An article appearing in the New York Times of May 11, 2010, describes an employee of the City of Indianapolis who is allergic to paprika with a reaction potentially so severe that it could be fatal. Steven Greenhouse, "When Treating One Worker's Allergy Sets Off Another's." The employee, Emily Kysel, obtained a service dog trained to alert her to the presence of paprika by jumping on her. The dog cost $10,000. The city initially permitted her to bring this dog to work but a fellow employee, allergic to dogs, suffered an asthma attack. Ms. Kysel’s boss then told her she could no longer bring the dog and advised her that if she did not report for work without the dog, she would be put on indefinite unpaid leave. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, pending as of this writing.
Two allergists wrote letters on behalf of Ms. Kysel, and the article indicates that she had almost died from eating chili five years before her problems with Indianapolis. She has had to go home from work when fellow employees were eating food with paprika near her, and when permitting her to bring the dog to work—before the allergic reaction of the fellow employee to the dog—employees were told not to have food with paprika in the office. The article mentions that blind employees are permitted to bring guide dogs to work but it is not specified if any such employees and dogs are in the unit where Ms. Kysel works. If so, it would appear that some shifting of offices might solve the problem, and a failure to do so could buttress Ms. Kysel’s discrimination argument. Such a situation would also suggest that the city is favoring one type of service dog over others, but again the circumstances of the guide dog users are not described in the article.
Cases have considered conflicts between individuals with service dogs and individuals with allergies, as has the Department of Transportation in a lengthy discussion in the final air carrier access rules. Generally, the rulings have concluded that an individual with an annoying but not dangerous allergy must accept the presence of the dog, though the facility should attempt to find a way to keep the individuals out of each other’s way. In Lockett v. Catalina Channel Express, 496 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007), a blind passenger with a guide dog could not be excluded from the Commodore Lounge of a ferry to Catalina despite the fact that a no-animals policy for the lounge was introduced for the comfort of a passenger with allergies.
In the preamble to its air carrier access rules, the Department of Transportation stated:
“Forcing the passenger with the service animal to move to another seat to make another passenger more comfortable, let alone denying transportation in the cabin to the service animal or its user, is not an option.
***
“If a passenger provides credible verbal assurances, or medical documentation, that he or she has an allergy to a particular sort of animal that rises to the level of a disability (e.g. produces shock or respiratory distress that could require emergency or significant medical treatment), and there is a service animal of that kind seated nearby, the carrier should try to place as much distance as possible between the service animal and the individual with the allergy. Depending on where the passengers are initially seated, this could involve moving both passengers. For example, if both are seated toward the center of the cabin, one could be moved to the front and the other to the back.
“It is unlikely that the mere presence of an animal in the same cabin would, by itself, even if located at a distance from an allergic passenger, produce a severe allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability. However, if there was strong evidence that this was the case, it could be necessary to rebook one of the passengers on another flight. Since one disability does not trump another, the carrier should consider a disability-neutral means of determining which passenger would have to be rebooked (e.g., which passenger made the earlier reservation). We emphasize that we expect any such situation to be extremely rare, and that carriers should not rebook a passenger absent strong evidence that the mere presence of an animal in the cabin, even in a location distant from the allergic passenger, would produce an allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability.
“There may be situations in which, with respect to a passenger who brings a very serious potential allergy situation to the attention of your personnel, it is appropriate to seek a medical certificate for the passenger.” 72 Fed. Reg. 27614, at 27655, 27660 (5/13/2008)
It is hard for me to believe that the City of Indianapolis is not a large enough employer, with a considerable amount of office space, for some accommodation not to be possible for both employees with their separate allergies. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that seniority or some other objective criterion may have to determine which employee has priority in this situation.
In this context, though I don’t like it, one argument could be that a stern enforcement of the no-paprika policy could be viewed as a factor weighing in the dog-allergic employee’s favor. Ms. Kysel’s situation differs from someone who suffers seizures who has a seizure-response or seizure-alert dog. With a service dog whose functions are connected with the handler’s seizures, there is nothing the employer can do to limit the possibility of the dog being needed in the work environment. With a dog that alerts to a spice that might cause something like a seizure, however, the employer can prohibit employees from bringing that spice to the office. Or is this naïve? Some employees, according to the article, expressed skepticism as to Ms. Kysel’s allergy, referring to it as an oddity. Without a dog to detect their violations of the anti-paprika rule, would they be likely to honor it? Would Ms. Kysel be in constant danger of someone intentionally or accidentally bringing a food with paprika into the office? Would other employees always know the food contained paprika? It would seem that a no-food policy would have to be implemented to be sure that no paprika comes into the office. Even then, with the sensitivity of a dog’s olfactory system, would the dog alert when an employee returns from lunch with paprika on his breath?
I spoke twice at the ABA Tax Section meetings in Washington, DC, on May 7 and 8 regarding the deductibility of service dogs, and shifting away from the access issue, I also think there are interesting tax questions regarding Ms. Kysel’s dog. I have no knowledge of whether she deducted the acquisition cost of the dog, as likely permitted under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, and Regulation 1.213-1(e). The dog was acquired for a medical condition and probably would not have been acquired (at least at the $10,000 price tag) had it not been for that condition. The training and maintenance costs are deductible under other IRS pronouncements, and the condition that the dog provides a service for is a physical disability, as specified in Publication 502. (I have argued in several other places that I do not believe Publication 502’s restriction of service dog functions to physical disabilities is valid. See, e.g., Tax Notes, August 24, 2009.) But what if Ms. Kysel returns to work without the dog? Does the dog still provide a service function if there is no paprika in Ms. Kysel’s house and she does not enter markets or restaurants where it may be present? I think the answer is still yes, because she may have to avoid contact with paprika even in environments where it is not frequently present. Presumably the dog, like narcotics and explosives detection dogs, requires occasional testing to make sure it continues to alert to the target odor, which would also be a continuing expense.
As the world of service dogs becomes more complex, I believe that the IRS, as the City of Indianapolis in Ms. Kysel’s case, will begin to face some difficult situations.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Poorly Conducted Trailing and Scent Identification Procedures Lead to Wrongful Accusation
In a case arising in Texas in 2006, police, largely on the basis of evidence provided by a dog handler named Keith Pikett, concluded that Michael Buchanek had murdered Sally Blackwell. Several months after the investigation began another individual, Jeffrey Grimsinger, confessed to having killed Blackwell. Had it not been for this confession, the canine evidence provided by Pikett might have put Buchanek, who did a tour training Iraqi police, in prison. Grimsinger was suggested as a suspect early in the investigation but this seems to have been ignored by the officer in charge of the case, Sam Eyre.
