|
|
|
|
|
A veterinary blog for pet lovers, vet voyeurs and the medically curious...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VIRTUAL VET HOSPITAL
|
|
|
|
Got a sick pet? Visit our Virtual Vet Hospital and admit your own pets as patients in Dolittler's unique pet healthcare forum.
|
|
|
|
|
PODCASTS
|
|
|
New! Download our latest podcasts:
|
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
|
|
|
|
FAVORITE POSTS
|
|
|
|
|
RECOMMENDED
|
|
|
|
|
CAREERISTS
|
|
|
Did you always want to be a vet or vet technician? Thinking about it? Working on it? Need some Help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
|
|
- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.