Manager of No Kill Shelter fired over euthanizations

[Catherine]

The shelter manager and board members of a no kill shelter in Indiana made a decision to kill 7 dogs. They were healthy, but they believed they were not safe. Who knows. The dogs are gone so they can't be assessed. Then they lied to staff and volunteers about were the dogs were. The truth leaked out and then there were petitions. The public was not impressed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...imals.html

I know shelters sometimes end up with animals that are not safe. In extreme cases euthanasia might be the only option. It seems odd that there were seven in one month that were that dangerous. It also seems odd that they would lie about what was done. If these dogs were dangerous the staff and volunteers would already know.

I am glad someone questioned their actions. Just because you are the manager it doesn't give you the right to violate shelter policy. They are a no kill shelter so no euthanasia should happen without good cause. We have talked about this before. Shelters use outdated methods to determine if an animal is aggressive. These dogs might have been fine if they were given a chance and if they were given a fair and reasonable assessment. 

I hope the shelter itself is able to regain the trust of the community. They have some very dedicated and caring staff.

[Tobi]

It is such a shame. These dogs were considered unadoptable because they were "bite risk" dogs, having apparently bitten people in their previous homes, and bitten shelter staff.
Who knows what they would have been like in a low-stress environment? Or in a position where they could relax and start to feel trust. Just because they had bitten people in their previous homes does not mean it all had to be their fault. We have no idea what those home environments were like.
And as we know, shelter environments always push dogs to the extreme limits of stress, hyper-activity, food agression, and sometimes depression.

Of course I wasn't there. I don't really know what these dogs were like. But I am sad to hear this; sad that a way couldn't be found to rehabilitate them with love.

And that the shelter manager should lie about it?? Now that is not good and implies some level of guilt, or he would have been able to tell the outright truth.

[LPC]

I think that the hiding of what they had done, followed by the lying to cover up, means that they knew that what they were doing would not be approved by others in the shelter and the general public. They also went against the no-kill policy.

I accept that dogs which bite repeatedly may make them difficult to adopt, but as Tobi says, often the previous (non)-caretaker's behaviour or conditions in a refuge can make dogs aggressive. Lots of affection, in the refuge and/or by temporary fostering with experienced people, could turn things around. Careful observation over a long period is necessary. There is little point in claiming to be a "no-kill" shelter if you do kill!

[Catherine]

Quote:There is little point in claiming to be a "no-kill" shelter if you do kill!

Quote:And that the shelter manager should lie about it?? Now that is not good and implies some level of guilt, or he would have been able to tell the outright truth

This is the essence of the situation. No kill shelters commit themselves to saving lives and only resorting to euthanasia when absolutely necessary. If euthanizing the dogs was the right move it would not have been necessary to lie about it.

I don't have a lot of dog experience, but it seems unlikely from a statistics point of view that they would have seven unadoptable, dangerous dogs in one month. Two seems a bit extreme. It was easier to get rid of these dogs, but that is not something a no kill shelter does. They should have worked with them much longer before giving up. They could have tried fostering or sending the dogs to a shelter that specializes in aggressive dogs. Perhaps one of them might have been too far gone to help, but most of them would have responded with enough love and patience. It takes time to help a dog that is frightened and stressed out. 

They need to review their policies and make changes in how they handle things. I think in future this shelter will live up to its name as a no kill shelter. 
The fired shelter manager is another matter. I hope he is not able to get a similar position in future.

[Tobi]

I have just come back from a walk where I met a group of people with their dogs. One of them was a Rottweiler cross who was very aggressive towards a passing black Labrador. The man held it tightly by its collar, across the road to keep the dogs apart. Then he was giving sharp commands/semi-shouts but using words like "Now just stop behaving like this! This is no way to carry on..." etc. Of course that dog did not have the first clue what those words meant. All he knew was he was being held back tightly (thus, there was a strong threat about) And he was being joined by his human in making loud noises.


Sadly, the man must do this every time. The dog according to a lady I was talking to, didn't used to behave like that. He was never so bad, but over the months of being conditioned in that way he has got worse.

Of course he has!

I got an ominous feeling that perhaps one day that dog will be deemed to be "too dangerous", a threat to other dogs, walkers and possibly children. Then what will happen to him?


Sometimes I hear from grief-stricken people who "had to have their dogs put to sleep" because they became unmanageably aggressive. They nearly always say their dog loved them, and was very good and gentle with them, but bad with anyone else including other dogs, and they knew that was unsafe. Then some incident eventually happened which was too much....and the dog got a death sentence.

Those people are deeply heartbroken and filled with guilt. Their acute grief lasts a long time.


With information and contacts readily available on the internet nowadays, it makes me wonder why they didn't get behaviour and rehabilitaion advice from a professional. Or at least do some deep research and apply the principles themselves?


It seems some people think they are powerless with their dogs. That is completely untrue. A rather sad fact- (in the light of those euthanisations, and others which take place for the same reason) -is that most dogs who have intelligent rehab usually start to improve dramatically within a few days!


What people don't understand very well is: most dogs will do anything for the love and acceptance of their human, and they will do anything for a really tasty food treat.

Now while all that might not have helped those dogs already in the shelter environment, the dogs might not have ended up in the shelter in the first place if their people had been willing to work hard with them, and more importantly, change their own attitudes and rehabilitate themselves!

[Catherine]

I would fear for that Rottweiler cross. His future doesn't look good.
Most people are too undisciplined themselves to be able to discipline their dog. As I understand it, you have to be firm and patient and consistent with a dog. Commands need to be simple and always the same. People who say long involved things to their dogs are ridiculous. Do they really think the dog can understand and respond to such things.

Dogs who end up in shelters for aggression have probably lived in situations that have been frustrating and threatening.

There are online sites that could help and there are dog trainers. Why wouldn't a person get help.
It has been my experience of people that most won't do things to help themselves. They certainly won't do anything to help their dog.

I think most of these dogs will still get better with the right training. Shelters are supposed to provide that training and not give up and euthanize the animal.  Hopefully the publicity from this will make people think about how they are training their dog and prevent it from ending up in the shelter in the first place.