Unsaved: When the shelter that “rescues” a dog turns around and kills her
By Christie Keith
November 16, 2009
It’s not often the death of a dog gets covered in the New York Times. But when the very organization that “rescued” her is the one that kills her, that’s a story.
Not a pretty story, in this case. One where a pit bull named Oreo gets “saved” from her abuser and then given a shot of Fatal Plus on the order of Ed Sayres, director of the ASPCA in New York — even though a sanctuary that is already a rescue partner and fellow member, with ASPCA, of the Mayor’s Alliance for Animals offered to give her a lifetime haven and appropriate care (although ASPCA animal behavior expert Stephen Zawistowski told Cristian Salazar at the Huffington Post that “the ASPCA was unfamiliar with Pets Alive.”) From Nathan Winograd:
Facts are troubling things. Facts get in the way of a contrived story. And there is one troubling fact that all of Ed Sayres’ double-speak simply cannot overcome. Try as the ASPCA might to argue that Oreo’s death was unavoidable, Sayres’ misrepresentation has one fundamental obstacle: Oreo had a place to go. The issue doesn’t turn on the real extent of Oreo’s aggression. The real issue is that a No Kill shelter and sanctuary, with experience rehabilitating aggression in dogs, which works with area shelters that could have vouched for their credibility, which enjoys wide community esteem, and which is only a short drive outside of New York City, offered to give her lifetime sanctuary, and was refused.
They called and left a voice mail message on Sayres’ telephone. They called his secretary. They called the ASPCA Press Office. They contacted everyone on the ASPCA website contact page. And they were ignored, hung up on and lied to.
Pets Alive in Middletown, New York, is not only a member of the Mayor’s Alliance for New York City animals, of which the ASPCA is also a member, they are not only an Alliance-approved rescue partner, they not only have had experience with aggressive dogs, but they agreed to take responsibility for a dog the ASPCA was committed to putting in a body bag and then dumping in a landfill. Even though Pets Alive is already an approved rescue partner, the fact that Oreo may have presented a special case didn’t mean the offer should have been rejected out of hand. The ASPCA could have visited Pets Alive; they could have checked veterinary references, community references, could have insisted on specific precautions and liability waivers. But instead, early that morning, before the “media circus got out of hand,” Ed Sayres, willfully, neglectfully, cruelly, and dishonestly, chose to kill Oreo instead. That is the true face of the ASPCA. And that is intolerable.
I’m not saying no dog alive isn’t just too unhappy and dangerous to live. I am saying that I have absolutely no confidence at all that Sayres and the ASPCA are qualified to unilaterally make that determination. And part of why I feel that way, and so strongly, is the self-pitying, self-serving email sent out by the ASPCA’s communications department after this incident blew up into a PR firestorm:
While Oreo’s plight has garnered a plethora of media attention due to the sensational nature of her injuries, the decision to euthanize her is not a novel one. These are decisions that we have had to make before—and will undoubtedly have to make again. And as painful as these choices are, they are the same ones that face dedicated shelter workers throughout the country each and every day. However, these outcomes are made all the more tragic because they are often preventable.
Yes, they are, Ed. You can decide not to kill them.
Animals that suffer cruelty at the hands of their owners often face tragedy beyond that which they have already endured.
[....]
Animals like Oreo are abused every day. Sometimes these animals are fortunate enough to escape the confines of their abuse and are placed in loving homes. Sometimes, they die as a result of the abuse.
And sometimes they’re killed by people whose mission is supposed to be to save animals.
And now the part that really makes my skin crawl:
We have done everything humanly possible to save Oreo’s life; yet, as a result of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Mr. Henderson, or for other reasons we may never know, she has come to a place where she can no longer be around people or other animals. We make this decision—and others like it– with a heavy heart and a complete understanding that had she been treated with love and respect, Oreo’s fate would be much different.
People know that the ASPCA is in the business of saving animals’ lives– it serves as the very core of our 143 year-old mission. Yet, the moment this statement is picked up, we will feel the repercussions of the difficult decision we know had to be made. We will receive angry phone calls… profanity-laced e-mails… and we will likely be vilified by tweeters and bloggers across the country. And the rallying cry of these missives will all be the same: the ASPCA failed this animal. If the ASPCA has failed at anything, it is shielding America from the true face of animal cruelty for far too long. Animal cruelty isn’t pretty and doesn’t always have a happy ending—it is ugly and sad and, ultimately, tragic. As a community of individuals committed to the welfare of animals, we have to be more proactive and insistent in raising our voices against cruelty—and hope that the nation is ready to listen.
Does anyone really think that this kind of whining and finger-pointing is a good PR move? You bet your butt this blogger is going to vilify you, ASPCA, because you’re a huge, wealthy organization that had options that you didn’t even explore. Because you killed this dog when it wasn’t necessary. Because you raise money off of rescuing abused dogs and then you kill them. Because Oreo is a victim, first of her abuser and then of you.
And you want us to feel sorry for you, and the burden you bear?
No sale.
I have real concern over WHEN the ASPCA decided to do the assessment.
So Oreo was “better,” but do we know she still wasn’t in pain? What, psychologically, had 6 months or so in a veterinary/shelter environment done to her?
If memory serves the Vick dogs had some real tough issues from being in the VA shelters for that period of time, a change in scenery immediately changed their behavior for the better.
Animals that are victims of abuse just don’t deserve to be victimized twice. The second victimization being their last.
Comment by Dog Daddo — November 16, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
This type of thing happens more often than the news media covers.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 16, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Thanks for saying so eloquently what needed to be said. It seems as if certain organizations, animal welfare organizations definitely included, once they reach a certain size and notoriety, lose sight of their mission and become more focused on their own perpetuation and income stream. I know plenty of animal organizations that I trust to do right and which desperately need money. Cross the ASPCA off my list.
Comment by Susan — November 16, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
and yet no tears, not a single post here at PC, for the 160 (and counting) of the 400 dogs “rescued” in the recent multi state bust that have been killed. Including some that had offers of rescue.
If you’re going to compare Oreo to the Vick dogs, well first of all, the evaluation guidelines were the SAME (ASPCA was the lead on the Vick evals.) And then, the Vick dogs survived a year in virtual isolation with little socialization.. yet only one was assessed as human aggressive and killed. Most of them had temperaments that survived their post-Vick abuse in the system until they got out into fosters/shelters/forever homes where they could regain (or find) their spirit. If the people who actually evaluated Oreo (as opposed to all the backseat evaluators who never even laid eyes on the dogs) are right, this poor dog would never have recovered to that extent.
And much as I admire and support Winograd’s vision, he’ll use any stick and any inflammatory language, to beat one of the large organizations that hasn’t fallen in line. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that even HE says that “no kill” isn’t “no kill” for human aggressive or very sick dogs. In most of the “no kill” shelters he supports, Oreo probably would have been destroyed for the same reason ASPCA gave.
Is it just because it’s ASPCA that everyone is so eager to second guess a decision they didn’t find easy? The double standards are astonishing.. I compare the silence when a rescue organization linked here posted a similarly selfserving justification for killing an animal (that also had a potential home). I wonder if one of their reps, who does post here, will come on and defend ASPCA for making the same kind of decision they chose to make?
And as with previous posts here, we’re not doing “journalism”, right.. cause it’s just an opinion blog. So the notion of trying to verify whether everything Pets Alive claims is true, while assuming everything ASPCA says is a lie, is a nonstarter.
Comment by EmilyS — November 16, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
A qualified sanctuary with ample experience agreed to take her. And yet.
I understand that unpredictable aggression is not a fun thing to deal with, in any dog. It could very well have been brain trauma from, you know, the whole being thrown out of the window bit. I also understand that can make finding a qualified foster home incredibly difficult and dangerous. That said, Oreo had placement with Pets Alive, a group willing to take on the challenges she posed. Whether Oreo would have been happy in a sanctuary setting is up in the air, but she was not given that chance. Her one chance at life was denied her.
Comment by Rinalia — November 16, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
First - thank you Christie Keith for writing this and the Pet Connection for “connecting” us with information - the truth. Always in life there is a tipping point when the bs overload will just topple something - its happening all around us with the economy - now with the ASPCA, HSUS and PETA - time is not on their side….
Comment by mary frances — November 16, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
“with the ASPCA, HSUS and PETA - time is not on their side….”
Their reputations are not on their side either. They have become business and have lost sight of the goal of helping animals.
Give money instead to the wonderful, struggling small shelters who are the ones that do the good work. The big groups are just bloated giants that have lost their way.
Comment by Dorothy — November 16, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
EmilyS, you’re getting to be like those commenters who complain that animal rescuers aren’t focusing on orphans in India. No incidence of caring or compassion is ever enough for you.
Comment by James — November 16, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
You know, Emily, you asked me about this on Facebook, as regards a Bad Rap blog post that I hadn’t previously read, and why I didn’t get all over that. One, I hadn’t read it, but two, if I had, Bad Rap and I might disagree on some things, but they don’t WHINE. They do the work, state their piece, and take the consequences.
Same thing with the MO bust dogs. Even if HSMO is not doing a great job handling this, they’re still doing a hard job and not whining about it, not saying, “It’s not us! It’s the bad people!”
No one, no individual, no organization, no blogger, is always right or always wrong. I’m not, you’re not, Bad Rap is not, HSMO is not. Neither is HSUS or the A. Everyone gets things wrong, everyone gets things right sometimes. I’m not Nathan, and only going to rant and rave at the wrong and the bad.
But when huge, powerful organizations get it wrong, the effect of that gets magnified by their leadership positions. It demands more scrutiny than the actions of small groups and individuals, even when they might otherwise be ethically the same.
So yeah, when the ASPCA unleashes its huge PR machine in its own defense, and I think they’re in the wrong, I’m far more likely to respond to that than to a blog post by a small organization, especially one that I feel walks the walk — EVEN WHEN I DISAGREE WITH THEM.
As to why we have not covered the fate of the MO bust dogs, I found out about those numbers yesterday, and was still thinking about it.
Besides, they didn’t send out a self-centered little whine-fest of a media release and thus propel me into a rant.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 16, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
thanks for the personal attack, James.
Comment by EmilyS — November 16, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
I am not trying to dis anyone, but Oreo was offered a chance few dogs get, and no one gave it to her! Those in control of her life chose to take it. There are many analogies I can draw here in this country where we don’t give those who offend our behavioral sensibilities a chance, let alone give us the health choices we need to be functioning members of society. Ruh roh. I feel a digression coming. So I will stop. Now.
However, Oreo should have been given the chance that was offered her with knowledgeable folk who might have turned her around. Now we will never know if she could have made it. I suspect much of her aggression was fear driven and she would have benefited from a stable, quiet, steady environment where she wasn’t threatened. What a damnable shame. Run free Oreo. I am sorry you never got to experience the goodness and love that people are capable of. All because of bureaucrats. Makes me want to vomit.
Comment by Anne T — November 16, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
The bottom line is that the ASPCA had a choice - and Oreo had the possibility of a future. ASPCA chose to kill her! If they are going to operate that way, then knock off the blame game. There’s already too much dishonesty about what’s happening to these animals. I also am a fan of the Badrap folks who do “walk the walk”! They are the kind of organization that I want to support!
Comment by dvb — November 16, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
with regards to Emily S. assertion that the ASPCA did the original Vick dog evaluation and so should be trusted on their evaluation about Oreo…I seem to remember that the ASPCA argued that every single Vick dog should be immediately killed and the only reason they weren’t was that someone else (a judge) was in charge instead of Ed Sayres. So if they were so wrong about the many dogs in the Vick case, why in the world would we trust their evaluation of this dog?
Comment by Jamie — November 16, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Christie, I just don’t see the difference between the BR piece (and actually there’s another similar one crying tears about the Mo. dogs up as well) and the ASPCA’s. They BOTH justify the killing of dogs that have, or might have, other places to go and then publicly cry about it. What makes one a “whine” and the other “taking the consequences” ? What are the consequences for BR in posting that piece? Surely you don’t imagine that BR isn’t raising money using tears as a tactic? What rescue organization DOESNT? Is it just size that makes that tactic ok? .. ok for the small orgs, but bad for the big ones? Why is it OK for Winograd and the “no kill” movement to support killing irredeemably vicious or sick dogs, but not for the ASPCA to actually kill such a dog? When is it OK to play backseat driver on an individual dog’s evaluation, without having seen the animal? When is it OK to assume bad faith on the part of one organization while taking the word of another at absolute face value? BTW, where does ASPCA throw blame on anyone other than the owner for Oreo’s fate (same as we blame the dogfighters for the fate of their victims that get killed by “rescues)? Yeah, they whined about those mean bloggers.. .but surely that’s not the issue is it? Surely no one is more upset that ASPCA wrote a press release than about the fate of the dog?
Comment by EmilyS — November 16, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Emily: You and I clearly do not read that press release the same way or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 16, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Two posts from Pets Alive’s blog:
http://petsalive.com/blog/2009.....r-animals/
http://petsalive.com/blog/2009/11/14/failing-oreo/
From YesBiscuit!:
http://yesbiscuit.blogspot.com.....-oreo.html
Comment by Christie Keith — November 16, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Emily, for starters, the owner didn’t kill Oreo, although it sounds like it wasn’t for lack of trying, the ASPCA did, on the authority of Sayles. So the burden is entirely on them. Period.
How can they maintain that they were able to accurately evaluate a seriously injured, traumatized dog after having her for such a short time in a high stress shelter environment? But, really, did they? We’ll probably never know what the staff thought. Sayles has made it clear that he personally “pulled the trigger”.
ASPCA has a sky-high profile thanks to the Animal Planet show that’s been on for years now. They need to be held to a higher standard, IMHO.
They now get to deal with an entirely self-inflicted PR s—-storm. Boo hoo.
What were they thinking, to hire Sayles, anyway? Does their board live in a cave? Putting him in charge was a disaster waiting to happen.
Comment by Susan Fox — November 16, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
It’s just sad and frustrating that things like these are real and that there are some people who are not even taking any blame on it.
Comment by Chloe — November 16, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
When I first heard, my first question was did they even call Best Friends? Then I read the NYT article again and I thought 5 months, 5 lousy months to heal all those broken bones and spirit? I wondered, if someone at the ASPCA had been in the same position, they would have been given a lot longer to heal and learn to walk again without pain and to work on healing their damaged soul and mind. They gave Oreo a lousy 5 months to ‘get over it’ before they decided to ‘end her misery’. Makes you wonder what the ASPCA would do with the wounded warriors at Walter Reed if they were in charge.
Comment by cheryl — November 16, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
An aggressive dog without a home was painlessly euthanized.
This isn’t even news, let alone a reason for villifying an organization that exists for the sole purpose of helping animals.
Comment by Drew — November 16, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Why should a dog die because she’s aggressive and homeless?
Comment by Christie Keith — November 16, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Our rescue, the one my husband serves as treasurer for and I volunteer for fostering etc… does, as do all, get in the dogs who cannot now, nor likely ever will be, adoptable due to unpredictable or intractable aggression.
If it is rage type syndrome, there is little to do, and the dogs usually progress with the seizure type episodes to the point that no one is safe with them and they are euthanized.
The ones who were tortured, starved, beaten, burned and who are mentally broken to the point that they will never be reliable in the real world? Those suck. They will usually bond with someone given time. And in carefully controlled environments they are happy and reliable.
Some end up in permanent care of the two members who can safely home them (no kids, no unexpected visitors, off the beaten path with space to quarantine them from the stresses that bring on panic and aggression), but those spaces are very very limited and most are put down.
If we had a sanctuary, one with good credentials, willing to assume all responsibility for one, even once a year or once a decade? Hell yeah. A big fat “yes” with gratitude on top.
Comment by JenniferJ — November 16, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Why should a dog die because she’s aggressive and homeless?
Comment by Christie Keith — November 16, 2009
Actually, I can think of quite of few reasons why a dog should die because she presents a real danger to people. But Christie, our views on this are colored by our personal experiences:
Yours by owning a spectacular dog by the name of Colleen who might maybe not have been allowed to be adopted out in some shelters but whose early issues you managed and finally helped her to overcome.
Mine by growing up with a neighbor child whose life was utterly changed and pretty much ruined when her family dog (a socially isolated, 24/7 chained accident-waiting-to-happen) ripped her face off.
I have no problem whatsoever, in general, at giving the needle to a dog who has and likely will again hurt someone seriously. But for me the issue of Oreo is considerably more complicated, since having made her a cause celebre, the ASPCA owed her better than she got.
In other words, if you’re going to raise publicity for the cause of raising money on the backs of abused pets, you owe those animals more than all the nameless intake snarlers at the end of a catch pole who never get a chance at all. Because these “celebrity” abuse victims, who are in the public eye, can really offer a chance for epic shifts in the way all pets are treated, both in the community and in the shelter industry.
The Vick dogs are, of course, the most sterling example of this.
I’m certain that there’s a large contingent of traditionalists within the A (and the larger shelter industry) that doesn’t really get what the fuss is all about with regards to Oreo, in the same way that the HSUS was set back on its heels by what they considered a sensible course of action regarding the Vick fight bust dogs: Take credit as heroes for “saving” them and then push for them to be killed.
This was — and in many cases remains — the orthodoxy within the traditional shelter industry, which has a long history of defining “adoptable” rather narrowly (a view the informs, interestingly enough, the shelter industry attacks on the No-Kill movement, in questioning its successes or charging it with “warehousing” pets).
As part of the continued reform of the shelter system, the powers-that-be need to take dogs like Oreo and see if they can do better. So that perhaps they can then learn to do better by all pets, in keeping with the mission from which so many in the shelter industry have long since drifted.
But even in the best shelters in the most progressive no-kill communities we someday hope to see everywhere, there will be dogs whose proven potential for harm makes them unsuitable for normal placement, and whose inability to handle sanctuary makes them poor prospects for that as well.
The problem with Oreo is that we can pretty safely bet the first case was true (after all, the A does have some very good behaviorists on staff), but the second we flat-out do not know, because she was never given the chance to find out.
The death of a dangerous dog is not something I oppose. The failure to provide her the chance for sanctuary when one was offered is, for me, the unfathomable call made by Sayres.
As for the ASPCA’s whining, self-pitying public statement? It’s more of the extinction bursts of a shelter industry whose behavior is being forced to change by communities who have had enough of the status quo.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 16, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
The BIG difference I see between Oreo’s fate and the fate of the BadRap dogs who are euthanized is that the BadRap dogs would likely be placed IF there was a place available for them to go. ASPCA had a place available and chose not to send her there. To me, that’s a huge difference! HUGE!
Comment by dvb — November 17, 2009 @ 6:33 am
I don’t disagree with you, Gina. If there were no sanctuary placement available for Oreo, it would have been completely different. But there WAS, and as you said… that and the whining press release were the problem.
I certainly don’t advocate adopting a highly reactive biter out into anything but a sanctuary situation, or the hands of an experienced rehabber who could work with and evaluate the dog for possible future re-homing.
In fact, I pretty much agree with every word you said. But it doesn’t change the question I asked: Why should simply being homeless and aggressive mean you have to kill a dog? It’s a knee-jerk response that ignores the sanctuary movement entirely. That is what I was trying to elicit from the person I was responding to — to abandon the knee-jerk “conventional wisdom” and ask, and answer, that question.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 8:06 am
For me, the bottom line to this story is the ASPCA had what appears to be a dangerous dog and a sanctuary in their area (with a proven track record on working w/aggressive dogs) offered to take her. For the ASPCA to kill the dog *without even considering the offer of sanctuary* was wrong. I know there are many shelter dogs in our country deemed hopelessly aggressive who have no such luck in getting an offer from a qualified sanctuary. Oreo was one of the lucky few. But ASPCA stood in her way and opted for death instead.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — November 17, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Also, the fact that they publicized this dog, made her an icon, got money from all that from people who were touched by her story, and then still killed her instead of realizing what a huge PR disaster (if nothing else) that would be. When they singled out a specific dog as an icon of a problem and then go and kill her in the end instead of replying to the sanctuary’s offer to take her, it shows how much the ASPCA still has their mind in the past. People won’t stand for that anymore. They don’t swallow the ‘Killing is the greatest kindness’ B.S. line anymore. They will question, they will nitpick, and they will demand BETTER.
And it’s about time. Because without more and more people standing up and questioning the status quo, these giant, complacent animal welfare groups will continue doing the same old outdated things over and over, and animals will continue to die that don’t have to.
Comment by Pai — November 17, 2009 @ 10:04 am
What sort of life would Oreo have had, in a sanctuary? A pitbull is not like a zoo animal who may do fine in a large enclosure.
A pittie needs a *real life*—the kind that involves walks and games, lying at their owner’s feet, sleeping on the bed at night. This is a DOG, perhaps the most social and man-made one out there. Pits undisputably do NOT do well in “storage”.
It seems pretty clear that Oreo is being used to make a point &/or further an agenda.
Comment by wolfdogged — November 17, 2009 @ 10:11 am
It really seems a shame that the sanctuary offer was not accepted. The easier road is to put the dog down - doggie heaven is so great we’ll help achieve this end sooner rather than later - ugh!
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 17, 2009 @ 10:17 am
How come nobody wants a pitbull until they get thrown off a roof???? and gets all this publicity. NOBODY wants to adopt a pit, I am sure they have tons of pits that can be adopted in lots of shelters through out the country.. All these people who are saying the ASPCA is bad, should shut up, go out and make a difference and adopt a pit…instead of something cute and little.
Comment by Kat — November 17, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Hi, Kat. New here?
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 11:23 am
What sort of life would Oreo have had, in a sanctuary?
That’s a good question to ask BEFORE you kill the dog.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Pai, there is not a single rescue on the face of the planet that doesn’t highlight individual animals in order to raise money. Some raise money highlighting animals they’ve already killed. If you believe that ASPCA always intended to kill Oreo after taking her in, and spending months and $$$ on her care, then your cynicism seems over-the-top.
Now my perhaps-over-the-top cynicism leads me to ask: ASPCA kills 2-3 dogs/week. Is Pets Alive following up on their concerns over ASPCA’s process and Oreo’s fate to offer sanctuary to those animals? Have they offered to take any of the Missouri bust dogs (about half of which were killed and in some cases surely only because of lack of sanctuary resources)? Have they offered to rescue any pit bulls from the hellholes of Toledo or Denver or…? How do they choose which dogs to take into their “sanctuary”, since they can’t take them all. Why choose Oreo (who would have been killed for human aggression in any shelter her owner had taken her to, if he had done that instead of throwing her off the roof)? Are they going to refrain from raising awareness of their organization and raising money using Oreo as a case study?
The motives people have for saving or choosing not to save an animal are not always “pure”… and not always “evil” either.
Comment by EmilyS — November 17, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Kat - My sweet adopted from the SPCA Pitty died this year from Lymph Cancer - she was a good member of our family for over 12 years. I think little cute dogs are nice even though all my crew are large(er) and pills in training.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 17, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Emily, honestly, did you just wake up to this realization? Who lives and who dies is so capricious as to be God’s idea of a long-running joke.
I worked with a cynical newsie who once observed that the best thing that could happen to a kitten in terms of getting a great home would be to be trapped in a sewer grate or fall down a well — as long as the news media was there for the rescue, film at 11.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 17, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Kat, she was not available for adoption.
Has anyone criticizing the ASPCA ever spent time in their behavior dept or met any of the dogs they work with and their different levels of aggression? Any experience with the Mayor’s Alliance and the various groups involved?
Emily, where did you get the ASPCA’s kill number? And do you know how many of them were ones that were actually in the Behavior program that Oreo was in?
Pia, the news is who made Oreo an icon. Tends to happen with dogs that get thrown off the roof in NYC. People tend to notice . . . . Oreo is not the first and will not be the last.
Comment by straybaby — November 17, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
It’s a difficult decision to make. I’m sure the ASPCA didn’t make it lightly, based solely on the fact that no one wants that kind of PR- euthanizing an animal that has made huge media news.
Does anyone know if Pets Alive euthanizes hopeless cases? It’s easy to say ‘what kind of life would Oreo have in sanctuary’, but what would’ve the actual results have been if Oreo did not thrive in sanctuary but in fact had actually languished? Do they have a solution for a dog that is continuing to suffer? Because a dog that is biting staff and unable to enjoy a normal life (meaning locked in room or a run or a kennel for staff safety), well, that doesn’t seem like much of a life to me.
I support sanctutaries for some animals, but i don’t feel they are the right match for every animal. How you determine which animals fit into that category- that’s the kicker.
I hope another animal that faces euthanasia will now get a chance at life due to the vacancy that Oreo left behind.
Comment by Anne — November 17, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I hope another animal that faces euthanasia will now get a chance at life due to the vacancy that Oreo left behind.
And I’m tired of the idea we have to save one and not the other. Let’s save all the ones who can be saved, and stop cherry picking the “nice” ones or the adaptable ones.
The Vick dogs at Best Friends are in a sanctuary situation, and I can’t imagine a dog who wouldn’t do just fine in that environment. If Pets Alive, Best Friends or any other sanctuary provides something close to that, and a space was available, killing the dog because she “might” not adapt to sanctuary life is wrong.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
“If you believe that ASPCA always intended to kill Oreo after taking her in, and spending months and $$$ on her care, then your cynicism seems over-the-top.”
Where did I say that? The fact that they thought it was okay to kill a high-profile dog in front of people who offered to rescue her and who donated money for her care didn’t have to be ‘premeditated’ to be obscene.
Comment by Pai — November 17, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
It simply was wrong of the ASPCA to deny sanctuary for Oreo and opt to kill her. Since when is death the better course of action rather than a life in a controlled good environment. Maybe we should ask the dog what would be preferred.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 17, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
My hope is not based on choosing one dog over another (though as a shelter worker we have to do that every day). My hope was that Pets Alive extends their vacancy offer to another needy animal now that Oreo isn’t taking it.
Comment by Anne — November 17, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
My hope is not based on choosing one dog over another (though as a shelter worker we have to do that every day).
I honestly don’t agree that you “have to” do that.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Well, when you have 20 dogs coming in, and have 5 kennel spaces, and you offer 15 dogs to other rescues, and they all say no, they’re too full, well then you start to look at whose behavior is immediately inappropriate.
Granted, this happens more so with cats than dogs. And our euthanasia rate is well below the national average (39%, not including owner requests).
And i would say choosing one animal over another doesn’t automatically mean euthanasia is the end result. When you have limited resources (people, cages, food, money), you have to choose how to spend them. That may mean you have to choose which dog gets the cherry eye surgery, and which dog gets adopted as is. or who gets speutered today and who has to wait a week. or who gets to be the featured pet, and who gets the big cage and which litter goes to foster first.
So i would respectfully disagree with your asertion that we don’t ‘have’ to choose one animal over another. I would say most rescues do it in many ways every day
Comment by Anne — November 17, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
My hope is that one day there will be no need to choose one dog or cat over another - the fact that people are in “shelters” and have to choose one life over another is perverse - this process of deciding which dog or cat dies, dehumanizes the chooser (some part of a person’s soul dies), the killing dehumanizes us as a society that this is what we have for the SHELTERING of dogs and cats…..and then the ASPCA, HSUS and PETA who should advocate for this to end but rather perpetuate the killing….well to shamelessly steal a line I read here…..where are we going and why are we all in this handbasket?????
Comment by mary frances — November 17, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Just wanted to mention that although Nathan Winograd currently defines No Kill as saving all but the hopelessly ill or vicious (dogs) he is the first to acknowledge that as the sanctuary idea grows then we will need to reevaluate our idea of No Kill. When someone is willing to take on a dying animal for hospice care or a sanctuary is willing to give life time care for an aggressive dog, we need to consider that.
Comment by Jamie — November 17, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
A dog does not have to be aggressive to be put down - shy will do it - sweet and shy. There are no rooms for scared dogs, sweet, shy, and afraid.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 17, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Can you elaborate on your comment some more Snoopys Friend?
It sounds like you are saying no shy/sweet/fearful dogs are ever placed for adoption
Comment by Anne — November 17, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Rather, lots of them are killed for not having the immediate winning charm that shelters like yours define as “adoptable.” Not euthanised; killed. Often on the grounds that they are “aggressive,” because in the scary, high-stress environment of a shelter, when backed into a corner by a big, scary, unfamiliar human, they may snap.
But even if they don’t, even if they just cower away from the perceived threat, they’re deemed “unadoptable,” and that’s a death sentence.
If your shelter got hold of my dog, her fear and stress in a kennel setting would produce behavior that “shelters” like yours deem “unadoptable”: cowering from unfamiliar people, and fear-aggressive towards other dogs. You’d kill her, not euthanize, the word is kill, and pat yourselves on the back for having been so “kind” when you did it.
But that cowering, barking, snarling monster, all fifteen pounds of her, outside of a kennel setting, is sweet and friendly, incredibly enthusiastic and patient with children even when they’re pulling her ears or tail (no, I don’t permit that, and stop it immediately when a child tries), and is a welcome visitor at a nursing home in our area as well as at my mother’s senior citizen housing complex, because she is so gentle and loving, and totally unfazed by wheelchairs, walkers, and portable oxygen.
No, not every shy or fearful dog is killed by every shelter. But too many of them are, by people who think their job is choosing who lives and who dies, rather than saving every animal possible.
Comment by Lis — November 17, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Just to clarify one point which upon reflection I realize may not be clear to Anne: It’s the difference between what a dog is like in a normal setting, especially with someone present that she knows and trusts, and what a dog is likely in the artificially high-stress environment of a kill facility. The dogs that show well in that environment are very confident animals. The sweet, the shy, the fearful—this is not where they will show well. They’ll be too stressed, they will cower, or they will try to defend themselves.
And too many of them die for it.
Comment by Lis — November 17, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
straybaby: the 107 number is in the NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11......html?_r=2
As for people comparing to the Vick dogs.. not valid and proves the opposite point. ONE was killed for human aggression and NO ONE questioned that decision. The Vick dogs that will live out their lives at BF’s “sanctuary” have other issues, but mainly dog aggression. A savvy pit bull rescue not under court order to hold them in sanctuary would probably have found homes for most of them by now. No pit bull rescuer wants to devote limited resources to human aggressive dogs. 160 “fight bust” dog victims were killed recently.. most/all were probably NOT human aggressive; they were killed because there was apparently no place available at the time for dogs of marginal temperament and health. Cry for them, not for any dangerous dogs saved at their expense. You CANT save them all. Not now, not in the future no kill nirvana.
There will always be dogs that need special help: the ones that can be rehabilitated, the shy ones and the very bold ones that don’t do well in temperament tests. And there will always be the few truly dangerous, human aggressive ones. ASPCA didn’t make the decision that Oreo was dangerously human aggressive over night.. they had custody of her for months. No one here, or at Pets Alive, has access to the evaluation (which I would like to see ASPCA make available) so there is no evidence to disprove their assessment. Or prove it for that matter. Some choose to believe that ASPCA acted entirely in bad faith. I don’t.. at least not in this case.
Keeping dangerously human aggressive dogs alive in a sanctuary must mean that a difficult but not dangerous dog will not have a spot. Oreo would have taken a spot Pets Alive could have given to a dog that can be rehabilitated. What’s the value in that?
Comment by EmilyS — November 17, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Emily, the chain of suppositions in your comment is taking my breath away. Why do you say that it has to be either Oreo or another dog? Do you not believe the sanctuary movement, just like the no-kill movement itself, can grow?
And the value, of course, is that we won’t have killed a dog.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 17, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
I’ve seen exactly what Lis describes more times than I can count at our open admission county shelter.
The difference between a dog in a kennel and out of the kennel is breathtaking and sometimes instantaneous. I was stunned the first couple of times I saw it, but I’m a believer now.
When the place starts to fill up, the call goes out and dogs are doubled up, if necessary.
Dogs have been moved out to a local boarding kennel, if it comes to that.
To kill a dog based on its behavior in a shelter kennel is, shall we say, uninformed. To do so without exhausting every possible alternative is unacceptable.
And Lis and the others are right, the word is “kill”.
Comment by Susan Fox — November 17, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Christie: no I don’t believe in “sanctuary” for truly human aggressive dogs (as opposed to those that display aggression that can be re-conditioned).
In a world of limited resources, how can it NOT be possible that a space given to one dog won’t take a space from another dog?
Comment by EmilyS — November 18, 2009 @ 9:00 am
The No Kill Nation facebook page has an image of the “vicious” Oreo on the day she was killed:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....977?ref=nf
Comment by gretchen — November 18, 2009 @ 9:20 am
In a world of limited resources, how can it NOT be possible that a space given to one dog won’t take a space from another dog?
Salvation is not a zero sum game any more than love is, Emily.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Amen
Comment by mary frances — November 18, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Salvation is not a zero sum game any more than love is, Emily.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 9:28 am
No. But. http://www.rapidcityjournal.co.....002e0.html
“Stray dogs and cats picked up in Pennington County that don’t have tags or licenses would have to be held for only one day before being adopted or euthanized, under a proposed change to the county’s animal control ordinance.”
“of the 453 animals picked up in the county through September of this year, only 120, or 27 percent, were claimed by owners.
Of the remainder, 196 — 43 percent — were adopted, and 137 — 30 percent — were euthanized.
Holloway told commissioners the move could save about $14,000 a year.”
How much money & time do you spend on one dog? Would many other dogs have been better off if this dog had been euthanized at the time of his injuries, rather than putting him through everything he went through?
I don’t have an answer, but it makes me sick to think of all the nice, healthy animals that aren’t even going to get 25 hours to find a home here in my own county…
Comment by schnauzer — November 18, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
So we shouldn’t continue to save any lives because we are doomed to failure by the likes of the Pennington County Commissioners? What a crock! These commissioners are seeing money not lives, and we in the humane movement need to make sure that we are on the opposite end of that. But as long as groups continue to quote limited resources as a reason to kill…then how can we expect other people outside the movement to care? Saving lives takes money, but more so it takes innovation, compassion, strong leadership, and not giving in.
Comment by Jamie — November 18, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
As long as we keep accepting that we can’t save them all, we won’t.
The only thing standing between saving them all and not saving them all, barring those who are at the end of their lives due to illness, injury or old age, is believing we can, and then doing it.
The idea that it’s an inevitable and eternal and unquestionable truth that we have to choose is a false one. It’s time we abandoned it. Because until we do, we’ll never implement the changes necessary to actually save them all.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
>Why should a dog die because she’s aggressive and homeless?
I certainly don’t imply that a dog should necessarily die because she’s aggressive and homeless. That is not what I said. What I said is this situation isn’t news. The fact that the dog is aggressive and homeless decreases the chance that the dog will have a positive impact on people or humans, and keeping the dog alive would require extensive resources.
It’s certainly nice if organizations with resources offer to help out a dog, but that doesn’t change the fact that when this kind of dog is killed, it’s no big deal.
The dog doesn’t know it’s dead. It was killed in a humane and painless matter. It has no soul floating around, sad because it’s no longer alive. Because it had such a little chance to make anyone around it happy— be it dog or human— I see no tragedy at all in the death.
Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
I want to make sure I stress that in my first paragraph, I’m stating that the reason the dog’s traits are relevant isn’t because they make her deserving of death, but because they make her death less newsworthy.
Of course I also meant “manner” and not “matter” in the last paragraph!
Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
“s long as we keep accepting that we can’t save them all, we won’t.
The only thing standing between saving them all and not saving them all, barring those who are at the end of their lives due to illness, injury or old age, is believing we can, and then doing it.
The idea that it’s an inevitable and eternal and unquestionable truth that we have to choose is a false one. It’s time we abandoned it. Because until we do, we’ll never implement the changes necessary to actually save them all.”
Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?
Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?
Because we aren’t even remotely close to solving those huge problems of humanity.
We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country.
Your personal slam doesn’t change the facts, of which you’re apparently entirely unaware. Pity, that.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
“Because it had such a little chance to make anyone around it happy— be it dog or human— I see no tragedy at all in the death….”
Sometimes I think I’ve seen and heard it all and there are no shockers and then I read the comments by Drew and just shake my head in amazement.
How did life (a pets life)become so meaningless Drew?
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 18, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
yeah I agree that Drew’s comment is gross. I don’t believe in souls, so I agree that no one is dead feeling sad that they are dead. But as I believe that there is no after life I feel it is all the more important that we make THIS life the best that we can. Every life is precious BECAUSE it is unique and there is no do over. the ASPCA failed OREO the unique creature that she was and there is never any way of making up for that.
Comment by Jamie — November 18, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
#63 “We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country” to that great hope..this case is on appeal but it reads:
Court orders New York City to open more animal shelters -
In September 2009 the State Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer found that the city violated the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act, NYC Code Section 17-801, et.seq., and ordered NYC to submit to it a plan to open animal shelters in all 5 boroughs and keep those shelters open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week to receive and permit the adoption of dogs and cats.
For a pdf copy go to: Committee on Animals and the Law (it’s the 8th essay down)
Case is entitled: STRAY FROM THE HEART,INC., vs. DEPT. OF HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE
Comment by mary frances — November 18, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Drew, what’s at issue here, I think, is what’s termed a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ - that is, so long as you believe a problem to be intractable it become so, because the belief itself makes it less likely that possible approaches will be recognized.
So, no, I don’t think the ills of human society - or animal cruelty - can be willed away by not believing in them. But I also know that so long as we believe them to be inevitable, we rob ourselves of the will to do much about them, and blinker the creativity that might just provide something workable.
Comment by Eucritta — November 18, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
“Right. And as soon as we stop believing in starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence, those problems will go away too? How do you make it to your age without learning the ability to think rationally?”
When did you lose the ability to research the facts behind the shelter population issue before engaging with other people in a discussion about it? Because if you had spent even a few hours educating yourself on the topic, you never would’ve made such a comparison.
Why do fact-challenged people always seem to be the most smug, insulting people to talk to about anything?
Comment by Pai — November 18, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
I was looking at a breed rescue site today and it contained the following note:
“We do not use Sue Sternberg’s Assess-A-Pet or any other extreme temperament tests on our dogs.
If we employed Assess-a-Pet methods to test [this breed] – a breed which is usually highly stressed in a shelter environment – many of them would have been killed. They would not be deemed worth saving and certainly not placed with loving families. That is where rescue comes into the equation. We take them out of the stressful shelter environment, place them into a foster home and then see how they unwind. After a few days of adjustment, we begin to see their true temperaments while they interact with a family and other pets. Remember - to a lost or surrendered pet, even the best shelters are full of loud noises, odd smells, strangers and fear. For those and many other reasons, so many of our dogs would have been killed for being too timid, too food aggressive from starvation, too fear aggressive, too hyperactive, etc. and they would not have become the beloved dogs they are today. We absolutely do not employ, nor do we recommend this type of temperament testing.”
The organization is a national one and absolutely, unquestionably reputable. I am omitting the breed intentionally because it is irrelevant to the question - but it is not Pit Bulls or anything remotely like a pittie. The dog would be considered a small house dog. The AKC considers it a first class companion dog. If this can be the philosophy of a national breed rescue organization — that before the dog can be properly evaluated, it needs to be taken out of the shelter setting, can it be such a ridiculous leap to say that this dog, abused over a period of time, gravely injured and having endured veterinary treatments which could not have been pleasant or enhanced her trust of humans, could not be given a fair evaluation until given time outside a shelter environment?
I think it is a perfectly fair question. Oreo was not your typical shelter dog.
Comment by Susan — November 18, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Drew, intention counts tremendously in solving any problem. Problems don’t solve themselves. As a first step, someone has to have the desire and the intention to solve the problem. Follow-through is also required, of course. But nothing begins without intention.
That was part of what Christie was getting at.
But another part of what she was getting at - and where her statement about “saving them all” diverges dramatically from your follow-up comparison to solving starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence - has to do with how close we currently are to achieving the desired results.
I don’t recall the exact figures, but in Nathan Winograd’s book “Redemption”, he presents data to show that an increase as small as something like 3% in the number of people adopting pets nationwide could essentially empty our nation’s shelters (citing from memory here - forgive any nit-picky inaccuracies). Three percent. The tiniest of upticks, and we’re there. Saving them all. Not a wishful fantasy, but an actual, possible, attainable goal.
On the other hand, we’re nowhere NEAR that close to having solutions to the problems of starvation, homelessness, rape, and violence. Tose problems cannot be “wished away”, and no one is suggesting otherwise. Those problems are just too widespread and pervasive. Different sitution altogether.
But saving saveable pets? That really IS within our reach.
And it all begins with intention . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 18, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
From YesBiscuit!, news of a proposed “Oreo’s Law”:
http://yesbiscuit.blogspot.com.....in-ny.html
Comment by Christie Keith — November 18, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
“”We are literally on the brink of ending killing pets because of homelessness in this country.”
Last I read, we kill 3-4 million a year.
“How did life (a pet’s life)become so meaningless Drew?”
All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss. A life has meaning if it has meaning to something alive— ie, it’s important if someone else cares about it or if the means by which the life was taken creates a fear in others that their life, or the life of one they love, will be lost similarly. This is only a tragedy because you and some others have decided you wanted to care about it and be upset. Of course that’s your choice; morality is in the eye of the beholder.
However, it seems to me that there’s always a problem when someone’s actions aren’t in line with their own goals, and that’s what I see here. You’ve used your own decision to regard this as a tragic loss to attack an organization that overall accomplishes goals that you would like to see accomplished. You are not likely to be affecting a statistically significant amount of canine lives with your attacks on the ASPCA, but you may well be turning public opinion against them, thereby costing them donations and public support.
“But I also know that so long as we believe them to be inevitable, we rob ourselves of the will to do much about them, and blinker the creativity that might just provide something workable.”
You’re responding to a strawman. I never suggested these things are impossible to solve, I was only responding to Christine’s comment that the *only* thing preventing them from being solved is belief that it can be so. It takes a hell of a lot more than belief.
“When did you lose the ability to research the facts behind the shelter population issue before engaging with other people in a discussion about it? Because if you had spent even a few hours educating yourself on the topic, you never would’ve made such a comparison… Why do fact-challenged people always seem to be the most smug, insulting people to talk to about anything?”
So educate me. I’m a veterinarian. I’ve been a surgeon at the local TNR clinic every month for the past 3 years, minus 1 clinic that occurred while I was out of the state on vacation. I’m good friend with a woman who runs a doberman rescue (she’s a tech for a certified behaviorist with whom I’ve done a residency). I’ve spent more than a few hours researching this, and I disagree with your conclusion. Seems to me you’re being quite demeaning yourself, but in a far worse way than I—I’m certainly being disrespectful and personally insulting, but not at the cost of my own argument (at least, not at the cost of the logic of my argument, though I’ve certainly lost brownie points.) You are being disrespectful in a way that harms your ability to even express your thoughts or try and convert me to your way of thinking—you’ve simply concluded that you’re right, and if only I read 4 hours of internet statistics, I’ll agree with you. I’d love to see your evidence that we are on the cusp of solving this problem.
“an increase as small as something like 3% in the number of people adopting pets nationwide could essentially empty our nation’s shelters”
The hardest thing in the world to do is change public behavior. 3% is a universe away. Here’s the kicker: by villifying the ASPCA, you’re more than likely driving that number DOWN, since the ASPCA does much net good and relies largely on donations and goodwill.
I guarantee you any economist worth his salt could come up with a large list of ways that a change in 3% of the nation’s population with regards to various behaviors and actions could practically solve any one of those problems I listed. If an additional 3% of the nation suddenly joined Habitat for Humanity, do you realize how many houses could be built? If an additional 3% of the nation made substantial donations to their local food pantry, how far would that go towards solving hunger in America? We’re talking about 9 million people (many of whom are practically speaking too young or not in the right situation to adopt a pet anyway.)
I encourage working to solve this problem. However, I don’t think we should bring out pitchforks and torches because an overwhelmingly good organization made a decision that you disagree with, resulting in the death of one aggressive homeless dog. If I am being insulting, it’s because I find your actions counterproductive and your horror and disgust misplaced, not because we have divergent goals.
Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Scratch the 9 million— I responded appropriately earlier in my reply with the assumption you meant a 3% increase in the number of adopters, but later forgot, and changed it to 3% of the population. But the exact same principle applies— changing the attitudes of a few million people is a daunting task, and again, discrediting organizations working to influence those people is not a good way to accomplish the goal.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Comment by Drew — November 18, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
“All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss. A life has meaning if it has meaning to something alive— ie, it’s important if someone else cares about it or if the means by which the life was taken creates a fear in others that their life, or the life of one they love, will be lost similarly. This is only a tragedy because you and some others have decided you wanted to care about it and be upset. Of course that’s your choice; morality is in the eye of the beholder.”
So would this same argument apply - for example - to a homeless man with no friends or family who quietly falls asleep one winter’s night and silently freezes to death? It is not my intention to draw an inapplicable comparison here. Rather, I suspect there is a stunning divide between your philosophical framework v.s. that of many who post here. For example, I believe simply accepting preventable death diminishes us all. Whereas I suspect you find no merit to that argument.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 19, 2009 @ 6:58 am
“All life is meaningless in itself. If something dies painlessly and no one else is affected in any way, then it’s no one’s loss.”
Please remind me to stay well away from any syringes being wielded by “Drew.”
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 19, 2009 @ 7:51 am
I was sort of thinking the same thing, and I’m glad he outed himself as a veterinarian. I wonder it there’s not a little “burnout” going on here, or at least compassion fatigue.
A real problem with the shelter industry, as we all know, is that there are many who just can’t see another way except kill, kill, kill, blame, blame, blame, punish, punish, punish (mandatory spay-neuter, anyone?) and wash, rinse, repeat.
That’s why it’s pretty normal for a lot of staff to leave (voluntarily or otherwise) when a shelter director aiming at building a no-kill community takes over. The shift from hating people who need help to, you know, helping is impossible for many to make.
I see that “learned helplessness” — “hey, it’s just another dead animal, not my fault, I’m just the guy who does your dirty work” — and certainly the pushing of blame in Drew’s posts.
Hate to see that in a veterinarian, and frankly, I’m sure glad my own vet does share that outlook. And of course, he wouldn’t be my vet if he did.
By the way, Drew, TNR of ferals is a different issue than that faced by adoptable (or can be made adoptable) pets. Ferals are, well, feral. The kittens can be rehomed, the wild ones need to be in managed colonies. I’ll tease to an upcoming SFGate.com column Christie’s working on for next week for more on this issue.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Someone sent me This link, more food for thought, mostly.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 8:32 am
http://www.usatoday.com/life/l.....f=obinsite
Comment by EmilyS — November 19, 2009 @ 9:05 am
@ Drew
Your argument about death not affecting others is not pertinent to this situation. As evidenced by the 70 some posts here, Oreo’s death DID affect others, people who have never even met her.
She had a place to go and she wasn’t given that opportunity. That decision may be viewed as an ethical dilemma for some, but her death should be viewed as a tregedy by all, whether we blame the ASPCA, her owner, or society in general.
Comment by Anne — November 19, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Sorry in advance for the long post. I just want to reply to Lis’ comments earlier, since she made a whole lot of accusations about the shelter I work at as well as me personally without having any knowledge about either.
Lis you accused me and my shelter of automatically ‘killing’ your dog were he to be surrendered because of his stress and fear-induced behavior. However, I and my coworkers are completely aware that animals coming in to our possession will be stressed and dealing with strangers and may act completely different in a home setting. That’s why we have specialized programs to offset the stress and encourage good behavior:
We don’t ‘kill’ small dogs that exhibit cage guarding behavior
We offer an Adoption Preparation program for shy/fearful dogs that are having troubles adjusting to kennel life (reward based training to encourage confidence and calmness)
We offer a Manners program for dogs that are unruly, pushy and rude, to learn appropriate, adopter friendly manners, such as sitting at the front of the kennel and not barking.
We offer fostering for special needs cases
We have de-stress procedures, such as bedding with Feliway for cats, and shelve units so they have control over their environment, and a ping pong ball for each one. Dogs get a bed and a hard toy (treat stuffed kong) every day, and walked multiple times every day.
You accuse us “big, scary strangers” of cornering new and fearful dogs and pushing them until they snap. Well of those big, scary strangers, in my shelter only 2 are men (and one works in the kitchen)- the rest are women who all work here because we love animals and have lots of experience (both personally and professionally) with dogs of all types and all behaviors. We have certified Vet Techs, 2 DVMs, and certified Behavioral Specialists as part of our staff. If a dog is acting stressed or fearful, we give them time to settle in.
You accuse us of ‘killing’ any animal deemed ‘not adoptable’. In fact, 1,771 animals were returned to their owners last year, and 532 animals were placed with other rescue agencies. And that’s not for lack of offering. A month ago we had 27 dogs come in from a cruelty/hoarding seizure. Even though we have a coalition with 9 other agencies, and work in partnership with 35 other rescues, only 2 dogs were accepted elsewhere, even though we offered all of them. Luckily our Prep volunteers were able to rehab all but 3 after months of care. 1 of those 3 was able to go to sanctuary, but that’s all they had space for.
I take offense at the ‘pat myself on the back’ statement. How dare you accuse us of enjoying euthanizing animals, like we never cry doing our job.
You say that not every shy and fearful dog is killed by every shelter, but without having ANY personal knowledge of my shelter or me personally, you attack me and accuse us of those things.
Trust me, you don’t need to ‘clarify’ anything for me. I am a dog owner myself, and I am QUITE aware that animals act differently around people/places they know and those they don’t.
So I hope that helps clarify some points for YOU.
Its people like you that inhibit good communication, collaboration, and learning between shelters. For shame.
Comment by Anne — November 19, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Anne, I suspect Drew might respond that Oreo’s death affects us because we have chosen to allow it to affect us. However, that difference in reaction is part of the stunning philosophical divide to which I referred in my post.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 19, 2009 @ 9:41 am
“So would this same argument apply - for example - to a homeless man with no friends or family who quietly falls asleep one winter’s night and silently freezes to death?”
Yes, it would apply—so long as you apply it properly. The problem is, according to my own argument, this wouldn’t be okay because there’s no way that we could systemically allow homeless people to die without creating a fear in others that we might face the same fate. Any of us could become homeless people, and so it causes us stress and unhappiness to think that if that happens, we will no longer receive the protection of society.
The same is not true of our animals. Most of us will never fear that our animals will become homeless and aggressive, since aggressiveness or nonaggressiveness are generally established at a very young age. I certainly understand that our animals may become homeless due to a mistake, but there’s no reason to suspect they will become human-aggressive and homeless.
Gina, I’m not sure whether you’re simply trying to be insulting, or if you actually thing you’ve presented reasonable arguments here, but your statements about “learned helplessness” and “compassion fatigue” only serve to make you feel better without considering my words. They have no effect on the logic of my arguments, besides not being true of me personally. I also don’t understand the relevance or even what your intention is in most of the other things in that paragraph—blame pushing? Who am I blaming? I don’t see it. I see blame-pushing in the original blog post, but I fail to see where I have put any blame on anyone. I’m well aware that TNR is a different situation from this one—did I say anything that indicated otherwise? I also don’t get what the anecdote about people quitting when a shelter becomes no-kill… did you just decide that in your scenario, you could assign me the role of one of those people, and this would somehow be relevant to our argument? I donate to no-kill shelters, and I encourage the re-homing of aggressive dogs when there is a will and a way. You guys are so irrational and emotional about this issue that you can’t accept the simple fact that I am a reasonable, compassionate person who most of you would love to work with in real life, who happens to have a different worldview and philosophy from you. Again, the bottom line here as far as I’m concerned is that while very little harm was actually done in the painless killing of Oreo, your actions in vilifying the ASPCA *hurt* the chances of aggressive and non-aggressive dogs ever finding a home.
“Your argument about death not affecting others is not pertinent to this situation. As evidenced by the 70 some posts here, Oreo’s death DID affect others, people who have never even met her.”
As Pat said, many people have chosen to be upset about this issue. My point is there’s no objective reason to be upset, and your decision on how to feel is, rationally speaking, hurting causes that you deeply wish to support.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Maybe it is just easier for Drew (a guess of course) to view life in his dull way, perhaps it helps him come to terms with death…..maybe it helps him not grieve and I wonder if he has lost someone dear lately and is trying in this rather stiff way to make it not important. I can understand a person doing this as a means of protection because if he hasn’t lost a loved one or a precious pet, then his position is truly scary.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 19, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Whoops— I forgot to fix my spacing after copying and pasting. And now another comment I am wasting… oh well, commence the lambasting!
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 9:46 am
“I wonder if he has lost someone dear lately” —Sorry Freud
Nope.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Sorry Freud
Nope.
Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — November 19, 2009 @ 9:52 am
You guys are so irrational and emotional about this issue that you can’t accept the simple fact that I am a reasonable, compassionate person who most of you would love to work with in real life, who happens to have a different worldview and philosophy from you.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009
Honestly, I have rarely seen anyone read so much into other peoples’ comments and assume so much about the commentors themselves. You’re not being personally attacked. You’re being challenged on your beliefs. There’s a huge difference.
