Total Pageviews

Monday 8 February 2016

All Dog Breeds Deserve A Chance


From an early age we are told, "Don't judge a book by its cover." This holds true for man's best friend. "Bully breeds" in particular have a bad reputation. Fortunately there are passionate dog owners making it their mission to shift the conversation. They believe all dog breeds deserve a chance - a chance to have healthy and fulfilling lives with their owners.
Here are their stories...

Aria the American Bull Dog

Wanting a family dog is a common request from kids and the Terraneau crew was no different. Josh Terraneau, Riverside, CA State Farm agent, and his wife decided it was finally time and brought the whole family to the shelter to find their new family member, an adorable puppy.
"The moment our family walked through the local shelter and met Aria...it was kismet," said Josh. "My youngest son was 18 months at the time and Aria began sniffing him. It was obvious there was a natural connection and curiosity to one another."
The family asked if Aria could be let outside to play to see if they were a good fit. Josh describes the moment of seeing Aria running around the yard as witnessing the dog "blossoming." At that moment, the Terraneau family knew they had found their puppy.
As the one year anniversary of Aria's adoption nears, Josh shares, "I cannot imagine my family without her. She's just such a big part of our family"

Santa Paws and Fido

A passionate owner of five dogs and an advocate for dogs and safety, Linda Newell, a San Diego, CA State Farm agent, works hard to educate her community. She teams up with local veterinary offices and school educators to teach children about dogs. She distributes an activity book, Fido! Friend or Foe to the children.
"I love meeting the members of my community – the dogs and their owners," said Linda."And it's so important to teach the kids about dogs and how to be safe."
Linda also teams up with Santa Paws during the holidays. Together they provide her new customers, who are dog owners, with doggie goodie bags, and the opportunity to get a holiday photo with their pets.
Hundreds of people take advantage of this unique opportunity including a local military wife whose husband was deploying in a few days. The special picture gave her family comfort while her husband was overseas serving our country during the holidays.


The Playful Golden Retriever

State Farm Agent Shea Ferraro describes his golden retriever, O'Malley, as a friendly dog who loves people and the pool. He attributes her friendliness to early socialization with other dogs and people. Since an early age, O'Malley would frequent dog parks, dog beaches, and dog-friendly restaurants. During the summer, you can find O'Malley swimming in their pool. O'Malley enjoys catching a ball in her mouth, and then placing her head on the ledge of the pool. She waits there until someone is ready to toss her the ball for hours of endless fun.


Kensie the Pit Bull

Kensie the pit bull was shaking in fear in the animal shelter. Fortunately, Rob Bills, a Mission Viejo, CA State Farm agent, was with his family looking to adopt a new dog. Rob already was the owner of two loyal pit bulls and he knew he could give Kensie the home she deserved.
"She appeared physically and emotionally wounded," shared Rob. "She only weighed 30 pounds; very underweight for her age and size."
After years of caring for his new family member, Kensie weighs 50 pounds and trusts humans again. Rob says caring for three dogs is a great deal of work, but it's also "wonderful and very rewarding."


Heat, leashes, and learning

The summer months can mean very high temperatures. Agent Shea Ferraro asks people to be mindful of their dogs and children, and never leave them in an unattended vehicle.

While walking your dog with a retractable leash, Rob Bills suggests owners be mindful of releasing the leash too suddenly.
He has observed face-to-face dog confrontations that could pose safety concerns for dogs who are still in training or are not yet socialized. Instead, Rob suggests dog owners talk first to determine whether the dogs can meet and play.
Owner of two dogs, State Farm Agent Andy Popka stresses the importance of getting to know your pet. In particular, by learning his dog Rowdy's body language, he knew which situations Rowdy perceived as threatening. For example, Rowdy used to run to a specific dog bed at their home any time he saw a person wearing a hat and sunglasses. Learning these signs from Rowdy, and their other dog, enabled Andy to tailor their training.


Insuring the underdog and more

"All dogs can be 'great dogs,' regardless of breed, if they are properly cared for, loved and trained," stated Agent Rob Bills.
State Farm determines risk based on a dog's bite history rather than breed. Thus, State Farm does not exclude insuring households solely based on breed.
Interested in reading more about dogs and State Farm, click here to enjoy a Huffington Post blog, Insuring the Underdog.




Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 6 February 2016

In defense of the pit bull

, ALTERNET

In defense of the pit bullEnlarge
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
AlterNetFor most of the 114 years since the American pit bull terrier was first recognized by the United Kennel Club, the breed was rightly seen as the perfect “nanny dog” for children because of its friendly nature, loyalty and stability. As the ASPCA notes, the pit bulls were “once considered especially non-aggressive to people.”
Today, as any owner of a “pit bull-type” dog* can attest, parents often recoil in horror when they spot one of these animals, pulling their children close as if to protect them from a marauding werewolf. Fanciful myths about the breed abound, and some public officials have compared their bites to those of sharks and tigers.
Since the 1980s, the media have falsely portrayed the pit bull as a bloodthirsty monster, inherently more dangerous than other strong breeds of dog. There is absolutely no factual basis for that narrative, but it’s led to a vicious cycle in which people who want a badass dog to fight, or to guard property, or to intimidate rival gangs tend to choose pit bulls (or Rottweilers, another much-maligned breed). Pit bulls are the dog of choice for irresponsible breeders, dog-fighters, people who want a tough-looking dog to tie up in their yard and those who refuse to have their male dogs fixed because they think those big, swinging balls makes them look tough by proxy (86 percent of fatal canine attacks involve an unneutered male, according to the American Humane Society).
A 2009 study in the Journal of Forensic Science ($$), found that the owners of vicious dogs, regardless of the breed, had “significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners.” The researchers added that “vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy,” and concluded that “vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.” And according to the ASPCA, “Pit Bulls often attract the worst kind of dog owners.”
All of those human failings lead to poorly socialized and potentially aggressive dogs. It is because pit bulls are disproportionately favored by these kinds of owners that they’re responsible for a statistically outsize share of serious attacks on humans. These incidents are then reported – and very often misreported – with breathless sensationalism by the media, and the cycle continues.
Meanwhile, advocates say that pit bulls are the most frequentlyabused, tortured, abandoned and euthanized breed of dog in the United States. Shelters across the country are overflowing with pit bull mixes. Because of their stigma, they’re often difficult to adopt out; a ride to the shelter is almost always a one-way trip for pitties.
We have tragically betrayed our children’s beloved nanny-dogs, raising them irresponsibly, training them to be aggressive and then turning them into pariahs when they behave as any dog would in similar circumstances.
The Facts
According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, “controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.” The American Temperance Testing Society (ATTS) puts thousands of dogs – purebreds and spayed and neutered mixed-breeds – through their paces each year. 
The dogs are tested for skittishness, aggression and their ability to differentiate between threatening and non-threatening humans. Among all of the breeds ATTS tested – over 30,000 dogs through May 2011 — 83 percent passed the test. How did pit bulls do? 
They showed an above average temperament, with 86 percent making the grade. Pit bulls are the second most tolerant breed tested by ATTS, after only golden retreivers.

