What Is The Story With The New Temperament Assessments At Blacktown Po

[Malti]

Do you understand that a good temp test will cover stressors in the pound?

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that?

how big an ramble do you want? :laugh:

In short, be honest, know it is not a perfect test, to have shades of grey except for the obvious cases of extreme dog aggression and human aggression. To be a guide to where the dog may be best suited compared with just handing them over with no care.

[mita]

Do you understand that a good temp test will cover stressors in the pound?

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that?

how big an ramble do you want? :laugh:

In short, be honest, know it is not a perfect test, to have shades of grey except for the obvious cases of extreme dog aggression and human aggression. To be a guide to where the dog may be best suited compared with just handing them over with no care.

I don't want to embarrass you, Malti. :)

You haven't answered my 2 questions.

But, not to worry. I can't stomach it when I see someone being picked and picked relentlessly on DOL. And I don't intend to do it to you. :) And I've got your general gist.

[tdierikx]

I'm all for a test designed to identify what issues need to be looked at for any particular dog to be made rehomable... but not any test used solely to define which dog lives or dies in a pound.

I think that any behavioural assessment done in a pound environment needs to take into account what effect a pound environment can have on a dog. Fear and confusion at their change of circumstances, and hearing/seeing other dogs in the same state day in day out, complete strangers handling them, etc... certainly wouldn't be bringing the best out in most dogs, would it? Especially in some of the larger pounds like Blacktown...

T.

[Malti]

Do you understand that a good temp test will cover stressors in the pound?

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that?

how big an ramble do you want? :laugh:

In short, be honest, know it is not a perfect test, to have shades of grey except for the obvious cases of extreme dog aggression and human aggression. To be a guide to where the dog may be best suited compared with just handing them over with no care.

I don't want to embarrass you, Malti. :)

You haven't answered my 2 questions.

But, not to worry. I can't stomach it when I see someone being picked and picked relentlessly on DOL. And I don't intend to do it to you. :) And I've got your general gist.

No, it is just a difficult answer

You asked

So how is that done? (you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound)

the assessor should be able to understand some of the common stressors of a pound.

And what temperament test you know does that?

as far as I am concerned it is the person doing a temp test, not a temp test itself.

So in essence it is not about the temp test but the person IMO and IME, I think it needs to be asked why one thing can fail a dog (other than the obvious) rather than it being an indicator for the positives and the negatives seen in a dog at the time of assessment.

[mita]

I

I think that any behavioural assessment done in a pound environment needs to take into account what effect a pound environment can have on a dog. Fear and confusion at their change of circumstances, and hearing/seeing other dogs in the same state day in day out, complete strangers handling them, etc... certainly wouldn't be bringing the best out in most dogs, would it? Especially in some of the larger pounds like Blacktown...

T.

And that's the rub, T. There's evidence of the effects of the typical pound environment.

Which is among the reasons why there's been no scientific gold standard re prediction from currently available temperament tests when administered in pounds & shelters.

One strategy, tried in some US pounds/shelters, is to design the places to reduce the stress. I think it's San Francisco where the municipal shelter is extremely different. But all that requires a lot of funding... so it's not going to happen here.

I have no idea in what ways... even small...that our own pounds & shelters can modify to reduce stress. But some small adjustments have been found to make a difference, in studies.

Another reason that the tests can't be said to be scientifically predictive, is that they don't test 'temperament'. That word is wrongly used. To get a hang of temperament, you have to observe a dog's behaviour over a longer period of time, with a variety of settings, mostly neutral. No pound or shelter can do that.

Without a doubt, the current testing in pounds samples behaviour as affected by being in that pound. Dogs capable of considerable aggression may become quite subdued in a pound ... and not show up in a temperament test. But, in life outside that pound, with the stress removed & more confident. the aggression may re-emerge. And there's heaps more variations.

All this means, there's no way that pounds can observe the dogs, over long periods of time, in different settings.

So it's now wonder that, as the Monash paper said, those running pounds & working in dog management want better assessment tools ... given how constrained they are in what they can do. But, in the interests of public safety, they have to do something.

[mita]

[No, it is just a difficult answer

You asked

So how is that done? (you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound)

the assessor should be able to understand some of the common stressors of a pound.

And what temperament test you know does that?

as far as I am concerned it is the person doing a temp test, not a temp test itself.

So in essence it is not about the temp test but the person IMO and IME, I think it needs to be asked why one thing can fail a dog (other than the obvious) rather than it being an indicator for the positives and the negatives seen in a dog at the time of assessment.

Understanding the stressors is an idea.... it's in the tester's head. Actually covering that in assessment, means the tester must do something. That's the only way it translates into test results.

Say a dog is anxious.... and behaving anxiously during testing in the pound. The tester may have inside her head.... that the pound is a stressful place, with strange smells, strange people, strange sights & sounds. But that dog may actually be anxious .... wherever it is. It's a constitutional trait. Or... it may be that the dog is only affected by the pound stressors. And is actually within the bounds of normal in more neutral places.

You're on to that.... when you say it's a good idea for a tester to look beyond the obvious. But what is the obvious... the dog is anxious. And there could be two possible quite different reasons going around in the tester's head. And you have no way of going outside the current pound environment, in time & places, to test for which.

So how would that translate into actual objective testing results?

I teach testing. And the job of testing is to come up with some objective information that reliably tests what it says it tests. That's what pounds & shelters say they need & want. As the Monash paper said, none of the usual 'temperament' tests have been found to have established predictive value.

But , in the meantime,.... pounds have to do something, flawed as it might be. They can't do nothing. Who'd be on a pound staff? A tough job.

Edited March 22, 2013 by mita

[tdierikx]

Using some of the testing available to us now, we can at least identify issues that can be worked on with a dog to try to reduce negative reactions, yes? In NSW a pound has to hold a dog for a minimum of 7 days (unchipped) or 14 days (chipped) - if an assessment of how the dog is handling the environment could be done early on in the dog's stay, then maybe something could be done to give that dog more chance of being adopted or taken in by rescue before it's time is up and it needs to be moved on by other means.

Take Renbury as an example of a pretty well run pound (IMHO anyways), the staff there do everything in their power to make a dog's stay as "pleasant" as possible, they take the time to actually interact with each dog in their care, even if it's only a few minutes here and there. If you ask the staff about any dog in their care, they will know exactly which dog you are referring to, and will happily give you their observations about that particular dog, it's likes and dislikes, etc... and they don't have volunteers at Renbury to help with any of that. Renbury also work very well with rescue, and have never given a bum steer about a dog's temperament that I know of - we've always had brilliant assessments of dogs that we've been interested in taking, all the good and bad points that have been noticed, the changes in behaviours in the time the dog has been there, whether it has settled well, or needed more effot to settle, etc...

Not every deserving dog will get out of Renbury, but ALL of the staff, from management down, work darned hard to give them every chance at doing so... which is probably why you don't see a high staff turnover there either...

T.

[Malti]

[No, it is just a difficult answer

You asked

So how is that done? (you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound)

the assessor should be able to understand some of the common stressors of a pound.

And what temperament test you know does that?

as far as I am concerned it is the person doing a temp test, not a temp test itself.

So in essence it is not about the temp test but the person IMO and IME, I think it needs to be asked why one thing can fail a dog (other than the obvious) rather than it being an indicator for the positives and the negatives seen in a dog at the time of assessment.

Understanding the stressors is an idea.... it's in the tester's head. Actually covering that in assessment, means the tester must do something. That's the only way it translates into test results.

- Maybe it is not in the tester doing something other than saying - this is what I am seeing, further testing maybe required - that is why 'rescue only' has had its place, some rescues can have more breed knowledge, provide an appropriate environment, and also accept responsibility for the dog knowing the good and the bad - this also has become harder as there is no legal definition of this and has been used as a way of getting a dog out and giving it straight to a private individual rather than keeping the dog in rescue to be given the time to show the existing assessment in the pound.

Say a dog is anxious.... and behaving anxiously during testing in the pound. The tester may have inside her head.... that the pound is a stressful place, with strange smells, strange people, strange sights & sounds. But that dog may actually be anxious .... wherever it is. It's a constitutional trait. Or... it may be that the dog is only affected by the pound stressors. And is actually within the bounds of normal in more neutral places.

I don't see anxiety as being a pass or fail trait, whether induced by a strange place or inbuilt into the dogs temperament naturally, what a dog does with that anxiety can be seen and given as information to someone interested in the dog so they know what has been observed at time of testing.

You're on to that.... when you say it's a good idea for a tester to look beyond the obvious. But what is the obvious... the dog is anxious. And there could be two possible quite different reasons going around in the tester's head. And you have no way of going outside the current pound environment, in time & places, to test for which.

So how would that translate into actual objective testing results?

Obvious - extreme dog aggression and human aggression

I teach testing. And the job of testing is to come up with some objective information that reliably tests what it says it tests. That's what pounds & shelters say they need & want. As the Monash paper said, none of the usual 'temperament' tests have been found to have established predictive value.

But , in the meantime,.... pounds have to do something, flawed as it might be. They can't do nothing. Who'd be on a pound staff? A tough job.

Sadly to have predictive value is to have intimate knowledge of a history of behavioural traits, and observing the dog in various situations that are not plausible in the pound environment so it is only going to be what is current at the time of testing, and the behaviour observed.

That is why I think temperament tests using black and white areas or a point system can be the undoing of people's perception of what temp tests are.

Pounds do need to do something, sadly a dog may have lived its life to a natural end if not failed by someone who did not come and get their dog. But to lay blame of a council for implementing a 'flawed' assessment and be publicly pressured by a group with dubious practices and have a history of letting dogs go to anyone with no interest in what the dog needs to have the best chance of living in an environment conducive to their needs is a bit rich (sorry a bit OT) As you said who would want to be pound staff, they have it tough that is for sure....

[WreckitWhippet]

HW makes a good point, as usual.

I would like to add that given the lack of understanding of particular breeds by those in animal welfare (broad stroke generalisation), I would be hesitant to dismiss a dog being temperament tested because of a particular reaction to certain stimuli. I would prefer someone expert in that breed take a look at the dog. I have no opinion on temp testing crossbreeds and would imagine that they could only have a general test.

The only downside I see to that suggestion Sheridan is that pounds aren't assessing dogs for adoption by people knowledgeable with breeds. Pounds aren't necessarily releasing dogs to people with any dog knowledge at all. So they have to test with that in mind.

In the circumstances you describe, it might be a better option to have a specific dog assessed and fostered by breed rescue.... if there is one.

When Sue Sternberg (inventor of the much discussed "rubber hand in the food bowl" test), came to Australia a few years back, she showed video after video of dogs under going her shelter's temperament test. I have to say evidence of stress in the test dogs was minimal. Most greeted the stranger, sniffed the doll and hoed into the food, not resisting when the hand went into the bowl. However there were some videos shown that put the hairs up on the necks of the trainers in the room. Dogs that displayed predatory behaviour towards the 'strange' adult in the room, dogs that grabbed the rubber hand and used their back teeth to bite it hard and repeatedly... and so on.

A video was shown of a dog that was assessed, failed but reclaimed by its owner. it went on to be privately rehomed and to kill someone in the new home. Anyone with half an ounce of dog knowledge could have read the warning signs that dog was giving out in neon flashing light. The signals that dog was radiating made my blood run cold. And yet there are still those who would claim the dog was "stressed or frightenend" and "only needed love and care to behave".

God help us all if that's what people really think. Or more precisely God help adoptive families unless temperament tests are used and implemented.

This I would like to see more of. Getting dogs out and placing them in foster care with those who understand their breed and can assess the dog and make the tough calls if need be. Applying a little breed knowldege and understanding also helps to gain a more accurate picture

That being said, I would still like to see temp testing happening before dogs are released. I also don't buy into the theory that all dogs are stressed and there for we should do nothing.

[mita]

But to lay blame of a council for implementing a 'flawed' assessment and be publicly pressured by a group with dubious practices and have a history of letting dogs go to anyone with no interest in what the dog needs to have the best chance of living in an environment conducive to their needs is a bit rich (sorry a bit OT) As you said who would want to be pound staff, they have it tough that is for sure....

My description of the fact that, scientifically speaking, current 'temperament testing is flawed.... is not laying 'blame' on those who use them.... especially Councils. I've used 'flawed' descriptively, not emotionally. I've constantly said pounds/shelters have to do something with what they've already got. And fully understand why Blacktown pound is going to use testing. They can't do nothing. And I don't think you've gone O/T when you say pounds shouldn't be pressurised into doing nothing.

One good thing is that the organisation of local government pound managers & staff (Aus. Institute of Animal Management Inc) is right on the ball with how challenging their task is. This group's shown they want to do the best they can do, re both public safety & the welfare of the dogs.

The paper, from Monash, that they invited to their 2009 Conference, covers so many of the issues brought up in this thread, It refers to research, gives a great swag of examples of behavioral testing, & comments on their value. The authors are saying.... assessment is needed, it's a case of how. There's great pointers to help pound staff.

Don't get put off by the jargon words in the title... what they mean becomes clear in the article. It's a good read....should be circulated widely.

Congrats to the authors.

http://www.academia.edu/1121691/Reliability_validity_and_feasibility_of_existing_tests_of_canine_behaviour

Edited March 23, 2013 by mita

[mita]

Kate Mornement, a leading author of the Monash article, edits a newsletter all about Shelter Research. The articles are brilliant... & cover much of what we've been talking about.... like reducing stress in shelters & pounds, adoption etc etc etc.

Editions on site below. This stuff should also be circulated widely.

A taste of the related topics given:

Improve re-homing through behaviour assessment

Environmental enrichment for shelter animals

Maximising the success of volunteer programs

Managing shelter stress in dogs and cats

Public perception of adoptability

Why do dogs enter shelters?

How to improve cat and dog compatibility

How to have a healthier shelter

http://www.petnet.com.au/publications-information/for-welfare

Edited March 23, 2013 by mita

[Malti]

But to lay blame of a council for implementing a 'flawed' assessment and be publicly pressured by a group with dubious practices and have a history of letting dogs go to anyone with no interest in what the dog needs to have the best chance of living in an environment conducive to their needs is a bit rich (sorry a bit OT) As you said who would want to be pound staff, they have it tough that is for sure....

My description of the fact that, scientifically speaking, current 'temperament testing is flawed.... is not laying 'blame' on those who use them.... especially Councils. I've used 'flawed' descriptively, not emotionally. I've constantly said pounds/shelters have to do something with what they've already got. And fully understand why Blacktown pound is going to use testing. They can't do nothing. And I don't think you've gone O/T when you say pounds shouldn't be pressurised into doing nothing.

One good thing is that the organisation of local government pound managers & staff (Aus. Institute of Animal Management Inc) is right on the ball with how challenging their task is. This group's shown they want to do the best they can do, re both public safety & the welfare of the dogs.

The paper, from Monash, that they invited to their 2009 Conference, covers so many of the issues brought up in this thread, It refers to research, gives a great swag of examples of behavioral testing, & comments on their value. The authors are saying.... assessment is needed, it's a case of how. There's great pointers to help pound staff.

Don't get put off by the jargon words in the title... what they mean becomes clear in the article. It's a good read....should be circulated widely.

Congrats to the authors.

http://www.academia.edu/1121691/Reliability_validity_and_feasibility_of_existing_tests_of_canine_behaviour

Kate Mornement, a leading author of the Monash article, edits a newsletter all about Shelter Research. The articles are brilliant... & cover much of what we've been talking about.... like reducing stress in shelters & pounds, adoption etc etc etc.

Editions on site below. This stuff should also be circulated widely.

A taste of the related topics given:

Improve re-homing through behaviour assessment

Environmental enrichment for shelter animals

Maximising the success of volunteer programs

Managing shelter stress in dogs and cats

Public perception of adoptability

Why do dogs enter shelters?

How to improve cat and dog compatibility

How to have a healthier shelter

http://www.petnet.com.au/publications-information/for-welfare

Two articles I am going to be reading thoroughly, thank you for the links mita :)

[_PL_]

Is it true they are back at BP and without the temp tests?

Sorry, all of this happens on FB and I have it blocked.

[megan_]

I'm all for a test designed to identify what issues need to be looked at for any particular dog to be made rehomable... but not any test used solely to define which dog lives or dies in a pound

T.

I don't know of any reputable trainer who says that weak nerves are fixable. Dogs jumping, pulling etc are all training, behaviour is different.

[HeelerLove]

Is it true they are back at BP and without the temp tests?

Sorry, all of this happens on FB and I have it blocked.

They posted this to facebook on Monday:

........................**SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT**...........................

On Tuesday 26th March representatives from Pound Rounds and the public met with the senior management of Blacktown City Council; those who control the operation at the pound.

Senior management claimed full responsibility for the decisions made in the lead up to the killing of 5+ dogs on Friday the 15th March. The council stand by their decision to have outside assessors “temperament test” pets and kill those that failed the test applied.

The council, however, confirm that they have now rescinded the universal application of this model going forward. They confirmed they would seek independent review in mid April of the processes undertaken at the pound regarding rehoming options. They confirmed that until that review was complete and the report submitted to their Urban Animal Management subcommittee , the process of rehoming and pet rehoming assessment would return to the status quo; the status quo that has achieved the most successful rehoming period in the pounds history.

What was also presented by Pound Rounds however was the need for that overview (to be done in April) to NOT focus exclusively on the mere process of temperament testing. What would that achieve?

The current method and model of temperament testing is unreliable and unscientific (at the best of times let alone in a pound environment) and this fact is categorically supported the recent report issued by the NSW Companion Animal Taskforce calling for the development of a “behavioural assessment” model that “must be consistent, repeatable and validated (ie: through appropriate peer review, widespread use over the long term etc)” and “must remove (as much as possible) elements which may provoke negative reactions in animals“ (Page 18 of the NSW Companion Animal Taskforce [NSWCAT] Dangerous Dogs report).

It was also accepted by the Taskforce that it should be ensured “all relevant stakeholders (including representatives from councils, animal welfare organisations and animal rescue groups) are able to have input into the agreed standard.” (Page 18 NSWCAT).

Facts and viewpoints that were not taken into account on Friday 15th March.

Pound Rounds also requested that 3 major factors be taken into account in any further appraisal;

1) The NSW CA Taskforce repeatedly cites the Calgary model where “Rehabilitative animal behavioural training is a key focus” (Page 13). Rehabilitation is also the number choice of the Blacktown Council electorate when given a choice, polling over 95% in favour when asked if the council should help dogs that display aggression in the pound to be rehomed.

This fact is also supported by the overwhelming number of submissions to Option 16 in the Taskforce’s main report – over 90% in favour of rehoming vs killing, and rehabilitation over a killing model (Page 30-42). You will note the highest number of public submissions (outside orchestrated industry interests) pertained to the following;

• “Make it compulsory for councils to adopt "Getting to Zero" no-kill policies” (Only a ban of pet shop sales and including rescue groups as a reference group received higher submissions than this element).

• “Introduce key performance indicators for council and pound staff focussed on reducing euthanasia rates”

• “Redefine temperament testing of impounded animals to improve rehoming”

• “Needs to be supported and facilitated (ie: not just partner councils with AWO's and expect good results)”

2) The data used, in support of temperament testing to kill, simply does not exist; not for Blacktown pound and not for any other area or group in Australia.

Using the NSW Companion Animal Taskforce’s OWN statistics less than 0.01% of all dogs in NSW have been involved in any dog or human injury (when extrapolated to ALL dogs not just registered pets). Put another way, more than 99.99% of dogs did not physically injure a dog or a person. So exactly why is anyone trying to kill them at all? By the Taskforces own admission (which further REDUCES to microscopic that figure) is the experts documented “concern that the current dog attack reporting framework may also somewhat overstate the extent of “serious” dog attacks that occur in NSW” (Page 14 NSWCAT).

3) Perhaps most importantly though is that ultimately the council has a duty under 64(5) and 64A(2) of the Companion Animal Act 1998 to seek alternatives to killing if practicable.

To honour that obligation the pound staff and even senior management need the resources to be able to take the legal and moral actions required of them. Under Section 31 of their own Employment contracts, pound staff are entitled to a safe working environment. Pound Rounders we need to help council understand that their staff need help.

• Blacktown has double the number of dogs and half the number of kennels per impound than comparable council and private facilities, including Hawkesbury, Renbury & Campbelltown.

