KC DOG BLOG

A New Study discussing the reliability of visual breed identification

In a new study that was just released, researcher Victoria Voith once again exposes the challenges of identifying dominant breeds of mixed breed dogs, even by "experts" in the field.  I think the research is important for a lot of reasons (some different from what others have surmised), and worth reviewing as the world of DNA genetics testing continues to challenge what we think we know about canine genetics, and rapidly adding knowledge to the field.

The Study

In the study, more than 900 people who had professions in the field of animal welfare were asked to watch a 1 minute video of 20 dogs that showed the full view of the front and side of the dog, along with the weights, age, and sex of the dogs. All participants noted that they're breed identification was sometimes used for record keeping purposes and were largely made up of kennel staff, Veterinary Assistants, Animal control Field officers, dog trainers, or other animal control or veterinary/behavior triaining staff.

The survey participants then had to answer the following questions:

Do you think the dog is purebred?  yes/no

If yes, what breed to you think it is?

If No, what do you think is the most predominant breed?

What do you think is the second most predominant breed? If you are unsure, write "mix".

The answers were then compared to the DNA results for the dogs.

The Dogs

Before I get into the results for this, I want to discuss the dogs used, and DNA as a whole. It's very important to note that at this point no one is saying that DNA tests are 100% reliable. Even the researchers who are creating the tests note this. Currently, the Mars Wisdom Panel test (which was used for this analysis) says it has a 90% accuracy rate across all first generation crosses. As dogs get further removed from pure heritage, the results get less and less accurate.

It's very important to note in this study that only ONE of the 20 dogs used came back with 50% or more of any one breed -- so only ONE fell within the 90% accuracy range. So, essentially,we cannot have a lot of certainly of the actual DNA results of almost any of the dogs in the study.  However, with the other 19, we can be 90% certain that the really are very mixed breed dogs and not predominently any one breed.  I think this is very important in how the results are analyzed.

The Results

While this study is far from conclusive because of the very small sample set of dogs, I do believe the initial results are very interesting.

Based on the study results, for 7 of the 20 dogs, more than 10% of the responents thought that the dog was "probably" a purebred dog. For three of the 20, 19% or more of the respondents thought the dog was probably a purebred dog (one of these three was the only dog in the study with a mix of 50% of any one breed - Miniature Pincher - and the majority of respondents incorrectly ID'd the dog as predominently Carin Terrier). 

Also of note, there was agreement among 50% or more of the respondents in the predominent breed in only 7 of the dogs -- and in 3 of them, the visual ID did not match ANY of the DNA identification. In the other 13 dogs (65%) there was no majority guess among the panel.

In 14 of the 20 dogs used, less than half of the guesses included a breed that was even detected by the DNA results. And for one of the dogs, exactly zero of the 859 respondents correctly identified a breed of dog in the mix (and this was the dog with highest breed concentration). 

Discussion

It's important to note why this data is important. In the United States, more than 40% of the canine population is mixed breed. 

For decades, the only possible way to identify mixed breed dogs was through visual identification, and many city juristictions have used such identification to influence their animal control policies.

However, we are now getting a lot of science-based data on the efficacy of such ideals, and the results don't support visual breed ID as a basis for policy:

- Visual ID of dogs is highly inaccurate when compared to DNA results

- The Visual ID of mixed breed dogs is highly subjective, as most 'experts' don't agree on the breeds based on looks

- Even those well-educated in the field are susceptible to judgment biases

Thus, statistical data that has often used to promote breed-specific policies is, and has been, based on visual breed identification that is proving itself to be highly subjective and inaccurate. And if public policy-makers want to rely on scientific and accurate information for their decisions, then the best solution will be to focus solely on behavior-based ordinances that target how dogs (and owenrs) BEHAVE, not how they look. 

Here's a link to the entire Voith Study (very detailed)

Here's a link to the National Canine Research Council's overview of the study.

Here's a link to a very nice visual chart that shows the dogs and the study results for the dogs.

Another research paper on health impact of spay/neuter

Earlier this week, a new study from the folks at California-Davis was released discussing the potential health impact of spay/neuter -- and early spay/neuter. Cal-Davis has a long reputation as being a leader in veterinary medicine so the results of the study I think deserve to be taken seriously -- although with the caveat that I do believe there is a lot more research to be done in this arena.

