Common Sense not applied to Oreo Situation

[Steve]

Hi,

I am new to these forums, and I want to post because what happened to Oreo greatly disturbed me. But I would like to post from another angle that is not really looked at.

There are all the arguments that Oreo could never be rehabilitated, or enjoy a quality of life. Nobody will now know if one of the offers put forth to the ASPCA would have made a difference. Personally, I would like to think it would have. But there is something else somewhat disturbing about this whole thing. Please read on...

Officials may say that what happened to Oreo, that an animal is euthanized for various behavior reasons, is a common occurrence, and that the process that occurred prior to Oreo being euthanized was standard process, meaning there were attempts with a trainer, behavior evaluation, etc. Then at the conclusion to all this, it was decided that Oreo was to be euthanized. I am sure there are just as terrible, or even worse, abuse stories that never become worldwide news items (the Oreo story has been picked up by news organizations outside the USA). But in this case, the reality is that Oreo's story DID make it to the news pages, and there was, and likely will be, a fair amount of attention given to this.

One may then say "Oreo was just one of the normal cases, all procedures were followed, and we scheduled the euthanization for the afternoon of the 13th, using all our policies. Other animals were very unfortunately euthanized in this country today under similar circumstances also."

Again, lets bring up the case that people DID know about Oreo's story. So, in not arguing for or against whether Oreo could be rehabilitated, or have some pleasure in life, I would like to look at it from this perspective:

The ASPCA is likely a great group. Ultimately the animals they have saved, the attention they have brought to animal cruelty issues, and other things they have done, has really been worthwhile. But as mentioned above, something about this disturbs me. The reality is that the ASPCA now had a high-profile case at hand. Regardless of what behaviors Oreo exhibited that were not seen by the public, it was still a high profile case. In my view, I really question why there was not simply a delay put forth, or, from the aspect of the ASPCA's public perception, a second look given. A public "forum" open (not this forum, just general discussion by the broader public) about the plight of Oreo, the ASPCA, etc.

So, maybe "standard procedure" was followed. But, no matter how big a group you are, there is always a way to intervene. Once, when purchasing a computer from Dell, something went wrong with the order, and I was quite upset. Dell was wrong, they made a mistake, and I said that if needed, I would even like to speak to Michael Dell about this. They told me I could not (of course I did not expect to speak to him, but I would have if he was put on the phone). Also, I am the CEO of a small corporation. We have staff to handle customer service issues, and other things similar. But occasionally, something gets through to me that was supposed to be handled by another staff member, and in many cases I will try to handle it! This is outside our "standard procedures". So, no matter how big an entity is, there CAN be intervention. And non-standard procedure should be part of "standard procedure". And I think something broke down today.

It was almost handled like a government handing down a sentence! Oreos death was scheduled... maybe the "papers were stamped, appeals heard, and the schedule set". But this is not a government! This is an organization that is supported by 1000's of individuals. This WAS a case with public attention. The ASPCA in my view, should have stepped up further, and taken a close look at the public nature of this, and intervened, EVEN IF Oreo's fate would ultimately have to be what it was (but I like to always think there could have been an alternative). From a corporate view, there is now the risk that some donors will stop donating because of this. That is NOT what is needed. And hopefully, and as a writer, I do plead to any donor to not look at a potential mistake of the ASPCA as the sole reason to not donate. There will be an animal somewhere affected by your decision not to donate (unless you take the same funds and give it elsewhere). And I do not think you would be happy looking at a dog that needs rescuing and say to it "sorry, you cannot get rescued because the ASPCA did something wrong and I had to hold back funds". So look at the animals potentially affected by holding back donations.

On the other hand, I hope the ASPCA is held accountable for some of the actions. Sticking to a "death sentence" like schedule, not giving the public some consideration today, in a time where many were likely in emotional distress, shows a disregard which I think needs some real attention. I believe MANY are very upset tonight, and something simply does not make sense to the masses. "Why was it simply not delayed until tomorrow, or Monday. Someone could have done that. 3:00PM today was not a law! Why were things not delayed? It seemed like such a simple thing to do".

Personally, I was watching the story most of today, checking back in from time to time, hoping for a reprieve. Now the public is in a state of distress, rather than having the opportunity to take up this issue with a level of functional discussion. I hope the ASPCA continues to do very good things. But please take a second look... a good second look, at how "standard procedures" may have potentially cost you all a good opportunity to get beneficial attention, and how it possibly cost an animal a chance to have a rewarding life, even if the odds were stacked well against it.

I am not wanting start an inflamed discussion. I am just venting some thoughts that I have been thinking of much of the day.

Regards,

Steve

[Belles]

So why didn't these rescuers step forward well before and take an active interest in this dog BEFORE the ASPCA euthanized him. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to try and intervene when it's too late and call the ASPCA "too quick" to take this dogs life? I'd like to know where all of these people with good intentions were when Oreo needed them? Nowhere to be found.

Now they have a second chance to partner with the ASPCA to ensure this doesn't happen again. Do you think that by burning all their bridges they are doing a good job of preventing more of these deaths? Probably not.

I find it revolting that PetsAlive is using this dogs' death as a way to raise funds. Sorry, but until all the facts have been layed out.. I'm not going to judge anything.

There are other blogs out there that are saying now that PetsAlive did not have the expertise or qualifiication to handle a dog of this magnitude. They do not have the facilities either.

[Darrell]

belles:

The point is that they did come in before Oreo was executed and asked that he be released to them for rehab. How long in advance isn't the issue.

BTW, PetsAlive claims 35 years experience at rescues of aggressive dogs. That should be easy enough to verify or disprove -- so why use insinuation and other blogs as your reference? If they aren't who they say they are, why don't you prove it for all of us. I for one might take some assurance in this whole mess if I knew for a fact that PetsAlive was some bogus group out to make the aspca look bad. Unfortunately, I don't think that to be the case. Sorry.

Here is who they say they are and how to contact or locate them:
http://www.petsalive.com/about.html

[Gunzilla]

Nice, last minute hero's. So why are you so bent on defending them, Darrell? Why is it they couldn't have attempted to negotiate with ASPCA well before the tragic event took place? Why is it up to Belles to prove anything? Why don't you do some proving yourself? Cripe, sometimes you argue just for the sake of freaking arguing.

[Darrell]

renee:

1) If an organization has a valid address and claims to have been around serving the public for the last 35 years, it seems logical that the onus is upon those doubting their legitimacy to do the checking. Since belles is the one insinuating that PetsAlive is somehow bogus, she should make the effort to back up HER CLAIMS. (I even got her a link to them as a place to start)

2) Right now, I am defending no one. Right now there are questions that need answering for those with open minds to do it. If PetsAlive is lying, that needs to be proved and legal action taken against them. And if PetsAlive is telling the truth, the aspca has more explaining to do. This thing smells; and I for one would like to get to the truth. Right now the aspca's silence is deafening.

3) "Cripe, sometimes you argue just for the sake of freaking arguing." I don't appreciate your remark at all, nor do I agree with it.

4) What is wrong with a last minute hero? I'd really like to know. So would Oreo.

[Gunzilla]

Darrell, I don't give a whack if you appreciate it, or not. Sometimes you just grate on my nerves with your constant argument. The point is, IF they wanted this dog so bad, why didn't they show interest before it was too late?

Until you, or I become behavioral experts, who the hell are we to judge ASPCA for what had to be a heartbreaking decision? I'm done with this, you'll go on, and on, and on. I intend to focus on the man who did this to his dog, not the people who tried to save her. I would like to see this person pay maximum penalty for what he did to a beautiful, innocent animal.

[Darrell]

renee:

Then I don't give a whack about your feelings either form now on.

[Belles]

Darrell, then are you are suggesting is that the ASPCA "INTENTIONALLY" allowed this dog to die and purposely "IGNORED" a second chance. Really...

And please - where did I say that PetsAlive is a bogus group? I certainly DID NOT hint to that whatsoever. If you read it like that, then you read it WRONG.

So you remind me of insinuation and other blogs as my reference.. let's be real clear.. I said, I read it on other websites and blogs, I did not suggest any of it was fact, but I merely mentioned it to point out that there is all kinds of garbage and half truths on the web.. it's not hard to find. But since you demand my evidence.. where is YOUR proof that they have this experience. Their website? I could put anything on mine too.. would you believe it? I happen to know from a source at Best Friends that someone from that sanctuary helped them get back on their feet after the founder of PetsAlive passed away. Their rescue was going under, they were hopelessly lost.. they gave them a few months of guidance. Did they give them any counsel or training on aggressive dogs? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.. and none of us know to what degree. None of us really need to know.

I just know one thing as a fact.. the ASPCA did not use them to help Oreo. Why? Why invest all that time and not be grateful that this dog has an opportunity for a second chance. Was it experience or lack thereof? Was it liability? Was it sinister? These are the questions I've been asking.

All I've done here is to implore intelligent people like YOU to sit back and quit being an armchair quarterback and suggesting "what if" alternatives when you know no more than the next person. You're a smart guy, but this is not only hysterics talking it's also a ridiculous waste of time to guess what happened.

What's more important is what will happen in the future to the next Oreo. Now please be careful that you don't put words in my mouth.

[Darrell]

belles:

My concern too is for the next Oreo, and all of the Oreos that come after that. That's why questions need to be asked and questions need to be answered. I've heard what both sides have stated publicly thus far, and things don't add up.

I have no problem with you wanting to side with aspca in advance of final findings; but I do have a problem with you deciding for me what to discuss here. I will discuss my opinions and ask my questions when and how I determine best suits me and the topic at hand. You have a right to your opinions and I have equal right to mine.

[Belles]

You apparently didn't think I had a right to voice them on the other discussion. Which is it?

I don't appreciate you telling me what I'm saying or thinking. There is no evidence to suggest the ASPCA did anything wrong.. there is upset over the euthanasia of a dog. OK, I get that.. we're all upset, but snap to reality. This is what happens sometimes with animals who have been abused. There will be more Oreo's!

