UK legislation that targets ‘dangerous dogs’ has not been shown to reduce dog bites and policies should be based on evidence and risk assessment, suggests a new article.
Rachel Orritt, a PhD student of psychology at the University of Lincoln says that dog bites present a “public health risk of unknown magnitude but no scientific evidence upon which to base a reliable UK estimate has been obtained in the past two decades.”
She also says that discussion by medical professionals about the impact of dog-human interactions “sometimes ignores the health benefits concomitant with dog ownership” with one writer in The British Medical Journal suggesting that “the only way to stop dog bites will be to ban dogs.”
Orritt says there are several studies that show owning a dog is associated with increased physical activity, better self esteem and fewer annual visits to the doctor. She adds that “eradicating dogs would have negative consequences for human health.”
She argues that the British news media “confound the matter further through inaccurate representation of the risk posed by dogs.”
Inaccurate reporting of dog bites, coupled with public pressure “have contributed to the drafting of legislation,” she writes. The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 has been amended in an effort to improve this legislation “but has been shown to be ineffective at reducing dog bite incidence.”
Orritt says that to reduce dog bite incidence, “academics and medical and veterinary practitioners need to cooperate to develop effective, scientifically sound risk management strategies. These should be evidence based and should not depend on politically driven initiatives such as the current legislation.”
Risk assessment for human violence has proved to be accurate and reliable and Orritt says this “might be a practical preventative measure to reduce injury from dog bite” along with medical and veterinary professionals “familiarising themselves with evidence based resources.”
She says that attention must also be given to the psychological health of patients after trauma.
Orritt believes that research is needed to improve care and an “estimate of dog bite incidence” but until this is done, “the scale of the problem is entirely unknown.”
She concludes that evidence based measures to inform ongoing risk management, such as developing effective risk assessments, “should result in the reduction in dog bite injuries that punitive legislation has not achieved.”
Source: EurekAlert! media statement
R. Orritt. Dog ownership has unknown risks but known health benefits: we need evidence based policy. BMJ, 2014; 349 (jul17 7): g4081 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g4081
Specific breeds are not the problem, dog owners are the problem, impose harsher punishment for people who abuse these breeds and use them for unimaginable things such as dog fighting.
I believe it is a human problem, not a problem with the dogs. Fix the people. They need to be educated about dogs (simple things like never approach a strange dog… you would think people would know this, but they do not).
I volunteer at an animal shelter here in Canada and the pit-bulls that have come through have been the sweetest, cuddliest dogs you have ever seen!
Things will help reduce bites in my opinion:
1. Strict leash laws
2. Children-free dog parks
3. Dog education for the public
This is a cause very close to my heart. I am in the US, where BSL is trying to gain more ground every day. Good article.
I’m in New Zealand, where we have BSL and there isn’t much of a groundswell (yet) to understand that it doesn’t work and is very damaging. I continue to comment in local media where I am able…good luck!