I am not desperate to believe that at all.

I believe strongly that the people who are doing the work CARE for the dogs, they aren't there because they like killing them. They know how many homes they have around, they know how much money they have to keep the dogs. They know their own limitations and the limitations of the majority of their clients.

If they make a decision it is because it is thought out and probably worried about and I expect they wake up at nights and go over and over it ---I know I did on the odd occassion. I also knew absolutely that the right thing had been done. For the dog who wouldn't keep bouncing and end up worse than before and for the families who might have taken the dog on and found themselves in ER and having to take to be pts a dog they have grown to care for.

It isn't just the dogs who are affected by the situations they can cause, it radiates outwards and touches many people. It also has an effect on the number of homes on offer.

I admire that rescue for being honest. Many are not and many do not see 'their' dogs clearly and will twist the truth in order to rehome, sometimes with disasterous consequences.

rune

What you saw was perhaps 1-2 minutes (?) of an assessment procedure that probably lasts longer than the programme that was aired (which I still haven't seen so I'm guessing here). You also saw what the TV production company wanted you to see, not necessarily what the RSPCA wanted you to see. You didn't 'see' the assessment of the dog with the doll, you watched some film footage of it which is a very different kettle of fish. You very likely only saw one very small part of a much longer assessment.

Regardless of TV editing and what may or may not have been shown, they openly stated, several times on several different occasions, that any anxious reaction regardless of "intent" would result in PTS.

Entirely agree with both these posts.


Stating something as a reason doesn't make it an absolute. There still has to be judgement as to which side of the line borderline cases fall.

One person's "reactive" dog is another's "aggressive", "nervous", "dominate", "fearful" etc, dog. Similarly someone has to decide what is an "anxious" dog to the point of PTS.

Certainly anxiety, tension and unease can very quickly lead to aggression, with interactions with children being very high-risk due to their own vulnerability, their own highly unpredictable behaviour and reactions.

Should the assessor pass an unsuitable dog, the potentially catastrophic and possibly permanent (legal, ethical, financial and PR which also affects other dogs) consequences could very seriously negatively impact that whole rescue for all their other dogs.

What did you think of the programmes and their assessments then? Did you think it was right for them to try and rehab the SP, but not the others?

The last time I saw these programmes was about two years ago when they were shown before, I remember they did behavioural assessments (as are also shown on several other rescue programmes), here and abroad, but I don't remember the details.

No doubt the difference was for all the reasons that have already been discussed.

Ah I see, never mind.

Watching an edited programme on tv is not the same as being in the room and assessing a dog.

Even watching unedited assessments it requires excellent , observational skills to identify the antecedents to dangerous behaviours.

Behaviours that a good assessor will avoid triggering by their trained observational skills.

.............

Yes, it's a bit like an owner saying their dog isn't playing up while it's being handled by an expert professional, not realising that the skilled professional is reading the dog and the situation and handling it in such a way as to anticipate and prevent the problem behaviour before it even gets to a level at which the amateur owner even recognises that it is occurring, or that the dog is considering taking that course of action.