Perhaps one of the most important aspects of rescue work is appropriate assessments, and therefore there is often a lot of attempt to improve best practice. One thing that has been identified as an important part of the assessment process is early identification of behaviour problems. Clay et al. (2019) looked at observations of body language during the first 5 days and then compared the results to those seen in the formal assessments. The study showed that anxious behaviours observed in kennels related to those seen in the assessments, therefore we should aim to have good recording processes in place so that we can identify and monitor these behaviours early on. Of interest was tail movement as there’s behaviours appeared to increase in frequency over the 5 days whereas other body positioning such as tension and ears being alert decreased
Observation therefore make a good basis for assessments, but it is important that we have appropriate assessments in place. It is an unfortunate fact that dogs hurt people. With figures between 740 per 10000 in 2009 and 1873 in 100,000 in 2018, being indicated as the number of bites in the U.K per annuum. Dog bites lead to 8040 hospital visits, although it is debated if this is an accurate figure and 21% of bites are on people under the age of 18 (Westgarth and Mills., 2017 and Westgarth et al., 2018). This adds considerable risk to both the likelihood of euthanasia but also potential fall outs for shelter if rehoming without due care.
We often have limited information on dogs and therefore assessments can help to provide more insight, however we must be sure to assess in the best way possible. There are a range of assessments utilised in rescue, including individual based assessments that look at behaviour in specific situations and battery tests which aim to assess a range of situations in quick succession e.g. SAFER and Assess-a-pet. If we look at the information provided by these assessments we can see that SAFER claims to “To assess probability of future aggression” whereas assess-a-pet claims to “Identify aggressive dogs BEFORE they prove themselves aggressive in someone’s home” however, how well are these claims back up in the science.
A google scholar search for shelter resource guarding provides 38,000 results, so this is a well-researched topic. One study in 2019, looked at the use of a modified assess-a-pet assessment over a period of 5 years. 1051 dogs were included in the study with 161 of those being identified as resource guarders (15.3%) of those dogs 83% of the resource guarding was classed as mild/moderate (McGuire, 2019), which is similar to the number reported by Mohan-gibbon et al., (2012). interestingly of those dogs rehomed only 18% were returned (which was more likely if the dog was large and most returns were not due to aggression) and of those returned 84% were successful rehomed again. The behaviours reported in the assessments were also more likely to be lower level with only 13% biting the assessor hand.
Further research into resource guarding at shelters showed that out of 77 shelters over 50% did not put the dogs back up for rehoming and only 34% attempted to modify the behaviour. Looking at these two studies together indicates that a lot of dogs may not be being rehomed for no reason. Furthermore a 2018 study showed that removing resource guarding from assessments did not increase injury post adoption (Mohan-Gibbons et al., 2018)
Background of the dog also appears to be less of a concern than originally thought, as coming from an abusive background including dogs who were underweight did not have an increased risk of resource guarding (Miller et al., 2019) again leading to the question of how representative these tests are.
It is important that we look at the research and our own experience and decide what assessments we think are appropriate, we should consider, how often we feed the dogs in our care, what potential effects do these tests have on learning. E.g. biting the assessor hand leads to its removal, and that in most studies owners either did not see the behaviour as a problem or were able to cope with it. I am not saying that these assessments are wrong or not useful, we just need to be happy with our processes.