Blackwell was abducted from her home on March 13. Her body was found two days later on March 15, 2006. Before the body was found, dogs and handlers from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) had been brought to help search the area where Blackwell’s cell phone and purse were found. The dogs picked up no trail at the location and the handlers believed that the phone and purse had been thrown from a car. (The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has 47 kennels throughout its system, with 101 kennel staff (as of 2006). About half the kennels hold tracking dogs used primarily to track escaped convicts, but also to help law enforcement. There are also scent-specific canines that include drug detection dogs in the TDCJ system.)
The Police Department of Victoria, Texas, employed Keith Pikett, a handler of trailing and scent identification dogs, to help in the investigation. An affidavit sworn to by Eyre stated that Pikett’s dogs trailed from the place where Blackwell’s body was found to Buchanek’s home. This was false, as other evidence established that the dogs trailed to the home of the victim, and only after reaching Blackwell’s house was Pikett told that a “person of interest” lived at a different location. The dogs were then taken to a street near that location and re-scented, after which they went to Buchanek’s home. The dogs would have passed this house when they were trailing from Blackwell’s body to her home, but if they did so they did not alert at the time.
There was another problem with the tracking in that the investigators believed that Blackwell’s body had been taken to the place where it was found in a vehicle. Thus, trailing from the location where the body was found to either house would have involved dog’s following a body in a car. Pikett argued that this was in fact possible, but the TDCJ handlers doubted it could be done. Some of those handlers, according to Buchanek’s complaint, expressed the belief that Pikett was “full of b.s.” The federal district court observed that the route followed by the dogs from the location of the body to the victim’s home would have required trailing the car transporting the body over five miles.
Pikett cited a piece in the FBI’s Forensic Science Communications noting that ventilation systems in cars move fresh air through the interior of a vehicle and into the external atmosphere, conceivably laying a scent trail a dog could follow. (Stockham, R.A., Slavin, D.L., and Kift, W. Specialized Use of Human Scent in Criminal Investigations. Forensic Science Communications, July 2004, vol. 6(3)). Research might support this possibility for short distances, but the five miles involved in this case and several major highways would truly be exceptional.
When Pikett and his dogs arrived in the vicinity of Buchanek’s home (after the dogs supposedly trailed to Blackwell’s home), an officer asked a man walking his dogs to remove them from the street because police dogs were coming. The court said this may have indicated that Pikett expected his dogs to trail to Buchanek’s house. The court also noted that the officer was preceding the dogs and it may have been his scent they were following. Even worse, it may have meant that Pikett was leading his dogs, rather than the other way around.
Pikett also conducted a scent lineup. The scent for Buchanek used in the lineup appears to have been a legal document Buchanek may not have touched for two years and may have been more recently handled by law enforcement officers. The other scents in the lineup may have come from “filler scents” that Pikett kept for such purposes, though this was not definitely established. (Another case involving Pikett’s services describes Pikett testifying that he has “a large selection of scent samples” for scent lineups, and that he has separated his samples by race and gender. Winfrey v. State, 2009 WL 1636849 (2009).) If filler samples were used here, the scents were not prepared in the same way or at the same time, which would be a serious defect in a scent lineup. There was also no evidence as to whether the dogs were on leads or not, or as to how Pikett was kept blind as to the placement of the suspect’s scent (if he was indeed blind). The lineup was performed in a police department parking lot. Officers who re-arranged the bags containing the scents in a row of cans may have touched the bags in this process, creating the possibility, if not the likelihood, of contamination. There were probably other problems with the scent lineup but there is no detailed description of how it was conducted.
In the two decisions of the federal district court, motions for summary judgment have been denied, clearing the way for a trial. Buchanek v. City of Victoria, 2009 WL 500564, 2010 WL 1268069 (S.D. Tex 2010). The case has received national attention when the first decision was released. John Schwartz, “Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence,” New York Times, November 11, 2009, p. 1.
Scent lineups have come to be called “junk science” by those who believe that wrongful convictions as a result of these lineups are all too common. This case may be unique in that a single handler may have turned trailing as well as scent identification into “junk science” in a single investigation.
Addendum. Winfrey has been reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court noted that no eyewitnesses put the defendant at the crime scene, the state was unable to match the defendant to a fingerprint and footprints found at the crime scene, and the defendant did not match the DNA profile obtained from the crime scene. The evidence convicting Winfrey consisted of his belief that he was the number one suspect when he wasn't and the fact he told a cellmate things he had heard about the crime but said nothing about his own involvement to the cellmate. The court found this "legally insufficient to support a conviction of murder beyond a reasonable doubt." The court cited other state courts that had held that dog-scent evidence was insufficient, standing alone, to support a conviction, and cited Taslitz (42 Hastings Law Journal 15 (1990)) in holding that scent-discrimination lineups were to be regarded as "separate and distinct from dog-scent tracking evidence." The court said that the scent lineup evidence could raise a "strong suspicion" of the defendant's guilt but could not convict him. A judgment of acquittal was entered by the appellate court. Winfrey v. Texas, 2010 WL 3656064 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Thanks to Gail Kikawa McConnell of the Fort Bend County, Texas, District Attorney's office for emailing me about the reversal.
Blackwell was abducted from her home on March 13. Her body was found two days later on March 15, 2006. Before the body was found, dogs and handlers from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) had been brought to help search the area where Blackwell’s cell phone and purse were found. The dogs picked up no trail at the location and the handlers believed that the phone and purse had been thrown from a car. (The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has 47 kennels throughout its system, with 101 kennel staff (as of 2006). About half the kennels hold tracking dogs used primarily to track escaped convicts, but also to help law enforcement. There are also scent-specific canines that include drug detection dogs in the TDCJ system.)
The Police Department of Victoria, Texas, employed Keith Pikett, a handler of trailing and scent identification dogs, to help in the investigation. An affidavit sworn to by Eyre stated that Pikett’s dogs trailed from the place where Blackwell’s body was found to Buchanek’s home. This was false, as other evidence established that the dogs trailed to the home of the victim, and only after reaching Blackwell’s house was Pikett told that a “person of interest” lived at a different location. The dogs were then taken to a street near that location and re-scented, after which they went to Buchanek’s home. The dogs would have passed this house when they were trailing from Blackwell’s body to her home, but if they did so they did not alert at the time.
There was another problem with the tracking in that the investigators believed that Blackwell’s body had been taken to the place where it was found in a vehicle. Thus, trailing from the location where the body was found to either house would have involved dog’s following a body in a car. Pikett argued that this was in fact possible, but the TDCJ handlers doubted it could be done. Some of those handlers, according to Buchanek’s complaint, expressed the belief that Pikett was “full of b.s.” The federal district court observed that the route followed by the dogs from the location of the body to the victim’s home would have required trailing the car transporting the body over five miles.
Pikett cited a piece in the FBI’s Forensic Science Communications noting that ventilation systems in cars move fresh air through the interior of a vehicle and into the external atmosphere, conceivably laying a scent trail a dog could follow. (Stockham, R.A., Slavin, D.L., and Kift, W. Specialized Use of Human Scent in Criminal Investigations. Forensic Science Communications, July 2004, vol. 6(3)). Research might support this possibility for short distances, but the five miles involved in this case and several major highways would truly be exceptional.
When Pikett and his dogs arrived in the vicinity of Buchanek’s home (after the dogs supposedly trailed to Blackwell’s home), an officer asked a man walking his dogs to remove them from the street because police dogs were coming. The court said this may have indicated that Pikett expected his dogs to trail to Buchanek’s house. The court also noted that the officer was preceding the dogs and it may have been his scent they were following. Even worse, it may have meant that Pikett was leading his dogs, rather than the other way around.
Pikett also conducted a scent lineup. The scent for Buchanek used in the lineup appears to have been a legal document Buchanek may not have touched for two years and may have been more recently handled by law enforcement officers. The other scents in the lineup may have come from “filler scents” that Pikett kept for such purposes, though this was not definitely established. (Another case involving Pikett’s services describes Pikett testifying that he has “a large selection of scent samples” for scent lineups, and that he has separated his samples by race and gender. Winfrey v. State, 2009 WL 1636849 (2009).) If filler samples were used here, the scents were not prepared in the same way or at the same time, which would be a serious defect in a scent lineup. There was also no evidence as to whether the dogs were on leads or not, or as to how Pikett was kept blind as to the placement of the suspect’s scent (if he was indeed blind). The lineup was performed in a police department parking lot. Officers who re-arranged the bags containing the scents in a row of cans may have touched the bags in this process, creating the possibility, if not the likelihood, of contamination. There were probably other problems with the scent lineup but there is no detailed description of how it was conducted.
In the two decisions of the federal district court, motions for summary judgment have been denied, clearing the way for a trial. Buchanek v. City of Victoria, 2009 WL 500564, 2010 WL 1268069 (S.D. Tex 2010). The case has received national attention when the first decision was released. John Schwartz, “Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence,” New York Times, November 11, 2009, p. 1.
Scent lineups have come to be called “junk science” by those who believe that wrongful convictions as a result of these lineups are all too common. This case may be unique in that a single handler may have turned trailing as well as scent identification into “junk science” in a single investigation.
Addendum. Winfrey has been reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court noted that no eyewitnesses put the defendant at the crime scene, the state was unable to match the defendant to a fingerprint and footprints found at the crime scene, and the defendant did not match the DNA profile obtained from the crime scene. The evidence convicting Winfrey consisted of his belief that he was the number one suspect when he wasn't and the fact he told a cellmate things he had heard about the crime but said nothing about his own involvement to the cellmate. The court found this "legally insufficient to support a conviction of murder beyond a reasonable doubt." The court cited other state courts that had held that dog-scent evidence was insufficient, standing alone, to support a conviction, and cited Taslitz (42 Hastings Law Journal 15 (1990)) in holding that scent-discrimination lineups were to be regarded as "separate and distinct from dog-scent tracking evidence." The court said that the scent lineup evidence could raise a "strong suspicion" of the defendant's guilt but could not convict him. A judgment of acquittal was entered by the appellate court. Winfrey v. Texas, 2010 WL 3656064 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Thanks to Gail Kikawa McConnell of the Fort Bend County, Texas, District Attorney's office for emailing me about the reversal.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Scent Lineup Admitted into Evidence by California Court Despite Numerous Deficiencies
A recent California case demonstrates why scent lineups continue to be attacked as “junk science” by the defense bar, and why better procedures must be imposed by courts and law enforcement agencies to overcome such criticisms. People v. White, 2009 WL 3111677 (Cal.App. 2Dist. 2009)
The crime occurred on June 7, 2006, in the early evening in Compton, California. Five teenagers were skateboarding when two of them were shot by an assailant. One died. Shell casings were recovered from the crime scene and placed in manila envelopes. Problem one: manila envelopes, as noted by an expert witness for the defense, Lawrence Myers (Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine), are porous, which allows for the possibility of contamination. Scent pads were later wrapped around the casings for about 10 minutes and the pads were stored in Ziploc bags. Problem two (minor): glass containers would have been better. (See Hudson, D.T., Curran, A.M., and Furton, K.G., The Stability of Collected Human Scent under Various Environmental Conditions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009, vol. 54(6): 1270-1277, noting glass containers were preferable to plastic.) The Ziploc bags were put in an evidence locker for two days. Problem three: The scent samples should have been refrigerated, as noted by the defense expert.
Two officers collected scent from four individuals, including the arms of the defendant, put the scents in boxes and arranged the boxes in a diamond format. Problem four (perhaps minor): If by collecting scent from the arm of the defendant, the court means that it was collected by some means such as rubbing a scent pad along the arm, this would mean that scent was collected from a slightly different body part that the fingers that probably handled the casings collected at the crime scene (while the weapon was being loaded). Some evidence has suggested that scent from different parts of the body may be difficult for a dog to distinguish. (See Brisbin, I.L. and Austad, S.N., Testing the Individual Odour Theory of Canine Olfaction. Animal Behaviour, 1991, vol. 42, 63-69.) Another study contradicted this result, however. (See Schoon, G.A.A., and de Bruin, J.C. The Ability of Dogs to Recognize and Cross-Match Human Odours. Forensic Science International, 1994, vol. 69: 111-118.)
The dog was taken into the middle of the diamond and scented to a pad that had been wrapped around a shell casing. The dog lay down next to the box containing the defendant’s scent. Problem five: There was no discussion of any control trials. European protocols generally call for several control trials to determine if the dog is willing to work on the day of the tests and to verify that the dog is alerting correctly where the “perpetrator” and the target are known to be the same. Also, it may be necessary to determine if the dog has an “attraction” to the scent of a suspect. Problem six: Almost all protocols developed in the Netherlands, Poland, and other law enforcement centers in recent years provide a dog with at least five, and often six or seven choices, sometimes in two lineups simultaneously (See Schoon G.A.A. Scent identification lineups by dogs (Canis familiaris): experimental design and forensic application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1999, vol. 49, 257-267; Schoon G.A.A. A first assessment of the reliability of an improved scent identification line-up. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1998, vol. 43, 1, 70-75.) In some control lineups, it is often advisable to include “zero trials” where the correct response of the dog is not to alert at all because the item the dog is scented to does not correlate with any of the scents in the lineup.
The handler was unaware of which box contained the scent of the defendant, but while the lineup was being conducted, the two officers who set it up watched from a picnic table 40 to 50 feet away from the diamond formation. Problem seven: No responsible lineup procedure allows the handler to see an experimenter or anyone who knows the location of the target or the suspect’s scent. The “clever Hans” effect can arise even if the handler is blind to the location of the target. This issue was raised by the defense expert (Myers) but dismissed
The defense expert could not interpret the handler’s training logs and could therefore not assess the dog’s reliability. Problem eight: It is the author’s opinion that training logs should always be available to counsel for the defense (or the prosecution in the case of an exonerating scent lineup). The court found this problem was irrelevant because the handler testified as to the dog’s training and was subject to cross-examination. The handler testified that he was not aware that his dog had made any mistakes in 171 criminal lineups. Courts should cease allowing handlers to be the sole means by which major foundational requirements are satisfied in scent lineups. (See the records procedures recommended by the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthological Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), Human Scent Dogs: Scent Identification Lineups (posted at www.swgdog.org). SWGDOG is a forum, with participants from the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and research facilities involved in canine forensic research.)
The court concluded that the defense expert had done no more than make suggestions for improving the lineup procedure that was used, but that his testimony had not shown the evidence to be unreliable. There was, admittedly, good corroborating evidence here, including the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Part of the case concerned the reliability of visual lineups for eyewitnesses, another area that is not as simple as it once seemed to be. (See, e.g., Wright, D.B. and McDaid, A.T. Comparing System and Estimator Variables Using Data from Real Line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1996, vol. 10(1), 75-84.)
Twenty years ago, Professor Andrew Taslitz argued that scent lineups should not be admitted as evidence of guilt in a criminal trial. He noted that research being conducted by Jan de Bruin of the Dutch police might reach a level to be satisfactory for judicial use but noted the research had not yet been published. Adee Schoon, cited in several parentheses above, continued that work. Some convictions obtained in part by scent lineup results have been overturned, and it is not clear if the public still has a “mythic belief” in the scenting powers of dogs. (Taslitz, A. Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup. Hastings Law Journal,1990, vol 42, 15-134.)
The problem with cases like People v. White is that they risk opening use of a poorly conducted scent lineup to the charge of “junk science.” Almost all of the defects of this lineup would be obvious to the researchers in this area, and most of them could have been easily cured. Some might require that additional dogs be available to confirm the result. Protocols developed in Polish research have demonstrated that requiring at least two dogs—ideally three dogs—to identify the suspect in a scent lineup substantially diminishes the possibility of a misidentification. (Jezierski, T., personal communication, 2010) A proper testing environment and equipment might require additional expense. Nevertheless, in cases where witnesses are fearful or disappear, the scent lineup, if properly conducted at the levels required by the more advanced forensic research centers, may be an appropriate link in the case.
The crime occurred on June 7, 2006, in the early evening in Compton, California. Five teenagers were skateboarding when two of them were shot by an assailant. One died. Shell casings were recovered from the crime scene and placed in manila envelopes. Problem one: manila envelopes, as noted by an expert witness for the defense, Lawrence Myers (Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine), are porous, which allows for the possibility of contamination. Scent pads were later wrapped around the casings for about 10 minutes and the pads were stored in Ziploc bags. Problem two (minor): glass containers would have been better. (See Hudson, D.T., Curran, A.M., and Furton, K.G., The Stability of Collected Human Scent under Various Environmental Conditions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009, vol. 54(6): 1270-1277, noting glass containers were preferable to plastic.) The Ziploc bags were put in an evidence locker for two days. Problem three: The scent samples should have been refrigerated, as noted by the defense expert.
Two officers collected scent from four individuals, including the arms of the defendant, put the scents in boxes and arranged the boxes in a diamond format. Problem four (perhaps minor): If by collecting scent from the arm of the defendant, the court means that it was collected by some means such as rubbing a scent pad along the arm, this would mean that scent was collected from a slightly different body part that the fingers that probably handled the casings collected at the crime scene (while the weapon was being loaded). Some evidence has suggested that scent from different parts of the body may be difficult for a dog to distinguish. (See Brisbin, I.L. and Austad, S.N., Testing the Individual Odour Theory of Canine Olfaction. Animal Behaviour, 1991, vol. 42, 63-69.) Another study contradicted this result, however. (See Schoon, G.A.A., and de Bruin, J.C. The Ability of Dogs to Recognize and Cross-Match Human Odours. Forensic Science International, 1994, vol. 69: 111-118.)
The dog was taken into the middle of the diamond and scented to a pad that had been wrapped around a shell casing. The dog lay down next to the box containing the defendant’s scent. Problem five: There was no discussion of any control trials. European protocols generally call for several control trials to determine if the dog is willing to work on the day of the tests and to verify that the dog is alerting correctly where the “perpetrator” and the target are known to be the same. Also, it may be necessary to determine if the dog has an “attraction” to the scent of a suspect. Problem six: Almost all protocols developed in the Netherlands, Poland, and other law enforcement centers in recent years provide a dog with at least five, and often six or seven choices, sometimes in two lineups simultaneously (See Schoon G.A.A. Scent identification lineups by dogs (Canis familiaris): experimental design and forensic application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1999, vol. 49, 257-267; Schoon G.A.A. A first assessment of the reliability of an improved scent identification line-up. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1998, vol. 43, 1, 70-75.) In some control lineups, it is often advisable to include “zero trials” where the correct response of the dog is not to alert at all because the item the dog is scented to does not correlate with any of the scents in the lineup.
