Search

Simple Summary: Some domestic dogs guard resources and display behaviors such as growling, snarling, or biting when approached. Most animal shelters test for food-related aggression and some consider dogs assessed as food aggressive to be unadoptable and candidates for euthanasia. We surveyed adopters of 139 dogs assessed as either resource guarding (n = 20) or non-resource guarding (n = 119) at a New York (NY) shelter to determine whether shelter identification as food aggressive was associated with guarding in adoptive homes. We also examined whether description of resource guarding in owner reports completed when surrendering a dog to the shelter predicted guarding in adoptive homes. Statistically, shelter assessment as resource guarding and owner-supplied information indicating resource guarding were each associated with guarding in adoptive homes. However, more than half of dogs either assessed by shelter staff or described by surrendering owners as resource guarding did not guard in adoptive homes. Our data indicate that information from surrendering owners, while potentially helpful, is not always predictive of a dog's behavior in an adoptive home, and most importantly, that shelters should not consider all dogs assessed as resource guarding to be unadoptable because many of these dogs do not display guarding behavior post adoption. Some shelters in the United States consider dogs identified as food aggressive during behavioral evaluations to be unadoptable. We surveyed adopters of dogs from a New York shelter to examine predictive abilities of shelter behavioral evaluations and owner surrender profiles. Twenty of 139 dogs (14.4%) were assessed as resource guarding in the shelter. We found statistically significant associations between shelter assessment as resource guarding and guarding reported in the adoptive home for three situations: taking away toys, bones or other valued objects; taking away food; and retrieving items or food taken by the dog. Similarly, owner descriptions of resource guarding on surrender profiles significantly predicted guarding in adoptive homes. However, positive predictive values for all analyses were low, and more than half of dogs assessed as resource guarding either in the shelter or by surrendering owners did not show guarding post adoption. All three sources of information regarding resource guarding status (surrender profile, shelter behavioral evaluation, and adopter report) were available for 44 dogs; measures of agreement were in the fair range. Thus, reports of resource guarding by surrendering owners and detection of guarding during shelter behavioral evaluations should be interpreted with caution because neither source of information consistently signaled guarding would occur in adoptive homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Canine aggression over resources such as food or edible chews is commonly termed food guarding or food aggression. Food aggression directed at humans is relatively common in dogs, including dogs that enter animal shelters. While food aggression is part of dogs' normal behavior, little is known about why some dogs show food aggression, but others do not. Common animal shelter "lore" suggests that dogs that are underweight or were previously starved are more likely than normal-weight dogs to show aggression toward a human that approaches while the dog is eating. It is assumed that the value of food to the dog is increased by experience with food scarcity, and the value remains elevated even after food is no longer scarce. We tested this common belief by analyzing data from 900 dogs from criminal cruelty cases to look for a relationship between the dogs' weight and human-directed food aggression. Contrary to common belief, we found that underweight dogs were not more likely than normal-weight dogs to be food aggressive. Based on these results, human-directed food aggression is not a reliable indicator of past food scarcity. This has implications for criminal proceedings, as dogs can have previously experienced starvation without obvious residual behavioral indications in the shelter. It is commonly believed that underweight or emaciated dogs are predisposed to food aggression toward humans. Each year, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) receives hundreds of dogs from criminal cruelty cases. The dogs range from emaciated to overweight. We analyzed existing data from 900 such dogs to examine the relationship between body condition score and food and chew item aggression toward humans. Across all types of cruelty cases, 9.2% of dogs were aggressive over the food, chew, or both, which is a lower prevalence than that previously reported among shelter dogs. Dogs from cruelty cases originating in New York City were more likely to show aggression over food (z = 3.91, p < 0.001) and chew items (z = 2.61, p = 0.01) than dogs from large-scale cruelty cases, although it is unclear why. Female dogs were less likely to show food (z = −3.75, p < 0.001) and chew item (z = −2.25, p = 0.02) aggression compared to males. Underweight dogs were not more likely to display food aggression, but when they did, the aggression was no more severe than that of normal-weight dogs (Fisher's exact tests = 0.41 and 0.15 for the Food Bowl and Chew Item scenarios, respectively). Breed type was not a significant predictor of aggression. Canine food aggression does not appear to be an aberrant behavior caused by a history of food scarcity but may be related to biological factors such as sex. These findings could prove useful for animal behavior subject matter experts testifying in court or consulting on cruelty cases, as they could speak with scientific validity to the question of whether there is a link between previous food scarcity and the likelihood of food aggression in dogs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Dogs that aggressively guard resources, such as food, toys, and sleeping sites, can pose risk to people unfamiliar with canine communication. Such dogs also present challenges to animal shelters, which typically screen for food-related guarding during behavioral evaluations. Some shelters euthanize dogs that aggressively guard food, whereas others restrict adoptions. However, few studies have examined the characteristics and adoption success of dogs that guard food in shelters. I analyzed demographic data and adoption success of dogs assessed as resource guarders at a shelter in New York (NY) over a nearly five-year period. Fifteen percent of the dog population was identified as resource guarders during shelter behavioral evaluations. Resource guarding was more common in adults and seniors than in juveniles, and it was more common in small and large dogs than medium-sized dogs. While spayed females were more likely than intact females to guard food, neutered males and intact males did not differ in their propensity to guard food. Dogs that showed severe guarding were more likely to be returned by adopters, but almost all were successfully re-adopted. These findings provide a detailed description of food guarders in a shelter dog population and show that most such dogs were successfully re-homed. Some domestic dogs aggressively guard resources. Canine resource guarding impacts public health through dog bites and affects dog welfare through adoption and euthanasia policies at animal shelters. However, little is known about the demographic characteristics and adoption success of dogs assessed as resource guarders during shelter behavioral evaluations. I reviewed nearly five years of records from a New York (NY) SPCA and categorized 1016 dogs by sex; age; size; reproductive status; and resource guarding. I then examined how these characteristics influenced the returns of dogs by adopters. The prevalence of resource guarding in this shelter dog population was 15%. Resource guarding was more common in adult and senior dogs than in juvenile dogs; and it was more common in small and large dogs than medium-sized dogs. Spayed females were more likely than intact females to guard food; neutered males and intact males did not differ in their likelihood of food guarding. Most dogs identified as resource guarders showed mild to moderate guarding. Severe guarders were more likely to be returned by adopters; although almost all were eventually re-adopted and not returned to the shelter. Data presented here provide the most comprehensive description of resource guarders in a shelter dog population and show the successful re-homing of most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]