The study looked exlusively at Golden Retrievers and separated the dogs into three groups:

1) Unaltered Golden Retrievers

2) Late-neutered Golden Retrievers (neutered after the age of  12 months)

3) Early-neutered Golden Retrievers (neutered before 12 months of age)

Based on their study, the neutered dogs had significantly greater risk of several conditions than their unaltered counterparts.

- Neutered males were at significantly greater risk of developing Hip Dysplasia (HD) Early neutered males were at more than double the risk as late neutered males. Early spayed females were at greater risk, but there was no difference in femails between late spayed females and intact females.

- While there were no occurrances of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears (CCL) in unaltered animals, or late-spayed females, there was significant occurrance in early altered males and females. The suty points to the role of gonadal hormones in controlling the closure of bone growth plates and that an atypical growth plate closure (resulting from the absence of gonadal hormones, may increase the chance of a clinically apparent joint disorder such as CCL or HD.

- Early-neutered males and females were more likely to develop Lymphosarcoma (the 3rd most popular form of cancer in dogs) than those that were neutered late or left unaltered.

- While cases of Hermangiosarcoma were rare in unalterd dogs and early-neutered dogs, there was a significant occurrance of the cancer in late-spayed females. Previous studies have also linked the spay of female dogs to Hermangiosacrcoma.

- Mast cell tumors were not present in unaltered females, but were significantly more common in late spayed females and present in early spayed females.

The study concludes that while the role of gonadal hormones in joint growth seems to have a causal role in Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears and Hip Dysplasia, it is more complicated in certain cancers. The study is also quick to point out that impact may be very different in other breeds of dogs that have different growth patterns or health issues.

This study joins a growing list of studies about the impact of spay/neuter on the health of dogs, with previous studies also showing strong evidence for the neutering of males to increased occurrance of prostate cancer, and another study linking the early neutering of Rottweilers to increase the likelihood of osteosarcoma (bone cancer). Again, this one was linked to the importance of hormones in bone growth in large-breed dogs.

The impact of the research being done in this area may have a significant impact on the animal welfare community. Spay/neuter has become a very common practice in the US, and a primary form of animal population control for companion animals. However, if we really are into animal welfare, then the overall health of animals needs to be a consideration. Additionally, if we are to remain credible as organizations working to help people's animals, we have to be aware, and honest, about health impacts of spay/neuter. We also need to be exploring other alternatives to spay/neuter such as vasectomies and tubal ligations that may have the same positive impact on population control, without removing the important growth hormones.

This also further highlights that pushes for government mandates of spay/neuter are ill-advised as they may over-ride the information coming from the veterinary community about what is best for canine health.

The amount of research being done in this area is growing. And while there appear to be solutions that all parties can benefit from, we need to be aware of the research so that we are knowledgable, aware of what I think will be the growing change in how we view spay/neuter in this country, and prepared to change our current practices based on the most current information available. Remaining ignorant on this topic, or hiding our heads in the sand will not change it or make it go away.

The full study is here.

The article about the study (and easier to read) is here.

 

Factors Associated w/ Aggressive Responses in pet dogs

Breed-specific laws (and the ineffectiveness of them) are a common theme on this blog. I feel that all too often people read about an incident in the newspaper, and are quick to react with some type of legislation in response to the incident without taking the time to understand what it is that leads dogs to be aggressive in the first place. This is especially notable as most dogs never show aggression to their owners, or to others, and there are very few significant canine-related aggression issues each year in spite of there being roughly 72 million owned dogs in this country.

But even with the small numbers, dog aggression is a concern to some, and as I find reliable studies that address these issues, I try to post them because I always think more information is better than less information...which leads us to today's study: Factors Associated w/ Aggressiver Responses in Pet Dogs. (the entire study is at the link).

The study, like some similar studies, relied on the C-BARQ questionaire for people to report different factors in their dog's aggressive behavior. The study itself has some sample bias issues, as well as some issues that come with owners rating behavior via C-BARQ -- but the sample size is quite large (852 dog ownerss) and I think the results are interesting enough to share as they do add to the dogs/aggression data out there.

 The dogs were rated on 3 different types of aggression: Stranger Directed Aggression, Owner Directed Aggression and dog-directed aggression. I'll get into a few of considerations, but first, I'll just list the factors that seemed to be important for the different types of aggression.

For all three types of aggression, the presence of physical punishment was seen as an important factor -- although dogs aged 5-10 were the primary ones impacted by this for Owner-Directed Aggression.

Breed was also a possible factor in all three types of aggression -- with Golden Retrievers scoring the lowest in all three segments and mixed breeds being the highest. The breeds ranked in order very differently from there depending on the type of aggression shown.

Dog Characteristics: Other than breed, male dogs, dogs that had not been spayed or neutered and dogs older than 10 years of age were more likely to score higher on owner-directed aggression. (more on the effects of spaying/neutering on behavior here)

Owner Characteristics: These seemed to have little effect on the likelihood of the dogs to be more likely to show aggression. Owner's age, education, and experience with raising dogs did not have significant association with aggression. Male owners were less likely to score their dogs high on owner-directed aggression than female owners.

Living conditions: Dogs that lived in houses with yard space and more household members scored significantly higher on stranger-directed responses and dog-directed responses -- but not for owner-directed. Dogs in rural areas scored higher in stranger-directed aggression and dogs that lived in households with other dogs scored lower on owner-directed aggression.

Owner-dog interaction: As well as the physical punishment, dogs acquired as puppies scored higher on stranger-directed aggression than those adopted as adults. Dogs that spent more than 5 hours daily with their owners scored lower on owner-directed aggression. Dogs acquired for guarding purposes scored higher on stranger-directed aggression.  Dogs that were kept outside of the house scored much higher on owner-directed aggression than ones that moved freely between inside and outside the home and ones that mostly lived inside the home.

Some of the study's commentary and observations:

There were a lot of similarities between enviornmental factors in stranger-directed aggression and dog-directed aggression.

The results of breed being a factor in aggression is consistent with other studies (more on breed differences in aggression here)

Dogs being kept outside having a stronger tendency toward aggression toward owners but not toward strangers may be the result of agressive dogs being "banished" outside, or because dogs kept outside my have lower owner involvement and thus correlate with this aggression.

Dogs living in rural areas and houses with yard space may be moe aggressive toward strangers because owners are more tolerant, or even encourage, these aggressive behaviors for protection -- even when guarding is not a primary reason for acquiring the dogs. Dog with houses with yard space are more frequently exposed to unfamiliar people and dogs walking by the property -- elicting the dog's territorial response.

The study data could be skewed because owners elected to fill out the survey. This self-selected group may be more homogenous than a random subset -- thus, there is likely a lower degree of variation thanif a random sample had been used.

The study does not attempt to show causal relationships between dog-aggression and environmental factors, but only to show relationshps that may lend support for the possibility of reducing aggressive behavior through proper owner management.

 --------

I don't know that there is anything revolutionary in this study. In part, because of the inability to completely determine causal factors, but also because even with strong correlation, people who know and understand canine behavior know that behavior is made up of a complex group of circumstances. Breed, Breeding (even within breeds), environment, how animals are cared for, how they are raised, trained, punished, rewarded, spay/neuter status, when they are removed from their litters, etc all play roles in canine behavior. Because of this complexity, it is difficult to determine causal factors because it is nearly impossible to isolate all of the other factors from each other.

However, as science continues to add to the knowledge base of this field, it is increasingly ridiculous for legislation to be passed that focuses solely on a small factor that may or may not have a causal part in aggression.

It's important for cities to focus on what science and experts say about canine behavior -- and focus legislation on the BEHAVIOR of an animal, vs what it looks like. It really is the only solution..

 

Pit Bull Perceptions

Earlier today, a new study from Maddies Fund was released about how perceptions of dog handlers affected how people viewed an individual dog's behavior.

In the study, people were show pictures of 3 dogs and asked to rate them on a 6 point Likert scale their perceived friendliness, adoptability, approachability, intelligence, aggressiveness and difficulty to train.

People were also shown the same three dogs with different human handlers -- one with a rough looking adult male, one with a young boy and one with an elderly woman.

Not surprisingly, the results showed that people viewed the pit bull less favorably than they viewed the Labrador Retriever and the Border Collie -- giving it lower scores for friendliness, adoptability, approachability and intelligence -- and higher scores for aggressiveness and difficulty to train.

