I used to believe that all dogs were in some way a victim.
But just like some people are just wired wrong, some dogs can be too. And it isn't limited to breed, or upbringing. Which is why I have seen very well bred labs that were ticking time bombs, and fighting dogs turn into therapy dogs.
When I started working shelters, I had to accept that even if a dog was a victim of abuse and neglect, sometimes they were just too far gone to be homed. My rule was I wouldn't place a dog that I didn't feel safe leaving alone with a child (not that I ever would). But especially working in pit bull rescue, any dog that displayed unpredictable behavior was another headline waiting to happen.
I have had my fair share of arguments with people who want to rescue and "rehabilitate" all dogs. Personally I find that a tad naive. Furthermore, I get angry thinking about the time and resources put into a dog that will forever be a bite risk when good dogs, with balanced temperaments are being killed because there is no space or money to keep them longer. I would love to be able to save every dog. But to me that is like saying that if every person just got enough hugs and support from their moms and dads there would be no crime.
I too believe that some dogs are not pets. I believe it is in everyones best interest to try to understand the origin of a dogs aggression, so we can prevent many incidents, but probably never all. The sad reality is though that some dogs just are just wired wrong and regardless of upbringing and environment can still bite. These dogs are rare, but they can happen. If we had the resources we would likely find that is in fact physiological and something wrong neurologically with the dog.
But the fact of the matter is regardless of how a dog became damaged some dogs just can't or shouldn't be saved.
Maybe it's due to my faith, or maybe the way I was raised, but I believe all animals are "innocent." I don't think you can compare an animal, to, for example, an adult human who knows what's right / wrong in the world based on life experiences.
I think it's best to compare a dog to a 2 or 3 year old child. At this age, a child only knows what boundaries their parents set for them. They do not know that if they touch the stove while it's on they'll get burned & might become seriously injured...they know "Mommy says I can't touch that."
I believe it's the same with dogs. Dogs have a baser instinct, & then they also follow what boundaries we teach them. However, when a dog one day randomly bites a person, I can't blame the dog. Either he wasn't trained / socialized properly, something triggered his "attack," or something happened where he reverted to his baser instinct. [ OR their is something medically wrong that caused a behavioral change; tumor, thyroid, mental issue, etc. ]
Either way, thinking a dog attacks for no reason [ outside of medical conditions ] is anthropomorphizing them. Dog's are not humans. They don't think, "Oh...Joe called me a bitch yesterday so I'm going to rip him a new one today!" No. A dog sees something, a trigger, that causes them to act on their baser instinct. We may not know the reason why the dog attacked, as we are not dogs & don't speak dog. Dogs do things purposefully, especially biting. There are no serial killer dog, rapist dogs, thief dogs, etc. etc. etc. Dogs are dogs, they act a certain way, & bringing any animal into your life is a risk, no matter how small.
That said...even tho a dog is a product of it's genetics / upbringing / etc. there are just some dogs who are too far gone to be saved. Some dogs have been sooooo emotionally distressed they've completely reverted back to their instincts & don't trust people at all. In this case, it's best to put the dog down, for it's own sake. A dog who is so fearful of everything that they are beyond rehabilitation will spend it's life in paranoia mode constantly afraid. It's kinder to let the dog sleep then spend the rest of it's life being "tortured" by all it's "fears."
As Jess said, there are other dogs who need saving too. We can't save everyone, so we have to try with what we can.
ETA: Just as a summary. When do we blame the dog? Never. But that doesn't mean it's always their humans fault either. Sometimes, medical things happen that are beyond our control. But, when a dog is so far gone...it's time to refocus our efforts onto those who can be rehabilitated. ~
I agree with Osy and Jess's thoughts here. I was, however, a little concerned by the article. I know that not all dogs can be rehabilitated. I hate that, but I know it is true. Some dogs are dangerous, for whatever reason. And I know shelters are overcrowded, shelter employees are overworked, etc.
