It seems that lately I can't open my inbox without a note of one kind or another about a Police Officer using deadly force against a dog. Loose dogs, pet dogs, big dogs, little dogs-dogs charging, barking, running away or allegedly simply standing there. Is this on the rise? Is there an epidemic of the use of deadly force against pets? I am not convinced either way-I suspect that is may be a result of the speed of, and breadth by which these stories are spread due to social media and citizen journalists, bypassing mainstream avenues-but the jury is still out. The problem is, these cases are gaining a great amount of attention, not just here in the US but across a surprisingly global audience. So I want to take a few minutes of your time and talk about the issue, the perceptions, and possible solutions to the perceived problem.
First off: full disclosure time. I am a retired Police Lieutenant. I served 22 years with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Jacksonville, Florida. I never shot a dog during my career. I am biased-in most cases I will go out of my way to defend a brother Officer, even if I may have personal misgivings that the incident could have been handled better. I understand the stresses, the pressure, and the need for immediate decision making in critical incidents. I also have no patience for bad cops. I am not here to criticize, or defend anyone. I want to look at contacts between officers and pets and try to get both the pets and the officers home in one, safe package.
With that out of the way let's look at the problem. How do we reduce conflict between dogs and Police Officers? In what situations are these conflicts occurring, and what tools do we have to reduce these incidents? Where does responsibility lie?
There are several general categories of contact between police and dogs that seem to encompass most of the situations. I am going to break them into groups: High-Risk encounters; Emergency responses; Public Safety encounters; Low Risk encounters; Seizures; and Nuisance encounters.
High-Risk encounters are the easiest to classify, and perhaps the clearest of the bunch for us to respond to. These are the drug and violent crime raids. SWAT or another unit is making a fast, forcible entry into dangerous territory. The bad guys are likely armed, and likely have little to lose by resisting. The dogs in these situations are potential weapons. The officers will likely also be confronted by humans bearing other weapons, like firearms. The potential for officer injury or death is high. No one in this situation has the time to conduct a lengthy negotiation with a hostile animal, even if that animal is acting aggressively due to mistreatment or fear. Perhaps I am a speciest, but human safety comes first. That said, a High-Risk situation is not a free ticket to blast away at any animals present, any more than it is a free ride to shoot any humans out of hand (we will leave terrorist encounters out of this equation). There are tools that can be used to reduce risk from animals that are quick and reasonable.
The best of those tools is information. No one raids a location without at least some advance intelligence about the location and the potential occupants. Pre-raid surveillance should include establishing whether there are animals present, and whether those animals seem to present a valid threat. If the intelligence establishes that the bad guy has trained, aggressive dogs that are little more than four-legged weapons those dogs are a clear threat. On the other hand, a hound dog that spends his days hanging out on the front porch, probably not so much. Either way, the presence of the animals has been noted, and contingency plans can be put in place. Frankly, if my intelligence said the dogs were trained to attack I would be more proactive in removing the threat.
In some cases this degree of information may not be present-yet there are still indicators. Are there dogs chained up? Can you get past them without releasing them? Are there less lethal methods, such as OC spray, that can be rapidly deployed to deter or temporarily disable the dogs while still allowing the officers to respond safely to the more likely human threat? Can the entry team, and the suspects, be isolated quickly and safely from the dogs? Can the dogs simply be taken out of the equation?
These are High-Risk situations, and as such there are clear limits to the amount of time and effort that can be devoted to animals during entry and securing the scene. But most of the situations in which animals and Police come into conflict are not High-Risk encounters.
Second on my list is Emergency Response. These cases are where a human is in immediate danger or has been injured and a dog is "protecting" the victim. These are survival situations. If the dog is not removed quickly a human may die. These, like High-Risk encounters, don't give a responding officer much time. Other emergency responders, like medical services, may be on scene and trying to get to the victim. These situations are touchy in that the dog is doing what it is supposed to do-protecting its owner. Less lethal alternatives should be on the front burner here. The dog doesn't understand that the strangers are there to help. Time is of the essence, but compassion for both the human victim and the dog is a clear consideration.
Of course if the dog is the source of the injury, or reasonably appears to be the source of the injury, the game is changed. The dog must be removed before doing more damage, and the person's injuries addressed. Even here deadly force is not necessarily the first choice. Depending on the positioning of the dog and victim, shooting the dog may present a clear danger to the victim. Disengaging the dog is the first priority, but sacrificing the victim in the process, or even adding to the victim's injuries, is not an option. For evidence I personally prefer the dog in such a case be kept alive if possible, but human safety reigns supreme. Still, initial disengagement of the dog may better proceed using less lethal options, if for nothing more than separation of victim and target for a clear shot, with a safe(r) backdrop.
One factor to be considered in cases where the dog is the source, or apparent source, of the injury/threat is physical evidence. A dog destroyed as a result of a serious or life threatening attack is evidence, possibly of a crime. We do not casually destroy evidence. Evidence is what we need to hold a human, often the owner, responsible for their actions, or lack of action. In the rare case that a dog must be destroyed on scene for immediate safety, any deadly force (gunshot) deployed should be to the dog's center of mass-the middle of its body. Head shots are not ideal-not only will the gunshot likely damage the dog's jaws, a potentially critical piece of evidence, but the head of a dog is a difficult target to hit. Imagine firing at a grapefruit bouncing down the street. Additionally, anyone who has examined the skull of a large dog will tell you that the skull is a very thick chunk of bone, with lots of angled surfaces. Even a police duty round may have trouble penetrating, especially if it hits at an odd angle or the head is moving away at the moment of impact. In an emergency, just like when defending against people, body shots are the most reasonable and reliable.
I would remind all readers that the purpose of police use of force, particularly deadly force, is not to "shoot to kill". The justification for use of deadly force is to remove a credible and immediate threat-no more. If, for instance, I am confronted by an armed subject, I am not authorized to "shoot to kill". I am only lawfully allowed to shoot until the threat is removed. Thus, if I fire once, miss, and the bad guy drops his weapon (been there) I have to hold my fire. I can't "finish him off", no matter how much I might want to. The legal cause is suddenly no longer valid. If I shoot a person once and they fall and surrender, or can't continue the assault, then the incident is over. If I shoot again I have violated the law and used excessive force.
I would suggest that Officers who have to deploy lethal force against dogs take the same factors into consideration-you are shooting to remove the threat. If the first shot takes the dog down and he is unable to re-engage, the incident is over. The next proper step is to contact Animal Control or whomever is responsible for providing, in your jurisdiction, emergency care for a wounded animal. A decision to "finish him off" or to "euthanize" such an animal should be left to a Veterinarian and the owner. It is not the responsibility of the Police to determine the appropriateness of veterinary care-nor are they trained to do so.
Next time: Part 2; Public Safety and Low Risk encounters.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
UK Seminar April 2013-Come On Over!
Talk about a great way to spend part of my Spring! On April 8th and 9th, 2013, I will have the distinct pleasure of going to England and giving a two-day seminar in Cambridgeshire outside Huntingdon at Wood Green, a facility run by and serving The Animals Charity in the UK. The seminar is being hosted by Dog Psyche UK-the direct link is here: http://dogpsyche.webs.com/jim-crosby-seminar-2
Although a general outline of the seminar is on the link, I have been asked for more details. Is this going to be worthwhile? (Geez, I hope so!). What can I learn? And honestly, who in the world is Jim Crosby to be telling me what to do?
Well, let's address the last question first. I am not coming to England to tell anyone what to do-nor am I going to tell anyone that they are "doing it wrong". To do either of these would require an enormous amount of arrogance. It is not my place to tell anyone what to do or how to do their job. It is not my place to tell anyone they are right or wrong. More to the point, I do not have the secret key, "The Way" to do anything, be it dog training, case investigation, evidence evaluation, or anything else. I don't have a secret stance, or mystical merging of energy, or any other drivel.
What I do have is experience in a specific field that I want to share with people; trainers, Police Officers, behaviorists, Animal Control personnel, rescues, SPCA staff, volunteers, owners, and anyone else who wants to listen. My experience involves encounters with dogs that are both normal and extraordinary. I have dealt with dogs that have been well behaved; poorly socialized and frightened; friendly and exuberant; and who have killed humans. Dogs that have presented some unique challenges and have led me to learn new skills, and sharpen and adapt those I already had to new uses.
So what is the course, and what can one learn by coming? The seminar revolves around serious and fatal dog-human interactions, but the tools and skills we will discuss are applicable across a much wider arena.
I'm not going to spill all the beans here (after all, if I did that then there would be no reason for me to come and I would miss a super trip) but let me skim over a few topics.
First off, we are going to talk about aggression in dogs. Is aggression bad? What is aggression and why is it here? What are the uses of aggression, and should your dog have any?
What about biting? What happens to make a dog bite? We are going to discuss the reasons a dog bites, how and why a bite makes sense to a dog, and how we can work with our dogs and other humans to reduce bites. We will talk about quanitfying dog bites, and using classification to impute intent.
We will talk long and deeply about communication. Dog communication, human communication, and how those two can conflict. Can we learn to speak dog? Do we need to have a certain "energy"?
As we work through communication we will also dip into behavioral science. What is behavior, what affects it, and how do we change it? Is behavior cast in stone or can even long term behaviors be changed? How can a dog's past history and experience, even its diet and living conditions, affect behavior?
We are going to then put these blocks together and discuss working with and evaluating dogs that seem to be at risk for dangerous behavior. We will talk about negotiation-and I don't mean negotiating with a solicitor or your local Council: I mean negotiating with a dog. Yes, I negotiate with dogs, especially with dogs that have serious behavior issues. How else could I get a useful, specific and valid evauation of a dog involved in an incident-just watch them through the kennel door? Not me-I feel it is important to be able to establish, even briefly, a negotiated relationship with such an animal based on mutual trust and respect. No threat of force here-these dogs can do serious damage. And my mistake in such a situation may not only result in my injury, but may sign a death warrant for the dog. We need to both come out alive and safe.
While we are talking about evaluation we are going to delve deeper into just that-the uses, abuses, and limitations of behavioral evaluation. What can they tell us, and should a behavior evaluation be the live-or-die test for a dog? How can we then take what we learn in the evaluation(s) and use that information to make recommendations or develop treatment protocols for the dog?
About there we will break for the day. We will probably have the opportunity to get together over a meal and bat around ideas from the day, and maybe tell a few war stories. Share of bit of those "well, the dog I saw was sooooo bad..."
The next day we will jump into investigations and how they can be approached by Police Officers, Animal Control Officer, trainers and behaviorists, and anyone else who is affected by a dog-related case. Not that Police and Animal Control Officers don't know how to investigate-but I have learned a few things from trial and error, and from others, that can help make an investigation even more productive. Dog cases, especially dog related fatalities, contain factors that other cases don't, not limited to the idea that the weapon (dog) is a semi-independant, thinking being with their own agenda and outlook on the world. Fatal dog attacks are homicides-specialized homicides-and have distinct issues that need to be considered.
We will talk evidence. Specific, dog-related evidence. We will talk-and view-crime scenes. We will go over cases I have worked and see the nitty gritty details. We will put evidence, behavioral science, and evaluation together to build a picture of the incident-what really happened and perhaps even why. We will discuss the potential role of the trainer or behaviorist in helping Police intepret events and place cause where it belongs. We will discuss blame versus responsibility and the need to assign responsibility properly. We will talk about other crimes, both revealed by the incident and perhaps crimes the perpetrator(s) are using the dog incident to conceal.
And by the end of the day we will discuss the nature of Dangerous Dogs, the classification of dogs as Dangerous, and varying points and attitudes towards breed regulation. Are the laws we have achieving what we want, or can we augment or adapt those laws to get better results with less effort? What does the public deserve, and what do the dogs deserve? What is the science behind appearence and behavior, and how interrelated are they?
After all that I will certainly be worn out-and I hope that each person attending will have both received and contributed to the topics. I intend this to be a highly interactive seminar. I want those attending to share information, share contact information, and share their outlook on the overall issues behind dogs and public safety to develop stronger working relationships. I hope that I will have been able to shed a small light into some murky corners, while taking back my share of learning from the attendees.
Where is this held again?
Wood Green, The Animals Charity
King's Bush Farm
London Road
Godmanchester
Cambridgeshire
PE29 2NH
(I just love English addresses. Ours are so boring. Imagine having a house with a name!)
