Putting a dog to sleep because of food agression? What are your thoughts, read on………..?
Question by Andrew: Putting a dog to sleep because of food agression? What are your thoughts, read on………..?
Firstly, i’m from the UK and a dog and animal lover, I own my own dog.
Tonight, my girlfriend and I watched a programme called ‘Animal Cops’ filmed in Pennsylvania, USA. Featured on the programme was a horrendous case as follows:
A dog named Atlas, a nice natured cross breed (looked like mastiff or ridge back cross) was reported to be chained up in the rear garden of a house. The Humane Society Officers visited and found the owner to be out although they gained access to check the dog. They found the poor dog with a heavy weight tow chain wrapped around it’s neck which had cut in to the flesh 1.75 inches. The dog was also seriously underweight and had obviously been badly treated due to having no food or water available to it.
The officers removed the dog and took it to the local centre to be checked by a vet who said that they had never seen a case so bad. As a result, the chain was cut away, the dog was treated with stiches, antibiotics and pain killers, eventually (against all odds) made a full recovery.
Once the injuries had healed and the dog regained fitness they decided to do a temprement test to establish any problems with the dogs behaviour. It passed all except for food agression, this was established by a woman placing a bowl of food on the floor when the dog was hungry and poking in a dummy hand to the food bowl whilst the dog was eating….. the dog attacked the arm. After this, the temprement tester fussed the dog with no problems.
The decision was to kill the dog as they felt that they could not offer it for adoption due to this faiult and it was put to sleep.
Personally, I think this is disgusting and that the Humane Society are as bad as the people who abused the dog in the first place. Of course the dog is going to be defensive over it’s food….. it was starved and left alone with a 14 pound tow chain cut in to it’s neck for months. But even after that it was lovely natured except for one thing…. food agression.
The dog; even when first rescued was perfectly capable of eating a meal if it had been offered. The test could have been done at this stage but instead they put the animal through the treament trauma and rehab and waited until it was fit and healthy before deciding to kill it.
Many dog trainers (Cesar Milan for one) have shown that this kind of bad habit can be trained out of a dog if done correctly. Surely, if the expense can be spared for a TV crew, 2 dog officers, numerous vets, kennel fee’s, food and medicine they could at least afford to spare a little time to teach the dog right from wrong?
Am I missing something or do I have a valid point?
Best answer:
Answer by mee
You do have a valid point, and of course the dog was go to be a little aggressive it was starved to death for who knows how long!!!and ii agree with you hey could have waited and trained it!!!
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
JVZoo Product Feed
I do not agree with their decision. Food aggression is something that can be ‘fixed’ in most cases. I had a dog that was like that once, she would growl if you touched her bowl, and once went after another dog, but we worked with her, and she’s fine now. A pig, but the fact that she’s in love with food can’t really be changed.
But even if it was a problem that could not be addressed, there are people who could have taken the dog and have given it a good home, as long as they knew how the dog acted, and were cautions, meaning no children around at feeding time.
Perhaps if there were more underlying things, but the fact that the dog passed the other tests with flying colors means that it is an even temperered dog that just needs work.
Cesar Millan isn’t exactly the best person to be using as evidence.
Yes, you have a point, but you’ve missed a giant one. There is a huge liability involved with any dog that bites. If they place the dog and the dog bite someone, the SPCA could get sued.
Or, if the dog bites someone and the SPCA isn’t liable, the dog is going to be killed anyway.
Yes, the problem may be able to be trained out, but what happens when the dog gets to the new home and the training isn’t kept up?
I think I saw that segment last year. I felt the same way. It was so good to see Atlas rescued and treated and then they just gave up on him. I don’t know why they couldn’t look for a suitable home with just adults. That show tears me up sometimes with all the cruelty people inflict on animals.
i agree they shouldnt have put the dog to sleep they could of got a dog trainer to help its agression
Yes, you are missing the legal standpoint. If they let a dog go out that was known to be aggressive, for any reason, they would be held legally liable if that dog bit anyone.
Despite what you saw on TV, the reality is that pounds, shelters, etc, do not have the money to keep dogs like that around and spend money to rehab them when there are better dogs around that can be sold immediately and not take room and cost money.
