0601caninetaskforcealternative.PDF

1732 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

A community approach to dog bite prevention

Table of Contents

Introduction and problem statement. . . . . . 1733

Scope of the problem

Which dogs bite?

Dog bite costs to a community

This program

Multidisciplinary and multiprofessional

groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1734

Identify dog bite issues in the community

Identify potential partners, allies, support, and

funding sources

Develop an advisory council

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1735

Program coordinator

Animal control agencies

Preventive measures

After a bite occurs

Bite data reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1738

What should be reported?

Who should report?

Who should receive reports?

Data management, analysis, interpretation,

and dissemination

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1739

Public officials and community leaders

Professionals

Public

Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1743

Know the media

A spokesperson

Have information readily available

Ways to effectively convey information

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1745

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1746

1. Groups potentially involved in dog bite

prevention

2. Model dog and cat control ordinance

3. Recommended data elements for reports of

dog bites

4. Model legislation for the identification and

regulation of “dangerous” dogs

5. Suggested reading for professionals

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE

Bonnie V. Beaver, DVM, MS, DACVB (Chair), Department of

Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX 77843-4474, representing the AVMA

Executive Board.

M. Douglas Baker, MD, FAAP, Pediatric Emergency Department,

Room WP143, Yale-New Haven Children’s Hospital, 20 York

St, New Haven, CT 06504, representing the American

Academy of Pediatrics.

Robert C. Gloster, MD, FACEP, Swedish Hospital Medical

Center, PO Box 14999, Seattle, WA 98114, representing the

American College of Emergency Physicians.

William A. Grant, DVM, Community Veterinary Hospital,

13200 Euclid St, Garden Grove, CA 92843, representing the

Professional Liability Insurance Trust.

James M. Harris, DVM, Montclair Veterinary Clinic and

Hospital, 1961 Mountain Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611, repre-

senting the AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond.

Benjamin L. Hart, DVM, PhD, DACVB, Department of Anatomy,

Physiology, and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine,

University of California, Davis, CA 95616, representing the

American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.

Danny H. Hattaway, BS, Underwriting Consultant, State Farm

Insurance, 1 State Farm Plaza, D-1, Bloomington, IL 61701,

representing the insurance industry.

Thomas Houston, MD, Director, Science and Public Health

Advocacy Programs, American Medical Association, 515 N

State St, Chicago, IL 60610, representing the American

Medical Association.

James R. Koschmann, DVM, MS, Crossroads Animal Hospital,

4910 Crossroads Dr, El Paso, TX 79922, representing the

AVMA Animal Welfare Committee.

Randall Lockwood, PhD, Vice President/Research and

Educational Outreach, Humane Society of the United States,

2100 L St NW, Washington, DC 20037, representing humane

organizations.

Don Rieck, BS, Chief Animal Control Officer, Health

Department, City of Sioux Falls, 132 North Dakota Ave,

Sioux Falls, SD 57104, representing the National Animal

Control Association.

Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH, Medical Epidemiologist, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE

(Mailstop K-45), Atlanta, GA 30341, representing the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

William S. Strauss, JD, 235A Windsor Pl, Brooklyn, NY 11215,

representing the legal profession.

Jan Strother, DVM, 809 Hwy 36 E, Hartselle, AL 35640, repre-

senting the AVMA Council on Public Relations.

STAFF SUPPORT

Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Division of Education and Research,

American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N Meacham

Rd, Ste 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173, staff consultant.

Julie Horvath, BS, Division of Education and Research,

American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N Meacham

Rd, Ste 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173, staff assistant.

American Veterinary Medical Association

Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1733

Introduction and Problem Statement

Dog bites are a serious public health problem that

inflicts considerable physical and emotional damage

on victims and incurs immeasurable hidden costs to

communities. Bites have been tolerated as a job-related

hazard for utility and postal workers, but for many

communities the problem may be more encompassing.

Following a severe attack, there is usually an outcry to

do something, and the something that is done often

reflects a knee-jerk response. Only later do officials

realize that the response was not effective and, in fact,

may have been divisive for the community. To assist

communities in avoiding such ineffective responses,

the AVMA convened a Task Force on Canine

Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions. Although

the number of injuries will never be reduced to zero,

Task Force members believe a well-planned proactive

community approach can make a substantial impact.

The information contained in this report is intended to

help leaders find effective ways to address their com-

munity’s dog bite concerns.

Scope of the problem

Dogs have shared their lives with humans for more

than 12,000 years,

and that coexistence has con-

tributed substantially to humans’ quality of life. In the

United States, there are slightly more than 53 million

dogs sharing the human-canine bond,

2,3

more dogs per

capita than in any other country in the world.

Unfortunately, a few dogs do not live up to their image

as mankind’s best friend, and an estimated 4.5 million

people are bitten each year,

4,5

although the actual num-

ber injured is unknown.

Approximately 334,000 peo-

ple are admitted to US emergency departments annual-

ly with dog bite-associated injuries, and another

466,000 are seen in other medical settings.

unknown number of other people who have been bit-

ten do not sustain injuries deemed serious enough to

require medical attention. Still another group of indi-

viduals is not represented by these data, those that

incur injuries secondary to a bite or attempted bite. For

example, a jogger may trip and break an arm while

fleeing from a threatening dog.

Of concern too are the demographics of typical

dog bite victims. Almost half are children younger than

12 years old.

6-8

People more than 70 years old comprise

10% of those bitten and 20% of those killed.

9,10

Direct costs of dog bite injuries are high. The

insurance industry estimates it pays more than $1 bil-

lion/y in homeowners’ liability claims resulting from

dog bites.

Hospital expenses for dog bite-related

emergency visits are estimated at $102.4 million.

There are also medical insurance claims, workmen’s

compensation claims, lost wages, and sick leave-asso-

ciated business costs that have not been calculated.

Which dogs bite?

An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of

dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be

prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it

may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a spe-

cific breed as “dangerous.”

12,13

Although this is a com-

mon concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can

result in a false sense of accomplishment.

Doing so

ignores the true scope of the problem and will not

result in a responsible approach to protecting a com-

munity’s citizens.

Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they

do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.

Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from pop-

ular large breeds are a problem. This should be expect-

ed, because big dogs can physically do more damage if

they do bite, and any popular breed has more individ-

uals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite

and are capable of causing severe injury. There are sev-

eral reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite

rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.

First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurate-

ly recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly

described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual

number of bites that occur in a community is not

known, especially if they did not result in serious

injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed

or combination of breeds in a community is not

known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community

to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then

incomplete.

Breed data likely vary between communi-

ties, states, or regions, and can even vary between

neighborhoods within a community.

Wolf hybrids are just that: hybrids between wild

and domestic canids. Their behavior is unpredictable

because of this hybridization, and they are usually

treated as wild animals by local or state statutes. Wolf

hybrids are not addressed by this program.

Sex differences do emerge from data on various

types of aggression. Intact (unneutered) male dogs rep-

resented 80% of dogs presented to veterinary behavior-

ists for dominance aggression, the most commonly

diagnosed type of aggression.

Intact males are also

involved in 70 to 76% of reported dog bite incidents.

7,15

The sex distribution of dogs inflicting unreported bites

is not known. Unspayed females that are not part of a

carefully planned breeding program may attract free-

roaming males, which increases bite risk to people

through increased exposure to unfamiliar dogs. Dams

are protective of their puppies and may bite those who

try to handle the young. Unspayed females may also

contribute to the population of unwanted dogs that are

often acquired by people who do not understand the

long-term commitment they have undertaken, that are

surrendered to animal shelters where many are

destroyed, or that are turned loose under the miscon-

ception that they can successfully fend for themselves.

Dog bite costs to a community

Costs associated with dog bite injuries cannot be

readily measured, because so many intangible quality

of life issues are involved. This makes it more difficult

for community councils to justify the time, effort, and

expense necessary to institute a bite reduction program

when compared to a new fire truck, street paving, or

city park. Intangible costs include time spent by vol-

unteer and paid community officials on animal-related

issues, deterioration of relationships between neigh-

bors, building appropriate medical support, citizens’

concerns about neighborhood safety for children,

1734 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

homeowners’ insurance costs within the community,

and animal shelter support for unwanted pets. These

are quality of life issues that ultimately determine the

desirability of a community to its citizens and that can

motivate proactive community officials to institute a

prevention program.

This program

Reducing the incidence of dog bites requires active

community involvement; passive attention or a token

commitment is not sufficient. By actively focusing on

dog bite prevention, the State of Nevada was able to

reduce the incidence of bites by approximately 15%.

Members of the Task Force represented a broad range

of disciplines and designed the program presented

here. It was recognized that the community approach

must be multidisciplinary and that different communi-

ties will have different needs based on their level of

commitment, preexisting programs, and available

resources. Although the best results will be obtained by

adopting the entire prevention program, the program is

designed so that it may be adopted as a whole or in

part. Either way, the goal remains to reduce the inci-

dence of dog bites within communities and improve

quality of life for their citizens.

Multidisciplinary and

Multiprofessional Groups

It is unlikely that a dog bite prevention program

will begin in a complete vacuum. Typically, some for-

mal program is already in place under the auspices of

animal control, the health department, or local law

enforcement. Efforts may also be under way by other

groups such as educators or dog breeders. It makes

sense to identify related activities to determine what

needs are not being met, find likely sources of support

or resistance, and avoid duplication of effort and

potential turf battles (Appendix 1).

Identify dog bite issues in the community

Each community has a unique set of dog bite-relat-

ed problems and its own approaches to confronting

them. A central task is to identify these particular

issues. The project begins by assessing the political

landscape regarding dog bites and dog bite prevention.

Before launching a program, it is useful to pinpoint the

degree of current and potential support among corpo-

rate and community leaders as well as legislators and

senior staff in the dog bite prevention program’s spon-

soring agency.

Recognize hot buttons—Crafting a program is eas-

ier if the objectives mesh with a highly visible commu-

nity issue. For example, there may be public outcry

about dog waste or a publicized dog attack. Such a sit-

uation may provide impetus for a campaign to support

licensing and leash laws or ordinances pertaining to

reporting dog bites. When community groups and the

media have already invested in finding a solution to the

dog bite problem, program organizers can dovetail their

efforts and work collaboratively with these groups.

Community interest—Knowing the degree of sup-

port that exists for a prevention program is important.

The prior existence of a program suggests support, but

this may not always be the case. The active support of

a commissioner or health department head (local or

state) is critical, because without his/her backing, a

fledgling dog bite prevention program is vulnerable to

shifting funding initiatives and political pressure.

Public officials are influenced by vocal well-organized

constituencies, so it is important to know what dog

bite-related agendas are getting politicians’ attention. It

also helps to know whether any legislators have a

strong interest in the dog bite issue.

Dogs in the news—News accounts can provide

clues as to how dog-related issues have played out over

time. Compare these accounts with available statistical

data and scientific assessments for reliability.

Identify potential partners, allies, support, and fund-

ing sources

Determine which organizations in the community

are likely to support program efforts or resist them.

