KC DOG BLOG

Behavioral differences among breeds of dogs -- current status of science

Recently, a new research paper was published in the Applied Animal Behavior Science entitled "Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs: Current status of the science."

The study does not present new data, per se, but instead looks at the depth and breadth of canine behavior science over the past 50 years and provides a very detailed look at what we know about behavior differences among breeds, what we think we know about these differences, and opportunities for more research.

The study includes references more than 120 other scientific studies about canine behavior (several I've referenced on this blog before) to create a thorough, and well-rounded report. While I doubt the conclusions will really surprise too many readers of this blog, I think the information is very interesting throughout (and I now have a lot more reading material ahead of me).  

Among the key findings based on the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior:

1)  Most studies have found convincing evidence of differences between breeds and breed groups with respect to behavior

2) Mant of these studies are based on survey results  -- and such studies are vulnerable to inaccurate reporting on a dog's behavior because the survey responder may be infuenced by cultural and media biases. Studies based on survey results reported larger differences in behavior among different breeds and breed groups than controlled studies.

3) Many of the studies also show very large within-breed behavior variations. This variation is due to  genetic differences within breed, and individual learning history as it relates to environmental differences and specific contingencies that the individual dog has contacted throughout its lifetime.

4) Breeds are not equally represented in the research - -and specifically, some breeds are vastly overrepresented, making conclusions about the influence of breed on behavior difficult to generalize as a whole. 

5)  When breed differences have been identified in scientific literature, they do not typically match behavioral descriptions in breed standards which are largely unsubstantiated.

In my opinion, some other key findings worth noting:

1) The study indicates that modern breeds are not closely related to ancient breeds because of a loss of genetic diversity due to historical, cultural and geographic factors.

2) Breeds that were commonly targeted in the media, and politics for human-directed aggression (pit bulls, German Shepherds and Rotweilers), in scientific studies actually consistently scored low on stranger-directed aggression as breed groups.

3) There were significant differences in behavior within breeds.  This is partciularly true in differences between individual dogs within a breed group were bred for show vs field work. I think this is particularly highlighted in this German Study in which German Shepherds from show lines and those from working lines showed to be genetically identifiably different even though they were the same breed of dog. 

4) There is a very interesting section on dog-directed aggression that notes that different dog breeds vary somewhat in their social signaling. In particular, some physical characteristics (snout length, ear structure, reduced skull shape) may influence social signaling and how dogs react to each other. 

5) Many breeds were differently ranked for dog-directed aggression, owner directed aggressiona and stranger-directed aggression -- which suggests that environmental stimuli, rather than breed alone, play a major role in the propensity to exhibit aggression. 

6) Physical characteristics often influence problem-solving tasks. For instance, short-snouted (brachycephalic) breeds seem more likely to use their paws in manipulation tasks where as long-snouted (dolchocephalic) breeds rely less on their paws better allow them to manipulate objects in small spaces with their muzzles.  Physical attributes like muzzle length may also impact a dog's sense of smell which may cause some breeds to be more or less likely to rely on olfactory sense for seeking. 

7) A dog's age, and experience working with humans (often as a result of the function of a dog in its use by the human) have a significant impact on human-responsive tasks and ability to follow human cues.

------------------

I highly recommend anyone interested in this topic to read the entire study.  I think it's an interesting study, and further confirms what experts have said for decades about the influences of canine temperament and behavior. Termperament and behavior is complex system based on a variety of factors including:Breed, Breeding (within breed), upbringing, how they are rewarded/punished, envirornment, history of human interactions (social cues) and that ancient history doesn't play a close role in the behavior we see today.

I think this information largely helps support the notion that the idea of "aggressive dogs" should be based on an individual dog's behavior, and not its breed or appearance. Due to all of the factors that go into shaping behavior, there is a significant differential in behavior and temperament even within specific breeds of dogs.

I think the importance of a dog's ability to read its human cues is an important part of why the National Canine Research Council's differential between a "resident dog" and "family dog" is so important and relevant when assessing major dog attacks.

For more reading:

American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior blog on the study.

The entire 13-page study: Behavioral Differences among breeds of domestic dogs: Current Status of the Science

Journal of the AVMA -- Co-Occurence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities

Breed Differences in Canine Aggression -- KC Dog Blog

Factors Associated with Aggressive Responses in Pet Dogs -- KC Dog Blog

Academic Paper on the behavioral challenges when dogs are removed from litters too young -- KC Dog Blog

The science of ill-behaved small dogs (& how it may relate to behavior in large dogs)

There is a great article over at the blog "The Science Dog" that investigates the science behind the notion that small dogs are yippy, overly excitable, nippy and untrained brats.

As it turns out, owners of small and toy breeds have indeed found this to be true when compared to larger dogs.

The article is based on a large study of more than 1300 owners and measured the dog trait factors of "Obedience", "Aggressions/excitability" and "anxiety/Fearfulness". The dogs were broken into two categories -- they were "small" if they weighted less than 44 lbs and large if they weighed more than 44 lbs.

The results were significant, although not at all surprising.

Small dogs were reported by their owners to be significantly more excitable, anxious/fearful and aggressive than were larger dogs.

However, as also would be expected, it appears that the owners were an important contributing factor as to the creation of these undesireable behaviors.

Based on the research, there was a significant correlation (not proving causation, but strong correlation) that owners of small dogs were less likely to train their dogs, less likely to engage in play interaction and had less consistency in training interactions than the owners of larger dogs. 

It tends to lead one to believe that small dogs are often ill-behaved because owners are less likely to provide consistent training, interaction and play with their dogs than owners of larger dogs. This could be because owners are less likely to see aggressive behavior in small dogs as a threat or that the bad behavior is "cute", or because large dog owners are more likely to engage in activities such as hiking, running, frisbee, regular walks, etc.

Also of note (and I know I'm opening a can of worms here), but there is also differences between training methods used.

Probably not surprisingly, owners of small dogs were found to use punishment less frequently than large dog owners. However, it's important to note that frequent use of punishment during training was strongly correlated with aggressive behavior in both small and large dogs.

However, greater reliance on punishment during training was also associated with greater anxiety/fear in small dogs, but NOT in large dogs.

Again, there is probably nothing here that would likely surprise most of my readers. Trainers, behaviorists and experts for years have been preaching the importance of owner behavior and the importance of training on dog behavior. While often these conversations happen in the context of dog bite incidents and aggressive behavior, it should be noted that this is also an issue for small dogs and that as a whole, we need to put greater emphasis on teaching responsible dog ownership -- regardless of what type of dog people choose to have. 

Because whether the dogs are large, or small, the impact on the owner's training (or lack of training) is a major influencer on the behavior of the individual dog. Which is why when we talk about canine behavior, we must look at dogs as individuals who have been formed not only by their genetics (among and within breeds) but also by their life experiences and the owners that trained them.

H/T: The Science Dog

More research on health impacts of spay/neuter -- where should we go from here?

Last week, more research came out about the health impacts of Spay/Neuter.

The newest paper specifically studies Vizslas -- and the health impacts of spay/neuter, and particularly juvenile spay/neuter on this breed of dogs.

You can read the paper in its entirety here, or the Reader's Digest Version with great commentary here. In a nutshell, the paper showed the following correlations:

-- 3.5x higher incidences of Mast Cell cancer in male & female dogs, regardless of age of neuter.

-- 9x greater incidence of Hamangiosarcoma in neutered females, regardless of age of dog at the time of neuter.

- 4.3x higher incidence in Lymphoma in both neutered males and females, indpendent of age at the time of neuter.

- 6.5x higher incidence of all cancers combined in neutered femal3, 3.6x higher incidence of all cancers in neutered males. Typically, the younger the age at which the dog was altered, the young the age at which the dog was diagnosed with cancer.

Also, the study notes that dogs altered before the age of 6 months had a higher-likelihood of developing a variety of behavioral issues including: separation anxiety, fear of noises, timidity and fear biting.  Altering after 6 months did not appear to create increased risk.

This study adds to the growing list of research on the negative health impacts of spay/neuter in large-breed dogs. The studies have specifically found similar results plus increased incidence of hip dysplasia and Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears in Golden Retrievers, and osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in Rottweilers.  It also follows similar issues found in previous behavioral studies on the impacts of spay/neuter.

The results have been very consistent, and show that not only is spay/neuter more likely to cause negative health impacts long-term, but that juvenile spay/neuter (before 6 months) heightens the risk.

When Science gets in the way

For several decades, rescues and shelters have been reliant on spay/neuter to decrease the number of unwanted pets as a way of controlling animal populations, and thus the number of animals that end up in animals shelters. By decreasing total populations, the goal is to minimize the number of animals killed in shelters. 

However, if we are to really consider ourselves "animal welfare" professionals, we need to understand what science is telling us and to consider the trade-offs of the short-term and long-term impacts on our decisions on the pets we are responsible for.

Unfortuantely, in this case, it appears that the long-term health impact of spay neuter, particularly juvenile spay/neuter, is at odds with the short term goal of slowing pet population growth and minimizing the number of animals killed in our shelters every year. 

The two are seemingly at odds with each other. Certainly I've read the arguments that in spite of the potential health impacts of spay/neuter, the greater good of decreasing the number of pets killed at very young ages in shelters outweighs the pet-longevity issues that may exist by spaying/neutering early. I can certainly see this point, and in many cases completely agree. 

However, just because that is the case today, doesn't mean that we have to accept the status quo as the only solution and not be actively seeking out more viable alternatives. It seems clear that there is room for some middle ground here -- and I think it's up to the animal welfare community to acknowledge the issues and actively seek out that  middle ground.

There are a lot of different stakeholders to this -- and I think everyone has a role in trying to do what is best for the animals that are in our care. First and foremost, it means acknowledging that the science exists. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand - that's how you get to let other people address the issue for you.  And it's more than just the science that shows correlations -- but it makes biological sense that removal of growth hormone-producing gonads (especially at a very young age) would lead to long term growth and development issues.  This completely passes the sniff tests, and we should take it seriously.

Where do we go from here?

It's a complex problem to be sure, and there are a lot of people with a vested interest in coming to the table with their part of the solution. 

-- For the breeding community, I've seen a fair amount of talk about calling for the end of spay/neuter. Obviously this is self-serving to their needs. This community MUST acknowledge the sheltering realities that exist and that some form of population control is currently necessary in order to help maintain the drops in shelter euthanasia that have taken place over the last 2 decades.

-- For the lawmaking community, stop making laws mandating spay/neuter. It was never a good idea, but especially in light of the current research, there are many good experts in the field that are in disagreement with what the right solutions are. Please leave spay/neuter to the veterinary community so they may make judgment calls based on the best science available. Mandating spay/neuter does not do that. I've seen many a law that is requiring sterilization at very young ages and it seems evident that this is not in the best interests of the pets we claim to be protecting.

-- For the science community, we now have 3 studies that examine the impacts on dogs. All three have been on large-breed dogs. We need more research to also include small dogs, and cats, to determine if the risks are as severe with those as well. The more we understand about the scale and scope of the problem the better.

-- For the veterinary community, let's begin teaching other methods of sterilization. Zeuterin certainly seems to have its proponents and is one solution. But an even simpler one may be to begin performing vasectomies and tubal ligations instead of neuters & spays so that growth hormones can remain in place. However, most vets do not currently perform these proceedures. That needs to change and quickly.

-- For the shelter/rescue community, maybe we need to start waiting to alter puppies until they are older? Do we really need to alter 2 month old puppies? Would we be better off waiting until they were at least 6 months of age?  The same purpose would be served, but for every month you wait, the less of an increase in many of the health risks you have -- especially for large breed and giant puppies. It certainly seems like there is a happy medium here. 

This is a gnarly and complex issue -- and definitely a lot that is still unknown. But if all parties are willing to come together to acknowledge the risks, on all sides, I think a viable solution is out there. But it must first start with acknowledgment and open communication. 

The link between ignorance and irrational fear

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them." - Chrisitan Nestell Bovee

A couple of weeks ago, the University of Lincoln (UK) introduced results from some interesting research.

In their report entitled, Acculturation - Perceptions of breed differences in dog behavior, note that the level and quality of contact between dogs and humans is a major influence on the tendency to believe popular breed stereotypes.

According to the results of their survey, more than half of the respondents that labeled themselves "experienced or knowledgable" of dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds are more aggressive than others.  Similarly, more than half of this group responded that they felt there was no valid reason for legislation targeting specific breeds.

However, only 15% of people with little or no experience with dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds were more aggressive than others and less than 10% disagreed with laws targeting specific breeds.

