KC DOG BLOG

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. 

Very Good Sentences - why just preaching supervising dogs & children won't work

I confess that while I'm usually a very optimistic person, the skeptical side of me often greets headlines with cynicism. When I saw the headline of this post, I clicked through, prepared to be annoyed -- and instead, found a very thoughtful piece about "Why Supervising dogs and kids doesn't work".  As any regular reader knows, I often talk about the need FOR parental supervision of dogs/child interactions -- so you can understand why I was skeptical. Instead, I was greeted with a very good introductory paragraph:

"It's sound advice given frequently: Supervise your dogs and kids while they're together. Breeders warn parents, 'Don't leave the dog alone with children, no matter how friendly the breed.' Veterinarians advise, "Never leave a dog and a child in the same room together."  Dog trainers explain, "All dogs can bite so supervise your dog when you have children over.'  Everyone knows the drill. SO why doesn't it work? There are an estimated 800,000 Americans seeking medical attention for dog bites each year with over half of these injuries to children ages 5-9?

"The bites are not a result of negligent parents leaving Fido to care for the baby while mom does household chores, oblivious to the needs of her children. In fact, I've consulted with hundreds of dog bite cases and 95% of the time the parent is standing within 3 feet of the child watching both the child and dog when the child was bitten. Parents are supervising. The problem is not lack of supervision. The problem is no one has taught parents what they should be watching."

While I'm not sure I agree with the 95% number the author mentions (and this certainly isn't the case in the really major attacks that make headlines), there is certainly evidence to show that her overall thought is exactly right -- including even very disturbing videos of parents filming dangerous child/dog interactions without any awareness of the canine warning signals. 

She goes on to talk more about what parents should be looking for. This is great, as dog behavior is very predictable, while child behavior is what is  erratic. But I think it's a good reminder to all of us that "supervision" isn't really enough -- knowing what to look for is also required.

CDC tries to stir up more hysteria over nothing -- and again the result will be dead animals

Ealier this week, media began reporting about a new CDC Study. It seems like every time the CDC publishes anything about animals, it tends to do so in a way that creates a swarm of hysteria, and leaves a trail of dead animals in its mist. If taken at face value based on media reports (at this point, I've yet to find a full copy of the report) this appears to be no exception. 

The USA Today report starts off the fear mongering this way:

Headline: "Feral Cat Colonies could pose rabies risk CDC says."

Subhead: "Cats are main domestic animal linked to human exposure of rabies."

Lead: "Efforts to care for abandoned cats could mean more huamns will be exposed to Rabies."

Before reading further I was quick to lock my cat up in another room just to be safe. 

The story goes on to note that for 30 years the main domestic animal linked to human rabies has been the cat. And in the past 10 years, the number of feral cat colonies has "exploded as animal rights groups fight to end the capturing and killing of strays. These two trends are now on a collision course." 

Scary indeed!

Except, when it's not. 

According to the sceintific data (also published by the CDC), in 2010 (the most recent year of the study), there were 6,690 rabid animals reported in the US. That sounds like a lot, go on.

Here are the species of animals that carried those rabies:

1) Racoons: 36.5% of cases

2) Skunks: 23.5% of cases

3) Bats: 23.2% of cases

4) Foxes: 6.9% of cases

5) Cats: 4.9% of cases

6) Cattle: 1.1% of cases

7) Dogs: 1.1% of cases

So, in other words, of the estimated 60 -150 million estimated free-roaming cats in this country, 303 were diagnosed with rabies. That's .0005% -- if you use the lowest estimate of population.

Hmmm, that seems a bit less scary. 

So while wildlife accounts for 92% of the total population of rabies cases, cats somehow, as the leader among domesticated animals, ended up with the target on their furry little heads.  Anyone suspicious yet? 

But wait, there's more from the study: 

With the so called "explosion" in feral cat colonies, the increase in cat-diagnosed rabies was only a 1% increase -- which could be a trend, or just a random deviation from year to year. Most likely the latter.

