National Canine Research Council

Where do breed identifications come from?

March 8, 2010:  In the morning, on Iowa Tribe lands near  Perkins, Oklahoma, an infant was killed in his parents’ home by a dog or dogs. Neither the family nor the investigating authorities released any details concerning the incident.  The first news accounts appear that afternoon.

March 9, 2010:   Neither the victim’s family nor the authorities provide any further information to reporters.

However, television station KFOR in Oklahoma City, goes with a story about the incident, describing the dog as a family dog, while in the same paragraph mentioning that the family had only acquired the dog the day before. While KFOR has no official or eyewitness accounts to rely on, the station has been contacted by Stephen Wood, who identified himself as a cousin of the victim.  He told the reporter that his mother, presumably the child’s aunt, had called him with the news of the infant’s death. While acknowledging that he has no specifics – he does not even know the age of the “girl”– he speculates about what happened and identifies the dog as a Rottweiler.  He then launches into a narrative on the nature of Rottweilers.

KTLA in Los Angeles picks up the KFOR story, including the comments of Stephen Wood. KTLA goes with the printed headline, “Family Dog Kills 8-month old child.” The story is posted on the KTLA website by 6 p.m. that night.

In New Jersey, examiner.com also picks up the KFOR report, adding its own comments and adding a picture of a Rottweiler.  It is not, of course, a picture of the dog believed to have been involved.  Remember that neither the family nor the authorities have, to this point, released any statements regarding the incident. It is actually the photo of a dog named Maynard, whose tragic story can be found on the NCRC website. The picture of Maynard has been posted on the NCRC site since last year.  Maynard had been shot and left for dead on a Forest Service Road near North Bend, Washington. Due to the severity of his wounds, veterinarians were forced to euthanize the dog four days after he was found. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/in-your-state/washington/abuseneglect/

March 10, 2010: At 7:00 a.m. local time, Tribal Administrator Stephanie Ramsey releases a statement to reporters. She says that the victim was Justin Lopez, an 8-month-old boy (and not a “girl” as identified by Stephen Wood in the initial reports). She says two adult dogs attacked the infant after the animals were brought inside for shelter from the rain.  Ramsey says the dogs had been given to the family the day before. She declines to say what breed the animals are. http://www.kfsm.com/lifestyle/sns-ap-ok–dogattack,0,3065518,print.story

KFOR in Oklahoma City, relied on information obtained from Stephen Wood on both the victim and the breed of dog.  It has now been revealed that the victim was not a girl, but a boy.  If KFOR’s source (Stephen Wood) was not able to accurately identify the family member who was attacked, how are we to believe that any information provided about the dogs will be any more reliable?

Dog bite investigators anxious to tally incidents by breed will rely on the published reports of KFOR and examiner.com.  The fact that no one of authority or with knowledge of the incident had identified the breed/type of dog prior to the publication of these articles seems less important to some than assigning a “breed” to this incident.  

***

A Brampton “Pit bull”

The latest from Brampton, Ontario:  The City lawyers up!

As of March 4, 2010:  According to the Brampton Guardian, the City will stand by the seizure of Brittany and Rambo last January 13th, even going to the expense of hiring additional outside counsel to represent them in the as-yet unscheduled legal proceeding.

Rui Branco, whose family owns Brittany, has also retained counsel, since the matter before the bar is the life or death of the family’s pet.   Supporters have set up a defense fund to help with the expense, that they have named saveontariodogs.

The City of Brampton  has a much larger fund for the defense of its actions.  Their fund is named  taxes.

Meanwhile, Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell has tried to navigate the heavy seas between the rock of the breed  bans and and the hard place of public outrage.   She told reporters that she is not in favor of the provincial law.

Apparently, the Mayor has a different attitude toward breed bans at the local level. In August of 2005, two weeks before the provincial ban was enacted, Mayor Fennell signed into law the Brampton municipal dog by-law banning pit bulls.

While the Mayor expressed her opposition — to what, exactly? —  in one venue, city officials continued their sterile defense of the seizure of Rambo and Brittany as a non-discretionary legal obligation under both provincial and local law. They have not attempted to assert a defense on the substantial merits.

On Saturday, February 20th, supporters of Brittany and Rambo held a three-hour rally outside of Brampton City Hall.  It is not expected that there will be a similar rally in support of the government.

* * *

Ontario Dogs on Death Row

February 5, 2010 – Brittany and Rambo, two dogs that haven’t bothered anyone, languish in the Brampton Animal Shelter, awaiting judicial proceedings for the capital crime of being labeled “pit bulls” in Ontario.

The two were born in separate litters of the same parents.   The dam is a purebred boxer.   The sire was classified at one time as a pit bull, though the only veterinarian who has seen him says that he is an American bulldog/Boxer cross. The city, whose animal control seized the dogs in separate actions January 13, contends the original classification of the sire is enough to mark his offspring for destruction.

However, confronted now by a storm of outrage and unwanted publicity, Brampton authorities postponed the execution originally set for February 5th.  A city spokesperson says that the city will proceed “with an abundance of caution” in determining whether or not the dogs meet the definition of pit bull under the Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act. Brampton has not, as of this writing, set a new date for issuing its determination.

Are the men, women and children of Brampton safer today than they were on the day before Brittany and Rambo were seized, whatever the breed labels the city places on them? Has the government of Brampton set an example that any other municipality should even consider following?

The answer to both questions, of course, is no.

Brittany’s owner, Rui Branco, told Global News that six squad cars pulled up to his home, and intimidated the family into surrendering their pet.

Rambo, owned by 75-year-old Maria Gaspar, had been spotted in his yard.  Though licensed as an American bull dog/Boxer cross, and properly vaccinated, Animal Control declared Rambo a pit bull, and removed him from his home.

What we are witnessing in the story of Rambo and Brittany in Brampton is not a community securing its citizens from harm, but, rather, a full flowering of the abusiveness which results from laws such as Ontario’s DOLA. Trapped by its own reactive officiousness, the Brampton government has committed itself to defending the actions of Animal Control and hiding behind the letter of the DOLA, never mind the documentation presented by the dogs’ owners and veterinarians, and never mind that the dogs were at home bothering no one when animal control invaded private property and spirited them away.

Some have hastened to the dogs’ defense – and blessed be all who have —  contending that Brittany and Rambo are not pit bulls.  We don’t argue with that. They don’t look like pit bulls to us either. But it’s not enough that the dogs do not look like pit bulls. It won’t be enough if the City of Brampton beats a bureaucratically comfortable retreat from the ill-considered ground it has staked out, and reunites Brittany with the Brancos, and Rambo with Maria Gaspar.

It is only enough when all the dogs of Ontario are secure in their lives with the people who love them.

“This is what happens when you unleash badly written, abusive legislation onto a public, and then put it into the hands of bureaucrats who make it their own and use it to terrorize people,” MPP Cheri Di Novo told Global News.  DiNovo has previously introduced a bill to repeal the breed specific provisions of the Dog Owner’s Liability Act.

Not that far to the west, Calgary’s breed-neutral Animal and By-Law Services has set an example of service and cooperation with its citizens that Brampton, and all Ontario, would do well to emulate.

Ontario’s Parliament passed this vicious law. The story of Brittany and Rambo in Brampton is an excellent reason to unpass it.

***

Lafayette, Colorado:  No Place  for Compassion and Understanding as Law Permits Vet Tech to File Charges

NCRC Comment:  The Colorado State law excluding veterinary technicians from pressing charges in a case like this makes perfect sense. Frightened, and often suffering dogs and cats, assaulted by strange sights and smells, and confronted by a looming stranger with an unfamiliar object in his/her hand, cannot be said to be acting without provocation.

The technician’s allegation that the bite was unprovoked says more about her fitness for her occupation, frankly, than it says about the dog. Unfortunately, Colorado’s home rule provision permits Lafayette to unshackle itself from compassionate common sense about dogs, and allows frightened and suffering dogs to be labeled vicious or dangerous and possibly killed for a behavior that any animal care professional should anticipate and be prepared to deal with.

Spork:  Accused of being “vicious” for biting a Vet Tech

Lafayette prosecuting Spork, Dachshund that bit vet tech:  10-year-old dog up on vicious animal charges
Amy Bounds, Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 02/24/2010 02:30:49 PM MST

LAFAYETTE — Spork, a 10-year-old miniature Dachshund up on vicious animal charges in Lafayette for biting a veterinarian technician, has his owners fighting to save him.

In August, Spork’s owners took him to Lafayette’s Jasper Animal Hospital to have a bad tooth extracted. Owner Kelly Walker said she was holding the 17-pound dog in her arms while the technician attached a hospital band, then took out scissors to cut off the excess.

