Fatal Dog Bites Share Common Factors

[Rainy]

Just read this article, wondering what others thought of it? (sorry if this has been posted before)

http://positively.com/2013/12/05/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/

The Journal of the American Veterinary Association has released the most comprehensive study to date regarding fatal dog bites and the common factors that link them. The authors of the study found that there were some significant errors reported by the media in certain stories, so rather than relying on a potentially biased media source, their findings are based on investigative reports from interviews with animal control agencies, investigators, and homicide detectives.

Interestingly, the breeds of the dogs involved in fatal attacks could only be identified in 18% of the cases. Often times, the media's report of the dog's breed conflicted with animal control reports. Within that 18%, twenty different breeds were identified, which correlates with previous studies that have found that no single breed of dog is more likely to attack than another. The results of these studies make it clear that the solution to preventing future dog attacks is better management and husbandry practices, and not banning specific breeds.

The findings from this study are intriguing, although not entirely surprising. Here are the various factors they found to be commonplace in fatal dog attacks:

#1: There is no able-bodied person present to intervene (87.1%)

This common factor is why I persistently beg parents not to leave their infants or young children alone with a dog under any circumstances. It only takes a split second for a tragedy to occur, and this staggering statistic shows just how vital it is for an able-bodied person to be present in case of an incident between a dog and a child, or any person who is unable to defend themselves against an attack.

#2: The victim has no prior relationship with the dog (85.2%)

This factor serves as an important reminder that we need to be particularly careful with dogs when there is a new person around them, especially if the dog has a history of fear or aggression. The statistic shows that the majority of fatal dog bites occur when the victim does not have a relationship with the dog, so it's important that you manage your dog's environment so that he is not set up for failure and you don't put a guest in a position to get bitten. On the other hand, it's also vital to be careful when you're interacting with unfamiliar dogs.

#3: The dog is not spayed or neutered (84.4%)

There are many reasons why spaying and neutering is important, but this might be the top one. In almost 85 percent of cases, the dogs responsible for fatal attacks on humans were unaltered. Be a smart, responsible owner and spay or neuter your dogs, or properly manage your dog if you prefer not to have them altered. You lessen the chance of your dog being the perpetrator of a fatal attack, and your dogs will be happier and healthier as a result.

#4: The victim is unable to manage their interactions with the dog (77.4%)

Usually due to the victim's age, or as a result of their physical or mental health state, they are compromised in some way. Teaching children how to safely interact with dogs is imperative for preventing fatal attacks, but it's also in the hands of parents and guardians to monitor all interactions between dogs and people who are physically or mentally compromised in any way. Check out our friends with Family Paws Parent Education or American Humane's Pet Meets Baby campaign to learn more about protecting your child from a dog attack.

#5: The dog is not kept as a family pet (76.2%)

We've all seen a "backyard dog"--the dog who barks incessantly at all hours of the day and night and who has minimal interaction with people or other animals. Dogs who live in this way are much more prone to aggressive behavior since they live most of their life without any positive social interaction. This is why chaining and tethering is such a bad idea--it breeds the pent-up frustration that is often a precursor to aggression.

#6: The owner has mismanaged the dog in the past (37.5%) or has abused or neglected the dog (21.1%)

Abuse, neglect, or general poor ownership are all factors that can contribute to aggression and violent behavior in dogs. Dogs who are starved or who suffer physical abuse or mental intimidation can seemingly "snap," even though the frustration has been building long before an attack ever happens. If you suspect a dog you know of suffering from abuse or neglect, contact your local authorities.

[BlaznHotAussies]

Excellent article! thanks for posting.

Not so sure about the chaining and tethering comment, I've had to start tying my BC up because he tends to wander (and sadly our house here on the farm doesn't have an enclosed backyard, I've been looking into it though...would help if he didn't jump out of anything smaller than 8ft) and there are sheep in the paddock our house is in at the moment. I think to a point, just making sure the dog has a run a few times a day and toilet breaks would avoid the frustration there. BUT I think the article may be meaning dogs that are tied up all the time and not taken for walks or toilet breaks and have no interaction with anyone. That would send one batty.

The other points are excellent though. #4 is interesting because I think less people understand dog body language to be able to recognise when a dog is reaching a limit and usually it's not until they actually snarl or snap that they take away the pressure the dog is feeling (such as a child). Like that video that was posted on here a while ago of that Rottweiller with a kid bouncing up and down on it while they dog was showing warning signs and the parents were laughing and cheering the kid on...

And I did not know about #3. But it makes sense!

Sorry for the waffle... I just thought it was interesting.

[Dory the Doted One]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

[Remarkabull]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

[The Spotted Devil]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

I suspect it's an associative rather than a causal factor. In fact "not kept as a family pet" and a consequent lack of socialisation may equate with an owner who is less likely to have the dog desexed. So being entire is reflective of owner choices rather than dog factors.

[Diva]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

The way they interpret that stat is very poor science imho. They leap to the assumption that it is a cause not just a correlation. That is just bias.

[megan_]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

That is not what the article is saying - it is saying these are common factors.

[mita]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

I suspect it's an associative rather than a causal factor. In fact "not kept as a family pet" and a consequent lack of socialisation may equate with an owner who is less likely to have the dog desexed. So being entire is reflective of owner choices rather than dog factors.

Good point. Further research which unpicks owner-related factors would be a good next step. That is, the characteristics & behaviours of owners who enable the circumstances teased out in this current study. I remember reading of another US study which found interesting connections in this regard ... wish I could locate it again.

But, overall this study is a valuable entry point into better understandings of fatal dog attacks/bites.

There's another thing to remember when reading data that shows statistically significant connections... like that weighting towards undesexed dogs. That just shows a trend. It doesn't predict for an individual, particular dog. So that particular statistic is not saying that, any undesexed dog will bite.... nor can it be concluded that any desexed dog will not bite.

BTW the full account of this study is good to read:

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/potentially-preventable-husbandry-factors-co-occur-in-most-dog-bite-related-fatalities/?fb_action_ids=10202687102200969

Edited December 7, 2013 by mita

[tdierikx]

I'm not convinced that intact dogs have a propensity to bite more often than desexed dogs - more like the people who do not train or socialise their dogs may be more likely to not bother with desexing either.

The rest of the items are interesting though... and do show that there is very much a correlation to dog bites more likely happening when a dog hasn't been socialised properly.

T.

[mita]

.... which is why the authors of the study, support the trend towards a multifactorial approach in preventing dog bites. They do not single out any one factor that was uncovered , as a total explanation. What they uncovered were statistically significant 'risk factors'. It's a mix of risk factors that counts:

Their summary:

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.

[emgem]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

The way they interpret that stat is very poor science imho. They leap to the assumption that it is a cause not just a correlation. That is just bias.

It isn't poor science. I checked out the actual paper. They only use descriptive statistics, which is entirely appropriate for a study of that size. They also discuss the limitations of the study in the results.

[Diva]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

Agree with this. There is way more to it than a dog biting simply because it is entire.

The way they interpret that stat is very poor science imho. They leap to the assumption that it is a cause not just a correlation. That is just bias.

It isn't poor science. I checked out the actual paper. They only use descriptive statistics, which is entirely appropriate for a study of that size. They also discuss the limitations of the study in the results.

I consider the way it is reported here is inappropriate. I think saying that desexing your dog reduces its chances of being the perpetrator of a fatal attack is irresponsible. I was referring to that interpretation in this article, which is the communication that targets the public audience. The study itself might be fine, but very few people ever read the study, they read these kind of media releases. The accuracy of the communication of science is very important.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Diva

[mita]

Which is why I gave a link to a fair interpretation of the study, on the National Canine Research site. Where it repeated the researchers' point about the coming together of a mix of risk factors:

POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE FACTORS

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 OP article had been channelled thro' someone else who was not associated with research. That person added their own prescriptions of what people should or should not do. It was more about that person than the study.

Edited December 7, 2013 by mita

[Jed]

I would question the third point. I don't doubt that the statistic is correct, but to just say undesexed dogs bite is too simplistic.

I think it is an excellent article, corresponds with proper research done by others.

I thine #3 is a bit simplistic. I don't think that it is that the dogs are undesexed, it is more the whole culture which goes with "not having your dog desexed".

There are plenty of undesexed show dogs of all breeds who interact with each other and strangers weekly, and it is a rare one which might bite (and everyone knows and talks about it!! LOL) because the culture is so different.

Other research suggests that chained dogs become more territorial of the area within their chained limits, and are more likely to bite if that space is entered - ie by strangers. There are lots of stats on incidences where the dog bit/killed because someone wandered into the area it occupied. Both children and adults were bitten or killed, mostly people that the dog did not know. This was more likely to happen than if the dog was kept behind a fence (ie in a houseyard). And that applied to all breeds.

It is interesting that a German Shepherd killed a toddler last week in Townsville, and the incident hardly made the papers. It was only in the Townsville paper

[sandgrubber]

I don't much care for articles that take points from another article and append their own interpretation to each point, along with removing the caveats and the original author's conclusions and discussion.

Is the original article available (preferably without having to pay $30 or some such).

[Kirislin]

I didn't see any mention of the size of the dogs.

[emgem]

Is the original article available (preferably without having to pay $30 or some such).

Not that I can see. I only got a copy because my work place subscribes. Unlike human medicine, veterinary medicine is not moving toward open access unfortunately.

[BlackJaq]

I didn't see any mention of the size of the dogs.

Maybe it's not as big a factor as the big vs little factions would have us believe?

[Amax-1]

no single breed of dog is more likely to attack than another

Personally I think that should read "no individual dog of any particular breed is more likely to attack than another, however some breeds produce more individual dogs who are likely to attack more frequently than others". The term "likely to attack" is a very wide spectrum dependant on the circumstance triggering a potential attack.

#3: The dog is not spayed or neutered (84.4%)

Again in some circumstances an entire male is more likely to attack for example in the presence of a bitch in season and they can possess more fight drive in a territorial aspect but whether or not an entire dog is likely to attack someone unprovoked than a neutered male I have never seen a study that actually proves that. An entire female can attack in protection of her pups too, but would she bite someone randomly for no reason because she is entire?

#6: The owner has mismanaged the dog in the past (37.5%) or has abused or neglected the dog (21.1%)

Mismanagement of a dog IMHO is the sole reason attacks occur in the first place.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Amax-1

[BlackJaq]

Agree with the mismanagement. If the handler was controlling the dog then the attack would not be occurring.

Would be interested in their definition of "mismanagement in the past"