Rspca Criticised Over Claims Test To Decide Fate Of Dogs Is Misused

[melzawelza]

In the Insight program, the fellow in the article above who "claims" to have devised the temp test (is there a suspicion that he didn't given the use of the word claim?) described some of the fail behaviours led me to believe that it would be very hard for any terrier to pass.

Yes. I have uploaded the test for those wishing to defend it to read.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41634046/New%20Behaviour%20assessment%20-%20Feb%2008%20-%20Final%20Draft%202.xls

Dog wants to eat a guinea pig? INSTANT fail regardless of everything else. Dog is boisterous? Nervous? They can score up to 20 points for each instance where they are either, and there are a lot of categories.

My own personal dog would be immediately failed for the pocket pets, but put that aside and she would get 167, which is still a euthanasia rate. She is a lovely dog who is complimented by absolutely everyone we meet (including some of Australia's very well respected dog behaviourists). She hasn't an aggressive bone in her body and is a threat to nothing but small prey animals.;

But the Principal of Lawyers for Companion Animals, Anne Greenaway, said so-called aggressive behaviours were often exhibited by animals that were "terrified".

Yep, it's called fear aggression Anne and a bite from a terrified dog will hurt just as much as any other bite.

Seriously, people need to get real about dogs going out into society. Adoptive families have a right to be given a dog that won't harm them under normal circumstances and temperament testing is the best a shelter can do to approximate what a dog might come up against.

Lets hear a sensible alternative proposed rather than the usual "you're doing it wrong" approach.

Just a question here..

In your opinion, would you say that roughly 50% of dogs are not safe pets?

I have no idea. But if you're asking me if resource guarders, dogs that display fear aggression and dog aggressive dogs are not "safe pets" for your average adoptive family then the answer is probably yes.

I suppose the key questions for me are "short of a temperament test, how can you evaluate dogs for adoption and do you have the right to take chances with the safety of adopting families in order to save a dog's life"? Not an easy answer.

There was a study in the states released recently (don't have a link at the moment but if you google I'm sure you'll find it) that found that of dogs that showed resource guarding while in the pound/shelter environment, almost none showed it when in a home situation.

No one is expecting the RSPCA to release dogs that need work straight into the community. But they literally have rescue groups begging to take dogs and put them in foster care where they can be trained and housed until adoption. They overwhelmingly refuse.

Edited October 9, 2012 by melzawelza

[mr.mister]

Individual RSPCAs' resources are beyond stretched, so sadly it's not particularly feasible to hold each individual animal long enough to assess, rehabilitate and then reassess.

I ended up adopting a cat from the RSPCA, which 8 days earlier I'd found wandering and dropped him in. He was due to be PTS because he'd come down with a mild case of cat flu, which he'd contracted during his stay there. They were so completely stretched for resources and had more animals coming in than cages to house them, so when the weekly vet assessment came around, any animal that wasn't pristinely healthy was PTS.

I digress, sorry, but when you look at cases like that it's easy to see how unrealistic it is, in current situations, to be able to even keep animals long enough to adequately assess them. There's a big problem but it's no easy fix.

eta: Sorry, didn't see that there were rescue groups willing to take animals on for the RSPCA. My comment is therefore probably irrelevant. Why is it that they don't release to rescue groups?

Edited October 9, 2012 by mr.mister

[melzawelza]

From what I've been told by rescue groups (usually breed specific) that have begged to take dogs on - they just simply won't release a dog that has failed the above linked (bullshit) temperament test to ANYONE, not just the general public. So even though a dog can fail for some very basic training issues (or even non training issues - the dog can gain 40 points just by having a few high toy drive!) that could be worked on in a foster care environment, it is not given that opportunity.

Look up the Facebook group 'Justice4Max'. He was adog that had originally come from a rescue group and was a fantastic dog. Ended up in RSPCA Rutherford. Owner asked for a few extra days to get the money together to release him, and Dog Rescue Newcastle also explicitly told them they would take him once his time was up. They killed him.

Even breeders here of sight hounds and terriers would be denied access to their own dogs if they ended up in the shelter as the prey drive would see them fail the test and therefore not released to anyone.

[minimax]

And an update today:

THE MP leading a review of the state's companion animal laws has backed the RSPCA's use of controversial ''temperament tests'' to determine whether dogs are put down, despite a study showing many shelter staff across the sector are untrained and believe the tests are deficient.

The rest is here: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mp-backs-rspca-over-use-of-controversial-kill-tests-20121009-27bcc.html

[wuffles]

melzawelza, I applied the test you link to, to my two dogs. Of course hypothetically as I don't know how they would react in a kennel environment, so I tended to mark them a bit tough as to what they COULD do in that environment. One scored 80, the other 105. The one who scored 105, I would call the more stable dog :laugh:

Interesting that I would call both of mine completely dog friendly, however they both wouldn't score too well on that part of the test (wonder what the points would be if they stood stiff, high tail wag, hackles, head high.... then play bowed)

[Odin-Genie]

melzawelza, I applied the test you link to, to my two dogs. Of course hypothetically as I don't know how they would react in a kennel environment, so I tended to mark them a bit tough as to what they COULD do in that environment. One scored 80, the other 105. The one who scored 105, I would call the more stable dog :laugh:

Interesting that I would call both of mine completely dog friendly, however they both wouldn't score too well on that part of the test (wonder what the points would be if they stood stiff, high tail wag, hackles, head high.... then play bowed)

I went through the test and it doesn't cover all reactions. For example, reaction to vet tests:

a) Allows all - relaxed body

b) Fidget, excited - light mouth, playful

c) TREMBLE, LICK LIPS, ROLL OVER, DUCK HEAD, DROP TO GROUND

d) PULLS AWAY, AVOID, MOUTH HANDLER - HARD

e) STILL, FREEZE, PUPILS DILATED - TAIL TUCK

f) GROWL, SNARL, BARE TEETH, BITE

My dogs are mostly likely to fidget and try to get away, but would not mouth handler. Would they still score a (d)?

[OSoSwift]

I agree O-G some of the answers are ratehr so -so. I think even my mild mannered Whippets would fail that test as one will allow people to handle him but pretends they don't really exist, then other would jump all over them. Also if I leave a room in an unfamiliar place he would whine and not settle, they both stand at the door and stare were I have left as it is.

The small fluffy test would be a fail and greating a large dog woulkdn't go so well either. I imagine in a kennel environment they would be very stressed and would not cope very well at all. They are the best, easiest going dogs I have ever owned. I think their whole bloody system needs an overhaul but this test is very bad and if being performed by people with little knowledge it is even more dangerous

[minimax]

I went through the test and it doesn't cover all reactions. For example, reaction to vet tests:

a) Allows all - relaxed body

b) Fidget, excited - light mouth, playful

c) TREMBLE, LICK LIPS, ROLL OVER, DUCK HEAD, DROP TO GROUND

d) PULLS AWAY, AVOID, MOUTH HANDLER - HARD

e) STILL, FREEZE, PUPILS DILATED - TAIL TUCK

f) GROWL, SNARL, BARE TEETH, BITE

If that's the actual way the test is written, with caps and bold on the negative responses, then it's psychologically designed to encourage the tester to "mark up" and give a more severe score than may be nececessary. Psych 101 - semiotics!

[Odin-Genie]

I agree O-G some of the answers are ratehr so -so. I think even my mild mannered Whippets would fail that test as one will allow people to handle him but pretends they don't really exist, then other would jump all over them. Also if I leave a room in an unfamiliar place he would whine and not settle, they both stand at the door and stare were I have left as it is.

The small fluffy test would be a fail and greating a large dog woulkdn't go so well either. I imagine in a kennel environment they would be very stressed and would not cope very well at all. They are the best, easiest going dogs I have ever owned. I think their whole bloody system needs an overhaul but this test is very bad and if being performed by people with little knowledge it is even more dangerous

When I rated my dogs they easily were at 157. That's because I know that in a kennel environment, they would resist going in and out of doors, will not be very responsive. That doesn't mean they are problem dogs. They get along well with all people and dogs, have no territorial/guarding problems, and are generally happy and relaxed.

How many dogs really wag their tails and happily settle down in a stressful pound environment? They might as well just decide to PTS randomly picked dogs.

[Cosmolo]

I have seen more dogs in shelters and pounds than most people. That test is outrageous.

[Cosmolo]

Just to add- it IS possible to assess a dog in a shelter environment to get an indication of likely behaviour. But tests like this shed a bad light on every behavioural assessment.

[megan_]

Is this the NSW only test, or is the test used nation wide?

[melzawelza]

NSW Megan. And coincidentally (not) NSW have the worst euthanasia rates (while making the most profits).

[Aphra]

I don't know who is writing Steve Coleman's media, but they might need a refresher course. The people who did his YouTube video need a bit more than a refresher ...

This comment is just stupid, given the amount of flak they're getting, and they admit that one of the single most effective tools for getting animals adopted is too much like hard work? The RSPCA with what, 12 million dollars in the bank, can't find a couple of vollies and a digital camera to take some photographs and do a simple write-up?

"He said the organisation relied on shelter staff and volunteers to photograph animals available for adoption, and staff often had more pressing duties."

[Are You Serious Jo]

I hope it has changed now, but I was told about 8 years ago that the Fairfield RSPCA never passed Jack Russells. This was directly from the mouth of a staff member to me.

[melzawelza]

I hope it has changed now, but I was told about 8 years ago that the Fairfield RSPCA never passed Jack Russells. This was directly from the mouth of a staff member to me.

Looking at the temp test I can believe it! No terrier would pass. And this is the test they're still using so I wouldn't be confident that anything has changed.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'm pretty conservative about putting problem dogs out in the community but the temp test they use is ridiculous One of the worst aspects of this organisation is that they refuse to listen yet they show serious deficiencies in their animal knowledge.

[Aphra]

It represents 50% of dogs that land up at the RSPCA (which is effectively the pound here in Vic, don't know about NSW). I would assume - and I don't have the data to back me up - that the dogs landing up in the pound and remain unclaimed aren't representative of the total pet population.

You can't infer that dogs landing up at the pound are a good representative of the dogs in the community. After all, most dogs in the community don't end up at the pound and remain unclaimed.

Actually, yes I can, although my evidence is anecdotal, based on our rescue group and the other groups we know and work with. We take dogs from pounds, we rarely get to meet them before we take them, the pounds themselves don't do anything other than the most basic of temperament assessments (i.e. does it show obvious human aggression/serious dog aggression), but 90% of the dogs we get are nice, well tempered, normal dogs.

The most usual behavioural issues they exhibit are those which the general population of dogs exhibit, such as jumping up, pulling on the lead and a general lack of manners. But visit any park and you'll see non-rescue dogs showing pretty much the same behaviours.

Dogs end up in pounds for lots of reasons which don't always have anything to do with the dogs themselves. Marriage break-downs, housing issues, other kinds of changes in circumstance, country dogs chasing stock, people having children, farmers and hunters breeding litters and then not being able to rehome all the puppies, backyard breeders dumping unwanted puppies or breeding stock, and yes, some dogs with behaviours which owners can't, or more often, won't be bothered fixing.

One reason why dogs stay in pounds is the inability of their owners to pay the pound fines to recover their dogs. We know that a percentage of the dogs we take had homes who would have taken them back, but couldn't come up with several hundred dollars to pay a find and spring their dog. You might characterise them as irresponsible for the dog ending up in the pound, but quite a number of dogs did have homes who wanted them back, but didn't have the resources to do so. I'm not convinced that killing a dog because the owner wasn't as good as they might have been is a useful outcome.

We've had a handful of challenging dogs, we've euthed a handful of dogs for health or temperament, but on the whole the 300 plus dogs we've rehomed in the last couple of years have all been nice, sane, healthy dogs who have gone on to make good companions. Our experience is not because we're really good at picking dogs or because we get to cherry pick a wide range of dogs, it's just because the general pound population are basically nice dogs.

All kinds of dogs get unlucky and end up in the pound.

[melzawelza]

It represents 50% of dogs that land up at the RSPCA (which is effectively the pound here in Vic, don't know about NSW). I would assume - and I don't have the data to back me up - that the dogs landing up in the pound and remain unclaimed aren't representative of the total pet population.

You can't infer that dogs landing up at the pound are a good representative of the dogs in the community. After all, most dogs in the community don't end up at the pound and remain unclaimed.

Actually, yes I can, although my evidence is anecdotal, based on our rescue group and the other groups we know and work with. We take dogs from pounds, we rarely get to meet them before we take them, the pounds themselves don't do anything other than the most basic of temperament assessments (i.e. does it show obvious human aggression/serious dog aggression), but 90% of the dogs we get are nice, well tempered, normal dogs.

