Overview

Return to your topic: Dangerous and vicious dogs

Overview

It has been accepted that dog bites have become too frequent and too violent to be ignored. The statistics support the view, first articulated byAttorney Kenneth Phillips in 1999, that there exists a "dog bite epidemic" in the United States. There are differences of opinion, however, as to which dogs are too dangerous, with some members of the public even refusing to accept that there is any such thing as a "dangerous dog." Upon close look, the debate often is about how to talk about and deal with dangerous dogs and their owners, and will remain inconclusive until basic agreement can be reached about the nature, quality and scope of information about dog attacks.

The most-cited nationwide survey of dog bites is now 15 years old. It established that in the mid-1990s there were approximately 4.7 million dog bites in the USA per year. Since that time, there is evidence that the number of bites has grown faster than the number of dogs. (Unless otherwise noted, see Statistics for details about all of the figures quoted in this section.)

For example, in the 1980s and 1990s there were about 17 fatalities in the USA per year, but the years 2006 through 2010 saw more than 30 per year. These incidents are referred to as "canine homicides," meaning deaths of humans that were inflicted by dogs. Although homicides are extremely rare, they are significant because they are investigated closely, and a good amount of detail often is reported, enabling experts to form opinions about a variety of issues pertaining to dog bites.

The most recent dog bite study was conducted by physicians and consisted of a review of 82 cases at a level 1 trauma center. Where the breed of dog was identified, the researchers concluded that attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group, Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs, Annals of Surgery (April 2011, Vol. 253, Issue 4, pp. 791–797).

The website DogsBite.org is a thorough, up-to-date source of news and opinion about bite cases and death cases involving dogs. It's 3-year study of such incidents concluded that from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks, and that pit bulls and rottweilers (combined) accounted for 73% of these deaths. 

Along the same lines, a report by Animal People found that, of 264 canine homicides from 1982 to 2006 in the USA and Canada, a total of 65% of the deaths were caused by pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes. (Merritt Clifton, Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006, click here to download.) An older study published in the Journal of Pediatrics reported 109 fatalities from 1989 to 1994 in the US, with 37% inflicted by pit bulls and Rottweilers. (Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.)

The foregoing studies establish that pit bulls and Rottweilers clearly are dangerous if judged by the damage that they inflict when they attack people. (Footnote 1.) It should be noted, however, that an apparently exhaustive study of canine homicides arrived at entirely different conclusions, and made a strong case that "addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease." Karen Delise, Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics, 2002, self published (apparently no longer available), and The Pit Bull Placebo. 

Because of the perception that certain breeds are inherently dangerous, many Americans are of the opinion that these breeds need to be eliminated. That also has been the view of many segments of industry and other nations. The insurance industry and airline industry have attempted to exclude certain breeds because of their potential for harm, and a number of European nations have banned certain breeds of dog. (See Breed Specific Laws.) The courts have confirmed that certain breeds are inherently dangerous, although the legal result of having a dangerous dog is inconsistent from case to case and state to state. Many state legislatures have issued declarations that establish there is an epidemic but have not put the responsibility on any one breed. (Footnote 2.) There are many who even have begun to fear that dogs generally may someday be judged unfit to be our companions.

A close look at the dispute over dangerous dogs, however, leads to the conclusion that the disagreement often is about how we talk about them, what makes them dangerous, and how we should curtail the danger. Many believe that we should not talk about a dog as being dangerous, but rather the owner being dangerous. Others say that no breed is inherently dangerous, and that we should regard a dog as dangerous only if it has behaved in a dangerous manner. Many strongly resist any proposed solution that would involve any distinction whatsoever among the breeds. The approach advocated by Attorney Kenneth Phillips and most experts is multi-focal, in recognition of the fact that there are many causes of the dog bite epidemic, requiring many corrective measures. (See Preventing Dog Bites.)

The debate about dangerous dogs will not end until there is some agreement as to the nature, quality and scope of information about dog attacks. The diversity of opinion among the experts is based in great part upon disagreements about which studies, data collection methods, and other fundamentals are reliable. Until the basic facts are resolved, the conclusions will be different and the arguments will continue.

Overview

Volte para o seu tópico: cães perigosos e cruéis

Raças considerado o mais perigoso

Listas são úteis quando se trata de raças consideradas as mais perigosas, mas uma lista como a que aqui referida é o resultado de generalidades e, portanto, não devem ser considerados como provas contundentes sobre qualquer um cão particular. 

Os holofotes brilha mais sobre o pit bull como o mais perigoso dos cães. Esta é a raça responsáveis ​​pela grande maioria dos maulings mortais de seres humanos, e os piores ferimentos. No entanto, existem muitas raças que mataram, desfigurados e pessoas com deficiência . Os esforços que visam apenas com o pit bull e não outras raças, e os esforços que incidem sobre as raças e não a conduta dos proprietários irresponsáveis ​​e criadores, não terá sucesso em reduzir significativamente as perdas causadas por ataques de cães sobre as pessoas. 

Listas, no entanto, são importantes. Por um lado, há pessoas que vão para grupos de adoção e aceitar um cão sem saber nada sobre a sua raça. O resultado é uma família infeliz e um cão chateado que acaba na rua, no canil, ou em outra casa estranha. Potenciais donos de cães também precisam ter em mente que um grave prejuízo e medo será direcionado o seu caminho se abrigar certas raças de cães. Os cães desta lista precisam de atenção especial, uma série de cuidados, formação suficiente, e todas as outras coisas que se combinam para fazer um "bom" cão, não porque todos os cães de uma determinada raça é cruel, mas porque estes são os mais poderosos cães e, portanto, os únicos que podem fazer o maior dano. Finalmente, a lista aqui referida é valioso como um item de referência, porque se quisermos exercer uma abundância de cautela nas próprias coisas, pode-se querer afastar-se de associar-se com os membros dessas raças. 

A melhor lista de raças consideradas mais perigosas podem ser encontradas em Amigos de Daxton: Raças Potencialmente Perigosas . Enquanto estava lá, leia a página inicial da sua história cautelar sobre a obtenção de um tipo errado de cachorro para sua casa. 

Raças considerado o mais perigoso

Return to your topic: Dangerous and vicious dogs

The Problem With Statistics

The conclusions that we draw about dangerous canines is derived from what we know about them. Our information primarily comes from our own random experiences, accounts offriends and family, and what we pick up from our culture. Norman Rockwell, the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off," and countless works of entertainment have presented dog attacks as being prosaic or even great fun. Less often, we are exposed to media accounts, governmental studies, lawmakers' arguments, reports from organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, and the opinions of experts who have conducted original research.

Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving many of our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt. One of the most serious deficiencies pertains to the nature of the particular attack, meaning whether it was an angry assault, a playful turn of the head that resulted in a tooth catching the victim's skin, or something in between. In some cases, we are more interested in vicious attacks and less interested in pure accidents. For example, we need accurate information about vicious attacks when we debate the issue of breed bans. There are times, however, when we may be more interested in pure accidents, such as when considering whether dogs should be permitted in day care centersand hair salons. The nature of the attack is an inherently difficult issue to study on a wide-scale basis. To do so requires the questioning of witnesses and an impartial evaluation that is free of bias. In other words, it requires that we study depositions and trials or attend other proceedings where testimony is taken, such as legislative committee hearings and "dog court" hearings. This is feasible but has not been attempted to date.

Another deficiency is the extent of the damage inflicted on the victim. In most cases, we need to know which dogs are associated with the greatest damage. Such information is of prime importance in the debate on breed bans, the legal definition of an "assistance animal," the crafting of fair housing regulations on the federal and state level, and in similar matters. In some instances, however, we want to add up all of the scratches and nips too. There are people, such as parents, day care operators, dog park stewards and others, who need to compare a wide variety of characteristics of dogs, including whether a certain breed is more likely to scratch and nip.

The studies of fatal dog attacks or "canine homicides" are potentially most useful because they give us more details and focus on obviously serious injuries. Nevertheless, even these studies raise questions. Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor ofAnimal People), Colleen Lynn (author of dogsbite.org), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However, none of their figures agree. This is largely because of the difficulties involved in gathering dog bite statistics. When the CDC reported on canine homicides, one of their methods of ensuring accuracy was to eliminate all death reports that did not appear in LexisNexis. When Delise did her study, she included all homicides which were confirmed in other reliable ways, such as by interviews and police files, and arrived at a figure that was 100 deaths higher than the CDC. Clifton's study includes both the USA and Canada, and is derived from newspaper accounts as well as his review of photographs and files. 

Delise illustrates the information problem in the following graphic way (quoted from her E-mail message sent to Attorney Kenneth Phillips):

Consider five fatal attacks included in the CDC statistics.

A man was bitten in the forearm by a Pit bull. The bite was not serious but introduced into the wound was a virulent and fast spreading bacteria. The man died 4 days later from this virulent bacterial infection.

A teenage girl give birth to a infant, distraught and frightened, she tossed the hours-old infant into a neighboring-junk-strewn yard where two Pit bulls resided. The dogs killed the newborn.

A German shepherd mixed breed dog went into a bedroom, lifted a newborn out of a crib and carried the infant (by the head) into the living room  where the adults were seated.

A man restrains his girlfriend, while ordering his Pit bull to repeatedly attack her.  He is eventually convicted of murder and is serving a 20-year sentence.

An elderly man attempts to stop his German Shepherd dog from fence fighting with his neighbor's dog, the dog turns on his owner, severely mauling him, inflicting fatal head and neck wounds.

The CDC was right, in that five people died as a result of a dog bite. But were all these bites the result of aggression? Were they the same type or level of aggression? Which behaviors initiated the attack, human or canine? So the number of deaths by dogs (as per the CDC) cannot be used to define aggression, or the aggression of certain breeds, as aggression is not defined or qualified.

The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional (a court decision that later was reversed by the state supreme court). City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

The court then stated that,

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.

Even though not all bites are reported, victims don't necessarily know the breed that bit them, and we don't know exactly how many dogs of any one breed live in the USA, there have been studies by reputable agencies that identify biting dogs by breed and have great credibility. For example, animal control agencies and doctor groups have published their findings in some jurisdictions. These studies are not systematically collected. Many of them can be found on this website, however. 

The Problem With Statistics