However, the scores for the pit bull jumped considerably when shown with the young boy and the elderly woman. From the study:

"The elderly woman and male child activated positive handler stereotypes, motivating participants to perceive the pit bull type dog as friendlier, more adoptable, more approachable and less aggressive while the rough male reinforced the dog's negative stereotype. These results suggest that a handler can serve as a primer for perceptions about a dog's characteristics."

Indeed.

The study results probably won't surprise most people much, but it does reinforce that overwhelmingly when people discuss ideas about restricting particular breeds of dogs, they are often talking about laws in place that target the types of people they PERCEIVE to be the typical owners of those types of dogs -- not necessarily the dogs themselves. This is why those that advocate for such laws are inclined to try to convince people that 'pit bulls' are the dog of choice for 'paraplegic drug dealers' and "gangbanger wannabe's."  It's very much about racism and stereotyping owners, and not focusing on the dogs, and the reality that most commonly owned by respected members of society.

This is one reason that education at programs that focus on the REAL owners of pit bulls  and showing the dogs as family members, are so effective in counter-acting this blatant, and incorrect, stereotyping.

While it should be about judging the dogs for what they are, I'm actually fine with people basing their predisposition off of the owners as well -- as long as they use the real owners and not the ones rooted in their fear-mongering imagination.  

Here's the link to the info graphic posted below (you can click to enlarge): 

US Pet Ownership Statistical Breakdown

For those of you that have been reading my blog for awhile, you know that I'm a numbers kind of guy. I like statistics, and using the statistical data to help better form my opinions on a variety of topics.

Late last year, a company called Mintel published a breakdown of Pet Ownership information. Mintel specializes in very detailed market information for marketers -- and Pets is just one of the many topics they cover. The pet ownership report is a whopping 136 pages of information and worth the price for any company that is dealing in pet products. I won't overwhelm you with all of the data, but I do think there were several key statistics that I think are important for rescues/shelters to know about pet ownership in the US -- and some things that I just found to be interesting.

All of the data here is from the Mintel report, but the commentary in the second sub-bullets is mine.

• Pet industry expenditures were an estimated $50.8 billion in 2011. 38% of this money will be spent on food, 22% on supplies and medicine, and 28% on veterinary care.
• Families with children are much more likely to have pets than families without children -- yet, the percentage of families without children is increasing in the US. However, pet ownership continues to grow, let in part by the number of young couples who are opting out of parenthood.
• 72.9 million US households report having at least one pet. 46.3 million own dogs, and 38.9 million own cats.  This represents 78.2 million owned dogs and 86.4 million owned cats.
• People with lower education levels (High School or some college) are more likely to own pets (64%) than more highly educated people (post graduate) at 56%.
• 62% of dog owners own only 1 dog. 26% own 2. 7% own 3 and 5% own 4 or more.
• For cats, 49% own 1, 29% own 2, 11% own 3 and 11% own 4 or more.
  • These two numbers are interesting as many cities in the US have pet limits that limit pet ownership to 2, 3 or 4 pets -- but there is an obvious demand for a significant percentage of pet owners to own more pets than that.
• 46% of US homes have a dog.  The age group most likely to own a dog is 18-24 year olds at 58%. Pet ownership remains pretty average for 25-54 year olds (49% for 25-34, 51% for 35-44 and 46% for 45-54) but then drops off considerably in older age groups (41% for 55-64 and 32% for 65+). The numbers are similarly skewed for cats. I find all of this interesting because
  • a) I feel like 18-24 year olds are more likely to be denied adoption by many rescue groups because of their age, the likelihood that they are renting, or the likelihood of something in their lives would make them seem less stable and thus more likely to return a pet -- and yet, they are more likely to ownn pets than any other age group.  
  • b) I think there are opportunities to increase pet ownership among older demographics who may be less likely to adopt because they no longer have kids or because the have concerns about who will care for a pet if something happens to them in their older age.

Where to people get their pets?

• 78% of dog owners own their own home. 18% rent. If we deny renters from adopting dogs we are essentially losing one-fifth of the total dog-owning market. For cats, 71% own and 26% rent.
• 30% of dog owners and 34% of cat owners got their pet from a shelter or rescue.
• 28% of dog owners, and 33% of cat owners got them from a friend or relative
• 15% of dog owners and 3% of cat owners go theier pet from a recognized breder
• 9% of dog owners and 4% of cat owners got them from a pet store
  • Pet stores continue to make up a very small percentage of pet acquisition and shelters and rescues are the leading source of pet acquisition.
• 34% of people with incomes less than $25k acquired their pet from someone else. This number is closer to 20% for all other income groups up to $100K+, where it drops to 16%.
  • I think this is extremely interesting. From talking with people who do urban core outreach in Kansas City, they say that most of the people they run across aquired their pet when a friend or relative could no longer take care of it, or they found it running loose in their neighborhood. These people tend to want to do best for the animal, and yet often, themselves, lack the resources to best care for them. It's just interesting that many people view poor people as poor pet owners, when many are simply trying to keep them from going to the shelter.

Breeds?

• Most cat owners don't really choose a cat by breed. But this is very different for dogs. 32% of dog owners said they knew in advance what breed of dog they wanted. 21% said they didn't choose because the dogwas given to them or chosen by somene else in the houeshold. 12% just browsed the selection and chose one they liked. 11% didn't know specifically what breed they wanted, but had an idea in mind and 10% didn't care about the breed, but knew the size of dog they wanted.
  • I think this is very interesting as 43% of people have a specific breed or an idea of a breed in mind before choosing a pet. 10% more are choosing based on size and 21% are not choosing at all because they just ended up with the dog. This can often be a challenge for small rescue groups to maintain the selection of breeds for different potential adopters.
• Men, and people aged 25-34, are most likely to have a specific breed of dog in mind.

Size?

• 52% of dog owners own a dog less than 25 lbs. This number is highest for people 55+ who own small dogs 58% of the time.
• 29% own dogs 26-50 lbs and 24% own dogs 51-75 lbs and 11% own dogs 75 lbs or more. Older people and low income people are much less likely to own large dogs because of their size and the cost to feed these dogs. Larger dogs are more likely to be owned by 25-54s, as this age group is generally active enough to provide for the exercise needs of a larger dog.

As members of the family?

• 76% of Americans consider their pet to be part of the family
• 54% consider themselves "pet parents' instead of "pet owners"
• 65% of dogs have free run of the house
• 53% of dogs sleep in their owners bedroom
• 21% are crated at night or when owners are away
• Only 8% of dogs are kept outside only.  However, this number is 16% in housholds that make less than $25k per year.
  • For all of the talk that about low-income pet owners being bad pet owners, this isn't supported by these numbers -- with 84% of even the lowest-income pet owners keeping pets inside the home (55% of this group have dogs with free-run over the home). While it's true that they are more likely to have outside-only dogs, they do still overwhelmingly keep them inside the home.

The impact of race on pet ownership

• While 46% of all households own dogs, this number is 51% for whites, 53% for hispanics and 24% for blacks.
• The same is true for cats, where 31% of households have cats, 36% for whites, 34% for hispanics and 14% for blacks.
• Blacks seem to be less likely to own pets because they are more likely to live in densely populated urban areas with less room for pets.
• Whites are more likely to own larger dogs than the other groups.
• Hispanics are more likely to enjoy the fun part of pet ownership-- they buy more toys for their pets, take more photographs and take their pet with them more often than other ethnic groups.

I'll likely refer back to these numbers fairly regularly as I have some things planned for trying to help increase adoptions -- but I definitely think you can see some opportunities here from these numbers.

What kind of doggie is that in the window?

A couple of weeks ago, the University of Florida, along with Maddie's Fund, announced the results of a study that they have been working on all summer.

More that 5,000 dog experts -- including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, and rescuers completed a survey in which they were asked to identify the primary breed of dog of 20 of 119 dogs in the database.

The results were then matched with DNA tests. Here are the 100 dogs, with their DNA results, and the top responses from the experts.

I realize that there is a lot of skepticism about the accuracy of DNA testing. I will note that my experience has been pretty good with the Mars Wisdom Panel test -- at least within the past couple of years. I do think it has issues at times with uncommon breeds that are less likely to have deep DNA pools for which to pull genetic markers. But otherwise I think the results are fairly reliable.

