# Sue Sternburg



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

So, I just finished watching this video of an assessment done by this women on two dogs. It was to determine sociability. 

She takes out the first dog that is extremely excited and vocal but it's pretty much a Velcro dog. Tries to press up against her the whole time and practically sits on her feet. She claims the dog is normal but will have some issues that need to be worked on. Personally, I didn't find the dogs behavior all that normal. 

Now this is what gets me. The next dog is a gorgeous pit bull. Beautiful dog. It's obviously very excited. Well apparently it sniffs too much and rubs it's butt against her a couple times which means it will become aggressive according to one "trainer" on another website. Not only that, she says it has no normal domestic dog qualities because it's actually confident and didn't have it's ears back. Oh and it stands facing her instead of sideways to her so that's a problem. 

Is this for real? I mean seriously, the dog seemed perfectly fine to me. More normal then the first dog for sure. I think it's a ridiculous assessment but people adore this women for her knowledge and swear that her books help people know how to find an adoptable dog at a shelter. 

I don't know about that. I'll look for the video and link to it. I would like to hear others opinions. She's a dog trainer so that's why it's being posted here, hope that's okay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS5Y1zcBaXY&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## blenderpie (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm confused too. She seemed to be upset that the second dog didn't greet her like a dog would greet another dog. Which makes no sense. I'd be concerned if a dog greeted me by looking away, ears back, and circling around me. 

The first dog was really stressed and the second dog seemed more just excited. I don't understand what she means.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

AFAIK, Sue Sternberg is pretty notorious for killing healthy pit bulls with her "temperament test." 

I'm at work so pressed for time, but I think if you do some digging you find several lovely dogs that she or one of her followers has suggested euthanizing. Her test has fallen under pretty serious criticism in recent years.

It's really very sad. No telling how many normal dogs have died.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

That clip is a 6 minute edit from a 6 hour DVD set, so its difficult to judge based on such a short snippet. I suspect the other 5 hours and 54 minutes would contain some valuable information, and would probably lend more meaning and understanding to the clip / her assessments.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Sue Sternberg wants to get rid of every breed over 30 lbs, with any kind of drive. She has publicly stated this. That is the goal of her temperament test, the goal of her shelter and her personal goal. She has proudly referred to herself as "the dog Hitler".

http://dogden.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=24

Once she decides, for no apparent reason, that a dog must die, she pushes it until it does something to justify the slaughter:



> Two years ago…a [Sue Sternberg] clinic was presented at a well attended conference. Sadly, I think many in attendance saw this as a way to soothe the horrid guilt that goes with the killing done every day. Others who inquired about the “what ifs” – with logical and well thought out questions were put off by [Sternberg]. She had dogs brought in that day from local pounds. One dog, a very timid girl, didn’t stand a chance with [Sternberg]. Later in the day, films were shown of the testing tactics. *It was not unlike watching torture. The “testing” went on and on until a negative reaction was seen*. The pressure these animals were under was inhumane. None of the dogs I’ve ever shared a home with in my lifetime would “pass.” … I see two elements here: the all-knowing [Sternberg] needs to be called for what she is: a greedy power-monger; and the public needs to know the real cost of “no-kill.”
> ~Marie in New Jersey, 9/27/03


One person watched a "training" session run by Sternberg in which she deemed a pit mix to reactive for responding to her actions and then labeled a rottweiler mix too unresponsive for refusing to react.

ETA: She has stated numerous times that not enough killing goes on in shelters in the US. Approximately 4,000,000 dogs every year are killed simply for not having a home. These aren't sick dogs or ill tempered dogs, simply homeless dogs. To say that 4,000,000 dead dogs a year isn't enough is . . . I just can't use the sort of language necessary on this board. Suffice to say, Sue Sternberg is a bad person.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> Sue Sternberg wants to get rid of every breed over 30 lbs, with any kind of drive. She has publicly stated this. That is the goal of her temperament test, the goal of her shelter and her personal goal. She has proudly referred to herself as "the dog Hitler".
> 
> http://dogden.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=24
> 
> ...


THANK YOU! I knew there was concrete material out there, just not sure where to find it.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Amaryllis said:


> Sue Sternberg wants to get rid of every breed over 30 lbs, with any kind of drive. She has publicly stated this. That is the goal of her temperament test, the goal of her shelter and her personal goal. She has proudly referred to herself as "the dog Hitler".
> 
> http://dogden.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=24
> 
> ...


This is not true...this is from her own website:



> Just one example of how a rumor gets started
> 
> I was at a conference once, and had my own four dogs set up in an ex-pen behind my table. One of the dogs was Carmen, a big, 70 lb, red mixed breed Doberman/Rhodesian I adopted after transferring her to my shelter from NYC animal control in 1995. Someone passed by and stopped, stared at my dogs, and then said to me he was surprised to see I had a large dog. “Why?” I asked. He told me he had heard I believed all dogs over 35 lbs should be killed.
> 
> ...





> Rumor: “She has nicknamed herself Hitler, having her own doggy holocaust”
> ‘She has nicknamed herself Hitler, and is basically having her own Doggy Holocaust, practicing “genocide” on all Northeastern dogs, right under all of our noses.’
> 
> This is so offensive to me. I suppose this spawned originally from a story I related during one of my lectures, about another workshop in which a man in the audience (not a dog-person, but someone’s elderly father who came just to be with his daughter for the day) said that he thought that euthanizing rather than adopting out dangerous shelter dogs sounded no different than what Hitler did to the Jews. Later he apologized (albeit making the situation worse) when he emailed me that ‘had he seen my name on the advertisement for the workshop, he would never have said that to me’. Meaning, I guess, that if the speaker were not a Jew, it would have been okay to compare her to Hitler?


http://www.suesternbergtruth.com/


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Dang. Why doesn't she just get a sniper rifle and shoot dogs as their owners walk them? It would be quicker.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I just don't understand where this idea that sniffing too much correlates with dog to dog aggression came from. My small dog sniffs people a lot when they first walk in the door sometimes. Never once had he been aggressive with other dogs. Also, I read somewhere that she said dogs that sniff a lot in a room where other dogs have been can correlate with dog to dog aggression. Yeah, well my dog does that too. 

She sounds like a serious nutcase.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

In case you didn't see this post by petpeeve...here it is:



> That clip is a 6 minute edit from a 6 hour DVD set, so its difficult to judge based on such a short snippet. I suspect the other 5 hours and 54 minutes would contain some valuable information, and would probably lend more meaning and understanding to the clip / her assessments.


I'm sure that missing information that is confusing to you is in the other 354 minutes of the DVD set that this tiny segment was taken from.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It doesn't really matter what the hell the video shows. It's her opinion. Unless she's done some type of scientific study that shows a positive correlation between excessive sniffing and dog aggression then it's all a bunch of bull. There are plenty of dogs that sniff excessively that aren't dog aggressive just as there are plenty of dogs that are DA and don't excessively sniff.

I'm sorry I just can't understand your sticking up for this women. She obviously has a problem with pit bull type dogs. I'm sure you realize that your dog would probably be next on her list of dogs to exterminate from shelters. Or maybe you don't.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

You have some pretty strong opinions of your own...I would love to see the scientific studies you've done to back them up. 

Being a rottweiler owner and involved in rottweiler rescue for a number of years...I am well aware of the biased public opinion of Rottweilers.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I'm going to believe that recommending a dog be euth'd is not going to be popular with certain people, irregardless of the dog. Especially if they have some bias towards a type of dog. But, it's not their liability, so...


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm going to believe that recommending a dog be euth'd is not going to be popular with certain people, irregardless of the dog. Especially if they have some bias towards a type of dog. But, it's not their liability, so...


Exactly...and not all people want to hear that not all dogs can or should be saved....


----------



## Kyndall54 (Apr 26, 2013)

The way she pets the dogs would make Ammy nervous, it isn't really a friendly I'm going to pet you, it looks or is simulated to look nervous. Ammy always shies away from people who aren't confident petting her, horses are the same way I've found. They can always tell when you're nervous. Does that mean she's not an 'adoptable' dog? Not at all, strangers pet her routinely with no problem, it's only about 1 in 10 that acts like that (usually kids who aren't confident).

It's also not very fair she takes them straight from their pen in the shelter to evaluate them. Any shelter dog would be excited to be out of their cage or have a lot of pent up energy. What's wrong with the pit mix sniffing her? She has strange dog smells all over her! I think there are better tests to test a dogs aptitude that don't require as much conjecture, and expose the dog to a least a simulation of the situation.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> You have some pretty strong opinions of your own...I would love to see the scientific studies you've done to back them up.
> 
> Being a rottweiler owner and involved in rottweiler rescue for a number of years...I am well aware of the biased public opinion of Rottweilers.


I'm sorry. I wasn't under the impression that serious behavior evaluations don't need data to back them up. Obviously all my college professor have lied to me.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> Exactly...and not all people want to hear that not all dogs can or should be saved....


It's not about wanting to not hear that certain dogs shouldn't be adopted out. It's about the fact that she judges a perfectly normal dog as not being normal while she is perfectly happy with a very nervous dog. On another forum someone mentioned going to see all the dogs she had available. I guess she adopts out dogs. Apparently all of them were fearful dogs. She prefers the dogs she adopts out to be fearful of people. 

That's obvious by the fact that she dislikes the pit bull because it's obviously confident. Funny that a huge majority of dog bites happen out of fear rather then aggression. That's obviously safe for her to be pushing fearful dogs on people.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

> It's her opinion. Unless she's done some type of scientific study that shows a positive correlation between excessive sniffing and dog aggression then it's all a bunch of bull.





> I wasn't under the impression that serious behavior evaluations don't need data to back them up.


You thought she needs data to back up her evaluations...I thought you might have research data of your very own that backs up your comments.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

What exactly do I need to back up. For instance, if I was referring to her as neurotic than I could back up my statement with scientific proof that shows how her behavior is the same as the behavior traits associated with a neurotic person. 

So what exactly do you need me to back up. I'll be more than happy to.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> Exactly...and not all people want to hear that not all dogs can or should be saved....


 See, I'm real iffy about that. Yeah, some dogs are wrong in the head. If they were human they'd likely be in jail or a mental hospital or dead on the streets. Probably better off dead in that case. But I do think dogs should be allowed some leeway. They aren't perfect, just as humans aren't perfect. Being too demanding of the level of perfection we expect from dogs, IMO, leads to unrealistic and harsh expectations of humans as well. Those who demand their dog be perfect or else dead tend to demand too much of their children and other people in their lives, leading to some serious issues, from what I've seen.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

See...there's a lot of liability involved with dogs and rescue. I was on an evaluation with another volunteer with the Rottweiler rescue I was with. The other volunteer was handling the dog who was a young male probably about 2 or 3, neutered and very confident. I think he was an owner surrender and he was at the RISPCA.They called us to see if we would take him into our program. I was the one with the clip board. He showed some agitation when we brought in another dog...but it was something that probably could be worked through with some training. He showed some resource guarding with food and once again...that could have been worked through with some training. When it came to the point when we wanted to see if he would take commands and let someone handle him...then it got dangerous. She asked him to sit...which he didn't. She asked him again and he didn't. She went to lightly push down on his behind (like an owner might do to remind their dog their butt should be on the floor) and he spun around, flew up at her face with a roar and a teeth bared. Thank god she was well over 6' tall and strong and had the leash shortened up. She had the strength able to hold him out at arms length as he spun around on the end of the leash like a tazmanian devil. He really wanted a piece of her. Thank god it wasn't me at the end of that leash because I would have gotten my face torn off. We ended the evaluation and handed him back to the stunned SPCA staff and they took him away with a rabies pole. I have never been so shaken with an encounter with a dog before or since then. He was not a dog that was safe for the general public looking for a pet. That is the target market of most shelters...average pet homes. If he had been adopted out to someone and he did tear into someone badly like he wanted to during the evaulation, who is liable for that?? The pet owner or the shelter?? Would you like to take on a dog like that??

I did see some body language on the pit bull in the video that made me go Hmmmmmm....like the standing full frontal to a stranger and the low, slow tail wag. That rottie we evaluated had a similar swagger that the pit bull had. Granted that was about 10 years ago when I saw that go down and I have learned a lot of about dog body language since then...but at the time, neither of us evaulators or the SPCA staff saw that reaction coming. Thank god we did evaluate him and they learned that he would have been so quick to use his teeth on someone. That's not demanding a level of perfection...it's being responsible by adopting our dogs will be safe no matter what in the hands an average dog owner. The rottie rescue had euth'ed dogs for biting under foster care after they passed our intake temperament test. If those dogs were released to an new owner and the dog bit someone after being rehomed...the rescue is ultimately liable for that injury because they knew about the bite. So at the end of the day...an professional and reputable rescue group will probably err on the side of caution when looking at dogs suitable for rehoming. I can't say I blame them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But it is sad that some people are so willing to take a life. I'm sure they aren't perfect and would not want someone killing them for it. They have probably, at some point in their lives, lost their temper and hit someone or "growled" at someone or something similar. I mean, my grandpa hurt his children to the point of needing medical attention on at least 2 occasions that I know of and nobody killed him (probably should have). I know humans and dogs aren't the same but it seems like dogs just don't get any breaks.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

But, would YOU adopt a dog that has that sort of behavioral issue....flying full throttle at your face with no warning when you try to handle them??


