|
Post by amyjo on Feb 4, 2004 17:14:47 GMT -5
Okay just watched it - and I am posting here because I think that is where it will eventually end up anyway I have to say - I disagreed with pretty much ALL of her methods. Most of them have been covered by other posters and I don't disagree with anything stated so far about her methods by any of you. They pissed me off as much as they did you. I even disagreed with putting furniture in the kennels WTF - put an arm chair in the dog's kennel and allow it to be torn up? what does THAT teach? I don't agree with her methods but I don't really condemn her beacuse I think that no matter how wacked we all think she is - she seems to me to really care about dogs. I mean a dog hater wouldn't take a dog to McDonalds or adopt 5 of her own. Perhaps she has grown too cynical about the potential of dogs or the ability of people to train them. She is a PP trainer right? perhaps her methods have failed her with the more aggressive pooches so she thinks the needle is kinder than the prong? who knows? But I know this - she has done more just by her personal adoptions than I have to contribute to the solution of unwanted pets so how can I fault her? The documentary leaves some real moral and ethical questions hanging in the air. Is euthanasia better than a life with out human love when you have been bred to crave it? Is every dog adoptable? Are there homes for all the unwanted dogs? Is it ethical to adopt out a biter - even if the owners poor management is at fault? Is it cruel to maintain a dog in a state of homelessness? Does that cause suffering? Who has the right to decide when an animal has suffered enough mentally or physically and euthanasia is the correct course? It should be the owner - the one who loves the animal - but what about those with out owners? who speaks for them? And if those who choose to speak for them are wrong - do we condemn them for stepping up or should we just be glad someone did? I disagreed with her methods there is no doubt about that - I also also read some stuff far more damning than what I saw in the documentary. I imagine the truth lays somewhere in the middle as it usaully does. Truthfully - to me she looks and sounds like a woman on "the edge" but that is a whole 'nother post. I personally would like to see her stopped and her methods abandoned...but I think in the end we still have to face the overwhelming issue of too many unwanted dogs and not enough loving homes.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Feb 4, 2004 21:52:19 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what you said amyjo. I can see both sides but I tend to lean pretty far away from this woman. I do not agree with her testing or that she is qualified based on what I've seen for her to make those types of decisions. Shen watched it for the first time with me again tonight and he got all over my case because I really disagree with this woman. He thought she had valid reasons to do what she did...talk about irritated and angry! He's like "she's not the only one making these decisions...she's not euthanizing them...the vets are and they are agreeing with her" blah blah blah...
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Feb 4, 2004 22:43:50 GMT -5
Apparently, she IS the only one making the decision, if the staff goes against her, they're gone. My reasonings are a bit different for wanting her gone. It's not that I am against A temperment test, I am against HER temperment test, and more importantly, the way it is administered. Amyjo, I don't think your too far off on your assessment of her, after speaking with several others who knew her well, they all say something has gone horribly wrong in her demeanor and thought process, she is not the same person they used to know. No, every dog can't be saved, but we need to stop taking the easy way out to solve the problems with pet overpopulation .
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Feb 4, 2004 23:35:40 GMT -5
I COMPLETELY agree Laura!! I said that about her staff and he's just like "but the veterinarians aren't her staff and they are the ones putting the needles in the dogs, not her." He's like, "if she's so wrong for what she's doing why isn't anyone going after the veterinarians that are doing this for her?" I just don't get how you can watch that crap and agree with it!!!
|
|
|
Post by Ioana on Feb 4, 2004 23:49:33 GMT -5
Oh, I haven't seen the documentary. I looked it up but didn't air at a time where I could see it. I believe that any dog can make a great pet..or cat. The owners ..I prefer parents should be very patient and learn about their pets' personality so they can work with them. The reason I prefer parents is because first of all I see pets as part of the family, of course..but also because they really are like children. In order to communicate with them we need to establish certain routines - and if they do good they get lots of praise and goodies. I have learned a lot from my pets and I believe that a lot more people should consider adopting. I would like to see the shelters transformed into pet centers where cats and dogs are being trained. It would be so nice if children could have classes over there caring and learning how to be responsible young adults. All of this would have to be under strong supervision of course..But I believe both pets and humans would have a lot to gain from this.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 5, 2004 8:29:09 GMT -5
Ok I have not seen this documentary and I really dont want to. What I am understanding from going to different links and from the list that Laura posted is truley just my opinion but here it goes. This woman whether people think see is well meaning or not has let power go to her head. I think what is going on here is that she thinks this is a way to solve the over population problem. She sets these poor dogs up to fail. What is the first thing that any trainer will tell you when you are putting your dog through OB? DO NOT set the dog up for failure. Not every dog can be saved but how would you know that with the type of TT test she is giving? I want to know who made her judge and jury over these poor defensless creatures. To eliminate employees because they differ with your opinions is rediculous. Doctors consult with each other about different cases so where does she think her opinions are GOD'S GOSPEL TRUTH? From what I understand is that people have taken dogs that were senteced to certain death by her TT test and made them into good pets. The problems that I have seen first hand are within shelters that use her TT test. Our shelter here use to do that but that is because they are all voulenters with no experience what so ever. These are well meaning people with no clue on animal behavior. I some sick way I think SS feels she is some kind of hero by saving the general population from dangerous dogs. The only problem with that is we need to be saved from HER! I can count on one hand the number of dogs that I had through fostering and rescue that truley needed to be PTS, and that was over a 20 year period of time. The whole thing just grates on me.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 5, 2004 9:04:33 GMT -5
I think you all nailed it - I think she is wacked out - I think her TT test is unfair and does set the dog up to fail.
In the case of the cocker she decided in a split second this was a "bad dog" and then performed the TT in such a way as to prove it.
I was also dismayed when she TT'd the wheaton terrier and sent his family away with out any hope. What she should have said was "If you really love this dog - go get yourselves a damn good trainer".....
I was actually throwing things at the TV when she was first discussing Aggie and wanting to put her down for being old and looking sad!
I guess all I am saying is based what I saw on the documentary she is not evil nor does she hate dogs - but she is fundementally broken in some way and so are her processes.
I agree that euthanasia is not the correct response to the overpopulation problem. It is a sad comment on our socitey when that becomes the case. We are basically saying these animals which were bred to be the companions of people - are disposable and that is WRONG. Education and prevention is the key.
As the proud owner of 2 dogs who wouldn't pass her test - I am steadfastly opposed to her methods. The sad fact is though that millions of animals are euthanized every year with out even being given the CHANCE to pass a TT. Thier only crime? being unloved and unwanted.
I just don't know where all the unwanted dogs are supposed to go? It is a fair question. Where do they go? I am not taking a side here. I am asking.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 5, 2004 9:21:36 GMT -5
That is the big question. Where do they all go? What needs to happen is even bigger spectrum than stopping her stupid tempermant tests. The laws for spaying and neutering must be made stronger. The amount of people being allowed to breed dogs must me made stronger, and yes SOME dogs must be put to sleep. How do we fix it? I don't know I wish I did. Allowing the number of dogs a person can have to increase where fostering situations apply, maybe but then where do they go after that? This is a hard situation to have an answer too
|
|
|
Post by packerdogs on Feb 5, 2004 10:17:23 GMT -5
I finally got to watch it and it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. Maybe because I’ve had to euthanize dogs myself. There are many things that bother me about Sue though. She talks about most of the dogs in the northeast come from fighting backgrounds. Well, maybe that is true, IF you are talking about certain breeds. But, the cockers, labs, hounds, etc – they don’t come from fighting backgrounds!
Now, as far as the dogs in the film. The wheaton terrier was crazy. I don’t think it was the most dangerous dog I’ve ever seen, as Sue stated it was, but that little guy was quite aggressive. I think any shelter that took him in should put him down. Then, Ginger, with being dog aggressive and cat aggressive and jealous of the baby, I would probably put that dog down also. Beau the cocker though would never have been put down. He tolerated grooming, ear cleaning and eating his food just fine. Then she badgers him with the stupid plastic arm until he gets pissed off. Plus, it’s a rawhide! I recommend to all my adopters don’t give the dog any damn rawhides! You want to see aggression, most dogs will show it when you give them a rawhide!
Sue doesn’t know a damn thing about dog behavior or the fact that different breeds behave differently (that is why I do lab rescue and not greyhound rescue, because I don’t know nuts about greyhounds!). Ideally, she could still use her temp test, but the dogs that were iffy (like the cocker maybe), call the cocker rescue! She could still end up with just perfect little angels of dogs to adopt out, but in the meantime many of the ones she condemned to the needle could have gone to rescue.
There are a far too many rescuers out there that say all dogs deserve a chance. I don’t agree with that. An aggressive dog is an unstable dog and something will happen in the future. Loey fostered a young chocolate female for the lab rescue who seemed fine enough. She was adopted out and returned and she came to my house. The dog would not let me near her for a week! She would snarl and growl and lunge at me. I don’t care how sweet she used to be, or if she was just scared and afraid, that is not the behavior that a lab should be showing towards a person that has not provoked or abused them. Sad to say, she was put down. Many rescuers would have said, give her time, she’ll come around, or place her in a home with adults only. To me that line of place the dog in a home with adults only is BS! Where are all these homes that never come in contact with a kid? And do these homes really want a crazy dog? No!
There is no solution to the pet overpopulation at this point. So, dogs do need to be put down and the dogs that have the most behavior and aggression problems should be put down first.
