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

[Barbara]

What a horrible story. I also question the sensibility of no-kill shelters in cases like these.

[Belles]

Still, no comment as to the humanity of keeping this dog alive from Darrell. Interesting. I wonder.. if some can love an animal too much. Do you sentence them to a life of insanity and pain because you can't justify letting them go when it is the right thing to do?

Darrell, you may need answers, you may want answers, but you may never get your answers. Especially asking for answers on a blog with every single person on here.. not being an expert, not being there to witness the dog evaluation, and on and on and on.

Here is how I would respond to your issues #1 - #4:

1. Did PetsAlive make a real offer (directly to the aspca) to take over custody of Oreo at any time prior to the dog's execution?
I don't know.. why don't you pick up a phone and call them. See what sort of spin they'll give you. Then call the ASPCA and ask them.. listen to that spin. By the time you have hung up the phone, you still will be in the same boat.

2. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with PetsAlive as a rescue group/organization that would make them unfit to care for Oreo?
Again, while you're on the phone.. ask both organizations. There is a difference between a rescue organization and a rehab center. I've never seen PetsAlive label themselves as an animal rehab center. They have barely gotten back on their feet since the founder passed away. I am guessing that logically the ASPCA would have considered contact with rehab centers after they determined that Oreo had even an inkling of a chance. I doubt they would have even considered a rescue org unless they had the credentials.

3. Did any legal consideration make it impossible for the aspca to release Oreo to PetsAlive?
Since Ed Sayres didn't mention it in his press release, one may logically assume no. As a sidenote, that would have been a real easy out for the ASPCA should they have decided to go that route.. but they didn't. They didn't try wiggling out of this with excuses. I admire them for that. However, while you're on the phone getting answers to question #1, you could ask to be transferred to their legal department. I'm sure they'd help you with your question.

4. How can you be certain that Oreo would not benefit from the move to PetsAlive -- regardless of care and time given?
Ask that question in reverse. "How can you be certain that Oreo WOULD HAVE benefitted.." My point is that the ASPCA brought in internal behavioral experts and outside behavioral experts. This we know as a fact and they all reached the same conclusion.. this we know as another fact. The answer to your question is impossible and you know it. According to the ASPCA the odds were stacked against this dog and personally, I find keeping an animal like this alive because you have a burr up your nose is inhumane. Sometimes you have to make really hard decisions because of the love and respect we have for animals. You are in no position at this time to accept anything less, unless you opt to stop supporting ASPCA and leave this network.

5. Did the aspca actually consider releasing Oreo to any outside rescue organizations; and if so, to whom; and what changed their mind?
Remember my post in the other discussion where you lambasted me for copying and pasting one IMPORTANT section of Ed Sayres press release? I even bolded and underlined the issues that people had not bothered to read.. and now, apparently this includes even you. Because Darrell, if you had read it, you would have the answer to this question - and that is - YES they did consider putting Oreo in other rehab centers (apparently did not consider RESCUE groups.. BIG DIFFERENCE - any rescue group could come forward and make these claims that ASPCA ignored them!!!!) but because the evaluators all drew the same conclusion about the possibility of a humane existence being nearly impossible (and yes, nearly is good enough for me), they did not pursue contacting anyone. I mean, it's all there in his letter. And you wonder why I am so frustrated with you.

[Darrell]

belles:

You keep going in circles, repeating your opinions when only facts are being called for. I will answer this last post to you about Oreo; then I'm through discussing this with YOU and your shadow. You continue to add nothing material to the discussion.

"Still, no comment as to the humanity of keeping this dog alive from Darrell. Interesting. I wonder.. if some can love an animal too much. Do you sentence them to a life of insanity and pain because you can't justify letting them go when it is the right thing to do?"

Were you to open your eyes you would see that I did comment. I agreed with you on the wolf dog case and I also told of a counter case involving my Queenie.

"Darrell, you may need answers, you may want answers, but you may never get your answers. Especially asking for answers on a blog with every single person on here.. not being an expert, not being there to witness the dog evaluation, and on and on and on."

My questions are rhetorical. They could only have meaning if answered from the top of the ASPCA. Your answers are merely your opinions, not facts. The fact that you have regurgitated them to us over and over again contributes nothing to the discussion. If anything, it subtracts.

