KC DOG BLOG

Dog bite study: Unsupervised Children most at risk

This story seems especially relevant today after news of a tragic dog attack in Texas yesterday.

A new study from Vikram Durairaj, MD from the University of Colorado School of Medicine is believed to be the largest study of its kind in studying 537 dog bites in children that happened between 2003 and 2008. 

According to the report, unsupervised children are most at risk for bites.  The study also notes that the culprits are usually the family pet and that once a dog has a history of biting, the dog is more likely to bite again (with the second attack being more serious than the first).

Children seem to be the most susceptible to bites because they are more vulnerable and their heads and necks are closer to the dog's mouth.  A child's face and eyes are the most common targets.

According to the study, 68% of bite cases were to 5 year olds or younger -- with 3 year olds being the most common victims.  In the majority of cases the child knew the dog (either it was a family dog, or belonged to a friend or neighbor) and in the majority of cases, the dog bite was provoked when the child either pet the dog to aggressively, startled the dog, or stepped on the dog.

Durairaj also studied the breeds of dogs involved -- in 23% of cases, mixed breeds were responsible. Labrador Retrievers accounted for 13.7%, Rottweilers 4.9%, German Shepherds 4.4% and Golden Retrievers 3%.

"It's clear from our data that virtually any breed of dog can bite" said Durairaj. "The tendency of a dog to bite is related to heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health and victim behavior."

The study is not terribly eye-opening for people who have studied dog bites and attacks - but it is further research that indicates that a) there are a lot of contributing factors to dog bites and b) parents need to supervise their children around dogs.  People who try to focus solely on breed when it comes to dog bites are missing the majority of factors involved in the deterimining the bite.

And if we focus on the science and academic studies of dog bites they all point this direction -- and focusing on the realities of dog bites and attacks will help us put a stop to them, vs the media and blog-fueled hysteria that often exists around dog breeds.

I don't have a copy of the final report, but will likely post more if I am ever able to obtain a copy.

Inaccurate media reporting, follow-up fails, and why most most dog-bite studies fail

Over the weekend, the NCRC released a follow-up report on the February incident involving Carolyn Baker.

If you remember, the 63 year old Baker was found outside her family's home and the media instantly reported the woman's death was caused by the family's Rottweiler -- that was found in the yard with her.  The woman was said to have "bite marks and severe right arm and shoulder injuries."

The next day, several media outlets followed up to report that the family was convinced that Ms Baker was not killed by the dog -- but that the woman was dead and the dog tried to drag her to the back door.

Then, silence. For three months, nothing.

However, according to the coroner's report obtained by the NCRC notes that Ms Baker had previously suffered both a stroke and a heart attack. While usually another family member let the dog in the house for the night, on this night, Ms. Baker went out to let the dog in. It was a cold night and she wore only a this, polyester nightgown. 

The Cuyahoga County  coroner said that Ms. Baker's death was due to cardiovascular disease. Contributing factors were hypothermia and blunt force trauna to the head (froma fall, not from a dog bite). While there were some claw marks on the woman's body, there were no bite marks found. This would be consistent with a dog trying to wake the woman up vs actually attacking her.

While the  autopsy report has been completed since March, the media has never reported that the dog was innocent and that the woman's death was an accidental tragedy. My heart still goes out to Ms. Baker's family.

You can read the full report here -- along with a history of the news headlines. 

*****

Unfortunately this story doesn't reprent a strange anomoly when it comes to media reporting of dog bites. It's not terribly uncommon to find reports of dog bites/attacks with significantly wrong information (remember, all early reports had the woman having bite marks on her, which was not true).  And often, by the time more accurate information (breed ID, cause of death, severity of injuries) is known, the media has already moved on to other stories and if the truth ever gets out there, it is usually only by a sole medium, instead of the multiple media outlets that cover the initial "breaking" news.

Unfortunately, there are some out there who rely very heavily (or often solely) on media reports to base their opinion on dogs and dog aggression. Obviously, with suspect (or often completely wrong) reporting, their opinions are then based on suspect (at best) information.

This again highlights why it is essential that when we make policies about aggressive dogs that we listen to the experts on the topic and take their advice -- and the experts nearly unanimously agree that targeting dogs based on their behavior, not breed, is the most successful way to solve the problem of biting dogs in communities.

Dog bites vs dog attacks -- What determines the difference?

Earlier this week, I posted an overview of all of the 2009 dog bite fatalities. While such significant attacks are incredibly rare, they are tragic for the families and friends of the victims.  So even if they are quite rare, the more we understand about the causes, the better off we'll all be.

While major dog attacks are quite rare, dog bites are fairly common. The CDC estimates that about 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year.  We could quibble out the methodology they use to get this number (It is suspect), the point is, bites are pretty common. The VAST majority of these bites are nothing more than small bruises or cuts that heal quickly without incident.

But what differentiates a small bite from a major attack?

When we talk about why dogs bite and attack, often the first topic that comes up is dog socialization. Well trained, socialized and adjusted dogs are much lessly likely to suffer from different forms of aggression - -like fear aggression and severe possession aggression -- than dogs that aren't trained and socialized. So a dog that is kept as an indoor family pet that is around the family and strangers regularly, are much less likely to exhibit aggressive behaviors than dogs that don't spend much time around people and strangers.

But it doesn't stop there.

There is a second component to a bite behavior that may be more telling than even socialization:  bite inhibition. While socialization is important to determine whether or not your dog is likely to bite in a given situation, bite inhibition is important in determining how severe a bite will be if and when it happens.

Legendary dog trainer Ian Dunbar says this about bite inhibition:

"Without a doubt, teaching bite inhibition is the single most important item on the educational agenda of any pup....It is as unrealistic to expect dogs never to be frightened or annoyed by people as it is to expect people never to frighten or annoy each other. However, just as it is reasonable to expect people to resolve their disagreements without physical violence, it is both realistic and perfectly feasible to teach dogs never to physically harm a person when scared or provoked."

Because dogs don't have hands, much of their "touch" communication is done through their mouth. If they want someone to leave them alone (because they're fearful or injured) and the person ignores their body language cues and audio cues (like growling) then a bite may be a dog's next option (where a human might "push" someone away). Or, for example, a child accidentally steps on a dog's tail, or hugs too tightly and injures the dog, a dog may react with a bite to end the pain. The difference between this being a "nip" or a major bite is determined by the dog' bite inhibition -- ie, their ability to control the power of their bite.

Anyone who has ever spent much time at all around puppies knows one thing -- they bite.  A lot.  Puppies use their mouths a lot in the playing process with their littermates about bite-inhibition. If they bite too hard, their littermate may yelp and quit playing with them, which will teach them that that bite was too hard.  Through this interaction, dogs will develop a sense of bite inhibition that will allow them to "bite" but control the bite as to not be harmful.  Dogs with good bite inhibition may use their mouths while playing, or when dealing with an unruly puppy playmate, but choose to not use full bite force in the process.  And this is a good thing.

In the nature, puppies learn bite inhibition from their mothers and litermates. While this is often best way for puppies to learn, it can also be done with frequent playgroups with other young dogs. However, if all of that is not an option, bit inhibition can be taught at home when dogs are interacting with the humans simply by playing and interacting with your dog, and when your dog bites too hard, making a "yelp" or "ouch" sound and taking the play thing (in this case you) away. The dog will quickly learn that biting too hard causes him to lose what he wants most -- someone to play with.  Remember -- teaching your puppy to bite so it no longer hurts is the first step -- then you can begin teaching your puppy not to bite at all.

Most experts say that bite inhibition is primarily learned by the age of 18 weeks. So it should be no surprise then if someone buys a 6 week old puppy, plops thepuppy on a chain in the back yard for the next 2 years of its life, and the dog all of a sudden suffers from poor socialization AND poor bite inhibition -- which is a pretty bad combination - and "suddenly" attacks someone. It was actually the perfect recipe for a major attack....if people know anything about canine behavior. This is why I think it's significant that of the 22 people over the age of 1 that were killed by singular dogs last year, nine of the dogs showed signs of significant chaining involved in their keeping.

The more we know about canine behavior, the more we can make steps to improve the way dogs are kept, and improve the safety of them in society. Ignoring behavioral experts in this area is just not using sound judgment.  If we want to make society "safer" when it comes to dogs (and dogs are incredibly safe), we must focus on things that are primary motivating forces on undesirable behavior.

Some great resources on bite inhibition -- and how you can train your dog to have it:

Modern Dog Magazine - Puppy Socialization and Bite Inhibition

A great article from Dog Star Daily this week - More on bite inhibition (because it's so important) (this is an adaptation of Ian Dunbar's coments on the subject)

Ian Dubar's article -- Temperament Training, Teaching your puppy bite inhibition

Last Chance for Love Animal Rescue - Bite Inhibition Flyer

Dogspelled Forward - The most important things you can do for your puppy?  Part 1-- Bite Inhibition

k9clicking - Nipping

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.