Canine Aggression Issues with Jim Crosby

What is a Behaviorist?

2012-01-06T11:23:00.000-05:00

I am asked fairlyregularly about trainers and behaviorists and about recommending a particularperson or group.

The issue of whois or is not a behaviorist is unclear in our current training environment."Behaviorist" is a tag that generates lots of marketableattention. Claiming to be a behaviorist specializing in aggressionor dangerous dogs is an even bigger selling point, yet determining qualification to treat aggressive dogs is a serious issuedue to the danger to both the public and to the dogs. Today we havepeople popping up claiming to be "dangerous dog rehabilitators" or"aggressive dog specialists". Some of these folks haveextensive experience and are very talented; some are less so, and some, sadly,are frankly in the mix to be perceived as the baddest in the 'hood.

I do not labelmyself as a behaviorist. My certification through the Council forCertification of Professional Dog Trainers is as a Certified BehaviorConsultant-Canine-Knowledge Assessed. That means I have met certaincriteria of education and experience, provided professional references,documented such, been peer reviewed, and then passed a certification exam. This certification requires that I pursue continuing education in thefield to maintain my standing. I also have a B.S. degree with concentrationin Psychology. That does not, in my mind, make me a behaviorist.

I reserve thetitle "Behaviorist" for two select groups of people; VeterinaryBehaviorists-people with degrees as Veterinarians who pursue additionaleducation in the field of behavior and obtain that Board Certified designation,and Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, those individuals with Doctoraldegrees in animal behavior. These two groups of professionals are theones that I feel have earned the term "Behaviorist".

That is not tosay that others are deficient. I look at the field of animal behaviorwork as similar to the medical field. Board Certified specialists(cardiologists, neurologists, etc.) are at the top of the field. Theyhave a medical degree and extensive additional training. They are thelevel of Veterinary Behaviorists.

Experiencedbehavior consultants certified by recognized, professional, peer-reviewedgroups (CCPDT, the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants,and the International Association of Canine Professionals come to mind) aremore at the level of a Physicians' Assistant or a Nurse Practitioner-we can doa lot, but we are not the top of the food chain. There are certainlycases that are beyond our experience and training. We cannot perform medical interventions like prescribing medication.

Similarly,certified dog trainers (such as CPDT-KA, CDT (from IACP), KPA (by Karen PriorAcademy), Victoria Stilwell's Positive trainers, etc.) are talented and welltrained resources that may or may not also have extensive behavior training butare recognized as highly competent trainers by a clear review process thatincludes references, existing and continuing education, and documentedexperience.

Scattered alongthe continuum below are experienced but uncertified trainers, comfortable intheir skills in teaching non-problematic dogs manners and performance sportsbut not specifically addressing serious behavior issues. Then come new trainers and those who havebeen pressed into dog training duties by their pet shop employers. Thetalents and experience of these folks vary but they certainly contribute to theoverall picture of helping owners and animals achieve a good, cooperativerelationship.

When it comes toworking with aggressive and potential dangerous dogs, I am very conservative inrecommending "rehabilitators" or trainers. The best choice is usually to consult a Board Certified Veterinary Behaviorist or aCertified Applied Animal Behaviorist. They are trained and able to assessnot only the dog's behavior, but also any potential underlying medical issuesthat may be contributing to the problem-and to medicate or treat those issues. The problem is that there are very few of these individuals inthe Unites States. Not all of these folks necessarily specialize in aggression,especially when it involves truly dangerous animals; like all professionalsthey have their specialties.

The next line ofreferral is to certified individuals that have built up extensive experienceover time and have elected to deal with aggression issues. There arestill relatively few of us; as of January 2012 there are about 60 CBCC-KAcertified behavior consultants in the US, and not all accept aggressive dogs. Other groups such as IAABC have similarly lownumbers of certified individuals. Todetermine which of these is appropriate for a dangerous animal requires a frankdiscussion with the individual about their past experience and training. I can't speak for others, but my work isbased on about fourteen years of training experience, and extensive dealingswith varying degrees of aggression and ultimately dangerous dogs since about2003. I have dealt with animal that have killed humans-yet I don't claimto know it all. I am still constantly learning.

As far asgeneral trainers, dog obedience instructors, etc.; there are many talented,responsible and dedicated people out there that do a lot of good. Whetherthese folks are qualified to deal with advanced cases is a matter of individualexperience and education. The person at the pet store that teaches simplesit, stay, down may not be the right choice for an involved behavior problem,even if it does not involve aggression. If one of these instructors is your only option, interview themextensively about their training and experience and get several referencesbefore committing to any program, especially if it seems to be a “one size fitsall” program.

Lastly, thegroup that I am most concerned with are those who think that being an"aggressive dog rehabilitator" is an advertisement of prowess. Thesefolks are in it for the ego trip. These "trainers" make a bigdeal of bragging that they deal with the "baddest of the bad". They tend to display bite scars as badges of honor. Sorry, butevery bite that I have received is a sign that I made a mistake, and at leasttemporarily failed the dog. They are not bragging matters. Depending onthe venue, a bite by a problem dog may be a death sentence for the dog, even ifthe trainer made the mistake. Ego should not enter the equation.

When choosingthe person that helps you with problem behavior, or even simple training,please be very aware; regardless of the level of training or expertise anindividual has, the trainer, behaviorist, or rehabilitator should not use anytechnique that they can’t do right in front of you. You, as the animal’s owner and caretaker,should have the final say regarding tools and techniques. If ANYTHING the trainer does makes youuncomfortable, ask questions and, if you still feel uncomfortable, ask them totry another strategy. If they cannotcomply-find another trainer.

Save some lives-Support Florida Animal Rescue Act

2011-12-22T13:14:00.001-05:00

Here in Florida we are fortunate tohave new legislation pending that will save animal lives. The bill, called the Florida Animal RescueAct (SB 818), provides clean, clear legislation that accomplishes two simple, butessential things: 1) it guarantees Rescue organizations access to animals atshelters that would otherwise be killed, and 2) it demands transparency for allanimal shelters regarding how many animals they take in, how many they place,and how many they kill. Neither of theseare currently provided for in Florida Statute. This deficit allows shelters to kill animals that Rescue organizationsare willing and able to take, and allows shelters to hide the ugly reality oftheir true kill rates.

As a former open admission countyAnimal Control Shelter Director I fully and completely support this bill. I commend Senator Mike Bennett of Bradentonfor introducing this, and equally thank and commend the many legislators inboth Houses that are co-sponsoring this and its companion HB 597. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you forsupporting these bills and giving the animals of Florida a fighting chance.

Some may think that such legislationis unnecessary. “After all”, they think,“shelters already work with Rescues and others to place as many animals as possible…don’tthey?” Sadly, they don’t. As illogical and counter intuitive as thatseems, during my tenure I saw far too many other agencies that either had nodesire to cooperate, or were openly antagonistic, to Rescue involvement. In myown agency it took a substantial amount of time to build trust with Rescuesthat had been previously rebuffed. Ialso struggled against those who begrudged the time, effort and resources spenttrying to place and return animals to owners. After all, “catch ‘em and kill ‘em” had always been the way. There was no need to change.

Some parties are already lining upto protest and obstruct the passage of these bills. An organization on which I formerly sat onthe Board has publicly come out opposing the legislation. The excuses are the same old routine alwaystrotted out against progressive change: “It costs too much. It takes too much work. It is hard. It isn’t the way we have always done it.”

Below I have presented theirobjections and have detailed the claims that many of the opponents have madeand my answers to their specific points.

The specific objections noted:

These bills require local animal control agencies to create a registry for animal rescue groups and offer animals to these groups prior to euthanizing them. While well-intentioned, this will create severe unintended consequences, including: There will NOT be a cost-savings under this bill; rather, there will be a significant cost incurred. For each animal sheltered by a local agency there will be up to $45 additional cost to house animals during the required holding period. To comply with §823.15, FS shelters will have to invest approximately $175 per animal for shots and sterilization before they go to another shelter or rescue. For a small shelter that takes in 100 animals a year that could be a greater cost than their entire operating budget for the year.

RESPONSE:

This is incorrect. There is no requirement for additional holdingdays; the legislation provides simply that the shelter notify their list ofRescues no less that 24 hours before euthanizing an animal and allow theRescues to make contact and arrange pickup of the animals within two days ofcontact. The total maximum time periodrequired is three (3) days-and State Law already demands that shelters hold theanimals taken in as strays for three (3) days. The easy method here would be for an agency to simply send an email ofincoming animals soon after intake (Say at the end of each business day) andlet the entire hold run during the mandatory 3 day stray hold. This legislation does not require ANYadditional holding-it can all run at the same time. No additional days-no additional costs. This statement also fails to mention that the shelter will be able to charge its fulladoption fee to any claiming Rescue, thus recovering the same costs as if theyhad adopted the animal normally-just faster.

Further, the citation of FS 823.15, claimingthat the shelters will have to invest approximately $175.00 per animal forshots and sterilization before transfer is incorrect. FS 823.15 provides that “all dogs and catssold or released for adoption from any public or private animal shelter oranimal control agency…by either(emphasis added)…(a) providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarianbefore relinquishing custody of the animal; or (b) Entering into a written agreement with the adopter or purchaserguaranteeing that sterilization will be performed within 30 days or prior tosexual maturity.” (emphasis added). This section also provides that “Any fees or court costs used for theenforcement of this paragraph are the responsibility of the adopter”. Itfurther states “All costs of sterilization pursuant to this section shall bepaid by the prospective adopter…” Thisplaces the alleged $175.00 on the receiving shelter or rescue and allows thereleasing shelter to recover any and all costs for enforcing thisprovision. None of this alleged $175.00is the responsibility of the shelter releasing the animal(s) to the rescuegroups. There are no additional costs.

· Animalcontrol officers will go from spending most of their time caring for animalsand addressing community issues to spending most of their time doing paperwork.The burdensome process will increase both labor and supply costs that currentlyare dedicated to the animals.

RESPONSE:

There is no extrapaperwork to consume the Animal Control Officers’ valuable time. A shelter should already have a functioningsystem of intake and accounting in place. The only extra effort will be a simple batch email to the establishedlist of Rescues once a day. That is all.

This burdensome new process will create overcrowded conditions in shelters due to increased holding requirements. To address this issue many, if not all, shelters will reduce the local holding periods to account for the mandated increase – meaning owners will have three fewer days to reclaim a lost pet before it is available to the public and rescues. In some cases this reduction will be from 5 days to 2 days, but in many others it will go from the current 3 days to no days.

RESPONSE:

As stated above there are no extra holding periods. The Rescue notification and response periodcan be incorporated into the already-required legal holding period. If this means that agencies are intending onreducing their holds below the level required by State Statute they have biggerproblems than alleged overcrowding.

· Thereare very limited exceptions where euthanasia can occur – diseased animalscannot be euthanized unless they are “irreparably suffering”, meaning thatparvo, ringworm, and other diseases will spread through shelters infectingcurrently healthy animals, leaving them unadoptable, creating undue suffering,and increasing the medical and labor costs to the local shelter.

RESPONSE:

Untrue. The only restriction on euthanasia is thatthe animals must be offered toRescues first. If the Rescues do not claim the animal in the time listed then theagency is free to dispose of the animal as they see fit. This legislation does not require thewarehousing of animals or any increased holding time.

There are no controls in place to ensure that the animal rescue groups are legitimate, meaning that shelters will not be able to weed out hoarders or animal testers. Very little information can be asked of the rescue groups. They don’t even need a place of business in Florida. Like the problem of ‘pill mills,’ Florida will become known as the place to get animals without any scrutiny. Animal testing labs that currently breed their own animals or pay a high price to acquire animals will now have a new resource in Florida. This will bring undue negative publicity to the State.

RESPONSE:

This is an issue that has always existed with rescue groups, and forwhich there is no current prohibition in State Statute as it stands. The proposed legislation requires that theorganization have a 501(3)c Non-Profit designation (currently not requiredunder State Statute) and that the Rescue may be required to provide backgroundchecks on its personnel (also not currently required). Instead of lowering the requirements forRescues to pick up animals (there are none in Statute) it established twoimportant benchmarks. And as far aswhether the Rescue is local or out of area: Oh, the horror! Instead ofkilling an animal in a local shelter there might be an alternative. Some Rescue might, at their expense and usingtheir resources, adopt an animal SOMEWHERE ELSE! Please.

· Thisbill unnecessarily restricts local animal control agencies in theiroperations. Many shelters have vastly improved their local programs, allwithout interference from state regulation. This bill puts that progressat risk and would almost certainly lead to overcrowded, diseased conditions.Some of the shelters have already taken euthanasia rates from 85% or more downto 35-40% with locally based initiatives. These programs may be at risk becausethe bill will require holding animals that may never be taken from the shelterand it may deteriorate working relationships with known and professionalrescues that will no longer be willing to work with shelters that allow anyoneclaiming to be a rescue to get animals.

RESPONSE:

The proposed legislation takes nocontrol from local agencies-it simplyrequires them to try and place or transfer animals before they kill them. Yes, many agencies have reduced euthanasiarates substantially. This legislationwill not affect those agencies because they are already doing what is needed. Known and professional rescues should welcomethis legislation as another opportunity to do their jobs with agencies thathave heretofore not been willing to work together. And again, there is no mandate for additional holding periods.

Mandating a restrictive program with no flexibility will cost taxpayers money and lead to less humane conditions for animals. This bill creates additional unfunded mandates upon the local governments by increasing costs unnecessarily.

RESPONSE:

There are no unfundedmandates in this bill. The cost of theestablishing the registry can be as little as a donated three-ring binder withcopies of the Rescue organizations’ 501(c)3 papers. That is how my agency handled itvoluntarily-and it worked just fine. Other than that three-ring binder there are no costs as I discussedabove.

The email broadcast went on to list thefollowing talking points. I haveaddressed each of those below.

Myth:You can drop your pet off at a “no-kill” shelter any time if things do not workout.

Fact:“No-Kill” shelters have limited room and resources and turn away needy petsthat are deemed unadoptable. Most “No-Kill” shelters require appointments forsurrendering a pet and many of these shelters charge a fee to take your pet.Sadly, nearly all of the turned away animals are abandoned or taken to anothershelter where they may eventually be destroyed.

RESPONSE:

This has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. It is further untrue-there areNo-Kill Shelters that are open admission municipal agencies and who acceptunrestricted drop-offs. This is anattempt to divert attention from the legislation and to create an artificial“Ugly Reality vs No-Kill” debate were it does not belong.

Myth:There is no overcrowding problem.

Fact: In one major Florida city from 2001-2010 there were 282,661 pets thatentered animal shelters. Of those, 97,259 pets were returned to owners or foundnew homes. In that same period, however, 185,402 were euthanized. In 2010 therewere 304,074 households – meaning nearly one in three households adopted a petfrom a shelter, yet nearly 2/3 of the animals in that city were euthanized.Every household would have had to adopt an animal over that period of time for“No-Kill” to have been accomplished. Statistically ½ of all households desireto own a pet – so every household wanting a pet would have had to adopt 2additional pets into their household over this 10 year period.

RESPONSE:

Yes, there are a lotof animals. This has no relevance to the proposed legislation. The issue of the number of animals homelessis better addressed by such strategies as low- or no-cost spay/neuter,responsible pet ownership education, etc. This is just an attempt to confuse the issue and set out a fog ofallegation and misinformation hiding the true issue: should a shelter have tomake a minimum effort to try and adopt or place an animal before the killit?

Myth:“No-kill” shelters offer a humane way for unwanted pets to live out theirnatural days.

Fact: Pets being warehoused in “no-kill” shelters are confined to cages forweeks, months or even years. These caged animals become more withdrawn,depressed or aggressive everyday, reducing their chances of being adopted. Thispractice is considered by humane groups such as PETA to be a far worse fatethan traditional shelters. In several documented cases these animals sufferneedlessly and die in inhumane manners because the shelter became overwhelmedwith the animals being kept for long periods of time.

RESPONSE:

This is an issue longdebated and off topic in this discussion. Differences in opinion about the “humane” state of No-Kill shelters areappropriately the subject of other debate, but have nothing to do with thisbill. And by the way-citing PeTA as anauthority regarding humane treatment of companion animals is ludicrous. TheirVirginia shelter killed 97% of all its animals in 2010.

Myth:“No-Kill” shelters offer a cost savings over traditional shelters.

Fact: The average cost to prepare an animal for adoption is estimatedat $175 per pet. Additionally, it costs $10-15 per day to care for the animals.“No-Kill” shelters often rely upon the public shelter to pay for the servicesrequired for sterilization/adoption and housing before taking them to place innew homes. While it may look as if the “No-Kill” shelter offered a savings itis simply that they shifted the burden to the public shelter.

RESPONSE:

This is an exaggeratedoverstatement of costs. Vaccinations fora pet amount to less than $10.00 for a full set (if purchased in bulk as mostshelters do). Spay/neuter costs vary,but are significantly less than listed, especially when conducted by anin-house program. This also ignores thefact that the public sheltertransferring an animal to a Rescue, under the proposed legislation, willcollect its full adoption fees covering their costs-if not actually makingmoney. There is no “shift” of any rescue organization’s costs to the publicsector.

Myth: Public shelters are the only ones that euthanize animals they take in

Fact: Many “No Kill” shelters turn animals over to the local animal control agencyfor euthanasia or they have private veterinarians perform the procedure so theycan maintain their “No Kill” claim.

RESPONSE:

If this is happening please refuse to “massage” thepaperwork, document it and report the FRAUD being perpetrated. I know as a former AnimalControl Agency Director that I was asked to do this once-and refused. I would not be party to fraud. I assume that other Animal Control Agencyheads (at least the ones I know) are of equal integrity and will refuse tocooperate with this kind of sham. Again,this does not impact the proposed legislation.

Myth: “No Kill” shelters are all working to resolve their local pet issues andadopting out all types of cats and dogs.

Fact: Many “No Kill” shelters actually look outside their local areafor more “desirable” pets to place for adoption. The typical mixed breed brownor black dog is too often not taken by these shelters because they aredifficult to place due to a lack of public demand. The same is true of adultcats, especially black cats and orange tabby.

RESPONSE:

This is anotherargument being presented to fog the issue-this legislation has no effect onlocal adoptions-OTHER than to make it possible for Rescue organizations to stepup and take in animals that they have room for WHEREVER they might be.

Myth: “No Kill” shelters will always take a good animal that needs a new home.

Fact:Nearly all “No Kill” shelters are limited admission shelters (meaning that theywill only take animals when they have available space). These shelters turnaway thousands of animals per year due to lack of space. Additionally, theseshelters must remain in business by producing revenue so they often limit thekinds of animals they take by what they know will be adopted quickly togenerate operating revenue. This leaves bigger pets, common mixed breeds andthose animals that have lower demand to be the burden of the open admissionshelters that ultimately have to euthanize some of these animals.

RESPONSE:

The allegation thatNo-Kill Shelters are ALL limited admission is incorrect. There are open admission shelters that aredocumented No-Kill Shelters. In thiscontext the question is off-topic. These allegations, true or otherwise, haveno bearing on the legislation at hand. This is a distraction.

Those of you who know me personally know that I am apragmatist. I recognize the harshrealities of life, and have a great appreciation for the difference betweenreality and fantasy. This bill sitssolidly in the realm of the real world. This is a practical, workable, and efficient method to begin the task ofreducing needless euthanasia in Florida, and indeed across the nation.

Please join with me in supportingthis legislative action to save animal lives in Florida.

Lennox and the DDA-conclusions and an idea.

2011-11-03T08:53:00.001-04:00

There is an epidemic in the UK these days. Dogs are disappearing from yards andporches, vanishing from parlors and kitchens. Children’s companions and family friends taken away, more like 1984 than2011. No, these are not targets of theThought Police, but nearly as insidious-they are victims of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

These animals are being taken because they “look”dangerous. Not because of behavior. Not because they have bitten and disfiguredsome poor child. Just because they havea certain “look” that dooms them to imprisonment and, too often, death.

In the classic movie “Casablanca”, Claude Rains tells hisofficers to “round up the usual suspects” after a shooting, and they do. In 1941 in French Morocco, balanced beforethe onslaught of the Nazi war machine, that may well have been de rigueur. In Britain, 2011, that is unacceptable andmust stop.

The names of the seized are common, but the list isgrowing. Lennox. Miley. Simba. These have become the“usual suspects” and are being rounded up faster than we can track. All the while, the House of Lords hasrecognized the failures of the DDA and has proposed legislation revoking thepower of the police and animal wardens to seize an animal just on looks. Yet, as the measure works through theParliament, seizures are continuing.

When challenged by families, the provisions of the DDA allowthe animals seized to be held, incommunicado, while the process grinds slowlyalong. The initial ‘evaluations’ doneare not evaluations of behavior-they are conducted with a tape measure and achecklist. Is the dog broad ofhead? Does he have wide shoulders? Does he have straight legs? As I have pointed out in a previous column,the standards applied to the prohibited physical type apply to many dogs,purebred and mixed heritage. If I shavedown a Komondor or Puli is it suddenly a Pit Bull? They are both strong, broad skulled, straightlegged and wide shouldered breeds. Can ahaircut make a difference between banned and non-banned? If so, then the standard for judgment isterminally flawed.

We have discussed Lennox extensively. Blue has been liberated, thanks to a gooddecision by a wise magistrate. But let’slook at two more on the hot seat right now. According to reports, Miley is a 15 month old mixed breed that policeseized despite the fact that Miley has not been reported aggressive. Miley simply “looks wrong”. Miley has not bitten, threatened, orotherwise shown bad behavior.

Simba is similar. Simba’s crime is to have been running loose on several occasions. This I understand-a dog must not be allowedto run loose. Especially repeatedly,despite the owners excuses for the transgressions. But the onus here falls on the owner, not thedog. If the dog is loose-cite theowner. If it is repeated, fine themmore. As I have done in the past,establish legislation that states if a dog is repeatedly loose and the ownerunresponsive after proper notification, take civil seizure of the dog to haveit rehomed to a more responsible owner. But don’t just kill the dog because the owner is incompetent.

I also have to question some of the official evaluations ofthe dogs given in custody, particularly the ‘evaluation’ of Lennox. Lennox has been examined by two independentbehaviorists, and found to be not a threat. One less than adequately qualified person has termed the same dog “themost dangerous dog they have seen”. Their evaluation is at best suspect. If I lay hands on a dog that I truly want tofail a behavioral evaluation, I guarantee that I can push hard enough to getsome sort of negative response from the dog that will justify the result Iwant. We have had evaluators here in theUS that have done so repeatedly, some of which are famous for finding “flaws”that give excuses to destroy animals. Archimedessupposedly said “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move thewhole world.” I would edit that to saygive me time to work and a lever (of provocation) and I can make any dog-orhonestly any animal-display aggression. The idea of ‘evaluating’ an animal by pressing it long and hard enoughto get a defensive response is cruel and ridiculous. But that is exactly what is happening withsome evaluators, and that is unprofessional and unconscionable.

Where does this leave us-and the dogs in limbo in the UK?

Miley should be simply returned immediately, with apologiesto the owners. “Oops-we messed up. Here’s your dog. Go home and have fun”.

Simba is another issue. If Simba has been a nuisance by getting loose, then cite theowners. Make them responsible for theirconduct, and correct them by whatever means is locally and legallyavailable. Remember, their failure isnot the dog’s failure-punish the right end of the leash.

For poor Lennox? Ultimately,I am a pragmatist. I am so sorry,Caroline and Brooke, but in Lennox’s case there is not likely a fairly taleoutcome. There will not likely be aPrince, or a Princess, sweeping in on a fair steed to spirit him back home tolive happily ever after. The case hasgone too far and has muddied too many waters. Even if he is to return home the possibility of a problem looms toolarge-no one can live under a microscope for the rest of their lives,especially a dog. He, a family member,or some well meaning friend, may make an otherwise minor mistake that willresult an express trip back to the dock and onto the euthanasia table.

Or, knowing human nature as I do, some not well meaningperson scrambling for their fifteen minutes in the spotlight may allege Lennoxhas committed some aggressive act, with fully the same result.

Frankly, the local dog wardens will be hamstrung and unableto so their duties no matter what happens if Lennox goes home. If Lennox lives a perfect life and yet is thevictim of an attention seeker, the wardens will be under severe pressure to actpolitically, not professionally. And ifLennox, perhaps as a result of his imprisonment and isolation, truly does bitesomeone, the wardens will again be vilified and blamed.

So, although my heart is torn for you Caroline and Brooke,and for Lennox, most likely your poor lovely boy can’t go home again. Lennox has become famous, and fame is oftenits own prison. Just ask your favoritemovie star what it’s like to try and pop to the store for a few items.

Lennox doesn’t deserve prison, either at the hands of theBelfast Council or in the glare of an unrelenting spotlight. But he does deserve a chance to live out therest of his days in peace, within a family unit. So for Lennox, the best we may be able to hopefor is that he is released into the custody of a responsible and caring rescuegroup, that can provide resources to help him recover from his trials, and whocan place him in a secure, safe, and understanding home where he can liveunthreatened by unreasonable discriminatory laws. The Belfast Council can feelsatisfied that they have done their duty by removing such a “serious threat”from their bailiwick. Everyone livesalmost happily ever after. ExceptCaroline and Brooke. Except the rest ofus.

It then becomes incumbent on the rest of us, dog owners andnon-dog owners, to repair this broken system, a system wherein the good natureof a dog is ignored and the measuring tape decides life or death. Where creatures are summarily judged andexecuted because they have the “wrong” look.

So how do we fix the issue? I have a few suggestions.

First and foremost, define Dangerous by specific,quantifiable, express action of the dog,not the owner. If the dog hasbitten, evaluate that bite objectively. Dr. Ian Dunbar, DVM PhD (London University), has established aclear and quantified Bite Assessment tool for evaluating the severity of dogbites. I have taught and used that toolacross North America. It grades bites byspecific criteria and is behaviorally linked to the intent and likely severityof the attack. Establish clear rules inlaw that give consistent consequences for dogs based on the bite; if a dog,unprovoked, inflicts a Level 5 bite to a victim, it is Dangerous. Clear and consistent-whether a Puli or aPomeranian.

Provocation is often already litigated in a jurisdictioncivilly. Use that civil definition-butevaluate the provocation with a full understanding of how the dog sees theevent, not how the humans see it. Dogsare not humans in little furry coats. Understand their non-human world view and learning history, and use thatto see whether an incident was provoked in the dog’s world. Apply that to the incident at hand after afull, detailed investigation.

Correct, and punish where appropriate, the human actionsthat lead to dog problems. If a dog isloose and a nuisance, punish the owner. If the owner is unrepentant or unresponsive, step up thepunishment. Provide for the seizure of adog from a noncompliant owner after successive corrective tries so the dog canbe relocated and placed in a responsible home. Provide legislative authority to ban irresponsible owners from replacing one nuisance animal with another. But focus enforcement action on the owner, not the dog. Things (and in this case dogs must be lumpedin as things) cannot be legislated; effective legislation addresses humanbehavior.

Finally, if a human has created through negligence ordeliberate bad acts a truly dangerous animal, especially if that animal has injuredor killed another human, prosecute fully and send the human to prison. In those rare cases the dog should, forpractical and legal reasons, be destroyed-but the person responsible for theevil manipulation of a gentle and forgiving animal into a marauding monstermust be punished to the maximum allowed by law.

We have an opportunity. The House of Lords in the UK have recognized the deficits in the BritishDDA. Across the world we have the chanceto change laws from irrational, hate based excuses to discriminate againstwhatever “look” we find objectionable at the moment to clear, behavior basedpractical and enforceable laws that will truly increase public safety andimprove our treatment of the canine companions that have stood by our sides fortens of thousands of years. Let’s takethat opportunity and make the right choice.

More on Lennox-and breeds in general

2011-10-24T14:39:00.001-04:00

The latest news from Belfast indicates that Lennox has, forthe moment, been given a reprieve with a new appeal. Lennox, the dog under death sentence inBelfast, Northern Ireland for looking like a prohibited breed, has had methinking more about the issue of breed more than usual. And as I petted Parker, my Curly Coated Retriever,while he sat at my feet, it struck me: we are doing the whole thing backwards!

To set up the situation; Lennox is a dog that never showedbad behavior towards anyone-other than barking a bit at the invaders that came into his home, a behavior that is normal and expected from nearly any dog-he simply looks like what Northern Irelandconsiders a dangerous breed. To verifythis the dog wardens reportedly took out a measuring tape, checked Lennox’shead, body length, and leg length (which would have been nearly impossible if he had been at all aggressive), and pronounced him prohibited, based oncomparisons to a written breed standard. They then seized him and have ordered his death, claiming that hisphysical attributes, as measured by a tape, have determined that he isdangerous and a threat to society. Oh, and that moment of barking.

The problem here is that the process of breed standard useis meant to go completely the other way around-including the issue oftemperament and behavior.

If I go to a dog show with Parker, the first thing I musthave is proof that he actually is a Curly Coated Retriever. This identification is typically based onregistration, with documentation of his parentage back many generations. This gets us in the door. Then, he is examined by a judge and thatjudge compares him to the written breed standard to see if, as a Curly CoatedRetriever, he compares favorably (or not) to that breed standard. He is also compared to the other Curly CoatedRetrievers in the ring, who have also been compared to the written standard, tosee if he is the best representation of the breed at that show on that day. He may then be compared to similarlyexcellent members of other breeds to be judged as to which dog most representsthe ideal example of their own breed to determine Best in Show. All of these dogs are also observed for theirbehavior in the show setting, as aggressive or dangerous behavior is neverpermitted, no matter how beautiful or physically adhering to the standard thedog may be.

This particular scenario takes place in the rarefied atmosphereof the dog conformation show, but it directly applies to the real worldtoo. We meet a dog and we ask his ownerwhat “kind” of dog he is. We ask about his personality, we watch his behavior,and then we use this information to make predictions about the dogs’ nature,suitability as a pet, and honestly whether we think he is a good example of that“kind” of dog.

But with Lennox, and so many others, we are going the wrongway. We look at the physical form of thedog, apart from behavior and personality, and try and guess which breed the dogmost resembles. Then we make personalityand behavior assumptions based on that guess. In the case of Belfast, they took some measurements and then, withoutregard to the actual parentage of the dog, and without any regard for the dog’sindividual behavior or observed temperament, made a guess that resulted in theseizure of the dog.

First off, this makes huge assumptions that the physicalform of the dog (phenotype) must of necessity accurately reflect the breed(genotype), without allowing for gradations between perfect specimens. This also assumes that physical form definesthe dog’s behavior. Have a largely whitedog with black spots and short hair? Must be a Dalmation…unless of course it’sa badly bred English Setter. Or a paleCatahoula. Or a Jack Russell/Pointermix. You see how well that goes.

In the real world, we may meet a friend with a new dog. When we ask what “kind” of dog it is, theymay tell us “Oh, this is my new Chihuahua, Peanut.” We see that Peanut is a bit bigger then weusually find in Chihuahuas, and we may note that, but we don’t run out, get atape measure and say “Oh no-Peanut is thirteen inches at the shoulders, andBeagles are thirteen inches tall, so Peanut is obviously a Beagle and will runafter rabbits!”

This mistaken application of physical attributes todetermine behavior, as ridiculous as it sounds, is exactly what is happening inthe UK and other places with breed-based laws. They are attempting to use a dog’s physical attributes to assignprojected behavioral traits. Forinstance; in this twisted world, a dog that a dressmakers’ tape says has a widehead, broad shoulders, and powerful musculature must be a “Pit Bull” or otherforbidden breed. Yet I doubt, with alldue respect and regard, that the Kennel Master at Sandringham Kennels wouldtolerate a dog warden with a tape declaring that Her Majesty’s LabradorRetrievers were “Pit Bulls”, even though they are broad (and handsome) of head,muscular and fit, and are wide shouldered so they can swim and work efficientlyand with grace and style.

Contrast the following parts of breed standards forStaffordshire Bull Terriers and Labrador Retrievers, as published (andcopyright to) The Kennel Club of Great Britain:

“Strongly built,short-coupled, very active; broad in skull;”

“Short, deep thoughwith broad skull.”

“Smooth-coated, wellbalanced, of great strength for his size. Muscular, active and agile.”

“Good-tempered, veryagile…broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins andhindquarters.”

“Jaws strong, teethlarge, with a perfect, regular and complete scissor bite, i.e. upper teethclosely overlapping lower teeth and set square to the jaws.”

“Jaws and teethstrong with a perfect, regular and complete scissor bite, i.e. upper teethclosely overlapping lower teeth and set square to the jaws.”

Ideal examples of each of these fine breeds will have theabove traits. Examples of dogs of thesebreeds should, according to the standards, possess the following behavioraltemperaments”

“Intelligent, keenand biddable, with a strong will to please. Kindly nature, with no trace ofaggression or undue shyness.”

“Highly intelligentand affectionate especially with children.”

Quickly now, which is which? Which of these potentially may be labeled a “Pit Bull” type dog andbanned, and which one is known around the world as one of the finest of thewaterfowl retrievers? Can’t tell fromthis? Exactly. That is my point.

Now let us depart from the company of Her Majesty’s finestand our Best in Show Staffordshire Bull Terrier and go down the breed scaletowards home pets and general doggie companions. These fine specimens of breeds may lookclearly separate at the apex of their “type”, but down the genetic lines, eventhough they may still be clearly Labradors or Staffies, their looks may beginto approach one another; a bit coarser head here, just a bit oversized there,one family having a bit shorter snout than the other…and sooner or later we mayhave a serious problem distinguishing poor examples of either breed-even thoughthey are related directly over time to the once stellar examples. Where-and when-do we start drawing theline? When does a badly bred Labradorbecome essentially indistinguishable from a badly bred Staffordshire BullTerrier?

And to get back to our original concern, when does behaviorbecome less Lab-like and more Staffie-like, or vice versa, as their appearancesconverge? And more to the point, isthere really a predictable difference anyway?

In my time training, working with problem dog behavior,hanging around dog shows, and investigating attacks, I have found Labradorsthat won’t retrieve, Pointers that hate birds, big brave German Shepherds afraidof the vacuum cleaner, and even French Bulldogs that don’t snore (well, not asloudly…). Individual differences in dogsare as critical as individual differences in people. That is why some dogs are a threat, just likesome of the people that I used to arrest. Individual behavior is affected by individual learning history,individual talents and preferences, and ultimately individual choices.

My advice to the officials in the UK, and wherever elsebreed bans and regulations are being proposed or enforced: Forget what the doglooks like, or is supposed to looklike. Life is not a dog show, and there are good and bad physicalspecimens of every breed and type out there. Forget what the ideal good-or ultimate evil-example is supposed to act like. The individual range across breeds is fargreater than the commonalities within breeds, especially when you get away fromthe ideal example. Not all Best in ShowLabradors can hunt. Instead, developDangerous Dog regulations that regulate and address specific, quantifiablebehaviors regardless of appearance. BadOld English Sheepdogs should be held to the same standard as bad AnatolianShepherds. An evil little Jack RussellTerrier can be just as dangerous as a psychotic Tibetan Spaniel. Address individual dog behavior, and moreimportantly, address the functioning of the responsible human. Now there’s your dangerous breed.

"Evaluations" and the tragedy of Lennox

2011-10-11T20:41:00.001-04:00

Over the last few months I have watched the case of Lennox,a dog seized for having the “wrong” looks, as it has unfolded in Belfast,Ireland. Lennox was seized, not forbehavior, but because he has a particular physical structure. He looks like what Ireland terms a‘restricted breed’-a Pit Bull. He is neutered, hasobedience training, is properly vaccinated and was legally licensed-yet he wassummarily seized and has been condemned to die. As I have watched Lennox’s case, and his impending death sentence,several things have sparked my attention. Not only does the issue of destroyingthis animal solely based on his looks appall me, but I am particularly concernedby the "evaluation" of Lennox that the Council and Court isdepending on to make a determination of his level of threat to society.

To begin, Lennox has been held for over a year in a shelterfacility. He has been deprived of hisnormal social contacts-his family, has had limited exercise and interactionoutside his kennel, and has even been, according to some reports, medicatedwith amitriptyline.

Two dog behaviorists have evaluated the dog to date. I understand bothhave weighed in that Lennox is not a dangerous dog. The videos andevaluations have shown Lennox to have substantial control of his behavior, thathe is a sociable and pleasant animal despite his long isolation and confinementaway from his home, and that he showed clear restraint when one evaluatorpushed him into a trapped area in a threatening manner. At that crisispoint Lennox did the only thing that makes sense to a dog; he lunged, with nocontact, in order to communicate clearly that he was frightened and feltthreatened when he had no where else to retreat. He did the equivalent toa human raising their voice when other means of communication fail.

This speaks volumes for this individual dog. Despite everything that has happened to himhe still shows restraint in his behavior and a desire for human socialcontact. He still displays clear biteinhibition. He still responds appropriatelyto social cues. This is also despite theconduct of these evaluations in a restricted shelter environment.

Yet these two evaluations are being ignored by the Court. Instead, a third evaluation is being used as the litmus test for Lennox. This third evaluation was conducted not by a behaviorist, but by a police dog handler. As a retiredpolice Lieutenant I have known a number of canine handlers-and the trainers thatprepare the dogs before police get them. I have participated in thetesting and evaluation of police dogs before their training. And I cansay this-police canine handlers and trainers are special, valued and talentedpersons-but they are not behaviorists.

A police dog is a special animal. Only about ten percent of thecandidates are chosen. They need terrific drive, huge levels oftrainability, and a great desire to work in tandem with a human handler. They must be brave enough to go in where no person or animal reasonably should,yet must be able to instantly disengage when ordered to, despite inertia andprovocation. They must not be aggressive, as anger would interfere withthe ability to disengage at need. They must also be able to use nearlyhuman levels of discrimination to understand when they must self-deploy toprotect their handler, yet must recognize the difference between a violentsuspect and the approach of an innocent child. We ask so much of them-andthey give it all willingly, sometimes to the death.

Police dog handlers and trainers must be highly skilled to get this level orperformance. But that skill is limited to the task at hand. Policehandlers do not address behavior problems of other animals-they are focused onthe training, maintenance and development of their special charges. Thesehandlers conduct obedience work with their dogs as part of the controlmechanism, but do not diagnose or treat problems that range from house trainingto nuisance barking. They do not treat, or particularly evaluate,aggression issues. If a dog exhibits aggression in training it iseliminated as unsuitable. An aggressive or "mean" dog is a riskto the Department, the handler, and the public.

Even Animal Control Officers may be deficient when evaluating what is a"dangerous" dog. They encounter animals that are usually not attheir best, often threatened or injured, and frankly do not get the behavioraltraining necessary to make the decision between treatment of repairable behaviorand that which is clearly dangerous. They can say whether a dog'sbehavior, in a specific incident, meets the legal definition of"dangerous" in their jurisdiction, but often fall far short of beingable to diagnose whether this was truly dangerous aggression or was a stormbrought about by a collection of predictable, reasonable animal behavior added tohuman failing. In the case of Lennox the dog warden's job was in someways too easy; did Lennox look like one of the "usual suspects"? He did, so the case was closed, even though Lennox never had a chance to speak.

Assessing dog aggression, and evaluating whether a dog is"dangerous", even when presented with clear criteria (which do notexist in this case) is a job best left to those familiar with more than justwhether a dog is physically able to bite. Any dog can bite-they haveteeth. A competent evaluator must understand the psychological issuesbehind the multiple behaviors we lump together as aggression. Is the dogterritorial? Is the dog a resource guarder? Is the dog fearful? Can thedog adapt to novel and potentially scary situation while maintaining anacceptable level of composure? Is the dog responsive to human signals, and isthe dog able to signal its own intentions clearly? Does the dog have theinter-species social skills needed to peacefully coexist in a multi-speciessocial environment? Those are the questions that need to be asked beforedetermining if a dog's behavior is "dangerous".

Having a police dog handler evaluate Lennox for his suitability as a patrol ordetection dog would be appropriate; it would be having a skilled technician andtrainer choosing whether Lennox would make the cut as a working dog. Wewould not ask the police trainer to evaluated Fire Department equipment, eventhough he might like the red suspenders. To have the police handlerevaluating Lennox as a behaviorist is a disservice to the dog-and thehandler.

And the worst part of this? The case is no longer about Lennox. It is about rules, it is aboutdiscrimination, and finally about egos. Problem is, the bruised egos will heal-but when Lennox is dead, he is de

A Death in India

2011-10-04T09:09:00.000-04:00

Recently I was asked to render an opinion on an alleged dogattack fatality in Bangalore, India. Thebasis of the case was that a child, a two and a half year old boy namedSandeep, was found dead on the side of a road, mutilated. His throat showed what appeared to be bitemarks, his left leg was amputated, and significant tissue was missing from theleg between the knee and what would have been his hip. A horrid sight, and a horrid way for anychild to die.

The reason I was consulted was that local interests hadquestions about the investigation, and the probable manner of poor Sandeep’sdeath. The police ruled that the deathwas due to dog attack, but other parties felt that there were issues thatshould have been investigated more closely.

The dogs in question that inhabit the streets of India aretermed Native Indian dogs or INDogs, formerly called pariah dogs. They are the nativeferal dog breed that inhabits India, and have done so forcenturies. They range around 25 inchesat the shoulder, and weigh an average of 30 to 45 pounds-about the size of aBorder Collie.

The parties involved sent me the full file; crime scenephotos, the police report, the autopsy report. And as I sat down to dig through the information and digest the terriblescene, several things struck me as inconsistent.

My full report is herehttp://www.strays.in/index.php/2011/08/press-release-bbmp-says-sandeep-was-not-killed-by-dogs-police-say-he-was-what-does-the-evidence-say/.

Since the release of my report other opinions by alleged“experts” have appeared looking as far afield as blaming “imported PitBulls”. Partly in response to theseother opinions I have decided to open up the book on the investigation, and my concerns,and let you all have a look at the evidence.

To begin, the story related to the police was asfollows: Sandeep and his family, migrant workers from the Bihar province of India, had traveled for work tothe city of Bangalore. Sandeep’s motherwas pregnant and due, and so she was a patient at a hospital in the Bangaloresuburbs. While she was a patientSandeep, his father and his uncle were allowed to sleep in the secured basementof the hospital, a fairly common arrangement in India where many cannot afforda hotel room while they await the treatment of a relative.

During the night Sandeep, his father and uncle went tosleep. When the father awoke before dawnhe found Sandeep was missing. The fathertold police that he began to search the area for Sandeep, but wasunsuccessful. About two hours latter,after sunrise, Sandeep’s mangled body was discovered 700 meters (for USresidents, that is almost half a mile) up a city street, piled at the edge ofthe road where garbage is commonly abandoned.

The police arrived and photographed the scene. The child was taken to the Medical Examiner’sOffice for autopsy. A cursory autopsywas conducted and the finding was, “Yep-the dogs did it”.

If you have followed me for any time you already know my positionon making broad assumptions without a detailed investigation. Certainly, a quick look at the crime sceneand the paperwork seemed to support the idea that the local roaming INDogs dogshad attacked and killed Sandeep. Thiswould not be the first case of that happening. But as I looked at the collected information things started to botherme. The facts presented just didn’t addup.

Although there were a number of concerns, all listed in myfull report, I want to concentrate here on details of the specific injuriespresent, and how they relate to each other and the case overall.

The first injury was the clearly visible scalping of thechild. In dog attack cases removal of partor all of the victim’s scalp is relatively common. Partial removal of a scalp has occurred in many cases of children and adults,including the case of Mary Bernal of Florida in 2006. Dogs that attack the head and face of avictim can easily remove chunks of torn scalp. A clear example of dog-torn scalp injury can be found in the classicreference work Bitemark Evidence, edited by Robert B.J. Dorion (MarcelDecker Publishing, New York, 2005), pages 316, et al.

Torn scalp-that is the key here. Dog attacks that remove chunks of scalp showtorn, ragged edges. In the photos ofSandeep, his scalp is cleanly cut in a straight line longitudinally. No tears visible, no tooth marks, no raggededged flesh. All of those indicators arefamiliar in dog attacks. The flesh ofthe scalp is thin (as anyone who has ever busted their head in a fall knows),but when assaulted by teeth it tears unevenly, not in a clean, straightline. That is unlike Sandeep, whosescalp wound is clean and straight, more consistent with a sharp object such asa knife-or a vehicle fender.

But I did not make a conclusion from a single cut. The next inconsistency was the severance ofSandeep’s left leg. His leg was detachedcompletely from his body. Again, limbseverance is not unknown in dog attacks, especially in children. But the leg was detached just below the headof the femur, the large bone in the thigh. That was visible because the flesh between the top of the thigh andapproximately half way to the knee had been cleanly and evenly removed in aneat circle. There was no visible torntissue, no ragged bits as one would expect from dogs ripping off flesh. And an examination of the upper exposedsurface of the femur shows an angular, straight break in the bone, similar tothe type of mark that a physical tool, such as a sharp metal object would havecaused. This expose bone does not showany clear marks of gnawing or a ragged break.

This wound is difficult on two grounds. First, I have seen limbs stripped of muscleand tissue in dog attacks. Several ofthem have involved the consumption of the flesh. Yet these have all shown ragged, non-uniformremoval of meat, not the clean, circular pattern shown on Sandeep. For a simple illustration, look at how yourpet dog cleans off a large bone. The dogtakes the easy, removable bits first and then, with time, goes back andeventually picks the bone clean. The dogdoes not evenly, progressively, remove each bit in a careful circle and thenslowly move on to the next bit.

This is slightly consistent with an injury termed “gloving”where flesh, for instance, on a finger, is pulled off sharply by a dog (acommon dog bite) that encircles the finger with his teeth and pulls away, muchas you would remove a glove from your hand. Yet gloving by a dog here would require that the dog encircle the entiretop of the leg (after amputation, of course), take it almost knee-deep into thedog’s throat, then cleanly pull directly backwards stripping a clean tube ofmuscle and skin backwards. With nodangling bits. The wound at the hip isalso surprisingly clean and even, not what I would expect from extended tearingin the removal of the leg by dogs.

Further, when a dog breaks a bone as large as a femur(thigh) they typically crush and crack the bone in pieces. Sandeep's thigh bone was cleanly cut. The location of the break is also unusual-justbelow the top of the bone, immediately before the joint and the ball end of thefemur. If dogs had simply ripped off theleg the most likely result would have been to tear and shred the flesh aroundthe joint until they could pull the leg free from the socket, including thehead of the femur, not to try and break the strongest part of the bone. This tearing off of the leg would haverequired a substantial force, and a strong grip on the lower leg, but deep,full dentition gripping injuries are glaringly missing on the visible surfacesof the lower leg, inconsistent with the leg being ripped off by dogs.

The lack of visible blood, both on the exposed bone and thesurrounding intact tissue is another concern. Ripping a limb off results in a lot of blood. Yet there was minimal blood visible on theskin or the bone, or under the body, an indication that the majority of thebleeding happened other than where the body came to lay.

For other concerns, please read the full report. To summarize, the injuries, physicalevidence, irregularities in the autopsy, positioning of the body on theroadside, and other circumstances bring the simple verdict of “death by dogattack” into question. As a retiredpolice officer I have seen both deliberate homicides and traffic crashes thatcould have produced all of the injuries in this case that are inconsistent withcanine predation, and that could have easily combined with scavenging to givethe scene presented.

My conclusion in this case is that there are a lot ofunanswered questions. None of theseissues alone eliminate dogs as the cause of death-nor do they prove it. They collectively cast doubt on the initialassumption. I don’t know exactly howSandeep died. I am sure that it wasviolent and that Sandeep deserved a better investigation than he got. I am certain that there was dog scavenginginvolved, a behavior fully consistent with observed behavior of native and other dogs inIndia and other places where sanitary disposal of waste, including hospitalwaste, is common. And I am fullyconvinced that the damage in this case done by dogs does not require themysterious importation of “Pit Bulls” into India. I strongly suspect that there was more to thiscase than “Yep, the dogs did it” as was assumed, probably involving humanaction that could range from a deliberate attack to a hit and run traffic crash. But Sandeep’s family will never have theclosure of knowing for sure what happened to their son.

Dangerous Dog Evaluations

2011-08-06T21:23:00.000-04:00

One of the tools that an investigator of bites and fatalities can use is a behavioral evaluation. Behavior evaluations, and there are many of them, have different designs and purposes. Some claim to be predictive of adoption success. Some are comparisons of various temperament factors. Some are puppy tests intended to predict the best puppy for showing, or obedience, or field work. Some claim to determine the best dog for bite or protection work. Some seek to find the best dogs for drug and detector work.

They are useful tools, but the value-and limitation-of those tools must be considered when evaluating a dog’s behavior. First off, I have issues with those who claim certain tests are predictive of adoptive success, or of predicting how the dog will, or won’t, behave in the future. To me, the purpose of a temperament test is not to predict what the dog might do someday. It is an assessment of what the dog is doing right now. It is also a tool we can use to help figure out what may have led a dog to make a behavioral choice in the recent past. Predicting what might happen is a skill best left to the seers and prophets of the world. The interaction of environment, training, owner skill, relationships with other animals, potentially diet, possibly (but only remotely in my view) vaccines, and a host of other factors large and small conspire to affect a dog’s future behaviors in ways we are only beginning to understand. This conspiracy of influence makes prediction the guess in the dark that is has been for as long as human memory has existed.

But as investigators we are asked to evaluate dogs, and to make recommendations from that evaluation. To do so effectively we have to ask ourselves before we test “Why are we testing this dog?” and “What is the intended outcome of this test?” We have to have a goal in sight, a purpose in mind.

When I am asked to test a dog after a bite, or to evaluate a potentially hazardous dog, there are things I am not doing. I am usually not looking to see if this particular dog is good material for adoption. I may not be looking to see if this dog can be “saved”. During an investigation I am evaluating a dog to find out what, in the dog’s behavior, may have contributed to the incident at hand. I want to see what triggers the dog has, how she responds to various stimuli. I want to see if there are particular sensitivities. I want to understand how this dog interacts with and perceives the world. I want to get a sense of what makes this individual dog tick.

A behavioral evaluation is NOT is a contest between human and dog to see who can intimidate who. It is not a battle of wills. It is not to see if the evaluator can get submission from the dog or bully it into reluctant compliance.

Neither is an evaluation a contest to see who can “handle the baddest”. No responsible evaluator should be trying to rack up points in some bizarre contest to see how nasty a dog they can manage. Frankly, bite scars from evil, aggressive dogs do not impress me; all the bites I have received have been because I made mistakes. These mistakes were usually from not paying attention and missing clear warnings that the dog was about to react with a bite. Bite scars may be a part of the business, but they are marks of times we failed. That failure is serious, because failure on an evaluator’s part not only results in injury to the handler, but in many jurisdictions is a death sentence for the dog.

So what is a behavioral evaluation? A behavioral evaluation for a dog is a map, a documentation of everything about that dog’s behavior at that time and in that place, noted fairly and with understanding of what dogs are. It should be a picture of the world from the dog’s eyes. In the case of a bite investigation, the evaluation lets me review the road signs of the long, strange trip that led to the situation at hand. How did the dog’s past, the owner’s actions, the surrounding environment, and even the dog’s diet, add up to place us where we are? To quote Arthur Conan Doyle, what was the curious incident of the dog in the night time? What did he see? How did he come to act as he did?

In some circumstances I evaluate a dog to see what path rehabilitation might best take, with potential recommendations to be considered in matching the dog, as it behaves presently, with treatment and/or placement options. I see these evaluations as similar to the scholastic and psychological testing done by school systems on children identified as having learning or behavior deficits. Schools no longer, thankfully, look at children with problems and label them as “stupid” or “bad”. Instead, they test them to find their strengths, and weaknesses, behaviorally and intellectually. The school then uses these tests to tailor the child’s learning program to address the deficits. If there are psychological difficulties, the school works with the parents and medical experts to treat these issues so the child can succeed as well as that child has the ability.

Dog evaluations for rehabilitation should, in my view, be the same; a tool to find deficits, and a way of mapping out rehabilitation by identifying the issues. Unfortunately, some use the testing of temperament to be a live-or-die test, choosing to cull those that fail to meet the sometimes artificially determined objective on a certain day in a certain environment. That is not my method.

At this point I am going to hijack my own column here and lead into a serious question: the question of rehabilitating a dog identified as having critical behavioral problems, particularly those involved in human focused aggression or that have been the product of dog fighting.

In my view this breaks down into two questions: can we rehabilitate dogs with serious problems, and should we rehabilitate those dogs.

The first part is pretty easy to answer. Many dogs, just like people, can be rehabilitated with time, talent, and dedication. Not all, but lots of them. Fighting dogs can largely be re-conditioned to, over time, accept the presence of other dogs. Look at the success of most of the dogs from the Michael Vick fighting case. Some of these have gone on to be therapy dogs, assistance dogs, and general ambassadors for the breeds involved. Others, although not so successful, are safely living out their lives with a combination of wise management, patience, and devoted support.

When it comes to dogs involved in fatalities or serious aggression against humans, the issue is a little more clouded. With non-fatal attacks there may be a possibility of successful rehabilitation-provided the legal liabilities in releasing these dogs are not insurmountable. These dogs often require long term, careful management to insure that no on e else is injured. Most people, frankly, don’t want to accept that sort of responsibility-and many are unable even if they want to. If they are the original owner they may have set the dog up for the problems it has, so there may be a serious need to retrain not just the dog but the human.

In the case of fatalities, the legal problems usually do prevent the dogs’ release; no government agency is going to be willing to accept the liability that one of these dogs presents. Even if the dog is released to a skilled rehabilitator or sanctuary, any future incident involving the dog pretty much guarantees that someone, somewhere, will try and sue the releasing agency. That cost is usually too high.

Another problem when we look to see if these animals can be rehabilitated is access to qualified trainers and adequately prepared sheltering. Rehabilitation is far more than just parking a dog somewhere that it can be securely held. These dogs require long, skillful deconditioning, and retraining, to be acceptably safe in society again. Thus, a dog with serious aggression issues cannot just be popped into your local dog trainer for fixing. The person must be competent with aggressive animals, and willing to take on the often long-term project. These folks are few and far between. Not all trainers are qualified, and even some board certified Veterinary Behaviorists are less than comfortable working with a dog that has severe human aggression issues. All of these folks deserve to be compensated for their time, expertise, and willingness to risk their own safety to try and save a troubled dog.

Then we have the should issue. This takes in the questions of whether it is better to save a single dog than to use the same resources to save, say, ten dogs. Or a hundred dogs. Dogs are no more interchangeable than children, and our society does its best to address the problems of each and every child-but dogs are, well, dogs. We do not, as a society, value a dog as highly as a child. Is that morally, ethically right? Here we pass clearly into an area beyond my limited expertise, but the fact remains-dogs are property. And in this case there is a lot of property; some more attractive, some easier to deal with, and too much of it in need of help. Shelters have to make heart-wrenching decisions as to who lives and who dies. Who gets the Veterinary care needed, and who has to be destroyed. Rescues have to choose just which dogs to save-and which ones they have to turn their backs on today. Should we spend hundreds, or thousands, of dollars rehabilitating a single dog, or should we spend the resources on tens, or hundreds, of other dogs just as deserving?

To summarize the should question we have to think; are we morally proper in trying to rehabilitate difficult, or even dangerous dogs? That is a personal decision for each of us, but many would say yes.

Should we expend the resources to do so, especially since resources are precious-as precious as a dog’s life? Is there an able and willing (not necessarily the same thing), qualified person to work with the dog? Does this person have space or time to work with the dog? Are there the financial resources (money) to pay this person for their time, effort, and skill? And finally, practically, and most heartbreaking-do we devote a large chunk of resources to save a single dog, or should we look to save as many dogs as we can with the same money? I no longer run an Animal Control agency or a shelter, so I no longer have to make those decisions. To those who do: that is the worst decision you make on a daily basis. I have been there. I feel for you.

Aggression and breed-my thoughts

2011-07-03T21:10:00.000-04:00

Today I want to talk a bit on the subject of breed and what is loosely termed vicious propensity. There are supposed experts that claim breed nature is overriding and that certain breeds are naturally violent. Most of this ire is aimed at the complex of breeds that are popularly known as Pit Bulls.

Notice I say the complex of breeds. The dogs that most critics identify as Pit Bulls are rarely registered American Pit Bull Terriers. They instead consist of Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers (yes, the Spuds Mackenzie dog), American Pit Bull Terriers, and assorted mixes thereof. They also lump in other breeds like the Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero, various Mastiffs, newer breeds such as American Bulldogs, sometimes Old English Bulldogs, even Boxers, Great Danes and generic mixed breeds.

Those who demand that “Pit Bulls” be banned or regulated don’t seem to discriminate between these often very different breeds or mixes. They are all “Pit Bulls’ and are all therefore dangerous. Reasons cited by these breed ban proponents usually include several myths that science has disproved.

First of these is the “locking jaw” of Pit Bulls. I can say from personal experience, locking jaws do not exist. I have disassembled the skulls of “Pit Bulls’ that have killed humans and that mechanism simply isn’t there. But don’t take my word; there has been a scientific study that verifies this. In Do Pit Bulls Have Locking Jaws, Dr. Al W. Stinson sets this one to rest. There is no physical device or mechanism in the jaws of any of these breeds, or any domesticated canine for that matter, that “locks” the jaws of the dog in any position, open or closed. Any perception of a “locking jaw” is simply the product of training and reinforcement of holding behavior, a behavior that can be taught to any dog.

The next myth cited is the “horrible power” of the Pit Bull bite. This has also been debunked by research. The latest of several studies was published by National Geographic, an organization not noted for defending vicious dogs. In Dangerous Encounters Dr Brady Barr conducted a series of tests of the strength of bites of dogs and other species. This study backed up several others that found that Pit Bulls have middling bite strength, somewhere between Labrador Retrievers and Germans Shepherds.

This makes sense if you look at the physics of bite force. Force applied, according to physics, is a direct result of two factors; the length of the lever that is used to apply the force and the force applied (MA=d1/d2 where MA=mechanical advantage, d1=the effort arm and d2=the load arm). The force applicable by a specific lever depends on the breaking strength of the material the lever is made from. Bone, the material jaws are made from, has a breaking strength, as can be attested to by anyone that has ever broken a bone-or particularly their jaw. Length is easily determined. By measuring one can easily see that the average German Shepherd has a bit longer jaw than the average American Pit Bull Terrier. Apply the physics and the truth is obvious.

The third myth that opponents point to as proof that these dogs are violent is their supposed “vicious propensities”. When asked to show proof that the dogs have vicious propensities they point to attacks. But when asked why the attacks happened they point back to “vicious propensities”. It is circular logic that determines nothing. No further behavioral analysis is done as to what triggered the attack. Claims are made that the dog “just went off” and therefore no trigger was needed. Yet in my observation and experience, dogs rarely ever just “go off”. There is almost always a back story. That back story is what a full investigation must look to unveil.

If the vicious propensity theory was true it would, of necessity, apply to all dogs of the affected group. No Pit Bulls would ever earn American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen certificates. None would ever be granted status as Therapy Dogs. None would be used as Guide Dogs, Service Dogs, Search and Rescue dogs, drug detector dogs, or simply kept as family companions. Facts indicate strongly otherwise; dogs of the various breeds lumped together as Pit Bulls perform all of these tasks and more. My observations have shown me that individual differences in dogs far outweigh breed-wide behavioral assumptions. Yes, retrievers overall fetch more reliably, pointers tend to point birds better than, say, Malamutes, and St. Bernards drool; but I have seen Dachshunds point, Papillions retrieve, and Huskys that would never drag a sled. Individual differences are primary, just like people.

Don’t get me wrong; Even though I have been accused of being pro-Pit Bull, I am not an advocate, apologist, or promoter of any breed. On the other hand, on some occasions I have been accused of looking to find evidence confirming that a dog was nasty just because it was a Pit Bull. When I explain that I only follow the evidence, some have had serious reservations that maybe, under close examination, I might find something that does verify the claims of the anti-whatever crowd. Or maybe a specific attack might give those opposed to Pit Bulls ammunition to use against the dogs.

I don’t defend Pit Bulls or any other allegedly “inherently dangerous” breed. Neither do I condemn them. The facts of every case have to be addressed, up front and accurately, wherever they lead. Just like in humans, there are good and bad individuals of every breed, race, ethnic origin, profession, etc. Pick a group-there are some bad ones. There are probably even bad Nuns (I mean apart from the writings of Neil Gaiman). So when it comes to Pit Bulls, the fact is-there are bad Pits. And good Pits. Just like any other dog. When investigating bite cases we can’t make assumptions based on generalization. We have to look at the evidence in an attack, and go wherever the evidence takes us, even if the evidence takes us where we would rather not go. I believe, based on my observations and experience, that there is only one breed that is inherently vicious: and it walks on two legs.

Fatal Dog Attacks are a Big Deal

2011-06-02T14:37:00.001-04:00

Today I would like to amplify a bit on my last post dealing with the human factor in dog aggression. Specifically, let’s talk a few minutes about why a fatal dog attack investigation is a different sort of creature, and why these investigations are important at all.

Far too many times, when a dog attacks and kills someone the general reaction is, “Oh-the dog did it” and that is it. No real investigation occurs. Oh sure, a few questions are asked and the authorities try to find out who owns the dog. Animal Control or the Health Department asks if the dog had current rabies shots. But too often that's it.

In the last few years, however, a number of things have happened. First, civil claims have grown immensely. The litigation process has required a much deeper analysis of cause and effect in order to figure out who has to write a check. Blame has to be assigned, and with blame comes liability and a sometimes lucrative payoff. Is this a bad thing? No-victims, and victims’ families, deserve to be compensated for their losses.

Hand in hand with civil litigation is a developing interest in criminal prosecution of irresponsible owners. I have personally participated in several successful prosecutions, including some that were groundbreaking for the states where they happened. Reckless owners are now, in increasing numbers, being held to account for their actions, or lack of actions, with jail or prison time. This is a good thing.

Hand in hand with the factors above is what many in Law Enforcement call the “CSI Effect”. Juries, both civil and criminal, expect a higher standard of proof and detailed evidence, like they see weekly on the various franchises of “CSI”, and others like “NCIS” and “Criminal Minds”. Cop shows are big business and cool techno-toys help sell the franchise.

In our criminal justice system detailed proof, especially in critical cases like homicide, is a good thing. In human cases we no longer (I hope) round up the “usual suspects” and try and pin a crime on whomever seems guilty. We demand proof, physical evidence, a chain of events that proceeds with some sort of (at least) internal logic; “Professor Plum hit Miss Peacock in the head with a candlestick in the library-and left his fingerprints on the door, DNA on the candlestick, and had front-oriented blood spatter identifiable to Miss Peacock on his suit coat.” Homicide is a crime that our society ranks as one of the worst, a crime that carries the possibility of execution. A homicide case deserves all of our best efforts and investigative skills. Homicides of children are cases that we find particularly heinous.

A fatal dog attack is a homicide. Most often with a child victim.

All of the elements of proving a homicide are needed in a fatal attack. We have to prove that the death occurred because of a specific action or inaction. That action has to be directly related to a specific instrument (weapon). That instrument has to have caused a specific life-threatening injury. We have to be specific. If a gunshot victim is found, we have to determine who exactly pulled the trigger. We have to determine what their intent was to make the charges appropriate-deliberate or accidental? We have to identify the specific gun; if the suspect is caught with three guns we can’t just say “it had to be one of these three….” We have to have proof.

In too many dog fatalities we miss the mark. A person is mauled and two dogs are found in the house. The verdict is “the dog(s) did it” and stops there. Exactly which dog did it doesn’t come up; all present are guilty by association. This happens despite the fact that the technology to identify the individual dog, and the individual bite that caused death, are available. Too many times the dog(s) present are killed on the scene by first responders and the bodies are never processed or even given a detailed examination. No behavioral evidence, a critical part of this puzzle, is gotten because no evaluation of the dogs is performed. Bite molds are not taken, stomach sampling doesn’t occur, and jaws and coats are not processed for blood and other physical evidence-they are simply disposed of.

This should be a major issue. I am directly aware of at least one case in which an agency determined “the dog did it” and conducted no crime scene investigation. Days later the death was determined to be from other causes-a murder. The suspect, sadly, was the one-in-a-million that actually exercised his right to remain silent. No evidence, no investigation-and a child murderer walked free.

But, as Billy Mills used to say, “Wait, Wait-There’s More!” In a dog attack fatality the instrument used, the weapon if you will, is a living, breathing, semi-independent creature. Dogs have the ability to act with, and without, direction. They may not have the ability to make conscious moral choices like humans (that is too anthropomorphic for me), but they do behave in patterns that are reinforced, or made more likely, by prior human action. Their behavior tends to make logical sense-seen from a dog’s perspective-and is affected by prior actions and training. Some of that training and reinforcement is deliberate on the part of a human, and some is inadvertent, but both can be just as deadly. We talked about those factors in the discussion of directed and non-directed aggression. An investigator needs to know how the suspect dog(s) were affected by human action before the attack.

To adequately determine the past conditioning of the dog, and the factors that led up to killing the victim, we have to do a number of things. First we can have a skilled evaluator put hands on the dog. Evaluate the dog and see what it does and how it acts under at least limited circumstances. Next we have to talk to humans that have previously interacted with the dog. We have to interview the owner/trainer as to what they did, or did not do. We need to talk to Veterinary staff that may have dealt with the dog. We need to get a picture of what made that dog tick, and as best we can understand how that dog saw the world. Was this a strong, focused, confident dog that was protecting his territory or standing firm against a perceived challenge? Or was this a fearful dog just trying to make the scary thing go away. Saying that the dog killed someone was because “it was in its nature” or that “it just went off” is a cop out. We don’t accuse people of crimes because “those people are just like that.” We need to know, or at least try to know, what particularly caused this dog to act as it did.

Publicly, fatal dog attacks get lots of visibility. I was contacted by a friend after working on one particular case because the investigation was covered in the newspaper Pravda. Yes, Pravda the newspaper in the Russian Republic. A child killed in West Virginia, USA, gets coverage in Russia. That shows how volatile and messy these cases can be.

All of these things, and a host of other bits, add up to a specialized case that demands attention. Someone has died, and that someone deserves the best we can give them. That best includes a detailed and specialized investigation. Lives are at risk here-those lost and those that will be lost in the future in similar cases. So yes, investigating fatal dog attacks is a big deal. Homicide always is.

The Aggression Question, Part 4: The Human Factor

2011-05-29T17:55:00.000-04:00

Aggressive behavior by dogs has three defined facets; fear/threat response, resource protection, and manipulation of social environment. For the investigator there is a fourth dimension of aggressive behavior: the human factor. How, and to what extent, did/does human action or inaction affect the aggressive behavior of dogs, and what part does this human interaction play in determining responsibility for an attack?

When I look at an aggressive attack, and the human factors behind it, I break the above categories into two further groupings. These I call “Non-Directed Aggression” and “Directed Aggression”. These are my own terms, and as such are not endorsed or attributable to anyone else, but I find them useful. Let me illustrate the behaviors, and the attendant responsibility that I attach in analysis of an attack.

First look at the category “Non-Directed Aggression.” This is, in my use, aggressive behavior (sourced in one of the three big categories above) that has not deliberately been reinforced or encouraged by the human. Note I say “deliberately”. It is this measure of human intent that, to me, makes all the difference.

An example. Mrs. Lolits, the lovely ninety year old lady down the street, has a nasty little Pekingese “Lulu” that she dotes upon. This little monster barks, snarls, growls and snaps, straining at her little lead, at anyone that approaches Mrs. Lolits as they stalk the neighborhood. Mrs. Lolits loves her doggie and tells her “Oh, Lulu, its all right baby….”, pets Lulu, and in general fusses over her. Mrs. Lolits often picks little Lulu up when she goes into a frenzy, cooing to her and telling most of the people that they encounter “She’s just a sweetie, she would never hurt a fly”.

Wrong. Lulu is a bite looking for a place to happen. Mrs. Lolits is reinforcing Lulu’s ghastly behavior, giving her additional attention, and making things much worse. Is Mrs. Lolits doing this on purpose? Of course not. Yet her behavior is creating a situation wherein someone is likely to eventually get hurt. Is this negligence? Yep.

Take it another step. Mr. Vacant has a pet Lab “George” that “doesn’t like children”. George has bitten two kids so far-minor bites, but bites none the less. George isn’t a bad dog-but he is under socialized and has had some bad experiences with unsupervised children pulling on his ears, stepping on his tail, and in general being little heathens. Mr. Vacant is actually lucky that George is as gentle and tolerant as he is. Yet one day the Vacants have family friends over and the friends have small kids-and the Vacants leave George out back “playing” with the kids whilst they step into the kitchen for some adult beverages. George doesn’t want to play. George retreats into the corner under some bushes to stay away from the kids. Little Johnny crawls face-first into the bushes to play with George. George tries to say, in dog language, “GO AWAY” but the child continues. George finally snaps forward, catches the child by the face, and severs the child’s carotid artery. Little Johnny then bleeds to death while everyone screams.

Is the child at fault here? No. The child’s actions did precipitate the bite-in dog terms. More importantly, was there a way to easily prevent this tragedy? Were there warning flags that a reasonable person could, or should, have seen that would have tipped them off to the likelihood of an attack? And if so, did the responsible adult take any actions to remedy the problem?

In this case clearly Mr. Vacant should have seen it coming. The dog had prior bites to kids. The dog, if examined by a competent behaviorist or trainer, would have shown the warning flags of potential fear aggression. Mr. Vacant could have easily taken George for obedience training and/or behavior work and made George a much more stable dog (and probably less anxious). Ultimately Mr. Vacant could have simply put George inside in his crate while the kids were around. Is this negligence? Absolutely-and should be prosecuted as such under the applicable local laws.

George’s hypothetical story is, actually, the blueprint for far too many real dog fatalities. The ingredients are mostly 1) a dog with issues 2) that were unaddressed and/or reinforced with 3) kids unsupervised at the time of the attack. These are true tragedies; a child dies, at least one family is ripped apart, and no-one wins, including the dog. Yet this behavior, even though it is negligent, is not intentional. It is passive stupidity, not active evil intent.

Directed Aggression is the ultimate step up. This is human encouraged, or reinforced, behavior with intent to direct that behavior towards a human target-even if it is not the target attacked.

An easy example is an owner we will call Mr. Testos. Mr. Testos likes having a bad acting dog. His dog charges at the fence constantly when people walk past, snarling, barking, and bouncing off the fence. Mr. Testos eggs the dog on; “Go gettem Thug! Go eat ‘em up!” Mr. Testos thinks Thug is a great guard dog.

Poor Thug has been set up.

Thug is being reinforced for human focused territorial aggression, probably tempered with a bit of fear response (we can safely doubt that Thug has been introduced to new people in a friendly manner). Thug is doing exactly what he has been taught to do.

One day Mr. Testos leaves the gate just a bit ajar and Thug goes off as a person passes. That person happens to be a kid on a bike, and Thug’s prey drive kicks in. Thug chases the child and takes them to the ground mauling them fatally.

Is the child at fault? Absolutely not. Is the dog at fault? No-he is doing what his owner taught him to do. The only one at fault here is Mr. Testos, who should (when the case is documented) go directly to jail for deliberate endangerment/gross negligence, whatever the jurisdiction allows. This attack was the predictable result of direct human action, regardless of Mr. Testos’ claims that “someone else left the gate ajar.” He set the stage and he should face the consequences.

People ask how this applies to police, military, and protection dogs. First off, military and police dogs are valuable, highly trained assets that directly assist public safety. These dogs are tools, just like guns and handcuffs-albeit they are a lot more cuddly than a pair of handcuffs. Police and military dogs are constantly trained for control, not just bite work. Part of the essential training for a police dog is the “OUT” command-the control that allows a handler to stop and recall a deployed dog at any time, even at the last second. Use of force rules require that level of control. These dogs are potentially a danger, but are almost never involved in a non-service related attack. The handlers and dogs are held to a higher standard by their agencies, as well they should be. These dogs and handlers are professionals, committed to their missions.

Civilian protection dogs are another story. Personally, as a retired police officer, I don’t believe that any civilian needs a dog that attacks on command. That said, there are dedicated handlers that compete in sports such as Schutzhund and French Ring that are responsible and professional in what they do. These reputable handlers work their dogs constantly, like police and military handlers, for control. And that is a distinction-the handlers do not work only, or even primarily, bites. The level of obedience training and other work that a Schutzhund dog must do is phenomenal. And frankly I have never seen a competitive Schutzhund or Ring Sport dog ever kill anyone. The problem is when “trainers” produce “protection” dogs for civilians, and that includes the dogs placed in businesses as “guard dogs”. These dogs range from almost-as-good-as-professionals to meaner-than-spit-on-a-stick. These dogs present a clear threat to others. “Guard dogs” have been responsible for fatal human attacks. These cases have to be assessed individually. These cases should also be, in my opinion, held to a higher standard than the average owner.

The task of the investigator, by interviews with owners, neighbors, witnesses and living victims, is to sort through the behaviors exhibited and the behaviors tolerated and/or reinforced and determine whether the aggression in the case at hand was caused deliberately or through passive negligence. Did the owner encourage the behavior, or did the owner fail to recognize or address problems? This is the test for the severity, or placing, of charges.

In one last observation on prosecution, the question arises “Haven’t they (in the case of parents of a child killed by a family dog) already suffered enough?” As an investigator, or a prosecutor, it is not your job to determine suffering. The parents of any child that dies suffer. The question is not suffering, but accountability. Did the parents, if the dog’s owners, cause the child’s death, by action or inaction? We certainly would not use that excuse if the parent(s) had killed the child by holding its face under water in the tub, or shaking it violently causing brain damage and death. Although a prosecutor has to consider whether a jury would convict in a case, the bottom line is that if the parent was, after all is evaluated and documented, negligent, then the appropriate accountability should be applied.

Response to injury study

2011-05-10T13:26:00.000-04:00

As most of my readers are aware, I track-and when I can personally investigate-fatal dog attacks on humans. So when the article “Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs” was published by The Annals of Surgery[1] I had to buy a copy and read through.

Drs. Bini, Cohn and others present the case that Pit Bull attacks are more serious and cause greater injury that other dog bites, and that Pit Bulls should be “…regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated.”

Now that caught my eye. So I dug through the article and found some serious discrepancies within the research and conclusions.

First, a couple of notes where credit is due; The researchers, citing solid sources, put to bed the myths of a locking jaw and the allegedly terrible force of the Pit Bull bite. They say clearly in the paper “…there is no such thing as a locking jaw mechanism in pit bulls or in any other canine”. Their comment on the supposedly terrible bite force is “…there is no evidence for the extreme bite force often reported in the applicable literature.” The cited data shows that Pit Bulls can exert about 235 psi pressure with their jaws, as compared to a German Shepherd at 238 psi and a Rottweiler at 328 psi. In comparison, a grey wolf tests out at about 400 psi, and a lion at 600 psi (p. 793)[2].

Yet this good information is diluted by other references, and conclusions based on these references. Table 3, titled “Characteristics of Pit Bulls” (p 793), contains statements that are simply incorrect.

First, I am going to use a very generous definition of “Pit Bull” here, one that uses what I call the “reasonable person” idea; what would a reasonable, logical person, basically familiar with dogs, not overly fond of or afraid of Pitt Bulls, assume to be a Pit Bull? This definition is, I admit, very loose, much looser than the definition cited by the paper’s authors. Their more restrictive definition reads “The term pit bull refers to dogs from the following breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.”(p. 791 and Table 3, p.793) This would eliminate a number of the dogs identified in the documented attacks (such as the Dogo Argentino that killed a man in Indiana)[3]. But we will use the looser definition to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

So let’s look at these “facts” one by one and dissect the issues.

Pit Bulls, according to the paper, are:

1) “Responsible for 65% of all fatal attacks in 2008”. In 2008 there were 23 total human fatalities from dog attack. 13 of those were identified as Pit Bulls[4]. That is 56.5%, not 65%, a significant difference, and a factual error.

2) “94% of (Pit Bull) attacks on children were unprovoked”. This statement is pretty accurate regarding all breeds of dogs. Small children do not have the capacity to knowingly provoke a dog. Older kids should be given the benefit of the doubt unless observed tormenting a dog. This statistic is flashy, but irrelevant.

3) “81% of attacks that occurred off the owners’ property involved Pit Bulls”. Factually incorrect. In 2008, the worst year, three of the four fatal attacks that happened off the owners’ property were Pit Bulls, which is 75%. In 2009 that number was five out of twelve, making 41.6%. In 2010 two of nine off property fatalities involved Pit Bulls, which is 22%.[5] None of this adds up to 81%.

4) “One person is killed by a Pit Bull every 14 days”. This line is repeated in the text of the paper. For this to be true, it would require 26 people every year to be killed by Pit Bulls. In 2007, in 18 of 33 attacks the dogs were identified as Pit Bulls, not 26. In 2008 there were 13 total fatal attacks by Pit Bulls, half the required number. In 2009 there were 15, still short of the needed number. In 2010, 18 of 34 fatal attacks were attributed to Pit Bulls. This blanket “statistic” is flashy and grabs headlines, but is incorrect. The paper, in the narrative, does mention that this is based on a limited time period, but a canny researcher can choose a time period during which dog attack human fatalities were caused by Dachshunds; in fact, during 24 days in 2010, 100% of all human fatal attacks by dogs in the US were due to Weimaraner attack. Sweeping statements cannot be accurately based on small slices of reality. The figures on file don’t support this outrageous claim.

5) “1.5 Pit Bulls are shot to death every day”. To address this I examined the media reports of dogs shot by police from 1/1/2011 to 5/9/2011. There have been 22 dogs reported shot by police during that time period. Only nine of those 22 were Pit Bulls, although a vicious (inherently dangerous?) Lhasa Apso was shot by police in Cape Coral, Florida on February 6^th. To meet the standard of killing 1.5 Pit Bulls every day would require, for this period (129 days) that 193.5 Pitt Bulls be shot and killed, or a total of 547.5 per year-every year. The documented total is a few short. Of course, this is just police shootings, but cruelty cases are a different story and one can’t conclude that animals are vicious just because vicious humans break the law.

6) “Pit Bulls attack indiscriminately”. All dogs attack indiscriminately-the only dogs that target particular individuals are Police K9s deployed on criminals. A sweeping statement that is as true for Pit Bulls as for Pomeranians, and again a flashy statement that is irrelevant.

This study is also marred by selective presentation of anecdotal “evidence”. The paper begins with the dramatic recitation of a dog attack where the victim was admitted to the authors’ hospital with ultimately fatal wounds. This account details the efforts to save an 11 month old male victim. Sadly, the attack was well covered in the media, with specifics that mirror the account-to a degree. It occurred in March of 2009, and it seems the baby was only seven months old, not eleven as the paper describes. A small error-but a factual error that knocks one more pebble from a crumbling edifice. You would think that an attending physician might just know how old his patient was.

This case is somehow supposed to illustrate the ‘dangers’ of Pit Bulls, yet there is a more extensive background, one that makes the true nature of this attack clear. At least one of these dogs had a previous bite, to a child, and neighbors reported numerous occasions where the dogs had threatened others. This was a case of a child not properly supervised in the presence of dogs that had exhibited human focused aggression before on multiple occasions and humans that recklessly tolerated that behavior. Breed seems to have been irrelevant; any dog with a history of human focused aggressive display should have been excluded from being unsupervised with an infant. The child’s grandmother was indicted in his death, but she died of natural causes before the case came to trial.[6]

Another attack described as a typical Pit Bull attack is the attack to a ten year old female that happened in January, 2007. The paper relates that the girl was attacked by a neighbor’s Pit Bull that was usually chained in the neighbor’s back yard. What the account fails to report is that the child was going to rescue the dog that had become tangled in the fence by his collar and was choking. The child saw the dog caught in the fence and, since she had played with the dog, asked her mother if she could go help the dog. Her mother agreed, and the child, who wanted to be a Veterinarian when she grew up, went to help.[7] The dog, predictably, was under severe stress; any organism fighting for breath is likely to fight and attack any close object or person to try and survive. That is why owners are taught that, if their dog is in extreme pain or in a fight to cover them with a blanket or, if injured, try to muzzle them before they try and save them in order to reduce the likelihood of human injury. The poor child rushed in to help and the dog thrashing around bit her in the stomach and neck. Truly a tragic end, but not exactly a Pit Bull crime, eh? This was a case of a Good Samaritan that died due to the panic of a dying animal.

Further issues? In the paper the authors claim “These fighting dogs were bred and trained not (sic) to display behavioral signals of their intentions so that they would have an advantage in the ring. For this reason, pit bulls are frequently known to attack “without warning”.”.

The idea that the animals were bred to not display behavioral signals is unsupported. I have never seen, in the literature or history of dog fighting, any indication that fighters deliberately bred such signals out of the dogs. Early in my research I hypothesized that dogs involved in fatal attacks might have limited or impaired ability to signal, through normal canine body language, their intentions. That included Pit Bulls, and any other breed that became aggressive enough to kill a human. But like many hypotheses, beginning with the Flat Earth, my working hypothesis was wrong. In evaluating forty dogs that have killed humans I have yet to see even one that did not show normal canine expressive body posture. Not one, regardless of breed.

Regarding dogs in general, I have also, as part of my training experience, behavior evaluation experience, animal disaster response, and work as an Animal Control Director, observed, trained and handled thousands of dogs. I have not seen any Pit Bull type dogs-or any other type dogs for that matter-that did not show expressive canine body signals. That includes dogs that have severe ear and tail crops. Ear cropping and tail docking may affect some of the cues given dog to dog, and dog to human, but at most it would be equivalent to a minor speech impediment. Intentions, postural cues and calming signals are transmitted constantly. They are presented with the ears and tail-and the eyes, nose, mouth, teeth, hackles, stance-it goes on and on. It is my experience that people who say that the dog “just went off with no warning” simply aren’t reading the signs that are there. In those few cases where I was surprised that a dog went off it was clear in the aftermath each time it was me that failed; I either wasn’t paying attention or wasn’t listening. I should have seen it coming.

On p.795 of the paper the authors make the following statement: “The inbred tenacity of pit bulls, the unrelenting manner in which they initiate and continue their attacks, and the damage they cause are the result of both genetics and environment. Therefore, this breed of dog is inherently dangerous.” They then cite five references to support this conclusion. A bit of back tracking to the references brings this conclusion into serious doubt.

One reference is to the study that exploded the myth that the authors themselves admit destroyed the myth that Pit Bulls have locking jaws; “With regard to the locking jaw theory, although pit bulls are bred to not let go, there is no such thing as a locking jaw mechanism in pit bulls or any other canine (emphasis added)(p.793).

The next reference was previously cited by the authors showing that the biometric advantage of a large jaw (in a generally larger dog) only produced a small difference in bite pressure; “The results of osteological studies of skull and jaw morphology suggest that, as the mass of the dog increases, small differences in mechanics due to skull morphology may produce a theoretical bite force advantage.” (p. 793) This statement refers directly to the mass of the dog, not the breed. Concluding that a larger dog has a slight advantage makes sense and agrees with the previously cited results that shows a Pit Bull falls just below a German Shepherd and a bit more below a Rottweiler in measured bite strength.

The third reference is actually to the study of bite strength that debunked the “..extreme bite force…” myth, which the authors acknowledge on p.793. If this myth is untrue, how can the authors use the same figures to support “inherently dangerous”?

So to support their conclusion on page 795 that “…this breed of dog is inherently dangerous” three of the five cited references clearly contradict that conclusion. There seems to be a problem with the logic applied by the authors here.

Close to the paper’s end (p. 796) the authors make an interesting comment: “We should state that our study is limited by its retrospective nature and the limited number of case in which the breed of dog responsible for the attack could be determined. This lack of information may compromise the validity of our results (emphasis mine) implicating the pit bull as a major culprit in severe dog bites admitted to our trauma center.” This cautionary statement is certainly advisable; the authors state in their introduction that they only examined 228 bite cases admitted to their hospital. They further clarify that they were only able to identify breed in 82 cases over a fifteen year period. That brings several factors into play. In their overall admission history of 228 bites they could only use 82-just over one third (35.96%). There could be any number of other breeds contained in the remaining 146 cases, cases that could well have brought some other breed to the forefront. The authors establish no evidence to show that the identified 82 bites are representative of the remainder of the intake cases.

Additionally, this sample seems terribly small. The authors cite the figure that “In 2006 alone, more than 31,000 patients required reconstructive surgery as the result of dog attacks.” The study covers dog bites over a fifteen year period. Fifteen years, multiplied by 31,000 patients, give a total of potentially 465,000 patients across the US that would have been admitted in a trauma center and received reconstructive surgery. Yet the authors are basing their conclusions, flawed as they are, on a sample of seventeen thousandths of one percent (0.00017) of the cases across the US. They admit that they might be wrong since their sample is small and heavily selected (by admission to their particular trauma center). Their caution regarding the size of the sample is well founded.

Yet that does not stop them from reaching the conclusion that “These breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated.”

Leopards? The authors admit they might have the whole thing wrong, and then want to regulate dogs like leopards? This is a clear case of adding one and one and getting seventeen-or more accurately, seventeen thousandths.

In any objective evaluation of evidence, a researcher must go where the evidence leads, even if they don’t like the destination. In the case of this research study, the evidence has been selected from dubious sources and then massaged to get the authors to a destination even they admit is a stretch. The Annals of Surgery should be embarrassed to publish a paper using questionable sources. Shame on them, shame on the authors, and especially shame on the peer review committee that should have done basic fact checking before publication.

[1] “Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs” John K. Bini, MD, Stephen M. Cohn, MD, Shirley M. Acosta, RN, BSN, Marilyn J. McFarland, RN, MS, Mark T. Muir, MD and Joel E. Michalek, PhD; for the TRISTAT Clinical Trials Group, Annals of Surgery, Volume 253, Number 4, April 2011, pages 791-797

[2] Barr DB. Dangerous Encounters;Bite Force <http:www.nationalgeographic.com/siteindex/customer.html>.

[3] Personal Investigation, Muncie, Indiana, December 2008

[4] Personal analysis, documented fatal dog bite attacks. Period examined 2008, from files.

[5] Personal analysis of documented fatal dog bite attacks. Periods examined as cited.

[6] MySanAntonio.com Online, http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Grandmother-indicted-in-infant-s-death-840717.php, and Houston Chronicle Online, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6810731.html

[7] KRGV-TV Online, Rio Grande Valley, Texas; National Canine Research Council, http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NCRC-FDA-2007-TX-San-Antonio1.pdf; and Fatal Dog Attacks LiveJournal, http://fataldogattacks.livejournal.com/6704.html.

The Aggression Question, Part 3: Social Aggression

2011-03-29T13:00:00.000-04:00

The third prong of our working definition of aggression is behavior used as a means to secure or change social standing in the dog’s environment. This is a touchy subject that has led to a huge level of distraction and many misguided training methods over the years.

Dogs are presented as pack animals. The traditional human perception of a canine pack is very male-oriented and hierarchical. There is a clear “alpha” male that rules all from on top. He is expected to make all the decisions and get the benefits of being King; the best food, the best female, the best place to sleep. He is expected to make all the pack’s decisions. The “alpha female” is the next in the pecking order. She is expected to be his best girl, get the best cast offs from her King, and to keep the others in line. Sooner or later, as one of the upcoming males matures, or if another better male enters the pack’s territory, there may be a showdown. The males face off and, a la “The Lion King” or any spaghetti Western movie, the dust clears with one male on top and the other either dead in the street or slinking off in shame. There can be Only One.

But reality is not so clear. This male-dominated, strictly hierarchical pack concept was developed in the 19^th and 20^th centuries by observing wolves, many in captive situations. Much of this observation was done by male scientists, themselves a product of a male dominated, hierarchical society and set of disciplines.

Current research, even in wolves, is not necessarily so clear. There does appear to be a generalized “alpha male” in wolf social groups. In the wild, however, the day to day decisions regarding hunting, travel, and activity seem to be much more loosely made. The “alpha” male does seem to have preferential breeding access to females, but the strict, cast-in-concrete rule of a single King does not reflect reality.

The male-dominated hierarchical stratification of command has been overlaid by some on domestic dogs in our homes. They see dogs as set into rigid rankings, only overturned by fight, deference by an aging “alpha” dog, or death. They also see dogs as needing a clear, physically dominant human “ruling” over the pack as the subordinates quietly plot the leader’s overthrow.

Progressive trainers, behaviorists and animal psychologists are now applying the newer assessments of wolf behavior and pack structure as a more fluid, democratic process into our practices with our companion dogs. It no longer appears that your pet is waiting a sign of weakness to overthrow your “rule” and challenge the social order in your home. Rather than seeing the place of a human as the forcible, physical dominator of a submissive pack, a more cooperative relationship is developing. This less authoritarian relationship is based on clear communication, limits taught by reinforcement and repetition, and consistency in permitting behaviors.

Based on this new data, past appraisals of attacks as “dominant” must be reexamined. In my research I have yet to see a single fatal dog attack that was clearly a result of a dog and a human facing off for “dominance”. More common is a dog that attacks from fear or lack of socialization. This is a reaction to a perceived threat. A lesser number of dogs have attacked due to resource guarding behavior. Either way, the attacks are not the result of “dominance aggression” or an attempted coup.

This does not mean that dominance and dominance aggression do not exist. There is, particularly between breeding age intact animals, a matter of social standing and some of this is sorted out through aggression. After all, our definition of aggression includes using aggressive behavior as a means to adjust or establish social order. It is just not the driving force in canine/human interactions that some believe. Dogs clearly know that humans are not dogs. Our relationship is more complex and more a result of cooperative social evolution over time.

Resource Guarding Aggression

2011-03-23T12:17:00.000-04:00

The Aggression Question, Part 2: Resource Aggression

We are discussing aggression, and aggressive display, as a response to environmental stimuli. But we need to remember, as a refresher, that we must address the reaction to the stimulus as seen by the dog, not a human observer.

We must remember is that the dog is responding to the perception of the stimulus. Perception is dependant on a number of factors, including the dog’s past experience, training, socialization, physical limitations (hearing, sight, etc.), reproductive status, and nutrition level. The dog’s perceptions may not be grounded in objective reality.

We have defined aggression as a behavior pattern that allows a dog to change or alter its environment in some fashion. We have listed three specific incidences in which aggression has value; response to perceived threats, protection of resources, and altering of social status. We have discussed perceived threats, so let us move on to protecting resources.

Protecting resources is easy for humans to understand. All animals need certain basic resources; food, water, shelter from adverse environmental factors, and reproductive access (if the species is going to survive). In times of plenty resource protection may be relaxed somewhat. In times of scarcity, resource protection is vital and can be a life and death struggle.

Our pets generally operate in an atmosphere of plenty. Except in rare cases (post-Hurricane Katrina for instance) our domesticated pets do not have to fight for food access. Begging at the table works fine. But these drives still exist, and can affect our day to day interactions. We have all seen the dog that growls when someone approaches while they have a favorite toy or food item. This favored item is a resource, and the dog in question is guarding that resource.

The drive to protect resources is powerful and hardwired into animals. Some dogs react to the presence of a resource as if they are likely to be in a scarcity situation and therefore, to protect that resource, use an aggressive display. Audible signals such as growling combined with visible cues such as raised hackles and bared teeth serve to warn an approaching animal (even a human one) that the resource is not for sharing. This warning may not be dependant on a true likelihood of scarcity or pending removal of the resource; the key here, as always, is the perception of the dog at the time of the incident.

Ideally these cues progress from a low level warning (audible growl followed or accompanied by initial level visual cues) through a forceful audible warning (bark and loud, overt growl/snarl) to a full frontal bare teeth snap and lunge, ultimately culminating in contact and a bite. If the initial bite does not deter the perceived resource threat then a full fight may ensue, depending on how attached the initial possessor is to the resource.

This sequence may be interrupted by several occurrences. The possessor may, depending on the size and status of the offender and the perceived value of the resource, decide that the resource is not worth defending and withdraw the defense. The offender may similarly evaluate the size and status of the possessor and decide the resource isn’t worth fighting for. Withdrawal of either party may occur after an exchange of communication signals that result in a mutual appraisal and agreement over this particular resource. After all, the survival of a species is not served by every conflict devolving into a fight over every resource. That would result in a population of injured and dead animals that would not be viable long term.

We usually teach our dogs not to blatantly guard resources. Many training books over the years have strongly suggested that we, as owners, teach puppies to “share” by taking food and toys away from them at will, and then returning them, so the puppy does not develop resource guarding behavior. This is a good safety measure. But not all dogs are adequately socialized and trained to recognize humans as non-threatening to resources. In fact some humans are valid threats to resources. A dog that has been habitually short of nutrition may have perfectly valid reasons not to surrender a treat or bowl of food to a human.

This gets us into trouble when a child, or a person unable to perceive these warning cues, persists in the perceived removal of the resource. In the case of a person that fails to recognize such cues and continues with a behavior the dog perceives as interfering with his resource, the dog follows a predictable sequence of protective moves. The sequence of warnings and escalation may happen very quickly; dogs interact rapidly and this progression may, in normal dog-dog interactions, flow through in a flash. Dogs perceive interspecies signals very quickly and can evaluate the sometimes subtle nuances in rapid sequence.

The sequence of negotiations and postures make sense to the dog and are part of its hardwired behavior. The human target of the dog’s warnings may not be able to respond quickly enough to avoid escalation, or the human may not understand dog signals, and fails to either redirect his or her behavior or adequately negotiate with the dog. The dog follows the (to him) logical “use of force matrix” and a bite, perhaps even a serious attack, follows.

Resource protection goes beyond simple food and toys. Protection of territory is a version of this, as the animal’s territory is often the source of food, water, shelter, and in some cases his/her breeding stock. Humans may not perceive the limits of a dog’s territory. Many times physical boundaries, such as fences and brush lines define a territory visibly, but that is not an absolute indicator. An individual dog may regard a smaller area inside an otherwise physically delineated area as his actually territory worth defending-or may consider an area outside the physically defined space as territory. This is one of the ways humans such as utility workers, meter readers, and others get bitten; the particular dog may let them into the fenced yard, but when the worker violates the dog’s personal territory the dog’s demeanor changes and a confrontation ensues.

Is an attack or confrontation in such a resource guarding situation aggression? Yes, as we have defined it-aggression is a strategy to affect its environment for survival by protecting resources. To adequately evaluate the aggression the investigator must consider the potential of resource protection from the dog’s point of view. Was the bite victim within the dog’s perceived resource territory? Was the human perceived to be threatening the dog’s access to one of the key resources? In such a situation the aggressive response may well be understandable, and even a logical response. Should this response have been anticipated and guarded against by the owner through training, socialization, and even management? That determination is a central portion of the investigator’s job.

Earned Bite

2011-03-18T11:28:00.000-04:00

I have to throw this out and give a comment here....According to Examiner reporter Penny Eims, this fresh out of New Zealand. Seems a dog bit the guy who was yanking on his (the dog's) tongue.

From the article:

"According to one report, the injured man was drinking at a party when he decided to wrestle a dog to the ground and yank on his tongue. After the dog maneuvered his way out of the partygoer’s hands, he lunged at the man’s face, inflicting serious wounds."

This should be unbelievable, but after all the bites I have seen, I can believe it. Fortunately the Kiwis seem to have enough sense to NOT label this a Dangerous Dog. Is this aggression? NO. This is a dog that was the victim of a stupid human trick. The guy bought and paid for this.

Next post on the nature of aggression: "Territorial Aggression and Resource Guarding" coming shortly. I have been a bit busy but promise it will be in soon. Meanwhile, here is the link to the full story on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/dog-bites-man-that-yanked-his-tongue

Update-back on line after too long

2011-03-02T08:00:00.000-05:00

Good morning all:

First, I have been off this blog for too long. While employed in my previous job I had to reduce my public output due to rules, etc. So the blog kind of languished. I have not stopped working on the issues of dog related fatalities and digging out the facts behind these cases. I am still dedicated to finding out what happens when the human-canine bond goes so wrong that a fatality occurs, and to preventing these tragedies by educating and informing dog owners and the public alike.

In light of that, here is part 1 of my examination of dog aggression;what it is, and isn't, and how it applies to our interactions with our companions.

The Aggression Question, Part 1: What is Aggression?

Aggression is an adaptive behavior that allows a dog to alter his environment in order to increase its chances of survival. Aggression is defined in textbooks as behavior that 1) establishes access to or protects resources, 2)establishes or alters social standing, or 3) defends against perceived threats.

Defense against perceived threats is probably the most common of these three factors in aggressive displays toward humans. Animals have three basic responses to perceived threats; freeze (stand still and hope the threat passes), flee (RUN AWAY!) or fight. This applies to dogs, horses, or humans.

The perception of threat is affected by a number of factors; experience, training, environment, and adaptability to novel situations. Dogs, horses and humans perceive threats differently. One’s place on the food chain has a lot to do with that perception; as prey animals, horses tend to perceive threats in plenty of innocuous situations. For now let’s look at the dog’s perceptions as we understand them.

The world of a dog is split along some very general lines: Scary Things and Not Scary Things. Scary Things are the things that initiate the freeze/flee/fight response. Scary Things are basically, in survival terms, Things That May Eat or Hurt Me.

When a dog is presented with a Scary Thing, a perceived threat, he chooses a response based on his perception of the level of threat and the potential avenues to relieve that threat. Dogs that simply run from a threat don’t present a concern to investigators-they are absent from the conflict. Freezing is likewise a benign response. The choice to fight, however, brings conflict with humans, and the involvement of the investigator.

A dog that chooses the fight response is not limited to an all out fight to the death. Fight, as a response to a perceived threat, is moderated based on the level of threat perceived. Social behavior has evolved to produce a range of postures, vocalizations and actions that other animals perceive as defensive and help avert actual contact.

The initial level of fight is an aggressive display. For dogs this includes body position, raised hackles, eye focus, exposing teeth, growling, and making initial lunges toward a target. If this display mitigates the threat, makes it go away, then the dog deescalates and the situation returns to neutral. If the simple display does not effect a solution, then the conflict can proceed to contact. The dog chooses to escalate, or not, based on the continuing presence of the perceived threat.

Aggressive displays are reinforced by success-if they result in the departure of a Scary Thing then the dog will try them again for another Scary Thing. Continued success means that the behavior will be repeated. But success is strongly based on trial and error. Success is based on a dog’s perception of the chain of cause and effect, a perception that may not reflect human reality.

A classic case of perception reinforcing an aggressive display is a dog’s interaction with a Postal or delivery person. A dog is at home and sees a potential Scary Thing (unfamiliar person) approaching up the walk. The dog starts to bark, posture, and in general show an aggressive display. The delivery person comes to the door and deposits their item. The delivery person walks away, ignoring the dog. The dog, however, is not aware that the delivery person was leaving anyway, and finds that their aggressive display made the Scary Thing go away. Success! The behavior worked.

The next time the delivery person comes up, the dog tries the previously successful behavior. The delivery person leaves, and the dog perceives that it works again! Now we have a successful behavior that has been reinforced by repetition. With enough successes it starts to become a default response to the approach of an unfamiliar person.

Later, the same house is approached by a child selling cookies. The front door is ajar. The dog sees unfamiliar person approach and begins an aggressive display. This time dog is not restrained by the closed door. The approaching child sees the aggressive display and runs. The dog reacts, the dog’s prey/pursuit drive adds in, and we end up with a bitten child.

Preventing this chain of events is a separate topic involving socialization and training, but the end result is that the dog is labeled aggressive. But is it, in the sense of being a dangerous, mean, vicious animal? Not really. Dangerous, mean and vicious are human terms, placing human values on an animal’s behavior, or more exactly, a dog’s response to a perceived threat. In our example we have a dog that has been set up for failure by the combination of a lack of human guidance and misapplication of a survival oriented behavior.

A similar series of events seems to be magnified in dogs that are habitually chained. If a dog feels threatened, their first response is usually to try and flee the Scary Thing. The chain leaves the dog out in the open, with no place to hide, and no place to run. Freezing may work-the dog cowers down and doesn’t respond and the perceived threat may just go away. But the Scary Thing may keep coming-for instance it may be a passing person who has to come close, but not necessarily all the way up to the dog. The dog, fearing that the freezing isn’t working, goes to Plan B: an aggressive display. Sure enough, the Scary Thing goes away. The fact that the Scary Thing (stranger) had no intention of approaching or harming the dog never enters into the equation. Dogs perceive situations as immediate cause and effect. The aggressive display worked.

Constant reinforcement of this success results in a typical fearful chained dog. The person feeding them may be able to approach easily, but others are repelled by the aggressive display. Now, add someone without the ability to recognize the warning signs or who’s recognition abilities are impaired by drugs, alcohol, or a lack of knowledge, and you have an attack.

If the same habitually chained dog gets loose it may be confronted by a Scary Thing while not restrained by the chain. The dog has few tools to handle novel situations due to a lack of socialization, so he defaults to the successful behavior strategy from before-an aggressive display. In this situation the dog is much more likely to attack and the result is a bite. Is this a vicious dog? We may perceive it as such, but the behavior is the result of a series of events that has its roots in the human behind the chain. In both cases there has been a human cost and the result is a need for control, management, and responsibility.

2007 attacks part 2: The breed question (or not?).

2008-01-23T12:50:00.000-05:00

I am amazed at the attention my post on the dog fatalities for 2007 generated. My friend Karen Delise (author of the great book “Fatal Dog Attacks; the stories behind the statistics”-READ IT!) called and we discussed at length the subject of breed citation. Understand, we share information on a regular basis, and both work hard to make the best decisions and assignments of contributory factors (I think) of anyone out there. And the question of breed identification, listing and importance is a real late-night toss-and-turner for both of us.

I can’t-and won’t-speak for Karen, but I do want to share some of my thoughts, concerns, and ramblings on the breed question.

First off, I work very hard to be cautious in assigning a breed label. If the dog is listed on recognized registration papers as breed X, then the assessment is relatively easy. Of course we all know that there are those registries out there that are meaningless, so as such I look for recognized, real registry papers.

Purebred dogs are by no means the norm in these cases. Then we have to match photos, owner claims, and when I can hands-on examination of the subject dog, and the issue becomes a bit dodgy. One dog may be clearly, say, a Lab. No question, it is just oozing “labbiness”. On a scale of one to ten, this dog is an eleven in the class of “Labrador Retriever”.

But what about the sixes, fives, even fours? If it drops off enough I readily tend to classify the dog mixed breed, or better “NPB” for no predominant breed. Sure, there are those new DNA tests that are being sold to “..tell you the breed makeup of your dog…”, but the genetic scientists I have spoken too generously call those tests “well marketed consumer products.” In other words in the scientific class of those late night infomercial products.

Sometimes we have to make judgment calls. This truly affects the accuracy of the numbers. Forget trying to go as far as “Red-nosed Pit”, “American Pit”, or any of the more discriminative labels. It often just can’t be done.

More sinister is the use of breed statistics to establish “proof” that just isn’t there. Sure, a dog that kills someone may be a Left-Handed Chilean Truffle Hound, but how much does that have to do with the attack? Usually not much.

The reality is that fatal dog attacks are strongly multi-factoral. Dr. Randy Lockwood of HSUS called it “…a perfect storm…”, and I have to agree. A fatal dog attack is the result of a conglomeration of many things, all joining up in one perfect storm that goes directly against thousands of years of physical and social evolution. After all, humanity selected dogs as companions because the DIDN’T present a threat, and because they DID evolve as part of and hand in hand with human social units.

Problem is, some people, often media, seize on the breed of the dog and THAT’S IT. End of report. End of listening to the facts. And that does a disservice to all of us, dogs included.

If I just completely ignore breed, I lose credibility. No one is going to buy the “It’s just a dog-leave it at that” statement. Someone is going to trot out breed, usually in the first reports, and then breed becomes the elephant in the living room.

Yet listing breed, as I did in the last post, leads to people seizing on that factor and twisting the data to fit their pre-conceived notions. If we give irresponsible reporters an opening to seize on any easy explanation, even if it is wrong, they will. Boil it down to an eight second sound bite and move on. And then politicians and enemies of dog ownership use that to further their arguments. So we are screwed.

So what am I doing to do? I’m not sure yet. I refuse to depart from the data-that is where I have to be unswervingly honest. Part of the data stream is breed. Yet that is not the only part, not even the most critical part. Maybe just listing the breeds involved in general terms for the year instead of numbers of each breed? That may be the answer, but then the next question is always “How many X?” Trying to redirect then looks like evasion.

I welcome comments and opinions here. It is not an easy question, and I don’t have the answer.

Jim

2007 - Fatal Attack Facts and Figures

2008-01-20T11:00:00.000-05:00

2007 was a banner year for dog attacks. 2006 had been a record for the US with thirty-one fatalities, but we beat that in '07.

Here is the full update on the thirty-three fatal attacks by dogs in the US over the year 2007. Look through the list, and then we will talk about what we see.

1 - 1/12 – San Antonio, TX: 10 year old girl-Pit Bull-male-intact-chained.

2 - 1/16 – St Louis, MO: 69 year old woman-German Shepherd-intact male-not chained.

3 - 1/24 – Richmond, VA: 6 year old boy-2 Rottweillers-intact females-not chained.

4 - 1/29 – Escambia Co, AL: 18 month old girl-Rottweiller-intact male-tethered.

5 - 2/16 – DeKalb, GA: 2 year old girl-1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Boxer X Bullmastiff mix-intact male, female pregnant-not chained

6 - 3/20 – Friendswood, TX: 50 year old woman-1 Catahoula X American Bulldog mix, 1 Golden Retriever-intact males

7 - 3/23 – Combine, TX: 2 year old girl-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, female with puppies-chained.

8 - 4/23 – Dorchester County, SC: 18 month old boy-Pit Bull-female intact-chained but in laundry room.

9 - 5/13 – San Antonio, TX: 90 year old man-2 Pit Bulls-intact male, pregnant female-not chained.

10 - 5/25 – Ft. Meyers, FL: 71 year old woman-unknown-loose dogs

11 - 5/25 – El Paso, TX: 95 year old woman-Doberman, German Shepherd-both intact males-no chain

12 - 5/26 – Savannah, GA: 3 year old boy-1 Pit Bull, 1 Pit Bull mix, 1 Terrier mix-the two males, intact-not chained

13 - 6/17 – Connorsville, IN: 63 year old woman-Chow-neutered male-not chained

14 - 6/29 – Deltona, FL: 62 year old woman-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

15 - 7/12 – Carroll Co, GA: 5 year old girl-Rottweiller-intact female-chained

16 - 7/23 – Cookeville, TN: 11 month old boy-2 Siberian Huskies-intact-no chain

17 - 7/29 – Bath, NY: 6 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained

18 - 8/16 – Minneapolis, MN: 7 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact-chained with puppies in basement

19 – 8/18 – McMinn County, Tn: 15 month old boy-stray female mixed breed-intact with puppies, newly acquired with fresh puppies

20 - 8/ 31 - Dallas Texas: 3 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-not chained

21 – 9/14 – Warren, MI: 4 month old girl-Rottweiler-intact male, previous bite-not chained.

22, 23 - 9/13 – Iosco Township, MI: 56 year old woman, 91 year old man- 4 American Bulldogs-all intact-no chains

24 - 9/25 – Boger City, NC: 2 year old boy-(2) German Shepherds-chained-intact males

25 - 10/2 – Middleburg, FL: 42 year old woman-(2) Pit Bulls-neutered males-no chain.

26 - 10/7 – Parumph, NV: 73 year old woman-8 wolf hybrids-all intact, one female in season-not chained

27 – 10/15 – Pontotoc County, OK: 65 year old woman-mixed breeds- (5 to 7), breakdown unk. Loose pack.

28 - 11/01 – Phoenix, AZ: 4 year old girl-American Bulldog-male-neutered-not chained.

29 - 11/03 – Killeen, Texas: 11 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-No chain.

30 – 11/13 – Knoxville, TN: 21 year old woman-Pit Bulls-1 male, 1 female in estrus with puppies-all intact-not chained.

31 - 12/13-Dorchester County, SC: 2 year old boy-Pit Bull-intact male-chained.

32 – 12/17 – Rabun County, GA: 61 year old woman-Pit Bull-male-chained.

33 – 12/25 – San Bernadino County, CA – 45 year old woman-unknown pack of loose dogs.

Looking at the numbers here, a few things jump out. Twenty-six of thirty-three involved intact animals. Fifteen of thirty-three involved Pit Bulls. Ten of thirty-three involved chained animals. Does that mean intact Pit Bulls are chained up and waiting to kill? Not hardly.

What I see these numbers indicating, based on my on-scene investigations, is that irresponsible owners tend not to spay and neuter, tend to chain their animals out for extended times with little or no socialization, and that Pits are currently popular with owners who maintain their animals with less wisdom and care than most of us. Once again, it's the two-legged problem behind the four legger that precipitates the problems.

I also have to point out that eighteen of thirty-three were kids, all eleven or under, mostly under three. If ever there was proof of the need to supervise children with dogs - ALL DOGS - this should be it. Don't expect the DVD player and video games to keep them safe. Pay attention and be a parent, not just a piece of furniture.

Canine PTSD in disaster and war

2008-01-03T14:35:00.000-05:00

Happy 2008 everyone! Along with my good wishes to all, two and four legged, I have a bit of a different post today.

Recently I was talking to friend and author Julia Szabo, who's great blog is at http://www.fetchdog.com/blogs/nosetotheground/General (and of course http://www.pet-reporter.com ) about dog aggression, and the case of the Blackwater mercenaries shooting the NY Times compound dog Hentish came up. For those who have not read the story, a dog named Hentish, who lived in the compound occupied by the NY Times in Baghdad, allegedly attacked a bomb detector dog used by the Blackwater operatives in Iraq. The mercenary handler then shot and killed Hentish.

There is relatively little solid information about the incident, but Julia asked about the likely behavior of a dog living in or around a military-style compound in a war zone. To answer that I had to back up almost three years to the animals I dealt with in New Orleans post-Katrina and a dog that I worked with for a time after the animal airlift from Lebanon that happened in the wake of that recent Mid-East flare-up.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD is well defined in humans. According to the NIMH website (http://www.nimh.nih.gov ), “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat.”

Although the literature is less definitive about the presence of PTSD in companion animals, the dogs that I observed on the streets after Hurricane Katrina exhibited symptoms that seemed to be a canine analog of human PTSD. These animals were depressed, lacking in normal affect, startled easily, agitated, and shy of human contact. More importantly, some of these animals exhibited generalized aggression.

An aggressive response in such stressed animals is not surprising, nor unobserved outside disaster situations. Many dogs, especially those who are under- or un-socialized, default to an aggressive display when frightened or exposed to a novel situation. The destruction of homes and evacuation, even death, of the human population of New Orleans was certainly frightening and novel, even to the best socialized of pets.

What did this mean for the dogs of Katrina? In my case, I set up a quiet treatment area, apart from the hustle of the rescue operations. The dogs got personal attention, most often after I built a working relationship through the use of non-verbal communication signals (body language is the basis for about 95% of inter-canine communication – NOT “whispering”, ESP, or other nonsense!) and let the dogs know they were once again safe. They were then introduced to other friendly, non-threatening humans and gradually returned to a ‘normal’ environment.

Did this ‘cure’ the dogs? Absolutely not. Many of these animals have had lasting effects, physical and behavioral. Some, such as Winnie (my Katrina Pit Bull rescue), still show fear during storms. Some have shown varying degrees of suspicion and aggression towards humans. Some have recovered exceptionally well.

Another personal observation, directly applicable to Iraq, was Rudy. He is a German Shepherd mix that was rescued from the bombing of a shelter in Lebanon. He was place in a home here in the US, but began showing aggression towards humans. A delayed reaction in stressed and traumatized dogs is not uncommon; some of the dogs from Katrina only started to show symptoms after they had been removed from the ‘war zone’ and had started to adapt to their rescue. Rudy showed just that delay.

As time went on he showed increasing sensitivity to loud noises (gee, ya think?) and became spooky and likely to give an aggressive response with minimal non-verbal warning signals. He trusted me, but even my daughter, a very dog-savvy teenager, did not trust him.

Rudy’s issues were too much. He was eventually transferred to a safe, permanent shelter where the handlers are skilled and accustomed to difficult animals. He will live out his life safely and in peace, but sadly is unlikely to ever transition to being a family dog. The reason? Lasting PTSD.

What does all of this have to do with Hentish and Iraq? The situation with Hentish just illustrates the many casualties of war. Blackwater claims that Hentish attacked a bomb dog to the point that the handler had no choice but to fire. I find it difficult to believe that this was the first time that Blackwater had ever swept the NY Times compound for explosives. I certainly agree that a bomb dog is a valuable resource that should be protected, but I question the skill and planning of the handler that allowed an unknown dog to approach closely enough to his working dog to actually become a valid threat. Meanwhile, Hentish was killed as a result of behavior that was fully preventable, and may well have been nothing more or less than a manifestation of the war zone he was living in.

Fatal Attack, Boger City, NC

2007-12-23T10:24:00.000-05:00

First off, let me give a quick shout out to Brent Toellner at the KC Dog Blog. Brent’s blog is a breath of fresh air in the world of dog legislation and fighting the unsubstantiated junk that passes for mainstream reportage of dog issues, especially those orbiting around Planet Pit Bull Hysteria. To get a balanced view of a wonderful breed visit with Brent.

Now on to the first case. This case is not unusual; in fact, I am going over this case to introduce you, the readers, to a textbook example of the typical fatal attack. This one has it all; trailers, chains, a history of escalating aggression, unneutered dogs, no public education, no response by local authorities to the early signs, and a child caught in the middle.

In reality, Karson Gilroy never had a chance. A lovely two year old boy, he had two great dogs in his family that taught him dogs were wonderful pals. His uncle next door owned a German shepherd who was tolerant and gentle with little Karson. Karson could tug, pull, and clamber all over the Shepherd. No problems, no issues, nothing but a gentle loving relationship.

Karson had his own dog too. Thirteen months old, his Boxer pup was exuberant but gentle, a good, stable family dog. Remember that-a family dog.

Three trailers away the story was different. The man there owned two Shepherd mixes. Both males, father and son. Both dogs were kept outside twenty four-seven. Both dogs kept on chains. Both dogs intact.

The chained Shepherds were known well by the neighbors. They had broken free of their chains several times. During their tours of the area they had reportedly chased several people, fought with a number of dogs, killed at least one cat and allegedly killed as many as two dogs.

The younger of the two dogs was poorly socialized, to say the least. Fearful, the owner described him as skittish and spooky. The younger dog was also the more agile escape artist. The owner said that the dog had learned to shuck out of the standard buckle collar, so he placed the dog in a choke collar. On a chain. And since the dogs barked at any passers-by they could see through the woods in front of the home, he tied them out in the woods behind the home, almost a hundred feet back into the woods. With no fence or barrier to keep other dogs – or children – from wandering up to them.

Karson typically stayed with his Grandparents while his own folks were at work. His aunt and uncle live next door, and Karson was a regular visitor, playing and watching TV with his cousins. One fine North Carolina afternoon Karson and his cousins were watching TV together while Karson’s aunt went into the other room to finish a few chores. When she returned to the living room a few minutes later, Karson had let himself out the door to go play in the yard. Karson’s aunt immediately began to search for the boy, and the search quickly turned frantic. Neighbors and police were called, and within thirty minutes of Karson’s flight the area was swarming with help. The yard and house were double checked and deputies began combing the woods.

A short time later Karson was found by a deputy, tangled up in the chain of the younger dog, mauled and bleeding. Karson was rushed to the hospital, but died a short time later.

So what can we take from this as lessons learned? The first issue here is the function of the dogs and their place in the family and community.

Karen Delise, author of Fatal Dog Attacks and The Pit Bull Placebo (www.canineresearchcouncil.com) uses a pair of terms that I also use, gladly crediting her for their development. She makes the distinction between a family dog and a resident dog. A family dog is just what it sounds like; a dog that is an intrinsic part of a human family. This dog hangs out with the kids, rides in the car, eats under the table, sleeps in someone’s bed, sneaks shoes out of the closet, and saves Timmy from the well. This is the dog that most of us who are dog people have under our foot as we read or write blogs.

A resident dog, on the other hand, is what we see far too often. The dogs are tossed in the back yard, or worse tied or chained out, and never integrate with the family. They are usually poorly socialized, have little to no training, have food tossed to them pretty regularly, may see a Vet once every year or so, and are only peripherally part of any human-canine social grouping. Perhaps the owners meant for them to be family dogs, but time got away from them. Or they were supposed to be the “kids’ dog” and the kids lost interest. Maybe they had behavioral problems that led to their exile – or maybe their exile has caused the bad behavior. Either way, they have become a sad reflection of what they could be.

And they, the resident dogs, are by far the largest group of dogs involved in fatal human attacks.

So back to this case: two resident dogs chained and unsupervised. The least socialized of the two not only chained, but also on a choke collar, set up to panic if the collar tightened. No provisions to keep unwary toddlers from stumbling into the dogs’ area. A toddler who loved his own dogs and didn’t believe that other dogs were any different. And an accidental slip of attention that led to a toddler becoming a victim in what should have been a safe environment.

Tragic? Absolutely. Predictable? Certainly. Avoidable? Without question. The dogs’ fault? Not hardly. And just the setup that Karen and I find far too often.

COMING UP SOON (and WAAAY quicker than last time- I promise!) A list of the fatalities to date in 2007, a look at the attack in Middleburg, Florida, and a discussion of canine aggression and PTSD in traumatized dogs!

Legislative Efforts

2007-11-16T14:37:00.000-05:00

One of the many things I do is work towards the establishment of sane, rational dog legislation, and try to oppose laws and ordinances that just won't work. While working on my newest posting I wrote the following letter to the Palm Beach (FL) Council regarding a bad set of animal ordinance changes they are considering. If this letter can help anyone else, feel free to steal it as you wish, or contact me and I will try and help in your particular case.

Jim

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Palm Beach Council:

You have before you a daunting task. You are trying your best to raise the quality of life for all of the residents of Palm Beach, increase the safety of those citizens, and still balance the needs and desires of the pet-owning segment of that same population. You are under pressure to do something, take some action, respond to the perceived needs of that community. The status quo is not working, and your constituents have noticed.

Yet you feel as if you have limited tools at your disposal. The traditional response to animal problems is to increase licensing fees, punish owners with onerous and conflicting legislation, hammer the 'evil breeders', whomever they might be, and finally ban...something.

If I might digress a moment, the mental health industry defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. That label accurately describes traditional animal legislation and response. And it still isn't working.

I would ask the Palm Beach Council to consider somthing radical. Try a new method that hasn't failed miserable all across the county.

There is a city that sounds like a fantasy. With a population of 1.2 million people, they have an amazing pet environment. Their Animal Services Division is completely self supporting, and Animal Services give the local Humane Society a quarter million dollars support a year. They have a 95% licensing compliance. Their bite rates are consistently dropping, despite constant population growth. They have no breed specific legislation. They have no mandatory spay/neuter. They have no breeder regulation legislation. They have a constant waiting list for adoptions of the few animals that come available. And in that city of 1.2 million people, they only euthanized a total of 238 dogs last year. Period.

Where is this? Calgary, Alberta. How have they done it? They have secured the buy in of their citizens and achieved massive cooperation by providing several things, most importantly by making animal licensing a valuable commodity, backed by an aggressive and dedicated education effort.

The program is more detailed that we have room here for, but let me touch on some of the issues.

Licensing has value. All proceeds from animal licensing and fines go directly to Animal Services to use for the animals. None of those funds go to the City's General Fund. Owners feel that their fees are being applied properly, where they need to be. Licensing fees are reasonable-$52.00 yearly for unaltered animals, with a discount to $31.00 yearly if your animal is altered. No reclamation fees; if your animal is licensed and picked up loose it gets a free ride home. They understand that animals get loose from time to time, but if the animal is licensed it is taken home directly. 80% of all animals picked up on the street are returned home, never to even arrive at the shelter. The owners of any animals that are regular pickups are targeted for intensive education efforts, backed by the ability to provide substantial fines ($250.00 per incident) if the owner fails to respond to the remediation and assistance. Spay and neuter proceedures are discounted for animals that are licensed, as are some veterinary care costs.

Education is stressed. Animal Services workers do not see themselves as 'dogcatchers' but as responsible animal ownership educators. Education ranges from classes and formal programs to intervention at the street level. Pre-adoption counseling is required, and counseling is mandated during the citation process for those owners who run afoul of the ordinances. No one just pays a ticket and walks away. Bite prevention and safety is taught in schools, focusing on children since kids are the primary victims of dog bite injury.

A strong leash law is supported by City provided dog parks and off leash recreation areas, all of which are only available to licensed pets. Humane and sensible confinement methods are stressed, taught, and enforced. Animal cruelty statutes and ordinances are strongly enforced, and local magistrates are supportive, making such enforcement meaningful, and the City realizes the importance of such inforcement, supporting it strongly.

This has not been an overnight trip for Calgary. It has taken fourteen years to reach the current state of events. But it is an achievable goal. The legislation coming before you is an opportunity to take the first steps.

INSTEAD of seeking legislation that regulates breed, focus on legislation that regulates the only thing that will make a difference-human behavior. Place responsibility where it belongs, on the owners of dangerous and aggressive animals. SUPPORT the enforcement of existing animal cruelty statutes.

INSTEAD of passing legislation that places an onerous burden on those who are generally responsible but have occasional errors, educate them, and encourage them to participate in the solution by buying in to reasonable licensing for their pets. SUPPORT the community by giving real value for pet licensing. Make pet owners want to participate. Give them something of value, like pet return, educational services, and a sense that their license fees actually go towards helping the animals.

INSTEAD of pushing away those who are on the edge of compliance by threatening them with issues such as mandatory spay and neuter, bring them into the fold by provideing incentives for voluntary compliance. SUPPORT compliance by not only educating them on the wisdom and health of voluntary spay/neuter, but give them real world incentives for cooperation, such as reduced licensing fees for voluntarily altered animals, discounts for local vet care for having licensed and altered animals, and perhaps other city sponsored value such as free participation in dog parks, etc.

INSTEAD of alienating responsible pet fanciers, making them stumbling blocks to your efforts, include them and reward their responsibile actions. SUPPORT active dog sport competitors with intact animals by granting the same licensing fees as those with altered animals as long as the dogs are being actively campaigned. Provide sane and reasonable exceptions to higher licensing for those who have animals that have a quantifiable value to their breeds and communities. Responsible fanciers are not only voters, but can be a city's best allies in the fight against irresponsible breeding, behavior and threats to public safety.

Please consider the above suggestions. The whole purpose of pet related legislation is to enhance the safety of the public, pet owning and otherwise, and to increase the quality of life for all, animal and human, in your community. To restate what I said before, why keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result? Step forward and start the process of achieving a different, better result.

If I may help in any way please feel free to contact me. My phone is 904-476-7655. Please feel free to view my website at www.canineaggression.org

Thank you.

James W. Crosby

A First Look.

2007-11-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

Let me introduce myself and this blog for a minute.
I am Jim Crosby of Jacksonville, Florida, and I investigate fatal dog attacks around North America. I have carved a bit of an unusual niche for myself, in that I have combined the training and experience of a police career with my dog training and behavior experience to really look at canine aggression, particularly fatal dog attacks, in detail. My investigations are typically done on-scene; I travel to the site, investigate the incident, interview any witnesses or surviving victims, speak to family and friends, and try and get a picture of the dog(s) and their environment. I then, when possible, actually handle and evaluate the dog(s) that have killed people.
This combination results, I believe, in a collection of data never before attempted, a collection that far exceeds the investigations of the past. Previously, most investigations were by "experts" sitting at a desk reading someone else's reports. Those "investigations" ignored the setting, ignored the dynamics of the interactions between people and dogs, and completely missed the depth of information the dog can give. Information gathered remotely through reading Police and Animal Control reports is, at best, filtered throught the eyes of the initial reporter. Details are lost, and assumptions (sometimes erroneous) are allowed to spread. Information gleaned from reading press and media reports is often simply wrong, altered to make the story more saleable, to sell advertising space, and to generate ratings.
This blog will present the information as I find it. I will give as many details as possible, protecting the dignity of the victim and family, and working within the constraints that sometimes arise when dealing with open criminal or civil cases.
Please continue to stop by and read these posting. I will do my best to keep them informative, factual, and current.
Thanks for your interest.

Jim Crosby