To think that putting to sleep very difficult dogs is not the most awful thing for them?

[UnchainedMelanie]

DH and I recently adopted a dog. It’s taken nearly 4 years and lots of patience to get to this place. We found rescues quite difficult to deal with and some were downright dishonest. Those that were great often had criteria as strict as the Pissfingers meme (will attach in case anyone hasn’t seen it!) so were possibly more overcrowded than they need to be.
We had a foster to adopt trial with a dog 18 months ago which went horribly wrong when he bit DH badly. The rescue did not tell us that the dog had a history of biting and challenging behaviour, but took him back after the incident (which would have been fully preventable had we know more about the dog and were prepared for the behavioural issues, although they were so tricky to handle we wouldn’t have adopted him).
It’s taken a long time to find the right dog, and part of that is that there are so many very difficult dogs in rescue shelters, which we (and apparently most other people) feel unable to take on. Some of these dogs end up in kennels for years.
Our previous foster is still as yet unhomed, and we learnt that he’d been fostered a further couple of times with similar outcome to our own.
I am a dog lover, I hate to see cruelty, and having had several years of visiting various shelters and getting close to finding a dog a few times I’m starting to think that keeping really challenging dogs in kennels for a long time is downright cruel. Many are anxious and stressed, yet are living in conditions that don’t suit them on the off chance that someone will be willing to take on a dog with a difficult history.
My own old dog was pts about 5 years ago. Whilst the process was upsetting for me, my old girl was very peaceful throughout, it wasn’t a traumatic thing to go through at all for her.
Talking about dogs being pts is very emotive, but I wonder if for some dogs this would be preferable to long spells in kennels.

AIBU

Forgot to add the Pissfingers thing!

I completely agree. Far worse things can happen to a dog than a peaceful and humane death. If a dog has issues to the extent it will never safely be rehomed then put the poor thing to sleep. Don’t leave it festering in a rescue centre indefinitely.

I also think, maybe unpopularly, that if there weren’t so many difficult dogs in kennels, dogs surrendered for non-behavioural reasons would be rehomed more quickly, and more people would give rescues a chance.

I do agree. Some, though probably not many, can cope with multiple foster homes, or with life in a shelter with the strong ( to them) smells and sounds of other dogs; many though will get stressed.

This stress will play out in different ways but may make it harder to find a home.

I love dogs, all kinds, bit of a soft spot for the big ones (the ones that worry people)

i do agree with you in principal, but 'no kill' shelters are the first ones over run & where most people would want to place a dog.

plus who decides 'how long' they get on 'death row'? & how many vets are going to sign up to pts?

Another thing the rescues need to do is be more open to people actually adopting a dog, some of the reasons they refuse for are absolutely ridiculous, it's no wonder people give up & buy a puppy when they would have been very happy to adopt one.

I 100% agree, pts is better than a scary stressful life in kennels for years and years. My dog is very nervous and would hate to be in kennels if I had to choose that for the rest of her life or PTS I’d choose PTS.

Yes I had to make a very difficult decision 20 odd years ago to have my dog PTS for aggression. I really did give him many chances and it broke my heart but he could never have been rehomed. My mum wanted me to tie him to a fence somewhere so she wouldn’t have to cope knowing he was PTS which would have been cruel. The final decision was taken in haste as he attacked me but it was always the right decision. It broke my heart but I know it was the responsible thing to do.

I’ve worked with vets and they tend ti be much more practical and less emotive about those things than the general public, I’ve worked at a practice that was responsible for euthanising dogs from a dogs home and no one looked forward to it but it was necessary and done with care and kindness.

It would be tricky to decide where to draw the line.
In principal any bite history should mean pts, but in reality many bites are caused by owners not recognising the dog’s body language and have pushed beyond reasonable boundaries.

A relative had a very difficult dog that she couldn’t handle (no fault of her own, it was a young rescue, but the shelter shut up shop not long after the dog was adopted), but was warned off surrendering it due to the state of shelters. She considered pts but the few people she spoke to were aghast that she could consider that. She kept the dog - the miserable anxious dog - until it died of cancer 7 years later. Her life was 100% dictated by the needs of the dog, she had no life, couldn’t leave it alone, couldn’t have visitors. I feel like in cases like this pts is not the worst option.

Yes, that’s where I’m coming from too.
It would be a horrendous decision to make, but maybe for some dogs it’s the kindest and most humane option.

I’m so sorry, that must have been so difficult. 💐

I've stopped giving to two dog charities because of their no kill policies. One was in Romania and they'll let puppies die of malnutrition/cold while spending a fortune on 12 year old dogs. Some of the very aggressive dogs, who could easily be a danger should be pts once a certain amount of time has passed, unless they can be fostered. I say that as someone who adopted two German shepherd's who had behavioural issues, at different times. There's too many people who don't have a clue and won't do consistency with rules. There's too many dogs vs potential owners.

YANBU.

A couple of years ago a friend was looking for a dog. Out of curiosity we checked one of the rescue centres. They held about 30 dogs at that time and each of them was marked as „unsuitable for children or the other animals”. She got a puppy.

Completely agree

Agree completely. We adopted a dog, were told he didn't like going outside and wasn't fond of other dogs ... Actually he loved going outside and would jump out the window if you weren't careful and as for not being fond of other dogs, actually they meant he would try to rip them to pieces at every given opportunity. It took a lot of management (and a muzzle) but we did keep him but it would have saved a really nasty attack on another dog if we'd been told the truth.

For what it's worth (and I'm not setting us up to be some paragons of virtue here), we've taken on a number of dogs over the last 20 years who'd be considered unsafe or unadoptable.

One was even in his last two days before being PTS at the shelter at six months old - he had warnings all over his paperwork and we were told there was no way he'd ever be safe, especially with children. The only time he ever came to the front of his enclosure instead of hiding at the back and baring his teeth, though, was when our daughter went to look at him. Nearly bent himself in two wagging at her. We had to sign a waiver, but there was no way we were going home without him. Damn dog hated me for 15 years (until he had dementia and forgot he hated me every morning), but only had two minor bite incidents - and those were people who ignored all of our warnings and shoved their hands in his face.

Then there's the Akita, who was unadoptable because of her size and "scary" posture. Most well-behaved dog we've ever encountered. She basically raised the feral Chihuahua (who's now the most placid example of the breed we've come across), and the traumatised Romanian rescue (who would apparently never accept human contact, but now can't live without fuss and sitting with us at every opportunity).

Point is...we aren't miracle workers, and I know there are many dogs out there that we wouldn't be able to rehabilitate, but for an awful lot of them it's because the environment we provide isn't what they need. I'm convinced that many "unadoptable" dogs just need to find the environment or people that suit them most, and they suddenly become unrecognisable from the scared, fear-aggressive selves they showed everyone else (and us, to begin with) - for the dogs we've had (all of them), it's been down to treating them as individuals instead of seeing teeth or a bite incident and thinking "Yep, aggressive" and writing them off - by rescues, fosters or adopters.

I don't think that applies to the OP's experience, though, because it was doomed to failure the instant the rescue decided to hold back the dog's history. That's just bloody stupid and irresponsible.

I agree. A dog does not have anxiety about death , they dont know its happening. Much better for them to just be put to sleep in a calm manner with gentle people around them than potentially go through months or years of stressful or anxiety situations.

I work for a rescue. Dogs with no issues usually do get rehomed quickly, no rescue actually wants dogs hanging around when they don't need to be. The Pissfingers meme is funny but you've had experience yourself with a dog with very specific needs, rescues don't put restrictions in place for no reason. If the dog can't live with kids, cats, other dogs etc there will be a reason.

The question you raise is one rescues deal with on a daily basis and there are different approaches and different points of view but most reputable rescues will, after a certain point, PTS dogs who face little prospect of rehoming and won't cope in a kennel environment long term. Even the rescue whose slogan is that they never destroy a healthy dog will PTS on welfare grounds if it is plainly in the interests of the dog.

Rescues to be honest are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they try and give dogs a chance they get torn to shreds; they also get torn to shreds for putting dogs to sleep. It's very easy to sit back and think you could do it better; very hard to actually do it, day by day, and have to witness and be involved in making these decisions every day.

Even for dogs out of kennels, I think it’s sometimes the best option. I have a friend with a very “reactive” aggressive / nervous rescue dog and the poor creature must frankly spend most of its time thoroughly miserable. It can’t stand other dogs, people who aren’t my friend (including her partner), anyone approaching towards it, bicycles, runners, loud noises, cars, the wind blowing the trees, plastic bags, the list is endless. It can’t be allowed off the leash and barks and lunges constantly. Imagine a human living with that level of stress and terror and anxiety and rage all day long and the quality of life they’d have. Having a pet is supposed to be a positive experience for both owner and pet. This poor dog would be better off out of its misery.

I completely understand that. It must be a very difficult job sometimes.

There was a long thread on MN a while ago about the restrictions some shelters apply that mean very few dogs can be adopted, and that’s something my husband and I have found as well, restrictions that don’t make any sense at all (we were refused a lurcher type because our garden fence wasn’t 6 ft, even though we pointed out that we could change it, and then did change it, but were told it was too late, we had failed the home inspection). Those sorts of situations seem to happen a lot.

I know I couldn’t do it better. I do think there are lots of dogs spending a long time living a miserable life that are, sadly, not likely to be adopted.

I think rescue shelters should have some kind of regulation - how can they justify passing that foster dog around when it's bitten so many people? It's probably stressed out of it's head - how can it be the kindest thing to keep it alive?

To many people keep animals alive at any cost without thinking of the welfare of the animal.

I absolutely agree. I have no patience with the "no PTS" brigade. There are so many lovely dogs needing homes- I see no reason to keep alive the difficult, the challenging who can't possibly be having nice lives.

Rehoming a dog to a home with a child in it when it had a bite history was incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why would you put your child at risk like that?

Forcing a dog to live in a home where it hated one of the people isn't the great story you think it is- that dog must have been so stressed every day.

It sounds like you weren't the right home for that dog.

No, you've got it wrong. Conventional wisdom said we weren't the right home for the dog. However, the presence of our daughter was the only thing that had ever made him calm down, in six months of being at the shelter. It's something I've never seen, before or since; and it's not like we just took him home right there and then. We spent the day with him, making sure he was safe when she was around, and we took all the sensible precautions when we got him home.

He was perfectly safe with her. We never had him around other children, and there was never a hint of danger, other than the two strangers who ignored both his warnings and ours.

As for "hated me", he wasn't stressed; it was more a thinly-disguised contempt and a refusal to do anything I told him to. Weirdly, if he was ever scared (eg by thunder) it was always my desk he crawled under, and me that he fetched if he needed to go out. Basically, I was a convenient servant and bodyguard, but apart from that he simply refused to acknowledge my existence.

He had a long, happy life. The fact that I wasn't happy is irrelevant ;)

There are a lot of reprehensible rescues out there, ones that are determined to rehome unstable dogs, ones that spends hundreds of thousands on dogs with disabilities who it would be kinder to let go.
There's a rescue in America under scrutiny at the moment as they moved a litter of puppies who had been exposed to rabies all over the place exposing multiple people and animals to them.