Some individuals and organizations will emerge as nat-

ural allies; some old hands will be glad to work with a

new partner in the dog bite prevention field, and some

will actively welcome a new focal point for dog bite

prevention activity. Learning about various entities and

their interest and involvement in dog bite control can

help answer questions in the following areas.

Community resources—Organizations, agencies,

businesses, and individuals offering training, assis-

tance, consulting, library or computer search capabili-

ties, in-kind contributions, volunteer help, or supple-

mental funding must be identified.

Currently available data—Before launching a

major effort to collect dog bite data, it is wise to deter-

mine whether an assessment has already been done.

Ask about reports related to injuries and costs from

dog bites, surveys that include dog bite or dog owner-

ship information, opinion surveys or other studies

describing community perceptions about the need for

dog bite prevention, and similar information. If possi-

ble, find out what happened to existing assessments

and related recommendations. Knowing the history of

previous evaluation and prevention efforts will help in

development of a new program. If an assessment has

been done, determine whether methods and conclu-

sions are sound.

Legislation—It is important to know what inter-

ventions (eg, leash laws, “dangerous” dog ordinances)

have been previously introduced and their history of

success. Individuals involved in these efforts may be

valuable allies in new programs. In addition, current

ordinances should be evaluated to determine whether

enforcement or revision could increase their effective-

ness.

Barriers—Ownership of particular dog bite issues

and potential turf battles should be confronted realisti-

cally. In addition, it must be acknowledged that a dog

bite prevention program may attract opposition from

groups on philosophical grounds (eg, groups that

strongly support personal freedom argue that the gov-

ernment should not mandate licensing of dogs). Clubs

for specific breeds may not be supportive if they fear

their breed will be singled out in a negative way.

Barriers can be overcome by a fresh approach to old

problems or by agreeing to carve out areas of responsi-

bility among interested groups. Typically, there are

many more problems than there are organizations to

tackle them, so it makes sense to avoid attacking simi-

lar issues.

Develop an advisory council

Obtaining community input can be as sophisticat-

ed as conducting public opinion surveys or holding

focus groups to learn about what the community sees

as pressing dog bite issues. More likely, there will be

limited funds at the outset of the program, so more

informal but also potentially valuable approaches may

be required. These include meetings with potential

partners and interested groups to learn about their

constituencies’ concerns. This type of informal inter-

view can be a great help in uncovering key dog-related

issues as perceived by the community. Talking with

people in neighborhoods most affected by dog bite

problems is important. For example, if there is a prob-

lem with dog bites in low-income neighborhoods,

obtaining the views of people living there can help

identify the nature of the problem and potential solu-

tions.

An advisory council or task force that represents a

wide spectrum of community concerns and perspec-

tives creates a source of support for program initiatives.

Advisory groups provide guidance for a dog bite pre-

vention program and may focus on specific high-prior-

ity dog bite issues. Although organizing and maintain-

ing an advisory council is labor-intensive, it can sub-

stantially benefit the program. Members may be able to

provide access to useful information that is not other-

wise easy for the coordinator to obtain. Members can

also identify ways in which the program can work with

appropriate voluntary organizations and associations.

People with experience in dog bite control can offer

perspective about the program and help identify poten-

tial pitfalls as well as successful strategies. Participation

by members representing community organizations

builds a sense of ownership in the dog bite prevention

program.

Logistics in starting an advisory council include

identifying organizations and individuals that should

participate (Appendix 1), determining the size of the

council, establishing a structure and operating proce-

dures for the council and its regular meetings, assign-

ing staff support, determining the relationship between

the staff and the council, and reaching an agreement

about key tasks. When community members and gov-

ernment officials work together to support the creation

and development of a local task force, it enhances the

group’s visibility and impact.

To foster an involved and active advisory council,

professionals agree that several criteria must be met.

The number of participants should be kept manage-

able; 10 to 12 is a size that works well. If it is necessary

to have more members for political reasons, breaking

the group into smaller committees or working groups

will improve the dynamics. For example, groups could

coalesce around data issues, legislation and policy, and

so on. Involving participants from the start in mean-

ingful tasks will underscore that this is a productive

group. In addition, people are more likely to support a

program they participated in creating, because they

have a sense of ownership.

Because each community’s needs and priorities dif-

fer, the advisory council’s major tasks will vary. The

advisory council or one of its working groups may con-

sider the following activities:

? coordinating efforts among participating organiza-

tions

? developing an action plan

? establishing dog bite prevention priorities

? generating public and legislative support for dog

bite control

? identifying dog bite reporting sources

? interpreting data

? identifying and obtaining resources for program

activities (educational, financial, staffing)

? providing technical expertise for the program

? recommending goals and objectives for prevention

It is recommended that the program be overseen

by a paid coordinator. The program coordinator and

other staff involved can contribute to the advisory

council’s success by good meeting planning and prepa-

ration, regular communication with members, working

with the advisory council chairperson to set the agen-

da, and helping to solve problems that threaten to

derail the process. As with any volunteer effort, a dog

bite prevention advisory council is likely to thrive if

the coordinator nurtures its members with regular

expressions of appreciation.

Infrastructure

A coordinated effort is essential for success in any

venture, and each individual or organization involved

must have a clear sense of their/its responsibilities.

Reducing the incidence of dog bites requires the coop-

eration of many groups, including animal control agen-

cies, the human and veterinary medical communities,

educators, departments of health, and the local licens-

ing authority. Open and consistent communication is

an integral part of an effective program, and one entity

should be designated as the coordinating agency. A log-

ical coordinating agency would be the health depart-

ment or animal control. In addition, it is imperative

that an appropriate agency be granted authority to

conduct investigations and make recommendations.

Program coordinator

As previously mentioned, dog bite prevention

efforts should be assisted by a paid staff person. Because

the diversity of input is so great, it is recommended that

the office of the advisory council’s program coordinator

be located within the municipality’s coordinating

agency. Individuals, agencies, or organizations that

come into contact with or are aware of a “dangerous”

dog or risky situation should provide this information

to the coordinator. The coordinator should then relay

all information to the proper recipients.

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1735

1736 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

Animal control agencies

Animal control officers are the frontline in con-

trolling 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 con-

trol within communities are multiple, including:

? training of animal control officers and ancillary

personnel

? licensing of dogs and cats

? enforcement of leash laws, ordinances, regula-

tions, 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 pro-

grams, control of “dangerous” animals, rabies vac-

cinations

? coordination of efforts

Larger communities often possess more resources

to properly fund animal control agencies and provide

adequate staff

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 judi-

ciary.

Preventive measures

Preventive measures are designed to minimize risk

and should be addressed by all communities.

Control of unrestrained and free-roaming ani-

mals—Reasonable and enforceable laws or ordinances

are required for good control of unrestrained or free-

roaming animals (Appendix 2).

Laws written to

ensure that owned animals are confined to their prop-

erty 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 sub-

stantial 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 own-

ers 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 ani-

mal populations requires an adequately staffed, trained,

and funded animal control agency.

Licensing of dogs—The primary benefit of licens-

ing 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 effec-

tive 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 con-

firmed cases of rabies in dogs from 6,949 in 1947 to

126 in 1997.

Breed or type bans—Concerns about “dangerous”

dogs have caused many local governments to consider

supplementing existing animal control laws with ordi-

nances 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 “danger-

ousness” 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.

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 ani-

mal. 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-spe-

cific bite rates unreliable.

Breed-specific ordinances imply that there is an

objective method of determining the breed of a partic-

ular dog, when in fact, there is not at this time. Owners

of mixed-breed dogs or dogs that have not been regis-

tered with a national kennel club have no way of

knowing whether their dog is one of the types identi-

fied and whether they are required to comply with a

breed-specific ordinance. In addition, law enforcement

personnel typically have no scientific means for deter-

mining 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 acknowledg-

ing 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 unregis-

tered and mixed-breed dogs by including in the ordi-

nance a description of the breed at which the ordi-

nance is directed. Unfortunately, such descriptions are

usually vague, rely on subjective visual observation,

and result in many more dogs than those of the intend-

ed breed being subject to the restrictions of the ordi-

nance.

Animal control legislation has traditionally been

considered a constitutionally legitimate exercise of

local government power to protect public safety and

welfare. Breed-specific ordinances, however, raise con-

stitutional questions concerning dog owners’ four-

teenth amendment rights of due process and equal pro-

tection.

When a specific breed of dog is selected for

control, 2 constitutional questions are raised: first,

because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people

and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of

dog appear to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate

owners’ equal protection rights; and second, because

identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty neces-

sary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is impos-

sible, such ordinances have been considered unconsti-

tutionally vague and, therefore, to violate due process.

After a bite occurs

It is important to have a well-defined postbite pro-

gram in place to minimize physical and emotional pain

for dog bite victims. This allows animal control per-

sonnel to work efficiently, protects animals that are vic-

tims of false allegations, and provides the judiciary

with reasonable alternatives that address a variety of

situations. State laws may dictate parts of this process.

Investigation of animal bite-related incidents—

Any animal bite or incident must be thoroughly inves-

tigated and substantiated by an agent of the empow-

ered investigating authority such as an animal control

officer, police officer, or peace officer. Ideally, the inves-

tigating authority should be the same authority that

enforces related ordinances or laws to give continuity

and credibility to all investigations. Investigating offi-

cers must be given authority to perform their duties by

statute or ordinance. Clear, concise, standardized

information concerning the incident must be obtained

to ensure its successful resolution and facilitate long-

term data collection (Appendix 3).

Postbite rabies quarantine programs—A healthy

dog that is currently vaccinated against rabies and that

bites a human should be examined by a licensed vet-

erinarian to determine its health status. If no signs of

illness compatible with rabies are detected, the dog

should be quarantined. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention has set the quarantine period

for dogs, cats, and ferrets at 10 days, including the day

of the bite. Vaccinated dogs can be allocated to 2 cate-

gories: those that have bitten a member of the immedi-

ate family and those that have bitten an individual out-

side the immediate family. Home quarantine can be

considered for vaccinated dogs that have bitten a mem-

ber of the immediate family, assuming the owner can

confine the dog in a manner that prevents further

exposure. Vaccinated dogs that have bitten a human

outside of the immediate family generally should be

quarantined at the local shelter or veterinarian’s office.

At the end of the quarantine period, the dog should

undergo a physical examination. In addition, interim

evaluations are highly recommended.

A dog that is not currently vaccinated against rabies

and that bites a human should be considered a rabies

suspect and be appropriately quarantined. Contact with

the dog during the quarantine period should be strictly

limited to individuals who have completed rabies pro-

phylaxis and are up-to-date on serologic testing and

booster vaccinations. Physical examinations should be

conducted at the beginning and end of the quarantine

period to determine the dog’s health status.

Quarantined dogs may be treated by a veterinarian, but

rabies vaccines should not be administered to the dog

until the quarantine period is complete. If at any time

during the quarantine period the dog has signs of ill-

ness compatible with rabies, it should be humanely

euthanatized and samples submitted for rabies testing.

Records of all bites must be kept, including infor-

mation specifically identifying the dog and owner.

These should be crosschecked with each incident for

evidence of a chronic problem.

Identification and regulation of “dangerous”

dogs—Certain dogs may be identified within a com-

munity as being “dangerous,” usually as the result of a

serious injury or threat. That classification, because it

carries with it serious implications, should be well

defined by law (Appendix 4). Any such definition

should include an exclusion for justifiable actions of

dogs. Procedures should be outlined that take into

account the potential public health threat, are reason-

able to enforce, and convey the seriousness of the situ-

ation to the owner. Although animal control officers or

their statuary counterparts are responsible for collect-

ing information, a judge or justice will hear evidence

from animal control officers and the dog’s owner to

determine whether that dog fits established criteria for

“dangerousness.” In some municipalities, a hearing

panel comprising a cross section of private citizens

hears alleged “dangerous” dog evidence and has been

given the authority to declare a dog “dangerous” if

deemed appropriate. Any declaration by a hearing

panel, judge, or justice is subject to judicial review.

A judge, justice, or hearing panel may promulgate

orders directing an animal control officer to seize and

hold an alleged “dangerous” dog pending judicial

review. If a dog is determined to be “dangerous” by a

judge, justice, or hearing panel, the owner of that dog

is usually required to register the dog with the appro-

priate health department or animal control facility. The

judicial process may also require the owner to follow

other rigid requirements, including but not limited to

permanent identification of offending dogs, training

and assessment of dogs and owners, and having

offending dogs spayed or neutered.

Because the judicial branch is such an integral part

of any enforcement action, the judiciary must assist

during formulation of “dangerous” dog laws. If the

judiciary is involved, its members will be aware of the

process that must be followed to declare a dog “dan-

gerous.” In addition, they will be aware of steps that

have already been completed and the options available

when a particular case reaches the courts.

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1737

Bite Data Reporting

Accurate and complete reporting of dog bites is an

essential element of a bite prevention program. These

reports are vital not only for case management and

judicial review but for planning, implementing, and

evaluating the status of the problem. Major goals of

comprehensive dog bite data reporting include:

? accurately defining victim demographics to identi-

fy populations at greatest risk for bites and allow

targeting of educational efforts

? defining dog and owner characteristics associated

with higher risk so that an actuarial approach to

the dog bite problem is possible (this facilitates

effective program planning and proper targeting of

control measures)

? defining high risk geographic areas at city, county,

or neighborhood levels so that limited resources

for animal control and public education can be

appropriately deployed

? establishing baseline data so that the impact of

specific elements of the bite prevention program

can be assessed

? providing an accurate, detailed, unbiased, objec-

tive source of information for decision makers,

media, and the public interested in the dog bite

problem and its prevention

? providing critical information for proper manage-

ment of dog bite cases

What should be reported?

At a minimum, a dog bite case should be defined

as any medically-attended dog bite or any dog bite

resulting in a report to an animal control or law

enforcement agency. This would presumably cover

those instances consuming public resources and would

also include cases that may result in litigation.

A number of data elements should be captured on

a report form such that it is comprehensive in scope

without placing unnecessary burdens on reporting

agencies (Appendix 3). Fatal and severe dog attacks on

humans have been associated with prior or concurrent

attacks on pets or livestock, so it is important that

communities also track those incidents. Maintaining

records of incidents of menacing behaviors of owned

dogs running at large in the community may be found

useful in later legal actions.

Who should report?

The goal is to report any medically treated dog

bite or any bite resulting in a report to, or response

from, an animal control agency, humane society with

animal control responsibilities, or law enforcement

agency. Therefore, the primary sources of data should

be:

? animal control or law enforcement agencies

responding to a dog bite complaint

? health professionals attending to a bite injury

(hospital emergency staff, urgent care facility staff,

private physicians, school or camp medical staff,

medical staff of other entities such as military

bases or reservations, and veterinarians)

Recognizing that many dog bites go unreported, a

comprehensive program to assess dog bite incidence

should consider possible secondary sources of data.

These may include:

? anonymous surveys of high-risk populations (eg,

school-age children) that may clarify the true

extent of risk in a community

? anonymous surveys of the public (eg, phone sur-

veys) that can help document the extent of bite

injuries and provide a basis for estimating the ratio

of unreported to reported bites

? reports from professionals including veterinarians,

animal behaviorists, dog trainers, groomers, and

kennel operators who are informed of a bite incident

(mandating that any or all of these professions report

bites may be unrealistic given the potential legal

consequences of identifying an animal as a biter)

Reporting mandates are often inconsistent

between jurisdictions or are poorly enforced. Current

local and state reporting regulations should be

reviewed, as should directives from health or veteri-

nary officials. If current provisions are adequate, it may

be necessary to implement procedures to reeducate

professionals concerning their reporting obligations

and periodically remind them of these obligations.

When a failure to report is uncovered, it may be an

opportunity to gain the attention of the professional,

because sanctions may be imposed.

Who should receive reports?

Reporting should be coordinated by one agency.

Logical agencies to coordinate reports include animal

control or the public health department. The coordi-

nating agency, perhaps through the dog bite prevention

program coordinator, must assume responsibility for

maintaining all information and disseminating that

information to other appropriate individuals or agen-

cies (eg, veterinarians, physicians, the dog owner, and

those involved in follow-up educational efforts).

To insure consistency and compliance, regulations

or procedures should unambiguously state to whom

reports should be submitted and within what time

frame the reports should be submitted.

Data management, analysis, interpretation, and dis-

semination

Because multiple sources may report the same

case, procedures should be in place to permit combi-

nation of data from multiple sources into a single

report. Avenues should be developed for electronic

submission of reports to assist in rapid response, to

streamline reporting to higher levels of government,

and to facilitate data analysis. Whereas disposition of

individual incidents is the first goal for reporting, there

is much to be learned from looking at the overall pic-

ture. Keeping information in an electronic database

simplifies the latter.

Data should be reviewed at regular intervals (no

less than yearly) to determine whether the incidence

and severity of dog bites is getting better, worse, or

staying the same. Basic analysis consists of studying

the characteristics of incidents, including:

? time—yearly trends, peak months, day of week,

time of day. This can help with scheduling animal

1738 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

control services as well as dispatch and response

planning.

? place—locating every incident on a map with a

pin. Are there hot spots? This can help target high

risk areas for future control.

? person—victims and animal owners: age, sex,

race, size. Can they be targeted for education?

? dog—proportion of offenders by sex and breed,

proportion running at large, proportion neutered,

proportion with prior reported problems, history

of rabies vaccinations, licensing history. Have

these proportions changed over time?

Successful evaluation and resolution of a commu-

nity problem and accurate assimilation, evaluation,

and use of quality data requires interactive assessment,

feedback, and information exchange. City, county, and

state public health practitioners, epidemiologists, and

representatives of public health organizations (eg, the

National Association of State Public Health

Veterinarians, the Council of State and Territorial

Epidemiologists, the Association of State and

Territorial Health Officers, and the National

Association of County and City Health Officials) can

provide communities with considerable expertise in

the acquisition and interpretation of dog bite data.

Their participation should be encouraged.

Education

Education is key to reducing dog bites within a

community. The list of those to be educated and those

who may educate includes everyone who regularly

comes into contact with dog owners and potential vic-

tims (eg, veterinarians, veterinary technicians and

assistants, animal control officers, animal behaviorists,

dog trainers, humane society personnel, physicians,

school nurses, public health officials, teachers, and

parents).

The purposes of this section are to educate city

officials and community leaders about the role of vari-

ous professionals in an educational program to reduce

dog bites, provide starting references to ensure a core

of knowledge for those professionals (Appendix 5),

and assist in identification of the educational needs of

various constituencies within a community.

Public officials and community leaders

Public officials and community leaders are the

people to whom residents look for assistance with

social problems. Their influence is important and well

recognized. If a community dog bite prevention pro-

gram is to gain public acceptance and be effective,

community leaders must be well-informed about dog-

related issues within their community and in general.

Professionals

Professionals from many backgrounds need to be

involved in bite prevention programs. Their expertise

is essential to making realistic decisions about what

should and can be done to prevent or follow up on dog

bite incidents and in recognizing what is normal or

abnormal behavior for a dog. Several of these profes-

sionals will likely be members of the advisory commit-

tee, but all should be encouraged to be a part of a com-

munity’s efforts to decrease the impact of a dog bite

problem.

Many professions mentioned in this document are

science-based. This means their members are used to

making decisions on the basis of peer-reviewed data-

supported information rather than gut feelings. This

approach to decision making results in improved out-

comes. Because the dog bite problem impacts so many

different groups, networking between community

leaders and professionals is important. The following

sections describe ways that various professionals and

community leaders can work together toward a com-

mon goal.

Veterinarians—Veterinarians are scientists trained

for a minimum of 7 to 8 years and then licensed to

diagnose and treat animal problems both medical and

behavioral. Although most people think of veterinari-

ans as performing animal vaccinations and surgical

neutering, the practice of veterinary medicine includes

all subdisciplines typically associated with human

medicine. The study of animal behavior both normal

and abnormal has become more important within the

profession as animals have become more important to

their owners. Dogs are now four-legged members of

the family, rather than farm animals that help bring

cows into the barn at milking time. With this change in

the dog’s role have come unrealistic owner expecta-

tions about what constitutes normal behavior for a

dog. Veterinarians can educate dog owners as to what

behavior is normal, can help dog owners teach their

dogs to respond appropriately in various environments

and provide referrals to reputable dog trainers, and can

assist owners with behavioral problems, including

those that have a medical basis or are responsive to

medication.

Until recently, animal behavior was not often

taught in veterinary curricula. Many veterinarians have

had to acquire their knowledge of normal and abnor-

mal canine behavior from continuing education pro-

grams and professional textbooks. For this reason, dif-

ferent veterinarians have different degrees of knowl-

edge about behavior. All veterinarians, however, have

access to board-certified veterinary behaviorists for

help with behavioral problems beyond their expertise.

Although the time, physical, and emotional

demands of veterinary practice can be overwhelming

and leave limited time to devote to a formal communi-

ty prevention program, veterinarians can substantially

impact prevention efforts through their professional

contact with prospective and current dog owners. This

contact should begin before the pet is acquired.

Providing unbiased information on pet selection can

help prevent inappropriate owner-dog pairings.

Prospective dog owners often make spur-of-the-

moment selections that are based on warm-and-fuzzy

feelings and unrealistic expectations. Encouraging

prospective dog owners to seek information from their

veterinarian about the characteristics and needs of var-

ious types of pets and encouraging future dog owners

to ask for guarantees from puppy providers can mini-

mize future problems. When owners take their newly

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1739

acquired dogs to their veterinarian for an initial exam-

ination and immunizations, the veterinarian has a sec-

ond opportunity to provide these owners with good

medical, nutritional, and behavioral advice.

