Reply to Sandy S.

[Noofies]

I've never been a huge fan of Sternberg's. But I've never been a huge detractor, either. (Primrose was confused on the issue, I quoted something posted by someone else that was severely critical of Sternberg and Primrose thought I was expressing my own opinion.)

I do not subscribe to all of Sternberg's policies and procedures, especially when it comes to certain breeds. (My experience with those breeds is different from hers; I think that has much to do with geography, that the representatives of those breeds she sees in her area are not truly representative of the breeds in general. In specific, Dogos Argentino - there are some Dogo breeders in her area turning out dogs that, by anyone's standards, are dangerous dogs. That is not, however, true of the breed in general, and those east-coast Dogo breeders are personae non grata in the Dogo community.) But I have repeatedly stated that much of what I have learned by attending seminars conducted by Sternberg or where she was a speaker/instructor, by watching her videotapes, by reading her book (Great Dog Adoptions), or by speaking to her in person has proved to be valuable and very useful in evaluating dogs for placement, in training rescue dogs in some basic skills to greatly increase their adoptability, and in making ethical decisions about the way I "do business" as a rescuer.

I believe the general public has a right to adopt a safe dog. I believe it is unethical for a rescuer/shelter to place a dog that is NOT safe. I believe that dogs which are safe should be given priority for kennel space, foster home space, and adoption center/event space; that dogs which are not safe to place should be humanely euthanized rather than warehoused in a "no kill" shelter for the rest of their lives (what kind of life IS that?). I believe that dogs which MAY be safe in the right hands but are not appropriate for the general public either go to breed rescue (if purebred) or euthanized if not placed within a reasonable period of time (which depends on the individual dog and the time/space limitations of the shelter/rescue) or if their space is needed for a dog that IS safe.

(There are some wonderful dogs which have behavioral issues which make them inappropriate for the general public but which can be safely managed by an experienced owner. Unfortunately, those owners are in short supply, and most of them are already at their limit with similar dogs. I own two myself. If something should happen to me, the person I've appointed to care for my animals has instructions to place one of those dogs only if she can find an appropriate home in a reasonable amount of time. (She's an experienced rescuer, I trust her judgement on what constitutes "a reasonable amount of time".) The other dog is delightful 99.99% of the time but has a behavioral issue which makes him unplaceable; she will euthanize him.)

As of now, Sternberg's Assess-A-Pet temperament test is the best tool available to determine whether or not a dog is safe. It is straightforward, easy to learn, easy to perform, and generally pretty accurate. When I perform it myself on rescue dogs I often give a little more weight to the results of some parts of it and less to others, depending on the breed, but I have the luxury of doing that as my rescue is able to screen adopters more thoroughly than shelters are able to do and the dogs live in our homes - not a kennel in a shelter - until an appropriate home is found. This also gives me the luxury (which shelters don't have) of taking on some dogs that may need remedial work on behavioral issues before they should be placed, because I can work with that dog in my home and in "real life" situations. Shelters, which are unable to do such rigorous screening of adopters and which usually do no follow-up after adoption, must do an even MORE rigorous job of screening which dogs they will make available for adoption.

Offensive aggression toward humans is NOT one of the behavioral issues I (or my rescue) consider eligible for training/behavior modification (Miss Noofies' Charm School); dogs which test out as dominant/offensively aggressive in the shelter are left there to be euthanized, dogs which test out as dominant/offensively aggressive after they've settled into a foster home (for example, strays rescued by volunteers or puppymill rescues) are humanely euthanized.

