25/11/2024
Safe handling is safe handling
https://www.facebook.com/share/19ZjyzEBrn/
I was recently involved in a court matter as an expert witness which, by the tendering of a procedures manual, put handling and training methodology before the court. That is, positive only, force free (so to speak) handling and training methodology.
The hearing spanned over 14 months in court. I have been an expert witness in many court and tribunal matters but this was by far the longest and most challenging for various reasons. Most are concluded in a day or two.
The matter was in relation to a contested Destruction Order of a dog which had, without provocation, sustained an attack on a person resulting in injuries extending from the legs to the head. The dog was re-homed back to the rescue from which it was adopted after the incident.
I am deliberately not naming the respondent in this matter as this is not about naming and shaming any person or organisation. That would detract from the message I am attempting to convey. This post is about awareness of potentially dangerous handling and training protocols. If anyone knows the respondent in this matter, I would ask that they do not name them on this thread.
I am only providing information in this post that has been provided in an open court.
There are other concerning aspects of this matter which I will not explore. Again, I do not wish to detract from the purpose of this post.
Last year I was approached by a Council to perform a temperament assessment on this dog and prepare a report to be tendered in court. I performed the assessment. It was videoed in totality. I prepared a detailed report explaining what I observed and potential risk. The bottom line, I found the behaviour of the dog to be problematic. The dog displayed unsafe behaviour multiple times during the assessment. I was critical of the handling and management of the dog during the assessment and questioned the procedures of the rescue in relation to the training of staff. I was also critical of documented incidents which occurred prior to the dog being adopted from the rescue and questioned what had been done to reduce the risk of future incidents. It was my belief the dog posed a significant workplace health and safety risk to staff.
Prior to my assessment of the dog, the respondent in this matter (the rescue) had retained a veterinary behaviourist, or more accurately a registered specialist in behavioural medicine, to compile a behaviour report. Contrary to my assessment, the behavioural report noted no issues in relation to behaviour or handling (it was later disclosed in court that the report was only concerned with the welfare of the dog being permanently housed at the rescue).
The matter proceeded to court and the respondent introduced their procedures manual into evidence; seemingly in an attempt to alleviate concerns with handling, training and management of the dog. Court was adjourned and I was asked to prepare a report on the procedures manual.
The manual confirmed my concerns in relation to handling and management of this dog. I would describe the procedures as substandard and potentially dangerous, especially when dealing with dogs with serious behaviour issues. I prepared a detailed response to the manual and other additional evidence introduced by the respondent; including a supplementary report from the respondent’s expert witness.
The respondent’s expert witness’ supplementary report detailed no shortcomings in training and procedures and maintained the past and current handling, training and management of the dog is appropriate. This is despite several highlighted incidents which had occurred at the shelter, conceded behavioural issues and shortcomings in training outcomes. Even after viewing the video of my temperament assessment, it was maintained that handling protocols were appropriate for the dog; despite the dog lunging/attempting to attack a person three times during the assessment without provocation.
At the hearing under cross examination I had labels put to me that I was an aversive trainer, a punishment trainer and a balanced trainer. I have never put a label to the training methodology I choose to adopt. This suggested to me that the respondent’s solicitor had been well briefed on the propaganda the positive only community use to misrepresent anyone who doesn’t except their emotive ideologies. I had it put to me I wasn’t a “positive only” trainer. I quite rightly agreed and went on to assert that positive only methodology is impossible to achieve; it’s always a matter of the level of the aversive. I highlighted the LIMA principle (least intrusive, minimally aversive) as what many ethical trainers adopt.
I had it put to me that I was embellishing what I observed during the assessment and my opinions on protocols in the procedures manual. This was definitely not the case.
The respondent’s expert witness, under cross examination, maintained her position that the handling of the dog during the assessment and the previous and current handling and management protocols were in line with recommended procedures (it was not established who recommended those procedures).
I stayed in court to hear the judgement. I don’t normally do this but I now had a vested interest in the outcome.
At the start of reading her judgement, the magistrate made the statement “as judge of the facts …..” This is a term I’ve heard many times before in 27 years of being involved in the legal system. This time it resonated with me as this decision was only about the dog and if it was safe to be managed in its current environment and with the current handling and training protocols; that is, not about propaganda, fiction and unsubstantiated propositions.
In short, the magistrate did not accept the respondent’s evidence. The respondent’s expert witness’ qualifications were recognised but her evidence in relation to handling and training protocols was not accepted. The magistrate made reference to my “decades of experience in dealing with aggression in dogs”. The magistrate made several references to opinions I made in relation to handling and training protocols and agreed with me. The magistrate agreed with my criticism of the handling during the assessment stating “it was plain to see what was going on”.
The decision was in favour of the applicant and costs were awarded.
The gravity of the decision should serve as a warning to those who want to implement emotive handling and training methodology at the expense of staff and community safety.
I do safe handling and bite prevention training for a number of positive only shelters and organisations (some are now referred to as “fear free”). What is safe when handling dogs is universal regardless of training ideology. A dog displaying unsafe behaviour is universal regardless of training methodology.
The respondent made this matter about training methodology to their own detriment. On a level playing field before a judge of the facts, their evidence was not accepted.
Flawed ideologies should never put the safety of staff or the community at risk.