Finally,

veterinarians can educate owners during their dogs’

routine examinations (asking appropriate questions

can reveal problems an owner may not have recog-

nized) or when their dogs are evaluated for specific

problems.

Board-certified veterinary behaviorists—The

American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB),

an American Veterinary Medical Association-recog-

nized veterinary specialty organization, certifies gradu-

ate veterinarians in the specialty of veterinary behavior.

To become certified, a veterinarian must have extensive

postgraduate training, sufficient experience, and pass a

credential review and examination set by the ACVB.

Diplomates of this organization work with problem

animals by referral from the animal’s regular veterinar-

ian, consult with practitioners on cases, and give con-

tinuing education seminars on animal behavior.

Although many communities may not have the benefit

of a resident board-certified veterinary behaviorist, vet-

erinarians have access to and may consult with their

specialist colleagues when necessary.

Veterinary technicians—Veterinary technicians

are integral members of the veterinary health care team

who have been educated in the care and handling of

animals, basic principles of normal and abnormal life

processes, and routine laboratory and clinical proce-

dures. They perform many of the same tasks for veteri-

narians that nurses and others perform for physicians.

Veterinary technicians are often frontline people when

it comes to educating pet owners, particularly in gen-

eral veterinary practices; they greet clients and answer

initial inquiries, clarify instructions, provide clients

with appropriate print, audio, and video educational

material, and answer questions. Certainly, they are an

important part of the educational team when it comes

to dog bite prevention.

Like veterinarians, veterinary technicians have

several opportunities to educate clients. Veterinarians

may be consulted prior to owners acquiring a new pet,

and veterinary technicians can help provide informa-

tion on appropriate pet selection. Veterinary techni-

cians regularly counsel owners during new puppy

appointments, and this is a particularly good opportu-

nity to provide owners with information on bite pre-

vention, including the importance of socialization and

training. Routine physical examinations are times

when veterinary technicians can reinforce the impor-

tance of these early lessons and training, and they can

help veterinarians identify potential aggression prob-

lems through observation and dialog with owners.

Veterinary technicians can also be tapped to educate

nonpet-owning children and adults through school or

other programs.

Veterinary technology programs do not always

offer curricula in animal behavior and, consequently,

many technicians do not have formal training in this

area when they enter practice. Continuing education

that includes basic principles of animal behavior is

essential for veterinary technicians, just as it is for their

employers. Maintaining a clinic reference library of

appropriate print, audio, and video material for rein-

forcement and enrichment and for client education is

useful.

Behavioral education for veterinary technicians

relative to dog bite prevention should include recogni-

tion of classic canine behavioral displays and an under-

standing of the basic types of canine aggression and

their prevention. The aim is to assist technicians in

conveying dog bite prevention information to owners.

Veterinary technicians must not be placed in the role of

diagnosing or treating canine aggression.

Animal behaviorists—There are a number of sci-

entists with PhD degrees in academic fields related to

animal behavior who can serve as valuable resources

for communities attempting to reduce dog bite

injuries. Because of their science-based backgrounds,

they can be particularly helpful in setting up protocols

to determine the extent of the problem within a com-

munity and whether ongoing programs are having a

substantial impact.

As a note of caution, the terms animal behaviorist

or animal psychologist are often used by individuals

who do not have strong scientific backgrounds but

who want to work with problem dogs. There is no

method to evaluate the competence of these individu-

als, and they may be more harmful than helpful to a

community’s efforts.

Dog trainers—This is a diverse group of individu-

als with no uniformly recognized credentialing body or

measures of competence. Although there are many

good dog trainers, there are also trainers that use inap-

propriate methods of behavioral modification that can

negatively affect a dog’s behavior, making the dog more

dangerous to the owner and the community. It is

important that communities make a concerted effort to

work with responsible trainers who interact closely

with veterinarians and PhD-degreed animal behavior-

ists. A qualified responsible dog trainer can be a valu-

able asset to a community advisory group.

Obedience training by itself does not prevent the

development of behavior problems,

and animals that

are sent to a training facility may not learn how to obey

their owners, because the owners do not learn how to

give commands. For problem animals, training is only

part of the solution.

Physicians and nurses—With a dog residing in 1

of every 3 US homes and approximately 53 million

dogs in the United States,

2,3,6

exposure of the physician

or nurse, their family members, or their patients to

dogs during the course of daily life is inevitable. Dogs

have become important members of many families,

and the presence of a pet in the home can affect an

individual’s own decisions about care. Most physicians

are familiar with at least 1 example of a person refus-

ing hospitalization, because there was no one else in

the home to care for their pet.

Because 334,000 Americans are seen in emergency

departments for dog bite injuries each year, 466,000

are seen in other medical practice settings, and 6,000

1740 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

are hospitalized,

it behooves human healthcare

providers to acquaint themselves with community and

personal strategies to prevent dog bites. Furthermore,

just as occurrences of infectious diseases such as

measles are reported to enable investigation of out-

breaks and development of control measures to protect

the public, dog bites must be reported so that cause

and prevention can be addressed. Communities differ

in their requirements for reporting, and practitioners

must understand what is required in their area.

Traditionally, when confronted with patients seek-

ing care for dog bites, physicians and nurses have con-

fined their roles to providing medical treatment. With

the expanding roles of physicians and nurses, however,

disease prevention has become an important issue. In

addition to competently treating dog bites and their

complications, healthcare providers need to be aware

of critical roles they can play in reducing dog bite

injuries.

Advising patients about safe behaviors appears

effective in preventing injury.

23-26

Teaching children,

parents, and patients who own dogs about proper

behavior around dogs and responsible dog ownership

is advisable given the frequency of human-canine con-

tact in our society. Physicians can recommend contact-

ing a veterinarian for pet selection information and

advice if an individual or family is considering dog

ownership, and for information about canine behavior

and obedience training if a dog is already part of the

family. Pediatricians provide age-appropriate injury

prevention counseling during wellness visits.

Dog

bite prevention should be a part of this counseling.

Dog safety tips can also be included in packets of mate-

rials routinely sent home with new mothers.

When a patient is being treated for a bite, an

opportunity exists to prevent future injury by teaching

bite-avoidance strategies. Probing into the circum-

stances of the current bite may reveal which strategies

should be emphasized. Taking advantage of teachable

moments should be considered part of curative care.

Consulting with a veterinarian may help human health

care providers identify subjects they can address dur-

ing postbite sessions.

As witnesses to the health-related outcomes of dog

bites, physicians and nurses are particularly credible

sources of information and can be effective spokesper-

sons. Pediatricians and nurses should be full partners

in community efforts to reduce dog bite injuries.

Animal control personnel—The staff of a well-

resourced animal control program often includes an

education coordinator who can train teachers, school

nurses, and volunteers to become dog bite prevention

educators within the community’s school system (sim-

ilar to volunteers in the McGruff crime prevention pro-

gram presented to primary-school children). For ani-

mal control personnel, job-related continuing educa-

tion is important. Programs are available through the

National Animal Control Association.

Humane society/animal shelter/rescue group per-

sonnel—Dog bite injuries have negative repercussions

for dogs as well as people, and humane society/animal

shelter/rescue group personnel must deal with these

issues. Dogs causing severe injuries may be brought to

humane facilities for rabies quarantine or euthanasia.

Dogs that have threatened to bite or that have nipped

may be surrendered to shelters or rescue groups, some-

times without full acknowledgment by their owners.

Shelter personnel are forced to decide which dogs can

be placed in new homes and which are not suitable for

adoption. Progressive organizations work with veteri-

narians and animal control officers to educate their

staff about safe dog handling and objective evaluation

techniques. Record keeping and follow-up studies

expand their knowledge base about what works in

their community and what does not. Well-trained and

dedicated humane society/animal shelter/rescue group

personnel can be valuable community resources for

public education as well.

Public

Public education is critical to the success of any

dog bite prevention program, because half of all bites

are inflicted by the family dog.

Only about 10% of

bites are inflicted by dogs unknown to the victim.

7,15

public education effort must target a variety of individ-

uals and age groups, and one individual should be

assigned to integrate its components. If a special advi-

sory council or task force is convened, its paid coordi-

nator would be a logical choice to coordinate the pub-

lic education effort. Alternatively, the public education

coordinator could be a member of a municipal group

such as the local health department, animal control

agency, or board of education, or a member of a stake-

holder group such as a humane society or veterinary

association. Many educational programs targeted at

various audiences exist and are included in the dog bite

prevention resource list found on the American

Veterinary Medical Association Web site

(www.avma.org). As new materials become available,

they will be added to this resource list.

Children—Children are the most common victims

of serious dog bites. Seventy percent of fatal dog

attacks and more than half of bite wounds requiring

medical attention involve children.

7,9,15

In addition,

almost half of all children are bitten before 18 years of

age.

27,28

The most vulnerable youngsters are 5- to 9-

year-old boys,

6,7,8

but smaller children can also be seri-

ously injured.

Dog bite injuries rank third only to

bicycle and baseball/softball injuries as a leading cause

of emergency admission of children to hospitals.

Children’s natural behaviors, including running,

yelling, grabbing, hitting, quick and darting move-

ments, and maintaining eye contact, put them at risk

for dog bite injuries. Proximity of a child’s face to the

dog also increases the likelihood that facial injuries

will occur.

6,7,29-31

Target group—The first step in a child education

effort is determining what population of children to

target and when. The logical primary audience is those

at greatest risk: children in grades kindergarten

through 4. Late winter or early spring appears to be

the best time to institute a campaign, because the

school year is concluding and, as children spend more

time outside, exposure risk increases.

It is critical

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1741

that school administrators buy into the concept of a

dog bite prevention program; therefore, requests to the

school district must be made by committed convinc-

ing well-organized individuals. Because school curric-

ula are crowded, time blocks for dog bite prevention

education should be requested early within the school

system’s calendar year. If such a block of time is not

available, an alternative is to have a veterinarian or

physician present a 1-hour lecture or assembly pro-

gram to the entire student body. Once dog bite pre-

vention education has been included within the cur-

riculum (or has been scheduled to be provided

through a special lecture or assembly program), teach-

ers, nurses, and volunteers should consider addressing

the school’s parent-teacher organization to inform par-

ents of upcoming dog bite prevention training for

their children.

Secondary efforts—Secondary targets include chil-

dren in other settings, such as early education pro-

grams (eg, Head Start, day care centers, recreational

centers, and camps).

Identifying instructors—Who teaches the material

will depend on expertise within the community. For

classroom instruction, teachers who have had in-ser-

vice training, school nursing staff, health educators, or

trained volunteers are logical choices. Stakeholder

groups (eg, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, ani-

mal control officers, physicians, nurses, humane soci-

ety staff) may provide a ready source of volunteers for

classroom instruction and special programs.

Adults—Adult citizens must understand the need

for and support a strong dog bite prevention program

not only for their own safety but for the safety of oth-

ers in their community. It is this understanding that

gives a prevention program long-term stability. All

adults should learn appropriate behaviors around dogs

so that they can protect themselves, teach their own

children, serve as an example for others, and reinforce

appropriate behaviors in other children at every oppor-

tunity. Adults also serve as local eyes for animal control

so that roaming dogs are controlled.

