ISCTA Research Objectives
To recruit injury researchers, programmers and policy-makers to collectively commit to and work toward enhancing canine risk assessment research and dissemination to reduce the burden of dog-human attacks worldwide.
To build capacity within ISCTA to:
To build capacity within ISCTA to:
- Identify, evaluate and disseminate potentially effective strategies;
- Identify and advocate for data and surveillance needs (number & severity of bites, owner histories, etc.) not currently being met to enable effective evaluation of prevention measures;
- Develop and disseminate a standardized set of indicators for program effectiveness;
- Compile or develop then disseminate standardized definitions and methods concerning issues such as measurements of risk exposure, injury severity, and the burden of injury;
- Develop and disseminate a common dog-bite prevention and control language that would have the same meaning across both issues and municipal boundaries -- and be understood by many disciplines;
- Develop comprehensive, high quality, relevant and timely multi-disciplinary research funding proposals;
- Advocate for increased research dollars, excellence in research proposals, and increased training opportunities to improve municipal resources knowledge-base and capacity.
ISCTA Areas of Research
Current Areas of Study Regarding Dangerous Dog Policies
Methods: Choose a problem, indicate any existing policies in place to address the problem, highlight weaknesses of the policies, identify alternatives, provide substantiating cases, if possible. Outside research is welcomed and will be published with full credit given.
Example Problem: Penalties for owners of dogs that injure or kill are not severe enough to provide deterrence to irresponsible or negligent owners.
Current Policy: A policy enacted in TX is called "Lillian's Law", named after Lillian Stiles who was attacked and killed in her yard by loose dogs; Lillian's Law imposes felony charges on owners whose dogs attacked, unprovoked.
Weaknesses in "Lillian's Law":
Alternative Policy:
Complete a Canine Threat Assessment Guide (C-TAG) worksheet on aggressive dogs in the neighborhood -- all dogs scoring as a "Category 3 - Aggressive Dog" should require "Restricted-Dog Licensing". Restricted-Dog Licensing should require, at minimum, an application containing Qualification Criteria to ensure owners are experienced enough to handle their potentially-dangerous dogs, additional containment requirements and facilities inspections:
~~~ I.S.C.T.A. Call for Papers ~~~
In addition to the above position statements and evidence-based arguments, researchers are encouraged to submit well-cited and/or peer-reviewed papers to ISCTA for consideration. Note that papers may have been published previously.
Methods: Choose a problem, indicate any existing policies in place to address the problem, highlight weaknesses of the policies, identify alternatives, provide substantiating cases, if possible. Outside research is welcomed and will be published with full credit given.
Example Problem: Penalties for owners of dogs that injure or kill are not severe enough to provide deterrence to irresponsible or negligent owners.
Current Policy: A policy enacted in TX is called "Lillian's Law", named after Lillian Stiles who was attacked and killed in her yard by loose dogs; Lillian's Law imposes felony charges on owners whose dogs attacked, unprovoked.
Weaknesses in "Lillian's Law":
- Lillian's law requires an unprovoked attack. What constitutes "provocation"? Some attorneys would insist that a stranger may have walked by and thrown a rock at the dogs, sufficiently provoking the dogs such that they redirected that aggression on a different stranger -- e.g., Lillian Stiles.
- Lillian's law only addresses "off-property" and loose dog attacks, neither of which were the case in the Scott Warren case (6-year-old Dallas TX).
Alternative Policy:
Complete a Canine Threat Assessment Guide (C-TAG) worksheet on aggressive dogs in the neighborhood -- all dogs scoring as a "Category 3 - Aggressive Dog" should require "Restricted-Dog Licensing". Restricted-Dog Licensing should require, at minimum, an application containing Qualification Criteria to ensure owners are experienced enough to handle their potentially-dangerous dogs, additional containment requirements and facilities inspections:
- By requiring owners to complete the Restricted-Dog Application, owners are forced to formally acknowledge the potential danger of their dogs.
- By justifying additional containment requirements for Category 3 dogs --even while on their owner's property-- many attacks on the owner's property can be prevented. And again, owners will again not be able to claim lack of knowledge of their dog's aggression.
- By requiring facility inspections, Animal Control officers have a "Duty of Care" and the statutory authority to approach private property to review the containment status of the Restricted Dog, without the owner claiming harassment.
~~~ I.S.C.T.A. Call for Papers ~~~
In addition to the above position statements and evidence-based arguments, researchers are encouraged to submit well-cited and/or peer-reviewed papers to ISCTA for consideration. Note that papers may have been published previously.