The day before Thanksgiving, I left a stunningly beautiful, young purebred Siberian Husky in the shelter to be euthanized at the end of the day - she was an offensively aggressive resource guarder. Two weeks ago I euthanized a 4-month old puppy (a BYB-dumped stray) for offensively aggressive resource guarding (and low arousal threshhold with other dogs). Earlier this year I recommended 2-year old toy poodle be euthanized for dominance aggression. A fear-biting Chihuahua I was fostering was accidentally killed here but if he hadn't been, I'd have had to euthanize him as there was no improvement in his behavior after three weeks of intensive behavior modification. I euthanized a standard poodle for dominance aggression. I could have lived with/safely managed any of those dogs. Other experienced rescuers or dog trainers could have lived with/safely managed any of those dogs. If those dogs were already in permanent homes, I'd have recommended the owners work with a professional trainer to modify those behaviors. But none of those dogs were safe to place with the general public. If I'd kept those dogs hoping to find an appropriate home for them, I wouldn't have had room for the delightful Shepherd mix puppy I took home from the shelter the day I condemned the Husky and the week after I euthanized the aggressive pup, or the pregnant terrier mix (and the 4 wonderful pups she had two weeks later) who arrived a couple of weeks after the fear-biting Chihuahua died, or the deaf pit bull/boxer mix puppy that came from Ohio the week after I euthed the standard poodle, or the precious, once-in-a-lifetime-dog deaf AB puppy I had room for 6 weeks ago because I didn't take an owner-surrender dog that failed several steps of the Assess-A-Pet temperament test.

With Sternberg, as with the other trainers/behaviorists whose seminars I've attended or whose videotapes I've watched or whose books I've read, I take and use what's valuable and applicable; I don't disregard valuable, accurate, informative, useful, or helpful information simply because I disagree with some of the individual's policies, procedures, or beliefs. And I find it reprehensible that someone who has no experience, no knowledge of Sternberg or her techniques, and who cannot (or will not) recommend an alternative to the technique she so vehemently disparages should slander and demonize a well-respected professional without rebuttal.

My message to that person (not you) is: Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

[Tyger]

Hi, Noofs! I was wondering if you have seen that show, "The Dog Whisperer" on the National Geographic Channel? The guy's name is Cesar Millan, and he seems really good with dogs! He says he rehabilitates dogs and trains people, lol!

[Sandy S]

you feel very passionately about, given your informative and thoughtful response. It is easy to see that you are very knowledgeable and take this very seriously (as anyone in dog rescue should).

I can't take issue with any of it, because I just am not any kind of expert when it comes to dogs. I have them, I love them, I've taken them to obedience classes, I've read dozens of books and magazine articles about all subject dogs, and yet I really am only a casual dog owner compared to many.

What I'm getting at is that I can see how some dog lovers could look at these videos of temperament testing and really not understand or agree with what they are seeing. I guess I see it as a way for people in the know, like you, to take it as an opportunity to present a knowledgeable point of view and maybe correct misconceptions. I think your response to me was very well thought out and thorough and I'm glad you took the time to write it.

I don't mean to speak for Beth though. I don't know what experience or knowledge she has in this subject. I imagine she has what she feels are legitimate reasons for feeling the way she does. I can understand if she chooses not to engage in any further discussions though. You have a very strong personality and believe it or not, it does intimidate some people.

[Glacier]

I'm not a huge fan, but much of what she says makes sense and there isn't anything else out there! The shelter I work with is currently trying to implement a temperment testing program, before we get seriously burned. We call ourselves a no-kill shelter, but only because that's what the public understands. In reality we are limited admission, low kill shelter. We don't take aggressive or sick animals. (www.humanesocietyyukon.ca)

We are working on modifying some of her temperment testing due to the breed we see most often. I'd say 95% of the dogs we get are husky crosses. Well, we can't euthanize them all for small animal aggression and prey drive! We'd be empty, which might be nice occasionally, but lots of great dogs would die.

I was kinda pleased to read in your posts yesterday that Sue's own dogs wouldn't pass her test. I have several here who would fail for sure! Great dogs all of them, but they have some issues! I have a resource guarder who would rip that plastic hand to shreds! The shelter didn't know a thing about Kayleigh when we adopted her, they didn't know diddly about me at that point. Kayleigh got lucky. She should have been euthanized. The shelter got lucky too--we have a set-up here that can safely handle Kay's issues and we're willing to do that. Kayleigh has made great progress in three years, but she's still a handful!

