Thursday, 28 May 2015

Dog bites and canine-related injuries: Research review



Rottweiler (Wikimedia)
Rottweiler (Wikimedia)
As the weather warms and more children play outside, the unfortunate but predictable phenomenon of dog bites and attacks inevitably comes back into the news. Conditioned to find the proverbial “man bites dog” narrative, reporters often write an obligatory one-time story about such incidents. But it may be worth putting dog attacks into a larger context, acknowledging both the scope of this continuing public health problem, the research history and the ambiguity of some typical policies proposed. That perspective can serve as an antidote both to sensationalism and overreaction and to indifference — dogs have lived with humans for centuries, after all — toward a systemic problem that might be substantially alleviated.
Roughly 4.4 million people a year are bitten by a dog in the United States, resulting in an estimated 885,000 injuries that require medical attention, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). About half of these injuries are sustained by children. Some 31,000 people required reconstructive surgery because of dog bites in the year 2006 alone. Hospital costs for these injuries are estimated at more than $100 million annually.
A 2008 study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association surveyed more than 800 dog owners and concluded that “dog owners frequently had only limited knowledge of dog behavior and often were unaware of factors that increased the risk of dog bites to children.” The paper recommends further “education of dog owners regarding dog behavior, including body language, social signals, resource-guarding, and self-defense, and the risks of dog bites to infants and young children.”
As the American Veterinary Medical Association noted in a comprehensive 2001 report titled “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention,” towns and cities are often spurred to action by a particularly severe dog attack case, but the responses are not always effective and policy debates can divide communities. The report notes:
An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous.” This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.” Although this is a common concern, singling out one or two breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens. Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury.
Pitbull_WikipediaThe issue of the risks associated with certain dog breeds — in particular, whether pit pulls and Rottweilers are always significantly more dangerous — is a controversial one. The CDC issued a report on the issue, “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.” However, the CDC warns that the report “does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.” On average approximately 16 people in the United States die annually as a result of dog attacks, the CDC notes, and thus it is difficult to draw strong statistical conclusions about particular breeds. Still, the numbers in the report highlight patterns that align with common sense: Great Danes and chow chows, for example, were involved in few fatal incidents, while pit bull-types and Rottweilers were involved in more than 100 fatal incidents over the period 1979-1998. (For more on this research, see the report’s abstract below.) Some researchcontinues to call into question any strong association specifically between dog breed and the likelihood of fatalities.
Research has suggested that educating children — who are bitten at much higher rates than adults — may be an effective way of helping to prevent injuries; video programs have even been explored for very young children. However, some researchers believe there is not enough evidence to suggest that such education programs are effective. Scholars have also investigated how best to educate parents, and a 2003 study concluded that perhaps two-thirds of child injuries might be prevented through parental education. In any case, some studies have shown that unsupervised children, in particular, are vulnerable, and that family pets, once they bite, may be likely to do so again.
The following are studies and reports relating to the risks of dog bites and attacks:
_______

“Co-occurrence of Potentially Preventable Factors in 256 Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States (2000-2009)”
Patronek GJ; Sacks JJ; Delise KM; Cleary DV; Marder AR. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013 Dec 15, 243(12):1726-36. doi: 10.2460/javma.243.12.1726.
Abstract: “OBJECTIVE: To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies. DESIGN: 56 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009. PROCEDURES: DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.”

“Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs”
Bini, J.K.; Cohn, S.M.; Acosta, S.M.; McFarland, M.J.; Muir, M.T.; Michalek, J.E. Annals of Surgery, 2011; Vol. 253, Issue 4, 791-7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318211cd68.
Abstract: “Maiming and death due to dog bites are uncommon but preventable tragedies. We postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls…. We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our level I trauma center with dog bites during a 15-year period. We determined the demographic characteristics of the patients, their outcomes, and the breed and characteristics of the dogs that caused the injuries…. Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041)…. Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.”

“Dog Bites: Still a Problem?”
Gilchrist, J.; Sacks, J.J.; White, D.; Kresnow, M.J. Injury Prevention, October 2008, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 296-301. doi: 10.1136/ip.2007.016220
Abstract: “Weighted estimates were generated from data collected by surveying 9684 households during 2001-2003 and compared with results from a similar survey conducted in 1994. Estimates for persons aged 15-17 years were extrapolated on the basis of rates for 10-14-year-olds. Whereas the incidence of dog bites among adults remained relatively unchanged, there was a significant (47%) decline in the incidence of dog bites among children compared with that observed in the 1994 survey, particularly among boys and among those aged 0-4 years. Between 2001 and 2003, an estimated 4,521,300 persons were bitten each year. Of these, 885,000 required medical attention (19%). Children were more likely than adults to receive medical attention for a dog bite. Among adults, bite rates decreased with increasing age. Among children and adults, having a dog in the household was associated with a significantly increased incidence of dog bites, with increasing incidence also related to increasing numbers of dogs. Dog bites continue to be a public health problem affecting 1.5% of the U.S. population annually. Although comparison with similar data from 1994 suggests that bite rates for children are decreasing, there still appears to be a need for effective prevention programs.”

“Behavioral Characteristics Associated with Dog Bites to Children Presenting to an Urban Trauma Centre”
Reisner, Ilana R.; Nance, Michael L.; Zeller, Jason S.; Houseknecht, Eileen M.; Kassam-Adams, Nancy; Wiebe, Douglas J. Injury Prevention, 2011, Vol. 17, 348-353. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029868
Abstract: “Children are the most frequent victims of dog bites presenting to hospital emergency departments (ED), but there are gaps in understanding of the circumstances of such bites. The objective of this study was to characterise the behavioural circumstances of dog bites by interviewing children ≤17 years (or parent proxies for children ≤6 years) presenting with dog bite injuries to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia about the bite incident, its setting and associated interactions. Of 203 children enrolled, 51% were <7 years old and 55% were male. 72% of children knew the biting dog. Most bites to younger children occurred during positive interactions, initiated by the child, with stationary, familiar dogs, indoors. Most older bitten children had been active (e.g., outdoors), unfamiliar with the dog and not interacting. Whereas face bites predominated (70%) in the younger group (<7 years), bites to extremities predominated (72%) in the older group. Recognition of the two distinctive behavioural and circumstantial subgroups of dog bites that emerged can lead to more effective prevention strategies.”

“Behavioral Assessment of Child-directed Canine Aggression”
Reisner, Ilana R.; Shofer, Frances S.; Nance, Michael L.. Injury Prevention, 2007, Vol. 13, 348-351. doi:10.1136/ip.2007.015396.
Abstract: “Records of bites to 111 children were examined. Children <6 years old were most commonly bitten in association with resource guarding (44%), whereas older children were most commonly bitten in association with territory guarding (23%). Similarly, food guarding was the most common circumstance for bites to familiar children (42%) and territory guarding for bites to unfamiliar children (53%). Behavioral screening of the 103 dogs examined revealed resource guarding (61%) and discipline measures (59%) as the most common stimuli for aggression. Anxiety screens revealed abnormalities in 77% of dogs. Potential contributory medical conditions were identified/suspected in 50% of dogs. When history before presentation was known, 66% of dogs had never previously bitten a child, and 19% had never bitten any human. Most dogs (93%) were neutered, and 66% of owners had taken their dogs to obedience training classes.… Most children were bitten by dogs with no history of biting children. There is a high rate of behavioral abnormalities (aggression and anxiety) in this canine population. Common calming measures (neutering, training) were not routinely effective deterrents.”

“Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998”
Sacks, J.J.; Sinclair, L.; Gilchrist, J.; Golab, G.C.; Lockwood, R. Journal of the American Medical Association, September 2000, Vol. 217, Issue 6, 836-40.
Abstract: “Dogs for which breed was reported involved in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF). Data for human DBRF identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of the Humane Society of the United States’ registry databank. During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property. Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”

“Dog Bite-related Fatalities: a 15-year Review of Kentucky Medical Examiner Cases”
Shields, L.B.; Bernstein, M.L.; Hunsaker, J.C.; Stewart, D.M. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, September 2009, 223-230.
Abstract: “A human dog bite-related fatality generally refers to death proximately caused by trauma from a dog’s teeth and jaws. According to the Humane Society of the United States, more than 300 individuals died of dog attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1996. Children <12 and elders >70 years represent the typical victims. Pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities. This is a 15-year (1991-2005) retrospective review of dog bite-related fatalities undergoing medicolegal investigation in Kentucky. Of the 11 deaths, 10 consisted of multiple bite marks and blunt force injuries of the head and neck, trunk and extremities. In one case, an asplenic victim’s immediate cause of death was bacterial sepsis secondary to a dog bite. Individuals ranged between 14 months and 87 years; 7 (63.6%) were <=6 years; 10 (90.9%) individuals were white, and 8 (72.7%) were male. Forensic odontological examinations were performed on the dogs in four cases. The requisite multidisciplinary investigation includes a detailed assessment of the scene, the victim, and dog or dogs suspected in the attack.”

“A Comparison of Dog Bite Injuries in Younger and Older Children Treated in a Pediatric Emergency Department”Bernardo, LM; Gardner, MJ; Rosenfield, RL; Cohen, B; Pitetti, R. Pediatric Emergency Care, Vol. 18, Issue 3, 247-249. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000020405.54334.b8.
Abstract: “Dog bites account for a significant number of traumatic injuries in the pediatric population that often require medical treatment. Although agent, host and environmental characteristics of dog bites have been well documented, no attempt has been made to compare these characteristics by patient age group. The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist in agent, host, and environmental characteristics among younger (less than or equal to 6 y) and older (>7 y) patients treated in a pediatric emergency department (ED) for dog bites. Findings from our study could be used to develop age-specific strategies for dog bite prevention…. The study setting was the ED at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Patients were enrolled between 1999 and 2000 and were identified through a review of ED records (n = 386) of children sustaining dog bites. Records were abstracted with a researcher-designed and validated form for agent (eg, breed, number of biting dogs, owner, rabies status), host (e.g., age, gender, number and location of bites, treatment), and environmental (e.g., bite month and time, bite location, events leading to the bite, ZIP code) characteristics. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical tests…. Children younger than 6 years constituted 52.8% (n = 204) of the sample. As compared with older children, a higher proportion of younger children were bitten by their family dog (chi(2) = 27.64, P = 0.001) whose rabies shots were up to date (chi(2) = 12.08, P = 0.034). A higher proportion of younger children were bitten on the face (chi(2) = 49.54, P = 0.000) and were bitten in their own homes (chi(2) = 16.075, P = 0.013)…. Young children frequently sustain dog bites from their family dog in their own homes. Injuries typically involve severe lacerations to the face. Prevention strategies for young children include close supervision of child-dog interactions.”

