Simple SummaryOrganizations responsible for placing dogs seized from dogfighting investigations often must determine if a particular dog should be euthanized because it is too dangerous or if it is safe to place the dog in an adoptive home. In this study, we examine whether the extent of scarring from dog fighting is a reliable predictor of aggression towards other dogs and therefore could be used to help make that decision. We found that dogs with 10 or more scars in the three body zones where dogfighting injuries tend to be concentrated were more likely, on average, to show aggression to other dogs. The relationship is imperfect, however. Many unscarred dogs were dog aggressive while some highly scarred dogs were not. Therefore, we recommend also assessing a dog’s behavior before making decisions about its disposition.AbstractWhen pit bull-type dogs are seized in an investigation of organized dogfighting, heavily scarred dogs are often assumed to be highly dog aggressive due to a history of fighting. These dogs may be deemed dangerous and euthanized based on scarring alone. We analyzed our existing data on dogs seized from four dogfighting investigations, examining the relationship between the dogs’ scars with aggression towards other dogs. Scar and wound data were tallied in three body zones where dogfighting injuries tend to be concentrated. Dog aggression was assessed using a model dog and a friendly stimulus dog in a standardized behavior evaluation. Scarring and dog aggression were significantly related, more strongly among male (Fisher’s Exact p < 0.001) than female dogs (Fisher’s Exact p = 0.05). Ten or more scars in the three body zones was a reasonable threshold with which to classify a dog as high risk for dog aggression: 82% of males and 60% of females with such scarring displayed dog aggression. However, because many unscarred dogs were dog aggressive while some highly scarred dogs were not, we recommend collecting behavioral information to supplement scar counts when making disposition decisions about dogs seized in dogfighting investigations.
No abstract
OBJECTIVE To characterize and compare injuries found in dogs involved in spontaneously occurring dogfights with those of dogs used in illegal organized dogfighting. DESIGN Retrospective case-control study. ANIMALS 36 medium-sized dogs evaluated following spontaneous fights with a dog of the same sex and similar weight (medium dog-medium dog [MDMD] fights), 160 small dogs examined following spontaneous fights with a larger dog (big dog-little dog [BDLD] fights), and 62 dogs evaluated after being seized in connection with dogfighting law enforcement raids. PROCEDURES Demographic characteristics and injuries were recorded from medical records. Prevalence of soft tissue injuries in predetermined body surface zones, as well as dental or skeletal injuries, was determined for dogs grouped by involvement in BDLD, MDMD, and organized dogfights. The extent of injuries in each location was scored and compared among groups by 1-factor ANOVA. Patterns of injuries commonly incurred by each group were determined by use of prevalence data. RESULTS Mean extent of injury scores differed significantly among groups for all body surface zones except the eye and periorbital region. Mean scores for dental injuries and rib fractures also differed significantly among groups. Organized fighting dogs more commonly had multiple injuries, particularly of the thoracic limbs, dorsal and lateral aspects of the head and muzzle or oral mucosa, dorsal and lateral aspects of the neck, and ventral neck and thoracic region. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE To the authors' knowledge, this was the first study to compare injuries incurred during spontaneous and organized dogfighting. Establishing evidence-based patterns of injury will help clinicians identify dogs injured by organized dogfighting and aid in the prosecution of this crime.
Although it is the obligation of the veterinary forensic pathologist to be competent in identifying, collecting, and preserving evidence from the body, it is also necessary for them to understand the relevance of conditions on the crime scene. The body is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be considered when determining the cause of death. The information required for a complete postmortem analysis should also include details of the animal's environment and items of evidence present on the crime scene. These factors will assist the veterinary forensic pathologist in the interpretation of necropsy findings. Therefore, the veterinary forensic pathologist needs to have a basic understanding of how the crime scene is processed, as well as the role of the forensic veterinarian on scene. In addition, the veterinary forensic pathologist must remain unbiased, necessitating an understanding of evidence maintenance and authentication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.