Reducing Dog Bite Injury. What research says about breed bans vs. other interventions

There are two main approaches aimed at reducing dog bite injuries: Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) and non-breed-specific legislation.

BSL RESEARCH

BSL focuses on the banning of ownership, import, and breeding of so-called dangerous breeds. The approach is based on the assumption that certain breeds are responsible for the majority of bite injuries and have a higher breed-specific tendency for aggression.

Numerous studies have shown that BSL has a highly limited effect on overall dog bite injuries.

Research in Spain found dogs on the dangerous dogs list accounted for only a small number of bites both before and after the implementation of BSL, with Cross Breeds and popular pure breeds rating higher, but were over-represented in the population due to popularity. Researchers concluded that population density was the largest contributor to dog bite rates while the introduction of legislation had no impact and was unjustified. [1]

Analysing Irelands BSL effect on rates of dog bites looking at emergency room data has also shown the legislation to be ineffective. [2]

While many BSL reviews collect data from medical reports, other research has used owner surveys to collect medical and non-reported incidents. Research in the Netherlands including data from bites that both did and did not require medical attention also concluded that BSL was not effective in reducing bite statistics. Researchers recommended interventions need to look beyond attack rates and include both dog and owner and individual differences beyond breed such as early socialisation, training, health and victim behaviour [3].

Italian research found a similar lack of effect of BSL concluding “findings suggest that restrictive legislative measures regarding potentially dangerous dogs are not effective for the control of canine aggression towards people”. [4]

Researchers in Denmark addressed methodology issues in previous studies, such as popular breeds being overrepresented in statistics and common before/after research design flaws as phasing out breeds ignores secular trends. However, with more sound research design methods researchers still found that BSL as well as enforcement of muzzles and leashes in public still had no effect on bite statistics.
They concluded: “In order to minimise dog bite injuries in the future, non-breed-specific legislation should be considered as a primary option”. [5]

A comprehensive analysis of Australian BSL targeting the American Pitbull Terrier (APBT) showed that bans targeting the breed were based on little to no credible data, but rather, media sensationalism. The research concluded “BSL may be justified and acceptable policy if it works to reduce significantly the number of dog attacks. There is no evidence from Australia or elsewhere that it does so. Indeed, the rate of dog attacks has not declined since the introduction of BSL”. [6]

A recent 2022 study looking at genetic testing for problem behaviours found that Pit Bull-type dogs were not more likely to be aggressive than other dogs and showed significantly decreased aggression to owners. They did show higher dog aggression but this was not the highest ranking [7].

When comparing breeds commonly included in BSL and other breeds on psychometric tools that measure tendencies for aggressive behaviour, researchers found no significant differences. The researchers concluded “Breed alone is not a reliable predictor of individual behavioural tendencies, including those related to aggression, and therefore breed-specific legislation is unlikely to be an effective instrument for reducing risk” [8].

Research looking at human directed aggression in the UK concluded that breeds often regarded as ‘dangerous’ such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers (SBT), and other bull and mastiff breeds not only don’t appear to have an increased risk of showing aggression but SBT showed a lower risk of aggression to visitors compared to mixed breeds [9].

RESEARCH – NON-BREED SPECIFIC FACTORS AND INTERVENTIONS

While mounting evidence demonstrates little to no effectiveness of BSL, other research avenues have looked at non-breed related factors contributing to dog bite injuries, as well as effectiveness of non-BSL interventions. 

One of the biggest contributors to breed and dog bite risk perceptions, including influence on policy making, is media influence. Analysis of media articles has demonstrated that journalists make do with limited or questionable information and “with few exceptions, the circumstances surrounding dog-bite injuries received little attention or follow-up in the newspapers that we studied”.[10]

Multiple studies have identified socioeconomic-associated risk factors for dog bite occurrence [10, 11, 12]. Limited resources for training and education, as well as inadequate containment and control have been identified as potentially contributing factors, and educational programs have been recommended starting at paediatrician level [13].

In Spain, rather than BSL based on the banning of breeds, regulations aimed at ownership showed a decrease in bite statistics. Regulations included licensing requirements, owners of power breeds require specialised insurance, hold a psychological aptitude certificate, have no criminal record [14].

Other research has found owner experience to be a factor in bite risk, with first-time dog owners rating higher than experienced owners in bite statistics. [15]

A recent genetic  study concluded that “Breed is not a reliable predictor of individual behaviour”, especially in in terms of ‘Agonistic Threshold’ (how easily a dog is provoked by frightening, uncomfortable, or annoying stimuli) [16], supporting previous research that identified aggressiveness within breeds, rather than just across breeds, and that aggressive individuals are often related [17]. Other studies have recommended that more control should be put on breeding of aggressive individuals [18], a factor that also highlights the issue of Back Yard Breeding and Puppy Farms that breed for profit rather than genetic stability.

Researchers highlighting the ineffectiveness of BSL also recommended alternatives to policy makers after analysing other factors in bite risk, including: Socializing young puppies, providing adult dogs with adequate care, training, and exercise and maintaining control of their dogs at all times [19].

Multiple studies have identified children under nine being at particularly high risk of dog bites [1, 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 22]. Risk to young children can partly be contributed to young children’s lack of ability to read canine body language but also due to evidence that owners have difficulty in reading subtle signs of stress and anxiety, subsequently highlighting the importance of education for adults on dog behaviour and safe practices in child-dog interactions [20].

Investigations into how children under five and parents identify and interpret signs of distress both before and after education on dog signalling showed a significant increase in learning for children and adults [21], while schools in Sydney enrolled in an experimental study looking at the efficacy of The Prevent-a-Bite intervention showed a significant increase precautionary behaviour in children who received the intervention compared to control group [22].

In summary, research indicates that Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is largely ineffective in reducing dog bite injuries, as numerous studies across multiple countries show no significant decrease in bite rates when targeting specific breeds. Instead, non-breed-specific factors, such as owner experience, training, socialization, breeding practices, and socioeconomic conditions, play a more critical role in dog bite prevention. Effective interventions include regulations focusing on responsible ownership, comprehensive educational programs for both children and adults, and addressing broader factors like media influence and socioeconomic disparities. Overall, non-breed-specific measures and improved owner education are recommended for more effective dog bite prevention.

REFERENCES:

1. Rosado, B. García-Belenguer, S. León, M. Palacio, J. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5).
2. Ó Súilleabháin, P. (2015). Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998–2013): Implications for current breed specific legislation, The Veterinary Journal, 204(3)
3. Cornelissen, J.M.R. Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation, The Veterinary Journal, 186(3)
4. Chiara, M. Ciceroni, C. Sighieri, C. (2015). Italian breed-specific legislation on potentially dangerous dogs (2003): Assessment of its effects in the city of Florence (Italy). Dog Behaviour, 1(2)
5. Nilson, F. Damsager, J. Lauritsen, J. Bonander, C. (2018). The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLOS ONE, 13(12)
6. Collier, S. (2006) Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1(1)
7. Zapata, I. Lilly, L. Herron, M. et. al. (2022). Genetic testing of dogs predicts problem behaviors in clinical and non-clinical samples. BMC Genomics, 23
8. Hammond, A. Rowland, T. Mills, D. Pilot, M. (2022). Comparison of behavioural tendencies between “dangerous dogs” and other domestic dog breeds – Evolutionary context and practical implications. Evolutionary Applications, 15(11)
9. Casey, R. Loftus, B. Bolster, C. Richards, G. Blackwell, E. (2013). Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis Familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 152(2014)
10. Mouton, M. Boulton, A. Solomon, O. Rock, M.J. (2019). ‘When the dog bites’: What can we learn about health geography from newspaper coverage in a ‘model city’ for dog-bite prevention? Health & Place. 57
11. Constantino, C. Da Silva, E.C. Dos Santos, D. M. Paploski, I. A. Lopes, M. O. Morikawa, V. M. Biondo, A. W. (2023). One Health Approach on Dog Bites: Demographic and Associated Socioeconomic Factors in Southern Brazil. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 8(4)
12. Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Stathakis V.Z. (2001). Dog bite and injury prevention 7
13. Shuler, C. M. DeBess, E. E. Lapidus, J. A. Hedberg, K. (2008). Canine and human factors related to dog bite injuries. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 232(4)
14. Villalbi, J.R. Cleries, M. Bouis, S. Peracho, V. Duran, J. Casas, C. (2010), Decline in hospitalisations due to dog bite injuries in Catalonia, 1997−2008. An effect of government regulation? Injury Prevention, 16(6)
15. Guy, N.C. Luescher, U.A. Dohoo, S.E. Spangler, E. Miller, J.B. Dohoo, I.R. Bate, I.R. (2001). Risk factors for dog bites to owners in a general veterinary caseload. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74(1)
16. Morrill K, Hekman J, Li X, McClure J, Logan et. al. (2022). Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes. 376(6592)
17. SCOTT, J.P. FULLER, J.L. (1965) Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog, Chicago, Univ Chicago Pr, 1965.
18. Ledger, R.A. Orihel, J.S. Clarke, N. Murphy, S. Sedlbauer, M. (2005). Breed specific legislation: considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 6(8)
19. Bailer, C. Hinchcliff, K.M. Moore, Z. Pu, L.L.Q. (2020). Dog Bites in the United States from 1971 to 2018: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 146(5)
20. Meints, K. Brelsford, V. De Keuster, T. (2018). Teaching Children and Parents to Understand Dog Signaling. Frontiers Veterinary Science. 20(5)
21. Chapman, S. Cornwall, J. Righetti, J. Sung, L. (2000). Preventing dog bites in children: Randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 320(7248)
22. Salgirli,Y. Hakan, D. Ozturk, Emre, B. Kockaya, M. Ozvardar, T. Scott, A. (2016) Adults’ Ability to Interpret Canine Body Language during a Dog–Child Interaction, Anthrozoös, 29(4)