Dog Community

How Humane is the Ottawa Humane Society?

Posted : 10/18/2006 11:01:40 AM

Hi Everyone

I#%92m doing a project for school on the current controversy with the Ottawa Humane Society. Many of you probably have not heard of what is happening there, so please find below Simone Powell and Kevin Skerrett#%92s story…..

On Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, a small black Lhasa Apso type dog ran past our house,
unaccompanied, looking lost and scared. We thought that the best way to reunite the dog with his owners was to bring him to the Ottawa Humane Society. When we dropped him off, we said that if the dog#%92s owners did not claim him, we were willing to adopt him. (We had been considering getting a dog but had not yet done so). They told us that there was a mandatory “impound period” of three days, after which time the dog would be assessed before being made available for adoption. We checked with the OHS daily and no one came forward to claim the dog. We again indicated our interest in adopting him and even started referring to him as “Henry.” On Monday, July 24, we learned that Henry had “failed” the temperament assessment and was deemed a “resource guarder” and would be euthanized. We immediately went to the shelter and spoke with the staff person who had conducted the assessment. We indicated that we understood the assessment and that this dog had special challenges that would require accommodation but that we were still willing to adopt him. We were prepared to hire a behaviourist, muzzle him if necessary, keep him away from children, and do whatever else that OHS staff recommended. We wanted to give this dog a chance. OHS staff informed us that there was no hope of rehabilitation. In spite of our pleas, we were refused. Henry was euthanized on Wednesday, July 26. Our experience left us extremely concerned about OHS policy and practice. We have learned that the type of testing used at the society is controversial. Many highly trained behaviourists have pointed out that such temperament assessments remain disputed as meaningful measures of canine aggression or real-world behaviour. In fact, some experts have reported that the OHS approach to testing has never been fully validated, and that much more research into their success rates is needed. We have written to the President of the OHS Board and to members of the Board requesting the opportunity to communicate with them directly about our concerns about OHS policies and practices. To date we have been refused. On September 6 we met with the OHS Executive Director and provided him with a list of information requests and proposed that the OHS conduct a full review of their euthanasia and animal assessment policies regarding both dogs and cats. The level of public interest generated by extensive media attention has confirmed for us that many people are unaware of what is happening at the OHS, and they too would like to see a comprehensive and transparent review of its policies and procedures. Hopefully, the launch of “Reform the OHS” will bring awareness and change...

Written by: Simone Powell and Kevin Skerrett

So, as you can see there is a strong controversial issue here. I would like to ask you, the animal community, to post your thoughts, opinions and feelings on this issue.

For further information:

[linkhttp://www.reformtheohs.ca/]www.reformtheohs.ca[/link]
This is the website of the campaign for the changes to the OHS. You can find media coverage, personal letters and updates on this issue.

rwbeagles

Posted : 10/18/2006 11:43:30 AM

Hi Teejay,

I'll wade in here. Doubtless you've seen the various "Animal Cops" shows out there, most have in place these same evaluations, some more indepth, some less. But they do do them...including resource guarding/food aggression.

I am going to state that given the amount of time, potential liability and risk to the public, I support these types of test and the results that come from them.

It may not be popular...but reality is...IF the Humane Society knowingly adopts a dog that bites when things dear to it are approached, THEY will be in the gunsight of potential victims right along with the adoptive family. People adopt and choose dogs with their hearts....HS's cannot afford to do this. Nor should they...SOMEONE must be objective and see the bigger picture.

Every day they are innundated with people mistakes...litters of pups, old dogs in ill health, dogs at large due to owners neglect or carelessness, dog with behavior issues, dog given up for the most selfish of reasons, etc etc etc. They MUST draw the line somewhere and have some sort of blanket policy that can be quickly understood and evaluated by shelter staff. They do not have the time, or staff in most cases to give hours and hours of time to rehab 1 dog, when others will be euthanized due to not having space. It is not fair to other dogs who have less severe and potentially damaging problems.

IF this dog had been a Pitbull, would you or these people have made the same stink? I doubt it...it is because the dog is small, fluffy and cute that it should be given this extra chance above another? This to me...should not be the case. The HS must decide what constitutes adoptable and safe....because they have the most to lose if that dog does indeed, btie someone outside the shelter. They infact, could potentially lose everything...and how many dogs lives would THAT change?

I think Spock says it best..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one". In this instance....the HS made a hard decsion. But fact is...NO guarantee from the family interested in this little dog would have mattered if, due to their growing complacency or assurances that their dog was "cured"...would have held the HS above retribution if this dog, or any other they place with a known aggression issue, were placed and bit.

Again...they were not present at the eval....it is quite possible this little dog was WAY out of line. Not the dogs fault...many smaller dogs can have the same issues stemming from over indulgence and lack of training, but the HS made IMO the fair decision. I'd expect the family to fight just as hard for the Pitbull or Rottie that displays this type of behavior...but somehow I doubt they would.

I will go further and suggest to balance your project you look up the case of the HS who DID NOT euthanize a dog, a Doberman, brought in displaying aggression...instead worked with it and then placed it. This same dog KILLEDa woman in it's new home, they NEVER told the new owner about the past on this dog...and someone died horribly because of it. On which side should the shelter's err? Breed should not matter...even a Pomeranian has killed a human being before.

Julitza

Posted : 10/18/2006 1:00:07 PM

I agree 100% with Gina.

IMO agression is agression no matter the size and type. Shelters need to place only the most stable tempered dogs up for adoption. An incident with an agressive dog can bring a bad reputation to the shelter, and can make people unwilling to adopt a dog.

These people wanted to help out the Lhasa because he was a small dog. "Oh it doesnt mater if he bites, hes small and it wont hurt much" but if it were a larger dog (think pit bull) you can bet they'd be cheering the shelter on to euthanize it.

If the shelters start adopting out agressive/mentally unstable dogs, people are going to get the idea that all shelter dogs are bad, and are going to be resistent to adopting, and you can bet they will share that negative experience with friends.

Terri-Jo Thompson

Posted : 10/18/2006 1:05:14 PM

Thank you for your posts Rwbeagles and LizzieCollie - I really appreciate the depth you have put in to your posts concerning this issue.

Rwbeagles, do you have a link to this story regarding the woman with the Doberman? Thanks!

rwbeagles

Posted : 10/18/2006 1:25:41 PM

TeeJay I will find it for you...gimme a bit

Here is one...the article I had read originally actually had the original owner quoted in it where she was VERY clear she wanted her dog put down becuase it had attacked her previously, still looking for that one
[linkhttp://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_262183835.html]http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_262183835.html[/link]

Julitza

Posted : 10/18/2006 2:45:44 PM

I remember the Doberman story quite clearly. The original owner paid the shelter a large sum of money (300 or so dollars if I remember correctly). Someone TOOK her money and didnt put the dog down. In fact they deemed it adoptable and a few days later it killed a woman, and I mean brutally murdered.

The dog obviously had problems, given the nature of the first attack, and having knowledge of this they adopted him out. Now what if this shelter had adopted this dog out to that family, knowing it had guarding issues? What if that dog killed one of their kids? The dog is small but hey, a Pomeranian killed a toddler a while back.

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 10/19/2006 10:09:27 AM

i am going to have to agree with gina and julitza. i recently watched the documentary "shelter dogs". they document what goes on at a shelter in new york run by sue sternberg. she implements the same kind of testing that you describe. many of the dogs are given numerous chances and oppotunity to pass these tests, and it is never an easy decision on the part of the shelter employees to decide to euthanize a dog.

spiritdogs

Posted : 10/19/2006 4:10:15 PM

Resource guarding is actually a natural and adaptive behavior on the part of dogs, BUT it is a huge liability for a shelter or rescue to adopt out a dog that displays serious guarding tendencies. Plus, a dog that guards may be fine with one person, and guard with another. This is a behavior that can be worked with if the guarding is not serious, but in the case of a Llhasa, my guess is that it might have been. These dogs, despite their size, can be difficult. The shelter simply couldn't take the chance... From their perspective, why would they give an "iffy" dog a chance and euthanize a good dog in the next cage??? That's the reality of life in an open admission shelter. Great reason for spay/neuter and microchip ID's.

DPU

Posted : 10/19/2006 10:13:12 PM

No no no, this was wrong. The Llapso had a hero waiting in the wings. The family was fully informed. They had time to think and consult with professionals. They kept coming back. They said they would use any resource available within their means to help this dog. The OHS could easily amend their adoption contract to absolve them of liabilities which most certainly already contains the provision. I have seen demonstrations of those test and I am sure if administered to my dogs or the fosters, some would failed. I lived with an aggressive resource guard dog for 15 years and yes you have to make accommodations and take precautions. That is what you do when you get involved with a dog and take responsibility and that is what you do when the relationship is personal. I would have never considered PTS and then go to the HS shelter and pick out another one that past their test. The 15 years was our life. People do pick their pets using their heart. Their hearts should tell them not to overlook the older ones, or the deaf ones, or the blind ones, or the crippled ones, or even the ones with behavioral problems. In this case the shelter followed the mechanics of policy. It's sad and I am sure the shelter's staff was sad, but I think that they are use to the emotion whereas the family felt they could do more. What makes me sad is how disconnected these caretakers, behaviorists, and professional trainers are with emotional bond between owner and dog. I am sure if all of the POSTS met this dog and then were required to administer the PTS, they would come up with some creative, ingenious solution to help this dog. You don't need the perfect dog in your house that obeys all of your commands. In the early relationship you train but training should stop at some point and life together should be lived. I foster at most 3 dogs for an organization who rescues dogs from kill shelters. I have seen a lot of behavioral issues and I have done my best to help the dogs overcome them. The most effort is fitting the dog into the right permanent home, taking into consideration the dog's personality and behavior. No one would dare say to me why don't you PTS this dog because the dog has been with you for 8 months and in that time you could have fostered 4 dogs. Well, I don't know those other four dogs, I only know, love, and respect the foster I have.

It is not fair to support OSH with the extreme and graphic story of the doberman and call it balancing the report because that was a case where an aggressive dog was released to an adopter without giving them the knowledge of the dog's behavior. A balanced view would be to look at dog that failed the test and lived happily ever after in a family's home with no aggressive tendency. Unfortunately such cases are not newsworthy.

rwbeagles

Posted : 10/19/2006 10:30:29 PM

DPU it is a VERY fair comparison....because it involved shelter policy NOT being followed due to one person or persons begging for another decision to be made, or thinking they knew the dog in question better than the policy. No difference at all.

There are rules for everyone...bottom line is if the dog in question had been a Pit or Rottie, NO ONE would have stepped up to help it...that is wrong, and that is why the rules are the way they are. The shelter is there to help place PLACEABLE dogs....not dogs with problems because they are cute and fuzzy.

I have known enough reputable people BURNED by families who are "so sure they want this special puppy" or dog with an issue of health or temperament...then turn around and dump it back on the breeder when they get tired of dealing with or paying for the problem...or get threatened with a lawsuit. You honestly think someone adopting a dog for less money, with less background knowledge of it...would be less likely to do the same? I'm sorry but I think that's a huge risk to take on the PUBLIC'S dime.

rwbeagles

Posted : 10/19/2006 10:43:09 PM

What makes me sad is how disconnected these caretakers, behaviorists, and professional trainers are with emotional bond between owner and dog

DPU that is how ANY person in ANY job dealing with suffering, injury, or emotional distress functions from day to day...how else would they? They'd shoot themselves in the head the first week otherwise.

These people have to clean up the public's CRAP every day so you can call them disconnected?

I am sure if all of the POSTS met this dog and then were required to administer the PTS, they would come up with some creative, ingenious solution to help this dog.

And please don't tell me what "I" would feel about that Lhasa....because you have no idea. I would not Put the dog to sleep because I am not a vet, nor am I qualified to administer the drugs. You can bet I'd sit right beside the dog while it breathed it's last and damn it's owners, it's breeders, and everyone else who let it come to this point, but I'd sure not damn the behaviorist...who did NOT cause the problem, nor the shelter who sure as heck didn't either!

DPU

Posted : 10/19/2006 11:12:37 PM

Now that new information is presented in the Doberman case, there are two balancing views when shelter policy is not followed. One where the outcome is happy and the other where the outcome is tragic. I have nothing to substantiate this but gut feelings tells me there are many more happy outcomes than tragic.

I can not comment on the bad publicity plaguing the Rottie and Pits. Half the fosters I get are Pits mix so I do not share the perceptions

resented and I choose not to further hurt their reputations by highlighting them in an evil dog discussion. I have not been burned by families who have adopted the dogs I have fostered. When you do this for a long time you develop very good judgment skill. And, you are doing an adoption in the best interest of the dog AND the family.

Disconnected, dispassionate, sad but immuned to the emotion...that is how shelter staff cope with their jobs. I don't have their jobs, I am at the other end where I get to rescue a dog, bring him into my home, and get to play alot and have fun. Get to do happy stuff. Yes, I am more senstive to one individual dogs

light and instead of saying "Posts" (not intended to be taken individually but as a consensus) I should have said non shelter staff people would have a very difficult time doing their job, including administering PTS (meaning being part of the procedure not actuall sticking the dog).

rwbeagles

Posted : 10/19/2006 11:30:13 PM

I'd also say to all here to go and read the "Share" section of that site. I was appalled by the irresponsibility and ridiculous expectations people seem to have for the animal shelter in question. Do other people who work in shelters on this board find this same mindset?

Several people GAVE UP THEIR dog, not strays, personal owned pets, to the shelter because they didn't have enough time to exercise it, or had some health issue or were moving, same old same old...another had a declawed, indoor 12 y/o cat with a severe allergy problem (the cat was known to try and escape)that was "let out by my kids" and didn't notice the cat was gone for TWO DAYS...didn't get to the shelter for 7 days, then got upset when it was euth'd at the shelter...it goes on and on.

I cannot believe in this day and age that people actually think a shelter is like a Pawn shop, or a kennel or a resort, where you can turn in an animal, or lose one and then get it back when you start to feel bad about your decision, happen to notice it's gone, or realize suddenly that it may be euthanized.

It's really eye opening to read and I hope a lot of people here do so...the stories are sad but most of them are also nothing to do with the shelter and everything to do with what it means to be responsible.

DPU

Posted : 10/20/2006 12:03:24 AM

For people who are

assionate about a single dog's welfare there are very few reasons to justify giving up a dog to a shelter. In the Share section, the excuses are pathetic but that is how people are and that is reality. What was consistent in each of the message was the dog and cats were PLACEABLE but were put down because of a test. In the OP's write-up, the family who wanted to adopt the Lhasa Apso appears to be responsible, at least on paper.

rwbeagles. If you would please go to the PHOTO SHARING category and look at your thread. I did my post yesterday. Jenny was in a kill shelter and was on a short road towards PTS because of her weight. I got 10lbs off of her before the picture was taken. I know this post is about aggression and dogs not being PLACEABLE, but I think OHS would not have given Jenny a chance. [linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=171155]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=171155[/link]

spiritdogs

Posted : 10/20/2006 6:49:24 AM

ORIGINAL: DPU

No no no, this was wrong. The Llapso had a hero waiting in the wings. The family was fully informed. They had time to think and consult with professionals. They kept coming back. They said they would use any resource available within their means to help this dog. The OHS could easily amend their adoption contract to absolve them of liabilities which most certainly already contains the provision. I have seen demonstrations of those test and I am sure if administered to my dogs or the fosters, some would failed. I lived with an aggressive resource guard dog for 15 years and yes you have to make accommodations and take precautions. That is what you do when you get involved with a dog and take responsibility and that is what you do when the relationship is personal. I would have never considered PTS and then go to the HS shelter and pick out another one that past their test. The 15 years was our life. People do pick their pets using their heart. Their hearts should tell them not to overlook the older ones, or the deaf ones, or the blind ones, or the crippled ones, or even the ones with behavioral problems. In this case the shelter followed the mechanics of policy. It's sad and I am sure the shelter's staff was sad, but I think that they are use to the emotion whereas the family felt they could do more. What makes me sad is how disconnected these caretakers, behaviorists, and professional trainers are with emotional bond between owner and dog. I am sure if all of the POSTS met this dog and then were required to administer the PTS, they would come up with some creative, ingenious solution to help this dog. You don't need the perfect dog in your house that obeys all of your commands. In the early relationship you train but training should stop at some point and life together should be lived. I foster at most 3 dogs for an organization who rescues dogs from kill shelters. I have seen a lot of behavioral issues and I have done my best to help the dogs overcome them. The most effort is fitting the dog into the right permanent home, taking into consideration the dog's personality and behavior. No one would dare say to me why don't you PTS this dog because the dog has been with you for 8 months and in that time you could have fostered 4 dogs. Well, I don't know those other four dogs, I only know, love, and respect the foster I have.

It is not fair to support OSH with the extreme and graphic story of the doberman and call it balancing the report because that was a case where an aggressive dog was released to an adopter without giving them the knowledge of the dog's behavior. A balanced view would be to look at dog that failed the test and lived happily ever after in a family's home with no aggressive tendency. Unfortunately such cases are not newsworthy.

No, this was a right decision by a shelter, which has to consider future liability. The fact that we don't like the decision, and that we would prefer that the dog would have passed the test is irrelevant. You may have chosen to live with an aggressive dog for fifteen years, but most families do not really understand the implications of that commitment. From the shelter's perspective, aggression is the one thing they cannot perpetrate on an unsuspecting public - the people may have been able to deal with that dog, but what happens the one time the leash slips from their hand and dives for a child's dropped food just as the child tries to pick it up? When the lawsuits fly, the shelter is included, since they knew the dog was aggressive. If a shelter is closed, a lot of animals suffer, and money is no small object when you are running a shelter, not to mention reputation. I'm NOT saying this doesn't suck, and I *know* that a food aggressive dog can frequently be retrained, but it still doesn't mean that shelter didn't have to protect its interests or the public's. Personally, I wish all shelters were testing their dogs and not hiding the dogs' identities to save them all. Then, I wouldn't be confronted with the heartbroken family whose "Lab mix" suddenly becomes dog aggressive at age 2. Hmmm, where did those terrier ears come from???? No one tells people they have a Lab/Pit mix. And, while it's fine to have one, or to have a Pit for that matter, it is *not* fine to adopt out an obvious Pit or mix to an unsuspecting ordinary non-dog savvy family with kids and a life without *telling* them, and letting them choose whether they want to take a chance - after all, they can adopt another mix that has already passed the stage when most dogs have the "switch" turn on if they want to. Or, they should be able to say, no, not my cup of tea.
Nor is it fair to adopt out aggressive dogs to people who may not be fully aware (despite all their good intentions) that they may be able to live with a guarder, but there are children in the universe, too. Unless everyone takes responsibility and makes hard decisions, we'll all have to worry about more than just BSL against a few breeds...