# Rehoming difficult dogs, should it be done or is it passing a problem on?



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, I've started this thread off so that the other thread Kerry started doesn't take off into a full blown discussion, it's bad enough as it is for her and her family without dragging it all up and discussing the ins and outs on that thread. If anyone wants to air a point of view, let's do it on here, so that it isn't about a particular situation.

My personal feelings are for a dog with problems that make it difficult to rehome, such as fear of strangers, that can lead to aggression, or dog aggressive dogs, they shouldn't be passed from pillar to post, along with their problems. I wish there were a loving and experienced home for all these dogs, but there just isn't. I've seen some very aggressive dogs with handlers (usually rescue dogs I might add), where I've thought they're a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, it doesn't take much, just a second of not watching them closely enough. Is it better to pass that sort of dog on, or to have them pts? Personally, although it's sad, I feel the latter is better than passing the dog on with it's problems.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

That thread was perfect example - no situation would be the same, and I have not doubt that many people leave their in season dogs with other girls un attended! & plus we didnt know that the dog had issues - as no ones knows what happened.

But in regards to your question on this topic. I have no problem with dogs being rehomed who have issues we have had a number come through us, all gone on to live happy lives with people that understand and accept them and any issues - them issues may well make life a little difficult and training be harder, and be carried out constantly through out the dogs live to ensure these issues are not left un addressed.


I am so sick of the world we live in - if a dog isnt easy to own than have it destroyed..Makes life easier...If it was for the best interest of the dog then I would agree, but nine times out of ten its because its easier than living with the issues and that is disgusting in my eyes!


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

i think each case is different but if it is a choice between a dog spending the rest of its life in a kennel and getting stressed and not coping or being pts then i think the kindest thing for the dog is to be pts.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> That thread was perfect example - no situation would be the same, and I have not doubt that many people leave their in season dogs with other girls un attended! & plus we didnt know that the dog had issues - as no ones knows what happened.
> 
> But in regards to your question on this topic. I have no problem with dogs being rehomed who have issues we have had a number come through us, all gone on to live happy lives with people that understand and accept them and any issues - them issues may well make life a little difficult and training be harder, and be carried out constantly through out the dogs live to ensure these issues are not left un addressed.
> 
> *I am so sick of the world we live in - if a dog isnt easy to own than have it destroyed..Makes life easier...*


You know that's not what I meant by this thread, and that I'm fed up of dogs as commodities that we can just dispose of when we feel like it.

The dogs I'm thinking of specificially weren't safe around other dogs, couldn't be let off lead at all, and would have done serious damage, or killed another dog, and possibly attacked humans. If their owners could no longer cope with them, is it fair to pass that sort of dog on? I know each dog has to be taken on it's own merit, and it depends greatly on whether anyone else could take the dog on, but where you have no other options, I don't think it's a good idea for rescue organisations to take these dogs on with a view to rehoming. One of the dogs I am thinking of was rehomed via a rescue organisation, and went on to attack a postman, all it took was a momentary lapse in concentration and someone left a door open long enough.

The owner worked hard for over two years and eventually, the dog was able to be in the same field as other dogs and people, off lead, albeit with a long line attached just in case. But how many owners are a) willing to take on a dog that is potentially lethal and b) put in that amount of hard work. Not many, so is it fair then for that type of dog to end up with someone inexperienced?


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

I am so sick of the world we live in - if a dog isnt easy to own than have it destroyed


I think that is a really harsh thing to say, lots of people try very very hard to cope with dogs with issues, not just for months but years, but when a dog is not safe around people/animals, and many things have been tried then sometimes there is no options, and some would say its kinder to PTS, then the dog live for many yrs in a kennel,


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

May be a harsh thing to say but have worked with rescues long enough to be able to make such a statement and have it backed up with the cases we have come through. There also is no excuse with regards to the dogs living in kennels for the rest of their lives as many if not most rescues now also run foster homes, even more so breed rescues.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The dogs I'm thinking of specificially weren't safe around other dogs, couldn't be let off lead at all, and would have done serious damage, or killed another dog, and possibly attacked humans. If their owners could no longer cope with them, is it fair to pass that sort of dog on?


The thing is though SL - why does a dog react in that way thats the question? we have one just the same in side the house because she feels she needs to protect us - fine outside the house, but again she came from a idiotic owner. Dogs can only be what we make them, so someone buys a pup doesnt put the work in - it grows up to have issues, owner gets to their wits ends cant work with it anyone so get it PTS.. The whole time the dog has suffered, for human error. Each case is different but to me PTS is the last option, all else failing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> May be a harsh thing to say but have worked with rescues long enough to be able to make such a statement and have it backed up with the cases we have come through. There also is no excuse with regards to the dogs living in kennels for the rest of their lives as many if not most rescues now also run foster homes, even more so breed rescues.


Yes, and many are overflowing beyond capacity, and dogs are put to sleep every day just because there are too many being handed over, while the puppy buying public go out and buy yet another cute puppy that's been bred by a byb or puppy farmer, because they can't be bothered to research. And some of those will probably end up with behavioural issues and eventually be passed on.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2011)

IF I was in the situation of the other thread, I would have passed the dog onto the breed rescue but made sure the breed rescue knew another dog had been killed by the dog and the issue's it had. And let the breed rescue decide if anything can be done.

I am lucky I have never had a fight between by bitch's during season however I dont leave them un-attended together. (in or out of season) 

Any difficult dog should be rehomed but only to rescues or people who know the exact problems of the dog!


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I dont believe rescues should, same as i dont believe they should treat dogs with major medical problems, purely down to the volume in kennels/pounds, and the limited and stretched financial resources. 

Id much rather see "problem" dogs euthanised, freeing up kennel spaces and money to help those who are fit, healthy and well tempered and more likely to find a home. 

Private rehoming im not sure about. I dislike people who palm a dog off because they havent done their research, or cant be bothered to meet the dogs needs, or get outside help. But then why should the dog suffer because it has a moronic owner?

Im quite hard when it comes to these things. A dog doesnt care how long it lives, just the quality of life it does has. Is sitting in a kennel months, or even years, on end, really fair? 
Is it fair on a dog to find its day to day life full of stress and anxiety?

Id much rather see these issues prevented in the first place, than have to be dealt with.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> I dont believe rescues should, same as i dont believe they should treat dogs with major medical problems, purely down to the volume in kennels/pounds, and the limited and stretched financial resources.
> 
> Id much rather see "problem" dogs euthanised, freeing up kennel spaces and money to help those who are fit, healthy and well tempered and more likely to find a home.
> 
> ...


Agree very much but that last sentence for me really says it all.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, and many are overflowing beyond capacity, and dogs are put to sleep every day just because there are too many being handed over, while the puppy buying public go out and buy yet another cute puppy that's been bred by a byb or puppy farmer, because they can't be bothered to research. And some of those will probably end up with behavioural issues and eventually be passed on.


Again down to owners yes rescues are fulled.. Lots will end up with behavioral issues (again down to owners not choosing a decent/ethical breeder!). Alot of issues that owners cant be bothered to deal with or have given up dealing with can be worked on - it takes time of course, and it needs someone that understands the behavioural problems. If the owner has given up they dont deserve the dog, and to me that dog deserves a chance to have the issues worked with - alot of issues are through people not understanding, or not taking the correct action to prevent things - I find it hard to accept dogs should suffer because of us..But its happening every second.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2011)

Nonnie said:


> I dont believe rescues should, same as i dont believe they should treat dogs with major medical problems, purely down to the volume in kennels/pounds, and the limited and stretched financial resources.
> 
> Id much rather see "problem" dogs euthanised, freeing up kennel spaces and money to help those who are fit, healthy and well tempered and more likely to find a home.
> 
> ...


