A new article in last week’s Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) reported on the epidemiology of dog bites in Multnomah County, Oregon as tallied by its Animal Services department. The paper pinpointed those most at risk (5 to 9 year-old boys) and the profiles of the most frequent offenders (unneutered purebred males owned by lower-than median income households).
I guess the target’s not a big shock. Boys at these ages are growing large enough for dogs to respond to the challenge they increasingly pose in the household’s social structure. If you’ve ever lived with one of these humans, you’ll also vouch for their bouts of erratically injudicious, occasionally violent behavior. As they say, boys will be boys.
Then there’s the biter:
1-Purebred
2-Intact
3-Male
Unneutered male makes sense. Everyone knows more testosterone = more of a hair trigger for aggressive impulses. But “purebred” adds something else to the equation: Why are purebreds more likely to bite over others?
Finally comes the last bit of this study, the one that really gets me thinking: the economic factor. Why are poorer families are at higher risk of dog bites? Does it have to do with their resources and education level when it comes to training their dogs? Or is it more likely a cultural issue and the predilection of certain lower-income cultures for aggressive dogs employed for protection?
It may be an issue of household density as well. Smaller houses, smaller yards, territoriality, etc. But who knows? After all, these were the only bites reported (presumably by hospitals and aggrieved individuals or their parents).
Wouldn’t the sampling error inherent in the population of those more likely to go to the hospital instead of a private physician or to those more likely to report a neighbor’s bite to a child also skew the demographics of a study like this? And might not the sampling error extend to the reporting of breeds as well? (e.g., My sister’s dogs look like Rottweilers to the average non-dog person…but they’re not.)
One thing I do know: There isn’t any dog bite research (I know of) that delves deeply into the mechanics of dog biting. Most are this-breed-or-that type studies that always seem to neglect anything but the most superficial attributes of the biter or bitee.
Given that studies like this are used so commonly to defend breed-ban legislation, it seems to me that they need to go a tad further than an evaluation of 636 dog bites in a population of 47,000 “licensed” dogs over the course of twelve months in one county in the Pacific Northwest. Any thoughts?
Add Comment18 Comments
I'm not surprised about the socioeconomic angle. From personal experience, most of the pits, rotts, etc., that come in wearing spiked collars and carrying a bad attitude (and need to be muzzled) are owned by...poor people w/out an education, usually younger males (16-late twenties), w/blacks and rural-types overrepresented. Maybe it's not a nice or politically correct phenomenon to point out, but it's true nonetheless, at least where I've worked. I always try to give benefit of doubt to the dog and owner (after all, my own mixed-breed sweetie has been known to growl warningly at a tech when taken in, and I certainly don't tolerate or encourage aggressive behavior), but I usually retract it when I hear the owner laugh and say approvingly, "yeah, you better go get a muzzle, this guy here'll take your arm off!". That being said, I DO encounter similar clients w/similar breeds who adore and train their friendly, well-behaved dog. I also encounter a lot of dissimilar clients w/dogs of any particular breed that bite and the owners don't seem concerned. But for the most part, the above descriptions hold true. They are also less likely to have their dogs neutered due to male bravado, again reinforcing the link between dogs bites/testosterone. I think it really is a cultural thing, and that's why BSL bothers me so much - it's not the dog, it's the people. Take away their pit, they'll just find another large-breed to latch on. I think money could be better spent educating such owners and enforcing fighting laws.
W/regards to the demographics of the bitee - not surprising either. I constantly watch in horror as children (usually small boys) kick, slap, pull appendages, or yell at their family pet (especially if it is a puppy)...and a lot of the time, the parents don't correct the behavior. I filled in for our receptionist the other day, and since our clinic is located inside a pet specialty store, I had the opportunity to do a lot of people/pet-watching and saw more of the same. I even saw what looked to be an 8-year-old (or so) boy swinging his puppy around by his leash - the leash was choking the poor puppy and the puppy's feet occasionally went airborn. Luckily, another customer alerted the parent (who wasn't paying attention), and she quickly reprimanded her child. But still. I always feel bad for dogs who bite children, because I suspect that the kid probably had it coming and the dog will be unfairly demonized (kind of like the taunted tiger...). Of course there are dogs who are aggressive for whatever reason and the child really didn't provoke anything, and that's not acceptable. Again, it's a people problem more often than a dog problem...and I'm left wanting to bite the children, too.
anna March 3rd, 2008 03:36:00 PM
Oh, and I seem to see more bratty kids from families that are probably above the median income level...spoiled much?
anna March 3rd, 2008 03:39:00 PM
Perhaps people (especially lower income people?) are more likely to leave the family's purebred male intact in hopes of breeding him because he's "full-blooded" or "has his papers" or some other such nonsense? I mean, in my area it seems like most of the mutts I see, even the unfortunate fellows chained to their doghouses, are neutered, whereas every Beagle has his balls.
Hannah March 3rd, 2008 04:47:00 PM
Does the study indicate how they knew which dogs were "purebred"?
EmilyS March 3rd, 2008 04:54:00 PM
EmilyS, above, hits the nail on the head.
Pit mixes get called purebred American Pit Bull Terriers, Beaucerons could get called Dobermans, English Springer Spaniels get called Cockers...
Let's face it, your average town dog catcher is NOT an expert on dog breeds. S/he is probably not even close to being an expert on dog breed identification.
C'mon, how many times have you asked a co-worker or new friend "What kind of dog do you have?" "Oh, it's a Lab" -- you visit them and are suddenly confronted by this black bushy-tailed long-legged THING with floppy ears and prominent white markings. But that dog's town registration does not say MIX, it says LABRADOR RETRIEVER.
Catsie March 3rd, 2008 06:00:00 PM
Almost every unneutered male purebred dog I know was left unneutered, "So we could breed him and get our money back on the dog." Most poor folks I used to know were very happy to try to be backyard breeders. It didn't have to be a "protection" dog- it could be a yorkie-poo (whatever the heck that breed is supposed to be). One litter would pay for the cost of buying the dog and two litters would cover more vet care. And if Mama wanted new curtains, better breed the dog again. :(
Georg March 3rd, 2008 06:12:00 PM
Kids do have dog bites coming most of the time. I used to be a little heathen to my mom's poodle. She turned out to be bitter and mean. Now my mom has this little 10-16lb mutt that is an evil little dog. When we tried to get him in a crate about a month ago, he lashed out bit at my boyfriend's thumb and shook it in his mouth. Blood was everywhere. x.x
ashleigh March 3rd, 2008 07:42:00 PM
I think the demographics of the bitees and the biters are really inextricably linked.
Purebred dogs are more likely to be left unneutered for the obvious reasons that everyone else has already pointed out. And people of lower income are more likely to buy their purebred dogs not from reputable breeders who keep an eye out for temperament but from backyard breeders and pet stores where the breeding stock is not tested for good temperament and where the puppies are not socialized during the critical socialization window.
And young boys. You don't have to tell me twice about that phenomenon. I have a dog who has never bitten anyone but who is reactive and can put on quite a display (and he's close to 100 lbs. so this is not something that I ever take lightly), and as soon as I see one or more young boys enter the dog park, I immediately leash my dogs and leave because I know where this is going. It's going to be a lot of running screaming boys throwing things at each other and at the dogs, intentionally getting the dogs to chase them and then running in terror when the dogs actually do that. And I have never once seen a parent of any of these boys pull their kids aside and tell them that perhaps running around like a hyped up gazelle in an area full of large predators with sharp teeth is not the greatest of ideas. So we leave.
cressida March 4th, 2008 11:01:00 AM
Educate the kids on how to approach the owner of a dog, ask if they can pat it, and then pat it the right way. Teach them not to approach stray dogs. Kids seem to be attracted to dogs of any kind, and want to pat them, but they need to learn the right approach to it first.
Running away from a dog will get you bitten - it happened to my sister. Lying down curled up in a ball is safer if confronted by a savage dog. These things need to be taught, though.
Robin March 4th, 2008 08:28:00 PM
Yes, there definitely is a connection between "tough" dogs and young male adults. Our rescue saves mostly pit bulls and every application that we get from a young guy is basically tossed out the window. In no way do I want to adopt my pit bulls out to someone looking for an ego-boosting dog.
As far as the purebred connection, I think there are two reasons why purebreds may be biting more often than mutts. As several of you have mentioned, people are more likely to leave their purebreds intact rather than mutts. And a lot of people are backyard breeding dogs without worrying if their animals are fit to be bred, thus adding a lot of unstable purebreds to the world, not to mention other genetic health defects.
