I'd like to hear what people against behavioral euthanasia think. So many posts on various shelter dog subreddits are advocating for a dog with a record of violence to be saved from BE. Why use your time, effort, and resources on dogs who are not adoptable for the average family, when there is an unlimited amount of homeless dogs that would be? Why promote a violent dog to possible adopters that could put them in danger?
Welcome to r/RescueDogs! Please review the subreddit rules before participating. If you see a post or comment that breaks the rules, please report it to the moderators rather than engaging with it.
So record of violence is probably different than what I have experienced, but there is one reason im not a fan of it in my area. We have 2 shelters that both, in my opinion, use just about any aggressive or defensive behavior as justification for BE. If a dog is scared and snaps or is growling, they will just assume the dog is not fit to be adopted.
But I do agree with your sentiment in general. There are so many dogs out there not being adopted. To push for a dog that could be a danger unless in a very specific environment is strange to me.
We just rescued a lovely 6 year old pyrness mix. The shelter we got her from is great. We looked at another dog as well and it actually bit my wife and wouldn't even let me look at it. Like that dog is not fit to be in our home. The staff had a list of about 10 things a home needed to have or not have to be safe with this dog. That is just asking for trouble.
I rescued a Rottweiler from a shelter that did not disclose had been abused but he clearly had been once I got him. I think he was comfortable with one worker there who I originally saw him with and then the day I went to pick him up it took a while and they said they were just trying to get the harness on him and knowing what I know now he was probably growling and trying to bite. They gave him to me with a big bag of food he had been eating and so he followed me to my truck but then when I reached down to help him in the truck he showed his teeth but the girl who he was comfortable with helped put him in my truck then when I got home it took 3hrs just to get him out of my truck. He was fine with me once I got him out of the truck finally and took him on a quick walk but there have been issues with other people. All that said I couldn’t imagine my life without him now he is the biggest baby I just have to know his limits with strangers and I have to be a responsible owner and keep him on a leash and use a muzzle when it’s needed. He has taught me a lot as far as owning a dog and being a responsible owner and his love is unmatched. I think he just never knew love from a person and lots of these dogs who act like that haven’t and that’s not their fault it’s shitty peoples fault
This common trope that the dog was “probably abused” is 99.999% horseshit.
The vast majority of the dogs rescues and shelters claim “were abused” just have had bad genetics from not friendly parents, poor husbandry- including inappropriate socialization/handling of fear periods- or both. Which, with a powerful guardian or dog fighting breed spells potential disaster.
You were very lucky, and thank fuck you were vigilant and honest, thinking of your neighbors, which in my experience Rottie owners are. Wish all adopters were like you.
Amen!!! One of my biggest pet peeves is when clients bring in a dog for an appointment (I'm a vet assistant) and the dog is either nervous and aggressive or shaking and cowering and the owner immediately states "They were abused before we got them". Then I ask how old the dog was when they got the them and the answer is............8 weeks old! No you troglodyte, they were not abused before you got them- YOU abused them by not socializing them and teaching them basic coping skills for life outside the boundaries of your home!! (And yes, I will absolutely die on the hill that not providing basic socialization outside of your home is a form of abuse - no dog should have to quake in terror or feel like it has to violently defend themselves because you were too lazy and/or ignorant to expose them to the outside world. Granted there are there will be the occasional dog with terrible DNA thats going to act like this regardless but the vast majority simply never had the opportunity to have positive experiences out of their home.)
My dogs first adopters got her as a puppy, had access to free training through the SPCA which they didn’t use, and left her tied up outside animal control at night time with a note and drove off. She was a year and a half, 20 pounds underweight and had bad kennel stress, animal control checked for a chip and saw she was an SPCA dog. They never updated the microchip even!! Luckily SPCA sent a foster to go pick her up and after a few months with her foster, I adopted her. She clearly hadn’t been handled for bathing/teeth care/ears/paws/etc. and her foster mom taught her sit but said she didn’t know anything else and hadn’t been leash trained at all really.
It’s taken a lot to work to catch up on all the things they never exposed her to or did with her as a puppy! I don’t get how people can get a dog and just not do these things and then dump them when they’re no longer little and cute because they didn’t put the work in.
So people saying an 8 week puppy was abused before they got them, sounds more like they never did early handling training. 8 weeks is a baby there is still so much early socialization time in their lives ahead to expose them to things!!
At 8 weeks they can be little land sharks. The people who got the pup decided to just tie them outside and not do anything to work through it. Then probably was moving and didn't/couldn't take the dog with them.
My dog was guessed to be around two when I got him and he was fearful of men and would cower with hand movements near him and close his eyes like he thought he was going to get hit. I don’t think that’s his genetics. He was also underweight you could see his ribs
Fair point and absolutely true. However, I will say that after almost 29 years in the field, the vast majority that I've met that are abjectly terrified are due to poor socialization and/or lack of effort on the owner's part. Even fear free clinics may require multiple visits to desensitize patients to veterinary procedures and there are multitudes of owners for whom that is "too much work." Forgive me for being cynical but I've seen too much unnecessary fear inflicted upon people's pets because they were either too ignorant (don't even get me started on those who do more research on an air fryer than on a living, breathing creature) or too lazy to put in the effort.
Also, it sounds harsh but idgaf about the reason/excuse. If a dog is biting and it cannot be immediately and permanently addressed, the dog is a risk. Im sorry for the dogs let down by people whether it be abuse, lack of training/socializing, or poor breeding. But the reason doesn't matter if other people and dogs are bring hurt or killed because of it. And let's be real, there are plenty of dogs who are neglected and abused and never hurt anyone. Its a lame excuse used by people that are irresponsible managing their dogs.
That is a bit harsh, in my opinion. There are plenty of dogs who, given a chance to "decompress" will no longer be aggressive. Obviously, if they are seriously injuring people and/or other dogs, then I generally support BE quickly but there are plenty of dogs that just need a little care and would then make wonderful pets given. Of course, the issue there is that the overwhelming majority of shelters do not employ behaviorist or even staff who are remotely qualified to make those sort of distinctions reliably. So those poor dogs wind up being warehoused because they aren't eminently adoptable but also not aggressive enough to automatically qualify for immediate BE.
Foe those poor souls, I would probably advocate for euthanasia simply because there are worse things - and having to live your life 24/7 in a shelter for years on end is one of those things. The sad reality is that we don't have enough homes for even the perfect dogs. So I guess you and I end up at the same place but get there for slightly different reasons.
That bait dog part is crazy because if you knew anything about how terrible dog fighting is, a bait dog would be visibly hugely scarred if not dead (more likely).
Around here people say the bait dog part for any smaller pit type dog. Like no, your dog like the 4 million other dogs in Texas is from someone who didn’t fix their dogs and took the litter and mom to a shelter after picking their favorite from a puppy.
I disagree about poor genetics, but agree it often isn’t abuse. In genetic studies, outside of a few exceptions and specific rare genes aggression doesn’t appear to be very heritable (compared to traits like bidability, which is very heritable.) It’s a part of the picture, but outside of those few genes, not the whole picture.
It’s often poor socialization. Poor socialization can present like abuse, because anything new will be scary. And it can be as hard to overcome as abuse. There are heritable genetic predispositions to guarding and fear that can present as aggression, but can be trained out… it just takes a ton of work.
Of course it’s not the WHOLE picture. But things like sharpness/willingness to bite first, anxiety disorders and resource guarding are definitely heritable.
Parents with shitty temperaments have a higher likelihood of producing shitty offspring. Any experienced, ethical breeder will tell you the same. It’s why certain Eastern European lines of WL GSDs (to use one example) are completely unsuitable as a family dog, even if fulfilled with a job, and why Killer Kimbo produced a huge number of human aggressive XL Bully offspring to use another.
As I said: there are a very small number of genes that are heritable for aggression. I was actually thinking of the Eastern European GSD lines & Killer Kimbo when I wrote that 😂
I think folks would be surprised to know, though, that when it’s actually judged quantifiable and impartially, people are pretty bad at judging aggression vs other traits. There’s been a ton of research into this, particularly out of the Duke canine genetics lab (we put a lot of money into canine genetics research in the U.S. because we use canines for medical research) and outside of those few specific lines aggression just doesn’t hold up as a heritable trait. It’s often other traits that can lead to aggression with bad training (like a guarding drive) or, frankly, self-report bias.
I absolutely agree that good breeding can help reduce aggression and poor breeding increases it, but your statement that 99%, or even a majority, of aggression is due to genetics just isn’t supported by research.
This is good information thank you for sharing. I’m always hearing about genetics and transparently I’m still learning and understanding. It does scare me a little bit since I have a pitbull but have never seen any aggression whatsoever towards me. Genetics might play a part. But I also think people don’t respect dog boundaries and they like humans will correct improper behavior
I think a key thing to keep in mind about dog breeds, genetically, is that despite being bred for uniformity there’s often more genetic variation contained within each breed than between them — it actually involves very few genes to make a breed.
Here’s one of the best papers on dog genetics + behavior (earned a publication in Science!) that takes breed into account:
While there are absolutely some deeply dangerous pitbull lines (see the aforementioned Killer Kimbo), pitbulls come out about average on human aggression scales (but far above average on dog-directed aggression… which makes sense for a breed bred to fight other dogs, as opposed to a breed bred to attack humans or guard.)
But that makes sense, statistically: pitbulls (and pitbull mixes, which are often ID’d as pitbulls in bite reports, and Am Staffs, which are also often ID’d as pitbulls) are the most common dogs in the U.S. AND they’re large and strong. So… mathematically, they’re gonna have the highest number of medically significant bites. (The two most human-aggressive dog breeds are too small to have medically significant bites, so don’t show up in ER data.) Additionally, they’re more likely to be rescues, which as we all know have potential to come with a host of issues.
Back when Bernese and GSD’s were the most popular large moderately aggressive dogs, they dominated bite statistics and fatalities.
All to say… as a dog owner, when I’m encountering strange dogs I’m most cautious around pitbulls, because they’re big and strong and possibly poorly socialized. But trends are never the same thing as individual dogs, and there are SO many wonderful pitbulls out there. It sounds like you have one of them!
Back when Bernese and GSD’s were the most popular large moderately aggressive dogs, they dominated bite statistics and fatalities.
Would be interested to see the stats on this. The US CDC stopped tracking by breed in the 90s but they did track from the mid 70s to mid 90s and GSDs never topped the list and Bernese never even made the list.
This person keeps saying stuff that isn’t true. Aggression may be misunderstood by a lot of people and should be understood as a continuum that often includes signals and communication before violence, but dogs have been reliably bred for aggression or the absence thereof for thousands of years.
No. GSDs never came close in deaths. Human or otherwise.
“Aggression” is one of the worst metrics to discuss- which is why I avoided strenuously using it. Reactive reflexive biting was one trait, and various other detrimental traits I listed included anxiety, and resource guarding as two.
Is a Pit bull being “aggressive” while they joyously grip a screaming normal dog using every appeasement signal in their arsenal and shake them to death? That’s actually being true to their breed. They aren’t being “aggressive”- they actually look like they’re having a whale of a time.
Human aggression (I used Killer Kimbo as the most recent example of unrelenting deadly attacks) isn’t a trait, and Pit advocates always use that as a plus column. That’s a mistake. They aren’t slavering snarling “aggressive” dogs- they were created to kill other dogs, with gusto and gameness. A “well bred” Pit Bull is actually more of a nightmare in Suburbia.
Btw- that study you cited was “owner reported” data. As a first year student getting my Masters in Sociology, we learned that’s one of the least reliable methods. I see that study cited a lot. It caused a lot of excitement- until people realized it depended on owners being honest about their dogs.
You are spot on about "aggression" (without further clarifiers) being a nonsense word with regard to animal behavior. I have a PhD in animal behavior and this annoys me frequently. There are many things that can cause a dog to bite/maul: pain, startle response, defensive fear, dominance, warnings/corrections, prey drive, displaced prey drive, hearding type "nips", resource guarding etc.
They all have very different triggers, behavioral signs, and risks for serious injury.
For example, if you have an old sight-hound with arthritis who snaps at you when you touch his hips - that is fairly easy to avoid/prevent, will most likely not even break the skin, and is not genetic. But a dog with a high prey drive (which is genetic) that is attacking a toddler may intentionally attack very vulnerable areas (head/neck), may bite/tear/shake, and may be extremely hard to remove/disengage from its "prey". This "aggression" is not likely to be associated with growing/barking or things like whale eye/lip licking but rather excitement (e.g. high tail wagging).
Genetics is a strong influence on behavior including in dog breeds and that includes prey drive and proclivity to fight and tenacity while fighting. There have been professional dog handlers, advocates and trainers who did everything right and were still mauled or killed by their own dogs of the same breed/family of related breeds which are responsible for over 75% of attacks on livestock, pets and people. Irresponsible people own all breeds and all breeds can bite, but if it were just the owners they would all be killing pets and people. With a few occasional exceptions only a handful of breeds do so. Most fatal attacks on people + animals are by the bloodsport breeds bc they have been bred for generations to go beyond a bite. Usually their interest is on other animals but there are far too many human victims+ owners aren’t immune
So he would get real low to the ground and try to get away or press against a wall and close his eyes like he was going to get hit from my hand movements even non threatening ones because of genetics? That’s interesting. He was also underweight you could see his ribs. He was guessed to be around two when I got him. I think Rottweilers being very vocal with their rumble can also easily be confused with aggression. I had no idea what it was before I had one and I would definitely think it was aggressive
INCONCEIVABLE! A man in a hat beat him, obviously.
I have overseen the rehab of >200 dogs of mostly a working herding breed whose prior owner was convicted of felony cruelty in a place where that is hard to do. Hard evidence of what she did.
Of the 200, about five or six had any inclination to bite humans, and they mostly acquired that while being held as evidence for too long and learning they could threaten scary people away. The rest were shut down ferals whose default was flee, freeze, hide until the volunteers tamed them. Three of the recalcitrant snarky ones came to foster at my house. We had the resources to rehab all of them.
A colleague had a similar felony case with >100 purebred Rottweilers and they had a much higher percentage of problematic aggression, but still a minority. Almost as if there’s a predictable genetic component to behavior due to deliberate selection for traits … The Rottweilers had not been beaten and terrorized to the extent our dogs were, which allowed more room for them to be assertive. They were Rottweilers and expressed their opinions accordingly. Expert Rottweiler rescue people were able to address most of that, but some of the dogs were too dangerous. Probably fewer than in the general population of indulged / behaviorally neglected, untrained pet Rottweilers.
Stop inventing fanciful abuse narratives for every biting dog. It serves no one.
So he was underweight to the point you could see his ribs and would cower and close his eyes when you would make hand movements because of his genetics? It wasn’t because he was clearly underfed and had experience of people doing not nice things with their hands to him? I’m glad you know his story. If you have that opinion on Rottweilers I can’t wait to hear your option on pits. Also all the tiny dog breeds that are aggressive but nobody really gives a shit because they can be easily handled with one hand and they can’t do much damage.
You can see the ribs on several of my dogs because they are very lean and I like them that way because it is healthy. They are not underfed. In fact I go out of my way to buy higher calorie food just to keep weight on them but we exercise a lot. A body condition score of 4 out of 9 will show some rib. A 4 or 5 is healthy. Most people are used to seeing dogs who are way too fat. This doesn’t prove what you think it does. Also neglect and abuse are not the same thing anyway.
I agree most dogs are overweight especially Rottweilers but you’re wrong again. Before you try bragging you’re a vet so you just know everything and you’re right you might want to look some things up. Maybe standards have changed in the 14+ years since you went to school? A 4 or 5 out of 9 is considered healthy but explicitly defined as not clearly visible but felt easily with a gentle touch. If you’re a vet and you truly believe being able to easily see all the ribs on an adult Rottweiler is healthy you are not a very good one. That would not be a 4 on that scale. At the very least you don’t know near as much as you think you do and that’s okay. You can always learn
This is directly from Purina. Outline of ribs. I have zero interest in arguing with someone making poor attempts at being condescending who has no actual idea what they’re talking about.
Okay and I just looked and AKC, WSAVA, and AAHA they say at 4/5 the ribs should be easily felt below minimal to slight fat cover and the photos they use don’t show ribs. They only show ribs at 2-3 and obviously 1. That’s also in general for breeds obviously as you should know it is different for different breeds. Some breeds are much thinner and athletic than others and some dog breeds are much larger and muscular than others. Since you don’t know which is concerning please google if you should be able to clearly see all of a full grown adult Rottweilers ribs
You’re a vet with 14 years experience what would you say is the healthy range for a 2+ year old male Rottweiler? Surely you have an idea of a range. We can skip all this nonsense about visible ribs
You should be able to see the ribs on a short-coated dog.
I have a lil’ man here who came from a bad but not abusive sitch when he was 8 weeks old.
He spent the first month hiding under the couch.
He still skitters away in panic if someone moves “too big” or startles him.
I’ve fostered quite a few of his relatives over the past 25 years, and they have all been similar; none were abused. His parents’ breeder selects for what she thinks are “soft” temperaments but are actually “scared of life” temperaments.
Stop
Inventing
Abuse
Stories
For
Twitchy
Temperament
But most especially, aggression is not a symptom of abuse.
Rotties are notorious for handling sensitivity as a genetic issue and especially if poorly bred and fearful of strangers. Almost every rottie I see as a vet has to be muzzled for exams due to this, even if they are friendly/social and we can pet them. As soon as we go to do a formal exam or touching other than the back or head, they flip a switch. Your dog wasn’t abused, he is unfortunately within “normal” for the breed. I actually really like rotties outside of being a vet for them, in a different life I would like a working line rottie, but one thing I would make sure I did was to put lots of effort into handling all over his/her body, and make sure it’s obvious it’s a “this is a have to thing” it’s not optional, and it’s not optional to stand for someone else to do it in certain contexts as well.
So he would get real low to the ground and try to get away or press against a wall and close his eyes like he was going to get hit from my hand movements even non threatening ones because of genetics? That’s interesting. Rottweilers are also very vocal and their rumble can be easily confused for aggression. Big breeds definitely require more responsibility from the owners because obviously they can do more damage especially breeds with high bite forces.
I love how you’re a vet but you don’t know about the rottie rumble. You also know nothing about my dog or what happened to him or the training I’ve had him do and work I’ve done with him yet you’re so confident in your statements that he is just aggressive and that’s just how the breed is. Yeah making a rumble while on their back getting their belly rubbed and clearly loving live is 100% super aggressive you’re right 😂
That’s totally different. I can’t tell if you are intentionally misunderstanding what I say or not. Obviously a rottie in an environment like the vet where MOST dogs are fearful making that noise is not a rottie rumble it is indeed a growl and should not be tolerated by the owner. However you were acting like a rottie rumble just isn’t a thing at all when it most certainly is. Clearly the situation matters
I've had Rottweilers most of my life and I'm sorry, but the "rottie rumble" is bullshit. They make grumble sounds like a lot of other breeds but most of what rott owners say is a "rumble" is their dog testing or announcing a boundary and them not realizing it. My vet always said my dogs were some of the only Rotts they didn't have issues with and it's because I didn't excuse away poor behavior as a quirky breed trait.
And yes, this sounds like a genetically fearful dog. You can make up whatever back story you wish—it’s a free world. Or you can be a part of the solution and recognize it’s an issue and address it. I have never ever seen, in my 14 years as a vet and literally hundreds of thousands of pets, anyone who is using the back story of “my pet was abused” as anything but an excuse instead of just recognizing a problem, regardless of the cause, and addressing it/moving on from it.
How should I address it all knowing vet who doesn’t know what a rottie rumble is? I think I have addressed it unless you’re saying I should have my dog put down for some reason. I have gotten him training and he has been with a behaviorist, i tried to socialize him the best I could when I got him even tho he was already at least 2 years old, I use his muzzle around strangers even when he doesn’t need it, I keep him on a leash even in a fenced in yard because he can climb the fence, and I use a muzzle and hold him during vet visits. What else would you like me to do? How do you recommend I become part of the solution, recognize the problem, and address/move on from it? Do you only hold this opinion because they’re big dogs with a high bite force and can actually hurt you? How many tiny dogs do you deal with that are assholes but you can control them with one hand and they can’t really hurt you so you don’t give a shit?
Just to be devil's advocate here, and i don't know how those shelters operate, but I understand a shelter euth for fairly innocuous behaviors if they need the space.
I have been in the position before where we had 150 kennels full, and still needed 30 more, and would have to euth for things like speeding up eating/following the bowl when moved, barking excessively, pulled paws away when touched, etc...
Not saying it's good or that I'd really call it a BE in the sense that it's dangerous, but more so that it's an undesired behavior. But when you're open intake and you need space, something has to be done to make space.
Most shelters in the US today are “no kill” meaning they do so only for rare cases. This philosophy has become pervasive throughout shelter and dog culture, to the point that we now have shelters packed full of problematic/challenging and in some cases dangerous dogs with bite histories and records of killing other pets, often dogs. These dogs are difficult to place in average families despite zealous marketing that often seems unethical. So they are often stuck in shelters for years to the detriment of other dogs in need. Sometimes thousands of dollars are spent trying to modify their behaviors through training. It is this situation that prompted this post.
I think it is also worth noting which shelters are 'no kill' vs the ones that aren't. A lot of the highest intake shelters I know of, like BARC, San Antonio, all 3 NYC ACC's, Los Angelas, Orange County, etc are not no kill (according to BFAS's definition)
So I do wonder if this is really an issue that shelters are euthanizing happy, healthy dogs to save unhappy, healthy ones. Or if it is a case that those shelters have more resources to spend.
