How Humane is the Ottawa Humane Society?

ORIGINAL: DPU

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.

Around here, I tried to get a no kill shelter to *take* such a dog when the elderly owner couldn't care for her any more due to ill health.  They wouldn't, because they felt she wasn't very adoptable.  Glad your dog got the chance, though.  Here, the no kills take in small dogs, cute dogs, and stray small dogs and cute dogs.  You won't find many Shepherds, Pits, or Pointers for that matter.  They end up at the open admission shelters.  Other parts of the country may be different.
The fact remains that "no kill" by definition means "limited admission" or "sanctuary", not "shelter" in the classic sense of that term.
If you were shocked by my remarks, try watching the faces of some of the adopters from these places when they find out that there dog doesn't like other dogs because it's really a Pit mix, not just a "Lab mix".  Shelters bear some responsibility for this crap.  Ottawa may need revisions, but adopting out aggressive dogs, when there are non-aggressive dogs on death row, shouldn't necessarily be one of them.

There are several people who volunteer at the same (open-door) shelter that I do who actually live much, much closer to the fabulous, palatial, ridiculously well-funded no-kill shelter, yet choose not to volunteer there. Why? Because these folks are advocates for the bully breeds and if you want to work with bullies, you're going to have to volunteer at the open-door shelter, not the no-kill. Three guesses as to why.

I don't think there is a regional difference in how shelters operate but there are differences in their selection criteria.  I don't know the selection criterion that was described for no-kill shelters is the norm.  I do know from my experience that is not the case.  As a participant in the rescue operation I do feel I can influence the shelter by communicating and asking questions.  I know that my shelter primarily get their dogs from municipal pounds and open admission shelters.  At first I was told they came mostly from West Virginia because euthanasia was executed with gas.  Now I am told they come from Ohio because of the high euthanasia rate in that state.  Nonetheless, I am not part of the selection process.  I take the dogs that I am assigned.  Base on my home setup I can take in multiple large dogs but through out the years it been all shapes, sizes, and conditions.  I don't see the faces of adopters when they find out that their dog doesn't like other dogs because…  I have had the dog in my home and I know its behavior and I screen adopters, there are no surprises.  I was shocked by the absolute statement that no-kill shelter act irresponsibly in placing dogs.  Some may but not all.  I stand front and center as a contradiction to that statement.  To trivialize and dismiss my role to the general situation can only cause a setback to improvements.  My role may be small but it contributes to lessening the misrepresentation made to the non savvy dog adopter and is in fact part of the rehab process.    

I do respect an opinion that is based on actual experience.  To padlock the mind by not allowing for other views creates an absolute that can be very harmful and most definitely insensitive.  Absolutes that appear to be creditable can discourage volunteers and entertain the thought that their dedication is causing more harm than good.  Unintentionally I'm sure, absolutes that are accentuated with the symbolic color red in a euthanasia discussion is, in my opinion not in good taste.

by spiritdogs:  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.

I shrug off the giggle that went with that sentence.  If I don't understand the magnitude then I want to better understand.  I think I keep myself updated on current events and issues.  I read the newspaper daily, periodicals, books.  I work for a university and I am part of the university's animal community.  I rescue.

I am aware of the home owners insurance and liability issues regarding specific breeds and biting dogs.  I was not aware of shelters having insurance and liability issues and these issues were driving the PTS policy.  I called three local shelters in my area and they felt comfortable that their organization was shielded.  In creating their organization they sought advice from not for profits lawyers and were advised to include an indemnity clause in the adoption contract, get insurance, and as long as they disclosed known behavioral issue they would be ok. 

I further contacted the Reform the OHS group, the ASPCA, Denver Dumb Friend League, American Humane Association, and the Humane Society of the United States.  Surprising only one organization gave me detail general information on this issue.  But this organization asked me not to post the response on a public forum or use quotes.  This organization confirmed that liability risk is a big concern of shelters because even though the owner dog indemnifies the shelter the third party did not indemnify the shelter so therefore the shelter has exposure.  One organization just referenced me to a case law site and what I found was some shelters are/can get sovereign immunity from lawsuits if they are considered an extension of a state service and acting as an agent of a state.  I am not lawyer and I do not trust my interpretation but in consideration of what I read I find I am ambiguous to the statement "the magnitude of the problem or the liability issues that do dictate what a shelter Exec must consider”.  Please put forward a definite authority so that I may further understand.