I could care less what you want to discuss.. discuss away. But when you post rumor and gossip and encourage people to consider it to be fact, I have a problem and I will speak up and no, I won't shut up.

This isn't 60 Minutes.. let's at least keep the issues to facts, question things fine.. but when you say "what will happen in the future to the next Oreo." it sounds as if you mean to imply that the ASPCA did something wrong.. and you don't know this at all.

To be honest, I've seen these dogs suffer. They pace, they howl, they become even more aggressive and bite themselves.. I've even seen one dog chew his foot off.. and one day they are dead.. from stress and most likely a heart attack. Why? Because in our haste to spare them from euthanization and "give them another chance", we have driven them insane. Sometimes our kindness is cruel in the truest sense of the word. So please, no one should assume I'm not thinking in the best interest of Oreo. If she was behaving as they said she was, I'm glad she's gone now and can finally rest in peace. God bless her soul - she will suffer no more!!

[Darrell]

because you were off topic in my thread. this is where you should have posted oreo related discussion. my thread was for legal considerations only -- if you read the note included both there and later in response to you. you must have missed my earlier post there to you. (things get buried)

by now you have raised enough red herrings to have a fish fry. I'll take mine with lemon butter and dill please.

[I Figueroa]

Belles, I hope you are not interpreting my post as to my favoring PetsAlive actions over ASPCA's. My main concern is about the latter organization engaging whatever other organization/resource is able and willing, and qualified to assist and not relying solely in their hires to make decisions like this recent one. Extreme measures should have been taken.

We have to remember that for the most part, physical injuries are "easier" and faster to heal and rehab, compared to mental ones. Mental injuries, brain disorders, and anything related to behavior/brain can take a very long time to improve. Look at all the things available to humans: meds, support groups, dedicated institutions, etc. and it still can take years to modify someone's behavior.
The aim in some organizations is to do the greatest good for the greatest number. If someone is in need of a lot of attention and resources, you have to let it go and move on to those easier to assist. This is true of human rescue and emergency groups, and seems true of animal organizations as well.
Physical injuries were on the mend for Oreo, but she needed a different approach than what had been utilized for previous animals. With humans in need of emotional or mental mending, they are placed in the "funny farm" where the environment is conducive to relaxation. Perhaps in a different setting, a different approach, a more permanent human bonding experience... If Oreo was in a kennel or hospital setting, with odd sounds, smells and images all around, hectic, Elizabethan collar around the neck, different humans at different times of the day, to a damaged animal it can not be a situation where relaxation is possible. She needed to convalesce in a non institutional environment not undergo intense behavior therapy. How do they know if she was not still in chronic physical pain? that alone would make anyone cranky.

Yes, where was that one person that could have taken this dog to a more placid setting, like a ranch, with no other animals distracting that human, a human willing to engage into the bonding experience 24 hrs a day, one person to gain the dog's trust in humans, not several attempting to "re train", possibly stressing over the dog's actions, which would in turn stress the dog? Where was he/she? Would ASPCA allow that person to intervene or would they have follow their standard procedure and rely in the absolute, infallible assessment of the "behaviorists"?

We would never know if a few months spent in a country setting, just walking around, no one expecting anything from you,or hovering over you to induce a change; just a dog living daily life of eating, drinking and going for walks among a peaceful setting, learning to relax, to trust and bond. Then, start your behavior rehab. 5 months is not long enough.
An organization like ASPCA need to be willing to change and modify existing practices and customize it to fit the animal in need. Of course that would take too much time, too many resources. How can they foresee that this animal would have lived in isolation the rest of her life? That is a statement no one can make.
Shame on any organization using this event to promote themselves! All should be working together on a plan to assess and address the need of severely emotionally injured animals: how long is long enough, what is the best setting, can relaxation meds be used, when to start assessing the 'rehab potential' of the dog. If the dogs involved in the Mike vick's case were all rehabilitated, was that organization contacted to assist with Oreo? Many animal groups like ASPCA felt that those dogs should be euthanized, but they weren't, and they are still undergoing rehab in a Utah Sanctuary.
I am not judging, I am asking for a better way. Withdrawing donations is not fair to the animals now in their care, but they need to look into places like Dogtown in Utah and not dismiss that option because they already determined that this particular dog could not be helped, ever.
Not good enough.
The Humane Society has a yearly Taking Action for Animals, where many organizations present their work and show techniques addressing different issues. How about a Summit for animals, where resources, effective tools that have worked, consensus on how to handle different scenarios can be offered?
Animals like Oreo have been PTS for many years all over the country, including in the ASPCA, perhaps it takes Oreo's plight to effect a change? I hope so. I don't need to know all the facts, I still feel that 5 months in an institutional setting is not the way to rehab a severely damaged dog, if that is the real reason for euthanizing her. Pit bulls raised to fight and attack are striving in a Utah Sanctuary, many of them have been in therapy for 6 months or longer, and still are. I don't think all that could be done, was done.
I am not condemning the ASPCA, but I am not happy on how this was handled and future Oreos will be handled.

http://www.luciedove.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3816281&pid=362...

[the donald]

very well put