This is the thing, a dog with bad behavior problems or bad medical problems can turn out to be a great dog.

I have been on the bad end of a rescue foster gone wrong, a dog tested good with other dogs. Came to me for a foster period (while other homes were being vetted) and attacked and tried to kill my other foster dog. Yet the two dogs lived perfectly fine for months then one day she snapped!

Scorcher has bad medical problems and did have issues with cats, dogs and poorly trained. However she has turned into a perfect dog.

I think each case is different.

But I do agree about the rescue spaces. But at the same time....I would give any dog with issues a chance of being rehomed.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> This is the thing, a dog with bad behavior problems or bad medical problems can turn out to be a great dog.
> 
> I have been on the bad end of a rescue foster gone wrong, a dog tested good with other dogs. Came to me for a foster period (while other homes were being vetted) and attacked and tried to kill my other foster dog. Yet the two dogs lived perfectly fine for months then one day she snapped!
> 
> ...


I think 95% of dogs with issues can be worked with, however there just arent the homes for them, or the financial resources to deal with them.

If someone wants to privately rehome a problem dog, thats their choice (i did - Oscar was seriously injured when i took him and i fully understood the possible consequences of bringing him into my home. Thankfully he turned out pretty good) but a rescue centre is a whole different thing. Its one thing to rehome and then have the issues become apparent, quite another to keep the dog in kennel, in the hope that a suitable home will come forward.

Same with medical problems. There was an appeal on here once to raise something like £3000 for a rescue to pay to have surgery on the one remaining front leg of a dog that was badly deformed. I personally felt that that ONE dog should have been PTS, and the £3000 used to save possibly 10-20 others.
Sadly it was money wasted as the operation failed, and the dog was still PTS.

I think some people and some organisations want to save every animal out there, and its just not possible. And i think many dogs suffer because of these good intentions.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm afraid this kind of question cannot be generalised, as every case is different. Plus each animal needs to be assessed inspite of what the previous owner may have said to a rescue. There are dogs looking for new homes because previous owners have said they've nipped just to make the rescue take them in there and then with no thought given to what may or may not happen to the dog through their thoughtless comments. 
To be honest, if our rescue had gone to a less experienced/patient home, he too may have ended up as just another statistic.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I have to say, for me it wasnt the easy option to have my dog pts it was very difficult i contacted resues but when i told them his problems they didnt want to now i can understand that because who would want a dog as aggressive as mine was he was only 1 year old, luckily he wasnt pts they day he was due at the vets was the day we got a phone call from the numerous contacts we made, he was a very lucky dog and lived to a ripe old age.
I would never slate anyone that has to make this decision as long as other solutions have been tried.
Not everyone is in a position to be able to keep an aggressive dog.


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

mumof6 said:


> i think each case is different but if it is a choice between a dog spending the rest of its life in a kennel and getting stressed and not coping or being pts then i think the kindest thing for the dog is to be pts.


I agree with this, but only if the dog is unlikely to ever be rehomed, I've seen dogs rehomed after 4+ years, but how long is too long in kennels? Kennels can be such a miserable existence. Our eldest rescue dog came out on a disclaimer for supposedly having shown aggression towards other dogs, cats and people (a lot is believed to be fabricated by last owner, but the rescue obviously need to tell you everything, despite their scepticism). He had been in kennels for 15 months before we got him. He was originally there as a puppy, adopted within weeks. He is a lovely dog and I would class him as having very complex needs due to his fears, but they're mainly trying to help him deal with noise fears/anxieties etc.

I think if you can find the experienced owners for these dogs then they deserve the opportunity to go to a good home. In our case, our dog went to his previous 'owners' as a puppy and then took him back to the rescue when he was too much for them to deal with. I believe he was a product of his poor upbringing and although I don't think he'll ever be completely over his fears, he absolutely deserved a second chance:



We've also been on the other side. One of my Mum's dogs was PTS, he had attacked me and members of the family, was dog aggressive and had other problems. He was a stray who appeared to have been abused and in the end, they just weren't experienced enough to deal with his issues. Rescue wouldn't take him and we had to make the heartbreaking decision to have him PTS. I don't think I could ever do that again though and understand what a difficult decision it is to make.


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Thankfully ive never had to deal with this situation ... but my opinion is that if a suitable home can be found then by all means rehome the dog. 
By suitable I mean very capable owners who are fully aware of and prepared to work on whatever problem(s) the dog may have.
In todays reality however the sad facts are that it may be in the dogs better interest to pts 

ok, this is a bit of an 'out there' question , may be totally ludicrous , but its occured to me so i'll make myself look daft and ask it , lol ... has there ever been an incident where a cat has had to be rehomed/pts through aggression or because it killed another cat ?


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

hawksport said:


> The harsh reality is there are not enough homes for all the dogs in recsue. At some point you have to choose between homing a happy healthy dog or homing a dog with issues. Of the two I know which I would rehome and which I would PTS.


I think a lot of dogs in rescue have something you need to work on, I don't see many all round well adjusted dogs at all. If I was to look on my local rescue's website the number of dogs up for adoption that are not good with other dogs outweighs the ones who are fine with other dogs (12 out of 51 are dog friendly). They still get adopted, some within days and I'm sure a lot overcome their issues with the right assistance.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2011)

I think where a dog has attacked another dog where killed it or attacked a child then it needs to be PTS as i cannot see the rescue being able to 100% sort this animal out that it will NEVER do it again, you could never trust it 100% again. It is too much of a risk in my eyes. 

As far as any other training issues, lead issues, food aggression etc that can all be sorted with trainers and the experts and are minor problems that people can sort out.


----------



## NoSpecialFeaturesHere (Nov 23, 2008)

It completely depends on the situation. The dog, the owner, the circumstances. This is not a question with one right or wrong answer.

In my opinion every single life is precious, and not something to be thrown away. If there's any chance of a dog finding the right home to see them through their issues, they deserve the help to get there; especially if their problems are down to human ignorance/cruelty/neglect or a problem that could be fixed with something as simple as spaying or neutering or a bit of training and stability, change of environment/lifestyle etc. But I do understand that sometimes with the more severely damaged dogs, sadly, if nobody's willing to step up and make sacrifices for them, there's no other choice. It breaks my heart, but it's just the sad truth.

The people who buy a puppy, screw it up, send it on, get a new puppy to screw up: Those people make me violently sick. As do the people who don't ever walk their dogs, crate them all hours of the day then wonder why they're stressed out/frustrated/hyper, whatever, then want rid... Actually I'll stop before I start, because this would be a long list. I'll just say... I appreciate responsible people who genuinely care for their pets. 

And, Mese, on another forum someone had their one year old cat put to sleep due to aggression.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

KathrynH said:


> I think where a dog has attacked another dog where killed it or attacked a child then it needs to be PTS as i cannot see the rescue being able to 100% sort this animal out that it will NEVER do it again, you could never trust it 100% again. It is too much of a risk in my eyes.


One of my mums rescues has a number of times bitten young children. That seems to have come from her previous home, and being man handled in a rough manner by grandkids.
we have had her a number of years now, and she has come on leaps and bounds. Of course we can never trust her 100% with children again - thats no problem, we just prevent her coming into contact with any child..Putting her in a seperate room when anyone with kids comes in. That doesnt affect her being shut out for an hour or two. Most issues can be prevented. Our last foster dog left saturday - he has twice now bitten kids, so has gone onto a permant home with no kids or visiting kids. All you need is an experienced/understanding and passionate home and any dog will thrive in it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> One of my mums rescues has a number of times bitten young children. That seems to have come from her previous home, and being man handled in a rough manner by grandkids.
> we have had her a number of years now, and she has come on leaps and bounds. Of course we can never trust her 100% with children again - thats no problem, we just prevent her coming into contact her any child..Putting her in a seperate room when anyone with kids comes in. That doesnt affect her being shut out for an hour or two. Most issues can be prevented. Our last foster dog left saturday - he has twice not attacked kids, so has gone onto a permant home with no kids or visiting kids. All you need is an experience/understanding and passionate home and any dog will thrive in it.


