Item 8: Updated Draft Recommendation regarding Breed Labeling — original pdf

Backup

Resolution Regarding Breed Labeling Practices WHEREAS, accurate identification of a dog’s breed based solely on visual assessment has been widely shown to be unreliable without genetic testing even among animal welfare professionals and veterinary staff; and WHEREAS, labeling dogs as specific breeds—particularly “pit bull” or “pit bull mix”—based on appearance alone can misrepresent their true genetic makeup; and WHEREAS, many housing providers enforce breed restrictions that disproportionately impact dogs labeled as “pit bull” types, creating significant barriers for adopters seeking rental housing; and WHEREAS, such labeling practices can unintentionally reduce adoption rates and increase length of stay for affected dogs; and WHEREAS, a growing number of animal welfare organizations are adopting best practices that prioritize temperament, and individual characteristics over speculative breed identification including: 1. Orange County Animal Services (OCAS), an open intake municipal shelter in Florida, stopped using breed labels in 2014, and an independent peer-reviewed study of OCAS’s outcomes data found that removing breed labels improved adoption rates and decreased lengths of stay for all dog types, with the greatest impact for pit-bull-type dogs (https://www.ocnetpets.com/); 2. Williamson County Animal Services, an open intake municipal shelter in Texas, stopped using breed labels in 2017; most dogs are currently listed on their website as “mixed breed” (https://www.wilcotx.gov/163/Animal-Shelter); 3. Memphis Animal Services, an open intake municipal shelter in Tennessee, stopped using breed labels in 2016; dogs are currently listed on their website as “mixed breed” (https://memphisanimalservices.com/); 4. DeKalb County Animal Services and Fulton County Animal Services, two open intake municipal shelters in Georgia managed by LifeLine Animal Project, stopped using breed labels in 2017 (https://dekalbanimalservices.com/; https://fultonanimalservices.com/); 5. Fairfax County Animal Shelter, an open intake municipal shelter in Virginia, stopped using breed labels in 2015; dogs are currently listed on their website as “mixed breed” (https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/animalservices/); 6. Rochester Animal Services, a managed intake municipal shelter in New York, stopped using breed labels in 2017; dogs are currently listed on their website as “mixed breed” (https://www.cityofrochester.gov/departments/department-recreation-and-human-serv ices-drhs/rochester-animal-services-ras); and WHEREAS, studies show that shifting to a “mixed breed” designation where lineage is unknown and distinct and undeniable breed traits are absent promotes fairness, reduces bias, and improves adoption outcomes for all dogs; and WHEREAS, the previous interim Director for Austin Animal Services had started the process of updating breed labeling practices to align with these goals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Austin Animal Advisory Commission respectfully recommends City Council and the City Manager request Austin Animal Center and Austin Animal Services adopt a policy to classify all dogs as “mixed breed” unless they come with official documentation from a verified breeder or DNA test results rather than relying on visual identification; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, when appropriate, staff may include general descriptors of a dog’s physical characteristics (e.g., size, coat type, energy level) to help inform rescues or adopters looking for specific characteristics; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that adoption profiles emphasize, size, temperament, and compatibility with adopters’ lifestyles rather than speculative breed classifications; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Austin Animal Center consider collaboration with the Pet Friendly Housing Working Group to develop a Standard Operation Procedure for intake and breed labeling processes and/or additional training resources to help staff and volunteers understand the impacts of breed labeling; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that these changes be implemented to reduce barriers to adoption, support equitable access to pet ownership, and improve overall outcomes for dogs in the care of Austin Animal Center and Austin Animal Services. Works Cited: Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL. (2018). A canine identity crisis: Genetic breed heritage testing of shelter dogs. PLOS ONE, 13(8): e0202633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202633 Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL. (2016). What’s in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions & Labeling on Attractiveness, Adoptions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs. PLOS ONE, 11(3): e0146857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146857 Olson KR, Levy JK, Norby B, Crandall MM, Broadhurst JE, Jacks S, Barton RC, Zimmerman MS. (2015). Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal, 206(2), 197-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019. Reese LA. (2021). Shelter and rescue programmes associated with higher live release and lower return rates for dogs. Animal Welfare, 30(4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.30.4.005 Serpell, JA, Duffy, DL. (2014). Dog Breeds and Their Behavior. In: Horowitz, A. (eds) Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53994-7_2 Voith VL, Trevejo R, Dowling-Guyer S, Chadik C, Marder A, Johnson V, Irizarry K. (2013). Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-observer reliability. American Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2):17-29. DOI 10.5923/j.sociolo gy.20130302.02 Voith VL, Ingram E, Mitsouras K, Irizarry K. (2009). Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12(3):253–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902956151