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]

How dare you? My so called temper tantrums have consistently been mislabeled and have only been a call for sanity and truth. Something which you have chosen to ignore while you're ridin' the freight train with the other finger pointers before you have any of the facts. I have never said that the ASPCA is beyond making a mistake - all I've said is that their press release is the only information we have.. the rest is heresay, innuendo and rumor.

You're here for the facts? From who, Darrell? From the other members of this social network who weren't there when this dog died? You don't want opinions that are in opposition to yours. When you get them, you get upset and ask that people remove their posts. How frail are you that you cannot accept my viewpoint or the opinions of others?

Maybe you think if you hang around long enough the ASPCA will come in and address your concerns? You'll be waiting a long time - besides, they don't owe you an explanation. They've already made the decision, the dog is dead and they have moved on to help other animals.. with or without your approval. If you want answers, call them.. become a board member, get active. Do something.

This isn't the grandstand for Darrell to show your expertise and bully people like me into shutting up because I have the guts to defend an organization that has not done anything wrong that I can see.

I'll tell you what's entertaining Darrell, is your obvious disdain for an organization that you have never once before questioned.. until now. You have disregarded any possibility that this PetsAlive organization is not set up to take in a dog like Oreo and even if they were, so what? ASPCA said she wasn't salvageable.. deal with it for heaven's sake!

And if you don't like it.. delete your account.

[Darrell]

belles:

I've wasted enough time posting with you concerning Oreo. I probably won't answer any more of your posts on this topic. Clearly you have nothing material to contribute to the discussions and can't tolerate having your opinions stepped on.

The questions I have posed are legitimate and will be posed by many again and again until they get answered. What you think about them, about me or about any others who ask them is irrelevant.

[Gunzilla]

I would think you've wasted enough time over this topic period. Nothing like flogging a dead horse, so to speak. You are an insult to a hard working, caring woman, who is extremely knowledgeable and fair minded. Come out of the narrow crack you call a mind, D, and move on.

[Darrell]

renee:

Oh shucks! You all jes stop try'n to butter me up with yer well wishes an all that tom follery type flattery. I knows that you loves me and that's enuf.

Now jes open up a bottle of JD and we'll each try to predict who gets the boot on "dancing with the stars." I'm fer voting osborne out cus I got the hots fer the other two ladies.

love and kisses

[Belles]

Dancing with the stars is still on TV? Guess I must be out of the loop.

If that's the best you can do Darrell, you shouldn't even bother replying. You look silly.

[I Figueroa]

That is what I feel also, when is the statement "everything that could be done, was done" accurate? There is no way to know in 5 months, that is what I fear.

I too have had a similar story as Darrell's with dogs, a ferret and this year our precious mini lop bunny(bunnies suffer even worse fates at the hands of those experimenting in cosmetics, medical research, and those raising them for fur and food). A most horrendous video on You Tube of a woman clubbing bunnies repeatedly on the head to kill them for food, after a sale, is appalling to watch.
Like Queenie, our bunny was placed in the euthanasia list by the vet, but he was not ready to go. We worked with him, and his rear paralysis, incontinence, and later, neurogenic bladder, because even though some of those things were uncomfortable, he had adapted himself, and us, to his condition and was still enjoying his treats and our hands for hours of petting. We contacted bunny families who had crafted "wheelchairs" for their paralyzed bunnies, and had learned to express their bladders in order to extend their life, and their enjoyment of it.

You take your clues from the animal and adjust the environment to his special needs. But, many times it takes a one on one, almost 24 hour commitment and I am not sure that can be done in an institutional setting with so many different humans assigned to different tasks related to the dog's care.
If, I would have read that this dog was sent out to a less hectic, non institutional setting, where the focus was in calming her and gaining the trust, maybe even initiating a bond with one or two qualified humans, and that after a year no change was seen in the behavior, I could qualify that as having done everything. But even then, I don't think anyone can make such a statement as "she has come to a place where she can no longer be around people or other animals." We can never be sure of what could have worked. No absolutes when dealing with life. I don't think anyone has the ultimate knowledge on what is enough.