Please join me, and hopefully a host of others, at Wood Green April 8th and 9th. Let's talk dogs.
Although a general outline of the seminar is on the link, I have been asked for more details. Is this going to be worthwhile? (Geez, I hope so!). What can I learn? And honestly, who in the world is Jim Crosby to be telling me what to do?
Well, let's address the last question first. I am not coming to England to tell anyone what to do-nor am I going to tell anyone that they are "doing it wrong". To do either of these would require an enormous amount of arrogance. It is not my place to tell anyone what to do or how to do their job. It is not my place to tell anyone they are right or wrong. More to the point, I do not have the secret key, "The Way" to do anything, be it dog training, case investigation, evidence evaluation, or anything else. I don't have a secret stance, or mystical merging of energy, or any other drivel.
What I do have is experience in a specific field that I want to share with people; trainers, Police Officers, behaviorists, Animal Control personnel, rescues, SPCA staff, volunteers, owners, and anyone else who wants to listen. My experience involves encounters with dogs that are both normal and extraordinary. I have dealt with dogs that have been well behaved; poorly socialized and frightened; friendly and exuberant; and who have killed humans. Dogs that have presented some unique challenges and have led me to learn new skills, and sharpen and adapt those I already had to new uses.
So what is the course, and what can one learn by coming? The seminar revolves around serious and fatal dog-human interactions, but the tools and skills we will discuss are applicable across a much wider arena.
I'm not going to spill all the beans here (after all, if I did that then there would be no reason for me to come and I would miss a super trip) but let me skim over a few topics.
First off, we are going to talk about aggression in dogs. Is aggression bad? What is aggression and why is it here? What are the uses of aggression, and should your dog have any?
What about biting? What happens to make a dog bite? We are going to discuss the reasons a dog bites, how and why a bite makes sense to a dog, and how we can work with our dogs and other humans to reduce bites. We will talk about quanitfying dog bites, and using classification to impute intent.
We will talk long and deeply about communication. Dog communication, human communication, and how those two can conflict. Can we learn to speak dog? Do we need to have a certain "energy"?
As we work through communication we will also dip into behavioral science. What is behavior, what affects it, and how do we change it? Is behavior cast in stone or can even long term behaviors be changed? How can a dog's past history and experience, even its diet and living conditions, affect behavior?
We are going to then put these blocks together and discuss working with and evaluating dogs that seem to be at risk for dangerous behavior. We will talk about negotiation-and I don't mean negotiating with a solicitor or your local Council: I mean negotiating with a dog. Yes, I negotiate with dogs, especially with dogs that have serious behavior issues. How else could I get a useful, specific and valid evauation of a dog involved in an incident-just watch them through the kennel door? Not me-I feel it is important to be able to establish, even briefly, a negotiated relationship with such an animal based on mutual trust and respect. No threat of force here-these dogs can do serious damage. And my mistake in such a situation may not only result in my injury, but may sign a death warrant for the dog. We need to both come out alive and safe.
While we are talking about evaluation we are going to delve deeper into just that-the uses, abuses, and limitations of behavioral evaluation. What can they tell us, and should a behavior evaluation be the live-or-die test for a dog? How can we then take what we learn in the evaluation(s) and use that information to make recommendations or develop treatment protocols for the dog?
About there we will break for the day. We will probably have the opportunity to get together over a meal and bat around ideas from the day, and maybe tell a few war stories. Share of bit of those "well, the dog I saw was sooooo bad..."
The next day we will jump into investigations and how they can be approached by Police Officers, Animal Control Officer, trainers and behaviorists, and anyone else who is affected by a dog-related case. Not that Police and Animal Control Officers don't know how to investigate-but I have learned a few things from trial and error, and from others, that can help make an investigation even more productive. Dog cases, especially dog related fatalities, contain factors that other cases don't, not limited to the idea that the weapon (dog) is a semi-independant, thinking being with their own agenda and outlook on the world. Fatal dog attacks are homicides-specialized homicides-and have distinct issues that need to be considered.
We will talk evidence. Specific, dog-related evidence. We will talk-and view-crime scenes. We will go over cases I have worked and see the nitty gritty details. We will put evidence, behavioral science, and evaluation together to build a picture of the incident-what really happened and perhaps even why. We will discuss the potential role of the trainer or behaviorist in helping Police intepret events and place cause where it belongs. We will discuss blame versus responsibility and the need to assign responsibility properly. We will talk about other crimes, both revealed by the incident and perhaps crimes the perpetrator(s) are using the dog incident to conceal.
And by the end of the day we will discuss the nature of Dangerous Dogs, the classification of dogs as Dangerous, and varying points and attitudes towards breed regulation. Are the laws we have achieving what we want, or can we augment or adapt those laws to get better results with less effort? What does the public deserve, and what do the dogs deserve? What is the science behind appearence and behavior, and how interrelated are they?
After all that I will certainly be worn out-and I hope that each person attending will have both received and contributed to the topics. I intend this to be a highly interactive seminar. I want those attending to share information, share contact information, and share their outlook on the overall issues behind dogs and public safety to develop stronger working relationships. I hope that I will have been able to shed a small light into some murky corners, while taking back my share of learning from the attendees.
Where is this held again?
Wood Green, The Animals Charity
King's Bush Farm
London Road
Godmanchester
Cambridgeshire
PE29 2NH
(I just love English addresses. Ours are so boring. Imagine having a house with a name!)
Please join me, and hopefully a host of others, at Wood Green April 8th and 9th. Let's talk dogs.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
An interesting case in California
I saw this case back a few months ago when it first surfaced. The basic story was that a San Francisco Police Department Mounted Officer was on his horse in a designated off-lead dog park when a dog attacked the horse. There was a hue and cry that the Officer was at fault for being in the dog area on a horse and that the dog probably reacted out of fear. Several folks commented that this was a case of breed assumptions and discrimination since the dog has been identified as an American Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Today a summary of the investigation by the SFPD was released and it shows a few more telling details that make the case less a matter of discrimination and more a problem with an irresponsible owner, and a dog that had unaddressed issues.
First the summary of details from SFPD:
The Officer was in the off-leash area on horseback, but was allegedly 200 feet from the dog and owner when the incident began.
The dog saw the horseback Officer and targeted the horse from that distance. The horse was not approaching the dog.
The dog closed the distance and bit the Officer on his booted leg. The Officer told the owner to take control of his dog-and the owner allegedly failed to do so.
The dog then began biting the horse, which panicked and threw the rider.
The horse ran away. The dog pursued, reengaging the horse three more times; once at the stable, once in a separate area, and again a third time near an intersection where a motorcycle Officer was able to intervene.
The dog did not just bite at the horse's hooves and lower legs-the dog attacked upwards at the horse's abdomen and cause significant bites there.
The SFPD concluded that the dog had actively pursued the horse rather than reacting in fear, and that the dog was dangerous.
With this listing of factors, I have to agree. Based on this set of factors-and understand, I was neither there nor have I reviewed the reports, etc.-I have to note some disturbing issues here.
1) Whether the mounted Officer was supposed to be in the off-leash area on horseback is unknown. The dog seems to have initiated the contact.
2) The owner was never able to get his dog under control.
3) The dog not only made first contact, but pursued the horse and reengaged the horse repeatedly. This is not a fear reaction-this is pursuit of a prey target.
4) The dog did not just bite the closest target (the horse's feet). The dog appears to have deliberately targeted the horse's abdomen, behavior consistent with the typical canine predatory motor sequence. In other words, this particular dog acted in a species appropriate manner consistent with killing a larger prey animal.
So much as I hate to see any dog labelled dangerous, the behavior of the dog in this case, regardless of type or breed, makes this dog a threat. And ultimate responsibility here rests with the owner: had the owner simply had a reliable off-leash recall, none of this could have happened. Once again, the human failed the dog.
Here is the media report from Examiner.com:
www.examiner.com/article/sfpd-release-statement-on-vicious-dog-attack-presidio
Today a summary of the investigation by the SFPD was released and it shows a few more telling details that make the case less a matter of discrimination and more a problem with an irresponsible owner, and a dog that had unaddressed issues.
First the summary of details from SFPD:
The Officer was in the off-leash area on horseback, but was allegedly 200 feet from the dog and owner when the incident began.
The dog saw the horseback Officer and targeted the horse from that distance. The horse was not approaching the dog.
The dog closed the distance and bit the Officer on his booted leg. The Officer told the owner to take control of his dog-and the owner allegedly failed to do so.
The dog then began biting the horse, which panicked and threw the rider.
The horse ran away. The dog pursued, reengaging the horse three more times; once at the stable, once in a separate area, and again a third time near an intersection where a motorcycle Officer was able to intervene.
The dog did not just bite at the horse's hooves and lower legs-the dog attacked upwards at the horse's abdomen and cause significant bites there.
The SFPD concluded that the dog had actively pursued the horse rather than reacting in fear, and that the dog was dangerous.
With this listing of factors, I have to agree. Based on this set of factors-and understand, I was neither there nor have I reviewed the reports, etc.-I have to note some disturbing issues here.
1) Whether the mounted Officer was supposed to be in the off-leash area on horseback is unknown. The dog seems to have initiated the contact.
2) The owner was never able to get his dog under control.
3) The dog not only made first contact, but pursued the horse and reengaged the horse repeatedly. This is not a fear reaction-this is pursuit of a prey target.
4) The dog did not just bite the closest target (the horse's feet). The dog appears to have deliberately targeted the horse's abdomen, behavior consistent with the typical canine predatory motor sequence. In other words, this particular dog acted in a species appropriate manner consistent with killing a larger prey animal.
So much as I hate to see any dog labelled dangerous, the behavior of the dog in this case, regardless of type or breed, makes this dog a threat. And ultimate responsibility here rests with the owner: had the owner simply had a reliable off-leash recall, none of this could have happened. Once again, the human failed the dog.
Here is the media report from Examiner.com:
www.examiner.com/article/sfpd-release-statement-on-vicious-dog-attack-presidio
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
US Overview of attacks for 2012-early edition
Although this is a little early to try and wrap up the year (and I will have a final tally after 12/31....but we can always hope that nothing happens through the holidays) I thought I would go over the dog bite related fatalities for 2012 and some of the numbers that break out.
The total as of today, 4 December, is thirty one (31) human deaths due to dog bite related injuries. That does not include one reported death, that of a Postal Worker bitten by a dog in Ohio, because that death was due to a heart attack a number of days after the victim was treated and released from the hospital. Now, I do sympathize with the victim and his family, and do see that the attack may have contributed to the overall stress on the victim, but until a Medical Examinaer rules that the proximate cause of death was due to dog attack then we will have to leave this particular tragedy chalked up to heart disease, a disease that affects far too many of us.
But back to dogs and humans. Of the total of 31 human fatalities, 14 were adults. Of those 14 adults, nine were aged 59 and over. The youngest adult that died of dog related injuries was 23.
Seventeen children were killed in dog bite related incidents in 2012. Of the 17, ALL of them were aged six or under. Only three were over the age of two-there was a single six year old and two four year olds.
Of dogs involved, there were 14 different breeds or identified breed mixes. The included the following:
Pit Bull type dogs
German Shepherd
Husky
Rottweiler
Golden Retriever
Labrador Retriever
Mastiff
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Alapaha Blueblood Bulldog
American Bulldog
Presa Canario
Hound mix
Cane Corso
There were sevveral dogs that were unidentified: in one case the injuries were caused by a mixed pack of loose, feral dogs. In one case, still under investigation, the dog is unidentified so far.
The dogs involved have been identified as from a scattering of backgrounds. Eighteen dogs were described as family dogs. Six dogs belonged to neighbors. In one case the dogs were a pack of feral dogs, and in one case the dog is still undetermined (although the primary current suspect is a neighbor's dog). One dog was known to be an unowned stray, and one dog was a resident dog-living on the property, tossed food from time to time, but not integrated into the family. In three cases, shocking as it is, the dog(s) involved were dogs taken in by Rescuers. In the one case I am directly familiar with the Rescuer knew about the prior aggressive behavior of the dog and appears to have let their heart override their head, taking on a dog that was too much for them. The other cases seem to also be well intentioned people who got in over their skill level, which is why I am very wary when I hear about folks that are trying to "rescue" dogs that have previously shown clear human focused aggression. I have worked with my share, but there are dogs that even I won't take.