Pit bulls do not have special “locking jaws” – that’s pure mythology. They don’t demonstrate some sort of special shaking action when they bite – all dogs display similar biting behavior. 
Pit bulls do not exert an unusual amount of bite-force for their size. Multiple studies have found that bite force correlates to body-weight, and tests of three breeds conducted by National Geographic found that the American pit bull terrier exerted less bite-force than German shepherds or Rottweilers.
While they have been a favorite of dog-fighters for a century, pit bulls weren’t originally bred for fighting. According to the United Kennel Club, sometime in the 19th century European breeders began crossing various terriers with bulldogs in search of a breed that had the former’s enthusiasm and the latter’s stamina and strength. 

The pit bull breeds that resulted were then imported and embraced “as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions.” (UKC also notes that pitbulls “have always been noted for their love of children,” but aren’t “the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers.”)

Pit bulls are among dozens of strong, muscular breeds of canine. All are capable of doing damage to humans if they’re not properly socialized and supervised. 
Most dogs do not, even when they’ve been neglected or abused. None are inherently monstrous – they are all just dogs. And we know what makes dogs of any breed more likely to be aggressive.
Karen Delise, research director for the National Canine Research Council and author of “The Pitbull Placebo,” has investigated hundreds of serious dog bite incidents in depth. As she explains:
My study of dog bite-related fatalities occurring over the past five decades has identified the poor ownership/management practices involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents: owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of regular, positive human interaction, often for negative functions (i.e. guarding/protection, fighting, intimidation/status); owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgably supervise interaction between children and dogs; and owners failing to spay or neuter dogs not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program.
There are a tiny number of attacks that simply can’t be explained. Occasionally, a well-raised, beloved pet without a history of behavioral issues will hurt a human – dogs are animals, after all – but these incidents are incredibly rare.
Pit Bbull Takes Its Turn As Media’s Monster Dog
The pit bull is not the first dog to be seen as inherently dangerous. The media seem to feed off the idea of monster dogs — it makes great copy.
As Karen Delise details in her book, in the 19th century, bloodhounds were believed to be inherently vicious, having a taste for human blood. “Eventually,” she writes, “these bloodhounds fell from view, and we pushed other dogs into the spotlight, including the German Shepherd dog and the Doberman Pinscher.” (Dobermans were widely believed to have abnormally small brains, turning them into mindless killers, but this, like the pit bull’s “locking jaws,” was simply a myth.) 

Other breeds that have haunted the popular imagination in the past include mastiffs and Newfoundlands. In Canada, Siberian huskies have often played the role of killer-hound.
Delise, who reviewed news accounts of fatal dog attacks going back more than 100 years, also noted a shift in the way media report these incidents. Fifty years ago, she writes, dogs were “portrayed as sentient beings that reacted to pain, discomfort, or fear. 
Additionally, many reports of dog attacks conveyed the understanding that aggression was a natural and expected behavior of dogs in certain circumstances. Owners and/or victims were often identified in news reports as exhibiting behaviors (intentionally or unintentionally) that caused the dog to attack.”
That kind of understanding has since been replaced by an almost-single-minded focus on the breed of dogs that turn violent, stripped of any larger context.
Breed mis-identification plays a significant role in the stigma attached to pit bulls. It’s difficult even for experts to properly identify a breed of dog. A study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science ($$) found that “87.5% of the dogs identified by an adoption agency as having specific breeds in their ancestry did not have all of those breeds detected by DNA analysis.”
That problem is compounded by media sensationalism. Karen Delise studied every fatal dog bite reported in the years between 2002-2005, and found that “eleven dogs involved in fatal attacks with no Pitbull characteristics were counted as Pitbulls, while their ‘true’ breeds were not reported, and three dogs that were clearly not Rottweilers were identified as Rottweilers.” That was among a total of 47 fatal attacks (by all breeds) reported during that period.

This dog was involved in a fatal attack and the media called it a pit bull…
According to Delise, this dog was reported as a pit bull despite the fact that animal control officers told reporters that she was in fact a Labrador mix…
This kind of misidentification creates a feedback loop, as most studies of fatal attacks rely on media reports for breed identification.
The media’s role in amplifying the public’s fear of pit bull-type dogs was evident in a study conducted by the National Canine Research Council in 2008. When an Arizona woman was killed by one or more dogs identified as Labrador retrievers, one local newspaper reported the story. But that same year, when a California man was killed by one or more pit bulls, the incident was reported “by at least 285 media outlets, both nationally (in 47 U.S. states) and internationally (in eight other countries). MSNBC, Forbes, USA Today, Fox News, CBS News, and ABC News all picked up the story.”
And when an infant in New Jersey was reportedly killed by a Siberian husky, around a dozen local news outlets reported the tragic incident, according to the study. But when another infant was killed by what authorities described as a pit bull in Nevada the same month, it was reported by over 200 media outlets around the world, often with the word “pit bull” in the headlines. Like shark attacks, our perception of the risk associated with these dogs has a lot to do with this kind of sensationalism.
Dog Racism
Some people are understandably offended when the demonization of pit bulls is compared with bigotry against ethnic minorities, but there’s one aspect of the analogy that is just too apt to ignore.
Pit bulls are disproportionately involved in serious attacks on humans, just as African-Americans are found guilty of a disproportionate number of crimes in the United States. That’s simply what the raw data say.
Most people consider the claim that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites, based on that raw data, to be pretty darn racist as it ignores the social, economic and legal context of crime and instead ascribes it to some imagined genetic or cultural flaw among African-Americans.
And yet, when you strip away the overt falsehoods about pit bulls – those locking jaws and shark-like bites – the raw statistics, stripped of social context, is the entirety of the case against these animals (made even worse by the unreliable nature of data based on media-reported breeds in attacks).
So when Matt Drudge hypes stories of “packs” of black youths rampaging in America’s streets, he’s rightly called out for race-baiting. 
But when sex advice columnist Dan Savage, who writes numerous posts about pit bulls behaving badly with titles like, “Pit Bulls Should be Boiled Alive like Lobsters and Fed to Their Idiot Owners,” and compares these domesticated canines with wild tigers, he’s doing the exact same thing as Drudge. (Worse, Savage doesn’t appear to make any effort to confirm that the dogs implicated in the stories he promotes are actually pit bulls.)

Only a Monster Could Support Breed-Specific Bans

A number of municipalities have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL), in some cases banning “pit bull-type” dogs (and/ or Rottweilers and other large breeds), and in others requiring that they be spayed or neutered, or imposing special restrictions on their housing.
These laws have been proven ineffective for the rather obvious reason that they fundamentally misdiagnose the causes of serious dog bites, focusing on breeds rather than the interactions of dogs and humans. There are numerous studies showing that BSL laws don’t result in any decrease whatsoever in serious dog bites (see here, here and here, and a summary of several others here).
According to the ASPCA:

There is no evidence that breed-specific laws—which are costly and difficult to enforce—make communities safer for people or companion animals. For example, Prince George’s County, MD, spends more than $250,000 annually to enforce its ban on Pit Bulls. In 2003, a study conducted by the county on the ban’s effectiveness noted that “public safety is not improved as a result of [the ban],” and that “there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).”
Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.
The term “breed specific legislation” is inaccurate. All sorts of dogs get caught up in the tangle of BSL laws because the definition of a “pit bull-type” dog is subjective. Denver’s infamous pit bull ban, for example, defines it as “an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics.”
What, exactly, are those physical traits? In the study cited above showing that adoption agencies frequently misidentify canine breeds, the authors conclude, “The discrepancies between opinions of adoption agencies and identification by DNA analysis suggest that it would be worthwhile to reevaluate the reliability of breed identification as well as the justification of current public and private policies pertaining to specific dog breeds.”
But the problems with BSL laws go way beyond their ineffectiveness at reducing serious dog bites. All BSL laws, even those that stop short of outright bans, result in beloved family pets with no history of behavioral problems being destroyed. Simply put, these are monstrous laws.
There are better alternatives. San Francisco (which has a dumb law requiring that only “pit bull-type” dogs be neutered), has a “bad dog court.” When a complaint is filed about an allegedly vicious dog, the animal and his or her owner has a right to a hearing where they can present exculpatory evidence. The dog court can order truly dangerous animals to be euthanized, but frequently the sentences include things like mandating that owners fix a fence or muzzle their dogs in public.

The Good News

Fortunately, attitudes are beginning to change as good humans rally around these wonderful, loyal dogs’ defense. Actor Linda Blair is best known for her role in the “The Exorcist,” but she now devotes her time to rescuing pit bulls and other unwanted dogs. Shows like “The Dog Whisperer,” which features superstar trainer Cesar Millan, whose personal dogs (“Daddy,” and then “Junior”) were pit bulls with calm temperaments and a lot of patience with smaller dogs, and “Pit Boss” – a reality series that follows Luigi “Shorty” Rossi, a little person who rescues pit bulls that are often bigger than him – help.
The fact that we now have an abundance of data showing that banning certain breeds of dog does nothing to decrease the number of serious dog bites helps as well. But really, public opinion is shifting because the case against pit bulls – like bloodhounds or Dobermans before them – was built on a shaky foundation of myths and media hype.
They’re just dogs.
* “Pit bull” is not a breed. It’s a term for a variety of breeds, including the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and mixes of those dogs. “Pit bull-type dog” is basically meaningless – they’re dogs with various phenotypical traits that subjectively fit the label.
Joshua Holland is a contributor to The Nation and a fellow with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. He's also the host of Politics and Reality Radio.


, ALTERNET


end
Posted by at No comments:

Why Do People Hate Pit Bulls?

Written by Samuel Nieves
Unless Pit Bulls can stop being the ridiculously loyal, loving, and nurturing dogs they were bred to be, there will never be an end to their reputation. There is a large number of people in this world who really think Pit Bulls are born on a mission to kill.
Recently, I had a mother (she'll remain anonymous) of 5 scream and run out the house when she saw one of my Pit Bulls. She did it hysterically. Her children, ranging from the ages of 13-24, immediately walked over to my dog to play as they usually have been for months. I could not understand why the mom had decided to yell and run out the door only after she asked if it was a Pit Bull. She was already sitting down and petting her. 
Here's someone with absolutely no dog education, and she reacts in a way that can easily lead her children down a blind path. Which it did, because her youngest son later that week played 2 sick jokes on me. He came running to me twice on separate occasions, screaming and moaning that Jasmine (the Pit Bull) had bit his finger. The son's been around these dogs for months already, but the mom never met the dogs until that unfortunate day.
Of course, like any good dog owner, I ran toward my dog, startled, knowing she would never hurt a fly, but still with the thought there is no reason for this kid to be lying. Surely, once he saw me attend to him in all seriousness he laughed and showed me his hand. Nothing wrong. I almost blew up. Not in anger. But in an overload of feelings. Pit Bulls have a bad rap. I work with my dog meticulously everyday. I will put myself on a limb and say I am not your average dog owner. I have a lot of training and animal behavior experience under my belt. And in that second, I felt like a failure as I ran toward my dog and the kid. I felt like I let the whole Pit Bull community down.
I later explained what happened to his mother and she felt awful. I told her that acting the way she does around this breed of dog she can barely identify can leave an everlasting impression on your children. She couldn't live with it, and she was very upset that her son would go through that much acting to play a joke like that. 
And, so, within 2 weeks, the mother was in love with my dog. During her rehabilitation, on multiple occasions she said, "Jasmine's a rottweiler, right?" Then on another, "Jasmine's a beautiful English Bulldog." The mother doesn't know anything about dogs, which is why I took the time to help her overcome her fears with my docile pack of dogs. She had explained that her fear of dogs comes from stories online.
For all the dog-layman people out there, Pit Bulls required a very particular set of traits for gameness. Their chores required these dogs to be all-in on the task--no questioned asked. Whether it was hunting wild boar or working on the farm, the Pit Bull in early America has been noted doing just about every single task a dog can be set to do. Pit Bulls were also great babysitters of young children and made the most wonderful family companions with kids of any age. They are sharp and easy to train. The Pit Bull, without hesitation, I say, is a super-hero breed of dog.
I don't think there is anything a Pit Bull can't do. And I think it's that very thought that made, and makes, people use the Pit Bull for their entertainment.
People laugh when I tell them you need a loving and loyal dog to do some of the monstrous things people do with Pit Bulls. If humans wanted, we could train Pit Bulls to jump off a cliff--no questions asked by the dog. Somehow, we've engrained traits to make them do things that aren't natural for any dog to do.
 Fighting for no real cause is no trait even a wild animal possess. Wild animals rarely fight to the death, and when they do, there's probably feeding and breeding grounds at stake--all things a domesticated dog takes no part of in the circle of life. Dog's have no clue how to survive on their own.
If dog's fight to the death, it's because they are unsocialized and overloaded with adrenaline--only caused by humans. And again, any dog can fight to the death.
Pit Bulls to some, are just trophies. Status symbols. They are definitely on the chiseled and god-like athleticism side of the dog anatomy spectrum. So they attract a large demographic of people that cause serious harm to the breeds reputation.
Because of the Pit Bulls god-like athletic abilities, low maintenance (can you imagine long-haired Pit Bulls?), and superior loyalty toward humans, they will always be the wandering victims to a human's alter ego trying to blow off stress.
The Pit Bull is on an amazing road of recovery thanks to educational television programs, and celebrity dog trainer, Cesar Milan, who's sidekicks has always been a Pit Bull, among many other organizations.
I would love to hear your stories about someone suggesting your dog is dangerous because of the breed.

