Creedon Nanci, Ó'Súilleabháin Páraic S
Department of Dog Behaviour, Creedons College, Vicars Road, Cork City, Ireland.
School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
Ir Vet J. 2017 Jul 21;70:23. doi: 10.1186/s13620-017-0101-1. eCollection 2017.
The primary objective of this study was to investigate if differences in dog bite characteristics exist amongst legislated and non-legislated dog breeds listed under breed-specific legislation in Ireland (age when bitten, anatomical bite locations, triggers for biting, victim's relationship with the dog, geographical location and owner presence, history of aggression, reporting bite incident to authorities, medical treatment required following the bite, and type of bite inflicted). A second objective of the current study was to investigate dog control officer's enforcement and perceptions of current legislation. Data for statistical analyses were collated through a nationally advertised survey, with Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test statistical methods employed for analyses. A total of 140 incident surveys were assessed comprising of non-legislated ( = 100) and legislated ( = 40) dog bite incidents.
Legislated breeds were significantly more likely to be perceived as aggressive and less fearful as triggers for biting compared to non-legislated breeds ( = 0.003). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to inflict a bite with the owner present on own property and on a business premises compared to legislated breeds ( = 0.036). Non-legislated breeds were more likely to not be reported to the authorities before ( = 0.009), and after ( = 0.032) the bite occurred compared to legislated breeds. There were no significant differences observed between both groups for; age when the victim was bitten, bite location, relationship with the dog, history of aggression, outcome for the dog, if the dog bit again, and seeing a professional trainer or behaviourist. No significant difference was observed between both legislated and non-legislated groups for medical treatment required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted.
The present study results did not observe evidence of any differences between legislated and non-legislated for both the medical treatment to victims required following the bite, and the type of bite inflicted. The significant differences in bites being reported to authorities, perceived triggers for biting, and biting locations suggests distinctly differing perceptions relating to risk between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Further consequences relating to the introduction of breed-specific legislation in Ireland are discussed.
本研究的主要目的是调查爱尔兰特定品种立法中列出的法定和非法定犬种在狗咬人特征方面是否存在差异(被咬时的年龄、咬人的解剖位置、咬人诱因、受害者与狗的关系、地理位置和主人在场情况、攻击史、向当局报告咬人事件、被咬后所需的医疗治疗以及造成的咬伤类型)。本研究的第二个目的是调查犬类管制官员对现行立法的执行情况和看法。通过全国范围内宣传的调查收集统计分析数据,并采用Pearson卡方检验和Fisher精确检验统计方法进行分析。共评估了140起事件调查,包括非法定(n = 100)和法定(n = 40)狗咬人事件。
与非法定品种相比,法定品种更有可能被视为具有攻击性,且作为咬人诱因时恐惧程度更低(P = 0.003)。与法定品种相比,非法定品种在主人在场且在自家房产和商业场所时更有可能咬人(P = 0.036)。与法定品种相比,非法定品种在咬人之前(P = 0.009)和之后(P = 0.032)向当局报告的可能性更低。两组在以下方面未观察到显著差异:受害者被咬时的年龄、咬的位置、与狗的关系、攻击史、狗的结局、狗是否再次咬人以及是否看过专业训练师或行为学家。在被咬后所需的医疗治疗以及造成的咬伤类型方面,法定和非法定两组之间未观察到显著差异。
本研究结果未发现被咬后对受害者所需的医疗治疗以及造成的咬伤类型在法定和非法定品种之间存在任何差异的证据。在向当局报告咬人事件、被视为咬人诱因以及咬人地点方面的显著差异表明,法定和非法定犬种在风险认知上存在明显不同。讨论了爱尔兰引入特定品种立法的进一步后果。