Arkiv

Posts Tagged ‘Media och Kamphundar’

Läs- och faktatips om ”kamphundar”


– Krönika ur från Metro.

Extramaterial: Läs- och faktatips om ”kamphundar”:

* Här är en rätt omfattande utredning med experter från Rikspolisstyrelsen, Jordbruksverket, SKK, Brukshundsklubben, Forskare från SLU bland annat. De drar andra slutsatser än Mats Odell:

”Hundar av kamphundsras kan i sig själva inte utpekas som särskilt farliga. Nästan samtliga intresseorganisationer, myndigheter, hundexperter, och privatpersoner som Hundansvarsutredningen varit i kontakt med menar att det rykte hundar av kamphundsras, framförallt pit bull, fått, istället beror på att de dragit till sig olämpliga ägare. Bland annat två rapporter från polisen drar denna slutsats.” (Sida 42) Tar även upp den statistik som finns tillgänglig.

* Kan även rekommendera nuvarande regerings egen proposition från 2007, sida 18, under rubriken ”Förbud mot vissa hundraser fungerar inte” (tar upp både principiella och praktiska argument). Denna proposition bottnar bland annat i jordbruksdepartementets slutsatser, sammanfattat kort och koncist på sida 3 i följande pamflett: Förstärkt skydd mot farliga hundar.

* Finns även interna polisutredningar av deras ”hundexpertgrupp” ifrån Västra Götaland och Stockholms län (U 85-99 & rapport 25:1999). Båda drar naturligtvis slutsatsen att den problematik (inom kriminella kretsar) som finns är generellt ett socialt problem, och specifikt ett ägarproblem. Sen finns det givetvis otaliga rapporter, skrifter och undersökningar från veterinärsorganisationer, brukshundsklubbar, rasklubbar och så vidare. Så fakta finns!

– Kommentar från signaturen Borre.

Därför biter hundar människor


Hundbett

Det är Omständigheterna, inte rasen,, som är den vanligaste orsaken till hundbett! Vill man begränsa antalet hundbett, upplys då allmänheten om de omständigheter som leder till att en hund biter. Rasen är irrelevant. Media har tyvärr inget intresse av detta faktum. Det kommersiella intresset för säljande rubriker är större.

 

Därför biter hundar människor Källa: Räddningsverket, Svenska Kennelklubben
Hundbett är orsak till att mer än 400 barn förs till akutmottagningarna i Sverige varje år. De flesta kan åka hem igen efter omplåstring, men cirka 75 av dem måste läggas in på sjukhus för vård. Betydligt fler vuxna blir allvarligt hundbitna. Mer än 200 vuxna måste vårdas på sjukhus för sina skador.

Varför biter hundar människor? Det vet vi ganska väl efter att ha haft hunden som husdjur i 12.000 år. De vanligaste orsakerna är:
– Hunden biter av rädsla (ångestbitare) när den
känner sig trängd eller hotad.
– Hunden försvarar sin mat, sitt revir eller sina
valpar.
– En del hundar har aggressiv mentalitet eller
stört beteende.
– En del hundar är tränade till aggressivt beteende
– Hunden kan vara sjuk och ha smärtor.
– Hundar kan också bita hårt när de leker eller
jagar en springande person och får tag i denne.
Statistiskt sett ligger Sverige lågt i antalet människor som skadas av hundar jämfört med övriga Europa. Sverige har cirka 800.000 hundar och merparten av dem bor i barnfamiljer eller träffar barn dagligen. Men varje hundbett är ett för mycket och är en tragedi för den som blivit biten, för hundägaren och kanske också för hunden. Många olyckor hade kunnat undvikas om hundägaren eller den bitne haft bättre kunskaper.

Ofta är det hundägaren själv som blir biten.

 

BPH Utvärdering & Kvalitetssäkring 31 Jan 2011


BPH beteendebeskrivning av hund. Utvärdering & Kvalitetssäkring 31 Jan 2011

I fråga om rasskillnader så framstår American Staffordshire terrier jämfört med de övriga fyra raserna som sociala, trygga, orädda, nyfikna och lekintresserade.

De studerade hundarna av
rasen dvärgpinscher visar påfallande mycket aggressiva och rädslerelaterade beteenden. De tycks även vara mer energiska än övriga raser.

Golden retriever utmärker sig som en social
men rädslebenägen ras som visar förhållandevis lite aggressiva beteenden. De tycks även vara ”träningsbara” och ha ett litet intresse av att jaga efter vilt.

Rhodesian ridgeback framstår som en lugn men rädslebenägen ras som visar jämförelsevis mycket aggressiva beteenden.

Vad gäller whippet är de inte lika sociala som de andra raserna. De är inte heller särskilt intresserade av föremålslek så som det mäts i BPH, eller träningsbara på samma sätt som de övriga. De är tämligen lite aggressionsbenägna. Rädslemässigt utmärker de sig inte åt något håll.

Hela rapporten (422 sidor) finns här som PDF
det finns en sammanfattande del på lite mer än 30 sidor (sid. 1-34) och en ännu kortare inledande sammanfattning på endast 2 sidor.

http://www.svartbergs.se/pdf/BPH_Utvardering%20_Kvalitetssakring_2010.pdf

Om Beteendebeskrivning (BPH) http://kennet.skk.se/skk/?id=1088&sprak=sv

Panik politik och rasförbud !


länk : 56 sidor Stor vetenskaplig studie som redovisar hur politiker reflexmässigt stiftar lagar om rasförbud  (panik politik) 

Abstract Panic Policy Making:
Canine Breed Bans in Canada and the United States Although dogs have bitten humans for millennia, in recent years state, provincial, and local governments have responded to incidents of dog bites with legislation or administrative rules that ban the ownership of dog breeds such as American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and American Pit Bulls.
In this paper we examine if a framework of “panic policymaking” can explain the passage of breed bans. The paper first develops a framework to explain panic policymaking that builds upon and modifies psychological theories of decision making, the sociological literature on moral panics, the analytical and case study literature about critical junctures in policy paths, behavioral economic studies of responses to risks, and the empirical studies of punctuated policy equilibria. Using data from a survey of the Canadian and U.S. public and interviews with interest group activists and public officials in locales that considered and defeated or passed breed bans, we then assess the predictive value of the concept of panic policymaking. Finally, we consider how breed bans indicate the scope and limits of the concept of animal rights.

Rasförbud fungerar inte enligt Svenska Kennelklubben


– rasförbud fungerar inte enligt Svenska Kennelklubben

Den 15 april förväntas den danska regeringen fatta beslut om att förbjuda innehav och avel av 13 hundraser och blandningar mellan dessa.
De individer som redan finns i landet ska förses med koppel och munkorg när de vistas på offentliga platser.
Uppfödare kommer att under en 5-årig övergångsperiod kunna fortsätta aveln men valparna får inte säljas i Danmark.
Lagen kommer, om den vinner stöd i Folketinget, att träda i kraft 1 juli 2010.