Posted by at No comments:

Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff

HIGHLIGHTS

•
Animal shelter staff and veterinarians are frequently expected to guess the breed of dogs based on appearance alone.
•
Even when observing the same dogs at the same time, shelter staff had only moderate agreement with breed designations.
•
One in five dogs genetically identified with pit bull heritage breeds were missed by all shelter staff.
•
One in three dogs lacking DNA for pit bull heritage breeds were labeled pit bull-type dogs by at least one staff member.
•
Lack of consistency among shelter staff indicates that visual identification of pit bull-type dogs is unreliable.

ABSTRACT

Shelter staff and veterinarians routinely make subjective dog breed identification based on appearance, but their accuracy regarding pit bull-type breeds is unknown. The purpose of this study was to measure agreement among shelter staff in assigning pit bull-type breed designations to shelter dogs and to compare breed assignments with DNA breed signatures. In this prospective cross-sectional study, four staff members at each of four different shelters recorded their suspected breed(s) for 30 dogs; there was a total of 16 breed assessors and 120 dogs. The terms American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, pit bull, and their mixes were included in the study definition of ‘pit bull-type breeds.’
Using visual identification only, the median inter-observer agreements and kappa values in pair-wise comparisons of each of the staff breed assignments for pit bull-type breed vs. not pit bull-type breed ranged from 76% to 83% and from 0.44 to 0.52 (moderate agreement), respectively. Whole blood was submitted to a commercial DNA testing laboratory for breed identification. Whereas DNA breed signatures identified only 25 dogs (21%) as pit bull-type, shelter staff collectively identified 62 (52%) dogs as pit bull-type. Agreement between visual and DNA-based breed assignments varied among individuals, with sensitivity for pit bull-type identification ranging from 33% to 75% and specificity ranging from 52% to 100%. The median kappa value for inter-observer agreement with DNA results at each shelter ranged from 0.1 to 0.48 (poor to moderate). Lack of consistency among shelter staff indicated that visual identification of pit bull-type dogs was unreliable.

KEYWORDS

  • Dog; 
    •    
  • Breed; 
    •    
  • DNA; 
    •    
  • Behavior; 
    •    
  • Aggression

INTRODUCTION

As pet dog ownership in the United States passes 70 million, mixed breed dogs have nearly overtaken purebreds in the proportion of owned dogs (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012). Even when purebred dogs are acquired, it is most commonly for companionship and not for the working roles for which they were historically developed. Despite the decreased focus on purpose-bred dogs, breed assignment continues to influence how dogs are viewed and managed (Simpson et al., 2012). This is true even when the actual breed of dog, if any, is unknown.
Guessed breed designations are often included in veterinary records, dog licenses, animal shelter records, pet adoption websites, lost-and-found notices, housing applications, and insurance policies (Voith et al., 2013). Visual breed assessments have been shown to be erroneous more frequently than not1 (Voith et al, 2009 and Voith et al, 2013). The past few decades have seen an increase in ownership restrictions applied to certain breeds of dogs and dogs that resemble them. The restrictions are based on the assumptions that certain breeds are inherently dangerous, that those breeds can be reliably identified, and that restricting these breeds would improve public safety.
When dogs bite people and other animals, the suspected breed of dog reported by witnesses is often listed in official bite reports filed by hospitals or animal control facilities.1 Media coverage of dog bite-related injuries has been shown to be more extensive and to report the suspected breed more frequently when witnesses report a pit bull or guard-line breed as involved.2 The sources and reliability of this breed reporting have been questioned (Collier, 2006, Patronek, Slavinski, 2009, Voith et al, 2009, Voith et al, 2013, Patronek et al, 2010 and Patronek et al, 2013).
A study of all dog bite-related fatalities that occurred during the 10-year period 2000–2009 reported that 90% of the dogs involved were described in at least one media account with a single breed descriptor, potentially implying that the dog was purebred (Patronek et al., 2013). However, approximately 46% of the dogs in the US are mixed breed dogs (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012), and it seemed unlikely to the authors that purebred dogs would be disproportionately represented among the dogs involved in these incidents. Further, in only 18% of the cases were the authors able to make a valid determination that the dog involved was a member of a distinct, recognized breed (Patronek et al., 2013). Nevertheless, unverified reports of the dog breeds involved in serious and fatal incidents have been used to develop opinions regarding perceived danger levels of different breeds1 (Voith et al, 2009, Voith et al, 2013 and Patronek et al, 2013).
These opinions have led to restrictions or outright bans on certain breeds by municipalities, insurance companies, homeowner associations, and animal shelters. It has been estimated that as of 2009, restrictions regarding ownership of dozens of breeds were in place in more than 300 jurisdictions in the US (Berkey, 2009). Most restrictions name ‘pit bull’ as a regulated ‘breed,’ but many also include Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, German shepherd dogs, and Chow Chows, among more than 30 others.
‘Pit bull’ is not a recognized breed, but a term applied to a heterogeneous group whose membership may include purebred dogs of various breeds, along with dogs presumed to be mixes of those breeds. Use of this descriptor varies according to the recognized breeds included and the opinions of the observers (Patronek et al., 2013). Nevertheless, dog owners, animal shelters, insurance companies, veterinarians, and the public frequently use the term ‘pit bull’ casually and in official documents, as though it describes a single, recognized breed. The lack of a universally accepted definition of ‘pit bull’ and reliance upon the opinion of observers complicate identification of dogs targeted for regulatory control by ‘breed bans’ (Hoffman et al., 2014). Most, but not all, breed-specific ordinances in the US include with the term ‘pit bull’ the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier, along with dogs that, based upon their appearance, are deemed to resemble these breeds.
Since actual pedigree information is not usually available, determining the likely breed of dogs that may fall under breed-based restrictions requires a subjective assessment of the dog's appearance. Recently, DNA analysis has been used to investigate the breed heritage of individual dogs targeted in breed restriction cases. However, the largest testing service does not offer a DNA test for identification of American pit bull terriers. Additionally, it does not provide a test for ‘pit bulls’, since the term variously refers to a loose collection of breeds and their mixes or to dogs with similar morphology rather than a group of dogs with a controlled gene pool.
Shelter staff members and veterinarians routinely make subjective breed assessments as part of daily shelter operations. They also may be tasked with providing expert opinions regarding the likely breed of individual dogs involved in breed regulation cases. Depending upon the regulatory environment and/or the beliefs of shelter managers, the stakes may be high for dogs identified as pit bulls and for their owners3 (Voith et al., 2009).
The primary objective of this study was to determine the level of agreement among shelter workers in designating pit bull-type breeds for shelter dogs. A secondary objective was to compare shelter workers' breed assignments with DNA breed signatures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study sites

