Before euthanasia, 2nd chance dogs.

danger mouse

Do you think dogs deserve a second chance?
Putting a dog to sleep makes me so sad. I believe under the correct controls all dogs deserve a second chance. If the right handler and owner can step forward and take control, all dogs can make a full recovery and be rehabilitated. Of course in the right circumstances, IE not caused death to a human or serious injury.

LisaO

Isn't this what reputable rescues endeavour to do. Unfortunately they have to work within the restraints of time, money & not enough individuals open to adopting a "problem" dog.

There are a lot of questions around how much of a dogs previous history to disclose - it will put many potential adopters off. BUT rescues have a "duty of care" to inform adopters of behaviours and issues that may re-surface. It's a tough one

Bannasidhe

LisaO wrote: »

Isn't this what reputable rescues endeavour to do. Unfortunately they have to work within the restraints of time, money & not enough individuals open to adopting a "problem" dog.

There are a lot of questions around how much of a dogs previous history to disclose - it will put many potential adopters off. BUT rescues have a "duty of care" to inform adopters of behaviours and issues that may re-surface. It's a tough one

It is tough - especially as sometimes the history of a dog in a refuge is completely unknown so all the staff have to go on is observation while in the refuge.

I recently adopted a JR bitch - nothing was known about her as she had been abandoned in a woods and by the time she got to the refuge she was in dire straits. The staff were very honest about their lack of knowledge all they could say was that she had been very badly abused but was friendly and got on with other dogs and children- they were equally forthcoming about other their dogs (this one is not good with other dogs/cats/ this one is very yappy and hyper not good with small children/ this one needs to be with another dog/ this one will need a firm hand and experience with their breed/ this one still have behavioral problems so not ready to be rehomed yet etc).

Gillie has now been with us a month and is best buddies with our other dog but can be snarly with strange dogs - but is getting much better about that. She is also absolutely terrified of middle aged men with gray hair so snarls at my Dad when he visits but as he is a dog person he is very careful not to startle her.

The sad truth is rescue centres are put to the pin of their collars finding homes for dogs with no 'problems' never mind 'difficult' dogs who need experienced people to take them on. It's often the case that the experienced people already have dogs and can't take on anymore...

I have two now and as Gillie settles in more I am tempted to rehome another JR who has problem with his liver so has to be taken to the vet regularly and generally watched carefully as toxins build up and he must be monitored constantly so an animal refuge is not the ideal situation for him but I am not sure that if I took him I have the space and time to ensure all 3 dogs would get the affection and care they deserve. Especially when Gillie is just starting to trust us and understand that she has nothing to fear any more....

It is very tough...:(

DamagedTrax

in the case of true human aggression i believe a dog should be PTS.

in the case of fear aggression directed towards humans i think the dog deserves a 2nd chance.

LisaO

DamagedTrax wrote: »

in the case of true human aggression i believe a dog should be PTS.

in the case of fear aggression directed towards humans i think the dog deserves a 2nd chance.

And this then brings into question the process of assessment - who is qualified to assess the dog, on what basis is the assessment carried out, who bears the cost?

mathepac

I think you need to edit your thread title. Euthanasia is the ending of life to prevent ongoing pain and suffering and has nothing to do with dogs.

SillyMangoX

mathepac wrote: »

I think you need to edit your thread title. Euthanasia is the ending of life to prevent ongoing pain and suffering and has nothing to do with dogs.

Of course it has something to do with dogs, every day dogs are euthanised to prevent ongoing pain and suffering to them. Sometimes its considered cruel to prolong their life anymore because they are suffering that much.

I believe with proper care and training a dog can be rehabilitated. People are too quick to run to the whole pts route whenever anything happens. "oh fluffy is after mauling my child, he has a taste for blood now he has got to die". No mention of the fact the mauling was a warning nip after the child pulled the dogs ears or tried to take its food away. In those kind of cases, yes definately the dog deserves a second chance, rehomed with a family with no kids or with older kids who understand a dogs needs.

Some cases nothing can be done, things like rage syndrome in golden male cockers for example. Seen it cropping up in labs lately too which is very unfortunate.

**Vai**

Course they deserve a second chance, all of them. Even in cases of aggression toward humans. Most people pull the PTS trigger way too quickly for my liking.

DBB

**Vai** wrote: »

Course they deserve a second chance, all of them. Even in cases of aggression toward humans. Most people pull the PTS trigger way too quickly for my liking.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
What does a rescue do, when they have a dog which they know is going to bite again (because it has a history), which they know is an increased risk to cause significant injury when it bites again, which they know will result in angered adopters who never want to rescue a dog again?
Just bear in mind here: it is not a defence for the rescue to rehome to an adopter who says they're okay with the dog having bitten before, no matter what piece of paper/"disclaimer" the adopter signs.

boomerang

The responsible thing to do in that situation is to euthanise the dog. Rescues often have to do it. That's why I don't believe there is any such thing as "No Kill" rescues. It's a sad fact of rescue work. It has to be gauged so carefully though. So many owners have their dogs put down for the slightest infraction and it's usually down to a lack of knowledge on the owner's part. A dog air-snapping at a child who unwittingly threatens it, for example.

DBB

I absolutely agree. Some dogs are put down for mild and understandable transgressions, whilst others are put down because it's too risky to leave them as they are, or to rehome them.
So, where does this put the argument that all dogs deserve a second chance, or that they are all fixable?
I suppose I'm just encouraging posters to think about what they'd do if they were running a rescue, and had in a dog, or dogs, that were known to be biters. I'm not talking dogs who had a snap at someone who foolishly tried to take their dinner off them, or stuck their face into the face of a sleeping dog.
What would you do?

Whispered

It would totally depend on the situation, what is real human aggression and what is anxiety based aggression? Is there such thing a true human aggression for the sake of it or is there always another reason, that maybe we don't see.

I would think that I would get the opinion of an expert, a qualified behaviourist. If it was a medical problem, like rage syndrome then yes PTS would be better. If it was a behaviour management thing, again it would depend on the level of management required.

I suppose the short answer is I don't know.

DBB

Maybe if I use a real-life example to illustrate the sort of thing I mean.
I know a rescue in which there is living a small purebred dog. He's about 4 or 5 years old. He has no known medical conditions. He is neutered.
Up to the point that I met him last year, he had been rehomed a total of 9 times. Yes, nine. In each home, he had bitten someone and was returned to the rescue.
In no case did he cause terrible harm: he doesn't have the dentition to cause huge harm. But, he did enough in most cases to leave bruises, or lightly break the skin.
In all cases, every home knew what they were taking on before adopting him. Every one of them signed a form absolving the rescue of liability (a fallacious piece of paper, but that's another argument). Yet not one of those nine homes was actually prepared to put up with the reality: a common situation faced by rescues.
The dog now lives in a kennel, alone, in a "do not rehome" section of the rescue, with very limited human contact. He's not much liked because he's growly and snappy. He's fed, watered, probably gets a short walk most days... but that's all. That'll be his life until he dies, or until the rescue is talked into adopting him out to yet another well-meaning adopter, when he'll no doubt return for biting them.
For people who believe every dog deserves a second chance... what would you do with this dog?

Stheno

DBB wrote: »

Maybe if I use a real-life example to illustrate the sort of thing I mean.
I know a rescue in which there is living a small purebred dog. He's about 4 or 5 years old. He has no known medical conditions. He is neutered.
Up to the point that I met him last year, he had been rehomed a total of 9 times. Yes, nine. In each home, he had bitten someone and was returned to the rescue.
In no case did he cause terrible harm: he doesn't have the dentition to cause huge harm. But, he did enough in most cases to leave bruises, or lightly break the skin.
In all cases, every home knew what they were taking on before adopting him. Every one of them signed a form absolving the rescue of liability (a fallacious piece of paper, but that's another argument). Yet not one of those nine homes was actually prepared to put up with the reality: a common situation faced by rescues.
The dog now lives in a kennel, alone, in a "do not rehome" section of the rescue, with very limited human contact. He's not much liked because he's growly and snappy. He's fed, watered, probably gets a short walk most days... but that's all. That'll be his life until he dies, or until the rescue is talked into adopting him out to yet another well-meaning adopter, when he'll no doubt return for biting them.
For people who believe every dog deserves a second chance... what would you do with this dog?

He's had eight second chances.

I've a similiar dog among my five.

Had her since she was an eight week old pup, she always displayed fear towards strangers, and aggresion to other female dogs from a very young age. She grew up with other dogs, was walked and introduced to lots of people, and yet her response in some cases is to bite, no one factor that I can identify. I've talked to several behaviourists who are stumped.

She's bitten now three times, and attacked my other female dog several times, causing injury to people splitting up fights.

It seems to be a genetic thing with her, she is unsafe to re-home due to her dog and people aggression, no amount of socialisation has helped, so the choice is to keep her when it's not possible in the long term or put her to sleep.

I'd prefer for her to have had the active life she has had, then one day have a sedative, and no know more, than to subject her to a life in a kennel, or the stress of multiple rehomings.

Sometimes the wiring for dogs is just wrong like it is for people, and the kinder choice can be to let them go.

Whispered

DBB wrote: »

Maybe if I use a real-life example to illustrate the sort of thing I mean.

I don't know if you can go into more detail, but I'll ask anyway (I don't mean you to answer them BTW, It's just that for me it would again depend on the following)

Does the rescue know the reason behind the dog biting?

Has the dog been seen by a behaviourist? (maybe that's the capacity in which you met him) What has been tried with the dog?

Were all the bite victims similar (all kids, all men, all women, all people who are tall/short etc)

Is there anybody who the dog has taken to and who it does not growl at? If so, what did this person do differently?

Is the dog getting worse in what is similar to solitary confinement?

In an ideal world I would like to see the rescue ensure he gets more interaction and socialisation, rather than a short walk every day - but I would not like to see him PTS. Probably naive and too soft?

DBB

I'll try to answer your questions Whispered.:o
The dog was placed in rescue originally for biting. I'm not aware that a "reason", as such, was discerned for why the dog bites. Personally, having seen a number of dogs of his breed with exactly the same behavioural problems, my feeling is that it is an inherited trait perhaps due to crappy, indiscriminate breeding, confounded perhaps by a wholly rubbish early puppyhood.. Though as Stheno has illustrated, this does not have to be a factor. Little doubt too that the behaviour developed a learned component as time went on.

No pattern to who was bitten that I recall: as the rehomings of this dog built up, homes with children were avoided, so children can't be discounted as targets, he quite rightly just didn't have access to them as time went on. But certainly, the latter few homes he was rehomed to considered themselves to be highly experienced with dogs, and the rescue was prepared to let them have the dog in the hope their experience would count for something.

He was seen by the rescue behaviourist after he'd been surrendered, as all dogs are in this rescue. I reserve the right not to comment on this person's abilities. Ahem.

However, and I think this is REALLY important for people to understand... any behavioural assessment of a dog in a rescue centre is a snapshot. That's all. Personally, I put little stall in the standard, generally one-off behavioural assessment measurements for dogs in rescue centres. There is simply no subsitute for having the insight of the person who has lived with the dog... i.e. the original owner, because with proper information gathering, in this case a good behaviourist can get a longer-term, more realistic assessment of where the dog is coming from, and do a more accurate risk assessment.
The alternative for dogs with behavioural issues? To try and work with the dog using the observable behaviours as your starting point. This means undertaking a program of behaviour modification for the dog, making an educated guess at what may have caused the behaviour.
However, this is almost impossible in a rescue situation. The only possible way forward is via foster care in a home (not kennels), with a very experienced fosterer who will follow the instructions and guidance of the behaviourist to a T. The reality? People like this are VERY hard to find. The rescue also has a responsibility to the fosterer: if they get bitten, at best the rescue loses their good fosterer. at worst, the fosterer sues.

I'm not aware that anyone was preferred by this dog, or not targetted by him. As time went on, his ability to target anyone has become close to zero, as he has such limited interaction with humans.

When he first came into the rescue, and even after a couple of rehomings, to my knowledge he was treated just like any other dog re walks, socialisation etc. But unfortunately, he was the author of his own misfortune, and now lives in near-solitary because it is a "no-kill" shelter, and in the absence of resources (e.g. the above-described fosterers) what else can they do with him?

The dog's case was, when I met him having been rehomed 9 times, reviewed by two fully-qualified, highly regarded behaviourists. Sometimes, it becomes unimportant why the dog is doing what he's doing: the fact is, he's doing it, and any realistic, achievable attempts to avoid it/stop it/deal with it have come to nothing.
The reality is, and this is a stark reality, dogs like this, who are unrehomeable just like Stheno's dog, are taking up a kennel space that could be taken by a nice eejit of a youngster who could be quickly rehomed. Indeed, his longevity of stay at this rescue means that he has actually taken up the space of a myriad of young, eejits of youngsters, any number of which are now dead because there was nowhere else for them to go.
I know, this is the horrible reality. For almost all rescues, there is no big, green field for aggressive dogs to gambol about in until their dying day, there are no fosterers who can take these dogs on to "fix" a problem that can never be deemed to be "fixed", and at the end, there are no homes available for such dogs. Whilst it is an ugly fate for the unrehomeable dog, what of the multiple dogs who miss out on a chance because the grumpy dog is taking up the space?

Stheno

DBB wrote: »

I know, this is the horrible reality. For almost all rescues, there is no big, green field for aggressive dogs to gambol about in until their dying day, there are no fosterers who can take these dogs on to "fix" a problem that can never be deemed to be "fixed", and at the end, there are no homes available for such dogs. Whilst it is an ugly fate for the unrehomeable dog, what of the multiple dogs who miss out on a chance because the grumpy dog is taking up the space?

For me, this is the ultimate thing. One dog, treated humanely and given every chance, should not be kept alive in less than ideal conditions, or where there is a clear problem with the dog, that cannot be addressed despite repeated attempts to do so, at the expense of the lives of several other dogs, in a rescue situation.

My dog, is getting worse as they get older, they are five now, and the aggression shows no sign of abating. Their best friend who is the same age, is regarded as a candidate for therapy dogs.

Both came into my house at 9-10 weeks of age, both had the same upbringing, yet one can be a therapy dog, and the other has to be treated with caution around visitors, other dogs, and in public.

cjf

In the case of the example dog described above I would take the dog myself and have it PTS. I would hold him and tell him im sorry for whatever happened to him to make him this way and tell him its ok he can be at peace now. In a case like this I feel so sorry for the dog. A happy dog does not carry on such a pattern of behaviour. He is obviously suffering. All dogs can have incidents as outlined above snapping around food etc. God knows what has happened this dog along the way and maybe it was preventable but it seems the kindest thing to do is let this dog go and be at peace. I don't think it's fair to allow him lead a sorry life so wound up he is biting repeatedly. He's been bounced around so much and now has such a solitary life I feel that's a cruelty. I'm a huge believer in second chances and 9 times out of 10 in the right home a dog can overcome most issues but for some dogs too much has passed before and they are living in a state of contsant fear, aggression, defensiveness and I don't think it's fair to prolong that suffering. I'm not quick to make a PTS decision but I'm all about the dog and if its suffering then I must get over my no kill save them all ego and do the right thing for that dog.

**Vai**

DBB wrote: »

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
What does a rescue do, when they have a dog which they know is going to bite again (because it has a history), which they know is an increased risk to cause significant injury when it bites again, which they know will result in angered adopters who never want to rescue a dog again?
Just bear in mind here: it is not a defence for the rescue to rehome to an adopter who says they're okay with the dog having bitten before, no matter what piece of paper/"disclaimer" the adopter signs.

If the dog has a history of biting I would assume its already had its second chance. I said they deserve a second chance. Hell if its down to me the dog gets about 10 chances but I understand sometimes it needs to be put down for its own good as well as the people around it. Its when the people are too quick to put the dog down that I have an issue with.

As for rescues, I guess they would need to take more time accessing owners before giving them a dog with a history. I just love seeing a supposedly vicious dog being given a chance and taking that chance with both paws! Its something I greatly admire about various people in the dog world and hopefully, something I can get into in the future, time permitting.

fatmammycat

My old doberman was a 'vicious' dog and due to be PTS. In reality he was a fearful, unsocialised, bored youngster who had been left to rot in a back yard because the people who got him hadn't the first clue what to do with him. He lived a long bite-free life afterwards, and while never the friendliest of dogs with strangers (he was remarkably aloof) he certainly was no threat to people or dogs.
I think a lot of so called vicious dogs are just terribly misunderstood, though clearly what DBB describes is not an example. But a great deal of them are just homed with the wrong family, the wrong type of dog for the wrong type of person, the wrong training/bonding, and it's upsetting to see as it is the poor old dog who suffers usually.