I am prompted today to write about a soulful little pit bull name Oreo, who was tragically killed last week at the hands of the ASPCA. I had received an email from the ASPCA last year triumphantly telling Oreo’s story and how they bravely rescued her from her abusive owner. After Oreo’s extremely sad demise, I am thinking about what “humane euthanasia” is, and what it means to different organizations. I touched on this subject two weeks ago when I wrote about the “no-kill revolution”, and I will bring you back to the notion that a “no-kill shelter” means different things to different people, as does “humane euthanasia”.
Oreo was “rescued” last year by the ASPCA after being thrown off from a 6-story building by her extremely abusive owner. She was around one year old, and suffered two broken legs and a fractured rib. Her story was paraded around by the ASPCA and she was deemed the “miracle dog”. It was a very touching story of a dog that had suffered so much, and her upcoming road to recovery.
Last week, after determining that Oreo, at the age of 2, was deemed “too dangerous and unpredictable around people” the ASPCA decided that she could not possibly live a safe and fulfilled life, and they killed her via “humane euthanasia”. While this has outraged many (including myself), it brings many questions to the table by many different parties: What was the evaluation process that determined that Oreo was “too dangerous” and could not be rehabilitated? How much pain was she still in after recovering from her injuries, and had she been given enough time to recuperate and re-learn how to trust humans again? Had she ever even had the opportunity or reasons to trust a human at her young age? From my research, I have not been able to find any reliable information from the ASPCA giving any details of her evaluation, which they describe as “guarded information”.
I know I talk a lot about Best Friends Animal Society, and I do so because I honestly feel that they set the most wonderful example that a real animal welfare organization should display. Being so close with many different aspects of this sanctuary, as well as the employees that work there, I feel that I can speak knowledgably about some of the incidents there. I have seen so many examples of unbelievably aggressive dogs, among other extreme behaviors, being rehabilitated, that I personally have a very hard time believing that there was nothing further that could be done for Oreo. I do not believe that every dog in the world can be rehabilitated from past experiences 100% and be placed in a home, but I do strongly feel that they can be rehabilitated back into a state where they are living a happier like than they would be in the ground, if given the chance and the right expertise. Don’t we, as a society, owe it to dogs like Oreo? Considering the fact that it was our humane race that put her in the situation she was placed in in the first place? I for one am not convinced that Oreo was given a fighting chance, and I don’t believe that many dogs are in the shelters, because it is simply too easy to just kill them, and call it “humane”. Sad of a fact as it is, no one is help accountable for the deaths that occur in some shelters, and many times, are overlooked or even commended.
Despite what your personal belief on humane euthanasia may be, (I don’t believe common ground will ever be reached on that one) sometimes, especially in animal welfare, we must agree to disagree. I believe that in animal welfare there are 3 types of people. One group, the group who makes the right decisions and is currently bringing us closer to a day where there will be no more homeless pets, another group who wants the same end result, but has been educated wrongly or misguided and makes decisions that bring us further away from this goal, and then one who is just in this business for the wrong reasons. Ed Sayers, the President of the ASPCA, earning a $500,000 salary, falls into the last category for me, not solely for that reason…
Pets Alive, a no-kill sanctuary in New York offered to take in Oreo, and rehabilitate her to a point where she was living a quality life, and not threatening those around her. Last week, once they learned of Mr. Sayre’s plans to kill Oreo, they called and emailed him, as well as every other person listed on the ASPCA website. The ASPCA flat out either denied their help, or did not return their calls, or simply hung up on them. How in the world do we ever plan to fix our problems if we cannot work together, or at the very least rationally listen to each other? Are we really all that self-righteous that we cannot even consider accepting the help from someone else? Did they even consider it? If they did, they have not made any notions that they did, and why they did not accept the help.
My point is, no matter which group you are from above, you have to, as a person, accept the fact that you may not always have all of the answers, and sometimes, you might have to seek out help from other sources, because at the end of the day, we are in the business to help the animals; not to protect our image, or earn revenue, and if you are, then you sadly fall into the third group, and should seriously consider a career change.
This was a wonderful sanctuary in New York who was ready and willing to take all of the baggage that came with Oreo, simply because they wanted to SAVE HER LIFE. We are not doing these animals a favor by pulling them out of abusive homes and killing them. We have to find a better solution than just killing them and thinking it’s ok. If you don’t know the solution, then ask someone else who might. Instead of researching ways that they can prevent this from happening again, the ASPCA is busy posting letters of support from PETA, and defending themselves, while blindly throwing jabs at nearly everyone credited for the no-kill revolution.
