The Real Problem -- (Reply)

(Picture left: He's a happy boy now, but when rescued in August of 2008, Chance was on shelter Euth list for "Severely aggressive behavior.")

In a message dated 11/29/2009 4:01:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Anonymous writes:
Wonderful insight into the world of dog rescuing and chow chows. I'd like to know what are the procedures and reasoning behind these temperament tests. Are there natural biases being applied by any given volunteer who happens to perform the test or is it the process in general?

Reply: You ask very good and complicated-to-answer questions.

Personally, I believe the main reason for the tests is protection from possible lawsuits resulting from a adopted dog potentially biting someone.

Of course whether a rescuer or a shelter doing animal adoptions, we all have to worry about any negative repercussions resulting from an adoption we do.

None of us want to learn that an animal we placed in a home has caused harm or injury to someone even if not specifically concerned over lawsuits.

But, the reality is there is NO 100% way of predicting or determining how any given animal may act in every perceivable situation. We are, after all dealing with animals, not computers or robots that we can "program" and "predict."

Add to that, the difficulty of trying to "evaluate" a dog's true temperament or possible behavior in a home when the dog is being held in the unnatural setting of a crowded and noisy municipal pound.

The sheer stress, disorientation, fear and possible depression most animals suffer when abandoned to a pound situation is enough to seriously alter their natural behaviors and reactions.

Actual aggressive dogs might feel intimidated in a shelter situation and behave in a deceptively passive or even docile manner. Such dogs will often "score" well on the SAFER tests.

On the other hand, formerly pampered dogs (particularly small ones) often panic in a shelter and act out in defensive or even aggressive manner. (Chance, my Pomeranian is a good example of this, although the shelter never officially SAFER tested him. He was too "aggressive" and resistant to any handling at all. Chance attempted to bite everyone in the shelter.)

Then, there are protective dogs like Chows, Rottweilers or German Shepherds (known for loyalty to owners) who are naturally wary of strangers. These breeds will often flunk the "tag," "pinch" or resource guarding parts of the SAFER tests. (For some reason, many Cocker Spaniels also fail food and resource guarding parts of the test.)

I have many problems with the SAFER tests as a matter of POLICY, one of which is its abysmal failure to differentiate among dog breeds.

There can be no reliable "one size fits all" Behavior Test for dogs. Breeds were created with different purposes and attributes in mind. To expect a German Shepherd or Rottie to behave or react like a Shih-Tzu is, (to my mind) pure lunacy.

So how DO shelters or rescues try to determine potentially aggressive dogs from those who are simply anxious or wigged out in a shelter environment?

That is not easy -- especially when the dog has been turned in as a "stray" and there is no history or "Owner Profile" on the animal.

I believe that instead of devoting so much time and resource to so-called SAFER tests, shelters need to PRIORTIZE getting as much history and BACKGROUND on the dogs as possible:

Where did the dog come from? What were the conditions in which the animal lived? If owned, was the dog owned by one individual or a family? Did the dog live with other animals? Etc., etc.....

If the dog arrives at the shelter as a severe cruelty or neglect case, (such as "Oreo" the formerly abused ASPCA dog euthanized after 5 months of medical treatment in the shelter) then special allowances need to be made for that. Usually, these dogs cannot be adopted directly to the public, but rather need to go to special trainers or rehabilitation centers if they are to be saved.

One cannot expect a formerly traumatized and/or tortured, starved dog to score like Lassie on a SAFER test. -- Again, pure lunacy.

Another way to get an idea of a dog's true temperament is information and input from shelter dog walkers and experienced, knowledgeable volunteers or shelter dog handlers.

Those who spend actual TIME with the dogs and walk or feed them usually have a much better handle on the dogs' true natures, then an individual paid to do a ten-minute temperament "evaluation" on the animals under high stress and unnatural circumstances. Gilbert's case was a good example of this. The shelter volunteer was able to better gage the dog's normal behavior than the so-called "SAFER test" wrongly determined.

The bottom line reality is that WE DON'T HAVE HOMES FOR ALL THE CATS AND DOGS ARRIVING AT ANIMAL SHELTERS. NOR, DO CITIES AND TOWNS MAKE THE BUILDING OF ADEQUATE AND TRULY HUMANE ANIMAL SHELTERS ANY KIND OF PRIORITY.

We are killing millions of animals a year due to lack of human responsibility, failures to spay and neuter and pet overpopulation. Most of all, we are killing due to a lack of loving and responsible homes to send the animals to. Too many people BUY animals from back yard breeders and pet stores. Too many people fail to neuter animals. And too many people abandon pets to shelters or streets.

But, instead of the putting the responsibility (or blame) where it truly belongs (with the PUBLIC and the politicians), we put it on the animals by claiming that they "fail" their SAFER "temperament" tests. There is "something wrong" with them.

In short, as conducted now, I believe the SAFER tests should be eliminated from all shelters as they, at best are unreliable and given to great errors and at worst, simply used as (usually false) justification to kill shelter dogs.

I understand shelters have to "euthanize" for all the reasons emphasized above.

But, lets me HONEST about the real reasons we are killing the animals, instead of dressing it up in "blame the victims and pacify the public" gift wrap (i.e. "The animals are old, sick or vicious.")

That is what is truly inexcusable and unconscionable as it insures we will NEVER address or solve the real problem -- human irresponsibility. -- PCA

*********

A Number to Ponder

(Picture Left: Gilbert -- One, very fortunate Chow Mix)

The past few weeks have thankfully seen some increase in adoption inquiries, adoptions and new rescues.

Perhaps these are the first indications that things might finally be turning around in the grim economy -- or, at least just a bit. There seems to be some room for new optimism.

One of our dogs recently rescued is Gilbert.

Gilbert is a 4-year-old black Chow who arrived at the city shelter (AC&C) early in November after being abandoned in an apartment after his former owners moved out and left him.

Gilbert is a peaceful, seemingly well trained dog who was put into Adoptions shortly after arriving at the pound -- something very unusual for a Chow. Due to their general aloofness and reserve with new people, most Chows don't make into the adoption wards of shelters.

Those times when a Chow does, it is something to behold.

Alas however, Gilbert did not stay in the AC&C adoption ward long.

A day or two later, the shelter conducted a SAFER ("temperament") test on Gilbert and he dismally failed the "dog-to-dog" part of it, garnishing a "5" -- the worst rating a dog can get.

Gilbert was immediately pulled from the Adoption Ward (located in a garage) and put into the main building where his fate was certain death unless taken out in rescue.

Workers at the shelter then called me asking if we could take Gilbert.

I, of course had concerns about the "dog-to-dog" behavioral rating, but long experiences with both the shelter and the controversial "Behavior Tests" have taught me never to take the SAFERS at face value.

I requested one of the volunteers at the shelter (who I know and trust) to do a separate evaluation and let me know her thoughts.

"Jane" (not her real name) thankfully obliged and later told me that Gilbert showed no aggression towards other dogs when taken for walks. Once again, the SAFER test was put to question.

"I don't know how they came up with a '5' on Gilbert's dog-to-dog," Jane said with frustration. "I've walked him by many dogs, including some who are dog aggressive and Gilbert shows absolutely no reaction."

Feeling more assurance with Jane's words, I went to the shelter to see Gilbert myself and my experiences with him and other dogs were exactly the same as Jane's. He seemed a very peaceful and mellow dog.

I then told Jesse, the New Hope Rescue Coordinator, that we would try to take Gilbert, but I needed a couple of days to advertise and try to find a foster for the black Chow.

"Oh, that's good," Jesse remarked. "He's already on the Euth list for tomorrow. I will pull him for now, but you need to get him out. How soon can you take him?"

"Jesse, I can't make promises!" I replied with some exasperation. "I will do my best to come up with something, but you know how this goes. Right now, we are full in boarding and foster. I have to hope we get lucky in finding a suitable foster. -- I will TRY."

"Oh, well you always find people," Jesse quipped cheerfully. "Just let me know," she smiled.

Jesse was a lot more optimistic than I was.

The following day we advertised Gilbert on several adoption sites, along with another dog, "Lady," an older, very sweet little Shepherd mix who had also hit the Euth list due to Kennel Cough. We had already committed to saving Lady.

As luck would have it, I did receive one very good offer for foster that day.

"Chris" and his finance, Jen are a youngish couple from Manhattan's Upper West Side who were thinking of adopting a dog, but saw our desperate foster "life or death" ads for Lady and Gilbert.

"We'd like to help," Chris told me. "Which dog is more urgent?"

"To be honest, they're both urgent," I replied. "I realize you can't take both dogs, but if you can take one, we can try to get the other one into emergency boarding."

Later that evening I met Chris and Jen at the shelter, along with a couple of my volunteers, Firouzeh and her boyfriend, Michael who were there to help with dog photos and other matters.

I was almost sure Chris and Jen would take Lady who is a smallish and very sweet and ingratiating dog, but for some reason, they took more to Gilbert.

Gilbert too, responded very well to the young couple.

Within an hour or so, Chris and Jen were on their way home with Gilbert in the back seat of their car while Firouzeh, Michael and I took Lady to a boarding facility on the Upper East Side, where a few days later, the affectionate, gentle mutt was successfully adopted.

At no time when we had the two dogs together, did Gilbert act anything but the perfect gentleman around Lady.

It was still a mystery on how Gilbert scored a "5" on his dog-to-dog behavior test. Nevertheless, it was something I had to point out to and warn his new foster people about.