Sabrina March 5th, 2008 01:52:00 AM
*Every* application that you get from a young guy?
emily March 5th, 2008 09:50:00 AM
Sabrina - I understand your group's policy. It might not be fair to everyone all the time, but it's one of the ways to help make sure your animals get placed in good homes. Same goes for groups that prohibit adopting to young children.
anna March 5th, 2008 03:03:00 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here any young male who is looking to rescue an adult pit bull rather than buy a "blue nose" *cough cough* from their neighbor's cousin has probably done some breed research, has consciously thought about the time commitments necessary for adult dogs vs puppies, etc. You may be throwing a lot of great homes out the window in search of that perfect one. After all it is a lot easier for that young male to buy a pit bull (at least in most urban areas) than it is to adopt one from a rescue. Denying people willing to adopt pit bulls without a second thought is only driving up the demand for poorly bred dogs. Pit bulls are individuals and should be treated as such but, so should pit bull adopters.
Although my SO (also a young male) did just say that our pit bulls do make him look great in public, "because they're well behaved."
There was an interesting discussion on this topic here: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/02/sun...
AdoptedAPBTs March 5th, 2008 08:24:00 PM
Sabrina,
I'd like to say that I understand your rescue groups policy but I don't. To me it seems rather judgemental and short-sighted to automatically eliminate every application from all young men. Rules have to be in place to some degree but this seems surprisingly short sighted. Just like all dogs are different, all young men are different and not all are looking for an 'ego boost'.
In fact, my younger brother who is 23 recently adopted a 'pit bull type dog' from the local humane society. He holds down a steady job, lives on his own and LOVES his dog. He follows the law to the letter ('pitbull type dogs"' are banned here in Ontario and those that exist are subject to various controls such as muzzling and leashing in public). My brother who would have been an unacceptable adopter by the standards of your organization is a wonderful animal caretaker and I find your stance quite offensive.
Shannon March 7th, 2008 07:40:00 PM
I'm a bit surprised by the intact male finding, as studies I've read indicate that spayed females are the most likely to bite. Researchers have found that sterilization leads to increased territorial aggression and tendency to bite in bitches and increased excitability/activity in males. The area obviously needs more study, ie, you can't draw a firm conclusion from the available reports.
Without knowing the actual circumstances surrounding the events, these superficial findings are meaningless red herrings in my opinion. I thnk the reason that intact dogs show up in complaint databases is that they are more likely to be owned by people who don't visit the clinic for routine or emergency care. As you know, it is difficult to withstand the pressure to have a dog neutered by a vet, so I suspect that avoiding vets generally leads to also avoiding the surgery.
Then there are backyard breeders who obviously don't neuter their dogs and who often keep dogs and bitches together which can create problems for humans.
As for the socioeconomic angle, my friend over at KC Dog Blog did some analysis in Kansas City. I see that someone above has linked to it already, it's worth reading.
I'll look for the actual paper and check out the findings. since I don't see a reference provided. Whether or not it has merit will not affect media and AR hype, it never does. A good example of that was the dubious paper out of Cincinatti last year which found that 'pit bull' owners are more likely to be criminals. When you read the paper, you will see so many flaws, mistakes and erroneous conclusions that it has no real merit at all. My impression was that they worked backwards from the conclusion to make it fit. That didn't stop media around the world from running more and more offensive headlines, though. They seize on superficial details rather than looking for substance and of course, rarely read the journal articles themselves. Hence the obsession with another red herring, perceived 'breed', in the media and the non dog-savvy consciousness.
Circumstances are more important overall. I like Karen Delise's distinction between a pet and a 'resident' dog. She points out that dogs acquired primarily for protection/guarding purposes can be more neophobic and likely to bite than those that are part of the family. I'm not sure this is true, given that over 85% of bites occur to victims who either live with, or know the offending dog quite well.
Off to find the paper now.
Caveat March 10th, 2008 12:08:00 PM
http://www.plastics-china.comhttp://www.printings-china.comhttp://www.direct-scaffold.com
www May 3rd, 2009 05:02:15 AM
Learn Chinese in China,Study Chinese in China,Mandarin School in China,Study Mandarin in China.Learn Chinese in China's Best tourist city - Hangzhou! Mandarin Capital was and is the first Mandarin School in Hangzhou
asdf June 1st, 2009 02:52:58 AM
دردشة
منتديات
يوتيوب
awos June 26th, 2009 10:07:26 AM
Add Commment