But I worry about the fact that the artcle, to me, seems to suggest dogs that have bitten should be euthanized right away, rather than trying to rehabilitate them or seeing if they can be adopted. this is no doubt the case with some dogs, but I worry that a lot of ok, but fearful dogs would be euthanized in that case. Esp. certain breeds: NKs, for example, or Chows. I have no doubt my male Shiba would bite someone who tried to grab him and put him in a crate or kennel. My female might. Neither are aggressive dogs (well, not toward people). But they'd be afraid. Years ago, our Norwegian Elkhound, tired of her puppies, escaped the yard. Animal Control caught her with one of those collar things, but when they picked her up to put her in the truck, she--usually the sweetest and gentlest of dogs--bit them out of fear. AC suggested we had an "aggressive" dog, and it took a lot of work to get her back. This was sheer ignorance. She was not aggressive--she was terrified. It just scares me that there are so many overworked employees in animal shelters that often don't know that much about dogs anyway (their guess at breeds demonstrate this again and again) who would then label a dog "aggressive" that is actually simply very fearful.
Years ago, my vet and I had a long talk about my GSD. He was biting people. He got excited and bit, first just a nip, then hard enough to tear clothes and leave bruises. It wasn't guarding or territorial aggression--it seemed to be exuberance that he didn't know how to control. We thought about euthanasia. But luckily, we decided to do a lot of medical tests. He had virtually no thyroid function whatsoever. After he was treated, it was like a miracle. He'd still get really excited by visitors and/or play, but he looked around, grabbed a toy and bit it, instead of a person. As you know, he lived a good life after that until he died of cancer at 11. By the time we put him down,he was a sweet, calm dog--what he should have been all along if his thyroid hadn't gone bad. I'm glad we worked hard for a solution, and found one. I know how agonizing it is to think that you might have to put a dog down for aggression, but I also think it should be a last resort.
So while I agree with the basic premise of the article....that not all dogs can be saved.....I also think making that decision has to be done in a careful, informed way, that gives the dog the benefit of the doubt, at least for a period of observation. And I know that this is an ideal scenario--most shelters and rescues simply don't have the resources for this. But it is something we should strive for.
Call me a heartless ass, but I have a hard time understanding why a homeless dog with ANY bites on his/her record is not PTS once it reaches a shelter. I don't see the logic in trying to "rehabilitate" a liability risk like that.
I'm talking about a real bite here - not a nip or a scratch - a bite that requires a trip to the emergency room... an "inner body" bite.
No matter what your intentions are, or the circumstances that caused the dog to bite (fear bite, abuse, neglect), once a dog has learned that biting works, the chances of them doing it again are HUGE. Placing a dog that's already bit a person in a new situation is just a really big risk - not just to that family that takes in the dog but to other people who encounter the dog in public, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the new family will manage the high-liability dog properly to prevent another bite. If I ran a shelter I wouldn't want that risk on my conscience.
I just don't understand why a shelter would use resources on a case like that when there are so many other animals that don't have a bite history and therefore don't come with such a large liability risk - those resources could be used for them (better care, finding better homes, more home selections, ...).
For a private home, if a dog bites and you chose to keep him/her, then that is fine - that's your choice - but I don't think a shelter's resources should be used to "fix" or place dogs that are already passed the point of biting. JMHO
I think I was misinterpreted above. Basically to speak plainly. From a scientific standpoint it is essential to understand the origin of a dogs aggression. But a dog that attacks (not nips, ATTACKS) should be PTS. That was my policy at the shelter and my policy in my home.
Some of you may recall I had a Fila named Bunny. He attacked me unprovoked. He was resource guarding my husband. All the same my 250lb husband struggled to pull him off me. And that was that he was put to sleep the next day.
But I completely agree with you Brad. I am angered by shelters that use their resources to place or treat a vicious dog. There isn't room in most shelters to keep great dogs. Don't waste the money on liabilities.
