You are on page 1of 35

Authors of the 2000 CDC keport

8reeds of doas lnvolved ln faLal human aLLacks ln Lhe unlLed
SLaLes beLween 1979 and 1998
Þubllshed SepLember 13, 2000
1wo human doctors and three an|ma| doctors

Name 1ype of Doctor Cpposes 85L
!effrev !. Sacks, Mu, MÞP Puman ?es
!ulle CllchrlsL, Mu Puman ?es
Leslle Slnclalr, uvM Anlmal ?es
Call C. Colab, Þhu, uvM Anlmal ?es
8andall Lockwood, Þhu Anlmal ?es

Why was the report more heav||y we|ghted w|th an|ma|
spec|a||sts |nstead of human med|ca| spec|a||sts?

CDC M|ss|on

Collaboiating to cieate the expeitise, infoimation, anu tools
that people anu communities neeu to piotect theii health -
thiough health piomotion, pievention of uisease, injuiy anu
uisability, anu piepaieuness foi new health thieats.

CDC p|edges to the Amer|can peop|e:

To be a uiligent stewaiu of the funus entiusteu to it.
To pioviue an enviionment foi intellectual anu peisonal
giowth anu integiity.
To base all public health uecisions on the highest quality scientific uata,
openly anu objectively ueiiveu.
To place the benefits to society above the benefits to the institution.
To tieat all peisons with uignity, honesty, anu iespect.

Cllck here Lo read Lhe CuC's mlsslon

1he CDC's m|ss|on |s to protect peop|e (not dogs).
A|| f|ve authors of the CDC report open|y
oppose breed-spec|f|c (p|t bu||) |aws.

Ieffrey I. 5acks, MD, MÞn
Les||e 5|nc|a|r, DVM
Iu||e G||chr|st, MD
Ga|| C. Go|ab, ÞhD, DVM
kanda|| Lockwood, ÞhD

Display Settings: Abstract
Pediatrics. 1996 Jun;97(6 Pt 1):891-5.
Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994.
Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW.
Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
OBJECTIVES. To update data on fatal dog bites and see if past trends have continued. DESIGN. To merge data from vital
records, the Humane Society of the United States, and searches of electronic news files. SETTING: United States.
SUBJECTS. U.S. residents dying in the U.S. from 1989 through 1994 from dog bites. RESULTS. We identified 109 dog
bite-related fatalities, of which 57% were less than 10 years of age. The death rate for neonates was two orders of
magnitude higher than for adults and the rate for children one order of magnitude higher. Of classifiable deaths, 22%
involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, 18% involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 59%
involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property. Eleven attacks involved a sleeping infant; 19 dogs involved in fatal
attacks had a prior history of aggression; and 19 of 20 classifiable deaths involved an unneutered dog. Pit bulls, the most
commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and
German shepherds (10). CONCLUSIONS. The dog bite problem should be reconceptualized as a largely preventable
epidemic. Breed-specific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue that many breeds are involved in
the problem and that most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog
owners. To prevent dog bite-related deaths and injuries, we recommend public education about responsible dog ownership
and dog bite prevention, stronger animal control laws, better resources for enforcement of these laws, and better reporting
of bites. Anticipatory guidance by pediatric health care providers should address dog bite prevention.
PMID: 8657532 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
U.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health
MeSH Terms
LinkOut - more resources
Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. [Pediatrics. 1996] ...
1 of 1 1/15/10 1:08 PM
properly," he says. The dog should also be well-mannered, constantly under supervision when in public areas, and safely confined-with some
added precautions to prevent innocent trespassers from coming in contact with the dog. "Kids do come onto property," heeds Beck, adding that
young children cannot read "Beware of Dog" signs.
In California, for example, if a dog is reported to an animal control officer or law enforcement officer as being a threat to the neighborhood, the
state's dangerous dog law requires the dog's owner to be notified and a hearing held to determine if the dog is potentially dangerous (could cause
serious injury) or vicious (has caused serious injury). Dogs that are found to be potentially dangerous must be licensed, vaccinated, and kept
indoors or in "securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass." Dogs that are found to be vicious
may be destroyed by the animal control department if the court finds that the release of the dog back into the owner's custody "would create a
significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare." The California courts may also prevent an owner – who is found to own a vicious dog –
from owning another dog for a period of up to three years.
To keep abreast of what is going on
regarding breed banning and dangerous
dog legislation in your area, the following
organizations maintain legislative
web-sites. Humane Society of the United
States – The HSUS maintains a web-site
devoted to dog bite prevention,
education, and legislative issues at:
American Kennel Club – The AKC's
Canine Legislation Department publishes
a monthly newsletter, "Taking Command,"
that is available to the legislative
chairperson of local, regional and
national breed clubs. For the rest of us
dog owners, an electronic version can be
downloaded monthly from the AKC's
web-site at The
AKC also offers a free packet of
information on dangerous dog legislation
for those who are trying to battle or
prevent breed banning in their areas.
Rott-n-Chatter – This informative
web-site is from the Rottweiler folks who
maintain up-to-date legislative
information on all breed bans for all
states. It can be accessed at:
The HSUS supports dangerous dog laws and has supported the passage of several laws in various
states. The HSUS places the responsibility of the rampant dog bite statistics and even dog bite
fatalities squarely on the shoulders of the dog owner – not the type of dog. "Every dog owner must
accept responsibility for preventing dog bites by spaying and neutering their pets, training and
socializing them properly, and by ensuring that their dogs are safely confined," says Leslie Sinclair,
DVM, HSUS's director of veterinary issues for companion animals. Pigeonholing a certain breed as
dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem, she notes, pointing out that dog
owners who want a dangerous dog will simply turn to another breed. The Doberman Pinscher was
the "scary" dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s, and now the Rottweiler in the 1990s.
Sinclair clarifies, however, that the HSUS doesn't deny that certain breeds, such as the Pit Bull,
have a history of being abused by humans and have been used – and are still being used illegally –
for dog fighting in which the dog does not let go until it kills the other animal. With a good dangerous
dog law, Sinclair says "The legislation focuses on the human who allowed the problem to develop,
and who will "do it again" with another dog, if allowed to." She adds, "Good laws protect dogs and
require better care for the dogs."
Watch Your Step
Currently, "watchdog" organizations that track breed banning legislation say that twelve states have
adopted dangerous dog laws and have "outlawed" laws banning specific breeds. Other states are
not regulated in this way. "People need to understand that dog ownership of certain breeds is
getting tougher all the time," says Mickie Brown, legislative chairperson of the Bull Dog Club of
America. She advises dog owners – particularly those of targeted breeds – to stay current on their
local situation. Animal legislation may not hit the front page of the paper, so it is possible for a dog
owner to suddenly be in a situation in which he or she must either give up the dogs, or move.
"Dog owners of breeds that are often singled out for breed banning have an added responsibility,"
Sinclair echoes. "They not only need to keep an eye on the issues, they also need to be model dog
owners." Dogs that are highly-trained, well socialized, and properly cared for, she notes, help to
counter random images of those that are abused, isolated, ill-kept, and poorly trained. They might
also help to prevent legislators from taking the easy way out with a breed ban law, and perhaps
consider more complex laws that are fairer to responsible owners and better for dogs as a whole.
! 1999 Joan Hustace Walker, Chesapeake, VA

Pet Pitbull - Positive Press
2 of 3 1/15/10 12:43 PM
An excerpL from, "1he Canlne Companlon, 8reed
8ans: ls 1here AnoLher Wav?" bv !oan PusLace
Walker (1999).
ln response Lo an earller 1997 arucle bv SLefanle uell' Arlnaa, "Þlavlna wlLh peLs can be danaerous," Slnclalr
ls "compelled" Lo share her veLerlnarlan advlce wlLh Lhe pedlaLrlcs communlLv. Common pro-plL bull
propaaanda ls hlahllahLed ln red. WhaL's noLable ls Slnclalr's comparlson Lo one old Lnallsh sheepdoa faLallLv
ever recorded prlor Lo 1997 bv Lhe PSuS versus 76 plL bull faLallues recorded ln a 20-vear ume span, from
1979 Lo 1998 (Lhe CuC faLal auack reporL).

