Sue Sternberg - part 3

Continued from here.

Sue Sternberg and her Assess-a-Pet is the progenitor of most of today's temperament tests, all of which either try to enhance or replace the original, and so the most extreme praise or vitriole is reserved especially for her. It's too bad the argument is so heated because the truth always gets lost when people would rather spend more energy throwing mud than trying to get to the facts. If the effectiveness of her test, or any temperament test, is to be judged fairly, personal attacks are not the way to go.

Temperament tests, behaviour assessments, temperament evaluations - call them what you will - have made big inroads into shelters' adoption programs all across North America. There's the SAFER test by Emily Weiss, there's the test developed by Jean Donaldson at the San Francisco SPCA, the Puppy Aptitude Test by Volhard and there are dozens if not hundreds more out there developed by various experts - some of whom are only experts in their own mind. And maybe that's part of the problem. The reputation of the better researched tests gets sullied by the riff raff.

Here's an excerpt from one test found on wikiHow. Shmarmy comments are mine in square brackets. Sorry, I couldn't resist:

Aggressiveness Test [Oh goodie. No beating around the bush on this one.]

1. Step near the dog. [Uh-oh]

2. Watch. See if he:
Acts like he will bite. [Good use of the technical term "acts like" because everyone knows what "acts like" looks like]
Bites. [Yes, the best way to test for biting is to get bitten, preferably several times so that you can be sure of the results]
Attacks your clothing or shoes.(Never think this is cute) [It's good to know that stalking shoelaces isn't cute. The next time that Frenchie puppy next door nibbles on mine, I may have to notify Animal Control.]
Jumps on you. (Is curable, but not with other signs of aggression) [So if that Frenchie puppy chews my shoelaces and jumps up on me then I guess it's doomed. I'll break the bad news to its owner, gently.]

3. Also, see if he slinks into the corner. That signals a shy dog. [Or maybe it wants to pee]

Alright, enough of that. There are versions of temperament tests out there that are so ridiculous that anyone using them should be given an "are-you-a-dumbass?" test before being released back into the general public and allowed to procreate.

Another biggie stacked against the notion of temperament testing is the question every dog owner asks oneself, "Would my dog/breed pass that test?" as I'm sure everyone at the seminar asked themselves. To assuage our collective fear, Sue tells us that the temperament test is mostly irrelevant for our dogs because we are all way above average dog owners who know enough to deal with problem behaviours. This sounds a bit like flattery and, in my case, possibly undeserved flattery, with intent to mollify but hey, it works. But still, it doesn't address the issue for the millions of dogs that don't belong to us.

It's a general perception that because temperament testing is a test, there is a pass or fail assigned to each dog. And maybe in some shelters there is but that would be a misinterpretation of what temperament testing is about. Perhaps the word "test" should be taken out of the terminology and replaced with assessment or profile. As a matter of fact, I'll do that right now. It's a behaviour assessment from now on.

Properly used, a behaviour assessment is one tool a shelter can use to match dogs to owners - which is the good news. The bad news is that a behaviour assessment can also be used to determine which, if any, dogs in a given shelter/adoption environment may be considered for euthanasia. I guess it comes down to this. 1. How useful is a behaviour assessment in helping a shelter match a dog with an owner who can take properly care of that dog and 2. if the shelter isn't able to find a match, how long does the shelter keep the dog caged up?

The answer to 2. is easier because it's I don't know. I suspect if I were a dog and I had a discussion with all my doggie friends, some would preach give me freedom or give me death while others would think better fed than dead. I think Sue would agree with that interpretation. She doesn't believe it's humane to keep a dog in a kennel for life but she certainly wouldn't encourage euthanizing a dog if it's kenneling well just because it's been there for "too long".

The answer to 1. is that it seems behaviour assessments are working. Shelters, such as the Animal Humane Society in Minnesota or the Kansas Humane Society, which have implemented behaviour assessments have reported statistically better adopter satisfaction as well as far fewer returns. Kelley Bollen, an animal behaviourist from Massachusetts SPCA has recently completed a study of over 2000 behaviour assessed dogs which show very good corelations between aggression red flags appearing on tests with aggressive behaviour pre and post shelter life (this study is yet to be published). None of this provides a nationwide perspective, so hopefully more studies will be done, but it's a start.

Behaviour assessments, by their artificial nature, will never be a replacement for real life but just because a crash test dummy isn't a real person doesn't mean it can't be used to get useful information. Maybe to humanize it, behaviour assessments need to be tempered by a dose of gut feel and a shot of "I feel sorry for that guy" but to discount them completely is akin to putting on partial blinders and is disadvantageous to both the dog and adopter. After all, wouldn't it make more sense to match a food possessive dog with someone who has no young kids and is willing to work to correct that behaviour than to send the dog home with someone with toddlers who might like to share in the dog's supper?

Continued here.