Couple Sues Animal Shelter to Save Dog

[philosophie_en_rose]

I just noticed this story (http://tinyurl.com/7me89c) in two newspapers affiliated with my local paper. It involves a lawsuit between an allegedly minimal kill animal shelter and two adoption applicants trying to prevent the shelter from killing a dog named Smiley. This dog is big (but apparently not a pit bull) and it looks like the people in the comments of the article are trying to find resources to save the dog. I thought the link might be interesting to the Lounge, especially if anyone had suggestions for the people at the newspaper.

To summarize from what I've read, an owner surrendered a very friendly dog to a minimal kill shelter because the dog escaped often and the family couldn't keep it safe. For two years, the dog lived in the shelter and was consistently a good sport. Until before the suit, the only negative was that the dog refused to use his cage as a bathroom. (I can not believe anyone complained about that!)

Two experienced dog owners (a former police chief & former professional animal rescuer) met the dog and decided to adopt him, but were refused an application. They persisted and the shelter then deemed the dog unadoptable. It's a big dog and recently jumped up on volunteers and barked at cat cages in the shelter, though it had never drawn blood. The couple offered to build an enclosure, pay for training, rehabilitate the dog, and let the shelter inspect their situation, but the shelter (which I think is a nonprofit with a government contract) refused to consider them. The couple consulted an attorney; then the shelter decided to just euthanize the dog. The couple found out and sued for either custody or for anyone qualified to take the dog. They posted the pleadings online. http://msbmoran.com/Pets/Pleadings.html

Shelter volunteers say to give the dog a chance http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/wnt/opinion/letters/35074354.html, but shelter management is fighting the suit and insists no one can rehabilitate him. (I guess they've never heard of Michael Vick's dogs http://www.badrap.org/rescue/vick). There are dueling professional opinions regarding the dog (local animal control officers v. Dogworks in Seattle http://www.seattledogworks.com). It looks like the shelter thinks all bigger dogs will go crazy in shelters and the only thing to do is kill them. I am not an animal expert at all and I truly feel for shelters that try to do their best and try to avoid legal liability, but the shelter is being sued anyway and I have to wonder whether they could do more to address kennel stress.

Overall, this looks like small town politics (and perhaps a clueless shelter) more than a safety or pitbull concern. If dogs can be rehabilitated after tearing each other apart, then I wonder why a dog can't be rehabilitated from being in a shelter cage? I've been reading this all morning and it's just sad.

[WolverineDG]

1. I thought they were supposed to put the emphasis on adopting the dogs

not killing them. If someone comes forward offering all these people did, why the hell not let them adopt? :crazy:

Of course big dogs go crazy in shelters; the "cure" for that should be to emphasize adoptions, not kill them.

dg

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. I totally agree.

My understanding is that the shelter believes it would be legally liable, if a dog it adopts out bites anyone. :shrug: I don't know if that's entirely accurate, though they should probably buy some insurance because any dog can bite. It seems like they're too afraid to act like a rescue, instead of animal control.

[auntAgonist]

2. The dog was in the shelter for TWO years and NOW

they say he's unadoptable?

"For two years, the dog lived in the shelter and was consistently a good sport. Until before the suit, the only negative was that the dog refused to use his cage as a bathroom. (I can not believe anyone complained about that!)"

I have to wonder why they didn't adopt him out sooner and why now, when someone wants him, he can't be adopted?


that's just incredibly sad.

:cry:

aA

[philosophie_en_rose]

4. It is sad.

http://www.king5.com/animals/news/stories/NW_112008ANB_smiley_legal_battle_TP.1d170e865.html

It's sad that someone just wanted their hThere is a video of the 'vicious' dog, as well as the shelter director saying all reputable rescue agencies would also kill him. I don't want to make light of any safety concerns there might be, but no reputable agency would rehabilitate a dog or work with people willing to pay for whatever is necessary to safely train him? I just can't believe that.

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. duplicate.

sorry!

[progressivebydesign]

6. WAIF is a nice shelter, if anyone is that concerned maybe they could volunteer out there.

The shelter is filled the rafters with animals thrown away by military personnel leaving the nearby Naval Air Station at Whidbey. I've been aware of the shelter and how many animals they've placed successfully. They don't want to adopt out an animal that bites or could harm someone. Unfortunately, there are so many aggressive dogs in shelters right now, that the shelters are having a hard time with it. Used to be you'd go to a shelter and you'd see lots of lab mixes, but now people who are too mean or clueless to train the popular aggressive breeds, are just dumping them for someone else to worry about.

The Shelter is in a bind here. They have rules about adopting out aggressive dogs, as all shelters do. The dog snaps at the volunteers at the shelter and acts aggressively toward people and other animals. Yet, someone has chosen to make an issue of this.. because they want him. At some point many aggressive dogs have to be put down, they are a time-bomb. The Shelter cannot take the risk of adopting out an aggressive dog. Makes me wonder why these people are so set on that dog in particular??? They've offered to build enclosures, etc, to protect people from him. What's the point? There are many other large and lovable dogs in that shelter that they could adopt.

So they hire him an attorney. I say the Shelter should let them have the damn dog, let it bite their faces or attack a family member or neighbor. But only after the Shelter has them sign pages and pages of waivers.

[philosophie_en_rose]

7. People are volunteering there. That couple volunteered there.

First, that couple did volunteer there. It's how they met that dog and grew to like him. Second, other volunteers wrote in and said they hoped the dog was trained rather than killed and the pleadings suggest the dog isn't actually dangerous. Third, it had a history of being a good dog and the reports of jumping happened to coincide with this couple's interest in the dog. That's strange. Third, the video on the newscast clearly shows a jumping dog with a wagging tail. Jumps and nips are not good, but this dog looks excited to see people and not disturbed. Dogs can be trained and the potential adopters people seem to have the qualifications. I trust the experts from Dogworks more than untrained management at WAIF.

Every dog and every person is a ticking time bomb with the potential to do harm, under the right conditions. I don't think anyone deserves to be bitten. (What's wrong with you?) But if WAIF's shelters are those conditions, they have bigger problems than whether this couple refuses to abandon their interest in this dog.

On edit: This isn't my comment, but I'm going to quote from someone at the website because it sums up my feelings exactly:

"Tragically, I think WAIF has mostly let WAIF down, which is why all this is so hard to fathom. WAIF is trying to prove that WAIF takes in adoptable dogs and then WAIF takes such poor care of them that they must ultimately be destroyed. Think about that.

WAIF admits Smiley was once highly adoptable, but in WAIF's care, WAIF contends that Smiley has deteriorated to the point of needing to die. That's WAIF's case. WAIF is basically saying that Smiley should die because WAIF imposed so much "kennel stress" on him and did such a poor job finding him a home, that he became unadoptable. WAIF -- listen to yourself. You are fighting for the right to kill once adoptable dogs you make unadoptable by your own admission. Is it any wonder the public is losing faith?

WAIF is making the strongest argument of anyone against WAIF."