"Research shows over 99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an attack.  Thus, I also like to say, “If any breed were genetically programmed to attack, surely more than 0.1% of them would.”--Marjorie Darby

Back in 1999 or 2000, researcher Marjorie Darby looked at news stories about dog bites, and separated them into what were reported to be rather simple bites (ie, 'a pit bull looked at me') and those reported as being more serious (ie resulting in more serious injuries - needing stitches, hospitalization, surgery, etc.). 

Ms Darby had a good contact at Toronto Humane Society at the time, who moved on to Toronto Animal Services as an enforcement/investigation agent.  When queried about the number of dog bite cases, and the relative number of those that were more serious than a simple bite she confirmed the general ratio (nearly all reports were simple bites with minor injuries, only a tiny number could be called "serious".)  Based on all of this information, it became clear that there were (and are) very few actual serious dog bite cases in Canada.  There were maybe a dozen serious dog bite cases from across Canada in the year studied.

To err on the side of caution, Darby decided to assume that the real number of "attack" cases was double, triple or more compared with what she had learned, since she didn't have (and no one has) access to the precise number of incidents.  As Janis Bradley says, nobody is counting dog bites, you have to search hospital records for information - which only represent a portion of all bites.

Darby knew that many serious dog bite cases don't end up in the media because of breed bias.  Still, she could only confirm maybe a dozen dog "attack" cases in Canada, nationwide, over a period of about a year.

Not having access to every single dog attack case, she tried to come up with a reasonable percentage to use in discussions about dog attacks.  With a dog population somewhere around 5,000,000 in Canada, 0.1% is 5,000.  That would mean that, in any given year, there would be 5,000 serious dog attacks, if just 0.1% of dogs were involved.

You can further extrapolate to come up with an even more conservative statistic by theorizing a 10-year lifespan for dogs.  It's not a one-to-one ratio, but a simple way to do that is to simply divide by 10.  That leaves the potential for 500 dog attacks per the entire lifespan of every dog in Canada, if just 0.1% of them were to do so.  And based on what was found concerning the the number of serious dog biting incidents, that is still well within the range of the 0.1% figure (i.e.up to 500 attacks in any given year).  (Keep in mind that she only confirmed maybe a dozen or so serious dog attacks in Canada that year - far fewer than the 500 figure.)

The process is the same for the U.S. but we have better estimates about the number of 'pit bulls' there than here in Canada.

There are estimated to be about 65,000,000 dogs in the U.S.*  0.1% is 65,000.  Meaning, in any given year, if 0.1% of American dogs "attacked", there'd be 65,000 attacks, or 178 serious dog attacks every, single day of the year.  Not just bites, mind you, but "attacks".

Hospital data vary greatly, but 800,000 dog bites treated medically is at the extreme high end, and most of the data around 1999-2000 suggested the figure was more like 300,000 or 400,000.  Still, that doesn't tell us anything about severity, just that medical attention was sought. 

Janis Bradley came on board and showed that fewer than 1% of medically-treated dog bites score higher than a "1" (the lowest ranking) in objective hospital injury recording criteria.  Assuming the dog "attacks" make up this 1%, that would mean about 4,000 biting incidents were more serious than a "1", if assuming 400,000 dog bites treated medically that year.  4,000 represents 0.006% of of the 65,000,000 dogs in America.  If you want to do the simple 10-year lifespan conversion, that would be 0.06% of all dogs at any time in an average 10-year lifespan.  That's still well-within the 0.1% generalization.  (It's almost half!)

There are estimated to be about 9 million 'pit bulls' in the U.S.  Darby used a very conservative estimate of 5,000,000 to calculate what 0.1% of 'pit bulls' attacking would mean.  It comes out to about 14 serious attacks, every single day of the year.  Every day that went by where there weren't 14 serious 'pit bull' attacks somewhere in the U.S., that would mean that even fewer than 0.1% of all 'pit bulls' were  involved in a serious biting incident.  Given that 'pit bull' incidents are reported by the media at such a high rate, I would be surprised to learn than so many serious 'pit bull' attacks are being ignored by them, if it is to be alleged that more than 0.1% of 'pit bulls' are attacking people.

You can do the 10-year lifespan calculations on an estimated U.S. 'pit bull' population anywhere from 5 million to 9 million individuals.  None of the calculations suggest anything other than that 99.9% of dogs, or even 99.9% of all 'pit bulls' will NOT be involved in an attack at any time in their lives.

'Pit Bull' Fatality Data

"When it comes to ‘pit bulls’, fewer than 0.1% will ever be involved in an attack at any time in their lives, and even conservative estimates suggest at least 99.99998% of all ‘pit bulls’ have not killed anyone."

When Darby was conducting this research in 1999-2003, there had been approximately 80 human fatalities attributed to 'pit bull' attacks in the previous 30 years or so in the U.S.  9,000,000 'pit bulls' (assuming a 10 year lifespan) would easily translate into 27,000,000 'pit bulls' that existed during that 30-year period.  80 fatalities out of 27,000,000 is 0.0002%. 

While that seems incorrect to Darby, since she recalls at some point, a few years ago confirming it was 4 zeros after the decimal, rather than 3, that's what this calculation concludes.  Nonetheless, we're still talking about, at most, 0.0002% of 'pit bulls' having killed a person in the U.S.  That leaves 99.9998% innocent of the allegation they're all killers. 

When we're talking about such small numbers, Darby would still have no problem saying, "Frankly, I don't know what relevant information is gleaned from the acts of less than 0.0002% of the population.  Whatever it may be, it certainly doesn't conclude anything about the rest.  Again I would also reiterate, if any breed were genetically-programmed to attack, certainly more than 0.1% of them would".  

---

*According to the most recent US census results, there are now an estimated 72 million dogs in the United States.

The Chair: Mr. Miller has moved that Mr. Bill Bruce, the director of animal and bylaw services for the city of Calgary, appear before the committee. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Zimmer: These matters were taken up by the subcommittee, were they not?

The Chair: They were.

Mr. Zimmer: There was a witness list.

The Chair: There was.

Mr. Zimmer: Presumably this was raised then.

The Chair: It was not.

Mr. Kormos: I don't know the background of how this gentleman was brought to Mr. Miller's attention, at least, but the fact is that here's a director of animal and bylaw services for the city of Calgary. Reference has been made already to the city of Winnipeg. I trust that other municipalities that have advocated -- and fairly enough, because they've implemented breed-specific bans -- will be called upon.

I don't know what the position is of this gentleman from Calgary, but it seems to me that if the committee is interested in getting the broadest range of information available to it -- gosh, we've got e-mails from people in other British colonies, Australia, Great Britain. People are well aware -- this has attracted attention internationally. If there's expertise available, why would we possibly shut the door on it? If these people are prepared to assist the committee, let's go; let her rip. Let's have these people in front of us. Quite frankly, whether they're from Calgary or not doesn't offend me. It's of even greater interest because obviously you've got a different provincial jurisdiction. I encourage people to support Mr. Miller's motion.

Mr. Miller: I would just like to support that by asking why we would not try to learn from the jurisdictions that have had the most success, and Calgary has had significant success. They've reduced dog bites by 70%. Here we have the director of animal and bylaw services willing to come before the committee, but he needs a formal invite to be able to come because he doesn't want to be seen to be interfering with the affairs of Ontario. They've had very significant success with an animal control bylaw that's not breed-specific, and I think we can learn from that.

If the end goal is to have the most successful legislation and to improve this legislation, I believe we should be inviting Mr. Bruce to come before this committee. I would ask for the committee's support in inviting Mr. Bruce to come and lend his expertise to the committee.

The Chair: Shall I now put the question?

Mr. Zimmer: This matter of the witness list should have been -- if you wanted to make arrangements to raise this matter, it should have been raised before the subcommittee. This committee has set aside four days for hearings. There is an extensive witness list for each of the four days. Each of the witnesses has been allocated a time frame of approximately 10 minutes. The difficulty now with entertaining last-minute changes to the witness list is, where do we fit them in, and if we say yes to Mr. Miller's request, what should we do with other requests that might come up from any other members on the committee? There has to be some end to the process.

Mr. Kormos: The issue seems to be the reluctance of this municipal official to make a submission to this committee without invitation. Why doesn't the committee invite him to make a written submission? Surely that can't be offensive to anybody. It doesn't occupy any time of the committee, but it --

Mr. Zimmer: I'm going to agree. I think that's a reasonable way to proceed.

Mr. Kormos: In that case, you can interrupt.

Mr. Zimmer: That way, we'll get the relevant evidence before the committee and we'll preserve the integrity of the witness list for the remaining four days.

The Chair: Mr. Kormos has the floor.

Mr. Kormos: But he needs an invitation to make a submission so that he doesn't --

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Written submission.

Mr. Kormos: Well, God bless.

Mr. Zimmer: Yes.

Mr. Kormos: That's what I said already -- so that he doesn't appear to be overriding his jurisdiction.

Mr. Zimmer: We're with you on this one, Mr. Kormos.

Mr. Kormos: You're on track now.

The Chair: Mr. Kormos, are you proposing an amendment to the motion?

Mr. Kormos: Mr. Miller may want to. I don't want to cut his grass.

Mr. Miller: I understand you're going to vote against this if we don't amend it. I'm getting that feeling. Is that correct? The thing is, you have more members on that side than we do on this side.

Mr. Zimmer: My argument here is that we've got a very tight witness list. It's been planned, 10 minutes per witness over four days, and it's unfair now to re-jig the witness list.

Mr. Kormos's proposal to accommodate this witness, or accommodate your wish to have him send in a written submission at our invitation, satisfies your purpose and preserves the integrity of the witness list.

Mr. McMeekin: I'll build on that. I suspect your political acumen is probably correct, Mr. Miller. I think the rationale for argument from this side is where do you draw the line? New Brunswick's looked at it. The provincial government in Australia has looked at breed bans. There are a number of cities. To have one isolated person in particular who has indicated a desire to make a presentation -- I don't normally speak to amendments before they're made, but I think on the surface, because we opened this up, there are at least a dozen people I'd like to see invited. I think the concept of the written brief, as Mr. Kormos has suggested and my colleague Mr. Zimmer has affirmed -- and hopefully you, sir, might look at -- is a good way to go.

Mr. Miller: I would certainly like to reiterate that I believe we can learn from Calgary's animal control bylaw; I would be prepared to modify my motion to invite Mr. Bill Bruce to make a written submission to this committee so that we may learn from the city of Calgary.

The Chair: Mr. Miller has amended his motion to read that Mr. Bill Bruce of the city of Calgary be invited to submit a written brief to the committee. Is there any further discussion? Shall I put the question?

All those in favour? Opposed?

Carried.