Subject: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS)" Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:54:35 +0100 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, 'ethology' Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an objective way for presenting in court. It is now some time since I last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you point us in the right direction for using a validated method. And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the testing in any district/country? Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in ethology Fjellanger Dog Training Academy Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: Margory Cohen Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:27:19 -0800 To: "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS)" CC: "Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? Thank you. -Margory Cohen Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an objective way for presenting in court. It is now some time since I last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the testing in any district/country? > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > M.Sc in ethology > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: EJ Haskins Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:22:59 +1100 To: "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS)" CC: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Hi Randi, There is a Yahoo list on Temperament testing in dogs. temperamenttesting-subscribe@yahoogroups.com It is currently very quiet, but you can probably find out more here than you can from me. In New South Wales, Australia, there are now official temperament dog assessors approved by the NSW Dept. of Local Government. I considered applying to be one and got all the relevant paperwork, but was put off because applicants needed to devise a temperament test for themselves, to 'put to' the Department, and there seemed to me insufficient legal protection if a dog you had assesses as 'safe' later killed or maimed somebody. I do know that the Kennel Control people who did become approved assessors used the American Temperament Test. (But they, lucky ducks, carry their own insurance cheap through the Kennel Club.) I do have the stuff I got from the DLG as well as info about the ATT but cannot find it off-hand. If it would be of any use to you let me know and I'll try to find it and send it on as attachments to you. All the best, Jenny H Coffs Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca ; 'ethology' Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:54 PM Subject: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an objective way for presenting in court. It is now some time since I last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you point us in the right direction for using a validated method. And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the testing in any district/country? Thank you, Randi Helene Tillung M.Sc in ethology Fjellanger Dog Training Academy Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: Randi Helene Tillung Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:49:11 +0100 To: 'ethology' , Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs are a sighthound breed. His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you people go about a case like this? Thanks, Randi Helene Tillung -----Original Message----- From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] Sent: 12. januar 2009 15:27 To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? Thank you. -Margory Cohen Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for presenting in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: margorycohen@comcast.net Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:59:42 +0000 To: 'ethology' , Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: "John R. Lane" Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:23:54 -0800 (PST) To: Applied Ethology List Hi Randi, I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. Regards John L. From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Re: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considere d frightening/dangerous From: Christina Lager Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:42:21 +0100 To: Applied Ethology List Hi Randi In Denmark the Law of Dogkeeping (Hundeloven) states that the owner and/or the police can require a dog tested temperamentally as part of a court case. To do the testing 6 vets have been appointed, and they use a standardized test. If you contact me privately I can give you further information, including contact information to some of the 6 vets and to the vet who was involved when the law was passed Best regards Christina Lager DVM Sinding Denmark clager@c.dk mvh Christina Lager Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: Randi Helene Tillung Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:09:27 +0100 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, 'ethology' It is the lawyer who has made the decision that they will be proactive and test the dogs before the court appoints someone else to do it. I agree with you Margory. The charge is probably unfounded, and they have not documented any instances the dogs have acted aggressive… but they are stubborn about removing the dogs anyhow. This is in Norway. The legislation here is that you are allowed to keep a dog “if you have a good reason”. Now, that does not stop the board in the condos from having a rule that dogs are not permitted, but they might not be allowed to throw people out if they do. The court will decide on that. Randi Helene From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] Sent: 13. januar 2009 00:24 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Hi Randi, I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. Regards John L. From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: FraidyCat Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:01:12 -0500 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca This thread reminds me of something a friend of mine in Holland had to deal with regarding pit