“Effectiveness of Breed-specific Legislation in Decreasing the Incidence of Dog-bite Injury Hospitalizations in People in the Canadian Province of Manitoba”
Malathi Raghavan; Patricia J. Martens; Dan Chateau; Charles Burchill. Injury Prevention, June 30, 2012. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040389
Abstract: “The city of Winnipeg was the first among several jurisdictions in Manitoba, Canada, to introduce breed-specific legislation (BSL) by banning pit-bull type dogs in 1990. The objective of the present work was to study the effectiveness of BSL in Manitoba…. Temporal differences in incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations (DBIH) within and across Manitoba jurisdictions with and without BSL were compared. Incidence was calculated as the number of unique cases of DBIH divided by the total person-years at risk and expressed as the number per 100,000 person-years. Year of implementation determined the pre-BSL and post-BSL period for jurisdictions with BSL; for jurisdictions without BSL to date, the entire study period (1984-2006) was considered as the preimplementation period… A total of 16 urban and rural jurisdictions with pit-bull bans were identified. At the provincial level, there was a significant reduction in DBIH rates from the pre-BSL to post-BSL period (3.47 (95% CI 3.17 to 3.77) per 100,000 person-years to 2.84 (95% CI 2.53 to 3.15); p=0.005). In regression restricted to two urban jurisdictions, DBIH rate in Winnipeg relative to Brandon (a city without BSL) was significantly (p<0.001) lower after BSL (rate ratio (RR)=1.10 in people of all ages and 0.92 in those aged <20 years) than before (RR=1.29 and 1.28, respectively). BSL may have resulted in a reduction of DBIH in Winnipeg, and appeared more effective in protecting those aged <20 years.”

“Dog Bite and Injury Prevention: Analysis, Critical Review and Research Agenda”
Ozanne-Smith, J.; Ashby, K.; Stathakis, V.Z. Injury Prevention, 2001, Vol. 7, 321-326. doi:10.1136/ip.7.4.321.
Abstract: “The Australian dog bite death rate (0.004/100,000) is lower than both the United States (0.05-0.07/100,000) and Canadian rates (0.007/100,000). [Victora state] hospitalized trend rates were stable between 1987 and 1998, but there was a decline for children <5 years (p=0.019) corresponding with a reduction in dog ownership. Children 0-4 years have the highest rate of serious injury, particularly facial. Adults have longer hospitalizations, most frequently for upper extremity injury. Risk factors include: child, males, households with dogs, certain breeds, male dogs, home location, and leashed dog…. Dog bite rates are high and it may therefore be assumed that current preventative interventions are inadequate. Responsible dog ownership, including separating young children from dogs, avoiding high-risk dogs, neutering, regulatory enforcement and standardized monitoring of bite rates are required. Controlled investigations of further risk and protective factors, and validated methods of breed identification, are needed.”
Tags: youth, safety, consumer affairs

Writer:  | July 20, 2014

Friday, 22 May 2015

Pit Bull Forum On Studio 10

On the 27th of March, Studio 10 had a news article on a boy who was mauled by a ‘pit bull’, but the pit bull was not euthanised, but instead desexed and defanged.
The panel questioned why anyone would have a pit bull when they’re ‘not pets’, and ‘they’re fighting dogs’, with a history of ‘bad accidents’. They criticised public response to this incident saying, “I don’t understand how they’re blaming the babysitter instead of the owner of the dog”.
Paula Abdul is the only one who says anything mildly positive, with “not every part of that breed is bad”.
Understandably, dog lovers were pretty unimpressed with this coverage and criticised Studio 10 through social media.
And Studio 10 then had a ‘right of reply’ panel. And here is how it went down.
While the guise of this discussion was providing balance, Studio 10 clearly pulled the shots, asked the questions, and didn’t provide adequate right-of-reply in many instances. Here’s a blow by blow of what was said… And what I would’ve said.
The little starting introductory video/graphic describes some dog breeds being ‘banned in Australia’, and then describes that in 2011 half of dog attacks were by five breeds (Bull Terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, German Shepherd Dogs, and Rottweilers). It then goes on to make the claim that bites by restricted breeds are decreasing.
There’s a lot of stuff in this that the expert panel did not get a chance to address!
  • Firstly, no breed is banned in Australia. The five breeds listed are ‘restricted breeds’, meaning that the way they are owned is regulated by most states, but no state outwardly bans them.
  • While we can dispute the validity of the statistics on breed attacks, it should be pointed out that the pit bull terrier does not appear in the list of breeds involved in half of all dog attacks.
  • While bites by restricted breeds may be decreasing (and I’m not even sure if that is true), that doesn’t mean bites overall are decreasing.