The handler was unaware of which box contained the scent of the defendant, but while the lineup was being conducted, the two officers who set it up watched from a picnic table 40 to 50 feet away from the diamond formation. Problem seven: No responsible lineup procedure allows the handler to see an experimenter or anyone who knows the location of the target or the suspect’s scent. The “clever Hans” effect can arise even if the handler is blind to the location of the target. This issue was raised by the defense expert (Myers) but dismissed
The defense expert could not interpret the handler’s training logs and could therefore not assess the dog’s reliability. Problem eight: It is the author’s opinion that training logs should always be available to counsel for the defense (or the prosecution in the case of an exonerating scent lineup). The court found this problem was irrelevant because the handler testified as to the dog’s training and was subject to cross-examination. The handler testified that he was not aware that his dog had made any mistakes in 171 criminal lineups. Courts should cease allowing handlers to be the sole means by which major foundational requirements are satisfied in scent lineups. (See the records procedures recommended by the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthological Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), Human Scent Dogs: Scent Identification Lineups (posted at www.swgdog.org). SWGDOG is a forum, with participants from the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and research facilities involved in canine forensic research.)
The court concluded that the defense expert had done no more than make suggestions for improving the lineup procedure that was used, but that his testimony had not shown the evidence to be unreliable. There was, admittedly, good corroborating evidence here, including the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Part of the case concerned the reliability of visual lineups for eyewitnesses, another area that is not as simple as it once seemed to be. (See, e.g., Wright, D.B. and McDaid, A.T. Comparing System and Estimator Variables Using Data from Real Line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1996, vol. 10(1), 75-84.)
Twenty years ago, Professor Andrew Taslitz argued that scent lineups should not be admitted as evidence of guilt in a criminal trial. He noted that research being conducted by Jan de Bruin of the Dutch police might reach a level to be satisfactory for judicial use but noted the research had not yet been published. Adee Schoon, cited in several parentheses above, continued that work. Some convictions obtained in part by scent lineup results have been overturned, and it is not clear if the public still has a “mythic belief” in the scenting powers of dogs. (Taslitz, A. Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup. Hastings Law Journal,1990, vol 42, 15-134.)
The problem with cases like People v. White is that they risk opening use of a poorly conducted scent lineup to the charge of “junk science.” Almost all of the defects of this lineup would be obvious to the researchers in this area, and most of them could have been easily cured. Some might require that additional dogs be available to confirm the result. Protocols developed in Polish research have demonstrated that requiring at least two dogs—ideally three dogs—to identify the suspect in a scent lineup substantially diminishes the possibility of a misidentification. (Jezierski, T., personal communication, 2010) A proper testing environment and equipment might require additional expense. Nevertheless, in cases where witnesses are fearful or disappear, the scent lineup, if properly conducted at the levels required by the more advanced forensic research centers, may be an appropriate link in the case.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Dogs Distinguish Types of Warning Growls
Animals have been shown to make sounds that are context specific, such as alerting other members of the group to a predator, even a specific type of predator. Dogs, like wolves, bark, but dogs bark more frequently and in more variable contexts than is the case with wolves. Both dogs and wolves growl in three situations that were studied in a recent paper: (1) offensive threatening in social conflict, (2) guarding food, and (3) during social play. Calls are described as functionally referential if three criteria are satisfied:
1. The signals displayed in different contexts have different acoustic structures.
2. Prerecorded signals evoke different behavioral responses in a playback experiment.
3. The manipulation of the referent alters the signal production.
A group of Hungarian and Austrian scientists recorded growls during three situations: (1) a dog guarding his food from a strange dog (a food-guarding growl, FG); (2) a strange human approaches a dog threateningly (threatening growl, TS); and (3) the dog plays tug-of-war with his owner (play growl, PL). The play growls were less than half as long as the two other types of growls. In a playback experiment, the researchers looked to see whether a food-guarding growl would cause another dog to retreat despite the physical absence of the dog making the sound. The threatening growl was also used in the same context to see if it would have an equally strong deterrent effect. The expressions of the dogs were different in the contexts of the growls. Thus, dogs growled at a threatening human with a closed mouth, but while defending food against another dog, they showed their teeth and pulled back their lips.
In the experiment, an owner and dog entered a room with a bone, which the dog was allowed to sniff but not touch. After a knocking signal from the experimenter, the owner released the dog. The owner was told not to talk, touch, or look at his dog. If the dog got within 5 cm of the bone, a pre-recorded growl was played. If the dog withdrew, the growl recording stopped paying. If the dog approached the bone again, the growl was played again.
The results were dramatic. After hearing the growl for the first time, 11 of 12 dogs in the FG group withdrew from the bone within 15 seconds, whereas only 2 of 12 dogs in the TS group and 4 of 12 dogs in the PL group withdrew in that period. Seven dogs in the FG group did not approach the bone again within the next 90 seconds, while only one dog in the TS group and one in the PL group stayed away. It was clear that FG growls had a stronger deterrent effect than TS growls though both were in the “agonistic” category of sounds. The researchers also found that the growls of bigger dogs had no measurably greater deterrent effect than the growls made by small dogs, confirming at least in part the common belief that dogs don’t think much about size. Farago, T., Pongracz, P., Range, F., Viranyi, Z, and Miklosi, A., ‘The Bone is Mine’: Affective and Referential Aspects of Dog Growls, Animal Behaviour vol. 79, 917-925 (2010).
Aerodynamics of the Wake of Walking Person
Trailing dogs are generally thought to follow a path based on their smell of proteins and/or bacteria in desiccated epithelial cells that flow off us at the rate of thousands per minute. This raises the question of how the air flow around a person affects the pattern by which these cells swirl and fall in our wake. Three engineering professors at Pennsylvania State University studied the aerodynamics of the human wake in an article published in the Journal of Fluids Engineering. The authors noted that prior studies of the aerodynamics of moving cylinders had not always taken into account the gap between the legs of a person. The authors state that “the leg separation has a significant effect on the structure of the wake for flows in the primary walking direction.” Swinging the arms, on the other hand, “has little significance in the formation of the wake.” The authors note that the results share many bulk flow structures with smoke visualization experiments. The figure shows the “significant physics” observed in flow visualization experiments. The results indicate two distinct wake regions behind a walking person, one behind the torso and one behind the legs. A significant downwash occurs behind the body which spreads the lower portions of the wake. Edge, B.A., Paterson, E.G., and Settles, G.S., Computational Study of the Wake and Contaminant Transport of a Walking Human, J. Fluids Engineering, 127, 967-977 (September 2005).
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Middle Eastern Origin of Dogs Argued in New Genome Study
A study of the dog genome published in Nature, the pre-eminent publication in biology, reached some surprising and immediately controversial results. For one, disagreeing with prior studies, the new research concludes that “dog breeds share a higher proportion of multi-locus haplotypes unique to grey wolves from the Middle East….” (vonHoldt et al., Genome-wide SNP and Haplotype Analyses Reveal a Rich History Underying Dog Domestication, Nature, vol. 464(8), April 2010). This takes issue with mitochondrial DNA studies that suggested that canine domestication first occurred in east Asia (see Savolainen et al., Science vol. 298, 1610-1613, 2002).
The new research does accept that interbreeding with local wolf populations “clearly occurred elsewhere in the early history of specific lineages.” The researchers sampled 912 dogs from 85 breeds, as well as taking samples from 225 grey wolves from 11 populations around the world. Certain breeds were found to have demonstrated admixture with wolves, particularly breeds with ancient origins that are highly divergent from other dog breeds. Breeds in this group include, not surprisingly, Akitas, Alaskan malamutes, Siberian huskies, and American Eskimo dogs. However, wolf admixture is also found in basenjis, Afghan hounds, Samoyeds, salukis, Canaan dogs, New Guinea singing dogs, dingoes, Chow chows, and Chinese Shar Peis. Some breeds share more with Chinese wolves, some with European wolves, and some with Middle Eastern wolves. Akitas, for instance, show admixture with Chinese wolves, Staffordshire bull terriers with Northern wolves, and basenjis with Middle Eastern wolves. In some cases, the admixture must have been ancient. Dingoes have been isolated from any wolf population for perhaps 4,000 years.
Towards the end of the paper, the researches say that “some ancient east Asian breeds show affinity with Chinese wolves, which suggests that they were derived from Chinese wolves or admixed with them after domestication." This challenges the assumption that has prevailed for some years that dogs were domesticated only once, and harks back to Darwin and others who suggested that canine domestication may have occurred more than once from different populations of canids. The researchers also note that wolves have changed as a result of dogs. The mutation responsible for black coat color was transferred from dogs to grey wolves.
The researchers found “distinct genetic clusters” even within modern dogs based on phenotype and function, including spaniels, scent hounds, mastiff-like breeds, small terriers, retrievers, herding dogs, and sight hounds. Scent hounds include Basset hounds, beagles, and dachshunds. The research behind this six-page paper (supplementary information of 38 pages) is probably only the beginning of a series of papers one can expect from these 36 authors. That’s right! 36 authors.
Supplemental note. I received a comment arguing that American Eskimo dogs do not belong in the category of ancient breeds that show admixture with wolves. The supplemental information to the paper in Nature lists three somewhat distinct groups of dogs in this category. The first consists of basenjis, Afghan hounds, Samoyeds, Salukis, and Canaan dogs. The second consists of New Guinea singing dogs, dingoes, Chow chows, Shar peis, and Akitas. The third consists of Alaskan malamutes, Siberian huskies and American Eskimo dogs. Looking at Supplemental Figure 1, the research indicates that the first group demonstrates significant gene sharing with Middle Eastern wolves, the second group with Chinese wolves, and the third group with Northern wolves. The Inuit Sled Dog (sometimes confused with the American Eskimo dog) is generally thought of as an ancient breed, but the American Eskimo Dog is described by the American Kennel Club as a member of the Spitz family related to the spitz breeds and the white Pomeranian. See Sue Hamilton, "Replica or the Real Deal," The Fan Hitch 4(3) (May 2002). The Nature article does, however, list "Ancient and spitz breeds" as one category so I have to assume, until I hear from one of the Nature article's authors, that they do in fact mean the American Eskimo dog.
The new research does accept that interbreeding with local wolf populations “clearly occurred elsewhere in the early history of specific lineages.” The researchers sampled 912 dogs from 85 breeds, as well as taking samples from 225 grey wolves from 11 populations around the world. Certain breeds were found to have demonstrated admixture with wolves, particularly breeds with ancient origins that are highly divergent from other dog breeds. Breeds in this group include, not surprisingly, Akitas, Alaskan malamutes, Siberian huskies, and American Eskimo dogs. However, wolf admixture is also found in basenjis, Afghan hounds, Samoyeds, salukis, Canaan dogs, New Guinea singing dogs, dingoes, Chow chows, and Chinese Shar Peis. Some breeds share more with Chinese wolves, some with European wolves, and some with Middle Eastern wolves. Akitas, for instance, show admixture with Chinese wolves, Staffordshire bull terriers with Northern wolves, and basenjis with Middle Eastern wolves. In some cases, the admixture must have been ancient. Dingoes have been isolated from any wolf population for perhaps 4,000 years.
Towards the end of the paper, the researches say that “some ancient east Asian breeds show affinity with Chinese wolves, which suggests that they were derived from Chinese wolves or admixed with them after domestication." This challenges the assumption that has prevailed for some years that dogs were domesticated only once, and harks back to Darwin and others who suggested that canine domestication may have occurred more than once from different populations of canids. The researchers also note that wolves have changed as a result of dogs. The mutation responsible for black coat color was transferred from dogs to grey wolves.
The researchers found “distinct genetic clusters” even within modern dogs based on phenotype and function, including spaniels, scent hounds, mastiff-like breeds, small terriers, retrievers, herding dogs, and sight hounds. Scent hounds include Basset hounds, beagles, and dachshunds. The research behind this six-page paper (supplementary information of 38 pages) is probably only the beginning of a series of papers one can expect from these 36 authors. That’s right! 36 authors.
