Are shelters at fault, or forever free of blame?

I disagree, and am slightly offended. As an EU tech - I've been on both sides of this. I've SEEN the dogs that are beyond help - you have to understand that not every animal can be saved, it's just not possible.

Shelters have to protect the public from the dogs they create. Some dogs just are too dangerous to safely rehome, and that is NOT the fault of the shelter, but the 'owner' who created the unmanageable animal.

I don't believe one party shoulders all of the responsibility for euthanasia. It depends on the facility and the public that dumps their animals there. The first fault lies with the "breeder" of the animal. Why didn't they screen for an appropriate home? Why didn't they take the animal back? If the owner of the dog turns it into the shelter or the dog was dumped or got away from them with no tag or chip... the blame lies with them. There are some circumstances when you can't keep a dog, I understand that, but I don't understand taking your dog to the city pound and letting that be that. Why should the shelters take the blame for this? They have to clean up the "mess" and do damage control. There's simply not enough suitable homes to absorb the number of animals taken into shelters. It's horrible but what is the alternative? An elderly and sickly dog doesn't have the chance a wiggly puppy does. There's X amount of cages. Someone has to go. Fostering and rescues are fantastic, but not every dog can get to one. I've tried on more than one occasion to try to get a shelter dog pulled and put into a foster/rescue and there are limitations. Health, distance from the facility, how many fosters are able to take on another dog, and breed. SO many rescues are breed specific and won't take a mutt. Before I adopted Roscoe (gsd mix) I tried to get him into a GSD rescue and NOBODY would take him because he wasn't purebred. Does that make it those rescues fault if he were put to sleep? I don't think so. Not enough permanent homes for dogs, not enough fosters, and so many rescues are full. That being said I've been in facilities that could do so much better for the animals and it is sad. Where I used to live in Kentucky the dog warden was fired because he wasn't giving stray dogs any time. He was picking them up and putting them to sleep the same day. I've heard some real horror stories from reliable sources about other shelters and so on. Here's another thought... when is it cruel to keep an animal alive? There's a small no kill shelter in Texas I go to when I visit my in laws. They have had some of the dogs for literally YEARS. They all wanted to go home like every dog in there barking and wagging, but they haven't and probably won't. Is it fair to keep these dogs who so badly crave human companionship in a cage the size of a bathroom all day, except for a walk or two?

At least most shelters are making progress towards less euthanasia. The people who cause the problem in the first place keep on cranking out those pups.

erica1989

I disagree, and am slightly offended. As an EU tech - I've been on both sides of this. I've SEEN the dogs that are beyond help - you have to understand that not every animal can be saved, it's just not possible.

Shelters have to protect the public from the dogs they create. Some dogs just are too dangerous to safely rehome, and that is NOT the fault of the shelter, but the 'owner' who created the unmanageable animal.

 

Amen.

We had all the programs that Mr. Winograd spoke of and we still had to euthanize animals nearly every day. Walk a mile in my "animal-killing" shoes before criticizing what I do and the decisions I had to make every single day due to irresponsible people.

The only thing I think the shelters could do is ease up on some of the requirements to adopt.  I think if the goal is to get as many dogs as possible into homes then they should have some flexibility.  It bothers me to think that they are turning away potential adopters and then putting down a dog that could of had a home.  And, here they make the families fill out paperwork and then they call them back with a decision.  What's the big decision?  If they are OK, let them have the dog.  They should be aiming to get the dog out of there ASAP.  I know sometimes they wait and by the time they call the family they've already moved on to another dog. 

The title of the thread says it all.  Neither statement is true.

JackieG

The title of the thread says it all.  Neither statement is true.