Meanwhile, it's really important to realize exactly how dangerous all of this is to humans. In 2009 (again, the most recent year reported), there were exactly 2 cases of rabies in humans. In the 9 years from 2001 to 2009, that number was exactly 29. Of those 29 (approximately 3 per year), 8 actually got the disease from a bite in another country. 20 contracted it from a bite by a bat. 

Since 2001, the number of humans in the US that have contracted rabies from a cat?  Zero. 

So while the number of feral cat colonies has "exploded" in recent years, the likelihood of a human getting rabies from a cat in the past 13 years?  Zero. 

Um, what is that collision course thing we were talking about before? 

So WTF was the CDC thinking in publishing this?

The facts are what the facts are:

 -- People are not contracting rabies in large numbers in this country (roughly 3 per year, 1/3 of those are getting it other countries). 

 -- In spite of the growth of feral cat colonies, no one in the last 13 years has contracted rabies from a cat.

--  In spite of this supposed growth of rabies, the increase in cats diagnosed has increased only 1%

So why are we trying to scare people about feral cat colonies?  Why are they seemingly trying to encourage people to round up and kill feral cats for protection from something that isn't a threat? Why are they not advocating for the roundup and killing of racoons, bats and skunks?

And why would we discourage TNR -- which is what animal welfare groups are promoting which encourages not only altering cats to keep them from being reproducing, but also vaccinating them against rabies in the process? Why are they discouraging a solution that actually a) lowers the population and b) vaccinates cats against this supposed risk? 

BTW, it's worth noting that one of the co-authors of this "study" just happens to be George Fenwick -- who is the President of the American Bird Conservancy(ABC). Fenwick is quoted in the USA Today that he predicts that more feral cats will mean "the incidents of rabies exposure is going to increase at a fairly rapid rate (even though, there is no evidence that points to that based on the fact that it hasn't over the last decade).  

It's worth noting that the ABC is very outspoken against Feral Cats - so Fenwick is hardly an unbiased source here. But the rabies argument is easily among his worst. Fenwick founded the American Bird Conservency and now makes $170,000 a year doing it. His wife then earns another $85,000 a year off their efforts. So preserving his interests is very lucrative. 

It's a shame the CDC allowed Fenwick to influence this study and create hysteria over a problem that doesn't seem to exist and advocate against something that is actually a very viable solution to that supposed problem.

We need to demand better from government published stories and not let outside interest groups impact public policy in a way that creates a slaughter of healthy animals. 

More from Vox Felina and Alley Cat Allies

The popularity of breed-specific laws -- is 600 a lot? Some perspective

It seems that almost any time that there is a story about a city considering passing a ban on breeds of dogs, it doesn't take long before a (generally anonymous) commenter shoots out a statistic that is made to seem like it's a compelling argument for passing breed bans. It generally goes something like this:

"Over 600 communites across the country have passed policies banning pit bulls."

As if the number is supposed to encourage more cities to pass breed bans. But is 600 accurate?  If it is, is it a lot?  

First of all, the number 600 is a bit debatable. Seems like the number 600 is a popular number to use in myths.

The National Canine Research Council estimates the number to be closer to 300. I've seen how the pit bull haters have arrived at the 600 number and it contains a lot of errors, (including the failure to take out a lot of repeals, and several bans that were overturned by statewide legislation) and essentially takes any county-wide ban and then groups dozens of small communities in the county in order to rack up numbers very quickly. 

The real number is probably somewhere in the middle of these two numbers.  But for the sake of argument, let's go with the 600 juristictions that have BSL. Does this make a compelling argument?

Not if you're good at math.

According to "The Straight Dope", there are 19,355 incorporated places in the United States. And another 3,143 Counties (or county equivelents). That's 22,498 total law-making bodies.

So if we do a little math, if the 600 is the number of juristictions that have breed-specific laws, that means that only 2.6% of the total juristictions have breed-specific laws. It's 3.1% if you assume that their inflated number includes just cities. And keep in mind, the 600 number is the high end of a debatable number.

