Should they all be saved?

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

Is this question just to easy. If you (not meaning anyone person) can't help a dog...but perhaps someone else can...why shouldn't they?

 
No its not an easy question.  Overpopulation, unwanted dogs in limited space shelters means euthanasia for some.  Which ones get PTS?  I say leave it to the caretaker who knows the dog and the circumstances.  If Awsomedog lived next door to the shelter and was willing to work with and rehab the aggressive ones, then the majority would say NO you can not do that, Awsomedog has to take the 13 pound well behaved teacup poodle.  The majority is wrong.

If Awsomedog lived next door to the shelter and was willing to work with and rehab the aggressive ones, then the majority would say NO you can not do that, Awsomedog has to take the 13 pound well behaved teacup poodle. The majority is wrong.

I think this is a bit of an unfair statement. If someone came into the shelter and said "I want a dog with behavior issues" (because that happens so often), I would be more than happy to direct them to the 14 month old, 80 lb shep/husky cross that is stubborn, high-energy, mouthy with some food aggression, and untrained because his previous owners kept him tied out on a chain his entire life. Would I release them an outright dangerous dog? No, of course not. But I surely wouldn't say "Oh no, you can't have a dog with any problems - we only adopt out perfectly trained dogs." You want a dog with behavior problems? I can give you one of those.

I would be *thrilled* if people actually came to the shelter and said they wanted a dog with some issues to work on. But hell, we don't have enough adopters for the GREAT trained dogs in the shelter, let alone people looking for dogs with a history of aggression, to say nothing of the responsibility we have to the public (and the dogs) to keep aggressive dogs from being released back out into the area.

You miss my point.  At the private level Awsomedog and the shelter know each other.  The shelter knows the dogs and Awsomedog know what he can do.  At the general level, you prove my point by saying NO to Awsomedog and Why?  Because of false truism and the labeling of dogs. 

DPU, I'm not sure I understand the situation that you are setting forth. So Awesome dog and shelter X know each other privately - like awesome dog works there, volunteers there, fosters for them, or what is the extent of the relationship? How do they know what awesomedog can or cannot do? As far as "false truism", I'm not sure what you are referring to, but as to "labeling of dogs", all dogs are labeled one way or another (not necessarily related to aggression). We label them by breed, by activity level, and also by temperment. Otherwise, we would not be able to give the potential adopters any information "yes that dog is labeled as not being good with children" or "no that dog does not have a history of problems with cats".

And back to the bottom line of the shelter's responsibility of putting an aggressive dog back into the public. What happens if that dog gets loose and someone (person or animal) get seriously injured or killed? How is the shelter supposed to justify that? Like it or not, most shelters have a responsibility, to say nothing of liability, when it comes to dealing with the aggressive dogs in the community.

I can not tell from your post if you are in control of the dog's fate.  If you are, I respect your call.  If you are talking from an armchair and making judgements without the dog sitting before you, then my opinion is that you remain silent.  Let the caretaker tend to the dog.

ORIGINAL: stormyknight


A dog does not tell me verbally "Please kill me" because of behavior problems. Neither do animals that are too ill to go on, yet we make the humane decision to euthanize them because as humans, we are supposed to be the smarter species and be able to make the right decision in the face of difficult circumstances. And IMO, the right decision includes euthanasia for some of these animals. I do not need them to verbally tell me that they are miserable and want a painless existance on the other side of the bridge - if you cannot tell when a dog is miserable without him telling you so verbally, then you are really missing out on a lot of non-verbal language that the dog is giving you.

*I* my friend...am missing no signals, perhaps it is you who are...misreading them. First off if by painless you mean the dog is suffering some kind of non corrective physical ailment or born with a true mental disorder...then you could be right. However if your talking about a dog that is displaying odd, bad, or aggressive behavior...due to what humans put them though, many of these dogs can sucessfully rehabilitated. You may not see it, or be able to do it, but another could. Oh...and being "the smarter species" doesn't always make us...right.

This question opens a can of worms. How can a shelter or rescue organization knowlingly put a dog out in the public that has mauled a person or visciously killed other animals (regularly)? Nevermind who can or cannot help the dog, how do can we (using my organization as an example) justify putting that dog back out into the public and saying "Oh but the adopter promised that they would never let the dog around kids and they would get help from trainer X." If that dog gets loose at the park and mauls a child, we have absolutely failed that dog and the public by having allowed the dog back out in the public in the first place. With the millions of perfectly adoptable critters that go down every year for no reason but lack of space and lack of homes, I absolutely have no problem with euthanizing the aggressive ones, especially in hopes of saving the more adoptable ones.

