Should We Disclose A Foster Dogs Past When Being Rehomed?.

[amp]

Everything that you know about a dog should be disclosed, good and bad.

If you have a dog that has killed another or seriuosly injured another dog or is in a high risk of doing so, you should go straight to the vet and have it put to sleep or you ar risking other people and their animals.

Far too many nice natured animals out there, dying every day.

It is completely irresponsible to rehome such a dog and should it attack/kill another dog in the future, what these people don't realise is that they could be sued.

If it hurt one of my dogs, I'd be taking someone to court, most definitely and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they already knew the dog was a killer.

You don't know the circumstances. I don't either. Why did it maul another dog.? If it was in foster care how did this happen? Its not the dogs fault, most of the time.

I own an AST,30kg. also a tiny bitsa JR etc. <2kg. I would never leave them alone together.

Even though they love each other. Even play is closely supervised.

Accidents can usually be both avoided and explained.

Btw. I agree with your opening statement. Full disclosure is best for all concerned. But dogs shouldn't be condemned to death. Most of the time.

I do know the circumstances actually and it was not an accident. I have had dogs of different sizes as well and what you have said is correct, supervision is required.

What is also required is VERY careful assessment of dogs going into foster care situation - no matter how kind the person is who is offering to help your group, if they have a situation that is high risk (ie putting a larger dog with a tiny dog), you have to go to the nth degree to test the dog you are placing but also make the foster carer VERY aware of what they need to do - ie never leave them alone together, supervise them etc. You need to do a homecheck and go through everything with them very carefully.

When I'm talking about full disclosure, as a rescuer there is no way I would place a dog that has killed another dog and I don't care what breed that may be. It could be a Jack Russell, even small dogs kill other dogs or seriously injure them.

My full disclosure is usually about whether they are storm phobic, have on lead aggression, bark at birds etc etc. I simply don't place aggressive dogs, full stop.

I am not knowledgeable on rescue so I see myself as the average person trying to learn - PR are NOT a rescue group but a middle man who pass adoption/foster forms onto the pound or a rescue group. Then when the wrong match up, with no temp testing is made, if there is a problem it becomes the problem for the rescue group not them - they end up with none of the hassles. Does not seem right to me. Also since the rescue group attached to the animal are usually the ones that cop the costs, why do they want money for vet/transport etc - they don't appear to pass any funds on.

I just want to learn the ethical way things should be done.

[shiner]

@cryptic: Thanks for the heads up. I somehow missed that one.

@dogmad: Apologies for the half-cocked reply.

My opinion. Aggressive dogs have there place. They just need a bit more understanding. Most undesirable traits can be sorted with the right approach. Admittedly time and resources are lacking in most situations. Its unfortunate that most behavioural problems are a direct result of poor human handling, and not a personality defect in the dog, as many would have us believe. All in all a sad state of affairs.

I will keep my thoughts on the incident and PR to myself. As many have expressed similar.

[Greytmate]

@cryptic: Thanks for the heads up. I somehow missed that one.

@dogmad: Apologies for the half-cocked reply.

My opinion. Aggressive dogs have there place. They just need a bit more understanding. Most undesirable traits can be sorted with the right approach. Admittedly time and resources are lacking in most situations. Its unfortunate that most behavioural problems are a direct result of poor human handling, and not a personality defect in the dog, as many would have us believe. All in all a sad state of affairs.

I will keep my thoughts on the incident and PR to myself. As many have expressed similar.

Their place is not the marketplace. Unfortunately some dogs are aggressive and many people have aggressive dogs that they love anyway. But to put a dog that has shown this level of aggression up for sale is just wrong. Especially since there are so many non-aggressive dogs looking for homes.

It is a tragedy, but aggression in dogs is not something that can be 'fixed', it can only be managed, and there is a massive risk that a new owner might take on a dog like this and try but fail to stop the aggression.

Ethical rescue groups do not rehome dogs that have shown this level of aggression. Community standards expect that dogs being sold as pets will not be aggressive.

Edited to ask questions - What understanding do you think is necessary to solve aggression problems in dogs? Why do you believe that aggression is purely a result of environment rather than having any type of genetic basis? Do you have any experience in solving aggression problems and re homing those dogs? I am asking because I don't agree with your opinion based on my own experience with rehoming dogs.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Greytmate

[amp]

I wonder what everyones reaction to PR would have been had it been a child attacked & killed instead of a small dog.

I see my grandson every time I think about this ladys story.

They must be made to be transparent & upfront.

If they arrange adoption/foster up to the minute a dog is due for PTS when is it temperament tested.

[shiner]

Their place is not the marketplace. Unfortunately some dogs are aggressive and many people have aggressive dogs that they love anyway. But to put a dog that has shown this level of aggression up for sale is just wrong. Especially since there are so many non-aggressive dogs looking for homes.

It is a tragedy, but aggression in dogs is not something that can be 'fixed', it can only be managed, and there is a massive risk that a new owner might take on a dog like this and try but fail to stop the aggression.

Ethical rescue groups do not rehome dogs that have shown this level of aggression. Community standards expect that dogs being sold as pets will not be aggressive.

Edited to ask questions - 1; What understanding do you think is necessary to solve aggression problems in dogs? 2; Why do you believe that aggression is purely a result of environment rather than having any type of genetic basis? 3; Do you have any experience in solving aggression problems and re homing those dogs? I am asking because I don't agree with your opinion based on my own experience with rehoming dogs.

I can only agree with your points on resale, ethics etc. This isn't in the best interest of the dog.

It is keeping things easy and profitable. I won't accept that the majority of "rescue" orgs are ethically minded as the facts do not support this.

Aggression can be fixed, but obviously this is not a rule. I didn't state that aggression is "purely" a result of bad environment. But that it is an underlying cause in the majority of cases. Dogs don't generally breed themselves, so I think it is valid to blame humans even for bad genes.

My statement "Aggressive dogs have their place", indicates that I do credit genetics with aggression also.

Questions 1. A very good understanding of dog behaviour in general. This can only come from much experience in letting dogs be dogs, not treating them and expecting them to act like good children.

................2. Simple........I didn't say that.

.................3. Yes. Rotti's, Cattles, Amstaff's, and SBT's. (20 so far) These dogs were all placed into security roles, and all show improved behaviour, from positive, but careful management

Some were and still are very "strange people" aggressive. This is only a dogs natural instinct.

And an asset in security work.

Some where bullied and mauled by larger, older dogs, etc, etc. Others caged and abused. We all know what goes on, yet we want the dog to be at fault because its an easy option.

When I decide to rescue a dog, the owner is told by me that I will take the dog or press charges........sometimes. And sometimes I just tell tell them I'm taking it. Many people on this planet should have tattoo on their forehead that says "KEEP AWAY FROM ANIMALS".

This applies to many "breeders".

Heres some more opinion for dissection.

Too many people play god with genetics. What gives anyone the right to decide what is "ideal" genetics?. We produce a litter of pups and they don't meet a standard, so we destroy them?

Sanctimonious hypocrisy. Almost no-one breeds dogs for the dog. They do it to serve themselves, be it profit, or public profile, or self satisfaction in playing god.

I am not a dog breeder, btw, just as passionate,lifelong owner, who understands them a lot more than most breeders I know.

P.s. I believe dogs should be treated as companions, not assets, and have never taken payment for a dog in my life.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Shiner - you are completely off topic, this is not a discussion regarding breeders. It is a discussion based on disclosing issues with dogs that are rescued.

Edited April 8, 2012 by dogmad

[SueM]

Aggressive dogs do not have any place in rescue, so sick of rescue groups up here taking them on then passing them to foster carer to foster carer and still advertising them as a great family pet!

[Greytmate]

Aggression can be fixed, but obviously this is not a rule. I didn't state that aggression is "purely" a result of bad environment. But that it is an underlying cause in the majority of cases. Dogs don't generally breed themselves, so I think it is valid to blame humans even for bad genes.

My statement "Aggressive dogs have their place", indicates that I do credit genetics with aggression also.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. When you said that "Its unfortunate that most behavioural problems are a direct result of poor human handling, and not a personality defect in the dog, as many would have us believe.", I assumed you meant that the cause of the aggression was all environmental and not genetic or inherent in that particular dog. I don't agree with that as many dogs display behaviour other than aggression when stressed. The genetics of the dog is what will make a dog more prone to aggression or anxiety or timidity, and environment won't necessarily make any difference to the way the dog will cope with that environment. But it can make a difference to whether a dog has to use many coping mechanisms at all.

.................3. Yes. Rotti's, Cattles, Amstaff's, and SBT's. (20 so far) These dogs were all placed into security roles, and all show improved behaviour, from positive, but careful management

Some were and still are very "strange people" aggressive. This is only a dogs natural instinct.

And an asset in security work.

This is exactly the type of activity that rescues selling to the public should not be involved in. People that are serious and responsible about about security will only use sound dogs, usually of known bloodlines. Those that would be attracted to own an anti-social staffy or cattle dog for 'security' might not be the type of person that understands normal dog behaviour or the responsibilities inherent in owning an aggressive dog. I think a rescue would be crazy to get involved in this market unless a qualified behaviourists is assessing the dogs and giving their approval for placement. I don't think an unqualified rescue person would do very well if one of these dogs bit somebody and they were taken to court over it.

Or do you get professional advice before you place these dogs in the community?

Some where bullied and mauled by larger, older dogs, etc, etc. Others caged and abused. We all know what goes on, yet we want the dog to be at fault because its an easy option.

I think that blaming people for a dog's faults is always the easy option. It is much easier to believe that this affectionate animal was treated badly by a bad person, than it is to accept that the dog may be homeless because it is not a safe dog to have around. Because that leads to hard decisions having to be made. And an acknowledgement that effort and care doesn't cure all problems.

When I decide to rescue a dog, the owner is told by me that I will take the dog or press charges........sometimes. And sometimes I just tell tell them I'm taking it. Many people on this planet should have tattoo on their forehead that says "KEEP AWAY FROM ANIMALS".

This applies to many "breeders".

You must come across some terrible people and some badly bred and badly neglected dogs.

Heres some more opinion for dissection.

Too many people play god with genetics. What gives anyone the right to decide what is "ideal" genetics?. We produce a litter of pups and they don't meet a standard, so we destroy them?

Sanctimonious hypocrisy. Almost no-one breeds dogs for the dog. They do it to serve themselves, be it profit, or public profile, or self satisfaction in playing god.

I am not a dog breeder, btw, just as passionate,lifelong owner, who understands them a lot more than most breeders I know.

P.s. I believe dogs should be treated as companions, not assets, and have never taken payment for a dog in my life.

Rescue only works with what has already been bred. If you have issues with breeders and how they select breeding stock, maybe it is a discussion for General instead of here. My own thoughts are that there are some fantastic breeders around who are trying to select (their version of ) ideal temperament. And this results in valued dogs that are not so often seen in rescue.

[shiner]

Shiner - you are completely off topic, this is not a discussion regarding breeders. It is a discussion based on disclosing issues with dogs that are rescued.

Sorry, I was sort of led there, but I got it. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[shiner]

@Greytmate, again I agree with most of what you say. Notice my use of the word most.

Just like when I stated "Most behavioural problems are a direct result, etc…" If you read it the way it was written, half your argument is gone.

The rest isnt worth responding to.

[Aphra]

It is keeping things easy and profitable. I won't accept that the majority of "rescue" orgs are ethically minded as the facts do not support this.

I suppose since this is a thread about the ethics of a rescue group my comment isn't really off-topic. I'd be interested in you explaining this comment a bit further. I'd be disappointed if, as a very recent participant in the rrescue forum, you are led to believe that on less-than-satisfactory group is an indicator of the whole. It's also a rather large generalisation in a forum full of people who work incredibly hard to try and do rescue well and probably deserving of some further detail.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

It is keeping things easy and profitable. I won't accept that the majority of "rescue" orgs are ethically minded as the facts do not support this.

I suppose since this is a thread about the ethics of a rescue group my comment isn't really off-topic. I'd be interested in you explaining this comment a bit further. I'd be disappointed if, as a very recent participant in the rrescue forum, you are led to believe that on less-than-satisfactory group is an indicator of the whole. It's also a rather large generalisation in a forum full of people who work incredibly hard to try and do rescue well and probably deserving of some further detail.

I'd like an explanation of the "easy and profitable" part. Rescue, done properly, is neither.

[Guest muttrus]

When I first became a foster carer I was dumped with two dogs and found it very hard to get any contact with the rescuer and when I voiced some fears I had I was asked to manage .MY dog became aggression with my foster dog and although they were evenly matched it was something that was dangerous for dogs and humans I DID everything I thought I could I kept them apart and asked that the foster dog be taken away for fear of one becoming seriously hurt each time I was advised the rescuer had no room for the dog and I should make do.------------This situation of course went on till I refused to stay with the rescue.

I of course am a fotster carer for a different rescue but learnt from my experience Because I have 3 x large dogs 2 being male bull arab x"s Im alway careful and decided to only care for puppies and/or small adult dogs this way I hoped it would lessen and chances of major conflict.

This of course isn"t perfect my dogs get annoyed with puppies jumping all over them in their faces etc .All this means Im always on guard but I do also know its not always big dogs who start the trouble :)

I ALWAYS disclose everything even the not so good points don"t we have a duty of care? I would feel guilty as hell if Id rehomed a dog with known issues and he/she hurt someone if anything I could be accused of being too open. But I am a parnoid person

As a foster carer I have a flood of emotions dealing with LIVE animals can be very hard but always unpredictable

[shiner]

It is keeping things easy and profitable. I won't accept that the majority of "rescue" orgs are ethically minded as the facts do not support this. {Ad.} In my long term association with various organisations.

I suppose since this is a thread about the ethics of a rescue group my comment isn't really off-topic. I'd be interested in you explaining this comment a bit further. I'd be disappointed if, as a very recent participant in the rrescue forum, you are led to believe that on less-than-satisfactory group is an indicator of the whole. It's also a rather large generalisation in a forum full of people who work incredibly hard to try and do rescue well and probably deserving of some further detail.

I'd like an explanation of the "easy and profitable" part. Rescue, done properly, is neither.

Sorry for the generalisation, I get upset when dogs are condemned to death. I have added a short comment in the quote above, to qualify my thoughts on the matter.

The reality is some rescue orgs are profit and result driven.

But I admit, to state this is the majority, is wrong, because my experience is with a handful.

My sincere apologies to any who were offended by my emotional comments.

[Nic.B]

Aggression can be fixed, but obviously this is not a rule. I didn't state that aggression is "purely" a result of bad environment. But that it is an underlying cause in the majority of cases. Dogs don't generally breed themselves, so I think it is valid to blame humans even for bad genes.

My statement "Aggressive dogs have their place", indicates that I do credit genetics with aggression also.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. When you said that "Its unfortunate that most behavioural problems are a direct result of poor human handling, and not a personality defect in the dog, as many would have us believe.", I assumed you meant that the cause of the aggression was all environmental and not genetic or inherent in that particular dog. I don't agree with that as many dogs display behaviour other than aggression when stressed. The genetics of the dog is what will make a dog more prone to aggression or anxiety or timidity, and environment won't necessarily make any difference to the way the dog will cope with that environment. But it can make a difference to whether a dog has to use many coping mechanisms at all.

.................3. Yes. Rotti's, Cattles, Amstaff's, and SBT's. (20 so far) These dogs were all placed into security roles, and all show improved behaviour, from positive, but careful management

Some were and still are very "strange people" aggressive. This is only a dogs natural instinct.

And an asset in security work.

This is exactly the type of activity that rescues selling to the public should not be involved in. People that are serious and responsible about about security will only use sound dogs, usually of known bloodlines. Those that would be attracted to own an anti-social staffy or cattle dog for 'security' might not be the type of person that understands normal dog behaviour or the responsibilities inherent in owning an aggressive dog. I think a rescue would be crazy to get involved in this market unless a qualified behaviourists is assessing the dogs and giving their approval for placement. I don't think an unqualified rescue person would do very well if one of these dogs bit somebody and they were taken to court over it.

Or do you get professional advice before you place these dogs in the community?

Some where bullied and mauled by larger, older dogs, etc, etc. Others caged and abused. We all know what goes on, yet we want the dog to be at fault because its an easy option.

I think that blaming people for a dog's faults is always the easy option. It is much easier to believe that this affectionate animal was treated badly by a bad person, than it is to accept that the dog may be homeless because it is not a safe dog to have around. Because that leads to hard decisions having to be made. And an acknowledgement that effort and care doesn't cure all problems.

When I decide to rescue a dog, the owner is told by me that I will take the dog or press charges........sometimes. And sometimes I just tell tell them I'm taking it. Many people on this planet should have tattoo on their forehead that says "KEEP AWAY FROM ANIMALS".

This applies to many "breeders".

You must come across some terrible people and some badly bred and badly neglected dogs.

Heres some more opinion for dissection.

Too many people play god with genetics. What gives anyone the right to decide what is "ideal" genetics?. We produce a litter of pups and they don't meet a standard, so we destroy them?

Sanctimonious hypocrisy. Almost no-one breeds dogs for the dog. They do it to serve themselves, be it profit, or public profile, or self satisfaction in playing god.

I am not a dog breeder, btw, just as passionate,lifelong owner, who understands them a lot more than most breeders I know.

P.s. I believe dogs should be treated as companions, not assets, and have never taken payment for a dog in my life.

Rescue only works with what has already been bred. If you have issues with breeders and how they select breeding stock, maybe it is a discussion for General instead of here. My own thoughts are that there are some fantastic breeders around who are trying to select (their version of ) ideal temperament. And this results in valued dogs that are not so often seen in rescue.

This ^ and what others have said.

I have never recomended a dog (impounded) for security, though I have for the EDU. These dogs are assessed at the pound and if they meet certain criteria the EDU is contacted and they are assesed at the shelter. These dogs may have some behavioural issues, commonly a high prey drive and very high energy levels, they may have no basic training and be quite a handful for your average handler/owner.

Having said that, they do not show aggression, either HA or DA and are quite often paired up with another dog during kenneling periods/training or free time in the padocks.

DA or HA is not acceptable for obvious reasons. These dogs work and travel together with other dogs and their handlers.

I agree with dogmad, ethical rescuers do not make a profit. If they are lucky to save a few dollars on a rescue who requires minimal work, that money will then be spent on dogs who reqiure greater work, care or training.

Shiner no one likes to see a dog pts, though in some cases the most humane and responsible gift you can offer a dog is a dignified death.

It is for their welfare and the safety of the general community.

I have seen dogs with questionable temps rescued, while another outstanding dog in temp and nature is pts. That is what I call heartbreaking.

[tdierikx]

The rescues that worry me are the ones who have quick and high turnover numbers... how can one truly "know" a dog they have only had in care for a couple of weeks - or in some cases even less time? There are some who have the animal up on PetRescue (or other advertising sites) within minutes of getting it out of the pound...

Some rescues don't give their foster carers a say in the rehoming of the dogs in their care. I think this is a bit silly when the foster carer is the one who is actually living with said dog, and has better insight into what that dog needs from their new family than someone who may not actually have met the dog in question personally.

Some rescues focus on how many animals they can "save", rather than how many they can place completely responsibly... and some have no backup plans for animals they have placed that need to be returned because the animal was not suitable for the home it was placed in.

There are good and bad stories about even the most reputable groups - some are real, and some are based on malicious gossip that seems to be a part of the rescue scene - weeding out the truth from the chinese whispers isn't always easy.

All that said, when we hear MANY stories, such as that in the OP, about the same group's practices - often with further backup by the actual people who have been stung by said group - one can only surmise that there may be some truth to the stories that are circulating... especially when any questions are ignored and/or deleted from said group's public "face" on the internet. The reports of intimidation and harassment are also of concern - especially when those reports come from certain people in rescue who ARE truly above reproach.

The big problem is how the heck do we deal with it if what said group is doing is actually not illegal under current law?

T.

[shmoo]

I have seen dogs with questionable temps rescued, while another outstanding dog in temp and nature is pts. That is what I call heartbreaking.

Amen

And good post T.

[mita]

The rescues that worry me are the ones who have quick and high turnover numbers... how can one truly "know" a dog they have only had in care for a couple of weeks - or in some cases even less time? There are some who have the animal up on PetRescue (or other advertising sites) within minutes of getting it out of the pound...

Some rescues don't give their foster carers a say in the rehoming of the dogs in their care. I think this is a bit silly when the foster carer is the one who is actually living with said dog, and has better insight into what that dog needs from their new family than someone who may not actually have met the dog in question personally.

T.

T, we might be going a bit O/T, but your first point is an issue. I'd always thought one of the strongest aspects of rescue, is how the foster-carers come to know a dog well. And how they can 'test' it in a number of situations....& even supply some remedial measures (like house-training, walking well on a lead etc etc etc).

Quite a few rescue groups show how they've done this, in how they write up profiles. I'm forever showing prospective pet adopters profiles from certain rescue groups who do this brilliantly, so they can see that great benefit in getting a rescue dog. I've noticed, too, that numbers of registered breeders who advertise mature dogs on Dogzonline, do the same. These are the people to adopt dogs from.....those who know their dogs well!

One of these rescue groups puts up dogs that they've just got in.....but, bless them, they say that their foster-carer is getting to know this dog. So a full profile will follow when there's good information. No surprise that this rescue also rehomes with care and much attention to matching. Which they can, when they truly know what they're working with.

[cryptic]

On Tuesday i received a call from a Michelle from Parramatta council & this is what has happened in response to the report i filed in regard to the incident.

The dog has been rehomed to a person in Victoria who has no other dogs. Prior to this the organisation placed the dog firstly in kennels ,then in a foster home with other dogs including small dogs & then another foster home with small dogs. Based on this observation they have deemed the dog 100% ok & hence that is why she was advertised as good with all animals There was no mention of a professional assessing the dog.. The person in charge of the organisation was the point of contact with Michelle who stated that Kizzyneo had 2 dogs die in her care one of them being the dog that was attacked & she had changed her story to the original one that was told to her at the time of the incident. So once again the blame has been placed on the carer The other dog that died in Kizzyneos care was from a heart murmur even though on medication. I rescued both these dogs from Renbury & was aware that the other dog had a heart murmur as i was the one that had him vet checked.

.

Michelle went on to say that in her opinion as the dog has been ok in the 2 foster homes with the small dogs that it is unlikely the dog will attack again. Michelle also stated she will be meeting the head of the organisation in the near future & was looking forward to building a relationship with them. Perhaps the organisation head will act as a go between for rescue & council. I am not sure of the role they will be playing .

[shmoo]

Doesn't matter if it has not attacked again in another home, this dog has shown what it is capable of.

ETA: I had a foster dog that (I suspected) killed a cat. He lived with my cat just fine. But that doesn't mean I didn't expect that he might one day decide to kill another cat. Obviously he was adopted to a home without cats.

Edited May 10, 2012 by shmoo