opinions on this issue

[mbc1963]

I have a lot of sympathy for this woman. My dog is dog-reactive. I manage him very carefully. Tough when other dogs charge us off leash, when he's on-leash. The leash creates more stress, the proximity and crowding of me-him-otherdog create more stress, and my concern about keeping the other dog out of his face creates more stress. Bad situation all around.

 

My dog has gotten free of my house exactly one time in 3.5 years, and that was when my contractor did not close the fence gate. I let Buddy out back, and my next-door neighbors called about half hour later to tell me he was at their front door, come for a visit. Fortunately, there were no random strange dogs wandering my neighborhood at the same time Buddy was. I do worry that he might have started a fight. But other than that one incident, he's never escaped my property or my leash without my permission.

 

Fenced-in yard? $3800. Peace of mind? Priceless.

 

Having said that, I own a homebody of a dog, who really wants to be indoors most of the time and stays within 15 yards of me even when I let him off leash. Most of the time, if I work in the front yard and leave the gate open for passage, he stays in the back yard, content not to even cross the gate line. He has no desire to run free or meet strangers out front. Sounds like this Brindi dog is far more excitable and anxious to escape than my dog. So I can't really judge what might have happened in my life if I had a dog like that.

 

I think this woman is in over her head. Sad situation all around. I completely sympathize with her, and feel badly for her dog and her situation. But I'm not sure if a "fixable" problem at this point, with the environment and the history they have.

 

Used to be a really timid, tiny woman down the street with a big GSD/BC cross in my neighborhood. Dog had come from a shelter. Very aggressive to other dogs. Timid owner was unable to work with the dog - she simply did not have the strength of body or voice to prevent the dog from dominating her. Probably could have worked with a different owner, and the owner probably could have worked great with a different dog. Sad. Never saw the end (woman was evicted from her 3rd floor apartment), but I'm pretty sure I know how it played out. Just a bad mix.

 

So I guess in the long run I understand why rescuers don't want good homes taken up by difficult dogs - this woman could have saved another (easy, smaller) dog, who could still be alive and happy living with a timid owner in a small apartment. Instead, the home she had was given away to a dog with problems, who ended up (probably) euthanized or back at the shelter anyway.

 

Again, very sad all around.

 

Mary

[Liz P]

A child COULD get hurt. Imagine a little girl or boy with a dog. Kid takes the dog for a walk, aggressive dogs runs out and attacks the kid's dog, kid freaks out and tries to pull their dog away or defend it and gets bit by accident. That scenario has happened many times in the past. I am not trying to inspire fear, just pointing out a possible outcome.

 

While reading her blog it really bothered me that she was trying to minimize what happened by saying her dog just left a few puncture wounds *after grabbing the other dogs' necks and refusing to let go.* That is not fear or simple dominance, that is a serious aggression problem. Obviously the owner was not facing reality and admitting how bad her dog was.

 

What is all boils down to is this woman taking responsibility and realizing how serious the situation is for her dog. It sounds like it is too late.

[Caerus]

Personally, I don't feel that a "nice" dog has more of a "right" to live than a dog with issues. My heart dog is a dog with issues and I have a great deal of love for those types of dogs. At the same time, a dog with serious issues needs an owner who is not only responsible, but willing to go many, many, many extra miles to ensure the dog's safety and well being (and, equally, the well being and safety of other dogs and people). And those homes are not so easy to come by.

 

I feel very bad for the dog in this case. He certainly didn't deserve this on account of an irresponsbile owner. It is truly a shame and it's not fair to the dog. But it is what it is. The dog certainly cannot go back to an owner who is not willing to take necessary meausres to keep her dog safe and others safe from her dog.

Well said. This is basically what I was going to say, but more eloquent.

 

It isn't easy to live with a dog with issues, but it is certainly possible if the owner is willing to do some work. If my dog belonged to my parents, for example, he would have been euth'ed by now (probably after biting a visitor), because my dad is unwilling/unable to manage him. His 'management' of their dog-aggressive dog scares the bejeesus out of me.

 

Instead, they issued Brindi, who rarely ever licks anybody, let alone threatens them, with a permanent muzzle order, requiring strict compliance, even on my own property.

I was curious about this, does she mean that Brindi had to be muzzled in her own home, as well? Did she have to wear a muzzle 24/7 then? From what I understand of our local "dangerous dog" policy, they have to be muzzled whenever they are outside, but not inside the house. I'm just confused as to exactly when she had to keep the dog muzzled. It certainly isn't much of a bother to keep a dog muzzled when they are likely to run into a trigger. I mean, We keep D muzzled on walks, for peace of mind (after having a toddler try to run over to my dog on one of our midnight walks, don't ask me what the kid was doing outside at that time of night).

[juliepoudrier]

I was curious about this, does she mean that Brindi had to be muzzled in her own home, as well? Did she have to wear a muzzle 24/7 then? From what I understand of our local "dangerous dog" policy, they have to be muzzled whenever they are outside, but not inside the house.

I would be willing to bet that your understanding is correct. I'd bet that even if the owner has a fence, the dog would be required to wear a mzzle while out in the yard. I honestly don't think the dog would have to be muzzled indoors because logic dictates that 1. no one would be able to tell if the owner was compliant and 2. the dog is not likely to encounter strange dogs while inside the house. Of course in this case, since the owner apparently can't prevent the dog from bolting out of the house without muzzle and leash, it might make sense to require the muzzle in the house too--that way when the dog escapes, it's already muzzled (I'm not serious about this, obviously, but had the dog been muzzled in the house, the last and potentially fatal--for the dog--incident would not have been as serious).

 

J.

[Lenajo]

Personally, I don't feel that a "nice" dog has more of a "right" to live than a dog with issues.

 

I disagree. I think a dog with a nice temperament deserves a chance first. Call it playing God if you want, but when I walk down the kennel aisle and look at 50+ faces I have to pick one at a time. And the decision of me and others who dog that will likely mean who lives and dies.

 

(our local animal control has a 88% kill rate right now. That's about 1500 animals a month.)

 

There are thousands of dogs that needs home. Many of them are nice, suitable family pets or will be with minimal reasonable training and management.

 

The a *very* limited numbers of available homes and rescue/foster spots.

 

Resources for those that foster and shelter are usually limited.

 

Until this ratio changes, giving rescue and shelter spots and resources to dogs that need months of rehab and retraining means that nice dogs die waiting. Is it fair to punish them while we tilt at windmills called "I *think* I can change him!"?

 

If *you* want a problem dog - go for it! Nobody is stopping you. We will applaud your success. If you fail we will offer you sympathy and still applaud that you tried.

 

Most pet owners don't have the skills to try. Most of them just want a nice pet who doesn't come witha preexisting muzzle order. Who can blame them?

[bsms99]

I think a dog with a nice temperament deserves a chance first...

Agreed. I was told our local shelter also has a kill rate near 90%. If you have 10 dogs and only one of them gets to live, why save the one with aggressive tendencies? The reality is that if you save the dog with issues, you condemn the dog with no issues to death.

 

My pound mutt (the adult) was on his final day. He's a great dog. Would it have made sense to kill him to save a dog with 'issues'?

[MaryP]

Agreed. I was told our local shelter also has a kill rate near 90%. If you have 10 dogs and only one of them gets to live, why save the one with aggressive tendencies? The reality is that if you save the dog with issues, you condemn the dog with no issues to death.

 

But, this isn't even the topic of this discussion and I don't think this was the point that Kristine was trying to make. This isn't a discussion about chosing to save a dog with issues at the expense of another. This dog already has a home and the question is whether or not the dog should go back to his owner or be euthanized for being a danger to other dogs.

 

ETA: I don't think that a dog with issues is by default a "bad" dog. There are several people on this board (myself included) who have dogs with issues, but the difference between us and this owner is that we manage our dogs to avoid problems.

[kibbles]

well, i dont think its fair to the dog. i do think the owner was irresponsible in not having her dog on a leash for one, not building a fence and not following the muzzle order. but hey who am i to judge.

