AR Rescuer Nearly Killed by “Rescued” Dog

We believe that whatever testing methods are used in shelters, there should be a requirement that testing is done only by certified professionals who have no vested interest in the shelter itself. That would mean the tester would not be a shelter employee. The link below is just one example of certain dogs where follow ups were done subsequent to adoption. As expected, a high percentage still displayed behavior that was considered either aggressive, or a safety risk. 

When we say “as expected”,  we previously have stated that testing in shelters needs to be changed and that when we consider the high rate of rehomed, rescued and shelter dogs involved in canine-human fatalities, this study finding would not be surprising. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T48-4KRY8JC-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e764f358b9d8d7d1f0574965aa11fee1

It is also Nathan Winograd’s opinion  that temperament testing does not necessarily reveal the actual behavior problems (if any) which might create problems/or harm.  Those involved with rescued animals have known that for ages—–but shelters are “limited” in their time for testing.

OK–let’s say one is a rescuer of dogs, and is not limited like the shelter, but can pick and choose any dog he/she would like, and can perform any number of tests on such dog.

the AR Rescuer Story originally posted 2008:

Let’s assume rescuer works with dogs and has rescued for years.  Well, an actual AR female rescuer (known personally) has a habit of selecting  dogs which are basically dogs that should NOT be rescued.  While we understand many AR rescuers LOVE to take ‘worst case’ dogs, the job of a rescuer is really not to spend inordinate time/expense with the most pathetic dogs, those with the most medical expenses, or those likely to never be sold.. but to get homes for as many dogs as possible,  rather than sitting on only a few which will likely not find homes, or those who too many medical conditions which cost a fortune to fix. Of course, we are sure many rescue people will disagree.

In any event, rescuer puts up a rescue page which indicates the rescued dog was purposely chosen, despite large bumps (usually indicative of cancer),  dog is heartworm positive, dog has been allegedly picked on by other dogs she “lived with” with battle scars showing on dog, dog is tremendously afraid, with tail tucked all the time, dog is extremely vocal [and later has to wear a bark collar], dog is emaciated, “unknown” whether she “likes” other dogs. It was in fact found that dog had cancer.

Now anyone who does dog rescue will quickly realize, this dog is NOT a dog that should be chosen for rescue due to the obvious health and temperament issues, even eithout testing. And we haven’t mentioned liability.  Notice I have not mentioned breed of dog because to me, the dog’s breed is not really relevant.  Rescuer stated the dog was showering HER with kisses. However, this dog was described as later having “succeeded” in overcoming having to “defend” herself against other dogs BUT rescuer did add, she thought dog would be best as an only dog.  Rescuer did admit dog was fence fighting from her kennel, but not when in an excercise area close to dogs.

A year ago, Rescuer was alone with dogs in the boarding kennel,  and was handling THIS “miracle” dog [rescuer's words, not ours]….the “miracle” dog savagely attacked rescuer, grabbed her by the throat and face, arms, hands and legs, and attacked rescuer relentlessly…………..rescuer’s trachea was partially severed by dog.  She would require a lot of surgery and plastic surgery. Somehow she got to the phone to call 911 but survived and of course they did kill the dog. Rescuer was in intensive care and lucky to even regain her ability to talk. No, this dog was not a pitbull and Rescuer adamantly wanted people to know “it wasn’t a Boxer.” [Rescuer had formerly owned an all white dog which was similar looking and was a Boxer.]

This was all front page news with rescuers asking for donations toward the victim’s medical bills.  What is the point of this story? Look at this below– which is how the rescuer claimed that a dog which required a fee via adoption, was better than a dog which was free or low cost:

FREE DOG VS RE-HOMED, RESCUED, SHELTER DOG?

An example of what some “re-homed-rescued” groups/people like to tell people–that a free dog is not really ‘free’ after you pay for what the “re-homer” does for you.

Although this might be partially true,  the VERY first item the RESCUE PERSON listed are the words “behavior screening” -indicating that the ”adoption” dog has been screened.

Exactly what is that, who does it, and do the people who actually do the screening know what they are doing? Do the people who do this decide that all dogs can be rehabilitated, or are candidates for such a task? If so, how long will it take and who will they test the dog on? Adults? Kids? Will they use ATT testing methods or use the stick hand as used by Sue Sternberg? How long will they give the dog before they either adopt it out or give up? Will they adopt out dogs that they know have bitten, or suspect may have bitten, or have doubts as to the temperament? Was the dog returned after being adopted several times, or did the dog fail temperament shelter testing?

How many of the trainers/testers have any certification to do this testing? How long have the testers been testing dogs?

