Why does breed specific legislation always miss the point?

very interesting study! I still think its unfair to label any breed though, and feel its unfortunate that chis, dachshund & springers are targeted in this article. really, the results were that variance by breed really was slim, so why not just leave it at that?

what came to mind for me in reading it was the potential training methods used. esp since many of the people surveyed were breed club members. Ive found that often in breed-specific groups people develop their own biases for "their" breed, claiming certain training methods and such need to be used for their dogs, and they're not always very nice. esp in the conformation, hunting, & competitive obedience world--all very traditional and thus tend to hang on to the traditional training methods. and as we know, traditional training methods are often connected to aggressive behavior. and the same goes for owners of certain breeds. people often get certain breeds with certain preconceived notions and thus train their dogs poorly, or rather DONT train/socialize their dogs at all. its all the same issues as when pit bulls end up with the wrong owners.

of course I do understand that this survey is presumably a broad survey of the dogs that are living in society now, with people who are raising and training them as AVERAGE people do, I just think it needs to be pointed out that its still unfair to label any breed as its still heavily biased. its just impossible to have a truly unbiased survey of breed-specific behavior unless all the dogs surveyed were raised by the same person/in the same way. I just think readers need not forget that this survey is not a pure survey of breed-specific behavior, but rather breed-specific behavior within today's average pet dog home.

Margaret Duclos, CCS

I totally agree with you, Margaret.  It seems that all of these studies of breed based "characteristics" are going to be biased.  Consider, for instance, that many "pit bull" owners believe their dogs will not be good with other dogs- that assumption itself will affect the dogs' behavior.  People go into dog ownership with preconceived notions about how that breed is "supposed" be feel about things, and that obviously is going to affect how that dog is raised and, in turn, how that dog does, indeed, feel about things.

As interesting, I guess, as these studies are, they seem to miss the point.  I wish there was much less emphasis on breed, and much more emphasis on socialization for all dogs.  Why not just socialize the heck out of all dogs with other dogs and with people, regardless of breed?

I'm not sure if you are saying that my post is biased or if the research was. I reported the research as completely as I could without coming too close to violating the publisher's rights, while being mindful of not leaving too much out (like the media tends to). So I reported the results, including the dogs that didn't do as well as the others. The researchers did say (as I reported) that the numbers within each breed were varied enough that drawing conclusions about how aggressive a dog might be based on breed is wrong. I'm not sure how much further they (or I) could have gone to avoid bias, beyond destroying the results. It is possible that breed bias crept into the results. I doubt that it had a huge influence myself, since a great deal of the numbers came from the people who owned the dogs and if you look at the C-BARQ it focuses on recent events, not opinions or expectations. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect survey. The variances within each aggression category were not really that slim. As I implied, in stranger directed aggression the highest rates were really high: almost twice the median. (The frequency in owner-directed aggression was much lower, but the variance was still very high.) As for the results indicating "breed-specific behavior within today's average pet dog home," what else would we want? How a given dog does in a perfect home might be interesting, but the perfect homes don't need my help.

--------------------
Eric Goebelbecker

Interesting article. I am another anti-BSL advocate, unfortunatly I can't see how one can get past the hystionic reporting that happens in the media. I have always felt that supposedly banning certain breeds of dogs will only push the next popular group of dogs to the fore of the "bite list". another interesting aspect of BSL is the list usually includes "fighting breeds" and most  do not include the Chinese Shar Pei, yet a client advised me that when she was moving overseas the country she was going to would not allow her little dog as it was on the BSL list- it is a Shih Tzu cross maltese (the shih tzu was the problem part)

just recently here in Australia, I noticed after a sensationalist media report of a dog attack by a particular breed of dog that usually gets into trouble, another "attack" with terrible consequences took a full week to come to light and, I feel, only happened because of the other report. the report that took a full week involved a small child (as usual) having the misfortune of being scapled by a neighbours Great Dane! My theory being it took a full week to surface as these dogs are usually considered to be gentle giants.

interestingly a person I know, within the medical arena, told me as a test to see what the response would be, she was knocked back when contacting the media about a recent dog attack that involved a Shih Tzu (or cross) - was even advised by the person she spoke to that it wasn't sensational enough!

Can we blame the media - are they just feeding our need for fear and drama? Sensationalism sells, boring reports about a chihuahua biting a child or a 6ft 11 man are not, in fact they would be considered laughable,(which is half of the chihuahua's problems. people accept certain behaviour from them because it supposedly looks cute or funny when they do it........point of order I own both Chihuahua's & Rottwielers....and my cat runs the house!)

