# Does the SPCA euthanize dogs?



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I'm so confused. Are kill shelters SPCA shelters, or other ones? Does anyone know if the SPCA in Canada euthanize their dogs after a period of time? Specifically the BCSPCA?


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Yes, the SPCA in Canada/BC does euthanize animals.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Ack!! Really?? I didn't know that! How long do they give the animals before they're euthanized?


----------



## Annamarie (Oct 14, 2007)

they do, but from what I understand they are pretty low-kill. they'll move dogs from low population areas to shelters where they have a better chance of being adopted, and I've seen petfinder SPCA dogs up for quite a while before they disappear. I don't know if they have a time limit, but I do know that there is usually more than one application pending for a lot of dogs (mostly the small ones, puppies etc).


----------



## LaurenE (Mar 16, 2010)

I think it differs among the SPCAs. I know that most will euthanize animals that are not considered "adoptable", of course the definition of adoptable can vary greatly also. Animals who are sick, injured, or would require extensive behavior rehabilitation are often considered unadoptable.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Some info links:

http://www.spca.bc.ca/pet-care/health-safety/a-problem-you-can-fix.html

_What Is Being Done in British Columbia to Deal With This Problem?

The official goal of the British Columbia SPCA is to reach zero euthanasia of adoptable animals - and we are making real progress. See our *Pet Overpopulation* page for more informatoin._

Pet Overpopulation page link which has no applicable stats (no applicable stats is a pet peeve of mine):

http://www.spca.bc.ca/welfare/campaign-issues/pet-overpopulation.html

Their PDF on Companion Animal Euthanasia, which has no applicable stats:

http://www.spca.bc.ca/welfare/position-statements/companion-animal-euthaniasia.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------

Oooooo . . . I just found some controversial links too. Don't have time to see if they are accurate, but you can check them out for yourself. The first reads as if no-kill (the definition that truly means no-kill for space and all healthy and adoptable are placed) has been the policy since 2004.

_Mr Daniell says that the SPCA does not have euthanasia stats but in a August 2002 article in the Vancouver Courier, the SPCA seems to have them: 

"Euthanasia at Vancouver SPCA shelters is down 62 per cent for cats and 26 per cent for dogs in the five months *since the non-profit organization ended euthanization of animals for anything other than health reasons*. 

"*B.C. SPCA euthanasia statistics were already among the lowest in North America when the "no-kill" policy was introduced. Of the 28,882 animals handled by the SPCA in the Lower Mainland last year, approximately 2,800-roughly 10 per cent-were euthanized, mainly for medical and temperament reasons.* " 

Perhaps the SPCA lost the euthanasia stats? It doesn't really matter as it just makes them up as it goes along anyway._

http://aaswatchdog.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/noframes/read/5504

http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca.htm

I believe that a 90% save rate is what many that advocate "no-kill" consider the threshold line, where if you want to save more then exceptional medical intervention and rehab would have to be utilized.

SOB


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> Ack!! Really?? I didn't know that! How long do they give the animals before they're euthanized?


I don't think there is a "time limit".. I know when we had 10 cats come into the clinic to be euthanized, it was because they were on the verge of having an extremely contagious virus outbreak, so "head office" said that something like 30 cats had to go. Whereas I believe we've only had one SPCA dog put down and it was because it had been run over by it's owner and was all-but beyond help.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> I'm so confused. Are kill shelters SPCA shelters, or other ones? Does anyone know if the SPCA in Canada euthanize their dogs after a period of time? Specifically the BCSPCA?


Yes, They do in Texas anyway. My girl Hope was siezed for neglect and in an SPCA shelter, she was taken from the SPCA by a no kill shelter, on the very day she was to be euthanized by the SPCA.

She is not aggressive in any way, to anybody, or any dog. She's a total sweetheart with a great GSD temperment. I think she was just mangy and had ear infections, torn up ears so she wasn't "pretty" and was a large GSD so not very likely to be adopted.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Our local SPCA does not euthanize on a time limit. Once the dogs are there, they're there to be adopted. They DO however euthanize any dog with food aggression, and I've had this discussion with them because I don't like it. They adopt out dogs who are DA (they obviously let one know) but dogs who fail the food aggression test are euthanized.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I don't have any problems with euthanizing sick animals, or ones that have severe aggression issues, etc. I'm always so heart broken when they euthanize perfect great pets because there's no more space or they are not likely to be adopted...

Thanks for the links spanielorbust! I'll definitely check those out!


----------



## dreimers (Jul 15, 2011)

I would be interested to know which animal care organizations do not euthanize? Thank you!


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

I do not know why, but I never see the adoptable animals from my local SPCA on Petfinder- I have to go directly to their site. I do not know if they euthanize, but I do know that every spring they have a serious overpopulation problem and have a half-price sale. 
"Clearance Puppies"


----------



## AngelandShifusHuman (Jun 16, 2010)

I am in NJ and the SPCA's around here do euthanize. Its not a regular thing and I think they are pretty low kill. When we adopted last year (from SPCA) we were told that if they are totally full and the dog hasn't been adopted they usually try to reach out to other rescues/shelter to move the dog. Only if they are very old/unadoptable/ with some dangerous behaviour issues if they are euthanize. They did have rescue pull out application on their main page itself. They also usually contacted breed specific rescues for purebreds if they were not adopted in 2- wks or had some issues. However, even though numbers were very less they did euthanize.


----------



## Deeken (Feb 14, 2011)

The BCSPCA euthanizes sick dogs and dogs with temperament issues (including those caused by long term kenneling). They do not euthanize *dogs* for space. The same cannot be said of cats although, IME, at most shelters they try very hard to avoid this. This is coming from someone who used to work at the BCSPCA.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Deeken said:


> The BCSPCA euthanizes sick dogs and dogs with temperament issues (including those caused by long term kenneling). They do not euthanize *dogs* for space. The same cannot be said of cats although, IME, at most shelters they try very hard to avoid this. This is coming from someone who used to work at the BCSPCA.


Yeah, the cat problem is one of true overpopulation. There are veryvery few open-intake shelters that can get by without killing cats, and even kittens. There are simply WAY too many cats being born.

Of course this thread is about SPCAs, but the Humane Society here says they "don't euthanize for space". I'm not sure exactly what that means about their policies (if they run out of space do they make up a behavioral problem to justify killing the animal?) but I guess it's a good start. Their kill stats don't seem to have been reduced, at least not the last time I saw a census (they used to have it on their website but now you have to request to see it). But they used to automatically kill bully breeds, now they don't, so I think they have progressed a bit.


----------



## Deeken (Feb 14, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, the cat problem is one of true overpopulation. There are veryvery few open-intake shelters that can get by without killing cats, and even kittens. There are simply WAY too many cats being born.
> 
> Of course this thread is about SPCAs, but the Humane Society here says they "don't euthanize for space". I'm not sure exactly what that means about their policies (if they run out of space do they make up a behavioral problem to justify killing the animal?) but I guess it's a good start. Their kill stats don't seem to have been reduced, at least not the last time I saw a census (they used to have it on their website but now you have to request to see it). But they used to automatically kill bully breeds, now they don't, so I think they have progressed a bit.


I wonder if they are open intake? I honestly believe that the only way shelters can avoid euthanizing cats for space is if they are not open intake. I know the BCSPCA I was at wasn't. We would take any and all stray's and kittens (adoptable and at least they're getting fixed) but if you wanted to surrender an adult cat, there was a waiting list and we were still overflowing.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Most SPCAs are not affiliated with each other, so if one is, it doesn't neccessarily mean another is. I work at an SPCA in Kalamazoo, MI and we are "no-kill". The animal control agencies (some of which take nice names like SPCA) run by the government HAVE to follow open intake policies because they are funded by the government to take care of the pet population, plain and simple.



Willowy said:


> Of course this thread is about SPCAs, but the Humane Society here says they "don't euthanize for space". I'm not sure exactly what that means about their policies (if they run out of space do they make up a behavioral problem to justify killing the animal?) but I guess it's a good start. Their kill stats don't seem to have been reduced, at least not the last time I saw a census (they used to have it on their website but now you have to request to see it). But they used to automatically kill bully breeds, now they don't, so I think they have progressed a bit.


The term "don't euthanize for space" is TYPICALLY how no-kill shelters describe themselves. That is how the shelter where I work describes ourself. We will take in animals until we are at capacity and then sit until they're adopted, so we don't kill dogs/cats to make room for more because we are closed intake. HOWEVER, if a dog or cat has an extreme disease or wound that it comes down with while in our shelter (we won't knowingly take an animal we can't treat) that we do not have the resources to treat, or an extreme developed aggression, we will euthanize the animal. This is where each no-kill shelter is different though. Some will put down dogs for HW, we do not. We perform surgeries on dogs that need it, keep dogs/treat dogs for HW, lepto, parvo, etc. We put more dogs down for repeat attacks/biting even after having behaviorists and trainers work with them than we do for sicknesses. But never because we need space.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Our local SPCA does not euthanize on a time limit. Once the dogs are there, they're there to be adopted. They DO however euthanize any dog with food aggression, and I've had this discussion with them because I don't like it. They adopt out dogs who are DA (they obviously let one know) but dogs who fail the food aggression test are euthanized.


