How Humane is the Ottawa Humane Society???

I think the majority of the public is so uneducated on dogs that that would be a disaster. Why listen to ten thousand uneducated people instead of one expert who knows what he's talking about? Our sewers are publicly funded too, but we let the engineers decide how they're going to set them up, not some guy on the street.

My worry with this is that people who found stray dogs wouldn't turn them in at all, but would just let them continue wandering on the streets. Euthanasia is a kinder death than starvation or being hit by a car.

If volunteers worked on rehabilitating dogs for free, that's great, but absolutely no money should go towards it, IMO, UNLESS the shelter has a surplus of space and money. The city humane society here ran so short of funds that they were begging for donations of kitty litter and using shredded newspaper in the mean time. They could only spend money on rehabilitating animals with problems if they put other animals to sleep so they wouldn't have to feed/shelter them. And that would be silly.

Again, this would be a money sponge.

I certainly support all of these.

Yes. The best foster care program I have seen in a shelter was run by dedicated volunteers (Foster Care Coordinator who did paperwork and phone calls, other volunteers who did home checks). If done properly, a great foster care program can be implemented while using little to no funds.

Yes.

No. With a proper temperament testing program, this won't be needed, IMO.

I don't think that the general public sould, no. But perhaps allow input from local kennel clubs, veterinarians, etc.

The general public most likely would not have contact with stray dogs that would not pass a temperament test. If a dog is human aggressive, John Doe is very unlikely to be able to catch said stray dog, load it into a vehicle and safely deposit it at the shelter. Animal control would be called, instead.

The second shelter I worked at would tell people that if the dog showed signs of A, B, C or D, it would be euthanized. The owners dropping off these dogs, even when told this, often didn't care either way.

I think the public needs to be aware of the euthanasia policies so that they can make better decisions for the dogs they own, and are considering turning into the shelter. If they realize that their dog does not meet the temperament test requirements, they might be more likely to take the dog to a vet and have it euthanized rather than let the dog sit for it's required holding time in a stressful shelter environment, and then be euthanized by strangers. However, as noted in the previous paragraph, you'll always have losers who will drop a dog off at a shelter, knowing that it is too aggressive to be rehomed. These people can't face up to the responsibility and look for the easy way out (ie: dumping at the shelter).

Just my two cents.

I posted a thread about this same story a while back.

You can find it here.

http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35239

This question has been asked on several of the forums I belong to, and I will say the same thing ive said before:

There are plenty of dogs that have superb temperments. Why take away their chance of adoption by adopting out a potentially unstable dog. If this dog would have been a pit bull or another controversial breed you can bet the people who found the dog would have been cheering them on to euthanize.

The Doberman who killed the woman was in the same situation as this Lhasa. He was deemed dangerous, and instead of being PTS like requested he was adopted out. He went on and killed a woman. Now what if this Lhasa were also adopted out and killed one of the children? Its not unheard of, as I know a Pomeranian killed a child and Lhasa Apsos are much bigger and sturdier than a Pom.

We cant risk adopting out an unstable dog. There are already plenty of people who think all shelter dogs are bad, so why add to that horrible misconception?