Statistics

[JemarsSerena]

Can anyone tell me why there have been no published studies on dog bites, attacks, fatalities since 1998? I'm planning on taking comp II in the fall. I know that I'll have to do a research paper and I thought that bite stats might be worth looking in to. I tried every combination of "dog bite stats" using every type of similiar word I could think of in Google and other search engines and can't find any recent data. All site refer to a CDC report that only lists 1979 to 1998. Any thoughts or sites with recent data.
Thanks, Bill

P.S. I would also like to us ethis data to difuse the ignorant.

[LavenderRott]

Ummm. Nope. Not so far as I know of, and I have looked.

If you look at the CDC website, you will find that breed statistics are collected by cold calling victims and asking them what breed of dog bit them. So, if you ask me, they aren't worth much as far as breed identification go.

[JemarsSerena]

I did notice that. The CDC study is completely useless. On that note I did find many a site that debunks the CDC but have not offered an opposing study. Still looking

[LavenderRott]

While everyone is keen to blame a breed for most dog bites and fatal attacks, no one seem willing to put up the cash or expertise to set up some type of data base to actually accurately collect dog bite information.

The best single source of information (certainly not discounting all of the great information available on some wonderful websites dedicated to fighting BSL) is Karen Delise's book "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics". While it does use the CDC's breed information, you will find that more is made of other common denomonators.

[BostonRott]

The CDC is not useless, they are rather wise. They have recognized that breed has little to do with biting. They have declared that such stats are misleading and useless.

[winniecnm]

DOG BITE LAW - the most trusted and extensive resource for dog bite victims, parents of victims, and dog owners needing legal information.

For statistics:

DOG BITE LAW - Dog Bite Statistics

I think this would be a good start - I am still trying to get through reading the whole site.

An interesting statistic: The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burglar are one in 177; the odds that it will be a child are 7 out of 10.

[JemarsSerena]

"Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers),"

This is the first line of the CDC conclusion statement. Although it does go on to say that "There are more practical approaches to bite prevention than BSL." To me this is a complete contradiction. While the CDC itself is not useless, how can this study (the only one I can really find) be of use?
ATTS does provide it's breed specific results on Temperment which was very useful, although certain breeds make up a large percentage of the dogs tested.
Still looking........

Found one for Canada if anyone is interested, Innovative CHIRRP project focuses on dog bites - CHIRRP News Vol. 11 July 1997

[winniecnm]

Sorry - I did not realize that those stats were older too..I whipped off an email to the lawyer on that site to see if he knew of more recent info. I know it must exist as there is a book out about fatal dog attacks and the stats are as of 2001.

Here is the link:
Fatal Dog Attacks: The Facts Behind the Statistics

And from the site,

"FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *


The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94

9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).
The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).
Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.

From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).

States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.
While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).
This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I will let you know if I find more info as I am also interested in more recent stats!

[SaranBear]

This relates directly to the study I am doing and I have yet to find any comprehensive bite statistics since about 1998. I've been looking for a couple weeks now. I believe the reason for this is because it hasn't been published. Yes there are statistics for specific cities or counties, but not national or statewide.

The CDC website has the most comprehensive list of studies done on bites. The studies listed do make clear that there are major problems with compiling bite data. Without an accurate tally of the total number of dogs per breed it is impossible to determine statistically which breed is biting the most. So far no one has come up with a way to accurately determine the number of dogs per breed. Eye witness accounts can be wrong. Many people cannot accurately determine a dog's breed. People may lie about a dog's breed. All of these and more combine to limit the usefullness of dog bite statistics.

Inferential statistics allow a researcher to INFER certain things about a population from a representative sample. If the sample is not representative (50 dog bite incidents from Denver is not likely to be representative of the population ( all dog bites in the country)) your likliehood of making an error increases. The inferences made may be wrong. That is why REPRODUCTION of studies is very important. It's not what one study says but what is found to be likely in more than one study over a period of time.



A researcher doing a study must report trends that appear in the conclusions section of their paper. It is not a matter of what they want to find, but what they find. It is unethical to not report their findings accurately.
To accurately quote the study
" Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds of dogs may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates." (J.J Sacks, et al..., 2000) my emphasis

They were extremely accurate, objective, and responsible in reporting their findings. The statistics showed that the most bites were inflicted by these breeds BUT they did state that this doesn't mean they bite the most or that they are more dangerous.

All the other sites are actually refering to many of the same studies that the CDC lists.

[BostonRott]

Bill,

I still can not understand why you want to look at this "by breed." The CDC stopped tracking this for several reasons:

-- propensity to bite is not necesarily determined by breed
-- people suck at telling you WHAT breed a dog is, therefore, collected statistics are based on the "average joe's" ability to determine breed.

Dog bites are more a function of:

- temperament of dog
- socialization of dog
- gender of dog
- neutered vs intact
- children are far more likely to be bitten than adults

This is what current studies are both bearing out, and focusing upon.

Here is a quote from a website on dogbite law:

"

• Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.
• An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
• Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

"

In all honesty, I find your intent of your paper offensive. There are many people who spend hundreds of hours fighting AGAINST Breed Specific Legislation. Most BSL is based upon ignorance of dogs, and merely looking at "breeds that bite." To focus a paper on something similar will simply propagate the myth that propensity to bite is based upon breed......because no matter how YOU write it, you are going to end up with "the breed that bites the most" if the sole focus is breed and # of bites. While that breed may not be the Rottweiler, directing such attention on ANY breed, in this day and age, in my opinion is incorrect and highly offensive.

I pray that you will never suffer this ignorance and have to fight for your right to own your dogs in your locale. The people of Fall River are in grave danger right now, specifically BECAUSE of the ignorance of the Police Chief. The ACO even said that "only 24% of the bites reported were from Pitbulls" ......so who did the other 76% and WHY are they ONLY going after Pitbulls and Rottweilers? It's breed prejuidice and it sucks. A paper such as you're planning to write will only further such ideas, no matter what the conclusion.

[SaranBear]

As far as finding useful sources for your paper the CDC lists the ones that would be the most helpful. These would be primary sources. The books that are a compilation and interpretation of the statistics would be secondary. I would be careful about quoting or referencing statistics from anywhere other than a published and reviewed study. Many people do not have a firm grasp on statistics and authors love to use percentages and odds, but that doesn't mean these numbers are accurate.

Good Luck

I think you may end up changing the focus of your paper. Perhaps researching what bite statistics are the most useful for preventing bites would be good.

Or even using these studies to write a paper about what the statistics say regarding commonalities in dog bites besides breed. So things like sex, whether chained or not, whether dog is known to victim, age of victim.. etc.... these are all data that are available in the reports on the CDC list.

[Ayoka]

Besides what botsonRott says:
"-- people suck at telling you WHAT breed a dog is, therefore, collected statistics are based on the "average joe's" ability to determine breed. "

One thing that I find sorely lacking in these reports is the fact that they rarely mention the occurence of these breeds in the general population (how could they when so many municipalities/states fail to einforce their animal control laws)

It would stand to reason that in an area where there are more X's that there will be more X bites. Wether X be golden, rottie or chi...most studies concentrate on absoloute numbers...

[SaranBear]

Ayoka that's because currently no one knows the number of dogs per breed. I don't think there will ever be an accurate account. I think that BostonRott is right when she attributes the lack of current data to the fact that many people involved have come to realize there are variables that are better indicators of which dogs bite.

[JemarsSerena]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

Bill,

I still can not understand why you want to look at this "by breed." The CDC stopped tracking this for several reasons:

I'm not really looking at breed, just gathering info for a possible research paper. I drank my way out of college as a teen and waited 13 years to go back and have been avoiding comp II (math geek). I want to be ahead of the game when classes start in a month or so.
While I think I have a better idea where the CDC was coming from now I still think their conclusion contradicts itself. I have also come to realize that there really is not conclusive data on the subject of dog bites and may consider a new topic. I appreciate the info.

[winniecnm]

You may want to read the fatal dog bite book - I am sure they have access to more stats.

There ARE conclusions to be drawn from the excerpt I provided you from that site which draws on stats all the way up to 2001:

That most attacks happen on the owner's property to children under 2 that are left unsupervised with a male dog who is unaltered. And that there are often cases of gross negligence on the part of the dog owner which set up the attack.

Maybe you could check the book out of the library and see if it has any other info you could use.