How Humane is the Ottawa Humane Society???

[TeeJay]

Hi Everyone

I’m doing a project for school on the current controversy with the Ottawa Humane Society. Many of you probably have not heard of what is happening there, so please find below Simone Powell and Kevin Skerrett’s story…..

On Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, a small black Lhasa Apso type dog ran past our house,
unaccompanied, looking lost and scared. We thought that the best way to reunite the dog with his owners was to bring him to the Ottawa Humane Society. When we dropped him off, we said that if the dog’s owners did not claim him, we were willing to adopt him. (We had been considering getting a dog but had not yet done so). They told us that there was a mandatory “impound period” of three days, after which time the dog would be assessed before being made available for adoption. We checked with the OHS daily and no one came forward to claim the dog. We again indicated our interest in adopting him and even started referring to him as “Henry.” On Monday, July 24, we learned that Henry had “failed” the temperament assessment and was deemed a “resource guarder” and would be euthanized. We immediately went to the shelter and spoke with the staff person who had conducted the assessment. We indicated that we understood the assessment and that this dog had special challenges that would require accommodation but that we were still willing to adopt him. We were prepared to hire a behaviourist, muzzle him if necessary, keep him away from children, and do whatever else that OHS staff recommended. We wanted to give this dog a chance. OHS staff informed us that there was no hope of rehabilitation. In spite of our pleas, we were refused. Henry was euthanized on Wednesday, July 26. Our experience left us extremely concerned about OHS policy and practice. We have learned that the type of testing used at the society is controversial. Many highly trained behaviourists have pointed out that such temperament assessments remain disputed as meaningful measures of canine aggression or real-world behaviour. In fact, some experts have reported that the OHS approach to testing has never been fully validated, and that much more research into their success rates is needed. We have written to the President of the OHS Board and to members of the Board requesting the opportunity to communicate with them directly about our concerns about OHS policies and practices. To date we have been refused. On September 6 we met with the OHS Executive Director and provided him with a list of information requests and proposed that the OHS conduct a full review of their euthanasia and animal assessment policies regarding both dogs and cats. The level of public interest generated by extensive media attention has confirmed for us that many people are unaware of what is happening at the OHS, and they too would like to see a comprehensive and transparent review of its policies and procedures. Hopefully, the launch of “Reform the OHS” will bring awareness and change...

Written by: Simone Powell and Kevin Skerrett

So, as you can see there is a strong controversial issue here. I would like to ask you, the animal community, to post your thoughts, opinions and feelings on this issue.

For further information:

www.reformtheohs.ca
This is the website of the campaign for the changes to the OHS. You can find media coverage, personal letters and updates on this issue.

 

[Chul3l3ies1126]

I have seen how they conduct these so called "temperment tests" and it is just so sad how they decide so quickly to kill the dog if it growls just a bit. A dog that is deprived of food or abused so much will be taken to a shelter and given food, he thinks wow this is great and starts eating it, then all of a sudden a plastic stick is pushing them and smacking their face and what else is a starving dog or person for that matter going to do?! Protect thier food that was just given to them willingly. That is what usually kills every dog in a shelter, the food aggression test. It is rare that a dog that is not taught when it is a puppy that it is ok to have someone pet you, will grow up to not be food aggressive. Personally i would never take any dog I find to a humane society, they are worthless if you ask me. They don't care and if it is going to cost them money and time then they'd rather kill it. I know that from experiance as well. Few dogs ever get second chances, that dog could've had one, but they denied it, that should be a crime.

 

[elegy]

so instead they were supposed to adopt out a temperamentally unsound dog into the hands of somebody they don't know and turn around and wait to get sued when the dog bites somebody? they flat out can't afford the risk or the liability. humane societies exist on a thin enough thread as it is.

i don't see that the ottawa humane society did anything wrong. adopting out aggressive dogs is a bad idea, period. it's not like there is a shortage of good tempered dogs in just as much need of a home.

 

[TeeJay]

Thank you for your participation in this issue. It's very interesting to see where people stand on this issue and you would be surprised that it's about 50/50 of the public input that the Ottawa Humane Society is doing something wrong. Some people feel they did and some people they didn't.

