Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW (Australia) 2005/06-2009/10

Division of Local Government

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW

2005/06 - 2009/10

May 2011

Contents 1 Introduction i 2 Analysis of 2005/2006 – 2007/08 data 1 3 Analysis of 2008/2009 data 37 4 Analysis of 2009/2010 data 64

1 Introduction Under the Companion Animals Act 1998 a dog attack includes any incident where a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal. Dog attacks can have serious consequences. They are of concern to the community. The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, in partnership with local councils, is taking active steps to address this issue. In 1996 the former Department of Local Government established a database to record council reports of dog attacks. The then Director General requested that dog attacks reported to councils be forwarded to the Department for entry into this database. Changes to reporting requirements In February 2009 the Companion Animals Regulation 2008 was amended to require councils to report any relevant information about dog attacks using the Companion Animals Register within 72 hours of receiving the information. The information to be reported includes the initial notification of an attack and also any additional information the council receives in the course of investigating or monitoring an attack incident. Dog attack data from councils assist with compiling profiles of the nature of dog attacks in NSW. Accurate identification of the circumstances of dog attacks also assists the Division in the development of appropriate policy and legislative responses. The data for 2008/09 (Chapter 3) spans the amendment to the Companion Animals Regulation 2008. It has therefore not been possible in the 2009/10 report (Chapter 4) to make meaningful comparisons of the 12 month estimates of the absolute numbers of dog attacks between 2008/09, which contained the transition period for reporting, and 2009/10. On the other hand, comparison of percentage breakdowns of totals should be valid if it is kept in mind that there may be differences due to the councils that did not accurately report previously. Interpreting post-February 2009 data Care should be taken when interpreting any of the figures received from councils relating to reported dog attacks after February 2009. In some instances dog attacks have been reported prior to completion of investigation and consequently have provided little or no data. The reporting system has been enhanced to allow councils to update this interim information but the data analysed in this report are for a fixed point in time when some investigations may not yet be complete.

i

The option to report an “unknown” outcome was removed from some data categories under the new system (eg: severity of injury). This reflects the ability of councils to update data in these categories as investigations continue. However, there may be other instances where a person has reported an attack but investigating council officers have been unable to locate the dog/s involved or in some cases the victim. It should be noted that discrepancies exist in some cases between totals for the same category in different tables in the report. These appear to be due to data entry errors, for example where a field has inadvertently been left blank. However, in all cases the discrepancies are small and do not affect the validity of the findings presented. Content of the report Chapter 2 presents data for the period 2005/2006 to 2007/2008. It also compares findings from each of the three financial years. Chapter 3 presents data for 2008/2009 and compares findings with findings from 2007/2008. Chapter 4 presents data for 2009/2010 and compares findings with findings from 2008/2009. The information presented in the following report supersedes any previously released data for the periods concerned.

ii

Chapter 2

Analysis of 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 data

1

Contents Page

1. Explanatory notes 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 3

2. Companion Animals Register data 4

2.1 Number of dogs Identified and Registered on the Companion

Animals Register 4

2.2 Age of dogs 5

2.3 Breeds 6

3 Reported attacks 12

3.1 Number and victims of attacks 12

3.2 Breeds involved 13

3.3 Characteristics of attacks 25

3.4 Action taken 31

4 Reported injuries 32

4.1 Severity of attacks on people 32

4.2 Severity of attacks on animals 32

5 Summary 34

2

Chapter 2 – Analysis of 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 dog attack data

1. Explanatory notes – 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 1.1 Breeds Australian Cattle Dog includes Blue and Red and Heeler Belgian Shepherd includes Groenendael, Laekenois, Malinois and Tervueren Bull Terrier includes American and English Chihuahua includes Long and Smooth Cocker Spaniel includes American Cocker Spaniel Collie includes Rough and Smooth Fox Terrier includes Smooth and Wire German Shepherd includes Alsation Jack Russell Terrier includes Parson Jack Russell Terrier Pitbull Terrier includes American Pit Bull Terrier Poodle includes Standard, Miniature and Toy Welsh Corgi includes Cardigan and Pembroke To determine the ‘breed’ of those dogs described as cross breed dogs, the first

breed identified in the animal’s record determined the category in which it was placed.

1.2 Number of reporting councils In the 2005/06 reporting period a total of 76 councils (52%) reported 1,182 dog

attacks. In the 2006/07 reporting period a total of 82 councils (54%) reported 1,770 dog attacks. In the 2007/08 reporting period a total of 88 councils (58%) reported 1,792 dog attacks.

3


2. Companion Animals Register data Companion Animal Registration On 1 July 1999 the Companion Animals Act 1998 (the Act) came into operation and established the NSW Companion Animals Register (the Register). The Register is a database that lists all companion animals within NSW that have been micro-chipped and/or registered with the local council. The Act requires that all NSW dog owners have their pets identified and registered for life. There is a two-step process to lifetime registration. The first step is to have the animal micro-chipped. In this report a micro-chipped dog is also referred to as “identified”. The second step is for an owner to register the animal with their local council. In this report a registered dog is also referred to as “lifetime registered.” 2.1 Number of dogs Identified and Registered on the Companion Animals

Register

Table 1 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Register status No. % No. % No. %

Identified and Lifetime Registered

582,846 62 656,093 62 729,514 61

Identified only 362,340 38 409,559 38 457,442 39 Total 945,186 100 1,065,652 100 1,186,956 100 Table 1 shows there has been a steady increase in the number of dogs that were both identified only and identified and registered between 2005/06 and 2007/08. The number of dogs registered between 2005/06 and 2006/07 increased by 13%. There was a further 11% increase in the number of dogs registered between 2006/07 and 2007/08. There has been an increase in the number of identified only dogs between 2005/06 and 2007/08 of 25%. The total number of total dogs on the register has increased by approximately one-quarter in the period 2005/06 to 2007/08 and this continues a rising trend in the numbers of identified and registered dogs from date of enactment of the Act. In all three years there were more dogs identified and lifetime registered (61-62%) than identified only (38-39%). The breakdown in total numbers observed in the table is similar to the 2004/05 data that indicate that there were 36% of dogs that were identified only and 62% of dogs identified and lifetime registered. The percentage of dogs that are identified only has risen slightly over the period of time covered, but the increase is too small to be significant.

4


2.2 Age of dogs on the Register (identified plus registered) Table 2

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Age of dog

No. % No. % No. % < 6 months old 15,298 2 17,120 2 16,539 1 6 months – 1 year 43,962 5 47,096 4 49,549 4 1-2 years 99,063 10 100,746 9 105,973 9 2-5 years 314,932 33 313,348 29 316,350 27 5-10 years 327,440 35 402,003 38 466,960 39 > 10 years 144,491 15 185,339 17 231,585 20 Total 945,186 100 1,065,652 99 1,186,956 100

Table 2 shows that there were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group than any other age group across all three years (about one-third). This was followed by the 2-5 year age group (between one-quarter and one-third). There was little change in the age of dogs over the 3 years. This contrasts with 2004/05 when the largest category was the 2-5 year age group (just over half), followed by the 5-10 year age group.

5


2.3 Breeds 2.3.1 Pure breed/cross breed and desexed/undesexed dogs on the Register Table 3

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Breed

No. % No. % No. % Pure breed 622,700 66 698,151 66 774,483 65 Cross breed 322,486 34 367,501 34 412,473 35 Total1 945,186 100 1,065,652 100 1,186,956 100 Note to table 3: 1. Totals reflect all dogs listed on the Companion Animals Register (ie: those identified only plus those identified and registered)

Table 3 shows that there are a greater number of pure breed dogs (about two-thirds of all dogs) than cross breed dogs. The proportion of pure breeds compared to cross breeds has remained unchanged over the three years. The proportion of pure breed dogs are broadly similar, but slightly smaller, to the figure reported in 2004/05 (70%). Table 4

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Pure breed

No. % No. % No. % Desexed 269,020 43 301,016 43 332,552 43 Not desexed 126,476 20 141,548 20 156,722 20 Unknown if desexed1 227,204 37 255,587 37 285,209 37 Total2 622,700 100 698,151 100 774,483 100 Table 5

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Cross breed

No. % No. % No. % Desexed 148,361 46 169,528 46 190,855 46 Not desexed 38,258 12 43,297 12 48,692 12 Unknown if desexed1 135,867 42 154,676 42 172,926 42 Total2 322,486 100 367,501 100 412,473 100 Notes to tables 4 and 5 1. The desexed status of dogs listed as identified only on the Companion Animals Register (ie: not registered) may be unknown as this information is not required to be provided by an owner until registration occurs. 2. Totals reflect all dogs listed on the Companion Animals Register (ie: those identified only plus those identified and registered)

Tables 4 and 5 show that less than half of pure breed dogs (43%) and cross-breed dogs (46%) were desexed. The desexing rate for both pure breed and cross breed dogs has remained unchanged over the three years. These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high proportion (well in excess of one-third) of both pure breed and cross breed dogs where it was unknown if the dog was desexed or not.

6


7

In the last three years the proportion of cross breed dogs that were desexed has decreased significantly compared to 2004/05 (54%) while the percentage of pure breed dogs that were desexed has remained roughly stable since 2004/05 (45%). Again, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high proportion (about one-third) of both pure breed and cross breed dogs where it was unknown if the dog was desexed or not.


2.3.2 Pure breed dogs on the register – top 20 most popular Table 6

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

No. Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all

dogs Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all

dogs Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all dogs

1 Labrador Retriever

44,571 5 Labrador Retriever


57,493 5

2 Staffordshire Bull Terrier

42,014 4 Staffordshire Bull Terrier


54,717 5

3 Jack Russell Terrier

40,710 4 Jack Russell Terrier


50,821 4

4 Maltese 40,112 4 Maltese 43,721 5 Maltese 47,197 4

5 German Shepherd Dog

32,749 3 German Shepherd Dog


38,468 3

6 Australian Cattle Dog

31,560 3 Australian Cattle Dog

34,641 4 Border Collie 38,016 3

7 Border Collie 31,125 3 Border Collie 34,620 4 Australian Cattle Dog

37,890 3

8 Fox Terrier 22,372 2 Fox Terrier 24,055 3 Fox Terrier 25,733 2 9 Rottweiler 21,163 2 Rottweiler 22,657 3 Poodle 25,134 2

10 Golden Retriever 19,360 2 Poodle 21,969 2 Rottweiler 24,086 2 11 Poodle 19,095 2 Golden Retriever 21,403 2 Golden Retriever 23,271 2 12 Australian Kelpie 16,516 2 Australian Kelpie 18,874 2 Australian Kelpie 21,338 2

13 Tenterfield Terrier

14,923 2 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

16,967 2 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

19,304 2

14 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

14,914 2 Chihuahua 15,713 1 Chihuahua 17,699 2

8


2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

No. Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all

dogs Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all

dogs Pure breed

No. on Register

% of all dogs

15 Chihuahua 13,959 1 Boxer 15,264 1 Boxer 16,662 1

16 Boxer 13,774 1 Tenterfield Terrier

15,103 2 Tenterfield Terrier

15,332 1

17 Shih Tzu 12,369 1 Shih Tzu 13,842 1 Shih Tzu 15,261 1 18 Cocker Spaniel 11,614 1 Cocker Spaniel 12,806 1 Cocker Spaniel 14,009 1

19 Australian Silky Terrier

10,017 1 Beagle 11,256 1 Beagle 12,731 1

20 Beagle 9,718 1 Australian Silky Terrier

10,445 1 Australian Silky Terrier

10,887 1

Table 6 shows the most popular pure breed in each of the three years accounts for 5% of all pure breed dogs on the register. In 2007/08, the 20 most popular pure breeds accounted for 73% of all pure breed dogs on the register. The 20 most popular pure breeds have remained largely unchanged over 3 years with the Labrador Retriever, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Maltese and German Shepherd Dog being the five most popular pure breeds for all the three years. This is similar to 2004/05.

9


2.3.3 Cross breed dogs on the register – top 20 most popular Table 7

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 No.

Cross breed No. on

Register % of all dogs

Cross breed No. on


Cross breed No. on


1 Maltese 44,978 5 Maltese 53,229 5 Maltese 61,554 5

2 Australian Kelpie

23,604 2 Australian Kelpie

25,908 2 Australian Kelpie

28,099 2

3 Australian Cattle Dog



25,486 2

4 Labrador Retriever



19,919 2

5 Staffordshire Bull Terrier



19,714 2

6 Fox Terrier 14,711 2 Jack Russell Terrier


19,043 2

7 Border Collie 14,396 2 Fox Terrier 16,388 2 Fox Terrier 17,994 2

8 Jack Russell Terrier

13,948 1 Border Collie 16,170 2 Shih Tzu 17,910 2

9 Shih Tzu 12,772 1 Shih Tzu 15,301 1 Border Collie 17,869 2

10 German Shepherd Dog



12,601 1

11 Terrier 9,358 1 Terrier 10,334 1 Terrier 11,332 1

12 Australian Silky Terrier

9,034 1 Chihuahua 9,936 1 Chihuahua 11,297 1

13 Rottweiler 8,526 1 Australian Silky Terrier

9,818 1 Australian Silky Terrier

10,513 1

10


11

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 No.

Cross breed No. on


Cross breed No. on


Cross breed No. on


14 Chihuahua 8,486 1 Rottweiler 9,324 1 Rottweiler 9,982 1

15 Australian Terrier

5,862 1 Australian Terrier

6,229 1 Poodle 7,395 1

16 Mastiff 5,138 1 Poodle 6,037 1 Mastiff 6,813 1

17 Poodle 4,980 1 Mastiff 5,955 1 Australian Terrier

6,616 1

18 Bullmastiff 4,872 1 Bullmastiff 5,630 1 Bullmastiff 6,467 1

19 Rhodesian Ridgeback

4,699 <1 Rhodesian Ridgeback

5,229 <1 Rhodesian Ridgeback

5,721 <1

20 Bull Terrier 4,183 <1 Pomeranian 4,930 <1 Pomeranian 5,691 <1 Table 7 shows the most popular cross breed for all three years accounts for 5% of all cross breed dogs on the register. In 2007/08, the 20 most popular cross breeds accounted for 80% of all cross breed dogs on the register. The 20 most popular cross breeds have remained largely unchanged over 3 years with the Maltese, Australian Kelpie, Australian Cattle Dog, Labrador Retriever and Staffordshire Bull Terrier being the five most popular cross breeds for all 3 years. This is similar to 2004/05 except that the Border Collie instead of the Australian Kelpie was included in the top 5 most popular cross breed dogs.


3. Reported attacks 3.1 Number and victims of attacks Table 8

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total no. attacks reported

No. dogs involved

in an attack

No. human victims

No. animal victims

Total no. attacks

reported

No. dogs involved

in an attack

No. human victims

No. animal victims

Total no. attacks

reported

No. dogs involved

in an attack

No. human victims

No. animal victims

1,182 1,619 610 654 1,770 2,430 956 950 1,792 2,347 985 967 Table 8 shows that the number of dog attacks reported by councils has increased over time from 1,182 in 2005/06 to 1,792 in 2007/08. This represents an increase of 52%. The increases in the number of reported dog attacks over the last three years follow on from a substantial jump from 873 attacks reported in 2004/05. Table 8 also shows that the number of dogs involved in attacks is higher than the number of attacks. This is because more than one dog can be involved in a single attack. The average number of dogs involved in an attack is about the same for each of the three years, that is, 1.4 in 2005/06, 1.4 in 2006/07 and 1.3 in 2007/08. The number of victims, combined human and animal, is also higher than the number of attacks. This is because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. Animal victims include livestock as well as cats, dogs and other pets. On average there is one human victim for just under every two attacks and this has remained roughly constant over the three years (reducing from 1.9 to 1.8). In each of the three years, the number of animal victims is approximately the same as the number of human victims.

12


3.2 Breeds involved Total number of attacks involving pure breed and cross breed dogs Table 9

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Dogs that attacked Dogs that attacked Dogs that attacked Breed type

No. % No. % No. % Pure breed 358 22 1,198 49 1,058 45 Cross breed 170 11 796 33 745 32 Unknown 1,091 67 436 18 544 23 Total 1,619 100 2,430 100 2,347 100 Table 9 shows that many more pure breed dogs were involved in attacks than cross breeds in all three years. Of attacking dogs where the breed of dog was known, the percentage that were pure breeds ranged from 59% in 2007/08 to 68% in 2005/06. This is consistent with the predominance of pure breeds which make up almost two-thirds of the total dog population on the register (table 2.3.1). These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high percentage (between 18% and 67%) of dogs that attacked where their breed was unknown, particularly in 2005/06. Tables 10 to 15 show which breeds were responsible for attacks and how many attacks they were involved in. The tables are ordered by the rate of attacks for a breed as expressed in terms of the number of dogs of that breed on the Companion Animals Register.

13


3.2.1 Pure breeds involved in attacks – 2005/06 Table 10

2005/06

Pure breed No. of dogs that attacked

No. of breed on the Register

Rate of attack

(1 in __)6 Pitbull Terrier 33 3,410 103 American Staffordshire Terrier 61 6,630 109 Australian Dingo 2 375 188 Mastiff 8 1,593 199 Bull Terrier 15 4,992 333 Scottish Terrier 2 789 395 Bullmastiff 9 4,132 459 Rhodesian Ridgeback 11 5,276 480 Rottweiler 38 21,163 557 Siberian Husky 11 6,784 617 Great Dane 5 3,127 625 Old English Sheepdog 1 639 639 Australian Kelpie 22 16,516 751 Australian Cattle Dog 37 31,560 853 Alaskan Malamute 6 5,602 934 Belgian Shepherd Dog 1 1,486 1,486 German Shepherd Dog 20 32,749 1,637 Doberman 2 4,755 2,378 Labrador Retriever 17 44,571 2,622 Fox Terrier 7 22,372 3,196 Border Collie 9 31,125 3,458 Greyhound 2 7,0717 3,535 Sharpei 1 3,647 3,647 Collie 1 4,091 4,091 Boxer 3 13,774 4,591 Dachshund 1 4,805 4,805 Sheepdog 1 4,9882 4,988 Silky Terrier 2 10,0923 5,046 Jack Russell Terrier 8 40,710 5,089 Maltese 7 40,112 5,730 Beagle 1 9,718 9,718 Chihuahua 1 13,959 13,959 Poodle 1 19,095 19,095 Terrier1 12 Total 358 622,7004 1,7395 Notes to table 10: 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of pure breed terrier was responsible for the attack. As it is not possible to obtain the number of “Terriers” on the Companion Animals Register, it is not possible to calculate the rate of attack. 2 This number includes Maremma, Old English and Shetland Sheepdog as the type of Sheepdog involved in the attack was not specified. 3 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terriers combined. 4 This number is the total number of pure breeds on the Companion Animals Register for 2005/06.

14


5 This number is the rate of attack for all pure breeds combined in 2005/06. 6 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 7 This includes 6,434 dogs registered by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Regulatory Authority under the Greyhound and Harness Racing and Registration Act 2004. Table 10 shows that the five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2005/06 were the American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, Australian Cattle Dog, Pitbull Terrier, and Australian Kelpie. The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2005/06 were the Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Dingo, Mastiff and Bull Terrier.

15



2006/07

Pure breed No. of dogs that

attacked


Rate of attack

(1 in __)6 Australian Dingo 8 398 50 Pitbull Terrier 59 3,097 52 Mastiff 18 1,831 102 American Staffordshire Terrier 53 8,063 152 Bull Terrier 37 5,727 155 Bullmastiff 30 4,689 156 Alaskan Malamute 36 6,014 167 Rottweiler 129 22,657 176 Siberian Husky 36 7,595 211 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 177 48,518 274 Australian Cattle Dog 121 34,641 286 Rhodesian Ridgeback 19 5,786 305 German Shepherd Dog 116 35,633 307 Boxer 36 15,264 424 Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog

2 872 436

Australian Kelpie 37 18,874 510 Doberman 10 5,176 518 Great Dane 7 3,648 521 Dalmatian 10 5,647 565 Border Collie 56 34,620 618 Old English Sheepdog 1 686 686 Greyhound 7 6,8768 982 Labrador Retriever 52 51,176 984 Collie 4 4,323 1,081 Maltese 38 43,721 1,151 Jack Russell Terrier 38 45,792 1,205 Shih Tzu 4 13,842 3,461 Chihuahua 4 15,713 3,928 Fox Terrier 3 24,055 8,018 Pomeranian 1 9,355 9,355 Silky Terrier 1 10,5244 10,524 Golden Retriever 1 21,403 21,403 Terrier1 45 Bull Arab2 1 Retriever3 1 Total 1,198 698,1515 5837

16


Notes to table 11 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of pure breed terrier was responsible for the attack. As it is not possible to obtain the number of “Terriers” on the Companion Animals Register, it is not possible to calculate the rate of attack. 2 There were no pure breed Bull Arabs registered on the Companion Animals Register. Accordingly, it is not possible to calculate the rate of attack. 3 Retriever was used where it was unknown what type of pure breed retriever was responsible for the attack. 4 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terriers combined as the type of Silky Terrier was not specified. 5 This number is the total number of pure breeds on the Companion Animals Register in 2006/07. 6 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 7 This number is the rate of attack for all pure breeds combined in 2006/07. 8 This includes 6,037 dogs registered by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Regulatory Authority under the Greyhound and Harness Racing and Registration Act 2004. Table 11 shows that the five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2006/07 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd Dog and Pitbull Terrier. The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2006/07 were the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Dingo, Mastiff, American Staffordshire Terrier and Bull Terrier.

17



2007/08

Pure breed No. of dogs that attacked


Rate of attack

(1 in __)4 Pitbull Terrier 37 2,819 76 Australian Dingo 3 433 144 Mastiff 14 2,099 150 American Staffordshire Terrier 61 9,983 164 Bullmastiff 30 5,364 179 Siberian Husky 42 8,509 203 Bull Terrier 32 6,500 203 Rottweiler 102 24,086 236 German Shepherd Dog 131 38,468 294 Australian Cattle Dog 128 37,890 296 Alaskan Malamute 19 6,371 335 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 161 54,717 340 Great Dane 12 4,093 341 Boxer 35 16,662 476 Dalmatian 10 5,999 599 Doberman 9 5,438 604 Rhodesian Ridgeback 9 6,271 697 Australian Kelpie 25 21,338 854 Greyhound 7 7,1366 1019 Border Collie 35 38,016 1,086 Jack Russell Terrier 41 50,821 1,240 Maltese 33 47,197 1,430 Silky Terrier 6 10,976 1,829 Labrador Retriever 31 57,493 1,855 Chihuahua 8 17,699 2,213 Collie 2 4,575 2,288 Terrier1 35 Total 1,058 774,4833 7325 Notes to table 12: 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of pure breed terrier was responsible for the attack. As it is not possible to obtain the number of “Terriers” on the Companion Animals Register, it is not possible to calculate the rate of attack. 2 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terriers combined. 3 This number is the total number of pure breeds on the Companion Animals Register in 2007/08. 4. The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 5 This number is the rate of attack for all pure breeds combined in 2007/08. 6 This includes 6,054 dogs registered by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Regulatory Authority under the Greyhound and Harness Racing and Registration Act 2004.

18


Table 12 shows that the five pure breeds that were involved in the highest number of attacks in 2007/08 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, German Shepherd Dog, Australian Cattle Dog, Rottweiler and American Staffordshire Terrier. The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2007/08 were the Pitbull Terrier, the Australian Dingo, the Mastiff, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Bullmastiff. Comparison The pure breeds that were involved in the five highest number of attacks in all three years were the Rottweiler and Australian Cattle Dog. The American Staffordshire Terrier, Pitbull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeds were involved in the five highest number of attacks for two of the three years. In 2004/05, the Rottweiler, Australian Cattle Dog and Pitbull Terrier were also among the five breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks. The pure breeds that were among the five breeds with the highest rates of attack were the Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Dingo and Mastiff. The Bull Terrier was in the top five pure breeds with the highest rate of attack for two of the three years. The Pitbull Terrier had the highest rate of attack for two of the three years. These findings are broadly similar to 2004/05 when the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Dingo, Bull Mastiff and American Staffordshire Terrier had the highest rates of attack.

19


3.2.4 Cross breeds involved in attacks – 2005/06 Table 13

2005/06 Cross breed No. of dogs

that attacked No. of breed on

Register Rate of attack

(1 in __)4 Australian Dingo 5 324 65 American Staffordshire Terrier

27 2,002 74

Neapolitan Mastiff 1 84 84 Pitbull Terrier 8 1,423 178 Greyhound 1 213 213 Siberian Husky 3 1,162 387 Great Dane 5 2,092 418 Bullmastiff 11 4,872 443 Bull Terrier 10 4,183 418 Rottweiler 13 8,526 656 Alaskan Malamute 1 678 678 Rhodesian Ridgeback 4 4,699 1,175 German Shepherd Dog 9 11,305 1,256 Mastiff 4 5,138 1,285 Labrador Retriever 12 15,903 1,325 Australian Cattle Dog 16 21,615 1,351 Australian Kelpie 14 23,604 1,686 Boxer 2 3,436 1,718 Terrier1 5 9,358 1,872 Welsh Corgi 1 2,253 2,253 Border Collie 6 14,396 2,399 Chihuahua 2 8,486 4,243 Silky Terrier 2 9,0832 4,542 Jack Russell Terrier 2 13,948 6,974 Fox Terrier 1 14,711 14,711 Maltese 3 44,978 14,993 Unknown 2 Total 170 322,4863 1,8975 Notes to table 13: 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of terrier was responsible for the attack. 2 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terrier cross breeds combined. 3 This number is the total number of cross breeds on the Companion Animals Register in 2005/06. 4 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 5 This number is the rate of attack for all cross breeds combined in 2005/06. Table 13 shows that the five cross breeds with the highest number of attacks for 2005/06 were the American Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Kelpie, Rottweiler and Labrador Retriever. The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2005/06 were the Australian Dingo, American Staffordshire Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pitbull Terrier and Greyhound.

20



2006/07 Cross breed No. of dogs

that attacked No. of breed on

Register Rate of attack

(1 in __)6 Pitbull Terrier 48 1,306 27 Australian Dingo 8 361 45 Greyhound 3 249 83 Alaskan Malamute 9 807 90 Bullmastiff 57 5,630 99 Mastiff 55 5,955 108 American Staffordshire Terrier

18 2,518 140

Rhodesian Ridgeback 36 5,229 145 Bull Terrier 31 4,533 146 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 1177 17,593 150 Rottweiler 46 9,324 203 Great Dane 11 2,480 226 Siberian Husky 6 1,364 227 Boxer 17 3,920 231 Australian Cattle Dog 78 23,721 304 German Shepherd Dog 37 11,963 323 Doberman 3 1,099 366 Dalmatian 2 820 410 Labrador Retriever 43 17,885 416 Bulldog 1 4252 425 Australian Kelpie 59 25,908 439 Terrier1 20 10,334 516 Sheepdog 1 6653 665 Jack Russell Terrier 21 16,500 786 Chihuahua 10 9,936 994 Border Collie 15 16,170 1,078 Collie 2 2,153 1,077 Irish Wolfhound 1 1,421 1,421 Maltese 28 53,229 1,901 Silky Terrier 5 9,8694 1,974 Welsh Corgi 1 2,438 2,438 Poodle 1 6,037 6,037 Unknown 6 Total 796 367,5015 4627 Notes to table 14: 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of terrier was responsible for the attack. 2 This number refers to American, Australian, British and French Bulldogs combined. 3 This number refers to Maremma, Old English and Shetland Sheepdogs combined. 4 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terriers combined. 5 This number is the total number of cross breeds on the Companion Animals Register in 2006/07. 6 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly.

21


7. This number is the rate of attack for all cross breeds combined in 2006/07. 8 The number of attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers includes one attack where it was reported that the dog was an “English Staffordshire.” Table 14 shows that the five cross breeds with the highest number of attacks for 2006/07 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Kelpie, Bullmastiff and Mastiff. The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2006/07 were the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Dingo, Greyhound, Alaskan Malamute and Mastiff.

22


3.2.6 Cross breeds involved in attacks 2007/08 Table 15

2007/08

Crossbreed No. of dogs that attacked

Number of breed on Register

Rate of attack (1 in __)4

Pitbull Terrier 25 1,270 51 Mastiff 50 6,813 136 Bull Terrier 33 4,846 147 Greyhound 2 302 151 American Staffordshire Terrier

20 3,101 155

Boxer 27 4,414 164 Staffordshire Bull Terrier 120 19,919 166 Bullmastiff 38 6,467 170 Siberian Husky 8 1,552 194 Rhodesian Ridgeback 27 5,721 212 Rottweiler 42 9,982 238 German Shepherd Dog 46 12,601 274 Doberman 4 1,143 286 Alaskan Malamute 3 903 301 Australian Cattle Dog 77 25,486 331 Terrier1 34 11,332 333 Australian Dingo 1 384 384 Great Dane 6 2,915 486 Australian Kelpie 47 28,099 598 Labrador Retriever 32 19,714 616 Collie 3 2,198 733 Dalmatian 1 901 901 Jack Russell Terrier 18 19,043 1,058 Border Collie 16 17,869 1,117 Silky Terrier 4 10,5692 2,642 Chihuahua 4 11,297 2,824 Maltese 19 61,554 3,240 Unknown 38 Total 745 412,4733 5545 Notes to table 15: 1 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of terrier was responsible for the attack. 2 This number refers to Australian and Chinese Silky Terriers combined. 3 This number is the total number of cross breeds on the Companion Animals Register 2007/08. 4 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. This indicates the probability of each breed to be involved in an attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 5 This number is the rate of attack for all cross breeds combined in 2007/08.