So what does this tell us?
First off, it's KIDS, KIDS, KIDS! Infants particulary. As I have stressed in the past, too many of these are tragic but preventable accidents. Little children should NOT be left unsupervised with a dog, PERIOD. And that includes small dogs-the most recent fatality in the UK was an eight day old infant killed by a Jack Russell Terrier. We have had our own cases of small dogs killing infants, cases that also include Jack Russells, Dachshunds, Beagles, and a Pomeranian.
Next, no surprise, is older folks. Not to be mean here, as I am approaching the potential risk group myself-slowly-but those around 60 and over have a tough time weathering a serious injury, dog related or not. Older folks are too often health compromised by any number of first-world problems here in the US, problems like heart issues, physical disabilities, increased vulnerability to injury and, due to longer lives, a larger likelihood of being physically unable to fight off a determined animal.
Who owns the dogs? Usually, according to the numbers, the family of the person killed. Next up is a close neighbor. That relates directly to the number of children killed, since the family dog or the neighbor's dog are the two most likely dogs a child will encounter, especially an infant. Dogs belonging to grandparents or other family not living with the child full time are the most likely of the family dogs to have a negative encounter, whether a full fatality or a simple dog bite. This usually indicates a lack of frequent social contact between the dog and the particular child, coupled with a relaxation of supervision because the dog is seen as part of the family.
The stray factor? Only one case involved known strays, the case of the roaming pack of feral dogs. These attacks are really rare, so if you are not bitten by your own dog or your neighbor's dog you arre pretty much in the clear. The idea of free-roaming killer strays is just not supported by the data.
The takeaway from this recap?
1) SUPERVISE YOUR DOGS AND KIDS.
2) Your family dog is the most likely threat-and a threat you can do something about. If your family pet shows aggressive behavior, especially if children are around, seek professional help. Solve the problem before it solves your childcare issues.
3) There IS NO PARTICULAR KILLER DOG. Any dog that has teeth can be a problem. The issue is behavior, not breed.
4) With 31 deaths out of a US population of 300 million, dogs arre still safer than cars, boats, baloons and bathtubs. Don't freak out.
And Rescuers, remember: Rescue and Rehabilitation is not a contest, or a proving ground for "bravery". Don't let your heart override your skills. There are too many dogs to save to take a risk on a dog that is a clear danger you are unprepared for. Scars are not medals. Caution is not a sign of weakness.
The total as of today, 4 December, is thirty one (31) human deaths due to dog bite related injuries. That does not include one reported death, that of a Postal Worker bitten by a dog in Ohio, because that death was due to a heart attack a number of days after the victim was treated and released from the hospital. Now, I do sympathize with the victim and his family, and do see that the attack may have contributed to the overall stress on the victim, but until a Medical Examinaer rules that the proximate cause of death was due to dog attack then we will have to leave this particular tragedy chalked up to heart disease, a disease that affects far too many of us.
But back to dogs and humans. Of the total of 31 human fatalities, 14 were adults. Of those 14 adults, nine were aged 59 and over. The youngest adult that died of dog related injuries was 23.
Seventeen children were killed in dog bite related incidents in 2012. Of the 17, ALL of them were aged six or under. Only three were over the age of two-there was a single six year old and two four year olds.
Of dogs involved, there were 14 different breeds or identified breed mixes. The included the following:
Pit Bull type dogs
German Shepherd
Husky
Rottweiler
Golden Retriever
Labrador Retriever
Mastiff
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Alapaha Blueblood Bulldog
American Bulldog
Presa Canario
Hound mix
Cane Corso
There were sevveral dogs that were unidentified: in one case the injuries were caused by a mixed pack of loose, feral dogs. In one case, still under investigation, the dog is unidentified so far.
The dogs involved have been identified as from a scattering of backgrounds. Eighteen dogs were described as family dogs. Six dogs belonged to neighbors. In one case the dogs were a pack of feral dogs, and in one case the dog is still undetermined (although the primary current suspect is a neighbor's dog). One dog was known to be an unowned stray, and one dog was a resident dog-living on the property, tossed food from time to time, but not integrated into the family. In three cases, shocking as it is, the dog(s) involved were dogs taken in by Rescuers. In the one case I am directly familiar with the Rescuer knew about the prior aggressive behavior of the dog and appears to have let their heart override their head, taking on a dog that was too much for them. The other cases seem to also be well intentioned people who got in over their skill level, which is why I am very wary when I hear about folks that are trying to "rescue" dogs that have previously shown clear human focused aggression. I have worked with my share, but there are dogs that even I won't take.
So what does this tell us?
First off, it's KIDS, KIDS, KIDS! Infants particulary. As I have stressed in the past, too many of these are tragic but preventable accidents. Little children should NOT be left unsupervised with a dog, PERIOD. And that includes small dogs-the most recent fatality in the UK was an eight day old infant killed by a Jack Russell Terrier. We have had our own cases of small dogs killing infants, cases that also include Jack Russells, Dachshunds, Beagles, and a Pomeranian.
Next, no surprise, is older folks. Not to be mean here, as I am approaching the potential risk group myself-slowly-but those around 60 and over have a tough time weathering a serious injury, dog related or not. Older folks are too often health compromised by any number of first-world problems here in the US, problems like heart issues, physical disabilities, increased vulnerability to injury and, due to longer lives, a larger likelihood of being physically unable to fight off a determined animal.
Who owns the dogs? Usually, according to the numbers, the family of the person killed. Next up is a close neighbor. That relates directly to the number of children killed, since the family dog or the neighbor's dog are the two most likely dogs a child will encounter, especially an infant. Dogs belonging to grandparents or other family not living with the child full time are the most likely of the family dogs to have a negative encounter, whether a full fatality or a simple dog bite. This usually indicates a lack of frequent social contact between the dog and the particular child, coupled with a relaxation of supervision because the dog is seen as part of the family.
The stray factor? Only one case involved known strays, the case of the roaming pack of feral dogs. These attacks are really rare, so if you are not bitten by your own dog or your neighbor's dog you arre pretty much in the clear. The idea of free-roaming killer strays is just not supported by the data.
The takeaway from this recap?
1) SUPERVISE YOUR DOGS AND KIDS.
2) Your family dog is the most likely threat-and a threat you can do something about. If your family pet shows aggressive behavior, especially if children are around, seek professional help. Solve the problem before it solves your childcare issues.
3) There IS NO PARTICULAR KILLER DOG. Any dog that has teeth can be a problem. The issue is behavior, not breed.
4) With 31 deaths out of a US population of 300 million, dogs arre still safer than cars, boats, baloons and bathtubs. Don't freak out.
And Rescuers, remember: Rescue and Rehabilitation is not a contest, or a proving ground for "bravery". Don't let your heart override your skills. There are too many dogs to save to take a risk on a dog that is a clear danger you are unprepared for. Scars are not medals. Caution is not a sign of weakness.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Public Education and Owner Retention
Today I was going through some old stored documents for a friend since we were talking about the possibility of setting up a community outreach program here in Jacksonville. I had put together a program, one I sent in to our local Animal Control Division, way back in the "olden days" (yes, to the kids now 2004 is way back...)
This program was strongly based in three areas: First, pre-ownership education. We need to be able to get information out to prospective pet owners as to their responsibilities and the value of their anticipated pets before they commit to adding a family member. This would prepare new owners (or those to whom their past pets are only fond, kind of fuzzy, warm memories) for the good, and bad, of taking in a new pet.
Second, I felt that providing owner retention resources, such as training, advice, and pre-panic guidance for current pet owners was essential. The three largest causes of pet death are still housetrainng, barking, and chewing, as observed so clearly by Dr. Ian Dunbar way back then. These three behaviors are the top real reasons for surrrendering pets to shelters, regardless of the often creative excuses given.
Thid, I felt (and still do) that owners of problem pets should be required to pursue training for their dogs and themselves (no offense to cat people, but you guys are rarely possessors of dangerous or nuisance animals) in order to meet the requirements of local ordinance violations. This gives us a lever to bring offenders back into the fold of responsible pet owners instead of just nagging them with fines and criticism. We can take this opportunity to not only correct bad behavior, but to help instill good behavior and habits in that segment of the population that is most in need.
So here is my modest proposal for education, owner retention, and remedial training for recalcatrant owners. Not bad for 2004.
Enjoy.
Public Education Proposal
Responsible Pet Owner Education Program for the City of Jacksonville
Program and proposal copyright 2004 James W. Crosby
Overview of Public Education Plan
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this proposed plan is to:
1. Reduce the number of pets surrendered to or seized by Jacksonville Animal Care and Control (ACC).
2. Reduce the number of pets euthanized by ACC by increasing adoptions.
3. Improve the general quality of life for pets in the City of Jacksonville.
4. Improve the quality of life for the citizens of Jacksonville by reducing pet-related nuisance problems such as barking, animals at large, and waste disposal.
5. Improve the safety and health of the citizens of Jacksonville by taking proactive steps to reduce threats caused by dangerous animals and dog bites.
Goals of the program
Education of prospective pet owners and future pet owning families before they commit to the ownership of a pet.
Assistance for prospective pet owners and adopters in choosing an appropriately matched pet.
Pro-active training assistance for new pet owners and adopters to reduce the likelihood of adopted pet return or entry of the pet into the Rescue/Shelter system.
Increasing the adoptability of shelter dogs through in-house training, socialization, and behavioral assessment.
Educate owners of problem and dangerous dogs to reduce future bites.
1. Educating the public before they get a pet
People like pets. Studies have shown the benefits of pet ownership are great, ranging from reduced blood pressure and anxiety to longer life spans and greater satisfaction in life in general. But too many people jump into pet ownership without adequate preparation. We have learned through time that responsible pet ownership is not something that people “just know”. Dated information, incomplete information, and simply bad information affect the quality of life for many pets and their owners. Results of such bad information range from pet overpopulation to pet abuse, abandonment and dumping on shelters. Mismatching of breeds to families also results in pet abandonment, surrender and mistreatment. The most common reasons for pet surrender, though, are training issues such as barking, housetraining, jumping up, etc. Educating the consumer before they make a long-term commitment to a pet is the key to reducing surrenders and mismatching.
Part one of this program aims to educate prospective pet owners before commitment to a pet. The proposed City of Jacksonville/ACC Public Education Program will;
• Offer free seminars for prospective pet owners through Community Centers, Libraries, and other City facilities. These seminars will be staffed with volunteer presenters recruited through the local Rescue network and area dog and cat clubs with guidance and support from ACC. A Community Lecture Series could cover specific topics such as “Bringing home a new pet” and “Choosing the right breed for your family.”
o Center for Disease Control statistics show that low-income and minority residents are more likely to suffer from dog bite and less likely to report a bite incident. Similarly, low-income areas suffer from greater numbers of at-large and stray animals. Community seminars in these areas can be coupled with aggressive low-cost spay and neuter programs and efforts to control and reduce strays, along with aggressive bite reduction education.
• Teach Responsible Pet Ownership through Public Schools. ACC Education personnel and volunteers can combine forces to present educational programs in schools and begin responsible ownership education early. Live demonstrations coupled with lecture and question/answer session geared to the age level of the students make such a program lively and interesting.
o Elementary School-The program will concentrate heavily on bite prevention. According to CDC figures, dog bite injuries rank third only to bicycle and baseball/softball injuries as the leading cause of emergency admissions of children to hospitals. The audience of greatest risk is children grades kindergarten through 4. These children would be taught through adapting such programs as the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton (Canada) “Dog Buddies” program that features their “Know! Slow! Freeze!” series of instructional pictures and directions.
o Middle School-At this level bite prevention will still be primary, but added information addressing the humane treatment of pets, responsible pet ownership, introduction to the need for and methods of humane training and rudimentary introduction to the need for spay and neuter of pets will be added.
o High School-In our High Schools bite prevention education will still be included, but more emphasis will be made on issues of responsible ownership and care, spay/neuter and responsible breeding, and humane training methods. Additionally, legal responsibilities of pet ownership will be introduced to this nearly-adult audience, accompanied by legal and ethical issues revolving around dangerous and aggressive dogs.
