Dog assessments: testing for temperament

We have copied the whole section from No-Kill Now because this subject is of such importance. Many societies that purport to practice animal welfare also hold animal-control/disposal contracts which require them to kill any dog that might be a danger to the public. In order to justify the killing, it has become common practice to utilize a "scientific, state-of-the-art" test that proves that the dog "failed". These tests in reality are the new way to cull dogs that could be an insurance liability and which the society's pound contracts require it to kill. It also is the new justification for killing dogs that were surrendered to the society under its unlimited surrender policy which have behaviour problems. And it is the justification for not spending money on rehabilitation.

No-Kill Now - Killing for Behavior & The Temperament Test
Killing animals for behavioral reasons opens a Pandora's box. Some animals have been labeled "vicious" merely because they growled when a dog-catcher put a tether around their neck, dragged them to the street and threw them in a dark box inside a dispatch truck. There is no across-the-board consensus of what constitutes a "dangerous" animal.

Still, many municipalities, SPCA's and even private rescue organizations continue to kill based on behavior. The 'crime' could be snarling at a fake hand used in a test, snapping at a foster parent or injuring or killing an animal or person. Even in the later scenario there may be extenuating circumstances such as self-defense, defending a guardian, abusive treatment, illness, starvation or mistake.

It appears there is no way of easily assessing temperament and it is extremely controversial.

Chihuahua Rescue argues, "There is a "test" being peddled to shelters across the country. This test is a "temperament test." It "tests" the dog's disposition by subjecting him to a series of standards such as being prodded with a stick, slapped with a rubber hand, being teased with treats, then having it snatched away [and more recently hanging an animal upside.] Kind of similar to the way some dogs are tormented by abusers. In this case if the dog...even snarls or curls a lip, he "FAILS" the test and is deemed "unacceptable" so he doesn't count toward being exterminated. How many, scared, starved, abused and confused dogs, being thrown in a strange, hostile environment such as a municipal shelter, "fail" these tests? The answer? Most. But who cares, right? Once these ghastly and unscientific tests are administered, then a shelter can kill 1000's of dogs every year- bid-ness as usual- but now say they're a "no-kill" municipality! Dogs that are unplaceable don't count towards "killing!"

The 'Sue Sternberg Slaughter'?
Sue Sternberg created the " Assess-A-Pet" test, used by 'shelters' and private rescues across the country to identify and kill 'unadoptable' companion animals. The test usually lasts about 15 minutes and uses a fake hand to test aggression. The pound dog, already in a high-stress atmosphere, has a food bowl or toy or bone put in front of him or her and the fake hand starts poking and prodding the dog while it is trying to eat. If no reaction is achieved, the prodding continues and once the dog snarls or growls, the dog is often marched off immediately to be killed. This test is one of the most widely used in the country. Sternberg has been quoted to say none of her own dogs would pass her test. Her seminar audience witnessed her state that 70% of dogs in the Northeast part of the country are 'unadoptable' and 'should be killed.' Sternberg reportedly called herself "Hitler" in her classes, asked attendees not to tell shelter donors about her tests and killings and has caused seminar attendees to cry and vomit upon seeing the administration of her tests. Many claim that dogs that fail her test make wonderful companions though Sternberg would have killed them. An outcry from her seminar audience can be found throughout the internet. Former employees of her 'rescue', Rondout Valley Kennels in upstate New York, say she is out of control and her slaughter is totally unjustified.

Francis Batista, supra, has come out squarely against Sternberg. He calls these tests "a license to kill" and only values such tests to evaluate training needs and to select an appropriate home - not for deciding who lives and who dies.

Batista continues, "Killing animals on the basis of a temperament test is such a horrendous crime that those who do it have to become hardened in their defense of the theory in order to justify their crime. Sue Sternberg is a lousy trainer who justifies her inability by labeling her students as dangerous and uneducable. Imagine the uproar if this were suggested as a way of sorting students at inner city schools".

Jean Donaldson from the San Francisco SPCA also has problems with Sternberg's methods. "We couldn't get Sue's test past the reliability issue, and four of her five unadoptable dogs did fine."

Animal Match Rescue Team believes that testing at the pound site is a basis for invalidating the test ab initio.

No-kill NOW director Vikki Shore states, "Behavior-killing has become epidemic. It is huge at 'shelters'. But on a smaller scale, breeders, veterinarians and some rescuers and pet 'owners' routinely practice it.

"Sue Sternberg tells 'the ice cream' story which I've heard too many others tell. It goes something like this: 'Willy snarled today so I took him for an ice cream and then straight to the vet to have him 'put to sleep'. It was a wonderful last day. I feel so good about it!'

"I know I'm expected to rejoice along with the story-teller but every time I hear it I feel ill. No medical evaluation, no behavior-modification training, no re-homing. These poor animals were never given a fair chance. I've heard the same story when the issue was instead medical expenses that exceed $100.

"Too many innocent lives are being snuffed out based on convenience, subjectivity, false positives and personal gain. We've become too comfortable playing God when it comes to companion-animal lives.

"Prior to imposing a death sentence, at the very least there should be minimal prerequisites to behavior-killing, such as:
a) a pattern of prior dangerous behavior;
b) a demonstration of meaningful remedial efforts, such as extensive training, treatment and/or finding a new home more compatible with the animal's personality and needs and
c) a final determination made by a committee, preferably composed of a majority of volunteer rescue workers, a least two behaviorists and a veterinarian in conjunction with a thorough investigation of the facts and a psychological and physical assessment of the animal.

Ideally, these animals would be kept alive in a safe haven where they can cause no harm and live out their natural lives".

Read more >>

[ back to top ]