Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Pit Bull" Into Our Society

Challenges in Accepting the "" Into Our Society

Jacob Lennen May, 2013 Hampshire College

1

Table of Contents

Preface 1

Introduction 3

What Is a ? 6

The American Pit Bull 11

Aggressive Behavior 19

Nature versus Nurture 26

Breed Specific Legislation 35

The Court of Public Opinion 48

Best Practices 54

Conclusion 58

Appendix: Survey of Dog Surrenders and Outcomes April 2012 59

3

0 Preface

I have had a deep relationship with animals my whole life. Eventually this led to my employment at an animal shelter in Springfield, Massachusetts. While working there, two incidents occurred that drove me to look into the controversies surrounding the we call “Pit Bulls.” The first incident related to a ten month-old fawn and white colored Pit Bull named Sassy surrendered because the owner’s landlord did not allow the breed. The behaviorist who wrote the profile of this dog said it was a “super social and excited” dog that will respond well to training. I had been working at the shelter for months and interning previous to that for months and Sassy was the first dog that I actually wanted to adopt. Unfortunately, my living and financial situation was not suited to proper care of a canine companion. Luckily, a couple that lived in the area eventually adopted Sassy. But, about a month, later the couple came back to the shelter because Sassy had developed serious “separation anxiety.” The behaviorist on staff met with them and tried to see if the situation could be fixed. The couple decided that they felt they could not properly take care of this dog. The behaviorist then decided to have this dog euthanized, ostensibly because of the separation anxiety. Had Sassy been any other breed, the behaviorist would have found a rescue group, tried to work with the dog, or tried to find potential adoptive owners who bring their dog everywhere they go (there happen to be multiple staff members there who do that). But because this shelter has an unwritten (though often vocalized) policy that a Pit Bull has to have a stellar behavior to stay on the adoption floor, Sassy’s fate was sealed. I understand that not every behaviorist can change a dog like Cesar Millan can but the lack of a chance given is disappointing. The second incident involved a 2-1/2 year old black Pit Bull- mix named Beasty. The owner noted on the surrender form that the dog was friendly to everyone but afraid of certain things. The reason for surrender was the owner’s inability to get adequate insurance coverage due to the breed of dog. When Beasty arrived at the shelter he was behavior-tested and presented no signs of aggression; in fact the behaviorist said he was completely disinterested in the activities during the behavioral assessment. This large dog was a well-tempered animal when you brought him out of the run or if you

1 were inside of the run with him. However, he did get territorial if you were standing outside his cage. Remember, a shelter is a unique environment where the dogs are confined, they are aware of other dogs nearby, and they are attended to by a changing staff of animal care workers. A dog like Beasty, who was territorial, could frighten even some experienced shelter employees. He was given two days to improve but ended up being euthanized. I completely understand why this dog could not be put on the adoption floor. What had bothered me the most was that during this same week there was a Frise in the run next to Beasty. Bichon Frises are small, fluffy white dogs. However, this particular , though small and cute, made me exponentially more apprehensive than Beasty did. Beasty barked and growled when you stood outside his run. This Bichon Frise did the same but also would attempt to bite anyone who got anywhere near him. He almost bit me multiple times and either almost bit and actually bit a few of my coworkers. While Beasty was given two days to improve his behavior for barking and growling, the Bichon Frise was given about eight days to improve. If Beasty had acted the way the Bichon Frise did during the behavior test or on the first day in the run he would have been euthanized immediately. The Bichon Frise was given four times the chance to improve than the Pit Bull Mastiff mix. It was clear that Pit Bulls (and Pit Bull mixes) were not given a second chance -- it was their breed and not necessarily aggressive behavior that doomed them. These two incidents made me think about the issue of Pit Bulls in our society. One might be thinking after reading this that I will be presenting only one view, of the controversy. Rather my purpose to present both sides of the issue equally and fairly. As you read further you will read what I was able to find when I attempted to get to the bottom of what the real problems are, who is on what side of the issue, the history of this problem, and how it might be fixed. In particular I will address the question of whether aggression is innate in the breed, what part may be played by experience in shaping a Pit Bull’s behavior, and the media’s role and the legislative battle that has swirled around the Pit Bull.

2 Introduction

On January 26, 2001, Diane Whipple, a San Francisco lacrosse player and coach, was attempting to enter her apartment when two dogs came running down the hallway from their owners’ apartment down the hall. The two 120-pound animals, Bane and Hera, attacked Diane Whipple right there in the hallway. By the end of the horrific incident, she lay dead on the floor, her body covered in 77 bite wounds. The only parts of her left unharmed were her head and feet. The criminal case against the owners of these two dogs captured the nation. It was the first recorded dog-related death in San Francisco’s history and the first time in national history that a dog owner was charged with a murder as the result of a dog attack. Despite the fact that the dogs involved in this attack were Presa Canario, a different breed, it was Pit Bulls that were originally blamed for and later consistently linked to the attack. Although this was not the first time a dog had killed someone, nor the first time a dog attack created a debate, this tragedy skyrocketed the issue into the nation’s psyche (Lee, 2002).

No species on the planet has a closer and more intrinsic[MHF1] relationship with man than the dog. And yet, no animal may be more misunderstood than Canis lupus familiaris, to give it its scientific name. Raymond Coppinger has said, “Dogs, maybe more than any other species, are surrounded by myths, fictions, and factoids. Lassie comes home, like Ulysses, performing heroic feats of incredible agility… Mythology caricatures dogs. It conjures images that are fun and inspirational, and there is nothing wrong with stories about heroic dogs unless they interfere with dogs’ health and well being. However, a better understanding of dogs’ true behavior, their intentions and their motivations, must lead to a deeper, richer interspecies relationship between people and dogs (Coppinger, 2002).” This particular member of the canine family has been associated with human society for thousands of years. According to Ray Coppinger, the species arose by divergence from its ancestor, the wolf, many thousands of years ago – probably early in the Neolithic period when humans first engaged in agriculture and began to live in fixed settlements. For most of the long history of the dog’s involvement in human society, dogs were dogs – there was no thought given to different breeds. Indeed, breeding dogs

3 for certain characteristics, which created specific breeds, has occurred only in the last thousand years. Now there are more variations of this species than almost any other species in the world (Coppinger, 2002). Of all the hundreds of dog breeds in the world the focus of this work is the American Pit Bull Terrier. Despite its recent notoriety, it is a popular breed in America. The AKC does not track Pit Bulls but notes that the and Bull Dog are on the top 10 lists of most popular breeds. Other bully breeds, such as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Mastiff, are also becoming increasingly popular (AKC, 2013). For many people who are neither dog lovers nor Pit Bull owners, their introduction to Pit Bulls was through the news coverage of the seventy or so dogs, mostly Pit Bulls, rescued from Michael Vick’s Bad Newz Kennels. These dogs were specifically trained to be violent – and risked electrocution, hanging or drowning when they were not vicious enough. The fact that many of the rescued dogs were deemed adoptable is an indication of the breed temperament (Gorant, 2011). Unfortunately, for many people – and, in fact jurisdictions – the breed was to blame for dogfighting. Associations like the and the Westminster Kennel Club do not recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier; instead they recognize the American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier that is actually the same breed as the American Pit Bull Terrier. Despite the more prominent kennel associations referring to this breed as the Staffordshire Terrier, the public, the media, and researchers use the “Pit Bull” name to refer to this breed. As Pit Bull is the most commonly known name, the remainder of this paper will use that label. Although the label should not define the debate, in this situation it is significant – the name of the breed has become synonymous with illegal and innate aggression in animals. Author’s Note: Confirmation bias is the tendency to collect information that aligned with the researcher's own beliefs. The likelihood of confirmation bias is especially high for controversial and emotionally charged issues. Thus, no matter how rigorous I have been in my attempts to present unbiased information, many of my sources – both on websites and in research studies –display either overt or subtle bias.

4 The most negative treatment of the subject is on the dogsbite.org site. On the other side, one finds many websites from organizations that are just as passionately pro- Pit Bull. This includes Karen Delise’s study, The Pit Bull Placebo, as well as many anti- BSL organizations. In the middle are organizations such as the APSCA, the U. S. Humane Society, the animallaw website, and the research papers published by Veterinary associations, universities, and scientific journals. Where referenced information is clearly biased, I have noted that in my observations.

5 What Is a Dog?

“The dog is literally the wolf who stayed, who traded wolf society for human society (Derr, 2011).” If you are a dog owner or ever were an owner, have you ever thought about how this dog came to be the way he or she is? That companion of yours is the result of natural and artificial selective breeding that has occurred over generations going back many thousands of years. That canine friend is a result of human manipulation, both intentional and accidental, in its ancestry as far back as the existence as a species. Any discussion of Pit Bulls and the debate about aggression in Pit Bulls must be framed against a discussion of aggression in all dogs. Further, aggressive behavior – and behavior in general – is only one aspect of the canine species. In this section, the focus is on the physiological evolution and characters of the canine species, hereafter referred to as dogs. There are a few theories about the origin of the dog. The scientific community is not entirely in agreement when or where the domestication of dogs occurred or if it might have actually occurred in multiple places across the globe simultaneously (Saey, 2013). There is general agreement that the dog is a member of the canidae family, which besides the domesticated dog, includes wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and undomesticated dog-like species such as the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and the

raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides). There are also other, long-extinct members of the canidae family that existed for millions of years before known ancestors of the domesticated dog evolved. It is believed by most that the dog is a descendent of its close relative, the wolf. But, there is considerable debate about how the dog became differentiated from the wolf (Derr, 2011).

6

Figure 1: (Evidence for the Evolutionary Model, 2009)

A number of researchers believe the dog has been interlinked with the human community as far back as 30,000 years ago. A particular piece of evidence used to show that the dog as been around for at least 30,000 years is a cave in southern France that is quite well known to anthropologists. Chauvet Cave contains what some believe to be the oldest known paintings, dating back to the upper paleolithic era (about 30,000 years ago). There is a portion of the cave where human footprints have been found alongside what are believed to be wolf tracks. The positioning of tracks, side-by-side, has led some anthropologists to conclude that the “wolf” must have been domesticated. This finding would push back the general estimation of when the wolf began its evolution to the dog from around 12 to 15,000 years before Common Era (BCE) to about 26,000 years BCE (Derr, 2011).

7 A small group of researchers pushed back the date even farther; using DNA analysis, they claim conclusive evidence that the dog is a separate canidae species dating back around 130,000 years (Derr, 2011). This is the oldest estimate of how long dogs have been in human society. However, this estimate is based on misidentified skeletal remains and highly controversial assumptions about the timeframe of mtDNA mutations. Before genetic testing was available, many scientists believed that domestication coincided with the end of the ice age when earth was finally climatically stable enough for humans to settle in one place. However, with genetic analyses and more recently discovered canine fossils, there is even more data to fuel the debate. Regardless of the exact number of thousand of years, it appears the first dogs evolved around human settlements. Our supposed “… shared characteristics may well account for our seemingly unshakable mutual intimacy (Derr, 2011).” The factors leading to the biological evolution from tame wolf to first domestic dog are also a matter of debate. One thought is that ancient people captured and tamed wolves and then breed them selectively over time. The alternate theory is that, after the ice age (around 15,000 years ago), when people started living in settled communities, wolves began to scavenge food. Over time, their behavior changed in order to make them better scavengers. This transformation made them more susceptible to human influence as they continually reduced the “flight” distance for escape (Coppinger, 2002). The two main thoughts of how the process occurred are laid out by Coppinger: (Learn) Tame ---- (Learn) Trainable –-- (Genetically) Domestic Vs. Domestic ---- Naturally Tame ---- Naturally Trainable (Coppinger supports

this[MHF2])

Coppinger’s belief (Coppinger, 2002) is that dogs evolved from wolves by self- selection as a result of scavenging around human villages, specifically closing in on locations where humans dumped their waste. The smaller skull, smaller teeth, and generally smaller body were all things that gave these newly evolved dogs more advantage at getting what they wanted. Coppinger likens the evolution from wolf to dog to the similar transformation of silver fox to a domesticated form. Citing the work of

8 Belyaev on the “tameability” of the fox, Coppinger believes that similar behavioral traits are at play in the evolution of the dog. Belyaev was the head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow. He became interested in breeding fox, starting with the dark-furred red fox but accomplished a new domesticated silver fox. Belyaev thought the key to domestication was the tameability of the foxes he bred (Coppinger, 2002). Along with the “tameability,” physical traits (for both dog and fox) also changed. Dogs changed physical with increased tameness. Interestingly, with domestication, physical changes were also noted by Belyaev including floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. The scientific community is not certain as to why these other traits appear when the fox or the wolf becomes more domestic. Coppinger thinks that the changes to the head size, at least, could be due to the decreased requirement for “flight.” (Coppinger, 2002[MHF3]). Based on the research available, it is possible that humans may have begun their closer association with the wolf around 30,000 years ago but it was not until about 15,000 years ago that humans, intentionally or accidentally, were able to domesticate the wolf into a dog. The scant evidence of wolves interacting with humans dating back to the era of cave dwelling only proves that they may have interacting with the wolf on a somewhat hospitable level. It is important to understand the evolution of dogs from wolves because so many of the widely accepted theories of and training are based on the concept of the “wolf pack.” Whether 15,000 or 30,000 years ago, the transition from wolf to dog was not an immediate event. And, it was quite some time before the breeds as we know them today were developed. Long before dogs were bred for show, they were bred for specific purposes such as sheep herding, tracking, guarding, hunting, and mousing. For example, what we know as a today was used for hunting, specifically scaring birds into nets held by humans. were a breed created for their ability to catch mice and rats. The was used for tracking purposes, especially of humans. The breeding of dogs at this time was not a controlled activity as it is today. Development of what today would be

9 considered pure breeds or breed standards was not the goal of early breeding (Scott & Fuller, 1965). The human race has had a significant influence over Canis familiaris, by the use of breeding, controlling and perpetuating mutations that affect shape, size and physical abilities. In addition to the physical aspects, dogs have been bred for their unique ability to be trained to follow directions given by humans and the capacity for understanding, at a very basic level, human communication. The ‘normal’ behaviors we attribute to dogs are driven by two underlying mechanisms. There are the phylogenetic (the development or evolution of a particular group of organisms) influences on behavior due to the dog’s evolutionary past (Udell & Wynne 2008). There are also the “ontogenetic” (the development or developmental history of an individual organism) causes that are the history of contingencies of reinforcement each domestic dog experiences within human society during its lifetime (Udell & Wynne, 2008).” In the case of our canine companions, artificial selection by humans is responsible for the hundreds of breeds, not natural selection. Artificial selection for certain physical and behavioral traits has led to unintended changes in social

behavior (Udell & Wynne, 2008). While the where and when of the first domesticated dog is still debated, the impact that we as humans have had this species is undeniable. “Many individuals put their faith in rescue dogs when stranded in the wilderness or capsized in cold water. Others rely on guide dogs to get them safely to multiple destinations on a daily basis. Drug dogs, de-mining dogs, police dogs, termite- and even cancer-detecting dogs are trained and utilized as substance detectors even in the face of competition from the latest technology. There are herding dogs, hunting dogs, sled dogs, and various other specializations that are crucial to the livelihoods of many individuals, not to mention the role dogs play in and the pleasures of individual dog ownership— sufficiently reinforcing to sustain 74.8 million dogs in the United States, at a cost to their

owners of over $100 billion (Udell & Wynne, 2008).” However the dog became our companion and developed the behaviors we recognize as normal, it is undeniable that the dog is completely dependent on human society for its physical and social needs.

