i

APPLIED ANIMAL
BEHAVIOUR
SCIENCE

Applied Animal Behaviour

Science 52 (1997) 229-242

Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors
affecting them
A. Roll, J. Unshelm
Institutfir

Tierhygiene, Verhaltenskunde und Tierschutz der Ludwig-Maximilians-Uniuersitiit,
Schwere-Reiter-Strasse
9, D-80797 Miinchen. Germany

Abstract
Over one year, 206 dog owners were questioned in a veterinary clinic. The survey included
two groups: 151 owners who visited the clinic because of an injury to their dog caused by another
dog and 55 people who owned dogs that caused injuries to others. The questioning served to
compare aggressors and victims of dog fights. The form contained 43 questions concerning the
dog, the owner, and the incident of intraspecific aggression.
The results reveal that both groups, victim and aggressor, showed regularities regarding the
breeds, gender, and process of the fight. Important factors include housing conditions, criteria
concerning the selection of a dog, and the dog’s training. Significant differences were found
comparing the owners of aggressors and their victims, including the owner’s gender, profession,
age, his/her attitude towards dogs, the selection of a specific breed, training methods, the purpose
of keeping a dog, and previous experiences owning a dog.
Further conclusions were drawn regarding the time and location of the incidents. Their
influence on a potential solution to the problem caused by aggressive dogs is discussed.
Keywords:

Dog: Intraspecific

aggression:

Dog-owner

relationship;

Aggressor;

Victim

1. Introduction
Canine aggression represents a multifactorial
process. For evaluation
of all factors, it
is necessary to collect and analyze information regarding the dogs that are involved,
their owners, the location, and course of events. Since most studies have focused on the
suspected aggressor of a dog fight, it seems necessary to put more emphasis on
additional factors, including the victim. A comparable development can be seen in the
statistics of criminals. In the past research focused mainly on the role of the aggressor.
The question why someone happens to be a victim has gained attention within the last
decade. For clarification of this question regarding canine aggression, owners of dogs
016%1591/97/.$17.00
PZI SO168-1591(96)01

0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
125-2

230

A. Roll, J. Unshelm/Applied Animal Behauiour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

that bit another dog or were bitten themselves were asked to participate in a study on
reasons, backgrounds and chain of events of dog fights in a city. The results should
serve to prevent problems caused by so-called canine aggressiveness and to provide
suggestions for an improvement of the current situation. Therefore, the main focus does
not involve the spectacular individual case, but all factors, leading to the rather
prejudiced diagnosis: ‘aggressive dog’.

2. Breed-related problems
A large variety of papers regarding intraspecific aggression is found in the literature.
More recently, the extensive discussion of so-called ‘fighting-dogs’ by the German and
British media, has led to controversial public opinions. In some cases, it has been
suggested that these dogs are generally endangering the public. Some breeds are
considered ‘evil’ and dangerous, which has resulted in the suggestion to prohibit
ownership of any dog belonging to the specific breed. This statement does not take the
individual situation into consideration. The other party, mostly owners of dogs that are
considered to be ‘fighting-dogs’, tries to deny the existence of potentially aggressive
breeds and insists that accidents are basically rare and harmless. Due to public pressure,
several German states have issued regulations preventing public endangerment by
aggressive dogs. These regulations include definitions of ‘dangerous’ breeds which vary
locally. Specific dogs have to be kept on leash or muzzled in public. In some cases, one
must apply for permission to keep or breed the dogs listed in the regulations, which may
be generally denied.
A retrospective study of all cases of canine aggression registered between 1986 and
1991 in Munich showed that aggressors were predominantly found amongst German
Shepherds and German Shepherd mongrels, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Boxers, Doberman Pinschers, and Bull Terriers (Unshelm et al., 1993). Statistics published by the city
council of Cologne, Germany, showed that in most cases the aggressors were found
amongst certain breeds, such as the German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Giant Schnauzer,
Great Dane, Boxer, and Doberman Pinscher (City of Cologne, 1991) Stadt Koln, 1991.
This survey also included data on legal actions taken against owners of dogs which
caused injuries to people in Dortmund, Germany, between 1988 and 1990. The
aggressors were mainly German Shepherds, Mongrels, Rottweilers and Bull Terriers.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the German state of Nordrhein Westfalen
Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1990 pronounced that during 1990, 34 dogs were
shot by police officers after endangering, injuring, or lethally injuring humans. This
group included 16 German Shepherds, five Pit Bull Terriers, three Boxers, two
Rottweilers and two Bemese Mountain dogs.
Becker (1993) reported that nine out of 18 attacks on a person which required his
testimony as an expert witness, involved German Shepherds and German Shepherd
mongrels.
Statistics of veterinarians on dogs that had to be euthanized because of their
aggressiveness, indicate the potential danger represented by certain breeds. Studying
complaints about canine aggressiveness within her own and a neighbouring veterinary

