Written evidence submitted by Dogs Trust (DDL0293)
Dogs Trust is the UK’s largest dog welfare charity. We have twenty rehoming centres across the UK, through which we care for approximately 15,000 dogs each year. We invest substantial resources in information services, community outreach programmes, and education on responsible dog ownership. Since Dogs Trust was founded in 1891 (formerly National Canine Defence League) we have always campaigned on dog welfare issues, and we played an instrumental role in the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
3.1. Background
Dog bites are a public health issue worldwide and are a concern for both the victim and the dog (Fatjo et al., 2007). The welfare of the dog involved can be affected either due to relinquishment and/or euthanasia, or if kept by the owner, impairment to their relationship with humans or use of negative training methods to combat the aggressive behaviour (Flint et al., 2017).
In the UK, the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was introduced to try and reduce the number of dog attacks and bites by banning so called ‘dangerous’ breeds and types. Many other countries similarly have breed specific legislation in place concerning what are considered to be ‘dangerous’ breeds (Fatjo et al., 2007). However, generally very little evidence has been used before implementing bans on particular breeds and types of dogs.
In the subsections below, we have outlined the available evidence on this issue, to evidence our serious concerns that breed specific legislation is flawed.
3.2. Impact of breed specific legislation on bites
It can be difficult to fully assess the impact of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 due to issues with poor documentation and reporting of dog bites. In the UK, there is no mandatory requirement for dog bites to be reported. Studies have suggested that larger breed dog attacks are documented more, because they likely involve medical treatment more frequently than smaller breed dog attacks (Mehrkam and Wynne, 2014). Therefore, many of these will go unreported unless medical intervention is sought, or legal authorities are notified (Keuster et al., 2006). The bite occurrence data versus the number of dogs of particular breeds within the population are not both collected which makes it difficult to know if a particular breed is actually more aggressive or is just an over represented breed within a population (Duffy et al., 2008). This requires further investigation.
Despite these challenges, however, there is scientific evidence to demonstrate that banning certain breeds has not seen a reduction in the number of bites. Studies have been conducted to investigate the impact of breed specific legislation and in the UK, before the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced, only 6% of the dogs involved in dog bites were of one of the listed ‘dangerous’ breeds. After the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, 11% of dogs involved were of a ‘dangerous’ breed, and rates of attendance to A&E for dog bites did not decrease in any way (Klaassen et al, 1996). In the UK, hospital admissions from dog attacks/bites actually increased by 25% from 1997-2002 (Collier, 2006).
Studies have also found similar findings in other countries. In Ireland, a study looked at hospital admissions for dog bites since breed specific legislation was introduced in 1997. Incidence of dog bites was shown to increase with each year from 1998 to 2013, estimated at a 1.5% increase on each previous year (O Suilleabhain, 2015). Similarly, in Spain, Breed Specific Legislation showed no significant effect on the number of (medically attended) dog bites between the non-legislated and legislated periods (Rosado et al., 2007).
It is clear from the available evidence that breed specific legislation is not effective in reducing the number of dog bites.
3.3. Breed risks for aggression
Breed specific legislation is based on the assumption that the breeds and types of dogs that are banned are more ‘dangerous’ than other dog breeds. However, this is not supported by scientific evidence.
There are numerous studies investigating dog aggression and bites, focusing on particular breeds that may be overrepresented for aggression. In a study conducted in Spain, breeds that were over-represented for aggression, following a dog-owner questionnaire included: English cocker spaniels, German Shepherds, Catalan sheepdogs, Boxers, Yorkshire Terriers, Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, Labrador Retrievers, Shar-peis and Siberian Huskies (Fatjo et al., 2007). Another study conducted in the USA, highlighted different breeds for stranger, owner and dog directed aggression. Breeds most predisposed to stranger-directed aggression included: Dachshunds, Rottweilers and Yorkshire terriers. Owner-directed aggression was mostly recorded in: Basset hounds, English Spaniels, and Dachshunds, and dog directed aggression was mostly recorded in: Dachshunds, West Highland Terriers and English Springer Spaniel (Duffy et al., 2008). A follow-on study (in the USA) using similar methods found stranger-directed aggression was mostly observed in Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, and Miniature Schnauzers. Owner-directed aggression was mostly seen in Shih tzus, Pomeranians, Yorkshire terriers, and dog directed aggression in: Shiba Inus, Chihuahuas, Miniature Schnauzers (Hsu and Sun, 2010). It is therefore clear that all dogs have the capability to become aggressive and so legislation based on specific ‘dangerous’ breeds is flawed.