Four Florida animal shelters were recruited. These shelters admitted 2520–10,154 dogs in the calendar year prior to the study. At each shelter, managers assigned three staff members and one shelter veterinarian whose regular duties included assignment of breed designations to newly admitted dogs to participate in the study as dog breed assessors. Each assessor completed a questionnaire regarding their shelter experience and previous training in dog breed identification. In addition to the veterinarians, assessor job titles included animal control officers, kennel staff, veterinary assistants/technicians, and customer service staff. The assessors might or might not have had previous knowledge of the dogs selected for the study.

Dogs

At each study site, 30 healthy dogs 2 months of age and older were selected by the research team to phenotypically represent a variety of age, body size, body types, coat length, and coat color. In the case of related dogs (dams and litters), only one dog from each family was selected. Only dogs that staff considered safe to handle were eligible for inclusion. The breed previously assigned to each dog at the time of shelter admission was recorded for comparison. The cage card for each dog was covered so that the breed previously assigned at intake was not visible to the dog breed assessors. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Florida on 7 March 2011.

Subjective breed assessment

At each shelter, the four dog breed assessors were given a list of the selected dogs and asked to assign a primary breed for each dog based on its physical appearance. Assessors could assign a secondary breed if they felt that it was indicated and could select ‘mixed breed’ if they felt there were no defining characteristics that allowed a specific breed identification. Assessors were allowed to list any breed and were not provided with a predetermined list of breeds to choose from. They were escorted as a group by a research team member to the front of each dog's kennel and did not move to the next dog until all assessors had recorded their breed designations. The assessors were not allowed to confer with anyone or to view any intake paperwork, cage cards, computer records, or references while the study was in progress.
For the purposes of this study, the terms American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, pit bull, and their mixes were included in the study definition of ‘pit bull-type breeds’ because these terms are frequently included in laws regulating dog ownership based on breed or phenotype. For each dog, the breed assigned by the shelter prior to the study and the breeds assigned by each shelter staff member during the study were coded by the investigators as ‘pit bull-type’ if any of these breed terms were included as the primary or secondary breed identification. The breed identification was coded as ‘not pit bull-type’ if none of these breed terms was included.

Dog physical assessments

Following the shelter staff breed assessment, each dog was photographed, weighed, measured from the floor to the top of the shoulder, and assessed by the research veterinarian for body condition using three categories (underweight, ideal weight, overweight). Physical characteristics including coat length, coat type, coat color, ear type, tail type, age (juveniles ≤6 months, adults 6 months and older), sex, and reproductive status were recorded.

DNA assessment of dog breeds

Three milliliters of whole blood was collected from each dog into EDTA tubes for DNA analysis. Samples were shipped to a commercial DNA analysis laboratory (Wisdom Panel Professional Canine Genetic Analysis, Mars Veterinary)3 at room temperature by overnight courier on the day of collection. DNA was extracted and typed at 321 different single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome using selective hybridization and PCR amplification, followed by a discriminatory single base-pair primer extension reaction. The SNP genotypes were detected by mass spectrometry. The laboratory then used a Bayesian generative model to infer the family tree of a dog from comparison of detected genotypes with 226 breed signatures developed previously from more than 9700 pure bred dogs. Inference was performed on 11 different family tree models, and the best-fit model was selected using the deviance information criterion (Martin et al., 2010).
Results from the DNA analysis laboratory included major breed composition percentages in increments of 12.5%. If breed compositions were identified in amounts <12.5%, these breeds were listed as ‘minor breeds.’ American pit bull terrier and pit bull were not included in the 226 breed signatures. Dogs were coded as ‘pit bull-type’ if the breed American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier was identified to comprise at least 12.5% of the breed signature.

Statistical analysis

Agreement among shelter staff for identification of pit bull-type dogs and between shelter staff and DNA breed signatures was assessed with the kappa statistic according to the following criteria: κ < 0.01, poor agreement; 0.01–0.20, slight agreement; 0.21–0.40, fair agreement; 0.41–0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80, substantial agreement; 0.81–1.00, almost perfect agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977). Findings were considered to be significant when P < 0.05. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated using the exact method. All analyses were performed with statistical software (Stata, StataCorp).

RESULTS

Staff members and dogs selected for the study

A total of 16 shelter staff members, including four shelter veterinarians, participated in the study. All staff members had at least 3 years of shelter experience, but only one reported any formal training in dog breed identification (Table 1). The 120 dogs selected for the study comprised 20–25% of the dogs present in each of the four shelters on the day of the study visit and represented a range of ages, sexes, and phenotypes (Table 2). Juveniles included two puppies estimated to be 2 months of age, 12 estimated to be 3–4 months of age, and 12 estimated to be 5–6 months of age, based on dentition.
Table 1.
Occupation and training of shelter staff members responsible for assigning breeds of dogs in four Florida animal shelters.
n%
Current job title
 Veterinarian425
 Veterinary technician425
 Animal control officer213
 Customer service319
 Animal care319
Years of shelter experience
 <300
 3–5956
 6–10425
 11–15213
 >1516
Breed identification traininga
 Formal training16
 Mentored on the job1488
 Studied breed book531
 Other dog experience1275
 No training425
a
Total responses >100% because respondents could select more than one item.
Table options
Table 2.
Demographic features of 120 dogs selected for visual and DNA breed assignments in four Florida animal shelters.
Characteristicn%
Age
 Juveniles (≤6 months)2622
 Adults (>6 months)9478
Sex
 Females5243
 Males6857
Body weight (kg)
 <112622
 11–204739
 21–303529
 31–40119
 >4011
Height (cm)
 ≤2011
 21–301311
 31–401714
 41–504840
 51–603428
 >6076
Body condition
 Underweight87
 Ideal weight9781
 Overweight1512
Table options

