Problem dogs being passed on

[Brads67]

I own a few dogs, both working and not, along with other pets.
I take responsibility for there actions and keep them well socialised and under control.

So how come when I comment on a violent dog just being passed on rather than dealt with, I`m abused as a dog hating troll by retarded so called "dog lovers" to the point of being banned from the thread for retaliating to personal abuse.(Unlike the person who started the abuse)

That was the first time I had replied to a thread about dogs and that was the result.

Anyway, just to crack on.
If you have a dog that has violence issues and has attacked other dogs or people , you decide you do not have the will, or knowledge to correct the dogs behaviour, but it`s OK as it`s a rescue so you can give it back.

Is this the correct action or should you do the right thing and have the dog put down as it`s issues are beyond your capabilities and you have no control over whether the dog will attack again?

If I had a violent dog which I refused to control, or couldn`t control it would be put down. Am I a dog hating troll ?

[Jasandjules]

If you rescue a dog that you can not control then you do not kill it, you return it to the rescue.

I vet homes for rescue dogs and the contract is clear on that point.

[hyphen]

Brads67 said:

If I had a violent dog which I refused to control, or couldn`t control it would be put down. Am I a dog hating troll ?

If you were a seasoned dog owner of that breed, and were certain 'no one' could control that dog then yes, put it down.

If not give it back.

Simples?

[Pothole]

Not sure you're qualified to judge, OP. After all you couldn't control yourself enough to address your issue on the original thread and had to start a new one. I vote we have you put down. How do you feel about that?

[CAPP0]

Jasandjules said:

I vet homes for rescue dogs and the contract is clear on that point.

I do too, for an established, reputable breed-specific rescue, and the same applies.

I doubt you have that option if you "rescue" from Gumtree or FB.

[Brads67]

Pothole said:

Not sure you're qualified to judge, OP. After all you couldn't control yourself enough to address your issue on the original thread and had to start a new one. I vote we have you put down. How do you feel about that?

As I have stated above if you read it. I was instantly abused and then was banned from replying.
I vote you stick to the topic rather than try and push another agenda.

[Steve H]

Brads67 said:

As I have stated above if you read it. I was instantly abused and then was banned from replying.
I vote you stick to the topic rather than try and push another agenda.

I got the impression that you were abused more for your manner than your opinion.

There's parts of PH where pretty much anything goes in regard to harsh replies and other parts where contributors actually care about the topic more than the debate/banter and what amounts to an acceptable comment varies accordingly. You're currently in the latter and came over as not realising this.

[Brads67]

Ok well my stance is stated above so am interested in what people think.
I think problem dogs should be put down rather than passed around. Even to rescue centres.

[cbmotorsport]

OP, you were overly aggressive, condescending, and did not come out of that other thread with much credibility, I can understand why they got aggressive back. There are better ways to get your points across where they might be taken on board.

Edited by cbmotorsport on Monday 6th August 12:07

[iphonedyou]

Brads67 said:

I own a few dogs, both working and not, along with other pets.
I take responsibility for there actions and keep them well socialised and under control.

So how come when I comment on a violent dog just being passed on rather than dealt with, I`m abused as a dog hating troll by retarded so called "dog lovers" to the point of being banned from the thread for retaliating to personal abuse.(Unlike the person who started the abuse)

That was the first time I had replied to a thread about dogs and that was the result.

Anyway, just to crack on.
If you have a dog that has violence issues and has attacked other dogs or people , you decide you do not have the will, or knowledge to correct the dogs behaviour, but it`s OK as it`s a rescue so you can give it back.

Is this the correct action or should you do the right thing and have the dog put down as it`s issues are beyond your capabilities and you have no control over whether the dog will attack again?

If I had a violent dog which I refused to control, or couldn`t control it would be put down. Am I a dog hating troll ?

u ok hun?

[Pothole]

Brads67 said:

Ok well my stance is stated above so am interested in what people think.
I think problem dogs should be put down rather than passed around. Even to rescue centres.

I don't think you are that interested. Are you open to changing your mind to align with the majority view? If not, there's no debate to be had, just an argument which you already got in the other thread. BTW, I have no agenda.

[louiebaby]

I've never had a rescue dog, or a violent dog, so I'm as qualified as anyone else to have an opinion...

I expect that some rescue dogs will come with problems, which will fall into one of the following categories.

1. Not fixable.
2. Fixable by someone who really knows what they're doing.
3. Fixable by anyone who can devote enough time to the problem(s).
4. Easily fixable.

Dogs falling into category 1 should be destroyed, and there is a compelling argument that the previous owner who got them into that state may need sanctions too.

Discerning where between 1, 2 and 3 a dog actually lies should only be done by someone who really knows what they're talking about, and it's not an exact science. I would expect a rescue centre to make that decision, and there will be instances where they get the call wrong. Having a returns contract, or whatever it is, would allow them to re-appraise the situation.

Just my (un-educated, inexperienced) take on the original question.

[johnxjsc1985]

This is my girl Roxi. She was a Problem Dog extremely aggressive but mainly Fear based. She came home with us a few weeks later after many visits and socialising with my other Dogs a German Shepherd and Bull Mastiff both rescued. I had no illusions about what I was taking on and I have been super careful with her and the others so no off lead activities infact she found being outside on a lead in the big wide world far too stressful and is happy being at home where we have large Garden..
So no Dogs shouldn't be put down for being aggressive they should be rehomed with suitable owners and in our Case the RSPCA were wonderful and as we had rehomed with them before they new we were suitable owners.

She has never ever shown aggression to our other Dogs or to us but we don't parade her when we have visitors and she doesn't have to mix with other dogs outside the home so after 7 nearly 8 years she is still my Girl and people need to remember that all Dogs have teeth and can be provoked or act out of character given the right circumstances. One of my pet hates is when I walk my other dogs on leads and a dog approaches us head held high clearly not in a submissive posture we get the usual "he only wants to play bks".

