Pit Bulls & Dog Bite Risk and Prevention: The Role of Breed Literature Review

This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments. It is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy. Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

---

PDF version

Breeds Implicated in Serious Bite Injuries

In a range of studies, the breeds found to frequently appear in lists of dogs implicated in biting incidents were German Shepherd Dog,^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,50} mixed breed,^{1,4,6,8,10,11,12,19,17,20,50}pit bull-type dogs,^{5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27} Rottweiler,^{15, 18,22,24, 25,28} Jack Russell Terrier,^21,25,26 and others (Chow Chow,^7,23  Spaniel,^14,26 Collie,^3,29 Saint Bernard,²⁰ and Labrador Retriever²). If only the cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities^20,22 are considered, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. This may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim’s community, reporting biases, misidentification, and the dog’s treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs²⁰). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to “sled dogs” and Siberian Huskies,⁵² presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds.  See Table 1 for a summary of breed data related to bite injuries.

 

Controlled Studies

The prevalence of particular dog breeds can also change rapidly over time, often influenced by distinct peaks of popularity for specific breeds. It seems that increased popularity is sometimes followed by increases in bite reports in some large breeds. For example there was a distinct peak in American Kennel Club registration of Rottweilers³⁰ between 1990 and 1995, and they emerged at the top of the list of ‘biting breeds’ for the first time in studies of bites causing hospitalization in the late 1990s and early 2000s.^24,25,15,54 While it must be noted that other temporarily popular breeds such as Dalmatians and Irish setters do not seem to make similar appearances, any estimate of breed-based risk must take into account the prevalence of the breed in the population at the time and place of serious biting events.^17,31

For example, researchers can compare well-documented bite cases with dogs living in similar (matched control) households. Using this method, one study found that the breeds disproportionately involved in bite injuries requiring medical attention in the Denver area (where pit bull types are not permitted) were the German Shepherd Dog and Chow Chow.⁶⁰

 

Other studies use estimates of breed prevalence that do not relate specifically to the households where the bites occurred, such as general community surveys, breed registries, dog license databases or animal shelter populations (See Table 2.). A study in Rome, Italy where molloser dogs like the Mastiff are reputed to be the most dangerous dogs, found they were not disproportionately involved in biting incidents when taking into account their prevalence in the community. ³² These prevalence referenced studies attribute somewhat higher risk to a range of breeds including theGerman Shepherd Dog and crosses^{56,57,58,59,60,} and various other breeds (mixed breed,^58,59 Cocker Spaniel,^57,61 Chow Chow,^60,61 Collie,⁵⁷ Doberman,⁵⁶  Lhasa Apso,^40,61 Rottweiler,⁴⁵ Springer Spaniel,³⁹ Shih Tsu,³⁹ and Poodle⁵⁸).

 

Aggressive Breeds

Breeds found to be more aggressive toward people based on behavioral assessments and owner surveys includes tend to belong to small- to medium-sized breeds such as the collies, toy breeds and spaniels.^{33,34,35,36,37}  One survey of general veterinary clientele in Canada (specifically practices in New Brunswick, Novia Scotia, and Prince Edward Island) identified Lhasa Apso, Springer Spaniel and Shih Tsu as more likely to bite.³⁹

When dogs of small stature show aggression aggressive their relatively limited strength means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals or as part of a group of dogs.^38,39 Referrals for aggression problems more closely approximate the breeds implicated in serious bites , possibly because owners are more likely to seek treatment for aggression in dogs that are large enough to do serious damage or pose a significant risk of injury. Larger dogs (regardless of breed) are implicated in more publically reported injuries caused to humans⁴⁰ and other dogs.⁴¹

Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers)^31,39—although these breeds may have aggressive subtypes.⁴² Results relating to German Shepherd Dogs are mixed,^32,43 suggesting there unidentified factors are causing variation in outcomes.

 

Pit Bull types

Owners of dogs that are identified by the community as ‘pit bull type’ may experience a strong breed stigma,⁴⁴ however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a “breed” encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified.⁴⁵ Visual determination of dog breed is known to be unreliable.⁴⁶ As discussed witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a dog that bites is a ‘pit bull’.  