Supplemental note. I received a comment arguing that American Eskimo dogs do not belong in the category of ancient breeds that show admixture with wolves. The supplemental information to the paper in Nature lists three somewhat distinct groups of dogs in this category. The first consists of basenjis, Afghan hounds, Samoyeds, Salukis, and Canaan dogs. The second consists of New Guinea singing dogs, dingoes, Chow chows, Shar peis, and Akitas. The third consists of Alaskan malamutes, Siberian huskies and American Eskimo dogs. Looking at Supplemental Figure 1, the research indicates that the first group demonstrates significant gene sharing with Middle Eastern wolves, the second group with Chinese wolves, and the third group with Northern wolves. The Inuit Sled Dog (sometimes confused with the American Eskimo dog) is generally thought of as an ancient breed, but the American Eskimo Dog is described by the American Kennel Club as a member of the Spitz family related to the spitz breeds and the white Pomeranian. See Sue Hamilton, "Replica or the Real Deal," The Fan Hitch 4(3) (May 2002). The Nature article does, however, list "Ancient and spitz breeds" as one category so I have to assume, until I hear from one of the Nature article's authors, that they do in fact mean the American Eskimo dog.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Small Dog Syndrome Correlated with Owners' Behavior
I have always favored mid-size to large dogs, finding small dogs too frequently to be obsessive barkers and growlers that drag their owners around and have never learned a command. Where I live in Arizona part of the year, I walk my labradoodle several times a day and at least once a week have to hear some idiot say, “Are you walking the dog or is the dog walking you? Hah! Hah!” This joke of a question comes despite the fact that my dog does not tug at the leash and stays at heel. I used to respond with something like, “No, my dog is trained, unlike yours.” At some point I gave up. Most people in my neighborhood are old and have small dogs that they have never attempted to train and which pull so strongly that the “masters” have to lean back as if water skiing in the wake created by the dog’s engine. At some level I knew that the frequently bad behavior of small dogs is not due to their size but rather to their owners.
I had never considered that a study might be designed to confirm that poor obedience and excitability in small dogs results from the behavior of the owners, but a group of mostly Viennese scientists looked at precisely this issue in an article just posted by Applied Animal Behaviour Science (the English spelling of behavior is correct). In fact this is not the first study to consider the behavioral differences between smaller and larger dogs, as one learns from the many papers cited in the article. Previous studies have found that small dogs are more often disobedient and excitable, more impulsive and more likely to bite. Of course the consequences of aggression are generally less dangerous with small dogs, and I have seen people refuse to reproach owners of small dogs, perhaps feeling that complaining about the bite of a dog that is smaller than a cat should not be made into an issue. It has been suggested that the tolerance of aggressive behavior in smaller dogs may have led to spreading predispositions for aggressive behavior in the gene pool of smaller breeds. (Guy, N.C., Luescher, U.A., Dohoo, S.E., Spangler, E., Miller, J.B., Dohoo, I.R., Bate, L.A., 2001. A case series of biting dogs: characteristics of the dogs, their behaviour and their victims. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 43–57.)
Owners of small dogs train them less, at least in my experience. In Phoenix there are a great many small dogs, but the vast majority of dogs at the Phoenix Field and Obedience Club classes on Monday nights in Encanto Park are mid-size to large. It is easier to ignore the bad behavior of smaller dogs, but it may also have something to do with the fact that older owners are less inclined to drive ten to twenty miles for an hour of work with a professional trainer. Older owners may also be less consistent in setting boundaries that the dog is not allowed to cross, and less consistent in the kind of punishment that is used. Inconsistency in use of rewards and punishments has been shown to result in more behavioral problems in dogs.
There are other differences in the behavior of owners of smaller and larger dogs. Smaller dogs are more likely to be allowed on furniture. However, large dogs are more likely to be played with, and to be taken on walks.
The Viennese study involved sending a questionnaire to about 5,000 dog owners in the city. There are over 50,000 dogs registered in the city, and others that are not registered for one reason or another. About 1400 questionnaires were returned but some were rejected for various reasons and 1276 were analyzed. Three quarters of the respondents were women. Any time I have been in an obedience class, the majority of the handlers were women so this does not surprise me.
Dogs were divided between those that were larger than 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds) and those that were smaller. I believe the results would have been more dramatic had the comparison been made between dogs under 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and dogs over, say, 25 kilograms. Smaller dogs were seen by their owners in the study as significantly less obedient than larger dogs. Smaller dogs were reported to act slightly more often in an aggressive or excited way. Smaller dogs were rated significantly more anxious and fearful. As is consistent with my experience, owners of smaller dogs were significantly older than owners of larger dogs. Owners of smaller dogs were somewhat less likely to use punishment. As to consistency of enforcement, 15% of owners of smaller dogs did not adhere to fixed rules, whereas only 7% of owners of larger dogs admitted this about themselves. Owners of smaller dogs more often thought rules were unimportant (43%) compared to owners of larger dogs (29%). Only 41% of owners of smaller dogs sought obedience training, compared to 55% of owners of larger dogs, and owners of smaller dogs engaged in training activities less often even if they tried sometimes.
The authors note that small dog owners, and in particular, toy dog owners may perceive their dogs more as babies and have a less objective view of their behavior. This in turn may lead to more unfavorable owner behaviors. I see it every day. Arnhant, C., Bubna-Littitz, H., Bartels, A., Futschik, A., and Troxler, J. 2010. Behavior of Smaller and Larger Dogs: Effects of Training Methods, Inconsistency of Owner Behavior and Level of Engagement in Activities with the Dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123.
Addendum. My dear friend, Fran Breitkopf, takes issue with this posting, noting that I say that "at some level I knew that the frequently bad behavior of small dogs is not due to their size but to their owners." She points out that "it is at all levels that bad behavior of dogs is due to their owners." This is correct and I apologize for the inference that somehow small dogs have worse behavior than large dogs. I wrote this piece while still in Phoenix (where I spend winters and parts of springs) and it shows. Fran's other comments deserve being produced in full, as follows:
"In the 12 years of formal training and involvement on a more "academic" level, I have not seen a difference in expectations of small dogs, from their owners. They are dogs, with the same needs. They have the same responses to other dogs and people. I have not experienced any difference and have had many assorted sized dogs at the same time. While it is true that the smaller they get the easier it is to physically handle them and the more inclined some owners are baby them, but those owners do the same with their big dogs. I know, we did. The bottom line is that most dog owners or guardians expect their dog to be as well trained and socialized as any larger dog ... just as most parents expect and work with their children so they will be well behaved and properly socialized. Bad or lackadaisical parents have poorly behaved and not socialized children ... and dogs.
"Most people that I know with large dogs allow them to be on their furniture and handle their dogs as members of their families, rather than distancing themselves from them. The general feeling, among the people I know, is that whether their dog is small or large they are thought of, trained and expected to be socially responsible animals.
"Most dogs are blank pages when we get them or, if rescued, they have had bad experiences. Their permanent owners have taken on the responsibility of their guardians/parents/trainers....whatever you want to call it. Some owners succeed and some fail, just as some parents do. Parenting is parenting. The dog is a projection of them and the quality of the job they have done raising the dog.
"We have finally begun to understand that canine behavior is interwoven with our behavior, expectations, and ability to communicate. We finally understand that there rarely is a bad dog or breed. We finally understand that the environment that the dog is raised in is key to its behavior. I think that the study you found leans more to old fashioned, out of date thinking. Much the way the old fashioned trainers are still dragging their dogs around and lifting their dogs off the ground, trying to train them."
I had never considered that a study might be designed to confirm that poor obedience and excitability in small dogs results from the behavior of the owners, but a group of mostly Viennese scientists looked at precisely this issue in an article just posted by Applied Animal Behaviour Science (the English spelling of behavior is correct). In fact this is not the first study to consider the behavioral differences between smaller and larger dogs, as one learns from the many papers cited in the article. Previous studies have found that small dogs are more often disobedient and excitable, more impulsive and more likely to bite. Of course the consequences of aggression are generally less dangerous with small dogs, and I have seen people refuse to reproach owners of small dogs, perhaps feeling that complaining about the bite of a dog that is smaller than a cat should not be made into an issue. It has been suggested that the tolerance of aggressive behavior in smaller dogs may have led to spreading predispositions for aggressive behavior in the gene pool of smaller breeds. (Guy, N.C., Luescher, U.A., Dohoo, S.E., Spangler, E., Miller, J.B., Dohoo, I.R., Bate, L.A., 2001. A case series of biting dogs: characteristics of the dogs, their behaviour and their victims. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 43–57.)
Owners of small dogs train them less, at least in my experience. In Phoenix there are a great many small dogs, but the vast majority of dogs at the Phoenix Field and Obedience Club classes on Monday nights in Encanto Park are mid-size to large. It is easier to ignore the bad behavior of smaller dogs, but it may also have something to do with the fact that older owners are less inclined to drive ten to twenty miles for an hour of work with a professional trainer. Older owners may also be less consistent in setting boundaries that the dog is not allowed to cross, and less consistent in the kind of punishment that is used. Inconsistency in use of rewards and punishments has been shown to result in more behavioral problems in dogs.
There are other differences in the behavior of owners of smaller and larger dogs. Smaller dogs are more likely to be allowed on furniture. However, large dogs are more likely to be played with, and to be taken on walks.
The Viennese study involved sending a questionnaire to about 5,000 dog owners in the city. There are over 50,000 dogs registered in the city, and others that are not registered for one reason or another. About 1400 questionnaires were returned but some were rejected for various reasons and 1276 were analyzed. Three quarters of the respondents were women. Any time I have been in an obedience class, the majority of the handlers were women so this does not surprise me.
Dogs were divided between those that were larger than 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds) and those that were smaller. I believe the results would have been more dramatic had the comparison been made between dogs under 10 kilograms (22 pounds) and dogs over, say, 25 kilograms. Smaller dogs were seen by their owners in the study as significantly less obedient than larger dogs. Smaller dogs were reported to act slightly more often in an aggressive or excited way. Smaller dogs were rated significantly more anxious and fearful. As is consistent with my experience, owners of smaller dogs were significantly older than owners of larger dogs. Owners of smaller dogs were somewhat less likely to use punishment. As to consistency of enforcement, 15% of owners of smaller dogs did not adhere to fixed rules, whereas only 7% of owners of larger dogs admitted this about themselves. Owners of smaller dogs more often thought rules were unimportant (43%) compared to owners of larger dogs (29%). Only 41% of owners of smaller dogs sought obedience training, compared to 55% of owners of larger dogs, and owners of smaller dogs engaged in training activities less often even if they tried sometimes.
The authors note that small dog owners, and in particular, toy dog owners may perceive their dogs more as babies and have a less objective view of their behavior. This in turn may lead to more unfavorable owner behaviors. I see it every day. Arnhant, C., Bubna-Littitz, H., Bartels, A., Futschik, A., and Troxler, J. 2010. Behavior of Smaller and Larger Dogs: Effects of Training Methods, Inconsistency of Owner Behavior and Level of Engagement in Activities with the Dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123.
Addendum. My dear friend, Fran Breitkopf, takes issue with this posting, noting that I say that "at some level I knew that the frequently bad behavior of small dogs is not due to their size but to their owners." She points out that "it is at all levels that bad behavior of dogs is due to their owners." This is correct and I apologize for the inference that somehow small dogs have worse behavior than large dogs. I wrote this piece while still in Phoenix (where I spend winters and parts of springs) and it shows. Fran's other comments deserve being produced in full, as follows:
"In the 12 years of formal training and involvement on a more "academic" level, I have not seen a difference in expectations of small dogs, from their owners. They are dogs, with the same needs. They have the same responses to other dogs and people. I have not experienced any difference and have had many assorted sized dogs at the same time. While it is true that the smaller they get the easier it is to physically handle them and the more inclined some owners are baby them, but those owners do the same with their big dogs. I know, we did. The bottom line is that most dog owners or guardians expect their dog to be as well trained and socialized as any larger dog ... just as most parents expect and work with their children so they will be well behaved and properly socialized. Bad or lackadaisical parents have poorly behaved and not socialized children ... and dogs.
"Most people that I know with large dogs allow them to be on their furniture and handle their dogs as members of their families, rather than distancing themselves from them. The general feeling, among the people I know, is that whether their dog is small or large they are thought of, trained and expected to be socially responsible animals.
"Most dogs are blank pages when we get them or, if rescued, they have had bad experiences. Their permanent owners have taken on the responsibility of their guardians/parents/trainers....whatever you want to call it. Some owners succeed and some fail, just as some parents do. Parenting is parenting. The dog is a projection of them and the quality of the job they have done raising the dog.
"We have finally begun to understand that canine behavior is interwoven with our behavior, expectations, and ability to communicate. We finally understand that there rarely is a bad dog or breed. We finally understand that the environment that the dog is raised in is key to its behavior. I think that the study you found leans more to old fashioned, out of date thinking. Much the way the old fashioned trainers are still dragging their dogs around and lifting their dogs off the ground, trying to train them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)