A. Roll, J. Unshelm /Applied

Animal Behmiour

Science 52 (1997) 229-242

231

clinic, Rehage (1992) found that red Cocker Spaniels, followed by Rottweilers had to be
put down more frequently than one would expect compared with the frequency of breed
occurrence within the German dog population. Besides the involvement
of certain
breeds, it seems that the location of a fight, the use of a leash and the owner’s behaviour
is of importance. Statistics published by an Austrian insurance company show that in
3 1.8% of the cases an aggressive incident occurred within the dog’s own territory,
30,6% took place within the neighbourhood, and 37.6% in an unfamiliar area. A total of
52.6% of these dogs were off leash (Temon, 1992).
Our own studies show that dog fights occur predominantly in public, e.g. on streets
and side walks (74.8%); in parks (9.2%); in public buildings (8%); as well as in private
locations and playgrounds (6%). Sixty-eight percent of the dogs were off leash, of which
8.7% were found to be roaming without their owner (Unshelm et al., 1993).
A total of 70% of 1532 dog bites registered in the city of Berlin, Germany, occurred
while the dogs were off leash (Kolbe, 1983), and 15.3% of the cases involved dogs that
had previously been involved in fights. However, in Munich, Germany, one third of the
dogs involved in an aggressive incident had shown similar behaviour once before, and
one third had previously been involved in a fight at least twice.
The majority of publications emphasize that canine aggressiveness presents a multifactorial event. The dog owners, their own behaviour, and their reasons for selecting a
certain breed are essential factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Only limited information on the victims of aggressive dogs and their owners is
available. The cases of canine aggression directed against children commonly attract a
lot of attention. Most cases involve the family’s own dog, or take place when a dog is
tied outside a store, waiting for the owner to return. Common causes include a lack of
education of the children and insufficient training of the dog by the parent and/or
owner. The statistics published by the ‘German Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children’ (1986) have to be regarded with caution, since they are based on an
assortment of newspaper and journal articles.

3. Animals,

material

and methods

Within an observation period of one year, 206 dog owners answered a questionnaire
while visiting a veterinary clinic in Frankfurt on Main, Germany. This group consisted
of two categories of owners: (1) People (n = 15 1) presenting their dog because of an
injury caused by another dog; (2) People (n = 55) presenting a dog which had initiated a
dog fight and requiring the help of a veterinarian. Evaluation of the severity of the injury
served as an indicator or measure of aggression level. Although the term ‘intraspecific
aggression’ may incorporate more than the fight itself, it was necessary to define an
objective method to evaluate the data provided, which naturally contained very emotional statements.
To draw a representative picture of the situation, we attempted to collect data from
different groups of owners with respect to their social background. We therefore chose a
24 h emergency clinic treating the dogs of clients from different areas of a large city. A
standardized questionnaire
was used to collect the data to guarantee continuity and

