Certain dog breeds are inherently dangerous regardless of training
the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 1 against
Available studies partially support the notion that certain dog breeds present higher bite risks or are targeted by restrictive legislation, while other research finds no fundamental difference in inherent aggression between legislated and non-legislated breeds.
Background
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.
Methods
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. The annual number of DBIH, adjusted for total population at risk, was modelled in a negative binomial regression analysis with repeated measures. Year, jurisdiction and BSL implementation were independent variables. An interaction term between jurisdiction and BSL was introduced.
Results
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).
Conclusions
BSL may have resulted in a reduction of DBIH in Winnipeg, and appeared more effective in protecting t
Dog-bite injury hospitalisations breed-specific legislation dangerous dog legislation pit-bull ban comparative effectiveness generalised estimating equations pmc-status-qastatus 0 pmc-status-live yes pmc-status-embargo no pmc-status-released yes pmc-prop-open-access yes pmc-prop-olf no pmc-prop-manuscript no pmc-prop-legally-suppressed no pmc-prop-has-pdf yes pmc-prop-has-supplement yes pmc-prop-pdf-only no pmc-prop-suppress-copyright no pmc-prop-is-real-version no pmc-prop-is-scanned-article no pmc-prop-preprint no pmc-prop-in-epmc yes pmc-license-ref CC BY-NC special-feature unlocked Dog-bite injuries are, to an extent, a preventable cause of injuries in people, especially children.
1–4 To reduce the frequency of occurrence of this multifactorial public health issue, regulatory measures such as dog-control legislation are sometimes introduced. 5–8 Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is usually a law or ordinance pertaining to a specific breed of dogs such as pit-bull type dogs. 7 There are two general forms of BSL: specific restrictions and outright bans. 9 Past evaluations of different forms of regulations have led to conclusions that BSL is ineffective in reducing dog-bite injuries of varying severities.
10–14 However, methodological shortcomings such as short-term observational periods or analysis of cross-sectional data limit the usefulness of inferences made from these studies and necessitate further assessment of population-level outcomes using stronger observational study designs that take into account period and cohort effects. A longer-term, population-level descriptive Catalonian study demonstrated a decline in dog-bite injury hospitalisations (DBIH) over a 12-year period as a result of stricter government regulations on potentially dangerous dogs and dog breeds.
Due to HIPC concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality, case counts <6 are not reported in this study (unless they are 0). As the number of cases of DBIH and PEP were small in several jurisdictions, only aggregated data are reported. Data for the two largest urban centres of Manitoba (the Cities of Winnipeg and Brandon) and two northern mid-sized towns (The Pas and the Town of Flin Flon) are presented individually in the descriptive tables so that incidence can be compared between similar jurisdictions with and without BSL. Brandon has had dangerous dog legislation without any breed references since 1994.
of observations=414. † Denotes magnitude of difference in rate of dog-bite injury hospitalisations associated with each unit increase in explanatory variable when all other variables are held constant. ‡ Reference category. BSL, breed-specific legislation.
of observations=46. † Denotes magnitude of difference in rate of dog-bite injury hospitalisations associated with each unit increase in explanatory variable when all other variables are held constant. ‡ Reference category. BSL, breed-specific legislation. Discussion DBIH rate in Manitoba was somewhat lower than in the USA (3.9 and 5.1 per 100 00 population), 46–48 Australia (7.7), 4 New Zealand (6.9–7.2) 49 and somewhat higher than in Catalonia, Spain (1.1–1.8) 15 and previously estimated national-level data in Canada (1.57 and 2.6).
15 Other studies evaluating the impact of dangerous dog regulations (with or without breed-specific clauses) on dog-bite injuries of varying severities in different countries concluded differently. 10–14 However, data were analysed in a longitudinal, pre/post manner in only two studies 10 12 ; in three studies, researchers employed cross-sectional study designs. 11 13 14 In both longitudinal studies, evaluation was based on shorter periods of observation (3 months and 5 years). 10 12 Also, dog-bite injuries of interest ranged in severity from those not requiring medical attention to those attended to in emergency departments (with a small proportion of the latter requiring hospitalisations).
<h4>Background</h4>The primary objective of this study was to investigate if differences in dog bite characteristics exist amongst legislated and non-legislated dog breeds listed under breed-specific legislation in Ireland (age when bitten, anatomical bite locations, triggers for biting, victim's relationship with the dog, geographical location and owner presence, history of aggression, reporting bite incident to authorities, medical treatment required following the bite, and type of bite inflicted). A second objective of the current study was to investigate dog control officer's enforcement and perceptions of current legislation. Data for statistical analyses were collated through a nationally advertised survey, with Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test statistical methods employed for analyses. A total of 140 incident surveys were assessed comprising of non-legislated (<i>n</i> = 100) and legislated (<i>n</i> = 40) dog bite incidents.<h4>Results</h4>Legislated breeds were significantly more likely to be perceived as aggressive and less fearful as triggers for biting compared to non-legislated breeds (<i>P</i> = 0.003). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to inflict a bite with the owner present on own property and on a business premises compared to legislated breeds (<i>P</i> = 0.036). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to not be reported to the authorities before (<i>P</i> = 0.009), and after (<i>P</i> = 0.032) the bite occurred compared to legislated breeds. There were no significant differences observed between both groups for; age when the victim was bitten, bite location, relationship with the dog, history of aggression, outcome for the dog, if the dog bit again, and seeing a professional trainer or behaviourist. No significant difference was observed between both legislated and non-legislated groups for medical treatment required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The present study results did not observe evide
Ir Vet J Ir Vet J 1537 irishvetj Irish Veterinary Journal 0368-0762 2046-0481 BMC PMC5521144 PMC5521144.1 5521144 5521144 28736610 10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1 101 1 Research Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds Creedon Nanci +353 214966700 nancicreedon@creedonscollege.ie 1 Ó’Súilleabháin Páraic S.
Breed-specific legislation prohibits ownership or places restrictions on dog breeds categorised as ‘dangerous’ or ‘able to inflict greater injuries’ [ 1 ]. Non-breed specific legislation includes restrictions targeting irresponsible owners based on exhibited behaviour of their dogs, typically including an educational component [ 2 ]. To limit serious dog bite injuries and potential fatalities in Ireland, the Control of Dogs Act 1986 was amended with the inclusion of restrictions on breeds (Control of Dogs Act 1998 Regulations) [ 3 ]. The Control of Dogs Act 1998 Regulations places restrictions targeting 11 dog breeds, including dogs that are mixes or possess any strain of listed breeds.
A further study on dog bites in Ireland found that the breeds most commonly involved in attacks were breeds in the highest numbers within the population [ 7 ]. This is supported by further research on dog
Given breed-specific legislation also does not involve complete bans in certain nations (e.g., muzzle restrictions in Ireland), the figures would be considerably higher given the frequency of dog bites in the home when a muzzle is not public policy [ 17 ]. Research indicates no fundamental difference in aggression between legislated breeds, and other dog breeds frequently stereotyped as ‘friendly’ [ 18 – 20 ]. However, it remains the case that other group differences between legislated and non-legislated breeds could infer a greater risk of these dog breeds to public health.
Over half (59%) of the dog control officers felt that breed-specific legislation is effective. Similarly, over half (56%) reported that they believed legislated breeds had the capability to inflict greater injuries and more severe damage if biting compared to non-legislated breeds of similar size. In addition, 19% of officers surveyed felt legislated breeds were more aggressive than non-legislated breeds. With respect to accepting surrenders, one officer reported that their shelter did not accept surrenders of legislated dog breeds from the public. A further officer indicated that the shelter they operate only allow the rehoming of certain legislated breeds.
