Breeding Convincing against buying from a breeder

[CavyMama]

I don't turn a blind eye. I also don't contribute to the problem

You DO turn a blind eye on the dogs in need of homes in the shelter. You saw that they were there and rather than trying to reduce the overpopulation problem by helping them be adopted, you added to the problem by producing MORE dogs.

How can you look into the eyes of the dogs at the shelter and say to them, "Nope, sorry. You don't deserve a good home because you're not good enough. You have issues. You're someone's leftovers. Oh well, out of sight, out of mind. I'm off to create MORE dogs"

 

[doganddisc]

If your teenaged kid gets aggressive, you don't euthanize him or give him away. You take him to a counsellor and get him help because you can't handle it. Why should a dog be denied the same privilege? To the person above who had an aggressive dog put down, I think you should let someone else handle the more aggressive dogs from now on if they pose a risk to your family and are going to be put down as a result. That sort of arrangement not good for the people in your house or for the dog.

Your understanding of aggression is very clearly lacking, though almost offensively so.

You know absolutely nothing about the dog that I dealt with other than the fact that I had to euthanize him because that is all I've told you. You believe there was more I could have done but somehow chose not to? That is a dangerous assumption.

The dog of which I speak was named Caleb. He came from Spalding County Animal Shelter in Georgia. I pulled him from the rescue after he passed a temperament test and had him transported to me. After spending over $2,000 in medical bills on him to treat heartworm, tick disease, and other treatments, he began to show severe aggression.

I met with a knowledgeable trainer who works specifically with aggression. We tried EVERYTHING. I was the only person who could handle him and told everyone around me that he would NEVER go after me. A week later, I let my guard down a little too much around him and he lunged at my face. A day after that, I was the only one home and my dogs had free run of the house. He came into the room I was sitting him, looked straight at me, and started snarling. I managed to run into my basement while grabbing my other two dogs on the way to make sure nothing happened to them while he was like this.

Because I was emotionally attached to him, I called no-kill shelters to see if they could take him. Nobody wanted to take an unadoptable dog. I was forced to euthanize him. He was too dangerous for me to keep. There was no medical or behavioral explanation that could be found for his behavior, though since he was an Australian Shepherd, it is possible he had the MDR1 gene and these problems were triggered by the high dose of ivermectin administered at the end of heartworm treatment.

The fact of the matter is, there are far too many friendly dogs with stable temperaments dying in shelters to warrant spending our already sparse resources on the aggressive ones.

For those who are interested, this is a video I made a few years back in memory of Caleb: Thinking of Caleb | Facebook

 

[doganddisc]

I think the real question with this particular debate is this: As it is glaringly obvious that sassyfirechick and I both have extensive experience in rescue but are having our views put down, exactly who else here has personally work in or operated a dog rescue?

I am the founder of a small rescue in Connecticut.

I was employed by The Simon Foundation and have volunteered hundreds of hours with Sunshine Golden Retriever Rescue, Glen Highland Farm's Sweet Border Collie Rescue, and the Connecticut Humane Society.

Everything that sassyfirechick has stated is on par with the views I personally hold about rescue based on my own experience. Guinea pig rescue and dog rescue are VERY different. So where are the rest of you coming from?

In my own experiences, I have witnessed dogs in no-kill shelters that have been kenneled for three or four years. That is NOT a life.

After working at a no-kill shelter who did ALL of the things that sassyfirechick is talking about, I wrote this to the Coalition for Change in a desperate attempt to get somebody to pay attention to what was really going on in that particular rescue:

Good morning,
I would like to bring your attention to a potentially devastating situation that has the ability to severely affect animal welfare laws and regulations in the state of Connecticut.

In May of 2010, I was hired as a kennel hand at a "no-kill", non-profit shelter in *****, CT. The facility is brand new and has the capacity to house 130 dogs. The organization is the in the process of trying to get local municipalities to move their operations into the shelter. While this would be fantastic for cities like ***** and *****, who have been forced to rely on other towns to contain their animal control programs, I want to get the word out that there is something that isn't quite right about *****.


During my time with this organization, I realized that I, and the other staff members, were constantly in danger of being injured by one of the many aggressive, unadoptable, unpredictable dogs living at The Simon Foundation. I became concerned and had conversations with other staff members to discuss the risks. These risks were also brought to the attention of the shelter director, Stephanie Ferguson, and kennel manager, Lisa.

A few of these risks involve the set up of the kennel. 129 of the 130 kennel runs are located in one long hallway. This hallway is not separated at all on one side, and is separated in five places on the other- the separated areas are accessed by doors, many of which do not have handles and are therefore unable to be shut.

The first area is designated to be the B***** pound. The B***** pound contains a two kennel isolation room where sick dogs will be placed until they are better- this isolation room is only isolated on the inside. All dogs on that side of the kennel are exposed to any illnesses from isolation dogs on the outside and dogs are granted inside/outside access on a daily basis.


The second area is another isolation room, with the same set up as the B***** pound's isolation room. Instead of two kennels, there are six. These six kennels are located directly in between B***** isolation room and the Observation room. The Isolation room has a working door.


The third area, the Observation room, has the same set up as the second isolation room. The dogs currently housed in the Observation room (which is meant to contain dogs who are newly arriving at the shelter) currently contains a set of six dogs who have been living at the shelter for quite some time and are simply very stressed about the shelter environment. The Observation room has a working door.

The fourth area does not contain a working door. When I first arrived at The Simon Foundation, this area was referred to as "the psych ward" and contained the most unadoptable, kennel crazy dogs at *****. It has since been broken up into a random set of dogs. There are more than ten kennels in this room.