I work in a state where funded pounds and shelters have to differentiate convenience kill (which is primarily motivated by volume/space constraint) and behavioural euthanasia (which is solely motivated by the dog failing assessment). For reporting purposes it helps to differentiate how many dogs in the system were truly beyond help vs how many dogs were victims of a lack of resourcing.
I'm in favor of this approach. Shelters everywhere are overburdened. I don't see any reason to bother trying to work with behavioral. In fact, high behavioral standards are good. If dogs with minor behavioral issues are considered unadoptable then questionable dogs with less safe behaviors aren't going to be slipping through.
I'm very much in favor of erring on the side of caution. I'd rather 1,000 potentially good dogs be euthanatized if it prevents 1 person or pet in the community from experiencing a life changing tragedy.
It's not like the homes those 1,000 dog might have gone to aren't going to be able to find other dogs that make excellent pets.
Yes agree. And the dog that bit your wife just doesn’t have the resources to improve. Some genuinely can’t improve even with all the help in the world. The Champions movie with the Michael Vick dogs used for dog fighting is a good example. One went on to become a therapy dog at a hospital, others were rehabilitated and lived normal dog lives. Some became ok but unable to live without experienced handlers at a dog sanctuary. It set a precedent though that dogs can and should be rehabilitated when possible.
My 80 lb pitbull was returned twice due to behavioral issues and like the rottie owner below I can’t imagine life without her. A lot of her issues resolved after we found out she had a couple untreated infections and extreme allergies they shelter did nothing about according to her medical notes. She was probably uncomfortable in the shelter for much of her 2 year stay. And getting her a crate to chill in gave her such a strong sense of security at my house. She can walk by dogs, peacocks, cats, squirrels, etc without losing her mind like she did before. Still work to be done but a year in and she’s a totally different dog.
Yet I knew when I got her that there was hope. I don’t think people who are committed to saving every dog are thinking of the animal’s quality of life. If a dog is vicious after professional training and exhausting resources you have to think of the more adoptable dogs, you know? The dog is clearly struggling and not in a good place if they are reacting so poorly. Too many pure hearts being euthanized for space and tarnishing shelter dog reputation worldwide:
The most recent rescue I worked for (we just moved away) had fourteen kennels. SIX of them were occupied by dogs with serious bite records who were there permanently.
Including one who put 150 stitches into a PD (think you guys call them K9s in the US). One fighting cane corso from Romania with no ears and a history of going for the throat. An American bulldog who attacked a toddler.
Here in the UK, BE is literally just not a thing tbh. And vets will often refuse it. Your only chance is to surrender a violent dog to the police force and they will assess and BE where appropriate. Or hope the dog warden picks them up and nobody claims them.
I'm 100% never working in rescue again because the system here is absolutely buggered beyond reckoning. And I'm not helping. I'm just adding to my PTSD. Having to leave good family dogs behind. Having to leave good dogs who've lost their elderly owners behind. Having to refuse a litter of puppies because the manager feels like caring for these psychotic dogs makes her a hero.
The other rescue in our county is just as bad, only with an owner who is abusive as all hell towards everyone.
They've just approved an XL bully sanctuary in Scotland. It's not up to standards and it's being run by one woman who's used her ADHD as a reason for failing TWO inspections already. This is relevant because she's currently keeping 14 XLs in a shithole and claims it's because she's absent minded and can't get things done due to her condition.
And some of those dogs have already bitten before. She's been ordered by the judge to hire one more person, and they have been capped at 27 dogs. For two people to manage. In a shithole that needs to basically be torn down and rebuilt. And she has no actual experience or education in dog training she's just a chav who's 'OWNED DOGS ALL MY LIFE I KNOW DOGS'.
I'm a behaviourist and I am fucking out. I'm going to go back to snuggling police dogs and overcharging middle class idiots for basic shit. I'll save the dogs I can save along the way, but I will no longer be a party to the shitshow that is UK dog welfare.
I had a horrendous experience with rescue because of this exact shitshow. My family adopted a dog, which attacked my 5 year old sister a week later. Upon taking him back to the rescue we got him from, they said "if you don't keep him, we'll have to BE him. We already adopted him to six families and they all brought him back because he keeps biting people". This was a giant breed dog with significant capacity to do serious damage. We would not have adopted him if that history had been disclosed upfront. Suffice to say, we did not keep him, and more likely than not they lied to some other family to get him adopted a seventh time.
Years later, when a dog we had turned too aggressive to handle (he was very badly bred, so his issues were likely genetic), my dad insisted on BE despite vets saying "why don't you rehome instead?" precisely because we didn't want to inflict on another family what that rescue did to us.
I like the idea of rescue... but with the way it's run in the UK, I would really struggle to trust a rescue to be honest about the dogs. Everyone I know who has rescued has ended up with a dog with behavioural issues that make the dog a genuine bite risk.
I'm pretty sure holding on to these dangerous dogs is a big part of why adopting has become so difficult in the UK, too. The majority of dogs need highly specific homes that simply don't exist, and normal adopters get turned down because they can't meet the needs of a vicious dog or because there are 99 applicants for every normal, friendly dog.
The UK rescue system has completely lost the plot.
I am so, so sorry that all of this happened to you. Honestly I want to leave the country again. I will take a shitty job in some Georgian or Russian backwater neutering strays or something.
As a behaviourist in the UK, my word means nothing. Dog people in the UK are like nowhere else, they're fucking insufferable and the minute someone who's actually qualified rocks up they have a meltdown similar to those exhibited by the dogs they're keeping alive.
I actually really wish more of the dog rescue system was run by people like you, rather than the "save them all" crowd. As it is now, I genuinely have no idea how to find a stable, safe dog to adopt in the UK, especially as a "first dog" that's mine rather than a family pet. I had thought about an ex-racing greyhound, but I heard from a colleague that even they aren't as safe as they used to be because of the reluctance to BE, so I'm genuinely not sure anymore.
I definitely don't blame you for wanting to leave. I imagine Georgia and Russia have a more realistic perspective on which dogs can be saved and which can't. Neutering strays sounds like a much less traumatic job in so many ways.
On your comment about greyhounds; yep. We adopted two retired greyhounds, and clearly specified that our only requirements were (a) no current chronic health issues, and (b) absolutely no aggression to dogs or people.
One of them was exactly what we expected to be given. She was in good health and had only the slightest bit of resource guarding that was easily trained away. She did have massive anxiety, wasn’t house trained, didn’t trust people, wasn’t leash trained, was a flight risk, and various other issues that we were completely equipped and happy to help her with. Seven years later, she’s a very relaxed happy healthy dog who sometimes visits our local dementia care home with me (my workplace) due to her gentle demeanour.
The other dog was a lovely lad, but both had such a horrifically painful chronic health issue that the vet recommended euthanasia, and was extremely aggressive to other dogs on walks. He once managed to slip out of his muzzle (I later found teeth marks on the broken strap) and clamped down on a small dog. I had to shove my hands in his mouth to get him to let go. We had to put him down only six months after adoption when even the strongest painkillers the vet was willing to give him barely helped at all.
The rescue had told us both dogs were completely healthy, house trained, and friendly with other dogs. Never trusting a rescue again after that.
I hope you don't mind me commenting, I'm no expert on this matter.
I've just been through rescuing a dog (11 year old chihuahua) who was a real sweetheart. I bonded really deeply bonded with him but unfortunately he had some trauma with men that resulted in him biting my partner in a high stress situation. He had no known history of bites. He was our first dog and we said from the get go that we don't have the experience to manage reactive behaviour so called the rescue centre who recommended bringing him back. We were really heartbroken but consoled ourselves that he would be loved by people with much more experience than us, who are able to manage his stress better and give him the best life possible.
Unfortunately we got the heartbreaking update last week that after his behavioural assessment and based on the information we gave and they had for him previously, the rescue centre had to euthanised him. I was really shocked - we had been really clear that the bite was a one off incident and he'd been really good on the whole, the foster home he was in before coming to us had nothing but good things to say and he didn't seem distressed or aggressive when we took him back to the rescue centre, so it feels like it must have been a total switch in behaviour for them to decide that.
From your comment, it sounds like behavioural euthanasia is really uncommon? Obviously it depends on the specific assessment/dog etc but generally speaking, do you know what other factors might have played in to the decision?
To be honest, I'm just trying to console myself any way possible. I feel so guilty, heartbroken, regretful. I think I'm just looking for any grain of insight that will help me stop blaming myself
A dog who is already that old is much more difficult to rehabilitate. And I'd wager there were other bites you just weren't informed of. Rescues tend to assume that even if a tiny dog bites it's not problematic because they can't do major damage, unfortunately.
We had a Jack Russell at one rescue who was brought back five times for biting. Nobody was allowed to tell potential adopters about it. This was yonks ago when I was a teenager volunteering at weekends alongside my pre-uni courses. It's not a new problem.
I am so, so sorry for your loss ☹️ please don't blame yourself. I know it's all too easy to, there are a couple of dogs who will forever keep me up at night. But dogs don't live on 'what ifs' like us humans do. They live in the present. And they don't judge or blame us, despite everything. Grief is the price of love, and you didn't do anything wrong.
It is VERY unusual for a rescue to immediately recall a dog here, so there were definitely issues at play they didn't tell you about.
them lying to people about a bite history should legitimately be illegal. how insane.
i’d assume they were lied to as well about the chihuahua’s history and upon telling them about the bite, they did the whole “oh he has trauma with men”
here in the US, i’ve known a ridiculous amount of people that have adopted and were told the dog was abused/“has trauma from men” it’s like a really shitty, manipulative thing the shelters and rescues pull out of their ass to make people think that if the dog does hurt/kill something (or someone) then “oh i can’t give up on them or bring them back! the dog isn’t actually aggressive, they just snapped and it’s the imaginary big mean persons fault!”
it’s unfortunately very effective. it’s so common to hear these stories of people’s dogs attacking, and them excusing it because “the shelter said they were abused” until it eventually clicks with the person that it is in fact, just how the dog is. sometimes that takes several people/pets being attacked, and eventually the owner, or it ends in tragedy. i wish they would stop lying. it’s doing absolutely no one any favors
Thank you so much for such a kind and thoughtful comment. I can't tell you how much it helped us to read, particularly that dogs don't live on 'what ifs'. I'll hold that one with me. Thank you x
I think it's so cruel to keep aggressive dogs in solitary confinement. BE is a much kinder act.
It's also unfair to endanger the shelter staff who have to care for those dogs and to put down dogs that never hurt anyone just because the only spaces/resources available are taken by dogs that can't be in society.
In fact, there are studies from realistic, knowledgeable dog behaviorists who say a dog’s mental health begins to change and deteriorate irreparably after only 2-3 weeks in confinement.
And then the self congratulating “save them all” upper management talk with zero concerns about the “staff favorite” who’s age 3 and been “our longest resident for 590 days” 🤪
Yes, and the thing is that with dogs that are good with other dogs, you can house them together or give them more social time so that they don't deteriorate, but when you have dogs that are reactive to other dogs, other humans, and a whole host of other things, then you have to keep them in a kennel all day.
When people think of sanctuaries for aggressive dogs, they imagine wildlife sanctuaries or the communal setup of many Latin American rescues, but that's not the case. The communal LatAm setup works with village or street dogs (or dogs that were well-socialized) and can live peacefully with other dogs and are deferential to humans. Dogs that try to attack other dogs or humans and go for the kill cannot live in such a setup because it'd be a constant bloodbath.
People need to be more realistic. Sending aggressive dogs to a sanctuary doesn't mean that when they cross the threshold, they're magically safe to others and allowed to roam around a field and live happily ever after. It's essentially sending them to live in solitary confinement (with limited interaction in the best of cases) and to suffer and/or be sedated all the time. That's not a good life for a dog.
Absolutely agree with you. I am a vet in the UK and I seem to be the only person open to BE among my colleagues. Originally, I come from a different country so maybe that's why I am less precious about putting genuinely dangerous dogs to sleep. But yeah, the dog culture is mental in the UK. I don't think I have ever seen so many problematic dogs from a behavioural point of view, and people just keep excusing it thinking they are saving them. A separate discussion to be had about some "rescues" and what kind of dogs are getting rehomed, especially into families with children.
I have seen cases were dogs are repeatedly biting the owner/family members or even passer bys, exhibiting proper predatory behaviour and they are still not BEs. Either, because owners are delulu or vets just don't have the balls to put their foot down. Instead we try to "medicate" the problem that can't be medicated or send these animals to pseudo behaviourists who treats these animals like broken children for obscene amounts of money.
Used to work as a vet in the UK and honestly was so lucky that the rescue we mostly worked with were incredibly sensible when it came to BE, so it was drilled into me from the start that it is not a bad thing. I've since worked in places where I'm one of the only vets comfortable with BE which does suck a bit because it can take more out of me than regular euthanisia, but it's not something I'll refuse unless I have a damn good reason
Wow. Reading this kinda hurts my heart...as an American, and someone who cares about animal welfare, and sincerely believes that there are much worse fates than death (I'm a nurse, I know for a fact that death is often a blessing). As a dog, an entire life in a kennel is most certainly a worse fate than a painless, humane death. Warehousing dogs in kennels for years on end to rot physically and mentally, often in the name of "love" and/or "compassion" (virtue signaling), borders on abuse, IMO. People need to let these dogs have peace...
There's a sub on here which specialises in looking at pet rescue orgs and there are some grim stories where dogs have clearly suffered neurological damage from being warehoused for years on end. It's very grim.
Well, that's depressing. It's amazing how terrible some people can be, especially to those we claim to care about, in the name of "compassion". Some days I feel like I am more of a torturer than someone who saves lives and eases human suffering. Because yeah, I should definitely sink an NG in grandpa since he won't eat or take his meds...despite him being so severly demented he doesn't even recognize his own family anymore. Better anchor it with a nasal bridal so it hurts and deters him from pulling it right out, too 🫠 Again: so so many fates that are worse then death. These days we don't just torture the people we love...we torture our pets as well.
On that note: an advance directive is your friend.
Wow, I'm in animal sheltering in the US and I didn't realize that BE doesn't exist in the UK. As much as it sucks to have to BE dogs and even cats, I'm so grateful that it exists.
Replace “dogs” with “humans” and you’ll get the same answer. Plenty of people don’t support the death penalty no matter what the person did. I’ll take a dog who may bite a person over a human who will or has killed/raped adults or children or abused animals. You can simply just put a muzzle on a dog and be a responsible owner and know their limits. My rescue dog could be considered violent to people because he is Rottweiler and he was abused at a young age by somebody. I don’t trust him around strangers or people he hasn’t been around a lot but I also keep him muzzled and on a leash when I need to. I have a fenced in yard and still take him out on a leash because I don’t want the risk of him biting somebody or another dog by climbing the fence. He is the biggest baby with me and my parents and my 89 year old neighbor and other people he is around often. He isn’t my first rescue dog but he’s taught me the most as far as ownership, training, and responsibility and he’s also been the most rewarding.
Well based on your reply you seem to not support putting humans to death no matter what they have done which is far worse than any dog could ever imagine yet you seem to support putting a dog to death because they may bite somebody if their owner isn’t responsible. Murder/rape/genocide are far far worse than a dog bite
I am not against the death penalty. I just couldn’t believe you were equating the life of a dog to the life of a human. Those two things are not the same
Really you can’t believe that? There are and have been so many terrible monsters as “humans” I would 1000% pick a dogs life over theirs. Now should a dog mauling a child lose their life? Absolutely. Should a human doing terrible things to a child lose their life? Again absolutely. Should a human doing terrible things to a dog lose their life? Sure. Even Hitler loved dogs. You gotta be a real POS to abuse them.
It’s really not crazy. You seem be to lucky enough to not know or truly understand how humans can and will be the worst most destructive thing on this planet.
I think a lot of people (including myself) oppose the death penalty because of bias and flaws in the justice system, not necessarily because we believe all violent criminals deserve to live.
Circling back to dogs…say I had to choose between two rooms, one room with a bite risk dog inside and another room with a violent offender. I’d probably choose the room with the dog too. But in a day-to-day setting, I’m much more likely to pass by a dog than a violent offender. If each dog has, say, a 1 in 10 chance of biting (I’m just making up numbers), but I pass by ten dogs on the way to the park and zero violent offenders…the risk of me getting bitten vs. getting stabbed is starting to look a little different. And then it becomes clear why trying to save bite-risk dogs is just as much of a public safety concern as releasing violent criminals.
Hopefully that made sense, it’s late and I’m barely coherent. It sounds like you’re a responsible owner who takes others’ safety seriously, so thank you for that!
This happens a lot to foster children as well. Often they are labeled as having behavioral issues, but when you ask for the details, the behavioral issue was that the child missed their homework or has anxiety or something like the child was bullied at school. For most people, they hear the phrase behavioral issues and think the worst. It becomes a viscous cycle of a self fulfilling prophecy, where foster teens are seen as and treated like bad kids to the point where they act out.
I feel with dogs it’s very similar, in that a lot of people get puppies expecting a dog that will give golden retriever energy but not knowing what it will take to get them there. So many dogs are extremely sensitive to their surroundings, and with backyard breeders there is no way to know how high drive the puppy will turn out. And genetics is only one piece of the puzzle, if their owner is anxious or lacks confidence, the dog will lack confidence.
If the dog’s environment is chaotic or has a lot of pent up stress and anxiety, you guessed it.
My mind on dogs with behavioral issues was changed after I met a dog at a training facility who once bit a child. The dog had the sweetest disposition I’ve ever seen. The trainers explained that the dog needed to learn confidence, and they were not previously in an environment that facilitated that for them.
As a career social worker, I agree that negative expectations can be problematic, but I've also never once seen or made a referral that included any of those issues as behavioral challenges. Perhaps your area is different than mine, but I tend not to believe that's representative of foster care systems as a whole.
You can't compare humans and dogs, but if you want to compare, I'll tell you what: I'm all for keeping humans who (without a shadow of a doubt) are murderers in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives because I think the death penalty is the easy way out for the guilty, and it takes away any chance at freedom for those unfairly incarcerated. But I wouldn't even impose solitary confinement on those convicted without mountains of proof because of how cruel it is, and that's why most countries don't allow it beyond 15 days.
Yet, we impose solitary confinement on dogs that have severe aggression issues and/or inflicted severe damage, not because they planned on it but because of bad breeding and early experiences (i.e., failing to learn bite inhibition) that cannot be reversed regardless of how much training you give the dog. That is cruel and unusual punishment that is totally undeserved because dogs that harm don't do it with premeditation or logical intent. It would be much kinder to let them go, but so many prefer to send such dogs to "sanctuaries" where the poor animals are kenneled in solitary confinement for the rest of their days (while also endangering the sanctuary/rescue staff).
We also have the issue of limited resources. The sad reality is that our goal should be to allocate resources in a way that allows us to save the largest number of dogs. Spending tons of resources trying to rehabilitate a dog with serious issues seems laudable until you realize that those resources could have saved ten dogs that didn't need rehabilitation, but just needed to go to fosters until they could find a home.
You can be pro death penalty AND still believe certain dogs will never be suitable companion animals and not only are THEY unhappy- because spoiler alert: a hyper vigilant, badly wired dog is NOT a confident, happy animal- but keeping them around when there are millions of sociable, tractable dogs is obscene. You were a unicorn adopter who bothered to take precautions. We see the end result, dead pets and people DAILY, from people not equipped to handle their dogs.
The distinction between animals and humans isn't difficult to establish. We engage in a higher level of cognition and moral reasoning. Those who are religious (I personally am not) generally believe all humans have innate value beyond that of animals. Some texts literally tell their followers that animals were created to serve us.
Animals "murder" each other daily with no police to arrest them or courts to try them. We make documentaries of large predators killing and consuming their prey. We wouldn't accept that behavior among humans, because humans and animals are not the same.
There's no equivalency here that suggests views on one must be the same as views on the other.
It's entirely within the bounds of reason for someone to believe that euthanasia of animals, even with minimal criteria, is acceptable, while the death penalty for humans is not.
anyone that compares the value of a humans life to that of a dogs life is just immediately invalid lol. i love dogs, but “dog people” are legitimately just living in a fantasy land
also, “you can just muzzle them!” as if muzzles are foolproof is ridiculous when it can literally be the difference between life or death
I notice that most people actually in rescue feel this way. The people randomly insisting dogs are comparable to humans in any way have usually never touched rescue a day in their lives.
lol yes! the sane people in rescue that are doing it for the right reasons don’t have this black and white way of thinking when it comes to these issues.
i picture anyone saying shit like that as a middle aged facebook mom whose personality and opinions are majorly comprised of random inspiring quotes they’ve read
I agree violent dog should be euthanized but that's not always how behavioral euthanasia is used. Being abandoned by your family and dumped in a shelter is traumatic, if a dog growls or tries to bite because it's scared that's different than it being aggressive. Behavior euthanasia also isn't always aggressive behavior my dog was on a euthanasia list because the fear-based kennel behavior, he was dumped at a shelter separated from his brother who was also dumped at the shelter and they wanted to euthanize them both 3 days later. I adopted him and I have never seen a hint of aggression from him but he is a timid creature. And being a scaredy cat doesn't make him any less of a sweet boy though
Totally agree with this! I recently adopted a 5 month puppy on the list bc he was deemed "aggressive." After having him for three months and working with a trainer he is doing fantastic! He was just scared, abused and never socialized as a young pup. There are reasons for a BE for sure but I believe it can be misused.
