Dog Bites and Dangerous Dogs Managing Dog Bites while Protecting People and Dogs HSUS EXPO May 2012 2 Presenters Emilio DeBess, DVM MPH State Pubic Health Veterinarian Oregon Health Authority Emilio.e.debess@state.or.us Mike Oswald, Division Director Multnomah County Animal Services Portland/Multnomah County, Oregon michael.l.oswald@multco.us 3 1
It can happen at any time A child is severely injured or killed in a dog attack in your community It s the lead story in the media Emotions run high People call for breed bans, demand jail for the dog owner, breed advocates rally to defend the dog 4 The Oregonian November 30, 2008 5 2
The Oregonian December 20, 2008 6 How can we protect the community? Elected officials, health officials, legislative bodies weigh-in to solve the problem. But, what s the most effective public policy to protect the community? And... How do you know if it s effective? Animal Services is in the spotlight 7 3
Preview: This presentation will: Look at how communities have addressed dog bites and dangerous dogs 1. Clear definition of the problem 2. Policy choices 3. How to we measure effectiveness 4. Collecting and reporting data 5. Challenges Examine 25 years of findings from Multnomah County s Potentially Dangerous Dog program Review a community approach to prevention 8 Defining the problem Too many dog bites in community? Rising risks from dog attacks? Fatal dog attacks? Certain breed-types creating more risk? 9 4
Policy Choices Breed bans Breed specific laws, i.e. mandates spay/neuter Breed specific shelter policies, i.e. no Pitbulls Enact tougher laws re: dangerous dogs Designating certain breeds as dangerous Criminal vs. administrative enforcement No action Other Community responses Landlord breed restrictions Insurance Company breed restrictions 10 Measuring Effectiveness What data is used to measure success? Bite data? Bite severity? Emergency department visits Fatalities? Bites, attacks, fatalities by breed? Euthanasia of dangerous dogs? Collecting and reporting data Program evaluation 11 5
What is the measure of effectiveness? Source: www.kcbs.com 12 What is the measure of effectiveness? 13 6
Dog population is unknown Breed breakdown in the population is unknown Difficulty determining breed i.e. pitbull type Underreporting of incidents 17% reported (1) Over-reporting media focus on pitbulls Difficulty measuring prevention programs Measuring severity Emerg. Dept reports, Dunbar Dogs being dogs growl, bite, i.e.natural behavior Others? Some Challenges to consider (1) Overall and Love: J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 218:1923-1934 14 Multnomah County Experience Overview of Multnomah County (Portland, OR) What happened? What was the approach? What are the results? 15 7
Multnomah County Animal Services Mission is to protect the health, safety and welfare of pets and people in Multnomah County including City of Portland Field Services 24 hr emergency animal rescue Dog Bite & Dangerous Dog Investigations Animal Abuse and Neglect Investigations Pet Ownership Education & Enforcement 16 Multnomah County Animal Services Mission is to protect the health, safety and welfare of pets and people in Multnomah County including City of Portland Shelter Services Animal care, Lost & Found, Adoptions, Foster AAHA Accredited Veterinary hospital Animal Behavior and Training S/N Services for low income pet owners 17 8
Multnomah County Animal Services Mission is to protect the health, safety and welfare of pets and people in Multnomah County including City of Portland Customer Service & Outreach Pet Licensing Volunteer Program Outreach, Partnerships & Education Web and Social Media 18 Multnomah County Animal Services MCAS By the Numbers - FY11 Service population 735,000 Animals sheltered 8,919 Pets licensed 95,000 Customer phone calls 80,000 Shelter visitors 86,961 Web visits 240,000 Calls for Field Service 8,894 Volunteer hours 18 FTE 37,984 Annual Budget $5.29 m Staff FTE 49.0 Budget per capita $7.19 Live Release Rate - dog 86.2% Live Release Rate cat 54.5% General Fund, $3,337,326 FUNDING $5.29 m Licensing, $1,663,854 Other Fees, $290,839 19 9
Multnomah County Animal Services MCAS By the Numbers - FY11 Service population 735,000 Animals sheltered 8,919 Pets licensed 95,000 Customer phone calls 80,000 Shelter visitors 86,961 Web visits 240,000 Calls for Field Service 8,894 Volunteer hours 18 FTE 37,984 Annual Budget $5.29 m Staff FTE 49.0 Budget per capita $7.19 Live Release Rate - dog 86.2% Live Release Rate cat 54.5% General Fund, $3,337,326 FUNDING $5.29 m Licensing, $1,663,854 Other Fees, $290,839 20 Multnomah County s 1991 Potentially Dangerous Dog Program (PDD) 1986 incident 5 yr old child fatally mauled Taskforce, policy recommendation, and new ordinance Ordinance Goal Identify dogs involved in incidents and classify as PDD Impose ownership restrictions and conditions with the intent to prevent future incidents Elements of the program Conditions and restrictions based on five levels of incident severity; breed neutral; local administrative ordinance Performance Measurement Rate of Recidivism (failure) Incidence of repeat behavior of classified dogs within one year Program evaluation - Pre-test and Post-test 21 10