[Laurae]

But, this isn't even the topic of this discussion and I don't think this was the point that Kristine was trying to make. This isn't a discussion about chosing to save a dog with issues at the expense of another. This dog already has a home and the question is whether or not the dog should go back to his owner or be euthanized for being a danger to other dogs.

 

Except that some folks are saying that the dog should be taken from her due to her irresponsibility and rehabbed by someone "experienced" (presumably a rescuer). And definitely no dog is "worth more" than any other dog. But one dog with aggressive tendencies might take up the very limited resources of a rescuer that, in her place, might have been used by four other dogs instead. It may take this experienced rescuer, say, a year to work with and rehab this dog to the point that she can safely be adopted to another home, and in that time four other dogs could have been fostered and placed by that rescuer. So, in my mind, it's not that one dog is less deserving than another dog, but that saving that one dog may be condemning four other dogs. And if the dog in question cannot ever be safely rehomed, and so must stay with the rescuer for the rest of her life, that may be one less foster spot available for all future dogs

[MaryP]

Except that some folks are saying that the dog should be taken from her due to her irresponsibility and rehabbed by someone "experienced" (presumably a rescuer). And definitely no dog is "worth more" than any other dog. But one dog whose aggressive tendencies might take up the very limited resources of a rescuer that, in her place, might have been used by four other dogs instead. It may take this experienced rescuer, say, a year to work with and rehab this dog to the point that she can safely be adopted to another home, and in that time four other dogs could have been fostered and placed with that rescuer. So, in my mind, it's not that one dog is less deserving than another dog, but that saving that one dog may be condemning four other dogs. And if the dog in question cannot ever be safely rehomed, and so must stay with the rescuer for the rest of her life, that may be one less foster spot available for all future dogs

 

Perhaps, theoretically. But, I can't think of too many (any?) rescuers who want to take on dogs with serious issues. If I were choosing between a non-dog aggressive dog and a known dog-aggressive dog to fill a rescue spot, I'm definitely taking the non-dog aggressive dog. In fact, I won't take a truly dog-aggressive or people-aggressive dog. They're a liability and would be next to impossible to place.

[Laurae]

Perhaps, theoretically. But, I can't think of too many (any?) rescuers who want to take on dogs with serious issues. If I were choosing between a non-dog aggressive dog and a known dog-aggressive dog to fill a rescue spot, I'm definitely taking the non-dog aggressive dog. In fact, I won't take a truly dog-aggressive or people-aggressive dog. They're a liability and would be next to impossible to place.

 

Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out where the "worth" comparison was coming from.

[Mollie&Me]

Wow, this is an extremely interesting discussion!

 

While reading this womans blog about freeing Brindi, I formed the opinion that she's a "me, me, me" person. She even makes the following statement during one of her blog posts: "The more some stranger says I can't have Brindi back, the more I am sure I can and will."

 

What I fail to feel from reading her blog is that she is genuinely, unselfishly concerned about the welfare of her dog. Yes, she doesn't want Brindi to be PTS, but she is not willing to put the life of her dog above herself and her own wants. Am I the only one who felt like all she kept saying, over and over, was "I want my dog back, I am not to blame, her getting out was a fluke theresnothingIcould'vedone blahblahblah" instead of "do anything, but just do not kill that dog".

 

Who knows, in the proper environment, Brindi's 'bad' behaviour might never have developed, or could have been addressed appropriately.

 

I do not believe that Brindi should be euthanized; however, I also do not believe that giving this lady another chance in the care and well-being of this dog is best for the dog.

 

But then, that's JMNSHO. I've never met Brindi or her owner, and I don't know the whole story.

