Common Sense not applied to Oreo Situation
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
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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Belles on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell on -
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).
-
Permalink Reply by Belles on
-
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
-
Permalink Reply by Barbara on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Barbara on
-
Poor Axel. I guess that is very possible, but I hope it isn't the case.
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell on
-
"When you have done all you can do" is a huge caveat. Now permit me to tell you a story I've told here before ....
I once had a female manchester terrier named Queenie. She and I literally grew up together. Over time she sadly accustomed herself to being mainly with mom as I went off to college and returned infrequently. Then after college, I left to take my first engineering job in san diego. After a few months, she stopped laying at the stairs waiting for my return.
Then mom decided to come out to see me for a two week vacation. She left Queenie with the vet and spent two weeks with me. When she returned home, she discovered that Queenie had become paralyzed and couldn't walk. (the vet suggested a stroke). For the next six months, mom would carry Queenie around for literally everything and would even assist her in bathroom functions.
I returned home after a year to take a different job in my home town. When I discovered Queenie's condition, I asked mom why she didn't have Queenie euthanized. She said she couldn't bear to do it even though that was the advice of the vet. She told me that Queenie was my dog and that if I thought she should be put down I would have to be the one to do it.
I'm not one to give up without a fight. (this shouldn't be news to anyone here) I started messing around with Queenie, playing, investigating, ... whatever. After a while, I discovered that if I pressed my thumb into the hollow of a hind foot, she would jerk her leg slightly. Seeing this, I continued again, and again, and again. I could see life coming back into Queenie's eyes and she smiled to show she enjoyed our new way to play. I was literally teaching her new ways to use her leg muscles by making her legs jerk harder and harder.
Long story short, I had her up walking around in the house inside a week and actually going down a flight of stairs and "running" somewhat wobbly out side. That was in late 1967. I had Queenie put down for cancer in spring of 1974. We had seven precious years together in between those two dates. We even went for short walks.
Had mom listened to the vet, there would have been no Queenie to come home to. My life would have been less full. We probably wouldn't have gotten another dog because I would have gotten my own place. MOm didn't want to go through another doggie death and I probably wouldn't be able to have one in an apartment. Thankfully we didn't try to guess the future, and just took it as it came.
I suggest that when people think that they have done all that they can do, they be completely honest with themselves. Sometimes you haven't done all you can do until you do the one thing God put you there to do. Maybe God put the PetsAlive offer on the table because he knew that Oreo could be successfully rehabed. Or maybe he did it to save some future Oreo by making this an issue with animal lovers at this time. Thanks to the aspca, we will never know what might have been. I want to know why.
-
Permalink Reply by Kathi Reid on -
You are a good person!!! I am glad that Queenie had that time with you and vice versa.
-
Permalink Reply by Belles on
-
Thanks to the aspca, we will never know what might have been. I believe it was you, who upon first hearing of this news of Oreo, scolded someone else and you put the blame onto the abuser.. where it should be placed. If you want to know why I pop a cork.. that statement is a good example of it. By your statement you're assuming so much. Oh well, you're going to think what you want and there is no discussing the issue with you any further. You've obviously made up your mind already.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve on
-
Here is an article I found today (written by Nathan Winograd in San Francisco). I could not read it all yet, as it is quite a long writeup. But I wanted to post it here.
In many ways is speaks of what I was writing about when starting this thread. I am not sure I agree with the extent of everything written. The writer is quite distraught over this, and he obviously spent a great deal of time on this piece. I do think it is good reading and it very much mimics many of my sentiments.
http://www.examiner.com/x-16635-SF-Animal-Shelters-Examiner~y2009m1...
In due course, I do hope the ASPCA, and upper management interface with the public, and an adequate and productive resolve can be found.
-
Permalink Reply by Belles on
-
This writer is yet another armchair quarterback who never saw or evaluated this dog. This article has such bias that one can only assume there is some bad blood between him and Sayres. Love it how at the end, he presumes to speak for me.. well, he doesn't.
I keep waiting for something factual, yet nothing has come from it. I wonder if he ever considered that it wasn't Sayres who ordered that Oreo be put down. Yet Sayres is the one standing up and taking the heat for it.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve on
-
Hi Belles,
It was Sayres however that issued the official statement prior to them euthanizing Oreo.
But to be honest, I am not in any position to comment on anything other than the Oreo situation. So anything else discussed in the article I could not back or really even comment on as doing so would be armchair quarterbacking or simply jumping on a bandwagon about something I do not know about. Just the points tied in with Oreo is what hit home to me.
Steve
-
Permalink Reply by Belles on
-
Well, again, this comes back to our favorite word here.. "trust". It's hard to trust anything this guy says since he makes some fairly serious unsubstantiated claims against Sayres... I guess everyone is a possible target, so the only person not up for criticism might be J.C. himself.
Sorry, but I tend to ignore the hysteria and bias.. and try and find the facts and at least information from people that were there and went through all this with her over 5 months.
The only thing we have and probably will ever have is the letter from Sayres. I think someone else said it best that ultimately they don't owe us any further explanations and then it's up to you to decide to make them pay for this incident.. or not.
Badge
© 2009 Created by ASPCA