Educational materials sent home with school chil-

dren, distributed by pediatricians during well-child

visits, inserted in public utility bills, and produced by

an enlightened local media are all reasonable approach-

es. Involving representatives of service organizations

and community groups during a prevention program’s

planning and active stages will strengthen commit-

ment.

Active adults (eg, joggers, bicyclists, golfers)

whose outdoor activities provide greater exposure to

dogs are most at risk for injury. To reach these individ-

uals, bite prevention information should be provided

to local interest groups, recreational facilities, and

health clubs.

Target group—Primary adult targets within the

community are those who have children and who are

active in outdoor activities.

Secondary efforts—Secondary targets include indi-

viduals between the ages of 21 and 65 years.

Identifying instructors—Materials can be developed

or selected by animal control personnel, veterinarians,

veterinary technicians, or other people knowledgeable

about dog behavior. Information can be distributed

through a number of channels such as those identified

above.

The elderly—As people age, they become more

susceptible to injury and disease. Thinning skin

increases risk of bruising, and a bite producing a sim-

ple puncture wound in a younger individual can cause

a severe laceration in a senior citizen. Sensory percep-

tion decreases so that an elderly person may not see a

threatening dog or may not be able to read its behav-

ioral signals accurately. In addition, diminished motor

skills mean that the elderly are less able to physically

protect themselves or escape.

Another concern for the elderly is that their

beloved pet may not be trustworthy around their

grandchildren. Dogs not raised around small children

or not frequently exposed to them may not be social-

ized toward them.

This increases the likelihood of

aggressive behavior being directed toward these chil-

dren.

An educational program for senior citizens can be

implemented in various settings. Materials may be pro-

vided through community services for the elderly such

as church groups, visiting nurse programs, meals-on-

wheels, recreational centers, or travel groups.

Secondary targets are shopping malls and the media.

Trained volunteers, especially from dog-associated pro-

fessions, are logical sources of information. Human

healthcare professionals can be an important source of

information for the elderly because of the frequency of

their interactions.

Target group—Primary targets are grandparents

and people aged 60 years or older who have dogs in

their homes.

Secondary efforts—Secondary targets include other

individuals who are at least 60 years old.

Identifying instructors—Physicians can interact

with these people during clinic visits. Animal control

personnel, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and

people knowledgeable about dog behavior can select or

produce resource information.

Animal owners—People who own dogs have a

wide variety of views about their responsibilities. For

some, dog care means providing food and water when

the thought occurs to them. At the other end of this

spectrum is the person who actively makes sure the pet

is appropriately fed, well-trained, licensed, and healthy.

Some individuals view dogs as disposable items that

can be abandoned at any sign of trouble or expense.

Once a community establishes acceptable standards for

responsible ownership, dog owners must be informed

of these expectations and related ordinances, and rules

must be enforced. Owners and future owners must be

educated about their unique set of responsibilities,

which include appropriate pet selection, providing

quality nutrition, housing, and medical care, compli-

ance with confinement and licensing requirements,

1742 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

appropriate behavioral training, and supervision of

interactions between dogs and children. Citizens must

understand that pet ownership is an ongoing responsi-

bility, not a passive activity.

Dog owners can be provided with information

through various avenues. Veterinarians and their staff

are logical educators and distributors. Local dog clubs

and trainers provide services to more conscientious

owners. Businesses that sell pet foods and supplies

should also be encouraged to provide bite prevention

materials to their customers. Information can be dis-

tributed with utility bills, and animal shelters can pro-

vide classes for people who are considering acquiring a

pet. Incentives for attendance at bite prevention class-

es could include reduced fees for licenses and coupons

for vaccinations, food, and obedience classes. The most

difficult group of dog owners to reach is those with

minimal attachment to their pets. Although strong

enforcement of local regulations will change some

owners into former owners, most will continue to own

dogs. Therefore, education should be an integral part

of any enforcement program. A good working relation-

ship with the judiciary is critical so that offenders of

animal-related ordinances are required to take courses

that emphasize responsible ownership.

Target group—Primary targets are adults who

already own dogs.

Secondary efforts—Secondary targets are adults

who are considering getting a new dog.

Identifying instructors—Information for this target

audience can come from various sources, and its distri-

bution should be approached in a number of ways.

Animal control officers and members of the legal pro-

fession can describe what is expected regarding local

regulations and the serious consequences if these reg-

ulations are violated. Veterinarians and their staff can

educate owners about vaccinations, neutering,

restraint, and other health care issues. Dog club mem-

bers and trainers can assist by providing socialization

and training instruction and can help educate owners

about being good dog-owning neighbors.

Victims—When someone becomes a dog bite vic-

tim, a teachable moment is created. How useful that

moment becomes in preventing future incidents

depends tremendously on the seriousness of the bite

and the fear response of the victim. Scare-producing or

threatening events are good times for dog bite preven-

tion information to be conveyed. However, the time

surrounding a serious injury is generally too emotion-

ally charged to be of value for dog bite prevention edu-

cation.

Who provides information to victims depends, in

part, on who is contacted about the incident. In addi-

tion to medical personnel, animal control’s investiga-

tive efforts usually require a home visit. Routine visits

to a physician should include gathering historical

information about the patient’s interactions with dogs

to identify patients who would benefit from additional

education. Media stories that reinforce correct

approaches to prevention can also touch many when

they are most receptive.

Target group—Individuals who have recently been

bitten by a dog seriously enough to require medical

attention but not so seriously as to have sustained

severe injuries are the primary target.

Secondary efforts—Secondary targets are individu-

als who have been bitten by a dog in the past.

Identifying instructors—Medical professionals and

animal control personnel are the individuals who

encounter this group.

Businesses—Community businesses need to

address dog bite prevention as well. Certain businesses

(eg, veterinary clinics, grooming and boarding facili-

ties, animal control, pet sitting agencies) revolve

around direct contact with dogs, and employee educa-

tion is critical from a safety and liability standpoint.

Employees of other businesses will occasionally

encounter dogs in the course of their daily job activi-

ties (eg, utility workers, police officers, parcel carriers,

and emergency medical technicians). Training con-

ducted by an animal control officer or other knowl-

edgeable professional may provide employees with the

tools they need to safely handle contacts with at-large

animals, attack/guard dogs, or dogs who simply reside

on the premises of those facilities where they do busi-

ness.

Target group—Primary targets are employees and

business owners who will be working with dogs on a

daily basis.

Secondary efforts—Employees of companies who

are likely to encounter dogs in their daily business

activities can be considered secondary targets.

Identifying instructors—Animal control personnel,

veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and dog trainers

who are experienced at dealing with dogs in a variety

of environments. These individuals will need to cus-

tomize presentations to the type of situations most

likely encountered by the target audiences.

Media

The local media play an important role in a com-

munity’s efforts at bite prevention. For this reason, it is

suggested that 1 member of the advisory council or

task force be a media representative. In addition, the

advisory council can be proactive in helping the media

convey important and appropriate messages.

Sensational events provide an opportunity to convey

important messages. Regular features can reinforce

principles and keep educational efforts flowing.

Know the media

Your key to the public eye and ear is a selective up-

to-date list of local media contacts who have an inter-

est in animal issues. Such a list can be developed by

undertaking a comprehensive media survey. Check the

local library for publications that list names, telephone

numbers, and short descriptions of your community’s

media outlets. Call each office or studio to discover

which desks or departments should receive your

inquiries and press releases. Read local newspapers and

listen to local radio and television news and feature

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1743

programs to identify reporters and hosts who address

animal issues. Finding out whether these individuals

gather their own news or use wire services will allow

you to target press releases and materials to those who

are most likely to use them. Contact local freelance

writers to see whether they would be willing to feature

a bite prevention message in an upcoming piece. Be

aware that your media list will be dynamic, and take

time to update the names of specific contacts. Once a

helpful story is published, or a reporter conveys your

message during a broadcast, be sure to acknowledge

that effort by sending a thank-you note or making an

appreciative telephone call.

A spokesperson

The community should identify a spokesperson

who has the expertise to address complicated dog bite-

related issues, and this individual should be provided

with media training so that he/she becomes an effective

communicator with the print and broadcast media. It is

the spokesperson’s responsibility to convey information

clearly, accurately, and promptly. In various situations,

this individual can identify when there are not enough

animal control officers to prevent dog packs from form-

ing or when a dog has been “sicced” on a person as a

weapon. A knowledgeable and effective communicator

can turn a publicized bite into a learning opportunity

by providing suggestions on how that bite could have

been prevented (eg, the dog was not appropriately con-

trolled or confined, or a child was left unsupervised).

Have information readily available

The advisory council or task force should create a

1-page fact sheet for use by the media and the

spokesperson. This fact sheet should include the num-

ber of dog bite incidents occurring in the community

during the past year, the number of dogs in the com-

munity, the number of licensed dogs in the communi-

ty, what local laws govern dog ownership and control,

and to whom problems should be reported. A list of

community resources should also be available.

Ways to effectively convey information

Because animal stories are popular with the media,

there are numerous opportunities to convey bite pre-

vention information. Local broadcast programs and

newspapers find regular segments about animals pop-

ular with viewers/listeners/readers, and most of those

spots have enough time for short lessons. Another

approach is to proactively bring animal stories to the

media. Examples include a story about a shelter dog

that visits nursing homes after being rescued and

appropriately trained, a description of a guide or

“hero” dog’s training, or warm-weather tips for pets.

Effective mechanisms for providing information vary

with the medium but include:

News releases—Releases may be provided to

print, radio, or television outlets. Releases should be

double-space typed on stationery that provides the

source of the announcement (ie, the advisory council

or task force). Include the subject of the news release

and contact information in the upper left corner. The

mailing date of the release should be indicated along

the right margin. The release should be written in

inverted pyramid style, placing the most important

information at the beginning. Releases should be limit-

ed to 1 page if possible.

Interviews—Interviews may be conducted by

print, radio, or television reporters or hosts and, in the

case of television and radio, may be live or taped. The

individual being interviewed must be an excellent com-

municator and intimately familiar with dog bite issues

and prevention. The interviewee may request a prein-

terview to get a grasp of the direction of the interview.

It is advisable to tell the interviewer which issues you

would definitely like to see addressed. Answers should

be structured according to the program’s time limits.

Talk shows—Most of the principles that apply to

interviews also apply to talk shows, but in this situa-

tion there usually will be interaction with guests (who

often hold opposing views), potentially with an audi-

ence, and with the host. Running through mock dis-

cussions prior to participation is helpful. Responses to

questions or comments from those with opposing

views should always be factual, sincere, and polite.

Public affairs programs—Many stations air 2 or 3

programs a week in which the station’s news staff or

station management interview a newsmaker, a

spokesperson from an activist group, or a public rela-

tions representative from an industry. Issues in the

news are often addressed by such programming. These

provide a good opportunity to make your community

aware of bite prevention efforts and to elicit support.

Access to these programs may be requested by sending

a letter to the station manager.

Bulletin board and community announcements—

Many local television stations donate air time to

announcements of community events. These are often

broadcast in calendar format. This is an easy way to

publicize educational events and responsible pet own-

ership classes.

Editorials—Editorials are used by print, radio,

and television reporters to present their views on issues

of public interest. Prepared statements describing the

advisory council’s approach to dog bite prevention can

be provided to reporters for use in preparing an edito-

rial or may be provided if a reporter presents an oppos-

ing viewpoint.

Public service announcements—Many radio and

television stations donate time for public service

announcements (PSA); however, public service groups

cannot specify when your PSA is to be aired. It is accept-

able to suggest when you believe airing your PSA will be

most effective. Most PSAs run for 30 to 60 seconds,

although 10- and 20-second spots are also used. To mit-

igate the costs associated with production, you may

want to contact local stations to see whether they offer

sponsored placements, in which local advertisers donate

time for specific public service messages. Public service

announcements may consist of script only, sight and

sound (simple or complex), or 16-mm film or videotape.

1744 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1745

See www.avma.org for additional and updated information.

Anderson RD, Nevada Department of Public Health, Reno, Nev:

Personal communication, 1999.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Resource guide-

line for state and local injury control programs; in preparation.

References

1. Beaver BV. Canine behavior: a guide for veterinarians.

Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1999.

2. Wise JK, Yang JJ. Dog and cat ownership, 1991–1998. J Am

Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:1166–1167.

3. Center for Information Management. US pet ownership and

demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, Ill: American Veterinary

Medical Association, 1997.

4. Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a prob-

lem? Inj Prev 1996;2:52–54.

5. Quinlan KP, Sacks JJ. Hospitalizations for dog bite injuries.

JAMA 1999;281:232–233.

6. Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite

injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;2711:51–53.

7. Wright JC. Canine aggression toward people: bite scenarios

and prevention. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1991;21:299–314.

8. Parrish HM, Clack FB, Brobst D, et al. Epidemiology of dog

bites. Public Health Rep 1959;74:891–903.

9. Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities

from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489–1492.

10. Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, et al. Fatal dog attacks,

1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996;97:891–895.

11. Beaver BV. Human-canine interactions: a summary of per-

spectives. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210:1148–1150.

12. Lockwood R. Vicious dogs: communities, humane societies,

and owners struggle with a growing problem. Comm Anim Control

1996;Mar/Apr:12–14.

13. Podberscek AL. Dog on a tightrope: the position of the dog

in British society as influenced by press reports on dog attacks (1988

to 1992). Anthrozoös 1994;7:232–241.

14. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, et al. Breeds of dogs involved

in fatal attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. J Am Vet

Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840.

15. Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A

case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913–917.

16. Line SW. Factors associated with surrender of animals to an

urban humane society, in Proceedings. 135th AVMA Annu Conv,

1998;345–348.

17. Mays J. How many ACOs should you have? NACA News

1998;Jan/Feb:27.

18. American Humane Association, American Veterinary

Medical Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Pet

Food Institute. Model dog and cat control ordinance. Schaumburg, Ill:

American Veterinary Medical Association, 1976.

19. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.

Compendium of animal rabies control. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;

214:198–202.

20. Marmer L. The new breed of municipal dog control laws:

are they constitutional? University of Cincinnati Law Review

1984;53:1067–1081.

21. Hart BL. Selecting, raising, and caring for dogs to avoid

problem aggression. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210:1129–1134.

22. Voith VL, Wright JC, Danneman PJ. Is there a relationship

between canine behavior problems and spoiling activities, anthropo-

morphism, and obedience training? Appl Anim Behav Sci 1992;34:

263–272.

23. Quinlan KP, Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Exposure to and compli-

ance with pediatric injury prevention counseling—United States,

1994. Pediatrics 1998;102:E55.

24. Miller TR, Galbraith M. Injury prevention counseling by

pediatricians: a benefit-cost comparison. Pediatrics 1995;96:1–4.

25. Bass JL, Christoffel KK, Widome M, et al. Childhood injury

prevention counseling in primary care settings: a critical review of

the literature. Pediatrics 1993;92:544–550.

26. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention, American

Academy of Pediatrics. Office-based counseling for injury preven-

tion. Pediatrics 1994;94:566–567.

27. Jones BA, Beck AM. Unreported dog bites and attitudes

towards dogs. In: Anderson RK, Hart BL, Hart LA, eds. The pet con-

nection: its influence on our health and quality of life. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota, 1984;355–363.

28. Beck AM, Jones BA. Unreported dog bites in children.

Public Health Rep 1985;100:315–321.

29. Thompson, PG. The public health impact of dog attacks in

a major Australian city. Med J Aust [serial online] 1997;167:129–132.

Available at: http://www.mja.com.au. Accessed April 24, 2000.

30. Wright JC. Severe attacks by dogs: characteristics of the dogs,

the victims, and the attack settings. Public Health Rep 1985;100:55–61.

31. Karlson TA. The incidence of facial injuries from dog bites.

JAMA 1984;251:3265–3267.

32. Harris D, Imperato PJ, Oken B. Dog bites—an unrecognized

epidemic. N Y Acad Med Bull 1974;50:981–1000.

33. American Animal Hospital Association. Owner education is

key to preventing pet behavior problems. Paw Prints 1995;Spring.

34. Arkow P. Animal control laws and enforcement. J Am Vet

Med Assoc 1991;198:1164–1172.

35. Borchelt PL, Lockwood R, Beck AM, et al. Attacks by packs

of dogs involving predation on human beings. Public Health Rep

1983;98:57–66.

36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dog-bite relat-

ed fatalities United States, 1995-1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep

1997;46:463–467.

37. Hannah HW. Municipal animal control ordinances—some

legal issues. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:38–39.

38. Hannah HW. Legal issues involved in the control of dan-

gerous dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:735–736.

39. Hannah HW. Dog-bite statutes. J Am Vet Med Assoc

1989;195:908–909.

40. Hannah HW. Veterinarians, dog bite statutes, and liability. J

Am Vet Med Assoc 1981;179:662–663.

41. Lauer EA, White WC, Lauer BA. Dog bites: a neglected

problem in accident prevention. Am J Dis Child 1982;136:202–204.

42. Lockwood R, Rindy K. Are “pit bulls” different? An analy-

sis of the pit bull terrier controversy. Anthrozoös 1987;1:2–8.

43. Moss SP, Wright JC. The effects of dog ownership on judg-

ments of dog bite likelihood. Anthrozoös 1987;1(2):95–99.

44. Podberscek AL, Blackshaw JK. Dog bites: why, when and

where? Aust Vet Pract 1990;20:182–186.

45. AVMA animal welfare forum: human-canine interactions. J

Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210:1121–1154.

46. Segan DJ. When the dog bites: strategies for emergency

management. The Physician and Sportsmedicine 1994;22:67–69.

47. Sosin DM, Sacks JJ, Sattin RW. Causes of nonfatal injuries in

the United States, 1986. Accid Anal Prev 1992;24:685–687.

48. American Veterinary Medical Association. Zoonosis updates

from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Schaumburg, Ill: American Veterinary Medical Association, 1995.

49. AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond. The veteri-

narian’s way of selecting a proper pet. Schaumburg, Ill: American

Veterinary Medical Association, 1986.

50. American Veterinary Medical Association. Dangerous ani-

mal legislation (position statement). 2001 AVMA membership directo-

ry and resource manual, 2000:86.

51. Beaver BV. Profiles of dogs presented for aggression. J Am

Anim Hosp Assoc 1993;29:564–569.

52. Borchelt PL. Aggressive behavior of dogs kept as compan-

ion animals: classification and influence of sex, reproductive status

and breed. Appl Anim Ethol 1983;10:45–61.

53. Hart BL, Hart LA. Selecting pet dogs on the basis of cluster

analysis of breed behavior profiles and gender. J Am Vet Med Assoc

1985;186:1181–1185.

54. Hart BL, Miller MF. Behavioral profiles of dog breeds. J Am

Vet Med Assoc 1985;186:1175–1180.

55. Hopkins SG, Schubert TA, Hart BL. Castration of adult male

dogs: effects on roaming, aggression, urine marking, and mounting.

J Am Vet Med Assoc 1976;168:1108–1110.

56. Horwitz D. Pet misbehavior: the human-animal bond at

risk. Adv Small Anim Med Surg 1998;11:1–3.

57. Landsberg GM. The distribution of canine behavior cases at

three behavior referral practices. Vet Med 1991;Oct:1011–1018.

58. Landsberg B, Hunthausen W, Ackerman L. Handbook of

1746 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

behaviour problems of the dog and cat. Boston: Butterworth-

Heinemann, 1997;129–150.

59. Lund JD, Vestergaard KS. Development of social behaviour in

four litters of dogs (Canis familiaris). Acta Vet Scand 1998;39:183–193.

60. Mathews JR, Lattal KA. A behavioral analysis of dog bites to

children. Dev Behav Ped 1994;15:44–52.

61. Neilson JC, Eckstein RA, Hart BL. Effects of castration on

problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration

of behavior. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;211:180–182.

62. Netto WJ, Planta DJU. Behavioural testing for aggression in

the domestic dog. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1997;52:243–263.

63. O’Farrell V, Peachey E. Behavioural effects of ovariohys-

terectomy on bitches. J Small Anim Pract 1990;31:595–598.

64. Overall K. When dogs bite: what you don’t know can kill

dogs. DVM Newsmagazine 1998;Apr:13S–20S.

65. Overall K. Clinical behavioral medicine for small animals. St

Louis: Mosby, 1997;88–137.

66. Overall KA. Sex and aggression. Canine Pract 1996;20:16–18.

67. Overall K. Fearful aggression, anxiety case leads to inten-

sive behavior modification protocol. DVM Newsmagazine 1995;May:

6S–10S.

68. Overall KL. Early intervention by owner can help prevent

inappropriate play aggression. DVM Newsmagazine 1993;26(9):43.

69. Reisner IR, Erb HN, Houpt KA. Risk factors for behavior-

related euthanasia among dominant-aggressive dogs: 110 cases

(1989–1992) J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;205:855–863.

70. Tan JS. Human zoonotic infections transmitted by dogs and

cats. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1933–1943.

71. Underman AE. Bite wounds inflicted by dogs and cats. Vet

Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987;17:195–207.

72. Wright JC. Canine aggression: dog bites to people. In: Voith

VL, Borchelt PL, eds. Readings in companion animal behavior. Trenton,

NJ: Veterinary Learning Systems, 1996:240–246.

73. Zoonotic diseases in the immunocompromised: roles of

physicians and veterinarians. Am Assoc Food Hyg Veterinarians News-

O-Gram 1998;Nov/Dec:14–15.

74. American Veterinary Medical Association. People and ani-

mals sharing the world. Schaumburg, Ill: American Veterinary

Medical Association, 1993.

75. Fleisher GR. The management of bite wounds. N Engl J Med

1999;340:138–140.

76. Talan DA, Citron DM, Abrahamian FM, et al.

Bacteriologic analysis of infected dog and cat bites. N Engl J Med

1999;340:85-92.

Appendix 1

Groups potentially involved in dog bite prevention

A model program for preventing dog bites begins with assembling a local

coalition. Wide representation of community views on the coalition helps

ensure sufficient input and community acceptance of the program. Key play-

ers include:

? animal control officials

? attorneys, judges

? business sector (eg, local business leaders, insurance companies, pet

stores)

? dog breeders and trainers

? educational system (eg, schools, parent-teacher organizations)

? health departments and public health associations

? humane societies

? human healthcare providers and associations (eg, nurses, pediatricians,

community health centers, emergency medical service and ambulance

companies, health maintenance organizations, hospitals, managed care

organizations, medical associations, medical examiners’ and coroners’

offices, schools of medicine and public health, trauma centers)

? kennel clubs, dog clubs, assistance dog organizations

? law enforcement agencies

? local government officials

? media

? occupational safety organizations, agencies, and groups (eg, firefight-

ers, meter readers)

? veterinary care providers and associations, allied staff, clinics, schools

of veterinary medicine and veterinary technology

? volunteer nonprofit organizations (eg, boy/girl scouts; various “Y”s; 4-H

clubs; chapters of the American Red Cross, Safe Kids, National Safety

Council, and National Fire Protection Association; foundations; United

Way; and civic groups [Kiwanis, Rotary])

? other groups (eg, sports recreation clubs [joggers, bicyclists], automo-

bile clubs, extension offices)

Continued on next page.

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1747

Appendix 2

Model dog and cat control ordinance

Originally produced and published jointly by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the

American Humane Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Pet Food

Institute in 1976. Modifications have been made from the original version to reflect updated US

Public Laws, current titles of other referenced documents, and present favored terminology

and definitions concerning “dangerous” animals.

Section 1. Definitions

As used in this ordinance the following terms mean:

Animal—For the purpose of this ordinance, animal shall mean dog or cat.

Animal control authority—The person or persons designated to enforce this ordinance.

Animal establishment—Any pet shop, grooming shop, animal auction, performing-animal exhibi-

tion, kennel or animal shelter, except this term shall not include veterinary medical facilities,

licensed research facilities, facilities operated by government agencies, or licensed animal

dealers regulated by the USDA under the provisions of US Public Laws 89-544, 91-579, 94-279,

99-198, and 101-624.

Animal shelter—Facility designated or recognized by the [jurisdiction]* for the purpose of

impounding and caring for animals.

At large—A dog or cat shall be deemed to be at large when off the property of the owner and not

under restraint.

Humane manner—Care of an animal to include, but not be limited to, adequate heat, ventilation

and sanitary shelter, wholesome food and water, consistent with the normal requirements and

feedings habits of the animal’s size, species, and breed.

Kennel—An establishment kept for the purpose of breeding, selling, or boarding dogs or cats or

engaged in training dogs or cats.

Licensing authority—The agency or department of [jurisdiction] or any designated representative

thereof charged with administering the issuance and/or revocation of permits and licenses

under the provisions of this ordinance.

Livestock guarding dogs—Dogs kept for the primary purpose of protecting livestock from preda-

tory attacks.

Neutered—Rendered permanently incapable of reproduction.

Nuisance—A dog or cat shall be considered a nuisance if it: damages, soils, defiles, or defecates

on private property other than the owner’s or on public walks and recreation areas unless such

waste is immediately removed and properly disposed of by the owner; causes unsanitary,

“dangerous,” or offensive conditions; causes a disturbance by excessive barking or other

noise making; or chases vehicles, or molests, attacks, or interferes with persons or other

domestic animals on public property.

Owner—A person having the right of property or custody of a dog or cat or who keeps or harbors

a dog or cat or knowingly permits a dog or cat to remain on or about any premises occupied by

that person.

Person—Any individual, corporation, partnership, organization, or institution commonly recog-

nized by law as a unit.

Pet shop—An establishment engaged in the business of buying or selling, at retail, dogs or cats

or other animals for profit-making purposes.

Restraint—A dog or cat shall be considered under restraint if it is within the real property limits

of its owner or secured by a leash or lead or under the control of a responsible person.

“Dangerous” dog or cat—A dog or cat that without justification attacks a person or domestic ani-

mal causing physical injury or death, or behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would

believe poses an unjustified imminent threat or serious injury or death to one (1) or more per-

sons or domestic animals.

Section 2. Licensing and rabies vaccination

a. Except as provided in Section 3, no person shall own, keep, or harbor any dog or cat over

four (4) months of age within [jurisdiction] unless such dog or cat is vaccinated and

licensed. The provisions of this section do not apply to animals owned by a licensed

research facility or held in a veterinary medical facility or government operated or licensed

animal shelter.

b. All dogs and cats shall be vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian, in accor-

dance with the latest “Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control” authored by

the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and published annually in the

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

c. A certificate of vaccination shall be issued to the owner of each animal vaccinated on a form

recommended by the Compendium. Each owner shall also receive a durable vaccination tag

indicating the year in which it was issued.†

d. Application for a license must be made within thirty (30) days after obtaining a dog or cat

over 4 months of age, except that this requirement will not apply to a nonresident keeping a

dog or cat with the [jurisdiction] for no longer than sixty (60) days.

Written application for a dog or cat license shall be made to the [licensing authority] and

shall include the name and address of the owner and the name, breed, color, age, and sex

of the dog or cat. Applicants also shall pay the prescribed licensing fee and provide proof of

current rabies vaccination.

e. The licensing period shall be for ‡ year(s). License renewal may be applied for within sixty

(60) days prior to the expiration date. New residents must apply for a license within thirty (30)

days of establishing residence.

f. A license shall be issued after payment of a fee of $____ for each unneutered dog or cat and

$____ for each neutered dog or cat.§ Persons who fail to obtain a license as required with-

in the time period specified in this section will be subjected to a delinquent fee of $____ .

g. License fees shall be waived for dogs serving the blind or deaf or government-owned dogs

used for law enforcement. All other licensing provisions shall apply.

h. Upon acceptance of the license application and fee, the [licensing authority] shall issue a

durable license tag including an identifying number, year of issuance, city, county, and state.

Both rabies and license tags must be attached to the collar of the dog or cat.II Tags must be

worn at all times and are not transferable. [Licensing authority] shall maintain a record of all

licenses issued, and such records shall be available to the [animal control authority].

Section 3. Permits

a. No person shall operate an animal establishment without first obtaining a permit in compli-

ance with this section

b. The permit period shall begin with the first day of the fiscal year and shall run for one (1) year.

Renewal applications for permits may be made within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration

date. Application for a permit to establish a new breeding animal establishment under the

provisions of this ordinance may be made at any time.

c. Annual permits shall be issued upon payment of the applicable fee:

i. For each kennel authorized to house less than six (6) dogs or cats $ ____

ii. For each kennel authorized to house six (6) but not more than

forty-nine (49) dogs or cats $ ____

iii.For each kennel authorized to house fifty (50) or more dogs and cats $ ____

iv. For each pet shop $ ____

v. For other animal establishments $ ____

d. A person who maintains a kennel of six (6) or more dogs or cats for breeding purposes may

pay an annual permit fee or may elect to license individual dogs or cats as provided under

Section 2. Every facility regulated by this ordinance shall be considered a separate enter-

prise, requiring an individual permit.

e. Under the provisions of this ordinance, no permit fee shall be required of any animal shelter.

All other provisions shall apply. Any change in the category under which a permit is issued

shall be reported to the [licensing authority] within sixty (60) days, whereupon reclassifica-

tion and appropriate adjustment of the permit fee shall be made.

f. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section is subject to a fine of $____.

Section 4. Issuance and revocation of permits and licenses

a. The [appropriate authority] may revoke any permit or license if the person holding the per-

mit or license refuses or fails to comply with this ordinance, the regulations promulgated by

the [appropriate authority] or any other law governing the protection and keeping of animals.

b. If an applicant is shown to have withheld or falsified any material information on the appli-

cation, the [licensing authority] may refuse to issue or may revoke a permit or license.

c. It shall be a condition of issuance of any permit for an animal establishment that the [appro-

priate authority] shall be permitted to inspect any and all animals and the premises where

such animals are kept at any reasonable time during normal business hours. Where a per-

mit is revoked for any cause, or pending appeal of any such action, the [appropriate author-

ity] shall have power of entry on the premises and into all areas where animals are being

kept. A person denied a permit may not reapply for a period of at least thirty (30) days. Each

reapplication shall disclose any previous denial or revocation and shall be accompanied by

a $____ fee.

Section 5. Owner responsibility

a. All dogs and cats shall be kept under restraint.

b. Every “dangerous” dog or cat, as determined by the [appropriate authority], shall be con-

fined by its owner within a building or secure enclosure and shall be securely muzzled or

caged whenever off the premises of its owner.

c. No dog or cat shall be allowed to cause a nuisance. The owner of every dog or cat shall be

held responsible for every behavior of such dog or cat under the provisions of this ordinance.

d. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to a fine of $_____.

e. Dog and cat owners shall ensure that their dog or cat carries identification at all times in the

form of microchip, tag, or other means to allow easy determination of the owners.

f. Livestock guarding dogs shall be exempt from nuisance regulations when performing duties

protecting livestock on premises owned or controlled by the owner.

Section 6. Impoundment

a. Any dog or cat found running at large shall be impounded by the [animal control authority] in

an animal shelter and confined in a humane manner. Immediately upon impounding a dog

or cat, the [animal control authority] shall make every reasonable effort to notify the owner

and inform such owner of the conditions whereby custody of the animal may be regained.

Dogs and cats not claimed by their owners within a period of [five (5) full days]¶ in which the

shelter is open to the public shall become the property of the [jurisdiction].

b. When a dog or cat is found running at large and its ownership is verified by the [animal con-

trol authority], the authority may exercise the option of serving the owner with a notice of

violation in lieu of impounding the animal.

c. In the event that the [appropriate authority] finds dogs or cats to be suffering, it shall have

the right forthwith to remove or cause to have removed any such animals to a safe place for

care at the owner’s expense or to euthanatize them when necessary to prevent further suf-

fering. Return to the owner may be withheld until the owner shall have made full payment for

all expenses so incurred.

d. Disposal of an animal by any method specified here in does not relieve the owner of liability

for violations and any accrued charges.

Section 7. Redemption

a. Any animal impounded may be redeemed by the owner thereof within five (5) days upon pay-

ment of an impoundment fee of $____ , provided that if any such animal has been previous-

ly impounded, the impoundment fee shall be $____ . Payment of impoundment fees is not

considered to be in lieu of any fine, penalty, or license fees.

b. Any animal confined for rabies quarantine, evidence, or other purpose may be redeemed by

the owner thereof upon payment of a fee of $____ .

c. No animal required to be licensed or vaccinated under this ordinance may be redeemed until

provisions for such licensing have been fulfilled.

Section 8. Adoption

An adoption fee of $____ shall be assessed at the time of adoption. No dog or cat shall be

released for adoption as a pet without being neutered or without a written agreement from the

adopter guaranteeing that the animal will be neutered. Vaccination fees, licensing fees, and vet-

erinary costs may be assessed above and beyond the adoption fee.

Section 9. Interference

No person shall interfere with, hinder, or molest any agent of the [animal control authority] in the

performance of any duty as herein provided.

Any person violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to

a fine of not less than $____ or more than $____ .

Section 10. Repeals (conflicting ordinances)

All other ordinances of the [jurisdiction] that are in conflict with this ordinance are hereby

repealed to the extent of such conflict.

Section 11. Severability

If any part of this ordinance shall be held invalid, such part shall be deemed severable and the

invalidity thereof shall not affect the remaining parts of this ordinance.

Section 12. Applicability

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon the expiration of days after its passage and

publication.

Section 13. Safety clause

The [jurisdiction] hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary for the

immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare of the [jurisdiction] and the inhab-

itants thereof.

*For all occurrences of [ ], communities should insert their applicable agency. †The organizations

developing this model ordinance recommended that licensing tags show, in addition to the license

number, the city or county and state in which the animal is registered. This helps to alleviate the

problem of an animal being left unidentified or unclaimed because it has been transported from

one state to another and has no reference to the issuing city or county on the license tag. ‡Where

blanks are found without insertions, communities should insert applicable fees or conditions.

§Differential license fees for neutered animals serve as an incentive for responsible pet ownership.

IIBreakaway collars are recommended when tags are affixed to collars worn by cats. ¶It is recog-

nized that holding periods will be determined to some degree by availability of facilities; however,

it is important to ensure a reasonable opportunity for owners to reclaim their dog or cat.

1748 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

Appendix 3

Recommended data elements for reports of dog bites

Data element Comment

Notifications of dog attacks on humans. . . A card or telephone report to be

submitted by those providing

care to the human victim

Name of victim

Address of victim

Telephone (home and work)

Parent contact information

(if a minor)

Incident date and time

Reported to whom

Date and time of report

Notifications of dog attacks on animals . . A card or telephone report to be

submitted by those providing

care to the animal victim

Owner of victim

Type of victim

Address of owner

Telephone (home and work)

Incident date and time

Name and address of owner

or custodian of attacking dog

Reported to whom

Date and time of report

For animal control investigations

Agency information

Case number

Report date and time

Incident date and time

Who reported the case

Report received by

Location of incident

Victim information

Name

Breed (if animal)

Age and date of birth

Sex

Address

Telephone (home and work)

Parent contact information (if minor)

Rabies immunization status (if animal)

Owner information

Name

Age and date of birth

Sex

Address

Telephone (home and work)

Data element Comment

Dog information

Name

Breed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicate by whose designation

(eg, owner report, animal control

officer, law enforcement officer).

This is important if breed data are

to be interpreted.

Sex

Age

Weight

Reproductive status

Name of veterinarian

Rabies vaccination date

Rabies tag number

License number

Microchip number

Degree of confinement . . . . . . . . . Identifying different forms of

at time of bite confinement (eg, chaining,

tethering, electronic fence) is

important if risk associated with

these practices is to be assessed.

Prior incidents

Obedience training

Circumstances of the bite

Victim account

Owner’s account

Witness account

(contact information)

Number of dogs involved . . . . . . . . Attacks by multiple dogs may

account for 20 to 30% of incidents.

Forms for these animals could be

given case numbers with a special

designation (eg, 123A, 123B).

Injury information

Location of injury

Nature of injury

Severity of injury

Animal disposition

Quarantine location

Date of quarantine

Date to be released

Quarantined by

Euthanatized

Continued on next page.

JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1749

Appendix 4

Model legislation for the identification and regulation of “dangerous” dogs

A. Actions allowed by authorized persons prior to hearing

1. If any dog shall attack a person or domestic animal who was peaceably

conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, any person,

for the purpose preventing imminent injury or further injury, may use

such force as is required to stop the attack.

2. A police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his statutory duties

may, where the threat of serious injury to a person or domestic animal is

imminent and unjustified, use such force as is required to prevent such

injury.

B. Definitions

a. “Dangerous dog” means any dog which without justification attacks

a person or domestic animal causing physical injury or death, or

behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses

an unjustified imminent threat of serious injury or death to one or

more persons or domestic animals. A dog’s breed shall not be con-

sidered in determining whether or not it is “dangerous.” Further,

b. No dog may be declared “dangerous”

i. If the dog was protecting or defending a person within the

immediate vicinity of the dog from an attack or assault;

ii. If at the time the person was committing a crime or offense

upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog;

iii. If the person was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the

dog, or in the past had teased, tormented, abused or assaulted

the dog;

iv. If the dog was attacked or menaced by the domestic animal, or

the domestic animal was on the property of the owner, or cus-

todian, of the dog;

v. If the dog was responding to pain or injury, or protecting itself,

its kennels or its offspring;

vi. If the person or domestic animal was disturbing the dog’s nat-

ural functions such as sleeping or eating.

vii. Neither growling nor barking, nor both, shall alone constitute

grounds upon which to find a dog to be “dangerous.”

2. “Attack” means aggressive physical contact initiated by the dog.

3. “Serious injury” means any physical injury consisting of broken bones

or a permanently disfiguring laceration requiring either multiple stitches

or cosmetic surgery.

4. “Domestic animal” means any animal commonly kept as a pet in family

households in the United States, including, but not limited to dogs, cats,

guinea pigs, rabbits and hamsters; and any animals commonly kept for

companion or commercial purposes.

C. Hearing procedure

1. Any person may make a complaint of an alleged “dangerous” dog as

that term is defined herein to a police officer or peace officer of the

appropriate municipality. Such officers shall immediately inform the

complainant of his right to commence a proceeding provided for in

Paragraph 2, immediately below, and, if there is reason to believe the

dog is a “dangerous” dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such

proceeding himself.

2. Any person may, and any police officer, or peace officer acting within

the scope of his statutory duties, shall make a complaint under oath or

affirmation of an allege dangerous” dog as that term is defined herein to

any municipal judge or justice. Thereupon, the judge or justice, or hear-

ing panel subject to judicial review, shall immediately determine if there

is probable cause to believe the dog is a “dangerous” dog and, if so,

shall issue an order to any police officer or peace officer pursuant to

his statutory duties or animal control officer directing such officer to

immediately seize such dog and hold same pending judicial determina-

tion as herein provided. Whether or not the judge or justice, or hearing

panel subject to judicial review, finds there is probable cause for such

seizure, he shall, within five (5) days and upon written notice of not less

than three (3) days to the owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the com-

plaint.

D. Where a dog is determined pursuant to clear and convincing evidence at a

duly constituted hearing to be “dangerous,” the judge or justice, or hearing

panel subject to judicial review, shall require the owner of said animal to reg-

ister such animal (with the appropriate Health Department or animal control

facility), and to provide prompt notification to (the appropriate Health

Department or animal control facility) of any changes in the ownership of the

animal; names, addresses and telephone numbers of new owners; any

change in the health status of the animal; any further instances of attack; any

claims made or lawsuits brought as a result of further instances of attack;

the death of the animal. In addition, the judge or justice, or hearing panel

subject to judicial review, may require any or all of the following, but items 5,

6 and 11, or any one of them, may only be imposed where there has been

serious injury to a person.

1. Indoors, when not alone, the dog be under the control of a person eigh-

teen (18) years or older. (Provisions for the dog to be outdoors must also

be made.)

2. Outdoors and unattended, the dog be kept within a locked fenced area

from which it cannot escape.

3. When outdoors the dog must be attended and kept within a fenced area

from which it cannot escape.

4. When outdoors the dog must be attended and kept on a leash no longer

than six (6) feet and under the control of a person eighteen (18) years of

age or older.

5. When outdoors the dog must be attended and muzzled. Such muzzle

shall not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration

but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.

6. Outdoors and unattended, the dog must be confined to an escape-proof

kennel of the following description:

a. Such kennel shall allow the dog to stand normally and without

restriction, and shall be at least two and one half (2.5) times the

length of the dog, and shall protect the dog from the elements.

b. Fencing materials shall not have openings with a diameter of more

than two (2) inches, and in the case of wooden fences, the gaps

shall not be more than two (2) inches.

c. Any gates within such kennel or structure shall be lockable and of

such design as to prevent the entry of children or the escape of the

animal, and when the dog is confined to such kennel and unattend-

ed such locks shall be kept locked.

d. The kennel may be required to have double exterior walls to prevent

the insertion of fingers, hands or other objects.

7. Placement of a sign or signs of a description and in places directed by

the judge or justice, advising the public of the presence and tenden-

cies of said animal.

8. Attendance by the dog and its owner/custodian at training sessions

conducted by a certified applied animal behaviorist, board certified vet-

erinary behaviorist or other recognized expert in the field and comple-

tion of training or any other treatment as deemed appropriate by such

expert. The owners of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associ-

ated with the evaluation and training ordered under this section.

9. Neutering or spaying of the dog at the owner’s expense, unless med-

ically contraindicated.

10. That the dog be permanently identified by tattooing or by injecting an

identification microchip, using standard veterinary procedures and

practices, identification number and the identification of the person per-

forming the procedure to be registered with the (appropriate health

department or animal control facility) as indicated above.

11. The procurement of liability insurance in an amount to be determined by

the judge or justice, but in no case in an amount of less than fifty thou-

sand dollars ($50,000), covering the medical and or veterinary costs

resulting from future actions of the dog (a determination of liability shall

be made in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction). This condition

may not be imposed if it is shown that no such insurance is available for

a reasonable premium.

12. If any of the above conditions ordered by a judge or justice, or hearing

panel subject to judicial review, are not complied with, the owner shall

be subject to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

13. If a further incident of attack occurs under such circumstances that the

dog, after a hearing as described above, is determined to be a “danger-

ous” dog, the judge or justice, or hearing panel subject to judicial

review, may impose or reimpose any applicable directives listed above;

additionally, humane destruction of the dog may be ordered, but only

where the further incident involves serious injury to a person.

Appendix 5

Suggested reading for professionals (numbers correspond to cited references)

Group Reference numbers

Public officials and community leaders 4, 6, 8-9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, 27-28, 30, 32-47

Veterinarians 1, 4-10, 12, 14-16, 27-28, 30, 32, 35-36, 39, 41-73

Veterinary technicians 7, 12, 16, 28, 43-45, 47, 50-57, 59,61, 63-64, 66-69, 74

Physicians and nurses 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 27-28, 30, 32, 35-36, 41, 43, 45-48, 60,

70-71, 73, 75-76

Humane society/animal shelter/ 4-6, 10, 12, 14-15, 27-28, 30, 35-36, 41-43, 51-55, 61, 66, 69, 71

rescue personnel