This means that an overwhelming -- and I mean OVERWHELMING -- number of cities and counties have made the decision to target laws toward dogs based on the BEHAVIOR of the dogs and owners, not based on breed.

This 3% number of cities with breed-specific laws is pretty telling. That's small. To put this in perspective, 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth.  So yes, you're 6x as likely that a random person you meet with think the Sun revolves around the Earth as you are to pick a random city or town and they target breeds of dogs.

And both ideas are equally as silly.

Last month, Animal Farm Foundation had a nice info-graphic showing the realities that most communities that look into breed-specific laws end up listening to experts in their community and deciding AGAINST breed-specific laws in favor of behavior based laws. Many other communities are realizing the mistakes of the past and repealing their laws. This is great, as far as it goes, but doesn't take into consideration that most cities never really discuss the idea because they realize it's a bad idea without any debate.

So let's put this in perspective. More than 97% of law-making juristictions out there have not decided to single out breeds. Regardless of the anonymous fear-mongers try to convey, it is not the popular option. 

Truth, and knowledge, do generally win out. 

 

Very good sentences -- and thoughts on poverty, and animals

If you haven't seen this blog post (which I posted on Facebook yesterday), please go and read it now. 

The post is written by Lori Weise of Downtown Dog Rescue -- an organization that does outreach in one of the toughest, poorest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The post is really insightful, and gives a look at poverty in America, of what urban animals shelters see regularly, and the constant struggle of "us" (the animal welfare community) against "them" -- define that however you want but in this case, it's those who live in poverty.

From Lori's post:

"This is not a "pet problem", this is a poverty problem. Lack of jobs, lack of secure and affordable housing, lack of services. When services are available, they are often difficult to access. Other services require people to live in a target zip code or prove how little money they make to qualify. Even reclaiming a pet at the shelter can be a challenge since it requires identification that matches the address where the people live -- a challenge for people in transition."

It gets better. With stories of successes, and 'failures', in the 'revolving door' at the shelter.

For several years, I spent a couple of evenings per week working with a group of inner-city youth in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Kansas City. I learned a lot over that 4 year stretch.

I learned that ethics can be situational -- and things like not paying your utility bill and then starting up new utilities under a different name is commonplace. And while it sounds obviously wrong, if the alternative is to have it shut off and your family be without heat in winter, or pay it, and your family go without food for the week, then it's a choice that sometimes gets made. 

I learned that sometimes dropping out of school to get a job at a fast food restaurant to help mom pay the electric bill is sometimes the preferred alternative.

I learned the language of asking "where are you staying" instead of "where do you live?" -- because kids moving from family member to family member's home looking for a stable home life was so commonplace. 

When discussing dating and relationships, I had a 13 year old boy tell me that he thought marriage was "something only white people did" because there were so few role models of married families in their community to draw from.

In the United States, the poverty level is set at $23,050 annual income. For a family of four. If you're living alone, the poverty rate is $11,170, $15,130 if you're a couple. 

 Think about that for a minute.

That's VERY little. Now consider that in the US, roughly 16% of the population, and 20% of children live BELOW that number. And that doesn't even account count the people making slightly more than those figures that are still struggling to get by. When you're living in this type of situation, sometimes ethics are situational.

From Lori's post: 

 "I know that many of you might say that you would be homeless, living in your car, before you would surrender your cat or dog. But think about it: Would you really? Could you survive living in a violent area, constant noise, graffiti, trash, gangs controlling the streets, controlling the times that you can go out after dark?" 

Unfortunately, I think too many have removed themselves so far from the problems, that they don't even realize what they're saying. When I was volunteering with the inner-city youth, every year some volunteers would drop out. That's to be expected. But one of the common reasons why people quit was that they felt that the volunteer sight was TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES. And I think it tells an interesting story -- I think most Americans have moved themselves so far away from the problems (for fear, safety, whatever) that they no longer even realize it's a problem. The areas simply become statistics, or the location of the latest tragedy being covered on the 10:00 news.