10 The American Pit Bull Terrier (Psychological and Physical Characteristics; History Heritage)

What is a Pit Bull? The accurate identification of the American Pit Bull Terrier is a fundamental component in the debate relating to this breeds role in our society. Supposed experts in the field of canine research can commonly misidentify the American Pit Bull

Terrier. The[MHF4] breed is commonly mixed with other breeds; so common in fact that one may see “Pit Bull Mix” on statistical data alongside data for pure-bred dogs. It can also be difficult to distinguish this breed when there are a number of breeds that physically look partially or predominately similar such as the Black Mouth , Alano Espanol, , Patterdale Terrier, Presa Canario, , Bull Mastiff, , Boxer, and the various breeds (English Bulldog, , and the . The confusion over the breed identification enhances the importance of a clear understanding of the physical characteristics of an American Pit Bull Terrier. This is especially true when animal control and law enforcement are attempting to comply with breed specific ordinances against the Pit Bull breed (Delise, 2007).

CHARACTERISTICS Though the American Kennel Club is the prominent breed registration organization in the United States, it does not recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier as a breed; instead they recognize the American Staffordshire Terrier. The United Kennel Club (UKC, 2012) is the second most prominent breed registration organization in the United States; they accept the American Pit Bull Terrier as a breed. The characteristics of this breed will be described based on the confirmation standards of the United Kennel Club. These standards are used to judge this breed in shows that the UKC organizes. The UKC finds it to be essential for the American Pit Bull Terrier to have certain attributes like strength, confidence, unbridled enthusiasm, and powerful athletic abilities. This breed is also considered to be eager to please their human companions and other humans. This breed is believed, by the UKC, to make a good family companion and is known for affection and good behavior in regards to children. The UKC states that this is not a dog

11 that should be considered a dog of choice for protection due to its friendly nature towards humans, likewise they believe that behavior that would appear aggressive toward humans is not considered normal for this breed (UKC, 2012). A specimen of this breed should not, according to the UKC, appear to be bulky or overly muscular, nor should this dog be on the other side of the spectrum, fine-boned and lanky. A specimen meets the standard of the UKC by being an accomplished that has the ability to hold, push and pull, and breathe easily (distinguishes it from most of the bull dog breeds, who commonly have respiratory complications) (UKC, 2012). A summary of the UKC description of the American Pit Bull Terrier follows:

General Appearance The American Pit Bull Terrier is of a medium stature, sturdily built, short-coated with smooth and well-defined muscles. The body of this breed is slightly longer than it is tall. The length of the breed’s front legs (from the elbow to the ground) is about equal to a half of the height at the ridge between the shoulder blades. The head of the Pit Bull is of medium sized length, with broad and flat skulls, and also with a wide and deep muzzle. The ears are generally small in size and are high set on the head. The tail of this breed is short comparatively to other breeds and it is low on the caudal side of the body. The tail is thick at the base and tapers down to a point. The colors of this breed are quite varying in shades and patterns. Common physical appearances that would point to a possibility of mixed blood would be disproportionate and overdone characteristics like short legs and massive heads or bodies.

Head The APBT head is unique and a key element of breed type. It is large and broad, giving the impression of great power, but it is not disproportionate to the size of the body. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge. When viewed from the side, the skull and muzzle are parallel to one another and joined by a well defined, moderately deep stop. Supraorbital arches over the eyes are well defined but not pronounced. The head is well chiseled, blending strength, elegance, and character. SKULL - Large, flat or slightly rounded, deep, and broad between the ears. Viewed from

12 the top, the skull diminishes in thickness slightly toward the stop. There is a deep median furrow that diminishes in depth from the stop to the to the back of the skull. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is concentrating, wrinkles form on the forehead, which give the APBT his unique expression. TEETH - The breed has an evenly spaced white teeth meeting in a scissors bite. MUZZLE - Broad and deep with a fairly slight taper from the stop to the nose, with a slight falling away under where the eyes are set. The length of the muzzle should be a ratio of approximately 2:3 shorter than the length of skull. The lower jaw should be well developed, wide and deep. Lips are clean and tight. Signs that this is a dog of mixed heritage would be a snipey muzzle, muzzle short and blunt enough to interfere with normal breathing. NOSE - The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color. EYES - Eyes are medium size, round and set well apart and low on the skull. The supraorbital ridges over the eyes not well pronounced but defined enough to be visible. This breed should not have mismatched color eyes or blue eyes; every other color is acceptable. EARS - High set and natural or cropped. They are also pricked or flat, wide ears are not desired.

Neck The neck is of medium length and muscular like the rest of the body. A slight arch is present at the crest. The neck normally widens at a gradual rate from the skull to where it ends into laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap. If the neck is thin and/or weak, and if this next is short/thick this is a sign of mixed heritage.

Forequarters The muscular and laid back shoulder blades of this breed are broad and extended. The upper arm and the shoulder blade are about the same length. The elbows are set close to the body. The forelegs are situated wide apart and perpendicular to the ground. The pasterns are straight, short, and flexible. Signs of mixed heritage would be upright and/or loaded shoulders, elbows that are turned outward or tied-in, bowed front legs, wrists knuckled over that are toeing in or out. Front legs shorter than half the height at the

13 withers.

Body The pectoral region or chest is deep and is well filled in. It is reasonably wide with enough space for the heart and lungs, but an important characteristic of this breed is that its chest should not be wider than it is deep. The forechest region does not extend very far beyond the point of the shoulders. The ribs are well extend far back and are sprung from the spine, then the ribs flatten to form a deep body extended to the elbows joints. The topline slopes downward from the withers to a leveled broad back. The part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest (false) ribs and the hipbones should be short, well muscled, and faintly arched to the top of the hindquarters, but more tight than the rib cage and with a sensible tuck-up.

Hindquarters The hindquarters (the hind legs and adjoining parts of a quadruped) are physically powerful, well muscled, and reasonably broad. The rump (hind part of the body) is well filled in on each side of the tail and deep from the pelvis to the crotch. The thighs of this breed are developed with thick and easily distinguished muscles. From a side view the hock joint is bent and the rear pastern bones are let down and perpendicular to the surface below it. From a rear view, the rear pastern bones are straight and parallel to each other.

Feet The feet of this breed are round in shape and are fairly proportionate to the overall size of the dog. The feet are well arched, tight, the pads are hard, tough, and are well cushioned.

Tail The tail extended from the caudal portion of the topline of the body and tapers down to a point. When in a relaxed state the tail is low and extends to the hock. When there is movement of the body the tail is carried level. When there is excessive movement for instance in an excited state, the tail may be raised in an upright position. The tail should not be long, bobbed, screw, or curled over the butt (in the way that huskies tale is shaped).

14 Coat The coat of this breed tends to be sleek and fairly smooth, close cut, and stiff feeling. Signs of mixed blood are any hair that is curly, wavy, and/or a sparse coat.

Color The breed may be found in a variety of colors, patterns, and combinations of colors; the only exceptions in color are Albinism and Merle.

Height and Weight This breeds physical prowess requires an overall well formed physical balance and that the correct proportion of weight to height are more important than this breeds actual weight and height. For mature males it is optimal for this dog to weigh between 35 and 60 pounds. For a mature female it is optimal for this dog to weigh between 30 and 50 pounds. The preferable height for mature males is 18 to 21 inches at the withers of the dog; as for mature females it is from 17 to 20 inches at the withers.

Gait The gait of this breed is brisk, lively; some would guess the movement to convey that this dog may expect to see something exciting at any moment. When walking briskly, the gait that this dog walks at is effortless and strong, and shows fair reach in the front and drive behind. The legs will not turn in nor out and the feet will not cross nor will they interfere with each other. As the dog moves faster the feet converge towards a center line of balance.

Eliminating Faults Specific signs that the dog one may be judging wither it is a American Pit Bull Terrier are short legs, excessive bone, massive head or body, muzzle short, front legs bowed, front legs shorter than half the total height at the withers, wide chest, bobbed tail, screw tail, viciousness or extreme shyness behavior, color of Albinism and Merle, long coat, and dwarfism.

Heritage – the Canine Gladiator The American Pit Bull Terrier, as we know it today, is thought to have originated

15 sometime in the 16th and 17th century in Britain. It is believed that the sport of bull produced this breed. At that time in British history, bull baiting was a poor man’s sport and was quite popular across villages and towns, but then in 1835 it was outlawed (Coile, 2001). The sport started when butchers used their dogs to catch and put into submission uncooperative bulls. The dog would grip the nose of the bull until the butcher could regain control of the bull. Eventually, butchers wanted to see whose dog was the best at controlling the bull so they would compete against other butchers and that is how the bull baiting sport started. The sport was public and deemed acceptable because at that time it was thought that torturing the bull before slaughtering it would make the meat more tender. The development of the Pit Bull started when prized bull baiters were sought after for breeding. In some cases owners would cut off the legs of the dogs to prove how determined the dog was to still go after the bull, after that the amputated dog would be used solely for breeding (Coile, 2001). There is no consensus among historians as to whether the bull-baiting dogs were Terrier breeds and the bull name (Bull Terrier) became commonplace because of the fighting or if the dog used was the , the German Bulldog breed that was later crossbred to extinction (Walker, 2000). Either way, the name “Pit Bull” became common when bull baiting became illegal and drove owners to pit their ‘bull dogs’ against each other in ‘pits’ in underground fights. The bull dogs started to be referred to as Pit for their new function and eventually were called Pit Bulls for short. (It is important to note that what we think of as a bull dog today is not the same type of dog called a bull dog back then). Eventually, the sport of fighting dogs was brought to the new world and took very little time to have a popular fan base in America (Coile, 2001). “Understanding how a traditional match (and still is) conducted is – no matter how unsavory – essential to understanding the way Pit Bull breeding stock were selected for generations (Coile, 2001).” Before the match is started, the owners wash their opponents’ dogs to make sure there are no drugs, toxic substances, or anything foul tasting on the coat of the dog that would deter the other dog from biting or in some way have an affect on the opposing dog. Then the dogs are placed in the ring at opposite corners, the owners are still in the ring at this point and are allowed to encourage their dog but not touch. The

16 dogs are released and the owners move out of the ring. There is a referee present to make sure things are fair and to determine the winner. Outside the ring, it is common for dogs to , growl, snarl, and bare their teeth because bluffing is just as big a part of dogs fighting each other as actually physically fighting. However this is not the case with the dogs that are raised and conditioned for fighting matches; these dogs are silent and give little indication of their aggression or excitement for the fight. When the match starts, if a dog turns away from the other dog, the owner then retrieves it. The dog that turned away is then released first and has 10 seconds to attack the other dog. This may occur several times but if the dog hesitates and does not attack during the 10 seconds the match is over. A dog that loses due to this hesitation is usually “put down” due to not having the gameness for fighting. If the losing dog put on good show, he may be able to live to fight again – that is, if he is not so injured the fight kills him (Coile 2001). Note that “put down” within this subculture does not necessarily mean some sort of veterinary euthanization – it could mean anything from drowning, to clubbing or kicking, electrocution, or hanging. Sometimes dogs are simply abandoned on the streets (Hanson, 2005). This history of fighting is the reason the American Kennel Club does not recognize Pit Bulls. United Kennel Club made an exception likely due to the fact that the founder owned a Pit Bull and happened to support dog fighting. Though the breed is not originally from America nor is it entirely certain that it is descended from terriers, the United Kennel Club decided to alter the name to The American Pit Bull Terrier. The first American Pit Bull Terrier to be registered was the founder Chauncy Bennett’s dog, named Bennett’s Ring (Coile, 2001). Only a small percentage of Pit Bulls (as defined by the UKC standard) are engaged in dogfighting. They are in the top ten most popular breeds and, in many states, among the top three. Some of the popularity may be due, in part, to the portrayal of Pit Bulls as an aggressive dog. This has led to unexpected ‘backyard’ over-breeding and a flood of Pit Bull surrenders at animal shelters. One news article estimates there may be as many as 3 to 5 million Pit Bulls in the U.S. The rate of surrender and euthanization is very high, compared to other breeds. The article goes on to state, “Studies estimate that up to 1 million Pits are euthanized per year, or 2,800 per day. Some estimates are up to double

17 that number. In the Los Angeles area alone, 200 per day are put to sleep. A study by the organization Animal People reports a 93% euthanasia rate for Pit Bulls and only 1 in 600 Pits finding a forever home” (D’Addio, 2011). Knowing the physical and historical facts about the Pit Bull is important in this debate because the physical attributes and the history of the breed are often cited as the reasons this breed is aggressive.

18 Aggressive Behavior

Dogs, like people, can be described by how they look and how they behave. There is a spectrum of normal dog behavior. At one end is the obedient and friendly family . Since Pit Bulls have a reputation for being aggressive, it is important to understand the full range of behavior, including but not limited to aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior is usually defined by barking, growling, snapping and teeth-baring. It may also escalate to lunging and biting. Animal behavior research, and specifically research focused on the behavior of man’s best friend, the dog, has increased in recent decades. Much of the early research involved surveying and eliciting behavioral information from the dog owners. At the same time, other researchers were attempting to devise methods to directly observe and record behavior. By not interviewing the owners, the hope was that the testers could remove bias (Bennett, 2010). Examples of behavioral assessments include: • C-BARQ (University of Pennsylvania) • ATTS (American Temperament Test Society, Inc.) • Meet Your Match (MYM)™ Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming™ (SAFER™) • Assess-A-Pet (mAAP) • MATCH-UP II Behavior Evaluation Various studies have been done to assess the reliability of these tools. Most shelters and animal behaviorists use an assessment test along with other data-collections methods to determine if a dog has anti-social, aggressive or other behavioral problems (Bennett, 2010). The methods for data collection are designed to assess the friendliness, fearfulness, and aggressiveness of the dog in various scenarios (play behavior, touch sensitivity, possession aggression, aggression around toys and other non-food objects, easily over-aroused; dog aggression, and food aggression). Attention is paid not only to the behavior but the trigger and the extent of the behavior. Observers are trained to use

19 numeric assessments to neutralize their comments. Generally, behaviors are classified as: healthy, treatable-manageable, treatable-rehabilitatable, and unhealthy/untreatable. No matter the strengths or weaknesses of the test instruments listed above, they all depend on being executed by an unbiased administrator or team. Furthermore, no test can predict every situation where an individual dog might display aggressive behavior (AsilomarAccords.com, n.d.) For an individual dog at an animal shelter, the behavior assessments are more than just a test – they often represent life or death. In the 1990s, a group of veterinary and shelter professionals met to discuss the high degree of variation in the number of euthanizations at shelters and animal control facilities. The “Asilomar Accord” attempts to bridge various assessment methods with overarching protocols to reduce euthanizations. (AsilomarAccords.com, n.d.). And yet, euthanization rates for dogs, and particularly for pit bulls, are high. For the assessment test to be meaningful, they must include definition of “normal” behavior. So what is the spectrum of “normal” behavior in dogs? Examples of positive behavioral traits, as expressed in C-BARQ, include: • Positive behavior traits include: • Greets visiting adults in a friendly • Eager to play with family members manner • Eager to play with strangers • Greets visiting children in a friendly Retrieves play objects and initiates manner play • Greets visiting dogs in a friendly • Eager to play with other male dogs manner • Eager to play with other female dogs • Eager to approach adults away from • Enjoys play-wrestling home in a friendly manner • Quick to respond to other dogs play • Eager to approach children away invitations from home in a friendly manner • Enjoys tug-of-war with familiar • Eager to approach dogs away from persons home in a friendly manner Eager to run after thrown balls • Enjoys being petted by strangers Loves being the center for attention (Southern Guide Dogs, n.d.) The C-BARQ also describes a number of negative personality traits. Three of them use the term “aggression”: stranger-directed, owner-directed, and dog-directed aggression. Note that some of the other negative traits could result in these three types of aggression. The negative behavior types include:

20 • Stranger-directed aggression: Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses to strangers approaching or invading the dog’s or owner’s personal space, territory, or home range. • Owner-directed aggression: Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses to the owner or other members of the household when challenged, manhandled, stared at, stepped over, or when approached while in possession of food or objects. • Stranger-directed fear: Dog shows fearful or wary responses when approached directly by strangers. • Nonsocial fear: Dog shows fearful or wary responses to sudden or loud noises, traffic, and unfamiliar objects and situations. • Dog-directed fear/aggression: Dog shows fearful and/or aggressive responses when approached directly by unfamiliar dogs. • Separation-related behavior: Dog vocalizes and/or is destructive when separated from the owner, often accompanied or preceded by behavioral and autonomic signs of anxiety including restlessness, loss of appetite, trembling, and excessive salivation. • Attachment and attention-seeking: Dog maintains close proximity to the owner or other members of the household, solicits affection or attention, and displays agitation when the owner gives attention to third parties. • Chasing: Dog chases cats, birds, and/or other small animals, given the opportunity. • Excitability: Dog displays strong reaction to potentially exciting or arousing events, such as going for walks or car trips, doorbells, arrival of visitors, and the owner arriving home; has difficulty settling down after such events. • Touch sensitivity: Dog shows fearful or wary responses to potentially painful procedures, including bathing, grooming, claw-clipping, and veterinary examinations. • Dog rivalry: Dog shows aggressive or threatening responses to other familiar dogs in the household (Southern Guide Dogs, n.d.)

21 Aggression in dogs is described based on the target – stranger, owner, or another dog. But we know that aggression is a natural behavior for most animals. The Royal Society for the Prevention of frames it this way: “Dogs are aggressive in response to unfolding events. Any dog has the ability to use aggression, but it is always dependent upon what they believe is happening to them. When a dog uses aggression it is almost invariably because it thinks that it is under some form of threat. For example, the threat could be to its personal safety, to take away something (or someone) it values highly, or by preventing it from doing something it really wants to do, which causes frustration. Aggression can be used to control or reduce this challenge. Theoretically every single dog, if pushed far enough, can and will use aggression (RSPCA, n.d.).” What are the physiological changes occurring when dogs resort to aggressive behavior? Think of the dog trained for dogfighting. The people who own these dogs “train their dogs in a way that the dog is very fearful, anxious, and tense about fighting. The only reason they fight is out of fear—out of fight-or-flight response (Millan, 2006).” This fight or flight response is a spike of adrenaline and norepinephrine which creates an increase in the sugar level in their blood. Combined with the oxygen in the blood, this sugar is sent to the brain, skeletal muscles, and heart. The digestive and reproductive system may be temporarily shut down during this period When the spike occurs, a snap decision is made about what path to survival is better, fight it out or run away (Dugatkin, 2009). A dog may act in a fashion that we perceive to be aggressive toward another creature, whether it is a dog, a squirrel, or a human, for a variety of reasons. Dogs have instinctual behaviors to hunt prey for food, to defend their offspring, to win a mate, to scare off a potential adversary, and to show dominance over a space, object or other being. Aggressive behavior involves complex interactions among the brain, the neurological system, and hormones. Levels of androgens are one of the known factors influencing aggressive behavior. In animals, there is a correlation between seasonal androgen levels and aggressive behavior. There is a neurobiological component to aggression, which is important to understand (Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2007). Aggressive behavior is thought to be regulated by the amygdala and the hypothalamus in the brain. Two pathways are used by hypothalamus to send signals to

22 the brainstem, the medial forebrain bundle and the dorsal longitudinal fasciculus. The axons from the lateral hypothalamus are a part of the medial forebrain bundle, which project to the ventral tegmental area in the midbrain. When the ventral tegmental area is stimulated, behaviors characteristic of predatory aggression can be elicited; stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus does the same. Conversely, when lesions occur in the ventral tegmental area it can potentially disrupt offensive aggressive behavior because its effects the ventral tegmental area which will cause the hypothalamic stimulation not to evoke aggression if the medial forebrain bundle is cut. It has been shown that the neurotransmitter serotonin could play a major role in the regulation of aggression. Serotonin, which contain neurons, are located in the raphe nuclei of the brain stem, and they ascend in the medial forebrain bundle and project to the hypothalamus and various

limbic structures involved in emotion (Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2007[MHF5]). Aggression is more than just a neurological event – it is also an important societal issue. “Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about 16 die. The rate of -related injuries is highest for children ages 5 to 9 years, and the rate decreases as children age. Almost two thirds of injuries among children ages four years and younger are to the head or neck region. Injury rates in children are significantly higher for boys than for girls (CDC, 2013).” We forget sometimes that despite the level of domestication and emotional attachment we have with dogs, they are still part of the animal kingdom. A dog does not tell you he’s about to attack or plan it out. Dogs are not born killers or born to use biting as a method of communicating aggression, fear, or displeasure. Unlike humans who kill or humans who punch people when they are mad or displeased with someone, dogs do not have the same sense of right or wrong. There is no morality for a dog; there is just the sense of survival. When a dog acts out in a way that humans perceive as aggressive, the dog is acting on its natural fight or flight instincts (Millan, 2006). “Dangerous aggression is not the cause; it’s the outcome of a dog’s serious behavioral issues. And more often than not a violent dog’s aggressive behavior has been deliberately exacerbated—or even nurtured—by the very human beings who are allegedly its caretakers (Millan, 2006).”

23 Though aggression is an issue that can appear in any breed, there are certain breeds that are associated with aggression issues, including , English Springer Spaniel, Golden , , , , Shetland Sheepdog and Siberian Husky, Australian Cattle Dog, American Cocker , West Highland Terriers, Basset Hound, Yorkshire Terrier, Beagles, Chihuahua, Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers (includes Staffordshire and American Pit Bull Terriers). The primary targets of each breed’s aggression varies greatly, some are more stranger- directed aggression others are owner-directed and others are dog-directed in their aggression (Duffy, Hsu, Serpell, 2008). According to a number of studies, aggressive behavior is more prevalent in small breeds. are frequent biters, especially biting their owners. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA, 2012) paper titled Welfare Implications of The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention states, “Based on behavioral assessments and owner surveys the breeds that were more aggressive towards people were small to medium-sized dogs such as the collies, toy breeds and spaniels (AVMA, 2012).” These same studies show that Pit Bulls have higher than normal rates of aggression in dog-on- dog situations but not toward people. This makes sense when you consider the history of the breed (Duffy, Hsu, Serpell, 2008). Studies look for patterns over a group of subjects. Of course, we must always be careful making assumptions about the individual based on these studies. The study done by Duffy, Hsu and Serpell (2008) shows that of all the dogs to bite a human or another dog, that the Dachshund is the most common culprit (Duffy, Hsu, Serpell, 2008). But does that mean every Dachshund you come across likely to bite you? Just because Duffy, Hsu and Serpell (2008) saw aggressive behavior most commonly in the Dachshund, is not a clear if the behavior is innate or the result of other factors, because the data collected in this particular study does not reflect situational information (Duffy, Hsu, Serpell, 2008). Are dachshunds more likely to be put into situations that frighten them? Perhaps because of their size this may happen more then with other breeds. Or do people who interact with Dachshunds may not fully understand what things this breed finds bothersome?

24 Whatever the cause or mechanism, there are a number of typical behavioral patterns in which dogs display their aggression: • Becoming still and rigid • Threatening barking • Lunging or charging at a target without making contact • Mouthing a person or animal to move or control him or her • “Muzzle punching” — when the dog punches with his or her nose • Growling • Showing teeth • Snarling — a combination of growling and showing teeth • Snapping the mouth • Nipping quickly without leaving a mark • Biting quickly and tearing the skin • Biting, resulting in a bruise • Biting, resulting in puncture wounds • Rapid, repeated biting • Biting and shaking (Vetstreet.com, 2011) The behavior displayed may be natural for a dog, depending on the situation – often as a means of communication. Dogs show their teeth as a warning to others (people, dogs) to stay away. Other telltale signs include the positioning of the head. A dog will stand with its head as high as possible to show dominance. This section was intended as an overview of aggression, from beginning to end. Aggression is a normal behavior in dogs in reaction to various triggers. Aggressive behavior usually targets other dogs, owners or strangers. While Pit Bulls are known to be dog-aggressive, they are not known to be human-aggressive.

25 Nature versus Nurture

“By humanizing dogs, we damage them psychologically (Millan, 2006).”

The phrase “Nature versus Nurture” has become a shorthand way to frame the influences on animal behavior. “Nature” refers to genetic predisposition. “Nurture” refers to what bearing the environment has on behavior. Both “nature” and “nurture” have imprecise definitions (Hale, 2009). Nature means more than that an animal was born with a predetermined behavior, since the environment in vitro is also a behavioral determinant. Starvation, stress, abuse of the mother can affect the offspring. The distinction between nature and nurture can be difficult to determine. And, the synergistic effects of genetic and environmental factors form a new area of study. As scientists study the interaction between genes and environmental factors, there is even less of a clear delineation. Nurture, on the other hand, was thought to include everything unrelated to the genes: if it is not nature, it is nurture. Nurture includes environmental factors before birth as well as environmental factors later. Food scarcity, overall health (viral outbreaks, ), and extreme weather – these are all in the nurture category (Diffen, 2013). Domesticated animals have another significant set of nurture influences, namely the impact of humans on their behavior. Human influence on dogs includes both positive and negative aspects of the dog’s physical environment, care and feeding, human-dog interaction. There are also a number of activities which are more accurately described as abuse, not nurture, including chaining, physical abuse, dog-fighting, neglect, and deliberately rewarding aggressive behavior (Farricelli, 2010). “Nurture” has been used to describe human behaviors and tendencies as well. Wozniak (1991) writes that “the route through childhood is shaped by many forces, and it differs for each of us. Our biological inheritance, the temperament with which we are born, the care we receive, our family relationships, the place where we grow up, the schools we attend, the culture in which we participate, and the historical period in which we live—all these affect the paths we take through childhood and condition the

26 remainder of our lives.” Understanding why humans and dogs express certain behaviors is of great importance. In regards to dogs, it is very important because behavioral problems are a primary reasons dogs are surrendered, abandoned, or euthanized. The nature verses nurture debate comes into play in our society because if a dog’s behavior is based on how it is raised and the setting in which it lives in (Nurture) then correcting a behavior problem is, at least in theory, relatively simple. Changing the way we treat a dog, what, how much, and the way we feed them, and their living arrangements could all have an impact on the dogs behavior. But if the behavior is primary linked to genetics then there is not much that can be done unless we collected every dog of every breed and, over many generations, bred out the behavioral problem. This solution seems unlikely to happen instead. People who believe that certain problems like canine aggression are genetic problems have proposed breed specific legislation including bans or mandatory spaying and neutering of the offending breed. One mark of success to them would be no new dogs of certain breeds. Conclusive proof that shows evidence on one side or the other in the nature- nurture debate is difficult to come by. When you find what you may believe to be proof of nature or nurture being the more dominant factor there is someone there to give an argument to refute your idea. Perhaps it is because there is no absolute single determining factor. For example, let’s say you had a female Pit Bull who was forced to fight other dogs and a female Labrador who was forced to fight other dogs (however rare that actually happens). Both dogs had litters … would the offspring of the Pit Bull behave any different than the Labradors? In the reverse situation … let’s say you have two baby Pit Bulls from the same litter and two baby Labradors from the same litter. One of the babies from each litter was raised in an abusive and violent situation while another was raised in a peaceful and happy situation. Would both the abused or beloved (from different breeds) be similarly affected in the development of their behavior or would the breed change how they behaviorally developed from these situations? These hypothetical situations are examples of the debate of whether a dog’s behavior is inherited or experienced – and if it is individual or determined by its breed. There is also no consensus on the impact of cross- and mixed-breeding on behavior. Studies that show which breed bites or kills the most or which breed is dog

27 aggressive and which is human-aggressive include pure breeds only. A further question is raised: if breed is a factor in behavior and a dog is mixed-breed, then which breed’s genes are more influential in that individual dog’s behavior (Perez-Guisado & Munoz-Serrano, 2009)? Animal behaviorists can apply assessments to determine an individual mixed breed dog’s temperament. Would it help them to look across hundreds of behavioral assessments and conclude that one breed (assuming the sample set was random) might be predisposed for a specific behavior – be it aggression or friendliness (Udell & Wynne, 2008). Pit Bulls – in the media and as the focus of breed specific legislation – have a reputation for aggressive behavior, manifested by biting, growling, and tackling. Because aggression from an individual dog requires another living individual to be present, aggression can be categorized as social phenomena. It can be discussed in the context of social behavior (behavior directed at another animal), or social interaction (an exchange of social behavior), social relationship (the grouping of social interactions over time) (Hahn & Wright 1998). Some researchers have proposed that since aggression in a dog requires another living target meaning it cannot be innate since it is a socially-directed behavior. Some might refute that saying that it could be innate for an individual dog to be more predisposed to act aggressively in the presence of another living being. These kinds of questions are very difficult to solve since we can only use our observations (Hahn & Wright, 1998). Yes, “innate” is a term that is used in different ways. Sometimes it refers to a stereotyped outcome that requires no learning, a behavior such as one that an animal exhibits immediately after birth with no environmental trigger or newborns rooting for and attaching to the teat. Otherwise known as a “fixed instinct.” But there are plenty of unlearned stereotyped behaviors that are responses to external events, for instance the presence of a predator or a competitor. Early ethologists like Tinbergen for example looked at the response of the male stickleback fish to a competing male. Males in this species exhibit a complex pattern of movements (which can lead to aggression) when they detect another male, and do so even when they have been raised in isolation and have no experience. This “instinctive” behavior is certainly socially-directed. Animals

28 may not be able to “speak for themselves,” but this is an empirical question – the facts of the matter in particular cases can, we hope, be determined by observation and/or experimentation.

There are certain factors free from complete gene control that, according to Lindsay (2001), are significant sources of what may be considered negative behavior on the part of a dog. These factors are biological, physiological, socially dysfunctional, the surrounding environment, deprivation, trauma, indulgence, and inappropriate play:

Biological and Physiological Factors A dog’s behavior can be the result of underlying disease processes such as ear or dental infections, hypothyroidism, or other physical conditions.

Dysfunctional Social and Environmental Influences Dogs don’t get the chance to pick their owners. A lot of behavior problems come from adjustment problems between the human-dog relationship and the dog’s adaptation to the home. Environmental stressors or, conversely, lack of stimulation can lead to behavior problems. Dogs that are raised in a situation where their environment is restricted tend to become more excitable and reactive to changes in the environment. This point my Lindsay is referring to crating or confining a dog to a small space of the house or property. Dogs are also creatures that need stimulation from many sources whether a human, another dog, or an inanimate object. Novel things and interactions are a constant need for dogs, otherwise frustration can built which leads to aggression.

Deprivation and Trauma Socialization at any early age contributes to a ’s sense of security and confidence. Lack of this interaction can cause phobic behavior. Abusive behavior causes even more damage. “Just as many children are abused with physical punishment, puppies are often subjected to brutal punitive actions by the hand of angry owners. Crushing beatings followed by long hours of isolation in the name of behavioral control are not only cruel but also totally unjustifiable. Dogs exposed to such treatment may present behavioral signs indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and learned helplessness (LH), but some dogs, even despite the most abusive treatment, are

29 extraordinarily resilient and may not show any significant signs of detriment as the result of abuse (Lindsay, 2001).” Though a dog perceives the treatment it is receiving differently than a person would, there are still signs that abuse whether verbal or physical have certain effects on the behavior of a dog.

Excessive Indulgence Dogs that are never disciplined (even assuming positive discipline) can also display problem behavior.

Inappropriate Play and Bootleg Reinforcement Many behavior problems can be traced to inappropriate play. Significant roughhousing with a puppy – excessive and aggressive chase, tug-of-war, and wrestling – can lead to problems later. Dogs, in their desire to please their owners, may end up being “trained” to participate in aggressive behavior.

As a result of these many social and environmental factors, dogs may end up with behavioral problems. In terms of aggression, these negative behaviors are generally described as aimed at other dogs, at owners or at strangers. Dog owners who seek to correct problem behavior in their often rely on . Dog training is not unlike any educational system or methodology. There are many different approaches to dog training. Classes and books offer the dog owner a myriad of options for training a dog. The overview on the website of Association of Pet Dog Trainers states that, “that training basic behaviors falls into one of, or a combination of, three categories: 1) Lure-Reward (L-R), 2) Compulsion-Praise (C-P) and 3) Marker- Training (M-T). The methods deploy lures, physical manipulation or a trigger (such as a clicker) to elicit the desired behavior and then use food treats or verbal praise for rewards. (APDT, 2013). Dog training is time-consuming and depends on consistency and patience from the pet owner to yield successful results. The idea of dogs descending from wolves has led some to conclude that they will respond to being trained and disciplined in a way that would simulate a pack-oriented social hierarchy. Dog trainer Cesar Millan (2006) promotes involving the human acting in a “pack leader” role. Millan holds the belief that dogs have retained the pack mentality

30 from their ancestors, the wolves. He believes if an owner interacts with their dog as if the owner is the alpha in a pack, the dog will respond and behave in the manner the owner desires. Acting as an alpha, according to Millan, involves projecting a calm, assertive, and confident “energy” towards the dog, insuring the dog does not find weakness in the owner and only a leader to obey and follow. The alpha, the owner, has to dominate the dog while the dog acts submissive to the owner. This training technique is heavily criticized. Ray Coppinger disagrees strongly with the domination method. Coppinger (2002) states, “Today, the popular dog press seems to feel that if dogs descended from wolves, they would have wolf qualities. But the natural selection model points out that the wolf qualities are severely modified. Dogs do not think like wolves, nor do they behave like them. Books about training dogs would have us believe that dogs get their behavior directly from wolves. We are advised to act like the pack leader, the alpha male, and treat our dogs as subordinates. Since dogs came from wolves, they say, dogs should behave like wolves, think like wolves, and respond to wolf like signals. But dogs can’t think like wolves, because they do not have wolf brains. We descended from apes, but we don’t behave like them and we don’t think like they do. We are a much different animal than apes in spite of our common genetic ancestry. The same is true of the dog and its ancestor…The biological reality of all this is that the wolf is now the distant cousin of the dog. That canid family tree split, and wolves and dogs went along their separate branches. The wolf displays specialized adaptations to domestic life. The two canid cousins are adapted to different niches, and they are very different animals because of it (Coppinger, 2002).” This difference in opinion on how we interact with our dogs between Coppinger and Millan exemplifies the debate of nature versus nurture. Millan believes that the dog still retains certain behavioral patterns from the wolf which would point towards nature. While Coppinger says the dog and the wolf are completely different know and share only a genetic history and that is it. He stresses that the dog can not be expect to share practically any behavioral qualities with the wolf. Here is the seminal question in the Pit Bull debate: is aggressive behavior in Pit Bulls a result of their genetic predisposition or the result of their environment and training? Pit Bulls, as a breed, rank somewhat higher than normal for their dog-on-dog

31 aggression but nowhere in any of the studies of breed temperament do Pit Bulls – as a breed – rank high as a breed aggressive toward humans. The culprit here is not the Pit Bull. It is the popularity of the breed with bad owners (ASPCA (2), n.d.). Cesar Millan stated that the “Pit Bull problem” is the popularity of the breed with the “wrong kind” of owner. Dogs that are raised for the purpose of fighting change from “innocent dogs” to “killers.” Owners abusing the dogs as a form of training bring on this change. The abuse includes actions such as putting hot sauce in the dog’s food, and teasing in order to toughen up the dog. The physical abuse stops when the dog acts out aggressively to get the abuse to stop. The owner, by stopping the abuse when aggression is shown, conditions the dog into thinking that acting out in aggression is desired response. Later, when the dog is no longer useful for fighting the owner will either abandon the dog or dispose of the dog. Millan cites the dumping of these aggressive dogs as a source of the influx of aggressive fighting breeds in shelters. (Millan, 2006).” Aggression can be the result of deliberate training, such as the use choke, spike or shock collars, or it can be through a systematic control of the dog to remove all positive stimulus and simultaneously emphasize the territorial nature of dogs. Gorant describes the home life of Michael Vick’s fighting dogs. The dogs are chained up, isolated from one another. They only interaction is being fed. Then they are led to rooms full of the scent of blood and the sounds of avid spectators. Their existence up to this point has been protecting their small patch of turf (Gorant, 2010). The discussion of dog training methods assumes that dog owners want compliant, sociable pets. But Millan alludes to a darker side of pet ownership, what he calls the “wrong kind” of owner. Lockwood and Rindy also discuss this problem, “The long history of selection for gameness [in the Pit Bull] has produced a characteristic fighting dog. The shorter history of breeding for pet qualities has clearly overcome many negative characters in responsibly bred animals.” They go on to say, “Most troublesome are dog owners specifically seeking a ‘mean’ dog. In their hands, any dog is likely to become a menace, a pit bull particularly so. The interest among less responsible owners and breeders in overall ‘meanness’ has affected at least the last 10 to 20 generations of dogs.” (Lockwood & Rindy, 1987).

32 Some owners may simply be ignorant of their responsibilities. “The common theme in all of the fatal and nonfatal attacks we reviewed was that the owner had not taken appropriate steps to prevent his or her animal from becoming a problem. Simply placing an animal behind a fence of on a chain is sufficiently responsible behavior, particularly in the case of a breed or individual animal inclined to attack others (Lockwood & Rindy, 1987).” While some of the literature touches on irresponsible owners and owners who deliberately train their dogs to be mean, there is scant coverage of systematic aggression training in the U.S., outside the dog fighting world. This is not true in the U.K. where so- called “weapon dogs” or “status dogs” are the subject of studies and books. An article in on the BBC website states, “The RSPCA is blaming young men for using aggressive dogs as status symbols in urban areas of and Wales. . . . In some parts of Liverpool groups of young men in hoodies hang around wearing cool designer gear, with customised cars - and a menacing new fashion accessory - a canine one.” The response of the RSPCA: The RSPCA is working with the police on the unit. … They say the key to tackling the problem is updating the Dangerous Dogs Act and being a responsible owner. They want more education for young owners when it comes to keeping their pets under control (Iqbal, 2009).” Overall, an understanding of nature versus nurture would be beneficial to where response of problems like aggressive behavior is directed. Response to aggression in dogs based on this behavior being primarily an issue of nature involves reducing the population of innately aggressive breeds. Response to aggression in dogs based on the reason for the aggression being an issue of nurture would involve programs to improve the way dogs are raised, treated, and housed. It has been estimated “that dog bites 2% of the population each year (over six million people) and ten to twenty of these bites are fatal—with the victim usually a child (Humane Society of the United States, 2007). Recently, the Minnesota Department of Health (2007) reported a 40% increase in the number of hospital treated dog bites between 1998 and 2005. According to attorney Kenneth Phillips this increase in medically treated dog bites is representative of an increase in the dog population at large, which rose 36% from 1986 to 1994 (Phillips,

33 2007). The public response to increased media reporting of dog attacks has been to label certain breeds as “bad dogs.” Malcolm Gladwell (2006) in the New Yorker likened the profiling of “dangerous dog” breeds to the racial profiling that has dominated the search for terrorists since September 11th, 2001. As with most forms of prejudice and profiling, the banning of specific breeds of dogs from municipalities (most commonly at present the Pit Bull), fails to effectively identify the environmental causes of undesired behavior so that positive behavior can be reinforced and aggressive behavior controlled with more enlightened methods. Breed profiling may lead not only to a misguided fear of well-behaved dogs identified with a “bad” breed, but may also offer a false sense of security around a dog showing warning signs of aggression just because it comes from a breed with a good reputation (Udell & Wynne, 2008).” Breed popularity combined with the “status” dog profile ramps up the statistical likelihood of a higher number of attacks by Pit Bulls. But the individual Pit Bull, properly trained, may be no more of a threat than any other dog. Both nature and nurture play a heavy role in this issue in dog aggression; whether one plays a stronger influence over the other differs for the individual dog. Research shows that “nurture,” when it is indifferent or negative, can increase aggression. Whether it is aggression or enjoyment both nature and nurture both play their own roles underlying these emotions.

34 Breed Specific Legislation

Laws that regulate or ban specific breeds of dogs are referred to as “breed- specific” legislation (BSL). The Diane Whipple incident in San Francisco sparked that city’s push for breed specific legislation. BSL has become a common way a society (on a city or state level) responds to a particularly gruesome and well-covered dog attack. The legislation usually involves an ordinance that does one or more of the following: completely bans a particular breed; restricts the breeding and ownership of a particular breed; or at the very least requires the owner of a particular breed to comply with certain guidelines like spaying and neutering. The American Pit Bull Terrier is the most common target of laws. (Stop BSL n.d.). The discussion will focus on: • the types of legislation and the various approaches taken by jurisdictions to implementing legislation • the outcomes of legislation on the intended consequence, a reduction in the number of assaults by Pit Bulls, and the unintended consequences of the legislation, for example, high rates of surrender and euthanasia. Some jurisdictions have repealed their legislations or broadened it to cover aggression by all dog breeds. Four jurisdictions, three major cities – Denver, Cincinnati, Miami – and the state of Maryland illuminate the myriad of issues surrounding BSL (Sherrill, 2010). There are two types of legislation mostly commonly enacted. Dangerous dogs laws (so-called first-bite laws) require a complaint against a dog, either by a member of the public, animal control, or law enforcement. Each jurisdiction lays out the steps that need to be taken and provides the dog owner with opportunities to contest the findings. Although court challenges have been mounted against dangerous dog legislation, the courts have generally upheld such laws. The legal argument was that the state has a right to legislate certain aspects of dog ownership as found by the Supreme Court in Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R.R.: “Even if it were assumed that dogs were property in the fullest sense of the word, they would still be subject to the police power of the State, and

35 might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens.” The second type of legislation is breed-specific legislation. These laws do not require prior bad acts. These laws vary from outright bans (as in Denver) to specific restrictions for Pit Bull owners that do not apply to owners of other breeds (Hussain, 2006).

Breed-Specific Bans Denver’s anti-Pit Bull laws are very strict and, more importantly, they are strictly enforced. In 1986, a 3-year-old child, left unattended, was killed by a Pit Bull when the child wandered from his home and went to the property where the dog, a Pit Bull, was chained up. This incident prompted a general outcry, resulting in the Pit Bull Ban in Denver (Delise, 2007). The owner of this particular dog was on probation from a previous incident when one of his dogs bit an 8-year-old child causing severe injuries. He continued to own aggressive dogs and chain them outdoors where contact with people was possible. No existing laws were used to remove the dogs from his home (Delise, 2007). Rather than enhance dangerous dog laws or step up enforcement, in 1989 the City of Denver enacted Sec. 8-55 of their municipal code that states: “Pit Bulls prohibited. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any Pit Bull. . . . If the dog is found to be a Pit Bull, it shall be destroyed, unless the owner produces evidence deemed sufficient by the manager that the Pit Bull is to be permanently taken out of Denver and the owner pays the cost of impoundment. If the dog is found not to be a Pit Bull, the dog shall be released to the owner (City of Denver).” The dogs targeted by this ordinance, according to the city council, are part of the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier grouping. Any dog that displays most of the physical characteristics of these breeds – those distinguishing characteristics per the breed standards of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club could be impounded (Delise, 2007). Many breeds that look so similar to the above mentioned breeds could be impounded and destroyed. Looks alone

36 are not a good indicator of breed with dogs. The city government ordered Denver Animal Control to seize and catch all Pit Bulls discovered in the city limits of Denver and then they were to be euthanized. If the owner could prove, in a 7-day period, that the dog is not a Pit Bull or that there is a third- party person living outside the city limits who could take custody of the dog, the city would return the dog. Records are not readily available so it is difficult to tell if these options are always made clear to the dog owner. The ordinance did not start being strictly enforced until 2004 when the Denver court decided that home rule (Denver local law) could trump the Colorado state law that prevented breed specific legislation. Afterwards in 2005, animal control started rounding up Pit Bulls. They rounded up about 1,900 dogs thought to be predominately Pit Bull and euthanized about 1,453. This ordinance has been challenged multiple times in court but all attempts to have it overturned have failed (Sherrill, 2010). The Denver ban was enacted after the Denver’s City Attorney made the case that there was absolute proof that the behavior and physical characteristics of the Pit Bull making it an innately dangerous breed. Then, in 2004, Colorado outlawed breed-specific bans. In 2005, Denver went to court to reinstate their ban. In hearings defending the ban on Pit Bulls, Denver presented 15 reasons or “evidence” explaining that, as a group, Pit Bulls are different than other breeds of dogs. The trial court, while not believing all of Denver’s 15 claims about the “dangerousness” of Pit Bulls, did find “evidence” to support the following claims (Italics indicates a direct quote of the trial court’s findings (Delise, 2007): 1. Biting “The court finds no scientific evidence proving that the biting power of Pit Bull dogs exceeds that of other dogs. However, the City did prove that they inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit Bull attacks were compared to shark attacks.” 2. Destructiveness “The Court finds that some Pit Bull type dogs, due to their strength and athletic ability, can damage facilities and equipment. There is a disproportionate number

37 of attacks by chained Pit Bull dogs which is indicative of their strength.” 3. Fighting Ability and Killing Instinct “Importantly, there was no evidence that any AKC registered American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any UKC registered American Pit Bull Terrier was involved in any severe or fatal attack. Nevertheless, the City did prove that unregistered Pit Bull type dogs were responsible for a disproportionate number of severe or fatal attacks on other dogs and human beings. Credible testimony also proved that, when a Pit Bull dog begins to fight, it often will not retreat.” 4. Frenzy “Many aggressive and vicious dogs can become uncontrollable when excited or challenged. No credible evidence proved that Pit Bull dogs were more likely to enter a frenzied state than other dogs. However, the evidence proved that once Pit Bull type dogs do attack, they are less likely to retreat than other dogs.” 5. Manageability “American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and their mixed breeds can make excellent, gentle pets. Nevertheless, credible testimony proved that proper handling, including early socialization to humans, is very important for these dogs. Even their most ardent admirers agree that these dogs are not for everyone and they require special attention and discipline. The Lockwood study reported that 13.3 percent of Pit Bull type dogs attacked their owners as compared with 2.2 percent of other dogs.” 6. Strength “Pit Bull dogs are stronger than many other dogs. The evidence showed that 42.7 percent of the Pit Bull type dogs attacked while restrained (Defendants’ Exhibit CC and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 50).” 7. Unpredictability “The evidence showed that most dog attacks (by all breeds) are unprovoked. However, Pit Bull dogs, unlike other dogs, often give no warning signals before they attack.”

38 While Pit Bull owners have challenged these ordinances in court, there have also been numerous scientific studies refuting many of Denver’s underlying claims. For example, claims about the power of the Pit Bull bite have been refuted. Lockwood, who is cited by the Denver findings, says, “multiplicity of interacting factors in dog bite makes it difficult and often meaningless to base predictions of a particular animal's aggressive behavior on a single characteristic, such as breed” (Lockwood 1995). Opponents to the ban do not believe dog owners should not be held liable, just that Pit Pulls should not be singled out (“Punish the Deed, Not the Breed”).

(channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/epi 1

The legislative hearings on the Pit Bull ban – both at the time of the initial legislation and during various court challenges, often rest on emotional testimony from victims and from “expert witnesses” who claim the breed is the more aggressive than other breeds. For example, one medical witness presented information from an article printed in the Texas Medicine report that stated that “Fourteen of the 20 recorded fatal dog attacks on people between October, 1983, and November, 1986, were from Pit Bulls

39 or Pit Bull mixes. During the one year period between June 1986 and June 1987, 14 people were killed by dogs in the United States; ten of those 14 deaths are attributed to Pit Bulls. Thus, 71 percent of the deaths during that period were attributed to a type of dog that accounts for one percent of the dog population (Delise 2007).” However, according to Delise’s research, from October 1983 to November 1986, there were actually 48 people killed by dogs in the United States. She points out that of the 28 deaths that were not included in the Denver report, 24 of them were attacks by breeds other than Pit Bulls (Delise 2007). Delise’s last point in regards to the evidence presented by the Denver City Council concerns the statement that Pit Bulls attack in a way similar to a shark. She points out that the Denver City Council used a Sports Illustrated article as evidence in a court case that would enact an ordinance that would affect thousands. The only time the article (“The Pit Bull: Friend and Killer” Sports Illustrated) references Pit Bulls being compared to a shark attack is a Humane Society field officer stating, “A Pit Bull attack is like a shark attack. He keeps coming back” (Delise, 2007). Another possible source of the Pit Bull as Shark is a casual reference to bite force in an article about dog bite wounds (Callaham, 1980), an article quoted by the pro-BSL expert witness in Denver. The City Council of Denver presented evidence from “Are ‘Pit Bulls’ Different? An Analysis of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy” by Lockwood and Rindy (1987) in support of the need for proper owner responsibility with the quote, “even their most ardent admirers agree that these dogs are not for everyone and they require special attention and discipline.” Lockwood and Rindy’s article does provide the statement for a higher rate of owner attacks by Pit Bulls and indicates that the bite pattern for Pit Bulls can cause more severe wounds. However, the paper does not support breed-specific legislation and Lockwood attended the hearings as an opponent of the legislation. He and Rindy advocate this approach: • Strengthen and enforce laws against dog fighting to eliminate the “macho” image of this activity. • Introduce and enforce strong animal control laws to identify problem animals and owners before tragedy strikes.

40 • Introduce programs to educate the public about responsible ownerships and the problems of dog bite (Lockwood & Rindy, 1987) While there have been efforts to overturn the Pit Bull ban in Denver, elected officials in Denver are reluctant to do so. Recent Denver hearings (video available at City of Denver, City Council, 2010) to allow an exception for Pit Bull service dogs (brought forth on behalf of a Veteran who has a Pit Bull service dog) continue with the negative claims about Pit Bull behavior (Greenwood, 2011). The ordinance was not passed. Some of the points brought forth during the hearing are valid – for example, how does the public know if a service dog has been properly trained and will not be violent. The testimony by council members indicates they are acting out of self-interest, pointing out that they would feel terrible (and responsible) if a Pit Bull service dog attacked someone. What they don’t say is how they would feel if a service dog of a different breed bit or attacked someone. The other two cities in the United States with well-publicized bans on Pit Bulls are Cincinnati and Miami. Though the Cincinnati ban is supposed to be enforced by the Vicious Dog Task Force (police and animal control) who are tasked with picking up any dog believed to be a Pit Bull in the city, the ban is more of a complaint-driven ban. If you are willing to register as a vicious dog owner with the Cincinnati police department it is legal to possess a Pit Bull. In Cincinnati since 2003, 400 Pit Bulls have been euthanized, costing Cincinnati about $500,000 for the capture, euthanization and disposal of these dogs (Sherrill, 2010). In May 2012, this ban has been changed cover all dangerous dogs and is no longer breed-specific. The Miami (Dade County) ban, is another complaint-driven ban. “The countywide ordinance – if it withstands promised court challenges – will pen, muzzle, and eventually ban [Pit Bulls] in Dade County. It also required owners to show proof of $300,000 in dog-attack liability (Miami Herald - April 5, 1989). Animal Control in this region from 2005-2009, about 4,000 Pit Bulls went into animal shelters and 2,019 of them were euthanized (Sherrill, 2010). In addition to Denver, hundreds of counties, cities and towns have breed-specific legislation. Some are outright bans and others are more stringent regulations singling out Pit Bulls. Twelve states have passed laws prohibiting the passage of BSL by local

41 governments: Florida and Pennsylvania (although bills are currently pending to repeal this prohibition in both states), California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Note that Denver has been ruled exempt from the Colorado prohibition of BSL.

Non-Ban Legislation The Denver case study is being presented because in the entire United States, Denver’s laws are the harshest and they enforce their law very diligently. Maryland is a state where the debate is just starting to heat up. In 2007, there was an incident where a child was mauled by a Pit Bull in Maryland. The family sought compensation for medical expenses from the dog owner. The owner of the dog was bankrupt so the father of the child went after the landlord. The Maryland Court of Appeals, in Tracey v. Solesky wrote “a pit bull or any dog with pit bull ancestry shall be deemed hence forth vicious and inherently dangerous as a matter of law.” This case spawned a house bill (HB 53) that did two things: it defined Pit Bulls as being inherently dangerous and it also made landlords responsible for the dogs that their renters owned (Bauermeister, 2011). It does not ban Pit Bulls. Don Bauermeister the attorney for Dogsbite.org authored an Amicus Brief supporting Solesky in the original court case and went on to present the Dogsbite.org position during legislative hearings, including those for HB 53. His first argument was that any average person could identify a dog to be a member of the American Pit Bull terrier breed because of the broad media coverage (Bauermeister 2011). Bauermeister used studies to bolster his points about Pit Bulls by citing Lockwood who, even though he was against BSL, had written, “Dogs from fighting lineages have been under selective pressures that suppress or eliminate accurate communication of aggressive motivation or intent. It is to a fighting dog’s advantage for its attack to be unexpected. Many accounts of such attacks on people note that the incident occurred ‘without warning’.” Bauermeister extrapolates from Lockwood’s statement that fighting dogs includes Pit Bulls and the remedy should be breed-specific legislation. Bauermeister stresses that Lockwood used to be the “ASPCA’s own expert” and that Lockwood “has confirmed that the optimal fighting dog – the Pit Bull has a built-in selected increased tendency to attack without such normal clues as growling, or raising its hackles, or baring its teeth – all

42 which would leave young children, the infirm or weak elderly, or even adults subject to the inability to predict an imminent attack so as to take a last ditch effort to protect themselves. As such, Pit Bulls are more dangerous because of this increased potential for surprise attacks (Bauermeister, 2011).” Another argument put forth by Dogbite.org (Bauermeister is their attorney), is their own research of the amount of dog-related deaths have occurred from 2005 to present. They found in the United States from January 2005 to 2010, 182 people in the United States died as a result of an attack by a dog. During this period Dog Bite.org found that of the 182 people killed that Pit Bulls were involved in 105 of those cases or about 58% of all deaths (Bauermeister, 2011). There are no official guidelines as to the breed determination, which are listing as “Pit Bull” and “Pit Bull mix.” During the current legislative session, Maryland has entertained a number of bills to remove “Pit Bull” from the wording of the current regulations, thus making any breed a potential dangerous dog. Various follow-up measures have attempted to force insurers to continue to provide coverage. There have also been attempts to remove the strict liability of the current laws to a presumption clause to allow owners to present evidence in their defense.

Challenges of BSL One of the major problems with the enforcement of BSL (as opposed to Dangerous Dog laws) is the difficulty identifying a Pit Bull. Despite Bauermeister’s assertion that anyone can recognize a Pit Bull, that has not been shown to be the case. In a study by Scott Dowd Ph.D., Matrix Canine Research Institute, presented in the documentary Beyond the Myth, over 600 people were asked to correctly identify a pure bred American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). Among those were 100 canine professionals. -30% misidentified an adult boxer -63% misidentified an Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog -45% misidentified a Mastiff -44% misidentified a Presa Canario Only 2%, of those surveyed, correctly identified the APBT without also incorrectly identifying other breeds. (Sherrill, 2010)

43 Instances of mixed breed dogs, boxers and other non-Pit Bulls being held by Animal Control have surfaced. People have had to surrender their pets or move away from BSL jurisdictions. Complaint-driven legislative approaches make it the responsibility of a citizen or untrained officer to properly identify a Pit Bull. One goal of the Breed-Specific legislation is to reduce dog bites. Statistics show that dog bites have been reduced in Denver, Baltimore and other jurisdictions with BSL. However, they are also reduced nationwide. While there is no one organization aggregating dog bite statistics, the National Canine Research Council provides this chart:

National Canine Research Council, 2011 Of the cities shown in the graphic, only Baltimore has Pit Bull legislation. The other cities have reduced dog bites by similar percentages. New York, for example reduced dog bites over 90%. From 1971 to 2007, Denver’s overall reduction in dog bites was 85%. These statistics make it difficult to point to BSL as the major success factor in reducing dog bites. In addition to the government and the dog owners, there is another interested party in the legislative landscape – insurance companies. In 2011, insurance companies

44 paid out $478,900,000 in dog bite claims (Insurance Information Institute, 2012). Some insurers have capped the amount they will pay out for claims and, according to a recent news report, Farmers Insurance has quit underwriting coverage on Pit Bulls, , and wolf hybrids (Doan, 2013). Landlords often require tenants to show proof of insurance coverage as part of a rental agreement clause on pet ownership. Another unintended consequence of breed-specific legislation is over-crowding at animal shelters and high euthanization rates. “Approximately 5 million to 7 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year, and approximately 3 million to 4 million are euthanized (60 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats) (ASPCA, 2013). Certainly, BSL is not the only cause of the high number of Pit Bulls at shelters. Low spay/neuter rates, owners without the financial means for spay/neutering or continued pet care, and breed popularity account for over-population that then yields higher surrender rates. Animal People reports, “As of 2011, pit bulls accounted for 30% of the dogs admitted to U.S. animal shelters and 60% of the dogs killed. These numbers remain almost unchanged. Between July 2011 and July 2012, Animal People found, pit bull admissions to U.S. shelters decreased as a percentage of incoming dogs by about three- tenths of 1%. Pit bulls continued to be about 60% of the dogs that were killed–and 29% of total shelter killing, counting both dogs and cats. The total number of pit bulls killed in U.S. animal shelters fell from 930,000 to 888,000, but that 5% drop was much less than the 16% reduction in shelter killing achieved for all other dogs and cats. (Animal People, 2012) Many public policy experts disagree with BSL. One reason, previously covered, is the difficulty of accurately identifying if a dog is a Pit Bull. There is also a prevailing opinion that a better policy is to establish legislation that covers the control of and responsibility for all aggressive dogs. Jeffrey Sacks, in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report), says, “The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn’t work for several reasons: • There are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog’s breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best.

45 • Fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy. • Non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.” (Sacks, 2000) The report goes on to analyze the unintended consequences of BSL, namely an increase in the popularity of the aggressive breeds: • “Banning one breed just creates demand for a new “killer” dog

o Two decades ago, Pit Bull types and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern.. . . Unfortunately, the “problem dog” at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable. • Breed bans create new problems

o Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Furthermore, animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.” (Sacks, 2000) Many jurisdictions have decided to rescind breed specific legislation or to broaden legislation to cover all dogs. For example, recent efforts in Maryland attempt to broaden the regulations to include any dog and move from strict liability to a presumption, that is, it must be proved that the owners had reason to know a dog was dangerous (based on behavior not breed). On the other side of the debate, the jurisdictions that support BSL have hewed to

46 the arguments put forth by dogsbite.org (Dogsbite.org, n.d.). Though they are supportive of enforcing rules that deal with aggressive dogs of all breeds, they argue that BSL is a preemptive approach, designed to remove the perpetrators (Pit Bulls) of the most heinous acts. They point out, “An often-voiced tactic by those who oppose bans is that the law will seize and kill all dogs of a given breed. This is untrue. Nearly all bans allow existing dogs to remain with their owners. The goal of a ban is to eliminate ‘future’ breeding and dramatically reduce the number of dangerous dogs within a community. This is why in the instance of a Pit Bull ban, existing Pit Bulls must be altered [neutered] once the ban becomes law (Dogsbite.com n.d.).” Malcolm Gladwell describes the rush to judgment this way: “The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn’t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with Pit Bulls, it’s not necessarily a sign that Pit Bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that Pit Bulls have become more numerous (Gladwell, 2006).” Breed Specific Legislation is a simplistic approach to a complex societal problem. While it might reduce the number of dog attacks in one jurisdiction, over time a different breed will become dominant for attacks. And, as shown by statistics, dog bites have been reduced everywhere, not just in places with BSL. Enforcement of existing dangerous dog laws, owner education, and more programs with reduced cost spaying and neutering would better serve the public.

47 The Court of Public Opinion

The average person could talk about North Korea’s nuclear program or the civil war in Syria but, unless they work for a government agency involved in those issues or are an expert in the field, are you going to fully trust what they say on the issue? Today’s 24/7 media culture has made many people think their opinions on a subject are as important as anyone else’s. The same is true with media coverage of Pit Bulls – almost everyone has seen a Pit Bull and/or knows someone who owns a Pit Bull or Pit Bull mix. It is an issue that the average person feels more connected to unlike the many other issues talked about on the news or socially. This makes it something that everyone feels they can offer their opinion about and feel that they can accurately identify a Pit Bull and get involved in the debate of whether they should be banned or not. When researching this issue, it is discussed in published journal articles, newspaper articles, TV news reports, TV shows, books, and websites dedicated to the issue that are run by organizations and individuals. Often that media coverage is skewed to be sensational since many viewers are lured by sensational or gruesome news. Sensationalism is the name of the game for most newspapers and television networks and many no longer do all their own reporting, relying on news services, like the A.P. or Reuters. A televised or printed news organization is most likely to focus most of their air time or front pages on what will garner the most viewers and readers. Searching recent headlines of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC the most viewed new stories are about: two high school students in Ohio being charged with rape; a huge brawl on a train resulting in 16 passengers being ejected; Air Force trainer raping trainees, a man on parole killing a mother and raping a 10 year old girl; and a boy shooting himself and blaming ninjas for it (FoxNews.com, CNN.com, and MSNBC.com, n.d.). These are some of the front page and also most viewed articles on the news media websites. Counting the “views” on a particular page – the number of people who click through to a particular story – is frequently a way future coverage is determined; lots of clicks, lots of coverage. Dog attacks are no exception to sensationalism in the media. When a dog kills someone, it is often reported across the country because it is more rare news than most

48 deaths. A few dozen people die every year from dog attacks, whereas in 2011, 14,000 people died from homicide (Tucker, 2009). “Severe incidents involving dogs are exceedingly rare. Each year, our nation records one dog bite-related fatality for every 10- 12 million of us. That works out to 25-30 fatalities, out of a total of 2.5 million deaths. More Americans die in their swimming pools than are killed by dogs” (NCRC, n.d.). Most people do not have first-hand knowledge of aggressive acts committed by Pit Bulls. Awareness of the issue is from media coverage and the media can choose what they want to report on and how they present the issues. According to the National Canine Research Council, in August of 2007, a Labrador Mix attacked a 70 year-old man; it was reported by one local newspaper. In the same month an unknown mixed breed dog fatally wounded a 16 month-old child; this was reported twice by local news. In that same month, a 6 year-old boy was hospitalized after being attacked by a mixed breed, a local newspaper reported this incident once. In a fourth incident that month, a 59 year-old woman was attacked by two Pit Bulls. Over 230 articles appeared in local, national and international news agencies and story was televised on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX (NCRC, n.d.). Why was the Pit Bull incident more highly reported then the other attacks? And why did not of these articles cite evidence-based reports on breed temperament? According to The Independent Data Collection Center, at least 92% of Americans believe that the media portrays Pit Bulls negatively. This then contributes to the statistic that 60% of Americans believe their negative opinions of Pit Bulls were as a result of what they were informed about by the media. According to Newslibrary.com, Nicholas Faibish, a boy killed by a Pit Bull, had 85% more news coverage about the incident than the death of Kate-Lynn Logel, who was killed by two malamutes (Sherrill, 2010). Take a look at these news headlines: Mother is accused of neglect in dog attack – Tulsa World (Tulsa, OK) August 5, 2008 (dog responsible Black Lab) Woman badly injured in dog attack – Hernando Today (Brooksville, FL) April 29, 2008 (dog responsible cocker spaniel) Family Dog kills 2-122k old Mesa Girl - Tribune March 6, 2009 (dog responsible Chow) Pit Bull Attacks Kills Puppy at park – The Post and Courier, March 10, 2009

49 Pit Bull Killed after attacking residents – Culpeper Star Exponent, February 10, 2009 Two kids injured in Pit Bull attack - Daily News January 2, 2009 (Sherrill, 2010) Over 65% of news articles about a Pit Bull attacking someone put “Pit Bull” in the headline. But, according to Newslibrary.com, only 8% of news articles covering a dog attack by another breed reported the breed type in the headline (Sherrill, 2010). Of course, whether the media reports these attacks or not, does not change the fact that they happened. There is no intent to diminish the suffering of the individual victims. The underlying issue of safety or the prevention of dog attacks is seldom even discussed. Again, had there been enforcement of existing laws, many of these attacks would not have occurred. Delise makes a good point that until we are can do what is needed to actually punish people who pit dogs against each other and people who abuse animals we will never successfully reduce aggressive dogs (Delise, 2007). The actual effect of media sensationalism is exemplified by a Center of Disease Control commonly cited report titled ‘Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.’ This report says, “Our search strategy involved scanning the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words and word combinations likely to represent human DBRF followed by a review of articles containing those terms (Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, Lockwood, 2000).” It is troubling that a government report would rely so heavily on media coverage – which has the potential of being biased. In a circular fashion, supporters of BSL cite this report, which, in turn, cites sensationalized media coverage. The focus on dog attacks in the media came to a climax in the late 80s and has tapered off gradually. However, as alternate media sites are constantly being built, the number of hits when searching in Google, is ever expanding. When I searched Google news for dog attack these were the first four articles that came up: • 2 Dogs Attack Two Women And Fireman In Houston, 19 Dog Bites In 1 Week, • Woman in Critical Condition After Dog Attack Pit Bulls Maul Owner • Animal Control Investigates Dog Attack, and • Dog Attack Sparks Concern. (Google.com, n.d.)

50 The first article is about a boxer and a lab that attacked a woman and a man. These dogs were scared off by police and were placed under a 10-day quarantine to make sure they did not have rabies. The second article comes with a TV news report clip explaining what happened: her three unaltered dogs, protecting a litter of puppies, severely attacked her. The third article is about a woman who was attacked by two dogs at night and, the article identifies one of the dogs as Pit Bull based on her statement with no other confirmation. The last article is about a dog that escaped a house and ran across the street to attack a young girl with the whole incident caught on tape. They identified the dog as a Pit Bull but it is not clear if it was the people involved that identified it or if they did it based on the video. The last two articles had preview pictures before clicking on the links; both of them were pictures of vicious-looking Pit Bull type dogs though there are no photos of the dogs that were actually involved (Delise, 2007). Prior to the interest and cable news explosion, there were three articles in well- known magazines that framed the issue in the late 1980s. Each article was negative on the breed. They were: • “A Boy and his Dog in Hell,” by Mike Sager of Rolling Stone in July 2, 1987 • “Beware of This Dog,” by E.M. Swift of Sports Illustrated in July 27, 1987 • “Time Bomb on Legs,” by David Brand Time in July 27, 1987. These three widely distributed articles went into very descriptive detail portraying Pit Bulls as horrific. For instance Mike Sager wrote, “Pit Bulls, however, rarely bark or growl. They will attack without provocation. The gamest of them will fight for hours, until complete exhaustion or death. They wrestle with muscular front legs, lock on an opponent with sharp teeth and powerful jaws. They crush bones, puncture flesh, and tear it free from the skeleton. If a dog shows his belly to a game pit, the pit will disembowel it (Sager, 1987).” Swift from Sports Illustrated in her article encompassing the whole issue of Pit Bulls said “But the hysteria, or concern, is understandable. To the untrained eye— or even to the trained one, in many instances—it is virtually impossible to tell a docile Pit Bull from a mean one. None of them looks like a wimp, and a friendly Pit Bull jumping up to lick you to death have an eerie resemblance to a Pit Bull jumping up to rip out your throat. Your best bet is to pass a fast judgment on its owner (Swift, 1987).” Brand from Time said, “Fire burst from its open mouth, its eyes glowed with a smoldering glare, its

51 muzzle and hackles and dewlap were outlined in flickering flame. Never in the delirious dream of a disordered brain could anything more savage, more appalling, more hellish, be conceived than that dark form and savage face (Brand, 1987).” Such inflammatory writing may have set the stage for the Colorado legislation and other early BSL. Recently, Pit Bulls have been getting some positive coverage. For example, the article, Hero Pit Bull Rushes to Rescue Humans and Dogs from Burning Home (Zimmerman, 2013) credits the pet dog, a Pit Bull, with saving a family from a house fire. There is also a new trend of TV shows about Pit Bulls; Pit Bulls and Parolees and Pit Boss have become very popular TV shows. Both these shows attempt to show Pit Bulls in the most positive light possible. However, the Pit Bull owners are often people who are, to some extent, marginalized within societies – parolees for example (Animal Planet, n.d). Unlike the much of the news media, published books are much more balanced. Some of the books are general dog behavior books where specific mention might be made of Pit Bulls. The books with in-depth coverage of the Pit Bulls mostly focused on how Pit Bulls are a misunderstood breed. The Lost Dogs by Jim Gorant shows a very balanced view of the Pit Bull issue. Gorant, an author for Sports Illustrated, wrote an article about the Michael Vick dog-fighting ring. After that experience, he felt that he needed to write a whole book about this incident. This book actually focuses on the mostly happy story of the dogs taken from Michael Vick’s property (Gorant, 2011). Pit Bulls starting getting media coverage in the late 1980s but what happened with Michael Vick in 2007 brought on a surge of renewed interest in the issue of Pit Bulls and dog fighting. It brought national attention to these issues in a new way. Due to the manner in which Vick got rid of unwanted dogs, a lot of attention was spent discussing how we raise our dogs and dog abuse. Though a lot of attention was focused on Pit Bulls and their connection with dog fighting, a lot of time was spent talking about how these dogs, trained to be fighters, were turned around and became loving pets who would go on to be adopted by loving families. (Gorant, 2011) People from all walks of life weigh in on the issue of Pit Bulls. News journalists, average people who are interviewed or blog about it, politicians, authors, and researchers – they all have their own views of this issue. But it is fair to say that others influence

52 them all to some degree. It is how human society works – we collectively share ideas and beliefs so readily. It’s an issue with no single starting point and no single conclusion. Why is it important about how and why the media reports about dog attacks? It is important because the media influences many Americans. If we allow the media to be the only way we are informed about the world around us we are giving up on core principles of our society.

53 Best Practices I want to take this time to present what I think would be the best practices to fixing the issues that Pit Bulls face in our society.

Enforce Existing Laws Almost every jurisdiction has laws governing the responsibilities of pet owners. Leash laws, mandatory rabies vaccinations, liability for the results of destructive or aggressive actions – these laws are already on the books and should be enforced whenever they are violated. Files or other penalties should increase for repeat offender pet owners. Animals should be removed from negligent or violent home situations. As the Humane Society suggests, “comprehensive ‘dog bite’ legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet-keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed (Humane Society of the United States).” In addition to enforcing laws aimed at owners of companion pets, there needs to be swift and severe judgment against people engaged in dog fighting and animal abuse. The laws relating to these crimes – there are felony laws on the books in all 50 states – need to be strictly enforced. Even if cities or states ban Pit Bulls, would dog fighters stop fighting dogs? They are already engaging in illegal activity why would a ban on using a certain breed stop them? Legislation related to reducing dog attacks should be focused more on where the dogs came from (abusive household or dog fighting) then the breed. I personally believe that nurture matters more then nature. Even if genetics play a role in behavior, it is the learned environment that I believe will have a greater effect on a dog’s behavior. That is why laws relating to how dogs are handled and treated may be more effective than banning a breed. The raids, often prompted by investigations by the Humane Society and other non-profits, should be a higher priority for law enforcement. Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States, said “dog fighting operations typically are not small acts of animal cruelty, but part of organized criminal networks.” Animal advocates welcome laws that enforce owner responsibility for any – as opposed to breed specific legislation –. Owning a pet carries responsibilities (Humane Society of the United States 2013).

54 Promote and Fund Spay/Neuter Efforts The Humane Society initiated an outreach program to combat dog fighting and “status” dogs in inner city neighborhoods. Interestingly, they encountered resistance when they approached only Pit Bull owners. In their report Pets for Life, A New Community Understanding, they write:

Why Breed Specific Focus Can Be Counterproductive In most of our communities of focus, there is a predominance of pit bull type dogs, and there can be a temptation to offer events that are specific to these dogs only. When we use a comprehensive approach and the events are open to the entire community, we actually end up providing services to a higher number of pit bull type dogs than when we target pit bulls exclusively. Holding the ‘breed specific’ events not only misses a huge number of other pets and people in the neighborhoods who would benefit from the services, but we also end up serving fewer pit bulls. Since pit bull type dogs are oftentimes the most popular pets in the neighborhoods where we work, a well-planned and marketed event will inevitably bring out a high percentage of this type of dog. Many pit bull owners have expressed a level of distrust and feel negatively targeted when exclusive events are held, while the open events are much more welcoming. (The Humane Society of the United States)

Pets for Life provide an excellent model for improving pet owner responsibility with the result of increased spay/neuter rates and overall health care. Increased rates of spay/neutering are especially important for a number of reasons. The ASPCA points out that: • More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. • An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. • A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog that is not chained or tethered.

55 Spaying and neutering also alleviate over-population. For Pit Bulls, their popularity has led to over-breeding, often with the goal of short-term financial gain. However, shelters report record numbers of Pit Bulls being surrendered and, often, euthanized.

Figure 1: ASPCA

Education Promoting proper pet care, spay/neuter efforts, and community-oriented animal control requires education. Outreach efforts in the form of brochures, public service materials, animal shelter websites and classes all emphasize the importance of proper training and discipline, reporting of aggressive or biting dogs, cooperation with animal control, and spaying/neutering. Programs such as Pets for Life mentioned earlier go to lower income communities where many pet owners cannot afford spaying, neutering and dog training. At present, this program is only in a few large cities. Given the cost of dog bites, enforcing breed- specific legislation, and maintaining animal shelters, outreach education efforts may be more cost-effective than trying to deal with the problems that occur. Special efforts must be made to reach out to owners of “status dogs” to eliminate antisocial behavior and reinforce the positive aspects of the dog-human bond.

56 Media Watch Many organizations fighting stereotyping of various forms have been successful in changing public opinion through vigilant “media watch” programs. If newspapers and television programs received well-documented information from reputable sources each time they showed a stock photograph of a Pit Bull when they were reporting on a dog attack they might reduce their sensationalistic reporting. State Humane Societies, lawyers and other dispassionate advocates often make the best spokespeople for the cause. These are the solutions I believe would help to make Pit Bulls in our society a more positive situation then it is now. There is a long way to go for public opinion to change as well as the opinion of lawmakers, politicians, animal control, certain private and groups. But I hope one day it will be general knowledge that Pit Bulls can be very nice, sweet, and loyal dogs and not all of them will ever act aggressively.

57 Conclusion

We come to the conclusion of this research work. The question was posed: What are the challenges of accepting Pit Bulls into out society? Are Pit Bulls more aggressive than other dogs? And, if they are more aggressive, is it their nature or some unique aspect of their nurture that makes them aggressive? While I have done my best to avoid giving my own opinions, they may have come out here and there and also in the way I worded certain points. Writers who demonize Pit Bulls and support breed-specific legislation rely on statistics and media attention. Their statistical evidence is flawed – yes, Pit Bulls can be aggressive but, according to breed temperament profiles, Pit Bulls are more likely to be dog-aggressive, not person-aggressive. And the statistics are easily skewed because of the popularity of the breed. The media attention is an area where negativity sells. As shown in studies of media coverage, any event involving a Pit Bull gets significantly more coverage than when another breed is involved. Media coverage sensationalizes each dog-bites-man event, especially when the perpetrator is a Pit Bull. Stock photo images of snarling Pit Bulls leap out from newscasts and websites. Coverage of dog fighting, an act of animal cruelty, show murdered Pit Bulls who, ironically, were not vicious enough. In terms of bite statistics, more Pit Bulls means more opportunity for Pit Bull bites. After all, German Shepherds and Rottweilers had their own decades of negative publicity. It is unlikely that their incidence of biting has diminished. More likely, they are less popular and the media is supplying less coverage. Pit Bulls are linked to aggressive behavior because there are more Pit Bulls and the media has created a highly polarizing profile. Furthermore, unneutered dogs are more likely to be aggressive and Pit Bull owners often have limited financial resources. And, unfortunately, there are some Pit Bull owners who use their dogs as weapons and have embraced the negative stereotype. The problems of the Pit Bull breed are rooted in societal problems, not in their genes. The solutions need to be embraced by the public and private sector, the media and dog owners.

58 Appendix: Survey of Dog Surrenders and Outcomes April 2012 Summary of Findings: Total Assessment Forms: 67 Percent Pit Bulls and Pit Bulls Mixes: 49.25% Percent Not Neutered: 56.71% Percent Euthanized: 91% Breed Age Sex Spayed or Reason given for Result of Assessment Neutered surrender Assessment Pit Bull 1y F Y Unknown EU Growling at people Pit Bull 3m F N Housing situation EU Growling and biting

Pit Bull 3y F Y Housing situation EU Bite history and poor assessment behavior

Pit Bull 4m F Y Housing situation EU Dog and stranger aggression

Pit Bull 1y M N Housing situation EU Growls at strangers

Pit Bull 6y M N Housing situation EU Poor assessment behavior

Pit Bull 2y M N Unknown EU Snapping at person

Pit Bull 2y M N Unknown EU Aggression Pit Bull mix 3y M N Housing situation EU Human aggression

Pit Bull mix 7y M Y Owner died EU Food/bone and dog aggression Pit Bull mix 1y M Y Housing Situation EU Growling and clawing Pit Bull mix 4y M Y Allergies EU Poor assessment behavior

59 Breed Age Sex Spayed or Reason given for Result of Assessment Neutered surrender Assessment Pit Bull mix 2y M Y Unknown EU Poor assessment behavior

Pit Bull mix 3y N N Housing situation EU Growling

Pit Bull mix 2y M N Housing situation EU Stranger aggression

Pit Bull mix 2y M N Stray N/A Poor assessment behavior

Pit Bull mix 3y F N Unable to care EU Muzzle punching for dog and growling

Pit Bull mix 8m M N Housing situation EU Growling

Pit Bull mix 8m M N Owns too many AD Returned to owner dogs Pit Bull mix 1y M N Housing situation EU Food bowl aggressive Pit Bull mix 10w F Y Children not AD Rescued (despite ready poor behavior)

Pit Bull mix 2y F Y Housing situation EU Aggression

Pit Bull mix 1y M Y Family Issues EU Aggression Pit Bull mix n/a M N Aggression EU Aggression towards other animals Pit Bull mix 2y F Y Housing situation EU Growling (initially put on adoption floor) Pit Bull mix 2y M Y Animal Control EU Aggression Pit Bull mix 1y M Y Housing situation EU Owner requested (aggression)

Pit Bull mix 10y M N Medical issues EU medical issues (dog)

60 Breed Age Sex Spayed or Reason given for Result of Assessment Neutered surrender Assessment Pit Bull mix 15y M N Housing situation EU medical issues

Pit Bull mix 1y M N Aggression EU Owner requested towards people (aggression)

Pit Bull mix 1y M N Medical issues EU Medical issues (dog) Pit Bull mix 2y F N Aggression EU extreme dog towards animals aggression Pit Bull mix 2y M N Aggression EU aggressive history towards people Pit Bull mix 13y M N Housing situation EU Aggression (growling and biting)

Jack Russell 8m M Y Housing situation EU Aggression

Cairn Terrier 1y M N Family issues EU Aggression Yorkshire Terrier 6y M N Housing situation n/A Poor assessment behavior

Yorkshire Terrier 13y M N Medical issues EU Medical issues (dog) Terrier mix 6y M Y Housing situation N/A Poor assessment behavior

Cocker Spaniel 12y M Y Medical issues EU Medical issues (dog) Cocker Spaniel 5y M Y Aggression EU History of aggression towards people Chihuahua 1y M N “too much EU Aggression energy” Chihuahua 4y M N Aggression EU Aggression towards people Chihuahua 14y F N Medical issues EU Medical issues (dog)

61 Breed Age Sex Spayed or Reason given for Result of Assessment Neutered surrender Assessment Chihuahua 1y M N Housing situation N/A Poor assessment behavior

Chihuahua 4y M N Aggression EU Aggression towards people Rottweiler mix 2y M Y Animal Control EU Aggression Rottweiler Mix 4y M Y Housing Situation EU Aggression (w/ ) Beagle mix 8y M Y Medical issues EU Medical issues (dog) Beagle 13y F Y Medical issues EU Owner requested (dog) Pug mix 17y F Y Medical issues EU Owner requested (dog) Pekingese mix 13y F Y Medical issues EU Owner requested (dog) Pekingese mix 2y F N Housing situation EU Aggression

Labrador mix 12y M Y Medical issues EU Owner requested (dog) Labrador 14y M N Medical issues EU Medical issues Retriever (dog) Labrador 10y F Y Medical issues EU Owner requested Retriever mix Labrador 4y M N “no time” EU Aggression Retriever (growling) Golden Retriever 11y M Y Medical issues EU Aggression mix Golden Retriever 4y M N Family issues EU Aggression Mix Golden Retriever 11y M N Medical issues EU Owner requested

62 Breed Age Sex Spayed or Reason given for Result of Assessment Neutered surrender Assessment Siberian Husky 14y M N Medical issues EU Medical issues Alaskan Husky 15y F Y Medical issues EU Owner requested

Bichon Frise mix 7y M Y Medical issues EU Medical issues Basenji and Collie 9y F N Housing situation EU Aggression mix Dachshund 2y M Y Housing situation EU Aggression

Miniature 5y F N Housing situation EU Aggression mix Boxer 2y M N Housing situation EU Aggression

63 Bibliography

1. AKC. (2013, Jan 30) "Living Large! Bigger Breeds Shake Up Top 10 On Most Popular List." American Kennel Club. AKC.org. . 2. Animal People. (2012, August). Animal people online: Fewer animals killed–but pit bulls & chihuahuas crowd shelters. Retrieved from http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/anp/2012/08/20/fewer-animals-killed-but-pit- bulls-chihuahuas-crowd-shelters/ 3. Animal Planet. (n.d). http://www.animalplanet.ca/article.aspx?aid=24644] 4. Animal Planet. (n.d.). Famous pit bull lovers, celebrity pit bulls. Retrieved from http://animal.discovery.com/pets/dog-famous-pit-lovers-pictures.htm 5. AsilomarAccords.com. (n.d.). Read the asilomar accords. Retrieved from http://www.asilomaraccords.org/read.html 6. ASPCA (1). (n.d.). Position statement on breed-specific legislation. Retrieved from http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation- 1.aspx 7. ASPCA (2). (n.d.). The truth about pit bulls. Retrieved from http://www.aspca.org/Pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-articles/the-truth-about- pit-bulls 8. AVMA. (2012, April 17). The role of breed in dog bite risk and prevention. Retrieved from https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/dog_bite_risk_a nd_prevention_bgnd.pdf 9. Barr B. (2005) “Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force.” National Geographic. August 18, 2005. 10. Bauermeister, D. (2011, October). Brief of amicus curiae dogsbite.org in support of appellees. Dorothy m. tracey, appellant, v. anthony k. solesky and irene solesky, as the parents, guardians, and next friends of dominic solesky, a minor. appellees. Retrieved from http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dogsbiteorg-amicus-brief- solesky.pdf 11. Bear, M., Connors, B., & Paradiso, M. (2007). Neuroscience: Exploring the brain. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 12. Bennett, S. (2010). Temperament tests: What we do and do not know about them. Retrieved from http://www.maddiesfund.org/Documents/Resource Library/Temperament Testing Presentation Notes.pdf 13. Boenning, D.A., Fleisher, G.R., Campos, J.M. “Dog bites in children: Epidemiology, microbiology, and penicillin prophylactic therapy.” Am. J. Emerg. Med., 1: 17–21, 1983. 14. Brand, D. (1987, July 27). Behavior: Time bombs on legs. Time Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965065,00.html. 15. Callaham, M. (1980). Prophylactic antibiotics in common dog bite wounds: a controlled study. Ann Emerg Med., Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6902630

64 16. Christensen, E., Scarlett, J., & Houpt, K. (2007 Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs (canis familiaris) that passed a temperament test. (2007). Applied Animal Behavior Science. 17. City of Denver, City Council. (2010). City council minutes. Retrieved from website: http://www.denvergov.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=300&doctype=MINU TES 18. Cnn.com (n.d) from www.cnn.com 19. Cohen, J., & Richardson, J. L. (2002). Pit bull panic. (2002). Journal of Popular Culture, 36(2), Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/guest95756160/pit-bull- panic-judy-cohen-and-john-richardson 20. Coile, C. (2001). Pit bulls for Dummies. New York, New York: Hungry Minds inc. 21. Coppinger, R. (2002). Dogs: A new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 22. Crasnick, J. (2013, February 07). Lonely days ahead for Mark Buehrle. ESPN. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8921726/outlawed-pit-bull- keep-mark-buehrle-away-family 23. D'Addio, P.. (2011, May 13). Pit Bulls and euthanasia rates. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bulls-and-euthanasia-rates 24. Daily Mail. (2013, February 03). Amazing video shows joy of 26 pit bull terriers after they were rescued from brutal fighting ring read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272715/twenty-pit-bull-terriers- rescued-brutal-dog-fighting-ring.html 25. Delise, K. (2007). The Pit Bull Placebo. Ramsey, NJ: Anubis Publishing. 26. Denver, Colorado. Denver, Colorado, Code of Ordinances, (n.d.). Sec. 8-55. - pit bulls prohibited. ((Ord. No. 404-89, § 1, 7-31-89; Ord. No. 631-89, § 1, 10-23-89; Ord. No. 1110-96, § 1, 12-16-96)). Retrieved from website: http://library.municode.com/HTML/10257/level4/TITIIREMUCO_CH8AN_ART IIDOCA_DIV3PRAGAN.html 27. Derr, M. (2011, October). From the cave to the kennel. The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020355410457700184379026956 0.html 28. Detroit Free Press “Pit Bulls: Months of Hysteria Lead to a Distorted Response,” August 10, 1987. 29. Diffen. (2013) “Nature vs Nurture”. Diffen contributors. Diffen LLC, 2013. Web. Sat Apr 20 2013 http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture 30. Doan, C. (2013, February 11). Farmers insurance no longer covering dog bites for certain breeds. KCRA.com. Retrieved from http://www.kcra.com/news/Farmers- Insurance-no-longer-covering-dog-bites-for-certain-breeds/- /11797728/18506972/-/fpvdpn/-/index.html 31. Dogbite.org. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.dogsbite.org/ 32. Duffy, D., Hsu, Y., & Serpell, J. (n.d.). Breed differences in canine aggression. (2008). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114,

65 33. Dugatkin, L. (2009). Principles of animal behavior. New York, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 34. Evidence for the Evolutionary Model. (2009). Canidae family tree. Retrieved from http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=57090803 35. Farricelli, J. (2010, September 14). Factors that influence a dog's behavior. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1951980-dog-behavior-changes- dog-behavior 36. Foxnews.com (n.d.) from www.foxnews.com 37. Gibson, H. (2005). Dog fighting detailed discussion. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm 38. Gladwell, M. (2006, FEBRUARY 06). Troublemakers. The New Yorker, Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact 39. Google.com. (n.d.). Google news: Dog attack. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=dog attack&oq=dog attack&gs_l=news-cc.3.43j0i5l3j43i53.685.1222.0.1963.5.2.0.0.0.0.272.272.2- 1.1.0..0.0..1ac.1.Z0pNIxND6cU 40. Gorant, J. (2010). The lost dogs: Michael vick's dogs and their tale of rescue and redemption. New York, New York: Gotham Books. 41. Green, M. (1987, July 06). An instinct for the kill. People Weekly, 28(1), Retrieved from http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20096665,00.html 42. Greenwood, A. (2011). Nuisance or necessity? ada suit may overturn pit-bull bans. ABA Journal, Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/nuisance_or_necessity_ada_suit_ma y_overturn_pit-bull_bans/ 43. Griffin, E. (n.d.). Sports and celebrations in english market towns, 1660-1750. (2002). Institute of Historical Research, 75(188) 44. Hale, A. (2009, July 3). Animal behavior: Is nature or nurture more important?. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1504791-nature-vs-nurture-animal- traits-animal-behaviors-dog-breeds-children-traits-gentics. 45. Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). The humane society of the united states pets for life – a new community understanding. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/pets/pfl_report_1_12.pdf 46. Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Facts - statement: Breed specific legislation. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/facts/statement_breed_specific_legis lation.html 47. Safia Gray Hussain. (2006) Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed- Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2847. Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss5/7 48. Insurance Information Institute. (2012, June). Dog bite liability. Retrieved from http://www.iii.org/issues_updates/dog-bite-liability.html 49. Iqbal, N. (2009, May 21). Dangerous 'status' dogs on the rise. BBC: Newsbeat. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_8060000/8060207.stm 50. Kellaway, K. (2011, July 16). Why dog trainers will have to change their ways.

66 The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/17/dog-training-john-bradshaw- animal-behaviour 51. Lee, H. (2002, February 19). Grisly mauling account / trial opens with gruesome autopsy photos of victim read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/grisly- mauling-account-trial-opens-with-2872084.php 52. Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook of applied dog behavior and training, procedures and protocols. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. 53. Lockwood, Randall, The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggression, The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people, edited by James Serpell, Cambridge University Press, 1995; republished in Animal Law and Dog Behavior, Ed. David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, Ph.D., 1999. 54. Lockwood, R., & Rindy, K. (1987). Are "pit bulls" different? an analysis of the pit bull terrier controversy. Anthrozoos, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/16267151/Are-Pit-Bulls-Different-An-Analysis-of- the-Pit-Bull-Terrier-Controversy-by-Randall-Lockwood-and-Kate-Rindy 55. Maloney, T. “Keep the Pit Bull Ban—and Put Some Bite in It,” The Washington Post, October 2, 2005. 56. Millan, C. (2006). Cesar's way. New York, New York: Three Rivers Press. 57. Msnbc.com (n.d.) from www.msnbc.com 58. National Geographic. (n.d.). Dangerous encounters: Bite force. Retrieved from 32.http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/episodes/bite-force/ 59. NCRC. (2012-2013). National canine research council publications. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/the-problems-with- dog-bite-studies/ 60. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Affidavit of Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Senior Research Scientist, University of Georgia. 61. Perez-Guisado, J., & Munoz-Serrano, A. (n.d.). Factors linked to dominance aggression in dogs. (2009). Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8(2), Retrieved from http://www.medwelljournals.com/fulltext/?doi=javaa.2009.336.342 62. Robert H. Wozniak (20th century), U.S. professor, human development. Childhood, a viewer's guide produced in collaboration with Thirteen WNET (1991). 63. RSPCA. (2012). Dog aggression. Retrieved from http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=12 32731061985&mode=prd 64. Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab G, Lockwood R. (2000) “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979–1998.” JAVMA Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000. 65. Saey, T. (2013). Starchy diet may have transformed wolves to dogs. (2013). ScienceNews, Retrieved from http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/347706/description/Starchy_diet_ma y_have_transformed_wolves_to_dogs 66. Sager M. “A Boy and his Dog in Hell,” Rolling Stone, July 2, 1987. pg. 39–40, 62–65.

67 67. Scott, J., & Fuller, J. (1965). Genetics and the social behavior of dogs. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 68. Sherrill, L. (Performer) (2010). Beyond the myth: A film about pit bulls and breed discrimination [Documentary]. Cover Y'all Productions. 69. Southern Guide Dogs. (n.d.). Cbarq. Retrieved from http://www.guidedogs.org/uploads/forms/about the cbarq.doc 70. Stop BSL. (n.d.). State laws. http://stopbsl.org/lawmaking/state-laws/ 71. Swift, E.M. “Beware of This Dog,” Sports Illustrated, July 27, 1987. pg. 72–84 72. Tucker, N. (2009, December 19). Homicide rates have dropped steadily in u.s. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012- 12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control 73. Udell, M., & Wynne, C. (2008). A review of domestic dogs' (canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: Or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. (2008). Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2251326/ 74. UKC. (2012, December 01). American pit bull terrier. Retrieved from http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrier12012012 75. Vetstreet.com. (2011) VetStreet. http://www.vetstreet.com/care/aggression-in- dogs 76. Walker, J. H. (2000). The boxer handbook. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XQlBU8prZrkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP 8&dq=bullenbeisser&ots=sfIzB5SLU8&sig=ZPFA5Xd0cpFeRExN5I9XNgeF4o 0 77. Wright, J., & Hahn, M. (n.d.)[MHF6]. The influence of genes on social behavior of dogs. (1998). Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals 78. Zimmerman, N. (2013, February 14). Hero pit bull rushes to rescue humans and dogs from burning home. Retrieved from http://gawker.com/5984332/hero-pit- bull-rushes-to-rescue-humans-and-dogs-from-burning-home

68

Top View