Euthanize or NILIF? Confused..

A couple of things. They may not have enough time to institute NILIF, even if they should. Secondly, I've had some ethical problems with how they would do the food aggression test, in the past. They take a fake hand and shove it in the bowl and tap against the dog's face, trying to imitate a human interfering. One dog, they tried once. Twice. Third time, the dog air snapped and was judged to be food aggressive. FWIW, no child or human in my domain is going to be allowed to mess with Shadow while he is eating. Period, paragraph, and new book.

Also, the only time I put my hand near his food bowl is to put some kibbles back in that fell out of his mouth. And he's not food aggressive. Just the same, I don't expect anyone to flail their hand around in there, willy nillly.

If a dog gets snappy when you try to approach the bowl then, yes, a food aggression problem. If they don't have the time to deal with it or have a known owner who can correct this issue, they will euthanize in order to conserve resources for the other dogs that may not be that reactive.

Yes, I noticed that they messed with a dog a few times to get him to react. He had already frozen when they put the hand on his back but that was it.

--Sara

I'm going to go out on a limb and imagine that a large number of dogs in the shelter are either strays, surrenders, or seizures. The kind of people that these dogs have been with don't usually seem to be the type to give much thought to training or care, let alone NILIF. This puts the dog at a disadvantage in the food aggression test. If he/she has never been taught how to behave around food, chances are likely he/she will fail the test, even if he/she was otherwise a good dog.
 

This was discussed a while back over in Advocacy. It is a liability and time issue. I sure wouldn't want AC wasting my tax monies working with dogs like this, taking up kennel space, euthanizing other dogs, without being 100% sure of the outcome...which you never would be. The shelter bears the responsibility for that animal when it bites..because they knew it might.
 
And truly Ron, the way they test...how far fetched is it...when we read stories in the news EVERY DAY about Joe Schmoe allowing his 3 y/o to sit on the doggy while he chews his bone because the owners said "aww he's okay..."? Do you really think the average dog adopting American...WON'T do exactly as that hand suggests or allow a child to?
 
If you have to place a bunch of conditions on a dogs placement...how "adoptable" is it, really for the average person? From the perspective of shelters that basically get slammed with truly adoptable animals that may simply be HW positive, or skinny, infested with bugs, etc....should those dogs be put down instead? Because...some dogs must be put down...unless the shelter is no kill.
 
In my mind I'd certainly place funds towards a sweet biddable dog with HW's before a healthy dog with food aggression, child aggression, or any kind of actual bite history.

I agree with you, Gina. Resources are limited. I also know that a child in my house will NOT be messing with the dog's food. And yes, they are trying to adopt to people that may not be that attentive to dog behavior. If shelters used guidelines similar to what we here expect of each other, many dogs might not get adopted. I also agree that shelters are making the best of a losing situation. They could euth all the questionable ones and adopt out all the sweethearts and next week, the shelter will be full again.
 
Like Little Boy Blue with his finger in the dam. Valiant effort against several billion tons of water.
 

Like Little Boy Blue with his finger in the dam. Valiant effort against several billion tons of water

 
 
Tell me about it!
It would drive me to mass murder lol!
 
I just now..before this goes the way I think it might...like to THANK everyone who fosters, adopts, volunteers or works for city-run animal shelters. You all, are quite simply...saintly! to deal with the owner turn ins alone...would drive me insane.
 
They really really seem to have a difficult row to hoe....and it's mainly due to Joe Public...
 
It will get worse what about 4 months after Xmas when the cute puppies overstay their welcome [:'(]
 
On the other Animal Cops...the NY one..I think they have a more understanding policy, that being they will work with dogs with dog aggression, or food aggression I think. They are VERY well funded, from what I have seen...with always having vets on duty, doing specialized procedures that would see other AC's euthanizing, the newest in technology in their hospital etc...I am sure the shows bring in SOME cash even if it's only notice and donations.
 
Here locally, we had that poor Pit die waiting in a kennel after it was shot by an officer...and that was due to no funds to afford 24 hours staffing there. Stuff like that...chaps my hide big time.

It used to break my heart to hear that a dog had to die for "mild" temperament issues, and then I started volunteering at the shelter. I realized something.

There are SOOOO many perfect dogs DYING that there is no time, no money, nothing left for the special needs dogs. It's tragic. It really is. The perfect dogs aren't more deserving, but they're easier to place, and less liability, so they get to live for another day.

It's still somewhat a "survival of the fittest" in that fittest means who can easily fit in the average family.

Animal Cops...the NY one..

 
Animal Precinct. I like that show. The ACOs are actually police officers. They have arresting powers. And the show is narrated by Michael Madsen, one of our favorite actors.
 

ORIGINAL: jennie_c_d

It used to break my heart to hear that a dog had to die for "mild" temperament issues, and then I started volunteering at the shelter. I realized something.

There are SOOOO many perfect dogs DYING that there is no time, no money, nothing left for the special needs dogs. It's tragic. It really is. The perfect dogs aren't more deserving, but they're easier to place, and less liability, so they get to live for another day.

Thanks for mentioning that.  It's hard to see any dog have to die, but when you are basically snuffing a hundred Lassies every day in the high kill shelters, it doesn't make much sense to try to rehabilitate Cujo, now does it?

I am not adding much to waht was already said here, but a little personal experience with temp testing and the contrversy around it in the sheltering communitiy...If you are sensitive to frank euthanasia discussion skip this post...

When I worked at a Humane Society we decided to implement Temp Testing. It was a very controviersial choice with our volunteers and B.o.D. but here is why i liked it. We had 20 kennels and were often full. the temp test gave the animal a "grade" a 5 meant he/she could go home to ANY family....kids, dogs, cats, etc....and the ones were deemed un-adoptable and were euthanized. (a dog will lose a point if he doesnt like cats and get a score of 4, for example)

The reason this system really worked is because when the kennel was FULL we had to "put down" adoptable pets, and the pressure of decision making was taken off the staff and we had a structure and guidelines in place (adoptable pets were defined as any dog with a 2 or better grade)...I also implemented an "honesty policy" if a volunteer, board member or adopter ever asked "what happened to that yellow dog" we stopped lying and told the truth. In the past the staff was often blamed for making "unacceptable euthanasia choices" and with the temp testin system we eliminated that blame and (some of) the guilt attached to this truly difficult job.

Now about the agression..I think it was already said really well...I feel in many ways a Humane Society's obligations are to the community it serves. Think of the reprecussions if a dog attacked a child, and it was later discovered that dog had shown signs of aggression in a temperament evaluation before it was adopted. the owners of the dog would not catch a fraction of the heat the shelter would.

Now, if you really want a controversial subject...think about adopting dog-agressive dogs...far more difficult and dangerous than you would think!

whew, this post brings back a lot of memories for me...

ps we used to call NILIF "four on the floor" we just wanted them to stop jumping on adopters!

Yes this was discussed in the Advocacy section and as I remember the question was whether the shelter was right or wrong in going ahead with euthanizing an itsey bitsey little dog who failed a temperament test while there was a family who had an emotional attachment to the dog and was willing to spend resources to rehab the dog.  I also recall I was the only one in the thread who said the shelter was wrong while everyone else sided with the shelter.  I did rebut the legal, insurance, and overpopulation issues. 
 
I agree with Ron2 on his description of the temperament test and I feel behavior scientist have not proven them to be reliable.  The dogs are in a stressful environment, probably starving, the administrator of the test is probably not competent let alone being able to interpret the results.  In the other thread I brought up the issue of the test and the comments from the opposition was that they agree with them but provided no experience or competent authority.  If anyone has experience performing and interpreting these test please speak up. 
 
I totally comprehend that there is an overpopulation of dogs and AS are stretched to capacity and have limited resources.  I also understand that shelters want to keep dogs that they consider in their opinion to be adoptable.  Euthanasia should be emotionally difficult to do.  What I don#%92t like about PTS because of a failed temperament test is that is lesson the emotional difficulty.  The decision goes from ‘it#%92s a tough decision#%92 to ‘it#%92s a out of my hands decision#%92.

ORIGINAL: DPU
Euthanasia should be emotionally difficult to do.  What I don#%92t like about PTS because of a failed temperament test is that is lesson the emotional difficulty.  The decision goes from ‘it#%92s a tough decision#%92 to ‘it#%92s a out of my hands decision#%92.

But why should the shelter staff be punished for the crimes of previous owners/bad breeding/overpopulation? Because by making Euthanasia as Emtionally difficult as possible, it is affecting the wrong people.

The "out of my hands decision" IS beneficial in an environment where the "lower level" employees fear the decision making process because of the reprecussions it could have on their job and thier workplace (having two employees disagree on 'which dog' is incredibly demoralizing) As the director of the shelter i was able and willing to stand behind every euth decision made and i was confident in those decisions with the help of an ACO, a vet tech, and a volunteer behaviorist...and we used Temp Eval as a guide and a level playing field for every animal who came in.

was it perfect ? NO WAY...but in a perfect world...well, there would be no need for animal shelters!

I see both sides of the issue. First, of course, is all the stress on the dog and his/her fate is decided, sometimes, by this one test, even if it's not always administered in what I would think is a real-life situation.
 
OTOH, the dog is either an absolute sweetie that will put up with untrained, unsupervised kids or it gets the needle, as there are only so many resources and a shot is cheaper than keeping all the dogs. Any dog can resource guard. Catch them on a good day, they can pass. The shelter has a certain amount of liability. And I personal hold people responsible for their own behavior. As I pointed out in another post, you could empty out the shelter today. By next week, it will be full again.
 
I also understand that a shelter has to have guidelines. And they have to euthanize. People would rather spend money on sports stars than give that money to turn shelters into no-kill shelters where dogs are given every chance, including training.  And yes, there are some dogs that are tempermentally beyond the abilities of most trainers, let alone JQP. And it doesn't make sense to spend time and money on a dog that will likely be a liability or injure a human or someone else's prize pet, when the dog in the next kennel will put up with unruly, undisciplined piggish kids with nary a raised eyebrow and the next wonderful dog they are bringing right now could use the kennel space of the "iffy" dog. It's a tough choice. But we should make the choice on the side of safety. Some dogs are just touchy, now matter how experienced an adopter might be.
 
And if I were to adopt that sweet dog that will let you place your hand in the bowl over the food and never hear a squeak out of him, I still say no child in my house will be messing with the dog's food. That's the way I was raised. Parents are in control, not children. And one doesn't mess with a dog while he is eating (NILIF aside).