The impact of the poverty impacts virtually all aspects of living...including their dogs.

From Lori:

"Third, add the higher rate of violent crime like home invasions, assaults, robbery, carjacking and streets being controlled by gangs. It's no wonder that residents of the community often have dogs to protect their homes. They tend to have large breed dogs, who are often very much part of the family, but their main function is to keep the home protected."

It's a lot to think about. But I think as you read Lori's post you start to get a clearer picture of the needs. As she wisely states, "This is not a pet problem, this is a poverty problem". 

And impacts the desire for people to own dogs. It impacts the types of dogs that people choose to own. It impacts the types of dogs that end up at the shelter, and the types that end up making newspaper headlines.  

And if you happen to own a dog in one of these neighborhoods, good luck finding vet care. Unless someone has decided to open up a free/low cost clinic in the area, there are no vet services available. And given that many don't have cars, and public transportation doesn't allow dogs, good luck getting your pet to a veterinarian even if you did have money to pay for the services. 

The problem isn't the dogs. It's society.

Understanding the problem, and having human empathy, is the first step toward repairing it. 

Dog bite infographic

This is a pretty solid infographic by the AVMA for Dog Bite Prevention week. h/t Family Paws Parent Education.

KC Pet Project spends week with Aimee Sadler - thoughts on shelter playgroups

Last week, KC Pet Project had the pleasure of hosting Aimee Sadler for the entire week (and thanks to  Animal Farm Foundation for making this a reality for us).

For anyone not familiar with Aimee's work, essentially, she is, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) one of the foremost experts in the country at creating playgroups for shelter dogs as a way to burn off extra energy, increase socialization, and reduce the stress of kennel life for shelter dogs.

Shelter playgroups are different than your standard dog park experience. Dogs at the shelter come from a variety of different backgrounds: some good, some pretty bad. And it's often tough to predict how dogs that come out of the shelter environment will behave around each other in a playgroup format. So understanding how to read and match dogs is essential for success. But when done well, the outcome is great.

Before I get into the playgroups experience a bit more, I would be remiss if I didn't mention a bit about the shelter experience for the dogs.

Shelter life can be tough for dogs -- and depending on the shelter construct, it can be a very tough environment for them, even under the best circumstances. Our shelter is like many urban shelters. It's 40 years old. It has one main housing area where all the dogs are kept. In many of the rows, kennels are stacked -- with smaller dogs on the top, larger dogs on the bottom. And every time a dog gets let out by a staff person, or volunteer, the dog and handler go down the row and the dogs on both levels bark: most because dogs are social creatures and they want to meet the other dog and are frustrated because they can't. Over time, this frustration builds until dog=frustration. The more the dogs get out, the better it is, but even under the best circumstances the dogs are in their kennel for 23 hours a day. While some handle this environment fine, it is very stressful for others, even under the best of circumstances.

Over the past 6 months, thanks to some volunteers and supporters, we've been able to build multiple playyards for our dogs (pictured).

 Some other volunteers have instituted weekend playgroups for some of the dogs, which has been great. But with Aimee's visit, playgroups are becoming a regular occurrance, and the benefits are telling.

Because of the shelter environment, over time, many dogs develop "barrier reactivity" -- which would be a negative reaction toward other dogs when separated by a barrier (whether that barrier be a fence, a kennel, or a leash). In many shelters, it's easy for dogs that show barrier aggression to be kept separate from other dogs and be labeled as "not good with other dogs". This not only enhances the problem for the dogs, it also makes it harder for them to be adopted -- which at best makes their kennel stay longer, at worst, a candidate for euthanasia.

One such dog for us was a dog named Lucy. She is a Dogue de Boudeaux at our shelter. She was surrendered for having issues with other dogs, and after some time at the shelter, had developed a fair amount of barrier reactivity. She seemed uncertain meeting a dog through the fence, so Aimee muzzled her so she could interact with the dog, but everything would be safe. After analyzing the body language of both dogs, she opted to take off her muzzle. And Lucy....played.

Here's a video of Lucy on her second day of playgroups:

 

This is the power of playgroups for an open intake shelter like ours -- that dogs can get the socialization they need -- and that they WANT -- as well as much needed exercise. Aimee says that she believes 30 minutes in playgroups is about the equivelent of a 2 hour walk -- and I believe it. It also provides proper mental stimulation and socialization.  And the tired dogs also create a quieter/less stressful environment inside the shelter. We also learn a LOT about the dogs, which helps our staff make better recommendations for adopters. And all of this leads to helping make the dogs more adoptable -- which decreases their time at the shelter, and overall, reduces stress. It's a huge win.

There is a lot about Aimee's playgroup model -- in handling play-types, when to interrupt play, how to handle corrections, etc. I think some of this is easily misunderstood if you don't get to hear the 3 hour presentation she gives before going into playgroups that helps define the why's. She is also very big on letting dogs communicate and work out their differences -- some of which she explains in this clip:

 

Overall, we're working on modifying some things to fit our particular staff and situation, but as a whole, I think playgroups will continue to make life better for the dogs at KC Pet Project. I think our staff and volunteers had a great time with it and are really enjoying seeing the dogs be, well, dogs. And it's also fun to watch stereo-types be bunked as we watch pit bulls playing with Labs, unneutered male dogs interacting well with other male dogs, etc. As would be expected when you start semi-randomly throwing 120 dogs with unknown backgrounds together, but most ended quickly, with a lot of ruckus but not much more than that. Break it up. Play on.

I'm excited about this being added to the curriculum at KC Pet Project. Over the past 9 months we've been able to maintain a 90+% live release rate by instituting programs that have proven themselves to be successful in other shelters across the country. This, is one of those programs.

And a big thanks to Fox 4 in Kansas City who had some great coverage of our playgroups -- in what was a very challenging news cycle last week.

For more on the Play for Life Program:

Serious Fun -- by Best Friends Animal Society

Aimee Sadler changes shelter experience for homeless dogs - Philadelphia Dogs Examiner

Pet First Aid Awareness Infographic

This is another interesting and useful info-graphic from 1-800-Pet Meds on potential household dangers for your pets.

These are the same folks that brought us the Pit bull facts/myths infographic last year.

(Almost) Horrifying Video Highlights why human behavior is so important in judging dog behavior

This video is a few months old at this point, but I just saw it last week and absolutely want to highlight it.

The video below shows a young toddler (maybe 1 1/2 years old), who repeatedly jumps onto a Rottweiler, hugs him, jumps on him, bounces on him, etc. The dog in this case is definitely NOT enjoying the experience and is giving a whole host of warning signals that the child can't identify and the adults in the room ignore (or can't identify) while they laugh and cheer the child on in his antics.

There is not horrific ending to this video. Like so many dogs in this country, the dog removed himself from the situation and avoided biting the child, but I want you to watch the video and ask yourself, if the dog had bitten the child, what would the reaction be?

Would it have bitten because it was a Rottweiler and Rottweilers are aggressive?

Would it have been irresponsible parenting for putting the dog in this situation? 

Would the parents have said "the dog had never shown signs of aggression before, we don't know what happened?"

How would the media have treated the bite? 

How would the local authorities have treated the dog?

Would the city council have met to discuss the need to ban Rottweilers?  Or would they have instead created ownership education training so people would be better equipped to recognize warning signals like the dog was giving? 

This 2 minute video is an excellent demonstration of why it's so important for people to understand canine behavior, warning signals, and why owner education is so important. And it's also a reminder of just how tolerant so many dogs (including most of the ones from breeds that often carry certain stigmas) are with the situations we put them in. And this dog is ROCK SOLID. Thankfully.

 

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):