www.PreventDogBites.com
7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol
Breed bans, owner liability insurance, and "One Bite Rules" don't stop dog bites. This will.
Since the first hominid reached out to touch the shaggy head of a wild canid, mankind has
struggled with the problem of dog-human attacks. But in our quest for a solution to this age-
old problem, we have taken a dark turn...
Exploited by the criminal element, propelled into infamy by a frightened public, cast into
villainy by governments worldwide, the Pit Bull is but a scapegoat in the escalating problem of
dog-human attacks.
Breed bans don't work. This will.
Considered by the Centers for Disease Control to be a silent epidemic1, there are over 4.72
million dog bites annually, with 800,0003 requiring medical attention, and as many as 324
fatalities each year, most of them children. Compared to adults, children suffer a 300% higher
medically-attended bite rate5 and fully 70% of Dog Bite-Related Fatalities are children6.
And the incidence of dog-human attacks is escalating...
Globally, evidence continues to mount that banning dogs by their breed is a stop-gap
measure that addresses only a small part of the problem and gives the public a false sense of
security. Britain suffered a 50% increase in dog bites7 after their breed ban was instituted, the
direct result of the public feeling this false sense of security. The Dutch government repealed
a 25-year ban on Pit Bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in dog bites8. Italy is forced
to keep adding breeds to its banned list as the incidence of dog bites continues - they are
now up to 96 breeds9, including the Welsh Corgi, a short-statured dog know for its sunny
disposition.
Pit Bull bans in the U.S. and Canada are costing governments millions in lawsuits and
negative publicity, while undeterred gangs continue to flaunt muzzling laws and brandish Pit
Bulls like weapons, and criminals still breed them for dog-fighting and guarding drugs. People
are still being attacked by dangerous dogs, while beleaguered townships struggle with
budgets that can barely be reactive --let alone proactive--in addressing a problem so
pervasive that experts have called it an epidemic.
In 2004, an investigation tasked with identifying a solution to the escalating incidence of dog-
human attacks was launched. Among the findings:
Dog Bites are the Number 1 Public Health Problem for children10, and children are 10
times more likely to be bitten by a dog than struck by a vehicle11 .
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 1
www.PreventDogBites.com
Irresponsible dog owners utilize a variety of widely-publicized and surprisingly simple
maneuvers designed to avoid accountability when their dogs injure or kill. From outright
denial to relocating12 as a means of evading their violations history, even when the
deceit is blatant, authorities are often unable to prove the deception.
Although tasked with the grave duty of protecting the public from dangerous dogs,
Animal Control agencies are universally under-staffed and under-funded13 and thus,
consistent enforcement of "dog laws" is infeasible.
We found that this lack of enforcement had resulted in a systemic disregard of
regulations, responsibility, and common courtesy, resulting in a large population of
openly non-compliant owners.
We found that veterinarians, groomers, boarding kennels, and trainers were
experiencing an increase in dog bites, which they rarely reported as such because they
feared alienating their clients.
We found that the vast majority of bites go unreported by the public, likely because
society as a whole does not yet realize that small bites often lead to big bites. We
discovered that many victims did not report minor bites until after a more serious bite
had occurred.
In 2007, the investigation concluded by pinpointing multiple fundamental flaws in the current
approaches to controlling dangerous dogs, with corresponding corrective actions. These
corrective actions were compiled into a recommended policy, the 7-Step Dangerous Dog
Risk Mitigation Protocol.
The seven corrective actions necessary to halt the
rising incidence of dog-human attacks and Dog Bite-
Related Fatalities are:
1. Category-Specific Controls Mandated
Any comprehensive solution to the problem of dog-
human attacks must address any dog with the
potential to attack. But within this large group there
needs to be a "sliding scale" of controls so that
limited municipal resources are targeted at the class
of dogs with the highest probability of inflicting life-
threatening injury14 .
To accomplish this "sliding scale", we need to
evaluate and categorize "problem" dogs based on
the level of threat each dog poses. Then, for each
increasing level of threat, more and more
precautions would be needed --the more danger
the dog presents, the more controls need to be in
place15. Thus, a dog that has nipped when provoked
could be ranked much lower -and thus need less
precautions and less monitoring- than a dog that
has severely attacked, unprovoked.
