Breed ID, DNA Testing, and why BSL is faulty and failing and the ridiculousness of it all

In Salina, KS,a pet named Lucey owes her very life to DNA testing.

A few weeks ago, when someone was pet-sitting Lucey, they made a mistake and Lucey got free. When animal control officers found Lucey, they demed her to be a 'pit bull' -- a type of dog that has been banned from the city since 2005.

If Lucey was a 'pit bull', she would be killed by the city. It didn't matter that she was loved by her family, that she wasn't aggressive, and that she didn't bite anyone. She would be killed...because when cities discriminate against breeds of dogs, good behavior no longer matters.

Animal control took Lucey to a vet to get a second opinion -- and the vet did a DNA test on Lucey.  Lucy came back as a DNA certified mutt -- with 12% Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 12% Boxer, 12% Bull Terrier and 25% Bernese Mountain Dog.

Lucey's life was spared.

In a similar incident, a dog that was labeled as a 'pit bull' and set to be killed because of Ontario's ban on 'pit bulls' was saved by some rescuers who didn't believe that the small, pointy-snoited dog was really a 'pit bull'. The dog had a brindle coat - and even though over 20 different breeds of dogs can have brindle coats, most seem to get labled in shelters as 'pit bulls'. 

However, the well-natured dog was saved -- and moved to Nova Scotia which does not have a breed ban.

Incidents like this underscore the whole failing of breed specific legislation.  BSL is based on the misconception that dogs that shared certain genetic traits were more prone to aggression -- and thus, needed to be banned or regulated in some way.

Not only is the premise untrue -- but we're finding out very quickly that the datapoints often used to justify this action is based on faulty information:

    -- Most of the dogs that are called 'pit bulls' in the shelter seem to have very little genetic ancestory in common with any of the 'pit bull' breeds

    -- Meaning that most of the dogs that are labeled as 'pit bulls' have little to no genetic relationship to each other

    -- Every dog bite study that was performed without DNA testing (which is all of them at this point) are based on visual IDs of dogs.  We're finding that this visual identification is most often wrong and that there is little genetic linkage among the dogs -- which means hundreds and thousands of dogs are being called 'pit bulls' because of how they look - -and not because of any genetic linkage.  The idea that looks cause aggression, and not genetics, is even more ridiculous of an idea than the genetics one.

And none of this even points out that even IF the information the bans were based on was legitimate (which it's now clearly not), the idea of taking a non-aggressive family pet and killing it because of how it looks just doesn't make sense.

The solution seems so simple.  If the dog is aggressive, then deal with that situation.  If the dog is not aggressive -- quit wasting animal control resources on it and leave it (and its owners) alone.

Meanwhile, DNA testing is going to become very expensive for cities. If they want to insist that a dog is a 'pit bull', they are either going to have to prove it by paying for the DNA test themselves (at a cost of $160 or so apiece).  OR, make the dog owner pay for it, which would be a violation of the US Constitution that makes the government prove your guilt instead of making us prove our innocence.  Remember:  Innocent until proven guilty.  Violating that will subject dozens of cities to legal suits for violating the Consitution - a very costly situation for taxpayers.

So how is it that cities still continue to entertain the idea of BSL --when time and time again it shows:

    1) that we don't really know what 'pit bulls' look like

    2) determining whether or not a dog is a 'pit bull' is costly

    3) every dog bite study in existence right now is based on what a dog looks like, and not genetics - and we've just seen in #1 that that makes them innaccurate

    4) That even without the first three problems, science doesn't support that genetics makes dogs aggressive.

    5) and that because of all of this, BSL has not one single case study of having been successful in improving public safety.  Anywhere.  Ever. 

It is time to put the focus on the behavior of the dog in determining its aggression. The idea of killing a friendly family pet because of how it looks is absurd...and everyone should be dismayed by it.

    

Comments

[Katie]

The DNA testing available right now, as far as I know, is very poor. Dawn Capp of CHAKO had her papered APBT DNA tested and he came back primarily Border Collie (well, he *is* black and white).

