To Save or Not to Save....(sillysally)

AgileGSD

I think I did mention that I do think some dogs are unadoptable and if your dog regularly wants to attack strangers, she'd likely fall into that catagory.

I never said that she regularly attacks anything-FWIW. 

AgileGSD

Liability" is always the excuse used for such things but honestly, sometimes it has more to do with the people at the shelter than the dog in question.

Liability is much more than an excuse.  The example of the dog you knew well and who bit two people and killed a ferret doesn't fit the parameters of what is being discussed.  Shelters and rescues when doing intake don't have the insight into a dog that you had with this dog. It should go without saying that each dog should have the advantage of a thorough evaluation by trained, experienced people but the reality is far different in many areas with large stray dog populations and a human population uneducated about responsible dog ownership.  In my city, over 30,000 dogs are euthed every year by AC alone.  Another 20,000 are picked up dead on the streets.  I would rather shelters and rescues try and save the dogs who have no history of aggression.  Their chances of success are so much higher.  It's about tough choices. 

That being said, I have a mildly dog aggressive dog. I didn't know that when I adopted her but I found out the very first day.  Had I been the average dog owner, I might have returned her to the AC I got her from and she would now be dead.  She has never hurt another dog but I saw she would always require close management.  Would I ever rehome her to anyone except a very experienced dog person?  No, never.  I wouldn't want to be responsible for her harming someone else's dog.  I think the chances of that are smaller every day but I am not willing to take that chance. 

AgileGSD

My pioint was that dedicated owners can make up for a lot, even with a dog who isn't the "dumb and docile" ideal that many seem to feel is the only approrpiate pet for "average owners".

I kinda do feel like that's the only appropriate pet.  I consider the rest of my family "average pet owners", meaning they want a dog as a companion, they will house train and and take it on walks, probably do basic obedience, but beyond that, when they get a dog they are not expecting and are not prepared to deal with any sort of aggression issues.  That's an issue for shelters since I believe most of their clients are "average pet homes" and not people who a lot of breed specific experience or people looking to do a ton of work rehabbing a dog.

sillysally

 What do you think qualifies as "serious" aggression?  A dog that has bitten a human?  A dog that has attacked another dog?  If so, how bad of an attack qualifies as "serious?"  What about other animals?  If a dog kills a cat is it serious aggression?  What about other critters, like birds, rabbits, etc?

 I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious as to what people consider serious aggression.....

It's pretty simple...the law. It doesn't matter what you I or anyone else considers acceptable. If the dog cannot live within the parametes of the law where it resides...it will be in trouble. Period.

Many laws include "unprovoked attacks on domestic animals" and that includes stray cats and chickens and other livestock. Most further go on to dictate what circumstances (while the dog is at large, off owner property, etc) Pretty clear cut I would say? You can go to court and have your day and explain that Browny just wanted to play with the kitty but in the end your dog will have killed someone's cat...and well, it broke the law and so did you.

If you live in an area where the law dictates nothing about other critters, but says your dog cannot "menace" the public in any way....it's rather up to the person who reports you and you to figure that one out. IMO this is the most gray area....what the heck IS menacing...I mean to me menacing means I was pretty sure the dog was going to bite me....to someone else it might be as simple as a bark while the dog is out walking...or a semi friendly lunge...or a bounce up from the pavement while they said hello that scared them.

I think biting a person is against most laws....aside from the person being on your property and intruding in some way.

I think all rescues etc need to be more mindful of the laws where they operate and consider that IF they place a dog with kitty issues in an area where domestic animals are included in the laws...well, that dog might not have a bright future unless it's owner understands the gravity of the situation.

Unless you are going to live in a cave...or are someone who lives outside the limits of a city with such laws....your animals are always going to be subject to them...unless you never leave your property, take them anywhere...etc. So I would always choose a dog, train my dog, confine my dog, restrain my dog, and live with my dog...with that in mind. Doesn't mean you have to keep a dog in a prison..just invest the time to ensure that the laws in your area are not something your dog breaks...at least in public view LOL.

Liesje

I kinda do feel like that's the only appropriate pet.  I consider the rest of my family "average pet owners", meaning they want a dog as a companion, they will house train and and take it on walks, probably do basic obedience, but beyond that, when they get a dog they are not expecting and are not prepared to deal with any sort of aggression issues.  That's an issue for shelters since I believe most of their clients are "average pet homes" and not people who a lot of breed specific experience or people looking to do a ton of work rehabbing a dog.

 I don't see it that way at all. It's funny no one considers themselves "average" owners, even if they are people who just have pet dogs and don't do much with else with them. My training classes have been full of average pet owners, yet they do well with and are happy with a wide variety of different dogs. I am not talking about dogs who need excessive rehabbing after being adopted. If the only dogs who are suitable for pet owners are well behaved, dumb, overly friendly and always submissive dogs than about 85% of dogs in shelters should be considered unadoptable for some reason or another. Give people a bit more credit - there are actually a lot of dedicated pet owners out there. And not everyone wants a dumb, docile dog even if the dog is just going to be a pet. I have placed Belgians who are neither dumb nor docile with pet owners who have done extremely well with them.

willowchow

AgileGSD

I think I did mention that I do think some dogs are unadoptable and if your dog regularly wants to attack strangers, she'd likely fall into that catagory.

I never said that she regularly attacks anything-FWIW. 

 Neither did I. I said that if she is a dog who regularly wants to attack strangers, she would probably not be considered adoptable.

AgileGSD

Liesje

I kinda do feel like that's the only appropriate pet.  I consider the rest of my family "average pet owners", meaning they want a dog as a companion, they will house train and and take it on walks, probably do basic obedience, but beyond that, when they get a dog they are not expecting and are not prepared to deal with any sort of aggression issues.  That's an issue for shelters since I believe most of their clients are "average pet homes" and not people who a lot of breed specific experience or people looking to do a ton of work rehabbing a dog.

 I don't see it that way at all. It's funny no one considers themselves "average" owners, even if they are people who just have pet dogs and don't do much with else with them. My training classes have been full of average pet owners, yet they do well with and are happy with a wide variety of different dogs. I am not talking about dogs who need excessive rehabbing after being adopted. If the only dogs who are suitable for pet owners are well behaved, dumb, overly friendly and always submissive dogs than about 85% of dogs in shelters should be considered unadoptable for some reason or another. Give people a bit more credit - there are actually a lot of dedicated pet owners out there. And not everyone wants a dumb, docile dog even if the dog is just going to be a pet. I have placed Belgians who are neither dumb nor docile with pet owners who have done extremely well with them.

 

That's nice to hear, really.

Many people I know would (or already have) returned or put down pets because they wanted to bite people/animals, couldn't be housetrained, had treatable medical problems that were too expensive or time consuming, etc.  Or even just "I got this dog for my kids and now they are in middle school and don't care about it anymore..."  When I was working at the shelter, most of the animals that were returned were not even returned for aggression, but even simpler things like "the dog is too hyper", "the dog wasn't housebroken".  It was really sad how many did get returned and were adopted 2, 3 times before not coming back.  There was a really nice Presa returned because it attacked the cat when it got home.  Why would someone in their right mind just turn a new dog loose with their cat?  I know someone who's dog nipped at their kid twice and the owner took it for a walk in the woods and shot it.  Maybe it is too cynical but I tend to focus on the "least common denominator", since it seems that these are the ones that get all the bad press and ruin it for everyone else who is responsible and keeps their animals under control.

This issue always falls a little close to home for me, as laying beside me right now are two dogs that, if taken to the shelter tomorrow, would both be euthanized for "behaviour issues". Gaci, my oldest girl, is by all accounts the best dog I have ever had the experience to share my life with. She has taught me more than any other human or animal, she shows no bounds in her devotion (and tenacity...LOL), and is all dog through and through, and I thank doG every day for having her in my life. So it's hard for me to sit and make blanket claims that all _______ dogs should be euthanized.

When Shimmer was six months old she bit my uncle his calf. I don't share that much with anybody, as most people get the wrong impressions when they then meet her. I decided pretty much then and there that she was going to be mine, that I wouldn't put her into the hands of somebody who might make her into a statistic. Because as much as there are degrees to aggression, I consider all of it very important. For public safety, for reputations, but also for the dog's well being and future. Shimmer is turning three this year, has never bitten another person, has not even tried, and enjoys socializing with folks when she warms up to them. To see her become a little ham and suck up to everyone at agility, you would never know that once upon a time she was a certain way.