bulls. Apparently, they're automatically considered dangerous and put to sleep. Sad. ----- Original Message ----- From: Randi Helene Tillung To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca ; 'ethology' Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous It is the lawyer who has made the decision that they will be proactive and test the dogs before the court appoints someone else to do it. I agree with you Margory. The charge is probably unfounded, and they have not documented any instances the dogs have acted aggressive… but they are stubborn about removing the dogs anyhow. This is in Norway. The legislation here is that you are allowed to keep a dog “if you have a good reason”. Now, that does not stop the board in the condos from having a rule that dogs are not permitted, but they might not be allowed to throw people out if they do. The court will decide on that. Randi Helene From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] Sent: 13. januar 2009 00:24 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Hi Randi, I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. Regards John L. From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs From: EJ Haskins Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:29:17 +1100 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca In New South Wales (Australia) all Pit Bull Terriers, along with some other proscribed breeds are automatically classed as dangerous dogs, which requires them to be neutered as well as kept in a secure chain-link yard, separate from the residence, with concrete flooring. (A way to make a dog dangerous?) The silly thing is that dogs thought to be Pit Bull (or other proscribed breed) mixes must be temperament tested and if they pass that are not considered dangerous. Additionally, American Staffordshire terriers come with NO reservations. Cheers, Jenny Haskins Coffs Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: FraidyCat To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous This thread reminds me of something a friend of mine in Holland had to deal with regarding pit bulls. Apparently, they're automatically considered dangerous and put to sleep. Sad. Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: cissy stamm Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:09:17 -0800 To: Randi Helene Tillung CC: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, 'ethology' Do the dogs provide any benefit to the owners? Do they help with depression or anxiety, do they get otherwise sedentary persons to get medically needed exercise, etc. Does waking them make sure they get out of bed in the morning. Do they feed on a schedule that is tied to a medication schedule so the persons know are reminded to take their meds when the dogs ask for their food? Have you and the owners and lawyers explored whether the owners have "a good reason" to have their dogs? And what constitutes a good reason? Has the lawyer checked if there case law? Cissy On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Randi Helene Tillung wrote: > It is the lawyer who has made the decision that they will be proactive and test the dogs before the court appoints someone else to do it. I agree with you Margory. The charge is probably unfounded, and they have not documented any instances the dogs have acted aggressive… but they are stubborn about removing the dogs anyhow. > > This is in Norway. The legislation here is that you are allowed to keep a dog “if you have a good reason”. Now, that does not stop the board in the condos from having a rule that dogs are not permitted, but they might not be allowed to throw people out if they do. The court will decide on that. > > > Randi Helene > > > From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] > Sent: 13. januar 2009 00:24 > To: Applied Ethology List > Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous > > Hi Randi, > I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. > > Regards John L. > > > > From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" > To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM > Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous > Where is this please? > What kind of sighthound? > > I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! > > If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. > -margory cohen > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Randi Helene Tillung > > > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > > are a sighthound breed. > > > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > > people go about a case like this? > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > > considered frightening/dangerous > > > > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > > > Thank you. > > -Margory Cohen > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > > > > > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. > > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: Margory Cohen Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:31:21 -0800 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, 'ethology' Then, if you are the 'expert' being brought in - it really falls on you to set the precedent for this situation. I understand all the spin and possibilities for spin -- but what happens when issues get steered off course -- in this instance, perhaps the condo has a size limit for dogs and the dogs are too big -- but instead of staying on point -- then the dogs' stability is questioned because people can't just come out and say they don't like dogs, they have to find instead what they consider higher moral ground. It is extremely offensive, and sadly pervasive in all our country's governments and practices and it's time to stop allowing such behaviour. We know that this is done with dogs in all kinds of situations; it's inevitable it happens to people also. But if one is given the chance to be the spokesperson - one's own voice can stay true. Even the AKC Good Canine Citizen test -- see www.akc.org - would provide a trainer with a platform to show basic manners of the dog. The lawyer should tend to coop board rules and regs and if he needs to show how good the dogs are, have statements from people who know the dogs, the vet, the trainer, etc. I write in blind faith the owners are reasonable and good with their dogs and are just defying the coop board. -margory cohen From: Randi Helene Tillung To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca ; 'ethology' Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:09 PM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous It is the lawyer who has made the decision that they will be proactive and test the dogs before the court appoints someone else to do it. I agree with you Margory. The charge is probably unfounded, and they have not documented any instances the dogs have acted aggressive… but they are stubborn about removing the dogs anyhow. This is in Norway. The legislation here is that you are allowed to keep a dog “if you have a good reason”. Now, that does not stop the board in the condos from having a rule that dogs are not permitted, but they might not be allowed to throw people out if they do. The court will decide on that. Randi Helene From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] Sent: 13. januar 2009 00:24 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Hi Randi, I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. Regards John L. From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous From: Margory Cohen Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:31:21 -0800 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, 'ethology' Then, if you are the 'expert' being brought in - it really falls on you to set the precedent for this situation. I understand all the spin and possibilities for spin -- but what happens when issues get steered off course -- in this instance, perhaps the condo has a size limit for dogs and the dogs are too big -- but instead of staying on point -- then the dogs' stability is questioned because people can't just come out and say they don't like dogs, they have to find instead what they consider higher moral ground. It is extremely offensive, and sadly pervasive in all our country's governments and practices and it's time to stop allowing such behaviour. We know that this is done with dogs in all kinds of situations; it's inevitable it happens to people also. But if one is given the chance to be the spokesperson - one's own voice can stay true. Even the AKC Good Canine Citizen test -- see www.akc.org - would provide a trainer with a platform to show basic manners of the dog. The lawyer should tend to coop board rules and regs and if he needs to show how good the dogs are, have statements from people who know the dogs, the vet, the trainer, etc. I write in blind faith the owners are reasonable and good with their dogs and are just defying the coop board. -margory cohen From: Randi Helene Tillung To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca ; 'ethology' Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:09 PM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous It is the lawyer who has made the decision that they will be proactive and test the dogs before the court appoints someone else to do it. I agree with you Margory. The charge is probably unfounded, and they have not documented any instances the dogs have acted aggressive… but they are stubborn about removing the dogs anyhow. This is in Norway. The legislation here is that you are allowed to keep a dog “if you have a good reason”. Now, that does not stop the board in the condos from having a rule that dogs are not permitted, but they might not be allowed to throw people out if they do. The court will decide on that. Randi Helene From: John R. Lane [mailto:k9_college_hawkes_bay@yahoo.com.au] Sent: 13. januar 2009 00:24 To: Applied Ethology List Subject: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Hi Randi, I agree with Margory. What you are describing doesn't sound to me like a case for a temperament test. It sounds like a dispute among neighbours in a condo about dogs "in general" living there or maybe the care and training of this particular one and its subsequent effects on the condo. It certainly doesn't sound like a case where this particular dogs' temperament needs testing to establish whether there is any potential danger from it. Regards John L. From: "margorycohen@comcast.net" To: ethology ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 11:59:42 AM Subject: RE: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are considered frightening/dangerous Where is this please? What kind of sighthound? I live with sighthound. Just because they are big, doesn't mean they are dangerous - and frankly -- hardly "dangerous" if they are sighthound! If the owner is in violation of what his condominium allows by size, do not let this blow up into a charge against dogs which is unfounded. -margory cohen -------------- Original message -------------- From: Randi Helene Tillung > They will not find any jurisdiction for saying that large dogs are > dangerous, but the owner has a lawsuit that he will have to sell the > apartment unless the two dogs are removed. The argument is that dogs shed > hairs in the shared staircase, bark occasionally and are large... This is a > nuisance for the neighbours, and some might be scared of the dogs. The dogs > are a sighthound breed. > > His lawyer advises him to get a temperament test of the dogs. How would you > people go about a case like this? > > Thanks, > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margory Cohen [mailto:margorycohen@comcast.net] > Sent: 12. ja nuar 2 009 15:27 > To: Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger Hundeskole AS) > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are > considered frightening/dangerous > > > By size alone, no incident, a dog os being deemed dangerous? > Where is this happening? What jurisdiction? What code? > > Thank you. > -Margory Cohen > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:54 AM, "Randi Helene Tillung (Fjellanger > Hundeskole AS)" wrote: > > > Recently I have been contacted twice by lawyers/dog owners on > > whether we can do temperament tests on dogs that either have > > allegedly bitten someone, or are just considered dangerous because > > of their size. We are asked to test these dogs temperament in an > > objective way for present ing in court. It is now some time since I > > last looked at this challenge, and I feel outdated. Can any of you > > point us in the right direction for using a validated method. > > > > > > > > And, does any of you know of any states that have approved of a test? > > > > > > > > Also, are you familiar with that the police themselves does the > > testing in any district/country? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > Randi Helene Tillung > > > > M.Sc in ethology > > > > Fjellanger Dog Training Academy > Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Subject: Relieving stress in companion animals From: joseph stookey Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:27:15 -0600 To: applied-ethology network HI Everyone, As an assignment each year, vet students in my behaviour section must write a response to a question they receive about an animal behavioural problem which is asked by another student in the class, such that all the students are responding to a unique question. You can imagine the diversity of species/topics,/questions that the students are randomly assigned. All the questions and responses are publicly shared with the class so that they can read about topics that are of particular interest to them. Anyway, a common question would be one that involves "compulsive behaviours" as seen in companion animals, often "brought on" by suspicion of "anxiety/stress". A common suggested treatment is to provide the pet with a "consistent routine" (especially feeding at the same time) and more exercise. Keep in mind that the students are simply repeating what they find in the literature. They also suggest, what I refer to as the shot-gun treatment approach, in that they make multiple suggestions (all of which they have read in the literature), perhaps reasoning that surely something will work! Being the skeptical scientist that I am, and admittedly having done zero clinical work with companion animals, I find it all rather suspicious in that I wonder if there is any hard evidence to show that some of the suggestions, say consistently feeding the pet at the same time each day, has any benefit what so ever? Consistent time of feeding certainly doesn't change the incidence of stereotypies in limit-fed gestating sows. At the end of the day, hunger or lack of reaching satiety has more to do with the development of stereotypies in our farm animals than most other factors. Several years ago a companion animal behaviourist privately wrote to tell me that he successfully "treats" nearly 90% of the behaviour problems he sees in dogs by prescribing the owner to feed them MORE food and to exercise them LESS. He believed that more exercise might be detrimental in that it only served to create a more athletic dog that craved more exercise (and theoretically more feed) and became more anxious, more hungry and in need of more attention. So my question is whether we know which approach (feeding more and exercising less vs feeding at the same time each day, more exercise, etc.) is better at treating some companion animal "problems"? Are there any scientific studies that have specifically looked at the impact of feeding levels (i.e. limit feeding vs ad libitum) on the impact of behavioural disorders in dogs? Are there any scientific studies that have specifically looked at the impact of exercise on the incidence of behavioural disorders in dogs? I am not trying to pop anyone's bubble of knowledge about what you "know" works when treating compulsive disorders in dogs, but I do find students providing me with long litanies of suggested treatments for any given problem and I can not help but wonder how many of the "treatments" have been tested independently of each other to see which ones really work and which ones we think work, but may not be having any influence. Thanks. Cheers, Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5B4 Tel 306-966-7154 Fax 306-966-7159 Subject: Re: RE: RE: Fw: Validated method for temperatment testing of dogs that are c onsi dere d frightening/dangerous From: Christina Lager Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:32:35 +0100 To: "Matthews, Lindsay" CC: applied ethology Hi Regarding the testing protocol.... I had my PC fried by ligthning so I had to dig around a bit to find something Thing is my memory isn't what it used to be (LoL, maybe it never was) - and it turns out that the protocol is not a strict series of tests - even though that was what I remembered. (insert apologetic blushing smiley here, please) DSKVE (the Danish society for clinical veterinary ethology) looked for a validated test back when the law about dogs was changed. (2003-2004, thereabouts), We looked at the test for aggression by W.J. Netto og D. Planta (published in Applied Animal Behavior Science in 1997). This test is for aggression generally, not directly about how dangerous the dog is to the public. And we looked at material by dr.Joel Dehasse, who has constructed a model for calculating the level of dangerousness in a dog. At the time the model was not yet validated scientifically. I don't know if this has happened since. We also looked at material supplied by dr. Rudy de Meester. Of course dog behaviour is complex and so is aggression. At the time there simply wasn't any objective standardized validated tests. I would be interested to know whether this has changed in the 5 years since? So, in the end, the conclusion was that the optimal solution was appointing 6 vets experienced in working with behavioural issues. And let the evaluation of the dangerousness of the dog rest on their experience. They use a protocol containing the following points. 1 - evaluating the tendency of the dog to show aggressive behaviour in a form that might be a risk or induce fear in the public. 2 - evaluation of the dog-owner interactions. And the owners ability to control the dog 3 - a clinical examination (to rule out physical changes that might be the root of any aggressive behavoiur) best regards Christina Lager DVM Sinding Denmark mvh Christina Lager