Rottweilers now 'deadliest dog'
Veterinarians: Pit bulls second, but dogs aren't to blame
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — It's not a record anyone would be proud of, but a study
released by veterinarians Friday found that rottweilers have passed pit bulls as the
deadliest dog breed in the United States. The authors didn't blame the animals, but people
for not knowing how to train their dogs and others for not knowing when to stay away
from unfamiliar dogs.
'People are more in fear of crime and violence, and this has
led to a selection of bigger dogs. If you start selecting bigger
dogs, you’ll get bigger bites.'
ROTTWEILERS were involved in 33 fatal attacks on humans between 1991 and 1998, the American Veterinary Medical
Association said.
Pit bulls, which had been responsible for more deaths than any other breed, were involved in 21 fatal attacks over the same
Rottweilers, first bred in Germany, surged in popularity during the 1990s as more people sought them for protection, said
Jeffrey Sacks, an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"People are more in fear of crime and violence, and this has led to a selection of bigger dogs," he said. "If you start selecting
bigger dogs, you’ll get bigger bites."

The study’s authors, using data from the Humane Society of the United States and media accounts of dog maulings, reported
27 people — 19 of them children — died from dog attacks in 1997 and 1998.
The numbers highlight widespread mistreatment of dogs and a growing public ignorance of how to behave around them,
researchers said. They blamed adults for not teaching children to stay away from unfamiliar dogs.
"It’s not a Rottweiler problem or a pit bull problem," said Randall Lockwood, the Humane Society’s vice president for research
and educational outreach. "It’s a people problem."
The annual number of reported fatal attacks has not varied widely in the past 20 years, the study said. But overall attacks are
on the rise — likely because families are busier, leaving them less time to train their dogs and watch their children.
"A dog has to have its behavior monitored and consequences put in place," Sacks said. "People don’t seem to have a lot of
time in their lives for that."
Pit bulls led all breeds for fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998, with at least one pit bull involved in 66 mauling deaths, the
study said. Rottweilers were blamed for 37 — most of those in the 1990s — followed by German shepherds with 17 and
huskies with 15.
Researchers cautioned the breakdown does not necessarily indicate which dogs provide the highest risk of fatal attacks
because incomplete registration of dogs and mixed breeds make it hard to determine how many of each type of dog Americans
American Pit Bull Terrier--PIT BULL REPORTER...
1 of 1 1/12/10 7:34 PM
1hls arucle was publlshed on
SepLember 13, 2000, Lhe dav Lhe CuC
reporL was released.
JAVMA News Express

Public Health
Members Only
Search News
Search within News only. Go
Jan 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Dec 15 Go
Search by Headline Listing
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association November 15, 2000
AVMA Journals Home | JAVMA online
Responsible ownership the alternative to breed
banning, other restrictions
A man is out for a stroll in his community with his Bull Terrier. He is
stopped by the local animal control officer and told that "pit bulls"
are restricted from his community. The man cannot prove that his
dog is not a pit bull-type dog and that it is a well-trained, household
pet. The dog is confiscated and euthanatized.
Think it could never happen in your community? Although only one
state currently has a statewide breed restriction (Ohio), hundreds of
communities within the United States are actively pursuing breed
bans and breed-restrictive legislation.
When Robert Duffy, executive director of the American Dog Owners
Association, learned that breed banning attempts in Germany during
the past year included approximately 16 breeds, he worried that the
spectrum of breed banning in the United States could increase as
incidents characterize certain breeds as dangerous.
"We get involved in many of these issues," he said, "writing to
legislators, asking how animal control officers can be charged with enforcing breed bans and restrictions
when they have little or no training to identify specific breeds. Even if they could, there is really no way of
defining what a 'pit bull' is and isn't."
In an ADOA letter he sends to legislators across the country, Duffy cites approximately 15 breeds that are
similar in appearance to breeds that have been targeted as dangerous. "Owners of these dogs would not
take kindly to their dogs being misidentified and something bad happening to them as a result," he said.
"In a lot of cases the animal control officer is the final judge."
Duffy has identified cities all over the country that are attempting to ban or restrict pit bull-type dogs,
and, increasingly, Rottweilers. In October, the village of Broadview, Ill, passed a breed-restrictive
ordinance adding Doberman Pinscher to those two categories. According to Duffy, Broadview is not a
home rule state, and is therefore bound by Illinois law that doesn't allow for breed-restrictive ordinances.
He said that Broadview's passing the ordinance, therefore, may be in violation of Illinois law. Broadview is
not unique, however. Duffy added that many communities disregard state laws when pursuing these
ordinances, which could open the door for lawsuits if an owner's pet is treated unjustly. Duffy has been
keeping a close watch on the kinds of breed that are being singled out.
"Pit bull-type dogs, Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Terrier are among other
breeds being targeted of late," he said. "Rare and mixed breeds are also victims."
According to Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of research and educational outreach for the Humane
Society of the United States, "Constitutional and practical issues are raised in the enforcement of breed-
specific ordinances because of difficulty inherent in determining breed with certainty."
Data in a report published in the Sept 15, 2000 issue of the JAVMA indicate that breed-specific legislation
is not the solution to dog bite prevention. The report revealed that, during the past 20 years, at least 25
breeds of dog have been involved in 238 human fatalities. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were
identified as being involved in 66 and 39 fatalities, respectively, over that 20-year period; however, other
purebreds and crossbreds caused the remainder of fatalities.

Search AVMA
Sear c h Ti ps | Adv anc ed Sear c h

Responsible ownership the alternative to breed ...
1 of 2 1/15/10 1:13 PM

Twenty-four percent of deaths involved dogs that were not restrained and were not on their owners'
property, 58 percent of deaths involved dogs that were not restrained but were on their owners' property,
17 percent involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and one percent involved a restrained dog
off its owners' property.
Dr. Gail C. Golab, co-author of the study and assistant director of the AVMA Education and Research
Division, confirmed, "Breeds responsible for human fatalities have varied over time. Since 1975, dogs
belonging to more than 30 breeds—including Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and a
Yorkshire Terrier—have been responsible for fatal attacks on people."
The authors of the study say that, although fatal human attacks may appear to be a breed-related
problem, dogs of other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates.
"A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks,
epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries
and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs."
Duffy said that when a breed is restricted in a community, or if certain breeds are put on the "bad dog"
list, insurance rates for owners of those dogs become exorbitant.
"It's really a kind of banning," he said, "because the liability rates imposed are so great that most people
can't afford the insurance. In some places, you can't even get liability insurance because you own a [dog
of a] certain breed."
Inevitably, he says, owners who have trained, well-behaved dogs become affected by the small
percentage of owners whose dogs have been involved in aggressive incidents.
"All the responsible owners of the breed are put to financial hardship," Duffy said. "Their insurance is
likely to go right out the window."
Duffy would prefer to see communities adopt a law that takes all breeds of dog into consideration and is
focused on penalizing the owner of the dog with the objectionable behavior.
Dr. Golab agrees. She favors consistent enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific, dangerous-dog laws
with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners. She recommends increased enforcement of animal
control ordinances such as leash laws and fencing requirements, prohibition of dog fighting, and
neutering. Dr. Golab also emphasizes the value of educational programs for adults and children that teach
pet selection strategies, pet care and responsibility, and bite prevention.
Pediatrician and medical epidemiologist Dr. Julie Gilchrist from the CDC also promotes the idea of
responsible pet ownership. "Dog bite reduction strategies are more likely to be effective if they focus on
reducing inappropriate dog and dog owner behaviors, regardless of the dog's breed, instead of on
banning specific breeds."
The AVMA's dog bite prevention campaign continues to inform the public about techniques for avoiding
dog bites, and to promote responsible pet ownership. Breeds don't need to be banned, but dog owners'
irresponsible behavior should be.
Sharon Granskog, AVMA public information assistant, contributed to this report.

Return to top
AVMA Home | Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | About the AVMA | RSS feeds
AVMA Journals | JAVMA News | Discussion Groups | Professional Issues | Contact Us
American Veterinary Medical Association
Copyright © 2010
Some files on this page require
Adobe Reader software. Click
on the image above to
download it for free from the
Adobe site.
Responsible ownership the alternative to breed ...
2 of 2 1/15/10 1:13 PM
Pit Bulls in the City
--A Revealing
Discussion on Breed
Specific Legislation,
Surprising Comments
from the Director for
the Center for the
Human Animal Bond--

Part 1
"Pit bulls are different; they're like wild animals," says Alan Beck, director for
the Center for the Human Animal Bond at Purdue University School of
Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN. "They're not suited for an urban
environment. I believe we should open our eyes and take a realistic
approach to pit bulls."
Those who condemn pit bulls and call for breed bans targeting these dogs
tend to be members of the general population, or most often, it seems,
politicians. Beck isn't calling for breed bans – he stops just short of that
resulting from research yet to be published. Still, it's exceedingly rare for an
animal expert to vilify pit, and few would doubt Beck's credentials. He's
renowned for his decades of groundbreaking research on using animals in
therapeutic settings, such as nursing homes. He's the co-author of "Between
Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship" (Purdue
University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 1996; $29.95).
Controversy about dangerous dogs seems to be in the media daily, and
mostly it's pit bull-bull-type dogs who are guilty. Many communities around
the world have responded with breed specific bans, but many experts
contend that's not the right answer.
In 2000, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) teamed to investigate whether or not breed specific
legislation (banning individual breeds, such as pit bulls, from communities) is
effective. The results of their studies were published in several scientific
"We learned breed specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of
dog bites," says Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta, GA.
"Instead, we should look at the people with those dogs responsible for the
Animal Behaviorist Randy Lockwood, Vice President of research and
education at the HSUS in Washington D.C. says about 100 percent of dogs
involved in fatal attacks were unaltered males, also in the overwhelming
majority of instances the dogs were previously complained about but animal
control or law enforcement failed to take action. Other risk factors include
dogs who roamed the neighborhood or dogs who were tethered.
"I believe the answer is to strengthen and then enforce laws that encourage
responsible dog ownership for all dogs of all breeds," says Dr. Bonnie Beaver,
a veterinary behaviorist in College Station, TX who has worked on breed
specific issues, and is now the president of the AVMA. The thinking is if dogs
Steve Dale Biographical
Article Archive
To arrange a personal interview
with Steve Dale, or for answers
to your pet questions, contact
Home > Pet World
Good News for Pets > Pet World
1 of 4 1/12/10 4:38 PM
1hls arucle was publlshed ln Lhe
Ccala SLar 8anner on november
14, 2004.
ÞlL bull laws are noL deslaned Lo
solve a communlLv's whole "doa
blLe" problem. As clearlv
suaaesLed bv Lhe name of a "plL
bull" law, such laws are deslaned
Lo reduce serlous and faLal plL
bull maullnas.
Whv wasn'L ur. 8eck chosen Lo
be one of Lhe auLhors of Lhe CuC
reporL? Þlease see nexL paae.

Proactive Dog Policy: Why Seattle Needs It | by Colleen Lynn 7
• For each dog bite fatality there are about 670 hospitalizations and 16,000 emergency
room visits, 21,000 other medical visits (office and clinic), and 187,000 non-medically
treated bites.
• Dog bites are the second highest activity that sends children to emergency care
superseding the following activities: playground accidents, all-terrain vehicles and
moped use, volleyball, inline skating, horseback riding, baby walkers and
Not All Dogs Are Equal
The theory that "all dogs are equal" and should not be subject to "breed profiling" has placed the general
public at great risk. Hundreds of US cities are reacting by creating BSL to protect families and pets from
pit bull type dogs. On an international level, entire countries have banned them, including: England,
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Singapore
and the UAE.
Experts Agree that Not All Dogs are Equal
In the canine world, aggressive personalities are both made and born. Herding dogs, for instance,
instinctually herd; it is an inherited trait. Pit bulls and fighting breeds instinctually fight and therefore
require special supervision. Alan Beck, a world-renowned dog ecologist, recently submitted testimony on
behalf of Ontario, Canada's pit bull ban:

“While all breeds of dogs can and do bite on occasion, pit bulls (due to their inherent fighting nature,
strength and high pain threshold) have a much higher potential of being involved in a serious attack
than most, if not all, breeds. There is no doubt that the fear of pit bull dogs is reasonable and social
tension about them should also be considered when a community is developing policy."

He adds in his conclusion that:

"Pit bulls are like a "loaded gun." Like guns, in the wrong hands there is great potential for serious
harm to humans and pets. Even in the hands of the "innocent" there is serious potential for harm
as is evidenced by the common media reports of attacks where pit bull owners are reported as
saying they were responsible and never had a problem until the attack in question."

Alan Beck, PhD
Alan Beck is an ecologist with a doctorate from The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. From 1974-1979 he
directed the Bureau of Animal Affairs, in the Department of Health, City of New York. For the next ten years, he
directed the "Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society" at the University of Pennsylvania. Since 1990,
he has been the Dorothy N. McAllister Professor of Animal Ecology and Director of the "Center for the Human-
Animal Bond" at Purdue University.

For more than two decades, he conducted studies on the interaction of people and their pet animals, the
epidemiology and behavior of animal bite injury, and the epidemiology of rabies. He has also served as a
consultant on the reporting of animal bite and animal control for the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) and
several municipalities around the country.
As state and local lawmakers work to pass laws to keep the pit bull population under control, pit bull owners say breed-
specific laws unfairly label pit bulls as vicious even if a dog hasn't attacked a person or another dog.
For a dog of any other breed to be considered "vicious" under Ohio law, it has to kill another dog or cause injury to a
Under Ohio law, people owning "vicious" dogs must pay more for liability insurance and keep their animal confined in a
locked, fenced yard or a secure enclosure with a roof.
In Toledo, residents may own only one pit bull, which must have a leash and be muzzled when in a public place.
Pain at the pound
Toledo resident Emmanuel Rodriguez shook his head in frustration last week at the Lucas County dog pound when an
employee told him he couldn't take his pit bull, Bo Stank, home because of the city's laws applying to vicious dogs.
"My dog's the friendliest dog in the world," he said angrily. But the employee told Mr. Rodriguez he must pay a $100 fine
and an additional $100 to have Bo neutered if he wants his dog back, because of a recently passed Toledo City Council
"You have until July 24 to pay all your fees," a pound employee told him. "You need to know if you don't pay by then, your
dog will be euthanized."
Mr. Rodriguez's pit bull was seized by county dog catchers after it was seen running loose without a collar near children on
July 6 near Asbury Park in West Toledo.
Witnesses said Bo returned home without incident. But when police arrived, they said Bo approached them in an
aggressive manner and one officer threatened to shoot the dog.
Mr. Rodriguez said Bo never has bitten anyone.
"He was only out for 10 minutes," Mr. Rodriguez told Karla Hamlin, a Lucas County deputy dog warden.
"It only takes a minute for somebody to get hurt," she responded.
Nature vs. nurture
Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez
irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers
who don't address the real issue.
"[The veterinarian association does] not believe that the breeds considered to be pit bulls are inherently vicious," she said.
"It's not so much nature as it is nurture. It's about teaching dogs how to behave around people and teaching people how to
behave around dogs."
Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to
properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that
typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police.
The breed of dog that supposedly bites the most has changed over time, and there's a correlation with the breed's
popularity, she said.
"If you were to look back 20 years ago, you'd see German shepherds were responsible for the most dog injuries," she
said. "Five years later, you saw pit bulls. At other times you saw Rottweilers at the top spot, and still other times you saw
Doberman pinschers."
Defining 'pit bull'
Many experts have a hard time determining what a pit bull is.
The veterinarian association, which along with the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club set the standards
for dog breeds in the United States, says the term pit bull does not refer to a specific breed of dog. It's a generic label that
refers to several breeds.
Printer-friendly version
2 of 4 1/12/10 4:36 PM
Colab's sLaLemenL ls exLremelv lnaccuraLe. uoa blLes are reporLed Lo
anlmal conLrol omclals. 1hese same omclals deLermlne Lhe breed of
doa lnvolved ln Lhe blLe lncldenL, noL Lhe medla and noL lawvers.
kanda|| Lockwood

Wh||e kanda|| Lockwood open|y opposes breed-spec|f|c (p|t bu||)
|aws, h|s very research about p|t bu||s was used to upho|d the
C|ty and County of Denver's p|t bu|| ban.

Lockwoou, Ranuall, The ethology anu epiuemiology of canine aggiession, The
uomestic uog: its evolution, behavioui anu inteiactions with people, euiteu by Iames
Seipell, Cambiiuge 0niveisity Piess, 199S: iepublisheu in Animal Law anu Bog
Behavioi, Eu. Baviu Favie anu Petei L. Boichelt, Ph.B., 1999, p. 1SS:

What does the CDC current|y suggest
regard|ng prevent|on to ser|ous and fata|
dog attacks?
Cllck here Lo see CuC webpaae
A Commun|ty Approach to
Dog 8|te Þrevent|on
Created by the
Amer|can Veter|nary Med|ca| Assoc|at|on (AVMA)
Cllck here Lo see full reporL
Why do the U.5. Army,
U.5. Mar|ne Corps, the New ¥ork nous|ng
Author|ty and over 500 U.5. c|t|es
regu|ate p|t bu||s?

"1hese spec|f|c breeds present an unreasonab|e r|sk to the
hea|th and safety of our res|dents and are therefore proh|b|ted."
Camp Le[eune 8ase Commandlna Cfflcer Col. 8lchard Þ. llaLau !r.
What types of human doctors shou|d
have been |nc|uded |n the CDC study
|nstead of an|ma| doctors?
We've prov|ded some examp|es.
2008 Annual Meeting Abstracts
Back to 87th Annual Meeting
Back to Program Outline
A ten-year, two-institution review of pediatric dog attacks: Advocating for a nationwide prohibition of
dangerous dogs
Jugpal S. Arneja, MD, FRCSC
, Kara Pappas, B.S.
, William Huettner, M.D.
, Arlene A. Rozzelle, M.D.
, Gurbalbir Singh,
Children's Hospital of Michigan/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Affectionately referred to as ‘man’s best friend’, dog attacks in the pediatric population often test this analogy. Pediatric dog
attacks are a significant public health issue that negatively affects the psychological well-being of a child. We performed
analysis of our cumulative two-institution pediatric dog attack data, present representative cases and offer evidence to
support a nationwide prohibition of dangerous dogs.
A retrospective review was performed at two urban Children’s hospitals from 1996-2005 of all dog attacks presenting to
the plastic surgery service. Charts were reviewed with analysis of patient demographics, injury site, operative intervention,
and dog-specific data.
109 patients were included for review, with 83% of attacks occurring in the facial region. Mean age was 3.9 years (range
2-18 years). 67% of attacks involved multiple anatomic sites, 95% required surgical intervention with 30% requiring a skin
graft or flap reconstruction. 88% of dogs were known to the victim, 46% of attacks were provoked, 73% of dogs were
euthanized and 57% of dogs were deemed to be of a dangerous breed (Pit Bill or Rottweiler). Mean hospital duration was
4.7 days and 27% required additional reconstructive plastic surgery. Figures below illustrate a representative case of a
4-year old female attacked by her aunt's dog, resulting in a complete nasal amputation, preoperatively (upper), at time of
forehead flap reconstruction (middle), and five years post-operatively (lower), with an acceptable functional and aesthetic
Dog attacks in the pediatric population produce significant costs including physical morbidity, psychological disability, and
financial strains. A majority of attacks were by a known dog, in the facial region, by dogs which we define as of a
dangerous breed. Much of the injury patterns are unique to children and these injuries and associated costs can be
significantly diminished, as the problem is often preventable. Our cases present the ‘tip of the iceberg’ as our cases only
represented consultations directed to Plastic Surgery. The Province of Ontario, Canada has banned Pit Bulls since 2004, as
have several American cities. We describe the scope of the problem, preventative guidelines, and outline why
organizational advocacy in plastic surgery should be directed towards a national prohibition of dangerous dogs.
Mission | About AAPS | Contact AAPS | Member Login
AAPS - 2008 Annual Meeting Abstracts - A ten-year, two-institutio...
1 of 3 5/17/09 10:44 PM
Physician Connect
Find a Physician...

Medscape MedscapeCME eMedicine Drug Reference MEDLINE All

Log In | Register

Differential Diagnoses & Workup
Treatment & Medication
eMedicine Specialties > Emergency Medicine > Environmental
Bites, Animal: Multimedia
Author: Alisha Perkins Garth, MD, Staff Physician, Harvard Affiliated Emergency Medicine Residency, Brigham and Women's
Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital
Coauthor(s): N Stuart Harris, MD, FACEP, Assistant Professor in Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital;
Attending Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Updated: Jun 25, 2009
Print This Email This
(Enlarge Image)
Media file 1: The devastating
damage sustained by a
preadolescent male during a pit
bull attack. Almost lost in this
photograph is the soft tissue
damage to this victim's thigh.
This patient required 2 units of
O- blood and several liters of
isotonic crystalloid. Repair of
these wounds required a
pediatric surgeon, an
experienced orthopedic surgeon,
and a plastic surgeon. Attacks
such as these have caused a
movement in some areas of the
country to ban pit bulls.
(Enlarge Image)
Media file 2: Massive soft tissue damage of the right leg caused by a pit bull
attack. This patient was transferred to a level one pediatric trauma center for
care. At times, staff members may need counseling after caring for savagely
mauled patients.
(Enlarge Image)
Media file 3: Massive soft tissue damage of the lower left leg caused by a pit
bull attack. Most of the fatalities from dog bites are children. Rottweilers and pit
bulls are responsible for about 60% of fatalities.
Search for CME/CE on This Topic »
Animal Bites (Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery)
Bites, Human (Emergency Medicine)
Facial Soft Tissue Trauma (Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic
Bites, Insects (Emergency Medicine)
Patient Education
Animal Bites Treatment
Bites and Stings Center
Animal Bites Overview
Animal Bites Causes
Animal Bites Symptoms
Rabies Overview
Bacterial and Viral Infections Center
Target HbA1c Levels Still the Subject of Much Debate, But
Tailored Therapy Should Be the Aim
Calcium Reverses Fracture Risk Associated With Diet High in
Animal Protein
Australia to Lift Ban on Animal Transplants
Reemerging Rabies and Lack of Systemic Surveillance in
People's Republic of China
British HIV Association Guidelines for Immunization of
HIV-Infected Adults 2008
Tularemia -- Missouri, 2000-2007

