An investigation into euthanasia on rescue dogs by the Animal Welfare Directorate has found that it acted “lawfully” and “according to the approved and established procedure”.

The directorate detailed incidents of aggression and attacks on both humans and animals that led to its decision.

The investigation was sparked after activists highlighted the case of a pitbull mix named Mason, who was put down after spending 12 days at the AWD’s premises in Għammieri.

This case fueled speculation online that AWD was carrying out unsanctioned euthanasia on hard-to-home dogs due to a lack of space at the premises.

The Office of the Commissioner for Animal Welfare reviewed all nine cases of dogs euthanised by the AWD between January and August of this year.

The report points out that the law gives the director for Animal Welfare and the director for Veterinary Services the right to euthanise animals that are deemed aggressive, with no obligation to inform the commissioner nor the ministry responsible for the directorate on such decisions.

Dog 'vicously' attacked a donkey

Mason’s incident report stated that the dog never showed interest and aggression towards other animals, with video footage showing him passing cats and other dogs without reaction.

However, while out on a walk at the AWD premises, two witnesses reported that Mason “viciously” attacked a donkey without warning and caused him substantial injury. The witnesses said it took tremendous effort to pull the dog off the donkey and that had he not been controlled in time he would have also turned to attack his handler.

Another dog, Marley, had spent just 10 days at AWD before being euthanised after he attacked volunteers on two occasions, and sent one of them to hospital with grievous injuries and in need of surgery.

While the dog’s past remained uncertain, footage uncovered later showed him living in a family setting with children before he was taken to animal welfare under the guise of being a lost stray. But witnesses reporting Marley’s attack on volunteers, described it as “vicious” and said the dog had gone for “repetitive bites”.

Reports on the other animals that had been euthanised included dogs confiscated by law enforcement and that had attacked and killed an elderly woman in Msida.

Dangerous dog procedure was followed 

Examining the practices of AWD when it came to decide on whether to euthanise an animal, the investigation found that the directorate has a dangerous dogs standard operating procedure which obliges carers to report abnormal behaviour, including growling and biting, to the veterinary officers, who in turn must evaluate the situations that might have upset the dog and understand its behaviour.

“A veterinary officer may develop a treatment plan, but if the dog’s behaviour deteriorates, the bites are multiple and severe and/or the aggression is unpredictable, then the case merits euthanasia,” the report says.

“In all the cases, investigated by the board, the SOP was followed correctly. The only discrepancy was found in the signatures of some of the incident reports."

A number of posts in the directorate had been vacant for some time and the officers in charge of operations did not have signatory rights, it explained. 

"This was the result of extraordinary circumstances and not negligence.”

The investigation points out that the procedure did not specify how long a dog should remain at AWD nor the number of aggressive incidents that must occur before euthanasia is considered. It also did not require that a behaviourist or trainer be consulted and does not distinguish between aggression towards people and animals.

In its concluding remarks, the investigation found that despite evidence showing some of the dogs in a docile and calm state, “it was proven that the aggression witnessed at AWD was in fact severe, and fell within the red zone of the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) ladder of aggression”.

“AWD have a legal, ethical, and moral duty to manage unprovoked and grievous attacks on humans as well as other animals. However, before any consideration to euthanise is considered, every effort should be made to rehabilitate a dog with aggression issues. Still, for this to be done safely and with any degree of success, AWD’s resources need to be reviewed and increased dramatically,” the report continued.

“Given the current resources available to AWD, managing these cases appropriately without resorting to euthanasia would have been so restrictive that it would have seriously compromised the dogs’ quality of life, the safety of the staff and volunteers, as well as other animals at AWD.”

It added that the board had been sufficiently convinced that the AWD had no intention of hiding these cases of euthanasia, as in most cases it had willingly informed the volunteers involved itself.

“However, a lack of transparency and active communication with the public was one of the main reasons that led to such public concern and outrage.”

In lights of these findings, the report made 10 recommendations for consideration by the ministry responsible:

• An update to the dangerous dog procedure to include the length of times dogs should spend at AWD and a minimum number of aggressive incidents before euthanasia is considered, as well as consultation with an animal behaviourist before signing off on the decision.
• The creation of a fenced open space for dogs to run freely at Animal Welfare.
• More discretion in the hiring of employees who work with animals and in-house training for volunteers before they are allowed contact with animals.
• Beefing up of human resources at the directorate so as not to rely on volunteers to provide basic necessities.
• Dogs should only be handled by experienced staff members.
• Regular use of a qualified and experienced dog behaviourist.
• The prioritisation, by the Veterinary Surgeons Council, of the regularisation of behaviourists and trainers under The Veterinary Services Act.
• Online presence for the Animal Welfare Directorate through which it can communicate with the public.
• A rehabilitation centre for aggressive and temperamental dogs.
• Tighter controls on the breeding of dogs, amending the law to eliminate loopholes that allow irresponsible breeding.

Read the full report in the pdf link below