The fifth area is designated to be the H***** dog pound. This room does not have working doors and is made up of twenty or so kennels.


I am describing the kennel set up for two reasons- first, the set up is absolutely not ideal for maintaining a healthy, happy, mentally stable group of dogs. The noise in this kennel is deafening, especially since all of the eighty-ninety dogs are currently being housed in what is essentially one long hallway. This creates physical hazards for the staff members, who are provided with noise reducing headphones, and the dogs, who are not provided with any sound reducing device. The second reason is the potential for a dog attack. Because ***** is a "no-kill" facility, they have a number of unadoptable dogs, all of which are deemed "unadoptable" for aggression. Combine that with the fact that these unadoptable dogs are housed in the same hallway as the adoptable dogs with no consistent tagging system on their kennels. If one of the dogs manages to escape (and believe me, they do), a new employee or volunteer has no way to tell which dog will bite them if their collar is grabbed. The previous shelter trainer, who has since resigned due to the issues I am outlining here, had suggested that warning tags were placed on the more dangerous dog's kennels. This system was used for a few weeks, but is inconsistent. When dogs switch kennels, their tags almost never go with them.

The shelter's problems go far beyond unmarked dogs. There are few records of any dog bites- even though these dog bites do occur. One staff member, Tori, had been bitten by a dog named Storm right before I walked into the room. I did not witness the attack, but the director of the shelter, Stephanie, did. Dog bites like this are never put into the dog's file. It was at that point that I started taking records myself. After a month or so of witnessing all of this, I put in my two weeks notice. Stephanie called me the same day and offered me a job working alongside her with adoptions- she said that I would be a good asset to the team based on my previous experiences helping families find a good canine match for their household. Which brings me to one of the scariest aspects of *****- when I started working on adoptions with Stephanie, it became glaringly obvious that she was treating the adoption of dogs like a business venture, aiming for more adoptions with little concern about the well-being of the dogs and families that were adopting these dogs. That is why dogs with extensive bite histories were placed into adoptive homes.


A few specific cases:

1) Bear is a Shepherd/Pit Bull mix. He reportedly bit a staff member and has food aggression- however, the the bite was not over food. I refused to handle Bear when asked to do so. Bear is listed as "available for adoption" on the shelter's Petfinder website. The only mention of his issues: "Though an almost perfect pet, Bear has been known to guard his food so it's best that he not go into a home with children. However, around adults who will let him eat in peace, his food guarding will not be a problem." Bear has a "Moody" tag on his kennel.


2) Blondie is a Pit Bull mix that I was never even asked to handle due to reported aggression issues. She was given a report of aggression by the New York shelter that evaluated her. Beyond that, I do not know much about her history. She is listed as "available for adoption". "She needs a gentle and experienced owner who won't push or expect too much from her." She has no "unpredictable" tag on her kennel as of 8/14/10, nor have I ever seen one there. BLONDIE HAS SINCE BEEN ADOPTED.


3) Blue is a Pit Bull mix that I would handle on several occasions because I knew nothing about his bite history. When a woman came to adopt a dog on 7/24/10, I showed her Blue and she decided that he was what she wanted. She took him home the next day, 7/25/10. A few hours later, I received a voicemail from the woman. I still have the voicemail. She said that Blue had attempted to bite several people in the house and that she needed to return him. When she brought him back to the shelter, she was holding his leash and petting him; Without her switching positions or moving in any surprising way, Blue turned around and tried to bite her again in my presence. When Stephanie went face-to-face to Blue to ask him what was wrong, he growled at her in my presence. Blue is still listed as "available for adoption". "Blue is a very sweet boy with a strong protective nature and will need a special home who understands how to handle his issues." He does not have any warning tags on his kennel. I later found out that Blue has been returned three times for aggression.


4) Chase is easily one of the scariest dogs I have ever met. Chase is a boxer mix. He has extreme food and treat aggression (I walked by his kennel while he was chewing on a kong toy and he turned around and lunged at me from behind the bars). He snarls at anybody he does not know and continues to try to attack people through the bars. He reportedly injured a volunteer or staff member. Chase was adopted and returned for aggression. Chase is listed as "available for adoption". "It has been reported that Chace has some food/bowl aggression. He doesn't seem to exhibit it with treats or toys, but in any event he should not be adopted into a home with small children." Chase has a "food aggression" and "unpredictable" tag on his kennel.


5) Faith, a Pit Bull mix, has some of the most extreme food aggression that I have ever seen. I threw her a treat once- she stood over it and snarled at me until her mouth was covered in foam. She was adopted and returned with the story that her owner had given her a bone, and when the owner tried to take the bone away, Faith bit her. The thing about Faith is that you don't even have to try to take her food away for her to go after you- she would snarl and lunge at me if I happened to walk by her while she was eating anything. Faith is listed as "available for adoption". "And the sweet little dog that had left the year before came back to us completely different, and we weren't sure she would ever be adoptable again. But then we moved to our new facility in Bloomfield, and everything about Faith changed. She's transformed back into the sweet, happy, and loving dog that we new before. Yes, she still has the food aggression, so we require a commitment from her new owners to either feed her in her crate or in a separate room." Faith has a "food aggression" tag on her kennel.


6) Harry is a Pit Bull mix that nobody can, or is willing to, walk. He has leash aggression and will climb up the leash with his mouth until he gets to your hand. Harry is "available for adoption". "In fact, if you put him on a leash, Harry prefers to walk himself! He will trot along beside you, carrying his leash in his mouth." Harry has no warning tag on his kennel.


