The reason for this post is to release the results of an evalaution I did in the Miami area just the other day. The dogs in question are up for transfer to Rescue and other venues and the people involved want me to release the results so that networking on these particular dogs can get rolling. They have been in place at a boarding facility for an extended time and really deserve a chance to get out into permanent homes.
So without further adeiu, let's get into the meat of this issue. I am posting the full text provided to the persons who brought me in. Dawn Hanna, a CPDT in the area, also administered a battery of SAFER tests to the same dogs. Her report will be available soon for those interested. IF you can help out with any of these guys please contact Debi Day on Facebook by PM, or you can email for info to debi@thenokillnation.org. There are also some YouTube videos available, so contact Debi if you want to see them.
Dear Ms. Day:
On 30 June 2014, at your request I evaluated ten dogs at the
Dog House boarding facility in Pompano, Florida. My evaluations were conducted
in tandem with SAFER evaluations performed by Dawn Hanna. Following are my
observations and recommendations.
Dog 1: Carl. Carl has suffered several minor injuries in
recent disputes with other dogs according to the facility owner. Carl had a
visible laceration to his lip that bled occasionally. Carl is a very energetic
dog. When offered a treat he lunged strongly toward the treat item. He did
accept the treat but did contact my hand while taking the treat, fully taking
my hand into his mouth. He did not break skin but did make enough contact that
a non-experienced person may interpret the contact as a bite or aggressive
display.
Carl allowed full handling with no sensitivities. When
presented with the loud noise/startle item he had limited reaction, and
recovered normal behavior in less than 2 seconds. The second startle did not
produce a significant reaction.
During the stranger approach he had neutral reactions to
both “friendly” and “scary” strangers. He is neutral to human approach.
When Carl walked past a number of small dogs contained
behind a solid fence he showed clear strong interest, responding to their
barking and lunging with strong attempts to approach and engage. He was
difficult to distract and remove. We continued and walked into the kennel area
past barking dogs of various sizes and Carl was strongly attempting to make
direct contact with most of the dogs. Carl was straining at the leash, lunging,
and responding with barks and snarling. Carl bit at the fencing several times
and was difficult to restrain. Carl could not be redirected into positive or
neutral behavior.
Recommendation: Carl will require placement in a home with a
very physically able caretaker. Carl will have to be heavily managed for
dog-dog aggressive display and will require extensive desensitization for his
dog-dog reactivity. Carl has a limited prognosis for recovery from that
reactivity and may well require life-long management for safety. Carl did not
redirect his dog-dog reactivity towards this handler and does not appear to
exhibit any human focused aggression at this time.
Dog 2: Buster. Buster greeted me easily and confidently.
Buster sits, both voluntarily and on command, and took treats gently. Buster
showed no treat possessive behavior. Buster allowed me to fully handle him, but
reacted to manipulation of his hips, particularly the left hip. Buster gave a
single air snap at my hand when I grasped the loose flesh over that hip, and to
a lesser extent showed sensitivity to manipulation of the right hip. Buster sat
squarely though, with no indication of favoring either hip while sitting.
Buster showed a very strong startle reaction. He recovered
from the first startle in about 5 seconds, and recovered in slightly less time
(about 3 seconds) to the second startle. His reaction to the startle was to
retreat and show wariness.
During the stranger interaction Buster was willing and eager
to greet the friendly stranger. When approached by the scary stranger he took a
position out in front of me, between me and the approaching figure. Buster did
not bark or growl but showed forward, confident posture focused on the figure. Buster
maintained the forward alert posture until the stranger retreated.
Buster was very calm walking through kennels despite the
activity of the dogs surrounding. Buster did not return any aggressive display
or engage the barking dogs at all.
Recommendation: Buster is an easy going, human accepting
dog. Buster does show caution with the approach of a potentially threatening
target, but that caution moderated and controlled. Buster was not allowed to
engage the threatening target but was not retreating. Buster will possible show
this protective behavior in a home environment, but his actions during the
evaluation were reasonable and controlled. Buster should have Veterinary
attention to the hips, and may require action. If no medical cause is found
Buster should be gradually desensitized to hip contact and until that is done
caretakers should be cautions around his hips.
Dog 3: Gia. Gia shows heavy, labored breathing which the
facility owner states is due to a past tracheal injury. Gia greeted me easily.
Gia did not sit but took the treat gently. Gia is very focused on positive
human contact.
Gia responded to the startle but had a quick (<3 seconds)
recovery time and showed no lasting apprehension.
Gia showed a completely neutral reaction to the approach of
the friendly stranger. On approach by the scary stranger Gia went out in front
of me to the end of the lead took a solid posture and barked several times but
then followed up the barking with play solicitation behavior (play bow,
energetically wagging tail, wriggling body).
Gia had a neutral reaction to walking past the kennel dogs
and proceeded through the kennel in a steady walk.
Recommendation: Gia needs Veterinary attention to the
respiratory issues. Gia’s labored breathing may be interpreted by unskilled or
inexperienced persons as a low level growl, but there were no indications that
the audible rumbling of her breathing was any more than a manifestation of the
alleged injury. Gia is a confident and playful dog and has limited to no
sensitivity to other dogs.
Dog 4: Prince. Prince greeted me easily, but does have a
tendency to jump up. He took treats easily and gently but does not show a sit.
Prince allowed me to fully handle him, including his teeth,
tail and paws.
Prince did startle but recovered both times very quickly
(<2 seconds) with very little reaction to the second startle. He easily
greeted the friendly stranger.
Prince did take a forward position towards the scary
stranger, keeping between me and the approaching figure. He did not bark or lunge
but was cautious and kept a solid stance.
Prince was reactive but selective in dog-dog interactions.
He ignored most barking dogs in the kennel, but did react strongly to a few
individuals, trying to actively engage and fight with them. He was difficult to
disengage from those individual dogs. The dogs he engaged with were of varying
sizes and types so there did not seem to be an observable common thread. These
may have been dogs he has had prior history with, although the facility owner
says not.
Recommendation: Prince is a friendly dog in need of some
manners, but accepts human contact well. Prince’s caution to the scary stranger
was reasonable and controlled. Prince does have clear dog-dog issues with
particular dogs and will require careful and competent management. If a
commonality can be identified over time then a specific desensitization program
can be instituted, but unless that can be established then Prince will require
close and competent management when in contact with other dogs.
Dog 5: Max. Max was brought out to me and greeted me
immediately, head up, tail wagging, calm and relaxed. Max took treats
immediately and gently and sat when requested. Max took treats willingly and
with control. Max allowed full handling including paws, tail ears, and
head/mouth.
Max responded with a strong startle when the noise source
was initiated, but recovered very rapidly (<5 seconds) to a relaxed and calm
posture. After the second startle stimulus he was more watchful, but still
returned to a relaxed stance within 5 seconds.
Max’s response to the friendly stranger was very positive
and welcoming. Max appeared to be somewhat frightened by the scary stranger and
retreated behind my position cowering slightly.
Max was calm around the barking dogs, walking with relaxed
posture and generally ignoring most of the others. Those dogs that Max did
attend to he greeted with proper relaxed body position and appropriate greeting
behavior.
Recommendation: Max appears to be a well-adjusted, human
focused dog that readily socially interacts with people. Max reacts well around
other dogs, even those exhibiting potentially threatening or aroused behavior.
Max is highly likely to succeed in a permanent placement with owners accepting
of a large, affectionate and stable dog.
Dog 6: King. King showed calm greeting skills-no jumping or
inappropriate contact. King showed minimal response to the audible startle
stimuli, and recovered very quickly (<2 seconds) from each occurrence. King
allowed me to fully handle him and manipulate his paws, tail, head and mouth.
King easily and gently took treats.
King observed the friendly stranger and showed willing,
voluntary and positive approach behaviors. King’s reaction to the scary
stranger was generally accepting, with only slight interest in the stranger’s
erratic behavior.
King walked easily down the kennel of barking dogs, with
minimal interest, more focused on my actions and accepting of the loud and
disorganized behavior of the other dogs.
Recommendation: King is human focused and shows positive
interaction skills. King shows no indication of dog-dog reactivity.
Dog 7: Indo. Indo had issues during the inside evaluation
with Dawn Hanna (see her notes and report to obtain details). When I first
encountered Indo he was indoors. There was a small amount of blood on the
floor, apparently from a freshly engorged tick that he scratched off and was
killed.
The inner surfaces of Indo’s ears were red and visibly
inflamed. The conjunctiva (soft tissue) and the sclera (white portions) of both
eyes were clearly red and inflamed. Indo should be seen by a Veterinarian at
the earliest opportunity to address these health issues.
Indo greeted me easily, took treats readily and with a
gentle mouth, and willingly rolled on his back voluntarily showing no reticence
or signals of stress. Despite the apparent inflammation of his ears Indo
allowed me to fully handle him, including examining his ears and checking his
eyes closely. Indo took treats gently.
Indo showed a mild reaction to the audible startle stimulus,
and recovered very quickly both times (<2 seconds).
Indo greeted the friendly stranger calmly giving appropriate
engagement signals. Indo showed a clear intention to make positive contact with
the stranger. When confronted with the scary stranger Indo took a position in
front of me, between me and the stranger, but did not bark or growl. Indo
simply stood watching the stranger.
Indo did not show any particular interest in the barking
dogs as we walked the kennel.
Recommendation: Indo’s behavior must be evaluated as a
composite of my observations and Dawn Hanna’s observations. My assessment is
that Indo requires Veterinary attention for the ear and eye issues. His
behavior regarding human contact was very positive. Indo further showed no dog-dog
reactivity.
Dog 8: Goose. Goose greeted me easily and readily, showing
appropriate controlled greeting behavior. Goose does have minor paw and lip
injuries, so I did not manipulate that particular paw. Otherwise Goose allowed
full, willing contact. Goose readily and gently took treats.
Goose showed a mild reaction to the audible startle and
recovered quickly (<3 seconds) from each.
Goose showed positive greeting behavior toward the friendly
stranger. Goose was neutral to the scary stranger.
While walking the kennel Goose was largely uninterested in
the other barking dogs. To those dog in whom Goose showed interest his posture
and approach was positive and appropriate.
Recommendation: Goose did not show any concerning behavior.
Goose seems to willingly accept human contact, solicits that contact
voluntarily, and shows neutral to accepting behavior towards other dogs with no
observed reactivity.
Dog 9: Jethro. Jethro greeted me easily and positively.
Jethro took treats well and allowed full handling, including ears, tail, paws
and mouth.
Jethro showed minimal reaction to the audible startle,
recovering quickly (<3 seconds).
Jethro greeted the friendly stranger appropriately,
initiating positive contact. While waiting for the scary stranger Jethro pulled
slightly against his collar and the weak plastic buckle released, allowing
Jethro to be loose. Despite the ability to roam freely Jethro came quickly when
I called him. He was easily placed back on the lead and walked quietly past the
small dogs barking in the yard area adjacent to the testing area. Jethro was
not tested in the kennel runs since the collar had failed and there was not
another collar readily available.
Recommendation: Jethro showed very positive human
interaction, even coming willingly when presented with the opportunity to range
freely. Jethro did not show dog reactivity towards the small barking dogs
adjacent to the test area.
Dog 10: Tiffany. Tiffany came out and greeted me fairly
easily. She did not show any sensitivity to handling or contact and took the
treats well.
Tiffany startled but recovered quickly (<5 seconds).
Tiffany’s collar completely failed and she did break free.
Tiffany did not recall readily, but the two strangers (out of character) were
able to quickly contain her, including one of the strangers who grabbed Tiffany
around the neck and shoulders against a wall. Despite the sudden corralling in
a corner by a complete stranger (no contact had been made yet) Tiffany was
accepting and easily restrained. The test was terminated at that point.
Recommendation: Tiffany appears to be very human focused and
willing to accept even sudden human contact under a potentially stressful
situation.
SUMMARY: None of the dogs tested showed any clear aggressive
behavior towards humans. The dogs noted above did show reactivity and
sensitivity towards other dogs, and will have to be managed safely and given
rehabilitative training.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to assist in the
evaluation of these dogs.
|
|
Respectfully,
James W. Crosby CBCC-KA
Behavior Consultant
Jacksonville, Florida
Full medical records for these dogs are available at request. Again, please contact Debi Day for further information. These guys could really use a hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment