The rescue I worked with had all new owners sign a disclaimer---I assume they had legal advise on that and it would stand up in court.

rune

THat was what I was wondering as it used to identify potential dogs for working homes such as the police etc.

They were the first to use Sue Sternbergs methods as well I seem to remember. I know they had a team of behaviourists then. They used to do agility and all sorts to try and help the dogs.

I would think they get an awful lot that can't be helped.

rune

Obviously. That's not the issue I have as I have already stated.

No I'm not a huge fan of the food assessment, but again can understand the need for it. That's why I was so surprised when I saw the English programme with the Staffy being rehabbed. I would've thought a food aggressive dog would be un rehomeable, but it just goes to show how if given a chance some dogs with issues can be rehomed. And again, I totally understand that you can't rehab every single problem dog as their aren't enough spaces. But I honestly do not feel that a dog that shows slight anxiety towards strangers etc can be classed as a problem dog that will become/is aggressive.

Who is trying to make out that things are that simple?

The programme is on Sky channel 238 at the moment if anyone wants to watch it.

I do not have Sky.....................

I know.

In an ideal world, both problems are reasonably easily solvable, but we don't live in that ideal world, we live in the one where there are just too many dogs needing homes and not enough homes to take them

Unless you are actually doing the assessing, you can't really tell how deep rooted a problem is (and even then, there are likely to be mistakes made). Much of it is what is showing in the dog's eyes and the nuances of body language and a film camera just won't pick up

I saw the assessment of the dog with the doll and it was quite clear the dog was not aggressive, a fearful dog is not by default an aggressive dog. Of course you will get a better picture if you're there in person, but if the assessor openly states on TV that a dog that shows anxiety (be it submissive or aggressive) it must be PTS regardless, then I'm going to believe what they say. Like I said before, if there were other issues with the dog then they would've been mentioned as it would be in the RSPCA's best interests to show it for obvious reasons.

They didn't necessarily have editorial control.

I entirely agree with Brierley that there are things that can be evident, but very subtle, to an experienced, attuned assessor, that just do not show on camera.

Among other factors the camera is showing things from a different angle so tension, facial expression, quality of eye contact (hard or soft etc) and so forth can come across very differently.

Additionally on an edited programme you never know what history or additional indicators are being taken into account.

"Food guarding" is a blanket term and comes in many differing degrees, and can arise from different causes. These affect the prognosis.

You can invariably take it as read that TV programmes never give the full story, far, far more is shot than is ever shown so there will be heavy edits in places.

It was very clear from all of the dogs shown over the many programmes that I watched that it was a generalised reason, mainly because they stated it out right. No amount of editing can change that fact. As much as people are desperate to believe that there are individual reasons to these dogs being PTS I am 100% sure this is not the case, it's the whole point of the thread after all. If I wasn't sure or I felt there was even the slightest chance that there were individual reasons for these dogs being PTS then I would never have started the thread.