The Accuracy of Temperament Testing

In the world of the canine behaviorist, the "temperament" of a canine equates to the combination of mental, physical, and emotional traits displayed by a dog. I've entered the word "displayed" in italics because it's critical to understand that, although we temperament evaluators make every effort to provide an accurate assessment of a dog's disposition, such an assessment is based on the dog's observed behavior, and sometimes there are things a dog doesn't show us.

A temperament evaluation is typically conducted by observing and analyzing a dog's responses to a variety of stimuli. Certain responses to certain stimuli tell us many things about a dog's "personality." For instance, we can develop a good sense of a dog's trainability by testing its responses to such things as loud noises, rapidly moving objects, being physically handled and restrained, and so on. However, it's usually impossible to test a dog's reaction to every conceivable stimulus it may encounter, or every environment in which a stimulus may be encountered. Although a dog may interact exceptionally well with twenty strange people during a test session, it's not to say that it will interact well with every strange person it may happen to come in contact with. The dog may be uncomfortable around someone who's drunk a little too much alcohol, or a little too much coffee for that matter. The dog may not act appropriately toward people at a bustling train station or airport. And just because a dog shows good manners in the presence of a realistic-looking doll, doesn't mean it won't go attack some small child. A standard temperament evaluation can not account for how a dog will behave in all scenarios.

This dog is named J-Lo.























J-Lo is a female American Pit Bull Terrier, and one of the finest dogs I've ever had the pleasure of working with. She loves adults and children alike, is friendly with virtually every dog she meets, is highly trainable, is a dog which demonstrates what a typical temperament test would likely determine as being an "ideal" disposition.

But J-Lo does have one issue which may not be detected by such a test...

The first time J-Lo was adopted from the shelter, her new owners called a short time after taking her home and complained that they had left her alone in their car for a few minutes, and when they returned she refused to allow them back inside the vehicle. An animal control officer was dispatched to the scene, and J-Lo was returned to the shelter. People -myself included- who'd spent some time around this dog found the story very difficult to believe. We all agreed that the adopters must have misinterpreted J-Lo's behavior, or exaggerated the truth of the matter for whatever reason.

It wasn't long before J-Lo was adopted to a different couple who seemed extremely happy with her...

...for about eight hours. Again, the dog had been left alone inside her adopters' car and apparently was guarding it ferociously, preventing them from re-entering. This time I was summoned to go assess the situation. When I arrived I discovered a dog much different than the sweet, friendly angel I'd grown so fond of. This "Mrs. Hyde" version displayed a viciousness as profound as any I'd ever seen as I approached her vehicular fortress. Some dogs can bluff a person with a performance that might warrant a canine Oscar, but J-Lo wasn't bluffing; she had every intent to do me bodily harm if I had shown the poor judgement to reach in and grab her collar. I opened the car door and tried to coax her out because I was quite confident that she'd revert back to her affable self once she was outside the vehicle. She wasn't going for it. She was determined to stay right there and guard that car with the tenacity of a bengal tiger. Finally an AC officer provided me with a catch pole which I used to remove J-Lo from the vehicle, and, sure enough, she instantly transformed back into the dog we all loved.

Temperament tests aren't designed to detect such abstruse behaviors. More often than not they're implemented for the purpose of confirming a behavior that is already obvious to anyone who knows a thing or two about dogs. In a shelter environment, dogs that display any sort of aggression are usually considered "high-risk," and promptly euthanized. This helps make room for the most benevolent of dogs, the ones who seem the least likely to present an average adopter with agonistic behavioral issues. Temperament testing is a common tool for weeding out all but the best candidates for adoption, but with aggression being such a complex and contingent behavior, the predictive value of such an evaluation cannot be relied upon to the extent that one can provide anything more than a "best guess" as to how a dog will behave once it goes home with an adopter. Furthermore, a dog that's been caged in a shelter with three hundred other animals for four months may miserably fail a temperament evaluation due to the extreme stress of its living conditions, yet may be a dog-owner's dream once it's reintroduced into a stable home environment.

Temperament testing is very useful in that it can give us a basic idea of a dog's general disposition, but beyond that, it's up to us to strive to know and understand our dogs through the same guiding sense that's allowed us to harmoniously coexist with this wonderful species for the past thousands of years.

By the way, J-Lo was taken in by a rescue which is having no trouble managing her car-guarding issues.

Update 10/17/08: I wanted to share this photo of J-Lo at her new home

The Real Facts Regarding Spay/Neuter

Most assuredly, dog overpopulation is a serious problem in the United States. No one needs me to tell them that millions of our loyal canine friends are put to death every year, mostly as a result of there simply being too many of them. There is no question that spay/neuter programs have dramatically reduced this problem, but efforts to encourage dog owners to alter their animals have generated an increased misrepresentation of the facts regarding the matter. Some facts are exaggerated while others are intentionally -or not- obscured, and this certainly inhibits the ability of the average dog owner to make an informed decision about what is best for his/her pet.

Those urging the sexual alteration of pets will often list a plethora of health and behavioral benefits for doing so, but will seldom provide scientific reference to support it. In addition, the risks associated with such procedures frequently go unmentioned, or are downplayed. So I will attempt here to provide some real objective facts relating to the spaying and neutering of dogs, based on various health and behavioral studies, several of which I will list within this post.


First, the actual health benefits resulting from the neutering of male dogs:

1) The most obvious benefit of neutering a male dog is the complete elimination of testicular cancer. Death from this affliction occurs in about 0.9-1% of intact male dogs.

2) Neutering does appear to minimize the risk of developing non-cancerous prostate problems.

3) Neutering apparently reduces the risk of perianal fistulas (infectious lesions around the anus).


Risks associated with neutering male dogs:

1) Neutering a dog greatly increases its risk (0.2% of intact dogs) of developing bone cancer. This is especially true if a dog is neutered before 1 year of age.

2) Neutering increases the risk of Cardiac Hemangiosarcoma (tumors of blood vessel cells in the heart, which affects about 0.2% of intact dogs) by 160%.

3) Neutering doubles the risk of urinary tract cancer (affects approximately 1% of intact males).

4) Triples the risk of hypothyroidism (affects less than 1% of intact dogs) and obesity (affects about 2.8% of intact dogs).

5) Quadruples the risk of prostate cancer, which affects 0.2-0.6% of intact males.

6) Increases the risk of progressive cognitive impairment in older dogs.

7) Increases the risk of bone and joint disorders.

8) Increases the likelihood of adverse reactions to vaccinations.


Health related benefits of spaying a female dog:

1) As in males, reduces the risk of developing perianal fistulas.

2) Eliminates the risk of cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancers, which affect approximately o.5 % of intact females.

3) Minimizes the risk of Pyometra, a serious infection of the uterus which affects around 23% of intact female dogs, and kills about 1%.

4) Dramatically reduces the risk of mammarian cancer if procedure is performed before 2 1/2 years of age. Mammarian tumors affect about 3.4% of intact females, and accounts for about 52% of all cancers in female dogs.


Risks associated with spaying female dogs:

1) As in males, greatly increases the low 0.2% risk of bone cancer if done before 1 year of age.

2) Doubles the risk of urinary tract cancer, which affects less than 1% of intact females.

3) Nearly triples the likelihood of obesity (affects about 2.8% of intact dogs).

4) Nearly quadruples the risk of recurrent or persistent urinary tract infections.

5) Increases the risk of Cardiac Hemangiosarcoma (affects about o.2% of intact dogs) by about 500%.

6) More than triples the risk of Splenic Hemangiosarcoma (blood vessel cell tumors in the spleen affecting less than 0.2% of intact dogs).

7) Results in urinary incontinence in as many as 20% of females.

8) Triples the risk of hypothyroidism (affects less than 1% of intact dogs).

9) Increases the risk of recessed vulva and vaginal inflammation, particulary if procedure is performed before puberty (generally 6 months to a year old).

10) As in males, increases the risk of bone and joint disorders, as well as the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.


Behavioral effects resulting from spay/neuter of dogs:

Studies conducted by those such as J.C. Neilson and colleagues, F.A. Beach, O'Farrell and Peachey, Voith and Borchelt, Hopkins and colleagues, Ben Hart, Kreutz, and so many other brilliant minds have varied somewhat in their conclusions, but the general results
have given us a very good idea of what one should or shouldn't expect regarding behavior after spaying or neutering a dog.

Potential behavioral effects of neutering a male:

1) Reduced roaming in a very large percentage (up to 90%) of dogs.

2) Reduced mounting of people in around 50-60% of dogs.

3) Reduced urinary marking indoors in about half of dogs.

4) Reduced intermale aggression in up to 60% of dogs.

5) Studies also indicate that general dominance aggression, particularly toward people, may be curbed in some dogs. Neutering seems to have little to no effect on territorial, protective, or fear aggression.

Please note that behaviors tend to be reduced, as opposed to entirely eliminated.


Spaying of females seems to have basically no influence on behavior. The primary exception is that in some females, especially those who exhibit aggressive tendencies before being altered, aggression is often increased after being spayed.


The facts presented here are the results of extensive scientific study. I've refrained from interjecting any personal opinions I may have on this matter for the sake of objectivity.
Hopefully I've provided enough information for dog owners to be a little better equipped to deal with the decision to spay or neuter their pets.



Sources:

Cohen D, Reif JS, Brodey RS, et al: Epidemiological analysis of the most prevalent sites and types of canine neoplasia observed in a veterinary hospital. Cancer Res 34:2859-2868, 1974

Weaver, AD. Fifteen cases of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. Vet Rec. 1981; 109, 71-75.

Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Bamsey, SC, Meek, AH, Allen, DG (1996) Postoperative complications of elective surgeries in dogs and cats determined by examining electronic and medical records. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1882-1886

Pollari FL, Bonnett BN. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records, Can Vet J. 1996 November; 37(11): 672–678.

Dorn AS, Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 13, 720-724

Hagman R: New aspects of canine pyometra. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, 2004.

Schaer M. Hypothyroidism In The Dog. Dog Owners and Breeders Symposium, University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine. 2000 July 29

Teske E, Naan EC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA. Canine prostate carcinoma:
epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2002 Nov 29;197(1-2):251-5.

Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J. Immunohistochemical characterization of canine prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time. Vet Comparative Oncology. 2003 Mar; 1 (1): 48

Ferguson HR; Vet Clinics of N Amer: Small Animal Practice; Vol 15, No 3, May 1985

Lindsay SR. Handbook Of Applied Dog Behavior And Training; Vol 2, 2001

Schultheiss PC. A retrospective study of visceral and nonvisceral
hemangiosarcoma and hemangiomas in domestic animals

Theilen GH, Madewell BR. Tumors of the genital system. Part II. In:Theilen GH, Madewell BR, eds. Veterinary cancer medicine. 2nd ed.Lea and Febinger, 1987:583–600.

Glickman LT, Glickman N, Thorpe R. The Golden Retriever Club of America National Health Survey 1998-1999 http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/golden_retriever_final22.pdf

Verstegen-Onclin K, Verstegen J. Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering: Effects on the Urogenital System. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical
Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

Handbook of Small Animal Practice, 3rd ed

Hayes HM Jr, Pendergrass TW. Canine testicular tumors: epidemiologic features of 410 dogs. Int J Cancer 1976 Oct 15;18(4):482-7

Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. (1998) Host-related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9

Burrow R, Batchelor D, Cripps P. Complications observed during and after ovariohysterectomy of 142 bitches at a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet Rec. 2005 Dec 24-31;157(26):829-33.

Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenous gonadal hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40.

Moe L. Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds. J of Reproduction and Fertility Supplment 57, 439-443.

MacEwen EG, Patnaik AK, Harvey HJ Estrogen receptors in canine mammary tumors. Cancer Res., 42: 2255-2259, 1982.

Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969

Feinleib M: Breast cancer and artificial menopause: A cohort study. J Nat Cancer Inst 41: 315-329, 1968.

Dorn CR and Schneider R. Inbreeding and canine mammary cancer. A retrospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 57: 545-548, 1976.

Brodey RS: Canine and feline neoplasia. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 14:309-354, 1970

Hayes A, Harvey H J: Treatment of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc 174:1304-1306, 1979

Norris AM, Laing EJ, Valli VE, Withrow SJ. J Vet Intern Med 1992 May; 6(3):145-53

Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, Glickman LT. Epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, and prognostic characteristics of splenic hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma in dogs: 217 cases (1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988 Sep; 193(6):706-12

Ware WA, Hopper, DL. Cardiac Tumors in Dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999;13:95–103.

Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994 Mar
1;204(5):761-7

Panciera DL. Canine hypothyroidism. Part I. Clinical findings and control of thyroid hormone secretion and metabolism. Compend Contin Pract Vet 1990: 12: 689-701.

Glickman LT, Glickman N, Raghaven M, The Akita Club of America National Health Survey 2000-2001. http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/akita_final_2.pdf

Glickman LT, HogenEsch H, Raghavan M, Edinboro C, Scott-Moncrieff C. Final Report to the Hayward Foundation and The Great Dane Health Foundation of a Study Titled Vaccinosis in Great Danes. 1 Jan 2004. http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_fullreport_jan04.pdf

Edney AT, Smith PM. Study of obesity in dogs visiting veterinary practices in the United Kingdom. Vet Rec. 1986 Apr 5;118(14):391-6.

McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, Fawcett A, Grassi T, Jones B. Prevalence of obesity in dogs
examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec. 2005 May
28;156(22):695-702.

Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk, CA, Klausner, JS. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Obesity in Adult Dogs from Private US Veterinary Practices. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006.

Moore GE, Guptill LF, Ward MP, Glickman NW, Faunt KF, Lewis HB, Glickman LT. Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. JAVMA Vol 227, No 7, Oct 1, 2005

Thrusfield MV, Holt PE, Muirhead RH. Acquired urinary incontinence in bitches: its incidence and relationship to neutering practices.. J Small Anim Pract. 1998. Dec;39(12):559-66.

Holt PE. Urinary incontinence in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1990: 127: 347-350.

Thrusfield MV 1985 Association between urinary incontinence and spaying in bitches Vet Rec 116 695

Fogle B. The Dog's Mind: Understanding Your Dog's Behavior; 1990

Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary
incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:233-6...

Arnold S, Arnold P, Hubler M, Casal M, and Rüsch P. Urinary Incontinence in spayed bitches: prevalence and breed disposition. European Journal of Campanion Animal Practice. 131, 259-263.

Richter KP, Ling V. Clinical response and urethral pressure profile changes after phenypropanolamine in dogs with primary sphincter incompetence. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985: 187: 605-611.

Seguin MA, Vaden SL, Altier C, Stone E, Levine JF (2003) Persistent Urinary Tract Infections and Reinfections in 100 Dogs (1989–1999). Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine: Vol. 17, No. 5 pp. 622–631.

Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.

The Great Debate: Positive Reinforcement Vs. Physical Correction

When it comes to dog-training, my golden rule is: Train with as little physical force as possible. I utilize a combination of classical and operant conditioning methods, teaching dogs primarily through positive association and rewards.

My brother, Robert, trains dogs as well. He doesn't understand canine behavior quite like I do, but he's nonetheless an expert in getting a dog to behave as he wishes. Rob's training methods differ from my own in that he's more of a Dick Koehler or Cesar Milan kind of guy. His training is largely based on physical correction and punishment. That doesn't mean that he beats dogs into submission, only that he has no qualms with making things unpleasant for a dog if he deems it necessary.

If you were to ask Rob about my training methods, he's likely to say that I'm too easy on dogs, and if you ask me about his, I'll tell you that I think he's probably a little too hard on dogs, but neither of us will deny that the other's methods work.

The debate (in a small nutshell):
Some proponents of positive reinforcement-based training will argue that corrective-based training is inhumane and unnecessary, and that it often can do more harm than good.

Advocates of corrective-based training will argue that dogs need to know that the human is in charge, and giving a dog treats for being nice isn't going to work when the dog is a pissed off hundred-pound rottweiler with tunnel vision.

My opinion:
Both arguments are valid. On one hand, smacking a dog or cutting off the oxygen supply to its brain may be an efficient means of behavioral control and/or modification, but such techniques can certainly result in increased fear and aggression, and when a dog is overly fearful or aggressive to begin with...well, put two and two together.

I don't agree with physically forcing an aggressive dog into submission unless it's absolutely necessary to do so. If Cesar Milan attempted to confront and physically dominate some of the dogs I've worked with, he'd get himself promptly killed.

As far as showing a dog who's in charge, holding one down on its back probably isn't the best way to get your point across. After observing the behavior of thousands of dogs --from fighting Tosas to toy Poodles-- for more than three decades, the only time I ever see a dog holding another animal down on its back is when the dog is trying to kill that animal.

Take that for what it's worth.

Nor do I agree with physically forcing a fearful dog to face the source of its fear (say that 10 times really fast). I believe it's far safer for a dog's mental health if the animal is coaxed through systematic desensitization processes, rather than forced to endure the equivalent of a hydrophobic being pushed off a diving board. Flooding methods may work sometimes, but unless you really know what you're doing, you're more likely to cause some potentially irreversible psychological trauma.

On the other hand, focus is extremely important to a dog's ability to learn, and sometimes a quick jerk on the leash or a firm tap on the shoulder can be far more effective in maintaining a dog's attention than might be the promise of a Scooby Snack. A dog that hasn't been trained to focus on your call to "come" may end up dead in the street beneath the car that was unable to brake quickly enough.



I choose to train using as little physical force as possible, and I've been highly successful with it. I believe in presence, as opposed to physical domination (of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm approximately the size of an NFL offensive lineman). Other trainers have no reservations about getting down in the mud and duking it out with Cujo himself...and have been highly successful with it. Certain things work for certain dogs, and certain things don't. If something doesn't work for your dog, try something else.

That's all I have to say about that.


...at least for now.

The Alpha Dogma

These days a person can hardly read anything pertaining to dogs without being subjected to the arrogant declaration that "you, as a dog-owner, must establish yourself as the 'Alpha Dog' in the eyes of your pet in order to have a successful relationship with that animal." Somehow I think that dogs all over the world would be laughing at us if they had any understanding whatsoever of the popularity of that idea.

First off, I think it's pretty damned naive to suggest that dogs see us as other dogs and not a separate and distinct species. If the term "Alpha Dog" was metaphorical as it pertains to a human it wouldn't seem like such a joke, but it's undoubtedly a literal reference. The Alpha Dogma, as I call it, instructs us to behave like a wolf or dog that is the head of its pack...right down to biting and growling at our insubordinate pet.

Tell me this isn't funny.

I'm a firm believer in the human enforcement of a pack hierarchy in multi-dog environments, but a dog pack traditionally consists of dogs...not dogs and people. One huge problem I have with the Alpha Dogma is that it doesn't account for the fact that a dog pack contains only one Alpha male and one Alpha female; the remainder of the pack is made up of Beta dogs and Omega dogs which aren't required to show the same respect for each other as they do the Alpha leaders. If a pack should happen to include a small human child, where is this child's place in the social structure? It's certainly not at the top if the child's parents are filling those positions. Following the logic of the Alpha Dogma, when the child growls and shakes the neck of one of the other pack members who happens to be a real dog, the kid is liable to be bitten in the face.

What about neighbors or visiting friends? In the wild, if a dog or wolf pack wanders upon the territory of another pack it's most often followed by a battle too bloody for many humans to comprehend.

Some supporters of the Alpha Dogma will argue that, in the wild, the Alpha leader decides which fights are fought and with whom. Mom and Pop, as Alphas, can dictate to the dog or dogs in the pack that's it's not okay to bite little Junior. But in reality, lesser ranking dogs of a pack fight amongst themselves quite regularly without the consent of the Alphas.

The recent urging to integrate humans into dog packs is not only absurd, but it's potentially dangerous. Dogs that interact well with humans do so because they recognize us as a species with which peaceful interaction is beneficial to life. It's much more conducive to a successful human-dog relationship when the dog is integrated into the social structure of humans --a family structure-- instead of the other way around. Dogs need to be taught to respect the children of a household just as much as the parents. They need to be taught to understand that humans in general are a friendly species that must be respected at a higher level than that which is required by any Alpha Dog.

But of course, if you were on your hands and knees pretending to be a dog, biting my nose and growling like a damned fool, I wouldn't have much respect for you either.

More Propaganda In The Pit Bull War

I hear this one a lot: "Pit Bulls were bred to be able to interact safely with people because they needed to be handled during pit fights. In those days if a dog displayed any human-aggression whatsoever it was promptly culled (destroyed). As a result of all this culling of 'manbiters', the Pit Bull in today's society generally will never bite a human for any reason. The few that do bite are mentally unbalanced and should be euthanized immediately for the good of the dog and the protection of the public."

Having devoted thousands of hours to the study of the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier, I can say with some authority that the culling of "manbiters" was not nearly as common with this breed as some would have you believe. If a dog could win fights, then its attitude toward people was of little importance. When a handler of a fighting dog stepped into the pit during a dog fight, he understood that there was always a risk of being bitten, and in fact most "dogmen" did get bitten from time to time, sometimes severely. You'll find no historical reference to a fighting dog being culled for such an infraction, provided it could win fights or produce dogs who could win fights. Some of the most famous APBT's in history were known to have bitten people. It's most definitely true that APBT's were bred to interact safely with people, but so were all breeds of the domestic canine, and still dogs of every breed are perpetually involved in dog bite cases.

I don't write this to discredit the loving nature of the American Pit Bull Terrier, for its nature is indeed to love, but I see a danger in breed enthusiasts spoon-feeding the public the idea that "only the crazy ones will bite." It simply isn't true. You read it in the newspapers all too often: some family's "Pit Bull" gets loose and bites somebody. Then the family is "so shocked" that sweet Fido could do such a thing when he's never shown any signs of aggression before. Fido ends up in a body bag because he must be one of the "crazy ones."

It makes me nuts.

Here is something to remember: Pit Bull breeds are dogs. Dogs may bite for an endless variety of reasons. Being "crazy" is very rarely a factor in dog bite cases. Most often it happens because some human has shown poor judgement. People have come to expect the same (and frequently more) of their dogs as they do other people. We put a lot of pressure on our animals, and sometimes they don't handle it as well as we'd like.

Another thing that gets my three-horned billygoat is the idea that if a dog bites once it will always bite again. This simply just isn't true.

In most instances, a dog bites due to some form of stress. There are far too many examples of stress factors than I care to list in this post, but by identifying the stress factor and removing it from the dog's environment --or vice versa--, the animal's negative behavior is more than likely to cease.

Sometimes things aren't that complicated. When a dog "corrects" a younger dog for inappropriate behavior, it will often mouth the face of the other dog as a harmless reprimand. This is normal canine behavior. The skin on a dog's face, however, is much tougher than the skin of a young human child but a dog may not realize that, especially if its owner has followed the advice of some trainers and never allowed the dog to put its teeth on human skin while it was a puppy, effectively preventing the dog from learning proper bite inhibition. If a dog happens to reprimand a toddler for pulling on the dog's ears, the child might end up in an Emergency Room, even though the dog meant no harm. In this type of situation, some people --I'll venture to say most-- would mistake the dog's well-intentioned correction as an act of uninhibited aggression and proceed to have the dog destroyed.

Some dogs have independent personalities and don't enjoy being coddled and petted. Other dogs enjoy it, but not all the time. Contrary to what our society tends to believe, most dogs do not like to be hugged by their owners, as hugging is a dominant gesture in the language of a dog. Just because dogs will tolerate something doesn't mean they enjoy it. Some won't tolerate it and will bite you to make it clear. The famous "dogman," Don Maloney, had a young son named Earl, who was bitten severely on the leg after hugging a dog he'd hugged regularly before. The leg required multiple surgeries to repair, and Earl never did regain full use of it. The dog hadn't ever displayed any sort of aggression toward humans prior to that incident.

And, sadly, there are those few dogs who just don't like people and never will. These dogs are the frequent result of severe abuse and poor socialization, and all the care in the world can't rehabilitate them.

Every dog of every breed holds the potential to bite a human being for any number of reasons. Dogs of the "Pit Bull" breeds are no exception. Fortunately, throughout the history of human/canine interaction we have learned to get along well with our dogs...but not quite well enough, as evidenced by daily news headlines. But if we dog owners' can fulfill our commitment to responsibility and the understanding of our dogs, along with the ability to mine the truth from the bullshit, maybe newspapers will one day have a little less to write about.

Propaganda In The Pit Bull War

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" ~Adolph Hitler

In 2008, the term "Pit Bull" no longer refers to a dog, but to an imaginary creature in the vein of that which is likely to be conjured from the mind of M. Knight Shyamalan or Stephen King. Of course, the depiction of this mythical beast is as varied as the sundry portrayals of the old favorites such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Chupacabra. One account may have you believe that the fabled "Pit Bull" is nothing less than the embodiment of evil itself, while another may describe the incarnation of pure love. Whatever the case...

...it's all bullshit.

The "Pit Bull" of current ideology simply does not exist. Behind the scenes of the hype and sensationalism dwells a breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier -not to be confused with American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, Bull Terrier, Bandog, Mastiff, or any of the other breeds commonly filed under the "Pit Bull" category of dogs.
Never has there been a breed of domestic canine which was quite so equally loved and loathed as the American Pit Bull Terrier. Nor has there been a breed which was so misrepresented by both its enthusiasts and haters alike.

"Never trust a pit bull not to fight" seems to be the one slogan that both camps can agree on. While it may be a good rule for the neophyte pet owner to consider, the implication fuels the stereotype of the American Pit Bull Terrier and similar breeds as being mindless and unstable "fighting machines" whose very nature denies them the ability to safely interact with other animals or, in many cases, small children or people in general.

The objective truth is that some individual dogs of every breed of canine known to man will fight. Most will in certain contributory situations. Hang around at a large animal shelter during feeding time and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Ancestors of the domestic canine were wild animals, and a dog in the wild who doesn't fight may not get to eat. Little has changed in the transition from wild to domestic. A house dog in the twenty-first century will still fight for the same reasons as would a wild one hundreds of years ago. Dogs are prey-driven, territorial, and possessive animals who exist within a social ranking system not too dissimilar from that of humans. Some dogs are willing to fight for social status --to be the "Alpha Dog-- while others are quite content with a lower pack ranking. Fights can occur between dogs who just don't like each other for whatever reason. Most sporting breeds, including the "pit bull" breeds, tend to have higher degrees of prey drive than do your standard poodle, for example. The instinct to "chase and grab" can therefore be more compelling with dogs of such breeds. Although the American Pit Bull Terrier for generations was bred for its ability to fight, most breeders of fighting dogs will acknowledge that those who actually possess the willingness (or gameness) to duke it out with another dog are in the minority, even when bred from a long lineage of fighting stock. The reason for this goes back to a desire to be the "top dog" socially. Not every dog wants to be leader of the pack, not even "Pit Bulls," and to be a fighting dog requires a dominant personality. The subject of social order, or pack structure, in the canine world is far too complex a subject for me to go on about here, but I will say that just because a dog exhibits a dominant personality doesn't mean that it won't submit to another dog. Most fights are between dominant dogs, and most end with the submission of one to the other. And although a dog may be the "Alpha" within a certain social environment, it's certainly not to say that it won't submit outright to another dominant dog from a different social circle. In the following picture, a former fighting dog, an American Pit Bull Terrier, which has won three pit fights, two of which were over two hours in length, submits to a chihuahua.





The "Pit Bull" breeds, in essence, are no different than other breeds in regard to why they fight. The distinction is that countless generations of selective breeding has assured that when they do choose to fight, they are good at it. A pet owner who lacks the knowledge and understanding to determine whether or not his/her dog is going to fight shouldn't trust any dog not to do so, regardless of breed. There shouldn't be any guesswork when it comes to making such a determination; you either know or you don't. If you're unsure, play it safe and keep your dog away from other dogs, whether it be a "pit bull" or a Chihuahua. One of the ugliest fights I ever saw was between a Miniature Pinscher and a Pomeranian. But if you understand why dogs fight and you're able to control the factors that may incite it, then there is no reason to "never trust you're dog not to fight..."

...even if it happens to be a "Pit Bull."

R.A.T.E. Temperament Testing

I developed the R.A.T.E. temperament test as a means to accurately assess a dog's compatibility with humans and, to a lesser degree, other animals. R.A.T.E. is an acronym for the Rocky Alexander Temperament Evaluation. The test is conducted by scoring a dog's reactions to various situations within a number of categories including:

• Dominance/Submission
• Social Attraction
• Restraint
• Object Possessiveness
• Prey Drive
• Sight and Sound Sensitivity
• Touch response

Consideration is given to the dog's physical structure and health.

The evaluation is based on a consistency of scores, as opposed to cumulative totals. While the scores themselves can often be enough to provide a very basic idea in regard to a dog's temperament, the accuracy of any evaluation should never be reliant on scores alone. The scoring system is designed to be used in conjunction with the qualified evaluator's observations during the session.