Rottweiler Attack in Wies: What This Case Really Shows
It is only a few lines – and yet they are enough to create a story.
A 54-year-old woman is walking her dog. She sits down under a tree. Suddenly, her roughly 50-kilogram Rottweiler becomes aggressive and bites her repeatedly on the upper and lower arm. Despite her serious injuries, she still manages to put a muzzle on the dog and tie it to a tree. A local resident provides first aid. The rescue helicopter takes the woman to Graz University Hospital.
This is how the Styria Provincial Police Directorate described the incident in Gaißeregg near Wies on 16 September 2026 [1].
At first, the story appears clear:
A Rottweiler becomes “suddenly aggressive” and critically injures its owner.
But a day later, information emerges that fundamentally changes this narrative.
The dog is said to have bitten on three previous occasions.
According to ORF, citing police, it bit a postman on the finger in an earlier case. Two further biting incidents were also known to police [2].
And at this point at the latest, the real story begins for me.
Because now the crucial question is no longer simply:
Why did this dog bite?
But:
What happened after the three previous incidents?
The attack was serious – and must not be downplayed
Before we talk about causes, breeds or laws, one thing must be made clear:
A person was seriously injured here.
The woman had to be taken to hospital by rescue helicopter. Her injuries were initially classified as life-threatening.
The fact that reports mainly mention her upper and lower arm does not make that assessment any less credible. Dog bites can cause deep injuries to muscles, tendons, nerves and blood vessels. Infections also pose a relevant risk [3].
Asking about causes therefore does not downplay what happened.
And looking for a trigger does not place blame on the victim.
Triggers and blame are two entirely different things.
Behavioural analysis does not ask: “Who is at fault?”
It asks: What happened before this behaviour occurred?
“Suddenly aggressive” explains almost nothing
The most problematic sentence in the original report is, in essence:
The dog allegedly reacted “suddenly aggressively” during the break [1].
That sounds like an explanation.
But it is not one.
“Suddenly” describes only the moment at which a person noticed a change.
It says nothing about why it happened.
Nor does “aggressive” explain a cause.
Veterinary literature points out that aggressive behaviour must always be considered in its specific context. Fear, conflict, pain, learning experiences, arousal or medical factors may all play a role [4].
The crucial question would therefore be:
What happened immediately before the first bite?
And that is precisely what we do not currently know.
Was the dog lying down?
Was it perhaps asleep?
Was it touched?
Was there another dog?
A noise?
A person?
A painful stimulus?
Signs of stress?
A resource?
We do not know.
We know neither the dog’s state of health nor its training history. We do not know whether the previous incidents followed a similar pattern. And we do not know whether there had already been warning signs.
That is not a minor detail.
It is the missing part of the story.
Then comes the information that changes everything
Three previous biting incidents.
That information alone shifts the entire assessment.
Not automatically towards “dangerous Rottweiler.”
But towards:
the concrete history of a specific dog.
Because now, suddenly, very different questions arise.
How serious were the previous incidents?
In what circumstances did they happen?
Were they documented?
Was the dog examined by a veterinarian?
Was there a professional behavioural assessment?
Were there official requirements?
Was a muzzle recommended or mandated?
Were management measures put in place?
And if so: Were they monitored?
These are not accusations against the owner, the police or a municipality.
The information published so far does not allow blame to be assigned.
But after three known biting incidents, these questions are not merely legitimate.
They are necessary.
The muzzle is an important detail
After the attack, the seriously injured woman is said to have managed to put a muzzle on her dog.
That alone does not permit any dramatic conclusions.
In Styria, the basic rule in publicly accessible places is that a dog must either wear a closed muzzle or be kept on a leash in such a way that it can be controlled at all times [10].
Carrying a muzzle is therefore not, in itself, evidence of any particular history.
But after the earlier bites became known, this detail takes on new significance.
Not in the sense of:
“The woman knew the dog was dangerous.”
There is no basis for that.
But in the sense of:
What safety measures had been envisaged for this specific dog?
That is a major difference.
And how was she able to put a muzzle on it afterwards at all?
This point, too, may seem contradictory at first glance.
A dog critically injures its owner – and shortly afterwards apparently allows her to put a muzzle on it?
That does not make the story implausible.
Aggressive behaviour does not have to continue indefinitely. It can be tied to a specific situation, trigger or state of arousal.
