Over the weekend Newcastle Herald columnist Jeff Corbett floated the idea that Labradors are retrievers, so they all like the water – Border Collies working breeds, so they all herd – Beagles are scent-hounds, so they all like to track – and that bull-breeds like the American Staffordshire terrier are ‘fighting’ breeds, so they all are likely to attack without warning.
Shouldn’t all dogs of a mauling, fighting, killing breed or cross be declared dangerous?
Unfortunately, this damaging theory sounds plausible, unless you know anything about dog behaviour, the enormous depth of the integration of these breeds into the modern dog population, and how breed-specific legislation (BSL) is actually executed. So like, if you know something about dogs.…
So in the interest of continuing to bang the drum against BSL, here’s a rebuttal;
Let’s say we consider this guy an accurate representation of a Dalmatian;
– a medium to large sized dog
– short hair
– square muzzle/head
– black spots on a white coat
– black nose
– v-shaped, dropped ear
– or variations including or excluding any of the traits above
Dogs who have these traits, purebred and cross-bred will now be described as being of ‘Dalmatian-type’. Based on the history of the breed, this standard will also be extrapolated out to include a ‘temperament profile’. The wiki history of the Dalmatian describes the breed as follows;
The roles of this ancient breed are as varied as their reputed ancestors. They were used as dogs of war, guarding the borders of Dalmatia. To this day, the breed retains a high guarding instinct; although friendly and loyal to those the dog knows and trusts, it is often aloof with strangers and unknown dogs.
Dalmatians have a strong hunting instinct and are an excellent exterminator of rats and vermin. In sporting, they have been used as bird dogs, trail hounds, retrievers, or in packs for boar or stag hunting. Their dramatic markings and intelligence have made them successful circus dogs throughout the years.
So these dogs could broadly be described as;
– guard’y
– aloof
– high prey drive
– clever and trainable
Now you have a visual identification guideline and a generalised temperament profile, you’re going to start using it to identify the dogs in your community and pick out all of those who are of ‘Dalmatian-type’ for removal. This is to make the community ‘safe’ from ‘guardy, aloof, high prey drive dogs’.
Except the dogs in your community aren’t multi-generational pedigree purebreds or dogs who sit neatly into your new classifications. They’re a mix of pure-bred, backyard bred, puppy farm bred, and the accidents of the neighbourhood Lothario. Some are mostly dalmatian, some are a bit dalmatian and others just have a touch thrown in. They are of all ages, including the very young and the very old. They are each, just like people, individuals with a expansive set of behavioural traits based on who their parents were and how they’ve been raised.
But ignoring that – and based entirely on the new ‘visual identification guide’ tell me – which of these dogs are guardy, aloof, and with a high prey drive?
(click to enlarge)
Is it all of them? Is it some of them? None of them?
Which of them should be removed from their home; be it a good home or a bad home, and regardless of whether he has ever been a problem in his community or not; given to the pound for disposal in the name of ‘public safety’?
The idea that using the way a dog looks, or even a dog’s breed, is some kind of crystal ball into its future, is like using a dog’s spots to determine its personality – it’s data so unreliable as to make it unusable. Breed-specific behaviour is a broad, sweeping tendency toward certain behaviours, not a cemented personality.
These tendencies are even less reliable when you bring years of cross-breeding into the mix; the idea that every dog is an individual is never more true than when you’re dealing with a dog of mixed breed. Some will have the breed temperament traits and some won’t. Some will be traits which are shared across many dog breeds and others will be specific to that particular dog. What we know for certain about the dogs above is that they all look quite similar, but I can tell you some of these guys are dalmatians, some are crosses and some aren’t dalmatians at all. What they all essentially have in common is meeting the visual breed standard for being of dalmatian type.
The visual standard they use to identify ‘pit bull type’ dogs is even less accurate than the one we’ve just put together for dalmatians, because ‘pit bull types’ don’t even have a distinctive spotty coat – instead visual identification guidelines use descriptives like “Neck: Moderate length and with great strength, tapering from the head into the shoulders” and “Body: Powerfully built with a deep chest of moderate width” – traits that could literally apply to dozens of dog breeds.
And even if it could identify with any kind of measurable accuracy a dog with ‘pit bull’ heritage – as we’ve seen from the Dalmatians above, to judge a dog based on looks, and make a breed temperament generalisation as to whether it is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ dog, makes little sense – you have to assess that dog as an individual.
The major flaw with breed-specific laws, based on visual assessments and generalisations about breed, is their inability to determine dangerous dogs from non-dangerous dogs. Which is the exact thing they claim breed-specific laws CAN do.
So, Jeff Corbett “…. shouldn’t all dogs of a mauling, fighting, killing breed or cross be declared dangerous? – of course not. Because there is no such thing as a way of determining a “mauling, fighting or killing” dog based on breed OR looks.
This is brilliantly put!!! I could not have said it any clearer. It is easy to see that BSL is ridiculous and is resulting in good dogs being killed!
Spot on again Shel!
All children of outlaw motorcycle gang members should be removed from the parents. This can be determined by number of tattoos has a person has, beards, leather jackets, motorbike ownership, type of bike, alcohol consumption, use of the Australia flag hanging on a wall at home, certain types of music interests, location of socialising, their friends …… any combination of the above.
All people with a predisposition to alcohol consumption should not be allowed to have children (and must wear a muzzle when outside the home). Alcohol correlates, some argue directly causes, with more violence and death in our community than any other legal substance. Do we blame the susbtance or the consumer?
Ice cream sales correlate with a marked increase in people drowning. We should ban icecream.
Has BSL in any country, at any time reduced dog attacks? Ever? No.
Occam’s Razor.
Mitochondrial DNA, suggests that wolves and dogs split into different species around 100,000 years ago and it is not believed that humans really had anything specific to do with that (Boyko et. al. 2009). Breeding for appearance in the last few hundred years is highly unlikely to have had a signifigant enough change in gentic/ DNA structure to “build in” or hard wire temperament. It’s the equivalent of saying eskimo communities will not only have thicker blood than a Samoan after 3 generations of living in the Artic, but they are more likely to have an innate drive to club a seal and a undeniable, characteristic predisposition to a happy nature (because violent crime increases in hotter climates….) – which will be passed onto all of their children.
It disregards every single thing known about recessive genes, mutations (in the Darwinian sense) and most vitally epigenetics (the relationship between environment and genetics).
Boyko AR, Boyko RH, Boyko CM, Parker HG, Castelhano M, Corey L, Degenhardt J, Auton A, Hedimbi M, Kityo R et al. 2009. Complex population structure in African village dogs and its implications for inferring dog domestication history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Early Edition).
I have a 9 year old American Staffy X English Staffy who the RSPCA thought looked like a pitbull! My dog may look like one but even if he was (which he isn’t), he is the most loving loyal dog I have ever seen!
I have 2 small children who love him to death and who he loves to death. Never once have I worried about him near them.
I owe my dog my beautiful daughters life, when she was 10 days old she stopped breathing and turned blue on my while sleeping, had it not been for my beautiful dog jumping up on the couch and going crazy in her crib I would never have know and would have lost her!
Looks should count for anything, it should be about the nature of the dog, everyday I thank my luck stars that I brought my beautiful boy all them years ago or I may not now gave my beautiful 6 year old, heathy daughter!
I remember the Heath nurse saying to me that I should not have let the dog sleep under her crib while she was in the lounge room because he looked like a “killing machine”! Lucky I knew my dog and let him! He still to this day has a very special bond with my daughter and we always comment that the day she was born his life became complete, he loves her more than life it’s self! I would never have any other breed around my children than a Staffy now.
If the breed was such an all-defining thing, dog fighters wouldn’t be constantly killing dogs that lack the will or instinct to fight. They actively breed for “gameness” in their lines and still produce a lot of pitbulls that won’t attack or even adequately defend. Thanks for pointing out the problems with labelling dogs on their appearance, and highlighting the need to assess them as individuals rather than members of a breed.
I’m surprised you managed to find pictures of so many dogs that are spotty!! Gee! Brilliantly illustrated, and I will share on Twitter. :)
Great point Stuart. It’s like some ridiculous pretend / pseudo science done by backyarders – hardly likely to enough come close enough to narrow down the genes are they! Labs have yet to come up with an aggression gene in any animal – even urban myths about testosterone or any other hormone have been debunked by recent science. It’s beyond comprehension this rubbish is accepted as ‘fact’ or sorts – by some.
You never fail to hit the nail on the head Shel. Why, oh why don’t we have clear thinkers like you making the laws and running the pounds. There’s so many idiots or people with an ‘ulterior motive’ out there.
Well said – it’s a disgusting law. Rational discussion like yours needs to be widespread – get it out into the media if you can. Thanks for giving your voice to those who can’t speak for themselves..