 The incidence of ‘pit bull-type’ dogs’ involvement in severe or fatal attacks may be associated with prevalence of at-risk dogs in neighborhoods with lots of young children. Owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts⁴⁷, so apparent ‘breed correlations’ may be due to patterns in owner behavior.

 

Breed Bans

Most serious dog bite injuries (defined as requiring hospital treatment) in the United States involve victims who are young children,⁵⁰  un-neutered dogs, and dogs familiar to the victim (belonging to the family, a family friend or neighbor).^29,48,49,50Accordingly, responsible ownership and supervision is key to minimizing the risk of dog bites in communities.

Limiting ownership of specific breeds has been suggested by some to reduce injuries(e.g., pit bull type,⁵⁰ German Shepherd Dog⁵¹) however there is no evidence that breed-specific bans reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries the community.^8,52,53 Strategies known decrease the number of dog bites include active enforcement of dog control ordinances.⁵⁴

 

Conclusion

Dogs who bite can seriously injure or kill people⁴³.  It is  natural for those affected to seek to address what they perceive to be the immediate cause, and it is easy to blame breed.  However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: “The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog’s propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.”³⁴  Factors relating to the individual animal (eg, training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) have been shown to be more predictive of dogs bites than has breed.   Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials.³³

 

Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs.  Accordingly, targeting this breed or any another as a basis for dog bite prevention is unfounded. As stated by the National Animal Control Association: “Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.”

 

Summary Tables

Table One
Studies of Serious Dog Bite Injury by Breed

---

 

Period	Data Source	N	Country	Top Two Breeds Identified	Ref
1971	US Dept. Health	843	United States (VA)	mixed breed German Shepherd Dog	1
1971-1974	Hospital records	50	South Africa	German Shepherd Dog Labrador Retriever	2
1973-1976	US Dept. Health	2618	United States (AL)	German Shepherd Dog Collie	3
1979-1982	Health Dept. Severe attacks	16	United States (SC)	pit bull type Saint Bernard	20
1981-1983	US Reservations	772	United States	mixed breed unspecified pedigree	19
1982	Hospital Records	420	Canada	German Shepherd mixed breed	55
1982-1989	Hospital records	146	United Kingdom	pit bull type Jack Russell Terrier	21
1987-1988	HASS	487	United Kingdom	mixed breed German Shepherd Dog	4
1979-1998	Fatalities	27	United States	pitt bull type Rottweiler	22
1969-2007	Fatalities	5	New Zealand	pitt bull type --	56
1989	Hospital records	168	United States	German Shepherd Dog pit bull type	5
1989	Hospital records	75	United Kingdom	German Shepherd Dog mixed breed	6
1991	Animal control records	357	United States	German Shepherd Dog Chow Chow	7
1991+1994	Hospital records	198	United Kingdom	German Shepherd Dog mixed breed	8
1989-1996	Hospital records	1109	United States (CA)	pit bull type German shepherd	9
1990-2007	Fatalities	28	Canada	mixed breed husky “sled dog”	57
1995	Patients receiving rabies post-exposure prophylaxis	~8000	United States (PA)	German Shepherd Dog mixed breed	10
1991-2000	Hospital records	654	Spain	German Shepherd Dog mixed breed	11
1996	Hospital records	1916	Australia	German Shepherd Dog Bull Terrier	58
1995-1997	Animal control	?	United States	pit bull type Chow Chow	23
1997	Hospital records	385	Canada	German Shepherd Dog Cocker Spaniel	11
1998-2002	Hospital records	72	Canada	Rottweiler German Shepherd Dog	59
2002	Accident compensation claims	535	New Zealand	Mixed breed German shepherd dog	17
1991-2004	Hospital records	25	South Africa	pit bull type German Shepherd Dog	60
1994-2005	Hospital records	341	Austria	mixed breed German Shepherd Dog	12
1997-2003	Hospital records	11	United States	Rottweiler German Shepherd Dog	15
2001-2002	ACC claims	3020	New Zealand	German Shepherd Dog pit bull type	13
2000-2004	Hospital records	593	United Kingdom	Rottweiler Jack Russell Terrier	25
2001-2005	Hospital records	551	United States	pit bull type Rottweiler	24
2002-2005	Veterinary referral	111	United States (PA)	Springer Spaniel German Shepherd Dog	14
2004-2005	Survey based on Dog Bite Line contacts	234	Ireland	Collie Spaniel	26
2001-2011	Hospital records	436	United Kingdom	Staffordshire Bull Terrier Jack Russell Terrier	27
2000-2012	Hospital records	431	Switzerland	German Shepherd Dog Rottweiller	18
2005-2009	Hospital records	40	United States (SC)	Pit bull type Rottweiler	26
2006-2009	Hospital records	203	United States (PA)	Mixed breed Pit bull type	20

 

Table Two

Studies of Serious Dog Bite Injury by Breed taking into Account Breed Prevalence

Period	Data Source	Prevalence estimate	N	Country	Breeds Identified as Higher Risk	Ref
1974-1975	Animal control	Licensed dogs	?	United States (MD)	German Shepherd Dog and shepherd crosses Doberman Pinscher	61
1976-1977	US Bases	Relative risk versus mixed breed	529	United States (IL, MO)	Collie German Shepherd Dog Cocker Spaniel	62
1982	Pediatric practice	Non-biting pets of other patients	194	United States (MO)	German Shepherd Dog and shepherd crosses mixed breed over 30lb Poodle	63
1986-1987	Health Unit	Licensed dogs	318	Canada	German Shepherd Dog mixed breed	64
1991	Plastic surgery cases	Prevalence in community	146	Australia	German Shepherd Dog	46
1991	Animal control	Case controls	178	United States (CO)	German Shepherd Dog Chow Chow	65
1990-1993	Hospital records	Survey	356	Australia	Doberman Pinscher German Shepherd Dog Rottweiler	45
1993	Shelter animals quarantined for biting	General shelter admissions	170	United States (WI)	Chow Chow Cocker Spaniel Lhasa Apso	66
1996	Owner self-report (biters)	Owner self-report (non-biters)	3226	Canada	Lhasa Apso Springer Spaniel Shih Tsu	39
2003-2004	Shelter and Veterinary Hospital records	Registered dogs	290	Italy	Shepherd breeds	32

 

Reference
1 Morton C. Dog bites in Norfolk, VA. Health Seru Rep, 1973;88:59-65.
2 Chait LA,Spitz L. Dogbite injuries in children. S Afr Med J 1975;49:718-720.
3 Maetz, M. Animal bites, a public health problem in Jefferson County, Alabama. Public Health Rep 1979;94: 528-534.
4 Levene S. Dog bites to children. BMJ 1991;303:466.
5 Avner JR, Baker MD. Dog bites in urban children. Pediatrics. 1991;88:55-57.
6 Jarrett P. Which dogs bite? Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:33–35.
7 Patrick GR, O'Rourke KM. Dog and cat bites: epidemiologic analyses suggest different prevention strategies. Public Health Rep 1998;113:252­257.
8 Klaassen B, Buckley JR, Esmail A. Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the accident and emergency department. Injury 1996; 27: 89-91.
9 Meade, P. Police and domestic dog bite injuries: What are the differences? What are the implications about police dog use? Injury Extra 2006;37:395-401.
10 Moore DA, Sischo WM, Hunter A, et al. Animal bite epidemiology and surveillance for rabies postexposure prophylaxis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:190–194.
11 Mendez Gallart R, Gomez Tellado M, Somoza Argibay I, Liras Munoz J, Pais Pineiro E, Vela Nieto D. Dog bite related injuries treated in a pediatric surgery department: analysis of 654 cases in 10 years. An Esp Pediatr. 2002;56:425–429.
12 Schalamon J. Analysis of dog bites in children who are younger than 17 years. Pediatrics 2006;117:374–379.
13 Wake AF. The Aetiology of Dog Bites in New Zealand, [MSc thesis], Palmerston North: Massey University, 2005.
14 Reisner, IR. Assessment, management, and prognosis of canine dominated-related aggression. The Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 1997;27:479–495.
15 Benson LS, Edwards SL, Schiff AP, et al. Dog and cat bites to the hand: treatment and cost assessment. J Hand Surg [Am] 2006; 31: 468-473.
16 Ashby K. Dog bites. Victorian Injury Surveillance System. Hazard 1996; 26: 7-13.
17 Wake A, Minot E, Stafford K, Perry P. A survey of adult victims of dog bites in New Zealand. New Zeal Vet J 2009;  57:364-369.
18 Pfortmueller CA, Efeoglou A, Furrer H, Exadaktylos AK. Dog Bite Injuries: Primary and Secondary Emergency Department Presentations—A Retrospective Cohort Study. Sci World J 2013;2013:1-6.
19 Daniels TJ. A study of dog bites on the Navajo reservation. Public Health Rep 1986;101:50-59.
20 Reisner IR, Shofer FS, Nance NL. Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression. Inj Prev 2007;13:348-351.
21 Wright JC. Severe attacks by dogs: characteristics of the dogs, the victims, and the attack settings. Public Health Rep 1985;100:55–61.
22 Shewell PC, Nancarrow JD. Dogs that bite. BMJ 1997;303:1512–13.
23 Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000; 217: 836–840.
24 Blocker DE. Dog bite rates and biting dog breeds in Texas, 1995-1997. Masters Thesis 2000.
25 Kaye AE, Belz JM, Kirschner RE. Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5 Year Review of the Experience at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124:551-558.
26 Horswell BB, Chahine CJ. Dog bites of the face, head and neck in children. West Virg Med J 2010;107:24-27
27 Kasbekar AV, Garfit H, Duncan C, Mehta B, Davies K, Narasimhan G, Donne A. Dog bites to the head and neck in children; an increasing problem in the UK. Clin Otolaryngology 2013;38:259-262.
28 Thompson P. Aggression Effects - From a Human Perspective and Solutions. Urban Animal anagement Conference Proceedings 2004.
29 O'Sullivan E. Characteristics of 234 dog bite incidents in Ireland during 2004 and 2005. Vet Rec 2008;163:37-42.
30 Herzog H. Forty-two Thousand and One Dalmatians: Fads, Social Contagion, and Dog Breed Popularity. Society and Animals 2006;4:383-398.
31 Cunningham, L. The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination By Homeowners' Insurance Companies. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 2004;11:61.
32 Maragliano L, Ciccone G, Fantini C, Petrangeli C, Saporito G, Di Traglia M, Natoli E. Biting dogs in Rome (Italy). Int J pest manag 2007;4:329-334.
33 Fatjó J, Amat M, Mariotti VM, Torre JLR, Manteca X. Analysis of 1040 cases of canine aggression in a referral practice in Spain. J Vet Behav 2007; 2:158-65.
34 Duffy, DL., Hsu, Y. Serpell, JA. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;114:441–460.
35 Draper, T.W., Canine analogs of human personality factors. J Gen Psyc 1995;122: 241–252.