232

A. Roll, J. Unshelm/Applied Animal Behauiour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

objectivity. For the comparison of dogs that had bit another dog and those that were
bitten by others, owners of both groups were included. For simplicity, they will be called
‘aggressors’ and ‘victims’,
The questionnaire contained 43 items, subdivided into five areas. The first part
included the signalement of the dog. Secondly, the owners were asked about the
acquisition of the animal, the age of the dog at the time of the purchase, the owner’s
reasons for choosing the specific breed and gender, and the dog’s role within the
household. The third part of the questionnaire dealt with information regarding the
owners, as well as the character, behaviour, and obedience of the dog. In the fourth part,
the owners answered questions about their daily interaction with the dog. Part five
included detailed questions regarding the time, location and behaviour of dog and the
owner during the aggressive incident. The owners were asked about their attempts to
intervene, their willingness to take responsibility, and the kind and intensity of injuries
to both aggressor and victim. In addition, the owners were asked if one of the animals
was kept on a leash during the fight, and if their dog was bitten or had bitten another
dog previously.
Depending on the individual question, information regarding the aggressor (n = 55)
and the victim (n = 151) was compared, or presented as one group, in which case the
sample size was n = 206.

4. Results and discussion
The main focus of this study was directed to breed, gender, origin, and training of
both victim and aggressor. Regarding the fight itself, the main interest was in the
location, time, course of events, and the question of whether a fight could have been
prevented if the dogs had been kept on a leash.
Since whether a dog happens to be a victim or an aggressor is probably linked to the
owner’s personality and behaviour, it is interesting to see if there is a significant
difference between the owners of dogs that have been aggressors and those that have
been victims.
Table 1 includes a list of victims and aggressors, or dogs that have been bitten and
dogs that bit another dog. Percentages are of the total number of cases seen (n = 206).
Interpretating the number of dogs of each breed that has been involved in a dog fight
relative to the number of dogs belonging to a specific breed in Germany requires certain
caution. Therefore, Table 2 includes the percentage of occurrence of the most common
breeds of dogs involved in fights for victims as well as aggressors. This distribution is
compared with the number (in percent) of dogs per breed registered by the ‘Verband fur
das Deutsche Hundewesen, VDH’ VDH, 1986-1991. Compared with the numbers of
pure bred dogs registered in Germany, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Hovawarts,
Great Danes, Doberman Pinschers and Boxers are over-represented within the group of
aggressors. So-called ‘fighting dog breeds’, including Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Pit Bull Terriers, are found to be the aggressor
in 8.2% of the fights, again indicating their over-representations amongst the aggressors.
Victims of aggressive dogs are mostly Dachshunds, Poodles, Doberman Pinschers,

A. Roll. J. Unshelm /Applied

Animal

BehaGour

Science 52 (19971229-242

233

Cocker Spaniels, Boxers, Yorkshire Terriers and West Highland Terriers. Since mongrels are not registered by the VDH it is not possible to make a judgment regarding the
likelihood of their involvement in dog lights in relation to their distribution within the
population.
The distribution of the victims’ and aggressors’ genders is included in Fig. 1. Victims
as well as aggressors are mainly to be found amongst intact male dogs.
The background of the dogs is illustrated in Fig. 2, illustrating that compared with the
relatively low percentage of dogs that were bitten (39.7%), many dogs that caused an
injury were purchased from a breeder (61.8%). Dogs acquired from an animal shelter or
friends, are more frequently found within the group of victims. These results indicate
that the systematic selection of a specific breed and a matching breeder represents an
important factor in determining whether a dog will belong to the group of aggressors in
case of a confrontation.
About 67% of the owners report that their dog has a tendency to attack others (Fig.
3). This finding emphasizes the fact that the problem is caused by dogs that fight
repeatedly, involving the role played by the dog, as well as the influence of the owner.
Eighty-eight percent of the dogs involved in this study were found to be involved in
more than one event of intraspecific
aggression. Therefore. it is obvious that the
responsibility for the problem of canine aggressiveness rests with a considerably smaller
percentage of aggressive dogs and their owners. Measures for the prevention of this
problem should be taken accordingly.
The dog’s management by the owner has a clear impact on its behaviour (Fig. 4). A
dog off leash behaves significantly differently from one kept on a leash, as well in the
group of aggressors as in the group of victims. However, this picture might be
influenced by the fact that the decision to keep the dog on a leash might be caused by
potential aggressiveness.
A lack of appropriate social interaction with con-specifics
supports the dog’s aggressive tendencies and may subsequently
lead to behavioural
problems. The present results show that 44% of the aggressors and victims of dog fights
had few interactions with conspecifics between the age of 5 weeks and 5 months. Within
this group, 35.5% of the owners reported that their dogs attack others occasionally. Dogs
that grew up with another dog show this behaviour infrequently (7.3%). Thirty-one
percent of dogs involved in a fight were known to be enemies previously. Therefore, the
behaviour did not occur unexpectedly, and a fight could have been prevented by the
owners, if they had intervened in time.
The commonly stated observation that dog fights occur more frequently if only one
animal is kept on a leash was not well-supported by these data (Fig. 5). In the majority
of the cases (56.3%) both dogs, aggressor and victim, were off leash. However, the data
also indicated that the problem will not be completely solved with a leash law, since
13.6% of the aggressors and 35% of the victims were kept on a leash when the fight
occurred. This finding emphasizes the role played by the owners in the case of a fight.
Fig. 6 illustrates that dogs which bite another dog are owned predominately by males.
The dogs that belong in the group of victims of dog fights are mostly walked by a
women. Therefore, we find that women own more dogs that are bitten by others than
dogs that bite. Dogs owned and cared for by the entire family are for the most part found
in the group of victims.

A. Roll, .I. Unshelm/Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

234
Table 1
Breed distribution
Section

of aggressors

and victims

Breed distribution

Aggressor
numberQotal)

%

Victim number
(total)

%

German Shepherd
Shepherd-Mongrel
Longhaired German Shepherd
White German Shepherd
Belgian Shepherd Dog
Old English Sheepdog
Collie
Bearded Collie

13
15
1

35.4
1.3
0.5

14
4

6.8
1.9

1

0.5

2
1
1
1
1

1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

Hovawart
Great Dane
Boxer
Newfoundland
Saint-Bernard

6
6
6
1
1

2.9
2.9
2.9
0.5
0.5

4

1.9

7

3.4

5
3
3

2.4
1.5
1.5

8
5
4
4

3.9
2.4
1.9
1.9

I
3
3

3.4
1.5
1.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

5
5
2
1

2.4
2.4
1
0.5

1

0.5

5
2
6
1
2
3

2.4
1
2.9
0.5
1
1.5

4
3

1.9
1.5

1
8
2

0.5
3.9
1

2
2

1
1

2
2

1
1

Sheep dogs

Mastiffs

Pinschers and Schnauzers
Doberman Pinscher
Giant Schnauzer
Standard Schnauzer
Miniature Schnauzer
Sennenhunds and Cattle Dogs
Rottweiler
Rottweiler-crossbred
Bemese Mountain Dog
Terriers
Bullterrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terries
West Highland White Terrier
Scottish Terrier
Yorkshire-Terrier
German Hunting Terrier
Fox Terrier
Airedale Terrier
Springers and Retrievers
Golden Retriever
Cocker Spaniel
Labrador Retriever
Pointers
‘Hunting dog’
German Shorthaired
Wirehaired Pointer

and

235

A. Roll, _I. Unshelm / Applied Animal Behariour Science 52 Cl997) 229-242
Table

1 (continued)

Section

Victim number
(total)

Breed distribution

Aggressor
numbe&otal)

Small and Large
Munsterllnder
English and Irish Setter
Weimaraner
English Pointer

2

1

3

1.5

2
1

1
0.5

2

1

1

0.5

Standard and Miniature
Poodle

3

1.5

14

6.8

Alaskan Malamute
Chow-Chow
Husky

2
1
1

1
0.5
0.5

1

0.5

3

1.5

17

8.3

5
1

3.4
0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

2

1

2
3
2

1
1.5
1

Pointers

Poodles

Nordic Dogs

Scent- and Bloodhounds
Long-, Short- Roughhaired
Dachshund
Beagle
Dalmatian
Northern and Southern Windhounds
Afghan
Irish Wolfhound
Greyhound