I have firsthand experience in front of me (and others not in front of me today) to know that dogs can change. They can learn, they can change their emotions, and they can become better members of society.

However, I do not forget that not everybody has the means, or the experience and knowledge, to do as I do with them. Life does change with a special needs dog, not to mention two. For all intents and purposes to meet them on the street walking by you wouldn't really know they had issues - that's how much work we've done. We do competitive agility, we're doing Rally this fall, and we take walks in public places. However, we do not attend dog parks, people do not routinely stop to say hello to them, they don't do on leash meet and greets in the dog park - there are some things that you learn that you just don't need to set them up for. As much as it "looks" normal, there are still issues that would arise if I didn't stay on top of them, and stay alert 100% of the time.

So in terms of a shelter taking in dogs, one needs to realize that the number of people who have the time and energy to work with special needs dogs is not that high, and yes, for a shelter to turn a dog into the hands of the public is always a liability, no matter the behaviour of the dog in the shelter. For the purposes of helping dogs as a whole, I understand why the shelter euthanizes some dogs while allowing others to live - as much as we'd like it, it's not an ideal world and in the end somebody has to dictate which dogs live and which ones do not. Until you walk in those shoes I think it's very hard to judge in any manner. While I could knowingly take on a large problem dog, that doesn't mean that I am about to pass that dog off onto anybody who thinks that dog is cute, nor would I risk the public's safety in that manner.

I hate the thought of putting dogs to death, however I also hate the thought of any dog living its entire life in a 5 x 5 cage for 10-18 years because it's deemed "unadoptable" but yet somebody thought that it shouldn't be euthanized because somewhere, somebody "might" come along that can handle that dog. I will be honest and say I am not a big fan of no-kill shelters because I think it is more cruel to force a dog to exist (not live, but just exist...a dog in a shelter is not "living";) rather than to relieve the unhappiness, loneliness, and stresses of a lifetime behind bars because somebody felt the dog shouldn't be euthanized "just because". And if a dog's behaviour issues are serious enough that the "average" person cannot handle it, then the dog should be humanely euthanized rather than sentenced to a life imprisonment.

It's a sticky situation with no real "right" answer, because just as many great dogs are put to sleep totally based upon their looks or breed biases, rather than behaviour issues, that it's not something I, nor likely anyone, can really make firm claims on, because there's always something that is the "exception".

Liesje

That's nice to hear, really.

Many people I know would (or already have) returned or put down pets because they wanted to bite people/animals, couldn't be housetrained, had treatable medical problems that were too expensive or time consuming, etc.  Or even just "I got this dog for my kids and now they are in middle school and don't care about it anymore..."  When I was working at the shelter, most of the animals that were returned were not even returned for aggression, but even simpler things like "the dog is too hyper", "the dog wasn't housebroken".  It was really sad how many did get returned and were adopted 2, 3 times before not coming back.  There was a really nice Presa returned because it attacked the cat when it got home.  Why would someone in their right mind just turn a new dog loose with their cat?  I know someone who's dog nipped at their kid twice and the owner took it for a walk in the woods and shot it.  Maybe it is too cynical but I tend to focus on the "least common denominator", since it seems that these are the ones that get all the bad press and ruin it for everyone else who is responsible and keeps their animals under control.

 I saw people return dogs for dumb reason too but when I used to do "behavior night" at the local shelter, found that many were willing to try to work with the dog a little but didn't know what to do. Behavior night was mainly for people who called wanting to return their dog or people who called wanting to give up a dog for behavioral reasons but new adopters were encouraged to attend as well, to get a good start. It was once a month and totally free to anyone who wanted to come.

 There really is a big problem in the animal shelter world with shelters labeling large groups of people "unsuitable homes" as a whole. These people can include owners of intact animals, owners with children, owners who rent, owners who work, owners with other pets, single parents, owners who aren't willing or able to spend endless amounts of money on medical care...the list can go on and on. This sort of attitude towards the pet owning public does far more harm than good when it comes to adopting out shelter animals. No doubt there are some irresponsible owners out there but there are also people who take excellent care of their dogs for the dog's entire lifetime.

I agree, but it takes more time and more screening.  The shelter where I was didn't really have any "blanket" rules about fences, kids, other dogs, DA, etc.  But when people signed on to volunteer, everyone wanted to walk the dogs or work in the kennels, very few wanted to be adoption counsellors.  Luckily the shelter has a very good behaviorist who takes a vested interest in any case where the animal is more "difficult".  However I've been to other shelters that just don't have any money.  I pull GSDs from the county over and their shelter is basically a lean-to building with dogs in rabbit hutches.  The manager there is very nice and well-meaning but if someone comes in with money, she's not allowed to deny them an animal because she doesn't think they are a good owner.  The last GSD I pulled was because she called us saying that a man was coming back to buy her and told her that he was going to chain her in his yard as a guard dog and breed her.  Her hands are tied in these cases and it's basically a "first come first serve" shelter, luckily I got there first and the dog went to an experienced foster home, failed foster and less than a year later has agility titles.  I've been there before watching and overhearing how people interact with the dogs and it makes be cringe, but what can be done?  The shelter has no requirements of new owners, not even spay/neuter.  You basically just walk in a buy a dog.  The animals don't even have safe, clean cages let alone any resources for behavior mod, basic obedience classes for new owners, adoption counselling, etc.

AgileGSD

stormyknight

 But I am not your average owner. And many of the owners on this board are not average, nor are many shelter/rescue workers. So just because we say, or the rescue worker says "I could live with this dog" or "A dog with these issues would be fine with some work," we have to remember that we are in the minority of people who would want to deal with a dog like that.

 Most shelter dogs are not going to have "bomb proof" temperaments - shyness is a fairly common trait in domestic dogs, dog to dog and/or predatory type aggression is extremely common in some breeds and at the very least, the majority tend to be untrained, unsocialized adolescant dogs. And on top of that, a shelter is a really stressful environment and may led to dogs reacting in ways they normally would not, due to stress. It can be very hard to get an honest idea of how a dog would be in a home based on it's behavior in a shelter. I have known both dogs who failed temperament tests, were deemed "unadoptable" that are good pets (with average owners) and dogs who passed temperament tests without question, were deemed "highly adoptable" but went on to have serious aggression issues.

When I say "average owner", I'm talking a busy household, where both parents work full time, with 1+ kids. They have no business or interest in taking on a dog with aggression issues of any sort; they need a dog that can roll with the punches - if the kid has friends over, the worst the dog is going to do is flatten them to the ground with jumping, not snap at them because they are strangers. When the baby starts to crawl, the dog will only lick her face, not guard his toys from her. On long weeknights, when the parents have worked all day, then had to run the kids around to their after school activities, leaving the dog home alone 10 hours, they need their dog to not have eaten the couch and all their shoes because of separation anxiety. They are dedicated dog owners in their own right - take the dog for walks, vet checks, good food, etc. - but they are not equipped for dealing with any serious problems, nor do they want to. "Hyper" or "high energy" is not a problem for this household, especially if they have kids; take Jr. and the dog out in the backyard and let them tire each other out, running around.

No one is saying that temp tests are fail-proof or that they will predict the future. When you take temp test training, both Assess-A-Pet and SAFER blatantly tell you "This is NOT a predictor for future behavior; this simply tells you what the dog is like RIGHT NOW," which is why dogs that remain in shelters for more than 2-3 weeks should be temp tested again. But the temp tests do give a basis for euthanasia decisions, adoption decisions, or information to a rescue who may be looking to pull dogs out of a shelter.

I stand by my earlier statement: Shelters/rescues should routinely save the ones that they can easily adopt out to their clientele. For some, it will be only goofy, "dumb" type dogs that are pretty unflappable; for others, it will be dogs with special behavioral or health problems. To each their own, but until you've walked in their shoes, I don't think any should be condemned for their choices of which dogs they are able or not able to save.

stormyknight

 I stand by my earlier statement: Shelters/rescues should routinely save the ones that they can easily adopt out to their clientele. For some, it will be only goofy, "dumb" type dogs that are pretty unflappable; for others, it will be dogs with special behavioral or health problems. To each their own, but until you've walked in their shoes, I don't think any should be condemned for their choices of which dogs they are able or not able to save.

 This man has more than walked the walk and still thinks that most shelters aren't doing their part. This current blog entry "Good Homes Need Not Apply" is pretty relevant to this discussion too. I wish that I could say this has not been my experience with shelters and rescues:  http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1859