I have a foster here who will likely stay forever. He's bit two times, both fear induced. Mac chooses flight whenever possible, but when cornered he will bite. He's extremely timid. I adore Mac and he's coming out of his shell here. But as soon as I tell a potential adopter that he has a bite history, they aren't interested anymore, understandably. That and he has to go with his brother, Ozzy. Not many people want a timid twosome one of whom might bite their kid! Oh and can clear a six foot fence any ol' time he wants to! sigh....

This looks like a great board, Noofies.

[Noofies]

Guest-Tyger said:

Hi, Noofs! I was wondering if you have seen that show, "The Dog Whisperer" on the National Geographic Channel? The guy's name is Cesar Millan, and he seems really good with dogs! He says he rehabilitates dogs and trains people, lol!

No, I haven't seen it. I don't have cable - unless I'm visiting someone with cable or can talk someone into videotaping specials for me or the program is old enough that it finally ends up on my local PBS station, I don't get to see much cable programming.

I tell the folks in my obedience classes that I don't train dogs, I train people. It's true - I train them, they train their dogs.

There's a fellow named C. W. Meisterfeld who calls himself a "dog psychologist". He does wonders rehabilitating dogs (owned dogs, not shelter dogs). He's written a wonderful book called Jellybean vs Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, subtitled "Written for the safety of our children and the welfare of our dogs." I wish everybody who gets a dog would read this book. It would prevent a lot of problems from occurring in the first place.

Hey, how's your little Malt cutie??

[Noofies]

Glacier said:

I'm not a huge fan, but much of what she says makes sense and there isn't anything else out there! The shelter I work with is currently trying to implement a temperment testing program, before we get seriously burned.

It goes way beyond issues of liability for me. In general, shelters (and often, rescues) have a bad reputation as a place to obtain a good family dog. That's not surprising, many shelters do absolutely NO temperament testing. Some don't even take a history when accepting an owner surrender. Unless a dog is so aggressive that it cannot be managed by shelter staff, every dog in the shelter is made available for adoption. So the well-intentioned people who go to a shelter to rescue a dog (a good thing) rather than buying one from a backyard breeder or pet store (a bad thing) are as likely to get Cujo as they are to get Lassie. The best way to encourage people to adopt from shelters/rescues is to ensure that they can get what they're looking for - a nice, safe, family dog - at their local pound, humane society, or rescue group. Temperament testing is the only way that pounds, humane societies, and rescue groups can be as sure as humanly possible that what they're offering to the public is Lassie rather than Cujo.

We are working on modifying some of her temperment testing due to the breed we see most often. I'd say 95% of the dogs we get are husky crosses. Well, we can't euthanize them all for small animal aggression and prey drive! We'd be empty, which might be nice occasionally, but lots of great dogs would die.

I have no problem with making some modifications - or giving more weight to some tests and less to others - to suit the breed. In fact, the breed-specific rescues who temperament test do exactly that. If Weim rescue euthed all dogs that were prey-driven or small-animal aggressive, they'd be euthanizing at least 50% of dogs that came in. Weims are bout 50/50 when it comes to being cat killers, for example. What Weim rescue does is cat-test their rescues, and only place cat (or other small animal) aggressive dogs in homes without cats.

(BTW, small-animal aggression and/or prey drive is NOT a trait which would cause a dog to fail the Assess-A-Pet temperament test, aggression toward humans IS. Dog-dog aggression, prey drive, small animal aggression are all a very different thing than aggression toward humans. They are not at all related.)

I was kinda pleased to read in your posts yesterday that Sue's own dogs wouldn't pass her test. I have several here who would fail for sure! Great dogs all of them, but they have some issues! I have a resource guarder who would rip that plastic hand to shreds! The shelter didn't know a thing about Kayleigh when we adopted her, they didn't know diddly about me at that point. Kayleigh got lucky. She should have been euthanized. The shelter got lucky too--we have a set-up here that can safely handle Kay's issues and we're willing to do that. Kayleigh has made great progress in three years, but she's still a handful!