But the report leaves crucial details open:
How did the biting sequence end?
Did the dog move away on its own?
How much time passed?
Was it responsive again afterwards?
Did the woman actually have to “catch” it?
Details like these would be important for a professional reconstruction.
They are missing.
Medical causes: investigate, yes; speculate, no
After the incident, possible health-related causes such as chronic pain or neurological disorders were raised [2].
That is fundamentally plausible.
Pain can alter a dog’s threshold for reacting. Neurological or other medical conditions can also affect behaviour [4].
That is why veterinary examination must always be part of the process when aggression appears suddenly or changes.
But that does not mean this particular dog actually had pain or a neurological condition.
So far, there is no published evidence of that.
Broad claims that Rottweilers typically undergo a “change in temperament” at a certain age should likewise be treated critically.
I could not find a robust scientific basis for such a regular, breed-specific age threshold.
The bite-force debate is more complicated than it sounds
Specific figures on a Rottweiler’s bite force were cited in connection with the case [2].
The core point behind this is understandable:
A large, powerful dog can cause severe physical harm.
However, precise blanket bite-force figures for individual breeds should be viewed cautiously from a scientific perspective.
Measurements vary depending on motivation, situation, method, body size and skull morphology [8].
The truly relevant statement is much simpler:
Body size and strength influence the potential extent of harm.
And that must be taken into account in any safety debate.
“Every dog can bite” – true, but incomplete
After serious incidents, the same sentence regularly appears:
“Every dog can bite.”
Of course.
But that does not answer the question of risk.
A five-kilogram dog and a 50-kilogram dog can both bite.
The possible consequences are still not the same.
For a serious risk assessment, at least two things must therefore be separated:
How likely is an incident?
and
How severe could its consequences be?
A large, powerful dog has a greater potential for harm.
But that does not automatically mean:
Large = aggressive.
These two levels are constantly conflated in public debate.
“It is always just the owner” is equally wrong
The opposing position often goes like this:
“There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous owners.”
That, too, is too simple.
Of course, ownership, training, socialisation, learning experiences, management and environment have an enormous influence on a dog’s behaviour.
But dogs are not blank pages.
Genetics also plays a role.
Humans have selected dogs over generations for very different tasks.
A major genomic study involving more than 18,000 dogs showed that behavioural traits can indeed be heritable. At the same time, breed explained only a relatively small share of individual behavioural variation. Breed proved to be a weak predictor of an individual dog’s behaviour, particularly in agonistic behaviour [6].
Other studies likewise show differences between breeds [7].
Both can be true at the same time.
Breed is not meaningless. But breed does not determine an individual dog’s fate.
What does this mean specifically for the Rottweiler?
It would be wrong to say:
“Rottweilers are aggressive.”
It would be equally wrong to say:
“Breed plays no role whatsoever.”
Genetic origin influences physical characteristics and can shape behavioural tendencies.
But an individual dog results from an interplay of:
Genetics,
socialisation,
learning experiences,
health,
environment,
training,
management
and individual temperament.
A breed can therefore have statistical tendencies without allowing the behaviour of an individual dog to be reliably inferred from them.
Then the word “fighting dog” comes up
And with it comes the emotional dimension.
After serious incidents involving Rottweilers, pit bull types or American Staffordshire Terriers, the word often appears almost automatically:
Fighting dog.
It immediately creates an image.
Legally, however, the situation is by no means so clear-cut.
Austria has no nationally uniform breed list. The federal states regulate certain dog breeds differently [12].
The Rottweiler is an excellent example.
In Vienna, it is a listed dog.
In Lower Austria, it is likewise classified as a dog with increased risk potential.
In Styria, there is no corresponding breed-specific list for Rottweilers.
The same dog can therefore be classified differently under the law depending on the federal state.
For that reason alone, “listed dog” is not a biological diagnosis.
First and foremost, it is a legal category.
In Vienna, the same dog would face different requirements
In Vienna, listed dogs over six months old must generally be kept on a leash and muzzled in public places. Regulations concerning a dog handler’s certificate also apply [13].
Lower Austria also explicitly names the Rottweiler in the relevant provisions [14].
Styria takes a different approach.
Alongside general rules on leashes and muzzles, it has provisions for individually dangerous animals [11].
And this is where the present case becomes interesting.
