Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 21:70:23.
doi: 10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1. eCollection 2017.

Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds

Nanci Creedon  1 , Páraic S Ó'Súilleabháin  2
Affiliations

Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds

Nanci Creedon et al. Ir Vet J. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The primary objective of this study was to investigate if differences in dog bite characteristics exist amongst legislated and non-legislated dog breeds listed under breed-specific legislation in Ireland (age when bitten, anatomical bite locations, triggers for biting, victim's relationship with the dog, geographical location and owner presence, history of aggression, reporting bite incident to authorities, medical treatment required following the bite, and type of bite inflicted). A second objective of the current study was to investigate dog control officer's enforcement and perceptions of current legislation. Data for statistical analyses were collated through a nationally advertised survey, with Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test statistical methods employed for analyses. A total of 140 incident surveys were assessed comprising of non-legislated (n = 100) and legislated (n = 40) dog bite incidents.

Results: Legislated breeds were significantly more likely to be perceived as aggressive and less fearful as triggers for biting compared to non-legislated breeds (P = 0.003). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to inflict a bite with the owner present on own property and on a business premises compared to legislated breeds (P = 0.036). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to not be reported to the authorities before (P = 0.009), and after (P = 0.032) the bite occurred compared to legislated breeds. There were no significant differences observed between both groups for; age when the victim was bitten, bite location, relationship with the dog, history of aggression, outcome for the dog, if the dog bit again, and seeing a professional trainer or behaviourist. No significant difference was observed between both legislated and non-legislated groups for medical treatment required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted.

Conclusion: The present study results did not observe evidence of any differences between legislated and non-legislated for both the medical treatment to victims required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted. The significant differences in bites being reported to authorities, perceived triggers for biting, and biting locations suggests distinctly differing perceptions relating to risk between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Further consequences relating to the introduction of breed-specific legislation in Ireland are discussed.

Keywords: Bite; Bite severity; Breed-specific legislation; Dog bite reporting; Dog breed; Medical treatment; Public policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research project was approved by the research ethics committee at Newcastle University. Each participant was provided information on the purpose of the survey, and informed that they could withdraw from participation at any time.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

P. S. Ó’Súilleabháin is currently involved in non-financial advocacy, which lobbies government and agencies regarding evidence based legislation relating to human–canine interaction, but in addition to N. Creedon has no financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Ó Súilleabháin P. Human hospitalisations due to dog bites in Ireland (1998–2013): implications for current breed specific legislation. Vet J. 2015;204(3):357–359. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.04.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Scottish Government. Dog asbos can be issued from today. http://www.gov.scot/News/Releases/2011/02/25160105. Accessed 03 Feb 2016.
    1. Irish Statute Book: S.I. No. 442/1998 - Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html. Accessed 03 Feb 2016.
    1. Dail Eireann - See Written Answers 934, 935, 973: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpac... (2015). Accessed 03 Feb 2016.
    1. Dail Eireann - Written Answers Nos. 932–947 http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpac... (2015). Accessed 03 Feb 2016.

LinkOut - more resources