[Rwujnezq]

I'm not a fan on no-kill in the basic sense.

"Dump your dog on us, and we'll house him in a concrete kennel and give him food and water every day, while depriving him on human contact otherwise. He will sit here, lie here, eat here, and urinate and defecate here for 10 years until the day he dies. Don't worry. He's just happy to be alive."

Ummm....no. Let's go back to my favorite saying. "Just because a dog is alive doesn't mean it's living."

As for adopting out HA dogs (and even fear aggressive dogs), there's no room for it. For every HA dog a bleeding heart rescuer pushes onto an ill-equipped bleeding-heart adopter, tens more 'pit bulls' with amazing temperaments die from no one wanting them. (of course I made up the numbers, but the number of good ones is probably much, much higher)

I like that.

[Soolfelpecelf]

the main issue is that IMO, there are way to much people with "extreme" views on both sides and not enough people "inbetween".
while one thinks every dog should be saved, the other side is holding the dogs to a much to high standard (they should NEVER bite a kid for pulling it's ear for ex.) they ARE animals after all..

the good thing to do probably lays somewhere in between.
not every dog that bites should be put to sleep, but they shouldn't all be saved neither.
too bad there are not enough people to think like that..

[8cyVn4RJ]

Ummm....no. Let's go back to my favorite saying. "Just because a dog is alive doesn't mean it's living."

Yes, yes, and yes!!!!

[agiopwer]

No kills shelters are great in theory. But at the end of the day you can't be 100 percent no kill. There are going to be dogs that are too sick to adopt out. That are too much of a liability. And there will come a point where even if you are a no kill shelter, you will have to put down an animal.

It does make me sick though knowing how many wonderful happy healthy stable dogs are getting put down everyday, and people are too busy trying to save the unstable ones. Something is wrong when it comes to this. Something is just plain wrong.

[Ladbarbastirm]

On of the worst no-kill situations I saw was at an extremely poor shelter. They were way over crowded and refused to do mobile adoptions. They had a 17 year old Springer. He was bald over most of his body due to skin issues. His eyes were bulging out. He was blind and deaf. He was visibly uncomfortable. He kept running into walls. He rubbed his eyes on the walls because they hurt and the shelter still wouldn't put him down. The dog was suffering. A little part of me wanted to adopt him (and a few of the other dogs) just so I could put them out of their misery.

[Yifnvmzp]

I worked at a no-kill shelter for two years. It was one of the best and worst experiences of my life. I met a lot of wonderful people and learned an enormous amount of valuable information, but I also met a lot of shitty people and saw some shitty things. It seemed to be stuck between all of the things a very good no-kill shelter should be...and all the things, realistically, a no-kill shelter is. We pulled a lot of puppies out of kill shelters as well as young dogs, and of course those were usually adopted out quickly. We rescued a lot of dogs off of the streets or in abandoned lots, and they tend to go quickly too. Everyone loves a sob story.

However, we did - and still do - have a lot of human-aggressive dogs who I just do not think should be adopted out. One is a bully-lab-thing that misdirects with great ease. She bit me on two occasions, the second one needing stitches. We had another dog who broke a co-worker's arm in two places. (He was sent to a sanctuary, which I still do not agree with.) We have a cage-brave bully-sighthound-thing who, aside from this, bit a volunteer badly. (She is suing the shelter.) We have a dog who has been in the shelter for four years. She came in as a perfectly adoptable 6-month-old pup. She recently attacked another dog and we now have to "hide" her because most people want to be put down.

The biggest problem, I think, is that most if not all no-kill rescues are run by these bleeding-heart people who border on sociopathic. They will go through hell and high water for a dog abandoned on the side of the highway, but when someone ties their dog to the fence or someone leaves their dog at a kill-shelter, they say how they want to hang these people or give these people the injection meant for the dog. And they mean these things. They really, really do. It's...frightening. It's one of the big reasons that I left. And yet these people love animals. I really wonder what it is that happened to these people that makes them think that this is okay.

