Why does breed specific legislation always miss the point?

Are some breeds of dog more aggressive than the other? Many people seem to think so. Laws placing restrictions on, or completely banning, some breeds (Breed Specific Legislation - BSL) exist not just in the in the U.S, but around the world. These laws don't seem to be going away either — it seems that not a week goes by where I don't see a story about BSL being considered in a new community.

But the thing is, even if you think that restricting or banning breeds because of aggression is effective (and I don't) these laws almost always target the wrong breeds.

In 2008, Applied Animal Behavior Science published research that examined the relationship between dog breeds and aggression. The results were, in my opinion, entirely unsurprising unless you happen to be a politician or rely on TV news for your understanding of dogs. (Is that redundant?)

The researchers examined data collected from a survey (the C-BARQ) of both breed clubs and "average" pet owners, ending up with just over 1500 surveys. The survey is comprehensive and is designed to keep the subject focused on recent events in order to improve accuracy. (You can see it here.) The use of the survey, rather than relying on bite statistics, makes the research very interesting. Quoting the paper:

Dog bite statistics are potentially misleading for several reasons: (a) most dog bites go unreported unless medical attention is sought (which may be more likely with larger breeds that have the ability to inflict more serious injury); (b) the total number of dogs of a given breed in the local community is seldom known, so the degree to which that breed is over-represented among reported dog bites is usually undetermined; and (c) in many cases the breed of dog involved cannot be verified.

The researchers separated aggression into three broad categories:

• Owner-Directed Aggression (ODA) - aggression toward familiar people
• Stranger-Directed Aggression (SDA) - aggression toward unfamiliar people
• Dog-Directed Aggression (DDA) - aggression toward unfamiliar dogs
• Dog Rivalry (DR) - aggression toward familiar dogs. (Data on this was limited since it required multiple dog households.)

Another quote:

These findings demonstrate considerable variation among breeds in the prevalence and severity of aggression directed at different targets (strangers, owners, or other dogs). Although small differences were observed between the breed club and online samples, breeds were remarkably consistent relative to one another.

I know what you're waiting for, but you're going to have to read a little more to get to it.

One of the more interesting things noted was a difference between conformation bred and field bred stock. Conformation-bred Springers surveyed significantly worse than their field bred counterparts for owner directed, stranger directed, and dog directed aggression. Labrador retrievers showed the opposite trend, but the difference was not quite as pronounced as with the Springers. Fancy that.

While the results did show some interesting trends, the researchers were careful to note:

The substantial within-breed variation in C-BARQ scores observed in this study suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.

Which is one of the real "money quotes" that I don't remember being reported when the this study was picked up in the news. Note that the caveat doesn't refer to problems with the study, it simply says breed does not necessarily predict the presence (or lack) of aggressive behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

So let's get to what you've been waiting for:

• Owner-Directed Aggression - Among the highest: Beagle, Chihuahua, American Cocker Spaniel, Dachshund and English Springer Spaniel. Among the lowest: Australian Shepherd, Bernese Mountain Dog, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Doberman Pinscher.
• Stranger-Directed Aggression - among the highest: Dachshunds (by a long shot), Chihuahuas (not far behind the Dachshunds), Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers. Below median: Golden Retrievers, Shetland Sheepdog, Siberian Huskies, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Whippets, and Greyhounds
• Dog Directed Aggression - Above median: Akita (the highest), Pit Bull, Dachshund (just ahead of Pit Bull), Chihuahua (tied with Pit Bull), English Springer Spaniel, Jack Russell Terrier (also tied with Pit Bull). Below median: Collie, Brittany Spaniel, Bernese Mountain Dog, Greyhound, Whippet.

Not a lot of surprises for me.

The Dachshund and the Chihuahua really didn't do well. (And if you throw in the dog rivalry numbers they don't do any better.) The researchers mention "In general, the highest rates of human-directed aggression were found in smaller breeds whose aggression is presumably easier to tolerate." But I'm pretty sure children's fingers (and ears, and noses...) fit in a Chihuahua's mouth too.

The "guarding" breeds had higher numbers for stranger-directed aggression. Akitas and Pit Bulls showed higher numbers than others in dog-directed aggression.

Is it possible that some of these numbers were driven by preconceived notions on the part of the survey participants? Maybe, but the researchers report that their numbers closely follow those of previous studies and that the C-BARQ questionnaire was formulated with an eye toward screening out these biases.

There are behavioral differences between breeds. Again, not much of a surprise. The breeds exist because people wanted to use dogs for different purposes and behavior was part of those packages. But those differences influence behavior, they don't determine it. Even though the researchers found trends within breeds, they outright said that there were variances within breeds. (The paper is a full 17 pages long, not including footnotes, and like most research I can only go so far in analyzing it. It also include a fascinating, if frustratingly brief, discussion of how fear seems to have influenced some of the behavior too.)

The research also reinforces that all aggression is not equal. Other than the Chihuahua, Dachshund, and English Springer Spaniel there are different breeds dominating (heh) each category. America's favorite scape-breed, the Pit Bull, only makes the top 5 in one category and is still tied for third place with the Dachshund and the Jack Russell Terrier. The category, of course, has nothing to do with aggression toward people.

This might make you think that banning Pit Bulls would do nothing to lower the instance of dog bites. And you might think right. Brent Toellner, over at the always excellent KC Dog Blog reported on newly released bite statistics from UK just before the holidays. Things haven't just not improved since the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act, they've gotten substantially worse, even though enforcement efforts have become more intense.

Why are some people so focused on breed specific bans and restrictions? Is it a case of politicians and some activists looking for easy answers? Sloppy sensationalist reporting? An abundance of persistent half-truths and misinformation?

Yes.

But I have to wonder, is part of this ignorance, willful or not, fed by an unnecessary obsession with breeds in the first place? Could an emphasis on how "predictable" some puppies might be lead to people jumping to conclusions? Could an overemphasis on breeding dogs for looks lead to, well, an overemphasis on classifying dogs based on how they look?

Naaaaah. Never mind.