"Here is how I would respond to your issues #1 - #4:"

1. Did PetsAlive make a real offer (directly to the aspca) to take over custody of Oreo at any time prior to the dog's execution?

"I don't know.. why don't you pick up a phone and call them. See what sort of spin they'll give you. Then call the ASPCA and ask them.. listen to that spin. By the time you have hung up the phone, you still will be in the same boat."

This does nothing to answer the question. It is important to know if the aspca top management knew there was an offer on the table, and exactly what was detailed therein.

2. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with PetsAlive as a rescue group/organization that would make them unfit to care for Oreo?

"Again, while you're on the phone.. ask both organizations. There is a difference between a rescue organization and a rehab center. I've never seen PetsAlive label themselves as an animal rehab center. They have barely gotten back on their feet since the founder passed away. I am guessing that logically the ASPCA would have considered contact with rehab centers after they determined that Oreo had even an inkling of a chance. I doubt they would have even considered a rescue org unless they had the credentials."

This does nothing to answer the question. We need to know if aspca thought anyone that offered help was qualified to do so.

3. Did any legal consideration make it impossible for the aspca to release Oreo to PetsAlive?

"Since Ed Sayres didn't mention it in his press release, one may logically assume no. As a sidenote, that would have been a real easy out for the ASPCA should they have decided to go that route.. but they didn't. They didn't try wiggling out of this with excuses. I admire them for that. However, while you're on the phone getting answers to question #1, you could ask to be transferred to their legal department. I'm sure they'd help you with your question."

I find your answer very interesting considering the fact that you were the first to raise transfer of legal liability as an issue. Just another of your red herrings? But again, you don't know; and the question calls for facts, not opinions.

4. How can you be certain that Oreo would not benefit from the move to PetsAlive -- regardless of care and time given?

"Ask that question in reverse. "How can you be certain that Oreo WOULD HAVE benefitted.." My point is that the ASPCA brought in internal behavioral experts and outside behavioral experts. This we know as a fact and they all reached the same conclusion.. this we know as another fact. The answer to your question is impossible and you know it. According to the ASPCA the odds were stacked against this dog and personally, I find keeping an animal like this alive because you have a burr up your nose is inhumane. Sometimes you have to make really hard decisions because of the love and respect we have for animals. You are in no position at this time to accept anything less, unless you opt to stop supporting ASPCA and leave this network."

No. My question; not yours. I find yours irrelevant. I have already cited an authority's counterviewpoint (former spca head at san francisco) that credible evaluation of Oreo was not possible in her aspca environment and that the only way to find out was to put her in foster care and give it a try. In other words, the aspca evaluations of Oreo were worthless -- due to timing and surroundings. It really didn't matter who performed them. They were worthless!

BTW, stop suggesting that I leave the website. You're not in charge here. Time for you to remember that you are merely a member here just like the rest of us.

5. Did the aspca actually consider releasing Oreo to any outside rescue organizations; and if so, to whom; and what changed their mind?

"Remember my post in the other discussion where you lambasted me for copying and pasting one IMPORTANT section of Ed Sayres press release? I even bolded and underlined the issues that people had not bothered to read.. and now, apparently this includes even you. Because Darrell, if you had read it, you would have the answer to this question - and that is - YES they did consider putting Oreo in other rehab centers (apparently did not consider RESCUE groups.. BIG DIFFERENCE - any rescue group could come forward and make these claims that ASPCA ignored them!!!!) but because the evaluators all drew the same conclusion about the possibility of a humane existence being nearly impossible (and yes, nearly is good enough for me), they did not pursue contacting anyone. I mean, it's all there in his letter. And you wonder why I am so frustrated with you."

1) I asked whom. Ed gave a general phrase which might be as meaningless as saying "we thought about it." I want to know HOW SERIOUSLY THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT. Who did they evaluate for the task? What made them decide against trying the option? What was there to lose in trying the one remaining option? I want their answer to this question, not your opinion yet again regurgitated.

2) The article (Ed's letter) was already posted in the first Oreo thread by the mods themselves. What you redundantly posted off topic in my legal thread added nothing other than your temper tantrum when I asked you to remove it because it had nothing to do with the thread topic. The note incorporated in the thread post itself had already asked everyone to use my thread for discussing only the legal aspects of transferring an aggressive animal to another party. Ed's letter had no mention of legalities.

3) If Ed's letter had answered all these questions, I wouldn't be asking them now. You just think he answered them. I'm convinced that he didn't.

4) You only think you are frustrated with me. What really frustrates you is the fact that these questions won't just go away and die as quickly as Oreo did. They aren't really my questions. These questions and others like them are on websites all over the web. I'm just one of the members citing them here.

5) This is most likely the last reply I will give you on this topic. I find your intolerance to the opinions of others offensive.

[Belles]

Darrell, two days ago you said you weren't going to reply to me.. I wish you would stay true to your word. I am not interested in what you have to say to me. That ship sailed when you called me a liar.

I really could care less that you feel I am not entitled to comment.. opinion or fact, it doesn't matter. I'll say what I want. It's not your post to dictate to me.. so spare me. You haven't posted any facts here and I suggested a few ways for you to find the answers you want.. if you were really that interested. But your not.. you just want to argue. You keep bringing up the same old garbage and you are no closer to the answer than you were two days ago. Your choice.

I didn't say you had to leave... seriously, get a grip. However you justify remaining on a site sponsored by the ASPCA is up to you. I really don't care.

[Darrell]

belles:

You demanded my reply with this:
"Still, no comment as to the humanity of keeping this dog alive from Darrell. "

When I saw it, I responded. (THE END)

[miss chiff]

i believe the dog you are describing is called a "coy-dog" or a "wolf-dog" can be problematic in many states in the following respects....and it all starts with people not spaying or neutering their pets. in the wild, these hybrids pose problems for humans because each possesses the natural traits of the wild animal (the wolf or coyote) as well as the lack of human fear possessed by the domestic dog with which it has breed. they are often unrecognizable as wild because the coyote may have mated with a poodle or some other fluffy, unimposing family pet. coyotes and wolves mate for life. they are both nomadic which means that a male coyote may claim up to 36 sq. miles of territory, a female up to 6 sq. miles. the dog you are referring to certainly would have predictably suffered a great degree of cage rage which i have witnessed even with domestic cats being show for adoption and only in cages for about 6 hours so that people can meet them. the rest of the time they are lounging around my apt. doing whatever they want but after several weeks of being shown on sat. and sun. for 6 hrs. each day, some begin to hiss and growl when anyone approaches their cage! i call it cage rage and i dont know what triggers it and it resolves as soon as i get them home but imagine how one of these hybrid dogs must have felt. no mate, just a small cell. it is hard to evaluate the potential of one of these nomadic hybrids through an endless life of incarceration. both coyotes and wolves are intelligent animals which must constantly be challenged instinctively and intellectually. a cage was unfortunately the worst approach to evaluating a dog like this. in addition, deliberately breeding these animals to be sold as pets is just plain irresponsible....although i believe that "breeding" dogs deliberately is an antiquated, self serving human thing. just food for thought.

[Belles]

miss chiff, this dog displayed all these behaviors before he came to the rescue shelter - that's the reason he was brought there in the first place. They felt they could rehab him. It just continued far too long. He was not able to be helped and slowly went insane. There are other dogs, not of this breeding who fall into the same mental trap. My rescue GSD is one, that if left any longer in his environment, would have suffered the same fate. I'm still not convinced that he was taken out in time, but I remain positive. There is alot of forward progress, but he still has many issues.

As a side note, in Montana wolf crosses are much more common and are deliberately bred by people. I don't know why, other than owning them supposedly serves some sort of need for the ego. They are not well adapted to much of anything.. from family pets to working dogs, although there are some that might be used in sledding.. not sure. I feel strongly that it is wrong to breed for these dog hybrids.. I don't think the average person is ever really ready to own one.

Finally, I disagree with you about the deliberate breeding of dogs as antiquated. If you're basing that on the average dog in America, then perhaps there is a slight amount of merit to what you say, but one only needs to travel to other parts of the world where dogs are used in working situations to understand that specific traits and elements are ideally suited to their environment. Sled dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs.. even rescue dogs. Mixed breeding eventually removes these traits which are valued for the working dog.

In addition, I support responsible breeders and the purchasers right to buy a purebred dog. There are many people who know specifically what they want in their dogs.. stamina, size, personality, health and performance. I would not call a well-bred German Shepherd with healthy hips and eyes "antiquated". In fact, it's responsible and humane to have these dogs in the best of health. That's the problem with poor breeders.. they have all but ruined this breed. I prefer a certain breed.. I know which elements I want in them, other traits that I don't. I believe that is far from self-serving and in fact serves a specific purpose for me.

[Belles]

Kathi, why is it you hate agreeing with me? There have been many times I've agreed with you. We can have intense disagreements, but it doesn't mean I have to think everything you say doesn't have merit. The wolf story is over on Steve's thread and yes, up until then I always believed in no-kill, but there are rare times when keeping an animal like that is alive. Luckily, it is very rare, but it does happen at times.

In all seriousness, I would love to be wrong. I would love it if the ASPCA said, "we didn't do enough and in the future we are re-evaluating our policies and procedures". But, they did bring in outside behavioralists and I'm certain that they felt they did all that they could for her.

I do respect other opinions as long as they aren't swirled in misinformation. We all know what good things the ASPCA has done in the past, I don't think they've abandoned their policies. I might not agree with all that they say and even do.. but they haven't deserved such harsh judgement just yet.

Thanks for reading the post, you and I both agree that this girl deserved better. I'm sure we've both shed a few tears for her. In fact, when I heard the news, I just felt like throwing up.. I went for a long walk just to clear my head. I felt like she was a part of all of us and now she's gone.

[Darrell]

I Figueroa:

I agree with your perspective; and I think that you worded it well. I join you in not thinking that all was done that could have been done. I too am not happy with how this was handled and fear for the future Oreos in aspca care (unless changes are made).

[Belles]

An interesting article I ran across a few weeks back when trying to research the behaviors of my own dog. Canine Autism? Who knows.. but there are many dogs who do suffer from some sort of mental abuse.. no doubt.

When Do You Admit There is Nothing More You Can Do For Your Dog?

As much as most animal loving people would like to save every unwanted dog in the world, there are those who are beyond help. This situation appears to be one of them.

Inherently, dogs are by nature social animals. Over thousands of years, they have learned to thrive and exhibit hierarchical communal behavior in the wild and as pets, as a matter of self and pack survival. Regrettably, there are dogs due to no fault of their own that lack the instinct, and are beyond rehabilitation. Every now and then, owners, trainers and behaviorists have to face the hard and sad fact; an otherwise perfectly healthy animal has grave emotional or physiological issues that cannot be successfully resolved.

Those issues may have been caused by sloppy breeding, being removed from the litter too soon, lack of socialization, severe abuse, neurological damage, such as brain tumors or seizures, and probably the hardest fact to accept, the inability to make a bonding attachment to the humans that love them.

Is it a form of canine autism? Who knows? There is little-to-no research done on the possibility that dogs can suffer from a form of canine autism. None-the-less, there are dogs that exhibit the same behaviors as autistic humans.

Those behaviors include but are not limited to: finding external stimuli unbearable, trance-like state, unable to focus, obsessive-compulsive behavior, melancholy/sadness, anti-social behaviors, unable to meaningfully relate and attach, unable to communicate with, resist eye contact, unresponsive, unpredictable, aggression, irrational fears and self-mutilation.

When all the options such as change of diet, obedience training, behavior modification, and medications fail to make a difference, it may be time to consult with your veterinarian about making the tough decision. A reputable veterinarian will be objective and candidly honest. As difficult as it will be, what is crueler? A dog that finds no joy in life, has no life. Why should they be forced to suffer another torturous day?

Passing the dog on to an unsuspecting new owner is dishonest and unfair to the new owner and to the animal. What if the next owner is not as compassionate as you? What fates could your adored pet face?

Bottom line: When you have done all you can do, be compassionate of their suffering...do the right thing.

Karen A. Soukiasian, GOOD DOG! - DOG TRAINING - Owner/Trainer, St. Augustine, Florida - AKC CANINE GOOD CITIZEN & S.T.A.R. PUPPY Evaluator http://www.freewebs.com/gooddogsite

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Karen_Soukiasian

[Barbara]

Wow. This is quite thought provoking. I wonder if there are degrees of autism for dogs like there are in people. I also wonder if there is or has been any actual research going on in this area.

[Barbara]

Poor Axel. I guess that is very possible, but I hope it isn't the case.