The introduction of breed specific legislation can also lead to misinterpretation by the public that there are ‘safe’ breeds that won’t be aggressive (Ott et al., 2008). All dogs have the capability to become aggressive due to both human and environmental factors. The way that dogs are reared, particularly the environmental stimuli during their socialisation period, can significantly affect the development of aggression rather than solely just because they are a particular breed (Mehrkam and Wynne, 2014).
An example of this includes the Golden Retriever, popularly known for its friendly manner. One study used this breed as a baseline for aggression against 6 breeds (American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire terrier, Bull terriers, Dobermans, Pit bull types, Rottweilers) listed under German breed-specific legislation. No significant difference was found between Golden Retriever aggression and the other 6 breeds. This suggests banning of particular breeds entirely cannot be ecologically justified on breed type alone (Ott et al., 2008).
Other studies have similarly found in Germany no significant differences in aggressive behaviour between breeds, and therefore categorising dogs in to ‘dangerous’ breeds is questionable (Schalke et al., 2008). Breeds most involved in bites in a French study included German Shepherds, Jack Russell Terriers, Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers. Some of these breeds have high disposition to painful conditions (such as osteoarthritis) which could be a factor for pain-aggression (Sarcey et al., 2017). In Australia, the American Pitbull terrier (although listed as a dangerous dog), is not one of the most commonly biting dogs. South Australia similarly has breed specific legislation introduced surrounding Pitbull type dogs, however, prior to its introduction there had never been a serious attack involving the breed. A particular handful of breeds tend to be providing the most bites across the literature, but this also waxes and wanes particularly with differing breed popularities over time. Therefore, targeting particular breeds that currently have high bite rates now, within a few years may well be different due to popularity changes. Many other breeds are susceptible to becoming aggressive due to irresponsible ownership (Collier 2006). It is also inappropriate to make judgement on likelihood of aggression based solely on breed, as one study highlighted the large variation of aggression actually within a single breed in the USA (Duffy et al., 2008). This highlights the fact that aggression is individual, and any dog is capable of aggression.
It is worth noting the limitations within the studies mentioned above. It is difficult to fully draw conclusions from studies relating to ‘risk’ breeds, because as it currently stands this is a list of breeds that are recorded most frequently in bites. Not only is this fully dependent on whether the bite is actually reported but also due to lack of data, such as population densities of these breeds alongside bite numbers, we simply cannot draw conclusions on whether they are more likely to bite than other breeds, or whether there are simply more of them in the population and therefore overrepresented in the bite data.
Scientific evidence demonstrates that all dogs have the capability to become aggressive. Breed specific legislation is therefore flawed in the assumption that the breeds and types of dogs that are banned are more ‘dangerous’ than other dog breeds.
3.4. Bite incidences – circumstances surrounding the attacks
When considering legislation regarding dangerous dogs it is important to consider the circumstances around the attack/bite itself. This again is a well explored area and often highlights that inappropriate human-dog interaction is almost always involved prior to attack.
In the UK, one study found that in the instance of the attack, 66% of the dogs were known to the victim (e.g. own dog or friend/relatives dog). Interaction with the dog was the most common circumstance that resulted in an attack. Interactions included stroking over the top of the head, handling/lifting the dog up, restraining the dog, administration of medicines, giving the dog food, or taking something directly from the dog’s mouth. The occurrences of attacks were strongly linked to the human incorrectly reading the behaviour of the dog and inappropriate human behaviour around the dog (Oxley et al., 2018). Also in the UK, it was found that the highest percent of aggression was towards unfamiliar people entering a home (reported by 7% of owners), followed by aggression to people outside of the house (reported by 5% of owners), and finally aggression to family members (reported by 3% of owners). Adults over 60 years of age, and 41-60 years of age were significantly less likely to experience family member aggression than those under 25 years of age (Casey et al., 2014). There are clear inconsistencies between these two studies findings, most likely due to differences in methodology. Whilst Oxley et al., surveyed those involved in a dog bite incident, Casey et al., surveyed dog owners in general. This highlights the needs for further scientific evidence in order to formulate accurate representations of where and why dog bites are occurring.
