Myth: Assumption that virtually every dog is a mix of purebred ingredients and that visually conducted breed identification of a dog is accurate.
Myth: Assumption that certain breeds are aggressive and/or vicious. Currently the myth falls on Pit Bulls.
Extensive information (see January, 2013) shows unequivocally that visual breed identification is notoriously inaccurate. In fact there are just two or three proofs that a dog is indeed a purebred:
1) Valid papers
2) Direct knowledge - not fables - to assert a dog is pure bred
3) Some situations where DNA could prove or disprove the lineage/parentage claimed for a particular dog that lacks authentic paper proof.
The undisputed findings that visually made breed identification is mostly inaccurate and has led to a recommendation that veterinarians stop attempting to assign breed labels to non pure bred dogs whose origin they do not know for sure. Rather, veterinarians should use a single non-breed based term to describe all dogs of unknown parentage. The term 'random-bred' is a good example of a label that would carry the intended, factually accurate message. As yet, no such term has been agreed upon to become the standard universal term.
Instead of using breed terms to describe an individual dog of unknown heritage, a picture of the dog as part of the patient's medical records would be the simple, realistic way to describe and identify a canine patient.
In a 2012 article of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association it was proposed that a statement like the one below – subject to full AVMA approval - be placed on every new client/new patient owner supplied information sheet – as well as on other forms, receipts and the website of every veterinary clinic/hospital that provides veterinary care to dogs:
"Because new scientific evidence has called into question the accuracy of visual breed identification of dogs, our hospital has adopted a policy to not identify canine patients by predominant breed appearance unless the dog is purebred, the breed of the dog's parents is known, or the dog's lineage has been established through the use of DNA analysis."
Aggressiveness: Not a Characteristic of Any Dog Breed
Most believe - via assumption - that aggression / viciousness can be part of a breed's characteristics, that aggression is innate, that certain breeds and certain individual dogs are, in fact, genetically wired as mean. But increasing evidence over time shows dogs are not just born mean.
They become that way through a complex interaction of many factors, the majority of which are beyond the dog's control. Some of the factors that can influence aggression include the condition of the mother during gestation, age at weaning, early socialization, methods of training, diet, exercise, and indirectly, genetics. Continued research is helping to give us a bigger and better picture, a picture which contradicts the myths.
What we do know is that breed has far less to do with aggression than do the array of owner-dependent factors. These factors continue to be identified and are becoming more widely recognized in popular culture
There has never been authentic, fully scientific evidence to support the notion that one or more kinds of dogs are to be considered disproportionately dangerous.
High numbers of moderate to severe bite incidents in certain time frames, countries, or regions that implicate a breed as dangerous very often actually relate to the breed's popularity, thus simply representing that there are disproportionately high numbers of that breed in a community.
Also contributing are reporting biases and how typical owners regard and treat their dog as this 'dangerous breed' - this encompasses owners' attitudes and owners' wish fulfillments for the breed of dog they have selected.
It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies, presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. And further, witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious look-a-like dog is of the dangerous breed type.
In the court of popular myth and beliefs, German Shepherds in the 1970s were held to be the most vicious, aggressive breed. That assignation gradually shifted to Doberman Pinchers, then Rottweilers were given a turn at being the most dangerous breed. Now the myth has tagged Pit Pulls and look-a-likes as the aggressive vicious breed of current times. How likely is it that the genetic make-up of, say the German Shepherds abruptly changed for the better? We can see the answer: it never was genetic - it was the breed's popularity!
A good example of this was the distinct peak in American Kennel Club registration of Rottweilers between 1990 and 1995. Soon after, Rottweilers came in at the top of the list of biting breeds. This was the first time Rottweilers appeared on the list. Again, popularity.
Interestingly, a study based on behavioral assessments and owner surveys concluded that the breeds most aggressive towards people were certain small to medium-sized dogs such as collies, Lhasa Apsos, and spaniels. In a similar example, a survey of dogs in the eastern part of Canada identified the Lhasa Apso, Springer Spaniel, and the Shih Tzu as most likely to bite.
Where small dogs are found to be aggressive, again, it is likely due to owner-factors — such as poor training on the issue of who is alpha. Their size makes these dogs far less likely to inflict a serious bite injury, one that would get reported, be excused as grouchy , or just a bad hair coat day.
Proponents of Breed Specific Legislation - referred to as BSL – currently have Pit Bulls identified as disproportionately dangerous, causing communities and commercial providers (e.g. insurers, airlines, landlords, etc.) to discriminate against, or even forbid Pit Bulls and the Pit Bull look-a-likes. In the case of the look-a-likes, these doubly unfortunate dogs have been wrongfully labeled on the basis of both myths!
BSL, by its very nature, is causing pit bulls and their look-a-likes to lose their chance to be a dog with a home. Worse, these dogs are accumulating at shelters where ultimately more get euthanized, based on myths.
AVMA CONCLUSION: Given that pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies, and due to the validly demonstrated role of popularity and owner -factors, it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention policies/programs/legislation.
Each of the two supersized myths here are found to be strongly and deeply entrenched in our culture. The visual breed ID myth extends almost completely throughout the shelter/rescue world, while degrees of both myths can extend widely within the veterinary profession. They certainly held much sway over me. It is very difficult and confusing to take down your beliefs and rebuild towards what seems contrary fact! It can get to feeling impossible when one attempts to inform or convince someone regarding these myths. Their faces go blank, their eyes glaze over, and their brain gears grind – you soon realize you're not getting through the myth wall.
This article is compiled from these sources:
Psychology Today.com - All Dogs Go To Heaven - Understanding Aggression in Dogs
National Canine Research Council - Rethinking Dog Breed Identification in Veterinary Practices
Slo Coast Journal - Best Friends
AVMA - The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention
