Division of Animals in Science and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 22;18(3):e0282574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282574. eCollection 2023.
To examine the dog ownership factors characteristic to a population of dogs confiscated after a human and/ or animal-directed biting incident, we compared bite risk assessment reports of 159 confiscated dogs in the time frame 2008, 2009, 2010 (tf1) and of 215 confiscated dogs in the time frame 2020, 2021, 2022 (until mid-May; tf2). The reports were compiled by the same institute in a standardized format. We studied frequencies and chi-square pairwise comparisons (P<0.05) for 30 identified ownership factors. Overall (tf1 and tf2), 1,308 ownership factors were mentioned in the reports and reports mentioning ≥5 factors were twice as frequent in tf2 (38%) than tf1 (16%). Our data suggest that nine factors may in particular serve as a warning signal for biting incidents, as these factors were most frequently (≥15%) prevalent in the total of reported cases: having a multiple dog household, a dog reportedly roaming a neighbourhood without an owner, a dog's care tasks being transferred, a short leash and muzzle obligation served to the owner for a dog, an isolated and/ or confined keeping of a dog, a dog owner's (suspected) substance abuse, a dog owner's (suspected) animal abuse, a dog owner aggressing at confiscation of the dog and a dog owner being reported on for antisocial behaviours such as intimidation. Particularly, a dog owner's aggressive or antisocial behaviours and previous obligations to muzzle and short leash a dog (in our dataset often inappropriately adhered to by owners), may indicate that a proportion of owners of confiscated dogs, may not always be willing and/ or capable to guarantee societal safety. The results show that identification of dog ownership factors, might be useful for establishing biting incident policies and further studies should be done on preventive measures and controls.
为了研究在人类和/或动物导向的咬伤事件后被没收的犬只所具有的特征性犬主因素,我们比较了 2008 年、2009 年和 2010 年(tf1)期间 159 只被没收犬只的咬伤风险评估报告,以及 2020 年、2021 年和 2022 年(截至 5 月中旬;tf2)期间 215 只被没收犬只的咬伤风险评估报告。这些报告是由同一机构以标准化格式编制的。我们研究了 30 个确定的所有权因素的频率和卡方配对比较(P<0.05)。总体而言(tf1 和 tf2),报告中提到了 1308 个所有权因素,而在 tf2 中提到≥5 个因素的报告频率是 tf1(16%)的两倍(38%)。我们的数据表明,有九个因素可能特别作为咬人的预警信号,因为这些因素在报告的总案例中最常出现(≥15%):有一个多犬家庭,有一只据报在没有主人的情况下在附近游荡的狗,狗的护理任务被转移,主人给狗戴上短链和口罩的义务,对狗进行孤立和/或限制饲养,狗主人(疑似)滥用药物,狗主人(疑似)虐待动物,狗主人在没收狗时攻击没收人员,以及狗主人因恐吓等反社会行为被举报。特别是,狗主人的攻击性或反社会行为以及之前给狗戴口罩和短链的义务(在我们的数据集里,主人往往不恰当地遵守这些义务),可能表明一部分被没收犬只的主人,可能并不总是愿意和/或有能力保证社会安全。研究结果表明,识别犬主因素可能有助于制定咬人的政策,还应进一步研究预防措施和控制措施。