• Sponsor other school-based education efforts. With the ease of technical production and reduced costs of technology today, CD/DVD presentations and video tapes can be provided to schools to integrate into their curriculum on such specific topics as bite prevention. Many outreach programs are available for dissemination through the support of organizations such as the American Kennel Club. Many of these programs are season-specific, such as summer safety, National Dog Bite Awareness Week, and various events such as Humane Society and ACC Pet Expos, etc.
According to Dr. Ian Dunbar, DVM, founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers and author of numerous training books, the three main causes for the death of pet dogs are…housetraining, barking, and chewing. These three problems lead to the surrender and eventual euthanasia of more dogs than are claimed each year by injury or disease. The great tragedy here is that all of these causes can be eliminated through education.
2. Educating existing pet owners
Most pet owners are well intentioned. They mean to provide good homes, mean to take adequate care of their animals, mean to keep them under control-but responsible pet ownership is not something that “just happens”. Even those who have owned pets for years may have significant gaps in their experience, gaps that become evident when problems crop up. For instance, a well meaning owner that allows his dog to jump up and “give them kisses” may not realize that they are setting themselves up for a potentially serious bite incident. Someone who tolerated their dog barking before neighbors moved close suddenly faces Ordinance violations. Or perhaps an owner that mistakenly thinks his or her dog should be “mean” to guard their home must then cope with the tragedy of a dangerous dog attack.
Educating existing pet owners and providing “safety nets” of training and behavior advice is the second focus of this proposed program. Steps taken to help current pet owners cope with problems and treat their pets better will inevitable reduce the number of those pets that enter the Rescue/Shelter system. Education cannot prevent unexpected life changes such as sickness, job or family status changes, but the “Big Three” causes-housetraining, chewing and barking-can be addressed successfully, even for those owners already in crisis.
Proactive and reactive strategies addressing current pet owners are in order. Proactive methods will include the following:
Proactive strategies:
• Attracting current pet owners to free training lectures offered through the Community Centers and Libraries. Although some of these seminars will be targeting new owners, issues of concern to existing owners will be offered. Seminars will include such topics as “Behavior Problems and Solutions”, “What Do The Pet Ordinances Really Mean”, “Principles of Humane Dog Training” and “Introducing A New Dog Into Your Home.”
• Include current pet owners in adoption support efforts such as “Adopters Anonymous” (detailed in section 3). Provide telephone and/or e-mail support for owners with behavior questions.
• Provide guidance and advice to owners seeking to voluntarily comply with local pet ordinances by offering constructive facility inspections.
• Offer owners a voluntary evaluation of their pet with recommendations for appropriate training or management.
Reactive strategies will include:
• Post-citation training classes for owners of pets cited under local ordinance. These owners could be offered the alternative of successfully completing approved training classes in lieu of paying full fines for cited offences. For example, an owner cited for allowing an animal to run free could elect to attend a series of training classes, at their expense, and pay one-half of the standard fine. In this way, not only is the owner corrected for their misconduct, but a mechanism is put in place likely to reduce the chance of further, escalating violations. This system is already in place in such areas as driver safety training and domestic violence intervention.
A trained dog isn’t that difficult to achieve. It only takes ten minutes…every day, for the rest of the dog’s life!
3. Support for adoptive pet families after adoption.
Our happiest cases are those wherein the new family and the adopted pet immediately bond and live happily ever after. The cold reality of shelter work, however, is that many shelter animals carry baggage from their past placements, or lack thereof, and those animals and their families need help. Outside training classes are great, but not all families know where to find competent training, especially if their adopted pet has specialized problems such as past abuse or under-socialization. ACC should take the lead in adoptive situations by providing an introduction to basic manners and obedience training with all adoptions. Each adoptive family could, for instance, be given a certificate allowing them four free classes, either offered by trainers donating their time or through in-house classes offered by ACC. These classes would help inform the new owners how to teach their dog, how to handle common behavior problems in a humane and efficient manner, and how to address any special needs of adopted shelter animals.
Rescue groups, particularly breed-specific Rescue groups, can provide substantial help in this effort. Breed specific groups have a base of experience particular to the problems of the chosen breed. This experience should be placed at the disposal of the pet owning public by referral to cooperating groups.
Specific support measures for adoptive families will include:
• Post adoption basic obedience classes offered by ACC. Classes can be offered on-site at the main ACC facility and at satellite adoption centers. A series of two to four introductory classes should be offered, with further classes available at a reasonable cost. Adopters could be referred to programs such as the Jacksonville Humane Society’s Pet University where such programs would give first classes free when shown proof of recent adoption.
• A behavior problem referral and support service provided by ACC. This may take the form of a call-in hotline or actual meetings. The Open Paw program in California has established “Adopters Anonymous”, a forum where pet adopters “get free advice from trainers and counselors so that prospective owners can learn how to teach their pets good habits from the start, while current owners can learn how to retrain pets with bad habits.”
Statistically, fully fifty percent of all children will suffer a dog bite sometime before they graduate from High School. According to the Center for Disease Control, over five million Americans are bitten by dogs each year. Injury rates are highest among children aged 5-9 years. Each year an average of twenty six people die from dog bites.
4. In-house training initiatives to increase adoptability.
Animals in shelter environments often become “de-trained” with time. Animals may lose housebreaking and socialization to people and other animals, and may actually become fearful or anxious because they are forced to eliminate in their kennels and their social interactions between other animals and humans are limited or intimidating. In California, the San Francisco SPCA, working with Dr. Ian Dunbar, founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, have developed a protocol for working with shelter animals called Open Paw. The Open Paw program has established practices for shelter personnel, combined with design and management techniques, that aim to increase the socialization of shelter animals, provide humanizing influences, and begin basic manners-based training to pets prior to adoption, making those animals more attractive to potential adoptive families.
These techniques can be combined with the advanced behavioral assessment techniques and an assessment plan that aids shelter workers in safe management of shelter animals with an eye to increasing adoptions and reducing returns through effective evaluation of potential problems before the animal is ever released for placement.
Some of the techniques used, for example, at the Berkeley East Humane Society in Berkeley, California as part of their Open Paw program are:
• Hand feeding of shelter dogs. This makes the dogs friendlier, calmer and happier when approached by people in the shelter. Using food treats the dogs learn traits more acceptable to potential adopters.
• Kongs! This part of the program uses toys stuffed with kibble that help calm the dogs at the end of the day.
• Catopia. This is a dedicated, toy-filled cage free room for cats. Cats are rotated through Catopia for play, exercise and socialization.
• Daily dog walks. Dogs in shelter runs have to eliminate in the same space they sleep and eat in, potentially damaging any housetraining they already have. Multiple daily walks for all shelter dogs allows already trained dogs to maintain their housetraining, while staff can easily identify those animals needing remedial housetraining.
“Open Paw is designed to address those issues through the education of prospective and existing owners, and through the promotion of minimum mental health guidelines for shelter animals."
5. Remedial training for dogs involved in bites and control measures for dangerous dogs.
Dangerous and aggressive dogs are a growing problem across the United States. An average of twenty six people are killed each year in dog attacks. Recent studies show that there is no single factor universal to all attacks. Unneutered male dogs are the most common offenders, but a great range of breeds of dog have been involved in such attacks. Seventy six percent of the victims of fatal dog attacks are children, according to the CDC.
Those persons wishing to retain dogs classified as dangerous are required under the law to provide well defined measures for the secure containment of those animals. Management standards are in place detailing the handling of such animals in public and on private property. A provision not currently in place in Jacksonville is a public education component of the dangerous dog provisions.
In the 2001 report of the CDC Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, published in the June 1 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Association (Vol. 218, number 11, June 1, 2001) the following section appears in Appendix 4, “Model legislation for the identification and regulation of ‘dangerous’ dogs.”:
• “Attendance by the dog and its owner/custodian at training sessions conducted by a certified applied animal behaviorist, board certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert in the field and completion of training or any other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert. The owners of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associated with the evaluation and training ordered under this section.”
This remedial training would involve a projected series of four (4) two hour classes followed by six (6) one-hour classes, for a total of fourteen (14) hours of instruction. Attendance at three of the four two-hour blocks, and four of the six one-hour blocks would be required for successful completion. The two-hour blocks would involve one hour of classroom instruction, followed by one hour of hands-on dog work. The classroom blocks would cover topics including:
• Requirements of the ordinance-“How did I get here?”
• Dynamics of dog attacks.
• Foundations of aggressive canine behavior.
• Use of physical management tools such as fitting required collars and muzzles and proper use of leads and leashes.
• Humane correction versus improper punishment.
• Safe containment at home-runs, yards and kennels.
• Liability for owners of dangerous dogs and legal consequences of further aggressive incidents.
The hands-on blocks of training would cover basic control and obedience: sit, stay, heel, down, come when called, no jumping (proper greeting behavior), etc. This pairing of classroom and hands on will ensure that each owner is adequately informed as to their responsibility to and for their pet, while assuring that at least a minimum time is actually spent training the dog while supervised by a trainer.
This remedial training class should also be offered, as a voluntary option, to owners of dogs not adjudged dangerous but involved in bite or aggressive incidents that, if allowed to progress unchecked, could result in behavior that could be deemed dangerous under the statute. In these cases the training provides a safety net allowing owners to assume a proactive role in preventing dangerous behavior by their pet.
Seventy percent of fatal dog attacks and more than half of bite wounds requiring medical attention involve children.
6. Funding-the inevitable question.
In City government, the question of funding is always the bottom line. Funding for the start up of a wide-reaching education program such as is proposed here will obviously be substantial. Cost of education, however, must be weighed against the current, sometimes hidden, cost of “business as usual”. To quote the report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions published June, 2001,
“Costs associated with dog bite injuries cannot be readily measured, because so many intangible quality of life issues are involved….Intangible costs include time spent by volunteers and paid community officials on animal-related issues, deterioration of relationships between neighbors, building appropriate medical support, citizens’ concerns about neighborhood safety for children, homeowners’ insurance costs within the community, and animal shelter support for unwanted pets. These are quality of life issues that ultimately determine the desirability of a community to its citizens and that can motivate proactive community officials to institute a prevention program.”
Federal and State grants and support programs are available for such community safety issues. Private donors can also be a substantial source for financial support for such a progressive, proactive program. Likewise, use of volunteers can supplement paid staff in a meaningful way. For instance, for an organization to be recognized by the City as a listed Rescue organization, such a group should be required to provide a specific number of volunteer man-hours to the Public Education Program every month.
However funding is obtained, the commitment of dollars to the health and safety of the community and their pets can only pay off in the future with reduced demands placed on Animal Care and Control.
Most shelter animals and strays are surrendered or abandoned because of predictable behavior, temperament, or training problems. Many problems worsen in the shelter environment. Most problems could easily be prevented or resolved if only pet owners and shelter staff and volunteers knew how. Preventive education is the key to keeping cats and dogs in their original homes, and out of shelters.
Kelly Gorman, “Open Paw”
Program and proposal copyright 2004 James W. Crosby
This program was strongly based in three areas: First, pre-ownership education. We need to be able to get information out to prospective pet owners as to their responsibilities and the value of their anticipated pets before they commit to adding a family member. This would prepare new owners (or those to whom their past pets are only fond, kind of fuzzy, warm memories) for the good, and bad, of taking in a new pet.
Second, I felt that providing owner retention resources, such as training, advice, and pre-panic guidance for current pet owners was essential. The three largest causes of pet death are still housetrainng, barking, and chewing, as observed so clearly by Dr. Ian Dunbar way back then. These three behaviors are the top real reasons for surrrendering pets to shelters, regardless of the often creative excuses given.
Thid, I felt (and still do) that owners of problem pets should be required to pursue training for their dogs and themselves (no offense to cat people, but you guys are rarely possessors of dangerous or nuisance animals) in order to meet the requirements of local ordinance violations. This gives us a lever to bring offenders back into the fold of responsible pet owners instead of just nagging them with fines and criticism. We can take this opportunity to not only correct bad behavior, but to help instill good behavior and habits in that segment of the population that is most in need.
So here is my modest proposal for education, owner retention, and remedial training for recalcatrant owners. Not bad for 2004.
Enjoy.