Because in a dog with several documented biting incidents, the focus shifts from abstract breed to individual behaviour.
Perhaps we are debating the wrong problem after cases like this
If a dog is said to have bitten three times before, the decisive safety question for me is no longer:
“Does the Rottweiler belong on a breed list?”
But:
“How do we deal with a dog that has already become problematic several times?”
That is far more specific.
And perhaps far more effective.
A dog with no history and a dog with repeated biting incidents do not present the same risk situation.
Of course, distinctions are needed here as well.
Not every previous bite is equally serious.
A snap is different from a severe biting attack.
But repeated incidents are relevant information.
And this is precisely where a blanket debate about breeds can even distract from the actual prevention problem.
The reflex: “Then make muzzles mandatory”
Muzzles are important safety tools.
A correctly fitted, bite-proof muzzle can prevent injury-causing bites.
And a well-fitted basket muzzle is not animal cruelty.
It must allow panting, drinking and, as far as possible, normal communication. Muzzle training should be built up positively [13].
For an individually problematic dog, a muzzle can be a sensible and necessary part of risk management.
But the crucial political question is:
How effective is a blanket, breed-based muzzle requirement for the population as a whole?
Here, the evidence is less clear.
What research says about breed lists
A systematic review published in 2022 examined a total of 43 studies on dog-bite prevention.
Broader control measures – such as leash rules, control of free-roaming dogs or consistent enforcement of existing regulations – showed indications of effectiveness.
Breed-specific legislation performed more weakly [18].
A Danish time-series study likewise concluded that the breed-specific bans or requirements examined had no clear effect on the overall number of dog bites requiring medical treatment [19].
That does not mean a muzzle is useless.
On the contrary.
A muzzle can be highly effective for an individual dog, while an exclusively breed-based regulation may still have only limited impact at population level.
That is not a contradiction.
But the other side must not downplay anything either
Anyone who takes a critical view of breed lists must not pretend that a dog’s physical characteristics play no role.
Medical studies of severe dog injuries find larger, more powerful breeds or certain breed types more frequently among severe cases.
Rottweilers also appear in these studies [22].
That is part of the truth.
But these data also have limitations.
Many studies are retrospective.
Breeds are not always reliably verified.
And crucial comparison figures are often missing:
How many dogs of the respective breed actually live in the region?
Without that denominator, a concentration can quickly create a false impression of actual risks.
Even breed identification can be problematic
A study of fatal dog-bite cases in the United States showed how greatly media and official accounts of breed can differ.
In many cases, breed could not be reliably determined afterwards [20].
These figures cannot be directly transferred to Austria.
But they show:
Breed is not always as precise a variable in statistics as it may appear at first glance.
And serious incidents often do not result from a single cause.
Breed labels change our perception
Research from animal shelters shows that simply labelling a dog as a certain breed type can influence how people perceive it [21].
That matters.
Because we do not see a dog neutrally.
Many people think of a Labrador as a family dog.
Of a Border Collie as an intelligent working dog.
Of a Rottweiler as a guard dog, strength or danger.
These ideas do not arise from nowhere.
But they can take on a life of their own.
And then a specific case quickly becomes proof of an already existing conviction.
This is exactly where prejudice emerges
A serious attack.
A large dog.
A Rottweiler.
A rescue helicopter.
Life-threatening injuries.
Three previous bites.
That is a combination that stays in people’s minds.
And that is precisely why this case has a greater social impact than many other dog bites.
People tend to give greater weight to events that are especially dramatic and easy to remember.
That does not mean the risk is not real.
But a particularly frightening individual case is not automatically a complete picture of societal risk.
For that, we need data.
And some of these data are lacking in Austria
In 2020, the Austrian Road Safety Board reported an average of around 3,500 people per year who were treated in hospital after dog bites between 2015 and 2019. Around 15 per cent were children aged up to 14 [9].
This shows:
Dog bites are not a marginal problem.
But many details are missing for truly effective prevention policy.
We would need comparable nationwide data on:
severity,
location,
situation,
relationship between dog and injured person,
history,
management,
health status,
age,
keeping conditions
and reliably identified breed.
I was unable to find a current, publicly accessible Austrian database that meaningfully links all of these factors.
And as long as such data are missing, the debate remains vulnerable to headlines and individual cases.
