[nagdu] Dog Attack Report

[Janet DeLuca]

Hi Ginger;

Thank you for your quick response. This is fabulous!
I remember taking part in this, I just never knew what the findings were.
Blessings!

Janet DeLuca
CMT Kindred Spirits Dog Massage

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Ginger Kutsch
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:36 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Dog Attack Report

Source: http://www.seeingeye.org/protect

2011 Dog Attack & Interference Survey 
United States Report


Prepared by:
Ginger Kutsch, Advocacy Specialist
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
P.O. Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

E-mail: advocacy at seeingeye.org
URL: www.seeingeye.org/protect











Introduction

Established in 1929, The Seeing Eye, Inc., provides specially bred and
trained dogs to guide people who are blind or visually impaired. With over
80 years of experience, The Seeing Eye is a leading expert on advocacy
issues related to the safe and effective travel of guide dog teams.
Nationwide, approximately 8,500 people who are blind or visually impaired
partner with guide dogs to increase their ability to move about safely,
effectively and independently. One significant issue that continually
threatens both the physical and emotional well-being of guide dog teams is
attacks and interference by aggressive dogs. 

These incidents are far more dangerous than simple dog-to-dog altercations.
The safety of the guide dog team depends largely on the dog's ability to
concentrate on its work.  When distracted from these duties, the dog and its
blind owner become instantly vulnerable to harm. People who are blind must
face dog attacks and interference without the ability to use vision to
protect themselves or their guide dogs. 

Even without physical injury, attacks and interference can negatively affect
a guide dog's behavior and work performance. When a dog is no longer able to
work as a guide due to the physical or emotional effects of interference or
attack, it is devastating to the blind handler to lose this valued companion
and source of mobility.

The blind person as well as the guide dog school may also suffer economic
damages.  In many instances, the blind person is forced to incur an
additional burden of veterinary and/or medical expenses, lost wages, and/or
unexpected transportation costs.  Additionally, the cost incurred by the
guide dog school to breed, raise and train a replacement guide dog and to
instruct the blind person to work with a new dog well exceeds $50,000.

Background

According to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in
Atlanta, 4.7 million Americans suffer dog bites each year, and almost
800,000 bites per year are serious enough to require medical attention.
Additionally, the American Veterinary Medical Association and insurance
company statistics report that there are over one million dog bite reports
filed annually.

While the prevalence of loose or uncontrolled dogs may be inferred by the
frequency with which Americans suffer dog bites, there is little data that
indicates the extent of adverse interactions between guide dog teams and
loose or uncontrolled dogs. 

In order to better identify the scope of this problem, The Seeing Eye
conducted a study to confirm anecdotal information indicating that guide dog
teams experience a high frequency of attacks and interference; to identify
possible interventions to help reduce their frequency; and to establish
baseline data to assist with future studies.  

Method

The Seeing Eye designed a 55-question survey related to guide dog handlers'
experiences with attacks and interference by aggressive dogs.  For the
purpose of the survey, the term "dog attack" was defined as "a negative
encounter with another dog that bites or otherwise physically harms you or
your guide dog." The term "interference" was defined as "any dog that
aggressively obstructs, intimidates, chases, harasses or otherwise
jeopardizes the safety and emotional well-being of you or your guide dog."


The survey was open from December 13, 2010, to January 29, 2011, through a
web based survey vendor. Guide dog handlers from the United States and
Canada were notified of the opportunity to participate in the online survey
through web communications including emails, social networking sites, blogs,
newsletters and word-of-mouth. Those individuals who were unable to or did
not wish to access the online survey had the option of calling The Seeing
Eye's toll-free phone number to request that the survey be administered by
telephone. The total number of respondents from the United States was 744,
80 of which were interviewed by phone. This report only covers the results
collected from U.S. respondents. Persons seeking information from the
Canadian study should contact The Seeing Eye.
 
Since the topic of the survey was known in advance to those invited to
participate, it is possible that a self-selection bias positively influenced
the frequency of attacks and interference reported in the results of the
study. The advocacy team attempted to mitigate the possibility of any such
self-selection bias by encouraging guide dog handlers to participate in the
survey regardless of whether they had or had not experienced an attack or
interference. Nevertheless, the effects of that encouragement were not under
strict control.

Questions about the frequency of breeds involved in interference/attacks
were purposely omitted in this survey. A representation ratio to compare the
relative risks between breeds is irrelevant to this study as any dog,
regardless of its breed, can pose a threat to the health and safety of a
guide dog team.  

Results

Frequency and Location of Attacks
The Seeing Eye 2011 dog attack and interference survey revealed that 44% of
respondents (324 out of 744) had experienced at least one attack. Of those,
58% were attacked more than once. Findings also showed that 83% (617
respondents) had experienced interference by an aggressive dog. The vast
majority of attacks (80%) and interference (83%) occurred on a
public-right-of-way such as a sidewalk or roadway. In cases involving the
most recent attacks, 74% happened when respondents were being guided by
their dogs within 30 minutes walking distance from their homes.  Most of
them (80%) travel by foot within their neighborhood on a daily basis.

Circumstances of Attacks and Interference
The survey data indicated that dog owners who let their animals run loose or
fail to adequately secure their home properties are not the only ones who
pose a threat to the guide dog team's safety. Many dog owners do not seem to
understand that a working dog should not be distracted while performing its
duties as a guide. For instance, pet owners who allow a leashed dog to make
physical contact with a guide dog or to otherwise distract or interfere with
a guide dog (either out of ignorance or because  they are unable to control
their dog) needlessly risk the safety of the working team. Likewise, tying a
dog out in a public place and leaving it unsupervised can also pose a
hazard. 

Survey respondents were asked to select from a list of circumstances under
which instances of attack and interference took place. Those who experienced
more than one attack were asked to mark all that applied. Results showed
that:
.	76% of respondents reported they had been attacked at least once by
a loose dog
.	47%  of respondents said they had been attacked at least once by a
dog that was leashed but inadequately controlled by its handler
.	13% of respondents said they had been attacked at least once by a
dog that was tied but left unsupervised

Similar findings were recorded for incidents of interference by dogs that
were loose but the latter two circumstances increased substantially (see the
chart below for more details) during episodes of interference.

Circumstance	Attacks	Interference
Dog was loose	76%	79%
Dog was leashed but owner did not control it	47%	58%
Dog was tied and left unsupervised	13%	27%

Season and Time of Incident
When asked to report specific details of the attack (those experiencing more
than one attack were asked to base their responses on the most recent
incident), nearly one-third (31%) reported that attacks occurred in the
summer (June, July or August) and 25% in the spring (March, April, or May).
More than one-third (40%) of attacks occurred between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m.,
while 29% of the attacks happened between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. 

Over half of the respondents reported that they were "not sure" when asked
if there was a particular time of year (64%) or time of day (57%) that they
were more likely to experience interference. For those respondents who did
identify a time of year, the most common response (24%) was summer (June,
July, and August) and for the time of day, 17% reported that interference
happened between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m.
 
Animal Control & Police
The survey also explored the effectiveness of animal control and police
intervention. Findings revealed that 64% (207 out of 324 respondents) who
experienced an attack did not report their most recent incident to animal
control or the police. The top two reasons for not reporting the attack were
that 38% of the respondents did not feel that the physical harm was severe
enough for them to file a complaint and 29% said they were unable to
identify the attacking dog or its owner. Out of the 117 respondents that did
report the incident, almost two thirds (60%) were dissatisfied with the way
the incident was handled. When asked why, many respondents expressed
frustration with the lack of "follow-up" while several others noted
inadequate enforcement and insufficient knowledge/understanding about the
serious nature of attacks against guide dog teams. 

Out of those respondents who experienced interference, 73% (452 out of 617)
did not report their most recent incident to animal control or the police.
The top two reasons for not reporting interference were that the respondents
did not feel that the emotional harm was severe enough for them to file a
complaint (48%); or because the respondents  were unable to identify the
attacking dog or its owner (31%). Out of the 166 respondents that did report
the incident, over half (55%) were dissatisfied with the way the incident
was handled. 

Identification of the Attacking Dog's Owner
In 37% of the most recent incidents, the owner of the attacking dog was not
identified. This is due, in part, to the fact that the majority of
respondents (74%) reported that they were not walking with a sighted person
at the time of the attack. Moreover, almost half of the respondents who were
traveling by themselves reported that there were either no witnesses (25%)
or that it was unknown if witnesses were present (23%) at the time of the
attack. In many instances, a blind handler's visual limitation can make it
difficult to report observations and descriptions that may otherwise help to
identify the attacking dog or its owner. Moreover, a disturbing number of
owners/handlers whose dogs have attacked or interfered with a guide dog team
have reportedly walked away from the incident without offering assistance or
taking responsibility for their dog's actions.  

Attacks and Interference by the Same Dog
Over one third (34%) of all respondents who experienced an attack reported
experiencing subsequent incidents by a dog that had caused problems in the
past. Nearly half (45%) of those who experienced interference noted the same
problem with repeat offenders. 

The high incidents of dogs that have repeatedly caused problems suggest a
lack of responsibility on the part of the offending dog's handler. These
incidents may also be due, in part, to the handler's failure to report prior
attacks and interference or because of the lack of enforcement by local
authorities.

Negative Impact on Guide Dog
Following an attack, guide dogs may be unable to work because of physical
injuries. A less obvious, but equally as harmful, effect occurs when guide
dogs develop undesirable behaviors towards other dogs. These behaviors may
be temporary or permanent but either circumstance compromises the team's
ability to work safely and effectively. In the survey, 35% of respondents
reported that, after the most recent attack, their dog's behavior negatively
changed towards other dogs. When asked to report the biggest change(s),
exactly half (50%) noted that their dog became easily distracted by other
dogs;  43% became aggressive around other dogs; 43% became fearful or shy
around other dogs;  25% were more worried about potential threats than
working responsibly; and 11% developed a lack of confidence when working.
Out of the 25% of respondents who reported negative behavior changes in
their dogs after interference, most changes were similar to that of dogs
that had been attacked.  One exception was that dogs that had been attacked
were more likely to become fearful or shy of other dogs (see the chart below
for more details).

Behavior	Attacks	Interference
Easily distracted by other dogs	50%	59%
Aggressive towards other dogs	43%	32%
Fearful/shy of other dogs	43%	25%
More worried about potential threats than working responsibly	25%	24%
General lack of confidence while working	11%	8%

In the more severe cases, 16% (52) of the guide dogs that were attacked were
temporarily unable to work and 3% (10 dogs) were retired from service. Out
of the more severe incidents of interference, 2% (15) dogs were retired from
service.  

Effect on the Guide Dog Handler
It is important to realize that people who are blind can incur physical
injuries secondary to those that may be directly inflicted by an aggressive
dog. During the confusion of an attack/interference and its aftermath,
handlers can easily become disoriented in their surroundings. Without being
safely oriented to their immediate surroundings, handlers can sustain
physical injuries from hazards such as changes in elevation or oncoming
traffic. For example, one guide dog handler recently sustained a concussion
when she inadvertently stepped off a curb and fell while her dog was trying
to flee from a menacing dog. In the survey, 37% (120 respondents) became
temporarily disoriented as a direct result of an attack and 32% (197
respondents) became disoriented as a result of interference.
 
The survey also explored the psychological effects of attacks and
interference. Guide dog handlers often experience varying degrees of anxiety
when they become aware that another dog is present. The fear of not knowing
if the dog is friendly or aggressive or whether or not the dog is properly
restrained or confined can be most unsettling. The level of concern is often
greater for those who have previously experienced negative encounters with
aggressive dogs. For instance, 6% (41) respondents said they felt "no
concern" about dog attacks. Not surprisingly, nearly all (85%) of these
respondents had never experienced an attack. The most common response, 56%
(413 respondents), said that they had "Minor concern but generally does not
affect my usual routine." Just over half of these respondents (57%) had
never experienced an attack. Out of the 30% of respondents (226) who
selected "Moderate concern such as planning alternate routes to avoid known
dogs," 39% reported never experiencing an attack. Finally, out of the 8%
(63) respondents who recorded "Major concern such as limiting travel
whenever possible in order to avoid loose or uncontrolled dogs," 35% had
never experienced an attack. In all four categories, respondents who had not
been attacked showed less concern than those who had been attacked --
particularly when the level of concern increased. This same pattern held
true for those respondents who experienced interference.
 
Conclusion
Although the actual number of guide dog teams in the United States that are
harmed due to attacks and interference remains unknown, the 2011 Seeing Eye
survey clearly indicates  that uncontrolled dogs can pose a serious threat
to all guide dog teams. Findings also show that attacks and interference can
inflict considerable physical and/or emotional damage on victims and
substantially reduce the team's ability to work safely, confidently, and
effectively. The Seeing Eye strongly believes that a well-planned, proactive
community approach is the best way to make a substantial reduction in the
number of guide dog teams who experience attacks and interference.  

Recommendations

The following information is intended to help communities find effective
ways to protect guide dog teams from attacks and interference by aggressive
dogs. 

Guidance for Dog Owners & the General Public
Dog attacks and interference against guide dog teams are largely
preventable. The first step is to realize that any dog, even a family pet,
is capable of causing harm if it is threatened, in pain, out of control,
protecting its "territory" or trained to be aggressive (whether deliberate
or inadvertent).  

Guide dogs are not like ordinary pets. Thousands of dollars and hours are
invested in the breeding, raising and training of guide dogs before they are
paired with a blind person. Dogs that are permitted to disrupt the work of a
guide dog, whether they are on or off a leash, can pose a serious threat to
the guide dog team. Pet owners should keep their dogs properly restrained
and confined at all times to prevent dangerous situations for both the guide
dog team and the pet dog. Members of the public who are aware of a dog that
is loose in their neighborhood should alert animal control.  If someone
witnesses an attack on a guide dog team, they should identify themselves to
the handler and offer assistance. Finally, the owner of the attacking or
interfering dog must take responsibility for their dog's actions.

Guidance for Law Enforcement Officials 
Data from The Seeing Eye survey clearly shows that the vast majority of
attacks and interference occur on public property. Many of these incidents
involved repeated offenses by the very same dog. It is important to
recognize that these incidents are far more dangerous than simple dog-to-dog
altercations. The imminent danger to a blind individual whose guide dog is
being attacked or subjected to interference is potentially far greater than
that of pet owners, who do not require the services of their dogs to walk
about safely and independently.

If law enforcement agencies were to step up their efforts to restrain dogs
at large, especially in areas where guide dog teams typically travel, these
negative encounters could be greatly reduced. Likewise, timely action when
responding to calls and thoroughly investigating and reporting all
interference and attack incidents involving guide dog teams would also help
to minimize future risks. 

Guidance for State and Local Legislators
Most local and state laws prohibit dogs from roaming about unleashed and
unsupervised. Yet the majority of attacks and interference reported in this
study occurred on public property by a loose dog. These incidents grossly
interfere with a blind person's ability to walk freely and safely within
their communities or anywhere else they wish to go. 

Tougher laws that offer around-the-clock protection by the police should be
enacted. Animal control officers, whose services are typically not available
outside standard business hours, and whose resources are often limited,
cannot be relied upon to successfully remedy an attack situation in a timely
and effective manner. These laws should also require that the owner of the
attacking dog be responsible for all veterinary, medical, and other costs
resulting from the attack, including the costs for remedial training or
replacement of the guide dog.

Guidance for Guide Dog Handlers
The most important step that guide dog handlers can take to minimize the
risk of attacks and interference is to be proactive. Handlers can work with
their local animal control and police agencies to help officials and
community members gain a better understanding of how dogs that are not
properly restrained or confined can jeopardize the safety of a guide dog
team. Handlers may also wish to ask for greater enforcement of leash laws in
areas where they routinely travel; put emergency numbers in their cell phone
directories; and pack a collapsible white cane as an alternative means of
mobility. 

Finally, practicing daily obedience in a variety of locations can help
handlers maintain a leadership position within the partnership. This will
minimize the likelihood that a guide dog will become overly distracted in
the presence of other dogs. Handlers can check with their guide dog schools
for further tips.

Acknowledgements

The Seeing Eye would like to thank Ginger Kutsch, Volunteer Advocacy
Specialist, for contributing her time writing the survey questions,
analyzing the data and writing the final report with recommendations. 

Kutsch was assisted by the following Seeing Eye staff member and volunteers:

Michelle Barlak, Sr. Associate, Public Relations
Rivi Israel, Instructor
Eldin Leighton, Ph.D., The Jane H. Booker Chair in Canine Genetics 
John Keane, Manager, Instruction & Training
Roger Woodhour, Volunteer
Sheila Woodhour, Volunteer



_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/janetsyear2010%40gmail.co
m