Just interested...

What are your opinions of "non-kill" shelters/rescue centres?

Do you believe that dogs that could possibly be a severe risk to humans or other animals should be rehomed no matter what? And if so do you think that it is okay for these dogs to be left in kennels for years until they find their "forever home?"

I see so many different opinions about this.. and as a rescue worker myself have very solid views on the matter. Would just like to know other people's opinions

I do admire no kill shelters, very much. They do a wonderful job, especially for those hard to home dogs - the elderly, sick or just plain ugly!

But (and I know I'm probably in the minority here) I do feel that aggressive dogs (human aggressive, not dog aggressive) should never be rehomed unless the person who adopts is experienced with aggressive dogs & can look after it 100% safely. If the dog cannot be rehomed due to severe aggression then I feel it's kinder all round to have it pts.

Tough subject. IMHO I don't think a dogs life should be spent in a rescue kennel for its entire life, but that is based on the amount of rescue dogs there are, of all breeds, you couldn't possibly re-home every single dog, there are just to many rescues, so until back yard breeding stops then sadly yes, dogs have to be pts as there isn't the funding there to rehabilitate every rescue.

I actually agree with you, I think every dog deserves a good chance, and careful homing plays a vital role in that, but, there comes a point when I think you have to say enough is enough. If you have a known violent dog, that just cannot be trusted or trained or settled, then they should be put to sleep.  It is fairer for both dog and humans.

woody

Have to agree with the above, sometimes it's the kinder option, unfortunately

I too admire the concept behind "non-kill" shelters/rescues, most especially when compared with "rescues" that pts after 7 days if it's not claimed or rehomed, no matter how sweet the temperament of the dog .

However, if a dog of whatever breed is taken into a shelter is proved after careful assessment to be aggressive to humans (and not just through fear of the situation it has found itself in) then I would agree that the kindest thing to both the dog and to humans is that it is pts.

But, if a dog for whatever reason is deemed by the public to be too old or ugly to take on, then so long as the rescue centre is able and willing to keep that dog for years then I would hazard a guess that that dog would prefer to be kept in the rescue kennels with kindly human interaction and contact with other dogs, than to be pts.

Have to agree with the above. The idea of killing any animal is horrible, but the term 'lesser of two evils' springs to mind. A dog who would have to spend his entire life in kennels would have a very poor quality of life. When taking into consideration the fact that so many kennels are full to bursting, surely it's better to use that space for dogs who would be adopted and given a better chance at life.

I do admire the no-kill shelters, but I don't blame the ones who don't have the same policy.

Agree with all this lot ^^^

I have nothing further your honour


PS: Biscuit is lookin amazing in your avy Rach

Agreed.

I strongly disagree with shelters that pts after 7 to 14 days and therefore support the no-kill services, however if a dog is human aggressive I do not believe it should be re-homed - there is a line between being humane and being reasonable in regard to this and I think it is crossed when we aim to re-home any breed of dog that is known to be a danger to humans.

I support the no kill shelters. However there are occasions when a dog may have to be pts.

It's a difficult one, because none of us want to see a healthy pooch PTS, I support the no kill rescues but understand that there are instances were putting to sleep is best

Definitely agree that every dog deserves a good home, but dogs that are taught to be aggressive for silly reasons are very hard to tame, and in that case, as much as it hurts to think or say it, I also agree they should be pts.

Lynda wrote:I too admire the concept behind "non-kill" shelters/rescues, most especially when compared with "rescues" that pts after 7 days if it's not claimed or rehomed, no matter how sweet the temperament of the dog.

Rescues do not PTS unclaimed dogs. Pounds do, there are not many rescues that have a stray license.