"Watch him around other dogs," I cautioned. "Even though Gilbert was good with Lady and seems OK with dogs on the street, he must have shown some reaction to whatever dog they tested him with in the shelter."

Yesterday, I called Chris to inquire how things were going with Gilbert being that the couple now had the Chow for more than two weeks.

The news was nothing but positive. -- so good, in fact, that the couple is going to officially adopt Gilbert this Monday.

Chris told me that not only is Gilbert great with every dog encountered in Central Park, but also good with the family CATS in Connecticut where the couple and their new dog were spending the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

So much for Gilbert's "animal-to-animal aggression."

We will never know of course why this animal-friendly dog scored so deceptively and badly on the so-called SAFER ("temperament") test in terms of other dogs.

Is it the stress of being abandoned and winding up in a crowded city pound? Is it the unnatural way the test is conducted? (Putting two strange dogs face to face in a small room and then scoring how they "react.") Or, was there "something" about the tester dog that for some reason, put Gilbert on the defensive? The "something" about the other dog could be anything from a medical condition to sex of the dog to fear or some other "energy" emanating from the tester animal.

There are in fact, so many variables when these SAFER tests are conducted in a city pound that any kind of reliance on them is foolhardy at best and totally misleading and dog-condemning at worst.

Gilbert is simply a very fortunate dog that a number of people from a shelter volunteer, to myself, to his ultimate adopters were able to perceive the real dog underneath the inaccurate, disparaging and scary shelter "Behavior" label.

The question to wonder about is, "What if, one day, one of these negative behavior evals turns out to be right?" (So far, at least for us, that "What if" has never occurred.)

Another, even more important question to wonder of:

How many good dogs, not so fortunate as Gilbert have actually died due to faulty and inaccurate SAFER tests?

I shudder to think of that number -- or the faces and actual, gentle souls behind it. -- PCA

*********

Response to ASPCA Generic Letter

My personal response to the ASPCA's public information letter:

Dear Generic ASPCA Public Information:

The PR robotic response below addresses none of the questions or statements of my first communication with the ASPCA, nor does it refer to Oreo, a young Pitbull who suffered horrendous abuse at the hands of her former owner with any sense of empathy or understanding.

On the contrary, the ASPCA seems determined to paint this victim of cruelty in the worst possible light in order to justify the "A's" arbitrary decision to end Oreo's short, painful and miserable life.

In some ways, it reminds one of those lawyers who have attempted to blame rape victims for their own rapes by putting a woman's past or style of dress on trial ("She brought the rape on herself!")

By describing and labeling Oreo as "untreatably aggressive" the ASPCA raises many questions -- Questions that have yet to be answered.

What exactly is, "untreatably aggressive?"

Did Oreo arrive at the ASPCA with a history of biting, fighting or attacking either humans or other pets? Did she bite or attack her human abuser who reportedly beat her with regularity and threw her from a roof top? Did she attack residents of the Brooklyn neighborhood she came from?

When suitably recovered from her broken legs and fractured rib, was Oreo regularly walked in the neighborhood by an ASPCA staffer or volunteer?

If so, would it not put the people and pets residing on Manhattan's crowded Upper East Side at great risk of attack from an "unrtreatably aggressive" dog?

If not, would it not be considered "cruel" to keep a young and ordinarily very active Pitbull confined to a small cage almost 24/7 for five months? Wouldn't most normal dogs go insane (and become "aggressive") from long term confinement (and isolation) in a cage?

How exactly were Oreo's needs for exercise met? Was she run on a treadmill? Exercised in a yard? Walked on the streets?

According to dog expert, Cesar Millan, a dog's number one need is "exercise."

If Oreo was so "aggressive" and "unpredictable" that it was impossible for staffers at the ASPCA to walk her on busy Manhattan streets, properly socialize or "rehabilitate" her, what attempts were made to send Oreo to a more suitable environment and rehabilitation center such as Best Friends ("Dogtown") in Utah or even Cesar Millan's dog center in California?

Best Friends is an organization that has taken in and rehabilitated many dogs (from shelters) with major behavioral and aggression issues, including most of Michael Vick's dogs. Surely, they would have taken Oreo if approached. Oreo was a very special and high profile media case. (Ditto, one might suspect with Cesar Millan.)

The question is: WAS Best Friends contacted and requested to take in Oreo and work with her? If so, what was their response?

How does the ASPCA know Oreo's "aggression" was "untreatable" if no attempt was made to send this dog to a more suitable and appropriate environment that would allow for proper exercise, stimulation, time, expert care and possible rehabilitation?

If most of Michael's Vicks "fighting dogs" could be rehabilitated in a proper environment, why couldn't Oreo?

Oreo was a very young dog whose behavior presumably could have been modified and worked with over time in a more nurturing, natural and suitable environment.

