It would depend on what the mother failed for I guess as to whether or not she would be deemed safe to raise the pups in a kennel situation. If she had to be PTS then I suppose it would depend on whether or not there were people available to raise the pups. It's so difficult for rescues and not always as cut and dried as we'd like it to be.

In a perfect world, there would be very few dogs in rescue and plenty of staff available to rehab reliably. We don't, unfortunately, live in a perfect world.

You know, it's not the rescue's fault - all they are doing is trying to pick up the mess of overpopulation and not enough homes

I'm well aware of what the rescues are doing, but just because they're doing a good thing cleaning up the mess left behind by others doesn't then mean they can then do whatever they like with what is left! It's good to ask questions, especially when it's shown openly on TV.

I do think that killing a whole litter of puppies if their Mother showed anxiety (not aggression!) towards a stranger during an assessment when she was more than likely already anxious being in strange place and removed from her litter is shocking. Aggression, fair enough, but submissive anxiety? I don't think that's acceptable. Like I said where do you draw the line? Why not just put every single dog to sleep regardless and save everyone the time, effort and money? At least that way it would be fair!

The reason for putting the puppies to sleep if the Mother failed was that they couldn't risk raising a litter of potentially aggressive puppies??? Now to me that just doesn't add up if the Mother doesn't show aggression herself and the puppies are only 3 weeks old.

If I'm honest it smacks of cherry picking to me.

I didn't watch the programme so I really shouldn't be commenting. The comments I have made are really more general about the difficulties rescues find themselves in and knowing how only a very small part of the whole story appears on TV programmes.

I really couldn't work in rescue as I couldn't make the difficult decisions .

You just got the thoughts from one of them.

It is awful---but having picked up the pieces from many situations where a dog has been rehomed and then bitten---sometimes dogs that the rescue has known might be a danger to humans.

I have cuddled a small girl whose new pet had attacked her, watched a friend nearly lose her nose to one, tried to find homes for dogs that I knew might bite but because they hadn't there was nothing I could do.

I have had three dogs myself who should probably have been pts and had a friend on valium because she took on one with huge problems.

So yes---I reckon I have had enough of the sharp end to make relevant comments. Have you?

rune

Fair enough, but I do think if there was any background to support the decisions to PTS then it would've been shown if only to prevent the rescue from looking "bad".

Rescues do work very hard and it's a thankless task, but even MT (whose policies I don't particularly agree with) have recently taken a fearful/aggressive dog from the pound to try and rehabilitate it.

I totally understand that not every dog can be saved, but at the very least the decisions made should be based on equal criteria. Not just what appears to suit better if you see what I mean.

1 One dog is environmentally unsound, ie finds things in his surroundings worrying and scary.

2 One dog is afraid of people.

The second is FAR more potentially dangerous than the first.

Because the second one is often described as "shy", people often think that with "the right handling" it will become more confident.

It may.

With THEM.

But NOT necessarily with anyone or everyone else.

And dogs like this can be extremely unpredictable or, what I like to call, predictably unpredictable and WILL bite first and ask questions later.

These problems also tend to "grow" with the dog.

Yes it IS cherry picking, and that is precisely WHY people who are considering a rescue dog should ALWAYS go to rescues which formally assess dogs, it is the safest option for them and the dog.

As for putting down a litter of puppies because their mother was anxious; puppies are NOT clean slates.

We advise people to purchase dogs from TEMPERAMENTALLY sound stock.

Why?

Because there is a genetic component to temperament as well as an environmental one.

If a dog is anxious about being touched with love and kindness, it is certainly likely to be extremely concerned when being handled in a way that is required for vaccinations, examination, being put into a position it would rather not be.

If a dog is genetically predisposed to bite first and ask questions later, this does not bode well for the future.

But it is easy to be seduced by the belief that "if I just love it, treat it nice it will grow into a nice dog"

Sometimes you are lucky.

Often you are not.

Agree with this. So many people say "I want a puppy so I can raise it with my kids". These people won't get an older, temperament tested and child proven adult rescue because "you can't trust rescues!" yet will go and pick up a random puppy out of the Free Ads and expect it to be ok, simply because it's a puppy and can be moulded exactly as they wish It's simply not true, and the reason I would personally not wish to have a rescue puppy. I would rather have a puppy from a good breeder, or a temperament tested adult rescue. Rescue puppies, particularly ones who come in without their parents, just feel like such a gamble to me. JMO

In regards to the original post, I was offered a job at Battersea Dogs Home and couldn't do it. The assessments are tough, but they have to be. Too many dogs, not enough spaces, and who wants a problem dog? I'd have found it too upsetting, seeing all the dogs put to sleep. Sadly, I also see the reasons it has to happen, doesn't mean its not unbearably sad though

If you'd met Oscar you'd know I'm only too aware of your above reasoning. His parents were temperamentally sound and yet I ended up with a reactive nightmare. Perhaps we should put all dogs to sleep, just in case? Buying a dog from temperamentally sound parents is certainly no guarantee either.

However, back to the point.....

A dog that is anxious does not automatically equal a dog that will bite. It might, but that's where further and proper assessment will be needed and if the dog is not aggressive in anyway I think it's only sensible to carry this out. Which was exactly what they did with the SP funnily enough (who was, by the way, aggressively reactive and yet given time in foster and then able to be rehomed as opposed to the submissively anxious dog that was failed and then PTS!!!).

As for the Mother and her pups, again I'm well aware of the nature vs nurture debate. However again.....an anxious Mother does not automatically equal aggressive/biting puppies. The Mother showed absolutely NO aggressive tendencies throughout being "rescued", so why the need to assess her immediately? How can assessing a dog with a litter of young puppies in a strange place be a fair test? It's certainly not a normal, every day situation so the reaction is less likely to be an accurate picture of the animals actual temperament!


I really do fear that, yet again, it's blanket policies and procedures that are failing perfectly good dogs. Cherry picking is all well and good, but when it's not based on blanket policies and not on sound judgement and knowledge it results in very poor decisions. And as always it's the dogs that suffer.

And yet in the programme I watched they spent time rehabilitating a food possessive dog? If they can do it successfully why can't others?