Inter-observer agreement for visual breed identification

Using visual identification only, the median inter-observer agreements and kappa values in pair-wise comparisons of each of the five staff breed assignments (one admission breed and four assessor breeds) for pit bull-type dog vs. not pit bull-type dog ranged from 76 to 83% and from 0.44 to 0.52, respectively (Table 3).
Table 3.
Inter-observer agreement for identification of pit bull-type dogs based on breed assignment by staff at the time of shelter admission, breed assignment made by four shelter staff assessors, and DNA breed signature.
Median % agreement among staff members in visual identification of pit bull-type dogs (range)Median κ (range)Median % agreement between staff members and DNA breed signature for identification of pit bull-type dogs (range)Median κ (range)
Shelter 180 (70–93)0.44 (0.13–0.79)77 (73–80)0.38 (0.26–0.44)
Shelter 276 (59–90)0.44 (0.19–0.61)67 (53–77)0.10 (0.07–0.22)
Shelter 383 (77–90)0.52 (0.23–0.67)75 (67–87)0.24 (0.07–0.52)
Shelter 477 (70–93)0.46 (0.23–0.82)78 (77–87)0.48 (0.38–0.60)
Table options

DNA breed signatures

Using DNA identification, of the 120 dogs chosen for participation in this study, 25 (21%) were identified with pit bull-type heritage (comprising at least 12.5% American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier) by DNA breed signatures. The breed signatures in these dogs belonged to American Staffordshire terrier in 19 dogs, Staffordshire bull terrier in four dogs, and both breeds in two dogs. According to the breed signatures, none of these 25 dogs were purebred or contained more than 50% contribution of either breed.

Agreement between visual and DNA-based breed assignments

The median inter-observer agreements and kappa values in pair-wise comparisons of each of the five staff breed assignments (one intake breed assignment and four breed assessor assignments) with the DNA breed signature for pit bull-type or not pit bull-type ranged from 67 to 78% and from 0.1 to 0.48, respectively (Table 3). Selected examples of breed identification by staff assessment and DNA analysis are provided (Table 4).
Table 4.
Examples of staff member breed assessments and DNA breed signatures for several study dogs.
DogPhotoIntake breedStaff 1Staff 2Staff 3VeterinarianProminent DNA breeds (%)
Dog 7Full-size image (15 K)Labrador retriever mixAmerican Staffordshire
Labrador retriever		American Staffordshire
Labrador retriever		American Staffordshire
Labrador retriever		Pit bull
Labrador retriever		Irish water spaniel (25)
Siberian Husky (25)
Boston terrier (25)
Dog 8Full-size image (16 K)Boxer mixBoxer
Labrador retriever		American Staffordshire
Chow Chow		Boxer
Labrador retriever		American Staffordshire
Greyhound		Boxer (25)
Alaskan Malamute (25)
Dog 9Full-size image (15 K)American Staffordshire mixAmerican StaffordshireAmerican Staffordshire mixPit bullAmerican pit bull terrierAmerican bulldog (50)
American Staffordshire (50)
Dog 11Full-size image (15 K)Australian cattle dog mixAustralian cattle dog
Border collie		Catahoula
Labrador retriever		Australian cattle dog
Border collie		Australian cattle dog
Border collie		Australian cattle dog (25)
American Staffordshire (25)
Dog 59Full-size image (18 K)Pit bullPit bull mixPit bullAmerican pit bull terrier mixPit bull mixAmerican bulldog (50)
American Staffordshire (50)
Dog 62Full-size image (16 K)Terrier mixJack Russell terrier
Hound		Basenji
Labrador retriever		Shar-Pei
Rat terrier		Chihuahua mixChow Chow (25)
American Staffordshire (25)
Siberian Husky (25)
Table options
Of the 25 dogs identified as pit bull-type dogs by breed signature, 12 were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of admission to the shelter (prior to the study visit), including five labeled American Staffordshire terrier mix, four pit bull mix, two pit bull, and one American Staffordshire terrier. During the study, 20/25 dogs were identified by at least one of the four staff assessors as pit bull-type dogs, and five were not identified as pit bull-type dogs by any of the assessors. Overall, the mean sensitivity of visual identification of pit bull-type dogs was 50% (95% CI, 44–56%). The breeds assigned to these dogs by the four staff assessors included pit bull (67%), American pit bull terrier (8%), American Staffordshire terrier (25%), and their mixes.
Of the 95 dogs (79%) that lacked breed signatures for pit bull heritage breeds, six (6%) were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of shelter admission, and 36 (38%) were identified as pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff assessor at the time of the study visit. Overall, the mean specificity of visual identification of non-pit bull-type dogs was 83% (95% CI, 78–89%).
Accuracy in breed assignment as determined by sensitivity and specificity based on DNA breed signatures varied among individual staff assessors, with sensitivity for pit bull-type breed identification ranging from 33 to 75% and specificity ranging from 52 to 100% (Table 5). Veterinarians were not more likely than other shelter staff members to assign breeds that were consistent with the DNA breed signature.
Table 5.
Sensitivity for identification of 25 pit bull-type dogs and specificity for identification of 95 non-pit bull-type dogs as determined by DNA breed signature at the time of shelter admission and by four shelter staff members.
Number identified by staff as pit bull-typeSensitivity, % (95% CI)Specificity, % (95% CI)
Shelter 1
 Admission breed55/8, 63 (25–91)22/22, 100 (85–100a)
 Assessor 184/8, 50 (16–84)18/22, 82 (60–95)
 Assessor 263/8, 38 (9–76)19/22, 86 (65–97)
 Assessor 364/8, 50 (16–84)20/22, 91 (71–99)
 Veterinarian64/8, 50 (16–84)20/22, 91 (71–99)
Shelter 2
 Admission breed31/3, 33 (1–91)25/27, 93 (76–99)
 Assessor 161/3, 33 (1–91)22/27, 81 (62–94)
 Assessor 2152/3, 67 (9–99)14/27, 52 (32–71)
 Assessor 3132/3, 67 (9–99)16/27, 59 (39–78)
 Veterinarian92/3, 67 (9–99)20/27, 74 (54–89)
Shelter 3
 Admission breed52/6, 33 (4–78)21/24, 88 (68–97)
 Assessor 143/6, 50 (12–88)23/24, 96 (79–100a)
 Assessor 273/6, 50 (12–88)20/24, 83 (63–95)
 Assessor 362/6, 33 (4–78)20/24, 83 (63–95)
 Veterinarian82/6, 33 (4–78)18/24, 75 (53–90)
Shelter 4
 Admission breed64/8, 50 (16–84)20/22, 91 (71–99)
 Assessor 144/8, 50 (16–84)22/22, 100 (85–100a)
 Assessor 274/8, 50 (16–84)19/22, 86 (65–97)
 Assessor 385/8, 62.5 (24–91)19/22, 86 (65–97)
 Veterinarian116/8, 75 (35–97)17/22, 77 (55–92)
CI, 95% confidence interval by exact method.
a
One-sided 97.5% confidence interval.
Table options