HALF. 50%. ½.

How can they save lives like that?

• Blacktown City Council has half the number of kennel hands appointed to daily care of your pets, affording your pets with less than 1 minute each, on any given day.

How can they save lives like that?

Almost all facilities in the Sydney Metropolitan area are low enough to be No Kill (10-15%), where only genuine cases of euthanasia for dogs are found (savage, declared dangerous, restricted or terminal illness). Yet there I sat in a meeting with people who seemed very frustrated that we questioned the killing of 70% of dogs on a kill list. They seemed frustrated with being questioned at all and yet paradoxically very well meaning. Realisation dawned. These people don’t write the cheques.

What an intolerable rock and hard place, where only the strongest survive unscathed; staff and impounds alike.

One of the most frustrating moments in all of this was having the council respond with “their” 88% rehoming rate. Ask what “their” rehoming rate was (without the fudged “surrendered” figures) prior to April 2011. Prior to Pound Rounds. Prior to you, Jo dog loving Public. Prior to the Blacktown community, other rescues and the rest of Australia jumping on board the Council support wagon – to help not hinder, to save lives, not attack the council, believing in a synergy.

To the council I would say this: We stay up together until the early dawn trying to find homes for your communities’ pets, Blacktown council. Pound Rounds and their crew have spent over a quarter of a million dollars saving your pets Blacktown council.

We support rescues that support your pets, support adopters who adopt your pets, advertise your pets, pay for their transport to new homes all over Australia, desex your pets and we spend almost every dime to kennel your pets - at our expense when your facility is full, Blacktown council. We are not just “a rescue” who supports any pound or surrender, Mr Mayor, we are your community. We exclusively support Blacktown and Hawkesbury pounds. We have more than a dozen people working almost full time, from lawyers, scholars and accountants to single mums and dads; supporting your impound facility in reaching 88%. 2 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, with respect, Mr Mayor, we know those impounds, we know who lives and dies at your pound, as passionately as if they were our own dogs. You don’t have to be an expert to simply care.

Ultimately we chose to support Blacktown for two reasons.

Firstly, while others argued backwards and forwards about why dogs were killed, we believed the well-meaning staff simply couldn’t do it alone and didn’t deserve to be set adrift by their community, as well as a council that gave them no additional resources (or alternative models) to prevent killing. Your staff made the difference. They did care. They did consult. They were doing what they could, with what they had.

Secondly, because we needed to show it was “practicable”.

The words “unwanted” and “you can’t save them all” still echo in my ears. It’s now the 1st of March 2013. Around NSW, the amazing work of SoCares, Sydney Cats and Dogs Home, Sutherland Shire Council, Wyong pound, Renbury Animal Farm and rescues like AWDRI have all made giant strides into killing fields and brought the lowest kill rates in the history of pounds and shelters. It is no longer inspirational; they broke barriers and raised the benchmark.

Is it practicable?

Obviously.

Today marks the 2nd year Anniversary for Pound Rounds. We have tens of thousands of followers, a reach of over 350,000 and our highest viewed post was 89,000. None of those numbers mean a thing when I look into the eyes of Billy3412 (may he Rest In Peace) and then turn as I watch my young Zachary521 sleep. Same origins, two paths, so very different. I would do it all again for him. I would spend it all again for him. For you Billy – I would all do it again for you. For all the pets to come, we will continue to do it all, as a community, for you.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Jesus, I hope they didn't cave to her insanity

[HeelerLove]

They are posting pictures and details of quite a few dogs currently in BP - all with the caption

"Please share just one baby - just one. Over 40 dogs with no more legal holding time! 40 may sound like a lot - but we are 25,000 - just one tag, just one share, just one email, just one dollar, makes it 50,000 - see how easy it is - do you think 50,000 people find 10 homes for just 10 dogs? That's 5,000 people per pooch. It is possible if we do something - no matter how small.

If we do nothing, these sweet souls will be killed.

You may be just one - but that is all it takes."

[Are You Serious Jo]

But never a mention of making sure that the dog is responsibly rehomed, just THESE BABIES MUST NOT BE KILLED.

[_PL_]

I see. Big surprise there then.