Moral Question, Re Shelters.

[Crisovar]

I personally could not look at adopting a dog from a shelter whose values and methods of operation I didn't support. I would not be entering their premises or their websites so would be unlikely to see the animals and fall in love with one because I agree, it is not the dogs fault who it ends up being rescued by. Given a lot of dogs are advertised on Pet Rescue these days I would be looking at dogs only attached to specific rescue groups that I was comfortable with rather than doing general dog searches.

My reason for this is linked to my view that if we continue to support what we don't like then it will never change or go away. If people stopped buying cute puppies at exorbitant prices from pet shop windows then pet shops would cease stocking them and puppy farmers would reduce their breeding rates if they had less outlets to sell through. If a dodgy shelter had a poor turnover of dogs then they could take less new dogs on and at some point might have to look at why they weren't being utilised by the public and address the criticisms raised with them or cease to operate.

The get paid for Euthing them, they wouldn't care if none were adopted it is no loss to them.

[Guest donatella]

Hi guys! I have a friend at the moment who is looking for a large breed, shelter cross type.

She's had a look online and found the GAWS/LDH shelter video (

)

WARNING; not very nice viewing.

Since seeing that she's decided not to go anywhere near the Lost Dogs Home and to instead look to the other shelter mentioned, the no kill one because that and a lot of the published figures paint a pretty grim picture of LDH and the like.

She posted this as a status on Facebook (social media, always good for a stir up!) and another poster commented something along the lines of surely the LDH dogs are at a higher risk, so should they not take priority?

Just wondering what you all think on the matter, if you were looking for a shelter dog and knew of a reputable, no kill in the area or a shambles that made for a miserable existence for the dogs, which would take priority for you? Just curious!

Goodness what I sad video

[*kirty*]

I really wish people would bother to read about the no kill idea before spouting rubbish about it. Reputable no-kill shelters don't offload problem dogs, or keep aggressive dogs alive for the sake of it, etc. They use foster carers and only rehome suitable dogs. No kill doesn't mean no dogs killed, it means no healthy, adoptable dog killed.

[eyeopener]

Not all no kill shelters do the right thing anyway, I fostered several large breed dogs n when I informed rescue owner that 1 in particular needed pts for behavioural issues there was no telling her. Dog went on to kill another dog be returned to my care n I had it pts.

[*kirty*]

I agree. There are bad eggs in everything. That's why I said' reputable'.

[tdierikx]

Rescue has the "luxury" of selecting which dogs they will take in... a pound doesn't...

True "no kill" (if you define it literally - as the general public are liable to do) in a pound is not exactly achievable due to the fact that not every animal will be rehomable. There will always be those for whom it is the kindest thing to euthanaise.

No Kill (as defined by reality) is that no rehomable animal should die purely because the resources aren't there to give it the chance it needs to be rehomed. The push is for those resources to be available so that more rehomable animals get that chance.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with adopting from any pound... but I also have some experience in selecting dogs from pounds for the rescue I am with... I have a decent idea of what I'm looking for and understand fully that many dogs will be very different once outside of that environment.

T.

[Dame Aussie]

LDH have several pound contracts for very large municipalities. This will not change anytime soon. This revenue would most likely be enough to keep it going.

My feeling is that if no unclaimed dogs (and cats?) were adopted from this facility, they would probably just all be euthanased.

Exactly right. Until people start being responsible for their dogs places like this will ALWAYS be around. They will be around supported by council contracts whether or not people adopt from them. Not going to places like this, I guarantee you, will not shut them down.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Aussie3

[Dame Aussie]

I personally could not look at adopting a dog from a shelter whose values and methods of operation I didn't support. I would not be entering their premises or their websites so would be unlikely to see the animals and fall in love with one because I agree, it is not the dogs fault who it ends up being rescued by. Given a lot of dogs are advertised on Pet Rescue these days I would be looking at dogs only attached to specific rescue groups that I was comfortable with rather than doing general dog searches.

My reason for this is linked to my view that if we continue to support what we don't like then it will never change or go away. If people stopped buying cute puppies at exorbitant prices from pet shop windows then pet shops would cease stocking them and puppy farmers would reduce their breeding rates if they had less outlets to sell through. If a dodgy shelter had a poor turnover of dogs then they could take less new dogs on and at some point might have to look at why they weren't being utilised by the public and address the criticisms raised with them or cease to operate.

The get paid for Euthing them, they wouldn't care if none were adopted it is no loss to them.

100% correct.

[Dame Aussie]

I really wish people would bother to read about the no kill idea before spouting rubbish about it. Reputable no-kill shelters don't offload problem dogs, or keep aggressive dogs alive for the sake of it, etc. They use foster carers and only rehome suitable dogs. No kill doesn't mean no dogs killed, it means no healthy, adoptable dog killed.

If you're referring to my post I've seen it with my own eyes so I'm not "spouting rubbish"

[corvus]

My local shelter doesn't euthanise animals unless they bite someone, basically. They don't call themselves a no-kill shelter. I don't know what it's like here, but there's been a lot of negativity towards the no-kill movement overseas, particularly in the US. There is no standardised way to assess mental health in dogs in particular. I challenge anyone to define 'rehomable' objectively with measures that can be standardised for all dogs. If there's no standardisation, the concept is wide open to interpretation. I know in some places there are dogs being kept in shelters for years. Dogs Trust in the UK is very wealthy and their adoption centres are insanely decadent compared to what we have over here, but the dogs behind closed doors... Some of them are basically there for life because of that no-kill policy.

I have to wonder if this stance to get the dog that suits you regardless of what shelter it comes from also extends to pet shops and breeders... But I imagine that distinction is blindingly obvious, right?

[Dame Aussie]

My local shelter doesn't euthanise animals unless they bite someone, basically. They don't call themselves a no-kill shelter. I don't know what it's like here, but there's been a lot of negativity towards the no-kill movement overseas, particularly in the US. There is no standardised way to assess mental health in dogs in particular. I challenge anyone to define 'rehomable' objectively with measures that can be standardised for all dogs. If there's no standardisation, the concept is wide open to interpretation. I know in some places there are dogs being kept in shelters for years. Dogs Trust in the UK is very wealthy and their adoption centres are insanely decadent compared to what we have over here, but the dogs behind closed doors... Some of them are basically there for life because of that no-kill policy.

I have to wonder if this stance to get the dog that suits you regardless of what shelter it comes from also extends to pet shops and breeders... But I imagine that distinction is blindingly obvious, right?

It is, for me at least. The OP was specifically asking about shelters so that's what my response is based on.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Aussie3

[eyeopener]

No I was talking stray dogs rescue etc n nothing to do with pups n buying pups or adults from a breeder, trainer etc.

[Greytmate]

I do not like the term No- Kill. It is just a marketing buzzword, designed to give them the competitive advantage over shelters that do not turn dogs away. It says nothing about how the shelter operates or how well the dogs are treated.

At it's worst it is a term used by hoarders that kennel problem dogs long term, which is detrimental to their chances of ever making a good pet.

I would choose a dog depending on how suitable the dog would be for me as a pet. I will judge a shelter by what it does, not by what it says it doesn't do.

[Aphra]

No Kill sheltering definition: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/defining-no-kill-sheltering/

And no, it doesn't mean not being open admission, or warehousing animals, it means working very hard and proactively to save the lives of healthy, rehomable pets.

As to the LDH, if your friend can find a suitable dog to rescue from them, adopting from them isn't a bad idea, although I'm always a bit torn about supporting them at all. But for the numbers of animals they take in, they often don't have very many available for adoption.

GAWS have really changed how they operate in the last year and supporting them would be great. There is also the wonderful Save-A-Dog and Animal Aid, both of which might not define themselves as No Kill, but are definitely low kill.

[Greytmate]

No Kill sheltering definition: http://yesbiscuit.wo...ill-sheltering/

And no, it doesn't mean not being open admission, or warehousing animals, it means working very hard and proactively to save the lives of healthy, rehomable pets.

That's only one person's definition. There are no standards to ensure that animals are not being warehoused or that the shelter is being operated to particular standards.

If shelters are working pro-actively, I applaud them.

But the word "no -kill" isn't proactive at all, it's reactive to a perception that there are "kill shelters" operating as well as "no-kill" shelters. It's a very negative thing to say.

[Greytmate]

There is no standardised way to assess mental health in dogs in particular. I challenge anyone to define 'rehomable' objectively with measures that can be standardised for all dogs. If there's no standardisation, the concept is wide open to interpretation.

Rehomable is extremely subjective. But "not rehomable" can sometimes be more easily defined.

We know that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.

It's really up to the organisation rehoming the dogs to decide which dogs are unsuitable for sale as pets in the context of local laws and local community standards, and what they know or have been told about the dog's history of behaviour. Behaviour assessments are not a diagnosis, but a helpful tool in seeing how a dog reacts in a particular situation.

Science has not given us the tools to assess mental health in dogs, but the lived experience of people interacting with these dogs can often give a good picture of what a dog is like. An ethical rescue organisation will be honest and prepared to put community standards ahead of their own wish to be a 'saviour' or their own hesitance to have an unrehomable dog put to sleep. As long as this is well-considered and basic dog non-verbal communication is understood by the people making the decision, a subjective assessment is much better than no assessment at all.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

There's a curly coat retriever at Geelong (do the curly coat breeders know about this?)

http://www.petrescue.com.au/listings/205944

Why can't your friend use Pet Recue and then pick a dog that is in foster care - not a pound.

Lost Dogs Home (vic) was featured in the "Don't Blame the Dog" series. It gave me a whole different view of them and why they do what they do. At one point in the show the manager took the pommie irresponsible breeder bloke to the dog mortuary and pulled out all the bags of dogs that were PTS or killed as a result of car accidents ie being allowed to walk off lead and run onto the road.

It's financially impossible to feed and house all the unwanted dogs in Australia. I heard the numbers of *unwanted dogs* in NSW alone was about 20,000 PER YEAR! Shocking yes. But it's not the dogs' fault. And while we allow too many unsuitable dogs to be bred and homed with people who don't have the skills or desire to train them to be good pet dogs - we're going to have squillions of unwanted dogs.

[luvsdogs]

There's a curly coat retriever at Geelong (do the curly coat breeders know about this?)

http://www.petrescue.com.au/listings/205944

Why can't your friend use Pet Recue and then pick a dog that is in foster care - not a pound.

Lost Dogs Home (vic) was featured in the "Don't Blame the Dog" series. It gave me a whole different view of them and why they do what they do. At one point in the show the manager took the pommie irresponsible breeder bloke to the dog mortuary and pulled out all the bags of dogs that were PTS or killed as a result of car accidents ie being allowed to walk off lead and run onto the road.

It's financially impossible to feed and house all the unwanted dogs in Australia. I heard the numbers of *unwanted dogs* in NSW alone was about 20,000 PER YEAR! Shocking yes. But it's not the dogs' fault. And while we allow too many unsuitable dogs to be bred and homed with people who don't have the skills or desire to train them to be good pet dogs - we're going to have squillions of unwanted dogs.

I saw that programme too & the little white fluffy old dog that was pts had a bad neurological problem & was in severe pain. PTS was the only kind thing to do for him.

There needs to be more done about the indiscriminate breeding from puppy mills. There's not enough homes in Australia for them all.

[Crisovar]

I have to wonder if this stance to get the dog that suits you regardless of what shelter it comes from also extends to pet shops and breeders... But I imagine that distinction is blindingly obvious, right?

The OP asked about shelters and people have responded to that question :)

[Brookestar]

Last year Geelong killed 20% of dogs, the Lost Dogs Home Averages about 30%. MOST of the animals euthanised at the Lost Dogs Home are ferral cats.

I am not defending them. I do believe they could be doing more than they are doing. They are at least beginning to try to do behavioural rehabilitation with some of the dogs that come in, something they were not doing 10 years ago.

GAWS is not considered no kill by most people. They are doing very little to no rehabilitation of dogs and have basically no foster carers. MOST of the dogs there are being warehoused, and in conditions worse than those I have seen at the lost dogs home.

That video clip was of a news report that was aired 3 months after GAWS changed policy. At first it got support, but over time it died off and the kill rate increased, foster carers dropped off as they were given no support, volunteers could pissed off with what was happening, etc. I know of 2 volunteers who quit after they were forced to watch a very elderly and frail whippit kept alive, in the middle of winter in pens that had no real shelter at all. At the lost dogs home the dog would have been much more enclosed, than at GAWS. No vet I know would ever have kept such a dog alive. In the end one of them adopted it to have it PTS. GAWS have also placed dogs with people without charging any fees at all and without asking any questions at all. Some of the dogs have since been reclaimed by the RSPCA, as they were being so badly abused. And the most basic of questions or even being asked to pay $100 for the dog, would have prevented them from obtaining it.

GAWS is not doing assessments of the dogs and will give them to anyone at all, often for nothing at all. Some of the most difficult dogs do need very experienced owners and simply handing them out to anyone does not solve the problem. Some of them have ended up been euthanised by the council after they bit someone, as they were in the hands of people who could not handle them.

The simple fact is ALL shelters could be doing better. The RSOPCA in ACT I think is setting some of the best standards in Australia, not just in terms of keeping the dogs alive, but also in how they interact with them while they are in the shelter. They do have music playing all the time, they did nurmous studies to find out which was more soothing. They rotate many of the dogs through foster homes to try and give them all breaks from the shelter, rather than just saying some are lucky and get into foster care. Those that really do need foster care are kept there if at all possible. They classify the dogs in terms of the sort of owner that will be needed for them and so they are not simply rehomed with anyone, but they are kept until a suitable person is found. That does mean that the more difficult wait for much longer, but they do keep them alive.