DISCUSSION

A key finding of this study was that agreement among different shelter staff members evaluating the breeds of the same shelter dogs at the same time was only moderate. Lack of consistency among shelter staff in breed assignment confirmed that visual identification of pit bull-type dogs was unreliable.
There is no standardized breed signature for the mixed breed dog known as the ‘pit bull,’ and the surrogate DNA breed signatures used in this study were for the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier. One in five dogs genetically identified with pit bull heritage breeds were missed by all shelter staff at the time of the study. One in three dogs lacking DNA evidence for pit bull heritage breeds were labeled pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff member.
These findings are consistent with previous reports of poor inter-observer agreement among individuals attempting to identify the predominant breeds of dogs. In a large Internet survey, a national sample of 5922 self-identified ‘dog-experts,’ including breeders, exhibitors, trainers, groomers, behaviorists, rescuers, shelter staff, veterinarians, and veterinary technicians, was recruited to complete an anonymous Internet survey in which they selected the most likely breed for dogs depicted in photographs.1 One hundred dogs were included in the Internet survey, and each respondent was randomly shown photographs (front facial and lateral whole body) of 20 of these dogs. Based on the photographs and information about the height, weight, sex, and age of each dog, respondents selected from a drop-down menu of 181 breed options, including ‘no predominate breed.’ An average of 53 different breeds was selected for each dog, ranging from a low of 11 breeds selected for a purebred Beagle to a high of 84 different breeds for a single mixed-breed dog. In another study, 923 survey takers involved in dog-related professions and activities watched 1 minute color videos of 20 different dogs, and based on the images and information about age, weight, and sex, recorded one or two predominant breeds or ‘mix’ (Voith et al., 2013). Agreement among survey participants was poor, with at least half of respondents agreeing on the breed for only 7/20 dogs.
Our findings are also consistent with previous reports comparing visual breed identification with results of DNA breed profiles. In a study of 20 dogs adopted from 17 different agencies, the agency's breed designation matched DNA breed profiles in only four dogs (Voith et al., 2009). In the subsequent study using videos of the same dogs, visual breed identifications matched DNA results less than half of the time in 14/20 dogs in the study (Voith et al., 2013). Dogs were selected for the Internet survey if they were reported to have at least one breed that comprised at least 25% of their DNA profile.1Visual identifications were considered correct if at least one named breed matched at least one breed in the DNA profile. On average, visual breed identifications matched DNA breed signatures for only 27% of dogs; 6% of dogs were never correctly identified. Although these previous studies included dogs with pit bull-type DNA breed signatures in 10% (Voith et al, 2009 and Voith et al, 2013) and 23%1 of the dogs tested, respectively, the topic of identification of pit bull-type dogs was not specifically discussed.
Participants in two of the studies overestimated their ability to correctly identify breeds visually. In the Internet survey, 68% of respondents predicted they would correctly identify breeds at least half of the time, but only 4% actually did.1 In the study using videos, after the survey was completed, respondents attended an educational session in which the heredity of phenotypic attributes was discussed and images of breed crosses that looked nothing like their parents were displayed (Voith et al., 2013). Despite being presented with evidence of the poor correlation of physical appearance with breed composition in mixed breed dogs, some respondents clung to their opinions that the DNA results must be wrong; authors of the study called for the completion of similar studies to confirm the findings in additional dogs (Voith et al., 2013).
The commercial DNA testing laboratory used in this study reported an average accuracy of 84% in first-generation crossbred dogs of known parentage.3 The breed distribution tested represented 45% of American Kennel Club registrations. The accuracy of the test in dogs with more than two breeds and in dogs lacking any purebred heritage is unknown.
Most shelter management software programs have pre-populated drop-down menus of dog breeds that staff members select from when dogs are admitted to the shelter. The two commercial shelter software programs used in the study shelters listed 200–250 dog breed terms, including pit bull terrier, pit bull mix, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier. Breed is a required field for the creation of new dog records, and staff do not have the option of leaving it blank if they are uncertain of the breed assignment.
As demonstrated in the current study, guessing breeds based on visual appearance is fraught with error. In a previous study, the offspring of a cross between a purebred Basenji and a purebred Cocker Spaniel did not physically resemble either parent (Scott and Fuller, 1965). When those offspring were backcrossed to either of the parental breeds, even more variability in physical phenotype occurred. This occurs because dog breeds contain a variety of genetic variants for specific traits and these are not reliably expressed in a 1:1 ratio when mixed with other breeds.3
Breed designations have been used in attempts to predict future behavior or personality, such as activity level, trainability, friendliness, or propensity for aggression, but recent studies have demonstrated that the behavior of individual dogs varies widely both within a breed and between breeds (Svartberg, 2006, Martinez et al, 2011, Casey et al, 2013 and Casey et al, 2014). In addition, modern purebred dogs often lack the behaviors that were historically selected for when dogs were bred and used for specific functional tasks (Svartberg, 2006). There have been no reports correlating the behavior of crossbred dogs with that expected of the parental breeds. A pair of large studies examining patterns of aggression in dogs found no association between aggression and specific breeds (Casey et al, 2013 and Casey et al, 2014). These reports found that aggression tended to occur in a single context, such as a strange person entering the house or encountering an unfamiliar dog on a walk, rather than being generalized over a wide variety of circumstances. There was a low association between inter-dog aggression and human-directed aggression. Together these findings suggest that dogs are more likely to show aggression in response to situational perceived ‘threats’ rather than to have a general trait of aggression.
The lack of a correlation between the appearance and behavior of individual dogs with that of their crossbred parents highlights the fact that inherited genes determine what could happen, and not necessarily what will happen. Pedigree analysis can explain the degree of relatedness but does not necessarily predict which morphological or behavioral traits are expressed in mixed-breed dogs. This is an important concept to consider when educating the public either in the areas of law or adoption. Mixing breeds is not like mixing paint.
The regulation of certain dog breeds is controversial, with little evidence that breed bans have resulted in decreased serious or fatal dog bite-related injuries (Klaassen et al, 1996,Rosado et al, 2007, Overall, 2010 and Patronek et al, 2010). Regulation of particular breeds has been challenged in court, as has the breed identification of individual dogs4(Patronek and Slavinski, 2009). In 2011, the US Department of Justice ruled that the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act supersedes any local breed restrictions and allows disabled persons to keep service dogs of restricted breeds (VanKavage, 2011).
In many jurisdictions, animal shelter staff members and veterinarians are considered to be experts in breed identification and are asked to visually assess dogs to determine whether they should be categorized as pit bulls or other regulated ‘breeds’ based on their physical features alone,  and  (Simpson et al., 2012). As more cases of breed identification involve DNA analysis and are challenged in court, veterinarians could be called to testify or even be held liable should their breed identification opinions be found to be in error (Berkey, 2009 and Simpson et al, 2012). The results of this study confirm that shelter staff members, including veterinarians, frequently disagree with each other on whether dogs fall into the pit bull-type category, and their assessments of whether or not a dog was a pit bull-type only moderately agree with DNA breed profiles.
Limitations of our study include unknown sensitivity and specificity of the DNA breed testing and lack of a DNA test for American pit bull terrier. There is also no DNA test for ‘pit bull,’ since this term refers to a phenotype, not a pedigree. The test for the Bayesian analysis used by providers of the DNA testing relied on breed signatures of purebred dogs selected for the database and not a representative randomized sample of all dogs, which might be a source of inaccuracy. In addition, relatively little information exists regarding the accuracy of the DNA test for identifying the breed composition of mixed breed dogs. Nonetheless, the key finding in this study was that the poor agreement among staff members in pit-bull type dog identification indicates that many errors in visual breed identification were made, even if it was not possible to determine with certainty which of those identifications were wrong.

