Animal professionals shown to disagree with each other when assigning breed(s) to dogs of unknown parentage.

Posted on May 7, 2013 by admin

Summary

A survey of more than 900 people in dog-related professions and services showed that they frequently disagreed with each other when making visual breed identifications of the same dog, and that their opinions may or may not have correlated with DNA breed analysis.  More than 70% of the study participants reported that now, or at one time, their breed descriptors were used in record keeping.  The results of this survey call into question the validity of a variety of data that has been collected over the decades pertaining to breed identification of dogs.

Introduction

In 1965, John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller published a series of photographs showing cross-bred dogs who bore little, if any, resemblance to their purebred ancestors. [1]

Dr. Victoria Voith of Western University of Health Sciences has taken up the question of the relationship between breed and appearance that Scott and Fuller illustrated in their landmark book. In 2009, she and her colleagues published a study reporting a poor correlation between visual breed identification of dogs of unknown parentage and DNA analysis of the same dogs.[2]

Dr. Voith and her collaborators have now documented a significant lack of agreement among people who may be assigning breed identifications to dogs in the ordinary course of their occupations or services. This information may become source material for articles in the peer-reviewed literature.[3]

How the Survey was Conducted

923 people at 30 locations across the United States participated in Dr. Voith’s survey. Participants looked at 1-minute videos of each of 20 mixed-breed dogs, which showed the size of the dog and its entire body. As participants looked at the video, the person conducting the survey told them the age, sex, and weight of the dog.  After each video ended, participants were asked:

-“Do you think this dog is probably a purebred?” (□ YES □ NO).

-“If YES, (you think this IS probably a purebred), what breed do you think it is?”

-“If NO, (you do NOT think this a purebred), what do you think is the most predominant breed?”

-“What do you think is the second most predominant breed. (If you are unable to determine a second breed, write “Mix” here. Otherwise, name a breed.)”

One of the twenty dogs included in the study.

One of the twenty dogs included in the study.

Wide Disparity between DNA and Visual Identifications

Less than half of the guesses named any of the breeds detected by DNA analysis in 14 of the 20 dogs. For one of the 20 dogs, none of the 859 respondents who ventured an opinion guessed the breed detected by DNA analysis.  For another three, there was only 1 guess that matched DNA identification.  It is important to note that DNA identification is not 100% accurate when analyzing mixed breed dogs, nor do the companies who conduct the analyses claim it to be so.  At the time Dr. Voith’s study was conducted, the accuracy of identification of breed of F1 crosses (offspring of 2 different registered purebreds) was reported to be 84%.[4]  It is currently reported to be 90%.[5]

Significant Disagreement among Respondents about the Same Dog

For only 7 of the twenty dogs was there agreement among more than 50% of the respondents regarding the most predominant breed of dogs that they had decided were mixed breeds; and for 3 of those 7, the breed agreed on did not match any DNA breed identification of the dog! For 8 other dogs, agreement among observers as to the predominant breed was less than a third, independent of whether or not the guesses matched the dog’s DNA.

Policy Implications of Dr. Voith’s Findings

Animal professionals have regularly acknowledged the limitations of visual breed identification of dogs of unknown parentage.[6]  Yet, articles purporting to correlate dog bite-related injuries or fatalities with presumed breed or breed mix have continued to appear. These articles have distorted the discussion of dogs and public safety.

America’s dog population is 46% mixed breed[7]; and the dogs in America’s animal shelters are 75% mixed breed.[8] Nevertheless, personnel in dog related services are entering in databases their best guesses regarding the breed or breeds of the dogs in their care.  Some record keeping systems require that the entry of mixed breed be accompanied by entry of a presumed predominant breed (s) of the dog.   Professionals or volunteers in dog related services may also identify dogs for friends, neighbors, and family; and these labels may find their way into databases.

It is impossible to breed label dogs of unknown parentage solely on the basis of appearance. In 1965, Scott and Fuller reported physical and emotional variation among dogs of the same breed make up. There is even more variation among breed mixes, whether or not the mix of breeds is known. We cannot predict the behavior of a dog, or its suitability as a family companion, solely on the basis of its breed(s) or appearance.  Every dog is an individual.

At the end of the survey, Dr. Voith revealed to participants the breeds detected by DNA analysis for each of the dogs they had viewed.  She then showed the pictures of Scott and Fuller’s first and second generation crosses, along with photos of the purebred ancestors that they did not resemble. Whatever discomfort her participants may have experienced upon realizing the differences between their guesses and the DNA results dissipated when they viewed pictures of the known crosses of purebred dogs.  Dr. Voith has pursued her work keenly aware that our habit of guessing at the breeds in dogs is not a trivial matter.  It impacts directly the lives and welfare of companion dogs:  in our law and judicial process; in the practices of commercial providers such as landlords, insurance companies, and service providers; and in the policies and adoption practices of animal shelters/humane societies. In a report published as part of the proceedings of the AVMA Convention in 2009, Dr. Voith wrote: “The discrepancy between breed identifications based on opinion and DNA analysis, as well as concerns about reliability of data collected based on media reports, draws into question the validity and enforcement of public and private policies pertaining to dog breeds.” [9]

Victoria L. Voith, Rosalie Trevejo, Seana Dowling-Guyer, Colette Chadik, Amy Marder, Vanessa Johnson, Kristopher Irizarry. Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability. American Journal of Sociological Research p-ISSN: 2166-5443   e-ISSN: 2166-54512013; 3(2): 17-29 doi:10.5923/j.sociology.20130302.02

A complete copy of this study may be obtained at http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sociology.20130302.02.html

[1] Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

[3] This research was partially supported by a gift from the National Canine Research Council to Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California.

[4] Wisdom PanelTM. (2007) Analysis Summary. Lincoln, NE: Mars Incorporated.

[5] Wisdom PanelTM FAQ’s. How accurate is Wisdom PanelTM Professional?  Retrieved from:  http://www.wisdompanelpro.com/faq.html

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in News
Tagged , , , , Leave a comment »

Swedish study found no link between modern breeds and their traditional work

Posted on April 19, 2013 by admin


Introduction
People commonly assume that much of their pet’s personality is a remnant of the traditional work dogs of his breed once specialized in. The investigations over the last few years of Swedish scientist Kenth Svartberg suggest that this is not the case. Dog breeds are traditionally categorized in groups, according to historic function. Terrier breeds once hunted rodents; herding breeds chased and gathered livestock; gun dogs indicated the presence of game and retrieved the fallen fowl, showing no fear of gunfire at close range; working dogs guarded home and livestock and performed heavy labor like pulling carts. Svartberg found that modern purebred dogs grouped according to these categories simply had nothing more in common in terms of behavior than dogs in general.

The study
Svartberg studied more than 13,000 dogs of 31 different breeds from all the groups mentioned above. His validated test identifies several basic emotional traits–playfulness, curiosity/fearlessness and sociability. He also attempted to measure aggression, but the test did not prove valid when compared to owners’ reports of real life behavior. In this model, a high playfulness dog is one who is enthusiastic about a game of tug or chase, while the curious/fearless individual is eager to explore and not much bothered by new and potentially startling things popping up. The sociable dog enthusiastically greets and interacts with strangers.

Some specific breeds scored slightly higher or lower than average on one or more of these qualities, though the majority of dogs of every breed scored firmly in the mid-range of scores on the various traits. There was an equally wide range of behavior within each breed and much behavioral overlap among breeds. But the traditional groups did not as groups score higher on traits that we would associate with their original function. The terriers and herding dogs were no more likely to exhibit playfulness than the working breeds. The gun dogs showed no extra fearlessness, and the working dogs were no less sociable than the breeds of other groups.

Svartberg was able to group the 31 breeds studied into 4 different clusters of breeds, other than the historical groupings, that did seem to have some personality similarities. One such group of kindred spirits in terms of high scores for sociability, for example, includes Labrador Retrievers and American Staffordshire Terriers. Another cluster linked Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers.

Svartberg attributes this lack of conservation of historical traits to the practice over the last century and a half since the advent of organized dog shows of breeding dogs primarily for appearance.

Importance for pet dog owners

If Svartberg’s finding is correct, that modern purebred dogs have maintained no detectable apti-tude for the specialized work of their forebears, pet dog selection should clearly be made based on the personality of the individual dog, rather than on expectations about his behavior, based on ancestry. And if traditional traits have been so diluted as to be indiscernible in purebred dogs, we should certainly not expect to be able to predict them at all in dogs of mixed breeds.

For a fuller discussion of this topic, see The Relevance of Breed in Selecting a Companion Dog by Janis Bradley, which is available at no cost from the NCRC website.

 

An NCRC commentary on:

Svartberg, K. (2006) Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 96, 293–313.

(2005) A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consis-    tent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 91, 103-108.

(2002) Personality Traits in the Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 79, 133-155.

 

 

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in News
Tagged , , , Comments Off

NCRC Video Interview with Janis Bradley

Posted on April 10, 2013 by admin


Janis Bradley, veteran dog trainer and author of the NCRC Vision Series publication, ‘The Relevance of Breed in Selecting a Companion Dog,’ discusses whether breed is a useful indicator of the suitability of a companion dog.

Click to view other NCRC Video interviews. 

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in Video
Tagged , , , , Leave a comment »

Maryland legislature unanimous in support of breed-neutral liability, divided over terms of bill to abrogate Tracey v Solesky ruling

Posted on April 9, 2013 by admin

Yesterday, in its final legislative session of 2013, despite unanimous agreement that the 2012 Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Tracey v Solesky warranted legislative action, the two branches of the Maryland State Assembly failed to agree upon the terms of a bill that would abrogate that ruling.

That bill would have made equal the liability standards for owners of all dogs – regardless of breed – implicated in dog bite cases in the state of Maryland.

From the beginning of the legislative process following the Court of Appeals’ ruling, which began in late Summer 2012 with a Special Session, legislators understood that there is no scientific evidence that one kind of a dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog. Stakeholders worked together in concert. The national humane organizations, property management groups, independent landlords, dog owners, and concerned constituents involved all delivered consistent and accurate information to legislators in both houses.

Despite the Legislature’s recognition that liability standards should be breed-neutral, the Maryland Legislature failed to find a compromise that would abrogate the court ruling.

In the eleventh hour, insurance lobbyists sought to kill the proposed solution and the bill, though unanimously passed by the Maryland Senate, was not voted on by the Maryland House of Delegates.

In consequence of the two legislative bodies’ failure to agree on a compromise, Marylanders injured by dogs will have unequal legal recourse under the law and labor under different burdens of proof – not because of the circumstances of an incident, but because of the breed label ascribed to the dog.

MD General Assembly

The Maryland General Assembly held its final legislative session of 2013 yesterday.

For summaries of the Court of Appeals’ ruling and the public record in Maryland, see also: “Maryland Court of Appeals Ruling Unfairly Burdens Dog Owners, Landlords, and Shelters” and “Maryland’s Experience: The Public Record & The Tracey v Solesky Ruling.”

 

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in News
Tagged , , , , Leave a comment »

Study underscores that we can only learn what dogs are capable of from capable dogs.

Posted on January 29, 2013 by admin

The human community has changed dramatically in the modern era.  Both dogs and people are continually adjusting to new phenomena (trains, cars, streets teeming with other people and other dogs, to name a few) and new expectations that arise from our living in closer proximity to each other.

It’s challenging enough for people. How do the dogs do it?

New expectations for dogs - and for people - have arisen from our living in closer proximity to each other in the 21st century.

New expectations for dogs – and for people – have arisen from our living in closer proximity to each other in the 21st century.

Two years ago, researchers from the Department of Ethology at Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary reported on a project that tested the social bandwidth of the dogs living closest to us. They, too, have marveled at the adaptability of the dog, which has succeeded in an environment controlled by another species, and at its ability to negotiate ongoing interactions and avoid escalation of conflicts. To what extent, they wanted to know, can dogs distinguish between different persons and emotionally diverse situations?

They developed a series of experimental situations intended to measure a dog’s response to its owner and an unfamiliar person — referred to as the Experimenter, or E — in situations that were either playful or non-playful. Within these two different contexts, owners and strangers – separately — communicated either friendliness or a threat to the dog.  Did the dog respond differently depending upon the context? Did the dog respond differently to friendly or threatening human behavior?  Did the dog respond differently to the owner’s being friendly or threatening than E’s communicating friendliness or a threat?

The result they reported is interesting, if not entirely surprising to those of us who live with pet dogs. The dogs in this study did not show significant differences toward E and the owner in the playful situation. However, during the non-playful situation the same dogs behaved differently, depending upon both how they were approached – in either a friendly or threatening fashion – and whether it was the owner or E who was approaching. For example, the dogs averted their gaze more frequently when E approached in a threatening manner than when the owner did, so eye-contacts were more enduring with the owner; and at the end of the threatening approach they also showed more contact-seeking towards the owner than towards E. The authors concluded that their canine subjects made “strategic behavioural decisions,” depending upon the identity of the human partner.

But also significant from the perspective of NCRC’s mission to preserve the human-canine bond was the criteria by which the authors selected the 37 dogs volunteered by their owners.  The authors found their subjects from a dog training class and from common dog walking areas in Budapest.  All of the dogs lived in close, positive relationships with human beings.

The authors knew that if they wanted to measure ability to respond to contrasting experimental situations, they needed canine subjects who had already acquired the skills necessary to distinguish between different cues from people. To live safely and happily in the human community, a dog must have the ability to adjust its reactions depending on context and to utilize its full repertoire of conflict-resolving behaviors. These, write the authors in their concluding paragraph, are the fundamental elements of a dog’s social competence.

They needed Family dogs. [1]

NCRC Founder and Director Karen Delise has stressed the difference between what she describes as a Resident dog and a Family dog. [2]  A Family dog, she says, is a dog an owner keeps in or near the home and has integrated into the family unit, so that the dog learns appropriate behavior through interaction with humans on a regular basis in positive and humane ways.

If dogs are genetically predisposed to form attachments with human beings, then we can assume that dogs are literally born with the capacity to acquire this competence.  But being born with a capacity to do something is not the same as knowing how to do it. Social competence necessarily entails learning.  We humans must honor our obligation to be the teachers.

 

 

 

 

The source material for this whitepaper is:

Gyori, B., Gacsi, M., & Miklosi, A. (2010, December). Friend or foe: Context dependent sensitivity to human behaviour in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 128 (1-4),  69-77. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159110002881

[1] The 37 dogs in the experiment included 22 dogs from 14 different breeds (four golden retrievers, three Belgian shepherds, two Cavalier King Charles spaniels, two border collies, two Parson Russell terriers, one boxer, German shepherd, kelpie, Labrador retriever, miniature spitz, pumi, Shetland sheepdog, Staffordshire bull terrier, Welsh terrier); and 15 dogs the authors described as “mongrels” i.e., mixed-breed dogs.

[2] See the NCRC Whitepaper ‘Resident dog vs. Family dog: What is the difference?’ 

 

Social Share Toolbar
Posted in News
Tagged , , Leave a comment »