Totally agree and am sorry to hear that. But many if not most US shelters have the opposite problem in refusing to euthanize dogs with long documented histories of biting and mauling people and some rescues protect dogs who have killed people. I think that is what prompted this post; OP wonders how shelters/people defend this “no kill” practice and warehouse dogs indefinitely.
All dogs bite, but not all dogs have poor bite inhibition or go for the neck. IMO, dogs that have bitten to level 4 and above should be BE'd immediately after the incident, even if they're not relinquished to the shelter, because they pose too great a risk to people and other animals. Owners might want to keep such dogs, but it's not fair to impose the risk on everyone around them.
A dog that has shown to go for the neck is also very problematic, even if the bite wasn't severe, because the location is very sensitive and a future bite could be life-threatening.
I think the idea of "sanctuaries" for dangerous dogs makes us feel better about not putting dogs down, but it's cruel to dogs to keep them kenneled for years on end.
With dogs that are powerful and show high levels of aggression and/or extreme resource-guarding, but didn't have the opportunity to bite anyone, and as sad as this is, the decision should be made based on how full shelters are and if the resources spent to rehabilitate that dog would help save more dogs who might end up getting put down just due to overcrowding.
L3 biters to the extremities that are otherwise okay dogs could be adopted into adult-only homes capable of working with the dog, or not put in situations where the dog might lash out. Still, again, as sad as it is, dogs who have never bitten or shown aggressive behavior should be prioritized when resources/space are scarce.
All valid points and probably the only practical way to look at it, but a dog in pain could give a high level bite or a lab thats been poked with a stick 50 times, but in both those cases the dog would probably never bite again provided they are never put into those situations.
So we need to consider how predictable the behaviour is which is almost impossible given the lack of solid information that comes with the dog.
I do agree though that pragmatism here is really the only way forward, ultimately we want success for the dog and handler and there just isn't the capacity
I've seen a lot of abused dogs and street dogs that have gone through hell and back, and in the most stressful of situations, the most they've inflicted when being handled was an L3 bite to try to get the person to back off. IMO, an injured or abused dog that goes on the offensive and causes L4 injuries is still too high a risk. Acute pain is something that could happen at any time for many reasons, and people shouldn't have to worry their dog will send them to the ER if they touch their dog in a painful area. It's really sad because we know dogs aren't choosing to be the way they are, and we want to help them. If we had infinite resources, we could try more things, but, yeah, for now, we have to find where we can do the most good with the limited resources we have.
This is a description of a level 1 bite on the Dunbar bite scale. This is how all types of professionals asses and record dog bites.
"Level 1 - no skin contact
Obnoxious or aggressive behavior, but the dog's teeth never touch skin. Barking, lunging, snapping in the air, growling. Many owners don't think of this as a "bite" at all. It is worth taking seriously — it's your dog telling you they're uncomfortable, and it's the easiest stage at which to help them"
So yes I think all dogs bite. It is a healthy expression of a dog's boundaries. The boundary may not be healthy or convenient and require training to adjust, but reprimanding a dog for an L1 bite could then result in the dog escalating to L2 (and then higher level if that is also reprimanded) and end up being dangerous. It's true that now my dog is older and I have learned his boundaries and we have worked on moving the ones that need to be moved (ie dealing with certain noises) and he has learned mine, an L1 is a rare occurrence. I'm able to control a lot in our lives, but not everything, and those L1s do still occur, even if very rarely now, and I do think it is part of any puppy or dogs learning and growing. The last L1 we experienced was directed at an unstable man we walked by, that started throwing punches. I think it was fair and reasonable and still it counts as a level 1 bite. (The same dog has remained calm by my side when we are being yelled at. This however was a situation when I think his assessment of needing to potentially defend himself from harm was reasonable.)
Has your dog really never set a boundary with you or another dog by doing an air snap? Obviously it shouldn't be happening all the time and that would be concerning. Still I'd find it remarkable if a dog has never done ever it. I often see it in healthy examples of dogs playing.
All dogs don't bite, though. The vast majority who come through the shelter I work at do not bite even when afraid, even when being vaccinated by the first time in their lives by strangers in a strange place, even when getting months worth of mats shaved off of them, even when we inspect and treat their wounds. Not even after months in the shelter with other dogs barking all around them. We BE at most 2 per year, and many years none at all. We don't need to, because we're not open-intake and we can turn dogs away who fail our intake evaluation. Open-intake shelters do not have that luxury and I have seen the dogs that we turn away. I know what they're dealing with and I have no criticism about their BE decisions.
There's already loads of dishonesty when dogs are given up. I doubt that would increase. People already don't tend to tell you that they're surrendering a dog because it bites. 99% of the time you get to discover that on your own anyway.
I've taken in bitey small and toy breeds and rehabilitated them to an extent. They'll never be completely trustworthy bombproof dogs, but if and when they regress, I can handle them. I haven't taken in the larger biters because I enjoy living and I like my face staying where it is. I also like my family, friends, and neighbors faces staying where they are. 8lbs of aggressive dog isn't the equivalent of 80lbs of aggressive dog. It also wouldn't have been wrong for any of my small aggressive dogs to have been behaviorally euthanized if no one was willing to take them in and work with them. Even when the dog is 8 lbs, it's a lot of work and it limits your own life to own that dog. You still have to take precautions to prevent others from being bitten. I don't have to worry about someone else or their pet or child being maimed or killed if I am less than perfect.
The stakes can be life or death when we're talking about aggressive dogs. It's not a minor consideration. We have to think of everyone that dog may encounter in the wide world and protect those people and animals too. I've had a level 4 bite on my leg from a Doberman. I snapped him out of it immediately and only carry a few puncture wound scars. Could someone have worked with him and saved him? Maybe. Had he lashed out and been at face level with a child at that moment, the outcome would have been horrific. It was not fair to the wider world to "give him a chance". I adored that dog. He was my favorite one at the shelter. I supported his BE and shed my tears. It wasn't his fault that he was like he was and I held no animosity towards him at all. I imagine he was badly bred, untrained and unsocialized and you can't do that with a Dobie. Being in rescue just sucks sometimes. You can't just care about the dog in front of you.
Why separate? If we euth the biters there's plenty of non-biters left that don't need rehabbing to be safe and, logically, the community is safer for it.
I agree that some dogs are too far gone and not worth the effort, especially because of all the good dogs in shelters.
I still think sometimes we’re too quick to BE. I would rather rehabilitate a dog if possible (like I did my own)
I also think another fundamental issue is the process, environment, and procedure to which BE is decided.
Does the dog have a history of (serious) bites? Or are we putting them down because they growled at us when we stood there poking it with a stick while it was eating.
Another issue is that in shelters, positive only training methods are used and nothing else is allowed. So we don’t have a good or accurate representation of what actual good training can do for a dog. They’re not given that chance.
It’s a hard line to draw. As I’m typing this I completely see why our efforts should be spent with the good dogs for the most part. It’s not worth diminished returns. But I think some deserve a chance at rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, we don't have time to rehabilitate all these dogs that y'all think are just wonderful and worth saving.We have wonderful dogs that don't bite, have never shown any kind of fear biting or anything else in the shelter that need to be saved first.
Exactly this. Shelters are flooded with actually adoptable animals, so why are we spending valuable time and resources on a dog that MIGHT be able to someday safely live in a single dog home with an experienced owner. (A unicorn home.)
I have no argument either, I'm a very vocal supporter of BE and I'm a CET. I think people who advocate for these dogs genuinely do not understand dog behavior (think the "it's all in how you raise them" crowd) in my 22 years in this field very rarely have I met a dog with a bite record that I genuinely think could thrive and be rehabbed in the right home. the problem is, there aren't exactly teams of right homes out there. my own late dog was one. miniature dachshund from a puppy mill bust who lived outside with no human interaction for nearly 3 years. court had to approve their release to rescue, I thought I was the best dog trainer in the world (I was 22 ok lol) so I got him. he bit me very severely in the face two weeks later buuuut I at least knew enough and had the resources to go to a veterinary behaviorist, continue my education, and work with a very experienced trainer. he went on to live a very happy 17 years around people, dogs, and cats without another bite. I do not regret it and loved him with my entire heart but it was absolutely a ton of work and resources that could have saved dozens of nice dogs
he was also one of those cases where the bite was 100% my fault. don't get me wrong, dogs should have bite inhibition especially considering the severity of the bite he gave me, but I was being an absolute moron with a dog I had for less than 2 weeks. my saving grace was that he was 11 lbs and all I have is the scar. it really sucks that we don't have a finite amount of resources for the grey area dogs. not the out right obvious BE cases, but the ones in between. even I've burnt out on them and currently have two very social, very polite dog
he was the last survivor of my original crew of six. he was the light of my life and it was 4 years august 5th since I lost him. he was my little peapod
He was such a cutie!!! Thank you for not giving up on this baby. I love happy ending 💗 you clearly learned from the experience and turned a negative experience into something positive. I hear you on the “gray area” dogs 😭
My pitbull has never shown any signs of aggression but I heard she growled at a previous adopter which led to her being returned. I have been reading up on signs our dogs share with us to warn us of potential aggression through their eyes, body language, etc and it’s so interesting. People see a tail wagging and think omg they wanna play and hang out but it could easily mean they are nervous and uncertain of you. This should be taught in school lol
It’s fckin crazy to me that my local shelter allows people to feed dogs by putting their hands in their kennels without any training or education. It has led to some dogs being euthanized. It just seems so unfair
I've worked in shelters for over a decade now and I'm an ACO. I've gone to bat for some grey area dogs when I KNEW they could be safe with me and have lost most of those dogs to the county (I euthanize them myself so they are not scared or fighting at the end) unfortunately the shelter system has no resources. I don't know how much time I've spent in the kennel saying "don't put your hands in the cages!!"
It depends on who is playing God and deciding who has to go.
Actual violent dogs absolutely should be. While yes, they are animals and you can argue you shouldn't kill an animal for doing what animals do, but if the alternative is for the dog to live its life in a cage rather than a professional spend time trying to train it, then I think a humane death is the best alternative.
The short answer on this is that it depends on the ability level of the person making the decisions.
Ask a groomer or vet tech how often beloved pet dogs from innocuous breeds growl, snap, or lunge when they’re in a scary situation. The answer will be “very often”, practically daily.
Whoever the shelter has making the euthanasia recommendations has to be skilled enough in evaluating behavior to separate a dog that’s a serious risk from a dog that’s just lashing out in a scary environment. That’s harder than you think when the vast majority of shelter populations are stray dogs with no known history, and animal shelters don’t tend to pay well enough to attract people with serious qualifications.
The edge cases are why this is such a touchy subject.
It's totally unbelievable to me the politics and BS going on in shelters and rescues. They present aggressive dogs as wiggly butts and smiley face and go ve adopters no information on the dog or even the breed. I worked in Animal services and humane society in the early 90s. We would never had adopted out some of these dogs they do now and do adoptions the way they do. It's not fair to the dog, new owner, or society, it's all politics.
Same. There were enough dogs, however, in the 90s that still were “ooopsie” litters from nice tempered neighborhood dogs that got loose and found one another, Heinz 57 scruffy sweet mutts, etc. Certain breed types never made it to the adoption floor, including ANY that bit.
I've seen it suggested that spay/neuter campaigns were too effective with the type of dog you reference while they've been less successful with less sociable dogs, and so the numbers have flip flopped. The 90's weren't perfect, but they were worlds better than this.
i think it's a waste of resources. so many good dogs get euthanized because there isn't enough space. i'm sorry, but we're talking about dogs. not people. if a dog is aggressive and has a history of aggression, it's a liability. people humanize dogs too much.
No, I don’t think it would ever be possible to do this ethically. We have to have compassion and can’t go out offing people. Some of these people do eventually find their way. But some don’t, and seem to spend their whole life causing chaos. In an ideal world I wish these people would not be living freely on the streets. Skid row for instance has so much illegal breeding, people sexually abusing animals, women, and children. It should not be allowed but it’s not an easy problem to solve.
I’m so wary of rescue dogs because of this. We had to BE one after 2 years because he couldn’t be saved after 2 police reports and two failed behavioral trainers. It was heartbreaking because he was so sweet with us. 😢 I recently adopted a chihuahua mic because I thought it would be safe, but he fights with bigger dogs so there are dog places we can’t go. I know he was abused and he’s a good sweet boi when not around other animals but I just don’t trust rescues anymore because of this.
Because people have Savior complexes. They think any pet can and should be saved. What they fail to accept is pouring money and time into reactive dogs just increases the number of gentle dogs being put down.
No kill shelters are cruel and dangerous. Leaving unadoptable dogs to mentally degrade further by being locked in a small pen the rest of their life or worse lying to get them out into homes where people and other pets get hurt. Many no kill shelters will transfer those pets to a kill shelter so that shelter will put them down while they still maintain their no kill status to get donations.
Because many dogs in shelters have bite histories, not because of poor genetics, not because they were bred to fight, but because they were not handled properly in their prior homes. There are also many dogs who behave perfectly fine in the shelter - no bite history. Two months into their new life, they bite. Why? because the handling is SHIT! This is where the problem lies. People need to stop blaming genetics. Some of the best dogs in the world were the street dog mongrels whose genetics were a shitstorm and yet they lived perfectly fine in our backyards and out in the neighbourhood all day when we were growing up. No trauma, no fucking drama. Yes, there are dogs that seem to be bomb proof, but there are also many dogs with serious issues who because it was non negotiable for the handler, become bomb proof dogs! Shelters do their best, but NO, a dog with a bite history should not just be put down, because a dog without a bite history could just as easily bite. If a person wants to take on a difficult dog, that should indeed be their prerogative. Many of these difficult dogs need nothing more than clear and decisive leadership and they never cause problems.
This doesn't match the reality that I see. This idea that genetics don't matter and that anytime a dog bites it's because of a person not handling them properly is just not true. Dogs aren't blank slates. If what you say is true, these laboratory rescue Beagles flooding rescues recently would be the most dangerous animals we're dealing with right now. You think they were handled well? Socialized and trained? Treated fairly? Why do we do biomedical research on Beagles and not some other breed? I've worked with many a mistreated Beagle. They tend to be gentle and tolerant. The only Beagle I've known (out of hundreds) that had a bite history was one my cousin owned from puppyhood and treated very well. Some dogs aren't wired correctly and you can't "fix" that, but often it really is the breed. I love and own Chihuahuas, but I've met a whole lot of bitey Chihuahuas. You don't see them in medical research labs even though they're even smaller and would be easier to physically handle. You could more cheaply feed and house so many more Chihuahuas than Beagles, but they don't choose Chihuahuas for a reason.
Genetics are NOT the whole picture. They never will be. And if we keep on excusing dogs or humans for that matter and blaming genetics, we get nowhere and we will keep looking to gene alterations rather than the assumption of responsibility! If you understand epigenetics at all you will realise that just because a gene is there, it does not mean will be expressed. There are many environmental factors that contribute to whether or not a particular gene will finds expression. This is true of you. It is true of me. And it is true of dogs. Btw, there is no gene for aggression. There is no gene for anxiety. There are markers, but they are not in and of themselves genes. This is the reality. Like it or not!
They aren't the whole picture, no, but there are some dogs who are going to be a certain way no matter how you raise them. Just as there are good parents who wind up raising sociopaths and bad parents who wind up raising incredibly kind and empathetic people.
Where you have a point is if a completely ignorant person gets a Malinois, they can wind up with an aggressive bite risk and yet that dog could have become a fantastic police dog in other hands. Yet, the underlying genes still determine what kind of dog that Mal is. It probably isn't going to be an easygoing couch potato in anyone's hands.
Once the shelter gets that untrained Mal and it's bitten several people, what do we do? Do we risk our lives as shelter workers for the months/years it would take to find that one person who is just itching to take on a dangerous project dog and try to turn it into a safe dog?
You clearly do not know enough about genetics to be talking so authoritatively. First of all, when people talk about ‘genetics’ in this context, they are really talking about a behavioral phenotype, in this case, biting. Nobody here, including you, has any idea of any the genetic or epigenetic markers in any of the dogs. When they say that dog bites, especially in certain breeds, are genetic, they are not implying that they conducted a log2 fold change analysis to determine which genetic material was associated with aggression. They mean that sometimes, certain types of behavior are innate, rather than taught or learned. THIS is reality.
And yeah, there is no ONE gene for anxiety or aggression. These are complex, polygenic traits that are influenced by a wide range of factors: environmental, genetic, and epigenetic. Having a gene marker for aggression is much like having a gene marker for breast cancer. It does not mean that you are guaranteed to get cancer, it means you are at a heightened risk of developing it. To say that there ‘is no gene’ for anxiety is laughable. There are many, MANY genes that influence a dog or person’s propensity for anxiety. And when a person has a long history of difficult-to-manage anxiety without a clear external motivator, it is reasonable to assume a genetic component. The same is true of anxious and aggressive dogs.
And I’m sorry, but I feel like you brought up epigenetics just to sound smart. Yeah sure, just because a gene exists doesn’t mean it necessarily will be expressed. But it always COULD be. And the environmental stimuli that might trigger that phenotype are not going to be entirely clear TO ANYONE, EVER. Even if you could somehow determine that a dog’s genetic propensity for aggression was ‘turned off’ (which you could not). That WOULD NOT CHANGE that dog’s propensity for aggression. You cannot guarantee that there will never be anything that triggers that aggression, because it is innate.
And exactly like people with breast cancer markers, they may never exhibit the trait associated with their genetic markers. And there will be people who get breast cancer and dogs who are aggressive who don’t have the classic genetic markers for it.
But none of this actually matters at all, because we are not talking about genetically screening dogs and putting down the ones with aggression markers. We are talking about euthanizing dogs THAT ALREADY HAVE EXHIBITED BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. Is it possible that some of these dogs could go to a loving home that completely rehabilitates them? Sure, maybe. But with dogs that already have serious bites on their records, you will never really know if it’s genetic or not—and that’s a risk that many pet owners reasonably don’t want to take. These dogs should not be taking up space and money and resources in a shelter when there are other dogs that don’t carry this risk.
Actually, beagles used in labs were specifically bred to be used in labs. Laboratories do not get outside beagles for testing, they get them from specific breeding laboratories, which are breeding for these agreeable traits.
While beagles were touted as gentle kid-friendly dogs in the early 2000, they really aren't that great and we know better now, and tell people to be careful with young kids and beagles as they aren't super tolerant like they were advertised.
Beagles were used for lab breeding for a multitude of reasons; because they were a good size, as chis or other toy dogs would be too small to easily conduct some medical collections or surgeries. Dogs like mastiffs and GSDs were too large to easily handle and realistically house. They were also plentiful at the time since breeding stock had to start somewhere and was expected to be closed, extremely food motivated, they are relatively healthy both genetically and in structure, and they were one of the oldest breeds accepted by the FDA for data collecting which added to their popularity in research.
While they are not the only breed used in laboratories, they are definitely most commonly used now. If you are using another breed, you probably have a specific reason for it.
Fun fact they also have a strain of beagles that have no bacteria whatsoever, good or bad. No gut biome, nothing on the skin, nada.
I know that the lab Beagles are specifically bred for that, but I do notice that they didn't choose Jack Russell Terriers for the job either. A large part of why they chose Beagles is also their temperament.
I have to push back on the idea that Beagles aren't good family dogs and have aggression issues? This is not a thing I've ever heard anyone outside of a couple of people on Reddit say. We don't "know better now" outside of a couple of Reddit forums, as best I can tell. Beagles don't even show up on any dog bite stats and they're big enough to cause damage if they wanted to. I'm really struggling to understand where this comes from. It doesn't line up with anything I've experienced or heard offline. I'm being completely serious, not snarky at all. This is an unheard of concept to anyone in my life, and I genuinely asked around the first time I read it.
I guess it's more of an animal sheltering thing. It was well known in sheltering circles that they were touted as very gentle dogs, but they actually bit kids quite often because they're not super tolerant. I'm not saying they are exceptionally intolerant of manhandling, but they aren't better on average . Beagles won't be on bite statistics if they're never reported. For some anecdotal evidence, I was bit by my beagle when I was a child and none of them were ever reported. I knew kids that were bit by beagles and they didn't report it. In my job people tell me about their beagles that bit their kids. I doubt they overrepresented themselves in bites and I wouldn't say they have aggression issues but despite being known for being tolerant, they aren't really more tolerant than say a cocker spaniel or a basset. Just because I wouldn't call them very good dogs with young kids doesn't mean I think they have aggression issues or should never be around young kids.
I think one of the big differences between a Jack Russell and a beagle is that beagles are going to be much more food motivated and larger. Jack, Russell terriers also are not recognized at the time and technically still aren't which probably made it harder for the FDA to recognize them. I think beagles just hit all the right marks on top of being easily accessible at the time when we were really regulating dogs used in research facilities.
I didn't really mean to get into this debate about beagle behavior and budding families. I was more just talking about how they came about to be used so heavily as research subjects
Eta when I say they bite quite often, I mean they bite quite often for a dog that is labeled good with kids.
I've not ever heard of a Beagle biting a child. I've known one to try and bite an adult, but that one was the only aggressive Beagle I've ever known. He wasn't mentally stable in general, though. I'm sure it happens, but it is genuinely not something that anyone in my rescue circle has ever mentioned, and we get a lot of Beagles, and I do mean a LOT. We've had them returned to us for "being too loud" lol, or digging or being hard to potty train, and that isn't too surprising. We've had a lot of breeds returned for biting or fighting their other dogs, but not yet a Beagle. Basset Hounds and Cocker Spaniels are less common, so I can't make a shelter or pet comparison there.
Every source I can find for why Beagles includes their generally docile nature along with the other reasons. It does seem to be a factor.
The problem in the US is that "no-kill" shelters are only graded on the number of "healthy, adoptable" animals they re-home.
And there is no oversight. People think the ASPCA does, but they are a political lobbying organization (and that is where your donations go, in spite of commercials showing starving puppies getting fed)
So, they have two very easy solutions to being full. 1) Zero intake health. Animals do not get vaccinated, treated or anything on intake. If someone brings in parvo or distemper, they can clear the shelter and maintain their rating of adopting out over 99% of healthy adoptable animals. 2) Behavioral euthanasia. There's no oversight, no committee, no standard. Just an exec deciding that this creature has issues, and so long as they mark it that way on the paperwork, they keep their rating.
I think a lot of it has to do with the resources a place has, which i think was also affected with the slowdown in transports.
People were all upset about transports when they were regularly done, because it meant dogs within their community didn't get the attention and resources, and were PTS. Well this is the result of not having regularly scheduled transports lol. Now the more behavioral dogs are getting more of the attention and resources.
I do think there should be some nuance—a dog who snapped when cornered or even killed a nest of rabbits in the backyard ≠ a dog who sent a toddler to the hospital or killed another family pet—but overall, I agree.
The reality is that there are far more dogs in need of a unicorn home than there are unicorn homes. The average person seeking a family pet does not want a dog who can’t be around kids, cats, other dogs, people who breathe too loudly, etc. I don’t see how warehousing dogs who already have severe behavioral issues indefinitely (or lying about their issues/guilt tripping potential adopters) benefits anyone.
I’m against BE in most circumstances because I truly believe most animals can be worked with, but I was also horse trainer, I work in vet med w/ dogs and cats but outside of my own I don’t train them so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I find that most of the time aggression in animals is fear based, and I find that most of the time that aggressive behavior is communication of that fear or defensiveness.
I worked with one particular horse that spent 2 years in traditional training under a professional that escalated and became more dangerous during that time- rearing, bucking, charging at you on the lunge line. Finally she had enough and was going to send him to another trainer for “tough love.” I was afraid of what that meant and offered to work with him, using only R+, and within a month he was a completely different horse. When you choose to work WITH an animal and change their way of thinking about certain things rather than suppress behavior you get real results. And when I respect an aggressive animal’s boundaries I always see major improvement. 2 weeks after being with the other trainer, he reported back and told us this horse was perfect, had perfect manners, and even had a little girl riding him. He’s now beginner safe 3 years later.
That is what gave me optimism and hope for every animal with behavioral issues.
I understand that feeling and I've indulged it by intaking small aggressive dogs. The problem is that there are a handful of people like me and hundreds of aggressive dogs in the size ranges I'm comfortable risking my neighborhood with. When it comes to larger dogs, there are far fewer willing and capable people and thousands of aggressive dogs in need. We don't live in the ideal world that would allow for us to not BE so many.
Yes, that is the main problem. hundreds of dogs are euthanized in shelters on the daily, so it makes sense to put aggressive or challenged dogs higher on the list, unfortunately.
I do have a lot of empathy for aggressive animals as well because majority of the time they were failed by someone- whether on purpose or not.
Some people are just fanatical about dogs. They've forgotten they're animals and see them as "babies." I've seen people that are pro choice for humans that are adamantly against spay aborts. They'll protest the BE of a dangerous dog while chomping on a bacon cheeseburger, because dogs that hurt people matter, but harmless cows and pigs apparently don't. It's all very illogical.
I'll take an unpopular stand and answer the actual question in good faith even though I generally agree with BE.
Because its not always done in good faith and it gives the completely false impression that dogs that pass temperament tests in the shelter are safe.
A dog that is scared and defensive because its in pain and in a new environment having its food pulled away is not more dangerous then one who is shut down in that situation. Attractive little dogs are given endless chances and older, medical or unattractive dogs are judged more harshly.
Yeah, there is some of that. I was the 8th home for a gorgeous toy breed who would have been absolutely murderous had he been large. He loved to be angry. He sought out reasons to be angry. It gave him life to be angry. He was wired to rage. Beautiful dog, lol. I loved him very much, but that was the most aggressive bite first ask questions later dog I've ever known. I have never worked so hard in my life to become a dog's friend and he never bit me, but his bite record looked like a CVS receipt.
In the shelter's defense, he was too small to truly harm someone and there were plenty of homes lined up to take him in and bring him right on back when they figured out that we hadn't been lying and love wouldn't fix him. But yes, had he been ugly (he was older), he would have been BEd no question about it. I took him home when the 7th home brought him back and he was finally slated for BE.
We also had a dog who never so much as raised a lip at us go home and maul his new owner. That is rare, but happens too. We knew he was a bit anxious, but we didn't know he had that in him. Like you say, he was shut down in the shelter and probably became his true self in a home when his nerves settled.
I absolutely don't want to overcorrect and say that we should whitewash owner reports. That is also absolutely stupid and terrible. But people do lie. They feel that they will be judged for surrendering an animal they didn't train or that is in poor condition if they don't give a good enough reason. They think if they say the dog nipped the kid we will understand that they had no choice. Again, we shouldn't ignore reports even when the former owner says oh Rocky just doesn't like men, hats, people with accents, lemons...etc. A report should ALWAYS stay on record, and that record should ALWAYS be connected to that dog, but there are many dogs who come in with a laundry list of can't be around kids, cats, lemons that end up being BE cases because the poor thing was abused and is lemon-aggressive in an overcrowded system.
I get you, but I think we have to believe owners when they say their dog bit a child. It would be outrageously irresponsible for us to hear that and then decide to test that dog with a child to make sure it's true. Most people don't make stuff like that up, though. It's usually a case of the dog biting a child and then they surrender because "they're moving and can't take them" or "don't have enough time to give the dog" or some other thing because they're afraid we'll either refuse intake or euthanize if they tell the truth. It's far more likely that they'll make up something that hides behavioral issues.
I absolutely think we should believe and record all incidents, and that those records should stay with the dog by requirement. I have a much bigger problem with groups that background-wash dogs by changing their names and moving them between rescues. But people really do make up things daily about behavior issues that are never seen again.
Are we talking reactionary aggression (like kennel or new people fear). Those can be helped with proper environment and training. Those that snap for zero reason. BE is sometimes the most compassionate thing.
TL;DR
BE shouldn't be as demonized as it is and is sometimes the best option for a dog and anyone/anything involved. The best thing you can do to something suffering is end it's misery.
Imo as someone who has worked with violent dogs in the past, some (SOME) violent dogs are able to learn how to function in our society in a healthy way, but very rarely do they find the right handlers/trainers to take this on. A lot will refuse if it simply isn't safe to put their name on something like that, and a lot of people still vouching for these dangerous dogs are only doing it because they're bully dogs.
The reason I say handlers instead of owners is because you aren't really "owning" a violent dog that has to be medicated and/or severely managed just for it to live a relatively normal life; you are handling it. Ex:
You own a nice shih-tzu with zero behaviour issues that likes to go for walks on the beach sometimes.
VS
You handle the bully mix with a bite list longer than Plan B side effects and is aggressive towards things that have a pulse.
I see a lot of shelters, rescues and private rehome requests stand up for the dogs behaviour based on breed.
One I saw recently was a tan bully mix female that had bitten several people, sent several staff members to the hospital, and severely harmed other dogs that they were kenneled with. This dog is a good example of why behavioural euthanasia shouldn't be demonized; she would need a one in a million handler to get this dog to live comfortably, and likely very few trainers that aren't weird/kind of abusive would be willing to try helping.
Yep. People are looking at the dog in front of them and are willing to sacrifice other dogs, people, and the new owner's homeowner's insurance so that they don't feel bad about a euth list social media post.
the euthanasia list posts infuriate me. all it does is demonize the shelters and the people that hate on it are always those who aren’t even in the rescue world.
The way they throw out the name of some rescue like they did something that the shelter neglected to do. Rescues can’t solve the problem. We can’t adopt away the issue. Until people are serious about mandatory spay and neuter we will have the saddest overpopulation issue.
The pit worship is real. I was walking a loved by staff XL bully when he started grabbing my arm with his front legs and pulling me down. I stopped and stayed still to see where he wanted to go and he jumped up and grabbed my hair bun and pulled me to the ground. I reacted quickly and rolled into a ball after dropping the leash and he was fine and just bounded off and I was able to get him into a fenced play area and then got a staff to walk me back with him. At that point, the ACO said she was in a second of shooting the dog from her truck (it was like 200 feet away and I didn’t see it).
Anyway, I told the director about it and said I wouldn’t be walking Ox anymore and that was a concern because to my knowledge I was the only person who could walk Ox. She said no, everyone loved Ox and it was fine. Well, everyone did love Ox because they never walked him and looked at us like we were crazy when I asked if they would start walking him in the morning (he was obviously unsuited for group play).
He was adopted days later to a young couple. No idea what happened. I really think he just didn’t want to walk on a leash right then and wasn’t aggressive in the sense meaning angry but he was going to bully me until he got his way and that would include biting me if I hadn’t dropped the leash.
I was almost attacked by an XL bully recently and the owners friend defended the behaviour of the dog because, and I quote, "the dog showed resTRAINt, meaning training is being done." She completely disregarded that the dog had jumped a fence and stopped snarling, coming after myself, dog, and sister, only after being screamed at by me and nearly getting a broken nose from a Yeti tumbler.
The friend was on my side until she knew who it was. Everyone else was on my side and appreciated identifying info. The friend only mentioned training because I said a dog should never cross a boundary (fence), running after someone else, and should not be able to leave your property, especially if they can open your only door (which they did). The owner only recalled the dog that jumped the fence when she realized HER dog was in genuine danger, not the fact she sent my sister into a panic attack (PTSD from similar experiences) and not the fact my dog is 2.5lbs vs her 40+lber.
Pit and bully glazing needs to be addressed more than the AI "save me off the euth list also I'm aggressive to everything with a pulse!" posters get put out.
I mostly agree with you, except in the case of a private rescue. If someone out there wants to put their own time, money, and resources into those dogs that don't stand a chance, I think thats beautiful if done ethically. You cant give those dogs to just anyone, transparency is crucial, they need a behavioralist on staff, they need to focus on dogs that have a chance to live a happy and quality life, etc. I wouldn't want regular or even most shelters functioning that way, but if someone wants to beat the odds, I think there's definitely room for them. It's nice to think there's a chance, you know? Those dogs didn't ask for this. :/ Its ok if you dont feel that way, your logic is strong. I'm just sad there is such a need that resources have to be rationed. Its not right.