Wow, is that ever dumb! IMO, it's a heck of a lot easier to rehabilitate a dog with food guarding issues than to rehabilitate a DA dog. And since most people feed their dogs in private, I think the DA dog presents a greater risk to the public.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, any shelter can call themselves "Humane Society" or SPCA. Some will euth for space. Some will euth if a dog contracts any disease...ie, kennel cough, ringworm, etc. Not just deadly diseases. Some give time limits. Many temperment test dogs, and if they show any fear/aggression, with food, people opening umbrellas, large dolls that look like kids trying to go up to them and talk in a squeaky voice, food aggression, etc. It's sad, because many dogs are fearful in a strange surrounding, especially if they were lost for a while, and will react to some of those things.

It's best not to let any pet you own get into that situation, and spay/neuter/microchip/use collars w/id tags when dogs are outside.

Our AC here has twice put down people's pets that were lost that they tried to claim at closing time, and were told that they needed to come back the next day. So they did. But the dogs had been euthed that morning by mistake.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Our local SPCA does not euthanize on a time limit. Once the dogs are there, they're there to be adopted. They DO however euthanize any dog with food aggression, and I've had this discussion with them because I don't like it. They adopt out dogs who are DA (they obviously let one know) but dogs who fail the food aggression test are euthanized.


This is because they are a high bite risk to humans, my daughter was severly bitten by a food aggressive dog that had a bite history and was pulled from a shelter and adopted out by a rescue (who didn't tell us the dog had a bite history). I have NO problem with this type of policy BECAUSE of just the situation I was put in (my daughter still has extensive scarson her face). I myself have taken dogs to be euthed when I have discovered food agression after accepting them into rescue, I refuse to be responsible for another child having their face ripped up by a food aggressive dog!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> This is because they are a high bite risk to humans, my daughter was severly bitten by a food aggressive dog that had a bite history and was pulled from a shelter and adopted out by a rescue (who didn't tell us the dog had a bite history). I have NO problem with this type of policy BECAUSE of just the situation I was put in (my daughter still has extensive scarson her face). I myself have taken dogs to be euthed when I have discovered food agression after accepting them into rescue, I refuse to be responsible for another child having their face ripped up by a food aggressive dog!


Good common sense rule to follow, I think when you see the damage that can happen even with experienced dog owners the newbies don't have a chance of non-scar survival.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But resource guarding is very fixable in most dogs. And I'm sure it depends on the degree of the food aggression/resource guarding. If we killed every dog that MIGHT bite someone we would have to kill them all.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> But resource guarding is very fixable in most dogs. And I'm sure it depends on the degree of the food aggression/resource guarding. If we killed every dog that MIGHT bite someone we would have to kill them all.


It is IF the problem is known and found before adoption, there is no previous bite history and with the RIGHT owner, an owner with a five year old child, who works 50 hours a week (which I did at the time) is NOT the right owner. Very few shelters/fosters have the time, knowlege and resources to fix a dog and see it through that the potential adopter correctly manages the situation to prevent future problems. As I said, it was a KNOWN biter (as in bite history) that frankly the shelter should have NEVER allowed to be pulled in the first place.


----------



## Wynterr (Jul 13, 2011)

Considering how many unwanted dogs there are in the world how can we not euthanize them? Sorry, but I am not willing to have 20 dogs living with me and I don't think most people are. I believe in Heaven for dogs, euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen to a dog. As long as they are put down humanely of course.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Wynterr said:


> Considering how many unwanted dogs there are in the world how can we not euthanize them? Sorry, but I am not willing to have 20 dogs living with me and I don't think most people are. I believe in Heaven for dogs, euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen to a dog. As long as they are put down humanely of course.


 There ARE enough homes for all the dogs in this country. That's not true about cats, currently. . .we need more low-cost spay/neuter programs that are easily available. But the dog issue is not one of true overpopulation. 