23


Table 15 shows that the five cross breeds involved in the highest number of attacks for 2007/08 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Australian Cattle Dog, Mastiff, Australian Kelpie, German Shepherd Dog. The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2007/08 were the Pitbull Terrier, Mastiff, Bull Terrier, Greyhound, American Staffordshire Terrier. Comparison The cross breeds that were involved in the five highest number of attacks in all three years were the Australian Cattle Dog and Australian Kelpie. The Rottweiler, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Mastiff cross breeds were involved in the five highest number of attacks for two of the three years. In 2004/05 the Australian Cattle Dog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Australian Kelpie were also among the five cross breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks. The cross breeds that were among the five breeds that had the highest rates of attack in all three years were the Pitbull Terrier and the Greyhound. The American Staffordshire Terrier and Australian Dingo were in the five cross breeds with the highest rates of attack for two out of three years. These findings are broadly similar to 2004/05 when the Pitbull Terrier, Greyhound and Australian Dingo had the highest rates of attack.

24


3.3 Characteristics of attacks 3.3.1 Month of attacks Table 16

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Month

No. % No. % No. % January 84 7 142 8 143 8 February 71 6 145 8 145 8 March 64 5 149 8 164 9 April 64 5 139 8 143 8 May 116 10 163 9 186 10 June 86 7 122 7 164 9 July 116 10 175 10 180 10 August 146 12 207 12 150 8 September 123 11 138 8 125 7 October 125 11 155 9 165 9 November 106 9 132 7 126 7 December 81 7 103 6 100 6 Unknown - - - - 1 <1 Total 1,182 100 1,770 100 1,792 100 Table 16 shows dog attacks were relatively evenly spread throughout the year for each of the three years, ranging from 5% to 12% for each month. In 2005/06 and 2006/07 August had the highest number of attacks (146 (12%) and 207 (12%) respectively). In 2007/08 the highest number of attacks was in May (186 (10%)). In 2005/06 there were more attacks in August, September and October than in other months. In 2006/07 the months with the highest number of attacks were May, July and August. In 2007/08 the months with the highest number of attacks were May, July and October. However, the numbers of attacks each month in 2007/08 were rather more constant compared to the first two years when there is a suggestion that attacks are concentrated in late winter-spring.

25


3.3.2 Location of attacks Table 17

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Location of

attacks No. % of total attacks

No. % of total attacks

No. % of total attacks

Public place 737 62 1,157 65 1,163 65 Private property

445 38 613 35 629 35

Total 1,182 100 1,770 100 1,792 100 Table 17 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 most (approaching two-thirds) reported dog attacks occurred in a public place. The percentage of dog attacks occurring in a public place or on private property remained largely unchanged over the three years. These findings are similar to 2004/05, where the percentage of attacks occurring in a public place was 60% and on private property was 30%. In the remaining 10% of cases the council reported that the location of the attack was unknown. 3.3.3 Control of dog Table 18

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Control of dog No.

% of total

attacks No.

% of total

attacks No.

% of total

attacks Not under control 797 68 1,216 69 1,188 66 Allegedly under control

171 14 293 16 318 18

Unknown if owner was present or in control

214 18 261 15 286 16

Total 1,182 100 1,770 100 1,792 100 Table 18 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 most (about two-thirds) reported dog attacks occurred when the dog was not under the control of the owner. The percentage of dogs not under control and allegedly under control remained largely unchanged over the three years. The proportion of attacks where the dog was not under control has fallen since 2004/05, when the percentage of attacks where the dog was not under the control of the owner was 79%. These figures need to be interpreted with caution as the change in “Unknown if owner was present or in control” was lower in 2004/05 compared to other years. The change in the proportion of later year unknowns could feasibly have been under control.

26


3.3.4 Sex of attacking dogs Table 19

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Sex

No. % No. % No. % Male 637 39 1,101 45 1,095 47 Female 442 27 653 27 598 26 Unknown 540 33 676 28 652 28 Total 1,619 99 2,430 100 2,345 101 Table 19 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 it was more probable for male dogs to attack than female dogs (more than one-third compared to about one-quarter). The percentage of attacks by female dogs remained largely unchanged over the three years, but the proportion of attacks by male dogs increased from 39% to 47% largely at the expense of the ‘unknown’ category. These results need to be interpreted with caution because of the high proportion of attacking dogs where the sex was unknown (between one-quarter and one-third). These findings are consistent with 2004/05. 3.3.5 Desexed status of attacking dogs Table 20

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Desexed status No. % No. % No. % Desexed 303 19 512 21 464 20 Not desexed

496 30 716 29 634 27

Unknown 820 51 1,202 49 1,247 53 Total 1,619 100 2,430 99 2,345 100 Table 20 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 the desexed status of attacking dogs was unknown in about half of the dogs. Accordingly, it is not possible to say definitively whether the desexed status of a dog affects its probability of attack. The data indicate that more dogs that are not desexed are involved in attacks than desexed dogs. 3.3.5.1 Rate of attack of desexed / not desexed dogs Table 20a

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Desexed status 1 in (__)1 1 in (__). 1 in (__).Desexed 1,377 919 1,128 Not desexed 332 258 324

1 The rate of attack is the number of attacks each desexed / not desexed dog was involved in divided by the number of desexed / not desexed dogs on the Register. Table 20a presents the data as rates of attack separately for dogs that are desexed or not desexed. This is computed as number of dogs divided by number of attacks in each category.

27


The rate of attack for desexed dogs is three or four times lower than the rate of attack for dogs that are not desexed. The rates of attack for all categories have declined from 2005/06 to 2007/08, which means that the situation is getting worse (though the change for dogs that have not been desexed is quite small). Given the uncertainty of whether the rise in the number of dogs on the register reflects accurately a rise in the total number of dogs owned as pets, the observed drop in the rate of attack is of concern. These findings are consistent with 2004/05.

28


3.3.6 Registration status of attacking dogs Table 21

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Registration status

No. % No. % No. % Identified and lifetime registered

547 34 929 38 841 36

Identified only 198 12 378 16 466 20 Not registered or identified

369 23 471 19 435 19

Unknown 505 31 652 27 604 26 Total 1,619 100 2,430 100 2,345 101 Table 21 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 it was equally probable for attacking dogs to be identified and lifetime registered (about one-third) and either identified only or neither identified nor registered (about one-third). Over the three years there has been an increase in the number and proportion of identified only dogs involved in attacks. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution as the percentage of attacking dogs where the registration is unknown is relatively high (between one-quarter and one-third). These findings were similar to 2004/05. 3.3.7 Dangerous dog and restricted breed status of attacking dogs Table 22

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Dangerous dog/Restricted breed status No. % No. % No. %

Restricted breed 24 1 39 2 22 1 Previously declared dangerous

16 1 17 1 34 1

Total 1,619 N/A 2,430 N/A 2,345 N/A Table 22 shows that in all three years between 1% and 2% of attacking dogs had previously been declared dangerous or were a restricted breed. The number of dogs of restricted breed involved in attacks increased by 15 between 2005/06 and 2006/07 but then decreased below the 2005/06 level in 2007/08. The number of previously declared dangerous dogs involved in attacks only increased by one between 2005/06 and 2006/07 but then doubled in 2007/08.

29


3.3.8 Number of attacking dogs involved in an attack Table 23

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 No. attacking

dogs No. % No. % No. %

1 474 40 725 40 759 43 2 104 9 193 11 160 9 3 17 1 30 2 20 1 4 3 <1 5 <1 10 <1 5 1 <1 3 <1 4 <1 6 0 0 0 0 2 <1

Reported as

unknown 11 1 0 0 0 0

Not reported

572 48 814 46 807 46

Total 1,182 100 1,770 100 1,762 100 Note: The entries in table 23 relate to the number of attacks Table 23 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 almost half of all reported dog attacks involved one dog (between 40% and 44%). Attacks involving two dogs constituted approximately 10% of all attacks, and the attacks with more than 2 dogs combined accounted for no more than a few percent of the total. These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the substantial number of attacks where the number of dogs was not known or not reported for each of the three years (in excess of 45%). If the breakdown for the attacks where the number of dogs is not known is similar to the ratios in the first six rows of the table, then the numbers of attacks in each of the known categories would almost double.

30


3.4 Action taken Table 24

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

No. % No. % No. % Action taken against owner Further investigation

364 22 490 21 553 22

Warning issued 334 20 430 18 401 16 Penalty notice 225 14 427 18 493 20 No action taken 103 6 144 6 144 6 Police action 73 4 66 3 89 4 Court action 28 2 23 1 23 1 Owner sub-total 1,127 68 1,580 67 1,703 69 Action taken against dog Dangerous Dog Declaration made

149 9 190 8 176 7

Dog/s destroyed 135 8 238 10 268 11 Dog/s seized and taken to pound

95 6 180 8 182 7

Dog/s seized and returned to owner

23 1 29 1 46 2

Dog sub-total 402 24 637 27 672 27 Other action 116 7 145 6 93 4 Unknown what action was taken

5 <1 1 <1 19 1

Total 1,650 100 2,363 100 2,487 101 Note: As more than one action may be taken against an owner in relation to a single attack, the total number of actions is higher than the total number of attacks. In relation to action taken against the owner, table 24 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 the most frequent action was further investigation. The second most frequent action in 2005/06 and 2006/07 was issuing a warning followed by issuing a penalty notice. In 2007/08 this was reversed so that the second most frequent action was issuing a penalty notice followed by issuing a warning. These figures are fairly consistent with 2004/05 except that there was a higher percentage of warnings issued in 2004/05 (31%). This indicates that over the period since the Companion Animals Act 1998 has been in place councils have increasingly issued penalty notices (up from 14 % to 18%) rather than warnings (down from 20% to 16%). It is important that dog owners are aware of the requirements. It is difficult to observe any trends for the most serious responses (police action and court action) since the numbers are quite small (3-4% and 1-2% respectively). In relation to action taken against the dog, the above table shows that in 2005/06 the most frequent action was to issue a Dangerous Dog Declaration followed by destroying the dog. In 2006/07 and 2007/08 this finding was reversed so that the most frequent action reported was destroying the dog followed by issuing a Dangerous Dog Declaration. These trends are consistent with 2004/05.

31


4. Reported injuries 4.1 Severity of attacks on people Table 25

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

No. % No. % No. % No injury 583 96 904 94 928 94 Injury: Hospitalisation 22 4 50 6 57 6 Medical treatment required

2 <1 0 0 0 0

Death 1 <1 1 <1 0 0 Minor injury 2 <1 0 0 0 0 Type of injury unknown

0 0 4 0 3 <1

Total injuries 27 4 55 6 60 6 Total responses 610 100 959 100 988 100 Total attacks on people

610 9561 9851

Note: As there may be multiple victims in a single attack, the numbers in table 25 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents.

Notes to table 25: 1. When reporting severity of attacks on humans councils can select more than one response. Accordingly, the number of responses may be higher than the number of attacks. Percentages are based on the total number of responses.

Table 25 shows that the vast majority of dog attacks on people (between 94% and 96%) resulted in no injury across all three years. Where there was an injury, the most common outcome was hospitalisation. It is suspected that injuries not requiring hospitalisation may have been under-reported. It is not possible to compare these findings with 2004/05 because of the high level of unknown data in this year. 4.2 Severity of attacks on animals Table 26

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Severity of attacks on animals No. % No. % No. %

Injury: Death 255 39 330 34 333 34 Medical/veterinary treatment required

139 21 214 22 211 22

Minor injury 79 12 125 13 125 13 Hospitalisation of animal

60 9 102 10 104 11

Total injuries 533 81 771 78 773 80 No injury 114 17 210 21 186 19 Severity of attack unknown

0 1 0 <1 2 1

Total responses 647 100 981 100 961 100 Total attacks on animals1

654 950 967

32


Note: As there may be multiple victims in a single attack, the numbers in table 26 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents.

Notes to table 26: 1. When reporting severity of attacks on animals councils can select more than one response. Accordingly, the number of responses may be higher than the number of attacks. Percentages are based on the total number of responses.

Table 26 shows that between 2005/06 and 2007/08 over one in three dog attacks on animals resulted in the death of the animal followed by medical/veterinary treatment. There were similar findings in 2004/05. It is possible that attacks on animals which result in injuries are more likely than attacks on animals which do not result in any injuries to be reported. If this is the case, the number of attacks on animals that did not result in injuries are likely to be under-reported.

33


5. Summary Findings: Companion Animals Register data There has been a steady increase in the number of dogs that were identified only

and dogs that were identified and registered between 2005/06 and 2007/08. The proportion of dogs that are identified only remains relatively high at about one-third.

There were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group (35-39%) than any other age group.

The number of pure breed dogs on the register is almost twice the number of cross breed dogs.

The percentage of pure breed dogs and cross breed dogs that were desexed were similar (41-43% of pure breeds, 46% of cross breeds). There was a relatively high proportion of dogs (more than one-third) where it was unknown if the dog was desexed or not.

The 20 most popular pure breeds have remained largely unchanged over 3 years. The Labrador Retriever, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Maltese and German Shepherd Dog were the most popular pure breed dogs in each of the three years.

The 20 most popular cross breeds have also remained largely unchanged over 3 years. The Maltese, Australian Kelpie, Australian Cattle Dog, Labrador Retriever and Staffordshire Bull Terrier were the most popular cross breed dogs in each of the three years.

Number of attacks and victims The number of dog attacks reported by councils has increased over time from

1,182 in 2005/06 to 1,792 in 2007/08. This represents an increase of 52% over the three years. This compares with 873 attacks reported in 2004/05.

The number of dogs involved in attacks is higher than the number of attacks. This is because more than one dog can be involved in a single attack. The average number of dogs involved in an attack was 1.4.

The number of victims, human and animal combined, is also higher than the number of attacks. This is because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. On average a human is a victim in just under two attacks. The number of animal victims is approximately the same as the number of human victims.

Breeds involved in attacks It is more probable for pure breeds to be involved in attacks than cross breeds,

reflecting the predominance of pure breed dogs on the register (approximately twice as many as cross breed dogs). However, this needs to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs where the breed was unknown.

In regard to pure breeds, in all three years the Rottweiler and Australian Cattle Dog were among the five breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks. The American Staffordshire Terrier, Pitbull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier were among the five breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks for two of the three years.

For all of the three years, the pure breed dogs that were among the five breeds that had the highest rates of attack were the Pitbull Terrier, American

34


Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Dingo and Mastiff. The Bull Mastiff was in the top five pure breeds with the highest rate of attack for two of the three years.

In regard to cross breeds, in all three years the Australian Cattle Dog and Australian Kelpie were among the five breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Mastiff were among the five breeds responsible for the highest number of attacks for two of the three years.

For all of the three years the Pitbull Terrier and the Greyhound were among the five breeds that had the highest rates of attack. The American Staffordshire Terrier and Australian Dingo were in the top five cross breeds with the highest rate of attack for two out of three years.

