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

[gillbear]

I hear that Blacktown pound has started AWL temperament testing as of yesterday (15/3) and 5 dogs have been failed already. Does anyone have any details?

[tdierikx]

Kneejerk reaction to certain groups taking out dogs of suspect temperament maybe?

T.

[Sheridan]

Kneejerk reaction to certain groups taking out dogs of suspect temperament maybe?

T.

Isn't it a good thing if it prevents dogs with suspect temperaments from being released? Not sure why you think it's kneejerk.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Better to have some sort of test in place than continuing with a blanket release everything that breathes even if it is a fence jumping, dog aggressive dog. I was one of the rescuers emailed about such a dog and my reply was "How can anyone rescue/rehome this dog responsibly?".

Ethical rescuers temp test dogs themselves before taking them on although problems can still surface later on that were not apparent in the pound.

In today's litigious world I don't think any Council Pound can afford to rely on assurances to "rehabilitate" dogs of questionable temperaments.

As sad as this statement may be for some people and almost impossible to accept for the odd few, not all dogs can be rehabilitated, not all dogs should be saved.

I call it progress, like it or not.

Edited March 16, 2013 by dogmad

[gillbear]

I agree. It is a much needed response to a certain "not rescue group" releasing dogs without any sort of thought about temperament or where the animal is going to.

Of course you wont see any acknowledgement of this in some of the hysteria that is being drummed up in response.

[_PL_]

I agree with assessing but some breeds present very poorly in a pound environment.

Is there discretion on a per dog basis or a straight out red mark against the dog? What are they testing for exactly?

[gillbear]

It seems the dogs that failed are mostly bullbreed crosses. There was supposed to be a Sunday morning deadline but these dogs were pts on Friday.

[gillbear]

I agree with assessing but some breeds present very poorly in a pound environment.

Is there discretion on a per dog basis or a straight out red mark against the dog? What are they testing for exactly?

Thats what I would like to know. It is important to make sure the temperament test is fair, but rescues will also need to have certainty with pts days going forward.

[Chezy]

does this mean that noone, not even rescue can take them out , because if they still let rescue take them, it doesn;t stop aggressive dogs going out into the populas esp with a certain rescue ...........

[gillbear]

get this a certain "not a rescue group" has suspended pulling dogs from Blacktown in response to this new test.

Edited March 16, 2013 by gillbear

[Chezy]

well it can only be a good thing then , we can only hope more pounds follow , while it is most likely the case that some good dogs may be wrongly assessed and it it unfortunate ,when you look at the big picture, safety is paramount

[Nic.B]

I was emailed this a short while ago, on the Pr's wall(apparently I can't stand looking at the site) after this letter is a photo of a dog being restrained and euthed.

Follows below;

Open letter to Blacktown City Council

17/03/2013

Dear Cr Len Robinson,

... In April 2011, Pound Rounds Inc began working with two pounds in Sydney, Blacktown Pound being one of them, to help them rehome the dogs on their kill lists. Both pounds had already agreed to work with rescue and had very limited restricted rehoming practices. Today is a sad day for all of us. For the reasons below, we are very sad to inform you that, save for the dogs we have already placed holds on, we have decided to suspend our efforts to assist Blacktown Pound in rehoming their kill listed pets effective immediately.

This suspension will remain in place for as long as the pound remain committed to their new temperament testing procedure to decide which pets are killed, not which pets need urgent rehoming or remedial assistance. We have become aware that the new practice is not restricted to human aggression (which Pound Rounds have always supported as a not for release parameter) and goes further to include the presentation of dog reactivity as a reason to kill the dog, rather than release it for rehoming. In a pound environment this is wholly unjust.

For almost two years, we have supported the staff at the pound and the Blacktown City Council in their successful and proactive efforts to help dogs let down by their owners, but no longer let down by their community. These efforts have seen Blacktown Council enjoy the full support of their community due to the record low levels of dog killing in their pound facility (practically "No Kill" levels). This record rehoming rate did not result in any spike in the incidence of dog attacks or anything of that kind in the area, the State of NSW or the country as a whole. In fact it was the most successful period of rehoming and community oriented support these pets have ever enjoyed. Pound Rounds and rescue in general accepted that some (very, very few) pets may have been damaged beyond what was possible to rehome. We trusted the pound's decisions because they were made with care, caution and included an understanding that, on the pound's advice to rescue, some dogs were not immediately rehomed, but kept in care for evaluation/treatment/testing/rehabilitation outside of the horrendously stressful pound environment.

The introduction of a subjective, draconian and unwieldy instrument such as a so called “temperament test” to simply work out 'who to kill' is the end of the relationship of trust we have enjoyed with the pound for 2 years.

In this case, following requests from rescue groups who were aware that the pound was full to capacity and therefore surprised that a kill list had not yet been disseminated, a kill list was subsequently provided to those rescue groups (including Pound Rounds) on the afternoon of Thursday 14th March. The list stipulated that the dogs were to be rehomed by Sunday 17th March at 11am (and additional to that deadline, there appeared a new 'disclaimer' regarding supposed “temperament testing”). Rescue groups went to work as usual. Homes were lined up and several different rescue groups and people from the community expressed interest in supporting their chosen dogs; warts and all. The next day, Friday 15th March, the pound's rehoming officer invited independent temperament assessors from the NSW Animal Welfare League (AWL) to assess the dogs on the list for rehoming. 5 of the 7 remaining dogs on the list were then killed without warning to the rescue groups.

Most dogs on the list had been held, cuddled, photographed, videoed and walked by several different staff & pound volunteers. The AWL formally used these same temperament tests over 5 years ago to excuse a kill rate of well over 50% (2008/2009- greater than their rehoming rate). The RSPCA still uses these tests, quite infamously, to try and explain away a kill rate of over 50% of unreclaimed pet dogs. Campbelltown Pound still kills 64% of their pets. The Lost Dogs Home's temperament tests are used to excuse killing more than 10,000 pets every - single - year.

These "temperament tests" are widely acknowledged by many as unscientific and out-dated. Under new leadership, not even the AWL uses these tests to simply kill dogs without efforts to rehabilitate or rehome them appropriately (warts and all). Blacktown Pound was, until 48 hours ago, a shining example to other facilities on how to partner with their community to help rehome the forgotten pets in their care. What gave rise to the sudden killing? Was there a sudden and startling increase in the number of independently verified reports of rehomed dogs presenting a greater risk to the community than any other dog? No. There is no probative evidence that makes these pets any less of a community pet just because they are impounded behind a council's brick wall.

We have discussed the recent events amongst ourselves at length. Pound Rounds' mission statement mandates using all measures possible to save life. Unlike policies which utilise proactive measures such as rehabilitation or remedial support, our mission statement is not compatible with policies which allow and see temperament testing resulting in the unnecessary deaths of up to 70% of kill listed dogs tested. This is not least because of the possible (but highly likely) breed discrimination such policies may result in by default. Most kill listed dogs are bull breeds. Furthermore, in practical terms for rescues such as ourselves, such policies also hinder any ability to fundraise for the kill listed dogs, lest they be killed without notice.

Moreover, and let me be personal for a minute - could any human being turn up week after week, year after year, to hold a special brindle dog, cuddle him, photograph him, promise him your help, try with all your heart to help save him, only to have that very boy killed sporadically by some arbitrary ruling? No? Nor can we. Nor, we suggest, can many volunteers who forge similar bonds with these breathing, living beings. The introduction of temperament testing leaves rescue groups, the pound's own volunteers, and the community that watch and support rescue's efforts, heartbroken and frustrated. If council can use the “temperament assessment” technique to mandate a pet's certain death for behaviours as growling at another dog in the pound, we simply cannot.

What protective measures are in place to prevent the killing by law? Subject to exceptions in place for classified "dangerous" or "restricted" breeds, no matter how an animal (or dog in this case) ends up in a council pound, subsections 64(5) and 64A(2) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) stipulate that it is the DUTY of the council concerned to consider whether there is an ALTERNATIVE action to that of destroying the animal and if practicable to adopt any such alternative. It is NSW state law to choose rehoming of these dogs.

The incredibly difficult decision on our part to withdraw our support is not an indictment on the staff at the pound. We acknowledge that we have worked effectively with them for two years to rehome impounded community pets. We also hope this policy is repealed as soon as possible and temperament tests become a tool to help poundies receive the appropriate care, remedial work and homes they need to remain safe and cared for. The pound is full and the only victims will be the poor dogs still left in the facility whose fate is now left to chance or worse - judgement.

However, we simply cannot fly in the face of our own doctrine and stand by and accept a policy which is so poorly implemented that 5 in 7 dogs were killed within hours of its introduction.

It is not easy to turn away from the forgotten beings we have tirelessly sought to promote, save and rehome. The prospect leaves us truly shaken - but - and after much deliberation - we cannot stay silent on this issue and allow indiscriminate killing to occur while we stand by and simply watch. It is beyond what we can take as human beings. History is a great teacher.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing": Edmund Burke, political philosopher (1729 - 1797).

Yours in tragedy.

All at Pound Rounds

For Marlon, Zorro, Clint, Ronan and Dignity. In loving memory.See More

.

[cryptic]

If they had of done a temp test on the dog I have newly into care he would have been pts due to his behaviour he was exhibiting while impounded.

Then on the other hand perhaps if they temp tested a certain dog from a year ago who killed my ex foster dog in his forever home this may have been avoided.

Very mixed feelings on this .

[Sheridan]

That should read, Edmund Burke (attrib), I believe.

[WreckitWhippet]

Bit rich isn't it of PR to think that they are calling the shots.

Even richer when they are nothing but keyboard warriors who don't have anything to do with the dogs, other than frantically typing, calling for $$ and hoping that someone else will actually help the dogs out.

Councils are under no obligation to work with rescue and some have become a little gun shy, given the piss poor attitude and demands made by some rescues.

I would like to see all animals temp tested before they are released from any pound and for Councils to work closely with reputable rescues, to ensure only dogs that are suitable for adoption are released into their care or to the general public.

Some rescues seem to think they have a right to demand whatever dogs they like be released to them to the point of blackmail and shaming councils in local papers , when their demands have not been met.

Pound Rounds ceasing their relationship with Blacktown, can only be a good thing, it will allow others, who actually have the best interests of the animals in mind to build or in some cases rebuild their relationship with Council and continue to successfull rehoming of suitable animals.

What protective measures are in place to prevent the killing by law? Subject to exceptions in place for classified "dangerous" or "restricted" breeds, no matter how an animal (or dog in this case) ends up in a council pound, subsections 64(5) and 64A(2) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) stipulate that it is the DUTY of the council concerned to consider whether there is an ALTERNATIVE action to that of destroying the animal and if practicable to adopt any such alternative. It is NSW state law to choose rehoming of these dogs.

Yes, they have a duty to "consider" alternatives to euth, but it must be in the best interests of the dogs and the safety of the community. Nowhere in any legisaltion does it state that dogs must be released to a "rescue" because they demand it.

Edited March 17, 2013 by WreckitWhippet

[Steve]

If dogs are going to be released to anyone who asks for them then surely there has to be an assurance they are user friendly - so whats the answer ?

[Nic.B]

Good Question Steve.

I don't want to get overly involved, though I do believe temp testing is vital. I guess for me it depends on what the test entails and how experienced/savy the handlers are.

I do believe AWL's temp test is very tough and difficult to pass, I have not done it myself though so don't know for sure.

For me though (if I were in councils shoes) EVERYTHING would depend upon the group I sent that dog to. If there was proof, written statements and reports of dead dogs, children attacked, dogs impounded in other states, The rescue groups council ALREADY work with being consistently asked to take another groups dogs etc etc. For me it a no brainer.

At times (when I was temp testing at HP) I would go back to the same dogs three or four times. I do believe the dogs need to "settle for 48 hours in the pound environment prior to temp testing.

You also need to remain neutral and be 100% honest!

The same issues surfaced for HP due to the same group. Dogs with any 'red flags' are now independantly assesed.

The sad part is ethical rescuers did at times take dogs with medical or behavioural issues for many, many years. Though these rescues were brilliant, and the outcome was reported back to council (rehabilitae/pts) They made the hard call and were 100% responsible. Pr's do not opperate ethicaly, I wish for one moment they would stop and realise what they have created.

MN states that they dont take HA dogs. The number of bites and attacks on children, vets, vet nurses and even their own pr's volunteers show differently.

ETA 4th paragraph.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Nic.B

[Nic.B]

Bit rich isn't it of PR to think that they are calling the shots.

Even richer when they are nothing but keyboard warriors who don't have anything to do with the dogs, other than frantically typing, calling for $$ and hoping that someone else will actually help the dogs out.

Councils are under no obligation to work with rescue and some have become a little gun shy, given the piss poor attitude and demands made by some rescues.

I would like to see all animals temp tested before they are released from any pound and for Councils to work closely with reputable rescues, to ensure only dogs that are suitable for adoption are released into their care or to the general public.

Some rescues seem to think they have a right to demand whatever dogs they like be released to them to the point of blackmail and shaming councils in local papers , when their demands have not been met.

Pound Rounds ceasing their relationship with Blacktown, can only be a good thing, it will allow others, who actually have the best interests of the animals in mind to build or in some cases rebuild their relationship with Council and continue to successfull rehoming of suitable animals.

What protective measures are in place to prevent the killing by law? Subject to exceptions in place for classified "dangerous" or "restricted" breeds, no matter how an animal (or dog in this case) ends up in a council pound, subsections 64(5) and 64A(2) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) stipulate that it is the DUTY of the council concerned to consider whether there is an ALTERNATIVE action to that of destroying the animal and if practicable to adopt any such alternative. It is NSW state law to choose rehoming of these dogs.

Yes, they have a duty to "consider" alternatives to euth, but it must be in the best interests of the dogs and the safety of the community. Nowhere in any legisaltion does it state that dogs must be released to a "rescue" because they demand it.

I agree, though that is the way MN operates WIW. You are spot on, councils can "use their discretion" in regard to the groups they work with.

Sadly this group threatens legal action if they are not given the dogs, they also threaten to go to the media. Mayors and councils don't like bad publicity and most people in the community do not understand the many and at times complex issues.

[honeybun]

I am in no way experienced in such matters, and would hate to be in the position of having to decide who lives and who dies.

But I remember vividly a tv programme at the RSPCA that showed them temp testing a dog which was sitting restrained against a handlers legs and a very large doll was walked up to the dog and touched it and then pushed against it,and if the dog turned its head away from the giant doll or flinched that was an indication...to them.,...that the dog was no good with childen and therefore was to be euthanased.It wasnt that the dog attacked the doll or even growled.

The dog looked terrified to begin with anyway.

I saw some testing done in a pound on a trial basis that was done with fake hands,skateboards and balls and it was such a difficult one to interpret because it depended on each of the people doing the testing scoring the dog out of 10 on each test...so each result was not cut and dried and based on opinion.So it wasnt scientific in any way.

I certainly dont support HA or DA dogs going out into the community BUT I would hate to see dogs terrified in the pound environment incorrectly classified as unrehomeable because of the methods used to test the dogs or the inexperience of the tester.

AWL and RSPCA have always had dreadful rehoming rates, ones they should be ashamed of to be honest.. so it is sad to think that their testing methods are being used elsewhere resulting in even more dogs being put down that may have otherwise been able to be rehomed successfully.

Edited March 17, 2013 by honeybun

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Legal action is always their first retort. I'd like to know how many have taken legal action against them - or, maybe that is why they don't hand over paperwork to new owners so noone can really track them. As for the dog attack rate not increasing in the council area, that might be because they transport the dogs out of the council's area ... it doesn't mean that none of the dogs they have rescued haven't attacked other dogs - as Cryptic says above, there has been at least one reported death, due to a PR rescued dog.