I also think it's then interesting to see the variety of different breeds that were assigned (based solely on picture identification) to different types of dogs by the panel of experts -- with many of the responses varying pretty widely.

Specifically, I think a lot of "lab mixes" end up having no Lab in them at all and a lot of "American Staffordshire Terrier mixes" have 25% or less AST DNA in them. The testing group also did pretty well on identifying purebred dogs, or ones that were 75% of more of a certain breed, but often had some pretty far-off results for ones that were 50% or less of a certain breed. This means that even people with a fairly good understanding of dog breed charactersistics did fairly poorly at identifying mixed breed dogs of which were just 1 generation away from being purebred. They were awful at identifying ones that were 2 generations or more away from being purebred.

The study is yet another in the growing list of data that suggests that looks-based breed identification for mixed breed dogs is very unreliable -- even if "experts" are doing the identification. This means that any dog bite data based on visual identification, and newspaper reports indicating breed,  is going to be VERY unreliable with the exception of truly purebred dogs.

Thus, pretty much every dog bite study in existence is inaccurate, and pretty much any law targeting dogs based on how they look is completely unenforceable. And once DNA gets diluted into mixed breed dogs, a dog can easily look very different than what you'd expect based on its genetic makeup.

 

 

 

Study indentifies top barriers to pet ownership

Later this month, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association is going to publish an article showing the survey results of why people don't intend to adopt a pet at this time.

The survey looked at why people won't get both cats and dogs, and both previous pet owners and those who have never owned a pet. The survey included 500 people in each category.

According to the survey, the following are the top reasons why people do not plan to adopt a pet:

Among Previous Owners -- Dogs

-- Veterinary Expenses -- 30%

-- General Expenses - 29%

-- No time - 27%

-- Still Grieving previous pet - 20%

Among Previous Owners - Cats

-- Travel too much - 28%

-- Cleaning up - 25%

-- Veterinary expenses - 25%

-- Still grieving - 17%

Of never-owners - Dogs

-- Lifestyle - 30%

-- Cleaning up - 30%

-- General expenses - 29%

Of never-owners - cats

-- Don't like - 35%

-- Litter box smell - 29%

-- Lifestyle - 22%

The survey also noted that 22% of previous dog owners and 18% of previous cat owners acquired their pet from a shelter or rescue organization and that most respondents over the age of 65 are no longer interested in owning a pet -- noting that "we're done".

The study highlights several key insights that I think are interesting. One is how large a barrier cost is to adoption. This is probably higher now, due to the poor economy, than it may have been several years ago, but the cost of pet ownership is still a very real barrier.

I also find the overall dislike of cats interesting -- as they often get a bad reputation but I think there is a lot of opportunity to educate people on the benefits of cat ownership and letting them realize that it is actually pretty easy to own a cat (although, I do dislike the whole litterbox thing mostly).  

I also think it's sad that older people are not as interested in pets, as pets are great companions and often really help people in their later years.

And finally, I think the number who are still grieving over their lost pet is VERY interesting -- as it not only shows how strong the connection between people and their pets can be, but also that there may be some pretty big opportunities in grief counseling for pet owners. 

This is part one of a study funded by PetSmart Charities. Future phases will examine the outcomes of pets adopted from shelters after 6 months of being adopted and a final phase will test strategies for owner retention.

Considering the source

I love the internet. In many ways, I think the internet has helped level the playing field in the talks of BSL because we no longer need to have a multi-million dollar media outlet to tell our story and relay information. Thus, we don't have to rely on the media, which has often been biased on the subject.

Unfortunately, there is a con to this. The con is that on the internet, everyone gets more or less an equal voice -- regardless of their qualifications for being able to speak knowledgably about the subject.

And, unfortunately, it seems many Americans don't have the ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones -- including, at times, the media.

Last week, I stumbled across a terrifying and hilarious blog entitled "Literally Unbelievable". The blog essentially just pulls screen shots from facebook or twitter where people are believing, and commenting on articles published by The Onion. Now, I assume that  most of my readers know about The Onion, but for those over-seas or whatever, the Onion is a Satire newspaper (now mostly website) that has been published in the United States since 1988.  That's nearly 25 years of publishing satirical gems like how the American Public Hired a High-Powered Lobbyist to represent them in Washington DC.