Characteristics of attacks Dog attacks were relatively evenly spread throughout the year for each of the

three years, ranging from 5% to 12% for each month. Across the three years attacks occurred more often during the middle of the year (May to October).

About two-thirds of reported dog attacks occurred in a public place. The percentage of dog attacks occurring in a public place or on private property remained largely unchanged over the three years.

About two-thirds of reported dog attacks occurred when the dog was not under the control in each of the three years.

It was more probable for male dogs to attack than female dogs (more than one-third compared to about one-quarter) in each of the three years. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs where the sex was unknown.

While the desexed status of attacking dogs was unknown in about half of the dogs, the data indicate that more dogs that are not desexed were involved in attacks than desexed dogs in each of the three years. Attack rates for desexed dogs were three to four times lower than rates for dogs that were not desexed.

Approximately equal numbers of attacking dogs were identified and lifetime registered (about one-third) and either identified only or neither identified nor registered (about one-third) in each of the three years. This finding needs to be interpreted with caution as the percentage of attacking dogs where the registration status is unknown is relatively high.

The percentage of attacking dogs that had previously been declared dangerous was 1% and between 1% and 2% of attacking dogs were restricted breeds in each of the three years.

In each of the three years, most dog attacks involved only one dog. Very few attacks involved more than two dogs. This finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to the number of attacking dogs not being known or reported in about half of the attacks.

Actions taken The most frequent action taken against the owner of an attacking dog was further

investigation. The second most frequent action in 2005/06 and 2006/07 was issuing a warning followed by issuing a penalty notice. This was also the case in 2004/05. In 2007/08 this was reversed so that the second most frequent action was issuing a penalty notice followed by issuing a warning. This indicates that the longer the Companion Animals Act 1998 is in place, the more likely councils are to issue penalty notices rather than warnings.

In 2005/06 the most frequent action against the dog was to issue a Dangerous Dog Declaration followed by destroying the dog. In 2006/07 and 2007/08 this

35


36

finding was reversed so that the most frequent action reported was destroying the dog followed by issuing a Dangerous Dog Declaration.

Injuries Dog attacks on people usually resulted in no injury. Where there was an injury the

most common outcome was hospitalisation. Dog attacks on animals most frequently resulted in the death of the animal

followed by medical/veterinary treatment. It is possible that attacks which result in injuries on animals are more likely to be reported than attacks which do not result in any injuries on animals. If this is the case, it is probable that the number of attacks on other animals is under-reported.

Conclusion Overall this report shows that while the number of reported attacks has increased over time, the characteristics of attacks have remained largely unchanged. Further, the findings are largely consistent with findings from 2004/05.

Chapter 3

Analysis of 2008/09 data

37

38

Contents Page

1. Explanatory notes for 2008/09 39



Animals Register 41

2.2 Age of dogs 41

2.3 Breeds 42





3.4 Action taken 58


4.1 Severity of attacks on people 59


5 Summary 61

Chapter 3 – Analysis of 2008/09 dog attack data

1. Explanatory notes – 2008/09 Breeds Australian Cattle Dog includes Blue and Red and Heeler Belgian Shepherd includes Groenendael, Laekenois, Malinois and Tervueren Bull Terrier includes American and English Chihuahua includes Long and Smooth Cocker Spaniel includes American Cocker Spaniel Collie includes Rough and Smooth Fox Terrier includes Smooth and Wire German Shepherd includes Alsation Jack Russell Terrier includes Parson Jack Russell Terrier Pitbull Terrier includes American Pit Bull Terrier Poodle includes Standard, Miniature and Toy Welsh Corgi includes Cardigan and Pembroke To determine the ‘breed’ of those dogs described as cross breed dogs, the first

breed identified in the animal’s record determined the category in which it was placed.

39


2. Companion Animals Register data Companion Animal Registration On 1 July 1999 the Companion Animals Act 1998 came into operation and established the NSW Companion Animals Register (the Register). The Register is a database that lists all companion animals within NSW that have been micro-chipped and/or registered with the local council. The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires that all NSW dog owners have their pets identified and registered for life. There is a two-step process to lifetime registration. The first step is to have the animal micro-chipped. In this report a micro-chipped dog is also referred to as “identified”. The second step is for an owner to register the animal with their local council. In this report a registered dog is also referred to as “lifetime registered.” 2.1 Number of dogs Identified and Registered on the Companion Animals

Register at 30 June 2009 Table 1 Register status No. % Identified and Lifetime Registered 808,144 61% Identified only 510,361 39% Total 1,318,505 100%

Table 1 shows that at 30 June 2009, there were in excess of 1.3 million dogs on the Register. Of these approximately 60% were both identified and lifetime registered while the remainder were identified only. The total number of dogs on the register has increased by 11% from 1,186,956 in the 12 months since 30 June 2008, and this continues a rising trend that has been observed over the last five years. The percentage breakdown between dogs that are identified and lifetime registered and identified only has stayed relatively constant.

40


2.2 Age of dogs on the Register at 30 June 2009 Table 2 Age of dog No. % < 6 months old 18,344 1% 6 months – 1 year 50,408 4% 1-2 years 109,543 8% 2-5 years 324,747 25% 5-10 years 519,558 39% > 10 years 295,905 22% Total 1,318,505 100%

Table 2 shows that there were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group than any other age group (just under 40%). This was followed by the 2-5 year age group which contains one-quarter of all dogs on the register. There has been a slight ageing of the dog population since 30 June 2008 with the oldest age group (> 10 years) increasing from 20% to 22% of the total number of dogs mainly at the expense of the 2-5 year age group which has fallen from 27% to 25%.

41


42

2.3 Breeds 2.3.1 Pure breed/cross breed and desexed/undesexed at 30 June 2009 Table 3 Bread No. % Pure breed 858,787 65% Cross breed 459,718 35% Total 1,318,505 100% Table 3 shows that there are almost twice as many pure breed dogs listed on the Register as there are cross breed dogs. The proportion of pure breeds has not changed since 30 June 2008. Table 4 Pure breed No. % Desexed 348,090 41% Not desexed 168,131 20% Unknown if desexed 342,566 40% Total 858,787 100% Table 5 Cross breed No. % Desexed 232,108 50% Not desexed 59,165 13% Unknown if desexed 168,445 37% Total 459,718 100% Tables 4 and 5 show that at 30 June 2009 half of cross breed dogs on the Register were known to be desexed, a substantially higher rate than the 41% of pure breed dogs that were known to be desexed. This is somewhat of a change from the situation 12 months earlier when the desexing rates were much closer (pure breed 43% and cross breed 46%). These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high proportion (well in excess of one-third) of both pure breed and cross breed dogs where it was unknown if the dog was desexed or not desexed, and this is a continuation of the proportion of ‘unknowns’ from 30 June 2008. A contributor to the high rate of unknowns is the significant number of dogs on the Register who are identified only and the owner has not advised of subsequent desexing.


2.3.2 Pure breed dogs on the Register at 30 June 2009 – top 20 most popular Table 6

Rank Pure breed No. on Register % of all dogs1 Labrador Retriever 64,324 5% 2 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 61,686 5% 3 Jack Russell Terrier 56,095 4% 4 Maltese 50,689 4% 5 Border Collie 41,616 3% 6 German Shepherd Dog 41,504 3% 7 Australian Cattle Dog 41,396 3% 8 Poodle 28,602 2% 9 Fox Terrier 27,458 2%

10 Rottweiler 25,378 2% 11 Golden Retriever 24,966 2% 12 Australian Kelpie 24,205 2% 13 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 21,971 2% 14 Chihuahua 20,154 2% 15 Boxer 18,205 1% 16 Shih Tzu 16,770 1% 17 Tenterfield Terrier 15,715 1% 18 Cocker Spaniel 14,613 1% 19 Beagle 14,442 1% 20 Pomeranian 12,108 5% Total 20 most popular pure breeds 621,897 47%

At 30 June 2009 the two most popular pure breeds are the Labrador Retriever and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier each of which account for 5% of the total of dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular breeds accounted for nearly half (47%) of all dogs on the Register. There has been little change in the 20 most popular pure breeds since 30 June 2008. The only new breed in the top 20 is Pomeranian which replaced Australian Silky Terrier. The four most popular breeds have retained their ranking and most of the changes have occurred as interchanges between adjacent breeds in the table.

43


44

2.3.3 Cross breed dogs on the register at 30 June 2009 – top 20 most popular Table 7 Rank Cross breed No. on Register % of all dogs

1 Maltese 70,231 5% 2 Australian Kelpie 30,637 2% 3 Australian Cattle Dog 27,268 2% 4 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 22,282 2% 5 Jack Russell Terrier 21,771 2% 6 Labrador Retriever 21,556 2% 7 Shih Tzu 20,498 2% 8 Fox Terrier 19,630 1% 9 Border Collie 19,528 1%

10 German Shepherd Dog 13,210 1% 11 Chihuahua 12,704 1% 12 Cross (terrier) 12,225 1% 13 Australian Silky Terrier 11,277 1% 14 Rottweiler 10,539 1% 15 Poodle 8,651 1% 16 Mastiff 7,707 1% 17 Bullmastiff 7,509 1% 18 Australian Terrier 7,141 1% 19 Pomeranian 6,494 <0.5% 20 Rhodesian Ridgeback 6,180 <0.5% Total 20 most popular cross breeds 357,038 27%

The most popular cross breed at 30 June 2009 was the Maltese which accounted for 5% of all dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular breeds accounted for about one-quarter (27%) of all dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular cross breeds have remained largely unchanged since 30 June 2008. The top four breeds have retained their ranking and the remaining breeds in the table from 2007/08 remain in the table 12 months later.


3. Reported attacks 3.1 Number and victims of attacks for 2008/09 Table 8

Total no. attacks reported

No. dogs involved in an attack

No. human victims

No. animal victims

2,565 3,433 1,554 1,836 The number of dog attacks in 2008/09 was 2,565. The total number of dogs involved in attacks is higher than the number of attacks. This is because more than one dog can be involved in a single attack. The average number of dogs involved in an attack was 1.3. The number of victims, combined human and animal, is also higher than the number of attacks. This is because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. Animal victims include livestock as well as cats, dogs and other pets. There were approximately 20% more animal victims than human victims. On average there was one human victim for approximately every 1.6 attacks. It is not possible to compare the absolute numbers of attacks and victims for 2008/09 with 2007/08 due to the change in reporting requirements introduced in February 2009. The average number of dogs per attack has fallen from 1.4. The reported average number of victims per attack has fallen by approximately 10% in the case of humans and 20% in the case of animals.

45


3.2 Breeds involved 3.2.1 Breed type for dogs involved in dog attacks for 2008/09 Table 9

Dogs that attackedBreed type

No. % Pure breed 1,757 51% Cross breed 1,254 37%

Unknown 412 12% Total 3,423 100%

Table 9 shows that many more pure breed dogs were involved in attacks than cross breeds in 2008/2009. This is consistent with the predominance of pure breed dogs which make up almost two-thirds of the total dog population on the Register (table 3). These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high percentage (12%) of dogs that attacked where it was unknown whether the dog was pure breed or cross breed. The proportion of dogs involved in attacks known to be cross breeds has changed little since 2007/2008, and the proportion of pure breed dogs has grown from 45% at the expense of the unknown category. The following tables (table 10 and table 11) show which pure breeds and which cross breeds were responsible for attacks and how many dogs in each breed were involved in attacks. The tables are ordered by the rate of attacks for a breed as expressed in terms of the ratio for each breed of the number of dogs on the Register to the number of dogs involved in attacks. The small discrepancy between table 8 and table 9 in the number of dogs involved in attacks (ie: 10 dogs) is due to some details on attacking dogs not being reported by all councils.

46



Rank Pure Breed

No. of dogs that

attacked

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(1 in __)1 1 Kangal Dog 1 35 35 2 Mastiff 33 2,422 73 3 Pitbull Terrier 35 2,682 77 4 St. Bernard 8 896 112 5 Deerhound 1 119 119 6 Briard 2 240 120

7 American Staffordshire Terrier 95 12,093 127

8 Australian Wire Haired Terrier 1 138 138 9 Bull Terrier 55 7,643 139

10 Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog 6 1,130 188

11 Anatolian Shepherd Dog 1 189 189 12 Schnauzer (Giant) 1 200 200 13 Bullmastiff 29 6,028 208 14 Shiba Inu 1 212 212 14 Great Dane 22 4,673 212 16 Rottweiler 118 25,378 215 17 Rhodesian Ridgeback 31 6,772 218 18 Siberian Husky 43 9,503 221 19 German Shepherd Dog 177 41,504 234 20 Australian Dingo 2 477 239 21 Bulldog (British) 3 728 243 22 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 239 61,686 258 23 Akita 3 837 279 24 Alaskan Malamute 24 6,834 285 25 Australian Cattle Dog 131 41,396 316 26 Australian Bulldog 6 2,055 343 27 Irish Wolfhound 3 1,061 354 28 Bulldog (American) 3 1,238 413 29 Chow Chow 2 875 438 30 Shar Pei 12 5,369 447 31 Dogue de Bordeaux 2 914 457 32 Weimaraner 6 2,780 463 33 Boxer 39 18,205 467 34 Australian Kelpie 47 24,205 515 35 Welsh Springer Spaniel 1 571 571 36 Greyhound2 13 7,438 572 37 Belgian Shepherd Dog 3 1,864 621

47


Table 10 (continued)

Rank Pure Breed

No. of dogs that

attacked

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(1 in __)1 38 Bull Terrier (Miniature) 1 659 659 39 Maremma Sheepdog 3 2,068 689 40 Pointer 1 696 696 41 Dalmatian 9 6,324 703 42 Dobermann 8 5,840 730 43 Airedale Terrier 1 732 732 44 Tibetan Spaniel 2 1,494 747 45 Dachshund (Smooth Haired) 2 1,547 774 46 Labradoodle 4 3,205 801 47 British Bulldog 2 1,768 884 48 Border Collie 47 41,616 885 49 Neapolitan Mastiff 1 927 927 50 Fox Terrier 28 27,458 981 51 Miniature Fox Terrier 2 2,117 1,059 52 Hungarian Vizsla 1 1,098 1,098 53 Whippet 4 4,447 1,112 54 Jack Russell Terrier 50 56,095 1,122 55 Corgi (cardigan) 2 2,391 1,196 56 Chihuahua 15 20,154 1,344 57 Labrador Retriever 47 64,324 1,369 58 Australian Silky Terrier 8 11,505 1,438 59 Bichon Frise 3 4,499 1,500 60 King Charles Spaniel 1 1,578 1,578 61 German Shorthaired Pointer 2 3,275 1,638 62 Japanese Spitz 1 1,879 1,879 63 Maltese 24 50,689 2,112 64 Schnauzer 1 2,178 2,178 65 Beagle 6 14,442 2,407 66 Collie 2 4,820 2,410 67 Lhasa Apso 1 2,514 2,514 68 Cocker Spaniel 4 14,613 3,653 69 Tenterfield Terrier 4 15,715 3,929 70 Pomeranian 3 12,108 4,036 71 Dachshund 1 4,106 4,106 72 Shih Tzu 4 16,770 4,193 73 Poodle 6 28,602 4,767 74 Australian Terrier 1 5,635 5,635 75 Golden Retriever 4 24,966 6,242 76 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 1 21,971 21,971

Total 1,506 843,0723 5604

48


Notes to Table 10: 1 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. Lower rates indicate that dogs from a breed are more liable to attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 2 This includes 6,050 dogs registered in 2008/09 by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Regulatory Authority under the Greyhound and Harness Racing and Registration Act 2004. 3 This number is the total number of pure breeds on the Companion Animals Register at 30 June 2009. 4 This number is the rate of attack for all pure breeds combined in 2008/09. Table 10 shows that the five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2008/09 were the Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), German Shepherd Dog, Australian Cattle Dog, Rottweiler and American Staffordshire Terrier breeds (involved in 760 attacks, which represented half of all attacks involving pure breed dogs). The same breeds were the most heavily represented in dog attacks in 2007/08 and in the same ranking. The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2008/09 were the Kangal Dog, Mastiff, Pitbull Terrier, St. Bernard and Deerhound breeds. While the Kangal Dog, the Briard and the Deerhound breeds were amongst the pure breeds that had the highest rate of attack, taken together they were involved in only four attacks. The small numbers of these breeds makes it difficult to make any definitive statement regarding their liability to attack. The Australian Dingo and the Bullmastiff, which were amongst the five breeds most likely to be involved in a dog attack in 2007/08, have now moved down the list (21st and 14th respectively).

49



Rank Cross Breed

No. of dogs involved in

attacks

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(1 in __)1 1 Pitbull Terrier 28 1,276 46 2 Australian Bulldog 4 217 54

3 American Staffordshire Terrier 58 3,680 63

4 Hungarian Vizsla 1 70 70 5 British Bulldog 1 89 89 6 Deerhound 1 97 97 7 Bulldog (British) 1 100 100 8 Mastiff 76 7,707 101 9 Greyhound 3 354 118 10 Neapolitan Mastiff 2 237 119 11 Tibetan Terrier 1 120 120 12 Boxer 40 4,911 123 13 Pointer 3 402 134 14 Great Dane 23 3,431 149 15 Bull Terrier 35 5,306 152

16 Dachshund (Min Smooth Haired) 1 155 155

17 Rhodesian Ridgeback 37 6,180 167 18 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 130 22,282 171 19 Bullmastiff 41 7,509 183 20 Rottweiler 56 10,539 188 21 Basenji 1 231 231 21 Chow Chow 1 231 231 22 Bulldog (American) 1 264 264 23 German Shepherd Dog 49 13,210 270 24 Shar Pei 4 1,413 353 25 Australian Cattle Dog 76 27,268 359 26 Irish Wolfhound 5 1,901 380 27 Samoyed 1 391 391 28 Dobermann 3 1,200 400 29 Australian Dingo 1 420 420 30 Belgian Shepherd Dog 1 426 426 31 Siberian Husky 4 1,734 434 32 Australian Kelpie 65 30,637 471 33 Cross (terrier) 25 12,225 489 34 Dachshund (Smooth Haired) 1 490 490 35 Dalmatian 2 991 496

50



Rank Cross Breed


attacks

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(1 in __)1 35 Alaskan Malamute 2 992 496 37 Miniature Fox Terrier 1 542 542 38 Border Collie 35 19,528 558 39 Labrador Retriever 38 21,556 567 40 Corgi (cardigan) 3 1,920 640 41 Whippet 1 682 682 42 Corgi (pembroke) 1 838 838 43 Other 13 12,143 934 44 Australian Terrier 7 7,141 1,020 45 Collie 2 2,260 1,130 46 Cocker Spaniel 4 5,182 1,296 47 Australian Silky Terrier 8 11,277 1,410 48 Jack Russell Terrier 15 21,771 1,451 49 Fox Terrier 12 19,630 1,636 50 Lhasa Apso 1 1,652 1,652 51 Tenterfield 2 3,713 1,857 52 Maltese 37 70,231 1,898 53 Beagle 1 2,013 2,013 54 Bichon Frise 1 2,540 2,540 53 Mini Foxie 1 2,683 2,683 56 Golden Retriever 1 2,874 2,874 57 Pomeranian 2 6,494 3,247 58 Chihuahua 3 12,704 4,235 59 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 1 4,797 4,797 60 Shih Tzu 3 20,498 6,833 61 Poodle 1 8,651 8,651 Terrier4 25 Unknown 74 10,795 146

Total 1,052 459,7182 4373 Notes to Table 11: 1 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register. Lower rates indicate that dogs from a breed are more liable to attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 2 This number is the total number of cross breeds on the Companion Animals Register at 30 June 2009. 3 This number is the rate of attack for all cross breeds combined in 2008/09. 4 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of terrier was responsible for the attack. Since there is no information on the Register for the breed “Terrier” it is not possible to calculate attack rates.

51


Table 11 shows that the five cross breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2008/09 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Australian Cattle Dog, Mastiff, Australian Kelpie and American Staffordshire Terrier breeds (involved in 405 attacks, which represents 38% of all attacks involving cross breed dogs). In 2007/08, the top four cross breeds with the highest number of attacks were the same, with the German Shepherd Dog ranked five. The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2008/09 were the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Hungarian Vizsla and British Bulldog breeds. This compares with 2007/08 when the Pitbull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier were also in the five cross breeds that had the highest rate of attack. While the Mastiff, Bull Terrier and Greyhound have dropped down the list, three cross breeds have appeared in the list for the first time. These three breeds were involved in a very low number of attacks (6 between them) which makes it difficult to make any definitive statement about their liability to attack.

52


3.3 Characteristics of attacks 3.3.1 Month of attacks for 2008/09 Table 12 Month No. % July 152 6% August 158 6% September 139 5% October 156 6% November 177 7% December 172 7% January 156 6% February 284 11% March 316 12% April 285 11% May 295 12% June 275 11% Total 2,565 100% The distribution of monthly numbers of attacks as presented in table 12 has been distorted due to the introduction of mandatory reporting by councils in February 2009. Apart from this distortion, the monthly number of attacks is quite constant for the first seven months of the reporting year (July through January) when each month accounted for 6-7% of the total, and for the remaining months (February through June) when each month accounted for 11-12% of the total. In 2007/08, the months with the highest number of attacks were May and July each accounting for 10% of the total. The month with the lowest number of attacks was December (6%).

53


3.3.2 Location of attacks for 2008/09 Table 13

Location No. % of total attacks Public place 1,596 62% Private property 969 38% Total 2,565 100%

Table 13 shows that in 2008/09 62% of dog attacks occurred in a public place. The percentage of dog attacks in a public place has declined slightly from 65% in 2007/08. 3.3.3 Control of dog for 2008/09 Table 14 1/7/08 –

19/2/09 20/2/09 – 30/6/09

Total for 2008/09

% of total attacks

Not under control of owner 547 1,726 2,273 72%

Allegedly under control 179 78 257 8% Unknown if owner was in control

56 583 639 20%

Total 782 2,387 3,169 100% Notes to Table 14: 1 Prior to 20 February 2009, only one response for ‘control of dog’ was recorded for each attack

2 After 20 February 2009, a response for ’control of dog’ was recorded for each attacking dog Table 14 shows that in 2008/09 72% of attacking dogs were known to be not under the control of their owner. This represents an increase from the 66% of attacking dogs in 2007/08 that were known not to be under the control of their owner. Table 14 needs to be interpreted with great caution. This is because the data recorded changed from 20 February 2009. From this date, data relating to ‘control of dog’ was recorded for each attacking dog rather than for each attack, which could involve more than one dog. Therefore, the numbers from 20 February 2009 onwards are much higher. 3.3.4 Sex of attacking dogs for 2008/09 Table 15 Sex No. % Male 1,530 45% Female 1,030 30% Unknown 836 25% Total 3,396 100% Table 15 shows that in 2008/09 substantially more male dogs were involved in attacks than female dogs by a factor of approximately 1.5.

54


These results need to be interpreted with caution because of the high proportion of attacking dogs where the sex was unknown (one-quarter of all attacks). These findings are consistent with 2007/08. 3.3.5 Desexed status of attacking dogs for 2008/09 Table 16

Desexed status No. % Rate

1 in (__)1 Not desexed 1,417 41% 160 Desexed 760 22% 763 Unknown 1,242 36% 411 Total 3,419 100% Note to Table 16: 1 The rate of attack is the number of attacks each desexed / not desexed dog was involved in divided by the number of desexed / not desexed dogs on the Register. Table 16 shows that twice as many dogs that were known not to be desexed were involved in attacks than dogs that were known to be desexed. This finding should be treated with caution since the desexed status of attacking dogs was unknown for over one-third of the dogs. The proportion of dogs known to be desexed dogs that were involved in attacks has remained relatively unchanged since 2007/08. The proportion of dogs known not to be desexed dogs that were involved in attacks has increased from 27% mainly at the expense of the Unknown category. The final column of table 16 presents the data as rates of attack for dogs that are desexed or not desexed. This is calculated separately for dogs where it is known whether the dog is desexed or not desexed as the number of dogs on the Register divided by the number of dogs involved in attacks. The rate of attack for desexed is more than four times lower than the rate of attack for dogs that are not desexed. However, this finding needs to be treated with caution given the large percentage of dogs involved in attacks where it is not known whether the dog is desexed or not. The attack rate for the unknown category is intermediate between the rates for desexed dogs and not desexed dogs. In 2007/08, the rate of attack for desexed dogs was also more than four times lower than the rate of attack for dogs that are not desexed.

55


3.3.6 Registration status of attacking dogs for 2008/09 Table 17 1/7/08 –

19/2/09 20/2/09 – 30/6/09

Total for 2008/09

% of total attacks

Identified and lifetime registered

462 833 1,295 38%

Not registered or identified 161 1,332 1,493 43%

Identified only 156 240 396 11%

Unknown 261 N/A1 261 8% Total 1040 2,405 3,445 100%

Note to Table 17: 1 The new data recording system does not allow for ‘unknown’ to be recorded. Table 17 shows that in 2008/09, a little less than half (49%) of all attacking dogs were known to be on the Register. The number of attacking dogs that were identified and registered was more than three times the number of attacking dogs that were identified only and this is much greater than the ratio of the corresponding number of dogs on the Register (refer table 1). The entries in table 17 need to be interpreted with great caution. There are a number of apparent inconsistencies in the breakdown of attacking dogs by registration status between the old and new data recording systems. The reasons for these discrepancies are not known. It may be that the ‘not registered or identified’ category in the new data recording system includes dogs that would have been classified as ‘unknown’ previously. The proportion of attacking dogs known to be on the Register (49%) has fallen slightly from 56% in 2007/08. 3.3.7 Dangerous dog and restricted breed status of attacking dogs for 2008/09 Table 18 Dangerous dog/Restricted breed status No. % Restricted breed 21 0.6 Previously declared dangerous 52 1.5 Total no. of dogs involved in attacks 3,433 2.1 Table 18 shows that approximately 2% of all dogs involved in attacks were either previously declared dangerous or belonged to a restricted breed. The number of dogs involved in attacks that belong to a restricted breed have remained almost unchanged since 2007/08, but the number of previously declared dangerous dogs has increased from 34.

56


3.3.8 Number of attacking dogs involved in an attack for 2008/09 Table 19

2007/08 No. attacking dogs

No. % 1 1,829 71% 2 650 25% 3 60 2% 4 17 1% 5 3 <0.5% 6 4 <0.5% 7 1 <0.5%

Total 2,564 100% Note to Table 19: The entries in the table relate to the number of attacks Table 19 shows that the number of dog attacks is dominated by attacks that involve only one dog (71%). The next largest group are attacks involving two dogs which account for one-quarter of all attacks, with the remainder making up less than 5% of the total. In 2007/08, 46% of all attacks reported the number of dogs as unknown. Where the number of dogs was known, 81% involved one dog and a further 15% involved two dogs.

57


3.4 Action taken for 2008/09 Table 20

No. % Action taken against owner Penalty notice 775 18% Warning issued 687 16% No action taken 617 15% Further investigation 595 14% Police action 56 1% Court action 30 1% Owner sub-total 2,760 65% Action taken against dog Dog/s destroyed 444 11% Dangerous Dog Declaration made 318 8% Dog/s seized and taken to pound 313 7% Dog/s seized and returned to owner 52 1% Dog sub-total 1,127 27% Other action 337 8% Total 4,224 100%

Note to Table 20: More than one action may be taken against an owner in relation to a single attack. Accordingly the total number of actions is higher than the total number of attacks. Table 20 shows that actions against owners were more than twice as numerous as actions against dogs. The most common action taken against the owner was issuing a penalty notice, followed by issuing a warning. The most common action taken against dogs was destroying, followed by being declared dangerous, and seizure. Overall, the results are consistent with 2007/08, although there have been notable changes in some categories. A substantial increase has occurred in the number of instances of no action against the owner, which accounted for 6% of actions in 2007/08. However, this change may reflect improved council reporting of less serious dog attacks. The number of police actions has also decreased from 89 in 2007/08.

58


4. Reported injuries 4.1 Severity of attacks on people for 2008/09 Table 21 Severity of attack 1/7/08 –

19/2/091 20/2/09 – 30/6/091

Total for 2008/091

% of total attacks5

No injury 169 548 717 46%

Injury:

Minor injury 107 301 408 26%

Medical treatment required 117 207 324 21%

Hospitalisation 31 59 90 6%

Death 1 0 1 <0.5%

Severity of attack unknown 25 N/A2 25 1%

Total injuries 281 567 848 54%

Total responses3 450 1,115 1,565 100%

Total attacks on people4 439 1,115 1,554 Notes to Table 21:

1 As there may be multiple injuries in a single attack, the numbers in table 21 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents. 2Since 20/02/09, councils have been required to select an attack severity type thus eliminating instances of unknown attack severity which occurred from time to time in the previous data collection system. 3 Total responses equals the total of “No injury” plus “Total injuries”. 4 When reporting severity of attacks on humans councils can select more than one response. Accordingly, the number of responses may be different from the number of attacks. Percentages are based on the total number of responses. 5 Percentages are calculated in relation to total responses.

Table 21 shows that just over half (54%) of dog attacks on people resulted in some form of injury. Nearly half (48%) of injuries to people (where the type of injury was known) were classified as ‘minor’. Of the non-minor injuries, most required medical treatment and some resulted in hospitalisation. One dog attack resulted in death. It is difficult to compare the results with 2007/08 when only 6% of people involved in dog attacks were reported to be injured.

