City of Albuquerque, Inspector General

cc: Mayor Berry

Apr 3, 2015

Concerning the Dangerous Dog complaints recently directed against AWD,

A letter to the Inspector General was recently posted in the Albuquerque Journal from Mr. Jim
Ludwick, of the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department (AWD). Many related comments from Mr.
Ludwick and a Ms. Carolyn Hidalgo of AWD appeared in a Journal article, and a KOAT7 news report.
These seem to accuse AWD Director Barbara Bruin and possibly others of deliberately releasing
dangerous dogs. This is in response to certain of those allegations.
I know many involved parties but have no invested connection to any of the people mentioned or
AWD. I am retired and focus on canine behavior rehabilitation, where I primarily work with clearly
unadoptable dogs at several local shelters and rescues. For several years I have helped run dog play
groups at AWD, and have fostered many problem dogs from AWD and elsewhere, also supporting other
fosters having issues. Given my area of focus, I see a higher percentage of failures than many others.
Having worked with many shelters I know that there will be some percentage of mistakes, especially at
large municipals. I have not seen any data to suggest that AWD is any worse than many others,
although several areas of needed improvement have been noted over the years, some aimed at one of
the complaining parties. I have spoken with Director Bruin several times, finding her always reasonable
and supportive. Alternatively, Ms. Hidalgo has been always contentious and at times obstructive.
When reviewing Mr. Ludwig's statement it was not possible to fully assess some of the cases he
presented without more detail, as such incidents often prove different than an initial report. However,
Mr. Ludwig's very first case (Lulu) was one well known to me and several others. I know the incidents
he described, and personally know the foster and what happened there. After AWD subsequently spent
some time with this dog, they determined she needed more resources and expertise before adoption,
and Lulu was sent to me. Mr. Ludwig's statement that AWD sent her to Lucky Paws is not correct, as I
was the one who determined when she was ready and personally took her there. Lucky Paws staff has
since contacted me with glowing reports from the adopter of how well she is doing, and playing with
her cat friend.
Having looked into many similar issues at many places in the past, perhaps the only thing that surprises
me is when the incident report is accurate. In AWD releasing dogs with possible issues to rescues, one
inherit limitation is that AWD can never really know what the rescue will do or the resources available,
and there is no practical way to avoid this. Past this, I cannot comment on Mr. Ludwig's cases, other
than to note that he is not involved with animal behavior.
On his cited lack of dangerous dog tracking, as that involved Animal Control Officers it's unclear what
people are involved. Several of Mr. Ludwig's final stories do sound horrific, but again I wonder about
the details, given the case I cited above. They bring to mind a call I had a few months ago, about a large
pit who both attacked another dog and put his owner on crutches with many stitches. Perhaps an
obviously "dangerous" dog? The issue was traced back to the owners, with the dog doing very well
after testing and being re-homed. It might have been different if the owners had called for help before it
reached that point, and as the same might be said of some of Mr. Ludwig's stories, it's often difficult to
determine just where the failures occurred. Also, I am now hearing from others who are familiar with
some of Mr. Ludwig's other cases, as to relevant details he also omitted there.

As to Mr. Ludwig's note of the incident at Fur and Feather Animal Assistance, I am familiar with them,
there were other issues involved and that really has no place here unless he is simply trying to prove, in
some awkward manner, that dogs can be dangerous to people. I think we know that.
As some of his statements and opinions are based on Ms. Hidalgo and the SAFER test, I'll continue in
that area.
SAFER is one of the better standardized tests, but it has clear limitations. From the ASPCA, it is an
aggression assessment and not a pass/fail test, looking only at probabilities. The ASPCA also notes
some handler errors which will invalidate the test results, some of which seemed to occur often under
Ms. Hidalgo, and they've only recently improved on that. As Ms. Hidalgo seems to point at SAFER as
their standard, I'd like to explore that just a bit.
Perhaps the primary advantage of SAFER is that it is a rapid and highly structured test that can be
taught to relatively inexperienced people. For a brief perspective on SAFER, a short video of the
official SAFER test for dog-dog aggression can be found here:
SAFER Dog Aggression Test
Next, I'll reference a program at AWD endorsed by Director Bruin. Several years ago Aimee Sadler's
national Playing for Life approach was brought to AWD, which involved bringing many dogs into an
off-leash play group to interact with other dogs while managed by trained people. They provide the
dogs both exercise and the opportunity to develop social skills, together with a dynamic assessment of
their behavior with a variety of other dogs. Many potential adopters already have one dog, and when
they ask how a dog does with others this provides an answer, not only for aggression, but if the two
dogs seem to have compatible dispositions.
Dog Play Groups
Instead of a long discussion on science and varied opinions, please just compare the two videos and
form your own opinion on which is more predictive of dog-dog aggression. I'll note here that a dog
who passes SAFER but is found aggressive in a play group is clearly an aggression failure, and that this
can easily happen due to the single, specific dog they choose to test with on SAFER. Conversely, dogs
are not failed in play groups from presenting what is termed conspecific agonistic behaviors, which are
used by dog to actually prevent fighting.
From personal knowledge, for several years dogs who have been marked as aggressive by Ms. Hidalgo
and others were subsequently brought into these play groups for assessment. Where Ms. Hidalgo might
fail a dog for a curled lip or snap while walking by another dog, we produce video showing them
playing nicely with a half-dozen random dogs they had just met. However, Ms. Hidalgo has tried to
stop the play groups. And the videos are needed as Ms. Hidago would not come to watch an
assessment.
Yet the dog play groups and similar efforts are barely holding on, as some of the staff such as Ms.
Hidalgo have neither the training nor the inclination to embrace them. In attempting to resolve
difficulties with Ms. Hidalgo, I contacted people at her previous employer, Animal Humane NM.
However, those responses were very discouraging.
At all dog shelters, and especially at a large municipal, there will always be limits on resources and

mistakes made. On that, Mr. Ludwig did likely bring up some important areas for improvement, such as
the overview of privately held dangerous dogs that has been lacking. But in other areas, fanatics on
either side of an issue can do just as much damage. Very few shelters are able to afford and attract
competent behavior professionals, and municipals must often rely only on existing staff that can only
be changed slowly. In most cases, shelters do augment their resources by reaching out to the
community. There have been some recent cooperative efforts with Arie's Dogtown in Albuquerque, a
highly regarded local dog trainer, and a volunteer dog trainer who is assisting AWD. But the dozens of
volunteers assisting in the play groups and other areas have seen many people leaving due to lack of
cooperation. It appears that much of the shelter's interest seems to be in either dog walking, or
following Ms. Hidalgo's instructions.
My impression is that the contention between these factions at AWD may have increased the number of
mistakes made at AWD, and I have found only one side that seems open to discussion, learning and
change.
Most people realize we cannot (and should not) save all the dogs. But overkilling many times over to
support public safety is not an ethical solution. I would suggest here that they do continue with SAFER,
but have it done properly (ASPCA), bringing in a few competent people to direct this. Work to actively
attract and coordinate with volunteer resources, inviting and using expertise available in the
community, while communicating and coordinating with them, as valuable resources.
From a practical perspective, even with those changes AWD will still lack the resources to help some of
the problem dogs who could potentially be adoptable, but more of the very easy cases would live. And
between reduced contention and additional resources for questionable cases, less dangerous dogs will
slip through.
Gerry Glauser
Rio Rancho, NM 98124