36 Lund JD, Agger JF, Vestergaard KS. Reported behaviour problems in pet dogs in Denmark: age distribution and influence of breed and gender. Preventative Vet med 1996;28:33-48
37 Duffy D, Yuying H, Serpell J. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;114.3: 441-460.
38 Borchelt PL, Lockwood R, Beck AM, Voith VL. Attacks by packs of dogs involve predation on human beings. Public Health Reports 1983;98:57-66.
39 Kneafsey B, Condon KC. Severe dog-bite injuries, introducing the concept of pack attack: A literature review and seven case reports. Injury. 1995;26:37–41.
40 Harris D, Imperato PJ, Oken B. Dog bites—an unrecognized epidemic. Bull NY Acad Med 1974;50:981–1000.
41 Roll, A., Unshelm, J. Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1997;52:229–242.
42 van den Berg, L., Schilder, M.B.H., Knol, B.W. Behaviour genetics of canine aggression: behavioural phenotyping of Golden Retrievers by means of an aggression test. Behav Gen 2003;33:469–483.
43 Guy, N, Canine household aggression in the caseload of general veterinary practitioners in Maritime Canada, Master of Science thesis, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, 1999
44 Twining, H., Arluke, A. Patronek, G. Managing stigma of outlaw breeds: A case study of pit bull owners. Society and Animals 2001;8:1-28.
45 Patronek GJ, Sacks JJ, Delise KM, Cleary DV, Marder AR. Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). J Am Vet Med Ass 1031:243;1726-1736.
46 Voith VL, Ingram E, Mitsouras K. Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2009;12:253–262.
47 Ragatz L, Fremouw W, Thomas T, McCoy K. Vicious dogs: the antisocial behaviors and psychological characteristics of owners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009;54:699-703
48 Loewe CL, Francisco JD, Bechinski J. Pitbull mauling deaths in Detroit. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2007;28:356-360.
49 Monroy A, Behar P, Nagy M, Poje C, Pizzuto M, Brodsky L. Head and neck dog bites in children. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg 2009;140:354–357
50 Thompson PG. The public health impact of dog attacks in a major Australian city. Med J Aust 1997;167:129­-32.
51 Greenhalgh C, Cockington R, Raftos I. An epidemiological survey of dog bites presenting to the emergency department of a children's hospital . J Paediatr Child Health 1991; 27: 171-174.
52 Raghavan M, Martens P. Chateau D, Burchill C. Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Inj Prev 2013;19:177-183.
53 Patronek GJ, Slater M, Marder A. Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite–related injury. J Am Vet Med Ass 2010:237;788-792.
54 Clarke NM. A survey of urban Canadian animal control practices : the effect of enforcement and resourcing on the reported dog bite rate, Master of Science – MSc 2009
55 Ordog GJ. Warning to dog owners. Can Family Physic 1984;30:1056.
56 Healey D.  Fatal dog bites in New Zealand. J New Zeal Med Assoc 2007;120:1259.
57 Raghavan M. Fatal dog attacks in Canada, 1990–2007. Can Vet J. 2008;49:577–581.
58 Ashby K. Dog bites. Victorian Injury Surveillance System. Hazard 1996; 26: 7-13.
59 Lang ME, Klassen T. Dog bites in Canadian children: a five-year review of severity and emergency department management. Can J Emerg Med. 2005;7:309–314.
60 Dwyer JP, Douglas TS, van As AB. Dog bites injuries in children—a review of data from a South Africa paediatric trauma unit. 2007;97:597–600.
61 Berzon DR. The animal bite epidemic in Baltimore, Maryland: review and update. Am I Public Health. 1978;68:593-595.
62 Hanna, TL, Selby LA. Characteristics of the human and pet populations in animal bite incidents recorded at two Air Force bases. Public Health Rep. 1981;96:580-584.
63 Lauer EA, White WC, Lauer BA. Dog bites: a neglected problem in accident prevention. AJDC. 1982;136:202-204.
64 Szpakowski NM, Bonnett BN, Martin SW. An epidemiological investigation into the reported incidents of dog biting in the Cityof Guelph. Can Vet J 1989;30:937–942.
65 Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite: a case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913-917.
66 Castelein C, Klouda J, Hirsch H. The bite case scenario—it is not what you think. In: WFHS newsletter. Madison, Wis: Wisconsin Humane Society, 1996;Sep:12–14. Cited in: Overall KL, Love M. Dog bites to humans: demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218:1923-1934.s