Expecting a horribly abused, fearful dog to magically transform into "Lassie" while confined to a smallish and busy brick and mortar shelter on Manhattan's congested Upper East Side seems unrealistic and lacking in understanding of bully breed behavior and regular canine needs for exercise, peace and stability.

Finally, attempts to discredit all those who question or criticize this decision by the ASPCA to kill Oreo seems, once again, like a cheap lawyer tactic to "attack the credibility of witnesses for the opposition" as well as to divert the issue.

It isn't Pets Alive who is at issue here for simply offering to take and attempt to work with Oreo.

It's the ASPCA for not allowing this victim of cruelty and abuse ANY "second chance" and instead, seemingly blaming Oreo for her own execution.

In doing so, the ASPCA has not only killed one dog for whom we will never know whether rehabilitation was possible or not, but unfortunately, has also tainted and shown all other Pitbulls and shelter dogs in an extremely derogatory and damanging light.

Instead of saying "we are killing these dogs because there are far too many and we don't have the homes for them" (which would put most of the blame rightfully on the public), the ASPCA claims instead, to kill because there is something wrong with the animals:

i.e. Blame the victims.

What a horrible message and death knell for the animals.

The ASPCA should be ashamed of itself.

Patty Adjamine,
New York City

<<<

Thank you for contacting the ASPCA - America’s first humane organization – regarding Oreo. It is important that our members have a voice in what happens in our organization – your willingness to take the time to send a message is truly appreciated. Due to the large volume of phone calls, mail and e-mails, we apologize for a generic response to your message, but please know that each and every communication is thoroughly read.A great deal of misinformation regarding Oreo’s euthanasia has been passed around on the Internet-- everything from what time Oreo was euthanized (it was 3 p.m.) to Pets Alive’s credentials (they are NOT a member of the Mayor’s Alliance). In addition, critics have seized on Oreo’s plight as an opportunity to discredit the ASPCA—which is interesting when you consider that one of our most ardent critics, Camille Hankins, the Director of Win Animal Rights, was convicted of animal cruelty in 1995 when nearly 100 animals were found stuffed into a tiny, filthy trailer that she rented.While we certainly think all of these issues merit rebuttal, we believe it is critical that we address the questions and concerns regarding our decision not to send Oreo to a sanctuary.It is first vital to consider the very definition of “animal sanctuary.” The mission of animal sanctuaries is generally to be safe havens, where the resident animals are given the opportunity to behave as naturally as possible in a protective environment. Due to the extreme emotional and physical strain Oreo suffered, her living conditions at a sanctuary would have been anything but "natural," and her quality of life would have been poor at best. She would have been forced to live a life of isolation with extremely limited human contact and virtually no animal contact. For an animal that is distinguished by sophisticated social cognition and communication, such an existence could hardly be defined by the word "sanctuary."Many groups like Pets Alive dispute that this would have been Oreo’s fate. But how can that be anything but empty rhetoric when these groups had no access to Oreo or her evaluations? We had our own professional behaviorists, as well as an independent veterinary behaviorist, conduct numerous evaluations, and in our experience, the findings were not consistent with sanctuary placement. We spent five months with Oreo- day in and day out- not only evaluating her behavior—but trying to rehabilitate her. This is central to the ASPCA’s mission. Just since 2003, when Edwin Sayres joined the ASPCA, we have rehabilitated over 1,200 animal cruelty victims at a cost of over 5 million dollars. Why would Oreo be any different?The fact is… she wasn’t. Despite the sensational nature of her injuries, she was treated with the same love and respect—and given the greatest of care and rehabilitation-- that we afford all of our animals. But at the end of the day, and more often than the animal welfare community discusses, we made the most humane decision we could. There is no “Oreo conspiracy,” as some have claimed. This is simply, and tragically, the case of a heartbreaking decision made all the more difficult by the ignorance and hypocrisy of a few.Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to email us again.

Sincerely,ASPCA Public Information >>>
publicinformation@aspca.org

Setting Animal Protection Back 100 Years (Reply)

(Picture Left: "Nia" and Chris. Nia is a fabulous "Throwaway Mama" Pitbull that we rescued from death at the AC&C almost a year ago. All this time, this loving and dog friendly, child friendly dog has languished in boarding. Our abilities to place loving Pitties like Nia is now further hampered by the ASPCA's distruction of Oreo and false rationalization for it.)

Cubby's Daddy Writes: A high visibility organization with the massive funding and community standing of the ASPCA has a responsibility to set an example. By killing Oreo, the example they set is that it's ok to put down pitbulls because they are "aggressive" and can not be rehabilitated. The average person knows nothing about this breed except what they hear on the news. They think all pits are dangerous and should be put down. The ASPCA has done nothing but re-affirm that misconception. People are the problem, not the pitties.

Reply: The wisdom of your comment cannot be emphasized enough.

As powerful "role model" to almost the entire animal protection movement, the ASPCA has sent a silent message to the media and the public at large in its needless and unjustifiable execution of Oreo.