[SincereArtisan]

Speaking from the point of view of some one who has had to pry/beat/kick another dog off of one of my own, and multiple times at that, I'm all for having the dog PTS.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every dog aggressive dog out there should be PTS. But, from my experience, every time my dogs have been attacked, it has been due to an owner's inability to control their dog. Once, entering a dog park, I let Rune off leash to greet the other dogs...she ran out, paused, waited for everyone to sniff...and a large RRB came plunging through the mix of dogs greeting her and pinned her on the spot. This was a dog that was also known for jumping up and biting people's ears, a behavior the owner thought was cute. Another time, Ido was fetching a ball to me, she came and dropped it at my feet, and another dog ran up--positioned as though DARING her to do something--and Ido merely grumbled. That was all it took. The dog jumped her, and I wound up having to kick her repeatedly to get her off. While checking my dog over for wounds, the owner's CHILD came over an apologized, explaining that their dog does this a lot. The owner never said a word, just leashed the dog and scurried off, calling to her kid.

 

These are only two situations. I'm fortunate that my dogs have not buckled under the experiences like poor Sage, and since I have been trying to avoid heavily dog populated areas. Whats so frustrating, is I know how GOOD my dogs are. I know exactly how much training and effort and reinforcement it takes to work with your dog, and I know when to accept my dog cannot and will not handle a situation, and so I leave before they're forced to do so. I believe in managing your dog--something SO many people are not willing to do because it will inconvenience them. I do not see how your dog "slips" past your efforts at muzzling/leashing before opening the back door. This is a woman who cannot manage the dog, and as a result, that dog is only going to get worse.

 

I feel for the dog, I really do. I can only imagine the potential in her, as I'm sure she would have made a very good dog for the right person in the right situation. Unfortunately, these people and situations aren't readily available.

[Root Beer]

Agreed. I was told our local shelter also has a kill rate near 90%. If you have 10 dogs and only one of them gets to live, why save the one with aggressive tendencies? The reality is that if you save the dog with issues, you condemn the dog with no issues to death.

 

My pound mutt (the adult) was on his final day. He's a great dog. Would it have made sense to kill him to save a dog with 'issues'?

 

To me it is truly a tragedy that any of them have to die. I don't think that any of them "deserve" to. In the example you cited above, I would say that the dog for whom the most appropriate owner comes to the shelter to adopt the correct dog for him or her is the one that hits the jackpot. But no, I don't think that the dog with issues in your example "deserves" to die more than those with no issues. If the person who comes to the shelter to adopt that day is a person who has successfully rehabbed dogs with "issues" in the past and wants to take on another specifically and the dog with "issues" is the one that he or she chooses, I would not see it as that person "condemning the dogs without issues to death". Those dogs are condemned to death because of a bigger picture reality, not because of one single dog.

 

Many of them must because there are not enough homes for all of them, and for other very valid reasons. It's a reality, but I don't truly feel that any of the dogs "deserve" it.

 

I could turn your example around. I have a dog with "issues". Do you think I should have euthanized him and gone out and gotten a "great dog" on his last day at a shelter who somehow "deserved" to live more? That was rhetorical - I honestly can't see how anyone would really think such a thing.

 

I don't want to turn this personal - I just wanted to try to clarify my point.

 

Back on the topic of Brindi, if, and this is not totally unrealistic due to the publicity of this case, a qualified person who has successfully rehabilitated dogs with issues like Brindi's before, truly found it on his or her heart to adopt Brindi and take on the necessary training, rehab, and management, and Brindi's current owner were willing to surrender the dog, I think it would be a fantastic resolution. I don't feel that nobody should consider such a thing simply because the dog has issues and doesn't "deserve" such a chance if there is one.

 

Let me be clear - training, rehab, and management of a dog with "issues" (aggression, pathalogical fear, etc) is not for everyone and I am in no way saying that it should be. But to those of us who do choose to take on such dogs and put the time, sacrifice, and work into making the world a good place for them - we don't see "nice" dogs as more deserving. "Nice" dogs are more appropriate for the average pet home, but that is not a question of what the dog deserves - it's just common sense.

[juliepoudrier]

I have a dog with issues and one of the reasons I still have him (he was an owner-surrender rescue that I took with the idea of fostering and rehoming) is because I didn't think he'd be easy to place, and if I ever had placed him I always would have worried about him because, frankly, I think it takes a very special sort of person to work with dogs with issues.