Studio 10 asks, “Why do you think pit bulls have such a bad public perception?”
Dr Andrew O’Shea, from the Australasian Veterinary Association, answers this: Because the media chooses to report on pit bull attacks almost exclusively. The media sensationalistness has a lot to answer for. As Dr O’Shea points out, many reports are ‘it’s a pit bull terrier’, when it’s not really. Dr O’Shea points out that the media makes them out to be ‘more dangerous’, but in reality they’re probably just as dangerous as any dog of a similar size. Any dog with teeth can bite.

“But Dr O’Shea, I’m confused though, because the media is reporting we’re told, say by the police and other people at the scene, and I think, there is, like you say, there’s a bit of confusion about talking about pit bulls, er, are the crossed with staffordshire terriers, I mean, I must say, sitting here in the studio, I’m very nervous, I’m, I mean, because of the dogs. I feel frightened.”
Not really a question, nor articulately asked, but then you didn’t give the panel a chance to reply either.
What is significant is not just that the media is reporting on ‘pit bull’ attacks, but the fact that attacks by breeds that are not pit bulls are not reported on. For example, in Port Lincoln an 8 year old boys had his nose bitten off by an Australian bulldog. This barely made the news, andwhen it did, the report focussed on the death of Ayen Chol by a pit bull. While the news heavily reported on Isabelle Dinoire who received the first face transplant, but neglected to report that her facial injuries were as a result of a labrador mauling.
The fact that you feel frightened is probably a consequence of the media hysteria surrounding pit bulls. I am sorry that you’re fearful, but your fear is illegitimate, and proves that we need to reassess the way dog attacks are perpetuated in the media. When two dogs lay in a relaxed and quiet way in a studio (a totally foreign environment to them), and they are regarded as scary, then the community clearly needs a much more comprehensive understanding of dogs and dog behaviour.

“Centuries ago, they were bred as fighting dogs. Am I right in saying that?”
Dr O’Shea responds to this by basically agreeing, but argues that defining ‘pit bulls’ is complex, and many dogs that look like a pit bull are classified as one despite not being one. And despite being crossbreed. He says that because they’re a bigger breed and tend to be reactive, they seem to get a bad name.
However, I would’ve taken a different response in responding here… I would’ve said:
Yes, but many dogs have roles now vastly different to their original purpose. Many Labradors are bred to assist blind people – while their original purpose was to carry dead birds around. Many German Shepherds are bred for multi-purpose police roles, including biting people, while their original purpose was herding sheep. Many people own terrier breeds who were bred to kill small vermin. Overtime, breed roles change. Additionally, within a breed, there are many variations in terms of personality and type. If you look at the greyhound industry, you’ll see a vast number of greys are killed for not meeting the task at hand, despite breeding specifically for running fast after quarry. You can imagine, in our current era, where dogs are primarily bred as pets, the history of a dog does not have a large implication on the temperament of the dogs we see today.

“A big reactive dog sounds quite scary to me, though. I mean, why, why, what I don’t understand is why people are so passionate about pit bulls in particular. Like, why, I mean, surely, if if, the restrictions at the moment seem to be working at the moment, and the number of attacks is going down, and surely if there is, er, some evidence … For example, you’d be familiar, Dr Hugh Worth, the head of the RSPCA, in 2009 said that there was absolutely no place for these dogs in Australia. He said they were time bombs. He said they should be banned. Now everyone here, I’m sure, who has any knowledge of animal welfare issues knows who Hugh Worth is. He is a very respected veterinarian. The RSPCA is an organisation that is there to prevent the cruelty to animals and protect them. If he is saying it, surely, surely not getting your personal favourite breed of dog is a small price to pay for knowing that kids could be safer. And adults,” say Joe Hildebrand.
“What do you think about that Melanie?” says the host.
Wow, give poor Melanie a chance. There’s about a million points there.
Melanie tries, she says that while ‘the laws appear to be working’ you will probably see that attacks haven’t gone down, but they have stayed the same or risen. She asks if we want to see dog bites to go down, or do we want to see pit bull bites to go down? Maybe pit bull bites are going down, but surely we want dog bites to be going down full stop.
Then Melanie got cut off before she got a chance to say all I would’ve:
  • This is not about people having a dummy spit for not being allowed to own pit bulls. The issue is that banning pit bulls does not make kids and adults safer.
  • There is not a reduction in dog attacks in all, just dog attacks by restricted breeds. So the community isn’t safer from a pit bull ban, they’re just less likely to be bitten by them. (Just like if you banned Ferraris, no more people would die from Ferrari related accidents. But people would still die in car accidents.)
  • Dr Hugh Worth is known as Dr Hugh Worthless by many animal-lovers in Australia. ‘Nough said.
  • The RSPCA is not very well respected and does a pretty poor job at protecting animals.