De raser som omfattas är (inom parentes visas antal i Sverige,  SKK registrerade hundar de senaste tio åren):

  • pitbull terrier (registreras ej)
  • tosa inu (21),
  • american staffordshire terrier (2653)
  • fila brasileiro (85)
  • dogo argentino (459)
  • amerikansk bulldog (registreras ej)
  • boerboel (registreras ej)
  • kangal (0)
  • centralasiatisk ovtjarka (10)
  • kaukasisk ovtjarka (115)
  • sydrysk ovtjarka (33)
  • tornjak (1)
  • sarplaninac (24)

I Sverige finns inget rasförbud och det värnar Svenska Kennelklubben om då det i många fall är svårt att fastställa ras eller rasblandning, framför allt för en lekman.

SKK vill heller inte ha något kollektivt rasförbud då det negativt drabbar seriösa uppfödare och hundägare samt alla de hundar av nämnda raser som fungerar väl i vårt samhälle.

Till sist är det i grund och botten ett hundägarproblem.

Hade det varit så enkelt att genom förbud bli av med alla farliga hundar, hade SKK föreslagit och verkat för ett sådant förbud för många år sedan.

En farlig hund är en farlig hund oavsett ras eller blandning och en hundägare som inte kan ta ansvar över sin hund är en olämplig hundägare.

De ska individuellt bestraffas om de uppträder olämpligt!

Rasförbud är dessutom olämpligt då människan är i stånd till att genom selektiv avel förändra det mesta hos en hundras, både positivt och negativt.

Andra raser och blandningar kan också göras farliga, vilket i slutändan innebär att listan på förbjudna raser kommer att öka.

Raser som nu är både sällskapshundar och kära familjemedlemmar skulle kunna hamna på listan över farliga raser.

Andra länder, bland annat Norge, har infört liknande lagar som Danmark förväntas införa.

Några av dessa länder, har med facit i hand, upplöst de införda lagarna då de varit verkningslösa, till exempel Nederländerna 2008 och Italien 2009.

Erfarenheten visar att förbud till och med kan få motsatt effekt då de personer som överhuvudtaget inte borde ha hund, väljer just de raser som samhället har pekat
ut som särskilt farliga.

Det är lätt att ropa på nya lagar och bestämmelser men SKK kräver istället att den nya lag om tillsyn över hundar och katter (2007:1150) som fastställdes 2008 ska användas.

Polisen fick dock först i maj 2009 anvisningar (RPSFS 2009:1) om hur den ska praktiseras!

Lagen ger möjlighet för polisen att omhänderta en hund som är en samhällsfara.

Polisen kan också fatta beslut om förbud att ha hund om det visar sig att hundägaren brister i tillsynen över sin hund.

Frågan kan för polisen tyckas vara av mindre betydelse men av erfarenhet vet vi att den engagerar såväl medier som allmänhet.

Därför är det extra viktigt att låta polisen få resurser att kunna ingripa där så krävs. Närpolisen kan också med sin närvaro se till att lagen efterlevs.

Poliser med särskild uppgift att handha djurfrågor, som polismyndigheten i Stockholms län infört, är ett sätt för att enklare omsätta lagen i praktiken.

För att bemöta de problem som finns med aggressiva hundar satsar SKK istället på att testa och dokumentera hundars mentalitet, ett område där Sverige är världsledande.

Mentalbeskrivning Hund (MH) har använts av Svenska Brukshundklubben (specialklubb inom SKK) sedan 1997, i första hand med syftet att användas som underlag i avelsarbetet inom brukshundsraserna.

Efterfrågan på MH har ökat, både vad det gäller antal hundar och att allt fler hundägare och uppfödare vill genomföra mentalbeskrivningar på andra raser än brukshundsraserna.

För att möta den ökade efterfrågan har SKKs kommitté för hundars mentalitet initierat ett arbete för att ta fram en mentalbeskrivning för alla hundraser.

På uppdrag av kommittén har en grupp med forskare från SLU arbetat fram en beskrivningsmodell som enkelt och med bra tillförlitlighet ska kunna användas för att beskriva hundars mentalitet.

SKK har beviljat 1 miljon kronor för fortsatt utveckling och kvalitetssäkring av denna mentalbeskrivning som fått namnet Beteende- och personlighetsbeskrivning för hund (BPH).

Beskrivningen ska ge en objektiv bild av hundarnas mentalitet och kommer att vara en viktig hjälp för uppfödarna vid avelsplanering och utvärdering.

Dessutom får hundägaren en viktig information om sin hunds typiska sätt att vara.

Vi hoppas och tror att den nya beteende- och personlighetsbeskrivningen kommer att bli ett värdefullt verktyg i arbetet med att skapa ännu bättre hundar, till glädje inte bara för hundarna utan också för deras ägare, uppfödare och samhället!

Slutrapporten för projektet Avel för mentalt sunda hundar finns att läsa på

 

New Dog Bite Study : Ny Statistik om Hundbett


New Dog Bite Study

New Dog Bite Study

The Healthcare Cost &released a new statistical brief Utilization Project just  on Emergency Department visits relating to dog bites (based on #s from 2008. The study doesn’t go into a lot of detail on methodology, but it does seem to be a more comprehensive study than many that are out there.

According to their numbers, there were 316,200 emergency department visits in 2008 from dog bites.  Of those, 9,500 involved overnight stays.

*Now, note that there are 77.5 million owned dogs in the US — that means that .4% of dogs will be involved in an incident that requires an ER visit and .01% will be involved in an incident that involves an overnight stay.  So with that many owned dogs, only 1 out of 10,000 will be involved in an incident that would require a hospital stay each year.  So dogs are incredibly safe.

Also, according to the study there were more than 30 million emergency department visits a year, and nearly 3 million hospitalizations — so about 1% of all ED visits and .3% of hospitalizations are from dog bites.

Of the injuries involved in hospitalizations, 43% included skin and tissue infections, 22% open wounds to extremeties, 10.5% open wounds to the head, neck and trunk, 5.3% fractured upper limb, 2.1% tissue disease, 1.1% infective arthritis and osteomyelitis, 1.1% Septicemia, 1.1% crushing injury or other internal injury, 1.1% fractured lower limb.

The total number of of hospitalizations of 9,500 is the highest number since numbers were recorded in 1993.  And the number have been steadily increasing over that time — however, much of that is due to an increase in population — as the number of hospitalizations per 100,000 people has been pretty consistently between 2.7 and 3.0 over the past 13 years (with a peak of 3.4 in 1995).  This also doesn’t take into account the significant increase in pet ownership over the past 2 decades.

