A community approach to dog bite prevention - American Veterinary ...

Animal control agencies
Animal control officers are the frontline in controlling
animal bites. A well-resourced animal control
agency is vital for public health and safety within any
community. In some communities, animal control is a
stand-alone agency. In others it is administered
through the local city or county health director or is a
subsidiary of the local police department or sheriff’s
office. Wherever located, the functions of animal control
within communities are multiple, including:
? training of animal control officers and ancillary
personnel
? licensing of dogs and cats
? enforcement of leash laws, ordinances, regulations,
and statutes
? control of unrestrained and free-roaming animal
populations
? investigation of animal bite-related incidents
? administration of rabies quarantine programs after
an animal bites
? bite data management, analysis, and dissemination
regulation of “dangerous” animals
? educational outreach within the community
regarding responsible ownership, spay/neuter programs,
control of “dangerous” animals, rabies vaccinations
? coordination of efforts
Larger communities often possess more resources
to properly fund animal control agencies and provide
adequate staff 17 and training; however, smaller animal
control programs can also be effective, even when they
operate on a limited budget. Dedicated personnel can
accomplish much if they have community support,
including support from law enforcement and the judiciary.
Preventive measures
Preventive measures are designed to minimize risk
and should be addressed by all communities.
Control of unrestrained and free-roaming animals—Reasonable
and enforceable laws or ordinances
are required for good control of unrestrained or freeroaming
animals (Appendix 2). 18 Laws written to
ensure that owned animals are confined to their property
or kept on a leash make freeing a community of
unrestrained and free-roaming animals easier. Although
most dog bites occur on the property where the dog
lives, unrestrained or free-roaming dogs do pose a substantial
threat to the public. Enforcement of restraint
laws is, therefore, essential if the incidence of dog bites
is to be reduced. It is important to protect animal owners
by providing an adequate amount of time for them
to claim animals that have been impounded. Because of
economic constraints, the current standard in the
industry is 3 working days; however, 5 days may be
more reasonable to ensure successful owner-animal
reunions. Control of unrestrained and free-roaming animal
populations requires an adequately staffed, trained,
and funded animal control agency.
Licensing of dogs—The primary benefit of licensing
animals is identification, should that animal
become lost. Licensing also ensures rabies vaccinations
are current, allows quick identification in case of a bite
incident, and provides revenue to help offset the costs
of administering the animal control program. An effective
program can be a source of reliable demographic
data as well.
Vaccinations—Rabies vaccinations are normally a
prerequisite for licensing dogs and cats, because they
are an important control measure for a major public
health concern. In addition to protecting pets, rabies
vaccinations provide a barrier between infected wild
animals and humans. Vaccination has reduced confirmed
cases of rabies in dogs from 6,949 in 1947 to
126 in 1997. 19
Breed or type bans—Concerns about “dangerous”
dogs have caused many local governments to consider
supplementing existing animal control laws with ordinances
directed toward control of specific breeds or
types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such
ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective.
Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs
cannot be responsibly used to document the “dangerousness”
of a particular breed, relative to other breeds,
for several reasons. First, a dog’s tendency to bite
depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early
experience, later socialization and training, health
(medical and behavioral), and victim behavior. 7
Second, there is no reliable way to identify the number
of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population
at any given time (eg, 10 attacks by Doberman
Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs
implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador
Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs).
Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they do
not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal.
Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals
who are not familiar with breed characteristics and
who commonly identify dogs of mixed ancestry as if
they were purebreds. Fifth, the popularity of breeds
changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific
bite rates unreliable.
Breed-specific ordinances imply that there is an
objective method of determining the breed of a particular
dog, when in fact, there is not at this time. Owners
of mixed-breed dogs or dogs that have not been registered
with a national kennel club have no way of
knowing whether their dog is one of the types identified
and whether they are required to comply with a
breed-specific ordinance. In addition, law enforcement
personnel typically have no scientific means for determining
a dog’s breed that can withstand the rigors of
legal challenge, nor do they have a foolproof method
for deciding whether owners are in compliance or in
violation of laws. Such laws assume that all dogs of a
certain breed are likely to bite, instead of acknowledging
that most dogs are not a problem. These laws often
fail to take normal dog behavior into account and may
not assign appropriate responsibilities to owners.
Some municipalities have attempted to address
notice and enforcement problems created by unregistered
and mixed-breed dogs by including in the ordinance
a description of the breed at which the ordi-
1736 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001