A “fighting dog” popular initiative is already underway
The current case also comes at a time when Austria is already discussing so-called “fighting dog breeds.”
Since January 2025, the popular initiative “FIGHTING DOG BREEDS: BREEDING BAN / IMPORT BAN” has been registered [15].
The text names several breeds and argues, among other things, on the basis of an allegedly selectively bred “killing instinct” [16].
I consider this wording problematic from a behavioural biology perspective.
Genetics influences behaviour.
But a blanket, deterministic “killing instinct” that declares entire modern breeds a uniform danger does not adequately reflect scientific reality [6][7].
There is another notable point:
The Rottweiler is not mentioned in the popular initiative at all.
Yet it is a listed dog in Vienna and Lower Austria.
This, too, shows how inconsistent the category of “fighting dog” is.
This case is perfect for both sides
Supporters of strict breed lists can say:
“Another Rottweiler.”
Opponents can reply:
“Breed says nothing at all.”
Both positions fall short.
Because the current case contains several truths at once:
The dog was large and powerful.
That increases the possible extent of harm.
It is said to have bitten repeatedly before.
That increases the importance of its individual history.
We do not know the specific trigger for the current attack.
And no serious statement about all Rottweilers can be derived from this single case.
We need to be able to tolerate precisely this complexity.
Remove the word “Rottweiler” for a moment
Then the following story remains:
A dog weighing around 50 kilograms critically injures its owner.
It then becomes known that three previous biting incidents were allegedly already known to police.
What would your first question be?
Mine would not be:
“What breed was it?”
But:
“What happened after the three previous incidents?”
And that may be the true social relevance of this case.
Safety does not begin with the fourth bite
A dog does not first have to critically injure someone before its behaviour should be taken seriously.
Staring.
Freezing.
Growling.
Snapping.
Resource guarding.
Unusual irritability.
Sensitivity to touch.
Sudden behavioural changes.
Depending on the situation, all of these can be reasons to take a closer look.
Not every growl is dangerous.
Not every snap will later lead to a serious attack.
But simply suppressing warning signs instead of analysing their cause is not meaningful prevention.
Problematic behaviour in particular requires professional assessment, animal-welfare-compliant training and consistent safety management [4][23].
Positive reinforcement does not mean naivety
This point matters to me.
People who talk about behaviour, stress and causes are quickly accused after serious incidents of “defending” a dog.
So, to be very clear:
A dog that repeatedly bites a person and critically injures them poses a considerable danger in that situation.
If previous biting incidents are additionally confirmed, that history must be included in any further assessment.
Animal welfare does not mean ignoring risks to people.
Positive reinforcement does not mean sugar-coating dangerous behaviour.
Professional dog training must always also involve safety management.
Since July 2026, Austria has placed greater emphasis on competency
Since 1 July 2026, new nationwide competency rules have applied to people who begin keeping a dog.
The mandatory topics include:
body language,
stress,
fear,
calming signals,
hazard avoidance,
learning behaviour,
positive reinforcement
and recognising behavioural abnormalities [17].
That is noteworthy.
Because Austria is thereby pursuing, at least in part, a different prevention approach:
Not only:
“What breed do you keep?”
But also:
“What do you know about dogs?”
Naturally, it is not yet possible to assess whether this regulation will be effective in the long term only a few months after its introduction.
The media shape how we understand this case
The original police report is comparatively restrained.
Other media use much more emotional language.
That is not surprising.
A Rottweiler, a woman with life-threatening injuries and a rescue helicopter attract attention.
It becomes problematic when a complete explanation is constructed from just a few established facts.
If ten media outlets reproduce the same police report, that does not automatically give us ten independent sources.
And when a report says:
“The dog suddenly became aggressive”
it quickly becomes, in people’s minds:
“The dog attacked for no reason.”
From:
“It was a Rottweiler”
comes:
“It attacked because it was a Rottweiler.”
This is exactly where narratives emerge.
Why we call for bans so quickly
After a frightening event, people want a cause.
A clear cause promises control.
If the cause is:
“This breed is dangerous”
the solution appears simple as well:
Breed list.
Mandatory muzzle.
Breeding ban.
Import ban.
Reality is more complicated.
For an individually problematic dog, a muzzle can be entirely sensible and necessary.
But if we focus exclusively on breeds, we risk overlooking concrete warning signs in other dogs.