Children 5-9 were most likely to visit an emergency department, followed by children under 5 and children 10-14.

Hospitalizations were most common among older adults 65-84, 85+, followed by children under 5 and children 5-9. This makes sense as the older groups and the younger groups would be more vulnerable.

Not a lot in this study is truly earthshattering. I think most who follow this blog or the work of the NCRC will find these numbers consistent with what they already know.

I think of intrest is how the media has decided to cover this news — which only wants to focus on the increase in total dog bite cases (without context from the  increase in dogs or people):

Los Angeles Times – Man’s Best Friend?  Severe dog bite injuries have increased.

Health Leaders Media – Hospital Admissions, ED Visits for Dog Bites Surge

USA Today – Dog Bites man: Hospitalizations rise 86%

And all of the other reports to date have had similar headlines. So while they could have focused on the bites per capita remaining pretty consistent, or that dogs remain infinitely safer than almost anything else humans come in contact with (including other humans). But the dramatic fear mongering is the lead so far in all cases.

Which then leads me to our ‘friend’ Merritt Clifton’s numbers. Clifton has what he believes to be a detailed dog bite ‘study’ by breed. Clifton’s study covers dog attacks over the past 27 years – and includes 2,695 dog bites – so roughly 100 attacks per year. One hundred attacks per year represents 1% of the total hospitalizations from dog bites each year and .03% of all emergency department visits each year.

Because Clifton relies only on media reports for his ‘study’, it is not only not complete, it’s not a representative sample — because it is subject to media bias — which has shown that it would rather focus on the dramatic and fear mongering.  And Clifton buys into it hook, line and sinker.

Public officials need to focus on actual data when making policy decisions.  By doing so, they can make an actual impact on the number of hopsitalizations from dog bites vs paying lip service to it. And the data continues to show that dogs do not represent a major risk in most communities — and that the majority of the risk involves young children.  That risk can be minimized through educating parents on how to introduce dogs to young children and to never leave their children alone with dogs unsupervised. But making decisions based on actual data, and not dramatized fear-mongering is the only way to make positive steps.

Read more about this : KC DOG BLOG

New Dog Bite Study from HCUP (and some thoughts on the media coverage of it)

KAMPHUNDAR DEBATT


Olämpliga hundägare det verkliga problemet

KAMPHUNDAR DEBATT

Rasförbud hjälper inte. Det kan få rakt motsatt effekt. Då blir det blir ännu mer intressant för ett visst klientel att skaffa något som är förbjudet, skriver Thorleif Wallqvist

Bland annat genom ett införande av ett rasförbud, gällande tretton hundraser, i Danmark där det i svensk media refereras till ett kamphundsförbud, tycker vi det är på sin plats att gå ut på bred basis med information baserad på fakta istället för som så ofta på tyckande och sensationsmakeri.

Det är vår önskan och förhoppning att fokuseringen skall riktas på det verkliga problemet – de olämpliga hundägarna. Undersök och skriv om de samhällsproblem som finns i våra större städer, och den sociala bakgrund dessa företrädesvis unga killar har, som vill hålla sig med kraftiga, respektingivande hundar – hundar som i de allra flesta fall inte är rasrena utan är av blandningar med egenskaper som man inte bör förena. Det är synd om dessa hundar! Alla hundar, oavsett ras, kan fostras till ett aggressivt beteende. Låt inte hundarna behöva ta ansvaret för sina ägares tillkortakommanden.

Lagen om tillsyn över hundar och katter, (2007:1150) trädde i kraft den 1 januari 2008. Denna ger Polisen större befogenheter att beslagta en hund och även att utfärda hundförbud för den som visat sig inte kunna hantera sin hund. Se till att denna verkligen tillämpas.

Rasförbud hjälper inte. Det kan få rakt motsatt effekt. Då blir det blir ännu mer intressant för ett visst klientel att skaffa något som är förbjudet. Vilka värstinghundar skulle ersätta de förbjudna? Om hundinnehavet alls registreras blir det som blandras. Vad kommer härnäst? För att exemplifiera med två europeiska länder där man haft förbudslagstiftning, Italien och Nederländerna – där har förbuden upphävts då man ansett dem verkningslösa. I april 2009, respektive juni 2008. (Se gärna SKK:s ställningstagande till förbud  HÄR  

 

När uttryck som kamphund används finns hos allmänheten rädslan för hundar som tidigare avlats för att slåss och som utstrålar styrka. Det ligger nära till hands för media att väcka uppmärksamhet genom att utnyttja den rädslan och resultatet blir att den förstärks, sprider sig och byggs på.

Av de i Danmark förbjudna tretton raserna kan endast två hänföras till dem som brukar innefattas i kamphundsbegreppet. Övriga är, per definition, herde-, jakt- och vakthundar. Ändå används i media begreppet kamphundar om dem alla. Varför?

Citerat, men översatt till svenska, uttrycker sig Danska kennelklubben (DKK): ”medan andra en gång var kamphundar, där det i många år skett en annan (familjehunds)avel på dem (t ex staffordshire bull terriers og amstaffs).” Kamphundarna är sällan rasrena. Realiteten i dag är att i stort sett ingen av gärningshundarna är rasrena.

Hundar av kamphundsras kan i sig själva inte utpekas som farliga. Det rykte dessa, framför allt pitbull, fått beror istället på att de dragit till sig olämpliga ägare. Alla nuvarande hundraser med bas i tidigare bull- och terrierhundar har det gemensamt att de är mycket vänliga och älskvärda mot människor. Ett bra sätt att exemplifiera att det inte är hundarna i sig som är farliga, är genom att hänvisa till schäfern: För 30 år sedan hade denna ras rykte om sig att vara farlig. I dag är det få som ställer upp på detta omdöme. Det beror inte på rasen. Det är viktigt att påpeka att precis som inte alla schäferägare för 30 år sedan var olämpliga är inte heller alla ägare till hundar av kamphundsras i dag, olämpliga. Efter schäfer har det varit rottweiler och dobermann som framställts som farliga raser.

Erfarna mentalbeskrivare och etologer anser dessa hundar vara mycket stabila och trevliga. I Sverige under 2009 genomförda mentalbeskrivningar visar att av 372 testade American staffordshire terriers endast en visade oacceptabelt beteende. Av 444 staffordshire bullterriers var antalet noll. Det säger en del om stabiliteten! (Testförfarandet framtaget av Svenska Brukshundsklubben)

En person med lång erfarenhet av att utföra sådana tester säger: Variationen inom samtliga raser är sådan att man inte kan säga att någon ras är mer aggressiv än någon annan. När en hund reagerar med aggression mot en människa handlar det nästan uteslutande om rädsla av något slag. Det är något den tar till som en sista utväg, och inte ett naturligt beteende bland flockdjur. Blame the deed, not the breed!