The study noted that the variability in behavior within a breed is nearly always greater than the variability between breeds.  It was also noted that visible characteristics such as short hair, or being well-muscled, were also stigmatizd more often as dangerous by people with less experience with dogs.

While the study is somewhat small in scope, I do think the difference in the numbers is significant and worth noting.

People with experience with dogs do not fear them, and do not buy into breed stereotypes.

However, people without much knowledge or experience with dogs tend to be fearful of them based on certain attributes. While the study doesn't dive into the origin of these negative breed stereotypes, one would presume that media influence would be a pretty major driver -- especially in the UK where the media has spent a solid 25 years stigmitizing certain types of dogs. 

Meanwhile, I also think this has some important information for policy-makers. I feel that it's important to note that some people are fearful of certain things, and as such, we need to be aware of those fears. However, it's also important that we don't base our policies on fears that are generated out of lack of knowledge and experience.

If generations of bigotry and hate over other types of prejudice have taught us nothing, it should be that such bigotry and hate are almost always rooted in irrational fear based on lack of contact and understanding.

With dogs it's reall no different.

Let's let the people who are knowledgable drive the decision-making here. Laws based on ignorance are destined to fail. 

New study points to many factors related to dog bite fatalities

Last week, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) the released an in-depth study of 10 years worth of dog bite fatalities -- and the results are extremely interesting (if not altogether suprising).

This study is the first long-range study of factors involved in dog bite fatalities in nearly 2 decades. The study relied on more than just media reports (as other reports on this have done), and dived deep by looking at police reports, interviewing investigators, etc to analyze the entirety of contribruting factors in these fatal incidents. 

According to the report, much of this study was necessary because of the lack of solid data, and misleading data, that exists:

"The undue emphasis on breed has contributed to a lack of appreciation of the ownership and husbandry factors that more directly impact dogs and the complex genetic factors that work in combination with husbandry to influence a dog's behavior and responses to a given set of stimuli."

The report notes that it has been long-recommended that dog bite prevention strategies not be focused on a singlular factor in isolation (such as breed) -- but that strategies focused on multiple key factors of animal husbandry be used.

The results of the study continue to reinforce this position -- with a lot of information about factors involving fatal incident. Let's get to some key points from the study.

The study

The study analyzed 256 dog bite related fatalities from 2000 to 2009. The study again notes that dog bite fatalities are exceptionally rare -- with only an average of 25 per year over the course of the 10 year study in a country with a human population of 300 million and a dog population of about 70 million.

The writers of the study focused on police reports, talked to homicide investigators, coroner reports, animal control reports, photographs and studied previously unreported behaviorally relevant factors.

The Victims

 -- 45% of victims were less than 5 years of age.

-- Only 7% of victims (17) were the established owners of the dog(s). In only 6% of cases (16) did the owner have a familiar relationship with the dog(s).  In 85% of cases, the victim had only an incidental relationship with the dog, or no relationship with the dog.

-- In 143 (56%) of the incidents, the victim was deemed unable to interact appropriately with the dog. In 116 of these cases (81%) it was because they were too young (less than 5). The rest were older individuals, compromised because of drug and alcohol use or suffered from alzheimers, demential or uncontrollable seizure disorder.

 -- In 223 (87%) of the cases, there was no able-bodied person close enough to the victim to be able to intervene

-- In 148 (58%) involved a single dogs. Most of the deaths among infants (26 of 30) were attributed to a single dog, whereas over half of the deaths (63 of 96, 66%) involving victims over 15 involved multiple dogs.

-- In 74% of cases, the deaths occurred on the dog owner's property. Only 20% of cases (51, 5 per year) occurred entirely off of the owner's property.

-- In 84% of cases, inolved dogs had not been spayed or neutered. 

Husbandry-Related Factors

-- in 78% of cases, the dog(s) involved in the incident was owned.

-- In 76% of cases, dogs were kept by their owners as resident dogs vs family dogs

-- of the incidents involving resident dogs, the dogs were usually kept in ways that isolated them from the humans in the family.  38% were chained. 35% were in an isolated fenced area, outdoor pen or isolated indoor area. 15% were allowed to roam free. 

-- In 38% of cases, there is evidence that the owner or caretaker had knowledge of either prior dangerous actions by the dog or had previously allowed the dogs to run loose.

-- In 21% of cases, there was evidence of prior abuse or neglect of the dogs

-- Past mismanagement of the dogs was far more prevelent (56%) in cases involving multiple dogs.

-- Very interestingly, co-occurance of multiple variables were present in 81% of cases. This is significant.

The role of breed

The report really struggled with determination of breeds involved in the attacks. While previous (and other) studies have relied solely on media reports, this proved to be problematic.

For single dog incidents, in 22% of cases, media reports actualy conflicted as to the breed of dog involved. In 35% of cases, law enforcement assessment of breed differed from media reports.

For multiple dog incidents, breed descriptors in media reports conflicted in 36% of cases, and law enforcement assessment differed from media reports in 43% of cases.  

In 91% of cases, dogs were characterized by at least one media outlet as a single breed descriptor even though more than 50% of US dogs are mixed breed dogs.

Overall, they were only able to accuratedly assign breed status in 45 of the 256 (18%) of the caes. These 45 cases represented 20 recognized dog breeds including 2 dogs of known mixed breed ancestory.

Discussion

From the paper:

"The most striking finding was the co-occurrence of multiple factors potentially under the control of the dog owners: isolation of dogs from positive family interaction and other human contact; mismanagement of dogs by owners; abuse or neglect of dogs by owners, dogs left unsupervised with a child or vulnerable adult who may be unfamiliar to the dog; maintenance of dogs in an enviornment where they are trapped, neglected and isolated and have little control over the environment or choice of behavior. These conditions potentially predispose dogs to enhanced territorial, protective, and defensive behaviors toward stimuli that occur commonly in every day life."

"The most preventable incidents involved very young children left alone with dogs to whom they were unfamiliar or toddlers were allowed to wander off and encounter unfamiliar dogs. In at least 19 fatalities, authorities considered the lack of supervision so negligent that crimminal charges were filed against the parent or caretaker."

The article also goes into some pretty significant discussion about how husbandry practices influence a dog's bahavior:

"Dogs that have not developed a close relationship or bond with humans (ie resident dogs) generally act without relying on input from a human. Topal et al reported that dogs living in homes (in contrast to dogs living outdoors) developed bonds with people and were more dependent on their owners when solving tasks. Appropriate humane and clear interactions with people provide dogs with information about how to interact with humans in ways that are neither scary nor injurous to the dogs or humans.....discouraging maintenance of dogs in isolation from farmily; stressing the importance of a secure, stable, predictable environment and encouraging positive relationships with people may have considerable benefits."

The article is interesting throughout -- with some other interesting notes on ways that may benefit in dog bite prevention.

One unaltered dogs -- the article notes that the majority of dogs involved were unaltered dogs. While research shows that sexually intact male dogs react more intensely, more quickly and for longer periods of time, it also suggests that owner failure to have dogs spayed or neutred may co-occur with other factors that more directly influence a dog's social behavior.

It also notes that most children do not receive any type of dog bite prevention education. This combined with the overall lack of of supervision as a role in dog attack fatalities is especially problematic. It is also worth noting that research suggests that children cannot be expected to show good judgment in their interactions with dogs until they are 6 years of age.

The paper concludes:

"Experts on the subject of dog bite related injuries, including the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Humane Interaction and the CDC, who have consistently stressed the complex and multiple approaches to address this complexity. The present study findings also support recommendations of the AVMA and Others regarding the inadvisability of single-factor solutions such as BSL, which may actually divert resources from effective measures and regulations."

As noted above, the results from this paper are terribly new. If you have been following this blog and other expert resources for the past 20 years, they have all consistently pointed to responsible husbandry practices as being crucial to the prevention of dog bites in this country. This study however provides a very comprehensive look at these dog bite fatality factors in a statistically reliable form. This study represents the first such reliable study in nearly 20 years. I also goes into far more depth than all previous studies by going deeper than just media reports in its analysis. All previous reports have relied solely on media reports that (as this study has shown) are often unreliable, contradicting, and lack the depth of information needed to make knowledgable husbandry recommendations.

I'm excited for this report, and hope that the information is spread far and wide so that communities will focus on responsible ownership education and practices as a method of dealing with the problem of dog bites vs a singular failed approach of targeting breeds (or looks) of dogs.

For more from the National Canine Research Council.

If you want to hear more, check out Pit Bulletin Legal News tomorrow night, when Donald Cleary and Anthony Barnett will be on talking more about the results from this study.

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.