Euthanising Dogs Too Readily

Note: See the update below this text.

By Anders H. Davidsen
SAHD – Centre for Behaviour and Mentality

This text was written in response to a specific case. Read the case here

This is about far more than poor breeding.

This is about a testing centre (and many other actors in Norway’s dog world) with very limited knowledge of the ways dogs can be helped through appropriate influence. Being able only to READ a dog’s temperament and/or behaviour pattern on a test course or in a two-hour consultation is like teaching a track-and-field athlete to run using only the left foot. One must also know about behaviour change and environmental adaptation, be able to understand the background to behaviour, and understand the environment in which the dog is to live and with whom.

What one sees in a test is often influenced by more than genetics and may be helped if one has the relevant knowledge. This also requires test-course staff with extensive experience, an ability to understand pressure and to refrain from applying pressure, and the competence to understand recovery, displacement behaviour versus mental stability, and connections to breed, early experience and bloodlines, among other things.

The fact that a very small number of dogs cannot live in this society because of unwanted behaviour patterns is a reality, and it is very sad. Every dog has a background that contributes to this, in terms of temperament, early experience, genetics and so on.

SAHD (and other practitioners) assess far more dogs through courses, consultations and training than the centre mentioned. When, over several decades, we have recommended that THREE dogs be euthanised, in consultation with other professionals, I find it remarkable that one actor so frequently chooses to euthanise “left, right and centre”.

This is about more than a dog who should not be alive.

This is about assessors who do not know enough about how to HELP a dog develop the desired behaviour in the environment where it is to live.
This is about test personnel and “behaviour experts” lacking the ability to choose the right measures to help a dog move forward.

Far too many actors learn how a dog behaves, and partly what may lie behind it (unfortunately, to far too great an extent, they learn to read the symptoms), but have no knowledge at all of how to CHANGE behaviour.

This is why so many dogs are recommended for euthanasia today by many actors: they do not have the tools to solve the problems. Quite simply.

In this case, attention has been drawn to the euthanasia rate, making it “convenient” to blame breeders publicly. It is the easy way out. Although many breeders should do more to prioritise sound temperament, this is madness.

I regularly meet healthy, good and well-adjusted dogs that have been recommended for euthanasia because of behaviour that a centre, behaviour consultant or others have judged to be so serious that the dog should no longer be allowed to live. It then turns out that only small adjustments, if any, are often needed to help these dogs.
THIS is about early experience, not genetics.

Important: EVERYONE whose dog has been recommended for euthanasia should seek other opinions—a second and a third opinion.

NEVER accept that one actor recommends euthanasia for your dog and that is the end of it. It is often a very cheap solution from someone who does not know enough about dogs or does not have enough tools in their toolbox.

THERE ARE TOOLS. ALMOST ALWAYS!!!

I question the professionalism of practitioners who recommend euthanasia WITHOUT having consulted other professionals. This is not only a lack of respect for the field, but a betrayal of people who pay thousands of kroner for help, only to have someone snap their fingers and recommend euthanasia because they themselves lack sufficient knowledge. Where are the self-respect and humility?

I agree that attention should be paid to breeding and sound temperament, but equal demands must also be made of testing centres, behaviour education programmes and behaviour consultants, because the euthanasia rate has become completely out of control.

THIS IS INSANE and should be examined more closely by the police, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the Animal Protection Alliance.

AGAIN: ALWAYS SEEK SEVERAL PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS IF YOUR DOG IS RECOMMENDED FOR EUTHANASIA.

An animal’s life is so valuable that one actor’s lack of knowledge must never become the dog’s death sentence.

Over the years, SAHD has become one of Norway’s largest actors in the dog field.

Writing this will cause a stir, but it is about time there was some commotion around this subject.

SAHD intends to continue the engagement around this issue that we began early this spring, until dogs stop being euthanised because “professionals” do not know enough about behaviour change.

The timing of this post is somewhat coincidental, but when the article above was read, it seemed appropriate to raise the subject in general terms, and in response to breeders being assigned all the blame. It is a cheap shot from behind at breeders by the testing centre mentioned above.

Update

Two years passed, and then the same testing centre was filmed in action with a dog. The circulating video shows severe violence against a dog on several occasions.
The actor announced a few days later that it was ending all operations.

This is what we wrote on our Facebook page when this case arose and we had seen the video:

A video now circulating on social media shows a well-known actor handling a dog with brutal jerks to the neck. These were not small corrections, but hard, repeated jerks that not only could cause injuries but also injured the dog. In addition, the dog’s trust is completely broken down. This is not dog work; this is abuse.

A couple of years ago I wrote a post about the same actor, questioning the professionalism and knowledge they represented. At that time the issue was how easily dogs were recommended for euthanasia because those assessing them lacked the tools to actually help them move forward.

I received this video this morning, and now we see the same thing again: a lack of knowledge replaced by violence. This is unacceptable.

SAHD utterly condemns this, and we will continue with full force to inform dog owners and professionals about how behaviour changes through safe, long-term and trust-building approaches. This requires and must include in-depth knowledge of behaviour, respect and empathy. Never through brutality and/or discomfort.

Regardless of how the dog appears, this is never acceptable. Never.

After the first jerk, we see a dog cower.

The second jerk comes when the dog has no intention of doing anything other than sitting there. It is not even looking at the distracting dogs. The brutality is harmful in itself, but the brutal treatment of a dog with no intention of acting could leave it traumatised, if it is not already.

A dog may lunge against a lead and tighten it itself. But this intentional brutality is heartbreaking and has not a trace of established professional practice in it.

Behaviour change never happens at the level of the symptom.

It happens over the long term. One must know how to assess what help a dog needs, know how to provide that help, and then give the dog time to process the change and develop appropriate behaviour and associations.

In the post I wrote a couple of years ago, I also mentioned the lack of general knowledge about behaviour among many actors, especially knowledge about changing behaviour. Sadly, this still holds true, with this latest incident as a tragic example.

Anders H. Davidsen
Owner, SAHD