The most usual behavioural issues they exhibit are those which the general population of dogs exhibit, such as jumping up, pulling on the lead and a general lack of manners. But visit any park and you'll see non-rescue dogs showing pretty much the same behaviours.

Dogs end up in pounds for lots of reasons which don't always have anything to do with the dogs themselves. Marriage break-downs, housing issues, other kinds of changes in circumstance, country dogs chasing stock, people having children, farmers and hunters breeding litters and then not being able to rehome all the puppies, backyard breeders dumping unwanted puppies or breeding stock, and yes, some dogs with behaviours which owners can't, or more often, won't be bothered fixing.

One reason why dogs stay in pounds is the inability of their owners to pay the pound fines to recover their dogs. We know that a percentage of the dogs we take had homes who would have taken them back, but couldn't come up with several hundred dollars to pay a find and spring their dog. You might characterise them as irresponsible for the dog ending up in the pound, but quite a number of dogs did have homes who wanted them back, but didn't have the resources to do so. I'm not convinced that killing a dog because the owner wasn't as good as they might have been is a useful outcome.

We've had a handful of challenging dogs, we've euthed a handful of dogs for health or temperament, but on the whole the 300 plus dogs we've rehomed in the last couple of years have all been nice, sane, healthy dogs who have gone on to make good companions. Our experience is not because we're really good at picking dogs or because we get to cherry pick a wide range of dogs, it's just because the general pound population are basically nice dogs.

All kinds of dogs get unlucky and end up in the pound.

Hear hear!

[nawnim]

It represents 50% of dogs that land up at the RSPCA (which is effectively the pound here in Vic, don't know about NSW). I would assume - and I don't have the data to back me up - that the dogs landing up in the pound and remain unclaimed aren't representative of the total pet population.

You can't infer that dogs landing up at the pound are a good representative of the dogs in the community. After all, most dogs in the community don't end up at the pound and remain unclaimed.

Actually, yes I can, although my evidence is anecdotal, based on our rescue group and the other groups we know and work with. We take dogs from pounds, we rarely get to meet them before we take them, the pounds themselves don't do anything other than the most basic of temperament assessments (i.e. does it show obvious human aggression/serious dog aggression), but 90% of the dogs we get are nice, well tempered, normal dogs.

The most usual behavioural issues they exhibit are those which the general population of dogs exhibit, such as jumping up, pulling on the lead and a general lack of manners. But visit any park and you'll see non-rescue dogs showing pretty much the same behaviours.

Dogs end up in pounds for lots of reasons which don't always have anything to do with the dogs themselves. Marriage break-downs, housing issues, other kinds of changes in circumstance, country dogs chasing stock, people having children, farmers and hunters breeding litters and then not being able to rehome all the puppies, backyard breeders dumping unwanted puppies or breeding stock, and yes, some dogs with behaviours which owners can't, or more often, won't be bothered fixing.

One reason why dogs stay in pounds is the inability of their owners to pay the pound fines to recover their dogs. We know that a percentage of the dogs we take had homes who would have taken them back, but couldn't come up with several hundred dollars to pay a find and spring their dog. You might characterise them as irresponsible for the dog ending up in the pound, but quite a number of dogs did have homes who wanted them back, but didn't have the resources to do so. I'm not convinced that killing a dog because the owner wasn't as good as they might have been is a useful outcome.

We've had a handful of challenging dogs, we've euthed a handful of dogs for health or temperament, but on the whole the 300 plus dogs we've rehomed in the last couple of years have all been nice, sane, healthy dogs who have gone on to make good companions. Our experience is not because we're really good at picking dogs or because we get to cherry pick a wide range of dogs, it's just because the general pound population are basically nice dogs.

All kinds of dogs get unlucky and end up in the pound.

See bolded paragraph

This means that somewhere someone, perhaps a single mother with a few kids, has to choose between paying her power bill or getting the dog out of the pound. Perhaps one of the children didn't close the gate properly, or maybe a careless tradesman, or a nasty neighbour.

Perhaps also some pound employee has to hold a dog to be euthanised knowing that the owner has been in contact and can't afford the fees to release the dog from the pound.

Is this the way our society now treats 'man's best friend'?

Also some of the dogs that try to escape during their temperament test might just be trying to go home.