I don't think it's even kind to try to rehabilitate some dogs. If they aren't pet dogs (as the article put it), then trying to make them pet dogs is setting them up for repeated failure and a life of tension and worry.
But of course, the biggest reason is that they're just plain dangerous. I think it's important to respect every creature's life, but of course you have to take into the consideration that the world isn't perfect. I wouldn't kill a person under normal circumstances, either, but I would definitely kill the pedophile trying to take my kids if that's what it took. The most dangerous dogs are the ones that are unpredictable and don't give any warning, and if they have a history of attacking without just cause, you can almost guarantee they'll do it again, and you won't know when. The risk just isn't worth it.
As to whether or not dogs have "ethics", I think that completely depends on how you define the word. I hear lots of people say that dogs don't think like people in terms of right or wrong, only people do. Humans are just animals, too, though, and our behaviour is influenced mainly by brain chemicals and genetics which are very similar to other animals'. Even feelings that we tend to hold sacred, like the love of a mother for her newborn baby are pretty easy to explain, and there's no reason to think that a dog can't experience something similar. So, I'd say that if there are "evil" people, there could theoretically be "evil" dogs. I haven't heard of any, but how much can an evil dog really do? I don't suppose Hitler's dog helped organize the Holocaust.
Of course, to truly explore the differences between humans and dogs, we'd have to get to the bottom of what it means to be human. But, I digress.
reading that brought back a lot of memories, when my boys aggression issues started i worked really hard to try and work out why , what had i done that was so wrong to make him what he was. just as the blog says did i train him too much, not enough, did i feed him the wrong thing. my boy wasn't abused or beaten, he was loved, socalized and treated with kindness but still he had aggression issues. so many people say it has to be the owners not the dogs fault i use to be one of them. now i think dogs can be wired wrong. i don't know if mars was one of these dogs or if i really was the one that failed him. but either way the outcome had to be the same. i had 2 offers of new homes for him when he attacked my son and part of me wanted to take someone up on that offer but i couldn't do that not only to him but to myself. next time he bite he could do much more damage i'd rather live with the guilt and upset of having him pts than knowing someone got hurt cause i didn't do the right thing for my dog. guess this is more from a personal side of things rather than from a rescue prespective although my experience as helped me with my work in rescue. as we don't rehome any dog with bite history and in the past i had struggled accepting that we can't save them all, now i know that we are far better saving the ones we know can be happy.
Comments
I used to believe that all dogs were in some way a victim.
But just like some people are just wired wrong, some dogs can be too. And it isn't limited to breed, or upbringing. Which is why I have seen very well bred labs that were ticking time bombs, and fighting dogs turn into therapy dogs.
When I started working shelters, I had to accept that even if a dog was a victim of abuse and neglect, sometimes they were just too far gone to be homed. My rule was I wouldn't place a dog that I didn't feel safe leaving alone with a child (not that I ever would). But especially working in pit bull rescue, any dog that displayed unpredictable behavior was another headline waiting to happen.
I have had my fair share of arguments with people who want to rescue and "rehabilitate" all dogs. Personally I find that a tad naive. Furthermore, I get angry thinking about the time and resources put into a dog that will forever be a bite risk when good dogs, with balanced temperaments are being killed because there is no space or money to keep them longer. I would love to be able to save every dog. But to me that is like saying that if every person just got enough hugs and support from their moms and dads there would be no crime.
I too believe that some dogs are not pets. I believe it is in everyones best interest to try to understand the origin of a dogs aggression, so we can prevent many incidents, but probably never all. The sad reality is though that some dogs just are just wired wrong and regardless of upbringing and environment can still bite. These dogs are rare, but they can happen. If we had the resources we would likely find that is in fact physiological and something wrong neurologically with the dog.
But the fact of the matter is regardless of how a dog became damaged some dogs just can't or shouldn't be saved.
Maybe it's due to my faith, or maybe the way I was raised, but I believe all animals are "innocent." I don't think you can compare an animal, to, for example, an adult human who knows what's right / wrong in the world based on life experiences.
I think it's best to compare a dog to a 2 or 3 year old child. At this age, a child only knows what boundaries their parents set for them. They do not know that if they touch the stove while it's on they'll get burned & might become seriously injured...they know "Mommy says I can't touch that."
I believe it's the same with dogs. Dogs have a baser instinct, & then they also follow what boundaries we teach them. However, when a dog one day randomly bites a person, I can't blame the dog. Either he wasn't trained / socialized properly, something triggered his "attack," or something happened where he reverted to his baser instinct. [ OR their is something medically wrong that caused a behavioral change; tumor, thyroid, mental issue, etc. ]
Either way, thinking a dog attacks for no reason [ outside of medical conditions ] is anthropomorphizing them. Dog's are not humans. They don't think, "Oh...Joe called me a bitch yesterday so I'm going to rip him a new one today!" No. A dog sees something, a trigger, that causes them to act on their baser instinct. We may not know the reason why the dog attacked, as we are not dogs & don't speak dog. Dogs do things purposefully, especially biting. There are no serial killer dog, rapist dogs, thief dogs, etc. etc. etc. Dogs are dogs, they act a certain way, & bringing any animal into your life is a risk, no matter how small.
That said...even tho a dog is a product of it's genetics / upbringing / etc. there are just some dogs who are too far gone to be saved. Some dogs have been sooooo emotionally distressed they've completely reverted back to their instincts & don't trust people at all. In this case, it's best to put the dog down, for it's own sake. A dog who is so fearful of everything that they are beyond rehabilitation will spend it's life in paranoia mode constantly afraid. It's kinder to let the dog sleep then spend the rest of it's life being "tortured" by all it's "fears."
As Jess said, there are other dogs who need saving too. We can't save everyone, so we have to try with what we can.
ETA: Just as a summary. When do we blame the dog? Never. But that doesn't mean it's always their humans fault either. Sometimes, medical things happen that are beyond our control. But, when a dog is so far gone...it's time to refocus our efforts onto those who can be rehabilitated. ~
But I worry about the fact that the artcle, to me, seems to suggest dogs that have bitten should be euthanized right away, rather than trying to rehabilitate them or seeing if they can be adopted. this is no doubt the case with some dogs, but I worry that a lot of ok, but fearful dogs would be euthanized in that case. Esp. certain breeds: NKs, for example, or Chows. I have no doubt my male Shiba would bite someone who tried to grab him and put him in a crate or kennel. My female might. Neither are aggressive dogs (well, not toward people). But they'd be afraid. Years ago, our Norwegian Elkhound, tired of her puppies, escaped the yard. Animal Control caught her with one of those collar things, but when they picked her up to put her in the truck, she--usually the sweetest and gentlest of dogs--bit them out of fear. AC suggested we had an "aggressive" dog, and it took a lot of work to get her back. This was sheer ignorance. She was not aggressive--she was terrified. It just scares me that there are so many overworked employees in animal shelters that often don't know that much about dogs anyway (their guess at breeds demonstrate this again and again) who would then label a dog "aggressive" that is actually simply very fearful.
Years ago, my vet and I had a long talk about my GSD. He was biting people. He got excited and bit, first just a nip, then hard enough to tear clothes and leave bruises. It wasn't guarding or territorial aggression--it seemed to be exuberance that he didn't know how to control. We thought about euthanasia. But luckily, we decided to do a lot of medical tests. He had virtually no thyroid function whatsoever. After he was treated, it was like a miracle. He'd still get really excited by visitors and/or play, but he looked around, grabbed a toy and bit it, instead of a person. As you know, he lived a good life after that until he died of cancer at 11. By the time we put him down,he was a sweet, calm dog--what he should have been all along if his thyroid hadn't gone bad. I'm glad we worked hard for a solution, and found one. I know how agonizing it is to think that you might have to put a dog down for aggression, but I also think it should be a last resort.
So while I agree with the basic premise of the article....that not all dogs can be saved.....I also think making that decision has to be done in a careful, informed way, that gives the dog the benefit of the doubt, at least for a period of observation. And I know that this is an ideal scenario--most shelters and rescues simply don't have the resources for this. But it is something we should strive for.
Call me a heartless ass, but I have a hard time understanding why a homeless dog with ANY bites on his/her record is not PTS once it reaches a shelter. I don't see the logic in trying to "rehabilitate" a liability risk like that.
I'm talking about a real bite here - not a nip or a scratch - a bite that requires a trip to the emergency room... an "inner body" bite.
No matter what your intentions are, or the circumstances that caused the dog to bite (fear bite, abuse, neglect), once a dog has learned that biting works, the chances of them doing it again are HUGE. Placing a dog that's already bit a person in a new situation is just a really big risk - not just to that family that takes in the dog but to other people who encounter the dog in public, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the new family will manage the high-liability dog properly to prevent another bite. If I ran a shelter I wouldn't want that risk on my conscience.
I just don't understand why a shelter would use resources on a case like that when there are so many other animals that don't have a bite history and therefore don't come with such a large liability risk - those resources could be used for them (better care, finding better homes, more home selections, ...).
For a private home, if a dog bites and you chose to keep him/her, then that is fine - that's your choice - but I don't think a shelter's resources should be used to "fix" or place dogs that are already passed the point of biting. JMHO
----
I think I was misinterpreted above. Basically to speak plainly. From a scientific standpoint it is essential to understand the origin of a dogs aggression. But a dog that attacks (not nips, ATTACKS) should be PTS. That was my policy at the shelter and my policy in my home.
Some of you may recall I had a Fila named Bunny. He attacked me unprovoked. He was resource guarding my husband. All the same my 250lb husband struggled to pull him off me. And that was that he was put to sleep the next day.
But I completely agree with you Brad. I am angered by shelters that use their resources to place or treat a vicious dog. There isn't room in most shelters to keep great dogs. Don't waste the money on liabilities.
But of course, the biggest reason is that they're just plain dangerous. I think it's important to respect every creature's life, but of course you have to take into the consideration that the world isn't perfect. I wouldn't kill a person under normal circumstances, either, but I would definitely kill the pedophile trying to take my kids if that's what it took. The most dangerous dogs are the ones that are unpredictable and don't give any warning, and if they have a history of attacking without just cause, you can almost guarantee they'll do it again, and you won't know when. The risk just isn't worth it.
As to whether or not dogs have "ethics", I think that completely depends on how you define the word. I hear lots of people say that dogs don't think like people in terms of right or wrong, only people do. Humans are just animals, too, though, and our behaviour is influenced mainly by brain chemicals and genetics which are very similar to other animals'. Even feelings that we tend to hold sacred, like the love of a mother for her newborn baby are pretty easy to explain, and there's no reason to think that a dog can't experience something similar. So, I'd say that if there are "evil" people, there could theoretically be "evil" dogs. I haven't heard of any, but how much can an evil dog really do? I don't suppose Hitler's dog helped organize the Holocaust.
Of course, to truly explore the differences between humans and dogs, we'd have to get to the bottom of what it means to be human. But, I digress.
so many people say it has to be the owners not the dogs fault i use to be one of them. now i think dogs can be wired wrong. i don't know if mars was one of these dogs or if i really was the one that failed him. but either way the outcome had to be the same. i had 2 offers of new homes for him when he attacked my son and part of me wanted to take someone up on that offer but i couldn't do that not only to him but to myself. next time he bite he could do much more damage i'd rather live with the guilt and upset of having him pts than knowing someone got hurt cause i didn't do the right thing for my dog.
guess this is more from a personal side of things rather than from a rescue prespective although my experience as helped me with my work in rescue. as we don't rehome any dog with bite history and in the past i had struggled accepting that we can't save them all, now i know that we are far better saving the ones we know can be happy.