Needless killing


I know that these ASPCA people do good things, but I am sick of ALL of these shows, no matter what city, killing perfectly good dogs if they are food protective. Now before someone asks me, "Have you ever worked with animals in this capacity?" YES! I have worked off and on at an animal shelter for 15 yrs. I know that some animals can be touchy with their food. So what do you do? Make sure that whoever adopts the animal knows that they are food guarded, make them sign a waver, and done. I have seen MANY people who have had dogs that don't like someone around their food (including me!) and are great pets. On these shows they don't just go near their food to test the animal they prod and poke and basically tease it. Well no f'n wonder.
You euthanize and animal because they are sick or suffering, but this? This is NOT euthanasia it flat out MURDER!

Anyone have a Fpoon I could borrow?

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you. If someone touches my food while I'm eating it and I bite them are they going to euthanize me? It's sad I have seen some really beautiful dogs die for a stupid ass reason. It's not like they will bite if you look at them. All animals are guarded when it comes to their food that includes humans too.

reply

I am amazed. All of these shows do this, all of them, and this issue has never been addressed anywhere. I normally don't like PETA, I think they sometimes go too far, but I'd welcome them here.

Anyone have a Fpoon I could borrow?

reply

They seem to be concerned about the possibility of a child who doesn't know any better pestering the dog while its eating and being injured. Obviously, a parent should prevent that from happening, but if it slips by just ONE time, imagine the lawsuit that would be filed against the shelter.

I saw one episode where a dog with some food aggression was adopted to a young guy who lived alone. I suppose they could try to make sure that the dogs were only adopted to people in similar circumstances, but again, if it happened that a child was visiting and unsupervised for a moment....

I agree with you, its a sad situation and its not the dog's fault. Someone who has let an animal go hungry to the point where it's so defensive every time it gets a bit of food is a sub-human creep, and it's THEIR fault that the dog is usually put down.




America...Land of the free, because of the brave.
A Marine's Daughter


reply

@LaneMarie,
I agree with you, I think it's because of the potential for lawsuits. It is sad that a dog would be euthanized for this but I don't see another alternative unless people or the law change.
I adopted two cats from an animal shelter and I am grateful that there are people whol do devote their time to care for a segment of our population that needs a voice.

reply

My dog and cat are also shelter rescues, and I agree with you.

America...Land of the free, because of the brave.
A Marine's Daughter


reply

Hun, you can do all the training in the world but there's no guarantee that the animal won't attack someone touching their food. They can't adopt out an animal that would be a liablitity. Instead of crying about the ones that they can't save, why don't you just be happy about the ones they CAN save?

Money isn't the root of all evil. Love of money is.

reply

Don't get me wrong, usually they do great work for great causes, but just because they do great things doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to the very wrong things. I am aware that if handled foolishly it could be a liability but as one person mentioned how they saw an episode where one was adopted out to someone alone. Potentially dangerous products are sold all the time. There are warning labels that warn of the potential danger of using them carelessly. The same goes for animals. As you said, there are no guarantees with ANY animal.

Anyone have a Fpoon I could borrow?

reply

I cant stand this show, I get forced to watch it, as everyone else likes it. Yes they stop the abuse and neglect of animals which i support. But the times they take dogs just because some dip decided how many dogs one should have is bs. If the owner takes care of all of them, and they are seen by a vet regularly, and each one has time with the owner, loved and properly cared for, who is to say we cant have them, esp with so many animals needing adoption instead of being killed. No one complains about humans having high number of kids, that dont get the one on one attention.. Hell they are celebrated. "Cheaper by the Dozen, 1 & 2" The rule should be like 3 per person at a home, NOT 3 per home.

reply

[deleted]

I probably explained my home a little better. Since I am disabled, and my dad passed on.... My mom, Brother, and I live together, we are the only family left. all adults and no children and no chance of children ever being in my home. I do have my pups and my mom has hers.... we are over the "limit" set by the area, yet every pup is treated like a child they get attention lots of love care and vet visits (though they hate em) ... I have never had food aggressive pups... and I agree with you about the potential harm the dog could be to a child. I was taking about the pups that are adoptable. If the dog is a danger then I totally understand that the risks outweigh the benefit.. I have little ankle bitters (they dont bite) Maltese Poodle Yorkie... all lap size I dont think any of them are over 10 lbs they are all tiny....

reply

Maltese Poodle Yorkie.
==============================

That sounds adorable.




The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it

reply

yes they are ! Just had a litter!

reply

The cuteness must be off the charts!!



The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it

reply

Completely agree! It is beyond abhorrent that this is the case. Kids can literally get away with murder and rape (well they certainly do here in the UK)yet all a dog has to do is show signs of being food agressive and it is killed. What a horrible state of affairs. To those of you supporting shelters that do this. What on earth is wrong with you? You are advocating the killing of animals just because they have issues! Care to apply that logic to your own species? If not then you are nothing more than hypocrites!

reply

I see it as a matter of numbers - all these organisations have very limited budgets and have to make hard calls. Every penny spent on rehabilitating a dog and providing it with food and shelter is a penny that could have been spent on campaigns to improve adoption rates. It makes perfect sense to keep fewer dogs alive but adopt out more of them, than to keep a high number of dogs locked in cramped cages for the rest of their lives, because nobody adopts them. Higher net quality of life. And when choosing which animals to keep alive, it makes perfect sense to choose the ones which will be less draining on the budget before their adoption. And rehabilitation can be particularly draining, because labor is expensive, especially expert labor and doubly especially in rich countries that can afford to have these organisations at all. More expensive, even, than the drugs and occasional bit of veterinary check-up needed to treat a sick dog.