Does anyone else have an opinion, thought or feeling on this issue?
I really appreciate the participation

 

[Babyblue5290]

Why would what they did be wrong? They don't know those people and the people don't know how aggressive this dog was. Other then maybe giving out the wrong information, "there was no hope of rehabilitation" I don't think there was much they did wrong.

As sad as it is that the dog was put to sleep, do you really expect them to just adopt the dog out to any family that "Says" they are going to fix it? It's a liability issue. And as much as I see wrong with the temperment tests that are done, this shelter is by far the only one that does things this way.

 

[casablanca1]

'Temperament testing' has become the hot new thing in shelters, and if it's done well, it's a fair assessment and I think it's very valuable. I also think it's fair for the public to demand an explanation of the specific techniques their local shelter uses to test temperament, because there is currently no standard, universally used and proven test. But - I would hate to see a good test system discarded or weakened to uselessness because of unthinking public outcry over the euthanization of one dog. When a shelter is caring for and taking responsibility for an ownerless dog, with the expectation of being able to adopt that dog out to an ordinary loving home, it needs to be able to euthanize dogs which fail a fair temperament test. Which means a test done after the dog has a few days to settle in, adjust, get over medical issues, etc., as well as other issues. But if that's a good test, I understand why the shelter was unwilling to release the dog. It's hard, but even people who have owned many dogs before do not understand the reality of a biter unless they've been unfortunate enough to meet one. Dogs who are willing to use force to control people are very scary and very dangerous. They require lifelong management, and are always a potential lawsuit. It's sad.

 

[SeniorPetLover]

As someone who volunteers in a shelter, I can honestly say that many of the dogs are traumatized by the time they reach there and their behavior is not necessarily indicative of future behavior. I'm not in full agreement with the methods some shelters use to do temperment tests...I watched a program the other day about an animal shelter and they did food aggression tests by sticking a plastic hand in a dogs face CONTINUALLY while the poor thing was trying to eat...it took several attempts before the dog got angry enough to bite the hand, but once he did, he was labeled aggressive and sentenced to death...heck...I probably would have bit her too...I have several very loving dogs at my own sanctuary that were deemed unadoptable by local groups...sometimes it takes months before these dogs calm down and settle in...I believe that many of the animals that are presently being euthanized could be good pets, the problem is that shelters just don't have the resources to devote to training the animals and liability is an issue both from the adoption standpoint but also for shelter workers...we are living in a litigious society and organizations have to protect themselves against lawsuits and they have to protect their employees as well...it often boils down to money though...the theory is that more dogs can be helped with the resources that it would take to get the "problem" dogs ready to be adopted, so the resources are put toward those dogs and the others are disposed of...after many years in rescue, I have come to agree that you cannot save them all, and you can do the most good by serving the most dogs...it is a matter of economics...I sit on the board of directors of a Humane Society and I understand both sides of the issue...that is why I was inclined to start my own facility for some of the ones that would have fallen through the cracks...had this situation happened in my neck of the woods, the little dog probably would have ended up with me...one other thing that I have noticed after my years in this business is that sometimes good dogs do develop an attitude after months of "incarceration"...serving time in a shelter can screw up perfectly good dogs if they are left there too long...there is nothing like a home enviornment...

 

[TeeJay]

Great posts everyone....

Now, why do you think the Ottawa Humane Society is refusing to release their euthanization statistics for the past years? Is it because they don't want people to make assumptions about WHY their are a certain amount of cats/dogs euthanized on an annual basis or do you think it's because they have something to hide? What are the other reasons?

Also, it has been said that an animal in the shelter is not "themself" because they're frightened, hungry, tired, stressed, etc. This was actually agreed by an animal behaviour expert in one of the newspaper articles concerning this issue. What would you suggest be a reasonable assessment to determine the animals temperment under these circumstances?

 

[Delisay]

OMG ... the thing that I can't get past is that it was 8 days from lost to murdered. 8 days.

Imagine if that were your loved pet ... and you didn't know about an organisation called the Ottowa Inhumane Society...doh, Humane... and were searching the other shelters first before you found out... (Some loving pet owners aren't even really aware that shelters exist, so searching would be a first-time learning process for them.) Or perhaps you were on holiday for two weeks...or one week...and your dog-sitting neighbours weren't familiar... Or your dog wondered further than you thought, so searching in that area was going to be Plan B...

8 days to dead. That's horrifying for true lost pet dogs, and cannot be justified. From time to time mistakes and escapes happen, and 'humane' allowance needs to be made for that.

Del.

 

[casablanca1]

Also, it has been said that an animal in the shelter is not "themself" because they're frightened, hungry, tired, stressed, etc. This was actually agreed by an animal behaviour expert in one of the newspaper articles concerning this issue. What would you suggest be a reasonable assessment to determine the animals temperment under these circumstances?

Well, I think there should be certain considerations given to making the test fair, ie, you don't do a resource guarding test when the dog's just been brought in with every rib showing. But I think it's reasonable to do a test under standard shelter conditions after the dog's had a chance to adjust to it. Most family situations will include circumstances that make the animal tired, hungry, stressed, frightened, etc. Aggressive dogs always have reasons for their violent behavior, mostly fear or anxiety about losing a resource or having their power challenged. The idea behind temperament testing isn't to search for dogs who behave violently when they're happy, fed and comfortable, it's to weed out dogs who find it acceptable to behave violently toward humans or other dogs when they're stressed.

 

[moxiegrl]

I can see both sides of this. Adopting out a dog who has failed this test can be a liability. However, if these people were aware of the liability, couldnt proper paperwork be drawn up to release the OHS from this?

I do know that 8 DAYS is not long enough for anything. Whether it be an adjustment period, waiting for owners to contact them, that is just WAY TO FAST to euthanize the dog. And I do think its suspicious that they will not release their records, if they have nothing to hide it shouldnt be an issue.

 

[Boemy]

I think in this case they should have explained carefully to the guy who was interested exactly what the temperament test results meant, helped him find a trainer if the dog had severe issues, and adopted the dog out. After all, the guy was specifically interested in THAT DOG and could have saved a life.

But I certainly think temperament testing is a good idea. Wouldn't you want to know whether a dog was good with cats or not if you had kitties? And remember, not all places put dogs to sleep if they "fail" part of the test. Our humane societies just inform people that a dog has food guarding issues or doesn't like to be hugged or whatever.

As bleak as it sounds, if a particular shelter has severe overcrowding problems, I can understand why they would put to sleep dogs who failed parts of the test. Hypothetical situation: If you have 1000 dogs but only enough room/money to keep 400 dogs and 300 of the dogs fail part of the temperament test . . . then the other 700 dogs will be the most adoptable and the least likely to be re-dumped. And you would STILL have to put 300 of the "passing" dogs to sleep!

I don't know if the Ottawa Humane Society has a situation like that, but it's possible. I wish every dog could get a good home, but there are just too many dogs and not enough responsible people.

In this specific instance, though, I do think they should have adopted out that dog.

 

[yoko]

well most of the time i sympathize with the HS. there are a lot of dogs that can be readopted out. if they have to choose between a dog that has a problem that would make it harder to adopt out or have them sued or a dog with no known problems i understand their choice. but in a case like this where the person was interested in that dog, knew the risks and we're willing to do what was needed for the dog i think they should have allowed them to adopt with certain conditions.

 

[Dave-W]

I wonder just how many Police "K9"s would pass the Food Test.

 

[mrose_s]

henry's story seems sad

 

[Amstaffer]

I stopped volunteering at the local humane society because they PTS a 8 week old pit bull puppy because it was "aggressive". I had been around the puppy and it was mouthy but no more than Sal and Athena were at that age and they have yet to get their first kill

I think many of these termperment testers are too quick to pull the "plug" and often don't understand the differences between breeds or are influence by their own breed bias. Some of them make bad decision because they are having a bad day. (There are lots of great volunteer tempermant testers but a few cause wonderful dogs to be put down)

With all the lawyers in this world they should be able drawn up papers to protect the HS from liablity in cases like the OP mentioned.

 

[casablanca1]

I don't know what the story is with this organization in particular, but I think in general, even if there's someone willing to adopt an aggressive dog, willing to sign a document releasing the organization from responsibility, etc., the organization shouldn't give them the dog. Shelters have to protect their own reputation if they want to continue to be effective, and they usually have a sense of responsibility toward the larger question of how we fit potentially deadly predators into our society. If enough bad dogs re-enter the community from shelters, it'll invalidate shelters as a good source of pets and eventually make all dogs look dangerous.

It seems harsh, when there's someone willing to take the dog, to say "the dog should be killed instead," but if there's a real aggression problem with the dog, the shelter has to consider that most people have never met a bad dog. Most dogs are great, and most people love dogs. We tend to assume the best about them, and a biting dog is hard to comprehend for most people, as if you asked them to believe in a fairy tale. People with aggressive dogs are almost always irresponsible with them. It comes with the territory. They love their dog, they're a little afraid of them, it's hard to manage them 24/7, and they let them get too much rein every so often. Then the dog gets away from them and bites a toddler in the face, maims another dog, attacks a man, etc. There are people who manage aggressive dogs fairly successfully, but I think it's only justifiable with a dog who already has a loving, committed owner who has already made a major emotional investment in the dog before the aggression became obvious. I am a little doubtful that the people in this case, who seem motivated largely by sympathy and pity for the stray they found, have a clear understanding what they might be getting into.

 

[lakotasong]

Are the laws regarding non profit organizations different in Canada than in the US?

The shelters I've dealt with in the US produce an annual report releasing impound, adoption and euthanasia statistics. Questions regarding the animal shelter's euthanasia rates, temperament test procedures, etc. can be discussed at annual meetings (which our local 501(c)3 shelters are LEGALLY obligated to host). Find out what the laws are regarding 501(c)3s in Canada, and if shelters are in fact considered that type of organization.

 

[BostonBanker]

I believe that temperment testing, done correctly, is a very good indicator of potential problems with a dog. The few shelters/rescues I've been involved with will often take dogs who have failed one portion of the test and work with them to make them adoptable. A friend of mine has a wonderful dog who guarded the pig ear during her test. The shelter contacted my friend to work on the dog's resource guarding, and she eventually decided to keep her.

However, I would have a very hard time judging a shelter that euthanized based on a failed TT. I wasn't there - I don't know how badly the dog reacted to the test. I know nothing about the financial situations of that shelter, or the staff they have that can work with the dogs. I couldn't judge based on the information given.

Shelters have to protect their own reputation if they want to continue to be effective

This is something I've discussed with rescue people before. One of the worst things that can happen is to have dogs fail in their new homes. We've all heard people say how rescue dogs "always have issues". That's why people choose to go out and get puppies instead. Every time I get a compliment on my dog (who passed a test with flying colors, and wouldn't snap no matter how much you shoved your hand in her face), I make sure to mention the rescue I got her from. People need to know you can get wonderful dogs that way.

 

[TeeJay]

The point of the policy review in Ottawa is to examine the current policies on euthanasia and the full range of options for rehabilitation of animals with medical or behavioural challenges.

The following is the "Reform the Ottawa Humane Society" (the campaign that has brought this issue to the table) proposals for the Board of Directors of the OHS:


•Initiate a full review of OHS polices and practices regarding assessment of animals and euthanasia. Furthermore, this review should be done by independent outside experts and should allow for public scrutiny and input;

•Implement an appeal process for cases where there is dispute about animals being deemed to be unadoptable and subject to euthanasia;

•Establish a rehabilitation program for dogs deemed to have behaviour and/or temperament issues and to direct fundraising efforts towards such a program;

•Implement an assessment process that is grounded in the most current research and best practices;

•Make clear to the public their current process for assessing animals and that animals that fail this assessment process will be euthanized; and

•Publish their statistics on euthanasia.


Instead of euthanization, do you think rehabilitation and targeted fostering and adoption progams should be a second option?

Do you think a HS should HAVE to publish their euthanasia statistics? (it mentioned above that in the US there is legislation that forces these types of groups to publish statistics, I haven't researched the Canadian regulations yet)

Do you think there should be an appeal program (for those who dispute an "unadoptable" dog) ?

Do you think the public should have a say in the assessment procedures? (especially since the HS is publicly supported through charities and donations)




Thanks again everyone for participating in these questions...