Wow...are you the one...killing them? *"I absolutely have no problem with euthanizing the aggressive ones, especially in hopes of saving the more adoptable ones."* I never said you had to give the dogs to JQP, but to kill a dog simple because it's aggressive (when a human) made it that way to begin with...is just sad. I think I'll stick to PUNISHING them by holding them down on their sides.[sm=evilfire.gif]

Again, I will state that I am not talking about euthanizing dogs with mild aggression, object guarding, food guarding, mild dog-aggression. I am talking about the hard-core, already have a bite history, charge at you through the kennel door, despise every other living creature type of dogs. If believing that euthanizing dogs to release them from whatever it is that is haunting them because I believe it is more humane makes me evil, heartless, or cruel, then so be it - that is one judgement that I am happy to live with.

It's nice your happy with that. What lucky dogs they must be to have you there to decide that for them.[]

ORIGINAL: stormyknight

And back to the bottom line of the shelter's responsibility of putting an aggressive dog back into the public. What happens if that dog gets loose and someone (person or animal) get seriously injured or killed? How is the shelter supposed to justify that? Like it or not, most shelters have a responsibility, to say nothing of liability, when it comes to dealing with the aggressive dogs in the community.

Allow me. I'm not talking about putting a aggressive dog back out into the public. I'm talking about rahabing a dog so that he/she are no longer aggressive.

I would be *thrilled* if people actually came to the shelter and said they wanted a dog with some issues to work on. But hell, we don't have enough adopters for the GREAT trained dogs in the shelter, let alone people looking for dogs with a history of aggression, to say nothing of the responsibility we have to the public (and the dogs) to keep aggressive dogs from being released back out into the area.

 
I have a rescue Malinois with a bite history. We love him dearly and work very hard to ensure that he will live out his natural life. We've spent a small fortune on him for health reasons and done some pretty extensive training. In our environment, he's a safe dog, and we love him dearly. He's probably the most affectionate Malinois around.
 
I absolutely don't regret adopting him. But, I probably wouldn't do it again. There's day to day management involved and someday I'd like for DH & I to be able to take a trip together. It didn't put me in great stead to miss DH's neice's wedding to take care of the dog. I don't trust this dog if a person, even one he knows, were to enter our home, if we weren't there. He's had to be a the vet's overnight and also on a drop off basis during the day and wasn't aggressive, but was severely depressed. He spent six months in the pound under quarantine without leaving his cage and it stresses him badly. I won't do that to him unless it were a true emergency.
 
Future dogs for us will probably be middle aged or even senior dogs with friendly dispositions and mixed heritage. Far too many of them are PTS and there are many I'd be happy to live with.

ORIGINAL: Stacita

I absolutely don't regret adopting him. But, I probably wouldn't do it again

While you may not do it again, you took a dog some would kill and gave him a great home. I'm greatful that there are people like you in this world. [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif] And I say IMO he's just as good as any dog...who's never been aggressive, and was just as worthy of getting a chance at life.

Thank you.
 
It's not Floyd's fault hes both fearful and territorial. No dog has ever loved us more and we are delighted by his being here. In many ways he's the best dog I've ever owned.
 
I think there's a time for everything. I don't say never because things happen, but I'd prefer not to raise any more puppies either. I prefer the longer attention span of adults, not to mention fully developed bladders.

It's nice your happy with that. What lucky dogs they must be to have you there to decide that for them.

You can judge me and my beliefs all that you want - you wouldn't be the first person and you certainly won't be the last. Yes, I have euthanized an animal. Yes, it sucks and it is sad and there are days that none of it seems fair. But I keep the best interest of these dogs/cats at the top of my priorities, whether it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside or not.

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

ORIGINAL: stormyknight

And back to the bottom line of the shelter's responsibility of putting an aggressive dog back into the public. What happens if that dog gets loose and someone (person or animal) get seriously injured or killed? How is the shelter supposed to justify that? Like it or not, most shelters have a responsibility, to say nothing of liability, when it comes to dealing with the aggressive dogs in the community.

Allow me. I'm not talking about putting a aggressive dog back out into the public. I'm talking about rahabing a dog so that he/she are no longer aggressive.