Joe Hildebrand talks about serious pit bull attacks, and includes footage of a guy severely mauled by three American Staffordshire Terriers. He argues that the severity and frequency of these attacks should see the breed banned.
Again, no real chance of reply is provided. So my reply would include:
  • Hi. The dogs in that video are American Staffordshire Terriers. Not pit bulls.
  • Also, people die from weimaraner and jack russell bites, too. The media often fails to report on these attacks, or when they do so, they report in a different way. (For example,Buster the golden retriever attacked 4 people and the media at the time mostly reported on ‘why would a golden retriever attack?’ instead of the ‘golden retrievers should be banned’ approach we see after bull breed attacks.)
“So you’re not hearing of labradors, or maltese terriers, or toy poodles causing this damage…” says Sarah Harris.
Ambulance guy (from the expert panel) says he’s been to attacks of lots of different breeds. He says that he “can’t tell the breeds apart to be honest” and “In my experience… all dogs can bite. It doesn’t matter what kind of breed it is” and ‘the bigger the dog, the bigger the bite’.
I would elaborate this response, if I had the opportunity, to when you say ‘you’re not hearing of’ attacks by different breeds, that’s because you’re not reporting them. 

It’s how you train the dog, surely?
Yay, a decent question! Ambulance guy says that he trains his dogs and doesn’t leave them alone with kids. Good advice!

“Brad can talk through how the behaviour works. I mean, are pit bulls aggressive dogs?”
Brad was methodical in his response to this question.
It’s about preventing dog bites. You want the community to be safer, right?
Are you attached to the how (BSL)? Or are you attached to the outcome?
When we look around the world at measures used to reduce dog bite statistics to as low as possible, we see that success is based on behaviour-based strategies and not breed.
“You’ll never get rid of [dog bites] – get rid of 400 breeds – right? It doesn’t really matter.”
Go Brad.

“When we were talking about this last week, a 4 year old boy had been attacked and terribly mauled and there was a question mark over the fate of the dog who did that. And I must say, as a mother, I would want that dog destroyed. I wouldn’t want to be standing up let’s protect this dog because he’s just.. severely injured this child, potentially could’ve killed this child. To me, isn’t that more of the issue?”
Brad answers this one as well.
This is the result of a ‘tragic convergence of errors’.
The dog was chained – chained dogs are more likely to bite.
The babysitter was there – not the owner.
The dog was large – larger dog, larger damage.
The child wasn’t adequately supervised
Well done Brad, again.

Joe Hildebrand wants hands to be raised for anyone who thinks dogs that attack a child should be killed. (That is, he fails to acknowledge the factors affecting the likelihood of a dog bite, as described by Brad.)
There is no place in society for a dangerous dog. What makes a dog dangerous is based upon the behaviour of the individual.

The whole thing got a little bit messy, with Joe Hildebrand speaking over Brad and Brad refusing to be spoken over. In summary:
  • There is a perception in the community that dogs are dangerous and
  • NSW statistics show that the pit bull terrier is the most dangerous breed of dog.
Brad replied that:
  • Perception is only perception, and
  • Those statistics are invalid, and
  • It doesn’t matter: We know what causes dog bites, globally, and we know that BSL doesn’t work.

We were talking about whether a dog who attacked a toddler should be destroyed.
Dr O’Shea says it’s context based. A good call.

-
And this is where this exchange ends.
So do you think the expert panel was given a fair chance?

Further reading:

In addition to the above countries that have repealed breed specific legislation, many cities in the United States have repealed BSL

BSL Studies
 
The available studies on breed specific legislation all lead to the same conclusion.... dog bites do not decrease in communities where breed bans and/or regulations have been passed.  In fact, the statistics related to dog bites remain at relatively the same rate year after year.  If the goal of breed specific legislation is to reduce and prevent injury from dog bites - yet dog bites continue to occur at comparable rates year after year, even in communities with BSL - it is quite clear that breed specific legislation does little to protect the public from dog bites.  The below studies do an excellent job at illustrating the ineffectiveness of breed specific laws.


 
 
You can access the studies and reports where available by clicking the highlighted text.
 
 
In 1996, a Scottish study entitled "Does the Dangerous Dogs Act Protect Against Animal Attacks" looked at the three month period before the implementation of BSL and the three month period after said implementation.  The study found that the banned or regulated breeds contributed to only a small percentage of attacks.  The study further revealed that Alsatians and mongrels (mixed breed dogs) were the most common breed involved (in 24.2% and 18.2% attacks, respectively), while the restricted breeds accounted for only 6.1% of the attacks. 
 
 
In September 2002, the Administrative Court of Berlin ruled null and void the government of Lower Saxony, Germany's breed specific law related to 14 breeds of dogs.  This ruling was based, in part, by a study by Esther Schalke, PhD, DVM, which demonstrated that breed specific legislation was ineffective. 
          
 
In June 2008, the Netherlands repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls after research proved that it did not improve public safety and dog bite incidents did not decrease.

 
 
 
In March 2009, Italy repealed its long-standing breed specific law in which 17 dogs were identified as "dangerous breeds."  The breed ban was replaced with a law making owners more responsible for their pet's training and behavior.
 
 
In June 2008, a report regarding the United Kingdom's Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 was issued.   According to thereport commissioned by pet insurer LV, the number of people hospitalised for dog attacks has increased by almost 50% in the past decade -- this is despite having breed specific legislation in place since 1991.

 
 
 
In 2007, a Spanish study compared dog bites reported to the health department of Aragon, Spain for 5 years before and 5 years after the implementation of breed specific legislation in the form of a Dangerous Dog Act.  The Spanish study concluded, among other things, that there was no change in the number of dog bites reported, and that the restricted breeds, were responsible for less than 4% of the reported bites both before and after the BSL took effect.
 
 
A 2006 Australian study entitiled Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier:  Are the laws justified? concluded that the data collected in the United States to support the theory that pit bulls posed a unique danger to the public is flawed by methodological shortcomings.  The study also concluded that the evidence does not sustain the view that pit bulls are a uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it have not been demonstrated by authorities to be justified by its attack record. 

 
 
___________________
 

In addition to the above countries that have repealed breed specific legislation, many cities in the United States have repealed BSL, as well.  A detailed listing of communities that have repealed or decided against implementing BSL can be found at www.understand-a-bull.com.

Sunday, 17 May 2015

Sugar N' Spice Chihuahua's Dawn Dalyce, Love4Life Rescue's Claudia Smith, Central Valley Companion Sells chihuahuas with physical defects without telling the buyer about them. Doesn't provide the dog's shot records, Modesto California

My wife and I bought "Mookie" a 5 year-old female chihuahua from a pet "rescue" called, "Love 4 Life Rescue" run at the time by Claudia Smith for $250.00. She was formerly used as a breeder, but had outlived her usefulness, so they spayed her and put her up for adoption. The dog was bred by Dawn Dalyce of Sugar N' Spice Chihuahua's. We picked up the dog however from Lori, who she identified as a friend of hers and who she was going to go in the pet rescue business with, who owns Central Valley Companion Rescue in Modesto.