[Drugmachine]

I agree, HA, especially if its FEAR motivated should not be adopted out. A good percentage of those dogs, its their temp that's bad and there's not a whole lot you cando about that. Mange it, yes, but fix it? No. If you were to send a dog like that out it would have to be with a REAL responsible adopter. My local kill shelter tries to dump these temp issue dogs on rescues all the time, I know it b/c that's how I ended up with my first bully breed. Murph was a sweet guy and I still miss him everyday, but he was terrified of everything, not comfortable in his own skin. Thankfully when he had the choice he chose flight, but I got a real bad bite from him after I startled him awake. Now at that time he already was very sick with cancer, I don't know how much that played into it, but he was a hard dog to own, we always had to be on our guard with him. The shelter probably should have had him pts. Don't get me wrong I am glad we got the 4 1/2 years we did with him, but it was not easy managing a dog who flips out and pises himself when he leaves the house. That's no way to live.

[Falik]

the main issue is that IMO, there are way to much people with "extreme" views on both sides and not enough people "inbetween".
while one thinks every dog should be saved, the other side is holding the dogs to a much to high standard (they should NEVER bite a kid for pulling it's ear for ex.) they ARE animals after all..

the good thing to do probably lays somewhere in between.
not every dog that bites should be put to sleep, but they shouldn't all be saved neither.
too bad there are not enough people to think like that..

I agree with this too.

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

However, we did - and still do - have a lot of human-aggressive dogs who I just do not think should be adopted out. One is a bully-lab-thing that misdirects with great ease. She bit me on two occasions, the second one needing stitches. We had another dog who broke a co-worker's arm in two places. (He was sent to a sanctuary, which I still do not agree with.) We have a cage-brave bully-sighthound-thing who, aside from this, bit a volunteer badly. (She is suing the shelter.) We have a dog who has been in the shelter for four years. She came in as a perfectly adoptable 6-month-old pup. She recently attacked another dog and we now have to "hide" her because most people want to be put down.

I understand wanting to PTS a dog that has severely injured a human. I will never understand wanting to euthanize a dog that goes after cats or fights with other dogs.

[emorbimefed]

not every dog that bites should be put to sleep, but they shouldn't all be saved neither.

If we were talking personal dogs, I would agree. But we are talking rescue/shelter dogs and that is a whole different thing. If a person who owns a dog that has bitten for whatever reason chooses to keep their dog and work with a behaviorist or otherwise manage it, cool. But any dog that is in rescue or shelter that has bitten needs to be put down.

Other than being strongly against allowing a dog that is FA or HA live (excepting guardian breed dogs acting in the line of duty against a real threat), it is a domino effect. No evaluator or other animal handler can guarantee a dog that has bitten in the past won't bite again. One person rescues a dog that later bites they tell all and sundry their story. This leads to less support for shelters and rescues and folks being less likely to adopt.

[Voitramma]

This might not be a popular posts, but they hysteria behind no-kill can be mind boggling.

From what I can understand, last fall a pit bull was hit by a car and taken in by a no-kill rescue group. The dog was in bad shape so there was fundraising to cover medical expenses and the dog was put into a foster home. As the dog has healed it seems that certain human aggressive behaviors have emerged with the dog biting and snapping at a variety of people.

The rescue has now said the will be euthanizing the dog unless another suitable rescue can be found...no-kill advocates are now livid and saying the rescue's non-profit status should be revoked.

A no-kill advocacy FB page is really after them but what amazes me is how many people are okay with an aggressive pit bull being rehomed. Comments include that "all dogs bite", "You want to kill a dog for behavior issues", "Cesar Millan would have a pack of dead dogs if he gave up on the aggressive ones"...Quite a few people have suggested Cesar or Best Friends would be more than willing to help this dog.

Knowing the amount of pit bulls with amazing temperament and physical health that are euthanized everyday, it just saddens me that people are so out of touch. I appreciate the effort in saving a life, but I am not in favor of an unstable dog being rehomed.