Bites, Animal: Multimedia - eMedicine Emergenc...
1 of 2 1/14/10 11:39 AM
Pitbull Mauling Deaths in Detroit
Cheryl L. Loewe, MD, Francisco J. Diaz, MD, and John Bechinski, DO
Abstract: Between the years 1987 and 2005, there were 6 deaths
reported in Wayne County, Michigan, associated with pitbull dog
attacks. This article discusses the age incidence, scene investigation,
nature of the injuries, and discussion relative to fatal dog attacks, an
unusual accidental type of death.
Key Words: mauling, pitbull, fatal dog bite
(Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2007;28: 356–360)
he following 6 cases from the Wayne County Medical
Examiner’s Office in Detroit, Michigan, involve acciden-
tal blunt force injuries sustained in fatal pitbull dog attacks.
The findings seen at autopsy, in general, consist of multiple
lacerations, sets of puncture wounds, and extensive scalp
avulsions, primarily sustained to the head and neck region of
the body, which result in extensive mutilating injuries to the
body and death results from exsanguination. There is a
tendency for these animals to attack the neck region and
destroy the blood vessels of the neck and cause extensive
avulsions of the scalp and ears. In the majority of the cases,
the victims were children or elderly. Four of the victims were
children (age range 2 months to 6 years), 1 victim was a
middle-aged adult (age 44), and 1 victim was an elderly adult
(age 91). Three of the victims were male and 3 of the victims
were female. Three of the victims were white and 3 of the
victims were black.
The following 6 cases of death caused by pitbull maul-
ing are presented, which were all investigated and autopsied
between the years 1987 and 2005 at the Office of the Wayne
County Medical Examiner, Detroit, Michigan. A thorough
scene investigation and a complete autopsy with documenta-
tion of external and internal injuries were performed in all
cases. Complete toxicological screening was performed on all
cases. In some cases, the animal(s) involved in the attack
were shot and the gastric contents were recovered from the
dead animal. The cases will be discussed in sequence in an
order according to increasing age.
Case 1
A 2-month old white male infant was found decapi-
tated on the living room floor. A 12-year-old sibling was
sleeping on the sofa in the same room and awoke because
the baby was crying. The infant was attacked by the family
pitbull, who was previously stray and recently acquired by
the family. Autopsy revealed decapitation with bite marks
surrounding the ragged tissue margins on the neck. The
dog was destroyed and examination of the gastric contents
revealed multiple fragments of bone, skin and soft tissue,
the nose, 1 globe, and both ears of the infant. Toxicology
was negative (Figs. 1A and 1B—ref. case 9589-87—black
and white photographs).
Case 2
A 1-year-old white male child was placed on the
kitchen floor by his 54-year-old grandmother, who was baby-
sitting the child. The grandmother stepped out of the room
momentarily and returned to find the child being attacked by
the family pitbull. The salient autopsy findings include mul-
tiple lacerations and sets of puncture wounds to the face,
neck, and arms. Extensive scalp and facial avulsions were
also present. Internally, there was a puncture wound to the
right internal jugular vein. The animal forcefully attacked
the neck region of the body, causing fracture dislocation of
the vertebral spine at the level of C7–T1. There were also
punctures, lacerations, and crushing injury to the larynx.
Toxicology was negative (Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D—ref.
case 04-3275—images 11, 19, 21, and 28).
Case 3
A 1-year-old male child was attacked while playing in
the front yard of his home by 2 pitbull dogs who were
roaming the streets freely. The mother had stepped inside the
home briefly to answer the telephone and saw her son being
attacked through the window.
Autopsy revealed a large gaping hole in the right side of
the neck with numerous puncture wounds to the right main
carotid and right jugular vein, the esophagus, and trachea.
The entire back was covered by scratch marks and puncture
wounds. Multiple lacerations were present on the face, the
chest, and the groins. Toxicology was negative (Fig. 3—ref.
case 93-8688—kodachrome).
Manuscript received January 30, 2006; accepted June 28, 2006.
From the Office of the Wayne County Medical Examiner, Detroit, Michigan.
Reprints: Cheryl L. Loewe, MD, Office of the Wayne County Medical
Examiner, 1300 E. Warren, Detroit, MI 48207. E-mail: cloewe@co.
Copyright © 2007 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN: 0195-7910/07/2804-0356
DOI: 10.1097/PAF.0b013e31815b4c19
The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology • Volume 28, Number 4, December 2007 356
Case 4
A 6-year-old black female child was walking to
school in an alley adjacent to her backyard. The family was
in the process of moving to a nearby neighborhood and the
2 family pitbulls had just been set free after being locked
up in the basement before the incident. The child grew up
with these 2 pitbull dogs. Both dogs, who were roaming
loose in the backyard, attacked the child in the alley and
dragged her into the backyard of the dwelling. The child’s
pantyhose and skirt were pulled down below the knees.
The mother of the child attempted to pull the dogs off of
her daughter and called her husband for assistance. The
police arrived and shot the dogs. The child was acciden-
tally shot by police gunfire in the back of the knee.
Autopsy examination revealed numerous lacerations, punc-
ture wounds, and avulsions to the face and neck, 67 in total.
Brush burn abrasions consistent with drag marks were also
present. Neck dissection disclosed complete transection of the
left common carotid artery. In addition, there were multi-
ple skull and facial fractures with evidence of blood
aspiration in the lungs. Multiple fragments of skull bone
were absent and/or separately received with the body,
including the left orbit and the left maxilla. A superficial
gunshot entrance wound involving soft tissue was also
demonstrated on the back of the right knee and a bullet
was recovered from the wound track. Toxicology was
negative (Figs. 4A and 4B—ref. case 3365-05—images 5
and 15).
FIGURE 1. A, Partially reconstructed face recovered from
dog stomach. B, Decapitation.
FIGURE 2. A, Lacerations: Face, neck, and back. B, Perfora-
tion neck blood vessels. C, Puncture wounds on larynx. D,
Fracture of vertebral spine.
The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology • Volume 28, Number 4, December 2007 Pitbull Mauling Deaths
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 357
Case 5
A 44-year-old black woman was attacked by 2 pitbulls
who resided at an occupied dwelling while walking down the
street. The subject was observed laying on the ground and 1
dog was attacking the neck region of the victim, while the
other dog was attacking her lower back. A citizen notified the
police who arrived and shot the animals with their service
weapons. Autopsy revealed multiple clusters of abrasions,
deep lacerations, and puncture wounds distributed over the
face, the front and back of the neck the arms, the lower back,
and the legs. There was complete avulsion of the left ear and
partial avulsion of the right ear. Extensive scalp avulsions
were also noted. There was complete transection of the left
brachial artery, the left basillic vein, and the right common
carotid artery. There was a bone defect in the T1 vertebra and
dislocation of the first right rib. Toxicology revealed a post-
mortem blood ethanol of 0.11 g/dL (no figures available).
Case 6
A 91-year-old black woman was attacked by her own
family pitbull dog at home. The autopsy revealed multiple
extensive scalp avulsions, 1 measuring 5 inches in diameter
on the back of the head with exposure of the calvarium and
deep undermining pockets of subgaleal hemorrhage. Numer-
ous lacerations were present on the eyes, both cheeks, the
mouth, the lower face, the left upper neck, both ears, and the
left side of the head. Many paired puncture wounds were
noted consistent with animal teeth. Two of the lacerations on
the face were deep and associated with absence of the lip,
skin, facial muscle and soft tissue, right maxilla, and zygoma,
resulting in exposure of the sinuses and oropharyngeal cavity.
A closed right hip fracture was present. Internal examination
revealed pale, bloodless viscera, blood aspiration in both
lungs and comminuted fracture of the bilateral zygoma,
bilateral maxillary bones, the palatine bone, and the right
mandible with loss of several upper and lower teeth and
laceration of the tongue. Toxicology was negative (Figs. 5A
and 5B—ref. case 05-11440—images 14 and 4).
These cases presented demonstrate rather dramatic mu-
tilating injuries sustained to the human body after pitbull
attack. The common trend in the observable injuries include
injury to the blood vessels and/or organs of the neck in all of
the cases, resulting in exsanguination. Extensive scalp avul-
sions were also observed in most of the cases and the portion
of avulsed scalp is unattached to the head and likely eaten by
the animal. The patterned sets of puncture marks are another
consistent finding compatible with the dentition of the animal
(Fig. 6A—ref kodachrome—dog mouth—ref. case 93-8688).
Scratch marks were noted in some cases and a comparison of
these patterned injuries are consistent with the animal claws
that inflicted them (Fig. 6B—ref. case 93-8688—dog paw).
In 2 of the cases, the animal attacked forcefully enough to
fracture and/or separate the vertebral spine. Complete decap-
itation injury was present in 1 case and the gastric contents
recovered from the animal confirm that the soft tissue and
bone are eaten by the animal. In half of the cases, there were
fractures of the facial bones and/or calvarium. Avulsions or
partial avulsions of the ears was another common finding.
The majority (67%) of the victims were small children, those
least likely to protect themselves. The same reasoning can
apply to elderly victims.
The head and neck region of the child was at the level
of the dogs teeth, making these anatomic regions more
accessible to the dog during attack. Of the dog-mauling
deaths of neonates in the literature, all occurred on the dog
FIGURE 3. Lacerations and abrasions, neck and back.
FIGURE 4. A, Lacerations, face. B, Gunshot wound on the leg.
Loewe and Diaz The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology • Volume 28, Number 4, December 2007
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 358
owner’s property and involved 1 dog and a sleeping child.
Few people are aware that some dogs view infants as poten-
tial prey.
One study of fatal dog attacks in the United States
showed that the pitbull breed was determined to be the most
frequent (41.6%) dog breed implicated in human attacks.
Pitbull terriers, German Shepherds and Rottweilers are the
breeds most often involved in fatal attacks, 70% are commit-
ted by a pet dog within the owner’s yard or its proximity, and
most dogs involved in biting or attacking are known to the
victim or the victim’s family.
People may behave differently
toward their own dogs than toward stray dogs and this may
explain this difference. Surprisingly, stray dogs are usually
involved in attacks of a more innocent nature and bites
typically occur on the hands and legs as opposed to the head
and neck.
In general, fatalities due to dog bites are rare. In 1
study, from 1979 to 1998, 238 deaths were reported in the
United States.
While the sex of the pitbull involved in these
fatal attacks was unrecorded, in general, male dogs, espe-
cially the non-neutered, bite more frequently.
Younger dogs
also tend to bite more often, with dogs aged 6 to 11 months
having the highest bite rate.
Dogs acting in a pack are far
more dangerous than the same animal individually, and in
this study 2 of the cases involved more than 1 dog.
Dogs have 42 teeth, 20 in the upper jaw and 22 in the
lower jaw. The canine masseter-pterygoid complex is short
and strong and its insertion on the mandible provides a
powerful mechanical advantage.
Many of the canines in-
volved in dog attacks can generate up to 1800 pounds of force
per square inch with a bite,
which is enough force to
penetrate sheet metal, so it is reasonable to see how there is
enough force to snap the vertebral spine or fracture the skull,
as demonstrated in this series of cases.
The majority of reported dog attacks seem to happen
when the dog is “unprovoked,” meaning that both parents and
children failed to see what their behavior meant to their dog.
Different types of aggression leading to attacks in
different circumstances can be distinguished, for example,
dominance aggression when the dog challenges a member of
the “family pack” such as a new baby, protective aggression
when the victim is regarded as a threat to the family, posses-
sive aggression toward a victim that invades the dog’s terri-
tory or attempts to move an item “possessed” by the dog such
as food or toys.
Some of the aggressive reactions of a dog
relate to genetically controlled breed characteristics, namely
the Pitbull and Rottweiler breeds, and some communities
have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans.
can, however, be equally be derived from environmental
circumstances and learning. In the inner city, quite often the
pitbull breed is acquired for purposes of protection, guarding,
and even fighting so that these dogs are obligated or duty
bound to behave aggressively.
Also, pain and fear, especially
FIGURE 5. A, Lacerations, face. B, Avulsion, scalp. FIGURE 6. A, Pitbull jaw-teeth. B, Pitbull paw.
The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology • Volume 28, Number 4, December 2007 Pitbull Mauling Deaths
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 359
in dogs that have been maltreated, can provoke aggressive
Victims of dog bites can be found completely un-
dressed or partially undressed, which may erroneously sug-
gest a sexual assault rather than a dog bite setting
and the
6-year-old child described in case 4 of this series serves as an
The authors acknowledge that this series of fatal dog-
mauling deaths represent a small sample of cases, but fortu-
nately dog-mauling deaths are rare in our society. Sadly, they
affect mostly small children, are unprovoked and are often
caused by the family pet rather than the stray dog roaming the
The salient injuries observed include blunt force inju-
ries consisting of lacerations and puncture wounds primarily
involving the head and neck and avulsions of scalp which
result in exsanguination. The forces exerted by the animal
may be strong enough to snap the vertebral spine, fracture the
skull, or even cause decapitation.
The pitbulls aggressiveness may be a combination of
genetic based aggressiveness coupled with inner city envi-
ronmental factors in that these animals are quite often trained
to protect, fight, and guard and are therefore duty-bound to
behave aggressively. The younger, male, non-neutered pitbull
is at greater risk of attacking.
Criminal charges and convictions of owner(s) of a dog
involved in a fatal attack are reported, and the majority of the
offenses were based on reckless disregard for another indi-
viduals’ safety.
The majority of the convictions ranged from
involuntary manslaughter or criminal recklessness to even
murder, second degree.
Finally, the dog-bite prevention recommendations
stated by the CDC include adequate owner and public edu-
cation through veterinarians and the public schools, animal
control at the community level, and accurate surveillance of
reported dog bites.
1. Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, et al. Fatal dog attacks, 1989–1994.
Pediatrics. 1996;97(6, Pt 1):891–895.
2. Lauridson JR, Myers L. Evaluation of fatal dog bites: the view of the
medical examiner and animal behaviorist. J Forensic Sci. 1993;38:726–
3. Wright JC. Canine aggression toward people: bite scenarios and preven-
tion. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1991;21:299–314.
4. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, et al. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal
human attacks in the United States between 1978 and 1998. J Am Vet
Med Assoc. 2000;217:836–840.
5. Miller SJ, Copass M, Johansen K, et al. Stroke following Rottweiler
attack. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:262–264.
6. Calkins CM, Bensard DD, Partrick DA, et al. Life-threatening dog
attacks: a devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries.
J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:1115–1117.
7. Matthews JR, Lattal KA. A behavioral analysis of dog bites to children.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1994;15:44–52.
8. Shewell PC, Nancarrow JD. Dogs that bite. BMJ. 1991;303:1512–1513.
9. National Canine Research Foundation. Fatal Dog Attack Studies.
Manorville, NY: National Canine Research Foundation; 2002.
10. Tong GTF, Pang TC. Unusual injuries: savaged to death by dogs. Med
Sci Law. 1965;5:158–160.
Loewe and Diaz The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology • Volume 28, Number 4, December 2007
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 360
8reeds of dogs |nvo|ved |n fata| human
attacks |n the Un|ted 5tates between
1979 and 1998
Þub||shed 5eptember 15, 2000
836 Vet Med Today: Special Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000
Special Report
rom 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in
more than 300 human dog bite-related fatalities
(DBRF) in the United States.
Most victims were chil-
dren. Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were
involved in approximately a third of human DBRF
reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through
1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half
of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993
through 1996. These data have caused some individu-
als to infer that certain breeds of dogs are more likely
to bite than others and should, therefore, be banned or
regulated more stringently.
The purposes of the study
reported here were to summarize breeds associated
with reported human DBRF during a 20-year period
and assess policy implications.
We collected data from The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to
dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from pre-
vious studies.
The HSUS maintains a registry of human
DBRF, including date of death, age and sex of decedent,
city and state of attack, number and breeds of dogs
involved, and circumstances relating to the attack. To
supplement HSUS reports, as in the past, a database
searched for accounts of human DBRF that occurred in
1997 and 1998. Our search strategy involved scanning
the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words
and word combinations likely to represent human DBRF
followed by a review of articles containing those terms.
Data obtained from HSUS and news accounts were
merged to maximize detection of human DBRF and
avoid duplicate reports. One new human DBRF from
1996 was identified in the 1997 and 1998 reports and
was added to the existing data for 1996.
A human DBRF was defined as a human death
caused by trauma from a dog bite. In addition to
excluding 9 human deaths, as described in previous
reports (eg, dying of rabies from a dog bite, strangling
on a leash or scarf pulled by a dog, dying from fire ant
From the Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Department of Health and
Human Services, US Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-63), Atlanta, GA30341
(Sacks, Gilchrist); The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (Sinclair, Lockwood); and the
Division of Education and Research, American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N Meacham Rd, Ste 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173
(Golab). Dr. Sacks’ present address is the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE (MS K-45), Atlanta, GA 30341. Dr. Sinclair’s present address is Shelter Veterinary Services,9320 Jarrett
Ct, Montgomery Village, MD 20886.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the authors or their affili-
ated agencies.
The authors thank Dr. Suzanne Binder for technical assistance.
Embargoed for Release Until 8 AM, September 15, 2000
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks
in the United States between 1979 and 1998
Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD;
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD
Objective—To summarize breeds of dogs involved in
fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to
assess policy implications.
Animals—Dogs for which breed was reported involved
in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that
resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF).
Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previ-
ously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were com-
bined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997
and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching
news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of
the United States’ registry databank.
Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people
died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At
least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238
human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of
these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55
(24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off
their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained
dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved
restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 ( < 1%)
involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property.
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con-
stitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practi-
cal alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
1he hlahllahLed area ls clLed from Lhe !ournal of Lhe
Amerlcan veLerlnarv Medlcal Assoclauon, noL from a human
medlcal [ournal.
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 837
bites after being pushed on a mound by a dog, or dying
from a motor vehicle or bicycle crash while being
chased by a dog), for 1997 and 1998, we excluded 3
additional deaths: death resulting from infection sec-
ondary to a dog bite, death attributable to trauma from
being knocked over but not bitten, and death resulting
from myocardial infarction, which was caused by an
individual being chased but not bitten. For the 20-year
study, we excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by
guard or police dogs “at work” and approximately 90
deaths when breed information for the attacking dog
was unavailable; thus, this study included approxi-
mately 72% of cases of human DBRF and is not
We tallied data in 2 ways to provide alternatives
for breed data interpretation. First, we used a human
death-based approach in which we counted whether a
particular breed was involved in a death. When multi-
ple dogs of the same breed were involved in the same
fatal episode, that breed was counted only once (eg, if
10 Akitas attacked and killed a person, that breed was
counted once rather than 10 times). When crossbred
dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed
in the dog’s lineage was counted once for that episode.
Second, we tallied data by dog. When multiple dogs of
the same breed were involved in a single incident, each
dog was counted individually. We allocated crossbred
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under cross-
bred, and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under cross-
bred). Data are presented separately for dogs identified
as pure- and crossbred. Lastly, dogs were classified as to
whether they were on or off the owners’ property and
restrained (eg, chained or leashed) or unrestrained at
the time of the attack.
Fatalities during 1997 and 1998—During 1997
and 1998, at least 27 people died as the result of dog
bite attacks (18 people in 1997 and 9 in 1998). Of 27
human DBRF, 19 (70%) were children (1 was ≤ 30 days
old, 3 were between 7 and 11 months old, 9 were
between 1 and 4 years old, and 6 were between 5 and
11 years old), and 8 were adults (ages 17, 44, 64, 70,
73, 75, 75, and 87). Approximately half (n = 15 [56%])
of the human DBRF were male.
Five (19%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs off
the owners’ property, 18 (67%) involved unrestrained
dogs on the owners’ property, 3 (11%) involved
restrained dogs on the owners’ property, and 1 (4%)
involved a restrained dog off the owner’s property.
Eighteen (67%) deaths involved 1 dog, 5 (19%)
involved 2 dogs, and 4 (15%) involved 3 dogs. Sixty
percent of attacks by unrestrained dogs off the owners’
property involved more than 1 dog.
Fatal attacks were reported from 17 states
(California [4 deaths]; Georgia and North Carolina [3
each]; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin [2 each]; and
Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South
Dakota, and Tennessee [1 each]).
Some breed information was reported for all 27
attacks. As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most
commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, fol-
lowed by pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these
2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of
human deaths.
Twenty-year data—Some breed information was
available for 238 human DBRF. More than 25 breeds of
dogs were involved in DBRF during the past 20 years
(Table 2). Of 227 human DBRF for which data were
1979– 1981– 1983– 1985– 1987– 1989– 1991– 1993– 1995– 1997–
Breed 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Total
Pit bull-type 2 5 10 9 11* 8 6 5 4* 6 66
Rottweiler 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 10 10 10 39
German Shepherd Dog 2 1 4* 1 1 4* 2 0 2 0 17
Husky-type 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 15
Malamute 2 0 3 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 12
Doberman Pinscher 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 9
Chow Chow 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 8
Great Dane 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7
Saint Bernard 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Wolf-dog hybrid 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 0 14
Mixed-breed 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 12
German Shepherd Dog 0 2 0 2 2 2† 0 1 2 0 10†
Pit bull-type 0 1 0 3 2† 3 1 1 0 0 10†
Husky-type 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
Rottweiler 0 0 0 0 1† 1 0 1 1 2 5†
Alaskan Malamute 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Chow Chow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
Doberman Pinscher 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Saint Bernard 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Great Dane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1† 0†
No. deaths for which 10 20 26* 24 22 34* 24 25 26* 27 238
breed was known
*Numbers differ from previous reports because police/guard dogs "at work" were excluded, and 1 new DBRF was identified as occurring in 1996. †A purebred dog
and a crossbred dog of this breed were involved in a single fatality; therefore, that breed is counted only once in the total column.
Table 1—Breeds of dogs involved in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States, by 2-year period, between 1979 and
1998. Death-based approach of counting most frequent purebreds and crossbreds involved in 7 or more human DBRF
838 Vet Med Today: Special Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000
available, 55 (24%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs
off the owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unre-
strained dogs on the owners’ property, 38 (17%)
involved restrained dogs on the owners’ property, and
1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off the owner’s
Four hundred three dogs were responsible for
these attacks. There were almost twice as many dogs
involved in off-owner-property attacks, compared with
attacks occurring on the owners’ properties. In 160
human deaths, only 1 dog was involved; in 49 deaths,
2 dogs were involved; and in 15 deaths, 3 dogs were
involved. Four and 7 dogs were involved in 3 deaths
each; 5, 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each;
and 11 and 14 dogs were responsible for 1 death each.
Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculat-
ed to compare breeds and quantify the relative danger-
ousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by
Breed X relative to a population of 10,000 X’s (1/1,000)
implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y rela-
tive to a population of 1,000,000 Y’s (0.1/1,000).
Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y
would be perceived to be the more dangerous breed on
the basis of the number of fatalities.
Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities,
because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal
bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human
DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human
DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the
breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4
reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are like-
ly underestimated; prior work suggests the approach
we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.
to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more news-
worthy than those by other breeds, our methods may
have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed
may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the
breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially
ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by cross-
bred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed
involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred
dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to
be counted more than once. Therefore, we have elect-
ed to present data separately for purebred and cross-
bred dogs to demonstrate at least 2 alternative count-
ing methods. Relative rankings do not differ greatly
whether one focuses only on purebred dogs or includes
crossbred dogs. The crossbreed issue is also problemat-
ic when estimating denominators (ie, breed-specific
population sizes).
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human
DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population
data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently avail-
able. Considering American Kennel Club registration
for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for
that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in pop-
Death-based approach Dog-based approach
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total
Pit bull-type 66 11* 76* 98 20 118
Rottweiler 39 6* 44* 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11* 27* 24 17 41
Husky-type (includes at least 2 Siberian) 15 6 21 15 6 21
Malamute 12 3 15 13 3 16
Wolf-dog hybrid 0 14 14 0 15 15
Mixed-breed (NOS) 0 12 12 0 47 47
Chow Chow 8 3 11 8 13 21
Doberman 9 1 10 12 1 13
Saint Bernard 7 1 8 7 1 8
Great Dane 7 1* 7* 11 2 13