Source: Multnomah County GIS 2005 22 Table 3. Classification Levels and Restrictions Classification Level 1 A dog, while at large, menaces, chases, displays threatening or aggressive behavior, or otherwise threatens or endangers the safety of any person or domestic animals Level 2 A dog, while at large, causes physical injury to any domestic animal Level 3 A dog, while confined, aggressively bites or causes physical injury to any person Level 4 A dog, while at large, aggressively bites or causes physical injury to any person or kills a domestic animal Level 5 A dog, whether or not confined, causes the serious physical injury or death of any person, is used as a weapon in the commission of a crime, or having been classified at level, repeats level behavior Source: Multnomah County Code 8.10 (1989) Restrictions Level 1 The dog shall be restrained by a physical device or structure in a manner that prevents the dog from reaching public property or adjoining property Level 2 The dog shall be confined within a secure enclosure whenever the dog is not on a leash or inside the home of the owner. The owner may be required to pass a responsible pet ownership test Level 3 The dog shall be confined within a secure enclosure and the owner shall post warning signs provided by the director. The director may also require liability insurance. The dog must be muzzled and leashed whenever outside the secure enclosure. The owner may be required to pass a responsible pet ownership test. Level 4 The dog shall be confined within a secure enclosure and the owner shall post warning signs provided by the director. The director may also require liability insurance. The dog must be muzzled and leashed whenever outside the secure enclosure. The owner may be required to pass a responsible pet ownership test. Level 5 The dog shall be euthanized. In addition, the director may suspend the owner's right to own a dog for a period of time determined by the director 23 11
Potentially Dangerous Dog Program (1991) Source: Anthrozoos, Volume IV, Number 4: 247-257 (1991) 24 Potentially Dangerous Dog Program (1991) Results Recidivism Pre-test 25% * Post-test 7% ** Notes: * 95% CI: 25% +/- 7% ** 95% CI:7% +/- 2% Source: Anthrozoos, Volume IV, Number 4: 247-257 (1991) 25 12
MCAS Potentially Dangerous Dog Program 25 years later (March 2012) Research Question: Is our Potentially Dangerous Dog program reducing recidivism 25 years after initial program evaluation in 1991? Methodology 1. Identified all dogs classified as a Potentially Dangerous Dog for the first time for each of three years: FY2006, FY2007, FY2008. 2. Established three Cohort groups of classified dogs (2006, 2007, 2008) 3. For each cohort group, identified all dogs that had a subsequent qualifying event within one, two, and three years of initial classification 4. A subsequent qualifying event is defined as a recidivism event. 26 Dogs Recidivism within 1 yr Recidivism w/in 2 yr Recidivism w/in 3 yr Level Classified Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Level 1-2 425 63.4% 108 25.4% 125 29.4% 137 32.2% Level 3 39 5.8% 4 10.3% 5 12.8% 5 12.8% Level 4 206 30.7% 42 20.4% 48 23.3% 49 23.8% TOTAL 670 100.0% 154 23.0% 178 26.6% 191 28.5% Preliminary Data Three years of data 2006, 2007, 2008 Recidivism 2006 = 25.9% 2007 = 21.2% 2008 = 20.7% Total = 23.0% 27 13
Results 2012 Study Results of PDD Program 3 year Total (2006,2007, 20080 N = 670 8.8% 19.7% Dogs with no Recidivism event Dogs with 1 Recidivism event # of Dogs with 2 + Recidivism events 71.5% Discussion 71.5% had no repeat event 19.75 had one repeat event 8.8% had 2 or more events 28 Comparative Data 1989 vs 2008 Chart 1 - Demographics Category FY1989 Dog Population 101,794 Cat Population 119,350 Human Population 562,647 Households 233,135 Dogs Licensed 43,650 Cats Licensed 20,549 FY2008 223,950 * 356,408 * 717,000 310,352 Change 120.00% 198.62% 27.43% 33.12% -100.00% -100.00% *AVMA 2007 data Discussion 27.4% increase in human pop 120% increase in dog pop 59.4% decrease in classifications Chart 2 PDD Classifications Chart 3 Classifications by Breed Type PDD Classifications FY1989 FY2008 Change Top 5 Breeds All PDD classifications FY1989 FY2008 Change Level 1 & 2 Level 3 Level 4 925 155 526 425 39 206-54.05% -74.84% -60.84% German Shep Pitbull Lab Doberman 24.20% 17.20% 10.00% 7.38% 6.90% 24.40% 11.30% 0.03% -71.49% 41.86% 13.00% -99.59% Level 5 Total 46 1,652 0 670-100.00% -59.44% Australian Shep Rottweiler 4.29% 2.84% 4.00% 5.40% -6.76% 90.14% 29 14
2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - Bite and Loose Aggressive Calls for Service 151 bites per 100,000 people (FY05) 84 bites per 100,000 people (FY11) FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Loose Aggressive Bites Source: Multnomah County Animal Services 2011 30 Discussion 1980 s: the Decade of Dangerous Dog Legislative Action Miami-Dade (1989); Ohio (1987); Denver (198-); NYC (1989); Prince George County MD (198-); Multnomah County (1986) As new laws and programs were implemented across the country, objective assessment and/or evaluation has not occurred Need to Focus on standardized measure bites/100,000 people We have good data on victim profile (1) Incident Severity Emergency Dept (CDC); Dunbar Bite Scale (2) Examine the risk factors associated with potentially dangerous dogs and their owners (MCAS preliminary data) (1) Shuler, Debess, et al, JAVMA, Vol 232, No. 4 (2008) (2) Dunbar Bite Scale 31 15
Conclusion: Prevention Education about safety around dogs special emphasis on children (3) Educating dog owners in puppy raising techniques to minimize aggression (2) Effective Legislation Fund animal control agencies the frontline (3) Enforce existing regulations Measure & improve program effectiveness (2) Animals and Society Institute: Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions(2006) (3) A community approach to dog bite prevention JAVMA, Vol 21, No. 11, June 1, 2001 32 Questions Thank you 33 16