 

I don't know why folks who have "dogs with issues" get so caught up in these "which is more worth saving" kinds of discussions. Realistically speaking, if I were a shelter person who was in the position of deciding which dogs would be euthanized at the end of the day, I know that the dogs with issues (namely dog or people aggression) would be at the top of the list. That's just reality. Sure there might be a special someone who will come along for that dog and be the perfect match, but really how many of those folks are out there among the general public? How many more people just want an easy-to-live-with dog? And I think that's what most people mean when they say that a dog with issues shouldn't take the spot of a nice dog when it comes to choosing who lives or dies. Shelter workers make these kinds of decisions daily, and often they have such high numbers to choose that I imagine the choices are sometimes rather arbitrary. But to me, it wouldn't make sense to choose to keep the dog- or people-aggressive dog in the shelter in hopes that the right person will come along and choose instead to kill the dog who is truly nice. That's not a value judgment on people who have dogs with issues (I have one), but it is a reality check. Dogs die in shelters every day--lots of them. Those doing the choosing on any particular day probably try to have some logical criteria to help make the choices easier (choices that are heartrending no matter what), and choosing dogs that have aggression issues doesn't seem like a bad criterion to me.

 

To bring this back on topic, here's a dog who has attacked dogs on two separate occasions and then gotten out on a third and at least harrassed some dogs passing by. As I stated before in this thread, the owner seems to be abrogating her responsibilities here and she really doesn't deserve to take the dog back. I don't think a dog with a pre-existing muzzle order because of dog aggression is the sort of dog who is going to improve in a shelter situation, and I don't realistically see any rescue wanting to take such a dog on because of liability issues. The same would apply to individuals (trainers who might want to try rehabbing the dog). Perhaps if someone of Cesar Milan's ilk stepped forward and wanted to make a project of the dog, then sure, let 'em have at it (but remember the discussion not long ago where someone posted video of a trainer rehabbing a dog-aggressive dog and how many folks still felt that the dog looked stressed--not truly rehabbed--in the after video?). I really think it's a valid objection when folks disagree with suggestions to put the dog in rescue or give it to a responsible trainer for training and rehoming. There are no guarantees once a rehabbed dog leaves the trainer and goes into a new home that the problem won't crop up again. And if the dog attacks another dog after all that, what then? And who's responsible? Despite the fact that I successfully live with a dog with issues, I wouldn't dream of suggesting to anyone else that such dogs are good to take on--they require vigilance, care, dog savvy, and proactive management (and if you ever leave home and need a pet sitter, you have to be sure that the sitter is also willing and capable of dealing with a dog with issues). That sort of thing is fine for some folks, but I'd be willing to wager it's not fine for the majority (remember that as a group, the experienced folks on this forum are probably a lot more dog savvy than your average John Q. Petowner).

 

So put me in the category of a person who has a dog with issues and who does think nice dogs are more deserving in general. Obviously, when I got my dog with issues, I didn't realize he was a dog with issues, and so he got his chance with me, but all things being equal, if he needed a home and a truly nice, well-adjusted dog needed a home, I would never dream of recommending that Farleigh be chosen over the other dog. In fact, I would say the opposite. (And FWIW I am specifically referring to dogs with aggression issues, not dogs who are shy or have odd behaviors that aren't harmful to anyone or other similar sorts of issues.)

 

That's my 2 cents and then some.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

So put me in the category of a person who has a dog with issues and who does think nice dogs are more deserving in general

 

Ditto.

[bsms99]

...I don't think that any of them "deserve" to...

I could turn your example around. I have a dog with "issues". Do you think I should have euthanized him and gone out and gotten a "great dog" on his last day at a shelter who somehow "deserved" to live more? That was rhetorical...

I don't want to turn this personal - I just wanted to try to clarify my point...

I didn't use the word "deserve". I made the point that dogs die daily, and choosing to adopt one means, effectively, that the others die. "Deserve" suggests it is a good thing to kill dogs in a pound. In rare cases that is true. A dog who kills a person probably 'deserves' to die. The rest die for lack of a home.

 

As for getting a dog with issues vs one without - those who do so are responsible for those 'issues'. If someone rescues a dog with 'issues', and that dog later has 'issues' with my dog or kid, then I'm going to have an 'issue' with that owner!

 

I used to go jogging with Chris the Dog (79-94). He was a big, tough BC/GSD/something mix. We were attacked by other dogs multiple times, and on several occasions with the encouragement of the other dog's owner. That included as many as 5 dogs at once attacking a dog on a leash. Long before Chris died, I had had it up to the eyeballs with irresponsible people owning dogs with 'issues'. And as a long time dog lover, I'd say about 90% of dog owners...well, need help.

 

About 3 years ago, I was walking with my wife, daughter and Dan the pound mutt on a leash through our subdivision when a 180 lb Rottweiler came 300 yards over and started stalking us. He was looking at Dan like he was a beefsteak and a very low growl was coming from his chest. I retreated while facing him. The Rot followed, acting more tense. Happily, some of the homes were still under construction, and I found a large metal bar. Dan & I stopped, and my plan was to let Dan take the brunt of the attack, then try to kill the Rot with blows to the head. At that point, a woman came running, calling for her dog. When she got close enough, he paid attention. She apologized and told me how gentle he was. I told her I would start carrying my .45 and kill him if there was a repeat. That week, she hired a contractor to build a wall. BTW - the Rot WAS gentle with people. He just didn't like other dogs...

 

I shouldn't have to carry sticks, guns, or whatever to walk my dog on a leash. Frankly, I'm not too interested in how loving a dog is at home, or how abused he was in the past and why he therefor has issues. DISCLAIMER - almost all dogs have some issues to some degree. A dog who is willing to protect his people from other dogs is, IMHO, a normal dog. A dog who reacts to a strange dog jumping in his face is not reactive. He's normal. However, a dog with a history of seeking out other dogs to attack should be put down. I shouldn't have to deal with someone's 'rescue' of a dog with significant 'issues'. Been there, done that, and am tired of it!

 

Per the original topic of this thread: I originally said there wasn't enough info. I now agree with the other folks who say this woman, by her own admissions, has shown she isn't up to keeping this dog.

 

BTW: Chris the much-missed dog...hard to tell his mom was a purebred Border Collie. But she got out while in heat, and in the words of her owner, "She wasn't too particular!"

 

[Dixie_Girl]

In all honesty, if I had known Holly would bite people, I would not have brought her home. AND the shelter knew she did, but failed to mention it, they were just glad to be rid of her. So, now I have a dog that cannot be adopted to anyone, still has aggresive tendensies, still bites me on occasion, and is getting progresively more aggresive with my other dogs. At first it was just Cheyenne, now it's the boys too. She just ain't right. She has many issues and problems. She's on thyroid meds which helped alot, helped, not stopped. After all this time, she still does not know how to live in a family. My dogs cringe and leave when she comes around. Which is anytime I interact with any of the dogs. Example, if I am petting Jackson, Cheyenne and Skip remain where they are. And same with Cheyenne or Skip. BUT, not so Holly. If I am petting any of the dogs, she will butt in and if I make the dog I am petting stay, she bites them. This gets her time in her pen. But, doesn't stop it from happening the next time. She just can't help her self. The other dogs just leave now and I don't make them stay. And Jackson, who would rather crawl in a deep, dark hole than confront aggression, always waits till he hears Holly go outside before he even attempts to come to me for petting. If we play in the house, she barks and bites at the other dogs chasing the toy. She doesn't cause physical injury, but what mental injury? When we go on vacation, I always board her, and when we come back, I leave her an extra day, so the other dogs can enjoy us without her, and there is such a difference in them! Is this mean? Does she *deserve* to be PTS? I don't know. But, she does have her moments when she is just so damn sweet! Look at how many times serial killers, once caught, will have people saying, but he was the nicest man. I can't believe he would do that. Well, he still should be punished. Every child deserves to grow up happy and mentally well. So does every puppy. But sometimes, internal or external things happen that gets in the way of that. Do you say, well, it's not the dogs fault, so don't put the aggresive dog to sleep? It's not the serial crimanals fault so lets just let him go? There will always be people who believe that people and dogs deserve to live, no matter what, that there is always a place or a way to keep them in this world. And that's fine. We need those kind of people. Makes the rest of us think a little, instead of having knee jerk reactions to everything. Stops the pitchfork and torch carrying people from jumping the gun. But in the grand scheme of things, everyone can't be saved, and every dog can't be saved.