That is brilliant DD and really nice to read a happy ending to a horrible abused dog, if you can get a home that can adapt to that sort of environment then yes i totally agree.

What i would hate to see is for someone unexperienced to take a dog that badly messed up and for a few months say "oh i wont let the kids near it or the dog etc but then one day they do because they think it will be ok just for 5 mins and the inevitable happens.

I can only imagine that your home and other homes as experienced as yours are far and few between DD.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

There are alot of homes out there that are experienced with problemed dogs - what the avarge pet owners see has a big issue that they cant see beyond can be a simple issue to someone experience with certain breeds and problems. Its just about matching the right home to the right dog, and I know thats not easy and if mistakes are made the dogs and new owners will suffer - rescues will have made mistakes before in such situations I am sure.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

The problem we had was actually getting anyone to take a dog when we was looking and unfortunetly we didnt have time, we couldnt keep risking any more incidents, he wasnt abused we had him from 6 weeks old was extremely badly bred, we were made to believe he was a different breed to what he was, it was just a total disaster. Whe there are children involvyou just cant take the risk, i was just pleased he went on to have a happy life, basically doing what he was bred to do.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

this is a really hard situation but if it was my dog that lets say, killed another dog, i would not put the dog in to kennels. My reasoning would be there is only a small chance that someone would pick my dog over all the hundreds of other dogs that may have less problems. For someone to be able to adopt my dog they would have to have no other dogs, be prepared to never own another dog, probably have no children (or older children) and have experince with problem dogs. This is what I imagine the rescue center would say to perspective owners. Now there are few wonderful people out there that would be in the position to rehome a dog like this, but no where near enouth to for a rescue center to justify taking in every problem dog. 

If a rescue center said to me we will take your dog but there is a good chance he will be in kennels for a long time possibly years, as some dogs are, waiting for a home, im afraid i would let him or her go over the rainbow bridge. 

obviously if there was any way the dog could stay at home that would be the best answer but this is not always possible 
hope this made sense, this is somthing that has only just clicked in my mind since that devastating last thread.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I do feel that there needs to be more advice and support for them struggling with a dogs issues - other than your avarge training classes - and not at stupied prices.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Interesting topic! Haven't seen the 'other' thread so can't comment but look at this question with a number of different hats on.

First off as a behaviour professional - the modification, management and ability to cope with a behaviour issue can't generally be viewed in isolation. The behaviour 'problem' is not the only part of the problem! There are so many variables. All of these need to be considered when placing a dog or considering placing a dog.
I meet clients all the time that are wrong dog-wrong issue-wrong home combination unfortunately. 
I also believe that behaviour problems can be just as damaging and traumatising to the animal as physiological injury and are often more difficult to 'treat'. Physiological disorders of similar severity to behavioural issues are often viewed totally differently, despite the misery caused to the dog./family

From a rescue point of view - we have limited resources (very limited) and as it is at the moment we have a large number of rock solid, bomb proof dogs that we can't rehome let alone dogs that will require extra special homes and attention. Right now we also have the highest intake of dogs than ever before and most likely due to the recession, dogs are moving out at an increasingly slower rate.

From a personal point of view - I rehomed a dog from a rescue organisation almost sever years ago now, I still have this dog and he is the dog-love of my life but he has been the hardest work I have ever experienced in a dog. He came to me with a large number of issues, including biting me before leaving the kennel. I still took him on but as a result of working with this dog over the years has made me realise that I could probably never do this again. I can totally understand how hard dealing with this is for people and that in the time it took me to work with this dog, I was unable to devote that time and energy potentially saving a number of other dogs.

Of course I would love to make sure people are fully responsible for the dog they have bought/adopted, of course I would love these issues being prevented but this is not the world we live in. I will continue to work to help people prevent making mistakes that affect dogs for the rest of their lives but we also have to deal with the current crisis.

Another ugly part of the equation, thank you modern world, is liability. And from my point of view as a professional and as a behaviour consultant for a rescue that is also a missive consideration.

Saying that I am often involved in making difficult decisions in relation to rescue dogs and the situation is a whole lot more difficult when considering an individual dog and individual situation


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

When I got Bella she was already large, manic, hyperactive, untrained, unhoustrained 7 month old. I firmly belive if she had gone into the pound where she was destined she wouldnt have found an owner above all the others looking for homes. She leapt up at anyone she met, often ran at people barking and snarling like a police dog if she was startled, trashed loads of things in the house, and ate the stairs carpet . Now she is not perfect but shes friendly, confident, fairly obedient, has amazing recall and is fun to have around. Its taken a lot of work and also a lot of guidance from Henrick but she was well worth saving with the behaviour she had shown before though I can imagine she would have been an accident waiting to happen if she had gone to an inexperienced home. So what I suppose Im saying is if the right home can be found I think they should be rehomed but those homes are not that easy to find and it probably isnt fair to the dog or the rescue to have the dog filling up a kennel place while that home arrives.


----------



## Fuzzy_moo (Mar 9, 2011)

Well, some of you may know from reading my thread that I have put in 6 years of hard work with my dog who wasn't a rescue (although the rest of her litter ended up in kennels, so she may as well have been a rescue) and as upsetting it had been I would never give up on her and have her pts.

At the end of the day, there ARE people out there, who are willing to take on a dog with problems and work at it. Whether they will be successful is another matter. I agree though however, that there aren't enough of these people for the amount of problem dogs.

I think though, that a lot of people if were given the help, would be willing to turn into one of those people. Some rescues continue to help new owners with their resident behaviourists which is a really good thing.

One of the many behaviourists I've had to come and see my dog works with Sunnyside Kennels to help the serious problematic dogs that are in there. Her success rate is very good and they can be rehomed without a problem. For the worst cases, she takes them home herself to stop them being pts and all her dogs that were once on death row are perfectly well behaved now.

Really it all starts with responsible dog ownership. If people were more responsible in areas such as; teaching children how to be around dogs AND supervising them at ALL time, getting their dogs neutered UNLESS they are a proper breeder, training their dogs and if are struggling with training to consult a behaviourist and get help. 

If everyone did this, there would be far less dogs in kennels in the first place and the one's that did end up there, would either be better behaved and easier to rehome or so badly traumatised that they would have to be pts for the good of the dog.

That's what I think anyway


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I agree but not all rescues will take an aggressive dog for behaviorists to work with them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

anyone who leaves a puppy alone with an adult particularly when one is in season is risking the pup! pups can be irritating to older dogs so its not the dogs fault if a tragedy occurs, and it certainly dosent mean that a dog who was never dog aggressive before the incident will suddenly become DA, if the dog is smaller/younger it wouldnt take much for a larger dog to kill it. 
and in Kerrys case no one could blame her for whats happened

as for other dogs with behavioural problems then no i dont think they should automatically be pts, we dog walk at our local rescue and the majority of dogs there are saved from death row most have some issue or other, yet with rehabilitation the majority go on to find loving homes and live happy lives, so why shouldnt they get a chance of happiness?, afterall many of them have been through hell and yet they still trust humans!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

What is a difficult dog? Is it not, in the most part, a dog that has been failed by its owner? A lack of proper enviroment and/or socialistaion?

What is the purpose of rescue? Is it not, in part, to help those most vulnerable and and at risk? Can we really decry rescues who are prepared to take on, work with and find those special homes for that part of the canine world that has been worst neglected and most betrayed by its guardians?

And by the term 'difficult dog' many posters on this thread have equated it with a dog that will be hard to rehome and may face an extended period in the rescue system. If _that_ is the argument for a speedy destruction then lets start with the hundreds and hundreds of staffies who, though they may have no behavioural issues whatsoever, are absolutely in the 'hard to rehome' category and often face lengthy and resource draining stays in rescue. The older and uglier dogs, too. If being a burden on the rescue system is enough of a reason to warrant destruction then lets be even handed about it.

I do not criticise those rescues who prefer to maximise their throughput by cherry picking the easy dogs believing this to be the most efficient use of their resources nor would I criticise those rescue who stand by the most betrayed, the worst treated and the most needy of their charges. I think the rescue system benefits from the diversity that different approaches bring but I must refute this...



Nonnie said:


> And i think many dogs suffer because of these good intentions.


This argument misplaces responsibility in way that is totally erroneous yet horribly plausible, indeed the apparent plausibility is what makes it so damaging. No dog suffers because a rescue takes on a difficult dog.

"Oh, but they could save more if they didn't!" comes the refrain.

So? We could_ all_ save more. That doesn't transform us (or the rescue) into the source of the suffering. It doesn't make the rescue responsible for any dog's suffering. No more than the act of saving a dog makes us responsible for the suffering of homeless cats that we didn't save. If homeless dogs suffer it is because of the failings of their irresponsible owners. It is not the fault of a rescue that chooses to invest its energies in harder to rehome dogs.

I have a dog that is extremely damaged by her past. If I had elected, instead, to have this dog destroyed I would have been able to foster more dogs. Undoutedly a dog - a dog abandoned by its uncaring owner yet still stable and well behaved - was destroyed this week. I could theoretically have saved that dog but my decision to keep a traumatised dog with special needs does not make that other dog's suffering a result of my decision - that dog's suffering is the result of its owner's decision. Not mine and not the rescue that saves troubled dogs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> What is a difficult dog? Is it not, in the most part, a dog that has been failed by its owner? A lack of proper enviroment and/or socialistaion?
> 
> What is the purpose of rescue? Is it not, in part, to help those most vulnerable and and at risk? Can we really decry rescues who are prepared to take on, work with and find those special homes for that part of the canine world that has been worst neglected and most betrayed by its guardians?
> 
> ...


Great post i totally agree!


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

I took on a dog wanting a challenge, Maya has defiantly been that challenge.

I got nothing about her no history, likes or dislikes except she was cat tested and fine with them and unsure of some dogs. They did not tell me she was aggressive towards them but upon turning up with barney, she was in love with him and was more than happy to be with him but upon meeting Dylan my friends goldie, she growled at him and the staff said oh she doesn't like nueterd males she thinks they are like girls which she dosen't really like either. I could have easily handed her back then and there but I took her home.

I have had Maya almost 3 years and have been through hell and back, today i've seen the most progress ever when she met a strange dog who was a husky and very bouncy, normally she'd be growly and had enough but instead she started to play and went on for 15 minute.

I have dreamed of owning a rescue since I was a kid but a special rescue for dogs that have issues and need training/rehabilitation to give them a second chance. I probably never will have a rescue but I know I will en up fostering at the least and taking on challenging dogs, dogs that deserve a second chance just because humans have failed them the first time they shouldn't deserve to die.

I do however understand that many rescues are cramped/over run and it's easier, cheaper etc to take on a dog with a great temperament where as taking on a dog that needs allot of work, simply because they really just don't have the time to train and help these dogs. I do believe if more rescues considered fostering, it really would help.

If however the dog is badly behaved because of your mistake, No I do not belive it should be passed on, I still kick myself for rehoming Rusty despite he's in a better home than I could have ever offered him, it's the fact that I could not manage him and my health that I felt in was unfair but then i had not raised him and got him at a year old where he'd live his life "free". I have not raised a puppy but one thing is for sure, if something was my fault i'dnever givethat dog up and instead continue to work with that dog.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I think rescue centres are overflowing with perfectly well behaved non-aggressive dogs so I say PTS. I'm not on about 'difficult' dogs, I'm on about aggressive dogs who may cause issues with biting other dogs but especially people.


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

cinammontoast said:


> I think rescue centres are overflowing with perfectly well behaved non-aggressive dogs so I say PTS. I'm not on about 'difficult' dogs, I'm on about aggressive dogs who may cause issues with biting other dogs but especially people.


A lot of the dogs in my local rescues have been poorly socialised, abused and or neglected and can be unpredictable around dogs and people to varying degrees. The dog/people/child friendly dogs tend to be in the minority. Thankfully they've all been given the opportunity to find a new home, but a lot languish in kennels for years, despite the staffs best efforts to rehabilitate them and find them a new home.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> I think rescue centres are overflowing with perfectly well behaved non-aggressive dogs so I say PTS. I'm not on about 'difficult' dogs, I'm on about aggressive dogs who may cause issues with biting other dogs but especially people.


If you are on about dogs 'who may cause issues with biting' then the 'overflowing' of rescue centres is beside the point - yet you still mention it.

So is it the scarcity of rescue space or the risk of future incident that informs your opinion?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I do think if the owner knows its their fault then no they should work with that dog and if you know its your fault then you can work with the dog as you would surely or more or less know why the dog is behaving like that and work on the area that you know you failed on.
In our situation it was nothing we had done or maybe if we had known the breed was a rottie x gshd at 6 weeks then maybe we would have been a little firmer, i really think he would still have had issues because of his breeding.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

My opinion (for what it's worth) I'm sorry, but I think some posters are living in an ideal world, or trying to. Yes, every single animal deserves a chance at live, but that just isn't realistic, tell that to a fading puppy that can't quite grip on to life, or an RTA deer, that isn't that badly injured, but the stress just pushes it over the edge.

It would be great that every single dog, animal produced in this world had a home, but we all know that's a fairy tale. 

Johnderondon, you've spent an awful lot of time devoted to one problem dog, and perhaps could have helped many more in the meantime, that's your decision, and I doubt anyone here would tell you you were right/wrong, because this sort of issue is just a huge big grey area. However, the fact remains, out of those dogs in rescue that have problems that make them difficult to rehome, and those who are easily rehomed, which would you choose not to be pts if you had to make that decision?


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

We had a dog and people aggressive dog who was muzzled when outside the house and garden, she had a great life but if she went to the wrong home again (we were her 3rd) I think her life would've been years and years of being pushed pillar to post because of her issues 

I think if everyone is prepared to do the work, they know the dogs problem then it's fine give the dog a try 

To be honest if I ever had to give my two up and couldn't get family and friends to have them I think I would seriously think about pts zen has some issues and bear I honestly don't think would cope with being pushed around again and certainly wouldn't cope with kennel
Life is mental health would become effected he would only be suitable for an adult women's home with another dog as he's not to be trusted with some children, teens and men he's scared of them


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Daynna said:


> We had a dog and people aggressive dog who was muzzled when outside the house and garden, she had a great life but if she went to the wrong home again (we were her 3rd) I think her life would've been years and years of being pushed pillar to post because of her issues
> 
> I think if everyone is prepared to do the work, they know the dogs problem then it's fine give the dog a try
> 
> ...


I think what you're saying goes to prove the point that it is really circumstantial, and depends entirely on the individual situation. Unfortunately we live in a society where animals are pts as a matter of course because they're simply not wanted.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

There was a lot of talk when the financial crisis hit about people having their horses PTS rather than have them face an uncertain future or be sold for meat. I have to say, I'd agree. I couldn't stand the thought of my lad being I'll treated or sold for meat. I don't see the difference with dogs. If any animal is irretrievably aggressive, then it is surely better and safer to have the animal PTS. 

I'm going to be torn apart for this, but I also think that any animal with a huge disability should be PTS. I was sickened to see a 3 legged horse in America fitted with a prosthetic leg. So wrong. If my horse was in that situation, I wouldn't hesitate to PTS. I'd never allow my dogs to have the wheelchair attachment: they're springers and should be allowed to run.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

cinammontoast said:


> There was a lot of talk when the financial crisis hit about people having their horses PTS rather than have them face an uncertain future or be sold for meat. I have to say, I'd agree. I couldn't stand the thought of my lad being I'll treated or sold for meat. I don't see the difference with dogs. If any animal is irretrievably aggressive, then it is surely better and safer to have the animal PTS.
> 
> I'm going to be torn apart for this, but I also think that any animal with a huge disability should be PTS. I was sickened to see a 3 legged horse in America fitted with a prosthetic leg. So wrong. If my horse was in that situation, I wouldn't hesitate to PTS. I'd never allow my dogs to have the wheelchair attachment: they're springers and should be allowed to run.


I couldn't agree with you more! There are children in the developing world who have had limbs blown off in landmine explosions who don't have access to prosthetics. It just seems morally wrong that we spend more time and resources on animals than humans at times.

I know not everyone will agree with me here and that's OK. It just wouldn't sit comfortably with _me_ if I spent thousands of pounds on medical treatment for a dog.

*ducks for cover*


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I couldn't agree with you more! There are children in the developing world who have had limbs blown off in landmine explosions who don't have access to prosthetics. It just seems morally wrong that we spend more time and resources on animals than humans at times.
> 
> I know not everyone will agree with me here and that's OK. It just wouldn't sit comfortably with _me_ if I spent thousands of pounds on medical treatment for a dog.
> 
> *ducks for cover*


There's so much inequality in the world and it's unlikely to change anytime soon, I don't see why animals should be denied treatment because of it. If you went off the logic that there's people suffering in the developing world, why bother with animals full stop? Why not put all your efforts in to saving people instead? Plus people already spend thousands on more routine medical treatments.

Regarding the thread title, not many people give up the 'happy, healthy' dogs, but 'difficult' dogs are unfortunately in abundance. Dogs with complex needs should be given the opportunity to go to a decent home. It could be perceived as passing on a problem, but the dog shouldn't be punished as more often than not they've been failed by humans and are the victims. I've read about ex bait and 'fighting' dogs who have been successfully rehomed in the US. They were given a chance and not PTS because other dogs had fewer issues than them. Not every dog can be saved and the same goes for humans, but it doesn't stop those who require more resources from gaining help, even if it could be perceived as being at the expense of others.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I couldn't agree with you more! There are children in the developing world who have had limbs blown off in landmine explosions who don't have access to prosthetics. It just seems morally wrong that we spend more time and resources on animals than humans at times.


The issues here is although we are using the resources on the animals, its the humans mess/errors we are picking up and correcting. I fail to see how its morally wrong to put more time an effort into something that can not defend or care for itself - I certainly shall always put animal welfare before much else - wrong or not, thats my passion.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> However, the fact remains, out of those dogs in rescue that have problems that make them difficult to rehome, and those who are easily rehomed, which would you choose not to be pts if you had to make that decision?


The question, as you have phrased it, once again blurs the issue between dogs with problems and dogs that are difficult to rehome. So, before your question can be answered, I must ask again what is it that we are hoping to achieve - are we trying to avoid the risk of rehoming a dog with problems or are we trying to preserve rescue resources for easier dogs? You can see, I'm sure, that there are two different pressures at play here. We need to define which we are dealing with.

My own approach to the issue aligns closely with the rescue that I assist. They operate on a first come, first served basis and do not euthanise except in the interests of the dog or for reasons public safety. This means they handle a lot of 'hard to home' breeds and plenty of difficult dogs that other rescues would not take. Indeed they often take in difficult dogs from other rescues that recognise the particular expertise that the rescue I assist has in dealing with and finding homes for worky terrier breeds (and, more recently, Staffies).

Some rescues, including some national ones, are famous for cherry-picking the easy homers for their intake. That's fine and arguably allows them to maximise efficiency by maximising the quantity of rehomings (and, incidentally maximising the quantity of rehoming donations). That other rescues choose to focus on other aspects, be that breed specific or dogs from particular geographic regions or just accepting whatever dogs appear before them needing help means that the rescue system embodies a huge diversity and somewhere within it there is the perfect dog for every person. That diversity is a huge strength. It is fine for a person to say "If I were a rescue I would do it like this" but it is not fine to say that "Other rescues should do it like this" and it is factually incorrect to say, or infer, that rescues which do not prioritise easy dogs somehow assume responsibility for the suffering of dogs they have not helped.


----------



## mollymo (Oct 31, 2009)

My neighbour works for an Animal Rescue centre and has 6 dogs of her own and are mostly very old dogs from the centre.
Most of the dogs she has are not able to walk or breath correctly or incontinant or some serious complaint wrong with them.
When she goes to the vet with them as she does regular... then the centre pays for all the vet fee's for these dogs which is a lot of money.

Now I dont wish to sound hard but in my mind its alot of money that could be well spent rehoming healthy dogs at the rescue and allowing other dogs a space at the rescue to come in for rehoming as too many old sick dogs there needing to be PTS.

Some of the dogs she brings home I think should be PTS not brought home
She knows my view on this but she feels very differently to me


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi all,

having read through the posts i have to say something:
in the first instance i need to point out two phrases used in early posts: 
commoditisation of dogs


Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm fed up of dogs as commodities that we can just dispose of when we feel like it.


 and 
the "fact" that dogs prefer to die rather than not living their life to the full


Nonnie said:


> A dog doesnt care how long it lives, just the quality of life it does has.


to the first phrase i would certainly point out that is necessarily a question of responsibility that involves both the owner but also those who have exchanged the dog for money (either to recoup the costs or to make a profit) and i guess that between the parties the responsibilities can be well attributed and the problems tackled in a case by case basis...and even if they end up with the destruction of the animal, the human behaviours that originated the "problem" could be kept under better control and eventually minimised

the second statement seems, to me (and backed up also by a great deal of empiric) that dogs in general are extremely adaptable and prefer to live (not a great deal of irremediably suicidal dogs out there) ...

and i stop here..will come back to the thread later (my lunch break just finished).
best
D


----------



## fuzzymum (Nov 29, 2010)

In my eyes, there are very few dogs that have irreversible issues. With the right training and encouragement dogs will come good most of the time. But then is it fair to use precious time and money at rescue centres "fixing" dogs, when there are "good" dogs waiting for homes?

yes, i think so. Every dog should be given a chance to fulfil it's potential. Inside every aggressive dog there is a softie waiting for the chance to come out. I think sometimes people forget that dogs ARE animals, they will act like animals. 

I think rehoming an aggressive dog yourself, i.e through the paper & internet is wrong. But getting them into a good, reputable rescue centre where they will be given every chance and oppurtunity to have a good life is the way forward.

Of course, you will get dogs that are unpredictable, which of course makes them very dangerous. I think there should be more places like the Dogs Trust, that have a sanctuary for the dogs that can't be homed, where they can just go and be dogs. there is no pressure to be a pet or a friend etc and i think its fab!

I took on a rescue dog with issues, and tbh I think I appreciate and love her more for it. Seeing the change in her has been so rewarding and helped me not to take her good behaviour for granted.  

has anyone else seen the Dogs Trust sanctuary place? Can't remember what it's called? xx


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

fuzzymum said:


> In my eyes, there are very few dogs that have irreversible issues. With the right training and encouragement dogs will come good most of the time. But then is it fair to use precious time and money at rescue centres "fixing" dogs, when there are "good" dogs waiting for homes?
> 
> yes, i think so. Every dog should be given a chance to fulfil it's potential. Inside every aggressive dog there is a softie waiting for the chance to come out. I think sometimes people forget that dogs ARE animals, they will act like animals.
> 
> ...


I think to re-home an aggressive dog whether it be rescue or by word of mouth ect it needs to be done honestly many dont, when i was trying to rehome ours we had to do it by ourselves as rescue wouldnt take as i had told the truth sadly many dont then thats when i se it as unfair.


----------



## fuzzymum (Nov 29, 2010)

Yeah I had that problem with mine, either the previous owners weren't honest or the rescue centre were liars. She was a perfect dog on paper, but in real life she was a devil! It is the place of the rescue to test the dogs temperaments, it is irresponsible not to!

Some rescue centers could do alot better. xx


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, I've started this thread off so that the other thread Kerry started doesn't take off into a full blown discussion, it's bad enough as it is for her and her family without dragging it all up and discussing the ins and outs on that thread. If anyone wants to air a point of view, let's do it on here, so that it isn't about a particular situation.
> 
> My personal feelings are for a dog with problems that make it difficult to rehome, such as fear of strangers, that can lead to aggression, or dog aggressive dogs, they shouldn't be passed from pillar to post, along with their problems. I wish there were a loving and experienced home for all these dogs, but there just isn't. I've seen some very aggressive dogs with handlers (usually rescue dogs I might add), where I've thought they're a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, it doesn't take much, just a second of not watching them closely enough. Is it better to pass that sort of dog on, or to have them pts? Personally, although it's sad, I feel the latter is better than passing the dog on with it's problems.


Well Im going to keep off this one because I have a teeny inkling that I am not going to share the views of most of you here! So havn't even bothered to read any replies!

My reply is specifically in response to the opening thread! well its not so much a reply but a question as it happens! and no Disrespect to Kellybramble whatsoever!

But seeing as you have asked us to voice our views elsewhere (can't think why!) Do you think that there is a chance SL that there could be a high degree of human error in this particular instance?

coz to me it stinks of utter stupidity!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> I think 95% of dogs with issues can be worked with, however there just arent the homes for them, or the financial resources to deal with them.
> 
> If someone wants to privately rehome a problem dog, thats their choice (i did - Oscar was seriously injured when i took him and i fully understood the possible consequences of bringing him into my home. Thankfully he turned out pretty good) but a rescue centre is a whole different thing. Its one thing to rehome and then have the issues become apparent, quite another to keep the dog in kennel, in the hope that a suitable home will come forward.
> 
> ...


I agree with every word above



Devil-Dogz said:


> One of my mums rescues has a number of times bitten young children. That seems to have come from her previous home, and being man handled in a rough manner by grandkids.
> we have had her a number of years now, and she has come on leaps and bounds. Of course we can never trust her 100% with children again - thats no problem, we just prevent her coming into contact with any child..Putting her in a seperate room when anyone with kids comes in. That doesnt affect her being shut out for an hour or two. Most issues can be prevented. Our last foster dog left saturday - he has twice now bitten kids, so has gone onto a permant home with no kids or visiting kids. All you need is an experienced/understanding and passionate home and any dog will thrive in it.


Sorry, but I think it is disgraceful to keep a dog that has bitten children and it should be pts. What happens if there is an accident and it does get at a child, how would you ever live with yourself.

Having a problem dog pts is not an easy option, it is the responsible option. As someone else said a dog does not know the length of its life but it does know its quality of life and I would never put a dog into rescue kennels to live in misery. It is my responsibility so I would either rehome it to a home I have chosen and vetted or have it pts. I once owned a lovely GSD, I was its third home and I had vowed that I wouldnt rehome it if it all went wrong. He tried to kill a sheep so was not going to make a farm dog. He was so good in other ways I contacted GSD rescue but they refused to take a dog that had attacked a sheep so the only fair option was to pts. I could have kept him locked up all the time and not let him play with the other dogs or get walks on the farm but what sort of life would that have been.
Maybe things have changed now but I respect a rescue organisation that wont take on dogs that will be hard to rehome and risk not having space for dogs without problems.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I agree with every word above
> 
> Sorry, but I think it is disgraceful to keep a dog that has bitten children and it should be pts. What happens if there is an accident and it does get at a child, how would you ever live with yourself.
> 
> ...


Your views! to which youy are entitled! but WHO exactly defines a bite! Some folk mistake an over entusiastic lick for a bite!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Sorry, but I think it is disgraceful to keep a dog that has bitten children and it should be pts. What happens if there is an accident and it does get at a child, how would you ever live with yourself.


To be a responsible owner you take the right steps to prevent such things happening, my dogs that are ok with children dont go near them unless invited to do so - whats the difference? Just that the wee girl doesnt get near young kids. Find it disgraceful or not, I would rather work with an issue - than give up on a dog because its easier, thats what I find disgraceful....

eta - many rescues dont allow dogs to go to homes with kids under a certain age - thats to prevent something happening. Our girl is not good with small kids, this home has no small kids living here, or visiting. If there are we can put her out the way - 2 hours in another room does not harm her now does it.

You have not asked why the dog bites, in what situations, what kind of home she come from, how we prevent it ect - You have just jumped on the bandwagon that its disgraceful without knowing facts - that says it all. Good job some people are prepared to work with a dog, because 4 or so years down the line - she has come along way..


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Your views! to which youy are entitled! but WHO exactly defines a bite! Some folk mistake an over entusiastic lick for a bite!


I rather think a bite would be a bite not a lick, how can anyone mistake a lick for an aggressive bite.
And yes, they are my views.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I rather think a bite would be a bite not a lick, how can anyone mistake a lick for an aggressive bite.
> And yes, they are my views.


so if your dog has bitten a child because it was constantly pulling at it, getting in its face ect - and then becomg funny towards all young kids around the same age, showing signs of more aggression because of previous experiences.. You would have that dog PTS!?


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> To be a responsible owner you take the right steps to prevent such things happening, my dogs that are ok with children dont go near them unless invited to do so - whats the difference? Just that the wee girl doesnt get near young kids. Find it disgraceful or not, I would rather work with an issue - than give up on a dog because its easier, thats what I find disgraceful....


My thoughts to the 'T' DD. there are two many folk eager to chuck in the towel at the first hint of a growl! They expect the dog to sit in the corner like a stuffed toy and only come out high days and holidays or when the kids want entertaining!


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I rather think a bite would be a bite not a lick, how can anyone mistake a lick for an aggressive bite.
> And yes, they are my views.


Believe me they do! Hence my reason for asking who defines 'a bite'


----------



## Ditsy42 (Aug 13, 2010)

kids should b educated around dogs and what is and isn't acceptable behavior, if dog growls its a warning to pi$$ off an leave me alone, who would u blame if dog bit child, feckin owner, not DOG as its ultimatley thier responsibility 2 manage both relationships, simples 4 me!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> My thoughts to the 'T' DD. there are two many folk eager to chuck in the towel at the first hint of a growl! They expect the dog to sit in the corner like a stuffed toy and only come out high days and holidays or when the kids want entertaining!


well in June we will have had mums rescue 5 years - has she ever bitten a child while in our care - NO - because she doesnt get the chance too, and she isnt the first we have had in fosters and the like that can be iffy tempered. we know why she is not good with children as previous owner was up front, with the issues and how they come about - she had bitten a number of chidren before coming to us....


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> well in June we will have had mums rescue 5 years - has she ever bitten a child while in our care - NO - because she doesnt get the chance too, and she isnt the first we have had in fosters and the like that can be iffy tempered. we know why she is not good with children as previous owner was up front, with the issues and how they come about - she had bitten a number of chidren before coming to us....


DD! I know an owner who was taken to court last year 'because the childs owner claimed the dog had bitten) You may remember,!!! The dog *WAS *muzzled at the time - *NOT* because it bites - but because it scavengers and had previously swallowed a condom on the park!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> To be a responsible owner you take the right steps to prevent such things happening, my dogs that are ok with children dont go near them unless invited to do so - whats the difference? Just that the wee girl doesnt get near young kids. Find it disgraceful or not, I would rather work with an issue - than give up on a dog because its easier, thats what I find disgraceful....
> .


You said you shut the dog out of the way when you have visitors which is fine until small visitor wanders off and opens the wrong door when going to the loo and gets bitten. Also if a dog is being rehomed what proof is there that the owner will truly be responsible and that they wont risk it and cause an accident.
It is not easy for a caring owner to give up on a dog - but it can be the responsible decision.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Blitz said:


> You said you shut the dog out of the way when you have visitors which is fine until small visitor wanders off and opens the wrong door when going to the loo and gets bitten. Also if a dog is being rehomed what proof is there that the owner will truly be responsible and that they wont risk it and cause an accident.
> It is not easy for a caring owner to give up on a dog - but it can be the responsible decision.


Anyone that comes here is aware we have dogs - anyone that needs to go to the toilet doesnt need to go any where near her, any kid that wanders off will be told to be kept under control by its parents. Theres no reason why we cant have both kids and dogs in the house safely. Your just nit picking now, the collie is put out of the way when people come in because he gets way to bouncy for small kids , and can come back in when everyones settled - I dont hear people complaing about that - incase a child opens the door or wonders off!  I am keeping the dogs UNDER CONTROL - preventing bites, kids being knocked over.... I dont know about you but its not acceptable to go into someones house and open doors, or wander around the house - small or not..we keep our dogs under control, its down to the parents to keep their child under control - they will be warned why she has been put out.

Rescues work hard to find suitable homes, with the right people living there - no idiot is going to take on a dog and risk their kids if it says the dog is not suitable to go to a home with kids under a certain age.

In your opinions its responsible, alot dont agree - PTS is the last option for someone that truely doesnt want to give up on their dog.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

I have always said, the day any of my dogs aggressively bite a human being is the last day of that dogs life. I won't take the chance, especially with big dogs. Luckily mine all have great temperaments.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Having a problem dog pts is not an easy option


To a certain mind, it is. I have observed it often.

It provides a closure and a relief from the guilt of failure and, perhaps, the nagging suspicion that the dog is doing better without their stewardship.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> I have always said, the day any of my dogs aggressively bite a human being is the last day of that dogs life. I won't take the chance, especially with big dogs. Luckily mine all have great temperaments.


You all see this as such a black and white area..NO two situations will be the same, before making that above kind of choice - I would want to know the situation in which the animal had bitten. I guess we are lucky to all ours have good tempermants, apart from that one wee rescue - but then again even she hasnt bitten in the 5 years we have owned her - People are to quick to give up on their dogs, who have 'issues' down to their mistakes - hence how we came about our wee 'troubled' girl ..


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Johnderondon said:


> To a certain mind, it is. I have observed it often.
> 
> It provides a closure and a relief from the guilt of failure and, perhaps, the nagging suspicion that the dog is doing better without their stewardship.


Many a true word spoken is jest! but I know that coming from you that were not in jest! and what you have said is very very true!


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> NO two situations will be the same, before making that above kind of choice - I would want to know the situation in which the animal had bitten.


I do agree. But if I thought it was a really aggressive bite that would happen again.......


----------



## astraldream (Apr 3, 2011)

In our local dogs trust there is a border collie, its been there years. It isnt good with kids and other dogs so nobody wants the poor fella. 
This dog* literally*will run from one end of the kennel jump 4ft off the ground and almost backflip off the wall ande back again. again and again and again and again all day every day. it has little or no mental stimulation its life is awful. It literally has gone insane. People see this dog and run a mile. 
In my opinion this dog should have been PTS a long long time ago. It has no life whatsoever. 
Is it the fault of humans? Yes but it is also our responsibility to do the correct thing if it cant lead a normal life.

Another scenario, my giant breed has massive fear aggression. It has taken us years and years to get us where we are with him which is a mutual understanding. He is completely un rehomeable and i would never ever ever consider it. He would detiorate as he now trusts us but it would take years for someone else to get where we are thats if they get that far without being bit, so if for some reason i couldnt keep him yes i would definately PTS, in his own home comfortable with me next to him. 
I would not put him in to a rescue where he was scared then aggressive and a potential time bomb.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2011)

Blitz said:


> You said you shut the dog out of the way when you have visitors which is fine until small visitor wanders off and opens the wrong door when going to the loo and gets bitten. Also if a dog is being rehomed what proof is there that the owner will truly be responsible and that they wont risk it and cause an accident.
> It is not easy for a caring owner to give up on a dog - but it can be the responsible decision.


Children should be taught not to wander off and open doors! My dogs live in my home, My dogs are NOT child agressive - but woebetide any child that sees my dog as a scource for entertainment or who touches my dog without my authority .


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

astraldream said:


> In our local dogs trust there is a border collie, its been there years. It isnt good with kids and other dogs so nobody wants the poor fella.


This is the problem you get when such rescues wont seek help and advice from breed rescue..Most of which will offer some sort of help...


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Children should be taught not to wander off and open doors!


Easier said than done with a 2 year old......


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Mese said:


> ok, this is a bit of an 'out there' question , may be totally ludicrous , but its occured to me so i'll make myself look daft and ask it , lol ... has there ever been an incident where a cat has had to be rehomed/pts through aggression or because it killed another cat ?


When we first moved into the Caretakers Bungalow at the school where my OH works we were quick to realise the prvious person had left her two cats in the Bungalow for us! (She had both dogs PTS as it was going to cost to much to take them to Malta where they were moving to).

The two cat's were very skittish, you couldnt really get near. One would hide behind the microwave and wet itself. We had three complaints gfrom the headmistress of them attacking children in the school playground, once catching a child very very close to the eye  (It's a primary school so little children).

Slowly it all started to make sense, the previous owner grandchildren lived with her and we suspect the cats had been pulled around alot by them and learnt if you swipe them they disappear. But as they got more confident one of thm would physically run after children in the playground.

I contact rescue after rescue trying to find homes for these cats, but eventually they both found new homes with friends. Both live as mainly indoor cats and both are very happy.

I honestly reckon it wa sthe environment of our house / the children whichw as driving them both bonkers and causing them to be so aggresive.

So Yep I have rehomed two cats as they were attacking children!


----------



## shibby (Oct 3, 2010)

astraldream said:


> In our local dogs trust there is a border collie, its been there years. It isnt good with kids and other dogs so nobody wants the poor fella.
> This dog* literally*will run from one end of the kennel jump 4ft off the ground and almost backflip off the wall ande back again. again and again and again and again all day every day. it has little or no mental stimulation its life is awful. It literally has gone insane. People see this dog and run a mile.
> In my opinion this dog should have been PTS a long long time ago. It has no life whatsoever.
> Is it the fault of humans? Yes but it is also our responsibility to do the correct thing if it cant lead a normal life.


I know what you're saying and it is horrible to see, but I think more should be done to assist dogs who can't manage well in kennels and to get people to comprehend some behaviours are due to their kennel environment. Our little rescue boy is a collie JRT cross and he would do similar, spinning a lot in his kennel  You could see he was under a lot of stress and unstimulated and this is sadly not uncommon in the rescues I've visited, particularly in collies/collie crosses. He was in the kennels from a pup, got adopted, went back in and was there for 15 months before he came to live with us. Although he still has anxieties he is a more confident dog and has come on a lot since his days in the kennels and does lead a normal life. He deserved that chance.


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> This is the problem you get when such rescues wont seek help and advice from breed rescue..Most of which will offer some sort of help...


we have sought help form a breed rescue for a dog in our care,but because he has some minor behaviour issues they don`t want to know.
These behaviours are minor at the moment, should he be pts before they escalate?
i currently look after a springer who has been with us for 4 years,he is nevous aggressive,but in all the time he has been here he hasn`t bitten anyone as we know his triggers and never put him in a situation where he could bite someone.
he was classed as not homabale when he came to us,but now he is reserved to a couple who are working very slowly to build a bond and get to know him.
he will always have problems but they know his limits and he will be able to live a relativly normal life,no he won`t be able to be let off lead but he wlaks well on a longline and in time he will be able to be walked in a busier area.
i can`t imagine having given up on him,due to problems that aren`t his fault.
He may be taking up a kennel but all th dogs that come through our rescue centre deserve a chance,if it means they stay for years,so be it,Our long termers get alot more attention than the others.I cant speak for other rescues longtermer situations,but we have a purpose made block for our longtermers.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Ultimately it is, and indeed should be up up to individual rescues, what the policy and approach is with less than "perfect" dogs.

It's fine and dandy for people to say they should do this or should do that, but few of these people would like to see blanket policies when it comes to re-homing ... so why have blanket policies on which "problem" dogs are routinely killed?

Personally I believe each dog should be accessed individually and whenever possible, a decision on it's future made on compassionate not financial grounds.

It's also too easy for those who have never been involved in rescue to forget about the emotional involvement for the people who are 

While the welfare of the dogs should come first ... and there will be times when euthanasia is the safest and/or kindest option for the dog ... It would be soul destroying for anyone helping these dogs to ROUTINELY kill any dog likely to run up big vet bills or need behavioural help. If the rescue does not have the funds, they may have little option, but if they do or can fund raise ... why not give the poor dog a chance?

Sacrificing the few for the "greater good of all" might be the "sensible" option, but it's often the stance of those with little hands on rescue experience ... How many of them volunteer at local dog rescue kennels, or would offer to take the dogs in and hold them for euthanasia? Very few I would guess


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Its very hard to give up a dog and even harder to think they have to be pts i know ive been there because its NEVER their fault so that cant be a reason to keep a dangerous dog, there are different degrees and we just hope that whoever comes to the decision to have a dog pts then every other avenue has been looked at, we had 3 behaviourists to barney he was only 7 months at this stage and they all said he same things.
He was very badly bred that wasnt his fault but the situation i was in even if the behaviourists had given me a programme to work with on him my situation wouldnt have allowed me to keep such an agressive dog while maintaining the training, children at home had to come first.
I have said before, the day he was due to be pts someone rang who had heard from someone who had heard from someone else because we rang the length and breadth of the country nearly and she had him, so it wasnt meant to be that he would be pts but he was literaly 2 hours away from it.


----------



## CAstbury (Oct 24, 2010)

I cant go back and quote everything I would like to make comment on but here are my thoughts.......

some of you will have read about Francis - the dog I rescued. In brief this is his story:

Francis was rescued from Ireland in dec 09 - he had spent ALL his life in a crate inside a shed - he had never been taken out except to be mated (yes byb). He, along with 20+ other dogs were rescued from their pitiful existence when the owner died. The majority of them came over to the UK and all but 2 were easily found new homes. Francis went to a rescue who wanted to pts as he had a degenerative spine and kept falling over. A different resuce heard of his plight and decided to take him and found him a foster home where he stayed for 12 months. the fosterer walked him for 5 minutes a day and then returned him in January this year to the original rescue as he had 'bitten' her teenage daughter. The rescue who had saved him last time heard he had been returned and took him again. This rescue 'challenged' him to bite - put him in every situation where he might try it but couldnt get him to do it again. The truth of Francis is ............. he smiles! But if you arent warned about it - he can look aggressive. this man hasnt a malicious bone in his body.

now I have Francis - have had him 3 months - he has neve made an attempt to bite me even though he was (unknown to me) in agony with an ear infection. This infection resulted in him having 3 bones in his ear removed and his ear is now closed. Yes it cost a lot of money - but this young man now goes out for 2 walks a day, he has put on 4kg and can run like a whippet. Yes his back legs fail him occasionally but WHY should he have been put to sleep because of his original owners failing?

Subsequently we found out that his previous fosterer wanted 'rid' of him as she had another baby and hadnt got time for him anymore. 

Should anyone say that the money it has cost for his operation would have been better spent saving a 'healthy' dog - then my response is .... I have no dependants so when I die any money left in my estate will go to this charity - so I think I will have more than covered the cost of his oepration.

Every case is different as has been said - but if a dog is aggressive to a child - is it because that child has been mauling at it? I see young kids pulling at tails/ears - and I wouldnt appreciate it - but I could tell the kid to stop.

Anyway rant over! Anyone saying Francis should have been pts wants to meet the young man - after what he has been through he deserves a happy life and THAT is exactly what I am giving him 

ETA - In january 2010 the rescue Francis had been returned to had actually signed the paperwork to have him pts - so he was saved at the last minute and for this I will be eternally grateful to the small rescue that gave him another chance (for the 2nd time) x


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

CAstbury said:


> I cant go back and quote everything I would like to make comment on but here are my thoughts.......
> 
> some of you will have read about Francis - the dog I rescued. In brief this is his story:
> 
> ...


I do wonder if there is as many people that lie about a dog been agressive as people that lie that a dog isnt agressive to get the dog taken in.
So you could have someone with a dog they no longer want any more, got fed up with it, not the cute pup anymore, baby coming feel embarrased to say so, so make the excuse that the dog is aggressive, so perfectly healthy, non aggressive dog could be pts.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> I do wonder if there is as many people that lie about a dog been agressive as people that lie that a dog isnt agressive to get the dog taken in.
> So you could have someone with a dog they no longer want any more, got fed up with it, not the cute pup anymore, baby coming feel embarrased to say so, so make the excuse that the dog is aggressive, so perfectly healthy, non aggressive dog could be pts.


I certainly think that there are many who exaggerate it! And yep!! would suspect some dream it up as an excuse to get rid too!


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2011)

CAstbury said:


> I cant go back and quote everything I would like to make comment on but here are my thoughts.......
> 
> some of you will have read about Francis - the dog I rescued. In brief this is his story:
> 
> ...


fantastic post! Have seem the wonders you have worked on Fracis, you are a genuine animal lover and a great person! rep coming your way!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

CAstbury said:


> I
> Should anyone say that the money it has cost for his operation would have been better spent saving a 'healthy' dog - then my response is .... I have no dependants so when I die any money left in my estate will go to this charity - so I think I will have more than covered the cost of his oepration.


Personally I don't think for one moment you should even think about justifying what he "cost" the rescue 

Lovely that you will support the rescue concerned though. It's the kind of rescue I would want to help too.

For those who don't think money should be spent on the little "no hopers" ... then I say let them donate and support the rescues that kill dogs that have health or behavioural problems ...


----------



## CAstbury (Oct 24, 2010)

DoubleTrouble said:


> fantastic post! Have seem the wonders you have worked on Fracis, you are a genuine animal lover and a great person! rep coming your way!


Thank you - I have just re-read my post - looked at him lying happily next to Chloe dog and me on the sofa and burst into tears at the thought that he could have been pts. The small rescue that ultimately saved him are incredible - they take in loads of dogs that bigger rescues say have 'no hope' and work with them and find them homes - and the ones they dont find homes for - stay as part of their family - not in kennels but in their house. Cant speak highly enough of them


----------