I don't understand the argument that pit bulls in the shelter aren't really pit bulls. According to whom? That is a totally bizarre assertion imo. Does that mean the Labs in the shelters aren't really Labs and the Huskies not really Huskies?

[Jessica]

Many people couldn't recognize an APBT as opposed to a Staffie, or a Cane Corso, or a mastiff, or other similar-looking breeds, but anyone with a passing interest in dog breeds can recognize a pit bull as one.

It's nonsense to say that BSL doesn't work because we "can't recognize pit bulls". BSL doesn't work because people behave poorly. They train dogs, regardless of breed, to be aggressive. They neglect or abuse their dogs. They allow perfectly normal dogs to run loose. It's always been about people, not a breed of dogs.

[Brent Toellner]

For starters, in her video, Dawn uses one of the mouth swab tests. I can't remember exactly which test she used, but the Canine Heritage test is the best of this group. Even with that, the test only has the DNA in their database to match 115 breeds of dogs (it was less at the time -- about 60 or so) -- and neither the AST nor APBT are in the database. So it wouldn't be confusing why the DNA would come out more than a bit odd if it's being "matched" without a full breed list and your breed isn't part of the list.

The Mars Wisdom Panel test -- which most people think is better because it has a much deeper database of DNA to compare with 170+ breeds -- is the one used in these cases. This test does contain AST DNA in the database for matching. While the APBT is not in the database, logic would say, based on breed history, that they should show up at least predominently AST in the comparitive match. I'm not 100% sure though...

The argument isn't that 'pit bulls' in the shelter aren't really 'pit bulls' as much as the reality that most of the dogs that are categorized as "pit bull mixes" have little to no genetic linkage to any of the 'pit bull' breeds. Like Labs, and German Shepherds, 'pit bull' has become such a large breed group that pretty much all mixed breeds that have a certain look get classified as one of these three breeds. If it has long black or yellow hair, it becomes a 'lab mix' -- even though there are dozens of mixed breed dogs it could be.

Meanwhile, for fun, type in "German Shepherd mix" into petfinder and most don't even remotely resemble what a true, pure-bred GSD looks like.

These breed categories have become quite the catch-alls. And as such a large number of "pit bulls" found in the shelter have no genetic resemblence to an APBT at all.

It isn't a totall bizarre assertion at all...

[Brent Toellner]

Jessica,

The National Canine Research Council has been doing a series of DNA tests and putting together different versions of the "Find a pit bull" game based on DNA evidence. You might be surprised by the findings.

Here's the "find a pit bull" game:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/can-you-find-a-pit-bull-mix.pdf

Here's the one for labs:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/do-you-know-a-lab-mix.pdf

If you don't think most shelters would classify the majority of these dogs as the larger breed grouping I think you're kidding yourself.

And i know it's common to bash DNA tests for their inaccuracies, but I think it's funny that people think they can judge a dog's heritage by eyesight better than DNA seems like a bit of an odd assumption too.

While I agree that BSL doesn't work primarily because it's an ownership issue, not a breed issue, I don't think you can discount the number of people who are negatively impacted when the dog they think is a mixed breed dog ends up dead in a shelter because some animal control officer thought it was "close enough" to a pit bull. I've personally dozens of cases in the past couple of years just in the KC area....and it's a major, severe, problem.

[Linda]

Geeesh. At least I can hold me head up high as New Scotland doesn't do those silly breedy things. Just one part of er did, but they fought that one to it's end.

[Nichole]

Brent

I agree that many of the dogs in shelters are mislabeled as pit bulls. Visual breed identification is very difficult, especially when many mixed breeds tend to take on characteristics of pit bulls.

I am a pit bull owner and an active member of Indy Pit Crew, and even I get fooled by the many mixes that come into the Humane Society of Indianapolis where I work.

I think the DNA tests just help us prove that breed identification is difficult if not impossible, and that it's a terrible (and stupid) way to try and determine if a dog has the potential to be dangerous.

[Nichole]

OOps, rather, where I volunteer!