The dog bit the technician in the face when she reached out to take Spork from Walker. Walker said her dog was simply scared — so scared he defecated on her arm — and in pain, not vicious.

“He’s our family pet, our little baby,” she said. ” I just feel like there’s a lot of injustice here all the way around.”

She said what happens to Spork is entirely up to a judge’s discretion, making euthanization and a lifetime in a kennel both possibilities.

Another concern, she said, is people will be reluctant to seek medical care for their dogs, out of fear that they’ll end up in the same position. Vets and other Lafayette dog-related businesses also could lose customers, she said.

“It’s just out of hand,” she said.

Her family has spent about $6,000 so far fighting the ticket. A court hearing is set in April.

The technician, Allyson Stone, lost small pieces of her lips and was treated at Boulder Community Hospital and by a plastic surgeon.

Stone told police that Spork showed no signs he was going to bite, adding that she felt the attack was unprovoked, according to the police report.

She told police she wanted to press charges because she was concerned that Spork would bite his owner or someone else and she wanted to prevent another attack.

Jasper chief veterinarian and founder Donald Dodge, in a written statement, said the hospital routinely notifies animal control in dog bite cases.

Dodge said that he supported Stone pressing charges because a record is needed when an animal causes serious injury to a human.

“Jasper Animal Hospital has not advocated for, or participated in any way, in subsequent decisions by the city of Lafayette to prosecute Spark’s guardians,” he said in a statement. “We remain very worried about everyone concerned — the dog, his guardians and the injured technician. We consider this incident a tragedy, and we sincerely wish the best for everyone concerned, Spork in particular.”

Jennifer Edwards, the lawyer representing the Walkers, said the charges should be dismissed.

“The case should have never happened,” she said. “Bites are just an assumed risk of a veterinary technician. It’s the name of the game.”

Colorado law excludes those who work with animals in veterinarian offices from pressing charges in animal bite cases. But Lafayette’s local laws, which take precedence, include a vicious animal law that doesn’t have a similar exclusion. Lafayette also doesn’t allow jury trials in vicious animal cases.

The Lafayette City Council approved the vicious animal law in 2006. The council steered clear of an all-out breed ban, instead taking a broader approach to dealing with aggressive animals.

Lafayette City Administrator statement

What the law says:     Lafayette’s law outlaws vicious animals within city limits. It describes a vicious animal as one that attacks or bites without being provoked, approaches someone in a terrorizing way or has been trained as a fighting animal.

Fines: Mandatory $500 fine first offense. A second offense carries a minimum $750 fine.

Animal’s fate: It’s up to a municipal judge to decide whether the animal must be removed from the city or destroyed, or if it can stay with certain provisions.

***

BSL is not so cheap to enforce . . . or defend.   Toledo law is back in court

February 12, 2010 – The public derives no benefit from breed specific regulation; and law-abiding citizens are threatened in their relationships with cherished family companions. Both Miami-Dade, Florida and Denver, Colorado, have had, and will continue to have, the resistance of their citizens to breed specific legislation play out in their courtrooms.

We direct your attention to Ohio, the only U.S. state that regulates dogs by breed, and to its fourth largest city, Toledo.  A case that is now moving from the Toledo Municipal Court to the Sixth District Court of Appeals may expose entirely unexpected flaws in the regulation of dogs by breed, and create controversy and taxpayer expense not only for Toledo, but for cities all across the state.

Last October, Hugh Smith of Toledo was charged with multiple violations of Toledo’s Section 505.14, the city’s addendum to Ohio’s vicious dog statute. Specifically, Smith was charged in connection with his three dogs, which then Dog Warden Tom Skeldon claimed that were pit bulls, but which Smith said were Cane corsos. Cane corsos are not subject to breed regulation in Ohio.

On January 20th, Toledo Municipal Court Judge Michael Goulding ruled in the matter of Toledo v Hugh Smith that significant portions of section 505.14, were contrary to provisions of the Ohio statute and, therefore, unenforceable.   Within days, Toledo instructed the Lucas County Dog Warden’s office not to enforce the pit bull aspects of Section 505.14.

Toledo has now filed a motion of appeal, having decided that the issues dealt with in Judge Goulding’s opinion, mostly to do with home rule, are too important to ignore.  So it is that Toledo’s vicious dog ordinance, the subject of a costly constitutional challenge that made its all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court two years ago, will consume Toledo resources in a new appearance in the appeals system.

The city of Toledo’s 2010 budget deficit is currently reported as $38 million.

In the earlier court case, Toledo v Tellings, the trial court had held that the dogs called pit bulls were not inherently dangerous or vicious, though it upheld the Toledo statute.  Tellings then appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, which struck down as unconstitutional both Toledo’s Section 505.14 ­­and the Ohio Revised Code Sections 955.11 and 955.22. Toledo appealed that ruling to the state’s Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court did not dispute the finding that the dogs were not inherently vicious or dangerous, but nevertheless reaffirmed all of the sections that the Sixth District Court of Appeals had struck down. Both the trial court and the Supreme Court had ruled that the fact that pit bull dogs were not inherently dangerous or vicious did not render the breed specific ordinances unconstitutional.

Armed with this less-than-hearty judicial endorsement, now-retired Lucas County – Toledo is in Lucas County –  Dog Warden Skeldon continued killing all of the dogs that came into his shelter that he thought might be pit bulls.

Now, in an ironic twist, according to the Toledo v Hugh Smith decision, the city’s breed specific statute is caught between the rock of “home rule,” and the hard place of  Ohio’s Revised Code Section 955.  Judge Goulding ruled that Section 955 is so complete and specific as to the state legislature’s intentions that it constitutes a general law. There is, in consequence, little leeway for a locality to add or subtract from its provisions.

For example, Ohio R.C. Section 955.11, which defines “vicious dog” as, among other things, a dog of the breed commonly known as a pit bull.  Toledo’s Section 505.14 piles on to the state provision by limiting Toledoans to one vicious dog.   But, pointed out Judge Goulding, Section 955 does not specify how many vicious dogs a citizen can have; and, because of the completeness of Section 955 in so many respects, we can infer, says Judge Goulding, that the state did not mean to impose a limit on the number of dogs a person could have, vicious or otherwise. Thus, Toledo has no “home rule” power to set a limit of its own.

Far more problematic for Ohioans anxious to regulate dogs by breed, Judge Goulding ruled that the state statute only applied to the “breed” commonly known as a pit bull.   By implication, wrote his Honor, mixed breed dogs are not subject to breed-based regulation.  Toledo’s Section 505.14 proscribes a dog “commonly known as  . . . Pit Bull Mixed Breed [emphasis – and chortling – ours].”  Not so fast, said Judge Goulding.  The state legislature has already made clear which breed(s) are supposedly vicious and therefore subject to the vicious-dog regulation.  The home rule statutes do not confer upon Toledo the authority to add mixed breed dogs to the regulated list.

If Judge Goulding is upheld on appeal, the prospects for which we are not competent to estimate, the situation for regulation of dogs by breed could become seriously complicated throughout the state. Any municipality that has enacted breed or breed mix regulation at variance with Section 955 would be immediately open to challenge.

For example, Fairfield, Ohio (in its Section 505.17) forbids “pit bulls” within the municipal limits.  If Judge Goulding is affirmed, can they do that? Section 955 doesn’t forbid any vicious dogs, pit bulls or otherwise. It sets forth what is a vicious dog, and prescribes how they are to be kept and controlled.  Also, the Fairfield ordinance bans any breed “which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of any such breed or which is identifiable as partially of such a breed.”  Fairfield  violators – that is, the owners, keepers or harborers of such dogs – are subject to criminal penalties.    Since criminal penalties are involved in Fairfield, if Judge Goulding is affirmed, the Fairfield authorities may have to obtain, at government expense, pedigree records for any dog whose owner they propose to hold criminally. . . assuming that it is within their power to exact criminal penalties.

We shall confine ourselves to the case in Toledo and the example of Fairfield.  Many other potential conflicts exist in the codes of Ohio’s cities and counties.

A solution to this dilemma can be found in Judge Goulding’s decision.  “Certainly a more uniform, practical, and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners would seem preferable to the status quo, especially given the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in Tellings: ‘Pit bulls are not inherently vicious.’”

Anticipating Judge Goulding, Rep. Barbara Sears, last year, introduced a bill into the Ohio House of Representatives that would jump start that process, by repealing the breed-specific provisions of Section 955.

***

 Mayor Hobart expresses regret over Sioux City pit bull ban

By Lynn Zerschling lzerschling@siouxcityjournal.com

January 20, 2010:  Sioux City Mayor Mike Hobart said Tuesday he regrets voting to ban pit bulls in 2008 and would consider lifting that breed ban.

He also said he would consider tweaking the city’s vicious-animal law but doesn’t want to revisit the issues with hours of public hearings.

“I’ve had a lot of discussion with individuals and their desire to see that rescinded,” he said of the pit bull ban, addressing the matter at the conclusion of a budget session. He said he’s heard “some heart-wrenching stories. … I would vote to rescind it tomorrow. I was never a strong proponent of it. I thought we would give some exceptions and found out too late we didn’t. I think everything done by the council was with the best of intentions.”

Councilman Aaron Rochester, who proposed the pit bull pan two years ago, said the measure was based on information he and the city attorney had gathered. Before the ban is lifted, he said, city staff should provide a report on whether the ban has had a positive or negative effect on dog bites.

Rochester suggested that if it is brought back, the three newly seated councilmen — Keith Radig, Tom Padgett and John Fitch — be briefed on the reasons the council enacted the ban.

Radig said he would support continuation of the pit bull ban, noting he’s worried his children would be bitten by pit bulls running free at Headid Park.

Padgett said, “I’m not a breed specific person. I think a lot of it has to do with responsible owners. I would like to see the data.” Fitch agreed, saying he would like a report on the impact the ban has had.

City Manager Paul Eckert said he will propose a way for the council to obtain recommendations from such groups as the Public Policy and Animal Control Advisory committees and others.

Regarding changes to the vicious-animal ordinance, Rochester said he has been prepared to recommend changes for months. He said, however, he does not want to discuss the vicious-animal law and the pit bull ban at the same time, contending they are separate issues.

***

What has remained the same from that day to this?

It is the purpose of the NCRC to honor the contribution that dogs make to our lives.  Nevertheless, because of  the volume and scope of sensationalized misinformation about fatal dog attacks that saturates the internet, we are prompted  to address the statistically insignificant number of dogs that inflict fatal injuries.

An examination of the fatal dog attacks that we have been able to identify that occurred 25 years ago demonstrates the point that we have been trying to make for years, and that earlier researchers into fatal dog attacks made:  that the breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks change over time.

What does not change is the circumstances surrounding the majority of these incidents: chained dogs, unsupervised children with unfamiliar dogs, and reckless behavior on the part of some adult victims.

See list of fatal dog attacks from 1974:

NCRC FDA 1974

***

NCRC Comment:  We all like to believe we can visually identify different breeds of dogs, but new research by animal experts is proving otherwise.   Denver Post Columnist, Bill Johnson, admits he too, has been “educated” on the unreliability of visual breed identifications.

If experts cannot ID dog breeds, how can cities?

 
By Bill Johnson,  Denver Post Columnist
December 16, 2009

So you think you know about dogs?

Sorry, you do not.

I break this news to you only because I got put to such a test Tuesday, along with about two dozen animal-shelter directors, volunteers, dog trainers and others who make a dog-related living.

The task was simple: View 20 dogs on a videotape and identify each one. Is it purebred or mixed? If believed a mix, what is the mixture of each?

How hard could it be?

All I know about dogs, I quickly learned, is that one lives with me. Of the 20 dogs shown, I got the breed correct one time, but only because it looked like Lupe, my mutt.

I did only slightly worse than the professionals.

“I was completely wrong. I probably got three to four out of the 20,” claimed Laurie Buffington, a Berthoud dog trainer, as we left a classroom at the Longmont Humane Society.

“Think you can tell just by looking?” was the teaser for the breed identification study we participated in. It was run by Victoria L. Voith, a professor of animal behavior in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Western University in Pomona, Calif.

What I and the others ultimately learned is you cannot simply look at a dog and know what it is.

Shelter workers, she explained, are generally 75 percent wrong when they list or tell you the breed of a dog. The only sure-fire way of knowing, she said, is DNA testing.

“I started this study,” Voith said, “because I am a lover of German shepherds and was appalled that every short-haired breed with brown hair was called a German shepherd. It simply isn’t so.”

Outside of the Lupe-looking Chihuahua-mix, I thought every dog looked like a pit bull or a shepherd-mix.

“So what in the hell is Lupe?” I jotted in frustration in my notebook about halfway through the session. I was not getting even remotely close.

My favorite of all was the 20th dog, a three-legged cutie that had been thrown from a car. She was not the English sheepdog I suspected, but a shih-tzu. Everyone else misidentified her too.

Through her work, Voith hopes to put to the lie two things: studies on which dogs bite the most, and the wisdom of municipal breed-specific bans, such as Denver’s, where hundreds of suspected pit bulls have been put to death.

“Visual identification simply is not in high agreement with DNA analysis,” she said when I protested that a dog I had falsely, dead-to-rights identified as a pit bull turned out through DNA testing to be mostly Dalmatian. “Dogs in Denver may be dying needlessly,” she said.

She hopes that her work, which she expects to be published in a year, will better inform cities and statistics gatherers on breeds most likely to bite.

“We really don’t know yet. I don’t think we have ever really known,” she said.

The professionals all walked out scratching their heads, each mumbling something akin to “that was very informative!”

“I always thought I was really good at identifying breeds,” a chastened Shantel Southwick, another Berthoud trainer, moaned. “And cities are killing dogs based on uninformed visual identification? That’s pretty scary. It’s heartbreaking, really.”

[Victoria Lea Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB, is a Professor of Animal Behavior at Western University.]

* * *

Do You Know a Pit Bull Mix when You See One?

Animal controls and shelters assign a breed label to every dog they admit into their facility.  How accurate is a label given a mixed breed dog whose parentage is unknown?  And what does the label signify? Does it strengthen or weaken the human-canine bond? In a climate of breed discrimination, the label “pit bull” or “pit bull mix” can signify a great deal, even life or death for the dog.  If the label “pit bull mix” meant the dog would never leave the shelter, how would you label these sixteen dogs?

Most people think these dogs are pit bull mixes

How about a Labrador Retriever mix?

Most people think these dogs are lab mixes

***

The dog pictured above is  a sad and terrible reminder of the untold number of abused dogs that suffer at the hands of human beings.  How many dogs tolerate unimaginable cruelty, yet live and die quietly, unrecognized and unnoticed?

There is a great deal to be learned from the overwhelming and silent majority of dogs that don’t bite. Among other things, we might have more compassion, as a society, for dogs that seem to have every reason to bite, but don’t.  We might be more aware that a great many dogs do not live in familial, companionable circumstances with the human beings upon whom they are dependent for their very survival.

We might even turn our attention away from the dogs long enough to look at the owners who do them wrong.

If there is any wisdom to be gleaned from epidemiological and behavioral research into dogs that have bitten, would it not be even more illuminating to study the dogs in distress that haven’t bitten, even in the face of extreme neglect and/or cruelty?

***

The real meaning in dog bite statistics is that dogs are incredibly tolerant of human behavior.

Tallies  of severe or fatal dog attacks reveal  no useful information on general canine behavior because they are only a tally of  an infinitesimal number of dogs  that reacted to a situation with extreme aggression.

The dog below is one of the thousands or perhaps millions of dogs  that despite suffering tremendous provocation and abuse, still attack no one.

What about a study of that dog?

* * *

Man assaults police by throwing pit bull at them.  Dog does not bite the officers.

August 20, 2009:  St. Petersburg, Florida — An assailant who attacked police officers used a dog, police said, throwing a pit bull at officers not once, but twice.

The dog did not attack the officers either time he was thrown at them.

“That’s a new one,” St. Petersburg police spokesman Bill Proffitt said of the incident involving the dog.

The assault took place at 4114 Fairfield Ave. S.   A woman recovering from surgery told police her troubled son refused to leave their home.

The son, Renaldo L. Gary, wouldn’t budge from the doorway, police said. Then he struck Officer Michael Romano, ran outside and grabbed a family pet.

Gary threw the dog at Officer Romano, police said, yanked on the dog’s chain, pulled the animal back to him and then thew it at the officer again.

In stark contrast to the dog, Gary hit Officer Norma Alanis, police said, and shook off two Taser blasts and a dose of pepper gas before the two officers handcuffed him.

***

Find out by trying to identify Zeus (pictured below) and by taking our test

 

Hi, I’m Zeus.    Can you guess what kind of dog I am?

DNA is now proving that visual identifications are NOT reliable in determining a dog’s genetic make-up.

Answer to Zeus’s Breed:   Zeus’s ancestry contains significant amount (over 50%) Labrador Retriever.  Zeus also has faint signals from other breeds which are not strong enough to identify. *

Wisdom Panel™ MX Tested: February 2009

***

National Canine Research Council