What I’d like to see is another documentary on a REAL shelter. Make a documentary on a kill shelter in Minnesota. That will get the publics attention. Show them how dogs are euthanized in MN – gas chamber. Show them where the dogs go if they do not get claimed or adopted – to research labs (MN and Utah are the only 2 states left that require shelters turn dogs over to research labs). Show them happy stories of adoptions and owners finding their stray dogs, but show them the horrible reality too. The biggest problem with “Shelter Dogs” is it is no where close to what any other shelter or rescue is like in the world. Hopefully the public doesn’t now start to view all shelters like Sue’s.
Cathy
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 5, 2004 10:35:43 GMT -5
That was very well written Cathy. I agree 100% with you. You can't save every dog. You can't and should never put a dog in even an ALL ADULT HOME if it has aggresion issues becaues I am sure some where in the near vacinity there are children. Fostering and getting involved in rescue is a great thing but like you said where are the new owners when the dog is ready to be placed? I think as you said dogs with more certain tempermant should be the top priority. I dont agree with the way SS does her TT it's wrong and she presents herself in a less than realistic way. I think you are right they should do a documentary on a REAL SHELTER so people see what goes on. It's a hard reality to face and maybe once the publics eyes are open to it things will change. When dogs come into the shelter here most are just afraid, some are abused, and some ARE JUST MEAN AND CRAZY. They are all given time to adjust and settle down. The voulenters work with them but there is a time limit. If it is a specifc breed then if applicable rescue's are called. If someone sees something special in a dog regardless of behavior issues at the time they are allowed if able to take the dog home and work with it. Sometimes that works great and in the less fortunate situation the dog comes back and is PTS. I don't help at the shelter that much anymore because of a difference of opinion. They still think that all dogs can be saved, and that is very far from a realistic perspective. I think they should all be given a chance but when all else fails and they dont come around they should be PTS. The rubber hand over there is a thing of the past that is the one GOOD thing I did
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 5, 2004 10:44:30 GMT -5
I agree the wheaton was insane and it probably would have been reasonable to put him down. IF he had been given a chance to settle and been fairly tested outside the presence of his owner - (who very well could have been the problem).
But the wheaton went home with his family who obviously cared about him and didn't want to put him down.
SO.. the proper solution would have been to send the family to a good trainer - not just wave good bye and say good luck!
|
|
|
Post by packerdogs on Feb 5, 2004 11:05:21 GMT -5
Ann- what shelter are you talking about?
Amyjo – I agree, the Wheaton was already in a home, it’s up to the owners what to decide, but I think if that dog had come into a shelter, it should be PTS.
Cathy
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 5, 2004 11:25:54 GMT -5
The shelter I am talking about is in Menomenee MI. I am very carful not to express to much disgust with their methods because all in all they do provide a place to bring an unwanted dog and a place for strays. It's just that they are not realistic. I dont know if you have ever dealt with them. The reason I started helping was because I was told their return rate is 60% and that raised an eyebrow with me. I don't help to much over there anymore because of time constraints and also because of a few differences of opinion with the director. If people are asking me where they can get a pup/dog I send them in your direction or to our local vet that also takes in strays or I send them down to Green Bay or Shawano. They do call me on ocasion to come in when they get a husky the last one they THOUGHT was a husky was actually a wolf hybrid that one was PTS.
|
|
|
Post by packerdogs on Feb 5, 2004 11:43:26 GMT -5
We have worked with them in the past, but it’s been awhile since they’ve contacted us. I do agree they tend to really not know what they are doing. They just see all the dogs are dogs and if it’s a lab and they’re full will we come get it? But, unless they changed, I have always considered them one of the “good” shelters. Maybe not an ideal shelter, the only one I can think of as ideal is Washington County HS or Elmbrook HS.
Shawano I would not refer people to. Green Bay is only in it for the $ if you ask me!
Well, maybe we’ll have to use you for a transport and temp test someday! Right now we have some openings, but I wouldn’t take any of the labs that are there right now.
Cathy
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 5, 2004 11:51:47 GMT -5
After I just posted to you Cathy, I went to petfinder and sure enough 3 out of the 4 dogs are RETURNS. I will keep that in mind about Shawano and GB. Since I am not real fimilar with shelters in this area except the one mentioned. I just did not know where to send people. Our vet here is very good with the strays. They do temp testing and even though they are not pro's at it I have never heard of any dogs comming from them that had to be taken back or any kind of bad remarks at all. If you need my help in anyway please dont hesitate to ask and I will do what I can. Fostering right now is out of the question BUT we may call on you for good dogs once Mira is up and running. That is what I am pushing to get a percentage of dogs from rescue and shelters so many are great and could be trained for service work. Labs do the great in service work. Labs are just great in general yes still have that soft spot
|
|