And finally, to assist in reshaping the view that no-kill shelters only admit small, cute, healthy, well behaved dogs, I present Asia and Andrienne.  Asia on the right is a Bully-mix breed while Andrienne on the left is a Yellow Lab with a mangled rear leg.  These two fosters were my all time favorite from years back.  I have never witness two dogs as these that enjoyed each others company so much.  It was such joy having them in the house.  Image, while going to sleep and hearing the sound of two dogs playing under the bed with their tails thumping against the carpet until eventually getting tired and going to sleep.  For months I would fall asleep with a smile on my face.  

Ottowa Humane Society did the right thing. Legal liability aside, there are soooooooooo many dogs, and there are few people who have the patience to deal with a dog with special needs.

The goal of a shelter should be to make good, forever connections between dogs and families and dogs. This can and does mean not believing people when they say it's OK that the dog is aggressive. It also means choosing to adopt out dogs who do not have serious behavioral problems, correctly representing the breed and temperaments of their dogs, and finding out as much as possible about the dogs before they are adopted.

Pet overpopulation sucks, it's really really sad. But shelters do NOTHING for the actual problem of pet overpopulation when they indiscriminately adopt out aggressive dogs. Unhelpful, unprofessional behavior from shelters--misrepresenting dogs' breeds or temperaments and adopting out known aggressive dogs--winds up only serving the emotional interests of the shelter. The dogs lose out. For every aggressive dog that gets adopted out, imagine a really, really good dog dying. And worse, the "saved" aggressive dog is just as likely to get PTS because aggressive behavior gets worse and not better as dogs are bounced from home to home.

That's lose-lose-lose. The family gets a really bad dog experience, the good dog dies, the aggressive dog winds up dying anyway... the only ones who win in this case are the shelter people, who get to feel like they are doing the right thing. It doesn't add up.

Ottowa Humane Society did the wrong thing.  Euthanasia is a reality because of shelters' limited resources, lack of public support, abandunce of dogs, and I will dare to say complacency of people working in the dog world.   Yes, there are few people who have the patience and financial resources to deal with a dog with special needs.  So why would a PTS policy disregard this free resource of rehab like the family's commitment in this case or my volunteer services (not that I go out and seek problem dogs to foster, I foster the dogs I am assigned)?  I suspect to make the "hard decision” into an "out of my hands” decision and this transgression was justified by the temperament test.

The OHS PTS policy's selection criterion uses the results of temperament test.  One poster, rwbeagles states

    "I support these types of test and the results that come from them”
 
but does not elaborate and gives no foundation of how this opinion was created.  Cyclefiend 2000 says

      "…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.”

I saw this program too and my thoughts were the dog is in unfamiliar surroundings, probably scared, starved, and who all know what other emotions are in play here.  How valid can this test be?  Another poster, spiritdogs states

      "Did you see the test?  Did the dog just grrr and give "whale eye" or did it
       rovide multiple bites up the stick or Assess-a-Hand?”

Implying some knowledge and experience but never states an opinion on the credibility and reliability of these test.

I probably have the least amount of dog experience and trust me not the biggest heart but I state I have experience with temperament test, I use temperament test, and I make a mental note of their results but I would never make a capital punishment decision if the dog seemed to have failed.  My doubts are with the competency of the test itself and of the competency of the administrator (including myself).  Next week I will try and educate myself further on the issues surrounding temperament test.  

Now a lot of foster dogs have come through my home and I have witnessed various types and degrees of aggression in dogs.  Most are rehabbed and carefully placed in the right home.  I have also experienced Sudden Rage Syndrome (I think that is what is called).  In contrast to the pictures I have posted in this thread, all of my foster dogs do not have happy endings.  Responsible no-kill shelters do have to make the TS decision.   The SRS dog named Waggs was PTS.

By the way, if you have not seen the OHS press release from September, it stated that they are responding to the public inquirings and have initiated a review of their existing PTS policy and the temperament tests.  OHS says they will announce their new policies in December.

Since no one mentioned a breed from my last post, I do not have a picture to post.  What the heck, Duke is just plain good looking.  My fosters give me such sweet memories 

from DPU
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 Denver Dumb Friend League also wonders why this is.

Here's the deal...you want to err on the side of the dog...and they want to err on the side of the public.
 
Their being wrong can lead to a couple people being upset, and the loss of a dogs life.
 
Your being wrong can lead to the injury or death of a human or humans, potential lawsuits capable of ruining someones entire life, and an entire shelter's inability to continue to operate, bad press for dogs, and dog ownership in general, undermining of the trust system relating to shelters (don't adopt from a shelter they will give you a freaky dog that will turn on you!)...and the loss of a dogs life.
 
