Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba

Abstract

BackgroundThe city of Winnipeg was the first among several jurisdictions in Manitoba, Canada, to introduce breed specific legislation (BSL) by banning pit-bull type dogs in 1990. The objective of the present work was to study the effectiveness of BSL in Manitoba.MethodsTemporal differences in incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations (DBIH) within and across Manitoba jurisdictions with and without BSL were compared. Incidence was calculated as the number of unique cases of DBIH divided by the total person-years at risk and expressed as the number per 100 000 person-years. Year of implementation determined the pre-BSL and post-BSL period for jurisdictions with BSL; for jurisdictions without BSL to date, the entire study period (1984–2006) was considered as the preimplementation period. The annual number of DBIH, adjusted for total population at risk, was modelled in a negative binomial regression analysis with repeated measures. Year, jurisdiction and BSL implementation were independent variables. An interaction term between jurisdiction and BSL was introduced.ResultsA total of 16 urban and rural jurisdictions with pit-bull bans were identified. At the provincial level, there was a significant reduction in DBIH rates from the pre-BSL to post-BSL period (3.47 (95% CI 3.17 to 3.77) per 100 000 person-years to 2.84 (95% CI 2.53 to 3.15); p=0.005). In regression restricted to two urban jurisdictions, DBIH rate in Winnipeg relative to Brandon (a city without BSL) was significantly (p<0.001) lower after BSL (rate ratio (RR)=1.10 in people of all ages and 0.92 in those aged <20 years) than before (RR=1.29 and 1.28, respectively).ConclusionsBSL may have resulted in a reduction of DBIH in Winnipeg, and appeared more effective in protecting those aged <20 years.

Small Animal Veterinarians’ Perceptions, Experiences, and Views of Common Dog Breeds, Dog Aggression, and Breed-Specific Laws in the United States

“…Additionally, they are expensive, difficult to implement, and subject responsible, law-abiding dog owners to unnecessary regulations/hardships. These breed bans also negatively impact dog welfare [15,38,43,78,79,80]. It is, therefore, encouraging to note that most veterinarians, arguably a powerful lobbying group, agree with the sentiment that banning an entire dog breed is not an effective way to ensure human safety [75].…”

Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)

“…[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Furthermore, major professional bodies (eg, veterinary associations in the United States 21,22 and Europe, 23,24 the American Bar Association, 25 the National Animal Control Association, 26 and major humane organizations 27,28 ) have not recommended single-factor solutions such as BSL (ie, enacting regulations that either prohibit dogs on the basis of presumed breed or appearance or that impose additional requirements and expense with respect to their keeping) as dog-bite prevention strategies. It has been shown mathematically that BSL is unlikely to be effective 29 ; moreover, in a recent Canadian study, 30 there was no significant reduction in hospitalization rates for dog-bite injury in communities before and after BSL was introduced. Nevertheless, BSL has been promoted as an effective single-factor solution to the problem of dog bites.…”

A Retrospective Analysis of Dog–Dog and Dog–Human Cases of Aggression in Northern Italy

“…There are no official data so far regarding the success of this kind of approach compared to the breed lists adopted in the past in Italy and currently active in other European countries. Reports regarding the efficacy of legislation based on the list of banned dog breeds or restrictions on the possession of particular breeds or types of dogs have, so far, been controversial [5,11,14]. The issue of risk evaluation appears to be extremely complex and has two main general aspects: the first is the possibility of predicting risk factors for dog bites in the general dog population, and the second is how to evaluate and predict future risks to the public of dogs that have already bitten people [15,16].…”