7) Lyle is so adorable that I decided I would ignore the "food aggression" tag on his kennel and take him out for a cat test. I asked Stephanie about Lyle and she told me that he "loves people!" He is a Pit Bull mix, and he looks like Snoopy. I brought him into the cat room, where he showed some interest in the cat. Afterward, I took him for a nice walk and sat down next to him on the picnic table. When I reached down to pet him, the happy Lyle immediately stiffened and whipped his head around, teeth bared. I removed my arm immediately and brought him back to his kennel. It took me several minutes to get the kennel lead off his head. I went and asked another staff member about Lyle. They told me that his nickname was "Lyle Lyle, crocodile" and that he was an unpredictable biter. Lyle has a "food aggression" tag on his kennel, and is listed as "available for adoption". "He is good with people and good in the car. He has one of the sweetest personalities possible. He likes all other dogs and tends to stay close to his caretakers. Lyle has exhibited some food aggression, and therefore it's best if he is not placed in a home with small children."


8) Mandy is a Pit Bull mix, a very sweet dog who has been at the shelter for a very long time. I handled her on numerous occasions without any difficulty. A staff member later reported that Mandy had nipped at her- but I did not know about that until after she had several incidents with two separate families. The first family to adopt Mandy brought her home. Mandy grabbed took their cat in her mouth, tried to attack their dog (despite showing that she loved their dog while at the shelter, and passing her cat test). She then attacked another dog that belonged to a friend of the family. One day later, Mandy was back at the shelter. The same day she was returned, Stephanie brought her out to show her to a family with four young children. The family loved her and brought her home. In less than twenty-four hours, Mandy had bitten several people in the house, and put her mouth around the neck of the stepfather. She was returned the next day. Mandy is listed as "available for adoption". "Mandy has a tendency to chase cats and while she adores children, she finds their screaming and high activity to be too stressful, so we recommend only quiet households her for."


9) Vixen, a stunning blue Pit Bull mix, was adopted about a month or so ago by a family who adored her. They came to the shelter several times with their dog in an attempt to make their dog get along with Vixen. Despite there being a number of disputes between the two dogs, Vixen was permitted to go home with this family. A month later, Stephanie got a phone call from one of the owners. The family had apparently gotten into a fight and Vixen attacked the wife and son. Both were brought to the emergency room. The wife received internal stitches where Vixen bit her in the stomach, and the son received stitches in his hand/arm and scrotum. Vixen was returned to The Simon Foundation. Afterward, I had the following conversation, via text message, with Stephanie:
Me: "The fact of the matter is that we can't afford a situation like what happened with Vixen to occur again. That was a pretty trustworthy dog...."
Stephanie: "Yes. But there's more to the story. It wasn't just an argument. They were having a very bad fight. I know because they keep apologizing. Trust me on this one. It doesn't make Vixen's behavior ok, I'm just telling you she didn't attack because there was some shouting in the room."
Me: "Either way, it is a situation like that that will give the Pit Bull breed a bad name (and it already has a bad name to being with). We need to do all we can to avoid this happening again. The fact that Mandy, Pebbles, Vixen, and Blue have all been returned for biting people in the past month just says we need a behaviorist and we need one ASAP."

Stephanie did not respond to me. Vixen is back at the kennel, has a "Warning, aggressive" tag on her kennel, and the organization has refused to euthanize her. She will be evaluated. If she passes the evaluation, I have no doubt that they will place her up for adoption again.

10) Maui, a boxer mix, attacked a child during an adoption showing. According to Stephanie, she grabbed the child by the arm and brought him to the ground. The family is suing The Simon Foundation. Maui is listed as "available for adoption". "Maui was abandoned in New York, but luckily ended up here in Connecticut with The Simon Foundation. She has a beautiful brindle coat, and is really well behaved. Please come and visit her today!"


11) Kenya, a Pit Bull mix, attempted to attack me while Stephanie and I were sitting in the kitchen. I just gone to throw something out and walked back in the direction of Stephanie. Kenya, who was not on a leash, jumped up from where she was sitting on the ground and ran at me snarling and barking. I ran out of the kitchen and shut the door to block Kenya from getting to me. Kenya has since been walked by staff members and volunteers, is listed as "available for adoption"." Even gimping along on three legs, she can cruise pretty fast, so she needs to learn how to heel." "The best thing about Kenya is that she loves to love and be loved. She likes nothing more than to be with people, even sitting in their laps. She's happy and playful, and will sit and lay down on command."


Kenya has an extensive bite history, including an attempted attack on Stephanie's husband and a bite to one of the workers building The Simon Foundation's new facility. Stephanie continues to allow Kenya to run around the facility off-leash and maintains that she is adoptable.

-EDIT- To make this shorter, I have removed my resignation letter that I included in the original note to the Coalition, but the response is still relevant:


Stephanie's only response to my letter was that I "Did not know her at all if I thought she would ever give a family Harry" and that the dogs have received "Plenty of vet care". According to her, Kenya's surgery is not urgent even though she is forced to walk on three legs. Maggie has not gone through surgery because it "might make her other knee give out". Almost all of the dogs are covered in bumps, bruises, bare spots, and have bloody tails from living in the kennel. Several have staph infections that are managed with daily doses of Benedryl.

