No Kill Rescue Groups and Adoption Centers… Have they become a danger to the public?
Is Danger Lurking where least expected?
During the 1990s, when I was spending a lot of time doing volunteer work, the term “no kill” was not being applied to any pet adoption facility or rescue organization. In fact, purebred dog rescues, in particular, prided themselves on being able to make hard decisions when necessary. So the public knew that if they adopted a dog from a breed rescue, they were adopting a dog who had been carefully screened.
We shed a lot of tears, but when we accidentally took in a dog who showed any signs of aggression towards a human being, we would have that dog humanely euthanized instead of trying to find it a home. In addition, we occasionally put down a dog when it was deemed not adoptable for other reasons. Occasionally a dog had a serious health condition and the rescue group did not have the thousands of dollars needed to keep the dog comfortable or a volunteer who had the type of time and expertise to provide the necessary care. In such cases, just as with dogs who were not deemed safe to adopt due to aggressive behaviors, our board of directors felt the best thing to do was to give the dog a gentle death back into the arms of his or her creator rather than housing the dog long term and using our group’s resources to try to work through an unsolvable problem. Other times tough decisions had to be made when dogs were extremely aggressive to other pets, even if “mostly” people-friendly –we knew if the dog was likely to kill other pets, then a child could be seriously injured trying to save a pet from a high drive, animal aggressive dog.
Then along came Nathan Winograd. When I read his first book and talked to someone who had heard him speak at a conference, my first thought was “wow”. He had supposedly achieved things we had thought impossible simply by thinking outside of the box. He made some good points, such as there are shelter directors who have simply accepted killing because it is definitely easier for them to put down animals than to work on increasing adoptions. He helped people realize that it is possible to develop a network of foster homes, thus allowing even a small shelter to save more animals. He made us think about the fact that one area may have few available adopters, while another area might actually have a “shortage” of adoptable animals… so transport between reputable groups might be a great way to save more lives. The key word here is “reputable” groups.
But here’s the downside. Group after group adopted Mr. Winograd’s philosophies, then things began to get out of balance. Suddenly it became like a religion, and a spirit of self-righteousness seemed to creep in. Previously what was considered “a responsible decision” (putting an animal down that was likely to do harm) became some great injustice. Anyone who was still willing to make that decision, when necessary, became the enemy. People who had devoted their lives and drained their savings accounts for many years to save animals, suddenly were being treated very disrespectfully because they refused to believe a lie.
What lie? The lie that every unwanted domestic animal can be, or should be, re-homed. This is just as ridiculous as the other extreme–believing that every homeless animal should be put down.
Today I just want to encourage you to THINK. Do you now trust the majority of animal rescue groups to tell you the truth about dogs they are offering for adoption, or do you personally know about dogs being adopted out who have serious behavioral or health problems? If you happen to be involved in animal volunteer work have you had the experience of being asked to take a dog into your group, and then after taking it in, have you found out that the dog has a previous history of biting someone — and now your “no kill” group is stuck with a dog that is very difficult to manage? Have you thought about the fact that the slot that this dog will take up for the next ten or fifteen years could be used to foster and re-home dozens of dogs that ARE adoptable? Considering all the animals that would only have to stay in foster care for a month or two before being adopted out, have you thought about how many of those other animals could come and go in that spot instead – that spot that the difficult animal is occupying? What do you do with the foster home that is forced to become the “forever home”? Or have you pondered what if you take a gamble and adopt out the difficult animal? Since it is likely that it WILL bite someone, have you wondered if you might have some legal liability despite clauses in your adoption contract that says you do not? Any good attorney will tell you that you cannot contract away your liability. Do something negligent and you are legally liable. Period.
Have you ever had to make the decision to put down a dog that has bitten someone, or attempts to bite even weeks after being in a kind environment, and then been heavily criticized for your decision? I have, and so have many of my friends who were doing their best to remain ethical. Have you found that some volunteers, even leaders of animal organizations, now believe that life, in ANY form, is better than euthanasia? Have you come across rescue groups that are allowing people to foster animals in dirt-bottomed runs with insecure fencing and know of dogs that are getting out and getting killed on the highways because they were in irresponsible foster homes? Have you seen a so-called “director” of an animal rescue group, who fosters bully breeds that no one else in their group can handle, pull up at the veterinarian’s office with two badly injured dogs in the back of a pick-up truck, hanging on to life by a thread because she housed dogs together that never should have been housed together? I have seen this very thing. The “any chance at life is better than being put down” (something I heard this “director of rescue and foster homes” say at board meetings before I gave up and abandoned that organization) can actually cause unnecessary suffering, even to animals.