Public Education Proposal
Responsible Pet Owner Education Program for the City of Jacksonville
Program and proposal copyright 2004 James W. Crosby
Overview of Public Education Plan
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this proposed plan is to:
1. Reduce the number of pets surrendered to or seized by Jacksonville Animal Care and Control (ACC).
2. Reduce the number of pets euthanized by ACC by increasing adoptions.
3. Improve the general quality of life for pets in the City of Jacksonville.
4. Improve the quality of life for the citizens of Jacksonville by reducing pet-related nuisance problems such as barking, animals at large, and waste disposal.
5. Improve the safety and health of the citizens of Jacksonville by taking proactive steps to reduce threats caused by dangerous animals and dog bites.
Goals of the program
Education of prospective pet owners and future pet owning families before they commit to the ownership of a pet.
Assistance for prospective pet owners and adopters in choosing an appropriately matched pet.
Pro-active training assistance for new pet owners and adopters to reduce the likelihood of adopted pet return or entry of the pet into the Rescue/Shelter system.
Increasing the adoptability of shelter dogs through in-house training, socialization, and behavioral assessment.
Educate owners of problem and dangerous dogs to reduce future bites.
1. Educating the public before they get a pet
People like pets. Studies have shown the benefits of pet ownership are great, ranging from reduced blood pressure and anxiety to longer life spans and greater satisfaction in life in general. But too many people jump into pet ownership without adequate preparation. We have learned through time that responsible pet ownership is not something that people “just know”. Dated information, incomplete information, and simply bad information affect the quality of life for many pets and their owners. Results of such bad information range from pet overpopulation to pet abuse, abandonment and dumping on shelters. Mismatching of breeds to families also results in pet abandonment, surrender and mistreatment. The most common reasons for pet surrender, though, are training issues such as barking, housetraining, jumping up, etc. Educating the consumer before they make a long-term commitment to a pet is the key to reducing surrenders and mismatching.
Part one of this program aims to educate prospective pet owners before commitment to a pet. The proposed City of Jacksonville/ACC Public Education Program will;
• Offer free seminars for prospective pet owners through Community Centers, Libraries, and other City facilities. These seminars will be staffed with volunteer presenters recruited through the local Rescue network and area dog and cat clubs with guidance and support from ACC. A Community Lecture Series could cover specific topics such as “Bringing home a new pet” and “Choosing the right breed for your family.”
o Center for Disease Control statistics show that low-income and minority residents are more likely to suffer from dog bite and less likely to report a bite incident. Similarly, low-income areas suffer from greater numbers of at-large and stray animals. Community seminars in these areas can be coupled with aggressive low-cost spay and neuter programs and efforts to control and reduce strays, along with aggressive bite reduction education.
• Teach Responsible Pet Ownership through Public Schools. ACC Education personnel and volunteers can combine forces to present educational programs in schools and begin responsible ownership education early. Live demonstrations coupled with lecture and question/answer session geared to the age level of the students make such a program lively and interesting.
o Elementary School-The program will concentrate heavily on bite prevention. According to CDC figures, dog bite injuries rank third only to bicycle and baseball/softball injuries as the leading cause of emergency admissions of children to hospitals. The audience of greatest risk is children grades kindergarten through 4. These children would be taught through adapting such programs as the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton (Canada) “Dog Buddies” program that features their “Know! Slow! Freeze!” series of instructional pictures and directions.
o Middle School-At this level bite prevention will still be primary, but added information addressing the humane treatment of pets, responsible pet ownership, introduction to the need for and methods of humane training and rudimentary introduction to the need for spay and neuter of pets will be added.
o High School-In our High Schools bite prevention education will still be included, but more emphasis will be made on issues of responsible ownership and care, spay/neuter and responsible breeding, and humane training methods. Additionally, legal responsibilities of pet ownership will be introduced to this nearly-adult audience, accompanied by legal and ethical issues revolving around dangerous and aggressive dogs.
• Sponsor other school-based education efforts. With the ease of technical production and reduced costs of technology today, CD/DVD presentations and video tapes can be provided to schools to integrate into their curriculum on such specific topics as bite prevention. Many outreach programs are available for dissemination through the support of organizations such as the American Kennel Club. Many of these programs are season-specific, such as summer safety, National Dog Bite Awareness Week, and various events such as Humane Society and ACC Pet Expos, etc.
According to Dr. Ian Dunbar, DVM, founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers and author of numerous training books, the three main causes for the death of pet dogs are…housetraining, barking, and chewing. These three problems lead to the surrender and eventual euthanasia of more dogs than are claimed each year by injury or disease. The great tragedy here is that all of these causes can be eliminated through education.
2. Educating existing pet owners
Most pet owners are well intentioned. They mean to provide good homes, mean to take adequate care of their animals, mean to keep them under control-but responsible pet ownership is not something that “just happens”. Even those who have owned pets for years may have significant gaps in their experience, gaps that become evident when problems crop up. For instance, a well meaning owner that allows his dog to jump up and “give them kisses” may not realize that they are setting themselves up for a potentially serious bite incident. Someone who tolerated their dog barking before neighbors moved close suddenly faces Ordinance violations. Or perhaps an owner that mistakenly thinks his or her dog should be “mean” to guard their home must then cope with the tragedy of a dangerous dog attack.
Educating existing pet owners and providing “safety nets” of training and behavior advice is the second focus of this proposed program. Steps taken to help current pet owners cope with problems and treat their pets better will inevitable reduce the number of those pets that enter the Rescue/Shelter system. Education cannot prevent unexpected life changes such as sickness, job or family status changes, but the “Big Three” causes-housetraining, chewing and barking-can be addressed successfully, even for those owners already in crisis.
Proactive and reactive strategies addressing current pet owners are in order. Proactive methods will include the following:
Proactive strategies:
• Attracting current pet owners to free training lectures offered through the Community Centers and Libraries. Although some of these seminars will be targeting new owners, issues of concern to existing owners will be offered. Seminars will include such topics as “Behavior Problems and Solutions”, “What Do The Pet Ordinances Really Mean”, “Principles of Humane Dog Training” and “Introducing A New Dog Into Your Home.”
• Include current pet owners in adoption support efforts such as “Adopters Anonymous” (detailed in section 3). Provide telephone and/or e-mail support for owners with behavior questions.
• Provide guidance and advice to owners seeking to voluntarily comply with local pet ordinances by offering constructive facility inspections.
• Offer owners a voluntary evaluation of their pet with recommendations for appropriate training or management.
Reactive strategies will include:
• Post-citation training classes for owners of pets cited under local ordinance. These owners could be offered the alternative of successfully completing approved training classes in lieu of paying full fines for cited offences. For example, an owner cited for allowing an animal to run free could elect to attend a series of training classes, at their expense, and pay one-half of the standard fine. In this way, not only is the owner corrected for their misconduct, but a mechanism is put in place likely to reduce the chance of further, escalating violations. This system is already in place in such areas as driver safety training and domestic violence intervention.
A trained dog isn’t that difficult to achieve. It only takes ten minutes…every day, for the rest of the dog’s life!
3. Support for adoptive pet families after adoption.
Our happiest cases are those wherein the new family and the adopted pet immediately bond and live happily ever after. The cold reality of shelter work, however, is that many shelter animals carry baggage from their past placements, or lack thereof, and those animals and their families need help. Outside training classes are great, but not all families know where to find competent training, especially if their adopted pet has specialized problems such as past abuse or under-socialization. ACC should take the lead in adoptive situations by providing an introduction to basic manners and obedience training with all adoptions. Each adoptive family could, for instance, be given a certificate allowing them four free classes, either offered by trainers donating their time or through in-house classes offered by ACC. These classes would help inform the new owners how to teach their dog, how to handle common behavior problems in a humane and efficient manner, and how to address any special needs of adopted shelter animals.
Rescue groups, particularly breed-specific Rescue groups, can provide substantial help in this effort. Breed specific groups have a base of experience particular to the problems of the chosen breed. This experience should be placed at the disposal of the pet owning public by referral to cooperating groups.
Specific support measures for adoptive families will include:
• Post adoption basic obedience classes offered by ACC. Classes can be offered on-site at the main ACC facility and at satellite adoption centers. A series of two to four introductory classes should be offered, with further classes available at a reasonable cost. Adopters could be referred to programs such as the Jacksonville Humane Society’s Pet University where such programs would give first classes free when shown proof of recent adoption.
• A behavior problem referral and support service provided by ACC. This may take the form of a call-in hotline or actual meetings. The Open Paw program in California has established “Adopters Anonymous”, a forum where pet adopters “get free advice from trainers and counselors so that prospective owners can learn how to teach their pets good habits from the start, while current owners can learn how to retrain pets with bad habits.”
Statistically, fully fifty percent of all children will suffer a dog bite sometime before they graduate from High School. According to the Center for Disease Control, over five million Americans are bitten by dogs each year. Injury rates are highest among children aged 5-9 years. Each year an average of twenty six people die from dog bites.
4. In-house training initiatives to increase adoptability.
Animals in shelter environments often become “de-trained” with time. Animals may lose housebreaking and socialization to people and other animals, and may actually become fearful or anxious because they are forced to eliminate in their kennels and their social interactions between other animals and humans are limited or intimidating. In California, the San Francisco SPCA, working with Dr. Ian Dunbar, founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, have developed a protocol for working with shelter animals called Open Paw. The Open Paw program has established practices for shelter personnel, combined with design and management techniques, that aim to increase the socialization of shelter animals, provide humanizing influences, and begin basic manners-based training to pets prior to adoption, making those animals more attractive to potential adoptive families.
These techniques can be combined with the advanced behavioral assessment techniques and an assessment plan that aids shelter workers in safe management of shelter animals with an eye to increasing adoptions and reducing returns through effective evaluation of potential problems before the animal is ever released for placement.
Some of the techniques used, for example, at the Berkeley East Humane Society in Berkeley, California as part of their Open Paw program are:
• Hand feeding of shelter dogs. This makes the dogs friendlier, calmer and happier when approached by people in the shelter. Using food treats the dogs learn traits more acceptable to potential adopters.
• Kongs! This part of the program uses toys stuffed with kibble that help calm the dogs at the end of the day.
• Catopia. This is a dedicated, toy-filled cage free room for cats. Cats are rotated through Catopia for play, exercise and socialization.
• Daily dog walks. Dogs in shelter runs have to eliminate in the same space they sleep and eat in, potentially damaging any housetraining they already have. Multiple daily walks for all shelter dogs allows already trained dogs to maintain their housetraining, while staff can easily identify those animals needing remedial housetraining.
“Open Paw is designed to address those issues through the education of prospective and existing owners, and through the promotion of minimum mental health guidelines for shelter animals."
5. Remedial training for dogs involved in bites and control measures for dangerous dogs.
Dangerous and aggressive dogs are a growing problem across the United States. An average of twenty six people are killed each year in dog attacks. Recent studies show that there is no single factor universal to all attacks. Unneutered male dogs are the most common offenders, but a great range of breeds of dog have been involved in such attacks. Seventy six percent of the victims of fatal dog attacks are children, according to the CDC.
Those persons wishing to retain dogs classified as dangerous are required under the law to provide well defined measures for the secure containment of those animals. Management standards are in place detailing the handling of such animals in public and on private property. A provision not currently in place in Jacksonville is a public education component of the dangerous dog provisions.
In the 2001 report of the CDC Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, published in the June 1 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Association (Vol. 218, number 11, June 1, 2001) the following section appears in Appendix 4, “Model legislation for the identification and regulation of ‘dangerous’ dogs.”:
• “Attendance by the dog and its owner/custodian at training sessions conducted by a certified applied animal behaviorist, board certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert in the field and completion of training or any other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert. The owners of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associated with the evaluation and training ordered under this section.”
This remedial training would involve a projected series of four (4) two hour classes followed by six (6) one-hour classes, for a total of fourteen (14) hours of instruction. Attendance at three of the four two-hour blocks, and four of the six one-hour blocks would be required for successful completion. The two-hour blocks would involve one hour of classroom instruction, followed by one hour of hands-on dog work. The classroom blocks would cover topics including:
• Requirements of the ordinance-“How did I get here?”
• Dynamics of dog attacks.
• Foundations of aggressive canine behavior.
• Use of physical management tools such as fitting required collars and muzzles and proper use of leads and leashes.
• Humane correction versus improper punishment.
