Lucy's Legacy

[Steve]

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/2140973/little-lucys-legacy-a-rule-change-at-shelter/?cs=159

A LOCAL animal shelter has changed its adoption rules in the wake of a deadly attack on a small dog.

Kimba, a mastiff-cross from Heaven Can Wait animal shelter, attacked Maltese/Jack

Russell-cross Lucy on February 26 in a Hillvue park.

Lucy’s owner, Dianne Walmsley, said she was powerless to do anything to stop the attack.

“I’ve had this little dog for 10 years,” she said.

“To just see her being ripped apart was devastating. I couldn’t do a thing, but the vet said if I had intervened, I would have been attacked, too.”

Mrs Walmsley said Kimba was not on a lead, while Lucy was on a long lead and harness.

“The dog just came at us,” she said.

Mrs Walmsley said the only blessing was she didn’t have her grandchildren with her and that maybe Lucy had saved a small child from being attacked instead.

“Had that been my little four-year-old grandson, he would not have had a hope in hell,” Mrs Walmsley said.

Heaven Can Wait founder Kate Davies said Kimba was part of their pound dog walking program and they took her into care on December 23 and she went into foster care.

“She was fostered with people who had big dogs and puppies, small dogs, birds and an 18-month-old child,” she said.

“They took her to the country music (festival), stopped and watched bands, walked through crowds, kids were coming up to them and not one of the dogs showed any aggression or fear at all.”

Ms Davies said Kimba had not shown any of this behaviour during her time in care but had subsequently been euthanased after the incident.

“We try to socialise them in as many different areas as we can,” Ms Davies said.

“There could have been 100 different reasons why it happened, but when these sorts of things happen, a big dog is always going to win the fight.”

Ms Davies said this prompted an adoption rule change and now the owner of any large dog adopted from the shelter must attend a consultation with behaviourist Peter Bainbridge.

This has to happen within the two-week trial period or the shelter will take the dog back into their care.

“We want people to know as much as they can about a dog’s natural instincts and behaviours,” Ms Davies said.

She said the adoption agreement would also state that dogs have to be on a lead in any public place.

[Maddy]

The fact that the rescue group manager thought what had happened was a fight suggests she doesn't really know enough about dogs to be rehoming them. Big dogs picking up little dogs and shaking them to pieces is not dog aggression, it's prey drive. As far as I'm concerned, breed shouldn't matter here- if your big dog gets drivey around smaller dogs, it needs to be muzzled and always on lead in public. In the case of rescue groups, I don't agree that rehoming such dogs is safe or responsible as inevitably, people will do as they please with those dogs and someone's pet is going to end up dead.

Crap like this is roughly 25% of the reason I want to quit rescuing. It's a sad joke these days.

[keetamouse]

Was the big dog on lead????

[Aphra]

I think the point she was making was that in any kind of interaction like this, the big dog will be the one to cause harm because of the size difference. I didn't read it as her believing it was a fight. It could as easily have been the small dog started something, or the big dog was prey driven or a number of other factors, we don't know. The group seem to have shown due diligence in testing the big dog around other dogs of various size. Dogs are sentient creatures, as are their owners, and no-one can predict what dogs or humans will do in every situation.

Although the article is framed as a rescue issue, the issue is really about people who own large dogs being aware of their potential and managing them adequately. Unless you believe that no large dogs should ever be adopted out on the off chance that something might happen, I'm not sure what else the group could have done. They have responded to the incident and are attempting to treat the risk, which is sensible and ethical.

The situation is really tragic for the little dog and her owner, and for the big dog and her owners.

The fact that the rescue group manager thought what had happened was a fight suggests she doesn't really know enough about dogs to be rehoming them. Big dogs picking up little dogs and shaking them to pieces is not dog aggression, it's prey drive. As far as I'm concerned, breed shouldn't matter here- if your big dog gets drivey around smaller dogs, it needs to be muzzled and always on lead in public. In the case of rescue groups, I don't agree that rehoming such dogs is safe or responsible as inevitably, people will do as they please with those dogs and someone's pet is going to end up dead.

Crap like this is roughly 25% of the reason I want to quit rescuing. It's a sad joke these days.

[_PL_]

If that had been my dog killed I'd be out for blood. But as has been proven before, 'rescues' get away with all sorts of things.

Poor little Lucy.

btw google tells me the behaviourist is a pack leader and dog whisperer.

eta: if they think a rescue can force someone to hand a dog back after it leaves their custody, they're dreaming. And the only person who can enforce the 'on leash' clause is a ranger because it's the law anyway.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Powerlegs

[dididog]

If that had been my dog killed I'd be out for blood. But as has been proven before, 'rescues' get away with all sorts of things.

Poor little Lucy.

btw google tells me the behaviourist is a pack leader and dog whisperer.

eta: if they think a rescue can force someone to hand a dog back after it leaves their custody, they're dreaming. And the only person who can enforce the 'on leash' clause is a ranger because it's the law anyway.

If they had signed a contract wouldn't that apply? When I got my dog from rescue we had to sign a contract saying stuff like if we encountered any problems during the 4 week trial we had to notify them and if they suspected mistreatment of the dog they could take it back. It also said that if for any reason we could no longer look after the dog it must be given back to them (not sold or privately rehomed). Personally the last one makes me feel a bit weird as I'd like to have a say in where my dog ends up (not that I ever intend to rehome my puppy) and I'm not sure how much weight the contract has to it but rescues do seem to put a lot of stipulations and conditions around adopting dogs these days which I suppose they have good reason for but still seems a bit much.

[Little Gifts]

Kimba was in foster care, she was part of a pound walking program and was living with other dogs, including small dogs, puppies, birds and a toddler while in care. That is an incredibly risky placement if she had shown any previous signs of prey drive or unpredictability. You have to assume that she didn't and she was adopted out based on how she acted in a fairly active home based environment. What else can a rescue do? A good rescue will match the right owner to the right dog (regardless of size or behaviours), provide post placement support and will have a trial period in the adoption agreement. But can they be held responsible for everything that happens in the future? When does day to day responsibility transfer to the new owner? All three of our dogs are rescues and all three have their own quirks. One continues to be a work in progress 1.5 years after she came into foster care with us as a pup. I might contact the rescuer she came from for advice but it really is all up to me once I agreed to be her skin mummy. Blaming her background for her behaviours when she is in a loving, stable home is BS to me.

This could be a terrible, once off tragedy. The term 'legacy' makes me feel like a major, avoidable tragedy needed to be averted. I'm not sure that's the case here.

[Maddy]

I think the point she was making was that in any kind of interaction like this, the big dog will be the one to cause harm because of the size difference. I didn't read it as her believing it was a fight. It could as easily have been the small dog started something, or the big dog was prey driven or a number of other factors, we don't know. The group seem to have shown due diligence in testing the big dog around other dogs of various size. Dogs are sentient creatures, as are their owners, and no-one can predict what dogs or humans will do in every situation.

Although the article is framed as a rescue issue, the issue is really about people who own large dogs being aware of their potential and managing them adequately. Unless you believe that no large dogs should ever be adopted out on the off chance that something might happen, I'm not sure what else the group could have done. They have responded to the incident and are attempting to treat the risk, which is sensible and ethical.

The situation is really tragic for the little dog and her owner, and for the big dog and her owners.

The fact that the rescue group manager thought what had happened was a fight suggests she doesn't really know enough about dogs to be rehoming them. Big dogs picking up little dogs and shaking them to pieces is not dog aggression, it's prey drive. As far as I'm concerned, breed shouldn't matter here- if your big dog gets drivey around smaller dogs, it needs to be muzzled and always on lead in public. In the case of rescue groups, I don't agree that rehoming such dogs is safe or responsible as inevitably, people will do as they please with those dogs and someone's pet is going to end up dead.

Crap like this is roughly 25% of the reason I want to quit rescuing. It's a sad joke these days.

Prey drive can be predicted if tested for appropriately.The group saying that the dog was tested properly doesn't mean a whole lot. Remember the greyhound who killed one dog and injured another in QLD?? Yeah, the dog was apparently fine with small dogs and cats in the foster carer's home.

Taking a dog out for a walk in public is not proper testing. Putting the dog in foster care with small dogs is not proper testing. Proper testing involves running through a series of exercises designed to cover as many possible scenarios as possible strictly for the purpose of assessing prey drive. Until people understand this, these sorts of things will continue to happen and if rescues aren't careful, they're going to find themselves outlawed.

Making excuses for what happened is not the answer.

[_PL_]

If that had been my dog killed I'd be out for blood. But as has been proven before, 'rescues' get away with all sorts of things.

Poor little Lucy.

btw google tells me the behaviourist is a pack leader and dog whisperer.

eta: if they think a rescue can force someone to hand a dog back after it leaves their custody, they're dreaming. And the only person who can enforce the 'on leash' clause is a ranger because it's the law anyway.

If they had signed a contract wouldn't that apply? When I got my dog from rescue we had to sign a contract saying stuff like if we encountered any problems during the 4 week trial we had to notify them and if they suspected mistreatment of the dog they could take it back. It also said that if for any reason we could no longer look after the dog it must be given back to them (not sold or privately rehomed). Personally the last one makes me feel a bit weird as I'd like to have a say in where my dog ends up (not that I ever intend to rehome my puppy) and I'm not sure how much weight the contract has to it but rescues do seem to put a lot of stipulations and conditions around adopting dogs these days which I suppose they have good reason for but still seems a bit much.

Terri I had a looong post written with all the dramas that can happen as well as foster carers doing a runner with the dog.

I hope someone can prove me wrong but I've never once seen getting an animal back successfully done unless it is willingly handed over. Sometimes the dogs just disappear altogether.

A lot of people think a microchip will help. Or that the police would be interested, which is not the case unless you commit trespass or are threatened with a restraining order trying to physically take the dog back.

You do however need all those clauses and conditions so that both parties know where they stand upon adoption. Most conditions are also there for the benefit of the dog.

But it only works if both parties are honest, including the rescue who promises to take their dog back ;-) you'd be surprised how many there are that won't.

oops: correction, I have seen one dog handed back in a civil case but it cost a bomb in legal fees and then more money to settle the claims such as 'expenses' the dog had incurred while being held by people who wouldn't give it back. It would have cost more in legal fees and court fees had the real owner refused to pay at all so there was no choice but to settle.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Powerlegs