The individual dog had a FB page put it looks like that might have been taken down as it was pretty out of control once the mention of euthanasia came out...here are screen shots posted by one of the advocates with plenty of experience with aggressive dogs that now wants this rescue shut down.

Thoughts?!?

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...5418442&type=3

[Savviioor]

I like "no-kills" that are no kill within reason. There was a great one that went under that was no kill on the premise that they did not euthanize adoptable dogs, but extremely sick, unstable or dangerous dogs were put down

[Ladbarbastirm]

Our shelter was technically a no-kill shelter. However, we euthanized a lot of dogs and cats too, for that matter. We never euthanized for space. We did euthanize if the animal was too sick or had human aggression. A couple were euthanized for dog aggression and that killed me. I fought for them but no one was having it. I guess, not all no kills are so strict but I know some that are.

We had a similar situation to the one in the main post and quite a few people tried to steal the dog. He bit a girl really bad, for the third time, and was euthanized on the spot. Quite a few people stopped supporting the shelter that day. I understand they loved him but I don't see how that dog would have any quality of life being isolated. He was not adoptable.

[nasdfrdg]

I'm not a fan on no-kill in the basic sense.

"Dump your dog on us, and we'll house him in a concrete kennel and give him food and water every day, while depriving him on human contact otherwise. He will sit here, lie here, eat here, and urinate and defecate here for 10 years until the day he dies. Don't worry. He's just happy to be alive."

Ummm....no. Let's go back to my favorite saying. "Just because a dog is alive doesn't mean it's living."

As for adopting out HA dogs (and even fear aggressive dogs), there's no room for it. For every HA dog a bleeding heart rescuer pushes onto an ill-equipped bleeding-heart adopter, tens more 'pit bulls' with amazing temperaments die from no one wanting them. (of course I made up the numbers, but the number of good ones is probably much, much higher)

[emorbimefed]

I also hate no kill with a passion. In my opinion, any dog that is gravely ill or suffering mental instability (including FA) should be put down. I also think it kinder to euthanize than to let a dog live in a kennel in a building with the bare minimal care and affection for years on end.

[N1bNXuDb]

There's one near me that calls themselves a "low kill" shelter that I think is a good deal. If somebody brings in a stable dog it will stay there until it finds a home, but if it isn't up to being adopted they'll put it down. I wish that would catch on as well as the no kill deal has.

Yup, biting dogs get put down, don't care to know the reason and the dog probably won't be breathing long enough for me to find out anyway. The exception I would make is a dog protecting it's people or property, or its self if the circumstances were right.

[8cyVn4RJ]

No kill shelters could be a good idea if they took in ADOPTABLE dogs. But so many of them take in the "hopeless" cases and adopt out dangerous animals...I hate euthanasia but I find it to be a necessary evil. My roommate is strictly against euthanasia and thinks it should be outlawed..even for sick dogs...and honestly, people like that just need a serious slap of reality.

Agreed! The idea is great but the thought of a dog that is human aggressive being put in the hands of someone who may not be a responsible owner has way worse precautions than putting them out of their misery. Let alone the dogs itself probably isn't happy.... With so many dogs out there that need a home, why try to save one with so many problems?

[SannyGlow]

I think no kill shelters are worse then actual kill shelters. They try to re-home even aggressive dogs and the ones who never get a home die in a shelter. Its sad. I hate; no Loathe no kill shelters. The shouldn't exist.

[WapSaibiar]

There are many types of aggression and every dog deserves a chance, but if in fact a dog is flat out Human Aggressive ... dirt nap ... NOW !!!

[Savviioor]

No kill shelters could be a good idea if they took in ADOPTABLE dogs. But so many of them take in the "hopeless" cases and adopt out dangerous animals...I hate euthanasia but I find it to be a necessary evil. My roommate is strictly against euthanasia and thinks it should be outlawed..even for sick dogs...and honestly, people like that just need a serious slap of reality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[ViktorialHDY]

No kill shelters are awesome...in theory. Lol

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk