Suppose I tried to convince you of something rather outlandish. Suppose I produced evidence relating to a type of occurrence that is too statistically rare to be useful in predicting any sort of trend.
Say that, in order to prove my point, I did some calculations (which may or may not be based on solid information) against a percentage of those statistically minute occurrences and then applied my results across a huge demographic, shouting Voila! as I uncovered my data chart with fanfare and a flourish?
Here's what I mean.
Over at one of the blogs I like, Pet Defense, a theme has been building for awhile now. It is that shelter/rehomed dogs are dangerous because half of all fatal dog attacks have supposedly involved those kinds of dogs. The latest post on this esoteric topic is titled:
Despite my admiration for the 'Go Big or Go Home' approach, I disagree with this conclusion.
With a US dog population of roughly 72 million and a human dog-related fatality count of 33 in 2007 (an all-time high), anyone with knowledge of probability and/or statistical modeling would conclude that the number of events is much too small to be useful.
To put things into perspective, the percentage of fatalities relative to total canine population is 0.000046 (rounded up).
After using a bizarre example, the sad story of the dog who choked a child with her own scarf, we see this justification for the premise:
The majority of the attacks are due to human negligence and lack of knowledge re canines (and thus likely avoidable)—–it is FAR easier to AVOID the potential 50% of dogs that are rescued, rehomed or shelter—than to try and “claim” that ONLY certain breeds of dogs are responsible for attacking.
This is illogical. If people argue (correctly, in my opinion) that dog bite-related fatalities are not a sound basis for breed restrictions, why do they suddenly become a reason for avoiding rehomed dogs?
The answer is, they don't.
I understand and share Pet Defense's concern that the 'rescue' option so beloved of the animal rights/liberation crew is not the panacea their supporters believe it to be.
I know that many shelter dogs have poor temperaments due to early mishandling coupled with the strain of being at a kennel/shelter for too long.
An owner who would surrender a dog to an institution would not be one who made a commitment. It is unlikely that they obtained their pet from a responsible breeder. Sometimes people have to rehome their dogs due to death, illness or other catastrophes but those cases are uncommon. Most abandoned dogs are large male pups that have been allowed to run wild and get their own way, becoming a nuisance in the process. So, it's off to the pound they go.
When people repeat the 'get a dog from a shelter' mantra, I conclude that they are probably not the most dog-savvy people around and are likely falling for widespread advertising by the groups that actually support mass shelter killing - animal rights/liberation outfits like the HSUS, Peta, and others.
If Pet Defense honestly believes that this kind of cherry-picking will support a thin-ice theory such as this - that adopted dogs are more dangerous - then I fail to see how the same author can argue against this methodology when it is applied to perceived 'breed'.
You can't have it both ways.
I reject both arguments as using too small a sample size besides having too many variables and unknown/unverifiable 'facts' to be of any use at all.
Who wouldn't?
*
Clarification: I realize it may not be obvious from my post that I like shelter dogs and have adopted my share over the years. I'm a lifelong dog lover, so there isn't much a dog can do that bothers me. Any obnoxious behaviour can be trained away or at the least, modified and controlled.
Since I'm not averse to a challenge, I have always gone to the shelters first when it's time for another dog.
However, for the average person, especially the first-time owner, it is important to consult with shelter staff and spend time with a dog you think you like to get a picture of any problems that may need fixing or may be intolerable to you.
Keep in mind that dogs in shelters are not behaving the way they will once they settle in to a new home. This takes about six months, on average. So I never worry about the dog seeming distracted, not paying attention to me, acting nervous, etc. I attribute that to the environment, not the individual dog.
One of the greatest things about adopting a mutt from a shelter is that finally, one day, they give you a look. They look right at you, communicate with you and let you know that they trust you, like you and you have officially become friends. It's an irreplaceable moment, different with each dog.
Things that are easy to fix are rambunctious behaviours such as jumping up, barking for attention, leash- or cuff-grabbing, pulling, etc.
More difficult are personality traits that may have been reinforced (or not addressed) through incorrect prior handling: submissive urination, timidity, fear-biting, resource guarding, overt aggression towards the handler, strangers, other dogs, etc.
Nothing is impossible. It just depends how relaxed and confident you are with dogs and how much work you want to put into correcting behaviour that was allowed to get out of hand by the previous owner(s).