And yet, when you read "Literally Unbelievable" you realize that many people are taking the 'news' published at the Onion as real news. 

While the website clearly highlights the absurdities in not understanding what are meaningful opinions and sources, there are many more subtle examples that are more concerning.

Yesterday, I published a very well-researched article on this blog by the Australian Veterinary Association speaking out against breed-specific legislation.

Now, call me crazy, but I would consider an association of Veterinarians, in a sophisticated country like Australia, with a lot of research backing up their stance to be a reliable source on the topic.

Meanwhile, this paper joins many other similarly posted articles by experts in this country that similarly oppose breed-specific legislation because it is ineffective at inproving public safety. In fact, there is a completely lack of professional support from experts in the animal behavior for breed-specific laws.

BSL is not support by Lawyers -- who understand the legal wranglings of such laws -- as the  American Bar Association has come out against the laws.

Dog trainers, who understand dog behavior more than anyone generally, don't support the laws -- as evidenced by position statements by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, International Association of Canine Professionals, and National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors.

Rescue organizations, many of whom handle hundreds, if not thousands of dogs each year, and have trained staffs of professionals, don't support Breed-specific laws either -- including major national organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and American Humane.

Breed-specific laws are also not supported by the National Animal Control Association, or the American Veterinary Medical Association -- who has their own very good position paper on dog bite prevention.

Given all of these outstanding resources on what are appropriate responses to dog bite solutions - -and specifically calling out why breed-based laws are wrong, why are we still having the conversation about Breed Bans?

Why are people still citing newspaper articles as sources for effective legislation, or blogs written by annonymous writers, or websites created by people with no animal handling expertise or, Miss Universe Canada, as experts on the topic of dangerous dog laws?

They're not.

Experts are experts. Science is science. And websites written by people who are not experts in the field they write about are not viable sources for information. Nor are people just because they're pretty.

So here's my call out to people in the public, and the media, please consider your sources. Deterimine who is or is not an expert, and report on what real, true, experts believe.

Thank you.

The case against breed-specific legislation in Australia

Last month, the Australian Veterinary Association put together a very detailed policy statement regarding dangerous dog legislation in Australia entitled "Dangerous Dogs - a sensible solution".

The paper, which is one of the more detailed reports I've read in awhile, relies very heavily on case studies and published scientific literature in order to support its case against laws targeting breeds of dogs, and in favor of behavior-based ordinances.

The report begins by offering a variety of factors that are inter-related and are important factors for dog bites, including:

- Heredity (genes, breed)

- Early experience (including even where the dog was bred in a home or in a commercial breeding operation)

- Socialization and training

- Heatlh (physical and psychological

- Victim Behavior

- Sex of animal

- Environmental factors such as chaining, median income level of the area, whether the dogs were in a pack or not).

The report also notes that most dog bites occur in the home -- by dogs known by the victim -- although most legislatin is very much targeted toward the smaller number of attacks that happen in public spaces.

The paper then goes on to describe why it is against laws targeting specific breeds of dogs (BSL):

"The Australian Veterinary Association does not believe that breed based approaches reduce public risk. The AVA is opposed to breed-based dog control measures becaue the vidence shows that they do not and cannot work. National veterinary assoications in Britain, the United States and Canada, and major animal welfare organizations internationall also hold this view." (Emphasis mine)

According to the AVA, breed-specific laws fail because:

    - Breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression in dogs

    - It's not possible to precisely determine the breed of the types of dogs targeted by BSL

    - The number of animals that would have to be removed from a community to have a meaningful impact on hospital admissions is so high that removal of any one breed would have a negligible impact.

    - BSL ignores the human element

The study then goes on to support each of these points - -highlight a variety of studies that indicate that breed is not an effective indicator of aggression in dogs. Many of the studies or reports in this section are ones I've covered on this blog before (including Duffy, Gladwell, and the ATTS)  and -- although a few are new to me and will give me some more future reading material.

The section about the number of dogs needed to be removed to make an impact is a compelling section -- noting that if a single breed was known to cause 15% of all dog bites, then more than 5,000 dogs of that breed would need to be removed (ie killed) in order to save just one bite. For more serious injuries, if one breed was responsible for 35% of all serious injuries, then more than 30,000 dogs would need to be removed to prevent a single reconstructive surgery and more than 100,000 dogs would need to be removed (killed) to prevent a single hospitalization.