I'm shocked at how it seems everyone who's posted in this thread so far seems to think the SPCAs have unlimited funds...

reply

Exactly. While I agree that many dogs with food aggression issues can be taught/trained to not be food aggressive over time (I had a food aggressive dog, and I was able to train her to not be, and she was a rescue), it all depends on the shelter. If it is a no-kill shelter then yes, maybe they can work with the dog to not be. But if it is a public shelter run on government/state funding, then unfortunately, no, it is not likely that they have the time or the resources to rehabilitate those kinds of dogs.

If you all are so concerned about dogs being put down for the "wrong" reasons, then why don't you all volunteer at these kinds of shelters AND donate money regularly to these kinds of shelters so that maybe they can begin rehabilitating dogs with food aggression rather than putting them down? You all want to condemn those who adopt from these shelters, and call them hypocrites for doing so, but frankly, you all are the hypocrites for complaining about these kinds of shelters, and condemning those who adopt from them.

And my favorite kind of people are the ones who won't adopt from a no-kill shelter because "those animals are safe." Well, if people don't adopt from no-kill shelters, how are new animals supposed to get in and be safe? What about the MILE LONG waiting list that these shelters have because people wrongly assume that they should only adopt from kill shelters. If you don't get an animal out of the no-kill shelter, those on the waiting list as well as any stray are being potentially subjected to death because they can't get in. Which means if they do wind up at a kill shelter, they're more likely to be put down because the shelter they wind up in is over-crowded.

Basically, it's a no-win situation. What's the ideal solution? The ideal solution would be for animal abuse to stop, and for people who are not planning to breed their pets (and really, there is no reason for people breed their pets just because they think that puppies from their dog will be uber cute. Therefore, they) should do the right thing and spay or neuter their pet to help reduce the animal population so that shelters become less necessary, and to stop buying pets from pet shops which will then put puppy mills out of business for good, and to adopt pets from a shelter whether it be the ASPCA, SPCA, local humane society, or other local rescue shelters (and if you do a bit of research, you'd be surprised just how many shelters are probably in or near your area. I found out that there are at least TEN in or around my area!). Unfortunately, where there are pets, there will be stupid people who abuse them, and that will therefore always make shelters a necessity, as will unnecessary breeding of pets, and as long as people continue to buy from pet shops, there will continue to be puppy mills.

And if you do choose to rescue an animal but decide to avoid a shelter simply because they may put down dogs you personally think should be saved, think about all the innocent animals who are adoptable that you are likely condemning to death from that shelter because you want to send a message to that shelter. What did those animals do to deserve being shunned by you? Just something for you all to think about the next time you want to call someone a hypocrite or condemn them for something. If the shelter had unlimited resources and time, don't you think they'd save all the animals? But as was already stated, these shelters do NOT have unlimited resources and time, and therefore they HAVE to make unpleasant and unpopular decisions in order to be able to house the dogs they feel are adoptable.

OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now.

*If you see single words in brackets, this is a protest to IMDB. The new emoticons: FUGLY!*

reply



It's easy for some, especially those without kids, to say aggressive (food, territory, or otherwise) dogs should be given a chance at adoption regardless of the risks. My mother, who lived alone, adopted a dog from a shelter because he was next on the euthanasia list and she didn't want a purebred, beautiful dog to have to die. That same dog attacked my 3 year old son while we were visiting her. He was nowhere near the dog's food, he wasn't even inside the house. The dog ran out of the house when we arrived and attacked him. Fortunately, he was standing near my husband, who was able to pull him away from the animal and literally throw him in the bed of his truck, as the dog bit into his own leg. This dog had never shown any aggression toward my mother. The point of this story is that no one can really know how an adult rescue dog is going to behave. No amount of observation or training can GUARANTEE that they will not become aggressive for any number of unpredictable reasons. These non-profit shelters HAVE to euthanize aggressive dogs in order to focus resources on the animals that ARE adoptable.

reply

I can no longer watch this show. Too many times I'll be almost jumping out of my chair saying what why are you killing a dog?!! After further research sure that they have a 65% kill rate I'm just totally disgusted at the shows on the air. I cannot support a show or an agency that doesn't give animals the best chance for rehabilitation in finding a forever home. And they don't. I have seen over and over again that they will kill a dog that others would have willingly invested in to rehabilitate and give them chance. I know resources are short in this world especially in Pet Rescue but I don't trust that HSPCA has the animal's best interest in mind. They are too callous for me.

reply

Sorry, but you're wrong. There's only a small percentage of animals in ANY shelter that get adopted. Like it or not, the reality is there are way more animals out there available than people willing to adopt.

When you have perfectly healthy, happy, completely non-aggressive animals being euthanized because no one is adopting them, it simply doesn't make sense to put a ton of resources into animals that are food aggressive.

reply