Margaret in relation to your comment about training, yes, yes, yes! When I got my first rotty, I only wanted to train him using gentle modern, positive reward based training,no check chains, incorporating environmental enrichment. I was mocked be the breeder and a friend whom had a rott, both telling me the only way to train a rotty was by punishement, check chains (preferable the pronged collar) and making sure the dog knew #$%^ well who was boss, using brute physical force (advocating punching the dog in the head if necessary). I have a lovely dog (both these two people believe it was through luck and good breeding, nothing to do with my training preferences!), with a second dog whom I "rescued" as an 18mth old from the same breeder after having had a couple of homes being an anxious nervous wreck. it had taken me another 18 months for him to allow me to touch him without him flinching. the "rescue is a sweet dog to people but can be a nightmare to other dogs until he gets to know them, and he is terrified of our cat!

my chihuahus are all lovely dogs too (even the resuces, who where terrible when we got them but became wonderful in the right environment) because of the right environment and training. It saddens me to see small breeds of dog lashing out because of insecurity among other things and getting an undeserved reputation - equally it saddens me to see larger breeds of dog inadvertently illicited into aggression by well meaning owners thinking they are doing the right thing by being tough with the dog., the owners either not able or unwilling to recognise the part they play in the agressive display by the punishment they deal.

Eric- It's not that your article is biased, in my opinion- it is that all studies like this are missing the point.  Yes, I would also say that the study is biased not through any real fault in the methods, but in the way people think about breed, in general.  Regardless of whether it is a lab or a poodle or a "pit bull", people seem to think that behavior is somehow genetic- it's not.  Yes, genes can sometimes influence behaviors, but they certainly don't cause them- a point that you made in your article. The way that people interpret behaviors will always be subjective.  For example, a shepard chasing cars is said to be "herding"- but no one calls it herding when my pug chases cars- which he does relentlessly.  All dogs display the same behaviors, like chasing, retrieving, etc., to some extent. 

But beyond any bias, and as I said earlier, it is my opinion that these studies miss the point entirely.  Things like dog-directed aggression or wariness of strangers are very much learned behaviors, not genetically hardwired traits.  Ian Dunbar says in one of his books: “Regardless of breed or breeding, a dog’s temperament, especially his feelings toward people and other dogs, is primarily a result of his level of socialization during puppyhood- the most important time of a dog’s life.  Do not waste this golden opportunity.  Solid gold temperaments are forged during this period.”  That, to me, is the bottom line. 

It goes without saying, though, that you're absolutely right- breed specific legislation always does miss the point!

I have myself posted about my belief that many people - including trainers - have a tendency to weigh breed far too heavily when evaluating behavior.  I'm a fierce opponent of BSL and am often amused by the things tell me about their breed of choice.  That said, the idea that genetics don't play a very important part in behavior is going way to far in the other direction.  Anyone who's ever seen a naive but well-bred herding dog put on stock for the first time knows the truth of that statement.   

Searching for knowledge is never "missing the point."  Maybe I'm misreading something here, but the sentiment I seem to be reading is "stereotypes about breeds cause trouble, so we shouldn't be doing research to figure out whether or not there's anything to them." 

I'm not at all surprised  that there are breeds who are far more likely to be involved in aggressive indidents than others.  I'd be shocked to learn otherwise.  "Pit bulls are dog aggressive" is a ridiculous statement, but so is "when it comes to dog aggression, pit bulls are just dogs."  They're not.  They have historically been selected for certain behaviors and many still have them.   

Doxies and Springers weren't "targeted" in this research.  They were found to be more likely to display some types of aggression.  The research may or may not be valid.  It may also be influenced by factors like owners of large aggressive dogs being less likely to keep the dogs around. I don't see any targeting though.  I see reporting of data.  

My breed of choice - catahoulas - is too rare to register in a study like this, but I've little doubt that they would be high on the stranger aggression list if they weren't.  Does that mean that catahoulas are stranger aggressive?  Of course not, but they are at higher risk for the behavior than dogs of most breeds.  Knowing that helps people choose the right dog and do the raise it properly.  BSL and essentialist thinking about dog breeds is dangerous and inaccurate, but hope we BSL opponents can avoid going to opposite extremes.  A dog's breed - especially a working dog's breed - impacts the probability of certain behaviors.  How much is a matter for study, but its relevance just seems obvious to me, even if it is so often drastically overemphasized.     

The problem with that line of thinking is that the majority of dogs in US households today are companion animals, not working dogs.  From the book "Dogs" by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger:
“...in a few generations of selecting for specific size, color, or other superficial reminders of the ancestral working dogs, any of the innate predispositions for the ancestral work almost certainly deteriorate.  The rules of genetics say any character that isn’t continuously selected for (say, working behavior) will begin to drift because of random events- disease, founder’s principles, non-genetic calamities.  In fact, what happens in the household world is that owners will quickly start selecting against many of the innate dispositions of a breed because of their obnoxiousness...Thus, dogs selected for their superficial traits might eventually make better household dogs  because they lose their working dispositions.”

Also, the study is not about working behaviors, it is about "aggression".  Dog-directed aggression is not a genetic trait, obviously.  People who used and trained "pit bulls" to fight, did not invent some dog-fighting gene- while "pit bull" type dogs may have been bred to be stronger or faster, there is no "fighting" gene.  When it comes to dog-directed aggression, or any other learned behavior, I completely disagree with you- "pit bulls" are just dogs.

I don't think anyone is saying that genes have nothing to do with behavior- of course, there is always a complex interplay between genes and environment.  My point is that-

1. we need to step away from the outdated and obviously wrong idea that genes determine behavior

2. we would be better served to concentrate on a dog's early development and socialization rather than labeling breeds as "inherently" one way or another.

Wow. I really fell behind here. Yes, after a few generations the working tendencies will tend to deteriorate (I'm certainly not going to quibble with the Coppingers) but deteriorate doesn't equal disappear. Genetics do influence behavior. The researchers are not saying "determine," neither am I, and I'm pretty sure Jeff isn't either.

If you don't think genes still influence behavior in pet dogs, find a sheep herding instinct test. I have 2 mutts that did very well (one of them eerily well) herding sheep almost immediately. Meanwhile it was obvious that several others were never going to have any success, regardless of what kind of training regimen they were put through. (As a matter of fact, if you can't get to some sheep herding. Find yourself a dozen dogs (not all at once) and toss a ball in front of each one.)

If you get a chance to see Ray Coppinger give his Evo/Devo speech you'll see that he doesn't completely discount genetics at all. He spends quite a bit of fascinating time talking about how genetics and environment work together to shape behavior. Another fascinating speaker is Robert Sapolsky. ( http://bit.ly/83iqN4 ) he spends the whole first chapter explaining how looking at any one biological influence on behavior on its own is futile.)

I agree with you that the biggest single thing we can DO to PREVENT problems is focus on socialization. But once I am faced with a problem, genetics is part of the package.

--------------------
Eric Goebelbecker

I love Sapolsky.  From his book, Monkeyluv:

"It is also important to realize the inaccuracy of the first assumption about behavioral genetics, the notion of genes as autonomous initiators of commands, as having minds of their own... A chromosome is made of DNA, a vastly long string of it, a long sequence of letters coding for genetic information.  People used to think that the first eleventy letters of the DNA message would comprise Gene 1.  A special letter sequence signaled the end of that gene, and then the next eleventy and a half letters coded for Gene 2, and so on, through tens of thousands of genes.  And in the pancreas, Gene 1 might specify the construction of insulin, and in your eyes, Gene 2 might specify protein pigments that give eyes their color, and Gene 3, active in neurons, might make you aggressive.  Ah, caught you: might make you more sensitive to aggression-provoking stimuli in the environment..."

"Genes, of course, have plenty to do with behavior.  Genes determine your intelligence, and your personality, and certain genetic profiles cause criminality, alcoholism, and a proclivity towards losing your house keys.  Hopefully, three essays into this book, you know that is a total crock, medieval genetic determinism.  Genes don't cause behaviors.  Sometimes, they influence them.

Genes influence behavior, environment influences behavior, and genes and environment interact- a point that I'm hammering at over and over.  What that means is that the effects of a gene on an organism will usually vary with changes in the environment , and the effects of the environment will vary with changes in the genetic makeup of the organism."

"Why are people such suckers for the idea that genes are the be-all end-all?  It is particularly bad right now.  The idea that genes and environment interact can mean a number of things.  At the least, it means that people who get into frenzied arguments about nature versus nurture are about a century out of date.  Of more relevance, it means that while genes can indirectly instruct cells, organs, and organisms as to how to function in the environment, the environment can regulate which genes are active at particular times.  Of greatest relevance here, it means that the thing that a particular gene most proximally produces- a paticular protein- will function differently in different environments."

"Beware of simple explanations; it is rare that nature is parsimonious.  And keep genes in their proper place.  Sometimes genetics is about inevitability- if you have the gene for Huntingson's disease, for instance, there's a 100 percent chance you're going to have this awful neurological condition by middle age.  But in far more realms than people usually expect, genes are about vulnerabilities and potentials, rather than about destiny."

Like I said earlier, of course genetics are a part of the package- I think that is clear.  But people put far too much importance on which breed does this or that, or which behavior a certain breed might display, without much regard for the huge influence of socialization, not to mention the fact that dogs of all breeds are individuals. 

Ha! Monkeyluv is currently waiting for me on my Nook. I need to finish another book first.

--------------------
Eric Goebelbecker
eric@dogspelledforward.com

It's really good and quite relevant, too.  I think you'll enjoy it!

As it has been said again and again, people believe that dog-directed aggression in pitbulls is due to the breeding to develop fighting dogs... With breeds like chihuahuas and daschunds rating as high as pitbull dogs, I wonder what makes certain breeds more dog-directed aggressive than others.