The message is that Pitbulls are aggressive and beyond redemption and should be put down in order to "protect the public."

What the ASPCA doesn't say is that according to insiders who knew Oreo, the dog was not aggressive at all. Vets had no problems in treating Oreo or volunteer dog walkers in walking Oreo.

Ah, but alas, Oreo (a former victim of beatings by her owner and being thrown from a rooftop) didn't fair well on her so-called, "Behavior Test." She charged a plastic hand dangled in front of her face.

My, my. Surprise, surprise.

I wonder what my dogs would do were I to dangle a plastic hand in front of their faces? Sadly, I can't answer that question as I've never had occasion to tease or torment my dogs with a plastic hand. I suspect, Chance, my Pomeranian might "charge" a plastic hand. Perhaps I should have him put down as a "danger" to the public?

What is particularly distressing about the ASPCA's killing of this particular dog is not just the actual execution, but the ASPCA's justification and rationale for it.

"Blaming the victim," so to speak.

One might be a little more understanding of the ASPCA position had they said something like:

"More than 90% of the dogs we get in from cruelty cases are Pitbulls. More than 80% of the dogs arriving at city Animal Control shelters are Pitbulls and Pit mixes.
Tragically, we don't have the responsible and capable homes to place all of these dogs into. We are forced to kill most Pitbulls because there is no reputable placement for the majority of them."

Had the ASPCA said the above, while representing TRUTH, it still would not have justified the killing of Oreo, because this particular dog DID have placement offer through a reputable and capable sanctuary ("Pets Alive"). If (as said yesterday) the ASPCA didn't like the particular shelter, they could have appealed to Best Friends in Utah who, almost assuredly would have taken a case as special as Oreo's and had the means to do so.

But, the ASPCA never bothered to ask Best Friends and ignored Pets Alive's offer.

In its arrogance, The ASPCA apparently didn't want another organization to succeed in what it failed to achieve: "Rehabilitation" and possible placement of Oreo into a loving home. It was more convenient and politically expedient to kill the dog and then blame Oreo for her own execution ("unadoptable.")

Thus, rationale for Oreo's death is put on the DOG, rather than the vicious human individual who so cruelly beat and tried to kill her OR the culture that is so ruthlessly breeding, abusing and discarding this breed of dog en masse.

The ASPCA's inexcusable killing of Oreo sets back the Animal Protection Movement at least 100 years.

The message is: "It is easier and more convenient to blame and kill the animal victims of abuse than to challenge and go after the human perpetrators." -- PCA

******

ASPCA Part of the Problem (Debate)

Linda Brink Writes: As much as I deplore the ASPCA action--and truly, I hate what they did--I have a hard time ever mounting a campaign against any animal rescue organization if that organization is doing any good at all--and the ASPCA does do some good. When animal activists attack animal rescue groups who do some legitimately good work, it splits the forces...... Use what happened to Oreo to highlight the real issue, not the failings of the ASPCA. The failings are a symptom. The issue is the disease.

Reply: With all due respect, there are major holes in your argument.

You say, "The ASPCA does some good." You speak about the ASPCA as if it were some tiny animal rescue group operating on a shoe string budget.

In reality, the ASPCA soaks up MOST of the donation dollars of the entire animal welfare, rights and even rescue movement. We are talking of an organization that has raised 30 million dollars from ONE commercial!

The question needs to be asked, "What is the ASPCA doing with all those millions of dollars?" (Obviously, SOME good has to arise!)

In many ways, the ASPCA has sold out the very animals it portends to speak for, "Oreo" being only one sad example -- a "symbol" so to speak of the whole.

Yesterday, I wrote about the ASPCA's long, sordid history of killing and then blaming the animal victims for their own executions. "Most of the animals are old, sick or vicious." This is obviously the tactic the ASPCA used to justify the destruction of Oreo. ("She was aggressive.")

You seem to think that the public will come to some sort of enlightenment on its own.

Why should it?

The ASPCA has been putting out the message for years now that, "New York City is on the road to no kill." Many people interpret that message to mean NYC is "no kill" now.

There is no sense of public URGENCY to help save strays or shelter animals or, quite frankly, for the public to neuter its own pets as most people believe all pet related problems have been solved. Many otherwise animals lovers now buy pets from pet stores or breeders rather than adopt as they believe that the only animals "euthanized" in shelters are "old, sick or vicious."

Complacency and naivete are major parts of the "disease" you speak about. And the ASPCA has been one of the biggest contributors to that disease of misinformation and denial.

How can NYC be "on the road to no kill" when we don't even have ONE fully functioning and humane Animal Control shelter in the entire city? Does anyone think to ask that the ASPCA donate some of its millions to help build ONE state of the art, Animal Control shelter in NYC?

The ASPCA will of course argue that it is a "National" organization whose agenda isn't NYC "stray" cats and dogs. But, what exactly has the ASPCA achieved on behalf of animals suffering nationwide? Has it launched a nationwide media campaign against puppy mills or factory farms? Has it focused on the national epidemic of dog fighting and the breeding, abuse and abandonment of Pitbulls?

One is hard pressed to come up with one major achievement for animals by the ASPCA, other than its Spay/Neuter van. -- And that doesn't cost 100 million dollars.

Finally, you speak about "splitting the forces." But, it seems from the messages I have read it is you who is being somewhat divisive in defending the ASPCA. The rest of us seem to be on the same page in agreeing that some action needs to be taken to insure that what happened to Oreo does not occur again to some other hapless animal under the ASPCA's control and "care."

As for the ASPCA signing its letter to concerned citizens with, "Public Information Department" rather than an actual name, I think that seems to show its utter disdain and arrogance towards those who were distraught by the needless death of Oreo. -- Either that or those at the ASPCA are ashamed of their own letter, as no one seemingly wants to take the responsibility (or blame) for it. --- PCA


********

The Transformation of Dutch

(Picture Left: Dutch giving a kiss to Chris. --Something that never could have been imagined or predicted six months ago.)

As a small rescue group without a brick and mortar shelter, we rely on either foster people or boarding kennels to care for the dogs we rescue.

Two of the individuals we board dogs with are also dog trainers.

Yesterday, I had opportunity to visit (along with a friend) the boarding/training home where we are currently keeping six of our rescued dogs.

All six dogs were happy, healthy, balanced and enthusiastic.

But, the dog who had made the greatest "transformation" from the time he was first rescued was "Dutch," a beautiful, Chow/Duck-Trolling Retriever cross pulled from the AC&C Euth list last Spring.

When I first met Dutch at the shelter, he was a very nervous, wary and untrusting dog.

I attributed the young, 1-year-old dog's lack of ease and socialization to the stress of being in the pound after his owner was evicted (for non-payment of rent) and apparently went to a human shelter where she could not bring her dog.

I did have concerns however, about rescuing Dutch. His hard stare and stiff body posture along with the poor behavior assessment at the pound suggested a dog that was not going to be an easy adoption by any stretch of the imagination.

Initially, I put Dutch in an Upper East Side boarding facility where either I or one of my volunteers could walk him everyday and get to know him better.

But, over the weeks he was boarded, Dutch became even more wary, defensive, unpredictable and untrusting.

We had to be very careful when handling Dutch. He was extremely uncooperative and stubborn when we attempted to put Dutch back in his little room ("kennel") following a walk.

But, of even greater concern, was Dutch's reactions (lunges, attempts to bite) to joggers, skateboarders or cyclists when out on a walk. On one occasion, Dutch actually nipped a man running too close to the dog and the volunteer walker. Fortunately, the man was nice about the incident and did not seek any kind of compensation.

But, the incident alarmed me enough to contact the shelter again and request the cell phone number of Dutch's former owner. I needed to have a sense of Dutch's "history" and the kind of home he came from.

I was able to get in touch with Dutch's former owner -- which unfortunately helped explain a great deal of Dutch's defensive, insecure and worrisome behavior.

His former owner told me she acquired Dutch when he was only "3 weeks of age" from a friend whose dog had puppies. (Three weeks is way to early to separate puppies or kittens from their mothers. Animals separated this young from moms and siblings often display neurotic or even aggressive behavior later in life.)

"Iris" (Dutch's former owner) also told me that by the time he was a year old, Dutch had already sired two litters of puppies. This said a lot about the owner's lack of awareness and care to the pet overpopulation problem as well as her general lack of responsibility to properly vet, care for and neuter her dog.

But, most of all, Iris failed to properly expose Dutch to the normal activities of everyday life (i.e walk her dog) and socialize him with strangers.

Although Irish swore up and down to me how much she "loved" her "baby," she never once took the time to visit Dutch while we had him boarding in Manhattan, despite my pleas with her to do so.

"He's so stressed," I told Iris. "I realize you can't take him back, but it would really help Dutch to see you."

My pleas fell on deaf ears. Iris was full of excuses.

Finally, Dutch became even too difficult and combative for even the staffers at the boarding kennel to deal with.

I was told I needed to make arrangements to get Dutch out of there.

About this time, I was under added pressure from several people, including one of my own volunteers to have Dutch euthanized. The dog was a "liability."

Feeling conflicted and desperate, I contacted a reputable dog trainer in Manhattan and requested that he come and evaluate Dutch for me.

"Ken" came the following day to the boarding kennel and together, we took Dutch for a long walk. When anticipating Dutch's reactions to joggers and cyclists, Ken gently snapped the leash and gave a mild correction to Dutch. Dutch did respond favorably to the training technique immediately focusing on his handler.