Thorleif Wallqvist : http://www.ssbtk.net/9709/Rasinformatören

Rasinformatör, Svenska Staffordshire bullterrier-klubben (SSBTK) och representant Djurens Jurister

Dog Attack Statistics & Merrit Clifton


Scientific Studies

Some food for thought before we delve into this complicated subject, stated elegantly by an expert on dog attack statistics:

There are many studies and data related to dog bites and dog attacks. However, dog attacks on humans occur in the course of complex interactions between two sentient beings and occur in the most uncontrolled and unscientific settings, involving dozens of variables and circumstances which cannot be measured accurately.

For these reasons, there is no “science” behind any of the studies conducted on cases of dog attacks.—Karen Delise (NCRC website, Dog Bite Statistics: Science or Junk Science?)               Wrong numbers not statistics

Dog Attack Statistics: A Primer

by J. Thomas

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”—Benjamin Disraeli

Hur man ljuger med statistik

Hur man ljuger med statistik

Journalists who wish to use dog bite statistics in their articles must be familiar with proper interpretation of those statistics and must also have a fundamental understanding of the flaws that are inherent in the most popular dog attack studies available today. Unawareness of these flaws almost certainly guarantees misinterpretation of the numbers. Many journalists have already fallen into the traps presented by these studies, either by drawing their own incorrect conclusions or by perpetuating another journalist’s mistakes.

Where do the numbers come from?

There is no uniform dog bite reporting procedure, nor is there a national agency charged with collecting such data. Dog bite data is collected and reported haphazardly. Animal control departments, hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and state health agencies may all collect different types of data, or none at all.

For example, when this author contacted Jim Schuermann, Staff Epidemiologist (Zoonotic and Vectorborne Diseases) of the Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Surveillance Group of the Texas Department of State Health Services, in March 2005 to inquire why the state of Texas no longer tracked dog bite statistics, he replied:

I’m sorry to report that this program has been discontinued. There was never a legislative mandate which required animal control agencies to submit reports on Severe Animal Bites. Although the Zoonosis Control Division highly encouraged all animal control agencies to voluntarily submit these reports, we would receive only 500 to 600 reports a year, and none of the major metropolitan areas (Amarillo, Brownsville, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Laredo, Lubbock, or San Antonio) participated. As I’m sure you can imagine, without data from these cities the information we did manage to collect was severely limited in scope. We completed a program review and realized that the information collected could not be proven to be scientifically representative of the entire state and that analysis of the small data set we did collect did not reliably reflect statewide trends.

Because fatal dog attacks are so rare, they are slightly easier to track, and the CDC attempted one major study using fatal dog attack statistics (see below for analysis of the study). However, because fatal attacks represent an infinitely small fraction of all attacks, they cannot be considered representative of all dog attacks.

Several studies have attempted to gather dog bite information from news articles and other news media; in fact, Merritt Clifton’s often-referenced dog attack “study” relies entirely on news media. This is a particularly unreliable source of information about dog attacks, as shall be explained next.

First, not all dog attacks are covered by the media, and it is unclear what criteria is being used by the news media to decide whether or not to report a particular attack. If all dog bites were reported, approximately 915 dog bites would be featured in the news every day. To date, no one is tracking all of these dog bites.

And second, the news media frequently misidentifies breeds and types of dogs. Breed identification is next to impossible, especially in the case of mixed breed dogs (the majority of dogs in the U.S.). It often consists of a wild guess based on appearance, not DNA testing or any truly scientific method of identification. Journalists may record a dog’s breed based on statements from a victim, a neighbor, an animal control officer, a police officer, or a dog owner—none of whom may be experienced with breed identification. Journalists may also make a wild guess based on their own visual assessment of the dog. News media also tends to identify dogs as “pit bulls” even when they are not pit bulls. Corrections, if they are made, are usually obscure. Thus, breed-specific data from studies that rely on media sources to identify breeds must be considered non-scientific and unreliable.

Risk Assessment and the Population Problem

One of the most common and enduring myths surrounding the oft-abused CDC report on fatal dog attacks (see below) is that it somehow demonstrates that certain breeds of dogs are “more likely” to attack or kill than other breeds.

The CDC has made it clear, both in the preface and the conclusion of their study, as well as on their website below the link to the study, that the study’s statistics cannot be interpreted in that manner.

In order to determine whether a breed of dog is “riskier” than another breed, a standard risk calculation must be performed. The easiest way to understand this calculation is through an example.

If you record one bite by a green dog and ten bites by purple dogs, which is more likely to bite—a green dog or a purple dog? If you look at the numbers alone, you might think that purple dogs are more dangerous than green dogs, because there are more bites by purple dogs.

However, it turns out that there are five green dogs total, one of which bit. And there are one hundred purple dogs total, ten of which bit. Now which type of dog is more likely to bite? Based on the data, one out of five green dogs have bitten, or 20%, while only one out of ten purple dogs have bitten, or 10%.

Once we know what the total population of green and purple dogs is, we are able to calculate risk.

And as the CDC has determined, it is not possible to accurately provide total population data for all breeds or types of dogs. Additionally, there are a number of complicating factors, including how to categorize mixed breed dogs.

And to add to the difficulty, while risk assessment might work if all dogs were genetically identical and were raised and kept in identical environments, this does not reflect reality. Individual dogs have widely varying temperaments and are raised and trained by different owners in different environments, so there are a number of factors beside breed that play into whether a dog is likely to bite or not. In fact, there are a handful of environmental factors (such as the way the dog is kept) that are far more predictive of aggressive behavior than a dog’s breed or type. (Delise, 2002, 2007)

Correlation Versus Causation

Another logical fallacy that has been made when looking at dog bite statistics is the assumption that correlation equals causation: that is, when events are shown to be related, it is because one event causes the other.

For instance, it has been shown that senior citizens are more likely to vote than middle-aged individuals. There is a correlation between age and voting record, but it would be a fallacy to assume that old age somehow causes people to vote. Rather, other factors—such as how much time an individual can devote to participating in the election process, or how concerned a voter is about the issues to be voted on—must be considered. It is not necessarily the case that older people are somehow genetically driven to vote, but that they are mostly retired (giving them time to engage in voting activities) and also have concerns about health care and retirement benefits (common election issues).