I agree.  Winograd is an idealist with good intentions, but I see the fallout from his position, too.  Everyday families who struggle with dogs that they come to love and can't bear to give up, but which have problems they are ill equipped to deal with.  SA dogs, food aggressive dogs, dog aggressive dogs, dogs that are so damaged they can't properly interact with kids, or safely be in public situations.  Dogs with huge medical or training expenses.  The public that tries to adopt from shelters to help with the pet overpopulation problem does not deserve to be hung with dogs that are inappropriate for the average pet home. This is also one reason why some people end up getting puppies from breeders - they have one bad experience at the shelter and never go back. So, in some ways, Winograd and those like him, share some of the responsibility as well.  There's plenty of blame to go around:

Save them all mentality - puts inappropriate dogs into homes that aren't a good fit

Open admission (kill) shelters - make decisions based on space and time the dog has been there, rather than on behavior

No kill shelters - don't euthanize, put more burden on open admission shelters, put inappropriate dogs into homes

Fosterers - some wear rose colored glasses about dogs they like, or their own breed, and place dogs inappropriately

Public - buy from pet stores, puppy mills, Internet jerks posing as reputable breeders, purchase "designer dogs" or can't wait for a good pup, so get what they want for "instant gratification".

erica1989

I disagree, and am slightly offended. As an EU tech - I've been on both sides of this. I've SEEN the dogs that are beyond help - you have to understand that not every animal can be saved, it's just not possible.

Shelters have to protect the public from the dogs they create. Some dogs just are too dangerous to safely rehome, and that is NOT the fault of the shelter, but the 'owner' who created the unmanageable animal.

 

We had all the programs that Mr. Winograd spoke of and we still had to euthanize animals nearly every day. Walk a mile in my "animal-killing" shoes before criticizing what I do and the decisions I had to make every single day due to irresponsible people.

I worked in a shelter for 2 years. The shelter I worked at stood behind the excuses as well, doing little to combat the killing rates. Instead, they advertised themselves as "no-kill" and continued the unscrupulous killing. I tried to implement a foster care program(even fostered over 30 small kittens that needed bottled fed myself). I started temperament testing(fairly!), and with attempted to begin an "adoption counseling" program in the shelter. I tried to get the shelter to work with rescues. I tried to get them to revoke the idea of cat licensing and use TNR. I tried them to utilize the public instead of forever blaming them... They were stuck in a killing rut, largely in part because just only few employees and one very corrupt director.

 We're not talking terminally ill, suffering, or highly dangerous dogs. We're talking about perfectly adoptable dogs that the shelters should be fighting harder to save. Some shelters are doing their jobs. They do have low cost spay/neuter in the county. They do have a foster care program. They do appreciate and utilize volunteers and prevention services(dog training hotlines, etc) They do support and use TNR. And all other things in the "No kill equation". And with ALL these put into place, and there is still only an 80% adoption rate, rather than 95%, then the shelter is truly doing the best they can.

 But most shelters simply don't. They just don't. 

When an animal is placed into your care, it is then your responsibility. It is no longer that other person's responsibility, no matter how neglectful or irresponsible they were. Those dogs, in every way, are now in the care of that shelter. And that shelter has the responsibility to do best by the dogs, rather than to continue to kill unscrupously and then blame it on the public.

I know first hand how irresponsible people are. I see it with my own eyes. But my experience has also shown me that some people do their best to be responsible, but just may not be fully educated. Others truly are responsible. I think there is a large bias that we 'educated' pet owners have against the public in general. And I think it is wrong and far from beneficial. Just as the pit bull is percieved to be vicious for the actions of a few, we whom should know better, have percieved the public to be lazy, irresponsible, heartless morons based on the actions of a few. The public is who shelters rely on to come in, adopt, and save animals lives, but it is the public that faces the condemnation, hate, and blame. That doesn't seem beneficial.

I used to use the "cleaning up" phrase too. I truly made myself believe it. For truly terminally ill, suffering, unadoptable animals, that phrase is most certainly true. But it is over used. It is used as an excuse for shelter workers to be lazy and irresponsible themselves, as horrible and sad as that sounds. It is an excuse we make to make ourselves feel less guilty, and we truly make ourselves believe it. When you do not have the programs, but still kill based on breed, color, size, etc, you are responsible for the killing, not the public. Sure, those dogs should have never been so irresponsibly produced.. but that does not mean shelters escape responsibility for  their unwillingness to save more lives by working harder. It is easier to stand by that excuse and blame someone else. It is what we as Americans do best, don't you know? Blame someone else. Public blames shelters for deaths, shelters blame publics. Truth is, shelters are, in part, to blame for the lives they take, and the irresponsible few also share the responsibility for causing their deaths.

There are more that shelters can be doing. Much more. But they stand behind their excuses and blame the public. They shift the responsibility of the dirty work that they do from their hands, to the entire public in general.

If puppy millers can still be breeding and making a profit, people are stilll buying. For all those puppies that puppy millers can make a profit of off, that must mean there is still a home out there. Every single dog could probably never be saved. There will always be some lost.. but why in the world are not more shelters striving for 80% adoption rate, rather than 20%, 30% or 40% while the rest are killed?

They may have the burden to 'clean up' irresponsible, uneducated, or the unfortunate's mess, but they have the responsible to truly clean up, rather than to destroy. And there ARE ways. It is not hopeless. Not every animal can be saved, but more certainly can be.

spiritdogs

SA dogs, food aggressive dogs, dog aggressive dogs, dogs that are so damaged they can't properly interact with kids, or safely be in public situations.  Dogs with huge medical or training expenses.  The public that tries to adopt from shelters to help with the pet overpopulation problem does not deserve to be hung with dogs that are inappropriate for the average pet home. This is also one reason why some people end up getting puppies from breeders - they have one bad experience at the shelter and never go back.

 The vast majority of dogs in shelters don't suffer from such extremities as you may believe. Many are untrained, but that is not so extreme, nor a reason to label any dog "unadoptable".  Yes, you will find aggressive dogs in shelters. And in case of aggression that cannot be rehabilitated, it should be humanely euthanized. But food aggression is controllable and easily trained out of a dog. And in most cases, in these so called 'temperament tests' that test for food aggression - they are highly unfair and not done in a manner that would truly predict their behavior outside of the kennel environment.

Save them all mentality - puts inappropriate dogs into homes that aren't a good fit

 Not necessarily true. They may be less strict with adoptions, less holier than thou, and treat every adoption as an individual, but that doesn't mean adoption quality reduces. I can't tell you how many people have problems with shelters and rescues that are too picky and full of themselves. 

No kill shelters - don't euthanize, put more burden on open admission shelters, put inappropriate dogs into homes

If I am not mistaken, all 3 truly No Kill shelters in the US have open admission. They do not put innapropriate dogs into homes(or this would be seen in return rates, which it is not), they do not turn dogs away, nor do they send them to another shelter to be euthanized.  Besides, couldn't the same be said for RESCUE groups? They do not take in every dog. They do not have open admission. Do they hold any blame. People would certainly like to ridicule no kill shelters, what about rescue groups?

Fosterers - some wear rose colored glasses about dogs they like, or their own breed, and place dogs inappropriately

Public - buy from pet stores, puppy mills, Internet jerks posing as reputable breeders, purchase "designer dogs" or can't wait for a good pup, so get what they want for "instant gratification".

The public is uneducated. Simple as that. Instead of hate, blame, condemnation, shelters need to be less snobby and more open. Just yesterday I was at a flea market where I saw 3 puppy millers selling their puppies. That afternoon, I emailed over 15 rescue groups in and around the city to suggest that they occasionally set up booths directly next to such puppy millers. give people a choice - many would make the right decision. 

When we blame others, we give up the power to change. Of course shelters don't house ALL the blame..some certainly lies with the irresponsible owners and breeders, but refusing to even recognize the blame they do deserve is detrimental to the animals.

**content removed**

In my experience, shelters very DRASTICALLY from one to another. Just like dog owners do. While there certainly are some poorly-managed shelters that either clearly don't care at all or are, as you describe, "snobby," there are certainly a large number of well-run, welcoming shelters. Painting them all with the same brush is doing the good ones a great disservice.

 **content removed, previously edited content**

Cita

In my experience, shelters very DRASTICALLY from one to another. Just like dog owners do. While there certainly are some poorly-managed shelters that either clearly don't care at all or are, as you describe, "snobby," there are certainly a large number of well-run, welcoming shelters. Painting them all with the same brush is doing the good ones a great disservice.

Of course they do, and never once did I say all shelters were horrible, awful places. I specifically stated that there are some shelters that ARE doing their best. But many simply aren't willing to do more to save lives. They sit behind the excuse that the public is to blame. I've approached so many shelters and asked them about their willingness to utilize such programs. I outlined how it would lessen the killing, although clearly stating that I empathize with them and know that they won't be able to save every single one. They aren't willing. And that is sad indeed.

 In fact, despite my personal opinion that most shelters are actually, themselves, acting irresponsible, not once have I ever encouraged a person to NOT adopt from shelters. The corrupt shelter I formally worked for, no matter their awful practices, I still get the word out about dogs in that shelter, I still hold educational events and encourage people to visit local shelters and rescues, and do not burden the general public with the knowledge that many shelters are killing machines not willing to stop. The only circumstance in which I may actually speak out against a shelter to the public ear is when illegal things are being done. Ethics put aside, those shelters still have animals in then, and those animals still deserve love and homes. I do not jeopardize their chance at a home by discouraging people not to support shelters, even corrupt, irresponsible ones.

 **Moderator speaking**

This is a hot topic **content removed by mod**  If you have a specific problem with a specific type of shelter or area or policy, please state that and not just bash all shelters.  If you have genuine ideas that you think might help great.

Let's keep it clean and calm please

It is used as an excuse for shelter workers to be lazy and irresponsible themselves,

excuse me????   the shelter I worked at for some time was packed with homeless animals. All the time. No room. No one was being lazy or irresponsible. Where would you put the next cat that came in- there was nowhere. who was going to pay for the food for these animals- there was only so much in the budget. So someone had to make the hard decisions. Elderly black tomcats almost never get adopted, but cute fluffy spotted cats did have a chance so they got more time to try for a home. The less-adoptable had to be sacrificed to make space. The workers called rescues all the time hoping they'd come pull this or that animal. Foster homes are a great idea but there are only so many people willing and able to do it.

kpwlee

 **Moderator speaking**

This is a hot topic **content removed by mod**.  If you have a specific problem with a specific type of shelter or area or policy, please state that and not just bash all shelters.  If you have genuine ideas that you think might help great.

Let's keep it clean and calm please

I have not stated any names of any shelters, and I will not. I'm not here to slandor any shelter, but to bring to light the sad reality of many shelters - for the sake of the animals.

t is used as an excuse for shelter workers to be lazy and irresponsible themselves, as horrible and sad as that sounds. It is an excuse we make to make ourselves feel less guilty, and we truly make ourselves believe it. When you do not have the programs, but still kill based on breed, color, size, etc, you are responsible for the killing, not the public. Sure, those dogs should have never been so irresponsibly produced.. but that does not mean shelters escape responsibility for their unwillingness to save more lives by working harder.

Here is a scenario for you:

You work in an open admission shelter - the only one for 30 miles. You have all the programs in place - spay/neuter programs, offsite adoptions, foster care, working with rescues - but you are chronically full of animals. You have implemented programs like Meet Your Match that help facilitate open adoptions and match people with appropriate animals. There is no money for excessive medical bills; there is hardly money to keep the building running as it is.

The dog kennels are full - all the dogs have passed a temperament test. You have doubled up dogs in as many kennels as possible. There are a few dogs with kennel cough, but no serious illnesses going through. Most of the dogs are mutts, except the pitbulls that no pit rescue will take because they are full as well. All the foster homes are full. The lobby has temporary kennels set up and those are full. Dogs are living in offices and despite staff efforts, the downward spiral in the economy has sent adoptions through the floor.

Someone walks in the door with three dogs. They are moving to a new house and don't want to take their dogs with because they'll ruin the new carpet. When you try to explain that the shelter is full right now and ask them to come back in a day or two, they say fine, they'll just take the dogs back and shoot them. You know they are not joking, so you accept all three adult dogs. None are neutered, nor have they had any vet attention in their lives. One has a flea allergy with hair loss, another is showing signs of food guarding; you suspect that they have lived outdoors most of their lives.

Just as you get done taking in these three dogs, two more people walk in, one with an injured adult dog, the other with a momma dog with seven puppies, only a few weeks old. It is only 2:15 and the shelter is open until 7pm.

Welcome to my shelter. What do YOU do? We wouldn't want an "unscrupulous killing", so please tell me what the solution is. Where do you put these dogs at? What alternatives am I missing? How can I work harder? Show me how to be "more responsible" for these animals. Making these kind of broad statements about shelter workers is not only as absurd as saying that all pitbulls are vicious animals, but it is incredibly offensive to those of us that work in this field. If you want to have a productive conversation about open-admission vs. no-kill shelters, I suggest you stay away from the rhetoric and finger-pointing, and instead focus on programs that can help shelters while being done on a shoe-string budget.