Reading Pennsylvania has what may be one of the wackiest laws out there with a law that if one "breed" of dog is found to be responsible for 40% of their dog bites, all dogs of that "breed" will all be declared vicious.
While this has tied up a lot of people's time in trying to determine the exact number of dog bites and what breeds were responsible (animal control and health department numbers didn't match), the Reading Animal Control Board has recommended against BSL, but has opted to recommend a more far-sweeping policy of enacting mandatory spay/neuter.
Their deciison was based on this same number of dog attacks, where nearly 80% of the dog attacks in Reading were by unsterilized dogs.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
However, this is one of my hot buttons. I have never seen any type of study anywhere that would indicate to me that neutering your dog reduces aggression.
If we can thing rationally about this for a minute, let's deal with a couple of unproven, but pretty easy theories to jump on board with.
1) Dogs that attack are owned by irresponsible dog owners. This shouldn't be terribly controversial, and I think most people more or less agree with this. People who don't train/properly care for their pets, are more likely to have pets that attack. So if we accept this, we can move on to #2
2) Irresponsilbe owners are less likely to spay or neuter their dogs. While this one has much less actual evidence to support it, let's think about it rationally. If someone isn't willing to take the time to properly train/care for their dog, chances are, they aren't going to go to their vet's office and fork over the $120 or so to spay/neuter their dog. This by no means indicates that everyone with an unaltered dog is irresponsible, only that the majority of irresponsible owners don't alter their dogs.
If we can buy into this, the following correlation exits:
Attacking dogs = irresponsible owners = unaltered dogs
So it is only logical that attacking dogs are primarily unaltered.
But I've never seen any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that indicates that the act of being unaltered MAKES the dog more aggressive. Mandatory spay/neuter laws continue to take the root cause of dog attacks out of the equation....the irresponsible dog owners. They are, and continue to be, and will always be, the root cause of the problem. Until we start focusing on the part of the equation that actually has a direct link to the CAUSE of the attack, we will continue to focus on the wrong issues.
Just because there is correlation between unaltered dogs and attacks does NOT mean there is causation associated. The cause is the irresponsible owners. Let's focus our efforts there, and leave responsible dog owners alone.
Brent, as someone who specialized in (successfully) re-training aggressive dogs for many years, my first inclination is to profess that spaying/neutering will not prevent or cure aggressive behaviours, in and of itself.
Sure, many of the aggressive dogs I worked with were reproductively intact. Most weren't. Certainly, if a dog is already displaying aggressive behaviours, spaying/neutering will not, on its own, solve the problem. That I can say, with little equivocation.
I agree there is merit in remembering that irresponsible owners raise aggressive dogs, and many irresponsible owners don't spay/neuter. (Which is akin to my usual analogy, "Nearly all men who get prostate cancer wear shoes. That doesn't mean wearing shoes causes prostate cancer.")
However, with such overwhelming evidence that intact male dogs are involved in the majority of serious attacks, and having done no scientific research into this topic myself, I'm open to the possibility that testosterone may play a part in creating a bio-chemical environment that leads to more reactivity...or however you want to refer to it.
I'm a woman, so I can't really say, for sure, how testosterone affects mood, etc. Having studied psychology for many years, I do know that testosterone, itself, is not directly responsible for any specific thoughts, or for any behaviours that require learning and practice (such as hitting, swearing or, in the case of dogs, growling, lunging, or attempted bites). What has been suggested is the theory testosterone (or other hormones) can lead to an individual becoming more reactive, moodier, more anxious, etc. If the person/dog is properly socialized, he/she/it will react in socially-acceptable ways, regardless. If he/she/it has not been properly raised, he/she/it may utilize threatening coping strategies; ones that have been successful in the past.
What better evidence than the attempts at chemical castration of rapists? Since rape is not truly a crime of sexual desire, but rather one of power, chemical castration did nothing to stop the flood of thoughts that bring a rapist to the point of assault. Indeed, several of the chemically castrated rapists continued to assault women. They just weren't able to commit the act of rape. Chemical castration didn't stop the aggression or the thoughts or the violent behaviours.
Posted by: Marjorie | January 24, 2008 at 06:14 AM
The studies I've read, as is often the case, contradict the popular wisdom about sterilization.
In fact, castration appears to increase excitability and activity in dogs.
It appears to increase reactivity, territoriality and nuisance barking in bitches.
Neutering will modify some male behaviours, such as roaming and intermale aggression and, to a lesser extent, marking.
In some studies, neutered females were the largest group of biters.
What's my point? We need more research into the potential health and behavioural effects of what is radical, life-altering surgery. This isn't about getting your ears cropped, it's important.
We definitely need more research into juvenile (pre-pubertal) sterilization. I am aware of only one long-term study, which followed pups for only four years.
Some of the health risks identified including growth anomalies, bone cancer, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction and the changes I mentioned above.
Hormones are powerful and necessary.
I am not opposed to sterilization per se but on consulting with many experienced breeders and others, I'd suggest that people wait until their dog is mature before neutering.
In Toys, dogs are pretty much adult by one year of age. Large breeds can take 2 or more years to reach maturity.
As with any therapy or medical procedure that needs more study, 'go low, go slow' is the best advice.
My personal opinion is that given the statistically small number of incidents studied, it is not possible to conclusively say that this or that factor, particularly reproductive status, is a valid contributor to the problem across the population.
----
When I was a kid, back in the Neolithic, nobody neutered their males. Only females had the surgery because people didn't want pups.
That was back when people used to just let the dog out for an hour or so to wander around, meet his friends, have doggy fun, etc.
This was in a fairly well off neighbourhood in Toronto called Lawrence Park.
My point is, doggy altercations were few and far between, dog bites were rare and as kids who constantly hung around with neighbourhood dogs without - gasp! - adult supervision, we were never threatened, very rarely told off, less rarely nipped by these calm, diffident dogs.
I don't know what's changed, but I wonder if the increased isolation of dogs these days due to increased dangers such as traffic, dopey people, etc, has made dogs more anxious - a dog that is free to wander around is usually not a risk or threat of any kind, obviously barring other factors.
----
In my view, forcing incompetent owners to neuter their dogs will have zero effect on the incidence of bites and nasty incidents.
It is the owner behaviour that will influence the scenario, not the dog's repro status.
A twit with a neutered dog is still a twit.
I'm not buying into the sterilization mantra, as you've likely noticed :>)
Posted by: Caveat | January 24, 2008 at 08:19 AM
I support MSN for problematic owners and their pets. ;-) That at leasts removes the option of this person causing an unwanted litter even if it has no effect on aggression. How many attack cases are we seeing where there was a female in heat or puppies around? At least that situation is remedied.
You also have to add a clause that the MSN applies to ALL pets the owner has -- some of them will simply dump the dog and go get an unaltered one. None of these MSN laws I'm seeing passed even addresses the complete issue.
BTW folks -- none of these laws will apply to commercial breeders. So all the dogs that will get pumped into society will come from questionable breeding.
Posted by: Michelled | January 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Nearly all show dogs are unaltered. And they are not usually biting or killing people? The conclusory assertion that altering="safe dog", altering="non-biting" pretty much is HSUS et al, and whomever they hire to pitch that line. The public in general will believe whatever they see first. Problem is they usually see what HSUS puts out there first. So that means we all need a better marketing/education campaign, bec only the educated usually read blogs. My suggestion is for everyone to post on craigslist regularly, bec thats where you have a lot of ARs and the uneducated--I guarantee your posting will be flagged off. That tells ya something right there--you are doing something right. As for the causal link between biting and unaltered, its basically a socieo-economic deal. BSL was defeated in TN recently, due in part to people using paws4laws online, and the built in email system to legislators. If 4,000+ people all mailed in against a proposed law, it has a better chance of dying. SB861 had far more than that, but the issue was decided prior to voting. (Leg's also like written mail/fax better than emails.) Anyone wanting to be heard on anti-pet issues can call in on Thursdays 6:30PST 646/595-4051 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/doglegislation
We are all talkers but we need doers to get things done when push comes to shove.
Posted by: Sabrina Kennedy | January 25, 2008 at 09:25 PM