There seems to be a continuing issue with "temperament tests" at our local SPCAs and Animal Control facilities. Being as heavily involved in rescue as I am, I see a lot of pigeon-holing and biased interpretations based on NORMAL dog behavior in abnormal conditions.
Let's clear something up here - living in a shelter cage is NOT a normal housing situation for a dog. Any dog living behind chain link fencing and on cement flooring is going to have some behavioral fallout just from the environment around him or her. Imagine being subjected to deafening barks, overwhelming smells, and barriers to block sight and contact from other dogs and humans. How would you act? Like a "loon", as Ian Dunbar likes to say. The mere stress of the situation would crush some of us, while social facilitation would cause the rest of us to bark and act crazy with frustration until we were hoarse and running in circles.
The problem with temperament testing is that it doesn't give us an accurate portrait of a dog's personality/behavior. It is a flash in the pan. If you caught me prior to coffee, with little sleep, you'd probably label me a "witch" or even "aggressive". After some coffee and maybe a nap I might be the nicest person you've met in a long time. I won't rule out that some clues may be present, such as being wary of handling by strangers, while other things like resource guarding are the product of displaced stress. Each situation needs to be addressed separately and, hopefully, worked on. When I worked as an adoption manager at an SPCA I found that most of the in-kennel behaviors present in the adopted dog almost vanished completely at home. Dogs who resource guarded bowls didn't present any of that with their new families. Dogs who lunged and barked at dogs on leash were calm and going to dog parks without issue. On the other side of it, dogs with "no" issues in the shelter were resource guarding or having trouble with the resident dog they moved in with.
My rant is directed towards those who do these temperament tests that depict their findings as law. Those that condemn rude, jumpy, mouthy dogs to death because they are "red zone" and unadoptable for normal dog behaviors. Even more so, those with a bias against certain breeds who find guarding or "dog aggression" and say "Well it doesn't surprise me". It SHOULD surprise us - dogs are supposed to be social creatures. We need to use some more deductive reasoning and not write these animals off. I won't even get into the qualifications most of these testers lack(ie experience in rehabilitating shelter dogs, factual knowledge of dog behavior that they didn't learn on TV, etc).
One week ago I was emailed a plea to pull a dog for the pit bull rescue I am affiliated with out of an SPCA in New York state. It was for a 14 week old, red brindle pit bull female. The shelter staff was 'uncomfortable' adopting her out due to the behaviors she was presenting while there. The staff was alpha rolling her for puppy biting, which only escalated her response. They were also giving her leash corrections and physical "corrections" by hand. She'd only been there a week at that point. My level-headed friend who volunteers there, who is also a dog trainer, was asked by the staff to find her a rescue - by their Director, in fact. A 'drivey' pit bull puppy is NOT a rarity - it blows my mind how a shelter would NOT adopt out a dog at this age with this sort of normal behavior happening without realizing their location and actions were exacerbating the problem.
Needless to say, I welcomed her into my house last night for fostering. She was a little rough around the edges meeting my crew here initially, but I would be too if I had been deprived of dog contact for at least two weeks, possibly more depending on her situation before this SPCA. Today they are all passed out spooning on the couch. This puppy should have never been subjected to the THOUGHT of life in a cage at a no-kill, or even death at a kill shelter, due to her NORMAL dog behavior.
So, please be careful, shelter staff and volunteers. Instead of pointing your finger at these dogs for behavior issues, curl it around your clicker and fix it instead. It is energy better spent.
- erica houck young's blog
- login or register to post comments
- 3057 reads
- back to the dog blog
- more by erica houck young
Alpha Rolling a Puppy
The thought of alpha rolling a puppy for puppy biting causes emotional pain at the core of my soul. It's like spanking a baby for crying, or even worse, it's really like spanking a baby for laughing.
I know this happens all the time, but I try to not think about it because often I can't do anything about it.
But I have to say the name, this is the damage that Cesar Millan causes. All around the country puppies are literally being tortured because of him, his books, and his TV show by people who are good people and think they are doing the right thing.
It scares me that this side effect of making money doesn't seem to bother Cesar Millan.
Sorry for the emotional response, but ugh...
__________
doxienews.com
Thank you so much for
Thank you so much for posting your thoughts on temperment testing. I have long been opposed to inexperienced and uneducated shelter staff conducting these tests. I am appalled at how quickly some dogs are labled unadoptable by staff who simply do not understand the complexities of dog behavior.
This is most appreciated
Local folks are still sticking to decade old T-testing procedures rather than simply observe behaviour. I find they wish to push shelter dogs to failure to support the use of some tests. (I have a fond memory of asking the question at a Dunbar seminar... "Do you mean that you cannot test temperament because it's genetic therefore, unseen?" and receiving a smile and reward of chocolate for asking the question.)
Yesterday, I was discussing an odd behaviour** with colleagues who rescue a specific breed and their responses were riddled with "alpha" and "dominance" talk. (**My 4 yo old female was humping my 14 yo male dog who is dying of cancer... she's never humped before.) They immediately labelled her "dominant" with tendencies to want the "alpha" position.
Some canine behaviours will always be a mystery and that's the delight in the journey for me.
My best
Donna Toews, CPDT-KA
http://reflectionpetservices.wordpress.com/
I couldn't agree more!
Finally, someone said it! I volunteer at a local animal shelter, and it breaks my heart when I hear some of the stories of the animals that have to be put down because of reasons that are CLEARLY due to being scared in a strange environment. I wish that all animal shelters had their own Cesar Milan to coach the people and the dogs so that the percentage of "adoptable" animals would be close to 100%.
I have seen some dogs in the shelter that exhibit problem behaviors, but they were not euthenized because the temperament tester had a certain feeling about them or really liked them for whatever reason. I think all animals should be given that same chance- there would undoubtedly be someone out there who had a good feeling about each and every animal that was doomed for death.
Stephanie Mills, Owner A Dog's Dream Doggy Day Spa
This concerns me
While I agree with much of this blog, some of it does not make sense. First, the assertion that resource guarding is not normal because dogs are supposed to be a social species... made me stare at the screen to see if I'd read it right. There's nothing abnormal about resource guarding; it's adaptive in every species. Even some plants do it, for heaven's sake, by poisoning the soil with phytotoxins. It's one way eucaplyptus have outcompeted native California vegetation so well. Humans resource guard all the time, and we're a social species, too. So saying that resource guarding in a shelter is just a product of "displaced stress" because it couldn't possibly be normal makes no sense.
*Dogs from great breeders in great homes, never sheltered, may resource guard.
*Plenty of dogs who RG in the shelter do it at home.
*Lots of dogs do NOT RG at the shelter, so if I'm going to pick a pet why not pick one that is not going to RG under stress?
There is a local, muni shelter that has a relatively low euthanasia rate for an urban shelter that must take all strays. It has pretty strict temperament testing including careful RG screening. In the nearly five years I've been working in this market, hundreds of cases, I have never had <b>one case</b> with a dog adopted from this shelter... while I see dogs adopted from a much-lauded, well-funded private shelter all the time, dogs that should never have been placed. Obviously one of these shelters is doing a great job of screening and placement, and one is not.
If your goal is just to save dogs, regardless of the consequences, then admit it! But if you want to take into account the well-being of the adopters who are willing to consider a shelter pet in the first place, then some kind of evaluation is necessary. No test is perfect; we are learning all the time. All I can say is I would have no trouble coming up with a long list of clients who now wish, retroactively, that the shelter had bothered to test, or bothered to tell them what the results were. Thousands of dollars, bites, stitches, and heartaches later. Or do they not matter, because at least we saved the dog?
Respectfully,
Greta Kaplan, CDBC, CPDT* Companion Animal Solutions* Portland, OR USA
Clarification.
Perhaps it read wrong, but I in no way meant to imply that resource guarding was an abnormal behavior. I intended to imply that sometimes the stress of the situation brought it out in certain dogs, or surpressed it in others. I am aware that dogs from all backgrounds guard - this is a normal, adaptive thing for survival. I also did not mean it to read that ALL resource guarders did it because of shelter stress, it was merely an example behavior that can have causation due to environment.
The well being of adopters and the dogs, alike, is important. It is all about resource, normalizing what is normal dog behavior, and working with these dogs instead of writing them off.
I don't understand how in one breath you say guarding is normal and then in the next say don't pick one who guards at a shelter. Aren't they normal dogs, too?? they are unworthy of adoption because of this?
Of course the tests are of some value, no one is disagreeing there. It is when the results of these tests, a snapshot in time, determine the fate of a dog because someone either didn't know or wouldn't admit it could be helped.
If 'everyone' knew what we knew, we wouldn't have most of the problems we face as trainers.
What alternatives?
Trainers face few challenges more difficult than evaluating behavior in a shelter environment and properly placing shelter dogs. Limited resources, lack of training, high turnover, an uneducated public and a never-ending supply of homeless dogs are just the top of the list. Even for a seasoned trainer who regularly works with the dogs she evaluates in a shelter, getting it right is tough.
I too was a bit confused about what you're advocating for, though, Erica. In a world where the dogs being turned into shelters vastly outnumber the spaces available to take them in, dogs are going to be killed. We have to make those choices somehow. Are you saying that temperament tests in general are unhelpful in making them? I know that there has actually been one - and perhaps more than one by now - empirical study looking at the relationship between temperament testing and how dogs did when placed. I haven't read it, but I bet that someone reading the site has and could fill us in. If the temperament tests that are out there don't work, is it possible take behavior into account at all when making the terrible decisions that staff at open admission shelters have to make?
Resource guarding normal
"Normal" does not equal safe. Plenty of dogs who aggress in certain ways are perfectly normal, but that does not make them safe or appropriate in most homes.
Most or all dogs will guard if stressed enough and in the wrong way. The question here is how readily and how dangerously does the dog "go there." Some dogs will only guard under repeated, intense stress, and they may only snap but not make contact. These dogs are much safer than dogs who tear the hand off the AAH within ten seconds of starting a food bowl guarding test. I think it is probably UNusual for the only place a dog ever to resource guard to be in a shelter TT... I doubt there are a whole lot of false positives, and just because there are occasional false positives does not mean we should stop checking.
Is there a 100% correlation of how the dog would be in a home? No, but it's certainly telling you something. We now have the CBARQ data and tool starting to be used to validate temperament evaluation protocols, so we should have better information about what is and is not informative at some point. It's a huge relief. No one wants to condemn a dog to death who never would have aggressed. But as Jeff said, dogs have to die. How do you choose? I'd far rather have it done on the basis of "temperament tests" than color, which is in fact often a criterion.
Perhaps it was inadvertent, but it did seem like you were advocating for ignoring the fact that a dog snapped at a tester or bit the AAH when deciding which dogs to place; perhaps for not "testing" at all. If that's not what you meant, it didn't come through, and like Jeff, I wonder what you are suggesting.
I have had to do plenty of behavior evaluations in rescue situations and have had to make the call of not taking the dog into the program or euthanizing myself. It sucks. I do not like it. In a very small number of cases, I really liked the dog and thought it would be OK in a certain type of home despite questionable signs. In all those cases I was wrong -- the dog ended up dead after days to months. I'm certainly not the most experienced or adept "temperament tester" on the planet but you know what? Those tests did tell me something that turned out to be critical. I'm not about to ignore it. Ever again.
Greta Kaplan, CDBC, CPDT* Companion Animal Solutions* Portland, OR USA
exactly!!
You have both backed up my intended message. "Even seasoned trainers" have difficulty assessing shelter dog behavior - so let's SAY that what is found is not necessarily the truth. It's an assumption on a dog's personality based on their behavior with strangers in a stressful environment. Admitting that we are fallible and our findings may not neccessarily be an accurate portrayl is a huge step.
Much more so, the UNseasoned personnel who are not even "trainers" without a tangible background in behavior who are performing these tests.
Since Rguarding seems to be the hot button example - I will point you to the SF/SPCA's almost all volunteer run resource guarding b-mod program. They are so successful, not condemning dogs based on this normal dog behavior, and rehab a great number of them. Yes, they are "the" SF/SPCA, but other shelters, not all, could attempt this sort of manuever to save even MORE dogs.
These tests are a necessarily evil, I will not disagree with that. As I said in my original post, they can clue us in to some findings that are imperative to know.
Not to be argumentative
But just because some resource guarding can be rehabbed, does that mean it should be? The SFSPCA has a wonderful program and it has had the opportunity to learn and teach a lot. That does not mean what it does is realistic in the realpolitik and real economy of the shelter world. You can spend money training staff and staff time rehabbing dogs (this does not happen overnight) and meanwhile, how many NON-RG dogs died for lack of basic training not to jump up? What you are talking about is a luxury in most shelters, and railing to get more shelters to do it, *functionally,* at this time, condemns nice dogs to death. If we weren't killing nice family dogs, then I would be all over your plan, but it's a pretty stupid use of resources in the real world.
And I am not entirely backing up what you say. Just because mistakes are made and it's not easy is, again, not a reason to stop doing it, or to throw out a "bad" result wholesale, which is what you do seem to be suggesting. I think we still get much better results overall if we do test. Some people are better at it than others. I don't know exactly what Multnomah County, Oregon, is doing, but it works fantastically well.
I agree 100% that no test is perfect, that it's not telling us "temperament" but only behavior on that day. I do think "behavior on that day" tells us something about a dog's tendencies and potentials, and we have to use that information. I think all shelters should test, and I think testers should be much more consistently trained. That would be a good use of budget money. But it has to go with a greater intelligence and sensitivity about when not placing a dog is also the right thing to do (even if it means euthanizing a dog beloved by staff or really really cute).
You still seem to be advocating for ignoring test results "because they are fallible," and I still have a huge problem with that.
Do you work with owners who have adopted a troubled dog and suffered a lot because of it? The owners I see who are suffering are suffering because of ABSENCE of testing, not because of the existence or manner of testing. (Or because of the absence of disclosure.)
Greta Kaplan, CDBC, CPDT* Companion Animal Solutions* Portland, OR USA
we're going to have to
we're going to have to disagree on what's worth rehabbing here. As a person who's been in rescue, worked at a shelter doing these evals, adopting out dogs to new homes for years I do not throw my opinion out lightly. I've seen it, been wrong, dealt with it, and learned from it.
I said nothing about ignoring test results, I merely stated we should not place all our eggs in one basket when it comes to these things.
dogs in this country are killed for being black in color, of a certain breed, or for growing too large - we could argue this all day, but I have better things to do as I am sure do you.