I hate the thought of dogs being killed, and i hate the thought of dogs being written off immediately due to breed or age or looks. But i don't think dogs belong in kennels and i think after a certain amount of time they can become dangerous just purely because they have been driven mad. I think there needs to be a limit on the amount of time a dog stays in a kennel, say 6 months, then after that they need to be humanely pts. I hate dogs that are in kennels for years with no home just cause they look nice, then ugly dogs are just killed immediately. Give each dog a fair chance, but just don't prolong it. The dog in the kennel for years is taking up space that other dogs could be in who would get rehomed, but dont get a chance. If that made sense.

rescuestaffords wrote:

Lynda wrote:I too admire the concept behind "non-kill" shelters/rescues, most especially when compared with "rescues" that pts after 7 days if it's not claimed or rehomed, no matter how sweet the temperament of the dog.

Rescues do not PTS unclaimed dogs. Pounds do, there are not many rescues that have a stray license.

I'm very pleased to say that our council - Pembrokeshire, has a non destruct policy for their pound regarding found strays. Indeed thats where we got Sophie a couple of weeks back (who's doing very well!)

woody

I very much admire non kill centers

I believe that 99% of dogs can be rehomed with 'someone'. Having had Chance and having to deal with a large human aggressive dog, i do think most dogs can be rehabilitated to some degree, or managed enough to live a normal life.

But dogs like chance, will never have been given the opportunity to have a life over a 'normal' dog in a pound or kill shelter, and THAT imo is wrong

Not everyone is willing to take on a HA dog, but i don't agree that they should be PTS unless it's far to severe, but i'm one of those who are willing to try and work with a HA dog and have experience, so would rather give that dog a chance to live and learn, and then IF proven to be to bad then PTS knowing we gave them a shot

Interesting comments As you all know, when I took Biscuit on she was very human and dog aggressive and rather large Staffordshire Bull Terrier, as well as being movement reactive (and would use her teeth) and had cancer!! Not a particularly "rehomeable" dog to say the least, but my heart went over my head and I don't regret it for a second!

However, I meet a LOT of owners in my line of work, and don't think that many at all could handle a dog with human or dog aggression, perhaps 10% of general dog owners at the very most, and most of these with breeds other than bull breeds. I know of two other people that chose to adopt and rehabilitate human aggressive bull breeds (Ella with Chance, and my previous employer with her lot - correct me if there are any others on the forum that have slipped my mind?!) and with most of my dogs, the people that think they want to own a dog with that caliber of aggression are thinking emotionally and not practically, and could be putting others at real risk.

From working with stray bull breeds in the cities, I have learnt the hard way that there really isn't a home for every dog, and we have always done the best that we can.. once or twice resulting in people getting seriously hurt for the sake of keeping a dog alive, yet the backlash that we have had for pts rates has been horrendous. Was just interested in others outside of the rescue circle's opinions on the matter

P.S Thanks Andy! Been going on lots of hikes since we've been here

ella wrote:I very much admire non kill centers

I believe that 99% of dogs can be rehomed with 'someone'. Having had Chance and having to deal with a large human aggressive dog, i do think most dogs can be rehabilitated to some degree, or managed enough to live a normal life.

But dogs like chance, will never have been given the opportunity to have a life over a 'normal' dog in a pound or kill shelter, and THAT imo is wrong

Not everyone is willing to take on a HA dog, but i don't agree that they should be PTS unless it's far to severe, but i'm one of those who are willing to try and work with a HA dog and have experience, so would rather give that dog a chance to live and learn, and then IF proven to be to bad then PTS knowing we gave them a shot

Although I agree with you, Ella, it's very difficult for the rescue centres to know who is qualified to take on one of these dogs, and would be unable to rehome knowing that the outcome could be disastrous! I don't mean qualifications as in courses/exams taken, but experience & knowledge & a strong sense of responsibility.

I appreciate that caryll but there are people out there who do have experience in HA or mega problems.

I don't agree with a dog being PTS just because it has problems and has a lower chance of finding an appropriate home, they should be given every chance they can BUT the rehoming process and follow ups should be much more strict

It takes an exceptional, a really exceptional, person who can take on a HA dog and rehabilitate it. Ella and Rachel are two of them but people like Ella and Rachel are rare and I am full of admiration for them - I know I couldn't do it.