Dangerous dog, pit bull declaration laws 'not working' in Victoria

By Stephanie Anderson

Posted Wed at 11:37am

PHOTO: The parliamentary committee found was no way to definitely identify a pit bull. (Flickr: This Year's Love)

RELATED STORY: Victoria introduces moratorium on killing aggressive breeds of dogs

MAP: VIC

Victoria's laws on restricted dog breeds are not working and a ban against registering pit bulls should be removed, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

Restrictions on breeds considered more likely to attack, such as pit bulls, were introduced after the death of toddler Ayan Chol from a dog attack in 2011.

The restricted breed laws mean that pit bulls cannot be registered if they were not registered before 2011.

Local councils were given the power to identify, seize and euthanase unregistered pit bulls.

But the parliamentary committee found the laws were causing distress to owners and costing councils money.

A report tabled at State Parliament found there was no way to definitively identify a pit bull.

"The committee heard that distinguishing pit bulls from other breeds using visual identification is generally considered difficult or impossible," it said.

"DNA testing is not a viable alternative, as it is currently not able to make definitive identifications of dogs as pit bulls.

"There does not appear to be any clear way to conclusively identify dogs as pit bulls."

Majority of pit bull declarations overturned

The report found the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) had overturned 74 per cent of declarations that dogs were pit bulls since 2011.

It also found there was not enough information on whether pit bulls were actually more dangerous than other breeds, and called for the ban on registering them to be overturned.

"The committee considers that allowing the registration of pit bulls would facilitate councils encouraging responsible ownership of these dogs," the report said.

"Allowing the registration of pit bulls would also mean that councils could no longer seize and euthanase them solely because of their breed.

"Euthanasia would remain an option for individual pit bulls (like any dog) that have actually committed aggressive acts."

The committee found pit bulls should continue to be muzzled in public and properly contained at home.

It said local councils should focus their resources on responsible dog ownership of all breeds, rather than focusing on restrictions on pit bulls alone.

The Victorian Government has six months to respond to the report.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/dangerous-dog-pit-bull-declaration-laws-not-working/7270198

The woe of being labeled a pit bull

BY NSIKAN AKPAN  

Would you adopt this puppy? You may not if it’s labeled a pit bull, according to a new study from Arizona State University. Photo by Square Dog Photography/via Getty Images

What’s in a name? If you’re a pit bull in an animal shelter, it could mean life or death.

Dogs labeled as pit bulls stay in animal shelters for three times as long as lookalikes and are more likely to face euthanasia, according to research released today from Arizona State University. In light of the fact that 50 percent of shelter dogs classified as pit bulls are actually lookalikes, the new findings suggest human bias may inadvertently breed death sentences for some abandoned pooches.

“Pit bull” is an umbrella term that typically refers to American and English bulldogs, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American Pit Bull terriers or their mixes. Their public image is marred by activities like dog fighting and reports of heightened aggression against humans and other dogs. Of 551 dog bite injuries treated at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between 2001 and 2005, 51 percent involved pit bulls. However, recent research counters that this stereotype of pit bull aggression may be a self-serving prophecy that’s perpetuated by improper care by dog owners.

To test whether the public has bought into this idea, ASU psychologist Lisa Gunter and her colleagues designed a set of four small experiments to measure human bias against the pit bull brand.

One study skimmed an online database of dogs at North American animal shelters in search of pit bulls and lookalikes. A lookalike, as judged by the team, is a dog with pit bull-like features — stature, head, body weight, coat color and coat length — but carrying a different breed label in the database.

The researchers selected 15 pit bulls and 15 lookalikes, and then shared their photos — without breed labels — to 39 potential adopters at the Arizona Animal Welfare League and SPCA in Phoenix.

Example of a pit bull and lookalike from Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL, PLoS ONE, (2016). Photo by Arizona Animal Welfare League

When asked to judge attractiveness, the potential pet owners saw no difference between pit bulls and lookalikes. (A separate experiment found the same pattern if the still photo was replaced with a video.) But when the team combed through the database records, the average stay for the dogs labeled pit bulls (42.07 days) was three times longer than for the lookalikes (12.80 days).

“This suggests that the disparity in how long the dogs remained at the shelter waiting for adoption may have been influenced in part by the perception of the label,” Gunter and her colleagues wrote in their study in PLOS ONE.

But does seeing a photo and taking a survey truly translate to real life reactions? To answer this question, Gunter and her colleagues teamed with the Orange County Animal Services (OCAS) in Orlando, Florida. On Feb. 6, 2014, their shelter made a big switch. They took down the breed names from cage cards and online profiles for every dog at their kennel.

Over the course of the next year, the pit bull adoption rate climbed to 64 percent versus 52 percent over the previous 12 months. Likewise, pit bull euthanasia dropped by 12 percent. Dobermans, also typically considered aggressive, saw a 12 percent hike in adoptions too. All breeds benefited from losing their labels, but the average length of stay for pit bulls dropped by 1.5 days, which was nearly twice the value for herding dogs (like German shepherds, border collies and corgis) or working dog breeds (like boxers, mastiffs and Great Danes).

Pit bull. Photo by Square Dog Photography/via Getty Images

“The results of removing breed labels suggest that the pit bull breed labels were negatively altering adopter decision-making at OCAS,” the researchers wrote. They recommend that rather than let breed labels dictate an adopter’s perception, kennels should provide behavioral assessments instead.

The team turned to Reddit users to look for possible explanations. They recruited 49 student and 179 Reddit users to take a baseline survey on the impressions of three dog breeds: pit bulls, border collies and Labrador retrievers. Each participant viewed photos of these breed, and then judged their approachability, intelligence, adoptability, friendliness, difficulty to train and aggressiveness.

Participants judged pit bulls as more aggressive, which the researchers expected given the public reputation of the breed, while border collies and Labradors ranked significantly higher in the other categories.

An American Staffordshire terrier. Photo by Daniele Natarelli/EyeEm/via Getty Images

However, picking the right shelter handler to stand by the dog might alleviate some of this prejudice. The psychologists repeated the experiment with students and Reddit users, but included different people in the photos with the dogs: a middle-aged fit man, a man with tattoos who the team called a “rough adult male,” an elderly woman or a young boy. Here’s what they found:

Approachability, friendliness and adoptability increased while aggressiveness decreased with the presence of the elderly woman. The male child improved perceptions of friendliness and adoptability of the pit bull while lessening the pit bull’s aggressiveness and perceived difficulty to train. The rough adult male reduced perceived friendliness of the pit bull.

Intelligence rankings increased for every dog, regardless of whom stood beside them. Together, these results suggest certain handlers can reduce negative perceptions of pit bulls.

But the main takeaway, according to the authors, is that removing breed labels “may be a simple, low-cost strategy to improve shelter dog outcomes.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-woe-of-being-labelled-a-pit-bull/

The Ugly Truth Behind Dogsbite.org

Dogsbite.org is not an "expert" organization when it comes to canine behavior. There, I've said it.

While it seems that lately, several media outlets have been treating them like they have a particular knowledge on the subject of dog bites and attacks (I'll get to a possible "why" on that later in the post), it doesn't erase the reality that dogsbite.org is simply a website run almost entirely by an individual person who has an expertise in web design, access to google, and a desire to seek revenge on an attack that happened to her several years. Those are the qualifications behind the website. And it runs no deeper than that. And treating the website as anything more than that is a recipe bad information that will lead to less safe circumstances for people and dogs. Let me explain.

******

Dogsbite.org is a website run by Colleen Lynn. In June of 2007, Lynn was an unfortunate victim of a dog bite while she was out jogging. Because of the dog bite, by a dog that is said to be a 'pit bull', Lynn decided to create the website dogsbite.org.  According to the original "about us" section of the website, the intent of the website was three-fold:

-- Distinguish which breeds of dogs are dangerous to have in neighborhoods

-- Help enact laws to regulate the ownership of these breeds

-- Help enact laws that hold dog owners criminally liable if their dog attacks a person or causes serious injury or death

While I actually agree with her original third mission statement, the original purpose of the website is very clearin the first two statements -- she intended to target particular breeds of dogs and ban ownership of those breeds. The goal was not public education or anything that she claims it to be about now -- it was about enacting breed specific legislation...even though she has no credentials to propose legislation like that with any basis of expertise.

And make no mistake, all of the experts organizations disagree with her idea on breed-specific legislation.

****

Every mainstream national organization that is involved in canine/human interactions is opposed to laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. An at-least partial list of these organizations include:

American Dog Owners Association

American Humane

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

American Veterinary Medical Association  (AVMA)

American Working Dog Federation

Association of Pet Dog Trainers

Best Friends

Center for Disease Control

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

International Association of Canine Professionals

National Animal Control Association

National Animal Interest Alliance

National  Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

National Canine Research Council

No Kill Advocacy Center

You find nearly one-stop shopping of all of the position statements of these groups here.

These groups represent the best of the best in the United States for Dog Trainers, Rescues, Shelters, Animal Behaviorists, Government entities,veterinarians, and even Animal Control Officers. All of them oppose breed specific legislation. All of them, in large part, because they have experience working with the actual dogs, and read the science, and realize the aggession is not a breed-specific issue -and the reality is that most dogs, regardless of breed, do not show aggressive behavior -- and yet, some dogs, of each breed, have. 

All recommend dog ordinances that focus on the the behaviors of the actual dogs, and not on its body type.

And not listening to the professional organizations, and instead, listening to an "organization" that has no expertise, can lead to bad results. Again, their focus is not in the best interests of public safety...it's about getting revenge.

*****

For example: at the end of 2008, Dogsbite.org named Lucas County (OH) Dog Warden Tom Skeldon their "Dog Warden of the year." Their reasoning is that "Skeldon has vigorously worked to prevent horrendous pit bull maulings resulting in serious injuries or death of human beings, their domesticated pets and livestock."  Interestingly, in the same year that Skeldon received this "award", the actual number of dog bites in Lucas County had gone up 23%.

So dog bites go up, and they give the man the dog warden of the year award because he is targeting 'pit bulls'.   Does that sound like the resume of an award winner for a group advocating for public safety to you? Me neither.

Within a year of them issuing the "award", Skeldon stepped down from his position under significant public pressure. The actual citizens who had to put up with Skeldon's behavior, outrageous shelter kill rates and lack of improved public safety actually forced him out of office. 

But nothing may be worse than a fairly recent post (you can click on the picture to the left to read a screen shot of it) actually claiming that parents shouldn't be expected to teach their children to be respectful around dogs eventhough major, well-respected, dog training groups recommend otherwise.  If you can teach a young child to not touch a hot oven, then they can at least understand "caution" around dogs.  It is this type of irresponsibility that is making people LESS safe, not more safe.

Oh, there are other greivences. There is the reality that they claim dogs of even distantly-related breeds -- including Boxers, Bulldogs and Mastiffs - to all be 'pit bulls' in their "statistics".  They consistently claim that all of the professional organizations that oppose BSL are only doing so because they are supported by dog fighters*. They sensor all comments on their website that even come remotely close to disputing anything they post -- even if it is someone who is providing acutal data that is correcting something they misspoke about -- again, censoring other types of thinking isn't exactly something you'd expect from a "public education" website.

* The all of these organizations are opposed to BSL because they are supported dog fighters  and dog breeders is a particularly funny notion. Many of the organizations that oppose BSL spend literally millions upon millions of dollars trying to shut down dog fighting operations, and all of the orgs oppose dog fighting in principle, even if they aren't actively working to shut the groups down. And as for breeding, several of the groups support breeders and several are working very hard to end breeding and spend countless dollars arguing amonst themselves on the breeding issue - -so the idea they would agree on this subject because they are supported by breeders is baseless too -- to the point that it's kind of comical.

And this doesn't even include their inaccurate use of case studies to support their point of view vs reporting the actual data. Or the reality that one city that allowed them to influence their policy-making, Omaha, has had a disasterous year.

*****

So, the question then remains, how is it that an organization that has so few real credentials continues to get quoted by media outlets out there?

One of the things that journalism schools around the nation teach is the importance of providing both sides of a story. There are always two sides, and they teach the importance of providing both. So when it comes to the argument about whether or not to ban 'pit bulls', dogsbite.org ends up being THE ONLY 'organization' in favor of banning 'pit bulls'. So the media almost has to use them, because they are the only ones with the alternative viewpoint.

And that folks, is the sad truth about dogsbite.org. They are the only one(s) that favor BSL. And they do so based on having a website and google -- not with any real expertise in working with dogs.

And that's very telling.

Oh sure, they will likely retort with criticisms of me, and what are my true credentials. It's true, that even though I've worked in rescue, and I've worked with hundreds of dogs that would be considered 'pit bulls', I have no credentials after my name. I'm not a certified trainer, or a vet. However, I will say this. My opinion is the same one shared by the national organizations that speak for veterinarians, animal control officers, dog trainers and rescuers throughout the nation. So my ideas and point of view is supported by pretty much everyone that has knowledge of canine/human interactions.

Their support group is a city attorney in Denver and an animal control officer that was forced out of his job in Toledo. That's it.

And that's the truth about dogsbite.org.  Fine, give them the "other" voice. But let's not mistake them for an organization that has any form of expertise, or any unique knowledge. Let's not mistake them for anything more than a person, with a website, that is seeking revenge for an incident that happened to her. No more, no less.

On one final note to Ms. Lynn. I am sorry that you were attacked by a dog. And I do hope the owner of the attacking dog was held appropriately accountable for the actions of their dog. But it was one dog -- and is not reflective of the millions of dogs out there of this type -- and I would encourage you to go to your local shelter and meet some more of the dogs that you seek to destroy. And I hope that pushing for ordinances that actually improve public safety, and that pushing for educating parents on how to introduce pets and children, will trump your desire for personal vengeance so that we can actually create a safer society. 

Posted at 10:05 AM in Education | Permalink

K C DogBlog