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

Pit Bulls & The NCRC dismantles new article saying BSL "works" in Canada

By Karen Delise

A paper published last week in the journal Injury Prevention attempted to make the case that “pit bull” bans in Manitoba may have been effective in reducing dog bite injury hospitalizations (DBIH, in the language of the paper).  [1]  In attempting to do so, however, the authors revealed that the bans, applicable to the overwhelming majority of Manitobans, including citizens of Winnipeg, had not resulted in improved community safety; and that the safety record of Manitoba lags far behind that of breed neutral, responsible pet ownership Calgary.

The before-and-after failure in Manitoba shown in the paper’s data table has been apparent for years. The failure in Manitoba mirrors the failure in every other jurisdiction in Europe and North America where breed-specific regulation has been enacted. [2]

The authors nevertheless convinced themselves and, apparently Injury Prevention, that there was something instructive in the Manitoba experience other than the before-after elephant in the room shown in the data available from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. They divided Manitoba into two parts, employing what social scientists call a “non-equivalent groups design.” [3]  One group consisted of the 16 jurisdictions that had enacted “pit bull” bans. The other group was composed of the rest of the province.  The authors then compared the rate of DBIH per 100,000 person-years between the two groups.

A person-year is equal to one person living in an area under study for one year.

However, in order for such a design to produce a result that might conceivably trump (or “trunk”) the before-after elephant, it is crucial that the two groups have only one difference between them. For the purposes of this study, either communities have “pit bull” bans, or they don’t, so that it might be possible to measure the effect of the one – and only one – difference between them.

The authors’ interest in this analysis may also have benefited from a lack of awareness that neither “pit bull” ban Winnipeg (2.93 DBIH/100,000 person-years before the ban, 2.81 DBIH/100,000 person-years after) nor breed-neutral Brandon (2.50 per 100,000 person-years for the entire study period), the only two urban areas in Manitoba, compare with the City of Calgary, Alberta. In the past 18 months, a total of six Calgary citizens were hospitalized because of a dog bite-related injury.  Since Calgary is a city of 1+ million people, that works out to a rate of 0.4 (that’s right: 0.4 DBIH/100,000 people). [4]

The dismal comparison of Manitoba’s record with Calgary’s notwithstanding, what most compromises the authors’ analysis is that their two groups are not equivalent.   Based upon the population data of sparsely populated Manitoba, we can infer that the two groups have far more differences between them than simply “pit bull” legislation — in terms of demographics, density of human and canine population, dog keeping habits, etc. — that conclusively invalidate any claims based upon this experimental design.

As of June, 2011, the entire population of Manitoba, a province whose land area encompasses 211,700 square miles, was 1.25 million, slightly less than the U.S. city of San Diego (372 square miles). [5]   The population of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority was 709,000, more than half that of the entire province. [6]   More importantly in terms of the paper under discussion, Winnipeg represents almost 90% of the total person-years listed in the study for “pit bull” ban communities. Statistically, the ban “group” consists of Winnipeg.

The only other Manitoba jurisdiction considered urban is Brandon, which has never enacted a “pit bull” ban.  Population of the Brandon Regional Health Authority (RHA) is 56,000 – less than 10% of the RHA population of Winnipeg.  As mentioned above, urban Brandon’s rate of DBIH per 100,000 was approximately the same as urban Winnipeg’s. The rest of Manitoba’s population is spread out over an area of more than 200,000 square miles of land.

In effect, the authors compared one large city, Winnipeg (population density of metropolitan area = 357 people per square mile), with the rural areas of the province (population density, excluding Brandon, 2.3 people per square mile). According to the data published in the paper, the “pit bull” ban group, which, for statistical purposes consisted mostly of Winnipeg, and non-ban Brandon always had lower rates of DBIH than Manitoba’s rural areas.   Given what we know from data compiled in the U.S. and Europe, this is not surprising. [7]

But the only piece of data relevant to the question of effectiveness in advancing community safety is this: Winnipeg did not see any improvement in the rate of DBIH after enacting BSL. In fact, according to data that has been publicly available for years, Winnipeg did not see a reduction in bites of any kind! [8]

The ineffectiveness of Winnipeg’s 22-year-old breed ban has been a topic of heated controversy in that city for many years.  In fact, the city’s remarks about the ban now omit any claim of its being effective in terms of community safety. [9]

It appears that these authors have taken up the cudgel that Winnipeg officials have set down.  In order to find a justification for the breed ban, they created an analysis that ignored the most commonly accepted and easily understood scientific standard for measuring the effectiveness of a treatment, or change in public policy: was the outcome better after the treatment or implementation of new policy, or not? That is the only useful question, one that has already been dealt with instructively in the scientific literature. [10]

Try as they might, the authors could not escape the truth that a “pit bull” ban has not made the people of Winnipeg safer.

Manufacturing a mathematical analysis that obscures the available data does not promote community safety. It is bad for dogs, and bad for science.

SOURCES:

[1] Raghavan, M., Martens, P.J., Chateay, D. & Burchill, C. (2012). Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalizations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Injury Prevention, 18(3) . Retrieved fromhttp://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/29/injuryprev-2012-040389.full?ga=w_bmjj_bmj-com

[2] National Canine Research Council. (2011). World-Wide Failure of Breed-Specific Legislation. Retrieved fromhttp://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/World-wide%20Failure%20of%20BSL.pdf

[3] Web Center for Social Research Methods. (2006). The Nonequivalent Groups Design. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasnegd.php

[4] (Bill Bruce, Director of Calgary Animal and Bylaw Services, July 2012)

[5] US Census Bureau. (2010). San Diego, California Census Data. Retrieved fromhttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0666000.html

[6] Manitoba Health Information Management Branch. (2011). Manitoba Health Population Report. Retrieved from https://www.gov.mb.ca/health/population/index.html

[7] Rosado, B., Garcia-Belenguer, S., Leon, M. & Palacio, J. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5), 166-174.; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2010). Statistical Brief #101. Retrieved from http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb101.pdf

[8] National Canine Research Council. (2010). Dog bites in Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bites-in-canada/

[9] Skerrit, J. (2012 May 29).  City won’t lift ban on pit bulls. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-wont-lift-ban-on-pit-bulls-155263825.html

[10] Overall, K. (2010). Breed specific legislation: How data can spare breeds and reduce dog bites. The Veterinary Journal, 186(3), 277-279 ; Klaassen, B., Buckley, J.R., & Esmail, A.(1996). Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency department. Injury, 27( 2), 89-91.; Patronek, G., Slater, M., Marder, A., (2010). Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 237(7), 788-792.; American Veterinary Medical Association (2012). The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention. Retrieved

 fromhttp://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.asp.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/winnipeg-manitoba-far-behind-calgary-in-community-safety/

Reported bites decreasing

Descriptions of dog bite injuries as “epidemic”[1] began to appear in the US in the 1970’s. Whether this was ever an accurate description is a matter of debate, but what is clear is that reported dog bites have dramatically decreased across the country since the 1970’s.

• Here are some examples of the decline in reported bites[2] in a variety of US cities:

(Sources for this graph)[3]

It is important to note that there is no national system in the United States for tallying reports of dog bites. Reporting agencies and policies vary widely, but these policies typically grew out of an attempt to capture any exposure of broken skin to animal saliva, and to determine the vaccination status of the animal, as the main public health concern continues to be potential rabies exposure. This means that there may or may not have been any intentional contact in a given reported “bite” incident, simply contact with a tooth that broke skin. It also means that an unknown number of bites are not reported. We suspect that the reason for non-reporting of a dog bite is that the dog, and vaccination status, was known to the injured person, and that either the contact with the dog resulted in no identifiable injury, or that the injury was negligible. It is also reasonable to suppose that a percentage of bites that were reported do not rise to the level of needing medical attention.

Updated 26 November 2013

SOURCES and NOTES

---

[1] 

Harris, D., Imperato, P.J., & Oken, B. (1974). Dog Bites - - an unrecognized epidemic. Bulletin of the NY Academy of Medicine, 50(9), 981-1000. Retrieved from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1749418/ 

This article stated that the number of dog bites reported in New York had increased by 37% between 1965 and 1972. The following February, an Associated Press article appeared in newspapers across the country carrying a similar headline: “Dog Bites – Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States.” The AP story reported significant increases in 10 other American cities besides New York. 

[2] 

Berzon, D.R. (1978). The Animal Bite Epidemic in Baltimore, Maryland: Review and Update. American Journal of Public Health, 68(6), 593-595. Retrieved from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1653955

The supposed “epidemic” began to subside almost as quickly as it arose. Researchers in Baltimore, Maryland, one of the cities included in the AP story, reported that new municipal policies had quickly reversed the ‘epidemic’ trend in that city. From a peak total of 6,922 in 1972, by 1976 dog bites declined to 4,760. See sources for graph below for additional cities’ data

[3] 

Los Angeles County, CA

1972:

Strassburg, M.A., Greenland, S., Marron, J.A., & Mahoney, L.E. (1981, April). Animal bites: patterns of treatment. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 10(4): 193-197.  

2011:

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health: Veterinary Public Health. (2013). [Data file] Provided November 2013 upon request.

New York, NY

1971:

Weller, W.R. (1975, February 6). Dog Bites - Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States. The Miami Herald, pp. 14-A. 

2011:

New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene. (2012). [Data file]. Provided July 2012 upon request.

Chicago, IL

1978:

Chun, Y., Berkelhamer, J.E., & Herold, T.E. (1982). Dog Bites in Children Less Than 4 Years Old. Pediatrics, 69, 119-120.

2011:

Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control. (2010). Bites Reported by Pet Type Summary for Bite Dates: 2011-01-01 thru 2011-12-31. [Data file].  Provided 2012 upon request. 

Philadelphia, PA

1971:

Weller, W.R. (1975, February 6). Dog Bites - Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States. The Miami Herald, pp. 14-A. 

2011:

Animal Care and Control Team of Philadelphia. (n.d.). [Data file]. Provided May 2012 upon request.

Baltimore

1971:

Berzon, D.R. (1978). The Animal Bite Epidemic in Baltimore, Maryland: Review and Update. American Journal of Public Health, 68(6), 593-595. Retrieved from: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.68.6.593  

2011:

City of Baltimore Animal Control. (2012). [Data file]. Provided May 2012 upon request

District of Columbia

1971:

Weller, W.R. (1975, February 6). Dog Bites - Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States. The Miami Herald, pp. 14-A. 

2011:

Government of the District of Columbia: Department of Health. (2011). Statistical Report for FY 2011. [Data File]. Provided June 2012 upon request.

Marion County, IN

1977 & 2011:

Marion County Health Department: Bureau of Environmental Health. (2013). Animal Bite Program Summary Report. [Data file]. Provided upon request October 2013.

Albuquerque, NM

1971:

Weller, W.R. (1975, February 6). Dog Bites - Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States. The Miami Herald, pp. 14-A. 

2011:

Albuquerque Animal Services. (2012). [Data file]. Provided upon request May 2012.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/reported-bites-decreasing/

PIT BULLS & THE “DOG BITE EPIDEMIC” MYTH

• There is no dog bite epidemic.Reports to public health agencies of dog bites have declined significantly since the 1970’s, despite significant increases in both human and canine populations.Across the board, communities are safer than ever before.

• Dog bites are a societal problem that cannot be characterized apart from people.They result from problematic human behaviors that place people and animals at risk. Responsible dog ownership is the key to addressing public safety issues involving dogs.

• Intense focus on select and isolated incidents of serious dog bite injuries incites fear and hysteria. It is not a sound basis for making effective public policy. Such an approach prevents a useful understanding of the complexity of dog bite-related incidents, and ignores the benefits to society of positive human-canine bonds and responsible pet ownership.

• To reduce dog bites, expert recommendations have remained consistent since the 1960’s: dog-safety education,owner responsibility, detailed reporting, and enforcement of dangerous dog laws.The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force details these proactive approaches in their report A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention.

• No dog bite study claiming to correlate dog biterelated injuries by breed – whether published recently or in earlier decades – can be considered valid or reliable because the reporting is based primarily on visual breed identification, a methodology which has been discredited by modern science.

• We all deserve to be safe in our communities.We all want fair, effective laws that are based on the best scientific evidence available.Animal and legal experts from the AVMA to the American Bar Association advocate for safe communities via breed neutral, responsible dog ownership.

http://www.biznessapps.com/uploads/pdf/0/52/105640/Talking_Points_-_The_Dog_Bite_Epidemic_Myth1.pdf?output=embed