"This shows the impluasibility that breed-specific legislation will substantially reduce the number of dog bite related injuries in a community. 'If we want to prevent all bites, there is only one way and htat is to ban all dogs. That is of cours as unrealistic as trying to prevent bites by enacting breed-specific legislation'".

The study then covers the failures of breed-specific laws around the word -- including noting the failures in Denmark, Spain, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and the UK (as well as a few others I'm not as familiar with). The study then also notes the dramatic BSL failings in New South Wales where dog bites have increased dramatically since the enactment of a breed ban in that Australian state.

The report then goes on to suggest a reasonable solution to solving dog bites in communities that takes a behavior-based approach which includes registration of all dogs, standardizing bite reporting across the nation, focusing on temperament to identify potentially problem dogs/owners, guiding breeder to improve temperament of puppies, comprehensive owner education programs and adequate enforcement for all programs.

It's a really good report -- and very much worth the time to read in its entirety here.  It's a total of 48 pages long, but really, only about the first 25 or so are required reading as the rest is all references and Appendix items.

But this is another great piece that joins the wide collection of professional research and literature opposed to breed-specific legislation.

Why do people choose to adopt the pets they choose?

This is a fairly new study published again by the folks at the ASPCAPro. The topic of this one is Why do adopters choose the particular animal they choose at a shelter?

The study asked 1,491 adopters seven questions to determine what it was about a particular pet that led them to choose that particular pet for adoption.

The most important factor for cat adoptions was "behavior with people"(27%).  For dogs, Appearance was most important -- also at 27%. I would suspect this difference would be primarily because of the more variance in appearance among dogs than cats.  Interestingly, kittens were more likely to be chosen based on their appearance than adult cats and more so than because of their behavior.  There was less difference between puppies and dogs.

Another question was asked: "What did this pet do when you first met him or her?" In otherwords, what type of first impression did the pet make.

For cats, 19.8% approached or greeted, 13.4% vocalized and 9.3% rubbed/leaned on.

For dogs, 23% approached or greeted, 14.8% licked and 9.4% jumped up/climbed on.

For Kittens, they were more likely to vocalize, and play, than approach or rub on. Again, the difference between dogs and puppies was not as major.

When listing what elements were important in determining adopt an animal the results were very interesting:

                                                    Kitten        Adult Cat        Puppy        Adult Dog

Physical Appearance            63%                66%                77%             75%

Age                                              78%               64%                75%            66%

Behavior w/ People                69%                78%                74%            78%

Playfulness                               67%                54%                64%            58%

Sex                                               44%                35%                45%            35%

Health                                        50%                51%                45%            49%

Energy Level                            45%                44%                56%            56%

Behavior when by himself    26%               26%                34%            29%

Behavior toward other animals 19%        25%                 27%            32%

Reco from staff or volunteer  13%                22%               16%            24%

Special adoption offer                2.2%            5.9%               2.9%            7%

Wanted to help animal            13%                21%                23%            24%

Adopters for cats and dogs note that more than 75% of the time the most important source of information about that animal came from a staff or volunteer, around 45% said from their cage card and 30-35% said from the internet. Information received was about health, behavior and prior life experiences (in that order).

Discussion thoughts:

- While adoptions specials may encourage adoption in general, they don't appear to have a huge influence on individual choice of animals.

- Dogs and cats approaching adopters was an important factor for adopters which suggests the importance of social greeting behavior in shelters. Teaching approach behaviors may help animals to become adopted.

-- Staff and volunteers are an extremely important source of information about animals -- way moreso than the internet -- proving the importance of customer service in shelters.

-- Interacting directly with a dog or cat is more important than seeing the pet behind a cage door. Providing areas and opportunities for adopters to spend time  with pets outside of the kennel can be valuable.

-- Because appearance was so important in the adoption of puppies/kittens, shelter staff could benefit by providing potential adopters more emphasis on behaviors and personality to create a better match.

-- On a personal note, I was surprised at how low energy level scored in importance -- when it may very well be the most important factor in a good match for adopters -- particularly for dogs.

This is a very good and interesting study.  You can read the entire thing for free here. Do the results mirror what you see at your shelter?