[Autopilot]

Brads67 said:

If you have a dog that has violence issues and has attacked other dogs or people , you decide you do not have the will, or knowledge to correct the dogs behaviour, but it`s OK as it`s a rescue so you can give it back.

Is this the correct action or should you do the right thing and have the dog put down as it`s issues are beyond your capabilities and you have no control over whether the dog will attack again?

It depends on the circumstances. I also do the occasional home check for a dog charity and found it was a small world when I arrived at somebodies home and I knew them as they work for a very good friend of mine.

The dog they wanted was very nervous and because of its size (It was a Mastiff of some sort), they were under strict instruction that the dog is not to leave their home / garden for the first 4 weeks.

My friend sent me a still capture from CCTV of the dog in his workshop (which is full of people and other dogs) of him going full on nuclear at some bloke. I wasn't there so don't know what triggered it, whether it was real aggression or just noise or whether the guy had provoked it in any way.

Despite being told categorically not to take the dog out for the first month, they decided to ignore this on day 3 of having him and took him to a busy place of work full of people and other dogs. They did of course give him back to the rescue as they said he was amazing when he was at their home, but the workshop incident has put them off.

He was rehomed AGAIN and they followed the instructions, and they all lived happily ever after.

This problem although fear aggression driven, was easily fixed, so in this case, no, the dog shouldn't have been destroyed.

[PositronicRay]

louiebaby said:

I've never had a rescue dog, or a violent dog, so I'm as qualified as anyone else to have an opinion...

I expect that some rescue dogs will come with problems, which will fall into one of the following categories.

1. Not fixable.
2. Fixable by someone who really knows what they're doing.
3. Fixable by anyone who can devote enough time to the problem(s).
4. Easily fixable.

Dogs falling into category 1 should be destroyed, and there is a compelling argument that the previous owner who got them into that state may need sanctions too.

Discerning where between 1, 2 and 3 a dog actually lies should only be done by someone who really knows what they're talking about, and it's not an exact science. I would expect a rescue centre to make that decision, and there will be instances where they get the call wrong. Having a returns contract, or whatever it is, would allow them to re-appraise the situation.

Just my (un-educated, inexperienced) take on the original question.

Dogs aren't machines with instruction manuals.

ETA Depends on problem, trigger, management.

Edited by PositronicRay on Monday 6th August 16:53

[pequod]

Brads67 said:

I own a few dogs, both working and not, along with other pets.
I take responsibility for there actions and keep them well socialised and under control.

So how come when I comment on a violent dog just being passed on rather than dealt with, I`m abused as a dog hating troll by retarded so called "dog lovers" to the point of being banned from the thread for retaliating to personal abuse.(Unlike the person who started the abuse)

That was the first time I had replied to a thread about dogs and that was the result.

Anyway, just to crack on.
If you have a dog that has violence issues and has attacked other dogs or people , you decide you do not have the will, or knowledge to correct the dogs behaviour, but it`s OK as it`s a rescue so you can give it back.

Is this the correct action or should you do the right thing and have the dog put down as it`s issues are beyond your capabilities and you have no control over whether the dog will attack again?

If I had a violent dog which I refused to control, or couldn`t control it would be put down. Am I a dog hating troll ?

You are wasting your time trying to educate the 'all dogs are good' brigade I'm afraid.

I see the rehoming of troubled dogs here in my area all the time, and I blame the rescue homes for not assessing the new owners well enough. Having had rescues since the 80's I can say that there are some that should definitely be PTS, unless they are rehomed to the 'right' home, and that is pretty rare. Many charities just want to find a new home for the dog (and get the fee!) without all the follow up checks.

I see many folk who have taken on a difficult dog trying their best, but ultimately the dog is too disturbed to be introduced to a high density dog area and they are not prepared, or have, a suitably enclosed exercise yard, to own this dog. Possibly it could be found an experienced owner but they are few and far afield so the only answer is to PTS.

Others may disagree with my opinion, which I understand, however, I offer my experience with years of dog ownership.

[Jasandjules]

Brads67 said:

Ok well my stance is stated above so am interested in what people think.
I think problem dogs should be put down rather than passed around. Even to rescue centres.

I have rescued one dog with dog aggression and one dog with human aggression - it takes time, patience and training but you can get around most of it IME.

I've also had to "collect" dogs where the people who owned them or the people who were looking after them (if the owner was deceased) were too afraid to bring them to us.

A Rescue should be able to tell you if a dog has certain issues and if they do then the rescuer needs to be willing to do the work required.

[johnxjsc1985]

on the basis of some of the above I would not have had the honour and privilege of spending time with 3 of my Dogs its just far too easy to give up on Dogs that have problems that by enlarge have occurred because of poor ownership in the first place.

Maybe the problem is people have very little patience these days and as someone else posted they cant follow simple rules given to them by the rehoming centre. Its my opinion and experience that there are far more bad owners than their are bad Dogs.

[pequod]

johnxjsc1985 said:

on the basis of some of the above I would not have had the honour and privilege of spending time with 3 of my Dogs its just far too easy to give up on Dogs that have problems that by enlarge have occurred because of poor ownership in the first place.

Maybe the problem is people have very little patience these days and as someone else posted they cant follow simple rules given to them by the rehoming centre. Its my opinion and experience that there are far more bad owners than their are bad Dogs.

Agree with your opinion that there are more bad owners than dogs but sadly there aren't enough good owners to take all the dogs that need a lot of time and patience once the damage has been done!

[louiebaby]

PositronicRay said:

Dogs aren't machines with instruction manuals.

ETA Depends on problem, trigger, management.

I agree, and you have probably put it better than me...