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.

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.

 

 

 

Identifying mixed breed dogs is easy

Or not.

So, animal welfare experts out there, I encourage you go and take this survey. It's a survey done in partnership with Maddies Fund and the University of Florida. Basically, the survey asks you a few questions about your experience in labeling the breeds of mixed-breed dogs and then shows you two pictures (front and side view) of 20 different dogs with their height & weight listed. And then, you get to pick what the dog's predominent breed is from a selection of 180 dog breeds. The whole thing should take you 10-15 minutes, depending on how much you toil over your selections.

The results are then going to be matched with their DNA results to see how accurate people (and people with animal welfare experience) are at matching dog breeds to what DNA tests show.

The results are going to be posted in July and I'm eager to see how I did. On the flip side, I'm thinking I did miserably. I'm guessing you will too.

What is amazing is the number of these dogs that look very similar to dogs we have in our shelter -- and we never have any idea what their breed really is. In a lot of shelters, many of these dogs simply get labeled as "Lab-mix", "Shepherd mix", "Chow mix", "pit bull mix" or "terrier mix". 

It's also going to highligh just how ridiculous it is that we try to make assumptions about dog behavior based on how it LOOKS vs, I don't know, how it actually ACTS.

So take the test. Let me know how you think you did.

 

More problems for Denver and their Breed Ban

Denver has wasted yet more resources enforcing their breed-specific legislation.

A dog named Mufasia escaped from his home in Southwest Denver, and was picked up by animal control. According to Animal Control, Mufasia fit the physical critera for being a pit bull based on the analysis of three separate employees -- and ordered to be killed or removed from the city.

Mufasia's owner protested the breed determination -- and after hearing testimony from outside breed experts, it was determined that Mufasia was in fact, not a pit bull.

The decision again shows the arbitrary nature of Denver's breed ban, their failures in being able to accurately (and definitively) determine breed ID, and the ridiculousness of wasting resources on targeting dogs that, by all reports, showed no signs of aggression. So instead of focusing their limited animal control resources on dogs that had shown themselves to be aggressive, they were focusing city resources on a dog that was not (by all accounts) aggressive, but because it contained a 'look' of a dog they didn't want in their city. 

"Time and time again we have seen that the city relies on poorly trained employees to determine which dogs in their possession are pit bulls," said Animal Law Center attorney Jennifer Edwards. "Their inability to single out pit bulls from out from other breeds has meant a death sentence for thousands of dogs in the years that the city's pit bull has been in place".

Of course, in spite of the ruling, Denver's animal control director Doug Kelley says this proves the process works and is confident in his staff's ability to recognized breeds.

Denver continues to provide evidence of all the reasons why breed bans are a failed initiative.

 

 

It's not a 'loophole' when the law is arbitrary

Looks like Denmark is finding out the hard way what experts told them before they passed their ban on 13 different breeds of dogs -- that it's unenforcable.

Apparently, since the breed ban in the country went into effect, many dog owners have been relicensing their mixed breed dogs as mixes of non-targeted breeds -- and if a vet says the dog's breed was incorrectly registered the first time, the country has to accept the expert opinion of the vet.

The president of the Danish Veterinarian Association, Arne Skjoldager, called the new law banning 13 breeds of dogs "completely useless" because a dog's pedigree cannot be determined with scientific accuracy.

"If puppies don't have a documented pedigree, then it's impossible for a veterinarian to know for certain what it is, expecially if it's a mixed breed," he said. "Not even a DNA test can help."

Of course, experts TOLD the government that before they passed the law -- and case studies of similar impossibilities of reliable breed identification exist throughout the world.

The media article calls it a "loophole" - but it's not a loophole if it's arbitrary and impossible to define. Which is what laws targeting breeds are.

The media, breed mis-identification, and the danger in creating narratives based on untruths

Several months ago, I did a series of posts on Daniel Gardner's book, the Science of Fear (you can find links to all of the articles under the "best of KC Dog Blog" to the left). In part 3 of that series, I discussed Gardner's view on how politicians, and the media used very rare events, sensationalized them, and create a narative that drive panic.  I wrote:

What drives the media’s sensationalism seems to be plain old self interest. Fear creates interest….and interest means more newspapers are sold and more people are watching the news…which is good for the media.  And as there are more and more media options, and viewership becomes more fragmented, we can only assume that the sensationalism will continue to grow as the media works harder to gain eyeballs. This creates a complete feedback loop: the media reflects society’s fear, but in doing so, the media generate more fear, and that gets reflected back again.  This can eventually lead to cause a strange eruption that sociologists call a moral panic.

Creating a moral panic is not only irresponsible, but can be extremely dangerous as well.  The following are three examples of the media creating naratives in the past week -- with a couple ending in pure tragedy.

****

In Mitchell, SD three dogs got loose and and were involved in an in threatening incident (no bite was reported). The newspaper called the dogs 'pit bulls', but two of the dogs are pictured with the girl to the left (in all their viciousness) that ran with the article in the newspaper.

The dogs are obviously not 'pit bulls' -- but that didn't prevent them frombeing called 'pit bulls' in the newspaper headline.

Because it got back into the feedback loop, where fear was created, and fed back to the newspaper, the newspaper then ran an editorial "Our View: Time for the city to enact a pit bull ban".

 Never mind that the dogs weren't 'pit bulls'. Never mind that the dogs were running at-large and in violation of the city's leash law. Never mind that it appears the woman was more scared than actually threatened. The city newspaper called for a ban on a type of dog that was not involved in the incident.  Brilliant.

H/T to For the Pit Bulls on the story -- and she has a very nice breakdown of it.

*****

Meanwhile, in Australia (because I want to be sure that I note that the media in all parts of the world are subject to this), a 13 year old boy was caught trying to save his Labrador from being attacked by a dog.  Saving Pets has a great breakdown of the series of news articles. They all begin talking about the 'pit bull' that jumped a fence and killed the boy's dog, and the media frenzy started -- including a poll question about controlling dangerous dogs.

Later, the media comes back and notes that the dog was "initially wrongly identified as a 'pit bull cross" -- and the breed was changed to being a "mastiff cross".

But the media frenzy had already been created at this point.

****

In New Orleans, there were three different incidences involving "pit bulls' in the community in about a 9 day period. All were reported by the media. While repeated requests have been made to see how many total dog bites happened during this time period that were not covered by the media, no bite reports have been provided. Info on two of the incidences can be found here, and the third one here.

The first of the three incidents actually sounds like a pretty significant attack -- but the other two incidences involved very minor injuries. But the media did a tremendous job of creating a frenzy -- and a moral panic in the city involving 'pit bulls'.   All three of the incidents involved dogs that were roaming at-large -- and the first two involved 3 dogs each.

After the media creating a bit of a moral panic, the local SPCA approached the city council with the idea of urging the city to adopt mandatory spay/neuter of all pets. Whilethe spokesperson for the SPCA seems very well-intentioned, I will note that these laws never end up being about ENCOURAGING people to spay/neuter, the always end up about punishing people for not having done it.  And it also doesn't take into account that the SPCA has clearly got issues even dealing with enforcing the city's leash law, the last thing it needs is something more to have to deal with right now. Enforcing the leash law would have prevented all three of these incidents.

But what may be worse is that the hysterical fear that has been created is causing significant public safety issues. Over the weekend, no fewer than three 'pit bulls' were shot. Two of them were shot by a drive by shooting from a car that is believed to be some form of vigilante justice. So far, only one has made the news.

Creating such hysteria that it leads people to shoot at 'pit bulls' being walked by owners by drive-by automobiles is frightening indeed --and FAR more dangerous than the dogs themselves.

There are consequences to the hysteria that is created...and when the hysteria is not grounded in reality, it is even more dangerous.

*****

For several years, the media in Baltimore has been pretty unfriendly to 'pit bulls'. In spite of there being a wealth of poverty and crime problems in the city, it seems like the local media has cast a lot of the blame on 'pit bulls' for the problems.

Last November, a 21 year old youth leader was shot and killed -- allegedly because the shooter "felt threatened by his pit bull". By all reports, the young victim was a model citizen -- no police record, good student, and involved in several youth leadership and anti-drug groups. Shot. Dead. Because of a baseless fear of the dog the young man was walking.

It's senseless. It's baseless. And it very, very dangerous.  It is way past time we quit letting the local media scare us into bad policy that is counter to what all of the experts recommend.

 

Lakewood, OH Faces Lawsuit in fallout from Mistaken Breed Identification

Two years ago, the city of Lakewood passed a ban on all 'pit bulls' in the community. Last may, as a part of their enforcement of the ban, the city began harrassing a man, Leonard Shelton, because they said the dog he owned was a 'pit bull'.

Shelton, a military veteran who's dog,Roscoe, was helping him deal with post tramatic stress following his service overseas, claimed his dog was not a 'pit bull'.

After constant harrassment by city officials -- including animal control and the police department - Shelton went out and got a DNA test done on Roscoe. The test results showed that Roscoe was indeed, not a 'pit bull'. But police persisted. And after constant harrassment, Shelter decided to pack up Roscoe and move from town.

You can catch all of the back story here.

Now, Shelton is levying a lawsuit against the city of Lakewood -- to the tune of $475,000 for emotional and financial damages  (including forced relocation).  Shelton's suit claims that the city, and it's police department, are negligent in hiring, training and supervising staff to enforce the new law, negligent misrepresentation and because of the malicious discrimination, violated his civil rights and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The lawsuit goes on to say that the city is using the pit bull ban to force out individuals it has judged to be "undesireable or unsavory." 

It is probably worth mentioning here that Lakewood is a community that is 92% white, and Leonard Shelton is a minority.

You can read the entire complaint here.

Like most cities across the US, Lakewood has been struggling with balancing its budget --facing a $4.5 million deficit just two years ago -- which is a lot of money for a community of just 50,000 people that has seen a 10% decrease in population over the past decade.  It would seem that harrassing a military veteran, who's dog showed no signs of aggression, wouldn't be the highest priority for the city -- and certainly not something the taxpayers of the city would prefer to pay half a million dollars in doing.

Cities with breed specific legislation from around the country continue to struggle with the enforcement of the laws and with the difficulties of breed identification. And Lakewood is joining the growing list of cities facing legal ramifications.

Which begs the question, why would any city subject themselves to this and harrass owners of well-behaved dogs instead of instituting a behavior-based ordinance that only focuses on aggressive dogs regardless of breed?

H/T: toLoveLakewood Blog on the story.

3 year old Ocala, FL Girl Dead from Dog Attack

Wow, a particularly tragic weekend this weekend.

A three year old Ocala, FL girl was fatally attacked by a dog outside her home yesterday.

The girl's mother, Lori Haaker, was apparently cleaning the pens for the dogs and went inside to use the restroom. While the toddler was outside, alone, she wandered into the pen where four dogs were chained to trees. The girl apparently became entangled in the chain restraining one of the dogs and a the dog ended up attacking, and killing, the young girl.

While many of the early media reports were calling the attacked dog a 'pit bull', the more recent reports are calling the dog an American Bulldog -- and also noting that the family bred American Bulldogs under the name of Haaker's Dream Bulldog Ranch -- which bred and sold working American Bulldogs.

It's a tragic story that highlights a variety of misteps along the way - -including why tethering dogs isn't the prefered way to keep dogs and why it is important to supervise children when they are around dogs and interacting with dogs.

It is also an interesting that in so many media reports the dogs were called 'pit bulls' in spite of a sign at the home that declared them to be bulldogs.

A tragic and preventable incident. My heart goes out to the family in this case.

The story has been picked up by 8 media outlets, only 2 of which have the accurate breed in the article.

Maddness in Salina, KS

Back in September, I wrotea story about a dog named Lucey.   Salina, KS animal control decided that Lucey was a 'pit bull' -- which were banned from Salina in 2005.  The city planned to kill Lucey.

But Lucey's owner fought back -- getting a DNA test for the dog to prove Lucey was not a 'pit bull'.

The DNA test came back as Lucey being a certified mutt -- with 12% Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 12% Boxer, 12% Bull Terrier and 25% Bernese Mountain Dog.

Lucey's life was spared. For then.

But now, turns out that the city of Salina is coming back after Lucey because the city prosecutor has reason to believe that the DNA test is unreliable.

Yip, DNA is not accurate, we can just tell by looking???

Local veterinarian David Atherton - -who consults with the Salina Animal Shelter - had originally declared Lucey to be a 'pit bull'. And then, with the DNA evidence, he says questions about the DNA test make the results "suggestive", and "doesn't show anything definite."

Atherton said he purchased one of the company's test for his own dog, which he knows was whelped from a Labrador Retriever and sired by either a Weimaraner or a Vizsla.  (I'm really confused how he knows it was sired by one of these two breeds but doesn't know for sure which one. Does he really know the sire, or can he not tell the difference?)

When the test came back, it showed the dog to be Labrador, with Irish Wolfhound and Pekingese.

So, because of this, the taxpayers of Salina are paying to bring the case BACK to court to rule on whether to kill Lucey or not. 

And in all of the articles and all of the conversations, not once has it even been mentioned whether or not Lucey is really a threat to society or not.

Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this? 

Apparently the city of Salina is willing to invest a huge amount of city resources and manpower trying to prove this dog, which at no point has been reported to actually be aggressive, is a 'pit bull' so they can kill it.  Why? If the dog isn't dangerous, and the owner is taking care of the dog, why on earth is the city spending taxpayer resources on this?

It's almost as if they've been hanging out with the city administrators in Brampton, Ontario.

Meanwhile, what's the deal with Dr. Atherton? Why would a veterinarian -- who's job is to help animals -- be so insistent on killing  a healthy dog?

If you live in Salina, please contact your city council person and tell them this is a waste of your tax dollars -- and while they're at it, they should get rid of the ridiculous law and focus their efforts on dogs that have aggressive behavior, regardless of what they look like, and not waste time on non-aggressive dogs that are causing no problems. 

And if you are a pet owner, and Dr. Atherton is your vet, be sure you tell him how much you dislike him trying to kill a dog. Or better  yet, take your business to a different vet that doesn't believe in trying to kill harmless, healthy animals.

Photo from the Salina Journal.

The Problems with BSL - Brampton, Ontario Edition

 Brampton, Ontario has been added to the latest edition of the trying to kill some dogs for no reason club.

 Officials in Brampton seized two dogs, Rambo (Left) and Brittany (below left - both pictures) from their homes say thing ""rambo had been confirmed to be a pit bull by his parentage as well as the characteristics as defined in the city of Brampton Dog By-law..."

Uh, ok. But Rambo looks to me to be purebred Boxer -- and Brittany, well, a mixed breed dog of some type. They are siblings, so likely Brittany is at least half Boxer.  Both dogs were licenced by the city, and ID'd at the vet, as Boxer/American Bulldog mixes.

Now they reside on death row at the city shelter under Ontario's Breed ban that bans 'pit bulls'.

Neither dog did anything wrong -- neither escaped. Neither has acted aggressively. Neither even had a complaint filed against them. But now, two dogs that were part of families are tearing up these families.

Now, 75 year old Maria Gaspar, Rambo's owner, is in tears every time she talks about her dog.

"Now I no have dog, I no have money, I no have nothing...it's not fair."  (Editor's note: English is not Gaspar's first language, so forgive her sentence structure).

Brampton's situation is just another in a long list of problems Ontario's Breed Ban has caused.  London, Ontario continues to get calls about people who are fearful of 'pit bull'...however, officials say they've really not had any problems with 'pit bulls', only people who fear them and are calling in complaints about other types of dogs being 'pit bulls'.  Pit bull complaints make up about 20% of the calls animal control there responds too...even though most of the cases end up being mistaken breed ID. Ottawa's second largest city, Ottawa, has long since decided to quit enforcing the ban in the provence because of problems with breed identification.

The case in Brampton represents basically everything that is wrong with breed specific ordinances:

1) Breed identification is not easy -- particularly for mixed breed dogs - (coupled with the reality that many animal control officers lack the basic training to even tell a pure-bred Boxer from a 'pit bull'.

2) Most of the people affected by breed specific laws are not criminals and gang-bangers -- most are good people, good members of society, often senior citizens, who are having a family member ripped from their home.

3) BSL is such a huge waste of taxpayer money by spending animal control resources, kenneling spaces, and legal services time defending the law by focusing so many resource on dogs that WERE NOT A PROBLEM. No bites. No aggressive activity. No complaints. No running at large.  And yet a huge amount of city resources are being used on these dogs instead of actually focusing on dogs that are a legitimate problem.

4) Why would taxpayers WANT to fund this type of activity in their government?

For more info on the Brampton Case:

Social Mange - the Backwater of Brampton Strikes Again

One Bark At A Time - Brampton Animal Control Wants to Kill Senior's Dog

Brindle Stick - Brampton Situation Tidbits and Brampton Animal Control is At It Again.

To sign the petition to save the dogs, go here.

And by all means, if you live in Ontario, please support Cheri DiNovo's proposed bill that would eradicate BSL from Ontario.