Ken later told me that although Dutch needed "work," he was not beyond redemption and should be saved.

That is when I called Chris in Brooklyn.

The best way to describe Chris is like a New York City version of Cesar Millan.

Chris is a long time dog lover, rescuer and trainer. He has 8 rescued dogs of his own and also works with rescue groups like ours to save, board and train dogs pulled from death at the city shelter.

Chris agreed to take on and work with Dutch.

Upon arriving to Chris' home in Brooklyn, Dutch immediately tried to bite Chris when first removed from the transportation vehicle.

According to Chris, Dutch was one very stressed out and wary dog who required several days to calm down and begin to settle in.

But, since then, Chris has reported back to me positive developments over the months with Dutch.

But, I guess one never actually or totally believes until actually seeing the dog for one's self.

Yesterday, I could not believe Dutch was the same dog I sent out to Chris so many months ago.

Instead of the hard staring, stiff "Don't mess with me" dog I remembered from last Spring, out in the yard bounced a happy, carefree, "I'm in love with life!" Dutch who came up to my friend and me with zest, enthusiasm and total trust.

It took a few minutes for me to realize that I no longer had to be "careful" in handling Dutch. He welcome petting and even some light roughousing as a trusting puppy would on the precipice of life.

It was one of the most amazing transformations I have ever seen in all my years of rescue. -- Something one could never have foreseen or imagined six months ago.

Not only did Dutch welcome handling and affection from humans -- but he fully reciprocated and gave back in limitless abundance.

When my friend, Jane and I finally left after spending half the afternoon with Chris and a bunch of happy, playful, affectionate and balanced dogs a thought occurred to me:

Yesterday, was the first time I had ever seen Dutch smile. -- PCA

*******

The Heart of the Matter (Guest Editorial --by, Linda Brink)

(Picture left: "Lady" Gentle, affectionate dog abandoned at city shelter for "moving." Wonderful profile from past owners....."Very affectionate dog....loves men, women, children, other dogs and cats." Nevertheless, Lady flunked food part of SAFER test and winded up on kill list. Now rescued and in tempoary boarding, but what of the millions (like Oreo) for who, there is no rescue or "happy ending?" The Guest Editorial by Linda Brink below examines the entire tragic picture.)

All of what everyone writes is correct, of course. But the heart of the problem isn't the killing of animals for space, for temperament judged notcompatible with human living--for whatever reason.

The true heart of theproblem is human behavior --behavior that closes each door, until the one remaining, for millions of animals, is: the kill door.

The heart of the problem is the fact that the human animal is self-centered to such an extreme, a life is judged unworthy, and unwanted, for--the most flimsy ofreasons. "We are moving; we don't like the hair; too noisy; too needy; tooaggressive, wrong color, too"--whatever.

The problem is entirely the human element, of course. The shelter is simply trying to cope in ways that, Iagree, often strike one as demented, with the problems created by people inall walks of life whose priorities no longer, for whatever reason, includethe animal they once desired. The animals they take to the shelters inimpossibly huge numbers. And leave there. Leave there, knowing they willbe killed. For space. Because one cannot house them all; cannot give themall a new life. Because, there are millions.

That's the heart of the problem: the people. Not the shelters.

So, while some progress will be made attacking shelters for their killpolicies, the real flaming arrow should be blazing in another directionentirely. But--where, exactly, when there are so many appropriate targets?The pet industry. Yes, certainly they deserve a cannonball volley for theendless breeding tortures and the whole sales pitch that comes out the otherend: the puppies, the kittens, the chicks, the millions of parentlessbabies snatched away from their nurturing parents and placed, so wrongly,into--cages. And eventually--again, so wrongly--into human hands. The human hand pays the money, and in return, they get the life.

There seems tobe an insatiable craving for babies, and yet, I never look at a baby animalwithout seeing the parents who mourned the theft. The babies are a product:it's big business, selling lives, and it's big business in associatedindustries that market all the bells and whistles that go with that dearbaby, the toys, beds, food, accessories, the groomers, the trainers, theboarding facilities, the vet link--yet another industry--it just goes on andon. Powerful interests, indeed, and they don't want this industry thatendlessly puts all the dogs and cats and birds and reptiles and smallanimals in the shelters and rescues and sanctuaries, when they becomeadults--they don't ever want that industry to go away. It's a living toogood to waste.

And so laws never seem to change to truly protect animals, frompeople--their main acknowledged threat--because all of these industries joinforces to make sure people crafting the laws don't go too far, don't get toocarried away, with animal protection. With passing laws that will impingeon human rights, the right to own animals and essentially do what one wantswith them. The rights of people who buy industry products and pay forindustry services. Moderation, please, in regulating the pet and animalindustries. Touchy subject with legislators everywhere.

