|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
San Francisco Dog Bites: Evaluation of Reported Bites from 2003-2006, the Impact of SB861.
T E Houston , PhD Sacramento , CA October 1, 2007
In 2005, a family's intact “pit bull” dogs fatally attacked a 12-year old San Francisco boy. The incident resulted in changes to the California dangerous dog laws allowing cities and counties to impose breed specific mandatory spay/neuter programs. The presumption behind the bill (SB861) being that the neutering of dogs would result in less aggressive tendencies and hence fewer dog bites. Implementation and justification of a city/county mandatory spay/neuter program is to be based on reported dog bites to a municipality which must be submitted quarterly to the state public health veterinarian. Reported dog bites to the City of San Francisco for 2005-2006 were received electronically from animal control. An in-depth analysis of the dog bites reported for 2003/2004 was made in 2005 and is available for review 1 . A total of 804 reports were received, 396 for 2005 and 408 for 2006. The data was reviewed for duplicates, out of city, and dogs on other animal reports. After accounting for these, there were 368 reports for 2005 and 364 for 2006. There were a significant number of “unknown” reports; these are ones where no breed is identified. Information is given on the victims of the bite and severity; however, no data is available on the dogs involved. All the dogs were given the same birth data of 1/1/2001 , the same license number, the same vaccination date, and all the dogs were designated as being neutered. In the reports for 2003/2004 no “unknown” reports were received. A request for clarification to animal control shows that “unknown” reports were indeed listed for 2003/2004. For 2003, the number of “unknown” bites was 137; for 2004 the number was 127. These reports where no information is given regarding the breed of dog implicated in the bites comprise 35% and 40% of the total reports for the 2003/2004 years. For 2005, there were 132 reports listed as unknown nearly 36% of the 368 reports; for 2006 there were 152 comprising nearly 42% of the 364 reports. The information on the breed of dogs and their reproductive status involved in nearly 38% of bites designated as unknown for the 4 year period could make a difference in the dynamics of the breeds identified. It is not clear if these “unknown” reports are dog/human bites, or if they also include dog and other animal bites. To make a comparison to the 2003/2004 data, the “unknown” reports were removed from the analysis of the 2005/2006 data. The reports reviewed are only for those where complete information on the dogs implicated is recorded. Hence, for 2005 there were 234 reports and 212 for 2006. Table 1 shows the reported bites for 2003-2006 and the incidence of bites based on San Francisco population for that time period. In addition, for comparison is the incidences of bites if the unknown bite reports are included in the data. The number of reported bites where breed is given and the number of “unknowns” remains fairly constant over the four year period.
Table 1: Reported bites in the city of San Francisco for 2003-2006 .
Dogs breeds in the reported bites: Pitbulls, German Shepherds, and Labrador retrievers are the top 3 breeds implicated in bites for the 4 years 2003-2006. There are over 50 breeds of dogs identified in any year. Table 2 lists the top 10 breeds in the reported bites for 2003-2006 by year with number of bites and percentage of total.
Table 2: Breeds of dogs in reported bites in San Francisco 2003-2006.
1 GSD= German Shepherd dogs 2 JRT= Jack Russell terrier 3 Also at 4 bites for 2004 were Min. Poodle and Sib. Husky 4 Also at 4 bites for 2006 were Akita , Aust. Cattle dog, Lhasa Apso, Sib. Husky.
It should be noted here the absence of the report for June 3, 2005 of the attack that killed 12 year old Nicholas Faibish. It is not clear why the incident was not reported. This presents a problem for any future analysis of the data, in that the key incident that forced a change in California 's dangerous dog laws may be overlooked.
Gender and reproductive status of the dogs in bite reports: Table 3 shows the gender and reproductive status of the dogs in the reports for 2003-2006, and for the top 4 breeds implicated in the bites for the years. Figures 1-4 shows all dogs and the top 4 reported breeds with gender and reproductive status. For 2003, 21.7% (n=54) of the dogs no information was listed for the gender or reproductive status. In 2006, fewer dogs are listed as unknown for gender/reproductive status, dropping to 7.5% (n=16) of the 212 reports. For the individual breeds, a similar decrease is observed. For the pitbulls in 2003, 27.5% (n=14) of 51 reports did not indicate gender/reproductive status of the dog. In 2006 9.8% (n=6) of the 61 reports had nothing listed for the gender status of the pitbulls. For all dogs, males both intact and neutered comprised 55.8% (n=139) of the reports in 2003. The number reported to be neutered was about half, at 48.9% (n=68) of the male dogs. For the pitbulls in 2003, 51.0% (n=26) of the reports were male dogs, with 42.3% (n=11) being neutered. In 2006 the total number of male dogs was 59.0% (n=125) with 66.4% (n=83) of these dogs neutered. For the pitbulls in 2006, 50.8% (n=31) were males and 77.4% (n=24) were neutered.