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 2
www.PreventDogBites.com
The solution is a standardized multi-level categorization system for aggressive dogs that
recommends precautions commensurate with the level of threat the dog poses. This
standardized multi-level categorization system, the Canine Threat Assessment Guide (CTAG),
has been generated, undergone significant peer and expert review, and is available at
no cost for widespread use from the websites: www.PreventDogBites.com and
www.PreventDogBites.ca.
Completion of the C-TAG Worksheet will produce a score for a given dog, and then
categorize that dog based on its score. There are six different threat categories ranging from
"Category 1 - Benign Dog" to "Category 6 - Lethal Dog", with each higher category requiring
increasingly more rigorous controls. Dogs designated as "Benign" would only require the
standard municipal controls (leash, license, etc.), while a dog categorized as "Dangerous",
"Potentially-Lethal", or "Lethal" would require the most rigorous controls.
Some of the more restrictive controls that could be mandated for those dogs designated in
the higher categories include compulsory neutering in order to reduce aggression, and
compulsory permanent tagging with a Lo-Jack-type tag to enable continuous precise
monitoring of location with auto-alerts for movement outside authorized postal codes. These
additional costs should be funded by the owner of the "high-risk" dog.
2. Mandatory Multiple Levels of Containment for "High-Risk" Dogs
82%16 of Dog Bite-Related Fatalities are from unrestrained dogs, and 70%17 of the victims are
children. The tragedy is that these deaths are entirely preventable --no matter how
aggressive a dog is, it can't hurt the public if it can't reach the public18 .
Research shows that containment is a better indicator of a future bite occurring than breed19 .
Notably, this means that an "adequately contained" Pit Bull is less of a threat than an
"inadequately contained" German Shepherd, (or Great Dane, or Chow, etc.).
The concept of "Multiple Levels of Containment" consists of layered levels of confinement,
one within the other, such that if the dog escapes one method of restraint there is one --and if
necessary, more --additional levels of confinement still between it and the public20 .
All dogs identified as "high-risk" should be kept under Multiple Levels of Containment, with
facility inspections to verify adequacy. In order to be considered "adequate" the method of
containment must prevent strangers or children from coming into direct contact with the dog21 .
3. Mandatory Microchipping + Tracking of "Problem" Dogs
Microchipping
"Problem" dogs, (that is, all dogs that have exhibited any type of aggression or have been
caught running loose), must be microchipped at the owner's expense to facilitate positive
identification and tracking. Irresponsible owners are notorious for denying that it was their dog
that was involved in an aggression incident, or for claiming their "old" dog was the offending
animal, and the "new" dog they have now is a different dog, when in fact, it is the same
animal22 .
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 3
www.PreventDogBites.com
Microchipping provides irrefutable proof that the dog involved in the incident is the same dog
the owner currently possesses, and allows accurate tracking of the aggression history of a
problem dog across municipal boundaries and through multiple owners.
Centralized Database Tracking
Tracking problem dogs provides a mechanism to locate aggressive dogs and alert at-risk
parties (neighborhoods, schools, mail carriers, meter-readers, etc.) of their presence, so that
extra precautions can be taken.
Tracking problem dogs also allows authorities to prioritize dogs as to their real or potential
threat so that limited municipal resources can be focused on those dogs posing the greatest
danger to their families and the public.
With a documented and irrefutable history of menacing behavior, authorities will be able to
mandate a wide range of rigorous controls for aggressive and potentially-dangerous dogs
before they attack.
The tracking of aggressive dogs would enable immediate notification of authorities when a
medically-attended bite has occurred. (Almost without exception, a dog that has learned that
an act of aggression achieves its objective will resort to using its teeth to achieve success in
the future, typically with an increase in the intensity of aggression exhibited as confidence is
gained. Therefore, a dog that has inflicted a bite serious enough to require medical treatment
is at extremely high risk of a serious or even lethal attack23.)
There is only one centralized universal dog-tracking database, and that is the internet-based
Dog-Trax Dangerous Dog Early Detection System. Phase I of Dog-Trax is currently in Beta
Trial, but in Phase II of Dog-Trax will offer automatic Medically-Attended Bite Alerts.
Dog-Trax will be utilized by municipalities, but a planned enhancement will bring the power of
Dog-Trax to the public: a street-map for the entered postal code will display with color-coded
stars identifying the approximate locations of aggressive dogs so visitors to the area are
forewarned:
Green stars for loose dogs
Yellow stars for aggressive dogs
Orange stars for potentially-dangerous dogs
Red stars for dangerous dogs
Black stars for lethal or potentially-lethal dogs
A red blinking star will denote a loose aggressive dog
Use of stars placed in the middle of the street instead of at the actual location of residences
will protect the owners' privacy while still providing sufficient information for at-risk individuals
and groups to take adequate precautions. No street address, owner name, or even the dog's
name or breed will be displayed, in order to ensure owner privacy.
Proactive Identification of Dangerous Dogs
Despite the proliferation of breed bans and dangerous dog legislation, the incidence of dog-
human attacks is escalating, worldwide. The problem is that current approaches are
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 4
www.PreventDogBites.com
"reactive", instead of "proactive" --existing dangerous dog laws rely on punishing dogs and
owners after-the-fact, which contributes nothing to prevention.
What is needed is a mechanism for early detection of dangerous dogs BEFORE they ever
take the first bite. Dog-Trax is the only database in the world that offers that capability.
By continuously analyzing incoming information on problem dogs (from the public, neighbors,
mailmen, dog-trainers, veterinarians, groomers, etc.), the internet-based Dog-Trax Dangerous
Dog Early Detection System can recognize the subtle signs of escalating aggression that
indicate an impending attack and email/text a Red Alert to authorities, 24/7.
Canine Behaviorists universally agree that in the absence of a medical condition or abuse,
lethal attacks do not exist in a void - there are always prior incidents of aggression leading up
to the lethal event24 . By monitoring problem dogs and conducting trending and situational
analyses, Dog-Trax alerts authorities to "high-risk" dogs before they seriously injure or kill.
A proof-of-concept pilot for the Dog-Trax Dangerous Dog Early Detection System is planned
to begin April 1, 2009.
4. Targeted Education Efforts to "At-Risk" Neighborhoods
Current efforts at educating the populace on Dog Bite Prevention are too few and too widely
dispersed to be effective on a large scale25. The steady increase in dog-human attacks across
North America indicates that the information is simply not getting out to "at-risk" populations.
The solution is to focus educational efforts to make them more effective. Upon identifying
"high-risk" dogs through tracking/trending, targeted educational efforts should be undertaken
to all homes, schools, and businesses within 1/4-mile of the aggressive dog26 . A series of
revolutionary tools, methodologies, and detailed public safety guides are available at no cost
from the websites, www.PreventDogBites.com and www.PreventDogBites.ca.
Other targeted education could include warning signs similar to Deer Crossing street signs -but
depicting a snarling dog--posted in the community to warn visitors.
In addition, "at-risk" populations such as postal carriers and meter-readers should be trained
in Aggressive Dog Appeasement Techniques and in how to use the online street mapping
feature to identify problem dogs in the area they will be working.
Targeted education will alert and inform those individuals at greatest risk of encountering the
aggressive dog, making the educational effort more effective.
5. "Restricted-Dog" Owner Licensing and Inspection
The rapid rise in dog bite numbers demonstrates that there are a distressingly large number
of aggressive dog owners that don't have the training, the experience, or the facilities to
adequately contain and control their dogs27. By implementing special municipal dog licenses
for which owners of "Restricted-Dogs" must qualify, we can ensure that only knowledgeable,
responsible, inspected owners are in possession of these potentially-dangerous dogs.
The recommended definition of a "Restricted-Dog" should be any dog scoring over a 10 using
either the Canine Threat Assessment Guide (C-TAG), or the Dog-Trax database. (The C-TAG
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 5
www.PreventDogBites.com
evaluates 15 risk factors; Dog-Trax evaluates 35.) The specific precautions required for each
Restricted Dog would be determined by which C-TAG Threat Category the dog belonged to.
6. "Restricted-Dog" Breeder Licensing and Inspection
It is from unethical and irresponsible breeders that criminals and dog-fighters obtain
aggressive dogs28. It is unconscionable that the average pastry chef or motorcycle driver has
more regulations covering him than the average Pit Bull breeder.
Across all industries, manufacturers of products that can harm the public are regulated to
ensure that the manufacturers have safe facilities and are trained and qualified. Why not
breeders (manufacturers) of potentially-aggressive dogs? By what twist of logic can we label
a person too young to drive a car, and too young to order a cocktail, but perfectly fine for
breeding ultra-aggressive Rottweilers?
Authorities must mandate that breeders of potentially-aggressive dogs are adequately
qualified, to ensure that only knowledgeable, experienced, inspected breeders are producing
these dogs. And breeders must undergo a facilities inspection to show that Multiple Levels of
Adequate Containment are in place and that resident children are protected from breeding
dogs, which can be extremely aggressive29. (In British Columbia in May of 2008, a sevenyear-
old boy was mauled in his own home and received over 100 stitches after entering a
breeding pen containing two Rottweilers. The boy's father fought the dogs to free the boy.)
This special licensing for owners and breeders should include higher fees to fund the
database tracking, the inspections, and the increased regulatory scrutiny necessary to
monitor these aggressive dogs.
7. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Animal Services
Municipalities are faced with the challenge of increasing dog-related regulations, without a
corresponding increase in the size or funding of Animal Services units. A method is needed
to make these universally under-staffed under-funded agencies more effective. And we can
do that through the "Public Sightings of Problem Dogs" service, available free from the
websites.
Public Sightings of Problem Dogs is a free internet-based reporting service similar to
"Crime-Stoppers Tip Line", but for reporting menacing and aggressive dogs. This feature will
enable joggers, cyclists, mail carriers, neighbors, etc. to serve as the "eyes and ears" of
Animal Control so these limited municipal resources can focus on those dogs presenting the
greatest threat to society.
Conclusion:
The vast majority of dog bites are preventable, yet despite the proliferation of breed bans and
dangerous dog legislation, the incidence of dog-human attacks continues to rise.
Like all pervasive and preventable injuries, the human suffering and loss, as well as the
economic impact in lost wages and productivity, and the medical burden is cumulative and
significant. To date, none of the attempts to resolve the on-going problem of dog-human
attacks has succeeded.
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 6
www.PreventDogBites.com
The findings from the 2004-2007 Dangerous Dog Investigation indicate that halting the
problem of dog-human attacks requires systemic change: a shift in the behavior,
expectations and perceptions of the public, legislators, breeders, and owners.
Until we can effect this paradigm shift, we need to mitigate the risks posed by these dogs and
owners.
The three-year investigation identified seven corrective actions needed to significantly reduce
the problem of dangerous dogs without breed bans, and without infringing on the rights of
responsible owners. The 7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol consists of
those corrective actions. A formal Dangerous Dog Risk Assessment using Failure-Mode
Effects Analysis (FMEA) indicated that, once fully implemented, these seven corrective
actions could reduce the incidence of dog-human attacks and Dog Bite-Related Fatalities by
as much as 90%30 .
1 Dog bites--an unrecognized epidemic. Harris, D; Imperato, PJ; Oken, B. Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine. 1974 Oct;50(9):981-1000.
2 Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998, by
Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab and Lockwood. Published in the Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association (2000).
3 Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Pediatrics. 1996;97(6,
pt 1):891-895
4 States Weigh Safety With Dog Owners' Rights -New York Times, July 23, 2007, IAN URBINA
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id. at 3.
7 Sioux City Journal, Lynn Zerschling Journal staff writer | Posted: Monday, July 21, 2008
8 Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg, quoted on: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080609/ap/d916m6uo2.html
9 Dollars for Dogs, http://spoiledspringers.blogspot.com/, posted Wednesday, January 14, 2009
10 Dr. John I. Freeman, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
11 Safer Homes for Children Guide, Safe Kids Canada. Table 3 -Injuries Occurring In and Around Private
Homes, CHIRPP Database 1997-2003, Ages Birth to Four Years.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Id. at 4.
14 Dogs of Fury: The Solution to Vicious Dogs, e-book, 2007, Tamara A. Follett,
www.PreventDogBites.com, www.PreventDogBites.ca
15 Id. at 13.
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 7
www.PreventDogBites.com
16 Id. at 3.
17 Id. at 3.
18 Id. at 13.
19 Id. at 13.
20 Id. at 13.
21 Id. at 13.
22 Id. at 13.
23 Id. at 13.
24 Id. at 13.
25 Id. at 13.
26 Id. at 13.
27 Id. at 13.
28 Id. at 13.
29 Id. at 13.
30 Id. at 13. The 90% determination was made based on the standard Failure Mode Effects Analysis
Methodology, (FMEA), whereby documented risks (from existing CDC studies) were broken down into
their component exposures, corrective actions designed to mitigate each exposure, and the probability of
occurrence in light of implemented controls was recalculated.
© Copyright 2009, Tamara Follett, .v9 Page 8
