There is recent nation-wide attention to animal control issues concerning dogs in Canada. The target is “pit bulls” or dogs with traits that resemble particular characteristics of breeds included in this generic term. One common response to serious dog bites and maulings is to lobby for a ban of particular breeds by enacting Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) at the municipal and provincial levels. The popularity of this response is often explained by media-driven hysteria and uninformed policy-making. This explanation of BSL’s popularity is disputed, however. In light of this dispute, I start with some common ground: As a public safety issue everyone can agree that animal control should be based on reasonable, scientifically grounded legislation that actually works.
Notably, there has been a world-wide trend towards the eradication of breed specific bans and the implementation of breed-neutral regulation that focus on public safety (see this veterinary news site). This trend is likely due to studies indicating a failure of breed bans over the past two decades (the AVSAB provides over 30 references from reputable journals and other sources that support a rejection of the claim that BSL increases public safety). Until recently, Ontario’s controversial province-wide ban since 2005 appeared to be on its way out. However, a fatal dog attack in Montreal has the entire province of Quebec entertaining the idea of banning certain breeds. Other cities across Canada are either jumping on the bandwagon or continuing to stay on for the ride. How can we make sense of this discrepancy between the current BSL debate in Canada and the eradication trend of BSL elsewhere?
I’ll put my cards right out front on this one. It’s surprising and downright embarrassing to see so many Canadians take a step backwards in light of what should be some very compelling evidence to the contrary. Here’s why: Breed Specific Legislation is outdated, scientifically unfounded, and rightly condemned by animals professionals.
Breed Specific Legislation is Outdated Along with Other Forms of Discrimination. You may have heard the claim that discrimination based on breed is analogous to discrimination based on race. But what exactly does this mean? Here’s some biology 101. Breeds of dogs are analogous (or similar) to the populations of humans we often refer to as ‘race’. Different species–Homo sapiens, Canis lupus familiaris (the domestic dog), and Felis catus (domestic or “house” cats)–have numerous subpopulations organized by various factors, such as geographic isolation or selective breeding to name a few. In other words, different populations of dogs we call ‘breeds’ can be more common in some places than others. We can also influence the organization of dog populations by our selective breeding practices. All of this means that the group of terrier breeds often referred to as ‘pit bulls’ are, biologically speaking, just domestic dogs like every other subpopulation of the species. But we can take an analogy between dogs and humans a step further. Dogs are mammals like us, which means we share similar features or traits that place us in that taxonomic grouping, traits often due to our shared evolutionary histories. One might even say that dogs have relevant brain structures and exhibit the behaviour suggestive of individual experiences and a ‘point of view.’ From this we can infer that each individual dog experiences aspects of the world from a particular perspective similar to how we each experience the world from a different perspective based on our own personal histories (emotional, psychological, etc.). All of these similarities between dogs and humans seem reasonable. That dogs, and other non-human animals, are some Cartesian automata (or machines) without minds, individual personalities, or the capacity for pain experience is a fancy of only the most radical skeptics in philosophy of mind. So let’s stick with our reasonable starting point.
The similarities above are commonly used to support arguments against the discrimination of certain dog breeds. That is, breed discrimination is wrong for the same reasons we think discrimination against humans grouped into certain categories is wrong (e.g. categories such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation). Discrimination is a bad thing when it causes unequal or unfair treatment and harm. Anti-discrimination laws are in place to “prohibit us from singling out individuals for less favourable treatment because of certain traits (Moreau 2010, 143). As a discriminatory regulation, Breed Specific Legislation is exactly what it sounds like. Regulations are put in place that single out individual dogs due to a common set of physical traits. Often the reason given for a ban on those breeds with the target traits is an assumed connection with aggression towards humans. That assumption is precisely what I explore here. Such differential treatment results in targeted dogs receiving unequal treatment that often results in harm to them, such as death. Given the value of life, a loss of it calls for careful consideration. Let’s take a look at the role discrimination has played in human history.
We often look back to discriminatory laws concerning humans enacted twenty or even thirty years ago and feel embarrassed about the systemic injustices they were used to enforce. This includes the blood donor controversy concerning gay donors, racial segregation laws up to the mid 20th century, and the residential school system that took place in Canada up until the 1990s just to name a few. Thankfully, we’ve seen what some might call moral progress. For example, bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned across North America. A vast majority of Canadians proudly watched our Prime Minister at this year’s Pride parade in Toronto. We continue to work on discriminatory issues as a nation and through grassroots movements on social media, such as challenging the glass-ceiling for women in the workforce. What all of these morally-charged social changes have in common is a general condemnation of discriminatory practice based on physical characteristics or behaviours. The lesson of the story goes something like this: we’ve learned that judging a book by its cover is an unsound judgement as time and time again we discover that what’s inside doesn’t always meet our expectations. In other words, we’ve discovered that discriminatory judgements like this are epistemically suspect–there are no grounds for thinking that outward characteristics, such as physical traits or particular orientations, necessarily determine individual psychology and behavioural tendencies. But how does all of this talk of social movements concern dog breeds?
If it is wrong to judge the individual personality and behavioural tendencies of someone because of that person’s race or other physical characteristics we must carefully scrutinize the claim that all pit bulls are vicious and should be banned. That is, to say that entire populations of dogs are vicious because of some connection between viciousness and the way they look should cause alarm bells–this is the very same discriminatory line of reasoning now recognized to be problematic and outdated as described above. But that’s not all.
Breed Specific Legislation is Scientifically Unfounded. Attempts to justify discrimination against breeds labelled ‘pit bulls’ rely on one alleged factor that is supposed to distinguish those dogs from the rest: aggressive behaviour. Folks in favour of BSL often speak to the aggressive behaviour these dogs were bred for “in the pits” from when dog fighting was considered a sport to the thug-like enterprise we know it as today. There is, however, a tendency to ignore research on aggression, which is problematic for at least two reasons. The first comes from work in cognitive ethology and the second from biology.
First, cognitive ethology is the study of animal mental experiences (Ristau 2013). And “it has been recognized for many years [i.e. since at least 1923] that aggression is not a unitary phenomenon” with studies that analyze the relationship between inter-species and intra-species aggression (Huntingford 1976). Way back in 1966, K. Lorenz distinguished between two situations in which aggressive behaviour is known to occur: [1]inter-specific or ‘between species’ aggression versus [2]intra or conspecific aggression as fighting within the same species. In categorizing aggression we find a distinction between aggressive behaviour within species and between species. In other words, we have good evidence to support a distinction between dog-dog (conspecific) aggression and dog-human (interspecific) aggression. We see real examples of this distinction all the time, such as dogs in shelters who are described as needing ‘one dog homes’, but nevertheless make excellent family pets. Furthermore, the aggression pit bulls might show in the fighting pits (though not all do and are often killed because of that) does not immediately translate into aggression towards humans. In fact, if our concern is what the dogs were “bred for,” then dogs that showed aggression towards humans during dog fights were likely not selected for as it would be detrimental to the handler. Given that aggression has also been analyzed in terms of the function it serves in addition to “its motivational basis” (Huntingford 1976, 485), this suggests that the function of aggression in the fighting pit along with the motivations to do so are very different than your standard loving home, which counter-conditions against such behaviour. In sum, to say that all pit bulls are aggressive is often a statement made in ignorance concerning the evident nuances of aggressive behaviour generally.
Second, one cannot assess the nature of particular dog breeds in a vacuum–biology has something to say about the relationship between genes and the phenotypic expression of them, such as behavioural tendencies. In popular media, Cesar Milan (a.k.a the Dog Whisperer) claims that all dogs are a product of their environment–change the environment and you then change the behaviour of the dog. Alternatively, particular advocacy organizations have taken a stand against Milan’s position and claim that dog characteristics “are all about genetics” (Pit Bulls Against Misinformation is one organization). Despite the disagreement, both sides emphasize the need for responsible and knowledgeable handlers to manage and address dog behaviour. These claims are based on direct experience in handling dogs in training and rescue. Alternatively, those who support BSL typically claim that pit bull breeds are inherently aggressive such that it’s in their genes to be that way. So is dog behaviour due to nature or nurture?
To address that question, one should not ignore how the nature-nurture debate over the cause of phenotypic traits reached a far more sophisticated conclusion after the biologist R.C. Lewontin published a landmark paper in 1974. This paper marks the beginning of the interactionist consensus concerning the relationship between genes, environment, and phenotypic expression (traits such as behaviour included). This means that all traits (physical characteristics, behaviour, etc.) result from a complicated interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Since 1974, there has been a live debate over which factor more heavily influences the phenotypes, in addition to the role of information theory, innate versus acquired characteristics, and phenotypic plasticity (Pigliucci 2001, Kaplan 2000, Northcott 2006, Griffiths 2009, Tabery 2014 to name just a few). If all of this sounds complicated, it’s because it is. The point is that talk of a single cause of dog behaviour is not supported by scientific and philosophical literature, which has been around for over forty years. So aggressive behaviour is not only due to genes and it’s not only due to the environment, but instead results from a complicated interaction between both. Therefore, to say the all pit bulls are inherently aggressive due to genetic cause is insensitive to tons of relevant research on the multiple causes of phenotypic traits.
Overall, what we learn from studies on the nature of aggression and the relationship between behaviour, genes, and the environment matter for public safety when the aim is to manage our complex companionship with another species, which lives so closely alongside us. How to put into practice what we learn from our research is up to the policy makers and animal professionals, which brings us to the final point.
Breed Specific Legislation is Condemned by Animal Professionals. To put this plainly, BSL is downright lazy policy-making. It takes actual work to construct animal control regulations that truly make a difference to public safety. Why? Because a multitude of experts must be consulted, which includes research into what counts as an expert and pursing verbal or written suggestions and direction for how to shape the laws. Animal professionals that count as “dog experts” will be anyone with significant knowledge about dog breeds and behaviour through experience by occupation (i.e. working directly with dogs) or through research by obtaining facts from reliable sources (i.e. competent knowers in a certain field, such as cognitive ethology for example). Veterinarians, rescue agencies, humane societies, and animal control officers all fit the bill. Notice that law enforcement officials (unless directly trained in dealing with dogs), as well as journalists who think they’re tracking a pattern, are not included on this list. The opinions of animal professionals are not just some opinions among many, they are the opinions that actually matter when trying to determine how to reduce dog bite incidents and maulings. Not all opinions carry the same weight in a given context (see “Not All Opinions are Equal”). The sorts of people a dog expert category excludes are those of us who have little to no experience with dogs, as well as people whose only experience with a dog is a bite incident. As traumatizing as a serious bite incident might be, that the person has been attacked does not make that person an expert on dog behaviour. We must be careful of those who pose as experts, such as certain website hobbyists and others who cook up statistics and facts outside of peer review. Ignoring the testimony of actual animal professionals is tantamount to ignoring the testimony of doctors for legislation concerning euthanasia–alarming and negligent especially for matters of public safety. It’s very well-known that animal professionals condemn Breed Specific Legislation for various reasons, such as its ineffectiveness for promoting public safety and its near impossibility to enforce.
Why is BSL ineffective? In 2014 The American Veterinary Association published a peer-reviewed summary that concludes pit bull type breeds are not found to be disproportionately dangerous in controlled studies. They also find that breed bans cannot be expected to work even if some breeds could be identified as high risk. Here are some other reputable sources that discuss the problem: ASPCA, BadRap.org, Pit Bull Rescue Central, The National Canine Research Council, The American Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, the American Temperament Testing Society (which shows American Pit Bull Terriers scoring better than Golden Retrievers on temperament tests in 2008), the Human Society of the United States, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, as well as numerous (if not all) provincial SPCAs in Canada. And there are many more including associations, rescues, and animal control operations that operate at both the provincial and municipal levels that reject BSL. The voice of these professionals should heavily influence the direction of legislation. It’s up to public officials to translate that information into laws. Unfortunately, the enactment or continuation of BSL clearly indicates how public officials are ignoring the people they should be listening to. In doing so, they inevitably fail to protect the public.
Why is BSL nearly impossible to enforce? There are discrepancies with visual identification compared to actual DNA (Voith et al. 2013). To complicate identification further, the use and meaning of the term ‘pit bull’ is disputed. ‘Pit bull’ is often used as an umbrella term used to refer to at least four different types of terrier breeds who share similar characteristics and history: The Staffordshire Terrier, the American Staffordshore Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), and the American Bull Terrier. Using this term is not as accurate as identifying dogs by their specific breeds. But the scope of ‘pit bull’ as slang has widened to the dismay of some advocacy groups. For example Pitbulls Against MisInformation (PBAM), as well as Bully Breed Soldiers Unite (BBSU) condemn a liberal use of the term and maintain that only the APBTs should be referred to as ‘pit bulls’. This is likely for a number of reasons, but restricting the use of the term prevents other breeds that merely look similar from misidentification by the media and society generally. Breed identification is extremely difficult, especially for persons without training. What is the point of enacting regulations which cannot be enforced? This is impracticality at its finest, which results in a waste of public funds. Breed misidentification by non-professionals who minimally interact with and track the actions of dogs, such as many police officers and journalists, fuels public hysteria. Public hysteria demands action from public officials, but hysteria is not an excuse for enacting regulations that do not promote public safety and ultimately waste our tax dollars at the same time.
So there it is. Breed Specific Legislation is outdated, scientifically unfounded, and condemned by animal professionals. This means that BSL is enacted when it shouldn’t be. It’s continued when it shouldn’t be. As a matter of public safety concerning dogs, animal control regulations require careful attention to detail; the research matters. At this point, there is no good reason to continue a spotlight on particular breeds as if it’s supposed to increase the safety in our communities. So what should we do now? Non-human animal issues, especially those concerning companion animals, are social issues. As Canadians, we often compare ourselves to the U.S. to get a feel for where we stand in that regard.
Lately Canadians have shared a feeling of relief concerning our gun laws, the resiliency of our economy, and a sensible Prime Minister showing sensitivity to public issues surrounding marginalized populations in Canada. We can’t help but to feel pride in our multiculturalism given the political climate of our European and American counterparts. Such confidence might be warranted, but we cannot let it hinder our progress elsewhere. Breed Specific Legislation is just one of many animal issues that matter. Offenses against animals in the Canadian Criminal Code have not been substantively updated since 1892 (with a beastiality loophole?!?! Come on people). This is a shameful fact compared to what our neighbours have been doing south of the border. Animal cruelty in the States is now considered a felony and investigated by the FBI, which means that the U.S. is exploring how to address animal cruelty as a first step in preventing larger crime. Moreover, Best Friends Animal Society in the U.S. took on the task of rehabilitating and rehoming most of the 50 dogs found on Michael Vick’s property in 2007. Many of these dogs went on to achieve Canine Good Citizen Status in addition to therapy dog certifications. Best Friends changed the way fighting dogs were treating in the years to follow as the public began to view them as victims in need of rehabilitation. Yet for some reason the massive dog-fighting bust in Chatham, Ontario early this year has yet to see any progress in determining the fate of those dogs, who are still kept in an undisclosed location by the Ontario SPCA. Additionally, the Obama Administration spoke out against BSL claiming it to be “largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.” In May 2016, Arizona became the 20th State to prohibit cities and counties from enacting or enforcing breed-based dog regulations with others States soon to follow. Truth be told, we really don’t need to look too far– our own Calgary, Alberta has an animal control model cited internationally for its success in decreasing dog bites with a former animal control director who publicly spoke about that model overseas. There are many real examples to turn to in order to address the complexity of breed-neutral regulations that decrease dog bite incidents.
And last, but certainly not least, if you’re still not convinced that discrimination against pit bull type breeds is ridiculous, then true to nerd form I finish with a comic book analogy. As someone very wise once asked me, “so what you’re saying is that a few pit bulls joined Magneto, but most are X-Men.” Yes. Precisely.
-Alison
References Without Live Links:
Griffiths, Paul, “The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/innate-acquired/>.
Huntingford, Felicity Ann (1976). The relationship between inter-and intra-species aggression. Animal Behaviour, 24, 485-497.
Lewontin, R.C. (1974). The analysis of variance and the analysis of cause. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26: 400-411.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. London, Methuen.
Kaplan, J.M. (2000). The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research. London: Routlegde.
Moreau, Sophia (2010). What is Discrimination? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 38 (2):143-79.
Northcott, Robert (2006). Causal efficacy and the analysis of variance. Biology and Philosophy, 21 (2):253-276.
Pigliucci, Massimo (2001). Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture. London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Risteau, Carolyn A. (2013). Cognitive Ethology. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4: 493-509.
Tabery, James (2014). Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. MIT Press.
Sources concerning the Vick dogs and Best Friends and Society:
http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/animal-fighting-case-study-michael-vick/
A Philosopher's Take 
Mike Steiner
July 22, 2016
Very well researched and argued for Alison! However, I still have a different view, so I’d like to put it out there for your thoughts, and I apologize for this lengthy comment. Note that what I say takes nothing away from your point about the effectiveness of breed bans — it just might provide a different kind of motivation for them or a different way to see why this is still an issue in the hearts and minds of people.
Let me start by saying that I have a large breed dog myself, and have had many, many dogs through my life (but as you rightly point out, that doesn’t make me an expert). But let me quickly move to say that I do not view this issue in terms of animal rights (or as analogous to human rights), but instead as very analogous to gun control. Although all living dogs have and should have rights, the question for me is about the ability of owners to have certain kinds of dogs, or to allow the broad flourishing of certain dogs throughout society as a matter of policy.
If you bear with me and view this issue through a “gun control” lens, then we might view pitbulls as we view guns – i.e., as potential weapons. Keeping with this analogy, I do not need to ever blame a weapon for misdeeds it is used to perpetrate, and I do not think of any weapon as inherently aggressive; and yet I can still rationally say that I do not want them to be around myself or my family. This is due to the potential damage they cause and potential misuse by others. This is how I view the breed issue, for better or for worse. To paint a picture: I’m walking down the sidewalk to the park with my children (perhaps even with my dog), and I see that a dog has escaped its owner and is coming down the sidewalk towards me. I don’t know the dog’s intentions, and I really don’t know what it will do – that is really up to how the dog has been trained and treated by its owners (with some room for natural instincts). Despite this, I certainly DO NOT want that dog coming down the sidewalk to be a pitbull – not because I think a pitbull will be any more aggressive than any other dog – but precisely because IF the dog is aggressive, THEN either myself or my kids are in very real danger. As a member of society, I do not WANT to be put in danger if it is avoidable, which is why I really appreciate being in Canada where the general public cannot carry guns.
In risk management, one looks at both the probability that an event will happen, and the impact of that event should it actually happen (these are often multiplied against each other to get an idea of just how worried we should be about the risk). I feel like your post (and much of the debate on breeds) focuses mainly on refuting the idea that the probability of a pitbull attack is any higher than with other breeds. And I don’t disagree. But I’m still worried about the impact. If the probability of an attack is the same for a particular breed, but the impact is much higher, then we have a problem that is specific to that breed, and are quite rationale to mitigate this risk. Pitbulls are singled out because they are extremely strong and defending against one is extremely difficult, even if one has an object to utilize. If dogs are potential weapons, then having a pitbull is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.* Other large breeds such as the German Shepard and Husky are strong, but I feel like the breed ban is looking at the strongest for its target, and perhaps the people who most want to own such strong dogs for some reason.**
As I mentioned, if breed bans don’t work due to practical difficulties, then justifying them is a moot point in practice. Banning breeds may be much less effective than other things, such as enforcement of bi-laws, training, and rehabilitation, and I do think we need to let research lead the way when talking about public policy. But I don’t want to lose this aspect of the debate – your right ends where mine begins, and this need not put any special blame on the animal aside from it being physically dominant. It also need not expose existing animals to any harm; at least to me, breed bans is a policy discussion that would have to presuppose respect for any animals that already exist for me to even join in. And to put this all in perspective: I feel that animal rights are a far more pressing issue in general: our treatment of animals is often very shameful, and prosecution is almost non-existent. Animal rights is where we should put most of our money. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this!
*My fear (and rationale) would be entirely misguided if it could be shown that pitbulls actually do no more damage when attacking than other large breeds. I admit that this is just my opinion based on anecdotal and personal experience, as well as my understanding that the pitbull physiology was selected for this purpose. But I am willing to be proven wrong, and would defer to empirical evidence on the matter. To be clear, though, it need not be a day/night difference. A huge difference in deadly capability would make this issue uncontroversial in Canada – like guns, they would already be banned. Consider if somehow people could breed and own T. Rex’s: even if they didn’t attack any more than Corgies do, society would still not allow them because of the carnage of the few attacks that do happen. Pitbulls vs other dogs is nowhere near this kind of difference, which is why we are even having the discussion…
**Side question: why DO people want pitbulls specifically? I get the drive to rescue animals that already exist (and agree with it), and I certainly get why people would not want to give up a dog they already love. But why do we (society in general) need/want MORE pitbulls? If they were bred for a specific purpose that doesn’t exist anymore, why must everyone always be able to have a pitbull if we want one? I’m really just curious about this, as someone who has had many dogs himself. A good answer here might go a long ways towards getting rid of any type of breed ban. But make sure it wouldn’t also allow T.Rex’s if it is going to be at all compelling 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alison K McConwell
July 25, 2016
Thanks Mike! As you know I have another post in the works that responds to your comment. There’s some philosophically interesting stuff concerning kinds and classification for the guns and pitbulls analogy you gave. Stay tuned!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe
July 25, 2016
The data does seem to support that pit bulls do a large amount of killing and maiming as compared to the population of the animal. From the studies you quote as proving breed legislation is ineffective we get this:
“A study of dog breeds involved
in fatal attacks in the U.S.
between 1979-1998 revealed 31
breeds or mixes were responsible
for 238 attacks.11 Over half of
these incidents were reported
to involve pit bull-type dogs
and Rottweilers; however, breed
identifications were usually
based upon media reports and
therefore could not always be
substantiated.”
If a community has 2xs the number of German Shepards as pit bulls but the pit bull does almost as much killing and maiming, then the pitbull is more dangerous.
Now yes its true that the breed can be misidentified. But I suppose many breeds can. It seems a double standard might be involved in defending pit bull type breeds. Could the 31 breeds and mixes be substantiated any differently?
Finally I find it somewhat annoying that it is constantly brought up that smaller breeds bite more frequently. Yes you are much more likely to be bit by a small dog, but it is irrelevant if you are concerned about deaths and maiming. Therefore when this is constantly raised a defense for people being able to keep more dangerous breeds it seems clear that the source is biased.
I would be interested in why you reject the data on this website:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
July 25, 2016
Thanks for the great comment! I have yet to see stats that report more pitbull bites in a dog population that contains fewer pitbulls than other breeds. If certain breeds of dogs make up a majority of the dog population, it should be no surprise that more bites cone from them–this bias is never accounted for, esoecually for the website you link to. That website is run by Colleen Lynn–a hobbyist with no professional background in anything relevant to the debate. Her and her followers are also famous for inciting violence towards dogs (e.g. They’ll say things like ‘if you see a stray you think is a pitbull you should run it over’ I’ve seen this in comments on their FB page). Check the link in my post that refers to website hobbyists. There’s another person famous for cooking stats and lying about publications that the website has used. The source is extremely unreliable, which is why I reject it. And finally, The small bite too is an understand irritant. Stay tuned–mike’s steiner’s comment above has inspired another post I have in the works that comments on that issue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alison K McConwell
July 25, 2016
One last worry: the German shepherd vs pitbull example you gave I’m not sure follows through. ‘Pitbull’ refers to more than 4 different breeds. In order to make this a fair comparison it would have to be leveraged against ‘shepherd-type’ dogs that includes more than just the German Shepherd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe
July 25, 2016
Fair points. I think the problem I have is when someone just says something like “there are 30 different breeds that were involved in 250 deaths.” That really tells me nothing. I want to also know what percent of the deaths where due to each breed *and* how many of that breed is in the general population. So yes if we are grouping lots of different animals as “pitbulls” then we should increase the general population of “pitbulls.”
So for example Colleen Lynn says about 9.2% of the dog population (this includes breeds other than pitbulls which says says is 6.6% of the total dog population) caused 76% of the deaths. Now it is important that she use the same sort of identification method for the 76% as she did for the 9.2% (or 6.6% of dogs). If she did not, or could not, then we need to think about how off these statistics are.
It seems she relies on this report by Merritt clifton:
Click to access dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf
Yes it does use media reports.
I can’t tell all the differences in different types of terriers either. But I think I can tell the difference between them and labs, newfys, huskies, german shepards, chows saint bernards etc etc. Even if I include all the dogs that I even remotely think might be a “pit bull” that seems a very small dog population to cause 50% of the deaths.
I see your point about the dogsbite.org But she does seem to at least make an attempt to give each of those elements in the statistics she uses. Is she making up the data? I can’t say, but I haven’t heard any investigators suggesting she is. Yes she has stong views. But is she lying about what she claims are facts? I have not seen anything suggesting that (but I just really superficially looked and found allot of the same sort of arguments about identifying breeds and talk of small dogs biting people.)
She posts lots and lots of anecdotal stories about people being killed and maimed by pitbulls. Could an investigator not look this up and find the story was a fraud? Are there similar numbers of people being killed by other large dogs like newfoundlands relative to their population? Those criticizing the website never really answer these questions.
Can the pit bull can be identified to the extent needed for legal action, I am not sure. But until people who claim “pitbulls” (whatever we mean by that) are just as safe as other large dogs start giving the relevant information, instead sending up smoke like “smaller dogs bite more than larger dogs” or “there were 30 different breeds responsible for 250 deaths” (without giving the percent each was involved in the deaths as well as the overall population of the animals) then I will tend to think they simply don’t like the data.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 8, 2016
Careful re: Merritt Clifton. He has been caught lying about being an academic and having publications in peer-reviewed journals. I link to an article which discusses that issue (the one referring to website hobbyists). Most stats are biased and often state this in the fine print I.e. The bite numbers are inflated because the dogs make up most of the population, identification is sketchy, and the comparison is between a type of dog, which includes many breeds, and other breeds, such as German shepherds and Rottweilers. Lynn and Clifton are unfortunately not reliable sources and the ‘data’ is cooked. It’s best to stick to veterinary journals who attempt objectives studies–I listed a few in the post. There’s plenty of proper studies and sources indicating pitbulls are not any more dangerous than other comparably-sized breeds, which are conducted by actual animal professionals, such as veterinarians.
LikeLike
Joe
August 9, 2016
“There’s plenty of proper studies and sources indicating pitbulls are not any more dangerous than other comparably-sized breeds, which are conducted by actual animal professionals, such as veterinarians.”
I looked through several of the ones you linked and I couldn’t find one. In fact a study you site to said this:
“A study of dog breeds involved
in fatal attacks in the U.S.
between 1979-1998 revealed 31
breeds or mixes were responsible
for 238 attacks.11 Over half of
these incidents were reported
to involve pit bull-type dogs
and Rottweilers; however, breed
identifications were usually
based upon media reports and
therefore could not always be
substantiated.”
It’s one thing to say:
1) “we don’t have a study showing pitbulls are more dangerous than other comparably-sized breeds.”
Its a different matter to say:
2) “plenty of studies show pitbulls are not any more dangerous than other comparably sized breeds.”
It seems most of what you were quoting says 1 at best. They question identification etc. But if there is a study that actually gives data supporting 2, I would be interested in reading it. I would actually be quite relieved because my daughters have friends who own pitbulls (or pitbull looking dogs) and I do get nervous when they stay over there.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 9, 2016
That study is just one example of a veterinary association attempting to assess the danger of certain dogs compared to others while noting how biases make the conclusion that ‘pitbulls are more dangerous’ an unsupported conclusion given particular biases like identification issues and raw numbers (I.e. These dogs make up most of the population so we get more bites from popular breeds). The professional associations themselves that have statements against BSL refer to studies if you’d like to look further, especially Bad Rap.org if I recall correctly though it’s not exhaustive. There’s only been one attempt at assessing bite force by someone at national geographic that I will discuss in my next post so stay tuned. If we don’t have a study confirming the disproportional danger of pit bulls, this directly addresses the claims made by people like Lynn and Clifton that you cited earlier. It also supports the claim that pitbulls are just like other dogs in that regard since attempts have been made to assess the matter yielding conclusions that do not support BSL. Honestly I’m not sure the difference between 1 and 2 is that salient–if numerous studies DONT show disproportional danger, then we have plenty of studies that suggest pitbulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 9, 2016
Though if you’re looking for a direct assessment of bite force because you think bite power is the danger, there is a person at NatGeo who assesses the bite force of wild animals. He took on the this debate and found the bite force of the pitbull type dog he chose to be comparable (even less than) shepherds and Rottweilers.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 9, 2016
The more I think about what you said, the more I wonder what you mean by ‘dangerous’. Bite force? Aggression tendency? Also, Worrying about your kids with dogs is definitely legit–though I doubt the worry should be disproportional to certain breeds if all larger dogs can potentially cause significant injury. The relationship between kids and dogs is its own issue that can be addressed by responsible ownership. Not all dogs are tolerant of children, which can be assessed on an individual basis. I guess my point is that BSL will not protect your children from bad bites. A husky, Great Dane or shepherd all can bite too. Since it’s unlikely Draconian measures like banning all dogs above a certain weight will be successfully implemented, only responsible ownership and management of child-dog interaction will prevent those situations.
LikeLike
Joe
August 10, 2016
Hello Alison
By dangerous I mean that they tend to cause permanent and serious injury or kill people. I realize “permanent or serious injury” is subjective so I would be fine with considering just cases where people died. The actual jaw force is not really important. It’s the end result that I am concerned with.
“That study is just one example of a veterinary association attempting to assess the danger of certain dogs compared to others while noting how biases make the conclusion that ‘pitbulls are more dangerous’ an unsupported conclusion given particular biases like identification issues and raw numbers (I.e. These dogs make up most of the population so we get more bites from popular breeds).”
At least looking around my area I see many more labs, retrievers and german shepherds than I do pit bulls (or even remotely pit bull like dogs) or Rottweilers. Then lets add all the other large breeds and mixes that look nothing like rottweilers or pitbulls. After that the pit bull and rottweiller looking dogs are a small minority. For them to account for over half of the killings is *way* out of proportion.
But yes if I am mistaken and there are more pit bull type and rottweilers then other large dogs and mixes combined then I would agree we would expect them to account for most of the deaths. The idea that rottweilers and pit bull type dogs make up the majority of the large breed population is just so far removed from my experience that I find that very hard to believe. (Are you making that claim or am I misunderstanding you?)
“Honestly I’m not sure the difference between 1 and 2 is that salient–if numerous studies DONT show disproportional danger, then we have plenty of studies that suggest pitbulls are not more dangerous than other dogs.”
The difference between statement 1 and 2 is very important. (at least as I have worded them.) The only studies that I have seen that attempt compared the number of fatal attacks to the population of that type of dog shows pit bull type and rottweiler dogs are more deadly. As far as I know and after looking at your links this continues to be the case.
Yes people can then argue there is a problem with this study because people can’t identify pitbulls or whatever. But this does not change it into a study proving pit bulls are just as safe as other dogs. *At best* it is just saying the study is invalid.
Those in the pro pitbull camp seem to avoid any real statistical analysis of their own. Instead they just show pictures of pitbulls with happy children and say “see”. Yes even your badrap.org does that as a response to whether pitbulls are safe with children. Given that no one claims the dogs always attack such constant responses of this type demonstrates a certain irrational bias.
Again the ideal study would indicate what criteria they are using to identify the various breeds. It would be important that they use the same criteria when they identify a dog after an attack as they do when they talk about the breeds prevalence. But until we get that we will all have to rely on the studies where people (often not professionals) identify dogs. And based on that pitbulls and rottweilers are way out of line.
“I guess my point is that BSL will not protect your children from bad bites. A husky, Great Dane or shepherd all can bite too.”
Any dog can bite that is true. But if our best evidence supports that that pitbulls or Rottweilers cause a substantially disproportionate number of killings then I would prefer they were not kept in my community. As to whether the evidence shows is something I am open minded about. It does certainly seem both sides have biases. I hope you can see that from the websites you list. But on the whole it seems those breeds are more deadly.
Perhaps the dogs aren’t inherently more dangerous, but the type of person who buys pit bulls and Rottweilers as a pet tend to make them dangerous. From a policy standpoint that may or may not be an important distinction. I can see arguments both ways.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 10, 2016
Joe, you may be in an area where some sort of BSL exists as my experience in Calgary vs Ontario for example was very different–in Ontario the dog population seemed to be mostly shepherds types. Which is now the type of dogs at the top of their bite list by the way. I encourage you to investigate this further on your own if you wish. You are also presumably not a breed identification expert nor someone with enough experience regarding pitbull types to assess your local dog population. Local dog populations also do not necessarily represent national dog populations. there is a study I cited that discusses visual breed misidentification in the post either way. Media outlets also play into the misidentification problem by sensationalizing attacks e.g. The recent mauling death in Quebec that started the BSL debate there is now confirmed to be by a boxer despite CTV and others originally circulating it was a pitbull, which contributed to the BSL debate there. Pitbulls do make up a majority of the dog population–take a look at the ASPCA for more details on that if you’re in the States. I understand your worry about attempts to assess bite tendency, but The statistical analysis completed by veterinary associations is the best we have by our best veterinary scientists, so we ought to take their conclusions seriously (e.g that they have not confirmed pitbulls are more dangerous) and their worries about inherent biases in the numbers, which both count as evidence against ‘anti pitbullers’ claims at the very least. So we at minimum have reason to doubt claims made by anti-pitbullers, yet studies which suggest pitbulls are just like other dogs in terms of potential danger (though they may not CONFIRM this latter suggestion, if you’re looking for unproblematic confirmation in science, well good luck). The evidence, then, is weighted in support of pro-pitbullers as you call us. Anecdotal examples of friendly family pitbull types are just further individual counter examples against blanket statements of inherent viciousness. When you say ‘way out of line’ it’s unclear what you mean. Your previous statements about study-concerns directly address claims made from both sides–any assertions about the disproportional danger of pitbulls are undermined by everything you’ve stated regarding problems with studies. At least actual veterinary associations are taking this on in a scientific fashion, which is more than can be said for anti-pitbullers in the media and otherwise. With regards to danger, I already addressed inherent danger regarding aggression in the post. And bite force matters with regards to potential damage. The point is that pitbulls types, German shepherds and rottis exhibit standard bite force for large powerful breeds as per National Geographic’s person who tests bite force of crocs, snakes, wolves, and now dogs. Perhaps given this, large powerful breeds are what you truly take issue with. Which again, would not support singling out pitbulls from other large breeds. Finally, as for policy considerations, Recently the advisory group in Quebec that undertook the issue of dogs and public safety did not recommended BSL, but rather responsible ownership, education, and breed neutral legislation. The research matters for issues of public safety and evidently the research does not support BSL.