As for what “us guys” believe — well, Christie isn’t irrational and emotional about ANYTHING, ever. You disagree with her, period. Impassioned, yes. Irrational, never. And by the way, I now know you really are most likely a man. “Irrational and emotional”? Advice, unsolicited: When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Trotting out “irrational and emotional” when arguing with women is … well .. sexist bullshit.
And I, in fact, have always chosen the needle over the risk of harm to a person, as I expressly stated most recently on this very thread.
What I personally said was that “guessing” how Oreo would do in a sanctuary that was offering her space is quite different than seeing how she actually did and then deciding whether killing her was a better option.
The questions deserve to be asked, and the A doesn’t get a pass because of the other good work they do. Doesn’t work that way, certainly not here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 10:07 am
The same is not true of our animals. Most of us will never fear that our animals will become homeless and aggressive, since aggressiveness or nonaggressiveness are generally established at a very young age. I certainly understand that our animals may become homeless due to a mistake, but there’s no reason to suspect they will become human-aggressive and homeless.
You did not read, or did not understand, my previous post about the behavior of sweet, shy, or fearful dogs in a shelter environment. I do in fact fear that if any accident caused my dog to land in a shelter, and for any reason they did not immediately find her microchip, “practical, realistic” people like you would decide she should be killed, and that she’d be no loss.
And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the “sensible” thing to do, and after all, she hadn’t suffered.
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 10:10 am
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.co.....r-dog.html
“Six of the dogs presented unworkable behavior issues and were given compassion holds.” (a compassion hold is a temporary foster designed to give comfort to a dog.. and a person.. in its last days before being killed)
any outrage?
Most of you are not pit bull people though you appreciate the dogs, and don’t understand the dangers to the breed, the rehabilitation of its image and status, to pit bull rescue, or the dangers to society, of allowing bad pit bulls to exist.
Bad Rap’s decisions were correct.. and so was ASPCA’s.
Salvation and love may not be zero sum games, but in the real world TODAY money, space, time and energy ARE.
Comment by EmilyS — November 19, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Emily: Are you somehow laboring under the delusion that my problem with what happened to Oreo is that I think no dog should ever be put to sleep? Because hard as I try, I can’t find a speck of parallel besides that between the two situations.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 19, 2009 @ 10:15 am
“Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game.”
This comment makes no sense. It implies that your entire purpose in commenting is to take away my enjoyment of the argument (what you refer to as “the game.”) The point of a conversation is to exchange viewpoints, possibly leading to changes in behavior. It’s sad that your only purpose in arguing appears to be to make your opponent feel bad.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
“And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the “sensible” thing to do, and after all, she hadn’t suffered.”
I would never tell you that. I’d expect you to be upset.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
“Trotting out “irrational and emotional” when arguing with women is … well .. sexist bullshit.”
Huh. Actually, I stupidly was thinking of Gina as a man’s name (I have a prof named Gino, and I guess I just read that.) My natural reaction to this is to say that you seem pretty reactionary and sensitive on this topic, but I realize that would (irrationally) make you more certain of your accusations.
I call emotional people emotional, and irrational people irrational. If you assert that that’s more likely with women, go ahead; I don’t. To put it another way, it’s sexist and stupid to avoid using the words “irrational” or “emotional” simply because you’re arguing with a woman. I use those words indiscriminately to refer to anyone who has those properties. Your last response demonstrated both of those properties, in that it lacked any logical coherence and consisted only of pathos and ad hominem arguments.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
By the way, Lis, thanks for being a voice of reason. You make a good point.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
(Man, I hope Lis happens to be a man and it sets Gina off the deep end!)
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
“Continuing to comment makes no sense with a person who obviously enjoys the game.”
This comment makes no sense. It implies that your entire purpose in commenting is to take away my enjoyment of the argument (what you refer to as “the game.”) The point of a conversation is to exchange viewpoints, possibly leading to changes in behavior. It’s sad that your only purpose in arguing appears to be to make your opponent feel bad.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
No, it doesn’t imply that her purpose is to take away your enjoyment. It implies that you are not arguing in good faith; that you are playing a game rather than engaging in an exchange of viewpoints possibly leading to a change in behavior, or even greater mutual understanding.
My interpretation is different; you seem to simply lack any comprehension of caring about the unnecessary death of another living being, if the being isn’t a family member and the circumstances don’t create (in your mind) reasonable concern that it could happen to a member of the person’s own family.
“And would probably tell me, if I discovered what had happened after the fact, that I should not be at all upset, because it was the “sensible” thing to do, and after all, she hadn’t suffered.”
I would never tell you that. I’d expect you to be upset.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
That’s very good to read, because it’s certainly not the impression you’re conveying.
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Your last response demonstrated both of those properties, in that it lacked any logical coherence and consisted only of pathos and ad hominem arguments.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009
So I guess that advice that “when you’re in a hole, stop digging” seems irrational to you. Shame, that.
This is the point when I generally suggest you can advance the discussion, or you can leave. Otherwise, you’re just trolling, and we don’t feed the trolls.
I trust you can do the former. But my long experience moderating largely anonymous discussions on Teh Interwebs is that a Nazi analogy generally follows the use (and often, misuse and misspelling) of the claim of “ad hominem” attacks.
If Godwin’s Law is your next move, you be outta here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Hey I got an idea - anyone want to comment on the potential impact of the case from New York state having on shelters across the USA?(that is - real shelters that actually save lives)(see comment #66) How about you Drew can you shift gears….?
Comment by mary frances — November 19, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Drew is expressing a sort of uber-Benthamite radical utilitarian viewpoint about life and death — as interpreted by a 10-key adding machine. Which may indeed be what we are dealing with here.
But he’s also a lying troll who claims to be a veterinarian, but won’t use a real name, and who claims to think that the name “Gina” is a man’s name, and claims to be participating in the discussion in good faith.
Which, by the way, I’m not necessarily in agreement with the OP about the death of Oreo — I’ll reserve judgment and claim not enough information — or not enough reliable information from unbiased sources. But it was an honestly-stated, coherent, rational argument supporting an opinion, and it was offered by a real person who puts her name to her work.
I think Gina’s pop-psychologizing probably hit uncomfortably close to the mark, hence the reaction. But I don’t care. I just want to keep living things out of needle range of this particular automaton.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 19, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
(Man, I hope Lis happens to be a man and it sets Gina off the deep end!)
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
You do not get your wish.
Your childish and highly emotional wish, I might point out.
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
I agree with Heather - I just don’t think I’ve got enough information to be upset with the ASPCA or not. I think it’s a sad situation. Could more have been done? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m uncomfortable demonizing people I don’t know who, from all quotes supplied, are upset enough about what they decided to feel they need to justify it, and I suspect it was not an easy decision for anyone- as it shouldn’t be.
I’m curious about Drew’s assertion that ‘aggressiveness is established at a young age’. What age would that be? A friend is currently dealing with a darling pit bull with a budding dog aggression problem- one she’d hoped to avoid by socializing and training the heck out of the dog. The resources for this sort of thing are non-existent if you are not in a situation where you can simply manage the dog’s aggression towards other animals. (And yes, people shouldn’t get pit bulls unless they’re prepared to manage this sort of problem, but like many folks, she fell in love with an athletic, brainy, outgoing, low-shedding, sweet-as-pie puppy who now wants to eat other dogs. The prevailing ‘LOVE CONQUERS ALL’ attitude that some shelters push towards behavior problems and ‘of course we’ll take her back if you can’t keep her*’ made adoption just a little too easy.
*to euthanize her since we don’t adopt out dog aggressive dogs.) This dog was fine until she hit 10 months.
Comment by Cait — November 19, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 19, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
“Drew is expressing a sort of uber-Benthamite radical utilitarian viewpoint about life and death — as interpreted by a 10-key adding machine. Which may indeed be what we are dealing with here.”
I used to date an engineer who was a lot like this. Really proud of what he considered his very pragmatic and unsullied-by-useless-emotionalism view towards what others might view as the “grey areas” in life. I suppose it kept his own life and outlook calmer and less cluttered by all those messy attachments and ambiguities. But it made him a tremendously unsympathetic person to be around whenever we encountered a situation which *I* cared deeply about, and so the relationship ended - as it needed to. Which is also why I’m not even bothering to try and enter any kind of constructive discussion with Drew. I’m pretty sure that he - like my ex-boyfriend - is completely comfortable with how “right” he is and not actually interested in even contemplating any possible alternatives.
However, it does have me wondering whether he is the product of one of those veterinary colleges that decided to eschew the personal interviews as part of their admission process as a cost-saving measure? In at least one case I know of, the college later regretted that policy and returned to the admission interviews when they realized that - unlike engineers - practicing vets really and actually DO have to have the capacity for empathetic interactions with the *human beings* who are the ones actually bringing in the animals to be treated . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 19, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
OK - I’ll comment on my comment (above #66) - seems if case law is ever created that orders shelters/animal control facilities to stay open for 24 hours/7 days a week for adoption/redemptions (and spay/neuter those adopted)….wouldn’t this almost end the killing as we know it? Maybe I’m reading the case incorrectly but STRAY FROM THE HEART, INC., vs. DEPT. OF HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE via the Supreme Court of the State of New York could be establishing such a precedence..?
Comment by mary frances — November 19, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
An Open Letter to Nathan Winograd.
http://themacinator.blogspot.c.....-oreo.html
There has been a lot of recent hubbub about a pit bull that was thrown from a roof in New York about 6 months ago. This was pretty much the epitome of a cruelty case by commission: someone literally took his dog and threw it off a roof. Every day animals are subjected to all kinds of cruelty- from the worst, like dog fighting, to things like what happened to Oreo, to more subtle, but still bad, things like being tied up and left in the yard and undersocialized with poor shelter from the element, or left with matted hair and some kind of untreated ailment. If they weren’t, I would be out of a job (and I wouldn’t mind being out of my kind of job.)
Very few of these acts of cruelty make the New York Times. This story originally made the Times when the dog owner was first charged. I’m not sure why the story was news, but it was. Maybe it was news because pit bulls are always news (usually when they attack someone or something, or a dog looks like a pit bull when it does anything wrong), and recently they’re semi-positive news due to some of Michael Vick dogs making it. Maybe it was news because many people saw this dog fall. Maybe the ASPCA made a big deal of the rescue of the dog. But speaking from someone who deals with human beings’ shitty acts every day, let me tell you, this stuff doesn’t normally make the news. And that’s probably a good thing, because usually it doesn’t have a happy ending.
This is something I struggle with a lot, and recently had an interesting discussion with a coworker about, in the euthanasia room, of all places. Each of us were going to put down one of our dogs- dogs we cared about. My dog was a cruelty case, one that will never make the news, and that no one would know about if I weren’t blogging about it here. I went to post a picture, but it’s on my work camera. I got a call about a dog in a kennel, in an abandoned house. I went out, and the house was empty. It didn’t look abandoned to me, but it was messy, and maybe the people had just moved out. I don’t know and will never know, because they never came in for their dog. The dog was indeed living in a kennel, if you can call it that. It was more like a cage, a 6x4 cage. The dog was a very large German Shepherd mix, maybe with husky or Akita. A VERY large dog, 80 or 90 lbs. The cage had a top on it and was closed up with a weird combination of wire and bungee cords. There was a build up of feces in it and the water was a bucket of green water. I was just looking at this situation, trying to figure out how I was going to get the cage open, and then, how to get the dog out, when the dog picked up one of the toys (toys?!) in the cage and started throwing them at me. Turns out, this extra large dog was actually quite happy to see me. So I took pictures, opened the cage, and walked the dog out. He was a NICE dog. He waited out his cruelty impound wait, 10 days in California, and was evaluated a week later. He didn’t pass his evaluation. I had a friend who works with rescue come look at him, and he was really borderline. He was older than I originally thought, probably 3 years old, and he was very “doggy”- a term I learned from Diane Jessup- sort of intact male, interested in intact male things, and just not very social. He could be social for a minute, and tolerated handling, but didn’t really have a place in an urban home. He was a backyard (well, a cage) dog, and couldn’t compete with the adoptable dogs the shelter was bursting at the seams with. So his euthanasia day came, and I put him down.
I put a lot of dogs that I seize down. I keep a picture in the office of a puppy I seized that was about 6 months old and looked two months old. A pit bull puppy, so riddled with demodex that she had a secondary skin infection all over her body. There was not a spot on her body that was not infected and oozing and scabby. Every lymph node on her body was swollen- her ankles and jugular were swollen like they had tumors. Her hip bones jutted out. I put her and her sister down the day they came in, as they were suffering. What does it mean to put down dogs I seize for cruelty? It is not easy for me: I have *rescued* these dogs from some of the shittiest situations, some of cruelty by commission and some of omission, and then I kill them. Yes, Mr Winograd, I kill them. I euthanize them humanely, but at the end, they are dead. They aren’t suffering anymore, but they’re not living, either.
But no one is scrambling to place them, like they were scrambling to place Oreo. No one is following me around and writing up these dogs’ stories. Thank Dawg. If everyone saw what I saw every day, they would be numb to it. They wouldn’t care about every dog, or any dog. On the other hand, the three dogs I just described weren’t aggressive. Why was everyone trying to save Oreo, a dog that a respectable organization, the ASPCA (read: not PETA or HSUS) deemed unadoptable? If Oreo was aggressive, why the clamour to save her? No one created a stir to save my shepherd and he was not aggressive, he just wasn’t particularly awesome, either, and at most municipal shelters, only the awesome go up for adoption. No one clamoured to save my mangy pit bulls, either, and they certainly weren’t aggressive. They were just very very sick, and needed so much medical treatment that it could have taken years to work them back to health. No local or national group took up their cause, and certainly not Nathan Winograd or the list of groups he gives.
Winograd is thrilled that a law is being authored to stop the “executions” of more Oreos. He says that this law is like the Hayden Law, which is in place in California. Interestingly, though, the Hayden Law only requires that STRAY dogs and cats (and rabbits and pigs) be made available to 501c3 rescue groups. (See SB 1785) And again, the Hayden bill only works if it’s, well, working. My dogs were all SEIZED, not stray, and 501c3s are swamped. Would the Sanctuary that everyone was pleading for Oreo to be sent to have stepped up for my dogs if they weren’t in the media? Honestly, my Shepherd would have been fine in a kennel at a sanctuary with daily play time. But for the pit pups and many other I seize, it would be another step in the wrong direction: they need an instant family, that would spend lots and lots of time and money. And what rescue group or family has room for all of that? Very few.
I hate that this is the truth. I hate that I “save” dogs and then “kill” them. It is one of the crappiest parts of my job. But I’m also distraught that an aggressive pit bull is the impetus for a bill that would make any dog available to rescue. Rescue is awesome. It’s necessary. Cruelty is terrible, and the animals are not the ones that should pay. The idiotic, foolish, ignorant, and sometimes badly intentioned people should suffer. In the meantime, Oreo is the wrong posterdog, and I wish we could unite without pointing fingers at the ASPCA (armchair sheltering again) and rather work together to fight cruelty and to partner in rescuing.
Comment by wolfdogged — November 19, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Drew, assuming for a moment that you are a vet, do you talk to your clients the way you talk to the people here? I once had a vet like that. I fired her and got a better vet. I don’t think anyone “chose” to have their heart broken over Oreo. If you look at the whole tragic Oreo situation on a strictly intellectual level, it’ll give you a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Valerie — November 19, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Wolfdogged, the shepherd mix you describe should not have been put down, plain and simple. No reason for it—just an organizational lack of will to find the resources to “market” him effectively to the right kinds of homes.
The sick dogs? Harder to judge. Maybe it would have been possible to humanely and effectively treat their conditions and nurse them back to healthy adoptability; maybe not. Can’t tell from the information you provide.
But no one is scrambling to place them, like they were scrambling to place Oreo. No one is following me around and writing up these dogs’ stories. Thank Dawg. If everyone saw what I saw every day, they would be numb to it. They wouldn’t care about every dog, or any dog. On the other hand, the three dogs I just described weren’t aggressive. Why was everyone trying to save Oreo, a dog that a respectable organization, the ASPCA (read: not PETA or HSUS) deemed unadoptable? If Oreo was aggressive, why the clamour to save her? No one created a stir to save my shepherd and he was not aggressive, he just wasn’t particularly awesome, either, and at most municipal shelters, only the awesome go up for adoption. No one clamoured to save my mangy pit bulls, either, and they certainly weren’t aggressive. They were just very very sick, and needed so much medical treatment that it could have taken years to work them back to health. No local or national group took up their cause, and certainly not Nathan Winograd or the list of groups he gives.
There was an organization stepping forward wanting to take responsibility for Oreo and devote some of its resources to her. Yes, this happened because she hit the news, and the ASPCA chose to make use of her to raise money. This didn’t happen for the dogs you describe; you didn’t find anyone to take them on when your “shelter” decided to kill them. The question is, of course, did you try? Did you reach out to any other organizations trying to find someone for these dogs, especially the shepherd mix who only needed the right home, not major work?
And the other question, equally important, did Oreo, who had an organization wanting to take her on, deserve to die because the dogs you talk about died? Did she have to be “punished” for not being the dogs you killed?
You can’t respond to cases you don’t know about, and you seem distressingly comfortable with the fact that at too many municipal so-called “shelters,” only the “awesome” dogs have even a brief shot at life.
It’s not Nathan Winograd who killed your dogs. You killed those dogs. And you’re outraged, apparently, at the idea that at some future date, you might be required to let a rescue or sanctuary save a dog that your opinion isn’t sufficiently “awesome” to survive in a municipal killing factory.
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Wolfdogged - I admire your honesty - there seems to be tidal wave a-coming for change in that animal control will become animal sheltering (and you won’t have to kill the dogs you save) that is the hope….I think many people will have to come together for the change (veterinarians, lawyers, rescue workers, animal control workers and the public)…and if Nathan Winograd retired and spent the rest of his life lounging in a beach chair in a sunny climate I wouldn’t blame him…he’s been a willing lightning rod - he’s called BS on the biggies (PETA, HSUS, ASPCA) - he has helped me understand the complexities of the killing - also I wonder why the ALDF hasn’t initiated lawsuits against animal control like the one in my above comment #66 - but it will take more than lawsuits to end the killing - I think this discussion is a step forward…
Comment by mary frances — November 19, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Wolfdogged- your story has utterly depressed me. I’ve followed the saga over Oreo for the past week and have seen the posts that advocates such as WAR, Pets Alive, and Nathan Winograd have expressed. I’ve also read the statements issued by the ASPCA, the Mayor’s Alliance, and PETA.
I am completely SHOCKED by the outrage and arguments that all of these groups have participated in. That agencies that fight on behalf of animals would fight amongst themselves is actually deplorable to me. In fact, I would even say that this dispute between the outcome of Oreo is a lesson in futility.
Each group believes they have the right answer. When in fact, there is no right answer.
So, Wolfdogged, while your story depresses me, I couldn’t agree with you more. Where is the outrage and shock and depression for the possibly thousands (if not millions) of abused pets that get euthanized EVERY DAY with no media to support them.
It’s hypocritical and it’s disgusting.
Maybe a lot of the folks on here will disagree with me, and I suspect they will. But those pointing the finger at the ASPCA, should also point the finger at themselves. I’m sure that Oreo is NOT the only abused animal at the ASPCA. I’m sure that your mangy puppy and German Shepherd are not the last on your euthanasia list. Has anyone contacted you (or the ASPCA) to ask (without rebuke) how they can help future pets? My guess is that they haven’t. And that depresses me even more than your sad tale.
I’m not sure how much more about Oreo’s saga I can read. It’s upset, frustrated, and angered me in a thousand different ways. But, what has upset me more than any discussion are those who refuse to be a champion for animals, and would rather prove that their opinion is the only option.
Comment by Kate M. — November 19, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
Kate, your outrage is misplaced, but is typical of the shelter industry’s blame game. On this very thread are people who step up every damn day, including people who foster and who run rescues.
Change is coming. The blame game no longer will shield yesterday’s industry “leadership” — or lack thereof.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Heh— @lis: it wasn’t a serious wish. It was a funny wish. I’m not sure you got it ;)
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Drew, I’m not sure you’re clear on the social dynamics of when you can expect people to grant you the social slack that will lead them to laugh at your “jokes” rather than rolling their eyes at them.
Or, indeed, clear on the concept of “funny.”
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Or on the concept of civil, socialized behavior. If you really are a vet, I wouldn’t bring a sick virus to you.
Comment by Susan Fox — November 19, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
“Drew is expressing a sort of uber-Benthamite radical utilitarian viewpoint about life and death — as interpreted by a 10-key adding machine. Which may indeed be what we are dealing with here….” “I used to date an engineer who was a lot like this. Really proud of what he considered his very pragmatic and unsullied-by-useless-emotionalism view towards what others might view as the “grey areas” in life.”
You guys love playing psychologists and making unwarranted assumptions. Emotions are the whole point of life, as far as I’m concerned. I’m a very emotional person. I’m utilitarian only in the sense that I don’t think actions should be wasted—in fact, our actions should best satisfy our emotional desires. I believe, based on arguments I’m not going to go into but hopefully is only a formality (I think my conclusion is self-evident), that by reaching a balance between which desires we satisfy and which desires we try and modify (counter-condition and desensitization, for you behavior types!) so that we no longer desire them, we maximize happiness-—which is my ultimate goal. Again, my problem is not with your emotions, it’s the way you’re letting one emotion influence your actions in such a way that your actions don’t accord with the satisfaction of your emotions in general—in other words, you’re behaving in a way that maximizes expression of your current outrage (short-term gain), but most likely at the expense of causes that will provide long-term happiness.
@Ifogetwho— “If case law is ever created that orders shelters/animal control facilities to stay open for 24 hours/7 days a week for adoption/redemptions (and spay/neuter those adopted)…wouldn’t this almost end the killing as we know it? “
Don’t you think that if they could afford to be open 24/7 and not kill, they would? No, I think this would simply cause lots of shelters to go bankrupt and close their doors entirely. Money isn’t something that’s simple to come by.
@valerie
No, I don’t talk to clients that way. As I stated, most of you would love to work with me in person. I’m jovial, personable, I get on my hands and knees to address my patients. That is a doctor-client relationship. I also have peer relationships, and I conduct myself differently in those situations. This, however, is a blog post—a place where people share ideas around the world. I’m trying to pull as many people into this as possible and get their brains in “rationalization” mode.
Most people come into a given issue already convinced one way or another—and it cracks me up, by the way, that there are many of you who are convinced I am such a person (I probably am) but most of you aren’t (you definitely are.) But some people sit quietly on the sidelines, reading and thinking. And when they see bad rationalizations from people not listening to reason, it bothers them. You can turn some middle-of-the-roaders to your side simply by stirring up the other side and listening to them bluster, which is what I see here. At the same time, I’m trying to defend my arguments as logically as possible.
The only logical response I’ve gotten is from Lis, who says it’s reasonable to fear that your own dog may be assessed as “aggressive” when they’re really not, and thus be put down. I think this is a legitimate concern that can never be fully eliminated, and so I admit there is some reasonable cause for concern (as I had not agreed to earlier.) However, she listed a series of things that have to go wrong here— her dog has to escape, they have to miss finding the chip, she has to become aggressive in response to stress, and the people in the shelter have to be unable to distinguish between a stressed dog and an outright aggressive one. This isn’t very likely. It’s also still possible that the behavior evals being done are perfectly legitimate; even board certified behaviorists will see signs of aggression that they will decide on the spot are not worth the effort to cure (eg, confident aggressive dogs.)I just don’t think this situation is common enough to be a realistic cause for concern— but that’s a very subjective issue.
@lis
To expand on my comment earlier— I was 99% sure that you were a woman, based on your name and the apparent makeup of this website, but it’s apparent that Gina is a female sexist who wants me to behave in specific ways towards specific people. I showed this argument to a co-worker (female), and she was offended by Gina’s comment. Gina is assuming I’m sexist because she exemplifies certain traits that GINA (not me or my co-worker) associate with women only. If all women really were irrational or emotional, I would regard those words as sexist slurs and avoid them. I don’t think that is the case, however. Given Gina’s lack of constructive discussion throughout this comments page, though, I don’t find much reason to try and win her over or try and get more comments out of her. I would enjoy the irony if her own sexist views caused her to get even more angry when, after using the words “irrational” and “emotional” when (coincidentally) talking to a female, she saw me use the word “rational” when talking to a male— her narrow-minded brain would nearly explode, I’d imagine.
@houlahan
I don’t know that I ever claimed to be discussing in good faith; however I don’t know why I would need to or why anyone would assume otherwise. What would be my ulterior motive here? I’m not sure I get the rest of your argument—are you trying to get a rise? If so, I can respond to your claims, but I wonder if there’s some other goal that I’m missing.
Comment by Drew — November 19, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
I’ll bet Drew’s been here before under another name. The modus operandi is very familiar. Mindless provocation, sexism, divide and conquer (Lis is the “good girl” this time) and can’t write less than a 1000 words at a shot. Who was that troll who showed up earlier this year?
Comment by Susan Fox — November 19, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Yes, Drew, it IS all about you, which is also pretty basic troll behavior. I called you on it, you wouldn’t knock it off, and now, you’re going out as anonymously and unhelpfully as you came in.
I actually do think you may well be a good veterinarian, if you really are one, as I’ve certainly known a few whose technical skills were brilliant but whose people skills flat-out sucked. More unsolicited advice: Treating your “peers” one way and your “clients” like idiots whose fuzzy little brains are so happy at the way you get down on your hands and knees with their pets? You might actually try treating not only your “peers” but also your “clients” with respect. My own “primary-care” veterinarian does fuss over my pets. But when he’s done doing that, we talk medicine, seriously. With respect on both sides.
You might try some of that.
But you’re still leaving the party here, having neither learned anything nor shared anything beyond your own smug belief in your superiority over us silly little pet-lovers who have the nerve to suggest pulling financial support from organizations whose policies suggest no progress in changing the kill-and-blame-others paradigm that has defined the shelter industry for decades now.
That might include the A, but we really don’t know since as Houlie has pointed out, we just flat-out don’t have reliable information on this case. That definitely includes the SF SPCA, which has totally gone off the rails of progressive leadership in the shelter industry under the current board and executive staff.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 19, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Don’t you think that if they could afford to be open 24/7 and not kill, they would?
Far too many of them would not—because far too many of them have been deeply resistant even to shifting their existing number of hours open to enable working families to go there after work or on weekends. Also, many in the traditional “shelter” industry are actively hostile to the idea of No Kill and do not regard it as even a “nice but impractical idea.” They’re committed to the idea that the entire, and insoluble, problem is the Bad Public, and that there are too many animals for the possible acceptable homes.
So, no, they wouldn’t be open 24/7 if only they could afford to be.
owever, she listed a series of things that have to go wrong here— her dog has to escape, they have to miss finding the chip, she has to become aggressive in response to stress, and the people in the shelter have to be unable to distinguish between a stressed dog and an outright aggressive one. This isn’t very likely.
Too many shelters don’t scan for microchips at all. Of the ones that do, depending on the kind of scanner they have, failure to detect a chip from a different manufacturer can range anywhere from extremely rare to all too common.
And if you read the comments I made when I was originally describing my concerns about my dog in a shelter, rather than the shorter restatement in response to you, you might have had a better understanding of how real the concern is: A typical shelter’s idea of an “adoptable” dog is a confident, out-going dog. Those are the dogs that easily show well in a shelter setting. A sweet, shy, or fearful dog may be someone’s beloved it pet, loving and sweet in normal circumstances will be stressed and terrified in a shelter setting, and will not look “adoptable” to the average shelter worker unless there is someone on staff who is a genuine professional, and willing to put in the time, effort, and resources that dog needs.
It’s also still possible that the behavior evals being done are perfectly legitimate; even board certified behaviorists will see signs of aggression that they will decide on the spot are not worth the effort to cure (eg, confident aggressive dogs.)I just don’t think this situation is common enough to be a realistic cause for concern— but that’s a very subjective issue.
Most shelters don’t have board-certified behaviorists, and no, a real professional is not going to issue a death sentence “on the spot.” Many shelters are using Sue Sternberg’s “Assess-A-Pet” temperament test—a test designed to fail as many dogs as possible and send them straight to the death chamber.
So you are factually wrong, and this is a real concern for a very large percentage of dogs that may wind up in shelters for any reason.
@valerie
No, I don’t talk to clients that way. As I stated, most of you would love to work with me in person. I’m jovial, personable, I get on my hands and knees to address my patients. That is a doctor-client relationship. I also have peer relationships, and I conduct myself differently in those situations. This, however, is a blog post—a place where people share ideas around the world. I’m trying to pull as many people into this as possible and get their brains in “rationalization” mode.
What you don’t get, Drew, is that we have no way to judge you except by how you present yourself here—and that behavior has presented as a lack of the normal range of human emotion, and either an inability, or an unwillingness, to empathize with any creature that is not part of your personal circle. Because Oreo wasn’t “family” for anyone here, you believe it’s “irrational” to care about the fact that she was killed rather than released to PetsAlive, which wanted to take her to their sanctuary and work with her. She had no value to you, by your way of thinking she had no value to anyone, and you lack the empathic ability to visualize some animal that you care about in similar circumstances. It’s extreme utilitarianism—of a kind that devalues normal human emotional responses.
And I’m wasting phosphor, because I don’t believe you’re capable of grasping how off-putting that is.
@lis
To expand on my comment earlier— I was 99% sure that you were a woman, based on your name and the apparent makeup of this website, but it’s apparent that Gina is a female sexist who wants me to behave in specific ways towards specific people.
Um. No. She’s not. This isn’t even a vaguely accurate description of Gina.
I showed this argument to a co-worker (female), and she was offended by Gina’s comment.
What did you show her? The one comment? Everything from the point you parachuted in? The entire thread, which there’s lots of evidence you haven’t read very attentively yourself?
Certainly neither of you has read much else on this blog, resulting in a lack of context.
Gina is assuming I’m sexist because she exemplifies certain traits that GINA (not me or my co-worker) associate with women only.
No, she’s assuming that you’re a sexist because you used terms to criticize her position that are typically used by sexists to insult women—and have been used that way for centuries—and she did you the mistaken courtesy of simply assuming that you had read with the minimal amount of care necessary to know that you were addressing a woman.
And, really, I gotta say—I don’t think anyone here really believes you thought Gina was Gino. Pretty feeble attempt, really, Drew.
If all women really were irrational or emotional, I would regard those words as sexist slurs and avoid them.
Uh, no. If all women really were irrational or overly emotional, those words would be factual descriptions, not sexist slurs. It’s the fact that, being false, they are nevertheless commonly used to dismiss or diminish the value of women’s arguments that makes them sexist.
I don’t think that is the case, however. Given Gina’s lack of constructive discussion throughout this comments page, though, I don’t find much reason to try and win her over or try and get more comments out of her. I would enjoy the irony if her own sexist views caused her to get even more angry when, after using the words “irrational” and “emotional” when (coincidentally) talking to a female, she saw me use the word “rational” when talking to a male— her narrow-minded brain would nearly explode, I’d imagine.
You really, truly, aren’t familiar with the general advice that when you’re six feet deep in a hole, you should stop digging, are you.
@houlahan
I don’t know that I ever claimed to be discussing in good faith; however I don’t know why I would need to or why anyone would assume otherwise. What would be my ulterior motive here? I’m not sure I get the rest of your argument—are you trying to get a rise? If so, I can respond to your claims, but I wonder if there’s some other goal that I’m missing.
Not to speak for Heather, but I do believe she thinks you’re a troll, and that your purpose is to cause trouble for the fun of it.
Comment by Lis — November 19, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
I guess the difference between me and Drew (well, just one of many) is that I actually believe in the concept of rights. And in Oreo’s case it was the right not to be killed.
So is my philosophy, which has just as long of an illustrious writing to it as utilitarianism, wrong? How do you gauge that?
Comment by Jamie — November 20, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Well I hope I don’t get labeled as a troll, but I have some sympathy for Drew. He’s taking a not very popular position and standing by it.
And frankly, I am suprised to hear myself thinking that Christie is also being extrememly rigid here.
I take a middle ground. I don’t know what tipped the scale against Oreo. Neither does Christie or Drew or Nathan W. for that matter. And unless we know that, we are not in a position to pass judgment.
Its fine to say that a sanctuary would take her, but I’m not convinced that they didn’t have some skin in the game as well (e.g. increased donations through publicity). Had they even looked at the evaluations before they made the decision? Because if they didn’t, then I have to question their motivations as well.
That being said, I’m surprised that the ASPCA didn’t do a better job PR wise. After all, they did use this dog for publicity/money raising and thus Oreo had a high public profile. They should have been prepared for the shit-storm that was sure to follow this decision. Prepared with the evaluation notes and a clear reason as to why they wouldn’t release to a sanctuary.
And I do think there ARE cases where a rescue can determine that a dog is unsuitable for placement even in a sanctuary environment. Even Nathan cites the 2-3% number. If there was testing showing something that made them believe that going somewhere else would only prolong her sufferring, then I think it would irresponsible to let the sanctuary take the dog. But we don’t know that - mainly because the ASPCA hasn’t given provided the information.
But I won’t condemn any organization out of hand until I have the FACTS, ALL THE FACTS.
I don’t have them, you don’t have them, no one but the ASPCA has them. So yes, keep pushing for answers but don’t get caught up in the extremes of either condemning or extolling the ASPCA or the Sanctuary for that matter.
Remember Richard Jewell? Things aren’t always what they appear to be.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 21, 2009 @ 8:23 am
2CatMom, I am not being rigid. Please read what I said again: I believe some dogs are too miserable or sick or dangerous to live.
I was not commenting on whether or not Oreo was one of those dogs. Not once have I said she was or wasn’t. I have commented only on how the A handled this, which was abysmally. Furthermore, if a dog has been evalauted and housed by one group, and they can’t help her, but someone else who is qualified would like to try, then yes, I think that the DEFAULT must and should be, ALWAYS, to err on the side of letting the dog live.
Does that mean another set of “eyes” wouldn’t agree with the evaluation? Of course it doesn’t. It means THE DOG GETS ANOTHER CHANCE, and in this case, without putting society at risk.
I have never said I know the “truth” about Oreo. I said the A gave up to soon on a dog they had used to raise money, and additionally blamed others and whined. Those are very different things.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 21, 2009 @ 10:24 am
I read your comments very carefully and we a fundamental disagreement. But I don’t think you are giving any respect to any other opinion but your own.
I don’t believe that when a shelter does an appropriate evaluation and a dog falls into the 2-3% category that they are obligated to let any one else test the dog. In fact, I think it would be down right negligent and irresponsible to let that happen.
Now if a shelter is acting in bad faith, that’s different but these decisions are made every day across the country, and many good people are having to make some tough calls. And NO I don’t think because someone else steps up and says we’ll take the dog that they should automatically get the dog.
What do you know about this sanctuary? How do you know that the ASPCA doesn’t have negative info on them but doesn’t care to get into a public pissing contest. Maybe they are a fine organization and the ASPCA erred. Maybe not.
But I fundamentally disagree that every dog, cat, etc. should automatically be passed on to another shelter/sanctuary that wants to give it a second chance.
Are you even willing to entertain the notion that sometimes, 2-3% of the time that the tough call is the right call? Do you want every shelter, even the ones that are saving 97% of their animals to be subject to second guessing by people who don’t have the facts to make an informed judgment?
Comment by 2CatMom — November 21, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
2CatMom: I don’t think it’s remotely unreasonable to require a second opinion and a second chance for every animal deemed “unsaveable” by one organization. Such is, in fact, the law here in California, and has been for years now. It works fine. I don’t know why you’d have a problem with it. What would the downside be of doing that?
Amended to add: In California, the law specifies that the “second chance” organization has to meet certain criteria. I don’t know anything first hand about Pets Alive, but I do know that they meet those criteria, are a member of the Mayor’s Alliance and an approved Alliance-rescue group and rescue partner of the ASPCA already.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 21, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Amen, Christie! People owed poor Oreo a real chance, she had that chance, and the ASPCA executed her just to make sure she’d never get that chance. And their sanctimonious whining as if this is none of our business makes me ill. It is our business, not only for moral reasons, but because the ASPCA sure thought Oreo was our business while they were using her as a publicity stunt to generate money.
What on earth did anyone expect Oreo to act like after being tortured and hurled six stories to her near death? Sweetness and light? And why would Oreo have trusted the ASPCA staff? Her medical treatment involved being repeatedly hurt by that staff. How could Oreo have understood that this was for her benefit and not just more torture?
Pets Alive has rehabbed very aggressive dogs, using innovative and intelligent approaches:
http://petsalive.com/blog/2008.....ase-study/
Just being with new people who didn’t hurt her might have done wonders for Oreo. But we’ll never know. The ASPCA saw to that.
Comment by SusanS — November 21, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
You know, that account on the Pets Alive site makes me much more skeptical of their ability to handle a truly human-aggressive dog, if that is what Oreo was.
The repeated references to how sad the staff was for Amelia, chasing her around trying to pet her — a lot of inappropriate anthropomorphism and weak-human-energy-caught-in-the-past stuff — these concern me.
The fact that they had to bring in a trainer from across the country to deal with what sounds like a pretty standard feral dog also concerns me.
And that they did not or could not take the obvious first step when a dog develops barrier aggression in the shelter — get her the hell out of the kennel and into a high-quality foster home.
I say this as a trainer who has helped with the emergency rehab of nearly 200 abused ferals and near-ferals this year — and since they were criminal evidence for eight months, they could not be fostered, nor were there the resources we would have liked to have to keep high-skills trainers on site the whole time. One of the “worst” is here fostering now.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 21, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
“The fact that they had to bring in a trainer from across the country to deal with what sounds like a pretty standard feral dog also concerns me.”
That’s a real plus as far as I’m concerned. Instead of sticking to what wasn’t working, they called in another trainer who got the job done. And I’d be reluctant to call Amelia “a pretty standard feral dog” without ever having seen her.
Comment by SusanS — November 21, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
I only have what Pets Alive has chosen to say about the dog to go on (sound familiar?) Cutting through the sentimentality and borderline glurge, there is nothing there to substantiate that Amelia was different from any other unsocialized, unhandled adult dog for whom flight had previously been a viable survival strategy.
Some of the choices they unselfconsciously report having made for Amelia — putting her puppy in sight but not with her so she “could see that he was well,” not leaving a collar and drop line on her, and trying to “befriend” her by “chasing her around trying to pet her” — are pretty big red flags to me that there is a dire lack of basic dog savvy and animal husbandry there.
Why, for example, did it take months — and outside instruction — for them to start hand-feeding her? This is pretty basic. Do they have no resources to deal with a kennel-stressed fence-charger? Why were they surprised that getting Oreo out of the kennel for walks changed her behavior?
Would I expect an ordinary pet owner to know that he should commence hand-feeding in order to tame a feral? Not necessarily. But I absolutely expect a rescue shelter with eleven people on the payroll that claims to be qualified to handle these difficult cases to have the basics down, and not need to be told about it by an outside consultant after months of chasing the naked dog around the run.
Yes, it’s good for Amelia that they finally brought in a trainer who knew how to work with a feral. But it does not speak favorably to the this rescue’s proven ability to accurately assess and safely handle a very aggressive, reactive, and powerful dog.
It’s quite possible that the ASPCA made the same assessment of this organization, possibly based on a lot more information than what they choose to provide on their website. To say as much would hardly have dampened the PR shitstorm over killing Oreo, so they said nothing, which was also not a very good choice, but may have been the best they could think of.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 22, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Houlahan, I am not going to participate in hijacking this thread into a discussion of how you see all, know all, fix all as a trainer. Nor do I believe you have the psychic abilities that warrant your making definitive statements about dogs you never met. This discussion is about Oreo.
If Pets Alive had much to learn from the Amelia case, they’ve clearly learned it, and they had the guts to write about that learning process. Perhaps they hoped that others would learn from it as well.
You are giving the ASPCA way too much credit. If they could save their behinds by truthfully ripping up Pets Alive, you can bet they’d be doing it. Sadly, their actions are just a perpetuation of the culture of death that pervades these places. They fix animals by killing them, and then congratulate themselves for their compassion and rip into anyone who questions what they did. I worked in a high-kill shelter many years ago and saw this attitude over and over again. How sad to see it continue. Gina and Christie are right—why should we give our money to organizations that persist in cruel and outdated fix-them-by-killing-them tactics? My money will go elsewhere.
Comment by SusanS — November 22, 2009 @ 8:27 am
“Nor do I believe you have the psychic abilities that warrant your making definitive statements about dogs you never met. This discussion is about Oreo.” ok, my head is spinning.
you can’t accuse H Houlahan of inappropriately assessing a dog, when YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING.
You believe that “SPCA executed Oreo just to make sure she’d never get that chance”. A ridiculous statement that suggests your only interest is in bashing ASPCA. I’m not even sure you actually care about Oreo and what her quality of life might have been.
If this discussion is about “must all dogs go to sanctuary even if they are hopelessly dangerous and/or ill” then it’s a useful one about philosophy. Though to support this position goes against a basic tenant of the “no kill” movement.. which is that it is NOT always “no kill”
If it’s about “ASPCA was probably right but responded carelessly/stupidly” then it’s pretty pointless.
If it’s about “evil ASPCA wants to murder animals” then it’s stupid.
Comment by EmilyS — November 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am
You ask a good question, Christie. Why not give Oreo to Pets Alive? Google Dean Solomon or Jason Meduna and you can find out what happens when you blithly accept another rescues word that they are going to get the job done.
Susan - The Chicago Alliance, CASA requires its members to pledge IN WRITING that they will not disparage another Alliance member. And if the NY Alliance has a similar rule, the ASPCA has a lot more to lose than Pets Alive if they break this rule. Hey one of Casa’s members tried to help push through mandatory spay/neuter legislation in Illinois and you didn’t hear a peep from any other rescue. (Yeah, cause they CAN’T).
I’m very suspicious of Pet’s Alive. I do think the ASPCA screwed up on this one. But they may have had very good reasons for not turning Oreo over to them. Why isn’t Pet’s Alive rated by Charity Navigator or other reputable site? They have 11 paid employees. They are certainly big enough to submit their tax forms to be rated. Where is there written plan for Oreo? And I’m not a dog trainer, but my reaction to their description of working with Amelia, elicited a big WTF from me.
And please Christie direct me to the California law you cite. If the law reads the way you state it, then the Los Angeles shelters must be breaking the law hourly.
Christie you also state that you know nothing about Pets Alive. How about you put some effort into seeing what you can find out about them? That way we’ll all be better informed and perhaps, in a position to make an appropriate judgement about them and the ASPCA.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 22, 2009 @ 8:39 am
EmilyS, someday you need to get off the net and get some experience in the real world. Then you might have a clue about dogs and shelters and related topics. I suggest you start by volunteering at a high-kill shelter. The culture of death at those places is very real and absolutely horrifying. And the language they use to justify what they do is exactly the language the ASPCA is using about Oreo.
And, no, saying that Oreo should have been given a chance at Pets Alive doesn’t assess the dog. Maybe she would have made it there. Maybe not. But the ASPCA owed her the chance, especially after using her to make a pile of money in donations.
Comment by SusanS — November 22, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Christie you also state that you know nothing about Pets Alive. How about you put some effort into seeing what you can find out about them? That way we’ll all be better informed and perhaps, in a position to make an appropriate judgement about them and the ASPCA.
2CatMom: The ASPCA told the New York Times that they’d never even heard of PetsAlive, as I state in this post. If they had alleged no QUALIFIED ALTERNATIVE was available, then the discussion would be a very different one, even without them dissing PetsAlive.
Instead, they asserted that no qualified alternative COULD EXIST. That Oreo was hopeless and needed to die.
It’s possible that was true, and it’s possible it wasn’t. I’d have liked to see Oreo have a chance to find out.
As to California’s law, it’s the Hayden Act, and yes, many, many people have alleged, often, that LA shelters violate this law pretty much on a daily basis.
This is the section that applies:
Any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, prior to the killing of that animal for any reason other than irremediable suffering, be released to a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization prior to the scheduled killing of that animal.
Similar but not identical language is aimed at cats and other types of animals in other sections of the bill.
This is essentially the language being proposed in New York State as “Oreo’s Law.”
Comment by Christie Keith — November 22, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I went back up to re-read Christie’s original post (which quotes Nathan Winograd’s blog entry) and here is what I find disturbing:
“They called and left a voice mail message on Sayres’ telephone. They called his secretary. They called the ASPCA Press Office. They contacted everyone on the ASPCA website contact page. And they were ignored, hung up on and lied to.”
If true, this means ASPCA declined to even give PetsAlive the courtesy of an opportunity for *discussion*. All else aside - with Oreo’s life at stake, how does anyone defend that?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 22, 2009 @ 10:22 am
OTHER Pat, and THEN they denied they’d ever even HEARD OF the organization!
Comment by Christie Keith — November 22, 2009 @ 10:24 am
I’m not sure that the language means that one 503(c) must release to another 503(c). Seems to me to read more that a Govt run or For profit can’t kill if there’s a request for release. But I’m not a lawyer, I have to rely on my common sense. And when it comes to the law, it doesn’t always make sense.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that an animal should be passed from shelter to shelter so everyone can have their crack at rehabilitation (not to mention money raising and publicity), What if Pets Alive failed and ANOTHER organization stepped up and said they wanted to try. How many times is reasonable?
And still, I have no answer as to why I don’t see Pets Alive on a charity rating site or why they did such a stellar job (not) with Amelia.
And SusanS - if a group steps us and claims that they are qualified to take care of a difficult case, they better have walked the walk and not just talked the talk. Oreo should not have been released to a ‘sanctuary’ that is as far down the learning curve as Pets Alive apparently is.
Ive see this all the time - especially in horse rescue. Some kind but clueless person/persons sets themselves up as a rescue/sanctuary/place of last resort and offers to take in the hard cases. The result -worse treatment for the animals. In the case of horses - cruelty, starvation and eventual death.
Something stinks here and its not just the ASPCA.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 22, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
SusanS: “EmilyS, someday you need to get off the net and get some experience in the real world. “
and you know that I do not have such experience because….????
Comment by EmilyS — November 22, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
“if a group steps us and claims that they are qualified to take care of a difficult case, they better have walked the walk and not just talked the talk. Oreo should not have been released to a ‘sanctuary’ that is as far down the learning curve as Pets Alive apparently is.”
Huh? They succeeded with an extremely aggressive dog, and had the wits to bring in another trainer when the usual methods weren’t working. Unlike the ASPCA, which preferred killing Oreo to seeking outside help.
I did some research, and this ASPCA horror is even worse than I thought. The ASPCA had Oreo for only five months before they executed her—and she was recovering from major, painful surgery and severe, painful injuries during most of that time. Oreo was only a year old, and her entire life apparently consisted of pain and terror at the hands of people. And she was supposed to cheer up and be sociable five months after being thrown from the roof? Not even the ASPCA is that stupid.
Let’s look at the timeline, courtesy of the NYT and NY Daily News:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes......-building/
http://www.nydailynews.com/new....._hook.html
Oreo’s owner beat her and threw her six stories off a roof. Oreo suffered multiple fractures in her front legs (“shattered legs”), ligament damage, bruised lungs, a fractured rib, liver injury and severe internal bleeding. We can reasonably assume that she was in agony if she was conscious.
Oreo was picked up by the ASPCA and transported to a nearby animal hospital to be stabilized. More pain and terror at the hands of people, during the transport and treatment at the animal hospital.
Oreo was then transferred to the ASPCA hospital and underwent major surgery. Still more pain and terror at the hands of people.
Oreo remained at the ASPCA during a prolonged recovery. Still more pain and terror at the hands of people.
Five months after surgery, Oreo was very likely still in pain, but it appears that no one at the ASPCA or the behaviorists considered this. Speaking from much personal experience, major orthopedic surgery hurts like hell for a long time. And orthopedic hardware like Oreo’s plates and screws can be excruciatingly painful, especially when screws loosen or stick out of the bone. Handling Oreo may have hurt her terribly.
But God forbid that she should dare to protest being hurt or terrified! Once she did so, she was no longer useful as a pretty poster girl for ASPCA fundraising. At that point, her fate was sealed. Giving her to Pets Alive would have been an admission that Pets Alive might be able to do what the APSCA would not or could not do. And that wouldn’t be good for fundraising efforts, would it?
The ASPCA pimped Oreo and then they executed her.
And the guy who beat Oreo up and threw her off the roof? He’ll probably walk off with probation. At most, a two-year jail sentence, no doubt with a good chance of early release.
Comment by SusanS — November 22, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Huh? They succeeded with an extremely aggressive dog, and had the wits to bring in another trainer when the usual methods weren’t working. Unlike the ASPCA, which preferred killing Oreo to seeking outside help.
We’re still talking about this dog, right?
http://petsalive.com/blog/2008...../#more-131
By Pets Alive’s own account, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Amelia was a genuinely aggressive dog, much less an extremely aggressive dog. They never state that she bit anyone, nor is it hiding between the lines in their narrative. She was a shy, unsocialized dog who was protecting puppies when impounded. Stop the presses! No shelter or rescue has ever rehabilitated one of those!
“The usual methods weren’t working.” Exactly. And their usual methods — as described by them in their narrative — were what a sentimental, dog-ignorant, anthropomorphizing pet lover would have tried, on the logic that “All Amelia needs is for me to shower her with wuuuuvv.”
Also, news flash — Shar Pei? Not big on the promiscuous snuggling as a rule.
A competent shelter or rescue would not be employing “chasing the dog around trying to pet her” as a “usual method” — ever. Much less for months.
They had to fly a guy from Utah in order to be introduced to some of the “usual methods” of taming an unsocialized dog that shelters and rescues that are competent to handle such animals start with immediately. And then, instead of regarding the dog’s quick turnaround as evidence that they had simply been mishandling a dog whose problems were (a) not that severe, and (b) in large part caused by the kennel environment, they concluded that the trainer was some sort of magician.
He may indeed be a very fine trainer — I assume he is. But there’s nothing in that account to support the notion that Amelia needed any training protocol that is different from that of any other shy, unsocialized, or near-feral dog. For pete’s sake, she was already willingly taking treats from people! We had dogs in rehab this year — with dedicated non-trainer volunteers as handlers — who were so fearful that it was months before they could even eat in the presence of a human. The handlers were patient and persevered and the dogs progressed. There’s plenty to indicate that Amelia was not getting that patience and respect, and that the people with custody of her hadn’t a clue.
SusanS, you seem to have a crystal ball that tells you about a lot of things — the black masses conducted at ASPCA headquarters, the unpublished secret that Amelia the junkyard shar-pei was just as aggressive as Oreo, the qualifications and nefarious motivations of the commenters here. What you don’t seem to know much about is how damaged dogs are actually rehabbed, what constitutes a difficult case, and what skill set is needed to do the job. And it seems that there is a lot of that going around.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 23, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Houlahan, we already know that you know everything about dog training, that your methods are the only correct ones, that you are psychic, and that everything you could possibly need to know about Amelia was in the Pets Alive blog. Not! You persist in trying to hijack yet another thread into yet another ramble about what a fabulous trainer you are and what total morons other trainers are.
The idea that people who have learned a great deal about rehabilitating aggressive dogs are unfit to rehabilitate them because they should have known absolutely everything from the start is too bizarre to bother commenting on.
But that’s not what this thread is about. None of Oreo’s supporters here are saying anything was guaranteed. But executing a dog after five months of pain and terror with the excuse that no one could possibly rehab her is either insane or simply a cold-blooded miscalculation on the ASPCA’s part. I think they believed that the widespread hostility toward Pit Bulls would dampen any uproar over executing Oreo, allowing them to swiftly dispose of her in a crematorium with a minimum of fuss when she lost her value as a fundraiser.
Go work in a kill shelter if you really believe in the good intentions of these huge, money-making organizations. Get a firsthand look at what happens in the rooms and corridors that the public never sees. In the kill shelter I worked at, dogs and cats were executed in the dead animal room. Dogs were dragged, often terrified and clawing at the floor when they smelled the stench of death, into a room where a huge pile of dead dogs and cats awaited them. In some cases, dogs confronted the corpses of their beloved canine friends who had come to the shelter with them. Then they, too, were executed. The shelter workers shrugged and claimed the dogs didn’t care and it didn’t matter. That’s the culture of death.
This was a modern, very pretty facility with a lovely waiting area and a handsome exterior. A pile of money had been donated to build it. But somehow they couldn’t afford to kill the dogs and cats away from the dead animal room. Why? Because it was hidden from the public and so it didn’t matter.
This same shelter had a secret policy of quietly executing every single Pit Bull, puppy or adult, that they got their hands on. When an owner came in to give up a Pit Bull or a dog even suspected of being a Pit Bull mix, the shelter workers would smile as the owner signed papers assuring them that the shelter would try to find their dog a home. As soon as the owner left, the dog was marched immediately to the dead animal room and executed. Every one of them.
The ugly policy came to light a few years ago when a volunteer for another rescue group stole one of their Pit Bulls and brought it to the kill shelter, mistakenly thinking the dog would be safer there. She blabbed after a chat with the police, the rescue group came to the kill shelter for their dog, and the hideous truth hit the media. End of policy. New policy: They refuse to take in any Pit Bulls.
People who run these big organizations are charged with making money. Lots of money. A “miracle dog” like Oreo who survives an event that should have killed her is pure gold for fundraising. Everyone wants to help the miracle dog, and the cash flows in. But Oreo became an embarrassment, a liability, and she had to disappear permanently.
The ASPCA will never get a dime from me.
Comment by SusanS — November 23, 2009 @ 11:35 am
To Drew - to refresh,
@ I foget who (sic)-
If case law is ever created that orders shelter/animal control facitlites to stay open for 24 hours/7 days a week for adoption/redemption (and spay/neuter those adopted)…wouldn’t this almost end the killing as we know it?
Drew states, “Don’t you think that if they could afford to be open 24/7 and not kill they, they would? No, I think this would simply cause lots of shelter to go bankrupt and clsoe their doors entirely. Money isn’t something that simple to come by.”
With your logic no one would have ever filed a civil rights complaint - it wasn’t money worthy doncha know….the big animal groups have taken money from animal lovers for many years….I have been one of those that used to donate (no more)…the animal rights movement has been hijacked by something sinister…check it out is all I’m saying…there are NO LAWSUITS filed against animal control for killing MILLIONS of dogs and cats…none….and this includes ALDF (animal lawyers supposedly!) Why no representation of the helpless in animal control…..and yes is a court ordered it adoption would become a priority rather than killing….funding to kill would adapt in life affirming venues. It’s a vision thing Drew…
Comment by mary frances — November 23, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
typo on the end sorry - should read, If a court ordered it - adoption would become a priority rather than killing…then the funding (from all of us as taxpayers) would go to life affirming venues…it would be work but egads killing is work….and I’ll end again with It’s a vision thing Drew….
Comment by mary frances — November 23, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Just a reminder that this conversation needs to be about ISSUES, rather than individuals. Thanks, everyone!
Comment by Christie Keith — November 23, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
I would still like Christie or other ASPCA haters to answer the following:
If a rescue/sanctuary is not qualfied to take a problem animal, but they are the only ones to offer should the animal be given a second chance with said organization? Are you willing to consider the possibility that Pets Alive might not be qualified to deal with Oreo appropriately?
How many chances at rehab should an animal have? How long should attempts at rehab have gone on? If five months isn’t long enough, is 9 months? a year? Five years? When do you call it a day? Who decides when the day is called? What do you do when qualified experts recommend different actions?
How come Pets Alive isn’t rated anywhere? surely someone on this blog knows the scoop. Christie do you know anyone who might be able to fill us in on them?
I can just imagine what you would be saying if the ASPCA turned Oreo over to a group that then decided to put her down. “Oh that bad ASPCA, they passed the buck and let some other shelter do their dirty work.”
And for the record, I’m not a huge fan of the ASPCA, I just think that there is more than one side to this story and every single one of the people who are disparaging the ASPCA on this blog seem to be unwilling to see that sometimes decisions are made, that we would decide differently but that does not automatcally make those who made the decision monsters.
And no one seems to be able to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the ASPCA had a very good reason for not giving Oreo to Pets Alive.
Yes, I would have done things differently. If I were running the ASPCA and I felt that I had done everything within my power to help the animal, I would have contacted a responsible sanctuary with a known reputation such as Best Friends that is equipped and prepared to give a lifetime of care to a really troubled animal.
It would be nice if someone would reply thoughtfully to my questions. Educate me, my ego doesn’t require me to be ‘right’ or ‘perfect’ or ‘know everything.’ And I’m always willing to adjust my opinion based on THE FACTS.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 23, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
There is an old saying that I keep being reminded of as this thread goes on: “The only thing two trainers can agree on is that a third trainer is wrong”.
You’re already seeing evidence of it in this thread. There may have been some of it at work at the ASPCA, in that if they DID feel PetsAlive was unqualified, they may not have felt comfortable making such an accusation in a public forum, for legal reasons or maybe just due to pure awkwardness.
Unfortunately, none of us know how much of that either was or was not going on. What we DO know is that PetsAlive says they tried - repeatedly, and through a variety of channels - to initiate a discussion with the ASPCA about taking over Oreo’s care and rehabilitation. And we know that ASPCA claims to have no knowledge of PetsAlive.
There’s a huge disconnect there that needs to be addressed before we can get very far with who’s qualified and who’s not, how long was long enough, how many times do you let how many organizations take a stab at it, and so on.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 23, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
How many chances at rehab should an animal have? How long should attempts at rehab have gone on? If five months isn’t long enough, is 9 months? a year? Five years? When do you call it a day? Who decides when the day is called? What do you do when qualified experts recommend different actions?
Here’s a shocker: “long enough” depends utterly on the circumstances of the individual case. And in Oreo’s case, she had experienced pain and fear at the hands of humans all her young life, and given the extent of the orthopedic surgery that was necessary, was probably still in considerable pain when ASPCA decided that she was beyond rehabilitation.
How many chances? Do you seriously believe that because an infinite number of “second chances” would be potentially unkind to the animal and a squandering of resources, that no second chances should ever be offered? That one organization that has had the dog only while she is experiencing considerable pain should be the sole arbiter of whether some other organization should be allowed to expend some resources seeing if she can be rehabilitated after the pain ends?
Because infinite second chances are too many, no second chances should be allowed? Seriously?
Comment by Lis — November 23, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Lis: I never said that a second chance wasn’t appropriate because infinite chances weren’t appropriate. What I was trying to point out (and you have acknowleded) is that IT DEPENDS. You don’t know the extent of Oreo’s problems, I don’t know either.
Everything else is a judgment call. When I look at my own friends who have had to had pets euthanized I can tell you that there are times I personally would have done it sooner or later than my friend chose. But because the criteria for what a quality life differs from individual to individual, I would be loathe to criticize them where no malice was intended.
So that’s my bottom line. Was there malice intended, probably not. Was someone operating on the stupid channel, probably.
That doesn’t make the ASPCA an inherently evil organization. Like many, they do some things well, some things not so well. If they screwed up here, then yes, they ought to be held accountable.
But I would hate to think that anytime a shelter has to make the hard choice to end what they believe is unrelenting suffering that their judgment is going to be called into question. That’s not going to help save more amimals in the long run.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 23, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Lis: I never said that a second chance wasn’t appropriate because infinite chances weren’t appropriate. What I was trying to point out (and you have acknowleded) is that IT DEPENDS. You don’t know the extent of Oreo’s problems, I don’t know either.
1. In fact, ASPCA told us a great deal about the extent of Oreo’s problems, in the course of using her for fundraising—enough certainly to know that she had extensive orthopedic surgery and there’s an excellent chance that she was still in significant pain, because it takes a long time to heal from major orthopedic surgery.
2. I do not believe there is any situation where a second opinion is inappropriate. Not a fifth or fiftieth or five hundreth opinion. A second opinion. Why do you believe this to be unreasonable?
That doesn’t make the ASPCA an inherently evil organization. Like many, they do some things well, some things not so well. If they screwed up here, then yes, they ought to be held accountable.
But I would hate to think that anytime a shelter has to make the hard choice to end what they believe is unrelenting suffering that their judgment is going to be called into question. That’s not going to help save more amimals in the long run.
And your last paragraph contradicts the one before it. How do we “hold them accountable” if they have “screwed up” in not even entertaining the possibility of accepting PetsAlive’s offer of sanctuary, if we can’t call their judgment into question or say things that might hurt Ed Sayres’ delicate feelings?
Comment by Lis — November 24, 2009 @ 4:17 am
Lis: this is my last response to you. You are intentionally distorting what I am saying. I didn’t say a 2nd opinion wasn’t appropriate but that Pets Alive might not have been qualified to do so.
And my final paragraph refers to organizations other than the ASPCA.
Until you learn to read carefully and respond respectfully with what I have to say, I am done with you. Feel free to comment away.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 24, 2009 @ 9:51 am
In fact, Gina, I do want to point out to you that the tone of this blog has greatly deterioriated over the last few months. As a long time poster, I don’t comment on this blog so I can be misintrepreted and bashed by people who disagree with me.
Disagreements are fine, but I feel the tone of the exchanges here, including Christie, have crossed a line into incivility and personal attacks.
I’ve posted a lot less frequently over the past few months and I see that many folks I used to see all the time are gone. I don’t think that’s due only to natural attrition.
You may want to think about how the tone of the blogger sets the tone for discussion. And whether you want to be a site for thoughtful discussion or flame throwing. Just saying.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 24, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Thanks for speaking up. Duly noted, and I will try to take a fresh look at how we’re treating everyone here.
Two things hit me:
1) I suspect some of the peevishness you see in the last few months may well have a lot to do with the fact that the moderators (Christie and I) have both lost parents and heart dogs. Gotta say the strains of dealing with those losses (before, during and after) can well make one less than patient.
2) This is not a “fluffy pets R cute” or “see the celebrity pets” blog — and it never will be. I will retain for all of us the right to call an idiot an idiot, and demand that others back up their sound-bite opinions with facts. That will not be changing. Debates are encouraged. Parroting the opinions of others without thinking for oneself is not.
Bottom line: This is MY HOUSE. Our bloggers write what we want and what we care about. We’re not everyone’s cuppa, and we don’t want to be.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 24, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Here’s one fact that is rather striking: Despite five months of what Oreo could only see as relentless torture by the ASPCA staff, it appears that she never actually bit anyone. According to the ASPCA’s own sniveling CYA statement, Oreo lunged, growled, snapped and attempted to bite. Attempted. Not actually bit anyone—despite being handled by staff who were so ignorant of dog behavior that they had to be instructed to refrain from sustained direct staring into the dog’s eyes. We see Oreo in the publicity photos on a leash, unmuzzled, with every chance to suddenly bite someone. But she didn’t.
It’s been my experience that a dog who really means to bite does so rather efficiently. A dog who growls, snaps, lunges, and “attempts” to bite usually isn’t attempting to bite at all. She’s trying to avoid having to bite. She’s saying, “Get away! Get away! I don’t want to bite you! Get away! Don’t push me so hard that I can protect myself only by biting you!” Given the unending torture that Oreo suffered, I think her restraint was remarkable.
Obviously Oreo needed special and careful handling and a potentially long period of rehabilitation in a safe place. I cannot imagine why anyone at the ASPCA thought it would be otherwise, and didn’t begin preparing for this possibility right from the start.
There’s a serious consumer fraud issue here too, although it pales in comparison to the other moral issues. Charities are and should be held legally and ethically accountable for how they spend the money they solicit (which makes all the whining by the ASPCA even more disgusting). If you make a mint in donations by telling people you’re going to do everything possible to fix the miracle dog, and then kill the dog when the going gets a little tough, people have every right to be mad as hell and demand an accounting. If the ASPCA can’t take that kind of heat, they need to get out of the charity biz.
Comment by SusanS — November 24, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
SusanS - there could be legal consequences regarding the treatment of OREO in legal theory though I think a case is not likely - in a civil court it could be a tort claim - negligence - a non-profit corporation ASPCA that is supposed to prevent cruelty and seems to have caused cruelty as with Oreo - they’ve breached their duty - the plaintiff filing the claim would have to show damages (who would be the complaining party, the rescue group with limited funds?) - and the difficulty there would maybe be that the value of a dog is viewed as mere property in the eyes of the law so the damages are limited in a dollar amount. Even on a contingency it might be difficult to retain an attorney to take such a case - lawsuits are difficult to get rolling (time consuming and expensive) The big animal groups have lawyers to defend themselves against lawsuit attacks I’m guessing. My complaint is that none of the big animal groups legal teams ever sue animal control for killing, ever. They’ll sue for filthy animal control conditions - sue puppy millers, hoarders(whatever that term may mean), factory farms and dog fighters. (to name a few cases) But no lawsuits against animal control facilities for killing millions of dogs and cats. I think people are getting wise to this….
Comment by mary frances — November 24, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Good evening, all.
Although I seldom comment, I have been a regular reader since 2007.
I agree with 2CatMom that the civility that once was an inherent part of this venue seems to have waned considerably. Some of the comments lately have been especially personal and disrespectful.
It’s one thing to be blunt, it’s another to be rude. When we cease discussing the topic and begin attacking each other, discourse degenerates into brawling, which gets us nowhere.
And Gina, 2CatMom and I have been here long enough to know this is not a “fluffy” kinda blog. Can’t speak for 2CatMom, but that’s not what I come here for. :-)
Comment by A.C. — November 24, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
For what it’s worth:
http://bluedogstate.blogspot.c.....html#links
Sigh …
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 24, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Nevertheless, isn’t 5-months post-operative orthopedic surgery still awfully soon to decide a dog is beyond rehabilitation and needs to be killed? Whether PetsAlive was up to the challenge or not?
If ASPCA didn’t like something about PetsAlive, so be it. But why the rush to kill Oreo without either spending more time letting her heal during rehabilitation or looking for someone that they DID trust with her ongoing care?
Rushing to kill a dog who is probably still in pain, and probably has been for most of the past 5 months does NOT qualify as doing “everything humanly possible to save Oreo’s life” to quote Mr. Sayres’ noble sentiment.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 25, 2009 @ 6:16 am
I’m not disagreeing with your point, Pat.
Just kind of disgusted with the double-decker crap sandwich that this whole public debacle turns out to be.
Disgusted, but unfortunately, not surprised.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 25, 2009 @ 7:30 am
Beat me to it, Houlie. Nice work using Teh Googles on the part of Blue Dog State, by the way.
***
I still don’t know what to say about the comments regarding blog tone. Yes, they bother me because in my mind the people who become too intimidated to comment are often the thoughtful ones who have the most to add.
Selfishly, I want everyone to comment because my own views have been changed by the well-considered points made by others, on so many issues. But I don’t want talking points, and people who can’t back up what they say because they can’t think for themselves are a waste of bandwidth.
Still thinking about this … and probably will be for days.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 7:41 am
as for tone, possibly ASPCA could have kept the dog alive longer. But to accuse them of “relentless torture” or “rushing to kill a dog” just shows less interest in the dog than in rhetoric. And APSCA surely botched the PR aspect. (not that Pets Alive isn’t making its own $$$ hay over this dog) But that in and of itself doesn’t justify the kind of bashing they’re getting (particularly in light of the information BDS uncovered with just a little journalmalism).
To me the only substantive part of the debate is whether human-aggressive dogs deserve “sanctuary” placement. Many of those here who attack the ASPCA believe they do and brush off the issues of resources. ASPCA clearly does NOT believe in sanctuary for human aggressive dogs and from their point of view it doesn’t matter whether Oreo had a place to go.
No one here can judge ASPCA on the issue of whether Oreo was indeed irredeemably human aggressive, because no one here saw the dog. Some of the people attacking ASPCA on this issue don’t blink an eye at blogs written by other groups describing the same kinds of decisions about killing human aggressive dogs (or in one prominent case, killing a dog because it “developed” dog-aggression). Pit bull rescues have to make decisions all the time and often err on the side of killing rather than keeping alive. The last thing any one needs is a headline rescue ending up biting someone. Every pit bull rescue that has commented on this has supported the APSCA decision.
Comment by EmilyS — November 25, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Comment by EmilyS — November 25, 2009 @ 8:40 am
“To me the only substantive part of the debate is whether human-aggressive dogs deserve “sanctuary” placement.”
I disagree. I think the point that this is a dog still recovering from some pretty serious orthopedic surgical procedures puts Oreo into a separate category from simply “human aggressive” or not. That point alone makes her situation apples and oranges different from the scenarios you’re discussing in your post.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 25, 2009 @ 9:15 am
as for tone, possibly ASPCA could have kept the dog alive longer. But to accuse them of “relentless torture” or “rushing to kill a dog” just shows less interest in the dog than in rhetoric.
Comment by EmilyS — November 25, 2009
You’re talking about the tone of some commentors. I’m talking about the tone of the blogging team. And at no point did any of the blogging team say anything remotely like that.
Pets Alive’s problems are a side issue. Interesting, but not relevant to the matter of whether or not Oreo deserved a shot at sanctuary instead of just … The Shot.
We give the commentors a lot of leeway here, including the amount I give you for constantly trying to “educate” a syndicated newspaper columnist, long-time newspaper editor and former college journalism prof about “what journalism is.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Gina: I really appreciate your taking the time to think about where the blog is going. I have asked for answers to my questions because I want to understand the other point of view. I do understand the desire to save Oreo. I think the ASPCA didn’t do everything they could.
But to say that Pets Alive should have had a chance with her regardless of their reputation, is something I just can’t fathom. Would you give a child to a suspected child molester cause they were the only resource that stepped up?
I have to admit that I already had heard something about them not filing apropriate forms and being a questionable rescue. But I don’t have resources or talent to investigate or substantiate these allegations.
I put this info out to see if anyone, anyone at all actually gave a shit enough about Oreo to see whether Pets Alive would be a place you would want this dog to go.
And what did I get back. Lot’s of screaming about the murderous ASPCA and not one word or one minute of care to see where actually the dog was going to go. Lots of yelling about ‘unsubstantiated claims,’ but no one stepping up and seeing if there was any merit to the claims.’
That’s not caring about a dog. That’s an emotional reaction to a terrible tragedy. Understandable, but not appropriate for professionals. And I’m sorry, Christie - I guess I’m pointing the finger at you. You are an ‘experienced journalist’ as your biography on this site states.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable when I hold you to a higher standard of conduct in terms of what you chose to publish and how you choose to react to information that doesn’t fit your view of the situation. A journalist has a moral duty to get the facts, ALL THE FACTS before writing an article.
You got half the story right - the ASPCA screwed up. I don’t agree with their stance (if this is their stance) that a dog should not be turned over to a sanctuary. I do not however, agree that any animal should be turned over to a rescue or sanctuary if they are not well thought of. There may be a very good reason why the ASPCA didn’t bother to return their calls. Because you don’t call the suspected child molester back even if they promise the child a good home.
Now, please use your talents to find out the rest of the story. Investigate Pets Alive for yourself and let us know what’s going on there. Believe me, if I had the connections, I would. You’re the professional and I think you owe your readers, the ASPCA and yes, Oreo a full and fair report.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 25, 2009 @ 10:05 am
My post above crossed with Gina’s so I want to add one more thing.
IMHO, Pets Alive is not a side issue. Not anymore. Not when so many of the comments have been about the ASPCA not returning their phone calls or how Pet’s Alive should have been given a shot to work with Oreo regardless of their reputation.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 25, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Good thing Christie lives two hours away from me, or at this point I think I would be at risk of physical harm for e-mailing her last week to ask: “Hey, could you write about the ASPCA’s handling of Oreo?”
:)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 10:14 am
yeah Gina, I understand that journalists cannot be challenged: they always do that fact checking thing… that’s why we never went to war in Iraq.
oh wait…
maybe you could factcheck “constant” as referring to my comments about journalmalism? I’ve made dozens of posts here, and perhaps 3 relate to whether the authors factchecked before publishing a blog, after one of which you asserted that it didn’t matter because PC is an opinion blog, not a newsblog.
Comment by EmilyS — November 25, 2009 @ 10:37 am
If you find a place where we got the facts wrong, we will correct. We always have, and always will. We have no problem being called out on the facts. We have also been plenty critical of the reporting of others, especially during the pet-food recall when the AP refused to admit more than a dozen pets had died because the FDA wouldn’t say so.
What you are unhappy about is that we don’t go off on tangents that support your opinions. When that happens it’s a given almost to the point of a joke that you will “call us out” on our “journalism.”
:::yawn::::
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 10:43 am
“A dog does not have to be aggressive to be put down - shy will do it - sweet and shy. There are no rooms for scared dogs, sweet, shy, and afraid.” Snoopys Friend
I agree. Some are lucky enough to find a rescue willing to work with them-but most. . .
Asthetics is a common one too. How many sweet, loving, non behavioral cases have I seen put down because they have had frost bite up here in the north that has claimed a Tomcat’s eartips, or a Dog’s eartips, even rodents with mangled tails from their wheels. If they don’t look cute and fuzzy after a bath-here comes the needle. God how many times do we have to swoop in and save a ferret who has adrenal disease from kill shelters who will kill them for their naked wasted bodies rather than talk about treatment to potential adopters. . .(Oh but the cute kitten in the front with liver danamge and kidney failure is up for adoption)
Comment by Kristy B — November 25, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Ok, yawn away. That’s exactly the kind of conduct I was talking about when I said this blog was losing its civility.
If I can’t trust you to look at the issues and see what’s going on, if you just repeat what others have published, then you are no different from the AP.
Sorry, I’m done with this site Gina. and like the pet food companies that didn’t play fair with the public, I won’t be back.
And frankly I won’t let the door hit me on the way out, so you can save your snarky responses for someone else.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 25, 2009 @ 11:06 am
“But to say that Pets Alive should have had a chance with her regardless of their reputation, is something I just can’t fathom.”
Can you show me one blogger or commentator here who said that? What we keep saying is that the ASPCA should have found a group who was qualified to work with Oreo instead of executing her. The persistent misinterpretation of what we said does tend to spark a bit of peevishness.
Houlahan, very nice work finding out the dirt on Pets Alive. This is extremely useful info, even though it’s irrelevant to the main issue here. However, there were other blogs at that site with info that is relevant:
http://bluedogstate.blogspot.c.....llers.html
To summarize the info here: Laura Maloney was the Chief Executive Officer at the Louisiana SPCA in 2005 when they seized 57 Pit Bulls from a man they accused of dogfighting. Within 24 hours, they executed every single one of the dogs. The owner was quickly acquitted of the charges but suffered a heart attack shortly after learning that all of his dogs had been slaughtered.
You would think that Maloney’s career at humane societies would be kaput. Not so, thanks to the ASPCA. To quote the blog (dated October 26, 2009):
“ASPCA shelters Maloney from the storm
Moving on to the present. . . Maloney’s feeling no pain. She’s got a nice new job at the ASPCA.
Delicately referring to Maloney’s “national recognition for managing high-profile dog fighting cases” the ASPCA placed Maloney in charge of various business units including Humane Law Enforcement, Veterinary Forensics, Government Affairs/Legislative Initiatives, Field Services and the New York City Anti-Cruelty Center.
Some gig, huh? ASPCA Veterinary Forensics. Dang.”
The other blog:
http://bluedogstate.blogspot.c.....urial.html
To summarize the highlights (quoting here from the blog):
“For 12 hours on October 28, 2008, the Woodall family watched helplessly as agents of the Humane Society of the United States, Norred and Associates, the ASPCA, local humane societies and local law enforcement swarmed over their property.
Among those executing the Woodall raid were: . . .
Melinda Merck, the ASPCA’s “forensic veterinarian.” . . .
The Woodall home, barn and wooded property was searched for nearly 12 hours. Their 13 American Pit Bull Terrier dogs — eleven adult dogs and two puppies — were seized on suspicion of dogfighting. . . .
The Woodall family, with good reason, feared that their dogs would be summarily killed as a result of their “rescue”. Joe and Tracy’s two young sons were devastated by the loss of their special pet dog, Purdy, who slept with them each night.
Yet after the dogs were loaded into Merck’s ASPCA paddywagon and taken to another county several hours away from their home, and despite news reports, Joe was never arrested. He was never charged with a crime.
It took the Woodalls two months of frantic effort, and a court order, to get their dogs back. When they did come home, they arrived in sorry condition after eight weeks of “assessment for dogfighting.” All had open sores. The gleaming, flawless coats evident in Joe’s videos on the day of the raid were gone. Two of the dogs had more significant health problems, especially one of the pups. All of them showed signs of stress and trauma. . . .
Eight weeks of “assessment” failed to identify any evidence of dogfighting in any of Joe Woodall’s dogs.
You’d think that the ASPCA’s so-called forensic expert could have established that the dogs were in excellent condition, and had beautiful, very friendly temperaments in something less than eight weeks, wouldn’t you?
Or was Merck’s only purpose to sign off on the seizure of dogs—any dogs—and let the chips fall where they may? . . .
Nothing about what happened to Joe Woodall’s dogs demonstrated care about their welfare. Nothing. HSUS’s and ASPCA’s only interest was in seizing the dogs.
Joe Woodall thinks their purpose is to exterminate all “pit bulls.” I think he’s right. . . .”
The more you dig into the ASPCA’s actions, they more they stink.
I have, however, changed my mind about donating money to the ASPCA. I have a large jar full of coins that I will personally donate to Ed Sayres, with only one condition: He’ll need a proctologist to extract the money.
Comment by SusanS — November 25, 2009 @ 11:23 am
And I’m sorry, Christie - I guess I’m pointing the finger at you. You are an ‘experienced journalist’ as your biography on this site states.
I see that later down in the thread you say that you won’t be back, but since you called me out by name, I’m going to respond.
Yes, I am an “experienced journalist.” But this is a blog, which is not a license to not do due diligence, but rather a venue for discussion and open-ended posting. And the standard of “due diligence” for posting things for discussion in a public venue is different than that for a feature article, a news story, or even an opinion piece.
Blogging is a very specific kind of journalism, and I think we practice a very high standard of ethical blogging here. We put out what we think, we correct ourselves when we’re wrong, we listen to our readers and change our minds when someone presents a convincing differing viewpoint — that is, in my view, ethical blogging.
I realize many things have been alleged about this case by commentors here and bloggers elsewhere, but I’m not responsible for defending other people’s positions. If there is something specific that I said here that is factually wrong, point it out and, if you’re right, I’ll be the first to correct my misstatement.
If, on the other hand, you simply feel that my opinion is wrong, well… that’s not a matter of due diligence. That’s not a matter of ethics, as long as I don’t silence dissent. That’s just what blogging IS.
As to the tone on the blog, like Gina, I’ve been thinking about what you said, and will continue to do so. But again, speaking only for myself and what I say, I don’t feel I was particularly snarky or unkind anywhere in this thread. If I thought I was, I’d apologize for that, too.
I truly believe I was just very passionate about what I think.
Bottom line: It seems to me you want a full-on investigation of Pets Alive, but I don’t agree with your evaluation of that being the story here.
I genuinely think that investigating Pets Alive is a distraction at this point, unless the A says that they lied when they claimed to not have ever heard of them and comes out with a new story that the problem was their lack of qualifications. THEN it would be part of the story.
Until then, the story is that ASPCA didn’t consider giving Oreo a second chance elsewhere, to the point that they said they HAD NEVER EVEN HEARD OF one of their own Alliance rescue partners who does sanctuary work.
If and when ASPCA blames their decision on Pets Alive’s reputation or qualifications, or if some one leaks a story that was the reson they shunned their offer, then my journalistic opinion would be that they’d be a suitable target for further digging.
But right now, it’s kind of like investigating whether a rape victim was a virgin, isn’t it? Turning the focus of the investigation off the PROCESS STORY about the ASPCA and its handling of Oreo into being an investigation of Pets Alive doesn’t make sense to me as a journalist.
The story would have to change for that to make sense to me. Otherwise, it would be just scurrying off after a distraction, to take the heat and focus off the ASPCA.
Again, if Pets Alive’s reputation or qualifications become relevant to what happened to Oreo, either by ASPCA statement or credible leak, I’ll be all over it. Until then, it’s not that I’m a bad journalist or a mean person, it’s that I have an honest difference of opinion about what I should be investigating or writing about.
And this is not me being nasty. It’s just an even-toned explanation of my thought process, and one I’m perfectly happy to explain, discuss, and even reconsider. But this is how I see it right now.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 25, 2009 @ 11:34 am
I also wanted to comment on the idea of Oreo’s recovery time and the orthopedic devices/methods used in her recovery. I suffered a catosptrophic knee injury 4 years ago. One of the many repairs that had to be performed required a screw to be set in my tibia and that screw is near the surface of the skin and hurts to this day when touched, or exposed to any temperature variations. I have physically recovered-but that pain is still there. I will venture a guess that the orthopedic screws and equipment were causing pain for Oreo hence the “aggressive” behavior.
Comment by Kristy B — November 25, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
I just wanted to say that despite the overly emotional and/or caustic nature of some of the discussion here, there has been more interesting and relevant info. dug up and more thoughtful commentary about this case than I’ve seen anywhere else.
Back to lurking.
Comment by LauraS — November 25, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I wonder… given the cruel history poor Oreo endured, the terrible physical trauma she suffered, the extensive healing process that her “corrective” surgeries required, and the likelihood of a lifetime of pain (as per the comments posted here), was “saving” her the right choice to begin with? She had no one she’d ever been able to trust and, apparently, was unable to connect with any of her caregivers even after she was rescued. Was the decision to operate rather than euthanize done for her benefit, or for ASPCA PR purposes?
And once the decision was made to go forward with the surgeries and the rehab, why the change of heart only five months into it? They had to have known this was going to be a long-term rehabilitation; what could possibly justify quitting only a few months into it?
They should have either euthanized her to begin with, or carried through with her rehab and given her a chance for health (both physical and mental). Whatever the ASPCA’s reasoning, poor Oreo’s entire life consisted of suffering, five months of which is on their hands.
Comment by A.C. — November 25, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
I think there are a set of widely held beliefs within the pit bull rescue community that are perhaps coloring part of this discussion without everyone realizing it.
While this may be slowly changing, it’s generally been the case that pit bull rescues consider it unethical *not* to euthanize any dog that shows any aggressive behavior towards humans - no matter the circumstances of the aggression (that is, including aggression in response to pain or extreme fear etc). I would say that this is due to 2 beliefs:
1) The idea that human aggression under anything but a life or death threat to owner or dog is a serious temperament flaw in a pit bull, indicative of a fundamentally unstable dog (this is sort of the inverse of the mass media pit bull stereotype - here, pit bulls are supposed to be super dogs, willing to withstand any level of pain and abuse rather than bite a human)
and generally more importantly
2) the idea that whether or not the individual dog was justified in its aggression and/or can be rehabilitated, it’s wrong to risk another black mark on the breed’s reputation via the media storm that will occur if someone messes up in the management or rehabilitation of the dog, and a bite occurs. I think perhaps people outside the pit bull community don’t realize how prevalent this idea is - putting an individual dog down “for the good of the breed” is said quite regularly. The belief is that while other breeds can afford to have imperfect dogs, fearful dogs etc. and perhaps rehabilitate them, there’s no room for imperfect behavior from pit bulls anymore.
Here’s a link to the pit bull rescue code of ethics endorsed by several prominent rescue groups:
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/COE.cfm
Note the section on the standard for pit bull temperament. People take the last line about “is never aggressive to humans” very seriously (as evidenced in part by the note about not rescuing the puppies of temperamentally incorrect dams).
Anyway, this might be in part informing some of the discussion of the criteria for labeling a dog as human aggressive, and in deciding what should be done with a dog who has been declared human aggressive.
Comment by monkeypedia — November 25, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
well, this all baffles me, because I thought what was important was a dog, not whether ASPCA has a “process” that recognizes a different organization that may (or may not) have experience with a human-aggressive dog. I’m also rather stunned that the proprietors have allowed to pass without comment so many truly vicious and unjustified accusations about ASPCA (though they have chosen to criticize me and other dissenting commenters, which is their right, of course)
Be that as it may, I will suggest as backup to monkeypedia’s post that those who are interested in supporting physically abused pit bulls WITH undoubtedly outstanding temperament consider sending some $$$ to the rescuers of “Faye” from the recent big dogfighting bust. Faye is a dog whose lips were ripped off (either by dog or human) leaving her with a scary appearance and dangerous medical condition. Despite this, her eager-to-love behavior COMPELLED people to try to save her:
http://muttsnstuff.wordpress.com/
Comment by EmilyS — November 25, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
well, this all baffles me, because I thought what was important was a dog, not whether ASPCA has a “process” that recognizes a different organization that may (or may not) have experience with a human-aggressive dog.
That lack of process would appear to be what killed the actual, (previously) living, breathing dog.
Comment by Lis — November 25, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Anyway, this might be in part informing some of the discussion of the criteria for labeling a dog as human aggressive, and in deciding what should be done with a dog who has been declared human aggressive.
Comment by monkeypedia — November 25, 2009
Great background. Thanks for adding it. It does provide some missing context, to be sure.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Hmmm. Maybe the ASPCA started off with good intentions, then came to believe Oreo was in more pain (mentally or physically) than they had expected and/or could handle. If that were the case, though, you’d think they would just admit it and either ask for help or publish the details that led them to this conclusion so those who have been following her progress and donating for her care would understand their choice. Especially in light of the publicity Oreo’s case has already received.
With the information currently available, their final choice doesn’t make sense. They’ve got to know that, too, so why aren’t they providing the necessary info?
Comment by A.C. — November 25, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
I have a very dear, long-time friend (my “consigliere,”I call him) who is one of the world’s top experts at crisis communications.
Over the years he has saved the behinds of many a Fortune 500 company, top exec, celebrity, etc. He believes many organizations that are actually quite good at day-to-day public relations really blow crisis communications, the expert practice of which can be counter-intuitive to “normal PR” in many ways.
My suspicion is that as far as crisis communications go — and that’s what the A was dealing with in this case, all other issues aside — the A just didn’t have the expertise someone like my friend has. Nor, frankly, could they/should they have hired him given their non-profit status, since he doesn’t even answer the phone unless guaranteed a retainer that’s more than than the annual income of most U.S. households.
Public relations aside, there’s no doubt that many animal advocacy organizations are now struggling with the changing expectations of animal-lovers who no longer accept killing of pets by “shelters” as unquestionably the job of those organizations alone to decide.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 25, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Granted that all you say is undoubtedly true and that Ed Sayles should never be allowed near an animal, but I still have trouble believing that ASPCA could use a dog like Oreo to raise buku money, kill her and then be surprised that people are upset, all other things aside.
It also seems that the whole “dog aggression” issue may have wandered into “what everyone knows” territory without a definition based on empirical evidence. As in “we know it when we see it.”, but do we?
Comment by Susan Fox — November 25, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Comment by Susan Fox — November 25, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
It also seems that the whole “dog aggression” issue may have wandered into “what everyone knows” territory without a definition based on empirical evidence. As in “we know it when we see it.”, but do we?
That’s where I find myself being most reminded of the saying I mentioned earlier, that “the only thing two dog trainers can agree upon is that a third trainer is wrong”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 25, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
There’s a long thread on Dogster right now, discussing exactly what counts as “human aggressive,” and whether fear-based biting counts.
Comment by Lis — November 26, 2009 @ 4:16 am
Interesting background, monkeypedia. However, if this were part of the ASPCA’s “reasoning,” I think they would have included it in their whining “justification”—something like, hey, we only did what some of the Pit Bull rescue groups do and recommend. But they didn’t say a word about this.
I think it’s far more relevant that the ASPCA was happy to hire a mass murderer of Pit Bulls, and to send out their forensic “expert” to seize and injure a family’s good-natured, well-cared for Pit Bulls.
The arrogance of the ASPCA throughout this disgraceful episode has been unbelievable. Sooner or later, they need to understand that they are accountable for their actions, especially since they take money from others. The Fatal Plus that was used to execute Oreo was paid for by donors who had no idea their money would be used this way. They thought they were sending money to save Oreo, not to execute her.
Comment by SusanS — November 26, 2009 @ 9:49 am