Rescue (I'm feeling controversial today)

[Tilter]

I've been looking at a lot of rescue websites lately because we are ready for another dog (bitch I should say). We'll probably have to go way south for another spaniel to keep our rescue girl company and will probably get an ex-puppy farm breeding bitch as the poor things desperately need help and that's all that's usually available (unless it all gets really complicated and we jack it in and get a puppy!)

Anyway - rescue: many rescue places say they will never put a dog to sleep. If you look at big city rescue places (e.g., Liverpool, Manchester) there are long long sad sad lists of dogs (rarely bitches) that are often staffies, GSD's, rotties, etc, who have been abandoned or had owners now doing time or whatever. (I'm not slagging these dogs off - I know they have a bad rep.) But they are often in long-term care after being "rescued" several times and then brought back to rescue for aggression problems with which their new owners simply cannot cope. And these dogs progressively get less and less chance of finding a home.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better for rescue places to cut their losses and have these dogs PTS and out of their misery, and concentrate their energies on the salvageable. Am I becoming terribly hard-hearted?

[porshiepoo]

Oo dear, this is probably going to be a touchy subject!
I don't think you've become hard hearted at all, maybe realistic.
It's a very good question actually, I've never asked myself whether it would be kinder to put some of these dogs to sleep than to see them in rescue for years or shuffled from one adoption home to another when owners can't cope with the breed they've actually chosen.
Hmmmmm! I shall have to get back on this one once I've thought it through.

Hey that's a first for me. I usually just answer with whatever pops into my head! :lol:

[teenybash]

I've been looking at a lot of rescue websites lately because we are ready for another dog (bitch I should say). We'll probably have to go way south for another spaniel to keep our rescue girl company and will probably get an ex-puppy farm breeding bitch as the poor things desperately need help and that's all that's usually available (unless it all gets really complicated and we jack it in and get a puppy!)

Anyway - rescue: many rescue places say they will never put a dog to sleep. If you look at big city rescue places (e.g., Liverpool, Manchester) there are long long sad sad lists of dogs (rarely bitches) that are often staffies, GSD's, rotties, etc, who have been abandoned or had owners now doing time or whatever. (I'm not slagging these dogs off - I know they have a bad rep.) But they are often in long-term care after being "rescued" several times and then brought back to rescue for aggression problems with which their new owners simply cannot cope. And these dogs progressively get less and less chance of finding a home.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better for rescue places to cut their losses and have these dogs PTS and out of their misery, and concentrate their energies on the salvageable. Am I becoming terribly hard-hearted?

The simple answer to your question is, Yes.
Many of the dogs that find themselves repeatedly back in the rescue centres are having the best life they can possibly live at the moment.......some will now be the equivalent of being institutionalized and would not be able to cope in 'the outside world' without re learning about life again.
Thankfully a dedicated staff who love and care for the unloveable, simply don't give up on these wounded souls, who through no fault of there own find themselves unwanted................all of them came into the world as cute little bundles of fur that we all awe and aagh over, maybe you asking yourself, 'Am I becoming terribly hard hearted?' is, the thought of PTS is your way of coping with the sadness of the unwanted....easier to get rid of them, pretend they never existed. After all who is going to remember cage number 7 with cowering canine in a months time?
If the countless dogs sitting in rescue centres were thought of as a potential danger, they would be PTS but, those that wait and hope for that special someone who will work with them, resocialize them, teach them not to fear and how to accept and ultimately enjoy being loved, will remain with the loving staff in rescue centres.:eek:

[emszxr]

could we say the same about humans who go in and out of prison costing the tax payer a fortune.

it is a shame. cause its not the dogs fault, most of the time its the previous owners who have not trained it properly. some dogs will make great pets after a lot of time, training and patience but there is some that simply never will, and they cant be happy dogs stuck in a rescue centre with hardly any future. deep down i would have to say the kindest thing for dogs like these is probably to be put to sleep.

[Kevin Milkins]

I think the kindest thing you can do for the long term good of dogs is have irresponsible dog owners put to sleep.

[porshiepoo]

The simple answer to your question is, Yes.
Many of the dogs that find themselves repeatedly back in the rescue centres are having the best life they can possibly live at the moment.......some will now be the equivalent of being institutionalized and would not be able to cope in 'the outside world' without re learning about life again.
Thankfully a dedicated staff who love and care for the unloveable, simply don't give up on these wounded souls, who through no fault of there own find themselves unwanted................all of them came into the world as cute little bundles of fur that we all awe and aagh over, maybe you asking yourself, 'Am I becoming terribly hard hearted?' is, the thought of PTS is your way of coping with the sadness of the unwanted....easier to get rid of them, pretend they never existed. After all who is going to remember cage number 7 with cowering canine in a months time?
If the countless dogs sitting in rescue centres were thought of as a potential danger, they would be PTS but, those that wait and hope for that special someone who will work with them, resocialize them, teach them not to fear and how to accept and ultimately enjoy being loved, will remain with the loving staff in rescue centres.:eek:


You're assuming that dogs think like humans! Humans may sit in an orphanage hoping that someone will take them and love them but dogs don't. That isn't to suggest that dogs don't have feelings, they do, but they do not think or rationalize in the same way we do. The puppy dogs eyes pleading for us to take them home is simply what we convince ourselves we see, us putting a human perspective on an animals state of mind and that is why we have so many dogs in rescue in the first place.

Every dog has a right to a 'pack', I don't dispute that, but it isn't in the dogs best interests for us to see things the way a human would feel in the same situation.

[teenybash]

You're assuming that dogs think like humans! Humans may sit in an orphanage hoping that someone will take them and love them but dogs don't. That isn't to suggest that dogs don't have feelings, they do, but they do not think or rationalize in the same way we do. The puppy dogs eyes pleading for us to take them home is simply what we convince ourselves we see, us putting a human perspective on an animals state of mind and that is why we have so many dogs in rescue in the first place.


Every dog has a right to a 'pack', I don't dispute that, but it isn't in the dogs best interests for us to see things the way a human would feel in the same situation.

I appreciate what you are saying and no I am not assuming dogs think like humans and thank goodness for that!!!! But I have put my opinion across using human language...it's easier understood than a series of barks, howls, growls, teeth gnashing and snapping. :Razz
I still hold with my opinion that if a dog is not dangerous and the rescue agency is caring and providing the best they can till whenever.... and working their buns off to do that.... why should the dogs be destroyed??
I fully understand pack instinct but, that has nothing to do with the question...............You know, dogs do ask us 'why?' when they have had a tough time....I have heard them and I have answered them, in the only way I know how....with love and patience..... Cage number 7 with the cowering canine?...I have emptied it a few times and watched and felt my soul fill with joy when that tail begins to lift and starts wagging.:)

[porshiepoo]

I appreciate what you are saying and no I am not assuming dogs think like humans and thank goodness for that!!!! But I have put my opinion across using human language...it's easier understood than a series of barks, howls, growls, teeth gnashing and snapping. :Razz
I still hold with my opinion that if a dog is not dangerous and the rescue agency is caring and providing the best they can till whenever.... and working their buns off to do that.... why should the dogs be destroyed??
I fully understand pack instinct but, that has nothing to do with the question...............You know, dogs do ask us 'why?' when they have had a tough time....I have heard them and I have answered them, in the only way I know how....with love and patience..... Cage number 7 with the cowering canine?...I have emptied it a few times and watched and felt my soul fill with joy when that tail begins to lift and starts wagging.:)

But you're still putting a humans perspective on a dogs way of life and language. Barks, growls etc do not necessarily mean what we as humans expect them to mean and certainly not in the same concept that we as humans would use them - if we did of course! lol.
Have to disagree with you on dogs asking 'why' though! 'Why' is a question and dogs do not question the way we do, that takes rational thinking and dogs 'think' (for want of a better word) with instincts.
You say your answer is to shower them with love and while that certainly shows that you are an empathic and caring person, a dog would not interpret it that way. If the dog stops doing the behavior it was showing that upset you in the first place you, as a human, interpret that as meaning your showering of attention fulfilled the dogs need. Not so I'm afraid!
The cowering canine you mention doesn't lift and wag his tail because a human has entered his cage and is showering him with sympathy, he doesn't read your mind or understand your words, he simply reads your body language and your energy and THAT is what will determine whether the dog continues to cower or not.

To understand if a dog is 'happy' in rescue kennels you first have to understand the needs of canines - as pack animals - and decide whether these basic but fundamental needs are being met.
Dogs do not feel safe and content just because someone comes in every so often and chucks some food down for them or walks them once a day.
Rescue do incredible work with the resources they have but unfortunately I don't know of many that are able to do this work AND allow the dog to fulfill its instinct as a pack!
No dog, no matter how calm it may look is happy, contented and/or fulfilled in a rescue kennel.
Wouldn't it be great to see rescue dogs all kept together in one large pack, having their needs met as an animal? It would probably make them easier to rehome as the basic pack mentality can iron out alot of problems (as long as they are animal problems and not human), they'd also be alot calmer mentality and physically.
Maybe that's a naiive way of thinking and I understand that the training and cost involved for every rescue handler probably makes the concept unrealistic, however, unless the dogs basic needs are met as the pack animal they are, are they being cared for responsibly, fairly and kindly? My answer would be no!
"Providing the best they can" while being very commendable doesn't necessarily do what is best for the dog, just what is best for the human emotion.

But back to the question. Should they be PTS????
I still can't answer it because although I would go out of my way to rescue a dog, indeed any animal, I wouldn't like to think that that animal would then be put in a cage and not even have its most basic of animal needs met.
Having said that would I walk away from a dog in need knowing that I would have to take it rescue? No, I wouldn't. So I guess my human emotions are stronger than my knowledge of what a dog needs. So I guess I'm right back where I said we shouldn't be and that's putting human need to help above that of the need of those being helped.

Confused????? I am! lol

[Fran]

I think the kindest thing you can do for the long term good of dogs is have irresponsible dog owners put to sleep.


Very well said Kevin, but you omitted a last word...............put to sleep...permanently

[teenybash]

Thanks Porshiepoo...I love your comments and yes do agree....I am human, however, that is how I communicate.......even what I have perceived from my canine companions....past and present.... I will communicate in a human form, language. I do recognize in order to be accepted/respected/nurtured and trusted by dogs, I must hold my place in 'the pack' therefore I become at one with them....communicating not in words but, none the less communicating. Though I will speak to them my own special words I know full well they are not understanding the language but they do understand 'what' I am communicating.
I have had the joy for all of my life to have a connection with the animals, not only dogs and cats............and none of them deserve to be PTS for the wrongs foisted on them by, for the main part, those that are ignorant and uneducated in the ways to care for dogs in an environment that is suitable.
I shall stick firmly to my guns and say, while there are those who are willing to provide care for rescue dogs....more power to them and keep up the good work.
Blessings

[porshiepoo]

Thanks Porshiepoo...I love your comments and yes do agree....I am human, however, that is how I communicate.......even what I have perceived from my canine companions....past and present.... I will communicate in a human form, language. I do recognize in order to be accepted/respected/nurtured and trusted by dogs, I must hold my place in 'the pack' therefore I become at one with them....communicating not in words but, none the less communicating. Though I will speak to them my own special words I know full well they are not understanding the language but they do understand 'what' I am communicating.
I have had the joy for all of my life to have a connection with the animals, not only dogs and cats............and none of them deserve to be PTS for the wrongs foisted on them by, for the main part, those that are ignorant and uneducated in the ways to care for dogs in an environment that is suitable.
I shall stick firmly to my guns and say, while there are those who are willing to provide care for rescue dogs....more power to them and keep up the good work.
Blessings


I completely agree that none of them "deserve" to be put to sleep.
Animals in the pound find themselves in their particular situation through no fault of their own and with pet ownership still regarded as a right not a privilege the whole rotten thing will just carry on as it is.

What I have found myself asking is "is it in the best interest of the animal"?
I've been reluctant to post my actual answer to that question because it goes against everything I thought I believed.

Putting unwanted animals to sleep seems cruel and unjust, I get that, however I see keeping these animals in conditions that isn't conducive to a healthy mind and spirit just as cruel and unjust.
As humans we naturally want to nurture, protect and help those that are unwanted and/or neglected and that's something we should never lose but when you see a dog in the pound that is literally bouncing off the walls through boredom, how caring and nurturing are we being by prolonging that agony?
Personally I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that our understanding of 'helping' actually soothes our ego and our spirit, not that of the dog.

I really do not want to say that dogs should be PTS in every situation but I do think there are some dogs that simply cannot cope with kennels and it may be kinder to alleviate the stress these animals are being put under.
The animals that hate kennels stand even less of a chance of being adopted than the others because their demeanor would put most people off so you end up with one of two situations. Either 1) the dog is unadoptable and ends up spending months even years in the very situation that is driving it nuts, or 2) someone adopts it because they feel sorry for it, end up having problems with it as they are not suited or experienced enough and the poor dog ends up back in the same kennel in the same situation.

I'm not saying that rescue kennels do not do any good, of course they do and if a dog can get a quick turnaround and spend as little time as possible in kennels and find a home then that's obviously the best outcome we can hope for.

[Tilter]

Good points of view all around when Teenybash and Porshiepoo have the bit between their teeth.


I shall have to get back on this one once I've thought it through. Hey that's a first for me. I usually just answer with whatever pops into my head! :lol:
LOL – me too me too.


If the countless dogs sitting in rescue centres were thought of as a potential danger, they would be PTS but, those that wait and hope for that special someone who will work with them, resocialize them, teach them not to fear and how to accept and ultimately enjoy being loved, will remain with the loving staff in rescue centres.:eek:


I still hold with my opinion that if a dog is not dangerous and the rescue agency is caring and providing the best they can till whenever.... and working their buns off to do that.... why should the dogs be destroyed??


Teeny, my point is that some dogs sitting in rescue centres are thought of as a potential danger, but some rescue centres operate with the premise that no dog will ever be PTS. Because of prior abuse or whatever, these dogs cannot adjust and I’m saying, is it a waste of these rescue centres’ scant resources to continue giving up valuable space and caring for them? If you read the shelters’ websites for these dogs they are full of blurbs to the effect that such-and-such dog cannot be rehomed with small children, or needs very experienced owners used to the breed type, etc. Read between the lines – these dogs could be dangerous and, with the best will in the world, rescue centres don’t have crystal balls for vetting new owners, nor do they have an idea what the dog will be like outside the shelter situation.

So I think we might be fairly close to agreement on this?


and none of them deserve to be PTS for the wrongs foisted on them by, for the main part, those that are ignorant and uneducated in the ways to care for dogs in an environment that is suitable.

I know it’s never the dog’s fault. We all know that. But there some idiot/ignorant/abusive dog owners around and there always will be. Sometimes the dogs resulting from suffering this type of ownership are beyond help, imo. No, I don’t think any dog with fairly minimal damage that can be corrected should ever be PTS.

I wanted to be talked out of this point of view but I seem to be coming back to it.

[teenybash]

Have read through all that has been said, the points raised and can appreciate the different points of view, but.......
Sit a moment, have a cuppa and I'll tell you the story of Houdini.

Within days of him being a bit poorly, one of my dogs died...we were devastated. My other big fella went into a state of collapse for his companion and I knew the only chance of him not sliding into a permanent decline was, get another dog immediately. A quick phonecall to the rescue centre saw me making this unexpected journey. The big fella was with me but, took thirty minutes of coaxing to leave the spot where his friend always lay.
Once at the centre a lovely lady started showing me the selection of rescues but, at the end of the passage was a little non descript black dog sitting slouched against the wall. I presumed he was the centres pet as he wasn't in a pen but, I was told no and that he had been christened Houdini.
The lady told me all about him, his fear of people, he was prone to nipping and he was an adept escape artist and how they had 'put up' with him for almost two years. Every night he was locked in his cage and every morning when the staff arrived he was out...cage still locked. He would saunter up and down the passage way setting off the other dogs and upsetting everything.
She told me to be careful when I started to walk towards him as he could be nippy and was prone to snapping. WhenI got closer I crouched down to his level...the poor mite was very frightened and began showing submissive behaviour....lying on his back exposing his belly and throat as well as urinating himself.
Finally he let me touch him and stroke him and very quietly I slipped the collar and leash around his neck and told him, 'You're coming home.'
The woman in the centre tried to talk me out of it telling me she was waiting on permission from head office to have him put to sleep.
Cutting a long story short, Houdini came home and we created the life he could cope with and he settled. He and the big fella were like little and large after only a few short weeks and though we all missed our other friend who had died so suddenly...it was felt that he simply moved over to leave a space for another needy soul...Houdini.
Never once did he grump or nip nor bother the cats and the other animals round about.........................So have I changed my mind and think it better to have difficult to home rescues PTS....No:)

[brandy]

i agree and disagree... i would not like to put a time limit on an animals life, like they do back home,ie. if they are not adopted by x ammount of time then they are put to sleep.
however, if an animal shows signs of aggresion, and fear and will never be able to be rehomed then is it really fair on the workers and other animals? there are so many animals out there that can not even go into rescue because they are bursting at the seams and just can not accept any more. would it be more kind to put down the ones that will never be able to be rehomed and be able to accept more into rescue that will be able to be rehomed?
its a vicious cycle, but at the end of the day what can we do? sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind.

[Tilter]

Teeny B,
That was a beautiful story about Houdini and I'm glad it had such a happy ending. What I suspect though, is that you're an exceptional person with exceptional ability with dogs, and I think there's not enough of you out there to help all the problem dogs in rescue.

Brandy, that was a very good post.

Where is Roughshooter? I'd like to hear what he had to say but he seems to have disappeared off the radar.

[Fstevens]

We are a nation of dog owners, dog lovers?????? that it one I have yet to work out.
Just so pleased I am human, and my life does not rest on a person whim.

And Yes I do rescue have done for 30 years, and have been rewarded time and time again, life is is gods gift to all. not some

Here endth the lesson:(

[teenybash]

We are a nation of dog owners, dog lovers?????? that it one I have yet to work out.
Just so pleased I am human, and my life does not rest on a person whim.

And Yes I do rescue have done for 30 years, and have been rewarded time and time again, life is is gods gift to all. not some

Here endth the lesson:(

More power to you, to carry on your kindness....and for all those waggy tails who cannot speak.....Thank you.:o

[brandy]

in the news today.. two pit bulls attack and kill a 4 mnth old baby, and attacked her grandmother as well.
the owner knew the dogs had major behavior problems, even the neighbors stayed well away from teh animals and the neighborhood children would run inside and hide when they saw them. teh police upon arrival on teh scene saw the two dogs with blood in their fur and behaving aggressivly and shot them on the spot, but unfortunatly it was to late for the infant who didnt have a chance.
from what i understand fromnt eh story is that these were two full grown territorial dogs that had a new baby introduced to their pack, and did not except it and tore it apart.
animals with this kind of behavioral problems will never be rehabilitated, and even if an animal like this was rehomed in a home with no children or other animals.. who can guarantee they will never exscape or turn on thier owners? the safest route for everyo one here would be to humanly put the said animal down.

[teenybash]

in the news today.. two pit bulls attack and kill a 4 mnth old baby, and attacked her grandmother as well.
the owner knew the dogs had major behavior problems, even the neighbors stayed well away from teh animals and the neighborhood children would run inside and hide when they saw them. teh police upon arrival on teh scene saw the two dogs with blood in their fur and behaving aggressivly and shot them on the spot, but unfortunatly it was to late for the infant who didnt have a chance.
from what i understand fromnt eh story is that these were two full grown territorial dogs that had a new baby introduced to their pack, and did not except it and tore it apart.
animals with this kind of behavioral problems will never be rehabilitated, and even if an animal like this was rehomed in a home with no children or other animals.. who can guarantee they will never exscape or turn on thier owners? the safest route for everyo one here would be to humanly put the said animal down.

What a dreadful heartbreaking story...my sympathies go to the family and parents of the poor baby........:~(
I feel though, this is not what the thread is about. I doubt very much if you will find dogs who are classed as this dangerous ever finding their way into a rescue centre. Any dog deemed to be a danger will not even make it into a rehoming pen and the vet or qualified personel will do the deed.
All dogs will be assessed before being accepted and this will be done by the professionals.
There sadly will always be those who will deliberately breed 'dangerous' dogs, because they think it makes them look tough and hard and tragedies like this will happen again unless, a way is found to stop this practice. ....But that's another thread I think.

[Roughshooter]

Im still about just very busy, as I always am at this time of year. So you want to know what I think?

Well as you asked, Rescue dogs are the same as any other dog, just they are a bit like a secondhand car they have had an owner or two, and need a understanding.

A dog is a dog NOT a human in a fur coat a friend or family member who has returned having passed on ITS A DOG. They like us all wear differant coats, the of a Rottie, Gsd, Pitbull (illegal in UK), Westie and Labrador but make no mistake they are all DOGS. They think but not like us they commuicate but not like us they eat and drink but not like us yet we think they can understand every word we say, you know we humans can be so stupid.

A dog is controlled by a leader Alpha male (if you like) his or her power is by way of engery and body langauge and as soon as that becomes weak they will be overpowered, puppies with weak engery are left behind by the pack and die only the strong survive thats how mother nature works we humans mess with her and get it wrong thats when you have dogs with behaviour problems (whatever THAT term means).

Now if anyone wants to debate dogs in general and their way of life start a thread Id be happy to contribute. (the few who know me stop laughing)

Rescue centre do a grand job and having a NO KILL policy in todays world IS a very brave statement, one which I feel is correct, as long as the dogs basic needs are cared for there is not a problem except the problem of course of GUILT in us humans for allowing cage 7 to be in this situation in the first place, or pehaps putting the dog there time and time again.

To each and every person who has a rescue animal has helped is helping rescues up and down the uk good on you keep up the good work to the few who think otherwise shame on you, but remember its a good bet we will all get old and to some degree become unwanted every dog has its day.

By the way Pitbulls are illegal in the UK under the 1991 dangerous dogs act, I shall say no more but if you want to know there is a whole tail of how they are brought in via alsorts of strange ways another thread maybe

Just a quick note..... There seems to be a lot of quotes from a books written by Cesar Millan in some of these posts now I have had a second read if Im not mistaken! One has to ask yourself Why?

[Roughshooter]

Just a wee bit of extra info for you all which may make you think

In a survey carried out by the National Canine Research Foundation between Jan 2000 and Mid July 2005.

Fatal Dog Attacks

Chow/ChowX 41
Pitbull/PitbullX 32
Gsd/GsdX 23
Rottweiller/RottieX 26
Alaskan Malamute/Wolf Hybred 24
Labrador/LabX 23
Yorkie/YorkieX 8
Great Dane/DaneX 3

I will ask this question from this table of results if Rotties and Gsds and the big dogs which here in the uk have such bad press just take a second and look at the figures and compare them with the table below

Breed Registar for uk registration as per KC figures
2000-2005

Gsd 106205
Rottweiller 85542
Labrador 239986

Now is the UKs most popular breed (Labrador) a Killer?

[teenybash]

Just a wee bit of extra info for you all which may make you think

In a survey carried out by the National Canine Research Foundation between Jan 2000 and Mid July 2005.

Fatal Dog Attacks

Chow/ChowX 41
Pitbull/PitbullX 32
Gsd/GsdX 23
Rottweiller/RottieX 26
Alaskan Malamute/Wolf Hybred 24
Labrador/LabX 23
Yorkie/YorkieX 8
Great Dane/DaneX 3

I will ask this question from this table of results if Rotties and Gsds and the big dogs which here in the uk have such bad press just take a second and look at the figures and compare them with the table below

Breed Registar for uk registration as per KC figures
2000-2005

Gsd 106205
Rottweiller 85542
Labrador 239986

Now is the UKs most popular breed (Labrador) a Killer?

Thank you, excellent point.
Another statistic; UK road fatalities for 2007 were 2,943...................[disgust]

Still hold the same thoughts...Rescue dogs awaiting new homes should not be destroyed.......................some drivers I am not so sure about.

[brandy]

but what if a dog can not be rehomed? im guessing from an earlier post that they do put down dogs that are dangerous? ie has shown aggresion and can not cope without snapping or biting?
have been told that if an animal bites here that it must be put down. dont know if that is true or not?
i dont like the idea of putting healthy animals down. but an aggressive snarling dog is not a healthy dog.

[teenybash]

Brandy, the little story I posted about Houdini in a way answers your question. The centre he was in was waiting on permission from their head office to have him put to sleep...........I am glad I got there first and they would have had to hog tie me to prevent me from taking him home......he was nippy and had snapped at other potential homers and they felt he was not to be trusted. How wrong they were.
No responsible rescue centre would put anyone at risk or their reputation by allowing a dangerous dog to be rehomed.
To simply clear them out of their present occupiers would be so wrong.....how could they continue using the word 'Rescue'.....
Houdini was only one of many who came to me, with his own story to tell...I have only shared the little bit about his rescue not his sad history....so many dogs could share a happy ending....I wish I could have them all. :~(

[Roughshooter]

but what if a dog can not be rehomed? im guessing from an earlier post that they do put down dogs that are dangerous? ie has shown aggresion and can not cope without snapping or biting?
have been told that if an animal bites here that it must be put down. dont know if that is true or not?
i dont like the idea of putting healthy animals down. but an aggressive snarling dog is not a healthy dog.


An aggressive dog is not a HAPPY dog, and it is not having its basic needs taken care of aggression in dogs is not a natural state.

To say an aggressive dog is not healthy is incorrect unless a vet confirms otherwise.

Of late I have seen 2 aggressive dogs, aggressive to other dogs and humans. Both cases i am now happy to report have been cured without the need of medical help. Following a recent glut of television programmes highlighting so called behaviour problems to much is now made of aggression in dogs, to understand the problem of aggression FIRST you need to understand a dog 100% not the dog with the problem dogs in general then you need to understand its owner and then and ONLY then would you just be a the begining of turning the problem round. Make no mistake aggression in dogs is a problem caused by us humans and our lack of knowledge about Canines.

So to recap an aggressive dog is not a happy dog, its health may be in question but it is wrong to say that is the cause without seing a vet first. Dogs behaviour can be changed so to say an aggressive dog should be PTS in my mind is the mentailty that caused the problem in the first place.

The whys and wherefores of dog behaviour and how when and if it should be changed and how to do it without medical help and without causing the dog pain is a whole new line for another day.

[dousslesh]

The Rescue I am associated with temporarily home all their rescue dogs in foster homes not in Kennels. The dogs are assessed for all aspects of their behaviour and needs and are in a safe, loving 'normal ' environment. Many of these dogs come from horrendous backgrounds and have sometimes suffered terrible abuse As with all Voluntary Rescues every penny is raised by the sheer hard work and determination of , largely speaking; a small group of people ( often the same fosters and carers looking after the dogs! )
With the best will in the world many of the Rescue kennels are not the environments anyone would want a dog (or any animal) to be homed in even on a temporary basis. This is in no way criticism of all those who work tirelessly in Rescue Kennels to do what they can to help the poor unfortunate creatures who through no fault of their own find themselves in such a vulnerable situation but I am sure they would agree the kennel environment is far from the ideal .
Unfortunately some people are products of the throw away society - They will never know the pure joy of an unconditional relationship with 'Mans best friend ' Their loss -but sadly Mans Best friend pays the price .
There are FAR too many 'unwanted ' dogs . So next time your friend/ neighbour/ relation says they are letting their Dog have pups and the pups will have a good home as 'Nobody pays £100's and then doesn't look after the dog...' Tell them to look at the Rescue forums on The Internet . They will see Pedigree dogs desperate for a home. Ask them if they are prepared to keep the pups , Exercise them, groom them, pay for their inoculations, Vets fees and food for life. Because that is the responsibility THEY SHOULD be prepared to undertake if they cannot find the pups a home . Mans best friend; shame it is not reciprocated often enough. :(
Would the amateur breeder also be prepared to take back the pup if the 'Forever home ' suddenly wasn't forever, When the new owner found it was ' expensive to keep a dog, inconvenient to find willing dog sitters or not enough time for the dog when a baby comes along... ? Or will the Rescue organisations have to pick up the pieces again ? 'Problem dogs' have the odds stacked against them . (Although I would say there are rarely problem dogs only problem owners ! ) Sorry I have wandered from the original subject slightly But if this makes just one dog owner reconsiders their idea to breed from the family pet it will be worth it !

[porshiepoo]

There should be more laws in place to protect dogs from eejit owners.

Society will carry on moaning about the number of fatal dog attacks and will even give certain breeds the label of 'dangerous dog' but what does that actually do to prevent the problem? Nothing!
The animal gets put down, society breathes a sigh of relief as 'one more dangerous animal' is taken out but no one follows up on the owner who created the dangerous dog. They may get a fine, a pet ban for a couple of years but not much else, then they'll get another dog and start the whole process again.

There should be some kind of dog behavior training made compulsory for these people and they should be licensed for the rest of their lives.
Basic canine behavior should be available to everyone before they ever own a dog, but it'll never happen.
It never ceases to amaze me of the amount of people who still see dogs as humans in fur coats and it's that mentality that creates the dangerous dog.

An aggressive dog doesn't necessarily have to be put down - the owner though, that's a different story.

[Roughshooter]

Just like to add a couple of things

firstly a dangerous dog is not created by some one who treats it as a person in a fur coat, it is created by a person who knows nothing about the basic needs of a dog and how to provide them, this then (and I write this in Human terms) starts to slowly send the dog mad, with all the built up frustration from the lack of his basic needs being taken care of, as I said before this is a whole new thread which would be long winded and very controversial as I am sure many would not like to read and see the truth about there pet.

A little something along to origional post lines now.....

A well know rescue organisation (No Names) operates a policy where if a dog has bitten it is PTS no question. If a dog/cat is still in one of there centres after 3 months it is PTS.

They of courese hide these facts from the public as it would do there image no good and they run on public donations you can see why, but if you ask and did deep into there books (freedom of information) you will find that in 2007 they PTS 8760 dogs alone, thats one an hour every hour all day everyday.
So far this year 2008 thats 6408, thats just dogs, Remember this is an animal welfare group run on public donations (yes our money) they have shelters UK wide, now that makes you think, and that my friends IS a bloody disgrace.

[Tilter]

OK you guys, you're tying me up in knots here and you may be getting me around to your way of thinking with regard to my original post (so the Org can change minds???), but then it went off into "bad" dogs in general.

Thanks for your input in the middle of busy sked Roughshooter (you must have been lurking). They were interesting figures and put things into perspective - I'm left wondering how a Yorkie can cause a fatality, unless it was on a very tiny baby (God forbid though). And the chow-chows I’ve known (admittedly few) have been bad news.



A dog is controlled by a leader Alpha male (if you like) his or her power is by way of engery and body langauge and as soon as that becomes weak they will be overpowered, puppies with weak engery are left behind by the pack and die only the strong survive thats how mother nature works we humans mess with her and get it wrong thats when you have dogs with behaviour problems (whatever THAT term means).


From what I’ve been reading (sorry it would take me a while to find the links), we’ve gone beyond the pack thing as far as understanding dogs because wolves in the wild operate as a family whereas captive wolves have to be more competitive and have an alpha. I think techniques with dogs were (wrongly it is postulated) based on captive wolves and not wolves in the wild. Also, wolves in the wild will adopt cubs from outside if times are good and in bad times cubs eat first before the parents. I had a Dalmatian bitch once who adopted 3 kittens I was looking after temporarily, and she actually came into milk for them. The vet told me off, but obviously times were good for her.

But I know little and need to do more reading. I’ve never read anything by the Caesar guy.

Back to the problem – bringing back the dog license would help perhaps, with licenses for certain types being controlled like gun licenses? Plenty ways around that though.

There was a good bit of news on the radio today though I thought – RSPCA is pulling out of Crufts because of problems KC causes some breed types. Oops – Roughshooter I’ve just seen your last post about amount of dogs PTS when they say they don’t. I take it that’s who you’re talking about.

Sorry this post is so scrappy but I’ll be off-line for a while as on hols for a month. Thanks for all the input.

[Roughshooter]

;) ;)

Enjoy your Hols

[porshiepoo]

firstly a dangerous dog is not created by some one who treats it as a person in a fur coat, it is created by a person who knows nothing about the basic needs of a dog and how to provide them,

And therefore treats the dog as a human extension of the family, using human emotion and thinking to 'train' it, uses a human perspective of emotion to assess a dogs needs and voila, have created a monster.

What I'm trying to say is that canine behaviour is fundamentally easy to understand once you accept that your pet dog is an animal first and foremost and a basic understanding should be compulsory to anyone that wants to own a dog from a Pomeranian to a Great Dane.

I've learnt the hard way over the years just how lazy and irresponsible it can be to not take the time to understand the dog. I've experienced having 2 of my Great Danes PTS due to the fight they got into. At the time I thought I was right by seperating the dogs, keeping them away from each other, only to realise eventually that I'd created individual packs with the amount of dogs we had.
The fight was brutal, lethal and completely unavoidable and entirely my fault as the pack leader and owner. The injuries meant that I would probably of had them PTS anyway but now I would have no fear of bringing them home and rehabilitating them - in fact if I knew then what I know now, the whole sad mess would not have happened and I would still have Porshiepoo and her daughter (the dane I bred to show).

I can see exactly what went wrong and what I did or didn't do to exaccerbate the problem. Too little, too late.
Even after the fight I didn't suddenly think I needed to understand the dog more, it was literally by accident that I fell into it. The discovery that my actions or lack of, had created the fight was kind of hard to swallow but made me all the more determined to understand as much as I can.

Going back to dogs in kennels: I always thought that my dogs suffered in kennels because they missed me when I went away or becaue they missed their home comforts or their cuddles. God, I was pompous!
Everytime we collected the dogs they'd lost weight, were fighting amongst themselves and were either hyper or bad tempered.
Danes don't do well in kennels I was told. Fair enough, but what about the GSD's?
Being kenneled stripped them of everything they instinctively were.
There were no controlled pack walks - in fact no pack as they were seperated - there was no leadership and no activities for the dogs that needed brain stimulation. This meant that the pack broke down, there was nervous, anxious energy everywhere, the kennel maids just assumed the dogs were happy and excited and let them pull them everywhere (for the allotted 10 mins anyway) and this resulted in either hyper dogs who's brains were just exploding from boredom or those who were getting short tempered due to the lack of pack stability.
So now, if we want to go away we have someone look after the dogs at home. If we can't get anyone, we don't go away, it's as simple as that.

Education is needed to ensure that the number of aggressive dogs is reduced. Putting them to sleep does not solve the problem. The owner has to be held accountable but must also be made to gain some understanding of the animal within the pet.

[janemac]

Anyway - rescue: many rescue places say they will never put a dog to sleep. If you look at big city rescue places (e.g., Liverpool, Manchester) there are long long sad sad lists of dogs (rarely bitches) that are often staffies, GSD's, rotties, etc, who have been abandoned or had owners now doing time or whatever. (I'm not slagging these dogs off - I know they have a bad rep.) But they are often in long-term care after being "rescued" several times and then brought back to rescue for aggression problems with which their new owners simply cannot cope. And these dogs progressively get less and less chance of finding a home.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better for rescue places to cut their losses and have these dogs PTS and out of their misery, and concentrate their energies on the salvageable. Am I becoming terribly hard-hearted?


Hi everyone,

2 years ago we were looking to get a dog and lived in Lancashire at the time so went to all the rescue centres.

Manchester Dogs Home was the worst place ever. We asked about one dog and were told 'take it and if you don't like it bring it back'
The majority of the dogs were Staffies and mongrels which had been taken in off the streets as strays and also a lot had been brought in by the police from the whole of Greater Manchester area.
The noise was unbearable and most of the dogs looked terrified.
The worst thing were 2 very very old dogs in a pen together whose owner had died and they's very sadly ended up in the dogs home. The notice on the front of the pen said one wasn't eating and had to be hand fed... I could have cried
Surely it would have been kinder to put these old dogs down than have them in the dogs home?
I wanted to take them all home with me. It was awful.
I suppose they are at least taking all the strays in - some might get a happy home in the end...

We ended up at the RSPCA and got our lad from there.
With the RSPCA they come and do a home visit etc and check you are going to give the dog the right home... More a lengthy process but better for the dog in the end I suppose.

A dog is for life not just for Christmas though eh? :confused

[porshiepoo]

Hi everyone,

2 years ago we were looking to get a dog and lived in Lancashire at the time so went to all the rescue centres.

Manchester Dogs Home was the worst place ever. We asked about one dog and were told 'take it and if you don't like it bring it back'
The majority of the dogs were Staffies and mongrels which had been taken in off the streets as strays and also a lot had been brought in by the police from the whole of Greater Manchester area.
The noise was unbearable and most of the dogs looked terrified.
The worst thing were 2 very very old dogs in a pen together whose owner had died and they's very sadly ended up in the dogs home. The notice on the front of the pen said one wasn't eating and had to be hand fed... I could have cried
Surely it would have been kinder to put these old dogs down than have them in the dogs home?
I wanted to take them all home with me. It was awful.
I suppose they are at least taking all the strays in - some might get a happy home in the end...

We ended up at the RSPCA and got our lad from there.
With the RSPCA they come and do a home visit etc and check you are going to give the dog the right home... More a lengthy process but better for the dog in the end I suppose.

A dog is for life not just for Christmas though eh? :confused


It's a sad, sad situation and one that is not destined to get better for the unwanted or otherwise homeless dogs I'm afraid.
Most rescues just do not have the monetary resources to plough into the training of kennel staff further than a cursory and very basic canine care.
How can we expect dogs to be re homed when they have such off putting comments on their kennel doors? The dog that apparently needed hand feeding would have been fine in a healthy environment but the comment on the door would put 90% of prospective owners off.

Yes, I do believe there are times when it would be kinder to put some of the animals to sleep, especially those that are destined for a lifetime of misery in a kennel environment that is obviously making it mental and physical health worse than we should allow it to be.

But as I keep saying it boils down to education and awareness in the first place but also more funding needs to be available to the organisations that have accumulated an extreme amount of animals.
Won't happen though!
Society is all too easily pleased when they hear of Rescue work going to plan and dogs being found kind homes and to be honest who nowadays has the spare money available to give to such charities????