Then we have not created better prevention.
Only a different pigeonhole.
The most important question is different today than it was yesterday
On the first day, the question was:
Why did this dog suddenly become aggressive?
After the dog’s history became known, it is:
Why, after several known biting incidents, could another incident occur – one that was now life-threatening?
What assessments were made?
What requirements were imposed?
What recommendations were given?
What checks took place?
What information was available?
What measures were implemented?
There are currently no answers to these questions.
And as long as those answers are missing, no one should distribute blame prematurely.
But we should certainly ask.
Perhaps we need fewer breed lists – and better risk data
After every serious dog bite, there is a debate about a list of dangerous breeds.
Perhaps a different kind of system would be at least as important:
consistent documentation of problematic dogs and relevant incidents.
Not public.
Not stigmatising.
But as a basis for professional risk assessment.
A first serious incident should not disappear without consequences.
A second should not be viewed in isolation.
And when there are several incidents, it must at least be examined whether a pattern exists.
Regardless of breed.
Because a dog does not become harmless because its breed is not on a list.
And it does not automatically become dangerous because its breed is on one.
What we could really learn from Wies
The case could prompt a more useful discussion.
Not:
“Ban Rottweilers.”
And not:
“Breed does not matter.”
But:
How do we document biting incidents?
How do we assess the risk of recurrence?
When is medical assessment needed?
When is professional behavioural diagnostics needed?
When is mandatory safety management needed?
When are a muzzle and leash needed?
How are requirements monitored?
What training do owners need?
How do we recognise warning signs early?
These would be questions extending far beyond this individual Rottweiler.
And that is precisely why this case has greater significance than it initially appears to have.
Conclusion: Perhaps we are looking for the wrong danger
A 54-year-old woman was critically injured by her own dog.
The dog was a Rottweiler weighing around 50 kilograms.
According to police, it is said to have bitten three times before.
We do not know the immediate trigger for the current attack.
These are the facts we can currently work with.
They are not enough to condemn an entire dog breed.
But they are certainly enough to take this dog’s individual history seriously.
And perhaps that is the most important insight:
After serious dog bites, we often look very quickly for the dangerous breed – and perhaps not enough at the individual that had already become problematic.
If it is confirmed that three previous biting incidents were known, it must be examined what consequences were drawn from them.
Not to find someone to blame as quickly as possible in hindsight.
But so that a first, second or third warning sign involving another dog does not eventually become a life-threatening fourth incident.
Because good prevention does not begin with a label.
It begins with careful observation, good data, professional assessment and consistent action.
A breed list is quick to write. A functioning prevention system is more difficult.
And that is precisely why this case is bigger than the headline.
The Wies case is bigger than the headline about a Rottweiler that critically injured its owner.
Because it is now known that the dog is said to have bitten three times before.
This raises a crucial question: Why do we immediately discuss “fighting dogs,” breed lists and blanket muzzle requirements – instead of talking just as intensively about how we deal with a specific dog that has already become problematic repeatedly?
The new ZEITKANTE DEEP DIVE examines the case in detail: What do we really know? What is missing? What does science say about breed and aggression? And which warning signs might we be overlooking when we reduce the debate too strongly to dog breed?
HASHTAGS:
#Rottweiler #DogBite #DogBehaviour #ListedDogs #FightingDogs #MuzzleRequirement #DogTraining #DogOwners #AnimalWelfare #Austria #ZEITKANTE
RECHERCHE
Sources
- [1]Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (2026): „Bei Hundebiss lebensgefährlich verletzt“. Presseaussendung vom 16. September 2026. Offizielle Erstinformation zum Vorfall in Wies-Gaißeregg.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [2]ORF Steiermark (2026): „Hundehalterin nach Biss außer Lebensgefahr“. Bericht vom 17. September 2026. Enthält unter Berufung auf die Polizei die Information über drei frühere Beißvorfälle sowie Aussagen des Landesausbildungsleiters für Polizeidiensthunde.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [3]Österreichisches Gesundheitsportal: „Bissverletzungen“. Medizinische Übersicht zu Verletzungen von Haut, Muskeln, Sehnen, Nerven, Blutgefäßen, Knochen und Gelenken sowie zu Infektionsrisiken.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [4]Merck Veterinary Manual: „Behavior Problems of Dogs“. Veterinärmedizinische Fachübersicht zu Aggressionsverhalten sowie möglichen Zusammenhängen mit Angst, Konflikt, Lernen, Schmerzen und medizinischen Faktoren.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [5]Casey, R. A.; Loftus, B.; Bolster, C.; Richards, G. J.; Blackwell, E. J. (2014): „Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors“. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 152, 52–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003.