The eighty dogs that live at this shelter are absolutely miserable. There are no plans to move the permanent residents into a more sane atmosphere. I have watched dogs like Hosta and Bear run in circles continuously in their kennels. A recently adopted dog, Mookie, would bloody herself on a daily basis trying to get out. She actually ripped a section of the chain link off the door- the damage can be seen on kennel number four. There are areas where blood is stained into the concrete because of the dogs who bang their heads or tails repeatedly into the walls. Harry, one of the unpredictable dogs, has destroyed several kennels in his attempt to escape. He is frequently moved from kennel to kennel after he chews the door, rips apart the chain link, or eats the cable that lifts the guillotine door. He is now living in the Observation room because the walls there are made of concrete.

These several issues don't even skim the surface of what is actually occurring at *****. Is this what a true representation of a Connecticut shelter looks like? ***** is putting society at risk by adopting out unpredictable dogs, misrepresenting their animals to adopters, and treating their permanent residents to a lifetime of hell inside the kennel. I have voicemails, texts, and emails from Stephanie and adopters about what problems they have experienced with their adopted dogs. When I have the photos and videos that some of the staff members have recorded, I will forward them to the Coalition for Change.



Please, if there is anybody who can help me do something about this, let me know.

 

[Cavylier]

Your understanding of aggression is very clearly lacking, though almost offensively so.

You know absolutely nothing about the dog that I dealt with other than the fact that I had to euthanize him because that is all I've told you. You believe there was more I could have done but somehow chose not to? That is a dangerous assumption.

The dog of which I speak was named Caleb. He came from Spalding County Animal Shelter in Georgia. I pulled him from the rescue after he passed a temperament test and had him transported to me. After spending over $2,000 in medical bills on him to treat heartworm, tick disease, and other treatments, he began to show severe aggression.

I met with a knowledgeable trainer who works specifically with aggression. We tried EVERYTHING. I was the only person who could handle him and told everyone around me that he would NEVER go after me. A week later, I let my guard down a little too much around him and he lunged at my face. A day after that, I was the only one home and my dogs had free run of the house. He came into the room I was sitting him, looked straight at me, and started snarling. I managed to run into my basement while grabbing my other two dogs on the way to make sure nothing happened to them while he was like this.

Because I was emotionally attached to him, I called no-kill shelters to see if they could take him. Nobody wanted to take an unadoptable dog. I was forced to euthanize him. He was too dangerous for me to keep. There was no medical or behavioral explanation that could be found for his behavior, though since he was an Australian Shepherd, it is possible he had the MDR1 gene and these problems were triggered by the high dose of ivermectin administered at the end of heartworm treatment.

The fact of the matter is, there are far too many friendly dogs with stable temperaments dying in shelters to warrant spending our already sparse resources on the aggressive ones.

For those who are interested, this is a video I made a few years back in memory of Caleb: Thinking of Caleb | Facebook

I seemed to have jumped to conclusions with this one. I apologize; you obviously had a hard time with Caleb and tried your best there.

However, such genetic problems would be less if there was less breeding going on in general. When 'responsible' breeders are accepted by society, it spawns off a whole bunch of 'irresponsible' breeders who end up giving away dogs like these. Only a very small community of dog owners need very purely bred stock-dogs - most people just want pets.

If the message spreads that 'breeders are bad', most people will realize for themselves that the conditions animals are kept in by the bad breeders are not what they should be. More people will think for themselves and end up deciding to get a dog from a shelter as a pet. Thus, any flaws that a shelter hides in the way it works or in its dogs, will also become glaringly obvious when many people begin to complain.

Right now, getting a dog from a breeder - any breeder - is the norm even for people who want pets. The aim here is to make it the exception only for people who would absolutely require it.

When there is more awareness in general about breeding and adopting, the conditions of dogs anywhere will improve overall. But at this stage, when many dogs are languishing in bad shelters (sometimes even being killed regardless of how healthy they are because of the overpopulation) or being taken to vets for their genetic predisposition to health problems it would be wrong to say that breeding, in general, is okay when done 'responsibly'.

It would simply contribute to the problem more.

 

[CavyMama]

So Caleb PASSED a temperment test, which includes resource guarding yet was aggressive with you with resources. Seems the variable here is you, not the dog.

Breeders are coming at the shelter dogs from a different angle. They are looking at shelter dogs and seeing mixed bloodlines and uncertain background. All most people are looking for when they look to adopt is a pet. They aren't looking for an AKC show winning blue ribbon dog. So the fact that the dog is mixed breed or non-standard for its size, makes no difference. What a dog looks like on the outside, bears no connection to the kind of pet it can be for a family.

 

[doganddisc]

So Caleb PASSED a temperment test, which includes resource guarding yet was aggressive with you. Seems the variable here is you, not the dog.

How dare you.

Temperament tests are extremely inaccurate. A dog is tested within days of arriving at a very scary place. Dogs can show an excess of aggression that they would not normally show or a lack of aggression that bears absolutely no resemblance to their true temperament.

Caleb was severely aggressive toward everybody BUT me until he went after me. Upon further examination, my vet noticed that Caleb's back right knee was bent inward, as if he had been kicked hard when he was still growing. But this was only a theory. It could have been MDR1, it could have been abuse....it could have been any number of things that I personally had absolutely no control over.

I implore you to consider other's feelings on a matter such as this before you post something like that again. While this may be a sore subject for many people, I have not made any personal attacks toward you or any other user, despite our fundamental disagreements. Blaming me for what happened to Caleb is a low blow, whether or not you fail to understand my view on breeding and euthanasia. We all love animals here and Caleb meant the world to me. It tore me apart when I was not able to save him.

 

[CavyMama]

Okay so calling members here, ignorant and naive, isn't a personal attack? You do understand that this site is anti-breeding/pro-rescue? When you come around and spout off about breeding good/rescue bad, do you expect a different response??

I'm not saying that there was any other option for Caleb. The situation sounds like it was pretty extreme and in that case, it's possible that rehabilitation/behavior modification was not an option. In those cases, when everything else has been tried, making the dog extremely un-adoptable, then yes, euthanasia was likely the only answer.

It sounds like you feel that just because of an unknown origin that every or even most dogs in a shelter are a ticking time bomb waiting to go off (correct me if I'm wrong). This is astoundingly untrue. In the time I've been volunteering at the shelter, I've never seen a dog that was adopted, come back to us for aggression or any other reason. We get stories about the adopted dogs from the families who tell us how much a part of the family the dog is. This includes, the supposed "bully breeds" like pitbulls. Because of the unfair stigma that pits have been collared with, that they are, as a breed, aggressive, a majority of the dogs we have at the shelter are pit or pit mixes but I have never met such loving, willing to please, happy dogs in my life.

 

[doganddisc]

I never called anyone "ignorant" or "naive". Feel free to quote me if I am mistaken.

I am heavily pro-rescue, and pro-breeder. I believe in a balance between the two.

And yes, I know what the general concensus of the forum members are regarding breeding. I first joined this forum in 2007 and am familier with the views that are preferred here.

I believe no such thing about shelter dogs. I believe the vast majority of shelter dogs deserve a loving home that is all too often taken by a dog from a backyard breeder or puppymill.

I have nothing against pit bulls- they are among my favorite breed of dog.

And if the rescue you volunteer for truly has 100% placement with your dogs, you need to share the secret to that success with the rest of us!

 

[pinky]

I never called anyone "ignorant" or "naive". Feel free to quote me if I am mistaken.

I am heavily pro-rescue, and pro-breeder. I believe in a balance between the two.

And yes, I know what the general concensus of the forum members are regarding breeding. I first joined this forum in 2007 and am familier with the views that are preferred here.

I believe no such thing about shelter dogs. I believe the vast majority of shelter dogs deserve a loving home that is all too often taken by a dog from a backyard breeder or puppymill.

I have nothing against pit bulls- they are among my favorite breed of dog.

And if the rescue you volunteer for truly has 100% placement with your dogs, you need to share the secret to that success with the rest of us!

I volunteer with a guinea pig rescue but the friends I have that are involved with dog rescue don't have facilities. They have a broad network of fosters who take in the dogs, work with them and adopt them out when they're ready. They aren't sanctuaries, they aren't kennels and they don't have hoards of animals. They also have dogs of their own that they felt were better homed with someone with dog experience.... probably the ones you don't want that have "issues" or the one that you're referring to as not being placed. You don't sound remotely pro rescue. Pro rescue folks look for the positive qualities in their dogs and work their tails off to find the correct owner for their animals. They test them for cat and small animal aggression and won't place dogs with small children if they suspect they might be reactive to them. They even scout the sites that list the dogs that are going to be euthanized shortly and try and arrange transports to get them out and save them. The rescuers I know are no kill and are often involved with puppy mill rescues.....A lot of it depends upon what state a pet mill or hoarding situation is located in to determine who has jurisdiction. Shelters are another issue. Since a large chunk, but not all, are publicly funded, you have management staff that might not be educated about animal welfare and end up with dogs being euthanized shortly after being surrendered. There are those that are no kill or privately funded, as well. The majority take in any animals surrendered to them so space becomes an issue and animals are euthanized regularly due to lack of space or money. Rescues can be more selective due to space and manpower constraints. Many of the shelters are partnered with specific rescues to move their animals if they haven't been adopted within a reasonable amount of time. My local animal control partners with the rescue I volunteer with, along with many others for different breeds of animals. As far as secrets to placing animals, you need to change your mindset about dogs having issues. People who are interested in the transport part of dog rescue can contact animal rescuers in their area who are part of the group of people throughout the U.S. who work to save animals. The more people involved, the better likelihood of saving more lives. The best place to start would be through a local rescue that does transport by car to move animals. There are people who volunteer arranging transports and finding people who will make part of the trip. And if you want to know what the secret is to 100% placement or more animals being placed, it's more people understanding that there are wonderful animals without issues being overlooked at rescues while breeders keep breeding more.

 

[doganddisc]

I volunteer with a guinea pig rescue but the friends I have that are involved with dog rescue don't have facilities. They have a broad network of fosters who take in the dogs, work with them and adopt them out when they're ready. They aren't sanctuaries, they aren't kennels and they don't have hoards of animals.

My point was not that all rescues are huge kennels with abandoned or abused dogs. My point was that there are just as many problems in rescue as there are in breeding. Some rescues are unethical. Some transport dogs from the south to the north and actually manage to make money off doing so by only getting the dogs minimal vet care (Connecticut just added a law for importing animals into the state that made this much more difficult to do because it was happening so often- families were being given very sick dogs while the "rescue" charged $400-500 and didn't spend a cent of it on vet care).

New Law Puts Pet Importation On Shorter Leash - Stratford, CT Patch

They also have dogs of their own that they felt were better homed with someone with dog experience.... probably the ones you don't want that have "issues" or the one that you're referring to as not being placed.

There is a massive difference between a dog that needs to be homed with somebody with dog experience and a dog who is not safe around humans altogether. My male Border Collie, Pilot, is a dog who needs a dog savvy owner. Caleb was not safe. I'm not as euthanize happy as you're making this out to be, but I am in support of euthanasia under the right circumstances. If you have a dog that shows ANY aggression at all, that dog is immediately a liability to the rescue. You have to find a dog savvy home to place it in, which is difficult enough. I heard over and over at the rescue I worked at "Oh, he just needs a trainer home." But the reality is, trainers don't want these dogs and usually can't take them because they have lives too. They would be putting the people around them at risk.

There's a quote from the director of the HSUS in this article that speaks about the dangers of the no-kill movement:

(broken link removed)

You don't sound remotely pro rescue. Pro rescue folks look for the positive qualities in their dogs and work their tails off to find the correct owner for their animals. They test them for cat and small animal aggression and won't place dogs with small children if they suspect they might be reactive to them. They even scout the sites that list the dogs that are going to be euthanized shortly and try and arrange transports to get them out and save them.

(broken link removed) -The rescue that I founded and run.

I adopted out over thirty animals into a loving homes over a two year period with my own money, working a minimum wage job, and with only one foster home. All of the animals in my care were given full medical treatment before they were adopted out, I drove to West Virginia and back in a twenty-four hour period to pull a litter of puppies and their mother, and spent $5,000 on getting them to the point where they could be adopted due to a mystery illness that later turned to pneumonia. I slept on the couch in my living room for three months because my bedroom was being taken up by crates of sick puppies and I had to keep my own dogs away from them.

I have dedicated my entire life to rescue and will continue to do so until there are none left to say. And even with all of that, I am pro-breeding because I believe in a fundamental importance of carrying on specific traits in the dogs we have today through reputable breeding practices.

The rescuers I know are no kill and are often involved with puppy mill rescues.....A lot of it depends upon what state a pet mill or hoarding situation is located in to determine who has jurisdiction. Shelters are another issue. Since a large chunk, but not all, are publicly funded, you have management staff that might not be educated about animal welfare and end up with dogs being euthanized shortly after being surrendered.

You are mistaken here. Most seizure cases directly involve a city funded shelter, as animal control is responsible for handling the legalities. The animals are usually placed on a hold until a court decides what to do with them. At this point they are granted to a rescue group or humanely euthanized. Most dog fighting cases end in euthanasia because it is believed that fighting dogs are not fit for society. This is why the dogs out of the Vick case are so remarkable- though many were bred specifically for fighting, some were not dog aggressive in the slightest. There is also a huge difference between dog aggression and human aggression. But that's a different story for a different day.

Animals that are euthanized in a shelter are not euthanized because of lack of knowledge from the employees- they are euthanized for space. There is nowhere to put the incoming dogs, so some of the dogs that are past their stray hold have to go. Is it a travesty? Absolutely. But imagine, if all the aggressive and unadoptable dogs taking up kennels at Best Friends in their sanctuary, 1,700 adoptable dogs could be diverted to their facility to be prepared for adoption.

There are those that are no kill or privately funded, as well. The majority take in any animals surrendered to them so space becomes an issue and animals are euthanized regularly due to lack of space or money.

Yes, this.

Rescues can be more selective due to space and manpower constraints.

Being selective about what dogs you take in and euthanizing aggressive dogs are the same exact thing. The dog either ends up getting euthanized by the state or by the rescue.

Many of the shelters are partnered with specific rescues to move their animals if they haven't been adopted within a reasonable amount of time. My local animal control partners with the rescue I volunteer with, along with many others for different breeds of animals.

Yes, there are several of those in my area as well. But even their space is limited. One in particular is constantly overcrowded.

As far as secrets to placing animals, you need to change your mindset about dogs having issues.

I personally have never had an animal returned to me, but that is only because I haven't rescued enough animals to run into that issue. Rescues with 800+ fosters under their belt have had plenty of returns. And I mean ALL rescues. Even Best Friends has returns. Sometimes a dog just doesn't work out, sometimes the rescue misses something in the dog's personality along the way. The key to a higher success rate is not "changing your mindset" or "focusing on the positives". It is acknowledging that no dog is perfect and finding a home that understands that particular dog's imperfections.

People who are interested in the transport part of dog rescue can contact animal rescuers in their area who are part of the group of people throughout the U.S. who work to save animals. The more people involved, the better likelihood of saving more lives.

While there is a dire need for transport, the need for foster homes is even greater. There is always a way to transport a dog. The problem is usually where to put the dog when it gets to where it needs to go.

The best place to start would be through a local rescue that does transport by car to move animals. There are people who volunteer arranging transports and finding people who will make part of the trip.

I'm confused about why this is relevant, but I do agree

And if you want to know what the secret is to 100% placement or more animals being placed, it's more people understanding that there are wonderful animals without issues being overlooked at rescues while breeders keep breeding more.

As I explained before, this is not the end all concept to rescue. By 100% placement, I don't mean "every dog gets adopted". I mean "every dog adopted is not returned". That takes a very specific amount of understanding of human/dog interaction and a special skill for pairing dog to owner.

 

[CavyMama]

The shelter I volunteer for, and yes, it's a local shelter/county owned, some would call it the pound, does not euthanize for lack of space. The mantra is: No adoptable animal has an expiration date. Once the animal passes the temperment test, they are put up for adoption. They are not on death row. They are not on a countdown to death. They stay at the shelter until they are adopted. If there is a reason they cannot (space, too stressed out, etc), we have a network of foster homes who take them in. We also work with other local animal organizations and have an off-site adoption location where there is more foot traffic.

We have an on-site veterinarian and the staff are all vet techs so these are knowledgeable people. The techs are the ones doing the temperment testing.

The times Ive been in the dog room, I've only been met with a growling dog once and she had just been brought in. The rest have all been lovely, friendly, excited to play, dogs. Mind you, this would be what is considered the local pound. The place these supposedly aggressive, not-fit for society dogs go to be put down.

As for the moronic comments mentioned that volunteers made with the idea that they will say anything or downplay the quirky or negative behavior to get a dog adopted, it's unfortunate that one person would make those but believe me, it is NOT a true indicator of how volunteers work. It doesn't make sense to downplay any issues. Doing so increases the odds that the dog will be returned so we want to put everything out front. The potential adoptor needs to be aware of any issues so they can make an informed decision about adoption.

 

[pinky]

You're going to find unethical individuals in most every aspect of society. Rescuers that make a positive difference screen those who do transports and require documentation to make sure the animals are well cared for. I've read of some tragic situations that resulted when people who did transports left animals in their vehicle. That's the exception and not the norm. Good legislation is the way to correct that. As far as overcrowded shelters, breeding is to blame for that. If you didn't have people intentionally breeding and dogs were routinely neutered, the numbers would drop. TNR programs for cats are a good example of neutering instead of euthanizing. As far as quoting from the HSUS, I don't consider them to be advocates for companion animals. They're one of the first ones to advocate euthanizing. With all the money they have, they could make a huge difference and positive impact on the quality of life of animals in shelters but they choose to only donate about 1% of their millions. I'd never give them a cent. They're more about ending whatever THEY deem to be "suffering" by euthanizing. As far as dogs that are aggressive and if there are rescues or sanctuaries that will take them in and care for them, bless the individuals who are such compassionate souls. You better believe that dedicated rescuers do everything in their power to guarantee a dog will go to the right family. Not only do they do that, they spend a lot of their own money caring for those animals and if they fall short, they put out a plea to others they have supported in the past. As far as lack of space, there are many transports that move dogs from the southern states that tend to be overcrowded to other states where dogs are desired. Still, huge numbers are euthanized. I've been amazed at what I've seen rescuers do to turn feral dogs and cats into loving companions. You're right about then having the understanding of human/animal interaction. That's what they do. That's their calling. And once they know the disposition of that animal, they find it the right home.

 

[salana]

What traits would you say need to be preserved by breeders?

 

[sassyfirechick]

You DO turn a blind eye on the dogs in need of homes in the shelter. You saw that they were there and rather than trying to reduce the overpopulation problem by helping them be adopted, you added to the problem by producing MORE dogs.

How can you look into the eyes of the dogs at the shelter and say to them, "Nope, sorry. You don't deserve a good home because you're not good enough. You have issues. You're someone's leftovers. Oh well, out of sight, out of mind. I'm off to create MORE dogs"

Listen, I adopted them out no problem. I've helped plenty of dogs and cats into homes. In fact my 3 cats are all rescues because I don't need a specific behavior from them. I foster, but I have no problem sending them into new homes. I've never kept a foster, it's not my thing. That's called foster failure. I don't care if someone really WANTS to adopt a dog. If that's your deal, great. But don't sit here and be ignorant about the importance of educating the public about responsible breeding. There's 2 parts to the puzzle here. You want to rescue? Good for you. I don't. I'll gladly help others out but I will always purchase my dogs.

 

[pinky]

Sassyfirechick, I don't think it's important to educate the public about breeding. We need less breeding and not more of it. I'm sure there are pro breeding sites that would welcome your "expertise" on breeding but this isn't one of them.

 

[sassyfirechick]

So Caleb PASSED a temperment test, which includes resource guarding yet was aggressive with you with resources. Seems the variable here is you, not the dog.

Temperament tests are not only highly innacurate, but they are subject to the testers personal interpretation and influence. Most of these tests actually TRY to incite an aggressive response (like the SAFER test), the premise being that a dog who takes longer to become aggressive is a safer dog to adopt than one who reacts quickly. Using rediculous tactics like running behind the dog to poke his rear and yell "POKE" in what is called the "Tag Test". Or using a fake hand to look for food or resource guarding by forcefully pushing and even hitting the dog in the face to take the object away. Dogs also rarely exhibit their true colors in a shelter setting, or even while in foster care. It can take 6mos for many dogs to fully accept their new surroundings and dogs who started off "perfect" can become toy aggressive seemingly overnight. Shelters perform these tests either immediately upon the dogs release into their care, or within 24hrs. These dogs are in shock at the new surroundings, it is impossible to get an accurate read.

 

[sassyfirechick]

Shelters are another issue. Since a large chunk, but not all, are publicly funded[ /QUOTE]

I'd love to know where these publicly funded facilities are, really! Aside from individual town run "shelters" that typically involve a run-down shack of a brick building behing the town garage, shelters are not publicly funded. Even large facilities (HSUS, ASPCA, or large local like the Connecticut Humane Society) are all non-profit, funded purely by donations, not government money. MOST shelters are funded by donations.

 

[sassyfirechick]

We have an on-site veterinarian and the staff are all vet techs so these are knowledgeable people. The techs are the ones doing the temperment testing.

Vet school doesn't teach animal behavior other than a very crude introductory course.

 

[doganddisc]

The shelter I volunteer for, and yes, it's a local shelter/county owned, some would call it the pound, does not euthanize for lack of space. The mantra is: No adoptable animal has an expiration date. Once the animal passes the temperment test, they are put up for adoption. They are not on death row. They are not on a countdown to death. They stay at the shelter until they are adopted.

Not every county has the resources to run this type of shelter, but I'm glad yours does! For southern shelters, however, taking in hundreds of dogs a week makes keeping all of them until they are adopted an impossible feat.

[quoteIf there is a reason they cannot (space, too stressed out, etc), we have a network of foster homes who take them in. We also work with other local animal organizations and have an off-site adoption location where there is more foot traffic.[/quote]

Once again, this is great, but not everyone has the resources to do this.

We have an on-site veterinarian and the staff are all vet techs so these are knowledgeable people. The techs are the ones doing the temperment testing.

Vets and vet techs are NOT behaviorists. I am currently working on an undergraduate degree in Animal Science at a top university. Students who opt for a pre-vet concentration are, like me, not required to take a behavior course. I took it anyway because behavior is a subject I am primarily interested in. It was significantly lacking in detail.

The times Ive been in the dog room, I've only been met with a growling dog once and she had just been brought in. The rest have all been lovely, friendly, excited to play, dogs. Mind you, this would be what is considered the local pound. The place these supposedly aggressive, not-fit for society dogs go to be put down.

Didn't you say that your shelter had a temperament test upon intake? Are you talking about dogs that have already been temperament tested?

And as sassyfirechick and I have already pointed out numerous times, temperament tests often fail to show aggression. Are most dogs in pounds aggressive? Absolutely not. But judging by the Gwinnett County Animal Shelter website, a good percentage of them are (Gwinnett posts dogs who have failed the temperament test and are not available for adoption but can be reclaimed by their owner).

As for the moronic comments mentioned that volunteers made with the idea that they will say anything or downplay the quirky or negative behavior to get a dog adopted, it's unfortunate that one person would make those but believe me, it is NOT a true indicator of how volunteers work.

Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make that the case.

It doesn't make sense to downplay any issues. Doing so increases the odds that the dog will be returned so we want to put everything out front. The potential adoptor needs to be aware of any issues so they can make an informed decision about adoption.

Of course! That's the way a reputable responsible rescue sees things. But I know of MANY in my state alone that do not operate this way. They are made with bleeding hearts who adopt the same dog out time and time again, hoping that the next home won't mind that he is severely aggressive.

 

[doganddisc]

You're going to find unethical individuals in most every aspect of society. Rescuers that make a positive difference screen those who do transports and require documentation to make sure the animals are well cared for. I've read of some tragic situations that resulted when people who did transports left animals in their vehicle. That's the exception and not the norm.

I never stated that it was the norm. My point was that the exception does happen and that no-kill shelters are a TERRIBLE idea. Euthanizing aggressive or extremely sick dogs is the humane choice.

Good legislation is the way to correct that.

The absolute last thing we need is more legislation.

As far as overcrowded shelters, breeding is to blame for that. If you didn't have people intentionally breeding and dogs were routinely neutered, the numbers would drop.

And if more people trained their dogs from day one, the numbers of dogs being turned into shelters would drop significantly as well. Responsible breeding DOES NOT contribute to shelter populations. A responsible breeder's dogs NEVER end up in a shelter.

As far as quoting from the HSUS, I don't consider them to be advocates for companion animals. They're one of the first ones to advocate euthanizing.

Me neither, but that isn't why. What you stated below is. Euthanizing IS humane. And I only quoted the HSUS because what they had to say was true. (See previous discussion about HSUS about a page back).

With all the money they have, they could make a huge difference and positive impact on the quality of life of animals in shelters but they choose to only donate about 1% of their millions.

Because they are a scam.

As far as dogs that are aggressive and if there are rescues or sanctuaries that will take them in and care for them, bless the individuals who are such compassionate souls.

No, no, and again, no. There are dogs dying because these individuals WASTE resources on dogs who can never be adopted out. Euthanize the aggressive dogs and you open up THOUSANDS of spaces for dogs who are NOT aggressive. Best Friends is just sitting on a massive sum of money and land where dogs could be rescues and rehabilitated to a reasonable extent. Instead, they choose to house dogs who could never be placed into society. To what point and purpose? An aggressive dog is not a happy dog. You believe it is much more humane to lock the dog in a cage for the rest of its life? I don't get it.

You better believe that dedicated rescuers do everything in their power to guarantee a dog will go to the right family.

Of course they do! This is exactly what I did. I feel like you aren't actually reading my posts..

Not only do they do that, they spend a lot of their own money caring for those animals and if they fall short, they put out a plea to others they have supported in the past

Yes..

As far as lack of space, there are many transports that move dogs from the southern states that tend to be overcrowded to other states where dogs are desired.

There are still dogs being euthanized in Conneticut shelters and dogs being transported from southern states into Connecticut rescues. This is not a magic cure. The breeds we are importing are desirable- not the dogs themselves. Nobody wants the Pit Bulls and Rottweilers we have here. So southern dogs take up those homes. That is quite sad and definitely not the solution to end all solutions.

Still, huge numbers are euthanized. I've been amazed at what I've seen rescuers do to turn feral dogs and cats into loving companions.

Feral animals are, by definition, wild. They can never be a "loving companion" like a domesticated dog or cat can. They can be socialized to the extent that they will be able to exist in society, but beyond that what you have is essentially a wild animal. Prove me wrong.

You're right about then having the understanding of human/animal interaction. That's what they do. That's their calling. And once they know the disposition of that animal, they find it the right home.

Unless it is horribly aggressive. And then they should euthanize. Which is what this conversation is about.