Labrador Retriever 1 4 5 1 7 8
Akita 4 0 4 4 0 4
Sled-type (NOS) 3 0 3 12 0 12
Bulldog 2 1 3 2 1 3
Mastiff 2 1 3 4 1 5
Boxer 2 1 3 4 1 5
Collie 0 3 3 0 6 6
Bullmastiff 1 1 2 1 1 2
Hound-type (NOS) 1 1 2 1 1 2
Retriever-type (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Chesapeake Bay Retriever 1 0 1 1 0 1
West Highland Terrier (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Terrier-type (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Japanese Hunting Dog (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Newfoundland 1 0 1 1 0 1
Coonhound 1 0 1 1 0 1
Sheepdog (NOS) 1 0 1 1 0 1
Australian Shepherd 0 1 1 0 3 3
Rhodesian Ridgeback 1 0 1 1 0 1
Cocker Spaniel 1 0 1 1 0 1
*A purebred dog and a crossbred dog of this breed were involved in a single fatality; therefore, that breed is counted only
once in the total column.
NOS ϭNot otherwise specified.
Table 2—Breeds of dogs involved in human dog bite-related fatalities between 1979 and 1998, using
death-based and dog-based approaches
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 839
ularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths (24,195 regis-
trations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273
registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and
692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33
deaths). However, official registration or licensing data
are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds
may be less likely than those owning other breeds to
register or license their dogs
and, thus, should not be
used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to
keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could
be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner-
related issues. For example, less responsible owners or
owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may
be drawn differentially to certain breeds.
Despite these limitations and concerns, the data
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States
between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
United States during that same period and, thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.
Although the fatality data are concerning, one must
broaden the context to consider both fatal and nonfatal
bites when deciding on a course of action. Nonfatal dog
bites continue to be a public health problem in the
United States. Although this and prior reports
ment more than 330 DBRF during a 20-year period,
these tragedies represent only the most severe manifes-
tation of the problem. In 1986, nonfatal dog bites result-
ed in an estimated 585,000 injuries that required med-
ical attention or restricted activity.
By 1994, an estimat-
ed 4.7 million people (1.8% of the US population) sus-
tained a dog bite; of these, approximately 800,000 (0.3%
of the US population) sought medical care for the bite
(332,000 in emergency departments), and 6,000 were
This 36% increase in medically attended
bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for
an effective response, including dog bite prevention pro-
grams. Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than
0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have
remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal
bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at
the usual political level where bite regulations are pro-
mulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should
not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding
dog bite prevention.
Several interacting factors affect a dog’s propensity
to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience,
socialization and training, health (medical and behav-
ioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and
supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a study
in Denver of medically-attended dog bites in 1991 sug-
gested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite
than female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times
more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained
dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained
Communities have tried to address the dog bite
problem by focusing on different factors related to bit-
ing behavior.
To decrease the risk of dog bites, several communi-
ties have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In
general, these have focused on pit bull-type dogs and
Rottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human
DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy
studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April
1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for
the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog
(n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull
Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden
Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman
Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1);
Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire
Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As
ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980,
Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF;
between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type
dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF.
Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30
breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people,
including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a
Labrador Retriever.
In addition to issues surrounding which breeds to
regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practi-
cal issues. For optimal enforcement, there would need
to be an objective method of determining the breed of
a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially time-
consuming and complicated effort) combined with
DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is
the closest to an objective standard for conclusively
identifying a dog’s breed. Owners of mixed-breed or
unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of
knowing whether their dog is one of the types identi-
fied and whether they are required to comply with
breed-specific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement per-
sonnel have few means for positively determining a
dog’s breed and deciding whether owners are in com-
pliance or violation of laws.
Some municipalities have attempted to address
this classification issue of unregistered and mixed-
breed dogs by including within their ordinances a
description of the breed at which the ordinance is
directed. Unfortunately, such descriptions are usually
vague, rely on subjective visual observation, and result
in many more dogs than those of the specified breed
being subject to the restrictions of the ordinance.
When a specific breed of dog has been selected for
stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning
dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been
raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury
to people and property, ordinances addressing only 1
breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, there-
fore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second,
because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty
necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is pro-
hibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as
unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due
process. Despite such concerns, a number of breed-spe-
cific ordinances have been upheld by the courts.
Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed
might cause people who want a dangerous dog to sim-
ply turn to another breed for the same qualities they
sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression
easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not
address the fact that a dog of any breed can become
dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From
a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal
840 Vet Med Today: Special Report JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000
evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legisla-
tion in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.
An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to reg-
ulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous
dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential
importance of strong animal control programs is illus-
trated by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of
human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically
more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ proper-
ty. Some deaths might have been averted through more
stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash
laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite preven-
tion effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and
programs has not been systematically evaluated, free-
roaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are
problems that need to be addressed even if they do not
bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).
Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws
can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a
dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
In particular, targeting chronically irresponsi-
ble dog owners may be effective.
If dog owners are
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
professional help in training and socializing their pets.
Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws
against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that
less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by
leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions
and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to
heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be
increasing the probability of children interacting with
unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects
of such regulations are important.
Education of dog owners can address several issues:
(1) understanding breed profiles
may assist owners in
selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and train-
ing abilities, (2) convincing owners to seriously consid-
er the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is impor-
tant because male and sexually intact dogs are more like-
ly to bite than are female and neutered dogs,
and (3)
teaching owners about the importance of socialization
and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a
dog that will eventually bite.
Veterinarians play a key role in educating pet own-
ers, but because many dogs that bite may not be seen
by a veterinarian prior to the bite incident, programs
that encourage responsible ownership must also be
presented through other venues. Public education
strategies should include school-based and adult edu-
cational programs addressing bite prevention and basic
canine behavior, care, and management. Programs
should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper social-
ization, exercise, and attention; that they are given ade-
quate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that
they are neutered if they are not maintained for legiti-
mate and responsible breeding purposes; and that they
are trained humanely and confined safely. However,
like breed-specific legislation, all these approaches
appear formally unevaluated for effectiveness.
Targeting and evaluation of prevention efforts
requires improved surveillance for fatal and nonfatal
dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by
local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidents
should include information about the circumstances of
the bite, ownership, breed, sex, reproductive status of
the dog, history of prior aggression, and the nature of
restraint prior to the bite incident. Collection of data
on the entire dog population (eg, breed, age, sex)
would help resolve comparative risk issues and may be
accomplished by combining paperwork on mandatory
rabies immunizations with registration of breed and
sex. Only with numerator and denominator data and
with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies
tried by various communities will we be able to make
science-based recommendations for decreasing the
number of dog bites. In the interim, adequate funding
for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing
animal control laws, and educational and policy strate-
gies to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors
will likely result in benefits to communities and may
well decrease the number of dog bites that occur.
1. Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities in
the United States, 1979–1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489–1492.
2. Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, et al. Fatal dog attacks,
1989–1994. Pediatrics 1996;97:891–895.
3. Centers for Disease Control. Dog bite related fatalities—
United States, 1995–1996. Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep1997;46:463–467.
4. Lockwood R. Humane concerns about dangerous dog laws.
University of Dayton Law Rev 1988;13:267–277.
5. Lockwood R, Rindy K. Are “pit bulls” different? An analy-
sis of the pit bull terrier controversy. Anthrozoos 1987;1:2–8.
6. NEXIS-LEXIS [online database available at http://www.lexis-]. Dayton, Ohio: Lexis-Nexis Group; 1999.
7. American Kennel Club. Dog registration statistics, Jan 1,
1990–Dec 31, 1998. New York: American Kennel Club.
8. Sosin DM, Sacks JJ, Sattin RW. Causes of nonfatal injuries in
the United States, 1986. Accid Anal Prev 1992;24:685–687.
9. Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a prob-
lem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52–54.
10. Weiss HB, Friedman D, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite
injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51–53.
11. Quinlan KP, Sacks JJ. Hospitalizations for dog bite injuries.
JAMA 1999:281:232–233.
12. Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A
case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913–917.
13. Pinckney LE, Kennedy LA. Traumatic deaths from dog
attacks in the United States. Pediatrics. 1982;69l:193–196.
14. Pollock S. Banning pit bulls in the District of Columbia.
Memorandum to the Washington Humane Society from the Arnold
and Porter Law Firm. Washington, DC, 1999.
15. Burt MR. Canine legislation: can dogs get a fair shake in
court? J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210:1139–1142.
16. Wapner M, Wilson JF. Are laws prohibiting ownership of pit bull-
type dogs legally enforceable? J Am Vet Med Assoc2000;216:1552–1554.
17. Companion animals section and division of higher educa-
tion programs. Guidelines for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs.
Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States, 1987.
18. Lockwood R. Dangerous dogs revisited. The Humane Society
News 1992;37:20–22.
19. Hart BL, Miller MF. Behavioral profiles of dog breeds. J Am
Vet Med Assoc 1985;186:1175–1180.
20. Hart BL, Hart LA. Selecting pet dogs on the basis of cluster
analysis of breed behavior profiles and gender. J Am Vet Med Assoc
1. 1he ClLv and CounLv of uenver's plL bull ban was enacLed ln
1989, nearlv a decade before Lhls sLudv was creaLed. uurlna
Lhls same perlod -- Lhe laLe 1980's -- oLher u.S. clues adopLed
plL bull laws as well. lL appears Lhe auLhors of Lhls reporL made
zero auempLs Lo conLacL Lhese munlclpallues Lo learn abouL
Lhe eñecuveness of Lhelr laws.
2. Cenerlc danaerous doa laws are non-prevenLauve. Such laws
onlv punlsh a doa owner aûer a new vlcum has been creaLed.
1he CDC shou|d not attach |ts name to a
document that |s abso|ute|y,
pos|t|ve|y b|ased.