Perhaps Oreo, would have been able to live out her life with one human residing in an isolated area, and perhaps that was an impossibility, we will never know. Because after 5 months it was declared that everything was done.
Maybe it is a liability issue? after all, this is a litigious country and if the dog is placed and later causes someone harm, does a lawsuit follows? Since so many legal agreements and waivers of responsibility are torn apart by "clever" lawyers,did the ASPCA feel that they could not relinquish possession? And, how is it that they take ownership and no one has any say, ever, after they do?
I admit that I am clueless as to how they become the final say in these cases and whether someone can file a suit to take custody from them.
I must become better informed and current about these charities because I recently learned about the 500 thou salary for this organization's CEO and I believe that is a big change from over 5 years ago, when the HSUS actually had a higher salary than the ASPCA's CEO.
The bottom line for me is, that 5 months of standard assessments and training programs seemed too short. I am no expert rehabilitator, but it seems limiting. Does the ASPCA have a set time by which animals should respond? If not, how do they know that a different setting and approach and longer time would not work?
Again, we should not withdraw all financial support, but request answers and accept that the sad fact of life is that sometimes the outcome is not what we wished and hoped.

[Darrell]

IFigueroa:

Absolutely. Well stated.

[Steve]

I just want to make a quick side note so we can all keep things in perspective.

For the most part, we are all here because of our love for animals. It may seem like many of us are on 2 different sides of the fence. If there was a boat sinking that was full of animals, we would all join in equally to try to rescue that boat... even those that are in strong diagreement here.

Just something to realize when one is mad at another here...

Steve

[Belles]

I feel in my heart that with all the dogs the ASPCA has saved in the past and all the rehab and medical care this dog received, that legal liability was not at all the deciding factor. Nor was it a deciding factor that rescues came forward to take her.. albeit at the last moment it seems.

Why is it that people cannot accept that the ASPCA had both internal and external evaluators work with this dog and they all came to the same conclusion? Why is it that this dog, who received such acclaim is not allowed to be put to rest, free from her misery, torture and trauma. I have a hard time with some people's definition of humane.

And just so you know, the CEO of the ASPCA doesn't even rank in the top 20 of charities that pay their leaders large salaries. To compare them to others is unfair unless you know just what their job role really entails and to remember that they are not eligible for bonuses, stocks and other corporate perks. Besides, since when is it necessarily shameful that a person in charge of a large organization be fairly compensated?? Walk a mile in his shoes for a time - then you be the judge.

[Darrell]

belles:

Those are your opinions and I respect them. But your opinions aren't enough for some -- including me. I want to know for a fact if Oreo had a legitimate option, and if so, exactly why it wasn't taken. And I believe it behooves the mods to pass our questions along to top management for consideration.

[Belles]

Like I said before, pick up a phone and ask someone. Don't just sit posting responses hoping the ASPCA will show up here and answer your questions. Do you really think a social network and the opinions of members are their top concern? We're not that important here Darrell.

I'm really past the point of caring what anyone thinks anymore. The dog is gone, the decision is made. Deal with it and move on or go find some answers somewhere else. They aren't here.

[Gunzilla]

For the record, D, I don't drink, and when I did it wasn't rot gut like JD. You would mock my intelligence because of the area I live in, I find that interesting. Tennessee is not full of ignorant people, despite your opinion of it.

You came across more as a social snob than anything.

Belles, I'm done posting in these threads, I believe the topic has been taken past the point of polite rebuttal, and I'm truly tired of seeing links to yet another blog that is nothing more than a sad display of anger, and unclear accusatory thinking re: this issue.

There are other animals than can be helped, I think it wise to focus on what needs to be done to help them and prevent abuse, and not on the past.