Here is where we will have to agree to disagree. You believe that these dogs are able to be rehabilitated - I do not.

*I* my friend...am missing no signals, perhaps it is you who are...misreading them. First off if by painless you mean the dog is suffering some kind of non corrective physical ailment or born with a true mental disorder...then you could be right. However if your talking about a dog that is displaying odd, bad, or aggressive behavior...due to what humans put them though, many of these dogs can sucessfully rehabilitated. You may not see it, or be able to do it, but another could. Oh...and being "the smarter species" doesn't always make us...right.

Let me reiterate - I'm NOT talking about odd or bad behavior. Every dog has some sort of odd or bad behavior. I am talking about the very aggressive, vicious dogs. And as far as dogs born with a true mental disorder versus what you consider to be a fixable problem...in a shelter environment, how would we know the difference between the two? The dogs don't come in with signs that say "I'm this way because my old owner beat me", "I'm aggressive because I was starved", or "I'm aggresive because I have a mental defect." We simply do not have the time or resources to put into animals that to find out if he or she ends up being able to be rehabilitated. You seem to be so hung up on this idea of KILLING these dogs, which, I agree, is horrible that it has to happen, but do you know how many other adoptable dogs would be euthanized in the face of trying to rehab an aggressive dog? Perhaps I am more at ease about euthanizing the the unhappy aggressive dogs because I truly believe that they are better off in the next world without whatever it is that is haunting them. I have seen the looks from these dogs that are truly mentally unhappy (and thus showing signs of extreme aggression) and they are the same looks that a physically unhappy (severely ill or injured) dog gives - "Please let me go - I am miserable." (In a shelter) we don't try to fix dogs that have severe physical ailments (broken back or brain tumors) or deformities that cause pain, and the same holds true of dogs in mental anguish as well.

Being the "smart species" may not always make us right but it does leave us in charge and with responsibility to these creatures. We can each do what we can do to help these wonderful animals, even if we don't see eye to eye. With that said, I'm going out to see my horses, take the dogs for a run, and enjoy the beautiful weather outside. []

Just to clarify, my original post was about "dangerously aggressive" dogs. 
 
I suppose the first sticky wicket is, "how do you define Dangerously Aggressive"?  Some people would be far quicker to use that label than others. 
 
And then, once the dog has been "rehabbed", how do you know?  You don't know how well the rehab has succeeded until it fails, and then it is too late.  A child has paid with his life, or possibly, if he is lucky, just his face, the media have a field day and then the breed rescue waits for the backlash.....
 
Dogs with severe bite history cannot be trusted again (IMO), so to answer my own question, no, I don't think they all should be saved.  It looks like I'm firmly with sillysally and stormyknight on that one.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Dogs with severe bite history cannot be trusted again (IMO), so to answer my own question, no, I don't think they all should be saved.  It looks like I'm firmly with sillysally and stormyknight on that one.

 
With respect, who are you to tell me or anyone else I can not Save this dog.  I have stated for myself there will be a mistrust but the dog is welcome into my home.  Proclaiming kill the dog with no experience as foundation is just plain wrong.

ORIGINAL: JM

The way I read this post...I got "even if a dog is salvageable", why waste our time, PTS, then go to the shelter and get a nicer, safer dog.

You are not reading correctly.  If you have a dog, and he is aggressive, it's your choice as an owner what you wish to do.  You can, as Lori has done so well, manage and train the dog to the best of your ability.  But, if you are a shelter director, for example, and operating with limited resources, do you save or try to rehab one aggressive dog with the funds that could have saved ten nice dogs?  Those are the tough decisions that happen every day in shelters all around the country because the numbers of homeless dogs are so staggering. 
A lot of us get jumped on here when one more newbie wants to breed Fifi (usually without testing, titles, confirmed working ability, or any of the other things responsible breeders do), yet you want others to "save" all their mistakes.  It's not a perfect world, and I would love to save all dogs.  I just don't think we are there quite yet.  But, one reason that I became a dog trainer, instead of pursuing competition, as I did with horses in my younger days, is that I want to insure that JQP that comes to me will not make ignorant mistakes that land nice dogs on death row.  My mom used to say it about both dogs and humans - even a murderer was someone's infant once.  Even a vicious dog was a puppy once.  It's what happens in between that we need to concentrate on so that they don't end up on the bad end of the spectrum.

It's very gratifying to see the "iffy" pups and dogs stay in their homes because their owners know how to manage them safely. []