"8|as". A h|gh|y persona| and unreasonab|e d|stort|on of
Þrof||es of An|ma| Doctors
Cllck on a phoLo Lo learn more

7#,')#$8)*/'-)09$:;<;=., is a piinciple with Sheltei veteiinaiy Seivices
in Columbia, Naiylanu. She is the foimei uiiectoi, Companion Animal
veteiinaiy Issues, foi The Bumane Society of the 0niteu States anu
pieviously seiveu as chief veteiinaiian foi the Bouston (Texas) SPCA.
Sinclaii has wiitten seveial books incluuing: Ask the vet about Bogs
(2uu4) anu Foiensic Investigation of Animal Ciuelty: A uuiue foi
veteiinaiy anu Law Enfoicement Piofessionals (2uu6)
(Graduate of the 1exas A&M Un|vers|ty Co||ege of Veter|nary Med|c|ne)

:0;$>-)'$>&'-?, heau of the Ameiican veteiinaiy Neuical Association
(AvNA) Animal Welfaie Bivision, tiaveleu acioss the globe to achieve
a top caieei goal÷to become Ameiica's fiist veteiinaiian cieuentialeu
in animal welfaie. Bi. uolab eaineu hei membeiship level cieuential in
the Austialian College of veteiinaiy Scientists' (ACvSc) Animal
Welfaie Chaptei on Iuly S, 2uu8. Austialia is the only countiy that
offeis an animal welfaie ceitification foi veteiinaiians.
(Graduate of the 1exas A&M Un|vers|ty Co||ege of Veter|nary Med|c|ne)

@-*A-''$7&/3(&&A9$B";:;9 is senioi vice piesiuent foi anti-ciuelty
initiatives anu tiaining foi the Ameiican Society foi the Pievention of
Ciuelty to Animals. Be is the foimei vice piesiuent, Reseaich anu
Euucational 0utieach, foi The Bumane Society of the 0niteu States,
wheie he was on the staff foi twenty yeais. Be moueiateu a tiack on
veteiinaiy foiensics at the 2uuS Westein veteiinaiy Confeience. Be is
the co-euitoi (with Fiank Ascione) of Ciuelty to Animals anu
Inteipeisonal violence (Puiuue 0niveisity Piess).
(Doctorate |n psycho|ogy from Wash|ngton Un|vers|ty |n 5t. Lou|s)