I have seen every one of the things mentioned above, all in the decade that I lived in southern Virginia. I have also been called in to “evaluate” dogs that had been adopted out and came back with a bite history. The last time, I drove an hour and found out from one of the employees at the adoption center that the dog I was “evaluating” had already bitten several of their employees as well as one adopter. Of course I was not told any of this when asked to come up and donate my time for the evaluation. I told the director not to call me about evaluating any dogs like this in the future. First of all, I am a dog trainer and dogs can sense this. Savvy dogs often will not exhibit the same behavior to me that they might otherwise show to a novice dog owner or a child. If you know the dog has already bitten people then you know the dog has a problem, so there is no need for me to come evaluate it. This is what I told their veterinarian director during the last evaluation I did for them. Although I could not push that particular dog to bite, I felt that from what the employees told me of its history, it was likely to bite again. I recommended euthanasia.
The director ignored my advice, and the following week she sent it out with an adopter for a trial period. It came back within 48 hours. For what? Biting someone! Finally the dog was put down, but not until they had housed it several weeks, several employees had been bitten, and other employees had bonded with the dog and were emotionally attached to it. Would it not have been easier on everyone, including the dog, if he had been put down the first week that he came in, when he first decided to use his teeth to make a point? The dog was an owner surrender that this group took in DESPITE the fact that the owner turned him in for “snapping at children!” And that after he had bitten an employee, they called the former owner and found out he had actually bitten their child in the face, not just snapped. To me, there is nothing to ponder here. A dog was surrendered for biting a child in the face, then the dog proved that it wasn’t an isolated incident when he started biting volunteers and employees. Why in the world was a trainer/behaviorist even called in for an evaluation?
Do I believe dogs can be rehabilitated? Sure, some dogs have problems that can be corrected, or at the very least improved, if they are put into the proper environment with a savvy trainer. Solving behavioral problems is more likely to be successful if the dog is with someone who has owned and loved that dog his entire life, than it is for the dog that has been passed around and is now in rescue (which may mean it has undergone the stress of a shelter situation, then various foster homes). It is also more likely to be successful with certain breeds of dogs than others, and more likely to be successful if the behavior has just started, versus dogs that have been “practicing” aggressive behaviors their entire lives and are now four or five years old. We are being unrealistic if we think we can “fix” every dog if we just give it enough love and proper training. It is simply not true.
Photo used with permission, Teresa Powell, all rights reserved.
If the dog has bitten someone and BROKEN SKIN then that dog does not have proper “bite inhibition”. All dogs are going to, from time to time during their life, use their mouth to make a point. If they have good bite inhibition and the breed doesn’t have hard-wired genetic tendencies which make them “enjoy the fight”, then it is likely that no one is going to get hurt while working with a dog who is just warning us. I have a dog that has been known to “grab” me for brushing out tangles. But he has never left a tooth mark nor does he react negatively if he needs to be corrected for any reason, so he is not a biter. He is simply a dog that doesn’t like having tangles brushed out, and fortunately he is a dog that, due to proper early socialization and being adopted by a dog trainer as soon as he came to the shelter at the age of one year, can handle correction.
Correction? Yep. That’s another subject, another article. One reason we have so many biting dogs is because now it is considered more politically correct to redirect a dog with a cookie instead of correcting it when it does something inappropriate. Trying to bite me is inappropriate. Anyone that tries it at my house is going to learn what the words “fear of God” mean, because I am going to make it very clear that you better think twice before you try biting to communicate with me. I am not going to run to the cookie jar. Been there, done that, years ago when the “all positives” movement first began and I was trying to follow along. I lost several dogs that could have been saved if I had kept using common sense dog training instead of falling victim to the craziness generated by the all positives dog training movement. Bully breed owner and rescue volunteer Teresa Powell states that “neither all positive trainers or a canine behaviorist who used correction made a difference when I was trying to solve aggressive behaviors with my adopted Pit Bull Merry. In addition to training, I did rotations for five years. I would still be doing that if she had not chased my granddaughter in prey drive. not in play, and stood over her in an aggressive posture.” Teresa was heavily criticized when she went through the severe heartbreak of choosing to have her beloved dog euthanized, instead of risking severe harm to her grandchildren. She is an experienced owner of bully breeds, in fact, one of her late dogs, Healey was featured in a book about special elderly dogs, and she still owns an adopted Pit Bull mix who has proven through the years that she is a safe, perfect companion for a home with children. Teresa often jokes that Shayanna’s teeth are smaller than a Cocker Spaniel. I have rarely met someone as knowledgeable about bully breeds as Teresa, and I was horrified to hear of all that she endured after she made a difficult, but very responsible decision, to have her veterinarian come to her home and euthanize Merry, instead of risking serious harm to her grandchildren.
Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe and to make the decisions they feel are appropriate for their own individual pet. If they have what it takes to keep people from getting bitten during their dog’s entire life, and they are experienced and responsible, then they have the legal right to keep a dog if it has not been deemed dangerous. But what about dogs who are under the care of a non-profit organization? Do the leaders of that organization have a responsibility to their donors to use their donations to save dogs (and of course other pets that might fall under their organization’s mission) that are truly going to make good pets? Do they have a responsibility to the public, to offer pets for adoption that are capable of interacting appropriately with people and other dogs? Or should they stick to a “no-kill” philosophy and save every animal they can, and just hope that some kind soul will take it off their hands eventually and pray that no one is harmed?
These are tough questions. Please know I am not saying that all special needs dogs should be put down. I have personally saved many through the years, and I have found that there are indeed homes for sweet dogs who have special needs. There are people who want to adopt the senior dog, or who have extreme patience and are drawn to the very shy dog or even dogs with difficult issues that require medication, such as thunderstorm phobias. But I wonder if at some point we have stepped over a line that we should have kept in place. Why is it no longer acceptable to put down a dog that shows signs of aggression, or that is an extreme escape artist or that has other issues that would make it a very difficult pet for anyone to love? Are we being fair to the people who are coming to us to adopt? Are we being fair to our foster homes and volunteers?
I am personally weary. I am weary of getting emails and phone calls from people who have adopted difficult dogs, or who are trying to foster unmanageable dogs. They are miserable and they are finding it impossible to love these dogs. Yet when they call the group from whom they got the dog, they are being treated like they have no compassion if they voice that they might not be able to make it work.
Where is the compassion for the PEOPLE? Who cares anymore about the adopter? Wouldn’t it be nice to go back to the days when you knew if you wanted a certain type of dog – let’s use a German Shepherd as an example – you could know that a dog offered by a rescue organization would have been so carefully screened that your chances of getting a dog with a good temperament were actually higher if you worked with “rescue” instead of taking the gamble of buying a puppy? Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But the adult dog whose health and behavior are known, actually should be a better risk than the gamble of a puppy. You can find retired show dogs like this from ethical breeders; I’ve adopted several who have lived long happy healthy lives. You should also be able to find dogs like this, or any breed or mix, from good animal organizations. I have a wonderful mixed breed dog from a shelter who is an absolute delight. But it is getting more and more difficult to find these dogs from groups that are dedicated to “no-kill” and I don’t see this trend changing.
Note from the author: I wrote this as a blog post in 2008, eleven years ago. It is now 2019, and the situation is completely out of control, with “rescue” groups misleading the public by pulling Pit Bull terriers from animal shelters, knowing they are aggressive to other dogs or to people, and then advertising them on Petfinder as “Lab mixes” or “Boxers” and using manipulative wording under the comments, such as “Troy is a good boy but he needs to be an only child, because he doesn’t always play well with others. Can be a bit unreliable when approached too quickly, but once he knows you, he is the most wonderful pet EVER! Great pet for a kind owner who has no children or other pets.” Translation: this dog has probably seriously injured or killed another dog and also shows aggression towards people until he gets to know them well, and his issues are so difficult that he will seriously injure children.
I know this is a hot topic. But I think it is time that those who choose common sense are once again thought of as responsible, not accused of being inhumane. If I make a mistake with a dog that could have been saved, I know that dog is in a better place, as I know that the dog’s creator loves him. So it is sad, but it is not really a tragedy. But if I make a mistake and save a dog that should have been put down, I may make a mistake that puts scars for a lifetime on a child’s face. This alone is a tragedy. Worst case scenario, a child or an adult might lose their life. This is not really a risk I am willing to take. Are you?