Canine Threat Assessment Guide (C-TAG) and Worksheet
Behavioral assessments cover ONLY the dog, while risk assessments address the dog's containment measures and other indicators of owner responsibility.
A behavioral assessment can be conducted anywhere. A risk assessment MUST be conducted on the owner's property with the dog in the enclosure(s) in which it is kept.
Animal behaviorists universally agree that in the absence of a medical condition or abuse, lethal attacks do not exist in a void; there is always an increase in the intensity and/or the frequency of the aggression incidents preceding the lethal event. And just as there are warning flags that occur before a dog initiates a serious attack, there are warning flags which indicate that an increase in aggressive behavior is imminent, and that a dog that has previously just barked is now at high risk of biting. C-TAG can help identify these dogs.
C-TAG is based on the standard Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) methodology in wide use across multiple industries in identifying, prioritizing, and mitigating risks to human safety and health. Tamara Follett of the International Society of Canine Trainers and Risk Assessors (ISCTA) developed the C-TAG methodology after teaching FMEA Risk Management for Stat-A-Matrix Institute.
NOTE: The C-TAG Canine Threat-Level Assessment Guide covers basic risk factors -- the C-TAG is thus adequate for a rapid gross assessment of a given dog's risk, sufficient to evaluate the level of threat a given dog poses to society and identify needed controls for that dog to mitigate that risk.
Completion of the C-TAG Worksheet will produce a score for a given dog, and then categorize that dog based on its score. There are six different threat levels ranging from “Category 1 – Benign Dog” to “Category 6 – Lethal Dog”, with each higher category requiring increasingly more rigorous controls. Dogs designated as “Benign” would require only standard municipal controls (leash, license, etc.), while a dog categorized as “Dangerous”, “Potentially-Lethal”, or “Lethal” would require the most rigorous controls.
Some of the more restrictive controls that could be mandated for those dogs designated in the higher categories include compulsory neutering in order to reduce aggression, and compulsory permanent tagging with a Lo-Jack-type tag to enable continuous precise monitoring of location with auto-alerts for movement outside of a pre-authorized home zone. These additional costs should be funded by the owner of the “high-risk” dog.
Being able to compare different dogs and prioritize them as to their real or potential threat allows municipalities to focus limited resources on those dogs posing the greatest danger to their families and the public. Animal Control Officers and the Rockland Regional Authority of Central Queensland, Australia, felt that a science-based formal methodology for evaluating the threat a given dog presents will enable consistent and legally defensible assessments across the province. Across the country, there exists substantial variation between townships in how they define and interpret the same risk factor. A dog that one municipality labels as "tolerable", another will consider to be dangerous; when these cases progress to court, municipalities are finding they have no defensible position for the approach they took. Formal Canine Risk Assessment will give municipalities the legal justification they need to implement controls on high-risk dogs before these dogs bite.
Municipal Liability
Uxbridge, Ontario, is currently named in a lawsuit on the behalf of a child mauled by French Mastiffs that were known to the township as being protective. This municipality failed to identify these dogs as a threat, while the C-TAG would have assessed them based on their history, the owner's lack of knowledge and the containment (insufficient to prevent ingress/egress) as “Potentially Dangerous”. By assigning these dogs a minimum score of 31, the evidence-based C-TAG could have justified the additional controls necessary to mitigate the danger they presented, thus avoiding a traumatized child and a costly lawsuit.
Download the Canine Threat Assessment Guide & Worksheet FREE - see below
Instructions are included in the download. For questions, contact us.
WARNING: If a dog ranks as a Potentially-Dangerous Dog or greater threat (score of 31 or higher), ISCTA strongly recommends having an ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessor score the dog in the event of litigation.
ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessors are trained to the highest standards in assessing:
Taken together, the 15 risk factors measured by the C-TAG produce a rough scorethat will allow municipalities to rank "problem" dogs so that Animal Control can focus on those dogs presenting the greatest potential threat to society. ISCTA strongly recommends that if there is any potential of litigation, that a certified Canine Risk Assessor be utilized to score any dogs scoring over 30. An ISCTA-certified Canine Risk Assessor is more valuable resource on the stand than an Animal Behaviorist, since the risk a given dog poses to society is comprised of more than just behavior: an aggressive Dalmation kept by a responsible owner behind multiple levels of containment poses less of a threat to neighborhood children than the same dog kept by an ever-changing group of young inexperienced students. Risk Assessment will highlight the differences between these two situations, whereas a Behavioral Assessment of the dog will not. Thus, if there is any potential for litigation, a formal assessment by an ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessor is more defensible in the courtroom than a behavioral assessment by an Animal Behaviorist. Courses in K9 Risk Assessment are given on an as-needed basis; click on ISCTA Certification for more info.
To download the C-TAG Guide and Worksheet, click here.
WARNING: If a dog ranks as a Potentially-Dangerous Dog or greater threat (score of 31 or higher), ISCTA strongly recommends having an ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessor score the dog in the event of litigation.
ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessors are trained to the highest standards in assessing:
- Past history of a dog's aggression and the probability of the threat level escalating
- Level of responsibility and concern for public safety as evidenced by the owner
- Adequacy of containment in preventing ingress and egress of strangers/children
- Time-to-Breach score of the containment measures in place
- Needed controls to effectively reduce the risk the dog poses
Taken together, the 15 risk factors measured by the C-TAG produce a rough scorethat will allow municipalities to rank "problem" dogs so that Animal Control can focus on those dogs presenting the greatest potential threat to society. ISCTA strongly recommends that if there is any potential of litigation, that a certified Canine Risk Assessor be utilized to score any dogs scoring over 30. An ISCTA-certified Canine Risk Assessor is more valuable resource on the stand than an Animal Behaviorist, since the risk a given dog poses to society is comprised of more than just behavior: an aggressive Dalmation kept by a responsible owner behind multiple levels of containment poses less of a threat to neighborhood children than the same dog kept by an ever-changing group of young inexperienced students. Risk Assessment will highlight the differences between these two situations, whereas a Behavioral Assessment of the dog will not. Thus, if there is any potential for litigation, a formal assessment by an ISCTA-Certified Canine Risk Assessor is more defensible in the courtroom than a behavioral assessment by an Animal Behaviorist. Courses in K9 Risk Assessment are given on an as-needed basis; click on ISCTA Certification for more info.
To download the C-TAG Guide and Worksheet, click here.