Table 6 Sample sizes and incident percentages for dog control officer survey n (%) a How is a dog’s breed identified? Officer visually identifies the breeds 5(29) Officer visually identifies the breeds and asks owner 6(35) Officer visually identifies, asks owner and checks records 5(29) Do not record breed 1(6) Do you currently accept surrenders of legislated dog breeds from the public? Yes 15(94) No 1(6) Missing 1 Do you allow the rehoming of legislated dog breeds?
Yes 15(94) No (some breeds) 1(6) Missing 1 Do you believe breed specific legislation is effective in reducing dog bites in Ireland Yes 10(59) No 7(41) In your experience, do you believe legislated dog breeds can inflict greater injuries or physical damage compared to non-legislated breeds of similar size? Yes No 9(56) Missing 7(44)1 In your experience, are legislated dog breeds more aggressive than non-legislated breeds?
The increased perception of threat from specific breeds, and the lack of perceived threat from other breeds are essentially two sides to the same counterproductive coin. The increasing trend in dog-bite hospitalisations in Ireland is alarming [ 1 ], yet unsurprising. Evidence based breed-neutral alternatives exist, which target multi-factorial risk factors, and as such should be enacted [ 34 – 37 ]. It is recommended a public policy mechanism which categorises potentially dangerous dogs based on their exhibited behaviour is enacted [ 38 ].
<h4>Introduction</h4>Dog bite injuries to the face are a serious, yet modifiable public health concern. This study explores the relationship between dog breed and the risk of biting and injury. The objective of this study is to determine the relative risk and severity of dog bite injuries to the face by breed.<h4>Methods</h4>Retrospective chart review of facial dog bite injuries presenting to the University of Virginia Health System and Nationwide Children's Hospital. Additionally, descriptive data was collected from 240 patients over the last 15 years. Bite risk by breed was assessed by a literature search from 1970 to current. A composite measure was used to determine the severity of injury, and characterize each patient into an ordinal scale of bite severity. An average of each breed bite rate within each study was calculated and combined to create an empiric bite risk by breed. Dog breeds were also further characterized morphologically.<h4>Results</h4>Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a "risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Breeds vary in both rates of biting and severity. The highest risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant tissue injury. Physical characteristics can also help determine risk for unknown or mixed dog breeds. Potential dog owners can utilize this data when assessing which breed to own.
In law, breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts particular breeds or types of dog. Such laws range from outright
In law, breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts particular breeds or types of dog. Such laws range from outright bans on the possession of these dogs, to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that such dogs are dangerous or vicious to prevent dog attacks. Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation i
the dog owners claimed the ordinance was fundamentally unfair and therefore violated their right to procedural due process by forcing them to meet the burden of proving their dog was not a pit bull; however, the higher court found the ordinance was not fundamentally unfair provided the city was required to prove that dogs were pit bulls by the civil standard of "preponderance of evidence" rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
the dog owners claimed the ordinance violated substantive due process by creating a legislative presumption that a pit bull owner knowingly and voluntarily possesses a pit bull, and because it allowed the use of non-scientific evidence (e.g., expert opinion) to prove a dog is a pit bull; however, the higher court determined the ordinance preserves substantive due process by providing dog owners with a constitutionally adequate post-impoundment hearing,…
The dog owners claimed that the definition of "pit bull" in the ordinance was too vague in its description of a "pit bull"; however, the Court of Appeals found that the ordinance's reference to the breed descriptions of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club were enough to allow someone to know whether they owned a "pit bull" or not
The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban ordinance was overbroad because it treated "all pit bulls as if they are inherently dangerous, and more prone to cause harm than other dogs as a matter of law"; however, the higher court found that the prohibition against "overbroad" ordinances protected only fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech, and that there was no fundamental right to own a particular breed of dog.
The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban violated their right to equal protection since pit bulls were singled out for prohibition, for which there was "no scientific or empirical basis" and that dangerousness is a function of "environment, training, and upbringing." The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the unique danger posed by pit bull–type dogs was sufficient that the dog owners could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the discrimination was unfounded, as required by previous court precedent.
Everything we examined (5) — 4 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.