Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

2011 Dog Attack & Interference Survey United States Report Prepared by: Ginger

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@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 uploads/Geographie/ dog-attack-survey.pdf