Similarly, apparent correlations between dog breeds and numbers of fatal attacks can not be interpreted as proof that the dog’s breed is the reason why the dog attacks. Dog behavior, particularly aggression, is extremely complicated and involves a number of environmental and situational factors. Failure to recognize and analyze all of these factors results in misinterpretation and misapplication of statistics, with potentially dangerous results (such as the mythology of the dangerous/safe breed dichotomy).


A Closer Look At The Popular Studies

by Jackie Fitzgerald

Many studies have attempted to analyze the frequency and contributing factors of dog bites. Unfortunately, these studies are biased and use inaccurate counts of dog bites. There are numerous factors in a dog attack, many of which are not even considered in the major studies.

As dog attack expert Karen Delise says:

All dog bites/attacks are situational. Dogs bite in reaction to certain threats or stimuli—statistics about dog attacks purport to represent “canine aggression” however [they] do not take into account ANY of the situations under which a bite occurred. (E-mail interview with Delise, 4/22/08)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998

This is perhaps the most misused and misunderstood dog bite report. Politicians and the media often quote this report inaccurately.

The main flaw in the CDC study is that it attempts to characterize dog attacks by breed, while ignoring all other possible factors.

Media as a source of data

The CDC study uses media accounts in their findings. The media is known to misreport and skew articles on dog attacks and misidentify breeds (see Difficulty of Breed Identification).

Missing data

The report also admits that it does not cover twenty-eight percent of fatal dog attacks. It is not clear what the study results would have been if all fatal dog attacks were included.

Miscategorization and misidentification

In the study, on the chart showing the number of dog bite-related deaths, the CDC has divided the attacks into sections titled Purebred and Crossbred. The CDC has listed Pit Bull-type and Husky-type under both the Purebred and Crossbred divisions. A “type” is not a breed.

Pit Bull-types are often categorized as dogs with short fur and a boxy head. There are over twenty breeds of dogs that fit this description, including the American Bulldog, Boxer, Olde English Bulldogge, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Bull Mastiff, American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Tosa Inu, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Dogue de Bordeaux, Fila Brasileiro, Presa Canario, Catahoula Leopard Dog, Cane Corso, Black Mouth Cur, and the Shar Pei.

Husky-types are often identified as medium sized dogs with long fur. This is extremely vague. Dogs that meet this description include the Akita Inu, Shiba Inu, Alaskan Malamute, Samoyed, Elkhound, Hokkaido Inu, Laika, Siberian Husky, Chow Chow, Alaskan Husky, and the Greenland Dog.

It is inaccurate to list all such breeds under one title; such groupings distort the study’s findings. Yet few people could recognize all these breeds correctly.

The CDC study uses inconclusive sources, fails to account for breed misidentification, and erroneously groups breeds.

Study conclusion

Despite the study’s flaws, the study authors conclude that breed-specific legislation is inefficient; BSL fails to recognize that any dog of any breed can exhibit aggressive behaviors.

Merritt Clifton
Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. and Canada, 1982 through 2007 (updated yearly)

Merritt Clifton’s study is a medley of newspaper articles that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an incomplete tally of severe bites than a study.

Media as only source of data

Clifton’s only source for his findings is the media, and he focuses on cases that required “extensive hospitalization.” This term is never defined in his article. It might mean stitches, or it might mean amputation.

Missing data

In the beginning of the study, Clifton states that attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, dogs trained to fight, and dogs whose breed may be uncertain are excluded. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a good number of attacks are not included. This might leave the reader with the assumption that Clifton has included all other dog attacks.

The CDC reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that of the “333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments in 1994, approximately 6,000 were hospitalized.” (July 4, 2003 article at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)

However, Clifton lists only 2,363 bites total—and that is over the 25 years that he has tallied media reports of attacks.

If approximately 6,000 people require hospitalization each year because of a dog attack, then over 25 years, there would have been 150,000 people hospitalized. Yet Clifton has apparently only found media reports for 1.6% of all these attacks.

Clifton’s report therefore implies that the remaining 98.4% of bites that required “extensive hospitalization” according to the CDC were by non-identifiable types of dogs or police, guard, or fighting animals. This is highly unlikely. Clifton’s data is so incomplete as to make it virtually useless for analyzing patterns related to severe dog attacks.

Miscategorization and misidentification

On Clifton’s list of all dog attacks and the dogs’ breed, he makes several mistakes.

He lists the Australian Blue Heeler, the Australian Cattle Dog, the Blue Heeler, and the Queensland Heeler as separate breeds. These are all different names for the same breed. Listing these attacks under separate breed names skewed the results of the study.

It should be noted that Clifton does not attempt to divide pit bull attacks into separate breed names. If he were to do so, it is not clear what his study results would show; “pit bull” is a generic term for at least three different breeds of dogs, and dozens of other breeds are often lumped into the “pit bull” category based on their similar appearance.

There are also 33 attacks that were supposedly done by “Bull Mastiff (Presa Canario).” Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios are distinctly different breeds, and if there is question about which breed the dog is, this attack should not be listed as a “clearly identified breed.”

The report also attempts to identify the predominant breed in dogs. Clifton gives no reason as to why he listed an attack as being done by an Akita/Chow mix instead of a Chow/Akita mix. How did he determine that Beagle was the predominant breed in the attack done by a Beagle/German Shepherd Dog?

Clifton makes several spelling mistakes throughout his report. Misidentified breeds listed as a “Chox mix,” “Dauschund,” “Doge De Bordeaux,” “Fila Brasiero,” “Buff Mastiff,” “Great Pyranees,” and “Weimaeaner” compromise Clifton’s credibility.

Inability to determine risk scientifically

In Clifton’s analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and “degree of relative risk.”

Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.

Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a “degree of relative risk,” Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite.

Even the CDC concluded at the end of their own flawed study (see above) that there is no way to determine relative risk:

There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Merritt Clifton apparently does not understand the many factors that go into a reliable calculation of relative risk, nor does he wish to acknowledge that trained researchers realize that many, if not most, of those factors can never be known or calculated.

Misapplied and misinterpreted data

Clifton’s analysis section is full of faults and absurd assumptions.

Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are.

As discussed, Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.

Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog’s health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack.

Since Clifton is tallying media articles, his conclusion seems to be more telling of media coverage of dog bites. If one was to assume that the media is more likely to publish a pit bull attack than an attack by another type of dog, and more likely to publish an attack on a child than an attack on an adult, it stands to reason that while media-reported pit bull attacks include both adults and children, media reports about other types of dogs’ attacks may only be considered newsworthy when a child is involved. Thus, it may appear that pit bulls are overrepresented in attacks on adults.

Misunderstanding of dog behavior and ignorance about breed standards

They [pit bulls] are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

All dogs exhibit warning signs. Pit bull expert Diane Jessup, a retired animal control officer and police dog trainer, stated in her book The Working Pit Bull, “all Pit Bulls do give some warning that they are going to attack.”

