# Woman PTS a Golden



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Saw this on the news today. I do believe some rescuers go to far. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2137878/posts?page=45


----------



## emjworks05 (May 30, 2008)




----------



## skyizzy (Apr 15, 2008)

Sad on both parts


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

I don't think we have enough info to really decide what happened here. On one hand, who is to say the golden really just needed the right trainer and would have thrived in the right home? On the other hand, a rehabber was just about to dump the dog on CL for free and the lady knew this dog was a potential danger. In cases like these, the animal ALWAYS loses, I do think more should have been done, but there are so many excellent dogs dying daily, why risk a dog like this? This is why many rescues don't adopt dogs with bite histories. One thing that really gets me is that he felt the dog was safe to adopt, yet tried to give him up for free on CL, a place that is not exactly know for careful screening. 

Regardless, the dog lost. But who knows, maybe because of this, a child will keep her face or a shih tzu will keep his life. Again, I just don't feel this article gives enough information but unless we were there to really see the dog in action, we'll never know just how bad (or not) the golden really was.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

I agree. 

And it is a horrible situation for all. 

CL should have never been used. 

I just do not agree with what she did. But we do not know if she tried to contact Irish to do it a different way???


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

Sad, you're right some people just go too far.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Her rescue organizations spends $2k for rehabilitation, and she decides to not test it's effectiveness, and just has the dog whacked?

Here's hoping she no longer "works" for this rescue!

What a world!


----------



## Ilovealldogs (Nov 17, 2006)

There were definitely no "winners" in this case.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't think the rescuer went too far. She has a responsibility to both the dog and to the adopting public and if this dog is a risk, then she did the right thing by putting him down. The "trainer" was wrong to list this dog on Craigslist. I'll bet that he signed a contract with the rescue when he took on the dog that in the event that he couldn't keep the dog, that it would return to the rescue. Because of his actions, I am very suspect of the trainer.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Let's forget that this is a GR and think of it as a GS. 

If what this woman said is true, and why would she lie about it. She did not hate the dog. It was not her ankle biter. Then they sent the dog to a dog trainer who agreed to rehabilitate and keep the dog. Shortly after she sees the dog listed in an ad, and decides her rescue and the breed could not take a hit if this dog strikes again. 

Euthanasia can be done humanely. It is sad. But it is definitely better than the dog being placed in an unsuspecting home and another tragedy happening. 

Giving a false name, and lying about what she was going to do, was not very good on her part, but this trainer wasn't checking all that closely either. Any pit bull fighter might have drove up with a **** and bull story and taken the dog to be used as a bait dog. 

The dog ATE a smaller dog. Did I read that right? If the dog killed the smaller dog, oh well, shtuff happens, and one of those little things could easily die from injuries sustained by a huge retriever. But eating the dog goes beyond the norm. 

I do not think that the rescuer was out of line. How much time elapsed between the time the dog was sent to the trainer and proclaimed rehabilitated? If it was eight or twelve months, then maybe the guy should have contacted the rescue and provided evidence that the dog was no longer a threat. If it was less time, then I think the rescue person was trying to protect the general public. 

RIP Buddy.

I really do not care what kind of get-a-real-dog you have, to have one visciously attacked is devestating. Maybe the dog would have never attacked a person. Maybe it looked at the little dog as a prey animal, but this is a retriever, not a rat terrier or hound. 

If the dog ate the other dog, then it probably had some screws loose. 

I tend toward the rescuer in this.


----------



## Strana1 (Feb 9, 2008)

I agree with you Selzer, we want to save every dog we can, but there are some that we cannot help. I think the rescuer did the right thing. At some point we have to make a tough descision about public safety. 

In the article it says that 2 othe trainers recommended euthansia and as a last ditch effort they found a trainer to work with the dog *<u>and keep it</u>*. This tells me that they wanted the dog to go to someone with the skills to manage it. Read through some of the posts in the training and behavior section, not every person has the skills to deal with aggression and just because the trainer can keep the dog under control does not mean that anyone else can. I don't think you can provide "proof" that a dog will never do something again, there are just too many variables with another living being.

This rescuer was fully aware of the dog's history and did not want the risk of injury or death to someone elses family member or pet. Sometimes in rescue we must think with our head rather than our hearts. 

As for giving the false name, well sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get the job done. In law enforcement we will tell suspects all the time we have information or evidence that we don't to get a confession, its part of getting the job done. 

The dog was failed by its owners long before the rescue got him, and unfortunately a rescuer has to do the dirty work. I think she did the right thing.

As for the comment about Ceasar Millan, in some of his shows you have seen him swap dogs with people because they were not capable of handling that particular dog and it was too dangerous. Although he does not advocate euthanasia he does demonstrate in his shows that some dogs need a "Ceasar" as their owner and there are only so many "Ceasars" to take dangerous dogs.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:Although he does not advocate euthanasia he does demonstrate in his shows that some dogs need a "Ceasar" as their owner and there are only so many "Ceasars" to take dangerous dogs.


Or how many people with experience live in a safe situation for aggro dogs? A home in the country, acreage, a place where the dog can be sequestered from the world and the world can be safe from the dog plus an owner who is VERY dog-savvy? That's pretty hard to come by. Many experienced people do live in situations where the dog would have to be heavily managed and if something happened, well wishing that you lived somewhere other than the neighborhood full of little kids and papillons isn't going to cut it when your dog somehow busts its gear and is now heading for the closest mark. An owner of a potential liability must consider the environment besides his or her ability to properly handle a truly aggressive/abnormal dog. 

While I don't really agree with Cesar's methods, if he is able to save the truly dangerous dogs from death's door and give them a good, SAFE life and keep the world safe from them, more power. But people like that who live in situations like that are very rare.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

And the first time a Ceasar-dog or Ceasar-rehabbed dog commits a dog-felony people will be all over him like flies on poopie. 

Ceasar may have the resources to survive the lawsuits and criticism. 

Rescues do not.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree, there isn't much info to decide one way or the other, but if this dog did "eat" another dog and this Irish guy did sign a contract stating he was to be paid 2K to rehab and keep the dog forever and then went to give it away on CL, I think the woman could easily have saved some family a lot of heartache.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

It is very strange that it says the Golden ate the little dog?? Not attacked but ate? 

There really is not enough information. 

Because come on what about a home with no little dogs? 

I just want to know, after all this training, how was the dog once she did get it? 

Something made her not trust it??? OR was she just pissed because this guy went back on their agreement??? Was it about the guy? This Irish guy? 
Anyway not enough info, it just sounded to me, it was like I'll show you, I will put it to sleep. 
They had the woman on TV too. The thread I put up was the first I found.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

There is no way that someone who is involved in rescue would put a dog down just because they were pissed off at someone. Depending on the severity of the attack, the dog could be a risk to small children. 

I searched a little more and found another article with more info. She had the blessing of the rescue's president and board to take the action that she did. It is not unheard of for an adopter to sign a contract and then decide they know what is best for a dog and try to rehome the dog themselves. The trainer was clearly out of line to do what he did.


> Quote:
> WEST POINT - One dog rescuer says Buddy was a sweet dog who just needed a good home away from other pets. He tried to place him in a loving home.
> 
> But another says Buddy was a violent dog with a past of hostile behavior toward other animals. She tracked him down, adopted him, and had him euthanized.
> ...


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

OK, not pissed, but it was about the contract. 

I agree with the Laurel Stanley, person that resigned. 

BUT both parties did this dog wrong. Irish for the lame rehoming attempt. And her sneaky snake way of putting this dog down without further evaluation. 
This is a RESCUE, right?


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't see it as about the contract, it was about the trainer putting a dog back out in the public that had already been labeled dangerous because of his actions/reactions.

I am suspect of a trainer who will list a dog on craigslist. Fine place for a piece of furniture, not such a good place for a reactive dog. I would label him as the sneaky snake before I would label her that. Would a fourth eval have shown any difference? The dog had already failed two before being sent to a "forever" home with a trainer.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Not really disagreeing with you. It is just a bad situation. 

I understand there are times when a dog does need to be put down.


----------



## BJDimock (Sep 14, 2008)

Pit bull owners beware!!! I'm sure that the rescuer acting in the way she felt was necessary, and perhaps the whole rescue league was more familiar with dealing with the typical golden mentality.
I have a pit mix in my house that would "eat" a smaller dog that wandered into her space. In fact, my Ilan might have problems with that as well, but I have good recall with her.
My pit mix, in MY pack, is the babysitter. As long as she is introduced correctly, she will love anything I bring into the house. She babies the cats and and plays with the pups.
She has killed a bird outside, in mid air, and I fairly certain that if she ever got close enough to the neighbors Jack Russel, who poops on our lawn every day during his walk, she would kill him very efficiently, before I could stop her.
So I don't let her get there.
I, however, would never rehome her on CL.
Completly rehabilitated only goes as far as the leader. I think it is very possible that this dog could have done very well in the correct home. I can not believe that a trainer who was paid that much money needs CL to adopt it back out.
Sad for all.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

Very sad, sounds like both sides were wrong.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

I would feel more comforable if the rescuer had at least had the dog re-evaluated. I'm assuming that there was some training had occured.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Many local pounds will adopt a dog out. If it comes back, one time or two times, they simply put it down. 

They spent a ton of money on this dog trying to ensure that it would have the leadership and training it required. They then found that this trusted trainer that they spend two grand on did not rehabilitate the dog, it was still dog aggressive. He put it up for sale. 

I see no reason for the woman to spend more of the rescues money on a dog that everyone agrees is seriously aggressive -- dog aggressive. 

Can you find a home for dog aggressive dogs? Yes, probably, but there is always risk associated with it. Why not spend the money and resources on dogs that are simply thrown away because they do not match the furniture or the owners home had been foreclosed on?

I think that the GR rescue did the right thing and are backing the right person. They know what temperament is seriously flawed in their breed. And they do not want to climb any higher on the list of biters.


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

I never agrre with putting a dog down, and frankly as my rescue group knows willnot allow it. So far, so good.


----------

