Should they all be saved?

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

I'm sorry...lol...how many times have you called me a troll Anne? I'd love to see you glass house one day.

As far as leading the parade on killing (pts) dogs goes, I'm hearing a lot of...this dog should be put down because of aggression.  How do we know that they're even capable qualified to make that decision?

Let's look at this statement.

have you ever met a severely undersocialized severely abused dog of poor breeding freaking out on an hourly basis in the quietest corner of a shelter while on anti-anxiety meds? 
Sometimes the kindest thing one can offer is the peace of a humane death.

#1. Most people who work in shelters may not actually know the true complete background of a dog in there shelter. Which means they could be wrong about the dog. #2. Yes I've seen dogs that appear like that in shelters, and have seen some of them turned around to live a normal life. #3. Sometimes IMPO the kindest thing one can offer is...at least a chance.

And finally...even one of your fans knew what your "macho trainers" thread really was. I may speak curtly, but at least I'm honest. And I don't even have a degree in "human psychology". I think your whining about me is nothing more than a ploy to have me kicked off. If it works...well then. I just hope that the admin...like some members here can see your real motives.

Have a nice day.[]

If you are kicked off this forum, it will be because you stepped over the line and a mod decided to call you on it.  You do have the type of posting style that sometimes incurs that result, and others have called you on that before.  But, back OT, I agree with your points 1, 2, and 3.  Careful evaluation and a "try" is important.  No one ever suggested that these dogs don't deserve that.  But, unfortunately, they often don't - no, can't - get that when resources are stretched impossibly thin.  I have tried to bail from shelters, and send to rescue, some easily rehabbable GSD's, only to be told that they don't have enough foster homes, and can't take them.  So, where would you propose they go?  I certainly can't take them all, and neither can you.  And, if they were food aggressive, or had SA, what chance would they have then?  I'm not talking about the ideal world, I'm talking about the one we find ourselves in.  Is it really fair to the nice pet who simply lost his home because his owner died to be euthanized in favor of a dog with a behavior problem, no matter whose fault the problem is?  I'm glad I don't have to make those choices daily.  But, I do know that I cannot, in good conscience, tell a family to go ahead and adopt the supposedly rehabbed aggressive dog over the Lassie-ish tail-wagging goof, when they have a five year old in their home.  And, frankly, most people who go to shelters to adopt dogs are looking for the great family dog, not a project.

a lot of shelters charge a "surrender" fee. 
 
however, this is what i was getting at:  here in america, where we can't even manage to take care of our own people, and are constantly railing against taxation, i think the rehab and/or humane lifelong shelter for truly unpredictable and dangerous dogs is way out of reach.  ideally, i support this idea.  i would be willing to donate a percentage of MY income if it was guaranteed to be spent on such a progam and was guaranteed to be managed properly.  but i would offer that idealism has to be balanced with realism.
 
  what we need to do is figure out how to fix our existing problems:  overpopulation, unbridled and uncontrolled breeding, horrific living conditions, and a general attitude of "disposability" when it comes to ALL animals, not just dogs.  cows in feedlots.  cats in drain pipes.  neglected horses.  but to stay on topic, i'll get back to dogs...
 
if we can begin to MANAGE the existing problem, then we have hope of implementing the idealist approach in the future.  i know we don't all love cesar's training methods, but i maintain that his "compound" is really an example of where we need to head.  away from the cages.  away from the needles.  towards deticated employees who are committed to excersise and training.  the training methods, at this point, are irrelevant.  essentially, what we need, is a nation of "idoggers", which i define as people who truly have the best interest of the animal at heart.
 
in order to get the current situation under control, we may have to sacrifice the lives of the animals who are "least predictable" and "most dangerous"- and i emphasise here that i mean ONLY dogs with an attack history that resulted in hospitalization, reconstructive surgery, or death of a HUMAN, and have proven themselves to be utterly unpredictable in the hands of rehab trainers.
 
now i'm going to put on my flame suit, but please remember i'm trying to offer solutions that may ultimately result in the eradication of BYB, dogs with "bad wiring", fight rings, and a lot of other situations.... i support a ferderally regulated breeder registry.  i also support mandatory spay and neuter for those not qualified to list in that registry.  the libertarian in me cringes at more government regulation, but right now it's the ONLY solution i have to BYB.  and, in my opinion, if we eradicate BYB, this problem might just fix itself, and we won't have to argue over which dogs should qualify for residence in our "shangri la shelter for aggressive dogs".
 
as of right now, i don't hear very many SOLUTIONS being offered in this thread.  the hurling of insults does nothing to help improve the lives of the dogs with which we are supposedly all concerned.

I agree with the taxation part.  All of it.  That's where the "humans created it, they need to foot the bill for it" comes in. My dogs have always been neutured, I know they haven't any offspring anywhere.  But still I would gladly dole out for other people's mistakes if it were to improve the lives of dogs.

And also the law part. I agree with that. It seems like humans need laws. It's like they won't do what's right if a law is not involved.

But (cough) what do humans bemoan as being the worst thing imposed on them?

Laws and taxes.

ORIGINAL: JM
But (cough) what do humans bemoan as being the worst thing imposed on them?

Laws and taxes.

 
see a recent thread in NDR where everyone's complaining about being "raped" at tax time.....[]

ORIGINAL: badrap


if we can begin to MANAGE the existing problem, then we have hope of implementing the idealist approach in the future.  i know we don't all love cesar's training methods, but i maintain that his "compound" is really an example of where we need to head.  away from the cages.  away from the needles.  towards deticated employees who are committed to excersise and training. 

I see what you are saying here, but the problem that we (at our shelter at least) face everyday is the following (a very simple version, but same scenario):

We have 50 kennels.
We are currently holding 48 dogs.
That leaves 2 kennels open.
There are 7 dogs waiting at the door to come in.
Foster homes are full.
Management's offices are full.
Every outlet/resourse available to us is exhausted.
All the dogs are unaltered, so we cannot combine dogs in the same kennel.
There are only 2 kennels.
What happens to the other 5 dogs?

All the exercise, training, and dedicated workers in the world isn't going to do squat if we continue to be bombarded with unwanted animals. As long as we continue to be hit with the numbers of animals that we are getting, some will be euthanized (we, for example, are an open-admission shelter, so we cannot turn people away when we are full). And if animals have to be euthanized, if for no other reason than lack of space, then the shelter has to euthanize those animals that they feel possess the most liability or are less likely to make a good family pet. Maybe not because we think they are dangerous or because we think they are beyond help but because we simply don't have the room, so we save the ones that we think are most adoptable at that given time. It is not possible, at this time, in the world we live in, to save them all as long as people continue to act like they do.

If anyone can think of realistic solutions to this problem, that could be implemented in the world that we live in now, I would love to hear them. I'm serious - this haunts me on a daily basis but we can only do what we can do at this time.

well, that's what i meant by "management".. the dogs with the biggest liability issues will have to be euthanized in order to contain the situation.  then a federally regulated breeding system needs to be implemented, and ENFORCED, and mandatory sterilization needs to be implemented for people who don't qualify as breeders, and ENFORCED.  that's the only way i can think of to control the crush at the door of the shelters.
 
i realize that this sounds cold, and those of you who support rehab for every dog are going to be mad at me. 
 
i want to make it clear that in a perfect world, i support rehab for EVERY dog.  we're not in a perfect world.  we need to take some steps to GET to that perfect world, and THEN we can talk about rehabbing every dog.

Badrap, are you ok with BSL but grandfathered for existing dogs? 

i am absolutely OPPOSED to BSL under any circumstances.  did i insinuate somewhere that i was a proponent?  i'm sorry if i did.

With your comment of a "federally regulated breeding system", BSL came to mind.  You would have a problem with BSL grandfathered meaning that if you currently have the targeted breed you could not get another?  Why?  Would I sacrifice having Great Danes in order to help the shelter dog.  Are they somehow related?

ORIGINAL: Stacita

Since a large portion of dogs are going to be euthanized anyway, it makes more sense to spend the financial resources on dogs that will make the best pets. My big exception there, is that it breaks my heart to see lovely seniors (or even middle aged dogs) TS for no reason other than age.

 
I agree! I think there so many loving pets in shelters in need of homes

i see now how it was not clear what i meant.  let me clear it up, and thank you for pointing out that it was fuzzy, because i absolutely DO NOT believe anyone should be able to tell you what breed of dog is right for you.
 
by federally regulated breeding system, i mean that breeders would have to register with the federal government- breeds would be irrelevant- but they would have to meet certain criteria designed to maintain optimal health standards and maintain breed integrity.  "mutt" breeders would be allowed, as long as they met the criteria.  all pups adopted from the litters would have to be sterilized before leaving the breeder's care, unless the breeder registered that they planned to breed an adopted dog in the future, in which case the adoptive family would also have to qualify.
 
if people were found to be breeding dogs without authorization, a stiff penalty would be assessed.  if people were discovered with intact dogs who did not register, they would be assessed a penalty and their dog would be altered unless they registered with the goverment with approval from the breeder from which the pup came.
 
i realize, it's all very "1984" and perhaps unenforceable, and probably infringes on any number of civil liberties, but i feel this is an extreme circumstance and extreme measures need to be taken.
 
through careful breeding and dog placement, i believe BSL would become obsolete.  there would still be a need for shelters, as i don't ever believe we'll keep people from surrendering their dogs, but at least there wouldn't be pregnant bitches coming in off the street.
 
see what mean now?  i apologize. it was very unclear.

ORIGINAL: badrap

...i absolutely DO NOT believe anyone should be able to tell you what breed of dog is right for you...

 
Well, I can't have a emu because of law and I want one.  I know most if not all on this forum are against BSL.  I surely don't like how communities harshly implement it and create logistics and emotional problems for owners..  Is there a simple and easy response as to why it is wrong or should that be another thread?

i think it's another thread[]  if it hasn't already been done, it might be a good idea to start one like, "if you are opposed to BSL, why?"
 
and i suspect that the emu thing is the result of a local statute.  emus aren't technically banned, you just aren't allowed to have one because of your local zoning laws.  if you move to a farm, you can buy an emu....[]

ORIGINAL: JM

Yes, humans have created the problem and I think they should have to foot the bill to fix the problem.

All dogs should be saved.  If we don't have the facilities, build them.  Hire trainers. Behavorists and even vets. Require volunteer work from everyone.

If they cannot be adopted out, keep them in a certain shelter and allow them to live out their lives in comfort and peace. 

We owe them nothing less.  If we (humans in general) are to be god like in our "dominion over animals" then we need to pony up to the responsibility.... instead of killing the animal because we are afraid that it may hurt one of "us", or just being too irresponsible to deal with it.

We can't even properly treat (or even predict-look at the Virginia Tech incident) aggression in our own species.  We have human children who we most definately owe a normal, stable upbringing to, and we seem unable to provide for them.  How are we gong to pay for such facilities?  More taxes?  Right--I just wrote out a check to day for nearly $1800 in taxes to the federal government--I am not rich, that money was ear marked for two of my animals' veterinary treatments and now we are going to have to take out a loan to help cover it.

It's nice to discuss such things a a message board, but the truth is that it simply is not, nor will it ever be practical.  We do not have the facilities, homes, and professionals for non-aggressive dogs and we expect to be able to accomidate all of the aggressive ones?  Again, nice idea, but I'm too much of a realist.  Sorry, I just cannot see (nor will I ever be able to see) taking up valueable resourches for dangorously aggressive animals who have little chance of being successfully placed in a home (honestly, it's not like people are climbing over each other to get a rehabbed dog with a bite history) when there are thousands of perfectly stable dogs dying for lack of space and homes.

I would just like to add that I seriously hope that those saying that humans have no right to decide which animals die are all vegitarians.  If not, you (collective) are contributing to hourly decisions about which animals live and die. 

all pups adopted from the litters would have to be sterilized before leaving the breeder's care

I know that the intent of this is good, but research now shows that you incur higher levels of spay incontinence if you spay prior to five months of age, and that the percent of spay incontinent females goes down the later you spay up to about eight months of age.  As the owner of a spay incontinent dog (spayed at 4+ months of age), I'm not sure I would like this provision, but would certainly accept mandatory proof of spay/neuter with a heavy enforcement penalty.  But, frankly, I have always wondered if having to give Sioux Proin every day of her life is in her best interest, or will ultimately shorten her life.  But, she is a heavily coated dog who cannot be lying in her own urine as she sleeps.