But the staff was clearly difficult for him to controll and should have been taken as well. He seemed more interested in his piece of string then the either of the dogs.

This is where the interpretation I posted about on the puppy test thread applies. (Volhard puppy aptitude tests)


Whether or not someone accepts dominance as a concept (something else that IMO is very very often misunderstood and/or mis-defined- or just used without defining meaning) a puppy struggling when held on its back would have to be looked at along with results of various other tests to decide the interpretation of that one aspect.

Was it doing it because it was:

• Confident and play fighting the tester?
• Nervous/panicked and struggling to escape?
• Aggressive and actually trying to seriously deter the tester?
• Physically uncomfortable?
• Distracted by something else it wanted to get up and investigate?
• Bored of being held in that way?
• Frustrated by the restraint?
• etc etc?

It would also have to be taken into account at what point in the test it was done and how comfortable the animal was with the tester (and indeed people generally) at that point.

These are just some of the reasons that behavioural assessments, however done, and for whatever purpose, require skilled and experienced application and choice of techniques and interpretation of results, particularly when a detailed accurate history is absent.

That includes assessing how far to extrapolation the results at the time of the assessment, under the terms of the assessment, to other times and other situations.

If this pup has been messed about by ignorant owners, he will struggle from fear.
The first thing you learn in rescue is that people lie.
The next is that dogs always surprise us. Happily.
Assessments are alway a `best guess` scenario.

Oh yes, very definitely.

Could not agree more, I have to restrain myself vigourously at times when simplistic interpretations/cures are suggested by those whose only "qualifications" are having read a couple of books and owned/fostered a couple of dogs.

Conducting tests without some knowledge of the genetic backgrounds of the breeding stock can also be a total waste of time.

I also feel that this is probably the case, especially with the dogs I'm seeing on this programme. I do

I'm well aware of the financial situation and dire rescue situation (although Australia appear to have avoided the recession), but these dogs were anything but dangerous "problem" dogs - they quite simply weren't even given a chance. I really can't see how you can justify putting a dog to sleep who is frightened of people without even trialling it in a home foster situation. I do sometimes think the financial situation etc is given as a smoke screen to avoid having to work with less than perfect specimens. Where do you draw the line - all black dogs to be PTS because they're harder to rehome, all dogs over 8 to be PTS as their age is against them.....

I once watched a programme (not sure if it was about Battersea Dogs Home) about a Staffy type who had food aggression issues. The staff at the home worked with the dog over the course of several weeks and it overcame it's food aggression problems, eventually being rehomed. Surely if the rescue situation was so dire every home would be euthanising all their dogs that don't pass a behaviour test? Why do some homes bother and others don't? Another of the Australian programmes showed a Standard Poodle from a PF who was clearly fear reactive towards the kennel staff. Yet it was placed in foster, regained it's trust with people and subsequently rehomed! It's these sort of discrepancies that concern me most I suppose.

Here's another case on last night:

An Australian Cattle Dog cross was rescued with a litter of 3 week old puppies. The Mother thankfully passed her behaviour assessment, but had she failed (by showing anxiety towards strangers/the doll etc) she would've been PTS along with her litter of 3 week old puppies. What are peoples thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that the people who are at the sharp end of the situation know what they are doing and know how many homes there are and what the situation is.

rune

Then I will duly await their thoughts on the discussion.

It's hard to have any thoughts on it because, of course, we don't have any background information.

For example one dog showing fear being placed in a foster home and another dog showing similar fear being put to sleep. There could be a number of reasons for it from the degree of the fear shown, the dog's coping mechanisms, even whether or not a foster home is available.

The rescue situation here is in dire straights - maybe it's not so different in Australia

One dog showed anxiety towards a doll and was deemed to fail the behaviour assessment leading to it being PTS. Another dog was seen barking and reacting aggressively towards kennel staff (again a fail), but was placed in foster and then rehomed.

What I can't understand is why a fear reactive dog can be rehomed, but an fearful anxious (and it was just anxiety - no aggression, threatening behaviour, just submission) dog can be failed and PTS. Perhaps it was because the reactive dog was a pedigree making it more rehomeable? Although I sincerely hope not!

What do you make of the possibility of those puppies being PTS with their Mother had she failed her behaviour assessment?