2
1

1
0.5

Points
Wolf Spitz

1

0.5

Herder Dogs
Pyrenean Mountain Dog
Other breeds
Pit Bull Terrier
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Pekingese
Akita Inu

5
4

2.4
1.9

Large ( > 20 kg)
Middle (lo-20 kg)
Small ( < 10 kg)

9
4

4.4
1.9

15
29
6

7.3
14
2.9

Breeds unknown

7

3.4

4

1.9

Total number

206

100

203

100

Mongrels

236
Table 2
Frequency

A. Roll, J. Unshelm/Applied

of occurrence

Animal Behaviour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

of the breeds involved as aggressors

and victims in %

Breeds

Involvement with
the authors (%)

German Shepherd

35.4
7.3
5.8

Occurrence
In Germany

(vDH)(~~)
Aggressor

Shepherd-Mongrel
BullterrierStaffordshire
Bull
American Staff. Terrier

Victim

Mongrels > 20 kg
Rottweiler
Hovawart
Great Dane
Boxer
Doberman Pinscher
Pit Bull Terrier

4.4
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.4
2.4

Mongrels lo-20 kg
Dachshund
Mongrels > 20 kg
German Shepherd
Poodle

14.0
8.3
7.3
6.8
6.8
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.4

Doberman Pinscher
Cocker Spaniel
Boxer
Yorkshire Terrier
Mongrels < 10 kg
West Highland White Terrier

28.7
1.2

2.8
0.8
1.2
2.8
1.2

17.3
28.7
2.8
1.2
2.6
2.8
2.1
1.5

The training of a dog is clearly related to its membership in the group of victims or
aggressors. Dogs that bit in the past, were ‘trained’ by hitting or shaking on certain
occasions. Dog owners using training methods involving clear commands, shouting, and

female

male

Fig. 1. Distribution

female neutered

male neutered

of aggressors’ and victims’ gender.

A. Roll, J. Unshelm / Applied Animal Behaciour Science 52 f 1997) 229-242

k
l-

breeder

anim. shelter

friends

pet shop

others

Fig. 2. Origin of dogs.

_~_.

~~=151)
(n&5)

1

I interested
2: IndIfferent
3 wantsto play
4, defensivebehawour
5: growlsat con-spectfics
6 : attacksothersoccasionally
7 : fearful, showssubmlsslve

8.others

1

2

3

4

5

Fig. 3. Behaviour

6

7

8

towards con-specifics.

Victim (n=151)
Aggressor (~55)

1 : dally

2 : daily thrwgh fence
3 : owners
avoidscontact
4 : infrequent, a few tlveslweek
5 : rarefy or never
6 : contactonly to well known
dogs

2

3

Fig. 4. Frequency

4

5

of intraspecific

6

contact without leashes.

A. Roll, .I. &whelm/Applied

238

Animal Behaviour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

Victim (n=206)

Aggressor (k206)

Victim leashed / Aggressor freeVictim free / Aggressor leashed
Victim leashed /Aggressor free ~

Fig. 5. Were aggressors

and victims kept on leashes?

warning the dog with the help of gestures, mostly own dogs that are bitten by others
(Fig. 7). Asking dog owners about the importance of obedience training in dogs (Fig. 81,
shows that dogs which initiated a fight are mostly owned by persons believing that dogs
will get out of control without certain training, or persons that own a dog for a specific

%A

,

60

’ 1 i •1 Aggressor (k55) /

50

40

30

20

10

0

familiy dog, no one

female

specifkally in charge

Fig. 6. Owners’ gender.

1

A. Roll, J. Vnshelm/Applied

??
Aggressor

(n=55)

L_---

clear canmands

239

Animal Behaviour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

’shouting/threatening

shaking cl,

’ hitting -ionally’

g.%t”ES

pulling off

n-w

dog is not trained

Fig. 7. Training methods.

use. Owners who believe that training should be fun, that it is generally advantageous to
have an obedient dog, or even believe that it is irrelevant if a dog is trained or not, will
own a dog that is more likely to be the victim of a fight.
The purpose of keeping a dog and the age of the owner are also closely related (Table
3). Owners up to the age of 29 years regard the dog as a full family member. In contrast
to this situation, many older dog owners regard a dog as a child substitute. More dog
owners within the group of people who are 50 years and older (28%) feel that the dog
helps to prevent loneliness, compared with people up to the age of 29 years (9.5%).
Dogs that are kept for reasons of security belong mostly to owners between 30 and 49

2

* nice.respectively essential
: Important: the dog would be out of control without training

I
A

1

2

Fig. 8. How important is/was

3

4

the dog’s training to the owner?

240

A. Roll, J. Vnshelm/Applied

Table 3
Comparison

Animal Behauiour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

of the owners’ age and the dogs’ function within the household

Age of the owner:

Up to 29

30-49

50

43.5
14.2
13.1
6
15.8
1.9
5.5
100%

36.4
24.1
28
5.7
2.3
2.3
1.1
100%

Age (%)
Function of the dog
Full family member
Child replacement/substitute
Helps if owner is lonely
Partner
Family protection
More important than family
Only ‘domestic animal’
Sum (n = 206)

57.1
4.8
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
100%

years of age. Younger persons emphasize the dog’s role for the family. Dogs are rarely
regarded as ‘just an animal’ if the owners belong to the group of 50 years and older, but
rather as a companion or partner in life.
Summarizing these results and other qualitative observations on the groups of owners
of aggressive dogs and dogs that are bitten by others leads to interesting differences.
Dogs that are known to be aggressive are mostly owned my males who work independently or in academics. The owners are typically aged 30 to 39 and they commonly do
not develop an emotional relationship with their dogs; they consciously select specific
breeds, show interest in Schutzhund training, or purchase dogs with the intention of
keeping them for reasons of security. Within this group, the dog’s obedience is
commonly achieved by the use of physical force. Many of these men have owned dogs
for most of their lives. During a dog light, they tend to behave in a rather passive
manner and shout at the animal after the fight has ended. However, 40% of these owners
show no reaction whatsoever, even after the fight.
Persons owning so-called ‘victims’ also have certain characteristics
in common:
many are women, commonly housewives or recipients of social pensions. Dogs are often
kept for the prevention of loneliness. They are usually not selected by breed at the time
of the purchase, It is important to many members of this group that the dog provides a
feeling of safety. Generally, comparably low amounts of pressure are used during the
dog’s training. Fewer persons stated that they had always owned dogs, relative to the
owners of aggressive dogs. Typically, the dogs that are bitten by others will find
consolation from their owners after the fight.

Table 4
Location

n=206
%

of the fight
Public
street

Park

Fields and
woods

On/in front of
own property

On/in front of
property of
the other dog

In buildings

54
26.2

50
24.3

46
22.3

25
12.1

20
9.7

11
5.3

A. Roll, J. Unshelm/Applied

241

Animal Behaciour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

Table 5
Time of the fight

n = 206
c/c

Morning

Noon

Afternoon

Evening

After sunset

40
19.4

30
14.6

97
47.1

39
18.9

20
9.7

Unrelated to whether the dog is the victim or aggressor in a fight, Tables 4 and 5
show the location and time of fights. Three quarters of all fights take place in public
places, such as streets, parks, and fields. Twenty-one percent of the fights occur on the
property of one of the owners or close by, and about 5% of all fights took place inside
public buildings. Forty-seven percent of the incidents occurred during the afternoon
(Table 5), and two thirds of all fights took place during the afternoon or at night, which
is probably related to the fact that most owners walk their dogs after work.
Table 6 shows the distribution of aggressors and the degree of injury of the victim. It
is remarkable that five out of eight fights which led to the death of the victim involved
the clearly over-represented group of fighting dogs. Three lethal injuries were caused by
American Staffordshire Terriers, one death was caused by a Bull Terrier, and another
dog died after a fight with a Pit Bull Terrier. The remaining three deaths of a dog after a
fight were caused by German Shepherds and by a Rottweiler. A similar over-representation of specific breeds can be seen in cases in which the victim suffered serious injuries.
caused by German Shepherds and German Shepherd mongrels in more than half of all
cases, but also a high number of Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American
Staffordshire Terriers, and Pit Bull Terriers. One can conclude that the severity of an
injury is related to a breed specific aggressiveness. However, it is important to keep in
mind that the owner’s decision to purchase specific breeds is of great influence, as well
as the role of mood induction by the owner.

Table 6
Inquiries of victims by the most common aggressors
Most common breeds of aggressors

Degree of injury (victim)
None

Slight

Middle

Serious

Lethal

German Shepherd (n = 73)
Shepherd-Mongrel
( n = 15)
Hovawart (n = 6)
Great Dane (n = 6)
Boxer Or= 6)
Doberman Pinscher (n = 5)
Rottweiler (n = 7)
Bullterrier (n = 5)
Staffordshire Bull Terrier(n = 5)
(n = 5)
American StaffordshireTerrier
Pit Bull (n = 5)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

19
8
4
3
2
4
2
1
0
0
0

36
5

16
2
1
1

Mongrels (n = 13)
Totals (n = 151)
Q

1
1
0.7

6
49
32.5

2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
1
0
8
5.3

I
7
3
I
2
0
2
1
2
6
61
40.4

1
0
2
3
3
1
2
0
32
21.2

242

A. Roll, J. Unshelm / Applied Animal Behuuiour Science 52 (1997) 229-242

Summarizing the results of the present study, it is clearly shown that not only
characteristics of the dogs belonging to the group of victims and aggressors are found
(including breed, gender, background, training, and housing), but also typical characteristics of the dog owners. Therefore, it is not enough to issue rigid laws for the
prevention of potential and real aggression in dogs, based on a breed classification.
These decisions are the result of a pragmatic process in politics, but will not lead to a
valid solution of the present problem. Better approaches would include the preventive
consultation of a specialist by prospective buyers of a dog, for example a veterinarian.
Further progress could be achieved by specific measures by the media, aiming to draw a
picture of dog owners that is in contrast to that of a person owning an aggressive dog.
This process is not easy, since it is necessary to reach groups of dog owners that are
proud of their experience in owning dogs. The complexity of the problem caused by
aggressive dogs and the future protection of their victims requires specific measures of
persons involved in behaviour therapy and the prevention of problems.

References
Becker, K.H., 1993.Ein Beitrag

zur Beurteilung biisartiger Hunde. Die gutachterliche
Stellungnahme.
Tiertiztl. Umsch., 48: 34-42.
Kolbe, D., 1983. Beissende Hunde in einer GroRstadt. Seuchenhygienische
Bedeutung, ethologische Aspekte
und verwaltungsrechtliche
Behandlung. Vet. Med. Diss., FU Berlin.
Landesregierung
Nordrhein-Westfalen,
1990. Stellungnahme gegeniiber dem Landtag. Drucksache 10/5418,
vom 13.9.1990.
Rehage, F., 1992. Hyperaggressividt
beim Hund aus der Sicht des praktizierenden Tierarztes. Prakt. Tierarzt,
73: 408-419.
Stadt Kdln, 1991. Der Oberstadtdirektor:
Mitteilung an den Ratsausschuss
zum Thema ‘Gefahrdung und
Behistigung durch Hunde’, vom 4.6.1991.
Ternon, E., 1992. Ethologische Aspekte von BiDverletzungen durch Hunde. Vet. Med. Diss., Wien.
Unshelm, J., Rehm, N. and Heidenberger,
E., 1993. Zum Problem der Gefarlichkeit
von Hunden; eine
Untersuchung von Vorfallen mit Hunden in einer Grosstadt. Dtsch. tie&ztl. Wschr., 1001 383-389.
VDH e. V. (Hrsg.): Welpenstatistik der Jahre 1986 bis 1991.