2011 Dog Attack & Interference Survey

United States Report

Prepared by:
Ginger Kutsch, Advocacy Specialist
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
P.O. Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

E-mail: [email protected]
URL: www.seeingeye.org/protect
Introduction

Established in 1929, The Seeing Eye, Inc., provides specially bred and trained dogs to
guide people who are blind or visually impaired. With over 80 years of experience, The
Seeing Eye is a leading expert on advocacy issues related to the safe and effective travel
of guide dog teams. Nationwide, approximately 8,500 people who are blind or visually
impaired partner with guide dogs to increase their ability to move about safely,
effectively and independently. One significant issue that continually threatens both the
physical and emotional well-being of guide dog teams is attacks and interference by
aggressive dogs.

These incidents are far more dangerous than simple dog-to-dog altercations. The safety
of the guide dog team depends largely on the dog’s ability to concentrate on its work.
When distracted from these duties, the dog and its blind owner become instantly
vulnerable to harm. People who are blind must face dog attacks and interference
without the ability to use vision to protect themselves or their guide dogs.

Even without physical injury, attacks and interference can negatively affect a guide dog's
behavior and work performance. When a dog is no longer able to work as a guide due to
the physical or emotional effects of interference or attack, it is devastating to the blind
handler to lose this valued companion and source of mobility.

The blind person as well as the guide dog school may also suffer economic damages. In
many instances, the blind person is forced to incur an additional burden of veterinary
and/or medical expenses, lost wages, and/or unexpected transportation costs.
Additionally, the cost incurred by the guide dog school to breed, raise and train a
replacement guide dog and to instruct the blind person to work with a new dog well
exceeds $50,000.

Background

According to the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, 4.7
million Americans suffer dog bites each year, and almost 800,000 bites per year are
serious enough to require medical attention. Additionally, the American Veterinary
Medical Association and insurance company statistics report that there are over one
million dog bite reports filed annually.

While the prevalence of loose or uncontrolled dogs may be inferred by the frequency
with which Americans suffer dog bites, there is little data that indicates the extent of
adverse interactions between guide dog teams and loose or uncontrolled dogs.
In order to better identify the scope of this problem, The Seeing Eye conducted a study
to confirm anecdotal information indicating that guide dog teams experience a high
frequency of attacks and interference; to identify possible interventions to help reduce
their frequency; and to establish baseline data to assist with future studies.

Method

The Seeing Eye designed a 55-question survey related to guide dog handlers'
experiences with attacks and interference by aggressive dogs. For the purpose of the
survey, the term "dog attack" was defined as "a negative encounter with another dog
that bites or otherwise physically harms you or your guide dog." The term "interference"
was defined as "any dog that aggressively obstructs, intimidates, chases, harasses or
otherwise jeopardizes the safety and emotional well-being of you or your guide dog."

The survey was open from December 13, 2010, to January 29, 2011, through a web
based survey vendor. Guide dog handlers from the United States and Canada were
notified of the opportunity to participate in the online survey through web
communications including emails, social networking sites, blogs, newsletters and word-
of-mouth. Those individuals who were unable to or did not wish to access the online
survey had the option of calling The Seeing Eye's toll-free phone number to request that
the survey be administered by telephone. The total number of respondents from the
United States was 744, 80 of which were interviewed by phone. This report only covers
the results collected from U.S. respondents. Persons seeking information from the
Canadian study should contact The Seeing Eye.

Since the topic of the survey was known in advance to those invited to participate, it is
possible that a self-selection bias positively influenced the frequency of attacks and
interference reported in the results of the study. The advocacy team attempted to
mitigate the possibility of any such self-selection bias by encouraging guide dog handlers
to participate in the survey regardless of whether they had or had not experienced an
attack or interference. Nevertheless, the effects of that encouragement were not under
strict control.

Questions about the frequency of breeds involved in interference/attacks were

purposely omitted in this survey. A representation ratio to compare the relative risks
between breeds is irrelevant to this study as any dog, regardless of its breed, can pose a
threat to the health and safety of a guide dog team.

Results

Frequency and Location of Attacks

The Seeing Eye 2011 dog attack and interference survey revealed that 44% of
respondents (324 out of 744) had experienced at least one attack. Of those, 58% were
attacked more than once. Findings also showed that 83% (617 respondents) had
experienced interference by an aggressive dog. The vast majority of attacks (80%) and
interference (83%) occurred on a public-right-of-way such as a sidewalk or roadway. In
cases involving the most recent attacks, 74% happened when respondents were being
guided by their dogs within 30 minutes walking distance from their homes. Most of
them (80%) travel by foot within their neighborhood on a daily basis.

Circumstances of Attacks and Interference

The survey data indicated that dog owners who let their animals run loose or fail to
adequately secure their home properties are not the only ones who pose a threat to the
guide dog team's safety. Many dog owners do not seem to understand that a working
dog should not be distracted while performing its duties as a guide. For instance, pet
owners who allow a leashed dog to make physical contact with a guide dog or to
otherwise distract or interfere with a guide dog (either out of ignorance or because
they are unable to control their dog) needlessly risk the safety of the working team.
Likewise, tying a dog out in a public place and leaving it unsupervised can also pose a
hazard.

Survey respondents were asked to select from a list of circumstances under which
instances of attack and interference took place. Those who experienced more than one
attack were asked to mark all that applied. Results showed that:
76% of respondents reported they had been attacked at least once by a loose
dog
47% of respondents said they had been attacked at least once by a dog that was
leashed but inadequately controlled by its handler
13% of respondents said they had been attacked at least once by a dog that was
tied but left unsupervised

Similar findings were recorded for incidents of interference by dogs that were loose but
the latter two circumstances increased substantially (see the chart below for more
details) during episodes of interference.

Circumstance Attacks Interference

Dog was loose 76% 79%
Dog was leashed but owner did not control it 47% 58%
Dog was tied and left unsupervised 13% 27%

Season and Time of Incident

When asked to report specific details of the attack (those experiencing more than one
attack were asked to base their responses on the most recent incident), nearly one-third
(31%) reported that attacks occurred in the summer (June, July or August) and 25% in
the spring (March, April, or May). More than one-third (40%) of attacks occurred
between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., while 29% of the attacks happened between 10 a.m. and 2
p.m.

Over half of the respondents reported that they were “not sure” when asked if there
was a particular time of year (64%) or time of day (57%) that they were more likely to
experience interference. For those respondents who did identify a time of year, the
most common response (24%) was summer (June, July, and August) and for the time of
day, 17% reported that interference happened between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Animal Control & Police

The survey also explored the effectiveness of animal control and police intervention.
Findings revealed that 64% (207 out of 324 respondents) who experienced an attack did
not report their most recent incident to animal control or the police. The top two
reasons for not reporting the attack were that 38% of the respondents did not feel that
the physical harm was severe enough for them to file a complaint and 29% said they
were unable to identify the attacking dog or its owner. Out of the 117 respondents that
did report the incident, almost two thirds (60%) were dissatisfied with the way the
incident was handled. When asked why, many respondents expressed frustration with
the lack of "follow-up" while several others noted inadequate enforcement and
insufficient knowledge/understanding about the serious nature of attacks against guide
dog teams.

Out of those respondents who experienced interference, 73% (452 out of 617) did not
report their most recent incident to animal control or the police. The top two reasons
for not reporting interference were that the respondents did not feel that the emotional
harm was severe enough for them to file a complaint (48%); or because the respondents
were unable to identify the attacking dog or its owner (31%). Out of the 166
respondents that did report the incident, over half (55%) were dissatisfied with the way
the incident was handled.

Identification of the Attacking Dog's Owner

In 37% of the most recent incidents, the owner of the attacking dog was not identified.
This is due, in part, to the fact that the majority of respondents (74%) reported that they
were not walking with a sighted person at the time of the attack. Moreover, almost half
of the respondents who were traveling by themselves reported that there were either
no witnesses (25%) or that it was unknown if witnesses were present (23%) at the time
of the attack. In many instances, a blind handler's visual limitation can make it difficult
to report observations and descriptions that may otherwise help to identify the
attacking dog or its owner. Moreover, a disturbing number of owners/handlers whose
dogs have attacked or interfered with a guide dog team have reportedly walked away
from the incident without offering assistance or taking responsibility for their dog’s
actions.
Attacks and Interference by the Same Dog
Over one third (34%) of all respondents who experienced an attack reported
experiencing subsequent incidents by a dog that had caused problems in the past.
Nearly half (45%) of those who experienced interference noted the same problem with
repeat offenders.

The high incidents of dogs that have repeatedly caused problems suggest a lack of
responsibility on the part of the offending dog's handler. These incidents may also be
due, in part, to the handler's failure to report prior attacks and interference or because
of the lack of enforcement by local authorities.

Negative Impact on Guide Dog

Following an attack, guide dogs may be unable to work because of physical injuries. A
less obvious, but equally as harmful, effect occurs when guide dogs develop undesirable
behaviors towards other dogs. These behaviors may be temporary or permanent but
either circumstance compromises the team's ability to work safely and effectively. In the
survey, 35% of respondents reported that, after the most recent attack, their dog's
behavior negatively changed towards other dogs. When asked to report the biggest
change(s), exactly half (50%) noted that their dog became easily distracted by other
dogs; 43% became aggressive around other dogs; 43% became fearful or shy around
other dogs; 25% were more worried about potential threats than working responsibly;
and 11% developed a lack of confidence when working. Out of the 25% of respondents
who reported negative behavior changes in their dogs after interference, most changes
were similar to that of dogs that had been attacked. One exception was that dogs that
had been attacked were more likely to become fearful or shy of other dogs (see the
chart below for more details).

Behavior Attacks Interference

Easily distracted by other dogs 50% 59%
Aggressive towards other dogs 43% 32%
Fearful/shy of other dogs 43% 25%
More worried about potential threats than working
responsibly 25% 24%
General lack of confidence while working 11% 8%

In the more severe cases, 16% (52) of the guide dogs that were attacked were
temporarily unable to work and 3% (10 dogs) were retired from service. Out of the more
severe incidents of interference, 2% (15) dogs were retired from service.

Effect on the Guide Dog Handler

It is important to realize that people who are blind can incur physical injuries secondary
to those that may be directly inflicted by an aggressive dog. During the confusion of an
attack/interference and its aftermath, handlers can easily become disoriented in their
surroundings. Without being safely oriented to their immediate surroundings, handlers
can sustain physical injuries from hazards such as changes in elevation or oncoming
traffic. For example, one guide dog handler recently sustained a concussion when she
inadvertently stepped off a curb and fell while her dog was trying to flee from a
menacing dog. In the survey, 37% (120 respondents) became temporarily disoriented as
a direct result of an attack and 32% (197 respondents) became disoriented as a result of
interference.

The survey also explored the psychological effects of attacks and interference. Guide
dog handlers often experience varying degrees of anxiety when they become aware that
another dog is present. The fear of not knowing if the dog is friendly or aggressive or
whether or not the dog is properly restrained or confined can be most unsettling. The
level of concern is often greater for those who have previously experienced negative
encounters with aggressive dogs. For instance, 6% (41) respondents said they felt “no
concern” about dog attacks. Not surprisingly, nearly all (85%) of these respondents had
never experienced an attack. The most common response, 56% (413 respondents), said
that they had "Minor concern but generally does not affect my usual routine." Just over
half of these respondents (57%) had never experienced an attack. Out of the 30% of
respondents (226) who selected "Moderate concern such as planning alternate routes
to avoid known dogs," 39% reported never experiencing an attack. Finally, out of the 8%
(63) respondents who recorded "Major concern such as limiting travel whenever
possible in order to avoid loose or uncontrolled dogs," 35% had never experienced an
attack. In all four categories, respondents who had not been attacked showed less
concern than those who had been attacked -- particularly when the level of concern
increased. This same pattern held true for those respondents who experienced
interference.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% Percentage Who
are Concerned
20%
10%
Percentage Who
0%
Experienced an
Attack

Conclusion
Although the actual number of guide dog teams in the United States that are harmed
due to attacks and interference remains unknown, the 2011 Seeing Eye survey clearly
indicates that uncontrolled dogs can pose a serious threat to all guide dog teams.
Findings also show that attacks and interference can inflict considerable physical and/or
emotional damage on victims and substantially reduce the team’s ability to work safely,
confidently, and effectively. The Seeing Eye strongly believes that a well-planned,
proactive community approach is the best way to make a substantial reduction in the
number of guide dog teams who experience attacks and interference.

Recommendations

The following information is intended to help communities find effective ways to

protect guide dog teams from attacks and interference by aggressive dogs.

Guidance for Dog Owners & the General Public

Dog attacks and interference against guide dog teams are largely preventable. The first
step is to realize that any dog, even a family pet, is capable of causing harm if it is
threatened, in pain, out of control, protecting its "territory" or trained to be aggressive
(whether deliberate or inadvertent).

Guide dogs are not like ordinary pets. Thousands of dollars and hours are invested in the
breeding, raising and training of guide dogs before they are paired with a blind person.
Dogs that are permitted to disrupt the work of a guide dog, whether they are on or off a
leash, can pose a serious threat to the guide dog team. Pet owners should keep their
dogs properly restrained and confined at all times to prevent dangerous situations for
both the guide dog team and the pet dog. Members of the public who are aware of a
dog that is loose in their neighborhood should alert animal control. If someone
witnesses an attack on a guide dog team, they should identify themselves to the handler
and offer assistance. Finally, the owner of the attacking or interfering dog must take
responsibility for their dog’s actions.

Guidance for Law Enforcement Officials

Data from The Seeing Eye survey clearly shows that the vast majority of attacks and
interference occur on public property. Many of these incidents involved repeated
offenses by the very same dog. It is important to recognize that these incidents are far
more dangerous than simple dog-to-dog altercations. The imminent danger to a blind
individual whose guide dog is being attacked or subjected to interference is potentially
far greater than that of pet owners, who do not require the services of their dogs to
walk about safely and independently.

If law enforcement agencies were to step up their efforts to restrain dogs at large,
especially in areas where guide dog teams typically travel, these negative encounters
could be greatly reduced. Likewise, timely action when responding to calls and
thoroughly investigating and reporting all interference and attack incidents involving
guide dog teams would also help to minimize future risks.
Guidance for State and Local Legislators
Most local and state laws prohibit dogs from roaming about unleashed and
unsupervised. Yet the majority of attacks and interference reported in this study
occurred on public property by a loose dog. These incidents grossly interfere with a
blind person's ability to walk freely and safely within their communities or anywhere
else they wish to go.

Tougher laws that offer around-the-clock protection by the police should be enacted.
Animal control officers, whose services are typically not available outside standard
business hours, and whose resources are often limited, cannot be relied upon to
successfully remedy an attack situation in a timely and effective manner. These laws
should also require that the owner of the attacking dog be responsible for all veterinary,
medical, and other costs resulting from the attack, including the costs for remedial
training or replacement of the guide dog.

Guidance for Guide Dog Handlers

The most important step that guide dog handlers can take to minimize the risk of
attacks and interference is to be proactive. Handlers can work with their local animal
control and police agencies to help officials and community members gain a better
understanding of how dogs that are not properly restrained or confined can jeopardize
the safety of a guide dog team. Handlers may also wish to ask for greater enforcement
of leash laws in areas where they routinely travel; put emergency numbers in their cell
phone directories; and pack a collapsible white cane as an alternative means of mobility.

Finally, practicing daily obedience in a variety of locations can help handlers maintain a
leadership position within the partnership. This will minimize the likelihood that a guide
dog will become overly distracted in the presence of other dogs. Handlers can check
with their guide dog schools for further tips.

Acknowledgements

The Seeing Eye would like to thank Ginger Kutsch, Volunteer Advocacy Specialist, for
contributing her time writing the survey questions, analyzing the data and writing the
final report with recommendations.

Kutsch was assisted by the following Seeing Eye staff member and volunteers:

Michelle Barlak, Sr. Associate, Public Relations

Rivi Israel, Instructor
Eldin Leighton, Ph.D., The Jane H. Booker Chair in Canine Genetics
John Keane, Manager, Instruction & Training
Roger Woodhour, Volunteer
Sheila Woodhour, Volunteer