It’s not just “buyer beware” anymore…adopters must also be savvy “shoppers”!
As a former Humane Society President and Regional director for two different purebred dog rescues as well as an animal shelter volunteer at both municipal and private animal shelters, I am very familiar with what has gone on behind the scenes in the animal welfare world, from around 1990 onward. As a dog show fancier, former dog show handler of AKC and UKC champion dogs, I also know the world of purebred dog breeding very well. Most people “in dogs” have a limited viewpoint because they have only participated on one side of the fence; however since I have participated in both animal welfare/rescue work as well as being a professional trainer, groomer, dog show exhibitor and boarding kennel owner, I feel I have a rather unique take on the world of adopting dogs. I have fostered dogs for adoption, I have evaluated dogs for adoption, I have trained, groomed and boarded hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs through the years. So yes, I see things from all sides of the fence.
And there is indeed a dividing line, a “fence”; there always has been. It used to be the responsible breeders against the irresponsible ones, as in the people who bred purebred dogs simply for profit, such as puppy mill breeders who didn’t care about the welfare of the animals, were always being “outed” by responsible breeders or animal rights groups. By responsible breeders, I refer to those who breed very carefully — female dogs having only one to four litters in their lifetimes, breedings are well thought out, the sire and the dam of the litter both have health clearances as recommended by the national parent club of that breed, etc. When an ethical breeder sells a puppy, the buyer is screened very carefully, because the breeder’s goal is a forever home for each puppy. Breeders carefully match potential homes to available puppies and they are not afraid to decline an application if they feel that the potential dog owner would not be a good fit for one of their dogs.
In addition, most puppies sold by ethical breeders go with a spay/neuter clause with a contract which also states if the buyer can no longer provide for the dog for any reason, at any time in its lifetime, it is to be returned to the breeder.
The most common complaint about responsible breeders is that they can come across as “snobby” simply because they are so careful to match pups or retired show or breeding dogs with just the right homes. Less responsible “breeders”, found often on the internet now, are willing to sell a puppy to anyone who has a credit card or cash, without any screening necessary. Irresponsible breeders can range all the way from the backyard breeder who bred his Lab to his poodle just for some extra money, without any health testing to rule out genetic defects, all the way to the puppy mill breeder who has hundreds of litters living in filth in tiny cages!
Those lines are rarely blurred, fairly black and white. But we do have an unusual situation going on now on “the other side of the fence”, the side which the public calls “rescue and adoption”. Lines are definitely blurring over the past decade, as one can no longer assume that an adoption agency or “rescue” is reputable. Even the word “rescue” is a bit of a misnomer since many dogs being offered for adoption were never in danger, unless they came from a cruelty case where a cruelty investigator had to go in and seize the dogs and charge the owner, which is truly rescuing the dogs from a bad situation. If someone buys a Maltese puppy at a pet shop, cannot housetrain it, gets frustrated and gives it up to a local rescue group, who then only has to neuter it before putting it up for adoption for $650, that dog is more akin to a dog for sale than a rescue dog. If an animal shelter has a small, cute dog that a rescue group wishes to pull for their own group, this dog was most likely never in danger, since it would have been adopted at the shelter, so it wasn’t truly “rescued” either. But for the purpose of this article, we will call adoption groups “rescues” and animal shelters (whether municipal facilities or private adoption centers) “shelters”.
The main difference in an animal shelter versus a private adoption center used to be that the animal shelter was run by a local government as an “open admission” shelter. This meant that strays, cruelty cases, and owner surrenders were all welcomed and were sheltered until they could be reclaimed by their owners (in the case of strays) or if adoptable then they were “sheltered” until such time as an appropriate home was approved for them. The good news was, no dog or cat was turned away. Sadly, the care at these shelters, as well as private adoption facilities and foster homes run by rescue groups, has always varied greatly. But when I was heavily involved in animal volunteer work in the nineties, the one thing that was constant across the board was that aggressive animals were humanely euthanized. Period. Private organizations, as well as government-run shelters, didn’t want to take on the liability of adopting an aggressive animal. Even more importantly, they did not want to put the public at risk. In fact, during the ten plus years I lived in Virginia, 2005-2016, the closest animal shelter and animal control office fell under the umbrella of the Public Safety Director for that county, because a good portion of what animal shelters and animal control departments do involves public safety.
Were things perfect during my years of volunteer work, from 1990 to around 2011? No! Some public and private shelters hired people who had no compassion, some shelters were dirty and poorly run, and I joined hands with others who fought hard in North Carolina and Virginia for humane euthanasia practices until they were finally implemented. Concerned citizens finally realized we had to get the media to cover some of those issues in order to get local lawmakers to get off their behinds and make sure they hired responsible people to run their shelters, and provide enough tax dollars to have the money to provide proper care for the animals. I am happy to say that we saw many amazing changes–the elimination of the gas chamber, more shelters working with rescue groups and more allowing volunteers in to help facilitate more adoptions.
But then something strange happened. Just as we made progress on cleaner shelters, humane euthanasia for animals who were unadoptable due to health or poor temperament — and sadly sometimes due to overcrowding (in many areas there will always be more homeless animals than there are responsible pet owners able to adopt them) — suddenly something called the “No Kill Movement” came on the scene. The author of this movement, Nathan Winograd, had some good ideas on how to get animals adopted and how to get more people to volunteer at shelters, so at first it seemed the movement was positive. Until, that is, we began to find out what “No Kill” truly meant to 90% or so of animal advocates involved in “rescue.”
What does No Kill mean? How does it affect the general public, both pet owners and non pet owners?
The definition of “no-kill” now seems to mean a goal of zero animals being humanely put down at any public or private animal shelter or adoption center or rescue organization. Euthanasia is no longer an acceptable option, and consequently, the lives of animals are held in more value than the safety of the public. In certain states, such even municipal shelters are forced to have low euthanasia rates and they are also not allowed to “discriminate” based on the breed of dog. Even common sense lets us know that a small house trained dog has more adoption options than an untrained, unruly or even aggressive large dog such an American Pit Bull Terrier. Thus many shelters, in order to keep euthanasia rates low to please the public, are no longer “open-admission” shelters. Even government-run shelters who have traditionally accepted any animal in need, now have the option of turning animals away! This results in more animals being dumped on country roads or killed inhumanely by their owners (in most states, it is legal to kill your own animal with a firearm, and pet owners who do not know how to do this efficiently can cause unnecessary suffering.)
Again, common sense, even if we didn’t have research on what dogs are more likely to bite, common sense dictates that certain types of dogs are safer family pets than others. But the animal rights people who convinced local and state governments to make all shelters no-kill are not ruled by common sense! For example, if a dog is dropped off at a county-owned animal shelter by its owner, who states that they are giving it up because it bit a family members in the face, no-kill advocates demand that the fifty pound Pit Bull who is a ball of muscle and was turned in because he put Grandma in the hospital, be treated the same as the four pound Chihuahua who nipped a child’s ankle. Breed type, even circumstances (some bully breed dogs have climbed trees in their efforts to attack their victims, sometimes little dogs are terrorized in to snapping at a child) are not considered relevant. They have deluded themselves into thinking that all dogs are the same, no matter the behavior they exhibit. No Kill advocates believe and expect shelters to “rehab” such animals and adopt them to new homes. Period, no questions asked. After a few weeks or months in a foster home or with a trainer, the dog is adopted, even if it has been previously adopted and returned. Dogs are often passed from a rescue group to rescue group, across state lines–and the dog’s behavioral history typically does not follow it (after all, who would adopt Macho Man who has taken a chunk out of a child’s face? Change his name to “Carson” and have a professional photographer take a gorgeous photo of him, and another group is much more likely to accept him.)
Health issues are also no longer considered a reason for immediate euthanasia. If a dog is fifteen years old and incontinent due to kidney failure, no-kill advocates don’t want it put to sleep. They expect it to be adopted, fostered by a kind soul who takes in Hospice dogs or be warehoused in a tiny cage in an overcrowded facility or a hoarder type foster situation until it dies of its own suffering, which happens all the time. If a group has a compassionate foster home who can care for one or two “hospice” pets at a time, this is different and of course to be supported. But sadly, these foster homes are rare indeed.