[juliepoudrier]

I could turn your example around. I have a dog with "issues". Do you think I should have euthanized him and gone out and gotten a "great dog" on his last day at a shelter who somehow "deserved" to live more? That was rhetorical - I honestly can't see how anyone would really think such a thing.

 

I don't want to turn this personal - I just wanted to try to clarify my point.

Well, you said it was rhetorical, but I'm going to give you an answer anyway. No, I don't think you should have turned around and euthanized your dog once you discovered it had issues--with a big caveat: If those issues were serious dog or people aggression and that was something that you were incapable of or unwilling to deal with, then I don't think it would have been wrong to decide to euthanize the dog. Making such a decision would not have automatically made you some sort of monster--more likely it would have meant that you carefully considered your choices, your quality of life, and the dog's quality of life and determined that the best solution was euthanasia. As I've said on this forum before there indeed fates worse than death, and so I don't consider euthanasia a cop out or some sort of big moral problem, if it means minimizing the risk to the dog (aggressive dogs not managed correctly often don't have the best lives) and to the objects of the dog's aggression. Again I will clarify that I don't consider all "issues" equal, but aggression issues are not something to be taken lightly. I personally don't consider euthanasia out of the question in such cases.

 

Having said all that, one of the issues my dog has is fear biting. He has threatened my neighbor when she came over to let my dogs out for me--standing on the porch and growling at her and refusing to come to her or let her near him. It was a scary experience for her. And it's not the first time he's done that to someone, though it has happened rarel. I decided long ago (he's 10 now and I got him at 18 months) that I could and would deal with him. But if something were to happen to make it impossible for *me* to continue to keep him (say, my untimely death or incapacitation), I wouldn't hesitate to have him euthanized before just letting him be adopted out to someone. You may think less of me for that decision, but I feel he would be better off dead than passed into the hands of people who may not understand him, may not want to deal with him, may in fact abuse him becuse he's difficult to deal with, or may just dump him. Those are the sorts of fates that I think are worse than death. You (the general you) can judge me on that, but those judgments) wouldn't likely change my mind. Because you see, not only do I think there are dogs who are more deserving (in the sense that they have a better chance of making it in a world where people think of dogs as accessories and not as something that requires care and management), but also because I think *he doesn't deserve* the kind of fate he could end up with in the hands of someone less understanding and committed to his wellbeing than I am.

 

J.

[Shetlander]

I think it can be hard to hear people describe dogs similar to yours as less deserving to be saved. My all time favorite dog was very fearful (not aggressive) from birth and I will always have a soft spot for shy dogs. Some day I might find myself drawn to another shy dog but I wouldn’t go looking for the problem. As much as I loved my dog and continue to miss him, I understand someone saying an extremely shy dog should be passed over for a well-adjusted, resilient dog. I did have a problem when people for some reason felt fine telling me my shy guy was trash or psycho and I shouldn't waste my time with him. That was a personal comment directed at a dog I loved, not a comment about which dogs to save in a shelter or rescue situation.

 

However, a dog with a history of seeking out other dogs to attack should be put down. I shouldn't have to deal with someone's 'rescue' of a dog with significant 'issues'. Been there, done that, and am tired of it!

 

I've also had an animal aggressive dog and the experience was so bad, that I would never take another on. I don't have the nerves for it and I don't want the liability. If someone else wants to take such a dog on and can effectively train and consistently manage the dog, that is obviously their choice as long as the dog is not a threat to other animals or people.

[Root Beer]

Well, you said it was rhetorical, but I'm going to give you an answer anyway. No, I don't think you should have turned around and euthanized your dog once you discovered it had issues--with a big caveat: If those issues were seriouis dog or people aggression and that was something that you were incapable of or unwilling to deal with, then I don't think it would have been wrong to decide to euthanize the dog.

 

And I agree with this. In the case that you describe, the decision to euthanize the dog is not made based on whether or not the dog "deserves" to live, nor the fact that there are "nicer" dogs in shelthers that will die, but on what is best for all concerned in the situation at hand.

 

If anyone thinks I am saying that aggressive dogs should never be euthanized, then I have not been clear and I apologize for that. There are times when that is simply the prudent thing to do, whether the dog is in a shelter or a beloved family pet.

 

Making such a decision would not have automatically made you some sort of monster--more likely it would have meant that you carefully considered your choices, your quality of life, and the dog's quality of life and determined that the best solution was euthanasia. As I've said on this forum before there indeed fates worse than death, and so I don't consider euthanasia a cop out or some sort of big moral problem, if it means minimizing the risk to the dog (aggressive dogs not managed correctly often don't have the best lives) and to the objects of the dog's aggression. Again I will clarify that I don't consider all "issues" equal, but aggression issues are not something to be taken lightly. I personally don't consider euthanasia out of the question in such cases.

 

And we agree here, as well.

 

I would still say cases where it truly is the best decision to put an aggressive dog down that the dog does not "deserve" to die. But, the decision is made in the best interest of all concerned and is the correct one. I don't take aggression lightly, either, and I don't consider euthanasia out of the question in these cases, but not simply because there happen to be "nicer" dogs in the world who need homes.

 

I hope that makes sense. I can see how my statement that aggressive dogs don't "deserve" to die so "nice" dogs can live might sound like I'm saying that aggressive dogs should not be euthanized and that anyone who would do so is a monster, but nothing is further from the truth. There times when it absolutely must be done for the well being and safety of all concerned.

[Shetlander]

After all this time, she still does not know how to live in a family. My dogs cringe and leave when she comes around. Which is anytime I interact with any of the dogs.

 

Gee, Linda, that is a rough situation to find yourself in. Is there any way to keep Holly separated at least some of the time from your other dogs so they can enjoy relaxed, normal interactions with you in their own home? It doesn't seem right that she is affecting their quality of life (and yours) to such an extent. Sometimes, having dogs can bring real burdens.

 

Sorry for the tangent.

[Lenajo]

I think some of you guys are blurring the line between what is appropriate for *owned* pets and shelter/rescue dogs (and a dog in Animal Control in this instance is the latter).

 

If you want to own a Cujo and can keep everyone and everybody safe, and the dog happy, then go for it with our blessing.

 

If you can't manage him, don't expect everybody to jump to take your place, or the laws/ac ordinences to be waived. There are too many dogs without issues we could take instead, and the public and their pets deserve to be safe.

 

I really could title this Board Tangent #2 - that is this belief that because a proven dangerous dog is not defended and "saved" by the views of a poster, that same poster wants owned dogs with issues to be put down, or that no one should adopt a well planned "problem" dog.

 

le sigh....

 

#1 is when the pet person goes ballistic because "breeding quality" is viewed as a way to negatively view his/her *pet* dog.

[juliepoudrier]

What I think is that folks are getting caught in semantics, which often happens on this forum. Maybe if we just turned it around and said nice dogs deserve a chance to live, and if that means that not-so-nice dogs have to be killed so those nice dogs have longer to live, well, then it's maybe less offensive? It's true that most dogs don't *deserve to die," but perhaps some dogs do deserve a better chance to live than others?

 

J.

[Lenajo]

I think there is a term for that.....I can't think of a politically correct version to post it

 

 

 

What I think is that folks are getting caught in semantics, which often happens on this forum. Maybe if we just turned it around and said nice dogs deserve a chance to live, and if that means that not-so-nice dogs have to be killed so those nice dogs have longer to live, well, then it's maybe less offensive? It's true that most dogs don't *deserve to die," but perhaps some dogs do deserve a better chance to live than others?

 

J.