When we picked up the dog from Lori, we were told that Claudia Smith of Love 4 Life Rescue was unavailable to meet us and that she did not have Mookie's shot records, but Claudia Smith would send them thru the mail immediately. Lori assured us for Claudia, that Mookie was current on her shots. It took us calling Claudia Smith at Love 4 Life a number of times, but she finally sent us an expired shot record that was 2 or three years-old.

We ended up taking Mookie to our vet and getting her shots after waiting a week or so, because we have another chihuahua, and we are responsible. As soon as we got Mookie home, we noticed that she limped, and did not want to put weight on her left rear leg. Hoping that it was just temporary, we waited about a week, but when it didn't get any better, we had the vet look at her leg while we were in getting her the shots that Lori at Central Valley Companion Rescue and Claudia Smith at Love 4 Life Rescue had claimed that she'd already had. (Again, they never provided us with a current shot record.)

The doctor, Dr. Elliott, DVM, at Mueller Pet Clinic in Sacramento saw Mookie. He told us that she has a fluxating patella. It is common among chihuahuas. In fact, we were told to look for that on our other chihuahua. Sometimes she will favor a leg briefly, but then gets better. So we knew it was a common problem. Dr. Elliott said that Mookie was no doubt born with the problem, and that it was getting progressively worse. He gave us a written estimate of $1,300.-$2,000. for surgery to repair the problem. He said that we didn't HAVE to get it right away, but that it will only continue to get worse.

She continued to not put weight on the leg, so we contacted Lori at Central Valley Companion Rescue and Claudia Smith at Love 4 Life and asked that we get our $250.00 back to go toward the operation, since they did not disclose the problem, and it was going to cost us so much money. Additionally, we had to spend $180. for the check-up and the shots that they claimed, but never proved that she'd had.

However, I wasn't concerned so much about that as I was the estimate of $1,300.-$2,000. for the surgery. Lori said that she gave the $250.00 to Claudia Smith at Love 4 Life already, but that she too felt that it was only right that we get our money back. I spoke to Claudia Smith and she refused to give us our money back. She tried to claim that she never saw anything wrong with the dog. She was obviously more concerned about her money, than she was the dog. The vet told us that this was definitely not something new, that she'd had it no doubt for some time. Dawn Dalyce the breeder that bred Mookie from Sugar N' Spice Chihuahua's was supposed to be contacted by Claudia Smith who "rescued" Mookie and see about giving us our money back. She has never contacted us.

My problem is two-fold, first, the breeder, Dawn Dalyce of Sugar N' Spice chihuahua's is breeding dogs and not taking proper care of them. She then pawns them off on Claudia Smith of Love 4 Life Rescue, who sells them for $250.00 and does not reveal when the dogs have serious physical defects that are going to cost the buyer a significant amount of money. We will get the surgery for Mookie, if we have to take out a loan! We care about our "babies", it's too bad that Dawn Dalyce of Sugar N' Spice Chihuahuas and Claudia Smith of Love 4 Life Rescue don't care about the dogs that they breed and sell.

I have considered small claims court action, and may still go to court to sue these neglegent people. I also think that the Stanislaus and Merced County Animal Control and SPCA should be made aware of these people. So buyer beware of dogs that come from Sugar N' Spice Chihuahua's and/or from Claudia Smith and the Love 4 Life Rescue.

Steve
West Sacramento, California
U.S.A.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/24/2008 04:02 PM and is a permanent record located here:http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Sugar-N-Spice-Chihuahuas-Dawn-Dalyce-Love4Life-Rescues-Claudia-Smith-Central-Valley-Companion/Modesto-California/Sugar-N-Spice-Chihuahuas-Dawn-Dalyce-Love4Life-Rescues-Claudia-Smith-Central-Valley-C-343796. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.