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Depending on if he got more mellow after learning to trust you. . .I think I would react rather violently if a stranger grabbed me and tried to force me into sitting. I do not expect better of a dog. If he would still try to eat someone he had learned to trust, well, that would be rough. But it is too bad that humans get to mess up their dogs and then just make their mistakes disappear.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

She DID NOT grab him or force him into a sit. She was very gentle with the dog and she gently placed two fingers on his rear to apply light pressure to see if he would sit. Why would she be rough with a dog she didn't know....that's insane and idiotic.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not saying whether THAT dog was right in the head or not. I didn't see him. Just saying, if I were treated the way dogs are, I would react violently. There are many people who frequently assault other people, and usually they get away with a lot of it before it's considered a problem. But we expect more of dogs. . .


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

At work so I'll make this quick. I also read this women had harassed a spaniel for 20 min with one of those plastic hands and even though it didn't initially react she pushed it till she got a reaction. Then she took it to McDonald's and got it done food then took it to be killed. This was during a show that aired on HBO. Also, there are apparently people that have worked with her that absolutely hate her because of the fact she kills basically 75 percent of the animals she comes in contact with. She would rescue 40 dogs from the south and then kill all except 4 because of behavior problems. This women is wacked. The more I read about her the more I dislike her. 

Oh and she also said her own 4 dogs wouldn't pass her temp test apparently. What a hypocrite.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I have watched a ton of Sue Sternberg videos and read a lot of her writing. I agree with her more than I disagree with her, but her temp tests make me pretty uncomfortable. She is an incredible dog person with a TON of experience, but there's something about her testing that makes me uneasy. The tests depress me.

I have seen a handful of her tests that make me cringe.

However, how to decide which dogs get placed with the public when the liability of placing them is so high is a really tricky and personal question. Tough stuff and no easy answers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have no opinion or knowledge about the woman in particular however I've long thought the temperament testing done is not very fair. I would bet that the majority of the dogs I've owned would not pass. Mia would definitely not pass and she's a damn good dog. I understand that shelters have liablity to consider but...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think the legalities for shelters/rescues need to be changed. I mean, if your adopted kid turns out wrong, do you get to sue the adoption agency? They shouldn't be held responsible for the behavior of the animals they adopt out. How can any shelter adopt out any animal if they're so worried about being sued? 

I have no idea how an "incredible dog person" could take the lives of so many dogs. "Incredible" indeed.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

They adopt out bomb proof dogs who will not crack no matter how far they are pushed. 

In regards to adoption agencies and kids...you don't see child and family services adopting out teenagers with criminal records. In our local foster kid segment on the news you don't see kids featured who burn down houses or jack cars for fun. 

And the question still stands who would be willing to take in a dog who has no qualms about ripping your face off because you touched his rump with two fingers? Is that a dog that any of you would recommend any DF member bring home??


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think any dog should be expected to be "bomb-proof and will not crack no matter how far they're pushed" or else be killed. That is completely unreasonable. I know of ZERO humans who won't crack no matter how far they're pushed. It's insane to expect that of any living creature.

And I really doubt that most of the dogs she's killed are comparable to an arsonist/carjacking teenager.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I wish I had known you ten years ago during that eval...we could have shipped off that full throttle, face flying rottweiler to you so you could save him from being euth'ed. 

I gotta bow out of this discussion because I have to head to agility class. But I will leave these words of wisdom my one of my fave FB dog trainers just posted this morning- The Naughty Dogge:

"Respect for Dogs

When we start in dogs we have on fabulous rose-coloured glasses that later get removed.

We start because we love dogs. But we have no idea who dogs are, or what their potential is. We want to save them, all. We want to love them, and have fun with them.

Then somewhere along the way we see the dark side of dogs; the side that people never discuss and mention, and our rose-coloured glasses are yanked off our faces. We now have to deal with a new reality, one that we had no idea existed.

Know what your dog is bred for. Know what your breed is capable of. And protect them from themselves.

Dogs do attack people. They do kill babies. They do kill other dogs, cats, and very occassionally, children.

Know who your dog is so that you can a) protect them from themselves, and b) avoid counselling for the remainder of your days.

Respect your dog for who he is. By doing that, you can keep him safe from his genetics."

I have seen the "dark side of dogs" and it's not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I agree with respecting dogs for who and what they are, and protecting them from doing things that human society doesn't approve of (in dogs anyway; apparently humans can do these things all they want). Respecting dogs would also include not killing them for things that are manageable or fixable.

It is SO FUNNY that "dog people" bash PETA for killing so many dogs. But if one of their own does it, yay! I guess it all depends on why you say you're killing them, eh? 

And I don't know why you're hung up on that one dog. I already said that I don't know if he was an irredeemable danger to society or not. We're talking about this person who kills 75% of the dogs she claims to "rescue", and is evidently celebrated in dog circles for doing it. Unless she has the worst luck in the world, I reallyreally doubt that 75% of dogs are irredeemable dangers to society.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Sometimes, it's easy to forget that dogs are predators. Like every predator, they have adapted all adaptations to become a skilled, efficient killer. They simply would not have survived without these adaptations.

The period of time that humans have domesticated dogs, in the big scheme of things, is not really that long. We have selectively bred traits in breeds of dogs. In some dogs, we bred to decrease some traits and increase others. The people who developed each breed of dog and continued to breed them worked to enhance those traits they thought would help that dog accomplish the job they were breeding it to do. 

Some dogs were bred to be docile companions. Other dogs, their breeders had other intentions in mind and it's important to remember those even if you have no plan on using those characteristics. Toss in bad breeding and crosses that were never meant to be as well as mixes where you can't really be sure what is in there and yes...there are dogs with unstable temperments out there that no amount of love and patience is going to fix. There are also dogs that have been through so much hell in their lives that their minds are just as cracked as some of the war veterans we hear about, who are so crippled by PTSD that they can hardly tell friend from foe anymore.

Some dogs just can't be saved. Not with the resources we have available and not with the skill level most of us have. Even if we had all the resources and skills needed, I think there would still be dogs that just can't be saved. In some cases, the most humane thing to do is end their suffering in this world and try to make sure they aren't allowed to be bred.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sure, some dogs can't be saved. Pretty sure the number of truly irredeemable dogs is somewhere south of 75% though. 

And. . .even with _alllll_ these unstable dogs we apparently have , dogs are still 10 times safer than *parents* (number of parents and number of pet dogs in the US is approximately equal. About 300 children are killed (by malfeasance; not counting accidents) by their parents every year in the US. About 30 _humans_ (not all of them are children) are killed by dogs every year in the US). So yeah. I think I'll stay on the dogs' side.


----------



## hueyeats (Apr 2, 2013)

I read her book and agree with many of the points she made.
But I love Jennifer Arnold's ideas the best... "In a dog's heart".

The way I see it...
You take the good advice, you just ignore what does not fit you.

The way I see it, while some may dislike how Sue Sternberg's conclusion of the pits' temperament.
If you seriously think she is wrong, why don't you just go ahead and adopt that dog, and prove her wrong in reality???
Better than words... MHO.

I deeply believe in temperament tests.
That's part of the reason why I end up with a great dog with a great temper anyways.
A good beginning (breeder's expertise in that test) is always a good headstart to training (easier than harder).

P.S. Agree with packetsmom actually.

The same reasons why some convicts can't be corrected either... You let them out, they go right back to committing what they were in jail for in the first place. Same with druggies... Why we have a recent spike in heroine comeback after the crack cocaine trends. But... If USA adopt a system like in SG (one pound of crack or heroine gets you that death penalty and where capital punishments are loved by the majority of its citizens... Maybe USA could be that euthopian society filled with nothing but good genetics eventually).

Its all in the genes. Why a great breeder should be supported unlike puppy mills or byb.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um. . .yeah. That ^^ is sort of what I'm afraid of happening with the attitude of killing all the imperfect dogs who _might_ do something someday. The way people treat dogs is how they'll treat humans, right? 

Ooh, I am having fun with numbers today! Turns out I'm 25 times safer with an imperfect dog than with a male domestic partner. Yay!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

hueyeats said:


> I read her book and agree with many of the points she made.
> But I love Jennifer Arnold's ideas the best... "In a dog's heart".
> 
> The way I see it...
> ...


You're kidding right? The war on drugs is a complete joke. You honestly believe that is something someone should be killed for. Speaking as someone who knows someone who's father sexually molested her and spent less time in jail then most convicted druggies this opinion seriously bothers me. The justice system is a complete mess and less time and money should be spent on convicting druggies and instead go towards convicted the truly genetically messed up people. 

End off topic rant.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well that was......an unexpected turn.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I have myself worked thousands of hours in rescue over the years. I too wore rose colored glasses in the beginning. I still believe that ALMOST all dogs COULD be saved in the RIGHT HOMES. I do however, now know that THE RIGHT HOMES are not lined up to adopt ALMOST all dogs in shelters. The hard, cold truth is... there are not enough homes for all the dogs in shelters and anyone arguing it hasn't spent enough time in one. 

The point has been made but I will say it again as I don't think it can be over said.... LIABILITY plays a large part in which dogs are adopted out and which are not. It wouldn't be as big of a deal if we didn't live in such a "sue happy world." but we do. Years ago (many) people took responsibility for their own actions. If they got bit by a dog they said "dang I did something stupid" now they say "kill the dog, Ban the breed and sue the person or people responsible for it" The people are never *them* of course. 

I especially used to enjoy volunteering at one of our local shelters. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was filled with hard working employees and volunteers that worked tirelessly to adopt out as many dogs as they could into loving, forever homes. Great pains were taken to do as much as they could for as many as they could but still, many dogs (and cats) died there. In fact, in this smallish area, I believe the numbers were like 3,500 a year. When I got more into the "meat and potatoes" of the operation, I began seeing things that upset me. (we all would find something) In this case, it was the person who handed out the "short straws" or "red tags" to the dogs who would not be leaving out the front door. It was the WAY she chose the dogs, not that I would wish that job on anyone. How do you chose which dogs will die this day? How do you NOT play favorites to some degree? This gal put a red tag on my favorite little 6 month old Pit Bull puppy and left a 12 year old Beagle with a bad limp. I was angry beyond words. To me, a 6 month old dog should live another day over the 12 year old dog with arthritis regardless of breed. I stopped going for a week and then went back. It took me that long to cry it out. Then I went back and talked to management about the way dogs were chosen. I know that ladies favorite breed was Beagles too so, I thought that was blinding her in her decision. I sat down and began looking at stats. I volunteered to do adoption counceling and school people in chosing the right breed. In doing so, I found it very hard to adopt out the Pit Bulls, Rottweiler's, GSD's etc... There simply were NOT people knocking down the doors to get these dogs. At least, not good homes. We had a few dog fighting cases going on and had some creeps coming in to get bait dogs cheap or they would take them for walks and not come back. This began changing my mind or rather, opening my eyes to the real problems. 

With many many years of experience. Hundreds of crying sessions and the cold hard truth firmly planted in my brain, my mind was changed. I know that not all the dogs can be adopted and hard decisions must be made. It makes much more sense to save the safest, most adoptable dogs. This isn't easy for anyone to make those choices. It isn't fair, it isn't right but at this time, it is neccessary. 

I stopped going to that shelter when the new manager took over and took it upon himself (with help from his assistant manager) to kill every single Rottweiler and about 99% of all Pit Bulls that came through the door without temperament testing or any thought... just "TAKE THEM TO THE BACK" The assistant manager didn't care for either breed and in her words "she was comfortable with that decision" Needless to say, I couldn't adopt them all and I couldn't watch the mass slaughter of my favorite breeds. I no longer go to that shelter but still help in rescue where I can. 

For everyone who thinks the numbers of deaths in shelters are horrible... go adopt a shelter pet. Go volunteer to walk or train some of those dogs. I did that for many years and saved many many lives. MOST people have no interest in a 75 pound adolescent Lab that is so full of energy from sitting in a kennel it jumps all over them. They will however show interest in a Lab that has been walked by a volunteer and has been taught a simple "sit" on command. Everyone could make a difference. 

Whole point of my long winded story was.... Sue might not be the best and certainly not the worst. I think that temperament tests are needed and since only a certain amount of dogs can be saved, it needs to be the ones that are the safest and most adoptable. I pray she isn't chosing that by breed alone, like our local shelter was for awhile.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Amen Inga. 

It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and cry about how unfair this all is. It's another thing to put your money where your mouth is and adopt a dog with "issues" that no one wants to sign up for. You don't like it?? Then get involved, make a difference, and volunteer at a shelter or rescue. And I'm not talking about going and walking or playing with a shelter dog for an hour a month. 

I'm talking about doing processing potential adopters including home checks, transporting and fostering dogs, doing shelter intakes and owner surrender evaluations, or fundraising. I'm talking rescue organization guts where you can change what you think is unfair. My rottie rescue covered all of New England, parts of NY, and parts of NJ. I was the volunteer coordinator for RI for four years and I handled all of the above for my state and its volunteers. 

Wanna know why I'm hung up on that one dog?? That was when my rose colored classes were knocked off. That dog and incident will haunt me forever because that has been the only time thus far a dog scared me shitless. It was the first time I have seen a dog go for someone with the intent to do catastrophic damage. If we didn't evaluate him...he could have gone to a home with someone and he would have injured them or their family badly and maybe even fatally. It was the reality check that rescuing dogs wasn't all rainbows and unicorns I mistakenly thought. 

If you think temperament testing sucks and is unfair?? Do go something about other than anonymously squawking about it from behind a screen. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ah, well, I'll have to bookmark this for all the threads where people say there's no such thing as overpopulation. . .

But hey! If we can say we killed them because they're defective, that totally absolves us of being guilty overpopulating the dog market. Not overpopulation---a defective population. Which we're not responsible for either, I guess. Or something. Sneaky!

I suppose I did adopt dogs with "issues". Or at least nobody else wanted them. Moose would have definitely failed any temperment test because he would have eaten the arm they poked him with. But I found the resource guarding pretty easy to fix, and I'm not even a good trainer. But he ought to be killed, I suppose. I'm sure Ms Sternburg would gladly do it herself.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Like I said...take that passion you have in having to be right all of the time and put it towards helping dogs find good homes. It would be more rewarding than arguing with those who are or have been actively involved in finding homes for homeless dogs. Nighty night!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Inga, 

You explained that beautifully. Honestly I do understand. I haven't personally worked in a shelter but I have SIL that was very involved until the county took over because of lack of good management and upped the killing of dogs. I saw what she went through working there. I mean the women is absolutely nuts about it. Shelter dogs cover her Facebook Wall and she stayed in a kennel and ate out of dog bowls to prove a point. The local paper covered it. Not to mention the miles the women drives to transport dogs from kill shelters to rescues. I truly admire her for it and would love to do so myself if I actually had the time for it.

I get how the system works and I understand the importance of saving the lives of the adoptable dogs. The reality is pit bulls aren't highly sought after and they're the majority of the dogs being killed in shelters. 

On top of that they have a huge potential to cause extreme damage and making sure you're adopting out stable dogs with no aggression should always be important, especially with such a breed. I'm not against temperament testing. This isn't about that.

What bothers me is her personally. The things I've been reading. Her assessment of that pit bull. The fact that people she had personally worked with say she would kill up to 75 percent of the dogs she comes in contact with of she could. That's unacceptable. 

On top of that she doesn't believe any DA pit should be adopted out but immediately put to sleep. Well, that's a part of what that breed is. So really, I'm sure she would be more than happy to have the majority of pits in shelters killed. That's just not right.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Dunno who she is. Watched the video. Had a good laugh.

Sniffing: A male dog being really interested in sniffing a woman's crotch seems perfectly normal to me. I chuckled at her 'correlation between sniffing and dog to dog aggression' cause it just sounds so subjective but hey, i don't know her. Maybe she's on to something. She supposedly has the experience right? Maybe when I haven't trimmed my toe nails, I'm more inclined to beat the crap out of someone. I can probably find a correlation between long toe nails and human to human aggression.

Confidence: .....confidence is bad? 

'Anal swiping': I wonder if the dog's butt would have rubbed up against her when he turned if she had actually gave the dog more room on the leash. 

The video is clipped all over the place so a lot of it feels out of context but it's certainly amusing the way it was presented.

The one thing that truly turned me off was how she decided to use a pit bull as the example of a possibly aggressive dog. Regardless of whether that dog is or is not at a higher risk of being dog aggressive, it just leaves a bad taste for me to see pit bulls used to represent aggressive dogs.

As for her website defending her...um...biased much? While I find her story more believable, I wonder if it was nearly as innocent as her website portrayed it.

And on the discussion of euthanization, I'm in the boat that think we are too quick to euthanize. However, with financial and liability issues, it's understandable with the way our society is. I certainly can't be claiming any moral high ground since honestly I don't exactly plan on going around trying to save all the problematic dogs.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

I haven't read all of the replies yet but I had to chime in.

.... I guess my adorable little, over the top people friendly dog Sydney has aggressive tendencies because she gets all up on me with her nose and sniffing every time I get home from work... which is a vet clinic. Like... she REALLY sniffs for like, 15 minutes.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think it is funny that there is an assumption that people on this thread HAVEN'T worked in rescue if they don't like the way choosing adoptable dogs is done. Knowing Emily especially... this is kind of ironic.

I went into rescue with a different set of rose colored glasses. I had watched so many rescue shows on animal planet and done some volunteering. I knew shelters euthanized dogs but I truly, truly thought everyone involved in rescue was in it to help save animals. I worked in a shelter with a euth rate of around 73% for over two years. I saw things there that will just haunt me... Perfectly normal puppies euthanized because of breed and despite people wanting to adopt them. Dogs not being allowed to go to breed specific rescue because of breed. Shelter not taking up the local businesses to advertise their dogs. Shelter keeping impossible hours for most people to go look at the animals.... I could go on. I finally quit after one day when one of my favorite pits was put down, another 8 week old pit puppy put to sleep even though 3 different people asked to adopt her just that morning, and a mama dog and her litter were put down because the mama dog was part pit- we must kill the puppies too even though they don't look pit at all.

That sure takes off those rose colored glasses and I realized there were people involved in shelters that either are jaded enough or plain just don't care about rescuing dogs. So many dogs that did not HAVE to die. Could the shelter have saved them all? No. But that pit puppy had three potential homes. There was nothing wrong with it. That dog's death was a tragedy and something that was 100% avoidable. That dog died because of the shelter and there is nothing more to it. 

Anyways, long story short I quit and joined the campus animal rescue group who at the time I moved was working on trying to force the town into reforming the shelter. In all honesty, the lady in charge needed to be sent out. I don't know the specifics of what happened, but the shelter now is renamed, new management, and they have pit bulls up for adoption on their web page.

I'm not going sit here and praise people for euthanizing 70+% of dogs.... in my experience, that means things need to change.


----------



## hueyeats (Apr 2, 2013)

Like I said...
Mirror do reflects who we are.

Can't help if I am culturally from a anti-drug society and don't believe in it..
A different culture from another trying to leagalize "weed".

Freedom of speech... Luckily also covers someone like me who wants a true drug free society for my children.

But hey... If you condone all the drugs and crimes... Go expose who you like to it.
Again... Like I care???

Your fitting choices = not mine.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I feel like in the US it might be different than here but... Our shelter always discloses any issues our dogs have. For example, we currently have a Rottie mix with RG issues about her food. On her write up it talks about the issue, that a one on one training consult will be mandatory for adoption, and that she needs to go to a home with kids at least teens and up. (I was just going to link her but she's off the website... maybe going home, yay!)

Disclosing all that info up front... how exactly could someone sue the shelter when she bit them for trying to quickly grab away her food? In court, they would complain about it, and the shelter would show how the adopter had been told about the issue, and been taught the proper techniques to manage it. I just don't see how that could not end in the shelter's favour. 

I could see if it was a different situation and the shelter had hidden known issues and then she bit, but I don't feel that a responsible shelter would do that anyway. Or if they would, just have the adopter sign something absolving the shelter from legal responsibility for future behaviour of the dog.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I That sure takes off those rose colored glasses and I realized there were people involved in shelters that either are jaded enough or plain just don't care about rescuing dogs. So many dogs that did not HAVE to die. Could the shelter have saved them all? No. But that pit puppy had three potential homes. There was nothing wrong with it. That dog's death was a tragedy and something that was 100% unavoidable. That dog died because of the shelter and there is nothing more to it.
> 
> Anyways, long story short I quit and joined the campus animal rescue group who at the time I moved was working on trying to force the town into reforming the shelter. In all honesty, the lady in charge needed to be sent out. I don't know the specifics of what happened, but the shelter now is renamed, new management, and they have pit bulls up for adoption on their web page.
> 
> I'm not going sit here and praise people for euthanizing 70+% of dogs.... in my experience, that means things need to change.


Well said. People in rescue are just... people. People with the same biases, filters, and opinions as anyone else. Often very strong opinions which may or may not be based on anything meaningful... like people on the internet x100 IME. Ask TWAB about her experiences in rescue sometime, it will make your hair curl. Up here most of our big rescues are actually very well run, so maybe I'm spoiled, but some of the stuff I hear about from others just boggles me.

I don't know anything about Sue Sternburg personally, but I've seen several videos of her temperament tests and they make me very uncomfortable as a true measure of a dog's temperament, especially when performed in a shelter setting. I'm quite sure none of my dogs would pass her test, especially the way she just keeps at and keeps at some of these dogs. And the 75% euthanasia rate, if it is true, is just ridiculous. 

Having said that, there are also rescues that adopt out every dog under the sun just... hoping things will work out? It would be nice to see a happy medium. 



hueyeats said:


> But hey... If you condone all the drugs and crimes... Go expose who you like to it.


LOL, that's quite a leap of logic... "doesn't think drug users should get the death penalty = condones all drugs and crime". I'm not even sure what logical fallacy to classify that under.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

With the pet population problem being what it is...working in rescue or shelters is a lot like being a triage nurse during a pandemic. You cannot save everyone. You need to concentrate limited time and resources on those who have the best chance of making it. You have to make very, very hard choices and you will have to choose to let some go that might have had a chance in favor of those most likely to survive. It is a horrible position to put anyone in, but it also is what helps narrow down those who can be helped the most and stop the wasting of resources on those who don't have as good of a chance. And, of course, someone is always going to be upset no matter what decision you make.

I know I wouldn't want to have to do that job. I try not to judge those who do too harshly. They're human beings, these are incredibly tough judgment calls to make, and they're hopefully doing the best they can to save as many dogs as they can. Since I'm unable/unwilling to take that burden from them...I don't feel it's my place to make judgments on them.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think it is funny that there is an assumption that people on this thread HAVEN'T worked in rescue if they don't like the way choosing adoptable dogs is done. Knowing Emily especially... this is kind of ironic.


Thanks Laur.  You spared everyone from my "YOU DON'T KNOW ME" rant. LOL! 

I have not "officially" worked for any rescue, really, but I have rescue dogs off the street and my own recent rescue would have failed these tests entirely. I also work with pet owners and their dogs every. single. day. I am very aware of how difficult it can be to place dogs with issues, and I do not advocate for placing animals with serious issues into homes that cannot handle them, as I have seen the results of this and while some people rise to the challenge, many cannot. 

Had Sternberg evaluated Blossom, she would be in a body bag right now. No question. Actually I do not believe they would have even removed her from her kennel, except to put her down, because she was super cage aggressive.

Thankfully, instead of simply deeming her unsalvageable, the volunteers at the pound she landed in starting reaching out to breed-specific resources and posting her on FB. The rest is history and she's now my best friend and a great working/sport dog. 

Funny thing is that I don't really take any of that "personally" per say, but I think it's worth examining, no? Bottom line is that I don't disagree with screening shelter animals but I do generally disagree with Sternberg's evals AND the way that evals are conducted in many high volume shelters, because they are so often a mere excuse to dispose of the dogs without further effort. Dogs can make remarkable changes, especially once they're out of the shelter environment, which by it's very nature is toxic and inflames or creates issues.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> Dogs can make remarkable changes, especially once they're out of the shelter environment, which by it's very nature is toxic and inflames or creates issues.


My little ruby Cavalier (along with the black and tan) were confiscated from a hoarder. All of the confiscated animals were sick and full of mange and other issues related to life in deplorable conditions. They then had to spend several months in a shelter where they were being minimally treated for all their medical issues. When I first laid eyes on her, she was completely shut done. She laid in her cage and wouldn't respond or make eye contact with anyone. She could almost be described as catatonic. I walked back to my car and literally cried my eyes out. I knew I had to bring her home with me. The hair on her legs was missing, her skin was red and raw, and she had a ranging ear infection. Her turn around once she was out of the shelter was almost instantaneous. She almost immediately came to life. 

Granted her breed is a breed that bleeds joy from their skin but my point is...if the shelter environment can do that to a Cavalier....I can only imagine the effects on breeds that don't have the temperment of a Cavalier. People who walked past my two little rescue's cages without a second look don't know what true jewels they passed up. So much the better for me.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

So Cavalier said:


> My little ruby Cavalier (along with the black and tan) were confiscated from a hoarder. All of the confiscated animals were sick and full of mange and other issues related to life in deplorable conditions. They then had to spend several months in a shelter where they were being minimally treated for all their medical issues. When I first laid eyes on her, she was completely shut done. She laid in her cage and wouldn't respond or make eye contact with anyone. She could almost be described as catatonic. I walked back to my car and literally cried my eyes out. I knew I had to bring her home with me. The hair on her legs was missing, her skin was red and raw, and she had a ranging ear infection. Her turn around once she was out of the shelter was almost instantaneous. She almost immediately came to life.
> 
> Granted her breed is a breed that bleeds joy from their skin but my point is...if the shelter environment can do that to a Cavalier....I can only imagine the effects on breeds that don't have the temperment of a Cavalier. People who walked past my two little rescue's cages without a second look don't know what true jewels they passed up. So much the better for me.


This makes me    

And... I adore Cavaliers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> I know I wouldn't want to have to do that job. I try not to judge those who do too harshly. They're human beings, these are incredibly tough judgment calls to make, and they're hopefully doing the best they can to save as many dogs as they can. Since I'm unable/unwilling to take that burden from them...I don't feel it's my place to make judgments on them.


I think there can be great value in looking at things from the outside in when it comes to rescue. I know in the example I gave before the reason the shelter was reformed came from people outside looking in and seeing some things that were not right.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Since I'm unable/unwilling to take that burden from them...I don't feel it's my place to make judgments on them.


Eehhhh. . .I'm unable/unwilling to take in homeless human kids, but I still don't think they should be killed or beaten or starved or put to work in sweatshops, ya know? And I would definitely make judgements on someone who did that. I think people need to be held accountable for their choices, and improvement usually only happens when someone on the outside squawks about it.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Change definitely needs to happen in many, if not most shelters. All that said, knowing the whole story helps when squawking. I was part of a group trying desperately to change the going on at our local shelter. I cannot tell you how much I wanted things to change, for less dogs to be put to sleep. I WISH I could make it happen, or that our whole group could have made a difference. At the end of the day, most of the decisions are made because of finances. If the shelter can only afford to help 100 dogs a month but has 200 then hard decisions have to be made. I am sure it you asked 20 different people for their opinions on which ones would be put to sleep and which would be adopted out there would be 20 different opinions. I guess over all, I am thankful that it isn't my job to do that. I have so many faces of dogs that haunt my dreams as it is. I have cried far too many times over decisions I thought were wrong where the shelters were concerned. What helps me is the faces of the hundreds of dogs that I have personally saved or been a part of saving. The dogs that others thought would never make good pets but because of my efforts, they did make good pets. 

There are thousands of animals being put to sleep just because they never had anyone to show them how to properly behave. All they have is their instinct and they use it and often, it isn't considered acceptable by us humans. I have owned many many dogs that would have been euthanized in shelters. Thank goodness, I had the room and the resources to help them. One dog at a time. One of my current dogs is one of those dogs. He was brought in specifically to be put to sleep at the order of animal control. He now lives a good life and that thought makes me smile in spite of the sadness that happens each day. I guess I prefer to hang on to the happy stories as much as I can.


----------



## marti1357 (Jun 8, 2013)

"See...there's a lot of *liability* involved with dogs and rescue"

1) Sometimes I wonder what this country had become. Regardless of dogs, "we the people" cannot relate to each other and communicate without considering liabilities and ....money. Everything basically comes down to money....I also lived in other countries and although they have their share of problems, they aren't as "twisted" socially as we are.
2) Back to dogs: some of these rescues, raise difficulties for people interested in adopting (fenced yard, anyone?) yet later claim there aren't enough adopting families...Basically preferring to euthanize a dog instead of giving it a chance.
3) Dog behaviorists: there are as many opinions as there are behaviorists. Consult another "professional" and I promise a different diagnosis. Many of these "pros" are 100% convinced they know what the dog thinks, while other "pros" don't know what they are talking about... Isn't that more about ego then about canines?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm surprised that anyone thinks a 70+ per cent euth rate is okay. And I'm not the most soft-hearted person around; I realize that some dogs are not going to make suitable pets and would need far more time and effort put into them than a shelter can manage. But almost three-quarters of all dogs? That seems awfully high. Plus, from what I've read of the temperament testing, it seems flawed. I know that my Casper would bite the hell out of a fake hand on a stick, but he's gentle as a lamb when play-biting me.

But I guess I've never worked in a shelter or rescue, so my opinion doesn't matter, right?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> But I guess I've never worked in a shelter or rescue, so my opinion doesn't matter, right?


Not sure who suggested that. My post was simply saying that because I DID spend a great deal of time (years) in shelters/rescues, that my opinions have changed over the years. I never said that I think 70% euthanasia rate is alright either. I think it is appalling that we kill so many defenseless animals every single year and yet people will continue to have "accidental breedings" or randomly throw this dog with that dog to produce a cash crop. Millions of dogs die every single year in shelters yet there are those that will argue we do not have enough dogs to fill the "supply and demand" 

I guess I am as guilty as the next guy that doesn't want to adopt a Beagle when I have my heart set on a Rottweiler. I have however "settled" for rescued Rotties time and time again when I would have rather had a cute little puppy without any issues. Thankfully every dog I rescued turned into an amazing dog so I am very PRO rescue. 

My opinion stands that due to the lack of good homes, the lack of time and resources needed to save ALL the dogs that the most adoptable dogs should be saved over the less adoptable ones. In the perfect world ( I keep praying for a better answer) all dogs will have a good home and people will be more responsible so we never ever have a surplus of "un-adoptable dogs" dying every day in shelters. 

I also had a bad experience with a dog that I thought was so great. I am so thankful that they discovered the dogs food aggressive behavior before some family with a kid adopted him. It was a Rottie and a super nice looking dog. Tail wagging fool for the most part. They did a temperament test on that dog and they left the dog loose while reaching to pet the dog with the hand (while he was eating) He not only bit the plastic hand but he went nuts on the person holding the plastic hand. If he had been adopted out, some kid would likely have been disfigured or killed. I cried when they put him to sleep but... I couldn't take another dog with issues at that time and rescues were full. Sure wish there would have been a foster willing to work with him on that as it can be fixed. Again, not enough manpower to solve each dogs issues. It wasn't fair to him, someone failed him. Society failed him.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

marti1357 said:


> 1) Sometimes I wonder what this country had become. Regardless of dogs, "we the people" cannot relate to each other and communicate without considering liabilities and ....money. Everything basically comes down to money....I also lived in other countries and although they have their share of problems, they aren't as "twisted" socially as we are.


I doubt you're speaking of Latin America or any of the poorer countries, but yes, here in the US it's about how much money is available to use towards the disposed pets, that really drives the numbers.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I said *I* didn't feel qualified to judge people working in that capacity. Not that anyone else should feel the same.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> With the pet population problem being what it is...working in rescue or shelters is a lot like being a triage nurse during a pandemic. You cannot save everyone. You need to concentrate limited time and resources on those who have the best chance of making it. You have to make very, very hard choices and you will have to choose to let some go that might have had a chance in favor of those most likely to survive. It is a horrible position to put anyone in, but it also is what helps narrow down those who can be helped the most and stop the wasting of resources on those who don't have as good of a chance. And, of course, someone is always going to be upset no matter what decision you make.
> 
> I know I wouldn't want to have to do that job. I try not to judge those who do too harshly. They're human beings, these are incredibly tough judgment calls to make, and they're hopefully doing the best they can to save as many dogs as they can. Since I'm unable/unwilling to take that burden from them...I don't feel it's my place to make judgments on them.


I get the sense that most people understand than not all dogs can be saved and that hard choices must be made. The issue is with _how_ the choices are made. It's a pit bull, euthanize it. Seems nervous in a shelter environment, unadoptable. Reacts after 15 minutes of non-stop pestering, it's a danger to society.

I would love to volunteer at a rescue or shelter, but I'm not sure I'd be welcome since my dog is from a breeder. Katie's breeder is very involved with rescue and I've expressed an interest to her to help if I could. I suspect we're too far away to be of much assistance, though.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

cookieface said:


> I get the sense that most people understand than not all dogs can be saved and that hard choices must be made. The issue is with _how_ the choices are made. It's a pit bull, euthanize it. Seems nervous in a shelter environment, unadoptable. Reacts after 15 minutes of non-stop pestering, it's a danger to society.
> 
> I would love to volunteer at a rescue or shelter, but I'm not sure I'd be welcome since my dog is from a breeder. Katie's breeder is very involved with rescue and I've expressed an interest to her to help if I could. I suspect we're too far away to be of much assistance, though.


I have a dog from a breeder and still volunteer with rescues. There are many options to help. Fund raising, fostering, training, dog walking, computer work, cleaning etc...


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I think the big issue is not that there are dogs that are a liability to adopt out. There are. They either find a very rare placement or they are euthanized and that is the fact of rescue life. The problem is who determines who is adoptable and who isn't and for what reasons. Do you know how many people I talk to that tell me about dominant dogs, specifically in the rescue, and that outlandish things are signs of aggression? WAY more than I run into any one sharing the same ideals as I do or you fine folks do. Things like Shambles would be aggressive by the time he was 2 because he's intact- and firmly believed that dogs left unaltered for too long even if neutered by a rescue would still be aggressive because they had hormones for too long. These are people who get to make life or death decisions.

The last "no kill" rescue I worked for killed dogs. And seemingly at random. There were no behavioral assessments done like they insist, and when cornered and asked to provide proof they declined and made excuses like "Well some of the vet's just make verbal notes, not on paper.." which is inexcusable to me if you're trying to justify why a dog should be euthanized, and goes against their own euthanasia policy requiring assessments and signatures of those who supposedly did the assessing. Dogs involved in serious bites were adopted out, and dogs that had no bite records were euthanized. Dogs with places to be transferred to were euthanized. Lies were told in order for these dogs to be euthanized because the one person making the call was in no way educated and what she said went. In my year and a half there never once was a dog appropriately assessed. There was a "meet your match" assessment program, which if you're familiar with doesn't tell you much of any thing, but after the woman doing that quit (after a dog she was fighting for was euthanized..) the matches were just guessed and filled out by folks who couldn't name a dog if you asked, let alone assess their behavior. 

If a dog was adopted out with behavioral issues (most of which were known in advanced and never reported to the adopters) and the owners called to return the dog, if they so much as mentioned a bite or an attempted bite the manager would ignore their request or deny taking them back. I know a handful of dogs that died this way because the owners were left with no back up and no help, and probably wouldn't have adopted the dog if they were aware of the issues. Why these dogs were adopted and others were euthanized I could not tell you to this day. 

What happened when someone said something about this BS? Well, you can read a short summary here if you like: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/201...d-bullying-at-the-spca-of-southwest-michigan/

Like Laurelin described, it's only rose colored glasses if you think that every one in rescue gives a damn about the animals and does right by each one they come across. Sometimes it's the all mighty dollar, sometimes you find sociopaths as it so happens in care fields, and sometimes people just burn out and don't care any more. There are so many motivations that who really knows, but it'd be nice if any one who has any idea what they're doing could spare some of their time for shelter/rescues. It'd also be nice if those individuals wouldn't get chewed up and spit out when they did try to help. And like Sass said, I could tell you stories for days but most of you are too far for the torches and pitch forks I need. 

(I'm still very pro rescue and will continue to be apart of rescue, but some of it is a real load.)


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Inga said:


> I have a dog from a breeder and still volunteer with rescues. There are many options to help. Fund raising, fostering, training, dog walking, computer work, cleaning etc...


Thank you for the encouragement. When we were looking for a dog, the local rescues and shelters we contacted were less than welcoming. Fortunately (in an odd way), there are many rescues in our area.

TWAB, I've read your story before. It's absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

cookieface said:


> Thank you for the encouragement. When we were looking for a dog, the local rescues and shelters we contacted were less than welcoming. Fortunately (in an odd way), there are many rescues in our area.
> 
> TWAB, I've read your story before. It's absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating.


Oh I forgot to mention in my ramble as well that I have met many people involved in rescue that have dogs from breeders. You'll quickly learn very rarely will any one say any thing directly to you if they have a problem, they'll just say it when you're not around.  Though when I took Elsa a few had no problem telling me it was a waste of time and resources, or that she would in fact never be adoptable. Jerks are every where though.

My last two years in rescue have been arduous at best. Neither places I have worked ended in a positive experience, and somehow it was always the folks at the top that were ruining it. Inside accounts from other rescues in the area aren't much better. Unfortunately, private rescues can get away with a hell of a lot more than shelters, especially if no one opens their mouth. Even if you do it doesn't guarantee any thing. Should have just stuck with fostering and transporting, but if I didn't experience what I have I'd probably still assume rescue was a beautiful fluffy world and nothing bad ever happened. I'm not sure if I will ever work for another rescue shelter again. Maybe in a few years I'll be able to deal with the hassle again, maybe not.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

cookieface said:


> Thank you for the encouragement. When we were looking for a dog, the local rescues and shelters we contacted were less than welcoming. Fortunately (in an odd way), there are many rescues in our area.
> 
> TWAB, I've read your story before. It's absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating.



Absolutely! I think the key is getting more good people involved. It is a heartbreaking, thankless task most days but on the days you save a life that wouldn't normally be saved, it is all worth it. Look into the eyes of any rescued dog and that is thanks enough for the blood sweat and tears that you shed all the other days. Every day that I think "It is a fight I cannot win, I might as well not try" I see my boy Oliver looking at me and it gets me going again. 

I could tell you stories that I witnessed first hand in our local shelter that should make the most heartless person on earth cry but what good would that do? Change comes when people make an effort. I want 100% of the dogs to live but for now, I must keep going, one dog at a time. 

Cookieface, I hope you find a place where you can make a difference. If you have a lot of rescue options in your area then try them all and find the one where your help is most effective. Not all rescues will FIT each volunteer.


TWAB My girl Lexi was a dog that the shelter said "She will be dangerous and will NEVER make a good pet" I had to go to the board of directors to stop them from putting her to sleep. I had to sign a waver saying that I was warned that she was dangerous. Lexi became a registered Therapy dog, LOVED kids, tolerated anything from anyone. I never met a more forgiving dog. She failed the shelter's temperament test on several counts. Food aggression was one of those things. A year after I adopted her, my 2 year old nephew could take anything out of her mouth. In her case, she found the home that was right for her and it worked. 

I wish there were more people who could take a chance on dogs but I wouldn't ever risk putting a dangerous dog into an average family home. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if something happened to a child or adult for that matter. Honestly, more often then not I feel bad for dogs that live in homes with children. If the parents teach kids how to respect the dog, then it is a wonderful thing but that isn't always the case.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Inga said:


> Absolutely! I think the key is getting more good people involved. It is a heartbreaking, thankless task most days but on the days you save a life that wouldn't normally be saved, it is all worth it. Look into the eyes of any rescued dog and that is thanks enough for the blood sweat and tears that you shed all the other days. Every day that I think "It is a fight I cannot win, I might as well not try" I see my boy Oliver looking at me and it gets me going again.
> 
> I could tell you stories that I witnessed first hand in our local shelter that should make the most heartless person on earth cry but what good would that do? Change comes when people make an effort. I want 100% of the dogs to live but for now, I must keep going, one dog at a time.
> 
> ...


I wish the board of directors at the SPCA I worked at cared. Most are the shut their ears and close their eyes type, most don't set foot in the shelter beyond board meetings and only have a seat because it looks good, and the worst of the worst defend the euthanasia going on. There were folks within the organization that agreed with me and backed me up- until the pressure was on, then I stood alone. The 8 month old puppy Buddy in the article was my final straw, and despite all the negativity and back lash they STILL killed him- and lied to volunteers that he had been traded to another rescue for one of their dogs. He had several adopters lined up and rescues offering to take him, but they preferred to kill him rather than send the dog somewhere that gives a damn? 

Elsa would have been different for me had she ever been assessed and actually turned out to be aggressive and feral as she was described. She wasn't pulled for any reason other than the fact she had puppies, and puppies pull in a ton of money in adoption fees. She sat in quarantine with heartworm for five months before it was abruptly determined she would be euthanized. I'm not some sort of dog training genius, but interesting how much her fear diminished the minute she was out of the shelter and even more after her heartworm was treated. Medically it cost me 400 bucks. Mentally it was free and cost just a little time and patience. She's been an absolute joy to have (I mean, I have her face tattooed on my arm now if that says any thing) and Monday she's off to her forever home. Even more interesting, she was so unadoptable and feared a liability they.. released her to a virtually unknown employee of 3 months. 

Basically in all this rambling what I'm saying is people need to get their sh!t together. I love rescue because the dogs are lovely. The people? Not always.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

At the end of the day, you need to hit them where it hurts... the bank. When I said I went to the Board, I should have mentioned, I went with one of the largest financial contributors that they have. I was lucky to know someone that knew someone and the contributor is a lovely bleeding heart. It was proof to her that the system has flaws. Sadly, often the people who make large donations, do not know what goes on behind the scenes, There are so many good people in rescue but sadly, it is often the "higher ups" in the organization that make decisions without any concern for the individual animals. That is not true of all rescues. 

You must feel great pride that you saved a life that was 100% you and you should be proud. Not everyone is willing to do that but you have one happy little dog because of your efforts. Good for you.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Yep, money talks. That particular SPCA is crazy broke. Hundreds of thousands in debt. Yes, hundreds of thousands. They have one large financial donor that definitely doesn't know/care what goes on as long as his business gets the publicity for "helping" animals. Last I was aware the building they're in is tipping into foreclosure. The place is a mess that has no business operating, but people see "no kill rescue" and that's enough for them. 

Thank you, it means a lot coming from you.  I just have the space, time, and resources to check out these "unadoptable" dogs and figure out if that's really the case. Elsa is moseying on home and in a couple weeks I'll be taking a 5 month old fearful resource guarder. He's alive because of a rescue that actually cares about doing the best for ALL animals they come across, so I'll keep plugging on in rescue and hoping for the best one dog at a time.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I just don't understand where this idea that sniffing too much correlates with dog to dog aggression came from.


That's...interesting considering sniffing is part of the greeting ritual and also just something dogs do when they are curious about something.

I'd be more worried if a dog DIDN'T sniff. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

MrsBoats said:


> And the question still stands who would be willing to take in a dog who has no qualms about ripping your face off because you touched his rump with two fingers? Is that a dog that any of you would recommend any DF member bring home??



I'd give that dog a chance. Seriously. And I'm not loaded with experience in dogs.

But I'd give him a chance to "meet me halfway" as I try to do the same, just as I did with Wally. I'd try to find a way to reach him, to work with him. Learn his individual mannerisms and body language.

I'm sure Wally would fail a temperament test - through no fault of his own. Should his life have been snuffed out at 15 months because the humans who 'created' him (breeders) were clueless? 

It wasn't all sunshine and rainbows with him in the early going. I wondered if he would ever eat. He bolted once and I ran 4 miles after him. He's bitten me before out of fear during storms. Now he's on epilepsy meds (and he's bitten me post seizure before I realized what it was, trying to calm him down).

But I didn't just say "screw it, kill this dog, I'll get another." 

And I wouldn't say it for that dog you mention. 

I'm sure you (or someone) will tell me what I don't get and (nicely) how clueless I am, but it's how I feel and always will towards dogs. It's not about "rose-colored glasses" or whatever. It's about respecting the dog like you posted and trying to help him and at least give him a chance before killing him.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I'd give that dog a chance. Seriously. And I'm not loaded with experience in dogs.
> 
> But I'd give him a chance to "meet me halfway" as I try to do the same, just as I did with Wally. I'd try to find a way to reach him, to work with him. Learn his individual mannerisms and body language.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate your spirit and heart. A Rottweiler at 100+ pounds is a lot of dog to contend with when it has these issues and I would never recommend to anyone that wasn't an expert trainer to take on a dog like that. Also, while one is saving THAT dog, another dog will be euthanized instead. The fact still remains that if there are only 100 people looking for dogs, 200 dogs looking for homes then 100 dogs will be put to sleep. It could be the Rottweiler that has issues (like mentioned above) or the friendly Beagle in the cage next door that has no issues. The fact remains that dogs will be put to sleep. The concern here seems to be WHICH dogs are put to sleep and how they are chosen. I would still make that same choice, even though I wouldn't want a Beagle and I LOVE Rottweilers. I would chose to put the dangerous Rottweiler (not because of breed) to sleep and save the more adoptable Beagle. I wouldn't want to make the choice to put a dog that COULD and likely would hurt someone into a home.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Inga said:


> I can appreciate your spirit and heart. A Rottweiler at 100+ pounds is a lot of dog to contend with when it has these issues and I would never recommend to anyone that wasn't an expert trainer to take on a dog like that. Also, while one is saving THAT dog, another dog will be euthanized instead. The fact still remains that if there are only 100 people looking for dogs, 200 dogs looking for homes then 100 dogs will be put to sleep. It could be the Rottweiler that has issues (like mentioned above) or the friendly Beagle in the cage next door that has no issues. The fact remains that dogs will be put to sleep. The concern here seems to be WHICH dogs are put to sleep and how they are chosen. I would still make that same choice, even though I wouldn't want a Beagle and I LOVE Rottweilers. I would chose to put the dangerous Rottweiler (not because of breed) to sleep and save the more adoptable Beagle. I wouldn't want to make the choice to put a dog that COULD and likely would hurt someone into a home.


I like the above very much. Know nothing about Sternberg's abilities or lack of, just know that there are way too many good dogs out in the world needing homes versus the iffy dogs that could/would take a face off.

On the money end we have cities filing bankruptcy, in IL the state has 6 inspectors to cover the whole state to inspect 1000's of kennels/pet shops grooming facilities etc. We use to get yearly inspections and have not been inspected in 5 years. Furballs are very low on the list.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I'm going to revisit this thread for a moment and mention why this really irked the crap out of me. I knew when I saw it posted that it was going to be heated. I had decided I was going to sit this one out and watch from the sidelines with my cup of coffee. 

I was doing okay until I saw it take this wild twist with a link to a website as a reference to back up what was being said about Sue Sternburg. Apparently the website author has no need to paragraphs with her writing and brought up stats about dogs being euthanized which may have very well been pulled out of the air. There were no references cited or links to documents that could substantiate these stats. There's Hilter being thrown around and then someone else says that she should use a sniper rifle to gun down dogs being walked because it would be quicker. 

Really?? That's when I had to put the coffee cup down and play John Stewart.

All I could think of was this:










It just all took on this crazy Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News spin which is not unlike something like this - 

"75% of grandparents are going to be killed by death panels under Obamacare and it's true because Ted Nugent says so on his blog!" 

"Dang. Why doesn't the government start shooting the elderly walking down the street because it would just be quicker and cheaper?"

**Double face palm**

Not everything read on the internet is true and if someone digs deep enough they can find information that will support or debunk something they believe....true or not. Snopes is around for a reason...how many times do you see people posting things on their FB wall about privacy that someone inevitably posts that it's false according to Snopes.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So do you happen to know what the kill rate of her "rescue" is? I tend to not believe any shelter or rescue when they post their kill rates (I think they really lowball them to look better), but if we know what she says it is, there could be a more informed discussion.

Because really, the "temperment tests" she does absolutely look like she's looking for a reason to kill dogs. "Hey, let's poke this dog with a stick until he gets mad, then kill him for it!"


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> I'm going to revisit this thread for a moment and mention why this really irked the crap out of me. I knew when I saw it posted that it was going to be heated. I had decided I was going to sit this one out and watch from the sidelines with my cup of coffee.
> 
> I was doing okay until I saw it take this wild twist with a link to a website as a reference to back up what was being said about Sue Sternburg. Apparently the website author has no need to paragraphs with her writing and brought up stats about dogs being euthanized which may have very well been pulled out of the air. There were no references cited or links to documents that could substantiate these stats. There's Hilter being thrown around and then someone else says that she should use a sniper rifle to gun down dogs being walked because it would be quicker.
> 
> ...


Yet you came at me with an attitude because I said I wanted to see some scientific backing to her opinion on excessive sniffing. You acted like my need for more proof then just the opinion of some women, who barely even had any credentials to do what she does, was sort of horrible thing. Then tried to tell me I needed proof of my statements as if that actually made any sense, which it didn't to me and still doesn't. She was no one important before she came up with that temp test and that was her way into the spot light. Nothing she did before then give her any qualifications to do what she does now and to talk as if she had an authority on the subject.

What scares me is people actually look up to her as if she actually knows what she's talking about. The fact that I can find a blog post on the subject of excessive sniffing and see people commenting about being worried about there dogs becoming aggressive because they sniff too much is absolutely ridiculous to me.

There are people with puppies that "sniff too much" worrying about their dogs becoming aggressive as they age. You think that's OK? I sure as hell don't.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47-M-Xh7mA

I think this is interesting and something to think about. How many shelters pick and chose the tests they want to use? How much education to the "testers" actually have? I know for a fact that the woman that did most of the testing at one of our local shelters had no clue and heavily weighted the test by breed to assure the outcome that she wanted. I would watch to see how much she "pushed to the dog to trigger" a behavior and dogs she liked always passed while certain breeds rarely if ever passed. 

I understand the frustration people have in that area but... I do believe that a temperament test IS a good place to begin to measure safety in the home with a new adoptable dog. I have argued many times with various shelter staff about the importance of being impartial to the dog and making sure the testing is the same for all dogs, regardless of size and breed. I appreciate this video obviously because I agree with her but I think she does a good job explaining the need to be "fair" to all dogs. Why should a breed that I don't like have to endure a more difficult test then a dog I like? 

As angry as it makes me that many shelters do not have educated staff, it comes down to resources. It takes money to put on the educational seminars for their staff. It would be great if all of them could do it and that continued education was always provided. A girl can dream right?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I think this is interesting and something to think about. How many shelters pick and chose the tests they want to use? How much education to the "testers" actually have? I know for a fact that the woman that did most of the testing at one of our local shelters had no clue and heavily weighted the test by breed to assure the outcome that she wanted. I would watch to see how much she "pushed to the dog to trigger" a behavior and dogs she liked always passed while certain breeds rarely if ever passed.


Inga, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. I pretty much try to stay out of threads like this because through the years I have met too many 1 dog wonders and some (believe it or not) who did not even have 1 dog experience. 

I'm not saying that people with 1 dog are all bad but whether it's 1 dog or 50 or in my case more than I can remember, it does not mean that everything that comes out of our mouths is the best possible info. I have met too many blowhards that should not be allowed near dogs. Just sayin'.......


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Inga said:


> I understand the frustration people have in that area but... I do believe that a temperament test IS a good place to begin to measure safety in the home with a new adoptable dog.


On of the things that makes me so uncomfortable about this type of test, though, is... is temperament testing in a shelter environment really a good measure of safety in a home? A dog's behavior in a shelter and a dog's behavior in a home can be 180 degrees - I couldn't even count how many dogs I have met over the years that absolutely would not pass a test like this if I administered it at the clinic when they are there for an appointment (with someone they know!) but that live their whole lives as lovely, stable family pets. I am working with an owner to countercondition a wee chi mix to the clinic because he loses his dang mind when he's there but is completely normal everywhere else. Absolutely would not pass that test but as we're breaking through to him during his sessions I can see the wonderful dog inside peeking out. 

I am not of the "every dog can be saved" mindset but honestly I think tests like this are so flawed when used in a shelter environment as to be almost useless. It's too easy to get a false sense of security from a shut-down dog or condemn a perfectly good dog. 

There are shelters out there who are doing a better job, and some who are doing a worse job just rushing dogs through their system. Unfortunately, unless people locally squawk and get involved in their local systems then nothing is likely to change. What makes me uncomfortable, with nothing against Sue Sternburg personally, is that once a person like this achieves a certain level of national notoriety then their methods tend to be adopted without much critical thought and with widely varying levels of skill, and misused as an excuse to kill dogs... it's just "what's done" because so-and-so said so. And so-and-so may or may not know jack poo.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I am not of the "every dog can be saved" mindset but honestly I think tests like this are so flawed when used in a shelter environment as to be almost useless. It's too easy to get a false sense of security from a shut-down dog or condemn a perfectly good dog.


x1000

(too short)


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Yet you came at me with an attitude because I said I wanted to see some scientific backing to her opinion on excessive sniffing. You acted like my need for more proof then just the opinion of some women, who barely even had any credentials to do what she does, was sort of horrible thing. Then tried to tell me I needed proof of my statements as if that actually made any sense, which it didn't to me and still doesn't. She was no one important before she came up with that temp test and that was her way into the spot light. Nothing she did before then give her any qualifications to do what she does now and to talk as if she had an authority on the subject.
> 
> What scares me is people actually look up to her as if she actually knows what she's talking about. The fact that I can find a blog post on the subject of excessive sniffing and see people commenting about being worried about there dogs becoming aggressive because they sniff too much is absolutely ridiculous to me.
> 
> There are people with puppies that "sniff too much" worrying about their dogs becoming aggressive as they age. You think that's OK? I sure as hell don't.


Well...I have an intensive sniffer and he _doesn't_ care for other dogs...even when he was a puppy. He doesn't look for trouble but if a dog makes eye contact for too long or too intently, Ocean will tell them off. If I have been around another dog...he will bury his nose into my leg and not stop sniffing even if you keep walking. His moves with you with his nose stuck to your leg. He does it to other people too and they get uncomfortable with how intensely he sniffs them. 

Since everyone here freakin' loves Patricia McConnell....here's her take on Sue Sternburg and what she says about sniffing. 

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/th...dog-aggression-puppies-and-intensive-sniffing

OMG....she agrees with her. 



> I did indeed find a correlation (just observations, no research) that dogs who can’t seem to stop sniffing an area where other dogs have been, are often dogs who have problems with other dogs, especially unfamiliar ones.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> Well...I have an intensive sniffer and he _doesn't_ care for other dogs...even when he was a puppy. He doesn't look for trouble but if a dog makes eye contact for too long or too intently, Ocean will tell them off. If I have been around another dog...he will bury his nose into my leg and not stop sniffing even if you keep walking. His moves with you with his nose stuck to your leg. He does it to other people too and they get uncomfortable with how intensely he sniffs them.
> 
> Since everyone here freakin' loves Patricia McConnell....here's her take on Sue Sternburg and what she says about sniffing.
> 
> ...


As I mentioned, my dog sniffs excessively. To the point that, when I'm out without him around other dogs, I come home and he literally follows me from room to room sniffing me. He loves other dogs. 

It's fine for people to simply state an opinion and their own experience which I would not have a problem with her doing at all. Yet, she's using that to evaluate a dog who's life is on the line and personally I feel that calls for a more logical or scientific basis then just the random opinion of some women. 

If people in the shelter system look to her as the a guide for their own evaluations, shouldn't it be important that they evaluate the dog based off of behavior that's been proven to be associated with dangerous behavior in dogs rather then just speculation? 

Since you offer a different perspective to the topic, and I do appreciate that, what is your opinion of her statement that the dog showed no domestic dog qualities? She basis that on the fact that the dog didn't hold it's ears back and walked into the room with confidence. I don't understand that. Since you've worked in the shelter system maybe you could elaborate what she meant by that? 

Anyways, I'm sure she's not the worst person to be working in shelters. She puts people, rather then the animals first, that's not necessarily a bad thing considering the amount of people bitten by dogs. Maybe the stuff written about her isn't all true. Honestly, I would prefer it wasn't, for the sake of the dogs she comes in contact with. 

At the same time, it's obvious that she's not perfect and that, perhaps, some of her evaluations of dogs do them a disservice and end a good dogs life and that's a shame. 

Considering the majority of information I can find written about her is bad that kind of puts up a red flag for me. You are right though, not everything you read on the internet is true, so maybe there are quite a few lies or over exaggerations mixed in with the truth.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

MrsBoats said:


> Well...I have an intensive sniffer and he _doesn't_ care for other dogs...even when he was a puppy. He doesn't look for trouble but if a dog makes eye contact for too long or too intently, Ocean will tell them off. If I have been around another dog...he will bury his nose into my leg and not stop sniffing even if you keep walking. His moves with you with his nose stuck to your leg. He does it to other people too and they get uncomfortable with how intensely he sniffs them.
> 
> Since everyone here freakin' loves Patricia McConnell....here's her take on Sue Sternburg and what she says about sniffing.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. Because if your dog, who is an excessive sniffer, is safe in a home... then what value does it really have as a tool to decide which dogs should be euthanized?


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> Well...I have an intensive sniffer and he _doesn't_ care for other dogs...even when he was a puppy. He doesn't look for trouble but if a dog makes eye contact for too long or too intently, Ocean will tell them off. If I have been around another dog...he will bury his nose into my leg and not stop sniffing even if you keep walking. His moves with you with his nose stuck to your leg. He does it to other people too and they get uncomfortable with how intensely he sniffs them.


So, wouldn't that mean that if Sternburg evaluated Ocean she would recommend he be put down rather than placed in a home? I'm also not sure how a dog "having problems with other dogs" translates to "unadoptable" and too much of a liability to place.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

sassafras said:


> I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. Because if your dog, who is an excessive sniffer, is safe in a home... then what value does it really have as a tool to decide which dogs should be euthanized?


The point I'm making is...that my dog would be a catastrophe in an *average pet home*. He has an edge to him and is the type of dog that needs an experienced rottweiler home that can handle him. Those aren't the people who adopt shelter dogs. Lars and Ocean's breeder had a pet home and first time rottweiler owners who were interested in him. She doesn't breed rottweilers that would thrive in an pet environment...they are working dogs from working lines. There are many generations of IPOIII dogs behind him...he is not meant for an average pet home. His breeder knew that and could not in good conscience give him to those people and sent him here because I had the right dog dynamic in place and we have the experience to handle him successfully. I wasn't looking for a puppy when we brought him home...I was helping her place a puppy she co-bred because I knew we could do right by him. He is a safe dog in MY home...not an average pet home. If he ended up in a shelter...he (or any of my rottweilers...because they have correct rottweiler temperaments) wouldn't pass a shelter temperament test. Lars passed the ATTS temperament test because they look at the breed they are testing. One of the things they test for is how does a dog deal with an aggressive stranger. A rottweiler that doesn't stand up to the aggressive stranger fails the test. A golden retriever that does stand up to the stranger fails. I will be the first person to say...the average pet home has NO business owning a rottweiler with _correct rottweiler temperament. _ 

It all goes back to the average pet owner who wants the archetypal family dog that their kids can crawl all over, take food away from because they feel like it, pull their tails, take to petsmart, and walk down a crowded street and get thrust into the face of people, kids, and strange dogs. 

I know the type of person who adopts from shelters and rescues...I have processed many a rottweiler adoption application. None of them were looking for a working dog....they wanted a good, solid, safe family pet. The one thing that was deemed non-negotiable was animal/people aggression and it was stated on the application time and time again. I have also taught weekly CGC, therapy dog classes, and rally obedience classes at a dog training facility for 7 years. The vast majority are not equipped or do not want to deal with a dog that has issues that could make them dangerous. Most people when they go and buy a car from a dealer are not looking for one that has to have it's transmission replaced before they can drive it. Most people who are looking for a pet dog is looking for one without huge issues...they will take on small training issues like chewing or pulling on the leash. There are few people who are willing to take on a dog that needs big behavior modification so it can function in society. Just last week in class, I had to tell someone her dog isn't a "bad dog" because he doesn't like other dogs and he likes his personal space. She wants him to be friends with everyone and he just won't because he's fearful of other dogs. He is a 12 month old rescued male corgi and he wasn't properly socialized. He could also be going through another fear period. Because he can't hang out with her sister's dog at weekend BBQ's...now he's a bad dog in her eyes and she's sorry she brought him home. She expects him to be like her previous corgis. who were okay with strange dogs Over the 7 years...I figure I have tried to help about 500 dogs and about 95% of them are average pet homes the other 5% were performance/working homes. So between that and the 4 years in rescue I have...I have a pretty good grasp on the type of home and lifestyle rescue dogs need to be able to tolerate. 

I cannot comment on what "domestic dog qualities" she's talking about because I don't know what she means by that. I haven't watched the other several hours that edited clip came from...so I have no opinion about that. I will say that confident dogs can be a challenge for some people. I know you have all heard about prey drive and pack drive. But there is also something called defense/fight drive (which is highly desired in sports like ringsport and schutzhund) and flight drive. A confident dog can have strong fight/defense drive. Ocean and Lars both have strong fight and defense drive. A soft dog will have more flight and/or pack drive. According to your profile...you have a mini-poodle. That's not a breed I would label as being high fight/defense drive. I cannot compare a mini poodle to a rottweiler or a pit bull when it comes to defense drive. A pit bull has been bred to fight other dogs and is a terrier and a rottweiler has been bred to be a strong willed working breed to work cattle and schutzhund (as just a portion of what they work in.) A miniature poodle is a toy breed created for companionship. 

It all goes back to who is adopting the dogs and giving them safe dogs they can handle. It's the same people who need a "Caution: HOT!!!!!" on a cup of McDonalds coffee or


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

I had to stop doing rally with one of my Cavaliers because she couldn't keep her nose off the ground...she just kept sniffing where all the other dogs had been. Guess she would be toast, too.

MrsBoats...I get what you are saying about certain breeds of dogs not being for the "average dog owner" but one of the dogs mentioned in the blog was a young lab puppy who was killed because of her protocol.



> Every dog Sue temperament tested was recommended for euthanasia…& subsequently destroyed… including a little yellow Lab mix puppy who wagged his tail the entire time, but appeared distracted….It is my understanding that three of the dogs who were destroyed after this seminar, almost unbelievably, had adoption paperwork in place! So close to making it out of the shelter alive…


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

MrsBoats said:


> I know the type of person who adopts from shelters and rescues...


I do, too. I work with them all day, every day, of my working life. And my experience of what people want from dogs and what they are capable of and willing to work with once they have those dogs is very different than yours. I'm not saying a working bred rottweiler is suitable for every home, but that's not the majority of dogs going through a shelter system. *shrug*


There are better ways than the status quo to do things. Many shelters around the country are making simple policy changes that can reduce euthanasia rates, decrease intake, and increase retention. But people locally have to demand better from their shelters in order to get better back.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

> I'm not saying a working bred rottweiler is suitable for every home, but that's not the majority of dogs going through a shelter system.


You are absolutely right. But there are plenty of dogs out there who don't care for other dogs...and pit bulls are the "in breed" to save now a days. Everyone and their sister is on a mission to prove the world wrong about the pit bull. One of my favorite dog's outside of my own is a great rescued pit bull with an owner who is honest and accepts the fact her dog doesn't like small dogs. She manages it so well, the pittie is competing in AKC agility and obedience. But she knows she MUST manage her dog around small dogs. I just looked at Petfinder and the first page for my local area was pit bulls, ACD's and Rottweilers (and mixes). All three of those breeds aren't necessarily friendly with other dogs. With pet ownership as it is today where a lot of dogs are in doggy day care while the owners work, go to dog parks, or "yappy hours," the aloof dog who likes distance from other dogs is considered a "defective dog." They must make the dog comply to their lifestyle and their expectations instead of adapting to what the dog needs. Should those dogs be being euthanized? Oh god no. But if they are passed over time and time again for months on end or is adopted out only to be returned due to not being able to tolerate dogs in close quarters...they end up rotting in the shelter where some major behavioral issues develop or they are euthanized to make room.

The majority of people are looking for dogs who can do more than just tolerate the presence of other dogs. Just like the lady with the corgi in my class...her dog is a bad dog because he doesn't want to play with strange dogs. Sometimes that can't be worked through and then people are disappointed instead of accepting the dog they have. Sometimes people are so disappointed they don't go the shelter route ever again. 

There are many different ways to do the dog adoption thing in a better way...from looking at various academic theses, temperament testing as a whole seems to be flawed. Until the type of people adopting or the outlook they have on what they are honestly looking for in a pet changes...I'm not sure what can be changed at the temperament test level of handing them dogs that a toddler can handle and stack the deck so the people are successful with a dog from a shelter. 

http://www.academia.edu/1121691/Rel...ibility_of_existing_tests_of_canine_behaviour



> but one of the dogs mentioned in the blog was a young lab puppy who was killed because of her protocol.


Which blog is that?? You have a link? If it's in the wall of words website posted on the first page...I can't make myself read that because my head hurts after about 10 sentences.

Because I harp on safety...I'll show you what my former rescue feels about safe rotties for their potential adopters. These are snippets from their about page:



> NERR&R adheres to the following objectives:
> 
> Educate with regard to responsible ownership including but not limited to training, husbandry, breeding and health practices.
> Preserve the Rottweiler breed through education, rescue, placement and other services.
> ...





> NERR&R values all Rottweilers but is committed, above all, to preserving the reputation of the Rottweiler breed. *NERR&R will not knowingly place any Rottweiler that may be a danger to the public or which may perpetuate the media stereotype of Rottweilers.* Rottweilers placed by NERR&R have been fully temperament tested and have lived in family situations for a minimum of two weeks.


From their policies:



> Most NERR&R dogs come from regional animal control facilities within New England (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI and VT) in which we operate. Depending on circumstances, NERR&R may accept a limited number of owner surrenders. Regardless, all dogs coming into our program are temperament tested and evaluated by trained NERR&R volunteers. *We place our dogs as family members into pre-approved homes; we do not place dogs for the purposes of guarding. NERR&R does not accept aggressive dogs nor dogs with a known bite history.*





> 1. An approved NERR&R volunteer will evaluate each dog prior to its being accepted into the program. Evaluation forms are provided by NERR&R and include testing for socialization, obedience, aggression, resource possession, etc.
> 
> 2. Dogs are not accepted into the foster program without a temperament evaluation. Specific exceptions may be made by NERR&R officers for extraordinary situations (puppies, sick or injured dogs,etc). These dogs will be evaluated at a later date before becoming available for adoption. Dogs failing the evaluation will be euthanized at the discretion of NERR&R's Board of Directors.
> 
> 3. NERR&R will not consider a dog that has a reported bite incident or aggression problem. NERR&R also does not accept dogs that have been used as security or guard dogs. Exceptions will be made for dogs that are being brought in for the expressed purpose of euthanasia.


On their "Our Dogs" page:



> Our Rottweilers are placed into family situations only in RI, CT, MA, NH, VT, and ME


They don't fool around about adopting out safe dogs for family only situations.

And here's one more edit...here's a link to a PDF file of an intake evaluation form from a sister rescue they have on their website. This is very similar to the test we performed on the rottweilers we took in. They have the link available on their website for potential adopters to see what the test is the dogs take. 

http://www.4theloveofdog.org/TempEval.pdf


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I am posting this again in hopes that someone will watch/listen to it. I think she explains the objective well and the faults in the test and how to BEST handle those faults. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47-M-Xh7mA

Mrs.Boats I agree completely about the "proper Rottweiler temperament" being an issue for the average pet home. Although I tend to think of myself as the "average pet home" I am often reminded that I am not. For one thing, I keep my dogs active and busy and work with them daily in one manner or another. I tend to forget that MOST dog homes do not work with their dogs daily. I guess because I don't see it as work. Most importantly I have one rule that is followed in my house and that is "I MAKE ALL THE RULES" I tell my dogs that since I pay the mortgage, I make the rules. There is no wishy washy stuff with me, when I say "no" the answer is NO! 

I have so many times had people say "I want a Rottie because your dogs are so good" What they do not see is that I work my dogs every single day. I have 35 years of Rottweiler experience and experience training service dogs and other working breeds. I see my dogs as perfect but am fully aware of their "issues" One of which is they do not make Indiscriminate friendships (Oliver does but he is NOT a well bred dog) It took Carsten years to trust a guy that I know enough to actually play with him. 

Each breed has it's own set of "issues" but that is the key. Those "issues" are not "issues" for the RIGHT owner. 

The sad fact remains that no matter how sad the results of the temperament tests SEEM to be, dogs WILL be put to sleep in shelters and rescues. That fact is not happening because of mean shelter workers or temperament tests that were not done fairly. They are being put to sleep because there are not enough good homes to adopt them. There are too many irresponsible people that are letting their dogs get pregnant and producing yet more unwanted dogs to add to the problem. 

Someone said "Do the dogs act the same in the shelters as they will in the home?" The simple answer is "no" but the truth remains that they can weed out dogs with obvious aggression issues in the shelters. The video above HELPS to explain the goal. Just because a dog doesn't "pass" all areas of the test doesn't mean he will be automatically be put to sleep in any shelter. Shelters that are blessed enough to have trainers/volunteers/fosters with experience will work on some of the "issues" in order to place the dog. This always comes down to resources. Do they have the money, the people, the time to help the "needy dogs."


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Inga said:


> I am posting this again in hopes that someone will watch/listen to it. I think she explains the objective well and the faults in the test and how to BEST handle those faults.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47-M-Xh7mA
> 
> ...


When it comes to my house rules, I use the phrase "benevolent dictator."  No Ocean...you will not unload at DEFCON 1 with double barrels a-blazin' at the guy walking down the beach at us because he's moving with a little bit too much purpose for your tastes. No Lars, you will not fly into the air and give that person airborne kisses and a head butt as an extra bonus. Yes, Ocean...that dog is allowed to breathe the same air as you no matter what sort of stink eye he just gave you. No Lars, you will not growl at me because I disagree with you peeing on the agility trial secretary in her chair. LOL 

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say "I want a Rottie because your dogs are so good"...I would be LOADED. LOL And, that's exactly it....they don't see the work that has gone into making them good dogs. Most people aren't willing to take on the work to make them good. My first rottie was a rescue and not from working lines...we were his FOURTH home by the time he was a year and a half old. He was in a shelter 3 separate times before he found us. He took a mountain load of work before he was considered a "good dog" and an obedience titled therapy dog...and he stayed with us until he died at almost 11. The "average pet homes" failed him three times in a row.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

sassafras said:


> I do, too. I work with them all day, every day, of my working life. And my experience of what people want from dogs and what they are capable of and willing to work with once they have those dogs is very different than yours. I'm not saying a working bred rottweiler is suitable for every home, but that's not the majority of dogs going through a shelter system. *shrug*
> 
> 
> There are better ways than the status quo to do things. Many shelters around the country are making simple policy changes that can reduce euthanasia rates, decrease intake, and increase retention. But people locally have to demand better from their shelters in order to get better back.


This is why I find this discussion interesting, because one of the main problems I have in rescue is "average home" and "most owners." Sort of flippantly arrogant. 

We're just not that special, y'all. I don't know how many "average" folks I know that own all sorts of breeds and live happily ever after. I've used these sort of phrases before, but in recent times I really exam what it means exactly. Barring issues that I've had with my own dogs (that I was not unaware of to begin with) what is an average home? Universally, which I imagine no one will agree on. Am I an average home? If statistics are remotely accurate, there are 78.2 million dogs in homes. I can't pretend all of them are great homes, but I also am not inclined to believe they're all bumbling idiots that are barely hanging on by a thread with their dogs. 

And I am saying this as someone with little faith in humanity at times, but there are plenty of people with fed, vetted, dogs that go for walks and lead "simple" lives without issue. Even Rottweilers. Apparently reputable breeders are doing their work in my neck of the woods because never once have I come across a well bred working dog that reflects the temperament of the breed for adoption in a shelter. We in rescue are the beginning of setting rescue dogs up for success or failure and I don't think dismissing the general population is it.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

In my mind, the average pet home is my husband's sister and her family. The have three kids ages 10 to 2 years old. They bought their yellow lab from a friend of a friend who bred their "nice pet dog" to another "nice pet dog" with no health clearances or anything. They neutered him at 6 months old because their vet told them to. Their lab is a very sweet dog...dumb as a stump...but a very sweet dog. He is that archetypal family dog that the baby can step on, the kids can go and bear hug around the neck, and needed only six weeks of puppy class at petsmart. They leave him out in their yard all day while they are at work behind an invisible fence in a residential neighborhood. They never crate him. When he ate their couch because he was young and they left him out loose in the house....instead of training him or using a crate they banished him for a couple of years to the unfinished basement where he couldn't damage anything when they weren't home. They bring him to track meets because my BIL is a track coach and he has play dates with his litter mates and the neighborhood dogs. 

They lucked out incredibly with him and he's the perfect dog for their average pet household.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I do think there is an "average pet household" and I don't think many of the forum members here fit that description. The average pet household is one where the pets are not a primary focus, but simply expected to quietly exist as a family member. They are loved, but they are not a primary focus of time or resources. They are not a primary hobby for their people, but more of a background character. The average pet family does not expect their schedule and social life to revolve around their pets and they expect that any pet will fit into their current lifestyle with only a few accommodations.

That may be unrealistic of those families to expect that, but from what I've seen around me, that seems to be average. Most people on this forum are on here because their dogs are one of their top priorities and a primary focus of their time and resources. Many are involved with lifelong training for their dogs and/or dog sports or therapy/service dog work. It is a very different mindset than most average pet homes where the adults usually do not even expect to have to attend a class or open a book to better train their dog.

I think, out of necessity, that most rescues and shelters do try to cater to the "average pet household," although I applaud those rescues and shelters that work so hard to find special homes for the dogs that simply need more than average. Unfortunately, there just is a limited supply of those homes and so many needy dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I consider my family to be thoroughly average dog owners. And yet we've managed quite well with out motley pack of imperfect dogs. Shug bites when annoyed. Willow was probably clinically insane. Miracle jumps the fence every single time your attention is diverted for 1/10 of a second. Toby bit my mom when he and Willow got into a fight and she stuck her hand into it. . .and he's probably the "safest" of all our dogs---he's the one that babies could crawl on and pull his ears and who you could poke with a stick for 15 minutes and he'd just wag his tail. None of them are trained to do anything particular. But, well, we love them? I wouldn't consider the dogs to be our primary focus. . .maybe mine, because I don't have anything else to focus on , but definitely not my mom's.

But, relating to the original post, I think killing dogs based on where they look or how much they sniff is quite likely to kill a lot of good dogs and not at all likely to weed out the ones that might actually be dangerous. Which is kind of defeating the purpose of temperment testing.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I do think there is an "average pet household" and I don't think many of the forum members here fit that description. The average pet household is one where the pets are not a primary focus, but simply expected to quietly exist as a family member. They are loved, but they are not a primary focus of time or resources. They are not a primary hobby for their people, but more of a background character. The average pet family does not expect their schedule and social life to revolve around their pets and they expect that any pet will fit into their current lifestyle with only a few accommodations.
> 
> That may be unrealistic of those families to expect that, but from what I've seen around me, that seems to be average. Most people on this forum are on here because their dogs are one of their top priorities and a primary focus of their time and resources. Many are involved with lifelong training for their dogs and/or dog sports or therapy/service dog work. It is a very different mindset than most average pet homes where the adults usually do not even expect to have to attend a class or open a book to better train their dog.
> 
> I think, out of necessity, that most rescues and shelters do try to cater to the "average pet household," although I applaud those rescues and shelters that work so hard to find special homes for the dogs that simply need more than average. Unfortunately, there just is a limited supply of those homes and so many needy dogs.


Give this woman a gold star because this is a perfect assessment of the average pet home. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I'll mention two "average" pet homes I'm familiar with just for a different perspective. 

Two different sisters, both with kids. One owns a typical rottie. He's an amazing and beautiful dog but he's the typical guard dog. My father went to visit my sister and since then constantly mentions that dog and thinks it's aggressive because it barked and growled at him when he walked in the door. The dog lives with a mini poodle and a 7 year old child and there's never been a problem. My sister isn't an above average dog owner but the dog is extremely well trained. He's just a good rottie who was looking out for his family and my dad doesn't, and probably will never, understand that. Considering she lives in a bad area I'm glad she has that dog. I won't lie, when me and my SO were walking to the park with him and my nieces and nephew and some thuggish looking guys passed close by I was more then happy to have that dog with me. When they got too close and my SO loosened the leash and he jumped up a little and the guys moved over about 2 feet I was smiling. 

My other sister has two young boys, a pit bull that is scared of colored men and men who wear wife beaters, that was found on the side of the road and a GSD puppy. Oh and a husband that can count as a third child on some occasions lol. Anyways, they're also a normal family that is capable of handling two problem dogs. One that was obviously abused as a puppy by some thug and then left on the side of the road to die


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm not sure most of us know what the average pet home really is. Could be that tons of people are doing more with their dogs than we think and just aren't wasting their time posting on forums like the rest of us.  I know lots of "average dog owners" who plan social events and vacations around their dogs, run and bike with their dogs daily, deal with issues like SA and RGing, etc.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> I'm not sure most of us know what the average pet home really is. Could be that tons of people are doing more with their dogs than we think and just aren't wasting their time posting on forums like the rest of us.  I know lots of "average dog owners" who plan social events and vacations around their dogs, run and bike with their dogs daily, deal with issues like SA and RGing, etc.



I actually don't see those types as "average" because they are thinking of their dogs in the other parts of their lives. There are sadly, many that do not. They plan their lives and then their dogs must "fit in where it can" or... they dump it off. If you consider the "average pet owner" as the millions of people dumping their dogs into shelters and rescues or worse, the quality of "average" goes down considerably. 

In this area, or rather about 45 minutes away, there is an area known for horrid homes, dog fighting, dogs dying out on leashes from starvation or exposure. There are regular occurrence of female dogs who just got pregnant dying while delivering or the whole whelp dying from exposure, starvation, ticks, disease. These homes must also be considered in the "average pet homes" as these folks come and apply for dogs from shelters too. When I would see an address in that area, my stomach would get sick. There are huge amounts of those types out there as well. 

I wouldn't consider MOST of the people on this forum as "average" in that they seem to prioritize their dogs very highly. Might not all be expert dog trainers but likely most are willing to do what it takes to have a successful, happy relationship with their dogs. Most would go above and beyond what I would consider as the average pet home when I add in the above types of statistics. 

When I was processing applications in the past at shelters or talking to people about breeds, everything the person said would go through my head when I looked at the dog they were considering. I am after all, human, and that is normal. Our own prejudices, or experiences play a part in what we do, decisions we make. I was asked often, which dogs I thought were "adoptable" and though my own internal answer was always "all of them" the truth was, in good conscience, there were those I couldn't adopt out. I wished, and prayed for the "right homes" to come in for dogs but sadly, they didn't often show up in time for the over crowded kennels and small budget. 

I love my sister and her family but they are "average" pet home because their dog is just that... a dog. She is not part of the family. Lucky for her, she has a great aunt and 2 wonderful 4 legged cousins that make for some fun in her life. My nephew said it best "She is a good dog, not because we did anything to make her that way but... God just made her good" She never went to obedience school nor did anyone spend time training her yet she is friendly, easy going and doesn't cause any issues. If you asked my average pet home sister, she would say the dog/family relationship they have there, is a success. Now... throw a problem dog into that type of home and there would be issues. For one thing, the dog would be returned to the shelter or put to sleep or in some cases, worse.

Also had to add. I think it is truly unfair but... I have on occasion thought that a certain dog should be put to sleep (if the perfect home doesn't show up) because it would be better then having the poor dog be pushed to do something he shouldn't do in the wrong home and become yet another statistic the media can use against the breed in an effort to ban then. I have never taken a decision like that lightly and none of the good rescue people I know have either. It weighs on a person. I don't know Sue Sternberg but I pray she doesn't ever take lightly such decisions either. I pray she too looks at the whole picture and tries to make the best decision in the horrible situation of over crowded rescues.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Count me in as someone who thinks that "average" homes are getting a bit of a bad rap here. I grew up in an "average" dog home - we walked the dogs once or twice a week, didn't think too hard about what we fed them, and didn't train them beyond sit/down/stay. They had their issues (reactivity, and one was soft and fearful) but they were great dogs and fit just fine into our home. One would probably have passed a temperament test, the other probably would not have.

Another average home is my friends. The wife didn't even really want a dog, but agreed to get one for her husband. He has had two dogs in his life, neither of which were trained (one was great, one bit people), and had no idea how to care for a dog. They wanted an easy going family dog, but got a smart-as-a-whip ACD mix with some RG and lots of reactivity. In less than five months, with only one PetSmart training class, the dog has come such a long way. This dog would excell in agility or any other sport, but they don't do anything with him other than some fetch and short walks and he's fine in the house. That dog has a great life with people who love him dearly, and while he's not an easy dog by any means, they have handled it just fine. 

I guess I know plenty of "average" dog owners and all consider their dogs members of the family, and would never surrender them to a shelter. Almost all have a dog with some sort of issues, but they do ok. 

With that said, I think the idea of temperament tests is valid, and I realize that not all dogs can be saved. I also realize that there are lots of dogs in shelters of "undesirable" breeds, like pitts, and it's not possible to save them all if there aren't homes for them. I do think there are a lot of flaws in the temperament test though, and anyone who is using it so rigorously that 70% of their shelter is euthed is doing it wrong. Especially Sternburgh's rescue, which is near me and definitely *not* in an area with a dog overpopulation problem - there is no reason she would need to euth that many dogs when other rescues in the area are bringing up dogs from the south to fill kennels (who are tested before transporting anyway).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Inga said:


> In this area, or rather about 45 minutes away, there is an area known for horrid homes, dog fighting, dogs dying out on leashes from starvation or exposure. There are regular occurrence of female dogs who just got pregnant dying while delivering or the whole whelp dying from exposure, starvation, ticks, disease. These homes must also be considered in the "average pet homes" as these folks come and apply for dogs from shelters too. When I would see an address in that area, my stomach would get sick. There are huge amounts of those types out there as well.



How is any of that "average"? 

That's horrible. Average I could see being walk the dog once in a while and it is either decently good shape and brought in from harsh weather, etc. Not really more than the basics of keeping another living thing in reasonable health and living a decent, if not "complete" life.

Being fought for sport, left to die, or any of things you mentioned are the "average dog household?" 

Since when did caring for the absolute basics and using the dog as sport (not to be confused with using the dog to performing sporting jobs like being a gun dog or a such) be considered above average? 

But yet I got turned down for a dog from a rescue because I trained Wally enough so that he doesn't need to live his life in the crate. The fact I'm not a dog fighter, from the sounds of this, should have put me a cut above, let alone the fact I wouldn't leave the poor thing out to die in the backyard. 

Sheez. If giving food and water is a good home, then by God this should be considered canine paradise...I just...I don't even get it anymore...

That paragraph as average and I'm obviously below average because I wasn't good enough to even be considered. I guess they want...I don't even know.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I don't think we can know for sure what the average pet owner is like, but we can look at something like the "American Pet Products Association (APPA) 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey, the most comprehensive consumer research providing insight on demographics, buying habits, and other traits of U.S. owners of dogs, cats, fish, birds, equine, reptiles, and small animals," which will give us a good idea. Some highlights:

Pets are living longer and healthier lives thanks to pet owners’ willingness to provide veterinary care, specialty foods, supplements and alternative treatment options. In fact, *more than one-half of dog and cat owners report they would leap into action for an injured pet.* Pet health insurance continues to be an area of growth as pet owners seek additional ways to ensure their pet’s well-being. 

“Although the economy has been a major factor for many industries, the pet industry continues to see unprecedented growth and diversity. *The Survey reveals pet owners are willing to spend money on their pets despite a downturn in the economy*,” said Bob Vetere, president of APPA.

The survey shows that pet owners are extremely consistent with attributes they consider beneficial to pet ownership. The top benefit of dog, cat, bird, small animal, and equine ownership remains companionship/love/company/affection. *There’s also a significant gain in the percentage of dog owners stating relaxation/relieves stress and walking/jogging/exercise as a benefit of ownership.*

The greatest expenses for dog and cat owners are food, kennel/boarding, routine veterinary visits and surgical veterinary visits. 

While most pet owners will ask family, friends or neighbors to come to their home to care for their pets when they are traveling, an increased number will bring their pet along. *Almost a quarter of owners reported they took their dog with them in the car when they traveled for at least two nights.* 

Approximately one-half of dog owners (48%) continue to use treats as a way to train their dog, versus 12% of cat owners using treats as a reward. One-out-of-ten dog owners also used an unspecified “other” device as a training method, as well as professional training, training books and videos and bitter apple.

Upon the death of their pet, two-to-four-out-of-ten owners (with the exception of equines) would buy something to either memorialize or bury their pet. Specifically, almost all equine owners reported they would do something; usually have their horse buried at a farm. *More dog owners (18%) would buy an urn than cat owners (12%), bird owners (6%) or small animal or reptile owners (3% each).*

In the 2011-2012 APPA Survey, pet owners were asked what they would do with their pets if they were faced with a disaster situation. For most species, the majority of owners would take their pet with them. *In the event a pet owner would have to choose between their dog’s or cat’s medical treatment and their own, 16% of dog owners and 13% of cat owners stated their pet’s medical treatment would take priority over their own treatment.*

pet food trends mimic human food and diet trends; *health and wellness focused pet products and services including pet insurance represent one of the most powerful current trends in the pet industry*; pets are replacing children, so owners are even more willing to purchase products to satisfy and spoil pets; specialized pet services such as high end grooming and daycare are projected to grow as owners continue to work.

---

How many of us here at DF REALLY do a lot more than that? Yes, there are some people here who compete in sports, or who show and breed, or who work in rescue, but the majority of us are just loving pet owners who feed our dogs well, make sure they get enough exercise, take them on vacations when we can, train them positively, and make sure they get proper vet care... just like the average owners in this survey.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> How many of us here at DF REALLY do a lot more than that? Yes, there are some people here who compete in sports, or who show and breed, or who work in rescue, but the majority of us are just loving pet owners who feed our dogs well, make sure they get enough exercise, take them on vacations when we can, train them positively, and make sure they get proper vet care... just like the average owners in this survey.


Amen. I think it's really easy for us to climb on a high horse and feel superior, and I don't deny that there are some CRAPPY pet homes, but honestly? I don't really do competitive things with the dogs. They're not my hobby. I don't rearrange my social schedule for them. They are, more often than not, background noise in my life rather than focus on it. I hike with them, but I was doing that without them, and find it more fun with them. I didn't get dogs to start doing it, or start doing it because I had dogs. 

I feed decent quality food, attend their medical needs, love the snot out of them, train with them and do the things I consider fun with them because they do open up some opportunities to try new stuff. I get excited about that new stuff for a while (like agility classes, or blowing through trick titles with Kylie, or social outlets) but it's never really My Thing. My Things and obsessions are not dogs. The full extent of training I give a danged that the dogs have is recall, house manners, and maybe sit-down-stay. 

But they're not a hobby. They're not my primary hobby. They're not my primary focus in life. They aren't the center of it. I hang out on DF because I like dogs and I'm online a lot. Not because I'm an 'elite' owner. 

My ego would love me to tell you no one else could handle X, Y, or Z about my dogs, but straight up? They'd be fine in an average pet home. Shyness, softness, shut-down, deafness, reactivity, drive and all.


----------



## MyCharlie (Nov 4, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> IHow many of us here at DF REALLY do a lot more than that? Yes, there are some people here who compete in sports, or who show and breed, or who work in rescue, but the majority of us are just loving pet owners who feed our dogs well, make sure they get enough exercise, take them on vacations when we can, train them positively, and make sure they get proper vet care... just like the average owners in this survey.


I second CaptJack's Amen to this!! Very well said, Cran.

Sure, I like to pretend I'm all smart 'n stuff, like when people at work ask my opinion on "dog stuff," but what it really boils down to is we love him and he loves us.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I also just wanted to comment on this:



> In this area, or rather about 45 minutes away, there is an area known for horrid homes, dog fighting, dogs dying out on leashes from starvation or exposure. There are regular occurrence of female dogs who just got pregnant dying while delivering or the whole whelp dying from exposure, starvation, ticks, disease. These homes must also be considered in the "average pet homes" as these folks come and apply for dogs from shelters too.


Yes. They would be the low end of pet homes. Some of the people on this forum who make dogs their biggest hobby would be on the high end. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle, hence "average."


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack, you just need to try agility classes again with Kylie.  

For me, dogs are my hobby. I can't think of a hobby that is much better or more fun.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> CptJack, you just need to try agility classes again with Kylie.
> 
> For me, dogs are my hobby. I can't think of a hobby that is much better or more fun.


2 weeks and I will. 

I just also have a ton of other stuff going on. I may focus more off and on, but life's busy!


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I have a friend who is now in her 80's. I have known her for over 50 years and she is what I would consider an average pet owner. They have had a lot of dogs since I have known them, got everyone of them from either a shelter or the pound. The dogs get no training but just average manners around the house, they get regular Vet Care, live in the house and they have all died of old age or accident.

The last dog she adopted was a Lab/Sharpei cross which she has had now for about four years now.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

KBLover said:


> How is any of that "average"?
> 
> That's horrible. Average I could see being walk the dog once in a while and it is either decently good shape and brought in from harsh weather, etc. Not really more than the basics of keeping another living thing in reasonable health and living a decent, if not "complete" life.
> 
> ...


Absolutely that IS horrible but that is how averages are found. There are high end, low end and Average is somewhere in the middle. I personally don't think that people who compete with their dogs are superior,(as someone suggested) only different. I stand firm on my opinion that rescues should not adopt known problem dogs out to average homes. For liability, for the safety of the people in the home, for the sake of everyone. I still wish we could save them all but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also there are those that will argue that the home might not be perfect but it is a home so shouldn't we adopt the dogs to those "not so good homes" at least to get more dogs adopted and euthanize less? Admittedly, I used to be in that boat, until I saw what some of those "not so good homes" really were. Now, I would rather see the dogs humanely put to sleep then sent off to the hell of some of those homes. NO, those are not the average homes we speak of here but in order to get more dogs adopted (at least here) they must not have high standards of the homes expected. 

One such director took over this shelter for some time, he was willing to adopt to literally anyone without any concern for where the dogs went. I was involved with multiple rescue at that time and through my work with one of them, we found some of those adopted dogs, dead at the end of a leash. Yeah, I have strong emotions about it. I have become far more accepting of humane euthanasia over the year for that reason. I still WISH all dogs could find "good homes" What some of you describe as "average" would be dream home for many of the dogs I have seen out there. I WISH those were the average homes nation wide. High Quality food, vet care, regular walks and vacations with their families. Sounds like doggy heaven to me. I wish every single dog would have owners like that. It seems impossible to me. 

KBLover I don't have any idea why you were truly turned down from a rescue. Not kenneling a dog? Seems an odd reason to me but each rescue has their own people running it and their own set of rules. I was never turned down by a rescue but I know that a Rottweiler rescue in my state has a policy of never adopting same sex dogs to a household. Doesn't matter if I have 35 years of experience with the breed, that is their policy and I respect it.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Inga said:


> I stand firm on my opinion that rescues should not adopt known problem dogs out to average homes.


A Rott that tries to tear somebody's face off simply because they tapped his behind is a "known problem dog." What I fail to see, and what I suspect others are finding hard to grasp, is how some can argue that a temperament test that fails dogs simply for "walking confidently" is weeding out "known problem dogs." Very few have argued that ALL dogs should be given a chance. Instead, what I've mostly read is people questioning the validity of the Sternburg test...nothing more, nothing less. 

I'm also another who would like to point out that the "average pet home" is more capable than some are giving them credit for. I screen applications for two rescues. Of the 600 applications that have come across my desk in the past year less than two dozen represent the type of situation that some posters believe typify the "average pet home". In my experience the type of people who have been described either purchase a BYB and/or mill dog OR get a pup from a friend or relative whose dog had a litter recently. They either won't pay the "outrageous" adoption fee for a *used* dog or can't afford the $150 adoption fee and seek a free dog.


----------