Is every animal rescue group run this way? No, but the groups and even the animal shelters that are still run responsibly (putting down aggressive animals or pets too old or ill to be adopted) are not just criticized, they are demonized. Often shelter directors receive death threats and harassment even at home, because they refused to follow the unrealistic agenda laid out by the animal advocates who have adopted No Kill philosophies. More and more we are seeing even municipal shelters stop their open admission policies as they try to control euthanasia numbers by taking in less pets. And this affects public safety as well as the safety of the unwanted animals, as owners simply dump them out on country roads, or if in the city, they actually are putting unwanted puppies and kittens in garbage bags and throwing them into dumpsters. There has always been a certain amount of this but now in certain states, animal shelters are becoming legally bound not to euthanize when they become overcrowded. Pets are no longer afforded euthanasia — which means “kind death” — if they run out of options, but instead, there is more suffering, as well as more large dogs and unwanted cats roaming our streets, especially in low-income neighborhoods. In many areas, parents are afraid to let their children play outside and dog owners are afraid to walk their dogs in their own neighborhoods, because “bully breeds” are in the majority of unwanted dogs that end up as strays, often causing harm before animal control can pick them up.
Sadly, this affects homeless animals negatively, not just people. Not only in ways mentioned above, but as mentioned earlier, many end up in foster home situations that are actually animal hoarding situations, where mentally unstable, even though often well-meaning, foster home volunteers house way too many dogs and cats than they can possibly care for properly. There are numerous incidents every year where “foster homes” end up being charged with cruelty and neglect. These things should never have happened, and wouldn’t have happened if those people didn’t hold on to a myth that any kind of life, no matter the suffering involved, us better than humane euthanasia at an animal shelter. This is not rumor, nor a rare occurrence. I have personally sat through meetings where board members of all breed and mixed breed rescue group have argued that “any life is better than no life at all”. I attended their Board of Directors meetings to express my concerns about animals living in filth or being allowed to run loose and get pregnant or hit by cars, or harm people and other animals. I have also heard accounts of horrendous conditions from animal cruelty investigators who were investigating a private adoption group’s foster homes when neighbors lodged complaints with the county. Foster homes are unregulated and in some states, even private adoption centers are not subjected to annual inspections like municipal shelters. If you feel I am exaggerating, talk to a reputable humane society cruelty investigator about the hoarding situations she has investigated in the south–definitely these cases are no longer just the mentally ill elderly “cat ladies” who have taken in hundreds of strays, now they also include younger individuals who are fostering animals for more than one rescue group. In one situation I knew about personally, the cruelty investigator went out and found over one hundred sick kittens, without medical care, crated at one “foster home” but animal control refused to seize the animals because they were being “fostered” by a local animal organization.
How does this affect you, the potential adopter?
Most adopters now start their search on websites like Petfinder.com or they look at the websites of animal groups in their area. Entire seminars are given to adoption groups about how to be manipulative in descriptions of dogs they wish to adopt. Pit Bulls are to be listed as Labrador or Boxer mixes, never as Pits or Pit mixes, since that might keep someone from considering adopting them. Dogs who are aggressive to other animals are to be marketed as “Petey longs to be an only child, because he doesn’t like sharing attention with others.”
The dog with an actual history of biting often has comments in his or her description such as “Needs home without children because he is a bit too rough with them” or “would do best with dog savvy owner willing to continue his training since he was obviously abused in his past life, so it takes Bradley some time to warm up and accept people he doesn’t know. But approach him carefully and he will learn to trust you, and once he trusts you, he will be your friend for life.” Translation: Move too quickly and this dog will definitely bite you! Animal group volunteers attend seminars on how to market problematic pets. Adopters need to be aware and educate themselves. A good resource to read is VETz Insight’s article of February 17, 2016 “Adopting Out Aggressive Dogs” by Teri Ann Oursler, DVM. Another excellent resource is the book, My Dog Doesn’t Bite, by Mark Mathusa, DVM.
What’s so bad about these “little white lies”? An unethical policy which misrepresents the dogs offered for adoption can result in a tragedy. Dogs who should never have been offered for adoption may appear friendly during the first week, the “honeymoon period”, yet within days of adoption, when their new owner is taking their newly adopted bully breed for a walk on a harness (which offers very little control if the dog lunges towards a person or animal), a neighbor’s beloved pet may lose their life. They may attack small dogs being walked on the same sidewalk — and they are so intense and such efficient predators that no one can break up the attack in time to save the innocent dog. Or the newly rehomed dog maims a visiting neighbor child for life, causing them to have to endure multiple surgeries and endure disfigurements which change the child’s life drastically, not to mention the anguish it causes a parent. In worse case scenarios, a human being loses their life. It is June of 2019, and by the end of May this year, three adopted dogs had already attacked and killed people. An animal shelter volunteer was attacked and killed by a Pit Bull she was exercising at a shelter. There is no way to know how many people have been hospitalized from non-fatal wounds caused by dogs adopted from No Kill shelters and rescue groups.
In 1995, the height of my own involvement in the world of “rescue”, this type of thing had never been heard of in the United States. I was the director of a statewide Siberian Husky Rescue and a Regional East coast director of an Australian Shepherd Rescue group. As a professional dog trainer, I personally evaluated the dogs, but we had a small committee of people who made the final decision when a dog had to be euthanized. We never accepted dogs with known histories of aggression but sometimes one made it in to the program, and after the decision was made, I was the one who made the very sad trip to the veterinarian with the dog to have it put down. I shed many tears but I had zero regrets because I knew it was the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do would have been to lie about the dog’s temperament, adopt it to an unsuspecting individual or family and risk their safety. I couldn’t imagine doing such a thing! I would have felt that I personally murdered a toddler if one had been killed by a dog that I knew was likely to be dangerous yet I allowed the organization I was affiliated with to offer it for adoption.
Lest you think I am an alarmist, please take the time to read about these incidents that have happened in the last year:
Las Vegas Man Finds Wife Dead After She Was attacked by Dog they adopted days earlier.
Recently adopted dog kills owner in Columbia, Maryland
Susan Sweeney, 58, was killed by a mastiff-mix she adopted three days earlier
Pair of Adopted Male Pit Bulls Mauled to Death a 62-Year Old Man in Henderson, Nevada
Rescue Dogs Kill Toddler, Leave Grandmother with Traumatic Injuries in Alachua County, Florida
Mother Shares Story After Rescue ‘Lab-Mix’ Bites Son in the Face During Visitation with His Father
Adopted Dog Kills Baby Girl While in Foster Care in Clearwater, Florida
6-Year Old Boy Killed by Rescued Pit Bull in Blair County, Pennsylvania
New Family Pit Bull Kills 3-Year Old Girl in Duncan, Oklahoma
If you have read this far, then it is my hope that you are someone who wants to adopt only dogs and cats who can be safe companions who will bring a lifetime of joy,
I strongly suggest that you do your homework before you decide, the same way you would do some research before handing over thousands of dollars to purchase a purebred dog. It doesn’t matter if you adopt on “no charge adoption weekend” or you adopt a purebred with a larger sized adoption fee from a purebred rescue group. Don’t settle, and don’t even donate to groups who are manipulative and misleading in their marketing of animals.
Many people who read this article may cry “nonsense” despite me providing links to articles showing specific cases of recently adopted dogs, or dogs in animal shelters killing people. I would suggest that these people read this article published by animal behavior specialists at Cornell University, including their long time director of the Small Animal Behavior Clinic, Dr. Katherine Houpt. This article cites studies that prove that even dogs who have passed extensive temperament testing by shelter employees, volunteers or professional trainers, are still likely to have certain dangerous aggressive behaviors that did not show up during testing.
I love all animals, but especially I love dogs. I hope we can work together to bring back balance to the world of animal sheltering and adoption, and alleviate the suffering that the No Kill Movement has brought to both animals and people. I am certainly not suggesting that kind-hearted people stop adopting dogs! Two of my four canine friends were adopted and two were purchased from responsible breeders. But I am suggesting that groups who embrace the No Kill philosophy and who refuse to acknowledge breed differences (but instead insist that it is “all in how you raise them” or that “any dog and be trained and rehabilitated”) are dangerous to society, and are making decisions that are causing both adults and children to lose their lives! Even one more tragedy is one too many, especially when these tragedies are preventable!
Note: The links provided about the fatal and serious attacks in the past year are via the DogsBite non-profit organization’s website. For shorter summaries of recent attacks, visit www.deadlydogattacks.com.