Why Saving The Vick Dogs Was Worth It

[shel]

Why saving the Vick Dogs was worth it

For too long, the shelter community has believed the HSUS/PETA policy lines that pit bulls from bad situations had to be euthanized. They don't. And these dogs have proven that. Killing them no longer has to be, or should be, the answer.

Edited December 27, 2008 by shel

[Just Midol]

Actually, HSUS euthanises, or supports euthanising any dogs which come from aggressive backgrounds (dog fighting & human aggression). It isn't simply because they were pitbulls.

I disagree with their stance, but the majority of rescuers on DOL agree with it, and won't take on any dogs with aggression.

[Trisven13]

I disagree with their stance, but the majority of rescuers on DOL agree with it, and won't take on any dogs with aggression.

Its not really that simple though LM. Whilst most rescuers won't take on dogs with aggression there are very good reasons for it. The majority of rescuers on DOL (if not all of them):

(a) have a surplus of dogs without aggression dying in the pounds they deal with.

(b) lack the skills (or their foster carers lack the skills) to deal with truly aggressive dogs AND dogs with other behavioural problems.

Then there are other compounding factors. As an example here in Albury/Wodonga, a rural centre, the pressure is on even more because we're it for the dogs of the area. Taking on any dog that will be in foster care for many months means that other dogs just as deserving or more deserving die. Also - our nearest behaviouralist is 3 hours drive away meaning that the costs of getting that help goes up, not to mention wear and tear on the rescuer's personal vehicle, costs of petrol which is always paid out of the rescuer's personal pocket and time away from other dogs. For ADR I can quite categorically state that we can't afford to add $500.00 plus to the costs of any rescue without raising funds - we're doing well when we have $1,000.00 in the bank. Then there is the question of how do you decide which dog you spend the money on - is it better spent on the dog with a health condition but no behavioural issues?

There is great personal satisfaction to be had from assisting a dog with problems to be a regular member of canine society and I would love one day to be able to take on dogs with issues and work through them but I can't justify doing that when dogs without issues are dying and when the money and experience required to assist the dogs isn't available. I'd hazard a guess that most rescuers feel the same.

To compound the issue here in Victoria (which is half my area) we have to work within laws making it illegal to rehome dogs with known issues (fence-jumping being one).

[Nekhbet]

There are people and rescues in USA that take in ex fighting pits or those who have a second chance because they show promise. Just because they may be rescued from a fighting environment I wouldnt discount them immediately, properly tested there may be a lot of reasonable quality dogs euthed because they are from 'fighting lines'

as pitties dont really have a pedigree then how could you prove it.

http://www.vrcpitbull.com/dogs1.htm

take a look at some of the dogs - dog aggressive yet still on a rehome list. If the shelter is willing to keep them, train them and pass them on to an owner that will keep them safe then whats the problem. Pitbulls are not the only DA dogs on the face of the planet.

[Baz+Rome]

I disagree with their stance, but the majority of rescuers on DOL agree with it, and won't take on any dogs with aggression.

Its not really that simple though LM. Whilst most rescuers won't take on dogs with aggression there are very good reasons for it. The majority of rescuers on DOL (if not all of them):

(a) have a surplus of dogs without aggression dying in the pounds they deal with.

(b) lack the skills (or their foster carers lack the skills) to deal with truly aggressive dogs AND dogs with other behavioural problems.

Then there are other compounding factors. As an example here in Albury/Wodonga, a rural centre, the pressure is on even more because we're it for the dogs of the area. Taking on any dog that will be in foster care for many months means that other dogs just as deserving or more deserving die. Also - our nearest behaviouralist is 3 hours drive away meaning that the costs of getting that help goes up, not to mention wear and tear on the rescuer's personal vehicle, costs of petrol which is always paid out of the rescuer's personal pocket and time away from other dogs. For ADR I can quite categorically state that we can't afford to add $500.00 plus to the costs of any rescue without raising funds - we're doing well when we have $1,000.00 in the bank. Then there is the question of how do you decide which dog you spend the money on - is it better spent on the dog with a health condition but no behavioural issues?

There is great personal satisfaction to be had from assisting a dog with problems to be a regular member of canine society and I would love one day to be able to take on dogs with issues and work through them but I can't justify doing that when dogs without issues are dying and when the money and experience required to assist the dogs isn't available. I'd hazard a guess that most rescuers feel the same.

To compound the issue here in Victoria (which is half my area) we have to work within laws making it illegal to rehome dogs with known issues (fence-jumping being one).

Fantastic post.

If there was unlimited funds, time and carers then rescue would be so much easier.

I think it is fantastic that these poor dogs have been given a second chance at a wonderful life. Great publicity for the Breed and might show people that not all "pits" are bad.

[MyMolly]

The media are powerful.

if some1 said to me they had a "pit" I would be more inclined not to visit their house just because of the stigma that is attached to that breed. I have not had any experiences with the breed and I have to admit that I have been tainted by the media. In saying this I do know that any breed of dog can have a nasty streak. If I were trained and able to give these ex fighing dogs a home so that they could be given a second chance I really would live in fear daily because you just would never know.....

This post is a bit random I know, but in my view a dog that has been trained to fight will always have that ability in them....it would just be masked. A question that comes to mind would be: Would it be better for a dog as far as re homing goes (esp a "pit") to be found wandering the streets with an unknown history or for one to be rescued from the above mentioned situation???

[Just Midol]

I disagree with their stance, but the majority of rescuers on DOL agree with it, and won't take on any dogs with aggression.

Its not really that simple though LM. Whilst most rescuers won't take on dogs with aggression there are very good reasons for it. The majority of rescuers on DOL (if not all of them):

(a) have a surplus of dogs without aggression dying in the pounds they deal with.

(b) lack the skills (or their foster carers lack the skills) to deal with truly aggressive dogs AND dogs with other behavioural problems.

Then there are other compounding factors. As an example here in Albury/Wodonga, a rural centre, the pressure is on even more because we're it for the dogs of the area. Taking on any dog that will be in foster care for many months means that other dogs just as deserving or more deserving die. Also - our nearest behaviouralist is 3 hours drive away meaning that the costs of getting that help goes up, not to mention wear and tear on the rescuer's personal vehicle, costs of petrol which is always paid out of the rescuer's personal pocket and time away from other dogs. For ADR I can quite categorically state that we can't afford to add $500.00 plus to the costs of any rescue without raising funds - we're doing well when we have $1,000.00 in the bank. Then there is the question of how do you decide which dog you spend the money on - is it better spent on the dog with a health condition but no behavioural issues?

There is great personal satisfaction to be had from assisting a dog with problems to be a regular member of canine society and I would love one day to be able to take on dogs with issues and work through them but I can't justify doing that when dogs without issues are dying and when the money and experience required to assist the dogs isn't available. I'd hazard a guess that most rescuers feel the same.

To compound the issue here in Victoria (which is half my area) we have to work within laws making it illegal to rehome dogs with known issues (fence-jumping being one).

That's my point, they probably share your view. Caring and rehabilitating those pitties wasn't cheap, and it costed a lot more than it would to care for 40 or so dogs without issues. They probably felt the money could be better spent on dogs without issues.

Everyone will jump on major organisations for saying it, but when people say it on here, in the rescue forum, it's considered right and responsible.

[Trisven13]

Everyone will jump on major organisations for saying it, but when people say it on here, in the rescue forum, it's considered right and responsible.

I won't.

[Just Midol]

Everyone except a few select people, mostly rescuers

ETA: I'm not saying everyone should take on dogs with aggression, just that I'd personally have no issue doing rescue with aggressive dogs. In fact, I'd be more likely to rescue dogs with problems as then I get more experience fixing said problems.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Jed]

Nekhbet

as pitties dont really have a pedigree then how could you prove it.

Purebred APBT do have pedigrees. But, like a lot of other purebreeds, some are bred from non registered parents, and others have a little of some other breed in them, but all as classed as "pitties", but the genuine article does have a pedigree, and registration.

[db_sampson]

while your right that many more dogs without issues could have been rehomed for the same money, but the way i choose to look at it is that they havent just helped these few dogs they, have helped the whole breed by bringing a little bit good media attention and sympathy to pit bulls in general and showing that any breed can be great in the right hands even dogs with a questionable past, instead of the overhyped coverage about how bad and apparently prone to attack they are. pitbulls need more positive attention like this, its just sad they had to be so badly abused to get the life they deserve..

[Baz+Rome]

That's my point, they probably share your view. Caring and rehabilitating those pitties wasn't cheap, and it costed a lot more than it would to care for 40 or so dogs without issues. They probably felt the money could be better spent on dogs without issues.

Everyone will jump on major organisations for saying it, but when people say it on here, in the rescue forum, it's considered right and responsible.

I am fairly certain that Vick had to pay a certain amount of money to help fund the rehabilitation of these dogs.

There will always be the argument that you could have saved more dogs that didn't have issues. Fair enough but there will always be nice dogs being pts whilst people dump them and breed them willy nilly. I have watched some of the stories on these dogs and believe that they did deserve to be saved as much as the next dog. How well they have rehabilitated proves that.

[Baz+Rome]

Everyone except a few select people, mostly rescuers

ETA: I'm not saying everyone should take on dogs with aggression, just that I'd personally have no issue doing rescue with aggressive dogs. In fact, I'd be more likely to rescue dogs with problems as then I get more experience fixing said problems.

I think people also forget that there are some breeds of dogs that have that "built in" dog aggression. Thats not to say they will be dog aggressive but most APBT owners understand that it can be a trait of their chosen breed.

[laker]

""ETA: I'm not saying everyone should take on dogs with aggression, just that I'd personally have no issue doing rescue with aggressive dogs. In fact, I'd be more likely to rescue dogs with problems as then I get more experience fixing said problems.""

Not wanting to sound like a smart-ar$e, but have you taken on rescue dogs with aggression issues?

If so, how did your dogs at home/family cope?

I only ask this as I believe the first rule of taking on anything/anyone into my home is that the ones at home must come first and must not be disadvantaged because I chose to take on another.

I also believe that, unfortunately, society is responsible for turning some good dogs bad. A lot can be helped, but some just cannot. Whilst it is seldom the dog's fault, the dog must live (or die) because of it's actions and the people responsible are (usually) never held accountable for their actions.

Until society takes a much more responsible approach to dog ownership, we will always have people who mistreat/abuse and neglect.

I "dips me lid" to the rescuers and rehabilitators of these pitbulls and I hope all of the re-homed dogs live well-adjusted and social lives as companions/friends to their new owners.

Whilst it is true that many more dogs could have been rescued with this money, it is nice to hear something positive about "pitties" for a change!! (insert emoticon for "stupid media" here!!)

I think this is "money well spent"!!!

As for "jumping on major organisations", most large shelters are in the business of re-homing family pets to "joe average".....not to dog trainers/behaviorists or skilled dog people who can work through issues with problem dogs. These potential owners are not professional dog trainers and most are not ready or equipped to deal with an aggressive dog, nor do they want one. They are the customers of your "average" shelter, looking for an "average" family dog.

Rescue groups/shelters that specialize in particular dogs/breeds that have suffered abuse, neglect etc (such as the Pitbull Shelter "Villalobos") are experts in dealing with these dogs and would be the most knowledgeable re the problems or peculiarities pertaining to that breed/dog. They would be aware of the homes required for their "special needs" dogs, taking into consideration past,present and future, and would be judging potential homes accordingly. I know if I was in the position to take on one of these dogs, I would be asking every question under the sun about the breed and the particular dog...and any issues it might have/had. "Special needs" dogs are not for "joe average's". Taking it one step further, perhaps this is one of the reasons they are now dogs with "special needs"...perhaps they belonged to the wrong owner in the first place??????

Good work, well done....a positive dog story!!