I think something else that we're all kind of touching on is worth saying bluntly. (and I didn't read the other thread, so my apologies if this isn't quite appropriate)
In this day and age, you say "shelter" and MANY definitions may apply. I know here in Florida that aside from the whole issue of breeders (good or bad) but talking about dogs that have to be placed because they've been ditched or left feral (and I'm not sure *why* this is the case - it may be all over, it maybe not) the two main 'receptacles' for unwanted dogs are obviously Animal Control (tax money funds that) and, in the case of Central FL, the "SPCA of Central FL" (not 'humane society' -- different entity and no presence here officially that I'm aware of).
But here in FL there thrive many independant "shelters" -- some breed rescue (some more loosely than others) and some just people who cull the two above entities, as well as being open for anyone to dump a dog with them -- and then they try to place these dogs (usually and hopefully they at least have a "kennel" license). This group runs the gamut -- from someone who will go out and crawl thru orange groves to save a box of puppies they heard about, to very tightly controlled breed-rescue who charge up to $250 and more to **take** in a dog and who charge that and more to place one. Most of your SPCA and AC people won't take puppies under 6-8 weeks. They euthanize on entrance. Particularly AC will euthanize for ANYTHING contagious -- from any form of mange (whether truly contagious or not) to a dog they think potentially could have parvo/distemper, etc.
The smaller groups take bigger risks *usually* -- but they are very short-staffed, and honestly often not people well versed in behavior management -- often long on heart, short on control over where the dog is placed; but conversely they can be exactly the opposite -- very well run, very very dog-saavy people, and it seems sometimes TOO controlled about where a dog goes.
In short, my point is there is no consistency over how these decisions are made and there is liability on all sides.
If we're just talking generally, I think what each are saying has merit.
Lori, you put it SO well -- particularly the caveat where you said none BUT Willow really would do for you. You handle her so well -- she has all SHE needs (and I'm sorry, I think the particular bond with a human and enjoying that time with THAT human is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more important than whether the dog gets to go to a dog park or not!!! Those individual emotional needs for dog and human are truly paramount!).
Just like David and I are able to take on dogs like Billy and some of the ones we've had in the past (like little handicapped Pollyanna, and Muffin the Intrepid with his myriad health issues) -- part of the unique bond with those dogs IS our capability to deal with those issues.
Had Billy been placed with ANYONE else (he was touted SOOO highly as a dog that needed to be with children, and then we find out he is TERRIFIED of and was horribly reactive to little blonde girls!!!!) he would likely have been PTS before his ears ever healed.
3 years later (and all the many many incredibly costsly health issues that have arisen) -- his ears (which looked like the deal breaker for most people when we got him thinking he was deaf and already needed bi-lateral ear ablations) we're still de-sensitizing him and working with those fear/panic issues, not to mention our willingness to put, what for some folks is way over a year's pay into his treatment for IMHA. That's part of OUR bond with this dog and our efforts to help others who encounter like problems.
But I think every one of those different shelter types are going to, of necessity, have different criteria for what they deem necessary to euthanize. Simply because of the nature of their own existance and the liability they have. And I think the question often comes down to "can we save THIS dog and if we can't will anyone else?" But often it goes no further ... and no one LOOKS for the Lori's of this world, or for people like David and I who will take on something and see it thru (and we didn't KNOW with Billy -- we simply rolled with it after we had made the commitment to him, just because it's how we do things).
I guess I'm saying I think a whole lot of it comes down to the specific individuals who wind up with these dogs and their ability or inability to work with it.
We saw Billy for an extended period of time the day we looked at him, with a 6 year old BOY who wore braces and used a walker. He was AWESOME with this child. but had he gone home with someone who was taking him home to their active NORMAL 6 year old, and the two little blonde girls from next door had run over full tilt, screaming to a stop in front of Billy "HE'S SOOOOOOOOOO CUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTE" wrappng their arms around his neck --
somebuddy's face would have gotten ripped off and he'd have been PTS in a heartbeat. We simply are so careful we never allowed that situation to occur (it came close ... in a parking lot when he went to visit a nursing home and THREE little blond girls swooped in on him from 3 different angles). We stopped it at a snarl (and I was completely devastated).
I didn't mean to muddy the waters here -- but it's a difficult topic and one that I just don't think there's "an answer" for -- but I do think it's more than just an owner decision. I think every step of the way you could get a completely different answer depending on who temperament tests an animal and how saavy they are.
It's funny -- in all the posts I've done about Billy, very very few have ever mentioned his problem. I don't have to 'micro-manage' Billy (good good description, Lori) EXCEPT when we're around a lot of people/kids.