Dangerous testimony in Monroe County Michigan

At their best, behavior evaluations (some call temperament tests) - especially those used on canine victims of cruelty - are meant to tease out a few basic behaviors in dogs in order to give responders enough information to plan next steps including a search for appropriate placement options for each individual. Disposition recommendations are typically broken down into four main categories, including placement into: A) a shelter adoption program B) a foster care home for continued observation and possible adoption placement C) sanctuary for extreme behavior issues or D) euthanasia for a dog that is clearly suffering from medical distress or that is considered unredeemably dangerous.

At their worst, behavior evaluations can be used as a formality to hopscotch dogs straight to D.

The worst seems to have happened in Monroe County Michigan recently, where certified animal behaviorist Katherine Houpt VMD PhD condemned a young and seemingly social pit bull named Dusty for reasons that are hard to grasp. In her testimony, the dog presents a public safety threat and "lack(s) any useful purpose." A rescue group's fight to save Dusty has been bolstered by a video tape of the evaluation now making its rounds via Youtube (see below).

As longtime evaluators of cruelty victims including dogs just like Dusty, we were rather horrified by Dr. Houpt's recommendations after watching the video. Outside of the fact that the dog presented beautifully in the video, experienced evaluators in animal welfare circles rarely give 'pass or fail' recommendations, preferring instead to focus on each dog's specific issues and needs so appropriate help can be found. Occasionally dogs get a 'fail' if they're clearly off the charts in their reactions to people - for example, one very troubled dog from the Bad Newz Kennels case was euthanized because she was literally too unstable to be handled. By now you know the story well: out of 49 dogs, 48 dogs from this infamous fighting operation were successfully matched to appropriate rescue and sanctuary situations.

ABOVE: Hector during his initial evaluations in Virginia

An evaluator's main objective should not be to determine which dog(s) should die, but rather, which dogs can be matched to available resources, including qualified organizations that are set up to meet their specific needs. If rescue resources just can't be located after an honest search, it's understandable when euthanasia becomes necessary. But of course then the humans wear the blame for the deaths, not the dogs themselves. A compassionate society doesn't blame the victims of abuse for their fates. When an evaluator jumps too quickly to condemn a dog however without picking up the phone, exploring viable rescue options or even asking for a second opinion, we have a problem.

A rescue group in Michigan filed a request to absorb Dusty into their program, but based in part on Houpt's pessimistic testimony, their plea was denied by a judge and the young female is now set to be destroyed. The backstory here, as told by the: Monroe SPCA

Take a look: I'll leave it to viewers to decide if they feel threatened by Dusty's reactions. Included also is a video of Dusty's reactions to other dogs.



For information sake, charted out below is a detailed break-down of disposition recommendations we've used in more than one cruelty case including the Vick dog case and the 'Missouri 500' case. Do you believe Dr. Houpt did an adequate job following animal welfare norms in her recommendations? If not, there's a petition going around that would love your support. Petition to Recant Testimony Let's hope it helps.

a. Foster Care/Observation A - These dogs showed no sign of aggression or threat to either people or dogs. Placement is recommended into waiting adoption programs with qualified shelters or rescue groups.

b. Foster Care/Observation B - These dogs showed no sign of aggression or threat to either people or dogs. Placement is recommended in an experienced foster care home where additional observation and rehabilitation can take place and may result in these dogs eventually being placed in appropriately screened homes.

c. Sanctuary 1 - These dogs exhibit intense fear or lack of socialization with people or other dogs. Placement is recommended in a sanctuary situation with more control over the dogs interaction with people and dogs. The sanctuary should provide the dog with controlled experience and interaction with people and other dogs. Some of these dogs may eventually move to a foster care program.

d. Sanctuary 2 - These dogs exhibit mild to intense threat to stimulus and may have shown high arousal towards people. Placement in a sanctuary with extensive breed experience is possible.

e. Euthanasia - These dogs exhibit aggression to people or intense aggression to other dogs or evidence of a significant medical problem which requires euthanasia.

Footnote: The reason dogs like Dusty face such doomed fates in Michigan goes beyond one evaluator's personal bias. Many courts and animal control agencies in Michigan have used an out-dated and vaguely worded Michigan statute to condemn dogs from cruelty cases to automatic death. The wording in that statute was challenged by Kent County Humane Society in 2010 after several canine victims of cruelty in their care were threatened with euthanasia. In that situation, we celebrated when a judge ruled in favor of the shelter's request to make a select number of dogs available for adoption. A win for the dogs. Unfortunately that precedent did not influence this current Monroe County case, and that's very bad news in a state that suffers from perennial BSL threats and breed discrimination.