Background
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 (n = 100) and legislated (n = 40) dog bite incidents.
Results
Legislated breeds were significantly more likely to be perceived as aggressive and less fearful as triggers for biting compared to non-legislated breeds (P = 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 (P = 0.036). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to not be reported to the authorities before (P = 0.009), and after (P = 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 behaviorist. 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.
Conclusion
The present study results did not observe evidence of any differences between legislated and non-legislated for both the medical treatment to victims required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted.
The significant differences in bites being reported to authorities, perceived triggers for biting, and biting locations suggests distinctly differing perceptions relating to risk between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds.
Further consequences relating to the introduction of breed-specific legislation in Ireland are discussed.
Type of bite and medical treatment required
Regarding type of bite, neither legislated breeds nor non-legislated breeds were more likely than the other to inflict a differing bite type with greater severity (P = 0.604; see Table
Table5).5). In addition, neither legislated breeds nor non-legislated breeds were more likely to inflict a bite requiring greater medical attention than the other (P = 0.122; see Table Table55).
No significant difference was observed between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds for the medical attention required following a bite. In addition, no significant difference was observed between legislated and non-legislated breeds for the type of bite inflicted.
In other words, legislated breeds were found not to have a greater likelihood of inflicting greater injury and a differing bite type compared to non-legislated breeds. While a greater ability to inflict bites of greater severity and requiring more medical attention is frequently attributed to legislated breeds, these results do not provide evidence in support of these assertions.
It is important to not understate the potential knock-on effect targeting dog breeds may have. Assumptions about the supposed ‘aggressive’ or ‘able to inflict greater injury’ nature of legislated breeds or the ‘less capable of inflicting significant injury’ or ‘docile’ temperament of non-legislated breeds, may be associated with differing interactions across breeds.
Consider a scenario where a dog begins to bark following encroachment on its personal space by a human. If the dog is a legislated breed, the individual may perceive such behavior as symptomatic of the ‘aggressive nature’ of such breeds.
On the other hand, the individual may fail to recognize such warning signals from a non-legislated breed. In both instances, the individual may not recognize the trigger, interpret the dog’s behavior correctly, or respond appropriately, thereby increasing the risk of this interaction resulting in the dog biting.
In other words, the criterion for interacting with a dog may be incorrectly rule governed by its breed rather than actual exhibited behavior, which in turn is being reinforced by the breed-specific legislation.
The present study provides evidence that the targeting of dog breeds as a dog bite mitigation strategy may pose significant negative consequences relating to perceptions of risk and reporting behavior. Its introduction in Ireland poses further wide reaching negative consequences; animal welfare concerns relating to dog pounds not re homing and accepting surrenders of these breeds (see Table
Table6),6), restrictions affecting disability/assistance dogs, and owner housing restrictions [33] among others.
A legislative dog-bite mitigation strategy whose purpose is to provide safeguards to the public through a reporting system, should avoid putting divisive mechanisms across responsible dog-owner populations.
Doing so will make the identification of dogs likely to bite difficult and as observed within this study, will lead to a distinct bias in dog bites reported to authorities. 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 hospitalizations 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 categorizes potentially dangerous dogs based on their exhibited behavior is enacted [38].
Source..... US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
More to come.....
Thanks for taking the time to share this post filled with such great information. You provided very well put together details in your article. Have a great rest of our day.
ReplyDeleteLawyer Philadelphia