59


4.2 Severity of attacks on animals for 2008/09 Table 22 Severity of attack 1/7/08 –

19/2/091 20/2/09 – 30/6/091

Total for 2008/091

% of total

attacks No injury 85 249 334 18%

Injury:

Hospitalisation of animal 52 54 106 6%

Veterinary treatment required 117 234 351 18%

Death 147 629 776 41%

Minor injury 58 260 318 17%

Severity of attack unknown 21 N/A1 21 1%

Total injuries 395 1,177 1,572 82%

Total responses3 480 1,426 1,906 100%

Total attacks on animals4 409 1,427 1,836 Notes to Table 22: 1 As there may be multiple injuries in a single attack, the numbers in table 22 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents. 2 This category was only reported until 20/02/09 as it is not included in the Register based data collection system. 3 Total responses equals the total of “No injury” plus “Total injuries” and “Severity of attack unknown”. 4 When reporting severity of attacks on animals councils can select more than one response.

Accordingly, the number of responses may be different from the number of attacks. Percentages are based on the total number of responses.

Table 22 shows that half of all known injuries to animals resulted in death, more than twice the number of cases where medical veterinary treatment was required. Hospitalisation of the animal victim was quite rare. Less than one in five attacks on animals resulted in no injury, but it is suspected that dog attacks where no injuries are sustained may be under-reported. The pattern of injuries is broadly similar to that observed in 2007/08, but there has been an increase in the proportion of animal victims that died from 34%.

60


5. Summary Findings: Companion Animals Register data at 30 June 2009 There were in excess of 1.3 million dogs on the Register (combined number of

dogs that were identified only and dogs that were identified and registered). This represented an increase of 11% over the previous 12 months. The proportion of dogs that are identified only remains relatively high at 39%.

There were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group (39%) than any other age group.

The number of pure breed dogs on the Register is almost twice the number of cross breed dogs.

One half of cross breed dogs were desexed compared to a little over 40% of pure breed dogs. The desexed status was unknown for approximately 40% of dogs on the Register.

The 20 most popular pure breeds have remained largely unchanged. The Labrador Retriever, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Maltese and Border Collie were the most popular pure breed dogs.

The 20 most popular cross breeds have also remained largely unchanged. The Maltese, Australian Kelpie, Australian Cattle Dog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Jack Russell Terrier were the most popular cross breed dogs.

Number of attacks and victims The number of dog attacks reported by councils in 2008/09 was 2,585. It is not

possible to make valid comparisons with 2007/08 in terms of absolute numbers of attacks and victims due to the changes in reporting requirements.

The number of dogs involved in attacks is higher than the number of attacks. This is because more than one dog can be involved in a single attack. The average number of dogs involved in an attack was 1.3.

The number of victims, human and animal combined, is also higher than the number of attacks. This is because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. On average there are approximately 60 human victims and 72 animal victims for every 100 dog attacks.

Breeds involved in attacks Pure breeds were more likely than cross breeds to be involved in attacks,

reflecting the predominance of pure breed dogs on the Register (approximately twice as many as cross breed dogs). However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs where the breed was unknown.

The five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2008/09 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, German Shepherd Dog, Australian Cattle Dog, Rottweiler and American Staffordshire Terrier.

The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2008/09 were the Kangal Dog, Mastiff, Pitbull Terrier, Greyhound and St. Bernard breeds. The Kangal Dog was involved in only one attack. The small number of this breed makes it difficult to reach any conclusions about its liability to attack.

61


The five cross breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2008/09 were the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Australian Cattle Dog, Mastiff, Australian Kelpie and American Staffordshire Terrier breeds.

The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2008/09 were the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Hungarian Vizsla and British Bulldog breeds. A considerable number of breeds that were amongst those with the highest rates of attack were involved in very low numbers of attacks. This included the Australian Bulldog, Vizsla and British Bulldog.

Characteristics of attacks After allowing for the change in reporting requirements, dog attacks were

relatively evenly spread throughout the year with monthly totals varying from 11% to 12% after the change.

A little less than two-thirds of reported dog attacks occurred in a public place, which is a slight decrease from the previous year.

About three-quarters (72%) of all dogs involved in attacks were not under the control of the owner.

Male dogs were more likely than female dogs to attack (45% compared to 35%). However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs where the sex was unknown.

The desexed status was unknown in over one-third of dogs involved in an attack. Of the dogs where the desexed status was known, the number of not desexed dogs was approximately twice the number of desexed dogs. The attack rate (computed as number of dogs on the Register divided by the number of dogs involved in an attack) for not desexed dogs was well over four times worse than the attack rate for desexed dogs.

38% of all attacking dogs were identified and lifetime registered and 11% were identified only. This finding needs to be interpreted with caution as the percentage of attacking dogs where the registration status is unknown is relatively high.

The percentage of attacking dogs that had previously been declared dangerous was 1.5% and 0.6% of attacking dogs were restricted breeds.

Dog attacks were most likely to involve one dog. Very few attacks involved more than two dogs.

Actions taken Actions reported to be taken against the owner of an attacking dog were more

than twice as numerous as actions against the dog(s). The most common action taken against the owner was issuing a penalty notice,

followed by issuing a warning. The most common action taken against dogs was destroying, followed by being

declared dangerous, and seizure. Injuries Just over half (54%) of dog attacks on people resulted in some form of injury.

Nearly half (48%) of injuries to people (where the type of injury was known) were classified as ‘minor’. Of the non-minor injuries, most required medical treatment and some resulted in hospitalisation. One dog attack resulted in death.

Dog attacks on animals most frequently resulted in the death of the animal followed by medical/veterinary treatment or minor injury. As less than one-fifth

62


63

(18%) of dog attacks on animals resulted in no injury, it is possible to conclude that attacks which result in injuries on animals (and people) are more likely to be reported than attacks which do not result in any injuries. If this is the case, the number of attacks on other animals is likely to be under-reported.

Conclusion Overall this report shows that while the number of reported attacks has increased over time, the characteristics of attacks have remained largely unchanged from 2007/08.

Chapter 4

Analysis of 2009/2010 data

64

65

Contents Page

1. Explanatory notes for 2009/2010 66



Animals Register 67

2.2 Age of dogs 68

2.3 Breeds 69





3.4 Action taken 87




5 Summary 90


1. Explanatory notes for 2009/2010 Breeds Australian Cattle Dog includes Blue and Red and Heeler Belgian Shepherd includes Groenendael, Laekenois, Malinois and Tervueren Bull Terrier includes American and English Chihuahua includes Long and Smooth Cocker Spaniel includes American Cocker Spaniel Collie includes Rough and Smooth Dachshund Standard includes Long Haired, Smooth Haired and Wire Haired Dachshund Miniature includes Long Haired, Smooth Haired and Wire Haired Fox Terrier includes Smooth and Wire German Shepherd includes Alsation Jack Russell Terrier includes Parson Jack Russell Terrier Pit Bull Terrier includes American Pit Bull Terrier Poodle includes Standard, Miniature and Toy Corgi includes Cardigan and Pembroke Dogs designated to one of the ‘Old Classification’ breeds have been placed in the

corresponding breed (this applies to Australian Cattle Dog, Collie, Heeler), while dogs designated as Old Classification Dachshund have been reclassified pro rata between Dachshund Standard and Dachshund Miniature

To determine the ‘breed’ of those dogs described as cross breed dogs, the first breed identified in the animal’s record determined the category in which it was placed.

Breeds with where the name commences with ‘Cross’ have been designated as cross breeds even where the second breed has been left blank.

66


2. Companion Animals Register data Companion Animal Registration On 1 July 1999 the Companion Animals Act 1998 came into operation and established the NSW Companion Animals Register (the Register). The Register is a database that lists all companion animals within NSW that have been micro-chipped and/or registered with the local council. The Companion Animals Act 1998 requires that all NSW dog owners have their pets identified and registered for life. There is a two-step process to lifetime registration. The first step is to have the animal micro-chipped. In this report a micro-chipped dog is also referred to as “identified”. The second step is for an owner to register the animal with their local council. In this report a registered dog is also referred to as “lifetime registered.” 2.1 Number of dogs Identified and Registered on the Companion

Animals Register at 30 June 2010 Table 1 Register status No. % Identified and Lifetime Registered 885,210 61% Identified only 555,826 39% Total 1,441,036 100%

Table 1 shows that at 30 June 2010, there were in excess of 1.4 million dogs on the Register. Of these approximately 60% were both identified and lifetime registered while the remainder were identified only. The total number of dogs on the register has increased by 9% from 1,318,505 in the 12 months since 30 June 2009, and this continues a rising trend that has been observed over the last five years. The percentage breakdown between dogs that are identified and lifetime registered and identified only has stayed relatively constant.

67


2.2 Age of dogs on the Register at 30 June 2010 Table 2 Age of dog Count % Less than 6 months old 17,462 1% 6 months to < 12 months old 51,407 4% 1 year to < 2 years old 113,093 8% 2 years to < 5 years old 335,601 23% 5 years to < 10 years old 538,904 37% 10 years old and over 384,569 27% Total 1,441,036 100%

Table 2 shows that there were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group than any other age group (37%). This was followed by the over 10 year age group which contains in excess of one-quarter of all dogs on the register. There has been a slight ageing of the dog population on the Register since 30 June 2009 with the oldest age group (> 10 years) increasing from 22% to 27% of the total number of dogs mainly at the expense of the 2 to <5 year and 5 to <10 year age groups each of which has fallen by 2 percentage points. However, there is a high probability that a significant proportion of dogs in the oldest age group which have died have not been reported to the local council so that the Register can be updated.

68


2.3 Breeds 2.3.1 Pure breed/cross breed and desexed/undesexed at 30 June 2010 Table 3 – Number of pure breed and cross breed dogs Breed Number % Pure breed 936,930 70% Cross breed 504,106 35% Total 1,441,036 100% Note to Table 3: Cross breed total includes 12,829 dogs which would have been classified as pure breed since the second breed has been left blank on the Register but where the first breed is unknown. Table 3 shows that the number of pure breed dogs listed on the Register approaches twice the number of cross breed dogs. The proportion of pure breeds has remained the same since 30 June 2009. Table 4 Pure breed dogs – Gender and desexed status

Numbers of dogs Desexed Not

desexed Unknown if

desexed Total Male 169,604 108,194 186,285 464,083 Female 205,320 72,358 178,271 455,949 Sex unknown 5,498 3,028 8,372 16,898 Total 380,422 183,580 372,928 936,930 Percentages Male 37% 23% 40% 100% Female 45% 16% 39% 100% Sex unknown 33% 18% 50% 100% Total 41% 20% 40% 100%

Table 4 shows that of the pure breed dogs where the desexed status was known, more than one-third were desexed. A significantly higher proportion of female dogs was desexed compared to male dogs. There has been no significant change in the breakdown of pure breed dogs by desexed status since 30 June 2009.

69


70

Table 5 Cross breed dogs – Gender and desexed status

Numbers of dogs Desexed Not

desexed Unknown if desexed Total

Male 115,544 40,632 91,157 247,333 Female 135,580 23,197 87,727 246,504

Sex unknown 4,280 1,385 4,604 10,269

Total 255,404 65,214 183,488 504,106 Percentages Male 47% 16% 37% 100% Female 55% 9% 36% 100%

Sex unknown 42% 13% 45% 100%

Total 51% 13% 36% 100% Table 5 shows that overall more than half of the cross breed dogs on the Register are desexed and this is a significantly greater proportion than is the case for pure breed dogs. A significantly higher proportion of female dogs was desexed compared to male dogs, and the difference is similar to that for pure breed dogs. There has been no change in the breakdown of cross breed dogs by desexed status since 30 June 2009. These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high proportion of both pure breed (40%) and cross breed dogs (36%) where it was unknown if the dog was desexed or not desexed. This is a continuation of the proportion of ‘unknowns’ from 30 June 2009. A contributor to the high rate of unknowns is the significant number of dogs on the Register who are identified only and the owner has not advised of subsequent desexing. Tables 4 and 5 show that there are approximately the same numbers of male and female dogs on the Register for both pure breeds and cross breeds.


2.3.2 Pure breed dogs on the Register at 30 June 2010 – top 20 most popular Table 6

Rank Pure breed No. on Register % of all dogs1 Labrador Retriever 70,275 5% 2 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 68,385 5% 3 Jack Russell Terrier 60,478 4% 4 Maltese 52,952 4% 5 Border Collie 45,053 3% 6 Australian Cattle Dog 44,370 3% 7 German Shepherd Dog 44,117 3% 8 Poodle 31,730 2% 9 Fox Terrier 28,846 2%

10 Australian Kelpie 27,068 2% 11 Golden Retriever 26,490 2% 12 Rottweiler 26,450 2% 13 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 24,896 2% 14 Chihuahua 22,615 2% 15 Boxer 19,554 1% 16 Shih Tzu 17,782 1% 17 Cocker Spaniel 16,482 1% 18 Beagle 16,158 1% 19 Tenterfield 14,500 1% 20 American Staffordshire Terrier 14,270 1% Total 20 most popular pure breeds 672,471 47%

Table 6 shows that at 30 June 2010 the two most popular pure breeds are the Labrador Retriever and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier each of which account for 5% of the total of dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular breeds accounted for nearly half (47%) of all dogs on the Register. There has been little change in the 20 most popular pure breeds since 30 June 2009. The only new breed in the top 20 is the American Staffordshire Terrier which replaced the Pomeranian (reversing the change 12 months previously). The five most popular breeds have retained their ranking and most of the changes have occurred between breeds close together in the ranking.

71


72

2.3.3 Cross breed dogs on the register at 30 June 2010 – top 20 most popular Table 7 Rank Cross breed No. on Register % of all dogs

1 Maltese 78,082 5% 2 Australian Kelpie 32,854 2% 3 Australian Cattle Dog 28,840 2% 4 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 24,551 2% 5 Jack Russell Terrier 24,458 2% 6 Labrador Retriever 23,107 2% 7 Shih Tzu 23,000 2% 8 Fox Terrier 21,133 1% 9 Border Collie 21,068 1%

10 Chihuahua 14,122 1% 11 German Shepherd Dog 13,666 1% 12 Terrier 12,962 1% 13 Australian Silky Terrier 11,770 1% 14 Rottweiler 10,948 1% 15 Poodle 10,033 1% 16 Mastiff 8,697 1% 17 Bullmastiff 8,487 1% 18 Australian Terrier 7,545 1% 19 Pomeranian 7,304 1% 20 Rhodesian Ridgeback 6,661 <0.5% Total 20 most popular cross breeds 389,288 27%

Table 7 shows that the most popular cross breed at 30 June 2010 was the Maltese which accounted for 5% of all dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular breeds accounted for about one-quarter (27%) of all dogs on the Register. The 20 most popular cross breeds have remained unchanged since 30 June 2009, except that the German Shepherd Dog and the Chihuahua have swapped places in the ordering.


3. Reported attacks 3.1 Number and victims of attacks for 2009/10 Table 8

Total no. attacks reported

No. dogs involved in an attack

No. human victims

No. animal victims

4,381 5,8181 2,610 3,825 1 Note to Table 8: the total number of dogs involved in an attack reported in this table differs from the total reported in tables 9, 13, 14, and 18 of this report. This appears to be due to data entry errors, for example where a field has inadvertently been left blank. However, the discrepancies are small and do not affect the validity of the findings presented. Table 8 shows that the number of dog attacks in 2009/10 was 4,381. The total number of dogs involved in attacks is higher than the number of attacks. This is because more than one dog can be involved in a single attack. The average number of dogs involved in an attack was 1.3, approximately the same as in the last 5 months of 2008/09. The number of victims, combined human and animal, is also higher than the number of attacks. This is because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. Animal victims include livestock as well as cats, dogs and other pets. There were almost 50% more animal victims than human victims. On average, there was one human victim for approximately every 1.7 attacks, which is a slight increase from the figure of 1.6 recorded in the last 5 months of 2008/09. It is not possible to compare the absolute numbers of attacks and victims for 2009/10 with 2008/09 due to the change in reporting requirements introduced in February 2009. However, it is valid to compare ratios for the last 5 months in 2008/09 (from 22 February to 30 June 2009). It is also valid to compare monthly totals. The average number of attacks reported per month has increased by approximately 2.5%. It is considered most likely that the apparent increase in dog attacks is more a consequence of improved reporting practices as councils become more familiar with the new reporting system rather than an increase in the overall number of dog attacks.

73


3.2 Breeds involved 3.2.1 Breed type for dogs involved in dog attacks for 2009/2010 Table 9

Dogs that attackedBreed type

No. % Pure breed 3,057 52% Cross breed 1,865 32%

Unknown 909 16% Total 5,831 100%

Table 9 shows that many more pure breed dogs were involved in attacks than cross breeds in 2009/2010. This is consistent with the predominance of pure breed dogs which make up almost two-thirds of the total dog population on the Register (table 3). These results need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively high percentage (16%) of dogs that attacked where it was unknown whether the dog was pure breed or cross breed. The breakdown of dogs involved in attacks known to be pure breeds, cross breeds or unknown has changed little since 2008/2009, with a small increase from 51% of pure breed dogs and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of cross breed dogs.

74



Rank Pure Breed

No. of dogs that

attacked

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 1 Airedale Shepherd 4 90 4.4 2 Pit Bull Terrier 74 2,628 2.8 3 Kangal Dog 1 37 2.7 4 Australian Dingo 12 509 2.4 5 Mastiff 49 2,702 1.8 6 Irish Wolfhound 21 1,197 1.8

7 American Staffordshire Terrier 222 14,270 1.6

8 Bulldog (American) 21 1,539 1.4 9 Bull Terrier 102 8,960 1.1 10 Italian Corso Dog 2 193 1.0 11 Siberian Husky 107 10,659 1.0 12 South African Boerboel 1 101 1.0 13 Bull Terrier (Miniature) 7 725 1.0 14 Bullmastiff 62 6,626 0.9 15 German Pinscher 3 331 0.9 16 Kerry Blue Terrier 1 118 0.8 17 Neapolitan Mastiff 9 1,071 0.8 18 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 566 68,385 0.8 19 Belgian Shepherd Dog 16 2,022 0.8 20 Alaskan Malamute 56 7,225 0.8 21 Coolie 4 550 0.7 22 Australian Cattle Dog 320 44,370 0.7 23 German Spit (Klein) 1 141 0.7 24 Akita 6 878 0.7 25 Irish Terrier 2 303 0.7 26 Hungarian Puli 1 159 0.6 27 Rottweiler 161 26,450 0.6 28 German Shepherd Dog 268 44,117 0.6 29 Great Dane 28 5,261 0.5 30 Airedale Terrier 4 782 0.5

31 Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog 6 1,228 0.5

32 Dogue de Bordeaux 5 1,047 0.5 33 Bloodhound 1 211 0.5 34 Weimaraner 14 2,985 0.5 35 Dobermann 28 6,176 0.5 36 Anatolian Shepherd Dog 1 228 0.4

75



Rank Pure Breed

No. of dogs that

attacked

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 37 Afghan Hound 2 462 0.4 38 Australian Bulldog 12 2,843 0.4 39 Rhodesian Ridgeback 30 7,256 0.4 40 Bearded Collie 1 245 0.4 41 German Shorthaired Pointer 13 3,586 0.4 42 Boxer 63 19,554 0.3 43 Irish Setter 2 624 0.3 44 Greyhound 26 8,3812 0.3 45 Shar Pei 18 5,872 0.3 46 Australian Shepherd 3 1,007 0.3 47 Australian Kelpie 79 27,068 0.3 48 Tenterfield Terrier 4 1,431 0.3 49 Dalmatian 18 6,609 0.3 50 Maremma Sheepdog 6 2,262 0.3 51 Border Collie 104 45,053 0.2 52 Chow Chow 2 896 0.2 53 St. Bernard 2 939 0.2 54 Whippet 10 4,984 0.2 55 Mini Foxie 13 6,949 0.2 56 Miniature Fox Terrier 5 2,862 0.2 57 Hungarian Vizsla 2 1,203 0.2 58 Jack Russell Terrier 96 60,478 0.2 59 Fox Terrier 44 28,846 0.2 60 Schipperke 1 672 0.1 61 Labrador Retriever 94 70,275 0.1 62 Boston Terrier 1 770 0.1 63 Pointer 1 784 0.1 64 Bulldog (British) 1 801 0.1 65 Samoyed 3 2,443 0.1 66 Tibetan Spaniel 2 1,712 0.1 67 King Charles Spaniel 2 1,732 0.1 68 Maltese 61 52,952 0.1 69 Newfoundland 1 951 0.1 70 Italian Greyhound 1 1,030 0.1 71 Labradoodle 4 4,156 0.1 72 Australian Silky Terrier 11 11,849 0.1 73 Golden Retriever 24 26,490 0.1 74 Basset Hound 1 1,159 0.1 75 Australian Terrier 5 5,896 0.1

76



Rank Pure Breed

No. of dogs that

attacked

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 76 Collie 4 4,973 0.1 77 Scottish Terrier 1 1,363 0.1 78 Pug 6 8,552 0.1 79 Beagle 11 16,158 0.1 80 Cocker Spaniel 11 16,482 0.1 81 Miniature Pinscher 1 1,587 0.1 82 Cairn Terrier 1 1,595 0.1 83 Chihuahua 14 22,615 0.1 84 Keeshond 1 1,682 0.1 85 Corgi 3 5,113 0.1 86 British Bulldog 1 2,093 <0.05 87 Dachshund (Miniature) 5 10,719 <0.05 88 Poodle 14 31,730 <0.05 89 Japanese Spitz 1 2,289 <0.05

90 Schnauzer 1 2,362 <0.05 91 Bichon Frise 2 4,902 <0.05 92 Papillon 1 2,619 <0.05

93 Pomeranian 5 13,576 <0.05 94 Dachshund (Standard) 1 2,738 <0.05 95 Lhasa Apso 1 2,777 <0.05

96 Tenterfield 5 14,500 <0.05 97 Shih Tzu 5 17,782 <0.05 98 Schnauzer (Miniature) 2 8,529 <0.05 99 Cavoodle 1 4,725 <0.05

100 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 5 24,896 <0.05 Total 3,057 936,9303 0.34

Notes to Table 10: 1 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register multiplied by 100. Higher rates may indicate that dogs from a breed are more liable to attack. The pure breeds listed in the table are ordered by decreasing rate of attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 2 This includes 6,595 dogs registered in 2009/10 by the Greyhound and Harness Racing Regulatory Authority under the Greyhound and Harness Racing and Registration Act 2004. 3 This number is the total number of pure breed dogs on the Companion Animals Register at 30 June 2010. 4 This number is the rate of attack for all pure breeds combined in 2009/10. Table 10 shows that the five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2009/10 were the Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd Dog, American Staffordshire Terrier and Rottweiler breeds (involved in 1,537 attacks, which represented about half of all instances where pure breeds were

77


involved in dog attacks). The same breeds were the most heavily represented in dog attacks in 2008/09 but were ranked slightly differently. The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2009/10 were the Airedale Shepherd, Pit Bull Terrier, Kangal Dog, Australian Dingo and Mastiff breeds. The Airedale Shepherd and the Kangal Dog breeds together were involved in only five attacks and the small numbers of these breeds means it is difficult to make any definitive statement regarding their liability to attack. There have been substantial changes in the ranking in terms of attack rates when compared to 2008/09. The reasons for these changes are unknown. In total, 9 pure breeds had attack rates in excess of 1 dog attack per 100 dogs on the Register.

78



Rank Cross Breed


attacks

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 1 Welsh Terrier 2 10 20.0 2 Otterhound 1 5 20.0 3 German Wirehaired Pointer 2 24 8.3 4 Hungarian Vizsla 4 74 5.4 5 Pit Bull Terrier 39 1,293 3.0 6 Australian Bulldog 6 275 2.2 7 Akita 3 142 2.1 8 Bulldog (French) 2 95 2.1

9 American Staffordshire Terrier 76 4,252 1.8

10 Alaskan Malamute 19 1,064 1.8 11 St. Bernard 1 57 1.8 12 Bulldog (American) 6 343 1.7 13 Airedale Terrier 1 62 1.6 14 Neapolitan Mastiff 5 329 1.5 15 Australian Dingo 6 454 1.3 16 Greyhound 5 410 1.2 17 Mastiff 106 8,697 1.2 18 Bullmastiff 100 8,487 1.2 19 Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) 278 24,551 1.1

20 Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog 2 181 1.1

21 Irish Wolfhound 24 2,231 1.1 22 Bearded Collie 1 94 1.1 23 Foxhound 1 98 1.0 24 Bull Terrier 58 5,695 1.0 25 British Bulldog 1 99 1.0 26 Siberian Husky 19 1,937 1.0 27 Rhodesian Ridgeback 64 6,661 1.0 28 Great Dane 37 3,944 0.9 29 Boxer 49 5,299 0.9 30 Newfoundland 1 110 0.9 31 Bulldog (British) 1 124 0.8 32 Deerhound 1 125 0.8 33 Rottweiler 85 10,948 0.8 34 Shar Pei 12 1,637 0.7 35 English Springer Spaniel 1 147 0.7 36 Tenterfield Terrier 2 343 0.6

79



Rank Cross Breed


attacks

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 37 Australian Cattle Dog 153 28,840 0.5 38 German Shepherd Dog 67 13,666 0.5 39 Labradoodle 1 206 0.5 40 Coolie 2 413 0.5 41 Dobermann 6 1,242 0.5 42 Australian Shepherd 1 208 0.5 43 Samoyed 2 425 0.5 44 Labrador Retriever 106 23,107 0.5 45 Pointer 2 443 0.5 46 Australian Kelpie 138 32,854 0.4 47 Terrier4 50 12,962 0.4 48 Maremma Sheepdog 1 263 0.4 49 Affenpinscher 1 328 0.3 50 Scottish Terrier 1 346 0.3 51 Miniature Fox Terrier 2 747 0.3 52 Keeshond 1 378 0.3 53 Whippet 2 759 0.3 54 Collie 6 2,309 0.3

55 Dachshund (Standard) 2 832 0.2 56 Border Collie 50 21,068 0.2 57 Belgian Shepherd Dog 1 456 0.2 58 Shetland Sheepdog 1 463 0.2 59 Golden Retriever 5 3,287 0.2 60 Tibetan Spaniel 1 661 0.2 61 Jack Russell Terrier 37 24,458 0.2 62 Australian Terrier 11 7,545 0.1 63 Fox Terrier 27 21,133 0.1 64 Australian Silky Terrier 15 11,770 0.1 65 Maltese 85 78,082 0.1 66 Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 6 5,858 0.1 67 Pomeranian 7 7,304 0.1 68 Mini Foxie 3 3,291 0.1 69 Schnauzer 1 1,113 0.1 70 Tenterfield 3 3,417 0.1 71 Pug 3 3,472 0.1 72 Beagle 2 2,413 0.1 73 Shih Tzu 18 23,000 0.1 74 Chihuahua 11 14,122 0.1 75 Corgi 2 2,876 0.1

80



Rank Cross Breed


attacks

No. of breed on

the Register

Rate of attack

(per 100 dogs on

Register)1 76 Dachshund (Miniature) 1 1,824 0.1 77 Lhasa Apso 1 1,831 0.1 78 Poodle 5 10,033 <0.05 79 Cocker Spaniel 3 6,084 <0.05 80 Bichon Frise 1 2,935 <0.05

Total 1,865 479,6282 0.43 Unknown 909 24,478 N/A5

Notes to Table 11: 1 The rate of attack is the number of dogs from each breed that were involved in attacks divided by the number of dogs of that breed on the Register multiplied by 100. Higher rates may indicate that dogs from a breed are more liable to attack. The cross breeds listed in the table are ordered by decreasing rate of attack. It should be noted that the same dog may have been involved in more than one attack. However, the chances of this happening are considered to be relatively low and are unlikely to affect the rate significantly. 2 This number is the total number of cross breed dogs on the Companion Animals Register at 30 June 2010. 3 This number is the rate of attack for all cross breeds combined in 2009/10. 4 “Terrier” was used where it was unknown what type of terrier was responsible for the attack and is coded as “Cross (Terrier)”. 5 It is not valid to compute rates of attack where the breed for the attacking dog is unknown in view of differences in the way that the classification ‘unknown’ is arrived at for attacking dogs and for dogs on the Register. Table 11 shows that the five cross breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2009/10 were the Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Kelpie, Mastiff and Labrador Retriever breeds (involved in 781 attacks, which represents 42% of all cross breed dogs involved in attacks). Compared to 2008/09, the Labrador Retriever has replaced the American Staffordshire Terrier in the fifth ranking position and the ranking for the Australian Kelpie and the Mastiff breeds has been interchanged. The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2009/10 were the Welsh Terrier, Otterhound, German Wirehaired Pointer, Hungarian Vizsla and Pit Bull Terrier. Only the Pit Bull Terrier and the Hungarian Vizsla breeds were included in 2008/09. It is to be noted that many of the breeds with rates of attack in the top ten have been involved in small numbers of attacks and the small numbers of these breeds means it is difficult to make any definitive statement regarding their liability to attack.

81


3.3 Characteristics of attacks 3.3.1 Month of attacks for 2009/10 Table 12 Month No. % July 345 8% August 315 7% September 347 8% October 307 7% November 301 7% December 303 7% January 319 7% February 405 9% March 426 10% April 431 10% May 414 9% June 468 11% Total 4,381 100% Table 12 shows that in the first half of the reporting period (July 2009 to January 2010) the number of dog attacks in each month was relatively constant varying in the range 300 to 350 attacks. In the following five months the number of reported dog attacks increased to above 400 attacks per month with the highest number of 468 attacks (11% of the total) occurring in June. The distribution of monthly numbers of attacks in the preceding 12 months was distorted due to the introduction of mandatory reporting by councils in February 2009. In the final five months up to June 2009, the number of attacks for each month was quite constant but lower than the numbers in table 12 above, with a maximum of 316 attacks in March 2009.