Me Millan is an actor, not a trainer and when did you ever see one of his shows that showed him not being able to train a dog?
I have to agree entirely with you. We have a similar show in Australia called “RSPCA Rescue”. In one show a beautiful Kelpie was rescued from an abusive situation. Locked in a cage with several other dogs (all put down). The Kelpie was in the best condition so they decided to see how it would go. The end result was that the Kelpie was destroyed because it couldn’t be rehomed as it liked to “mouth”.
Now I have had many dogs which would take my hand in their mouth (exactly as they showed the Kelpie doing) as a sign of showing affection and playfulness. My Kelpie I have at the moment will do this. There is nothing aggressive or nasty about this.
I don’t understand why these dogs can’t be rehomed and the new owners carefully selected and told of the “problem” along with professional assistance to resolve the “food aggression” or “mouthing” problem.
Of course, dogs such as these shouldn’t go into homes with very young children but there are many looking for dogs who don’t have young children and are very capable of managing the dog’s issue.
I don’t think its good enough.
The SPCA already has thousands upon thousands of dogs coming through their doors. They neither have the time, manpower, or more importantly the funds to rehabilitate every single dog that comes to them.
Yes, training could have possibly corrected this behavior, but training takes time and money and that time and money could be put to better use on dogs without potentially violent behavior issues that can be quickly adopted out.
i can’t believe they done that
. i Disagree with that because it can be helped, i’m sure there is some sort of training that would help it, i think a dog should only be put down if its sick and can not have anything else to help it, but that wasn’t the right choice to put it down 
You do have a point that the dog could be retrained. The problem is who will do it, who will pay for it and then will the Humane Society be liable if the dog gets adopted and bites someone over the food issue?
There are so many dogs that need adopted and so many put to sleep every day that they have to choose the dogs that are most likely to do well being adopted by the average joe, not Cesar Milan. It is a very sad thing but I believe it should be done. My cousin adopted a dog from the pound and it ended up biting one of his children, turns out that is the reason the dog was brought in to the shelter in the first place. That dog should have been put down or atleast not placed in a home with children. Yes, it is sad to kill a dog However it is worse to see a child or adult hurt by a mean dog.
Let me ask this..How much do you donate to your local animal shelter?
Yes, its terrible that they have to do this. some shelters can and do re-train these dogs. But it does take loads of time and patience..which they have the patience, they do not always have the resources. They have to make the hard decisions here. it’s easy when we sit in front of the TV and say, ?Why not give him a chance?” But without unlimited funds, they have to make the hard decisions on which animals they can save. Food aggression is expected in starved dogs and they do give them as much chance as they can. Some co get re-trained. But if its a huge dog with the potential to really hurt someone, how many people have to be bitten and bitten badly before the decision should be made? Remember all those things you mentioned, vets, officers and such are spread pretty slim to begin with. Those people take care of thousands of animals a year..not just one or two as we are exposed to on TV, In a world without want, these things wouldn’t happen. But it does. Please do not blame the officers, the vets or the workers who spend hours of their own time working on these animals. Lots of the officers, vets and helpers take these animals home to help re-train them. But they are only so many. With very limited funds.
So while you are right in a sense, don’t blame those who are really trying to do better for our animals. Donate or volunteer at the local shelters and see for yourself. TV only shows a limited view, even great shows like Animal Police. That show has opened the eyes of a lot of people who never understood what true abuse was for animals. many people never learned how to take care of dogs and cats before and have learned much from watching such shows. plus it has alerted people on when to report abuse when seen, that it is against the law to abuse your animals.
While Milan has shown it can be done, he is also one man and for every dog he can re-train, hundreds can not be. It harsh and unfair. But until the funds become unlimited, they are doing the best they can.
My girlfriend had a Beagle. Playful, fun. One day, I cooked hotdogs in the back yard. One fell on the ground, so I walked over to hand it to the Beagle. I was spared poop less. He attack me and growled the most vicious and scary growl, I ever heard. I immediatey hated the dog, refuse to go near it. And this may be why it acts badly. I probably could have taken some time to feed small pieces to him, one at a time. Perhaps being a stranger and approaching him scared him. He was chained up and I know must chained dogs can not accept strangers. Dogs should be around as many people as possible. Dog parks are great. They can learn the chain of command. Leaving your dog chained up will not turn the dog into a companion.
Not a valid point. Should that dog be placed in a home and bite, the shelter is then legally responsible. As a former shelter worker, there are plenty of animals out there without food aggression who need homes. You have to make difficult choices on a daily basis and this is one of them. I have friends who have a dog with SEVERE food aggression and the dog must be separated during feeding from the other dogs and the children. This dog is very lucky to have the owners it does because 99% of the people out there are not willing to deal with this. When you have a dog with food aggression, you can’t place it in a home with small children. This limits the amount of homes. When you give a dog a “no children” label that means no couples who ever want children, no retired couples who have grandchildren, no couples who currently have children, etc. The dog then sits for months taking up kennel space waiting for just the right home. The shelter has neither the resources nor the time to work on issues like food aggression when more dogs/puppies continue to flood in the doors DAILY. Kenneling a dog for a few months is very stressful to the dog and ends up creating even more issues. Kennel stress is a very real problem for these poor dogs. They start to lose it in that kennel run even if they get out for one walk a day (which they don’t because there aren’t enough volunteers to get every dog out for one walk a day). The walks they get are short (five minutes), then back in the cage for another few days until someone walks them again. Not to mention the threat a food aggressive dog poses to kennel workers. We’ve been bit many times by these dogs AFTER their food bowls are EMPTY just trying to retrieve them. That is also a workers comp claim and lawsuit the animal shelters can’t afford.
I love that everyone thinks we have unlimited resources and time. 6 million dogs a year flood our doors. Dogs are lucky to get FIVE DAYS before they killed. In five days, you want us to correct an aggression like that? Never gonna happen. Maybe down the road when there are less dogs coming through the doors, when people are more responsible in their pet ownership and we’re not having to make life and death decisions daily/weekly, those dogs might have a shot at rehabilitation. But not now. There are too many others who don’t have issues that can be placed easier. Those dogs deserve the focus right now. We need to be placing dogs with little to no issues in homes so people have positive experiences with rescue dogs, not dogs that bite Aunt Marge because she stood too close to the food dish and now that entire family will never get a dog from a shelter.
I completely agree the dog wasnt given a chance and in a perfect situation would have been rescued.
However, as an occasional visitor to my local animal shelter, there are many dogs with no food/cat/dog aggression that are put down because no one will take them. Unfortunately, even dogs that are “perfect” are euthanized due to the fact there are too many dogs and not enough people to take them. So although I think its so sad, you cant blame the humane society who sees many dogs euthanized every day. To put that the dog has food aggression means it most likely wont get adopted. Again, its not fair, but its not the fault of the shelter- there are too many people breeding for money and not bettering the breed
IMO yes, you make a valid point. I’ve seen the show, and watched the “fake hand in the food bowl” doom an otherwise nice and (IMO) adoptable dog to be euthanized. I’ve got my own questions as to how valid the “evaluation” is. But not being there, not having my hands on the dog, I can’t make a fair judgement. But yes, there are times my reaction has been the same as yours.
However, I can also see the shelter’s point of view. As I understand it, the camera crew is paid for by Animal Planet or a seperate production company- the costs of filming are paid for by advertising dollars. I’d hope the publicity provided by the show helps bring in donations, if anything.
The Philadelphia SPCA is a nonprofit organization; like so many others with an “oversupply” of animals needing help and an “under-demand” of qualified homes willing to adopt. “Special needs” dogs with behavior or health issues are always harder to find homes for….especially when they are larger or those “behavior issues” involve aggression of any type.
In those situations, the shelter has to make a hard choice. They can spend the money/space/time to house, feed, vet, AND re-train a dog with known aggression issues. Knowing that the “re-training” may NOT be perfect (there are no absolutes in dog training) and that a biting dog is always a liability (America is a lawsuit-happy country unlike most of Europe). They’d have to disclose the food-aggression issue; people with small children would be eliminated as potential adopters….etc. The costs associated with re-homing dogs with aggression-based behavior issues have huge potential.
OR…..the shelter can use those funds, that space, that food & that time to house and care for a stable, non-aggressive family dog that has a high probability of being adopted. There are plenty of dogs on those shows (and all over the place) that endure torture and hell on earth & still won’t try to bite or snap at anybody, for any reason. When you’re a big-city shelter, with limited funds & space, and you see just as many 100% friendly dogs as you do the snappish dogs “who need work”…..you have to make some hard choices, keeping your emotion out of it. Otherwise, you’d never have enough money to keep your doors open and you wouldn’t be able to help ANY animals.
As for putting the animal through treatment and then euthanizing it….*any* sick/injured animal brought to the shelter must recieve care. Its part of the oath a vet takes when he enters practice, and part of animal welfare LAW. Besides, the dog has to be healthy & in a relatively “normal” frame of mind before an “accurate” evaluation can be done. Without treatment the dog will sit in the shelter, suffer, rot and die- without even being given a chance.
The treatment & evaluation is the dog being given “a chance”…..and even if the dog “fails” the temperament evaluation and is HUMANELY put to sleep, that’s still a lot better than his fate at the end of a chain. He’d have NEVER had a chance if he’d been allowed to remain in his abusive situation. A quick, humane death is better than what he’d have gotten if the shelter never intervened.
Again, I DO see your point & at times I feel the same way you do when seeing that show- but there is another side here that has validity as well IMO.
They were taking the easy way out – I’VE trained dogs out of food aggression, and I’m only fourteen!
I get where you are coming from, but I don’t think you understand the full reasoning. For one, temperament tests on a dog aren’t very accurate when done while the dog is ill. A sick dog isn’t going to act the same as a dog that is well and fully able to defend its food bowl. I’ve done dog rescue for a long time and I’ve seen first hand how a dog can act docile when it comes in, then when it’s had time to eat and gain strength and start feeling better, all the sudden it turns into a dangerous animal.
Secondly, food aggression CAN be trained out of the dog and dealt with, but how many dogs that do NOT have food aggression will be put down while the Humane Society works with that dog? When you are faced with having too many dogs and not enough homes, it just doesn’t make sense to put so much time, energy and money into a dog with aggressive tendencies while you put dogs to sleep that don’t act aggressively.
And that’s not to mention the fact that if an animal welfare organization adopts out that dog, even with extensive training, and that dog bites someone the HS can be sued because they KNEW that dog had a tendency to bite.
Trust me, I used to feel the same way you do, then I started volunteering for shelters and rescues. Now I understand completely why they put that dog down.
Rescues have finite resources, an ever increasing number of dogs calling on those funds & all too often a waiting list for a place in rescue.
Financial necessity means the staff at rescues have to be pragmatic when evaluating a dogs temperament & only allow dogs with a greater chance of being placed in a home to take up a kennel space. If a rescue can turn over mentally stable dogs without behavioral problems fairly quickly, more dogs will be able to take their place & find a home.
If Atlas had a stable temperament, it may have been possible to correct his food aggressive behavior. However, the harsh reality rescue face is that if they don’t humanely euthanize dogs that fail the temperament test, stable dogs without behavioral problems will remain on the waiting list for a place in rescue & may be euthanized before they are given the chance to be adopted.
I agree with Greekman that legal liability is an issue that a rescue would would have to consider, when deciding if a dog was a suitable candidate for rehoming.
Stories like this always hit a soft spot because it is NOT the dogs fault he became this way, he is a victim of some form of abuse as are millions if other dogs every year. Sadly, Humane Societies and Rescues can’t help them all, although that is the only intention they have. Until Humane Societies & Rescues get unlimited funding, additional volunteers and more foster & adopting homes, they are doing the best they can. Sometimes these decisions must be made, as hard as they are to make, Humane Societies & Rescues would NEVER put down a dog unless it was ultimately the only option, after exhausting all the resources they do have. If an adopting family brought a pooch home with food aggression and it became a problem, the NON-PROFIT group that placed him would be liable, thank the sue-happy people of America. Regrettably, the non-profits that are only trying to help the situation have to make sure that the poor dog is the only victim, or they will be victims and then no one will be there to help.
Unfortunately, a dog like that is a liability when adopting that the shelter just cannot afford to take. If they adopted the dog out and it bit someone, they would be held liable. It’s not the dogs fault, but one thing I have learned is that many dogs suffer daily from human cruelty and ignorance so shelters are full and it is better to give the space to a dog that has a chance of being adopted and loved in a forever home.