As you may know, there are not really any standardized certificates for those who may perform training/testing of dogs in shelters/rescues.  CGC is not usually used in shelters.  Although police dogs and therapy dogs may have a more diligent protocol, shelter dogs are often subject to whatever type of behavior assessment the particular shelter decides to use. Most testers are not necessarily professionally certified but have experience as shelter workers. And that is where the potential problem lies. 

Because we know that at least 50% if not slightly more, of the fatal attacks by canines are actually often done by ‘rescued’, ‘re-homed’, and ‘shelter’ dogs, does it not seem a little odd that the dogs which are in those categories (re-homed, rescued, shelter) —only make up 15-18% of owned dogs, out of approximately 65-70 million owned canines.

70,000,000 OWNED DOGS, United States

12,600,000 Re-homed/rescue/shelter obtained (18% of owned)

34 dog-human fatalities, US 50%+ of fatal attacks done by re-homed/rescue/shelter dogs———————————————————————————————————————-

As we can clearly see, the DISPROPORTIONATE percentage of 50%+ being caused by the group of re-homed, rescued, and shelter dogs is evident and very peculiar….

The question then becomes,  WHY would animal rights extremists believe that re-homing and rescuing every shelter dog is a GOOD idea? It could be because they believe every animal should be saved, every animal should be rehabilitated, every animal is its own being and deserves to live?

OR—could it be that animal extremists want the public to THINK that’s what they are doing but in reality they are allowing sub-standard temperament dogs to get out in society so they can BLAME the people who own dogs? And then lash out at how poorly they take care of them? and then create animal “abuse” laws out of anything they want to claim is “abuse”– such as selling, buying, even owning an animal? Owning an UN-sterilized animal in some places is “animal abuse”, and buying an UNsterilized animal will soon be “animal abuse.”

And then down the line—claim that all such dogs are “unadoptable” and kill them–but that was their goal in the first place?   If you have never rescued animals, especially dogs, then you do not know what goes on in rescuing canines. MANY die hard animal rescuers will take dogs that do NOT belong in the public arena, are known biters, and could be both aggressive and overly dominant with both dogs and people.

Despite there being a ton of dogs to choose from, they will pick the worst case scenario and then claim they can “re-hab” the dog, even when they are NOT professional dog trainers, not professional evaluators, nor professional anything for that matter. They will purposely choose sick dogs, elderly dogs, dogs with brain damage, dogs with incurable medical conditions, dogs that need surgery they cannot afford, dogs with highly contagious diseases. They will tell the sob stories of needing “donations” for these dogs, surgery for these dogs, therapy for these dogs. For example, breed specific “rescues” for Yorkies will sell damaged goods dogs, brain damage, one eye, 3 legs, etc, for $400-$750. This is not a joke. For ones that only bite (this is not a joke either) there is no discount. So it bites. So what. It’s a Yorkie. Yorkie, chihuahua, whatever. Many of them bite. No discount.

And the dogs with apparently nothing wrong will just sit there in the shelters. The highly adoptable dogs were gone as soon as they could be either auctioned off, or imported to another shelter which has no “adoptable” dogs like San Francisco, which has over 30 years of altering dogs in place and generally does not believe in the breeding of animals, but allows deviants of many types in society, to have free reign, such as live sex shows, gays everywhere, probably kiddie porn if you know where to look.

Now we ASK YOU— if animal extremists take in dogs like this and keep feeling sorry for the worst dogs, and then THINK they are capable of getting dogs homes—and are not professional dog evaluators or trainers—-should they even be allowed to take dogs like this from the get-go—when such damaged dogs should not even be rescued, re-homed or placed at all?  We know some will bring up the Vick fighting dogs. Basically we are not talking about former fighting dogs, but just any dog that has characteristics which openly indicate a professional would be needed, or whose status is so overwhelmingly bad that it is simply a waste of good money after bad to even attempt rescue. [The Vick dogs had 2million paid to rehab them. Most succeeded but several could not be, and are living their lives out at Best Friends]

And to imagine what MIGHT have happened if “AR Rescuer” had adopted OUT the “miracle” dog. OH boy. She’s lucky she wasn’t killed on the spot.

 [Altering a dog does not render it non-aggressive to people, that's just what the ARs love to say. Tethering a dog outside does not make a dog ruined. Sibes are usually staked outside. The potential damage to a dog which is tethered on too short of a tether and cannot get any exercise, could be that it does not get socialized. If you don't need a socialized dog and don't take it anywhere it likely won't matter. But to ARs-- everything matters because animals are people, or higher than people.]