I feel like some of this depends on the situation. Sometimes there are neurological problems that there is no true solution to, and that are dangerous. Most are traumatized and confused babies who react to what they’re given.
My family had a dog who did not fit us, but could easily fit another family. She was (we believe) from a hunting kennel that was largely abusive in nature based on her actions (also plotthound found in the middle of nowhere wasn’t hard to guess). Completely fine with humans, but extraordinarily food aggressive towards other dogs. Nearly killed our 18 year old dog, and would have if I wasn’t watching them. No need to put her down. We surrendered her within a couple months, and she was quickly taken up by a new family with kids— again, absolutely no problem signals with humans.
On the other hand, my friend’s family had a German shepherd who was possessive to a neurotic degree. He didn’t care for strangers, and had a history of biting them. Could have been from trauma, since he was surrendered, but that wasn’t what mattered. The shelter would have euthanized him from the three bite rule if they had taken him back, and the dog turned aggressive towards family members who got too close to the mom. Last straw was an attack on my friend for walking into the kitchen. He ended up being euthanized after a long struggle to try and work with him. It’s sad, but when the behavior turns neurotic like that, it becomes too dangerous to be kept— and nobody is going to take in a dog like that, at least not where I’m from.
I had a young Bouvier that became threatening to a friend’s baby in a playpen. Didn’t touch the baby, just curled her lips and growled. It totally freaked me out. Even tho I had no babies or kids in my home, I found a personal protection/ working dog trainer who helped me turn the dog completely around. She learned to listen to me, not making decisions for herself. She lived a long, safe and beautiful life. But here’s the thing, it took a lot of training and practice to help this dog. My concern is that when rescuing a dog a person should be ready to make a commitment to the dog, including an evaluation by a professional to determine if the dog can be turned around. One can’t just bring the dog home and not expect to make an investment of time and money to help the dog adjust.
a big part of the issue a lot of people gloss over is the quality of life for these dogs in a shelter along with the staffing of the shelter. in order to keep a dog with a bite history, a shelter needs skilled handlers that can dedicate time into caring for and training the dog. a dog with a bite history can’t be adopted out easily, so the time and resources that could go into many many more dogs is poured into one.
all dogs are worthy of a chance, but unfortunately with the overpopulation crisis we are in it’s just not feasible. if we have to choose between an adoptable dog that isn’t a risk to its new family vs a dog that may snap and put their kid in the hospital unfortunately we need to make the choice. and regardless of which one is taken in, there’s still 20 in its place that need to be EU’d for population.
plus, even the best dogs struggle with kennel stress. it’s so emotionally challenging for behavior issue dogs that it honestly feels more inhumane to keep them there. where a “normal” dog will struggle, most behavior dogs deteriorate.
In the 80s we had a male dog either dumped or showed up from a neighbor. Nearest neighbor was almost a mile away. Blood in his ear and he held his head crooked. Sweet little dog who was afraid of hands but not once growled or tried to bite. He unfortunately got hit in the road. A year after him another dog the spitting image of him except was lighter colored. Blood in her ear and she was lactating. I crouched down and called here puppy as my farm dug was chasing her and she lept into my arms. I was just a kid. Never growled or bit and did the same as the male dog from a year earlier. Afraid of hands. Found pups on my walk down the dirt road just about a quarter of a mile away. They been hit in the head and dead. We had the mama dog a decade til she passed. She never got over her fear of hands and walking feet. I'm positive both dogs were related and they both were used to getting kicked in the head. No aggression whatsoever. Like most severely dogs I've seen. They are shy and scared, no aggression. Just broken dogs. Can a scared dog bite? Of course if you corner them or attempt to pick them up but most will simply pee on themselves as they roll on their back. There is zero reason to adopt out a dog that will bite a person unprovoked. Most abused animals know they are in a good place and will thrive but still show signs of fear with sudden movements. If they are abused and can't learn to accept touch without snapping once they are in a safe place, it's sadly the responsible thing to do and pts for the safety of ppl. Most true aggression isn't fear, it's simply aggression and society needs to be kept safe. Stop calling it reactivity or fear based with every aggressive dog. It's aggression. Not rearranging my home and life to coddle an aggressive dog. Make room for a dog deserving of a family home. Just like when you raise game roosters. Human aggressive roosters were only good for the stew pot. Genetics matter with birds too.
Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of the most abused and injured dogs I've worked with, and the top three were afraid but never even growled at us, when we would have absolutely forgiven even a bite in those circumstances. Dogs have the fight, flight, freeze, fawn reactions that humans do, it seems. The ones stuck on "fight" have that as part of their base personality. I see a lot more freeze, flight and fawn (appeasement) even in the most heartbreaking scenarios. Some even curl up into you for comfort with shattered legs from being hit by a car.
I know how each one of my own dogs reacts to having a boo boo inspected, and whether they snap, freeze, run away or cuddle reflects who they are in general.
I'm not against BE. What I am against is the fact that government run AC uses any excuse to kill dogs, and massively overuses "violent" or "dangerous" when in reality it's really "I will get a big bonus if I come in under budget." And yeah, I will admit I'm still bitter about one particular Animal Control who broke their word.
See, I captured a GSD who had been on the loose for God knows how long. Emaciated, had been abused, her tail was broken, she was terrified. At first glance, she appeared vicious. But after sitting on my garage floor with her for an hour, she came over and laid down right next to me. She slept beside me for probably what was the first time she had ever felt safe. I had to leave that Monday for a business trip, so I took her to AC. I said I would take her after her stray hold was up. The ACO saw this pup lick my face, and said wow there's a lot of hope for her. What she didnt tell me was that I couldn't have her back. What they didn't tell me was that their witch of a director was only about the budget, and making our dictator governor happy. I called them daily. And then they told me she was being euthanized, and that only a rescue could pull her. They gave me from 5pm that night until 8am the next day to find a rescue to pull her.
So a truly dangerous dog should be BE'd. But right now its an over-used term.
There is no valid argument. The reality is you can do EVERYTHING right, put all the time and resources in the world into a dog- but if there is something wrong in the brain there’s just no fixing that. Sometimes the hard choice is the right choice, that’s just the way of life.
I have read some here that were apparently just self protective. I have had to put down a dog I had raised from a puppy for aggression without provocation. There is a difference between biting & snapping at a hand reaching out when you're scared it's going to hurt you & attacking & causing stitches with no warning growl & the final one was my nose when I was setting down her food bowl. I took her to the vet & did it myself, there was no way that it would have been ethical to try to re home, it would have put the euthanasia responsibility on someone else.
Because too many people in rescue have an ego problem and prefer to pour endless resources into unadoptable animals so they can say they "saved them" (translation: their new owners have to manage unmanageable behaviors and live in fear for the next 5-10 years) instead of taking the L and putting those resources into dogs that have the potential to be great family pets. That's it, that's the whole reason.
I worked at a no-kill rescue that warehoused a VERY dog-aggressive dog for about two years. He went crazy every time a dog walked by, couldn’t be out of his kennel if another dog was out of theirs, and at one point managed to attack another dog at the shelter. Most of the staff that weren’t kennel techs were scared of him. For most of his time at the rescue, he loved people and was very friendly, cuddly, etc. But he was kept in a small kennel with barely any exercise or enrichment for so long that he suffered from extreme kennel deterioration and eventually started lunging and snapping at people. At that point, the higher ups finally decided to euthanize him. That was two years that this dog suffered for 23 hours a day and two years that a kennel was taken up that could have been used by countless adoptable dogs. Those of us that knew him best and loved him knew that this should have been done much much sooner for his sake. But the people at the top who didn’t know anything about the dogs didn’t want to make a hard decision. That’s ultimately why this sort of thing happens imo. People put their own feelings above the dogs‘ wellbeing.
This is why Im completely against "no kill" shelters. Our city turns away perfectly adaptable dogs, while housing a very large amount of nonadoptable dogs. It is not humane to that dog, the staff or the adaptable dogs. It's a feel good word that people who aren't active in rescue that ruins lives and regreses bad behavior further.
Why not BE violent criminals? We seem to discriminate between the levels of violence someone exhibits. So why wouldn't you apply the same courtesy/logic for dogs?
It’s not fair to the dog to be BE, because it was humans who failed them. Unfortunately it’s far less fair to make them continue to suffer for our mistakes. It shouldn’t feel right because it isn’t right. It’s the lesser of two evils
There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dogs in shelters that have the capacity and strength to rehabilitate. Why make a dog who can’t socialize or integrate properly anymore suffer live any longer than it has to? What a horrible and terrifying time it must be to travel and experience the world in such a way.
Plenty of us do care, and lots more people than you'd think have had to do the exact same thing with a dog that they love. I'm so sorry that you're going through this.
Just hopping on to say… I’m an experienced dog owner and rescue foster. We adopted our boy as a puppy, did all the socializing with people and other dogs. Did all the training and worked with behaviorists. He’s an anxious, unpredictable mess. We adore him and he’s happy when he’s home and feels safe. We do all the things to keep both him and other dogs and humans safe. He’s 10 years old now and we have a handful of people we trust to stay with him, in our home, when we travel. I have come to believe some dogs really are just born super anxious and no amount of love or training or proper care will change that.
That's absolutely true. I've got a couple of dogs who have never seen a moment of mistreatment in their lives and had all of the proper socialization any dog could wish for, but they're so anxiety-ridden that I'd never be able to board them and one is terrified of anyone other than me. There are no life events that led to this. It's all genetics with some dogs.
In Denmark dogs are by law put down if they attack and injur someone. Including other dogs. It's harsh. But I support it. Parks have become so much nicer and safer for everyone
My hound dog I just adopted was returned by a family who said he bit their 4 year old. Had him for a while and he’s the sweetest boy. I think they lied bc they didn’t realize a hound needs stimulation and wanted an easier dog.
Makes me wonder if that happens often…
My other hound was obviously never socialized or walked outside bc poor baby is terrified of everything even at 1.5 years old. So he growls at just abt everything.
There really are so many factors that a shelter might label as “violent” or “aggressive”
With actual aggressive dogs who actually bite, no argument from me, I just wonder if that’s always the case.
You cannot clearly judge a dog inside a shelter environment. It’s terrifying. It’s loud it’s confusing however there are times when there are behavior dogs that’s gonna require a lot of extra training and it’s gonna have to go to a very experience person. However, we pull a lot of of these scared dogs as soon as they’re out of there within three days, their whole new dog, especially the little dogs. They are really freaked out and overwhelmed and once they’re out of their 99.9% of them are great dogs.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 23 '26
Welcome to r/RescueDogs! Please review the subreddit rules before participating. If you see a post or comment that breaks the rules, please report it to the moderators rather than engaging with it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.