- [6]Morrill, K. et al. (2022): „Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes“. Science, 376(6592), eabk0639. DOI: 10.1126/science.abk0639.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [7]Duffy, D. L.; Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J. A. (2008): „Breed differences in canine aggression“. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(3–4), 441–460. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.006.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [8]Kim, S. E. et al. (2018): „Bite Forces and Their Measurement in Dogs and Cats“. Fachübersicht zur Messung der Beißkraft und zu Einflussfaktoren wie Körpergewicht, Schädelgröße und Morphologie.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [9]Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit – KFV (2020): „Die richtige Hundehaltung beginnt beim Hundehalter“. Angaben zu Krankenhausbehandlungen nach Hundebissen in Österreich im Zeitraum 2015 bis 2019.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [10]Republik Österreich – Rechtsinformationssystem: Steiermärkisches Landes-Sicherheitsgesetz, § 3b „Halten von Tieren“. Bestimmungen zu Maulkorb und Leinenführung.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [11]Republik Österreich – Rechtsinformationssystem: Steiermärkisches Landes-Sicherheitsgesetz, § 3c „Halten von gefährlichen Tieren“. Bestimmungen zu Tieren, die aufgrund ihrer individuellen Verhaltensweise eine Gefahr darstellen können.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [12]Republik Österreich: „Allgemeines zur Haltung von Listenhunden (‘Kampfhunden’)“. Überblick über unterschiedliche landesrechtliche Regelungen in Österreich.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [13]Stadt Wien – Veterinäramt und Tierschutz: „Listenhunde – Vorschriften und Ausnahmen, Hundeführschein“. Informationen zu Wiener Listenhunden, darunter Rottweiler, sowie zu Maulkorb-, Leinen- und Hundeführscheinregelungen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [14]Land Niederösterreich / NÖ Hundehaltegesetz: Bestimmungen über Hunde mit erhöhtem Gefährdungspotenzial. Rottweiler werden ausdrücklich genannt.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [15]Bundesministerium für Inneres: Registrierte Volksbegehren. „KAMPFHUNDERASSEN: ZUCHTVERBOT / IMPORTVERBOT“, registriert seit 22. Jänner 2025.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [16]Bundesministerium für Inneres: Text des Volksbegehrens „KAMPFHUNDERASSEN: ZUCHTVERBOT / IMPORTVERBOT“. Primärquelle zu den Forderungen und der Argumentation der Initiatoren.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [17]Republik Österreich – Rechtsinformationssystem / Tierschutzrecht und 2. Tierhaltungsverordnung: Regelungen zum seit 1. Juli 2026 geltenden Sachkundenachweis und dessen theoretischen und praktischen Inhalten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [18]Duncan-Sutherland, N.; Lissaman, A. C.; Shepherd, M.; Kool, B. (2022): „Systematic review of dog bite prevention strategies“. Injury Prevention, 28(3), 288–297. DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2021-044477.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [19]Nilson, F.; Damsager, J.; Lauritsen, J.; Bonander, C. (2018): „The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark“. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0208393. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208393.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [20]Patronek, G. J.; Sacks, J. J.; Delise, K. M.; Cleary, D. V.; Marder, A. R. (2013): „Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)“. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726–1736. DOI: 10.2460/javma.243.12.1726.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [21]Gunter, L. M.; Barber, R. T.; Wynne, C. D. L. (2016): „What's in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions & Labeling on Attractiveness, Adoptions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs“. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0146857. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146857.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [22]Bailey, C. M.; Hinchcliff, K. M.; Moore, Z.; Pu, L. L. Q. (2020): „Dog Bites in the United States from 1971 to 2018: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature“. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 146(5), 1166–1176. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007253.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [23]Pohler, Christian / dieHunde.schule: Fachbeiträge zu tierschutzkonformem Hundetraining, positiver Verstärkung, Stress, Sozialisation und der Kritik an aversiven Trainingsmethoden.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE