Dog Attacks And Breed Discrimination
In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that there were 4.7 million dog bites in 1994. This number has been used to argue for breed specific legislation while at the same time it has been denounced by many animal advocates, particularly those trying help dogs with pit bull breeds and Rottweiler breeds. In this blog I will explain the study behind the CDC figures and highlight other studies that measure how many people are bitten or seek medical treatment as a result of dog-related injuries. I’ll hone in on some of the less discussed findings of these studies that might prove a more fruitful avenue for dealing with the problem of dogs hurting humans, by taking the onus off of the dogs and highlighting how humans might change to better interact with canines.
The number 4.7 million dog bites came from a survey by the CDC, the Injury Control and Risk Survey (ICARIS), designed to measure the nature and prevalence of nonfatal injuries in the United States.
Researchers conducted surveys with over 5,000 U.S. adults who responded about their own injuries and those of their children. The study found that of the 5,328 adults and 3,541 children for whom data was gathered, 94 adults and 92 children received dog bites. Of those receiving bites, 12 adults and 24 children sought medical care. The survey was statistically weighted to adjust for the U.S. population, which produced an estimate of 4.7 million total dog bites in the U.S. in 1994.
ICARIS was re-administered between 2001 and 2003 and results were similar, with an estimated 4.5 million dog bites occurring annually during that time. It is important to remember that not all dog bites are reflective of either serious injury or aggression on the part of a dog. Of the estimated dog bites from 2001-2003, only about 20% resulted in a need for medical attention.
Using media reports of dog attacks, Merritt Clifton of ANIMAL PEOPLE compiled figures of how attacks by dogs break down by breed. He found that 72% of all reported attacks involved pit bull breeds, Rottweiler breeds, and wolf hybrids, who were also responsible for 65% of all deaths and 68% of all serious injuries from dogs. Another study by the CDC that relied on a database compiled by the Humane Society of the United States combined with media coverage had similar findings, attributing 60% of human deaths to Rottweilers and pit bulls.
The results of these breed studies need to be interpreted carefully, however, due to the fact that media is used as the data source. As Karen Delise highlights in The Pit Bull Placebo, the media is biased and often inaccurate in its reporting of dog breeds involved in attacks on humans. Also, as previously mentioned, it is important to keep in mind that not all deaths are due to aggression on the part of a dog, but may be accidents, a fact often left out of discussion on this topic. For example, Clifton provides details on the deaths included in his study and the details reveal a combination of attacks and accidents, such as the person who fell after a dog greeted him excitedly or a boy who was strangled when entangled with a beagle’s leash.
Determining the breeds associated with dog bites and dog attacks is where much of the debate has occurred. Some communities and landlords openly discriminate against Rottweilers and pit bulls by banning them from their communities as a preventative measure against attacks by dogs. However, not only has this solution been shown to be ineffective, it is a drastic measure that fails to address the true nature of the problem. For example, the Toronto Humane Society found that after implementation of a pit bull ban, there was no reduction in dog bites. A study by a group of sheltering organizations in the Northeast U.S. clarifies why—based on dog bite numbers, in order to prevent one bite from a dog of a bull breed, 100,000 dogs of those breeds would need to be removed from the community. The study also highlights that there is no evidence so far that establishes a causal link between a dog’s breed and proclivity to attack humans.
The studies previously mentioned tell stories other than how many attacks and bites, and by what breeds. They tell us about how humans interact with those dogs. It is this part of the research that should be picked up on and further investigated to truly understand the problem of violence against humans by dogs, by placing the onus on humans to learn how to better live with dogs. For example, a 2010 study conducted by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization project notes that men are slightly more likely to be seen in the ER for dog bites than women. The largest differences were between those in rural and urban areas; compared to their urban counterparts, those in rural areas are four times more likely to go to an ER and three times more likely to require a hospital stay as a result of dog bites. The CDC studies of dog bites found that over 80% of dog bite related fatalities were caused by unrestrained dogs, with the majority occurring on their own property.
These findings suggest that there are distinct patterns to the way humans interact with dogs in different spaces. The focus should be on teasing out what these differences mean. The above findings generate a number of important research questions that will do more to solve the problem of attacks by dogs than regulating where certain dogs can and cannot live. For example, are men more likely to be aggressive with dogs than women? Are dogs more likely to roam in packs or be homeless in rural areas? How do the ways dogs are used in rural versus urban areas differ in distinct ways that might promote aggression (e.g. for hunting or guarding)? Do people encourage dogs to be aggressive and protective of their homes? What are the characteristics of the human companions of dogs who attack?
One study looks at this last question and finds distinct traits associated with human companions who fail to register or keep in yards dogs that are considered “vicious” — defined by this study as any dog that has injured a person, killed another dog, or belongs to the pit bull breed (regardless of whether that dog has ever harmed another). The study finds:
“Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises … are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence … and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs.” (Study’s lead author, Jaclyn Barnes, quoted by ANIMAL PEOPLE).
Of course, one study does not untangle this problem and more work is needed in this area.
While attacks by dogs should not be trivialized, neither should the problem be exaggerated. The fact is that there are more humans fatally wounding other humans, and more humans killing dogs, than there are dogs attacking humans. The CDC estimates 1.5% of people in the U.S. are affected by dog bites (serious and non-serious). At the same time, about 2% of all dogs in the U.S. are actually killed each year in the shelter system at the hands of humans. [1] The debate over dog bites often seems to miss the point and lacks a sense of compassion for the canine individuals who are already at a great disadvantage in our society. What should be discussed is not how to limit the existence of breeds of dogs, when the majority of individuals within that breed have never hurt a human, but to discuss ways to integrate human and canine worlds in a healthier manner.
———–
[1] This number is a round estimate based on the fact that there are an estimated 72 million dogs in U.S. households, 7 million animals entering shelters –estimating that about 3 million are dogs, since there is generally a slightly higher intake for cats than dogs–and 1.5 million dogs are killed in shelters each year.