Shelters cannot place aggressive dogs...period.
Doing so will lead to even more widespread, anti dog legislation, and distrust of the shelter system...period.
 

Our shelter sort of posts their statistics, we have photo albums with the animal's pictures on them. If you know where to look you can find the euthanized list. It is depressing but I am way too curious. I like to know what happened to the animals I try to get out. Some I know, some as in the beagle pups case rescues just pull them. (I didnt realize the beagles were leaving until the day before they left)..
 
I always like to remind people that there are TONS Of sweet animals euthanized every day.
 
Sorry to say but I am of the opinion any aggressive animal should be euthanized. If this lady really wanted a dog why not pick out one who was good with children, wouldnt have to be muzzled and was not a resource guarder?
 
We have plenty at my shelter who are going to die soon....The shelter cant take any chances on adopting an aggressive dog out, as I said there are plenty of friendly ones who need homes as well.
 
I think it is wonderful that people save even the problem dogs but the simple fact is there are WAY too many in high kill shetlers who have wonderful personalities but wont ever get out. And the general public isnt going to be able to handle a problematic dog. What if the dog bites someone or worse kills someone?
 
We are having the no kill discussion on another thread. My local no kill HS will adopt dogs out who are aggressive. I have had a couple people who want to adopt from our high kill shelter tell me they saw all the "aggressive" signs on most of the dogs cages so they high tailed it out of there. Our HS also likes to rub it in that they are NO KILL and that is honeslty how they get most of their money. It is quite sick and sad. They call themselves no kill but by having so many aggressive, non adoptabe animals in there, they are quite high kill IMO. What people dont realize is there should be a happy medium. Think about how many animals they turn away who are perfectly behaved because they have so many aggressive ones sitting at their shelter. That is one reason I dont volunteer at the no kill shelter any longer.
 
We all have our opinions though. Perhaps other no kill shelters are different? Ours wont euthanize a dog even if it wants to kill someone. It's quite sad, because there are tons of adoptable, sweet, cute dogs at our kill shelter who could be adopted very quickly from the no kill shelter. Our no kill shelter also no longer takes pits in.

No-Kills do have varying standards regarding problem dogs. Some won't accept them in the first place, which means they wind up at the open-door shelter and are likely euthed there. Which means the no-kill shelter isn't really no-kill, it just lets someone else do the killing.
 
The no-kill we have here is fabulous, huge, and ridiculously well-funded. They get to trumpet all around about how they're no-kill and tra la la and aren't they special. They get fully 1/3 of all money donated to animal sheltering in our region, yet they're only one of dozens of organizations. So yeah, not fair at all in my opinion. But to most people who haven't put much thought into it, if they're looking to give money "no kill" just sounds so much better than "kill" (though the correct term is "open door" not "kill shelter"). It got to the point that the two largest open-door shelters in our area got together and made a website about open-door sheltering and why no-kill is really just "let someone else do the killing".
 
The dogs at the no-kill shelter have it very good, that's an absolute fact. The facilities are brand new and gorgeous, they have volunteers and staff out the yin-yang. It's so nice that you can actually have your kid's birthday party out there. Seriously.
 
Meanwhile at the shelter I volunteer at, things are just wretched. There's no money, a kazillion animals and more coming in every day because as an open-door shelter we can't say, "Sorry, the inn is full, go somewhere else." The volunteer corps is really demoralized and we have a volunteer retention problem because being at our shelter just isn't all happy gumdrops and rainbows. It's sad. It's emotionally and physically exhausting. But it is reality.

And to this mix we're supposed to add aggressive, questionable dogs? Seriously? Not a chance.  Recently there was a very high-profile animal abuse case in which a fighting dog was left injured in a dumpster and brought to our shelter by animal control. Because of the publicity around the case, the director of the shelter wants to adopt this dog out after the various legal stuff is over with. At the last meeting, though, the volunteers made it very clear that this is unacceptable. Our shelter is located in a community where dogfighting is not at all uncommon, and in fact the largest known breeder and referee of dog fights in our entire state lives just a few blocks from the shelter. We do not adopt out fighting dogs. Ever. Our job is hard enough as it is without a slew of aggressive, abused former fighting dogs to deal with.
 
We rehab dogs with non-dangerous behavior porblems (mouthiness not related to aggression, jumping, hyper-activity, that kind of thing). We have a special group of volunteers that take advanced classes and work one-on-one with these dogs, so we do go out of our way to deal with "less than perfect" dogs. But dangerous ones? No.
 
It sucks but that's reality.

It sounds like you are talking about MY kill vs. no kill shelters.
 
No kill has a nice new facility, however, not all the dogs have runs, so many of them are stuck in a cage 24/7. They have volunteers "out the yang". Whereas we as kill shelter volunteers, number about 10 (I am guessing high) in volunteers, however, we, it seems are more dedicated and understand things a little better than the no kill shelter people. I personally volunteered at the no kill shelter twice before I realized it wasnt the place for me and we didnt agree on things. They do take aggressive dogs. We were told at orientation that "some of these dogs will die here, we are no kill". How humane is that? Not to mention the no kill shelter gave me a kitten to foster, didnt tell me it was feral and I ended up adopting her because I wouldnt feel comfortable adopting her out, she is way too wild, she would have been returned and she deserves better. (I of course fell in love with her evil personality as well) It bothers me immensly that they go around talking bad about our shelter, which in turn leads to adopters who dont want to "support" kill shelters which does indeed kill more animals.
 
Our kill shelter is dingy, poorly lighted, depressing and most people who volunteer there only do so once. (Especially when they realize we have a 70%+ euthanasia rate). The animals are in cages24/7 unless one of us volunteers takes them out. Good news is we are getting a new bright, shelter that should be more attractive and adopter/volunteer friendly, bad news is it doesnt open until April    .
 
I understand 100% where you are comming from. I talked to one of my fellow volunteers on the phone for 2 hours the other day trying to convince her not to leave. It is very emotionally draining and it feels like that is all I ever think about-how to get more adopters, volunteers and trying to get dogs into rescues. Some days I walk in the shelter, see the cats, think about how many of them will die and walk out. People at the kill shelter have more comradity (sp?) and are friendlier.
 
It would be nice if there were a middle ground.
 
I used to think too "I dont want to support a kill shelter" that is before I realized sometimes euthanasia is the kindest thing you can do. It's better than a dog being stuck in a shelter for 7 years (happens a lot at the no kill shelter), or worse it's entire life...
 
I like telling people who come to adopt that every single dog you see on the adoption floor is friendly and non aggressive. (They do have small problems like jumping, mouthing, exc. but that is nothing)
 
It's not wise or acceptable to adopt out aggressive dogs when so many friendly ones are dying.

I guess I just wonder who you think is willing to take all the supposedly rehabbed dogs?  Let me tell you that most people in the general public want a friendly dog, good with kids, can take to the dog park, and will lie quietly at their feet after dinner.  What some of them get from the wanna save them all shelters and rescues are the ones that shred their doorjambs from separation anxiety or growl when they touch their food bowls, or can't go to the corner of their street without barking and lunging, never mind to the dog park.  Trainers know better and don't want these dogs, and the general public can't manage them for the most part - how fair is it to JQP to saddle him with a dog that is dangerous, destructive, or a huge unexpected expense?  There are lots of "heroes" out there who haven't a clue what it really means to have a food aggressive dog until they have one.  So, sorry, unless the shelter is going to spend the time and money to completely rehab the dog *prior* to adoption, then it made the right decision.
From a legal standpoint, there's no question they had to do what they did or face a lawsuit later if the dog bit.

In response to the original post, I think the shelter should have made it clear that there was a possibility the dog would be PTS if surrendered and those surrendering might not be given the option of adopting if a family never came forward.  That would have resolved this entire situation before it even started.

BRAT recently had a problem with a different humane society refusing to release a group of basenjis to the rescue and instead euthanized them.  The HS said the dogs were unsalvagable due to having been crating for an extended period of time.  BRAT tried to convince them they were well equiped to rehabilitate these dogs having done so with dogs in worse condition in the past but were not given a chance.  I'm not sure how different the situation with BRAT was, but I can tell you that the entire organization was up in arms over the HS lack of willingness to allow the breed rescue an attempt to rehabilitate.  I honestly have a hard time telling myself the HS made the right decision when a breed specific rescue wanted to and was fully able to take on the responsibility rather than have these dogs euth'd.  If BRAT later had to make that same difficult choice at least the dogs would have been given a chance.  I know it's a different situation, but it seems similar, at least on the surface.
 
Edit: Fixed a typo

Well I think the breed rescue is another situation entirely, though at a really high volume shelter I'm  not sure how much I'd be able to count on the staff being able to get a hold of breed rescue for unusual breeds. Also, since being a "rescuer" doesn't have any certification process involved, I think shelter staff might be wary of believing people who just call up and claim to be a rescue but in fact be in no way equipped to deal with an aggressive or special-needs dog.
 
However, some shelters have developed informal relationships with the local breed rescues which I think is great. There was recently a neopolitan mastiff that was surrendered at our shelter (I know, who does that?) that I know wound up with the local mastiff rescue before it even hit the adoption floor. I was there when it was surrendered and the owners seemed to be expressing there might be some resource-gaurding issues in the offing. Mastiff rescue, yes, that can be handled. JQP with a resource-gaurdy neo? Yikes.

by Houndlove:
The no-kill we have here is fabulous, huge, and ridiculously well-funded. They get to trumpet all around about how they're no-kill and tra la la and aren't they special. They get fully 1/3 of all money donated to animal sheltering in our region, yet they're only one of dozens of organizations. So yeah, not fair at all in my opinion. But to most people who haven't put much thought into it, if they're looking to give money "no kill" just sounds so much better than "kill" (though the correct term is "open door" not "kill shelter"). It got to the point that the two largest open-door shelters in our area got together and made a website about open-door sheltering and why no-kill is really just "let someone else do the killing".

The dogs at the no-kill shelter have it very good, that's an absolute fact. The facilities are brand new and gorgeous, they have volunteers and staff out the yin-yang. It's so nice that you can actually have your kid's birthday party out there. Seriously.

Isn't this a good thing.  I mean for the dogs and for the public.  I don't know the PA shelter's name but I am going to guess they are similar to PAWS CHICAGO.  Now I don't know the inner working of this organization, it policies, etc  Their mission is


[blockquote]"focused on alleviating Chicago's tragic pet overpopulation problem--21,563 dogs and cats were euthanized in Chicago in 2005. PAWS Chicago envisions a no-kill Chicago--a city in which pets are not destroyed just because they are homeless. Managing pet overpopulation by killing is a way of the past. Collecting, holding, destroying and disposing of unwanted pets is costly and not the work of a humane organization. Private animal welfare resources should go solely to saving lives, prevention and education. "[/blockquote]They claim since they were organized that euthanasia in Chicago went from 42,000 in 1997 to 22,000 in 2005.  This is impressive numbers.  They also provide free spay/neuter service.  Currently PAWS Chicago is building a 6 million dollar new cageless facilitiy in a very ritzy part of Chicago.  Image that.  Good for them.  Also my understanding is that the Northeast part of the country initiated an aggressive campaign in spay/neuter.  The result is the Northeast states have the lowest euthanasia rates while the Southern States have the largest.

I am not against euthanasia as long as it is done humanely.  I don't make a distinction between kill or no-kill shelters.  They both serve the public good.  I am not casting judgements on either organization.  I am just advocating that the little dog in the OHS case should have been given the opportunity to be rehabbed because the resources were available.  And no dog should be PTS based solely on the results of a temperament test.  As besenjimom says there would be no issue if they OHS had an exception to policy in place.

spiritdogs:  the reference to the SA dog, knowing full well that I have a foster in my home struggling with this condition was intentionally hurtful.  I present competent authority and you provide none.



[blockquote]
[/blockquote]

I don't see anything wrong with asking a humane society to periodically review, detail, and explain its evaluation and euthanisa policies because there is no standard across the field and there have been too many cases where what the 'experts' have decreed in these situations has seemed unpredictable and inconsistent.

A friend of mine in Wisconsin was recently asked by several local vets to join the board of their local humane society after the vets banded together to take it over because they felt its euthanisa policy was capricious. I would think the vets would be in a decent position to judge this.

In a well documented case in New York recently, a couple that owned a dog for several months turned it into a shelter when they learned they were expecting a baby and worried that they couldn't cope with both, but then a few days later reconsidered but discovered to their horror that the dog had been TS the very day they had dropped it off because it had growled at a shelter employee and been deemed unadoptable without further evaluation. The couple rightfully felt horrified at their mistake and the shelter's quick action.

It's precisely because of cases like this that a number of people I know (and others I have read osts from in online forums ) say they would never turn a dog they found over the AC but instead try to find its owner or a new owner themselves. I don't agree with that solution and it can cause its own problems, but this is the kind of attitude that some knowledgeable dog owners have about local shelters.

There isn't a standard that shelters are all living up to and there's nothing wrong with ensuring that some standards do exist. Remember, death is the great irreversible.