This commentary is by Alana Stevenson, an animal behaviorist with more than 20 years of experience. She provides humane dog and cat training.
Earlier this month, a woman in Essex was charged with manslaughter after police said her dog attacked and killed her father. After the incident in March, online discussions and selectboards focused on breed bans — specifically targeting pit bulls, a broad, generic term applied to Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers and square-headed mixed breeds.
The whiplash response to target breeds fails to address any of the underlying causes of canine aggression or dog attacks. Breed-specific legislation repeatedly fails and only punishes responsible owners and well-behaved dogs that have never harmed anyone.
Dogs do not become aggressive in a vacuum. With serious attacks, there is almost always a history of inappropriate training, animal neglect, ignored warning signs and management failures.
Dogs are primarily bred for appearance, not behavior. Most people place more emphasis on appearance than temperament when buying a dog, and breeders cater to that demand.
Breed bans are enforced based on how dogs look, but appearance doesn’t predict behavior. A dog with a blocky head, short coat and muscular build can be labeled a “pit bull” regardless of what’s actually in its DNA. Given the sheer number of mixed-breed dogs, that label is guesswork presented as fact. Guesswork does nothing to prevent dog attacks.
In a 2013 study by Voith et al., more than 900 animal professionals, including veterinarians, were asked to identify mixed-breed dogs by appearance. Fewer than half identified even one breed correctly in 14 of the 20 dogs. Only seven of 20 dogs had a majority agreement on a single breed, and of those seven, three were wrong. In another study by Olson et al., 68% of respondents to an internet survey predicted they would correctly identify dog breeds from appearance at least half the time, but only 4% actually did.
Mixed-breed dogs can look exactly like certain breed types without sharing any of that breed’s genetics. Judging a dog’s behavior by its appearance — especially to establish public policy — is neither fair nor reliable.
The culture surrounding these breeds is rarely discussed but is largely responsible for how these dogs are perceived and treated. Certain breeds — German shepherds, cane corsos, Rottweilers, Dobermans, mastiffs, Staffordshire terriers — are often bred and marketed to portray an image of strength and power. People breed and buy oversized so-called “XL” dogs for size and intimidation. The dogs never choose this image, yet they’re penalized for it.
This same culture shapes the way many of these dogs are trained. People choose these dogs because they look tough, then train them with shock and prong collars and other corrective methods rooted in alpha and dominance theory — the idea that dogs must be forcibly shown who’s boss or they will try to dominate the household. This theory has long been debunked, even by David Mech, the researcher who originally popularized it. In fact, this type of training contributes to aggressive behavior.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior formally advises against using dominance-based training methods. This is not simply a training issue. It is a public safety issue.
Decades of research into canine learning and behavior remain largely unknown outside professional circles. Many dog owners have never been taught how dogs learn, how fear develops, how warning signs appear or how punishment aggravates aggressive behavior. They’re left to navigate a landscape of television personalities, social media influencers and competing training philosophies without the behavioral knowledge to distinguish between beneficial and harmful advice.
Ear cropping and tail docking are cosmetic mutilations commonly inflicted on these dogs and reflect this same mindset. Ear cropping cuts a dog’s natural ears so they stand erect and pointed to look aggressive. Veterinary ear cropping is expensive, so home or “chop jobs” are common. A floppy-eared Doberman, cane corso or square-headed Staffy looks far less intimidating than the same dog with cut ears. This appearance shapes how the dog is perceived and treated for the rest of its life. The dog is mutilated — and then judged — to fit an image of toughness it never asked for.
Tail docking — cutting a puppy’s tail off at the base — is performed without anesthesia within the first five days of life. In many states, it’s legal for a breeder or owner to do it at home.
The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association have condemned both practices and called on breed organizations to remove them from breed standards. Yet they still aren’t banned in the U.S., and the mutilations continue.
What predicts a dog attack is not breed. It’s whether a person is actually controlling, training, managing and taking responsibility for the dog. When that accountability is missing, people get hurt.
Hunting hounds in Vermont have attacked people and pets, causing serious injuries. Yet there are no selectboard meetings or public calls to ban coon or foxhounds.
Bear and coyote hounds are legally allowed to run unleashed, out of sight and miles from handlers. Vermont legislators have still not banned hound hunting or instituted any objective measures of control, despite it being a serious animal welfare and public safety issue.
Dangerous dog incidents aren’t about breed. They’re about culture, inappropriate training, poor management and a misunderstanding of how dogs learn. Dogs aren’t making these choices. They’re living with the consequences of human failure.
No amount of breed bans or vilification of breed types will prevent dog attacks. Fatal dog attacks are a people problem, not a breed problem. Until the public and policymakers acknowledge that, dog attacks will continue.
