Editor’s note: this is part 2 in a series on dangerous dogs. In part 1, “Dangerous Dogs Part 1: Taking a Bite Out of Dog Bite Statistics,” Sarah Albert discusses some of the issues when looking at dog bite statistics including several confounding factors.
The dangerous dogs debate, at least today, always circles around the topic of pit bulls. It’s a contentious debate, one filled with overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and fallacies coming from pit bull advocates and lovers, as well as from those wanting to ban or restrict the ownership of these dogs. I understand, it’s an emotional topic and a topic that needs to be discussed, but how do we best prevent dog bites from happening in the first place?
It’s important to note that dogs are very safe overall, so let’s not get into too much of a panic. According to the most recent American Pet Products Association survey, Americans own an estimated 89.7 million dogs.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that around 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year (bitten by about 5% of dogs) –with only around 800,000 of those needing medical attention (bites from less than 1% of total dogs), and around 20-30 bites causing death (.00003% of total dogs). Keeping all those numbers in mind, it appears that dogs really are man’s best friend.
That being said, serious bites and fatalities do occur each year. My goal, as both an animal scientist and a dog owner, is to try to prevent these bites from happening; bites from all breeds and mixes.
A disclaimer here—I own a pit bull-type dog. He’s an American Staffordshire terrier mix who was rescued as a stray. I teach companion animal sciences courses at the University of Illinois—including a class on dangerous dogs. My dog often comes to these classes on campus with me, one of which has about 600 students. He loves both people and other animals.
Many people think I advocate against breed discriminatory legislation because I own a pit bull, and that because of this, I have an agenda or bias. However, when I was a kid I owned a Labrador retriever and really didn’t know anything about pit bull-type dogs until I started working at my local shelter in high school. I continued working with many different dogs and eventually became a student of animal sciences at the University of Illinois.
After learning more about dogs and animal sciences in general, I became more informed and aware of the science and the studies surrounding dog breeds, behavior, and bites. This is where my advocacy truly began. Now I teach my students these very same topics. In short, I was advocating for all dogs and breed-neutral legislation long before ever owning a pit bull-type dog. My advocacy is actually what led me to my dog, not the other way around. It’s hard to learn all of this information and not form empathy for these dogs, enough to make you want to adopt one of your own.
So let’s talk about the fallacies that are all over the internet and in our conversations with each other. Only then can we start to have real conversations to create ways to protect both people and dogs.
Myths and Misconceptions from Pit Bull Advocates
Myth #1: “Pit Bulls Were Known as Nanny Dogs”
This is a misconception I hear quite frequently from pit bull owners and lovers. The idea being that we can convince people pit bulls are not dangerous because they essentially used to “babysit” children. Sorry to say but, historically speaking the pit bull type dogs were not referred to as a “nanny dog.” There are many vintage pictures of pit bull-type dogs from the early 20th century with children. These do showcase how much the dogs meant to these owners since pictures were not cheap or easy to create; unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that they were ever referred to as “nanny dogs,” and it’s only been a more recent assumption that these were nanny dogs.
We do hear people affectionately calling Staffordshire bull terriers specifically as nanny dogs, especially in the U.K., but this doesn’t extend to other pit bull type breeds or mixes. Beyond this, it appears this nickname may be more of a recent invention rather than a historic one, considering Staffordshire bull terriers were first recognized by the Kennel Club in the 1930s, but pit bull and bull and terrier type dogs have been around for longer.
I bring this myth up because it has some serious consequences as it continues to spread. Dogs are not nannies. Dogs should never babysit children. Dogs and children are incapable of appropriately managing their interactions with one another and require the supervision of an adult to ensure the safety of both parties. Continuing this myth only leads to more tragic incidents where children are seriously injured or killed by a family pet—and this is not just a pit bull issue by any means. Calling any breed a “nanny dog” creates a dangerous situation for all dogs.
Let’s remember that dogs are individuals. Even with the Staffie’s nickname, not every dog of this breed is guaranteed to be good with children. If, as advocates, you want to say that these dogs are not all aggressive towards other animals because they’re individuals, you also can’t say they’re all good with children, because of an affectionate nickname given to them. So let’s be more careful with this misconception.
Myth #2: “It’s All How You Raise Them”
This is probably the pit bull advocate myth that is the biggest overgeneralization of them all. Anyone who has worked in a shelter or rescue can tell you that dogs are not complete reflections of their past. There are many dogs that come from horrific situations of abuse or neglect and flourish when moved into a new environment and properly cared for.
For example, consider the dogs rescued from the Michael Vick dog fighting case, or other dogs rescued from dog fighting cases since then. Prior to the Vick case, all dogs from fighting busts were considered too dangerous to be adopted and were euthanized. The Vick case changed this as the judge ordered the dogs to be individually evaluated. From there, evaluators found that while some dogs were too risky to be adopted and were sent to sanctuary at Best Friends Animal Society, many of the dogs were able to be rehabilitated and eventually adopted into new homes – homes that included children, dogs, and even cats. These dogs that were raised to fight, became beloved, gentle companions to their adoptive families. There is an amazing documentary film about the journey of some of these former Vick “fighting” dogs, called “The Champions.” Here’s a trailer that introduces us to some of these dogs.
By treating the victims of dog fighting as individuals, we can see that dogs can come from terrible pasts, but can nonetheless flourish in different environments with some behavior rehabilitation and adjustments, just as many of these dogs in the documentary demonstrate. Instead of judging them for how they were raised and treated in their past, we work to see if we can make a better future for them.
On the flip side, there are people who get dogs from highly respectable breeders and do everything they can to socialize and train their dogs. Despite all this work, there are some dogs that are a bit “off.” These are dogs that develop anxiety or aggression despite a kind, responsible owner managing them from puppyhood. Just like people, every dog is an individual with their own unique personalities. Although it is often a significant factor, for some dogs more training (or more education) may not always change their behavior.
And we’re still trying to figure out the causes of some of these behaviors, but we have to remember that both genetics and environment influence behavior. Environment can influence the expression of certain genes (known as “epigenetics”), and behaviors are more complex than we’d like to make them out to be—especially aggression. We have to remember both here when looking at dogs. So no, that dog in the shelter that is acting nervous or aggressive may have never experienced anything abusive in its life. He may have some genetic tendencies that makes him a bit “off” and more likely to showcase aggression. And on the flip side, that overly fearful dog may not have genetic tendencies to be fearful, he may have just been grossly under-socialized.
Let’s end this myth that “it’s all how you raise them” because it can be very hurtful to owners who do everything responsibly with their dogs, yet still end up with a dog with behavioral issues. It also leads us to tell stories about dogs in shelters that may not be rooted in fact, which ultimately could lead to dogs being condemned to death merely for coming from an abusive past.
Myth #3: “There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners”
As I mentioned earlier, some dogs may have a predisposition for aggression or anxiety. Even in these cases, some dogs may still need to have certain environmental factors in place to eventually develop these behaviors. Humans can’t control every single thing that happens in a dog’s life, and definitely can’t control the environmental influences that occur before a puppy or adult dog comes into their home. The stress levels and nutrition of the mother have a massive influence on her puppies. The father’s behavior and condition will also affect the puppies, even if he is never introduced to them. There’s a lot to be said for what occurs before the puppies are born and within their first 8 weeks of life—generally before they ever go home with their human guardians.
That being said, both breeders and owners can do everything right and one small incident at a crucial time can really impact a dog’s behavior if they already have a genetic predisposition for certain behavioral conditions. Thus, while owners have a lot of control over the environment and maintenance of a dog, they still cannot control every single thing. So let’s stop blaming owners for everything that goes wrong. Sometimes, it’s just not the owner’s fault.
For these reasons and more, it is incredibly important for breeders to be aware of genetic lines that may have issues with anxiety or aggression and remove these dogs from their breeding program, then re-examine their breeding goals from there. To be safe, dogs with serious aggression issues towards people or other animals (a history of causing severe or fatal damage) should be considered too much of a danger to others in the community and be humanely euthanized. Rescues must be diligent in only rescuing dogs that are safe for future adopters and for other people and animals in the community. Too often we’re seeing rescues wanting to “save them all,” resulting in some dangerous and heartbreaking situations for the adopters of legitimately dangerous animals. We have so many fantastic dogs being killed in shelters every day, so we should focus on saving these dogs first and foremost.
All in all, it is important that we consider both nature and nurture in dog behavior. We can’t completely focus on one and not the other. Too often I see pit bull advocates denying genetics, and those wanting to ban pit bulls denying the role of human management and environment. To have any realistic discussion on dangerous dogs and dog bites, we need to look at both. At this point, it is pretty well known that we can’t overgeneralize the behavior of any breed, and that there is significant variability seen in dogs within a breed. For more on the individuality we see in dogs, check out my post on Breed Branding.
Myths and Misconceptions from Pit Bull Opponents
Myth #1: “Pit Bulls Were Bred to Fight Other Dogs, Therefore They are Inherently Dangerous”
Before we get started on this myth, it’s important to note that prior to the mid-1800s the purebred dogs we know of today were not fully formed. Most dogs were bred for a working role, and appearance was less of a concern. After the 1800s, appearance became a big focus for breeders, resulting in the purebred dogs we know and love today. Due to these differences, I will be referring to a group of dogs as a type (dogs that look alike, but are not a registered breed), and purebred dogs we acknowledge today by their actual breed name.
Now, this is a complicated myth to tackle. We have to look back at their development, through a complex history of selective breeding, to understand this better. Several centuries ago, before the American Pit Bull Terrier was established, bulldog-type dogs were bred as “catch” dogs in England. Historically, bulldog-type dogs were taught to catch and hold loose cattle or pigs until a farmer could come to retrieve them. In these cases, you would not want a dog that would rip, maim, or kill the animal, as these were livestock animals that were considered of high value to the farmer. We actually still see these catching dogs in parts of the southern United States where wild boar hunting is popular. Dogs trained for catching will restrain the boars until a hunter can come in and finish the animal.
It was from this evolution of catch dogs that bull baiting became a popular “sport” in England, which involved setting dogs upon a tethered bull. This was used as a form of entertainment and is considered a blood sport similar to dog fighting. It is said that many of the dogs used in bull baiting were unsuccessful in their matches, often being stomped on or gored to death by the bull. In addition to these bulldog-type dogs, many of the dogs were also just mongrels rounded up in town. Additional breeds that came from bull baiting stock include the boxer, the bull terrier, and the English bulldog, yet these are all breeds generally left out of the dangerous dog conversations.
In the early 1800s, bull baiting was banned in England and lost a lot of popularity. This led to bulldog-type dogs being bred with terrier-type dogs to create a smaller, more agile dog referred to as bull- and terrier-type dogs. As it was easier and cheaper to pit dogs against one another—the new blood “sport” of dog fighting was born. These dogs and this “sport” also made their way over and became popular in the United States around this same time.
Keep in mind that these roles (including legitimate working roles) were around long before the birth of dog registries such as the American Kennel Club (AKC) in the mid-1800s. The AKC began a new focus on appearance and meeting breed standards, rather than breeding dogs for their working roles. This led to yet another shift in dog ownership—one where dogs were no longer needed as frequently for these jobs and where companionship was the main role they took on.
With this shift in breeding practices, some of those original working traits very likely started to disappear, especially in dogs bred exclusively for show or companionship. Think about this—how many people are selectively breeding dogs for fighting these days? How many people are looking for fighting dogs with fighting qualities? Not too many, and that’s been the case for a number of decades now. For the majority of these dogs, the focus has largely been on appearance and companionship traits, and less on working or fighting qualities.
That being said, there are still people who breed pit bull-type breeds for working traits, but don’t fight them with other dogs. These are athletic working dogs who excel in a number of dog sports and roles, but they need that working drive for those jobs. We’ve seen these dogs (both those bred specifically for these roles, but also many rescued dogs) used in agility, disc dog competitions, nose work, Schutzhund, water sports, wild game hunting, therapy, service, as well as police and military work. Many times, people breeding these dogs specifically for sports and competition work are selecting dogs that are not aggressive towards other animals, as the sporting competitions they are involved with have many dogs in attendance.
Seeing that it’s been a long time since many of these dogs have been bred for functions like catching and fighting, let’s focus less on what was happening decades ago, and focus more on how dogs are being bred today. From the bull- and terrier-type dogs came three breeds that we generally consider as pit bulls today. The differences came about in breed standards (appearance) and the goals for temperament and working drive. These three breeds include the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, and the Staffordshire bull terrier.
American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers have long been bred as show and companion dogs, removing themselves completely from the fighting past of the bull- and terrier-type dogs. American pit bull terriers are still more commonly bred for working roles (especially in dog sports, but also for boar hunting), and have been more popular as fighting dogs; but again, this doesn’t mean all of these dogs have been bred for fighting. Even if they were, they may not have the drive or desire to do so. Just as we see with herding dogs or dogs bred for service work—when specifically bred for a job, you still have many dogs that don’t make the cut for those jobs. This is why dog fighters tend to kill a number of their dogs—many of their dogs have no drive or desire to fight other animals.
There is another reason to not get too caught up in these historic functions. There are many breeds of dog who had historic functions that could make them dangerous to people and other animals in the wrong hands. Greyhounds had a historic function of chasing down prey animals—making them potentially dangerous for cats and small dogs who look like prey. Mastiffs were bred to kill people on the battlefield and to protect property. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were used as baying animals for humans trying to remove lions from their land. Anatolian shepherds were used to keep predators away and protect livestock—making them very territorial, which sometimes includes toward people who wander onto their property by accident.
With all of this in mind, a dog coming from a fighting past or one bred for aggression towards other dogs doesn’t indicate the dog will be aggressive towards humans. In fact, there is a study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society that looks into the behavioral traits we may see in certain breeds and identifies trends in those animals. Of course, there are still some limitations with these studies, but we can look at some of these studies as springboards for discussions and further research. With their C-BARQ (Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire), dog owners were asked to record the normal behavior of a large number of dogs in their day-to-day lives. From this, researchers were able to see some interesting trends about aggression between breeds.
The study examined stranger-directed, owner-directed, and dog-directed aggression between breeds, as well as within each breed. They found that there were differences between breeds that were significant, but that the variability within each breed was also significant; enough so that it was suggested by the authors to not make general assumptions about breed behaviors. In other words, the study’s authors don’t believe there was evidence to show that all individuals of a breed will act similarly.
They also found that, while pit bull-type dogs scored on average with other breeds in aggression towards people (both stranger- and owner-directed aggression), they did score above average in dog-directed aggression. Despite this, pit bull-type dogs didn’t score highest in their levels of aggression towards other dogs; other breeds actually scored higher. Thus, there was no evidence to suggest that pit bull-type dogs are more aggressive towards people than some of the other breeds.
All of this is important to take into account, but there’s another important point we’re missing. Not all pit bull-type dogs are purebreds. As you’ve likely noticed so far, I tend to refer to pit bulls as “pit bull-type dogs.” There’s a reason for this word choice. The dogs we consider pit bull-type dogs today consist of several breeds; however, most are mixed breeds with similar physical characteristics and not necessarily similar genetic characteristics. This is important because, while there may be some similarities or assumptions we can make about purebred dogs, even these dogs won’t all act exactly the same. Taking it a step further then, when we think of mixed breeds, even that trace of reliability seen in purebreds drops significantly. We also (in all cases) have to consider the impacts of the environment on the dog’s behavior, as this has just as much (if not more) influence on behavior as genetics for both purebred and mixed breed dogs.
Another confounding factor is that it’s difficult to accurately identify pit bull-type dogs. Check out my first post in this series on Dangerous Dogs—“Dangerous Dogs Part 1: Taking a Bite out of Dog Bite Statistics” for more on the difficulties in identifying what a “pit bull” is based just on appearance alone.
So, let’s let go of the historic functions of these dogs and remember than most of these dogs are being bred for companionship roles, and only a small minority of people continue to breed them for dog fighting. And even the small minority that are still bred for fighting may not be inherently aggressive. Remember those dogs mentioned above that were seized from Michael Vick’s dog fighting operation? You can see that quite a few of these former “fighters” became gentle family companions after they’d been rescued and rehabilitated. One even became a therapy dog for terminally ill children and was named as “Dog of the Year” by the ASPCA in 2014. Their fighting past did not define how safe they were around humans or other animals.
We also have to remember that human-directed and dog-directed aggression are two different things, and further, that individuality exists within all dog breeds. Dogs are individuals; instead of making generalizations that cause cities to kill entire populations of dogs that look a certain way, let’s focus on individual dogs and owners.
Myth #2: “Shelters are Full of Pit Bulls, Proving There’s Something Wrong with Them”
This is an interesting myth, and I’m still not sure where it comes from. Animal shelter intake numbers tend to reflect the current popularity of dogs, and there’s nothing to suggest that these intake numbers reflect which dogs are more likely to exhibit problem behaviors.
Dogs come into shelters for a variety of reasons – divorce, financial issues, boredom with the dog, landlord issues or decisions to move, new babies, emerging allergies, minor problems like jumping or housebreaking, major behavior problems like aggression or anxiety, and more. Not every dog in the shelter is there because of a behavior issue, and this has been a common misconception about shelter dogs for a long time. As much as people have become educated on this issue, it seems that, at least when it comes to pit bull-type dogs, the myth still exists.
Yes, pit bull-type dogs are the most populous dog entering our shelters in the U.S., in front of Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, and Labrador retriever-type dogs (remember, many of these dogs are mixes labeled as a breed type), but we’ve seen intake trends historically match the popularity of dogs at the time. Shelter staff can tell you that when a popular movie or TV show that includes a certain breed of dog is released, they plan to see more of those dogs entering their shelters in the next few years. Populations also depend on the area your shelter is located. In some areas pit bull-type dogs are the most common dog in shelters, but in other areas of the United States, you may see dogs such as collie or hound-type dogs take the top spot.
Pit bulls are extremely popular dogs in general, especially as family pets. Banfield Pet Hospital (the largest veterinary practice in the world), in their annual State of Pet Health 2016 report, lists pit bull-type dogs as the fifth most popular breed coming into their clinics, which includes 2.5 million total dogs. This has held true for a number of years, but again, these statistics are dogs going to vet clinics, which are likely considered family pets and kept by responsible pet owners.
Other obstacles that pit bull-type dogs face that lands them in shelters more often (and makes it harder for them to be adopted once in the shelter) are discriminatory rental policies and insurance companies. The lack of pet-friendly housing—rental properties that allow pets without breed restrictions—forces many responsible pet owners to relinquish their pit bull-type dogs (or other discriminated breeds) to shelters. This is such a significant issue for pit bull owners, that there was an organization created to help them find non-discriminatory housing, called My Pit Bull is Family. They maintain a database of rental properties with non-discriminatory policies. The same problems arise from insurance companies that deny coverage for owners of pit bull-type dogs. Thankfully, some insurance companies have since learned that these policies are not sound or useful and have opted to judge individual dogs based on their behavior instead of their looks. Check out this great task force paper—“A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention”—that includes one of these dog-friendly insurance companies, State Farm Insurance. Many of the breed discriminatory policies are rooted in the same flawed science and studies that influence the passage of breed-specific legislation (BSL), and it is these breed-specific policies in general that are adding to the number of pit bull-type dogs seen in shelter across the country.
In sum, our shelters have lots of pit bull-type dogs because they are popular, not because something is wrong with them. There are a lot of people who breed whatever dog is popular at the time because they think can make lots of money off of them. Unfortunately, when this supply of dogs goes up, the cost of them is lowered—making them an easy dog to obtain. This adds to the numbers of dogs that we’re seeing.
So, let’s end this unsupported myth. We know dogs in shelters aren’t in there because they’re broken goods with behavior issues. Dogs are in there for a number of reasons, and the breeds we see in larger numbers are a reflection of the popularity of those breeds at a given time; not because of an inherent issue with them.
Myth #3: “Breed-Specific Legislation Works”
What is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL)?
BSL is a dangerous strategy to attempt to control dangerous dogs based on physical appearances, rather than on individual dog behavior. In some cities, innocent dogs are removed from responsible owners by the hundreds and killed in the name of public safety. Sometimes, BSL restrictions include muzzling in public, increases in homeowner insurance rates, fencing requirements, and/or mandatory spay/neuter for the targeted dogs. While some people may believe these restrictions are not as harmful as full bans, I would argue that any law that targets a specific breed or type of dog only furthers to justify the killing of these same dogs in other places. These laws also often lead to the relinquishment of these dogs to already overburdened shelters when owners feel too much pressure in attempting to comply with the burdensome restrictions. Remember, often these laws are targeting family pets with responsible owners—dogs that have never exhibited aggression in their lives. At the same time, these laws are ignoring dogs of other breed types who may be showcasing aggression. We have to be sure our laws are aimed at people, not dogs, and that owners are held responsible for the actions of their dogs as much as possible.
So, does BSL work?
The short answer to this myth is a resounding “no.” A number of different countries, counties, and cities have enacted breed-specific legislation only to repeal it several years later due to their enormous cost and overall ineffectiveness. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is any law that is passed to create restrictions on dogs and dog owners of certain breeds, and sometimes full bans on the dogs. I actually prefer to call this breed discriminatory legislation due to its discriminatory nature, and also because many of the dogs targeted are mixed breeds that share physical appearances with the targeted breeds, not a specific genetic identifier of the breed.
This type of legislation does seem to be on a downward trend. Many states in the U.S. have actually banned the passage of BSL in favor of breed-neutral laws that make owners responsible and examine individual dog behavior. In addition, a number of professional organizations have come out against these types of laws, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Bar Association, among others.
The biggest issue with BSL is that it creates a perception of safety for citizens, but does not actually increase safety. Additionally, an unintended consequence of BSL is that the desirability of the banned breed actually increases. The dogs are seen as more exotic and dangerous by irresponsible owners who seek out dogs to intimidate other people, and thus BSL encourages aggression. On the other end, if obtaining the banned dog is difficult, these individuals will only find a dog from another breed to obtain, and thus a new “dangerous” breed is born. This sometimes backfires on the city with the ban as they continue to add more and more breeds to their list as reckless owners continue to find new breeds to use. The most extreme example of this occurred in Italy where they racked up 92 breeds on their restricted breed list before finally repealing their breed specific legislation in favor of laws focusing on owner responsibility.
Either way, BSL tends to hurt responsible owners, but does nothing to deter poor ownership by irresponsible individuals. We need to address individual owners and dogs, not make sweeping generalizations based on physical appearances of the dogs. Breed-neutral legislation that makes owners accountable has been shown to be largely effective at protecting people from dangerous dogs. Again, I understand where the victims of dog bites and advocates for BSL are coming from, but it’s important to note that many advocates for pit bull type dogs who oppose BSL also want to protect everyone from dangerous dogs. The studies show us that BSL doesn’t work at protecting people from dangerous dogs, but it makes us believe we are safer. We need creative solutions that make owners of all dogs responsible. This is how we create safer, more humane communities for both dogs and humans.
So Where Does that Leave Us in Regards to Protecting People from Dangerous Dogs?
I wrote this post as a way to address some of the issues inherent in the conversations about dangerous dogs. It’s too easy to share a meme or post on Facebook without thinking about how factual that material may be. People often ask for responsible pet ownership, but let’s remember that we also need responsible, educated advocacy on this topic as well.
The biggest takeaway message I want to get across to both pit bull advocates and opponents is to remember that both genetic and environmental factors have an influence on a dog’s behavior. You can’t argue for one of those and ignore the other.
Pit bull advocates—you need to be aware that despite an owner’s best intentions and management, sometimes individual dogs end up with serious behavioral problems. There are dangerous dogs that exist—we can’t ignore those and we can’t always place the blame solely on the owner. So, try to be realistic in your discussion of both genetics and environment, which hopefully I’ve provided some help with here.
Pit bull opponents—you need to realize that dogs are individuals, and that pit bull-type dogs are not inherently aggressive. Dog-directed aggression and human-directed aggression are very different things. Many of these dogs are mixes, and the purebred dogs identified as pit bulls have been bred for companionship over dog fighting for a number of decades now. Making sweeping laws that result in a significant number of deaths of dogs of a breed type, even those that are not genetically similar, but just look similar, is not the answer. Focusing on owner responsibility across ownership of all types of dogs is really key to effective change.
If both parties can come together, share in the credible studies and science, and develop creative solutions; we can keep both people and animals safer in our communities.
Editor’s note: The author edited the section on nanny dogs to reflect the affectionate name given to Staffordshire bull terriers in the U.K., and also to make the point of dog individuality clearer.
Andrey Shupilo © 123RF.com, Andrey Makurin © 123RF.com, Dunca Daniel © 123RF.com, Susan Richey-Schmitz © 123RF.com, Svetlana © 123RF.com, guesswho © 123RF.com, Ali Peterson © 123RF.com, iStock.com/WhitneyLewisPhotography
Latest posts by Sarah Albert (see all)
- Dangerous Dogs Part 2: Myths and Misconceptions from Both Pit Bull Advocates and Opponents - July 21, 2017
- Dangerous Dogs Part 1: Taking a Bite Out of Dog Bite Statistics - June 1, 2017
- “Breed Branding” - April 14, 2017