I support No Kill shelters. I don't blame Kill shelters. I blame thepeople who bring the animals to those shelters, the industries that providethose animals, the politicians who look the other way. I blame humantolerance for unimaginable cruelty--something Michael Vick understands, sowell--the blood and screams of the dogs all tidied up now--the past, yes?Gotta go now--game time!

I blame all the industries who conspire to keepthings exactly as they are--with the main theme being: animals as aproduct. I blame the society that supports these industries, and demandsthese animals, all new and shiny even as millions languish in cement andsteel cages, begging a new home.

I realize: all shelters have a limit,space-wise and resource-wise. I realize: there aren't enough good homesout there for all the adults, and even babies, who are born and unwanted.I've taken in, myself, both dogs, cats, and birds--all turned loose to fendfor themselves. They are desperate and they are suffering and they areusually, very sick.

So, when No-Kill shelters turn animals away forspace--where do they go? What do people do with them? You can figure itout. Kill or No-Kill, the animal loses for many related reasons, and whileit feels great to have a target--the Kill Shelters--they are, in fact, NOTthe essential problem. They are simply, the end result.

Humans are, everystep of the way, the problem.

Because a huge number of humans aregreedy--both those who sell the babies, and those who must have that cutelittle bundle. They lack empathy. They lack compassion. They aremotivated by--convenience.

Too many humans have no problem at allcontrolling, and destroying, an animal's life. Too many humans are capableof pretense. Too many humans delude themselves. Too many humans: atheart, just don't really care. About the eventual fate of animals once intheir care.

Oreo. Poor, dear Oreo. Judged for her fears, judged for her anger. Neverjudged for what was in her heart. An inconvenience--aggressive dogs are aninconvenience, no matter what causes their aggression. Dangerous tohumans--an ironic conclusion, certainly, in Oreo's case. But no matter:Oreo must go.

The ASPCA could have helped Oreo, and at the same time,gotten an important message to the public about just how twisted the livesof animals can become--because of humanity. They could have gotten the evenmore important message out there: and we must help these animals who areour victims. That is, in fact, our responsibility to these animals--to helpthem.

Instead the message is: just kill them all. Terrible, yes--butjust one aspect of a very large, very convoluted problem that is not beingaddressed at its source: the pet trade and related industries. The lackof appropriate regulation. The lack of laws. The lack of responsibilityand compassion and empathy by a large part of human society, which in fact,makes all of the above problems, issues: a society that eats animals, usesanimals, only wants animals living with them that get with the program, andeven those, are always--expendable.

Move mountains to save the helpless fawn; shoot the adult deer. The humanelement. Prognosis for change: not good.So, the life and death of Oreo--yet another step backward. One that couldhave gone forward, for Oreo, and for perhaps, many animals. But--onceagain, human arrogance, human stubborn behavior, human lack of an embracingof the responsibility owed this dog, to give her a chance--a lack of evenseeing it that way--well, bottom line: Oreo was killed.

The ASPCA deservesa flaming arrow, yes, for setting such a terrible example, for being ananimal rescue organization that clearly lacks a beating heart. Butagain--where is it Oreo came from?Where so many come from. Before the window, the crazed person who flungher, before the ASPCA, Oreo was a baby: she trusted, she expected to benutured, she expected to be loved, by her mother, by something, by someone.All normal expectations, but, in this world so controlled now, byhumans--she expected too much.

For Oreo, it was luck of the draw and likemillions of other individuals, Oreo got dealt: an uncaring human hand.

Things CAN change--there are small victories, more and more. But directyour angst where it will do the most good--at the beginning of the chain ofevents. Not at the end result: the so-called, shelters, their policies,their mistakes. Warehousing unwanted animals is not the answer. It willnever be the answer. Shelters are a symptom. The human element is theproblem, and it's diseased.

Go for the tumor, the cancer--hard as that maybe in a world where so many will do anything--anything--to make a buck.Unite, focus and go for it. The source, the root, the disease. Go forlaws, go for regulations. Demand change. We have to continually attack thepet industry--and animals as food and clothing and lab experimentationindustries--even as we try to open people's hearts and minds to animals asindividuals who experience life much as do we--because that part of thesolution is critical: human understanding of animals as sentientindividuals.

The task is huge. The issue: focus. Unrelenting focus onthe heart of the problem: the uncaring human element. The unaware humanelement. The greedy, self-centered, cruel human element--and this goes forcitizens everywhere--as well as the animals as products industries who caterto their unrealistic whims. A daunting task--but there is, in fact, so muchthat's horrifying to expose.

A daunting task, but not, even in this darkhour, a hopeless one. Focus--it's essential. People do become aware. Andpeople do change.We became aware. We changed. And now we must truly focus, all together, onthe very heart of the matter.

Linda Brink Director,
Sunnyskies Bird & Animal SanctuaryWarwick,
NYhttp://www.sunnyskiesbirdsanctuary.org/


***********