LikeLike
Joe
August 12, 2016
Hi Alison
No there is no BSL here. I think we simply disagree about how prevalent pitbull types and rottweilers are. I think we do agree that about half of the deaths from dog attacks were attributed to these dogs. The CDC and the research you cite to both provide this data.
We can speculate about what percent of those identifications may have been incorrect. But my experience is that there are far fewer than 50% of the larger dogs are anything close to pitbull types or rottweilers.
I suppose until either of us can actually give some sort of scientific data on that people will have to judge for themselves whether those breeds represent more than half of the larger dogs they see.
LikeLike
Alison K McConwell
August 30, 2016
A problem with establishing pitbull populations compared to overall dog
population is due to the fact that “pitbull” denotes a type (which includes many breeds) rather than a singular breed. Which breeds are classified as pitbulls would have to be settled before we could get the appropriate “scientific” numbers you call for. Many of the current stats come from shelters and organizations assessing shelter populations with the assumption that shelter populations are indicative of overall dog populations. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) Shelter Project recently released the results of their study of the types of dogs in the U.S. animal shelter population. Though they were assessing the number of purebreads in shelters, they say that pitbulls and chihuahuas make up 35% of the shelter population which is substantial. They do, however, refer to pitbull as a singular breed which is problematic unless they are referring to APBTs—the only pit bull type breed recognized by the Kennel Club Associations. There are unofficial countless others and mixes thereof, such as Amstaffs, etc. which would mean that if those breeds were not included in their assessment, the pit bull type representation would be even greater when the number is already substantial.
They say, “It is interesting to observe that the number of purebreds in shelters would be 3.3% were it not for two breeds that are overrepresented, Chihuahuas and dogs described as Pit Bulls. Together, these two breeds account for 35% of all purebreds listed by shelters in this study. The public seems to be aware that dogs described as Pit Bulls are overrepresented in American shelters.” We do, however, have excellent results from temperament testing that includes behavioural assessment for bite tendency and aggression, which places many pitbull type breeds above labs, goldens, chihuahuas, etc. in terms of good temperament. Personally, I do think that ‘bully breeds’ or ‘bully types’ is a more accurate term to capture the physical appearance (blocky head, barrel chests, square stature, etc.) that people often see and refer to as pit-bull-like. Too often mastiffs, cane corsos, boxers, bulldogs, etc. are called ‘pitbulls’ (especially by media: the recent dog mauling death in Montreal was actually by a boxer that had 2 bites on record with the city, so the current laws were just not being properly enforced) when they are really part of the larger category of bully breeds. To mistake these non-pit-bull bully breeds for breeds in the narrower category of pitbull types perhaps suggests that people are after the blocky stature or “squareness” in appearance more than anything else. Many terrier breeds often classed as pits are actually quite petite weighing under 60 pounds. If damage is relative to size, then certainly Great Danes will cause greater damage than petite pocket pits.
Though I gave you an anecdotal claim about living in a city with BSL compared to my time in a city with breed neutral legislation, there are plenty of stats to be accessed about the overrepresentation of pitbull types in dog populations, especially when considering the numerous additional breeds that have very similar physical characteristics as pit bulls in the broader bully category. Which means this is not simply a matter of disagreement between you and I. Dog bite numbers simply follow dog breed (or in this case type, category) popularity, which suggests that any danger claims about pitbulls particularly are unfounded.
For more information about breed neutral legislation in Calgary during Bill Bruce’s time as animal control director, here’s an excellent article that summarizes the Calgary model’s aims and its success with actually increasing public safety: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/how-calgary-reduced-dog-attacks-without-banning-pit-bulls
Thanks for engaging with me on this topic. I appreciate your comments.
LikeLike