How Humane is the Ottawa Humane Society?

And, oh by the way, how hard do you think it is to have to be there when your 17 1/2 year old heart dog is PTS?  When, this well loved dog goes, even the vets and techs cry...these are real people, not "posts".
None of us is unaware of the sadness of seeing an animal euthanized, whether it's to relieve suffering, or to save injury or heartbreak to a human.  None of this is easy, but if you think for one minute that any of us is not deeply hurt any time a dog doesn't get a chance at the kind of good life my dog had, you are really off the mark. 
One reason I hang out on this board, even when I'm pummeled for my views, is that I live every day of my life working to help dogs stay in the families that bought or adopted them.  I see people on this board give up too easily, and I see them go the last mile.  But, they all love dogs - everyone simply has a different capacity.  And, shelters have to view what they do with that in mind, and with the welfare of their other animals in mind, too.  Could *you* be the one who says adopt out that food aggressive Llhasa, but let's euthanize the 6 year old sweet Field Spaniel that just walked in the door with her 7 year old Cocker sibling who is blind?  Tough decisions every day.  No one is saying that your dog shouldn't have been with you - but if you had never known the dog, isn't it just possible that some other dog, not aggressive, sweet but just homeless, could have survived but didn't...
If you think I'm all wet, read "One at a Time: A Day in the Life of An American Shelter".

And, oh by the way, how hard do you think it is to have to be there when your 17 1/2 year old heart dog is PTS? When, this well loved dog goes, even the vets and techs cry...these are real people, not "posts".

 
And when this happens, possibly on the mind, are the thoughts - did I do everything to save this dog, did I make the right decision, can the vet do more.  My point was to bring in this emotion to the staff at the shelter.  An opportunity was presented and the shelter followed the writings of the policy.  What is presented here is black and white words and if a picture of the dog and family were presented I believe the responses would be different.  It probably was not much to give the dog a little more time and investigate further the families commitment.  Giving hope cost nothing.
 
spiritdog, until your post I saw no emotional caring in the writings.  I think we are talking about government sponsored shelters with government employees...not Not for Profit Humane Societies and rescue shelters.  Yes, this was a wrong decision by a shelter, which can protect itself from future liability.  The fact that we like or don't like the decision is relevent because policy is set by public opinion, and that we would prefer that the dog would have passed or not passed the test is relevant because no pass equals death.

One thing I don't know if you're aware of DPU, is that you can say ANYTHING you want in a contract- get rid of all liability, etc. It still won't keep someone from sueing you, and you'll still have to pay for a lawyer to defend yourself. And in the case- especially of a city shelter, with the 'deep' pockets of the city government behind it? Sharky lawyers will be eager to sue anyoen they think might settle out of court ratyer than pay the costs of defending themselves. 

PWCA, true, the only person that one can control is oneself.  Don't you think to sue or not to sue is swayed by the human emotions of things like compassion, anger, revenge, greed, and not practicality?  Litigation risk is part of everyday life.  And think that if the human emotion is void, there would be no lawsuit.  OHS policy is void of human emotion because it does not include any exception provisions.  It is too rigid.

rwbeagles quote:
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.

This was the theme in Startrek II, centering around sacrifice.  Spock was half Vulcan and wanted so much to be void of human emotion.  His humanity side came from his mother and in Startrek III the spin on the "one" and "many" are changed. In dialogue between Spock and KirK:
Spock:  My father says that you have been my friend.  You came back to me.
Kirk:  You would have done the same for me.
Spock:  Why would you do that?
Kirk:  Because the need of the One outweigh the need of Many.

In a conversation between Spock and his mother:
Amanda:  Spock, does the good of the Many outweigh the good of One?
Spock:  I would accept that as an axiom.
Amanda:  Then you stand her, alive, because of a mistake made by your flawed,
           feeling human friend.  They have sacrificed their future because they
           believe that the good of the one-you-was more important to them.

I think Kirk and Amanda said it best and I think Spock was ultimately influenced to abandon his logic.  The little dog that was PTS had a champion on its side. 

The point of the policy review in Ottawa is to examine the current policies on euthanasia and the full range of options for rehabilitation of animals with medical or behavioural challenges.
 
The following is the "Reform the Ottawa Humane Society" (the campaign that has brought this issue to the table)  roposals for the Board of Directors of the OHS: 

•Initiate a full review of OHS polices and practices regarding assessment of animals and euthanasia. Furthermore, this review should be done by independent outside experts and should allow for public scrutiny and input;
•Implement an appeal process for cases where there is dispute about animals being deemed to be unadoptable and subject to euthanasia;
•Establish a rehabilitation program for dogs deemed to have behaviour and/or temperament issues and to direct fundraising efforts towards such a program;
•Implement an assessment process that is grounded in the most current research and best practices;
•Make clear to the public their current process for assessing animals and that animals that fail this assessment process will be euthanized; and
•Publish their statistics on euthanasia.

 
Instead of euthanization, do you think rehabilitation and targeted fostering and adoption progams should be a second option?
 
Do you think a HS should have to publish their euthanasia statistics?
 
Do you think there should be an appeal program (for those who dispute an "unadoptable" dog)
 
Do you think the public should have a say in the assessment procedures?  (especially since the HS is publicly supported through charities and donations)
 
 
 
 
Thanks again everyone for participating in these questions...
 

Instead of euthanization, do you think rehabilitation and targeted fostering and adoption progams should be a second option?
And who, pray tell would pay for this extremely expensive programme, at the expense of how many adoptable animals? Where would these dogs be housed so that they do not take valuable space from incoming animals that DO NOT need major behavioral intevention to become adoptable? What would the costs of the extra insurance required by the shelter AND potential foster homes be? Who will pay the salaries of the extra employees needed for this?Who will pay for the home owner of the foster when a bite occurs and they lose their home owners insurance for knowingly housing aggressive dogs? Answer those and maybe I could answer this...
 
Do you think there should be an appeal program (for those who dispute an "unadoptable" dog)
Appeal based on who's knowledge? The potential adopter who probably knows a lot LESS about dogs and dog behavior than a person conducting a shelter review? Again who will PAY for this arbitration and man hours required to bring a "case" like this to a close?
 
Do you think the public should have a say in the assessment procedures? 
The PUBLIC and it's ignorance of dogs, cats, and proper and LIFELONG ownership of both is the ONLY reason the HS exists in the first place. Why on Earth would you think they should have any say?
 
 
Do you think a HS should have to publish their euthanasia statistics?
[font=verdana][color=#cc0000]Do you think a surgeon should post how many patients he's lost on his office wall?
Do you think a lump sum of euthanasia rates is at all a legitimate way to judge? How many of those animals were ill? Injured? Requested to be euthanized by their owners?  Aggressive? Feral?
 
I can see what these numbers would be used for...to vilify people who have a very difficult and thankless job to do and usually a lot less money and resources than they need, to do it. PeTA would love it.[/color][/font]

Thank god the HS isn't like Star Trek...the world would have even more out of control dogs running the streets and living with loving but clueless owners than it does already!

It's pretty obvious that if one of the suggestions for the Board is to establish a rehabilitation program, then one does not already exist.  So, now, the option is to either adopt out a food aggressive dog, or euthanize it.  Under those circumstances, the only viable option is to euthanize.  And, it *does* cost to give hope...there is only so much cage space. Even with a rehab program, shelters have to decide whether it is feasible to provide lengthy training for a questionable dog, or take in more homeless animals that have excellent hope for a good outcome. The faster they get adopted, the more animals a shelter can save.  Most shelters do pay attention to, and try to reduce, euthanasia rates.  Check out the website at New England Federation of Humane Societies - they hold a training conference each year.  Maybe you could start something like that in your area, if one doesn't exist.

There's also a significant problem finding experienced fosters for dogs with major behavioral issues. I've left SEVERAL rescue groups (this is why I had been doing rescue independently) over issues of APPROPRIATE fosterage- I'm pretty dog savy, but I'm NOT endangering my own dogs (or my rental situation) by fostering dogs with questionable temperament- period. I no longer will foster an animal unless I've met them previously and gotten to evaluate them for myself or the group agrees to let me do a 48 hour trial and make sure there's not in immediate major issues.

Who the heck is going to foster all these food-aggressive dogs? The volunteers? How many have enough experience to safely rehabilitate a dog themselves compared to how many will make the problem WORSE? (And resource guarding is EASY to make worse, unfortunately.) Most humane societies have trouble getting and keeping foster homes in any great number as it is! And how many dogs could be saved for the salary of a full-time professional staff trainer- because frankly, there are not enough trainers who will donate the vast amount of time that would be needed for a program like this where they would essentially be doing 40 hours a week of private lessons or more.

Appeal program- no. It's a waste of time and resources. It sucks for these people that wanted the cute little fluff dog, but questionable results are still results.

I think the emotional side of this is one of the reasons Sue Sternberg has so many image problems- she euthanizes cute dogs and uncute ones with equal selection criteria.

I think that instituting a board of people who could oversee assessment- ie, a professional trainer, a veterinary behaviorist, and perhaps a vet as well- would be useful, but the money to pay the salery (and this would be a full-time job, really) isn't there.

I'd like to see euthanasia statistics published but that's more for my own statistical interest. I don't think it's any of the public's business, though.

The little dog had a champion.  The family wanted to take full responsibility for the dog.  The tests that sentenced the dog to PTS are controversial, unreliable, and lack scientific foundation.  Before taking a rescue dog into my home the rescue organization requires temperament test and the results observed.  This is usually done at the vet#%92s office because before a dog goes into a foster home, the dog is fully vetted, complete UTD vaccinations, neutered, and any other medical issues addressed.  After the foster is in my home for awhile, I perform these same tests again and the results are different most of the time.  For the dogs that showed previous problems, the new results showed improvements, while for some of the other fosters the tests show degradation.   This is not a scientific trial and totally unreliable because of my credentials, my interpretation of the results, and inconsistent documentation.  BUT, this is the experience I bring to the table for discussion.
 
Rwbeagles brings up Star Trek as an analogy for this little dog#%92s plight, and it is so fitting.  The mistake made was identifying the purpose of the sacrifice.  The little dogs sacrifice was not for the greater good of the well-behaved healthy dogs, but the sacrifice was for the greater good of dogs in similar plight situations.  If you understand the following statement then you understand my position.  The needs of the One outweigh the needs of Many (emotional response) and this results in the needs of Many outweighing the needs of the One (logical response).  The Katrina dogs fits this axiom and the results are now to include pets in any National Disaster Evacuation Plan , a greater good
 
I support the efforts of Reform the Ottawa Humane Society.  I agree with each of their proposal items because if there is dialogue that can only lead to a better mutual understanding and improved policy.  I think a major overhaul all at once will be expensive so I would recommend baby steps to move forward in the right directions.  I think this group is comprised of volunteers who man the 2nd line of a rescue operation.  The 1st line is the organization that is handed the dog from the public.  The 2nd line is volunteers who go to these kill shelters and meet the dogs, walk the dogs, and comfort the dogs.  They are the individuals who advertising and promote through email networks about the dogs situations.  These individuals contact rescue organizations like mine (3rd line) and get their dogs into a foster program and foster families (4th line).  The 2nd line is the most heart wrenching that I could never do.  With each dog that is touched, a piece of the volunteer#%92s heart goes with the dog.  They can only do this job for so long before it takes it tolls.  When they quit I give them a standing ovations for a job well done.  Most people on this forum refer to their dogs as rescues.  This is what I consider to be the 5th line of a rescue operations-homing the dog.  This is where the behaviorist and trainer step into the process.  I often wonder why they are not part of the 4th line.  To me this is a reciprocal relationship where the dog benefits from the experiences and methods of a professional trainer, and the trainer benefits from the dogs by having to deal with behavioral issues in their own home environment as opposed to a classroom setting and advising based on books read.  Perfect symbiosis.
 
The other posts used extremes to bring their points home.  What if along with government ordinances requiring vaccinations of pets an amended was attached so that the pet would have to pass these tests.  The failures would results in an increased license fee or worst PTS.  I think there would be such a public outcry that we would have a definite thumb up or thumb down on these tests, federal funding, and the animal behaviorist and training community would scamper to get reliable tests.
 
By the way (BTW), in this thread there is a lot of use of “hard decision” in choosing which dogs get PTS.  The policy says you put a stick in the dog#%92s food dish while he is eating and if the dogs growls then its PTS.  I use the stick example because that was the only test that was shown on a TV spot and this is the public perception of the “tests”.  I know there are more.  My point is where is the hard choice?  Where#%92s the “hard decision” when there is a space shortage?  If the decision was hard then I believe in nature of people to overcome adversity and come up with creative and ingenious solutions, even if it#%92s only saving one dog.
 
Lastly, in a previous post I introduced Jenny an overweight Beagle who I believe would not have been given a chance by OHS.  Was Jenny rescued from PTS because of a loving but clueless champion, YES-me.  Did Jenny take up a spot that could have gone to a young healthy dog, YES.   Did Jenny serve a greater purpose, Yes-it was a happy ending that encouraged me to keep rescuing the disadvantage and move from lurker on this forum to a strong advocate.

Again, you are applying your situation to the general situation.  Even a "hero" family may not really be equipped to rehab a dog.  And, while it's unfortunate that this single dog lost a chance, to be honest with you, it isn't the first Llhasa I've heard of as being a biter or food aggressive.  Not that it doesn't happen in other breeds, of course it does, but this dog may not have simply growled.  Did you see the test?  Did the dog just grrr and give "whale eye" or did it provide multiple bites up the stick or Assess-a-Hand?  I'm sorry, but the "save them all" mentality is simplistic - and dog bite statistics pretty much bear out that the general public is none too good at managing the dogs that are already out there, never mind rehabbing the ones that already bite.  The nature of food aggression is that it can be trained out, but that training should never be assumed to have removed the whole problem forever.  Some dogs will never guard their food again, but if a non-savvy owner doesn't realize that you must proof the dog against guarding "special" food, too, then you get the ones who say, "gee, I can take his food right out of his mouth, but that pig ear..." and suddenly some child has twenty stitches in his lip.  You cannot discount those possibilities as much as you want to save a dog, and I agree with not placing such dogs before doing the behavioral rehab properly at the shelter.  Good luck finding one that has the time or resources.
Now, as to whether the Ottawa shelter provided a legitimate test, or not, I cannot comment.  All I can say is that you are unlikely to get any large open admission shelter to put aggressive dogs into the hands of the public.  What I see in my neck of the woods, with the no kill community, is dogs that are aggressive going to pet homes with kids because no one at the shelter is able to believe that Fifi isn't worth saving, and the family is willing to take the chance.  My question is, based on what knowledge???

Who the heck is going to foster all these food-aggressive dogs?
 
Apparently we can send them all to DPU...lol.

Maybe, but I'd be willing to bet not, Gina. []    I do think DPU's heart is in the right place, but is not understanding the magnitude of the problem or the liability issues that do dictate what a shelter Exec must consider.  Who donates to shelters that adopt out dogs that bite kids?  It might suck that this is political, but after all, we all know some people who won't donate to "kill" shelters.  But, good luck with the no kill shelters if you ever pick up an 8 year old stray Pointer with lumps and bumps on her and a slight case of spay incontinence and want them to take her...

: spiritdogs
What I see in my neck of the woods, with the no kill community, is dogs that are aggressive going to pet homes with kids because no one at the shelter is able to believe that Fifi isn't worth saving, and the family is willing to take the chance.

I can not deny that I do comprehend your position and fully understand that your position comes from outside the home.  By this I mean that you are part of the Professional Dog World and you are popular on this forum and therefore you have to respond in very responsible, tow the line fashion.  I can not tell if your responses come from books read or real experience but I sense from your writings that inside the home your feelings are different.  I truly do not see anything wrong with OHS having an exception policy for food aggressive dogs and revisiting the reliability of the tests that result in PTS.  After all, come on, how many of these dogs have champions root tooting for them?  OHS made a mistake and they are paying for it by having bad PR, probably lost donations, and a revisit with the municipal dog service contract. 

Frankly I do not know what to say about your comment on no-kill shelters, other than it came very unexpectedly.  I am shocked.

Spiritdogs:  But, good luck with the no kill shelters if you ever pick up an 8 year old stray Pointer with lumps and bumps on her and a slight case of spay incontinence and want them to take her...

Please meet Lady, my Pointer foster from January 2006 until she was adopted in July 2006.  The vet advised the no kill shelter to put her down but I persevered.  She kind of fits your description having come into the program with a lot and I mean a lot of medical conditions primarily as a result of parasites including the worst Heartworms.  She had tumors in mammory glands and she had lumps and bumps that we think came from buckshots.  Her teeth were pathetic.  Lady' rehab finished at the end May at which time we advertised her availability.  The response was overwhelming and country-wide.  Her history as I knew it was fully disclosed.  Lady was so worth saving.  She ended up being adopted by a family who hunts - but hunting was secondary to the dogs being a family pet first.  Lady is a mature girl who has remarkable hunting instincts.  In the adopting family, she is paired with another Pointer that never developed the skill.  Such a wonderful happy ending.