On the other side of the fence, there are 2 people, New York Assembly Member Micah Z. Kellner and State Senator Thomas K. Duane who are planning to introduce a law to ensure that this does not happen again. “Oreo’s Law” will prevent organizations from killing an animal when there is another shelter or rescue that is willing and able to take them in. It is modeled after a similar law, Hayden Law, which was voted into California State with overwhelming acceptance and success in 1998. I encourage you to research and support this law, and the thought of never thinking you are too big, or the politics are too messy to help out our animals. At the end of the day, you will be judged on whether or not you did the right thing, and this killing, to me, was not the right thing. Whether you agree with me or not, keep your mind open and keep your best interest in the right place.
http://www.petsalive.com/oreo.html
At best, even if they had the best of intentions, this seems a foolish way to gain the respect and confidence of another not for profit agency. I can bet that in the future, the ASPCA will also not be willing to turn animals over to them.
Not a smart way to be networking, if your real concern is the animals. Just saying.
I am pretty sure the ASPCA has seen the tragic and liability results of this. It is the responsibility of the last person that passed this dog on for any potential injuries? What would make one assume that they ASPCA with all their vast experience in how this goes, everyday for countless dogs, wasn't the one to make the right and responsible decision?
It sounds kind of arrogant, especially when only pictures and e-mails were the determining factor of whether they could handle the dog.
It's a shame the fines for REAL abuse that is assumed to cause these behaviors is not fined to the point to hire the professionals to deal with it. That being said, without the known home where the animal is going to to be worked with, you are creating quite a potential risk.
As someone who has volunteered at a shelter where behaviorally challenged dogs were released to sub par homes, it's very unfortunate that so many others need to pay the price in pain and hospital bills when others who "know better" get involved.
I do agree somewhat with Mannerly Mutts in the respect that if you are going to advocate for the life of dogs with behavioral issues - you should take a few in yourself to help and to learn firsthand how much effort is put forth to help a dog such as Oreo have a chance at a successful life.
I do not agree that we lack training resources in this area - we have a wonderful supply of experienced trainers just here in Maine.
I do not agree that life in a shelter kennel is more humane than death - but I do believe that some dogs that show behavioral challenges in a shelter environment - evolve into different animals once in a less stressful environment and can often thrive with training and hard work.
Many animals die unnecessarily in shelters because of lack of resources.
More of an effort needs to be made by all of us to find qualified foster homes and training resources for these companion animals.
Shelter staff cannot do it all - shelters are understaffed and underpaid - but if all animal lovers chip in to network and support our shelters whether it be by offering to foster, clean kennels, raise funds, train dogs, and educate existing pet guardians - many more animals could be saved.
Why don't you try educating shelters on feasible options? Perhaps you know of some jails that need guard dogs? What are your solutions instead of playing the blame game? Again, perhaps you need to be where dogs go that are not going to thrive in a home.
I was not saying that Oreo could not thrive in a home, what I am saying is good luck finding a human that is 1) capable of it (due to the sad state of dog training especially in this geographical region) and 2) willing.
A good step might be to list out all the alternate routes that you know of that are willing to train and work with a dog to provide the alternate route.
As someone who has rehomed dogs of both stable and unstable natures, I say good luck to you, and I am hardly the problem. I work at this all the time, perhaps you should as well. Pointing fingers does noone any good. Perhaps you need to join the board of directors of a shelter and get in the trenches with them.
Good luck.
Unfortunately, it is attitude's and beliefs like yours that contribute to the reasons why we are still killing 4-5 million cats and dogs every year. I'm not suggesting that Oreo could have been rehabilitated and placed in a home, but you will not convince me that a life in the ground is better than ANY life on the ground. With an operating budget in the hundreds of millions, the ASPCA needs to come up with a better solution than killing when it comes to these dogs who are "damaged". Maybe Oreo never would have fit into a home environment, but I'm sure with that much money and that much "expertise" they could have found something better to offer her after they "rescued" her. This is the focus we need to start taking to stop the killing. We need to change our mindsets that killing is ok and warranted, because it is not.
Before judging, I would suggest you contemplate on the limited resources, undpaid staff, and the real dangers that can come with an unpredicatable dog. Perhaps there were concerns with the record of the agency willing to take on the project, OR that the agency may have not had experience with these issues.
It's easy to judge when you are not in the position of responsibility and keeping the public at large safe. Who will be fielding the fallout should the other organization fail? Or worse yet, adopt out to a humans who can not meet the needs of the dog?
I love behaviorally challenged dogs, and I do all that I can to ensure that they remain in their orginal home. However, I am always aware that my main concern is the safety of all living beings around the dog as well. I can only imagine the fallout if a law like this instead increases the amount dog injuries in the public. It will be bad for all humans and canines.