I do not believe in an afterlife for animals, and, while I think it brings comfort to some people and I don't wish to mess with that, I do think it's harmful to consider such a thing in dealing with homeless animals---"Hey, they'll be happy in doggy heaven! Let's just kill them all!".


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> There ARE enough homes for all the dogs in this country. That's not true about cats, currently. . .we need more low-cost spay/neuter programs that are easily available. But the dog issue is not one of true overpopulation.
> 
> I do not believe in an afterlife for animals, and, while I think it brings comfort to some people and I don't wish to mess with that, I do think it's harmful to consider such a thing in dealing with homeless animals---"Hey, they'll be happy in doggy heaven! Let's just kill them all!".


There may be enough theoretical homes, but how many of those homes WANT a dog and how many are responsible enough to HAVE a dog? How many are Knowlegeable enough to deal with a PROBLEM dog? How many of those homes already have a person in them that's been convicted of animal cruelty/neglect or is a hoarder? Frankly some people should ONLY ever have stuffed (toy) animals! But you're right the problem isn't only a pet overpopulation problem it's a human responsibility problem.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

LOL old posts creeping up on me. I agree with both GLM and Carla however it is still a load of crap either way. I don't understand how they can adopt out dogs that are DA but not RGers. It falls under the same issue for me- they are a liability and can we know for sure the new owners can properly work with and manage them? Those of you on FB know I am going through some severe guarding issues and am very practical about when euthanasia is the only option.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I guess the best solution is for there to be transparency in the adoption process. If the dog has bitten, that has to be made known, whether it's because of DA, RG, or anything else. Resource guarders shouldn't be allowed to be adopted by homes with children, just like DA dogs shouldn't be allowed into homes with other dogs. 

Kit bit a shelter employee who stupidly reached for her food bowl after it was already down. Kit thought she was defending it from the other dogs in the kennel, but it turned out to be the employee's hand. The employee realized that the mistake was hers, and Kit was forgiven. This was made clear to me upon adoption. We worked on resource guarding issues after I got Kit, and she has never purposely bitten me or anyone else over food. Even so, her meals are fed at home, where other dogs and children can't get hurt. To me, this seems like common sense, and it isn't a burden, cause where else am I going to feed her? 

Again, unless the RG issue is very severe, I think this issues pales in comparison to the dangers of DA dogs in public.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I just have this really haunting memory of being at the SPCA and seeing a really sweet dope of a dog in an outdoor run. The woman I was with said "She is really lucky" and I of course asked why. She told me one of their volunteers was adopting her because she failed the food test and was going to be PTS. I thought it was a pretty big waste because the dog was so awesome in every other way. 

I don't think I've posted on DF about it, but Clove is a pretty severe RGer. He's a great pup otherwise and we're working really hard to get through it.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Yeah, since last year a few months after TWAB first posted, our SPCA does NOT put dogs down for food aggression. We have trainers on staff and experienced staff members that work with the dogs and they are not allowed to be adopted until they are trained, but they aren't put down for simple food aggression unless they have numerous bites. We have a dog here currently who has been for almost a year and has gone through a few foster homes because she RGs food from other dogs, not people. We're still working though because she hasn't hurt another dog or people, it's just an issue that needs fixed. We've also yet to adopt out a truely dog-aggressive dog since I've worked there (almost a year), so I know things must have changed a lot. We haven't had a dog yet that was outwardly aggressive with any dog. Some didn't prefer same sex or certain types so we always do meet and greets, but we don't just adopt out aggressive dogs. Dogs that harm other dogs on more than a few occasions (depending on the circumstances) are evaluated by a trainer and if deemed unpredictable around other dogs, they're euthanized. That doesn't happen often, but it has.

We have more dogs pts for going kennel crazy and biting than anything else. That's almost IT. We've gotten a new director, a boat load of new staff, new secretaries/board members, new vet techs, and a new operations manager in the last 10 months. We also started the Meet Your Match program this month which is proving very effective.


----------



## Lovemytessapoo (Feb 1, 2008)

Here in Florida, they are not a no kill shelter. However, there are many many small rescue groups that even the county pound call when dogs are not adopted or they are overpopulated to care for them. I have also found in our search for our latest dog that many of the pounds and shelters will list dogs as part pit. I assume this so that you can say you didn't know if the dog turns out to be a biter (any dog can) and want to sue (Florida is a sue happy state).


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

That doesn't really make any sense. Why would they have to be labeled part Pit in order for you to not be allowed to sue?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Maybe they're labeled as part pit because they ARE part pit? Just a thought.


----------

