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

[minimax]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/rspca-criticised-over-claims-test-to-decide-fate-of-dogs-is-misused-20121008-279b7.html

THE RSPCA has been forced to defend a "temperament test" used to decide whether dogs are re-homed or euthanased, amid claims the assessment is being misused and animals are not given the best chance at life.

The RSPCA euthanased more than 4800 dogs in NSW last financial year, about 40 per cent of dogs brought in. More than 60 per cent of those were euthanased due to "behavioural" problems.

The overall rate of dogs killed far exceeds some council pounds that work with "no-kill" animal rescue groups, such as Muswellbrook (3.7 per cent) and Wyong (12 per cent).

Late yesterday, the RSPCA released to the Herald a copy of its behavioural assessments, otherwise known as "temperament tests", after initially refusing the request on confidentiality grounds.

Advertisement It showed dogs are scored negatively for behaviour such as barking, trembling and jumping. Those that accrue more than 100 points are deemed "unsuitable for adoption".

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the document was used as a "guide", and options such as rehabilitation, behaviour modification and foster care were investigated before euthanasia.

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

"It's a lack of proactive measures to try and save animals, rather than put in the monumental effort that rescue groups do, the RSPCA appears to find it easier to kill [them]," Ms Greenaway said.

She believes the RSPCA was ''threatened'' by other animal welfare groups with which it competed for funding and donations, and often would not work in collaboration with them.

She described its approach to animal management as "lazy and apathetic compared to other groups", citing th low numbers of cats and dogs advertised for adoption on its website.

Several animal rescue groups contacted by the Herald reported the RSPCA had not responded to offers to release dogs into their care for potential re-homing. Nathan Barnes, a former RSPCA employee and animal behaviour expert who claimed to have helped devise the behavioural test, said it was used incorrectly.

"The idea of the temperament test was not to fail the dog; it was to discover what the actual true behaviour is,'' he said. ''After the results of the test, you need to carry out rehabilitation if it's required, which is not happening, then reassess the dog."

Mr Barnes said the tests were often carried out under the wrong conditions, such as assessing a dog before it had adjusted to the pound environment.

The RSPCA NSW chief executive, Steve Coleman, said a dog that displays "overt aggression" towards a person or other animal "will likely be deemed unsuitable for placement".

He rejected claims the RSPCA was unwilling to collaborate with other animal welfare organisations, adding that "discussions have been undertaken, and continue to be undertaken, with a number of community-based rescue groups".

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

He denied that behaviour assessments were conducted while animals were still settling in, and said rehabilitation was considered in light of the animal's background, behaviour in the shelter and "available rehabilitation opportunities".

The RSPCA also helped dogs find a new home through a state-wide foster care network and other programs, he said.

[Kadbury]

I can't say what I would like to regarding the BS Statement by the RSPCA.

Edited because I was too angry still about the Pregnant Cavalier and her pups in WA

and I don;t want to get banned.....

Edited October 8, 2012 by Kadbury

[dogbesotted]

i have watched the behaviour assesments and in mu opinion they are indeed overly harsh and many normal reactions are deemed to be negative responses....

H

[megan_]

I'm going to get flamed here but if an animal exhibits aggression because it is scared then it isn't suitable to be rehomed to 99.99% of dog owners.

I say that and I have a fear aggressive dog (who is well managed and hasn't displayed it for a long time). I love her to bits but she is not a dog for Joe Average.

[wuffles]

IMO it depends on their definition of "overt aggression" and the situation.

[Maddy]

I actually had a discussion with Shel from PetRescue about this and worked out all the numbers and frankly.. yeah, they were pretty shocking. On the bright side.. got all the numbers already worked out :D

Not sure how to link to that discussion so I'll just copy/paste some of the discussion here here (these numbers were obtained using figures published pubically by the organisations concerned)

Greyhound Haven Tasmania Even when presented as being a minory of dogs (say, 45%) that still seems too high. Pound like that should certainly be more proactive in rehoming but then, the RSPCA is claiming only 2% of rehomeable dogs are being put to sleep (and 2% is certainly a better number). What concerns me is that they're failing 49.99% of dogs for health or behavioural reasons when, in my own experience, that number should be a lot lower.

I've PTS 4 dogs for behavioural reasons (each of those dogs had attacked and caused -at least- moderate injuries (injuries requiring veterinary treatment on the same day) to other dogs while in care) which equals about 12% of the dogs we've taken in. I expect our numbers to be a bit higher because because of the way greyhounds are often raised/cared for so I'd consider an acceptable number to be <10%.

What the 49.99% figure says is that either the public are doing a god-awful job of caring for pets OR that the tests used to determine health/temp basically give the dog a 50/50 shot. It's not a matter I've looked into in any great depth (so I'm not claiming to be an expert here) but to suggest that one out of every two dogs (making it roughly 1 out of every 4 for behavioural reasons) is not fit for rehoming seems very unlikely.

As I said, I'd love to see numbers of other groups to compare this with.

Shel digs out some annual reports for me, I work out the numbers..

Greyhound Haven Tasmania Awesome :D So, got five percentages out of those links and the average worked out at being 12.6% unsuitable for rehoming. A difference of 37.39%. Just to note here that Tasmanian figures actually bumped the percentage up- Tasmanian figures excluded excluded, the average was only 7.33%, making a difference of 42.66%.

Basically, of unclaimed intakes (the dogs being tested) in RSPCA-run shelters/pounds, 49.9% fail in NSW and are put to sleep.

Worth noting here that we didn't have the time or information to get enough samples of numbers to get the most accurate percentages for the average for other groups but it was a a broad enough selection to provide a decent average to work with. Actual figure might be slightly higher or lower.

[Salukifan]

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.

[Maddy]

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?

[megan_]

I am not an apologist for the RSPCA, but I think those numbers are misleading.

If they had done a temp test on 100's of dogs out in the community, different breed and in different socio-economic areas and 50% failed then your stat is valid. But that isn't what the statistic represents.

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.

I think they can do a better job at rehabilitating some dogs. I think they could spend their money far more wisely (fancy new building in Burwood Vic, but the dogs remain in pens that all face each other, for example).

However, most dogs adopted from the pound aren't going to experienced owners, with "experienced" meaning people who have a good knowledge of dog behaviour and training and know how to apply behaviour modification techniques, not "owned dogs for 20 years". I meet lots and lots of dog owners at the park, at training, on walks etc and the vast majority wouldn't be able to cope with a dog with issues (eg fear aggression).

Most dogs don't go to regular training, they don't have owners who understand body language, they don't get 1 hr + of walking and training every day etc. This means that they need to have stable temperaments, be able to deal with the rough-and-tumble of life, be able to go to a dog park and have an owner who chats with the locals rather than watching them like a hawk etc. This means that there is actually a limited pool of dogs that can be safely rehomed through a pound system.

Of course there are many people looking for different dogs (eg sports homes). However, if someone has specific requirements they often are looking for a dog from proven lines, willing to wait years for the right pup to come along and they're not rocking up to the local RSPCA on a Saturday afternoon.

[Maddy]

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.

I think the only way to really say one way or the other would be to get hold of some decent surrender data (intakes aren't just "found" dogs, but also surrenders and dogs dumped in holding pens). I know that down here, a major reason for surrendering pets is lack of money to feed them. Another reason (for the SWFs) is that the dogs become matted and the owners can't afford to have them clipped on a regular basis. Needing to eat and have hair clipped aren't faults with the dog. Another common reason is moving house- again, nothing wrong with the dogs.

The other obvious question is.. if other open admission shelters/pounds can rehome unclaimed dogs at a much higher rate (while still temp and health testing), what are the RSPCA doing differently to have such a considerable difference in figures?

[The Spotted Devil]

I think they could spend their money far more wisely (fancy new building in Burwood Vic, but the dogs remain in pens that all face each other, for example).

Sorry to selectively quote you megan but just wanted to correct this - in the new building there are only single rows of pens that don't face each other - I'm pretty sure this is the case for the dogs up for adoption but 100% certain that is the case for dogs held in 8 day quarantine.

I think you raise some excellent points.

[megan_]

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.

I think the only way to really say one way or the other would be to get hold of some decent surrender data (intakes aren't just "found" dogs, but also surrenders and dogs dumped in holding pens). I know that down here, a major reason for surrendering pets is lack of money to feed them. Another reason (for the SWFs) is that the dogs become matted and the owners can't afford to have them clipped on a regular basis. Needing to eat and have hair clipped aren't faults with the dog. Another common reason is moving house- again, nothing wrong with the dogs.

The other obvious question is.. if other open admission shelters/pounds can rehome unclaimed dogs at a much higher rate (while still temp and health testing), what are the RSPCA doing differently to have such a considerable difference in figures?

Thanks TSD for the correction. I used second hand info to make my point and it has bitten me in the behind! I'm glad they're incorporating some sensible design and hope the dogs in the holding area get some breathing space too.

HA - While I see your point, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, I don't hold much stock in the reasons why people say they are rehoming their dogs. In the circles I run, most people say "I don't have time". They might spend a few hours watching TV, reading etc every night so they do have time. They pick a sociably acceptable reason for dumping their pet (we're all so busy and important these days), they don't list the real reason (eg dog pulls like a steam train so I can't take it on walks, so it has developed bad behaviours etc). Now these aren't the dog's fault - even aggression isn't a dog's fault - but when a dog has developed behaviours like jumping, escaping, mouthing etc and they have been reinforced over many years those behaviours are hard to correct. They take a lot of time and effort. For example, if a dog has got its kicks out of jumping on people for 2 years, a few "ah ah"'s and praise aren't going to change the behaviour. It will take a sustained effort with many, many repetitions for the dog to realise that the pay-off for not jumping is greater than the pay-off for jumping. In my experience it is harder when the dog is smart as they don't just accept the new way of things easily.

I don't know of any other open admission pounds or shelters anywhere in my area as the RSPCA has the contract for the vast majority of councils in SE Melbourne. However, even if there were others, the RSPCA is by far the most high profile pound/shelter around and so it stands to reason that it will be the dumping ground of choice for people who don't research where they can drop off their dog. The other shelters might be used by people who are more selective (thereby increasing the chances of the dog having had a stable upbringing, training etc).

I'm sure their temp test isn't perfect, but it is something. I'm also certain that simply reading it doesn't give an insight into how dogs are assessed "on the ground" and how they are scored. It doesn't tell us the training and skill set of the assessor. It is a lot better than the pounds and shelters who don't temp test and then use guilt tactics to try and get people to adopt (little spot is sooo scared, all he needs is love and cuddles). Love and cuddles don't rehabilitate dogs.

There is so much that needs to be done for dogs in our society - I think they get a pretty raw deal overall. There is limited funds and limited care factor out in the public. I think people who care about dog welfare need to focus their time, money and resources on a specific area that has the most bang-for-buck. Personally, I think we should be focusing on responsible dog ownership and trying to bring about generational cultural change from one where you get a dog for the kids/because you had one when you grew up/you're lonely etc to one where we truly value our companion animals and they are cherished members of our families. They are exercised, both mentally and physically according to their needs and when, for whatever reason, we're unable to care for them we have a system in place where people step up and provide support. The revolving pound door isn't going to bring any of that.

[Sheridan]

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.

[mantis]

RSPCA suck, why are people surprised about this latest bit of bad publicity on this morally bankrupt & corrupt organisation.

[Rebanne]

When I worked at the RSPCA it was when you only had 28 days to find them a home. So dogs needing a "special" home rarely made it out as the average person coming in to adopt was just; that an average person. We used to say we adopted out Joe Blow dogs to Joe Blow people. These people did not have the experience or the skills to help the dog needing a little bit extra. We didn't have the space or the time to do so.

Things have improved since then though. More of those special dogs do get what they need. And thank Dog for that. But there are still dogs that should not be adopted out.

[Salukifan]

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.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[nawnim]

One of my dogs found herself at 4 months old at the RSPCA here in Canberra with two of her littermates. My dog was the runt. She failed the temperament test because they decided she was a resource guarder because she threatened them when they tried to take a pig's ear off her. Her littermates both passed and were rehomed very quickly. Originally my dog was marked as a pts but then it was decided to give her a go and she was given a month's training, and then was put up for adoption as an orange dog which means she was only suitable for someone with prior experience with training.

She has never displayed any sign of resource guarding since I have had her although I am always careful giving her something special when I take away something she values. She had her first obedience title within 12 months and is a wonderful dog, competing at the Open level before she was two. I am grateful to the RSPCA for giving her a second chance.

[Brookestar]

The RSPCA and the Lost Dogs Home are the primary pounds in Melbourne for over 90% of councils. The vast majority of dogs who are surrended at those places are rehomed. It is those that are not reclaimed at the end of the 8 day quarantine period that are more likely not to be. And while I respect that not having the money to feed the dog is an issue, and is not the fault of the dog, what is the fault of the dog?? Dogs do not choose to be socialised, choose to go to obedience classes, choose to go to the vet, etc. They all require careful and attentive owners who are willing to do the right thing by them. If they are not able to afford to feed them, what else are they not able to afford to do for them? People don't discard their children, just because they can't afford to feed them?? I can assure you most of the emergency food suppliers do provide dog and cat food for people who have pets. And any of the places that give out food hampers at christmas to those less fortunate, also in the vast majority of cases do put in pet food if they know the household has pets.

In regards to the temperament test, it is very easy to pick out pieces you don't agree with. BUT it does require score of 100 or more. Any one area is only going to score up to 10 I think it is. That means they don't have to fail one area, they have to fail 10 areas.

I do totally believe that much more can be done to rehabilitate animals, than what is currently being done, but like Megan, I also know that 99.9% of the people who turn up to those shelters have never owned dogs before and will be lucky to walk it every day, let alone bother taking it to training or the like. All they get is the rough and tumble of the dog park, with owners who are not even watching them. Those dogs need to be able to cope with that.

My understanding is the RSPCA across Australia has now implemented the processes that the RSPCA ACT had in place. And dogs were categorised based on their needs and catergorised, according to traffic light colours, people were assessed before being allowed to look at the animals, and were only shown those that matched the traffic light colour they were assessed as being able to handle, for most that was green. That does give those dogs who need an experienced handler a chance, but it also means they are likely to spend years in the shelter. Within Victoria until 18 months ago it was not possible for any animal to be in a shelter for longer than 3o days. That time frame was set down in legislation and enforced by the relevant government department. Many of the shelters in VIC had temperament tests based on the chance of a dog being rehomed in that 30 day period. Not saying it was right, just what it was.

Any test is only as good as the person administering it. And is it going to be applied differently by some people absolutely. Does more need to be done to pull them into line and to do all we can to ensure it is being applied fairly and equally among all staff, absolutely. Is the test perfect, probably not. Are enough dogs placed in rehabilitation programs, definatley not.

I do remember watching a show on TV recently in which prisioners were doing rehabilitation of dogs from the RSPCA in NSW. I would love to see that rolled out across the country. It is a win win for all concerned. The prisoners give back and learn to care for another human being, the dogs get much better care they would languishing in a shelter and hoping a volunteer would take them for a walk and the dogs have a much better chance of being rehomed. Of course that requires state governments to be willing to set up such programs, and that is not popular with the community, who then think that prisoners just play with dogs all day.

[Maddy]

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.

Probably a few breeds that would do very poorly if tested in a pound situation.

Greyhounds are one- they're a sensitive breed of dog and most of the ones I've met in pounds have appeared cowering and miserable- not that they stay like that once you get them out, of course- it's just the constant barking, lack of comfy bedding, etc. makes them nervy and prone to what looks like extreme fear.

I have no issues with the concept that not every dog is suitable for rehoming (I've failed a few dogs, myself) but when you have a rate of 49% when everyone around you is testing at at least half of that, you have to wonder if either the test itself or the manner in which it is done is disadvantaging the dogs somehow.

[Sheridan]

Brookestar, I don't wish to repeat your entire post but I have a question: can you provide your sources to the RSPCA and LDH rehoming the vast majority of surrenders? I wasn't aware that LDH, in particular, published numbers of surrenders as opposed to the numbers of dogs received at the pound.