Research
Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Beginning in July 2000 legislation in Lower Saxony restricted the keeping of bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, pit bull terriers, and 11 other breeds. Exemption was possible after attending an especially developed test. The tests analyzed for breed predisposition for excessively aggressive signaling or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations, differences in behavior between breeds, and factors differentiating biting from nonbiting dogs.

The test results of 415 dogs were analyzed. The test consisted of a veterinary examination; a learning test; situations of dog-human, dog-environment, and dog-dog contact; and obedience. Escalation in aggressive behavior was scored using a scale of 1-7. No aggressive behavior (1 on the scale) was shown by 38.07% of the dogs, 61.69% showed aggressive behavior scored as 2 to 5 on the scale, and 0.24% bit without previous threatening signals (6 on the scale).

Concerning a score of 1 on the scale, pairwise comparison (chi-square test) showed significant differences between bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers (P = 0.004), pit bull terriers (P = 0.01), Doberman pinschers (P = 0.003), and rottweilers (P = 0.009). Concerning scores of 2 to 7 on the scale,, no significant differences were found.

Ninety-five percent of the animals reacted appropriately in the test situation. Five percent displayed excessive aggressive signaling or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. These displays were associated with unusual movements and the dogs' apparent apprehension. Correlation between test results and owners jerking on the leash or misinterpreting their dogs' behavior and dogs trying to elude physical manipulation was found. No significant difference in behavior between breeds was detected.

The results show no indication of dangerousness in specific breeds. Justification for specific breed lists in the legislation was not shown.

Introduction

On May 20th, 2000, a dog of pit bull type killed a 6-year-old child on a school playground in Hamburg. As a result, the authorities of Lower Saxony passed the Niedersaechsische Gefahrtierverordnung (GefTVO) on July 5th, 2000, to avert further danger. This law was created to regulate the keeping of certain breeds of dogs in Lower Saxony. At that time, the authorities assumed that these breeds of dogs represented a particular danger for the population. The law insinuated, without just cause, that particular breeds were especially dangerous and divided them into 2 categories.

Dogs listed in Category 1 were American Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers, and dogs of the pit bull type. Keeping as well as breeding dogs belonging to Category 1 was prohibited by the new law. A special permit for keeping dogs of these breeds could be given but only if, among other preconditions, the dogs passed a behavioral test in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Ministry of Nutrition, Agriculture, and Forestry (Niedersaechsisches Ministerium fuer Ernaehrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten) of Lower Saxony.

Dogs belonging to Category 2 were listed as follows:

  • Doberman pinscher

  • Rottweiler

  • Staffordshire bull terrier

  • Bullmastiff

  • Dogo Argentino

  • Fila Brasiliero

  • Caucasian owtscharka

  • Mastiff

  • Mastino Espanol

  • Mastino Napoletano

  • Tosa inu

Mongrels with dam and/or sire belonging to one of the breeds listed above had to be kept on a leash and wear a muzzle. After successfully passing a temperament test, dogs in Category 2 could be exempted from both these restrictions. In contrast, such an exemption could not be given to a dog belonging to Category 1; even after passing a temperament test, dogs of Category 1 breeds had to be kept on a leash and muzzled when outside private property. No matter which category his dog belonged to, the owner had to prove his knowledge of behavior and ability to handle the dog.

In Lower Saxony the temperament tests are conducted by specially trained veterinarians to ensure that the examiners have the necessary medical as well as ethological knowledge to examine and pass a judgment on aggressive behavior in dogs. To be able to recognize and assess aggressive behavior in dogs, the examiner must have a thorough knowledge of canine body language and of the biology of aggressive behavior as well as the causes of and therapy for aggressive behavior in dogs. Furthermore, the examiner needs medical knowledge to enable them to recognize aggressive behavior caused by pathology. For this reason only veterinarians who have received special training in the field of behavior or veterinarians in cooperation with behavior counselors with appropriate training in the other areas of necessary expertise should carry out dog behavioral tests.

Since August 14th, 2000, the temperament tests mentioned above have been carried out at the Institute of Animal Welfare and Behavior (Pets, Laboratory Animals, and Horses) at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany. The temperament test is designed to detect dogs with distorted, aggressive signaling behavior (dogs with “unacceptable aggressive behavior”). This designation means missing escalation on the scale from 1 to 6 according to Feddersen-Petersen (2001) (Appendix 1) and apparent indications for aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations. In these cases, aggressive behavior does not reflect a form of adaptation but appears to be sudden, distorted/inappropriate, and abrupt. Dogs displaying disrupted aggressive signaling suffer and are a potential danger for others in their environment.

The data used for the survey presented in this paper come from these temperament tests. Analysis of the data was conducted to find answers to the following 2 questions:

  • Does any evidence exist for a breed pre-disposition in the 5 breeds of dogs and in dogs of the pit bull type concerning disorders in aggressive behavior or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations?

  • Does a significant difference in behavior exist among these breeds?

Section snippets

Animals

Since the inception of the ruling, more than 1000 dogs have been tested according to the requirements of the GefTVO NMELF – Niedersächsisches Ministerium fuer Eernaerung and Forsten, 2000, NMELF, 2000 at the Institute of Animal Welfare and Behaviour (Pets, Laboratory Animals and Horses) of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany. This study was conducted between August 14th, 2000, and May 16th, 2001 and yielded data from 415 dogs and their owners (dog-owner teams) for statistical

Results

The results of this survey refer to a total number of 415 dogs. Of these dogs, 93 were American Staffordshire terriers, 38 were bull terriers, 63 were dogs of the pit bull type, 56 were Doberman pinschers, 97 were rottweilers, and 88 were Staffordshire bull terriers as shown in Figure 1.

The temperament test

As the results generally demonstrate, the temperament test was a convenient means to elicit aggressive behavior in dogs. Concerning the appropriateness of this test as a means of preventing biting incidents, it has to be considered that one can only make a statement on whether the dog displayed exceptional aggressive signaling or aggressive behavior in inappropriate situations in the situations tested, in a particular location, and at a particular point in time. Nevertheless, this does not rule

Conclusion

In this research project, 95% of the dogs tested displayed adequate and therefore appropriate behaviors. Considering this high percentage, it is debatable whether a temperament test, which is prescribed by law and which affects breeds of dogs perceived by lawmakers to be “dangerous,” will be appropriate in the future.

It is beyond controversy that dangers, hazards, and annoyances can emanate from dogs, no matter which breed they belong to (Podberseck, 1997, Feddersen-Petersen and Ohl, 1995,

References (10)

  • W.J. Netto et al.

    Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci

    (1997)
  • NMELF – Niedersächsisches Ministerium fuer Eernaerung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, 2000. Wesenstest fuer Hunde. Web...
  • D. Feddersen-Petersen

    Genesen des Aggressionsverhaltens bei Hunden

    Collegium veterinarium XXIV

    (1993)
  • D. Feddersen-Petersen

    Zur Biologie der Aggression des Hundes

    Dtsch. tieraerztl. Wschr

    (2001)
  • D. Feddersen-Petersen et al.

    Ausdrucksverhalten beim Hund

    (1995)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text