltered dogs -- the article notes that the majority of dogs involved were unaltered dogs. While research shows that sexually intact male dogs react more intensely, more quickly and for longer periods of time, it also suggests that owner failure to have dogs spayed or neutred may co-occur with other factors that more directly influence a dog's social behavior.

It also notes that most children do not receive any type of dog bite prevention education. This combined with the overall lack of of supervision as a role in dog attack fatalities is especially problematic. It is also worth noting that research suggests that children cannot be expected to show good judgment in their interactions with dogs until they are 6 years of age.

The paper concludes:

"Experts on the subject of dog bite related injuries, including the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Humane Interaction and the CDC, who have consistently stressed the complex and multiple approaches to address this complexity. The present study findings also support recommendations of the AVMA and Others regarding the inadvisability of single-factor solutions such as BSL, which may actually divert resources from effective measures and regulations."

As noted above, the results from this paper are terribly new. If you have been following this blog and other expert resources for the past 20 years, they have all consistently pointed to responsible husbandry practices as being crucial to the prevention of dog bites in this country. This study however provides a very comprehensive look at these dog bite fatality factors in a statistically reliable form. This study represents the first such reliable study in nearly 20 years. I also goes into far more depth than all previous studies by going deeper than just media reports in its analysis. All previous reports have relied solely on media reports that (as this study has shown) are often unreliable, contradicting, and lack the depth of information needed to make knowledgable husbandry recommendations.

I'm excited for this report, and hope that the information is spread far and wide so that communities will focus on responsible ownership education and practices as a method of dealing with the problem of dog bites vs a singular failed approach of targeting breeds (or looks) of dogs.

For more from the National Canine Research Council.

If you want to hear more, check out Pit Bulletin Legal News tomorrow night, when Donald Cleary and Anthony Barnett will be on talking more about the results from this study.

Comments

[Dog hero]

Brent
has anyone ever dis proven the national canine research council

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/
even if not can you direct me to some sources.

[Brent]

Hero,

I know most of the folks over at the NCRC. Karen Delise does most of their work on these issues and I've generally found Karen to be one of the most well-researched people I know in this regard -- and generally started writing about this topic without an agenda and over time became an advocate because the data led her that way (like many of us). When it comes to fatal dog attack research, no one is more detailed and has covered it longer than Karen.

[kymn25]

It would be very difficult to dis prove the NCRC and specifically this report. Report published by the JAVMA has been peer reviewed prior to publication. Which is the respected practice for all studies and reports inn the scientific community. The manor in which the information was gathered is well beyond even what the CDC has ever done. The blog noted above "the truth about Pit Bulls" is maintained by Merritt Clifton. He did his own study years ago on Dog bite related fatalities. His study was based off of news reports which are highly suspect when it comes to breed identification, was not peer reviewed and so has no scientific merit. This new JAVMA study completely discredits his study.

[Dog hero]

Thanks for the info i guess some people will go very far to reach the same foolish goal.
I guess merrit is like one of bsl advocates idols like colleen or alan beck. one even said that bsl was effective.

[BorderWars]

This "paper" is a puff piece for the Animal Farm Foundation. Just look at the co-authors (Delise, Marder, etc. all pit bull apologists for the AFF).

You have to realize the slight of hand here. They are deliberately trying to skew the breed identification toward unknown or using the Wisdom Panel (which is not accurate and can not be used to identify pure bred dogs, nor should it even be used to identify mixes) to obfuscate breed identifications.

They claim that 80% of the dogs in the study could not be identified by their magic method. Well gosh, if the media reports were overwhelmingly pit bull type dogs and then you wipe out 80% of the dogs that you were unable to get PEDIGREE PAPERS for a decade after the fact, then of course you can spin that to say that breed is not a factor.

Let's look at what their identification criteria were:

"in cases without documented pedigree, parentage, or DNA information but where photographs of the dog or dogs involved were available, a veterinary behaviorist (ARM), who was unaware of the breed descriptor used in the media or animal control reports, attempted to determine whether the dog could reasonably be described as a recognized purebred dog but did not attempt to guess at possible breed mixes. Concordance with the media report was assigned on the basis of the expanded definition."

So, unless they were DOCUMENTED PUREBREDS WITH A PEDIGREE (ahem, good luck trying to get this information from people at all, let alone years after the fact "hello Mrs. Smith, sorry your daughter is dead, can we get the pedigree papers of your dog that killed her"), or DNA (yeah, not going to happen with all those dogs that were put down without even being able to offer a DNA sample, plus the fact that there is not even a single DNA test on the market that can identify breeds accurately, they rely on photographs.

Photographs sent to Amy Marder at the AFF. A pit bull apologist who puts out charts like the "you can't identify a pit bull by looks!" and then just take her word for it what the dogs are. Notice they don't publish the photos so the rest of us can see what they are calling what.

So this study doesn't advance the "can we associate genetics/breed to dog bite deaths" argument at all. They just muddy the waters by trying to make as many of the dogs as possible "unknown."

[Brent]

Border,

I'm not surprised, but you missed the point of the piece. I didn't even bother to mention the DNA stuff because it's irrelevant to the article. The major point here is that in 22% of the cases the media had multiple different breed reports and in 35% of the incidents, authorities disagreed with media reports. This was far worse when you included bites where multiple dogs were involved.

When facts matter, making a breed determination is far more difficult. Unlike those (like you) who want to assign "pit bull" to everything to try to validate yourself.

[BorderWars]

Brent,

I don't care what you think of me. But the evidence is clear. This is a propaganda piece done by the AFF.

Their methodology is specifically designed to avoid labeling ANY dog as a pit bull.

If you took any time to actually READ the methodology this would be clear to you.

[Brent]

I read it. But meanwhile, in your focus of trying to focus almost entirely on breed and try to find fault in the study, you've apparently missed the wealth of other social, husbandry and parenting practices that combine to create the bulk of the situations.

Experts have been saying for DECADES that behavior is a complex creation of multiple factors, including environment, containment, etc. The clear note here is the importance of multiple socialization factors. But where breed haters have failed, for decades (and why BSL has failed, for decades) is that it ignores these major factors in influencing behavior and focuses on one factor that is not a primary driver.

This has been the near consensus of trainers, veterinarians and other experts for years. It's great that government is finally listening.

[Dog hero]

hey how did they calculate the staistics

[Brent]

They had a very detailed worksheet of the different factors and had multiple different people code the worksheet according to the reports. It was a really detailed process that is explained at length in the paper. The methodology is actually really solid. BW is a hater and is just upset that it doesn't match his point of view.

[EmilyS]

Landauer, the evidence is clear. YOU couldn't identify a purebred APBT with papers.. in fact you don't even believe such a thing exists.

The evidence is clear: MOST people can't identify a purebred "APBT".

Without an identification as a purebred APBT or AST, what IS a "pit bull"?. A pit bull is a pit bull because YOU (or some newspaper writer thinks it is)? Do you think YOU could identify a purebred border collie by one photograph... every time?

Anyone who reads your own blog knows you're a fancier of the "landrace" thing so you're just blowing smoke here.

What exactly is YOUR agenda in disavowing the research that demonstrates that there are common underlying factors behind dog bites and that the name people give the dog is NOT ONE OF THEM?

Don't even pretend that you're an innocent bystander

[Brent]

Oh Emily. Don't you know, that peer-reviewed papers published by the JAVMA are biased...but the reports by specific individuals based on data they will not share based on media reports they can no longer produce are unbiased, true sources.

[Anthony]

^ Ha.

[Dog hero]

are you talking about me or border wars emily.
Because if you are talking about me.the truth is i support pitbulls but i want the most accurate and effective information possible. i have just need to do that in order to make sure no bsl advocates can disprove it.

[Brent]

She was talking about Border Wars. You're in the clear Hero.

[Randy]

I can't help but wonder if the use of certain breeds as "resident dogs" does not just create a self fulfilling prophecy so to speak. In other words if there are certain breeds that are seen as good "resident"(guard dogs, etc.)and put in arguable unnatural social circumstances then I guess it is not all that surprising that those breeds might top the list of perceived problem animals.

[Brent]

Randy, it definitely seems as if that would be the case.

[Dog hero]

well according to one bsl advocate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfgDt34yI8

well just check this out. and tell me what you think brent

[Brent]

I guess it only takes a quick glance of the video to show a hole host of things gone wrong here: dog on a 4 foot long tow chain,clearly a resident dog, low income neighborhood (where other social issues exist). Anyone who looks at this and thinks the breed of dog is the problem is an idiot.

[Dog hero]

yeah well thats just how things are i just wish some more pitbull advocates would step up.
Then again her site after you post enough "pro pitbull nonsense" she blocks you. but hey how can you lose when you take most of an opposing teams players off the game.

[Dog hero]

Brent about your 2007 obvious questions post. recently learned they don't care. they see no issue with. i asked one specifically attacks and they turned it into dog bites. Like they were trying to change the subject.