The HABRI Foundation is calling for research proposals to investigate the health outcomes of pet ownership and/or animal-assisted activity or therapy, both for the people and the animals involved. To learn more, visit close

You are here: Home / Journal Articles / The Impact of Excluding Food Guarding from a Standardized Behavioral Canine Assessment in Animal Shelters / About

The Impact of Excluding Food Guarding from a Standardized Behavioral Canine Assessment in Animal Shelters

By Heather Mohan-Gibbons, Emily D Dolan, Pamela Reid, Margaret R Slater, Hugh Mulligan, Emily Weiss

View Link (HTM)

Licensed under

Category Journal Articles

Many shelters euthanize or restrict adoptions for dogs that exhibit food guarding while in the animal shelter. However, previous research showed that only half the dogs exhibiting food guarding during an assessment food guard in the home. So, dogs are often misidentified as future food guarders during shelter assessments. We examined the impact of shelters omitting food guarding assessments. Nine shelters conducted a two-month baseline period of assessing for food guarding followed by a two-month investigative period during which they omitted the food guarding assessment. Dogs that guarded their food during a standardized assessment were less likely to be adopted, had a longer shelter stay, and were more likely to be euthanized. When the shelters stopped assessing for food guarding, there was no significant difference in the rate of returns of food guarding dogs, even though more dogs were adopted because fewer were identified with food guarding behavior. Additionally, the number of injuries to staff, volunteers, and adopters was low (104 incidents from a total of 14,180 dogs) and did not change when the food guarding assessment was omitted. These results support a recommendation that shelters discontinue the food guarding assessment


Katie Osborn

Date 2018
Publication Title Animals
Volume 8
Issue 2
ISBN/ISSN 2076-2615
Publisher Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Location of Publication Basel, Switzerland
DOI 10.3390/ani8020027
Language English
Additional Language English
  1. Aggression
  2. Animal shelters
  3. Animal welfare
  4. Assessment
  5. Dogs
  6. Euthanasia
  7. Food habits
  8. Mammals