82


3.3.2 Location of attacks for 2009/10 Table 13

Location Number % of total attacks Public place 2,724 62% Private property 1,657 38% Total 4,381 100%

Table 13 shows that in 2009/10 62% of dog attacks occurred in a public place. The percentage of dog attacks in a public place has not changed since 2008/09. 3.3.3 Control of dog for 2009/10 Table 14 Number of

attacks % of total attacks

Not under control of owner 4,080 70%

Allegedly under control 199 3%

Unknown if owner was in control 1,557 27% Total 5,836 100%

Table 14 shows that in 2009/10 70% of attacking dogs were known to be not under the control of their owner. This represents a slight decrease from the 72% of attacking dogs that were known not to be under the control of their owner in the period from February to June 2009. Table 14 should be interpreted with care since for 27% of attacking dogs it was not known if the owner was in control. 3.3.4 Sex of attacking dogs for 2009/10 Table 15 Sex Number % Male 2,308 40% Female 1,543 27% Unknown 1,930 33% Total 5,781 100% Note to Table 15: The discrepancy between the totals in tables 14 and 15 arises from 35 not desexed dogs and 20 desexed dogs that were assigned a blank gender. Table 15 shows that in 2009/10 substantially more male dogs were involved in attacks than female dogs by a factor of approximately 1.5. These results need to be interpreted with caution because of the high proportion of attacking dogs where the sex was unknown (one-third of all attacking dogs). The ratio of male dogs to female dogs which attacked is consistent with 2008/09 but the proportion of attacking dogs coded as unknown has increased from 25% to 33%.

83


3.3.5 Desexed status of attacking dogs for 2009/10 Table 16A Numbers of dogs Desexed status

Sex Desexed Not


Male 635 1,409 264 2,308 Female 526 838 179 1,543 Unknown 3 4 1,923 1,930 Total 1,164 2,251 2,366 5,781

Table 16B Percentages for desexed status Desexed status

Sex Desexed Not


Male 28% 61% 11% 100% Female 34% 54% 12% 100% Unknown 0% 0% 100% 100% Total 20% 39% 41% 100%

Table 16C Rate of attack per 100 dogs on Register Desexed status

Sex Desexed

Not desexed unknown Total

Male 0.22 0.95 N/A 0.32 Female 0.15 0.88 N/A 0.22 Unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 0.18 0.90 N/A 0.40

Note to Table 16C: It is not valid to compute rates of attack where the sex or the desexed status for the attacking dog is unknown in view of differences in the way that the classification ‘unknown’ is arrived at for attacking dogs and for dogs on the Register. Table 16A shows that approximately twice as many dogs that were known not to be desexed were involved in attacks than dogs that were known to be desexed. Table 16A also shows that the ratio of the number of not desexed dogs to desexed dogs involved in attacks (where this is known) is higher for male dogs (2.2) than for female dogs (1.6). Table 16B shows that the proportion of dogs known to be desexed that were involved in attacks was approximately 40% of all dogs involved in attacks. The percentages have remained relatively unchanged since 2008/09, with a slight decrease in the unknown category. Table 16C shows that the rate of attack for desexed dogs is almost five times lower than the rate of attack for dogs that are not desexed.

84


In 2008/09, the rate of attack for desexed dogs was also more than four times lower than the rate of attack for dogs that are not desexed. However, the rates of attack by dogs for all categories reported in Table 16C have increased by some 50% due to the change in reporting requirements in February 2009. These findings should be treated with caution since the desexed status of attacking dogs was unknown for over 40% of the dogs involved in attacks, and the sex was unknown for one-third of these dogs as well. 3.3.6 Registration status of attacking dogs for 2009/10 Table 17 Number % of total

attacks Identified and lifetime registered 1,917 33%

Identified only 512 9%

Information unavailable 3,407 58% Total 5,836 100%

Table 17 shows that in 2009/10, 42% of all attacking dogs were known to be on the Register. The number of attacking dogs that were identified and registered was more than three times the number of attacking dogs that were identified only and this is much greater than the ratio of the corresponding number of dogs on the Register (refer to table 1). The proportion of attacking dogs known to be on the Register has reduced slightly from 45% for attacks reported from February to June 2008/09. 3.3.7 Dangerous dog and restricted breed status of attacking dogs for 2009/10 Table 18 Dangerous dog/Restricted breed status No. % Restricted breed 9 0.2 Previously declared dangerous 43 0.8 Total no. of dogs involved in attacks 5,836 1.0 Table 18 shows that approximately 1% of all dogs involved in attacks were either previously declared dangerous or belonged to a restricted breed. The small percentage of total dog attacks reported for these dogs suggests that the laws in regard to restricted breeds and dogs declared to be dangerous dogs are working effectively. The number of dogs involved in attacks that belong to a restricted breed have reduced by more than half since 2008/09, and the number of previously declared dangerous dogs has decreased from 52.

85


3.3.8 Number of attacking dogs involved in an attack for 2009/10 Table 19

No. attacking dogs No. % 1 3,159 72% 2 1,059 24% 3 128 3% 4 24 1% 5 7 0.16% 6 2 0.05% 7 2 0.05%

Total 4,381 100% Note to Table 19: The entries in the table relate to the number of attacks Table 19 shows that nearly three-quarters (72%) of dog attacks involve only one dog. The next largest group are attacks involving two dogs which account for almost one-quarter of all attacks, with the remainder making up less than 4% of the total. There have been no significant changes in the number of dogs involved in attacks since 2008/09.

86


3.4 Action taken for 2009/10 Table 20A Action taken against owner

Number % Further investigation 1,435 28% Warning issued 1,269 25% Penalty notice 1,222 24% No action taken 1,063 21% Police action 128 2% Court action 33 1% Total actions against owner 5,150 100%

Note to Table 20A: More than one action may be taken against an owner in relation to a single attack. Accordingly the total number of actions is higher than the total number of attacks. Table 20B Action taken against dog Number % Dog/s destroyed 641 35% Dangerous Dog Declaration made 574 31% Dog/s seized and taken to pound 521 28% Dog/s seized and returned to owner 97 5% Dog total 1,833 100%

Note to Tables 20A and 20B: In addition to the entries in tables 20A and 20B there were a further 951 actions taken recorded as ‘other’. These generally relate to additional action taken by the council as part of their investigation and do not necessarily relate specifically to owners or animals. However, in all cases where ‘other’ action was taken, at least one of the actions in either table 20A or table 20B had also been taken in relation to that dog. Tables 20A and 20B show that actions against owners were much more numerous than actions against dogs (ratio of 2.8), and this ratio has increased from 2.4 since 2008/09. The most common action taken against the owner was further investigation, followed by issuing a warning and issuing a penalty notice. The most common action taken against dogs was destroying the dog, followed by declaring the dog dangerous, and seizure of the dog and taking it to pound. Overall, the results are consistent with 2008/09. The most stringent actions against owners (police action and court action) remain at low levels. There has been an increase in the percentage of further investigation from 22% accounted for largely by a decrease in the percentage of actions resulting in a penalty notice from 28%. The percentage of dogs destroyed has fallen from 39% and there has been a corresponding rise in the percentage of dangerous dog declarations.

87


4. Reported injuries 4.1 Severity of attacks on people for 2009/10 Table 21 Severity of attack Number1 % of total

attacks3 No injury 1,367 52%

Injury:

Minor injury 630 24%

Medical treatment required 512 20%

Hospitalisation 105 4%

Death 0 0%

Total injuries 1,247 48%

Total responses2 2,614 100% Notes to Table 21:

1 As there may be multiple injuries in a single attack, the numbers in table 21 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents. 2 Total responses equals the total of “No injury” plus “Total injuries”. 3 Percentages are calculated in relation to total responses.

Table 21 shows that just under half (48%) of dog attacks on people resulted in some form of injury. Over half of injuries to people were classified as ‘minor’. Of the non-minor injuries, most required medical treatment and one in six resulted in hospitalisation. No dog attacks resulted in the death of a person. The percentage breakdown of injuries to people is broadly consistent with that found in 2008/09 when the change in reporting in February 2009 is taken into account.

88


89

4.2 Severity of attacks on animals for 2009/10 Table 22 Severity of attack Number1 % of

total attacks3

No injury 825 22%

Injury:

Death 1,602 42%

Minor injury 653 17%

Veterinary treatment required 587 15%

Hospitalisation of animal 148 4%

Total injuries 2,990 78%

Total responses2 3,815 100% Notes to Table 22: 1 As there may be multiple injuries in a single attack, the numbers in table 22 represent the number of types of injury reported not the number of incidents. 2 Total responses equals the total of “No injury” plus “Total injuries”. 3 Percentages are based on the total number of responses. Table 22 shows that over three-quarters (78%) of dog attacks on animals resulted in some form of injury. Table 22 also shows that well over half of all animals which were known to be injured as a result of a dog attack died from their injuries. This represented more than twice the number of cases where veterinary treatment was required. Hospitalisation of the animal victim was quite rare. Less than one in four attacks on animals resulted in no reported injury. However, dog attacks where no injuries are sustained may be under-reported. The pattern of injuries is broadly similar to that observed in 2008/09, but there has been an increase in the proportion of animal victims that were reported to have no injury from 18%.


5. Summary Overview Overall this report shows that while the number of reported attacks has increased

over time, the characteristics of attacks have remained largely unchanged from 2008/09 (after allowing for the change in reporting requirements in February 2009).

The increase in the overall number of reported attacks may be as a result of increased reporting of attacks by councils following the introduction of mandatory dog attack reporting in February 2009, as opposed to a higher number of attacks taking place.

Companion Animals Register data at 30 June 2010 There were in excess of 1.4 million dogs on the Register (combined number of dogs

that were identified only and dogs that were identified and registered). This represented an increase of some 10% over the previous 12 months. The proportion of dogs that are identified only remains relatively high at 39%.

There were more dogs in the 5-10 year age group (37%) than any other age group. The number of pure breed dogs on the Register is almost twice the number of cross

breed dogs. One half of cross breed dogs were desexed compared to a little over 40% of pure

breed dogs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these statistics since the desexed status was unknown for approximately 40% of dogs on the Register.

The 20 most popular pure breeds have remained largely unchanged. The Labrador Retriever, Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), Jack Russell Terrier, Maltese and Border Collie were the most popular pure breed dogs.

The 20 most popular cross breeds have also remained largely unchanged. The Maltese, Australian Kelpie, Australian Cattle Dog, Bull Terrier (Staffordshire) and Jack Russell Terrier were the most popular cross breed dogs.

Number of attacks and victims The number of dog attacks reported by councils in 2009/10 was 4,381. It is not

possible to make valid comparisons with 2008/09 in terms of absolute numbers of attacks and victims due to the changes in reporting requirements.

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of dog attacks involved only one dog. The number of victims, human and animal combined, was 6,435. This is higher than

the number of attacks because there may be more than one victim in a single attack. . Breeds involved in attacks Pure breeds were more likely than cross breeds to be involved in attacks, reflecting

the predominance of pure breed dogs on the Register (approximately twice as many as cross breed dogs). However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs where the breed was unknown. This is consistent with the 2008/09 data.

The five pure breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2009/10 were the Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), Australian Cattle Dog, German Shepherd Dog, American Staffordshire Terrier and Rottweiler breeds, which represents half of all instances where a pure breed was involved in a dog attack. These five pure breeds were also responsible for the highest number of reported

90


attacks in 2008/09. However, the German Shepherd Dog and Australian Cattle Dog ranked second and third respectively in that year.

The five pure breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2009/10 were the Airedale Shepherd, Pit Bull Terrier, Kangal Dog, Australian Dingo and Mastiff breeds. The Airedale Shepherd and the Kangal Dog breeds together they were involved in only five attacks. In 2008/09, the five pure breeds with the highest rate of attack were the Kangal Dog, Mastiff, Pitbull Terrier, Greyhound and the St. Bernard.

The five cross breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in 2009/10 were the Bull Terrier (Staffordshire), Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Kelpie, Mastiff and Labrador Retriever breeds. The top four of these five cross breeds were also responsible for the highest number of reported attacks in 2008/09. However, the American Staffordshire Terrier ranked fifth in that year.

The five cross breeds that had the highest rates of attack in 2009/10 were the Welsh Terrier, Otterhound, German Wirehaired Pointer, Hungarian Vizsla and Pit Bull Terrier breeds. A considerable number of breeds that were amongst those with the highest rates of attack were involved in very low numbers of attacks. In 2008/09, the five cross breeds with the highest rate of attack were the Pitbull Terrier, Australian Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Hungarian Vizsla and British Bulldog.

Characteristics of attacks The monthly number of dog attacks was somewhat higher in the months from

February to June (9% to 10% of the annual total) than in the other months of the year (7% to 8%). It is difficult to compare these results to 2008/09 trends as mandatory reporting introduced in February 2009 resulted in a spike in the number of reported attacks in the last five months of 2008/09.

A little less than two-thirds (62%) of reported dog attacks occurred in a public place, which is a slight decrease from the previous year.

Only 3% of all dogs involved in attacks were known to be under the control of the owner.

In 2009/10, 40% of reported attacks involved male dogs compared to 27% for female dogs. In 2008/09, 45% of attacks involved male dogs and 30% involved female dogs. This suggests that attacks are more likely to involve male dogs than female dogs. However, these findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the high proportion of attacking dogs in both years where the sex was unknown.

The desexed status was unknown in over 40% of dogs involved in an attack. Consequently caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the data. Of the dogs where the desexed status was known, the number of not desexed dogs involved in attacks was approximately twice the number of desexed dogs. The attack rate (computed as number of dogs on the Register divided by the number of dogs involved in an attack) for not desexed dogs was nearly five times higher than the attack rate for desexed dogs.

One-third of all attacking dogs were identified and lifetime registered and 9% were identified only. This finding needs to be interpreted with caution as the registration status is unknown for over half of all attacking dogs.

The percentage of attacking dogs that had previously been declared dangerous or belonged to restricted breeds was 1%.

Actions taken Actions reported to be taken against the owner of an attacking dog were more than

twice as numerous as actions against the dog(s).

91


92

The most common action taken against the owner was further investigation followed by issuing a warning and issuing a penalty notice.

The most common action taken against dogs was destroying, followed by being declared dangerous, and seizing the dog and taking it to the pound.

Injuries Of dog attacks where the injury to people was recorded, just under half (48%)

resulted in some form of injury. Approximately half of injuries to people required medical treatment, and one in ten injuries resulted in hospitalisation. No human deaths were reported from dog attacks in 2009/10.

Of dog attacks where the injury to animals was recorded, the most frequent outcome was the death of the animal followed by minor injury and veterinary treatment.

Conclusion Overall this report shows that while the number of reported attacks has increased over time, the characteristics of attacks have remained largely unchanged from 2008/09.

Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW (Australia) 2005/06-2009/10

Documents

Transcript of Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW (Australia) 2005/06-2009/10