My sweet, laid-back, cuddly, lover-baby Lumi Spot is not placeable. It happens rarely, but when he is under attack (or considers himself under attack) and very frustrated, he will displace his anger onto the nearest available warm body. One time, that happened to be me, and it was a bad bite. (The skin on my forearm split deeply, about 3" long.) Another time, after I'd broken up a disagreement he was having with another dog, he was so frustrated because he wanted to get back at that other dog and couldn't that he took a chomp at me. (He missed, I was ready for it.) I can manage this behavior - it only happens here and nobody but me is ever at risk from him, his bites don't even break tough dog skin - but I would never place him with anyone else. If I die or become disabled during his lifetime, he will be euthanized.

I have a foster here who will likely stay forever. He's bit two times, both fear induced. Mac chooses flight whenever possible, but when cornered he will bite. He's extremely timid. I adore Mac and he's coming out of his shell here. But as soon as I tell a potential adopter that he has a bite history, they aren't interested anymore, understandably. That and he has to go with his brother, Ozzy. Not many people want a timid twosome one of whom might bite their kid! Oh and can clear a six foot fence any ol' time he wants to! sigh....

You reinforce my point - as soon as potential adopters are aware of a potential aggression issue, they don't want the dog. I don't blame them - if you were Joan Q. Public looking for a dog, would you go looking for a dog that is likely to bite, even if only under specific circumstances? Cindy made a good point yesterday, too - a dog with an aggression issue (including food guarding, toy guarding, territorial guarding, etc.) that bites a family member - especially a child - can be at risk of being beaten, or even killed. I remember the incident she mentioned - the dog bit the kid and the father took the dog outside, tied it up to a fence post, then beat it to a pulp with a baseball bat. He went inside and had a beer, then came back out and beat the dog some more. For that dog's sake, I wish he'd been temperament tested, his resource guarding discovered, and been euthanized at the shelter.

This looks like a great board, Noofies.

Come back any time! Come post pics, tell stories, whatever tickles your fancy.

[Glacier]

Noofies said:

It goes way beyond issues of liability for me. In general, shelters (and often, rescues) have a bad reputation as a place to obtain a good family dog.

And isn't that sad? All my life I've had shelter dogs. Mainly because my dad is cheap and no way was he paying a breeder for a puppy! But he'd pay an adoption fee for a pound puppy. Really, he's an animal loving softie who pretends to be a tough guy!

Today I ran a six dog team--my two lead dogs were rehomes--I don't consider them rescues, just rehomes. My other four dogs were all shelter dogs. We did 20km in under 90 minutes. They all took commands, pulled their little hearts out and came home happy, tired huskies!

Noofies said:

My sweet, laid-back, cuddly, lover-baby Lumi Spot is not placeable. I can manage this behavior - it only happens here and nobody but me is ever at risk from him, his bites don't even break tough dog skin - but I would never place him with anyone else. If I die or become disabled during his lifetime, he will be euthanized.

I had no idea that Lumi had those kind of issues! He sounds like Mac, only that Mac responds in fear, not frustration.

Kayleigh's fate will be the same should, god forbid, anything happen to my husband and I. She's just not placeable in most homes.

Noofies said:

You reinforce my point - as soon as potential adopters are aware of a potential aggression issue, they don't want the dog. I don't blame them - if you were Joan Q. Public looking for a dog, would you go looking for a dog that is likely to bite, even if only under specific circumstances?

Nope! Frankly, I don't recommend an average, no behavior issues Siberian Husky to Joan Q Public! I spend more time talking people out of huskies! Most people want a dog they can let play with their kids, don't need elaborate containment systems, can be let off leash, ect, ect, ect. Sibes can be wonderful family pets, they like kids, but let them off leash and you may never see them again! While I adore huskies and think life with a Golden Retriever would be boring, they aren't for everyone. I don't think any breed is. I would be a lousy Golden owner!

[Sandy S]

about temperament testing. There is a shelter in a county south of here that was written about in a book. One of the temperament tests done by the dog behaviorist on staff there is to pinch the sensitive skin between the dogs toes hard to see if they show any signs of aggression. Is this considered a legitimate tool to use for assessing temperament? Seems flawed to me (unexperienced that I am). My boxer hates having her feet touched. She is a wonderful dog...loves everyone and I could not imagine her ever biting anyone but I wonder how she'd fare on this test.

[Glaciernli]

Seems creul to me. I believe that any dog, pushed far enough, will bite. Inflicting pain intentionally is one of those things I would expect a dog to react negatively to.

That test is done to check for a deep pain reflex. When my Hoodoo collapsed, my vet did that test on all four paws. Hoodoo did not respond at all and Dr. Rick was squeezing so hard his arms were shaking. That indicated that Hoodoo was in a complete neurological shut down and there was no hope.

Inflicting pain, IMO, isn't be a reliable indicator of temperment. Pain makes dogs do things they wouldn't normally. I have one who due to an old injury needs daily pain meds for the rest of her life. If I miss a day of her meds, Goldie is a miserable beast. If her pain is properly controlled, she's a very sweet, lovely dog.

[Noofies]

that's a fair test. Many, many dogs have foot/feet sensitivities; often they've had their feet pinched/squeezed for jumping up on someone, or have had their toenails quicked when trimming, etc. I've got a foster here who's so sensitive about his feet that I have to wait until he's dead-to-the-world asleep to clip one nail - two, if I'm lucky - before he wakes up. He's not at all aggressive about it, but he's big and strong and pulls his feet away so hard that it can pull me right over onto my nose. Foot sensitivity is a fairly easy problem to overcome; without a lot of effort (though it takes time and patience), there are very few dogs who cannot be taught to tolerate foot handling/nail clipping. They may never LIKE it, but they won't be difficult about it.

What Sternberg's test uses instead is whether or not the dog will allow you to check its teeth. From the top of the muzzle, using one hand lift the lips up so the teeth are exposed and count to 5. Repeat twice, waiting 5 seconds between tries. It's not a concern if the dog pulls away, or turns it's head and won't allow you to lift their lips, the behavior that's a warning sign is if the dog moves his head/mouth toward you - "Unh-uh, lady, you're not gonna put your hands on MY mouth!" - or actually tries to bite, snap, or grab your hand with his mouth. It's important to do it the three times, too, because even some dominant-aggressive dogs will allow you to do it the first time, but not the second or the third. ("Unh-uh, you already DID that once, you're not doing it again!!")

It's important for the tester to pretend to be skill-less and clumsy when doing this, to simulate an inexperienced owner. If we handle the dog with confidence, some dominant-aggressive dogs will not react - they recognize when someone's as tough or tougher than they are and won't display their dominant side until the human shows a weakness.

(One of the things I do with dogs while they're here, especially with puppies, is handle their mouths a LOT so they get used to having it done. It's a great way to teach a dog that humans are in charge of their mouths. My own dogs think having their lips lifted and their teeth examined is caress. )

[Noofies]

I am new to the "fence", and I have been reading it for the past hour or so and there is a lot of good discussions. I have been a dog trainer almost all my life, I have trained from puppy basic to protection, experience with search and rescue, behavior modification, I have worked as a vet tech, and with Shar pei rescue. I have a rescued Shar pei now. And in my past experience, as with people, no two dogs are alike. Each one must be evualated on it's own. It is very appropriate to say, "You don't train dogs, You train owners." Dogs are not humans even though we like to believe that, but you have to be able to communicate with a dog on it's understanding level.

[bea12]

I just posted a comment, "I am new to the "fence" and it is from me to Noofies. I must learn how this works Sorry about that ::)I hope that this will be an often visited site by me