5 Jan 2022
A new report from the University of Middlesex concludes that human behaviour is a key factor in the likelihood of dog bites, and owners need a greater knowledge of dog behaviour.
Joshua Silverwood
Job Title
Image © byrdyak / Adobe Stock
Human behaviour is one of the key drivers behind dog attacks according to a new independent report that finds the data supporting breed standard legislation lacking.
A new report from the University of Middlesex concludes that human behaviour is a key factor in the likelihood of dog bites, and that there is a need for greater knowledge of dog behaviour prior to and during dog ownership.
The study – “Investigation of measures to reduce dog attacks and promote responsible ownership among dog owners with dog control issues in the UK” – also found that data regarding dog bite incidents was “lacking” and local authorities’ enforcement of current rules was inconsistent.
During the course of the research, the team held a round-table discussion with representatives from multiple animal welfare bodies, including Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, The Kennel Club and Battersea.
The discussions also involved 10 multiple local authorities, 6 police forces and universities from Liverpool, Lincoln and Utrecht.
Key conclusions from the report read: “Dog attacks varied in severity, frequency, motivation and situational risk factors, and human behaviour is a key factor in dog bites and aggressive behaviour.
“A range of situational factors can cause or make dog attacks more likely. Human behaviour – particularly inappropriate behaviour around dogs – should be considered as a risk factor, particularly in the home.“
It continued: “There is variation in the enforcement response to dog attacks and dangerous dogs’ issues. The priority given to dog attack issues and the recording of these varies, and collaboration between the police and local authorities was regarded as being varied and inconsistent.
“An inconsistent approach also existed in relation to use of enforcement powers, together with variation in use of legislative powers.
“Our research identified questions concerning whether dog ownership is sufficiently regulated, and whether there was a greater need for knowledge of dog behaviour prior to and during dog ownership.
“Compulsory dog knowledge prior to owning a dog and behavioural training following a dog attack incident was identified as an appropriate response.”
The study highlights criticism of the current method of measuring the amount of dog attacks every year, which is drawn solely from statistics provided by health professionals.
The paper references studies suggesting that these statistics constitute an under-representation of the scale of dog attack problems. But health statistics may also be flawed as a reporting measure used to indicate a dangerous dog or dog aggression problem.
The report reads: “Data that provides information on the specific nature and characteristics of incidents is arguably lacking.
“The fluctuation in figures, on their own is insufficient in determining how the problem should be addressed. Participants and our own analysis indicate that we need to understand the reasons why people present to hospital and report dog incidents.”
Participants in the research also noted how incidents involving breeds listed as part of the Dangerous Dogs Act were more likely to be reported.
Researchers also found criticism of police, detailing how there was a conception among local authorities that response to dog attacks would depend on the interest and resources of a particular police force in question, and was not applied consistently.
Welcoming the study, Samantha Gaines, RSPCA dog welfare expert, said the results cast further doubt on the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Dr Gaines said: “This research adds even more weight against breed-specific legislation, and confirms the belief of many in the welfare and veterinary sector that breed-specific legislation, which brands certain types of dogs as a greater risk to public safety, is flawed.“
“This report found data around dog bite incidents to be lacking and record-keeping to be inconsistent across the country, also casting significant doubt on the evidence that the UK Government has been using to justify Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which incorrectly labels certain types of dogs as inherently aggressive and dangerous to public safety.”
The report found that many of the parties involved largely supported a larger focus on preventive measures aimed at reducing dog bites as opposed to punitive ones.
The report also suggests that training could be made available for new and potential dog owners.
Dr Gaines added: “We’re pleased that after years of calling for change to this legislation – which has been echoed by academics, enforcement officers and the [Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] Committee – this independent research and report adds further evidence for the need for change and recognises that other factors, including human behaviour and particularly inappropriate behaviour around dogs, are key risk factors in dog bites and aggressive behaviour.
“Given these findings, it is now imperative that the Government uses them to inform an evidence-based ‘deed not breed’ approach to future dog control strategy and moves away from the current breed-specific approach.
“This goes hand in hand with encouraging responsible dog ownership and owner education.”
