Breed Specific Legislation Had No Effect on Dog Bites in Odense, Denmark

In 2010, Denmark banned 13 breeds of dog. It made no difference to hospitalizations for dog bites.

Photo: sanjagrujic/Shutterstock

One approach that some countries or municipalities take to attempt to reduce injuries from dog bites is to ban certain breeds, known as Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). A new study by Dr. Finn Nilson  (Karlstad University) et al investigates the effects of BSL in Denmark’s third-largest city, Odense. The results show that it had no effect on hospitalizations for dog bites.

In 2010, Denmark banned the ownership, breeding and import of 13 breeds of dog, including the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero and American Bulldog.

Two of those breeds, the Pitbull Terrier and the Tosa Inu, had to be euthanized.

Any existing pets of the remaining 11 breeds could be kept, but they had to be muzzled and leashed in public.

Dr. Finn Nilson told me in an email,

“The findings in our article largely support previous studies on the subject of whether banning certain breeds of dog will lead to less individuals requiring emergency care for dog bites. In similarity to other studies we can show that banning certain breeds in Denmark did not reduce the number of dog bites being seen at a large regional hospital. Due to the Danish ban being slightly different to previous bans, we could use considerably more advanced methods. Put simply, we could test both the long-term effect of banning certain breeds as well as the short-term legislation on muzzles in public spaces on the same breeds. Neither seem to have an effect. The results reiterate the problem of identifying so-called dangerous breeds in the attempts to reduce dog bites.”

The study looked at data on people visiting the emergency department in Odense from 1st January 2002 and 31st June 2015. During this time, there were 2622 dog bite injuries.

There are some problems with simply looking at the number of dog bites before and after a ban. For one thing, in cases like this where some breeds are euthanized, the total number of dogs has gone down, which means any change could simply be because there are fewer dogs overall.

As well, it is possible there would be other changes over the time period. One such change mentioned in the paper is that the number of injuries tends to go down anyway (although I note that this is not always the case – in the UK, which also has BSL, hospitalizations for dog bites have gone up).

The scientists used some sophisticated statistical techniques, called Monte Carlo models, to get round these issues.

And they paid attention to whether dog bites happened in public or private spaces.

Photo: Grigorita Ko/Shutterstock

Since 11 of the banned breeds had to be muzzled and leashed in public, you would expect an immediate difference in public dog bites if BSL was effective. Whereas you would expect a more gradual difference in dog bites in private spaces as the number of pet dogs of these breeds slowly went down.

But that’s not what happened.

The results showed no effect of Breed Specific Legislation on hospitalizations for dog bites.

They did show something else very interesting: Of the 2622 dog bites, 874 occurred in public spaces. In other words, the majority of dog bite injuries (67%) occurred in a private space such as someone’s home.

This shows that programs to reduce dog bites need to target private places, not just focus on what happens in public.

"Put simply, we could test both the long-term effect of banning certain breeds as well as the short-term legislation on muzzles in public spaces on the same breeds. Neither seem to have an effect."

One limitation to the research is that it only considers data for 4.5 years after the introduction of BSL. However, the legislation would have been expected to have an effect in this time, which was not found.

This study joins a number of others in finding that Breed Specific Legislation does not work. If you want to know more, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has a summary of the available research on BSL.

Unfortunately BSL means that well-behaved dogs have to be muzzled or euthanized when they have not done anything wrong.

The alternative to BSL is to encourage responsible dog ownership and enforce it with strong laws or bylaws.

Dog bites are a complex problem, and this study adds to the evidence that breed specific legislation is not the solution. As well, it shows that we need to pay attention to the context in which bites occur.


The paper is open access and you can read it via the link below.

You might also like: Stereotypes and breeds of dog and the effects of owner experience and housing on Argentine Dogos.

Reference
Nilson, F., Damsager, J., Lauritsen, J., & Bonander, C. (2018). The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLoS one, 13(12), e0208393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208393

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

New Study Identifies our Different Ethical Beliefs about Animals

New research finds four ethical orientations towards animals, and some surprising links to cat and dog ownership and to other behaviours such as eating “welfare-friendly” meat.

We all have different views about what we think are ethical ways to treat animals. New research by Dr. Thomas Bøker Lund et al. (University of Copenhagen), published today in PLOS ONE, finds four different ethical orientations that are commonly held by the general public.

The results show just how complicated our ethical beliefs about animals are – and include some surprising results.

Two of the different orientations will probably be familiar:

Anthropocentrism – the idea that “human beings matter most”. This view may stem from religious beliefs or from beliefs that humans and animals are different, with humans being considered rational and more important than non-human animals.

Animal rights – this approach values all animals and argues that as sentient beings, animals also have rights and should be treated accordingly. This is the opposite view to anthropocentrism.

The other two ethical orientations are not academic but more likely reflect the views of ordinary people:

Animal protection – this means animals are seen as needing protection, but may be used so long as they are treated humanely and do not suffer. This view can be seen in regulations to protect the welfare of farmed animals, for example.

Lay utilitarianism – the idea that animals can be used so long as the benefits to humans outweigh any suffering by the animals. For example, according to this approach, the use of animals in medical research (even if the animals suffer) is considered acceptable so long as there are benefits to people.

The scientists conducted a series of three studies. In the first, they developed a questionnaire to investigate these four approaches, and tested it on Danish university students. This confirmed the questionnaire worked the way they expected.

Then they tested it on three groups of people: ordinary Danes from a range of backgrounds; Danes who tend towards veganism or vegetarianism; and Danes who work in some way in the meat industry.

These results confirmed the results of the previous study, with the exception of one question that was removed (more on this later).

“It is a remarkable and ironic finding… that a stronger animal protection orientation does not make people more likely to consume animal welfare-friendly meat.”

Finally, they gave the questionnaire to a large sample of Danes along with some other questions about their behaviour towards animals, such as whether they own a dog or cat, and how often they visit the zoo. This sample was intended to be representative, and since it was in some ways but not others (like level of education) they used some sophisticated statistics for the analysis.

And here’s where it gets really interesting.

Dog owners are less likely to be anthropocentric in their views. Is this because anthropocentric people are less likely to get dogs, or is there something about having a dog that makes people be less anthropocentric? This is a question for future research.

Cat owners are less likely to have the animal protection or lay utilitarian views. Why are cat owners less likely to be in what could be considered the middle ground? This is puzzling, and the researchers do not have an explanation for it.

Another finding is that the results are in line with something called the “underdog” effect that has previously been found in an American study. Women and those with lower levels of education were more likely to value an animal rights approach. It has been suggested that members of groups with less power in society are more likely to sympathize with animals.

One surprising finding relates to eating “welfare-friendly” meat.

The scientists say,

“It is a remarkable and ironic finding… that a stronger animal protection orientation does not make people more likely to consume animal welfare-friendly meat.”

Since they had expected the opposite to be the case, they did a bit more analysis. It turns out the most important reason is a lack of concern about animal welfare. Feeling that existing laws were good enough, and so the extra protections of “welfare-friendly” meat weren’t needed, was also part of the reason.

As for the one question that turned out not to fit in the second study, it related to the statement, “It is acceptable for humans to put animals down if it is done painlessly.” This suggests that attitudes to this are separate from the four main orientations considered here.

"Dog owners are less likely to be anthropocentric in their views."

Psychologists have known for a long time that attitudes do not necessarily predict behaviour, and the new scale highlights these tensions when it comes to our treatment of non-human animals.

Prof. Peter Sandøe, one of the authors of the study, told me in an email,

“Based on three studies conducted in Denmark, the four orientations were successfully identified and although not exhaustive, they represent distinctive accounts of the ways that animals matter. At one end of the spectrum, the anthropocentric orientation stresses that humans are the centre of the moral universe. At the other end of the spectrum, the animal rights orientation claims that sentient animals are entitled to the same rights as humans. The animal protection orientation is interpreted as a mainstream sentiment emphasizing that the welfare of animals is important in its own right, and that animals must be treated humanely and without unnecessary suffering while lay utilitarianism offers a more cynical take on animal welfare: all forms of animal use are in principle acceptable as long as the human benefits outweigh the disadvantages for the animals involved.

We argue that the developed measure can help detect the ethical orientations that have an impact on various types of behaviours that include animals, thus drive a more nuanced understanding about the attitudinal sources and justifications of different forms of animal use.”

This is fascinating research that captures the complexity of people’s beliefs about ethics and animals. It will enable future studies to explore the reasons behind differences between what people believe in and what people actually do when it comes to their ethical beliefs about animals.

The full paper is open access and can be read at the link below. Update: Dr. Marc Bekoff has interviewed the authors of the study and it is well worth a read to find out what they think of the results, what it means for animal welfare, and how this research can be used in future.

Which of the four ethical orientations most closely reflects your own beliefs about the treatment of animals?


Reference
Lund, T.B., Kondrup, S.R., and Sandøe, P. (2019) A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public, PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211656

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Finding Hidden Food in Nosework Increases Dogs' Optimism

Opportunities to use the nose and make choices in nosework are good for dogs’ welfare.

Photo: KM-Photography/Shutterstock

We all know that dogs like to sniff. Is it possible that providing opportunities to find food in nosework can improve dogs’ wellbeing?

New scientific research by Dr. Charlotte Duranton (Ethodog) and Dr. Alexandra Horowitz (Barnard College) finds that dogs who participate in nose work have increased optimism compared to dogs that took part in heelwork instead.

Importantly, both activities involved perambulation, as well as food rewards as positive reinforcement. The difference is that in nosework the dog has the opportunity to use their nose and to exercise choice in what they are doing.

The study used a test of optimism – also known as cognitive bias – in which dogs were first trained that a bowl in one location would always contain food, whereas a bowl in another location never did. Then the test involved an empty bowl placed in an ambiguous location, equidistant from the other two places.

The idea is that the length of time taken to get to the bowl reflects the dog’s optimism that it would contain a piece of chicken.

20 adult dogs of various breeds took part in the study, including Australian Shepherds, Huskies, Cocker Spaniels, and other breeds/mixes.

Half of the dogs took part in a nosework activity with their owner, while the other half did heelwork.

The dogs took part in a group class with their owner (either nosework or heelwork), then the owner practised at home with them once a day for a week.  Then there was a second class, followed by a second week of practice at home.

Immediately before and after the two weeks of the activity, each dog took part in the cognitive bias training and test.

Each activity was structured so there was some development from the beginning to the end. For example, in the first heelwork class the dog was initially rewarded with a treat for taking two paces with the owner, building up to ten paces. In the second week, changes of direction were included.

Similarly, in the first nosework class, dogs began by finding a hide (i.e. treat) in a box, then in one of three boxes. When they found it, additional treats were added to the box. In the second week, boxes were put on chairs and/or further apart to make it more challenging.

Prior to the activities, there were no differences between the two groups of dogs in the cognitive bias test.

Photo: Sergey Fatin/Shutterstock

At the end of the two weeks, the latency for dogs in the nosework group to reach the bowl was significantly shorter. However, for dogs in the heelwork group, it was no different than in the previous test.

These results suggest that dogs in the nosework group were more optimistic.

Dogs in both groups had the chance to earn food rewards, so why the difference?

One reason could be that in nosework, dogs have a lot of choice in what they are doing, because they can move around the room and the boxes as they wish. In doing so, they are problem-solving, and successful problem-solving makes dogs happy too.

Another reason could be because of the opportunities to use their nose. Smell is the most important sense for dogs, and it is important to provide environmental enrichment that gives animals opportunities to use the most important sense and express normal behaviours.

The scientists explain there are some other possible explanations, although they do not think they are likely. For example, the dogs that did nosework were trained to search with their nose (but remember, the food bowl was empty in the cognitive bias task).

I think another difference between the conditions is the manner of reward delivery – one reward per set of steps in heelwork versus several rewards at once on finding the box containing food in nosework. This is consistent with how these are normally taught. It is possible dogs preferred receiving a 'jackpot' like in the nosework. However, other research shows dogs don't run faster for increased quantity of food, so this is not a likely explanation.

This is a fascinating study and it's great that scientists are looking at what kinds of activities are good for dogs' welfare.

This research shows it is important to give our pet dogs choices, opportunities to make their own decisions, and chances to use their nose. Doing so is good for their welfare, which is likely why the nosework training led to better results than heelwork.

If you are interested in trying nosework with your dog, you can find a list of Certified Nose Work Instructors here. See five fun things to do to make your dog happy today and six ways to entertain your dog indoors for more enrichment ideas.

What opportunities do you give your dog to use their nose and make choices?


Reference
Duranton, C., & Horowitz, A. (2018). Let me sniff! Nosework induces positive judgment bias in pet dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.009

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Companion Animal Psychology Book Club February 2019

This month's choice by the book club is a favourite about dogs that "...causes one's dog-loving heart to flutter with astonishment and gratitude..." according to the New York Times.

This month the Companion Animal Psychology Book Club is reading the best-selling Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know by Alexandra Horowitz.

From the cover,

"The answers will surprise and delight you as Alexandra Horowitz, a cognitive scientist, explains how dogs perceive their daily worlds, each other, and that other quirky animal, the human. Horowitz introduces the reader to dogs’ perceptual and cognitive abilities and then draws a picture of what it might be like to be a dog. What’s it like to be able to smell not just every bit of open food in the house but also to smell sadness in humans, or even the passage of time? How does a tiny dog manage to play successfully with a Great Dane? What is it like to hear the bodily vibrations of insects or the hum of a fluorescent light? Why must a person on a bicycle be chased? What’s it like to use your mouth as a hand? In short, what is it like for a dog to experience life from two feet off the ground, amidst the smells of the sidewalk, gazing at our ankles or knees? 

Inside of a Dog explains these things and much more. The answers can be surprising—once we set aside our natural inclination to anthropomorphize dogs. Inside of a Dog also contains up-to-the-minute research—on dogs’ detection of disease, the secrets of their tails, and their skill at reading our attention—that Horowitz puts into useful context."

Learn more about the  Companion Animal Psychology Book Club (and how to join) or visit the Animal Book Club store on Amazon.

Love Companion Animal Psychology? Support me on Ko-fi.

Fellow Creatures: New Post on Millennials and Pet Dogs

I have a new post at my Psychology Today blog Fellow Creatures that looks at some new research on dog ownership amongst millennials.

The research shows pet dogs bring routine and stability at this time of emerging adulthood, but there are some challenges, especially when it comes to finding pet-friendly rental housing. Take a look: Millennials' pet dogs: an anchor to an adult world.

Photo: Fran_/Pixabay