In *cough*May*cough*, I attended the 12th
Annual Minnesota Animal Welfare Conference, which was focused on behavior. It was a great day of speakers and info, and I’m
really glad I went. Today’s post is a summary of Aditi Terpstra’s
presentation on food guarding. Aditi is a CPDT-KA who runs Urbane
Animal. She is also the dog program director for the Winona Animal
Humane Society, a back-up animal control officer for Winona, MN, and
an independent contractor for the ASPCA. She’s also a really cool
person.
 |
| Zombie Dog resource guards caffeine. That's okay, he's probably still adoptable. |
Aditi introduced the ASPCA SAFER
assessment in her presentation, which was geared towards shelter
workers. The SAFER is not a temperament test; it’s not a pass/fail
exam, but rather a snapshot of current behavior, focusing on
aggression. Each dog is assessed and assigned a score ranging from 1
to 5, and these scores help shelter workers determine the resources
needed in order to place the dog safely. Food guarding
is just one area on the SAFER, but it’s an important area to single out as a
survey of shelters showed that food guarding is one of the top
reasons dogs were deemed not eligible for adoption. Only 34% of the
shelters responding to the survey attempted behavior modification for this behavior problem.
What I found very interesting was that
the Wisconsin Human Society (2004) did research that suggests that
behavior mod in the shelter setting wasn’t even necessary in some cases!
In this research, 96 dogs had scores of 3-5 (indicating stiffening,
freezing, gulping, growling, or biting a fake hand) on the food
aggression section of the SAFER assessment. These dogs were sent home on a “food
program” for the new adopters to follow. This program includes
advice to avoid conflict around the food bowl, to make mealtime a
non-event, and to require a sit (or other simple behavior) before the
bowl is put on the floor. They had adopters put small amounts in the
bowl at first, and then adding more gradually. Dropping high value
food treats was also recommended, in addition to providing a
“foraging device” (ie, Kong or other food toy) to the dogs. Only six adopters (out of 96!)
reported guarding behaviors in the first 3 weeks. The dogs were
followed for three months, and in that time, only one dog was
returned. This means that 95 “unadoptable” animals were
successful placed!
I’ll admit, I have concerns about
liability, but the researchers did not. They were very transparent
about the dog’s issues, and provided pre-adoption education and
follow-up support. Definitely an interesting presentation. If you’d like more information, you can visit the following links:
No comments:
Post a Comment