Studies have indicated that, generally, people do not understand dog body language. A person may not recognize that a dog standing very still, legs apart, tail waving slowly, is indicating an impending attack. When one cannot identify all possible threat behaviors, it might appear that a dog is attacking without warning. Clifton provides no evidence to show that victims are oblivious to impending attacks by pit bulls at a greater rate than impending attacks by other dogs.

Clifton’s statement that pit bulls’ tails are customarily docked demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the breed-type. A list of traditionally docked breeds can be found on the Council of Docked Breeds website (http://www.cdb.org/list.htm). None of the pit bull breeds, to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrer, can be found on this list. Nor can any of the breeds that are occasionally mistaken to be “pit bulls,” such as the American Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, and Bull Terrier. Tail docking has never been common or customary with any of the pit bull types. Docking the tail of an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier means immediate disqualification from the show ring.

To substantiate his assertions that 1) pit bulls customarily have their tails docked, and 2) tail docking results in an inability for people to read canine body language, Clifton would need to provide evidence that a disproportionate number of pit bulls or attacking dogs have had their tails docked, and further, that a dog’s tail is the primary predictor of an impending attack. He provides no such evidence.

There are over 50 different breeds of dogs, including the Cocker Spaniel, Airedale Terrier, German pointer, Jack Russell Terrier, Poodle, and Corgi, whose tails are traditionally docked. (Council of Docked Breeds) If tail docking inhibits the communication of impending aggression, why are tail-less breeds not disproportionately represented in any list of severe and fatal attacks?

Excuses for some breeds’ behavior

Rottweilers . . . seem to show up disproportionately often in the mauling, killing, and maiming statistics simply because they are both quite popular and very powerful . . .

Clifton excuses Rottweilers’ attacks due to the fact that they are both popular and powerful. Yet pit bulls, who are also popular and strong, are not given this same excuse.

In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs. None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog. [sic]

Here Clifton excuses German Shepherd attacks due to outside factors. This implies that no other type of dog in his study attacked because it was left neglected, abused, chained or left untrained and unsocialized. Yet he offers no proof to substantiate the idea that all other cases he recorded involved trained, socialized, beloved family pets.

[I]t is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Clifton implies that pit bulls and Rottweilers no longer behave like dogs under extra-ordinary circumstances. What those extra-ordinary circumstances are is unstated, and how pit bulls and Rottweilers suddenly become behaviorally different under those circumstances is not demonstrated in the report.

To imply that pit bulls and Rottweilers are not to be regarded as dogs even though they act like ordinary canines is absurd. Clifton’s agenda is quite clear—he badly wishes to portray pit bulls and Rottweilers as somehow unique—but his “study” is so flawed that he cannot prove any of his sweeping generalizations.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk.

Here Clifton returns to the idea that, somehow, we can calculate the “riskiness” or “relative danger” of particular breeds or types of dogs. As demonstrated earlier in this article, it is not possible to do this.

Furthermore, it is totally bizarre to say that temperament is not an issue. Temperament plays a huge part in dog attacks, as any canine behaviorist or dog bite researcher would agree. A very large dog may be able to do a lot of damage if it bites someone, but if the dog is extremely placid by nature (temperament), there’s very little danger to the public. On the contrary, a smaller dog may do less damage if it attacks, but if it is extremely aggressive, it could maul or kill someone. To suggest that temperament isn’t even relevant is ridiculous.

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton’s own “study” disproves his assertions. His own tally of severe and fatal dog attacks includes over 50 different types and breeds of dogs. It seems clear that dogs of all types can have “bad moments” that result in severe injury.

Study conclusion

Clifton concludes in his article that he “[does] not know how an effective, fair, enforceable, humane dangerous dog law could be constructed.” He goes on to propose breed-specific legislation as the solution to dangerous dogs, yet provides no scientific evidence that BSL actually works.

Jaclyn Barnes
Ownership of High-Risk (“Vicious”) Dogs as a Marker for Deviant Behaviors: Implications for Risk Assessment

Jaclyn Barnes’s study is an attempt to find parallels between choice of dog breed and criminal activity. The study attempts to help law enforcement identify “risk factors” that would lead a person to cause harm to either themselves or others by dog breed.

The study used 355 owners of “licensed or cited dogs that represented high or low-risk breeds.” Some of the owners had a “criminal background,” which included minor traffic citations.

Barnes used the Ohio Revised Code definition for “vicious dog” to classify high-risk dogs for the purposes of the study. However, Ohio considers all pit bulls to be prima facie vicious dogs. For this reason, all pit bulls were automatically placed into the “high-risk” category regardless of the individual dogs’ behavior.

[S]ome breeds, namely Pit Bulls, may qualify as “vicious dogs” simply by reputation, not because a specific dog has behaved in a harmful manner.

The study therefore defines a “high-risk” dog as a dog that without provocation has killed or seriously injured a person, killed another dog, or is a pit bull.

Potential for skewed population due to breed misidentification

The study author does not explain how breeds are identified, but the reader supposes that the breed is taken off either license or citation paperwork. This means that, in the case of a license, the owner decides what a dog’s breed is. In the case of a citation, an animal control officer probably decides what a dog’s breed is.

This naturally leads to a serious question about identification accuracy, especially since most dogs are not purebred. For instance, animal control officers may be inclined to over-identify troublesome dogs as “pit bulls” because the category is broad and vaguely defined, and because Ohio’s BSL gives animal control more tools to deal with problematic “pit bulls” than with other types of problematic dogs, thus encouraging them to declare dogs “pit bulls.”

Barnes also observes that “some owners license a HR [high risk] dog such as a Pit Bull as another breed, such as Boxer” to avoid the automatic designation of “vicious” that Ohio places on pit bulls. Obviously, this suggests that Barnes’s population may be skewed due to the effects of BSL; some dog owners are intentionally misidentifying their dog’s breed, and Barnes has no ability to correct for this problem. This means that data for the other breeds tallied by Barnes may actually have been data for pit bull mixes that were intentionally recorded by the owners as a different breed.

Barnes also includes two “breeds” that aren’t recognized by any reputable kennel club—the “Ahra” and the “Terripoo.” It is not clear what an Ahra is, but Terripoo might be a mix of poodle and terrier, so the latter, at least, should have been included as a “mixed breed.”

Concerns about population selection

Furthermore, examination of the base population studied by Barnes raises some serious concerns. Barnes collected the study population by choosing from citations issued by the Cincinnati SPCA and by choosing from licenses issued by Hamilton County in Ohio.

Presumably these choices were random, yet a look at the breed tally raises eyebrows immediately. Only one Labrador Retriever is included. It is hard to understand how random selection of 355 dogs would only produce a single Labrador Retriever. Similarly, only eight mixed breeds are listed. By contrast, 153 Pit Bulls were included in the 355-dog total.

It is unclear how supposedly random selection produced such a bizarre population makeup. Barnes does not explain why this occurs.

Breed bias

The study also shows apparent breed bias. As mentioned previously, there is one Labrador Retriever included, under “high-risk cited,” and it has a notation next to the listing. The note declares that the dog was only listed because it attacked and killed another dog.

What was it about this attack that required a notation? Dogs that kill other dogs are already included as “high-risk” as mentioned in the study. Was it the condition of the attack that prompted Barnes to include the notation? Or was it the fact that no one expects a Labrador to be capable of attacking?

Conclusion

Despite so many serious issues with Barnes’s study setup and population selection, Barnes goes on to conclude that there is a correlation between ownership of a “high-risk” dog and criminal convictions. She correctly cautions that this cannot be translated into a cause-and-effect relationship.

It is the opinion of this author that the mere fact that the study was performed in an area with BSL immediately brings about narrow results that cannot be applied to the rest of the U.S. Had this study been done in a place with no BSL, this author feels that the results would have been distinctly different.


Sources and Resources

Barnes, Jaclyn. “Ownership of High-Risk (“Vicious”) Dogs as a Marker for Deviant Behaviors: Implications for Risk Assessment.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2006. http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1616.abstract

Bradley, Janis. Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous. James & Kenneth Publishers, 2005.

Bradley, Janis. “Dog bites: Problems and solutions.” Animals and Society Institute, 2006. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/policy-paper-janis-bradley1.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.”  It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill : http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Dog Bite: Fact Sheet

Clifton, Merritt. “Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. and Canada, 1982 through 2007.” Self published.

Delise, Karen. Fatal Dog Attacks: The Facts Behind the Statistics. Anubis Press, 2002.

Delise, Karen. The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths, and Politics of Canine Aggression. Anubis Press, 2007.

The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression

National Canine Research Council. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/

Statistics Help For Journalists. http://www.robertniles.com/stats/

Mer information i ämnet här: http://stopbsl.com/fortherecord/scientific-studies/

Fakta om Rasförbud i Danmark


F a c t s

 

The Ministry of Justice’s Dog Committee oppose banning

The Minister of Justice formed the Dog Committee with the purpose of solving

problems with dangerous dogs. However late 2009 he instructed them that one

of their solutions had to be banning selected breeds.

The committee’s interim report from 2010 states that a majority of the committee

opposed breed bans (the minority consisted of public servants).

Breeds were selected without reliable statistic and empirical knowledge

The Dog Committee states in their interim report that no reliable statistical and

empirical data exists for use in the selection of breeds to be included in a possible

breed ban.

Furthermore it should be noted in this context that the Dog Committee’s basis is

formed on:

_ Statistics from Danish emergency rooms, which show that other breeds appear

more often on the list of dogs, which cause injuries to humans.

_ A non-scientific list, which formed the basis for defining potentially dangerous

dogs, drafted by a so-called expert with no scientific background. The

author states on the list that she hasn’t experience with all of the breeds and

therefore can’t rule out that some of the breeds are wrongly placed.

All scientific experts oppose banning of breeds

All experts, including The Danish Veterinary Association and the Dog committee,

oppose banning of breeds. A majority of the reactions from the public hearing

oppose banning of breeds as well.

Experience show breed specific legislation doesn’t work

Other countries remove breed bans, because it is ineffective.

_ The Netherlands removed their breed ban after 15 years in 2008.

_ Northern Germany removed breed list in 2009 after 9 years of restrictions.

_ Scotland remove breed specific legislation in 2010.

_ England and Wales are in the process of removing breed specific legislation.

No increase in dog attacks on humans

Public statistics show that during the 90’s the number of dog bites on humans in

Denmark was reduced by half and the numbers of incidents has remained stable

since 1998.

Aggression is NOT breed related

It’s scientifically proven that aggression is not breed related, e.g. by the Veterinarian

University in Hannover. A “fighting gene” does not exist!

F a c t s 

 

FCI breeds not involved in attacks

The Danish Terrier Club’s committee the Bull Image Group has followed up on

every dog attack appearing in the media since January 2009. None of these attacks

were committed by purebred American Staffordshire Terriers or by any

other banned FCI breed. When the journalists referred to the attack dogs as

“amstaffs”, it was really crossbred dogs resembling “amstaffs”.

This means that the law effectively bans a number of purebred breeds from the

established dog society, which aren’t responsible for attacks, where as the law

doesn’t have impact on the real perpetrators sold by irresponsible people outside

the established dog world, where a large number of “copy dogs” with unknown

origin are produced.

The Danish Dog Act is equivalent to banning Rolex watches because the cheap

copies watches break.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is a rare breed

Less than 10 % of the dogs that are referred to as ”amstaffs” are American Staffordshire

Terriers. Actually more than 90 % of the dogs registered in the Danish

Dog Register are “copy dogs”, like pitbull crosses or other crosses being sold as

“amstaffs” to achieve a higher sales price. Additional there’s a large number of

dogs that aren’t registered at all – dogs that are kept illegally.

A purebred American Staffordshire Terrier is recognized by its FCI approved

pedigree. Only 82 were registered in 2009, so it’s a small population of dogs –

and these can only be bred if they acquire an approved temperament test.

The law primarily affects responsible dog owners

Statistics presented by The Danish Kennel Club to the Parliament’s Law Committee

show that purebred FCI dogs only represent 3 % of the dogs wrongfully

referred to as ”fighting dogs”. As the political negotiations confirm that no extra

resources will be targeted to support the law, the purebred dogs are immediately

restricted by the law where as the other 97 % of dogs produced by irresponsible

people outside the ”doggie” establishment go free.

The term ‘fighting dog’ used for dogs that bite

There is no official Danish definition of a ‘fighting dog’. The term is used by journalists

and the public regardless of the dog’s origin and use. The term ‘fighting

dog’ now publicly mean a dog that bites.

Further information and documentation

 

Visit: http://www.bull-image-gruppen.dk/

 for further information and documentation or

write us at: Politik@bull-image-gruppen.dk

Danish Dog Act 

 

Denmark bans 13 breeds

The Danish Parliament passes a new Dog Act banning 13 breeds. The Act enters

into force July 2010 and includes banning of the following breeds:

FCI breeds

_ American Staffordshire Terrier

_ Central Asian Ovtcharka

_ Dogo Argentino

_ Fila Brasileiro

_ Caucasian Ovtcharka

_ Sarplaninac

_ South Russian Ovtcharka

_ Tornjak

_ Tosa (banned in 1991)

Other breeds

_ American Bulldog

_ Boerboel

_ Kangal

_ Pit bull terrier (banned in 1991)

Dogs of these breeds and crosses involving these breeds:

_ Are not allowed to be bred.

_ Are not allowed to be purchased, sold, imported, exported or transferred.

_ Must be kept on a short (max. 2 m) lead when outside owner’s property.

_ Must wear a muzzle when outside owner’s property.

_ Furthermore when requested by the police dog owners must prove that their

dog isn’t bred from any of the banned breeds (the onus is on the owners).

In addition to the Dog Act the Ministry of Justice establishes an observation list

for potentially dangerous breeds. It still hasn’t been made public:

_ How this list is administered.

_ What breeds are included.

_ Which criteria will define them as potentially dangerous.

The Dog Act will be evaluated after 3 years.

Note that the law includes more regulations and is of course much more detailed.

As the final law draft was pushed though very quickly a lot of uncertainties

remain concerning interpretation of the law and especially about the actual

rules and regulations for the affected dogs.

Responsible owners & breeders will fight this!

The Danish Terrier Club and its committee, the Bull Image Group, deeply regret

this unprecedented action by the Danish Parliament. We will constantly work for

an effective solution of the problem concerning dangerous dogs in Denmark and

fight this ineffective and unsubstantiated breed specific legislation.

– And we still have options to pursue

Fakta om rasförbud i Danmark : http://www.bull-image-gruppen.dk/big-folder-uk.pdf

Det verkliga problemet är olämpliga hundägare


 

Det verkliga problemet är olämpliga hundägare

Varför denna begreppsförvirring, att kalla stor aggressiv hund för kamphund? Det är onödigt att svärta ner flera raser, när det handlar om en ras utanför begreppet.

Händelsen Gudrun Ekstrand beskriver är precis vad det handlar om, olämpliga hundägare med stora hundar. Den anfallande hundens matte verkar inte ens kunna inse att man skall ha kontroll på sin hund, dvs. inte ha den lös i ett bostadsområde, om den tidigare visat prov på aggressivt beteende. Hennes uppträdande, som det beskrivs, är minst sagt beklagligt.

Det tråkiga för alla seriösa hundägare är att de dras med i synen på bristande hundhållning, speciellt om man har en grövre hund, som i det här fallet beskrivs vara en kamphund, trots att det är en rottweiler. Det är onödigt att öka på den felaktiga bild som redan sprids i många medier, baserat på tyckande istället för kunskap.

Det är min önskan och förhoppning att fokuseringen skall riktas på det verkliga problemet, de olämpliga hundägarna. Undersök och skriv om de samhällsproblem som finns i våra större städer, och den sociala bakgrund dessa företrädesvis unga killar har, som vill hålla sig med kraftiga, respektingivande hundar. Hundar som i de allra flesta fall inte är rasrena utan av blandningar med egenskaper som man inte bör förena. Det är synd om dessa hundar! Alla hundar, oavsett ras, kan fostras till ett aggressivt beteende. Låt inte hundarna behöva ta ansvaret för sina ägares tillkortakommanden.

Lagen om tillsyn över hundar och katter, (2007:1150) trädde i kraft den 1:e januari 2008.
Denna ger Polisen större befogenheter att beslagta en hund och även att utfärda hundförbud för den som visat sig inte kunna hantera sin hund. Se till att denna verkligen tillämpas.

Förbud
Rasförbud hjälper inte. Det kan få rakt motsatt effekt, att det blir ännu mer intressant för ett visst klientel att skaffa något som är förbjudet. Vilka ”värstinghundar” skulle ersätta de förbjudna? Om hundinnehavet alls registreras, blir det som blandras. Vad kommer härnäst? För att exemplifiera med två europeiska länder, där man haft förbudslagstiftning, Italien och Nederländerna, har där förbuden upphävts, då man ansett dem verkningslösa. I april 2009, respektive juni 2008.

Kamphundsbegreppet
När uttryck som kamphund används finns hos allmänheten rädslan för hundar som tidigare avlats för att slåss och som utstrålar styrka. Det ligger nära till hands för media att väcka uppmärksamhet genom att utnyttja den rädslan och resultatet blir att den förstärks, sprider sig och byggs på.

Av de i Danmark förbjudna tretton raserna kan endast två hänföras till dem som brukar innefattas i kamp- hundsbegreppet. Övriga är, per definition, herde-, jakt- och vakthundar. Ändå används i media begreppet kamphundar om dem alla. Varför?

•Citerat, men översatt till svenska, uttrycker sig DKK (Danska kennelklubben)
* ”…..medan andra en gång var kamphundar, där det i många år skett en annan (familjehunds)avel på dem
(t.ex. staffordshire bull terriers og amstaffs).”
* ”Kamphundarna är sällan rasrena. Realiteten i dag är, att i stort sett ingen av gärningshundarna är rasrena.”

Hundar av kamphundsras
Hundar av kamphundsras kan i sig själva inte utpekas som farliga. Det rykte dessa, framför allt pitbull, fått beror istället på att de dragit till sig olämpliga ägare. Alla nuvarande hundraser med bas i tidigare Bull & Terrier dogs har det gemensamt att de är mycket vänliga och älskvärda mot människor. Ett bra sätt att exemplifiera att det inte är hundarna i sig som är farliga, är genom att hänvisa till schäfern: För 20 år sedan hade denna ras rykte om sig att vara farlig. I dag är det få som ställer upp på detta omdöme. Det beror inte på rasen. Det är viktigt att påpeka att precis som inte alla schäferägare för 20 år sedan var olämpliga är inte heller alla ägare till hundar av kamphundsras i dag, olämpliga. Efter schäfer har det varit rottweiler och dobermann som framställts som farliga raser.

Mentala egenskaper
Erfarna mentalbeskrivare och etologer anser dessa hundar vara mycket stabila och trevliga. I Sverige, under 2009, genomförda mentalbeskrivningar visar att av 372 testade american staffordshire terriers endast 1 visade oacceptabelt beteende. Av 444 staffordshire bullterriers var antalet 0. Det säger en del om stabiliteten! (Testförfarandet framtaget av Svenska Brukshundsklubben) En person med lång erfarenhet av att utföra sådana tester säger: ”Variationen inom samtliga raser är sådan att man inte kan säga att någon ras är mer aggressiv än någon annan. När en hund reagerar med aggression mot en människa handlar det nästan uteslutande om rädsla av något slag. Det är något den tar till som en sista utväg, och inte ett naturligt beteende bland flockdjur.” ”Blame the deed, not the breed!”

Thorleif Wallqvist   http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/09/18/det-verkliga-problemet-r-ol-mpliga-hund-gare

%d bloggare gillar detta: