As a pet photographer, I come into close contact with all sorts of dogs, all sorts of breeds, and all sorts of pet owners. What I have learned is to never assume anything about a dog based on it’s size or apparent breed. On the other hand, I can make a fairly quick assessment about how a dog will behave and react based on how the dog owner interacts with their dog. I won’t go into specifics other than to say I’ve never met a “bad” dog. I have met dogs in need of better guidance. Even with those misguided dogs, a few minutes of clear direction during the shoot (positive conditioning) turns things around. Dogs are smart. They just need to know what we want from them.
Admittedly, the worst or most irresponsible dog owners are NOT those calling me for pet portrait sessions (not even close). They’re not even those I meet as clients at my husband’s animal hospital. Irresponsible dog owners are those who don’t give enough attention, guidance, veterinary care, or proper nutrition to their dog, a living creature that relies on them for everything.
With some municipalities banning specific dog breeds and pending legislation that could open up the door to more banning, I’ve been doing some research. I have tried in vain to find any reliable data that indicates a specific breed is inherently dangerous. I have found plenty of inaccurate and misleading data. Let’s break it down a bit.
Dog Bite Statistics:
Dog bite statistics that I have found tend to be based on a handful of sources. One is media/news accounts. This surprised the hell out of me. Lets face it. The news media is going to get a lot more attention reporting on dog bites by the “bad dog de jour” (Pit Bull today, Rottweiler before that, Doberman before that, and let’s not forget the German Shepherd). There’s just not enough drama in reporting a dog bite by a Yorkshire Terrier, or even a Dalmatian as there is a Pit Bull or Rottweiler.
Many reports cite statistics provided by animal control, statistics that are gathered primarily to make sure the dog has been vaccinated and isn’t likely to transmit Rabies, not because the animal is deemed dangerous. The problem with these statistics is they don’t take into account the nature of the bite, only that some injury occurred. The bite (or scratch) may have happened in the act of play, as an accidental bite, during a veterinary exam, or while being picked up after being hit by a car. The statistics don’t take into account the severity of the wound or the circumstances of the incident.
What I have not been able to find is any statistics that compare bites by breed in a community compared to what percentage of the communities dog population is made up of that particular breed. For instance, if 50% of dogs living in a particular community fall into the category of “dangerous breed”, it stands to reason they would account for 50% of the reported dog bites for that community, (not because they are inherently more dangerous). Dogs fitting the general description of a Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix are very common. Go to any dog park and you’ll see what I mean.
Breed Identification:
The next big problem I found in reviewing bite data was the obvious problem of breed identification. Over 50% of dogs in the US are mixed breeds. While there are certainly “breed standards” (AKC/UKC), most of the dogs you see labeled “Pit Bull” don’t come close to meeting the breed standards and are likely mixed breeds that just happen to have a broad head and are about the right height. The general public simply doesn’t know the difference. Hell, I can’t even tell with certainty. Here’s an interesting article on this topic. Basically, the researcher found that the breed assigned to dogs by Shelters/Adoption facilities was correct only 25% of the time. In other words, people who work with dogs day in and day out, get it wrong 75% of the time. The likelihood for aggression simply can’t be based on breed OR physical characteristics. If there is some genetic cause for aggression, I haven’t seen anything to support it. However for the sake of argument, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that would suggest that a gene for aggression was in any way related to specific physical characteristics. That would be like saying men over 6 feet tall, with brown hair, and a stout build are inherently aggressive. I digress. Back to my point. Assuming a municipality prohibits ownership of a Pit Bull, who decides when a specific dog is a Pit Bull?
There is really no way of knowing if bites attributed to Pit Bulls are really bites perpetrated by actual Pit Bulls. It may have been a mix breed or even another breed that looks similar to a Pit. I’ve had people ask me if a dog in a photo was a Pit Bull when it was actually a Boxer or a hound mix.
Where does it End?
Even if you agree with the myth that Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous and are okay with the pending legislation for that reason, you should think again. Once the door is open for breed specific legislation, there is no way to prevent the legislation from banning other breeds. So, anyone with a large dog, a dog that falls into any “dangerous breed” category, or a breed that ends up being portrayed as aggressive in next year’s blockbuster movie needs to be concerned about this. Anyone with a dog that remotely resembles a Pit Bull or Rottweiler should be concerned. Do you want to leave your dog’s fate in the hands of some city worker who couldn’t accurately identify a Pit Bull if his life depended on it?
The reality is that some animals are physically large enough and strong enough to inflict serious injury should they become aggressive (not unlike humans). Whether it’s a dog, a horse, a pig, or a cat, it’s up to pet owners to make sure they do what’s necessary to prevent injury. If a dog owner has a dog (of any size) that displays any level of aggression towards humans, it’s their obligation to address the aggressive tendency and to keep their pet under their control at all times. There are many resources available for behavior modification. There are leash laws in place. A little common sense and training can prevent the vast majority of bites.
Rather than wrongfully maligning a breed, fingers need to be pointed at the real ills of society where dogs are concerned. It’s time to stop irresponsible breeding, do more to encourage or require spaying and neutering to reduce the unwanted pet population, and to stop treating pets as disposable, as fashion statements, or as status symbols. I’m not sure what kind of legislation could be enacted to address the real problem. If they do figure it out, perhaps they can apply it to irresponsible parents as well. Here’s just one example of the position of the American Veterinary Medical Association AVMA) http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp
What I do know is the data simply doesn’t support the premise that a specific breed is inherently more dangerous. The data doesn’t support the notion that outlawing specific breeds will reduce serious bite injuries. It makes no sense to enact legislation that would separate responsible dog owners from dogs that have been nothing but loyal and well behaved family members, dogs that have been known to save human lives, dogs that bring out the best in people, not the worst. I have no clue about my dog’s parentage. I don’t know what “breeds” make up his DNA. However, people have commented on several occasions they think he’s “got some Pit Bull in him” If anyone tries to take my dog from me, they’ve got one hell of a fight on their hands. I’ll sick my vicious Parrot on them. Now he really is dangerous!! Just ask my husband.
by LME
19 comments