Another UK study highlighted that 43% of patients treated for maxillofacial injuries were 10 years of age or younger, and children under 5 years old were most frequently attacked by their grandparent’s dog. Patients most likely to be attacked by their own dog were in the 41-50 year age category (Mannion et al., 2015).
Similarly, a study in France (Sarcey et al., 2017) found dog bites occurred to those of all ages (1-92 years old), with the mean age of victims being 28 years old. Children <15 years made up 36% of those that were bitten. Men aged 30-39 were bitten more than women, however women >60 years were bitten more than men. Children were mostly bitten on the head, and adults on the upper extremities. Only 6% of dogs involved belonged to so called dangerous dog categories, and bites inflicted by dogs <15 kg were considered ‘less severe’.
This study also found that the circumstances where the attack occurred were: around food bowl or bed (most frequent with children), during a dog fight/dog-dog aggression (mostly adults outside the home), territory aggression, pain related (underlying pathological conditions including osteoarthritis, injuries, otitis, epilepsy) /handling irritation, and unpredictable flight of victim (cyclist/runners). Greater than 1/3 cases were bitten by a dog they knew and took place in the victim’s home. In one case, it was found that dogs in pain were most likely to bite. In the majority of bites, the victim misinterpreted warning signals during handling. People believe a familiar dog (particularly if not known as a ‘dangerous breed’) is ‘safe’ and not at risk of biting – this highlights the importance of responsible ownership and education is needed.
In another study in Germany, aggressive behaviour in most of the cases (for all breeds) occurred in situations that were threatening to the dog (fear or anxiety related or in unfamiliar situations) and was determined by the behaviour of the human test assistants. Responsibility of humans to ensure dogs are not put in this situation and consideration of their emotions is vital. Exposure to as many stimuli as possible (that a dog may encounter later in life) is essential in young dogs, particularly during the socialisation phase (Ott et al., 2008). In Belgium 65% of victims were bitten at home (94% of those bitten at home were familiar with the dog), and 35% in a public place (of which 71% of bites involved a familiar dog). At home, most bites occurred in children around 4 years old, who were unsupervised by an adult, with most of the incidents triggered by the child’s actions (Keuster et al., 2006).
A summary table of further study findings on the circumstances surrounding dog attacks is included in Appendix 1.
The evidence above, supported by the summary table, demonstrates that inappropriate human-dog interaction is almost always involved prior to attack. Education on dog behaviour and how to appropriately interact with dogs is therefore crucial to the prevention of dog bites and attacks.
3.5. Challenges in identifying Pit Bull Terrier type dogs
In the UK, there are four prohibited breeds and types of dog. This includes ‘any dog of the type known as the Pit Bull Terrier’. As the phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the Pit Bull Terrier’ does not actually denote a specific individual breed, the standard used to identify a Pit Bull Terrier type is set out in the American Dog Breeders Association standard of conformation as published in the Pit Bull Gazette, Vol 1, issue 3 1977. This standard sets out a description of a number of characteristics which may be present for a dog to be deemed to be a Pit Bull Terrier type. Dogs Trust has serious concerns about how subjective the interpretation of this standard can be, and how a dog can be deemed ‘dangerous’ based on purely conformation alone.
Current research shows the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of visual breed identification. Studies involving both non-experts and ‘experienced dog professionals’ such as veterinarians, animal control and shelter staff, were frequently unable to identify, nor agree between themselves, the predominant breeds within dogs based on their looks (Hoffman et al., 2014; Olsen et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2012; Voith et al., 2009; Voith et al., 2013). It is therefore unjust to link apparent behaviour traits to both individuals and overall breeds, based upon their visual identification.
Dogs Trust has serious concerns about how subjective the interpretation of the standard for identifying Pit Bull Terrier types can be, and how a dog can be deemed ‘dangerous’ based on purely conformation alone.
3.6. Consequences of breed specific legislation on dog welfare
In addition to our concerns about the effectiveness of the current legislation, Dogs Trust has several concerns about the impact of the current legislation on dog welfare.
One significant concern relates to the welfare of dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 during the court process. If seized dogs are not returned to their owner via the Interim Exemption Scheme (which only applies when seized dogs are going to go through the exemption process, i.e. where owners are not going to dispute type) then they may spend protracted periods in kennels whilst the court case goes through. Many dogs find prolonged kennelling to be difficult to cope with (Hiby et al., 2006, Rooney et al., 2007). An investigation by the BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme into the costs of enforcing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 found animals suspected of being Pit Bull Terrier types were routinely detained for periods of longer than 14 weeks. It found that in 2017, just over 2,000 dogs were detained by police, the vast majority under the Dangerous Dogs Act, according to 29 forces in England and Wales which responded to a Freedom of Information request. In some cases, dogs are detained for over two years (BBC, 2018).
Another concern is that for dogs on the Index of Exempted Dogs, a number of conditions must be complied with. This includes a requirement for these dogs to be muzzled and kept on a lead when in a public space. Both the keeping of a dog on a lead at all times, as well as muzzling, is likely to reduce the dog’s ability to exhibit normal behaviour and therefore negatively impact on their welfare. The need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns is one of the five welfare needs under Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Additionally, under the current legislation it is unlawful to sell, exchange or make a gift of a prohibited type of dog. This means that if prohibited types of dog are identified in rehoming organisations, the organisation will be unable to rehome the dog in the usual way and so the only option may be euthanasia, regardless of the individual dog’s behaviour. Once a dog is identified as being a prohibited type of dog the only people able to become the registered keeper are the owner or the person for the time being in charge of it. This effectively means that the dog will have to be euthanised unless a person who is in charge of it (i.e. a member of staff at the rehoming organisation) is willing to become the registered keeper.
Dogs Trust is highly concerned about the impact of the current legislation on dog welfare. This includes concerns about the protracted periods dogs can spend in kennels during the court process, the conditions for the keeping of exempted dogs and the number of prohibited dogs that are euthanised because they cannot be rehomed.
4.1. Changes to breed specific legislation
As outlined by the evidence provided in section 3 above, Dogs Trust strongly believes that breed specific legislation is flawed. Ideally, we would like the breed specific element of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be repealed. We urge the Government to review and amend this legislation.
If there is absolutely no possibility of repealing the breed specific element of the current legislation, then it is imperative that the government introduces measures to protect the welfare of the prohibited dogs involved. This includes:
• Reviewing the conditions for dogs on the Index of Exempted Dogs, including the requirement for these dogs to be muzzled and kept on a lead when in a public space.
• Allowing the safe rehoming of exempted prohibited types of dogs and reviewing the rules around keepership
• Expediting the court process to minimise the time in which dogs are kept in kennels.
Dogs Trust strongly believes that breed specific legislation should be repealed. If there is absolutely no possibility of this, then it is imperative that the government introduces measures to protect the welfare of the prohibited dogs involved.
4.2. Alternative measures to prevent dog bites and attacks
We believe that in order to effectively tackle dog bites and dog attacks, preventative measures are crucial. More emphasis should be placed on responsible dog ownership and the identification of early signs of aggression before it becomes a problem.
The way that dogs are reared, particularly the environmental stimuli during the socialisation period, can significantly affect the development of aggression (Mehrkam and Wynne, 2014). Every year, Dogs Trust receives thousands of calls from people asking us to take their dogs into our rehoming centres, and the biggest single reason they give is because of the dog’s behaviour. To address this problem, we created Dogs Trust Dog School. Dog School is a national network of experienced trainers providing fun, educational courses for all dog owners based on up-to-date scientific research. The classes give owners and dogs the foundations they need to develop a strong bond, cope with everyday domestic life and avoid some of the common pitfalls which lead to behaviour problems. We offer classes for puppies (up to 16 weeks of age), rescue dogs and adult dogs. We strongly believe that initiatives such as Dog School should be promoted as a means of preventing behaviour problems, such as aggression, from developing in the first place.
As evidence suggests that inappropriate human-dog interaction is almost always involved prior to dog attacks, it is also important to educate dog owners and the general public on how to safely interact with dogs. Initiatives such as Dogs Trust’s Be Dog Smart campaign, which aims to help children and families understand more about how to behave around dogs in order to keep themselves safe, should be encouraged.
We would also support measures to ensure more traceability and accountability of dog owners, to ensure that they are held responsible for the actions of their dog. This includes a need for improved enforcement of the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 and equivalent legislation across the UK.
Dogs Trust believes that, in order to effectively tackle dog bites and dog attacks, preventative measures are crucial. Action is needed to ensure responsible dog ownership, traceability and accountability of dog owners and the identification and prevention of early signs of aggression. We would like to see preventative legislation on dog control which is breed neutral.
Dogs Trust believes that better sharing of intelligence and joint working between local authorities and the Police is needed in order to prevent lower level dog bite incidents. This includes dog on dog and dog on other animal incidents, in addition to dog on people incidents. We are concerned that many such incidents currently go unrecorded and are therefore not investigated, even if reported by the public. The result of this is that a portfolio of evidence cannot be built up, for example if one dog is involved in multiple incidents, to enable early intervention under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
To help with the sharing of intelligence and joint working, one suggestion would be to establish enforcer taskforces on a regional basis. This would bring together police and local authority representatives to share, and take action on, intelligence on dog bite incidents.
We also believe that, in the light of funding restrictions on both local authorities and police forces, more resources should be made available by central government for enforcement.
Dogs Trust believes that better sharing of intelligence and joint working between local authorities and the Police is needed in order to prevent lower level dog bite incidents.
As explained in section 3 above, many other countries similarly have breed specific legislation in place concerning what are considered to be ‘dangerous’ breeds. There is similarly a lack of evidence of this approach being effective in other countries. For example, in Australia the rate of dog attacks has not declined since the introduction of breed specific legislation (Collier, 2006).
In the Netherlands, breed specific legislation was introduced in 1993. However, in 2008 after research into the impact of breed on dog bite risk (Cornelissen and Hopster, 2010) the breed specific legislation was repealed.
Similarly, Italy used to have 92 breeds named on its restricted breed list. This list was reduced and then all breed specific legislation in Italy was repealed in 2009.
The National Canine Research Council (NCRC) in the USA states that the national trend is moving steadily away from breed-specific legislation and towards breed neutral laws that hold all owners equally accountable for the humane care, custody and control of their dogs NCRC, 2014).
Dogs Trust encourages the government to follow the example set by countries such as the Netherlands and Italy, and to repeal breed specific legislation.
BBC, 2017. Dog detained by Dyfed-Powys Police for two years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43972964
Casey, R.A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G.J., Blackwell, E.J., 2014. Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 152, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003
Collier, S., 2006. Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 1, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2006.04.011
Cornelissen, J.M.R., Hopster, H., 2010. Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal 186, 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.10.001
Duffy, D.L., Hsu, Y., Serpell, J.A., 2008. Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.006
Fatjo, J., Amat, M., Mariotti, V.M., de la Torre, J.L.R., Manteca, X., 2007. Analysis of 1040 cases of canine aggression in a referral practice in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.07.008
Flint, H.E., Coe, J.B., Serpell, J.A., Pearl, D.L., Niel, L., 2017. Risk factors associated with stranger-directed aggression in domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 197, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.08.007
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J. & Bradshaw., J.W.S., 2006. Behavioural and physiological responses of dogs entering rehoming kennels. Physiology and Behavior 89, 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.07.012
Hoffman, C.L., Harrison, N., Wolff, L., Westgarth, C., 2014. Is That Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 17, 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.895904
Hsu, Y., Sun, L., 2010. Factors associated with aggressive responses in pet dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.013
Keuster, T.D., Lamoureux, J., Kahn, A., 2006. Epidemiology of dog bites: A Belgian experience of canine behaviour and public health concerns. The Veterinary Journal 172, 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2005.04.024
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, 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-1383(96)83411-5
Mannion, C.J., Graham, A., Shepherd, K., Greenberg, D., 2015. Dog bites and maxillofacial surgery: what can we do? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53, 522–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.02.022
Mehrkam, L., Wynne, C., 2014. Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canislupus familiaris): Current status of the science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 12–27.
Mora, E., Fonseca, G.M., Navarro, P., Castaño, A., Lucena, J., 2018. Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten-year retrospective study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 25, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.011
National Canine Research Council, 2014. Breed-specific legislation on the decline. https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/news/breed-specific-legislation-decline
Ó Súilleabháin, P., 2015. Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998–2013): Implications for current breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal 204, 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.04.021
Olson, K.R., Levy, J.K., Norby, B., Crandall, M.M., Broadhurst, J.E., Jacks, S., Barton, R.C., Zimmerman, M.S., 2015. Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal 206, 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019
Ott, S.A., Schalke, E., von Gaertner, A.M., Hackbarth, H., 2008. Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 3, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.09.009
Oxley, J.A., Christley, R., Westgarth, C., 2018. Contexts and consequences of dog bite incidents. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 23, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.10.005
Rezac, P., Rezac, K., Slama, P., 2015. Human behavior preceding dog bites to the face. The Veterinary Journal 206, 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.10.021
Rooney, N.J., Gaines, S.A. & Bradshaw, J.W.S. 2007. Behavioural and glucocorticoid responses of dogs (Canis familiaris) to kennelling: Investigating mitigation of stress by prior habituation. Physiology and Behavior 92, 847–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.06.011
Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., Palacio, J., 2007. Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.07.010
Rosado, B., García-Belenguer, S., León, M., Palacio, J., 2009. A comprehensive study of dog bites in Spain, 1995–2004. The Veterinary Journal 179, 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.02.002
Sarcey, G., Ricard, C., Thelot, B., Beata, C., 2017. Descriptive study of dog bites in France—Severity factors, factors of onset of sequelae, and circumstances. Results of a survey conducted by InVS and Zoopsy in 2009-2010. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 22, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.07.006
Schalke, E., Ott, S.A., von Gaertner, A.M., Hackbarth, H., Mittmann, A., 2008. Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 3, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.004
Simpson, R.J., Simpson, K.J., VanKavage, L., 2012. Rethinking dog breed identification in veterinary practice. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 241, 1163–1166. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.241.9.1163
Touré, G., Angoulangouli, G., Méningaud, J.-P., 2015. Epidemiology and classification of dog bite injuries to the face: A prospective study of 108 patients. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 68, 654–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.01.001
Voith, V.L., Trevejo, R., Dowling-Guyer, S., Chadik, C., Marder, A., Johnson, V., Irizarry, K., 2013. Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-observer reliability. American Journal of Sociological Research 3, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.sociology.20130302.02
Voith, V.L., Ingram, E., Mitsouras, K., Irizarry, K., 2009. Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902956151
Annex 1 – summary of further study findings on the circumstances surrounding dog attacks
Victims Involved | Circumstances surrounding attack/bite | Relationship of victim to dog | Place of attack | Reference |
69% of victims <16 years old | Playing with dog in (40%) and teasing (30%) |
|
| Touré et al., 2015 |
62% of bites occurred to males
30% of bites were in children aged 0-14 years old | Manipulating dog in adverse way
Attempting to aid a knocked down dog
Attempting to separate a fight
Passing by the dog (walk, cycle, run)
Playing with dog
Interacting with a bitch with offspring
Entering or surrounding a dog’s space
Disturbing dog whilst it’s eating | 97% of bites were by owned dogs.
Only 12% of victims were not familiar with the dog |
| Rosado et al., 2009 |
Children were bitten in 70% of the cases (84% of which were <12 years old). | Bending over the dog (76%), Putting face close to dog’s face (19%), Gazing (5%) |
| 80% took place in the home or garden where the dog lived | Rezac et al., 2015 |
60% of child victims were unsupervised by an adult |
| 62.5% cases belonged to the family as family pet |
| Mora et al., 2018 |
| 60% during interaction with the dog. E.g. petting/playing, disturbing whilst feeding or sleeping |
| 62% were not in public areas | Cornelissen and Hopster 2010 |