• Safe containment at home-runs, yards and kennels.
• Liability for owners of dangerous dogs and legal consequences of further aggressive incidents.
The hands-on blocks of training would cover basic control and obedience: sit, stay, heel, down, come when called, no jumping (proper greeting behavior), etc. This pairing of classroom and hands on will ensure that each owner is adequately informed as to their responsibility to and for their pet, while assuring that at least a minimum time is actually spent training the dog while supervised by a trainer.
This remedial training class should also be offered, as a voluntary option, to owners of dogs not adjudged dangerous but involved in bite or aggressive incidents that, if allowed to progress unchecked, could result in behavior that could be deemed dangerous under the statute. In these cases the training provides a safety net allowing owners to assume a proactive role in preventing dangerous behavior by their pet.
Seventy percent of fatal dog attacks and more than half of bite wounds requiring medical attention involve children.
6. Funding-the inevitable question.
In City government, the question of funding is always the bottom line. Funding for the start up of a wide-reaching education program such as is proposed here will obviously be substantial. Cost of education, however, must be weighed against the current, sometimes hidden, cost of “business as usual”. To quote the report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions published June, 2001,
“Costs associated with dog bite injuries cannot be readily measured, because so many intangible quality of life issues are involved….Intangible costs include time spent by volunteers and paid community officials on animal-related issues, deterioration of relationships between neighbors, building appropriate medical support, citizens’ concerns about neighborhood safety for children, homeowners’ insurance costs within the community, and animal shelter support for unwanted pets. These are quality of life issues that ultimately determine the desirability of a community to its citizens and that can motivate proactive community officials to institute a prevention program.”
Federal and State grants and support programs are available for such community safety issues. Private donors can also be a substantial source for financial support for such a progressive, proactive program. Likewise, use of volunteers can supplement paid staff in a meaningful way. For instance, for an organization to be recognized by the City as a listed Rescue organization, such a group should be required to provide a specific number of volunteer man-hours to the Public Education Program every month.
However funding is obtained, the commitment of dollars to the health and safety of the community and their pets can only pay off in the future with reduced demands placed on Animal Care and Control.
Most shelter animals and strays are surrendered or abandoned because of predictable behavior, temperament, or training problems. Many problems worsen in the shelter environment. Most problems could easily be prevented or resolved if only pet owners and shelter staff and volunteers knew how. Preventive education is the key to keeping cats and dogs in their original homes, and out of shelters.
Kelly Gorman, “Open Paw”
Program and proposal copyright 2004 James W. Crosby
|
|
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Shelter Dog Aggression Study
Just this morning I saw a new study conducted by the University of British Columbia's Animal Welfare Program on aggression, both perceived and observed, by dogs adopted from a shelter. The survey, which was not publicized as having anything to do with breed, separated Pit type dogs of varying genetics into test and control groups.
The study produced some dramatic results. Were Pit Bull type dog adopters significantly different from adopters of other dogs?
Further investigation showed that these pit bull adopters provided the same home life for their dogs as the other breed adopters. Dogs were acquired for companionship, lived indoors, were alone less than four hours a day, and had regular playtime and exercise with their families. Pit bull guardians were slightly more likely to take their dogs to the dog park (p<0.10).
Other interesting characteristics of the PB type adopters:
"The pit bull adopters have characteristics associated with strong attachments to pets. They were younger (under 30), tending to rent (rather than own) and adopting the first dog of their own (aside from family dogs). Strong bonds have been attributed to young adults (Roll et al., 1997) without children that live singly (Albert and Bulcroft, 1987, 1988, and Turner, 2001), and have previous experience with dogs (Serpell, 1996)."
So what was the difference then between Pit Bull type dogs and other breeds? How bad was the tendency toward aggression, biting, and other evils often attributed to Pit type dogs-those "characteristics" that cause them to be classified as "restricted" in the UK and banned across areas of the US? How evil were these horrid dogs?
So the "evil dogs" are...more likely to sleep on the bed, more likely to cuddle, and less likely to be returned to the shelter for aggression issues. Hmm. No difference between Pit Bull types and other breed types to exhibit stranger aggression, dog-dog aggression, chasing, or startle aggression. Hmmm.
Looks like these dogs didn't read the material that says they should be banned and killed.
Happy Pit Bull Awareness Day.
The article on the study is HERE: http://stubbydog.org/2012/03/a-new-pit-bull-study/
The study produced some dramatic results. Were Pit Bull type dog adopters significantly different from adopters of other dogs?
Further investigation showed that these pit bull adopters provided the same home life for their dogs as the other breed adopters. Dogs were acquired for companionship, lived indoors, were alone less than four hours a day, and had regular playtime and exercise with their families. Pit bull guardians were slightly more likely to take their dogs to the dog park (p<0.10).
Other interesting characteristics of the PB type adopters:
"The pit bull adopters have characteristics associated with strong attachments to pets. They were younger (under 30), tending to rent (rather than own) and adopting the first dog of their own (aside from family dogs). Strong bonds have been attributed to young adults (Roll et al., 1997) without children that live singly (Albert and Bulcroft, 1987, 1988, and Turner, 2001), and have previous experience with dogs (Serpell, 1996)."
So what was the difference then between Pit Bull type dogs and other breeds? How bad was the tendency toward aggression, biting, and other evils often attributed to Pit type dogs-those "characteristics" that cause them to be classified as "restricted" in the UK and banned across areas of the US? How evil were these horrid dogs?
"A new profile of pit bulls emerged from the study: They were not more aggressive than the other breeds. Pit bulls were more likely to sleep on the bed [62% vs. 16%, p<0.05], more likely to cuddle with their owners (p<0.05), and less likely to show aggression to their owners (p<0.10) – three things associated with strong human-animal bonds. Pit bulls were more likely to pull on the leash (p<0.05).
There was no difference in the number of dogs euthanized at the shelter due to aggression. Likewise, there was no significant difference between groups for aggression to strangers, other dogs, cats, children under 12, skateboarders/cyclists, joggers, over food, when stepped over, or when moved while sleeping.
There was, however, a trend for the other breeds group to be returned for aggression (p<0.02). For those still in the home, there was a slight trend for the other breeds group to show aggression to their guardians (p<0.10)."
So the "evil dogs" are...more likely to sleep on the bed, more likely to cuddle, and less likely to be returned to the shelter for aggression issues. Hmm. No difference between Pit Bull types and other breed types to exhibit stranger aggression, dog-dog aggression, chasing, or startle aggression. Hmmm.
Looks like these dogs didn't read the material that says they should be banned and killed.
Happy Pit Bull Awareness Day.
The article on the study is HERE: http://stubbydog.org/2012/03/a-new-pit-bull-study/
Friday, October 19, 2012
Memphis-the written report.
In September I went to Bloomfield, New Jersey and met a dog named Memphis. Memphis has become the center of a major local controversy there. I entered the fray for one reason: to give an outside evaluation of Memphis' behavior at that specific moment in time, and to perhaps offer my reccomendations for his future prognosis. I have stayed clear of the political issues there, as that is not my job. I deal with dogs, not politics or determining the path of a local government agency.
That said, I do have to make one note: this report was finished some time ago, but due to an email glitch (or possible personal technological goof) it didn't go out. No one has been "sitting on" this report, except my email program. I redated it to make that clear and then immediately resent it to the Township. It went out this time. I mention this to ward off any accusations that there is some nefarious plan here....I just messed up.
My complete written evaluation report on Memphis follows:
James W. Crosby CBCC-KA
Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine
canineaggression@gmail.com
17 October 2012
Karen Lore
Township of Bloomfield, New Jersey
1 Municipal Plaza
Bloomfield, New Jersey, 07003
Dear Ms. Lore:
On September 6, 2012, I traveled to the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter facility to evaluate a dog there. The dog is known as Memphis.
On my arrival I observed Memphis closely. Memphis appeared healthy, in very good physical condition, and using the Tufts Animal Care and Condition body scale (TACC) would all score in the Ideal (1) range.
To evaluate dogs I use a combination of the SAFER testing protocol, the AKC Canine Good Citizen examination, and elements of the American Temperament Testing Society process, tests that are generally accepted in the canine behavior community. These tests are adapted and I may not follow them exactly for safety concerns: I initially observe the dog within their kennel to determine if the dog is safe to remove from secure containment for evaluation and handling purposes. Progressing through the full range of tasks may be interrupted due to specific responses in earlier portions of the test: for instance, if a dog is reacting with open aggression to safe control, I will not place my face up to the dog.
Further, I do not consider these tests to be “pass/fail”. If a dog shows a negative behavior, or if in my judgment a dog is not safe to conduct a particular test, the dog does not “fail”. A negative reaction to a particular stimulus is an indicator of a need for training/treatment and may assist in evaluation of the appropriateness of placement in a particular environment. Such “failure” may also indicate, in the case of a post-bite evaluation, a potential trigger for the dangerous incident under investigation. Results from a temperament/behavior evaluation are also not necessarily predictive of success or failure in another environment; they are indicative of the reactions to specific stimuli in a particular environment on a particular day. No guarantees are made or implied, as dogs are living creatures and are deeply affected by environment, training, and experience, both before and after any testing.
Specific indicators examined in a full evaluation include:
Dog greeting to strange person (evaluator).
Dog permitting non-threatening physical contact with dog (gentle petting)
Dog permitting leashing by evaluator.
Dog body posture and non-verbal signaling to evaluator.
Dog willingness to work with the evaluator.
Dog permitting full handling and manipulation of body (ears, tail, feet, muzzle, etc.).
Dog seeking or avoiding voluntary physical contact with evaluator.
Dog’s response to more intense physical manipulation, including “squeeze” and “scruffing”.
Dog acceptance of treats and/or kibble, and allowing or resisting the removal of high value treats.
Dog response to sudden startle-inducing noise and recovery to startle.
Dog response to a neutral stranger (not evaluator).
Dog response to, and recovery from, sudden approach of “threatening stranger”.
Dog response to direct visual contact/frontal body posture of stranger, neutral and/or “threatening”.
Dog response to proximity of both non-reactive and reactive dogs brought within the testing area by a neutral handler.
Dog response to the actions of other dogs in close proximity not controlled by neutral handler (other kennel dogs acting/reacting from within their enclosures).
Dog response to evaluator’s body language, including appeasement gestures, dominance-type posturing, apparent threatening posture (including direct frontal stare and stare with restraint of dog’s face at close range).
Dog’s response to verbal cues.
Dog’s response to leash application and moderate leash correction, response to strong verbal correction.
Dog’s ability to exhibit appropriate play behavior with evaluator.
Dog’s willingness to initiate, on and off leash, voluntary human contact.
Dog’s response to presenting/removing food bowl, possibly permitting presence of hand in food bowl without guarding response.
Dog’s response to a simulated infant (baby doll).
Other controlled interactions may also occur to expand and clarify any observed behaviors.
My specific behavioral observations for Memphis are as follows:
Memphis. Male, neutered, Pit Bull type dog, approximately 2 years old. Reddish-tan, solidly built . Posture and position on initial observation-alert and calm. When I approached and turned my back Memphis stayed at the front of the kennel and observed calmly. When I approached with a treat Memphis immediately accepted the offered treat with tail wagging and gently took the treat. When I stared directly at Memphis he barked once but quickly (less than 2 seconds) averted his eyes to defuse the challenge, tail wagging and showing several appeasement lip licks. When I did not respond by averting my gaze Memphis faced off and barked briefly, but then re-averted his gaze to defuse the contact, wagging his tail. Memphis also gave several appeasement licks. When I banged the kennel door he briefly barked and faced me, but immediately again sent appeasement signals. When I stood up Memphis voluntarily sat and gently accepted treats. I again approached closely, staring directly at him and rattled his kennel door. Memphis jumped up and barked, but quickly regained a stable stance and accepted treats. Memphis’ posture continued to be frontal but relaxed, with tail wagging. I turned my back to Memphis, then suddenly turned back around and jumped towards him making full eye contact. Memphis did respond by barking and jumping up on the kennel door, but calmed within approximately ten (10) seconds. Memphis’ reaction was consistent with a normal dog being suddenly challenged and showed good recovery skills.
I entered Memphis’ kennel and he was immediately accepting, walking with me towards the back of the kennel. He voluntarily sat and then came back to the front of the kennel when called. He accepted treats gently and sat quietly when I placed the leash on him. Just outside the kennel Memphis readily complied with both Sit and Down commands while remaining attentive to me and my actions. Memphis walked easily on the leash into the building and up the stairs to the testing area.
On entering the testing area I released Memphis to roam free. Memphis began to check out the room but readily came to me when called. I then sat quietly and gave no instructions. Memphis began to check out the room but voluntarily returned to make contact with me within 15 seconds. He then spent some time (1 minute 32 seconds) checking the entire perimeter of the room, but then returned to me without command. At that time I took him back under leash control and began the handling tests.
I was able to fully handle, pet, stroke and manipulate Memphis with no reluctance. I forced Memphis into a down position and restrained him with mild resistance but no aggressive or challenging behavior on his part. He allowed full manipulation, pulling of his tail, squeeze test, and responded calmly to a sudden scruffing and verbal “no” command. He tolerated all physical handling without sensitivity or resistance.
The next test was reaction to the sudden object (opening umbrella). Memphis briefly startled, was alert and cautious, barked twice, and retreated behind me. Recovery time from this exercise was fourteen (14) seconds. I then conducted the loud noise test. Memphis briefly startled but recovered within two (2) seconds with one small lip lick.
I tested Memphis for food guarding. In preparation for the test he had not been fed yet this day. I presented him a bowl of soft dog food and allowed him to start eating. While he was eating he let me pet him on the head and face with no guarding behavior. I placed my gloved hand directly in the bowl as he was eating and he was tolerant and willing to let me take morsels of food directly from his mouth. I gave him, and removed, his food several times and he never showed any aggression or protective behavior. He gently accepted food directly from my hand.
I then retested him with bare hands. He accepted full handling, squeeze, manipulation of his mouth, and overall handling with no sensitivity or aggressive response toward my bare hand.
Memphis was then exposed to the “stranger” tests. The first encounter was with a passive stranger wearing a raincoat. To prepare for this I held Memphis’ leash, but gave him no direction or correction, regardless of his response. I only restrained him by passive holding of the leash. The passive stranger was instructed not to make direct eye contact with Memphis.
When the passive stranger entered and walked across the room Memphis did take notice and approached to smell the stranger, but made no aggressive moves, instead wagging his tail. When the passive stranger walked out Memphis looked to follow him, but still with positive body language. In the next test the stranger approached me directly and then ran away after expressing surprise (“Ah! It’s a dog!”). During this test Memphis did strain towards the stranger and barked several times, pulling against the leash. Memphis then quickly (11 seconds) backed off and looked to me for guidance. He briefly renewed his forward motion and barking (18 seconds) and then returned his attention to me. He was still somewhat tense and watchful. He then sat on his own, watching the stranger prepare to reenter with a hoodie over his head. When the stranger approached Memphis began to bark, pulling on the leash, out in front of me and oriented in a frontal posture to the stranger. Barking/pulling was for a period of about 8 seconds.
Next the stranger was instructed to reapproach, but this time to look Memphis directly in the eyes in full challenge posture. Memphis responded with a full lunge, barking and growling, mouth partially open with partial exposure of teeth to the stranger. This behavior continued for 20 seconds, at which time Memphis looked back to me for guidance. When given no instruction Memphis sat for 9 seconds without barking, although tense and breathing quickly. The stranger was then told to avert his eyes, and when he did Memphis looked back at me for guidance again, still in a voluntary sit. I then instructed Memphis to “leave it” and walked sideways, away from the stranger. Memphis readily complied, disengaging with the stranger and reverting his attention back to me.
After we walked around the chair one time I tested Memphis for any learned aggressive commands. I told Memphis “Get Him! Several times and pointed towards the stranger. Memphis gave n o reaction that would indicate any training or previous behavior shaping of aggression towards a specific target (person) on command. I also tried Spanish commands and got the same lack of aggressive response. During the attempt to have Memphis respond aggressively on command he instead kept his attention on me, with receptive and positive body posture.
The stranger departed and I allowed Memphis to voluntarily take a small break. He lay at my feet, relaxed. I then had a female (Karen Lore) who Memphis had previously met approach our position, walking and facing directly towards us. I told her to look Memphis directly in the eye. Memphis averted his gaze within approximately three seconds and remained lying on the floor, despite the female trying to maintain direct eye contact. I had the female approach two more steps toward his position, maintaining frontal position with eye contact and Memphis did respond, leaping up and barking and lunging towards the female. She quickly backed up several steps, still maintaining frontal position, and Memphis continued barking at her for 9 seconds. I then had the female subject run away screaming in a high pitched voice, leaving Memphis’ view. Memphis did respond by barking and lunging, but discontinued the behavior is less than 7 seconds, returning to my side as the female target left his sight. Memphis immediately thereafter complied with my command to “down”, and then accepted me grabbing him by the face and directly challenging him at close range with no negative response. During these tests Memphis never redirected at the camera person present in the room.
I then had two dogs brought into the testing area, one at a time. First was a non-reactive dog, then a more reactive dog. During this test I sat quietly in the chair, holding Memphis’ leash, but otherwise giving no direction. Memphis did give a high pitched bark in response to the many barking dogs in the kennel while we were waiting for the test dogs.
The first test dog was a small, white, poodle-type dog. Despite the quick motions of the dog back and forth in front of Memphis he sat by my side with no commands on a loose leash, showing no aggressive behavior or pursuit of the smaller dog. While waiting for the second dog Memphis sat, loose leash, although he was very focused on the doorway where the dog (and the strangers) had left the room. He appeared tense and expectant.
The second dog was larger. Memphis initially observed the dog’s entrance while laying down, but then as the dog approached Memphis he jumped up and began barking and lunging at the approaching dog. The reactive dog was likewise pulling towards Memphis. When the dog left Memphis sight he stopped barking and stood focused on the doorway. At +20 seconds he diverted his attention briefly towards the side and by +1 minute he was relaxing and easily redirected back to me, allowing petting and seeking positive contact.
I then exited the testing area and took Memphis downstairs to the kennels. I walked him past the front of a row of kennels filled with dog, most of which were barking and giving visible aggressive displays towards Memphis. I gave him no verbal instructions and let him engage as he wished, only holding him back by the leash. Memphis, on our first pass by the dogs, directly responded to the clear challenges of the barking, lunging dogs with similar behavior. He did not ever redirect back towards me. As we went back the way we came I was able to get Memphis to respond to my direction and sit, looking at me, despite a dog barking and lunging at him within less than six feet. Memphis held his quiet sit until I released him (10 seconds). I had Memphis sit a second time, directly facing a kennel with a barking, lunging dog, and he broke the sit after 8 seconds to respond to the other dog. I was able to have Memphis sit a third time, facing a different dog, barking and lunging at Memphis, and he held the sit facing that dog for 15 seconds before I quietly walked him away.
I took Memphis for a brief break in the yard area outside the kennel. We approached a cat that was sitting in the brush, and although Memphis was alert to the cat, he never lunged or tried to chase the cat.
I then took Memphis back through the same row of dogs, this time with treats and direction, to ascertain his response to positive redirection. In this pass, each time we came in front of a kennel with a responding dog I had Memphis sit quietly and then reinforced the quiet sit. He responded as before to the first two dogs, but he also took redirection to the sit. After the second dog we repeated that exposure and Memphis sat without engaging the dog first. The next dog we passed Memphis gave to response to, instead sitting and looking for his treat. On the last two dogs Memphis was alert, but did not respond to either of the dogs, turning his back on them and keeping his attention toward me instead. He in fact turned his back on the other barking, lunging dogs. Even when I tried to guide him physically back towards the other dogs he maintained his focus on me. When we walked back down the row of dogs he remained focused on me and did not respond to a single dog.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Memphis is a healthy male dog that does present a few behavior issues. Specifically, Memphis is sensitive to the approach of strangers, particularly those who exhibit direct challenge behavior. Memphis’ response is lunging and barking. Memphis did not redirect that behavior to me or others in the immediate area he was already accustomed to, such as the camera person and observers in the testing room. Memphis recovered rapidly from the presentation of the challenging stranger after the stranger withdrew without specific direction such as a “Leave it” command. When given such a command Memphis accepted the redirection of his actions and recovered even more quickly. His reaction to the active stranger is troublesome at this time, but he showed the ability to readily accept redirection and acceptable replacement behavior. Memphis did not show any response to my attempts to have him “get” the stranger, and thus there was no indication that human focused aggressive display has been reinforced or trained. I saw no evidence that Memphis has received any protection, guarding, or other aggression training. Prognosis for retraining on his stranger sensitivity is very good.
Memphis also currently shows sensitivity to other dogs, particularly those his size or larger that show direct challenge behavior (barking, lunging, frontal confrontation). Memphis strained at his leash and returned the behavior, but readily accepted my redirection. Memphis responded quickly when presented with positive reinforcement for alternative behavior (sitting, ignoring the challenging dog), successfully sitting with his back to the challenging dogs and paying full attention to me. In just a few repetitions Memphis began to generalize the alternative, calm behavior. Memphis never redirected towards me, even when I physically reached to his head and moved his face to look at me while he was barking and lunging at the challenging dog. Memphis’ receptivity to positive redirection of his behavior with relatively few repetitions gives a good prognosis for retraining.
At the time of the test, due to the above described issues, Memphis was NOT appropriate for adoption into a regular pet home. With retraining and continuance of positive behavior reinforcement I believe that Memphis has a very good prognosis for eventual adoption and placement. My recommendation for a permanent home would be to a physically capable owner who is experienced with bigger dogs and who is committed to continuing to reinforce Memphis’ good responses with regular training.
Sincerely,
James W. Crosby CBCC-KA
That said, I do have to make one note: this report was finished some time ago, but due to an email glitch (or possible personal technological goof) it didn't go out. No one has been "sitting on" this report, except my email program. I redated it to make that clear and then immediately resent it to the Township. It went out this time. I mention this to ward off any accusations that there is some nefarious plan here....I just messed up.
My complete written evaluation report on Memphis follows:
James W. Crosby CBCC-KA
Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine
canineaggression@gmail.com
17 October 2012
Karen Lore
Township of Bloomfield, New Jersey
1 Municipal Plaza
Bloomfield, New Jersey, 07003
Dear Ms. Lore:
On September 6, 2012, I traveled to the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter facility to evaluate a dog there. The dog is known as Memphis.
On my arrival I observed Memphis closely. Memphis appeared healthy, in very good physical condition, and using the Tufts Animal Care and Condition body scale (TACC) would all score in the Ideal (1) range.
To evaluate dogs I use a combination of the SAFER testing protocol, the AKC Canine Good Citizen examination, and elements of the American Temperament Testing Society process, tests that are generally accepted in the canine behavior community. These tests are adapted and I may not follow them exactly for safety concerns: I initially observe the dog within their kennel to determine if the dog is safe to remove from secure containment for evaluation and handling purposes. Progressing through the full range of tasks may be interrupted due to specific responses in earlier portions of the test: for instance, if a dog is reacting with open aggression to safe control, I will not place my face up to the dog.
Further, I do not consider these tests to be “pass/fail”. If a dog shows a negative behavior, or if in my judgment a dog is not safe to conduct a particular test, the dog does not “fail”. A negative reaction to a particular stimulus is an indicator of a need for training/treatment and may assist in evaluation of the appropriateness of placement in a particular environment. Such “failure” may also indicate, in the case of a post-bite evaluation, a potential trigger for the dangerous incident under investigation. Results from a temperament/behavior evaluation are also not necessarily predictive of success or failure in another environment; they are indicative of the reactions to specific stimuli in a particular environment on a particular day. No guarantees are made or implied, as dogs are living creatures and are deeply affected by environment, training, and experience, both before and after any testing.
Specific indicators examined in a full evaluation include:
Dog greeting to strange person (evaluator).
Dog permitting non-threatening physical contact with dog (gentle petting)
Dog permitting leashing by evaluator.
Dog body posture and non-verbal signaling to evaluator.
Dog willingness to work with the evaluator.
Dog permitting full handling and manipulation of body (ears, tail, feet, muzzle, etc.).
Dog seeking or avoiding voluntary physical contact with evaluator.
Dog’s response to more intense physical manipulation, including “squeeze” and “scruffing”.
Dog acceptance of treats and/or kibble, and allowing or resisting the removal of high value treats.
Dog response to sudden startle-inducing noise and recovery to startle.
Dog response to a neutral stranger (not evaluator).
Dog response to, and recovery from, sudden approach of “threatening stranger”.
Dog response to direct visual contact/frontal body posture of stranger, neutral and/or “threatening”.
Dog response to proximity of both non-reactive and reactive dogs brought within the testing area by a neutral handler.
Dog response to the actions of other dogs in close proximity not controlled by neutral handler (other kennel dogs acting/reacting from within their enclosures).
Dog response to evaluator’s body language, including appeasement gestures, dominance-type posturing, apparent threatening posture (including direct frontal stare and stare with restraint of dog’s face at close range).
Dog’s response to verbal cues.
Dog’s response to leash application and moderate leash correction, response to strong verbal correction.
Dog’s ability to exhibit appropriate play behavior with evaluator.
Dog’s willingness to initiate, on and off leash, voluntary human contact.
Dog’s response to presenting/removing food bowl, possibly permitting presence of hand in food bowl without guarding response.
Dog’s response to a simulated infant (baby doll).
Other controlled interactions may also occur to expand and clarify any observed behaviors.
My specific behavioral observations for Memphis are as follows:
Memphis. Male, neutered, Pit Bull type dog, approximately 2 years old. Reddish-tan, solidly built . Posture and position on initial observation-alert and calm. When I approached and turned my back Memphis stayed at the front of the kennel and observed calmly. When I approached with a treat Memphis immediately accepted the offered treat with tail wagging and gently took the treat. When I stared directly at Memphis he barked once but quickly (less than 2 seconds) averted his eyes to defuse the challenge, tail wagging and showing several appeasement lip licks. When I did not respond by averting my gaze Memphis faced off and barked briefly, but then re-averted his gaze to defuse the contact, wagging his tail. Memphis also gave several appeasement licks. When I banged the kennel door he briefly barked and faced me, but immediately again sent appeasement signals. When I stood up Memphis voluntarily sat and gently accepted treats. I again approached closely, staring directly at him and rattled his kennel door. Memphis jumped up and barked, but quickly regained a stable stance and accepted treats. Memphis’ posture continued to be frontal but relaxed, with tail wagging. I turned my back to Memphis, then suddenly turned back around and jumped towards him making full eye contact. Memphis did respond by barking and jumping up on the kennel door, but calmed within approximately ten (10) seconds. Memphis’ reaction was consistent with a normal dog being suddenly challenged and showed good recovery skills.
I entered Memphis’ kennel and he was immediately accepting, walking with me towards the back of the kennel. He voluntarily sat and then came back to the front of the kennel when called. He accepted treats gently and sat quietly when I placed the leash on him. Just outside the kennel Memphis readily complied with both Sit and Down commands while remaining attentive to me and my actions. Memphis walked easily on the leash into the building and up the stairs to the testing area.
On entering the testing area I released Memphis to roam free. Memphis began to check out the room but readily came to me when called. I then sat quietly and gave no instructions. Memphis began to check out the room but voluntarily returned to make contact with me within 15 seconds. He then spent some time (1 minute 32 seconds) checking the entire perimeter of the room, but then returned to me without command. At that time I took him back under leash control and began the handling tests.
I was able to fully handle, pet, stroke and manipulate Memphis with no reluctance. I forced Memphis into a down position and restrained him with mild resistance but no aggressive or challenging behavior on his part. He allowed full manipulation, pulling of his tail, squeeze test, and responded calmly to a sudden scruffing and verbal “no” command. He tolerated all physical handling without sensitivity or resistance.
The next test was reaction to the sudden object (opening umbrella). Memphis briefly startled, was alert and cautious, barked twice, and retreated behind me. Recovery time from this exercise was fourteen (14) seconds. I then conducted the loud noise test. Memphis briefly startled but recovered within two (2) seconds with one small lip lick.
I tested Memphis for food guarding. In preparation for the test he had not been fed yet this day. I presented him a bowl of soft dog food and allowed him to start eating. While he was eating he let me pet him on the head and face with no guarding behavior. I placed my gloved hand directly in the bowl as he was eating and he was tolerant and willing to let me take morsels of food directly from his mouth. I gave him, and removed, his food several times and he never showed any aggression or protective behavior. He gently accepted food directly from my hand.
I then retested him with bare hands. He accepted full handling, squeeze, manipulation of his mouth, and overall handling with no sensitivity or aggressive response toward my bare hand.
Memphis was then exposed to the “stranger” tests. The first encounter was with a passive stranger wearing a raincoat. To prepare for this I held Memphis’ leash, but gave him no direction or correction, regardless of his response. I only restrained him by passive holding of the leash. The passive stranger was instructed not to make direct eye contact with Memphis.
When the passive stranger entered and walked across the room Memphis did take notice and approached to smell the stranger, but made no aggressive moves, instead wagging his tail. When the passive stranger walked out Memphis looked to follow him, but still with positive body language. In the next test the stranger approached me directly and then ran away after expressing surprise (“Ah! It’s a dog!”). During this test Memphis did strain towards the stranger and barked several times, pulling against the leash. Memphis then quickly (11 seconds) backed off and looked to me for guidance. He briefly renewed his forward motion and barking (18 seconds) and then returned his attention to me. He was still somewhat tense and watchful. He then sat on his own, watching the stranger prepare to reenter with a hoodie over his head. When the stranger approached Memphis began to bark, pulling on the leash, out in front of me and oriented in a frontal posture to the stranger. Barking/pulling was for a period of about 8 seconds.
Next the stranger was instructed to reapproach, but this time to look Memphis directly in the eyes in full challenge posture. Memphis responded with a full lunge, barking and growling, mouth partially open with partial exposure of teeth to the stranger. This behavior continued for 20 seconds, at which time Memphis looked back to me for guidance. When given no instruction Memphis sat for 9 seconds without barking, although tense and breathing quickly. The stranger was then told to avert his eyes, and when he did Memphis looked back at me for guidance again, still in a voluntary sit. I then instructed Memphis to “leave it” and walked sideways, away from the stranger. Memphis readily complied, disengaging with the stranger and reverting his attention back to me.
After we walked around the chair one time I tested Memphis for any learned aggressive commands. I told Memphis “Get Him! Several times and pointed towards the stranger. Memphis gave n o reaction that would indicate any training or previous behavior shaping of aggression towards a specific target (person) on command. I also tried Spanish commands and got the same lack of aggressive response. During the attempt to have Memphis respond aggressively on command he instead kept his attention on me, with receptive and positive body posture.
The stranger departed and I allowed Memphis to voluntarily take a small break. He lay at my feet, relaxed. I then had a female (Karen Lore) who Memphis had previously met approach our position, walking and facing directly towards us. I told her to look Memphis directly in the eye. Memphis averted his gaze within approximately three seconds and remained lying on the floor, despite the female trying to maintain direct eye contact. I had the female approach two more steps toward his position, maintaining frontal position with eye contact and Memphis did respond, leaping up and barking and lunging towards the female. She quickly backed up several steps, still maintaining frontal position, and Memphis continued barking at her for 9 seconds. I then had the female subject run away screaming in a high pitched voice, leaving Memphis’ view. Memphis did respond by barking and lunging, but discontinued the behavior is less than 7 seconds, returning to my side as the female target left his sight. Memphis immediately thereafter complied with my command to “down”, and then accepted me grabbing him by the face and directly challenging him at close range with no negative response. During these tests Memphis never redirected at the camera person present in the room.
I then had two dogs brought into the testing area, one at a time. First was a non-reactive dog, then a more reactive dog. During this test I sat quietly in the chair, holding Memphis’ leash, but otherwise giving no direction. Memphis did give a high pitched bark in response to the many barking dogs in the kennel while we were waiting for the test dogs.
The first test dog was a small, white, poodle-type dog. Despite the quick motions of the dog back and forth in front of Memphis he sat by my side with no commands on a loose leash, showing no aggressive behavior or pursuit of the smaller dog. While waiting for the second dog Memphis sat, loose leash, although he was very focused on the doorway where the dog (and the strangers) had left the room. He appeared tense and expectant.
The second dog was larger. Memphis initially observed the dog’s entrance while laying down, but then as the dog approached Memphis he jumped up and began barking and lunging at the approaching dog. The reactive dog was likewise pulling towards Memphis. When the dog left Memphis sight he stopped barking and stood focused on the doorway. At +20 seconds he diverted his attention briefly towards the side and by +1 minute he was relaxing and easily redirected back to me, allowing petting and seeking positive contact.
I then exited the testing area and took Memphis downstairs to the kennels. I walked him past the front of a row of kennels filled with dog, most of which were barking and giving visible aggressive displays towards Memphis. I gave him no verbal instructions and let him engage as he wished, only holding him back by the leash. Memphis, on our first pass by the dogs, directly responded to the clear challenges of the barking, lunging dogs with similar behavior. He did not ever redirect back towards me. As we went back the way we came I was able to get Memphis to respond to my direction and sit, looking at me, despite a dog barking and lunging at him within less than six feet. Memphis held his quiet sit until I released him (10 seconds). I had Memphis sit a second time, directly facing a kennel with a barking, lunging dog, and he broke the sit after 8 seconds to respond to the other dog. I was able to have Memphis sit a third time, facing a different dog, barking and lunging at Memphis, and he held the sit facing that dog for 15 seconds before I quietly walked him away.
I took Memphis for a brief break in the yard area outside the kennel. We approached a cat that was sitting in the brush, and although Memphis was alert to the cat, he never lunged or tried to chase the cat.
I then took Memphis back through the same row of dogs, this time with treats and direction, to ascertain his response to positive redirection. In this pass, each time we came in front of a kennel with a responding dog I had Memphis sit quietly and then reinforced the quiet sit. He responded as before to the first two dogs, but he also took redirection to the sit. After the second dog we repeated that exposure and Memphis sat without engaging the dog first. The next dog we passed Memphis gave to response to, instead sitting and looking for his treat. On the last two dogs Memphis was alert, but did not respond to either of the dogs, turning his back on them and keeping his attention toward me instead. He in fact turned his back on the other barking, lunging dogs. Even when I tried to guide him physically back towards the other dogs he maintained his focus on me. When we walked back down the row of dogs he remained focused on me and did not respond to a single dog.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Memphis is a healthy male dog that does present a few behavior issues. Specifically, Memphis is sensitive to the approach of strangers, particularly those who exhibit direct challenge behavior. Memphis’ response is lunging and barking. Memphis did not redirect that behavior to me or others in the immediate area he was already accustomed to, such as the camera person and observers in the testing room. Memphis recovered rapidly from the presentation of the challenging stranger after the stranger withdrew without specific direction such as a “Leave it” command. When given such a command Memphis accepted the redirection of his actions and recovered even more quickly. His reaction to the active stranger is troublesome at this time, but he showed the ability to readily accept redirection and acceptable replacement behavior. Memphis did not show any response to my attempts to have him “get” the stranger, and thus there was no indication that human focused aggressive display has been reinforced or trained. I saw no evidence that Memphis has received any protection, guarding, or other aggression training. Prognosis for retraining on his stranger sensitivity is very good.
Memphis also currently shows sensitivity to other dogs, particularly those his size or larger that show direct challenge behavior (barking, lunging, frontal confrontation). Memphis strained at his leash and returned the behavior, but readily accepted my redirection. Memphis responded quickly when presented with positive reinforcement for alternative behavior (sitting, ignoring the challenging dog), successfully sitting with his back to the challenging dogs and paying full attention to me. In just a few repetitions Memphis began to generalize the alternative, calm behavior. Memphis never redirected towards me, even when I physically reached to his head and moved his face to look at me while he was barking and lunging at the challenging dog. Memphis’ receptivity to positive redirection of his behavior with relatively few repetitions gives a good prognosis for retraining.
At the time of the test, due to the above described issues, Memphis was NOT appropriate for adoption into a regular pet home. With retraining and continuance of positive behavior reinforcement I believe that Memphis has a very good prognosis for eventual adoption and placement. My recommendation for a permanent home would be to a physically capable owner who is experienced with bigger dogs and who is committed to continuing to reinforce Memphis’ good responses with regular training.
Sincerely,
James W. Crosby CBCC-KA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)