Guest blogger Ivy Collier discusses the lack of standardization in dog bite reporting in the U.S. The absence of accurate data results in questionable solutions, such as breed-specific legislation (BSL), which receive disproportionate media attention, often at the expense of more effective dog-bite prevention techniques.
Guest Blog by Ivy Collier
Although the exact number is not known, it is estimated that 4.5 million people are bitten each year. Close to 334,000 people are treated for dog bite injuries in hospital emergency units, and approximately 466,000 visit their doctor’s office with dog bite injuries annually (Quinlan and Sacks, 1999; Sacks, Kresnow and Houston, 1996; Weiss, Friedman and Coben, 1998). Dog bite fatalities are regarded as uncommon and account for approximately one in 167,000 deaths each year in the US (Bradley, 2006). However, dog bite data may be viewed as incomplete, as it is impossible to take into account the number of people who sustain dog bite related injuries but do not seek professional medical care.
According to Karen Delise, Founder & Director of Research at the National Canine Research Center (NCRC), dog bite reporting for the first half of the 20th century was recorded almost exclusively to track and prevent rabies. She further expounds on this subject by saying that she has notice a “slight shift in the last couple of decades, usually from animal control departments, on the focus of dog bite data collection, but the focus of virtually all health departments is still rabies prevention, and NOT dog bites.”
There is great concern and controversy regarding the reliability of dog bite data collection, as there is no uniform reporting procedure or best practices in place to ensure consistency and quality control of this data, say Don Clary, NCRC Director of Communications & Publications, and NCRC Associate Director of Communications, Janice Bradley. Many dog bite reports are self-reported by the victim to emergency responders, hospitals, animal control officers or via surveys and eye witnesses. This information is later filtered to the media, the Center for Disease Control, and state agencies, among others. This can be problematic, as there are no set criteria for questioning the victim, nor are news reporters and first responders properly trained to identify dog breeds.
Another major hazard of inconsistent data collection and interpretation procedures is the impact of breed misidentification. When was the last time you watched a news report and saw a story about a Pit Bull attacking someone? You may have thought to yourself, “How awful, those dogs are dangerous!” But once you saw a picture of the canine culprit, you clearly knew it was not a Pit Bull. If so, you are not alone. A research study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association focused on potentially preventable factors in human dog-bite related fatalities on the basis of data from sources that were deemed verifiable and complete, rather than data from media sources. The data obtained in the study indicated two problems with media characterization of dog breeds: poor reliability and poor accuracy (Patronek, 2013).
It is essential for dog bite reports to be accurate and complete, as this information is critical for public health issues, dog bite evaluations, community education, dog bite prevention, and public policy review and implementation. This is especially true for Pit Bulls and pit bull types/mixes that are facing controversial breed specific legislation (BSL) across the country.
Dog bites, inaccurate data, and breed misidentification are not single issues. They are not a dog problem or even a Pit Bull problem, but a community problem. These issues and problems are complex and intertwined. Without uniform dog bite reporting or best practices in place, we will continue to rely on inaccurate data and erroneous media reports. This is harmful to humans, dogs, and communities across the country.

No comments:
Post a Comment