CONCLUSIONS

The marked lack of agreement observed among shelter staff members in categorizing the breeds of shelter dogs illustrates that reliable inclusion or exclusion of dogs as ‘pit bulls’ is not possible, even by experts. This has special significance to the topic of restrictive breed regulations, since such regulations are based on the faulty assumptions that (1) certain breeds or phenotypes are inherently dangerous, and (2) that those breeds and their mixes can be identified by observation. Since injuries from dogs have not decreased following bans on particular breeds, public safety is better served by focusing on recognition and mitigation of risk factors for dog bites, such as supervising children, recognizing canine body language, avoiding approaching an unfamiliar dog in its territory, neutering dogs, and providing adequate socialization and companionship for dogs and identification and management of individual dangerous dogs and reckless dog owners.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible by support from Maddie's Fund and the Merial Veterinary Scholars Program. Mars Veterinary contributed DNA testing services for breed identification. The authors thank the staff of the four animal shelters that participated in this study and Sylvia Tucker, Niora Fabian, and Jaime Willson for technical assistance.

REFERENCES

    • American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012
    • American Veterinary Medical Association
    • U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook. Membership and Field Services
    • American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, IL, USA (2012)
    • Berkey, 2009
    • J. Berkey
    • Dog breed specific legislation: The cost to people, pets and veterinarians, and the damage to the human-animal bond
    • In: Proceedings of the 146th American Veterinary Medical Association Annual Convention, 2009, Seattle, USA  (2009)
    • Casey et al, 2013
    • R.A. Casey, B. Loftus, C. Bolster, G.J. Richards, E.J. Blackwell
    • Inter-dog aggression in a UK owner survey: Prevalence, co-occurrence in different contexts and risk factors
    • Veterinary Record, 172 (2013), pp. 127–183
    • View Record in Scopus
         | 
        Citing articles (8)
    • Martin et al, 2010
    • A.J. Martin, P.J. Jones, S. Davidson, M. Dibley, A. Hughes, P.J. Markwell, R.J. Stark, A.L. Watson, C. Bustamante, N. Fretwell
    • Assessing performance of a genetic test for determining the breed composition of mixed breed dogs using F1 hybrids
    • In: 5th Conference in Advances in Canine and Feline Genomics, Baltimore, USA  (2010)
    • Scott, Fuller, 1965
    • J.P. Scott, J.L. Fuller
    • Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog
    • University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA (1965)
    • VanKavage, 2011
    • L. VanKavage
    • New DOJ rules on service dogs
    • In: Public Management, July, p. 25  (2011)
    • Voith et al, 2013
    • V.L. Voith, R.T. Trevejo, S. Dowling-Guyer, C. Chadik, A. Marder, V. Johnson, K. Irizarry
    • Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-observer reliability
    • American Journal of Sociological Research, 3 (2013), pp. 17–29
    • View Record in Scopus
         | 
        Citing articles (4)
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 352 273 8722.
1
Croy, K.C., Levy, J.K., Olson, K.R., Crandall, M., Tucker, S.J., 2012. What kind of dog is that? Accuracy of dog breed assessment by canine stakeholders (Abstract). In: 5th Annual Maddie's Shelter Medicine Conference, Orlando, USA. http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/education/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/ (accessed 27 June 2015).
2
Delise, K., 2007. Pit bulls prohibited. In: The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression. Animals. Anubis Publishing, Denver, pp. 8–55. (Chapter 8) http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf (accessed 27 June 2015).
3
See: Mars Veterinary, 2014. Mars Wisdom Panel website. FAQs: I don't think my dog looks like the breeds detected in the Wisdom Panel analysis. Can you help me understand this? http://www.wisdompanel.com/why_test_your_dog/faqs/#35(accessed 27 June 2015).
4
See: Iowa State Legislature, 2006. State of Iowa Citizen's Aide/Ombudsman. Investigation of Maquoketa's Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and Enforcement 2006. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/CAO/Invstgtv_Reports/2007/CIWPA007.PDF (accessed 27 June 2015).
5
See: Miami-Dade, 2014. Municipal Code Sec. 5–17, In: Chapter 5 Animals and Fowl, http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10620&stateID=9&statename=Florida (accessed 27 June 2015).
6
See: Denver, 2015. Denver, Colorado – Code of Ordinance-Tile II, InL Chapter 8, Pit Bulls Prohibited, https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10257&stateID=6&statename=Colorado (accessed 27 June 2015).


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)