Table 3: The reproductive status of the dogs in bites reported to San Francisco animal control for 2003-2006.
Figure 1: All dogs and the top 4 breeds in reported dog bites to San Francisco animal control for 2003.
Figure 2: All dogs and the top 4 breeds in reported dog bites to San Francisco animal control for 2004.
Figure 3: All dogs and the top 4 breeds in reported dog bites to San Francisco animal control for 2005.
Figure 4: All dogs and the top 4 breeds in reported dog bites to San Francisco animal control for 2006.
Table 4 summarizes the reproductive status of the dogs reported as all those intact and those neutered (or spayed). During the four year period, the percentage of all dogs identified as being spayed or neutered went from 38.6% (n=96) in 2003 to 62.3% (n=132) in 2006. In 2003, the number of dogs identified in bite reports were about equal with respect to intact or the dog being neutered (or spayed) at about 40%. In 2005, the reports show a nearly 15% increase in the number of dogs listed as neutered, up to 53.4% of the bites, while the number listed as unknown has dropped also to about 14%. A similar situation is observed for 2006, again an increase in the percentage of about 9% of dogs listed as neutered and a decrease of 6.6% in the listing of unknown. Is the increase in neutered dogs due to an actual increase of neutered dogs that bite or due to increased potential accuracy in recording the data?
Table 4: Summary of reproductive status of dogs in reported bites to San Francisco animal control 2003-2006.
Pitbulls in 2003 have a higher percentage of dogs identified as intact (45%). However, an equal number were listed as neutered and as unknown. In 2004, there is still observed a higher percentage of pitbulls listed as intact (51%), but have nearly 30% unknown. In 2005, prior to the legislation resulting from SB 861, the number of pitbulls listed as neutered (41%) and intact (42%) is nearly the same, with a drop in the number of unknown. In 2006, 67% of the pitbulls were identified as being neutered, compared to 62% for all dogs. Again, a smaller number of unknown is seen for pitbulls as well as all the dogs. Figure 5 shows the data from the table of intact and neutered dogs in reports.
Figure 5: The percentage of dogs in bite reports to San Francisco animal control that are listed as intact or neutered for 2003-2006.
Comments: Reducing dog bites has more to do with changing human-dog interactions than with changing the physiological nature of the dog. The reported dog bites in San Francisco has remained constant over the four year period averaging 220 reports where breed is identified and 137 “unknown” incidents where no identification of the animal involved is listed. While it would appear there was an increase in the number of dogs implicated in reports identified as being neutered, a significant portion of this may be a result of greater accuracy in recording of the data. In 2005 before the implementation of a city ordinance mandating spay/neuter of all pitbulls, the listing of all dogs as being neutered as 53.4% (n=125) of the reported bites, with 14.1% (n=33) unknown with respect to the gender or reproductive status of the dog. In 2006, the number of neutered dogs implicated in bites was 62.3% (n=132) with only 7.5% (n=16) unidentified. For pitbulls, the number of dogs in 2005 that were neutered was 42.2% (n=27) of the reported bites with 17.2% (n=11) unidentified. In 2006, 67.2% (n=41) of the pitbulls were identified as being neutered, with 9.8% (n=6) unidentified. With the consistency of the number of overall reported bites and the high percentage of bites from neutered dogs, the reproductive status of the dog is probably less a factor than human interactions with the dog resulting in a dog biting. A recent study (UCD unpublished data, personal communication) in San Francisco indicated 80% of the dogs in a veterinary caseload were spayed or neutered. Dog bites are more a result of human interactions with the dog and a lack of understanding of basic animal behavior. Dogs chase things, they have natural prey drive, so are going to run after other dogs, cats, and other small animals. When a person runs, walks, skates, bicycles past them they are likely to give chase. Spaying or neutering is not going to reduce bites without addressing some of the basic problems. Education on responsible dog ownership and emphasis on basic training, socialization, and inclusion of the dog in the household will do more to reduce bites. There is a serious need to start addressing and targeting human behaviors instead of focusing just on the actions of the dogs. Bite reports are only going to be as accurate as the data documented. More effort should be made to mandate standardized reporting, locally and even more importantly, statewide. Reports should be more clearly defined to differentiate between dog/human bites and dog/other animal bites, and there should be standard categorization of the severity of the bites as well as their location, both anatomical and geographical. To better evaluate and pin point where problems might occur with dogs, zip codes would be useful to help localize any geographic hot spots.
1 http://www.forpitssake.org/sfdogbitereport.html
|
FORPITSSAKE.ORG © 2008
|