Dangerous Dog Evaluations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.